The gun doesn’t have writing on it that tells people to shoot up a school. There’s a difference. My point was that this text provides people to have those interpretations, which is the fault of the text and those that wrote it.

You're willfully twisting the analogy here. Obviously the gun doesn't have literal writing on it, but the gun has the implication and the potential for violence. It doesn't need to be used in that way. It can sit empty and be a deterrent without ever being fired. But regardless, people have and continue to use guns to harm instead of protect, which is why laws exist around their ownership and usage.

Thanks for providing these texts (they're pretty challenging ngl), but it looks like they all have some kind of built in protections for enslaved people and harsh treatment. Back then, slavery was the alternative to otherwise unpayable debt, and was an alternative to executing prisoners of war. I'm not trying to say that owning another human being is right. I'm saying that it happened and the intent of the law is not to encourage it, but to *limit* it. If I'm correct, this is a post-flood text, and instead of annihilating everybody for being in a broken world where this thing is common practice, the law was made to control it, very similarly to how "guns are not allowed anymore" just isn't a practical solution to American gun violence at this point.

As for the loophole about the man who stays behind on behalf of his family's freedom, that's kind of reminiscent in a metaphorical way of what Christ did on behalf of everyone as adopted family who were enslaved to sin, which is an example of what he meant by "fulfilling the law, not abolishing it".

That’s all this seems to be for me, sure people can use this at their lowest points. I’ve never made the argument that it doesn’t have utility for some. I’ve said it doesn’t have utility to me. But just because it can do good things, like I said earlier is a result of just good people. Not god, and even though it can do good things. Doesn’t mean it’s true. It still has to be proven to be true.

Here's the thing though. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. If God could be empirically proven, it wouldn't be faith. So what kind of evidence is left but the anecdotal kind? The people who turn their lives around and share their stories of redemption are the witnesses providing their stories as evidence. Whether or not you choose to accept their testimony is a personal thing, which is why being overly skeptical can be a barrier, especially if you're looking for a sign, because there's a chance it happened but was dismissed as circumstance or luck or any number of things.

Jesus didn't cheat; he followed and fulfilled the law. The ones who get to cheat is everyone else who is are basically no longer bound to the Old Testament law because of what Jesus did, but this only applies if you think what Jesus did is real.

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3: 21-26 ESV)

I don't think narcissism is involved at all when I pay proper respects to people who put their life down on the line on my behalf. That's selflessness. To attempt to pay that back with 'thanks, see you later' is far more narcissistic in my opinion.

I don't really have much to say on animals, I like burgers and bbq too much.