Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

[SexMachine]

[quote]nephorm wrote:

This is already addressed in the video, and by many before: if it is in God’s nature to be good, then is that nature freely chosen by God, or is it imposed upon God?

[/quote]

It can’t be “imposed upon” Him if it’s already in His nature; if it’s an essential characteristic of His being. Does God have free will and does he “choose” to do good? Yes, I believe God has free will but He doesn’t need to “choose” to do good. He does good because it’s in His nature to do good.

To address another of your comments, no, ethics is not constant throughout all times and all civilizations.

I say it is. I firmly believe in a universal, objective moral order. And I have always believed this. Furthermore, I firmly believe that all men of sound mind know good from evil even while they do evil and proclaim it to be good. As I said in another thread recently, when the Aztecs sacrificed people I believe they knew they were doing evil and they were revelling in the evil that they did. Man intuitively perceives right and wrong almost as if he had a third eye. You don’t believe this? Okay. But I firmly do and you won’t convince me otherwise. If things are as you say then there is no right and wrong and no one can ever be responsible for their own actions. That would truly be a nightmare. That is essentially what logically extrapolates from atheism and existential nihilism.

At least, not in the sense I think you mean. Aristotle recognized three universally vicious actions: murder, theft, and adultery, and these because their nature preclude them from being virtuous. Beyond that, norms of behavior are variable from culture to culture.

Norms are not a reflection of objective morality. Man is inherently evil and when he does evil he cloaks himself in the robes of righteousness and insists that his evil deeds are in fact noble and virtuous. But deep down inside he knows that he is doing wrong by treating his fellow man unjustly. It is this split persona and the tension between the two that psychologists attribute all kinds of neuroses: guilt, shame, remorse - these are all emotions connected with man coming to terms with his own evil behaviour and sorry and remorse can lead to redemption, forgiveness, personal improvement and so on.

Ethics in a higher sense might be said to be universal, but again, that doesn’t seem to be what you are saying.

I’m saying there is a single, objective, transcendental moral order and that man is imbued with the ability to perceive it and to determine right from wrong yet he struggles and deceives himself and commits evil and calls it good even as he withdraws in guilt and remorse. Man is a flawed creature subject to internal conflict and struggling with conflicting emotions; vanity, pride, guilt, remorse, anger, sorrow, fear, shame. It’s all a manifestation of the inner ethical struggles we are all waging with ourselves and with God.

[quote]

Of course, this dilemma (or trilemma) arises out of the personification of deities (and not monotheism as the teacher/professor seems to suggest) and was therefore equally applicable to the gods of Athens. It becomes even thornier if we try to reconcile divine intervention and voluntary action with an unlimited God. [/quote]

Again, I’m not sure what specific dilemma, trilemma or thorniness you are referring to. There certainly are some paradoxes such as the omnipotence paradox that can inform your metaphysical beliefs however I don’t see any dilemma in this specific instance and I’ve explained why. God is not being “forced” to do good because it’s already in His nature to do what is good. And He doesn’t “choose” to do good so much as He just acts in accord with His nature.

[SexMachine]

^^ To add for clarity:

If I see someone beating a puppy with a stick it’s in my nature to stop that person from beating the puppy. I don’t “choose” to stop him. In fact, my free will has become drastically constrained and it would take a great deal to prevent me from acting in accord with my nature and stopping the abuse. So do I have free will? Yes. But it’s much harder to use your free will to act against your fundamental nature. Could God conceivably act against His fundamental nature and do evil? Again, that’s a possible omnipotence paradox although I don’t really see the importance of such a question. As I said, that’s the only possible paradox/inconsistency that I can see. I’ve explained why I don’t agree with your assertion that it’s logically inconsistent.

[nephorm]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It can’t be “imposed upon” Him if it’s already in His nature; if it’s an essential characteristic of His being. Does God have free will and does he “choose” to do good? Yes, I believe God has free will but He doesn’t need to “choose” to do good. He does good because it’s in His nature to do good.
[/quote]

What does “nature” mean? What does essential mean? You are using loaded terms. Take essential, for instance. This derives from Plato’s use of the term ousias; see the Meno,, in which Socrates asks “What is the estate/being/substance (ousias) of the bee?” That is, what is it that makes a bee a bee as apart from other things? What are the inherited qualities of the bee qua bee? Aristotle uses the formulaic to ti ên einai, or what-it-is-to-be, which is traditionally translated as essence in the commentaries. In English, the term “essence” has unfortunate connotations of being a purified version of something, or a most important property, so is misleading for these kinds of discussions. At any rate, to assert the nature or essence of something is also to assert a metaphysics that attempts to explain where this nature or essence comes from. For Plato, it would be the forms. So where does God’s nature come from? Can God be otherwise than he is? You say that he has free will, but he always does good because it is in his nature to do good. So would this be like an excellent human being, who has the capacity to do evil but elects to do good things? If so, then this still resolves to an external standard by which God’s nature, from wherever it derives, adheres naturally. But the standard is still external, much like the example of the yardstick in the video.

I say it is. I firmly believe in a universal, objective moral order. And I have always believed this. Furthermore, I firmly believe that all men of sound mind know good from evil even while they do evil and proclaim it to be good. As I said in another thread recently, when the Aztecs sacrificed people I believe they knew they were doing evil and they were revelling in the evil that they did. Man intuitively perceives right and wrong almost as if he had a third eye. You don’t believe this? Okay. But I firmly do and you won’t convince me otherwise. If things are as you say then there is no right and wrong and no one can ever be responsible for their own actions. That would truly be a nightmare. That is essentially what logically extrapolates from atheism and existential nihilism.

You’re skipping a lot of steps. There are certain laws that are necessary to human beings living together and that may be reasoned from what it is to be a human being. But this is a small subset of what particular groups of human beings adopt as their ethical standards.

Norms are not a reflection of objective morality. Man is inherently evil and when he does evil he cloaks himself in the robes of righteousness and insists that his evil deeds are in fact noble and virtuous. But deep down inside he knows that he is doing wrong by treating his fellow man unjustly. It is this split persona and the tension between the two that psychologists attribute all kinds of neuroses: guilt, shame, remorse - these are all emotions connected with man coming to terms with his own evil behaviour and sorry and remorse can lead to redemption, forgiveness, personal improvement and so on.

I’m not going to debate original sin with you. Freud attributed neuroses, ultimately, to conflicts between the id, ego, and superego. The superego does not represent objective morality or a recognition of evil, but rather the ego ideal that identifies with the idealized father figure. People do not all feel shame over the same things.

[quote]
Again, I’m not sure what specific dilemma, trilemma or thorniness you are referring to. There certainly are some paradoxes such as the omnipotence paradox that can inform your metaphysical beliefs however I don’t see any dilemma in this specific instance and I’ve explained why. God is not being “forced” to do good because it’s already in His nature to do what is good. And He doesn’t “choose” to do good so much as He just acts in accord with His nature.[/quote]

If he doesn’t choose, but is constrained by his nature, then there is an order, structure, or form imposed upon him. That is what a nature has to be. I have a certain nature as a human being. If I can choose to be otherwise, then I am not, in fact, a human being, but something else - or I have mistaken the nature of a human being.

[Severiano]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Edited 4 editz

[quote]Severiano wrote:

That doesn’t seem to be consistent either. If God is by nature good, then all of his actions and commandments are good.

[/quote]

This is really simple. Look, God is good. It’s in His nature to only do good. The reason God’s commandments are good is because He only does good. He would never command evil because it’s not in His nature; therefore everything He commands is good. There’s no paradox or arbitrariness there beyond what I mentioned in my previous post.

Are you sure this is what you want to say?

I say what I say and mean it. Just read what I say and don’t try to double guess me.

I’m going to tell you now that the result is really ugly if we simply follow some ideas about what murder is.

Huh? Follow some ideas about what murder is?

Or, the nature of the bible being pretty inconsistent from old to new.

Again, you’re going off track again. Things in the bible that you think are immoral or inconsistent is not relevant to the discussion.

[quote]

Is that really your position? [/quote]

My position is precisely as I have stated it. Nothing more; nothing less.[/quote]

I’m saying the bible has a long narrative about things God has commanded, and done which don’t seem to be consistent from old to new testament. Some of the commandments and actions from the old testament seem to be prescriptions for murder. Soddom and Gomorrah is an example is used today by some as reason to kill homosexuals (in Islam) and was used to justify such historically as well in Christianity.

Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus… As well as passages from, Isaiah, Samuel, etc. Shows a lot of inconsistency for a God who is supposed to be unchanging and seemingly the source of all good things by your own beliefs… There are many old passages that call for burnings and killings and stonings which are Gods laws, similar to Sharia which influenced Sharia.

In the book of Joeb he makes bets with Satan which leads to, at least what I comprehend as accomplis to murder and some overall foul things, evil things according to my own morality. This is really, really sarcastic but I think it represents what I want you to consider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgZqnsytJI

If I have strawmanned your position I didn’t intend to and I apologize. To me it seems the narrative from old to new testament alone shows a lot of inconsistencies and murder.

[SexMachine]

Sorry, I forgot about this post. I’ll respond soon.

[SexMachine]

Sorry for the late reply. A lot of other comments today to respond to.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

What does “nature” mean?

[/quote]

In the context I used it, it can only have one meaning: a sentient being’s attributes, characteristics, mode of operation, style etc. This shouldn’t need defining as the context makes perfectly clear what I’m talking about.

What does essential mean?

Commonly used in philosophical discussions without elaboration as it has an agreed upon meaning in the field of ontology: namely, the attributes that define an entity or being - the attributes that make it what it is and without which it would be something else.

You are using loaded terms.

I am? Then every other philosopher on the face of the earth is too.

Take essential, for instance. This derives from Plato’s use of the term ousias; see the Meno,, in which Socrates asks “What is the estate/being/substance (ousias) of the bee?” That is, what is it that makes a bee a bee as apart from other things? What are the inherited qualities of the bee qua bee? Aristotle uses the formulaic to ti Ã?ªn einai, or what-it-is-to-be, which is traditionally translated as essence in the commentaries. In English, the term “essence” has unfortunate connotations of being a purified version of something, or a most important property, so is misleading for these kinds of discussions.

1. Not sure why you’ve posted the etymology of the term

2. It can only be misleading if you are unfamiliar with a term used broadly in philosophy that has an agreed upon and widely understood meaning. When we’re talking philosophy and I speak of God’s essence then clearly I’m talking about the former philosophical essence and not a distillation of God juice or something.

I’m using the generally agreed upon definitions of those words as used in the field of ontology.

At any rate, to assert the nature or essence of something is also to assert a metaphysics that attempts to explain where this nature or essence comes from.

How so?

For Plato, it would be the forms. So where does God’s nature come from?

I don’t know. Is it relevant? Is it of any interest beyond the purely academic? What difference could it possibly make to us from whence His nature derives?

Can God be otherwise than he is?

Lol! That question constitutes a logical inconsistency in and of itself.

You say that he has free will, but he always does good because it is in his nature to do good.

I did indeed say that. And I’ll say it again with bells on.

So would this be like an excellent human being, who has the capacity to do evil but elects to do good things?

If it’s in his nature to do good then he will do good. If it’s in his nature to do evil he will do evil. His “capacity” to act against his nature would be commensurate with his will power. And his decisions will be made in accord or against his nature. But in the end his nature will win out over his free will. One’s free will is constrained by one’s nature. So is good constrained by His nature? No. Because man is weak and God is omnipotent. So God would theoretically have the strength of will to overcome His nature. And in doing so, I suppose theoretically it would change His nature because you are what you do. But this is all theoretical because again, God would never act against His nature even though He has the capacity to do so.

If so, then this still resolves to an external standard by which God’s nature, from wherever it derives, adheres naturally.

If God is the creator of all things then ethics are not “external” to Him. They are an element for want of a better word of His will.

But the standard is still external, much like the example of the yardstick in the video.

I don’t remember any yardstick. I’ll have to watch the video again.

You’re skipping a lot of steps.

Steps?

There are certain laws that are necessary to human beings living together and that may be reasoned from what it is to be a human being. But this is a small subset of what particular groups of human beings adopt as their ethical standards.

What people adopt as their ethical standards may not bear any relation to objective morality. I’m not really following what you’re getting at.

I’m not going to debate original sin with you.

No? How about Best Action Movies of the 80’s then? That would be a good debate.

Freud attributed neuroses, ultimately, to conflicts between the id, ego, and superego.

Yes, but Freud was a kook and most of his theories are no longer taken seriously by psychiatrists anymore. His psychoanalyse system is very rarely still used and much of his stuff about child sexuality is now regarded as hogwash too.

The superego does not represent objective morality or a recognition of evil, but rather the ego ideal that identifies with the idealized father figure. People do not all feel shame over the same things.

I never said the superego represents objective morality. Come to think of it, I don’t recall even mentioning Freud.

If he doesn’t choose, but is constrained by his nature, then there is an order, structure, or form imposed upon him.

See above. He is omnipotent so He could theoretically choose evil but He never would choose evil even though he’s capAble of doing so because it is against His nature to do so. Isn’t this what I’ve said several times now? There are no logical inconsistencies or paradoxes.

That is what a nature has to be. I have a certain nature as a human being. If I can choose to be otherwise, then I am not, in fact, a human being, but something else - or I have mistaken the nature of a human being.

You’re assuming one’s nature is an essential aspect of one’s being. I haven’t staked out a position one way or the other but there’s also the possibility that one’s nature is at least partly existential, ie. you can mould your nature and continue forming it through your actions. This would be the existentialist position on one’s nature.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

I’m saying the bible has a long narrative about things God has commanded, and done which don’t seem to be consistent from old to new testament. Some of the commandments and actions from the old testament seem to be prescriptions for murder. Soddom and Gomorrah is an example is used today by some as reason to kill homosexuals (in Islam) and was used to justify such historically as well in Christianity.

Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus… As well as passages from, Isaiah, Samuel, etc. Shows a lot of inconsistency for a God who is supposed to be unchanging and seemingly the source of all good things by your own beliefs…

[/quote]

And who mentioned the bible? I’m trying to concentrate exclusively on the OP and the comment I made about it. I don’t see any value in completely changing the argument and starting up with a general bible bash.

There are many old passages that call for burnings and killings and stonings which are Gods laws, similar to Sharia which influenced Sharia.

Call for who to do that? Christians don’t believe the OT applies to them and Rabbinical Judaism doesn’t interpret any of these penalties as being applicable today.

In the book of Joeb…

Book of Joeb? Never heard of it.

…he makes bets with Satan which leads to, at least what I comprehend as accomplis to murder and some overall foul things, evil things according to my own morality. This is really, really sarcastic but I think it represents what I want you to consider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgZqnsytJI

Okay, I’ll watch it when I’ve posted this comment. I hope it’s not something stupid.

[quote]

If I have strawmanned your position I didn’t intend to and I apologize. To me it seems the narrative from old to new testament alone shows a lot of inconsistencies and murder. [/quote]

But that is beyond the scope of the discussion. The thread and my comment were about the Euthyphro Dilemma.

[Severiano]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

I’m saying the bible has a long narrative about things God has commanded, and done which don’t seem to be consistent from old to new testament. Some of the commandments and actions from the old testament seem to be prescriptions for murder. Soddom and Gomorrah is an example is used today by some as reason to kill homosexuals (in Islam) and was used to justify such historically as well in Christianity.

Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus… As well as passages from, Isaiah, Samuel, etc. Shows a lot of inconsistency for a God who is supposed to be unchanging and seemingly the source of all good things by your own beliefs…

[/quote]

And who mentioned the bible? I’m trying to concentrate exclusively on the OP and the comment I made about it. I don’t see any value in completely changing the argument and starting up with a general bible bash.

There are many old passages that call for burnings and killings and stonings which are Gods laws, similar to Sharia which influenced Sharia.

Call for who to do that? Christians don’t believe the OT applies to them and Rabbinical Judaism doesn’t interpret any of these penalties as being applicable today.

In the book of Joeb…

Book of Joeb? Never heard of it.

…he makes bets with Satan which leads to, at least what I comprehend as accomplis to murder and some overall foul things, evil things according to my own morality. This is really, really sarcastic but I think it represents what I want you to consider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgZqnsytJI

Okay, I’ll watch it when I’ve posted this comment. I hope it’s not something stupid.

[quote]

If I have strawmanned your position I didn’t intend to and I apologize. To me it seems the narrative from old to new testament alone shows a lot of inconsistencies and murder. [/quote]

But that is beyond the scope of the discussion. The thread and my comment were about the Euthyphro Dilemma.[/quote]

I see.

Cheers

[nephorm]

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: I recognize the limits of persuasive speech as well as my own capacity to engage in it. If I’m going to write enough text to continue with this debate, it would be put to better use elsewhere.

[Depression_Boy]

Like helping you get laid for the first time in your life?

[quote]nephorm wrote:
If I’m going to write enough text to continue with this debate, it would be put to better use elsewhere.[/quote]

[nephorm]

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
Like helping you get laid for the first time in your life?

[quote]nephorm wrote:
If I’m going to write enough text to continue with this debate, it would be put to better use elsewhere.[/quote][/quote]

You’re a charmer.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

I’m saying the bible has a long narrative about things God has commanded, and done which don’t seem to be consistent from old to new testament. Some of the commandments and actions from the old testament seem to be prescriptions for murder. Soddom and Gomorrah is an example is used today by some as reason to kill homosexuals (in Islam) and was used to justify such historically as well in Christianity.

Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus… As well as passages from, Isaiah, Samuel, etc. Shows a lot of inconsistency for a God who is supposed to be unchanging and seemingly the source of all good things by your own beliefs…

[/quote]

And who mentioned the bible? I’m trying to concentrate exclusively on the OP and the comment I made about it. I don’t see any value in completely changing the argument and starting up with a general bible bash.

There are many old passages that call for burnings and killings and stonings which are Gods laws, similar to Sharia which influenced Sharia.

Call for who to do that? Christians don’t believe the OT applies to them and Rabbinical Judaism doesn’t interpret any of these penalties as being applicable today.

In the book of Joeb…

Book of Joeb? Never heard of it.

…he makes bets with Satan which leads to, at least what I comprehend as accomplis to murder and some overall foul things, evil things according to my own morality. This is really, really sarcastic but I think it represents what I want you to consider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgZqnsytJI

Okay, I’ll watch it when I’ve posted this comment. I hope it’s not something stupid.

[quote]

If I have strawmanned your position I didn’t intend to and I apologize. To me it seems the narrative from old to new testament alone shows a lot of inconsistencies and murder. [/quote]

But that is beyond the scope of the discussion. The thread and my comment were about the Euthyphro Dilemma.[/quote]

I see.

Cheers[/quote]

When I said I’d never heard of it I was joking. The book of “Joeb” - never heard of it. It’s “Job”. Anyway, yes Job and Ecclesiastes are my two favourite books in the bible. I started watching the video and it was just a satire of the book of Job. I got sick of watching halfway through. Not sure why you wanted me to watch that.

[Severiano]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

I’m saying the bible has a long narrative about things God has commanded, and done which don’t seem to be consistent from old to new testament. Some of the commandments and actions from the old testament seem to be prescriptions for murder. Soddom and Gomorrah is an example is used today by some as reason to kill homosexuals (in Islam) and was used to justify such historically as well in Christianity.

Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus… As well as passages from, Isaiah, Samuel, etc. Shows a lot of inconsistency for a God who is supposed to be unchanging and seemingly the source of all good things by your own beliefs…

[/quote]

And who mentioned the bible? I’m trying to concentrate exclusively on the OP and the comment I made about it. I don’t see any value in completely changing the argument and starting up with a general bible bash.

There are many old passages that call for burnings and killings and stonings which are Gods laws, similar to Sharia which influenced Sharia.

Call for who to do that? Christians don’t believe the OT applies to them and Rabbinical Judaism doesn’t interpret any of these penalties as being applicable today.

In the book of Joeb…

Book of Joeb? Never heard of it.

…he makes bets with Satan which leads to, at least what I comprehend as accomplis to murder and some overall foul things, evil things according to my own morality. This is really, really sarcastic but I think it represents what I want you to consider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgZqnsytJI

Okay, I’ll watch it when I’ve posted this comment. I hope it’s not something stupid.

[quote]

If I have strawmanned your position I didn’t intend to and I apologize. To me it seems the narrative from old to new testament alone shows a lot of inconsistencies and murder. [/quote]

But that is beyond the scope of the discussion. The thread and my comment were about the Euthyphro Dilemma.[/quote]

I see.

Cheers[/quote]

When I said I’d never heard of it I was joking. The book of “Joeb” - never heard of it. It’s “Job”. Anyway, yes Job and Ecclesiastes are my two favourite books in the bible. I started watching the video and it was just a satire of the book of Job. I got sick of watching halfway through. Not sure why you wanted me to watch that.[/quote]

Uhh. It’s okay man. It is sarcastic, but it is true. What it does is highlight that God isn’t consistent like you say, gave Lucifer/ Lucy permission to kill Jobs children and all that which shows a different view of murder. That’s all.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Uhh. It’s okay man. It is sarcastic, but it is true. What it does is highlight that God isn’t consistent like you say, gave Lucifer/ Lucy permission to kill Jobs children and all that which shows a different view of murder. That’s all. [/quote]

Don’t you realise I’ve already thought about this at length? And you thought I’d never heard of the book of Job and I was going to find out something new? And it’s not “murder”. God gives life and He decides when we die. The themes in the book of Job are timeless and relevant to everyone. Not just religious people. Job and Ecclesiastes in particular had a very big impact on me so you’ve picked the wrong part of the bible to satirise.

[Severiano]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Uhh. It’s okay man. It is sarcastic, but it is true. What it does is highlight that God isn’t consistent like you say, gave Lucifer/ Lucy permission to kill Jobs children and all that which shows a different view of murder. That’s all. [/quote]

Don’t you realise I’ve already thought about this at length? And you thought I’d never heard of the book of Job and I was going to find out something new? And it’s not “murder”. God gives life and He decides when we die. The themes in the book of Job are timeless and relevant to everyone. Not just religious people. Job and Ecclesiastes in particular had a very big impact on me so you’ve picked the wrong part of the bible to satirise.[/quote]

Interesting, what sort of lesson do you think is relevant for us non religious to learn from Job?

I’m sure it will be a lot different from what I came away with. I see murder (of innocent), accomplice to murder (of innocent), punishment for piety (and innocence) (Which ties it back to Euthyphro in a technical way), deals with the devil about things he already conclusions to (omni properties), which led to a lot of wanton suffering and death to name just a few.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Uhh. It’s okay man. It is sarcastic, but it is true. What it does is highlight that God isn’t consistent like you say, gave Lucifer/ Lucy permission to kill Jobs children and all that which shows a different view of murder. That’s all. [/quote]

Don’t you realise I’ve already thought about this at length? And you thought I’d never heard of the book of Job and I was going to find out something new? And it’s not “murder”. God gives life and He decides when we die. The themes in the book of Job are timeless and relevant to everyone. Not just religious people. Job and Ecclesiastes in particular had a very big impact on me so you’ve picked the wrong part of the bible to satirise.[/quote]

Interesting, what sort of lesson do you think is relevant for us non religious to learn from Job?

I’m sure it will be a lot different from what I came away with. I see murder (of innocent), accomplice to murder (of innocent), punishment for piety (and innocence) (Which ties it back to Euthyphro in a technical way), deals with the devil about things he already conclusions to (omni properties), which led to a lot of wanton suffering and death to name just a few. [/quote]

Well, that the universe is completely indifferent to us and horrible things can inexplicably happen to people who don’t deserve it. That’s the main theme and it’s essentially the same question that dominates existentialism. Whether or not you believe in God, we’re all confronted with inexplicable tragedy and things that are “unfair” - ie, the universe is indifferent to our suffering. Ecclesiastes also deals with the same questions. It’s the fact that these questions remain unanswered and a mystery to us that makes the themes in the book of Job seem harsh, unresolved and of ongoing concern to us.

[Severiano]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Uhh. It’s okay man. It is sarcastic, but it is true. What it does is highlight that God isn’t consistent like you say, gave Lucifer/ Lucy permission to kill Jobs children and all that which shows a different view of murder. That’s all. [/quote]

Don’t you realise I’ve already thought about this at length? And you thought I’d never heard of the book of Job and I was going to find out something new? And it’s not “murder”. God gives life and He decides when we die. The themes in the book of Job are timeless and relevant to everyone. Not just religious people. Job and Ecclesiastes in particular had a very big impact on me so you’ve picked the wrong part of the bible to satirise.[/quote]

Interesting, what sort of lesson do you think is relevant for us non religious to learn from Job?

I’m sure it will be a lot different from what I came away with. I see murder (of innocent), accomplice to murder (of innocent), punishment for piety (and innocence) (Which ties it back to Euthyphro in a technical way), deals with the devil about things he already conclusions to (omni properties), which led to a lot of wanton suffering and death to name just a few. [/quote]

Well, that the universe is completely indifferent to us and horrible things can inexplicably happen to people who don’t deserve it. That’s the main theme and it’s essentially the same question that dominates existentialism. Whether or not you believe in God, we’re all confronted with inexplicable tragedy and things that are “unfair” - ie, the universe is indifferent to our suffering. Ecclesiastes also deals with the same questions. It’s the fact that these questions remain unanswered and a mystery to us that makes the themes in the book of Job seem harsh, unresolved and of ongoing concern to us. [/quote]

That’s quite interesting.

In this universe which is indifferent to our suffering, God had been rewarding Job up until he made that deal with the devil, after which time he gave the devil permission to do all those things… Killing his children, slaves, losing all his belongings. That’s what I took away from it, that it wasn’t indifferent at all.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Uhh. It’s okay man. It is sarcastic, but it is true. What it does is highlight that God isn’t consistent like you say, gave Lucifer/ Lucy permission to kill Jobs children and all that which shows a different view of murder. That’s all. [/quote]

Don’t you realise I’ve already thought about this at length? And you thought I’d never heard of the book of Job and I was going to find out something new? And it’s not “murder”. God gives life and He decides when we die. The themes in the book of Job are timeless and relevant to everyone. Not just religious people. Job and Ecclesiastes in particular had a very big impact on me so you’ve picked the wrong part of the bible to satirise.[/quote]

Interesting, what sort of lesson do you think is relevant for us non religious to learn from Job?

I’m sure it will be a lot different from what I came away with. I see murder (of innocent), accomplice to murder (of innocent), punishment for piety (and innocence) (Which ties it back to Euthyphro in a technical way), deals with the devil about things he already conclusions to (omni properties), which led to a lot of wanton suffering and death to name just a few. [/quote]

Well, that the universe is completely indifferent to us and horrible things can inexplicably happen to people who don’t deserve it. That’s the main theme and it’s essentially the same question that dominates existentialism. Whether or not you believe in God, we’re all confronted with inexplicable tragedy and things that are “unfair” - ie, the universe is indifferent to our suffering. Ecclesiastes also deals with the same questions. It’s the fact that these questions remain unanswered and a mystery to us that makes the themes in the book of Job seem harsh, unresolved and of ongoing concern to us. [/quote]

That’s quite interesting.

In this universe which is indifferent to our suffering, God had been rewarding Job up until he made that deal with the devil, after which time he gave the devil permission to do all those things… Killing his children, slaves, losing all his belongings. That’s what I took away from it, that it wasn’t indifferent at all. [/quote]

Indifferent to our suffering. And you’re saying not indifferent but rather malicious? I don’t see it as malicious but rather arbitrary and seemingly “unfair”.

[Schwarzfahrer]

Good stuff, Nephorm.

Aristotle recognized three universally vicious actions: murder, theft, and adultery

Morality is so relative even these three are moot:
“Adultery” & "Theft"did no exist for 90+% of human history.
(Aristotle couldn’t have known this as he lacked lots of scientific puzzle pieces. He’s still the most genuine and likable character of ancient age for me)

“Murder” is a bit more complicated but it may very well be the most flexible moral action of them all.
As in either “hero” or “murderer”.
In other words, while we may have a biological default, it is higly susceptible for a subjective narrative.

Without a superimposed framework, there is no morality.
Most religious people flinch, they irrationally fear some sort of violent rock 'n roll end of the world party if people somehow agree on this.
But the lack of absolute “good” is maybe the only “good” thing in itself, because we can talk things out and progress.

[pabergin]

Sev:

If I may jump in, the lessons derived from Job for the non-religious person have nothing to do with God. Anytime the word “God” appears, replace with “indifferent universe.”

The indifferent universe randomly provided Job with various comforts. Then, the indifferent universe randomly took them away, resulting in all sorts of human misery for Job.

There is no why. It’s just what happened. What matters is how Job decides to play the cards he was randomly dealt.

At least that’s what I get from it, from a non-religious perspective.

PB