Hello

[GraceDK]

Hello. I am an atheist. Now before you start spitting on my shoes I would like to know a little about what you believe? Belief usually varies from person to person that is why I did not post this in the admin/mod answer question thingy. I would like to know what you think about religion, how you think it is effecting the world, and why you believe what you do.
Thanks!
~Annabea

edit: sorry a little grammar check

Dear Annabea.
Why would we spit on your shoes? Rather I think we would give you a compliment: congratulations, you are a princess, you are heir to the Kingdom, your Father is King of the Universe, He wants you to be holy, good, loving, patient, honest, pure and beautiful like He is all these things so you can also have His joy and live in the fullness of life, knwoing who you are, where you are going and why

My reason for believing is that God made me believe. It’s a mystery, I grew up thinking that there was a God but He was far away. I didn’t know Him. I lived my own life, my own way… in emptiness if I dare say this to you.
At one point when I was about 21 years old He drew near and took the veil from my eyes. He told me everything I have done and everything I am called to.
It changed all my life. Now life has become… authentic, full of wonder, love, miracles (big ones and small ones) beauty that i never saw… my choices are of infinite value … I take responsibility of everything I do.
There is no rational reason to become a believer, because faith is a gift of grace from God. I can testify to that. But once you believe… you see everything in a different way… Its like… the day has come.

Oh dear… I just saw… You asked about religion… that I wish not to talk about. But if you want to talk about the Lord, then I am in.

Peace to you now… and… I hope you stick around. You are certainly welcome. And you will see, we are not all that different from each other as you might think, since we are all just people.

 

[happilycatholic]

Annabea:

Hello and welcome to CAF. I just have one question regarding your post…

Can you tell me where love comes from?

I don’t mean this sarcastically or facetiously, I mean it honestly and seriously. Love is very real and it has an origin just like everything does. It perpetuates life and happiness and must have a beginning.

If you can explain where love comes from without using God, I will be convinced there is no God.

Thanks,

~HC

 

[aileron]

The issue of innocents being killed is difficult indeed. However, it was based upon the understanding that if even one of the opposing tribal members were left alive, it could cause an insurrection later on that would inevitably produce the same warfare the prevailing tribe had just suffered through.

This is the part I find implausible. The babies could have been adopted into the attacking tribe. As they matured, they would not have even known they were a part of the other tribe, or if their elders told them the history they would have been bonded to their adoptive tribe anyway. Throughout human history imperatives from deity after deity has been used to justify acts of unspeakable horror. I know the common apologetic that the innocents, especially the young ones, would have gone to heaven anyway. You’ll forgive me if that sounds too much like the apologetics used by many other religions to justify their brutality.

I don’t blame religion exclusively. In the 20th century, ideology replaced religion as the justification of choice for mass murder - communism, fascism, democracy, capitalism, you name it. It wasn’t religion or ideology that was the motivation for the leaders, it almost always was wealth and power. The religion or ideology simply supplied the justification the safe and sound leaders used to motivate followers to do the fighting and dying.

I’m a former military officer, and guess I have become very suspect of the reasons our leaders send us to war. A good read describing the problem was written by two time Medal of Honor winning Marine Corps general Smedley Butler.

Well, that wasn’t the only issue in context but it seems to be the one you’re most interested in. Is there a specific example you’re referring to, or are you concerned with the overall issue of slavery in the OT?

Tacit approval of slavery is also in the NT, so it’s not just the OT. My problem is not that the Bible condones the institution, but that people choose to ignore the elephant in the living room. Apologists strain the limits of patience when they claim that Yahweh, Jesus, Paul, etc. chose to allow it for such and such contrived reasons - chiefly that it was “an accepted custom” or “people wouldn’t have changed anyway.” Yet at the same time, they see no obvious problem with stoning people for mixing various foods or fibers together. It would only take so many slave owners to be stoned to death before people would decide God meant business and they would stop owning slaves. So in the OT especially, we see that God was very effective in keeping people from doing hundreds of trivial things, but darn if this omnipotent being couldn’t stop slavery. I don’t buy it.

 

[jam070406]

aileron,

perhaps this will help:

“the term slavery should never be used to designate the [Israelites’] servitude [employment] under the Mosaic economy [system].”—Rev. John G. Fee, An Anti-Slavery Manual (New York: William Harned, 1851), p 63, and “the Mosaic servitude had none of the characteristics of modern slavery,” p 17. God had enabled the Hebrews to have fled slavery themselves, p 66. His divine Bible law made man-stealing a death penalty offense, p 46, citing 11:01 AM 5/12/2006Exodus 21:16, and Deuteronomy 24:7. Slavery violated God’s original grant, original intent, p 116. Slavery is extortion, p 10, citing, e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:10. Slavery is listed as an offense like murder and perjury, 1 Timothy 1:10-11.

“In reality, the [so-called] Hebrew slave is a hireling [employee; job-holder].”—Henry J. Grimmelsman, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Mt. St. Mary Seminary of the West, Cincinnati, The Book of Exodus (Norwood, Cincinnati, Ohio: The Seminary Book Store, 1927), p 144.

"There never was such a thing as slavery among the Hebrews, nor ever any such thing as slave-legislation; they had no word in the language to signify a slave, nor did God ever permit any such word to be brought in . . . [the] legislation [was instead] absolutely and entirely against it . . . in abhorrence of it . . . condemning and forbidding it under penalty of death”—Rev. George B. Cheever, D.D., Iniquity of the Extension of Slavery (1856), pp 19-20.

“There was never, at any time, in the Jewish [Bible] statutes, or authorized by them, any such thing as slavery in the Hebrew nation; never any claim of property in man.”—Rev. George B. Cheever, D.D., God Against Slavery (Cincinnati: American Reform Tract and Book Society, 1857), p 97.

“Involuntary servitude was forbidden by the divine law, and the service appointed by the constitution of the Jewish state was a free [voluntary] service.”—Cheever, p 72.

“The [Hebrew] legislation commenced by making the great and common source of slavery—kidnapping—a capital crime.”—Harriet Beecher Stowe, Key (Boston: John P. Jewett & Co, 1853), p 117.

medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm

 

[simmslaw]

Annabea: You have several times repeated Huxley’s definition of agnosticism - don’t believe what you can’t prove, yet, have you ever applied his test to this system of non-belief? How does he define proof? Its sufficiency or lack thereof? There are many definitions of proof, all of which ultimately depend on the observer’s accepting the validity of someone else’s conclusions based on evidence and their training or experience, and on the physical reality which they observed. But if I am not to believe that which I cannot prove, what of things I cannot “prove” because I lack the intellectual or physical means? Certainly, any good agnostic or atheist cannot simply accept someone else’s opinion, because in those systems of non-belief, there are nothing but opinions, and only one’s experiences will reveal or confirm truth. I am told that if I fall from an airplane without a parachute and hit the ground I will die. Do I need to experience that to believe it? Logically, no aethist can believe anything they cannot personally prove. Moreover, even from the same set of facts, differing opinions and beliefs arise. Does that mean that the reality of the event is unprovable? Even if something cannot be proven to our weak minds does not mean there is not truth in it or that it is not worthy of belief.

I think you are limiting yourself considerably in choosing to be atheist or agnostic, and ultimately dooming yourself to misery. You experience God in many ways whether you understand or accept them. If you love, you are with God. If you treat others as you would have them treat you, you are with God. If you forgive your enemies and love them despite their animus toward you, you are with God. If you live in this world and experience creation, you are with God. Dogma aside, if you live you are in God. Followed to its logical conclusion, atheism requires one to disbelieve their disbelief, for the basis of disbelief cannot itself be proven.

 

[ntenaglia]

im quite suprised at your lack of knowledge.
(Numbers):
"They attacked Midian just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. … Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel…
… But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.”

(Deuteronomy):
“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”

(Exodus):
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.”

(Deuteronomy):
“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel”

(Zechariah):
“If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.”

(Deuteronomy):
“But if … evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.”

(Nahum):
“The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night”

Ok I don’t think I need to put any more quotes. But I’m pretty sure it’s on par with soviet russia, of which I studied in politics for four years may I add, so stop jumping to assumptions about my knowledge, please. (also i know that the words ‘out of context’ will be used, so don’t bother…)

Also, I never said that Satan was an equal opponent (maybe you should learn to read…), I said he would betray him. So with this prior knowledge, why bother creating him at all?

And how can questioning our faith bring us closer to god? I’m quite sure that if he had it his way, we would be stoned to death for such a statement.

Your Old Testament quotes go very nicely if you were in a discussion with Jews, however Catholicism is a New Testament based religion. Communist atheists are current history.

As for Satan betraying God, no he hasn’t. He still tempts the faithful, he just rounds those souls up into a different place away from God and the faithful.

So, now you speak for God??? Wow, that’s amazing! If you question something you look at it from different points of view and learn more about it, especially God.

 

[aileron]

“the Mosaic servitude had none of the characteristics of modern slavery,”

This is, simply put, a crock. The modern concept of slavery is chattel slavery, where the master owns the slave as property in for life. Is there anything like this in the Bible?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Another major problem people have with slavery is the brutal treatment. What does the good book say about treatment of slaves?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

 

[aggiegurl99]

Good morning, Annabea,

First, let me tell you how I look at it: Religion was created by man, FAITH was created by God. For centuries, man has used words and actions to control others and do his will, not His will.

Ever notice how when people commit wrongs (ie, sins) against others and against God, they are, typically, not as happy as they could be? Their acts catch up with them ("If I didn’t have bad luck, I’d have no luck at all?) and they are always scrambling to find someone/something to blame.

When God enters, He washes away the sin and gives hope. No matter how much you may mess up, God is an everlasting fountain of love and forgiveness. When we choose to live for Him, we choose to (do our best to) turn away from sin and the fountain fills you up so there is only room left for love, gentleness and kindness. Just because you may not think that you’ve seen it, it’s there…that’s faith.

Sometimes, it helps to take a step back and try it from that perspective. It’s all one God, all one love…the question is how are you going to acknowledge Him? I choose to worship the Lord and be thankful that everyday is a new day and that I am washed clean. I spend time with Him everyday, and joyfully go to Mass.

When I notice that things aren’t going “my way”, I stop and ask myself, “Am I doing this for me, or for God?” usually, I’m doing it for me, and when I reset, there are those incredible feelings of happiness and peace that were missing.

I would suggest that try it, when you are ready. Don’t worry…open up to the experience of God, and he will let you know when you are ready. He is patient and is always there. He won’t force you, He will only welcome you.

Thanks for coming! I hope that my words have helped.

Peace in the Lord!
Cerissa

When you live for the Lord, you LIVE!!

 

[mrhenrik]

Annabea:

Hello and welcome to CAF. I just have one question regarding your post…

Can you tell me where love comes from?

I don’t mean this sarcastically or facetiously, I mean it honestly and seriously. Love is very real and it has an origin just like everything does. It perpetuates life and happiness and must have a beginning.

If you can explain where love comes from without using God, I will be convinced there is no God.

Thanks,

~HC

Natural selection would be the answer here. The concept of natural selection is that it doesn’t say “this is how things should be”, and makes it that way over time, or chooses traits it wishes people to have and let them develop those traits over time. It’s simply about being able to reproduce and bring on the genes.

For instance, the species who were first to develop some kind of eye would be far superior when it comes to reproduction because they would be, well, able to locate their partners.

Somehow the first individual(s) to develop some primitive sort of love/affection must therefore have been able to survive/reproduce better than their counterparts. Here’s one theory.

Imagine one family with love, and one family without love. Now, the family would have similar genes, so for instance the father protecting the child would secure his genes moving on.

A family without love would have less chance to have their genes surviving, because for instance the father might leave his family if he sees it beneficial for himself, or he might not feed the child if he didn’t have enough food for both. That’s why I believe love was one of the first things we developed.

A family which had developed love would be ensured that the father would stick around in difficult situations and ensure the survival of his genes, and thus the loving families would, given enough time, eventually outnumber the families without love.

Did that make sense?

 

[josie_L]

This is, simply put, a crock. The modern concept of slavery is chattel slavery, where the master owns the slave as property in for life. Is there anything like this in the Bible?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Another major problem people have with slavery is the brutal treatment. What does the good book say about treatment of slaves?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

That is not a bunch of crock. There are different forms of slavery, the one to which I believe Jam is refering to in his post, is called “indentured servitude”. Anyways, this discussion is moot, Jesus was not a political revolutionary, He came to save souls in whatever station and whatever economic plight (if his goal was to save us from physical harm, then there would have been no purpose to his death and resurrection, he would have simply ended the world as it was. and created a utopia, a paradise on Earth). If as you say the Bible states tacit approval (which is not true; I remember a certain quote from the Bible that I will have to post later as I do not have access to a Bible right now) why is it then that the Catholic Church helped to bring about the demise of slavery (back in the ancient world and throughout other points in time in history). I will give you the informaton later. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

Natural selection would be the answer here. The concept of natural selection is that it doesn’t say “this is how things should be”, and makes it that way over time, or chooses traits it wishes people to have and let them develop those traits over time. It’s simply about being able to reproduce and bring on the genes.

For instance, the species who were first to develop some kind of eye would be far superior when it comes to reproduction because they would be, well, able to locate their partners.

Somehow the first individual(s) to develop some primitive sort of love/affection must therefore have been able to survive/reproduce better than their counterparts. Here’s one theory.

Imagine one family with love, and one family without love. Now, the family would have similar genes, so for instance the father protecting the child would secure his genes moving on.

A family without love would have less chance to have their genes surviving, because for instance the father might leave his family if he sees it beneficial for himself, or he might not feed the child if he didn’t have enough food for both. That’s why I believe love was one of the first things we developed.

A family which had developed love would be ensured that the father would stick around in difficult situations and ensure the survival of his genes, and thus the loving families would, given enough time, eventually outnumber the families without love.

Did that make sense?

So you think we are programmed to be what we are? There is no free will. Have we found this gene called love or you hypothesizing? Then if you are hypothesizing that would entail you have faith in something yet to be discovered (no proof). How is this different from our faith in an unseen God?

 

[happilycatholic]

Natural selection would be the answer here. The concept of natural selection is that it doesn’t say “this is how things should be”, and makes it that way over time, or chooses traits it wishes people to have and let them develop those traits over time. It’s simply about being able to reproduce and bring on the genes.

For instance, the species who were first to develop some kind of eye would be far superior when it comes to reproduction because they would be, well, able to locate their partners.

Somehow the first individual(s) to develop some primitive sort of love/affection must therefore have been able to survive/reproduce better than their counterparts. Here’s one theory.

Imagine one family with love, and one family without love. Now, the family would have similar genes, so for instance the father protecting the child would secure his genes moving on.

A family without love would have less chance to have their genes surviving, because for instance the father might leave his family if he sees it beneficial for himself, or he might not feed the child if he didn’t have enough food for both. That’s why I believe love was one of the first things we developed.

A family which had developed love would be ensured that the father would stick around in difficult situations and ensure the survival of his genes, and thus the loving families would, given enough time, eventually outnumber the families without love.

Did that make sense?

No. Not at all. Love is not defined in our DNA and as such cannot be preserved from generation to generation. This is quite comical actually. And even if it were, you’ve still not answered my question. You’ve shown your theory on the characteristics of the preservation of love through “natural selection”. It still does not tell me where it originated.

 

[mrhenrik]

So you think we are programmed to be what we are? There is no free will. Have we found this gene called love or you hypothesizing? Then if you are hypothesizing that would entail you have faith in something yet to be discovered (no proof). How is this different from our faith in an unseen God?

Yes, you could use the term programmed. There might actually be no free will. Have you ever found yourself in the middle of a conversation and realising you never actually thought about anything you said, it just came out? Scientists are actually theoretically able to predict exactly what you would do in any situation if they had the significant computer power. They don’t though - if I recall correctly, the strongest computer in the world might be able to calculate how a dust particle would fall.

I don’t know if we have found this gene called love, but it’s not something I made up right now. I do have some sort of faith in it, but it is likely, based on logic and reason and most importantly it doesn’t change my everyday life. I don’t refrain from certain actions, get defaulted views on things and go to church every sunday because I hypothesize that love came from evolution.

 

[jam070406]

This is, simply put, a crock. The modern concept of slavery is chattel slavery, where the master owns the slave as property in for life. Is there anything like this in the Bible?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Another major problem people have with slavery is the brutal treatment. What does the good book say about treatment of slaves?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

I gave you an entire web site dedicated to that topic with in depth study. You mean to tell me you read it all and you still come back tossing out bible quotes?? You’re just using slavery as a cop out now, and frankly not being honest to yourself. You don’t have eyes to see or ears to hear. As Josie pointed out Jesus cam to save souls, so the point is rather moot. You’re not seeing the forest through the trees.

 

[aileron]

That is not a bunch of crock. There are different forms of slavery, the one to which I believe Jam is refering to in his post, is called “indentured servitude”.

And do the quotes I provided describe indentured servitude? No, they don’t. Some apologists quote the rules for Hebrew slaves and conveniently ignore the rules for foreign slaves. That approach seems to work well on people eager to believe them.

Anyways, this discussion is moot

Really? Slave owners used Biblical verses to defend the institution of chattel slavery until the last major bastion of it was wiped out by a war at part ignited by it at the cost of some six hundred thousand lives. Should we just ignore our history?

If as you say the Bible states tacit approval…

Oh, no. The Bible makes it very clear that slavery is A-OK. It’s the New Testament that provides only tacit approval, and that’s only because it just doesn’t deal with the topic much.

(which is not true; I remember a certain quote from the Bible that I will have to post later as I do not have access to a Bible right now)

Let me get this straight. I provide explicit verses (and only a few) that in plain language describe chattel slavery and limits of beatings, but another passage makes them what, disappear? Why is that?

why is it then that the Catholic Church helped to bring about the demise of slavery (back in the ancient world and throughout other points in time in history).

In the ancient world, the RCC helped bring about the end of Christian’s being slaves. It was centuries later that they became complete abolitionists. It’s because the Catholic abolitionists had improved morals over the times of the early Christians and Hebrew writers. Humankind learns better ethics over time.

I will give you the informaton later.

No need. I am aware of the abolitionist history of the RCC.

 

[ntenaglia]

Natural selection would be the answer here. The concept of natural selection is that it doesn’t say “this is how things should be”, and makes it that way over time, or chooses traits it wishes people to have and let them develop those traits over time. It’s simply about being able to reproduce and bring on the genes.

For instance, the species who were first to develop some kind of eye would be far superior when it comes to reproduction because they would be, well, able to locate their partners.

Somehow the first individual(s) to develop some primitive sort of love/affection must therefore have been able to survive/reproduce better than their counterparts. Here’s one theory.

Imagine one family with love, and one family without love. Now, the family would have similar genes, so for instance the father protecting the child would secure his genes moving on.

A family without love would have less chance to have their genes surviving, because for instance the father might leave his family if he sees it beneficial for himself, or he might not feed the child if he didn’t have enough food for both. That’s why I believe love was one of the first things we developed.

A family which had developed love would be ensured that the father would stick around in difficult situations and ensure the survival of his genes, and thus the loving families would, given enough time, eventually outnumber the families without love.

Did that make sense?

What you’re describing is NOT love. Love is an emotion, and what you’re describing does not necessarily involve emotion.

 

[jam070406]

Yes, you could use the term programmed. There might actually be no free will. Have you ever found yourself in the middle of a conversation and realising you never actually thought about anything you said, it just came out? Scientists are actually theoretically able to predict exactly what you would do in any situation if they had the significant computer power. They don’t though - if I recall correctly, the strongest computer in the world might be able to calculate how a dust particle would fall.

I don’t know if we have found this gene called love, but it’s not something I made up right now. I do have some sort of faith in it, but it is likely, based on logic and reason and most importantly it doesn’t change my everyday life. I don’t refrain from certain actions, get defaulted views on things and go to church every sunday because I hypothesize that love came from evolution.

Why is it that you rely on something that can’t be proven to try and deny God which you claim can’t be proven? This is logic and reason?

 

[happilycatholic]

Why is it that you rely on something that can’t be proven to try and deny God which you claim can’t be proven? This is logic and reason?

No, it’s an inability to explain where love comes from.

 

[happilycatholic]

My conclusion:

Atheism 0
Christianity 1

Atheism does a horrible job of explaining the origin of love …it just chooses not to. Awesome.

 

[jam070406]

This is, simply put, a crock. The modern concept of slavery is chattel slavery, where the master owns the slave as property in for life. Is there anything like this in the Bible?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Another major problem people have with slavery is the brutal treatment. What does the good book say about treatment of slaves?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Why do you insist on quoting OT law? You’re not a jew living under the law 6000 years ago.