Comment: Punishment

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: This is 2013 Anno Domini (see in situ)


It still says he won't be punished if the slave dies, as long as the slave survives a day or two. It's still beating a slave to the point of death (just that the slave will suffer a day or two before dying). It only talks about the slavemasters "money" which is a totally inhumane concern considering the slavemaster just killed a fellow human being. Money? Killing someone? No punishment at all for killing someone? Seems pretty clear. In a moral sense, what difference does it make if the person was a slave or not, it's still a fellow human being. Unless of course, a slave's life is not considered as important. Again, a terrible message (and your morality has you defending it).

So you follow that NT verse, and if your wife speaks in church you remind her not to say a thing? You give her a polite "shoosh"? If there are any women speaking at the podium at your church, you point out that it is against God? If you can answer this with a confident "yes" (without beating around any bush), then I will recognize your credibility and move on from that.

>>"Those instructions have nothing to do with you. Since followers of Jesus Christ accept the Bible as God's Word, your opinion as to whether or not we should follow them is irrelevant."

Exactly my point! They don't pertain to those of non-Christian beliefs or no religious beliefs. So using the Bible to justify laws that blanket all Americans, including non-Christians, would not contribute to liberty. With that in mind, it makes sense that our laws should be justified with logical and rational arguments. Nothing wrong with introducing a law that happens to be in accordance with your personal religious belief, but above all it should be supported by arguments that are secular.

>>"Proving God's existence by our senses is not possible. Just as proving that life comes from non-life, or information comes from non-information, is not possible. I believe God exists and has revealed Himself in the Bible. Apparently, you don't. This is a clash of worldviews that cannot be settled by science."

Agreed! Your opinion that the only correct moral code to follow is the Bible, is exactly that - an opinion. In your Christian-centric view, you might perceive it as the highest law, but as you said, they hold no divine weight to atheists or those of non-Christian religions.

>>"No, I don't, because I don't live in ancient Israel where God worked very differently than He does today."

Ok, then do you believe that in Israel, a husband can successfully perform the wife infidelity test? Or did God retract that ability (without ever mentioning it in the Bible)? It's not as if there are no cheating wives around in Israel anymore, correct? if we can throw that out as irrelevant today (without it ever being retracted in the Bible itself), then couldn't we rule anything in the Book as irrelevant? Who would be the authority deciding this?