RESOLVED: Christianity is Beneficial to the Individual Man

"For the opponent to win this debate, he has to prove to us that Christianity is beneficial for all individuals that practice it, rather than most." Are you SERIOUSLY going to do that?! Okay, but this will only be fair if you make a distinction between true Christianity and Pseudo-Christianity. My opponent has claimed that Pseudo-Christians are Christians, but this is not true. Definition of Christian: Someone who has accepted the Biblical gift of Salvation in order to be saved from Hell, which is the penalty for Death. Definition of Christianity: Christlikeness, including living according to the principles and commandments of Jesus Christ, and having a Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ. So, I admit that the Crusaders may have accepted this Gift of Salvation. This makes them Christian. But they slaughtered men, women, and children. Thus, they did not practice Christianity. Since my opponent has resorted to the game of semantics, adding in the phrase "All" where it is not found in the debate title, I hope he doesn't mind if I do so as well. The title of this debate is CHRISTIANITY is Beneficial to the Individual Man. Not "Being a Christian is Beneficial to the Common Man." Now, being Christian and accepting Salvation is super important, as it allows Christ to save your soul. Also, you cannot have Christianity unless you are a Christian. HOWEVER, being a Christian and practicing Christianity do not always go hand in hand. This is why the Crusaders being Christians does not negate this debate. This having been said, I will move on to further rebuttals. Postulate 1. That an Afterlife Exists "Firstly, the psychological theory that states that soul exists is called psychological dualism; the problem of the soul"s existence is called the mind-body problem. First elaborated, at least formally, by Descartes, this theory is still under intense debate from neurologists, psychologists and philosophers from all over the world. Dualism is easily disproven by the mere fact that the brain, in its entirety, creates consciousness; neurons transmit electronic charges of a certain degree to allow the body to sense, feel, touch etc. This in turn creates consciousness; we are not here, however, to refute this postulate. If the opponent chooses to continue to assume, and possibly defend this postulate, then this case will be continued in the next rounds." Heh. My opponent makes the claim that the existence of the soul is "easily disproven" by the brain. But he's about to find that it's not quite that easy to disprove the soul's existence. The brain "creating consciousness" can be explained with the following theory: Imagine that your soul exists in another reality. From that reality your soul is "connected" to the human brain in this dimension. The brain is the representative of the real you, in a sense. As long as this connection between the soul in another reality and the brain in this reality persists, your thoughts are in this dimension. To "represent" you, your brain here uses neurons. If something in your brain goes wrong, your brain cannot adequately represent your consciousness. When your brain ceases to function, the connection is broken and you exist in another life. My opponent may object to this by pointing out that there is no evidence of such a "connection". However, if the connection is caused by something spiritual (not of this dimension), then it would go beyond the laws of this Universe to discover this connection. I invented it (I think), and thus I get to name it. It shall henceforth be known as the "Connection Theory". Now, what I just did is point out that the brain does not disprove the soul. HOWEVER, that does not prove the existence of the soul either, kind of like how God has been neither proven nor disproven. But as further evidence for the soul we can look towards supernaturalism. Supernatural things that cannot be explained by science are quite possibly outside of the boundaries of this Universe. Let's take some supernatural things. As I mentioned in the previous round, there is the Bible's track record for 100% accuracy in regards to prophecy. The only prophecies unfulfilled are those pertaining to the End of Days, which, if they'll happen in the End of Days, is understandable why they haven't come to pass yet. Look back at my link on the list of End of Days Biblical Prophecies and you'll find that many of them have been fulfilled. Granted, there are ones talking about things which are basic to human nature (such as "there'll be wars and rumors of wars" and "there'll be increased sexual immorality"). However, there are also prophecies which are not stuff that would've come true regardless. IN FACT, what my opponent said about countless people abandoning Christianity was also prophesied, in the Book of 1st Timothy, Chapter 4, Verse 1. http://biblia.com... What does this prove? Well, it may not PROVE anything, but it shows that the Bible is very likely to be the True Word of God and that Christianity is the One True Religion. If Christianity is true, the soul must exist. In his next round, I ask my opponent to mention one Biblical prophecy which has been proven false. Postulate 2. That something being true means it"s more beneficial So my opponent says that even if Christianity is true, it still isn't necessarily beneficial. Well, if Christianity is true, then what the Bible says about Salvation and Damnation, Heaven and Hell, and an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Omnipresent, All-Loving, Completely Just God MUST be true. That means that if the Bible is true, then accepting the Gift of Salvation is 100% beneficial. 2R1NRC (What the Heck Does That Mean?): On Deaths By Chritianity "The opponent seems to sketch some arguments for me; "crusaders, Carlists, Catholics, and Christian Murderers" have killed millions of people. But he then states that these aren"t "true Christian" accordingly to the definition. However, this is a false claim. From the opponent"s two fundamental points of Christianity, he does not say anything about killing. In fact, the Crusaders had a more active spiritual life than many other Christians at the time; during a siege in the First Crusade, they charged into victory after seeing the armies of St. John riding and defeating the "Pagan Mob" They thoroughly believed that recapturing the Holy City was a ticket to heaven, and that God spoke to them. The Crusaders prayed more than an ordinary Cardinal, and the opponent seems to accept that a Cardinal is a "true Christian" in this sense. And yes, Christianity has killed millions of people; from the pogrom mobs of the 13th Century to the Rwandan Massacres, Christianity has been the covert cause of killing all over the world. [2]" Okay, I admit that the Crusaders may have been Christian (that is, they accepted the Gift of Salvation). However, it does not mean that they practiced Christianity, which makes all the difference. I am a Christian, but that does not mean that I always practice Christianity (sad, but true; I am very much so imperfect and sinful). Had they practiced Christianity, they would not have killed civilians. Jesus said, "Blessed Are the Peacemakers, for they will be called Children of God." He also said "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." http://biblehub.com... Now, if Christ said not to strike back in revenge, don't you think that He would object to killing innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever? 2R2NRC: Statistics, Probability and Miracles "The opponent uses the theory of miracles and cites four personal testimonies; firstly, we have to treat this as if it were a legal case. There are several things that influence a personal testimony. The most important factor effecting testimonial evidence is the memory loss theory; others may be confirmation bias and misattribution. But memory loss is a key intake; a study was done via testimonies of car crash. Studying them, subjects who used the words "crashed" were more likely to say that the windows broke than subjects who used the word "bumped" or "smashed" Take the memory curve theory into account. From a legal perspective; the larger the phenomenon, the more testimonies is needed. Why is this? Say you flip a coin; theoretically, there should be a 50-50 balance between heads and tails. However, there are in some cases that one would get an imperfect balance; for example, when one flips the coin 24 times and receives 18 heads and 6 tails, this is called an outlier. But if we flip the coins 500 times, this would give us what we call "theoretical equilibrium" in which the theoretical expectation is reached. Statistically, for Christianity to have delivered, in a divine manner, many from impending crises, millions of testimonies; valid, real, and confirmation bias free testimonies." Confirmation bias? You're telling me that people don't quite remember what happened when they became freed of a drug addiction? I was hoping that my opponent would use an argument based on the "Placebo Effect." That is, their religion was just their motivator or just one motivator out of several, but it wasn't miraculous at all. Even if this is so, Christianity serving as a motivator still helped them, meaning that it is beneficial. Then, my opponent mentions increased apostasy. What I have to say is that these people became Christians (or maybe they didn't), but they never experienced Christianity. My opponent went further, but frankly I am running short on characters. Therefore, I will stop here and hopefully I'll be able to get back on whatever I missed in my next round. I give the podium back to my opponent. Good luck to you!