IamSparticles

Because, apparently that's how the Vatican feels:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Faith is defined as believing something without evidence of truth, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. If you think this is a good or virtuous quality, why so?

My son is 3 years, 7 months old. He has been using the toilet for almost a year now, as he started showing interest in learning last October. He's not unable or unwilling. The problem is that either he does not know when he needs to go, or else he does know, but he ignores it. Because if we don't constantly push him to use the toilet, he will happily go in his underwear (both pee and poo) and just continue playing. Sometimes he'll even lie about having gone in his pants so that he can keep playing. He does this both at home and at daycare. He is unable or unwilling to discuss why he does not go to the toilet. When asked, his only response is "because I didn't." Pointing out that his logic is circular doesn't seem to help (I'm trying to keep my sense of humor about this).

We have had limited success with offering positive incentives for using the potty. It usually works for about a week, then he loses interest and goes back to his old habits unless we find some new incentive. For a couple weeks now, we've tried negative reinforcement, by putting one of his favorite toys in "time out" when he messes himself. He can't get it back unless he poops in the potty. He now has about six toys in time out, so we're looking for a new approach.

My wife and I are very frustrated, and now have a second baby due in February. We've tried to be laid back about the whole thing, but it has now become a major priority. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

The Euthyphro dialogue is a bit of logical argument written by Plato in 380 BC that tries to get people to think about the nature of morality. The details aren't important (indeed, they are probably apocryphal), but the resulting dilemma goes like this (note, the original dialogue was written in terms of a polytheistic view, but I'm converting it to monotheistic for the sake of Christians):

Does god command something because it is morally correct? Or is something morally correct because god commands it?

If god commands only that which is morally correct, then morality is independent of god, and god is bound to act in specific ways in order to be considered good. In this case, it is possible to be good without knowing or following the will of god.

If an act is only morally correct because god commands it, then there is no objective morality, there is only the whims of god. God can do or command whatever he pleases and it is automatically moral, by definition. In this case, calling god "good" makes no sense, because there is no other standard by which to measure good.

I'm curious if any of the Christians (or other theists) here have considered this issue and what thoughts you have about it.