Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful- Another Attempt

To start. I didn't say Pro must prove that it is either of those things. Just that it produces a net harm. If he can't show that it's bad outweighs it's good, he can't prove it's intrinsically harmful. He must also prove the harm is intrinsical to the religion, not the people or era.Rebuttal I: Oppression.A hierarchic organization isn't a bad setup. But if the voters deem that it's a matter of opinion, than Pro would lose, as Pro must prove objectively that it's harmful. Are hierarchic organizations intrinsically harmful? Every government is a hierarchic organization to a degree, as are most companies. Charities as well, and sports teams. In reality, the Catholic Church was built upon Roman culture, and the organizational standard that church set is not intrinsic to the religion.Most restrictions Christianity imposes on sexuality are in place because they believe those activities are immoral. You can't claim something is harmful because you subjectively find their beliefs immoral. You must prove they are objectively immoral and are harmful restrictions. The idea that restrictions on what you can do in bed is so bad that it produces true misery and harm is based on an exaggeration of how important odd forms of sex is. Especially when many of the restrictions (I.E. no sex before marriage) are scientifically beneficial (1). And Pro's claim about Homosexuality relies on the idea that thinking an action is bad is the same as thinking the person doing the act is bad. This isn't true. I believe homosexuality is wrong, and let two of my closest friends on here are YYW and BSH1. The verses, if read in order, says that despite how they believe these actions are wrong, we are not to hate or judge the people involved. The idea that Christians hate homosexuals is based only on popular misconception.Regarding slavery. It was culturally acceptable to agree with all those things. Disagreeing with slavery, however, was different. And pro attempts to misrepresent the claim to fit her narrative. "tampered with the word of God" is a corrupted way of referring to what the writers did. Pro must understand that the letters that were written to the Greeks and Romans about slavery was not "tempered with." They were just letters, and they aimed to make life better for slaves. It's not illogical to do what they did... Compromise is an intelligent method to accomplishing change. The church couldn't abolish slavery (only an idiot thinks they could) so they made laws to make life better and fairer for slaves at the time. I've shown that the church has a record with slavery that Pro doesn't counter.Ruth and Ester's stories are oversimplified by pro to make them sound bad, when the real point of the stories was that the women were strong, and supported each other in a time when not having a husband at Ruth's age was like not owning a house in winter. Just because Rehab was a prostitute doesn't mean she doesn't important in the text. And regarding Mary, pro lacks context. Mary and other women supported Jesus's ministry and was the backbone of his operation. When Jesus was resurrected, he shown himself to the women first, in a time when women weren't qualified as witnesses. Women like Deborah, Esther, Huldah, Jochebed, Hannah, Noadiah, Rachel, Rebekah, Ruth, Rahab, Miriam, and Sarah played important and decisive roles in Israel's history.You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NIV, Galatians 3:26-29) (2)Just like in R2, pro thinks that because you can see the misogynism in the cultural context, that the bible must condone it (person A beats his wife in the Bible, not because the bible allows it, but because the bible is historical text, and doesn't censor the culture of the time.) The bible aimed entire books to show the strength of women.Rebuttal II: Ethic.Pro is literally saying that because the topic could be debated, I can't use the fact against her. But I can. Ethics is mostly subjective, and depends on the viewer. Pro ONLY claims that this view is ridiculous but does nothing to back that claim. Ethics and morality are subjective. This is an established status quo, and if Pro wants to claim it's not, he has BOP. Pro most prove objectively that Christianity in unethical.Pro seems to have ignored my case that Pride is considered a sin in Christianity, and Christians are taught to not have pride. To claim that the Bible promotes a concept it has only ever demoted is illogical. No, Pro confuses what causes pride... Human Nature promotes pride, the bible demonizes it."When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom." Proverbs 11:2 (3)"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18. (4)If Pro wants to accuse a book of something, he should show it in the context.Pro concludes his claim with a strongly flawed principle. The Bible says to have full faith in God... it says nothing about having illogical full faith in whatever other believe you have. Pro is pulling a strawman. Misrepresenting what the Bible says about faithfulness. Claiming that Christians must be faithful in God and in every single thing we believe, ever... Is the sun yellow? No? Too bad, my faithfulness prevents me from believing. However, that's not what the Bible says. I'll deal with the rest of this in the Dark Ages rebuttal.Rebuttal III: Charity.I do not agree with Pro's assertion. Christian charity is often done to better lives, not spread religion. Of course they spread what they consider salvation, but that's not the end goal.Pro claims that because some of the funds for charity goes to sending over Bibles and Preachers, that it's not charity. No, it's all charity, even if some has to pay for other side features. And pro never shown just what percent of funds go to sending over bibles and preachers. It should be understood that Preachers are only different from normal volunteers in that they are qualified to teach as well. They do work and contribute also, so Pro's claim is mute. And if Pro would read over my prior source in R2, he'd see that the writer mentioned that those who converted to Christianity say stronger peace of mind and were more active and happy. So spreading Christianity has helped many people in Africa.It's better to donate through a religion because, despite the extra costs (which a Christian wouldn't deem bad to began with), the Church still gives back a larger portion to charity than secular charities who have to work through Governments. Federal Aide and donations that have to run through governments in Africa have often led only to larger problems in those nations (5). Christian charities run separate of the Government, and send the work and funds directly to the location that needs it.Pro claims Charity from religious groups isn't effective using only a bit of rhetoric, but the International Review of the Red Cross (6), the Oxford Journal (7), and the anti-religious Matthew Parris visiter to Africa disagree with her unsourced observation (8)(from R2.)Rebuttal III: Dark Ages.The Dark Ages are a myth. The term was coined by a Roman who considered the era dark only because Rome had finally fell. In reality, the era was like any other, and as my source will say (much to Pro's loss):"It is also in this period that the Roman Catholic Church became the sole political and social authority, filling that which was once occupied by Rome. In doing sothe Church practically guaranteed social cohesion, provided health services since the monks preserved classical medical knowledge, and kept classical learning alive in its monasteries andabbeys. The Church preserved literacy among its clergy." -Acedemia (9)The Dark Ages was a name founded without a footing in reality. And it's all thanks to Christianity.Regarding the Crusades and the Inquisition... The Inquisition was a product of it's time, not a product of Christianity. The Crusades was a product of politics. Not religion. The war started because of the constant invasions of Byzantine by the aggressive Turks. The Turks, in turn, came into the region after their population grew too large to maintain near China (10). It wouldn't matter if Europeans weren't Christian. The idea of fighting in the name of God was more a ploy to unite Europe against someone other than themselves. And even then, only the First Crusade was tied to religion in any notable way. The rest were fighting to maintain as much victory as possible. Some didn't even include a second Religion.And Pro is wrong about my source... It doesn't list off negative effects of Christianity. It lists off issues caused only by the religion's lack of resources right away. Rebuttal IV: PrisonIt's not the availability of Christianity in Prison that makes it work. It's the principles behind Christianity that make it work. Few other things have the intrinsically rehabilitating powers of a Religion. And Pro's argument here is fallacous. You can't say that because something great isn't exclusive, that Christianity isn't good for accomplishing that something. That's not how one argues intrinsical harm... If anything, Pro conceded to the fact that Christianity seems to have this healing power that people in bad situations can turn to for help.Rebuttal V: Africa.I dealt with this in Charity.Conclusion: Pro has to show an intrinsical harm in the Religion itself to win. And that instrinsical harm must outwiegh the intrinsical benefits. I've shown that Christianity has done a lot for Europe after the fall of Rome, and stopped the Dark Ages, opposed Slavery, and is a healing factor in millions of lives. As well as the most effective forms of Charity in Africa.Christianity is a beneficial force in the world.Sources: http://tny.cz...