Christianity claims that morality is real and is not just opinions.  Moral relativists see it as a social construct or mere opinion.

A religion may be against moral relativism in principle but still guilty of practicing it and thriving on it. A la carte Catholicism being one obvious example. One example is how the Church says it is to hate sin no matter who commits it. The Church makes a distinction between objective sin and personal sin. A homosexual who has sex with a clear conscience is guilty of an objective sin but not of a personal sin. His outward actions are sinful but there is no sin in his heart. So the Church says it judges the act not the person. The Church says it is to hate objective sin and personal sin. Why bother hating a sinful heart if you can love or not care about what they do in terms of objective sin?
Christians often do not act aggressively against sin. They do nothing. If you have to save somebody from a burning house it is acceptable to be aggressive to them to get them to hurry up and go.
Christians believe that God founded the Jewish religion and Christianity is not a new religion but updated Judaism. Thus then Christians should say, "In Old Testament times, we encouraged the stoning to death of idolaters, condemned images of angels and God used in worship as idols, we ordered that priest's daughters who committed sexual sin to be burned to death. God now takes vengeance himself - the laws are still valid but he keeps them for us." That belief is pure moral relativism.
Religion and many other entities in society, claim to be rational and encourage people to take their rationality for granted. Actually that is very wrong and manipulative and anti-rational. Reason necessarily means you do not tell others you are rational - you show it to them. You lay out all the evidence by pen and paper if you have to. Reason belongs to everybody not just those who claim to be rational. Reason is about transparency in matters pertaining to evidence or proof and about avoiding contradiction and mistaking what is not proof as proof. Reason desires correction which is why it hides nothing from anybody.
If you have to have others taking your rationality for granted, that is only right if there is no time or no opportunity to let them judge you for themselves. But this will be seen as a necessary evil and hopefully provisional.
Religion by encouraging the world to trust that it is rational is encouraging relativism in practice even if not in theory.
Only the individual knows if he or she is a relativist. It is possible to promote an objective absolute morality and still not believe in it. You could be a moral relativist pretending to be a servant of objective morality. If relativism is correct, there is nothing wrong with this pretence!
Believers say that if there is no God then we decide what is moral and just not him. They add that this is saying that there is no absolute right or wrong just opinions.
That is nonsense. If we make mistakes in working out what is right, it does not follow that right is just a matter of opinion. Their argument proves that they are trying to control others and manipulate them through offering them faith in God.
Christians say their moral doctrines come from God. People who want you to obey their rules about God have to say God gave them. That is the only way to discourage you from rejecting them. They are acting in case you think, "Why should she tell me what to do? Am I not as good as her? Can I not decide for myself?" With all the disagreements about God's moral code, it is clear that there is a lot of humble men who are secretly arrogant and thinking they can judge what God has said. Their egos delight when their word is taken for God's. Those who say they heed only God are lying. They reason and judge for themselves if God has spoken. They believe because they have decided God has spoken - that is not the same thing as deciding because God has spoken.
The fact that Christians judge for themselves what is good shows they are practicing the essentials of moral relativism. The person who is a relativist in the name of God is a bigger relativist then the atheist relativist.
The teaching of some is: "We have free will. We are not obligated to do anything be it good or bad. There is nothing you have to do. But there will be consequences for the choices we make. If you are pleasant to nobody, you will be very lonely and bitter." That is actually a form of moral relativism. It does not care what you choose. It just concerns itself not with the morality of acts but their consequences. It is actually a very selfish doctrine. It would have you loving people not for their sake but because you want to avoid loneliness. It is yourself you love not the people you pretend to love.

Beliefs that impact on our behaviour are the most important. Their claim that you need God to validate morality then is the most important one they make in favour of belief in God.

But it is wrong and fundamentally wrong. It is a root error. It means they practice what looks like goodness but as far as motivation and honesty goes it is anything but. It means the good atheist is actually worse than ten Christian Hitlers.
Opponents of relativism say that nobody needs to learn that people have the right to try to be happy, to think for themselves, to live and be free. They say it does not take formation to establish those ideals in people. But it takes "formation" to remove those ideals from people. Relativism results from a de-formation of people and leads to further de-formation. Religion itself has already done the ground-work. If religion turns people into relativists, it should know that in time they will drift into a form of relativism that may even hate and be hostile to the religion.
If our morals are just based on opinions they are based on opinions about what is best. It is not our fault that we have to just have opinions. That we want to know what the best is means there really is a best even if we don't know how to go about it.
The Catholic God gives out an absolute morality for others but not himself. A relativist often does the same thing. God excludes those who do not pray from eternal salvation so not praying is always immoral. Another example is that he says we have to believe in him no matter what even if it gets us killed by enemies of God. Jesus said that prayers made without faith are no good so the teaching on prayer implies you have to believe in God. We are to try to love God more even though it will attract terrible temptations from Satan. Even if this is good for it means you will go to Heaven when you die you are still undergoing a lot of suffering over religious principles and doctrines that cannot be adequately proven. God and Jesus do not keep an absolute morality themselves when they allow bad things to happen for this supposedly justifiable purpose they ramble on about. Therefore it is undeniable that the God the Bible and Jesus claimed to show existed cannot exist for no excuse for him allowing evil is possible. If we could excuse God then the God we excuse is not their God. It is very wrong to teach that a kindly atheist has less hope of Heaven than a selfish Christian who repents on the deathbed. This relativist God is evil and those who worship him want to see others having to live with this horrendous God.
The Christian even if not acting like a relativist, does worship a relativist God. They justify the terrible things God makes and allows to happen and does. They even endorse the terrible commands. They do not shy away from saying they are God's laws.

If you feel good about agreeing with or doing something awful, you can excuse this by saying that morality is relative. You can learn that persons or religions are relativist when you learn of what they believe and see how they act. But there is no test which shows that a religion or a person is NOT a relativist. Somebody can deny they are relativist and still be.  If morality is opinion then what if they have the opinion that they must just play along with principles associated with objective morality.
Relativism is so rife it is wise to assume everybody is a relativist even if they say otherwise.  Religion is a form of relativism despite its denials.

American Journal of Jurisprudence, Volume 15 | Issue 1 Article 5, 1-1-1970, A Critical Evaluation of Fletcher's Situation Ethics, Francis J. Kovach


No Copyright