Nathan S.

Next #ThanksgivingGiveaway: It only gets better!

Like *and* repost by Friday, Nov 29, at 10 a.m. Eastern for a chance to win this Plough hoodie! ⬇⬇

Several of my acquaintances have started podcasts as an attempt to fill this gap in their intellectual-social life, but there is still an aching need for sober, protracted, written exchanges.

It seems that the rare productive conversations on X are between those who started thinking/writing on blogs. Gen-Zers like myself are outsiders to those conversations (our own vices, as social media natives, playing no small part in our exclusion).

How should those of us in the post-blogosphere generation find online conversation partners? I joined X some time ago in hopes of finding stimulating discussions of political theology, but instead found a cesspool of reactivity and antagonism.

Where are the good conversations happening now?

This is true for me. A much quieter experience as a result!

Not clear to me whether Grotius' claim is epistemological or metaphysical. Is he saying that natural law would bind even if there truly was no God? Or that it would bind even if we didn’t recognize God as the source?

This strikes me as a uniquely modern concession—that theoretically the natural law might be atheistic. Reminiscent of Grotius' famous claim, that natural law/right would still bind "even were we to accept the infamous premise that God did not exist or did not concern himself with human affairs."

Turretin, discussing why the positive command not to eat of the tree was necessary, says such a command showed that man was bound to obey God more clearly than the natural law. He says that, theoretically, "someone might thing the natural law to be a property of nature, and not a law."