22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammer1 Aquinas believed all good things came from God
1. The RCC does not "concede" the existence of Natural Law as something distinct from the Eternal Law:
"According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II, Q. xciv). "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209102.htm
2. Aquina ...[text shortened]... is definitely not positing that a "natural law" would exist in the absence of an Eternal Law.
2) Aquinas believed man's reasoning out natural law was a good thing
3) it follows that Aquinas believed man's reasoning out natural law came from god
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo what? The RCC says the source of Natural Law is God, what a surprise. The point is that our own reasoning can reach what the Natural Law without a God. Please at least try to read my posts.
1. The RCC does not "concede" the existence of Natural Law as something distinct from the Eternal Law:
"According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II, Q. xciv). "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209102.htm
2. Aquina ...[text shortened]... is definitely not positing that a "natural law" would exist in the absence of an Eternal Law.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo what? So does someone who believes in a Natural Law as distinct from each individual's views. You're dodging the issue entirely.
You've clearly not understood what I'm saying - whatever Christians of different churches/sects or times say about morality, they believe that an absolute standard exists with which their notions can be compared. This absolute standard is independent of their notions.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease at least try to read my posts.
So what? The RCC says the source of Natural Law is God, what a surprise. The point is that our own reasoning can reach what the Natural Law without a God. Please at least try to read my posts.
The source you've cited only quotes Aquinas' article on Natural Law to support its position. Aquinas himself posited that:
1. There exists a single, common, natural law for all human beings.
2. This Natural Law can be realised through human reason, when the latter is applied properly.
only because he identified both Natural Law and Natural Reason with the Eternal Law and Eternal Reason, respectively. Absent these two assumptions, there is no reason for us to assume that human reason should converge on a single standard of morals (even when used properly).
Your point still fails - without a God it is not necessary that our reason should converge to Natural Law. Hence, as I said, good and evil become mere conventions.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is YOUR assertion, you are merely repeating it. I gave Acquinas as an example, the concept of Natural Law predates him by thousands of years. IF their are basic principles that we can reason to because we are rational beings and that is our nature, what do we need a God for? These principles would exist outside the individual value judgments. And I get sick of you people saying "your points fails" when we are making inductive arguments; please read something on logic until you understand the difference between deductive and inductive arguments - that type of BS that you and Coletti constantly spew is tiresome besides being plain wrong.
Please at least try to read my posts.
The source you've cited only quotes Aquinas' article on Natural Law to support its position. Aquinas himself posited that:
1. There exists a single, common, natural law for all human beings.
2. This Natural Law can be realised through human reason, when the latter is applied properly.
only becau ...[text shortened]... reason should converge to Natural Law. Hence, as I said, good and evil become mere conventions.
22 Jun 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAlright - give another example of a philosopher who argues for Natural Law but who does not pre-suppose God.
That is YOUR assertion, you are merely repeating it. I gave Acquinas as an example, the concept of Natural Law predates him by thousands of years. IF their are basic principles that we can reason to because we are rational bein ...[text shortened]... nd Coletti constantly spew is tiresome besides being plain wrong.
EDIT: Whether inductive or deductive, if the only example you've provided actually proves the opposite of the point you're trying to make, then your point has failed. If a 4-yr old asks you, "What colour are apples?" and the only apple you show him is yellow, then you simply cannot argue "Apples are red" - whatever method of logic you use.
You can get as sick with me or Coletti as you like - but the point simply is that your logic was wrong (see example of apples above). So, stop wasting your energy on petty insults and show us a red apple. 🙂
22 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderKind of:
Please read my post and stop being so dense. Did Aristotle believe in your Christian God?
"We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God. "
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/ancient-greece/aristotle_god.asp
Next philosopher, please?
EDIT: This, incidentally, is exactly where Aquinas' exploration of God picks up!
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammeryou must be thinking of another Aristotle
Kind of:
"We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God. "
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/ancient-greece/aristotle_god.asp
Next philosopher, please?
EDIT: This, incidentally, is exactly where Aquinas' exploration of God picks up!
Aristotle
The greatest of heathen Philosophers, born at Stagira, a Grecian colony in the Thracian peninsula Chalcidice, 384 B.C.; died at Chalcis, in Euboea, 322 B.C.
Aristotle substituted the scientific tendency to examine first the phenomena of the real world around us and thence to reason to a knowledge of the essences and laws which no intuition can reveal, but which science can prove to exist. In fact, Aristotle's notion of philosophy corresponds, generally speaking, to what was later understood to be science, as distinct from philosophy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy do I have to give an example of a philosopher who argues for Natural Law but does not presuppose God? How about no1Marauder? Will you at least address the point why if the Natural Law can be ascertained by reason as stated by Aristotle, Acquinas etc. etc. why is an Eternal Law given by God necessary? Simply, if human beings can use their reason to discover preexisting moral principles which are inherent in their nature, then there is no reason to tack on a higher authority. Acquinas was presupposing a God and then fitting Natural Law into the Eternal Law, but in reality the "Emperor has no clothes"; Natural Law is not reliant on a higher Eternal Law logically.
Alright - give another example of a philosopher who argues for Natural Law but who does not pre-suppose God.
EDIT: Whether inductive or deductive, if the only example you've provided actually proves the opposite of the point you're trying to make, then your point has failed. If a 4-yr old asks you, "What colour are apples?" and the only apple y ...[text shortened]... m is yellow, then you simply cannot argue "Apples are red" - whatever method of logic you use.
Please start addressing my points rather than trying this smug, pseudo intellectual crap you always pull out when you don't have an answer.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerStupid, I wasn't playing "name that philosopher"; I was giving the rudiments of Natural Law theory. That Acquinas believed in an Eternal Law over and above the Natural Law is irrelevent to my point. Address it.
Alright - give another example of a philosopher who argues for Natural Law but who does not pre-suppose God.
EDIT: Whether inductive or deductive, if the only example you've provided actually proves the opposite of the point you're trying to make, then your point has failed. If a 4-yr old asks you, "What colour are apples?" and the only apple y ...[text shortened]... mple of apples above). So, stop wasting your energy on petty insults and show us a red apple. 🙂
22 Jun 05
Lucifershammer.... Please read all of my posts, as I did give examples of some of the slaughter done in the name of Christ.
If you do any kind of study in 1) comparative religions, 2) mythology, 3) psychology, and 4) sociology, you will find that mankind develops laws and moral codes based on the survival of the species. When that survival is threatened any law or code is secondary to the survival of the individual and his/her family. Early man formed groups and tribes to help them survive in a very hostile world. Eventually, codes of living were developed to protect the members of the group. Murders were pushed out of the group or killed to protect the rest of the tribe.eventually as civilizations developed, those codes developed into morality. If you look at aboriginal tribes from around the world almost all of them developed very similar moral codes and "laws." The gods were developed over time 1) to explain the mysteries of the universe at a time before science had developed to explain them, 2) to create a comfort zone concerning death, and 3) as the ULTIMATE punishment for breaking the code.
Hammurabi's Code set up laws for the land of Babylon that are very similar to ours, yet there was no God and Christ to establish them. Romans developed laws to help them regulate the huge populations under their control. The Celts developed laws based on their own set of beliefs. Religion followed morality, and was developed to support the social code of the land.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, nothing in this claim entails the existence of any absolute standard of morality. The claim is simply that genocide is wrong under all circumstances, and can't be made morally permissible by fiat.
When you say that Genocide is morally wrong - regardless of who (even God) orders it, you are implicitly referring to some absolute "gold standard" of morals/ethics. That is what I am referring to.
22 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAlthough the debate has moved on before I could get to this, a couple of quick responses.
This is an extremely strong assertion. Evidence?
1) From now on, I’ll just let frogstomp do my research for me, since he is better and quicker at it than I am (and, as froggy knows, I do little research or reading on the web).
2) I ran to my bookshelves for a quick reference and found Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths by Karen Armstrong. Her discussion of the crusades is on pages 271-294. Excerpts are dangerous, but here is a brief one: “For three days the Crusaders systematically slaughtered about thirty thousand of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. ‘They killed all the Saracens and the Turks they found,’ said the author of the Gesta Francorum approvingly, ‘they killed everyone, whether male or female.’ Ten thousand Muslims who had sought sanctuary on the roof of the Aqsa were brutally massacred, and Jews were rounded up into their synagogue and put to the sword. There were scarcely any survivors.” (p. 274)
3) According to Armstrong’s account, I have to correct myself about the Orthodox Christians. Those that did not leave the city before the battle were simply banned from the churches after the Crusaders took over. (I’ll have to some more digging, because I was sure I read about them being killed somewhere—but for now, I’ll “eat crow” on that one.)
4) Since the original point was that people twist religion to commit such atrocities, does questioning what, on my general reading, seems to be the accepted historical account—i.e., that the Crusaders slaughtered innocents during the taking of Jerusalem—have any point? What if they only “systematically slaughtered” Jews and Muslims, but not Eastern Christians, or men and women but not children? You were not wrong to ask the question, but we’re not going toward a “our religion has slaughtered ‘x’ fewer people than the other one” are we? Or adopting a stance of “admit nothing” with regard to what has been committed in the name of our religion until we absolutely have to? (These do not strike me as the kind of positions that you would adopt.)
The Crusaders were not acting here in accord with what I would consider the basic tenets of Christianity, either in general or with regard to Roman Catholicism in particular. When Saladin took Jerusalem almost a hundred later, there was no slaughter of Christians or any one else. I would say that Saladin acted within the tenets of Islam; the Al Qaeda terrorists do not. Such things may say something about how the “followers” of different religions act; it says nothing about the religion itself.