I am a Preterist. Do you understand what kind of stand I take on eschatology and do you agree that it is the biblical stance (that it rings true to what is stated in the Bible)?
Not yet. You haven't revealed what type of Preterist you are. Partial, or full? They are two very different doctrines.
They have a lot of similarities but some glaring differences too. I side toward full Preterism. I don't see how you can make sense of Scripture with partial Preterism, or with futurism in any form.
I also don't see how a person arrives at morality from relativism. If there is no absolute, unchanging, objective, universal basis for good (best - and you see where I am going with this line of thought) how can 'good' be anything but preferences, and what makes a personal preference good? It just makes 'good' what they like, and if they have the power to do so, then what you must live by. The problem is that it is not a logical system of thought since the Laws of Logic, the Law of Identity (A = A; a dog is a dog; good is good), is lost. 'A' can mean whatever you want to make it mean, thus it becomes meaningless. 'A' loses its identity with relativism.
Relative morality only exists in those who base their morality on psychologically conditioned emotions, thus relativism in morality is false. All humans are born with the same primal instincts; Instincts like survival.
Okay, then the question is why should my instincts operation in the same way yours do? Evolution has no purpose in mind since it is not a personal process. Evolution does not decree I survive. It has no logic or moral likes of dislikes. It just is. The strong adaptable, survive - period. And why should we survive? There is no reason for/from an evolutionary process, just what is.
If it is to my benefit to kill others so I will survive what of it? If Hitler had gained world domination and has survived, then whoever he deemed unfit would be eliminated and there would be nothing wrong with it. This begs the question of how you get from what is (descriptive) to an ought (what should be). From what I witness those in power make the rules. If you live in North Korea you live by a different set of rules from those in the USA. Why is your moral instinct any "better" than that of Kim Jong-un? Because you like it? Well, too bad, he likes the opposite and for you to survive in his country you have to abide by what he decrees. The problem is that you have two different set of rules regarding the same thing (let's say abortion or capital punishment). Who in effect is 'right?' They both can't logically be for they state opposites. It goes against the Law of Identity, the Law of Non-contradiction, and the Laws of Excluded Middles. In effect, it turns logic on its head.
Most notions of morality are formed by these basic instincts for survival. It is the reason why murder is seen as wrong, and etc. I won't go into detail on that right now, as it's not needed to answer your question. The answer is: True morality is absolutely universal. It just doesn't need an eternal god to be so.
I agree true morality is absolute, objective, universal and unchanging. Where do you see this in the world? Whose view is the correct view? Why would your subjective, relative, limited mind be necessary for determining what is true, and what is true in terms of a moral issue like abortion? I get specific because we need to look at an issue that is a very controversial and divided issue.
Are you saying that functionality (what is/descriptive) determines morality (what should be)?
