Secular Morality is superior to Christian morality

At least you forfeited the debate before going into your churlish arguments, but I will still address them. "1. Slavery = kidnapping, if you do not know this then you are ignorant of how this thing called owning people works." In the bible they got slaves by conquering people from other lands. Kidnapping is a reference to capturing your fellow citizens. "2. The Pharoh had 2 million people that would kill all Hebrew men. So killing the Pharoh wouldn't do anything, he'd continue. There's this thing called "believing in what a leader says", it's pretty cool, look it up some time." I have no idea what you are trying to say, but people are not going to follow the charred remains of a leader when the demon that just rained hellfire down on that leader tells them to stop doing what the leader said before he was charred by the godly demon. "3. This isn't a debate about if God is real or not, and if we accept that the Bible is the enerrant word of God (for this debate, we must accept that he is real, otherwise we are literally debating secular v. secular morality), then it has this thing called "the word of a perfect being that is entirely moral"." No, just no. You are now defining morality as just doing whatever the bible says, and then the debate would be about whether secular morality, which deals with well-being, or Christian morality, which deals with obedience, is superior. Secular morality leads to the betterment of the lives of sentient beings at large by design. Christian morality, if it led to betterment of lives, would only do so accidentally. It is all about obedience, not well-being. "4. Rape actually is an attack on the foundation of the household. Rape is not amoral according to your guidelines, saying that if it harms one individual then it is not moral. God-1 you-0." No, just no. I said that an act's morality is defined by its net effect on the well-being of all sentient beings involved. "5. I don't need to read your Euro-whatsit, since I am only supposed to read what is actually in the text of the debate. I used my discretion and didn't point out that you are advocating for outside of debate knowledge when voting, but whatevs." It took me a minute to realize what you were talking about. I specifically outlined the Euthyphro dilemma in my opening post. That you did not bother to read it is not my fault. And I quote: "Aside from god being a monster, it makes no sense to peg morality on a being because of the Euthyphro dilemma. Is an act good because God favors it or does God favor it because it is good? In the first option, slavery, rape, torture, and murder all would be called morally correct if God told you to do them. In this case you are defining morality as whatever the most powerful being wants which has nothing to do with morality. Additionally, what if God and Jesus disagree on something? If morality is what a supernatural being wants and the supernatural beings disagree, then does morality become the wishes of the being that can beat up the other being? In the second option, the act's moral goodness is not dependent on God, it is good and he approves of it because it is good. He does not cause it to be good." "6. It is about Molech worship - you literally have no defense against it, it just says to kill homosexuals (when referencing Molech). Yeah, people worshipping a false God and having sex with tons of prostitutes is kind of not moral, so *shrug*."" No, it does not and I demonstrated that by referencing the complete chapter which clearly is only referencing that temple for the first few verses. The chapter also tells us to kill children that curse their parents which is obviously unrelated to Moloch. Also, murdering people for their beliefs is, itself, immoral. Boom....roasted. So, to recap, Broasted.