(3) Let me define it from a Christian apologist who believes in moral absolutes. His name is Norman Geisler.

"Morality, Absolute Nature of. Orthodox Christianity has always defended moral absolutes. However, most modern ethicists hold some form of relativism. Thus, it is necessary to defend the belief in moral absolutes.
Moral Absolutes. Before the absolute nature of morality can be understood, morality must be defined. Several things are meant by a moral obligation. First, a moral duty is good in itself (an end), not merely good as a means. Further, it is something we ought to pursue, a duty. Morality is prescriptive (an “ought”), not merely descriptive (an “is”). Morality deals with what is right, as opposed to wrong. It is an obligation, that for which a person is accountable.
An absolute moral obligation is:
an objective (not subjective) moral duty—a duty for all persons.
an eternal (not temporal) obligation—a duty at all times.
a universal (not local) obligation—a duty for all places."
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (501). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

(4) I didn't evade I pointed out a strawman in your argument:

ou said: Strawman? I’ve done no such thing.”

Strawman: “If I were to say I do believe in absolute morality, would I never lie even if lying lead to say saving a life, etc.?”

That’s a strawman.

Here’s another example of a strawman (I know you did not say this, BTW) “If I were to say I do believe in absolute morality, would I never kill even to defend my own life?”

That’s another strawman. I’m not being mean. I’m just pointing out that its an argument that’s easy to tear down, because it’s not the argument.

Absolute morality does not exclude specifics.

For example, it is an absolute moral law that murder is wrong.

It is not an absolute moral law that killing is wrong.

The specific in this instance is murder.

What absolute morality means is that it is not just an opinion that murder is wrong, or that its ok to murder one day, and then not ok the next.

(5) Since we have now defined absolute morality, let me address your concern you stated:

"This isn't moral absolutism. What he's thinking of is consequentialism where morals can be bent or ignored to create a good outcome."

Actually, you're mistaken.

Geisler can say it better than I can:

"There are higher and lower moral laws. Jesus spoke of “greater sin” (John 19:11), “greater love” (John 15:13), “greatest commandment” (Matt. 5:19), and “weightier matters” of the law (Matt. 23:23). Our duty to God is greater than our duty to our neighbor. It is our God-given duty to obey government (Titus 3:1; Rom. 13:1), and yet when this conflicts with the command to worship God, we should “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Divine approval of falsification for life-saving. There are numerous cases in Scripture where God (implicitly or explicitly) commended the faith of those involved in intentional deception in order to save lives. Obadiah hid one hundred prophets to save their lives (I Kings 18). Elisha deceived his would-be captors in order to save his life (II Kings 6:18–20). Rahab hid the spies “by faith” (Heb. 11:31) to save their lives. Indeed, the key to the spies’ safety was Rahab’s outright lie to the men at her door (Josh. 2:5). Finally, the Hebrew midwives both disobeyed government and lied to the king (Exod. 1:19) in order to save the male babies. And in this case, the text says clearly and unequivocally that “God blessed them and gave them families” as a result of what they did. Since all things in the Old Testament are “for us” (Rom. 15:4) and happened “for our example” (I Cor. 10:11), it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that these were God-approved examples of how He wants us to behave in similar moral conflicts.

God gave everyone a conscience, Romans 2:14-15. That doesn't mean to say that everyone listens to their conscience, etc.

But let me ask you a question,

"Is it possible for a limited, finite being to invent an absolute?"