This guy is an egotistical prick. In a dialogue recorded by Plato between Greek Philosopher Socrates and supposed "religious expert" Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthy-whatever-face what he thinks "holiness" is. In response, Euth-man tells Socrates that holiness is the prosecution of those who commit crimes. Now most people would be just fine with that definition, but not this guy. Socrates has to be a smartass about it and is like "Well jeez, Man. That's not a definition, that's an example." (Note: that is not an actual quote)
Anywho, I guess he's right, that is more of an example than a definition, so the guy gives him another definition. This time he says that holiness is what the gods love. Socrates, being the smartass he is, is like "Okay, well, if holiness is what all gods love, then how come the gods still had arguments about virtues n' stuff?" (Note: this is not an actual quote either)
Alright, so, he does have a point. Going by their views of the gods, that definition doesn't really make sense either. But then it's this third rebuttal that got to me. Euth-a-lama-ding-dong adds some more BS that doesn't really make any sense to his second definition, saying "what some of the god's love or what some of them hate is either both or neither." It's then that Socrates asks "Is the holy loved by the God’s because it is holy or holy because it is loved by the Gods?"
No. Freaking philosophy. Forget you, Socrates. You were just a guy who got too much credit for being a little smarter than the other idiots who were alive during the time.