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

[Mystophilus]

Natural Law is the observation of (science folks can weigh in there) and the statement of faith regarding God creating us is part for the insight in which supports the purpose of all things made, sea, moon, trees, tides, currents, OUR internal sytems, etc…

I’m saying that natural law is consistant with the laws of nature in that as written God has created things for our good and all things in this world has a purpose people, plants, animals etc. but also all the PARTS that make up people as a whole, plants as a whole etc…

There are two distinct systems in what you are describing there: Natural Law and Divine Command. You are combining them, which is not inherently bad, but it is valuable to recognise which elements belong to the one and which to the other. So, “Natural Law is consistent with the laws of nature” is about Natural Law. “As written, God has created” is not about Natural Law, but about Divine Command.

For a very long time, Christian belief has combined the two, and said the sorts of things which you are saying: “X is wrong because nature as organised by God and in coherence with God’s will expressed in Scripture shows this.”

In essence, 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): “X is bad, because we can demonstrate its harmfulness in a laboratory”. Divine Command is the part in which a believer can only be in complete agreement with another believer: “X is bad, because the Scriptures/the Church/some other religious authority says so.”

If God said for men not to lay with men in your mind what does that mean?

You say that men laying with men or women with women is not against God’s teaching?

See, here we are talking about Divine Command: “Is X consistent with God’s will?”

Would you call it perverse for people to freely have sex because it feels good? or do you justify it by thinking “its an act of making love”?

I don’t see the need to justify it, any more than I see the need to justify walking down the street, playing tennis, or changing jobs. In Catholicism, there is a Divine Command basis for saying that sex is not about fun, but I am not Catholic.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Jesus.came to save sinners.

Rc church has had an unbroken line of Popes from St Peter. The apostles were alive during the.early.church and would have.guided this. The Holy Spirit spoke to them and sent them visions.

Jesus said.He would be present trully in the Eucharist;
“I am the.Bread of Life. My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

A lot of the crowds found this hard to stomach and left!
Guess what chapter, verse and line from John this was?

6:6:6

We Lutherans believe that Christ is fully present in the Eucharist as well. No problem here with that teaching.

 

[hiramross]

There are two distinct systems in what you are describing there: Natural Law and Divine Command. You are combining them, which is not inherently bad, but it is valuable to recognise which elements belong to the one and which to the other. So, “Natural Law is consistent with the laws of nature” is about Natural Law. “As written, God has created” is not about Natural Law, but about Divine Command.

For a very long time, Christian belief has combined the two, and said the sorts of things which you are saying: “X is wrong because nature as organised by God and in coherence with God’s will expressed in Scripture shows this.”

In essence, 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): “X is bad, because we can demonstrate its harmfulness in a laboratory”. Divine Command is the part in which a believer can only be in complete agreement with another believer: “X is bad, because the Scriptures/the Church/some other religious authority says so.”

See, here we are talking about Divine Command: “Is X consistent with God’s will?”

I don’t see the need to justify it, any more than I see the need to justify walking down the street, playing tennis, or changing jobs. In Catholicism, there is a Divine Command basis for saying that sex is not about fun, but I am not Catholic.

But you say that the two should be separated and I’m saying that they are not.
One example why they are not to be separate:

Natural Law:
Job 26:7 “He (God) stretches out the north over the void,
and hangs the earth upon nothing”

Law of Nature:
The earth is suspended in by nothing – but yes of course the earth orbit is by the sun’s pull. But as written thousands of years ago. The earth is hung by nothing.
Side note: Before ancient Greeks thought atlas supported the earth…

Natural law meets law of nature.

Natural Law:
Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear”

Law of Nature:
It wasn’t discovered till the 19th century that all visible matter is created and formed by invisible elements

Natural law meets law of nature.

 

[hiramross]

Natural Law:
Genesis 2:7 “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Genesis 3:19 “In the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
and to dust you shall return”

Law of Nature:
Scientist support and agree that the human body is composed of 28 base elements which are found in the earth…not unearthly matter/elements.

Natural Law meets Law of Nature

Natural Law:
Leviticus 15:13 “And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes; and he shall bathe his body in running water, and shall be clean.”

Law of Nature:
Ignaz Semmelweis noted that doctors of his time didn’t wash there hands and spread disease and bacteria after touch sick and dead bodies. He realized the importance of washing hands and more importantly with RUNNING WATER….then many years later Louis Pasteur supported Ignaz theory with the germ theory.

Again Natural Law meets law of nature.

 

[hiramross]

Natural Law laid out is in the context of the Christian teaching and presented in the Bible

 

[Mystophilus]

But you say that the two should be separated and I’m saying that they are not.

Actually, what I said was that combining them isn’t bad: I am not saying that they should be separated.

I went on to say that recognising the differences between them is valuable. By doing so, one can acknowledge that a given idea belongs to Christianity in particular, rather than to human understanding generally.

Natural Law:
Job 26:7
Hebrews 11:3
Genesis 2:7
Genesis 3:19
Leviticus 15:13

Sorry, but those are not examples of Natural Law: they are examples of Jewish/Christian science, not morality. To not misuse this term, you need to discriminate between a) what people understand about how the world works, and b) what people understand that they should do because of how the world works. Only the latter is Natural Law.

(BTW, although people keep repeating this misconception, the Greeks did not believe that Atlas supported the world: as Hesiod says (Theogony 507ff and 744ff), Atlas supports the sky, keeping it off the world.)

So, as the Catholic authority on this, Thomas Aquinas says, commenting on Romans 2:14, “When the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law”, “Although they have no written law, yet they have the natural law, whereby each one knows, and is conscious of, what is good and what is evil.” This is what Natural Law means: an understanding of what is good or bad, right or wrong, based upon the operations of the natural world.

So, 1) it is about the morality of behaviour, not science, 2) to be a part of Natural Law, it must be observable from nature alone, without any divine revelation, 3) if it is part of Natural Law, it is a moral position which can be equally shared by all people of all belief systems.

“Killing people is bad” - Natural Law (obvious to everyone)
“Stealing is bad” - Natural Law (obvious to everyone)
“Eating meat on certain holy days is bad” - Divine Command
“Beef is okay, but pork is forbidden” - Divine Command

 

[hiramross]

Actually, what I said was that combining them isn’t bad: I am not saying that they should be separated.

I went on to say that recognising the differences between them is valuable. By doing so, one can acknowledge that a given idea belongs to Christianity in particular, rather than to human understanding generally.

Sorry, but those are not examples of Natural Law: they are examples of Jewish/Christian science, not morality. To not misuse this term, you need to discriminate between a) what people understand about how the world works, and b) what people understand that they should do because of how the world works. Only the latter is Natural Law.

(BTW, although people keep repeating this misconception, the Greeks did not believe that Atlas supported the world: as Hesiod says (Theogony 507ff and 744ff), Atlas supports the sky, keeping it off the world.)

So, as the Catholic authority on this, Thomas Aquinas says, commenting on Romans 2:14, “When the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law”, “Although they have no written law, yet they have the natural law, whereby each one knows, and is conscious of, what is good and what is evil.” This is what Natural Law means: an understanding of what is good or bad, right or wrong, based upon the operations of the natural world.

So, 1) it is about the morality of behaviour, not science, 2) to be a part of Natural Law, it must be observable from nature alone, without any divine revelation, 3) if it is part of Natural Law, it is a moral position which can be equally shared by all people of all belief systems.

“Killing people is bad” - Natural Law (obvious to everyone)
“Stealing is bad” - Natural Law (obvious to everyone)
“Eating meat on certain holy days is bad” - Divine Command
“Beef is okay, but pork is forbidden” - Divine Command

Happy Easter Mystophilus!

reply coming soon…

Having to attend Mass

 

[Mystophilus]

Happy Easter Mystophilus!

reply coming soon…

Having to attend Mass

Happy Easter to you also.

(And read Aquinas, because he explains it all rather well.)

 

[CarmelJerome]

To be clear, it was the Presbyterian Church (USA) (abbreviated PC(USA)) that voted to accept gay marriages. The PC(USA) is the largest American Presbyterian church, but there are others. Other Presbyterian denominations such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church for example continue to uphold traditional Christian teaching.

I’m not a Presbyterian, but I’ve researched Presbyterian history. A lot of our liberal Protestant friends (not just Presbyterians) reinterpret biblical passages that forbid or condemn homosexual acts to not mean what they clearly mean. Often, they say that this is only talking about non-consensual homosexual activity or that Paul was condemning male prostitution or that Paul was simply regurgitating the social standards of his own time and that this was not meant to be a universal, binding moral precept.

This was the work of the Metropolitan Community Church teachers - the first body created explicitly to house and excuse practices of the sin of Sodom. The fatality of sola scriptura is made clear by the fact that the bases crime - one of the sins crying to Heaven for vengeance - can be so easily accepted merely by an absurd and deliberate 'reinterpretation ’ of the texts.

 

[Denise1957]

Catholic view of marriage as being all about procreation is not simply a Natural Law one: it depends upon Christian Scripture and Tradition. Under Natural Law, there is no problem having an exclusive relationship with no children, or one between two people who happen to be of the same sex.

The Catholic view of marriage is not only about the procreation of children. It is also unitive for the man and woman, in that they are helpmates in life and the eventual gaining of Heaven.

If, in natural law, there is no problem in having an exclusive relationship between two people of the same sex, then why are there no pre-Christian cultures where same-sex marriage or unions were allowed?

 

[Mystophilus]

If, in natural law, there is no problem in having an exclusive relationship between two people of the same sex, then why are there no pre-Christian cultures where same-sex marriage or unions were allowed?

We do not actually have a lot of data about the theory of marriage in pre-Christian cultures: they just did not talk about it a great deal. However, to say that same-sex unions were “not allowed” is quite misleading, since cultures from Greece to Japan to the Pacific islands had those without any sort of strict formalisation: they allowed them, but did not bother to make them formal in the same way that they made different-sex relations formal.

The crucial difference, of course, is children, their paternity, and the proper line of inheritance.

 

[Denise1957]

We do not actually have a lot of data about the theory of marriage in pre-Christian cultures: they just did not talk about it a great deal. However, to say that same-sex unions were “not allowed” is quite misleading, since cultures from Greece to Japan to the Pacific islands had those without any sort of strict formalisation: they allowed them, but did not bother to make them formal in the same way that they made different-sex relations formal.

The crucial difference, of course, is children, their paternity, and the proper line of inheritance.

Actually, we have the old Scholastic fathers, such as Aristotle, who were pre-Christian. Did Aristotle believe in same-sex unions? After all, The Angelic Doctor based some of his methodology on Aristotle.

 

[Mystophilus]

Actually, we have the old Scholastic fathers, such as Aristotle, who were pre-Christian. Did Aristotle believe in same-sex unions? After all, The Angelic Doctor based some of his methodology on Aristotle.

As previously mentioned, same-sex unions were not formalised, but what Aristotle says about same-sex relations is very clear, and very typical of ancient Greek culture: in his Nicomachean Ethics 1156b-1157a (8.3-4), he outlines different types of love relationships, describing the most perfect type as a long-lasting mutual love of each other’s character, and identifying this type as one possible result of gay, sexual relationships. Incidentally, he goes on to say that it is more difficult for a husband and wife to have such a perfect relationship because of their inherent inequality.

(NB: some people claim that Aristotle was opposed to homosexuality because they have carelessly glanced at Nicomachean Ethics 1148b (7.5), and failed to read the rest of the text: like Plato, he consistently condemns immoderate behaviour, and what he says there is that for a male to be irrationally devoted to being the passive partner in sex is disordered, not that sex between males is inherently bad.)

Generally speaking, the Greeks did not see homosexuality as a big deal, which must have made the Christian view of it quite a shock.

 

[oneofmany]

It seems many Protestant churches vote on what they will accept in scripture and what they won’t accept anymore. Maybe those Protestants aren’t sola scriptura, how can they be?

I have heard of one Presbyterian church that voted Jesus is not the Son of God. Many older members had to quit going since that is not even Christian anymore. They were very sad since they went there for years.

 

[Denise1957]

As previously mentioned, same-sex unions were not formalised, but what Aristotle says about same-sex relations is very clear, and very typical of ancient Greek culture: in his Nicomachean Ethics 1156b-1157a (8.3-4), he outlines different types of love relationships, describing the most perfect type as a long-lasting mutual love of each other’s character, and identifying this type as one possible result of gay, sexual relationships. Incidentally, he goes on to say that it is more difficult for a husband and wife to have such a perfect relationship because of their inherent inequality.

(NB: some people claim that Aristotle was opposed to homosexuality because they have carelessly glanced at Nicomachean Ethics 1148b (7.5), and failed to read the rest of the text: like Plato, he consistently condemns immoderate behaviour, and what he says there is that for a male to be irrationally devoted to being the passive partner in sex is disordered, not that sex between males is inherently bad.)

Generally speaking, the Greeks did not see homosexuality as a big deal, which must have made the Christian view of it quite a shock.

Aristotle also believed in a traditional view of marriage, in that the man should be the head of the household, and the woman should obey the husband. The Greek cultures did not approve same-sex “marriage,” despite the tolerance of homosexuality by some. You still haven’t shown that homosexual marriages or formal unions have been accepted by the pre-Christian cultures. Even Aristotle, who was a keen observer of human nature and natural law, did not approve of it.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by hiramross View Post
When groups like this fall under the world’s pressure and go further away from Christ; does this have you rethink your position?

Yet, almost ironically, we as confessional Lutherans are depending on the Catholic Church to remain steadfast in its orthodox Christian stance. We have no stronger an ally in this.

Jon

 

[Mystophilus]

You still haven’t shown that homosexual marriages or formal unions have been accepted by the pre-Christian cultures.

How on earth did you manage to imagine that I was trying to? Why on earth would you imagine that I should want to? As I have stated twice already, the Greeks did not formalise same-sex relationships. They had no need to do so. As for accepting homosexual relationships as normal, that starts from **Akhilleus **and **Patroklos **in Homer, and proceeds consistently down through the centuries of Greek culture, including not only such notable examples as Sappho, Harmodios and Aristogeiton, and Alexander, but even the state-organised Sacred Band of Thebes, a military unit composed exclusively of pairs of gay male lovers.

This is why I mentioned earlier that described gay marriages as “not allowed” is misleading: it can trip people into the misconception that such relationships were forbidden, which they weren’t. ** Gay marriage was not regulated, because there was no need to regulate it, no cultural sanction against it**.

Aristotle also believed in a traditional view of marriage, in that the man should be the head of the household, and the woman should obey the husband.

Apart from the aforementioned fact that Aristotle described gay sexual relationships as more likely than heterosexual marriages to lead to a perfect love, I am not quite sure how someone who had no problem with widespread, institutionalised **prostitution **(Athenian Democracy, 50) and who had a **mistress **(Herpyllis) and a **boyfriend **(Palaiphaetos) could be described as having what a modern Catholic would consider “a traditional view of marriage”, but then maybe modern Catholic views of marriage are broader than I had assumed.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Yet, almost ironically, we as confessional Lutherans are depending on the Catholic Church to remain steadfast in its orthodox Christian stance. We have no stronger an ally in this.

Jon

Why are we depending on the RC for that?

 

[Tomyris]

The way this thread is shaping up, I thought it would be a great time to point out that I…am…Presbyterian. AFAIK, Aristotle was not.

Not all Presbyterians are PC(USA). I’m not, and their toleration of homosexuality, now more a welcoming of it, was a ajor compoenent in the reason for a denominational split when the EPC was formed. They used to be a “big tent” but now they are only inclusive of those on the theological left. The conservatives keep leaving, accelerating the leftward shift.

 

[JonNC]

Why are we depending on the RC for that?

Because we have few allies left, and they are the biggest. And the most reliable

Jon