The Bible is immoral.

I will attempt to address all of Pro's points. Definition of Morality I will accept Pro's refined definition of morality. It is thorough, and provides a deeper, more thoughtful meaning of morality. The Nature of this Debate I disagree that we are simply trying to prove that the morality outlined in the Bible doesn't "match up" with the morality of our current legal system. Of course it is different. I can't debate that. It is a matter of fact. I was under the impression (tell me if I'm wrong) that we were debating if the Bible was a good source of morality, as compared to our current set up. In other words, the debate, I think, is about 'which is a better source of morality'; not, 'are there differences between the two'. You also said, "...This is irrelevant to the debate because we are not discussing 1) whether God exist, 2) God is moral, 3) the Bible is an actual representation of the would be creator of the universe." I disagree. If we are talking about what is truly moral, I believe we are talking about what is objectively moral. (If they aren't objective, then they aren't morals, they are simply personal or societal beliefs; which, by default, means that nobody can do anything wrong if they just claim that they believed it was right, or if society believed it was right, like Nazi Germany) Because we are talking about something objective, we have to be able to determine, in some way, what is an objective source? Many would argue that God is the most objective source in the Universe, because he created it. Therefore, if I am arguing that the Bible is the best source of morality, I would have to argue that the Bible is the most objective source of morality. To claim its objectivity would be to claim that it is derived from God's teachings. That being said, the above 1), 2), and 3) are absolutely relevant to this debate. Genocide This was a nice play on your part. I applaud your research of Bible verses, in addition to your tactical decision to exploit a comment I made without elaboration. Allow me to defend. For the purposes of this topic, the Bible can be broken down into two components: STORIES of the Bible; and TEACHINGS of the Bible. What you did was essentially define genocide in your own way. And I don't necessarily disagree with your definition. However, because you called what Hitler did, genocide, and because you called what some STORIES said in the Bible, genocide (stories/versus that were taken out of context by the way), you essential equated the teachings of the Bible to genocide, and to Hitler. This was a slight of hand. Just because some of the STORIES in the Bible depict what you define as genocide, does not mean that the TEACHINGS of the Bible promote or encourage the acts of genocide. And to defend my original statement (the Bible in no way supporting what Hitler did), there is nothing inaccurate about it. The Bible does not encourage the slaughter of entire ethnic groups just because they are different than you. What the Bible does do, is say that the word of God should be spread. You contorted this into meaning that the Bible promotes genocide because it wants its followers to replace your beliefs with theirs. If you want to call that "genocide," so be it. I call it, wanting to spread the word of God for the purposes of enlightening the world. But I say again, in no way do the TEACHINGS (moral instructions) of the Bible promote the extermination of entire groups of people simply because they are of different ethnicity. "Final Thought" Pro: "I am arguing that the Bible has BOTH moral and immoral teachings and requirements. We determine this by using our legal system as a barometer." If your faith dictates that the Bible was derived from God's word, then none of the teachings are immoral. If you disagree, you are simply wrong, as you would be disagreeing with the most objective source of knowledge in the Universe. Interestingly, even if you don't believe in God or the Bible, many of the teachings in the Bible happen to line up with current society's and "common sense" codes of ethics. Also, to claim that our legal system is the barometer, is to claim that our legal system is the most objective and widely accepted source of what is moral. 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? Obviously, at this point, the debate becomes about, which is the more objective source/barometer of morals? The Bible? Or our legal system? More importantly, how could we prove it? We can't. Like I said earlier, it is simply a matter of where your faith lies. In the laws of modern humanity? or the perceived/believed timeless word of God? I will say, for the purposes of trying to win this debate, that at least my "moral code" claims to come from an objective source (i.e. God, our Creator). I look forward to the next round.