I know Grizz is fully capable of answering for himself (and is probably formulating his own response as I write), but I wanted to get my two bits in also.
bertot writes:
And ofcourse this would make an absolute code and an supreme being and impossibility, because people cannot agree on things.
This is a mutilation of what he said. He said the code can never be written in such a way that all ambiguities are erased and that it can only be interpreted in a single way. And, he's right: lawyers have very fancy, codified language that they use in writing up legal documents and contracts to avoid ambiguity, and there still manages to always be two sides to any court case--prosecution and defense.
In other words, Grizz's point doesn't rule out an absolute code or a supreme being, but it does rule out homogeneous implementation of any absolute code that is put forth (because of varying interpretations, opinions and understandings of that code).
bertot writes:
Well ofcourse it is if you are going to set yourself or someone else up as the standard.
Who should we set up as the standard, then? Christ? I'm Christian, and I would answer "yes," but I have friends in Taiwan who prefer Buddha or Confucius. How could we objectively make the decision that Christ is superior to Buddha as a moral guide? If the lot fell on Buddha, would you consider the resulting moral code to be a valid way to govern all social interactions? The people in China would.
How would that be any different from if the lot fell on Christ?
bertot writes:
The blueprint you request is contained in the same book that gives the commandments themselves. Are there not details in the levitical law...
As far as I know, the Mosaic Law isn't really being followed by any society today (even the Jews have backed off a bit). And this is major evidence of Grizz's point (i.e. that moral codes are not usually implemented the same by different parties).
bertot writes:
Are there not details in the levitical law that distinquish between accidental death and murder, etc. Further, Why would there be conditions to break an absolute law given to man by God?
Because, for example, God said "thou shalt not kill" in Exodus, then later, in Leviticus, felt it necessary to distinguish between cases when killing was wrong and when it wasn't, as you just said the sentence before.
Edited by Bluejay, : Added "to avoid ambiguity"
I'm Thylacosmilus.
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
