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

[John V]

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

You're confusing less righteous with more moral.

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.

It's also what many abolitionists had in mind. The question is, which side had better support? Considering the prohibition against kidnapping and selling into slavery, and the order to accept escaped slaves as free people, the Southern position as not Biblical. If they were following the law, they should have killed the slave traders, and then accepted their slaves as free people.

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?

I haven't argued that there was perfect protection for the slaves. There admittedly wasn't.

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

That makes no sense, as it's considering damage to one's own slave, and considering the previous verse discussed.

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!

Where do the Sabbath laws require going to church?

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.

There isn't any reason for it.

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.

False dichotomy. Before, you mentioned regulation and change. Now, "there's slavery" is all there is to it.

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

You're making an appeal to emotion. You do understand that, right?

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

OK, I thought about it, and I don't see it as a good argument for slavery.

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?

So that Philemon could do the right thing voluntarily, as Paul explains:

14 But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary.