Natural Law


#1

`
**Originally Posted By J. Anderson: **
“Natural law” is actually a thoroughly Christian idea, stemming from passages such as Romans 2:15. Obviously Aquinas is a major figure in this tradition, but I’ll focus instead on Luther, who spoke of the “common, divine, and natural law” which binds every one, Christian and non-Christian alike. Speaking of “the divine and natural law,” Luther agrees with Paul in asserting that “There is no one who does not feel it. Everyone must acknowledge that what the natural law says is right and true . . . This light lives and shines in all human reason . . . all nations recognize that there are sins and iniquities.” Of course, “the devil so blinds and possesses hearts that they do not always feel this law. Therefore one must preach the law and impress it on the minds of people till God assists and enlightens them, so that they feel in their hearts what the word says.”

Perhaps one of the more famous quotes on the matter, from Kant: "Two things fill the mind with ever increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intesely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."
Post 40 http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f10/rand-paul-promotes-bill-end-abortion-demand-once-all-38573/index4.html#post559603

This thread’s OP is a continuation of a discussion on Natural Law from the thread linked above.

From The Free Online Law Dictionary:

"What Is The Definition Of Natural Law And What Are The Different Schools Of Natural Law?

The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed.

Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists.

Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved.

There are three schools of natural law theory: divine natural law, secular natural law, and historical natural law.

** (1) Divine natural law ** represents the system of principles believed to have been revealed or inspired by God or some other supreme and supernatural being. These divine principles are typically reflected by authoritative religious writings such as Scripture.

** (2) Secular natural law ** represents the system of principles derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason.

** (3) Historical natural law ** represents the system of principles that has evolved over time through the slow accretion of custom, tradition, and experience. Each school of natural law influenced the Founding Fathers during the nascent years of U.S. law in the eighteenth century and continue to influence the decision-making process of state and federal courts today."

Natural Law legal definition of Natural Law. Natural Law synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


#2

`
Bremen,

Be thinking about these questions when we get over to the up-coming Natural Law thread. [We are now here.]

Does your interpretation of Natural Law condemn as immoral consensual adultry when the children of the parents, say ages 12, 14, 17, are clearly suffering emotional damage because they know their father and mother, Ken and Mary, are having sex with another married couple down the street, Bob and Janice, who are also into consensual adultry?

Would your interpretation and application of Natural Law condemn that as immoral?

Would it condemn as immoral consensual adultry if their were no children involved?

Does your interpretation of Natural Law condemn the very existence of the porn industry in America?

And I have some more jewels for you besides those.

:cool:


#3

`
Bremen,

Does your interpretation and application of Natural Law produce any strong moral preaching designed to deliver the 18 and 19 year old girls mentioned below from the money-enticing clutches of the Porn Kings?

Does your interpretation and application of Natural Law offer any legal protection from the State to protect the 18 and 19 year old girls mentioned below from the money-enticing clutches of the Porn Kings?

I want the thousands of young girls (its going be tens of thousands as time goes along) that are being drawn into a life of porn to be spared the physical, emotional, and psychological damage connected with that type of life. According to the articles I have read the Porn Kings like their female actors to be young and they go after (with large bags of money in hand to pay them) females that are still in their teens, 18 and 19 years old.


If a young woman (girl really) age 18 enters the porn industry and makes it a career, making say an average of 2 sex films per week until she is say 45 years old, then chances are she is going to end up having sex with an astounding number of different men over her 27 year "career" in the sex industry. Twenty-seven years Xs 52 weeks is 1404 weeks Xs 2 filmed sex events per week comes out to having sex with 2,808 different men, or different people if she also mixes in the lesbo stuff with her film making. Then add in the "group orgies" and who knows how many different people she ends up having sex with.
 
Sure, my numbers could be off some, one can work their own set of numbers, but however its figured up, its going to end up being a fact that a young 18 year girl is going to be enticed with a lot of money (far more than she could ever make working at Belks or Macys etc) to sell her body for sex with at least thousands of different people over the course of say her 30 to 35 year career in the sex industry.

And she is going to have thousands of other females in their teens to join her, and as time goes on their numbers will hit the tens of thousands.


There is something (actually a lot) bad wrong, seriously wrong, with that and with a society that tolerates that!

The message the American House of Reps, Senate, POTUS, and Supreme Court daily sends forth to America and the whole world is this: "We lack the ideological, philosophical, and moral justification to use State power to protect our teenage 18 year old female citizens from the clutches of the Porn Kings, but we will protect the money of our citizens via State laws against interstate stealing schemes.

Bremen, what say ye regarding the two questions at the top of this post?


My position is that if your interpretations and applications of Natural Law cannot and does not come to the strong Moral Aid of these 18 year old girls through strong moral condemnation delivered in the public square (which btw you never bother to do that I know of. Link? )…

AND come to their aid with LAWS backed up by the sword-power of the State (Ro.13) …

… then the interpretation and applications of so-called “Natural Laws” that you “have bought into” are the hypocritical produce of intellectual air-heads aka Bloviating Philosophical Academic Intellectual Talking Heads who spout out nothing more than their personal interpretations and applications of Natural Law that are convenient stuff for them and their agenda and all of it invented out of thin blue sky and designed to establish and defend their moral code based almost exclusively upon the protection of their Life, Liberty, and Property. Here their interpretations and applications of their so-called Natural Laws will gladly use state power to protect their money, but cannot and will not use State power to protect their neighbors 18 year old daughter from the clutches of the Porn Kings.

(Anybody interested can see “my plan” (Ha!) to defend America’s teenage girls from the Porn
Kings in post 23 here:
http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f22/protestantism-liberalism-38542/index3.html
(/grin Expect its just an academic exercise on my part though, I don’t think the present sheeple
will go for it, they’re to mesmerized with their favorite TV programs to worry about America’s
18 year olds legally getting paid to have sex with several hundred men. 'Course, protecting their
money is one of their favorite projects and they’ll put their favorite TV shows on pause for that
cause.)

:cool:


#4

[quote=“Jack_Hectormann, post:2, topic:37401”]
`Bremen,Be thinking about these questions when we get over to the up-coming Natural Law thread. [We are now here.] Does your interpretation of Natural Law condemn as immoral consensual adultry when the children of the parents, say ages 12, 14, 17, are clearly suffering emotional damage because they know their father and mother, Ken and Mary, are having sex with another married couple down the street, Bob and Janice, who are also into consensual adultry? Would your interpretation and application of Natural Law condemn that as immoral? Would it condemn as immoral consensual adultry if their were no children involved? Does your interpretation of Natural Law condemn the very existence of the porn industry in America? And I have some more jewels for you besides those.:cool:
[/quote] No it would not.


#5

No it would not.


#6

So if Natural Law does not prevent adult human beings from voluntarily engaging in acts that you deem immoral then it is “hypocritical produce of intellectual air-heads aka Bloviating Philosophical Academic Intellectual Talking Heads”? What can I say to this other than I disagree? It is just your opinion and have a right to it.

Yet as soon as you do use that sword to force another human to do the bidding of your opinion you have stopped using reason. You have entered into the realm of the animal kingdom by insisting on using aggressive force against people despite reason. Thus you are no different from a 200 lbs escaped chimpanzee raging through the streets. To my philosophy you can be dealt with as such.

If you think that young girls in the porn industry is immoral then boycott it, protest it, expose it for what it is. Do a documentary film. Persuade people that consuming this product is immoral.

This is why we speak of rights. Rights mean what one can legitimately use force to prevent another human being from doing. While a violation of rights is always immoral not all immoral things can be prevented with force.


#7

Thank you for such a well thought out post. /sarcasm

I looked all over your post up there trying to find just one FACT that might possibly pass for an argument, alas there was not a single fact to be found.

I did manage to locate one childish emotional rant about a “200 lbs escaped chimpanzee raging through the streets.”

And I located several of your personal opinions which made up the totality of the rest of your inane presentation.

:cool:

PS
You said, “To my philosophy you can be dealt with as such.” Bullit to the head or sleepy-time dart gun?

:santa:

PSS
You’re a fascinating trip Bremen. A constant other-world experience. :freaked:

:smiley:


#8

`
Bremen,
Have mercy upon me. Hold off with your cerbrum crushing weaponery. :freaked:

Perhaps J, Pete, FC, Qix, and others will show up and I will have the pleasure of reading exchanges other than what I already know is going to transpire between me and The Bremen.

:cool:

Meanwhile, until others arrive, perhaps the context from the other thread will be hepful here:

http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f10/rand-paul-promotes-bill-end-abortion-demand-once-all-38573/index2.html

On The Subject Of Abortion Bremen Said:
Post 17

It is amazing to me that one man or a group of men think that they are capable of making decisions for 300 million other people. It is zenith of hubris and only a politician’s psychopathy is capable of such a feat.

Bremen Later Added:
Post 19

System overload, does not compute… Systems check…equating opinon to legislation effecting 300 million people too preposterous to compute…rebooting…

**
Pete Responded With:
Post 20**

Laws banning murder “(make) decisions for 300 million other people”. Should we get rid of laws against murder?

Laws banning theft and fraud “(make) decisions for 300 million other people”. Should we get rid of laws against theft and fraud?

Laws banning rape “(make) decisions for 300 million other people”. Should we get rid of laws against rape?

Need I post further examples?

The Bremen Then Replied To Pete:
Post 22

Your examples are of natural law. They are universal. These do not even have to be written down. They have been figured out by even human society since the start. These natural laws are different from positive law.

Making positive law for three hundred million people is insane.

As if and on the assumption that by merely refering the whole matter to The Bremen’s interpretation and application of Natural Law, that Pete’s points had been automatically refuted by The Bremen.

I say Horsefeathers to that assumption made by The Bremen.

:cool:

The crises continues …

:smiley:


#9

Hi Jack,

Either 18 is the age people become responsible for their own decisions or it isn’t. Sex between consenting adults is legal. At 18 you can decide to have sex with anyone you like. Presuming that this all sexual activity is consensual, what business is it of the government?


#10

I’ll offer some comments at some point, but it’s the busiest time of the year for me right now.


#11

The issue in this thread is what business is it of Natural Law?

Hi Cactus,

We were having a discussion in another thread (the link to which is in this thread) about Natural Law. (We were hijacking that thread so I came over here and started this thread.)

Part of my interest in starting this thread was to discover the answers to the two questions below with regard to Bremen’s interpretation and application of Natural Law.

Those two questions:

(1) Does your interpretation and application of Natural Law **produce any strong moral preaching **designed to deliver the 18 and 19 year old girls mentioned in this thread from the money-enticing clutches of the Porn Kings?

(2) Does your interpretation and application of Natural Law offer any legal protection from the State to protect the 18 and 19 year old girls mentioned in this thread from the money-enticing clutches of the Porn Kings?

One reason I wanted to discover the answers to those two questions was to see if it was possible for me to have any lower contempt for Bremen’s interpretation and application of Natural Law than I had a few hours ago in the previous thread?

I have discovered that yes it is possible for my contempt for Bremen’s interpretation and applications of Natural Law to go lower than it previously was just hours ago in the other thread.

** My contempt for his Natural Law was mid-way the sewer, now its at the very bottom of the sewer where the defication lies fuming. To use another metaphor I hold his Natural Law to be down below the Barnyard Moral Code of the very worst of the goats and pigs in the very worst of barnyards. **

And on that note this thread may be about done for?

I have no intention of spending the time to present the same points to The Reverend Cactus Jack and to The Bremen that will be ignored by you both as they always have been ignored. It is much easier for me to merely post links to old threads containing lengthy arguments that were ignored by you both, and also I note that you both can ignore links just as well as you can ignore arguments, so neither of you will be disappointed. LOL

:cool:

PS
I trust your camel is doing well, I mean out in the desert where the cactus grows and thrives, you know as in Cactus Jack. Your camel’s name was Clyde as I recall, isn’t that right? I hope you and Clyde gets along better than Bremen and I.

LOL


PSS

FYI and I swear its true. There are three (3) acceptable forms for the plural of cactus, and they are:

Cacti

Cactuses

Cactus

Cactus - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

:santa:


#12

I appreciated your previous comment on Natural Law …

Originally Posted By J. Anderson:
“Natural law” is actually a thoroughly Christian idea, stemming from passages such as Romans 2:15. Obviously Aquinas is a major figure in this tradition, but I’ll focus instead on Luther, who spoke of the “common, divine, and natural law” which binds every one, Christian and non-Christian alike. Speaking of “the divine and natural law,” Luther agrees with Paul in asserting that “There is no one who does not feel it. Everyone must acknowledge that what the natural law says is right and true . . . This light lives and shines in all human reason . . . all nations recognize that there are sins and iniquities.” Of course, “the devil so blinds and possesses hearts that they do not always feel this law. Therefore one must preach the law and impress it on the minds of people till God assists and enlightens them, so that they feel in their hearts what the word says.”

… and look forward to reading more of your comments on Natural Law as time permits.

:cool:


#13

Jack, I see no need for the government to get involved in the actions of consenting adults. This is where social conservatives are like the worst of liberals. They want their values to be imposed upon others, simply because they believe them to be right, with absolutely no concern for the liberty of others.

Jack, I will just say again, that the government has no business regulating the actions of consenting adults.

I’m in Warsaw in Poland at the moment Jack. The days are short and the weather is chilly. I have to be back in St. Petersburg in Russia on the 18th so I can pick up my luggage and make my flight to Amsterdam on the 20th for Christmas and New Years Eve. Life is good. No complaints whatsoever.

Hope you are good also.


#14

Ahhh this is why I ignore you.


#15

You ignore my arguments because (1) you are not capable of refuting them and because (2) you have decided by an act of your will that you are going to continue to believe what fits your personality, your whims, and your prejudices regardless of the evidences presented to your mind, a mind that is tightly closed to truth and facts.

You are a master at playing the Post Right In Front Of You ONLY Game as you ignore all the arguments in the back pages that you had no answers for, and then as you continue to play the Post Right In Front Of You ONLY Game you plead “confusion” and “I don’t understand” and “Your posts say nothing” so you will not have to actually face the arguments I present to you.


I have, in many threads, presented dozens of arguments to you, many from William Lane Craig’s great work on Christian Apologetics, showing why the Scientific Method, Logic, and Reason cannot be used to prove metaphysical moral values to be true. Bremen that means you cannot use the Scientific Method, Logic, and Reason to prove that anything is moral or immoral or right or wrong, you have to use FAITH in these areas. You don’t like that because then you’d have to admit that your moral code which is based upon your Life, Liberty, and Property is a FAITH position and thats getting to close to God and that makes you uncomfortable.


** You Foolishly Turned Down The Very Best Position You Can Ever Have: **

In a past thread I even gave you a more-than-reasonable position to hold and you even rejected that position. It was this: The Life, Liberty, and Property Moral Code is a secular faith position or a religious faith position (you get to pick if you want it to be a secular or religious faith ) ** with some supporting evidences **, none of which rise to the level of removing the necessity to keep on exercising faith.

You even rejected that position and went on to claim that Natural Law can demonstrate (prove) that the Life, Liberty, and Property Moral Code is based upon demonstrated facts proven true using ONLY the Scientific Method, Logic, and Reason, which is a FALSE claim.

My phrase “with some supporting evidences” was not good enough for you. Btw, I was telling you with that phrase that you indeed COULD go find some supporting evidences that WOULD lend some support to the claims made by those who hold to a “Secular Moral Code Based Upon Life, Liberty, and Property”,** and I added one true caveat that the evidence could never rise to the level of removing the necessity to keep on exercising faith. **

Christianity is like that, as are all metaphysical moral codes and values. Christianity is a religious faith with some supporting evidences, none of which can ever possibly rise to the level of removing the necessity to keep on exercising faith.

:deadhorse: My loooooong past history with you tells me your mind is closed. Perhaps as you age, we can discuss it furthur in say, the year 2045 :freaked:.

I understand, you want the government to protect your MONEY (laws against stealing) because you love MONEY enough to want your money protected by the government, but when it comes to the government having an interest in protecting the physical, emotional, and psychological well-being of young 18 year old females who have only been on the earth 216 months and clearly have not had time to develope sufficient common sense and wisdom to make good and wise decisions, you want to plead the “liberty” thing.

Picture in your mind a high school senior class and how immature they are, by any reasonable standards they’re nothing but children. For instance, Jane is a senior and is a silly 17 year old right now, in one week she turns 18 two days after she graduates and can legally start making hard core porn immediately. Once she get locked into that lifestyle and gets hooked on large amounts of quick easy money it will be difficult for her to leave.

If Jane at 18 enters the porn industry and makes it a career, making say an average of 2 sex films per week until she is say 45 years old, then chances are she is going to end up having sex with an astounding number of different men over her 27 year “career” in the sex industry.

Twenty-seven years Xs 52 weeks is 1404 weeks Xs 2 filmed sex events per week comes out to having sex with 2,808 different men, or different people if she also mixes in the lesbo stuff with her film making.

Then add in the “group orgies” and who knows how many different people she ends up having sex with.

You can work your own set of numbers, but however its figured, its going to end up being a fact that young immature 18 year Jane is going to be enticed with a lot of money (far more than she could ever make working at Belks or Macys etc) to sell her body for sex with at least thousands of different people over the course of say her 30 to 35 year career in the sex industry.


** Cactus Jack Wants The Government To Protect His MONEY With Laws. **

And Cactus Jack, your “moral code” when faced with the ugliness of what is happening to Jane can only respond with the “Jack, I will just say again, that the government has no business regulating the actions of consenting adults.”

Bremen and Cactus Jack’s position: I demand that the government pass laws to protect MY MONEY from theives, but I demand that the government does NOT pass laws to protect just turned 18 year old Jane from the money-enticements of the Porn Kings.

You don’t hold to a moral code high enough to even want the government to legally protect its teenage citizens, the 18 and 19 year olds, because your main interest is self-interest and you want the government protecting with laws your Life, your Liberty, and your Property.


** On Exciting Future Discoveries: **

Btw, that which you are so interested in protecting: your Life, Liberty, and Property, will very soon, historically speaking, be taken away from you by General Time and his top battle commander General Death who has never lost a battle. There are only 480 months in 40 years. Wonder what condition your Life, Liberty, and Property will be in when you add 40 years to your present age?

Isn’t it exciting? Just think: If you are now say age 40, in just a mere 780 months (you’d be 105 years old) its pretty sure that you will be finding out for certain if there is or is not an Eternal Hell and discovering if you will or will not become one of it’s citizens.

I’m glad life is good for you, /grin … enjoy it while you can, you know what they say abour General Time: “General Time is a true killer who reveals the answers to many mysteries.” :grin:

Yeah we’re all doing very good and since its my favorite time of year, I’m doing even better.

:santa: :santa:


#16

Are you seriously unfamilar with who John Locke was and his views on Natural Law? What about Thomas Aquinas? These are completely unknown to you? You have no idea what I am talking about? It seems that way.

In addition are you not capable of quickly famliarizing yourself with these ideas? It would just take a quick wikipedia search.

This is a very well known subject. It is still taught in high schools. You accuse me of all this negativity but how Are we supposed to discuss a subject when you reject the fundamental material?


#17

?

Unfamilar? Unknown?

I was the one who selected the contents of the Opening Post which I thought did a good job of defining Natural Law.

I was the one who put J. Anderson’s post on Natural Law at the very beginning of the Opening Post of this thread, a post that contained this statement, “Natural law” is actually a thoroughly Christian idea, stemming from passages such as Romans 2:15. Obviously Aquinas is a major figure in this tradition."

I was the one who, in my post 11, said to J that I appreciated his post (the one I just referenced), I said: “I appreciated your previous comment on Natural Law … (here I quoted the aformentioned post) … and look forward to reading more of your comments on Natural Law as time permits.”


I was the one that selected and put into the Opening Post the following:

"There are three schools of natural law theory: divine natural law, secular natural law, and historical natural law.

(1) Divine natural law represents the system of principles believed to have been revealed or inspired by God or some other supreme and supernatural being. These divine principles are typically reflected by authoritative religious writings such as Scripture.

**(2) Secular natural law represents the system of principles derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason. **[Jack note: Here under this one, I can bring in for consideration everything in the natural world including the Insect World, the Animal World, the Sea Creatures World, , and most important of all the 6000 years of human history that records the military and political wars here in the World Of Man ~~ Man The Killer Warrior Species who is the chief actor here in the world of nature. The Law of Tooth and Claw demonstrates itself physically (military), economically, and politically. Just look at D.C. (Snake Pit City) and watch the Nightly News (keep your eye on the Middle East and Israel.) True, there are many other elements (NOT like I just described) to be considered, and what I just mentioned is not what the Natural Law folks have in mind, but its part of what I have in mind.]

(3) Historical natural law represents the system of principles that has evolved over time through the slow accretion of custom, tradition, and experience. Each school of natural law influenced the Founding Fathers during the nascent years of U.S. law in the eighteenth century and continue to influence the decision-making process of state and federal courts today."


Once again, you will notice that J’s post (the one I said I appreciated) at the very top of the OP starts off with the statement, “Natural law” is actually a thoroughly Christian idea, stemming from passages such as Romans 2:15."

Permit me to announce to you that I had Romans 2:15 read, studied, and marked in my Bible before you were born. :smile:
(And you can add Ro. 1:18-23 to Ro. 2:15)

So its safe for you to conclude that I at least know enough about J’s post and the Number 1 entry in the three schools of Natural Law (Divine Natural Law) to agree with it and appreciate it.


By the way, you do know, ** don’t you?**, that just because Locke, Aquinas and other writers you quote make assertions with regard to Natural Law does not mean that they have in fact eliminated all FAITH from their holdings and have demonstrated (proven) their assertions and conclusions to be established facts using ONLY the Scientific Method, Logic, and Reason? If you agree with this, then you and I have no disagreements on Natural Law with regard to Life, Liberty, and Property. Do you agree with it?

Do you?

:santa:


#18

[quote=“J.Anderson, post:10, topic:37401”]
I’ll offer some comments at some point, but it’s the busiest time of the year for me right now.
[/quote]I hope you’re slimming down, because if you get stuck in my chimney again this year, I am NOT pushing you out, Santa :confused:


#19

Fun tidbit for the thread.
Pornstars are more confident and emotionally stable than the average woman.


#20

I know natural law to be true because to deny it results in a logic contradiction.