Just saw this and was on my way to bed; but, had to stop and comment. Moral relativism is not the Christian standard, it is human reason at work trying to excuse application of human reason over the application of the reason of others in trying to say "our reason was an improvement over their reason."
Christianity isn't about reason or philosophical constructs of men competing to outdo the thinking of other men on what is morally better than something else. Chrisitanity is a covenant laid down By God.. A take it or leave it proposition dropped at mankind's doorstep By God for us to make a decision over. God handed us a completed work. And that completed work stated plainly that what was being done in the inquisitions was dead wrong 1000 years before it started brewing. There is no moral relativism with God. While we can sit back and reason out that a punch in the mouth is better than a broken leg, that's all fine and good but that is simple relativism. When you start talking about morality, God has given us a fixed and defined set of expectations and merely sitting back and saying "oops we made a mistake; but, we were still better than joe" don't quite cut it.
A mistake is "oops" and then we fix it. If I get mad and slap someone because I momentarily lose control, that is a mistake. When I beat them to death slowely for hours, we tend to call that deliberative. What then do you call it when it's ingrained for over 700 years such that it just about had to be the hand of God conquering them to put an end to it. Cause the Lord knows it wouldn't have ended otherwise. The greater point being it didn't stop because they saw the error of their ways and got right with God for fear of his vengeance at the least. No, they still haven't learned. The spirit of Christ in me is all I need in order to understand the abject poverty of this situation. The absence of God's will here makes the moral relativism a badge that should be one of shame. Instead of being able to say they learned and Got right with God, they can only say, well, we weren't as bad as someone else - whether it is true or not. And that grieves me - that people can be so blinded as not to see this.
These same people in their delusion will tell you that islam is evil and islamicists are evil; but, they act identical to one another with exception to what the content of their dogma is. The first world won't allow Rome to do what she once did while she still acts that way in the third world to a great extent - case in point being south america. But both act pretty much identically for their radical nature. Islam is just a tad more radical because they've been largely unrestrained for a long time whilest the world has slowly come to the realization that they could not be befriended or placated any more than "Holy Rome" could be.
If Christ were to stay his return for 500 years, the Islamicists would be acting by then just as Catholicism has to act in first world countries like the US today - restrained by a public that is wise to their ways and has long since determined not to be abused by them. That threat has been subdued to the extent that people have nearly forgotten in some cases what the threat was. Islam has reminded many of them. But those of us with Christ in our hearts have been awake and aware. And this moral relativism is not of Christ. Nor is it gonna pass muster before God.
Whatsoever you have done to the least of these, you have done to me. Moral relativism your way around that.
So much error today. Didn't you read the definition in my post? I think it is very accurate. Pure moral relativists would not claim better or worse in any absolute sense. Their thinking is more or less that the morals suit themselves to the situation. I think the saying is "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The moral relativist might substitute good for evil but, being relative, that's more matter of spin.
As for the rest of your post, I think you have no basis for knowing that there is an absolute standard that God has handed down. For my own part, I think that even if there is such a standard it is unknowable by us.
And by the way, a punch in the mouth is virtually always better than a broken leg. If you were to offer the choice to say a hundred people, don't you think virtually all of them would choose the former? Thanks for that example of something that's (virtually always) objectively better than something else.