Christianity is a force for good in the world.

I too am pleased to be debating such an important topic with such a capable opponent. I think the readers should carefully consider whether or not Freeman has presented a convincing case for Christianity causing more harm than good. With that said, I will now respond to my opponent's round 2. CHRISTIANITY'S ROLE IN PROMULGATING MISOGYNY: It is no historical secret that misogyny predates Christianity by orders of millennia. During the time of Jesus' ministry, women, under the thumb of Greco-Roman leadership, had very few rights. Aristotle taught that women were not fully human and a lower form of life (1). Christianity challenged these norms by systematically enabling women. Jesus not only had female disciples, but it was a group of these female followers that first discovered His empty tomb (2). Moreover, scripture proclaims that in Christ there is neither male nor female, for all are one in Him (3)! Christianity continued to influence progress towards equality, even while the secular philosophers proclaimed there was no such thing: "Equality is a lie concocted by inferior people...The morality of 'equal rights' is herd morality...{which} leads to the corruption of the human species." - Nietzsche However, due to the empowerment of George Fox's Quakerism, Christian men and women fought hard for the rights of women. Women's suffrage and the subsequent rights garnered thereafter are almost unilaterally indebted to the Quakers (4). It does not take a degree in history to see that the only nations in which misogyny is still rife, are those that were never historically Christian. How can Christianity be held responsible for something for which it was not the cause and is in fact bound to eliminate? CHRISTIANITY'S ROLE IN PROMULGATING HOMOPHOBIA: Without any relevant statistics or comparisons between historically Christian and non-Christian nations, this assertion stands on nothing. My opponent illegitimately focuses on a fanatic minority and generalizes that to be representative of Christianity. Clearly fanaticism in any ideology is the problem - whether Christianity, atheism or otherwise. WHENCE COMETH THIS METRIC? "From my perspective..." And this is Precisely the problem! My opponent's metric is wholly dependent on his perception and thus is altogether subjective. My perspective is different - whose could possibly be correct when dealing with subjective premises? However, under the Christian framework, morality is objective and thus can be objectively judged. This problem was prophetically anticipated by Dostoyevsky in his letter to N.L. Ozmidov in 1978, " Now assume that there is no God, or immortality of the soul. Now tell me, why should I live righteously and do good deeds, if I am to die entirely on earth?...And If that is so, why shouldn't I (as long as I can rely on my cleverness and agility to avoid being caught by the law) cut another man's throat, rob, and steal?" The point is that Christianity is a force for its own standards of good and whether it achieves that good is irrelevant to whether or not it is a force for it. WHAT IS IT A FORCE FOR? Whether Christian precepts are found elsewhere is irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is a force for good. The precept, "do not murder," is no less good if it is found in other cultures. To continue in the vein of irrelevancy, my opponent reads his OWN interpretation into the Christian text - applying a narrow and obtuse hermeneutic characteristic of internet critics - and then generalizes this interpretation as if it represents Christian thought. 1. Luke 19:27 These are CLEARLY NOT Jesus' words but the words of the king in His parable. Jesus, to the contrary, taught to love thy enemy and pray for those who persecute you (5). After being mercilessly tortured and irreverently hung on a cross, he cried out, "forgive them, for they know not what they do!" Yes, doesn't THAT sound like the heart of a wicked man? 2. Jesus' hyperbolic words about family were to illustrate that we must be willing to follow truth at all costs. He obviously did not mean that we ought to hate our family as his mother was his follower and his brothers were avid leaders within his ministry (6). 3. Christianity has been at the forefront of the abolishment of slavery, from Jesus to William Wilberforce. Jesus taught that we are all to be slaves to one another (7). He taught that the first will be last and the last first. He himself came not to BE served, but to serve (8). Paul taught that there is neither slave nor free in Christ Jesus (9). He admonished Philemon to treat Onesimus (a slave) as a brother (10). Moreover, it was the Mennonites to first protest Slavery and the Quakers followed shortly thereafter (11). CONTENTION 1: This is all based on a presuppositional bias and question-begging. Yes, Christians have a very high view of human value. Christians see a relevant difference between a clump of cells and an organism that is equipped for integrated life. Not only has no stem cell line ever been successful from cloned embryos (even given a decade and some), but it is moot given that Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University found a way to make any cell without the need of a human egg or embryo (12). CONTENTION 2: Like I said, fanaticism within any ideology is dangerous - Christian or otherwise. Fanatic Christians, however, are not representative of Christianity. As Alister McGrath puts it: "All ideals--divine, transcendent, human or invented -- are capable of being abused. That's just the way human nature is. And knowing this, rather than lashing out uncritically at religion, we need to work out what to do about it." A perfect example of this came during the French Revolution when they abandoned all traditional notions of God. Instead of the notions of God, they transcendentalized human values to the point where no one could question them! Modame Rolande, in 1792, went to the guillotine and before her death she bowed mockingly to the statue of liberty and her words will never be forgotten: "Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name." CONTENTION 3: I am implying that it is a verifiable certainty that Christians both give more to, and participate more in charity than atheists by orders of magnitude (13). Moreover, your idea that these organizations help without "the desire to spread divisive myths..." is ignorant. Organizations do not do anything, it is the individuals within them. While the organization itself may not be affiliated with any religion, it is intellectually dishonest to assume that those involved within it are too. As was already shown in my first round, Christians continue to dominate the charity field and show no signs of relenting. CONCLUSION: It is true that those without religion are 3.84 times more likely to be incarcerated (13). It's also true that 148 million people died by the hands of 52 atheists, though they were only given 1/20 the opportunity that Christians had to inflict anything similar (14). It is true that those without religion have an average life expectancy 7 years shorter than the average churchgoer (15). It is also true that those without religion are statistically more likely to abuse alcohol, smoke, be obese and depressed (16). But no, since 93% of the members of NAS are not theists, that means that religion is irrelevant to societal health. Well, following this logic to its necessary conclusions, if Christianity is half as bad as my opponent says it is, we should see its systematic negative influences manifest themselves in the most devious ways in The Vatican City, but we don't see that now do we? Sources: http://www.debate.org...