The point is there are no more. Yet, if you do know more — Mr. Hitchens knows the one you posted — drop him a line. He’s had that challenge out for a few years and that’s the only one he’s gotten so far.

“How do you examine a claim on it’s own merit? You can only compare the claim to various known standards – but these competing standards are the same claims you are trying to examine.”

As I said … we swim in the same ocean. There is no divine part here and an un-divine part there.

“I welcome being subject to the same demands. That’s certainly fair. Your final question is a good one but too big a topic to address here. Philosophers and theologians have been writing on the subject for centuries.”

…and why I prefer the forums.

I could give several statements as examples but I don’t see what the point is. One example being an unbeliever would never utter the statement “I believe God is the non-contingent grounding for all moral reality”. They may live the same moral life as the believer, which is certainly commendable. Again, I don’t see the point of this statement.

Claiming divine wisdom or secular inspiration for a moral claim does not discard the need to examine the claim on it’s own merit.

How do you examine a claim on it’s own merit? You can only compare the claim to various known standards – but these competing standards are the same claims you are trying to examine.

Asking me to accept or refute your divine source — then refute it’s influence — opens you up to the same demands. How would you address the Hindu or other supernaturalists, or new age quantum crystal claims, or ones made from whole aether?

I welcome being subject to the same demands. That’s certainly fair. Your final question is a good one but too big a topic to address here. Philosophers and theologians have been writing on the subject for centuries.

“… name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.”^^

We all swim in the same waters. Claiming divine wisdom or secular inspiration for a moral claim does not discard the need to examine the claim on it’s own merit.

Asking me to accept or refute your divine source — then refute it’s influence — opens you up to the same demands. How would you address the Hindu or other supernaturalists, or new age quantum crystal claims, or ones made from whole aether?

^^. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301461.html

So the concept of morality was discovered over time through trial and error, not created out of whole cloth? Christianity would agree with that for the most part.

Where we disagree is that you say divine wisdom can’t help bring clarity and insight to the process. Other than a Johnson-esque response like ‘because God is imaginary’, what reason do you give for saying it can’t help?

I don’t understand what you mean here – even after reading the next paragraph.

You’re welcome to read it yourself to answer your own questions. Of course, keep in mind the obvious fact that we aren’t told everything that occured.

To put this another way; if God came to you and said directly how it wanted you to treat other people … would you do it? Well, Jesus supposedly was your deity personified. He supposedly walked on this planet for ~33 years. In that time, he could have told anyone he met that ‘slavery was wrong … now cut it out!’ Yet, not one word banning or forbidding or even speaking against the practice was supposedly said on the subject.

Tell us SteveK, how exactly did the god of the OT ‘deal’ with slavery? Or other issues of moral question, such as burning people alive?

No. Slavery was never OK, but it was there and had to be dealt with. As I said, what was evil then is still considered evil today. What changed over time was how it was dealt with. You see this in the changing OT laws.