“Natural Law” first came to my attention in the late 80s – early 90s thru a newsletter by a SDA layman “Bob Trefz”. Fortunately i got disassociated from him around 93 or so when he was openly advocating buying guns and running to the hills (yes, i know i should have ditched him when he talked about the black helicopters sent by the UN to spy out America – hah!). But the subject of “natural law” was dealt with in detail, and i remember wondering the first 2 or 3 times he delved into it, what has this got to do with Seventh-day Adventists preparing for the end time, but around the 4th time or so i started to catch on (i’m a slow learner), and this has stuck with me thru all these years. Just this week i told a very good friend about “natural law”, and now just today i see this article in the National Review: Natural Law in National Review
In this article, George Weigel, who i presume to be a Catholic (and whom National Review writes as “a distinguished senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center”, speaks quite persuasively in favor of natural law. It is mind-boggling to see the title of his article: “Defending Religious Freedom in Full”, while knowing full well where this mindset is leading – to the world’s last dark age where everyone who doesn’t “fit in” is exterminated.
What am i talking about?
To give a very short background: Natural Law basically arose from the Catholic church. The ablest proponent of this theory is Thomas Aquinas, who is quoted: “… all human laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law is not a law, in the full sense of the word. It retains merely the ‘appearance’ of law insofar as it is duly constituted and enforced in the same way a just law is, but is itself a ‘perversion of law.’ At this point, the natural law was not only used to pass judgment on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place”. So according to this, all human laws are subject to some super law which is enshrined in nature itself. There are various flavors of “Natural Law”: to see a short write-up in wikipedia, try this
I think all thinking SDAs will be able to see from this where this will lead.
Let me explain it very simply: There is a theory of law saying that there are universal “natural laws” which apply to all humans in all situations. Of course God’s Word is not the source of these laws, they just somehow “exist”. Since God created the natural world, proponents of this theory try to use God as their “source”, but of course, never seem to get around to actually quoting the 10 Commandments. They use very persuasive arguements like:
1. If a tree has a dead branch, you must prune it off to make the tree healthier.
2. If you have a barrel of apples, and there is one spoiled apple in it, you must throw it out to save the other apples.
3. Nature itself teaches you what is right and wrong, so abortion and homosexuality are wrong.
See, the logic sounds impeccable, and for most everything i’ve seen, the proponents of this theory DO go by the Biblical principles. But what about in the future when a “bad apple” wishes to keep the 7th day Sabbath? When all of Satan’s angels and Satan himself appearing as Jesus and the whole world are clamoring for a Sunday Law, how will “Natural Law” help those who wish to stay true to the words of the God who wrote “Keep the 7th day Sabbath” on tables of stone with his own finger? It won’t, of course. And this is what is so dangerous about it.
One last note on this whole judicial/law thing, is that if Kagan is selected to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, there will be 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the bench – not a Protestant in sight. Wake up SDAs, for the nite is far spent and we are not saved!
From what you have said and the examples, it seems that this ‘natural law’ sounds a bit like evolutionary theory.
Evolution and Natural Law go hand in hand. One attempts to explain the 5 senses without God in the picture, and one attempts to justify actions without God in the picture. They lead believers down the same, downward path.
.
Actually, it seems that Natural Law is almost an excuse for evolution, but it really came first. To people raised on evolution, it should come, well, “naturally”.
how would ‘natural law’ or ‘evolution’ explain the evolution of beauty ?
Evolution believers usually bring out the arguement that handsome males attract pretty females, thus the offspring get progressively more beautiful and handsome.
.
There are many flaws in evolutionist belief, one of the most glaring in this case is: “How did there get to be males and females in the first place?” It is obvious to every human that there must be a male and female to produce another human. There have been no exceptions in all of human history, except for Jesus Christ having the Holy Spirit as his father. Somehow some one-celled organism decided it would be better to produce something that would give rise to totally different sexes that would be mutually dependent on each other – ha!
.
Where i see evolution taking believers in it, is that when Satan’s angels appear, they will blow away all this house of cards that humans have built up over the last 200 years. Scientists who have been trained in this, will suddenly be without a foundation of belief. Then these angels will hold out “Spiritual Manifestations” which will take the whole world in the snare.
so how did the males look good in the first place? where did the good looking women come from?
how does that fit into evolution? according to the evolutionists we all looked like apes and neanderthals and they were not very good looking according to the pics they have conjured up… Ha!