There is no natural law... so kindly DROP it

[Touchstone]

I got quite a different impression from a recent Nova program about becoming human. The program illustrated how human infants, more so than any other primates, are attuned to reading and relating to others’ facial expressions and emotions. This is because humans are more likely to share parenting than say chimpanzees. So a human child needs to relate to a wider group of adults - not just their mothers.

If you read any amount of scholarly literature on this, you will notice that a substantial amount of preparatory discussion is devoted to getting the definitions and semantics of terms like “moral” and “empathy” nailed down. Some (earlier) models simply didn’t recognize infant behavior as even potentially ‘empathetic’ because of their working definition of ‘empathy’ – something that, among other things, often presumed a reified and self-conscious theory of mind.

So, I remember the program you are referring to, and agree that’s the kind of evidence science is increasingly developing into models that allocate significant “moral grammar” to newborn infants. But remember that that is predicated on a more general and expansive definition of “moral” and “empathetic” than what others have traditionally employed (and yes, that’s part of the thrust of the research, that this traditional view is somewhat obsolete now).

This is a distinction without a difference. To you the only thing you will call natural law is something that was demonstrably present at birth. Others here have been trying to explain that natural law is by definition something that is acquired through the application of reason. You change the definition of natural law to suit your premise. Until you and the others here can agree on the definition of natural law, then any debate on the substance of the issue is pointless. Of course anyone is free to define terms however they wish, as long as they don’t claim those terms are equivalent to someone else’s usage of those same terms.

I think you may be overlooking the “intrinsic-ness” of reason. In your view, if the particulars of natural law are uncovered by the application of reason, and I have no problem with that as a working definition or stipulation, that STILL reduces to a “basic equipment” feature of humans. Humans are born with the innate capacity to reason, so by extension, natural law is perfectly “built in” as the inevitable object of the application of that reason.

That is, to say that natural law depends on the application of reason is NOT to introduce any distinction, fundamentally, from something we might be inclined to describe as “written on men’s hearts” in some non-discovered/brute-fact way. It reduces to the same thing – God arranging the features of man such that God’s law is a fact, an objective fact of human experience, no matter whether it comes through “just knowing”, or some form of derived reasoning that inevitably yields to the apprehension of that same God’s law…

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

This is for Spock and T.S.

Can you give me on example of Human like altruism in other animals? So for example: giving to the poor? Or help build a house for someone they might never interact with? Not a simple I scratch your back, and you scratch my back scenario; however a scenario where helping out another person will potentially have very little little benefit to yourself, or none at all.

See here, at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Nature is replete with such examples. This isn’t even an interesting challenge.

Also, guessing you both are moral relativist meaning you don’t think morality is an absolute truth, and has no context out of the culture it’s learned. (If I’m wrong about your moral stance pardon me.)

I understand “absolute truth” as “divine fiat” to be a hopelessly confused concept. If it were an absolute truth, then God would not help, hurt or be able to alter its “truthiness”.

On the other hand, I do not understand humans to be perfectly plastic, “tabulas rasa”, shaped any which way the surrounding culture would prefer. Humans are products of evolution, and as such are, on human timelines, nearly static in their nature, evolving substantially only over tens and hundreds and thousands of thousands of years.

So, any and all modern humans inherit the millions-of-years legacy of their evolutionary ancestors. As such, they have moral instincts and basic dispositions which are innate, the heritage bequeathed them by those that went before them, and which are not dictated or dominated by any particular culture.

And I note that even this articulation is tricky. The fact that “culture” is a meaningful concept is the proof that humans are innately moral; choose any culture you wish, no matter how successful or failed it is in working against the “biological inertia” of human evolved pyschology, the mere fact that humans are social – that they engage in culture in the FIRST PLACE – denotes the essentially moral psychology of modern humans.

Can you tell me at least one nation in past, or maybe modern world, where they value rape? Also, do you ever think there is a scenario where rape would be necessarily? If so, could you outline your position for me?

In modern Pakistan, there is a widespread and institutional support for rape. In the Punjab, for example, tribal and feudal customs, centuries old, countenance the rape of women from families were the male members have committed crimes.

Rape has LONG been a valued and accepted weapon of war. Just a quick Google on that will produce way more sources on that than you need, or anyone should want to engage.

Not sure why you are asking, but if you suppose rape is a good example of something that is “universally abhorred” in moral terms, you are quite mistaken about the history of your species.

Note: I’m a current student at Michigan State University as a Biochemistry & Biotechnology major so I have a slight idea about science.

OK, great! None of this will be controversial to you, then.

-TS

 

[Spock]

I just said: the essence of a thing is that without which it would not be what it is.

Which is: what? What is the “essence” of a stone? Its atoms? If just one atom would be missing, it would not be the same stone, would it? What is the essence of a cow? I know that this “essence” was an attempt to categorize things into some classes - picking out the “important” features and disregarding the not-so-important ones. The problem is that one can choose to categorize along many lines, and what is “essential” in one aspect, is totally unimportant in another one. And the number of possible categorizations is infinite. That is why the concept of “essence” cannot be defined in a meaningful fashion. To say that “without which it would not be the same” is so vague that it is completely meaningless. It does not capture the “essence” of the things, because there is no “essence”.

There is hardly anything here to object to. To deny that there is an essence of man which is distinct from the essence of, say, a starfish is to say that there is no meaningful basis for distinguishing between the two. Yet clearly there is, because I can refer to a “man” or a “starfish” and there is no confusion regarding what I’m speaking of.

Except you did not define this nebulous “essence”. To say: “I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it” is ridiculous, and it was ridiculous when it was uttered by the Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart.

As it happens sex also has the effect of bringing couples closer together. But why does it do this? Because the procreative imperative inherent in the sexual faculty necessitates it. This is a simple evolutionary fact. Therefore the unitive aspect of sex is necessarily subordinate to the procreative.

Why subordinate? People engage in the unitive aspect even if they have no desire to procreate, or cannot procreate. Also, there in no evolutionary need to stay together after the conception happened. Moreover, there is no need to procreate in a formalized manner - meaning that marriage is not “necessary”.

And thus every sexual act must be had in a manner consistent with the end of procreation – i.e., noncontraceptive, intravaginal ejaculation.

Sheer nonsense. The “one-eyed monk” has three roles. One is eliminating some waste product. Another is to be used in the procreative act. And the third one is simple stimulation for pleasure. (The same is true for the “jade gate”.) It would be totally ridiculous to say that using it for elimination is a “perversion” of the procreative use, or that the usage for procreation would be a “perversion” of the elimination use. Both of the roles are normal and natural. And so is the third one, the usage for pleasure purposes. It has nothing to do with the other two aspects. Its usage is also normal and natural.

In the case of lower animals the act can only happen during the estrus - and thus the act really has only one purpose: procreation. In the case of higher apes (also humans) the act is separated from the estrus, it can occur any time. As such it is obvious that the act and the procreation are not united any more, they are separated. The bonobos use it as a conflict resolusion method, instead of fighing, they make “love”. How civilized! We, humans should learn from them, and we should not be lowered to the level of those other animals, who can only perform during the estrus.

That’s why we don’t judge them that way.

Your reason is purely religious. Of course, that is not a problem at all, as long as you own up this fact, and do not try to rationalize it. Don’t be shy to admit your real reasons, it will earn you respect.

 

[LSK]

No you did not. I did not answer your post, because I am most certainly not interested in some medieval speculation.

The “natural law” is supposed to be a moral guiding tool, which allows us to use reason and thus separate right from wrong - and allegedly we are born with this tool. I did not specify where it would reside, though it is obvious that it has to do “something” with our brain and mind - since that is the place where thinking happens.

The fact that someone dealt with your objections in the middle ages and answered your speculations and objections with reason and clarity does not interest you?

If one insists on an incorrect or incomplete understanding of the topic, it is foolish to continue the discussion.

However, the works of Blessed JPII also deal quite well with your assertions. Perhaps, because he lived during your life time, you would be interested in reading what he has to say on the subject?

 

[LSK]

I would argue that, because Rape has long been a valued and accepted ‘weapon’, that value in itself shows it is considered something awful, something to be used specifically to hurt or humiliate and to exercise power over a vanquished enemy. And while it may be used and even accepted, it is accepted because it is acknowledged as being harmful.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

wait… so if there’s no natural law, and you don’t practice a religion, what do you believe in?

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Let’s try some other Big Fancy words besides “Natural Law”, like **Inherent **Nature of Humans, Natural human inclinations, etc., etc. Reason and Logic each support them, as well as Common Sense. ** Inherent (aka “Natural” :hey_bud::idea Natural Nature of Humanity is what it’s all about. **
What was the result of earliest humans Naturally Stealing attitude, aka Nature? Anyone?

 

[TimothyH]

Let’s cut to the chase here.

If there is no moral law, then we can change behavior at will and determine what is right and wrong for ourselves. And that is really what the OP is after here. It’s part of his ongoing attempt at changing societal definitions of right and wrong to justify his own behavior, and tearing down individuals and institutions which are in a position to influence those definitions.

We can dance around on the heads of pins like this, talking about one eyed monks and such nonsense, but that’s the bottom line - tearing down the Church and it’s insistence that there is an objective moral code which defines right and wrong so that Spock can justify whatever issues he has or has had in his life which are bothering his concience.

Spock, three years ago I made a confession of 37 years. It was miraculous. I would ask you simply, if there is not really something you need to confess? Confession is likely to be the most mind blowing thing you ever do in your life.

-Tim-

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Let’s cut to the chase here.

If there is no moral law, then we can change behavior at will and determine what is right and wrong for ourselves.

I thought his objection was that there is no natural law and that Yahweh’s moral code is not written on our hearts. The example that you give above of a consequence of there being no “moral law” looks more like what I would expect some one to assert if there were no laws at all.

Most of us are subject to Positive Law (that laws are man made and give or remove privileges from groups of people). Yes, you can in fact change aspects of your behaviour at will and decide what is “right” or “wrong” for yourself. People do this all the time. Some times individuals that disagree with the status quo are motivated to change society in one way or another because of their conclusions on this matter. But as long as you are in a society you could be subject to the objections that they are capable of enforcing on that behaviour. That’s not to suggest that the individual or society is acting more “badly” in all cases as we can find examples in which either society or the individual can be argued to be more “wrong” or more “right.”

 

[sw85]

Which is: what? What is the “essence” of a stone? Its atoms? If just one atom would be missing, it would not be the same stone, would it?

Clearly not.

By contrast, if a particular lump of rock lost a molecule it would remain a rock, the exact same type of rock it was before – just reduced in size. Therefore the number of molecules is not essential to something’s classification as a rock while it’s atomic structure clearly is.

What is the essence of a cow?

I suppose it depends on the exact cow you’re talking about, but membership in the *bos *genus would seem to suffice.

I know that this “essence” was an attempt to categorize things into some classes - picking out the “important” features and disregarding the not-so-important ones.

Not quite. The essence of a thing is the basis on which we classify it. It is not itself the class.

Which is why of course I’m speaking imprecisely when I say, as above, that the essence of a cow is its membership in the *bos *genus. What I mean is that whatever it is that causes things to be classified as a member of the bos genus is what is essential to their being cows.

The problem is that one can choose to categorize along many lines, and what is “essential” in one aspect, is totally unimportant in another one.

So classification, at least in a biological sense, is sometimes arbitrary. This does not mean essences don’t exist.

Likewise the distinction between “red” and “orange” on a color spectrum is difficult, perhaps impossible, to p(name removed by moderator)oint. This does not mean that there is no such thing as “red” or “orange.”

That is why the concept of “essence” cannot be defined in a meaningful fashion. To say that “without which it would not be the same” is so vague that it is completely meaningless. It does not capture the “essence” of the things, because there is no “essence”.

That it is a necessarily vague definition is irrelevant. If there a billion classes of things then it follows that there are at least a billion distinguishing features of them, and the only thing they share in common is that they are said to distinguish things – therefore “that without which X would be not-X” is the most precise we can get when talking about “essences” in the abstract sense.

Again, this does not mean that there is no such thing as an essence. Or do you really believe there is no basis for distinguishing a man from a starfish? Or a potato from a skyscraper?

Why subordinate? People engage in the unitive aspect even if they have no desire to procreate, or cannot procreate.

Because the unitive derives from the procreative. Sex is unitive BECAUSE it is procreative.

This is why it is called the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM and not the PLEASURE SYSTEM.

Also, there in no evolutionary need to stay together after the conception happened.

And yet sex has a unitive aspect to it, hence the post-orgasmic release of hormones associated with love and bonding, and hence the notorious difficulty of navigating noncommittal “friends with benefits” arrangements.

Moreover, there is no need to procreate in a formalized manner - meaning that marriage is not “necessary”.

Necessary for what? As a means of raising children? Of course not.

*Morally *it *is *necessary – because the procreative end of the sex act does not conclude at orgasm.

Sheer nonsense. The “one-eyed monk” has three roles. One is eliminating some waste product. Another is to be used in the procreative act. And the third one is simple stimulation for pleasure. (The same is true for the “jade gate”.) It would be totally ridiculous to say that using it for elimination is a “perversion” of the procreative use, or that the usage for procreation would be a “perversion” of the elimination use.

Waste elimination is not a sexual act and therefore hardly involves the sexual faculty. Like the kids say nowadays, duh.

To use the sexual faculty in an illicit manner is to employ it so as to frustrate the natural end toward which it is ordered – e.g., using a condom, masturbating, withdrawal, etc.

In the case of lower animals the act can only happen during the estrus - and thus the act really has only one purpose: procreation. In the case of higher apes (also humans) the act is separated from the estrus, it can occur any time. As such it is obvious that the act and the procreation are not united any more, they are separated.

Hello? I am not talking about a state of *ontological possibility *but of moral imperative.

If it were impossible to use the sexual faculty illicitly then all this talk about sin would be rather meaningless, no?

The bonobos use it as a conflict resolusion method, instead of fighing, they make “love”. How civilized! We, humans should learn from them, and we should not be lowered to the level of those other animals, who can only perform during the estrus.

You realize natural law does not require that every act culminate in conception, but merely that it be used in a manner consistent with the end of procreation? Again, you should really do your homework before mouthing off about topics concerning which you’re very clearly ignorant.

 

[fhansen]

In Catholic thinking, humans making up their own morality is considered to be the “problem”, of course, it’s what the “original sin” consisted of in essence and what all following sin or moral evil derives from, with the Natural Law considered to be the standard from which we deviate. So that today a person can be opposed to incest or genocide, without necessarily even being fully conscious of this opposition, and tomorrow they can determine that such behavior is morally OK and perhaps participate in it.

 

[Spock]

Clearly not.

By contrast, if a particular lump of rock lost a molecule it would remain a rock, the exact same type of rock it was before – just reduced in size. Therefore the number of molecules is not essential to something’s classification as a rock while it’s atomic structure clearly is.

Simplistic. If you have a pile of plutonium atoms, which is just one atom shorter than the critical mass, it will just “sit” there. If you add just one more atom to it, it will explode. There will be a qualitative change, caused by a quantitiative one. Which is the “essence” of a pile of plutonium?

I suppose it depends on the exact cow you’re talking about, but membership in the *bos *genus would seem to suffice.

Arbitrary and irrelevant. Dogs, wolves and jackals are classified differently. What is the “essence” of a dog, and how does it differ from the “essence” of a wolf and from the “essence” of a jackal? Most dogs are the decendants of jackals, a few few kinds (chow-chows) come from wolves. What is the essence of a Pekingese and how does it differ from a Newfoundland? Biological classifications are totally arbitrary. So you poor “cow” still has no recognizable “essence”.

Not quite. The essence of a thing is the basis on which we classify it. It is not itself the class.

It would be some of the possible attributes, which the classifier deems important - and which decision aready presupposes a value system, on which the classification is based. The “essence” of a ball for a child is that it is nice toy, he can play with. The essence for the TQM manager is that it has no fault, it can be sold.

Which is why of course I’m speaking imprecisely when I say, as above, that the essence of a cow is its membership in the *bos *genus. What I mean is that whatever it is that causes things to be classified as a member of the bos genus is what is essential to their being cows.

And that is precisely what? Stop being imprecise, and start to become precise… if you can, that is.

So classification, at least in a biological sense, is sometimes arbitrary. This does not mean essences don’t exist.

Always arbitrary. And as such, the “essence” is also arbitrary.

Likewise the distinction between “red” and “orange” on a color spectrum is difficult, perhaps impossible, to p(name removed by moderator)oint. This does not mean that there is no such thing as “red” or “orange.”

That is precisely what it means. There is no “red” and “orange”. We use an arbitrary dividing line on the spectrum, and that line is contingent upon our eyes.

That it is a necessarily vague definition is irrelevant.

Oh, yes it is very relevant. It is because it cannot be precisely defined, it stays an irrelevant decision.

Again, this does not mean that there is no such thing as an essence. Or do you really believe there is no basis for distinguishing a man from a starfish? Or a potato from a skyscraper?

And the fact that we can differentiate them has nothing to do with this nebulous essence.

Because the unitive derives from the procreative. Sex is unitive BECAUSE it is procreative.

Nonsense. It is unitive because it feels good for both. The fact that it may lead to procreation is totally irrelevant. Even people who are unable to reproduce subscribe to the unitive part.

This is why it is called the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM and not the PLEASURE SYSTEM.

And also the waste elimination system. What is in name???

*Morally *it *is *necessary – because the procreative end of the sex act does not conclude at orgasm.

If there is a conception. But if there is none?

Waste elimination is not a sexual act and therefore hardly involves the sexual faculty.

It is yet another vaild and natural use for the same organ.

To use the sexual faculty in an illicit manner is to employ it so as to frustrate the natural end toward which it is ordered – e.g., using a condom, masturbating, withdrawal, etc.

Only for Christians. And that is why you really should come clean. Don’t try to include others in your “illicit” usage of our organs. It will not work. By the way, your usage of the word “ordered” reeks of its religious origin. There is nothing “illicit” about it in a secular environment. Secularists recongize that the procreative aspect is definitely there, they just do not agree that it is of special importance. Most people (even millions of Catholics - triple cheers for them and their courage to dare to think for themselves) do not want a random pregnancy, they want to control when to procreate, so the upcoming child can be cared for properly. Which is an admirable attitude, and It is strange that keeping the child’s best interest in mind is “frowed upon” by the church - if that means the postponement of conception and if the couple goes actively proactive in ensuring that no conception happens when it is not wanted.

If it were impossible to use the sexual faculty illicitly then all this talk about sin would be rather meaningless, no?

And talk about “sin” is just another relgious concept. Why don’t you just drop the thin veil of your assumed rationality, and admit that it all comes from your belief system. You don’t have to be ashamed of it. There is nothing shameful about being a Christian and admitting that your value system comes from your faith, especially on this board.

 

[davidv]

Simplistic. If you have a pile of plutonium atoms, which is just one atom shorter than the critical mass, it will just “sit” there. If you add just one more atom to it, it will explode. There will be a qualitative change, caused by a quantitiative one. Which is the “essence” of a pile of plutonium?

Arbitrary and irrelevant. Dogs, wolves and jackals are classified differently. What is the “essence” of a dog, and how does it differ from the “essence” of a wolf and from the “essence” of a jackal? Most dogs are the decendants of jackals, a few few kinds (chow-chows) come from wolves. What is the essence of a Pekingese and how does it differ from a Newfoundland? Biological classifications are totally arbitrary. So you poor “cow” still has no recognizable “essence”.

It would be some of the possible attributes, which the classifier deems important - and which decision aready presupposes a value system, on which the classification is based. The “essence” of a ball for a child is that it is nice toy, he can play with. The essence for the TQM manager is that it has no fault, it can be sold.

And that is precisely what? Stop being imprecise, and start to become precise… if you can, that is.

Always arbitrary. And as such, the “essence” is also arbitrary.

That is precisely what it means. There is no “red” and “orange”. We use an arbitrary dividing line on the spectrum, and that line is contingent upon our eyes.

Oh, yes it is very relevant. It is because it cannot be precisely defined, it stays an irrelevant decision.

And the fact that we can differentiate them has nothing to do with this nebulous essence.

Nonsense. It is unitive because it feels good for both. The fact that it may lead to procreation is totally irrelevant. Even people who are unable to reproduce subscribe to the unitive part.

And also the waste elimination system. What is in name???

If there is a conception. But if there is none?

It is yet another vaild and natural use for the same organ.

Only for Christians. And that is why you really should come clean. Don’t try to include others in your “illicit” usage of our organs. It will not work. By the way, your usage of the word “ordered” reeks of its religious origin. There is nothing “illicit” about it in a secular environment. Secularists recongize that the procreative aspect is definitely there, they just do not agree that it is of special importance. Most people (even millions of Catholics - triple cheers for them and their courage to dare to think for themselves) do not want a random pregnancy, they want to control when to procreate, so the upcoming child can be cared for properly. Which is an admirable attitude, and It is strange that keeping the child’s best interest in mind is “frowed upon” by the church - if that means the postponement of conception and if the couple goes actively proactive in ensuring that no conception happens when it is not wanted.

And talk about “sin” is just another relgious concept. Why don’t you just drop the thin veil of your assumed rationality, and admit that it all comes from your belief system. You don’t have to be ashamed of it. There is nothing shameful about being a Christian and admitting that your value system comes from your faith, especially on this board.

Sin is not “just another religious concept”. Sin is the violation of a moral standard. Moral standards is a human concept, not a religious concept.

Christianity is based on facts, not superstition, so your thinning veiled claim of religious superstition is not appreciated.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sin is not “just another religious concept”…

The definitions I find looks largely religious, though I see there is room to use the word in some non-religious contexts.
Answers.com:

answers.com/sin
(sĭn)
n.
A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology.

1. 
   *]Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
   *]A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
   *]Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

1. 
   Merriam Websters:
   

   merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin
   1
   a : an offense against religious or moral law
   b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it’s a sin to waste food>
   c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
   2
   a : transgression of the law of God
   b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

 

[nickybr38]

I have nothing to add to this thread - you guys are way over my head… but I wanted to send a quick message to say thank you for this great conversation.

I’m enjoying it immensely.

Right, I’ll get out of your way so you can continue now.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

Hi Touchstone;

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I see you’ve been busy on this thread!

Superstition is just the belief in supernatural causality.

That’s an interesting definition of superstition, and seems to be circular/begging the question, since it seems to rely on the assumption that there are no supernatural causes, therefore belief in supernatural causes is invalid.

There you have it, God has written his law in our hearts! Superstition alarm!

Aren’t you being a bit histrionic here? Is there no room for metaphor in reading this passage? If that’s all you have to hang your hat on as evidence in Paul of superstition (a term I am not convinced you are applying correctly to begin with), I’m not sure it would be enough to convict him by a jury of peers! I think what Paul means, and what most exegetes seem to take him to mean, is that there is something of God in our very natures. This idea can be (and has been) interpreted in such a wide variety of ways (as your own eclectic reading sources show).

Might I suggest that academic rigour would necessitate our giving St Paul the widest reading possible until his meaning is understood? No university professor would brook such a facile conclusion in any discipline based on such a limited use of sources. As St Paul makes no direct references to natural law, and none that encapsulate the understanding of Aquinas, around whose work much of the modern contemporary debate revolves, he plays relatively very little role in the development of the theory. Aquinas makes no reference to the line you quote in his treatment of natural law (ST, 1a2ae, q94).

I should also add that there is a consisderable difference in the concept of natural law between Aristotle and Aquinas. To be sure, Aquinas bases some of his distinctions (especially the distinction between natural law and natural justice) on Aristotle, but his development of the idea is unique.

All that to say, and one of the things that I find a little frustrating about this otherwise very interesting thread is that there seems to be very little consensus on what natural law even means. Nor does there seem to be much of an appetite here for laying sources on the table systematically and dealing with the issue with a certain amount of academic honesty and integrity. There also seems to be very little understanding of the diversity of views within the Christian community on the meaning of natural law, and diversity of views among Thomists to boot.

I don’t know if you’re an atheist or not, or what your current position is in reference to faith. But you strike me as being well-read and articulate, and so I am presuming that you have an interest in some sort of purposeful discussion?

If so, I’d be interested to know your definition of ‘natural law’. What does it mean to you? What is the basis for your assumption in these blogs? Maybe you have every reason to believe that it is, afterall, superstition…depending on where it comes from!

I have, for my part, become convinced through my own study of the reality of natural law as developed by Thomas Aquinas, and as explained by, for example, Martin Rhonheimer and John Paul II to name just two reliable exegetes. That understanding does not reflect the moral subject/object divide one frequently finds in discussions of natural law today and which is a feature of some of your own sources.

Best wishes…

 

[Spock]

Sin is not “just another religious concept”. Sin is the violation of a moral standard. Moral standards is a human concept, not a religious concept.

Violating a moral standard could be a “crime” if that standard has been codified into law. Otherwise it can carry a social stigma. Some people may call it a “sin”, but the usual accepted definition of “sin” is disobedience to God - and as such it is a religious concept.

Christianity is based on facts, not superstition, so your thinning veiled claim of religious superstition is not appreciated.

If you could show those facts, you might have a point. Insofar I have only seen references to some dubious authority, second (third, fourth, hundredth) hand accounts by people who also just heard it, and whose ignorance is so vast that they accepted impossible stories without any corroboration. If you call that “facts”, I will have to differ. I call things as I see them. If and when I see a well-founded, properly reasoned argument, I will be happy to acknowledge this fact. Too bad it happens only once in a blue moon.

 

[davidv]

Violating a moral standard could be a “crime” if that standard has been codified into law. Otherwise it can carry a social stigma. Some people may call it a “sin”, but the usual accepted definition of “sin” is disobedience to God - and as such it is a religious concept.

If you could show those facts, you might have a point. Insofar I have only seen references to some dubious authority, second (third, fourth, hundredth) hand accounts by people who also just heard it, and whose ignorance is so vast that they accepted impossible stories without any corroboration. If you call that “facts”, I will have to differ. I call things as I see them. If and when I see a well-founded, properly reasoned argument, I will be happy to acknowledge this fact. Too bad it happens only once in a blue moon.

“Crime” is just the secular word for sin. All the crimes I can think of are also sins against The Moral Standard. Changing the words used doens’t change the concept. The mere existance of the secular law is testimony for the presence of the “natural law”.

The person of Jesus is a fact of recorded history. That you have rejected the facts, does not make the facts go away.

 

[Spock]

“Crime” is just the secular word for sin. All the crimes I can think of are also sins against The Moral Standard. Changing the words used doens’t change the concept. The mere existance of the secular law is testimony for the presence of the “natural law”.

The existence of secular law is based upon the desire to create a working society. And playing on words, like “crime” is the same as “sin” has only one “useful” aspect: it muddles the waters by spreading confusion. I am sticking with the proper definitions.

The person of Jesus is a fact of recorded history. That you have rejected the facts, does not make the facts go away.

There were truckloads of “Jesuses” - as a matter of fact there are many today. It is a very frequently used name in Hispanic areas. But there is no recorded fact that any of them could walk on water, rasie the dead, return from the dead… etc. If that is your “proof” that Christianity is based on “facts”, your position is very weak, indeed. If God and Jesus are supposed to exist today, the mere fact that you need to resort to some ancient texts shows that you cannot bring up any real evidence which happens today. Get your witnesses here, so we can interrogate them. In other words, don’t confuse facts with stories.

 

[davidv]

The existence of secular law is based upon the desire to create a working society. And playing on words, like “crime” is the same as “sin” has only one “useful” aspect: it muddles the waters by spreading confusion. I am sticking with the proper definitions.

What is the standard upon which this “working society” is built? It is moral order, which unless it is programmed out, is innate in humans.

There were truckloads of “Jesuses” - as a matter of fact there are many today. It is a very frequently used name in Hispanic areas. But there is no recorded fact that any of them could walk on water, rasie the dead, return from the dead… etc. If that is your “proof” that Christianity is based on “facts”, your position is very weak, indeed. If God and Jesus are supposed to exist today, the mere fact that you need to resort to some ancient texts shows that you cannot bring up any real evidence which happens today. Get your witnesses here, so we can interrogate them. In other words, don’t confuse facts with stories.

Way to misinterprete my post.

Who said “proof”? The Church is present today. I need no ancient texts. I am your witness. You have been interogating him - with quite a bit of hostility it appears.

Stories contain facts - so what is your point?