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

[Esquilax]

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

Maybe stop making excuses for slavery, then.

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.

I don't think anyone deserves to drown. Least of all people who couldn't possibly have deserved it, like you just admitted those kids didn't. Appeals to emotion aren't fallacious if they're backed up with an obvious point, like, say... killing people who don't deserve it is wrong!

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.

Not everyone can have their cold blooded justification of slavery. Some of us actually have hearts, and aren't willing to let them bend around every perverse sentence of a holy book.

And I'm not going on emotion, unless you're actually admitting that there's no logical or moral basis for not liking slavery?

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 there it is, the core of your entire argument: god did it, so I'm fine with it. Congratulations, you've finally been honest. Too bad that in doing so you've just displayed the depths of your thoughtless immorality.

Do you think the argument you're defending is making you come across as the moral one, here?

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.

Anyone else buying this? Anyone converted yet?

Yeah, I thought so.

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

Which makes it immoral, because objective morals can't be altered, it's sort of the point of them.

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.

Look, I'm pretty much done here. It's two in the morning here, and I honestly don't have the energy to waste on a person whose entire argument is just cover over the basic idea that he's fine with what's in the bible because it's okay with god. It's an unassailable, illogical and entirely useless premise to build an argument around, but as usual, it's the theist position. You're going to believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it, and I'm done.

I'm not going to sit here and be lectured about what's moral or not by someone who's okay with slavery so long as someone else told him it was okay, however. Peace out; maybe you'll come back with something slightly more complex in future, but I kind of doubt it.