This is interesting in that it seems to capture the view of the religious right, in case you're curious about where they're coming from. I welcome any comments or rebuttals of this rebuttal. (I'm a little surprised he's still here, what with late week's Rapture and all, though perhaps there's email in heaven.)
As the writer of the "conscience" letter of a month ago in which I stated that its existence was evidence of a creator God, please allow me to address the various rebuttals given by you and your readers.
You, in your blog, said that "some find a moral compass without God" when writers objected to my saying that moral judgment requires a divine being. The Bible says that Scripture is absolute objective truth. It is truth for all, applies to everyone, and does not depend on one's opinion of it. However, if God does not exist, truth and morality are indeed relative. As an example, years ago when the Bible was revered as God's truth, homosexuality was condemned as a sin because the Bible said that it was. However, along the way, the Bible was slowly abandoned as a standard of morality and when that happens, society has no authority to declare anything immoral. Man then thought that tolerance was the nobler way to go so homosexuality passed from a state of condemnation, to being condoned, to being accepted, to now being openly celebrated. Profanity, abortion, pornography, etc. are commonplace now and shock no one but in the past they were taboo because the Bible deemed them as sinful. What's the sense of having a moral code if it's in a continuous state of flux?