#1 fails because of the simple fact that the supreme being seems to demand either #2 or #3 to tell us what it meant as it is too incompetent to communicate directly.
REP: God's morality is clear enough for those who wish to live by it. Those who have never read it, we are told, will be judged by the degree to which they have listened to their conscience, even if their conscience differs in the details.
For me the Ten Commandments etc. are clear enough (despite what you say about their inconsistencies). I don't think it is God's responsibility to prevent us from dreaming up the other 1000 conflicting moral systems. Either people reject him and follow one of their choice, or they accept him and follow his.
4. A legislative body chosen by the people
- Option 4 is basically morality by opinion pole. It follows behaviour and doesn't try to inform it any longer. Boston MA currently feel the need to reduce the penalty for beastiality. How long before we can expect to see 'It's a viable alternative option to straight or gay sex' in our childrens sex education classes? As morality continues to slide into the garbage bin we move ever closer to Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law".
At least Christianity's morality is relatively stable, as opposed to our current relativistic muddle.
You are way too fond of quoting other's opinions as if it gives yours more credence. They simply agree with you, nothing more - it has no bearing upon whether you are right or wrong. Do you think Christians are short of significant people to back up what we think? But that would be equally valueless, a la Einstein.
Blacknad.
