I'll be the second.

Third

Let me be the first to say that I know exactly what you are talking about and feel firmly that to be morally relative is to basically say at the most fundamental and most concrete level of all logic and reasoning, that the moral relativist is firmly planted with both feet in mid-air.

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity address this mentality and thoroughly refutes anyone who says that truth is relative. To say that truth (hence morals) is relative is to state that nothing is sure. To say nothing is sure is to deny the existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, omnipresent God.

Is it possible to be a moral relativist? Yes. Is it fundamentally correct? Absolutely not. Anyone who would say that from a pulpit or any other ministry pedestool that you can lead people to an omnipresent, omniscient, eternal, omnipotent God is foolhearty at best. If you stand for nothing or at least nothing concrete, is to reject the solidity of Scripture. A person can not say they believe in the inerrant and infallible Word of God, and then turn around and say they are a moral relativist. It is a contridiction of the highest form.

Now let's see if you agree in your next post (I didn't read it yet).