The Bible is immoral.

I will start by explaining why I disagree with my opponent's definition of morality being a "code of conduct." The nature of morality is deeper, more holistic, and objective than a "code of conduct," which is fluid and defines very specific actions or rules that should be followed in very specific situations. Morality, on the other hand, attempts to define the objective, black and white concepts of right and wrong, good and evil (for religious purposes). For example, you're company's code of conduct may require you to not bring up your personal beliefs in the office; however, most would agree that doing so is not fundamental wrong, evil, or immoral. It just goes against that particular company's "rules". We could also agree that Hitler's "code of conduct" was not an acceptable code of morality either. I will use this example to transition to my next point. My opponent's argument seems to suggest that morality is fluid and changes with society. That as times changes, so do the morals that govern us. In other words, my opponent seems to believe that morals are subjective, and adapt with societal evolution. I fundamentally disagree with this assertion. At the time, Nazi Germany and Hitler's followers believed that ethnic cleansing was absolutely necessary, and could be justified morally. (Before you bring it up, Hitler was NOT following the teachings of Christ or Christianity, even though his early writings seemed to praise Christ. Nowhere in the Bible is the mass extermination of ethnic groups promoted or deemed acceptable) Obviously, their actions were wrong and immoral. It didn't matter how many of them believed they were right at the time, or how adamantly they believed it. Their actions were objectively wrong. For this reason, and many others I could probably dig up throughout history, it is important that when we are talking about morals, when we are talking about what is fundamentally right or wrong, we should be talking about something that is objective. We should be talking about something that does not change based on pop-culture or new trends. Not even new countries, and new constitutions of law should change what is moral or immoral. No vote or poll should determine what is moral or immoral. All members of the universe should acknowledge that there is a consistent and objective "blueprint" that clearly outlines what is right and wrong. You either abide by those morals, or you are wrong. There should be very little subjectivity regarding morality, and it should not be open to manipulation to fit one's personal beliefs. Furthermore, I used the word "simple" because the blueprint should be limited to concepts and categories (e.g., lying, stealing, cheating, killing, etc.). It should not be a long and complex list of rules that govern very specific actions, such as a "code of conduct". If we can agree that when we are discussing morals, we should be discussing something objective, then the next obvious question would be, what blueprint do we follow? For two reasons, I believe the Bible is an outstanding blueprint for morality. 1) If you do belong to the large Christian community, then you believe the Bible is derived from God's word. As I explained earlier, because God is the Creator of the Universe, there can be no word more objective than His. In other words, if you are faithful to the Bible (which much of the world already is), you believe it to be the objective blueprint for morality. 2) If you are not faithful to the Bible, and agree with my assertion that morality is objective, you have to choose some blueprint follow. Why not the Bible? It is one of the most commonly accepted scriptures, it is in line with many of the so called "common sense" morals that Atheists and common law agree on (The Golden Rule, don't lie, cheat, kill, steal, etc.), and it has stood the test of time. It seems to me, if you had to choose one blueprint, even if you aren't religious, the Bible seems to be a pretty good option, even if you have a hard time believing some of the stories. I will close by briefly crediting my opponent for stating one of the obvious potential issues with the Bible's objectivity on morality. Interpretation. Properly interpreting the Bible (i.e. God's objective word on morality) is paramount. It's worthless if we misinterpret what He means. The good news is, most of the major interpretations are consistently agreed upon. Especially the big concepts (10 Commandments, The Golden Rule, etc.). It is typically only the specific tales and stories that are open to various interpretations. None-the-less, interpretation is something that needs to remain consistent in order to take the Bible seriously. In other words, regarding the major concepts outlined within the Bible, the interpretation needs to be objective too.