Originally posted by no1marauderBut marauder how on earth are you going to interprete the natural moral law if you can't even read properly ? ..... leaving aside the fact that sin, accumulated sin, can distort one's vision fatally.
It says the same thing I said: that the RCC asserts that it is the only "authentic interpreter" of the Natural Law.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI read it fine and accurately described the Church's position. And I don't believe in the concept of "sin", original or otherwise.
But marauder how on earth are you going to interprete the natural moral law if you can't even read properly ? ..... leaving aside the fact that sin, accumulated sin, can distort one's vision fatally.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou don't have to believe in the concept of sin, it is there whether you like it or not, whether you believe in it or not.
I read it fine and accurately described the Church's position. And I don't believe in the concept of "sin", original or otherwise.
How in the world are you going to establish what is good and what is evil on the basis of an interpretation of the Natural Moral Law if you don't believe in "sin" .... and how marauder do you explain a notion such as "guilt" if there isn't a notion called "sin" ..... let alone a notion called "forgiveness" ..... these must be weird Marsian inventions in the world according to no1marauder.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI never tried to establish what is "good" and what is "evil". Fundamental rights, Natural Law theory isn't reliant on such concepts. It merely states that as social animals we have a built in moral code based on empathy, that certain acts violate this code and such acts can be punished because they are "wrong" in the sense that they infringe the dignity of others. "Sin" as I understand is not obeying God's law and if there is no God then He has no law. Whereas there are unquestionably human beings and we are social animals with a moral code built on empathy, so the concept of "sin" is an unnecessary construct.
You don't have to believe in the concept of sin, it is there whether you like it or not, whether you believe in it or not.
How in the world are you going to establish what is good and what is evil on the basis of an interpretation of the Natural Moral Law if you don't believe in "sin" .... and how marauder do you explain a notion such as "guilt" if there isn't a notion called "sin" ..... let alone a notion called "forgiveness" .....
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "I never tried to establish what is "good" and what is "evil". Fundamental rights, Natural Law theory isn't reliant on such concepts. It merely states that as social animals we have a built in moral code based on empathy, that certain acts violate this code and such acts can be punished because they are "wrong" in the sense that they infringe the dignity of others. ....... "
I never tried to establish what is "good" and what is "evil". Fundamental rights, Natural Law theory isn't reliant on such concepts. It merely states that as social animals we have a built in moral code based on empathy, that certain acts violate this code and such acts can be punished because they are "wrong" in the sense that they infringe the d ...[text shortened]... imals with a moral code built on empathy, so the concept of "sin" is an unnecessary construct.
The latter description IS the concept of sin, genius.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSin was a moon god and overall measurer of time. He had a beard of Lapis Lazuli
Marauder: "I never tried to establish what is "good" and what is "evil". Fundamental rights, Natural Law theory isn't reliant on such concepts. It merely states that as social animals we have a built in moral code based on empathy, that certain acts violate this code and such acts can be punished because they are "wrong" in the sense that they infringe the dignity of others. ....... "
The latter description IS the concept of sin, genius.
therefore: a Sinner is a follower of a Sumerian moon god and that makes them a lunatic who of course cannot make a distinction between right and wrong.
What religion are you following now Ivanhoe one that says everyone is a sinner?
Originally posted by frogstompSometimes you gently force me to wonder whether you're funny .........
Sin was a moon god and overall measurer of time. He had a beard of Lapis Lazuli
therefore: a Sinner is a follower of a Sumerian moon god and that makes them a lunatic who of course cannot make a distinction between right and wrong.
What religion are you following now Ivanhoe one that says everyone is a sinner?
Physical laws are merely a description of what actually happens in the world of energy and matter. Observations are taken and the 'law' is simply recognized and described.
The Natural Law, or Moral law is a description of what we all know SHOULD happen. It really has no relation to what actually happens because, unlike every physical law, the Natural Law is violated every day.
Originally posted by chinking58Please re-read my posts as you still don't understand. The Natural Law is discovered by observations of physical reality like any other physical law. You are toooooooo hung up with your own definition of a "physical law"; as I pointed out, there are physical laws that cannot predict with 100% accuracy any individual event.
Physical laws are merely a description of what actually happens in the world of energy and matter. Observations are taken and the 'law' is simply recognized and described.
The Natural Law, or Moral law is a description of what we all know SHOULD happen. It really has no relation to what actually happens because, unlike every physical law, the Natural Law is violated every day.