God has a lock on it and these moral absolutes are discerned in two ways: through the human conscience (God's laws are written on the human heart) and through scripture. You said Hitler was wrong, but I am still waiting for you to tell me how he could be wrong in your utilitarian world. Either way, if the pope called himself a follower of Christ, then from his perspective, he would have to defer the bible, or fall back on his own corrupt moral system still claiming it was from Christ.
I have answered your feeble argument, and made a reasonably compelling case by counterexample several times now. Being oblivious is not an example of a logic refutation, hard as that may be for you to believe. Kindly submit your proof that the Popes are not God's spokesmen for moral absolutism on this planet. Kindly explain why you do not own slaves, and treat them as you are commanded by God to treat them in the bible. You're remarkably full of yourself for someone who can't lower himself to defend his position whenever some uncomfortable specifics are brought to the table.
Actually, lets' be clear - the slavery argument is YOUR FEEBLE ARGUMENT. You brought it up. So, spare me the red herring about the pope and give me the proof FROM THE BIBLE that slavery is condoned. Burden of proof is on you since you made the FEEBLE assertion. Well?
js1138 has supplied you with direct passages from the bible that are totally unambiguous, including totally unambiguous instructions about how to treat slaves. Tell me, do you think it makes a great deal of difference to a slave beaten to death in keeping with God's dictates whether he is a chattel bondservant or not? I have to say that this is about the most longwindedly ungraceful display from someone utterly flagrantly caught with his philosophical mitts in the cookie jar, as I've yet witnessed here at FR.