In article 17570@freenet.carleton.ca, ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens) writes: > >In a previous article, david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) says: > >> >>I don't mean to be rude, but I think that you've got hold of the wrong >>end of a different stick... >> >>David > >I had a look at your posting again and I see what you mean!  I was so >intent on explaining how Jung thought we could be more moral than God that >I overlooked your main line of thought. > >You seem to be saying that, God being unknowable, His morality is unknowable.  Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm not a Jew but I understand that this is the Jewish way of thinking. However, the Jews believe that the Covenant between YHWH and the Patriarchs (Abraham and Moses, in this case) establishes a Moral Code to follow for mankind. Even the Jews could not decide where the boundaries fall, though.  As I understand it, the Sadducees believed that the Torah was all that was required, whereas the Pharisees (the ancestors of modern Judaism) believed that the Torah was available for interpretation to lead to an understanding of the required Morality in all its nuances (->Talmud).  The essence of all of this is that Biblical Morality is an interface between Man and YHWH (for a Jew or Christian) and does not necessarily indicate anything about YHWH outside of that relationship (although one can speculate).  > >The first thing that comes to mind is that man is supposed to be created >in His image, so there is an argument that we are committed to whatever >moral code He follows as part of trying to live up to that image.  If we >are supposed to live by Christ's example, you would be hard pressed to >argue that God is a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of guy.  The trouble with all of this is that we don't really know what the "created in His image" means. I've heard a number of different opinions on this and have still not come to any conclusion. This rather upsets the Apple Cart if one wants to base a Life Script on this shaky foundation (to mix metaphors unashamedly!) As to living by Christ's example, we know very little about Jesus as a person. We only have his recorded utterances in a set of narratives by his followers, and some very small references from comtemporary historians. Revelation aside, one can only "know" Christ second-hand or worse.  This is not an attempt to debunk Christianity (although it may seem that way initially), the point I`m trying to make is that we only really have the Bible to interpret, and that interpretation is by humanity. I guess this is where Faith or Relevation comes in with all its inherent subjectiveness.  > >Metaphysically, if there are multiple moral codes then there is no >Absolute moral code, and I think this is theologically questionable.  No. There may be an absolute moral code. There are undoubtably multiple moral codes. The multiple moral codes may be founded in the absolute moral code. As an example, a parent may tell a child never to swear, and the child may assume that the parent never swears simply because the parent has told the child that it is "wrong". Now, the parent may swear like a trooper in the pub or bar (where there are no children). The "wrongness" here is if the child disobeys the parent. The parent may feel that it is "inappropriate" to swear in front of children but may be quite happy to swear in front of animals. The analogy does not quite hold water because the child knows that he is of the same type as the parent (and may be a parent later in life) but you get the gist of it? Incidentally, the young child considers the directive as absolute until he gets older (see Piaget) and learns a morality of his own.  David.  --- On religion: