If God exists -- and He does -- He sets the rules as to the absolute morality. If He tells us that we must walk on our tongues and whistle Yankee Doodle, we have a big problem.
If you believe that Jesus is the Christ you don't have to worry about that or about sacrificing your first born, or fasting and scourging your body to find Nirvana or about acquiring wealth to take with you to the next world or any of the strange concepts man has cooked up to guarantee a happy time after death. You do have to worry about loving your neighbor and doing unto them as you'd have them do unto you.
How about if we don't either let the child victims of our attacks on enemy cities starve to death or make slaves of them?
How about we avoid having an agrarian economy dependent on manual labor, while being certain there is a surplus of food to take care of all in need?
Well now, what do we have here? An argument that slavery is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, depending on the contemporary state of human agrarian technology?
Which we cannot resolve, because God's moral precepts are absolutely binding, right?
Aren't you pretty much describing the behavior and rhetoric of the hippies exmarine hates so much? If my neighbor wants me to impregnate his wife, does Jesus see any problem with that? Suppose my neighbor is desperate for a child and can't produce one on his own. Does the absolute law of jesus's love trump the absolute Commandment against adultery? Does not jesus's moral precept of agape love require me to impregnate his wife in a reciprocal act? Do you really mean it when you say that "do unto.." is absolute morality, or are you just pulling my chain, as is usually the case when we actually get down to cases? His commitment to "Do unto..." didn't prevent exmarine from gloating over the millions of gook babies we fried in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, just a few posts ago, so you'll forgive me if I regard this, until proven otherwise, as a world class case of murderous hypocracy.