RESOLVED: Christianity is Beneficial to the Individual Man

"The opponent is trying to change the definitions of this debate, and this concept of Christianity and what a Christian is. When someone is Christian, especially by choice, they practice Christianity. Christianity has been defined by the opponent as having a personal relationship with the savior and God as well as having a desire to save knowledge of Jesus, as provided in R1." I think my opponent is the one who misunderstands. Allow me to explain. Let's say you are an orphan in China. Some Americans come visit you in China and then adopt you, taking you back to the United States with them. This adoption symbolizes becoming a Christian. Upon your adoption you are a member of that family. HOWEVER, just because you are related to someone doesn't mean that you have a relationship with them. I'm sure that I have cousins whom I've never heard of before. Let's say that this adopted child does, upon reaching the age of 18, moves out and then cuts all ties to his family. He begins living a life that is completely contrary to the values of the household of his adopted family. In this sense, he is part of the family, but he is nothing like the family. This is what Christianity is in contrast to just being a Christian. There are plenty of "spiritually immature" Christians. That is, they are Christians in the sense that they have received salvation. HOWEVER, they do not have a personal relationship with Christ. They do not spend time with their Heavenly Father, nor do they try to please Him with their lives. In this sense they do not practice Christianity, which is Christlikeness. They are saved, but they are nothing like Christ. Being Christian does not automatically mean that you practice Christianity, despite my opponent's claim. This fact is attested to by the countless porn and drug addicts who are Christian. They do not practice Christianity, and thus they should not expect to benefit from it. Since I am a Christian, while my opponent is Buddhist, it is more likely that I understand more about this concept than my opponent does. To be fair, if we were debating on a Buddhist concept, my opponent would known much more than I do. So let's cut the crap and stop saying that I'm changing definitions. This is a genuine principle which can be attested to by reading the Books of the New Testament, especially those written by the Apostle Paul. Besides, my opponent should not object to me "changing definitions." When he contacted me in a PM with his idea for what the Debate topic should be, I used his title for the debate almost word for word, which was "Christianity is Beneficial to the Individual Man." I did this knowing that I alone would carry the Burden of Proof, because the wording of the Debate describes Pro making a claim. A common saying in Atheist Circles is "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." However, I provided evidence for my claim, so wasn't "asserted without evidence." Therefore, the opposite saying should also be true: "That which is asserted with evidence cannot be dismissed without evidence." If my claim involves the use of evidence, my opponent needs to use evidence to disprove it. Now, I am fully aware that my opponent has made a fine case. However, trying to dismiss a claim asserted with evidence carries its own Burden of Proof. The BOP should've been shared, though I voluntarily accepted Burden of Proof at the beginning of this Debate. I'm just saying; my opponent has nothing to complain about, as my carrying of the full BoP will likely cause me to lose this debate. All that having been said, I will move on to rebuttals. Postulate #1: The Afterlife On Neurology My opponent describes the system in which the brain creates consciousness. Or so it seems. But let's look at it this way: whenever you are here on Earth you have no memories of your life before life. Therefore, your memories must be created here. All your thoughts are here and your only life is here, as long as you are connected to life here. To make memories and to operate here you require all those neurons. My opponent has not disproved this concept, despite his explanation of the way our brains work. And no, your soul is not affected by changes to your brain. HOWEVER, the change in behavior caused by the brain is due to the fact that your vessel here on Earth is not able to represent you fully when its instruments of representation are not working properly. On Parallel Universes My opponent has stated that by mentioning Parallel Universes I am using a logical fallacy. He claims that I said that if something cannot be proven nor disproven, it must exists. I did not say this. In fact, I only brought up the "Connection Theory" to disprove my opponent's claim that the brain disproves the soul by suggesting a way how the soul and the brain can both exist within a person. "All things that exist are purely physical or if this doesn’t exist physically, then its existence is clear to us". My opponent is impying that nothing that is not physical can exist. This claim cannot be substantiated, as the only evidence he has is physical things. If Other Universes do in fact exist, then there is no physical way in this Universe to get there or to prove or disprove its existence. Once again, I only brought this up because my opponent claimed that it cannot exist. Allegedly False Biblical Prophecies: -Virgin Birth (He hasn't proven that it didn't happen, so calling it "false" is premature) -Israel Will Be Unbeatable. This prophecy comes from Zechariah 12:1-5, which never explicitly states that Israel will never lose a battle. It says that the nations will try but fail to conquer/destroy Israel. The fact that this tiny nation surrounded by hostile neighbors devoted to its destruction testify to this fact. Link to the Prophecy: http://biblehub.com... -The Nile Will Dry Up. Now, this prophecy does not necessarily mean that the Nile will literally be dried up. Take this into context; the Nile was the pride and joy of Egypt, its source of life. Perhaps it just means that the pride, joy, and livelihood of Egypt will be taken away. HOWEVER, because large modern dams exist today, it is possible that this is a literal prophecy that may come to pass in the future, by means of perhaps the Antichrist. Or, perhaps Christ will cause this to happen in the Last Days. This prophecy disproves nothing. Link to the Prophecy: http://biblehub.com... -Ezekiel's Destruction of Egypt. This is a reference to Ezekiel Chapter 30. It does not say that every thing or person in Egypt will be destroyed. It just mentions tons of people dying in Egypt when it is captured by King Nebuchadnezzar. Link to the Prophecy: https://www.biblegateway.com... 30 My opponent has failed to mention a single Bible Prophecy which has been proven false. I am confident that my opponent can only provide a prophecy which has yet to be fulfilled at best. Postulate #2: Truth Factor and Benefits Assumption the Third: God(s) exist(s). God(s) exist(s). This/these god(s) is/are benevolent god(s) of kindness. First of all, this is flawed. God is not only merciful. He is also Just. But anyhow, my opponent states that if you become saved yet you abstain from worship, God will save you anyway. This is true, but...worshipping God and living your life to please Him is a large part of the joy of knowing Christ! It provides lasting joy and satisfaction. Those who abstain from worshipping God and living to please Him are missing out! My opponent then claims that the God of the Bible will forgive those who worship false Gods. This simply is not true. But if another god is the true god and he/she is benevolent, he/she may save you regardless of what god you did or didn't worship. This may be true, but: A. I have shown through the prophecies that Christianity is most likely to be true. B. Practicing Christianity will still provide joy here on Earth. Assumption the Second: God does not exist. Well, if this were the case, Christianity would still provide a hope of a life to come (though other religions would too, I admit). There would still be a benefit of hope to people. Assumption the First: God(s) exist(s). This/these god(s) is/are vengeful god(s) of wrath. First of all, allow me to say that God is both a Just God and Loving God. Therefore, a God who is only Just but not Loving cannot be the God of the Bible. Anyway... My opponent says that if this is the case, worshipping the wrong god will cause you to end up in Hell. This is the case with the Christian God NOT because you worship the wrong God but because you refused to accept the Gift of Salvation. But: A. The Christian God is most likely to be the true one, as I have shown through the prophecies. B. If you cannot be sure, you'll have to guess, meaning that 99% of religions are wrong. In this case, Christianity still provides hope of a life to come and the joy of Practicing Christianity in your daily life. So even though you end up in Hell, you still benefitted slightly from it. 3R1NRC: Violent Christians I have admitted that many violent "Christians" may have indeed been Christians. HOWEVER, I have stated repeatedly that they were not Practitioners of Christianity. I showed this in the earliest parts of this Round. Anyway, allow me to state that DIVERSITY causes conflict and death, not religion. Religion is just one factor that contributes to diversity, thus contributing to conflict. If everyone were the same then there would be no conflict, but you cannot actually say that it is the Christendom itself which causes conflict. It is the fact that there is Christendom (or one branch of it) and then there are non-Christians (or other branches of Christendom). This is diversity, and the existence of the opposing religion or sect contributes just as much to the war/violence. I said that I would rebut a contention from an earlier round, but...roc.*