SB is one of UD’s treasures, who often puts up gems as comments. Accordingly, I headline his current response to Mung on laws of (human) nature:
_______________
>>Mung
SB,
Can you explain why the natural moral law requires a lawgiver?
ETA: I don’t believe in natural laws, I believe in natures/essences. So keep that in mind.
[SB, reply:] Very interesting comment. Let me try to say something that might bring us together.
I assume that we agree that a physical “law,” is really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature. So, ontologically, we are referring to an event that happens over and over again, trying to make sense of it and giving it a name. It is the “nature” of matter to be moved in this way. So, the question becomes, who created matter with such a nature?
If you attribute that regularity or movement to a final cause or something that explains the
Aristotle’s four causes (HT: VPC courtesy Google)
ordered regularity from a philosophical perspective, all well and good. I am just as comfortable with first cause as lawgiver. The philosopher calls it one thing, the scientist, another. Since truth is unified, there can only be one truth. The philosopher studies one aspect from one perspective, the scientist, another. The former is nobler because it probes the why and not just the how.
The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. I gather that you would agree. Order, regularity, and the nature of matter cannot be brought into existence or be sustained except through some outside power or cause. A nature requires a nature giver, so to speak.
With respect to the moral law, we are really discussing the morality of human nature. What does it mean for a human to be good. Philosophy has already answered that question as well. Anything is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. (Aristotle, Aquinas).
A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes. A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries. So it is with a human being. A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate. Humans were designed to practice virtue and avoid vice so that they can be with God someday. It is their nature. Anything that is consistent with their nature is good for them; anything that is not, is bad for them.
Some of us call it that natural moral law to emphasize its binding nature. Break it, and you (and others) will suffer. So, in that sense, I think the word “law” has some merit. If you prefer to dispense with the word “law,” we can call it the morality proper to human nature. Naturally, it applies only to humans, not animals. Like the pencil that destroys itself by assuming the nature of a can opener, a human will destroy himself by assuming the nature of (and acting like) an animal. He will never fulfill his destiny, which is to love and be with God. In the end, he will not be a good person, he will be a bad person. He acted against his nature and his reason for being. If, on the other hand, he has no final purpose of reason for being, then he cannot be good or bad since it is impossible for him to frustrate a purpose that doesn’t exist.
These conditions did not simply appear from out of nowhere. A Creator had to set them up. So, too, in this sense the “law of human nature” or, if you like, the morality of human nature, requires a lawgiver or, if you like, a first cause, — or nature giver.>>
________________
Well worth pondering, especially in light of the necessary balance of rights, freedoms, duties and responsibilities that marks the distinction between liberty within the pale of the civil peace of justice, and the abusive, ill-advised and ultimately ruinous chaos that results from license . . . the abuse of freedom. END
Comments
Box
Sorry I didn't read the previous posts and I just jumped into the middle of the discussion.
I argue that the same goes for us. Laws are not imposed on God by someone else—externally. No one tells God what to do. It is likewise for us. We too are free.
Laws are not imposed on God because nothing can be external to God and nothing can be imposed. Order (laws) is essential to being, which is God.
But for us, we're obviously dependent on many things for our existence. Order is imposed on us because we are not self-created. We haven't achieved fullness of being - we have potential that can be fulfilled or not.
Plus, since we can choose evil as well as good (which God can only choose good) our freedom is a lot different.Silver Asiatic
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
sean samis @51,
If it was your goal to get the last word by strewing out 20 dubious and disconnected claims (I counted them) as a response to a single and unified answer I provided to a specific question asked by someone else, the context of which you are not even remotely aware of, your mission was accomplished.
If, on the other hand, you would like to enter into a rational discussion either on the theme itself, which you appear not to grasp, or one subsection of the theme, I am available.StephenB
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Silver #50,
Silver: I’m not sure what you mean by external laws.
My discussion with StephenB has to do with the question whether or not there must be an external objective law of morality.
My position is that there is no such thing. A free person makes her/his own laws of morality. I have argued that we have the tools and that this is work in progress—part of a learning process which leads each and everyone of us to enlightenment.
Silver: God possesses both the ultimate and maximum freedom, and God is also bound by laws. Did he create the laws that he is bound by? No, because by his nature, laws (rules, order, coherence, rationality) exist.
I argue that the same goes for us. Laws are not imposed on God by someone else—externally. No one tells God what to do. It is likewise for us. We too are free.Box
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
I see this topic has moved to a new thread. I replied to StephenB on the original thread where this was first posted (comment 289); so it is appropriate to repost my response here. I apologize if I missed some edit I should have made to make this fully appropriate to this thread. I’m assuming StephenB’s comment was posted in the OP without edit.
StephenB begins with:
I assume that we agree that a physical “law,” is really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature. So, ontologically, we are referring to an event that happens over and over again, trying to make sense of it and giving it a name. It is the “nature” of matter to be moved in this way.
I can accept that.
So, the question becomes, who created matter with such a nature?
Wrong at the outset. Where matter comes from is a reasonable question; it’s an important question, and getting it right is Very Important.
Asking “who” presumes the answer; that someone created it. That is an unwarranted assumption that gets in the way of truth-seeking.
If you attribute that regularity or movement to a final cause or something that explains the ordered regularity from a philosophical perspective, all well and good.
I can agree with most of this. It’s preferable to explain ordered regularity by some kind of empirically testable phenomena. Philosophical perspectives are too vague or ambiguous to be reliable.
I am just as comfortable with first cause as lawgiver.
I thought we were looking for the truth, not for “comfort” If we all just pick the answer we are comfortable with, then the small matter of TRUTH gets lost.
Since truth is unified, there can only be one truth.
Truth is not a thing, it is not a unified thing. Truth is just what is or what happens. There are many truths; one being that we only presume all truths are “compatible”; Gödel’s theorem makes that uncertain.
The philosopher studies one aspect from one perspective, the scientist, another. The former is nobler because it probes the why and not just the how.
The former is unreliable because it assumes what it sets out to prove. Before we can reasonably probe the why we need to prove the why even exists. That remains undone.
The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. Order, regularity, and the nature of matter cannot be brought into existence or be sustained except through some outside power or cause. A nature requires a nature giver, so to speak.
A claim for which there is no evidence except that it’s a comfortable idea. In fact, it appears to be the opposite: disorder and irregularity demand explanations were order and regularity appear to be just an attribute of existence.
Certainly, if as you say above, that ...truth is unified, there can only be one truth then order and regularity are built into truth.
With respect to the moral law, we are really discussing the morality of human nature.
Complete change of topic. Natural and moral laws are categorically different.
Natural or “physical” laws (as you wrote above) are ...really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature . Natural laws cannot be violated. One ignores them at their peril, but they CANNOT be violated. It is physically impossible to do so.
Moral laws are rules of conduct which humans can obey or ignore at their discretion, and whose violations can totally escape consequence.
What does it mean for a human to be good. Philosophy has already answered that question as well. Anything is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. (Aristotle, Aquinas).
You must be aware that Philosophy has numerous, contradictory answers to every question. Aristotle and Aquinas are not Philosophy, they are just a couple of guys; one who died 23 centuries ago; the other who appears to have repudiated his life’s work.
Philosophy does not speak with one voice except if you cherry-pick it.
A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes.
Here the word “good” is sloppy. A FUNCTIONAL can opener is one that opens cans; a FUNCTIONAL pencil one that can be used for writing. (Pencils don’t write; sometimes people use pencils to write).
A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries.
This is foolish. Pencils don’t attempt to do anything, much less to act as different objects. A foolish person will destroy a pencil using it as a can opener, but they might succeed if they try hard enough. But there’s no fault on the pencil. The pencil tried nothing.
A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate. Humans were designed to practice virtue and avoid vice so that they can be with God someday.
Here is the crux of the matter: are humans even designed? Much less were they designed to do certain things? Says who? This is a perfectly fine religious theory, but like all religious theories, there is no rational or moral obligation to agree with it. If this is the import of your “natural moral law” then again you are making it religious.
Anything that is consistent with their nature is good for them; anything that is not, is bad for them.
Since we haven’t established what the nature of humans is, I have to again ask: says who? Some religious persons will agree, but they will disagree among themselves about what actual behaviors are good or bad.
Some of us call it that natural moral law to emphasize its binding nature.
Again you connect your “natural moral law” to religious concepts. Either way, It’s not binding on anyone who does not believe in it or agree with the details you propose for it. It is your “comfortable” opinion; nothing more.
Break it, and you (and others) will suffer.
Sometimes. Maybe. People DO get away with murder.
If you prefer to dispense with the word “law,” we can call it the morality proper to human nature.
Changing the name does not make it more rational or true or less religious. It remains only another religious opinion, one of many, none of which bind those who do not believe in them.
.Naturally, it applies only to humans, not animals.
Why? We know animal are in fact capable of generosity and cruelty; why are they not bound? They are capable of volition, why are they not bound?
Like the pencil that destroys itself by assuming the nature of a can opener, ...
Pencils cannot do this. Pencils cannot act; they cannot choose; they cannot assume.
If, on the other hand, he has no final purpose of reason for being, then he cannot be good or bad since it is impossible for him to frustrate a purpose that doesn’t exist.
Unless, of course, there’s valid meaning to “good” and “bad” unconnected to any religious dogma about supposed “purposes”. I’ve proposed one on this site. It’s not even difficult.
These conditions did not simply appear from out of nowhere. A Creator had to set them up.
Something had to cause things, but a Creator-Person is not required. This is just another of your “comfortable” opinions.
I’ll have to read the preceding 50ish comments to see if there’s anything interesting among them.
sean s.sean samis
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Box
If (external) laws are foundational to freedom, then God is not free.
I'm not sure what you mean by external laws.
God possesses both the ultimate and maximum freedom, and God is also bound by laws. Did he create the laws that he is bound by? No, because by his nature, laws (rules, order, coherence, rationality) exist.
God is what is. Therefore, God cannot be what is not.
That's a primal law that is an aspect of ultimate being. So the law, like power, intelligence, presence is a necessary aspect of total being, which is God.Silver Asiatic
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Silver: If there is no possibility of choice, then there is no freedom.
For free beings, laws provide opportunities to choose.
If there were no laws, then there would be no choices, and therefore no freedom.
If (external) laws are foundational to freedom, then God is not free.Box
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Box
Our essence is freedom. There are no laws for free beings. Freedom is not bound by law.
Interesting thought. How about this ...
If there is no possibility of choice, then there is no freedom.
For free beings, laws provide opportunities to choose.
If there were no laws, then there would be no choices, and therefore no freedom.
If a being had no boundaries to its freedom, it would be God.Silver Asiatic
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
Anthropic,
anthropic:
Box: “No consequences over and beyond the experience of disharmony. No eternal hellfire.”
Well, that’s a relief. Abolitionists, civil rights activists, Muslim feminists (girls get an education? Outrageous!) and other troublemakers will only suffer the consequences of their bad behavior on this planet.
Everyone will become perfectly aware of the disharmony caused by her/his actions—enlightenment includes perfect knowledge/awareness/understanding of oneself—on this planet or in the hereafter.Box
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
Box 45
"No consequences over and beyond the experience of disharmony. No eternal hellfire."
Well, that's a relief. Abolitionists, civil rights activists, Muslim feminists (girls get an education? Outrageous!) and other troublemakers will only suffer the consequences of their bad behavior on this planet.anthropic
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
StephenB: So, ultimately, there are no bad consequences to bad behavior?
No consequences over and beyond the experience of disharmony. No eternal hellfire.Box
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Carpathian
Freedom of religion allows people to believe anything they want, not to act on those beliefs.
Quite the contrary. If you cannot act on your religious beliefs, you are not free? It is, after all, called the freedom of "religious expression." Or, it is your opinion that only secularists should be free to express themselves and that Christians should be forced to keep their mouths shut?StephenB
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
C 23
"No one has a right from God to tell anyone else what to do."
This isn't a college dorm bull session, C, where you try to justify cheating on an exam -- or a girlfriend.
As any grownup knows, society absolutely depends upon people respecting the laws. Yes, those funny things that tell people what to do. Don't steal, don't lie, don't murder, for instance. They apply to everyone, including those who don't believe that God gave the Ten Commandments -- that's where they came from.
Yes, our society historically does claim a right from God to prohibit people from doing these things. Plus slavery, rape, and child abuse.
If these prohibitions are simply man-made constructions, then they can be changed willy-nilly, as they have no basis that must be respected. As the late Yale Law Prof Arthur Leff put it, man-made law is always subject to the grand "Sez who?" Divine law is not.
Professor Leff, an agnostic, had no theological ax to grind. He just pointed out that, without an ultimate Lawgiver, laws have no basis beyond the cultural consensus of the moment. We might feel that torturing babies for entertainment is wrong, but that's just our opinion.
Leff ultimately concludes that good and evil really do exist. However, he is frustrated because, without an "unevaluated Evaluator", there is no ultimate basis for that knowledge.
Ironically, you end up sawing off the branch you are sitting on. Your claim to individual freedom to do as you please only has traction in a society that has a high regard for human dignity & worth. Historically that's pretty rare.
In fact, historically it has arisen only in Judeo-Christian cultures which regard mankind as being made in the image of God. Without that God-based idea, no one has any reason to honor your choices.
Just ask any North Korean.anthropic
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Box
Yes, there is good and bad behavior. This is determined by the faculty ‘love’ (see #13)—the experience of harmony and disharmony.
There is, however, no behavior that doesn’t lead to enlightenment and God.
So, ultimately, there are no bad consequences to bad behavior?StephenB
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Carpathian,
Do you not understand what the term “might makes right” means?
Yes, and it should be avoided at all costs. In keeping with that point, the role of religion can be overplayed or underplayed. Both radical theocracy, which you rightly fear, and radical secularism, which you don't seem to fear enough, are to be avoided.
The Declaration of Independence explained it in just the right proportions: Natural rights come from the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God." Not from any individual expression of religious beliefs, at one extreme, and not from a secular state, at the other extreme
With that standard, everyone, including leaders of the state are bound to, and accountable to, the "natural moral law," which defines which laws are just and unjust. Accordingly, the civil laws are supposed to be informed by that same natural moral law, which holds everyone accountable, including the lawmakers.StephenB
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
StephenB #22,
Thank you for your questions.
StephenB: For me, a good or moral act is one that leads one to his destiny (union with God) and a bad or immoral act is one that pulls him away from that destiny.
In my model, in the end, we all find harmony with God, in perfect freedom.
StephenB: In that sense, there is a law of morality that dictates which behaviors are consistently successful for putting one on the right path and which ones are not.
Is it also the case for you that a good act is one that predictably and consistently leads to a goal (which is, for you, harmony) and a bad act is one that predictably and consistently does the opposite?
We are all on our way to enlightenment. The things we do are necessary steps in that context. We learn, whether we want it or not. It’s an airtight system—no escape. IOW there is no act that doesn’t fit the learning process. We are all on our way.
StephenB: If so, why would that not be a law?
Our essence is freedom. There are no laws for free beings. Freedom is not bound by law.
StephenB: If not, what do you mean by a “good” act? Or, does your model even recognize such a thing as good and bad behavior?
Yes, there is good and bad behavior. This is determined by the faculty ‘love’ (see #13)—the experience of harmony and disharmony.
There is, however, no behavior that doesn’t lead to enlightenment and God. God sees our behavior for what it is: steps towards enlightenment.
Even the most gruesome behavior? Yes, even the most gruesome behavior.Box
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
C, there you go again. Later -- at minimum as an object lesson on a good slice of what is going wrong. KF
PS: As a clue, what is the difference between revenge and justice?kairosfocus
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
A few posts back:
God has given no one the right to use the law to promote their religious views.
really are we that stuck in the bush league? I happen to be so fortunate to live in the first civilization in history whose founding documents include one that declares that natural rights come from the Creator. These rights are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. including the First Amendment which clearly is a law which I can use to promote my religion as I please. Wherever I want, but with respect to property rights as they may apply.groovamos
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Carpathian, Do you realise the blunder in equating the sword of justice wielded in defence of the civil peace of justice by duly authorised agents, with the nihilist’s credo, might and manipulation make ‘right’?
Do you not understand what the term "might makes right" means?
It means if that if I don't agree with the wielder of that sword, it is completely irrelevant what I think or whether or not I am right.
If a Christian in a land where the laws are derived from a non-Christian holy book has problems with a law, and the Christians do not wield the sword, then that law is going to apply, regardless of whether it flies in the face of Christian teachings.
The same applies to non-Christians here.
Religion has no business in law-making.Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
to the “religion” that you so patently despise
I'm going to say something that you won't understand right off, so I'll try to say it in a few ways so that you will finally get it.
1) I don't despise "the religion".
2) I don't despise any religion.
3) Religion is a great tool in the hands of mature people.
Now to make sure that we understand each other, do you believe that in 1) where I say I don't despise "the religion", that I actually mean that I do despise "the religion"?
If so, why?Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Carpathian, Do you realise the blunder in equating the sword of justice wielded in defence of the civil peace of justice by duly authorised agents, with the nihilist's credo, might and manipulation make 'right'? That, too speaks volumes, exposing just how insidiously destructive the errors of our time are. Again, to be followed up. KFkairosfocus
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Carpathian, have you not understood what you have done? That it full well merits a rebuke? And, have you taken even a moment to truly ponder the IS-OUGHT gap and what it implies in terms of worldview-foundation issues antecedent to the "religion" that you so patently despise to the point of ill-informed bigotry, effectively instantly equating it to Islamofascist terrorism and the like? I suggest that you pause and think again about how many millions you have slandered by that invidious comparison. G'day, later I will deal with issues. KFkairosfocus
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
I doubt you even realise that above you appealed to might and manipulation make ‘right,’ the nihilist’s credo.
And what about your claim about the sword of justice?
How is that not might makes right?Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
the civil authority is God’s servant to do good; particularly bearing the sword of justice.
And I disagree.
Do I have a right to?
Do you have the right to make laws that would forbid me from disagreeing with you?Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
The martyrs’ and confessors’ blood and tears cry up from the ground against what you have tried to do. For shame!
This sort of rhetoric is part of the problem.
You make an emotional appeal that your religious beliefs are more valid than mine.
They're not.
You're free to follow any religion you want but that doesn't give you the right to infuse your religion into the laws of the land.
God has given no one the right to use the law to promote their religious views.
God cannot be blamed for the stupid laws man has come up with.Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
carpathian, your slander and doubling down above suffice to expose the hollowness of your bland denial. On seeing a locus classicus on the status of the civil authority as the swordbearer of justice, you leaped straight to scare-mongering and slanderous invidious association with islamofascist terrorists and the like, precisely because the term "religion" has been so tainted in your mind -- you plainly don't realise the patent bigotry fully equivalent to racism in what you just did. On being corrected, you doubled down. I doubt you even realise that above you appealed to might and manipulation make 'right,' the nihilist's credo. And more. I suggest, for now, that you pause and rethink what you did above. KF
PS: For the moment, I clip to invite you to ponder in light of Locke, Hooker, Blackstone, Justinian and the Jurisconsults who synthesised Corpus Juris Civilis and the 55 of 1776:
the civil authority is God’s servant to do good; particularly bearing the sword of justice. That is, the civil authority under God has a solemn duty of bearing the sword of justice in defence of the civil peace of justice; where as the proverbial scales and blindfold remind, justice rests on an impartial understanding of the truth and of the right — which can only properly be founded in the IS who grounds OUGHT . . . the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. As, the US DoI of 1776 and other historically pivotal cites above . . . which you so studiously, willfully ignored in your haste to accuse, demonise, stereotype and taint . . . so stoutly remind us.
kairosfocus
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Carpathian, that is just the point: the civil authority is God’s servant to do good; particularly bearing the sword of justice.
This is where the problem starts; the idea that someone else's holy book defines laws that govern me .
If I want to join a church and obey it's teachings, I should be allowed to.
On the other hand, if I don't want to follow a church's teachings, I shouldn't have to do it via church influenced laws.Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
kairosfocus,
I am not hostile to any religion but I am very much against anyone who would take his religion's teachings and believe they apply to people outside of that religion.
Muslims can't make laws based on Islam and apply them to anyone .
Christians can't make laws based on Christianity and apply them to anyone .
The world does not belong to the followers of any specific religion.
You are as wrong in the eyes of someone else' religion as they are wrong in yours.Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
F/N: Later, when there is a moment, I will take up the twisted talking points C has echoed above, to speak to the ethical and governmental foundations of the civil peace of justice and its defence as informed by the foundational Judaeo-Christian tradition of our civilisation that ever so many in our day have been taught to despise. Moretime, KFkairosfocus
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Carpathian, that is just the point: the civil authority is God's servant to do good; particularly bearing the sword of justice. That is, the civil authority under God has a solemn duty of bearing the sword of justice in defence of the civil peace of justice; where as the proverbial scales and blindfold remind, justice rests on an impartial understanding of the truth and of the right -- which can only properly be founded in the IS who grounds OUGHT . . . the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. As, the US DoI of 1776 and other historically pivotal cites above . . . which you so studiously, willfully ignored in your haste to accuse, demonise, stereotype and taint . . . so stoutly remind us. Your remarks, on fair comment, by sad contrast reveal a deep want of reasonable understanding, rabid secularist indoctrination, and unsurprisingly conclusion-jumping then doubling down on an extreme, hostile and even bigoted conflation and invidious comparison of a straightforward point that every reasonable person should understand with islamofascist terrorists or the like speak volumes. I think you need to take a sober reassessment of your visceral hostility to the Judaeo-Christian tradition and its contribution to the now fast-fading heritage of modern liberty and democratic self-government, and you still owe a very serious apology. KF
PS: Before you go on and on about "religion" which you seem not to understand, I suggest you examine the historic context of the Ep Rom, which was speaking to Christians living under a pagan roman regime, in the capital of that empire, in the early days of Nero's reign. At that time, Seneca [a stoic thinker] and Burrus led just government and were directly implied as God's servants to do good. Several years later, the apostle Paul peacefully submitted to judicial murder at the hands of the demonically mad nero who had tossesd aside his tutors. As, before him his Master had stood in witness of truth and being found innocent submitted to politically expedient judicial murder as in I wash my hands of this man's blood. The martyrs' and confessors' blood and tears cry up from the ground against what you have tried to do. For shame!kairosfocus
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
kairosfocus,
You missed this part: No one has a right from God to punish anyone.
No one has a right from God to tell anyone else what to do.
This includes Christians, Muslims and anyone who believes God chooses sides in the affairs of humans.
You have some serious walking back to do.
Religion is a serious topic that can lead to serious consequences.
For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
It is simply not acceptable to take any teachings from any specific holy book and claim that they are applicable to those who do not hold that specific holy book as being a true representation of God's intent.
I do not bow to the authority of any religion and no one should be expected to.
Should a Christian in a non-Christian country bow to government laws derived from a non-Christian holy book when those laws are in opposition to Christian teachings?
This applies in both directions as no laws based on Christianity should be forced on non-Christians.
Religion should stay in churches and in the minds of men and women. It has no business in the laws of man.
Freedom of religion allows people to believe anything they want, not to act on those beliefs.Carpathian
[SB, reply:] Very interesting comment. Let me try to say something that might bring us together.
I assume that we agree that a physical “law,” is really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature. So, ontologically, we are referring to an event that happens over and over again, trying to make sense of it and giving it a name. It is the “nature” of matter to be moved in this way. So, the question becomes, who created matter with such a nature?
If you attribute that regularity or movement to a final cause or something that explains the
ordered regularity from a philosophical perspective, all well and good. I am just as comfortable with first cause as lawgiver. The philosopher calls it one thing, the scientist, another. Since truth is unified, there can only be one truth. The philosopher studies one aspect from one perspective, the scientist, another. The former is nobler because it probes the why and not just the how.
The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. I gather that you would agree. Order, regularity, and the nature of matter cannot be brought into existence or be sustained except through some outside power or cause. A nature requires a nature giver, so to speak.
With respect to the moral law, we are really discussing the morality of human nature. What does it mean for a human to be good. Philosophy has already answered that question as well. Anything is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. (Aristotle, Aquinas).
A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes. A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries. So it is with a human being. A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate. Humans were designed to practice virtue and avoid vice so that they can be with God someday. It is their nature. Anything that is consistent with their nature is good for them; anything that is not, is bad for them.
Some of us call it that natural moral law to emphasize its binding nature. Break it, and you (and others) will suffer. So, in that sense, I think the word “law” has some merit. If you prefer to dispense with the word “law,” we can call it the morality proper to human nature. Naturally, it applies only to humans, not animals. Like the pencil that destroys itself by assuming the nature of a can opener, a human will destroy himself by assuming the nature of (and acting like) an animal. He will never fulfill his destiny, which is to love and be with God. In the end, he will not be a good person, he will be a bad person. He acted against his nature and his reason for being. If, on the other hand, he has no final purpose of reason for being, then he cannot be good or bad since it is impossible for him to frustrate a purpose that doesn’t exist.
These conditions did not simply appear from out of nowhere. A Creator had to set them up. So, too, in this sense the “law of human nature” or, if you like, the morality of human nature, requires a lawgiver or, if you like, a first cause, — or nature giver.>>