I think the point must be made very clear for you BOAZY: Universally (or near universally) accepted values are not the same as absolute moral values (the 'divine moral code'). Absolute values don;t exist, and if you want to use your bible as an example of a 'reference point' for absolute moral values, then you're plum out of luck. The bible is a great example of how moral certainties and norms can change over time as it advocates among other things: child killing, slavery and stoning people who work on the sabbath. How times change eh? Everything is open to interpretation at some point, there is no absolute immutable reference point.

Events can only be viewed as moral or not by interpretation. It is often argued whether it is the motivation behind the actions, or the ultimate outcomes of these actions that determine the morality of any given situation.

I'll give you an example on how this works:
In the massacre of the English troops at Isandhlwana in 1879 by the Zulus, afterward the Zulus cut open all the soldiers from neck to groin. The English interpreted this as savage barbarity, however the Zulus saw things quite differently. In the Zulu belief system, the soul tries to escape the body, this was often seen by the bloating of the body if left in the sun. So in order to let the soul travel into the afterlife, they cut open the bodies to let their honourable souls escape. They thought they were doing their enemy a favour! But was the 'mutilation' a moral act? I guess it depends on who you were, and what the motivation was.

Bugsy, there is a view that BD does not think that the bibles demands for behaviour have changed - rather he is working towards the day he can see the stonings and other fun bits reinstated ;) .

Seriously though the point you make is a good one, I doubt that BD and others opposed to "make it up as you go" actually live by the rules put in place to keep people alive during the exodus. There were rules which had meaning then which don't now. Not that difficult a concept really.

BD also has problems with the basics of the idea of consenting adults. An acceptance that consenting adults should be able to do some stuff his made up god does not like appears in BD's mind to place the kids and family pets at risk.

R0bert

There is one aspect of this that I would like to pursue.

Boaz hints, in a not very subtle way, that the means by which mankind turned away from the bestial acts depicted on the cave wall was the advent of a "divine moral code".

Perhaps he, or coach or another of the fellow-travellers can explain to me what God had in mind for the painters of those pictures.

Did he put them on earth so that he could consign them to hell when they died? Seems a touch thoughtless to me. After all, there were no churches or priests or bibles or missionaries to show them the way.

Why did he not provide them with a "divine moral code" - perhaps in the form of Ten Pictures, carved or painted in a way that made it clear that bonking the family pet was a bad idea.

If his objective is to lead mankind to forgiveness, it would have been decent of him to have told them what they needed to be forgiven for.

I know it is unfair to ask what is in God's mind on these matters, but there seem to be a few people around who are most happy to speak on his behalf when it comes to Islam, so we might be lucky.

But seriously, isn't it the most obvious thing in the world, that as man became more civilized, and needed some simple basic rules to enable people to live in large numbers and in close proximity, these guidelines emerged in a natural progression.

Religion drifted in naturally in their wake, as groups of people found new ways of exercising power over others that didn't depend on bloodlines. Cf. the balance of power between the Village Chief and the medicine man, shaman, wizard, sorcerer or soothsayer.

Codification of these moral judgments in to law is also a natural progression in civilized societies.

Seems pretty simple to me, but then I'm just one of those people who, apparently, makes it up as I go along. So what would I know.

"Imagine if people were having sex with their German Shepherds in the back yard ....eeeeuwwwww... I mean..where does it end?"

Your personal disgust has nothing to do with it. What is IMPORTANT in the distinction, is whether/IF the German Shephard IS HARMED by the act. There were Crimes against Nature laws in the USA, that were scrapped in all but seven states. Anal sex, fellatio and cunninlingus are listed alongside bestiality according to wikipedia. So millions of Australians by the standards of those early last century, are engaging in acts which no one bats an eyelid at today. If there is NO HARM CAUSED should be no reason fore a problem. Whether I find it reproachable personally is my own preference. What I can do is choose not to engage in those activities, rather than forcing others to live by my own values and personal choices. Democracy is about increasing freedom and personal liberty and accepting the diversity of human experience, while also protecting others from unnecessary harm or abuse.

In regards to sex in ancient times. There's plenty of incest, etc in the Bible. Lot got his daughters pregnant. Absolom, one of King David's sons, raped his half sister. And the list goes on. They did a lot of begating in the Bible.

" sex with their German Shepherds in the back yard....eeeeuwwwww..."

Boazy. Don't knock it till you've tried it.