Why does god want to cut off women's hands?

[John V]

[quote='Captain Colostomy' pid='502350' dateline='1378329933']
Dude. He said himself he wasn't talking about the bible verse you drug out. Yes, it's potentially confusing...as you stand evident. You may not like the confusion, but life goes on.[/quote]
Dude. He referenced a specific verse. Other people agreed with him. After much discussion he changed his story. That's fine - nothing wrong with retraction and restatement. But don't act like I'm the source of any confusion.
[quote]
There is that word again. You brought up an alternative verse to discuss, and attempted to engage several members here about it. No big deal, and not worth denying.
[/quote]
I didn't deny it. I noted - correctly - that I have continued to also directly discuss the original verse.

---

[quote='Brakeman' pid='502357' dateline='1378331689']
No it is not! Grabbing someone's junk is not disfigurement at all. You are being deceitful in your attempt to cover this.[/quote]
http://men.webmd.com/guide/testicle-injuries
[quote='John V' pid='502335' dateline='1378328421']
[quote]So you equivocate a girl touching your junk as a serious injury such that you would lose the ability to reproduce?[/quote]
No. Neither do I equivocate a woman going after a man's junk in the context of a fight with "a girl touching [his] junk."
[quote]Wildly unlikely, guys get hit there all the time and still manage to have kids. Besides, the verse says nothing about grave bodily injury, it only implies sufficient pain to help her husband escape the man's attack, which would be minimal, as a man quickly loses focus when someone has a hand on his junk.[/quote]
The verse mentions neither injury nor sufficient pain to help her husband escape. I've already covered the fact that injury is not certain.
[quote]Furthermore, the verse does not make note or exception to the cause of the altercation with the husband. If the attacker were a criminal bent on doing evil to the husband, the wife would still lose her hand, Is that fair?[/quote]
That would be for the judge to decide. Such laws gave principles which judges would adapt to specific situations. Heck, if you're going to take it that literally, I could counter that the verse gives great power to women - they could kick the man in the nuts or hit him with a heavy object in the nuts and take absolutely no punishment, so long as they didn't use their hands.
[quote]Even if she did affect his ability to reproduce, the loss of her hand as a punishment is barbaric and unjust.[/quote]
You're right, it is unjust - in favor of the woman. Just punishment would be for her to lose her ability to reproduce, and fertility was a highly valued attribute of women in that culture.
[quote]We would never allow such a thing in our US courts because of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.[/quote]
So what? Are you saying that US jurisprudence is objectively correct?
[quote]Today we know that if you want to be unmolested, don't go around attacking people. [/quote]
A point I made earlier - if the woman just stays out of the fight, she keeps her hand.