Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful- Another Attempt

As we enter into this final round, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking my opponent for an excellent debate. I am glad to have had the opportunity to explore this topic at greater length in this way. I.A Fundamental Misunderstanding Regarding the BOP -My opponent uses the example of the minimal harms of oxygen being canceled out by its benefits (necessity for existence, in this case) as an example for why Christianity's harms are canceled out by its propensity to do some good. This is not only fallacious but misses the point of my Nazi-Anarchy dichotomy presented above. To remedy this error I will adopt my opponent's example of oxygen in the hopes that all is clarified. Breathing oxygen is harmful to the extent that it leads to oxidization of cells but we continue to breathe it- why? We continue breathing oxygen because we have no alternative. If we had a perfect alternative to oxygen that only eliminated this negative oxidization, any person who continued breathing oxygen would surely be proclaimed a fool. We may take this line of reasoning now to the debate at hand. Were Christianity (with all its aforementioned harms) the exclusive method of charity or some other necessary good, then perhaps we might accept it. However, eliminating Christianity does not eliminate charity- it merely eliminates the harms of Christianity and makes charity a religion-free enterprise. II.Denial of My Contentions Without Direct Address to Them -My opponent mentions prescriptive and descriptive text. I am not naive enough to mistake emotional exposition with the proclaimed "commands of god"". When I mention slavery, I do not refer to the historical account of slave keeping. I refer to the legal system mandated under the name of "God"" that justifies slavery and, worse still, slave abuse (if such a statement is not immediately redundant). I do not refer to the misogyny and homophobia from a cultural vantage point, but from laws labeling homosexuality "an abomination"" and commandments that place women as inferior to men. My opponent's point is, while accurate in itself, inapplicable to my case. III.Oppression a.Whether or not hierarchy existed before Christianity does not dismiss the face that this model is prescribed by the Christian texts. It also does not matter how widely accepted it has become, or within how many aspects of life it has become implemented. My contention of necessary inequality associated with this system remains unaddressed. b.I do not advocate an objective morality in this case. I merely point out that if morality is as subjective as my opponent claims, then surely it is dangerous for any organization (especially one as globalized as the Christian church) should implement one absolute moral code. My opponent proceeds to explain how some churches welcome gays and how allegedly all welcome women with "immoral"" pasts. It is already absurd that we must make a distinction between women who have had only sex within marriage and "immoral"" ones. As if to prove my point, this week New Hope Ministries made a funeral party move a casket bearing a deceased lesbian woman outside of their church during the scheduled time of ceremony for no other crime than her sexual orientation. I know that we are disregarding historical example, but this simply proves that my opponent's presented concept of a welcoming church is far from universal, even today. c.In my definition, I have made perfectly plain that Christianity was the religion which was "based on the Bible as sacred scripture""- not simply the New Testament. I have made the important differentiation between prescriptive and descriptive text above, but I will advance this point more powerfully still. Not only is slavery defended in Old Testament law, but my opponent claims that Christianity would have failed if it had tried freeing the slaves. This is mind numbing on many planes. The church was not a radical revolutionary agent in the freeing of slaves in this recent time, but let us look to what we are debating- the Biblical text. The slaves in question are not slaves of some Gentile culture that the Jews are observing- these laws are for the slaves of the Jews! Even if one could claim that the Israelites had to be political within their own society, these laws are implemented directly following an account of God sending twelve devastating plagues on Egypt, killing every firstborn son of the Egyptians and then parting a sea for the newly freed Jews to cross. If this action could be taken to free Jewish slaves, surely it would be a strange stance to take in claiming that the Exodus culture was limited by political pleasantries. d.I fail to agree with my opponent's example of Ruth. I am quite familiar with the text- Ruth is among the poor and widowed women of the community who must follow the harvesters in the field and pick up any overlooked surplus. Boaz "generously"" left some extra for her. Following this, Ruth lays at the foot of Boaz's bed, hoping that he will take her as a wife when he finds her there. These stereotypes are not ideal, but that is the weaker of my contentions regarding misogyny. My opponent has consistently failed to address my strong claims of the Biblical teachings "wives must submit themselves to their husbands" and that women "must be silent in the churches". The time has passed for new evidence, and the fact that these two testaments to Christian misogyny stand seems quite telling. IV.Ethics -I feel that no extensive rebuttal is required when my opponent's ethical defense features claims regarding the "subjectivity of the moral need for women's equality and general liberty". These are not popular claims- these are fundamental human rights. If my opponent cannot embrace even this in the defense of Christianity then my proposition of Christianity's intrinsic harm is proven further. -I did not intend to give the appearance of claiming Christian's bragged or were explicitly proud (i.e., "I'm better than you""). I speak of the intrinsic pride that comes when claiming to absolutely know the inerrant will of God. Claiming this divine knowledge absolutely is surely a sign of deeply internal pride- though admittedly not intentional. It is simply the consequence of any absolute faith. -My contention with anti-intellectualism does not claim that all persons of faith are necessarily unintelligent. There are obvious counterexamples, as listed by my opponent. The teaching that proves my point is best summarized by Proverbs 3:5- "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding"". It is this adamant denial of the world of reason when it comes to matters of faith and (by extension) the morality taught by the texts of said faith that is anti-intellectual. To conclude this point by quoting Jesus in Matthew 11:25- "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." V.The Dismissal of My Opponent's Case -My opponent is directly self-contradictory. No goalpost has been shifted. In fact, I only dropped my opponent after my opponent stated, "He must also prove the harm is [intrinsical] to the religion, not the people or era." When we remove the human element from the proposition, as will be done when we look to the religion itself and not the variety of both goods and atrocities committed since the Bible's publication, as is mandated by our mutually agreed upon exclusion of the people and era, we are left merely with the harms of Biblical doctrine. This obviously dismisses my opponent's constructive, as all claims presented were related to post-Biblical church history and not directly to Biblical doctrine. As my opponent states, we are debating the "religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture"". This being the case, the only truly relevant source is the teachings of this Bible. I trust that the concession of these historic examples by my opponent's own criterion for the debate will be obvious to potential voters, and I will leave it with all the aforesaid to their judgment. Conclusion: I have successfully shown that Christianity is intrinsically harmful. I have shown that the harm Christianity entails produces no good exclusive to the Christian faith, which leads to the logical conclusion of Christianity's unnecessary propensity for harm as sufficient evidence against it. I have illustrated this by showing that Christianity is unethical in many respects- most notably the intrinsic promotion of gender inequality and general injustice. Coupled with this, I have shown that Christianity promotes oppression. It is for all of these reasons, and for the continuous lack of concrete refutation above, that you must vote Pro. Thank you.