Percicles.. slow down.. I just finish one posting and your reply is there :) I'm trying to work.

Don't despair at my stubbornness.. if u see some ,what was that. "non sequiters' .. illuminate me.. no one would be more happy than I to have any holes in my position revealed as a source of further reflection on the matter..
So, pls give it a shot.

Ok Mr Boaz. I promised myself I wouldn't, but you did ask so nicely.

Inconsistent. You state in consecutive paragraphs that "there is only one source of 'absolute' truth", but immediately go on to "suggest that there are abiding principles outside of God to which we can all appeal is a faith position also, which would require a consensus". So, which is it? Absolute truth by definition admits of no other form of truth, but you immediately move on into the field of moral relativity - my truth is truer than yours. A position that would immediately allow truth to become open to discussion, not being absolute any more.

Non-seqitur. "Unfortunately with morons like Hitler, Stalin and his clone Sadaam around [consensus] is rarely achieved in the natural world". What on earth does the concatenation of these folk prove in this context? I could equally validly state that "with the different cultural histories of China and the US, consensus is rarely achieved". A lack of consensus doesn't follow (non sequitur) the random introduction of three villains, who are neither necessary or sufficient conditions.

Incidentally, did I mention Godwin's Law?

Straw man: (you are very fond of this one, and have obviously become adept in its usage over time) "This understanding of human nature does not suggest that 'stealing' is wrong... But stealing is either 'unpleasant and annoying' (for the victim) or its 'wrong' (for the perpetrator, and the victim)in the moral sense. It can only be wrong in the ultimate sense of right and wrong if a greater power than us says it is"

You set up the straw man "human nature does not suggest that 'stealing' is wrong", then proceed to knock it over with the greater power. Claiming that stealing is not wrong is of course a nonsense, and can be dismissed with any number of examples other that the presence of a greater power.

I don't despair at your stubbornness, since I do not see it as my aim to convince you of anything. I am here to learn rather than teach.

In the Larry King's interview (CNN on Jan 7 2005) a panel of six spiritual leaders offers their insightful views on the Dec 26 Tsunami disaster but none offer a plausible explanation for the causes.
Reference to the interview (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0501/07/lkl.01.html

The Muslim scholar Maher Hathout agreed that the tsunami was not a punishment thrown down by God. He said: ‘It was an accident.’

If we accept the possibility of the slightest, smallest, most insignificant accident, then indeed we must believe in a universe in which accidents are not the exceptions but the rule?

Once we accept that idea, then we must accept the idea of a random accidental universe, in which we are at the mercy of any accident in which mind or purpose have little meaning. In which we are at the mercy of all random happenings.

In such a universe, the individual has little hope for he will return to the non-existence that he came from. He has no control over his destiny and can be swept aside at any point by random fate over which he has no recourse.

The only answer to this is to realize that we form physical events - individually and en masse. We form and create the physical reality – including the Dec 26 tsunami

MWT....
Did u actually say anything there ? :) I'm not being sarcastic. Were u just saying 'stuff happens' ? I tend to agree to a point. But I would take the position that in the realm of nature/human/Divine interaction, there are moments when God, in providential action, includes us or overules us or events. When it comes to natural disasters in regard to general humanity, I'm of the view that 'stuff happens' and we need to be aware of avalanches, tidal waves, earthquakes etc when we decide where to build our lives and homes.

I dont see any point in living a lifetime of pretty much excluding God, and then suddenly looking for answers for disasters in our 'holy men'. Even lives lived in total committment to God, should not be saying 'why me'? in such situations.

Dear Pericles ..
ur response is appreciated. I come for two purposes, to teach and to learn, and to interact in ways which cause both me and other participants of the forum to reflect on our views. (as I suspect most of us do) My age and life experience of multiple cultures, languages and political conditions and anthropology entitles me to teach on some matters, not on others. I would not delude myself on matters that I'm not in any way qualified to speak on. Classic example-rocket science, or higher maths, or chemistry etc. In some of these cases, I can just pass on 2nd hand info that I've managed to glean and have a reasonable grasp of. I come to learn how to better put, the things which I desire to share. To be a better communicator.
If wish to speak on "The impact of the Christian gospel on slavery" I can speak with great confidence as my wifes grandparents used to be slave owners. I can introduce you to former slaves if u like. (indigenous Bornean culture)
Now, to your points. "Inconsistency" I'll just tackle that one point in this post, because it has shown that biting off too much in one post can be overwhelming and voluminous.(the other points) When we feel ok on this one, we can go on to others.

1/ "Absolute Truth".
I claimed that there is only one source of it in the moral realm. "Revealed Truth" is what I'm referring to there. To use a bit of old english, "Thou shalt not ...." etc There are a number of commandments of this type. This kind of claim does not exlude all other truth, but it rejects 'contrary' truth. e.g "Murder is ok....'sometimes'. ( I would not consider killing to defend a woman being raped as 'murder') "Adultery is ok ....'sometimes'.

2/ "Abiding Principles requiring consensus."
Note my word at the beginning "to suggest..." ; I am claiming that any moral principle outside of a revealed one, can only work when the community has a consensus that it is 'valid' and acceptable. Such principles only 'abide' as long as the community opinion leaders allow it to do so. e.g."It is 'right' that we enslave our enemies, it makes our work load lighter and expands our community, and weakens our enemies". This is viewed as a moral 'right' by most isolated traditional communities who practice such things. If some members of that community suddenly started setting the slaves free, they would be regarded as criminals. I was not trying to suggest that 'there are' abiding principles, other than this kind. I was in fact claiming that outside of God, ALL morality is relative.

I then went on to say that "due to" people who have a strong sense of personal manifest destiny and dominant personalities, not to mention rather large armies. These are the people who usually decide what will be regarded as 'right' and 'wrong' in the communities that they rule and they will proceed to socialise the members of the community along those lines. What happens then, is that most of them will actually begin to think and live according to those dictums. (as long as they don't mean suffering of that community) Anyone who demonstrates a contrary view would be sanctioned and disciplined.

By the way, u say u come to learn.. but the very way u express things is a lesson in itself. So, u have a teaching role as well. We all need the mild rebuke of our fellow pilgrims and yours are welcome.
With that thought in mind, I would like to leave you with a text from the 'good book' :)

23. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds.

BOAZ

I still have a major stumbling block with your concept of absolute and relative. Until we can breach this barrier, I think we can lose the rest of the dialogue.

"I claimed that there is only one source of [absolute truth] in the moral realm. 'Revealed Truth' is what I'm referring to there. To use a bit of old english, 'Thou shalt not ....' etc

If "Thou shalt not kill" is absolute, where does it allow for "I would not consider killing to defend a woman being raped as 'murder'" Your words, in context.

Since this "absolute" covers ground as wide and as deep as abortion, capital punishment and vegetarianism, I'd appreciate your view on how relatively absolute this one might be.