@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100415 wrote:...or whether God has to comply with morality to be good.
Good is God for somethings (creations) sake (reason, plus, safety).
Moral is not Gods genesis, conclusion, answered.
Moral is God questioned (by us)(God is the only Thing that has no need to question Its self).
Moral, middle, God as soemthing active middle.
It is the action that comes from creation.
It is the act of questioning and us finding solution safety.
God declares nothing (if we want the real experienced truth answer)
Rape by its taking away (and giving nothing back) of self, sake, safety means nothing. It has no question, it is inert. It has no meaning but to NOT be.
It should mean nothing to us, which is the sure fire solution to it not being pleasing to anyhting lest alone God. If it means nothing it is not 'of God' and takes away the need to use as a correctional argument apart from proving the nothing it is. It does not fit anywhere let alone in a suposition. Now if you had said murder there is room for discourse, as in the example Euthyphro and Socrates gives for the finding of piety.
Fido;100449 wrote:This restatment of the question is the one that is phrased wrongly, as an either, or... It does not address the fact that God is always dependent upon the support of existing morality... When God is seen, as in the case of Socrates, as supporting any sort of behavior, he, or they become the object of ridicule... I think Socrates was coming face to face with the mono theism of the Jews who seem to have traded with the Greeks and in some instances, resided in Athens...Monotheism is the most rational religion and paganism, as irrational could never defend itself from charges of waste and stupidity...
God is not dependant upon morality, for us to reach God only means we have devised reason for being.
We devise morality to conclude God. Which you as a non subscriber should agree rather than something like, God concludes morality to be devised.
It is a journey (boring at times) relation Not the destination solution.
irrational; without relation or reason, (without the need to understand God)(or our sometimes boring selves).
kennethamy;100451 wrote:..turn what was wrong into right..
We are what is right and and wrong, God created, and some might say finished with us, or we (in the achievment bereavement of will) finished with God.
It is all our interpretation of God, our trial, two sided 'commandments'. Is it right or wrong? Is it speculative and does God do so as we? speculate.
Your question of a commanding changing God, takes away our choice will and morality.
None of which could exist if God ever commanded us to do anything. Think about that??? No commandments, no impossitions, no right or wrong?
We are the embodiment of what command means,
to take command begets morality.
There is one first commandment in of our creation and will gift of our very nature, do we take control. (But this could also be up for specualtion)
Do we lead.
God never gave commandments, God just could not have, as he gave us the accord/ability to command ourselves.
God may have reasoned with us, but we are the impossition of any and all commandments.
kennethamy;100492 wrote:But why do the gods love piety?
They dont,
and i think Socrates makes this point by the conclusions/consolidations (if only mine) of the dialogue.
Zetherin;100495 wrote:Because the gods are anthropomorphized and appreciate respect and adoration like humans do?
anthropomorphism is all appreciation.
We must go into what we believe piety to be, not just Euth theory, soon.
and i do not see room for human pursuits such as appreciation, respect or adoration to be any part of what I will later try to extol convince as my idea od piety.
God is to heavily anthropomorphised by us, but this is a natural reflex for current humans (well most pet lovers anyway), one we are gifted with or must overcome. (packaged meat)
And a lesson I learn from Euthyphro is that you cannot suplliment human traits such as preference, for Gods position of severe detatchment.
Judgement comes at the end, not in the meantime.
Any intelligent being 'as God' knows God is right (because right works, as we do and should, we know we can work right, there should be no should about it, but with the detachment we are left up to ourselves).
The only trouble comes when we decide for ourselves what isn't right for as many as other. Wjhere education comes in as more than just important.
Open education i hasten to add.
As much as possible i would say.
But i cant live for another right.
'We should only be trying to stop what we know isn't right for ourselves'.
Abit of a paradox occurring here, so will stop.
Paradoxs cant really be finshed so wont try.
kennethamy;100512 wrote:But then why is the action pious? I would have thought you would say it was because it is loved by the gods (they want to be admired). Would the action be pious if the gods did not love it? Suppose they disliked it because they thought it was fawning?
true piety then may be disregard of the regardless God.
which with the theme of Euth means us also.
---------- Post added 11-01-2009 at 03:17 AM ----------
Zetherin;100541 wrote:If the icecream was good, then it would be good. My loving or not loving of it, has nothing to do with the icecream being good, does it? Mt. Everest is 29,029 ft high. Regardless of what I think about it, it is still 29,029 ft high, isn't it?
A pious action is defined as an action showing loyal reverence for a person or thing (in this case god)[I was incorrect earlier when I added the addendum that gods had to love it; this is untrue]. I can show a loyal reverence to anyone, and they may still despise it, or me. But, it still was a pious action. Their opinion on my pious action has nothing to do with my action being pious.
Piety for humans sake,
As much as for all the other goodies, morality, respect, human, sake, etc.
Love I am not sure is something when true does not prooove Gods existence so is not just of or for humans.
Some of that worthy evolved anthropomorphism you were speaking of.
VideCorSpoon;100567 wrote:The central topic is the nature of piety. The question of whether or not the Gods love piety is not the driving force behind the dialog, although it is an important component in the first section of the Euthyphro. So it would be better of me to say to you that, yes, "why do the gods love piety" is a main question...
Yes but to answer we need to uncover, the gods? love? piety?
The anthropomorphism spoken of deals with some part of what we were considering 'gods' to be (not God present) 'The gods?' just a metaphor (for today) of human kind, sa society if you will.
'love?' appreciation, previously destinguished extinguished.
'piety?' You said it, Euthyphro deals with the nature of it, not deals with what it is. (which i think we should and try and soon, while we are here)
Fido;100579 wrote:Then I must ask you; Why did the Catholic Church pick up so much of European paganism when it was clearly dominant??? The Christian calender could be laid over the pagan without out much change... The fact is that God, who works through men, and speaks with our voices does not attack accepted morality because everyone sees their morality as good... There is no point in asking what God can or cannot do... We do not live in that age... We can see what God's messengers do, and they usually use their heads, and do what they can do, and work on the rest...
We should look at our own God and see his evolution in the Bible... The old testament God of Abraham did what he wished, was not nice or fair, often asked the impossible, and did the unthinkable... We might well compare the slaves of soddom and Gommorha... When Abraham was bargaining with God for the life of those people, which is rare enough in our day, the slaved did not count... Yet, Paul says all are equal in the sight of God... The old testament took for granted the obvious fact that minds follow bodies, and when the body is in slavery the mind goes alone...
refer to my almost not paradox.
kennethamy;100820 wrote:I don't think that God evolves anywhere. You are, I suppose, talking about the concept of God. That, of course, may evolve.
Well said, meant, met if not for my own take on your these words.
God has already done all the evolving God needs to, becoming man was the last piece of his evolution he needed, but then who am i to think i know what God needs apart from my love and fear.
Obedience comes from too myself and all of you.
Fido;100911 wrote:As man has changed so have his forms changed... We became more human with a more human God...In fact, all human progress is made through a change of our forms...
Since the printing press, as recent as that we had no idea what it was to be individualistic and the invention of isms came to the front.
It is only recent that we (society) have not feared God as much because of the love we hold (anthropomorphism in part) we are really just loving ourselves but with an excuse. in part, lets hope its a small part that we make excuses.
We become more individual with a more human God.
(There is good meat in these words not well executed by me).
kennethamy;100926 wrote:But if there is no God, we become more human with a more human concept of God. Maybe. Don't confuse the concept of God with God.
You could also say; we become more 'as God' with a more human concept of God.
'As God' lending too the individual who believes he is god. poor
To not 'confuse', would mean we were able to identify concept over reality?
---------- Post added 11-01-2009 at 03:44 AM ----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Euthyphro;
Soc; 'Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all things to be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the impious impious, and the pious pious?'
How about we take our own direction and give each of us two or three personal examples or quotes of what we conceive to be pious and impious, and we may have some luck in an exposition of piety where this dialogue for all its wonder does not fully lend.
Soc; 'Tell me what is the nature of this idea, and then I shall have a standard to which I may look, and by which I may measure actions, whether yours or those of anyone else, and then I shall be able to say that such and such an action is pious, such another is impious.'
You see i think we would be better served if we gave example so we could better see what the nature of piety is by example, am I the only one who thinks so? 'nature of this idea' to gain an idea we need refference to that ideas nature. Nature is viewable through documentary process.
I am mere where it comes to Socrates mind process, i need my example, i.e e.g. Poor Euthyphro didn't stand a chance.
And VidecCorSpoon look again at what i said about his reclining, he may laugh but not at anyone expence, he says in this that he would gladly pay people to sit an listen to him, I love that about him and his own tenable piety.
Euth; 'Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods and impiety is that which is not dear to them.'
Socrates congratualtes him for this titbit, where as i find it childish and subsequent, but with the magnitude of Socratic process he not only gives us this piece from these words but memorialises Euth for them.
Poor Euthyphro.
I would say 'on piety' to start;
You tend to think they are being kind to you, when you are being kind (tending) to them.
