What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[abaris]

My point in all of this, from the biggining, was to address Cato's post with the response that animals are not to be held to the same moral standards as we are. If you agree with that, then we are in agreement. :-)

The same? They are different that's understood. The only point that's up for debate is human superiority. We invented moral standards and call them by that name. But other social species have rules in their communities too. Otherwise they couldn't live and act as a group and you could call them moral standards. Of course they are different from ours, but they also have different needs than we have.

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.

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.