Psalm 137:9

[Huggy Bear]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted. Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude. Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household. In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave's point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom. It is impossible for scholars to quantify the number of slaves that were owned by Hebrews in ancient Israelite society, or what percentage of households owned slaves, but it is possible to analyze social, legal, and economic impacts of slavery.

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.

I can debunk that nonsense with with one question... Did they observe Jubile?

But more importantly, blacks in America weren't recognized as human beings, It had nothing to do with Hebrew law.

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?

*emphasis mine*

The practices of Abraham is the foundation the law is built upon.

• Animal sacrifice
  
  
• Circumcision
  
  
• Tithing
  

Which kinda makes how he treated his servants relevant.

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).

And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated - Deuteronomy 34:7

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.

Oh please, black people have always been subjugated in America, when were we ever free? and by free I mean considered equal.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves", whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.

That's a supreme court ruling which makes it legal precedent.