Christianity Is Intrinsically Harmful- Another Attempt

To start, I would like to establish that the BOP is entirely on Pro. Pro's claim is one of hypothetical assumption, placing the need to prove that assumption upon him. Pro doesn't just have to prove that Christianity has done some harm, but that the world would be better without it. If Pro can't establish this, Pro can't affirm the resolution. If the removal of Christianity has no effect, or a negative effect, then we know Christianity's existence wasn't harmful. Rebuttal I: Christianity is Oppressive. We find that Pro Assumes Christianity models "hierarchical authoritarian organization". .. Pro claims this is bad, but doesn't aim to prove why. Many people believe authoritarianism is good, and a hierarchical system is not intrinsically bad. .. Christianity also models none of these. The Catholic Church may be a hierarchical organization, but that doesn't make it bad, or imply that Christianity is the sum of a few of it's parts. To adress Pro's claim of sexual misery, we should establish that 'sexual misery' is rather subjective. What you deem to be misery, I deem to be moral and pleasant. Christianity isn't homophobic. It has no fear of gay people, and in the New Testament, we actually find that Paul condemns the judging of others, listing gay people as one such type of people we shouldn't judge. Paul, in Romans 1, lists a number of types of sinners, and in Romans 2, condemns the judging of these people, claiming it to be hypocritical (1). The Bible doesn't condemn Gay People, even if it condemns homosexuality. This is a common myth, when in fact, the Church is taught to welcome everyone, even gay people. Pro claims the Bible promotes slavery, but excludes cultural context. The Bible didn't promote slavery, it simply placed down laws that benefited the slave. The writers of the bible were against slavery, but since slavery was so intertwined in the Roman culture, banning slavery would have had a largely negative effect. They choose, instead, to promote laws to protect slaves. While to us, laying down these laws would be seen as backwards, at the time, it was revolutionary and was a progressive stance to take. The Church was a major player in the opposition against slavery. As early as the 800's, Christians began opposing slavery publically. The Church's record with Slavery is shocking for the time, and was one of the most progressive forces in the world in regards to slaves rights and freedoms (2). The bible is not misogynist. .. The culture back then was, and so we see misogynism written in the context, but the bible itself actually puts a huge spotlight on the power of women of the era. Such examples include the entire book of Ruth, as well as the postition of women in the Gospels. The Gospels were known for the influence women had in Jesus's ministry. Women were very important in the Bible, and played a major role in the Church. Pro is confusing the cultural misogynism of Rome and Medieval Europe as being founded in religion. One problem Pro has is that he must prove that the harmful doctrines he brings up is Christian, and not just a cultural doctrine of the times. [1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[]Rebuttal II: Christianity is Unethical. To start. Ethics is subjective. What Pro deems unethical, someone else might deem moral. Pro makes several claims here, such as the Church being a force of fear, and preying on the innocent. Actually, the Church played a large role in preaching peace. This isn't just christian rhetoric, either. During the sacking of Rome in 410 AD, the Visogoths largely left the city intact, and most everyone alive. The sacking was considered one of, if not the, most peaceful sacking in ancient history. Why was the sacking of Rome by a vicious Germanic tribe so peaceful? They had prior became Christian (3). Christianity took over much of the Germanic tribes becuse they were sick of fighting Rome and found Christianity's peaceful doctrine to be much better than their pro-war doctrines. Christianity also served to aid the poor and innocent more so than any group at the time, possibly only tied with by Hinduism. The Church was responsible for most charity in the Middle Ages, and contributed more to the poor than any other group in European history, before and after (4). The Church was single-handedly the greatest force for good in Medieval Europe, and some even believe it was responsible for an increased life expectancy in Rome. Much of what Pro claims after that is about hierarchy and authoritarianism, which we discussed in Rebuttal I. The church isn't egocentric, but actually preaches against pride, deeming it the source of all sin. The church was also unique for it's acceptance of new members from other groups. Prior, the Jews excluded Gentiles from joining, but the Christians who came from Jewish backgrounds were taught to accept all people. This is seen in the vast number of cultures and peoples who were accepted into the Church. This is the opposite of "chosen-people mentality. " Christianity also preaches against dishonesty. As for anti-intellectualism. .. The Church single-handedly preserved Roman knowledge and books after the fall of Rome. The Church built massive monasteries where they preserved and copied down books, preserving knowledge that they would later teach and distribute via Universities. Most ancient European universities, such as Harvard, Oxford, and Yale, were built and paid for by the Church. The Church played a major role in science at that time (5). Technological harm done to Europe was caused by the Fall of Rome, not the Rise of the Church. The feud between Science and Christianity arose due to disagreements on how the Earth was created and because of the removal of religion from school, not because of some instrinsically bad feature of Chirstianity. The church and science are not exclusive, and have a long history of working together. Pro never touches on issues 18-20. Although none of them has anything to do with if the bible is intrinsically harmful. [3] . http://tinyurl.com...[4] . http://tinyurl.com...[5] . http://tinyurl.com...[]Argument I: Charitable Record. Christianity today, like in the Middle Ages (4), is responsible for a great deal of charity. Christian NGO's alone are responsible for over $8 bn in international aid (6) while the US gave over $96 bn to religious causes in 2014 (7). This doesn't include the amount of donations given to non-christian groups for religious reasons. The NGO's alone make over half of all international Aid from the US. "Faith-based and secular humanitarian organizations have a long history of responding to people in need and today are important players in the international community’s response to emergencies. " - ICRC"Faith-based organizations are unique players in the international humanitarian community in that they are rooted in their local communities and yet have global reach. Their large constituencies give faith-based organizations the potential to play a powerful role in advocacy and public awareness. With their presence on the ground, in the most remote parts of every country, they are well positioned to take action when emergencies arise. " - ICRC[6] . http://tinyurl.com...[7] . http://tinyurl.com...[]Argument II: Benefits of Religion. A) Benefits in History and Prison. I put History and Prison together because I wanted to make the third topic, Africa, separate. Without the Church, the Fall of Rome would have had a much stronger impact on Europe. The Church was responsible for preventing the Dark Ages (the Dark Ages never existed, but this is largely because the Church created a safety net using things like the preservation of books, knowledge, and charity. ) The Church also unified much of Europe, which led to far more peace than people seem to recognize. The Medieval Period was filled with war as a continent of 100+ unique nations would be. However, because of the unifying presence of Christianity, fighting wasn't nearly as common as it may have been otherwise, and the fighting that did take place wasn't nearly as violent. To attack and conquer another Christian nation without a proper cause was to declare war on the whole of Europe. .. In Prisons, Christianity is one of a few religions that is helping to rehabilitate prisoners. Christianity is a force of good among prison inmates, and has benefited their recovery greatly. The Church is also known for their Hospitals. While many question the position these hospitals take on Abortion, something that a Pro-lifer would consider moral, one can not deny that the Church has provided a lot to the field of health and the growth of hospitals around the world. The Church has done much to provide high quality health services to the poor. B) Benefits to Africa. Aside from charities in Africa, Christianity has also helped places like East Africa by creating secondary and primary schools, and colleges. They also built printing presses and established newspapers across Africa. They even spread new and more advanced farming technologies to Africa, as well as fought against the African Slave Trade done by African nations (7)"but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. " -Matthew Parris (an athiest)Matthew Parris, who grew up in Africa, wrote a great deal on the benefits of Christianity in Africa after revisiting his African town, despite how strongly he prior tried to see Christianity as bad (8). [7] . http://tinyurl.com...[8] . http://tinyurl.com...;[]Conclusion: I've shown most of Pro's assumptions to be false or nitpicky, and shown many benefits, historically and modern, to having Christianity. Christianity is not intrinsically harmful, and is even a force for good in the World and Africa.