Christianity does more harm than good

I agree that radicals are a part of any religion and that they must be taken into account. I believe that we both are in agreement with the fact that they are not representative of a religion but can still be viewed as consequences of it. And I also believe that both of us, and any other reasonable person, would recognize that just because someone claims their actions are on the behalf of a God or a faith, that does not mean it represents the religion. If I commit a murder, I could claim that I did so to honor Mikal. However, that would not be true because you had nothing to do with it and would denounce it. The same applies to people who claim they act on behalf of religion when in fact, they do not. Your choice of the word 'sects' is a bad one. A better word would be denominations. Sects are typically considered to have an origin in it but have departed from its teachings and are no longer considered a part of Christianity. Mormons are an example of this. They have created an entirely separate belief system, relying on The Book of Mormon, literature that Christianity disagrees with. Their dogma is entirely different from any form of Christian dogma, therefore they should not be considered Christians. The denominations you listed (Protestant, Baptist, Calvanist, and even Catholic) have certain differences in doctrine but the key tenants of Christianity are more or less the same in them, therefore they can be considered branches of Christianity. However, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, among other lesser known sects, are too far removed from the central beliefs of Christianity that they can not be considered representative of it. I will also inform you, although this is irrelevant to the debate, that I am not Catholic. I am non-denominational Christian. Rebuttals I address your argument regarding the crusades. There is no denying that murder is negative no matter the time period. I make a few points regarding how representative they are of Christianity though. Like you said, they were not representative of Christianity today, but I argue firstly that they were not representative of Christianity in the period in which they occurred either, and secondly that they were not as bad as people tend to believe. First, we must define what a crusade is. A crusade in this debate should not be considered any war with a religious purpose put rather the ones specifically recognized and ordained by the papacy. Unfortunately, much of what is considered "common knowledge" about the crusades is factually incorrect. Centuries after they had occurred, biased historians began to look back at them and when writing about them, portrayed a less than truthful account of what happened. The first common misconception that I will address is the notion that the crusades were an offensive attack by Christians on an unsuspecting Muslim populace. In truth, the crusades were a defensive, retaliatory action. In the early seventh century, Christianity controlled Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, as well as many parts of Persia and Arabia. By the early eighth century, Muslims had conquered Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France, while Italy was under serious thread of attack. It is important to realize that this new Muslim control was not due to converting the populace, but by physical violence and military conquests of those territories. The Christian territories in Arabia had been conquered and destroyed. More than two-thirds of previously Christian land was now under Muslim rule. These Christians were acting in defense of their lands that were stolen, not on behalf of their faith. If they acted in defense, they were not the aggressors. Therefore, the nature of the crusades was not a harmful one to society, as a group acting to defend their lands should not be viewed as something harmful to society. If you view their actions as retaliatory, not defensive, then they were markedly not a result of true Christianity, as one of the most recognizable teachings in Christianity is to turn the other cheek. Now, another frequent assumption about the crusades is that their goal, if not in whole than at least in part, was proselytization. If this were true, one could assert that Christianity was at fault for the crusades, as proselytization is an undeniable part of the Christian faith. However, that is not the case. Thomas F. Madden, widely considered to be one of the most prominent crusade historians stated in an essay the actual influence proselytization had, or more accurately, did not have. "It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders' task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence." I also would like to point out that there is a significant difference between Christianity, the religion, and Christianity, the political state that existed at the time. While you can argue that the religion is what led to the state, you cannot say that the actions of the state are representative of the religion, because the actions of the state frequently contradicted the teachings of the religion. I believe I have shown sufficient evidence that the crusades were not, as is presumed, a terrible crime of Christianity's, but rather something whose negative aspects cannot be pinned on the Christian religion. If you are still unsatisfied, I have further evidence which I consider to be unnecessary as I believe my point to have been proven, but I will include it here without many arguments involved just to give you a hint of what they are. Many people say the crusaders were greedy and rapacious. If this is true, they were not acting from a Christian basis, as Christianity opposes that, so Christianity cannot be blamed for those actions. One frequent criticism of the crusades is the massacres that occurred. I agree completely, as do all Christians. The issue is, Christianity cannot be blamed for the. The massacres of those who surrendered was undisciplined and unchristian, and as such it was hated by the leaders, both military and religious. The massacre of those who did not surrender was standard military practice at the time, used to intimidate future enemies into surrendering. In neither of those cases is massacring encouraged by Christianity nor its beliefs, but by rebellious soldiers in the former and by military leaders in the latter. The main method if recruiting soldiers to fight in the crusades was Pope's promise that they would be able to escape purgatory and go straight to heaven. This is a strictly Catholic belief, not a Christian one. Christians deny this particular dogma. Therefore, Christianity cannot be held responsible for Catholicism's ability to recruit soldiers. The actions of the popes during the crusades (granting pardons for sins in exchange for money, that type of thing) were denounced later by Martin Luther as being exactly the type of of unchristian actions that the Catholic church's failures arised from. I am extremely sorry but I am new to this site and did not recognize there is a character limit. I don't want to throw away the rest of my argument so here is a link to it: http://tinyurl.com...