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

[Esquilax]

Poisoning the well.

I'm sorry that you feel like defending a god that okayed slavery makes you look bad. I think that too, but it's not poisoning the well if it's accurate.

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

I'm sure all those children that died deserved every gasping lungful of water, and yes I am appealing to emotion now.

Yes, that is the matter.

Maybe to you. I, for one, am not content with deciding which pile of shit is the most appealing. I'm happy to call them both shit and move on with my life in a setting with less shit in it.

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

So instead of answering the question you choose to multiply the problem by two. Thanks for doing my job for me.

In part because of the hardness of their hearts, as already explained.

And I've already shown how this argument doesn't match with god's character anywhere else in the bible. Avoiding the problem isn't going to make it disappear.

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.

So, to god, two wrongs make a right? And again, what's wrong with just communicating the idea, rather than relaying it through further atrocities?

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

So if I gave my slaves one day off a week, freedom if I damaged them, and let them go for good if they escaped, I'd be okay to you, morally speaking? If not, why on earth are you accepting this from your divine moral standard?

Oh, and are you now saying that Paul was doing the wrong thing by returning that slave?

Where do the Sabbath laws require going to church?

Require? They don't. But to imply that no worship took place on the back of that admission would be horrendously dishonest of you, not to mention it would completely ignore my other notation.

LOL - it's always context with you atheists!

And it's always baseless, empty mockery with you theists. Got anything substantial to say?

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

Are you telling me you think slavery is moral?

Here's my reasoning though, since apparently you need someone to explain this to you: slavery is immoral because it deprives people of their basic freedoms and places them all upon the whims of slave owners, who have no particular compunction to treat their new free workforce fairly. It often leads to mistreatment, but even if it didn't, the removal of freedoms is an inherent immorality, given that it violates several principles of wellbeing.

And now, everyone has seen you attempt to obfuscate the fact that slavery is wrong, in order to win an argument on the internet. Well done.

Paul had divine revelation.

Possible response number one: cool, I can talk to myself too.

Possible response number two: if this is the case, why didn't god just give a divine revelation to everyone that slavery isn't okay, since they're apparently so compelling that one would go against the word of god upon receiving one?

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

What if I claimed to have divine revelation saying it's okay?