Is the world really searching for truth?

[smaller]

Are you spoofing at what I wrote?

I'm not a fan of moral theology. Should we be moral? Of course. But God is Perfect. And that's an entirely different observation and conversation, quite beyond and apart from our abilities to capture and define.

God does practice Divine Retribution and uses/employs multiplied evils to do so. Does this make God immoral? Never. That's where dismantling of moral theology starts.

Moral theology also has it's flaws. Paul for example had evil present with him. Romans 7:21. Was evil present with Paul morally right or morally compliant or morally correct? Again, never. We bear our own vessels in honor, to not be "in overt/external control" of that evil present with us. But this doesn't make us "moral." It is immoral to lie about evil present with us, claiming we don't have it. So where does that put morality?

I hope one or two might see the flaws in the moral theology claims.

It it quite easy to convince any person that they have evil thoughts, an evil conscience for example. The witness of Jesus is to "divide" and "turn away" from that working, in repentance, in His Forgiveness, His Love and His promise of eternal life to those who believe in Him.

It's an easy message, when delivered peaceably. But if we say or claim we are saved by our own practices of morality, it is in open defiance of the scriptures, and a failure to look honestly at ourselves.

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

The message of the Gospel is that by faith, the Spirit of Christ, His Love, is within us, in our hearts. He therein IS PERFECT. But this does not speak to what we are currently, in our entirety. We remain with issues.

We always look to and turn to Perfection for our change. Grace is upon the "unmerited."

Being moral (or legal or obedient) does not and can not EARN or MERIT Gods Gift of Grace by faith in Christ.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

 

[OzSpen]

Spinoza and Geisler & Turek are of course talking about the "laws of nature." Geisler & Turek are merely discussing why miracles do not "violate" the laws of nature. The concept of "natural law" is an entirely different animal. An entire branch of philosophy is not devoted to the laws of nature.

Natural Law
The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe.

Source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which, despite the slightly goofy title, is peer-reviewed and reasonably authoritative), http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/.​

It appears you have copied your summary of Spinoza from "Miracles and Modern Scientific Thought" by Geisler, http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html. In any event, it's a good summary of this topic - which, again, has nothing to do with natural law. No wonder my analysis received no response, if we're at the level where the laws of nature are confused with natural law.

I continue to think Jethro has a legitimate point. When Jesus said "I am the truth," He was not saying "I determine what is true," or "What I say is true." He was saying I am the truth, which really does not make sense in any sense other than the sense of "truth" that Jethro is advocating.

Runner,

You are correct in pointing out that I was dealing with natural laws.

In a chapter on 'Spinoza and Natural Law', Jon Miller provided this preview:

Preview
The chapter connects Spinoza's thought with important Stoic ideas and also with some contemporary metaethical issues. The core of Spinoza's normative view of law is that divine laws are end-oriented rules of conduct, and that they must be followed if human beings are to attain their summum bonum [the highest good]. Also, divine laws—which, for Spinoza, are not volitionally grounded commands but natural laws—have an intrinsically practical nature. In this aspect of his thought, Spinoza's view is much like the Stoics. Also, while denying that moral judgments are cognitivist judgments, Spinoza held that the basis of their prescriptivity is that we are to conform to our natures. His metaethics includes elements interpretable as quasi-realist. Spinoza's thought manages to connect a non-cognitivist account of moral value and moral judgment with a Stoic-like conception of the imperatives enjoining us to act in conformity with our nature as imperatives expressing a moral ought. (source)​

As for the summary of Spinoza's philosophy, I made it clear where I obtained this information in the 'Works consulted'. If you want the exact page it is Geisler & Turek (2004:204).

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a leading proponent of a Christian view of Natural Law. His view was that since 'God is the source of all knowledge, it is revelation that sets out the actions that will achieve the goals of man’s inclinations. This implies that natural law must be revealed to man. According to Aquinas, however, the human mind too can find natural law. Aquinas pointed to the ability of the human mind to prove the existence of God without any need for revelation. Equally, he said, the human mind can find the life which is in accordance with human nature. Aquinas then provided a number of examples of natural laws to explain his theory further' (source).

Aquinas's view seems to conflict with the Christian teaching that God is the source of knowledge about himself. See Albert Mohler Jr's exposition, 'The knowledge of the self-revealing God: The starting point of a Christian worldview'. However, Rom 1:20 (ESV) does confirm that some invisible attributes of God can be discerned from creation.

Oz