You say that like it's a bad thing .... No, wait, I already said that.
Okay, how about if I just thank you for the compliment?
Look, when you used the term "absolute" and criticized some kinds of theological discourse, and then developed your use of "absolute", I think there were lots and lots of assumptions you were making that are useful to identify. One (which I generally share) is the validity of the empirical method in the natural sciences. (your message #71) Another, and I always get confused talking about this, might be that discourse is ultimately meaningful -- that it matters what you believe, that one can be "right" or "wrong" about the way things are.
I personally think that all these issues are raised when one brings "absolute" into the conversation. Is your entry into this conversation just for kicks or is there some general truth, some 'absolute', you are trying to describe or even proove? Why would you do that if the only absolutes are the evanescent propostions of Bacnoisn science? (And then to say "the only absolutes are things which are provable" .... WHere do we go? What's a "proof"?
Then the last part of my ramblings comes from a statement of IHS according to John: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If a personal type of entity says,"I am ... the Truth", while most of us are thinking that truth has to do with propositions, then maybe what we are bringing to the table is off base from the start. Maybe the truth is a person, an entity which wills and chooses and loves and does stuff rather than just sort of lying there and being true.
That seems to be at least PART of the normative Xtian proclamation, and it's very interesting and exciting and seems to me to refresh the entire enquiry.
I believe there are absolutes with things like the natural sciences, but I do not believe there are absolutes when applied to things like morality, spirituality, religions, or other metaphysical subjects.