Resolved: Christianity is negative for society.

My opponent's first contention is that Christianity's protocol is flawed, namely, in it's doctrine that promotes "immoral action." Now my opponent is saying the doctrine promotes immoral action, but on what moral basis? Here is the crux of the matter: If Christianity is true, then its moral system is correct. Places where homosexuality is condemned as immoral would be justified and thus homosexuality would be immoral if Christianity gives us an accurate and true representation of reality. I'll take the time to respond to my opponent's very interesting opening statement. C1sub 1aMy opponent cites 3 primary "immoral" actions that Christianity condemns or promotes: Sexism, condemnation of homosexuals and condemnation of other religions. Sexism How exactly are these scriptures sexist? Just because one is to submit to their husband doesn't make the female inferior in any way. The oxford dictionary defines sexism as "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." [1] Genesis 3:16 cites God's punishment to women, but continuing the scripture from verses 17-19, God also punishes man and curses his work and efforts. There is no prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination here. Theologian John MacArthur comments on 1 corinthians 11:3-15. He observes, "There is no distinction between men and women as far as personal worth, intellect, or spirituality are concerned. That women function uniquely in God's order, hover, submitting, to men's authority, Paul affirms several points: 1) the pattern in the Godhead (v.3) 2) the divine design of male and female (v.7) 3) the order of creation (v.8) 4) the purpose of women in regard to man." [2] Paul, in another letter, clarifies the stance of the worth and equality of men and women in Galatians 3:28 (ESV): "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" Condemnation of Homosexuals and Other ReligionsIt seems my opponent presupposes a moral standard outside and above Christianity in order to judge its condemnation of homosexuals as immoral. However, if the Christian religion is true, then what is says about homosexuality would be true and therefor homosexuality would be immoral. However, in this debate we are not proving whether or not Christianity is true. This is somewhat the same with the condemnation of other religions. There are theological reasons for the actions taken in the scriptures against other religions in the OT. Now the way God acted in these scriptures are warranted because of sin. God's judgement on individuals who sin, such as turn away to false Gods or other practices, is warranted. However, today such "condemnations" or disputes are warranted since Christianity makes a truth claim about reality. Other religions are bound to be labeled as false or wrong as with any other truth claim, since truth claims are intrinsically exclusive. If 2+2=4 and that's the truth, then anyone who differs is wrong. However, in the case of worshipping a different God or practicing differently, this would be a sin and hence has theological implications. sub 1b: because of time restraints and character space I will jump into this issue the next round. C2sub 1a:Christianity did not inhibit science. Quite the opposite, science was pushed forward thanks to natural theology and Christian thinkers. First, the first universities were born out of theological and religious reasons.The university was the primary scientific institution of the middle ages and these were "primarily intended to educate prospective members of the higher clergy" and they "provided a home for natural philosophers." These universities were protected by both Church and state and gave students and professors intellectual freedom to explore any and all ideas, as long as it God wasn't left out. Hannam observes the following about Science and the church, "Closely coupled to the myth… is the belief that the Church held back what meager advances made…During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively supported a great deal of science, but it also decided that philosophical speculation should not impinge on theology.[3] Joahannes Kepler, a fervent religious man, "was convinced that the structure of the heavens had to reflect the perfection of its creator. This perfection, he thought, would reveal itself best through the precision of geometry."[4] Using Tycho Brahe's data and observations, Kepler was able to test his model of the universe and he was able to "[publish] the new astronomical tables of planetary positions that he had promised Tycho he would complete." [5] My opponent names Galileo's trial after his proposal of heliocentrism. It was actually Copernicus who proposed a heliocentric universe in his Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and Kepler who proved it[6]. Galileo is responsible for being the first to "mould them into a coherent whole and the first to show how they could be experimentally demonstrated."[7] So the idea of heliocentrism was already in play. Secondly, in regard to the trial of Galileo, a majority of the issue had to do with politics with the pope rather than science. What happened was Galileo was finishing his book called Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems where he argued for and defended heliocentrism. Towards the end of the book Galileo "put the pope's argument about how God could engineer circumstances to produce any end result into the mouth of Simplicio. The pope's argument was weak and inimical to natural philosophy. By slotting it in at the end, Galileo showed what he thought of it and thereby ensured that His Holiness would take umbrage."[8] It's noted that the pope took offense at this and ordered "the book to be withdrawn and appointed a special commission to examine it."[9] From there Galileo was then tried for heresy, which he fought against. Scopes The issue of the scopes trial was basically a theological issue between individuals who believed Christianity and evolution is compatible and those who don't believe Christianity and evolution are incompatible. So at best, we have a divide on the issue that comes from the Christian tradition. So how does this show that Christianity impedes science? At best all that would follow from this scenario is that dogmatic, fundamentalists may impede science, but even then we must take a look at the merits of their argument. Sub 1b:I agree that over the history of Christianity, there have been "Christians" who have acted in ways that are not in accordance with a proper Christian Ethic. My opponent listed Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments about 9/11 as an example and I'll even present the Westboro Baptist Church as another example. The Westboro Church claims that they are following scripture and "spreading the news" of the gospel to others about the truth of homosexuality and other issues. So the question that is raised is are these individuals truly representative of orthodox Christianity? For people to act in hatred towards Muslims, atheists, and gays is simply wrong (Philippians 2:3-4). Yes, Christians disagree with these groups and Christians stand for what they believe is true, but their approach is to be one of Christ. To count these individuals, who have said harsh things, as representatives of orthodox Christianity would be wrong. Sub 1c:Listing the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and the the witch trials is nothing but a shotgun approach. No references, evidence, or reason is presented to support your contention. What about the crusades, the spanish inquisition and the witch trials? sub 1d:This is completely unsubstantiated. My opponent not only gives no evidence for this, but he gives no reason to think why this is true. C3I will address this further in the next round since I ran out of characters and I will attempt to provide some positive contributions from Christianity.