The problem is human nature not religion

[QMan]

I don't blame anyone on this forum for ignorance. It is when they try to make these grand sweeping historical statements, that I demand the person have some modicum of reading in history. You don't have that. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time responding to the nonsense and falsehoods you post here.

The role that you want to describe is not played by religion it is always only and exclusively played by human beings. Religion (I do not include cults in that) is generally a moral and benevolent belief system that was and is often ignored by many, in the middle ages as well as now. So, blame humanity, not religion per se. You are disingenuous if you claim, for example, that Christ's teaching in any way shape or form can be used as a basis for sinful human behavior. The difficulty with your argument is that you are confounding his teaching with the illicit actions of people who may claim to be his followers but, as you well know, cannot be because of their intent and actions.

We went over this already. My direct response to this paragraph is that you are conflating the word "religion" with this extremely narrow thing in the New Testament that you refer to as "Christ's Teaching".

NEWS FLASH QMAN --> Religion does not equal "Christ's Teachings". And I already explained this to you in clear black-and-white text. But let me repeat myself a second time since you missed it the first time. This time I will say it red text.

When intellectuals in a philosophy context use the word Religion, they are referring to a cultural and social phenomenon that cuts across many cultures and continents, and reaches back into the people of ancient history. "Religion" for us writers and philosophers includes also Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Norse Mythology, Greek mythology, and the various other spiritual traditions of tribal shamans. The word encapsulates both the religion and astronomy of ancient Egypt along with the Old Testament of the Judaic kingdoms.

Your brain neither read nor processed that red paragraph. And as long as your brain continues to not process that paragraph I will continue to copy and paste it until everyone on this forum is sick and tired of reading it. You are becoming so unbelievably stubborn that I even got to the point where I had to ask you if you even consider Islam to be a religion! And you know what is really ironic about this? You did not answer that question.

Let me ask you again, sir. Do you consider Islam to be a religion? How about Buddhism? Is buddhism a religion or not, according to you?

Well, Kuznetzova, it looks to me like we are pretty much at a standstill then. You made your points, I made mine, and we'll simply have to agree that we disagree and let the reader decide.

Wait, it just occurred to me that there is one thing I still could do. I could try and find out if maybe they don't allow you on this PN forum if you are not one of 'em intell.., intel.., what'ya calling 'em again, intellektooalls? Maybe I was just flying under the radar and got in through the backdoor. Got to find out.

[Immanuel Can]

The natural reason that Locke speaks about is distinct from divine law. That is, divine law in the Christian sense. That's the whole idea.

No, this is incorrect. It's not true for Locke. His view is that the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God are "the same," (his words). He went even further, and proposed that God is the Giver of the Natural Law, and so we can discover something of theology in studying the natural world. In fact, historians have even suggested that that belief accounts for the fact that formal science appears only in the West, and not in any polytheistic countries. They suggest you need a single Lawgiver with a consistent will, or else there's no reason to expect there to be any "laws" in nature at all.

The hypothesis is basically this: if Zeus controls the skies, and Hades controls the underworld, but Poseidon controls the seas, then who knows what those jokers will do? Why look for laws? Those guys have hissy fits, and change their minds all the time. But if there were ONE God, especially a Lawgiver type, one with a consistent character, then we might expect consistency, patterns, regularities and laws in his creation.

[Ginkgo]

The natural reason that Locke speaks about is distinct from divine law. That is, divine law in the Christian sense. That's the whole idea.

No, this is incorrect. It's not true for Locke. His view is that the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God are "the same," (his words). He went even further, and proposed that God is the Giver of the Natural Law, and so we can discover something of theology in studying the natural world. In fact, historians have even suggested that that belief accounts for the fact that formal science appears only in the West, and not in any polytheistic countries. They suggest you need a single Lawgiver with a consistent will, or else there's no reason to expect there to be any "laws" in nature at all.

The hypothesis is basically this: if Zeus controls the skies, and Hades controls the underworld, but Poseidon controls the seas, then who knows what those jokers will do? Why look for laws? Those guys have hissy fits, and change their minds all the time. But if there were ONE God, especially a Lawgiver type, one with a consistent character, then we might expect consistency, patterns, regularities and laws in his creation.

Hi Immanuel,


I don't expect anyone to believe me on face value, but if you doubt my claim then here is a good link that will help. In particular the references under Natural Law.

http://www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/



Just to add a relevant line Stanford:

"In Locke's theory, divine law and natural law are consistent and can overlap in context, but are not co-extensive".

This is what I would have said as well.


You can then get back to me if you like.

[Immanuel Can]

Hello, Ginko:

Did you type in your link correctly? For some reason it's not working...could you have left out a digit accidentally?

Meanwhile, as for Locke, I've read him myself. I know what he says, and I know I'm right about his Theistic rationale, since I'm using the source itself rather than the interpretation of a secondary writer.

It's regrettable that modern interpreters of Locke have frequently proved tone-deaf to theology, so they just don't know what to make of Locke's kind of language, and they think he's some sort of "Contractarian" in the manner of a Rousseau or somebody like that. Of course, that's verifiably incorrect, but if one doesn't read the source material, how is one going to know that?

However, if you can give me the right link, I'll happily look up what the author says and tell you whether his explanation has any merit.

[Ginkgo]

Hello, Ginko:

Did you type in your link correctly? For some reason it's not working...could you have left out a digit accidentally?

Meanwhile, as for Locke, I've read him myself. I know what he says, and I know I'm right about his Theistic rationale, since I'm using the source itself rather than the interpretation of a secondary writer.

It's regrettable that modern interpreters of Locke have frequently proved tone-deaf to theology, so they just don't know what to make of Locke's kind of language, and they think he's some sort of "Contractarian" in the manner of a Rousseau or somebody like that. Of course, that's verifiably incorrect, but if one doesn't read the source material, how is one going to know that?

However, if you can give me the right link, I'll happily look up what the author says and tell you whether his explanation has any merit.

Yes, I have read his Second Treatise several times over the years. As I said, I agree with the Stanford interpretation and I think this is pretty much the consistent interpretation. However, if you have a different interpretation I would be interested.

As I said before I am not disagreeing that Divine Law and Natural Law are consistent, but if they are not co-extensive then they cannot be one and the same. That is pretty much the point I am making.


If you happen to be an American citizen then this distinction is of vital importance as far as your Bill of Rights and your Constitution is concerned. That doesn't make the interpretation right, just important.

[Immanuel Can]

However, if you have a different interpretation I would be interested.

You can check this: he gets his famous triad -- life, liberty and property -- out of a belief in the certainty of Divine Judgment. He calls it "The Great Day," a common idiom for "The Final Judgment." He points out that theologically, his audience all realize it's an individual matter, wherein each person gives his/her own account to God. God provides all of us with LIFE, so we owe each other its continuance. He argues that this requires a primary right to autonomy of the conscience, along with a certain LIBERTY of choice and action, since a person who is not free cannot possibly give an account to his Creator. To this he adds PROPERTY, because a person who has no property cannot make active choices either, since he owns nothing and has nothing under his charge.

In short, we are due LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY because we will give an account of all three to their rightful Owner, God, at The Great Judgment. That's what he says.

Now, if he is right about the Judgment, then you have to give him his due: he has proved the necessity of all three. But of course, today most people deny that God will ever judge, because some think He doesn't even exist.

For them, what is the logically or morally compelling rationale for human rights? So far, no one has been able to tell me.

If you happen to be an American citizen then this distinction is of vital importance as far as your Bill of Rights and your Constitution is concerned. That doesn't make the interpretation right, just important.

I have not that privilege. However, I confess that there is always a small part of my homeland that "is forever England," if that helps. And it is not just the Americans: the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights also partakes of a hacked version of Locke's triad. In fact, it seems that most human rights codes do.

[Arising_uk]

...
Most of these items were wars for political and territorial reasons. The church was not necessarily the driving force but secular ruler's greed was using the church often as a pretense.

And there were other reasons, e.g.,

"With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt--once the most heavily Christian areas in the world--quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

"That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be consumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

It seems history is repeating itself, unfortunately because of human ignorance, prejudice and sinfulness, not because of divine intent.

Can you even hear the contradictory irony in your words?

You claimed that the religions were not involved and then give an example of exactly them being involved. You also appear to be claiming that the Christian response to violence should be violence? On top of that you appear to be calling for more.

[Arising_uk]

...
How many killed in all the incidents you list? How do they compare to, say, the post-Revolution Terror in France, Stalinist Purges, Mao's prisons and "re-education" programs, or Pol Pot's killing fields? How is it that you can ransack history for ancient Jewish skirmishes and spout antI-Semitic propaganda with out blushing, but you cannot remember these much more recent and far more spectacular events openly perpetrated by Atheists? Where's your balance?

And of these events you list, how many killed by people not merely *pretending* to be Christians in order to act for political or personal advantage, but actually *being obedient* followers of Christ? (answer: zero -- Christ told no one to kill anyone; therefore, anyone who did manifestly did not do so as a Christian but as a disobedient opportunist.)

Contrast that situation with Atheism. Atheism, while it may not positively *require* mass murder, suffers from the deficiency that it has, and can have, absolutely no prohibition against it. So anyone who does kill is not a "bad" Atheist, since Atheism has no particular concept of "bad." Nor is "Thou shalt not murder" a commandment binding on any Atheist. Hence, an Atheist is free to kill if he/she wishes, all the while remaining an Atheist in the fullest sense of that word.

Now, how many were killed in the last century by people openly professing to be Atheists? (answer: between 1917 and 2007, approximately 148 million dead at the hands of 52 declared Atheists, ruling over 28 countries, though war, civil war and individual crime).

facts...facts...facts.

Well if we're sticking to facts then the fact is that most were not killed in the name of Atheism but, as you pointed out, for political ideologies, Communism in some instances, Fascism in others(which the Catholic Church seems fairly happy with in the main), so not the same as killing in a 'Gods' name.

That list of yours about contributions by Christianity, you forgot the idea of Utopia, i.e. heaven upon earth, which appears to drive these political ideologues that you say are the problem.

Us atheists hear constantly from the godbotherers that those who commit religiously based atrocities are not the 'real' believers but they keep saying they are. Its all a bit puzzling and tends us to think that you ought to really get your act together and have a word with your 'God' as 'its' message doesn't appear to be getting across to 'its' believers.

Unfortunately I think your premise is going to be tested as it looks like the godbotherers are on the rise again and this time they've got the weapons that they didn't have before and personally I think that if it goes down the slaughter will dwarf whats gone before.

Oh! And "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is a convenient reversion to Judaism, so "Thou Shalt Not Kill" out the window now. QMan will like that as it looks like he quite fancies a conflict with Islam. Do you think he ever wonders why Islam is becoming so popular with the poor and downtrodden?

[Ginkgo]

In short, we are due LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY because we will give an account of all three to their rightful Owner, God, at The Great Judgment. That's what he says.

Now, if he is right about the Judgment, then you have to give him his due: he has proved the necessity of all three. But of course, today most people deny that God will ever judge, because some think He doesn't even exist.

Are you referring to this passage?

Sect. 21. To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men's putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature: for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power. Had there been any such court, any superior jurisdiction on earth, to determine the right between Jephtha and the Ammonites, they had never come to a state of war: but we see he was forced to appeal to heaven. The Lord the Judge (says he) be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon, Judg. xi. 27. and then prosecuting, and relying on his appeal, he leads out his army to battle: and therefore in such controversies, where the question is put, who shall be judge? It cannot be meant, who shall decide the controversy; every one knows what Jephtha here tells us, that the Lord the Judge shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven. That question then cannot mean, who shall judge, whether another hath put himself in a state of war with me, and whether I may, as Jephtha did, appeal to heaven in it? of that I myself can only be judge in my own conscience, as I will answer it, at the great day, to the supreme judge of all men.


If so, then yes, all shall be settled come the day of judgement. However, in the mean time Locke is arguing in this passage that the law of nature dictates that an individual may take the necessary steps to defend his life and property. This is a life without there being any overriding authority to make a judgement of right and wrong.

What we have here is Locke outlining the difference between a state of nature and a state of war. The two are not one and the same. The state of nature involves people living together using their ability to reason without there being a common authority. a state of war can erupt whenever force is used in the absence of a common judge. Might is right will decide who prevails on earth.

So yes, Locke is probably right about the final judgement, but the important account from Locke in terms of life, liberty and property is in reference to earthly judgement.

[Immanuel Can]

Not just that, but to multiple passages...for example,

In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke writes,

"…the apostle tells us, that, at the great day, when every one shall ‘receive according to his doings, the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open.’ The sentence shall be justified by the consciousness all persons shall have, that they themselves, in what bodies soever they appear, or what substances soever that consciousness adheres to, are the same that committed those actions, and deserve that punishment for them."

Or in the Toleration essay, we find,

"The other thing that has just claim to an unlimited toleration is the place, time and manner of worshiping my God. Because this is a thing wholly between God and me, and of an eternal concernment above the reach and extent of polities and government, which are but for my well-being in this world. For the magistrate is but an umpire between man and man. He can right me against my neighbour but cannot defend me against my God. Whatever evil I suffer by obeying him in other things he can make me amends in this world, but if he force me to a wrong religion, he can make me no reparation in the other world...

"But if God (which is the point in question) would have men forced to heaven, it must not be by the outward violence of the magistrate on men’s bodies, but the inward constraints of his own spirit on their minds, which are not to be wrought on by any human compulsion, the way to salvation not being any forced exterior performance, but the voluntary and secret choice of the mind; and it cannot be supposed that God would make use of any means, which could not reach, but would rather cross, the attainment of the end. Nor can it be thought that men should give the magistrate a power to choose for them their way to salvation which is too great to give away, if not impossible to part with, since whatever the magistrate enjoined in the worship of God, men must in this necessarily follow what they themselves thought best, since no consideration could be sufficient to force a man from or to that, which he was fully persuaded, was the way to infinite happiness or infinite misery..."

And...

"…[w]hatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore, upon any people, contrary to their own judgment, is in effect to command them to offend God, which, considering that the end of all religion is to please Him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyond expression."

You can see that in all these contexts, he's defending the primary rights with reference to the Divine Judgment. He did it frequently, and in different essays.

[QMan]

As I said before I am not disagreeing that Divine Law and Natural Law are consistent, but if they are not co-extensive then they cannot be one and the same. That is pretty much the point I am making.

They do not have to be co-extensive. Since natural law is a subset of divine law they are the same just not co-extensive.

[Immanuel Can]

That list of yours about contributions by Christianity, you forgot the idea of Utopia

You're referring to Catholic "saint," Thomas More, of course, and decidedly not to the Bible, which is about as anti-utopian a document as you'll find.

It's a pretty good list, though. Certainly Atheism cannot hold a candle to it.

Us atheists hear constantly from the godbotherers that those who commit religiously based atrocities are not the 'real' believers but they keep saying they are.

What I keep hearing is Atheists blending all religions into one, indicting them all together, magnifying any faults they have, rolling into the accusation anything a misguided
person did *in the name* of Christianity but totally *against the explicit orders* of the Head of Christianity, saddling the lot with the whole baggage of Islam in particular, and then with the Catholic organization as well, and then claiming all Theists are jihadists and Crusaders. It's a convenient fiction that saves Atheists the "bother" of actually discerning anything about Christianity or face the challenges posed by genuine Christianity -- concerning which, I might add, there is abundant evidence for the good...as illustrated by my previous list. Atheists aren't facing facts: not all religions are the same, and not all things done in the name of a religion are products of that religion.

If it's not so...if to call oneself a "Christian" is sufficient to make one genuinely a Christian...then to call oneself an Atheist is sufficient to make one an Atheist...and in fairness, Atheists should saddle themselves with explaining Stalin, Mao, etc., because if they don't want Christianity to disassociate itself from abuses, then Atheism can't dump its history either, correct?

Its all a bit puzzling and tends us to think that you ought to really get your act together and have a word with your 'God' as 'its' message doesn't appear to be getting across to 'its' believers.

Actually, the Bible explains this: it is never the many who choose the right path; it is the few. It is a difficult path, a narrow path, and few (comparatively speaking) there are who find it. Jesus Christ Himself said that.

Unfortunately I think your premise is going to be tested as it looks like the godbotherers are on the rise again and this time they've got the weapons that they didn't have before and personally I think that if it goes down the slaughter will dwarf whats gone before.

Why? Is someone arming the Atheists?

Will there be another 148 million killed in the name of Atheism next century? Because I doubt very much you're ever going to see a witch trial or a Catholic Crusade again. But the Atheist record is actually 182, 716 times worse on an annual basis than the infamous Spanish Inquisition. If Atheists are so smart, how come they don't know that? Don't they read (secular) encyclopaedias?

Oh! And "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is a convenient reversion to Judaism, so "Thou Shalt Not Kill" out the window now.

You're showing your ignorance of principles of translation here. (Sorry to point it out, but you did cast the first stone on this one.) Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח (lo tirṣaḥ) means "murder": "kill" is an synonym from the KJV.

QMan will like that as it looks like he quite fancies a conflict with Islam. Do you think he ever wonders why Islam is becoming so popular with the poor and downtrodden?

So now your defending Islam as "the religion of the downtrodden," but slamming others? If your criticism apply to any religion at all, it's to Islam, which is responsible for half of the religious wars in history -- which is still only 3.5% of all wars! As for the poor and downtrodden, Charismatic Christianity is far more popular with them. You need to get out more. Go to Africa or South America, or to China, the Philippines or Korea, and you'll see. Besides, Christians are statistically three times more charitable than secular people. Interesting to know.

[Ginkgo]

Not just that, but to multiple passages...for example,

In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke writes,

"…the apostle tells us, that, at the great day, when every one shall ‘receive according to his doings, the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open.’ The sentence shall be justified by the consciousness all persons shall have, that they themselves, in what bodies soever they appear, or what substances soever that consciousness adheres to, are the same that committed those actions, and deserve that punishment for them."

Or in the Toleration essay, we find,

"The other thing that has just claim to an unlimited toleration is the place, time and manner of worshiping my God. Because this is a thing wholly between God and me, and of an eternal concernment above the reach and extent of polities and government, which are but for my well-being in this world. For the magistrate is but an umpire between man and man. He can right me against my neighbour but cannot defend me against my God. Whatever evil I suffer by obeying him in other things he can make me amends in this world, but if he force me to a wrong religion, he can make me no reparation in the other world...

"But if God (which is the point in question) would have men forced to heaven, it must not be by the outward violence of the magistrate on men’s bodies, but the inward constraints of his own spirit on their minds, which are not to be wrought on by any human compulsion, the way to salvation not being any forced exterior performance, but the voluntary and secret choice of the mind; and it cannot be supposed that God would make use of any means, which could not reach, but would rather cross, the attainment of the end. Nor can it be thought that men should give the magistrate a power to choose for them their way to salvation which is too great to give away, if not impossible to part with, since whatever the magistrate enjoined in the worship of God, men must in this necessarily follow what they themselves thought best, since no consideration could be sufficient to force a man from or to that, which he was fully persuaded, was the way to infinite happiness or infinite misery..."

And...

"…[w]hatsoever is not done with that assurance of faith is neither well in itself, nor can it be acceptable to God. To impose such things, therefore, upon any people, contrary to their own judgment, is in effect to command them to offend God, which, considering that the end of all religion is to please Him, and that liberty is essentially necessary to that end, appears to be absurd beyond expression."

You can see that in all these contexts, he's defending the primary rights with reference to the Divine Judgment. He did it frequently, and in different essays.

Yes but, Locke is not saying that divine judgement is the same as earthly judgement. Are you actually trying to say this?

There are some countries in the world where life, liberty and property and decided by divine judgement. They are called theocratic nations. Liberal democratic nations judgement is decided by peers.

The whole idea of the Enlightenment was to reject the idea of divine judgement.

[Ginkgo]

As I said before I am not disagreeing that Divine Law and Natural Law are consistent, but if they are not co-extensive then they cannot be one and the same. That is pretty much the point I am making.

They do not have to be co-extensive. Since natural law is a subset of divine law they are the same just not co-extensive.

They may well overlap but this doesn't necessarily the same. I would have thought, anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes but, Locke is not saying that divine judgement is the same as earthly judgement. Are you actually trying to say this?

No, no...absolutely not. "

Judgment" with a capital "J." That's a very specific thing: it is a particular event in real time, the time when God actually calls human beings to physically stand before Him and individually give an account for what they've done with the life He gave them. For Locke, this was as certain and specific an event as, say, the Superbowl. Since this event was literally and generally believed by both Catholics and Protestants (and some others), Locke could use it as a basis for his argument to them.

I said in an earlier message that the reason people have misunderstood Locke is that having dismissed theology from their thinking, so many today are "tone deaf to religious language." This is a clear demonstration of my point: anyone in Locke's day would have known very well to what He was referring. The Bible says, in the prophetic book of Revelation,

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

See? Locke's thinking of a real event.

There are some countries in the world where life, liberty and property and decided by divine judgement. They are called theocratic nations. Liberal democratic nations judgement is decided by peers.

No, "Divine Judgment" does not refer to any human judgment. Note the capitals: it's the specific, historical event of which I spoke, not something any human authority can legitimately do, so there is no reference to theocracy, either in Locke or in my explanation of Him. The Great Day, the Judgment Day, comes at the end of Earthly time. That's the only time it comes. And only God judges then. See above.

The whole idea of the Enlightenment was to reject the idea of divine judgement.

Again, you're thinking of "the judgments made by religious people," not The Great Judgment of God.