Is Christianity morally absolute?

[Corvus]

I have posted this to the philosophy forum and not the right and wrong forum because the latter seems to me to involve debates about whether or not a thing is right or wrong. This particular topic is one of labels and distinctions.

Is Christianity morally absolute? I understand absolute morals to mean that right and wrong is something constant and universally applicable. What I find questionable is whether that distinction can be applied when in the Old Testament and New Testament two separate sets of rules for right and wrong exist, and some laws are no longer applicable. Apart from this, the OT did not bind Gentiles to the same laws as the Jews before the coming of Christ, just as Christians are no longer bound by Jewish laws after the coming of Christ and the formation of the "new covenant".

What is more is that, even those bound by certain rules at a certain time could have those rules bent or broken if ordered to do such a thing by God. An example of this that goes both against conventional morality and God's written law is the stoning of disobedient children. I do not have the verse name and numbers, but, since this wasn't contested in the thread where it got brought up, I supposed that it was true. Other examples abound of killing justified by circumstances.

These seem to be examples of both relative morality and situational ethics. If a thing is right for one group but not for another, then it is relative. If a thing is right at one period of time and wrong at another, even if some One comes to "fulfill the law" my understanding is that it is situational.

I wish to know;

Is Christian morality absolute?

Does absolutism rule out situational ethics?

It may be that I have a misunderstanding about what is absolute here, the laws - which is the common definition - or the actual source of the laws, God with his authority.

[BeHereNow]

Why absolute morality is relative.

Background:
I don’t believe God is necessary for morality. Many atheists are moral. There are many moral systems which have nothing to do with God.

Morality will mean “doing the right thing” (including thinking the right thing). If you believe in God, we may say “doing what God expects of us”.

Absolute will mean “defined by a master plan”. This means a belief system (God, or otherwise) exists that can be used to judge every though or action and determine it to be right/wrong good/bad, moral/immoral.

Relative will mean “depending on certain conditions”.

Let me know if any of these are incomplete or inaccurate.

I’ve noticed that most belief systems (religions) incorporate an Absolute Morality. The members incorporate this into their personal philosophy to a greater or lesser degree, often not accepting 100%. For simplicity let’s stay with Christianity.
Most Christians and all traditional/conservative/fundamental Christians will tell you that they believe in an absolute morality. The problem is they don’t agree with each other. (What does thou shall not kill mean?) So how do we explain this apparent inconsistency?

1) They are all right that there is an absolute morality, but wrong when it comes to the details.
2) They are all wrong and there is no absolute morality.
3) They are all right that there is an absolute morality, and all right when it comes to the details (even though they disagree with each other).

My belief system [Zen-Buddhist Christian] told me that that the first two were not correct. By “told me” I mean it was revealed to me. The accumulated efforts of my spiritual journey brought me to a point where I “knew” this to be true. I never had a vision, never read it in a book, no one ever put that thought in those words to me, and yet I do not feel the idea is original to me. I do not get the credit for a revelation. We receive revelations based on our need.
Many people will modify the first choice and say “There is an absolute morality, I understand it and I don’t mind if my friends vary slightly on the details (“I will never forgive my sister-in-law for having an affair with my husband” might be understandable to many fine Christians but not to others who value forgiveness much more). I do not agree that this is absolute morality pure and simple. I think it’s kind of complicated. I don’t think it is fair to say it is absolute. If you feel this is still absolute morality. . .we may have a problem. Quite a slippery slope.

So my choice is number three. Some explanations are true no matter how implausible they may seem at first look.
Nearly all religions have their mysteries. I could stop here and say this is one of the mysteries of my belief, and it is just not explainable. But that’s not me.
[Thomas Merton is a Christian mystic who is a strong exponent of Zen for modern times. His book The birds of Appetite should have been an easy read for me but it wasn’t. I couldn’t make the connection. The writings of Lao Tzu for example, came much easier (Ancient Taoist, first cousin of Zen). Ditto for Alan Watts of Beat Zen fame.]

I believe the moral rules of the universe are so finely tuned they can not be adequately expressed in human terms. A blade of grass here, a grain of sand there, and everything has changed.
If my religion has dietary laws I will have a moral need to observe them. I believe both Jesus and Paul talked about this when they discussed with the new followers the difference between the (former) Jews and the Gentiles. Those of Jewish background wanted to observe the laws of the Pentateuch whereas the Gentile did not see the need. The answer? Let those who want to follow the laws of their fathers do so. What is the harm? The Gentiles feel they should not be required to accept the “habits” of another religion just because they wanted to be followers of Jesus (who clearly said you do not have to be Jewish). They had a good point as well. (“It is not that which goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but which comes out.” This seems to be more about the meat that had been sacrificed to the other gods, but the point is the same.)
A similar situation occurred with circumcision. The Jewish converts wanted these adult Gentile males to endure circumcision just to conform to laws of Moses. It should be no surprise they balked and asked if it were really necessary. The answer was no, circumcision is not required but those who wish may continue and it will be pleasing to the Lord.

So, by my way of thinking, each individual has an inner being, soul, consciousness, Karma, whatever, that gives them the ability to know in every situation what the right thing is to do. They can accept it or reject it.

It is moral for a man to have intercourse with his wife. If he does this in a violent manner while living out a rape fantasy and it displeases his wife, it is not moral. If she is the one with the urges and he tries to comply, different story. It just depends.

That’s the point. It just depends.
Now if you want to call this situational ethics we can talk about it or not. It has been some years since my readings of situational ethics, but I remember I had some problems with it. I don’t recall what they were. I do know that the detractors did not represent it fairly, but that should be no surprise.

I have had these thoughts for many years but never put them down in the written word.
I look forward to questions and discussions.