Answer is I don't know. I've been asking almost that exact question lately, and get various answers. What I've arrived at is that it doesn't matter which is which.
I believe it's possible that when God created the universe, he did so within the confines of a truth that was not dependent on Him -- the concepts of Good and Evil (capitalized and everything). I think it's the less likely of the possibilities, but it's nevertheless possible.
I believe it's possible that when God created the universe, the concepts of Good and Evil that He completely understood (and the concept of Good that he exemplifies) were entirely infused into the structure of the universe, so that within its bounds it's not truly possible for them to mean anything else. That's the one that seems more correct to me right now, though I will certainly grant I could be wrong, and my understanding (or lack) on the matter is still malleable, even though I remain even more convinced that it doesn't matter, insofar as I expect I would live my life the same either way.
posted
If Apostrophes was a student of his, then I can understand his overuse, considering the Greek student/teacher relationship.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would make a comment about how I didn't know that bringing up a greek philospher would bring the topic to how much they loved little boys, however Pop that was hilarious.
Perhaps next time I won't write the source.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't know it would, either, Jimmy (whom I will now undoubtedly think of as "Jimmy the Greek" from now on, regardless of its accuracy). Slash brought it up, so to speak (geez -- innuendo police?). I was just unintentionally doing a free-flow thought exercise of some sort, and apostrophes suddenly struck me as sounding very Greek.
Please note that I gave a serious response, too. I'd like to hear your reactions to it, as well as your thoughts on the original question.
posted
Ah the old Socrates question. He stumped Euthyphro with it. The answer in my opinion is that it is holy to God because it pleases him. He set up the standards of morality. Therefore it is logical to say that he also chose what would mollify him.
In case your wondering along with studying theatre/homosexuality/constitutional law, I am known as a fanatic reader of Greek history and mythology.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jimmy, your answer depends on whom you ask.
Mormons, for example, believe that God likes things because they're holy; Baptists believe that things are holy because God likes them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla you never cease to make me laugh. I'll be back with a real post later.
Edit: I changed my mind and decided to make a comment real quick to Tom. I believe that there is a true answer, whether I believe this or that, one is still correct with God. I doesn't matter if to Mormons it is one and Baptisit another, one of them is correct I suspect.
[ August 14, 2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Jimmy ]
Posts: 43 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've sort of wondered about this too. I ties in with a question I always had, that is:
Jesus never sinned and was therefore perfect. But since sinning means basically "to turn away from God" , and Christians believe that Jesus is God, could anything that Jesus did be considered sin? He could have done anything and it would have been God's will.
Posts: 113 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow, I feel for you Ryan. I had a Comparative lit. teacher who did nothing but point out phallic symbols. Ha, find the freudian slip...If You Dare!
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to one Bible reference work, Insight on the Scriptures, V. I, the original Hebrew word for holy (qo´dhesh) conveys the thought of "separateness, exclusiveness, or sanctification to God... a state of being set aside to the service of God."
If you take the original Hebrew connotation than at the point the person or object was "set aside to the service of God" it would be both pleasing to God because it was holy, and it would be holy because it was pleasing to God to have made it so.
The determination of what is holy would ultimately be made by God, as He would appoint what and who would be appropriate and/or acceptible to set aside to His service. If they set themselves aside for His service, but they (for whatever reason) were not acceptible in that position than they would not be holy simply for having taking on a responsibility that was not deemed theirs to begin with.
Unless you do not believe God, or the gods, take an active role in His, or their, creation. Then it's pretty arbitrary. Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holiness and goodness exist independently from God. He chooses goodness and holiness because those are the things He finds most pleasing.
I guess I am LDS because the LDS view of things like that makes most sense to me and has the ring of truth about it. Or, as we say, the spirit testifies to me in my heart of the truth of these things.
That makes it sound lofty and strange to people unused to thinking that way, I guess. That we each are receiving revelation all the time on stuff like that. However it's really just homespun and ordinary. It's all the things that we know without knowing how we know, all the things like the meaning of meaning, the axioms of logic and philosophy, these we know through revelation.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak: I take off my hat because you are right, people unused to theological babble find it lofty. I also take off my hat to your obscenely low member number.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
<laughs and bows> Ryan, what is your religious context? Are you religious, as well as being studious and intellectual?
A tiny baby can stick out its tongue in reponse to you sticking out yours. How does it know how to do that? How does it get the analogy and understand the mapping between its body and yours? We seem to know most of what we know without ever having learned it. All the most fundamental most important stuff, anyway.
Lewis Carroll's dialogue between Achilles and the Tortoise which is quoted in Goedel, Escher, Bach shows that logic and reasoning don't tell us anything either. It can't even get off the ground. Just like with Zeno's paradox, it can't even get started. It seems like pretty much everything that matters, we know through some other means than observation, learning, reasoning, and so on. Those things are only good for building superstructures of knowledge on top of some fundamental bedrock which is from some other source entirely.
Welcome, by the way, to all the new people. We love new people, especially such polite ones as you! How did you all find us? Is this just the normal fall influx when people start school?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
You answered them both, I think. My other vague question, I guess, was "How do we know the meaning of meaning?" Or "How do we know all the things we know without any way of knowing?"
I guess my answer would be "revelation" for a short answer, or "because we are children of God and it is in our nature to know these things", perhaps. I was wondering what your answer would be.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
because you are right, people unused to theological babble find it lofty. I also take off my hat ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
