Punisher1984
New member
Thank you for dodging the issue and making an unwarranted ad hominem attack - you just give me more credibility by attempting to throw stones from your glass house!
Euthyphro Companion Thread for Enyart's Answer
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for dodging the issue and making an unwarranted ad hominem attack - you just give me more credibility by attempting to throw stones from your glass house!
As soon as I am done :darwinsm: , I will ignore it.
Bob, I understand why you felt it neccesary to revisit this topic.
But please don't accuse me of not thinking just because I don't agree with you.
Simple question, you stupid atheist, that has one of three possible answers. Did your post mean anything?
Your possible answers are:
Yes. We'll respond to it.
No. We won't respond to it.
Other. You'll get :booted:
PlastikBuddha
New member
How so?
From what do you draw that conclusion?
Even if you say so what makes those expressions of God's essential nature and not either the command of one horn or the consensus between the three or a "discovered" set of morals discovered outside the trinity for the other horn?
Of course it does. Members of humanity must express human nature, even if only dimly in some cases.
Isn't unrighteousness a part of human nature?
Which is why I think the dilemma is ultimately a false one and more useful as a thought excercise than in attacking or defending any specific faith. I am trying to respond in terms of the dilemma, however.
Flipper
New member
I'm referring to a debate Bob opened from that pre-Stipe time on TOL, which most users now privately refer to as "The Golden Age".
Essential nature is a mode and manner of existence. Attributes are the way in which the characteristics of that nature are revealed and observed.
Biblical teachings and principles.
The triune presence as opposed to a unitary presence.
Essential nature is already there. Expressions of that nature are limited by its attributes.
No more so that righteousness is. Human beings have the capacity to act rightly or wrongly. That does not lead to a conclusion that human being have a dual nature.
You can't as long as you bring your atheist prejudices to bear on the subject.
Why would you do that?
PlastikBuddha
New member
Agreed. Now how am I confusing those?
Which are dictated by God, correct? That's ultimately no different than their own agreement.
What is the difference between those presences and how is each person expressed in a sufficiently different manner that their agreement avoids either of those horns?
Obviously. It is still all expressions of their essential nature even if filtered through the lenses of biology and experience.
Whether their nature is dual or not is besides the point. It is multi-faceted and it is also limited.
There's the rub. Faith MUST be invoked in order for the dilemma to be answered satisfactorily. That works fine for those who already believe, but the addition of the trinity argument really adds nothing to the overall weight of the argument to those who aren't already Christians. The same basic arguments about self-recognition can be used by any monotheist with faith in the righteousness of their own God and a desire for that deity to be free from external morality and the trinity argument could be employed by any polytheists with same desire. The fusion of the two relies on faith in both the shared nature of the trinity and in their differences as though there were a Goldilocks zone of unity/seperation that satisfies all points. If that convinces you, super. I'm just pointing out that to those who aren't already Christians it raises more questions than it answers.
You are attempting to define God's essential nature in terms of a human's essential nature.
What you're saying here is that God's being is unitary no matter what.
Define "sufficiently different manner." You are trying to tell me that because Father, Son and Spirit agree on something, it's no big deal as it proceeds from their essential nature. Would you feel more comfortable if the Bible recounted some disagreement among the Three that was never resolved?
No much profit in discussing it any further.
Limited by ... ?
Great! then I will remain convinced and you will remain unconvinced. Thanks for the discussion.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Only in the sense that all definitions must be limited by human understanding. If it is invalid to do so then the whole argument is meaningless anyways.
What I'm asking for is clarification as to how much is unitary and much divergent.
That's what I'm trying to discover.
It isn't their agreement that troubles me, but the fact that their agreement comes from such a place of similarity. I suppose it couldn't hurt to have examples of disagreements as this could help flesh out what the differences and similarities between the aspects are.
OK
Individual experience coupled with the inherent differences in human beings.
To say that a definition must be limited by human understanding cannot extend to defining that understanding as the sum total of reality.
There is no "much." The nature of God is to exist. There are Three Who participate in that nature. You may as well ask how human beings diverge from human nature. They don't.
If two or more human beings agree on any subject, would you say that their agreement constitutes a fiat from their essential nature as human beings and is, therefore, questionable?
PlastikBuddha
New member
So what? That reason would require we abandon any speculation about absolutes. Not very productive. As humans we have the ability to apply specifics to generalities, or experience to the unknown. Without that everything is just idle speculation. Even this entire argument.
Then why should the testimony of God be any more reliable for having three parties?
No. I would say that agreement is far more likely to be an expression of surface similarities and therefore questionable. Unless you are claiming to know already what is and isn't the essential nature of man.
Do you believe there are absolutes?
To speculate otherwise would lead to infinite regression.
I don't have to have a complete knowledge of the man's essential nature to realize that it is not equivalent to or coincident with God's essential nature. What surface similarity would you impute to the Godhead in order to bring about "agreement."
This post is from Dave Miller. I moved it from the Euthyphro thread to this companion thread.
Yes and yes. God commanded creation, and saw that it was good.
Bob makes a good point in suggesting that from a Christian perspective, God is consistant,
over and against the Greek Pantheon.
But, the question isn't really whether God is Good. The question really is, is human interpretation
of God's Word good? God's Word has been used to justify so much injustice and cruelty.
Even as the Pantheon could be used to justify the murder in the story, God's Word can be
used to justify as well. (The man who died was a Moabite who had sex with a Jewish
girl! He was a gay protester in front of a church! He was an doctor who performed abortions!
He was a Jesus killing Jew! He was a child of Ham caught breaking God's curse of servitude!
He was a murderous Moslem! Surely his death was justified! He was an ACLU lawyer! He was
a godless physicist who put forth the theory that the earth is round and not the center of the
universe! Or a big bang or something, I forget, whatever, he deserved to die!)
Justifying God through God's Triune Being is fine, its the myriad of follow on's that are
problematic.
God's external standard is The Word (Christ), and God's presence is revealed through the witness of, or the Fruits of the Holy
Spirit, which all people can freely recognize. Even secular humanists agree that love, peace,
patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control are moral standards. Even secular humanists
agree that the values of self sacrifice and selfless love of enemies represents the highest calling
to humantiy. Even secular humanists agree that hurting self or others is wrong.
These Words do not represent an external, secular standard, they are the Words of God offerred
to humanity through Christ.
Yes and yes. God commanded creation, and saw that it was good.
Bob makes a good point in suggesting that from a Christian perspective, God is consistant,
over and against the Greek Pantheon.
But, the question isn't really whether God is Good. The question really is, is human interpretation
of God's Word good? God's Word has been used to justify so much injustice and cruelty.
Even as the Pantheon could be used to justify the murder in the story, God's Word can be
used to justify as well. (The man who died was a Moabite who had sex with a Jewish
girl! He was a gay protester in front of a church! He was an doctor who performed abortions!
He was a Jesus killing Jew! He was a child of Ham caught breaking God's curse of servitude!
He was a murderous Moslem! Surely his death was justified! He was an ACLU lawyer! He was
a godless physicist who put forth the theory that the earth is round and not the center of the
universe! Or a big bang or something, I forget, whatever, he deserved to die!)
Justifying God through God's Triune Being is fine, its the myriad of follow on's that are
problematic.
God's external standard is The Word (Christ), and God's presence is revealed through the witness of, or the Fruits of the Holy
Spirit, which all people can freely recognize. Even secular humanists agree that love, peace,
patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control are moral standards. Even secular humanists
agree that the values of self sacrifice and selfless love of enemies represents the highest calling
to humantiy. Even secular humanists agree that hurting self or others is wrong.
These Words do not represent an external, secular standard, they are the Words of God offerred
to humanity through Christ.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Yes. Do I believe they are always recognizable or understandable by mere humans? No.
I honestly don't see how.
Then why compare the agreement of three people to the agreement of the persons of the Trinity to show that it is reliable?
I wouldn't. I'm not asking for similarities but for differences- enough to make it clear that any agreement between them on the topic of what is pious/good/holy is more than just an internal agreement that is no less arbitrary than that a more "singular" deity might pronounce.
Tico
New member
Your argument holds water if we are talking about a unitarian God. Since God is triune, the Son, for example, can be committed to the Father who is by nature righteous. This commitment to the Father without the slightest hint of imperfection in their relationship is the Son´s commitment to righteousness. Thus, God´s standard of right and wrong (to use your words) is internal to Him.
larryniven
New member
I contend that this argument is entirely unhelpful, and this reply describes exactly why.
Very well, Tico: we can now apply the dilemma to both the father and the son. Does the father's righteousness have to refer to outside facts, or is it arbitrary? Likewise, is the son's commitment based simply on the fact that it's the father's nature (thus making it arbitrary), or is there some other evaluation going on?
Bob, if you feel that Tico's explanation of your argument is accurate, these questions also apply to you. If not, I feel you owe us a more detailed explanation along these lines; that is, who in the trinity has the moral nature originally and who is doing the agreeing. Otherwise, you're just waving your hands and telling us rather than showing us that this argument escapes the dilemma. In other words, it won't do to tell us "Between the trinity, there are some entities which have what I will call moral nature and some (other?) entities that agree with this nature, but I cannot tell you which entities these are, how the agreement happens, or what it means for their natures to be moral." I feel as though you are capable of a more detailed response, although I have not seen one yet from you. Thanks.
Very well, Tico: we can now apply the dilemma to both the father and the son. Does the father's righteousness have to refer to outside facts, or is it arbitrary? Likewise, is the son's commitment based simply on the fact that it's the father's nature (thus making it arbitrary), or is there some other evaluation going on?
Bob, if you feel that Tico's explanation of your argument is accurate, these questions also apply to you. If not, I feel you owe us a more detailed explanation along these lines; that is, who in the trinity has the moral nature originally and who is doing the agreeing. Otherwise, you're just waving your hands and telling us rather than showing us that this argument escapes the dilemma. In other words, it won't do to tell us "Between the trinity, there are some entities which have what I will call moral nature and some (other?) entities that agree with this nature, but I cannot tell you which entities these are, how the agreement happens, or what it means for their natures to be moral." I feel as though you are capable of a more detailed response, although I have not seen one yet from you. Thanks.
American Buddhist
New member
This seems like a rather weak argument, Bob. But don't feel bad. Greater minds than you and I have been wrestling with this for millenia. You said:
I don't understand how the three of them - the Trinity - in their agreement about justness and goodness amongst one another, can then 'define' goodness as a whole. Are you saying that the definition of goodness arises from the conduct, toward one another, of the Trinity? If so, is this because they decide that their behavior constitutes goodness, both for themselves and for the universe, or because they recognize (as in, see the innate nature of goodness beyond themselves) that their actions are good?
I'm afraid I've led myself right back to the dilemma we started with. This little bit confused me as well:
I think the problem is the word 'recognize'. I think I've used it in a different manner than you are. My use was more in line with the experience, for example, of driving around souther France and recognizing Mont Blanc on the horizon. In my case I'm not making it Mont Blanc by my recognition, it already was Mont Blanc and I am just realizing it and orienting myself to it. I think this is what Socrates wants to suggest is the case of the gods.
But your use of recognize, I think, is more like the officiant recognizing the union of husband and wife at a wedding. In this case the recognition is in fact a performative act or utterance. His words bring into existence that which did not exist before. I take it that this is what you wish to say about the Trinity and goodness. And their basis for creating goodness has been their own harmony amongst one another.
As a Buddhist, this sounds very good to me. That harmony is goodness, and that one may use the story of the Trinity to teach this, is similar to many of the teachings of my own tradition. In Buddhism, and indeed Hinduism, there is a similar story of Purusha, the 'Great Man', who dwelt in perfect harmony in a heavenly realm. But over time he slowly became greedy for its pleasures, wanting ever more. His greed and taking eventually caused him to fall apart, literally, perhaps metaphorically. In any case, it is from Purusha's body that humankind is said to be created. So long as we continue to live in greed and disharmony we will suffer, but when we live in harmony, as Pususha once did, and your Trinity does, then we will rediscover that heavenly realm.
I don't understand how the three of them - the Trinity - in their agreement about justness and goodness amongst one another, can then 'define' goodness as a whole. Are you saying that the definition of goodness arises from the conduct, toward one another, of the Trinity? If so, is this because they decide that their behavior constitutes goodness, both for themselves and for the universe, or because they recognize (as in, see the innate nature of goodness beyond themselves) that their actions are good?
I'm afraid I've led myself right back to the dilemma we started with. This little bit confused me as well:
I think the problem is the word 'recognize'. I think I've used it in a different manner than you are. My use was more in line with the experience, for example, of driving around souther France and recognizing Mont Blanc on the horizon. In my case I'm not making it Mont Blanc by my recognition, it already was Mont Blanc and I am just realizing it and orienting myself to it. I think this is what Socrates wants to suggest is the case of the gods.
But your use of recognize, I think, is more like the officiant recognizing the union of husband and wife at a wedding. In this case the recognition is in fact a performative act or utterance. His words bring into existence that which did not exist before. I take it that this is what you wish to say about the Trinity and goodness. And their basis for creating goodness has been their own harmony amongst one another.
As a Buddhist, this sounds very good to me. That harmony is goodness, and that one may use the story of the Trinity to teach this, is similar to many of the teachings of my own tradition. In Buddhism, and indeed Hinduism, there is a similar story of Purusha, the 'Great Man', who dwelt in perfect harmony in a heavenly realm. But over time he slowly became greedy for its pleasures, wanting ever more. His greed and taking eventually caused him to fall apart, literally, perhaps metaphorically. In any case, it is from Purusha's body that humankind is said to be created. So long as we continue to live in greed and disharmony we will suffer, but when we live in harmony, as Pususha once did, and your Trinity does, then we will rediscover that heavenly realm.
Tico
New member
Nature is not arbitrary. It is what it is. The persons of the triune God recognize and agree that this nature is what it is. They do not disagree about this. Thus, the standard for righteousness is not external, but internal--within the triune God.
- Status