telology

[billcu1]

I just don’t get telology and natural law at all. I think of many examples and other than what the church says morally and how they get the final cause for a thing is beyond me. Sounds something like the evolution of a thing. Since this is the moral theology forum I will suggest a sexual morality question and I think try to find a final cause from nature by looking at functioning etc.

Of all the mammals the human female is the only creature that retains her breasts while not nursing. Clearly by final cause we see the function of the mammary gland in human and animals in nature is lactation and to feed the young. Is the final cause of the human breast in human females too for sexual display? I say it must be because the human female retains her breasts when other female mammals don’t. Am I clear?
So I say that the human breast by natural law serves the function of human sexuality and child nursing.

A crude but I hope effective example. Am I right the breast serves 2 final causes?

 

[anruari]

I would tend to think that both science and the Holy scriptures would agree with your example

From an evolutionary point of view: In most primates the buttocks are used for sexual display. As humans stand upright, the development of a cleavage with remarkable similarity in shape to the buttocks developed.
In humans the shape and size of the breasts indicate age, health, and fecundity. They are a display of ones ability to be a good mother by providing for the young.

Many if not most Men seem to be fairly well programmed by biology and society to find this display highly attractive.

In the scriptures you will find that in the Song Of Solomon (Canticle of Canticles / Song of Songs) the author makes clear and very amorous reference to the attractiveness of his beloved’s bosom, and in Chapter 7 quite explicitly states that he wants to grasp her breasts:

8 In stature like the palm tree, its fruit-clusters your breasts.
9 I have decided, ‘I shall climb the palm tree, I shall seize its clusters of dates!’ May your breasts be clusters of grapes, your breath sweet-scented as apples,

I hope this answers your question:

Moral Law, derived from natural Law is clear: Natural human sexual attraction is normal and healthy, but as rational, moral creatures we are required to restrain our passions and put them to proper use, not be a slave to the desires of the flesh.

The example you chose was even easier to discuss, as it is clearly described in Scriptures, and Scripture and Natural Law agree. Yes natural sexual attraction is normal, and a gift from God, and is even used as an allegory for our relationship to God.

I’m a married man. I’m no prude, and neither is my wife. I can wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in the Song of Songs. (even if a modern literary form would express things in different language).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

bill

I just don’t get telology and natural law at all.

Teleology refers to intelligently designed ends; that is, ends which serve a purpose. By observing all the order in the universe, Thomas Aquinas deducted his teleological proof for the existence of God. Those passages in Scripture that refer to God’s Providence are referring to the fact that God has designed the universe with natural laws operating on behalf of his Master Plan. Thus, for example, children ideally ought to have both a mother and a father. Two fathers or two mothers was not part of the natural law. Having neither father nor mother after birth is even less part of the natural law. Original sin, by the power of Satan, leads us to oppose teleology and the natural law. We can oppose all sin by remembering that God’s plan is for our good, and anything opposing that plan is for our harm. God reminds us constantly of his plan by making sure we see that actions have consequences. Alcoholism, smoking, drug addiction, obesity, promiscuity, etc. are all self evidently harmful and against God’s plan. Only an obstinate stupidity and arrogance on our part makes them attractive.

 

[billcu1]

bill

I just don’t get telology and natural law at all.

Teleology refers to intelligently designed ends; that is, ends which serve a purpose. By observing all the order in the universe, Thomas Aquinas deducted his teleological proof for the existence of God. Those passages in Scripture that refer to God’s Providence are referring to the fact that God has designed the universe with natural laws operating on behalf of his Master Plan. Thus, for example, children ideally ought to have both a mother and a father. Two fathers or two mothers was not part of the natural law. Having neither father nor mother after birth is even less part of the natural law. Original sin, by the power of Satan, leads us to oppose teleology and the natural law. We can oppose all sin by remembering that God’s plan is for our good, and anything opposing that plan is for our harm. God reminds us constantly of his plan by making sure we see that actions have consequences. Alcoholism, smoking, drug addiction, obesity, promiscuity, etc. are all self evidently harmful and against God’s plan. Only an obstinate stupidity and arrogance on our part makes them attractive.

I quite agree and thank you for your post. If I am also correct in thinking of Augustine’s writings there is Divine law, natural law, and man made law. What’s the difference in divine and natural law?

 

[billcu1]

I would tend to think that both science and the Holy scriptures would agree with your example

From an evolutionary point of view: In most primates the buttocks are used for sexual display. As humans stand upright, the development of a cleavage with remarkable similarity in shape to the buttocks developed.
In humans the shape and size of the breasts indicate age, health, and fecundity. They are a display of ones ability to be a good mother by providing for the young.

Many if not most Men seem to be fairly well programmed by biology and society to find this display highly attractive.

In the scriptures you will find that in the Song Of Solomon (Canticle of Canticles / Song of Songs) the author makes clear and very amorous reference to the attractiveness of his beloved’s bosom, and in Chapter 7 quite explicitly states that he wants to grasp her breasts:

8 In stature like the palm tree, its fruit-clusters your breasts.
9 I have decided, ‘I shall climb the palm tree, I shall seize its clusters of dates!’ May your breasts be clusters of grapes, your breath sweet-scented as apples,

Thanks for also mentioning that scripture. I wasn’t aware of it. It seems my example is simple. Others I’ve found are not so simple.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

bill
**
What’s the difference in divine and natural law?**

Divine law, simply put, can be stated as the will of God in all things created. The creation of the universe and everything in it, for example, is subject to God’s will and would not exist without the physical laws embedded and evolved through time.

Natural law consists of two kinds, I think: the physical laws of the universe, and the moral laws conveyed to man at the time of his creation (the law of conscience, some might say, by which God helps us to and distinguish between good and evil. Many of these laws gradually emerged as revealed in the form of Scriptural admonitions, from Moses through Jesus and those (the Church) whom Jesus entrusted with protecting the natural moral law from being corrupted by men and demons.

Man made law may or may not reflect divine and natural law. Sometimes, however, it (legislated law) can go against the laws of God and a human nature, as we can see almost everywhere in America today.