11 Jul 05
....... About Natural Law
I found an interesting and cristalclear (!) article about what we have been discussing on these forums. It connects the creation stories of Genesis, the understanding of natural law and what the Supreme Court wrote in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2807 [1992].)
Eve Without Adam: What Genesis Has to Tell America About Natural Law
by David F. Forte
Heritage Lecture #570
A few quotes:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." (Supreme Court)
" The exegetes tell us that the temptation to Eve and to Adam was to define for oneself what the scheme of good and evil is instead of apprehending what is objectively good for man. If I can define for myself for my own world, if I can determine what is good and evil, then for that little world of my making, I am a god."
"But the naming of good and evil, God retains to himself. Man was given reason to apprehend good and evil, but he does not, in his nature, possess the capacity for creating it."
If you want to read this excellent and indeed cristalclear article please visit:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/HL570.cfm
Any comments or thoughts (after reading the article, please) ?
12 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeinteresting article; i agree with some of it, especially:
....... About Natural Law
I found an interesting and cristalclear (!) article about what we have been discussing on these forums. It connects the creation stories of Genesis, the understanding of natural law and what the Supreme Court ...[text shortened]...
Any comments or thoughts (after reading the article, please) ?
"But when order threatens to break down altogether, when chaos looms, then the mind reaches back to the stability of principle. Man cannot abide error for too long, for error produces a disintegration, a disorder of the soul, and a disorder of society. We can live a complex life; we can live a life of contradictions; but we cannot live an absurd life. That is our nature."
sounds like a clear demand for some rational thought and good old-fashioned reason to me. his views that we should shoot for just the right balance of reason and faith are not convincing though -- he doesn't demonstrate why any faith is necessary at all.
setting aside the supernatural implications of the bible, i find it odd that you claim that genesis can somehow teach us something about natural law. much of the bible wreaks of natural law, which is not surprising -- after all, no one i've met can prove that the bible is anything more than a work of fiction by a bunch of natural beings like you and me. the bible is not an authority on natural law, but rather a product of natural law (not including the supernatural gibber-jabber, smoke, and mirrors).
your quotes are correct only in that man does not 'create' morality -- rather, he discerns what is right and wrong from his capacity for rational thought. nowhere in this process is god, religion, faith, or the bible necessary.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJello
interesting article; i agree with some of it, especially:
"But when order threatens to break down altogether, when chaos looms, then the mind reaches back to the stability of principle. Man cannot abide error for too long, for error produces a disintegration, a disorder of the soul, and a disorder of society. We can live a complex life; we can live a ...[text shortened]... or rational thought. nowhere in this process is god, religion, faith, or the bible necessary.
.... and what tells Genesis YOU about natural law ?
12 Jul 05
3 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoe???? what do you mean by 'Genesis YOU'? i don't understand your question.
.... and what tells Genesis YOU about natural law ?
please tell me if i am wrong, but it sounds to me that you are yet another misguided theist sloppily attempting to shovel around the Divine Command Theory (DCT). bbarr has already laid out a nice formulation in the 'Euthyphro and Divine Command Theory' thread that demonstrates that the DCT is a load of dung. i would refer you to that thread.
i also think you need to open up your mind to the distinct possibility that the bible is just another work of fiction, much like my favorite children's book: 'butter battle book' by dr. seuss.
EDIT: the 'butter battle book' also expounds upon human nature and is altogether bursting with good tips for a peaceful existence. just like the bible, this does not mean it is an authority on anything.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloCan you provide a link to bbarr's thread? I haven't been able to find it.
???? what do you mean by 'Genesis YOU'? i don't understand your question.
please tell me if i am wrong, but it sounds to me that you are yet another misguided theist sloppily attempting to shovel around the Divine Command Theory (DCT). bbarr has already laid out a nice formulation in the 'Euthyphro and Divine Command Theory' thread that demonst ...[text shortened]... r a peaceful existence. just like the bible, this does not mean it is an authority on anything.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJello
???? what do you mean by 'Genesis YOU'? i don't understand your question.
please tell me if i am wrong, but it sounds to me that you are yet another misguided theist sloppily attempting to shovel around the Divine Command Theory (DCT). bbarr has already laid out a nice formulation in the 'Euthyphro and Divine Command Theory' thread that demonst ...[text shortened]... r a peaceful existence. just like the bible, this does not mean it is an authority on anything.
Why do I get the taste of dead mice in my mouth when I read your posts ?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks LJ. And I see telerion has bumped it to the top of the list. I'll bookmark it so I can get back to it after I've had more time to give it a good read. I always like a good debate on good and evil. 🙂
hi coletti,
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=25771
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by ivanhoewell, i don't intend to be so distasteful to your palate. LemonJello is supposed to be a refreshing after-school snack. dead mice don't appear on the ingredients label, but maybe some curious mouse got too close to the mixing blades.
Why do I get the taste of dead mice in my mouth when I read your posts ?
back to the thread, am i right in assuming that you are waving around the DCT banner??? if so, i don't think the position is tenable for reasons described in the Euthyphro Dilemma.
i also await your proof concerning the authority status of the bible.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by ivanhoegenesis is not an authority on natural law, so i don't see why you claim it should tell us anything that we don't already know.
I'll refrase:
..... and what does Genesis tell YOU about the natural law ?
so my answer is: nothing that i don't already, or couldn't otherwise, know.
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloLJ: " but maybe some curious mouse got too close to the mixing blades."
well, i don't intend to be so distasteful to your palate. LemonJello is supposed to be a refreshing after-school snack. dead mice don't appear on the ingredients label, but maybe some curious mouse got too close to the mixing blades. ...[text shortened]... lso await your proof concerning the authority status of the bible.
I'm sure more than one mouse got too close to the mixing blades and made it into the mix.
LJ: "am i right in assuming that you are waving around the DCT banner???"
I do not wave any banner in this thread.
LJ: "i also await your proof concerning the authority status of the bible"
My proof ?
This thread isn't about the authority of the Bible, sorry.
12 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloLJ: "so my answer is: nothing that i don't already, or couldn't otherwise, know."
genesis is not an authority on natural law, so i don't see why you claim it should tell us anything that we don't already know.
so my answer is: nothing that i don't already, or couldn't otherwise, know.
What does Genesis communicate what you already, or could otherwise, know about the natural law ?
12 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeokay then, i am confused. from what i gather, your starting this thread is either an attempt to promulgate the DCT (which i gather from the selective quotes you endorsed in your opening post), or an attempt to assert authority of the bible (which i gather from your claim that genesis has much to 'tell' america). since you seem to be denying both of these motives, i would like clarification on exactly what the point of this thread is before i continue down the winding rabbit hole.
LJ: " but maybe some curious mouse got too close to the mixing blades."
I'm sure more than one mouse got too close to the mixing blades and made it into the mix.
LJ: "am i right in assuming that you are waving around the DCT ban ...[text shortened]...
This thread isn't about the authority of the Bible, sorry.
EDIT: certainly if i am completely misrepresenting your posts, then you should be quick to inform me where i am taking liberties.
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThis thread is about the interpretation of a creation story and what that story is trying to communicate about the Natural Law. After that we can compare our findings with what the Supreme Court is stating about personal liberty and which consequenses this has for the Supreme Court's implicit interpretation of the Natural Law. We can discuss why the Supreme Court's interpretation is preferable or why it is to be rejected.
okay then, i am confused. from what i gather, your starting this thread is either an attempt to promulgate the DCT (which i gather from the selective quotes you endorsed in your opening post), or an attempt to assert authority of the bi ...[text shortened]... then you should be quick to inform me where i am taking liberties.