This is not an argument against moral absolutism, but is simply a commentary on the evil deeds of men.
Until you can provide proof that you know who has a lock on moral absolutism, it most certainly is. I'm sure the Pope's jesuit lawyers can make a more pursuasive case for the Pope than you can for your local minister.
' The popes were wicked and that had nothing to do with Jesus Christ or moral absolutes. In fact, moral absolutes were violated by the leaders of the Inquisition and Crusades. That is the difference between these examples in Christianity and Islam. The islamic terrorists' actions DO COINCIDED with the example of their founder, while the evil popes' actions do not coincide with the example of Jesus Christ. Again, I ask you for any logical argument against moral absolutism. I have come up with more than one good argument against utilitarianism that you cannot answer, but you have not come up with one against absolutism.
I have answered your feeble argument, and made a reasonably compelling case by counterexample several times now. Being oblivious is not an example of a logic refutation, hard as that may be for you to believe. Kindly submit your proof that the Popes are not God's spokesmen for moral absolutism on this planet. Kindly explain why you do not own slaves, and treat them as you are commanded by God to treat them in the bible. You're remarkably full of yourself for someone who can't lower himself to defend his position whenever some uncomfortable specifics are brought to the table.
God has a lock on it and these moral absolutes are discerned in two ways: through the human conscience (God's laws are written on the human heart) and through scripture. You said Hitler was wrong, but I am still waiting for you to tell me how he could be wrong in your utilitarian world. Either way, if the pope called himself a follower of Christ, then from his perspective, he would have to defer the bible, or fall back on his own corrupt moral system still claiming it was from Christ.
I have answered your feeble argument, and made a reasonably compelling case by counterexample several times now. Being oblivious is not an example of a logic refutation, hard as that may be for you to believe. Kindly submit your proof that the Popes are not God's spokesmen for moral absolutism on this planet. Kindly explain why you do not own slaves, and treat them as you are commanded by God to treat them in the bible. You're remarkably full of yourself for someone who can't lower himself to defend his position whenever some uncomfortable specifics are brought to the table.
Actually, lets' be clear - the slavery argument is YOUR FEEBLE ARGUMENT. You brought it up. So, spare me the red herring about the pope and give me the proof FROM THE BIBLE that slavery is condoned. Burden of proof is on you since you made the FEEBLE assertion. Well?