The Euthyphro Has Finally Been Destroyed. Now What?

[cvanwey]

Yes, after over 2,000 years of debate, apologists here have finally resolved the matter - to both logical and reasonable satisfaction. All along, the argument really does not even apply to God.

"God is good." "God is love". "God's character and nature are good". "God's nature is unwavering and eternal'. "Asking if God is good is like asking if good is good." "God is also eternal and unchanging.'

Thus, the "Euthyphro dilemma" has now been rendered nothing more than a talking point. (i.e.) A 'remember when' moment, where colleagues reminisce of mere passed squabbles in the land of academia; before an age of further enlightenment. Philosophers can no longer use the Euthyphro, in an attempt to demonstrate any type of problem, in regards to God's divine Commands. This so-called 'problem' has been completely resolved, in that God is the standard for which 'goodness' is rendered.

Great, now that this has been settled, and the Christian apologists have won yet again, maybe we can now move ahead and ask some more of those pesky seemingly unresolved questions. Such as, but not limited to...

1. Why is it eternally okay and fine to own other humans as property; for which one person can beat another, just short of death, for life?

2. Why is it eternally never okay for women to have authority over men, in specific situations?

Again, now that the Euthyphro is essentially off the table, maybe the apologists can merely explain why THE Standard for goodness deems such categories eternally 'good', or at least eternally 'perfectly acceptable'?

 

[Tree of Life]

1. Why is it eternally okay and fine to own other humans and property; for which one person can beat another, just short of death, for life?

Are you suggesting that the existence of slavery is part of God's design for human life and that it will continue into eternity? No Christian accepts this. If you think that this is what the Bible teaches, where do you get this from?

2. Why is it eternally never okay for women to have authority over men, in specific situations?

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that gender roles will continue into eternity? I don't think the Bible teaches this. Where do you get this from?

 

[cvanwey]

Are you suggesting that the existence of slavery is part of God's design for human life and that it will continue into eternity? No Christian accepts this. If you think that this is what the Bible teaches, where do you get this from?

I'm suggesting that the Bible weighs in on the subject of slavery, and also condones how to perform such acts. This must mean God does not deem slavery practices sinful, at least as He lays out His provided instructions in Scripture. He also never offers an expiration date for such practices. Jesus again mentions the topic of slavery in the NT. If the NT never again mentioned slavery, one could argue this entire topic was under an expired covenant - (old covenant).

If we get our morals from God, this must mean we, as humans, at least at some core level, agree with what Scripture states, right? Person A can own person B as property, for which person A can beat person B, for life.

If you get your moral compass from THE Standard, you must agree with these Commands, as they are laid out in Scripture, right?

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that gender roles will continue into eternity? I don't think the Bible teaches this. Where do you get this from?

I'm saying the NT lays out specific roles. I would assume your covenant lies with Jesus. According to Scripture, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is eternal, right?

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm suggesting that the Bible weighs in on the subject of slavery, and also condones how to perform such acts. This must mean God does not deem slavery practices sinful, at least as He lays out His provided instructions in Scripture. He also never offers an expiration date for such practices. Jesus again mentions the topic of slavery in the NT. If the NT never again mentioned slavery, one could argue this entire topic was under an expired covenant - (old covenant).

If we get our morals from God, this must mean we, as humans, at least at some core level, agree with what Scripture states, right? Person A can own person B as property, for which person A can beat person B, for life.

If you get your moral compass from THE Standard, you must agree with these Commands, as they are laid out in Scripture, right?

Just because God regulates fallen world realities does not mean that these realities are part of God's moral will for the world. God also regulates divorce although he clearly hates divorce. God regulates vengeance even though he does not positively command it. Divorce, slavery, poverty, war, famine are all fallen-world realities that God speaks to and regulates. This doesn't mean that slavery, war, or poverty are good things.

I'm saying the NT lays out specific roles. I would assume your covenant lies with Jesus. According to Scripture, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is eternal, right?

God's design for human life does include gender roles where things like marriage and church structure exist. That's this side of eternity. But in glory marriage and church structure will no longer be needed and gender roles will no longer be needed.

 

[cvanwey]

Just because God regulates fallen world realities does not mean that these realities are part of God's moral will for the world. God also regulates divorce although he clearly hates divorce. God regulates vengeance even though he does not positively command it. Divorce, slavery, poverty, war, famine are all fallen-world realities that God speaks to and regulates. This doesn't mean that slavery, war, or poverty are good things.

God's instructions, or "regulation" for slavery, is to own humans as property for life, and beat them for life.

Do you agree with these regulation practices, for which have been eternally laid out before you?

God's design for human life does include gender roles where things like marriage and church structure exist. That's this side of eternity. But in glory marriage and church structure will no longer be needed and gender roles will no longer be needed.

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have happier holidays.

I noticed you basically dodged the Verses I quoted entirely. Why is that?

Why is it eternally instructed for [women] to remain quiet, while on earth?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

1. Why is it eternally okay and fine to own other humans and property; for which one person can beat another, just short of death, for life?

What makes you think this is "okay" by God's standards?

2. Why is it eternally never okay for women to have authority over men, in specific situations?

In specific circumstances? Well, what circumstances are those?

 

[cvanwey]

What makes you think this is "okay" by God's standards?

...Because He tells you, by what protocol(s), it is okay to perform such tasks.

In specific circumstances? Well, what circumstances are those?

I'll start with the one already provided, (where women are to remain quiet and not have authority over men):

1 Timothy 2:11-12

If you receive your morals from THE Standard for "goodness", then you should have no problem agreeing, right?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

...Because He tells you, by what protocol(s), it is okay to perform such tasks.

Nope. This is wrong.

I'll start with the one already provided, (where women are to remain quiet and not have authority over men):

1 Timothy 2:11-12

If you receive your morals from THE Standard for "goodness", then you should have no problem agreeing, right?

The question boils down to if anyone is fit to lead at all. If there are people who are more fit to be leaders, then it is men because they are more masculine, and hence, tend to take charge by their natural proclivity.

 

[cvanwey]

Nope. This is wrong.

I can read Verses, from Scripture, to support my position. What do you have?

The question boils down to if anyone is fit to lead at all. If there are people who are more fit to be leaders, then it is men because they are more masculine, and hence, tend to take charge by their natural proclivity.

So women cannot be leaders?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I can read Verses, from Scripture, to support my position. What do you have?

The Law tells you what you cannot do, not what you should do. Basically, I see the Law as an "If, then" statement. If you do this, then here is your punishment. That's what the law is about.

So women cannot be leaders?

What do you think?

 

[cvanwey]

The Law tells you what you cannot do, not what you should do. Basically, I see the Law as an "If, then" statement. If you do this, then here is your punishment. That's what the law is about.

Nothing here demonstrates why, what I stated in the OP and in post #7, is, as you stated in post #8 "wrong."

I agree with what you are saying here. But, this response does not address my position. God tells His readers what is okay to do, and how you can do it. Apologists, such as @Tree of Life likes to call it, 'regulating.'

Hence, is it okay to own humans as lifetime property, and beat them, as long as they do not die? It's basically a (yes or no) question.

What do you think?

I think my opinion differs from God's, which apparently renders my opinion incorrect. But how is this possible, if God IS the standard? My gut should agree with Him, right?

"Women are not to be the head of the church, and are also instructed to remain quiet." I now ask you...

Can women ever be [the] leader in a Church, without upsetting God? Again, it's a (yes or no) question.

And please remember, the OP establishes that "God IS"... According to God, which is THE Standard, women are not to lead, and are also to be quiet. He also states a reason there-after. Do you agree, using your God-given core moral compass?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, after over 2,000 years of debate, apologists here have finally resolved the matter - to both logical and reasonable satisfaction. All along, the argument really does not even apply to God.

"God is good." "God is love". "God's character and nature are good". "God's nature is unwavering and eternal'. "Asking if God is good is like asking if good is good." "God is also eternal and unchanging.'

Thus, the "Euthyphro dilemma" has now been rendered nothing more than a talking point. (i.e.) A 'remember when' moment, where colleagues reminisce of mere passed squabbles in the land of academia; before an age of further enlightenment. Philosophers can no longer use the Euthyphro, in an attempt to demonstrate any type of problem, in regards to God's divine Commands. This so-called 'problem' has been completely resolved, in that God is the standard for which 'goodness' is rendered.

Great, now that this has been settled, and the Christian apologists have won yet again, maybe we can now move ahead and ask some more of those pesky seemingly unresolved questions. Such as, but not limited to...

1. Why is it eternally okay and fine to own other humans as property; for which one person can beat another, just short of death, for life?

2. Why is it eternally never okay for women to have authority over men, in specific situations?

Again, now that the Euthyphro is essentially off the table, maybe the apologists can merely explain why THE Standard for goodness deems such categories eternally 'good', or at least eternally 'perfectly acceptable'?

If morality being objective or subjective is equivalent to the Euthyphro dilemma, and if the dilemma has been solved via some third option, then morality is neither objective nor subjective.

So they would say, no, it is not eternally ok to beat your slaves or disenfranchise women because only objective morality posits eternal standards. Also, it wasn't "ok for them but not for us" because there is no subjective morality either. It's just... something else. Problem solved!

Oh wait, we can play this game too.

Christian: Is the universe eternal, or did it begin out of nothing?

Atheist: False dichotomy, it's Something Else™. We've solved the problem of existence without appealing to the existence of God, which means we've explained it with fewer assumptions and therefore our explanation is superior. Checkmate!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Just because God regulates fallen world realities does not mean that these realities are part of God's moral will for the world. God also regulates divorce although he clearly hates divorce. God regulates vengeance even though he does not positively command it. Divorce, slavery, poverty, war, famine are all fallen-world realities that God speaks to and regulates. This doesn't mean that slavery, war, or poverty are good things.

God does not just regulate slavery He says to the Jews to go out and buy them from the nations around them. Lev 25:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

How is this good? A good God would have said owning others as property is never moral.

 

[cvanwey]

God does not just regulate slavery He says to the Jews to go out and buy them from the nations around them. Lev 25:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

How is this good? A good God would have said owning others as property is never moral.

I was really hoping to delve into the topic of slavery, as well as women's rights, with confirmed apologists. @Tree of Life started to chime in, but then swiftly backed off. I'm curious what explanation the expert apologists have, in regards to these 'regulatory' measures? He started to state how God does not like certain things, but how God does offer appropriate regulations for them.

So I guess when God chimed in on slavery, He offered humans such instruction, as being okay or acceptable. Which I guess would be the appropriate way to treat your slaves. Hence, if one follows such regulatory procedures, as instructed, it is not breaking God's law.

It seems to be the same 'ol common argument, which goes as follows (i.e.)...

The second amendment exists. This amendment is a necessary allowance, but the law maker may not see this as a good thing, but instead necessary. It may not be in the moral Character or will to associate with this necessary law. However, as such, the ultimate law maker then knows to provide necessary regulatory allowances and/or disallowances. The law maker may not like the law at all, but cannot necessarily outlaw this amendment outright. The lawmaker can, however, offer such regulatory appropriations to assure the up most correctness in carrying out such an amendment. Such as, but not necessarily limited to - no fully automatic weapons, restrict certain caliber weapons, ban certain hand guns, register your gun(s), maybe obtain a permit to conceal and carry, other other other.

In the case for slavery, we can literally cut/paste what the one apologist has stated, (from post #4):

Just because God regulates fallen world realities does not mean that these realities are part of God's moral will for the world. God also regulates divorce although he clearly hates divorce. God regulates vengeance even though he does not positively command it. Divorce, slavery, poverty, war, famine are all fallen-world realities that God speaks to and regulates. This doesn't mean that slavery, war, or poverty are good things.

In a nutshell, God apparently does not like slavery, but sees it as a necessary 'evil'. So He has been so gracious, as to tell us how to properly regulate slavery. Apparently, His regulatory processes include the lifetime beating and lifetime ownership - (as human property).

Thus, seems as though God is not necessarily commanding people to go out an own other people, and God Himself also does not necessarily love the topic of slavery in general. However, for the safety and well-being of all humans concerned, whom are necessarily involved in these actions, God then offers up how to perform such acts, under His direct instruction/guidance/allowances/regulations.

Here's the gist I get, from the defenders of the Bible:

- "God decides to weigh in on slavery, but does not personally like slavery."
- "God does not command that humans must own other humans. But if you are going to, here's how one may proceed"
- "God properly regulates such practices in which He does not like, much like how He might with divorce. (i.e.) It's okay to divorce if your spouse commits adultery"

Thus, inquiring minds want to know?

1. Is it (moral or immoral) to instruct slave owners that it is okay to keep your slave for life, and beat them for life?

2. If God provides humans with our moral compass, like we are said to have in intrinsically knowing that murder, cheating, and theft are "bad", shouldn't we also think owning and beating humans for life is "okay/good", (under the umbrella of slavery)?

Please remember, God is the standard for 'good'.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I was really hoping to delve into the topic of slavery, as well as women's rights, with confirmed apologists. @Tree of Life started to chime in, but then swiftly backed off. I'm curious what explanation the expert apologists have, in regards to these 'regulatory' measures? He started to state how God does not like certain things, but how God does offer appropriate regulations for them.

So I guess when God chimed in on slavery, He offered humans such instruction, as being okay or acceptable. Which I guess would be the appropriate way to treat your slaves. Hence, if one follows such regulatory procedures, as instructed, it is not breaking God's law.

It seems to be the same 'ol common argument, which goes as follows (i.e.)...

The second amendment exists. This amendment is a necessary allowance, but the law maker may not see this as a good thing, but instead necessary. It may not be in the moral Character or will to associate with this necessary law. However, as such, the ultimate law maker then knows to provide necessary regulatory allowances and/or disallowances. The law maker may not like the law at all, but cannot necessarily outlaw this amendment outright. The lawmaker can, however, offer such regulatory appropriations to assure the up most correctness in carrying out such an amendment. Such as, but not necessarily limited to - no fully automatic weapons, restrict certain caliber weapons, ban certain hand guns, register your gun(s), maybe obtain a permit to conceal and carry, other other other.

In the case for slavery, we can literally cut/paste what the one apologist has stated, (from post #4):

Just because God regulates fallen world realities does not mean that these realities are part of God's moral will for the world. God also regulates divorce although he clearly hates divorce. God regulates vengeance even though he does not positively command it. Divorce, slavery, poverty, war, famine are all fallen-world realities that God speaks to and regulates. This doesn't mean that slavery, war, or poverty are good things.

In a nutshell, God apparently does not like slavery, but sees it as a necessary 'evil'. So He has been so gracious, as to tell us how to properly regulate slavery. Apparently, His regulatory processes include the lifetime beating and lifetime ownership - (as human property).

Thus, seems as though God is not necessarily commanding people to go out an own other people, and God Himself also does not necessarily love the topic of slavery in general. However, for the safety and well-being of all humans concerned, whom are necessarily involved in these actions, God then offers up how to perform such acts, under His direct instruction/guidance/allowances/regulations.

Here's the gist I get, from the defenders of the Bible:

- "God decides to weigh in on slavery, but does not personally like slavery."
- "God does not command that humans must own other humans. But if you are going to, here's how one may proceed"
- "God properly regulates such practices in which He does not like, much like how He might with divorce. (i.e.) It's okay to divorce if your spouse commits adultery"

Thus, inquiring minds want to know?

1. Is it (moral or immoral) to instruct slave owners that it is okay to keep your slave for life, and beat them for life?

2. If God provides humans with our moral compass, like we are said to have in intrinsically knowing that murder, cheating, and theft are "bad", shouldn't we also think owning and beating humans for life is "okay/good", (under the umbrella of slavery)?

Please remember, God is the standard for 'good'.

I agree. I have never got a good answer for slavery. If I was God I would just outlaw the practice with "Thou shall not own another person as property, ever, period." I bet most Christians would as well. God never does anything like this in the bible.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree. I have never got a good answer for slavery. If I was God I would just outlaw the practice with "Thou shall not own another person as property, ever, period." I bet most Christians would as well. God never does anything like this in the bible.

He never does anything like that for rape either.

 

[durangodawood]

God does not just regulate slavery He says to the Jews to go out and buy them from the nations around them. Lev 25:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

How is this good? A good God would have said owning others as property is never moral.

Seems so obvious this arrangement was maintained and scripturalized by people, of their time, for their time.

I cannot believe a God would enshrine this in sculpture for temporary purposes knowing what use people would make of it centuries on.

 

[Carbon]

Dostoevsky's Dmitri had it backwards. *With God* everything is permitted.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Dostoevsky's Dmitri had it backwards. *With God* everything is permitted.

*Ivan

 

[Carbon]

*Ivan

Dmitri (Mitya) quotes it to Alyosha while recalling an earlier conversation with Ratikin.