If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[R-Farmer]

You're plain and simply wrong here.  You either believe that all x is y, or you believe that at least one x is z.  I suppose you could believe both, in the sense that people often do hold two mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time?  The third option being that you hold explicitly irrational beliefs, not that a tautology is a false dichotomy.

Again if X is a variable (the value of x changes) then X does not have to be Y or Z. Your equation sets the value of X as constant. My argument demonstrates that X is not a constant as the value of "x' changes over time. Before you can represent X as a constant you must first demonstrate the value of 'X' does not change. once you do that you can then conclude X=Y or X=Z. Because right now X may = Y, or X may=Z but if society changes then the value of x will also change.

If god's might...or anyones might...really... is the good or bad making property, then morality is both subjective and arbitrary.  Not relative.

How so?

You know...this one comes up every time I have this discussion.  

probably because it is the Achilles heel of your idea of morality.

Sure, identical propositions have identical implications.  If it's bad to do x - it's bad to do x in 1492 or 1992. If it's not bad to do x in 1992 then it wasn't bad to do x in 1492. 

What about slavery, or killing the unborn? one evil is valid in one time and the other is valid in another time. It is bad to own slaves in 1992 not not bad in 1492. It is bad to kill babies in 1492, it is not bad to kill babies in 1992. At least by the relative societal standard. 

As a point of interest, you can't rationally justify murder with an objective moral system. 

Sure you can. in this society is it called justifiable homicide. all you need to justify murder is a reason like self defense, state mandated execution, abortion, assisted suicide, (Canadian health care offers it.) etc..

Mostly, because murder refers to a specific type of killing that is explicitly unjustifiable.  That people have nevertheless come up with absurd rationalizations for the slaughter of children is very clear in the abrahamic tradition and cultures that sprang from it, I agree.  

What about abortion? is it not the taking of an innocent human life? even if you do not consider it murder in the first 2 trimesters what of last term or partial birth abortion where a fully developed baby is destroyed while partially out of the womb??

What of post birth abortion that was purposed:
This article is about the neologism used in a paper. For euthanasia of newborns, see child euthanasia. For pregnancy abortion, see abortion.
"After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" is a controversial[1] article published by Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013 (available online from 2012) arguing to call child euthanasia "after-birth abortion" and highlighting similarities between abortion and euthanasia.[2] The article attracted media attention[3][4] and several scholarly critiques.[5][6][7][8][9] According to Michael Tooley, "Very few philosophical publications, however, have evoked either more widespread attention, or emotionally more heated reactions, than this article has."[10][11]

The argument of the article is as follows:

Abortion is justified because of the moral status of foetuses (their shared status of 'potential persons' is not morally relevant)
Abortion is justified when the foetus has severe abnormalities or would be an intolerable burden to its mother/family (at least when adoption is not a viable option due to not being in the best interests of actual persons)
Newborns have the same moral status as foetuses (there are no morally relevant differences between them), if they suffer unbearably
Newborns may be born with severe abnormalities (that cannot always be diagnosed before birth) and can be an intolerable burden on their mother/family (including when circumstances change after birth)
Therefore, "after-birth abortion" (euthanasia of newborns) can be justified in some circumstances
-from wiki

I'm truly glad we can agree on at least one basic fact.  Moral conclusions have changed over time.  

that is the foundation of what I have to say. I was under the impression that your position was that object morality does not change, and my position was ALL forms of morality do in fact change.

Sure, I think it's possible that some moral conclusions change over time because they proceed from relativist foundations in a changing society.  Gods many changes of heart from old magic book to new are representative of that.  I also think it's possible that some moral conclusions change over time because people are making new mistakes.  From an objectivists point of view, the only way to rectify that situation would be to correct those mistakes.  In all three cases, moral conclusions would change over time - but they each represent distinct metaethical claims.  This is why moral conclusions changing doesn't demonstrate that the moral conclusions are relative.  

then define your use of the word relative. because to me changes to the moral code based on an evolving society, does in fact demonstrate the newly adopted moral conclusions are in fact relative. Relative being defined as: : a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing.
Changes in morality are based on changes in society. IE the changes to object morality are defined by the moral conclusions of society.

What separate man's morality from God's righteousness is that when man uses his morality to judge God's laws 'immoral' It shows a relativistic change in the society based morality and proves god's standard has not changed with it. as God morality was the foundation or starting point of the evolution of man's morality.

More fundamentally, relativist moral systems cannot include objective moral values - because relativism explicitly excludes objectivist propositions as valid moral propositions.  In an objectivist system the question is whether or not x possesses the good or bad making properties.  In relativism, what your society says is the good or bad making property.  As an objectivist, I have no problem whatsoever pointing out the ways in which my very christian society has been morally incorrect.

Philosophically I agree. However practically speaking can you name just ONE Objectively moral principle that has never changed? If you can't then does that not demonstrate my point? that all forms of morality are relative.

You caught me.  I'm basically the worst.  Shame on me for believing that there are moral facts!  Moahitlerkim McRomanslaver.

So... with this statement you are saying you are comfortable being in the middle of whatever society deems 'moral' so long as everyone else is doing it? even if subsequent generations or people outside of this society deem what you find moral, evil?

If this is your position then that's fine.. But why then cast judgement (in the way of several posts) puts you in a position that judge god and his followers for essentially for doing the same thing in their time/out of this soceity?