Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful- Another Attempt

Premise I: BOP.Everything has something harmful, that doesn't make it harmful. Breathing Oxygen leads to the oxidization of cells, causing old age and death, but breathing Oxygen isn't harmful. Why? Because it's overall more beneficial than it is harmful. Being harmful and having harmful effects isn't the same thing. The resolution isn't that Christian has some harmful effects, but that when the effects are weighed, it is harmful, not beneficial.Premise II: Prescriptive v Descriptive.Pro, to prove his case, must argue with these two in mind. The Bible is made up of Prescriptive and Descriptive text. Prescriptive text prescribes instruction. Descriptive text provide description (1). Often, arguments against the Bible are made without these two in mind, leading to people arguing that something the Bible described was actually instruction. Prescriptive text would be like a moral law, while Descriptive text is like detailing a character's feeling. A famous example is a song the Israelites sing while in captivity. It's a song about hating their captors and wanting them to be wiped out. Many belief this is a good argument against Christianity, when it's really just descriptive text, detailing the emotions of the Israelites.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[]Rebuttal I: Oppression.Pro starts with rationalizations about why an organization is bad... Claiming that a hierarchical organization leads away from freedom. This is a slippery slope fallacy. A hierarchical organization is the most common and useful type of organization, and has been in use centuries before the Jews, better yet Christianity. Pro ignored that government, charities, schools, and even families, run off this system. It's not a bad system.Everything Pro states here is largely a subjective opinion. You can't set up a standard of morals and hold everyone else accountable to them. That is not how subjectivity works. You can only do this is those people agree to your standard. If Pro wants his morals to be a standard by which Christianity is held to, he must prove Objective Morality exists, and then that his morals are the objective ones. Being against homosexuality and sex before marriage... These are subjective opinions. Christianity is not bad for having these opinions. If they regularity harassed and hated on Gay people because the Bible said to, perhaps Pro would have a point here... But the New Testament preaches against this, and Churches accept gay members, and always welcome women with sexually immoral pasts. They even have special programs for unwed mothers. Pro has no case here. Only popular rhetoric that doesn't hold up to reality.Regarding Slaves; Christianity would have failed if they tried freeing slaves. Then what? Christianity had to play politics like anyone else. they had to do it like Martin Luther King Jr did it... Slowly and in pieces. All at once, and nothing would be accomplished. Pro then defends his claim with Exodus... A Jewish book. The Old Testament isn't all relevant to Christianity. Pro must remember that while some Old Testament works are relevant to Christianity (Proverbs, for example), a lot of laws were based on different situations, such as the difference in Slaves in the time of Exodus and the time of the New Testament. We know those laws aren't relevant to Christianity because they are based on a different type of slave. We also know that they were laws that benefited slaves (so even they were progressive laws). Slaves then were more akin to servants today. They sold themselves, usually to pay off debt. The two types of slaves are completely different. If Pro wants to argue about the Old Testament, he must make sure the laws are relevant to Christianity, and that they aren't based on handling culture as it was at the time.Yes, Moses wrote up laws for how slaves should be treated... This doesn't mean he condoned slavery. The US Government is generally against cigarettes, but because banning cigarettes would lead to worse results, they put massive laws on cigarettes instead. The laws Moses set were to help slaves in a time when slaves (a part of culture) were mistreated. Also, Pro should remember that context is important.Pro has dropped my case on the Church's record with Slavery. He believes it's irrelevant because it's the actions of people, not religion. But this isn't true. They are the actions and beliefs inspired by the Bible's text. The early Christians believed slavery was wrong because of the Bible. The opposition to Slavery is Biblically-inspired.Regarding Ruth. The book isn't about Ruth getting married via misogynistic means. A love-story is not misogynistic because the main character is a girl. In reality, if Pro had read the book, he would see that Boaz (Ruth's to-be husband) was caring and kind to Ruth, even leaving her with extra food out of kindness. Ruth asks Boaz to marry her, and he agrees (2). This isn't misogynistic, but romantic. Meanwhile, the Book focused on the fact that God loves even the Gentiles, contrary to much of Pro's arguments. The book doesn't have to pit them against opponents or star a large quest, for the females to be strong. Ruth was set up to be a model for all Jews of the time, male or female (3).[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[]Rebuttal II: Ethics.Pro seems to think his views are objective... However, they are merely populist. Equality for women isn't objective. Much of the Middle East and India would disagree with Pro... A population outnumbering the whole of Europe and America. Also, everything Pro just mentioned is Biblically accepted. The Bible placed a great deal of emphasize of the importance of Women in the Church, and preaches about how we should leave fear behind. It condemns dishonesty. Liberty, like many things, is subjective. Liberals and Conservatives both believe their goals are in the name of Liberty. What defines or encourages liberty differs greatly from one person to the next. Regarding Pride, this is GRAVELY wrong. Not even a little correct. Being knowledgeable and being proud aren't the same thing. To be prideful is the same as bragging about one's intellect, which is different from saying what you know. If a christian says "God is the path to Salvation, no one is perfect" this is sharing knowledge. If they say "I'm better than you because I know God is the path to Salvation" than they are being prideful. Knowing something =/= being prideful of what you know.Pro never shows where the Bible preaches being faithful to the point of ignorance. It says be faithful, not ignorant, and is actually against ignorance..."Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance..." Proverbs 1:5 (4)"An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge..." Proverbs 18:15 (5)Pro claims that being Faithful in God and being anti-intellectual are the same, but great minds like Isaac Newton, who studied the Bible as a major passion of his and was deeply devoted to his religion (6) are proof against this. The person accepted by many to be the first scientist in post-Roman Europe was, in fact, Pope Sylvester II (7). Others include Kepler and Boyle. To claim faith and anti-intellectualism are the same is unfounded.[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...;(page 5)[]Rebuttal III: Dismissal of My Arguments.Pro does not determine what is necessary to win the debate. That is for the voters to address. This debate is about Christianity, and whether Christianity as a religion is beneficial or harmful. By shifting goalposts from Christianity to the Bible, Pro has effectively dropped every argument of mine from Rebuttal 3 - 5 in an attempt to claim they were irrelevant. The Resolution says "Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful." Not "The Bible Is Intrinsically Harmful- Another Attempt"Pro's own defintion supports this..."the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture..."He doesn't define Christianity as "The beliefs of the Bible"... But as the religion itself.Pro dropped cases like how Christianity literally stopped the Dark Ages, saved intellectualism in Europe, and is a leading force in charity and aide across the world. Pro can not claim these are irrelevant, as Pro conceded their relevancy when he replied to them as relevant arguments in R3. This is a cheap attempt to back out of the argument.Argument IV: Benefits of Christianity.The National Bureau of Economic Research compiled a study of the effects of Religion and Social Organizations on the development of children in poverty. The foundings concluded that children who's parents regularally attend Church or other religious organizations were better off then those who's parents attended social groups. They had higher graduation rates, better habits, and faced less disadvantages later on (8). The Church and religion also focuses a lot of effort on the belief in fair wages, worker rights, and to respect and care for the Earth (9).The Catholic Church in the US alone provides more than 2,500 charitable agencies that serve 10 million+ people. These groups include social justice committees, soup kitchens, food pantries, and others. The Catholic Church, in total (including Hospitals, Universities, etc...) spend nearly $30 bn a year on charity for Americans alone. It's estimated the Catholic Church alone (not including Protestant Churches) contributed as much as 17-34% of all non-government Social Services in the US.[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[]Conclusion:Pro has dropped the following arguments, claiming they aren't relevant in whether or not Christianity is beneficial:1- Charity.2- Aid in Africa and Prisons.3- Influence in the Dark Ages.Pro's case on Ethics and Oppression is subjective or based on misunderstanding the Bible. Christianity is more benefical than harmful, making it a beneficial force in the world.