Psalm 137:9

[Huggy Bear]

I meant "owning other people as property while detaining/working them against their will." We're not discussing modern "wage slavery", and we're not discussing indentured servitude. We're talking about owning other humans. I don't see how I could make this any more clear.

*emphasis mine*

It was forbidden to force someone in to servitude against their will.

"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession. - Exodus 21:16

According to the Bible, you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die for at least a day or two. What kind of treatment would you consider that to be if it were happening to you?

Do you guys just parrot the same scripture without any knowledge of the customs? So much for critical thought...

Murder was punishable by death, however manslaughter is not, if the servant died from the beating the same day, that was MURDER, if he died a few days later that shows the intent was not to kill him, therefore it was MANSLAUGHTER.

This does not mean you were off the hook for his death, it just meant that you weren't punished in an official capacity, however the victims family had the right to take justice for themselves (eye for an eye remember) unless you made it to a city of refuge first.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-avenger

A person who is authorized by law, or who is duty-bound, to kill a murderer is called go'el ha-dam – usually translated as an avenger of blood, but more accurately to be rendered as a redeemer of blood (cf. Lev. 25:25; Ruth 3:12; I Kings 16:11). By putting the murderer to death (Num. 35:19, 21), the avenger expiates the blood shed on the polluted land (Num. 35:33). Originally private revenge was legitimate in Israel, as in other ancient civilizations, not only for homicide but also for mayhem (cf. Gen. 4:23–24) and rape (Gen. 34:25–26); and the restrictions on the avenger's rights and their legal regulation marked the beginnings of a system of criminal law (see B. Cohen in bibl.). It was stipulated that only murder with malice aforethought (Num. 35:20–21; Deut. 19:11–13) or committed with a murderous instrument (Num. 35:16–18; for further examples, see Maim., Yad, Roze'ah u-Shemirat Nefesh 6:6–9) gave rise to the avenger's right (see Mak. 12a, Sanh. 45b); the unintentional manslayer was entitled to refuge from the avenger (Num. 35:12, 15; Deut. 19:4–6) and was liable to be killed by him only when he prematurely left the city of refuge (Num. 35:26–28). It may be considered a concession to human nature that avenging was not wholly prohibited, but only restricted and regulated: the natural "hot anger" (Deut. 19:6) of the victim's next of kin is left at least some legal outlet.

*emphasis mine*

So please stop propagating the false narrative that one can beat his servant and as long as he doesn't die for a few days it's fine.

That's a bald faced lie.

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. - Matthew 24:45-49

In the above case i'd say the servant deserved his whuppin...