Yes, once again, in order to explain ANYTHING (including the objective standards of morality), you need to use words whose definitions have been determined through a subjective process. Once again, you fail to realize that your religion does absolutely nothing to solve that 'problem.' Your argument is as ridiculous as saying that 'two plus two equals four' is not an objective fact because somebody might not agree what the word 'two' means. It's starting to become more and more clear that you simply don't know what 'objective' means. If existence of those factors was contingent on universal agreement, it wouldn't be objective. Subjective doesn't 'graduate' into objective just because it's subjectively agreed upon by many people. The passage you are quoting is preceded by "he found the place where it is written:". You're simply proving yourself to be intellectually dishonest now. And you that still doesn't do anything to suggest that the anti-slavery sentiment was anything beyond the enslavement of Jews by non-Jews. And again, if the meanings are contingent on sentient SUBJECTS (the members of the speech community), then they are SUBJECTIVE. I didn't know that a person's credibility is proportional to the number of comments they've written on nofap.com. Is that another nugget of logic they teach at your church?