Instigator / Pro
5
1561
rating
112
debates
59.38%
won
Topic
#6138
Non-Denominationalism VS Catholicism (for AdaptableRatman)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
AdaptableRatman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
14
1542
rating
13
debates
61.54%
won
Description
This is not going to be a debate about semantics. Failure to engage with intended topic counts as forfeit and does not require rebuttal.
Round 1
Pro
#1
The Catholic Church claims to be the one true church, but the early church was way more flexible than Catholics are today. It used to be that the church was unified, there were no denominations, yet theological and liturgical differences existed and were accepted as long as they weren't against core Christian teachings. In other words the original church was "catholic" as in universal/unified but also non-denominational. This begs the question then, why did the church turn into a mess of different sects arguing over who is right instead of embracing their common Christian heritage? It all boils down to the papacy.
The only reason protestantism exists as we know it is because the pope kicked Martin Luther out of the Catholic Church. This was a pointless decision since the catholic church started making major reforms directly afterwards, so they basically conceded that Luther was right and it needed serious reforms. Likewise the great schism was caused by the pope taking it upon himself to singlehandedly add the filioque to the nicene creed, which was ecclesiologically inappropriate even if theologically justified because the pope isn't supposed to just overrule ecumenical councils (especially when the pope overseeing it at the time said nothing in it can be changed). The pope literally in doing so defied an "ex cathedra" (supposedly infallible) statement from a previous pope. So as we can see, the "one true catholic church" is the biggest source of division in the church and it's all because people didn't obey a single man.
If catholicism is true, your salvation and identity as a true christian is entirely contingent on one man. For catholics, the pope is as inherent to true christianity as Jesus himself. Even if the pope defies other popes, even if you are right and pope is wrong, christianity is about submitting to the papacy for catholics. At times the pope and the body of clergy in general within the catholic church have been objectively corrupt to the core, are we to believe this hasn't affected doctrine in any meaningful way? If you are Catholic your answer is simple: shut up and obey, the magisterium always knows better.
The bishop of rome was originally the apostle Peter, from whom the pope is said to derive special authority over other bishops. However the pope wields more authority over the catholic church today than peter wielded over the early church, making the pope a dictator who's claim to dictatorship is derived from a non-dictator. If Peter was seen the way the pope is seen today, Paul wouldn't have been able to argue with him and win about multiple topics such as spreading christianity to gentiles instead of focusing only on jews until the majority of jews are saved. This innovation is justified by the concept of development of doctrine for catholics, the way the bishop of rome gradually gained more and more power in the church is merely a series of verdicts by the magisterium that progressed church doctrine over time. Why then can it not be said that abandoning the papacy is merely another form of development of doctrine?
As a catholic or orthodox you have to blindly agree that whatever the church decided is right even if it doesn't make sense to you. As a protestant you have to live with a denomination's doctrine even if you don't agree with all of it. As a non-denominational christian you can select what makes the most sense to you out of any denomination you choose, and still be christian as long as you adhere to the core defining principles of christianity. This makes it dangerous sure as nothing is stopping you from being a heretic but your own discernment, but you would have to use your own discernment to pick the correct denom/church out of 500 anyway. Non-Denominational Christianity at it's best allows you to pinpoint the correct beliefs and take them as your own without it coming with the unwanted baggage of any given sect.
The bishop of rome was originally the apostle Peter, from whom the pope is said to derive special authority over other bishops. However the pope wields more authority over the catholic church today than peter wielded over the early church, making the pope a dictator who's claim to dictatorship is derived from a non-dictator. If Peter was seen the way the pope is seen today, Paul wouldn't have been able to argue with him and win about multiple topics such as spreading christianity to gentiles instead of focusing only on jews until the majority of jews are saved. This innovation is justified by the concept of development of doctrine for catholics, the way the bishop of rome gradually gained more and more power in the church is merely a series of verdicts by the magisterium that progressed church doctrine over time. Why then can it not be said that abandoning the papacy is merely another form of development of doctrine?
As a catholic or orthodox you have to blindly agree that whatever the church decided is right even if it doesn't make sense to you. As a protestant you have to live with a denomination's doctrine even if you don't agree with all of it. As a non-denominational christian you can select what makes the most sense to you out of any denomination you choose, and still be christian as long as you adhere to the core defining principles of christianity. This makes it dangerous sure as nothing is stopping you from being a heretic but your own discernment, but you would have to use your own discernment to pick the correct denom/church out of 500 anyway. Non-Denominational Christianity at it's best allows you to pinpoint the correct beliefs and take them as your own without it coming with the unwanted baggage of any given sect.
Con
#2
It is easy to say
This is not going to be a debate about semantics
Without semantics, we may as well be debating in gibberish. My opponent uses terms like papacy and Protestantism and does not even define them.
So, I shall avoid direct semantic arguments but use them to aid me.
===
The definition of a Christian.
A person who is baptized. A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the Apostles' Creed. A Catholic Christian further accepts the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, participates in the Eucharistic liturgy and sacraments of Catholic Christianity, and gives allegiance to the Catholic hierarchy and especially to the Bishop of Rome.
Yes, I define it the Catholic way. My opponent has to challenge it.
===
is unviable to defend without ending up making it become dominational.
The issue of NDism is that if we do explore it semantically, we realise the only way to define it is by what it lacks.
In fact, it is so vague and unviable to define and defend that some define it and defend that some define it by church whereas Pro seems to define it by person.
In its most limited sense, the term ”nondenominationalism” refers to any church that operates...
A non-denominational church is a Christian church that does not affiliate with...
A non-denominational person or organization is one that does not follow (or is not restricted to) any particular or specific religious denomination.
How exactly is a church set up with adherents who could all disagree with other members on multiple aspects of doctrine?
It seems the ND are forced to either attend churches they disagree with or to defy themselves and form 'ND Church' places to pretend it is a denomination that has adherents that agree and attend a unified faith practice together, I presume once a week.
The ND pastor/minister will have to preach something that may directly contradict the beliefs of members present at the Mass.
They may even operate in ways for Communion and procedure during Mass that are blasphemic, not just heretical under the logic and value system of other NDs present.
We are able to see there is no way to defend the concept of ND in and of itself since it cannot actually be a valid branch of practising Christianity without denominational traits that bring into question what exactly the 'non' part is.
The definition of a denomination is:
a religious group that has slightly different beliefs from other groups that share the same religion
This is not semantic trickery, this is truly a semantic issue at the core of NDism and renders it indefensible in any way that holds up to keep it ND.
===
NDs are not able to claim that NDisim is Christianity (CHity) due to NDs having implosive disagreements. Catholics (Cs) may have heresies and evolving doctrine, but they submit at any given time to the current doctrine and differ only on tradition between the so-called denoms (Maronite Rite vs Latin Rite, etc.)
ND vs Catholicism (Cism) is a false equivalence because Cs are a unified sect and are the remnants of original Nicaeans that migrated west.
To even claim CH denom validity, NDism needs to explain what it is to be Christian, what Trinity is, what their way of life is and more. We do not know what NDs think on anything in CHity at all. We know only that they are not members of any established denomination.
We are left confused. Lost.
Meanwhile Cs claim their Founder is Jesus Christ himself and that their first Pope was St. Peter (yes, the genuine apostle Simon Peter).
The ND movement did not at all stem from Luther's 1500s split. It stems from a separate split in the 19th century known as the Restoration movement.
My duty is not to represent my opponent's side. I can tell you it becomes quite a bunch of intellectually dishonest nonsense when you realise that the Restoration movement went beyond Lutheran Reform.
Cs can define themselves as CH because they can even argue they alone founded CH.
Before Cism, we did not know what exactly Trinity was. Now, there is a clash between Eastern Orthodox (EO) and C on if Jesus and the Father both had the Holy Spirit proceed from them or if the Father alone did (C says both did and claimed it via Filioque).
We can point to multiple catechisms, but of course the current release is the non-negotiable doctrine to adhere to (the rest is the logically valid debate, but C has a unifying doctrine).
You can access the Vatican II Council's Catechism free here: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM, not only legally but also from the official authority of the Holy See of Vatican City itself.
Then, of course, Cs believe in an inerrant Bible and have 7 extra books that Protestants deny are valid Old Testament doctrine.
So, we see Cs pioneered Christianity as we know it via the First Council of Nicaea and even prior from St. Peter and Jesus himself through to that Council and onwards. The Nicene Creed was even firmly upheld by Luther himself after excommunication and reformation.
The fact NDs can even deny Nicene Creed and basically deny everything Christian is crazy.
Cs now also have Apostle's Creed on top of Nicene. Anglicans adhere to it too somehow and even some Reform say it 😂
Look:
A Reform Protestant Church is saying
I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic* church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and the life everlasting. Amen.
(Prior link)
That is how they end off the Creed (pledge).
Meanwhile, NDs do not even know what, on any level, doctrinally, Christianity is. They can read a Bible but can disagree on what all of it means and claim they are united in an ND church.
The entire thing is nonsense. They do not even have a way to define what CH is properly, as in what Christ is, how he came to be or how to go about following him in the correct manner.
===
The more educated and thought-out the ND, the less they could agree on potentially. Overall, Cs have the inverse trend (not entirely but overall).
If you are the true way to worship Christ, you would surely find that the deeper one delved into the doctrine of NDs and the longer one experienced the lifestyle, the more they would resemble a consistent CHity vibe/aura and lifestyle.
Instead, the NDs that know least, think least past the word of the Bible and have the least experience being ND will be the most likely to agree. In contrast, the gurus of it will potentially be the apex opponents of the other doctrinally, as there is no limit on how much they can disagree on literally everything except, I presume, that the Christ messiah was Jesus.
Cs literally define how tk be Christian by their Catechism and a lot of complex high intellect works with indeed some expert clashes such as Thomism vs Molinism. I am not saying they dont have expert clashes. However, overall, they agree on what all Catholics (and ideally all CH as they see C as the 1 true Church) must agree on to then disagree apart from that.
They may even challenge current doctrine and realise they are heretical on specicis of tradition, blessing style, Mass style etc.
Yet, what you find is that the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and any highly experienced and respected laity (Nuns for instance) have is unity under Christ one consistent way agreeing to vast majority and especially key non negotiable aspects of Catechism and related doctrine.
They even vary in clothing, Maronites vs Roman Catholics differ on tradition and Maronites have a Patriarch figurehead the Pope must acknowledge approvement of a d adhere to Rime's doctrine but differ on specifics of how to Mass and structure certain prayers etc.
ND, however, are not unified under Christ in anything close to a uniform manner. They are varely even able to define what being Christian is unless tbeyd refer to Nicaean concepts that means they needed either Catbolics or Orthodox (even the Orthodox needed the Catholic thinkers, especially the Byzantine EO, to end up with their Sect existing doctrinally) to exist and make foundational doctrine much earlier.
What even is a ND?
They are not this, not that but what are they?
They cabnot msaningfully define themselves in terms of beliefs or traditions witbout risking challenging a principle of another ND.
So NDism is divisive, disuniting us beneath Christ. It is incaoabke of achieving the very core goal of Christianity by its very nature. In complete contrast, Catholicism unifies us under Christ as 1 true Church doctrine that we may argue about the specifics of tradition wise or 'how exactly All knowing' the omniscient God is in terms of thomist vs mokninist approaches to explain why Calvinism is wrong on predestination but Catholics unite under Christ.
===
Papacy proof:
The role of St. Peter and his successors is made remarkably clear in Matthew 16:18-19 and its immediate context:And I tell you, you are Peter (Gr.—petros—‘rock’), and on this rock (Gr.—petra—‘rock’) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Have a blessed week ahead reader.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Regardless of what denomination you choose, you will have to use your own discernment to arrive at that decision. What is doctrine to Catholics is heresy to Lutherans and there is 0 way to tell which is correct except for your own reasoning. Con says that an issue with nondenom is that members can disagree on multiple aspects of doctrine, but perhaps it is worse to be forced to agree on everything that comes with a denomination when each denomination may be flawed in some way. Nondenom is only path that allows you to very meticulously pick everything you agree with or don't without going against your denomination's doctrines. As long as you're smart enough to pick a neutral nondenom church that gets the core basics right it doesn't matter if not everyone agrees on everything, it's much worse to be in a denom where you are FORCED to agree with things that aren't true.
The flexibility of nondenom is such that it can take whatever form is most ideal, but if any denomination is 100% correct it will have to take the form of that denomination to be ideal. However if NO denomination is 100% correct, then ONLY Nondenom can take the form that is most ideal because only nondenom is not forced to take the less than 100% ideal form of other denoms. Thus the burden of proof is actually entirely on con to prove that catholicism is 100% ideal, otherwise nondenom wins by default by virtue of it's unique ability to take on that ideal form where other denoms have a mix of correct and incorrect aspects that you are forced to accept in unison. Con claims nondenom is indefensible because his definition frames each nondenom church as it's own denomination, the problem with that logic is how does that refute anything I have said so far? Theoretically catholics due to following their doctrine could still have less than 100% correct beliefs and a non-denominational christian could have 100% correct beliefs and calling their nondenom church it's own denomination won't change that.
What Con's definition of denomination is meant to imply is that true nondenom doesn't exist, but all he's actually proving is that each nondenom group can be it's own denomination and I'm fine with that. As long as someone can go to a non-denominational church and have more correct beliefs than con I still win. You can whine that "they're called nondenominational but they're actually a denomination so it's an oxymoron" but that doesn't make every church labelled "non-denominational" disappear into thin air. As long as I can disagree with catholicism, go to any nondenom church and be more correct in my beliefs than you, I am the more correct one in every practical real world sense that actually matters. You use circular reasoning and define your denomination as correct because it is your denomination, and uniformity as better than non-uniformity because it is uniformity, but the same criticism that says two nondenom churches can be totally different and have random beliefs also says that catholics and baptists are totally different and there are 1000 other denoms with random beliefs.
So unless catholicism is proven better than all others, it is just another denomination out of a thousand, just as each nondenom church is it's own little island. Catholics will take credit for everything the early church did but the modern day catholic church is drastically different from the church at the time that the trinity was defined and other such things. You can still accept the orthodox view of the trinity, the nicene creed, everything that defines christianity and be nondenom and the modern catholic church didn't invent those things any more than baptists did. Whether you are nondenom or affiliated with a specific denom, one man's doctrine is another man's heresy yet we all can keep continuity with certain core essentials laid out by the early church. Also please note that "catholic" means universal and if you see a pre-Roman Catholic creed saying catholic (universal) church that is no more proof of catholicism than using the term "orthodox" (i.e correct in doctrine) is proof of the Eastern Orthodox church.
Ultimately con is missing the entire point, the ability to disagree is the greatest strength of being nondenom. In the end all he can do is falsely take credit for what the early church did which called itself both "catholic" and "orthodox" in a completely different context, and end his argument with an out of context bible quote while he's at it. Catholics rarely mention that the power of binding and loosing is shared with the other apostles in the book of acts. However it's funny that con thinks this bible quote is sufficient, when I talked about the papacy at length in round 1 and he dropped (and thus conceded) every argument. It's also funny that he speaks of being "united in christ" when catholics believe they are the only true church and all other are heretics, but nondenoms are free to accept catholics, protestants, and orthodox as fellow christians.
Con
#4
Sorry for the typos, I'll fix in Round 3.
A ND adherent can make any rules bend at any time. They can alternatively make up rules that the CH trinity of Y*hw*h the most high did not will or intend.
When Pro posts both Rounds but especially Round 2, I see 'flexibility' overly celebrated. If God is so flexible that the incest, pedophile, bestiliaty and other such actuvities of one are justified under the moral frameowrk of the ND CH-in-name, it means they are not really CH at all and are abusing the title.
===
At the fundamental level, Christianity is about accepting weakness and helplessness.
One way to hybrid offence-defence my case against Pro's is to discuss what CHity actually is.
I did give a definition of the CH in Round 1, which includes the Apostle's Creed that holds the C Church as holy and valid, so much so that even reformed churches pray/declare it.
A further elaboration would be that a CH is pathetic without God and accepts it. We do not approach as first strong warriors and let the Holy Spirit empower us.
There is an adage that is extremely CH in nature:
When life gets too hard to stand, kneel.
This is not a verbatim Bible verse but, in my and many CHs' opinion, sums up how we see what it is to truly surrender to the Lord.
It is not a case of being a self-driven zealot that is determined to be the greatest CH at all. It is crying, kneeling, bowing your head and praying to be saved and helped.
This core attitude is not remotely there in NDism. The entire approach is one of arrogance by Pro's logic. It is not at all surrendering to Christ as one's superior nor respecting the apostolic succession signified from St Peter, the first pope and wisest apostle, being assigned to continue being the earthly head of Christ's church as Christ went to heaven (of course, until the second coming, when we will see who fully ends up in heaven or hell; I'm not 100% sure on what that means for current heaven vs hell allocation).
The fact Pro not only thinks it is okay to rethink all doctrine and arrogantly jumble it all up and re-decide what is true or false but also that this is literally better in and of itself than uniting under the one true church means he is anti-CHity at the very core.
That is my entire case's root.
At the core, fundamental level, NDism is divisive arrogance and means even in ND churches they don't unite under Christ; they feign it, swallowing their potentially huge disagreements on doctrine.
Now that leads me to my next major hybrid point.
====
Uniting under Christ is far beyond Sunday Mass. It is Societal too, Christianity is also meant to help make moral societies.
NDism does not know what CH values are. It lets you mix and match any. Now, Pro may cry, saying 'brand new point', but in Round 1 I made clear the issue is in failing to make us unite under Christ in an organised, unified manner.
Do you want a neighbour who thinks it is okay to steal? How about one running a strip club? This does happen in so-called Christian nations, yes. However, it happens more in Protestant ones or Eastern Orthodox. Catholic faith, if it were actually truly adhered to and believed in strongly, would result in a population with minimised adultery, murder and many other things.
In NDism, anything goes. You would have 4000 NDs in the same community, all morally different in some way from the others' combination. If 4k is an exaggeration, maybe 3k.
Not only that, but the modern-day inceldom fiasco is rooted in 4 issues only Catholicism solves fully:
- Deep shame over chastity (issue 4 explores full celibates rather than chastity until marriage) and also confusing it with sole abstinence. Abstinence lets one masturbate and mentally harbour severe dissatisfaction about their state of being.
- Societies that are Western take the Christian value of loving others as the dream goal and pervert this insolely to erotic love. The proof they still think in a Christian way, almost in an ND manner, is that they stigmatise polygamy, straight-up outlawing any nonmonogamous marriages in these nations, yet allow all sorts to get married, even people that identify as furries (nonhumans), let alone homosexuals. They also allow easy-exit divorce and sex outside marriage to be far less stigmatised.
- If you combine issues 1 and 2 and add modern feminism on top, it ends up with women believing they're right and entitled to have sex with any man they fancy at any time if he is down for it and that if 5 of them dedicate themselves to the same player, the 4 men left off of the approximate 50/50 gender split must suck it up, sulk and get over it. This part here is even an issue Islam never ever remotely fixed.
- Extreme cases of severe genetic or emotional-trauma abnormalities that make sex and/or spousal relationships unfeasible for an individual mean they feel they are less of a person. This is not the same as issue 1. These are people who are not likely to get fruitful procreation and marriage bonding out of a sexual bond and thus are ideally lifelong celibates, not temporarily chaste, for chastity is about when to have sex, while celibacy is to totally reject it. Issue 1 includes men who can get laid but lack the social and psychological framework to build up towards a healthy relationship. Here I mean people who are built/wired for single-to-death life. Catholics venerate them and respect that they have a less typical way of fulfilling their lives, and Catholics have bigger families more often to make up for the population decrease such people offer.
If you combine these 4 points, you will see the truth. NDism cannot remotely fix social issues. It is not Christian in how the society full of NDs would work.
How bad can it get?' you say. I mean, really?
Catholics were the vast majority of those resisting Hitler in the mixed Germany of the 1930s (yes, the 30s, not just when it became obvious what he was). Look:
If you dont trust Reddit in and of itself, see this:
Same image in there, more reliable source.
Hitler was born and raised Austrian Catholic. He deconverted durinng his nutjob racist tyrannical path to what ended as this:
In Hitler's early political statements, he attempted to express himself to the German public as a Christian.[36] In public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, he described himself as a Christian.[37] Hitler and the Nazi party promoted Positive Christianity,[38] which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible).[39][40] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[41] and "Jewish materialism".[42]
(Source beneath next)
Now what is fascinating is what the Wikipedia page says next. This shows the natural way that progressing towards NDism from Catholicism can derail and cut to pieces what it is to be Christian:
While a small minority of historians accept these publicly stated views as genuine expressions of his spirituality,[36] the vast majority believe that Hitler was skeptical of religion and anti-Christian, but recognized that he could only be elected and preserve his political power if he feigned a commitment to and belief in Christianity, which the overwhelming majority of Germans believed in.[43] Privately, Hitler repeatedly deprecated Christianity, and told confidants that his reluctance to make public attacks on the Church was not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic political move.[44] In April 1941, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels privately wrote in his diaries that although Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons."[45] Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described by Goebbels, in the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, are further evidence of his irreligious and anti-Christian beliefs;[28] these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd, contrary to scientific advancement, and socially destructive.[28][46]
This is NOT a new point I require Pro to reply to as a standalone issue.
I am not here to expose Pro as a racist, misogynist, lgbtq abuser or anyting. That is private for a ND to have as a personal battle they may find... ;)
I am here to double, triple and maybe quadruple down on the fundamental issue of all NDism when contrasted to Catholicism. They have no way to unite against evil ever viable without becoming a denomination.
It is opening the door, ignoring it and being shocked when Satan strolls in.
Hitler...
Under the Gleichschaltung (Nazification) process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by the Confessing Church. Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate political Catholicism. Amid harassment of the Church, the Reich concordat treaty with the Vatican was signed in 1933, and promised to respect Church autonomy. Hitler routinely disregarded the Concordat, closing all Catholic institutions whose functions were not strictly religious. Clergy, nuns, and lay leaders were targeted, with thousands of arrests over the ensuing years. The Catholic Church accused the regime of "fundamental hostility to Christ and his Church".[17] Multiple historians believe that the Nazis intended to eradicate traditional forms of Christianity in Germany after victory in the war.[18]
I aint sayin' he a Nazi, I'm just sayin'... www.france24.com
Round 3
Pro
#5
Instead of addressing my critique that choosing one out of 1000 denominations is the same level of "arrogance" and reliance on ones self as choosing your own beliefs as a nondenom, Con doubles down on trying to gaslight you into assuming his version of Christianity is correct due to the circular reasoning of "because the catholic church said so". He also flat out lies by conflating the early church with the roman catholic church when I already explained that words like "catholic" and "orthodox" have a meaning independent from specific denominations that use those labels to try to make themselves sound more credible. Notice that what pro is not doing is explaining why Catholic beliefs are correct, because Catholics fundamentally are forced to assume that whatever their denomination believes is correct by default. The blind obedience that should be reserved only for God is allocated to the Pope and to corrupt priests and bishops who rape little boys. Which btw is ridiculous, if Catholicism was inherently better at fighting evil you would think there wouldn't be so many child rapists in their own church.
The Catholicism solving inceldom angle is also false. The only way to actually stop incels from existing is to make it illegal to reject someone based on universally undesirable characteristics. Con is probably mistaking the word "incel" for the ideology known as "black pill" which is a common mistake. Incel means "involuntarily celibate" so anyone who wants to have a romantic/sexual partner but can't is an incel. Con himself is a raging feminist but also an incel due to his inability to get a girlfriend despite desiring one.
Catholicism actively creates incels by encouraging celibacy to the point that people who don't naturally desire it are pressured into it. It also makes sure that incels that do exist are even more sexually frustrated and repressed since masturbation is seen as a mortal sin (which isn't supported by the bible). Catholic priests are often incels who take out their repressed sexuality on little boys, and in the past took it out on women who they labeled as witches by torturing them in brutal and sometimes erotic ways. Cons framing of why Catholics were much less likely to vote for Hitler is also extremely manipulative. He fails to mention that the Catholics in Germany at the time were extremely loyal to a specific political party that was known for upholding Catholic values.
Many voters may be tempted to vote con for sources, but notice which sources he is using. His points are almost exclusively backed by Roman Catholic mouthpieces and wikipedia, he even uses reddit as a source. All of this in a dishonest and divisive attempt to conflate nondenominational christianity with buzzword topics like incels and Nazism. All of this is a massive distraction from the fact that Con can't justify Catholic doctrine with anything but an appeal to authority fallacy, and it isn't an appeal to God's authority but to a corrupt institution made up of men. But congratulations to Catholics for finding the heart to oppose Hitler between child rape and stake-burning sessions.
The Catholicism solving inceldom angle is also false. The only way to actually stop incels from existing is to make it illegal to reject someone based on universally undesirable characteristics. Con is probably mistaking the word "incel" for the ideology known as "black pill" which is a common mistake. Incel means "involuntarily celibate" so anyone who wants to have a romantic/sexual partner but can't is an incel. Con himself is a raging feminist but also an incel due to his inability to get a girlfriend despite desiring one.
Catholicism actively creates incels by encouraging celibacy to the point that people who don't naturally desire it are pressured into it. It also makes sure that incels that do exist are even more sexually frustrated and repressed since masturbation is seen as a mortal sin (which isn't supported by the bible). Catholic priests are often incels who take out their repressed sexuality on little boys, and in the past took it out on women who they labeled as witches by torturing them in brutal and sometimes erotic ways. Cons framing of why Catholics were much less likely to vote for Hitler is also extremely manipulative. He fails to mention that the Catholics in Germany at the time were extremely loyal to a specific political party that was known for upholding Catholic values.
Many voters may be tempted to vote con for sources, but notice which sources he is using. His points are almost exclusively backed by Roman Catholic mouthpieces and wikipedia, he even uses reddit as a source. All of this in a dishonest and divisive attempt to conflate nondenominational christianity with buzzword topics like incels and Nazism. All of this is a massive distraction from the fact that Con can't justify Catholic doctrine with anything but an appeal to authority fallacy, and it isn't an appeal to God's authority but to a corrupt institution made up of men. But congratulations to Catholics for finding the heart to oppose Hitler between child rape and stake-burning sessions.
Think about any particular 12-year-old you know. Perhaps it's your own child, perhaps a niece or nephew, or the neighbor's kid.Now imagine this kid is the pope.As horrific visions of Justin Cardinal Timberlake and St. Tupac tha Skandiluz flit through your head, just remember—it could be much worse. Consider, if you will, the case of Pope Benedict IX.As spoiled a 12-year-old as ever there was, Benny ascended to the papacy in 1032. The office of pope was presented to him as a gift from his father, Alberic, the Holy Roman Emperor du jour. Benedict was the great-grandson of Marozia, a Roman Senatrix and powerful politician who was reputedly the mistress of Pope Sergius III. Through Marozia, Sergius was said to have sired Pope John IX. Several of Marozia's progeny ascended to the papacy, and Benedict's two immediate predecessors were also his uncles.The stories about Benedict's behavior reached heights comparable to the most notorious popes. He was accused of habitual sodomy and bestiality, and was said to have sponsored orgies where any available orifice was considered fair game. His excesses were so legendary that they helped prompt St. Peter Damian, a cloistered monk, to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular, with a special focus on how these practices had become rampant within the Catholic priesthood and even the papacy itself. In Liber Gomorrhianus (The Book of Gomorrah), Damian railed against homosexuality in explicit detail for more than 100 pages, lumping in masturbation and dry-humping for good measure. Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest."
Although Damian singled out Benedict for particular scorn, the diatribe was directed at the clergy in general. Benedict's sex life might have been colorful, but it wasn't exactly unusual. The papacy and the clergy at large had fallen into serious disrepute over the preceding 200 years. As a womanizer and a glutton, Benedict was merely indulging in the grand Roman Catholic tradition of the day, following in the footsteps of popes like Sergius and John XII, who transformed the Lateran palace into a brothel. Like Sergius, Benedict was also rumored to be a murderer with papicidal tendencies.Despite the impressive efforts of his predecessors, Benedict did manage to distinguish himself as an innovator in the annals of bad popery. Not only did he repeat almost every sin committed by previous popes, he came up with one shocking new twist that no one before or since has managed to replicate—selling the papacy.
Benedict IX
This is the kind of stuff that happened in the history of what we are supposed to accept as the infallible one true church that cannot ere in matters of faith and morality. The Catholic Church made major reforms since the middle ages but you would be naive to assume the corruption simply went away. On the contrary, it wouldn't be unreasonable to postulate that there is still serious corruption but they are just better at hiding it now. Nondenom churches may have less of an ability to organize against external injustice, but at least they can't harbor large international organized pedophile rings where bishops rape little boys and protect one another.
This is the kind of stuff that happened in the history of what we are supposed to accept as the infallible one true church that cannot ere in matters of faith and morality. The Catholic Church made major reforms since the middle ages but you would be naive to assume the corruption simply went away. On the contrary, it wouldn't be unreasonable to postulate that there is still serious corruption but they are just better at hiding it now. Nondenom churches may have less of an ability to organize against external injustice, but at least they can't harbor large international organized pedophile rings where bishops rape little boys and protect one another.
Con
#6
In Round 1 I defiend Christian as having to be true to Apostles Creed, Eucharist etc.
The Catholic Church was the Church to pioneer those things. This is why even the reformed church website has Apostle's creed sayung they believe in tgeholy communion of saints and the holy catholic church. It is an axiom.
Only Orthodox can contest that claim via Byzantines and NDs cannot.
NDism is apparently survival of the smartest as Pro presents is. The mentally unwell or low IQ will severely perish as as any of the very disordered may or may not perish but if they do they cannbe severely deranged even.
In stark contrast, Catholicism denies sola scriptura. It insists on guiding us through how to interpret the Bible via its Catechism. That helps all sheep of the shepherd Jesus' flock surrender and submit
This new point about pedophilia is not proof of anything. I will notbother to show you how many protestant pedos there have been. The issue is not with that as a brand new Roind 3 point of my opponent in a 3-Round debate. The issue is that Catholicism outright bans pediphilia and all sexual immorality.
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." 138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." 139
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. 140 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.
2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.
In other words, every single angle of abuse done is blatantly anti-Catholicism. Meanwhile a nondenominational can say almost anything is justifiable under their solo made up version of Christian ethics.
That is the problem. It divides under Christ, lets there be too much malleability to the Lord's ethics and has 0 claim to being the original Church of Christ with Jesus himself a foubder and St. Peter as 1st Pope like Catholics have.
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:
This debate was poorly set-up as a clear argument of Non-demoninationalism vs Catholicism, and clearly intended a specific member to debate the point, but which participant takes which subject? This should have been made clear in the Description so both participants are clearly aware of which subject is their burden of proof. That they clarified it between themselves privately seems evident. But I, as a voter, must have a clear understanding of it, too, and, given what is within the debate, itself, there is nothing until the debate begins. Poor set-up, and I fault Pro for that oversight. Pro indicates in Description “Failure to engage with intended topic counts as forfeit” Engage which side of the argument? Only Pro’s R1 argument makes clear his BoP is Non-denominationalism, but then errs in an argument that Paul is unable to argue spreading the gospel to gentiles when it is Peter who has the dream of a sheet from heaven filled with animals considered by Jews and early Christians as clean and unclean, and is shown that what God cleans cannot then be considered by Peter as unclean. Peter is convinced by the Lord, and does not need Paul’s convincing. Is that a precursor to Pro’s stand of disagreement? But Con does not argue this point - a missed opportunity, other than his argument than nondenon does’t make sense, and one must agree with that as a voter, so maybe Con’s argument is sufficient.
Pro finally defines a stand in R2: “Ultimately con is missing the entire point, the ability to disagree is the greatest strength of being nondenom.” But what is disagreement? It is not defined by Pro in his context. Failure. To what does one rally around with others if disagreement is the core belief? “We agree to disagree” ends up being an oxymoron, too, which Pro argues against in R1.
Cutting to the chase, this debate is both won and lost in R2. Con wins with two simple arguments: “When life gets too hard to stand, kneel.” And “Uniting under Christ is far beyond Sunday Mass. It is Societal too, Christianity is also meant to help make moral societies.” Pro never rebuts either argument in R3. Pro also loses in R2 with the argument already noted: “Ultimately con is missing the entire point, the ability to disagree is the greatest strength of being nondenom.” Nonsense.
Con cites multiple sources justifying his position. Pro cites one source in R3, but too little too late.
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:
When it comes to arguments, here is a weighing system:
1. Being united
2. Not always being right
3. Being able to customize religion
4. Preventing harm
If debaters disagree with this weighing system and wish to add more goalposts to my vote, just message me and I will change it.
Burden of proof is on Pro. Even if I were to accept that only 1 of non-Denominationalism must be better than Christianity, the problem is that Pro didnt present any specific which is better there.
1. Being united
Pro loses badly on this one. His customization of religion is the greatest obstacle to being united, as Con points out. Pro says that Catholic church caused division, but in comparison, Catholic Church is much more united than non-Denominationalism.
2. Not always being right
Pro says that pope isnt always right there. I accept that argument. However, the main problem is that, as Con points out, the other side is wrong much more times. In fact, due to customization, people less capable of reason will make much worse conclusions about religion now.
3. Being able to customize religion
This point essentially goes to Pro. He is right in that his side offers more customization.
4. Preventing harm
Pro points out cases of sexual abuse there. Con counters by saying that these dont happen only in Catholic Church. They and others might happen even more in custom religion, because while Catholic Church has actual official stance against these, the non-Denominationalism doesnt. non-Denominationalism can even be used to justify these, as person can use Sola Scriptura according to own interpretation. Con also brings examples of Catholics standing up against Hitler.
I think Con wins on 1, 2 and 4 clearly. Pro wins on 3, but its not enough to outweigh the rest now. Arguments to Con there.
Pro also used insults in a debate. I think this costs a conduct point.
In case debaters have issue with my vote, they can either state which weighing goal to add, or which specific weigh goal was weighed wrong there.
Not true. It means I am drained to make brand new rebuttals instead of reinforcing my case. It also baits me into a blitzkrieg.
If a mormon and a sun-worshipper can vote properly surely you can too. The mods have deleted my votes at least 10 times though, it seems like some kind of weird bias they have against me because often my votes seemed fine.
When voting, you must mention arguments from both sides in your vote. Just do something simple like list 5 to 10 main goalposts in debate and see who won on which there. Also, dont add your own arguments to vote. Its important to use what is found in debate only. It takes some time to understand how voting works here. But some votes are much easier to do than others. If one side forfeits their whole debate, you can just vote for the other side by just saying "forfeit". Those are easiest votes. But there are cases where debaters agree that forfeited rounds are instead posted in comments there. Thats different case then. But if you see clear forfeit by one side, its an easy vote.
Sorry I’m new to how this works. I truly apologize.
Re: your #5, blitzkrieg really only applies in a last round if your opponent is on the "bottom inning" of the last round, but that was not the case in this debate; you, as Con, had the last word, and, therefore, the opportunity to respond, which you did.
>Vote: 21Pilots // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro (Arguments, Legibility, Conduct), 2 points to Con (Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
I believe that pro did better then con except for the sources, I would’ve probably voted con more because of the sue of reliable sources.
Reason for Removal: The voter provides no reasoning for awarding Legibility and Conduct.
On both arguments and sources, the voter merely states that one side "did better" or had more "reliable sources." To award points like this, the voter must explain their decision, not merely repeat it with more words. What aspects of Pro's arguments made them "better"? What makes Con's sources more "reliable"? These have to be explained to cast a vote with those points.
**************************************************
I appreciate the vote.
I dont usually ever ignore arguments in debate. The only time I might consider such thing is if opponent waits till last round to post all arguments, and other person cannot even respond. As long as you can respond to argument, the choice not to do so would make me treat argument as unchallenged.
Ty for vote
Most voters wont allow what Pro did in Round 3 blitzKrieg so my rebuttal wouldnt be needed but I knew a voter might consider it so I replied.
"only 1 of non-Denominationalism must be better than Christianity"
I meant better than catholicism there. Typing error.
✝️⛪🙏
Let the voting commence
Forgive me for my sloth sin here. I typed all Rounds on phone without autocorrect and this is a hobby.
Please St. Mary intercede so the Christ and Father alike forgive me for the spelling errors and laziness when representing the 1 true church.
Amen.