The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Resolved: Christianity is negative for society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,697 times Debate No: 20077
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




This round is for acceptance only.


Very well I accept what I hope will be an intelligent debate. I have one question, is BOP shared?
Debate Round No. 1


Based on the evidence that I have found with regard to the topic at hand, I must affirm the essential question asked of this debate and argue that Christianity is indeed a poison to our society. Before continuing, I would like to define the following key terms:

Christianity: The religion basd on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. Christianity is today the world's most widespread religion, mainly divided among the Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox Churches.
(The Oxford American College Dictionary)

Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another; a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

A standard for morality will be provided in the references.

With these definitions, we can place the following paramaters on the resolution of this debate:

Observation 1: The debates must analyze both the doctrine of Christianity itself based on its core protocol: The Bible. In addition, the debates must also analyze the general beliefs of the people practicing the protocol as well as their practice of Christianity and how it has affected society.
Observation 2: The resolution does not specify a specific society to analyze with regard to the debate at hand. However, because a society can be a broad grouping of people at a global scale and the definition of Christianity also mentions that it is the world's most widespread religion, this thus implies that the debate must analyze the effect of Christianity at a global scale.
Observation 3: The winner of this debate is the one that shows that the amount of advantages of Christianity's effects outweigh their disadvantages.

And now, to my argument:

Contention 1: Christianity's protocol is inherently flawed
As we must analyze Christianity at its protocol, this contention will show us how the main protocol for the religion in question is inherently flawed. The Bible is the central guide for the practice of the religion, and it is notoriously known to be promotional of immoral actions, contradictory in reasoning and idealisms, and possibly illegitimate with objective analysis on the documentation and traslations thereof. With such a flawed document, we realize that this such doctrine is not optimal or even suboptimal for society, but dangerous for the society.
Sub 1a: Christian doctrine promotes immoral actions
From condemnation of homosexuals to sexism to genocide, the Bible has been a staunch promoter of inherently immoral actions that are poisonous to the society. These actions have resulted in negative effects whether subtle or extreme, and there mere quality of the protocol being immoral shows that it prompts for an immoral society and ought not be considered a doctrine worthy of creating a social structure. Such immoral actions promoted in the Bible are shown below:
Biblical Promotion of Sexism
Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 3:16
Biblical Condemnation of Homosexuals
Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:23; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:18-32
Biblical Condemnation of Other Religions
Deuteronomy 13:13-19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12
Sub 1b: The Bible may not be totally legitimate in documentation
In addition to the Biblical text being thousands of years old, translated countless times, and having a possibility of being misinterpreted through the entire course of its existence, but new research shows us that the Bible's authors may not have been qualified for interpretations because of their lack of connections to temples, as shown in the following article:
"Special Software Sheds Light on Who Really Wrote the Bible."--30 June 2011;

Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.

Read more:

Contention 2: Christianity has been detrimental to society
Not only shall we look at the actual religious doctrine itself, but analyze the effect that Christianity has had on the society through history, and we will notice that Christianity has been a poison in not only text, but effects of the text.

Sub 1a: Christianity has inhibited science
Science is required in order for society to better itself by enhancing knowledge about the natural world. However, more often than once has Christianity prevented science from developing properly and quickly. The best examples could be the treatment of Galileo Galilei after his proposal on the idea of heliocentrism or the infamous Scopes Trial in Tennessee 1925.
Sub 1b: Christianity has prompted for bigotry and inequality
The teachings of Christianity have prompted general hatred against groups of people in the country, leading many minorities including gays, Muslims, atheists, and others to be subjected to inequality and hatred by the community. The examples are endless as to how Christianity has done this. An excellent example would be Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments after 9/11.
Sub 1c: Christianity has caused genocide
The genocide of peoples have been caused by Christianity, including The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, and others.
Sub 1d: Christianity has attempted to take over government with relative success.
In addition to all of these other atrocities, religion has made attempts to take control of government, especially in the form of the Republican Party in America and other conservative groups in other societies trying to bring conservative idealisms based on religion into the governing square.
Contention 3: The good things from Christianity are irrelevant
When we analyze what Christianity really has done and what kind of idealism and doctrine it tries to place over society, we notice that Christianity is essentially attempting to make as many people in the society adhere to their doctrine. People are pretty much condemned if they deviate from the doctrine in any way, and because the good things aren't totally genuine if they're trying to better the all of society just to install this doctrine and condemn anyone if they deviate from it, we can argue that the good things from Christianity are pretty much irrelevant.

Perkins, John L. "Universal Statement of Moral Obligations." Jan. 2004. Web. <;.



I thank my opponent for raising some very good points. I look forward to debating my opponent and make a case that when taken as a whole, Christianity is good for society. I ask my opponent to post actual arguments instead of simply referring to Bible verses. This tactic gives me little of his own arguments to refute and I have to spend a lot of time and effort explaining Biblical teachings and theology rather than debating my opponent.

Contention 1: The Bible is an inherently flawed protocol.

My opponent states that the Bible is an inherently flawed protocol. Even if it is flawed, (I don't think so) my opponent has to show on balance how the teachings of the Bible are more wrong that right. So if the Bible unjustly condemns homosexuality, but still remains suboptimal for society, then it cannot be a negative for society.

Biblical Promotion of Sexism (BPS) Rebuttal 1- These verses are not sexist but rather state the truth about how society operated at the time.

My opponent is taking these passages out of context. The Bible does not infer that women are less than man. To the contrary there are any passages that state women are of equal dignity in the eyes of the Lord. (Galatians 3:26-29 is a good example of this) Rather these Bible verses are telling women a reality of society. Generally everywhere it was a patriarchal society where women were subservient to men. This was a reality of that society that, much like slavery or polygamy, had no chance of abolition at the time. "Supporters of women's rights argue that the secondary status of women was not decreed by God for all time; like slavery, it was primarily a concession to the realities of Biblical-era society." (

My opponent also fails to mention how Jesus Christ himself was instrumental at tearing down bigotry and sexism. Look at the story where Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman. Jews at the time did not talk to women or Samaritans in public, much less a Samaritan woman. (John 4:4-30) My opponent also fails to mention Martha and her sister Mary. At a dinner Martha was preparing the meal while Mary sat as Jesus' feet while he taught her. At the time Jewish women were not allowed any active role in religion. But Jesus taught her like she equal to men. When we look at the actions of Jesus Christ we see a man who treated everyone whether they were a different race or sex the same way. Luke 10: 38-42

BPS Rebuttal 2- Such statements were necessary as not to harm the sympathies of society, thus insuring Christianity's ability to gain converts and protect members of Christianity

Once again we must look at the state of society. Would Christianity be able to gain converts if it destroyed the established order? Christianity would not be able to convert people to their religion if they upended the establish order. It was also necessary to insure the safety of Christians. Members of Christianity were commonly looked upon with disdain and fear by the pagans. Persecution was common among members of Christianity. That is why the leaders of Christianity wanted people to fulfill their roles in the established order, whether it is as a subservient wife or a slave. They did not want to give the pagans any reason to attack members of Christianity. Titus 2: 3-8

BPS Bebuttal 3- Such Bible verses do not describe Christianity today.

This one is really self-evident. The majority of Christians today do not follow the role of wives being subservient to their husbands. Many Christian women go out and have jobs. They have ran for office, joined the military and are able to vote. My opponent also fails to mention the role that Christian women played in obtaining equal rights. "The Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was the first organization that promoted the social reform that gave women equal rights" ( Many members of the suffrage movement were Christian and used Christian teachings to sway opinions in favor of their movement.

Biblical Condemnation of Homosexuals (BCH) Rebuttal 1- Prove that the verses are incorrect about the immorality of homosexuality, nor do those said teaching cause harm in-and of themselves.

You simply state that condemnation of homosexuality makes the Bible a flawed protocol. However this is incorrect as you have not proved homosexuality as morally permissible. The only thing you have done is state that the Bible teaches the homosexuality is wrong. While the Bible does teach that homosexuality is wrong. As with all evil, God calls for his people to reject it. However any sort of persecution that they would normally suffer under different belief systems is countered by Jesus with the implementation of the Golden Rule. And also the Sermon on the Mount.

Biblical Condemnation of Other Religions (BCOR) Rebuttal 1- The Bible condemnation of other religions is not immoral.

Ancient Israelites were fighting against pagan who practiced human sacrifices, incest and other evils. It seems like those religions were worthy of condemnation. It was these pagan religions God was talking about when he called for their destruction.

Also life during the Old Testament was very violent with different tribes of different religions constantly fighting. It was a kill or be killed life.

I also find it ironic that you are saying the Bible is flawed because of it when you seek to do the same thing is this debate. Now my point isn't that you are immoral for denouncing a religion but why does the Bible denouncing other religions make it a flawed protocol. Please explain why such condemnations make the Bible negative for society and I will respond further.

Rebuttal to all BCOR and BCH Rebuttal 1- The Biblical condemnation of other religions is irrelevant in determining whether or not the teaching caused social harm.

While the Old Testament is very harsh in its dealings with other religions, it was reversed with the new Covenant in Christ. In the book of Matthew, Jesus taught us to love our enemies. This includes people who differ in belief and practices from us. Thus it is really irrelevant at proving these Bible teaches cause harm, as Jesus calls us to love them regardless.

The Bible May Not be Legitimate (BMNL) Rebuttal 1- The possibility that some writers may not have priestly connections is irrelevant.

Whether or not the Bible is a legitimate source of God's word does not show whether or not the Christianity or the Bible has affected society negatively. I believe if you look at Jesus teachings of loving everyone regardless of their beliefs then we can tell that such teaching would have a positive impact on society.

BMNL Rebuttal 2- Any evidence is speculation at best.

These methods do not seem to take into account several things. First, writing styles within separate books of the Bible may differ on the basis of audience. A good example of this would be the Book of Matthew and Luke. While both were gospel they were written differently to appeal to different audiences. Matthew wrote for the Jews while Luke wrote for the Gentiles.

Whether or not they came from, "priestly," sources is also difficult to prove. The Bible was not written all at once. Rather it was written over time and survived as oral tradition for many years.

God called upon many different types of people to spread his word. The apostles John and Peter were fishermen and both wrote (or dictated) books of the Bible. God has spoken through Gentiles, Jews, the poor and many others.

Contention 2 Christianity has been detrimental to society

My opponent claims that Christianity has been detrimental to society. His arguments suffer in several ways. My opponent does not distinguish between the acts of Christians and the teachings of Christianity. We are talking about the religion, not the people in it. If a democratic nation is unjust and inhibits the rights of people to vote, is that nation really upholding democratic ideals? Of course not! We can say the same thing about Christianity. I have stated how the Bible and Christian teachings call for tolerance and love of all humanity. If someone acts outside those laws is it fair to condemn Christianity

Christianity Has Inhibited Science (CHIS) Rebuttal 1- Taken as a whole, Christianity has advanced scientific thought and discoveries.

My opponent mentions the Galileo Galilei and the Scopes Trail as evidence for his claims. I am not denying that these were actions may have inhibited the discussion of scientific findings. However we cannot conclude that two inhibitions make it clear that religion has always inhibited science. Rather we must look at all the net contributions to science and contrast them with said inhibitions. When we do this it is clear that Christians and Christianity has helped the spread of Christianity. While the Galileo and Scope Trail most certainly fall within the category of inhibition, it is not representative of Christianity. We only have to look on Wikipedia to see the relationship between Christianity and science. Many monks, when not praying, devoted their time to academic pursuits. Doing this you can see that many Christians, monks, priests and even a pope studied science and philosophy and made very important contributions to these studies.

CHIS Rebuttal 2- The Galileo incident was also partly Galileo's fault

Now I am not defending what the Church did here. They did suppress Galileo's findings. However you have to realize that Galileo did not have any proof for his theory. Galileo also lacked the methods to prove his theory. Despite lacking proof, Cardinal Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, the man that was called to adjudicate the conflict between Galileo and his opponents stated that he had no problem with Galileo speaking about heliocentrism, as long as he did so hypothetically and without stating it as true, as he lacked proof.

CHIS Rebuttal 3- The Butler Act only prohibited teaching that man came from a lesser creature, like monkeys. It did not prohibit evolution in its entirety.

This becomes evident when reading the statute. It was not some broad sweep act the illegalized evolution, as it is commonly portrayed. Rather the act does as I described in my rebuttal. This is not to say that the Butler Act did not inhibit a part of the theory of evolution. However claims that it completely outlawed it are exaggerated.

Christianity has Prompted Bigotry and Inequality Rebuttal 1- Christianity tells us to love and treat all of mankind the same

This is where the distinction between Christian doctrine and the acts of Christians have come into play. I will not deny that many Christians have engaged in acts of hate and bigotry. So has every other group, whether it is ethnic or atheist. My opponent has the burden to show that said teachings influence hatred. On the contrary, we look to Matthew 5: again and see that Jesus called upon us to love all men and advocates nonviolence.

Christianity Has Cause Genocide (CHCG) Rebuttal 1- The teachings of Christianity clearly advocate nonviolence

See the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount

CHCG Rebuttal 2- Were the Crusades a genocide?

Genocide, as taken from is the systematic killing of a racial, political or social group. Nowhere is it stated that the purpose of the Crusades to kill all Arabs or Muslims. Rather it was to reclaim the Holy Land and ensure the safety of pilgrims.

CHCG Rebuttal 3- The Crusades were justified

The First Crusades was not the first conflict between Muslims and Christians. Islam is a religion that spread often through conflict. They took lands belonging to Christians. They eventually spread into the Holy Land persecuted Christian pilgrims. They have even started to invade European lands. Thus it was justified on the basis of self-defense.

CHCG Rebuttal 4- The Inquisition was not genocide

My opponent simply states that the Inquisition is genocide. While atrocities occurred with the Spanish Inquisition, calling it genocide is overzealous. The Inquisition was concerned with heretics within the Catholic Church, not race, politics or social status. Once again please post an argument I can respond to.

CHCG Rebuttal 5- The Salem Witch Trials were not a genocide and is not representative of Christian behavior.

The execution of 24 (as accurate as the figures state, it could be more) people do not constitute a genocide. While there always existed a fear of demons or the use of magic, such charges were usually investigated fully as dictated by law. People who bring false accusations were punished accordingly. Also such treatment of alleged witches was not restricted to Christianity. The Code of Hammurabi called for the execution of all witches. Islam and Indian cultures are also hostile to witchcraft.

Christian's Have Attempted to take over government with Relative Success (CTOGS) Rebuttal 1- What proof?

My opponent argument is not only offensive, but it is a failure. He states that Christianity itself is trying to run the American government. While Christian people obviously have ran for office and occupied many different positions; that does not equate to Christianity attempting to run the government. The Constitution actually protects the government from becoming a theocracy. My opponent seems to think that Christian activity in government inherently causes harm for governments. This is simply not the case. My opponent needs to prove how Christians being in politics directly harms society.

Contention 3 The good things from Christianity are irrelevant

The Good Things From Christianity are Irrelevant Rebuttal 1- Evaluating the positive versus the negative is necessary for a moral analysis. Thus the good is not irrelevant and your statements are flawed. If the good is irrelevant in a secular moral analysis, then what is the basis of your analysis? The only way we can evaluate ideals and whether or not they are positive is taking both the good and the bad. No idea, or least the human implementation of it is perfect and all will produce flaws or undesirable affects. Thus as a matter of necessity we must balance the good and the bad.

Contention 1- Christianity promotes a positive moral message.

Sub-contention 1- Christianity promotes equality

I believe that this is undeniable when we look at the Bible. Christianity was one of the first modern belief systems that taught equality. Everyone was good enough to be a Christian. Even people who the society looked upon as outcasts.

Sub-contention 2- Christianity promotes philanthropy and good works

We find evidence of this in the Bible in many places. (Matthew 19:21) There are thousands of Christian charities that respond to this teaching in many different ways. Catholic Charities helps when hurricanes and other natural disaster strike. Catholic Charities also works to eradicate poverty in America and abroad.

In conclusion we realize that Christianity's net contributions to science exceed its inhibitions. Christianity preaches tolerance, pacifism and equality. I had a few more points but it will have to wait until next round, as I am strapped for time. However I believe I did a sufficient job of proving that the merits of Christianity outweigh the negatives.
Debate Round No. 2


ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited the last round. I am still new here so I am unsure as to what it means. In many debates I have seen forfeits in one round led to the other winning the debate. But neither me or my opponent disclosed the terms of forfeiting a round. As of now I urge a Con vote as it seems my opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3


ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.


As a result of multiple forfeits, I contend that Pro has forfeit the debate. It is a shame because I believe we could have had a very constructive discussion on the merits and cons of Christianity.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4


ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments. I have refuted his arguments and mine went answered. I urge a vote in my favor.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by johnnyboy54 6 years ago
Whew. I was really worried because it was cut off halfway through. Rookie mistake I guess.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
wish I was debating this I have studied this recently
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
they don't restrict science anymore, historically correct, modern day no
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
so because it's flawed and "false" its bad ok --sarcasm--
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
lol ok.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 6 years ago
Sure, why not? lol
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
Scarletghost, may we debate this topic when we are done with our current debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits