Aquinas' Natural Law Theory cannot accurately explain moral objectivism

My oppoenent seemed to think I was off base. I was simply showing that Objectivism is simply objection of Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law. Natural states that we all have a internal moral code that all should follow but Objectivism refuses this and denies thier internal moral code. ==Validation of Natural Law by Thomas Aquinas== Aquinas distinguishes four types of law—human, divine, eternal, and natural—as follows: Human law—"an ordinance of reason for the common good promulgated by him who has the care of the community. " Eternal law —God's plan for all of creation. Natural law—The part of eternal law that applies to human beings; it is God's plan for us. Natural law can be discerned by unaided human reason, and it consists in the correct moral principles. E. g. "it is never permissible intentionally to kill an innocent human being," and "one must never intend what is evil, even as a means to achieving a good or avoiding a bad result" are natural laws, in Aquinas's view. Divine law—the part of eternal law that God reveals to us human beings via Scripture. If something is against natural law, then it's against divine law too. But some things, primarily of a religious nature, are contrary to divine law but not natural law. For example, natural reason and natural law tell us that the God of traditional theism exists and should be venerated. But it is only through divine revelation that we can know that baptism, membership in the Christian church, etc. are necessary for our salvation. Aquinas insists that human laws are genuine laws only if they do not contradict either natural or divine law. ==Rebuttal to opponent== Probably the most controversial parts of Objectivism are these five claims: (1) Reality is objective. (2) One should always follow reason and never think or act contrary to reason. (I take this to be the meaning of "Reason is absolute. ") (3) Moral principles are also objective and can be known through reason. (4) Every person should always be selfish. I can think that this is pretty immoral. (5) Capitalism is the only just social system. This is in fact untrue and immoral in it's self. DID ABRAHAM SACRIFICE ISSAC? So what is the point of this story for us? Understanding the special significance of the place is the key that unlocks the story. A special son had to be sacrificed. Where have we heard that before? If we think it seems cruel, remember that God only asks Abraham to go through what he himself has gone through in sacrificing his own son for us. Abraham did not have to go all the way through with it, but God did. Remember Abraham's words to Isaac, when Isaac asked him where the sacrifice was: 'God himself will provide a sacrifice. ' Later, at the end of the story, Abraham would name the place 'The Lord will provide. ' There is a profound meaning hidden in this name. Literally, God himself provides the sacrifice that is needed. This strange incident, about two thousand years before Christ, is a picture that points forwards to the special Son who God himself would provide as the sacrifice for our sins, in the place where God's anger would be turned away. All of this story was written down, and widely known, long before Jesus came. Yet he fulfilled it in an amazing way. How are we supposed to respond? Not just to the story of Abraham and Isaac, but to the underlying reality that the story points to - the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, the special son of God, as a sacrifice for us, provided by God to turn away his anger? The same way Abraham responded to God's challenge: Faith:Abraham is described in the Bible as 'the man of faith' (Galatians chapter 3 verses 6-9). Abraham believed what God had said. He believed that God himself would provide a sacrifice, so that he would not have to lose Isaac. The Bible tells us that Abraham was accepted by God because he believed God. Obedience: Abraham did what God told him, even though it seemed strange and beyond understanding. He did not argue, and he did not delay. That was Abraham's response, and God is looking for the same response from us. God gave up his special Son, his only Son, for you and me, as a sacrifice, in the place where his anger was turned away, so that we would not have to face eternal death and separation from him. He looks for us to respond by believing in him. Skeptics get a lot of mileage from Abraham going through the motions of sacrificing Isaac especially since God requested it. The whole thing flies in the face of morality as we understand it. Not only did Abraham prepare to murder his son but God is complicit, ordering what can only be viewed as ritualized homicide. There's no telling what injustice they might rationalize should they succeed in erasing the Bible's influence from humanity, if such a thing can be done. They, of course, are capable of logical thought but their rational abilities are not well exercised when it comes to events in the Bible. Because they don't believe in God and aren't dispassionate there is no reason to expect them to investigate biblical matters with a serious mind. That is an important observation. These events didn't happen yesterday and the further removed these events are from the present the less likely atheists are to consider relevant cultural details. Social trends in Abraham's day, for example, were very different to ours. In his day: Sacrificing children was neither against the law nor uncommon especially in the land of Canaan. It got worse. Archeological digs in Canaan have shown that children were sacrificed in greater numbers just before Israel took control of the land. And there were no local or international agencies to enforce child protection laws if they had existed. None of that means Abraham thought human sacrifice was acceptable. It wouldn't have been a test if he did. There is no reason to think he would have considered such a thing if God hadn't suggested it. My opponent is a Christian would he say that sacrificing Jesus was immoral as well? More could be added to this but suffice it to say that complaining about Abraham in the face of present day neglect, particularly when no one died, seems out of focus. ==Close== I wait my opponents final round. Resources: . http://www.facingthechallenge.org... ï¿½ 2012 Focus, 54 The Avenue, Southampton SO17 1XQ, United Kingdom Registered Charity no. 298007 . http://nowthinkaboutit.com... . http://web.nmsu.edu... . http://www.donparrish.com... . http://world.std.com...