Christianity has been more beneficial than detrimental to mankind.

1. The Church put "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" in 1616 on the Prohibited Books List [1]. So, true he was not persecuted, his scientific work was blacklisted. Galileo may though agree with me. I was using these two as examples, and even if the Copernicus example isn't accurate enough for you, scientists were persecuted for their beliefs, and I know you cannot deny that. Your argument that "Copernicus's book espousing his theory was not banned when it was published and they did not put it on their list of prohibited books when he wrote it" may be true, but you are being very semantic. It WAS banned 73 years after his death, and remained banned for quite some time, therefore, they obviously DID have a "problem with Copernicus' theory at all." And the notion that "Copernicus himself was a member of the clergy!" is a bit redundant, for the main educational institutions at the time were for the clergy! It was almost impossible to self-education without knowing Latin and Greek both of which Copernicus and the other intellectuals of the day learned from religious institutions (because secular institutions were not allowed). This knowledge was essentially excluded from the masses by the Church. Stupid constituents are obedient ones. Look, I completely get your argument for scientists trying to understand the workings of God. Mankind had been theistic for ages, and thinking that men were trying to find the workings exclusively of the Christian God is absurd. It was more of a pantheistic/deistic ideal, not one necessarily pertaining to the Christian God, even if these men were Christians. Einstein said he was trying to find the laws of god, and he meant it more figurative, I think you should consider this view. As for the monks keeping in tact Greek documents, this is true to an extent, but the majority of the remaining documents were either discovered archaeologically or retained by Muslims. 2. Well, my main sources are four friends I go to school with, 3 are from Sierra Leone, and one is from Nigeria. They are the most indoctrinated, blind Christians I have ever met, and they are fine to admit it. they state they were persecuted in Africa for being Christian, and the original colonization in Africa was by missionaries, this is consensus amongst historians. here are some interesting articles about religious wars in Africa: http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com... http://atheism.about.com... http://pewforum.org... http://findarticles.com... whether the Islamics or Christians are right, it doesn't matter, but the point is, is Christianity is a detrimental force in the region. Also, not to get too topical, but, the Pope denouncing sexual protection as a way of cutting down AIDS is quite a bother too. 3. I understand what you are trying to say, but Southern slavery-advocates were also citing scripture as well, for example: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) So, I just cannot buy that Christianity was a benefit in the Civil War era, and if it really was, wouldn't there have been no Civil War. It was in fact the bloodiest American war in history. And come on. Do you really want me to start naming evil Christians?? Alright. Here it goes: -Pope Stephen VII -Pope Clement VII -Pope Leo X -Pope Urban VI -Pope Alexander XI -Pope Boniface VIII -Pope Benedict IX -Jerry Faldwell -Pat Robertson -Samuel Parris -Pope Alexander II -Michael VII -Judas!!! (a bit of a joke, although he was a Christian in the traditional sense) -Godfrey of Bouillon -George bush!!! King George III on and on for ages. I don't want to keep this up. but the stronger point is that many upon many atrocities were committed IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY, yet although Ghandi and MLK were Christians, I doubt that they were such great people and exclusively did what they did BECAUSE of Christianity. but I wouldn't argue that it did influence their lives. 4. Look, just because Prof. Augusto Zimmerman has a thesis, doesn't make it scripture, and just because you cited it, doesn't make it true. I disagree with Zimmerman on a fundamental basis. The notion of individual rights goes back to the Code of Hammurabi, the Greeks, and yes, the Romans in the Roman Republic (not to be mistaken with the Roman Empire). Nothing has arguably done more in history to imprison ands restrict individual rights than Christianity, once again, examine the Middle Ages. Now, as I affirmed back in contention 1, people like Jefferson believed in rights as being inalienable, endowed by the Creator. But, my dear sir, Jefferson and the majority of Enlightenment thinkers (those who proposed individual rights as being a governmental matter) were Deists!! Like many of our scientists as well. Jefferson would have never attributed his brilliance on natural rights to Christianity. Or as he said, "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites". Ouch. And the idea of "equality under God's law and individual rights" stemming from Christianity, I would say, is dead wrong. It stemmed from the original Greek democracy, and although only aristocrats were allowed to vote, it nonetheless defined a basis of equality. 5. Alright. But if I may be so contrarian, may I ask WHY Christianity is the dominant religion? Well, because they have the most people. Why do they I ask? Well because they conquered more of the world than anyone else. Not exactly a Christian virtue. Anyways, please do not ruin this argument with the statement you espoused: "I will tailor this argument towards Jesus, more so. Jesus is a figure that most people would say is quite admirable, whether you are Christian or not." Your resolution was "Christianity has been more beneficial than detrimental to mankind", not 'the morals of Jesus have been more beneficial than detrimental to man kind' in which case, I would have not challenged. But Christianity is not necessarily moral in practice. Again to quote Jefferson, "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." You finish your argument by stating some benefits of Christian colleges and organization, which I do agree, are beneficial. You conclude with the very revealing argument that "all of the aforementioned effects of Christianity are beneficial." Oh and yes, I agree! Christianity has been beneficial to mankind. I concede. Unfortunately for your argument, you stated that it has been MORE beneficial than detrimental, which it has not. The atrocities committed cannot be outweighed with the petty work of Christian Organizations in the 20th Centuries, or the moral teachings of a Jewish man in 20 a.d. Thank you 1. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu...