Water Dog wrote:This is very similar to what I said, that it's useful to demonstrate weaknesses. My point is that the dilemma itself makes zero attempt whatsoever to offer answers and can be equally applied to anything. I haven't said that the LDS theology solves the dilemma, for it doesn't. But it does offer "a" solution, which is a stronger solution than others - in my opinion. What is the atheist solution? Note what you said, that "I personally find." Ok, who cares what YOU think? Are you offering a solution to the dilemma that would allow us, using just language and logic, to reason your moral code as being the "good" one? Is the God of Abraham a moral contradiction because fetchface thinks so or the opposite? By the Euthyphro dilemma you are not in a position to say that the God of Abraham is immoral. It's unknowable. It's a dynamic word which has varying definitions that can be applied to anything by anybody... free will which includes arbitration.
I fully recognize this. I'm simply saying the dilemma itself doesn't answer the question. Right here you are exemplifying the existence of a natural law by presenting a scenario that you (correctly) assume I'll unquestionably agree with. Using language alone we can debate the morality of so-called "sexual abuse" and whether it is in fact abusive or not. This is one of those examples where tasting the fruit transcends our silly discussion. It's like the home schooling debate. On paper nothing wrong with it at all, but critics bring up a legitimate point that sometimes those who are home schooled lack certain social skills that others develop through direct human interaction. And home schoolers can compensate for this with co-ops or other such activities. The point though is that there are lessons which simply can't be learned through reason alone. And there are also practical matters of relativity, which is also a inherent limitation of language. Linguistically we will describe something like "murder" as being wrong, but is it always wrong? Defining the rare nuance of when it's ok, and not just ok, but the morally superior choice, is very difficult with language. Some things you just have to "feel" when you're in that moment. This is the very essence of the spirit vs letter of the law debate. The letter is limited. "for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
The pure form of the gospel is at odds with the institutional church because it relies on the letter. This includes LDS church and all churches, as well as secular scholarship which attempts to consider these concepts. A church is not capable of ever not relying on the letter. Led by a prophet that is inspired or not, even still, that man or women, will be limited to by words and letters. Even if they receive revelation by spirit, they are forced to translate that into words. "You just said to do Y, but yesterday didn't you just say to do X? Isn't that a contradiction" It is absolutely a contradiction... that's the nature of things. Because the truth of "the law," the knowledge of good and evil, transcends individual events and scenarios. It is not definable with language.
I do absolutely agree though that the dilemma is useful for objectively considering the letter. It's reasonable to look at something which supposedly happened in the Old Testament and question it. But in doing so we have to recognize the limits of the dilemma, and also the limits of the text itself, whether things were recorded accurately and conveyed into language properly to begin with. At the heart of LDS theology, and philosophy which we can derive from it, I see a struggle which is attempting to take a huge step away from a dependence on the letter towards a greater independence and reliance on the spirit.
One thing that intrigues me is how thoughtful so many people within the LDS community seem to be. Within the LDS community I observe the most religious pro-gay people that I see anywhere. There are plenty of pro-gay people outside the LDS community, no doubt, but by and large those people are areligious. Baptists who go into psychology or whatever and study homosexuality will likely find themselves turned atheist. LDS on the other hand find themselves at odds with the leaders and lobby for change. For many the scientific aspect will actually strengthen their core beliefs, while altering others, like a belief in infallible prophets.
I'm a bit puzzled by some of your comments. Surely you are not suggesting that sexual abuse of a child is okay under some circumstances? Or that genocide is morally defensible under certain circumstances? Or slavery? If you are then there is no hope of us reaching an agreement on this. There is no context where these are morally appropriate actions.
Yes, I believe in objective morality in some situations. You may be the type who wonders how that is possible without a higher authority. I don't know you that well, but let me answer that just in case by saying that I wonder how any sane person could believe in objective morality and still believe in the goodness of the God of Abraham. Believing in a higher authority (God) doesn't solve the problem of objective morality, it simply allows some to stop thinking about it.
I do notice that you keep saying that the dilemma doesn't offer solutions. You do know that is the nature of a dilemma, right? A dilemma just points out that you can't have your cake and eat it too. After you wrestle with the dilemma you have to decide what to do with it. I have decided that morality exists outside of God and that has serious implications. The God of Abraham doesn't even seem to value his own moral principles. That's easy to explain, he was initially created thousands of years ago and has been revised continuously by societies since then. If you compare his earlier attributes to his later ones they are sometimes completely at odds with each other. Exactly what we would expect of a man-made god.
