Christianity is fundamentally immoral.

== Half-Time== Whew, this is already quite passionate. I must humbly admit to my opponent that his arguments are quite well-thought and well-voiced. Yet, I must also point out that he has pegged me incorrectly in one aspect; I have neither "complacency" nor "blind acceptance." This debate in itself, many of the platforms I have expressed, and the slight gasp-and-heart-grab-and-faint effect they would have on many members of the Church should prove that I am hardly blinded by my faith. I acknowledge that the Pro was referring to most run-of-the-mill Christians, but I clarify my stance to qualify my next point. == My Next Point== Though the Pro has called in "the merits and legitimacy of the Bible" (a worthy subject area), I will call in the importance of interpretation. -Inside of the Catholic world, the members of the Church and Jesus himself are inseparable. The Cathecism (which next to the Bible, is the most important Catholic collection of belief) describes the "intimate bond between Christ and his Church," (1) which is why in the Catholic world, the terms "the Body of Christ" and "the Church" are synonymous. The will and passion of God can not be separated from the Christian members. Yet, each of those members is respected in the ultimate scheme of things. "The body's unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: 'In the building up of Christ's Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions.' " (1) The Church and all of its teachings are a composition of each one of its members. Each member's ideas and beliefs contribute to the faith as a whole. -Outside of Catholic world, we would acknowledge the same thing. There is no pure idea of "Christianity" that exists in a plane just beyond humanity's reach, with clergy reaching forward and passing it back to others. Christianity exists in the thoughts and interpretations of every person. Though the Pro's topic is "Christianity is fundamentally immoral," there is no solid Christianity for me to defend. I am not trying to shirk my burden as the Con. I am trying to explain that if there are interpretations of Christian belief that are just and moral, then Christianity can be moral. Still, I won't be abusive with this argument; I won't find the most obscure interpretation that only 2 people believe in to make points. I will restrict myself to beliefs well-enough established to constitute a large portion of the Church and therefore the Body of Christ and therefore Christianity. Through this line of reasoning, I will prove that Christianity is moral. == Putting Up My Dukes== The Pro is right that Christianity is rife with "double-standards and contradictions concerning the Bible." Yet, any sufficiently large document or text is certain to be disputed. The novel Great Expectations has no less than 13 different interpretations (2), some competing with each other. Yet, Great Expectations is only about one-third the length of the Bible. The competing criticisms on Great Expectations hardly detract from the literary merit of the book, nor the gain in wisdom from having read it. Similarly, though the Bible may have competing and sometimes contrasting reactions, it does not affect the power of the faith as a whole and does not detract from its morality. So, I will not speak further on this issue, except for one more comment. The Pro has one particularly important example of contrasting statements, " 'It is the literal word of God' ; 'but it is also metaphorical, liquid, and open to interpretation.' " These statements directly affect my interpretation argument, so I will address them. Christianity is distinctly the second. Even the most Fundamentalist Christian would have to admit (after a lot of debate; they are pretty stubborn) that his or her belief in literalness is an interpretation. So, his or her belief is valued in the Body of Christ with everyone else's. == A Powerless God, Possibly Needing some Red Bull== God does step in for assistance, only not as easily as many would wish. The belief on this (for lack of a *credible* source, I must default to a good explanation made in the movie Evan Almighty) is that God does not grant qualities. For example, he does not grant patience but rather opportunities to be patient. He does not grant strength but opportunities to be strong. In this way, no person is given their destiny as a gift but is instead guided. == Main Points== 1 and 2.] I guess my discussion of confession was satisfactory. 3.] I definitely don't want Gandhi to go to Hell, which is why I am proud to believe in Anonymous Christian. You have yet to meet "one of these people" who believes in it as well. That's interesting and quite unique. You also disagree with my source, and argue that "John Paul II is in no way warranted to change the interpretation." There is probably no person more warranted in clarifying Church belief than a former Pope (excluding possibly the current Pope). I quoted John Paul II here instead of a random Church website specifically because of his powerful and legitimate stance. If the Pope and core Church have a strong belief in Anonymous Christian, then on the subject of other religions, Christianity is moral. 4.] Here, I must concede that homosexuality is rejected by the Church almost immediately on face. But, I still defend through excerpts from the Theology of the Body that there are Christianity interpretations that support homosexuality. They may not be a major portion of Church belief, but it is there. 5.] Christians have been some of the most outspoken individuals and lobbyists in America on human rights issues. The Family Research Council (one influential Christian lobbying group) has spoken before Congress several times on curtailing deplorable conditions in China, as an example. And your comments about "mass genocides, plagues" are irrelevant to modern Christianity morality. Christians feel bad about those things too. 6 and 7.] Time, with the rest of the Bible, is certainly open to relative interpretation; some of those stories could have quite new revelations. Although, I would simply argue with your examples that for Noah and the descendants of Adam and Eve, they don't correspond to the "one day is like a thousand years" passages because they are humans, and those passages refer to God. -Using Biblical script for explaining the universe does not necessarily cause "close-mindedness and blind acceptance." I believe the Biblical script if used in the theory of Theistic Evolution. That explanation is rather welcoming to science. -God has not "abandoned us" but rather sharply limited his involvement compared to his work in the last billion years. -Haha, and I like this short segment on Adam and Eve. He knew they would "violate the agreement" and He "was lying about them dying," and you ask why? Maybe He had bigger plans for humanity. He probably didn't want to wipe out the only two humans so early; He wanted them to reproduce until two descendants had this debate on DDO, which is certainly a site for free and intellectual thought. 8.] The Bible *is* "the word of God," but in the sense that it was written by prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As such, it has a divine nature to it but also a human nature, one that can have made mistakes in its proposed theories. Yet, the Bible itself is not "immoral." Possible interpretations are immoral; 1st century Christianity might have been immoral. 9.] This is a good reason for me to avoid YoungLife. However, other Christian aid groups like World Vision not only limit missionary action but employ local people of other religions. == R&R== Good luck to the Pro in the next round. == Sources== (1) Line 789 http://www.vatican.va... (2) http://www.powells.com... (3) My copies of Great Expectations and The New Catholic Answer Bible, with 525 pages and 1394 pages, respectively (4) http://www.jstor.org...