>>This is where we part company. People who have believed in God behave in certain ways (follow a moral code) because they have been told that this is what God wants them to do. By your reasoning, people who don't believe in God won't behave morally because they have no reason to do so. But my view of reality is that people who believe in God (I don't mean all) frequently behave immorally and people who don't believe in God (I don't mean all) frequently behave morally. From that I conclude that belief in God (religion) is not a predictor of moral behavior and that moral behavior is not derive from religion but exists apart from it.
>>
>
>If your premise is that man defines his own goodness, then Charles Manson is no more moral than you or I.

I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of my premise. I have never said that everybody has their own morality and that each is equally valid. I have an absolute belief in the "right and wrong" of some things, a strong belief in others, and inclinations about still others. I believe those who disagree with me are wrong - especially where I hold my strong beliefs. I believe that society should sanction those who act contrary to what I hold to be wrong - the necessity and degree of sanction varying in proportion to how strongly I feel about that particular violation.

>God has laid down his law which delineates morality.

This is where we disagree. Since atheists, agnostics, and adherents to a wide variety of religious beliefs hold equivalent moral beliefs, I don't think that morality is "God given."

>And as a point of clarification, (He hasn't said thou shalt no kill, He said thou shalt not Murder).

Understood as a point of clarification and not really germane to the main points of our discussion.

>Morality defined by God is a guideline, not an absolute. Moral people sometimes behave imorally. That is a deliberate act though. My point is that God is the one who draws the lines.

A logical conclusion based upon your belief that God defined morality for us. There's no rebuttal other than to note where we differ on the origination of morality.

>Left to our own designs, we develop situational ethics.

We all believe in situational ethics (Your mother buys and proudly wears the most gosh-awful hat you have ever seen. When she asks your opinion of the hat you say ??????????). The real question on situational ethics is determining which situations warrant it and which don't. I think of it as

DO CASE
     CASE mitigating factor 1
        DO it this way
     CASE mitigating factor 2
        DO it this way
              .
              .
              .
     CASE mitigatin factor N
        DO it this way
     ENDCASE
        DO the "Correct" thing
ENDCASE

>At any rate, it's a good point to ponder.

These are all good points to ponder. I've given them a great deal of thought and you have too. I don't think there is any chance that either one of us will convince the other, but the discussion has been interesting and enlightening.