Huge connection to the deconstructing ideas we've been discussing in class.

Again, reminds me of Plato. Love the form, but not the thing itself.

I wouldn't say that strong faith prevents a person from grieving. Reason might say that they are not lost, but their absence is still felt. Is he trying to say that he would have not been sad over the death of his friend if he had trusted God? (I know this is a somewhat oversimplification)

Very much like Aristotle's perfect/complete friendship.

I have never quite understood this idea of Jesus's crucifixion. I once heard it explained as, "God created imperfect human beings who sinned, and then God sacrificed himself to appease himself for their sin." I know this is a pretty essential claim to Catholicism, but I always feel like I HAVE to be missing something. It just does not make logical sense to me.

I have always heard the Catholic definition of love as "to will the good of another." I think these ideas support that definition.

If we were created from love, then technically God would have to love first. We only exist insofar as we are loved by God. We cannot return the love if we do not exist.

This is harsh! If God is love, then would it not be true that people who love their neighbors but do not know God by name or practice are still connected to God? How is calling any person an antichrist or stranger loving them? I think his judgmental tone in the midst of speaking about love comes across as hypocritical.

I think the way that he constructs his arguments is interesting. He seems to question the roots of his beliefs-- like we have spoken about in class. It comes off as a little Socratic to me.

I am not sure that I fully agree to this. Maybe I am limited in my understanding of what exactly he means by charity.

The other reading talked about how Jewish people ought to accept Gentiles into the faith. This reading seems to push Jewish people into a really negative light. It is almost as if Augustine is treating the Jewish people how the Jewish people were told to not treat early Christians.

Is the "she" referring to the heart? It is interesting that the pronoun would change from "it"/impersonal to personal when charity is introduced. It is like the presence of charity is what earns the humanity.

This reminds me of the parable of the forgiven debt.

Something about this phrasing reminds me of Plato and the forms. Through acts of love, it is almost as if we are participating in God's perfect form of love.

Simply put. Easier said than done--especially in a world with so many layers. This idea reminds of The Good Place and how no one could actually get into The Good Place because of how complex the world has gotten.

Frequently quoted!

"Come Holy Spirit, teach us how to pray" really draws from this idea.

Reminds me of Plato and bodies corrupting soul (or at least that interpretation). How does this relate to Dualism?

Women as a metaphor for being submissive. Classic.

Circumcision seems like a symbol for the rest of the law. Is this correct?

Again prioritizing faith over law.

The spirit of the faith outweighs particularity in expression.

Super interesting in light of what I read from Jesus and the Gospels about the Jewish view that they were the only true followers. Here, both are included but there is a clear bias.

"Not fitting" is ironic after "origins of love" video.

Is this about gay people? Drastically different view than greek thought in previous readings.

Very much like Plato's view of the sophists.

This is so interesting. It sounds like what a person would do, but it is also sometime that reason/logic does, without being personified.

I really doubt that this crowd would find those two as mutually exclusive.

Goes back to the need to personify abstract universals. This is a really hard way to think of God in the day to day. It is much easier to imagine praying to the old guy with the beard.

This is an interesting way of looking at this. If the gods were created as a way of rationalizing abstract universals, then Plato would just be deconstructing that thought process. It would pretty much take him back to where it was started.

When we love something, are we participating in a perfect form of love? Or, in another way of seeing it, worshipping a god who has dominion over love?

I had to look this word up. It means basically a redundant phrase-- like "worldwide pandemic." I think he is referring to the "It is what it is" remark.

Failure of self-gift/agape love here. I think its interesting how this is tied into civil disobedience.

I get the feeling that the people here would rather be congratulated for what they already do than challenged to be more. I think that is true of most people, but its being exaggerated in this group.

None of these responses recognize community! Or how we ought to treat one another.

Too real.

I really like how it is obvious here that faith is not just an hour of mass once a week, but a very concrete call for action. It ties into the idea from earlier in this account, when he spoke about how, if you hate a person, you cannot claim to know the love of God. It is different talking about faith than living it.

I really like how it is obvious here that faith is not just an hour of mass once a week, but a very concrete call for action. It ties into the idea from earlier in this account, when he spoke about how, if you hate a person, you cannot claim to know the love of God. It is different talking about faith than living it.

He is being very two-faced and sarcastic here.

He has started a repetition here of summarizing their conversation into a one sentence definition, and asking Euthyphro to verify it.

Second major question/argument

This seems to be an overarching statement for Socrates's philosophic approach and methods.

Compromised definition following the first argument.

The first major argument against his definition. If piety is what pleases the gods, but different things please different gods, what is truly pious?

This is also interesting considering that this problem is removed in monotheistic religions, like Catholicism.

Definition of piety

I believe this is an example of the Socratic method's yes/no answer format.

He is being very complimentary, and I have a feeling this will later be ironic.

In other words, the stakes are high, so he must be very set in his beliefs.

Him condemning others for lack of knowledge is pretty much stating that he has the knowledge. Socrates with definitely challenge him on this! He will poke holes in what Euthyphro thinks is certain.

Freeing yourself of tradition stands out to me here as being especially difficult. I think there is an instinct to defend certain practices without thinking just because it is the way that it has always been.

I liked how they explained this in the podcast. The image of him on the streets discrediting con artists is really funny.

Leaders should be philosophers! Or, if not by name, have the skills of one! Anyone who examines the world closely and rationally can be a philosopher. It does not exclude welders or welders etc.

I feel like this is said with a negative connotation. I understand that the sophists were generally annoying and disliked, but this approach itself seems reasonable. Its like-- "why worry about the origin of the universe when I can worry about things that I can actually change in my own life?" I think that's valid.

Would these have been influences on Plato and his theory of the real world of forms?

This wording reminds me of that philosophy that goes something like "God is the greatest thing that we can imagine." (That was completely wrong.)

This comes across as a moral downfall. Was the belief that we OUGHT to seek knowledge? Or, just that we would personally benefit from it?

I think these types of explanations are fascinating. Although we now know this to be false, I think it is unbelievably impressive to observe and theorize about natural events like this. Especially ones that, given what was known about science at the time, were plausible.

I find this really interesting. I have friends who are athiests who have similar opinions on Christianity! The mystical aspect of any idea or belief system is easy to discredit, but Catholics believe in miracles which could easily be characterized as wishful or non-rational.

I learned a lot about healthy skepticism in Flew's idea of negative atheism! I thought this approach was really interesting-- especially as a craddle Catholic.

Philosophy can often point out where we are comfortable with easy answers and should not be. I took Philosophy of God and Religion last semester, and most class periods ended with me in absolute dread! But, I was evaluating things I had previously only taken as fact.