Simple question for Christians.

[Kingpin]

When Euthyphro's dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God's immutable nature.

Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God's laws express His character and--if our moral intuitions are intact--we immediately recognize those Laws as good.

This doesn't mean Christianity is true, only that it's is not handicapped by Plato's challenge to Euthyphro.

[JesusHChrist]

But if your evidence is: the Bible,... or any of the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god o..., please spare us.

Right because heaven forbid you had to actually give them serious consideration or attempt to understand them (Aquinas and Anslem in particular). But I do agree, they have been done to death and your rejection of them now stands as a witness against you.

Translated from comedic Godspeak to human:

"I just flew in from Cincinnati and boy are my arms tired!"

- translation provided by:

http://www.jesushchristhellyeah.com/gods...uman/speak

[robvalue]

Objective means it is always true, regardless of context. So no, your morality is not objective since not even Christians can agree on it.

You could claim it is external, but why is that a good thing? You are surrendering your judgement to another party? Why would you do that? That makes you entirely amoral. How is this different to a fascist dictator telling everyone what is right and wrong?

I don't judge others as inherently immoral, I say in my opinion they are immoral. You are saying that in your opinion of what god's opinion is, they are immoral. What's the difference? And why should I care about god's opinion? You end up with a set of rules you live by, and so do I. Neither of us can prove they are "right". I don't accept that there is such thing as "right". You have defined morality for you so that it is "right", in your opinion. Still an opinion.

Again, why should I care about an arbitrary list from a third party? Why should you?

Also, I spotted the circular nature of your argument. You said morality is evidence for God. And you define morality as a list of things God says is right and wrong. So your evidence assumes your claim is already true.

What you're actually doing (in my opinion) is observing human morality and trying to explain it via a third party. Except it doesn't work, because no one fully agrees, so it's all subjective. God does not come down to straighten it out. And even if he did, why should I care? If he says hit someone with a rock, why should I do it?

[Crossless2.0]

When Euthyphro's dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God's immutable nature.

Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God's laws express His character and--if our moral intuitions are intact--we immediately recognize those Laws as good.

This doesn't mean Christianity is true, only that it's is not handicapped by Plato's challenge to Euthyphro.

Words, words, words. Not arbitrary or capricious? Really? Tell that to the Amalekites. Or are you prepared to say they had it coming based on the narrative penned by the victors?  I'd love to have had a chance to read about that conflict from the Amalekites' perspective. I bet they'd have had some interesting things to say about Yahweh's "grounded" ethics. But of course people who get wiped out don't get to contribute their book.

Perhaps it was a moral slaughter because Yahweh willed it (see where I'm going here?). Or maybe, contrary to the moral intuition supposedly written into our hearts, the slaughter was somehow amoral.  But it clearly wasn't immoral because . . . um . . . it expressed the "fixed and absolute" ethics of the immutable god, who nevertheless dabbles in situational ethics.

Yeah, right.

You want to slip the euthyphro noose via mere assertion.  Too bad you have that holy book.

[robvalue]

Wait, wait.

I look at someone smashing someone else with a rock for no reason and taking his stuff. I judge that as immoral because it is harmful to human life, and society, to behave that way. I can defend this position rationally.

You see the same thing, and you have to ask someone else if that was okay or not? You go to a list someone gave you, and if it says it's OK, then you have no problem with it? You don't care about whether or not the act is simply harmful?

Here's the real difficult question: God turns up and tells you to kill your family. Would you do it?

PS: One more.

I'm raising a child. Let's say we agree hitting another child for no reason is wrong.

I say, "How would you feel if another child hit you, would you like that? It will make them sad. You know what it's like to be sad. If we don't hit each other, we'll all be happy."

I can answer any questions from this basis, based on reality.

You say, "God doesn't want you hitting other children."

The child says, "Who is God? Where is God? Why do you care what God thinks? Is that the only reason not to hit someone?"

[Catholic_Lady]

Ikingpinl,

I pretty much love everything you're saying.

Those are all my views exactly and the same points I've made regarding morality in my very first thread here, but could never put it into words like you.

[robvalue]

And what do you think of my rebuttals?

[Kingpin]

In response to your first point, in order for something to be harmful does that not imply you are placing value on it?  Your value for human life may not line up with that other persons value for human life.  I go back to Stalin and Hitler.  They had their morals in relation to human life and while you deem their acts immoral that is purely subjective.  The followers of the third reich did not agree with you judgment of their acts because they were following their own moral subjectivism.  How can you logically call their acts heinous?  

In response to hitting a child.  I would never respond to my child "God doesn't want you hitting other children".  My response would be, and has been with my own kids, the same as yours.  

You say, ah ha! But wait.  I can make the same statement because the moral standard I hold myself to comes from the character of God and in the person of Jesus Christ who when was asked what the greatest commandment was said The first is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, body, mind and soul and the second is like it.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  

Your response and my response to the child falls under the second command is commonly referred to as the golden rule.  

it boils down to this.  If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered, so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing?  It is an historic concern.  Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life?  If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found?  Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end?  How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier?  If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong?

Leading and famous atheists recognize this.  Look at quotes from Kai Nielsen, Jean Paul Sartre, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, even atheists such as Richard Dawkins claim that evil doesn't actually exist. In his book, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life Dawkins writes: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

---

I give you Kudos for your rebuttals Rob because I value respectful discourse.

[rexbeccarox]

Wow. Another discussion about morality. Yay. /sarcasm

Seriously, can't this discussion be had in one of the 52,564 threads that already exist about it? Does it really need to poison every goddamn thread?

[Kingpin]

Rexbeccarox, the question was posed to me and I responded.