In article <KOiDj.12545$hP3.2972@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, DKleinecke says...
>On Mar 12, 5:50 pm, sdguy2005 <samrig2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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
[snip]
>The article posted uses an awful lot of words to suggest a simple
>idea.
He does a lot more than that with his "awful lot of
words". Unfortunately, it contains outright blunders like the foolish
description of Euthyphro as a "state's attorney"; there _was_ no such
thing in his day. And the article makes bigger blunders, such as the
references to threeness in QED and the fundamental forces of nature.
>The answer to Euthyphro is really simple - there are no absolute
>moral standards.
The answer to _Euthyphro_, or the answer to "Euthyphro's Dilemma"? The
two are very different, since the latter is so badly mis-named.
In either case, as with most such "really simple answers", this answer
is wrong. Of course there are "absolute moral standards".
>But to suggest that the Trinity somehow validates some set of
>standards that a preacher espouses is foolish in the eyes, not only
>of Muslims (and Jews), but also of Christian Unitarians.
Well, so _what_ if it is foolish in _their_ eyes?
>There is no need for absolute moral standards. What matters is LOVE
>and love cannot be legislated.
This "simple idea" is too simple. It is drastically oversimplified.
>That is, and this seems to me to be the real answer to Euthyphro, how
>can we possibly extend LOVE into the details of human life in any
>other fa****on than as what lawyers would call case law (in this case
>this is what is moral - in that case perhaps something else holds)?
>I see no evidence that this can be done. Certainly there is no
>historical evidence that it ever has been done.
Sure, there is. So the real question is, why do you miss the evidence?
Is it because you are demanding too much, demanding that it extend to
an entire Church? In that case, I would say you have not understood
the parable of wheat and tares (Mt 13:24-30). Or is it because you
don't recognize the love that is shown to you? That, alas, is very
common these days.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
