What Is Divine Law Theory

The scriptures can record what some people thought God had commanded them to do. Some people can follow what these scriptures say. This is not the THEORY OF DIVINE COMMAND. Why not? For those who believe in a deity or god, then God lives forever. God lives. God gives COMMANDMENTS again and again. There are many people who have been raised to accept the Ten Commandments as a guide to a moral life, and they think that following these commandments would make them followers of the DIVINE COMMANDMENT theory. This is not the case at all. In the THEORY OF DIVINE PROOF, GOOD is what the “God” or Divinity commands. It means anything, anytime and anywhere. God`s theory of commandment is not based on Scripture.

The DIVINE COMMANDMENT is the DIVINE COMMANDMENT. God`s commandment does not end with the Ten Commandments. No, not at all. The theory is that after these commandments have been issued, the Godhead does not go extinct, but continues to exist and issue new commandments. The Godhead can even issue commandments that change previous commandments and even contradict them. In fact, it often happens that someone who claims to have received a direct command from the Godhead or God does something that is incompatible with or violates one of the Ten Commandments, such as killing innocent children because the Godhead has asked them to do so. Conflicts often arise between secular conceptions of justice or morality and divine law. [11] [12] Western religions have rejected the THEORY OF DIVINE COMMAND and instead adhere to the theory of natural law. Rejection may be based on the fear that a charismatic person will receive a divine command to change religion or kill the leaders of that religion. There are therefore several serious problems with the theory of divine command. Here is another theory that, in one of its forms, involves belief in the existence of a deity, God.

Then comes another theory of goodness which, in one of its forms, involves belief in the existence of a deity or god. Euthyphro`s dilemma can produce the answer that an action is good because God commands the action, or that God commands an action because it is good. If the former is chosen, it would mean that everything God commands must be good: even if He has commanded someone to inflict suffering, then inflicting suffering must be moral. If the latter is chosen, then morality no longer depends on God and goes against God`s theory of command. If God is subject to an external law, He is not sovereign or omnipotent, which would call into question the orthodox idea of God. Proponents of the Euthyphro dilemma might argue that the divine command theory is patently wrong because both answers call into question God`s ability to give moral laws. [5] 8. The intrinsic nature of humans in terms of establishing laws of behavior may not be the same for animals, which causes difficulties in theory. 2. Who knows what are the commandments of the Godhead? Can anyone claim to have heard the order and respond to it? Here are some recent examples of divine commandments. PROBLEM: The physical record may not be as clear and open to interpretation. There is evidence of homosexual mating in species other than humans.

How many cases or species are needed to conclude that such behavior is natural in mammals and that the accomplishment of a basic physical forcing is accomplished in a manner harmless to the species is questionable. Austin argues that in a world of religious pluralism, it is impossible to know which commandments of God or religion are to be obeyed, especially because some religions contradict others and it is impossible to accept them all. Within religions, there are also different interpretations of what is offered. Austin notes that some of the answers to the autonomy objection may be relevant, as an agent must choose the religion and morality he thinks is right. He argues that the divine command theory is also consistent with the idea that moral truths can be found in all religions and that moral revelation can be found outside religion. [5] Heimir Geirsson and Margaret Holmgren argue against the idea that different religions can lead to the same god because some religions are incompatible with each other (monotheistic and polytheistic religions, for example, have opposing views on divinity, and some Greek or Norse gods have amplified human weaknesses).