Well, if man is a divinely created being created in the image of the divine yet imperfect due to their fallen nature, would it not make sense that they would attempt to re-create some sense of morality (among other things) yet fail to do so perfectly and, thusly, create an imperfect reflection of both morality and sin? An objective right and wrong may very well exist and a religion (I won't say which) received a divine revelation from their deities while people of other faiths and cultures attempted to re-create the structure that they know exists yet, without the aid of the divine, could not proceed to re-create perfectly resulting in moral differences?
Murder is a particularly easy thing since almost no one wishes to be murdered and it wouldn't be very hard to get such a thing considered a sin regardless of your religion. Let's take something a bit more... difficult. Adultery. Both in what it is and it's moral status. After all, it makes sense biologically to have a multitude of mates and to seek out the most fertile/capable-of-providing mates but, at the same time, to keep said mates exclusively for yourself. In the west in modern times we see a husband having another woman on the side as morally wrong and a sin; yet history provides ample examples of men having multiple spouses, concubines, and the like. Despite this a lot of these cultures still contain taboo's against cheating; just are very different as to what they define such a thing is.
Would it not stand to reason then that these cultures are aware that adultery is a sin but, due to them having evolved independent of the moral foundation provided by the divine, got it wrong as to what adultery actually is and, instead, substituted their own, culturally relevant, answer? Who is to say that it's Christianity that got it right either and that it's not Shinto or Zoroastrianism that is the true religion in regards to morality? That our belief as to what constitutes adultery is an imperfect recreation of the actual morality that leaves us coming up sinful in this regard?
There is no divinity, it's all just cultural boundaries defined by social leaders. The one that got it "right" is the one that has the least conflict and most growth, the most productive one. Shintoist Japanese had Feudalism take over and cause a lot of internal wars. Zoroastrians disappeared in to Muslim territory by failing to compete against surrounding territories to be valuable to the people.
Christianity has successfully set itself in to the most capable countries in the world, the combined success of the Christianity-influenced countries absolutely dominates the rest of the world outright.
There is no morality, there's just rules that work and rules that don't. Shitholes that stick to rules that don't work fall apart, ones that have good rules function.
If you remove these rules from people, they'll just start from scratch to make rules from convenience, there's no inherent sense that say, wife sharing is immoral or lynching albinos is bad. ---
Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas.