What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

Also, there's one thing I really don't understand. You're constantly talking about the times being different when the bible has been written and we shouldn't apply our standards to the people of old. Yes, we can agree on that, but for me it follows that moral standards are relative, since, well, societies and times keep changing. But you argue, correct me if I'm wrong, that morals are somehow eternal. That really seems contradictory.

There are 2 things at play here:

1. Moral objectivity

2. Personal culpability

An act may be objectively immoral as the act in and of itself. But the person's culpability for commiting that act, is subjective.

For example, an insane person can go into psychotics and commit mass murder. Yes, the ACT they have committed is an objectively immoral act.

But considering the person's state of mind, their culpability is lessened. That person's culpability is less than that of a a person who committed the same act but did so fully conscientiously. The insane person is held at a lower standard and should thus receive less severe punishment, if any at all.

Does that make more sense?

It was a little more than that with some people. I'm pretty sure "men of god" was used once or twice at least.

Probably because sarcasm isn't readable but only audible. "Men of god" meaning they're riding the high horse, trying to assume the moral authority and handing out marching orders on how to behave. If you're doing that kind of thing, you better have an impeccable record.

Could very possibly be.