Christianity offers false hope to the weak minded.

First of all I would like to say thanks for debating this topic with me. I want to reiterate something I said in the comments section which is that I promise I am not just throwing out a hot-button issue like religion just to get people to argue with me. I genuinely respect those who are unshakable in their beliefs, not out of stubbornness but through an informed decision made without the influence of others. I also hope we can keep an underlying level of respect for each others viewpoints throughout this debate. Side Note: Never start a debate by assuming you'll lose! If you believe in the validity of what you are debating you can never truly lose! To begin. I apologize for any confusion my vague and possibly abrasive title may have caused. It is important to note that in using the phrase "weak minded" I do not mean to insult the intelligence of members of the christian faith, I simply meant to describe the mental capacities of our ancient ancestors of the 1st Century. Hopefully we can both agree that intelligence and literacy have a direct correlation with technology and its availability to the masses. Not only does technology play a role in developing intelligence, but socioeconomic status and societal norms and traditions also play a key role as well. During the 1st Century technological conditions were such that literacy on a mass scale like we enjoy it today was unthinkable. This accompanied by the fact that formal education was generally only offered to the privileged classes can lead us to believe that the lower working class members of society were much more concerned with passing along trade skills to their progeny instead of analytical/abstract thought about the inner-workings of the cosmos. It is also important to note that because of such rampant illiteracy during this time the majority of the teachings that took place were done orally. All of these factors can lead us to the conclusion that with such limited literacy, any oral teaching (regardless if it was religious in nature or not) that was done was passed on from one person to the next like a game of telephone (for lack of a better comparison). So isn't it only logical to conclude that with the transmission of teaching in this way that the biases and embellishments of the speaker would get transferred along with the information? It also cannot be ignored that during the era in which many of the greatest scientists of all time lived ( Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, etc.) the choice to accept christianity was done out of self-preservation for fear of being sentenced to death for their scientific views of the cosmos. This concept of capital punishment sanctioned by the highest order of the christian religion is well documented throughout history. Now to another topic I fear you may have misinterpreted. You seem to think that I believe that "promotion" of the bible is done out of fear of the consequences. The point I planned on making with that topic is that it is human nature to seek for answers and tangible truths. The old testament paints a vivid picture of a vengeful god who is quick to smite those who have done wrong, yet can be appeased through blood sacrifice or the mutilation of children as made apparent in Exodus 4:24-26..."At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. So the LORD let him alone". This also relates to your final point in which you argue that the New Testament nullifies many of those outdated teachings in the Old Testament. This would lead many logical people to the conclusion that scripture is flawed...which makes sense because man wrote scripture and he is inherently flawed. Now if you allow yourself to follow that train of thought deeper, who is to say that some of the other biblical events, records, teachings, etc. aren't misconstrued to the point of unrecognizable from their original intentions? I do have to apologize again, I told myself I would not cite scripture to try and prove my point throughout this debate, but that example helped me with two of my points so I just couldn't resist. Also I wanted to acknowledge something you said at the end of your third- from- last paragraph, you mentioned that "as humans, we are not to judge other people's hearts". I'm not sure if this was quoted from another source but those words resonated with me because they speak to a fundamental truth that I believe all humans can adhere to. The truth I am referring to is that people need to look within themselves and find the inner strength to do good, not to appease anyone but out of a mutual love and respect for their fellow human. I look forward to reading your rebuttal, and remember...If you whole-heartedly believe in something and you stay true to those convictions, there isn't a person on Earth that can bring negativity into your life.