I asked how you know what is moral. You replied that you had to figure it out by determining what is best for you, or others, or the world, etc.

No, I didn't and I was careful not to. I don't know what's best for others. Just what might benefit them.

Now you are saying you don’t in fact know that. But if you do not, then you cannot know what is moral, according to your definition. How can you even do your best to be moral when you say you don’t know what morality is?

No one can know anything that is objectively moral because such a thing does not exist. I do my best to live what I believe to be a moral life by being ethical through causing minimal harm and coercion, while attempting to benefit others within reason. It has to be constant decision making process. I must consider ethics and morality within my decisions.

No, I am just a real Christian.

I'll take that as you admitting you are lying.

Morality is not relative.

So you claim that everyone will somehow look into themselves, and find a universal, objective, morality? When has that ever happened between even 2 people? You must either accept subjectivity and subjective morality, or you must reject subjective interpretation and accept an objective written code that can't be subjectively understood.

There is no such thing as more or less moral. This is secular thinking. You are either moral or you are not.

Then no one that exists is moral.

You expect to have an objective and absolute morality which you claim can be found through subjective introspection. Not only is that not possible, but even if it were, it could not be complete. No one is capable of understanding a complete moral code, let alone being consistent to one. No human can develop a complete moral system and be consistent to it. This is simply not possible (assuming your morality has any basis in logic). This can actually be proven mathematically to be the case, but I don't need to go even that far, since I can point out there has never been a human alive that is without sin by the Christian standard, not even Jesus.

Where you might complain that my morality isn't objective, at least mine can exist.

However, I suspect that this idea of being 'either moral or not' is probably an even worse concept than a completely unreasonable system. It's more likely an excuse, using God as a crutch.

If you can't be more or less moral, and you assert that you are a moral person, then we also get to discount your actual actions because they will not make you less or more moral. You get to assert that you are a good person, and then you get to do whatever you want and spin whatever necessary apologetics you can muster to defend your rationalization of your terrible behavior as a moral person. After all, who would question it? You've asserted that you're objectively moral, and you looked into yourself and found that God thinks you're moral to, so who is anyone to disagree with God? Convenient.

Is it really so hard to imagine a Christian that doesn’t listen to others to learn about God?

It's hard to imagine that I could find a Christian so prideful that he can claim to know that morality is objective and absolutely defined, while only finding that by "looking into himself" and then not referencing any objective material whatsoever. You've effectively made yourself God. Somehow you know, and don't know, what morality is, but it's absolutely objective, and you found it without doing any actual research into anything.

I do, because I earned it, and earn it every day

How so?

Because I have to make the choices myself. I have to live with the consequences of may actions. I have to study the results and learn what it tells me. There is no forgiveness and no justice. I must simply make hard choices about what is right without relying on a god to push my decisions off on. I must take full and ultimate responsibility for my actions and their consequences. Whether I benefit myself, benefit others, hurt myself, or hurt others, it all becomes information that I have to process and refine so that I can make a better decision the next time.

I don't get to pass off my responsibility to anyone else, let alone a literary figure. The responsibility is mine and only mine to bare. The work never ends. Being good isn't something you can assert you are, you have actually have to do good, and it also requires that you know good, and that you know evil as well. That means I don't get to rely on someone to tell me, I have to learn it. Each experience feeds me knowledge to learn what is right and wrong, and hopefully in the grand scheme of things, if I have done right in my life, my actions will have spoken for the success and benefit of myself and those around me. As I act in a moral way, I should see myself and those around me benefit from my actions, beliefs, and values. I must be becoming more moral if my time with people reduces needless suffering and imparts some significant level of value to them, and happens to benefit me as well.