tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post113997612186106671..comments2024-03-12T06:18:44.998-07:00Comments on Brain Cramps for God: Natural Law: What is included?John Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17015850035301812424noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1140464077420628312006-02-20T11:34:00.000-08:002006-02-20T11:34:00.000-08:00Tyler,Talk about wrong:Aside from the fact that it...Tyler,<BR/><BR/>Talk about wrong:<BR/><BR/><I>Aside from the fact that it is utterly presumptuous to claim to know objectively God's consciousness and what he requires from anyone other than yourself (and that's far from an anti-intellectual position; it is one shared by many, if not most in the long, distinguished history of Christian intellectuals. I believe avoiding their work, of course, to be anti-intellectualism of the highest order.)</I><BR/><BR/>I do not avoid the work - I disagree. We have general revelation which flows from God's character - since we are made <I>imago dei</I>. We have specific revelation through scripture and the guidence of the Holy Spirit in understanding it. And, as Paul said:<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 2:<I>10 <B>For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.</B> 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 <B>But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.</B> 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For <A HREF="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=isa+40&version=nas&showtools=0" REL="nofollow">WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM?</A> But we have the mind of Christ."</I><BR/><BR/>Do we know <B>everything</B> God knows? No. Can we trust that what we know applies to more than ourselves? Of course, that depends on the nature of the revelation; but indeed there are many, many cases where we can indeed know the consciousness of God as it applies to other people. To say otherwise is to make God a pandering simp that just wants to make everyone happy; regardless of their heart. And certainly, then:<BR/><BR/><I>God's position as revealed in scripture has no place in this argument. You admitted as much at the beginning of this post.</I><BR/><BR/>No I do not believe I did. I brought up points all through the post that talked about specific revelation to Christians, through scripture, outside of the general moral code.<BR/><BR/>There is general revelation to all humans (which our natural self/sin nature can overrule or ignore) and specific revelation to Christians in general, and individuals also (which our natural self/sin nature can overrule or ignore)<BR/><BR/><I>I am saying that you must prove natural law exists before you can figure out what it includes.</I><BR/><BR/>The only "proof" natural law exists is that the moral code it encompasses exists across all human culture. Do moral axioms (which peoples sin natures cause them to disobey and ignore) exist across almost all cultures present and past? I say they do, and that "demonstrates the reality of natural law" in the only way it can ever be demonstrated; that there is a underlying moral foundation upon which all cultures have built more specific frameworks; and have presented a list above that I think are included in that foundation.<BR/><BR/>You have said you think natural law exists; but I have to "prove it" before you will comment on what is or isn't included in that code. Huh?<BR/><BR/><I>I actually agree that any belief system that excludes some form of theism is inherently incoherent, but I think that it is arrogant, intellectually dishonest and uncharitable to assume this without backing it up with an argument that is conducted on grounds those who don't believe in God would accept</I><BR/><BR/>This is, and isn't, a valid criticism. I did not even try to make an argument that would convince agnostics and atheists of God's existance - and realized when I put the first tablet in that it was a "slap in the face" of those who reject God. Guilty as charged. <BR/><BR/>In pleading for leniancy, I have pointed folk to the first 5 chapters of <A HREF="http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mc01.htm" REL="nofollow">Mere Christianity</A> where Lewis attempts to make that case from natural law; and of course, as <A HREF="http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001464.html" REL="nofollow">Joe Carter (and Paul above) rightly states</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>Denying the reality of God is, I believe, more a matter of the will and passions than of reason and intellect. This is one of the reasons that ontological arguments, which rely on reason and intuition alone, are almost completely unpersuasive to those of agnostic inclination.</I><BR/><BR/>I should have pointed folks to Carter's great series, <A HREF="http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001444.html" REL="nofollow">"Dismantling Implausibility Structures"</A> at least. Included there is a review of <A HREF="http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001479.html" REL="nofollow">Elton Trueblood's moral argument for God</A>. I will make up for it in the next post in the series. <BR/><BR/>However, it is unlikely to do any good - you cannot argue people into a belief of God. They must experience God and, since Paul says they already have, actually stop allowing their "will and passions" to get in the way of God's revelation to them.<BR/><BR/>Since I will not be a Calvinist, I will believe that God has not left them out of the revelation; and that they have simply chosen in their free will to pass by it.<BR/><BR/>And in that, your criticism may be wrong.JCHFleetguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11706076670231455968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1140407748766868872006-02-19T19:55:00.000-08:002006-02-19T19:55:00.000-08:00Let's see: J. Bud's, mine, and God's position (Rom...Let's see: J. Bud's, mine, and God's position (Romans 1 and Psalms 19) are that people who say they do not believe in God are "without excuse" and in J. Bud's words - lying. They do know about God whatever they say they believe.<BR/><BR/>When I get to the four witnesses I will talk about human's ability to overrule their deep conscience with the own will - essentially to cut it off and ignore it.<BR/><BR/>The Aquinas thing is a paraphrase from J. Bud. He says Thomas was crititcized for not specifying what the natural law was; but Budziszewski says he made it clear the decalogue was a reflection of it. He cites <I>Summa Theologica</I> I-II, Question 100.<BR/><BR/>I am not trying to prove natural law exists. I am stating it exists; and reviewing what one person said it includes; and asking for critiques and discussion about whether or not this list constitutes what we must know.<BR/><BR/>And, of course, I made it clear the first tablet would raise the hackles - something you know I do not care a lot about.<BR/><BR/>I very few people would kill anybody anywhere and not offer a justification, rationalization, or excuse for their action. If you want to object to the made-up German go ahead.JCHFleetguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11706076670231455968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14054730.post-1140235425698731612006-02-17T20:03:00.000-08:002006-02-17T20:03:00.000-08:00TylerWell first, this isn't even close to being ab...Tyler<BR/><BR/>Well first, this isn't even close to being about what people "believe" - it is what deep conscience has them "know" by the time they reach the age of reason. It has nothing to do with earth going around the sun or the reverse. It isn't about scientific law or mistakes of observation - it is about universal moral codes. Incidentally, was Copernicus the first to postulate the sun as center - or did science in India, China, or within Islam already know. I seem to remember that this knowledge was known earlier than the Europeans.<BR/><BR/>Nearly universal is good enough. As a few thinkers point out, it is possible to create a "new" morality in a society outside natural law. That is the point of "Abolition". So, the fact that at certain times certain cultures have stepped outside the boundaries (Nazi Germany, periods of Imperial Rome, Greece at times, etc.) only means that humans have succeeded in a given culture of ignoring their deep conscience as a group. Bonhoeffer used this violation of natural law by a culture/state to show the state to be illegitimate; and as a justification to say that the only moral act was to oppose a state that violated natural law.<BR/><BR/>So this doesn't even begin to be about what we believe - it is what we must know (and often succeed in ignoring) from our deep conscience.<BR/><BR/>You had to many pronouns in the part about Aquinas - tell me what you are referring to that he doesn't say and we will move on from there.<BR/><BR/><I>That's crap. Rationalizations, justifications and excuses do all suggest that some type of law governing social interactions exists in every culture. Every rationalization, justification, and excuse happens in a particular social and cultural context. It is possible that each culture has its own mores, (well, that's a fact, actually) and it's no less likely that every rationalization and excuse takes place within a specific context, relates specifically to that context, and testifies to no universal meta-ethic.</I><BR/><BR/>Your consideration of this being defecate aside - what testifies to the existance of natural law is the similiarities in the base moral codes of societies all over the planet. Whatever moral structures they have built on the foundations (and those structures indeed look different) the foundation they are building on has huge similiarities - and that is curious considering the difference in gods, morals, history, etc.<BR/><BR/>If you are a prison guard in Germany in 1944 and you go home and tell your wife you killed 10,000 today - but they were only Jews - you have proven natural law. You had to find a reason they were outside the admonition not to take innocent life: they were not innocent, or they were not a life covered under the law. You have to explain the killing however.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting that at street prophets where this was crossposted among pagans, wiccans, tibetan buddhists, persian gulf muslim, (and more) no one argued the point that the list in the post wasn't common to their culture; or that the idea wasn't rational even if the list had a point to many or a point to few.<BR/><BR/>As to the "first tablet", I made it clear which parts of Abrahamic faith were included and which were specific revelations to the Abrahamic faiths. Be more specific in your criticism.JCHFleetguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11706076670231455968noreply@blogger.com