What is the point of morality if you're a theist?

[Esquilax]

then please give an example that is not.

Murder: even in murderous regimes, murder is still an immoral act. That's why you so often see a campaign of dehumanization going along with it; the best way to make a large group of people swallow the idea of that level of violence is to remove the humanity of your victim group, and distance them from the idea that they could be murdered.

Also, you seem to be mistaking the action with the morality of it; I don't believe we live in an entirely relative moral framework, and so it's possible for a society to say they're going to do a thing, and even carry out that action, without making the requisite moral case for it. In part, that's why we need the ability to self correct; we're humans, we can make mistakes with our moral determinations, and without correcting them, we'll never improve.

Again please give examples..

Well, we all experience stimuli essentially the same, and so those tend to inform our morality in a concrete way; we don't enjoy pain, and so causing injury is, within the majority of contexts, considered an immoral act. This is modulated by necessity- self defense and so on- of course, but in the main, hurting people is bad, and that's a stable moral principle. We don't like being dead, or at least we'd prefer to be alive in most cases, and so murder is wrong, and even when it's justifiable it's still not considered one's plan A, so to speak.

which is?

That morality is solely determined by majority opinion, and can shift depending on that. I disagree; morality is informed by more than what we can justify to ourselves.

Great philosphy, the only problem it does not reflect the examples of History that I provided.

I gave 3 examples of entire soceities shifting their morality/santity of human life, from holding to everyone having a right to live, to a majority section of the soceity turning on a minority and trying to wipe them out. Each time the majority dehumanized those being slaughtered and little to no mercy was shown.

I know, but that's not moral relativism because those actions they were taking were immoral independent of their own justifications for them. Who can deny the suffering those societies caused, whether it was considered justified or not? The stable constant here is that the minority being persecuted was in pain, and it's the pain itself that makes the act immoral, not the views of the people perpetrating it.

From then to now there has been a core shift in pop morality to say all life is now sacred, unless youre an unwanted child. Then all one need do is change your classification from child to fetus, and then this soceity will happily look the otherway while thousands are killed daily.

Leaving aside your emotive language, you seem to be agreeing with me that morality changes, you're just using different words for it. To me, these changes constitute an amending of morality to fix past mistakes; instead of the definitions of morality changing, we're learning that certain acts we'd gotten away with for too long were always immoral, and seek to change them. This comes from society because society is made up of people, and people are all there is when it comes to determining morality.

But 'we' aren't. We are making the right desisions for us, all the while crushing out everyone elses culture, or in some cases villifying it, so when war does come 'we' can feel 'right' about forcing a nation of weirdos like North Korea to adopt our brand of life.

I disagree: it's about stopping moral wrongs, when we can. There is an objectively correct moral path to take on certain decisions, and in terms of something like North Korea, the suffering of the people within those borders outweighs the government's right to keep control, since they've displayed an inability to do so in a way that doesn't cause suffering to the people in the favor of a privileged few.

How did you come to this conclusion?

I didn't, hence the question mark: I'm asking you whether you believe the real world benefits of god's commandments were a design choice on his part, or an unintended consequence of rules he'd issued due to his nature.

How do you mean?

I'd assume you're against slavery on principle, and would want those slaves in other countries to be free? If so... well, the bible says for those slaves to obey their masters.