That was Dostoevsky. I doubt Sartre could manage the consistency to argue it.
I'm suprised to see you criticize Sartre, becaus he is the thinker who formalized the existentialism to which you adhere.
He was also an atheist and communist, and thus ipso facto didn't get everything right.
I had once gone through his "Existentialism is a Humanism" from the Christian perspective, in response to this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33496.msg535659.html#msg535659but it got lost somewhere when the computer crashed. I might find it some day, or redo it, Lord willing.
However, that being said, Satre actually said the same thing as Dostoevsky on this point. He argued that because there is no God, man has no "nature," and hence, no moral purpose. Man can simply be and do whatever he wants.
just proving how Dostoevsky was right on more scores than one.
Darwinistic Natural Law has its moral content. Hence "Social Darwinists." Not the moral content of what the Creator revealed in His Word, but moral content nonetheless.
An atheistic Natural Law does not have any moral content in the objective sense, since there is no objective foundation on which to establish it. Ultimately, in an atheistic context, I don't see how one cannot avoid adopting Satre's position.
They would argue cause and effect (which resembles the karma of the moral theology of the dharmic religions, which deny being), which wouldn't distinguish them from your Natural Law, as I have seen it argued that "Natural Law" is nothing more than the law of cause and effect. Humanae Vitae seems to argue so, and I could swear you have so argued somewhere.
You assume that "Any so called "Natural Law" that is separated from the will and purpose fo God is not morally binding," and I would agree-if Natural Law existed in reality. Since it doesn't, Aquinas' "Natural Law" remains as "not morally binding" as the Darwinists'.
Unfortunately for you, the scriptures and the Fathers are at odds with you on this matter.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20 Clearly, everyone can know that God exists, and that we have moral obligations, just by reasoning from "The creation of the world." That is why even those who have not had divine revelation are without excuse for immoral behavior. This is the essence of Natural Law.
As I have pointed out before, the Natural Lawyers using Romans 1:20 resembles Luther's use of Romans 1:17: a keyhole through which to cram the whole of Christian teaching through, no matter how much that makes the camel going through the eye of a needle look like child's play.
Saint Paul is speaking of Natural Theology, not Natural Law (though the latter can be derived from the former, but that has no bearing on Christians, who have the Gospel Truth), i.e. "His Eternal Power and divinity" "clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."
Abp. St. John Chrysostom makes clear this folly of elevating philosophical speculation to the revealed Truth:
The first charge is, that they did not find God; the second was, that it was while they had great and clear (Sav. marg. wise) means to do it; the third, that withal they said they were wise; the fourth, that they not only did not find that Reverend Being, but even lowered Him to devils and to stones and stocks. Now he takes down their haughtiness also in the Epistle to the Corinthians, but not in the same way there as here. For there it is from the Cross he gives them the blow, saying, The foolishness of God is wiser than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25 But here, without any comparison, he holds their wisdom by itself up to ridicule, showing it to be folly and a mere display of vain boasting. Then, that you may learn that when they had the knowledge of God they gave it up thus treacherously, they changed, he says. Now he that changes, has something to change. For they wished to find out more, and not bear with the limits given them, and so they were banished from these also. For they were lusters after new devices, for such is all that is Grecian. And this is why they stood against one another and Aristotle rose up against Plato, and the Stoics blustered (ἐ φρυάξαντο 6 manuscripts fenced themselves, ἐ φράξαντο: which Field inclines to prefer) against him, and one has become hostile to one, another to another. So that one should not so much marvel at them for their wisdom, as turn away from them indignant and hate them, because through this very thing they have become fools. For had they not trusted what they have to reasonings, and syllogisms, and sophistries, they would not have suffered what they did suffer. Then, to strengthen the accusation against them he holds the whole of their idolatry up to ridicule. For in the first place the changing even were a very fit subject of scorn. But to change to such things too, is beyond all excuse. For what then did they change it, and what was it which they invested with His Glory? Some conceptions they ought to have had about Him, as, for instance, that He is God, that He is Lord of all, that He made them, which were not, that He exercises a Providence, that He cares for them. For these things are the Glory of God. To whom then did they ascribe it? Not even to men, but to an image made like to corruptible man. Neither did they stop here, but even dropped down to the brutes, or rather to the images of these. But consider, I pray, the wisdom of Paul, how he has taken the two extremes, God the Highest, and creeping things the lowest: or rather, not the creeping things, but the images of these; that he might clearly show their evident madness. For what knowledge they ought to have had concerning Him Who is incomparably more excellent than all, with that they invested what was incomparably more worthless than all. But what has this to do with the philosophers? A man may say. To these belongs most of all what I have said to do with them. For they have the Egyptians who were the inventors of these things to their masters. And Plato, who is thought more reverend than the rest of them, glories in these masters. (Plat. Tim. 21. B. etc.) And his master is in a stupid awe of these idols, for he it is that bids them sacrifice the cock to Æsculapius (his last words, Phædo), where (i.e. in his temple. So Field from manuscripts.) are the images of these beasts, and creeping things. And one may see Apollo and Bacchus worshipped along with these creeping things. And some of the philosophers even lifted up to Heaven bulls, and scorpions, and dragons, and all the rest of that vanity. For in all parts did the devil zealously strive to bring men down before the images of creeping things, and to range beneath the most senseless of all things, him whom God has willed to lift up above the heavens. And it is not from this only, but also from other grounds, that you will see their chief man to come under the remarks now made. For having made a collection of the poets, and having said that we should believe them upon matters relating to God, as having accurate knowledge, he has nothing else to bring forward but the linked sweetness of these absurdities, and then says, that this utterly ludicrous trifling is to be held for true.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210203.htmLater in this passage, St. Paul makes it clear that he is speaking of some kind of Natural Law theory, when he mentions those who exchange "natural relations" for "unnatrual ones." In speaking thus, recognizes a natural purpose to sex, which is violated by homosexual activity.
Yes, this purpose:
Consider then. It was meet, that the two should be one, I mean the woman and the man. For the two, it says, shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24 But this the desire of intercourse effected, and united the sexes to one another. This desire the devil having taken away, and having turned the course thereof into another fashion, he thus sundered the sexes from one another, and made the one to become two parts in opposition to the law of God. For it says, the two shall be one flesh; but he divided the one flesh into two: here then is one war. Again, these same two parts he provoked to war both against themselves and against one another. For even women again abused women, and not men only. And the men stood against one another, and against the female sex, as happens in a battle by night. You see a second and third war, and a fourth and fifth; there is also another, for beside what have been mentioned they also behaved lawlessly against nature itself. For when the Devil saw that this desire it is, principally, which draws the sexes together, he was bent on cutting through the tie, so as to destroy the race, not only by their not copulating lawfully, but also by their being stirred up to war, and in sedition against one another.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htmSt. Paul uses the same expression, "contrary to nature" later in Romans in 11:24 "For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted,
contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree." Not as black and white a distinction as Natural Law would require.
Btw, I often wonder that Natural Lawyers try to make much about Romans 1:20, not so much Romans 2:14.
Since the bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is the third person of the Blessed Trinity with whom you are disagreeing when you rage against Natural Law.
He Whom the filioque blasphemes? No, He favors His revelations over man's speculations. As He said, His foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of man.
Btw, to get His statements down:
STRONGS NT 5449: φύσις
φύσις, φύσεως, ἡ (from φύω, which see, as Latin nature from nascor, ingenium from geno, gigno), from Homer, Odyssey 10, 303 down; nature, i. e.
a. the nature of things, the force, laws, order, of nature; as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse: ὁ, ἡ, τό παρά φύσιν, that which is contrary to nature's laws, against nature, Romans 1:26 (οἱ παρά φύσιν τῇ Ἀφροδιτη χρώμενοι, Athen. 13, p. 605; ὁ παιδεραστής ... τήν παρά φύσιν ἡδονήν διώκει, Philo de spec. legg. i., § 7); as opposed to what has been produced by the art of man: οἱ κατά φύσιν κλάδοι, the natural branches, i. e. branches by the operation of nature, Romans 11:21, 24 (Winer's Grammar, 193 (182)), contrasted with οἱ ἐγκεντρισθεντες παρά φύσιν, contrary to the plan of nature, cf. 24; ἡ κατά φύσιν ἀγριέλαιος, ibid.; as opposed to what is imaginary or fictitious: οἱ μή φύσει ὄντες θεοί, who are gods not by nature, but according to the mistaken opinion of the Gentiles (λεγόμενοι θεοί, 1 Corinthians 8:5), Galatians 4:8; nature, i. e. natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opposed to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law: ἡ φύσις (i. e. the native sense of propriety) διδάσκει τί, 1 Corinthians 11:14; φύσει ποιεῖν τά τοῦ ναμου, natura magistra, guided by their natural sense of what is right and proper, Romans 2:14.
b. birth, physical origin: ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, we so far as our origin is considered, i. e. by birth, are Jews, Galatians 2:15 (φύσει νεώτερος, Sophocles O. C. 1295; τῷ μέν φύσει πατρίς, τόν δέ νόμῳ πολίτην ἐπεποιηντο, Isocrates Evagr. 21; φύσει βάρβαροι ὄντες, νόμῳ δέ Ἕλληνες, Plato, Menex., p. 245 d.; cf. Grimm on Wis. 13:1); ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία, who by birth is uncircumcised or a Gentile (opposed to one who, although circumcised, has made himself a Gentile by his iniquity and spiritual perversity), Romans 2:27.
c. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature: ἦμεν φύσει τέκνα ὀργῆς, by (our depraved) nature we were exposed to the wrath of God, Ephesians 2:3 (this meaning is evident from the preceding context, and stands in contrast with the change of heart and life wrought through Christ by the blessing of divine grace; φύσει πρός τάς κολασεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, Josephus, Antiquities 13, 10, 6. (Others (see Meyer) would lay more stress here upon the constitution in which this 'habitual course of evil' has its origin, whether that constitution be regarded (with some) as already developed at birth, or (better) as undeveloped; cf. Aristotle, pol. 1, 2, p. 1252{b}, 32f οἷον ἕκαστον ἐστι τῆς γενέσεως τελεσθεισης, ταύτην φαμέν τήν φύσιν εἶναι ἑκάστου, ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου, etc.; see the examples in Bonitz's index under the word. Cf. Winers Grammar, § 31, 6a.)).
d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: φύσις θηρίων (the natural strength, ferocity and intractability of beasts (A. V. (every) kind of beasts)), ἡ φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνῃ (the ability, art, skill, of men, the qualities which are proper to their nature and necessarily emanate from it), James 3:7 (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 31, 10); θείας κοινωνοί φύσεως, (the holiness distinctive of the divine nature is specially referred to), 2 Peter 1:4 (Ἀμενωφει ... θείας δοκουντι μετεσχηκεναι φύσεως κατά τέ σοφίαν καί πρόγνωσιν τῶν, ἐσομενων, Josephus, contra Apion 1, 26).
http://biblesuite.com/greek/5449.htm
