If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, I get all of this. I even admitted agreeing with this from a philosophical stand point.

Like pulling teeth.

As It all sounds very well thought out and good. Here's the problem/reason I can not fully accept everything you said as stated.. The practical application of morality does not completely jive with what you say here. The observations made and the classification of morality is rather short sited and does not take into account, that with out a transcendent absolute point of reference like say God's law/Righteousness, there is absolutely no way we can assign or say things possess right or wrong properties/have intrinsic moral value. Because when the predominate culture changes those right or wrong properties get redefined. As again might literally makes right.

God cannot possess righteousness if there is, in fact, no such thing as right.  If what you mean to say is that god possesses mightiness, fine?  Who cares? I could follow mighty amoral potentates in the real world. I don't need to invent one.

The only way those right or wrong properties transcend societal change is if a greater power or greater authority cements those changes. Kinda how like God's law has seen empires come and Go. and while the morality of say the Roman Empire set the subjective standards of morality for hundreds of years, these standards fell when the empire fell. ( Example we no longer endorse blood sports to the death as an acceptable form of entertainment.)

I think it's a poor moral system that demands it's adherents remain mistaken forever, if ever they were once mistaken.  Ditto for god beliefs, really.  

Now I know you have identified what I describe here and a Metaethical relativism, and that there is an unchanging standard of metaethical objectivism which I am willing to go along with IF and only if you can provide just one example of a moral standard that has not changed. Who's intrinsic value/inherent right or wrong properties is the only defining factor on whether a deed is considered right or wrong. Which again should remain a constant through out time. meaning all cultures are forced to adopt this given point of morality.

I've addressed this multiple times, and again directly above in this post.  Insisting that people stubbornly cling to any moral proposition from their cultural past will not insure or even imply that their moral system is objective.  Rather, it strongly suggests that you demand a relativistic morality frozen in time.  It would make a silly sort of sense that you demand this - I'll give you that. As you've been conditioned to believe that the term "objective morality" refers to exactly this sort of thing, as expressed in the dead dead documents of your apparently frozen religion.

From an objectivists standpoint, just as people can get a math problem wrong, they can get a moral problem wrong.  The thing to do when you're wrong, is to get correct. In your own framing, there's only one question to ask - and it's not for me or any other moral objectivist. Was god getting all this shit wrong and then refusing to get correct..or is it just people like you fucking it up then laying their own inadequacies at the feet of their alleged gods?