Blood Atonement

[_beastie]

This is what bothers me about religion. While it has the capacity to organize human beings to engage in acts of charity, it also has the capacity to encourage human beings to ignore common morality. Yes, morality evolves and adapts, and Fort will, no doubt, declare that I am being biased to make this statement - but much of the morality our world has evolved towards is progressive and beneficial to human beings in general. (insert the dreaded "human rights" word here, which according to Fort, is just a way for human beings to get as much as they can from society)

I have no doubt you, Fort, are a good, decent human being. But look at what you've been willing to abdicate, in terms of our common moral background. You're ok with slavery. They could run away, after all. Their masters would be punished for KILLING them, but if their masters didn't actually KILL them and they survived the beating, they wouldn't be punished. A slave could go free, but the master was allowed to keep his wife and children, if he provided the wife for the slave. You're fine with cutting off a woman's hand for engaging in an act not even as injurious as kicking a man in the balls (which is how women are taught to protect themselves, NOT by "crushing" the man's balls in her hands. For heaven's sake, Fort, are you talking about some sort of powerful super woman who has hands powerful enough to permanently damage a man's testicles by grabbing and squeezing them? And of COURSE I would object to cutting off a man's hand for grabbing a woman's genitals in a fight in which he was trying to get her off his wife, or some such.) You're ok with the death penalty for adultery. You're ok with God telling his people to invade a land, kill everyone in it, except for the women, whom they are then to "marry". (yes, no doubt she was very enthusiastic about marrying a man who had just participated in a massacre of her people) You're ok with the death penalty for a rebellious child.

And your only measure for determining what a "valid" theocracy would look like is if it's in the Bible. If it can be adequately demonstrated to have been in the Bible, then you will bend your moral instincts to justify it. There's apparently no point at which you will say, hey, even if it's in the Bible, I cannot defend it.

Of course you believe God has communicated with 100% clarity. It's why you are willing to abdicate the commonly held social mores our society has evolved, including basic human rights which says "slavery is wrong". It's just wrong, even if you treat the slave well. (which was one of the biggest defenses of slavery in the US South) That's why other people, who believed God has also communicated with 100% clarity but is saying something entirely different than what you claim he has said, willingly abdicate commonly held social mores like "don't kill innocent people deliberately as an act of war".

This was one of Dawkin's primary points in The God Delusion. He stated that this is the danger of religion, and the problem is that ALL religion paves the road that can lead to this final point, although religionists point to those who are willing to walk the entire path of that road they all have paved and say they are radical fanatics and religion cannot be judged by them. Yet when religion teaches that God can, and has, communicated to human beings with 100% clarity, they are paving the path on which some will claim that God told them, with 100% clarity, to kill someone else. Or, as someone else has said more succinctly than I:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

I know you do not believe in Mormonism, but, having been one, I can assure you that most of them genuinely believe their own religious teachings, just as much as you believe yours. So when Brigham Young declared that it would be desirable to enact the death penalty for various sins, believers did the exact same thing you are doing. They abdicated their common moral sense because they, like you, believed that God can communicate with 100% clarity, and if he says "kill", then you better darn well do it.

[_Fortigurn]

This is what bothers me about religion. While it has the capacity to organize human beings to engage in acts of charity, it also has the capacity to encourage human beings to ignore common morality. Yes, morality evolves and adapts, and Fort will, no doubt, declare that I am being biased to make this statement - but much of the morality our world has evolved towards is progressive and beneficial to human beings in general.

I'm looking at our world and seeing that aside from a few healthy spikes in the last 200 years, social morality as a whole is steadily on the decline.

(insert the dreaded "human rights" word here, which according to Fort, is just a way for human beings to get as much as they can from society)

Well of course it is. That's why they're called rights. It's a list of laws which protects what you want to do, and other people have to get out of the way or face penalties. A responsibilities based society is completely different. It's the opposite, in fact.

I have no doubt you, Fort, are a good, decent human being. But look at what you've been willing to abdicate, in terms of our common moral background. You're ok with slavery. They could run away, after all.

Yeah, so what exactly is the issue? Can you see that the slave is greatly empowered by that particular law? Can you see that at one stroke it encourages the master to treat them well, and at the same time places full legal protection on the slave if he chooses to escape a hard master? Name one post-Enlightenment nation which had a law like this, before the end of the 19th century (maybe Britain, maybe).

Their masters would be punished for KILLING them, but if their masters didn't actually KILL them and they survived the beating, they wouldn't be punished.

They wouldn't be punished because there wasn't intent to injure permanently (a permanent injury meant the slave could go free), and the master was penalised by loss of income due to the slave not working. What would you suggest would be a legitimate punishment?

A slave could go free, but the master was allowed to keep his wife and children, if he provided the wife for the slave.

What's the issue, exactly?

You're fine with cutting off a woman's hand for engaging in an act not even as injurious as kicking a man in the balls (which is how women are taught to protect themselves, NOT by "crushing" the man's balls in her hands. For heaven's sake, Fort, are you talking about some sort of powerful super woman who has hands powerful enough to permanently damage a man's testicles by grabbing and squeezing them?

I'm really not sure that I get your point. You seem to be telling me that women are incapable of permanently injuring a man's testicles by squeezing them in their fist. I don't know why you think that. A cricket ball can do you permanent damage, even a tennis ball if it hits with sufficient speed.

And of COURSE I would object to cutting off a man's hand for grabbing a woman's genitals in a fight in which he was trying to get her off his wife, or some such.)[/qoute]

Glad to hear it.

You're ok with the death penalty for adultery.

No, I didn't say that. Personally I'm uncomfortable with it. I simply made the case that it is justifiable in certain circumstances. I believe that.

You're ok with God telling his people to invade a land, kill everyone in it, except for the women...

Only in certain circumstances.

...whom they are then to "marry".

No, it didn't command or require them to marry. The Law simply regulated those who wanted to marry a captive woman.

You're ok with the death penalty for a rebellious child.

We're not talking about a 'terrible two' here, we're talking about a son or daughter who is responsible for their actions.

And your only measure for determining what a "valid" theocracy would look like is if it's in the Bible.

Yep.

If it can be adequately demonstrated to have been in the Bible, then you will bend your moral instincts to justify it. There's apparently no point at which you will say, hey, even if it's in the Bible, I cannot defend it.

Er, I don't have to bend my moral instincts at all. I believe in the social contract, and I believe in an absolute moral authority. You don't, which is why you get upset about this.

It's why you are willing to abdicate the commonly held social mores our society has evolved, including basic human rights which says "slavery is wrong".

Here's your problem beastie, you think humans can't be moral creatures without 'human rights' (those 'human rights' which were apparently 'self evident', despite not having occurred to men for about 40,000 years). You talk about 'basic human rights' as if they're written on two tablets of stone which came down a mountain.

There's no such thing. People made them up. They appeal to you because you've been conditioned to believe they're right. We could change them all tomorrow, and a few generations later people would feel the same way you do now, about the new rules. These 'human rights' are whatever we want them to be. That's the beauty of the social contract.

And while we're on the subject of those 'human rights', can you explain why the 'human rights' in the Declaration of Independence weren't even fully enacted until the late 20th century? The great moralists who penned those words unfortunately built a society in which people were raised to believe that these 'human rights' only really applied in full to Anglo-Saxon males of a certain age and social status. They didn't apply to slaves, they didn't apply to people with the wrong skin colour, from the wrong country, from the wrong social class, of the wrong age, or of the wrong gender. You see, 'human rights' aren't a magic wand. They're a mantra, a propagandizing tool.

It's just wrong, even if you treat the slave well.

Why? Is it wrong if they have a means of voluntarily freeing themselves? Under the Law of Moses, they did, and what's more they had the full protection of the Law when they did so.

(which was one of the biggest defenses of slavery in the US South)

Which, ironically, didn't treat its slaves well at all.

That's why other people, who believed God has also communicated with 100% clarity but is saying something entirely different than what you claim he has said, willingly abdicate commonly held social mores like "don't kill innocent people deliberately as an act of war".

Yes, well that's their problem not mine.

This was one of Dawkin's primary points in The God Delusion. He stated that this is the danger of religion, and the problem is that ALL religion paves the road that can lead to this final point, although religionists point to those who are willing to walk the entire path of that road they all have paved and say they are radical fanatics and religion cannot be judged by them.

This is one of Dawkin's most idiotic points. It is not the danger of every religion, and it is not the religion which is the danger. The danger is (as I said), in convictions sufficiently held at the expense of moral scruples. You don't have to be remotely religious to do what Stalin did, what Mao Tze Tung did, what Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or anyone of the other worldclass nutters have done. And you'll get plenty of moral, upright, wholly non-religious people to come and join in.

Yet when religion teaches that God can, and has, communicated to human beings with 100% clarity, they are paving the path on which some will claim that God told them, with 100% clarity, to kill someone else. Or, as someone else has said more succinctly than I:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

That is a particularly unfortunate statement, which is completely false. For good people to do bad things it takes religion? Great soundbite, but horrible psychology. It's simply untrue. Your average Chinese Confucian is as lovely and moral a person as you could think of, but it didn't take any time at all for them to start killing others by the thousands. All it took was a little nudge in the right direction from a total atheist.

I know you do not believe in Mormonism, but, having been one, I can assure you that most of them genuinely believe their own religious teachings, just as much as you believe yours. So when Brigham Young declared that it would be desirable to enact the death penalty for various sins, believers did the exact same thing you are doing. They abdicated their common moral sense because they, like you, believed that God can communicate with 100% clarity, and if he says "kill", then you better darn well do it.

There's no such thing as a 'common moral sense'. No one has a hardwired 'moral compass'. Morality is a construct of our environment and social conditioning. That's why morals differ so greatly from society to society, and only converge when they provide transparent social benefits. Ancient societies abandoned children they couldn't afford to the elements. Modern societies simply abort them or adopt them out. Who's to say which is right?

Beastie, unless we agree on that single point alone (leaving aside all else), I don't see that we'll come to agreement on the larger issues.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Blood Atonement is a goofy idea that Brigham Young proffered. It is an embarrassment to the LDS Church and has long since been dropped. I suspect it is only trotted out to provide further embarrassment to the LDS Church

Yep. It's easy to embarrass the LDS church using nothing but their own doctrines and teachings.

[_Fortigurn]

Beastie, Stanley Milgram, that's what I'm saying. Apparently neither Dawkins or Weinberg have never heard of him.

[_beastie]

First, you're right to criticize the "it takes religion to make good people do bad things." It's a "sexy" cliché that sometimes I succumb to, but you're right, reality is far more complicated than that. Power can seduce good people to do bad things as well, and that is probably the same mechanism that enables religion to be used in such manner. It's just particularly galling to see a system that is supposed to represent something nobler and more moral used in the same base manner as any other power system is used.

I do suspect the divide is too wide for us to bridge in this conversation, for a couple of reasons. I'm going to be mad at myself it I end up using too much of my spring break arguing on the internet, so I'm going to TRY to be brief, and won't address each of your points.

I do believe that there is some moral system hard-wired in human beings. Game theory and social experiments have demonstrated this fairly convincingly, in my opinion. Part of the reason internet boards interest me is because they so consistently provide supporting evidence of this. Despite what people claim to be their moral guide, they usually end up acting in this predictable manner. Obviously, this is a generalization that predicts trends, not the behavior of specific individuals, where there is always variety.

But, in general, I think we're wired for "tit for tat" in combination with reciprocal altruism and tribal loyalties. Tit for tat, is, briefly, the theory that return that which has been offered to us, in terms of behavior. If someone extends good will, we normally return good will. But if bad will is offered instead, we will return with bad will. Reciprocal altruism is based on the idea that our species survived and reproduced more successfully due to our cooperation with our small tribe. Given tit for tat, it was important for the other members of our tribe to view us as “worthy”, so if we were in need at one point, they would help, trusting that we, in return, would reciprocate when we had something to offer them when they were in need.

I just found a brief explanation of this I had written earlier so I’ll share that as well:


Tit for Tat, as proposed as the model for moral evolution in human beings (in Robert
Wright's books The moral Animal and Zero Sum) is basically this: a human being will behave with decency and what we consider 'moral' actions towards another human being as long as they generally have reason to believe that other human being will respond in kind and not take advantage of them. If it is suspected that the other human being has the reputation for taking advantage of others, then the human being will not treat that person with decency, 'kindness' and morality, but with judgement, distance, and suspicion instead. Therefore, in order to benefit from the potential generosity of other human beings, it is IMPERATIVE to each of us to have a "good reputation". This is our money in the bank, so to speak, our capital to trade on in this life. The irony is that it also benefits human beings, at times, to NOT behave morally but to actually take advantage in some way WITHOUT BEING CAUGHT so this does not harm their reputation. In this way we benefit from having a good reputation AND from being able to use other people to our own advantage at times. In order to pull this off, a human being must totally believe in their OWN GOODNESS in order to best convince others of their goodness and deserving nature, even WHEN WE ARE ACTUALLY NOT BEHAVING WELL, ALTRUISTICALLY OR KINDLY.

I see this tendency particularly evident in religion and politics. In both areas, human beings have the tendency to view their own positions and behaviors as moral, kind, just, and view the opposing opinions as unreasonable and even immoral. At the same time, we are able to blind ourselves to the inevitable occasional examples of logical breakdown and immorality in our OWN POSITIONS. We are SO RIGHT and it is so SELF EVIDENT, it is amazing that others can actually disagree and sincerely believe in their own insane, illogical, immoral, arguments.

More comments:

I also believe we are strongly wired to view our own “tribe” as more worthy, more “human” and deserving than the “other”. This mentality is demonstrated perfectly in the Old Testament. One set of behavior was expected for the tribe, the Jews, and a different set for the gentiles, the others.

I hope that Robert Wright is correct when he speculates that the globalization of the world will eventually enable us to view all other human beings as being members of our own “tribe”.

When social conservatives decry the moral deterioration of the world, they’re usually talking about sex – too much sex in the media, scantily clad women, acceptance of premarital sex and homosexuality. Yet at the same time they ignore the progress we have made in the past century in other areas: movement towards ensuring civil rights such as the right to vote and the right to access public education for females and minorities, the worldwide trend towards recognizing that slavery is immoral, the exposure and open discussion of formerly “closeted” sins such as child and wife abuse and molestation.

Yes, people made up “human rights”, but it is actually a good thing, in my opinion. Our perceptions on this are completely different. You seem to view “human rights” as a way of milking the system for something, I view it as ensuring that people have equal access to basic social rights that, in the past, were privileged for the power class.

I want you to look more closely at two things you responded to:

Exodus 21:20-21
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

This doesn’t ensure that slaves are well treated. It ensures only one thing – if someone beats a slave to the point where the slave dies, he will be punished. That’s the only thing he will be punished for. If the slave manages to survive the beating, the master is not punished.

And this one:

Exodus 21:2-6 (King James Version)
2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

You praised this, saying, hey, the slave goes free! You ignored the part where he has to leave behind his wife and children. If he wants to stay with his wife and children, he becomes a permanent slave.

At any rate, there really isn’t any point to picking at these points. The larger difference between us remains – you are convinced that God communicates with human beings – some human beings – with 100% clarity, and this is why you are willing to defend things in the Old Testament that I would guess you would never otherwise justify. I do not believe God communicates with human beings – any human beings – with 100% clarity, and hence, when I see behavior or action condoned in religion that would be condemned in any other setting, I’ll still condemn it.

by the way, I don’t really believe that these scriptures even describe a real historical community. I’m sure you’re aware that there is good evidence that this stuff was written at a far later date by religious leaders hoping to move their followers to some religious reformation.

[_Gazelam]

Wow, this thread really took off over the weekend.

Just to be clear, I rarely ever need to spank my children, and when I do its when they have ignored what I asked 3 or more times. And even then its usually time with their nose in the corner.

Just to expand the conversation a bit,

How are your feeling towards spiritual death as opposed to physical death? Is God just in separating himself from those that oppose him, allowing them to continue but they are never allowed near him or his presence again?

I suppose you think this is also grossly unfair?

[_Jason Bourne]

Wow, this thread really took off over the weekend.

Just to be clear, I rarely ever need to spank my children, and when I do its when they have ignored what I asked 3 or more times. And even then its usually time with their nose in the corner.

Just to expand the conversation a bit,

How are your feeling towards spiritual death as opposed to physical death? Is God just in separating himself from those that oppose him, allowing them to continue but they are never allowed near him or his presence again?

I suppose you think this is also grossly unfair?

Gaz I am sure you are a good fellow and all. I just cannot get some of your conclusions. Even when I was more TBM I would not arrive at some you have.

As for spiritual death? Well if we literally are the children of God like LDS teach I cannot imagine a father ever kicking his kids out for good. I have a few rebellious kids that are early 20's. I do not like their choices and we talk about them. But my door is open to them, they know they are welcome and can always come home. One I did have to ask to leave for a while because that child was destroying our lives and his. But that was a brief period and even then he knew I was there for him.

I expect God to be more loving and wanting us back then I would my kids and ultimately bringing us all home. I know this does not fit the LDS paradigm totally but I think that our God should be as moral as he asks us to be.

[_Gazelam]

Why is it that some people here have an incredibly hard time understanding that there is such a thing as an absolute truth? Why the need to see everything in shades of grey?

"We just don't know",...."We will have to wait and see",...."How can you say you 'know' when no one really knows?"

Adultery is as bad as Murder because the consequences are the same in many ways. One brings immediate end to ones probation, and the other taints and makes far more difficult the eternal progression of not just the participants in the act but the offspring of the relationship and possibly family and friends of the participants. Both of these bring spiritual death in many if not most cases.

Our time of probation is a testing period to see who will hold fast to promises and covenants, both temporal and spiritual. Adultery is the breaking of both of these things in the LDS sence.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Wow, this thread really took off over the weekend.

Just to be clear, I rarely ever need to spank my children, and when I do its when they have ignored what I asked 3 or more times. And even then its usually time with their nose in the corner.

Just to expand the conversation a bit,

How are your feeling towards spiritual death as opposed to physical death? Is God just in separating himself from those that oppose him, allowing them to continue but they are never allowed near him or his presence again?

I suppose you think this is also grossly unfair?

Gaz I am sure you are a good fellow and all. I just cannot get some of your conclusions. Even when I was more TBM I would not arrive at some you have.

As for spiritual death? Well if we literally are the children of God like LDS teach I cannot imagine a father ever kicking his kids out for good. I have a few rebellious kids that are early 20's. I do not like their choices and we talk about them. But my door is open to them, they know they are welcome and can always come home. One I did have to ask to leave for a while because that child was destroying our lives and his. But that was a brief period and even then he knew I was there for him.

I expect God to be more loving and wanting us back then I would my kids and ultimately bringing us all home. I know this does not fit the LDS paradigm totally but I think that our God should be as moral as he asks us to be.

These are good points, and I know many people whose dads are complete A-holes. These people are more than happy to move out when they're adults, live happy lives, send their father cards on Father's Day, but other than that have no relationship with their father. Mormonism does offer a nice alternative for those who think Heavenly Father is an A-hole and would rather not spend eternity with him - the lower two kingdoms are nice places to spend eternity without having to deal with that jerk. In many other religions its all or nothing. Either you obey him or go straight to hell to burn for an eternity. This is one area where the Mormon afterlife is better than the Christian alternative.

[_Fortigurn]

First, you're right to criticize the "it takes religion to make good people do bad things." It's a "sexy" cliché that sometimes I succumb to, but you're right, reality is far more complicated than that. Power can seduce good people to do bad things as well, and that is probably the same mechanism that enables religion to be used in such manner.

Exactly. It's not about atheism or religion, it's about authority.

It's just particularly galling to see a system that is supposed to represent something nobler and more moral used in the same base manner as any other power system is used.

Hey, you think it's galling? I'm religious, how do you think it makes me feel? I have to put up with being tarred with the same brush as every nutcase and wacko who does something stupid in the name of religion.

I do believe that there is some moral system hard-wired in human beings.

I would like to see this.

Game theory and social experiments have demonstrated this fairly convincingly, in my opinion.

If you're using adults who have been pre-conditioned by society, you're not conducting a valid experiment. If you're using two people who have been locked in separate rooms without moral instruction for 20 years since birth, you have a good start.

Part of the reason internet boards interest me is because they so consistently provide supporting evidence of this. Despite what people claim to be their moral guide, they usually end up acting in this predictable manner. Obviously, this is a generalization that predicts trends, not the behavior of specific individuals, where there is always variety.

That's simply a matter of decision conflict between two moral codes with which they've been conditioned. They're predictable because the moral code to which people most commonly find themselves aligning is that of the majority (it's a peer pressure response).

But, in general, I think we're wired for "tit for tat" in combination with reciprocal altruism and tribal loyalties.

I think we're wired for self-optimization, like every other independent organism on the planet.

Tit for tat, is, briefly, the theory that return that which has been offered to us, in terms of behavior. If someone extends good will, we normally return good will. But if bad will is offered instead, we will return with bad will. Reciprocal altruism is based on the idea that our species survived and reproduced more successfully due to our cooperation with our small tribe. Given tit for tat, it was important for the other members of our tribe to view us as “worthy”, so if we were in need at one point, they would help, trusting that we, in return, would reciprocate when we had something to offer them when they were in need.

Reciprocal altruism is learned behaviour, not instinctive. That's how it evolved - socially, not biologically.

I also believe we are strongly wired to view our own “tribe” as more worthy, more “human” and deserving than the “other”. This mentality is demonstrated perfectly in the Old Testament. One set of behavior was expected for the tribe, the Jews, and a different set for the gentiles, the others.

Tribal identification is meaningless until we've been conditioned with the identity of the tribe. This also is learned behaviour. Under the Law of Moses, all residents of Israel - Jew or Gentile - were held to exactly the same law code.

When social conservatives decry the moral deterioration of the world, they’re usually talking about sex...

I'm not just talking about sex.

Yet at the same time they ignore the progress we have made in the past century in other areas: movement towards ensuring civil rights such as the right to vote and the right to access public education for females and minorities, the worldwide trend towards recognizing that slavery is immoral, the exposure and open discussion of formerly “closeted” sins such as child and wife abuse and molestation.

This is almost entirely a Western perspective, rather than a global perspective. I don't see the right to vote as anything particularly laudatory, the right to public education is a construct which was invented as a means of getting over a problem caused by modern society (ancient societies already had public education for all, whereas modern societies changed that and restricted access to education), the 'exposure and open discussion' of 'formerly closeted sins' again only talks about changes in Western society, and even then only from the 18th to the 20th centuries (previously people were a lot more open than this), and it's demonstrable that Christians were teaching against slavery from the 6th century onwards, well before the 'civil rights' movement.

Yes, people made up “human rights”, but it is actually a good thing, in my opinion. Our perceptions on this are completely different. You seem to view “human rights” as a way of milking the system for something, I view it as ensuring that people have equal access to basic social rights that, in the past, were privileged for the power class.

You mean 'in the past history of Western civilization'. A system based on human rights is totally inferior to a system based on human responsibilities. Under standard Western law, a criminal can commit a crime, and the lawyer defending him who knows he is guilty has the right to conceal his crime from the legal authorities, and is actually bound by law to lie, cheat, and generally deceive in an attempt to convince the jury of his innocence. Why? Because it is the right of the defendant to launch a deceptive case.

A case in which judge and jury both agree that the defendant is guilty can still be thrown out of court because of an administrative error in police procedure. Why? Because the defendant has a right to 'due process' which overrules the right of the society to be protected from them.

Look at the family law courts, an absolutely nightmare of rights clashing with rights. Look at the misery a rights based society inevitably produces.

A responsibility based society eliminates this evil, but no one wants it. Why not? Because we are hardwired to self-optimize, and that is a very large challenge to overcome. We do not naturally want to help others, and Western civilization conditions against it. People even have the right to sue you if you helped them. Did you crack a rib while giving them CPR to save their life? Too bad, they can take you to the courts for the shirt off your back. That is their right. And I don't need to tell you how litigious Western society is. Did that come out of nowhere? Did that mentality drop from the sky? Or is it a product of our social environment? I wonder.

This doesn’t ensure that slaves are well treated. It ensures only one thing – if someone beats a slave to the point where the slave dies, he will be punished. That’s the only thing he will be punished for. If the slave manages to survive the beating, the master is not punished.

He isn't punished, because he's considered to have incurred a financial penalty already. Under the Law, if a free man did the same to another free man, he incurred a financial penalty. The master's financial penalty is considered to have been paid through loss of service. What's the issue? And as I said, the slave had the option of simply leaving the master if he so desired.

You praised this, saying, hey, the slave goes free! You ignored the part where he has to leave behind his wife and children. If he wants to stay with his wife and children, he becomes a permanent slave.

His choice - which does he love more?

by the way, I don’t really believe that these scriptures even describe a real historical community. I’m sure you’re aware that there is good evidence that this stuff was written at a far later date by religious leaders hoping to move their followers to some religious reformation.

I'm aware that there are a lot of fantastic theories about it, certainly. I'm also aware that there is no physical evidence for it whatever. I've been reading about this stuff for 10 years. The arguments aren't getting any better, and a lot of them have been discarded.