tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post1473290098417284725..comments2024-03-28T15:48:11.151-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GODRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-12797558999181005712012-07-06T14:20:26.143-04:002012-07-06T14:20:26.143-04:00@Murfmensch - I'm happy America's Founders...@Murfmensch - I'm happy America's Founders didn't think like you. See <a href="http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/didyouknow.html" rel="nofollow"> Did You Know? </a> for what has been removed from the classrooms which aided in America's Biblical moral decline and into <a href="http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/politicallycorrect.html" rel="nofollow"> progressive political correctness</a>.EarsToHear.nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01117112718780014724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-37268514329678094932012-07-04T11:15:50.023-04:002012-07-04T11:15:50.023-04:00Free will is thought to be the most decisive chara...Free will is thought to be the most decisive characteristic by which man is distinguished from animal. It is fair to say that conscience accompanies each freely willed decision as an experience of rectitude or guilt. That which interferes with the ability to freely decide is fundamentally at odds with our basic nature and is to be avoided. The awareness and conformance with the voice of conscience is the basis for law. Thus it is that human behavior is a moderated freedom. That conduct to which a plurality of people agree and codify is the basis of law. (It is therefor crucial that truth be the foundation of public education.)<br />This is why our constitutional form of a democratic republic is acceptable to both believers and non-believersShoremanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08034375106763675381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-48843939344409682602011-03-04T00:11:52.955-05:002011-03-04T00:11:52.955-05:00@EarsToHear There is no reason to accept this piec...@EarsToHear There is no reason to accept this piece of scripture as evidence. <br /><br />I do not use the Bible for evidence in astronomy or geology. Nor would I do so for ethics or politics.Murfmenschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00031877154740991965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-29588136173792079902011-03-03T15:41:16.383-05:002011-03-03T15:41:16.383-05:00RE: who is competent to judge the "laws of na...RE: who is competent to judge the "laws of nature?" <br /><br />Just as you "judge" gravity....<br /><br />"...they are without excuse..."<br /><br />Romans 1:19-32 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.EarsToHear.nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01117112718780014724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-68850918051500170142010-01-07T20:32:03.585-05:002010-01-07T20:32:03.585-05:00I have a question regarding this quote from your b...I have a question regarding this quote from your blog: "The natural law theorists maintain that only those human conventions or positive laws [laws, that is to say, by virtue of the position of those who proclaim them] that conform to the Laws of Nature are truly laws and hence are binding on us." Isn't this judgment vulnerable to bias...that is, who is competent to judge the "laws of nature?"Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02508381261535877414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61494933826152785052010-01-07T19:36:30.101-05:002010-01-07T19:36:30.101-05:00Is in your opinion, Mr. Professor, conflict betwee...Is in your opinion, Mr. Professor, conflict between positivist and ius-naturalistic approaches to law, possible to resolve? It seems to me, also Hart in "The Concept of Law" mentioned about a "minimum of laws of nature", which is necessary for each system of law, because it would be hard to imagine, that reasonable people can consciously and voluntarily accept the unjust law-system (maybe Kant's categorical imperative could be used in this context, on external, iuridical, level, to evaluate the Law?). It is problematic. On the one hand, it seems to be impossible to build really universal, and ideologically neutral catalogue of natural rights and laws (for example, John Finnis catalogue from "Natural Law and Natural Rights" seems to be not as "self-evident", as he convince). On the other hand, the concept of law represented by legal positivists, seems to be always connected with assumption of external coercion (in Hart's case - "internal point of view" and possibility, to have a "critical-reflective" approach to positive law, don't convince me), which is the "core" of positive law. What rules of law can be used in the light of positivist theory to punish people, who were responsible for the Holocaust, or for the crimes of totalitarian states? (Both, German Nazis and "Berlin shooters" were judged on the ground of rule, which was close to the well known Gustav Radbruch's formula: a combination of positivist's point of view with ius-naturalism). Pure positivist theory strictly assume the rule lex retro non agit. On the ground of this rule and Nazis, "Nurnberger Gesetze", Holocaust crimes were not the crimes at all, they are legal (!!!)". I think, it remains always a biggest threat of legal positivism (and it is worth to mention, that in Poland it is not only an abstract problem, but practically very important and current question. For example, we have recently a big juridical problem with a retired pay of the functionaries of services of the totalitarian regime. Is that just to give a big retired pay to them? They doesn't commit the crimes in those times, they does act legally in services of totalitarian state, but they were the biggest beneficiaries of old regime.)Maciekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08159534099097926776noreply@blogger.com