Jay
There is order in universe, in human affairs, in the animal kingdom, in the cosmos. There is order in the seen & unseen realms. Within the unseen realm there is order of moral attributes and direction. Civilizations are based on the created order of family & marriage.
Okay, you lured me back. I don't disagree with any of the above. But I don't think the "order" of family and marriage are fixed. And I think we "created" that order ourselves by the usual methods of trial and error. Societal structures that weren't pro-survival didn't survive.
Moral civilizations would cease to exist if the created order was distorted.
I don't even disagree with this, but I think it's only true "by definition" of a moral civilization. I see where your definition is fixed by scripture, and I don't disagree with your logic. I do disagree with the idea that what was "moral" for the tribal societies of Israel and its neighbors must, by necessity, be applicable to our society today.
Early apostolic christianity was "moral" in its insistence on communal groupings of shared wealth. In Acts we see an example of a couple struck dead by their god because they engaged in behavior that threatened this "family structure." Yet I'd be the first to defend you if your church wished to see you slain for keeping a part of your earnings because my own definition of morality says you must approach people in error in a one-on-one setting.
Yes, I draw that from reading your scriptures. And no, I'm not always as good as my ideals.
Man is not to mate with beast.
Neither is beast to mate with grain, but tell that to the GM food lobby.
This is order within the realm of sexuality. Father is not to mate with daughter.
I agree. Now tell it to Lot.
This is a distortion of the created order, if this would occur. Chaos would reign for order would cease to being order.
And yet it occurs. How are we, in good "morality" to address these distortions from what we've known before? It's not just a question of a behavior being wrong, or partly wrong, or kinda-sorta wrong, or wrong for some but not for others, though those distinctions are important. It's about how we address them in a healing manner.
If I want to cause a fight, I can go up to just about any slob on the street and slap his face, whether he's "moral" or not. And likewise, whether he's "moral" or not, my act would, by my own admittedly relative and arguably arbitrary definition, be "immoral."
To me at least, it's not the destination but the path. If your path is straight, you'll get to the right destination eventually. I feel called to keep my eyes on my path in hopes that "the means will become the ends." Sure, I could be wrong, but it's the best answer I've come with so far.
Moral anarchy would be witnessed. For Natural Law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all. Militating against the Natural Law leads to consquences which would lead to despair. This is what we want to avoid.
Jay, I've already refuted your definition of natural law, so while I'm willing to discuss it further, it's going to have to be confined to defense of arguments against my previous response.
Fair enough?
