Psalm 137:9

[Redbeard The Pink]

Look, if you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie...

I've thoroughly explained why your position was wrong, yet you insist that it isn't. You know absolutely jack about scripture yet you presume to try and explain to me what the scriptures mean.

I don't know of any other situation where a rank amateur (even that title is giving you more credit than you deserve) has the nerve to try and explain something to someone with 30+ years experience in the subject matter.

I've debated this very subject with a person who ironically gets voted best debater every year, and he got made to look absolutely foolish, you're not going to do any better...

If your perception of reality is as strong as your reading comprehension skills, I have this feeling that maybe you didn't do quite as well as you think you did.

in fact, every time I see a slavery thread, I stroll in like:

Considering that Vince McMahon has had his ass kicked by just about everyone who's ever been in the WWE, I'd say that's pretty accurate.

I have 20+ years under my belt studying scripture and its background history. Your pitiful appeals to your own authority are, once again, unimpressive. If you still believe anything that book says, you obviously haven't spent enough time with it.

I've thoroughly explained why your position is wrong, and backed up my claims with scriptural references. Your response has essentially been "Nuh uh, kidnapping is wrong, and Bible slavery is indentured servitude" even though it plainly isn't.

This is patently false.
Heathen and foreigner, are in no way the same thing.

• heath·en - 1. a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do.
  
  
• for·eign·er - a person born in or coming from a country other than one's own.
  

That being said the Moabites believed in the same God the Israelites did and they also had their own prophet; Balaam (who is famously known for the talking donkey), They were a different nation but not heathens.

Lol I had a feeling you might trot out the dictionary. I didn't say they were the same thing; I said they were the same thing to Old Testament Jews, who believed they were god's chosen people.

Nonsense, indentured servitude IS NOT chattel slavery, chattel slavery is what the trans Atlantic slave trade was based on.

Bible slavery is not indentured servitude. It is chattel slavery. I have already explained why.

Also...you do know that American slavery in the South was expressly based on the law of Moses, right?

Like...you do know that, right? Look it up.

Abraham for example had many servants, and since at the time he had no sons, his head servant was his HEIR.

Does that sound like chattel slavery to you?

When Abraham nephew was kidnapped by a war party, Abraham armed his servants to go rescue him.
Does that sound like chattel slavery to you?

Do you think any slave owner in America would of armed his slaves?

You'd be a fool to arm people that you mistreated, you see what happened in Haiti, so stop trying to equate the two.

See, for any of that to matter, one would have to believe that this story is true and that Abraham was a real person. I have no good reason to believe either. Also, even if it were true, Abraham precedes the law of Moses, so that's not exactly relevant, is it?

What it DOES say is that (within certain guidelines) you may buy, sell, bequeath, and beat other human beings, and the circumstances under which they can gain freedom are specific and remote

Oh now I see you changed your tune. I thought you said they were property forever? that they were basically oxen and had no rights?

Jewish men could only be enslaved for about 7 years unless their masters gave them families they didn't want to leave, in which case they could choose to either be enslaved forever or leave their families forever. What a choice.

Slaves had to be freed if you knocked out their eyes or teeth. Bet people were lining up for that shit.

The year of jubile was a time when slaves had to be freed, but that only came every 50th year (how long were lifespans back then? Argument over).

Aside from those, slaves could be held indefinitely and beaten. I've made references to these rules throughout my argument, but you've obviously failed to notice for equally obvious reasons. But in general, yes, many or perhaps even most Hebrew-owned slaves had no chance of freedom once bought.

Furthermore, American slavery provided convoluted circumstances under which slaves could gain or be granted their freedom, and yet we pretty much all recognize that as chattel slavery, do we not? Just because provisions exist for "freedmen," doesn't mean we aren't still talking about chattel slavery.