[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ask / bbbb / bmw / canada / ebola / girltalk / jewess / occult ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: 6cc512d6a4aad97⋯.png (124.78 KB, 411x365, 411:365, euthyphro.png)

8920eb No.529746

What's /christian/'s take on the Euthyphro dilemma?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

6943b1 No.529749

It's both.


f77c93 No.529752

"virtue" and goodness are defined by God

He IS virtue


ed325f No.529755

brainlets, when will they learn


07101f No.529756

>>529746

Socrates (or Plato through Socrates) assumes that God (or in the case of the dialogue, the gods) are entities separate from Virtue.

Christians, generally speaking, view God as Virtue itself. That is, Virtue cannot exist outside of God, because He is Virtue itself.


6538b9 No.529775

Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma when applied to monotheist conception of God.


b797a6 No.529816

File: 3aaddcacdbc172e⋯.jpg (58.37 KB, 515x309, 5:3, discworld-gods.jpg)

>>529746

Ew. Ew. Just Ew. And a thousand more times of "Ew".

Virtue is defined by God. If God were otherwise, virtue would be otherwise.

Typical Greek ideas of the gods frankly fuel that question. I see it today, too, whenever there is a film or a book or a tale involving gods – take the recent "American Gods" which, likely, none of you watched not that I have, either – wherein the gods are just superhumans, super-duper-powered humans with certain human frailties and limitations. Modernity gets its fictional ideas of "God" from this source, having wilfully abandoned all knowledge of the true God, and so their gods are insipid and weak. And any remotely spiritual or mythological film, with angels or the like in it, oozes this view. Even in China, I find such limitations on gods and it fascinates me that what Paul wrote remains even today, with all our better grasp of things, so easily demonstrable.

So, given this IS our culture, when I see Christians influenced by the same limited view of God >>529749 , I am not surprised … just a little disappointed.

God does not submit to virtue, brother, it is as natural to Him as breathing air or pumping blood is to you and I. It is who He is. He cannot submit to virtue, because He simply cannot do otherwise because He simply cannot BE otherwise.


b797a6 No.529822

>>529746

>>529816

Furthermore, to that wikipedia article:

>Criticisms

>No reasons for morality: If there is no moral standard other than God's will, then God's commands are arbitrary

< Having no understanding of God …

See, this line of argument STARTS from an assumed principle, that there is enshrined somewhere "virtue" and, more often than not, if you dig deep enough into someone's reasoning for this, you'll discover that they assert this because humans know what virtue is. It is a comprehensively man-centred line of argument.

>No reasons for God: This arbitrariness would also jeopardize God's status as a wise and rational being, one who always acts on good reasons. As Leibniz writes …

While I am not usually /pol/, on this occasion I'll go with /pol/-reasoning: ((( Jewish logic )))

>"if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness"

Again. It is completely rooted in man-centred thinking. "We know what virtue is, but if god is arbitrarily redefining it, waaaah, he's then out of step with our superior reasonableness.

Fedoras. Why do they exist?

>Anything goes: This arbitrariness would also mean that anything could become good, and anything could become bad, merely upon God's command.

Failing to understand who God is, more precisely, the sheer magnitude and vast importance of His infinite, timeless, immeasurable and incomprehensible nature. God is the very rock this universe stands on. Were the rock otherwise, the universe would be otherwise purely by definition.

>As 17th-century philosopher Ralph Cudworth put it: "nothing can be imagined so grossly wicked, or so foully unjust or dishonest, but if it were supposed to be commanded by this omnipotent Deity, must needs upon that hypothesis forthwith become holy, just, and righteous."

Oh, look, a 17th century fedora!

Once again, this only applies if you have an incorrect concept of God, or are fedora-thinking about a world of multiple gods and what possibilities might exist. That is godless and awful reasoning.

>Moral Contingency: … "If nothing prevents God from loving things that are different from what God actually loves, …-

Lemme stop you right there. This argument, once more, starts from the idea of a limited super-powered human-esque being up there in the clouds who changes with his whims and fancies as though he were a man.

NO, fedora! NO! BAD fedora!

< God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

>… This is obviously objectionable to those who believe that claims about morality are, if true, necessarily true."

To people who believe that human reasoning that has determined the truth of good morals is the highest law.

>Why do God's commands obligate?: … In other words, might makes right.

Yes, but you're free to object. Again, they're thinking about human kings of divine substance. Pathetic and woeful: this is what human reasoning is if these are the best objections they can come up with.

>God's goodness: … A related point is raised by C. S. Lewis: "if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the 'righteous Lord.'"

Oh, Jack, I am so disappoint that you would side with such philosophers.

There IS no omnipotent fiend. Who God is is the ONLY source of morality we have. God did not sit down and say, "y'know what, I should clean-up my act, and be a better deity. I'll formulate some good morals and obey them." They ARE who God is. For who is outside God that they may advise Him of this higher standard He should obey? God is the beginning and the very end of all things. To whom else could we appeal that, "God is unjust"?

>The is-ought problem and the naturalistic fallacy: …

I'm not smart enough to understand this.

>No morality without God: If all morality is a matter of God's will, then if God does not exist, there is no morality.

And with this, fedoras finally understand how the world works.

Well done, fedoras. You have just reached the end of all your philosophies: complete, abitrary morality based on the whims of the reason of men. With this, you will doom all creation.


9ca1ec No.529832

>>529822

You seem triggered


b797a6 No.530041

>>529832

sure why not


72bec9 No.530064

>>529746

They believe "The word/Logos/Good" is God:

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Euthyphro dilemma arises when the two are seen as not the same, resulting in either platonism ("God is good because he submits to Virtue", but Virtue exists independently of God ) or "divine" moral relativism/theological voluntarism (Virtue is good 'only' because God says so, what is Virtue is God's whim).


8035be No.530210

In Meno, Plato/Socrates come close to describing virtue as being that which precedes action, and guides it towards an outcome which is morally beneficial. It is a faculty, independent from knowledge or intuition, which enables the "actor" to choose out of multiple decisions, the one most appropriate to the conduct of goodness. Plato describes this "moral good/correctness" in terms of its beneficial value to man. At least this is how I can best put it and I admit this understanding is not at all without flaws.

Since God is the cause of all things, that is to say, the ultimate decider of all events that come to pass, it must follow then, that whatever it is we call virtue must also come from Him (and this is spot on close to Socrates' final argumentation) and from no other source other than Him. Human beings are capable of acting on behalf of virtue, of intuitively understanding of what it is, but obviously in this understanding, virtue does not exist as an abstract concept nor as something arbitrarily agreed upon by man according to historical and cultural circumstances (fedora might disagree with that, but I'll leave debating that for another time and place).


113b9a No.530212

>>530210

yep

if a tree falls, and nobody is around to hear/see it, did it happen? and ofc it does, because God is the unalterably objective;and only from Him do you have anything objective among the "subjective", aka Sin or what-have-you.


113b9a No.530214

>>530212

as-in, anything expressible between what is "objectively Virtuous" (and God is virtue, also this is the Truth), and anything else (subjective, deviating from Truth, a lie) is de-facto a sin.


4ea581 No.530228

God is good, man is not. What is there to not understand?


0b872e No.530490

>>529775

This. If you strip away other gods then virtue can emanate from God because there is no contradiction between gods


a677e5 No.535097

>>529746

The book of Proverbs clearly states that wisdom was created by the Father before all things (8:23), so it's the first


a4b659 No.535334

Answer (A). Virtue is good because God says so.


105ee8 No.535466

C) Virtue is Good because Virtue is the King James Bible (pbuh)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ask / bbbb / bmw / canada / ebola / girltalk / jewess / occult ]