Presbyterian Insight......... where are they?

[Denise1957]

But they seem to be in accordance with the essence of some men and women. You also haven’t stated what kind of “bad” or “evil” end results from homosexual relations. You just assume that this is somehow self-evident.

That’s a really good question. St Thomas says:

“Truly since the good has the notion of an end, evil has the contrary notion, whence it is that everything to which man has a natural inclination, reason naturally apprehends as good, and consequently as to be sought by action and their contrary as evil to be avoided.”

It’s St. Thomas who provides the basis for the notion of evil being contrary to the good. Human nature (physically and mentally) is geared toward reproduction. Our bodies are designed for reproduction, and since most humans are heterosexuals, and our society needs to continue, it’s obvious that this is our essence as humans. The essence of a thing determines what it can or cannot do, and what it should or should not do, depending on congruity with our nature or essence.

We can ask what the “norm” is according to human nature, but then our society nowadays has redefined what is human nature to include that which is really contrary to it.

 

[Thorolfr]

I doubt not there sincerity. Only their accuracy. But out of curiosity, can you reference a scriptural support for same gender marriage.

Jon

I don’t know of any scriptural support for same-gender marriage, but that doesn’t mean that our understanding of what God allows or doesn’t allow does not change. For example, on the issue of slavery, it says in Leviticus 25:44-46:

44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.

On the issue of polygamy, we know that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and that his father David had 6 wives. Abraham had two wives of whom one (Sarah) was his half-sister.

But most Christians nowadays would probably agree that slavery, polygamy and incest are wrong. So our understanding of what God allows has changed despite the fact that there is support for those three things in the Bible.

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s St. Thomas who provides the basis for the notion of evil being contrary to the good. Human nature (physically and mentally) is geared toward reproduction. Our bodies are designed for reproduction, and since most humans are heterosexuals, and our society needs to continue, it’s obvious that this is our essence as humans. The essence of a thing determines what it can or cannot do, and what it should or should not do, depending on congruity with our nature or essence.

If human nature is geared towards reproduction, then why do Catholic clergy and many others who are presumably heterosexual practice celibacy? In fact, many early Christians, even some married ones, practiced celibacy. Wouldn’t that be against natural law?

 

[Denise1957]

1. You were talking about Aquinas’ view of Natural Law.
2. Aquinas’ view of Natural Law includes a dependence upon Divine Command (“eternal law”, as I mentioned way back here).
3. Divine Command and Natural Law are dichotomous concepts.
4. How a third concept (e.g., gay marriage) interacts with Natural Law or Divine Command depends upon which of those two it interacts with.
5. The official Catholic position on homosexuality refers to “natural law” but actually depends on revelation, i.e. Divine Command, not on Natural Law alone.
6. A view of homosexuality from the “natural law” position of Aquinas or the official position of the Catholic Church is actually a Divine Command view, and thus ultimately operates as “gay marriage is wrong because (my church’s understanding of) God says so”, as already stated.

I think I understand what you’re getting at finally. You think that St. Thomas writings about natural law, even though they do not purport to always include Divine Command, do actually include Divine Command. Actually St. Thomas does combine the two, but only after explaining the basic natural law first. One cannot really understand the concept, unless the basics are explained. So I don’t agree that he always combines natural law and Divine Law. But I can understand why you would think that he does.

You view of natural law seems to be about “whatever one wants to do is fine, as long as it can be observed somewhere in nature.” Would that be a simple description of what you believe?

 

[Denise1957]

If human nature is geared towards reproduction, then why do Catholic clergy and many others who are presumably heterosexual practice celibacy? In fact, many early Christians, even some married ones, practiced celibacy. Wouldn’t that be against natural law?

I have no idea. Jesus was celibate, so maybe he started a new trend.

 

[Mystophilus]

Human nature (physically and mentally) is geared toward reproduction.

Only a fraction of human physical or psychological nature is connected with reproduction. Most of it is engineered for personal survival, irrespective of the functioning of its reproductive capacity.

Our bodies are designed for reproduction, and since most humans are heterosexuals, and our society needs to continue, it’s obvious that this is our essence as humans.

Since our society needs to continue, it’s obvious that *some *members of the society need to have children, not that having children is part of the essence of humanity itself, a universal/fundamental characteristic of the category ‘human’.

If having children were the essence of humanity, then childless people would not be essentially human. The capacity to have children is merely a *normal *characteristic of humans, but so are the capacity to kill and the capacity to ride a bicycle.

 

[Denise1957]

Only a fraction of human physical or psychological nature is connected with reproduction. Most of it is engineered for personal survival, irrespective of the functioning of its reproductive capacity.

Since our society needs to continue, it’s obvious that *some *members of the society need to have children, not that having children is part of the essence of humanity itself, a universal/fundamental characteristic of the category ‘human’.

If having children were the essence of humanity, then childless people would not be essentially human. The capacity to have children is merely a *normal *characteristic of humans, but so are the capacity to kill and the capacity to ride a bicycle.

When discussing same-sex relations, as we are on this thread, it seems appropriate to talk about those aspects of human nature which have to do with reproduction. You are right of course that human nature is more than that.

If some people are not able to have children due to a physical malfunction, then it has nothing to do with them not being human, and it’s rather ridiculous to think otherwise.

 

[Mystophilus]

I think I understand what you’re getting at finally. You think that St. Thomas writings about natural law, even though they do not purport to always include Divine Command, do actually include Divine Command. Actually St. Thomas does combine the two, but only after explaining the basic natural law first. One cannot really understand the concept, unless the basics are explained. So I don’t agree that he always combines natural law and Divine Law. But I can understand why you would think that he does.

I think that he does because Aquinas himself explicitly and repeatedly states that he does. In his first definition of natural law, he declares, “I answer that …] since all things subject to **Divine **providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law …]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law …] the rational creature is subject to **Divine **providence in the most excellent way …] the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the **Divine **light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.”

Later, he continues, “all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law”, but “God is the efficient cause of infused virtue” (whence the section in 2.1.94.6 where he describes deviation from Divine Command as the deletion of the Natural Law, i.e. once more predicating his version of “natural law” upon Divine Command).

You view of natural law seems to be about “whatever one wants to do is fine, as long as it can be observed somewhere in nature.” Would that be a simple description of what you believe?

No, that’s relativistic ethical naturalism.

As previously mentioned, both of those links describe Natural Law, and I have summarised those in this thread as “the view that human morality can be valued and determined by observing the operations of nature, i.e. of the world around us, with no (name removed by moderator)ut from divine revelation. …] As such, Natural Law is the part in which a Christian can be in complete agreement with a Hindu, or an atheist, the part which requires no God (or other metaphysical entity or force)”.

 

[Mystophilus]

When discussing same-sex relations, as we are on this thread, it seems appropriate to talk about those aspects of human nature which have to do with reproduction. You are right of course that human nature is more than that.

If some people are not able to have children due to a physical malfunction, then it has nothing to do with them not being human, and it’s rather ridiculous to think otherwise.

 

[frobert]

I think I understand what you’re getting at finally. You think that St. Thomas writings about natural law, even though they do not purport to always include Divine Command, do actually include Divine Command. Actually St. Thomas does combine the two, but only after explaining the basic natural law first. One cannot really understand the concept, unless the basics are explained. So I don’t agree that he always combines natural law and Divine Law. But I can understand why you would think that he does.

You view of natural law seems to be about “whatever one wants to do is fine, as long as it can be observed somewhere in nature.” Would that be a simple description of what you believe?

You seem to be saying, no you are saying that one can not understand natural law without including Thomas’ belief in divine command which appears to defeat the main purpose of natural law outside of catholic beliefs. Perhaps you can explain to a non Catholic or agnostic or atheist how natural law based on catholic beliefs which need to be explained is natural.

 

[Denise1957]

I think that he does because Aquinas himself explicitly and repeatedly states that he does. In his first definition of natural law, he declares, “I answer that …] since all things subject to **Divine **providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law …]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law …] the rational creature is subject to **Divine **providence in the most excellent way …] the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the **Divine **light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.”

Later, he continues, “all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law”, but “God is the efficient cause of infused virtue” (whence the section in 2.1.94.6 where he describes deviation from Divine Command as the deletion of the Natural Law, i.e. once more predicating his version of “natural law” upon Divine Command).

No, that’s relativistic ethical naturalism.

As previously mentioned, both of those links describe Natural Law, and I have summarised those in this thread as “the view that human morality can be valued and determined by observing the operations of nature, i.e. of the world around us, with no (name removed by moderator)ut from divine revelation. …] As such, Natural Law is the part in which a Christian can be in complete agreement with a Hindu, or an atheist, the part which requires no God (or other metaphysical entity or force)”.

The New Advent links that you provided for your quotes are really confusing to read, because your quotes seem to be located all over the place, and I have to hunt for them, and because it’s not obvious as to how St. Thomas is separating natural law from Divine Law, but I understand that it’s probably the only source that you have access to, so I’ll try to work on it tomorrow.

The only comment I have for now is that God is also the author of natural law, so it shouldn’t really differ all that much from what God has revealed to His Church through revelation.

 

[Denise1957]

You seem to be saying, no you are saying that one can not understand natural law without including Thomas’ belief in divine command which appears to defeat the main purpose of natural law outside of catholic beliefs. Perhaps you can explain to a non Catholic or agnostic or atheist how natural law based on catholic beliefs which need to be explained is natural.

I don’t think that St. Thomas is the only person to ever write about natural law. I don’t really understand your other question, though. Sorry.

 

[ltwin]

I don’t know of any scriptural support for same-gender marriage, but that doesn’t mean that our understanding of what God allows or doesn’t allow does not change. For example, on the issue of slavery, it says in Leviticus 25:44-46:

44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.

On the issue of polygamy, we know that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and that his father David had 6 wives. Abraham had two wives of whom one (Sarah) was his half-sister.

But most Christians nowadays would probably agree that slavery, polygamy and incest are wrong. So our understanding of what God allows has changed despite the fact that there is support for those three things in the Bible.

Much of this is gross simplification. The Old Testament allowed slaves; it did not command the owning of slaves. Jesus explicitly came to “proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18). Paul himself condemned “enslavers” (alongside those who practiced homosexuality) in 1 Timothy 1:10. Paul encourages those who are enslaved to gain their freedom if they have the opportunity (1 Corinthians 7:21). Paul and other New Testament writers did not advocate for the overthrow of 1st century social system, but their views on slavery were revolutionary for the time. Paul would certainly have condemned the Atlantic slave trade had he lived at the time, and the Antebellum South’s social system certainly shared in the judgment that befalls Babylon in Revelation 18:11-13:

And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore cargo of . . . and slaves, that is, human souls.

As for polygamy, the Old Testament practice has no bearing on Christians. The New Testament explicitly established heterosexual monogamy as the standard for marriage (1 Timothy 3:2; Matthew 19:3-9).

Even when we look at the Old Testament, we see that it only permits polygamy. It never endorsed it. Deuteronomy 17:17 declares, “he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away . . .”

Christians did not make up anti-slavery and monogamous marriage. These things were taught in Scripture, divine revelation. Same-sex marriage is in the exact opposite situation. The New Testament explicitly condemns homosexual acts as sin, and those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9).

 

[57Bill]

I would like to know some insight and thoughts on the Presbyterian vote to accept gay marriages? Any Presbyterian care to weight in or share some insight…???

We and MANY others left the PCUSA denomination.

Sorry this isn’t sharing anything other than we left. We are in a very liberal/self-centered part of California. We left as graciously and quickly as we could.

 

[Mystophilus]

The New Advent links that you provided for your quotes are really confusing to read, because your quotes seem to be located all over the place, and I have to hunt for them, and because it’s not obvious as to how St. Thomas is separating natural law from Divine Law, but I understand that it’s probably the only source that you have access to, so I’ll try to work on it tomorrow.

I just picked newadvent.org because some Catholics on this forum disbelieve anything not from a Catholic website.

You can use your browser’s search function on the web page to find the text, or we can use this site or this site or this site or this site or any other one which you prefer.

The only comment I have for now is that God is also the author of natural law, so it shouldn’t really differ all that much from what God has revealed to His Church through revelation.

While the content ought to be the same, the epistemologies are incommensurably different.

 

[frobert]

I don’t think that St. Thomas is the only person to ever write about natural law. I don’t really understand your other question, though. Sorry.

The question was simple, so simple that you inadvertently answered it. It is natural law, in your belief, because someone (in your case, St Thomas) said so. It other words it is not naturally derived because it is dependent on a belief.

 

[eightydeuce82]

It is your opinion that they are wrong and it is their opinion that they are right. So there is a difference of opinions.

And here we go with the their interpretation/opinion is different so what stuff

Here we are again indeed so there isn’t a finite faith its all man made garbage and opinions. God never intended man to have a finite source and all faiths and denominations are equal and it doesn’t matter which you belong to. Your line of thinking is dangerous. In one sentence you just legitimized Mormons, Satanists, JWs and all the other cults out there as just as valid as anyone else because their interpretation is there’s and different. Yet you leave ZERO ability to distinguish an authority who set these foundations for Christianity and in fact have relegated the bible the ting you cherish the most as an insignificant object that anyone can read and decide what they want. Of course that completely destroys the whole holy spirit leading anyone to truth individually stuff now doesn’t it?

 

[eightydeuce82]

I don’t think that St. Thomas is the only person to ever write about natural law. I don’t really understand your other question, though. Sorry.

Welcome to the Protestant reformation and the kick off of the age of enlightenment where people separated science and religion. This is also where secular humanists spawned. The natural law argument with a protestant is not possible.

Of course history shows it already happened once around 1517 so why wouldn’t it happen again.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Welcome to the Protestant reformation and the kick off of the age of enlightenment where people separated science and religion. This is also where secular humanists spawned. The natural law argument with a protestant is not possible.

 

[Mystophilus]

Welcome to the Protestant reformation and the kick off of the age of enlightenment where people separated science and religion. This is also where secular humanists spawned.

Oh, like Lucretius, you mean? Secular humanism predates Christianity.