What exactly does that say? There is
(1) Eternal Law
(2) Natural Law
(3) Divine Law
Since there is one God, the creator of all things, who is both timeless and omniscient
(1) exactly what is the distinction/difference between “eternal law” and “divine law” and for that matter “natural law” whatever one conceives that to be since each is the product of the One Divine Mind?
(2) And being that Divine Law it is evident in natural law [I hate even writing the term] what is the need for codification?
The Decalogue, he suggests, is a timeless representation of natural law.
(1) Codification abrogates any idea of timelessness since codification is temporal having come about at some point in time. He makes it sound nifty but he’s just being stupid. See the next point.
(2) Since he suggests, by implication if not explicitly, that the codified Decalogue functions differently in different times and places one wonders what change codification made in the “ostensible” natural law which is the evident reflection of “The Eternal Law”?
(3) If one were to codify the natural law, which is the reflective evidence of the eternal law, for today’s times, how would it differ from the Decalogue, whose moral content was timeless therefore prior to its codification, as written by the Divine hand on Sinai?
(4) ** How are the moral contents of the Decalogue, which according to him are timeless, to be applied differently in different times and places? What did “you shall not murder, commit adultery, take the Lord’s name in vain” mean then and what does it mean now?
(5) And, just to help me out, how does one get the Decalogue out of natural law which is the evidence of eternal law which the Decalogue is also eternal since its moral content is timeless
(6) Has he been reading Ricouer?
He’s a logical dolt and a moron.
** = And if the meaning changed between then and now how do we know that the meaning changed and how do we know what the new meaning is vis-a-vis the old meaning? (BLMc)