christianity is a force for good in the world

To clear up any confusion, in my earlier arguments I did not imply that what members of the church did was not wrong, rather I said that if an "organisation" was "evil" as my opponent has termed them, they would not have apologised. Once again in regards to Galileo, putting him under house arrest was unjust, but the church's foundational contribution to his education has resulted in an amazing scientific legacy. This good is mirrored millions and millions of times over with the education provided to other scientists (Christian and non-Christian alike) and the general population. Even my opponent is constructing his arguments from skills that he no doubt learnt from his education in well regarded religious school. If the Church is an "Evil organisation" as my opponent suggested it really needs to get it's mission statement revised and circulated. Its members who are feeding the poor, assisting prostitutes, providing health care and teaching children have not yet got the memo and are continuing to be a force for good. There is no organisation or country that has been around for two millenia that doesn't have some questionable history - Humans are apt to err - State run orphanages fair no better in regards to abuse of children for example (1), neither do nation states when engaging in war or colonisation - it is systematic of the nature of humans. The Church is part of Christianity, my opponent is raising points that demonstrate that the church and its members have done wrong in the past - this is not in dispute. But the question at hand asks if Christianity is a force for good and my opponent has not refuted the fact that the health care, the education, the assistance to the poor that Christians and their institutions provide is not good My opponent has also failed to refute that western democracies that fully embrace the main aspects of Christian teaching - even when this is done within a secular context - are the happiest and wealthiest countries in the world. When nations expand on what Christianity has established, social welfare, health care and education, nations thrive. My opponent has conceded the point that abstinence is an effective form of infection control - this is a scientifically verified precaution and this is what the Catholic church has advised people to do. African truck drivers (Africa does have trucks) do not give too hoots what the Pope says - if they heard him at all. If they are not going to listen to the Pope in regards to not cheating on their wives, they are not going to listen to what he says about condoms. As mentioned above, my opponent has already conceded that the Pope's good advice is effective in stopping the spread of STD's. Re Buddhists, the originality of Jesus's teaching does not negate the benefit of it and it being a force for good Having sins forgiven does not mean that you don't accept responsibility for them - you reap what you sow. Having a feeling of redemption, and freely forgiving others leaves your conscious clearer than it would be otherwise, better enabling you to move forward in life without bitterness and regret that can plague and tarnish all future decisions and relationships you make. Not having this peace of mind means that you could live a personal hell and not enjoy the best (and only) life you can. I am unsure why my opponent believes one would have baggage with Christianity - you either believe and you get all the benefits of the club. If you choose not to believe in Christianity, the existence of hell is not a threat. One of the reasons Jesus was killed was that his teachings were counter intuitive and controversial. My opponent appears offended by the mere suggestion of being free with forgiveness and loving your enemy when this is the most effective ways of dealing with conflicts long term. If we look at all the international hot spots, or our own personal hot spots, continuing hostilities only makes things worse. The cycle of violence and hate continues from generation to generation. This is the inter generational evil that Christian doctrine is designed to negate. Fundamentalism and legalism never result in good outcomes, and this is once again Jesus's strength - he cut through the legalism of the day and lays out some pretty easy guidelines. It is still surprising that people get it so wrong to fuel their own selfish desires. It is conveniently logically inconsistent for my opponent to attribute the bad things Christians do, to their faith, whilst attributing the good things to only the goodness in their heart. The fact that my opponent is not surprised that it will be "religious types" that have founded recently established secular organisations - some targeted specifically towards atheists - speaks volumes about the good Christianity creates and the almost unconscious expectation that they would do such things. It is no coincidence that countries such as Yemen and Bangladesh are in the state they are in. As my opponent has demonstrated as they continue to enact the same policies that Christian organisations have established via improved education, provision of social services and health care we will continue to see their well being increase in leaps and bounds. In regards to the two quotes that have been used: "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" This first one is often used and quite tiresome really. All manner of things can make "good" people do evil things...greed, jealousy, race, nationality, language, land, money, political and economic views, even the football team they support. When you have so many other factors at play, it becomes difficult to categorically determine that actions are religiously motivated. More to the point it is generally bad people using religion or their position in that religion as a lever to justify their actions. Just as the Pharisees did that Jesus consistently rebuked, and what ISIS are doing currently. In regards to the Rust Chole/ Matthew Mcconaughey quote Even if a person is deemed a "piece of sh*t" for their motivations, their motivations are causing them to do good and thus this aptly demonstrates how Christianity is a force for good. This quote written another way would read "for evil people (ie "pieces of sh*t") to do good, that takes religion" In relation to the Hitchens challenge it is also a tiresome bit of rhetoric. Of course if you are a believer and hold beliefs that non believers don't, you could commit an act that you may deem un-ethical or immoral. But if we are talking from a standpoint of absolute morality this doesn't apply. If moral absolutism is not considered, the challenge is still quite meaningless as a non- believer can do the very same thing as a believer, with the exact same outcomes - but one is considered moral, the other not despite the identical external impacts of their actions. The question posed puts a higher standard of behaviour forward for the believer. My opponent would make a more convincing argument by not relying on easily dismissed sound bites. Those that have a distaste for religion tend to swallow these up hook line and sinker with no critical thought simply as they play to and reinforce their own prejudices. Stem cell research is an entirely different debate topic in itself, but considering that governments have legislation in place to control aspects of this research suggests that there are very real ethical considerations. It is understandable that the church would have similar valid concerns to ensure that the ends does not justify a questionable means. In regards to "hiccups", all through this debate I have not denied that Christians have done harm and have not tried to justify these actions or excuse them. Just as the immeasurable good that Christianity has done does not diminish the harm certain individuals have felt - similarly these chapters in the Church's history do not diminish the fact that Christianity has been, and continues to be, a significant force for good in the world. 1. http://mobile.abc.net.au...