tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post4910713963859144256..comments2024-02-26T19:22:15.069-06:00Comments on Lex Christianorum: Ambrosiaster on Natural Law: Keeping Law by Acknowledging the God of the LawAndrew M. Greenwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-13168278530528908362010-03-10T12:14:20.671-06:002010-03-10T12:14:20.671-06:00I only have intermittent internet use and by the t...I only have intermittent internet use and by the time I want to respond, you have moved on to other stuff.<br /><br />I'd like to respond to somethings in the Origen posts.<br /><br />Most generally, the Greek word "nomos" first was for the idea of "custom". Then, it started to be used to define law. Different races have different "customs". These customs then became law. What is applied to all mankind should be the general laws that apply, divine, natural, but then within race customs also apply. We should not forget that in the totality of "Law". Law is both a "rule of good" and a "rule of custom". I think both is covered under the idea of the Greek word "nomos".<br /><br />Second, Origen is very very wrong on his exigesis of the "Tower of Babel" story. Man was separated by race before the Tower of Babel. Man, by HIS OWN volition, came together in pride to build a Tower to challenge God. God ended the Tower of Bable by confusing tongues. This is the Will of God. God created the "babeling of voices" in order to separate the Human race into individual tribes. <br /><br />I find this cosmopolitanism/internationalist agenda amongst some Catholic circles. Internationalism/cosmopolitanism is Masonic/Marxist; a want of humans but not of God. Origen gets this very wrong. Yes, we belong to a "catholic" Church but we are to be separated by race. That is the purpose of God.<br /><br />Third, you mentioned in the Origen post that "Death is part of the law of nature". I don't think so. Man was FIRST made immortal. How can "death" be a law of nature? No. Death was "punishment". How can that be a "law of Nature"? Punishment is not a law. Death is a "condition" but not a law. Humans have and always have had immortality---not subject to death. The Law of Sin is Death, but Death is not a Law of Nature. We have to make a grand distinction here.<br /><br />The Law of Nature, a phrase used by Socrates in the Phaedo at 71e, is about Laws that built creation. That is what the Laws of Nature go to. Death has nothing to do with creation.<br /><br />I believe that there is a false dichotomy being presented that makes (or builds) a false belligerency between the Laws of Nature and the so-called Natural Law. I see no distinction. Some philology and investigation needs to made of the literary use in both Greek and Latin texts of these terms which I believe is interchangeable. I would also add that "Logos" is also a term for the Natural Law.<br /><br />Fourth, St. Paul says to "Supplement Faith with Arete". Arete, which is translated as virtue in the English, only comes about with the Natural Law. Arete means "excellence" at its most basic foundational meaning. Aristocracy and Arete have the same root word "ar". No laws of nature, no arete. <br /><br />The Natural law, I believe, should not be constrained to just "morality". There is more to the Natural Law than just that. Arete is not "morality". Should not humans be cognizant of the "whole" natural law?WLindsayWheelernoreply@blogger.com