Using a scenario (especially an emotionally charged one) is a great way to get at the heart of an issue. There are two reasons why you could not answer “no” to his scenario. One, by answering “no” you would have admitted that there is at least one absolute – that there are absolutely no absolutes – which results in a bit of a paradox. Two, you realized what a monster you would have to be to say that the scenario Knight presented was not absolutely wrong.You said, “Knight did not, IMO, demonstrate absolutes. He merely asserted they exist then supplied emotionally charged scenarios to try to bolster his point.”
How can you define “right” or “wrong” without circumstances? Sorry if I’m not understanding this point. Could you elaborate?You said, “If something is absolutely right or wrong then it does not depend on circumstances, it is independent of circumstance…”
If the God of the Bible is true, then these particular instances are not crimes and cannot be condemned based on human terms. You are free to accuse Him, but since you don’t believe in Him, it seems kind of pointless.You said, “The fact that I demonstrated that (a fact to which Knight never responded), under certain (biblical) circumstances, any one of the three crimes Knight claimed as absolute were condoned by the biblical deity (thereby making them "right") shows that they were not absolute at all, but relativistic...
As for my question about justice, I assume you believe that there is no such thing?Is. 45:9-10 “Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’? Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you begetting?’ Or to the woman, ‘What have you brought forth?’ ”