Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[DeistPaladin]

It's still subjective by definition.

Not really, but I will play along.

Actually, yes it is, by definition. Seriously. Look up the definition of subjective.

From dictionary.com, looking up "objective"

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

"unbiased, not influenced by opinions, independent of thought" all preclude the answer coming exclusively from the evaluations, mandates and opinions of a single being, however wise or powerful that being may be. If morality is truly objective, it exists as part of reality which can be potentially discovered by any observer. Things objectively wrong would continue to be wrong regardless of whether Yahweh goes away to another universe, changes his mind or turns out never to have existed at all.

If you say "morality is objective and this singular being decides what that is" you have by the definition of 'objective' contradicted yourself. Objective is not a matter of decision by any being.

Now let's look up the word "subjective" on dictionary.com

1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered
2. of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices, etc: subjective views

This more describes a being who is making decisions on what is this or what is that.

In sum:
Subjective evaluations are decided upon
Objective facts are discovered

Clear?

That’s only subjective if that being is prone to error or whimsical,

Wrong, objectively so by definition. Subjectivity doesn't depend on the potential for error or changing one's mind later.

Example:
1. This apple I'm holding in my hand has this weight.
2. The apple has this measurable color
3. The apple I'm now throwing (no longer holding) is traveling at this velocity

All three things are measurable and are matters of factual knowledge that can be discovered. Continuing:

4. I like apples.
5. This brand of apple is the most tasty
6. You threw an apple at me and I don't like that

These are subjective evaluations based upon sensory data as filtered by the experiences, programming, prejudice and decisions of the person making these statements. Let's suppose I never change my mind about how apples taste or that everyone agrees that throwing apples at people is a bad thing to do. These evaluations do not become less subjective merely by the introduction of the possibility or unlikelyhood of change. Neither do they become more subjective if change is considered likely.

God is neither so it is a form of objectivism.

This is your assertion. Defining Yahweh as "good" and then saying "goodness is based on Yahweh" is offering a bare assertion followed to a pre-determined conclusion.

The circularity of such logic is dizzying. "Goodness is what Yahweh wills, so we know that Yahweh is good because Yahweh wills what Yahweh wills and so we know that what Yahweh wills is good because Yahweh is good and a good god who is composed only of goodness would only will good things so we know that what Yahweh wills is good and so we can define that goodness is what Yahweh wills..."

Also, your assertion isn't true by definition of the terms "objective" and "subjective". Objective matters are not decided on but discovered.

Not really sure what your point is though, even if it were a form of subjectivism, Christians have a subjective standard for morality (God) that cannot error, you guys have a subjective standard of morality (mankind) that is prone to error quite often. We still win.

This is completely beside the point. We are discussing whether or not Christian morality is objective. Additionally, this is incorrect. Yahweh's morality does in fact change, as demonstrated by the NT replacing the OT. Time was shellfish were an abomination. Now they are not.

You can say "fulfilled" rather than "changed" but this is just semantic tap dancing.

I don’t see the word slave anywhere in that commandment.

In the translation I offered, it did.

Additionally, since the commandment addresses coveting the PROPERTY of another person, that suggests slavery rather than willing and employed servant.

According to whom?

According to the slave and any who don't wish to be slaves, which would be pretty much everyone else in the world.

Given your various and often contradictory definitions of morality, slavery would not even be morally wrong, so I am not sure what your issue is here.

Actually, I've been consistent in my explanations of why slavery would be wrong but you're still struggling with more basic concepts like what distinguishes "objective" from "subjective" so I'm trying to go slow with you.

---

ADDITION TO ABOVE:
My wife thinks I'm wasting a lot of time trying to explain basic things to a total fucktard and my time would be better spent watching gay porn with her.
This is her subjective evaluation.