Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

Off Topic
81

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ That’s not really correct about how the early church operated. Each church in Syria and Asia Minor was actually independent and managed their own finances then Paul tried to bring them all under his central control. There are letters he wrote about financing to one of the churches telling them that everyone has to work and earn their keep. Of course he was keen to ensure that men retained leadership positions too. The early church was not egalitarian it was complimentarian.[/quote]

Good point touche:) How about this? The portion of the church which lived the way I described did so under Peters authority,who was Jesus actual desciple and lived with him(and was married,which is cool). In effect the earliest church…[/quote]

Yes and Judas handled the group finances. But we’re talking about a group of holy men committed to that sort of life. It’s not a recipe for a political system for a nation state. Jesus was pretty careful to avoid politics(render unto Caesar) which is not surprising as political dissidents were nailed to a cross. He criticised the money lenders and the Pharisees but he didn’t say anything about Roman subjugation of the Jews.

82

." How do you go from Sodom and Gamorrah," how familiar are you with this story? Regardless of the homosexual element,you are aware that the entire town tried to rape the angels? Just thought that was worth a mention…

83

I appreciate the discussin SexMachine. Thank you. The point I was making is that Jesus didn’t show the disciples how to live after his death. On first glance,its not hard to explain…“Well you know Jesus died,so his disciples went back to doing the jobs they did before they lived with him”. But if we really think about that,these men were in the presence of God! and that’s what they did when he died(in the flesh). Its mind boggling to me and doesn’t make sense. That was Christs legacy? We go a fishing?

84

"I’m concerned with where your beliefs come from because you are the sort of person who would impose certain aspects of your beliefs on the rest of the world. Whether it be limiting homosexuals, to eradicating cannabis. There are a lot of things you would impose on the rest of us because of your beliefs that aren’t based on reason. "

I know you believe this,but iis still a cheap shot. You may just be wrong too. A counterpoint to your arguments about Catholics is John F Kennedy. He did none of the things your predicting about SexMachine,and he’s the only good example of a recent Christian leader you can go by IMO

85

The rebellion of Sodom and Gomorrah against Elamite rule was probably a real historical event. The course of the Jordan has changed over time so the precise location of these cities is uncertain. They have found a charred layer of soil in the region dating from that time that may have been a result of a natural disaster or the burning of cities after a siege. But yes, the message is that homosexuality is immoral and that civilisations in decline are rife with sexual deviancy and hedonism.

86

[quote]confusion wrote:
I appreciate the discussin SexMachine. Thank you. The point I was making is that Jesus didn’t show the disciples how to live after his death. On first glance,its not hard to explain…“Well you know Jesus died,so his disciples went back to doing the jobs they did before they lived with him”. But if we really think about that,these men were in the presence of God! and that’s what they did when he died(in the flesh). Its mind boggling to me and doesn’t make sense. That was Christs legacy? We go a fishing? [/quote]

Likewise. Only, I’m not sure where you get that disciples went fishing after Jesus’s death thing. They went off as missionaries, wrote histories of the early church and led early churches and were exiled and executed by the Romans etc.

87

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
I appreciate the discussin SexMachine. Thank you. The point I was making is that Jesus didn’t show the disciples how to live after his death. On first glance,its not hard to explain…“Well you know Jesus died,so his disciples went back to doing the jobs they did before they lived with him”. But if we really think about that,these men were in the presence of God! and that’s what they did when he died(in the flesh). Its mind boggling to me and doesn’t make sense. That was Christs legacy? We go a fishing? [/quote]

Likewise. Only, I’m not sure where you get that disciples went fishing after Jesus’s death thing. They went off as missionaries, wrote histories of the early church and led early churches and were exiled and executed by the Romans etc.

[/quote]

John chapter 21

88

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
I appreciate the discussin SexMachine. Thank you. The point I was making is that Jesus didn’t show the disciples how to live after his death. On first glance,its not hard to explain…“Well you know Jesus died,so his disciples went back to doing the jobs they did before they lived with him”. But if we really think about that,these men were in the presence of God! and that’s what they did when he died(in the flesh). Its mind boggling to me and doesn’t make sense. That was Christs legacy? We go a fishing? [/quote]

Likewise. Only, I’m not sure where you get that disciples went fishing after Jesus’s death thing. They went off as missionaries, wrote histories of the early church and led early churches and were exiled and executed by the Romans etc.

[/quote]

John chapter 21
[/quote]

Oh okay. That’s just what they happened to be doing at that time shortly after Jesus’s crucifixion. They went on to do as described above.

89

Ok. I thought that because Peter was asked the question 3 times.it implied he wasn’t feeding the lambs. Anyhoo,hit me up if.you wanna go a few rounds again.) Keep fighting the good fight. Confusion

90

[quote]confusion wrote:
"I’m concerned with where your beliefs come from because you are the sort of person who would impose certain aspects of your beliefs on the rest of the world. Whether it be limiting homosexuals, to eradicating cannabis. There are a lot of things you would impose on the rest of us because of your beliefs that aren’t based on reason. "

I know you believe this,but iis still a cheap shot. You may just be wrong too. A counterpoint to your arguments about Catholics is John F Kennedy. He did none of the things your predicting about SexMachine,and he’s the only good example of a recent Christian leader you can go by IMO[/quote]

That’s just a red herring militant theophobes like to throw at Christians. Apparently, wanting to keep marriage as it is; status quo, constitutes a desire to exterminate gay people.

91

His perspectives are his personal religion and are the equivalent to religion in my mind. What.would he do to people like you if he had the power? Silence you? Worse?

92

[quote]red04 wrote:
I don’t quite get how the first ‘issue’ brought up to create the dilemma is an issue given the question posed. Is the video explaining the dilemma incorrectly?

A) Where does morality come from
->God
---->But is it good because God commands it or because it’s good
-------->Because God commands it

That may mean that ‘something can be good just because he commanded it’ as mentioned in the video,but… isn’t that kind of the point if it’s the answer to ‘what created morality?’ Any other possible answer will be subject to infinite regress(mentioned by the guy in the suit, who apparently teaches a Philosophy and Religion class while being openly disdainful and dismissive of religion).

I’m sure I’m wrong, awaiting replies that inform me.[/quote]

You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?

93

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:
I don’t quite get how the first ‘issue’ brought up to create the dilemma is an issue given the question posed. Is the video explaining the dilemma incorrectly?

A) Where does morality come from
->God
---->But is it good because God commands it or because it’s good
-------->Because God commands it

That may mean that ‘something can be good just because he commanded it’ as mentioned in the video,but… isn’t that kind of the point if it’s the answer to ‘what created morality?’ Any other possible answer will be subject to infinite regress(mentioned by the guy in the suit, who apparently teaches a Philosophy and Religion class while being openly disdainful and dismissive of religion).

I’m sure I’m wrong, awaiting replies that inform me.[/quote]

You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]

Pretty close Roybot. And the answer is no

94

[quote]roybot wrote:
You’re on to something there. ‘Did God create morality or did morality create God’?
[/quote]

That’s an easier question to answer, because the original conversation in the Euthyphro was about the good, not the moral. The question of the moral pertains to human things (pigs don’t have moral or immoral behavior), and what is moral for human beings finds its kernel in human nature, which for a theist is created by God. In that sense, God would create the moral as an aspect of the human. Morality is therefore not by continuous fiat, nor does it exist outside of God’s creation.

95

i.see. you’re saying that God has implanted “human.nature” in people? And athiests and agnostics have it too but don’t realize the source?

96

[quote]confusion wrote:
i.see. you’re saying that God has implanted “human.nature” in people? And athiests and agnostics have it too but don’t realize the source?[/quote]

Implanted is the wrong way to look at it, since it implies that we’re human beings with an additional nature added on. Atheists and agnostics freely talk about “human nature.”

But I should have been more precise than the term “human nature,” because of its heavy colloquial use. Certain things belong to us as human beings because we are human beings and not another kind of animal. We are political and have speech, for instance. I’m not going to get into the “source” issue.

97

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
i.see. you’re saying that God has implanted “human.nature” in people? And athiests and agnostics have it too but don’t realize the source?[/quote]

Implanted is the wrong way to look at it, since it implies that we’re human beings with an additional nature added on. Atheists and agnostics freely talk about “human nature.”

But I should have been more precise than the term “human nature,” because of its heavy colloquial use. Certain things belong to us as human beings because we are human beings and not another kind of animal. We are political and have speech, for instance. I’m not going to get into the “source” issue.

[/quote]

Ah good. Ingeresting and well thought out perspectives.

98

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
i.see. you’re saying that God has implanted “human.nature” in people? And athiests and agnostics have it too but don’t realize the source?[/quote]

Implanted is the wrong way to look at it, since it implies that we’re human beings with an additional nature added on. Atheists and agnostics freely talk about “human nature.”

But I should have been more precise than the term “human nature,” because of its heavy colloquial use. Certain things belong to us as human beings because we are human beings and not another kind of animal. We are political and have speech, for instance. I’m not going to get into the “source” issue.

[/quote]

Ah good. Ingeresting and well thought out perspectives.
[/quote]

You came in late to this discussion/ argument. This argument is pretty easily translated to asking about the nature of Good, and therefore the nature of God.

From those two possible outcomes depending on which one is picked for God determines his weaknesses. You see if Gods nature is to be Good, like SexMachine argues then God could do no wrong, at least directly.

With free will we require some sort of agency and an indifferent environment/ universe. Otherwise things would be determined already and we have no free will.

So, when it is argued God’s nature is Good, it also assumes the good is immutable and unchanging. This is why the Story of Job comes up, because it shows God isn’t consistent, or even necessarily good.

You could even interpret that God is a card player with certain rules he has to go by… Since he can do no evil he has the Devil do it for him, but did the Devil really kill Jobs family of his own volition in this case since God knew the Devil would act a certain way? That’s just another caveat to interpreting Job. I don’t think theists want God to be a sociopath, with one of his personalities being Satan, one Jesus, one the Holy Spirit, and one the father. Just throwing it out there for arguments sake to show how insane the story of Job is.

The other piece of the horn is arguing that God is subject to Good outside of himself, and that perhaps he got some things wrong… But, that isn’t something people are willing to accept.

The reason I bring up the Popes is because of interpretation, and between “SexMachine” and I, SexMachine thinks he solves this dilemma because of a particular religious interpretation and way of life that was adopted by the Church in different ways through different centuries called NeoPlatonism, which started with Pope Leo. I then showed that the Church itself has wavered greatly in terms of its own philosophy and interpretation of the Bible. The biggest moral dilemma about the bible, and it’s no secret is that it’s ruled by Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory is about God commanding, and determining everything being Good. Also, I had initially pinned SexMachine as a Catholic wrongly, because he knows about the Popes, he really likes Pope JP II and came to his defense when I brought up some of the more foul things he was part of during his life… Not all things he did were bad, but he ignored the poor and supported government practices that for the most part enslaved people, and when the priests and people tried to speak out the SOA killed them. The Pope also knew about Priest paedophiles, had read letters sent to him about a big shot holy man in Mexico named Maciel who brought in boat loads for the Church, but also liked getting hand jobs from little boys. The Pope knew, but the money was more important. That’s saints for you… The nature of homosexuality is evil, but I don’t give two shits as long as you bring me my money… Pimp John Paul II. People will tell you that he knew nothing of Maciel, but how could you ignore letters written by the 2nd in command priest of your greatest donor group, and greatest recruiting group in the New World? he knew, too much to gain and too corrupted.

So, with divine command theory, and immutability of God/ unchanging goodness, it would seem that what God does are all displays of goodness. Which is why it is good to kill people’s families and replace them with, “better people.” As in the book of Job. Etc. etc.

Nothing I’m arguing is new. I have a few different twists on how I present my arguments and I’m not an easy person to like when I write or debate. I use inflammatory information because even though you may end up hating me the individual, I realize that when people are showed that they are being lied to, they are more willing to change on their own time. I’m just trying to open doors man. I was raised Catholic and studied these subjects in College. If you watch that vid you will see that SexMachine and myself have brought up other people who dealt with this problem, including Aquinas and Augustine who had very different views… Interestingly, their views were attempts to marry even more ancient ethics of Greece with those of Christianity… Problem is, Aristotle’s virtue theory is on it’s own an incredibly coherent strategy for morality and being an overall awesome person, Aquinas recognized it and tried to marry reason and virtue theory with faith… Augustine was enthralled with Dionysis, which was a story of a very christlike character lol. I encourage you to read up on him.

Sexmachine’s views are similar to Augustine and Leo’s, neither make sense rationally.

99

Severiano,thanks for your last post. I agree with.what.you’re saying,for the most part,I am not going to comment on things I don’t have knowledge of,like pope JPII. I get your points tho. I haven’t seen if you have a post explaining how Archbishop Romero was wronged by the church. I am somewhat familiar with his story and believe that the church felt he was handling his role ths wrong way. Yes,I understand people were being oppressed,etc,but he comes under the authority of the pope. He was on his own once he stepped outside the churches wishes. This of course is another story.

100

I think the story of the Pope and Oscar Romero deserves it’s own thread because it’s a complicated and convoluted story.

Really, the deal is about the struggles created during the cold war and our actions in S. America that allowed us to access raw materials over the Soviets. Ultimately we want capitalism to survive in order to avoid communism which limits our autonomy. Everyone is fine with this… Pro autonomy is something most of us can agree about.

On the flip side though, how did we accomplish this? We did what we could to install puppets in various places with great amounts of resources, specifically Copper. We got our corporations to go set up shop in these places, and those puppet governments, for the most part made those people slaves. Which tilted their perception of what Capitalism really is… If you are a slave, communism seems like freedom… The people who were virtually enslaved started to rebel against the capitalists who put them there.

Oscar Romero saw what was going on with the people, and he spoke out to Pope JP II that the people, the poor that Jesus was all about, who the Pope is SUPPOSED to be all about were being smashed between the two sides of the cold war which was really about western forces being in control of major resources to thwart what Pope JP saw as the bigger evil of Communism… So, Pope JP II gave the U.S. and the west his support, and talked down the people who were trying to rebel against being enslaved by the puppet government run by the U.S.

As a result, some sort of shadow agency from the U.S. had Romero killed… Romero was installed in his position because he had a reputation of being a sort of passive man… The thing about him is he was passive, he also really loved the people, who were the poor. So instead of just going with the flow he did what we expect a good Priest to do after someone very close to him was assassinated by a government entity (it was basically troop loyalists to the Government trained by the U.S. called in the School of the Americas/ the real SOA, not that fake ass hipster biker gang another group to look up!) He spoke out against the Government and as a result of this him and others came up with something called liberation theology which was about liberating the poor, and using Christs message about the poor to support it. Yes, it was Marxist in nature, but when you consider the reality of San Salvador at the time, like I said Marxism became freedom because capitalism became slavery… It’s a caveat people have a hard time imagining.

When I was in the military we had these things called, “Chits.” It’s a system that basically replaces cash… What happened in some places is the Mines set up shop and it’s own micro slavery economy where people were paid in Chits rather than money… It worked out so that everything you bought was with chits from the company stores, groceries, pots, pans… Think Wallmart that you buy your crappy stuff from with Chits owned by the copper company… These people didn’t have clean water, had to rend land from the copper company to grow their own crops, and in general owned no more than the equivalent of about 100 or so dollars today. Think corrugated iron homes without running water… It wasn’t quite Gulag level but it was a system designed to keep people where they were, working for the company… The alternative to this existence was to fight, and the group that was fighting against this situation were the Sandanista’s… If you put yourself in their spot, had you happened to have been born there, would you have fought? I’m pretty sure I would have. I served for us, and I know my motivations are mostly compassion and outrage when people are oppressed.

Not too long after this, Romero was assassinated. The Pope had spoken out against Liberation Theology… If you know anything about the Pope he was incredibly anti commie and Marxist. But he failed to see that when applied the wrong way Capitalism can be slavery, and he forgot his people because he was blind to this, conveniently until it was too late.

Eventually he admitted to Romero being an amazing person, as did Ratzinger who wanted him, “beautified” or whatever. IMO that’s an insult, he’s on a higher level than any of them morally. He had compassion for the forgotten, worthless poor people and died for them willingly, a lot like this guy named Jesus we hear so much about… Anyhow…

Some interesting fallout, in the big picture these event helped to give birth to M.S. 13, and really a big shift in the Church to being more aware of the politics of the poor, especially in S. America with the current Pope.