Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Schools and Churches (really 'support' for areligious moral codes)
Message-ID: <5952@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 15:07:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5952
Posted: Sun Sep 22 15:07:59 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Sep-85 00:48:32 EDT
References: <5934@cbscc.UUCP> <639@hou2g.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 29

In article <639@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) writes:
>
>Paul Dubuc:
>
>>                     This is a transcendent standard, one that subjects
>>that king to the law as well as the peasant.  If the law is not based
>>on a transcendent authority, then it is whatever the king (or government
>>in today's terms) says it is; those in power define right and wrong.
>
>This sounds like the Christian God.  The one "in power" determines
>right and wrong.  Why is this less arbitrary?  The Christian "king"
>doesn't follow the morals he preaches, why should I?
>
>
>			Scott J. Berry

Less arbitrary?  The point was about transcendence.  I don't think
you can hold all humans under the law without it.  

I think the Christian God does follow the morals he sets and is also
judge over the consequences.  It's just that some people don't like
is morals.  The only point I'm making here is that God is not a man.
Moral codes grounded in religious belief transcend man.  People may
justify good or bad actions according to what they think God says, put
apart from such a transcending ground for morality, there is no justifying
anything.
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com