Time For Martial Law...

[seer]

Where, exactly, did he ground those rights in the God of the bible, seer?

Start here on property rights:https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/jo...treatises-1689

[Cow Poke]

Start here on property rights:https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/jo...treatises-1689

If "property rights" were not an issue in the Bible, there'd be no need for the commandment that tells us not to steal.

[seer]

If "property rights" were not an issue in the Bible, there'd be no need for the commandment that tells us not to steal.

Right, it all goes back to that in Western law.

[Charles]

Start here on property rights:https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/jo...treatises-1689

Sorry, seer, but none of that shows exactly what you think it shows. You seem to infer that because Locke mentions God now and then in the text he is refering to devine law. It seems you have missed the basic distinction between divine and natural law in Locke's philosophy.

That is a very important distinction. I will refer you to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Perhaps the most central concept in LockeÂ’s political philosophy is his theory of natural law and natural rights.

Thus some seventeenth-century commentators, Locke included, held that not all of the 10 commandments, much less the rest of the Old Testament law, were binding on all people.

Emphasis mine.

Here is a rather short but quite telling passage about it:

As we will see below, even though Locke thought natural law could be known apart from special revelation

Emphasis mine.

Again, here is a short passage about the complexity of it:

With respect to the grounds and content of natural law, Locke is not completely clear. On the one hand, there are many instances where he makes statements that sound voluntarist to the effect that law requires a law giver with authority (Essay 1.3.6, 4.10.7). Locke also repeatedly insists in the Essays on the Law of Nature that created beings have an obligation to obey their creator (Political Essays 116–120). On the other hand there are statements that seem to imply an external moral standard to which God must conform (Two Treatises 2.195; Works 7:6). Locke clearly wants to avoid the implication that the content of natural law is arbitrary.

Emphasis mine.

So, it is a lot more complicated that finding a number of places where he mentions God. And I also note that what you did was to only quote the text and did not engage in any interpretation of it.

All qotes from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh

[seer]

Sorry, seer, but none of that shows exactly what you think it shows. You seem to infer that because Locke mentions God now and then in the text he is refering to devine law. It seems you have missed the basic distinction between divine and natural law in Locke's philosophy.

What is your point? That doesn't change anything I said. Locke does not merely mention God he grounds property rights in God, from your link.

God created human beings who are capable of having property rights.



Locke believed that makers have property rights with respect to what they make just as God has property rights with respect to human beings because he is their maker. Human beings are created in the image of God and share with God, though to a much lesser extent, the ability to shape and mold the physical environment in accordance with a rational pattern or plan.

And:

https://medium.com/patrickdaniel/wha...t-80feecdaaa27

Full quote:

But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm

[Charles]

What is your point? That doesn't change anything I said. Locke does not merely mention God he grounds property rights in God, from your link.

[...]

My point is you have missed a basic distinction in your reading and now you just continue to do so. And, as I pointed out to you:

On the other hand there are statements that seem to imply an external moral standard to which God must conform (Two Treatises 2.195; Works 7:6). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh

So you can ignore the distinction and the fact that it is not as simple as you present it. That, however, does not change reality. And, like I also pointed out, the God refered to is not necessarily the God of the Bible like you claimed. Again, I will have to repeat:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh

And if you still don't see it, I repeat, once again:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh

So, like I wrote, a lot more complex so my point was your reading of Locke was a simplification. It seems it has remained so.

[seer]

My point is you have missed a basic distinction in your reading and now you just continue to do so. And, as I pointed out to you:



So you can ignore the distinction and the fact that it is not as simple as you present it. That, however, does not change reality. And, like I also pointed out, the God refered to is not necessarily the God of the Bible like you claimed. Again, I will have to repeat:



And if you still don't see it, I repeat, once again:



So, like I wrote, a lot more complex so my point was your reading of Locke was a simplification. It seems it has remained so.

Charles you are missing the point. According to Locke WHY do we have rights in the first place?

"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

And of course Locke was speaking of the God of the Bible, he quotes the Bible all the way through starting with Adam. And he did write the "Reasonableness of Christianity."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejand.../#394dc56f66b3

[Charles]

Charles you are missing the point. According to Locke WHY do we have rights in the first place?


And of course Locke was speaking of the God of the Bible, he quotes the Bible all the way through starting with Adam. And he did write the "Reasonableness of Christianity."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejand.../#394dc56f66b3

Sorry, seer, you are still missing the very basic point and it seems whatever you provide to try to prove me wrong still indicates that you continue to miss it. No one denies that Locke mentions God, and even the God of the Bible. What you fail to see, and what I have showed you several times now, is that his thinking is far more complex than you are seemingly capable of understanding since he is both talking about natural rights and devine rights and some of his thinking even suggests he reasoned along the lines of there being a moral standard that even God would have to follow. So, far more complex. So, you can underline this singular pieces here and there, it wont help much since we are talking about something far more complex.

Nothing in what I have pointed out is contradicted by the fact that Locke quotes the Bible. Hint: we are talking about both natural and divine rights. And Locke can even quote the Bible without it showing that ha bases the rights in the God of the Bible. You are jumping to some very fast conclusions, seer. If you read it all again, you will see that it adds up.

[whag]

Then what will stop the carnage?

[seer]

Sorry, seer, you are still missing the very basic point and it seems whatever you provide to try to prove me wrong still indicates that you continue to miss it. No one denies that Locke mentions God, and even the God of the Bible. What you fail to see, and what I have showed you several times now, is that his thinking is far more complex than you are seemingly capable of understanding since he is both talking about natural rights and devine rights and some of his thinking even suggests he reasoned along the lines of there being a moral standard that even God would have to follow. So, far more complex. So, you can underline this singular pieces here and there, it wont help much since we are talking about something far more complex.

You are clueless Charles, you just said: "the God refered to is not necessarily the God of the Bible" but now you say that no one denies that it is the God of the bible. And I never said his arguments were not nuanced. My last reference shows that he did in fact ground rights in God. And my point was that Locke influenced the Founders: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This idea did not come out of whole cloth, it was influenced by Christian thinkers like Locke, Blackstone and Rutherford.

Nothing in what I have pointed out is contradicted by the fact that Locke quotes the Bible. Hint: we are talking about both natural and divine rights. And Locke can even quote the Bible without it showing that ha bases the rights in the God of the Bible. You are jumping to some very fast conclusions, seer. If you read it all again, you will see that it adds up.

Are you daft?

"no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's."

Why should I not harm you or take your property?

[Charles]

You are clueless Charles, you just said: "the God refered to is not necessarily the God of the Bible" but now you say that no one denies that it is the God of the bible.

Simply not correct. But a rather good try. The fact that Locke sometimes mentions God and at other times mentions the God of the Bible does not mean the two are the same in each and every context. Rather simple, seer, and yet you missed it.

And I never said his arguments were not nuanced. My last reference shows that he did in fact ground rights in God. And my point was that Locke influenced the Founders: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This idea did not come out of whole cloth, it was influenced by Christian thinkers like Locke, Blackstone and Rutherford.

And that God is not necessarily the God of the Bible. Nor does it follow that Locke finds that those rights are solely based on divine rights and not natural rights. Seems I have to repeat it quite many times:

Are you daft?

"no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's."

Why should I not harm you or take your property?

And again, like I have now said repeatedly, you are still missing, the basic. Allow me to repeat.

On the other hand there are statements that seem to imply an external moral standard to which God must conform (Two Treatises 2.195; Works 7:6). Locke clearly wants to avoid the implication that the content of natural law is arbitrary.

Like I wrote: "So, you can underline this singular pieces here and there, it wont help much since we are talking about something far more complex." That is what you have been doing, once again, failing to see the complexity of it all.

All quotes not by seer are from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...atuLawNatuRigh

[seer]

Simply not correct. But a rather good try. The fact that Locke sometimes mentions God and at other times mentions the God of the Bible does not mean the two are the same in each and every context. Rather simple, seer, and yet you missed it.

Really? So Locke was taking about two different Gods? Even though he was a Christian? Sorry Charles your whole argument is weak

And that God is not necessarily the God of the Bible. Nor does it follow that Locke finds that those rights are solely based on divine rights and not natural rights. Seems I have to repeat it quite many times:

Since I was speaking of the Founders and Locke how do you get to unalienable rights apart from God?

And again, like I have now said repeatedly, you are still missing, the basic. Allow me to repeat:

Then why won't you answer:

"no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's."

Why should I not harm you or take your property?

[Charles]

Really? So Locke was taking about two different Gods? Even though he was a Christian? Sorry Charles your whole argument is weak



Since I was speaking of the Founders and Locke how do you get to unalienable rights apart from God?




Then why won't you answer:

I have already answered, but seemingly I have to repeat it over and over:

[seer]

According to Locke were we created by God, received our moral reason from God, and are the property of God - yes or no?

[Charles]

According to Locke were we created by God, received our moral reason from God, and are the property of God - yes or no?

So, you still have not understood it, since you believe you can ask such a simple yes or no question. In parts of his text you would get that impression in others it seems his position was a bit different. Why is that so hard to grasp?

And your question is even beside the point. You made the claim that when he refers to God it is the God of the Bible. As pointed out that is not necessarily the case. So I see why you would like to ask a simplified question which I have already given you the knowledge to know is a simplification.