To clarify why Farang Mehr (who I know rather well) and say Ali Jafarey and I and Parviz Varjavand and all Zoroastrian scholars I know agree strongly on this issue:
Zarathushtra is the first ethicist (rather than moralist) in history who dictates that ethics must be relativistic precisely as to be dynamic because the world is dynamic and human society is dynamic. So if relativistic and dynamic are not synonymous, then they are most definitely mutually dependent on each other. As to BE dynamic values and valuations have to be RELATIVISTIC, able to change when circumstances change. Which is why Zarathustra ORDERS us to IDENTIFY WITH what we think, speak and most of all DO.
Which in turn is precisely why we do not have commandments or even concrete do's and dont's in Zoroastrianism. Are you with me?
The words good and bad are never used by Zarathushtra. Such concepts are not even part of Zoroastrian ethics in any other environment either. We deal with constructive versus destructive MENTALITIES. There is no good or bad in nature or outside of our ambitions. It's all inside our heads, as Mehr and Jafarey and Varjavand would all agree.
Yes, I believe there is a difference between relative and dynamic.
Dynamic means something that is "characterized by constant change, activity or progress", while relative means that something is "considered in relation or in proportion to something else".
For a given circumstance there shouldn't be any doubt about something being good or bad. Good is not relative in a given time & place but it might change in a different environment, so it might be dynamic.
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard
> Dear George
> This is precisely my point! I have always agreed with Fahrang Mehr.
> Or do you mean that there is a difference between "relative" and
> Zoroastrians do not answer questions like "Is abortion right or wrong?".
> Our answer to that question, because it is trying to unjustly simplify what
> is a complex structure, is rather "That depends on".