Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful- Another Attempt

I would like to begin by introducing some clarification to Con"s first paragraph establishing BOP. My assertion is not that Christianity is exclusively harmful, or that Christians only do harm. My contention is with the core doctrine that is necessarily present in all Christian practices which is undeniably harmful. In comparison, a Nazi government may be ideal to total anarchy in that it guarantees justice to some and that it benefits many within the Nazi state. However, these gains are not exclusive to Nazism, and to assert a Nazi-Anarchy dichotomy would be fallacious. This is also the case with arguments regarding the charitable and benevolent works of Christianity. Charitable works are not exclusive to the Christian church, and would likely benefit from a purely secular management (as I will explore below, in my rebuttal to Con"s constructive). I.Christianity is Oppressive To briefly address my opponent"s contention regarding whether or not a hierarchical organization is ideal, I quote from Chaz Bufe, "The indoctrination by example that Christianity provides in the area of organization is almost surely a powerful influence against social change toward freer, more egalitarian forms of organization." In regards to the subjective nature of sexual misery- I quite agree. However, Christianity places unnecessary restrictions on sex that creates sexual misery in many unnecessarily so, whereas abolishing these rigid standards in no way mandates promiscuity. The claim is not that monogamy be viewed as necessarily harmful- rather, mandated and absolute monogamy. The referenced verses in Romans seem to do quite the opposite of proving a Christian toleration towards homosexuality- in fact, it seems much more consistent with the Bible"s earlier claim that such acts are an abomination. People exercising their natural sexual desires towards members of the same sex are condemned as unnatural sinners and equated to "sinful" heterosexuals who can be viewed as "equally unnatural and abominable". This compounded condemnation should not be seen as a step away from homophobia but as a further proof of my claim regarding sexual misery, both for the directly forbidden (homosexuals) and the sexually oppressed (heterosexuals). I am shocked that my opponent can take such a weak stance towards the easy Christian dismissal of slavery. One must remember that early Christian teachings were relatively culturally radical- banning idolatry, enforcing monogamy, Sabbath law, corporal punishment, etc., and so to claim that the authors of the Bible were secretly against slavery but tampered with the word of God to be more politically acceptable is simply illogical, especially as that claim requires insight that my opponent cannot have. He additionally only mentions the Roman slave culture, ignoring the historical context in which the referenced passages regarding slavery occurred in (Exodus). My opponent claims that the Bible is not misogynistic by citing examples of "strong" female characters like Ruth. However, Ruth, Esther and Rahab are all strange examples to cite. The first two were simply portrayed as heroes for seeking out powerful husbands and somehow attaining their favor. Rahab was a prostitute who merely aided the Jews. Mary"s only true recognition comes from being a virgin and giving birth, and the additional women of the New Testament are secondary characters sent to serve men. The Bible does not speak for their equality, but recognizes their nobility in humbling themselves beneath men. In summary, if the law is written in the Bible- it is Christian. The whole of the Bible is the claimed inerrant word of god and to be followed as such. The Bible was set up to define a culture, not the opposite. II.Christianity is Unethical To claim that all ethics are necessarily subjective is an entirely separate debate from this one. I will respond by only saying that such a notion is ridiculous and dismisses any ethical validity to any argument (for I can simply deny it by claiming what"s moral for me is just different from you). If one wishes to bring an obscure historical example like Rome in 410 AD, then one cannot overlook the Crusades. This debate does not center around historical record- but the example of the Crusades certainly dismisses converse examples of "Christian benevolence" in war. That, and the Inquisition. The pride of Christianity is far more dangerous from the typical claim my opponent counters- because it masquerades behind a fa"ade of humility. Theological concepts like the salvation of the elect only scratch the surface of this. In order for a Christian to make any authoritative claim about the teaching of God, that Christian must claim to have inerrant understanding of God"s intent (insofar as the topic which is being addressed). To claim to have such supernatural knowledge, such absolute insight and such totalitarian rules while simultaneously claiming to be humble and meek is impossible and paradoxical. As far as anti-intellectualism, my opponent sites specific historical examples that have equally damning counterexamples. However, the epitome of Christian anti-intellectualism does not come from historical example of scientific denial. It comes from absolute faith- and from a belief that such faith is the highest virtue. It comes from a doctrine that teaches to envy those with "child-like" faith. The entire Christian mindset is inherently based upon conformity, warrantless belief, and the systematic denial of anything that could prove contradictory to faith as the "lies of the devil". Even as Martin Luther said, "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has." Rebuttals: I.Charity I will now elaborate a bit further on how my initially presented Nazi-Anarchy analogy applies to the concept of Christian charity. Firstly, I am sure that my opponent and I can agree that the only charitable work exclusive to the Christian community is not really charity but religious outreach. To distribute Bibles and send teams of preachers to impoverished nations is not actually charity- it takes away funds that could actually be used towards charity. These ventures exclusive to Christianity are simply furtherance of a religious agenda. The true charity, then, is secular- aided by Christians and other groups alike and exclusive to none. Now, to include the Nazi analogy. A Nazi government is ideal to no government, but is less ideal than an objectively just government. Similarly, a religious charity is better than no charity, but is less beneficial than a charity free of any agenda save altruism. However, this is not the scope of our topic. Suffice it to say that the presence of charitable work within the church in no way supports its lack of harm on the community, especially given that this work is not exclusive to the church and could actually be carried out better without the funding currently allocated to "religious needs" rather than the tangible physical ones (that generally tend to be more pressing). II.History, Prison and Africa A.History and Prison i.The Dark Ages I contend that the Dark Ages did exist. I request that my opponent supports the assertion that they did not with concrete evidence or that this claim be disregarded as explicitly fallacious. ii.Optimism Regarding Christian European Reform As I have mentioned above, the Crusades and the Inquisition are excellent counterexamples to these historical claims. Although this entire contention (or really my opponent"s entire constructive) does not actually address Biblical doctrine, these historical examples are not valid ways to prove the objective value of Christianity. iii.Prison In regards to my opponent"s claim regarding inmate rehabilitation, I ask what part of this is exclusive to Christianity that could not be instituted some other way? To suggest that Christianity has a necessary and exclusive role in the rehabilitation of inmates if simply untrue. Just as many impoverished nations turn to faith when little other luxuries are available, so it seems to be in prisons, the military, etc., B.Africa Instead of merely focusing on my previous contentions regarding the benefit of a purely secular charity, I offer the example of how the Christian involvement in Africa was actually harmful and counterproductive (an issue that a purely secular and humanitarian organization would not have had). The Catholic Church has historically instructed the HIV/AIDS impoverished nations of Africa that condoms are immoral. Without a religious agenda, this claim is obviously not only ridiculous but also dangerous and immoral. This also shows that much of the churches charity rests on the simultaneous spread of the churches" agenda. Conclusion: My opponent has not dismissed any of my contentions as false. In fact, all that my opponent has done is offered a few vaguely relevant historical examples and one questionably interpreted Biblical text. My entire case rests on the teaching extracted directly from the Bible, not on historical tradition. What the church does without the Bible is merely the danger of an organized church- not the danger of the Biblical doctrine itself. Even so, I have successfully offered relevant and damning evidence to contrast each of my opponent"s provided historical examples, while my opponent has shown no intrinsic value to Christianity and has failed to sufficiently counter my contentions regarding necessary harms.