> Um, then neither does 'bad.' What is 'bad' or 'good' in a morally relative society?

The terms do not exist as absolutes. That is the whole point. There is nothing magical about morals that say they have to be defined by some absolute outside authority. Humans can define their own morals just fine.

Also, moral relativism is a group term including many different views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

> Sure I do, I know His character as revealed in His Word. You can argue against my presupposition, but it is internally consistent.

The how is your position any more tenable than that of a raving lunatic who bases his worldview on voices in his head? How is it any more tenable than believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

>> Give an example.
> In base 10 mathematics it is absolutely true that 2 + 2 = 4

Maths is based on completely arbitary axioms. It is just as true that 2+2 equals something else entirely, if I just pick another set of axioms. The only thing that is special about the 2+2=4 case is that it has use in everday life, and thus those axioms are often used. They are no more true or false than any other, however.

An example: 2+2=1 in the S3 group. Group theory is also useful in everyday life in certain circumstances, and it is just as true.