Quote:
This is nonsensical...
No one is saying relativism is an absolute truth
But if relativism isn't absolutely true, then that means there are absolutes. So you're still wrong.
Quote:
you just use bizare extremes to attemp to reduce our arguments.
No, I'm using logic.
These aren't bizarre extremes. If relativism is true, then its an absolute truth, and it defeats itself because it says there are no absolute truths. If relativism isn't absolutely true, then by the definition of relativism there must be absolute truths. That's not extreme, its just common sense.
Quote:
Anyway, regardless of that, how do you respond to my earlier point, that morality ought to flexible, to allow chnaging moral standards to suit various present and future circumstances?
Flexible in what way? Can you give an example?
Quote:
Who then determines the absolute moral code? You? The Bible? Because as shown before, the Bible is full of contradictory moral statements. On one hand, the OT says we should murder homosexuals, and Jesus in the NT says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (paraphrased).
This topic is relativism (and by extension absolutism) not the bible. Let's just get down whether or not relativism or absolutism makes more sense, and we can go from there.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
| 
