well in the interest of falsifying godwin's law (hence continuing the discussion even though I'll end with a Nazi comparison...)

i agree with sky that truth is objective (there is a fact of the matter whether thoughts / statements about the world are true, false, or neither true nor false).

and i agree with sky that relativism (true for you false for me) is untenable at the end of the day (unless you make some sophisticated manouvers to haul in some objectivity) for precisely the reason that she states: we have to conclude that what the Nazi's did was good for them. But clearly what the Nazi's did wasn't good. That reduces relativism to an absurdity.

i also agree that relativism is very prevalent these days. some people think that one needs to be a relativist about truth in order to be sensitive to other cultures and other peoples beliefs. i think that it is possible to be sensitive to other cultures and other peoples beliefs without endorsing relativism, however.

One point of disagreement might be the SOURCE of truth, however. But... Maybe we don't disagree here either.

I can capture a possible point of disagreement that was first stated in a paradox in that Socrates hits upon in The Meno. I hope people don't mind my posting this...

'Is something virtuous because it it loved by the Gods... Or is something loved by the Gods because it is virtuous?'

With respect to this situation:

Is something true because it is endorsed by God...
Or does God endorse it because it is true?

I guess that I think that God (if he exists) endorses certain things precisely because they are good things or they are true statements / beliefs.

Rather than his endorsment making them so.

So... God couldn't decree that it was morally acceptable to torture an innocent child solely for fun (for example) because that simply is a morally abhorrent thing to do. It is a morally wrong thing to do regardless of whether the Ancients, the Nazis, or God appreciate it as such or not.