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

[Esquilax]

Judgment isn't murder.

That must make swallowing the atrocities of that book so much easier for you. Some of us are more moral than that, however.

First, don't think of American slavery when considering slavery in the Bible. People couldn't be kidnapped and sold into slavery. Slaves were generally debtors or prisoners of war.

Yeah, I don't actually care how the slaves got where they were; slavery is an immoral proposition regardless of the source. And I'm not thinking of American slavery, I'm thinking of slavery as described in the bible, which did include beatings, sexual slavery, and numerous other immoralities.

Incidentally, the bible was certainly what those American slaveowners were thinking of, in terms of defending their own immoral practices. Take from that what you will.

You're correct that some violence short of death was permitted.

Just so long as it wasn't that cruel, American slavery, no?

So, there was a rule against killing slaves.

There was a rule about killing them immediately. Do you know how nasty a beating is, if it kills you? Even if you take a few days to do so?

Further, violence resulting in permanent damage was forbidden:

Yes, I imagine the people who wrote the book would frown on property damage.

Further, slaves were forbidden from working on the Sabbath. Strange that men inventing a law for their own benefit would include this provision.

The sabbath? Oh, you mean the day you're supposed to go to church, where that "slaves obey your masters" stuff is drilled into your head as the divine and inerrant word of an angry god that'll punish you for disobeying! That sabbath!

You know, you're right; I can't think of a single reason why it would be beneficial for slaves to be getting time off on that day.

This certainly doesn't benefit slave owners.

Nor does the whole animal sacrifice thing. These people weren't super smart, nor consistent. But if you're going to cling to those few passages and ignore the whole "there's slavery" thing, then fine. I just hope you realize what it is you're being forced to advocate and defend, in the name of your god.

As shown, there are laws that lessen the suffering of slaves.

1 Cor 7
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

Right, become a slave to god, instead. Break them rules for christ.

The last part of this underscores the earlier point that slavery then was largely debt slavery which prudent people could generally avoid.

You're making excuses for slavery. You do understand that, right?

Philemon 1
8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.
...
15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.

You know, this particular epistle was used as an argument both for and against modern slavery. Think about that.

There's your change - what a slave owner "ought to do" is free his slaves.

Not according to some interpretations: Philemon was entreated to treat his slave as a brother, not to free him. In fact, if what Paul was trying to do was free the slave in question, he could just do so and he would be fine, according to your interpretation. Given this, why was he bothering to return Onesimus to his master at all?