Comments on: Sunday Study: Slavery, John Locke and the Bible

By: Why morality cannot be 100% natural: A Response to Professor Coyne | Uncommon Descent

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:59:06 +0000

[...] slavery, Professor Coyne would be well-advised to read Slavery, John Locke and the Bible by Dr. Matt Flanagan. Here’s an excerpt from the introduction to the article: It is often [...]

By: Reasonable Faith Open Forum

Reasonable Faith Open Forum — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:19:59 +0000

The bible says you can beat slaves as long as they don’t die?????…

I have a very good article for you on this subject. I think you might want to take a good look at this one when you get a chance……

By: Freedom, Science and Christianity: A Response to James Valliant Part II « Theology Geek NZ

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:52:10 +0000

[...] other things both the scriptures and Paul stated about slavery, which contradict and condemn the practice of slavery that existed in America. In fact, the enlightenment philosopher who most influenced the US, John Locke, appealed to these [...]

By: Does the Bible condone slavery? « Wintery Knight

Does the Bible condone slavery? « Wintery Knight — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:28:33 +0000

[...] the Bible condone slavery? Matt and Madeleine Flanagan have a wonderful post up to answer this thorny question. These guys are professional apologists, not amateurs, like me! [...]

By: The Grace of the Gospel Changed the World | The Church of Jesus Christ

The Grace of the Gospel Changed the World | The Church of Jesus Christ — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:01:40 +0000

[...] I found this while pursuing a comment section (guess where?): MandM wrote this: Sunday Study: Slavery, John Locke and the Bible [...]

By: Why?

Why? — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:02:12 +0000

Dont you think it’s disrespectful to use bible verses to argue with each other
the simple facts are
¤ in the time that the bible was written slavery was part of
their way of life
¤ Slavery is over, there is no point in arguing over the past
¤ The more you suffer for God the more he loves you BUT doesnt mean you have to inflict more pain to yourselves by arguing

so plz drop this childish act

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +0000

Matt, I apologise for not being clear. The relevant parts are Leviticus 25:44-46, the earlier verses were included for context. My point was that a foreign slave could be kept as perpetual property.

Secondly, about the children, you're correct. Leviticus 25:39-46 doesn't talk about enslaving the children, I must have confused it with Deuteronomy 20:13, where children are enslaved.

But I am certain that children of slaves were born into slavery as well, but I'll have to find a reference for you.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:33:54 +0000

Guest, actually if you had not snipped the footnote which was annexed to that citation you'll see I actually addressed this point.

Nor does the text you cite state anything about enslaving someones children.

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:43:17 +0000

an ebed could not be held in service for more than six years (Exodus 21:2)

That's incorrect. A foreign (non-Israelite) slave was a perpetual slave, and his children were enslaved as well. Leviticus 25:39-46.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:39:18 +0000

Sarah, the fact that you think nobody can validly infer the existence of God, while possibly interesting, is not the subject of your previous post or my reply to it.

You said that if morality derives from God then there is an epistemic problem. I merely noted that this displays a confusion between metaphysics and epistemology, something that you have not yet addressed. You have simply repeated your objection without acknowledging my correction.

You have also assumed that naturalism does in fact provide a way of finding out how things ought to be, using "empirical, testable data." But this simply fails to address the objection I raised in my last post: Natural investigation, by its very nature, can do no such thing. At best it can tell us how things are.

I welcome replies to these responses I have made, but merely re-stating the claims that I am responding to is not adequate.

Recent blog post: Coming up…