Food for Thought

Consider the following point: is the holy approved by the gods because its holy, or is it holy because its approved?

(Plato's Euthyphro, page 20)

Today I was reading about a discussion Socrates had with a man who was taking his father to court for homicide. They disagreed over whether or not it was holy for the man to do so. During the discussion, Socrates asked him what he believed the standard of holiness was. Euthyphro (the man) answered that whatever the gods approved of, he believed to be righteous. Here Socrates took his position apart with the following argument:

The way something is determined to be holy is whether the gods approve of it.
The gods are always disagreeing, so each god has a different standard of holiness.
Therefore, Euthyphro's standard of holiness is a subjective one.

This is a very effective way to take apart a polytheistic, pagan religion's holiness standard, but it's no good when used against Christianity. We as Christians believe in only one God. Granted, our God is the Trinity, but as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it -

There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory

and therefore cannot disagree! So, if we were to restate Socrates argument through the lens of Christianity, it might look something like this:

The way something is determined to be holy is whether God approves of it.
The Trinity is in perfect agreement with each other
Therefore, Euthyphro's standard of holiness is an objective one.

Isn't it interesting how a theory can be disproved when applied to a certain belief, but becomes valid when applied to another?

Aren't you glad that every person in the Godhead is in perfect agreement with each other? The world would be a complicated place if it weren't so. Instead of a god that is always changing, you'd have a god who couldn't make any decisions, always changing whatever is started.

I suppose some would say that studying philosophy is rather pointless - it deals with a bunch of hypothetical concepts and situations which never have, and never will, exist. But for me, understanding what these great (but mistaken) men believed, and then comparing it to Christianity, I find myself appreciating all the things about what I believe that I took for granted. I never really contemplated the importance of unity in the Trinity, or God's immutability until now. So although these men were very wrong in a lot of what they believed, their theories which are still around today accomplish the opposite effect of what one would expect them to - Instead of making me doubt Christianity, philosophy convinces me of it.