The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Fat Catholics are miserable SINNERS and those who refuse to fast are doomed to burn in HELL

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,633 times Debate No: 25919
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

I"m not a Catholic myself but I do know that both GLUTTONY and SLOTH are two of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS (1).

Neither am I a doctor I but I also know that the primary causes of obesity are also GLUTTONY and SLOTH (2).

However, fat Catholics can make a gesture of penitence to the LORD by regularly fasting. As it is written in the Bible "And they gathered together to Mizpeh, and drew water, and poured it out before the LORD, and fasted on that day, and said there, we have sinned against the LORD" (1 Samuel 7:6)

As well as pleasing the LORD, fasting will also help obese SINNERS lose weight, which would be good for their health and thus enable them to live longer lives, "for the wages of sin is DEATH." (Romans 6:23).

I believe priests have the religious duty to guide their flocks by determining how long and how often fat Catholics should fast.

The Bible gives examples of one-day, three-day, seven-day and forty-day fasts (Judges 20:26, Esther 4:16, 1 Samuel 31:13 and Matthew 4 respectively) so priests might determine that a fat SINNER who had let themselves go a bit by scoffing a few too many curries and supping a too much beer, and who had failed to renew their gym membership, might be compelled to complete a one-day fast every month, while longer and more frequent fasts would be allocated to the even more greedy and lazy members of their congregations.

Catholics believe that when they die they are interviewed by the LORD (or one of his officially appointed representatives such as Saint Peter) and that, during that meeting, they are challenged to account for their lives and prove that they have duly repented of their all their SINS.

That means that, no matter what good deeds an overweight Catholic may have performed during his life, if some big fat pile of sweating blubber who died of a self-inflicted, obesity-related illness turns up at the Pearly Gates and takes his place in the line behind some poor little African kid who died of starvation because the grossly overweight guy behind him had consumed far more than his fair share of the planet's finite food resources, there is no way the obese bloke is going to convince anyone that he deserves a place in the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, for in addition the GLUTTONY and SLOTH, GREED is another of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS.

It may seem harsh, but woe betide fat Catholics for they are miserable SINNERS and those who refuse to fast are doomed to burn in HELL for all eternity.

Thank you.

(1) http://deadlysins.com...
(2) http://www.nhs.uk...
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Since this had "Catholic" in the title, I was obligated to accept it.

The resolution appears to be "Fat Catholics are miserable SINNERS and those who refuse to fast are doomed to burn in HELL".

Therefore, my opponent needs to prove that:

A) "Fat Catholics are miserable SINNERS"

B) "(Fat Catholics) who refuse to fast are doomed to burn in HELL"

Sadly for my opponent, my expansive knowledge of Catholicism will almost certainly carry the day in this debate.

GLUTTONY and SLOTH are indeed two of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS.

I am not a doctor either, so I'll assume my opponent knows what he's talking about when he says the primary causes of obesity are GLUTTONY and SLOTH.

Pro writes "The Bible gives examples of one-day, three-day, seven-day and forty-day fasts (Judges 20:26, Esther 4:16, 1 Samuel 31:13 and Matthew 4 respectively) so priests might determine that a fat SINNER who had let themselves go a bit by scoffing a few too many curries and supping a too much beer, and who had failed to renew their gym membership, might be compelled to complete a one-day fast every month, while longer and more frequent fasts would be allocated to the even more greedy and lazy members of their congregations."

Catholics believe in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is able to absolve people of mortal sin (CCC §1422). All a fat Catholic has to do, therefore, is confess his/her/its sins to a priest before they die, and they're safe from HELL.

Pro writes "there is no way the obese bloke is going to convince anyone that he deserves a place in the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, for in addition the GLUTTONY and SLOTH, GREED is another of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS."

If he's not in a state of mortal sin, they'll just wave him on through. What, do you think heaven has time to interview every single person who dies? Let's be realistic here, most of them don't even get a second glance.

Pro writes "It may seem harsh, but woe betide fat Catholics for they are miserable SINNERS and those who refuse to fast are doomed to burn in HELL for all eternity."

Catholics don't believe anyone burns in HELL, because they don't believe HELL is literally a place of flame and burnination.

Therefore, my opponent's argument has major flaws. He can do one of two things, both of which will lead to his defeat.

1) Accept Catholic principles of Reconciliation, HELL not having fire, etc.

I will accept these principles without contesting them, but in this case, he will be unable to prove that fat Catholics who refuse to fast will burn in HELL, because Catholic teaching contradicts that idea by:

a) Absolving people of sins and letting them go to heaven even if they refuse to fast.

b) Claiming that even if they do die and go to HELL, they will not burn because HELL went out.

2) Reject Catholic principles

In this case, he will have to give us logical arguments for the existence of HELL, the existence of sin, and justification for fat Catholics being thrown into a fiery HELL.

Additionally, my opponent may have overlooked some special cases:

1. The fat Catholic who doesn't fast, but repents

There might be some great fat Catholic who realizes he's been overeating and slothing it up, so he cuts his food intake dramatically (but not totally) and starts to exercise after having repented. Unfortunately, as he tries to jog across a road on an attempt to start an exercise regime, the light turns green and a lorry hits him and kills him.

Maybe he even planned to fast, but died before he could go any longer than he normally went between meals.

Possibly such a person would not go to HELL.

2. The fat Catholic who has a genetic disorder

There may be a fat Catholic who neither overeats to the degree that they are committing the sin of GREED, nor is lazy to the degree that they are committing the sin of SLOTH, but who just has a genetic disorder that makes them obese.

Since they are not sinning, it is doubtful that they would go to HELL for no reason.

If even one fat Catholic refuses to fast and avoids being doomed to burn in HELL, the resolution is negated.

I turn it over to my opponent.

Sources:

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank AlwaysMoreThanYou for accepting this debate and for posting his interesting and amusing misinterpretations of Catholicism.

To begin, my opponent wrote: “Catholics believe in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is able to absolve people of mortal sin…All a fat Catholic has to do, therefore, is confess his/her/its sins to a priest before they die, and they're safe from HELL.”

I wonder how that works in practice. Let’s consider the case of a certain 15th Century prince of Wallachia, a man who was a devout Roman Catholic and a member of the Order of the Dragon which was founded to protect Christianity in Eastern Europe, and who almost certainly confessed his sins to a priest before he died, possibly as follows:

.

Vlad the Impaler (for it is he): “Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.”

Priest: “How have you sinned, my child?”

Vlad: “I skewered some people on big spikes and they died horrible deaths as a result.”

Priest: “I see, and how many people did you kill in this way?”

Vlad: “Sixty thousand give or take a few thousand.”

Priest: “Oh well, never mind, these things happen, God forgives you.”

.

So when Vlad died, because he had confessed his sins, St Peter presumably greeted him warmly at the Pearly Gates, ushered him inside and invited him to help himself to the welcome drinks and canapés. Is that right?

So what if the next in line outside the Pearly gates was a Romanian farmer who hadn’t confessed his sins?

.

St Peter: “Hey, where do you think you’re going, mister?”

Farmer: “Well, I was hoping to take my rightful place in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

St Peter: “I don’t thinks so, peasant, unrepentant sinners like you aren’t welcome around here.”

Farmer: “But I was just a simple farmer living a blameless life, what was my sin?”

St Peter: “You coveted your neighbours ox, you evil bastard.”

Farmer: “What?”

St Peter: “You gazed admiringly at one of your neighbour’s oxen and wished that you owned the beast instead of him – you vile fiend – and you didn’t repent of your sin before you died.”

Farmer: “I admit that I was jealous of my neighbour’s ox, and I know that was wrong, and I was on my way to church to repent when this Transylvanian nobleman came up and rammed a big pointy pole right up my…anyway, suffice to say I didn’t make it to the church.”

St Peter: “I’m not interested in your excuses, you miserable little pleb, you’re going to HELL and that’s the end of the matter.”

.

That doesn’t sound a very fair system of deciding who does and who doesn’t get into Heaven, does it? I mean, if anyone who repented their sins were allowed in the Catholic afterlife would be full of mafia bosses, IRA activists and violent medieval aristocrats – so with all the fighting between Italian gangsters, Irish terrorists and ruthless Romanian tyrants, Catholic Heaven would make South Central Los Angeles look like Martha’s Vineyard!

I couldn’t believe that the Catholic god would allow this, so I checked and, in actual fact, he doesn’t. This is what Catholic Planet has to say about repentance:

“Do not commit any serious sins. But if you have sinned seriously, repent sincerely. True and full repentance happens not merely out of fear of HELL, but also out of love of God and neighbor. Accept true love for God and neighbor, otherwise, you will not be able to fully and sincerely repent. Catholics (and the Orthodox) ordinarily obtain forgiveness from God in the Confessional. Other persons can obtain forgiveness by a full repentance based on the love of God and neighbor; this is called perfect contrition because it is based on the most perfect reason for repenting, true selfless spiritual love.

Why should you be allowed to enter Heaven, if you have not repented from the evil that you did on earth?”

In other words, those who just go through the motions of repentance aren’t allowed into Heaven: it’s no good some big fat slob spending half his life scoffing burgers, pizzas and fried chicken while watching television documentaries about starving people in the Third World then nipping down to church to confess his sins after he is diagnosed with terminal heart disease and given one week to live - the LORD’s not going to be convinced that he is truly contrite and he’ll duly banish him to HELL.

Therefore, I cannot accept that “Absolving (fat) people of sins and letting them go to heaven even if they refuse to fast” is a part of the Catholic faith.

Regarding, the nature of Catholic HELL, the Bible is very clear that it is uncomfortably hot: in Mark 9:47–48 Jesus warns us, "[I]t is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into HELL, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." And in Revelations 14:11, we read: "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

Indeed, some Tea Party supporters might argue that the fires of HELL are the real cause of global warming, which is also why I refute “that even if they do die and go to HELL, they will not burn because HELL went out.”

Regarding the special cases my opponent mentioned, Catholic Planet is very clear that all fat Catholics who refuse to fast will, indeed, go to HELL because they state categorically that the only special cases are: “babies who die in the womb, or at a very young age” and “severely handicapped persons.” (2)

Finally my opponent wrote: “If even one fat Catholic refuses to fast and avoids being doomed to burn in HELL, the resolution is negated.” Since God is supposed to be infallible, no fat Catholic who refused to fast would be admitted into Heaven, and even if one obese deceased did manage to sneak past St Peter, I’m sure he’d soon be spotted amongst the other celestial citizens and be duly cast into the pits of HELL to burn for al eternity along with all the other fat Catholics who refused to fast.

I rest my case.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.catholicplanet.com...

(2) http://www.catholic.com...

AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

While my opponent's arguments were certainly quite "entertaining" and "amusing", I think they fail to reach the lofty philosophical heights that such a pertinent moral question as this one should aspire to.

It is therefore with "deep regret" that I counter my opponent's "arguments".

Pro writes "So when Vlad died, because he had confessed his sins, St Peter presumably greeted him warmly at the Pearly Gates, ushered him inside and invited him to help himself to the welcome drinks and canapés. Is that right?"

Patently false and utterly ridiculous! What is this rubbish? I am actually insulted that my opponent sees fit to make such a foolish and blasphemous claim such as this!

There are obviously no canapés in Heaven, because there are no French people in Heaven. My opponent has made a grave mistake that will surely cost him this entire argument, if not the debate.

Pro also talks about a farmer, an individual certainly deserving of eternal damnation as I will show.

Pro writes "Farmer: “Well, I was hoping to take my rightful place in the Kingdom of Heaven.”"

For starters, we can see that this farmer is an arrogant man. "Rightful place" indeed! That's one obvious strike against his moral character.

Pro writes "Farmer: “But I was just a simple farmer living a blameless life, what was my sin?”"

Secondly, the farmer is patently a liar, as well as a horrible sinner.

Romans 3:23

"all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God."

Obviously, God could have found the farmer's life blameful, so not only was the farmer an unrepentant liar but he actually had the audacity to stand at the entrance to Heaven, lying to St. Peter, and claiming that he should be let in.

I ask the audience; does this sound like a man worthy of Heaven? Bear in mind that he's doing all these bad things right in God's doorway.

Pro writes "St Peter: “You gazed admiringly at one of your neighbour’s oxen and wished that you owned the beast instead of him – you vile fiend – and you didn’t repent of your sin before you died.”"

More damning yet is this additionally evidence against the abomination of a farmer! Not only is he an arrogant liar, but he was covetous of his neighbor's property. This is further testimony against his truthfulness as well, as he just claimed he was "living a blameless life", which he obviously wasn't if he took any opportunity he had to be jealous of his neighbor's property.

Pro writes "Farmer: “I admit that I was jealous of my neighbour’s ox, and I know that was wrong, and I was on my way to church to repent when this Transylvanian nobleman came up and rammed a big pointy pole right up my…anyway, suffice to say I didn’t make it to the church.”"

If he had never sinned in the first place, he wouldn't be in this predicament. It's his own bloody fault, and his pathetic attempts to shift the blame elsewhere should be anathema to any sane-minded individual.

Clearly, my opponent's hypotheticalizing has done nothing but confirm the soundness of Catholic teachings regarding Heaven.

Pro writes "Why should you be allowed to enter Heaven, if you have not repented from the evil that you did on earth?”"

For some reason, my opponent assumes the only way to repent is to fast. If a fat Catholic realized the error of his/her ways, stopped eating to excess, started to exercise, and moved to Africa to help the poor, but failed to fast, then are they repentant or not?

I think it's pretty clear that they are.

Additionally, we also have the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, which absolves you without you even needing to be repentant (CCC §1520), and I'm sure an obese could sneak in to an anointing session run by an old priest with bad eyesight and get himself/herself/itself anointed.

Pro writes "Therefore, I cannot accept that “Absolving (fat) people of sins and letting them go to heaven even if they refuse to fast” is a part of the Catholic faith."

Your acceptance of it is irrelevant.

Pro writes "Indeed, some Tea Party supporters might argue that the fires of HELL are the real cause of global warming, which is also why I refute “that even if they do die and go to HELL, they will not burn because HELL went out.”"

§1033 of the CCC says HELL is not even a place, but a state. Regardless of whatever interpretations you drew from the Bible, the Catholic Church overrides you, since we're discussing Catholic beliefs. Therefore, even if everyone in the world ends up in Catholic HELL, none of them will burn and the resolution is negated.

My opponent also more or less ignored my second special case, as I wrote in Round 1:

"There may be a fat Catholic who neither overeats to the degree that they are committing the sin of GREED, nor is lazy to the degree that they are committing the sin of SLOTH, but who just has a genetic disorder that makes them obese."

My opponent seems to assume that being fat is a deadly sin, which can be easily refuted by viewing his own source. If someone is genetically predisposed to being fat, and so becomes fat without either being GREEDy or SLOTHful, they will not be in a state of mortal sin. Therefore, they would neither be a miserable SINNER nor someone doomed to burn in HELL.

In conclusion, I have given good reason to doubt both parts of the resolution ("Fat Catholics are miserable SINNERS" and "(Fat Catholics) who refuse to fast are doomed to burn in HELL").

I thank my opponent for this debate.

Sources:

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by innomen 4 years ago
innomen
Fasting doesn't equate being thin. In fact thin people probably shoudn't fast too much.

Also, just so you know, absolution isn't a given. I was refused absolution, you can probably guess why.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
brian eggleston is god
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Thanks for the heads-up, adontimasu - I'm not religious myself, I'm just winging this one - I have duly replaced "Christian" with "Catholic" in the debate.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
Several problems with this post: 1) Sloth is not a sin that I recall being in the Bible; the Seven Deadly Sins are a Catholic thing, and nothing else. 2) Not all fat people are slothful; they could be overweight due to medical problems or some other method that does not involve a lack of examples. 3) While fasting is certainly a recommended action, all of your quoted instances of fasting are done by people in the Bible, and are not commanded upon anybody.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
A Catholic Native American living in North West London? Your opinions would be interesting, I'm sure!
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
To accept or not to accept, that is the question.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DDO.votebombcounter1 4 years ago
DDO.votebombcounter1
brian_egglestonAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering DeFool's votebomb. Sufficient RFDs, explaining each point awarded, is required for votes.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
brian_egglestonAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I do not consider myself a Catholic, or agree with the verbiage, Pro does accurately present the catholic tradition.
Vote Placed by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
brian_egglestonAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con brought up better points, and also did a better job refuting his opponent's arguments.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
brian_egglestonAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct to Con due to rather blasphemous words from Pro arguments were more convincing too.