Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

It's a false dichotomy.

It's really not.

Yeah, it is.

[Harry Baird]

It's a false dichotomy.

It's really not.

Yeah, it is.

I know you are but what am I?

Are you really descending to the level of automatic gain-saying? Watch the video, for pity's sake, and come up with something intelligent to respond with or admit that the only intelligent response is concession. (P.S. I edited my last post to add in a crucial sentence).

[Immanuel Can]

It's really not.

Yeah, it is.

Are you really descending to the level of automatic gain-saying?

No. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong. That'll do.

[Harry Baird]

Are you really descending to the level of automatic gain-saying?

No.

Haha.

Your every reply is a reminder of what a waste of time it is to engage with you.

[Immanuel Can]

Your every reply is a reminder of what a waste of time it is to engage with you.

For once, we are completely on the same page.

So bye.

[Harry Baird]

A note to others: don't be dissuaded by this rather sad and disappointing exchange from watching the video.

I thought I was capable of clearly explaining the Euthyphro Dilemma and its implications and the success of its logic, but this guy takes it to a whole freakin' other level! It's not that he added much to my understanding of the Dilemma itself, but he sure added to my understanding of how to express, convey, and communicate that understanding with a dazzling clarity.

The teaser for those who need more to be motivated to watch it:

His novel (to me) contribution is to frame the Dilemma in terms of "explanatory priority". He provides an analogy: green grass versus the true sentence "the grass is green", given which we can ask: Is the truth of the sentence explained by the greenness of the grass, or is the greenness of the grass explained by the truth of the sentence? Clearly, he says (and I hope we all agree), the answer is the former: the greenness of the grass is explanatorily prior to the truth of the sentence, not the other way around.

Analogically, he says, the Dilemma asks (my paraphrasing in the context of a thread about monotheism): Does the morality of the acts/laws/principles/etc which are decreed/commanded/embodied/etc by God as moral explain why God decrees/commands/embodies/etc them as moral, or does God's decreeing/commanding/embodying/etc those acts/laws/principles/etc as moral explain their morality?

In other words: which is explanatorily prior to the other?

Here, he says, whichever option we choose does not ultimately explain what morality is, or, in other words, does not properly "ground" - the term IC seems to prefer in this context - morality in God.

You'll have to watch the video to see how he clearly explains why.

I hope I've sufficiently whet some appetites here...

[commonsense]

IC:

I am not asking what it is that you know or what it is that you believe.

I’m asking how do you know what you know about God

The short answer is, His self-revelation. Apart from that, I have no special access.

And why do I believe it? Because if God has spoken, it would be insane not to believe Him.

All you have to decide, then, is whether or not God has spoken.

and the universe

That's a different question. The universe is made up of physical things. I learn about it in the same sorts of ways as anybody does, science being the primary one, but personal experience, logic...I'm actually not sure the question is anything else but obvious.

Maybe I'm missing your point here. Can you find another way to get at it? I'm trying to see what it is.

Thank you for your helpful answers.

I follow what you say, but I’m puzzled by another question. If I haven’t heard God speak to me, how can I know that God has spoken?

[Gary Childress]

This is the video on the Euthyphro Dilemma that IC needs to watch.

The Euthyphro Dilemma? Seriously?

Asked and answered. And there's been nothing new on it in thousands of years.

I guess what interests me and what you as a very knowledgeable Christian may be able to answer is:

Why did God tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, if it was indeed not God's intent to begin with for Abraham to do it? Why did God bother to pose that question to Abraham? AND if Abraham had said, "no" to God, do you think it should make any difference to God if Abraham refused to obey an immoral command from God? I mean, what difference should it make to God if Abraham says, "no, I won't do that. Sorry." And since Abraham, in fact, said, "OK, I'll do it." Then do you think that maybe says something bad about Abraham's moral character?

[promethean75]

Hi Gary!

no such exchange ever actually happened. there is no god and there wuz no abraham, etc, so there can be no answer to your question.

when u aks the question, you're really aksing why that story is included in the jewish/christian mythology... and the answer to that is that the story is meant to convey some kind of lesson, some kind of 'moral of the story'. this particular example is supposed to demonstrate extreme devotion and commitment to god even when that includes doing something asinine like sacrificing your own son.

[Gary Childress]

Hi Gary!

no such exchange ever actually happened. there is no god and there wuz no abraham, etc, so there can be no answer to your question.

when u aks the question, you're really aksing why that story is included in the jewish/christian mythology... and the answer to that is that the story is meant to convey some kind of lesson, some kind of 'moral of the story'. this particular example is supposed to demonstrate extreme devotion and commitment to god even when that includes doing something asinine like sacrificing your own son.

If no such exchange ever actually happened and the purpose of the story is to raise awareness of the difference between devotion to God and using one's own best judgment, then I think that would undermine the position of the majority of Christain sects in existence, if not all of them. I mean, is there any Christian sect that doesn't take the Bible as a guide to living? Is the unifying theme of the Bible not to devote oneself to God and everything God commands, rather than to ruminate on theological puzzles? I mean, if they're theological puzzles, then there is nothing to guide one's life by because the puzzles raise more questions than they answer if one does NOT take God's word as the central underlying message of the Bible. I sort of wonder if that isn't something that separates theology from mythology. Does any Christian sect in this world truly look at the Bible as myth? I've heard some claim that the Bible can be read allegorically in SOME places. But I don't think I've ever heard any Christian theologist claim that the entire Bible is a book of puzzles and thought experiments.

[promethean75]

It's nonsense on stilts, Gary.

"But I don't think I've ever heard any Christian theologist claim that the entire Bible is a book of puzzles and thought experiments."

Of course not, becuz Christian theologists didn't do any of the writing or story telling that's included in the bible. They'd not be able to know this is just stuff written by semi-literate superstitious people who were certainly not contacted or told by god to write or tell any of it.

[promethean75]

do we believe that the example used in the bible to express and articulate the dire importance (and consequences) of being able to make sacrifices just happened to involve the killing of a guy's son at god's command... or wuz it contrived?

of all the possible ways to express the importance of being able to make sacrifices - u could have substituted Abraham's pet hamster for his son in that story and got the same message. but that's not enough. one has to be terrified into subservience by using the most extraordinary case of sacrifice... the ultimate case, as it were. one's own son.

'course now that may have actually happened; some nutt job did kill his own son once out in the desert and said god told em to do it, etc. then somehow this story got included in the texts.

either that or it's the makings of very sinister conspirators who manufactured that story and put it in the bible during it's formal conception.

[Gary Childress]

either that or it's the makings of very sinister conspirators who manufactured that story and put it in the bible during it's formal conception.

It could be that the NT is the attempts of the early clergy to FIT Christianity into what was serviceable to or convenient for citizens of the Roman Empire, genuinely thinking that their empire was an example of "Roman exceptionalism" or something.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[attofishpi]

either that or it's the makings of very sinister conspirators who manufactured that story and put it in the bible during it's formal conception.

It could be that the NT is the attempts of the early clergy to FIT Christianity into what was serviceable to or convenient for citizens of the Roman Empire, genuinely thinking that their empire was an example of "Roman exceptionalism" or something.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

=duh

Or Christ was part of the system of God that does exist and you are listening to yet another stupid short-of-sight atheist twat?

That Christ did exist, and did do what is purported in the bible. (I have it from the 1st source that indeed HE did)

[Agent Smith]

So there was this guy, it was the iron age, and he had an urgent message. He was crucified. Was the message delivered/not?