One morning, while purchasing coffee at a local watering hole, I heard a fundamentalist say something about man's law vs. God's law. At the time I marveled how people come up with such sharp distinctions. Freedom of religion deserves no respect because it is something that human beings came up with. Stoning sinners, on the other hand, is a duty
(
Read more... )
Comments 100
With that said, I agree that marriage is a fairly arbitrary and quite artificial institution, so isn't really something you can hold up to the "natural law" debate.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Personally, I see a lot of problems with the idea of natural law, but it's a great debate.
Reply
Reply
One might think of "Natural Law" as a simple description of the way the world is. Making assertions about how society should be arranged and how its arrangements enforced based on "natural law" are ripe with possible is/ought confusion.
But the word "Natural Law" is inherently burdened with undertones of metaphysical authority. Laws are authoritative statements of normative behavior ("Scientific Law" being just a metaphor). So, the very use of the phrase 'Natural Law' predisposes the user to this Is/Ought confusion.
Of course the God's Law versus Man's Law is a totally different dynamic.
Reply
The advocates of "God's law" fail to take into account the fact that God was crafted in the human image.
Reply
Are you asking if it is "natural" to view the Other as Less Than? It obviously is. How is this material to anything?
Reply
Reply
Indeed. In fact, the Punic Wars were largely the result of excessive Bible study!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment