Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Fascinating analogies to Law vs. Grace, if he but knew it.

Cheers!

1 posted on 12/13/2010 10:10:24 PM PST by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Quix; The Comedian; betty boop; don-o; Mrs. Don-o; Tax-chick; Alamo-Girl; Salvation; NYer; ...
Sorry for the eclectic list of names on the *PING*. Trying to cast a broad net for what is (quasi-unwittingly) an *excellent* article.

Please pass it on to your own ping lists, if you think it would interest them...

Cheers!

2 posted on 12/13/2010 10:13:21 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers

INTERESTING.

THX.

LATER.


3 posted on 12/13/2010 10:16:22 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LucyT; grey_whiskers; raygun

Thanks for the ping; post. VERY interesting.

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law ?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Much more...here...

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Ping and thanks to FReeper, raygun, for the link to Bastiat on this forum many years ago.


7 posted on 12/14/2010 6:59:21 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers

bbbbb bbb b


8 posted on 12/14/2010 8:04:38 AM PST by Tax-chick (He will be Peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers

The system for reading that too long ramble is not worht the effort or the frustration, with ads and inserts and pop ups ... thanks anyway.


9 posted on 12/14/2010 9:23:22 AM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers; don-o; napscoordinator; Cvengr; johngrace; Salvation; Campion
Thanks, whiskery friend. I read maybe 6 pages, and intend to read the whole thing.

This author brings up a LOT of points that first came to my attention when I read G.E.M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe's 1958 essay, "Modern Moral Philosophy." (So she anticipated Leff's points by 52 years.)

Anscombe’s MMP is an extraordinary piece of work. She boldly challenged the sheer relativism of almost all 20th century moral philosophers, as rubbish. (She didn’t use the word “rubbish,” but if you read her careful academic prose, I think you’d get the point.) Standing practically alone against the entire academic philosophical establishment, she defined, described, and pulled apart ‘consequentialism’, the view that there are no acts, no matter how evil, which cannot be justified if one is aiming for good consequences.

Think of the most patently wicked act you can imagine. Say, pronouncing and carrying out the death penalty on a person you know to be innocent. If consequentialism were right, then it would be legitimate to argue that executing innocent persons could be not only right, but a duty under certain circumstances. The Scriptures tell us that this is abominable and forbidden by Almighty God; but even without reference to religious law, this is completely outside of the bounds of Natural Law, of common decency, and of human civilization.

Yet so-called “ethicists” who think there really IS no right or wrong, still use terms like “Moral Law” as if one could be obliged to commit sodomy, or torture, or rape, or murder, if there were a good enough reason. It’s as if God Almighty had said, “Thou shalt not commit moral abominations --- unless thou are really, really, REALLY tempted.”

According to Anscombe (and here he was writing in the language of, and referencing the assumptions of, secular academic ethics), if one does not acknowledge a divine Moral Lawgiver, one should be honest and stop using big authority-words like “Moral Law.” She says it’s dishonest.

Anscombe also said secular ethicists "should not" use terms like "ought," "right and wrong," "good and evil" or even "should and should not"! Otherwise, they are like a person who uses a big authority-word like “verdict” even though he has abolished judges and juries; or a person who claims to be an expert on ribs and joints, when he denies the existence of cells, tissues and bones.

This essay hit academic ethics----- like--- a ----bomb. It basically blew the stuffing out of the makeshift, ethically minimalist house of cards known as modern moral philosophy.

It remains a dilemma even today. Classic "Natural Law" philosophers maintain that moral law can be discovered by human reason, on the basis of a deep enough and wide enough examination of what it means "to be human" and what behaviors form the basis of true human flourishing (as persons, and as societies.)

But the problem seems to be that many people do not take a "deep enough and wide enough" view of what it means "to be human." Aristotle, Gautama Siddhartha, Marcus Aurelius, and Confucius tried, and we wouldn't do badly to look into what they wrote. Much of it embodies the "natural virtues," (courage, truthfulness, and so forth) and is naturally honorable.

But I fear that modern cultures have fallen far below the best of classical pagan antiquity. It would be hard for us --- on the basis of our secular culture, absent the Divine Judeo-Christian heritage --- to aspire to, or even recognize, Aristotelian virtue.

.

.

P.S. anybody else here interested in Anscombe? I have something real interesting I could send you.

.

.

11 posted on 12/14/2010 12:59:14 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Justice and judgment are the foundation of His throne.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers

bookmark for later


24 posted on 01/26/2012 9:41:49 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious. " - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson