You seem to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”
The formulation of law IS founded upon who has the biggest guns. Why do you think international slavery was perceived a a good thing for so many years? Why do you suppose in some countries it is okay to kill a woman if she disrespects her family? Why do you suppose 75 years ago in Germany it was okay to kill people simply for being Jewish? Why do you suppose in some places that which we see as wrong is right there, and visa versa? Because law (not morality) is based on who has the biggest guns.
No; the USA is a country based on LAW enforcement; not morality enforcement. Big difference.
Are you suggesting that my inability to prove it invalidates it? I can’t prove slavery is wrong either. Does that make it okay?
That which is conductive for prosperity and salvation does not equal right, or truth.
The Christian world view is in a constant state of change. Many of the Christian world views of 200 years ago is considered evil and wrong by the Christians of today; and many of the Christian world views of today would have been considered evil and wrong of the Christians of 200 years ago. I will bet dollars to donuts that 200 years from now, the christian world view of that time will be considered evil and wrong by the Christian standards of today. How can you call this type of morality objective?
You should know that all laws require moral justification. Law cannot and is not separate from the moral component, as certain brilliant early American legal minds have affirmed. And indeed, in general everyone seeks moral justification for the their words and actions, and necessarily so, not unless they want to be viewed as complete imbeciles. Such moral justification proceeds from some moral system that is contained in some worldview. Now, if such basis for moral justification is subjective and not rooted in authoritative truth, then
effectively laws are grounded in "the biggest gun" idea.
The claim that,
"No; the USA is a country based on LAW enforcement; not morality enforcement" presents a false dichotomy and is just silly. Of course those writing law and policy for law enforcement and those carrying it out are enforcing what they consider to be moral standards.
Concerning your contention that the Christian world view is in a constant state of change is of course grossly mis-representative. The core principles/truths making up the biblical worldview (within Protestantism) literally remains the same including the principle of Biblical authority. The standard itself of authoritative truth for the biblical worldview--God's Word--remains the same. There are irreconcilable differences between the biblical Cristian worldview and the godless worldview.
What you have done I believe is take certain sins, such as professing Christians that justified human slavery, and present that as the majority opinion of Christians in that era, which of course is just silly. It was professing Christians that were instrumental in getting the slavery practice abolished.
Now, there have been changes in certain holiness standards that were practiced in early America that have been largely abandoned--but not entirely--such as concerning dress, but the core biblical principles remain the same.
Also, your appeal to changing standards within the Christian worldview is a two way street that, if consistency is followed, can be applied to other worldviews including your own. Its like that sophomoric claim that Christianity is nothing more than the product of cultural conditioning, that can also be said of godless worldviews.