HomeCalendarFAQSearchRegisterLog in
Buddha Chat

Share | 
 

 The Euthyphro Dilemma

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 24, 2009 6:47 am

What do we think about this well known problem in divine command theory? Believers want to do God's or Allah's will, but what is the source of morality - is it the divine, or is it outside of the divine?

I'm sorry for not putting that more eloquently - it will be easier if i give you a link to a web page that explains the Euthyphro dilemma in more detail:

The Euthyphro Dilemma
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 24, 2009 6:12 pm

Cudworth clarifies his views on eternity and immutability. if God has comanded these laws from eternity , and always will command them, morality is apparently eternal and no more subject to change than any laws of nature that god decides not to change but this sort of eternality and Immutability doesn't satisfy cudworth , theological voluntarism ensures only that morality is unchanging not that it's immutable , if it's to be immutable it must be immune to changes in some counterfactual circumstances as well as in the actual world.

Cudworth quotes Euthyphro "Now I say the very proper character and essential tincture of god himself is nothing else but goodness Nay I may be bold to add that God is therefore God coz he's the highest and most perfect good and, good is not therefore good coz God out of an arbitrary will of his would have it so. as Plato well discourseth in his Euthyphro are not "therefore good because God loveth them" but rather "God loveth them because they are in themselves simply good"

Reference " DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICS, THE: FROM SUAREZ TO ROUSSEAU -"
.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon May 25, 2009 1:53 am

The Philosopher wrote:
Cudworth clarifies his views on eternity and immutability. if God has comanded these laws from eternity , and always will command them, morality is apparently eternal and no more subject to change than any laws of nature that god decides not to change but this sort of eternality and Immutability doesn't satisfy cudworth , theological voluntarism ensures only that morality is unchanging not that it's immutable , if it's to be immutable it must be immune to changes in some counterfactual circumstances as well as in the actual world.

As far as i understand, The Euthyphro dilemma is not about whether morality is eternal or immutable – it is about the source of morality, or holiness, as described in The Euthyphro.

You left out a bit at the end of that passage (http://tinyurl.com/o9nsvh) It continues:

“The positivist and theological moralist must agree that if the legislator changed his mind, right and wrong would change too”

Does this mean that the legislator is morality, and because the legislator is infinite and immanent so must be morality? So if the legislator arbitrarily changes his mind, what is right and wrong on Earth would change?

Is that what the quote means and is that what you think?

The Philosopher wrote:
Cudworth quotes Euthyphro "Now I say the very proper character and essential tincture of god himself is nothing else but goodness Nay I may be bold to add that God is therefore God coz he's the highest and most perfect good and, good is not therefore good coz God out of an arbitrary will of his would have it so. as Plato well discourseth in his Euthyphro are not "therefore good because God loveth them" but rather "God loveth them because they are in themselves simply good"

Reference " DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICS, THE: FROM SUAREZ TO ROUSSEAU -"
.

That’s a fairly persuasive argument – that God is the perfect goodness and that he loves what is good; he is the prime mover and the essence of morality. However, there still remains the question: if morality is mutable - as it seems to be on Earth – and God identifies what is good because he is the perfect goodness; isn’t he commenting on certain moral states that are nothing to do with him? Also, there are many interpretations of morality on Earth: the stoning of homosexuals is morally just in Islam; the banning of condoms in African countries by the Catholic Church causes untold numbers of deaths, and yet, this is morally justified for Catholics. Is Allah or God commanding these examples of morality? Is it that Allah or God is the morality, and whatever they or it decides is right, is right? This doesn’t make sense because the examples of religious legislation i just gave are morally wrong.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest
avatar


PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Tue May 26, 2009 4:18 am

i think there is a source in all of us at our deepest level that provides us with morality. we shouldnt look to external things like religion for the answers but look inside of us. because if we look deep enough we can connect to that source which can provide us with the answers
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Wed May 27, 2009 6:29 am

.
Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, George Edward Moore, and John Rawls have demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God.

Whatever God wills is, by definition, good, for it is the will of God that determines what is good. The good is good precisely because it is God who is willing it. One can find this view apparently expressed in many statements by John Calvin: "God's will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills must be considered righteous, for this very reason, because he wills it" (Institutes III. 32. 2.). Similarly, Martin Luther writes: "What God wills is not right because he ought, or was bound, so to will; on the contrary, what takes place must be right, because he so wills it" (Bondage of the Will). As God established the physical laws by free divine fiat, so moral principles derive from his will. From this, of course follows divine command morality and the position that God's own goodness is His doing whatever He wills. Hence, God is in a very significant sense above morality. Human goodness may be a matter of an individual's doing what is good (where the good is something external to and independent of the person), but divine goodness is a matter of an individual doing whatever He wills to do.

The main reason which many theists have had for rejecting the duty model is that it seems to conflict with the notion of God as the sovereign Creator of the universe and the source of moral law. God simply cannot be subject to moral obligations. But perhaps God can be morally good in some sense other than that stipulated in the benevolence model. What is proposed here is the distinction between an agent's acting in accordance with moral principles and an agent's following moral principles. The same moral principles which are deontically prescriptive for one agent S1 stands in some other relation to another agent S2, especially if the latter agent has a significantly different ontological status. As T.V. Morris explains it, human agents exist in a state of being bound by moral duty. Consequently, we act under obligation. But God is of a quite different ontological status; He is not bound as are we. Therefore, he does not share our relation to moral principles; he does not have obligations.

Nevertheless, we can say that God (necessarily) acts in accordance with principles which for a human agent would constitute moral duties. Such principles might be seen as descriptive of divine conduct. The position would surely allow us to have solid expectations as to the divine conduct (something lost on the voluntarist model). Under this modified duty model we can think of divine behaviour as analogous to the behaviour of a completely good human moral agent. If God says that he will do X, he will do X. If he communicates some proposition, we can be assured that the proposition is true.
.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sat May 30, 2009 5:20 am

Thanks for your replies.

Miro, I like to be clear about just what people mean, so excuse me if what follows is a bit tedious, but I hope you can help me and tell me more about where you stand. I’m interested in what’s meant by ‘will’, as in the will of God. Is it a desire, or a choice of action, or a deliberate action? Does it imply that there’s decision making involved? Or perhaps it isn’t like that and God has no choice in decreeing what is right because he is the perfect goodness. In this case, where is the other side of morality – the bad and the wrong? Some Christians – many even – would say that the bad and the wrong is the work of the devil, is that what you think? In your mind, would the devil also be intelligent, eternal and immanent, or is the devil just a metaphor for all that is imperfect?

But getting back to the Euthyphro ; it sounds as though you think that God is morality, and whatever he decrees is right, because he is the perfect goodness – am I right? And you don’t think that morality is something outside God, that he must make a judgement about as to what is right and wrong – am I correct again?

That’s all I have to say for now, but I hope you can answer my points – answering yes or no might be all that’s needed.
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sat May 30, 2009 6:46 am

I like to be clear about just what people mean, so excuse me if what follows is a bit tedious, but I hope you can help me and tell me more about where you stand. I’m interested in what’s meant by ‘will’, as in the will of God. Is it a desire, or a choice of action, or a deliberate action? Does it imply that there’s decision making involved? Or perhaps it isn’t like that and God has no choice in decreeing what is right because he is the perfect goodness.

God's will is his desire , his choice but because he's the perfect goodness so all he does is good and Perfect. God's goodness consists in His acting perfectly in accordance with moral principles (objective, necessary, and absolute moral truths), these principles are dependent on God Himself, being willed by Him out of the necessity of His nature.

In this case, where is the other side of morality – the bad and the wrong? Some Christians – many even – would say that the bad and the wrong is the work of the devil, is that what you think? In your mind, would the devil also be intelligent, eternal and immanent, or is the devil just a metaphor for all that is imperfect?

I think to answer these questions , we should first know the structure of devil and if it's metaphor or real and where does he come from? is he eternal or not? is he the source of bad and wrong ?....I think this should have a seperate individual Topic I plan to post it soon.

But getting back to the Euthyphro ; it sounds as though you think that God is morality, and whatever he decrees is right, because he is the perfect goodness – am I right? And you don’t think that morality is something outside God, that he must make a judgement about as to what is right and wrong – am I correct again?

Yes, God is the First Cause, the sovereign Creator and sustainer of all things distinct from Himself, the source of all moral law, and that He can in no way be dependent on anything.

.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 31, 2009 1:30 am

The Philosopher wrote:

God's will is his desire , his choice but because he's the perfect goodness so all he does is good and Perfect. God's goodness consists in His acting perfectly in accordance with moral principles (objective, necessary, and absolute moral truths), these principles are dependent on God Himself, being willed by Him out of the necessity of His nature.

Yes, God is the First Cause, the sovereign Creator and sustainer of all things distinct from Himself, the source of all moral law, and that He can in no way be dependent on anything.

Ok, good. Can you tell me though, do you believe that God decrees what is right, to us, here on earth – do you think he is communicating his decrees to us? If so, how do you think he does that? Again, if this is so, presumably whatever he decrees is right because he’s incapable of decreeing wrong?
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 31, 2009 2:07 am


Can you tell me though, do you believe that God decrees what is right, to us, here on earth – do you think he is communicating his decrees to us? If so, how do you think he does that? Again, if this is so, presumably whatever he decrees is right because he’s incapable of decreeing wrong?


Yes I believe that , but Some people takes it as God is a Dectatorian Ruler .God, on this view, is also subject to obligations and duties, and his goodness is a consequence of his perfect duty fulfilment. But many in the classical theistic tradition would take issue with the notion that God could be subject to any obligations. It seems to run counter to the notion of God as the supreme Creator and governor of the universe, as well as the source of moral law. Brian Davies writes: "The impression given by the Old Testament is that duties and obligations come from God, not that they are binding on him. As the Old Testament presents it, God provides creation, puts people into it, and gives them rules for the direction of their actions. There is no suggestion that God himself is bound by rules for action" (p. 213, Thinking About God).

An exalted creation-theology may easily lead one to see God as above morality precisely in this sense. Obligations and duties can be thought of as context relative, but God is First Cause, and as such God has no background or context. If anything He provides the contexts within which human individuals in fact have duties. Also, if one takes a hard doctrine of immutability (God is pure act--there is nothing which God could be that He isn't), God could have no obligations since these imply change of some sort. Moreover, significant moral freedom seems required in cases of obligation.

The argument would go something like: An action A is morally good only if S ought to have done A, but it makes sense to apply "ought to do A" to some person only if S has a choice between doing or failing to do A. If an agent could not have possibly failed to do A, it seems incorrect to say of him that he had an obligation to do A. But God, many theists hold, is necessarily good, so He cannot possibly do what is morally bad. If God lacks the ability to act contrary to moral principles, it is doubtful that He can be said to have an obligation to perform them.
.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 31, 2009 3:15 am

The Philosopher wrote:


Yes I believe that , but Some people takes it as God is a Dectatorian Ruler .God, on this view, is also subject to obligations and duties, and his goodness is a consequence of his perfect duty fulfilment. But many in the classical theistic tradition would take issue with the notion that God could be subject to any obligations. It seems to run counter to the notion of God as the supreme Creator and governor of the universe, as well as the source of moral law.

Yes, on this view i infer that God is capable of doing wrong – why else would there be need for obligation? This view also infers that God decides what is right, after observing morality that surrounds him – this, of course, is the alternative that you don’t subscribe to Miro; that morality exists independently from God.

The quote you provide also states that “God provides creation, puts people into it, and gives them rules for the direction of their actions”. Can you tell me how you think God gives them rules; how is this done, do you think? The obvious answer is the Bible, but i can’t be sure that is what you think until i hear it from you. Sorry to be tedious again.
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 31, 2009 4:33 am

Yes, on this view i infer that God is capable of doing wrong – why else would there be need for obligation? This view also infers that God decides what is right, after observing morality that surrounds him – this, of course, is the alternative that you don’t subscribe to Miro; that morality exists independently from God.


No Chrysippus , Although God has a will and freedom and ability to act contrary to moral principles that doesn't mean that he does wrong and having free will to choose doesn't mean that morality is external thing related to God. It's a part of him, derived from Him.God's goodness consists (in part) in His acting perfectly in accordance with moral principles (objective, necessary, and absolute moral truths), these principles are dependent on God Himself, being willed by Him out of the necessity of His nature.

The quote you provide also states that “God provides creation, puts people into it, and gives them rules for the direction of their actions”. Can you tell me how you think God gives them rules; how is this done, do you think?

Well that differs from one person to another...Some people took these rules from Buddha...Others from Jesus......Others from Moses.....and many many other prophets.......it depends whom of these the person want to take them from.....You will observe all of of them talk about morality.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 31, 2009 7:37 am

Great, i think we are reaching an end point now Miro.

Ok, so if God is the perfect goodness and his morality is the universal truth, then none of us should be able to argue with his decrees, because they are perfect. Ok so far?

But, if this is the case, why are so many of God’s, Allah’s or Yahweh’s moral degrees so conspicuously wrong? You have said that God is the perfect goodness and incapable of decreeing any moral law that goes against his goodness. In the Bible it states that "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." (Deuteronomy 22: 22). and also in Leviticus, we find the following verse:"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbour-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Leviticus 20: 10).

These are examples of murder that have been sanctioned by God. I thought God was the perfect goodness? Surely there is more righteous way to settle the issues than to murder offenders. There is, actually; it’s called the judicial system, which has ignored archaic morality such as this and come to its own conclusions about how to deal with things.

Similarly in the Qur’an, if a married man and woman commit adultery, it is written that they should be stoned to death.” Stoning to death is the idea of a god who is the perfect goodness? You surely don’t believe such law is morally right – i certainly don’t.

I, therefore, am able to disagree with the moral law of gods, and not only that, i am more righteous than they. How can i be more right than the divine?
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 31, 2009 8:23 am

In the Bible it states that "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." (Deuteronomy 22: 22). and also in Leviticus, we find the following verse:"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbour-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Leviticus 20: 10)
These are examples of murder that have been sanctioned by God. I thought God was the perfect goodness? Surely there is more righteous way to settle the issues than to murder offenders. There is, actually; it’s called the judicial system, which has ignored archaic morality such as this and come to its own conclusions about how to deal with things.


Well I will explain now relying on a christian view,

In old Testment God made the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

In new Testment , the Scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus But Jesus said: "Very well. Stone her. But let the man who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." In this sentence it is interesting to note that the original Greek "anamartétos" doesn't just mean "without sin", but also "without a desire to sin". So, what Jesus said was the following: "Yes. You can stone her, but only if you yourselves have never wanted to do the same thing." This produced a silence and before long the accusers slowly began to leave.

Jesus who is God didn't Break God's Law but he completed it.......Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17." New Testment gives more understanding to the laws God gave us.

Authority was something which Scribes and Pharisees used to condemn. It never occurred to them that authority could and should be based on understanding, that the objective of authority is to rehabilitate the criminal and sinner. They visualized its usage as something that gave them the right to raise themselves above others as fearsome guardians, the right to attend to every error or departure from the law with a savage and unmerciful punishment. They figured that its exercise gave them the right to exterminate the sinner. It never went through their heads that, who knows, maybe their authority imposed on them the obligation to cure the sinner.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 31, 2009 10:51 pm

Quote :
Authority was something which Scribes and Pharisees used to condemn. It never occurred to them that authority could and should be based on understanding, that the objective of authority is to rehabilitate the criminal and sinner. They visualized its usage as something that gave them the right to raise themselves above others as fearsome guardians, the right to attend to every error or departure from the law with a savage and unmerciful punishment. They figured that its exercise gave them the right to exterminate the sinner. It never went through their heads that, who knows, maybe their authority imposed on them the obligation to cure the sinner.

So you think the Old Testament is an unreliable source for the word of God? This is exactly the kind of problem all Christians face – how are they to know what the will of God is? The New Testament is equally open to interpretation – some say Jesus meant this others say he meant that. It’s absolutely pathetic that the supposed highest power in the universe cannot even write a book properly!

Ok, you say that Jesus didn’t “break God's Law but he completed it” – he gave a fuller understanding of God’s word. The example you give of this is the well known passage “let the man who is without sin be the first to throw a stone”. You quote from Mattew 5:17...let’s see what that passage says in full:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven”

The King James version is similar to that.

Jesus says he has not come to abolish the laws of the Prophets....he says anyone who breaks any of the commandments will be unfavoured, or such like, in heaven. He says. “not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”. Jesus does more than complete the moral law, he condones it!

Luke 16:17: In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus.

Jesus talks about sending people to hell a lot. For example, in Thessalonians:

1:7-9 Jesus and his “mighty angels” will come in flaming fire “to take vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

1:9 Those unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

Again i say i am more righteous than Jesus or God because i would NEVER send anyone to hell, if ever such a mythical place existed.

Do you seriously think this kind of doctrine - from the New Testament - is the work of a perfectly good god?
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Sun May 31, 2009 11:52 pm

So you think the Old Testament is an unreliable source for the word of God? This is exactly the kind of problem all Christians face – how are they to know what the will of God is? The New Testament is equally open to interpretation – some say Jesus meant this others say he meant that. It’s absolutely pathetic that the supposed highest power in the universe cannot even write a book properly!

OK Chrys...I won't say that the Old Testament is an unreliable source for the word of God?...It'snot Logic to say That otherwise the bible could be only "New Testment " without the need of the "Old Testment"..... right?...I just want to say that Both Old Testment and New Testment are completing each other....Besides having different interpretations doesn't mean that source of words are leading to conflict or confusion...NO ...each one of us has a certain message and special one from Bible ..That doesn't mean they have contradictions ...even in our Daily life one can say a word which has different interpretations...It happens... ..It's not mandatory that he meant to cause confusion.... u see?.


Again i say i am more righteous than Jesus or God because i would NEVER send anyone to hell, if ever such a mythical place existed.

Well before commenting on your passage , We should understand what is meant by "Hell".....right?. Many people think that it's fire and snakes ....extra.....On this point of view..People argue...well it may be symbolic from Bible.....But for me I think Hell means "SEPERATION FROM GOD" .....Believe me this word isnot easy as you think...it's not easy for those who feel it...It can even be more than the fire itself !! Again I will repeat we have choices...ways...freedom....

Some people say How can God give us freedom while he will punish us if we don't obey ??? ....I will give you example a Father ordering his baby son not to play with matches....But the kid decides to play wiz it coz he felt he should have freedom and he wants to be like his DAD......who will lose if that kid played wiz it? ...the father ?? NO....But the kid Himself .he may be burnt or whatever ......Then kid may be seperated from his Dad.....This is a separation...God doesn't want us to be seperated from him.....but we choose that coz we think we NOT HAVE FREEDOM !

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:54 am

"Separation from god" as you put it would still an immoral act and not fitting of an all-good god.
Quote :

OK Chrys...I won't say that the Old Testament is an unreliable source for the word of God?...It'snot Logic to say That otherwise the bible could be only "New Testment " without the need of the "Old Testment"..... right?...I just want to say that Both Old Testment and New Testment are completing each other....Besides having different interpretations doesn't mean that source of words are leading to conflict or confusion...NO ...each one of us has a certain message and special one from Bible ..That doesn't mean they have contradictions ...even in our Daily life one can say a word which has different interpretations...It happens... ..It's not mandatory that he meant to cause confusion.... u see?.

You're the one who said that the Old Testament is unreliable, not me. You talked about the Scibes and the Pharisees, and their amenedments to the Bible or Torah.

What you're saying now is that you will choose the bits you like from the Bible and ignore the bits you don't like, or call them a misinterpretation or something. All Christians pick and choose the bits that they like and don't like - we end up with a religion that has no truth and is meaningless. You say one bit of the Bible is truth another Christian says no it isn't but this is. It's completely illogical - how can you know what the will of god is if Christians believe different things??
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:00 am

You're the one who said that the Old Testament is unreliable, not me. You talked about the Scibes and the Pharisees, and their amenedments to the Bible or Torah.

well I didn't say that Chrys...and talking about Scibes and the Pharisees doesn't mean that It's unreliable but applying it as Pharisees did using their authority That is not a right thing.

What you're saying now is that you will choose the bits you like from the Bible and ignore the bits you don't like, or call them a misinterpretation or something. All Christians pick and choose the bits that they like and don't like - we end up with a religion that has no truth and is meaningless.

I didn't say that coz as you said before
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
If God Himself said that then how can I support one and delete the other?..God words is obvious like the Sun...we are looking for small minority things which may have different interpretations and we are not looking to the majority things which we should have a deep look at !

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:41 am

These "small minority" of things are supposed to be the word of god - how can you just dismiss them like that?

What about the book of revelation - is that something else you ignore? I could quote many things, but:

9:4-6: The angels are instructed not to “hurt the grass … but only those men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads.” God tells his angels not to kill them, but rather torment them as scorpions would for five months. Those tormented will beg and desire to die, but God won’t allow this, pending more torture.

So now God sanctions torture - clearly an immoral thing to do.

You will obviously say something about the unreliability of revelation again, come on, i'm ready for it Very Happy
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:09 am

(Rev 9:4-6) The Old Testament affirms that God grants nations a period of mercy and grace. When a nation becomes corrupt and degenerate, God sends warnings. When redemptive judgments and warnings have no further effect, God destroys that nation. By doing this, He cauterizes the degeneracy of sin for the benefit of future generations. Using this process, God achieves a higher level of morality for succeeding generations. This also explains why there has to be an end to this world and the creation of a new one!

In 9:4, these demons “were told not to hurt the grass of the earth,15 nor any green thing, nor any tree, but only the men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.” Locusts are greatly feared because they can strip a country of every green thing, leaving man and beast alike to die from starvation. These insects move in giant columns, stripping away everything that is green. The plague of locusts that God sent against Pharaoh of Egypt brought Pharaoh to his knees…temporarily. But in this case, there is a total prohibition against the destruction of any plant life, which is the natural food of locusts. Instead, these locusts are “given” power to harm those who didn’t have the seal of God on their foreheads—those who were not a part of the 144,000 (cf. Rev 7:2). It is reasonable to assume that all those who have become believers during the tribulation will also be protected.

So there are limitations placed upon these locusts. They are limited as to what men they can afflict (9:4) and how they can afflict those men. Verse 5 states that these demons “were not permitted to kill anyone, but to torment for five months; and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings a man.” Again, we see God’s sovereignty, here prohibiting death and limiting the torment to five months. It is a sobering thought to realize that many of the demons of hell are not free to hurt us in this present age. Satan is managing to do a good job of destruction today, without his entire army to back him up.16

In 9:6, John records an awful sentence: “And in those days17 men will seek death and will not find it;18 they will long to die, and death flees from them.” Because of the influence of these scorpion-like locust demons, the earth’s inhabitants will have reached their emotional, physical, and spiritual limit. Men and women alike will try to die, but will not be able to. Like Job, they will “long for death…. And dig for it more than for hidden treasures” (Job 3:21). But it will elude them. They will cripple and injure themselves but somehow will be unable to finish the job.

Think of the worst pain you’ve ever experienced. What an awful time period. Can you imagine wanting to die and not being able to? The Lord refuses to give these rebels any satisfaction. Is God a sadistic God? No, but He is a just God that gives men and women who reject Him what they want: Separation from Him.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:21 am

That's nonsense - God clearly condones torture. Torture is IMMORAL!! Therefore God cannot be all good as you think he is.

This strengthens the second alternative in the Euryphro dilemma - that God being morality, can only ever agree with himself, and love what he commands, thereby, making it possible for God to decree that torture is allowed. Whatever he loves in himself is the end of the matter. But this destroys the idea of God being all-good.
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:31 am

You expect God to be Someone who will tell people go do what u want .....Kill , steal , Rape......and He stay there watching the movie without being Fair ??? If there is Morality then there should be Jusitce !

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest
avatar


PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:38 am

how can you guys be so sure that the bible is the word of god, if your trying to find where morality comes from or whether god is all good maybe the bible is the wrong place to look for the answers
Back to top Go down
Chrysippus
Active Member
avatar

Male Number of posts : 15
Age : 42
Location : Yorkshire, England
Registration date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:01 am

Matt wrote:
how can you guys be so sure that the bible is the word of god, if your trying to find where morality comes from or whether god is all good maybe the bible is the wrong place to look for the answers

Can you explain Matt? Where else might one look for it?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest
avatar


PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:06 am

well i truely believe that all answers lie within and if u spend some time by yourself asking yourself this type of questions if your able to quiet your mind enough the answers will come to you but this isnt a satisfactory answer so i suggest reading other spiritual books other than the bible like the one i suggested to ppl "the eternal valdility of the soul" seth talks about God, the bible, and how peoples image of God changed over the years and that why the old testament is different than the new testament
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:13 pm

.
I will prepare soon an individual Topic about the History of the Bible and everything about it including evidences and if it's a distorted book or not Cheer

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Euthyphro Dilemma   

Back to top Go down
 
The Euthyphro Dilemma
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Dilemma about my dog Big Boy
» How To End Up With This Dilemma?
» Ethical dilemma

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Philosophical Perfection Forum :: General Forum :: Philosophical Debates-
Jump to: