The Bible is not the source of morality

"The way people determine morality is with empathy. If a person doesn't want to be punched, it would not be moral for that person to punch someone else. However, if 2 consenting adults go int a boxing ring, and expect to punch each other, there is nothing immoral about that."First of all you stated that morality is subjective. That means the way that people determine morality is also subjective. If a person does not want to be punched, in the view of some people, it is still moral to punch him, simply because as you stated, morality is subjective, you can't objectively say how people determine morality."You can only determine something moral by comparing it t something immoral."No. Even excusing the fact that morality is subjective, to say the morality of something must be determined by the comparison to something immoral, is implying that the thing which is immoral is objectively immoral. Again, as you stated, morality is subjective, so how do we define the morality of the immoral thing? Well not as you stated above, so this is also incorrect."The Bible condones slavery, which is now considered immoral. If we use the Bible for our source of morality, we would have to set our own personal subjective morality aside and accept the objective morality that slavery is right, according to the Bible.Exodus 21:20-21Leviticus 25:44-45"The Bible also condones things like rape and killing, which most of us would now agree is immoral."If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29" These last two I will rebut as part of my main argument of why the bible is a source of morality. Your biggest error is implying that there is such a thing as an objective morality. If we take the Oxford dictionary definition and objective means, "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:", then objective morality implies that outside human perception this is still right. Well then this is an oxymoron, because the idea of morality is that it is always taken through perception. "Since morality is subjective, it would make no sense for a book to dictate objective morality for everyone. In order for a reader of the Bible to agree with an objective moral concept from the Bible, they would have to compare it to their own subjective morality." The bible doesn't have an objective moral concept. Such a thing does not actually exist because the idea of morality is within perception. The only reason you state that rape is bad is because the popular mentality dictates so. But popular mentality is simply a sum of subjective mentality. Rape, as an action itself, doesn't have any moral link. It can't, morality is only via perception, so to say it is bad is subjective of any sort. Linking this back, morality as we now know is only viewed in perception. From the point of view of the bible, it is right. There is no contesting. From its view it is the source of morality. And it is...in its sense, because morality is perceived. So to the bible, what is known as correct morality, it is the source of, and as the whole idea of morality can only be perceived and cannot be objective, we can only look at this from a perspective basis. So it the bible the source of morality? Morality as it knows it? Yes.