A perfect god can not exist?

Please make your reply in plain English since that's the form my argument was given to you in. Also, please quote something I've actually said when you do so instead of making yet another straw man. I've asked you this before but for some reason you would rather make this more difficult.

Please stop using two senses "it is true that." It carries only one meaning within a linguistic framework not two. You can't talk about what is true or false in other frameworks if you are in a framework.

Linguistic framework? No, these are cultural-ethical frameworks.

Like I said, I am only committed to the claim that all ethical truth values are relative. You're the one that started talking about things that are true from within the context of a cultural-ethical framework we aren't in, namely WWII Germany. If it was true in that framework then so be it. That doesn't mean it has to be true in my framework. Which is good since it's not.

Therefore, "In Germany, Killing Jews is right" is literally false within Modern USA, simply because american culture believes that it is false.

No, modern USA culture believes "killing Jews is right" is false. That says nothing about whether or not "in the context of WWII Germany killing Jews was right" is true.

But no one believes that it was right in Germany and wrong in the USA.

That's the entire point of relativism. Some people argue that if you would have been in Hitler's shoes, it really would have been right for you to do just as he did, even though, now, in your own shoes, it really would be wrong to do as he did.

Some people also argue that if they were in Hitler's shoes they could never do such a thing, and that it is still wrong for Hilter to have done that no matter what the circumstances in WWII Germany. What's your point? That's not a good argument for relativism.

I'm only arguing that it's logically consistent. Whether or not it's true is another matter. The fact that some people disagree with relativism doesn't mean it results in a contradiction.

All it takes is one counterexample from a culture who believes that what Hitler did in the context of WWII Germany to be morally wrong, that what Hitler did WAS, in fact, morally wrong in Germany

But they won't be making that judgment from the context of WWII Germany. They will be making it from the context of their own culture. What some other culture thinks doesn't reflect what the culture of WWII Germany thinks.

So what? That's right. All it takes is that one non-WWI-German culture believes what Hitler did was wrong, for it to be a fact that what Hitler did was wrong, and so MMR is false within that culture. So there is at least one culture where MMR is false in that culture. And if there is that one culture, then "all moral jugdments are true relative to culture" is false in some places--namely within cultures!

You act as if no one is within a culture when they make objective moral judgments. But everyone is within a culture when they make objective moral judgments.

Suppose there are two different cultures that believe the same thing, namely "Killing Jews in Germany is wrong." And I bet there are. If a culture believes a moral jugment is true, then it is true. Therefore, it is not the case that "all moral judgments are true relative to culture" is true, because two different cultures believe the same thing which is true in both cultures.

You're grasping at straws now. The fact that they are in agreement doesn't mean it's not relative.

No, relativism isn't false within or without any cultures because relativism is a meta-ethical claim, not an ethical one.

But if one culture believes "'Killing Jews is wrong' is true" and another entirely different culture believes "Killing Jews is wrong' is true" then, since what a culture believes morally to be the case is true

Only within those cultures are each of those claims true.

So "Killing Jews is both right and wrong' is true" is true outside all cultures.?