Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: johnnycap
what is “Natural Law”? Is it so different than “Divine Right”?

Can't believe you would ask such a question. Read St. Thomas Aquinas to understand the decades of intense thought that developed the principles of Natural Law which evolved through centuries.

Every aspect of Natural Law is based on reason. "Divine Rights" defy reason. Progressive, post-modern German thought reeks with distortion, atheism and moral relativism. Progressives have tried to undo all Classical thinking connected to Natural Law and God's Laws--the basis of our legal system.

Progressive, illogical thought is promoted by the Andrew Sullivans whose idea of philosophical thought probably took him less than a month of reflection. I find his thinking very shallow from what I've read and full of misinformation and lies and statistics that are as flawed as climategate.

I find the Pope's encyclicals on Love/Lust, Selfish vs. Selfless Love to be much more profound, well thought out, and a reflection on Truth and morality and all founded in Natural Law.

To think that man has no control over behavior means that there could be no moral code. It defies even having a civil society. Think of the Fall of Rome and all the orgies as to what happens when there is no sexual morality--incest, homosexuality, pederasty, polygamy, child sacrifice, adultery etc.

Homosexual behavior destroys the dignity of the human body and demeans women/men relationships. It separates men and women instead of uniting them. No equality existed in predominate homosexual societies and all appointments, advances in army, etc., was based on sexual favors. There is also physical destruction of the body by the unnatural acts also--that is another matter, but it is obvious proof that it can not be classified as natural.

Twin studies have proven homosexuality is not genetic or hormonal or whatever insipid logic tries to refute basic biology. It should not be possible to have identical twins be straight and homosexual which has been found in numerous studies. Science only needs one example, btw, to prove a theory false.

That some children suffer physical deformities is a fact, but it is abnormal. The problem comes when homosexuals try to say that behavior is equal to race, a civil right to sodomy (a costly, destructive, act to societies) or some such idiocy. Totally a lie and based on "feelings" and progressive thought.

Who was that married politician that just got caught soliciting a boy--who cried on national tv and said that he was molested at six by a 12 year old neighbor and since that time had this powerful unnatural desire for boys??? Just ONE example of learned behavior. It abounds.

What are the statistics of male homosexuality....over 70% are molested and even that is probably a low figure. Every culture (Greeks, Nazis, pre-WWII Japan, Afghans, tribes, etc.) who have endorsed and celebrated homosexuality have an initiation for boys into the lifestyle. That alone proves that it is learned and should make all civilized society reject all promotion of it.

Study Aristotle on the "habituation of virtues". His wisdom is obvious and habits are explained, and, yes, they are learned as is all behavior that is habituated. Sexuality has always had tremendous power over mankind, no denying that, and culture has always defined the preferred "object" of that desire. It is learned, but natural instinct can not be obliterated. It is so obvious that sex has been designed for procreation--natural law.

All behaviors and fetishes are caused by their external environment. (Unnatural environment that created Tango had left his "partner" for a female when one was available). The formative years--the first seven--determine the type of person you become. Things become intrinsic at around seven as does the age of reason. I'm not saying that all influence ends at 7, just that a lot of hard-wiring is in place.

Instincts do exist at birth but how we deal with them and all aspects of life are learned. Behaviors that are not reinforced in children, die. Taboos are either taught or not. Instincts do exist but how they deal with them is learned. Morality is learned. People can be defined to a culture by how they sound, customs, acts, etc....all learned.

All the collective experiences in the early years of a child will determine their worldview, their behavior, their ideas--only a major trauma will be able to jar that perspective--but then even that is learned. I have studied in depth serial killers. These people as young children were all severely abused by the adult/s caring for them.

When mothers do not mother, severe emotional problems do occur...children learn they are either worthy of love or not, it is as simple of that. They have high self esteem, or no self esteem, all determined by the behavior of their caretaker in the first few years of life. They learn to trust people, or not, or sometimes. They learn they are powerful or are useless. Damaged children can not be "reprogramed" as been proven by orphanage studies, and a myriad other. That is why, some inmates can never be reformed because they are hard wired--behaviors are habituated in formative years.

Children denied a loving father, will fixate on men--they have an emotional void that nature will require they fill. This may not result in homosexuality, although it could, and certainly determines or undermines relationships with males. Girls could end up marrying men looking for father figures. This has been proven.

Yes, homosexuality is passed on, not necessarily by another homosexual, I am not saying that. But if a child's first sexual experience is homosexual (and homosexuals abuse children at a 120 to 8 ratio ), than there is a greater chance for that male to be homosexual. Also, if they are confused about their sexual identity in the formative years, by parents that emasculate the boys, or promote and define them in feminine ways, or lacking a positive male role model or a loving maternal one, abnormality will occur. How could it not?

Parents, by the way, promote behaviors unintentionally all the time. They lack training in Child Development and have poor parenting techniques. Plus the lies put out by progressives that strangers are just as good as mothers for caring for an infant. Or that there is no difference between women and men caring for young.

Parenting techniques create defiant kids, loving kids, obedient kids, respectful kids, etc. It is never an accident to how a child acts or thinks, I guarantee it. You promote their thinking by how you treat them. When you allow others power over your children they help define who your children are and how they think. Are they depressive? Happy? Shy? It is all learned, taught or modeled.

http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/brain

The above article basically proves that experience changes the architecture of the brain and habituation as Aristotle talked about, can be scientifically documented.

112 posted on 02/09/2010 10:11:24 PM PST by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: savagesusie
Some comments:

1. I have read the doctors of the church. I did nothing else for three solid years at one of the best institutions for these studies in America. From Augustine to St. Paul to Reinhold Niebuhr to John of the Cross. In the end, my faith was the same. I saw arguments that seemed irrefutable simply turned over centuries later. Each reasoned and well crafted argument from the Transubstantiation to the Trial of Copernicus bowled me over with eloquence and reason. Some stood the test of time. Some did not. The only thing I found in all of this was that the things which were irrefutable seemed to be the things which when redacted, scholars seemed to agree, Christ said himself...and there are precious few of those. Other than that, true church scholarship in all its different forms is conjecture and totally up for grabs...it's just that these conversations take centuries to play out...and with the luxury of monastic time, the arguments are rich tapestries of the written word.

2. I find it remarkable that you believe that homosexuality automatically means ‘man has no control over behavior’ yet heterosexuality means ‘natural order’. There is no conclusive evidence anywhere that this is true. God herself would have to confirm that for you. Just as there is no conclusive proof that a fetus is not a fully formed human being. We just don't know despite the fact that some people like to throw the word proof around. Yet, when it comes to a fetus, most of us would want to er on the side of caution and consider all such life, if in doubt, human...and support that possibility. But when it comes to a homosexual the knee jerk reaction is to blame the individual and to ostracize or the more condescending ‘love the sinner hate the sin’ crap. The inconsistent logic of that is the same as being pro-life regarding birth and pro-capital punishment. You cannot support one group when in doubt and condemn another while doubt still remains. And despite your tossing around the word proof like an old sweater...proof, 100% pure positive proof of what causes homosexuality and whether it is a natural occurrence does not yet exist. Without it, we should er on the side of the possibility that God may have created homosexuality along with the rocks, flowers, trees, tsunamis and Jerry Lewis. As I learned in those studies many years ago from a well recognized bible scholar, “Our’s is an ironic God.” Our job is to live with it in a way that would meet with God's approval as Christ did with the prostitutes (behavioral), fisher men, tax collectors and indigents (also behavioral).

3. Can you explain specifically how homosexuality destroys the dignity of the human body? I know homosexuals and I know beer drinkers and I gotta tell you, the prima facie evidence is that beer destroys the dignity of the human body except for those who like that 50lbs of belly hanging over their trousers.

4. Homosexuality does not drive men and women apart. Heterosexual men and women will continue being attracted to each other as they have for centuries. They will build families and they will destroy families just as they have for centuries. It wasn't homosexuality that kept Ben Franklin away from his wife Debra for over seven years. It wasn't homosexuality that made knights all over Europe leave their wives and children for adventure in the Middle East for the better part of decades. Homosexuality will break up marriages where one of the partners or both are lying to the other about their true disposition. Obviously, if they are gay, they didn't “learn” the behavior in their straight relationship. So, maybe it was there when they took their vows but they were trying to suppress it because they believed it was behavioral and not natural. As a result, the blew up a perfectly good family and destroyed their spouse's best chance at a happy life...leaving her 40 and alone...I know one such marriage and it was all built on the behavioral supposition. That kind of personal dishonesty is so much more damaging than just accepting your ‘natural’ condition before any bachelor parties are planned. So much for trying to force behavioral discipline down the throat of nature.

5. Regarding twins and refuting biology, it was thought until the 19th century that it was impossible for a black swan to exist. Yet, in the 1800’s one was found in Australia. Since then, they have been found on nearly all continents. All things are possible if God makes them so. We now know that even identical twins are not identical. There are exceptions to every rule. Our understanding of universal is limited by our own remedial knowledge of God's creation. 500 years ago, we believed we were curing patience with blood letting and leaches. We still lop off the breasts of women who develop cancer. Are we really so advanced that we can speak with such adamant authority about the natural ways of the universe, even as dark matter and super colliders are expanding knowledge on an hourly basis? I would take a less authoritarian tact. These black and white arguments most often sound downright silly given 100 years of reflection.

6. Using the politician example and his confession that his being molested by another boy made him a victim, really is beneath you and your argument. It actually made me chuckle, kind of like when John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks and he replied “That's where the money is.” If this politician did these things and if he blamed it on a 12 year old boy, pity him for being so pathetic he is grasping to become a victim when in fact he is a law breaking perpetrator. Don't use him as statistical evidence. It really does weaken the argument.

7. I have some news for you, homosexual or heterosexual, every society that has sex as a part of its ahem, intercourse...has an initiation process for both boys and girls into the lifestyle. At some point, the vast majority of girls and young women lose their virginity. That is how boys and girls become sexually adult. When it happens with a prom dress and a tuxedo, we wax nostalgic, but when it happens between a young man and a younger man, its somehow akin to vampirism. Why craft sentences whose subtext is so laced with deviance when the equivalent process is held up as a “rite of passage”...that isn't even remotely intellectually objective.

8. I would submit to you that one facet of sex is designed for procreation...that is obvious. However, the most participated in sexual behaviors in the world do not create babies and in fact, are not used for any procreative reason whatsoever. Recent studies of teens are showing they would rather have oral sex than actual intercourse. Given that, it makes you wonder if the whole damned race is unnatural...

9. I would agree with all your comments regarding the preponderance of effect that child rearing can have on an adult’s behavior. And yet, I know people who have had model families and upbringing only to turn out an exception to your rules. You said earlier that just one exception disproves a theory. I disagree so I will give you and your theories more license. What I submit to you is that even with the child psychology in order as I believe your final paragraphs are, nature finds a way to produce a homosexual even when everything is done “correctly”. That in itself should give us pause and make us consider that no matter how much we raise some cats with dogs, they are still going to meow, not like water, prefer to eat fish, be solitary instead of pack like and pursue birds. Now, is that learned behavior? Or is it nature?

113 posted on 02/10/2010 6:42:47 AM PST by johnnycap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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