Recovering IFB said:
There is no standard of Right and Wrong. Right and Wrong are relative. I've said that over and over. Don't your read?
Without God, you can't even make sense out of your statement. Even your claims of truth being "relative" need to meet a certain criteria for truth. Relativism still needs truthfor something to be right or wrong for certain parties. I have asked you to justify your truth, which you haven't been able to do.
Right and wrong
can be relative. I am allowed to go to our park's soccer fields and run across the yards. It is perfectly legal and acceptable. When kids are on the same field playing and my presence interferes with their free play, it is wrong, illegal and unacceptable. Same action, same field, different circumstances. On one hand it is right, on the other it is wrong.
In my house it is acceptable for one to wear shoes inside. To do the same thing in Japan with my Japanese brethren, it is an insult and culturally wrong. Why? The rule and potential violation thereof is relative.
Everyone of us would accept the fact that intentionally taking the life of another human being is wrong. There are those who believe intentionally taking the life of others via war or capital punishment is not only acceptable, but the right thing to do, even while believing it is immoral to intentionally take the life of another. Here is a MORAL principle with which different perspectives are viewed.
So though truth by nature has to be absolute (or it isn't truth),
our perspectives of that ideal are relative. And that relativity can be caused by culture or tribe, not by the morality of God. So Route_70 does have a legitimate point.