Welcome to Gaia! ::

Why should anyone have to take anything up with John Locke? Would you change your opinion on anything if I just find a philosopher who disagrees with you?

Locke may have been a Christian, but either way, he was fully aware that his opinion that people are born with tabula rasa was contrary to Christian teaching. His idea was nothing more than an assertion anyway; it's not something that can be proven scientifically or philosophically. Psychology and genetics tend to support that people are born with inherent personalities and talents, which runs against claims Locke made in essays explaining his tabula rasa concept. But he was only from the 1600's, he couldn't have known better.

He was a great philosopher, but every great philosopher has bad ideas. And just because he may have been a Christian, doesn't mean every Christian needs to agree with him on everything. You could find a Christian from somewhere in history who believes just about anything.

If what were true? I'm not sure what you're referring to as being false.

Christians believe that man's nature is sinful because that is what the Bible has said for over 3,000 years; not because of any particular philosopher from the Renaissance era. Christians believe that humans were inherently good because that is how God created us; but because of sin our nature has been broken. Everyone has done bad things, no one can deny that evil is at least a part of human nature.

Heehee, ok. I don't know where this is going, but...

"The Renaissance... was a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th to the 17th century." - first paragraph of article on the Renaissance.

"Thomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679)." - first sentence of his article.

So, if anyone reads the first paragraph of each article you linked, they'll see that he did live during what is considered the Renaissance era. He may not be considered a "Renaissance philosopher" himself, but I didn't say he was. And it's such a minor quibble it's ridiculous to argue about. What difference does it make, really? =P

My original point was just that it's no use to bring up philosophers, just dropping their names and telling people to look them up. You and I could find a philosopher who argues in support of just about any idea; and since the Western world was vastly made up of nominally Christian societies for centuries, of course most of these philosophers are Christian. I'm just saying that doesn't mean any Christian has to agree with them. That's all. =)

I made no mistake, and my facts are perfectly straight. He is a philosopher from the Renaissance era, as the Wikipedia articles you yourself posted show. It says the Renaissance was during the years that he lived. So, fact, he is from the Renaissance era. If his philosophy is not considered a "Renaissance philosophy," that makes no difference as to what era he was from. I said he was from the Renaissance era, and he is. It also makes no difference what era he was from, I was just saying that so people who didn't know who he was would have an idea of when he lived.
Why argue over that, why not argue or agree with the point I was actually making?

Hobbes was 28 years old when Shakespeare, one of the men most associated with the Renaissance, died. Hobbes lived during the British Civil War, during the colonial period, during the Thirty Years war, during the scientific revolution.... what does it matter which we say he lived during? If you prefer British Civil War, then I shall call it that henceforth, my friend.

You can believe the Bible isn't accurate; I was just saying it's why Christians believe all humans are sinful. Likewise, Christians don't need to believe John Locke was accurate, or take anything up with him.

Good, so we agree then.

Is what you're saying, that pro-lifers claim children are innocent, so they must go to heaven? Is that what you mean they use the Tabula Rasa belief to support? Other than that I can't think of what Tabula Rasa would have to do with Pro-Life interests; people are pro-life because they believe abortion is murder, that's the only reason I've heard before.

Oh I see what you mean, yeah people use that argument all that time, that just because the woman got raped doesn't make it more acceptable to kill the child, because it's not the child's fault his father was a rapist. That's not really based on the tabula rasa concept though, they're just saying that from the child's perspective, it doesn't matter whether the pregnancy was caused by consent or rape. Locke's belief was that all people are born without any predisposition, personality, nature, etc., and that all our behaviors are shaped and learned from our environment and experiences. I'm missing the connection between that and the pro-life argument.