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

[John V]

I can see how, having drunk the kool aid to the point where slavery is okay with you,

Poisoning the well.

you'd proceed to think that death on such a grand scale is righteous.

If death on a grand scale is deserved, then yes, it's righteous.

It's not really a matter of who has the most support.

Yes, that is the matter.

Why is it that on this one issue, that just so happens to be so very beneficial on the writers of the bible, does god suddenly become this compromising, powerless figure? At every other turn in the old testament he's slaying people left and right, but when it comes to writing the rules that might make it a little harder for a certain kind of person to conduct their business, suddenly he can't just give a commandment or anything. Why is that?

It isn't just on this one issue. I previously noted the compromise on divorce. That's how we got onto this line.

Why is a perfect being giving imperfect protection?

In part because of the hardness of their hearts, as already explained. Note also that, in the case of prisoners of war, enslavement could be a form of judgment. God used it on his own people, showing that he doesn't see it as a good thing to the enslaved.

Especially since he cares so much about the welfare of slaves, and wants the practice abolished, if he got his way? I mean, it's just those mean old hard hearted humans forcing him to compromise on his deeply held anti-slavery position, after all. Surely he could at least give the poor slaves a little more than "don't kill them right away."

He did give more than that. The Sabbath off. Freedom if permanent damage was inflicted. Prohibition against returning escaped slaves.

If you're going to be this obtuse, then fine. But I'll also add that there's a certain cultural indoctrination implicit in forcing your slaves to obey the same religious practices that command them to be slaves in the first place.

Where do the Sabbath laws require going to church?

I mentioned regulation and change in the context of how it's a weak excuse.

LOL - it's always context with you atheists!

The rest of my post was given over to explaining how slavery, in any context, at any time, is immoral.

No, you haven't explained it at all. You've declared it repeatedly without explanation.

And if he didn't? What then? The guy owned slaves, it's fairly clear his moral compass is severely askew.

Paul had divine revelation.

If someone today came to you and explained that they had been enslaved and had escaped, would you return them to their owner in the hopes they would set them free on their own?

No. That's prohibited by the Bible, as already noted.