Comment: >>"was often interpreted very

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Old Testament law (see in situ)

>>"was often interpreted very

>>"was often interpreted very narrowly in order to prevent its interference in cultural norms."

God bending his morality rules to cultural norms? All human are born into sin, culture reflects humans, God basing his rules on man's cultural norms. That appears to be a very weak defense of absolute morality.

When gay marriage becomes law accross our country, when it becomes a cultural norm, perhaps God will bend his morality once again?

>>"Being a slave in Israel was to be no harsher than any other type of labor."

Still, God allowed a slave master to beat his slave to death as long as the slave survived a day or two. Would you disagree, that's a very harsh beating? Due to your Christian-centric bias, you already agree that it was ok no matter what, but when I look at it objectively, I see it as immoral. I would be dishonest if I denied that. That's with no atheist bias at all as I can fully agree with some of God's other rules of morality (regarding murdering, stealing, lying, etc.).

Regarding women being silent in the church: There is nothing that indicates 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 refers strictly to tongues and/or prophecy. It doesn't refer at all to the verses in Thessalonians and John.

>>"Exodus 20:14 warned husbands and wives that they must never be unfaithful to each other. The punishment for this crime was death but there had to be evidence."

Why didn't the test apply to men? And what verse indicates it was retracted?