The problem is human nature not religion

[QMan]

.

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?

??? ... where in the world from did you ever get that info about me (not from Kuznetzova I hope).

Sounds to me like you are doing some very selective reading and take great literary license in interpreting what you are reading. You could have asked me directly, you know.

I agree with what IC said about that (the poor ...) but think there is another factor. Militancy will always attract and sway certain people if not for one cause, then for another.

Now, let's compare notes, how often do you pray for peace on this globe? ... also on a daily basis? And why do you think my prayers don't seem to get answered? Is it because I don't phrase my words right, or don't have the right disposition to pray, or is it perhaps that people are simply too intransigent to listen to God 's good influence. Or is it perhaps because there are not enough people making their voice heard with God?

Or would the atheist simply say there is no God? And so the strong take from the weak without consequences and sowing the seeds of war.

[Ginkgo]

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.

Well, there you go. We have no disagreement. I thought you were trying to portray Locke's politics in terms of rule by divine laws.

[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.

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

Don't think God employs two attorneys one for natural law and one for divine law. Whatever laws there are they all have to issue equally from his divine edict.

[Ginkgo]

mult.post

[Ginkgo]

mult. post

[Ginkgo]

Don't think God employs two attorneys one for natural law and one for divine law. Whatever laws there are they all have to issue equally from his divine edict.

All I can say is that a great number of people, including Locke and myself would certainly hope that God employes two lawyers. I am sure a great number of people, especially in the USA would be very unhappy with a lawyer who got up in front of the Supreme Court and argued that whatever laws there are all come from God's divine edict.

No such argument has ever been entertained at any time in this, or any similar legal setting. There are a number of very good reasons for this.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You guys are like children, that argue on the number of toes, of a 3000 year gone, boogieman! Interpretation of a long dead mans language, about a fiction, futile to say the least; not philosophers by any stretch of the "imagination?"

[3Sum]

Now, let's compare notes, how often do you pray for peace on this globe? ... also on a daily basis? And why do you think my prayers don't seem to get answered?

Why would I think that they do get answered? Why would praying be any different than any other superstition? Should we all start collecting horseshoes? And avoiding black cats? If you claim your prayers are answered the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence. There are more than a billion Christians in the world. You say that you pray for peace in the world and I think it's safe to assume that at least a few others do. Yet god isn't really answering, is he?

If everybody actually DID something to bring peace to the world instead of being pretentious and thinking that a few spoken words to yourself before bed will do it, humanity might even achieve something.

Or would the atheist simply say there is no God? And so the strong take from the weak without consequences and sowing the seeds of war.

Yep, there's no God. At least no God worth worship and prayers. God doesn't really prevent strong taking from the weak, now doesn't he? And since it's scientifically proven there's no afterlife we can also be sure he won't help then, either.

Thing is, a problem exists. Religious people think they solved the problem by bringing god into the equation. You didn't solve the problem. You just turned a blind eye to it so you can live in blissful ignorance while pretending that your prayers actually do something to solve the problem.

If "strong take away from the weak" and you think that's wrong, DO SOMETHING. Because God obviously doesn't help.

If humanity as a whole started working on a solution to practical problems, instead of wasting time on irrelevant distractions you'd be surprised how much we could accomplish.

[Ginkgo]

You guys are like children, that argue on the number of toes, of a 3000 year gone, boogieman! Interpretation of a long dead mans language, about a fiction, futile to say the least; not philosophers by any stretch of the "imagination?"

Sphere's, it's political philosophy. Locke's "Second Treatise" is even more important today than past centuries, especially in relation to the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Within that society there is an increasing number of people who want to promote pseudo-science as well as a solid biblical basis for the Constitution.

P.S. I think he had 10.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You guys are like children, that argue on the number of toes, of a 3000 year gone, boogieman! Interpretation of a long dead mans language, about a fiction, futile to say the least; not philosophers by any stretch of the "imagination?"

Sphere's, it's political philosophy. Locke's "Second Treatise" is even more important today than past centuries, especially in relation to the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Within that society there is an increasing number of people who want to promote pseudo-science as well as a solid biblical basis for the Constitution.

P.S. I think he had 10.

Thanks for your time Ginkgo. It's all this Religion and God talk, that has me perplexed. I mean neither side can prove either yea or nay, so I see no sense in seriously arguing as if it is or isn't. How it's (both sides) made an impact on human development, and ideology, I understand, but during the course of this thread it seems as though many take it for granted, usually to the affirmative, that a god does exist, and that the religious books, actually have some sort of validity. I see them as early philosophy attempts, while some of the ideas have their merit, in terms of human interaction, I don't take them too seriously, especially the fire and brimstone passages, and I'm surprised that in this day and age most people seemingly still do.

Yeah in the Philo classes I took back in the day, we briefly touched on Locke, it was during one of the intro classes, if I remember correctly. I never took a class where he was featured.

I'm an American, and I see that any age old doctrines, that were believed in at the time of creating new ones, shall always sway such creations. I guess it just somehow bothers me that modern day students of philosophy, should talk as if something unprovable either way, has any validity, other than for historical reference, or maybe critique. Of course I guess it shall be some time before humans can actually purge their thinking of mysticism and superstition, even in these days where science dominates their lives in oh so many ways; got an android anyone?.

Are you sure it was 10, I thought it was 50 on one foot, and 13 on the other, oh no, sorry, I was thinking of stars and stripes.

[Ginkgo]

You guys are like children, that argue on the number of toes, of a 3000 year gone, boogieman! Interpretation of a long dead mans language, about a fiction, futile to say the least; not philosophers by any stretch of the "imagination?"

Sphere's, it's political philosophy. Locke's "Second Treatise" is even more important today than past centuries, especially in relation to the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Within that society there is an increasing number of people who want to promote pseudo-science as well as a solid biblical basis for the Constitution.

P.S. I think he had 10.

Thanks for your time Ginkgo. It's all this Religion and God talk, that has me perplexed. I mean neither side can prove either yea or nay, so I see no sense in seriously arguing as if it is or isn't. How it's (both sides) made an impact on human development, and ideology, I understand, but during the course of this thread it seems as though many take it for granted, usually to the affirmative, that a god does exist, and that the religious books, actually have some sort of validity. I see them as early philosophy attempts, while some of the ideas have their merit, in terms of human interaction, I don't take them too seriously, especially the fire and brimstone passages, and I'm surprised that in this day and age most people seemingly still do.

Yeah in the Philo classes I took back in the day, we briefly touched on Locke, it was during one of the intro classes, if I remember correctly. I never took a class where he was featured.

I'm an American, and I see that any age old doctrines, that were believed in at the time of creating new ones, shall always sway such creations. I guess it just somehow bothers me that modern day students of philosophy, should talk as if something unprovable either way, has any validity, other than for historical reference, or maybe critique. Of course I guess it shall be some time before humans can actually purge their thinking of mysticism and superstition, even in these days where science dominates their lives in oh so many ways; got an android anyone?.

Are you sure it was 10, I thought it was 50 on one foot, and 13 on the other, oh no, sorry, I was thinking of stars and stripes.

A pleasure Spheres. A very informative post on your part.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You guys are like children, that argue on the number of toes, of a 3000 year gone, boogieman! Interpretation of a long dead mans language, about a fiction, futile to say the least; not philosophers by any stretch of the "imagination?"

♠

Sphere's, it's political philosophy. Locke's "Second Treatise" is even more important today than past centuries, especially in relation to the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Within that society there is an increasing number of people who want to promote pseudo-science as well as a solid biblical basis for the Constitution.

P.S. I think he had 10.

Thanks for your time Ginkgo. It's all this Religion and God talk, that has me perplexed. I mean neither side can prove either yea or nay, so I see no sense in seriously arguing as if it is or isn't. How it's (both sides) made an impact on human development, and ideology, I understand, but during the course of this thread it seems as though many take it for granted, usually to the affirmative, that a god does exist, and that the religious books, actually have some sort of validity. I see them as early philosophy attempts, while some of the ideas have their merit, in terms of human interaction, I don't take them too seriously, especially the fire and brimstone passages, and I'm surprised that in this day and age most people seemingly still do.

Yeah in the Philo classes I took back in the day, we briefly touched on Locke, it was during one of the intro classes, if I remember correctly. I never took a class where he was featured.

I'm an American, and I see that any age old doctrines, that were believed in at the time of creating new ones, shall always sway such creations. I guess it just somehow bothers me that modern day students of philosophy, should talk as if something unprovable either way, has any validity, other than for historical reference, or maybe critique. Of course I guess it shall be some time before humans can actually purge their thinking of mysticism and superstition, even in these days where science dominates their lives in oh so many ways; got an android anyone?.

Are you sure it was 10, I thought it was 50 on one foot, and 13 on the other, oh no, sorry, I was thinking of stars and stripes.

A pleasure Spheres. A very informative post on your part.

I hope you've not taken anything I've said thus far personal, though you do seem to have equilibrium, the ability to stand back and see multiple perspectives, to understand others (possibilities), so as to temper your response. A diplomat? As such, you are one of the ones here, I have cause to respect.

These that you see as potentially creating/promoting 'pseudo-science,' are they potent enough to actually cause much harm to the current state of civilization, I mean such that it's 'health' currently is, and I use the term loosely? Is there anything to oppose this trend, of equal or greater potency? To be honest, I don't see much light at the end of the human tunnel. I find that the more I learn, the more I cry, instead of laugh. I see that money is more important than life, or so they would have one believe, that takes the time to observe them closely. I understand the innate need for the animal to survive, but I see that it has gone too far, to the point of suicide, though it's oblivious, or so it would surely seem. Cause for tears I think, a sad story of a failed experiment. Do you believe that there could ever be a great species that could cover all the bases, take care of all that really matters to the truth of all those things that it actually depends upon, without getting ahead of itself, so as to not trip on it's own feet? Am I being vague, speaking only to myself, my particular life experience? How much water does it take to overflow this cup, or if finally noticed it's about to spill over, how should one go about balancing the equation? Your opinion is queried, if you will? Make no mistake, I presume to have no power to do so, to take it for action, nor would I want that heavy a responsibility, rather a thought experiment for all to see, maybe some wisdom can be gleaned, one can only hope, to see equilibrium finally abound. As always, I could expound, but it would take quite some time to convey in totality. Are our minds eyes out of focus, do I talk to the wind? Is it not that self-evident, that, which I attempt to bring into view? Do these words not speak to anyone?

Does this pertain? Too many questions?

[Arising_uk]

??? ... where in the world from did you ever get that info about me (not from Kuznetzova I hope).

I took it from your idea that the Christian is about to have to repeat history with respect to Islam. However I accept that I used a bad term of phrase and that what you said does not imply any pleasure.

...
Now, let's compare notes, how often do you pray for peace on this globe? ... also on a daily basis? ...

I don't pray at all.

And why do you think my prayers don't seem to get answered? Is it because I don't phrase my words right, or don't have the right disposition to pray, or is it perhaps that people are simply too intransigent to listen to God 's good influence. Or is it perhaps because there are not enough people making their voice heard with God?

I'd say it's because you are talking to an imaginary being.
(p.s. Although I have it upon good authority that you should be doing no such thing as praying for peace. You should only be doing one prayer, The Lord's, and this should be done alone in ones closet.)

Or would the atheist simply say there is no God? And so the strong take from the weak without consequences and sowing the seeds of war.

And yet you say there is a 'God' and history says that most used to believe in 'it' and yet the strong still took from the weak without consequence and there were many wars?

Depends upon which type of atheist you are talking about, my kind would say something like, the seeds of war are sown due to the unequal distribution of scarce resources but maybe men just like fighting.