Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures

[shunyadragon]

You see something like Magna Carta as a step towards democracy which is clearly true (although less clear is how it is a step towards secularism), even though there was no democracy after it. It was just a step on a long path.

It was just a step on a long path, but a critical step, and remains a step that actually lead to reduction of the power of the monarchy, and the formation of the parliament. This, of course, led to the separation of church and state in the British Empire.

From: The legacy of Magna Carta

"Magna Carta's clauses provided the basis for important principles in English law developed in the fourteenth through to the seventeenth century. The phrases ‘to no one’ and ‘no free man’ gave these provisions a universal quality that is still applicable today in a way that many of the clauses relating specifically to feudal custom are not. The emphasis on grants of taxation requiring the consent of the kingdom also paved the way for the development of parliament.

Anything connected to Christianity, natural rights, focus on the primacy of the individual, the Idea of Progress, changes in power structure separating state power from church power, etc. you see as definitely not being a step on a long path towards secular, liberalism."]/quote]

Nothing above, represented separation of church and state nor democracy nor anything secular outside the Divine rule of the church. If any thng it reflects outside influence inside the church.

Do you believe Christianity had any role in the development of secular, liberal democracy? If so, what?

None. I question the term 'liberal?' democracy. Any reforms are within the non-secular Divine rule that held firm in history and rejected secular rule.

It was referenced that the justinian Code represented justification for the development of secular rule by Christianity, not so. The evolution of Codes of Law through human history, particularly Roman Law is not related to Christianity. Justinian simply revised Roman Laws to fit his needs. Rule of all Christian history of Rome remained rule by Divine authority, and not remotely secular rule in any form.

With reference to the actual views of specific philosophers, can you explain why you believe the Athenian philosophers promoted a separation between their equivalent of 'church and state'? Or if you don't believe this, explain how separation of C&S are rooted in Athenian philosophy, again with specific reference to the 'philosophers cited'?

The Athenian democracy was the beginning of the dividing the rule of the state beyond what was the rule of the royal oligarchy. Why don't you look up the philosophers and the history of early democracy in Athens? At this point you appear to be clueless, and demand I do your homework for you. You do not like the wiki reference, but nonetheless I believe it is reasonable with numerous references as other references I provided that you object to. As I said I may provide some sources on the philosophers, but I am still waiting for you to spoon fed yourself.

The sources describe Athenian democracy and the philosophers as the beginnings of democracy with the division of authority NOT found anywhere else, and not in the Christian Roman empires or for that matter in the Roman Church itself, Reforms that lead to the separation of church and state were forced on the Roman Church as its influence weakened.

 

[shunyadragon]

We both know that means you have absolutely no idea but if you can find something suitable on Wikipedia, you'll copy/paste it as being gospel

We both know that the selective citations of changes in the Roman Church form outside secular sources, and not Christian sources, do not reflect reform of the absolute Divine authority demanded by the Roman Church. For example: The teaching of the Greek philosophies by the Jesuits remains a secular source that later changed the church, and contributed to the evolution of secular intellectual movements, development of secular rule, and the separation of church and state..

 

[Augustus]

It was just a step on a long path, but a critical step, and remains a step that actually lead to reduction of the power of the monarchy, and the formation of the parliament. This, of course, led to the separation of church and state in the British Empire.

Everyone knows Magna Carta was a step towards democracy.

How did having a parliament mean there was a separation between church and state? Even today the Queen is the head of state, head of the Church of England and the motto of the monarch is "God and my right". You said earlier steps didn't count a steps because they didn't result in pure secularism.

Divine right was probably at its strongest after parliament was formed (James I, etc.)

Also the parliament was formed centuries before there even was a British Empire.

Anyway, as noted multiple times, you focus far too much on democracy, and not at all on how liberalism was able to be created in the 17th C. It didn't emerge out of a vacuum, and most of its key concepts were completely absent in Ancient Greece. This is why saying they 'got it from the Greeks' is problematic.

None.

The dominant paradigm in European thought, that appeared only there and nowhere else, managed to form without a single influence from what was by far the most significant factor that influenced European society for 2000 years?

You understand that is basically impossible, don't you?

I question the term 'liberal?' democracy. Any reforms are within the non-secular Divine rule that held firm in history and rejected secular rule.

Liberal democracy was the post-Enlightenment end point, no one is claiming liberalism started in the medieval period, just that certain key concepts started to develop in this era.

Liberalism would not have made any conceptual sense in Ancient Greece, even though they had a democracy (which wasn't in any way secular either). This is because concepts like individualism, equality before the law, natural rights, secularism and the Idea of Progress were not present.

You do not like the wiki reference, but nonetheless I believe it is reasonable with numerous references as other references I provided that you object to

Nothing wrong with wiki, per se, just that reading a page for 2 mins isn't a substitute for reading more substantially on a topic, amd copying large chunks of barely relevant text is not a substitute for an argument. People who are well read on a topic never stick to wiki in long discussions as it is too basic and limits their discussion.

Also some people seem to think reading part of a wiki page makes them know more about a topic than actual scholars. You also sometimes don't understand that it actually refutes your point (see Greeks had no Greek philosophy)

I haven't objected to any of your sources. Admittedly I found the primary school handout printed in size 20 font hilarious, but I didn't reject it out of hand and replied to it's content. You engage in the ad homs and out of hand dismissals of sources without so much as an attempt to deal with the content.

I do question why you reject peer-reviewed sources out of hand when they disagree with you, then assume that anything you find in 2 mins on the net is automatically definitive though.

Why don't you look up the philosophers and the history of early democracy in Athens? At this point you appear to be clueless, and demand I do your homework for you.

This is getting really cringeworthy. You've spent about 7 pages of replies making up endless patently obvious face saving excuses about how it is beneath you to make a rational argument in support of your claims. You've spent more time and effort not making an argument than you would have spent making it.

Even if you suspend disbelief and assume you are actually sitting on a treasure trove of information, it would be a very weird stance for someone who is involved enough in a discussion to reply for 10 pages.

SD: I think ABC
A: Why do you think that?
SD: I think ABC
A: Why though? Here's the problem with ABC [explains problem]. Can you say why you think this line of reasoning is wrong?
SD: I think ABC
A: Why do you think that though?
SD: I think ABC
SD: At this point you appear to be clueless, and demand I do your homework for you. Just read everything then you'll see I'm right.

We both know that the selective citations of changes

Out of hand dismissal of peer reviewed sources again

All citation is selective, this was selected specially because it was the most relevant. If you think I'm cherry-picking then by all means demonstrate this with your own sources. Would be wonderful to have an actual, reasoned discussion.

We both know that the selective citations of changes in the Roman Church form outside secular sources, and not Christian sources, do not reflect reform of the absolute Divine authority demanded by the Roman Church.

One of us knows that Greek and christian thought were synthesised to create something new. This is unsurprising as Christianity has always been influenced by Greek philosophy.

If it was just Greek philosophy that was needed for liberal democracy, why didn't it emerge in Greece, or Rome, or the Islamic Empires, etc. seeing as they had the exact same sources?

For example: The teaching of the Greek philosophies by the Jesuits remains a secular source that later changed the church, and contributed to the evolution of secular intellectual movements, development of secular rule, and the separation of church and state..

This is why I would like you to make a rational argument as you seem to think that think the Greek philosophers were 'secular' and they had a separation between religion and state.

Greek philosophy was mixed up with theology, cosmology, etc. For example, Aristotle beleived philosophy was the handmaiden of theology. At one point there was a school of though that Christians shouldn't even use the term theology as that is what the Greeks did. They thought that what Christians did should properly be termed philosophy.

Also characterising Enlightenment intellectual movements as 'secular' is also problematic. Some were, but numerous key figures were significantly influenced by their Christian beliefs (inclusing essential figures in the rise of liberalism like Locke).

Even many 'secular' thinkers were characterised by a sort of providential deism that was clearly the heir of Christian Divine Providence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Everyone knows Magna Carta was a step towards democracy.

How did having a parliament mean there was a separation between church and state? Even today the Queen is the head of state, head of the Church of England and the motto of the monarch is "God and my right". You said earlier steps didn't count a steps because they didn't result in pure secularism.

No, You are misrepresenting my view. It was not a matter of being 'pure secularism' and I never claimed such. The secular government sis not exist, and the governments were monarchies.

The Parliament is secular, The Queen may be called the Head of State, but the reality is the Queen has no real power.

Divine right was probably at its strongest after parliament was formed (James I, etc.)

Possibly correct, but it depends how you define the strength of the monarchy The Parliament at that time was a beginning. The Parliament power evolved.

Also the parliament was formed centuries before there even was a British Empire.

So what?!?!!? The Parliament evolved over time until it was the government.

Anyway, as noted multiple times, you focus far too much on democracy, and not at all on how liberalism was able to be created in the 17th C. It didn't emerge out of a vacuum, and most of its key concepts were completely absent in Ancient Greece. This is why saying they 'got it from the Greeks' is problematic.

The question is the origins of democracy, and Greece is only the beginning of one of sources of origins of democracy and the separation of church and state that was discussed in this thread. Liberalism? is loosely used word here and not meaningful.

The dominant paradigm in European thought, that appeared only there and nowhere else, managed to form without a single influence from what was by far the most significant factor that influenced European society for 2000 years?

. . . but not separation of church and state and democracy.

Liberal democracy was the post-Enlightenment end point, no one is claiming liberalism started in the medieval period, just that certain key concepts started to develop in this era.

Liberalism would not have made any conceptual sense in Ancient Greece, even though they had a democracy (which wasn't in any way secular either). This is because concepts like individualism, equality before the law, natural rights, secularism and the Idea of Progress were not present.

I believe that beginning of secularism was a part of the beginning of democracy. In Christianity any consideration of the above was solely under the the Divine Rights of the churches and Monarchies. There was no such thing as secular rule under the church, and in the course of history secular rule and the sharing of government with secular government was forced on the churches.

Nothing wrong with wiki, per se, just that reading a page for 2 mins isn't a substitute for reading more substantially on a topic, amd copying large chunks of barely relevant text is not a substitute for an argument. People who are well read on a topic never stick to wiki in long discussions as it is too basic and limits their discussion.

The wiki articles I cited were supported by abundant other references in the foot noted references. There is no problem with the conclusions of the wiki references. They were clear and concise.

Also some people seem to think reading part of a wiki page makes them know more about a topic than actual scholars. You also sometimes don't understand that it actually refutes your point (see Greeks had no Greek philosophy)

Not refutes, but simply provides a different perspective.

I haven't objected to any of your sources. Admittedly I found the primary school handout printed in size 20 font hilarious, but I didn't reject it out of hand and replied to it's content. You engage in the ad homs and out of hand dismissals of sources without so much as an attempt to deal with the content.

Actually it was accurate, and reflected my amusement at your references

I do question why you reject peer-reviewed sources out of hand when they disagree with you, then assume that anything you find in 2 mins on the net is automatically definitive though.

I do not reject them, but reject that they represent any sort of secular government during the period they describe some changes in the empire and the Roman Church as anything 'liberal?', separation of church and state, nor any sort of democracy outside the Roman Church.

This is getting really cringe worthy. You've spent about 7 pages of replies making up endless patently obvious face saving excuses about how it is beneath you to make a rational argument in support of your claims. You've spent more time and effort not making an argument than you would have spent making it.

This is getting really cringe worthy. You've spent about 7 pages of replies making up endless patently obvious face saving excuses about how it is beneath you to make a rational argument in support of your claims. You've spent more time and effort not making an argument than you would have spent making it

The above misrepresentation of my view, the authority of the Queen, which does not exist, and the failure to read the references concerning Greece, and demand I spoon fed you information are cringe worthy.

Again, I seriously question the use of 'liberal?" in the context you use it. There is nothing liberal about the nature of the Rule of the the Roman empires nor the the church, . . . and absolutely nothing related to 'liberal?' democracy. Neither was there any from of 'liberal?' democracy in Greece, nor anywhere else in the ancient world.

 

[shunyadragon]

Solon, the first philosopher leading the move to limited democracy in Athens.

From: Solon - Wikipedia
Solon's reforms

Solon's laws were inscribed on large wooden slabs or cylinders attached to a series of axles that stood upright in the Prytaneion.[53][54] These axones appear to have operated on the same principle as a Lazy Susan, allowing both convenient storage and ease of access. Originally the axones recorded laws enacted by Draco in the late 7th Century (traditionally 621 BC). Nothing of Draco's codification has survived except for a law relating to homicide, yet there is consensus among scholars that it did not amount to anything like a constitution.[55][56] Solon repealed all Draco's laws except those relating to homicide.[57] During his visit to Athens, Pausanias, the 2nd century AD geographer reported that the inscribed laws of Solon were still displayed by the Prytaneion.[58] Fragments of the axones were still visible in Plutarch's time[59] but today the only records we have of Solon's laws are fragmentary quotes and comments in literary sources such as those written by Plutarch himself. Moreover, the language of his laws was archaic even by the standards of the fifth century and this caused interpretation problems for ancient commentators.[60] Modern scholars doubt the reliability of these sources and our knowledge of Solon's legislation is therefore actually very limited in its details.

Generally, Solon's reforms appear to have been constitutional, economic and moral in their scope. This distinction, though somewhat artificial, does at least provide a convenient framework within which to consider the laws that have been attributed to Solon. Some short-term consequences of his reforms are considered at the end of the section.

Constitutional reform
Main article: Solonian Constitution
Before Solon's reforms, the Athenian state was administered by nine archons appointed or elected annually by the Areopagus on the basis of noble birth and wealth.[61][62] The Areopagus comprised former archons and it therefore had, in addition to the power of appointment, extraordinary influence as a consultative body. The nine archons took the oath of office while ceremonially standing on a stone in the agora, declaring their readiness to dedicate a golden statue if they should ever be found to have violated the laws.[63][64] There was an assembly of Athenian citizens (the Ekklesia) but the lowest class (the Thetes) was not admitted and its deliberative procedures were controlled by the nobles.[65] There therefore seemed to be no means by which an archon could be called to account for breach of oath unless the Areopagus favoured his prosecution.

According to the Constitution of the Athenians, Solon legislated for all citizens to be admitted into the Ekklesia[66] and for a court (the Heliaia) to be formed from all the citizens.[67]The Heliaia appears to have been the Ekklesia, or some representative portion of it, sitting as a jury.[68][69] By giving common people the power not only to elect officials but also to call them to account, Solon appears to have established the foundations of a true republic. However some scholars have doubted whether Solon actually included the Thetes in the Ekklesia, this being considered too bold a move for any aristocrat in the archaic period.[70] Ancient sources[71][72] credit Solon with the creation of a Council of Four Hundred, drawn from the four Athenian tribes to serve as a steering committee for the enlarged Ekklesia. However, many modern scholars have doubted this also.[73][74]

There is consensus among scholars that Solon lowered the requirements—those that existed in terms of financial and social qualifications—which applied to election to public office. The Solonian constitution divided citizens into four political classes defined according to assessable property[66][75] a classification that might previously have served the state for military or taxation purposes only.[76] The standard unit for this assessment was one medimnos (approximately 12 gallons) of cereals and yet the kind of classification set out below might be considered too simplistic to be historically accurate.[77]

The Areopagus, as viewed from the Acropolis, is a monolith where Athenian aristocrats decided important matters of state during Solon's time.

• Pentakosiomedimnoi
  • valued at 500 medimnoi or more of cereals annually.
  • eligible to serve as strategoi (generals or military governors)
• Hippeis
  • valued at 300 medimnoi or more annually.
  • approximating to the medieval class of knights, they had enough wealth to equip themselves for the cavalry
• Zeugitai
  • valued at a 200 medimnoi or more annually.
  • approximating to the medieval class of Yeoman, they had enough wealth to equip themselves for the infantry (Hoplite)
• Thetes
  • valued up to 199 medimnoi annually or less
  • manual workers or sharecroppers, they served voluntarily in the role of personal servant, or as auxiliaries armed for instance with the sling or as rowers in the navy.

According to the Athenian Constitution, only the pentakosiomedimnoi were eligible for election to high office as archons and therefore only they gained admission into the Areopagus.[78] A modern view affords the same privilege to the hippeis.[79] The top three classes were eligible for a variety of lesser posts and only the thetes were excluded from all public office.

Depending on how we interpret the historical facts known to us, Solon's constitutional reforms were either a radical anticipation of democratic government, or they merely provided a plutocratic flavour to a stubbornly aristocratic regime, or else the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes.[a]

 

[shunyadragon]

The next father of the limited democracy of Athens.

From: Cleisthenes - Wikipedia
The Cleisthenes (/ˈklaɪsθɪˌniːz/; Greek: Κλεισθένης, Kleisthénēs; also Clisthenes or Kleisthenes) was an ancient Athenian lawgiver credited with reforming the constitution of ancient Athens and setting it on a democratic footing in 508 BC.[1][2] For these accomplishments, historians refer to him as "the father of Athenian democracy."[3] He was a member of the aristocratic Alcmaeonid clan, and the maternal grandson of the tyrant Cleisthenes of Sicyon, as the younger son of the latter's daughter Agariste and her husband Megacles. He was also credited with increasing the power of the Athenian citizens' assembly and for reducing the power of the nobility over Athenian politics.[4]

Again, it is not the early limited democracy of Athens that is important, though it as an important example of early limited democracy. It is the philosophers that originated the concepts of democracy, with greater representation of the people and the limiting the supreme power of the oligarchs.

 

[Augustus]

Again, I seriously question the use of 'liberal?" in the context you use it. There is nothing liberal about the nature of the Rule of the the Roman empires nor the the church, . . . and absolutely nothing related to 'liberal?' democracy. Neither was there any from of 'liberal?' democracy in Greece, nor anywhere else in the ancient world.

The question is the origins of democracy, and Greece is only the beginning of one of sources of origins of democracy and the separation of church and state that was discussed in this thread. Liberalism? is loosely used word here and not meaningful.

3 posts, none of which really have anything to do with the topic. If you don't understand the term liberal democracy, then google it. It is primary school level English. It emerged in post-Enlightenment Europe, and the topic is what were the precursors to the liberal component from the medieval period onwards.

This is why I would like you to make a rational argument as you seem to think that think the Greek philosophers were 'secular' and they had a separation between religion and state.

Liberalism would not have made any conceptual sense in Ancient Greece, even though they had a democracy (which wasn't in any way secular).

Also characterising Enlightenment intellectual movements as 'secular' is also problematic. Some were, but numerous key figures were significantly influenced by their Christian beliefs (including essential figures in the rise of liberalism like Locke).

Even many 'secular' thinkers were characterised by a sort of providential deism that was clearly the heir of Christian Divine Providence.

If it was just Greek philosophy that was needed for liberal democracy, why didn't it emerge in Greece, or Rome, or the Islamic Empires, etc. seeing as they had the exact same sources?

With recourse to the specific philosophers, can you make a rational case for how things such as individualism, equality before the law, natural rights, secularism and the Idea of Progress were copied from the Greeks without any Christian influence?

 

[shunyadragon]

3 posts, none of which really have anything to do with the topic. If you don't understand the term liberal democracy, then google it. It is primary school level English. It emerged in post-Enlightenment Europe, and the topic is what were the precursors to the liberal component from the medieval period onwards.

I realize It is described to begin to 'emerge' in Post Enlightenment Europe as the precursors of liberal democracy. but the precursors did not to the liberal component component did not begin in the monarchies and the the church. As per the definition liberal democracy emerged in the 20th century.

I disagree on how you use it in reference to Medievil Europe. Through our history the churches opposed secularism, separation of church and state, and liberal secular democracy. Over time they were forced to accept it.

The Eduskunta, the parliament of Finland as the Grand Duchy of Finland, had universal suffrage in 1906. Several nations and territories can present arguments for being the first with universal suffrage.
Part of the Politics series
Democracy

Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called Western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Italy, Ireland, the United States). It may have a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, Israel, Ireland, Italy, the United Kingdom), a presidential system (Indonesia, the United States) or a semi-presidential system (France, Romania).

Liberal democracies usually have universal suffrage, granting all adult citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership. However, historically some countries regarded as liberal democracies have had a more limited franchise, and some do not have secret ballots. There may also be qualifications such as voters being required to register before being allowed to vote. The decisions made through elections are made not by all of the citizens but rather by those who are eligible and who choose to participateby voting.

This is why I would like you to make a rational argument as you seem to think that think the Greek philosophers were 'secular' and they had a separation between religion and state.

The rational argument is there in the Greek philosophers of Athens and their writings as referenced.

Liberalism would not have made any conceptual sense in Ancient Greece, even though they had a democracy (which wasn't in any way secular).

There was absolutely nothing in the Monarchies and the church that would be called liberalism in terms of secular democracy as defined above.. We disagree on Greece, and as per references the precursors of liberal democracy are in the teachings of the philosophers.

Also characterising Enlightenment intellectual movements as 'secular' is also problematic. Some were, but numerous key figures were significantly influenced by their Christian beliefs (including essential figures in the rise of liberalism like Locke).

Of course, they were influenced by the church, but the Enlightenment was the result of the secular intellectual movements and not the teachings of the Bible nor the church.

Even many 'secular' thinkers were characterized by a sort of providential deism that was clearly the heir of Christian Divine Providence.

This indicates the strong humanist influence, and the secular intellectual nature of the enlightenment. I do not reject the influence of Christianity in their beliefs and lives, but separation of church and state, and the gradual rise of democracy was forced on the monarchies and has nothing to do with Christianity.

If it was just Greek philosophy that was needed for liberal democracy, why didn't it emerge in Greece, or Rome, or the Islamic Empires, etc. seeing as they had the exact same sources?

It was suppressed by monarchies, and foundation of Divine rule until the monarchies were forced to accept first partnerships with secular governments, and as time passed they lost power to the secular governments.

With recourse to the specific philosophers, can you make a rational case for how things such as individualism, equality before the law, natural rights, secularism and the Idea of Progress were copied from the Greeks without any Christian influence?

there was absolutely no basis of secularism, secular democracy, nor the separation of church and state in any possible influence from Christianity. The concepts of individualism, and the idea of progress were in the writings of the Greek philosophers from Athens.

If anything, any concept of individualism, equality before the law or natural rights was in the church only, and all states and individuals were dependent on the church only. Outside the church there were no rights of the individual.

From: Human Rights: 1215-1500 - Background

Medieval concept of 'human rights'
The concept of 'human rights' in the modern sense was unknown in early medieval England. All men and women were subject to the will of Almighty God and, under Him, to his earthly agents, principally the king and the higher clergy, and could only practice what they wished with the consent or at least the tacit acceptance of the authorities.

I believe William of Ockham is the philosopher that began the movement for secular human rights in Medievil Europe.

 

[Augustus]

I realize It is described to begin to 'emerge' in Post Enlightenment Europe as the precursors of liberal democracy. but the precursors did not to the liberal component component did not begin in the monarchies and the the church.

But you can't actually explain where it did come from other than saying 'the Greeks' even though they were massively illiberal?

The rational argument is there in the Greek philosophers of Athens and their writings as referenced.

No it isn't. They just talk about Athenian democracy, nothing whatsoever to do with liberalism. Athenian democracy was anything but liberal.

There was absolutely nothing in the Monarchies and the church that would be called liberalism in terms of secular democracy as defined above.. We disagree on Greece, and as per references the precursors of liberal democracy are in the teachings of the philosophers.

Can you explain how natural rights were not a step on the road towards liberalism?

It was suppressed by monarchies, and foundation of Divine rule until the monarchies were forced to accept first partnerships with secular governments, and as time passed they lost power to the secular governments.

Doesn't appear to be an answer to: "If it was just Greek philosophy that was needed for liberal democracy, why didn't it emerge in Greece, or Rome, or the Islamic Empires, etc. seeing as they had the exact same sources?"

Of course, they were influenced by the church, but the Enlightenment was the result of the secular intellectual movements and not the teachings of the Bible nor the church.

So are you saying that they were influenced by Christianity? Earlier you denied it had any impact on liberalism.

The following was by John Locke, widely acknowledged as a pivotal figure in the rise of liberalism. Would you say this is best classified as 'secular' :

. . . The Divine Law, whereby I mean, that Law which God has set to the actions of Men, whether promulgated to them by the light of Nature, or the voice of Revelation. That God has given a Rule whereby Men should govern themselves, I think there is no body so brutish as to deny.15 He has a Right to do it, we are his Creatures: He has Goodness and Wisdom to direct our Actions to that which is best: and he has Power to enforce it by Rewards and Punishments, of infinite weight and duration, in another Life: for no body can take us out of his hands. This is the only true touchstone of moral Rectitude; and by comparing them to this Law, it is, that Men judge of the most considerable Moral Good or Evil of their Actions; that is, whether as Duties, or Sins, they are like to procure them happiness, or misery, from the hands of the ALMIGHTY.16

Footnote: 16 Essay, II.xviii.8 (352); it should be noted that the first sentence of this text equates the law of nature discoverable by reason with the divine law revealed to Moses and enjoined by Jesus the Messiah.

Victor Nuovo - John Locke: The Philosopher as Christian Virtuoso

the concepts of individualism, and the idea of progress were in the writings of the Greek philosophers from Athens.

You think the Greeks believed all humans were created equal, and were equal under the law and thus blessed with individual rights?

Perhaps you would care to make a rational argument to support this...

Some Graeco-Roman thinkers had a rudimentary concept of progress, although they also believed in a cyclical rather than progressive view of time. The idea was developed and reified when joined to the Christian teleological view of history, cumulating with the eschaton, whereby humanity drags itself upwards from the Fall as they rediscover lost knowledge. So while there are traces of such a concept in the ancient world, the idea is fully expressed and forms an integral part of Christianity from the early writers onwards.

The Idea of Progress that underpins modern Humanism is quite clearly of the teleological kind. This process of dechristianisation of the theory is clearly present in the Enlightenment philosophers whose worldview was underpinned by a form of providential deism that was ultimately the offshoot Christian Divine Providence. Secular Humanists took it one step further by removing the deity and replacing it with Reason (you could argue they really believe in a form of providential atheism).

If you would like to read the history:

Idea of Progress: A Bibliographical Essay by Robert Nisbet - Online Library of Liberty

 

[shunyadragon]

But you can't actually explain where it did come from other than saying 'the Greeks' even though they were massively illiberal?

I disagree concerning the the writings of the Athenian philosophers.

Christianity was 'massively illeberal' until after the humanist influence beginning in the 1200's.

No it isn't. They just talk about Athenian democracy, nothing whatsoever to do with liberalism. Athenian democracy was anything but liberal.

I never claimed that your misrepresenting me again. . Liberal democracy is a 20th century phenomenun.

There was nothing remotely 'liberal' in Christianity until the late 12th century secular philosophy influence.

Can you explain how natural rights were not a step on the road towards liberalism?

What was described as natural rights are in the church only.

Medieval concept of 'human rights'
The concept of 'human rights' in the modern sense was unknown in early medieval England. All men and women were subject to the will of Almighty God and, under Him, to his earthly agents, principally the king and the higher clergy, and could only practice what they wished with the consent or at least the tacit acceptance of the authorities.

I believe William of Ockham is the philosopher that began the movement for secular human rights in Medievil Europe.

Doesn't appear to be an answer to: "If it was just Greek philosophy that was needed for liberal democracy, why didn't it emerge in Greece, or Rome, or the Islamic Empires, etc. seeing as they had the exact same sources?"

Misrepresenting me again and again. I never said, 'it was just Greek philosophy that was needed for liberal democracy,'

So are you saying that they were influenced by Christianity? Earlier you denied it had any impact on liberalism.

No, the beginnings of secular humanism within the Christian society.

The following was by John Locke, widely acknowledged as a pivotal figure in the rise of liberalism. Would you say this is best classified as 'secular' :

. . . The Divine Law, whereby I mean, that Law which God has set to the actions of Men, whether promulgated to them by the light of Nature, or the voice of Revelation. That God has given a Rule whereby Men should govern themselves, I think there is no body so brutish as to deny.15 He has a Right to do it, we are his Creatures: He has Goodness and Wisdom to direct our Actions to that which is best: and he has Power to enforce it by Rewards and Punishments, of infinite weight and duration, in another Life: for no body can take us out of his hands. This is the only true touchstone of moral Rectitude; and by comparing them to this Law, it is, that Men judge of the most considerable Moral Good or Evil of their Actions; that is, whether as Duties, or Sins, they are like to procure them happiness, or misery, from the hands of the ALMIGHTY.16

Footnote: 16 Essay, II.xviii.8 (352); it should be noted that the first sentence of this text equates the law of nature discoverable by reason with the divine law revealed to Moses and enjoined by Jesus the Messiah.

Victor Nuovo - John Locke: The Philosopher as Christian Virtuoso

I acknowledged this. So what ?!!?!?!?!! The enightenment is the beginning of humanist world view.

You think the Greeks believed all humans were created equal, and were equal under the law and thus blessed with individual rights?

Did not say that. DO NOT misrepresent me.

Perhaps you would care to make a rational argument to support this...

Some Graeco-Roman thinkers had a rudimentary concept of progress, although they also believed in a cyclical rather than progressive view of time. The idea was developed and reified when joined to the Christian teleological view of history, cumulating with the eschaton, whereby humanity drags itself upwards from the Fall as they rediscover lost knowledge. So while there are traces of such a concept in the ancient world, the idea is fully expressed and forms an integral part of Christianity from the early writers onwards.

What you describe above is the Christian view of the advancement of humanity and salvation within the church ONLY as a result of the Original Sin and the 'Fall.' No notion of secular rights nor secular democracy, nor individualism outside the teachings of salvation in the church only.

The Greek philosophers I referenced are not all Graeco-Roman philosophers.

The Idea of Progress that underpins modern Humanism is quite clearly of the teleological kind.

From the humanist perspective and not the Christian Theological perspective.

This process of dechristianisation of the theory is clearly present in the Enlightenment philosophers whose worldview was underpinned by a form of providential deism that was ultimately the offshoot Christian Divine Providence. Secular Humanists took it one step further by removing the deity and replacing it with Reason (you could argue they really believe in a form of providential atheism).

The providential Deism is NOT ultimately the offshoot of Christian Divine Providence, which is grounded in Salvation and natural rights within the church only..

This was a step to Secular humanism and for some providential atheism.

If you would like to read the history:

Idea of Progress: A Bibliographical Essay by Robert Nisbet - Online Library of Liberty

I disagree with this, and it represents a Protestant Christian view.

Medieval concept of 'human rights'
The concept of 'human rights' in the modern sense was unknown in early medieval England. All men and women were subject to the will of Almighty God and, under Him, to his earthly agents, principally the king and the higher clergy, and could only practice what they wished with the consent or at least the tacit acceptance of the authorities.

I believe William of Ockham is the philosopher that began the movement for secular human rights in Medievil Europe.

 

[Augustus]

I disagree concerning the the writings of the Athenian philosophers.

But can't make a rational argument to support your view, correct?

Christianity was 'massively illeberal' until after the humanist influence beginning in the 1200's.

In many cases yes, the whole world was. What you do notice though is the genesis of ideas such as a common humanity, and rights that derive from us all being God's creation.

For example, in the 4th C you get a very early condemnation of slavery on moral grounds by Gregory of Nyssa, based on scriptural exegesis. As God created people free, then anyone who enslaves a person is putting themselves above God.

These are the ideas that developed over time and became influential in the West, for example in the (Quaker/Anglican led) abolitionist movement they used the exact same justification.

Did not say that. DO NOT misrepresent me.

Perhaps you would care to make a rational argument to support this...

The point being if you do believe it, explain, and if you do not believe this then perhaps you might want to make an actual argument about where they did come from, because if it wasn't the Greeks...

The providential Deism is NOT ultimately the offshoot of Christian Divine Providence, which is grounded in Salvation and natural rights within the church only..

This was a step to Secular humanism and for some providential atheism.

It was Christian Divine Providence stripped of Christianity, hence dechristianised. Can you, for example, tell the difference between Adam Smith's Christian Divine Providence, and the providence in providential deism?

I disagree with this, and it represents a Protestant Christian view.

Surprise! Dismissing an academic source chock full of evidence out of hand without any recourse to its actual content.

Given your expertise on the issue, how did the Idea of Progress develop then?

I acknowledged this. So what ?!!?!?!?!! The enightenment is a humanist world view.

Well previously when asked if Christianity played any role in the development of liberalism, you said "none".

Do you agree that Locke was indeed influenced by Christianity, thus so was liberalism. If not, why not?

I believe William of Ockham is the philosopher that began the movement for secular human rights in Medievil Europe

Do you believe that Friar William of Ockham might have been influenced by Christian theology?

 

[FearGod]

Actually,your response justifies the conclusions of my original post. Outdated Sharia Law in various forms does underlie the culture of Islamic nations, and yes foreigners need to comply to Sharia Law in the Islamic culture of most Islamic countries. Arabic remains the required cultural property to fully understand the Quran, Sharia Law, and by the way to be truly Muslim to read the Quran. Cultural dress requirements are required for women in most Islamic countries. Women in most Islamic countries are highly restricted and isolated by Sharia law.

The outlawing of religions like the Baha'i Faith are clearly an example of the failure of Islamic countries to accept the diversity of the modern world.

In Western countries Muslims classically form isolated communities based on their isolated cultural identity and often want to live under their Sharia Law in preference over secular law. I do not buy your line that the Sharia Law is very different from country to country. There is variation, but the bottom line it is based on the Quran and Sharia Law based on the Quran.

Baha'allah who was actually a Muslim has changed the name of the religion to make
a new modern religion named as his own name.

Islam is a word that belongs to no one, it's just the relation between humans and God,
submission willingly and peacefully.

I can see that you hate Islam but that doesn't make you right.

 

[shunyadragon]

But can't make a rational argument to support your view, correct?

No, I have given references concerning the philosophers and you choose to ignore them

In many cases yes, the whole world was. What you do notice though is the genesis of ideas such as a common humanity, and rights that derive from us all being God's creation.

Spoken as a true Theist and not an atheist. Your cover has been blown, and your agenda has been obvious from the beginning, but this sounds like 19th and 20th century Theism in the Baha'i Faith, an not the ancient world views of Judaism, Christianity nor Islam. .

For example, in the 4th C you get a very early condemnation of slavery on moral grounds by Gregory of Nyssa, based on scriptural exegesis. As God created people free, then anyone who enslaves a person is putting themselves above God.

Scriptural exegesis is commonly accepted in Christianity sufficient to end slavery in Christianity until the 19th century.

No, slavery remained widespread in Christianity until the 19th century.

These are the ideas that developed over time and became influential in the West, for example in the (Quaker/Anglican led) abolitionist movement they used the exact same justification.

. . . but again not sufficient to end slavery until the 19th century.

The point being if you do believe it, explain, and if you do not believe this then perhaps you might want to make an actual argument about where they did come from, because if it wasn't the Greeks.

There is absolutely no evidence it came from Christianity, actually not from Islam either.

We disagree concerning the Greeks, and they are not the only source, but the philosophers are good references to the origin of early writings concerning the beginnings of democracy and the separation of powers in government.



It was Christian Divine Providence stripped of Christianity, hence dechristianised. Can you, for example, tell the difference between Adam Smith's Christian Divine Providence, and the providence in providential deism?

One big difference the 'providence in providential deism' evolved secular humanism and 20th century liberal democracy, and separation of church and state Christian Divine Providence did not. The free thinkers of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are witness to evolution.

Surprise! Dismissing an academic source chock full of evidence out of hand without any recourse to its actual content.

Given your expertise on the issue, how did the Idea of Progress develop then?

Humanist intellectual movementa

Well previously when asked if Christianity played any role in the development of liberalism, you said "none".

Do you agree that Locke was indeed influenced by Christianity, thus so was liberalism. If not, why not?

Already gave my reasons.

Do you believe that Friar William of Ockham might have been influenced by Christian theology?

Of course he was, like virtually every one in Europe except the Jews, and Muslims, and As I said before their lives were influenced by Christianity, but the humanist intellectual movements. and Greek philosophy were the influence of the philosophy that led to the separation of church and state, secular government, and the beginnings of democracy.

Medieval concept of 'human rights'
The concept of 'human rights' in the modern sense was unknown in early medieval England. All men and women were subject to the will of Almighty God and, under Him, to his earthly agents, principally the king and the higher clergy, and could only practice what they wished with the consent or at least the tacit acceptance of the authorities.

Again, again and again 'liberal democracy' is a 20th century thing, high school vocabulary.

 

[shunyadragon]

Baha'allah who was actually a Muslim has changed the name of the religion to make a new modern religion named as his own name.

So did Jesus Christ a Jew.

Islam is a word that belongs to no one, it's just the relation between humans and God,
submission willingly and peacefully.

Of course, Islam is a word that belongs to no one, It is the name of a religion founded by Mohammad and based on the Guran

I can see that you hate Islam but that doesn't make you right.

I do not hate Islam, and you do not own the word. Neither your belief, nor mine, nor anyone else's make anything 'right.' We are all fallible humans.

 

[Augustus]

Spoken as a true Theist and not an atheist. Your cover has been blown, and your agenda has been obvious from the beginning,

Cover blown! Bold and underline! Stunning work Poirot! How old are you, mon enfant?

"Spoken as a true theist", yes of course, that is because I was outlining a certain strand of Christian though. Elementary my dear Watson.

There's been a load of high quality, scholarly information presented in this thread, and if you weren't so obsessed with identifying agendas you could have gained a decent understanding on an interesting topic you know little about. Instead you have assumed that anybody who disagrees with you, poster or renowned scholar alike, could only think as they do due to a nefarious agenda.

No, I have given references concerning the philosophers and you choose to ignore them

I chose to ignore them as they were references to 2 Athenian statesman who were influential regarding the founding of Athenian democracy. Unfortunately, Athenian democracy basically had nothing in common with post-Enlightenment Western democracy as has been repeatedly explained to you.

To say that people who contributed to the founding a elitist, slave-based, religious political system based on fundamental inequalities and where the good of the Polis trumped any concept of individual rights, were in fact key figures in the rise of political liberalism doesn't actually make a great deal of sense.

If you wanted to make an actual argument from the Greeks you could at least focus on some specific thoughts of Epicurians and Stoics, rather than politicians from the pre-Socratic era. It would still be a weak argument, but at least it wouldn't be flat-earth wrong.

Greek democracy had an impact on the democracy part, do you have any rational arguments about the liberal part?

We disagree concerning the Greeks, and they are not the only source, but the philosophers are good references to the origin of early writings concerning the beginnings of democracy and the separation of powers in government.

So why was Socrates sentenced to death for blasphemy by the 'secular' government? Can you explain why the Athenian system was 'secular'? You've been asked many times, but no response.

Humanist intellectual movementa

Like the ones who specifically acknowledged the Christian legacy of the idea as previously quoted?

One big difference the 'providence in providential deism' evolved secular humanism and 20th century liberal democracy, and separation of church and state Christian Divine Providence did not. The free thinkers of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are witness to evolution.

Thomas Jefferson identified his 3 biggest influences as Bacon, Newton and Locke, all of whom were significantly influenced by Christianity and acknowledged it in their own writings. Jefferson created a Bible were he removed all of the stuff he didn't like and kept the rest.

Jefferson was most comfortable with Deism, rational religion, and Unitarianism.[3] He was sympathetic to and in general agreement with the moral precepts of Christianity.[4] He considered the teachings of Jesus as having "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man,"[5] yet he held that the pure teachings of Jesus appeared to have been appropriated by some of Jesus' early followers, resulting in a Bible that contained both "diamonds" of wisdom and the "dung" of ancient political agendas.[6]

Jefferson held that "acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence" (as in his First Inaugural Address[7]) was important and in his second inaugural address, expressed the need to gain "the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old"

You seriously believe his providential deism arose without any influence from Christianity?

Again, again and again 'liberal democracy' is a 20th century thing, high school vocabulary.

Liberal democracy is liberalism + democracy, hence the history of liberalism is critical to the history of liberal democracy. It's not complicated.

Of course he was, like virtually every one in Europe except the Jews, and Muslims, and As I said before their lives were influenced by Christianity, but the humanist intellectual movements. and Greek philosophy were the influence of the philosophy that led to the separation of church and state, secular government, and the beginnings of democracy.

But you agree it was influential in the long term development of liberalism via people like Ockham and Locke who you accept were influenced significantly by Christianity in their moral and political philosophy? If not, why not?

 

[shunyadragon]

Cover blown! Bold and underline! Stunning work Poirot! How old are you, mon enfant?

"Spoken as a true theist", yes of course, that is because I was outlining a certain strand of Christian though. Elementary my dear Watson.

You made specific first person statements that indicate you are a Christian or some kind of theist. For example:

In many cases yes, the whole world was. What you do notice though is the genesis of ideas such as a common humanity, and rights that derive from us all being God's creation.

 

[Augustus]

You made specific first person statements that indicate you are a Christian or some kind of theist. For example:

Jesus wept this would be pathetic from a 10 year old. Aren't you about 70?

That is what they thought. It was their specific reasoning. That is what they believed the rights derived from. In the English language you can refer to other people's thoughts without them applying to you, you know.

Do you think I've been hiding undercover on RF for 4 years carrying out some secretive theist mission to subvert the truth by posting peer-reviewed scholarship which reflects the view of a majority of academic historians on threads read by about 4 people?

That was until the mighty and intrepid @shunyadragon solved the sphinxian riddle and defeated the nefarious Augustus' agenda with his shield of justice and sword of truth!

And I would have got away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids! *shakes fist*

Other than being vapid and childish, it's also irrelevant as points stand on their own merits anyway.

So, any reasoned, evidence based answers to the actual questions rather than infantile fantasies? Or just your preferred tactic of ad hominem because you can't actually make a rational case to support your arguments?

Can we agree that:

1.Christians like Locke and Ockham were important in the rise of liberalism
2. It doesn't make much sense to argue that 2 pre-Socratic politicians who contributed to the founding a elitist, slave-based, religious political system based on fundamental inequalities and where the good of the Polis trumped any concept of individual rights, were in fact key figures in the rise of political liberalism
3. It is wrong to consider Athenian democracy secular
4. Jefferson's providential deistic beliefs were clearly influenced by Christianity

I'm going to guess *no reasoned, evidence based answers* Would love to be proved wrong though, hope springs eternal.

 

[james blunt]

The leader of the village watched over Islam like a shepherd watches over the flock

It is not that I am , can't relate to ''you''

It is I am at peace and don't want to do the things you do

So be it if you want to drink and be merry with many women

That is your choice and i'll accept that to be

as for relate , you're not my cup of tea

 

[shunyadragon]

Can we agree that:

1.Christians like Locke and Ockham were important in the rise of liberalism

Yes, but not based on their religious belief in Christianity.

2. It doesn't make much sense to argue that 2 pre-Socratic politicians who contributed to the founding a elitist, slave-based, religious political system based on fundamental inequalities and where the good of the Polis trumped any concept of individual rights, were in fact key figures in the rise of political liberalism.

The philosophers I referenced did not contribute to the elitist, slave based religious political system based on fundamental inequalities that were the standard of the Christian and Islamic world also.. That was the reality of the whole world. I never stated that the government itself was a 'liberal' democracy for which there is no beginnings until after the 1200's

3. It is wrong to consider Athenian democracy secular

Never claimed that, and for that matter you commonly misrepresent my view including the reality of the Queen of the British Commonwealth.

The democracy of Athens was the beginning with the reduction of the absolute authority of the oligarchy, and the beginning of separation of powers within the state,

4. Jefferson's providential deistic beliefs were clearly influenced by Christianity

No, his editing of the Bible, and his views were distinctly humanist. You have to remember that at the time it was punishable by imprisonment to be an atheist or agnostic. His view of Jesus Christ was humanist.

I'm going to guess *no reasoned, evidence based answers* Would love to be proved wrong though, hope springs eternal.

Your view, the interpretation of your references, and your misrepresentation of my views is tantamount to shotgun guessing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Jesus wept this would be pathetic from a 10 year old. Aren't you about 70?

Very christian of you.

That is what they thought. It was their specific reasoning. That is what they believed the rights derived from. In the English language you can refer to other people's thoughts without them applying to you, you know.

Your citation was 'first person, and actually negates the secular.'