Is Christianity harmful?

[scourge99]

There are many examples of Christians committing"evil" throughout history due to or justified by their religious beliefs: the Inquisition, Crusades, Salem Witch trials, slavery.

However, most current day Christians would not identify with the actions of Christians who preceded them and most definitely would not feel those actions were justified. For example, even today I encounter Christians who, though they believe homosexuality is a sin, are more than willing to grant homosexuals equal rights as married couples. "hate the sin, not the sinner," comes to mind. Such Christians have pluralistic tendencies as they appear to follow the more loving message from the Bible of gentle persuasion towards those who disagree with their positions or views rather than a forceful approach. For this thread I will refer to this type of Christianity as "enlightened Christianity".

Debate Question: Is the enlightened version of Christianity of today harmful?

For example, consider the studies that have found a positive correlation between religoisty and philanthropy (http://generosityresearch.nd.edu/public ... ous-giving). Even if Christianity contains no truth value, it is nonetheless true that a particular version of Christianity, specifically, enlightened Christianity, may in fact be superior to a non-theistic belief system in regards to promoting altruistic and philanthropic behaviors amongst its believers.

[Miles]

Even if Christianity contains no truth value, it is nonetheless true that a particular version of Christianity, specifically, enlightened Christianity, may in fact be superior to a non-theistic belief system in regards to promoting altruistic and philanthropic behaviors amongst its believers.

Then again, it may not. Your cited source sure don't say so.


Ahmed, Ali M., and Osvaldo Salas. 2009. “Is the hand of God involved in human cooperation?� International Journal of Social Economics 36(1-2):70-80.

No significant behavioral differences were found between religious and nonreligious participants in the experiment.



Berger, Ida E. 2006. “The influence of religion on philanthropy in Canada.� Voluntas 17(2):110-127

No comparative conclusion cited.



Clain, Susan Heller, and Charles Zech. 2008. “Determinants of the allocation of volunteer time: Church-related versus other non-market activities.� Atlantic Economic Journal 36(4):455-467.

No comparative conclusion cited. (The findings of this study suggest church ministry perceived as being child-friendly or strengthening one’s spirituality is more likely to attract relatively greater time commitments from its volunteers.)



Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Jerry Z. Park. 2007. “Religious diversity and community volunteerism among Asian Americans.� Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(2):233-244.

No comparative conclusion cited.



Elisha, Omri. 2008. “Moral ambitions of grace: The paradox of compassion and accountability in evangelical faith-based activism.� Cultural Anthropology 23(1):154-189.

No comparative conclusion cited.


French, Doran C., Nancy Eisenberg, Julie Vaughan, Urip Purwono, and Telie A. Suryanti. 2008. “Religious involvement and the social competence and adjustment of Indonesian Muslim adolescents.� Developmental Psychology 44(2):597-611.

No comparative conclusion cited. (dealt only with adolecents)



Gruber, Jonathan, and Daniel M. Hungerman. 2008. “The church versus the mall: What happens when religion faces increased secular competition?� Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(2):184-195.

No comparative conclusion cited. (deals with opprotunity costs in regard to blue laws)



Hungerman, Daniel M. 2008. “Race and charitable church activity.� Economic Inquiry 46(3):380-400.

No comparative conclusion cited. (deals with religious charity as a function of community racial composition)



Kochuyt, Thierry. 2009. “God, gifts, and poor people: On charity in Islam.� Social Compass 56(1):98-116.

No comparative conclusion cited. (deals with the relationship between religiousness and antisocial behavior)



Krause, Neil. 2009. “Church-based volunteering, providing informal support at church, and self-rated health later in life.� Journal of Aging and Health 21(1):63-84.

No comparative conclusion cited. (deals with the relationships among volunteer work at church)



Malhotra, Deepak. 2008. “(When) Are religious people nicer? Religious salience and the “Sunday effect� on prosocial behavior. Working Paper No. 09-066, Havard Business School, Cambridge, MA.

So far the only paper that even comes close, and then it isn't even a base hit.

"The results reveal that religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to respond to an appeal “for charity� only on days that they visit their place of worship; on other days of the week, religiosity has no effect."


Monsma, Steven V. 2007. “Religion and philanthropic giving and volunteering: Building blocks for civic responsibility.� Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on Religion 3.

No comparative conclusion cited. (simply a review of previous research)



Norenzayan, Ara, and Azim F. Shariff. 2008. “The origin and evolution of religious prosociality.� Science 322:58-62.

No comparative conclusion cited. (in fact, it found that religious prosociality was a function of how others viewd the actor)



Ranganathan, Sampath Kumar, and Walter H. Henley. 2008. “Determinants of charitable donation intentions: A structural equation model.� International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing 13(1):1-11.

No comparative conclusion cited.



Ruiter, Stign, and Nan Dirk De Graf. 2006. “National Context, Religiosity, and Volunteering,� American Sociological Review 71(2): 191-210.

Scharffs, Brett G. 2007. “Towards a framework for understanding charitable and economic activities of churches: The U.S. example.� Religious Studies Review 1(4):61-74.

No comparative conclusion cited.



Shariff, Azim, and Ara Norenzayan. 2007. “God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game.� Psychological Science 18(9):803-809.

Found no difference. "A trait measure of self-reported religiosity did not seem to be associated with prosocial behavior."


Evidently I missed the part that indicates, "enlightened Christianity, may in fact be superior to a non-theistic belief system in regards to promoting altruistic and philanthropic behaviors amongst its believers," so where did I go wrong?

[T-mash]

Debate Question: Is the enlightened version of Christianity of today harmful?

Yes.



All forms of widely held superstition is harmful to a society if it hampers knowledge and scientific research and promotes their personal dogmatic morality. Intelligent Design is effectively a plead to go back to the dark ages in the education of our children. Very, very harmful for the most important thing we humans have: knowledge and intelligence.

[scourge99]

Even if Christianity contains no truth value, it is nonetheless true that a particular version of Christianity, specifically, enlightened Christianity, may in fact be superior to a non-theistic belief system in regards to promoting altruistic and philanthropic behaviors amongst its believers.

Then again, it may not. Your cited source sure don't say so.


Ahmed, Ali M., and Osvaldo Salas. 2009. “Is the hand of God involved in human cooperation?� International Journal of Social Economics 36(1-2):70-80.

No significant behavioral differences were found between religious and nonreligious participants in the experiment.



Berger, Ida E. 2006. “The influence of religion on philanthropy in Canada.� Voluntas 17(2):110-127

No comparative conclusion cited.



Clain, Susan Heller, and Charles Zech. 2008. “Determinants of the allocation of volunteer time: Church-related versus other non-market activities.� Atlantic Economic Journal 36(4):455-467.

No comparative conclusion cited. (The findings of this study suggest church ministry perceived as being child-friendly or strengthening one’s spirituality is more likely to attract relatively greater time commitments from its volunteers.)



Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Jerry Z. Park. 2007. “Religious diversity and community volunteerism among Asian Americans.� Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(2):233-244.

No comparative conclusion cited.



Elisha, Omri. 2008. “Moral ambitions of grace: The paradox of compassion and accountability in evangelical faith-based activism.� Cultural Anthropology 23(1):154-189.

No comparative conclusion cited.


French, Doran C., Nancy Eisenberg, Julie Vaughan, Urip Purwono, and Telie A. Suryanti. 2008. “Religious involvement and the social competence and adjustment of Indonesian Muslim adolescents.� Developmental Psychology 44(2):597-611.

No comparative conclusion cited. (dealt only with adolecents)



Gruber, Jonathan, and Daniel M. Hungerman. 2008. “The church versus the mall: What happens when religion faces increased secular competition?� Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(2):184-195.

No comparative conclusion cited. (deals with opprotunity costs in regard to blue laws)



Hungerman, Daniel M. 2008. “Race and charitable church activity.� Economic Inquiry 46(3):380-400.

No comparative conclusion cited. (deals with religious charity as a function of community racial composition)



Kochuyt, Thierry. 2009. “God, gifts, and poor people: On charity in Islam.� Social Compass 56(1):98-116.

No comparative conclusion cited. (deals with the relationship between religiousness and antisocial behavior)



Krause, Neil. 2009. “Church-based volunteering, providing informal support at church, and self-rated health later in life.� Journal of Aging and Health 21(1):63-84.

No comparative conclusion cited. (deals with the relationships among volunteer work at church)



Malhotra, Deepak. 2008. “(When) Are religious people nicer? Religious salience and the “Sunday effect� on prosocial behavior. Working Paper No. 09-066, Havard Business School, Cambridge, MA.

So far the only paper that even comes close, and then it isn't even a base hit.

"The results reveal that religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to respond to an appeal “for charity� only on days that they visit their place of worship; on other days of the week, religiosity has no effect."


Monsma, Steven V. 2007. “Religion and philanthropic giving and volunteering: Building blocks for civic responsibility.� Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on Religion 3.

No comparative conclusion cited. (simply a review of previous research)



Norenzayan, Ara, and Azim F. Shariff. 2008. “The origin and evolution of religious prosociality.� Science 322:58-62.

No comparative conclusion cited. (in fact, it found that religious prosociality was a function of how others viewd the actor)



Ranganathan, Sampath Kumar, and Walter H. Henley. 2008. “Determinants of charitable donation intentions: A structural equation model.� International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing 13(1):1-11.

No comparative conclusion cited.



Ruiter, Stign, and Nan Dirk De Graf. 2006. “National Context, Religiosity, and Volunteering,� American Sociological Review 71(2): 191-210.

Scharffs, Brett G. 2007. “Towards a framework for understanding charitable and economic activities of churches: The U.S. example.� Religious Studies Review 1(4):61-74.

No comparative conclusion cited.



Shariff, Azim, and Ara Norenzayan. 2007. “God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game.� Psychological Science 18(9):803-809.

Found no difference. "A trait measure of self-reported religiosity did not seem to be associated with prosocial behavior."


Evidently I missed the part that indicates, "enlightened Christianity, may in fact be superior to a non-theistic belief system in regards to promoting altruistic and philanthropic behaviors amongst its believers," so where did I go wrong?

You dismiss many of them stating "no comparative conclusion cited".

What does that even mean and why is it relevant?

[scourge99]

Debate Question: Is the enlightened version of Christianity of today harmful?

Yes.

You think Ray Comfort is an example of enlightened Christianity?

All forms of widely held superstition is harmful to a society if it hampers knowledge and scientific research

Intelligent Design is effectively a plead to go back to the dark ages in the education of our children. Very, very harmful for the most important thing we humans have: knowledge and intelligence.

Please explain how the enlightened Christianity that I have presented does such.
I started this thread because a Christian I meet with brought up this point. This person believes in evolution, the big bang and other scientific theories as far as they are evidenced but he also believes in a creator being. Though he's not sure exactly how god did it all. How is his belief harmful? How is it hampering scientific research? It seems you are strawmanning such Christians with the extremist fundamentalist.

and promotes their personal dogmatic morality.

As explained enlightened Christianity isn't about frocing their beliefs on others anymore than you would except in the extreme cases like murder, rape, theft. I already gave an example of how they view homosexuality.

[FinalEnigma]

Intelligent Design is effectively a plead to go back to the dark ages in the education of our children. Very, very harmful for the most important thing we humans have: knowledge and intelligence.

Please explain how the enlightened Christianity that I have presented does such.
I started this thread because a Christian I meet with brought up this point. This person believes in evolution, the big bang and other scientific theories as far as they are evidenced but he also believes in a creator being. Though he's not sure exactly how god did it all. How is his belief harmful? How is it hampering scientific research? It seems you are strawmanning such Christians with the extremist fundamentalist.

Seeing as the majority of this country believes in creationism, and you didn't specify what enlightened Christianity was, aside from Christians who believe in equal rights, it is not far fetched to assume that the 'enlightened Christians' do in fact believe in creation.

You are actually speaking of the extreme end of liberal Christianity.

Do these enlightened Christians believe in hell?

[T-mash]

First of all I guess I sort of misread your intention. I thought you were saying that we obviously agree that the crusades were bad and that Christians that time were bad for say science, but current day Christians are far different, so you asked: "Do you think current 'enlightened' Christianity is still harmful as well?". You mentioned "most current day Christians". In America, most current day Christians do not believe in evolution and they believe in a rather literal interpretation of the bible (real Satan, Angels, Hell, Heaven etc). "Most current day Christians" are against abortion and stem-cell research purely out of religious conviction. Most current day Christians distrust atheists and think that a president that is not Christian would never work out. Yes this is harmful. The enlightened Christianity that you described is more like a handful instead of "most". America is 34th when it comes to acceptance of evolution. The reason is Christianity. 34th, only just below Cyprus and far under a few 'under-developed' countries. The leading country in scientific research has a population that is completely out of touch with science. The reason is current Christianity. Yes that is harmful.

You think Ray Comfort is an example of enlightened Christianity?

According to you:
Enlightened Christianity: Current day Christians that do not identify with the actions of Christians who preceded them and most definitely would not feel those actions were justified. They for example are more than willing to grant homosexuals equal rights as married couples, though they believe homosexuality is a sin because you are to "hate the sin, not the sinner,". Such Christians have pluralistic tendencies as they appear to follow the more loving message from the Bible of gentle persuasion towards those who disagree with their positions or views rather than a forceful approach.

Ray Comfort is motivated by what he describes as "a concern for other humans". He wants people who have sinned to become aware of the fact that God does not allow sin, so if you repent to Jesus you will be forgiven for your sins because the sin is bad, not you. He thinks for example that homosexuality is not a problem because we can cure it through religion. So if you are a homosexual, you are not a bad person. All you have to do is accept Jesus and accept that you have sinned and you will be cured. He believes that we are all, homosexuals or not, very easily tempted by sin, so we can't blame homosexuals for them not resisting the temptation. Like every sin, it just needs proper guidance by God to get back to a love-filled life.

So yes. He even calls himself an enlightened Christian and he calls what he does 'enlightening' people.

Please explain how the enlightened Christianity that I have presented does such.
I started this thread because a Christian I meet with brought up this point. This person believes in evolution, the big bang and other scientific theories as far as they are evidenced but he also believes in a creator being. Though he's not sure exactly how god did it all. How is his belief harmful? How is it hampering scientific research? It seems you are strawmanning such Christians with the extremist fundamentalist.

What you have described here is not Christianity. What you have described here is a Christian person who still thinks there is a god, however he doesn't really believe in the bible and he takes the word of the experts in science for it instead. Look at what you have 'highlighted' as virtues of him. He believes in evolution (not creationism), he believes in the Big bang (not goddidit), he believes in evidenced scientific theories. How does this hamper science? Obviously it doesn't because he chooses science above his 'holy book'. There is for example an outstanding biologist Kenneth Miller, that also believes in all these things and is one of the key characters in debunking ID at the trials. Does he hamper science? Of course he doesn't. He is however a Roman Catholic. Can we say that Roman Catholicism is harmless to science?

That Christian quite likely does not really believe in god, but he 'believes in believing in God'. That means he thinks that believing in God is helpful to him (for example, comfort, family, culture etc), up until the point where it would mess with his reality. Then he prefers science over God. The real difference between an atheist and the person you mentioned is that an atheist does not believe in a god, but there might be one, while the person believes there is a creator but he has no clue how he did anything. In terms of personal conviction there is no difference.

Now how can enlightened Christianity in the form of the person you met be harmful to scientific research? Simple. Imagine that such an enlightened Christian would be responsible for determining where the budget goes when it comes to scientific research. Would he put a fair amount of budget into research that would disprove a 'Creator'?

Of course this does not even take into account that any type of belief in a God is very susceptible to the wrong type of morality or ideology. If you belief there is a God you are one step away from committing bad acts in the name of such. That step is believing in the wrong person when he says he can talk to God.

[scourge99]

Intelligent Design is effectively a plead to go back to the dark ages in the education of our children. Very, very harmful for the most important thing we humans have: knowledge and intelligence.

Please explain how the enlightened Christianity that I have presented does such.
I started this thread because a Christian I meet with brought up this point. This person believes in evolution, the big bang and other scientific theories as far as they are evidenced but he also believes in a creator being. Though he's not sure exactly how god did it all. How is his belief harmful? How is it hampering scientific research? It seems you are strawmanning such Christians with the extremist fundamentalist.

Seeing as the majority of this country believes in creationism, and you didn't specify what enlightened Christianity was, aside from Christians who believe in equal rights, it is not far fetched to assume that the 'enlightened Christians' do in fact believe in creation.

You are actually speaking of the extreme end of liberal Christianity.

that is true. To avoid moving the goal posts I suppose I should revise my question to something more like:

Is there any version of Christianity either currently or theoretically that would not be harmful?

Is there any version of Christianity that would be superior in some ways to other beliefs?

Do these enlightened Christians believe in hell?

I'm sure they do. Not sure whether its the fire and brimstone one or the "seperation from God" one. Does it matter either way? Overall the impression I received was that of a strong belief in personal responsibilty despite the belief in evil agents such as Satan.

[scourge99]

I apologize ahead of time for grammar, spelling, and format. I'm posting by phone. Please bear with me.

First of all I guess I sort of misread your intention. I thought you were saying that we obviously agree that the crusades were bad and that Christians that time were bad for say science, but current day Christians are far different, so you asked: "Do you think current 'enlightened' Christianity is still harmful as well?".

sorry for the confusion. I admit I didn't do a great job directing the discussion as I wished. Nonetheless I think you unwittingly bring up a great point. Even if a version of Christianity is not harmful, we still have all these other versions that are. Though there may be some amount of christians who are enlightened, what does the prevalence of so mnay "unenlighteneted" tell us?
However, couldn't the same be said for atheistic beliefs? Could a Christian claim that atheism gives even less direction and in fact can lead to far worse "evils" for example Pol Pot and Stalin?

It seems that its a moot point. Neither Christianity or any other belief system is intrinsically superior. Each can be disfigured from its "enlightened" form.

You mentioned "most current day Christians". In America, most current day Christians do not believe in evolution

Really? Most Christians that I encounter believe in evolution, at least to some degree. Whether they believe man evolved is probably a smaller crowd. Granted, my personal experiences are not a valid estimation of the entirety of America.

Nonetheless, it brings up a good point. If one literally believes in Adam and Eve then they will likely not encourage research into human evolution despite the evidence. This outlines the problem: where does religious belief conflict with science? Specifically, where does enlightened christianity conflict with science and are the consequences harmful?

"Most current day Christians" are against abortion and stem-cell research purely out of religious conviction.

Yet their are non-theists who are against these as well. Does it matter whether a christian is against them if their are purely secular reasons for opposition?

Most current day Christians distrust atheists and think that a president that is not Christian would never work out. Yes this is harmful. The enlightened Christianity that you described is more like a handful instead of "most". America is 34th when it comes to acceptance of evolution. The reason is Christianity. 34th, only just below Cyprus and far under a few 'under-developed' countries. The leading country in scientific research has a population that is completely out of touch with science. The reason is current Christianity. Yes that is harmful

assuming that correlation is correct then you have a valid point..

Please explain how the enlightened Christianity that I have presented does such.
I started this thread because a Christian I meet with brought up this point. This person believes in evolution, the big bang and other scientific theories as far as they are evidenced but he also believes in a creator being. Though he's not sure exactly how god did it all. How is his belief harmful? How is it hampering scientific research? It seems you are strawmanning such Christians with the extremist fundamentalist.

What you have described here is not Christianity. What you have described here is a Christian person who still thinks there is a god, however he doesn't really believe in the bible and he takes the word of the experts in science for it instead. Look at what you have 'highlighted' as virtues of him. He believes in evolution (not creationism), he believes in the Big bang (not goddidit), he believes in evidenced scientific theories. How does this hamper science? Obviously it doesn't because he chooses science above his 'holy book'.

I don't think he puts science above his book. Merely that his understanding of the book is forced to change when under pressure from reproducible evidence. That perhaps, where once a literal interpretation was believed true, one no longer is. I'm sure their are more eloquent reasons (excuses) then I've presented.

All iin all, evolution does not remove the possibility of the christian God, nor does the Big Bang. I think he would agree.

There is for example an outstanding biologist Kenneth Miller, that also believes in all these things and is one of the key characters in debunking ID at the trials. Does he hamper science? Of course he doesn't. He is however a Roman Catholic. Can we say that Roman Catholicism is harmless to science?

so he is harmful because of association with the Catholic Church? Is that what you are saying?

That Christian quite likely does not really believe in god, but he 'believes in believing in God'. That means he thinks that believing in God is helpful to him (for example, comfort, family, culture etc), up until the point where it would mess with his reality. Then he prefers science over God. The real difference between an atheist and the person you mentioned is that an atheist does not believe in a god, but there might be one, while the person believes there is a creator but he has no clue how he did anything. In terms of personal conviction there is no difference.

This person does in fact believe in the christian God. Believes Jesus died on the cross for our sins and that he rose 3 days later. This person prays, takes sacrement and does other such things BECAUSE he believes such things are necessary and true. Though I think their is some overlap between some atheistic beliefs and his beliefs, I would most definitely still categorize him as a theist and a Christian.

Now how can enlightened Christianity in the form of the person you met be harmful to scientific research? Simple. Imagine that such an enlightened Christian would be responsible for determining where the budget goes when it comes to scientific research. Would he put a fair amount of budget into research that would disprove a 'Creator'?

What scientific research tries to disprove a creator as its thesis? I don't imagine this scenario ever occurring, though I think I understand the idea you are trying to convey.

Of course this does not even take into account that any type of belief in a God is very susceptible to the wrong type of morality or ideology.

I said this during our meeting and I was immieditely asked to give an example of what he believes that is harmful. Demonstrating suspectibility is difficult. Claiming to predict human actions isn't a very compelling argument.

If you belief there is a God you are one step away from committing bad acts in the name of such. That step is believing in the wrong person when he says he can talk to God.

Such a person doesn't claim to hold conversations, hear audible voices. Its usually described as a feeling of comfort or direction. Its not as though arbitrary commands and complex directions are given.

[T-mash]

Really? Most Christians that I encounter believe in evolution, at least to some degree. Whether they believe man evolved is probably a smaller crowd. Granted, my personal experiences are not a valid estimation of the entirety of America.

Nonetheless, it brings up a good point. If one literally believes in Adam and Eve then they will likely not encourage research into human evolution despite the evidence. This outlines the problem: where does religious belief conflict with science? Specifically, where does enlightened christianity conflict with science and are the consequences harmful?

This was the result I was referring to, from National Geographic:


As you can see countries like Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic are well above America. This was indeed about 'humans' by the way. However if we exclude humans and we also add the option: "Evolution is true for other animals, but God did it" then America goes up to 61%, which would still leave it near the bottom if the other countries would stay the same. Of course the other remaining countries would go up too, however.

Yet their are non-theists who are against these as well. Does it matter whether a christian is against them if their are purely secular reasons for opposition?

Not at all. What my point was that some people make these decisions on what "the Pope says" or what "The bible says" or even "What my priests tells me I should think". You are free to be pro/contra anything and you have every right to be against my opinion. However if you say "I disagree, because god/bible/etc" then I consider your opinion to not properly reflect what it should reflect. Look at for example presidents. I'm not well-versed in politics but I do think Obama appears to be a very capable president, especially considering the previous one and his opposition. However if Obama was an atheist he wouldn't have stood a chance (except if he'd lie), because people vote against him not for disagreeing with him, but for disagreeing with his religious view.

assuming that correlation is correct then you have a valid point..

The correlation is correct. I suspect you mean assuming the causation is correct

Top 5 most religious (In terms of believing in God): Turkey, Malta, Cyprus, Romania, US
The least religious ones? Yup you guessed it. Those near the top.

so he is harmful because of association with the Catholic Church? Is that what you are saying?

No, what I was saying is that there is a huge difference between a person who identifies himself as a follower of a specific religion and what that specific religion in general entails. He is for example a biology professor and he puts his biology above his God (not in terms of worship, in terms of what he chooses to follow). Now he is a Roman catholic, but he is not for example against condoms, while he could just as easily listen to the Pope and the other followers of his religion and be against them. We'd then have a biology professor/teacher that would educate people with the knowledge that condoms are bad. That would be rather harmful.

Is there any version of Christianity either currently or theoretically that would not be harmful?

Any version that would still be Christianity? No. The very teaching to children that they are sinners and need to cleanse their soul or they will burn in hell is already harmful enough to warrant a no. Sure you can have a theoretical form of Christianity that removes all the unpleasant things from the bible, is taught to you only above 18 years old when you can really choose for yourself what to believe and where everyone keeps their religion to themselves and they only use human knowledge and their own morality to guide them through life and make decisions.. but that is very watered down.

Is there any version of Christianity that would be superior in some ways to other beliefs?

Depends what you mean. I consider Christianity superior to Islam. I however do not think Christianity would ever be superior to non-believe (atheism). I don't see how finding comfort in a religion that reserves a VIP spot for you after you die, while condemning 2/3 of the world population to eternal torture can be morally acceptable. I don't see how a religion that indoctrinates children with fear of hell is morally superior to any form of disbelief. There are more reasons, but this alone means in my eyes that it will never be superior.