Secular Morality is superior to Christian morality

It seems like the only reservations that pro has is that the Bible has some things within it that are not popular in western cultures or societies. The reservations I have against secular morality is that it doesn't actually have a basis in evidence. and its morality is completely dependent on the wants of people, not what should actually be so.Before I prove that pro's reservations are not valid, I would like to remind the reader to not vote with an internal bias, instead vote based on the content and quality of the debate. The reason that I bring this up is because I will be saying some very controversial stuff in this round, and if you do not get rid of your own biases during this debate, you will certainly dislike me and vote in line with your biases, which is against the goal of this website; we are here to speak about new ideas and open our viewpoints, not to have an echo-chamber where our own biases are only heard.With that out of the way, I would like to try and prove that my opponent's reservations for Christian morality do not have a basis in the topic of this debate.Slavery - My opponent here is actually taking the entirety of the Bible out of context. In Exodus 21, as my opponent has quoted, there is actually a commandment to NOT take slaves; "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:16). But God knows that there will be slavery, many of the early Christians were slaves to the Romans, so He put commandments in place to actually protect the slave. He put laws in place saying that if you damage the eye of a slave, the slave shall be set free; if you kill a slave, you shall be killed; if you return a runaway slave to his "master", you will be punished (Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 23).What this means is that God is actually against slavery (rightly so), but He knows that it will continue to exist, so he protects the slaves with multiple commandments to punish the slave master; in those times if you were a fair master, then you actually treated your slave "as a brother" (or even better), and in the end of days, you will realise that he is more than a slave to you, but a son.Homosexuality - I would like to offer a reasoning for why the Bible says this verse, and you will easily see that this verse, without context, is not condemning homosexuality in total. Leviticus 20:13 is a reference to what has been said earlier in Leviticus, in Leviticus 18:22 (which says, "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable"). The full context of this verse is a bit complicated, but in essence, this is referring to not having homosexual activity with a prostitute in the Pagan temple of Molech; this was a large issue at the time, and it was necessary to put this into the Bible, because worshipping a false God does not allow for moral absolutism [1]. Basically, this does not condemn all homosexual activity, just that in which is in the temple of Molech, which was rampant and abusive.Egyptian children murder - I completely understand why you have your reservations for this passage, but the reasoning for the deaths was justified, and if it were not, then the numbers were relatively low.In Exodus, the Pharoh is actually completely limiting the population ("Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live.""). God tells the Pharoh that he needs to stop killing the Hebrew people, and the Pharoh doesn't listen. God needs to show that he means business, so he decides to kill every actual male firstborn (the Hebrew word used in this passage is for males only, when translated it often just says "firstborn"). What actual means, is the actually first born child, who happens to be a male; having the first born die and then the second born becoming first does not constitute for first.It was calculated that around 4% of all children were possible victims of this, and around 70,000 children in total could be infected by the plague [2]. When you are faced with either total elimination of a people (Hebrew), versus having to kill 4% of children in Egypt, you must choose the children if you wish to have morality. Other things-I am running out of space, so I will just touch on them. Rape is seen as an attack, not on a woman, but on the idea of household and community. You must protect a household in order to have a community thriving; if you do not, then chaos may ensue. So, we must try to keep households intact, and if there is not a household in place, then an attack on the head of household (the woman's father), may warrant a marriage between the two.As for the Flood, it was necessary.Now, I would like to show that secular morality does not have a basis in experiment or fact.Secular morality is morality guided by our moral cravings and desires; it is not based around an absolutist moral guide that lets us know what we should do and how we should do it. When we do not have rules in place to follow, we are left only to what we crave, and what we crave becomes what we consider to be our own morals; if I crave to kill someone because it will make me feel good, then my morality allows me to commit a crime, whereas a Christian morality standpoint would not condone such behavior. If I want to steal something because it smells good, it benefits me enough that I would think that it is moral; but what it does is break down society to its very structure, and if we could see that through a moral absolutist viewpoint, we would know that this is the case. In essence, secular morality is a self-centered morality based around cravings and desires, Christian morality is a morality based around moral absolutism, Godly desires, and the knowledge that something is moral, whether or not we crave it.[1]. http://www.religioustolerance.org...[2]. http://christianthinktank.com...