US bishops criticize Obama administration's decision on marriage law

[lynx]

Again, gaining legal legitimization does not mean it is right, just look at abortion.

The legality of thing does not completely stake a claim in it’s morality, but it’s an indicator. I personally don’t take issue with abortions.

 

[Sherry_G]

The legality of thing does not completely stake a claim in it’s morality, but it’s an indicator. I personally don’t take issue with abortions.

Not neccessarily an indicator and less and less so every day. Hooray for the Bishops!

 

[1holycatholic]

In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Obviously, the natural law does not always agree with the true law which is God’s laws, but many natural laws were developed from the natural world.

Go with Gods Grace!!!

If you mean “nature” meaning the as in the essential characteristics of a thing then yes. I suggest you read Aquinas’ comments on the Natural Law in the Summa Theologiae.
ST I-II:

On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. ii): “Thy law is written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not.” But the law which is written in men’s hearts is the natural law. Therefore the natural law cannot be blotted out.

Which is reflected in the Catechism:
CCC #37:

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.

P.S. When Aquinas refers to “the Philosopher” he’s referring to Aristotle.

 

[1holycatholic]

I personally don’t take issue with abortions.

That’s not surprising since you have no objective basis for morality which results in all morals being entirely arbitrary and subjective.

 

[lynx]

That’s not surprising since you have no objective basis for morality which results in all morals being entirely arbitrary and subjective.

LOL I’m glad you understand how I think, even knowing almost nothing about my upbringing or culture. Perhaps you’d like to rethink this generalization… It’s true, I don’t listen to old books to tell me what to do. I always try and think for myself.

 

[1holycatholic]

LOL I’m glad you understand how I think, even knowing almost nothing about my upbringing or culture. Perhaps you’d like to rethink this generalization… It’s true, I don’t listen to old books to tell me what to do. I always try and think for myself.

Because of what you have already asserted I know how you have to think. You have no option but moral relativism.

 

[lynx]

Because of what you have already asserted I know how you have to think. You have no option but moral relativism.

I see… so you also know everything about morality and how I must be thinking… The only thing being asserted here is that you think your method of thinking, being grounded in religion, is better than mine (otherwise you wouldn’t have a need to label me a moral relativist to blow off my observations), which is not based around religion. Newsflash, basing your morality around ancient texts does not make your morality superior, or given such special treatment that you can discount my observations. Our methods of thinking are different, nothing more nothing less. Move past this, and perhaps be a little scared that homosexuality and abortion might be moral…

 

[1holycatholic]

I see… so you also know everything about morality and how I must be thinking… The only thing being asserted here is that you think your method of thinking, being grounded in religion, is better than mine (otherwise you wouldn’t have a need to label me a moral relativist to blow off my observations), which is not based around religion. Newsflash, basing your morality around ancient texts does not make your morality superior, or given such special treatment that you can discount my observations. Our methods of thinking are different, nothing more nothing less. Move past this, and perhaps be a little scared that homosexuality and abortion might be moral…

Unless you acknowledge the existence of objective truth then you have no choice but moral relativism.

Deliberately killing innocent human beings (aka direct abortion) is contrary to the Lex Naturalis and is immoral.

Homosexual relations are contrary to the Lex Naturalis and are immoral.

That’s not too hard.

 

[lynx]

Unless you acknowledge the existence of objective truth then you have no choice but moral relativism.

Deliberately killing innocent human beings (aka direct abortion) is contrary to the Lex Naturalis and is immoral.

Homosexual relations are contrary to the Lex Naturalis and are immoral.

That’s not too hard.

I don’t know if I can make this more clear, I don’t care about the Lex Naturalis. It can say or represent anything it likes. In the end, it doesn’t make homosexuality or abortion any less moral unless that text is a foundation of your morality, and it isn’t for me. The only thing that makes homosexuality immoral is archaic religious dogma based on nonsense, and luckily I have none.

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t know if I can make this more clear, I don’t care about the Lex Naturalis.

It’s a reality that you can’t accept.

It can say or represent anything it likes. In the end, it doesn’t make homosexuality or abortion any less moral unless that text is a foundation of your morality, and it isn’t for me. The only thing that makes homosexuality immoral is archaic religious dogma based on nonsense, and luckily I have none.

What are you talking about? It would appear that you’re arguing against something that you don’t even understand.

 

[Suudy]

What are you talking about? It would appear that you’re arguing against something that you don’t even understand.

I don’t think so (I could be wrong). Lynx and I have sparred over the same issue with me explaining the difference between natural and nature.

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t think so (I could be wrong). Lynx and I have sparred over the same issue with me explaining the difference between natural and nature.

Then why refer to a text?

 

[alih]

you are witnessing a direct attack on methodists,baptists, presbyterians, anglicans, lutherans and those papist catholics. the position offered by this government by its actions, or inactions, say that those who believe in biblical teachings are hatemongers and bigots as their lifestyles are condemned.
so are the jews who believe in the tenets of the old testament which also condemns that behavior.
that also mean our god,jesus christ is now a person who promotes hate.
your practice of your religion is now hate speech.
one can come up with all the political rhetoric one may want, but in no way does it alter the facts. people with morals, religion the promotes morals is soon to be a crime unless we speak out loudly.
either we turn this around, or back to the catacombs.
have a good year. (ali)

 

[lynx]

Sorry, a lot of work recently. Anyways, to necro this thread…

Then why refer to a text?

AFAIK the Lex Naturalis is text… It’s an interpretation of natural law am I right? Whether it is based on the texts of bible (as you probably see it) or possibly on the US DoI/Constitution (perhaps a secular interpretation) all of this is text. How do you quantify natural law if you don’t break it into words or relate it to others texts? Regardless, Lex Naturalis only has meaning if you believe natural law is moral on its face.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lex+naturalis

 

[1holycatholic]

Sorry, a lot of work recently. Anyways, to necro this thread…

AFAIK the Lex Naturalis is text… It’s an interpretation of natural law am I right? Whether it is based on the texts of bible (as you probably see it) or possibly on the US DoI/Constitution (perhaps a secular interpretation) all of this is text. How do you quantify natural law if you don’t break it into words or relate it to others texts? Regardless, Lex Naturalis only has meaning if you believe natural law is moral on its face.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lex+naturalis

It is not a text. It exists apart from the Bible, the Constitution or any other document.

 

[lynx]

It is not a text. It exists apart from the Bible, the Constitution or any other document.

It is any text with respect to natural law. But then again, I guess it’s any representation of natural law, however you’d like to convey it.

 

[1holycatholic]

It is any text with respect to natural law. But then again, I guess it’s any representation of natural law, however you’d like to convey it.

The first line from your link:
The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms…
:coffeeread:

 

[lynx]

The first line from your link:
The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms…
:coffeeread:

So if I write a body of principles according to natural law what do I have and is that Lex Naturalis? I think the term “unwritten” is a poor choice of words. If you’re going to incorporate something into your moral code it should be defined and quantified somewhere. What is the point of using an ambiguous concept?

 

[Suudy]

So if I write a body of principles according to natural law what do I have and is that Lex Naturalis? I think the term “unwritten” is a poor choice of words. If you’re going to incorporate something into your moral code it should be defined and quantified somewhere. What is the point of using an ambiguous concept?

What was meant by Lex Naturalis was the latinization of the usual term “natural law” (lex = law, naturalis = genitive of nature, or “law of nature”). It wasn’t referring to a text, real or hypothetical.

 

[lynx]

What was meant by Lex Naturalis was the latinization of the usual term “natural law” (lex = law, naturalis = genitive of nature, or “law of nature”). It wasn’t referring to a text, real or hypothetical.

I have a hard time thinking about things like this… What are the laws of nature and how do you know about them? Concepts like this can’t exist without some sort of quantifiable backing right?