Slavery (on Thursdays)

[Esquilax]

Like I said you have an agenda, which is why you took the scripture out of context.

How does the context change my contention with it?

Seriously, we're still talking about a situation through which you can own a person, beat that person near to death, just so long as they survive, and suffer no penalty for this. Why do they suffer no penalty? Oh yes, because the person they beat belonged to them.

That sound moral to you?

It Seems I have to spell it out for you. Verse 18 is talking about striking someone who isn't a servant, if he doesn't die then you owe him money for his time lost from work. if he strikes a servant and he "continues" meaning his injuries don't get any worse. then he isn't punished because the time the servant spent in recovery is already coming out of pocket.

So, basically, your position, in summation: a violent assault on a "servant" (read: slave) is perfectly okay, because the "servant" owner has to pay for his property to be repaired... so he can beat it again, if he so chooses.

And that's a position you're actually defending, as though my contention had nothing to do with the "I just got away with near murder" thing.

what is the punishment if they die?

Nothing, if that death happens a day or two later.

there is no difference if servant or not.

Bare assertion, certainly not supported by the text itself.

So I very much doubt beating a servant was common practice. Ever heard the phrase "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? That would be one of the ten commandments.

And as we all know, "thou shalt not kill" has some pretty huge caveats in it, where you can kill witches, unruly children, people from other tribes, people of other religions, people who work on the sabbath... So let's not pretend that this commandment is one that remains unbroken, even in the bible.

Ok, let's talk about Elisha

No. I've got no interest in rehashing old ground with an apologist, because I know the kind of filthy crap you'll pull to cover for atrocities. I brought up Elisha because it was the most recent applicable example we had on record to show that you were wrong on your "atheists don't care about biblical child abuse" claim, and now, instead of just owning up to your incorrect notion and backing down, you're attempting to dodge.

Do you accept that you were wrong, in the claim I initially brought up Elisha on to rebut?

All it means is that they are human. Think about it, if you had the power to kill someone with a word how high would your body count be?

Zero, because I'm not a sociopath, unlike your god.

All I asked was for him to state his sources, otherwise he should't be commenting out of his posterior. You have a problem with that?

I have a problem with how you began your response, which implied that Rahul stated this was going on today, or else was just terribly redundant.