Subject:
|
Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:09:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
898 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> Socrates: 'what is good?'.
> Priest: 'good is that which the gods love'
> Socrates: 'so, is it good BECAUSE the gods love it? Or do the gods just only
> love things that are good?'
I came up with a similiar kind of conclusion (well, question) when I was
going to parochial school in second grade. Was it good because God says so,
or is there something inherently good independent of God?
>
> Basically, does God define good or is good defined at some higher level than
> God? To put it to the extreme case, if God said: "I changed my mind. Good is
> no longer helping people, etc. Instead, go kill, rape, steal, maim, and
> cause pain, because now THAT's good." Would the definition of good change
> with it? Or would those things still be wrong?
And this is the same question I asked myself! Maybe this was in third
grade. Anyway, then I asked myself is Christ's message important because
there is some inherent Truth to it, or simply because he is God (avatar of
God, prophet of God, whatever)? What's more important, the message or the
messenger?
Anyway, it's nice to know I have some company in Socrates. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
