The Bible is the Foundation for Objective Morals.

A: Slavery: " Exodus 20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." 1. The Pro needs to deal with this passage, because all he is doing is pushing the issue aside declaring that the slavery in the Bible is nothing like the slavery today. First of all, nobody mentioned slavery of today, or in our modern times. We are talking about the Bible being the foundation for objective morality. Now if you read carefully the passage above, does this sound like it would benefit a human being, does it sound moral, YES or No? Besides how do you know what slavery was like then? If it is anything like what God is allowing here, it is safe to say it is not good for the slave and cannot be deemed moral by our standards today. 2. Exodus 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." The Pro ignores this passage as well, you tell us how this is morally objective, show us how it is good for the daughter to be sold as a slave by her father? B:The Sabbath changed to Sunday: The Pro said: "There is no scriptural text regarding this change, the reasoning has been passed down through Apostolic writings and Sacred Tradition. However I do no believe that this will void my side of the debate because the subject was not the subject intended and I found it necessary to explain the reasoning behind this." 1: Your burden of proof is to show how the Bible is the foundation for moral objectives. You brought up the Ten Commandments. So perhaps this commandment should not be in the objective morals list with 1-3, which the Pro already declared were not morally objective . C: The Pro agrees that the 5th commandment is NOT objective. So I will offer no more arguments for this one. D: Homosexuality and killing: Pro: " Now as to your attack on the issue of homosexuality, again, con should understand what that meant to the people in those days. Homosexuality was a very terrible sin, it was almost as bad as murder itself. We see again that homosexuality is a terrible sin." 1: If God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6), then he didn't change his mind about how to treat Homosexuals, why is it that you want God to change? You keep referring to how things were then, what has changed other than our natural progression in moral standards? God hasn't changed his mind about all these things, either you accept what he says or you don't, face the music, God wants mankind to kill homosexuals and disrespectful children! 2: The Pro speaks of the Spirit of the Law, or with the Spirit in mind and what it meant in those days. So how many different doctrines can someone come up with by interpreting things within their own way believing that they are reading with the spirit in mind, is this subjective or objective? What about conflicting beliefs among believers, who is right about all these objective morals that one needs to understand through the spirit? E: Bearing False witness: 1: The Pro says: " God does not make the person lie, but allows a spirit who has betrayed God to deceive him." Whats the difference, it is by God power and allowance that this happens? The Pros assumption: "Until con has read the Bible cover to cover and understand the true interpretations, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, I will not continue to argue pro's statement on "The Bible doesn't know what message it wants to extend." 2: These are your interpretations, you say this as if all Christians are in good company with each other over their doctrines, views, morals, and interpretations of scripture, so what you really mean is until I see it your way you are not interested in talking about the way I see it. Cover to Cover huh, I have read the bible more times than you may think, and probably more than most Christians. I have been on both sides of the fence reading it, have you? Lets not assume anything here. H: Pro: " God can not be the author of evil, hate, and immorality, because what is evil? The same thing cold is. Cold is the absent of heat, evil is the absence of good, and because everything God made is good, whatever twists itself and decides not to do Gods will is doing evil things for it is not of God." 1: God said he was the author of evil in Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version): I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Now are you going to explain this away as well? Scripture is subject to each and everyone's own interpretation, so how can this book be the foundation for objective things when it is always view subjectively by each person? 2: God hates plenty of things, but I am sure you are aware of the fact that God does hate, and nobody makes him hate, this is only done by his will. He is the one that created hell to throw people into, does this sound like love? I know, it is our fault we will be in hell, I know the story, but it is a joke to pretend that God has nothing to do with sending us to hell. 3: As for immorality, I have shown plenty of things that God allowed and since God does not change then he stands by his words, whether written in the Old testament or the New. If they don't line up and we see apparent contradiction we can only assume that God did not author this book, therefore it is not the source of objective morals. Thank you.