It looks like Ray Barraclough was once some kind of cleric, who like Saul, rode a donkey to Damascus, fell of it and hit his head, and had a revelation. Ray's revelation is that religious morality can never be timeless. And that those who think that their own particular God's instructions are timeless and infallible, are kidding themselves.

So far, so good.

Ray then gives examples as to why religious morality is unreliable. The fact that most scriptures can be so open to interpretation, that they can go either way on modern moral quandaries. So too, religious moral instruction can be completely silent upon those moral issues that are so important today.

Okay, Ray. All well and good.

The issue that I have with Ray is his own religiously inspired moral beliefs. He seems to oppose Apartheid, while I don't see much wrong with it. Especially since many aboriginal people today are living in self imposed apartheid areas of their own making, living under their own racist flag, and mostly under their own laws and customs. Does Ray see anything wrong with that?

Ray even seems to be opposed to racism? I think it is because as a former Christian, he still believes in the Christian ideal that all men are created equal? Could I propose, Ray, that this is another religiously ordained principle that is out of date because it is just not true?

How about "Truth" ray? As a former Christian you must be concerned about truth? Well Ray, I think that the reason why certain ethnicities are dysfunctional in every western society is mainly because there is generally a 15 IQ points of difference between these ethnicities and Caucasians, and that is a provable premise. But like some Christians who believed in slavery, and others believed in the inferiority of women, you too are stuck in the rut of a religious ideal, and no amount of rational thinking will change your mind.

I agree with much of the thrust of the article. The real issue is not the authority of the Bible, but rather how we interpret this into a modern context.