Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures

[shunyadragon]

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

Very egocentric of you.

 

[Augustus]

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

So you believe the following should be considered 'not influenced by religious belief in Christianity'? Should we consider him a liar?

. . . 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

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.

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"

Where do you think he got the concept of Divine Providence from? Do you consider this reflects the view of someone 'not influenced by Christianity'?

Also given his 3 biggest influences Bacon, Locke and Newton were influenced by Christianity, doesn't this necessitate him being influenced by Christianity, even if indirectly?

 

[shunyadragon]

So you believe the following should be considered 'not influenced by religious belief in Christianity'? Should we consider him a liar?

. . . 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.

Your selectively referencing Jefferson. His belief in Divine Law was Naturalist Humanist Deist view if you put this in context of ALL his writings including his editing of the Bible from a humanist perspective of Jesus.

Victor Nuovo - John Locke: The Philosopher as Christian Virtuoso



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"

Where do you think he got the concept of Divine Providence from? Do you consider this reflects the view of someone 'not influenced by Christianity'?

Also given his 3 biggest influences Bacon, Locke and Newton were influenced by Christianity, doesn't this necessitate him being influenced by Christianity, even if indirectly?

Yes Divine Providence is the is the Christian view of the world, which influenced their lives, So what?!?!!?!?!?!

Indirectly does not get you the brass ring. I acknowledged that the whole world they were in was Christian and yes influenced their lived. As far as their 'philosophy contributing to the separation of church and state, secular philosophy, and the beginnings of democracy they were NOT the Christian view of a secular world. In fact these view were in contradiction of 1200 years+ of Christianity in the view of absolute Divine rule. The description of two 'worlds' oft cited does describe a material world ruled by Absolute Divine rule and the result of Divine Natural Law.

He also had to relate to his audience, Christian colonies, and cover his *** so he would not be put in prison for not being a Christian theist.

 

[james blunt]

Very egocentric of you.

The words of story that have a meaning are not self centered

My words are directed isotropically

The point of the story is that if Islam does not want to relate to other cultures , that is their choice .

However ! Islam must also accept that whatever other cultures do, it is their choice .

It is highly logical and the ''ask'' is no big deal .

I am Alice looking through the looking glass , Alice is highly logical , rational and objective !

 

[shunyadragon]

The words of story that have a meaning are not self centered

My words are directed isotropically

The point of the story is that if Islam does not want to relate to other cultures , that is their choice .

That is, of course, the prevalent view and yes it is a very egocentric tribal view of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, based on ancient world views that you acknowledge do not relate positively to the diversity of cultures and beliefs of the world. In fact it increases the cultural isolation and violence between religions and between the sects within religions.

 

[Augustus]

Your selectively referencing Jefferson. His belief in Divine Law was Naturalist Humanist Deist view if you put this in context of ALL his writings including his editing of the Bible from a humanist perspective of Jesus.
Victor Nuovo - John Locke: The Philosopher as Christian Virtuoso

That was John Locke, not Jefferson.

Do you believe the following should be considered 'not influenced by religious belief in Christianity'? Should we consider him a liar?

. . . 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

 

[shunyadragon]

That was John Locke, not Jefferson.

Do you believe the following should be considered 'not influenced by religious belief in Christianity'? Should we consider him a liar?

. . . 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 already explained my view on this. In the beginnings it was believed tha men governed thamselves under the Divine rule of God. Humanism, separation of church and state, and democracy did not suddenly appear they evolved from the influence of humanist intellectual movements, secular traditions in Anglo-Norman culture, secular law sources like Roman Law, and Greek philosophy.

 

[Augustus]

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,

Other than being some form of democracy, what was its influence on liberalism in your opinion?

I already explained my view on this.

It didn't appear to make much sense. You seemed to acknowledge that it was related to Christianity, but that somehow that this didn't constitute a link between Locke's Christianity and his liberalism, even though he was specifically making that link in his own words in the quote.

Could you clarify?

Your selectively referencing Jefferson. His belief in Divine Law was Naturalist Humanist Deist view if you put this in context of ALL his writings including his editing of the Bible from a humanist perspective of Jesus.

And humanism was a movement that developed out of a combination of Greek philosophy and Christian theology and morality. Some humanists abandoned the more supernatural aspects of Christianity, and retained providential and moralistic components.

This is why there is very little difference in the views of Christians like Locke and Adam Smith and deists like Jefferson.

Indirectly does not get you the brass ring. I acknowledged that the whole world they were in was Christian and yes influenced their lived. As far as their 'philosophy contributing to the separation of church and state, secular philosophy, and the beginnings of democracy they were NOT the Christian view of a secular world. In fact these view were in contradiction of 1200 years+ of Christianity in the view of absolute Divine rule. The description of two 'worlds' oft cited does describe a material world ruled by Absolute Divine rule and the result of Divine Natural Law.

Most modern humanists have never so much as looked at any Greek philosophy, yet it is clear that Greek philosophy was one of the influences on humanism. Why wouldn't indirect influence be relevant to the question of what were the influences?

You are influenced by Newton's ideas yet you probably haven't read any of his works (if you have replace newton with Bacon, Locke, or another great thinker etc.)

I acknowledged that the whole world they were in was Christian and yes influenced their lived. As far as their 'philosophy contributing to the separation of church and state, secular philosophy, and the beginnings of democracy they were NOT the Christian view of a secular world. In fact these view were in contradiction of 1200 years+ of Christianity in the view of absolute Divine rule. The description of two 'worlds' oft cited does describe a material world ruled by Absolute Divine rule and the result of Divine Natural Law.

Well we've seen how the Pope and Emperor's powers were divided in the 12th/13th C in an unprecedented manner.

It should also be noted that in this period 'Divine right' was a justification for allowing separate realms for the Church and Moranrch/state, by grace of God both ruled over separate realms thus the king shouldn't interfere with the Church and vice versa.

Medieval monarchs, such as in the HRE, generally ruled through their approval by feudal lords. They were 'elected' in a sense.

For example:

For his skill and bravery in resisting the attacks of Vikings at the Siege of Paris (885-886), Odo was chosen by the western Frankish nobles to be their king following the overthrow of Emperor Charles the Fat. He was crowned at Compiègne in February 888 by Walter, Archbishop of Sens.[6]

This became more formalised in the 13th C Imperial election - Wikipedia.

In the 14th C, you get works like the Defensor pacis by the Christian Aristotelian Marsillius of Padua:

Defensor pacis extends the tradition of Dante's De Monarchia separating the secular State from religious authority. It affirmed the sovereignty of the people and civil law and sought to greatly limit the power of the Papacy, which he viewed as the "cause of the trouble which prevails among men" and which he characterized as a "fictitious" power. He proposed the seizure of church property by civil authority and the elimination of tithes. In his view, the Papacy would retain only an honorary pre-eminence without any authority to interpret the scriptures or define dogma.

As its name implies, it describes the State as the defender of the public peace, which is the most indispensable benefit of human society. The author of the law expresses will of the people, not of the whole populace, but of the most important part (valentior) of the citizens; these people should themselves elect, or at least appoint, the head of the government, who, lest he should be tempted to put himself above the scope of the laws, should have at his disposal only a limited armed force. This chief is responsible to the people for his breaches of the law, and in serious cases they can sentence him to death. The real cause of the trouble which prevails among men is the Papacy, the development of which is the result of a series of usurpations.[1]

Marsilius denies, not only to the pope, but to the bishops and clergy, any coercive jurisdiction or any right to pronounce in temporal matters.

A podcast if you are interested: HoP 270 - Render unto Caesar - Marsilius of Padua

Despite all these Christian influences, there was no Christian influence?

 

[shunyadragon]

Other than being some form of democracy, what was its influence on liberalism in your opinion?

The actual government, probably not much. It is the writings of the philosophers that had the influence.

It didn't appear to make much sense. You seemed to acknowledge that it was related to Christianity, but that somehow that this didn't constitute a link between Locke's Christianity and his liberalism, even though he was specifically making that link in his own words in the quote.

Could you clarify?

No I did not acknowledge that it was related to Christianity. Locke's Christianity is not related to his emerging philosophy concerning humanism, and emerging secular influence. I only acknowledged he was Christian, personally influenced by Christianity, like everyone else, except Jews and Muslims.

And humanism was a movement that developed out of a combination of Greek philosophy and Christian theology and morality. Some humanists abandoned the more supernatural aspects of Christianity, and retained providential and moralistic components.

Not Christian theology, which was in conflict, and contradiction with the evolution of secular humanism.

This is why there is very little difference in the views of Christians like Locke and Adam Smith and deists like Jefferson.

No

Most modern humanists have never so much as looked at any Greek philosophy, yet it is clear that Greek philosophy was one of the influences on humanism. Why wouldn't indirect influence be relevant to the question of what were the influences?

Modern humanists are not the subject here.

You are influenced by Newton's ideas yet you probably haven't read any of his works (if you have replace newton with Bacon, Locke, or another great thinker etc.)

I have read Newton;s works. His science has nothing to with Christian theology. It is science.

Well we've seen how the Pope and Emperor's powers were divided in the 12th/13th C in an unprecedented manner.

Not meaningful, there was nothing secular about this division. It remained Divine rule in all cases.

It should also be noted that in this period 'Divine right' was a justification for allowing separate realms for the Church and Moranrch/state, by grace of God both ruled over separate realms thus the king shouldn't interfere with the Church and vice versa.

Not meaningful, there was nothing secular about this division. It remained Divine rule in all cases.

Medieval monarchs, such as in the HRE, generally ruled through their approval by feudal lords. They were 'elected' in a sense.

I great stretch of the imagination, and not meaningful.

For example:

For his skill and bravery in resisting the attacks of Vikings at the Siege of Paris (885-886), Odo was chosen by the western Frankish nobles to be their king following the overthrow of Emperor Charles the Fat. He was crowned at Compiègne in February 888 by Walter, Archbishop of Sens.[6]

This became more formalised in the 13th C Imperial election - Wikipedia.[/quote]

This was after 1200 and in the period of the rise of secular influence.

In the 14th C, you get works like the Defensor pacis by the Christian Aristotelian Marsillius of Padua:

Defensor pacis extends the tradition of Dante's De Monarchia separating the secular State from religious authority. It affirmed the sovereignty of the people and civil law and sought to greatly limit the power of the Papacy, which he viewed as the "cause of the trouble which prevails among men" and which he characterized as a "fictitious" power. He proposed the seizure of church property by civil authority and the elimination of tithes. In his view, the Papacy would retain only an honorary pre-eminence without any authority to interpret the scriptures or define dogma.

As its name implies, it describes the State as the defender of the public peace, which is the most indispensable benefit of human society. The author of the law expresses will of the people, not of the whole populace, but of the most important part (valentior) of the citizens; these people should themselves elect, or at least appoint, the head of the government, who, lest he should be tempted to put himself above the scope of the laws, should have at his disposal only a limited armed force. This chief is responsible to the people for his breaches of the law, and in serious cases they can sentence him to death. The real cause of the trouble which prevails among men is the Papacy, the development of which is the result of a series of usurpations.[1]

Marsilius denies, not only to the pope, but to the bishops and clergy, any coercive jurisdiction or any right to pronounce in temporal matters.

A podcast if you are interested: HoP 270 - Render unto Caesar - Marsilius of Padua

Despite all these Christian influences, there was no Christian influence?

No Christian influence in the rise of secular influence you gave, and in fact in conflict and contradiction of the rise of humanist secular influence. before 1200 it remained Divine Right to rule in all affairs.

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.

 

[9-18-1]

I understand this perspective, but I do not consider it idolatry. It reflects is the extreme patriarchal tribal nature of the older Abrahamic religions; Judaism. Christianity and Islam that is the setting and context of the Religion of the time. It is a considerable.part of the reason why they are no longer relevant to the contemporary world and out of context of time and place of today's world.

One would have to boil down to the true meaning/nature of what "idol worship" is which, unfortunately, we will get no real help from the Abrahamic religions because they actively employ it and replace its meaning with something profoundly mundane such as physical objects / statues.

If we start with the general notion of "attachment", we find it can occur in three primary ways: of a psychological nature, of an emotional nature, and/or of an habitual nature. All three are often related: if one psychologically imagines a (long dead) central figure such as Muhammad and assumes/accepts that the qualities and/or characteristics that are espoused to him are "true", this image is what demands an emotional attachment(s) which subsequently renders an aspiration(s) to "be like" that image. Interestingly we find one of the ten commandments:

Exodus 20:4
לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה אשר בשמים ממעל ואשר בארץ מתחת ואשר במים מתחת לארץ
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."

Which is precisely what Christianity/Islam does (if even granting for the sake of argument Moses was a prophet): central figures (patriarch) are developed by an empire(s) and given to the masses that their example should serve as a role-model. The idol/image (heavens; psychology) is given wherethrough an attachment(s) is generated (earth; emotion) and a likeness is emulated (waters; behavior).

If it is true that Moses was/is an idol based on the historical Akhenaten (son of Amenhotep III) and wasn't even a Hebrew, we find the 'idol worship' which underpins the entirety of Abrahamic worship as having originated in/with Judaism by constructing an (Jewish) idol based on a non-Jewish ruler who, incidentally, attempted to abolish all existing Egyptian gods/deities and install Aten as the sole and supreme god.

This would explain precisely the basis of Muhammad: it is a repeat of what happened in/to Egypt wherein an attempt is made to eradicate all other forms of worship to be consolidated under one god. In the case of Akhenaten, it was Aten. In the case of "Moses"' Judaism it is YHVH. In the case of Christianity it is Jesus. In the case of Islam it is Muhammad's Allah.

All of this patriarchy can be traced back to Canaanite tribalism as you pointed out - and I personally render it all idol worship for that is precisely what it is if it is true that Moses (Akhenaten) was not even a Jew.

 

[Augustus]

The actual government, probably not much. It is the writings of the philosophers that had the influence.

In which case I'm sure you'll be willing to give some examples...

*cue excuses, ignoring the question or off topic reply*

No I did not acknowledge that it was related to Christianity.

Can you actually provide some justification for why the following should not be viewed as 'related to Christianity', or alternatively not related to liberalism, as one or the other must apply? [Background: this contrasts with Hobbes' Leviathan, whereby humans need a monarch to rule them as they are too quarrelsome to rule themselves. Locke cites Divine Providence as why democracy can work]

. . . 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[/QUOTE]

I have read Newton;s works. His science has nothing to with Christian theology. It is science.

Science didn't exist then, Newton was a natural philosopher, and his Christianity certainly influenced his philosophy, as he himself acknowledged, both in terms of how he viewed the universe and his motivations for understanding it.

Again, you choose to disregard what philosophers said in their own words, in favour of what your ideology merits

Not Christian theology, which was in conflict, and contradiction with the evolution of secular humanism.

Where do you think the universalism, equality, progressive teleology, optimistic (non-tragic) nature of humanism came from? Absent from Greek philosophy, yet present in Christianity. Strange that. Any ideas where these came from?

Not meaningful, there was nothing secular about this division. It remained Divine rule in all cases.

So let's say the church and state had formalised a degree of separation where instead of a combined authority, the Church had authority over the spiritual and the state over the temporal (as happened in the 12th/13thC).

If the king didn't claim 'divine right', but simply said "I'm king because I've got the biggest army", would you see this as separation of church and state?

No Christian influence in the rise of secular influence you gave,

Interesting that you can be introduced to someone you've never heard of and instantly judge what they were or were not influenced by without any familiarity with their ideas.

This was after 1200 and in the period of the rise of secular influence.

Then by all means identify some of these influences just as others have provided evidence for a degree of Christian influence.

 

[shunyadragon]

In which case I'm sure you'll be willing to give some examples...

*cue excuses, ignoring the question or off topic reply*



Can you actually provide some justification for why the following should not be viewed as 'related to Christianity', or alternatively not related to liberalism, as one or the other must apply? [Background: this contrasts with Hobbes' Leviathan, whereby humans need a monarch to rule them as they are too quarrelsome to rule themselves. Locke cites Divine Providence as why democracy can work

. . . 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

Repetition does not help your argument

Science didn't exist then, Newton was a natural philosopher, and his Christianity certainly influenced his philosophy, as he himself acknowledged, both in terms of how he viewed the universe and his motivations for understanding it.

Again, you choose to disregard what philosophers said in their own words, in favour of what your ideology merits

,

Yes Newton was a Christian, and his science was simply science as he used scientific methods,, and had absolutely nothing to do with the separation of church and state, nor seculae rule, which Newton did not believe.

Your citation from Newton confirms this Christian Divine authority is God only and Divine right of rule as Newton believed.and not philosophy by humans.

Where do you think the universalism, equality, progressive teleology, optimistic (non-tragic) nature of humanism came from? Absent from Greek philosophy, yet present in Christianity. Strange that. Any ideas where these came from?

All these concepts in Christianity, ie the Bible, refer ONLY to the spiritual relationship between humanity and God through the Divine Right of rule of the church.

So let's say the church and state had formalised a degree of separation where instead of a combined authority, the Church had authority over the spiritual and the state over the temporal (as happened in the 12th/13thC).

The formalized separation and combined authority came much later.

If the king didn't claim 'divine right', but simply said "I'm king because I've got the biggest army", would you see this as separation of church and state?

The kings and emperors did not claim this, and it is only human conjecture on your part



Interesting that you can be introduced to someone you've never heard of and instantly judge what they were or were not influenced by without any familiarity with their ideas.



Then by all means identify some of these influences just as others have provided evidence for a degree of Christian influence.[/QUOTE]

I have already responded to all of this and you are simply repeating every thing and you interpretations. ALL the factors you cite are characteristics of the belief that these are within the Christian context ONLY. Christian belief from the Bible describing and beliefs like equality n rule by men, and apply ONLY to the context of the Divine Right to rule, whether church, emperor or king. I gave the secular sources and factors of European cultures that lead to secular and humanist intellectual movements and separation of church and state opposed by the church and rulers that eventually led them to be forced to change and eventually forced out of power.


No need to repeat anything.

 

[Augustus]

I have already responded to all of this

There is a difference between a response, and actually addressing the point in a logical and reasoned manner, but that will never actually happen.

A summary of your responses:

A:Here is the specific separation of church and state powers, evidenced and supported by multiple academic sources.
SD: That separation of church and state powers can't be considered a stepping stone towards the separation of church and state power.

A: Here is John Locke in his own words very clearly and unambiguously identifying a Christian theological origin for his liberalism.
SD: That doesn't count. His liberalism wasn't influenced by Christianity even if he said so himself.

A: Here is Isaac Newton in his own words very clearly and unambiguously identifying a Christian theological dimension to his natural philosophy.
SD: That doesn't count. His natural philosophy wasn't influenced by Christianity even if he said so himself.

A: Here is Thomas Jefferson in his own words very clearly and unambiguously identifying a Christian moral and providential dimension to his philosophy.
SD: That doesn't count. His philosophy wasn't influenced by Christianity even if he said so himself.

A: Here are numerous concepts that were necessary precursors to liberalism that weren't present in Greek philosophy.
SD: Doesn't matter. Liberalism came from Greek philosophy.
A: Can you give any examples?
SD: No. No I can not. But only because I don't want to. If I wanted to I could do that till the cows come home. Trust me.

A: Can you give any specific examples of Greek influence on liberalism, any at all?
SD: Yes, but I won't. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

A: The modern Idea of Progress was rooted in Christianity. Here are numerous scholarly sources to support it.
SD: It came from the Greeks. Your scholarly sources including peer-reviewed academic journals are biased Christian apologetics.

A: Here are secular enlightenment philosophers acknowledging the influence of Christianity on the IoP.
SD: That doesn't count. Their philosophy wasn't influenced by Christianity even if they said so themselves.

SD: There is no evidence that the Byzantine Greeks had Greek philosophy until they got it from the Arabs.
A: Here is lots and lots of evidence that the (Byzantine) Greeks had Greek philosophy (which isn't much of a surprise).
SD: I never said there was no evidence
A: *Quotes SD saying exactly that*
SD: that doesn't count.
A: So you agree there is evidence then?
SD: No. No I do not.

SD: You are a secret undercover Christian and I have unmasked you!
A:


@Vouthon: Here are 9 million meticulously referenced peer-reviewed scholarly sources that integrate primary sources with academic insight and detail the numerous influences of Christianity on liberalism. Some also refute the points you just made and demonstrate them to be clearly false.
SD: Those meticulously referenced peer-reviewed scholarly sources that integrate primary sources with academic insight are all biased Christian apologetics.
V: Can you explain why?
SD: No. No I can not. But only because I don't want to. If I wanted to I could do that bigly. Trust me. No one could refute those sources better than me.

I gave the secular sources and factors of European cultures that lead to secular and humanist intellectual movements

I really, really wish you had done this, but alas you didn't. You mentioned the Magna Carta, and a couple of pre-Socratic politicians. Other than that you pretty much just said everything came from the Greeks and refused to support this with any evidence.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion it was entertaining, but alas the time has come to move on to pastures new.

(pastures... sheep... the good shepherd... Jesus... )

 

[shunyadragon]

There is a difference between a response, and actually addressing the point in a logical and reasoned manner, but that will never actually happen.

A summary of your responses:

A:Here is the specific separation of church and state powers, evidenced and supported by multiple academic sources.
SD: That separation of church and state powers can't be considered a stepping stone towards the separation of church and state power.

You have on;y presented examples of separation between the church and Kings, and emperors and other rulers, in the history we have discussed, that ALL believe in Divine Right of rule of religion, and not a separate church and secular rule. NONE

A: Here is John Locke in his own words very clearly and unambiguously identifying a Christian theological origin for his liberalism.
SD: That doesn't count. His liberalism wasn't influenced by Christianity even if he said so himself.

He made the claim to make it acceptable for his audience and to himself. to justify his view. IF anything this part of the evolution of Theism to Deism in the influence of the humanism of humanist secular influence.

A: Here is Isaac Newton in his own words very clearly and unambiguously identifying a Christian theological dimension to his natural philosophy.
SD: That doesn't count. His natural philosophy wasn't influenced by Christianity even if he said so himself.

Newtons Naturalist Philosophy was Christian Theist Naturalist philosophy. Newton's science is science and has nothing to with the separation of church and state, democracy, nor secular humanism.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica[/I]]
When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it useful for that purpose.

A: Here is Thomas Jefferson in his own words very clearly and unambiguously identifying a Christian moral and providential dimension to his philosophy.
SD: That doesn't count. His philosophy wasn't influenced by Christianity even if he said so himself.

Already addressed this. Thomas Jefferson's providential dimension was Deist and Humanist as was his editing of the Bible from a Deist Humanist perspective. Considering his audience, and the fact that any other belief other than Christian and Jewish theism was subject to imprisonment. This was a distinct problem for all the philosophers since the 1200's that advocated increased secular humanist influence.

A: Here are numerous concepts that were necessary precursors to liberalism that weren't present in Greek philosophy.
.
A: Can you give any examples?

Your misquoting me horrendously and that is unethical.

The rise of education outside the church and monarchies, secular influence from non-Christian Rome heritage such as Roman Law heritage, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic secular traditions of local tribal rule.

Secular
A: Can you give any specific examples of Greek influence on liberalism, any at all?
SD: Yes, but I won't. I'm not going to do your homework for you. [/quote]

Actually true you have not read nor address the contribution of the Athenian philosophers. All you do is demand me to spoon fed you.

A: The modern Idea of Progress was rooted in Christianity. Here are numerous scholarly sources to support it.

Actually no, all the reference citing the Bible are in the context of Theist Christian beliefs in the context of salvation, such as equality among Christians. Before the 1200's all such considerations were within Christianity ONLY.

A: Here are secular enlightenment philosophers acknowledging the influence of Christianity on the IoP.

Already addressed this you are repeating yourself. They of course are Christians, and live within a Christian society, and addressing their audience, justifying their, minimalizing the secular influence, and influenced by the evolving secular intellectual sources. It is apart of the evolving emerging secular humanism influence.

Again . . . the Queen of England has no governance authority, and 'Liberal Democracy' is a 20th century thing. High school vocabulary.

 

[Augustus]

and 'Liberal Democracy' is a 20th century thing. High school vocabulary.

After so many posts you still don't understand that the topic under discussion was the roots and evolution of political liberalism in Western Europe over many centuries?

No wonder the rest was a little difficult for you...

Again . . . the Queen of England has no governance authority

Seeing as you keep harping on about this, I'll make the effort to explain how you missed the point.

Governmental and legislative power in the UK nominally derives from the Crown, not the people. For example, prosecutions are "the crown versus AN Other", rather than "the people versus John Doe".

The Queen is also head of the Church of England, and Bishops are, nominally, appointed by the Queen. De facto, the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by the government, so the leader of the Church is chosen by the government via the Queen (true separation of Church and State?).

She is officially styled: Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

Motto: God and my right

These have remained unchanged since the 17th C, an era of Divine right.

You were arguing that the actual, real world, objective separation of Church and State power shouldn't in any way be considered the separation of church and state power based on a technicality of where the Monarch's power nominally came from. De facto, this was obviously not the source of his power though, just as in the UK, de facto, power comes from the consent of the governed.

The Queen's power still nominally comes from God though. So it is inconsistent for you to argue that Magna Carta be considered an obvious stepping stone between Church and State when 800 years later the Queen's power still nominally comes from God and she is still nominally the head of the Church, and also argue the separation of church and state in the HRE (where the king was not the head of the church) was certainly not a stepping stone towards separation of church and state because the King's power nominally came from God.

Newtons Naturalist Philosophy was Christian Theist Naturalist philosophy. Newton's science is science

Seeing as Newton was a natural philosopher, not a scientist, as science in the modern sense didn't actually exist at this point, seems you must agree with me that his works were influenced by Christianity. All his 'scientific' works were natural philosophy

Natural philosophy, unlike modern science, did not separate science from philosophy or theology, and all of Newton's work was thus underpinned by his theological worldview. The vast majority of contemporary scholars of the history of science acknowledge that Christianity, to some degree, played a positive role in the development of modern science in Europe.

No doubt they are all biased Christian apologists though. Correct?

 

[shunyadragon]

After so many posts you still don't understand that the topic under discussion was the roots and evolution of political liberalism in Western Europe over many centuries?

No wonder the rest was a little difficult for you...

After so many posts you still don't understand that the topic under discussion was the roots and evolution of political liberalism in Western Europe over many centuries?

No wonder the rest was a little difficult for you..

The roots are the evolution of secular intellectual movements, and other changes as noted, such as the increased education outside the church and the royalty

Seeing as you keep harping on about this, I'll make the effort to explain how you missed the point.

Yes, because your view of the Queen as a significant power of any sort is based on some sort of delusions of the monarchies rule of the distant pass, when Divine Right actually ruled Europe, with no secular government..

Governmental and legislative power in the UK nominally derives from the Crown, not the people. For example, prosecutions are "the crown versus AN Other", rather than "the people versus John Doe".

The Queen is also head of the Church of England, and Bishops are, nominally, appointed by the Queen. De facto, the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by the government, so the leader of the Church is chosen by the government via the Queen (true separation of Church and State?).

She is officially styled: Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

Motto: God and my right

These have remained unchanged since the 17th C, an era of Divine right.

You were arguing that the actual, real world, objective separation of Church and State power shouldn't in any way be considered the separation of church and state power based on a technicality of where the Monarch's power nominally came from. De facto, this was obviously not the source of his power though, just as in the UK, de facto, power comes from the consent of the governed.

The Queen's power still nominally comes from God though. So it is inconsistent for you to argue that Magna Carta be considered an obvious stepping stone between Church and State when 800 years later the Queen's power still nominally comes from God and she is still nominally the head of the Church, and also argue the separation of church and state in the HRE (where the king was not the head of the church) was certainly not a stepping stone towards separation of church and state because the King's power nominally came from God.

Nominal authority is in reality none concerning the monarch today, a figure head monarch, and a relic of a past archaic Christian paradigm.

Seeing as Newton was a natural philosopher, not a scientist, as science in the modern sense didn't actually exist at this point, seems you must agree with me that his works were influenced by Christianity. All his 'scientific' works were natural philosophy

Natural philosophy, unlike modern science, did not separate science from philosophy or theology, and all of Newton's work was thus underpinned by his theological worldview. The vast majority of contemporary scholars of the history of science acknowledge that Christianity, to some degree, played a positive role in the development of modern science in Europe.

No, Newton's work was based on science as science, and NOT the Christian Naturalist philosophy. I believe Newton's was a scientist by the evidence, and his science was not based on his Theology. Like science today he did his science based on the evidence and not Theology just like the science today.

No doubt they are all biased Christian apologists though. Correct?

No.

From: Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia
Newton's religious views developed as a result of participation in an investigative discourse with Nature (the nature of the world), and developed from the apparent dichotomy between biblical reality and the increasing revelation of the structure of reality from investigation. Newton saw these truths of nature as challenging established religion, particularly as embodied in Christian scriptural belief.[

Newton resolved the dichotomy and contradictions by realizing contradictions and turning to the evidence of the natural reality of nature as a scientist, and NOT as a Christian.

The fact is that all the Christian philosophers and scientists separated their religious beliefs over time from the secular humanist reality of a changing vision of the real world from the influence of the evolving secular humanist intellectual influence, and like today separated them. Yes, of course like Newton they were Christians and Christianity influenced their lives, but over time secular humanist influenced dominated.

 

[Augustus]

No, Newton's work was based on science as science, and NOT the Christian Naturalist philosophy. I believe Newton's was a scientist by the evidence, and his science was not based on his Theology. Like science today he did his science based on the evidence and not Theology just like the science today.

Arguing that Newton did modern science before modern science even existed is probably not a very rational position to take. Maybe he also flew in aeroplanes and argued on internet forums.

As we are going to see, Newton certainly wasn't doing modern science, unless modern scientists invoke God to explain natural phenomena...

No.

From: Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia
Newton's religious views developed as a result of participation in an investigative discourse with Nature (the nature of the world), and developed from the apparent dichotomy between biblical reality and the increasing revelation of the structure of reality from investigation. Newton saw these truths of nature as challenging established religion, particularly as embodied in Christian scriptural belief.[

Well done, you have identified that Newton wasn't an orthodox Christian. Give the man a coconut.

I know you think 2 mins on wikipedia makes you a world-leading expert able to instantly dismiss any peer-reviewed academic scholarship which contradicts your deeply help ideological beliefs, but can you at least read the whole article?

Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation... In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:

For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.[27]

In addition to stepping in to re-form the solar system, Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other, and perhaps in preventing the amount of motion in the universe from decaying due to viscosity and friction.[31] In private correspondence Newton sometimes hinted that the force of Gravity was due to an immaterial influence:

Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact.[32]

Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism and several biographers and scholars labeled him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity.[33][34][35][36] However, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[21] He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[6]

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[37][38]

On the other hand, latitudinarian and Newtonian ideas taken too far resulted in the millenarians, a religious faction dedicated to the concept of a mechanical universe, but finding in it the same enthusiasm and mysticism that the Enlightenment had fought so hard to extinguish.[39] Newton himself may have had some interest in millenarianism as he wrote about both the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation in his Observations Upon the Prophecies.

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world.[39]

 

[shunyadragon]

Arguing that Newton did modern science before modern science even existed is probably not a very rational position to take. Maybe he also flew in aeroplanes and argued on internet forums.

As we are going to see, Newton certainly wasn't doing modern science, unless modern scientists invoke God to explain natural phenomena...

As per reference Neither Newton nor contemporary scientists are invoking God to do science. Newton was doing science just as contemporary scientist do science based objective verifiable evidence, and not Chrstian natural philosophy, which Newton realized contradicted his scientific work.

Well done, you have identified that Newton wasn't an orthodox Christian. Give the man a coconut.

So what!?!?!?!

I know you think 2 mins on wikipedia makes you a world-leading expert able to instantly dismiss any peer-reviewed academic scholarship which contradicts your deeply help ideological beliefs, but can you at least read the whole article?

Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation... In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:

For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.[27]

In addition to stepping in to re-form the solar system, Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other, and perhaps in preventing the amount of motion in the universe from decaying due to viscosity and friction.[31] In private correspondence Newton sometimes hinted that the force of Gravity was due to an immaterial influence:

Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact.[32]

Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism and several biographers and scholars labeled him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity.[33][34][35][36] However, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[21] He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[6]

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[37][38]

On the other hand, latitudinarian and Newtonian ideas taken too far resulted in the millenarians, a religious faction dedicated to the concept of a mechanical universe, but finding in it the same enthusiasm and mysticism that the Enlightenment had fought so hard to extinguish.[39] Newton himself may have had some interest in millenarianism as he wrote about both the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation in his Observations Upon the Prophecies.

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world.[39]

Bull hocky. The wiki citation was accurate live with it. Over time your revealing the fact that you are a Christian theist, and playing atheist on a website does not change the fact. I have been on other websites where others play the same game.

The fact is that all the Christian philosophers and scientists separated their religious beliefs over time from the secular humanist reality of a changing vision of the real world from the influence of the evolving secular humanist intellectual influence, and like today separated them. Yes, of course like Newton they were Christians and Christianity influenced their lives, but over time secular humanist influenced dominated.

 

[Augustus]

The wiki citation was accurate live with it.

You mean the wiki reference that clearly and explicitly quoted Newton in his own words citing God as an explanation for phenomena that underpinned his cosmology?

Then we are agreed for once

As per reference Neither Newton nor contemporary scientists are invoking God to do science.

Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation... In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:

For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.[27]

In addition to stepping in to re-form the solar system, Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other, and perhaps in preventing the amount of motion in the universe from decaying due to viscosity and friction.[31] In private correspondence Newton sometimes hinted that the force of Gravity was due to an immaterial influence:

Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact.[32]

Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism and several biographers and scholars labeled him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity.[33][34][35][36] However, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[21] He warned against using the law of gravity to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[6]

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[37][38]

 

[Augustus]

Neither Newton nor contemporary scientists are invoking God to do science.

This is verbatim from your own source that you confirmed was accurate and told me to 'live with it':

Newton invoked God's active intervention to prevent the stars falling in on each other,


This just too perfectly encapsulates your contributions to this entire thread