Christianity Exists to Control

I much appreciate my opponent's thoughtful, timely, and well written response. My opponent is accurate in stating that submission to the civil magistrate is demanded of Christians as made clear in Romans 13. It should be noted, however, that Paul did not fabricate this teaching out of thin air. The verses prior (Romans 12: 19 - 21) reiterate that Christians are not to be vengeful--that wrath belongs to God--and even that was supported by references to the Old Testament (Deut. 32:35, Prov. 25:21-22). Jesus himself clearly taught submission to the governing authorities. He "ordered the payment of taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:21), declared that the authority of the procurator, Pontius Pilate, was given to him 'from above' (John 19:11), prophetically identified the armies of Vespasian and Titus as those of God himself sent for the purpose of destroying those evil men and burning their city, the city of Jerusalem (Matthew 22:7), submitted to arrest, even illegal and unjust arrest (Matthew 26:47-56), refused to allow Peter to defend with the sword against such an outrage, and meekly accepted the death penalty itself, which the state unjustly exacted, and which Christ had ample means of avoiding (Matthew 26:53), but did not." (http://www.searchgodsword.org...). Indeed, submission to the state is taught by the founder of Christianity himself. Yet, as my opponent states, "Jesus, whatever one may believe about his holiness or lack thereof, lived with the PURPOSE in mind of spreading knowledge and wisdom." [Emphasis added.] Contrast this to his opening argument in which he says, "Christianity's REAL GOAL was to subdue and threaten people into obeying secular laws, through fear of Hell." [Emphasis added.] It seems my opponent is conflicted as to Christianity's motive. Though he undoubtedly did not intended to contradict himself, he should attempt to resolve the discrepancy in his final round. The purpose of my gun analogy in Round 1 is to draw a distinction between the intended purpose of a thing and its realized use. A screwdriver is intended to drive screws, but its handle--in the absence of a hammer--works in a pinch to pound in a nail. My opponent commits the composition fallacy by taking a teaching of Christianity and concluding that, because the teaching exists, it was designed for that purpose alone. Indeed, the Christian is taught not to kill an unjust ruler to bring perceivable peace--that vengeance belongs to God. But the intent behind the instruction is to set the Christian apart from worldly values, to identify the Christian as belonging to a greater kingdom, the Kingdom of God. The teaching is a particular tenant driven by a transcendent purpose. In order to fulfill the resolution, my opponent must provide evidence indicating that Christianity was created as a device for governments to control their people. It would be helpful, then, to cite historical documents to reflect these motives, of which my opponent has offered none. When we do turn to history, we find the opposite to be true. Christianity was resisted, condemned, or violently opposed for several centuries. In Rome, Christians were seen as upsetting the public morals in their stubborn insistence that there was One True God (http://patriot.net...) until Constantine granted them clemency. My opponent is accurate in Constantine's testimony of encountering a cross in the sky, which he used to win the moral support of the increasing number of Christians in his army. In poor fashion though my opponent then says, "What may have happened however, was that he realized the ability of a religion that offered a choice of afterlives as a powerful tool." Without proof, such statements are mere guesses. He goes on to say, "My only assertion is that Christianity, with its concept of the punishment of Hell and the eternal reward of heaven, was pushed so heavily because of its ability to control people and dissuade them from being problems to a ruler." Statements such are these are the things conspiracy theories are made of. They offer profound speculation in the absence of proof. I do hope my opponent intends to offer historical data to support his hypothesis in his closing statements. In the meantime, I urge the readers to consider heavily the sheer lack of evidence for my opponent's position juxtaposed to my citing of historical documents in refutation. Christianity exists because it's truth claims were sincerely and deeply believed, not because some rulers had the bright idea of creating a tool of control. It's purpose is to proclaim the Kingdom of God to the world. The fact that it teaches submission to state authority is circumstantial and insufficient in fulfilling the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's final arguments.