Divine Command vs morality; they are not compatible.

[colby25]

OK, but what if Jesus said, "Go and steal." Would you steal ? If morality is determined by God and not equal to or above God, that means it's random.

...but God didn't say 'Go and steal'.

You can play the "what if's" all day. The truth is when you disobey God's commandments there are always negative consequences. For instance according to the CDC homosexuality supposedly reduces your life span by 20 years. According to secular logic that shouldn't be true- you have two consenting individuals just as you do in a heterosexual relationship yet there is obviously an observable negative consequence. There's an old saying that the dice of God are always loaded....that is you can't go against God's Word and win.

When you take God's word out of the equation then nothing becomes wrong and everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

 

[Denter]

I re-opened a couple of Jung's books I had sitting around too Hell if I'm reading Solzhenitsyn though.

Let me give you a good example from something I'm reading now:

The concept of dharmakaya, is a concept of unformedness-nirvana or primordial chaos- out of which Buddhas emerge (take and incarnation) bearing order, the dharma. The dharmakaya in the Vajrayana tradition is normally represented by a blue skinned Buddha mating with a daksini- what are we to make of this?

IMO the Buddha is the Jungian archetypical hero- when he ventures into the chaos, he always comes back, with a gem of impossible value (ie the Lion's Roar)- his own example and the dharma. So the undefined is literally represented by the heroic act- the Buddha (male) enters into the unknown realm (female) and brings forth treasure (the dharma). This is of course the macrocosm of how new life, new possibility enters into our reality as well, except abstracted. It is of course new possiblity or chaos that has been tamed however -mastered by the hero.

This aspect is represented by its implication for action- the most important thing, not what it "is". Once you see this stuff you can't unsee it.

 

[dontsnitch]

Yea even in this thread I think people are being too quick to jump to the argument they think they can win rather than acknowledging the current one.

If I remember correctly our point of contention on the subject became something like: if God demonstrates a non-arbitrary goodness by acting in accordance with his (good) nature, then how do we know his nature? @sabretruth's solution to that is bundled rather nicely, even to a non-believer like myself.

Maybe I'm just getting tired with age.

Yeah, I read Sabre's posts, I think he takes the best religious poster this year.

As for Euthyphro, what I ultimately believe is that it doesn't serve to prove that a good God cannot exist, though it may call into question the traditional version of the Christian God. I like discussing it, I just don't like doing so with someone who believes that there is a necessary conclusion to be had, that is, that Euthyphro proves a good God cannot exist, and argues solely with this conclusion in mind.

I am put off when anyone, for that matter, brings up any philosophical argument which purports to prove a necessary conclusion about God either way, and that goes for theists as well. It's partly why I consider myself to be a weak theist, i.e. agnostic theist, and not a strong theist.

 

[colby25]

Yeah, I read Sabre's posts, I think he takes the best religious poster this year.

As for Euthyphro, what I ultimately believe is that it doesn't serve to prove that a good God cannot exist, though it may call into question the traditional version of the Christian God. I like discussing it, I just don't like doing so with someone who believes that there is a necessary conclusion to be had, that is, that Euthyphro proves a good God cannot exist, and argues solely with this conclusion in mind.

I am put off when anyone, for that matter, brings up any philosophical argument which purports to prove a necessary conclusion about God either way, and that goes for theists as well. It's partly why I consider myself to be a weak theist, i.e. agnostic theist, and not a strong theist.

..thought you were a Christian?

 

[dontsnitch]

..thought you were a Christian?

I am, I'm a born again Christian, I just don't think you can prove God because you need faith to believe.