re question for those with popular morality in article freenet carleton ca ad 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 oh where is the sea the fishes cried as they swam its clearness through
