The Bible is not the source of morality

"You say "If a person does not want to be punched, in the view of some people, it is still moral to punch him"Yes, but the person who thinks it's moral to punch people lacks empathy.I said morality comes from empathy."Empathy definition: "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."I am fully able to understand and share the feelings of another and be the most empathetic person ever, but if I don't think being punched in the face is immoral, then even with my immense empathy, I could easily punch you, simply because I don't view it as bad. And the way in which empathy works is once again, subjective to the person. Morality does not come from empathy. Morality is subjective so nothing can be objective about it, including what is moral or immoral, what counts for empathy or not, and where it comes from.I claim that "You can only determine something moral by comparing it t something immoral."That's how we determine all things, by comparing them to something else.We know something is designed by comparing it to something that's not designed.We know something is bright by comparing not to something that's not bright.We know something is moral by comparing it to something that is not moral."If I take, "we know that something is moral by comparing it to something that is not moral." That doesn't make sense because how do we define the thing that is not moral? Not with empathy, as I have stated above, so with what? By comparing that to something moral? Well how do we define that moral thing? This debate is not about the origins, but read this article please and if you can, the book. I have not but tell me if anything about comparison pops up, which I'm sure it won't, because it is contradictory.You asked, "How do we define the morality of the immoral thing?"Once again, the answer is with empathy.You don't get the concept of using empathy.You state, "The only reason you state that rape is bad is because the popular mentality dictates so"Most people have empathy. That is why empathy is the "popular mentality".You don't determine morality with popular views. You determine them with empathy. It just so happens that most people have empathy."Empathy is not the popular mentality. One is purely subjective and the other is based on the subjectiveness of a culture, one of the factors in your perceptual set which help define subjectiveness. Empathy as I have stated cannot be the cause of morality. Because one can be empathetic, but under a morality different to the popular one so believes that rape isn't wrong. To him, as empathy is subjective, he is empathetic but not with rape because as morality is subjective, he does not see it as bad."The popular view in the Bible is that rape is OK. That's because back in the time the Bible was written, women were not viewed as equal to men, hence the lack of empathy for them.The same can be said about the Biblical view on slavery. Slaves were also viewed as less than full human back then, hence the lack of empathy for them and the reason slavery is condoned in the Bible.We now understand that women and slaves are, indeed, fully human and deserve equal rights. Using empathy, we can look at the Bible and say it is immoral, because it condones rape and slavery."First of all, excusing the fact that this is biased as you have left out basically the whole New Testament. And also leaving out how saying that women deserve eqaul rights is really subjective, and althought it fits with the popular mentality, popular mentality does not mean objective truth. And even without applying Hitchens' Razor to make this argument invalid, to say that using empathy you can say the bible is bad is implying that empathy is objective, and certain things require empathy. If I am under the impression that rape and slavery are right, I can still in my own right be empathetic to things I view as wrong, and can still be sympathetic for things I view as wrong. All of this is subjective and you have missed the fact that empathy and the way in which morality is acquired for each person are too subjective. You didn't even argue the motion that the Bible is not the source of morality, just that it is immoral. Unless of course morality to you is only what isn't immoral, in which case, morality is subjective. Whether every last person views an action as immoral, it can still possibly be viewed as good. As morality is subjective, the idea of an objective morality is also subjective. From the perception of the Bible, it holds absolute morality, thus is the source of such morality.