Would that not inmply there was a Platonic form of good to which god was subject? To include it IN god is nothing more than a semantic slight-of-hand.
The Euthyphro dilemma destroys belief that the Bible is inerrant
by yadda yadda 2 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
yadda yadda 2
Glenstar, I am not claiming that the Euthyphro dilemma proves God's existence or not; I am asserting it proves the errancy of scripture (depending which side of the dilemma you take).
From a strictly scriptural perspective, not a philosophical one, God seems to be bound to certain moral laws that he cannot break, such as 'God cannot lie'. God also feels compelled to abide with certain legal precepts, such as being unable to forgive fallen mankind unless an equivalent atoning price is paid, ie, the sacrifice of His own son.
Christians also assert the theodicy that the moral value of 'free will' is so important than God must completely refrain from any intervention whatsoever to inhibit the worst kinds of horrific and pointless suffering.
So it seems that the Bible itself supports a view that God is bound to some kind of objective morality; one that would be consistent, not capricious. And so anything attributed to God in ancient scripture that is clearly immoral, capricious, should be rejected as 'the word of God'.
Christian apologists try to say its a false dilemma by positing a third option, but this can also be easily refuted. (see the quoted articles).
-
bohm
Cofty:
Would that not inmply there was a Platonic form of good to which god was subject?
If the platonic form of the good act as a subset of god, that would be equivalent to saying god was subject to a subset of his defining characteristics; either that is trivially true (as it is for all definitions) or i dont understand the objection.
To include it IN god is nothing more than a semantic slight-of-hand.
why?
-
glenster
"Glenstar, I am not claiming that the Euthyphro dilemma proves God's existence
or not;"I noticed that I didn't have to bother with that aspect when I looked at it
later but it was too late to edit.I just mean basically there isn't a moral obligation to not believe in God.
Simply, it depends what stipulations you add, including regard of the OT, and if
you concede prerogative can include that He'd be above strictly interpersonal
human concerns.As far as death goes, the concept already has everyone die of all ages, in-
nocent or guilty, as does life generally (as the prerogative of people accepts
the taking of the life of animals), not just death of ones guilty on interper-
sonal human terms or it's capricious. So as nasty as the nastiest conservative
interpretations of OT examples may seem (such as regarding children in holy
war), the conservative interpretation can accept it."theodicy": the easiest solution to me is to reject "all-beneficence" as men-
tioned above. It's not difficult scripturally since it could never have been a
blanket rule but a reference to whatever good regarding people as interpreted.(PS: "glenstar"? lol. The only other one who called me that was larsinger.)
-
mP
Lars:
Are you aware that the jewish word for holy = prostitute ? Look it up. Every woman of sin in jesus line for example, was actually a holy prostitute. Theres no shame its actually a token of pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-D-%C5%A0
Q-D-Š (or Q-D-Sh , also transliterated Q-D-S ) is a common triconsonantal Semitic root form used in various ancient and modern languages since at least the 3rd millennium BCE. [1] [unreliable source?] The meanings expressed by this root are "Holy", " Sacred ", " Divine Power ", "To Set Apart", and " Sanctuary ". [1] [2] The root is Q-D-Š in Aramaic , Hebrew , Syriac , and reconstructed Phoenician , and Q-D-S in Arabic , Maltese , and Ge'ez .
Qudšu was later used in Jewish Aramaic to refer to God, [8] and Qudš is the proto-form of the Hebrew word qadoš, meaning "holy". [1] The triconsonantal root Q-D-Š appears some 830 times in the Hebrew Bible, where it is used to express the notion of holiness, and when attributed to God, is used to refer to his unspeakable nature. [13] [14] Its use in the Hebrew Bible evokes ideas of separation from the profane, and proximity to the Otherness of God, while in nonbiblical Semitic texts, recent interpretations of its meaning link it to ideas of consecration, belonging, and purification. [15]
The Hebrew language, sacred to Jews, is called "The Holy Tongue" (Hebrew: ???? ????? "Lashon HaKodesh") since ancient times. In addition, the Hebrew term for the Holy Temple in Jerusalem is Beit Hamikdash (Hebrew: ??? ????? , "the holy house"), and Ir Ha-Kodesh (Hebrew: ??? ????? , "City of the Holy"), the latter being one of the tens of Hebrew names for Jerusalem.
Three theological terms that come from this root are Kiddush, which is sanctification of the Sabbath or a festival with a blessing over wine before the evening and noon meals, Kaddish, which is the sanctification prayer, and mourner's prayer, and Kedushah which is the responsive section of the reader's repetition of the Amidah.
Kedeshah, (????), one of two different words for prostitute (see sacred prostitution) used in the Hebrew Bible, also derives from the Q-D-Š root. [16] [17] While the word zonah (???) simply meant an ordinary prostitute or loose woman, whereas the word kedeshah literally means "consecrated female". [16] [18] [19] Whatever the cultic significance of a kedeshah to the Canaanites, who used it to refer to a female deity whose identity is a matter of debate, the Hebrew Bible is quick to use the word for the common prostitute whenever the word kedeshah is used.
There are two different words describing places that use this root in the Hebrew Bible. One is Kedesh, which refers to a Canaanite village first documented in Joshua 20:7 and later in 2 Kings 15:29. The other is Kadesh, a place in the south of Ancient Israel, mentioned in Numbers 13:26 and Deuteronomy 2:14 .
So when the Bible talks about whoring for other gods instead of Jehovah it means it literally. Male priests did the same, in Samuel we are told that Samuel and Saul rolled about Naked all night.
Except their male to male sex was called prophecizing!.
http://bible.cc/1_samuel/19-24.htm
New International Version (©1984)
He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"New Living Translation (©2007)
He tore off his clothes and lay naked on the ground all day and all night, prophesying in the presence of Samuel. The people who were watching exclaimed, "What? Is even Saul a prophet?"English Standard Version (©2001)
And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”New American Standard Bible (©1995)
He also stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"Lars as the messiah shouldnt you know this ?
-
yadda yadda 2
This is not a thread about male prostitutes or any other irrelevant, offensive crap. Please stick to the subject or clear off.
