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

[John V]

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.

Incorrect. It's poisoning the well if it's unrelated. This was classic poisoning the well.

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

Regarding children I subscribe to an age of accountability doctrine, and the children get heaven for eternity. Nice that you admit the appeal to emotion, though.

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.

Apparently not, as you're here debating it. I would hope that most people debating a Biblical doctrine would be concerned with the validity of differing interpretations. You're mostly just going on emotion.

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

It's not a problem for me. by god's standards, everyone deserves to die, as shown by the flood. If god decides to compromise and let some live for his purposes, and compromise in his dealings with them for his purposes, that's his decision.

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.

You haven't shown that at all. Pointing to a couple instances of judgment isn't showing that there's no compromise anywhere else in the Bible.

So, to god, two wrongs make a right?

Righteous judgment isn't a wrong. You just don't like it as most people don't like being judged. People aren't more moral, they're more lax, relaxing standards to a point they're collectively comfortable with.

And again, what's wrong with just communicating the idea, rather than relaying it through further atrocities?

He did send warnings, which were ignored by most.

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?

Again, it's not a standard, it's a compromise.

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

No.

Require? They don't.

Thank you.

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.

This just begs the question as to what freedoms are basic, and why? IOW it's just a more long-winded assertion without any real explanation.

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.

No, I've attempted to show that the OT law allowing slavery was in part judgment, in part compromise, and that the Biblical ideal is that slaves be made free.

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?

God doesn't consider our earthly state to be terribly important compared to our eternal state. Don't you guys take the same position - that eternal suffering dwarfs anything experienced on earth?

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

I'd ask you to prove it.