St. Alphonsus de Liguori in his tract *Uniformity With G-d's Will* writes that the greatest thing in the universe is doing G-d's will. But that presupposes divine command theory: the notion that G-d first wills something, and then it becomes good because He willed it. So G-d, in an alternative universe, could have willed "thou shalt commit adultery" and it would have been good, but He didn't, so adultery just happens to be bad in this universe and you're uniting yourself to G-d's will by opposing adultery (but it could have just as easily been otherwise). How do non-believers in divine command theories of morality find happiness in doing G-d's will?

***This view is called *“Sensus Divinitatis”* and is described as the natural capacity for humans to perceive God.*** I understand from this Wikipedia article on ***Sensus divinitatis*** that although the concept is primarily associated with the writings of John Calvin it is also found in the work of other Christians: >Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner proposed an innate sense of God, which has been noted to share elements in common with Calvin's *Sensus Divinitatis*. >Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century American Calvinist preacher and theologian, claimed that while every human being has been granted the capacity to know God, successful use of these capacities requires an attitude of "true benevolence". ***Please be aware this question is not about philosophy.*** The Wikipedia article presented what seemed to me to be a secular view but I have no interest in delving into a philosophical discussion. I am interested in finding out what a Christian perspective is, and what Calvin, Rahner and Edwards might have in common with regard to this subject. However, for my benefit, it needs to be kept simple! I only stumbled upon this subject yesterday and what I read in that Wikipedia article made my head spin. The Apostle Paul seems to suggest that humans have an inherent capacity to perceive God: >The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ***since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities*** – his eternal power and divine nature – ***have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.*** (Romans 1:18-20) ***What other Bible verses expound on this idea?***

After reading works by Origen Adamantius regarding scepticism surrounding the divine inspiration of 1 Corinthians 7:17 & 2 Timothy 3:16 written by the apostle Paul, disciples might wonder if early church councils established textual validation for "divine inspiration" in authors that create church doctrines. In the "Commentary on John" [Book 1] by Origen Adamantius, we read in section #5:

Consider on this point the language of St. Paul. When he declares that "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable," does he include his own writings? Or does he not include his dictum, "I say, and not the Lord," and "So I ordain in all the churches," and "What things I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra," and similar things which he writes in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess **the character of words flowing from divine inspiration**. "

Early Christian Writings - Origen Origen seems to speculate the "divine inspiration" of Shaul / Paul the Apostle in the self-imposed remarks found in 1 Corinthians 7:17. 1 Corinthians 7:17 [KJV] "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. **And so ordain I in all churches**." In **2 Timothy 3:16** [KJV], we read :

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

**In response to Origen Adamantius, what were "characteristics of divine inspiration" for authors of church doctrines?**

Something many theists point to is without God, morality is subjective. For example, an atheist can't justify that murder is intrinsically wrong. If God does exist however, then morality *is* objective and murder *is* intrinsically wrong. On the surface this makes sense, but why is this actually the case. A government or authority figure can't justify intrinsic moral values, but if God exists then *he* can? Even if God does exist, there is still opinion on whether we should listen to him or not (e.g. Lucifer's position).

In Catholic understanding, there is a [divine law](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm) and a [natural law](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm) . Based on my reading, it seems like Divine Law = Revelation (as a Protestant would call it) and Natural Law = what you could deduce about right and wrong simply by using Reason to extrapolate the consequences of the act. Thus, the 10 Commandments are first natural law (because you can figure out pretty easily that killing is bad), but then are also articulated by God. Does it then become Divine Law? Is it "also Divine Law" or "no longer Natural Law, just Divine?" Are these categories supposed to exclusive? Is divine law higher than natural law? Ultimately, what is the difference?

> **Possible Duplicate:** > [Should biblical laws apply to non-Christians?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1148/should-biblical-laws-apply-to-non-christians) In the Bible (old and new testaments) there are various laws, some controversial but clearly written otherwise. Are these laws supposed to be part of a Christian Government? Who will implement them if anyone will? Some examples are > 1. The eating of fat is prohibited forever ~Leviticus 3:17 > > 2. Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed ~Leviticus > 20:9 > > 3. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and > rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father > fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated > her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives ~Deuteronomy > 22:28-29

This obviously includes the 10 commandments and the instructions He gave to Israel, but also includes the things he lead his Holy Spirit to direct the prophets and apostles to say and what he directed Jesus to say and do (since Jesus only ever spoke as God the Father directed Him).

My understanding is that murder is a sin because I don't have rights on another person's life in the same way that another person doesn't have rights over my life. Likewise stealing would be a sin because I don't have rights over another person's property nor would I like anybody else to take what is mine. On the other hand smiling would not be a sin because I don't encroach on another person's right when smiling and they may actually like being smiled upon. In the Old Testament David (considered a prophet) did not sin when he engaged with concubines and slave girls who were not legally wives. If adultery is defined as having sex with another man's wife, David has not broken the law. Or did he? However today if two (unmarried) consenting adults have sex, that's adultery by Biblical standards. From my understanding its encroaching on another person's right that seems to define sin. Here I don't see an encroachment of the rights of any person. If a married person is involved in extra marital sex he sins, because he has broken his marital vows. Why is the sexual act a sin when two people have fun by mutual consent and not encroaching on each others freedom?

An answer in another question makes reference to different categories of laws; specifically it references eternal law, divine law, natural law and human law. This got me thinking... does the bible describe different types of laws, either directly or indirectly? If so, what are they? If applicable, by what authority is each category enacted? How do each of the categories relate to each other?

Whenever I try to determine what is a sin and what isn't I get very confused... I read things by Paul and sins seem to become very subjective... \_\_\_\_\_ is a sin if you make it a sin through belief that it isn't acceptable due to your obeying of the law (the old law, before Jesus came) then I read the old testament which makes it much more objective... \_\_\_\_\_ is a sin because it is immoral (Referring to God's morals) If the first is true than couldn't anything be justified as not-sin simply by a choice in a state of mind and what you believe your morals are (if that's the case why would you need Jesus for salvation, you are already free of "sin"... so that *obviously* isn't the case) If the second is true than how do we ever know what is sin and what isn't? (The spirit that is given to us.) Okay, but what about before the spirit came (personally and historically), how could anyone interpret wether or not they are sinning? I know the law was given but surely the law couldn't cover everything? Is it all just a matter of the heart? I read about "sexual immorality" but what is that even referring to, immoral things in your conscience and the culture you live in or immoral as a definition of a standard of God that was never given to man... I see people who look at everything sexual as a biological process so of course they never feel guilt or remorse and it would seem almost unjust to classify their actions as sin. I see others who see it as something where \_\_\_\_ is culturally acceptable but \_\_\_\_ is not and is therefor sin. How does one define sin? _I know it seems like a broad question but I can't simplify it any further than what I've typed above._

I was tempted to answer [this question about freewill and Adam and Eve](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1378/if-adam-and-eve-were-perfect-why-did-they-choose-to-sin) but I chose not to because all I've got it conjecture and I'm not even sure if it's not borderline heresy on the matter. What I'd like to know is if what I would have answered lines up with Catholic thought. I would have said: > Adam and Eve could sin because they chose to follow their intellect and made a rational decision that being like God was in fact a good idea. They could give in to temptation, without following their passions (as they had complete self-mastery in this regard) for the same reason that Lucifer could want to be like God. Then I might have gone on with: > In this way God shows us the difference between following divine law (i.e. not eating an apple because God commanded it) and not following natural law (i.e. not intentionally eating (or giving someone) a poisoned apple because it will cause death) and divine law is a kind of law that can be violated without giving into your passions. That is to say, an act of pure intellect can violate divine law, but violating natural law requires giving in to the passions (intentionally diverting your will from your intellect). If someone could run that through their Catholic fluff and heresy parser and give me a readout I'd sure appreciate it before I go and tell it to my Religious Ed. kids, should the matter arise.