"What is the Euthyphro's Dilemma?" CARM video on YouTube

[Russ]

Matt Slick (CARM pres.) put up a very good video recently on "Euthyphro's Dilemma." (Yeah, I'd never heard of it before today either.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-H1PWFgbyg

It goes like this:

"The Euthyphro Dilemma comes from Plato's Euthyphro Dialog which has had various forms over the centuries. Basically, it is the question: Are moral acts willed by God because they are good or are they good because they are willed by God?

"Another way of saying this is: Does God say that things are moral because they are by nature moral, or do they become moral because God declares them to be?

"The dilemma is that if the acts are morally good because they're good by nature then they are independent of God and God would have to answer to these morals and that would not be a good thing because they would be good in and of themselves apart from God to which God must then appeal.

"On the other hand, if something is good because God commands that it's good, then goodness is arbitrary and God could have called murder good and honesty as being not good.

"The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually, in Christianity, a false dichotomy. It proposes only two options when another is possible. The third option is that good is based on God's nature; on his character; on his essence. See, God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good and then reveals to us what that good is.

"It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie (***us 1:2), not because God had to discover lying was wrong or had to arbitrarily declare that it was wrong. Therefore, for the Christian, there is no dilemma since neither position in Euthyphro's Dilemma represents Christian theology."

It could be said that LDSism suffers from Euthyphro's Dilemma as it attempts to make God accountable to "eternal laws of the universe" by which God supposedly rose to the station or status of a God by obedience to laws not created by God himself.

Just another indicator that LDSism attempts to redefine God's nature and character.

[Russ]

The question is asked on CARM:

Who made 'god', GOD?
In the 'LDS god system', who appointed god, GOD? Was it a 'council of higher gods' who look and say, 'You've achieved enough Joseph, you're now a 'god'? Or is becoming a 'god' a natural law, like gravity? Who or what, created these laws that create gods?

In light of Euthyphro's Dilemma, do you see the problem?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Russ

"The Euthyphro Dilemma is actually, in Christianity, a false dichotomy. It proposes only two options when another is possible. The third option is that good is based on God's nature; on his character; on his essence. See, God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good and then reveals to us what that good is.

And your false dichotomy is that there are only two options: 1. That either all laws are eternal, or 2. that all laws must are set up by God and did not exist until he set them up.

A third option is that some laws are eternal, and some laws are are only in force for a time--such as temporal laws--for which time of enforcement is determined by God.

[Father_JD]

You don't seem to understand that for there to be "laws", there necessarily MUST be a "lawgiver"...therefore there can be no such things as "eternal" laws, Fig.

Your thinking is akin to arguing for uncaused "effects".

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

You don't seem to understand that for there to be "laws", there necessarily MUST be a "lawgiver"...therefore there can be no such things as "eternal" laws, Fig.

Your thinking is akin to arguing for uncaused "effects".

You don't understand the difference between a law like the law of Moses, and a law like "as ye sew, so shall ye reap" (The Law of the Harvest).

When God teaches us eternal laws (which are gospel laws) he IS the law giver. It does not mean He is the original inventor. There is no original inventor of eternal, natural laws.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

There is no original inventor of eternal, natural laws.

That's precisely the problem in Mormonism's dilemma.

If there were no original law giver, then God is but a subject to the laws.

As Slick said in the video: "The third option is that good is based on God's nature; on his character; on his essence. God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good and then reveals to us what that good is."

That is the case.

God appeals to nothing outside himself.

Mormonism continues to attempt to invent a god of its own making; a demigod; a man who "obeyed" enough to become a god.

Just another reason to recognize Mormonism as other than Christian.

Mormonism ignores Psalm 90:2.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Russ

If there were no original law giver, then God is but a subject to the laws.

Russ, let's use YOUR God and YOUR definitions, and ignore mine.

Are those laws which bind the TRIUNE God 'co-eternal' with the TRIUNE God, or did the TRIUNE God first have to establish the laws that bind Him?

Answer please.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Russ, let's use YOUR God and YOUR definitions, and ignore mine.

Are those laws which bind the TRIUNE God 'co-eternal' with the TRIUNE God, or did the TRIUNE God first have to establish the laws that bind Him?

Answer please.

See? You still just don't understand. God has always existed and his nature is what it is. God, being the creator of even time itself, is eternally God and the AUTHOR of all that exists. God gave the laws and now he reveals them to us.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Russ

See? You still just don't understand. God has always existed and his nature is what it is. God, being the creator of even time itself, is eternally God and the AUTHOR of all that exists. God gave the laws and now he reveals them to us.

Did God give the laws which define Himself?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Did God give the laws which define Himself?

And just which "laws" might these be which "define" Him, Fig?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

And just which "laws" might these be which "define" Him, Fig?

The laws that if he were to break, it would cause him to cease to be God.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

The laws that if he were to break, it would cause him to cease to be God.

Huh? Wanna run that by me again, Fig, 'cause you're not "getting" it.

"Laws" originate from who He IS, Fig. Scripture declares, "God can NOT lie" because it's NOT IN HIS NATURE TO DO SO.

We know the Mormon "god" can cease to be "god"...especially if others stop "sustaining" him as "god".

That ain't the Biblical God, Fig.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Huh? Wanna run that by me again, Fig, 'cause you're not "getting" it.

"Laws" originate from who He IS, Fig. Scripture declares, "God can NOT lie" because it's NOT IN HIS NATURE TO DO SO.

We know the Mormon "god" can cease to be "god"...especially if others stop "sustaining" him as "god".

"The Mormon God can cease to be God if others stop sustaining him?" You clearly demonstrate that you have little understanding of LDS doctrine. What willful eggnernce you demonstrate.

So, if it ever becomes in my nature not to lie, does that mean I am a God too?

Of course it is not in God's nature to lie. I don't think it ever was nor will be.

Tell me though, will it always be in YOUR nature to lie?

Just because God is our source for truth and light, does this somehow mean that truth and light and natural law are not co-eternal with God?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Just because God is our source for truth and light, does this somehow mean that truth and light and natural law are not co-eternal with God?

The Mormon God is not eternally God. He had a starting point as a God. He became God by obedience to eternal laws outside himself.

The God of the Holy Bible, on the other hand, is the author and creator of everything, visible and invisible and even his own character which is pure and holy according to his own laws.

That's what Mormonism doesn't (can't) understand.

[Father_JD]

"The Mormon God can cease to be God if others stop sustaining him?" You clearly demonstrate that you have little understanding of LDS doctrine. What willful eggnernce you demonstrate.

You clearly demonstrate that you have little understanding of Mormon teaching from the 60's, Fig. It's outlined in one of YOUR Mo's writings...a certain W. Cleon Skousen. I suggest you do a little research before revealing YOUR "eggnernce".

So, if it ever becomes in my nature not to lie, does that mean I am a God too?

Of course it is not in God's nature to lie. I don't think it ever was nor will be.

Tell me though, will it always be in YOUR nature to lie?

Nope. You will NEVER be or become a "god". But the regenerate, glorified Christian has NO sin nature in God's presence and it's not in his nature to lie. It's still in YOUR nature and mine to lie, Fig...and the sooner you come to understand the extent of the Fall...the better.

Just because God is our source for truth and light, does this somehow mean that truth and light and natural law are not co-eternal with God?

In that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is eternal, his intrinsic attributes are naturally co-eternal with Him.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

You clearly demonstrate that you have little understanding of Mormon teaching from the 60's, Fig. It's outlined in one of YOUR Mo's writings...a certain W. Cleon Skousen. I suggest you do a little research before revealing YOUR "eggnernce".

I'd love to read a quote from Cleon Skousen if you have one. Better yet would be a quote from a prophet or apostle or from our scriptures, rather than an author.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

It's still in YOUR nature and mine to lie, Fig...and the sooner you come to understand the extent of the Fall...the better.

Will it always be in your nature to lie, JD?

Originally Posted by Father_JD

In that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is eternal, his intrinsic attributes are naturally co-eternal with Him.

Well, this admission puts you on course for also acknowledging that natural law is co-eternal with God. Are you sure you want to go there?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Well, this admission puts you on course for also acknowledging that natural law is co-eternal with God. Are you sure you want to go there?

I'll go there. So will da fadda.

God has always existed as God (Psalm 90:2) and, therefore, his own authorship of said laws have always existed with him. It's his universe, his laws, his nature, his character, on and on.

Now, regarding LDSism, God couldn't have been the author of said laws because, according to LDSism, God has not always been God but became God due to his proven willingness to be obedient to laws outside himself.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

I'd love to read a quote from Cleon Skousen if you have one. Better yet would be a quote from a prophet or apostle or from our scriptures, rather than an author.

It's in one of his books such as "The Second Thousand Years" or one of it's successors. It was considered authoritative by the LDS hierarchy in its day...being endorsed by the LDS Church, published by Bookcraft...but do I wanna spend an hour or two hunting down this quote which I well remember...maybe.

Will it always be in your nature to lie, JD?

Nope. Either at death or the Rapture. But why do YOU lie, Fig, in light of your denial of Original Sin?

Well, this admission puts you on course for also acknowledging that natural law is co-eternal with God. Are you sure you want to go there?

God's attributes are co-eternal with Him because He's eternal Fig...unlike your placing created material...such as "matter" on a par with God.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Will it always be in your nature to lie, JD?

Nope. Either at death or the Rapture. But why do YOU lie, Fig, in light of your denial of Original Sin?

What is so magical about death or the rapture that will change you from a lying nature to a truthful nature?

I'm responsible for my own sins, JD. Adam isn't responsible for them.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

What is so magical about death or the rapture that will change you from a lying nature to a truthful nature?

I'm responsible for my own sins, JD. Adam isn't responsible for them.

What you seem to refuse to see is that there would by no sin if Adam hadn't sinned/fallen.

As has been explained over and over, we inherited the "sin nature," from Adam consequently we all sin.

Andy

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

What you seem to refuse to see is that there would by no sin if Adam hadn't sinned/fallen.

As has been explained over and over, we inherited the "sin nature," from Adam consequently we all sin.

Andy

Fig and other Mormons recognize that EVERYONE sins, and yet they somehow can't reconcile this FACT with their "free will" doctrine...that anyone can simply "choose" NOT to sin.

Talk about deceived!

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Fig and other Mormons recognize that EVERYONE sins, and yet they somehow can't reconcile this FACT with their "free will" doctrine...that anyone can simply "choose" NOT to sin.

Talk about deceived!

Did Adam and Eve have free will? You don't seem to see how they are a shadow and type for all humanity.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Did Adam and Eve have free will? You don't seem to see how they are a shadow and type for all humanity.

Yes, they sure did, Fig. And they were the LAST ones to have it as well. You keep IGNORING the FALL, dude.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

What you seem to refuse to see is that there would by no sin if Adam hadn't sinned/fallen.
As has been explained over and over, we inherited the "sin nature," from Adam consequently we all sin.
Andy

---Should ANYONE be punished for hereditary defects, which by definition were not their fault? Sounds kinda unfair.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Should ANYONE be punished for hereditary defects, which by definition were not their fault? Sounds kinda unfair.

Come on, Jeff. If the Bible says that God is actually a respecter of some persons, and not others, then who are you and I to argue with that?