The Central Principle of Christianity is IMMORAL

Hello Philo, I'm really glad we made it this far. Anyway I will echo your comments to the readers who may be asking, what the hell was going on here. My apologies also to any readers if you felt we went off topic slightly, or should I say a lot!My thanks to my opponent also. I think we've had a good discussion, if not debate around this topic. Obviously it was going to get into morality and belief as a whole and things went a little wayward. Thanks for sticking in also, here and in the comments.Firstly, I would just like to reiterate the topic, and what I feel was discussed or argued reasonably on both sides. Then I will attempt to rebut some of my opponents straw man arguments he made in his last round. I don't want to make this too onerous, so I will stick to the big errors that were made.The question or claim that the central principle of Christianity is immoral, has not been argued successfully by my opponent here unfortunately, and I will explain why:He states vicarious redemption or the belief in it as immoral.He says he understands in Chistianity the concept of the trinity. I had to reiterate this concept twice to my opponent, as I do not believe he really does.He still believes somehow, that in Christianity our belief that a 'man' who died a most vile death, is the subject of our veneration, and that we have some sort of bloodlust about it.He has ignored the most important concept of Christianity of that of the Trinity, and also did not therefore factor into the argument anything about Jesus' resurrection from the dead. He was God made man and exactly who He said He was and is now.Without factoring any of this into his argument, he therefore has had to either state the claim more strongly, such that I am or collectively Christians are in their belief somehow sick and twisted on top of being immoral. He still thinks Jesus was a man only. A martyr for the day, that we throw our sins off onto. It couldn't be further from the truth.Jesus was God, making an ultimate sacrifice of Himself for all of humanity, that we may somehow realise the full implications of being a man and turn to make a spritual journey towards God and away from sin. it was the full and final revelation of God to humanity.He thinks we believe that we enjoy bloodlust and martyrdom of humans for our sins. It's only the very reason that Jesus did die and was resurrected, therefore proving His ultimate divinity, that we sit up and take note and try to lead better lives throughout Jesus' example and teaching. Do we make it, no, it's impossible, but that doesn't stop us trying and believing that He will have mercy on us at the time of judgement. I feel my opponent thinks that we don't care about sin or morality as we will be forgiven anyhow. It couldn't be further from the truth unfortunately. Our aim is to realise what God has revealed to us and make every effort to make ourselves better individuals. This is how we show our love for Him. I raised the subject of altruism, which my opponent could not make any argument against. The moral criticisms just became more harsh, but no real argument, just restate his claim in 100 different ways.If the resurrection did not happen, then Christianity would be untenable and nobody would reject that. That's the point.No serious historian doubts the existence and historicity of Jesus. There are 4 main independently verified and historically proven facts in relation to Jesus. Remember historians are some of the most sceptical people.1. Jesus' burial in a tomb.2. The discovery of the empty tomb by women 3. The multiple independently attested appearances of Jesus after his death.4. The sudden belief of the apostles of Jesus' resurrection, and the meteoric rise of the early Christians throughout the lands in the Middle East and Roman empire. These are historicalfacts. Even Bart Ehrman, a pure sceptic had to come to the belief that these facts are indeed true. He however, does not believe in the resurrection as a hypotheses accounting for these facts. He doesn't seem to have any that he would himself believe in, however. Ref Bart Ehrman v WLC on youtube sometime for the full debate. So, to recap. The historicity of Jesus is not debatable. The resurrection does indeed logically account for the above 4 historical facts, and the Christian belief of Jesus' being God has some great evidence and proof. If you want to argue that essentially God is immoral, then good luck to you, as you must think of yourself as the standard to which everybody should venerate themselves. No person can ever attain those standards, but that's not the point is it. I think Satan deceived the first human with, 'you shall not surely die, yea shall be as gods' Mmm something ringing true in humanity nowadays I fear.My opponent did try to attack Christianity in general with some much beloved statistics. Quantitive analysis of widescale qualitative characters. As I noted, this is rather foolhardy. The actions of a dictatorship or those with an agenda. The best stats ever would be '9 out 10 cats prefer Whiskas' thats the best you can hope for in reality. The data collection methods, interview techniques, pre and post prison beliefs, sampling size, prisoner category, forms used and the list goes on, all need to be known. So please ignore any prisoner beliefs statistics to prove trends of the rest of society. It's kind of dishonest, but I understand how people are fooled by it.I'm not going to rebut much else in this discussion as I think you will see that most of my statements of belief have been somehow twisted and attacked in general,with no real understanding of the situation.One point I will now address to sum up my opponents use of non sequituurs and straw men arguments throughout the debate is this:I clearly stated a book I had read to do with logic and rhetoric. This book helped me seal my belief in general. It is not a religious book, but a very informative book regarding thinking skills. I stated that I believed may be children should be taught some of these skills, so that they are indeed able to think for themselves so they are not so easily deceived in their lives. Not teaching these things is immoral in a society where we all desire the best for our children and the future.My opponent has then erected a complete straw man argument, stating I desire children to be indoctrinated with religion!!. I don't know how you can make those 2 statement connect. I believe children should be taught skills so that they are not indoctrinated at all. It's called critical thinking. I believe that religion or belief should be out of the domain of school. Creation and origin is a deeply personal belief and a right, and therefore evolution should not be taught as a science when dealing with these beliefs. You have no idea how insulting it must be to Christian parents or children do you? It is complete attempted indoctrination of atheist belief in a quasi-scientific cloak, and you still don't see it.Let me explain. A Christian believes in the divine creation, as observable by anyone and everyone. You can't prove anything in science about origin. You won't. You can make up a godless theory, in a scientific guise of course and palm it off as such. The bible (Jesus/ God) says this 'But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea' Matthew 18.So, no indoctrination EITHER way.You will understand it one day I'm sure and I hope.This has been really good and I would like to thank my opponent who did his best to wrestle the argument away from the topic. I think you will agree that his claim has not been argued successfully on this occasion. He has not shown in any way how that stated belief is immoral, and has had to resort to religious generalisations to try and prove his point. I don't think he even knows why he thinks its immoral. Take care and God bless.