You say I didn't read your post well, but with respect, you did not make it clear exactly which part I had misunderstood.

I quote - no brackets, no ellipsis - your words exactly:

"The concept of 'absolute' perhaps is better attached to the 'idea' than its specific expression ?"

If the quotation marks and the question mark were intended to indicate that this was not actually a position that you hold, more a flag you are running up the flagpole then yes, I didn't read it that way. Perhaps if I knew you better, I would have recognized the signals, "aha, it's just old Boaz trying out a new line of thought, doesn't really mean it, the muddle-headed wombat' (thanks Grace).

And your Moses analogy went right over my head, I'll admit that immediately. Was there only one reporter around at the time? If so, are we looking at a totally uncorroborated report? What exactly did the other three see? Heat haze? A desert mirage? A nasty hangover from last night's arrack?

I would remind you that this line of argument started with your "One is faced with the ultimate 'choice' of a moral universe or an amoral one", following which you co-opted the moral universe to the banner of absolute truth, which you then managed to move to "Thou shalt not..." strictures.

I hate to say it, but the evidence is gathering, from your own hand, that you are just another plain old boring moral relativist like the rest of us.

Pericles
the concept I'm trying to convey seems to be eluding you.
Absolute Truth.. as I am using it, indicates 'rules, laws,revelation' which for the sake of a way of putting it simply "comes from God"
Now.. that is my overall fundamental simple point. Are we ok to this point ? "from God" or.. "from man" I'm placing together, side by side two ideas for comparison. "We know its wrong because God says so" and "we make it up as we go along"(naturalistic approach)

Now.. this leads to 'how do we know God says so"? Ok.. that leads us via healsville to the burning bush and the old bearded geyser Moses. Moses received information from God, then recorded it. (exodus 3.1-10)
"I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."
I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt.
I am concerned about their suffering.
I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians"

Now, no matter what one may or may not believe regarding the textual history of this account and authorship, the point I make is that this is (for those who believe) an example of divine revelation. It is God speaking to and calling Moses to be the instrument of salvation to the Israelites.
Therefore, u can clearly see that I, believing this, regard it as 'absolute or ultimate truth' in the sense I described above.
(Boaz looks for the glazing over of Pericles eyes.. nope.. still ok.. we can continue)

In similar examples, God gives such things as the 10 commandments.
My point with the reporting of the burning bush. or the hydrogen atom, was the the same event may be reported differently but still be quite true. I only mentioned that, because you seemed blurry about my statement that the absoluteness or divine origin could be attached to the IDEA.. being.. "God gave Moses the 10 commandments" but the actual details, are reported thus and so.
It seems you are attempting to apply some rigid structure of understanding to the words I use in some particular philosophical way when I'm just trying to get the point across about a human/divine encounter and how this is the only source of ultimate truth for determining moral values.
It goes without saying that one must BELIEVE this... for it to work for them,and I'm not arguing about that being the case, indeed I state that.
So, I'm not a moral relativist as all "you mob" are. (Grace.. shoo :)
I say. "We must not steal" .... because God 'says so'. Not because it makes me poor and the thief rich and he is benefitting unfairly from my labor. (a meaningless concept in a God less world)
You really SHOULD watch the movie "Intensity" (if u can stomach a psycho who slices, dices and blows people away and lectures the victims on the meaning of life as they die, while keeping a pre teen girl in his cellar surrounded with toys, waiting for her to reach a point of desire for him) You will SEE .. the 'moral relativist/existentialist/nihilist' in living technicolor, with no humanist window dressing.

I could easily exceed my wildest dreams of PB on the condacension scale here :) but I'll resist.

over to you.

All right Boaz, I'll bite.

You have a source for your absolute truth that you call "God".

I can't work with your concept of absolute truth on (at least) two grounds, neither of which have anything to do with Lacan or Derrida or Foucault or Count Basie.

The first is that I am dumb. Really stupid. From what I have seen of the world and its surroundings, I actually understand "that much". (Holds thumb and forefinger really, really close together.) However, by many of the measures we use, I am quite smart, when compared to other humans in my corner of society. (Breathes on fist and rubs furtively on lapel.) So in my more egoistic moments I think "how dare they tell me that there is only one answer, one absolute truth, when they know no more about it than I do." (Stamps foot. Unfortunately, on other foot. Whimpers.)

The second is that it requires a belief in your "God" in order to work. Which brings us back to square one. Without belief, you say, there is no objective, absolute truth. So, as you see it, only those who believe the same things as you do, hold the key to meaning and truth.

That might just register a new PB on the arrogance scale, my friend.

Pericles ...
ur learning my son :) (new PB ???) well at least one thing, and that is to enjoy debate, with the odd humorous embellishment..
Your observation is quite correct.. it works only for 'us' who believe (deluded ?? :). But hey.. "know no more about life than I do" ??? woah.. now thats UR PB on the something scale.
Maybe I DO know more about life than you.. in some areas. I'm sure I can't cobble together an essay on philosophical logic with A's B'c and when in doubt put C's. or "not" C ... but I do know a duck when I see one. (if u can work out the connection) (Did your head explode just then with the turn of thought ? :)

Ultimately, it boils down to our belief, u got that bit 100% right. I've not suggested otherwise, (that I'm aware of) even when I've maintained that there are only 2 alternatives for determining morality. But to reject God, you are still left with the barren wasteland of 'make_it_up_as_u_go' etc.

So, that leads to the important question of how can we nudge you over the barrier from disbelief to belief ? I suggest a reading of 1 Corinthians chapter 15 might be a cool place to begin. It kinda fits with the line of discussion we have been having. But I see the open hand going up and striking the (furrowed) forehead and the exasperated exclamation "I TOLDDDD this guy I am satisfied that his wild theories of intelligent design have been debunked to my satisfaction" whereupon I respond "I'm stubborn" :)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

We can't take the moral relativity discussion any further, because it has now reached its intended goal. Your participation and interaction has been welcome. We move on to other topics.

Mark, now that Boaz has chased himself up another cul-de-sac, and imperiously declared the conversation over, perhaps others can now offer you some thoughts in consolation.

We are all born atheists and must be taught to believe in religion, in nature, in the human condition, or whatever it is that our parents and society believe in. Your father came into this world an atheist, and as I understand it, left this world in the same way. The tragedy is not his death, but the manner of his death.

Suicide is a terrible act, because of the unrelenting anguish and confusion it leaves behind in those who care. You say your father did this because he was unable to resolve his personal questions about where we are going and what we are doing here, and his suicide was in the nature of a last act of defiance. That might have been a bit muddled, and certainly left a lot of pain behind, but perhaps that act of defiance is worthy of some respect in itself.

It is a simple observation of mine, for what it is worth, that these tragic existential questions are mostly asked by men, not women. The whole edifice of organised religion, not to mention philosophy and art throughout history, have been erected and pursued by men to assist them and console them in their quest for meaning (amongst other things like having fun).

I don't mean to start a gender debate here, and bring the lone father's association of women-haters and the god-botherers swarming back, or upset my feminist sisters either. I am making the observation that women "generally" do not ask these sorts of questions of themselves - although they might be very interested in what it is that men are thinking, and might often seek to enter these existential realms and make a contribution.

Generally speaking, women throughout history have been busy in the "real world", and this is perhaps one of the reasons that we hear and see so little from them in the history of religion, philosophy and art. (Another reason being of course, that they were not "allowed" to participate.)

Women give birth and are at the fount of life's creation, which many men throughout history have found desperately hard to accommodate or accept in an existential sense. Hence the invention of male gods, men-only organisations and institutions, and an afterlife where all will be revealed and women are still the handmaidens. These are the consolations of men who are unable to accept that women make life happen on this earth.

Women are also the primary carers for children, the sick and the elderly. (Men who involve themselves in similar pursuits, either domestically or in their professional lives, seem to me to be generally less prone to existential nightmares.)

Perhaps it is that women, at a very general level and mostly without conscious awareness, find the true meaning of life through caring for others, including their children, and at the very least, are able to answer those hard existential questions with responses like; I am here, and I must survive, because my children need me, and I will live on in them after I die. That is my afterlife.

It is after all, the "reason" why all other living creatures on this planet strive to survive, so that they can pass on their genetic material to their offspring. Humans who worry about what happens next can either accept that children are the real meaning of life, or invent something else to fill the void, if they see one.

What I mean to say is that your father might well have spent too much time in the world of the mind, as you say, and too little time in the real world with his own children, and those around him who loved him. Perhaps they could have given him the reason to be, and the courage to die content that his life was worthwhile.

And one last thought. The mystery of music never ceases to absorb me, and gave me some peace of mind as my mother bravely endured and finally succumbed to a long, slow and painful death recently. I hope you have some music in your life.

Grace
that was a caring and insightful piece. I was only declaring that the issue between myself and Pericles was at point where we could not go much further without becoming circular. I'm not trying to shut out other discussion.
I was struck by what you said about women being the main care giver, nurterer etc.. quite an admission from a self confessed feminist, and very welcome. Strange, thats what we 'MCP's have been saying all along. Perhaps we all actually AGREE ..... hmm..

HANDMAIDENS IN HEAVEN
Handmaidens is the place of women in the afterlife? well actually in Islam it is, (70 virgins as playthings, if ur a matyr) but the Christian faith sees absolute and total equality in heaven. Interesting that when one considers that the suggestion that 'religion is the invention of humans, and is meant to reflect their own desires'.. that the Christian heaven would have no sex in it but it sure has large doses of love, happiness and joy.

MALE GODS
Grace, the ancient societies like the Canaanites had both male and female. They engaged in cult prositution. Worship, included sex with the priest or priestess. I hope your not suggesting that the Israelites just 'made up' a male God to justify their partiarchal culture, because all cultures of that time in that area were Patriarchal to my knowledge.


MEN ASK THE QUESTIONS
Grace, I mentioned a speaker in another topic u might be interested in, and having just listened to one of his messages, I'm sure you would find it beneficial even though u might not share his views on many things. But he does touch on sexism and the very issues you raised in this last post of yours. (beware, he shouts a lot)
http://www.tonycampolo.org/messages.shtml
message title "Staying Balanced in an Unbalanced World"
He refers to the point about men being more 'principle' oriented and women being caring. Just as u suggested.
He claims that difference is due to our socialisation of males and females. He has some very humorous illustrations too.


As for Mark, and the death of his dad, u said 'act of defiance'.. to who ? If it is to God, then I can't see the point in it. Its a defiance that says "I will not accept you as you are" Is it not saying "If you ARE there, why dont u get with 'my' program of how you should be"? Please dont see me trying to be hard or cruel, I'm trying to fathom the issue as much as you. Marks dad might even have had low seratonan levels ? Perhaps his mental condition was medically related ?