M
Moore11
Guest
What is it? It is written on the human heart so what does it contain? If a non christian is judged on natural law what standards does that cover?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
Humanity!
M
Moore11
Guest
This answer is too broad. Humanity? what is contained in that? All the things that humans do?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Moore:
Actions that find their grounding in God’s primary two commandments: “Love God with all of your heart, all of your mind, and all of your soul; and, love your neighbor as you love yourself.” When one looks within one’s self, these are there, even though they were also revealed to us Biblically.
The non-Christian does not comport with the first commandment - unless, he or she changes before they die.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
M
Moore11
Guest
Ok so specifically is sacrificing humans to another god against natural law? Homosexual acts? Stealing, Murder, adultery, etc… What is the difference between natural law and prescribed law? What specific things are against natural law or is it just a whatever one deems as natural law thing?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Not all the things that humans do but the things they should do, i.e. treat others as members of our family because we are all ultimately related by birth.
M
maryj
Guest
Natural law…the nature of a thing or person. For instance, a tomatoe plant, the nature of a tomatoe plant…it needs sunlight and water and good soil and tending and it will produce great fruit, put that same tomatoe plant in a dark closet and give it no water or food and the plant dies…the nature of a tomatoe plant is that it NEEDS water, sun and food to produce. I heard it explained once like that and it really struck a chord with me…hope that helps!
M
Moore11
Guest
hu·man·i·ty [hyoo-man-i-tee or, often, yoo-] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
1.
all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.
2.
the quality or condition of being human; human nature.
3.
the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence.
Should do? by what standard. Do you see why your answer is too broad? What we are in effect saying is that God judges non believers by natural law that is written on their hearts and then to define natural law you say that it is humanity then you say that humanity is doing what you should do. yet you do not define what people “should do”
J
JDaniel
Guest
Yes. That said, it doesn’t mean that a man can’t repress the inclinations from Natural Law.
No different than non-homosexual sexual acts between merely consenting adults.
Yes, yes, yes.
By “prescribed law” I think you are meaning civil and criminal law? Most civil and criminal laws came about by mankind’s attention to his natural law inclinations.
There are whole books written on the subject. And, the answers to your question fill a significant portion of this forum. But, if you incline toward the good, you will do what God wants you to do.
See if you can find a copy of Father Austin Fagothey’s book entitled, Right and Reason.
By the way, beware, there are atheists around these parts. Discount whatever they say to you.
God bless,
jd
M
Moore11
Guest
Are you saying that homosexual acts are in accordance with natural law and that someone who preforms these acts apart from being christian can not be held accountable?Yes. That said, it doesn’t mean that a man can’t repress the inclinations from Natural Law.
No different than non-homosexual sexual acts between merely consenting adults.
Yes, yes, yes.
By “prescribed law” I think you are meaning civil and criminal law? Most civil and criminal laws came about by mankind’s attention to his natural law inclinations.
There are whole books written on the subject. And, the answers to your question fill a significant portion of this forum. But, if you incline toward the good, you will do what God wants you to do.
See if you can find a copy of Father Austin Fagothey’s book entitled, Right and Reason.
By the way, beware, there are atheists around these parts. Discount whatever they say to you.
God bless,
jd
No, I am not talking of civil laws, prescribed law= the laws that God gave his people.
As Catholics we teach that those who are not aware of the faith can be saved by invincible ignorance as long as they abide by the natural law that is written on their hearts. i am just trying to establish what that law is and no one can answer anything other than “be good” which is obviously subject to many interpretations and seems to me to be a watered down, morally relative type of answer.
C
Carlan
Guest
you know God gave us all the wonderful gift of common sense among the lot of it.
Try it instead of the armchair philosophy.
Peace, Carlan
Try it instead of the armchair philosophy.
Peace, Carlan
M
Moore11
Guest
Carlan,
I am trying to grasp the idea of natural law in relation to salvation of the unbeliever. If that seems like something you can just say “:use your common sense” to then fine. If you are insisting that this is silly or a waste of time you are free to do so but dont assume I am not serious. That this answer is so easy for you in your own mind is a nice blessing you have, but I find the idea of " common sense" or goodness or humanity to be ambiguous and easily manipulated to mean anything. I would appreciate any help you can give but please at least give some help if you are going to post.
G
GratefulFred
Guest
Just a few statements taken from the Encyclopedia section of this website:
Natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us. . . .
*When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. . . . *
In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature; he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral. . . .
For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong. It is wrong to drink to intoxication, for, besides being injurious to health, such indulgence deprives one of the use of reason, which is intended by God to be the guide and dictator of conduct. Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life; and man’s nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of society. There is, then, a double reason for calling this law of conduct natural: first, because it is set up concretely in our very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the purely natural medium of reason.
Natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us. . . .
*When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. . . . *
In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature; he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral. . . .
For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong. It is wrong to drink to intoxication, for, besides being injurious to health, such indulgence deprives one of the use of reason, which is intended by God to be the guide and dictator of conduct. Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life; and man’s nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of society. There is, then, a double reason for calling this law of conduct natural: first, because it is set up concretely in our very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the purely natural medium of reason.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
However in some circles common sense isn’t so common these days!
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
Right and wrong is natural law. One can discern from the natural experience, even an experience derived without God, a basis of law that governs the human being. Right and wrong is not something that is fabricated but something that is proven true by the human experience. It is through Reason and Logic that such things can be determined. Truth, which attains right from wrong, is a principle that is inherent of the human being. It is a portion of the image of the Creator within us.
M
Moore11
Guest
I like this and I liked the encyclopedia excerpt.
So one can say that one would have to follow natural law to be saved outside of Christianity?
G
GratefulFred
Guest
Yes. At a minimum, each human being, with an ability to reason, is obliged to follow natural law. But, willingly remaining at that level can be dangerous to one’s eternal salvation.
If one has invincible ignorance of the Teachings of Jesus Christ and has only the natural law as his guide and he tries to live his life well according to natural law, we believe that God will NOT condemn him to eternal Hell, but rather save him.
Again with key statements from the encyclopedia:
*So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. *
*Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. *
On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances.
It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant.
I would think that in the educated free world, very few people can rightly claim invincible ignorance of Jesus Christ and the widely held belief that He is indeed the Living Son of God. I would think that most who ignore Christ, as compared to trying to understand Him and His teachings, do so out of sense of selfishness - they don’t want to be bothered. They dismiss Him and, in turn, run a real risk of being dismissed by Him for all eternity.
In the educated free world, I would think that we are obliged to use our moral dilligence to get to know the Living Son of God, Christ, better. And knowing Him better, to follow Him better, to be become Christian. We should not be satisfied at remaining a certain level. Even the Pope works at knowing and following Christ better.
M
Moore11
Guest
I totally agree with this and would even take it one step further. Since God has written moral law onto the hearts of men then not even the uneducated non free world could rightly claim invincible ignorance. If it is written on the human heart that murder and stealing is wrong then sacrificing a virgin to a false god would violate natural law. If stealing is wrong then stealing a spear from a fellow tribesman would also be a violation of natural law. Ultimately I find it very hard to be saved WITH Jesus (narrow gate, wide gate) I cant imagine the enormity of being saved without recourse to the sacraments or the Gospel. One would almost have to be as sinless as Mary.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Moore:
No. I’m saying that the homosexual sexual act is no different than two heterosexuals having illicit sex before marriage. It is the Catholic position that two very important things must be in place to make sex licit: (1) there must be marriage, and (2) the sexual act must not be for the sole purpose of pleasure, i.e., it must be open to conception. (1) can be accomplished in some States in the US, for homosexuals. But, (2) cannot.
Your conception of what “good” means is, well, a tad juvenile. Let me ask you a question. If I were in a store buying some item or other, and, instead of giving me back the correct change for the ten dollar bill I gave the clerk, he gives me change from a twenty - if I keep the tiny windfall, am I being good? Am I being bad? Am I being a little bad? Am I being superbly good?
God bless,
jd
- Status