[kosta50]

Well, I am glad that you are making a case for slavery, but adoption is not purchasing a human being because that human being is not your "property" even if such human being is "bought" for adoption.

Adoption brings inheritance rights; slavery doesn't. Slaves are like pieces of furniture. But, I would expect the so-called Bible-believing Christians to bend and twist in order to justify what's in the Bible, even if ti is morally repugnant.

[Forest Keeper]

Well, I am glad that you are making a case for slavery, but adoption is not purchasing a human being because that human being is not your "property" even if such human being is "bought" for adoption.

It isn't EXACTLY the same, but there are strong similarities, before the age of majority. Likewise, the slaves were liberated in the year of jubilee, although that was only once every 50 years.

Adoption brings inheritance rights; slavery doesn't.

Irrelevant. The will determines inheritance rights. Washington willed that his slaves be set free and anyone can cut an adopted child out of his own will.

But, I would expect the so-called Bible-believing Christians to bend and twist in order to justify what's in the Bible, even if it is morally repugnant.

You are saying that what the Bible teaches is morally repugnant, that part of God's Holy word is morally repugnant. What, then, is the source for your morality? If not the Bible, is it instead the Church, or what you feel is moral yourself? Note that whatever your answer, it will be in contrast to the Bible. You will have to say that your source for morality disagrees with what the Bible says.