Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful- Another Attempt

Introduction: I disagree with my opponent"s claim regarding net harm. The intrinsic harm of Christianity that I argue against does not pertain to whether it has more evil or good. The harm that I argue against is illustrated best by the Nazi-Anarchy analogy- is a system that does such harm necessary to produce any good? Proving that government is ideal to anarchy does not justify a Nazi regime, and proving that charity and moral rules are good does not affirm Christianity as a necessity. I propose a non-Christian system that accomplishes the same goods without the same evils. I do, however, agree with my opponent"s claim that I must demonstrate the harm as intrinsic to the religion as opposed to "the people or era". However, this merely disvalues all of my opponent"s historical examples from the previous round and leaves my claims about the immorality present in Christian doctrine unaddressed and with full validity. I.Oppression -My opponent merely claims that organizational structure may be a matter of preference, thoroughly disregarding my contention that hierarchical structure is almost necessarily a movement away from an egalitarian and free system. This is followed by what seems to be a red herring regarding post-Biblical Catholic Church structure, which belongs to a different debate. -My opponent would have us believe that "You can't claim something is harmful because you subjectively find their beliefs immoral" but you can set up a system of morals that oppress an individual"s autonomy and do cause sexual misery for those under a Christian system. My opponent"s Christian bias is further expressed by claiming the "scientific benefit" of waiting to become sexually active until marriage. This very claim presupposes that marriage is an end goal, that monogamy is ideal, etc., which must be objectively viewed as circular reasoning. The harm I propose does not come because I believe in promiscuity whilst the advocates of Christianity believe in abstinence. The harm comes in the repression of the will and autonomy present in the Christian worldview, that creates unnecessary sexual tension and misery, and that warps our view of the morality behind sex. I feel at liberty to say this because my opponent has been so bold as to suggest that I misinterpret Christian hatred for homosexual intercourse with hatred for homosexuals. While these two seem rather inseparable, it is of no consequence. The fact that my opponent concedes that a Christian should hate the sexual lifestyle of another human being is proof enough that Christianity is harmful. This is almost reminiscent to the days when one might hear argued, "I"m not a racist. I have two black friends! I merely hate those criminal n-----s". -My opponent asserts that only an idiot could believe that the church could abolish slavery. Perhaps, then, I am the grandest idiot- because any institution claiming to represent the most pure and absolute morality must also absolutely bar the enslavement of other humans. Additionally, my opponent addresses letters to the Greeks and Romans. This is not the source of my evidence. My evidence comes from Exodus- long before the writing of Peter and Paul. This is the time when Moses established a code for how slaves were to be treated by the Jews. Also, the church record with slavery must be ignored because (as I am sure I will refer to often in the lines to come) I must prove that the religion itself is harmful- not any of the people or the era. -My opponent suggests that I misunderstand the Bible"s treatment of women. Perhaps. However, no evidence to the contrary has been presented as their chief virtue still appears to be marrying a strong man and procreating. Additionally, on the claim of Biblical misogyny, my opponent overlooks that "wives must submit themselves to their husbands" and that women "must be silent in the churches". II.Ethics -The ethics that I refer to as objective are not arbitrary ones that may be subjective. They involve the equality of man, the right to liberty, and other basic fundamental beliefs necessarily mutually understood to have any further moral discourse. My purpose in this debate is to prove the intrinsic harm of Christianity, not to counter a desperate deconstructionist claim that until I can empirically show any morality as absolute may I advance. -My opponent entirely misses my contention of pride. Yes, any observer of the Bible may note that pride is labeled a sin and that a "good Christian" must be humble. Yet- is it not prideful for every Christian to claim to have direct knowledge of God and his moral wishes? What pride could be greater than to claim to have divine insight that has not been granted to scientists and philosophers through the ages- claiming these learned men as "blinded sinners". This denied pride is surely more dangerous than simple satisfaction in one"s own accomplishments- as I would advocate. -Faith needn"t apply to something arbitrary like the color of the sun to be anti-intellectual and my opponent must understand this. The Bible sufficiently promotes anti-intellectualism through faith when it claims to have faith like a child rather than to trust the wayward logic of man. This "trust-and-obey" mentality is dangerous to any progress of society. III.My Opponent"s Case -I dismiss my opponent"s case entirely. By stating that the only relevant material to this debate was concrete Biblical text and not the historical record of the Church, my opponent has effectively dismissed any impact that a charitable record may have (be it in Africa, prison, or anywhere else). The only portion of my opponent"s entire case that may be linked to Biblical teaching is the concept of charity as a virtue. This in itself is excellent- but is not a virtue exclusive to Christianity. This alone cannot defend Christianity as a source for good, especially when I have shown so many examples illustrating the harms intrinsic to Christianity and shown that charity is just as possible without the Church. This same use of my opponent"s own criterion necessary to champion this debate dismisses their entire conclusion as simple examples of good deeds by those in the church, which we have both acknowledged as irrelevant. Let us return our focus back to the actual doctrine of Christianity in these remaining rounds. I have shown the intrinsic harm of the system of ethics taught in the Bible and my opponent has failed to provide contradictory goods. As demonstrated above, Christianity is intrinsically harmful.