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

[Spock]

It seems it boils down that you are upset at not being chosen, like the Apostles or the witnesses at that time.

I am not upset. Why would I be? I did what the Catholic poster suggested, and he was very certain that God will provide a sign, IF I go to the Mary’s chapel and pray the rosary with the help of other Catholics. He told me that God will surely provide the necessary sign. Of course, nothing happened, just like I thought. So why would I be upset, when the experiment turened out exactly as I expected it would?

 

[You]

It was a metaphor!!! The road was a substitute for God. And I asked him to provide a revelation to show me that he is real.

Don’t you understand? I would trust God, if he told me that he exists. I do NOT trust you guys. There are many reasons for this lack of trust, but that is not the topic at this moment.

Sure I understand. I think you are making it unnecessarily difficult on yourself. Did you ask him or Him to provide a revelation to show you He is real. And does your request have a time limit on it. Will you ask for 3 nanoseconds, or 1 second or for five minutes. The fact is, is that one either wants something or one does not want something. And like a bad searcher never gets married a good searcher never gives up until he is married.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

**Of course, nothing happened, just like I thought. So why would I be upset, when the experiment turened out exactly as I expected it would? **

Were you expecting God or Mary to pick up the phone and give you an earful?

It doesn’t work like that.

Your answer will be: Yes, No, or Wait.

If it isn’t yes or no, maybe it’s wait?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

if a person believes in goodness…charity, not being selfish…thats what god represents so its too bad …to say i don’t believe in god…a little hypocritical…

all thats left in a god disbelief is attaching a source to creation . creation itself is more than likely a consequence of a god…as such a source would have no need to enhance itself with people…even for love…it suggests there is NEED to express the love…

plain and simple…no existinkel words required

 

[Spock]

Did you ask him or Him to provide a revelation to show you He is real. And does your request have a time limit on it. Will you ask for 3 nanoseconds, or 1 second or for five minutes.

Or three weeks, or twenty five years, or three millenia? No, I did not specify anything. But it stands to reason that such a VERY SMALL request would be fulfilled immediately. It does not have to be something Earth-shattering… just something that would be acceptable.

 

[You]

Or three weeks, or twenty five years, or three millenia? No, I did not specify anything. But it stands to reason that such a VERY SMALL request would be fulfilled immediately. It does not have to be something Earth-shattering… just something that would be acceptable.

patience, then

 

[StevenFrancis]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

lol… Good luck with this. Not sure you’ll have much luck getting us to “drop” natural law here at CA. Have fun.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[SwizzleStick]

“God’s law sets the standard for human laws
…
…
Secondly, we believe in natural law. This is the embodiment of God’s will in nature and in the mind and heart of man. The law of gravity is a physical expression of the natural law. A spiritual, or metaphysical, expression of natural law can be found in the essential dignity of human beings who are made in the image and likeness of God. A human person may debase himself by all sorts of inhuman behavior, but he can never erase the natural law that is implanted in the hearts of every human being by God.”…

Excerpt from: stlouisreview.com/article/2011-09-21/gods-law-sets

 

[Rock_Happy]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense. What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”. To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

The bottom line with “natural law” is that it was a construct which grew out of stoicism, which utterly rejects the idea of interpersonal love. If the proponents of “natural law” understood its implications, it would have no appeal to the post renaissance mind, and certainly has no place in our thinking today. What passes for “natural law” today is a perversion of the concept, and rightly so.

People who don’t understand what it means like to use it to buttress their opinions on a variety of matters, and they only come across as being ridiculous.

 

[StarFireKK]

Most certainly. Here is the catechism: Section I, Chaper 3 (scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm#III):

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation.

Of course, the details do need “revelation” or “faith”, but the actual existence needs only reason - or so the catechism says. Too bad that it is left unfinished. I would have loved to see the official line of reasoning. But, since the quoted text already contains a huge logical error, I don’t think that the expansion of it would be of any use.

Be as it may, I most certainly agree with you that God’s existence must be accepted on faith. And since faith is deemed superior to reason, that is quite all right. It is even logical (though not reasonable )

First a warning: I am not a theologian so my interpretation of the above could very well be wrong. I haven’t had time to check with those that are smarter than me on this. So if anyone disagrees, please feel free to correct me.

I can certainly see how you read that to mean that no faith was required to know god. But I don’t think that was the intent.

Humans have an ability to reason that is far different from animals. We can understand and interpret our world to a far greater degree than dogs, cats and white-tail deer. Through that capacity to “reason” we can see the hand of God where a dog or a deer would not.

It goes back to what I was saying before. I have had too many things happen at the right time in the right place for me to be comfortable saying it was just chance. Statistically the odds of those things happening are pretty low. So I believe it is more than just luck.

On the other hand if a deer gets shot at 100 times and every time the bullet misses- the deer isn’t going to sit there and think about why that was the case. He’s just going to bolt.

That’s why the key sentence is: ** Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation**

The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks about the importance of faith all over the document. You can’t just pull out a few sentences and declare “The Church says faith is not required to know God.” You have to look at the document as a whole.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The bottom line with “natural law” is that it was a construct which grew out of stoicism, which utterly rejects the idea of interpersonal love. If the proponents of “natural law” understood its implications, it would have no appeal to the post renaissance mind, and certainly has no place in our thinking today. What passes for “natural law” today is a perversion of the concept, and rightly so.

People who don’t understand what it means like to use it to buttress their opinions on a variety of matters, and they only come across as being ridiculous.

Morality is a human construct which is developed as well in-built. We have a conscience & intellect including emotional intelligence They are guided by self preservation-nature and understandings of a source to creation through reflective reasoning. Reasoning is reflective in nature

Everybody knows full well we are enriched and therefore shaped by the environment and yet the conscience a moral compass… is something we all have “built in”

Good is better then bad, the social allows and is required for activation and nuturing…that is the whole of the package …Spock illogically picks apart the components of human existence and presents an utterly false argument. Can a horse run with its legs cut off, a fish navigate without its fin

Mind brings reason to creation, it is to be. .Objectively men who do not reason are not good . Reason needs to be here and is “reflective by nature”.

thoughtlessness is what is ruining the world…that thoughtlessness will make man worse than the animal. The closer to the rational mankind is, the closer to nature as man is a rational being.

The closer to the animal, the more dangerous man is as he is not of the animal. The less rational man is the greater the need to self de-mentalize

 

[FurtherSuntime]

All consequence imparting reason is reflective . That is how reason achieves its product. The self is immaterial and has “value”… just like appreciating a person with good character with no angle for social or material gain…

In creation, we learn that nothing is wasted.(negotiated) All the material in the world has value relative to itself & all that is . A dead tree has value and is negotiated. Reason shows an in-escapable theme.

If the soul is not immortal the value in self sacrifice , is the only known value in creation which somehow magically dis-appears.

Nothing we know of is “wasted” (non-negotiated) The body goes to the soil, the value in goodness a growing maturing contributing reality right until the last breath is left un-negotiated.
The self is left outstanding and is the most profound reality in human existence, the waste in
value is illogical relative to all reflective reason available to mankind.

Goodness and thoughtfulness as we learned from my above post is nurtured and develops with conscience alongside the social . This portion of mans reality is a value which contributes to creation and is suggested in quality in soul . Quality in value independent of the material

This value in man which requires negotiation in soul, requires a “negotiator” That identified negotiator, utilizing reason which is again reflective, would be God……

 

[John21652]

test

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Except milk jug experiments are ridiculous

The implausibility of the milk jug intervening because of some one’s request is a part of this thought experiment. Had the experiment used something that some people believe to intervene (rabbit’s foot, four leaf clover, Santa Claus, wishing well, a parent or friend, Allah, Yahweh, Lord Vishnu) then some of the audience’s attention will be on the action of the “actor” used instead of it’s inaction.

I’d expect that most people would see the milk jug as incapable of having volition and not a candidate for being an effective intervening entity. Yet despite the inaction of the milk jug there are opportunities to show that prayers offered to the jug have been “answered” and there is no way to prove otherwise.

If we define a “yes” answer to a pray as an incident that is in favour of what was requested, a “no” answer as a an incident or event that terminates the possibility of what was requested, and a “wait” answer as the absence of any of the above two types of incidents or events then we find that all things prayed too can be said to answer all prayers. Given this interpretation it is impossible for any prayer made to any entity whether existing, non-existing, or simulacrum to ever be unanswered.

If that is how we are to determine that a prayer was answered, and if there is no possible way for a prayer to be unanswered by not conforming to one of the three scenarios above, then under that criteria I would have to agree that always answers prayers.

 

[Spock]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks about the importance of faith all over the document. You can’t just pull out a few sentences and declare “The Church says faith is not required to know God.” You have to look at the document as a whole.

Since the catechism uses faith all over the place, the omission is even more telling in the quoted part: “God … can be known with certainty … by the natural light of human reason”. I don’t even think that it was an oversight. The writers wanted to leave no “escape route” to those who do not have faith. Their attempt was futile, precisely because they just put an empty slogan up there, and not a detailed reasoning.

And I have a secret suspicion, which I cannot ascertain: those who keep on dragging in Aquinas’s five ways, or Anselm’s “greatest conceivale being”, or any of the incorrect “proofs” of God, are secretly aware that reason is superior to faith, and that is why they want to “prove” God’s existence. There was an old saying: “Everyone believed in God, until some people wanted to prove it.”

But since we agree on the absolute necessity of faith when it comes to God’s existence, we have a nice agreement. Let’s leave it at that.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Since the catechism uses faith all over the place, the omission is even more telling in the quoted part: “God … can be known with certainty … by the natural light of human reason”. I don’t even think that it was an oversight. The writers wanted to leave no “escape route” to those who do not have faith. Their attempt was futile, precisely because they just put an empty slogan up there, and not a detailed reasoning.

And I have a secret suspicion, which I cannot ascertain: those who keep on dragging in Aquinas’s five ways, or Anselm’s “greatest conceivale being”, or any of the incorrect “proofs” of God, are secretly aware that reason is superior to faith, and that is why they want to “prove” God’s existence. There was an old saying: “Everyone believed in God, until some people wanted to prove it.”

But since we agree on the absolute necessity of faith when it comes to God’s existence, we have a nice agreement. Let’s leave it at that.

… dearest friend , please name just one thing you do or can believe without faith leaving yourself aside which is partly possible , and i’ll see and reply when you do …

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The implausibility of the milk jug intervening because of some one’s request is a part of this thought experiment. Had the experiment used something that some people believe to intervene (rabbit’s foot, four leaf clover, Santa Claus, wishing well, a parent or friend, Allah, Yahweh, Lord Vishnu) then some of the audience’s attention will be on the action of the “actor” used instead of it’s inaction.

I’d expect that most people would see the milk jug as incapable of having volition and not a candidate for being an effective intervening entity. Yet despite the inaction of the milk jug there are opportunities to show that prayers offered to the jug have been “answered” and there is no way to prove otherwise.

If we define a “yes” answer to a pray as an incident that is in favor of what was requested, a “no” answer as a an incident or event that terminates the possibility of what was requested, and a “wait” answer as the absence of any of the above two types of incidents or events then we find that all things prayed too can be said to answer all prayers. Given this interpretation it is impossible for any prayer made to any entity whether existing, non-existing, or simulacrum to ever be unanswered.

If that is how we are to determine that a prayer was answered, and if there is no possible way for a prayer to be unanswered by not conforming to one of the three scenarios above, then under that criteria I would have to agree that always answers prayers.

Prayer has nothing whatsoever to do with asking for things period. Prayers are uttered in the inspiration to god which unfolds peace and courage without asking. A result in joining to the divine presence.

If a child is burned and suffering the prayers are said… not for the burns to somehow evaporate but for the toddlers courage and knowledge that his family and God are with him or her all the way… and feeling the pain together.

Prayers are said and peace, courage and very importantly priority in truth are set in motion through the joining to God, Jesus , Mary and all the saints who endured the life.

Because man is only man it is natural from time to time to let the lord know of needs ect…job, sickness, family…the idea here is in full honesty regarding feelings …

When the lord said…ask and thou shall recieve…the asking is in the joining and the receiving is in the peace, courage , fortitude…not a new motorcycle or a wish to look and feel 25 yrs old forever…common sense is what its all about…
.
Its very possible people can get this impression in these days where inner peace is thought to mean a couple of billion dollars…man is never satisfied so even if every prayer in the world was answered by God, man would …INSIST that there is no god at the end of a 100 yr old life of absolute fun times.

Do you truly feel the materialistic non answered prayer platform makes sense? I don’t get it…if all these materialistic prayers were answered , you’d have an arguement in an apparent materialistic God , clearly contradicting the spirit. Whats behind this TV style notion anyway?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Prayer has nothing whatsoever to do with asking for things period. Prayers are uttered in the inspiration to god which unfolds peace and courage without asking. A result in joining to the divine presence…]

…]Do you truly feel the materialistic non answered prayer platform makes sense? I don’t get it…if all these materialistic prayers were answered , you’d have an arguement in an apparent materialistic God , clearly contradicting the spirit. Whats behind this TV style notion anyway?

I’m not limiting prayers to request for material things nor am I excluding them. Hop back up to message #216 (partially quoted below) to get more info on the context in which my responses started.

Answered prayers are verifiable results…]

I can’t say that I’m able to tie what you’ve said into showing the verifiable results of prayer.

When you say “Prayer has nothing to do with asking for things period” it isn’t clear to me if you are saying “Prayer has nothing to do with requests” or that pray does have something to do with requests but only for requesting the non-material. For the sake of avoiding ambiguity I’ll make known that my understanding of the meaning of the word “prayer” in a theological context is consistent with what I am finding in my dictionaries. Whether the nature of a request is material or immaterial isn’t relevant to the definition. Here is a sample definition from one of my dictionaries.
Meriam Websters:

PRAYER

(1) a: an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought
b : an earnest request or wish

Meriam Websters:

PETITION

: an earnest request

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Do you truly feel the materialistic non answered prayer platform makes sense? I don’t get it…if all these materialistic prayers were answered , you’d have an arguement in an apparent materialistic God , clearly contradicting the spirit. Whats behind this TV style notion anyway?

That’s kind of what bothers me about many of the petitions we pray for during Mass. We pray for world peace, guidance for our priests and political leaders, medical attention and shelter for disaster victims, success of our bishop’s “TOGETHER Vision” (basically fund raising), etc.

All good things, but it would help disaster victims more directly if we cut them a check from the TOGETHER Vision funds rather than spending $49,000,000 and counting on Cathedral renovations that an experienced contractor who knows the details told me could have been done just as well for $27,000,000 if the contracting process weren’t run by the buddy system.

Alan

 

[FurtherSuntime]

ThinkingSapien;8398786]I’m not limiting prayers to request for material things nor am I excluding them. Hop back up to message #216 (partially quoted below) to get more info on the context in which my responses started.

FS

ok went back and refreshed the whole idea going on . The discussion evolved into an assumption of prayer asking for things .(as the model prayer to share idea’s) …not really fair relative to the exploring you had in mind I think…

ThinkingSapien…

I can’t say that I’m able to tie what you’ve said into showing the verifiable results of prayer.

When you say “Prayer has nothing to do with asking for things period” it isn’t clear to me if you are saying “Prayer has nothing to do with requests” or that pray does have something to do with requests but only for requesting the non-material. For the sake of avoiding ambiguity I’ll make known that my understanding of the meaning of the word “prayer” in a theological context is consistent with what I am finding in my dictionaries. Whether the nature of a request is material or immaterial isn’t relevant to the definition. Here is a sample definition from one of my dictionaries.

FS

The dictionary is correct. The objective of prayer for a voyage or other is to humbly invoke
gods presence in a fearful or trying experience. The request shares the moment with god and defines the emotional experience. It is a representation of absolute honesty and hope.
.
That is the exercise, not a test or demand . .The prayer is a request but remains in its true form, that being the consecration of endeavor or potential experience …regardless of material outcome, to God.

the communication cannot be false, the plead achieves trueness in state of mind. The request is real , but it is hopefully a loving request and makes no solely self inward, expectation.

a giving it to god

good question

edit…opinion

.