Euthyphro Companion Thread for Enyart's Answer
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
- Status
Since I used the pronoun "this" to refer to his posting, yes.
Could you have picked a different pronoun?
Fool, I think you misunderstand the argument...
Fool, I think you misunderstand the argument...
Of course three people can be wrong about something. But they would know if they have disagreed with each other and have accusations against each other. Fool. Unfortunately, you're not trying to think through the issue, you're just obfuscating. I have answered Euthyphro's dilemma. An atheist can bring up a hundred other questions that deserve a hundred other answers, but I have answered this one.
The two-fold challenge to Euthyphro is a dilemma, two apparently equally unanswerable (or uncomfortable) options.
The threefold eternal witness of the Persons of the Trinity testifies that neither has an accusation against, or has ever been threatened by, another, and thus They
testify that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Spirit, for all of eternity, has
ever been selfish toward the other. This eternal commitment to one another is
their definition of righteousness. Thus, They can know by their eternal three-fold witness the truth of the assertion that They have no accusation against each other.
Once goodness is defined, then love is the outworking of that goodness. Thus, for the last 30 years, I've agreed with those who define love as commitment, specifically: commitment to the good of someone.
Fool, you don't have to convert to concede. If you think I haven't answered Euthyphro's dilemma, then repost:
* the two questions of the dilemma
* my very brief summary at the end
and then demonstrate how I haven't answered the questions.
Fool, I think you misunderstand the argument...
Of course three people can be wrong about something. But they would know if they have disagreed with each other and have accusations against each other. Fool. Unfortunately, you're not trying to think through the issue, you're just obfuscating. I have answered Euthyphro's dilemma. An atheist can bring up a hundred other questions that deserve a hundred other answers, but I have answered this one.
The two-fold challenge to Euthyphro is a dilemma, two apparently equally unanswerable (or uncomfortable) options.
The threefold eternal witness of the Persons of the Trinity testifies that neither has an accusation against, or has ever been threatened by, another, and thus They
testify that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Spirit, for all of eternity, has
ever been selfish toward the other. This eternal commitment to one another is
their definition of righteousness. Thus, They can know by their eternal three-fold witness the truth of the assertion that They have no accusation against each other.
Once goodness is defined, then love is the outworking of that goodness. Thus, for the last 30 years, I've agreed with those who define love as commitment, specifically: commitment to the good of someone.
Fool, you don't have to convert to concede. If you think I haven't answered Euthyphro's dilemma, then repost:
* the two questions of the dilemma
* my very brief summary at the end
and then demonstrate how I haven't answered the questions.
PlastikBuddha
New member
If it is merely self-recognition then it is just as arbitrary as if righteousness were decided by fiat.Bob Enyart;1686387 [i said:
Which are also one, right? Does it make any real difference whether it is One or Three? After all, isn't "righteousness" just as much a part of their nature? It seems to me that Christian solution is just a semantic bit of prestidigitation, swapping the pea of righteousness between members of the Trinity as though that eliminated the ultimate problem of whether something is pious because it pleases God or if it pleases God because it is pious. Saying that God is inherently pleasing to God doesn't really help, imho.
:doh: The whole point of Bob's article was that the challenge of "self recognised" righteousness is answered by the trinity.
When one person claims something there is no chance that he is going to disagree with himself, and even if he did he would be under no obligation to admit error.
When three people claim the same thing consistently then there is no way to accuse them of inconsistency.
Then you don't really understand the challenge.
PlastikBuddha
New member
And I'm saying that it isn't answered because all aspects of the trinity share the same essential nature, Stipe.
Which means that the pronouncement that God is righteous and good by nature is not verified by the Trinity only assumed.
Not inconsistency. Arbitrariness.
Then please explain my mistake, Stipe.
:doh: Of course they do. They all agree with each other.
You're right. We assume that God will always remain faithful because He has been faithful for an eternity already. The verification you are demanding only comes from the fact that the three persons in the Godhead have never contradicted each other. This is what answers the challenge and the part you are missing.
:doh: It's not arbitrary if it is consistent.
Done. Something arbitrary means that thing could change at any time. God's standards do not and have not. And I believe they will not.
How about you. Do you think God will someday disagree within Himself?
PlastikBuddha
New member
Self-agreement is a meaningless tautology.
How could they contradict each other? Is it possibly for God to be something other than God, because that is what would be required for their self-affirmation to have any real meaning.
It is consitently arbitrary. From whence comes the righteousness of God and the ability to recognize it as such?
They are arbitrary in that there is no reason given for why righteousness is what it is beyond the claim that it is the nature of God to be righteous and it could therefore conceivably have been different had the nature of God been different.
Not particularly. I'm not discussing the future but the ORIGINS of good/righteousness/piety. The dilemma is basically: is X good/holy/whatever because God has commanded it to be so or because it is intrinsically good/holy/whatever. The Christian "solution" is essentially to say that this goodness/holiness/whateverness is in some way intrinsic but to try and avoid the implication that this means that God is then subject to a morality that exists outside Himself by saying that God is intriniscally good in and of Himself and is capable of recognizing this independantly due to the tri-fold nature of three-God. I don't believe this is valid because the three aspects of the Trinity are essentially the same so their agreement is essentially an internal thing, leaving the whole enchilada open to same accusations of arbitrariness that are made against the "commanding" diety.
QUOTE]
Is this not the same as saying that God agrees with Himself? Our faith is monotheism, one Godhead, not three. Yes, I am a faithful believer if the Trinity, yet God has three personas, or three way to touch our hearts.
I really do not what to argue with you as I am too addle-minded and you are too handsome. This is just my reasoning
PlastikBuddha
New member
I really do not what to argue with you as I am too addle-minded and you are too handsome. This is just my reasoning
I don't reckon anyone's buying that one!
Maybe. What are my choices?
Would the use of "that" allowed you to say what you said without quoting a couple thousand words of OP?
I can only assume you do not wish to understand.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Then explain, Stipe, how agreement between persons that are essentially the same has any meaning aside from essentially "a=a".
badp
New member
Have you ever had two simultaneous conflicting thoughts about something? Have you ever changed your mind on an issue?
God doesn't have that problem. Hence, this agreement has some significant meaning!
PlastikBuddha
New member
Not in terms of resolving the dilemma under discussion.
Because any contradiction will be visible. Faith in God is not based on one testimony. It's based on the evidence of a relationship that has shown it can be trusted for one eternity. Why not another?
No. The OP was worth repeating.
- Status