It is impossible for a Christian to be a relativist.
Yet I have said over and over again that there is no "right" or "wrong" in the universe. A thing is not intrinsically right or wrong. A thing simply is.
It's simply untrue that religion provides the only framework for a universal morality.
Relativity must replace absolutism in the realm of morals as well as in the spheres of physics and biology.
There is no moral absolute, and this leads us to situational ethics, which unfortunately is being taught in public schools all over America. This means that right and wrong is dependent upon the circumstances.
Ethics are pre-determined and a matter of discovery, not a evolved concept.
I don't believe in good people and bad people.
To this day we seem to act in the world as though we know what's right for everybody.
I am certainly not an intellectual relativist, nor a moral relativist.
The subjectivist in morals, when his moral feelings are at war with the facts about him, is always free to seek harmony by toningdown the sensitiveness of the feelings.
It is possible that the distinction between moral relativism and moral absolutism has sometimes been blurred because an excessively consistent practice of either leads to the same practical result — ruthlessness in political life.
If human values were relative, all laws-whether those based on revealed religions or those devised by man-would become meaningless.
Unbounded morality ultimately becomes counterproductive even in terms of the same moral principles being sought. The law of diminishing returns applies to morality.
