The Bible is immoral.

I will try to re-simplify the debate to complete this round. Doing so will mean that not every point of Pro's previous post will be addressed, only the key ones. I want to start by making a case for objectivity. I made a point in round 3 and I was hoping it would be addressed and refuted by Pro, but it was not. The point was, essentially, that morals must be objectively true. In other words, they are not subjective. Pro has stated in a variety of ways that morals are subjective and change with time. This being the most direct quote from Pro: "1. Morals change. (Yes morality change as laws do.)" Here is my issue that I would like Pro to acknowledge and refute. IF MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE, THEN IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO JUSTLY CONDEMN ANYONE'S BEHAVIOR AS IMMORAL. They would simply claim that they believe they were right based on their own personal moral compass. If morals derived and enforced by society were subjective, then it would be impossible to justly condemn any society's behavior as immoral, e.g. Nazi Germany. The society would simply claim that it believed it were right based on its own societal moral compass. Simply put, if morals were subjective, and able to change and evolve over time, then there are no morals. There is no right or wrong. There is only what any one person or society believes at any given point in time. Objectivity is KEY regarding the concept of morality. If we can't agree on this, there is almost no point in moving forward. I think this is what the debate should be focused on before we move on to any other topic, including specific passages in the Bible, or specific laws in the Constitution. Rebuttals "How could you convince any man of faith, that the modern legal system, created by man, is more objective, a more accurate 'barometer,' than a document derived from the source of all creation? (Prove it.)" I can't prove it. I won't pretend to prove it. In the same way you can't prove our society's current laws are objectively moral. Once we get past the 'objectivity issue,' this will obviously be where the real debate begins and ends. It will simply come down to where our faith stands. Yours seems to stand with the current minds of law makers and popular opinion. Mine is with God, and I believe that to be objective. There's nothing else to be said about it. Neither of us can PROVE (with 100% certainty) which source is objectively true. Interestingly enough though, most of the morals between the Bible and current society are in alignment. Where they differ is where our faith differs. "7. (That is genocide, we agreed. . Was the Spanish Inquisition not genocide?.)" No, we did not agree that genocide could be defined as spreading believes throughout civilization. That is an incredibly loose definition of genocide. I repeat, I do NOT believe that simply spreading one's beliefs to other cultures can be defined as genocide. I did agree, and once again I should of elaborated, that genocide could be defined as not only killing mass groups of people, but also breeding them out forcibly (rape), or destroying all potential historic artifacts for the purposes of erasing their culture. The Bible's TEACHINGS, i.e moral instructions (very different than the historical STORIES outlined in the Bible) do not promote or condone that behavior. The only exception would be to eliminate those cultures/peoples who are actively trying to eliminate yours. Sworn enemies in other words, in which both parties are aware that they are trying to wipe the other out. This could be defined simply as, survival. The Spanish Inquisition, depending on your source of research, and personal interpretation, could be defined in a variety of ways. The Spanish Inquisition was in fact a response to the Medieval Inquisition, which I'm sure was a response to something else. I don't want to go on and on about this, because as I said earlier, many stories are open to interpretation, and we could spend years debating the morality, or lack of, regarding the Spanish Inquisition. "Con is not being OBJECTIVE.) IF THE BIBLE WAS FALSE, HOW WOULD YOU FIND OUT?" If current societal morals were wrong, how would you find out? Once again, it's a matter of faith. There is no way to PROVE the objectivity of anything with 100% certainty. The only objective truth in the world is that I exist. "I think therefore I am." -Descartes I digress. So no, I am not being truly, 100% objective. But at lease my blueprint claims to come from an objective source, and just so happens to line up with many of the current and historic "common sense" morals, unlike some of the other "books that claim objective knowledge" you mentioned. Many of the Koran's morals don't at all line up with common sense decency. They are either worshiping a false God; or, they are right, and God is an arsehole :) I close by respectfully asking that you address my assertion that, MORALITY MUST BE OBJECTIVE, before we get into anymore specifics in the Bible or elsewhere.