[steve-b]

Sorry, but I'm afraid that you're going to have to address the point:

Some humans have the notion that God approves of murdering infidels and beating women who expose their faces, so we need a better way to evaluate moral claims than "because God says so".

[laredo44]

Some humans have the notion that God approves of murdering infidels and beating women who expose their faces, so we need a better way to evaluate moral claims than "because God says so".

How about this? You can either a) choose to be beaten for exposing your face, b) beat those with exposed faces, c) be neither beater nor beaten, or d) have no opinion. While we may have some who choose options b) or d), it is highly doubtful anyone would choose a). Since we can achieve universal agreement, option a) is morally wrong.

[HumanaeVitae]

Sorry, but I'm afraid that you're going to have to address the point: Some humans have the notion that God approves of murdering infidels and beating women who expose their faces, so we need a better way to evaluate moral claims than "because God says so".

Matthew 22: 36-41

Sometimes steve, I don't know if you're Faye Raye or the biplanes.

[Jorge]

Some humans have the notion that God approves of murdering infidels and beating women who expose their faces, so we need a better way to evaluate moral claims than "because God says so".

Of course it helps to know who the real God is in order to have the ability to recognize what does or doesn't come from Him.

[CyberCowboy777]

so we need a better way to evaluate moral claims than "because God says so

like I say so?

or Hitler says so?

or you say so?

It is all relative inside mans own head.