The Natural Law (Aquinas 101)

[@henrymcgrath8050]

As an Orthodox I really appreciate learning more about this great Roman Catholic saint. He was very popular in Byzantium with great Orthodox theologians. For anyone interested in this subject see Marcus Plested's great book, the Orthodox Reception of Aquinas.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

An excellent recommendation. Marcus Plested recently spoke at a Thomistic Institute conference. You can find the audio file here: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/christ-as-wisdom-prof-marcus-plested

[@riley.p.p]

@Fernando Catozzi cringe

[@bigbearn1383]

Do you have any way how Catholics and Orthodoxes can celebrate Easter on the same day.? It would be such a blessing . God bless you.

[@sillythewanderer4221]

@@bigbearn1383 the calendars are different, but every few years they line up

[@glennlanham6309]

very interesting

[@marta9127]

I think this applies not only to Catholics or Christians and their views. It is the core of being a human, understanding humanity and our position as individuals and societies in the Universe. Regardless of our beliefs, Natural Law as explained here seems to be the code, the language we all feel is right. Thank you for the video :)

[@ladybonezz8017]

Agreed

[@gabrielrussosc]

I am a Reformed Protestant, but I love your videos! May God bless your work!

[@Obedience33]

Peace to you friend, i have a question if you dont mind, does a reformed protestant believe in The Communion of Saints?

[@jadonlawrence4909]

@Obedience33 What do you mean?​

[@sr.mental5876]

Saint Thomas Aquinas transcends mere denomination and doctrine, in order to touch the divine. This should be an inspiration.

[@gabrielmedina2480]

I’m studying Aguinas’s “Treatise of Law” in class, and these videos are a very helpful supplement!

[@glennlanham6309]

where?

[@bestpossibleworld2091]

In the early 2000s I developed a thirst for knowledge about and from Thomas Aquinas. I am an Evangelical. Now, 20 years later, I am still studying him.

[@tropifiori]

Excellent explanation. I doubt I would have figured that on my own. Thank you Father Frank

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@tomdooley3887]

I am reading the Summa theologica , your talks help greatly. Thank you very much.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure! May the Lord bless you!

[@tomdooley3887]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌍 Aquinas' natural law is rooted in his broader thought centered on God's eternal plan for the universe. 00:27 🌱 The natural law is rational creatures' participation in the eternal law; it's imprinted in humans as a special connection to God's plan. 01:05 🧠 Humans' higher participation in God's plan lets us understand and choose actions aligned with it for ourselves and our communities. 01:59 🐾 Humans have natural inclinations, like animals, but our spiritual soul adds a higher perspective, enabling rational choices beyond instinct. 03:23 🌟 Spiritual inclinations aren't limitations but the source of freedom, driving our pursuit of knowledge and desires for the truth. 04:46 📜 Aquinas' natural law aligns human inclinations with God's plan, informing principles related to good, self-preservation, truth, and society. 06:12 💡 Natural law isn't imposed but is the design of human beings, allowing us to consciously align with it, using our freedom to order ourselves and communities. 07:07 ⚖️ Human laws should align with natural law; certain general precepts (e.g., Ten Commandments) are clear, while positive precepts require contextual application. 08:04 📜 Human lawmakers should specify and apply natural law's general precepts, respecting negative precepts, and promote the common good for their community. Made with HARPA AI

[@G6Six6]

I wish this style was also done for other saints, like St. Bonaventure.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Perhaps you're the person for it!

[@riley.p.p]

@@prometheusjones6580 check out Fr. Casey Cole

[@gyulatakacs1824]

Thank you for this insight. My daughter wrote a paper on this topic for her 6th grade English final essay.

[@matthewsimmons9251]

I love this channel, these ideas are a great treasure for me. Aquinas was truly a genius. I hope you guys can find some time to discuss the ideas of Duns Scotus as well, I know you could provide a balanced assessment of his thoughts. Thanks again, matt

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for your comment, Matt. We recently had a conference that compared the Franciscan and Dominican contributions to theology. You can find the recordings here: 1. soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/bonaventure-thomas-aquinas-dons-scotus-on-the-real-distinction-msgr-wippel 2. soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/on-analogy-univocity-revisited-timothy-noone 3. soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/aquinas-and-olivi-on-job-prof-thomas-prugl 4. soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/on-the-speculative-practical-or-affective-nature-of-theology-prof-gregory-lanave 5. soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/using-similitudes-for-the-hypostatic-union-michael-gorman

[@kristindreko1998]

Thank you for this video! May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[@pederfoss1929]

Christus resurrexit est! Alleluia! Thank you so much for this video series. The length, content and presentation are all well-suited to present St. Thomas' central ideas. Thank you so much.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure!

[@jaspermay5813]

It's "resurrexit" without "est." Resurrexit verè!

[@jennymaejumaat1054]

thank you so much for this video, we used this in our ethics class (HTC-gensan).

[@LettingGo757]

This is spot on everything I needed to know for my Ethics lecture tonight. Thanks

[@antiglobaljoel532]

Awesome video! I'm a Protestant, but if I was a Catholic, I'd be a Thomist.

[@Obedience33]

Peace to you. What is keeping you in protest?

[@kristinrusso1870]

Ditto to Matt Blaise!!! These Dominicans are amazing. I think I understand thru their explanations!!!! Thanks

[@glaydelcarerecla7321]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge regarding the Natural Law we use this in our Ethics subject. From Holy Trinity College of General Santos City.

[@brendansmith8167]

This is a great series

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks!

[@DarklingNightingale]

Thank you so much for the content and quality of this series!

[@NateBostian]

This is quite good. I am a chaplain and philosophy teacher for college prep students. I think if your pacing was a little faster, and you simplified your sentence structure and vocabulary, this could be great for high school students. I think this is probably about college freshman level right now.

[@claudeleblanc4707]

I have used many of these videos with upper-division HS students as HW assignments and they get it! They may have to pause and rewind a little bit, but I do, too!

[@billoberg3272]

I have and often refer to Charles Rice's "50 Questions on the Natural Law, What is it & Why We Need It. 1999, Revised.

[@eklera]

Thanks for this video. 🥰

[@karmad.twelve6613]

Great video!

[@vilmaconstante3969]

Thank you this is an answer of may prayer I'm divotid to st Aquino ask help study of doctrine of Faith

[@alekspilarski190]

beautiful

[@bertrandthebault6899]

St Thomas Aquinas is my preferred Saint by far

[@alexandrepereira3902]

Excellent

[@Catholicity-uw2yb]

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power. The active power in the male is intended to produce a perfect image of itself, a masculine sex. When a female results it is either because of a weakness in this active power or because of some indisposition of the materials, or even from a change produced by an outside factor - for example, from south winds, which are humid.”

[@byron8657]

Even if your not a Catholic or a Christian you can be save if you don’t had the chance to know any religion was raised in a remote island but you follow the ten commandments and natural law written in all the hearts of humankind you can be saved! K

[@sergeyfox2298]

This video changes my paradigm on Nature itself. From thomistic lense, Nature is the built-in systems to reproduce the universe we percieve. Basically, humans, animals, planets, stars, etc all have built-in systems that we can dissect and explicate to make sense of why they function they way they do. Nature is really just the eternal laws that produce the fundemental and emergent existences we think of in the sciences. God Thought of this Universe, and his thoughts are the eternal laws (established structures) that underlie the visible universe we see. Technically, from this reasoning, it could be said that Science is fundemental to eternal law because it is the study of eternal laws set forth to produce the universe. When it comes to natural laws, they're just the observable eternal laws we think of to produce biological and psychological phenomena like reasoning and eating. To aquinas, he sees that humans will eat, reason and think, because set up humans eternally to exhibit behaviors that we don't deviate from, simply because of our structure, form, essence, being etc. Here then, the supernatural is just a modern term, because Aquinas would see that the supernatural is really just what we call the natural, but it is God is who is natural and therefore producing the natural world we see. So God is natural, perhaps immaterial but nonetheless natural, because he exists.

[@franciskm4144]

Divine law written in human heart is natural law. This truth is first popularized by Marcus Tully (Cicero).St Augustine says that he began to accept Jesus after reading Cicero.(confessions). thanks

[@shadowbaby4238]

Eternal law

[@rufus2040]

As a catholic i really wanna know these.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Hope these videos help! May the Lord bless you.

[@davedismantled]

Read Lysander Spooner and listen to Mark Passios Natural Law seminar - if you want to dig deeper into Natural Law, without the religious aspect.

[@straydeviare]

Ooooo 8 hours I will enjoy it! Im such a nerd for long presentations with indepth information. Thanks for the suggestion

[@2020visionofrochesterhills]

Genious!

[@eapooda]

I know this video was posted three years ago, so I may not get a response, but my question is how do we go from the facts that our nature is inclined to for example, reproduce to the moral claim that any action that is in direct negation or contradiction to reproduction is morally wrong This seems like it violates the is-ought gap. Thanks in advance

[@nguyenanhtuan7854]

#AskAFriar In summa I-II question 94. a 5 St. Thomas said "the natural law is not changed so that what it prescribes be not right in most cases. But it may be changed in some particular cases of rare occurrence, through some special causes hindering the observance of such precepts, as stated above". So Natural Law can be Changed, right? Could you explain to me about this point?

[@billc3114]

Is there a natural concupiscence? Did Augustine or Aquinas say it existed before the fall?

[@wilroese]

What is the relationship between the Eternal Law and the Logos? Are they different terms for the same thing? If not how do they differ?

[@devin_3875]

That’s a really good question. Did you ever find out the answer?

[@JacquesBraconnier-uw7ns]

Just finished a book on Thomistic Metaphysics, my best guess would be that the eternal "Logos" (God's word made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ) is "One" (in being with the Father) The Eternal law is God's nature (not his choice) "good".

[@JacquesBraconnier-uw7ns]

How does the eternal law differ from God's eternal word "Logos"? I would think they are merely different ways of considering God's nature. The eternal law is God's perfect will aligned with his perfect goodness/justice/mercy... Christ, the eternal word is simply the manifestation of this "made flesh". The natural Law is man's rational participation in this Divine, "Eternal Law". We are drawn to "Do good and avoid evil" and when our will is co-natured with the Natural Law we are "Godly".

[@architechofreality]

And because we are higher animals, it is our responsibility to care for lower animals and to tend to the Earth we were given to share. Harming animals and destroying the environment are terrible sins.

[@GuitarBloodlines]

depends what you class as harming animals

[@chris-solmon4017]

@@GuitarBloodlinescausing bodily and mental harm. If a group of aliens came down and farmed humans by keeping them in cages and the slaughtering them, then it’s called harm. Don’t really see how people don’t understand what the word harm means.

[@GuitarBloodlines]

​@@chris-solmon4017some would see consuming animals as harming them, but that's not the case

[@SDILUYNTsiu39fnd]

that logic does not follow. Just because we are higher than x does not mean that we ought to care for x. But I agree that we should take care of our environment and of animals. But that is not and will never be the main focus of the human life and of Christianity. The first thing we ought to take care of is the spiritual needs of our neighbors (to ensure that they are living in accordance with the Christian faith and to evangelize for the sake of their salvation.) If caring for the spiritual needs of others requires us to kill animals and to cut down trees than we should take those steps. The earth is not God, God is God and we should serve Him and His Church with the material that we have.

[@Christisking1776]

We are not animals...

[@acushla_music]

Two points: Why is no other creature considered rationale? Did not Aquinas derive the natural law from the works of Cicero?

[@vuthithanhngan274]

May I ask a question? if I understand you right, Aquinas is closer to current dispositional essentialist view regarding natural laws except for the metaphyiscally necessary modality of laws, right? for it seems that Aquinas thinks only God is metaphysically necessary.

[@nickd7986]

What of virtual baptism?

[@dh7164]

Natural Law is the foundation of Social Contract theory, and ultimately the foundation of the US Constitution and the Republic. Every American should begin with Aristotle, go to Aquinas, then Locke and Montesquieu, then Madison, Jefferson, etc. It is an obligation we need to live up to, in order to keep our Republic - the sanctuary where devotion to the Eucharist reigns, and where religious worship is offered to God.

[@messageinthebottle1673]

Sadly tho there are people who are actively subverting these ideas because its a natural anathema to them.

[@differous01]

@@messageinthebottle1673 “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally... Anyone who either cannot lead the common life, or is so self-sufficient as not to need to... is either a beast or a god. ” [Aristotle, Politics] The Cynics, the beasts of Aristotle's day, are called SJWs in ours; their so-called 'Critical Theory' being Cynical in nature.

[@rootstriker1618]

Natural law has nothing to do with religious worship. Living a life in accordance to gods natural law don’t mean you have to be brainwashed by a religious institution. And America the republic might have been founded on these principles but we are far from the republic we started out as. We have become a democracy that is truly lead by a banking oligarchy, in other words we are not the land of the free anymore we are the land of mind controlled debt slaves.

[@dh7164]

@@rootstriker1618 Natural Law is a moral theological theory developed by a Catholic monk who is now a Doctor of the Church. It has everything to do with religion, though it does not pertain directly to liturgy. It is based on Catholic theological principles. A coherent universe is interrelated. Adhering to the objective existence of the Christian God leads to the logical conclusions of Natural Law when the principles are applied to the world and humanity.

[@sophiabergner7191]

Hey there! I’m wondering- is it understood that natural law is the means for salvation? Or rather is it the sacraments and holy scripture where we go to for salvation?

[@sillythewanderer4221]

I would say both, I’m not sure though, have you read mere Christianity by cs lewis? He gives some good explanations on the matter.

[@alenethclarobagsit6252]

Is it possible to maintain natural law without believing in the divine source?

[@vladmordekeiser1054]

Would like to know it too. Mainly if someone has already tried to do so, because it's an essential part of my ongoing work, but I don't believe I can be the first one writing about it...

[@Thenarrowpath833]

No, you must acknowledge the creator and you can do that through Christ.:)

[@M155ABYSS]

Of course. I live Natural Law every day. It’s just this: do no harm, but take no shit. The motivation for this is only a desire to not be enslaved or enslave. If we want freedom for ourselves, we cannot deny it to anyone else. Rule yourself and only yourself.

[@chris-solmon4017]

@@Thenarrowpath833 - so if I don’t believe in gravity, it won’t affect me?

[@MyChannel-l3f]

Absolutely, it works the same if you think God or Nature is your creator.

[@riceyboi7069]

I wonder how Aquinas would have answered the is-ought problem.

[@sillythewanderer4221]

Ought = should? The is - should problem?

[@Unclenate1000]

I wonder if he even could. I certainly havent been able which is why ive rejected this theory of “ethics”. Just abstract rules that sound eloquent. Glorified table manners

[@claygirlcan]

so meaty hehehe good stuff!! praise God

[@hartfully]

Aquinas would have been proud of the evolution in government and directives for civil governance encompassed in the American Constitution. It is founded on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." We now have 2 Thomases among others with elevated minds to thank for that.

[@GuitarBloodlines]

no he wouldn't

[@crusaderACR]

The only problem is with the separation of Church and State. Natural Law and True Religion go hand in hand, you can't separate God from your laws and expect morality to not crumble.

[@wilroese]

Where do laws like the law of gravity fall in Thomas' scheme?

[@tomgreene2282]

I don't think they do...

[@AluminiumT6]

The laws of physics and their discussion fit into what is called "Natural Science" or "Natural Philosophy". In Saint Thomas's time (13th Century), the book which gave physics its name, Aristotle's Physics, was the standard in the study of Natural Science. Saint Thomas wrote a commentary on it, which you can find here: isidore.co/aquinas/Physics.htm I'm quoting the first lines of his commentary: "1. Because this book, The Physics, upon which we intend to comment here, is the first book of natural science, it is necessary in the beginning to decide what is the matter and the subject of natural science. Since every science is in the intellect, it should be understood that something is rendered intelligible in act insofar as it is in some way abstracted from matter. And inasmuch as things are differently related to matter they pertain to different sciences. Furthermore, since every science is established through demonstration, and since the definition is the middle term in a demonstration, it is necessary that sciences be distinguished according to the diverse modes of definition."

[@shifuarena901]

doing this since the teotihuacan age

[@markbirmingham6011]

Comment for traction

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@charlienachname1978]

Me for example. I am attracted to both women and men. Does this mean that my natural inclinations are distorted features and consequently that there is something fundamentally wrong in me? It seems unfair that just because I have a desire to also give romantic affection of someone of my same sex, and said desire isnt part of the tendency, such an act is morally wrong

[@neuronneuron3645]

ETHICS Chapter 7. Deontological Theories: Natural Law Section 5. Problems with Natural Law PROBLEMS FOR NATURAL LAW THEORY 1. One of the difficulties for natural law theory is that people have interpreted nature differently? Should this be the case if as asserted by natural law theory, the moral law of human nature is knowable by natural human reason? 2. How do we determine the essential or morally praiseworthy traits of human nature? Traditional natural law theory has picked out very positive traits, such as "the desire to know the truth, to choose the good, and to develop as healthy mature human beings”. But some philosophers, such as Hobbes, have found human beings to be essentially selfish. It is questionable that behavior in accordance with human nature is morally right and behavior not in accord with human nature is morally wrong. For instance, if it turns out that human beings (at least the males) are naturally aggressive, should we infer that war and fighting are morally right? 3. Even if we have certain natural propensities, are we justified in claiming that those propensities or tendencies should be developed? On what grounds do we justify, for example, that we ought to choose the good? 4. For Aquinas, the reason why nature had the order it did was because God had put it there. Other thinkers, such as Aristotle, did not believe that this order was divinely inspired. Does this alleged natural moral order require that we believe that there is a God that has produced this natural moral order? Evolutionary theory has challenged much of the basis of thinking that there is a moral natural order, since on evolutionary theory species has developed they way they have out of survival needs. 5 It is doubtful that one can infer moral principles forbidding adultery, rape, homosexuality, and so forth, either from biological facts about human nature or from facts about the inherent nature of Homo sapiens. 6. Critics of natural law theory say that it is doubtful, however, that the inherent nature of Homo sapiens establishes laws of behavior for human beings in the same way as it may establish laws of behavior for cats, lions, and polar bears. It is especially difficult because so much of human behavior is shaped by the environment, that is, by deliberate and nondeliberate conditioning, training, and education. 7. Two philosophers (Aquinas and Aristotle) integral to the theory have different views about god’s role in nature, which confuses the issue, especially when trying to decipher if the theory relies on the existence of god. 8. The intrinsic nature of humans as it pertains to establishing laws of behavior may not be the same for animals, which presents difficulties within the theory. 9.. Human behavior may be solely reliant upon the environment that one is exposed to, which includes social classes, education and upbringing, this opposes the theory. © Copyright Stephen O Sullivan and Philip A. Pecorino 2002. All Rights reserved.

[@Unclenate1000]

Yep. Its why deontology in general is just meh. Abstract rules for the sake of rules, and inevitably dependent on consequentialism to provide the driving force for the moral “ought”.

[@jimbojackson4045]

Thanks for the explanation Friar Owen Benjamin.

[@chrisbernal5164]

The good father states the eternal law is present in one endowed with intelligence. And yet he gives example of natural law present in some animals. It goes without saying that the natural law is nothing else than the eternal law as present in nature! In the nature of an animal and in a human being. Or even in plants! Or where there is nature, there is the eternal law. The natural law therefore is the specification of a certain nature observing the prescription of the preservation of its nature and prohibiting the destruction of the same nature. Since reason and will are considered moral powers of the human being, the eternal law is present in his moral powers of reason and will, for which reason the natural law in a human nature is the natural moral law.

[@whiterider1414]

😎

[@EvanLoper-pj5wk]

It's not just earth...

[@davidpoelman6152]

From the layman perspective, one of my troubles with Aquinas' logic on these points is that he assumes goodness from a Deific plan. While it can be well and good for the conformist to assume this, it does little to allay the doubts of those who do not wish to simply believe. Logic cannot find roots in it. If the understanding of goodness comes simply from one's beliefs, then those beliefs will be cemented by believing whatever is done in service to those beliefs is good. There are very specific, very narrow things that are true law in the Faith. Much of belief is still mutable, and unfortunately for St Thomas Aquinas, much of his thoughts have been used to defend and entrench "dogma" that might otherwise shift as Human understanding grows. However, there is hope in his teachings: the faintest glimmer that we can grow and adapt our understanding.

[@TonyTrupp]

Regarding that assumption of goodness, that also seems incompatible with the church’s teaching that we are born with original sin, an inclination to do wrong, for which we need jesus and the church to guide us to salvation. That said, I don’t personally believe in that framing of being born into original sin, just pointing out that some of the church’s teachings seem self contradictory.

[@d.h.5407]

@@TonyTrupp GK Chesterton said that Original Sin is the one doctrine that is empirically true. Just look at the world around you.

[@TonyTrupp]

@@d.h.5407 Oh OK, if Mr Chesterton said it, it must emphatically be true. Who could argue with that?

[@PontoLyone]

Gosh this stuff is confusing. I feel like a simpleton trying to wrap my head around thomistic thought

[@richardferrara3884]

I followed this exegesis through. It is a bit of a word salad on Aquinas.

[@teckyify]

"Beautiful"? Theodicy ehem..

[@xxapoloxx]

Ridiculous concept, how could this possibly reconcile multiple religions?.

[@sillythewanderer4221]

By saying that their knowledge is different. the moral law is how persons are supposed to act, what is moral, say “no human should be enslaved” but than you find a culture where it is considered lawful to enslave women, how can this be reconciled with the moral law? They have different knowledge of “human” and exclude women from that definition, if they thought women were human, they might agree that they should not be enslaved. Just one example I heard awhile ago.

[@sillythewanderer4221]

They might understand “the divine” differently Although I’m no expert on this.

[@xxapoloxx]

@@sillythewanderer4221 it does not matter what they understand, the basis for this is that the christian god willed it so.

[@DanielFernandez-jv7jx]

"And other sexual sins." The RC list of these are not universally recognized as wrong in all cultures. This is one of the many "fails" for natural law, which it seems, is very much prone to cultural interpretation. Even things like adultery and murder are defined differently in different cultures. We could not expect St. Thomas Aquinas to have had a multicultural perspective in his day.

[@Lerian_V]

Recognition is not what makes a sin. Ignorance of a sinful act may make the sinner less culpable but it doesn't change the sin o become anything less according to natural law.

[@JesseDriftwood]

@@Lerian_VI think the point the OP was making was that it’s *very* difficult to draw boundaries around what is and what isn’t a natural law. Some of the things he may have seen as being natural/unnatural would have been understood completely differently were he born in a different culture. So who decides what is and isn’t a natural law? Better yet, who draws the boundaries on “sin”. Also please please please don’t just say the bible.

[@ungas024]

@JesseDriftwood humans know what is right and wrong either by experience or by intuition.

[@Zwei4815]

@@JesseDriftwood Aquinas was from Sicily in a time when it was a cultural crossroads and therefore he was exposed to and influenced by the thinking of many different cultures, so that's why he refers to Ibn Rushd (an Islamic thinker), Moses ben Maimon (a Jewish philosopher), and Aristotle, among others. He didn't just look at the Bible and come up with all of this just from that.

[@sillythewanderer4221]

CS Lewis’ views on the natural law are quite interesting.

[@superstrut8994]

You are talking about culture and calling it natural law. All these so called "inclinations" are cultural and temporary phenomena, they have nothing to do with any kind of law. There is no grand plan and in fact, the very concept of plan originates out of pain and suffering. Aquinas is full of it and quite dishonest, sorry.

[@checkmate5338]

How do we know God has a will? Can't the creator be a thing that is just constantly creating worlds?

[@eliasarches2575]

Check Mate the act of creation requires will - otherwise it is inexplicable why creation has or hasn’t taken place at all

[@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498]

Well, the Fifth Way of Saint Thomas Aquinas demonstrates the existence of an intelligent ordainer of the world. An intelligent being has also will, since will is a rational appetite - "appetite" is an Aristotelian term which indicates the tendency of every living being towards its end and to satisfy his/her/its physical and spiritual needs; humans and other intelligent beings have will because their appetites are under the control of reason.

[@checkmate5338]

@@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498 How do you prove that the Creator has intelligence?

[@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498]

@@checkmate5338 From the Fifth Way of Saint Thomas Aquinas. I think you can find something about it on this channel.

[@scragsma]

@@checkmate5338 If intelligence exists at all, it must first be present in its Creator.

[@levacarvalho]

💩💩💩💩💩

[@maestronggenz9881]

You are talking like you believe it to be true, I don't like it. I feel you have prejudice to this, I am sorry, I do not intend to be mean.

[@jaspermay5813]

You prefer people to talk only about things that they don't believe to be true?

[@str8dollaz]

.........Nigga!!

[@akbubbles4585]

This is "Woke" way of explaining instincts.

[@yveslegault6825]

A child who has an imaginary friend is not considered a bad thing as such. An adult who has an imaginary friend is considered to have a sick mind. Religion is the business end of spirituality no one never needed! What one believe in is a personnal matter that should remain private. Nothing can be done with the knowledge of one's beliefs, except controlling him. Only what one knows is of any value!

[@damaplehound]

bruh

[@holdingsteadfast]

A child who has not grown out of his childish imaginings needs help. And a husband who's adicted to porn affecting his relationship with his wife must not remain just a personal matter.

[@EvanLoper-tl9qj]

Like profit and money replacing God and natural law definitely going great...

[@nestorlimqueco6525]

Natural law is the innate goodness imprinted in the heart of man..

[@msmd3295]

I've twice read a book, published decades ago, titled "Natural Theology" written by a Jesuit priest. My conclusion? It's a 450 page collection of abstract, nebulous, verbose collection of absolute nonsense addressing absolutes, eternal values, "first principles", etc. that are contradicted every page of the book of NATURE. There really is no [or very little] relationship between "nature" and "theology". Theology is a collection of very abstract ideas that for the most part don't apply to the real world. It is born of human emotion and a personal need for security in the face of a natural universe that doesn't care one quark about human welfare. We like to think of ourselves as being "special", but that's just human Arrogance/Ego. Recently I was viewing a nature program about the macaques of Africa. It was a study of their social and power structure, imitative behaviors, resolving conflicts, pecking order, etc. and guess what... homo sapiens are not significantly different.

[@Moe-xg6bu]

You wouldn't understand it and unknown to even self and doomed roofs milking many days tits up real soon