Instigator / Pro
4
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#3075

Constantine the Great should not be considered a mainstream Christian, because he was actually a heretic

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

If you require a description drawn up, please take it up in the comment section before accepting. Otherwise this debate will work with the exact same principles as all other standard debates.

-->
@oromagi

Thank you for voting

RFD PART 1

CONSTANTINE the GREAT should not be CONSIDERED a MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN, BECAUSE he was ACTUALLY a HERETIC

Fascinating, complex topic intelligently argued on both fronts. Congratulations to both participants on a top notch debate.

By default and without objection by either side, the BURDEN of PROOF rests heavily on PRO's shoulders here.

PRO's case ought to have been much simpler then the wide range of arguments provided.

PRO wisely asks us to use a modern definition of MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY and apply that definition as a desirable standard- SHOULD NOT BE rather than WAS NOT. I say wise because it is clear CONSTANTINE defined MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY during his reign and for his generation and can't be responsibly considered as apart from that MAINSTREAM.

PRO unwisely fails to lock down a likewise modern definition of HERESY because his whole argument depends on whether CONSTANTINE WAS (not IS NOW in hindsight but WAS as in, during his lifetime) a heretic.

I'm afraid that this VOTER considers most of the rest of PRO's R1 non-sequitur- Helen's Nicenism, Constantine's religious tolerance in his secular role as Emperor, Constantine's secular reliance on the Imperial cult, lattter clergymen's embarrassment regarding the baptism of Constantine and conspiracy to alter that history, Constantine's preservation of the secular and pagan title Pontifex Maximus, Constantius II's Arianism all seem pretty irrelevant to the question of Constantine's heresy. Constantine only became a Christian in the final hours of his life and therefore was only a potential heretic within those hours. CON might have been a lot more forthright in the rejection of these irrelevencies but this VOTER understands that merely dismissing the irrelevant is often misinterpreted as lack of engagement and penalized. Certainly, PRO felt these arguments demanded even more engagement from CON, so I can't really blame CON for giving a lot of space to these non-sequiturs but this VOTER does think CON argued irrelevance, from Helena to anti-pope, sufficiently to allow me to set aside these arguments.

CON wins this debate by defining HERESY for us, more by his second OED definition than his R1 Britannica definition.

"One who maintains theological or religious opinions at variance with the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, that of any church or religious system, considered as orthodox."

Using this definition, CON successfully distances Constantine from the label heretic.

XII.b CON argues that a modern standard of heresy does not apply- WAS a HERETIC is the standard of proof.
XII.c No contemporary authority declared Constantine heretical
XII.d CON argues that the contemporary standard of heresy is the applicable
XII.f CON successfully contradicts PRO's assertion that the definition of heresy lacks any semantic variety and therefore need not be defined. CON has shown that 4th century Christianity and heresy and sufficiently different from modern Christianity and heresy to demand a definition up front. CON's definition of heresy get to prevail here and nobody can honestly argue that Constantine maintained some theological or religious opinions at variance with orthodoxy in those final hours of death.

I wish either PRO or CON had addressed the question of Eusebius of Nicomedia's own status as heretic more directly. Eusebius was NOT declared a heretic at Nicea, quite the opposite, he was given an opportunity to confess his sins and accept the creed which Eusebius did, arguing that Arianism and the Creed were not in contradiction (we don't know what those arguments were but the important fact is Eusebius escaped any formal declaration of heretic. When Eusebius baptized Constantine he was Bishop in good standing. To the extent that he had managed to discredit and exile his important accusers from Nicaea, Eusebius was even the heart of contemporary MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY at the time of Constantine's baptism, however much his heart still embraced ideas modern Christians would call heretical.

Still, CON's XVII 5 makes the point well enough to win the day- PRO has not shown that Eusebius was unqualified to baptize Constantine or that any creed except the Nicaean was operative during that ceremony. Since Constantine's whole life as a Christian is judged by those few hours between baptism and death and we have no reports of heresy from either the Emperor of his cousin the Bishop, heresy is not proved, heretic is not proved and so modern standards of MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY are not offended.

RFD PART 2

PRO failed to meet his BURDEN of PROOF, the CONTENDER wins 3 points for ARGUMENTS.

Conduct and English excellent, even commendable all around.

I was tempted to give SOURCES to CON as well for PRO's underwhelming supports- Wikipedia notes where original sources were just a click away, giving Jerome the expert voice on heresy for no apparent reason, etc. However, CON's mistake regarding "the Lybian," while not so important to overall arguments, balances out any outright superiority in considerations of SOURCES.

Again, nice job fellows.

Finished R1, and written some preliminaries from it.

I'll try to come back during the weekend.

I suggest reading at least R1 of the following debate, which while not having the best arguments (they're intentionally comical), does show how to be concise and clearly build interconnected points: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3090-roman-catholicism-is-false

-->
@fauxlaw

Then please don't make me see comments regarding the debate from you, even if it is in reply. Show some respect. Letting Ragnar know what Webos means was sufficient. Thanks for the debate btw. You are a good writer.

-->
@Nevets

this is not the place for this discussion. Either delay until after voters have voted, or forget it. Too much said already

-->
@fauxlaw

What is the catch? You found a source that did not mention who baptized Constantine. So you fill the missing bit in yourself with a conspiracy theory that maybe, just maybe, because your source does not mention who baptized Constantine, he was baptized by a Nicene Christian? I can certainly see why you wanted to wait until round 5 to come out with that one.

-->
@Barney

Defined in my R4, a personal acronym meaning "without evidence cited, but merely by opinion"
You know how big I am on citation of evidence, aka sourcing.

In the case of this debate, since it has now finished the argument phase, I'll admit, as I do in R5, that some misdirection occurred, relative to sourcing, but I clarified in R4 by delay of one source, my final source, until R4, and then defended in R5, because R4 was a net, and R5 yielded a catch. Yeah, vague on purpose. Got to read the arguments. I'll agree, they grew more characters than necessary, because somebody decided to make the Resolution a block party instead of quite dinner for one; the one named in the Resolution.

-->
@fauxlaw

What is a webos?

-->
@Nevets

I have not read the specific arguments to this case yet, nor are they even quite finished unless I'm mistaken.

I advise distilling points down in general terms, as even at a glance this debate is using far more characters than it most likely needs (which makes it less likely to attract any voters). I literally copy/pasted the syllogism samples from the guide, to which I highly doubt Monty Python comes up inside this debate.

-->
@Barney

Then he should have went with that argument. But he did not. Instead he threw all his eggs in to trying to claim that Eusebius of Nicomedia was a Nicene Christian at the time of baptizing Constantine, and he was totally wrong. The passage he quoted to prove this fact was actually referring to Arius, not Eusebius.. Eusebius of Nicomedia at the time of baptizing Constantine "was" an Arian Christian and at no point in his life did he become Nicene! Anyway, I apologise to Fauxlaw for discussing this in the comment section. I am not trying to influence opinion, but merely responding to coaching.

Next time defining a couple key terms in the description, would be very ideal.

Probably too late for this debate, but simple syllogisms for key determinants would be useful to distill things down. Such as...

I offer this simple Modus Ponens (“mode of affirming”) refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she weighs the same as a duck, then she’s a witch.
P2: She weighs the same as a duck.
C1: Therefore, she’s a witch!

OR

I offer this simple Modus Tollens (“mode of taking”) refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she’s human, then she must weigh more than a duck.
P2: She does not weigh more than a duck.
C1: Therefore, she’s not human!

She Weighs The Same As A Duck (P2)
This video proves she weighs as much as a duck, thus affirming P2. Since the logical syllogism is valid, this affirms the whole argument in favor of burning her.

NOT

I offer this simple Affirming The Consequent refutation of pro’s case:
P1: If she’s a witch, then we burn her!
P2: We burnt her!
C1: Therefore, she must have been a witch!

-->
@Athias

Thank you

-->
@fauxlaw
@Nevets

Interesting subject. I'll try to follow along if time permits.

-->
@Nevets

No prob. It is just for that reason that I prefer a week [some want longer] just to allow for contingencies.

-->
@fauxlaw

I am going to be a day late posting my next round argument. I got to the Summary and my computer crashed and my argument was gone when I reloaded pages. Will do it tomorrow morning instead. Or maybe later today. Apologies.

-->
@fauxlaw

I made a slight error with the link for Constantine being P Maximus.
Here it is here.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06729c.htm

I shall include it in round 2.
But I will send you it now here just incase you need to research it.

-->
@Nevets

Ah, thank you for the clarification

-->
@DeadFire27

In actual fact, I only set my debates like this because it is my preference. However I will change the settings upon request

-->
@fauxlaw

No problem Fauxlaw. I shall make it one week, and two months for voting. Any other issues regarding the title please feel free to also raise now, before accepting the debate. Thank you

I agree. Even though I don't have the capacity to debate an experienced debater, people who can are often going to be deterred by the length of time.

I've looked at the comments from your other debate, and I believe that you should allot more time for debates, because good debates take time, 1 day isn't enough.

-->
@Nevets

I will accept this debate on condition that the time for argument is extended to one week, and the voting period reduced to 2 months.