"sdguy2005" <samrig2002@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:76d61151-33dc-4b38-b957-c2859d27d2dc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi everyone. I thought some of you might be interested in reading this
> article that was posted at TheologyOnline.com called, "A Christian
> Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma."
> http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024
>
> In case you're not familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma, it's a
> philosophical argument that atheists like to use to claim that
> morality cannot flow from God, because any absolute moral standard is
> either a) arbitarily commanded by God, in which case even murder would
> be OK if He said so, or b) a moral standard external to God would
> exist, which would mean that some being is superior to Him.
>
> This particular answer to the dilemma proves that only the Christian
> deity (a triune god) can objectively know that an absolute moral
> standard exists, because of the consistent, eternal witness within the
> Godhead. In other words, Allah could not know for sure that he was
> good.
>
> Check it out!
I agree with "fool" Bob Enyart created a six horned bull for the reasons
that "fool" mentioned.
Lets assume that the following is a correct summation of Plato's dialogue:
1) Is something good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put
it, because God loves it)?
This is a loaded question in the same manner as "Are you still beating
your
wife?" because the definition of "good" in this exchange is not the
Scriptural definition. This is a classic case of letting the enemy decide
the battle field and the weapons that each side should use.
"Good" in the case of this so-called dilemma is anthropocentric, appealing
to man's own corrupt nature and amorality. Note Bertrand Russel's
gratuitous replacement of one thing for another when he says "instead of
thou shalt not commit adultery, it could just as well have been thou shall
commit adultery." What has happened here is that "good" has had its
definition completely stripped from it so that it is nothing but an empty
word holding no meaning whatsoever.
In contrast, the theological definition of "good" is God alone. This is
how the creation could be called "good" because everything created by God
is
good. After the Fall, we read "there is none that does good...no not
one."
and "all our [good] works are as filthy rags". Therefore, anything that
we
think is "good" and moral that we pursue is still "filthy rags" because
those works are created by vessels that are not good. That is why we
read
that only God is good, because man can't be because of the Fall.
Therefore, the correct response is:
3) Something is good because it comes from God who in the profound and
absolute sense is good.
Now I understand that this will not satisfy those who view this as a
question regarding morality and that it is an unfortunate misuse of the
word
"good" as a synonym of "moral".
When Russell dismissed adultery as being arbitrarily chosen by God,
Russell
is admitting that he is unfamiliar with theology since the prohibition of
adultery was made, like many other Mosaic moral laws, to demonstrate a
part
of the character of God. In the Scriptures, we note that Israel is
likened
to a harlot. Gomer, Hosea's **** wife, is a real-life symbol of God's
jealousy for exclusive wor****p. Just as Gomer strayed from Hosea and
became intimate with other men, Israel also strayed from God and was
intimate with other gods. The prohibition of adultery is a strong sign of
God's character, the law flows from who God is.
Other laws, prohibiting murder, are obviously practical in nature, while
they also are in practice the Golden Rule.
Bob failed to note that in the Garden there was one arbitrary law, don't
even of the Tree of Knowledge. We don't know if there were other laws
prohibiting Adam from murdering Eve; doubtful from the supralapsarian
standpoint, so the whole exercise of moral codes is to:
(1) Remind man of his subserviant role to his Creator.
(2) Practical preservation of man and society
(3) Symbolize the character of God/ Prophecy pointing to Christ.
Blending the two "good and "moral", to be good it must eminate from
something that is good. To be moral is to be obedient to God. Since
natural man hates God and is in a state of rebellion, he cannot be good,
so
no matter what he does, it will be filthy, corrupt and less than
worthless.
If God commanded a man to rise up and violently kill his neighbor, and the
man, in full faith in the LORD went and did exactly that, then the man,
would have done a good work because it was done in faith and prefect
obedience to that which is absolutely good.
In times past, God has commanded men to rise up and violently kill his
neighbor. When the Hebrews entered into Canaan, God directed them to
slaughter men, women, children, cattle, and to level whole cities. It
was
moral because it was in obedience to what God said to do. It was good
because it came from a person acting in faith and perfect obedience to one
who is absolutely good.
God has given us a sealed revelation of Himself. He is not directing men
to rise up and violently kill their neighbor. In previous times, these
commands to do what us fallen creators would judge as "wrong" or "immoral"
forget that what is moral is not what we feel it should be, rather it was
God commands. We have no fear that one day God will say that it is OK to
commit adultery, steal things or bear false witness. That is why there is
only one moral code - God's. There are countless value systems. Morality
flows from that which is inherently good. Value systems can come from
anywhere. That is why we read, right before a society is judged out of
existence "each man did what was right in his own eyes". They were
thinking
like Russell, and making it up according to what they felt was good for
them
at the time.
So we can come up with an alternate:
3) Something is moral when it is done in full obedience to God.
The dilemma is a hoax because it fails to properly define and treat the
essence of goodness and morality, rather it corrupts both of these
concepts
and makes them something that can be judged and overruled by fallen,
corrupt
and selfish creatures. In other words, Euthyphro's Dilemma is
fundamentally logically absurd.
|
