The Bible is immoral.

In this final round, I will try to debate only Pro's R5 arguments, and close with a brief summary. Pro has held firm with the assertion that morality changes with time. Pro: "What we now deemed moral is codified into laws based on consensus, and yes it changes." Pro also stated that, "Morality relates to how members within a group interact, it's what is approved or not by the group." By that definition, Pro has essentially confirmed that Nazi Germany's actions were moral at that time. We could essentially claim that if any "members within a group" define their own moral code, whatever that "moral" code is, it can be accepted as moral because "[morality] is what is approved or not BY THE GROUP." Due to this reasoning, I believe that morals cannot be subjective because the acting party only has to claim that their immoral actions were moral; and I do not believe Pro ever really addressed that key issue with subjectivity regarding morals. To clarify that key issue: IF MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE, THEN IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO JUSTLY CONDEMN ANYONE'S BEHAVIOR AS IMMORAL. Pro used the wolf pack example in an attempt to address this issue: "...there are hierarchies and roles individuals must fit into...Wolves who aren't keen to follow rules (morals) then are kicked out of the pack or killed." Once again, we've reached a split in the road regarding the definition of morality. I do not believe that "rules, hierarchies, or roles" fall into the definition of morality. These things can of course change over time and are absolutely subjective. They relate to efficiency and practically regarding the actions and operations of a group or entity. For example, my company has rules, roles and a hierarchy model relating to each employee. Just because these rules and roles might change to adapt to different internal and external pressures, does NOT mean that those changes are related to morality, or are designed to maintain or achieve morality. Morals are deeper, more holistic concepts, as opposed to specific rules or roles that govern specific groups or organizations. Pro: "I asked him to prove that his source is objective and he couldn't." No I can't. Nor could you prove that our societal moral code is objective, yet you continued to use it as a 'barometer.' In fact, by your own definition of morals, you don't even believe that our current societal morals are objective; so how could any moral code be used as a reference to define morality if no moral code is objective? Pro: "He denies that the Spanish Inquisition qualifies [as immoral]." No, I did not. I stated that, "I don't want to go on and on about this..many stories are open to interpretation, and we could spend years debating the morality, or lack of, regarding the Spanish Inquisition." And as I also stated, the Spanish Inquisition was a response to the Medieval Inquisition. It was cultural war prompted by the actions of two parties. It wasn't just a random decision to start exterminating people. But again, this could go on and on. Pro: "My opponent dismisses it as just trying to spread his faith, he feels like the exceptions to genocide is conversions." So long as they are non-violent conversions, yes. The teachings and moral principles of the Bible do not encourage violence on anyone, ACCEPT for those enemies who threaten and seek to destroy the followers of Christ, and/or the word of Christ. This essentially means that violence is an acceptable force to combat those enemies who threaten your survival and sustainability. I do not believe that war is immoral. Pro: "When I pointed to Biblical examples of genocide and immorality he dismissed them as stories vs. what he called teachings. What are the point of those stories? Filler or entertainment?" The point of those stories is to outline historical events related to Christ and those who followed Him. The Bible is in essence a history book (that of course could be debated as well, but many scientific-based findings have confirmed historical facts within the Bible). Of course many Christian morals are present, or are loosely derived from the stories, "the moral of the story is" etc., but you took passages within stories, grossly out of context, and basically used them as if those specific words were the black and white teachings of the Bible. Most intelligent people could take anything out of context, especially when that context has as much content as the Bible, and spin their own meanings and interpretations. Passages I will only address a couple of Pro's passages because the interpretation of these very specific passages provided by Pro have much larger back-stories that could be discussed and debated for years...and I'm maxing out on characters. Slavery "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)" "Slaves", in that day and age, were the equivalent of "servants". There is a huge negative connotation with the word "slave" today due to the black/white racial conflict in early American history. In that day, slave simply meant servant. This passage essentially is saying, you shall respect and obey those that you serve. This is referencing an operational model, similar to the "roles and hierarchies" you mentioned earlier. I believe it to be fact, that a society that assigns and insures that its individuals assume roles, is paramount to the success of a society. I don't believe this to be immoral. Rape "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged..." This is incorrect. The passage does not say "raping a young woman." It has been proven by translation experts that the Hebrew word used in the original text, actually refers to intercourse. "Violate" is not referencing rape either. It is meant to mean, "violation of virginity." In other words, if a single man and woman are caught having sex, they will be required to be faithful to one another in marriage. I don't want to open up the "importance of marriage" can of worms, but I do not believe this passage to be immoral. It is stressing the importance of ensuring that those who engage in intercourse will be required to form a family unit to support a potential child. Children growing up in broken homes are an epidemic in the US, and the result has been detrimental; particularly in poor communities. Religious tolerance "4 of the 10 commandments [promote intolerance of other religions]" Only 1 of the 10 commandments states that you must accept God (the Bible's God) as the only God you shall worship. And of course God will claim to be the objective God, and those who follow Him should be loyal to Him, and only Him. The killings of non-believers that you referenced were not designed to punish people of other religions. They were designed to punish people who were loyal to Christ, and then betrayed their faith by attempting to convert other Christians to a different belief system. I don't appreciate turn-coats either, personally. I will close by reiterating my opponents BOP. He was to prove that while the Bible has some morality it also contains immorality by modern standards. My opponent failed to prove that the Bible is immoral, in any way, as compared to modern standards, because he failed to prove that modern standards are an accurate, objective model to measure from. Not only did my opponent not prove the objectivity of modern standards, and the Bible's shortcoming as compared, he repeatedly stated that there are no objective morals. If morals are subjective, then EVERY moral code (including the Bible) can be considered valid, as there is, by default, no objective barometer to use as a gauge of moral accuracy. Therefore, according to even my opponent's definition of subjective morality, the Bible is in no way immoral, compared to any system, and there is no way to prove otherwise. I thank my opponent for an outstanding debate...and Happy New Year!!!