Christianity is stupid

In this debate, Natsu145 tells us that he is arguing that Christianity is stupid in the title, and in his opening, he claims that "Christianity is one of the most non-logical, offensive, and overall idiotic religion of all time". I disagree, and thus I take him up on these various accusations. Natsu has failed to define the parameters of this debate, and thus I shall freely define the term stupid as; "Slow to learn or understand; obtuse." [1] As we can see, this definition presupposes an actual ability to learn, and thus only things with an ability to learn can be 'stupid'. As far as the knowledge of humanity goes, the only things capable of this are minds or brains, and thus Con will either have to demonstrate the actual religion of Christianity itself is capable of processing information and being able to learn, or show that Christianity is "obtuse", which is "Lacking quickness of perception or intellect." [2] If Con fails to demonstrate this, the voter should take this into account. Now, let's discuss whether Christianity is stupid or not on the basis that it is indeed somehow capable of processing information, even though it is merely an ideology. I will demonstrate that Christianity is not stupid by providing various factual claims made by the religion, which would establish that it is intelligent. 1. Scientific Intelligence: Firstly, the Bible teaches that the universe came into existence from a precedent non-existence, that the universe is in a continual state, and that all things are moving towards an error of disorder. [3] These things were recorded in the Bible long before the scientific advances in the 20th century were made to establish these as facts, such as Edwin Hubble discovering the universe is in a state of expansion in 1929 [4]. This would mean the author of the scripture preached by Christianity must have possessed great scientific knowledge, and thus be intelligent. 2. Historical Intelligence: The Bible makes an extremely long list of historically accurate claims. It gets more than 50 historical figures correct in the Old Testament [5], there are 84 confirmed historical facts in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts, which is in the Bible [6] , the Gospel of John has 59 confirmed or probably historical facts [7], etc, etc, etc. To know so much about history, you would need to be intelligent, and the mere fact that the authors of Christian scripture were able to write during that time frame in an age where illiteracy was past 80% just 200 years ago in Europe [8]. He claims he will be arguing for Christianity being offensive, however even if he were to establish this, it would be no indicator to the veracity of his contention that Christianity is stupid. He also claims it is idiotic, which simply mean "very stupid" [9], and I have already provided good reason to assume this is a false accusation. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Now, the following will be me rebutting his accusations for Christianity being offensive and idiotic, by addressing the verses from the Bible he quotes and claims on Christian doctrines to validate this claim. First, he issues a classical Strawman Fallacy -- by putting claims in the mouth of Christian doctrine on homosexuality that are not actually there, and rebutting those made-up doctrines [10]. He claims that Christianity teaches that being gay has a real life consequence and that being gay automatically makes you a horrible person, when in fact I can find no piece of scripture from the Bible (Christianity's teachings) to confirm this is what Christianity says. Rather, the only thing that the Bible says about homosexuality is that it is a sin because it contradicts God's transcendent design plan [11]. This is the only reason why Christianity claims homosexuality is wrong. The rest of his accusations on the Bible being offensive is on sexism. I was simply dismayed to see him rip out all of those verses out of their traditional and Biblical context. Let us quickly explain all of them. First, he quotes 1 Corinthians 14 to show women cannot speak in Church -- this is merely a traditional role of women in Christianity. The Bible also ascribes traditional roles to men that they must follow that are not positive, such as saying to Adam that if he wants to eat he will have to day painful labor [12], which is to say the man must do all the laborious work in the household. Is the Bible sexist against men? Of course not. Concerning Leviticus, this was part of the punishment instilled upon Eve for her sins along with Adam [11]. If Con wishes to proclaim punishment is wrong, he will not only need to prove this, but he must initially take the position that no one deserves punishment, not even murderers and thieves. As for Eclessiastes, 7:26, it clearly only references women, as it literally says in the verse, "who is a trap, her heart a net, and her hands chains" [13], obviously not all women, only women who fit this description. All of these accusations lack credibility. 1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3: http://www.reasons.org... 4: https://www.spacetelescope.org... 5: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org... 6: http://truthbomb.blogspot.ca... 7: http://truthbomb.blogspot.ca... 8: https://ourworldindata.org... 9: https://www.google.ca... 10: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 11: http://www.desiringgod.org... 12: https://www.biblegateway.com... 13: https://www.biblegateway.com...