The Christian Religion is a Below Average Religion Morally

My opponent did exactly as was expected, choosing verses from the Bible and actions done by proclaimed Christians to say Christianity is an immoral religion.I can provide some more.Psalm 137:9 is pretty nasty.Numbers 31 is horrifying.Exodus 21 is terrible.I'm well aware of the terrible, immoral passages in the Bible. They are certainly there. But the question isn't about the Bible, the question is about Christianity as a religion.My opponent pretty clearly doesn't understand my argument. //Saying that we should ignore all the bad things which occur within the Bible and which have been done by Christians just because Jesus said to love your enemies// That is not what I am saying at all. We should not ignore the bad parts. I'm saying that:1) Christianity, historically, is defined by the Norman Normans, a set of authorities together that create Christianity. This includes tradition, Scripture, creeds, reason, bishops, liturgy, etc. This is the definition of Christianity set up by historical and modern Christianity. You can find a little more about this with this journal article from Harvard: https://www.jstor.org...2) The Bible's interpretation religiously, divergent from historical-critical studies, is Pesher. Pesher is a cultural tradition which is found in places like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christ's words in the Gospels, and Galatians 4:24. You can find out more about Pesher interpretation here: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... This does not mean ignoring the bad and taking in the good. This means applying a certain hermeneutic that is spiritualized and relates to the modern world. I myself use a liberation theology hermeneutic in terms the Pesher tradition when I approach the Bible.There's a clarification if my opponent would wish to address this. Specifically, he would have to address why the Norman Normans is not the formulator of Christianity, against all historical backing and modern discussion, and why it is only restricted to what the Bible says and how some Christians act.******Rebuttals:Addressing my opponents point, he does some very odd things.1) My opponent ignores the historical-critical method. My opponent makes several elementary mistakes when looking at the Bible historically. Taking a historical view of it, which is admirable and important, must mean making correct claims* My opponent claims Paul wrote 1 Timothy. This is complete folly to the modern scholar who regards it as pseudepigraphy. You can read more about that here: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk...* My opponent also claims Christ spoke certain words: "In Matthew 10:34 Jesus says..." yet he also says "he almost certainly did not say 'love your enemy as yourself.' " First, that's not even in the Gospels, what my opponent says is a conflation of two different sayings of Jesus. "Love your enemies" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." The issue here, however, is that my opponent doesn't use the historical-critical method to establish why Jesus said one thing over another. The 300 non-Christian scholars of the Jesus Seminar in its commentary "The Five Gospels," would vehemently disagree with my opponent's claims. In order to make these claims, my opponent must show why they are all wrong.* My opponent says "It is dubious as to whether or not he as a person ever existed." Mythicism, the idea that Jesus never existed as a person, is a fringe theory most scholars see as a conspiracy theory. Bart Ehrman, the Agnostic professor of New Testament at UNC Chapel Hill, wrote an entire book disputing it. https://www.amazon.com...If my opponent wants to use historical-critical methods to attack Christianity, he must use them correctly. I would ask my opponent to then use the historical-critical method of his choice to establish why Jesus never said something like or exactly "Love your enemies" or "Love your neighbor as yourself," especially since it is established in the earliest sources through independent attestation, especially in Q, Thomas, and Mark. 2) My opponent makes false claims about other religions. My opponent makes claims that religions like Buddhism or Hinduism "support peace almost exclusively." Yet, he claims Christianity does not say so, despite multiple passages of Christ which he ignores without applying the historical-critical method. In order to make this claim, he must apply the historical-critical method to Matthew 5:38-48, which I challenged him to do above. In the next round, I will use the historical-critical method to confirm this as an utterance of the historical Jesus.Here are examples of violence by the groups described which often do, in fact, promote and institute violence and human rights violations.HinduismTerrible Hindu Practices:Burning the widow of a dead husband alive: https://en.wikipedia.org...(practice)Child Sacrifice: http://www.news24.com...Gang Rape Punishments: http://www.npr.org...Caste System and the "Untouchables" https://www.britannica.com...Hindu Terrorism and Religious Violence:https://hudson.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...And let us not forget that the Hindu scriptures are often centered around war and conquest, great violent wars BuddhismBuddhism is an ugly thing in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. The Buddhist government and religious adherents stamps out other religions and terrorism against other religions is rife. https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.bbc.com...http://world.time.com...Indeed, any religion can be, as my opponent even said of Christianity, "used to justify killings." That does not mean the religion itself is evil, just that it is being used by evil people to justify evil things.Summary and Challenge to opponentMy opponent must address:1) Why, against all historical and modern definitions, is merely the Bible and actions of some Christians deemed to be Christianity itself? Why is the Norma Normans not a good definition?2) Why, using the historical-critical method to back up your claims of history, did Jesus use apocalyptic language and not speak the statements of love recorded in Q and Mark?3) Why are the actions of Christians defining for Christianity as a religion, but not for Buddhism and Hinduism? I certainly don't think Hinduism and Buddhism are evil religions just because they have been used justify terrible things. I await my opponent's response before the final round.