Christianity is a force for good in the world.

I thank InquireTruth for his willingness to debate with me. Our differences could not possibly be any more pronounced and it is therefore likely that this debate will produce some interesting exchanges. Nevertheless, I find many of my opponent's claims to be rather astounding, and I am eager to respond to them. But first, a little housekeeping: If I understand InquireTruth's argument correctly, he doesn't want Christianity to be held responsible for every crazy or destructive thing that a Christian does. This is perfectly understandable. I don't hold Christianity responsible for all social evil; I only hold it responsible for the actions that Christians do only by following the precepts of Christianity. I realize that you are limited with only 8,000 characters, but I feel that you have not attempted to address the following arguments, which deal with: Christianity's role in promulgating misogyny Christianity's role in promulgating homophobia From my perspective, things can be said to be good or bad depending on their ability to alleviate suffering or to provide for a net increase in the well being of conscious creatures. Unfortunately, I don't have the room to uphold moral realism or consequentialism for the sake of this debate. However, this doesn't matter because my ability or inability to prop up a meta-ethical theory as valid is not contingent to my defeating the resolution. It is you, not I, that needs to demonstrate why Christianity is objectively a force for good in the world. Even if all my arguments against Christianity failed we would still be on neutral grounds. You've raised some points about health care, atheists being prone for incarnation, and sex that I will have to save my response for (due to lack of time). If there is anything else you think I didn't touch upon let me know. ::Case Con- Rebuttals:: CHRISTIANITY: WHAT IS IT A FORCE FOR? InquireTruth outlines a pretty standard list of Christian ethical precepts, many of which are unobjectionable. But he fails to realize that many of these same precepts are found in other religions and in societies, like Sweden, that hardly have any belief in a personal God. In addition, my opponent obviously has omitted from the list of Christian teachings some of the more amoral and immoral proclamations. Jesus also told us that we are to abandon our families and he even suggested that we must hate them in order to follow him more fully. [1] He also says that we should take no succor and give no thought for tomorrow. In (Luke 19:27) Jesus unmistakably says the following: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [2] He clearly condoned the murder of his enemies, at least some of the time. However, the immoral preachments of Christianity do not end there by any stretch of the imagination. The Old Testament, as barbaric and recommending of genocide as it is, at no point speaks of eternal punishment for the dead. It was not until the delusional carpenter, Jesus, showed up on the scene that the idea of hell came into prominence in Judaism. [3] What then is the point is the point of appealing to Christian scriptures? Christianity provides nothing of value, in ethical terms, that hasn't already been attained through more rational means, and some of its precepts are downright ludicrous. Jesus clearly expected us to keep slaves. At no point does he ever repudiate the institution of slavery. At numerous spots in the Bible he even uses parables with slaves. Likewise, Paul, also known as Saul, admonishes slaves to serve their masters well and to serve their Christian masters especially well. [4] At best, Christianity simply maintains the status quo with many of its preachments. At worst, the totality of its preachments provides for an irrational and backwards system of morality that is needlessly subversive to the basic project of creating humans beings with lives worth living. Contention 1: Religion misrepresents reality. At best, the creation myth in Genesis myth is impoverishing to the intellect and at worst it causes people to want to teach pseudoscience to children. Creation myths are thus not inconsequential, as you would have us believe. Moreover, certain Christian dogmas can be devastating when applied to real world scenarios. Consider for a moment stem cell research. By far, it is one of the most promising lines in biology to generate medical therapies to treat a whole host of different ailments. [5] And yet politicians in Washington (acting out of deference to Christian dogmas no doubt) often try to impede its funding based on the medieval notion that blastocysts, literally undifferentiated clumps of cells, have souls. Its not as if Christian dogmas thrive in a benign way like astrology, they create tangible real world problems. Contention 2: The dogmas of Christianity are harmful to society. Before I launch into my main criticism of your argument some red herrings need to be dealt with. The problem with Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Laos, and Vietnam is not atheism. Dogmatism can irrationality can arise in a variety of forms that can be devoid of any deity worship. Like you, I would be among the first to decry the political dogmas of communism or the grotesque instances of leader worship that occur in places like North Korea. However, to my knowledge, no society has ever suffered because it had become too reasonable. Contention 3: Christianity promotes intolerance and supports oppression. If you are implying that secular people don't do charitable work then clearly that isn't true. There is an abundance of secular organizations that do great work around the world. Organizations like UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, and the UN world food program are just a few cases in point. Moreover, they do their work without the secret desire to spread divisive myths about the divine origins of certain books, and the virgin births of certain people. Likewise, It would be nearly pointless to say that people who believe in God have built almost everything of value in our society. Religious people throughout history have largely been the only people available to do the work. As I sure you are well aware, there aren't a whole lot of scientifically minded atheists in world. Therefore, It's just meaningless to say that there weren't very many atheists in Britain helping tackle social problems or rationalists in the U.S. helping to build hospitals. It would be equivalent to me pointing out that there aren't very many black people in Montana doing charity work and thus concluding that white people are more generous, loving, and compassionate than black people. As it turns out, there aren't a whole lot of cerebral atheists in the world, and there aren't many black people in Montana. As such, any argument that seeks to prop up Christianity by reference to charity work is bound to be invidious. ::Conclusion:: My opponent accuses me of making generalizations, and yet he accuses people like myself with a scientific mindset to have a propensity for mass murder and destruction. Needless to say, this accusation is both absurd and a bit silly. The most atheistic group in our country has got to the members of the NAS (The National Academy of Sciences), 93% of them don't believe in a personal God. [6] Presumably, they are no more devious than the rest of society. This alone shows why my opponent's claims are unsupported. --References--- 1. ? 2. ? 3. ? 4. ? 5. ? 6. ? I will provide my references for round number 2 in my 3rd round. Sorry, I ran out of time. It's new years, and I'm away with family and away from my computer.