What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

That is what people considered moral in the day. But it never actually was moral.

(emphasis is mine)

This is the crux of the matter. What you consider to be moral. You cannot show any moral that you hold dear to be objective. Not one. You can show that a lot of people share your morality, but you'll never be able to prove one objective. Because they aren't. They're taught. What we believe to be moral is what is moral for our time and society. Even the immorality of murder (not killing, but murder) can be argued. Morality is nothing more than the agreed upon rules your society lives by, taught to us by those who came before us and changed as circumstance require, guided by our empathy for each other.

There are places in the Middle East that condone a woman's father to burn her alive if she loses her virginity. Even if she loses it by being raped.

There are also places in the Middle East that allow execution of gay people for being gay. 

They consider these acts moral. They feel no empathy for the "heathens" above and believe they are doing the righteous thing.

Just to clarify what you're saying here, since that society considers these acts moral, is it then, moral?

---

Remember, stoning adulterers was also considered moral at the time. Yet when it was about to happen right in front of Jesus, He stopped it, and condemned the act.

Objective morality would give no room whatsoever for jeebus to do this. Objective morality is unchanging and unchangeable. It is a dictate from outside.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that Jesus should not have stopped the stoning of the adulteress?