It turns out that I'd already read all of the relevant posts from that point on. And my opinion is basically the same as JamesR's. I don't think that you have ever really explained your position. You've just repeated that the
Euthyphro problem only applies to what you call 'demi-gods', but doesn't apply to a properly-conceived monotheistic 'God'.
Both JamesR and myself asked you why that is. I expressed the opinion that the dilemma appears to apply to any commander, however conceived, provided that this commander defines right and wrong, good and evil, in a command-ethics.
Since you haven't spelled it out, I'm going to try to reconstruct what I'm guessing you are thinking, based on the clues you've left.
The
Euthyphro problem suggests that there's a dilemma between:
1) X commands A because A is good, and
2) A is good because X commands it.
You may or may not be saying that this is a false dilemma, because 1) would suggest that X is a demigod. Since the properly conceived monotheistic God isn't a demigod, 1) isn't a real option. If 1) isn't a real option for correct-thinking monotheists, Plato's
Euthyphro dilemma doesn't arise for monotheism.
Which leaves 2). God's commands are good because God commands them.
Plato's (or Socrates') point in the
Euthryphro seems to have been that problems arise regardless of which horn of the dilemma one chooses. So arguing that proper-thinking monotheists must by definition choose 2) doesn't make the problems associated with 2) go away.
One of the problems with that option is that if there is no reason for saying that A is good and B is bad, apart from God having chosen to command that they be so, then seemingly there's no reason for God to have commanded A rather than B in the first place. It's nothing more than a random expression of will, entirely arbitrary, like flipping a coin.
Again I may be projecting ideas into your head, but you seem to be gritting your teeth at that point, biting the bullet, and announcing that it doesn't matter to the proper-thinking monotheist that God's commands are irrational and arbitrary, because they are
God's commands. God is the creator of the universe and the source of all value. The monotheistic God, properly conceived, is Lord and Master. Mankind is in no position to ask why the highest God does what he does, our task is to 'bend a knee' and to
obey as wholeheartedly and completely as we are capable.
I agree that many theists would argue in this kind of way. They do it all the time. I don't think that it really answers Plato's (or Socrates') objections though. It just shrugs them off and chooses to ignore them.
I commented on that Middle Eastern-style of ethics in post #2169. Unlike the Greek-derived tradition where the emphasis is on finding rational reasons why we should or shouldn't do things, the emphasis here is on who properly issues the kind of commands that must not be questioned and can't be overruled. Is it the tribal chieftain or an ancient Egyptian pharoah, a divinity resident on earth? Is it some god (or God) up there in heaven, Yahweh or Allah perhaps? Or as we've seen more recently in Europe, is it a Nietzschian ubermench, recreating morality as he sees fit? Is is the German Fuhrer (who seems to have tried to fill that role himself)? Or is it, as the libertines would have it, a situation where every one of us should become a law unto him or herself? My personal sense is that there's something mindless and pathological in all this.