Why...

[Rev. Rye]

Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become manmade objections.

Man creates laws all the time. Why should the laws against things like rape and murder be any different? And there's a good reason that man creates laws: humans are creatures that live in society, and by that standard, society must be protected. And here's something that needs to be asked: Even assuming that there is an absolute moral code, why should we assume that the moral codes of the Bible is the one that should be followed?

If you believe that the immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are up to the individual, then it would be perfectly alright for anyone to come up with their own laws in these matters.

Why not? Christians seem to do that all the time.

Here's one point that would definitely need to be elaborated upon:
The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING.
Why is the god of Christianity in particular the starting point that is necessary for understanding the world?

[The Grand Nudger]

More "immateriality of trancendant concepts"? Falls flat on it's face right out of the gate. These concepts, these laws, are descriptive, not prescriptive. Without invoking the material we have nothing to describe. A square is a square by observation of the material world, it is not a square by mandate of logic or math. That logic or math can be used to describe a square rests solely upon such a thing actually existing in the material world.

Descriptive.

[Rev. Rye]

And, once again, I feel the need to whip this article out:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_Circular_Reasoning

After all, if he insisted that we read his site, it's only fair he should be directed to one of our sites as well.

[downbeatplumb]

Morality should not be set in stone.
If it is you get mad things, like muslims saying that sex slavery for captured women is not forbidden, because it is in the old texts as a reasonable thing.

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributin...ltery.html

The morality of two thousand or fourteen hundred years ago is not the morality you should use now. The world has moved on.
But the texts dont.
This is why they should not be used to form modern laws or codes of behaviour.

[Kayenneh]

On the whole, tradition for tradition's sake is stupid. Being flexible and adaptive is one of the best traits we have as humans, and that is what they are trying to take away from us with said texts. Stagnation is not a good thing!