A Levite and his concubine

[Esquilax]

You've logically decided that the world would be better off if the Romans would have been nice and not overran neighboring lands. Well, maybe or maybe not. I agree that we would have been better off spiritually, which is what really matters, but there's no way to objectively show that we would have better off physically. It's really theory.

It's also beside the point: morality isn't just about the outcomes of actions for individual groups, but for all humanity. Moral evils can lead to huge benefits for certain segments of the population, at a cost to other segments, but if that harm is active and needless then the actions are not morally defensible regardless of their results.

If the happy Romans disagree with you, all you can do is tell them what you think. Of course, either you're right, or they're right, or you're both wrong, but who's to make that determination.

So because I can't create parallel universes with which to see whether my morals would have a better effect in past circumstances, my moral arguments carry no validity in present or future scenarios, regardless of how well founded they are? That seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? And the same argument can be applied to you, too; since you can't definitively tell me that any moral situation in the past would be improved with the addition of christian morals, that means they too are useless, right?

You've related your beliefs about morality, but you've done nothing to objectively prove that they are correct.

And again, you're asking me to provide a generic moral justification for a specific set of principles? Your question is malformed; I'm not presenting a system of morality, I am presenting a method by which moral principles can be derived and supported by observing reality. The proof of the efficacy of this method is that it works, and that when I'm presented with a moral dilemma I can resolve it with a well justified reason. But your question is far too generic for me to answer in any specific sense, since this system doesn't rely on magic or assertions of authority. It is correct because it is correct, and this is something I can demonstrate with examples. I can't answer your question for the same reason that you can't objectively prove, through text based arguments, that a specific method of baking dough is objectively correct: the latter question doesn't even make sense.

Your opinions also carry no authority to assume that God's actions in dealing with a world full of sin were unjust or immoral--especially when he sacrificed himself to assure that we all end up in eternal happiness.

Why don't I have that authority? I'm telling you, right now, that I do have that authority. Do you have a problem with that?

If an assertion of authority in text is good enough for you to accept god's authority, why isn't it enough for you to accept mine? And please, don't waste both of our time by appealing back to additional claims that god makes but doesn't demonstrate in the bible; we both know that if I'd made the same claims, and I'd have the same level of support behind me as the bible does, you'd reject them. It means you're special pleading.