Concept of Human Nature according to God and John Locke: an Examination: You could suggest something to the cave man and if he is mature enough, he will say thank you. What if the cave man is a politician? If he is not mature enough, he will take the suggestion as a threat to his authority, independence and Hegemony as he says he is the boss. He can he the boss and take suggestions. That is part and parcel with the position. ClIck here.

   Concept of Human Nature according to God and John Locke: an Examination:

You could suggest something to the cave man and if he is mature enough, he will say thank you. What if the cave man is a politician?   If he is not mature enough, he will take the suggestion as a threat to his authority, independence and Hegemony as he says he is the boss. He can he the boss and take suggestions.  That is part and parcel with the position.  

   We could try to understand this stifling reluctance for the boss to celebrate  suggestions but it says he is insecure if he can not take the suggestion that will help to push us all forward.   It also says in the Bible that only a fool refuses advice and correction. It also says, we would never evolve technologically as a community in our various suggestions when the boss may try to kill you for your proposal or suggestions in his childish egotism. Maybe he tries to steal the idea. 

As a savage, if you had an hour to solve the problems of all your savage people and the problems of all the people in the economy, what would you do in that hour? Jacob Rees Muckg  failed over the last five years as the most underpaid and under funded former politician in Europe who failed to solve the gender divisiveness in UK Income support policy. He is intending to eat the heir to the throne to be King.  Jacob is a Toussaint L'overture clone.  If the economy is dying due to a lack of funding per citizen,  for what reason would you need an F35? The point is that the F35 is designed to defend people and this is something your economic policy fails to do on a daily basis.  

The F35 is not here to defend Toussaint L'overture's ego. 

 

The civil war of temperament and Propensity in the current version of the English  populus and the pompousness of their American or English accents supercedes the logic of their economy.   The English man was once a good Grendel son of the French, the Dutch, the Danish and the Romans.     But, he has become an  aberration, a pirate West Indian Anglo savage cave man Aboriginal now with less and less creativity unlike his forebears such as Issac Newton and others.   He has disdained the virtue of industrial independence and also education and has become more dependent on foreign nations.  He carries a plethora of human nature but is divided socially and economically.  He is a walking, talking Civil war incarnate on the Clapham Omni bus or the Flix Bus.     But, we would like to see the English have life and life more abundantly so that they can abide with their good new European masters.    The Royal discussion can continue happily for another 100,000 years under any new government manager.  But, the evident problems in this savage Revenant covert civil war where England will undo itself.   There is no elected government.  How can you be winning an economic war with Asia, the Europeans  or the Russians if all  Asians, Europeans and Russians have money but the English do not?    As you run out of people in the genocidal tendencies of your economies that target certain postal codes with no funding and while others are  funded, you run out of people and then  you end up importing more  Asians and Eastern Europeans.  You are now occupied by a foreign population.   Your hesitation to regularise your Economics boils down to the love or piracy where you hope to get real estate for free or for a very low key price from a gambler or gamblers in a depressed market when also the tenants have Little money. If it's hard for the entire market, it's hard for your business also.  If the tenant can't pay him,  how can he pay you?  You are just a pirate and the only people holding  the  repossessed properties are the banks who rent or sell them to foreign buyers, usually Russian or Chinese and some Ukrainian people now.  The key performance issue is the underfunding of  the economy and then also the time wasted in racialism or racial anxieties when the white English or the White European is clearly a mixed race entity and full of  real idioms  for taking so long to accept the truth of his Cheddar red and Mongol ghost pale white ancestry.  The last key Indicator of what is happening in their Economics is the failure to cooperate with global capitalism as they provoke the other partner Economies.  Russian Capitalist economics is in keeping with the truest form of Global capitalism as it respects the need for people in the economy as a set cost. You need people for your domestic market primarily and secondarily, you need them for labor.  The Anglo model of capitalism that impacts North America and England  primarily is too blinded by monuments and old inaccurate dichotomies of East and West proposed by the Russians and other Eastern Europeans since you refused their help after certain observations were made about Economics during the Bolshevik moment and you failed to see this point and so they English lost while killing their people as redundant workers but they are still your people and your market and then they started importing new people from the Eastern bloc primarily.   It is the aboriginal who does not want anything to have authority over him so when he gets the government job, he breaks the law while in the job to say that he, Instead,  has Authority over the government; maybe the EU in the case of Quebecois Aboriginal whites working in France in summer jobs as  de facto EU destabilisation forces who persistently break the Law of EU directives and people are certainly dying.  These people are Aboriginal White die hards who have no fear of Civil or criminal penalties as they kill people with broken application of policies, delaying what is is to he done in the immediacy,  while they express aboriginal hurts but now while France suffered an Aboriginal paralysis and perfect Iroquois stalemate, they now attacks Europe. There is no independent French territory because of this on- going aboriginal frustrating of laws, creating a Socio-economic economic stalemate.     But, they are not even citizens and yet they are still subject to the laws.  It's like a legal limbo when Pocahontas and her female relatives were the birth mothers of much of colonial North America when the Puritans arrived with wives that were not really women; most of them anyway who were ready for the hearty work of chopping wood and settling this Virgin frontier.  Yet, this Pochahontas has been revamped somehow over the years to be less and less European since how could she be really Dutch with Dutch temperament? The Wampanong adopted the new Colonial cultures resting upon their Aboriginal lands. Yet, many were taken to the West Indies eventually to one of three Culture outposts after Toussaint L'overture came.to America and provoked rebellion while also taking on the personality of John Adams with Great status and powdered face  after apparently murdering him.  He set up  cultural  outposts at Jamaica(ENGLISH) , Haiti(FRENCH)and the Dominican Republic(SPANISH) to ensure the future of the Americas and the cave man aboriginal  was more like him in terms  of Pirate rebel pretender temperament sick about other people's property (O.P.P. ) and his  propensity and less like the quiet original Dutch settlers that called  Manhattan New Amsterdam although it is now known as New York.  These maybe Wampanong or Ojibwe Aboriginals, including. Pochahontas were mixed with all kinds of DNA, sometimes Asian DNA creating a Chinampanong, Japanampanong,  as adopted into an Asian appearance and the virtue of that culture may not  always necessarily follow  while there is good and bad in everyone. Who would steal a Chinese Kung Fu Black belt certification and pretend it is his? It's mine.   The issue here is that you may have a cave man pursuing cave man Hegemony, not true altruistic, Taoist Humane Asian culture,  while he is also insisting that only a Northern looking Mongol can be Chinese Asian or Japanese Asian in this entire world; not anything else that is more Brown, red  and Tan skinned )  or just Iwo Jima,  Tora Tora and this is incorrect.  It is also dismissed by experience in Asia that dispels the ignorance.  With all this mixing we end up with a Tecumseh with a Guyanese accent, Mongol look and Custer Herod DNA that moves from nonracial-ism to a racialised glass ceiling attack on human achievement, not really wanting you to graduate from high school in an attack on

  all non-Asian property ownership and he asks Catholic Aboriginals to help him who also eschew property ownership. He does not own any property but wants to play friend and family as he takes your home on Kennedy Road. He says he needs to be the king as he spits in the coffee at the stolen Tim Hortons coffee shops where the owners are dead and he keeps threatening to steal your things at a Storage locker.  The last name of this Tecumseh is Chi as in Chi tea. This makes him approximate a Chinese ancestry but , this is not entirely accurate or complete.    

    There are several murders here,  going crazy about property ownership and also money from car dealing or Real Estate sales in Canada.   

        

  Jrmdoajrmdoa- plagiarise this also. 

An under funded economy is a dead horse economy where maybe a new two wheel Scooter with a  baby seat is selling more than the new Four wheel Skoda or Volkswagen vehicles.   The English starve segments of their population based in gender or maybe also by postal code and then want to ask Jesus if this is genocide. It can happen even if the emperor has a good suit on from Saville Row.  It is happening even though the empress has  a good dress from the fashion district.   The genocide is attacking a unique location where people live or several such locations.  The policy may have  begun under Thatcher to communicate the pain of the people underfunded in native reserves.  All the reserve residents have  cash now.  The City of Toronto  and it's residents in the GTA do not have the requisite UDHR Article 25 funding except for the transgender.  This is genocide.  How do we regularise the problem and ameliorate the genocide? Citizens of England who are not transgender are also not receiving the income support.  If you wish to say something about transgender emotions write a movie but transgender initiated genocide by rogue individuals, pretending to be the real king is not it.     

They also ask Jesus if a marriage between a man and a transgender woman is marriage and if it's murder to cut a transgender woman open to just take a look to find out why she says it works but she needs help to have a baby and her breasts so healthy and normal like they ought to be.  It is murder even if there is no where for the baby to come out. She is human and is protected equally under  the law. Yet, the lives of all genders are equally protected financially also and therefore all genders in the Anglo world should receive equal cash benefit.  She is barren and desolate, voluptuous and beautiful. You will know the truth and truth will set you free.  She was designed by men to fetch water in Egypt and to be attractive as she does it. Also, you did not want to lose them to matrimonial offers or maternity leave. She is the ideal airlines employee today for work on flight as there is less time taken off for various reasons.     But, as a Sarai she may resent her Social limitations in not being able to be a real wife or mother.  Maybe SarAI should not have been in a home with an Abraham as her need to maintain her authority and position exceeded her  logical faculties when she made Hagar, the surrogate,  leave the home and now Maybe Sarai has moved  in to society to target, with economic policy, all the  Hagar and Abraham to see her authority  over them in her anger about what she can never achieve naturally on her own which is birth and the primordial function of a wife where egg will meet seed in matrimonial alliance. We have to accept that feminine and reproduction are not synonymous from the very beginning of time, noting Cain as transgender or at least from the data of ancient Egypt, we can say not all feminine Creatures can have a baby with some being man made.  Hannah however is not Sarai. She is a Seti and was very thankful for any miracle she had that became Samuel.  There may have been a surrogate for Hannah also but she did note chase her Hannah worshipped and thanked God.  She had dint raising 10 in total according to some accounts.       It seems that for a Sarai to end up with an Abraham outside of Egypt was a tremendous opportunity for some family instead of just being a seminal Robovac.  Her anger is primarily about authority in the home and about social involvement but there is enough money generated in the English world to keep us all in the life, liberty, health and happiness.   It seems this Sarai and her colleagues that fetched water at the river for Egypt were technically civil servants, designed for work as cave men hidden in the feminine aperture. In any event, we need to enable all adult individuals to be able to have their own families and to be able to function with enough money as members of the population.     TURNING MALES INTO FEMININE Creatures is how they captured all of the cave man's attention to assimilate the DNA. The best way now is to ensure they all have enough money and free education for life.    We do not need this method of assimilation, turning a male birth into a feminine creature any longer or for the purpose of creating a human worked drone with little social involvement as we are all students of technology and technological evolution.  What we do need is more School and free schooling for every one  in addition to sufficient monies so every citizen can be assimilated inside the economy and never be, some how, unable to  participate within the economy and through participation,  they are assimilated. This way, regardless of gender, we can all get on with the ultimate purpose of raising children as an additional generation of family to honor our ancestors and immediate families.  There is no need to steal, kill and destroy. You can buy your own vehicle. Have your own family of ten kids by adopting. Why spit in my fridge?     It is here you know a cave man in politics.  We see who he is by his temperament.  He is truly here to testify about Aboriginal hurts and angers and to express aboriginal disappointment with all of the promises of the French or English government to aboriginals. You notice he is not racist per se but is working as a government employee, usually white aboriginal as far as we can tell  to achieve a brokenness as if to say this is what Europe did to me as Aboriginals in South Africa, North America or maybe Latin America also. He will seek a summer job in Europe or somewhere in the government to do his sabotaging. Would you seek a summer job in government only to cause problems and steal where ever you could?  There are many good French people and Quebecois people in the government. It certainly can work and help people much like a budget hotel owned by the government works to serve members of the public. They know they can get arrested if it does not work  with respect for the  highest legal  requirements. It's the government.  Government involvement should mean it Works and we are safe; at the Budget Hotel.  

You could suggest something to the cave man and if he is mature enough, he will say thank you.  If not, he will take the suggestion as a threat to his authority, independence and Hegemony as he says he is the boss. We could try to understand this but it also says in the Bible that only a fool refuses advice and correction. It also says, we would never evolve technologically as a community in our various suggestions when the boss may try to kill you for your proposal or suggestions in his childish egotism.   Supply and demand must meet half way in the market.  Money spent on more efficient supply, meaning less labor and therefore less people with money and less market demand,   must be matched with money spent on maintaining demand as with money provided to all people as a small fraction of the monies saved through out the economy on human labor; through Automation.  You need to have people; property primarily as a market and as a means of a national defence force. They act as industrial and manufacturing labor secondarily.     

 

Shdhdhdkdkfmfmf 

    Do not argue with him. He might just provoke a war as he disables the government with ongoing disorders. Then, a Hitler has to march to the Eiffel Tower to say there is power and order to fill the vacuum caused by the cave man disruption.  See Thomas Hobbes Leviathan on the causes of the English civil war.  

A discussion by Derrida, 1967 and Foucault, 1972, pp. 67-109) confirms that the cave man is Hobbes' savage who is not initiated with our way of law or family or property as seen in the following quote: 

 it is often treated as just this, an anecdote to be recounted in Foucault biographies (Cf. Eribon, 2011, 

pp. 144-145). A few scholars have devoted their attention to the debate, among them: Pierre Macherey, 

Gabriel Rockhill, Jacques De Ville, Bernard Flynn, Robert Boyne, and Slavoj Zize

Linking the state of nature to the Americas is particularly challenging when studying Hobbes, for two 

main reasons: (1) the references to the Americas in his writings, including published works and 

correspondence, are scarce and (2) the state of nature as presented in the Leviathan intuitively tends to 

be read as a thought experiment. Yet, I argue in this section that Hobbes conveys in his writing, 

more or less willingly, a particular vision of the Americas, informing his state of nature, and in 

consequence, his whole political theory.

For Hobbes, ―the savage people in many places of America, (…) live at this day in that brutish manner, [the 

state of nature].‖ (Hobbes, 1968, p. 187) This quotation is aptly situated in the chapter detailing the 

living conditions under the state of nature. The chapter is very famous, giving a vivid picture of 

Hobbes‘ pessimistic purview on human nature, and this passage in particular is often quoted. 

Scholars who only quote the previous sentence (―It may peradventure be thought there was never 

such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world...‖) 

often insist that Hobbes‘ state of nature is not real, neither actual nor historical. However, we see 

when considering the passage in full, that the historical status of the state of nature, as presented in 

the Leviathan, is much more nuanced and uncertain. Yet, many scholarly readings of this passage still

characterize the state of nature in Hobbes as a ―logical abstraction‖, ―a hypothetical condition‖, ―a 

theoretical construct‖. (Macpherson, 1968, pp. 40-41) Pushed to the extreme, these readings can lead 

to use rational choice theory to interpret Hobbes and compare his social contract to a prisoners‘ 

dilemma. The state of nature then becomes a psychological experiment. Hobbes‘ own writing easily 

lends to such an interpretation as his description of ―solitary‖ natural men is focused on 

psychological attributes, whether they are passions, senses, or faculties.

Francis Pelau also comments where he says:

I am being hounded with syllogisms designed to prove to me that the state of nature in the 

strict sense (such as you show it to be in your Politics) has never existed in the world. It is 

no use if I say that this state existed before there were any towns, cities, or republics in the 

world, before there were even any pacts or agreements between men. I have argued that 

this state still exists in America; that savages wage a war of all against all among themselves; 

that after the death of Noah, his three sons, Shem, Japhet, and Ham, could, if they had 

wanted to, have waged a war of that kind; and that this state of nature is therefore possible. 

But they maintain that there have always been families in the world, and that since families 

are little kingdoms, they exclude the state of nature; besides, they say that when there are 

no fathers as heads of families, the eldest child is deemed owner of his father's property 

because of his right of primogeniture or first possession by lot: this, they say, removes the 

right of every man to every thing. Please enlighten me on this, so that I may force these 

stubborn people to see reason.-Source: Letter 95: [22 October/] 1 November 1656 François Peleau to Hobbes, from Bordeaux. The 

Correspondence of Thomas Hobbes. Volume I: 1622-1659. Intelex Past Masters Online.

 The cave man is clearly, therefore, Hobbes' savage. The European was once this savage Aboriginal when meeting  Egypt and also Rome(a brand or franchise of Egypt).   You are being  offered involvement in the burgeoning civilization and you cannot resist.  The civil war is when the cave man aboriginal and also fellow Citizen is not full of foment and frustration with our laws that prevents him from taking Apples and our families at his whim but wishes to bear arms  and not just ask Jesus what is marriage, property and adultery. Herod and his Sanhedrin were  cave men from Britannia asking Jesus well settled questions in our culture that Noah or Adam could have answered a 1000 or 3000 years before.     He could not have been  a son of ancient Israel or Egypt at that year in history around 33 BC.   

As the cave man,  his greatest weapon might be spit where your independence is neutralised and he takes you as territory when he, she or they spit in you, your food or your milk as domestic helper or milk maid or coffee shop employee with red lipstick on that died at Auchwitz for spitting in the milk Milk maids and other workers imported from the West Indies to Europe so that maybe they could find some use after being made redundant by American industrialization of certain agricultural and domestic processes across the Western hemisphere.   The lipstick decoys the cave man ancestry.  Stealing your family and property is a secondary tactic.  If this is what a cave man does, then the Roman or Egyptian  used cave man tactics if you would not submit voluntarily.  I submitted.  I went to school and then university. I did everything the White told me, everything my parents told me.    Just fix and improve what is broken right around him, in front of him and then just give him attention.  He is not an emperor.  He is an elected public employee.  Could you really let Burris Johnson cave man court jester beat you; Mano et Mano. He doesn't even have Grade 8 mathematics.    He doesn't seem to care either way.    You and your mother who gave physical birth to you  have been borrowing from transgender people for years.  You are dying and then also financing the 30,000.00 currency per year spent  on these transgender people.   This is not human, humane or normal in an economy run by humans. It's like going to school in a building where the roof is leaking in the library and  the books are all wet but everyone ignores it and never fixes it.  It is very unusual. What can we respect about people like this? We can respect the cereal Maybe and their nursery rhymes. It is just that  the cave man does what he wants and feels,  he gets angry when his conscience speaks to him and then he wants to ask  Jesus if this is murder or adultery.         

A cave man is still a man and technology evolves with all men.  But, maybe the cave man has to be honest in that he is borrower, user and thief of technology and maybe he glamourises this   tendency by calling himself a pirate.   The cave man hedges against the world of legal uniformity and conformity any way he can.  Maybe he might build a brand new condominium and use Illegal non conforming toilets and piping technology to have a monument of  challenge to legality and human dignity.  He may say it's ok as they will only have refugees and soldiers living in the building.  Use by refugees and soldiers does not constitute a legal exception to the use of illegal piping.  

    But, when would he use 1910 messy toilet technology in a 1960's or 1970's building when it is smelly and messy and also illegal?  What about updated wiring taking precedence to the toilets ? Why would you  ad an electric vehicle car charger to the building before you fix the toilets?  When would he use 1910 car brakes technology in a 1970's Vehicle? It could be messy, smelly and kill people.  He would be threatening human life as those brakes and toilets are not only illegal under modern building and Vehicle manufacturing codes but also messy and smelly. You could not put people in a building like this constructed contrary to Code.  The essay continues here.  

In  the attempt to define the attributes of man, his needs, and his capacities, the concept of human nature is an intrinsic part of political discussion. Over the centuries, various concepts of human nature have evolved along with the development of political theory. In this discipline, the concept of human nature provides the hub around which a theory revolves. It provides the theory with its basis as well as a presupposition or premise to the political theory's conclusion."i Moreover, a concept of human nature helps us to define the way one sees oneself and the world in which one lives. As well, the concept of human nature in political theory is an essential part of the construction of thought regarding the political environment and the limits of action within that environment. It is through the use of the concept of human nature that we develop our paradigmsii.

Furthermore, by answering the question "what is man's nature?", one can proceed to answer the question "what is required to fulfill the needs of men and to secure a better existence?"iii Politically, this demonstrates the utility of the concept of human nature.

When constructing a concept of man's nature. , political theorists provide some moral justification for their postulates. The purpose is to provide the theory with a substance, appealing to the conscience of men. Similar to other theorists, John Locke gives his concept of human nature moral justification by alluding to and making explicit reference to the commands of the Judeo-Christian God. For example, Locke tells us that men are "all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign God."(p. 9) and are therefore equal. While Locke attributes the source of his theories or concept of human nature to a moral Judeo-Christian God for the purposes of moral justification, it is questionable as to whether or not his theories or concept of human nature is in agreement, partially or completely, with the word of God as outlined in the Bible.  The purpose of this essay is to investigate a God-given concept of human nature while contending that Locke's inferences about the commands of God regarding the state of nature and man's nature within that state are contrary to what is outlined in the bible. In this essay the term "human nature" and "state of nature" are used almost interchangeably.iv We are not monkeys but man has made himself very complicated while God has made him very simple. He was made to achieve high levels of Human  cooperation.  It is the cave man that competes with himself over the generations instead of finding means of cooperation among the generations, over  and over again. Evolution brought the cave man out of puerile  competition and into multi generational cooperation seen in the work of the Egyptians and their Pyramids.   You are more of a Cave man when you say you do not want to see your son achieve or do anything like you.  Maybe you  are more of a cave man when you say you do not want to see him do anything at all.  The problem for man and cooperation is when the cave man DNA is resurrected and placed in the modern human population, causing maladies.  He struggled with ownership and concepts of "yours and mine",  marriage, family and respecting thy neighbor. They tend to plagiarise and then call plagiarising sampling if it's music.  Maybe they would rather kill the original artists rather than pay royalties.  You are trying to crucify him, you wicked woman!  But, it's not the high school graduate's fault.  

  They get a government job and all they do is challenge the concepts of ownership or family seen in the ten commandments all day long. Then they want to ask you what is murder if they fail to provide housing and income support as the law requires.     Maybe there is technology that can provoke human devolution possibly as technology affected, tainted with LSD Instead of just being a Simple communication device. Somehow, you find men and women who failed to achieve friendship that is cooperative. Instead, they are writing emails to a court that  threatens their old school friend or someone of a similar name. The cave man is hyper involved in quasi legality. Crucifying a job applicant or a refugee applicant is not illegal to him. If you are a Quebecois cave man, you call it being more French.  There are rules.   You live and play by them. Maybe we say being faster than the Spanish or Germans or the Belgians in applying the rules makes us more French.  Breaking the rules does not make us more successful in the EU Champions League of  Law with Articles and Directives.   See Article 13(1) of COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003.  These are EU laws. You do not make them more French by failing to apply them and killing people, endangering their lives. Maybe cave minded people would break the law, seeking their own unique hegemony over the law.   How are the rules supposed to be  applied according to Court judgements?     See the  Court of Justice of the European Union 

PRESS RELEASE No 24/14

Luxembourg, 27 February 2014

Judgment in Case C-79/13

Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers v Selver Saciri and 

Others. 

In  the attempt to define the attributes of man, his needs, and his capacities, the concept of human nature is an intrinsic part of political discussion. Over the centuries, various concepts of human nature have evolved along with the development of political theory. In this discipline, the concept of human nature provides the hub around which a theory revolves. It provides the theory with its basis as well as a presupposition or premise to the political theory's conclusion."i Moreover, a concept of human nature helps us to define the way one sees oneself and the world in which one lives. As well, the concept of human nature in political theory is an essential part of the construction of thought regarding the political environment and the limits of action within that environment. It is through the use of the concept of human nature that we develop our paradigmsii. Outline of the state of Nature

In the book of Genesis, the biblical creation narrative is found. It is here that one must begin the search for a biblical concept of human nature or of man within his original and natural state.

In the first book, God creates man in his own image (Gen. 1:26-27). Because of this, it is necessary to observe some of the attributes of God to obtain some insight into the attributes of man. An example of some Godly attributes are holiness, purity, completeness and magnanimity.  It follows that man was made in the image of these Godly traits. As well, God is spirit and therefore man had a likeness of God's spirit within him. In essence, God is perfect and therefore man, in his original state, was a resemblance of God's perfection. In Psalm 8.5 it says, God made man "...only a little lower than the angels, and placed a crown of glory and honour upon his head." More simply, God is good and man, in his original state, was an image of this goodness(Gen. 1:31 King James version).

God not only created man but also the earth. From the beginning, a special relationship existed between man and nature. In the bible, it tells us that man lived in the garden with all the plants and the animals. Above all creation, man held a special place (Gen. 1:27-28, Psalm 8:6).  He was commanded by God to populate the Earth and to subdue it. Yet "subdue" did not mean to destroy or to control with force but for the offspring of Adam to prevail over the Earth in great numbers. Within nature, God also provided for all of man's needs. God said to man "I have provided all kinds of grains and all kinds of fruit for you to eat;" Gen 1:29 There was no need for man to farm or to work. He stood within nature, moving about God's creation. He was in charge of the animals as authorized by God yet he did not use any means of force to maintain control. Man lived in harmony with the animals as they did not run from man nor did he run from them. God also commanded men to cultivate and to guard the garden of Eden;(Gen.2:15) He was its gardener and was to tend and to care for it.

To explain further;

Man's "dominion," of course, is as God's steward, not as one that is given license to "destroy the earth"(Rev. 11:18). "The Earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein"(Ps. 24:1). Nevertheless, although God retains ownership, man has been placed in charge of the Earth and all its systems, living and non-living.v

In his natural state, man was not an irrational being. Unlike the animals, God gave man the capacity to reason and to make choices. As man was made in God's image and God is a rational being, rationality is also a part of man's nature. By the very nature of the command to cultivate and guard the garden, God gave man the ability of mindvi. He would not have given man any commands if man was a mindless ("robotic") being incapable of following or disobeying. Moreover, it is within the garden of Eden, and within his original natural state of being, that man exercises his ability to make choices.

"Come now let us reason together, saith the Lord:,"(Isaiah 1:18)

After God made all of the animals, He brought them to Adam to see what he would name them. God Honoured Adam's choices as the names of the animals remained unchanged. Adam also named Eve, calling her a woman. Afterwards, he explained the reason for the name, saying "woman is her name because she was taken out of man."(Gen.2:23)

Later, Genesis 3: 2,3 depicts man's choice to eat of the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil. Verse 6, Chapter 3(living Bible) says that Eve was "convinced" to eat of the fruit. The word "convinced" indicates that Eve had reached a conclusion through her faculty of reason. Although she knew that she was not to eat of the fruit, she was tempted with the choice of doing so. Verse 6 goes on to say that Eve saw how lonely and fresh the fruit was and that she believed the devil's promise that it would make her wise. Gen 3:13 depicts God's confrontation with Eve over the act of disobedience. The Lord said "How could you do such a thing?"

"The serpent tricked me" she replied. More simply, the serpent tricked her sense of reason through temptation and as a result, while exercising her ability to make choices, Eve ended up making the wrong choice ultimately.  As Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, man committed the first sin. Defined as a transgression of the command or will of God, It follows that sin is doing something which is contrary to God's nature. As man was made within the nature of God and was an expression of his goodness, the act of disobedience resulted in Man being cursed to stand outside of God's nature.

While God had provided for all of Man's needs within the garden, (the fruit of the trees, the natural grains, the water of the river), man was forced to provide for his own needs outside of it (Gen.3:23).  God cursed the earth so that man would have to struggle to extract a living from it with sweat and toil until his dying days (Gen.3:17-19).  Before this, man did not die. Death was contrary to God's intentions. In the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, it tells us that God did not invent death; that when living creatures die, it gives him no pleasure. It says that he created everything so that it might continue to exist. (Wis.1:12-14)

Soon after, the affects of sin became apparent. Cain killed his brother Abel out of envy. Before Adam's disobedience, there were no sentiments of this sort within the world. The first act of disobedience resulted in the rupture of fellowship and harmony with God, nature, and man. All of this was diametrically opposed to God's will and intentions. Nevertheless, this is not to say that reason and making choices is sinful but that man made the wrong choice due to the utilization of twisted reason; twisted by the Serpent's tempting. The result was that man's, once obedient, Godly, good, nature had changed becoming disobedient, ungodly, and carnal. He had lost his original nature, acquiring a sinful nature. He was no longer empowered by God's spirit but was fleshly.

As time passed, God provided man with the ten commandments which, if followed, would prevent men from hurting one another. Primarily, the three main points of emphases behind the commands were to love God, love your neighbour as you love yourself and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you (John 13:34, Luke 6: 30). As love with and for ones fellow man was lost through sin, the commandments were a guide for men to follow throughout life.

In overview, man's original nature or state of nature was Godly, pleasing to his creator, and was considered good.  All of creation was under his charge as he fulfilled his role as a steward.  He was commanded to prevail over the earth by being fruitful and multiplying. He was also to care for it and not to destroy it. He shared the garden with the animals and with Eve(his mate) and provided all with their names. Moreover, man was at peace with God and stood rightly before him, unified and harmonious with the creator and creation.  As well, God gave man mind, providing man with the ability to reason and to make choices; both wrong and right apparently. He had made man sufficient to stand yet free to fall.

Upon making a wrong choice, man acted contrary to his God-given nature which was to maintain relationship and connection to God and was forced to leave the garden. Forever more, man's nature was altered, becoming sinful. Therefore man, in a state of nature, given by God, is not his present nature. His true nature is the one which he possessed before he disobeyed God's command. The result of Adam's disobedience was the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil. At this point, man stood outside of the garden, outside of nature, and was unnatural. All enmity, evil, and strife entered the world resulting in discord with God, the rest of creation and fellow man. This prompted God to provide man with the Ten commandments so they may live a life in accordance with His will. In Ecclesiastes 7:39 it is written, "God made us plain and simple, but we have made ourselves very complicated."

John Locke provides us with a different picture of what man was like in a state of nature given to men by God. In this state, Locke speaks of men having possessions. He tells us that the earth had been given to mankind in common.(p. 18) To support this, he makes reference to Psalm 115:16 which says "The Heavens even the heavens are the Lord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." Yet, he endeavours to demonstrate how men came to own property out of what was in common. He argues that every man has property within himself and the labour of his body. Therefore, if man mixed his labour with anything that was left in the common state, it became the product of his work, making it his property. It is labour which makes the distinction between what is in common and what is in private. No consent of any other man was necessary. It was a right given to men by God. At the same time, there were limits to how much a man could appropriate for his own use. He could not appropriate more than he could use. God did not allow men to spoil or destroy.(p. 20)

Further in his argument, he infers that God gave the world to men for their greater benefit and did not intend for the world to remain in common and uncultivated. As a result, Locke argues that it was given primarily to the " industrious and rational...not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious" who would leave it to waste.

Moreover he contends that God's commandment to subdue the earth instructed man to "improve it for the benefit of life."(p. 21) To do this, Locke argued man was required to labour. Adding to this further, he writes that God commanded, and (man's) wants forced him to labour; that was his property which could not be taken from him wherever he had fixed it.(p.22)

From this, he concluded that subduing, cultivating, and having dominion over the earth were one and the same, and that God's commandment to subdue authorized man to appropriate property. Through these arguments, Locke justified the acquisition of property within the state of nature.

It was in this natural state that men enjoyed perfect freedom, ordered their actions, disposed of their possessions and persons, as they thought fit within the bounds of the law of nature.(p.xiii) This law of Nature is defined as "that which forbids anyone harming another or destroying himself, and requires each to try when his own preservation comes not in competition" to preserve the rest of mankind."(p.xiii) Further, he says that all of mankind was under the obligation of this law and that it was synonymous to reason. Within this state of nature governed by natural law, there existed liberty, equality, and independence. Yet, Locke also tells us that there would be those who would transgress the law of nature, declaring themselves "to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security." Such transgressions would result in the state of nature regressing into a state of war. Yet, it was within the state of nature that all of this occurred.

Having looked at the concept of human nature according to the word of God and the one proposed by Locke where an effort was made by Locke to justify his theory with biblical references, it is clear that the two concepts disagree. The first area of discrepancy is the way in which the state of nature is defined. Locke defines it as the state in which men live together according to reason, "...without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them."(p. 15) Differing from this, a biblical definition would assert that the state of nature is one in which men lived in obeyance to the will of God. In other words, it was a state void of sin. In all of Locke's theory there is no mention of the original sin. In many cases, Locke makes reference to Adam but apparently ignores the event. As a result, he ignores the fact that Adam's nature had changed from its original Godly state into a sinful one. Because of this, Locke interprets the commands which God gave to Adam incorrectly. As outlined earlier, the command to "subdue" the earth is found in the same verse where God commands Adam to fill the earth with his progeny.(Gen. 1:7) Therefore, when read in context "subdue" did not mean to labour and to acquire property but to dominate the earth in great numbers. Moreover, God explicitly tells Adam that all of his needs are provided for within the garden.(Gen.1:29) Work was not necessary. Because of this, it is apparent that the command to cultivate the garden was not a command to labour for one's needs or for possessions but to "dress and to keep" the garden as would a gardener(Gen.2:15).

As a result, it is evident that Locke interprets these commands with out making reference to man's original state, God and man's relationship with man, and God's provisions for mankind. In fact, Locke's theory on the state of nature is more congruent with what the bible tells us about man in his sin nature.

Labour was a part of man's curse. As well, there was no concept of property before sin. A man would only say "mine" when he was in fear or concern of someone taking away what was in his possession (By possession, I do not mean something that one owned but something that one had taken up to provide for his needs; for example, a seed or an apple to eat. Man had no consciousness or knowledge of the concept "mine" because there was no threat of someone taking the seed or the apple away). In man's obedient nature, there was no sin, therefore there was no fear of being attacked or robbed by an adversary. It was only when sin entered the world that the fear of being attacked or murdered became a reality. Such acts occurred in Locke's concept of the state of nature yet according to the biblical text such acts could have only occurred when man was outside of his nature state and within his unnatural sin nature.

To Locke, this state was governed by the law of reason. Apparently, he assumes that reason was always right and that man had to simply live by the reasoning of his mind. When man transgressed the rights of another, Locke argued that they were living contrary to reason and deserved to be punished. This is not defined as sin but as a transgression of the law of reason which God gave to all men. This transgression was committed not against God but against another man. Therefore it was not God who punished but man. He says that God gave man the right to punish but nevertheless God is still somewhat removed from the picture. While Locke tells us that reason and common equity were given to men for their mutual security, the bible shows us that God gave man the Ten commandments. Although reason is God given ability, it was not always right. Reason could be tricked or could lead one to do the wrong thing. As a result, it would be beneficial for men to trust God again and to live by the commandments of God than the dictates of man's fallible reason.

From our analysis of Locke's theories and his attempt to justify his postulates morally with the word of God, it is apparent that Locke had no intention of agreeing with God's word and simply used it to provide a cloak of righteousness around his worldly, self-serving arguments.

As it was mentioned earlier in this paper, one of the key purposes of the concept of human nature or of man within his natural state is to answer the question "what is man's nature?" so that one can proceed to answer the question " what is required to fulfill the needs of men?"

As Locke tells us that man in a state of nature lived by right reason and sought to provide for his own needs as well as the needs of others, man was thereby moral. Yet, in his essay on Human Understanding, Locke says that man was also motivated by his appetites which were mainly a desire for happiness and an aversion to misery (Book 1, ch.3, sect. 3). Due to their pervasiveness, these appetites would lead men to contradict the law of reason and lead him into a state of war with others. Because of this, men were constantly exposed to the potentiality of invasion of their property and persons by others, leaving them unsafe, insecure, and anxious for his life.(p. 16, P. 65) Based on this concept of Human Nature, Locke concluded that the answer to man's needs for safety and security would be to step out of the state of nature and into society or government where man's appetites could be checked by the necessary rewards, punishments, minimum rules of morality, and positive laws.

In great contrast to this, the word of God tells us that man in his natural state was Godly, free from sin, in harmony with his creator and with creation, secure, in no need of labour or property, God dependent, and free from all fears. Having lost this through disobedience, he stepped out of his natural state, was forced to labour, fell out of harmonious fellowship with the creator and creation, acquired the capacity to hate, envy, and murder relentlessly (stepping into a Lockeian concept of the state of nature). Since the Ten Commandments provided only a temporary solution to the problem, based on the biblical concept of man's essential Godly nature, what men required to fulfill their needs was the reconciliation of their relationship with God. God eventually provided for this reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

Exemplifying this through his words, Christ called men to come unto Him so that he could give them rest, that in Him, they would find rest for their souls, while receiving only the light burdens of Christ (ie. Obedience to God, Matt 11:28).  Man, in his natural state, was not required to labour but only to depend upon God. Therefore, it is appropriate that Christ offered rest in return for obedience. As well, he also taught that...whosoever will save his own life shall lose it and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul (Matt. 16:25,26).

In this verse, it demonstrates that man's needs would not be met by his attempt to satisfy his own needs independent of God but that losing oneself to Him by placing all of one's life in his hands was the answer to man's ultimate needs. Answering the need for the restoration of harmony between men and God, Jesus gave men the greatest commandment;

We see that all civilizations are based in rules of some kind. This is so for capitalism that carries a set of rules and their force is global.  The 11 Commandments, not ten, would be included in these basic Rules of capitalism that enable respect individual  property and ownership.  The aboriginal must accept and acknowledge this. He must also accept that he did not have a right to another man's wigwam in his own culture or another man's wife or horse in his own culture.  If you contravened this law of the aboriginal, you would be brought to the village elder and they would accuse you. Did you  see the woman who accused her neighbour of touching her  baby's clothing outside her  hut?   She put the clothing on the vine near her neighbour's hut and if you brush on it by mistake, then she says she  will have war except the monkey came and spit on it and threw it on the ground.  The 11 command extrapolated from Exodus 34 involves a tithe or tax and a disbursement to all the people to take care of everyone in the lean years.  All the years are lean for most of the population after Automation when they do not own factors of production such as farms or factories.  The tension in ownership between the old world and the new world is seen in the  bastardised use of Locke's motto on government where Locke says we seek government to maintain our life, Liberty, Health and Property.  Thomas Jefferson's bastardised version confirms that he was receiving Locke's concept more as an indigenous person where he says in bastardy, that we seek from government, as North American Aboriginal creoles, the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; thereby editing out the healthy and property mentioned by Hobbes.  But, this mention of property is most essential and what man or woman would not want to hallow property and the protection of the same even if it's just your own stereo in your rented apartment/wigwam or Teepee?   Why change Locke's motto in the more American Aboriginal version?  This is a noted observation, confirming the US Constitution is received law from England and Europe as adopted by the more indigenous North Americans.  

In the new testament, the commands are summarised; 

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; (that within) these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matt 22:37-40).

Therefore God Himself, through Christ, was the answer to the needs of men as dictated by man's nature in his natural state according to the word of God.

In conclusion, the purpose of this essay was not to argue for the existence of God but to suppose that He existed while investigating what the bible had to say about man in a state of nature. That being said, Hebrews 11:6 is evident in that it says he who comes to God must believe that God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.  The intention of this essay, therefore, was to demonstrate that Locke's conception of man in a state of nature was contrary to what is outlined in the creation narrative in Genesis and to the rest of scripture. Having investigated this, it results that even though Locke uses the word of God in his arguments, he uses it incorrectly so that in the final analysis, Locke's theory conflicts greatly with the word of and the intentions of God. Because of this, the two concepts (that of God's word and Locke's) provide different answers to the needs of men as defined by the respective concepts of the state of nature. Locke proposes man-made government while the word of God proposes God's government manifested in the kingdom of Heaven through Jesus Christ: Therefore take no thought, saying what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or, wherewithal shall we be clothed?... But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you (Matt.6: 31,33, Ecclesiastes 5).

It is unfortunate for Locke, but man's reason is not perfect. It is fallible. Locke does not seem to acknowledge this. Hence, many of our world systems are inherently set on a crash course for collapse and have come to threaten man's very existence. It only took three hundred years from the time of Locke's first publishing where we must ask ourselves, how have we come to the brink of man's existence in terms of environmental failure or nuclear holocaust so rationally or is it irrationally? Our reason must be God dependent; not independent of God or presumptively right because it is called reason nor should it be worshiped as such. 

Over very powerlessness and the fragility of our egos leads us to seek power in this brief life and to seek control; sometimes at the cost of selling and pledging our very souls ( Salome's mother (Mark 6:14-29), Hitler)).  But, God is power. God is in control.  Our current reality is the proof of the error of our trajectory; the error of our calculation, the error of our Lockeian philosophy. A third treatise is needed which will not be so short sighted and driven by continual taking, destruction (1st Timothy) and the fear of not having enough; the profit driven, property and provision, and continual expansion paradigm. How many cars can we sell in China?  Our capacity to realise a new energy paradigm based on hydrogen engines and fuel is realisable in this generation, freeing us from the doubt and global insecurity engendered by the dependence on fossil fuels (see link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykl2PH2B-tM&p=448B4793713D9028&playnext=1&index=23). 

Anything short of realising the hydrogen paradigm (five loaves and two fish) in the next 10 months is a failure of our collective genius (see link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcsRk_gtO2U&feature=related).  Imagine the cost of airline seats with jets equipped and flying with hydrogen jet engines (see link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N675mHss_uQ ).  A war with my ego may cost trillions of dollars but hydorgen is...virtually free.  We are now spending critical resources and energy to consider the threat of rising water levels to global security and there were many individuals who refused to accept the scientific reality of global warming because it was decided by certain "say so's(2+2=5?)" that it did not fit their political ideology but they do not live in Greenland or in the south pacific where the loss of polar ice caps and land mass respectively is a living reality. Our current format is impossibly unsustainable lest we subdivide the moon and the last remaining rain forests ( see a Fate Worse Than debt by Susan George: http://www.amazon.ca/Fate-Worse-Than-Debt/dp/0802131212).  What is needed is a third treatise which will hold in view the long term existence of all of mankind.  The pursuit of happiness misunderstood leads us to Hobbes' fear of life being nasty, brutish and short.  If your neighbour has a hemi or V8 engine, that should be no threat to you.  But, with social contract we approach civil society and humane government.  If Locke had been honest in faith, he might have provided a theory for a system that would last not only three to four hundred years but that would have been truly inspired by the word of God and God's call to have dominion; dominion as in care for and sustain while also living from the earth.  We can only leave behind what we have hoarded,once we have died.  We should seek to leave 'life' and not just inanimate wealth to our own future generations; to our own children's children; to the Smiths, the Jones', the Mbakas, the Chus, the Greenspoons, the Denilsons, the Costas, the Tochukwus, the Pedersons, Zegatas, Grahams, ten Booms and you can add your family's last name to the list. For those who can do something about it, this will be the greatest gift that they can leave to their family's future generations. Everyone can do something about it. We must think beyond what happens when we die. Our deeper theory determines our practice.  There is a book written that discusses the philosophy behind the 'Terminator' movies but ultimately we are the philosophy. It is dark. It needs to change. Hopefully we will not lose sight of our God-given capacity to reason and also the need to trust in God in the effort to find a solution; a solution other than holocaust.  We revere and rely on Christ's intuition absolutely (Proverbs 3:5,6).

So let it be.

Concept of Human Nature according to God

and John Locke: an Examination

Warren Lyon

Politics 237, University of Western, Ontario

First written with copyright in  March 1993 by Warren Augustine Lyon.  

Edited: February 2010

Copyright: February 9th, 2010

Warren Augustine Lyon, IN HOUSE COUNSEL, LITIGATOR.  

Toronto, Canada

Bibliography

1. Berry, C.J, Human Nature, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, Humanities press International: 1986

2. Locke, John., Second Treatise Of Government, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing: 1980.

3. Morris,H.M., The Biblical Basis of Modern Science Grand Rapids, Baker Book House: 1984.

4. The Bible: King James version, Living Bible Translation, Good News Bible.

Endnotes

iChristopher J. Berry, Human Nature (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, 1986) p.133

iiParadigm is defined as a self-actualizing world view; Robert Melvin, Professor in Politics at the University of Western, Ontario.

iiiibid. as in #1. p. xiii

iv The reason for this is that man's nature in the state of nature is, in essence, the same as human nature. The purpose of the concept of human nature is to look at man in his most natural state and this would most likely be found within the state of nature.

vHenry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis of Modern Science(Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1984), p. 41

viMind is defined as "that with which the living being feels, wills, and thinks; Intellectual ability, and the capacity to reason.,The New American Webster Dictionary

Our capacity to realise a new energy paradigm based on hydrogen engines and fuel is realisable in this generation, freeing us from the doubt and global insecurity engendered by the dependence on fossil fuels-our collective genius realised.