Instigator / Pro
21
1395
rating
22
debates
20.45%
won
Topic
#830
Catholicism is not True Christianity
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
12
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4
After 4 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
28
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
I am writing this because I am tired of people blaming Christians for the evil the Catholic Church has done throughout its history. Catholicism is not real Christianity since they do not base most of their beliefs on the Bible, but on tradition. Historically there are many Bible-based denominations since the earliest days of Christianity.
Con
#2
Thanks to GeneralGrant for instigating this topic.
THESIS: "Catholicism is Not True Christianity"
Pro’s argument might be fairly faulted for excessive
brevity, lack of warrant, and insufficient definition.
DEFINITIONS:
Let’s define two terms:
Definition of Catholicism:
DEFINITIONS:
1
: roman catholicism
2
: the faith, practice, or system of Catholic Christianity
Let’s note here that Mirriam-Webster defines Catholicism as
inherently Christian. (Let’s also note
that this debate will treat Catholicism and Roman Catholicism as synonymous designations
for the same religion.)
1
: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2
: conformity to the Christian religion
3
: the practice of Christianity
Here too, Catholicism is a Christian religion by ordinary
definition.
BURDEN of PROOF
Con submits that Pro retains sole burden of proof in this debate
for instigating a claim that clearly challenges our ordinary English definition
of Christianity. If Con can show that
Pro’s claim lacks warrant and/or disprove Pro’s evidence, then readers of this
debate should favor Con in voting.
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY
Pro’s thesis does not only suffer from unwarranted
generalization but also serves as a textbook example of one kind informal
logical fallacy, the appeal to purity also know as the “No True Scotsman”
fallacy. Wikipedia offers the following
example:
BURDEN of PROOF
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Con: “But Roman Catholics are Christians by definition.”
Pro: “But no true Christian is Roman Catholic.”
- Pro has failed to failed to identify which version,
translation, and edition of Bible is being used for this purity test. There is no monolithic, well agreed book that
may serve as “THE (one and only) Bible,” so Pro must define and defend the text
by which Roman Catholics fail the standards of Christianity. To maintain consistency, Pro’s defined
version of the Bible must be accepted by the true Christians cited.
- Who or what is the defining authority for Christianity? After all, no version of the Bible nor denomination
of Christianity existed in the time of Christ. Wikipedia offers, “Christians believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and savior of all people, whose coming as the
Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament.” That definition certainly includes Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox,
Mormons, etc. as Christians and conforms to our normal understanding. On what authority does Pro rely to define the
proper biblical following and exclude Christian tradition?
- Pro specifically excludes Roman Catholics from True
Christianity but includes at least 7 other denominations. All 7 denominations are part of the Protestant tradition and qualify as “Radical
Reformation” responses to both Roman Catholicism and the Magisterial Reformation
of Luther & Calvin. What is the biblical
yardstick that makes some Christians true and other Christians false?
- When and where does Christianity end and True Christianity
begin?
- Was St. Paul a true Christian?
- St. Ignatius is credited with the first recorded use of the word,
“Christian.” Was St. Ignatius a true
Christian?
- Was Constantine the Great a true Christian?
- Was St. Thomas Aquinas a true Christian?
- Was Martin Luther a true Christian?
- Was Mother Theresa a true Christian?
- Was Fred Phelps a true
Christian?
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
CHRISTIAN VALUES
This
debater asks Pro: what is the value to Christianity in setting a narrow standard
for Christianity according to a stricter biblical interpretation. Aren’t more people more likely to enjoy the
benefit of Christ’s example if the definition of Christianity is more
inclusive?
Round 2
Pro
#3
You have used man's definition of Christianity, but not God's definition. His definition for a Christian is one who follows Him and obeys Him and has been saved from their sins by Him. True Biblical Christianity does not put man's ideas over God's, but conforms to God's requirements to be a Christian. You stated above that there are many Bibles. However, this is not true, there is only one. I disagree with some newer translations of the Bible, but the overall message is still clearly seen in all the versions of the Bible. I have gone through the Catholic Bible and have seen no major differences between their and my KJV.
I will address some key doctrines and practices of the Catholics that go against what Scripture says.
The Supreme Authority in the Church
The New Testament Apostles established only two offices in the local churches: elders and deacons. A comparison of the relevant passages (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1-2; 1Peter 5; Acts 6; and 20:28-32) shows that the terms "elder" (or presbyter, from the Greek word presbuteros), "pastor" (or shepherd), and "overseer" (or bishop, from the Greek word episkopos) all refer to the same position of leadership. The Apostles gave no instructions for higher levels of leadership over multiple churches or over all churches in a large city or over the whole world. The New Testament indicates that the 1st century local churches were to be independent congregations under the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Word of God.
In contrast, as we have seen in the historical developments of the spread of Christianity in Western Europe, some bishops began to claim authority over more than one congregation, then over a city, and then over the worldwide church, and along the way cardinals, archbishops, and patriarchs were added to provide leadership under the absolute monarchy of the papacy.
The Catholic Church claims that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair of Peter"); when he speaks as the supreme teacher of the church he is incapable of teaching any false doctrine. Likewise, the bishops do not and cannot err when they teach religious and moral doctrines. This Magisterium (consisting of the pope and the bishops) is endowed "with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals." (Catechism
of the Catholic Church #890) And, it is claimed, God has given this Magisterium
the task of providing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures for the rest
of the church. (CCC #85)
How does
the Magisterium accomplish this task of interpreting Scripture without error?
First, it includes in the Catholic version of the Scriptures the apocryphal
books, (CCC #120) which are not accepted as the Word of God by either Jews or
Protestants. But in those books, the popes and bishops find justification for
some Roman Catholic doctrines, such as praying for the dead. Second, the
Catholic Church equates unwritten "Tradition" with written Scripture.
She "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy
Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored
with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (CCC #82) This is because "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God." (CCC #97) In Roman Catholic doctrine, "Tradition" (Capital 'T') is the Church's "doctrine, life, and worship." It is "a current of life and truth coming from God through Christ and through the Apostles to the last of the faithful who repeats his creed and learns his catechism." (CCC #78) Abd "Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word." (CCC #113)
So the Catholic Church leadership relies heavily on man-made ideas and practices accumulated over the centuries as the basis for their interpretation of the Word of God.
The pope also claims his supreme authority by asserting that he inherited it from Peter who, according to official doctrine, was the bishop of Rome and the first pope over the worldwide church. "The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (CCC #882)
But nowhere does the New Testament make either of those papal claims (infallibility and authority), nor does it teach the infallible authority of the bishops or describe any kind of magisterium. In fact, the Bible never says that Peter was in Rome (though we know from church history that he was martyred there), which is strange if he was the head of the Church in Rome. And if he was the bishop of Rome, it is equally strange that when Paul wrote his letters to the church in Rome in about A.D. 57, he greeted many believers by name (Romans 16), but does not mention Peter. How could Paul overlook greeting the bishop, especially since his letter was giving very authoritative teaching to the Church there? Furthermore, Paul says that the Christian Church was built on the foundation of the Apostles (plural) and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-20).
It is also significant that in Peter's two letters written to all Christians in Asia Minor he describes himself as an Apostle and bondservant of Jesus Christ (1 Pt. 1:1; 2 Pt. 1:1), not as bishop of Rome. In Peter's first letter he humbly exhorts elders of the various churches as "a fellow elder," not as a supreme elder in authority over them and says they should not "lord over" the Christians that they shepherd in their flocks under the Authority of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ (1 Pt. 5:1-4). In 2 Pt. 3:2, he admonishes his readers to follow the commandments of Jesus and "your apostles" (plural), not his writings as uniquely authoritative.
It is true that Peter gave the "birthday sermon" of the Church to Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). But it was the Apostles (plural: Acts 6) whom led the Church there in the earlier years and there is not Biblical evidence that Peter was the supreme leader of the Apostles then or any other time. Peter did lead the first Gentiles to faith in Christ in Caesarea (Acts 10), but when questioned about this by the Apostles a few days later in Jerusalem, Peter did not have supreme authority (Acts 11:1-18). When Philip led the first Samaritans to Christ, the Apostles in Jerusalem did not send Peter alone, but Peter and John together to confirm
that the Samaritans were full members of the Church (Acts 8:5-17).
When Paul
and Barnabas reported to the Church in Antioch about the many Gentiles coming
to Christ, a dispute arose with other Jewish Christians
who contended that Gentiles needed to be circumcised. The Church then sent Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and elders (note: both are plural words, Acts 15:2, 15:4) in Jerusalem to resolve this matter. Peter was there and spoke, but so did Barnabas, Paul, and James. If anyone had supreme authority there, it was James, for it was after he spoke that "the apostles and elders with the whole church" decided to send Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch with instructions about Gentile believers (Acts 15:13-22). Peter had no unique authority in this situation.Three years after Paul's conversion he went to Jerusalem and met Peter and James, the Lord's half-brother (Gal. 1:18-19). Then after 14 more years of ministry among the Gentiles, Paul went to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus to explain to the Church there about their ministry among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:1-9). Paul says that God had committed him to take the gospel to the Gentiles, just as God had committed Peter to take the gospel to the Jews, and Paul saw hi apostolic authority as equal to Peter's Paul names James, Peter, and John (in that order, again suggesting that James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem) as ones who "seemed to be pillars" in the Church (Gal. 2:9). Those three together gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, signifying their equal authority in the churches, but with James, Peter, and John focusing on evangelism to the Jews and Paul and Barnabas going to the Gentiles.
But some time later Paul found Peter at the church in Antioch and had to confront and rebuke Peter in front of the other Christians for his hypocrisy, caving into peer pressure from Jewish Christians, and by his behavior undermining the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-14). This is hardly consistent with the idea that Peter was the head of the whole Church. Peter obviously responded positively to this humbling rebuke, evidenced by his affirming statement that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Pt. 3:16).
There is no basis in Scripture for the papal claims of infallibility and supreme authority over the worldwide Church. The claims come from a long series of men grabbing more and more power, starting with Leo I in A.D. 440, and it has led to a massive amount of political, moral, and theological corruption through the centuries.
Because the Catholic Church denies the supreme authority of Scripture, through its popes and bishops, it has been able to proclaim numerous doctrines that are contrary to Scripture. Clearly, this is a case of faith in man's word over faith in God's Word.
But the Apostles made it perfectly clear in the New Testament that the primacy belongs to Jesus Christ alone and is not shared with any man. "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18).
The Bible is also clear that the "traditions" spoken of by the Apostles must be the same as the teaching in their New Testament writings, not contradictory to it or adding to or taking away from the doctrines in those books (2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6; 1Cor. 11:2). Because of the dangers of false prophets, false teachers, and false gospels (Mat. 24:4; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Pt. 2:1-3), Scripture repeatedly proclaims its supreme authority. Believers are not to turn to the right or to the left from God's Word (Josh. 1:6-8) but walk in the ancient paths of the biblical prophets (Jer. 6:16-19; Is. 8:20). Jewish and Christian fathers were expected to know the Scriptures and teach them to their children (Deut. 6:1-9; Eph. 6:4).
Jesus taught His followers (not just church leaders) to treat the Word of God as their necessary daily food (Mat. 4:4), and that Scripture was the means by which God would produce holy maturity in their lives (Jn. 17:17). His followers were to reject any man-made traditions that contradicted Scripture (Mk. 7:6-13) and to test every truth claim against Scripture (Acts 17:11) because demonic spirits would seek to lead believers astray (1 Jn. 4:1). Paul also warned that men would arise in the Church speaking perverse things to draw Christians away from the truth. So he urged people to follow the Word of God (Acts 20:28-32). This repeated insistence on the supreme authority of God's Word is a reflection of the fact that He has magnified His Word above His name (Psalm 138:2).
I still have other examples that I will share with in the next round because of the lack of time I have.
Con
#4
Thanks, GeneralGrant, for your detailed response.
Unfortunately, most of your argument fails to support your
topic or the issues raised by Con in R1.
Overall, Pro is arguing that Roman Catholics are wrong about
some points of doctrine. But this is not
a debate about whether or not Roman Catholics are correct in their beliefs,
only about whether or not Roman Catholics are correctly termed Christians.
We can see that the mere presence of doctrinal differences
is not sufficient to warrant exclusion from the community of Christians, since we easily discern evidence of doctrinal differences between, say, Methodists
and Baptists but in that case Pro has allowed that both doctrines are Christian in spite of
at least one denomination being wrong about at least some things.
We can also see that some denominations have not been
addressed although some of those are clearly more separated doctrinally than Roman
Catholics are from say, Methodists (The Church of Latter-Day Saints, for
example or Eastern Orthodoxies).
In R2, Pro focuses on Roman Catholic church authority and hierarchy:
The Pope and papal claims to infallibility, holy appointment, etc. do not
accord with Pro’s reading of the Bible. This debate gains nothing by defending the institution of the papacy or its legitimacy
according to scripture. Con is
interested in discovering from Pro why the hierarchies of the Roman Catholic disqualify
that denomination from the ranks of Christianity.
DEFINTIONS:
Pro faults Con’s offered definitions as human definitions,
not divine. Pro argues that his
definition of Christianity comes from God and is therefore superior.
His definition for a Christian is one who follows God and obeys God and has been saved from their sins by God. Let’s note that Pro offers no biblical citation here. In fact, the bible does not get around to defining Christians or Christianity and since the bible is Pro’s exclusive source for the word of God that means God does not define Christian either, right?
Methodists
are ok with baptizing babies into their church while Baptists believe the bible
mandates adult baptism after confession. From a Baptist perspective, Methodist practices are not entirely biblical. From a Methodist perspective, Baptists must
have some of the bible wrong. Certainly,
one or both denominations must be wrong. Both denominations can’t be strictly
biblical yet Pro does not mind including both denominations in the community of
Christians in spite of obviously unbiblical beliefs by one or both. Why do some unbiblical beliefs warrant
exclusion from Christianity while other unbiblical beliefs do not? Wouldn’t it be more ideologically consistent and
less prejudicial for Pro to say, “here is my denomination and our interpretation
of the bible, all other denominations and interpretations are non-Christian?” Why are Roman Catholics singled out?
His definition for a Christian is one who follows God and obeys God and has been saved from their sins by God. Let’s note that Pro offers no biblical citation here. In fact, the bible does not get around to defining Christians or Christianity and since the bible is Pro’s exclusive source for the word of God that means God does not define Christian either, right?
Let’s be sure to note that the
word “Christian” only comes up three times in the New Testament:
“…So, for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (Acts 11:26).
“Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?’” (Acts 26:28)
“However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name” (1 Peter 4:16).
We see that all that the bible definitively tells us about
the nature of Christianity is from Peter, who tells Christians to be proud of
the name.
SOURCES
Pro identifies the KJV, the King James Version of the Bible
as properly Christian version. Likewise,
Con prefers KJV although for perhaps different reasons. KJV is by far the most poetic and majestic
English language translation to read. However, the language is also now 400 years old and presents many of the
same kinds of problems and ambiguities as a Shakespearean play. The translators of the time were quite
limited in their knowledge and access to ancient Hebrew.
“Although the King James Version may sound very lofty and dignified in its language (thou, thee, ye, thine), it can be very difficult to read since the English language has changed substantially in the last 400 years. Likewise, since the King James Version was written, scholars have discovered numerous other manuscripts from which more accurate and current translations have been made.
Since the late 19th century, progress made in Scripture scholarship has produced versions of the Bible that challenge the previously undisputed prominence of the King James Version. Specifically, for Catholics, the King James Version follows the Protestant pattern of not including the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament that are recognized by Catholics: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees (as well as portions of the Books of Esther and Daniel). Readings from these books appear in the Catholic Lectionary at various times of the liturgical year. Likewise, these books contain references to concepts that are familiar to Catholics but rejected by Protestants such as prayer for the dead and intercessions of saints and angels.”
BURDEN of PROOF
In R1, Con argued that Pro retains sole burden of proof for
the claim, “Catholicism is not True Christianity,” and Pro has not disputed this
argument. Con does not need to prove
that Roman Catholicism is particularly Christian but Pro must prove that Roman
Catholicism is not properly thought of as a Christian denomination.
TRUE SCOTSMAN
In R1, Con implicated Pro for creating an ad hoc standard
for Christianity. Pro’s standard is neither
well defined or well warranted. In R2,
we can understand that the legitimacy and the authority of the papacy is one primary
exclusionary principle that hedges out Roman Catholics. The suggestion is that there may be more standards
introduced in further rounds. Pro’s sole
authority in the application of these standards is his personal interpretation
of God’s intent as discovered in one poetic translation of one ancient, deeply ambiguous
book.
Con's implication is not refuted by Pro. “True” Christian stands, at best, as a
fallacious sub-set of Christian beliefs.
TRUE CHRISTIANITY
Pro has identified the Bible on which he relies. For authority, Pro relies on God’s intent as extracted from the KJV Bible which in turn relies on God for authentication. This is fairly classic circular reasoning:
We can trust God because the Bible tells us so.
We can trust the Bible because God tells us so.
Con rejects Pro’s claim to authority on the subject on the
basis of failure to substantiate by any evidence so far proffered. For Pro’s authority to hold up, at least God
or the Bible must be demonstrated to be true beyond doubt.
Con asked “what is the biblical yardstick that makes some
Christians true and other Christians false?” Pro ignored this direct question.
Con submitted a list of famous Christians and asked Pro to
identify which of these qualified as true Christians (in an effort to draw a line
around this undefined set). Pro also ignored
these questions.
EVIL
In R1, Pro justified his debate because of the blame true Christians
accrue unjustly for the evil acts of Roman Catholics. Con asked Pro to name some of those evil acts
but in R2, Pro failed to respond.
NICENE CREED
In R1, Con printed the Nicene Creed, the Roman Catholic statement
of beliefs recited at every mass. Con
asked Pro to identify which statements contradict the bible, Pro demurred in
R2.
VALUES
Con asked Pro what advantages are gained for Christians
generally by redefining Christianity more narrowly than the common application.
Con also asked Pro if a narrow definition of Christianity
was consistent with Christ’s famously inclusive, not exclusive example.
Pro has ignored both these points.
Going forward into R3, Con is perfectly willing to concede
that some beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church do not accord with some beliefs
of some other Christian denominations as well as some interpretations of some
versions of the Bible by some Christian denominations. Since there is more than one denomination in
Pro’s set of beliefs that merits the appellation “true Christianity” some
discordance is clearly permissible within this exclusive set. Therefore,
Roman Catholics are not excluded only for reasons of doctrine or the doctrines
which don’t accord bear some special distinction in the case of Roman Catholicism-
either way, Pro has failed to make this key link to thesis and is also dropping
Con’s points like hot rocks.
Con has defined Christianity in such
a fashion as to include any ordinary understanding of “true” Christianity. Pro has a different definition of “true”
Christianity, for which readers are mostly left to deduce out from Pro’s critique.
Pro has identified the Bible on which he relies. For authority, Pro relies on God’s intent as extracted from the KJV Bible which in turn relies on God for authentication. This is fairly classic circular reasoning:
We can trust the Bible because God tells us so.
Round 5
Con
#10
Thanks to GeneralGrant for conceding this debate in deed if not in word.
Con recommends that voters award arguments to Con. Pro argued that some Roman Catholic doctrines failed to accord with Pro's interpretation of scripture. Con pointed out that only one Christian denomination at best could accomplish perfect accordance with scripture and yet Pro includes multiple denominations into the set of True Christians. Therefore, the definition of True Christian must hinge on more than incorrect doctrine but Pro has never responded or illuminated the difference that distinguishes.
Pro only responded to Con's argument on two points: preferred Bible and authority. Pro has offered that his (unexplained) definition for Christianity comes from God which Con supposes we are meant to infer from Pro's citations in the absence of any link to argument.
Con recommends that voters award conduct for triple forfeit.
Thanks in advance for the voters' kind consideration.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
So; the main issue here revolves around being a true Christian and what it means. Pros “No true Scotsman” was well pointedlut. Pro needs to come up with a high quality and substantial and objective reason to believe that Catholics cannot be considered “true” Christians.
Pros primary contention revolve around listing points of Dogma and claiming that Catholics interpretation is wrong and his is correct. Con - to his credit - points out this issue, and that there is no definitive translation that is more correct than any other pointed it and justified for one to judge. Most importantly con points out Catholics are Christians, and while there are differences in beliefs, he points out that this does not mean they are necessarily not “true” Christians. As pro did not defend any of his claims against this criticism - cons argument stands and thus con gets arguments too.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
50% FF
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate.
POOR CONDUCT
Pro has ff the majority of the rounds of the debate which is poor conduct
I ask the other voters to consider this when voting on conduct as well.
Just re-read the rules. I remembered FF's being forfeiting more than half the rounds, but I was mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, S/G, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Unmoderated due to forfeitures...
Arguments: No contest.
Sources: Well I prefer links, pro did some bible research, resulting in this being within the tied range.
S&G: Pro, next time put spaces between your paragraphs. Website writing and school papers follow different conventions. (I would not normally do this, but to help pro improve, I am doing this on an FF).
Conduct: FF.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is not a full-forfeit debate, as there are at least two rounds in which each debater posted. The voter must therefore explain the points they chose to award.
************************************************************************
Well then you sir, have a religion that is not clouding your mind, in my humble opinion.
#The debate topic itself is a no true scottsman fallacy.
agree
#GG basically made his topic unwinnable by virtue of how he worded it.
agree
#In the future, the best way to avoid this would be not to focus on the labels so much, but instead a specific concept. Like "catholics don't worship properly" or something to that effect that doesn't rely on counterintuitively denying the fact that catholics are Christian by definition.
agree
#I'm pretty sure that we got a catholic in the room, they'd likely say the same thing about your brand of Christianity.
I am an Irish Roman Catholic by heritage if not real faith anymore- baptized, confirmed all that. I would not say that GeneralGrant is not Christian whatever his religious brand- even lapsed Catholics tend to overvalue forgiveness.
The debate topic itself is a no true scottsman fallacy. GG basically made his topic unwinnable by virtue of how he worded it. In the future, the best way to avoid this would be not to focus on the labels so much, but instead a specific concept. Like "catholics don't worship properly" or something to that effect that doesn't rely on counterintuitively denying the fact that catholics are Christian by definition.
I'm pretty sure that we got a catholic in the room, they'd likely say the same thing about your brand of Christianity.
"You have used man's definition of Christianity, but not God's definition."
This is the most funny thing I have read all day.
Which one since you didn't like the first one I used?
You completely ignored all of my other sources which say how a document’s reliability is found
I'll stick to the first link you brought up:
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/is-the-bible-reliable
It states "If, for instance, the Bible is full of historical and factual errors or blatantly contradicts itself, it's hard to trust it or view it as reliable."
"are key in establishing what we know about Jesus including his birth, ministry, teachings, death, resurrection, and more"
Doesn't mean it actually happen. It only states they have dates for supposed occurring.
They said this: "we can compare manuscript copies and fragments with copies we have today and find out if there have been significant changes or if the New Testament we have today is reliable."
And all they came up was this "So when it comes to manuscript evidence, the New Testament definitely has numbers on its side."
Having a lot of something doesn't mean you have compared it. Nor did this site even state that the manuscript was evidence instead accepted it as such.
"claiming that more than 500 people had seen the risen Christ. People who would still have been alive at the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians would have been around to corroborate or criticize the claims made in the letter."
I would have liked to prove that these 500 people were lying or we can even accept 500 people from such a long time ago as a reliable source but they did not.
So basically nothing they have said had anything to do with reliability in terms of the new testament. I don't see the point in talking about the old testament and please don't bring it up and address what I have brought in.
How are they not credible?
If the Bible is reliable then your God is real. Not a point against me and simply read what I said before and add the Bible instead of God.
None of my sources talked about God being real or not, they talked about the Bible being reliable and how to prove if a document is reliable or not
>> I literally cited the sources
Your sources did not help your case. They are not credible source by themselves and do not go to other credible sources to say God is real.
>> that showed how the reliability of documents is determined
In order for a source to be reliable it must either be a good source of correct information or it does a good job sourcing their points to reinforce the points they are making. I don't think any of your sources were reliable in respect to God is real.
It does, actually. I literally cited the sources that showed how the reliability of documents is determined
I did read it because those were bad arguments.
Jesus fulfilling prophecies doesn't make your religion true if one prophecy was that God does exist. Having a lot of copies of something doesn't mean it is reliable.
Look at my God is Real Debate, I outlined it there
Remember evidence requires it to be reliable to be good. This can be with the site itself being reliable or the sources it proves to be reliable to draw their conclusions.
One question for you: Are/were you really a General or are you simply making it up?
Oof, I’m about to leave but I gotchu tonight, remind me though
Example?
Yeah! It does meet that standard
>>That doesn’t make historical findings any less accurate
I don't know what you mean but I will still respond.
If the historical finding is meeting a standard which is deemed accurate then it is.
That doesn’t make historical findings any less accurate
>>That’s like saying you can throw quantum theory out the window because it’s too complicated to understand
Quantum theory is studied in science which tries to make sense of it. That is their aim and what is going on. I am guessing scholars are not using the same standards as scientists which is why it is not considered a science. It best based on written work with no observable evidence apart from that written work.
Oops, I thought for sure I tagged you?? That’s weird lol
That’s like saying you can throw quantum theory out the window because it’s too complicated to understand
I think that was to me.
>>My point was that saying you don’t understand my argument doesn’t make my argument any less credible
Yes it does. The burden is on you to provide your case in the current system that deems your stance to be reliable and credible. If it isn't then everything is neither right or wrong. If we can't understand your position it can be thrown to the side until you can provide an explanation.
Right, but it isn’t arbitrary
My point was that saying you don’t understand my argument doesn’t make my argument any less credible
>>Well me and Ralph were just talking about the classification of religions, whether they’re true or not
And if that classification is arbitrary. Wrick-It-Ralph would be correct on that basis.
>>I’ll have to send one when I get home, I can’t access that right now
Okay.
>>If you believe that God isn’t real you would know how to tell other people that, if you can’t, you don’t know and it isn’t based on belief then
To prove a negative requires a positive. Something like Christianity, Judaism and Islam would need to make the first claim and all I need to do is debunk it. Since it is not a new thing and plenty of material is online I can share the burden of proof and simply make rebuttals on the Religion rather then waiting for my opponent to make an argument so I can share the burden of proof instead of putting it all on my opponent. It is not difficult to state God does not exist because there is also many material online which does make it easier for me to simply rephrase what they say in my own words. I already know how to debunk most arguments so I don't think I need too much outside help.
>>And gotcha
Okay.
Well me and Ralph were just talking about the classification of religions, whether they’re true or not
I’ll have to send one when I get home, I can’t access that right now
If you believe that God isn’t real you would know how to tell other people that, if you can’t, you don’t know and it isn’t based on belief then
And gotcha
>>Emotion is involved because it’s religion, whether or not you believe
How much so and is reason more prevalent? If it isn't then Wrick-It-Ralph is correct to say it is arbitrary.
>>Because they found that the Bible is one of the most, if not THE most reliable document ever
Source? I think I have gone through with this and I hope you have improved the way you find sources. A source that does not have proper citations or is not a credible source is not good evidence.
>> But if you know that the laws work then you don’t need to know their history,
If you know God is real you would know how to tell other people it is real. If you can't then you don't know that God exists it is based on belief then.
>>like you don’t need to know the 10,000 different ways Edison tried to make light before he finally did make it, you can just know that lights work.
You can still learn from mistakes and yes I do agree specifically targeting just the answer only the best answer is the most relevant.
Emotion is involved because it’s religion, whether or not you believe
Because they found that the Bible is one of the most, if not THE most reliable document ever
But if you know that the laws work then you don’t need to know their history, like you don’t need to know the 10,000 different ways Edison tried to make light before he finally did make it, you can just know that lights work
>>Yeah...I’m not sure what you’re trying to say though
I take the position that a spider can create webs.
No emotion involved and it is correct.
>>I do know that Christianity is true...I don’t have to know who dug up the manuscripts to believe them
How do you know it is true then?
>>You don’t have to know Isaac Newton’s full name in order to use his laws of motion
You need to know what Newton did in order to understand how he got to the laws of motion. That is my stance.
Yeah...I’m not sure what you’re trying to say though
I do know that Christianity is true...I don’t have to know who dug up the manuscripts to believe them
You don’t have to know Isaac Newton’s full name in order to use his laws of motion
Gotcha, that makes sense
I would say that, yes God spoke directly to the Jews throughout history. However, if we're to recognize Jesus as the Logos, the Word of God incarnate, I would say any rejection of Jesus becomes a rejection of God's ultimate communication. So I would say Judaism had the right God until they went on to reject the Logos, or God's ultimate Word, who is God himself. Any rejection of Jesus is a rejection of God, which is why the apostle John said if you don't have the Son, you don't have the Father.
Just my thoughts, very interesting discussion on this thread
>>Salvation as in the way to get to heaven
Is this based on reason? Can you make a point based on reason with this?
>>And I don’t know who the people who dug up the manuscripts are lol
So if you don't know if Christianity is true why do you believe it? It is best to understand what you are getting into rather then choosing to accepting it based on supposed benefits which may or may not be true. Isn't this a failure of what you believe in that you have not justified it in reasonable sense in order to detach it from being based upon emotion?
Salvation as in the way to get to heaven
And I don’t know who the people who dug up the manuscripts are lol
>>Well, since salvation is the whole point of religion then I don’t think it should arbitrary at all
What do you mean by salvation and how it is based on reason?
>>And by looking at the methods historians use to determine the reliability of documents
Name me a credible historian which found something that the Bible states. I don't think it would help your case too much because I hardly see dates in the Bible but I might be wrong that they X date for X item.
Well, since salvation is the whole point of religion then I don’t think it should arbitrary at all
And by looking at the methods historians use to determine the reliability of documents
And ok lol
>>I don’t have to conform to Ralph’s definition of arbitrary, his isn’t better than mine just because he said
The definition would be the same I am sure but it would depend on what would be considered arbitrary. I don't think you have a point to the definition because there is a really clear general definition of arbitrary.
>>And you have to find which one lines up with scripture and historical findings the best
But that doesn't mean the scripture and the historical findings are accurate.
How do you decide if they are accurate or not?
Edit: Show me a case that Archaeologists found something that is important and the Bible have it somewhere in their book with a date or something.
>>Also my bad dude lol I @‘ed him first and then I deleted the comment and redid it and I thought that I tagged you but I messed up again xD
Okay. Just don't make the same mistake twice and I won't complain.
Lol I don’t have to conform to Ralph’s definition of arbitrary, his isn’t better than mine just because he said
And you have to find which one lines up with scripture and historical findings the best
Also my bad dude lol I @‘ed him first and then I deleted the comment and redid it and I thought that I tagged you but I messed up again xD
Oh wow, that’s interesting
That makes sense, my only thing is that God’s directly talks to Jews throughout scripture, so how did the God they worship become different?
I think I would disagree here and question the base assumption that the three Abraham faiths have the same God. If that were the case then I could see Judaism, Christianity and Islam all being the same base religion, with vastly different beliefs and practices though. If the three of us all worshipped Buddha we would all be Buddhists, regardless of anything we added or subtracted on top of that.
The issue is I don't believe are talking about the same God with the three Abrahamic religions.
Judaism:
God is an absolute unity, one being, one person, no Son named Jesus. No Tri-personal nature. God never became incarnate.
Christianity:
God is revealed as One but he also is revealed as three unique Persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God became incarnate.
Islam:
The greatest sin in Islam is to say that Allah has a son. Allah couldn't become incarnate because he is too transcendent. Allah has no Son.
I think these are too different to classify as the same God and thus the same religion. I as a Christian certainly don't worship Allah. My God has a Son. So I think the issue here is do they have the same God? If they did then yes I would say they could, in some very broad sense of the word be called variations of the same religion.
Just my two cents.
>>Me and Ralph were only arguing about the classification of religions and religious denominations though
If he calls it arbitrary it means you haven't justified the requirement you made well enough by whatever standard he uses.
>>By which one is true
How do you determine which is one true?
Can you put me in the receiver next time?
The catholic afterlife is different from the protestant one. Protestants don't believe in purgatory. Catholics do.
By which one is true
Me and Ralph were only arguing about the classification of religions and religious denominations though
I just saw this right now so I was reading for about 5 minutes.
>>But anyway, salvation is the whole point of religion, so choosing it as the point from which one determines what a religion is is completely fair
How do you determine which salvation from a Religion is right or wrong?
Lol why are you officiating this?
But anyway, salvation is the whole point of religion, so choosing it as the point from which one determines what a religion is is completely fair
What is your rebuttal to Wrick-It-Ralph saying your requirements whatever it maybe is arbitrary?