The Instigator
Composer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,188 times Debate No: 33303
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Composer

Pro

. . . . the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view jebus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If Story book jesus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org............ - Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss!)

&

IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god!

100% human means EXACTLY that.

Fully, totally completely 100% human, means just that.

Nothing more, and nothing less!

100% Pure Orange juice is nothing but pure Orange juice.

The very definition of 100% fully human, excludes a god!

If there were something, anything about this Story book jebus that was non-human, it would immediately disqualify it as being 100% human!
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I thank PRO for this debate. As there do not appear to be any rules, I will take this round to set forth necessary definitions and make some relevant comments.

Definitions

Trinity: 'The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion - the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.' [1]

Resolution

As no resolution has been coherently expressed in PRO's opening round, I submit that we use the topic of the debate as the resolution, as follows.

Resolved: Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

If PRO takes issue with this, I am amenable to modifications.

Burden of Proof

As PRO challenged me to this debate, I expect him to provide his alleged evidence that these analogies decimate the Trinitarian ideology. While the wording of the resolution would indicate that these analogies decimate the J.w. ideology as well, I leave it to PRO to decide whether or not he wants to argue that point as well, as I do not care about that issue one way or the other.

I may attempt to show that these analogies do not decimate the Trinitarian ideology, although since it is quite plain that they do not, and this will likely be evidenced when PRO fails to affirm the resolution, it may prove superfluous for me to do so in which case I will not.

Opening Remarks

It is clear that PRO has yet to demonstrate that either the 'Father Xmas' or 'Pure Orange Juice' analogies decimate Trinitarian ideologies. Bearing in mind what a belief in the Trinity necessary entails and what it contingently entails, it would appear that the argument PRO is fielding would be more effectively applied against the Incarnation. As belief in the Trinity is not dependent upon a belief in the Incarnation, however, these analogies are, as of now, impotent against Trinitarianism.

Conclusion

I do hope that PRO will provide an explanation of these analogies in a fashion more applicable to the resolution next round.

Sources:
1. http://www.newadvent.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
Composer

Pro

Con tries to deflect his inherent failure to legitimately refute his following beliefs e.g. -

The trinity formulation & Incarnation etc. etc are all based upon the Johnny Come Lately NON-Original & NON-Earliest trinitarian ideological beliefs that this biblical character was a literal supernatural pre-existent being i.e. Hence according to the Bishop's remarks upon the beliefs of most calling themselves trinitarian xtians i.e. they actually believe -

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Let Con attempt to legitimately deny that this is what Con also believes?
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Introduction

I take PROs lack of commentary on the outlined definitions, resolution, and distribution of burdens as tacit acceptance.

Arguments

PRO accuses me of attempting to deflect my 'inherent failure to legitimately refute his following beliefs', however my beliefs are germane to neither the topic nor the resolution. Despite this, I will vehemently deny that I accede to the teachings of the heretic Robinson, and deny that his 'Father Xmas' analogy is an accurate depiction of the doctrine of the Incarnation.

As I remarked in Round 1, and PRO has yet to comment on, belief in the Trinity does not presuppose belief in the Incarnation. For this reason, any attacks on the Incarnation, even if successful, will fail to affirm the resolution. At this point, I feel secure in saying that PRO has yet to mount a topical argument.

Conclusion

Yes, I legitimately deny that that is what I also believe, although my belief or disbelief is irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 2
Composer

Pro

By providing absolutely NO relevent evidence to the contrary, Con has proven by his own lack of evidence that Con has only ' illegitimately denied ' he doesn't believe the following -

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

What Con has failed to do, is actually legitimately sustain by legitimate evidence to the contrary; that he does not believe the Bishop's comments, which so far he obviously does believe, simply because Con has presented absolutely nothing but his ' empty say so ' that he doesn't!

The trinitarian catholic ideology catholics admit, is the indirect & non-immediate but convoluted words of men and even admitted by the catholics themselves in their following admission -

The Trinity "is not directly and immediately the Word of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 304).

So they freely yet fatally admit the trinity IS NOT based upon " the Word of God ", but rather by their own admission - by another ' indirect means ', i.e. not of their catholic god; leaving the only alternatives that it is the corrupt words of men, that we know led to the Johnny Come Lately corrupted and contrived trinitarian belief/concept, that a literal Supernatural pre-existent god-person became a god dressed as a man-person, the man part apparently died, then it returned to being a god-person, LOL!

Which is precisely what the Bishop's remarks attests and Con can not and has not legitimately shown with evidence that he doesn't believe it, because he does believe the Bishop's comments by Con's total lack of evidence to the contrary and thus actually believe the Bishop's comments in its entirety, i.e. that most claiming to be a trinitarian xtian, believe a literal pre-existent god-person became a fully man and a fully god in one on earth, then some time later the man part died and returned to being a Supernatural godperson? LOL!

Hence my second analogy also fatal to Cons trinitarian cause steps in to again defeat Cons trinitarian ideology -

i.e.

IF some one claims to be 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god!

100% human means EXACTLY that.

Fully, totally completely 100% human, means just that.

Nothing more, and nothing less!

100% Pure Orange juice is nothing but pure Orange juice.

The very definition of 100% fully human, excludes a god!

If there were something, or anything about ANY biblical Story book character that was non-human, it would immediately disqualify it as being 100% human!
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

There's not really much left that I can say, as PRO hasn't even tried to affirm the resolution yet.

Putting aside the endless red herrings PRO supplied like an expert fisherman, let us deal with the first analogy. Let us assume that I believe the heretic's comments, as PRO clearly knows what I believe better than I do. Let us assume that the heretic's remarks are completely accurate. Even making these rather gracious assumptions, PRO has not shown how that decimates a Trinitarian ideology in any way, so the resolution is plainly not affirmed on this end.

For the second analogy, let us assume that it too is completely sound. Let us assume it is without error. With these equally gracious assumptions, PRO still fails to affirm the resolution, as he has not described how this could possibly decimates a Trinitarian ideology either. In fact, this analogy even contradicts his first analogy, because if a story book character is only pretending to be a human (dressed up as Father Xmas), than that story book character is clearly not 100% human, so PROs argument isn't even internally consistent.

If PRO believes he has shown how these analogies decimate a Trinitarian ideology, he is welcome to point out where and how they do so.

Conclusion

Since PRO hasn't come close to affirming the resolution yet, I see no point in making further arguments at this time.
Debate Round No. 3
Composer

Pro

Let the readers always be mindful -

If Story book jesus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org............... - Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss!)

&

IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god!

Con has failed to provide any legitimate evidence that he doesn't believe those facts!

Conversely Con freely admits that the trinity formulation is founded upon the belief that a literal supernatural being pre-existed elsewhere, then came down to earth in the form of a 100% man & 100% Supernatural god in one human form.

Con keeps demanding my evidence fatal to his cause and Con is apparently also oblivious to the other facts apart from my two analogies already a given, other facts fatal to Cons cause that Con has actually provided for me; i.e. via Con's own admissions via Cons previous Link to (I quote in part) -

" The dogma of the Trinity
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion " the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. . . . . " (Cons own Source: http://www.newadvent.org...)

NB: Con claims (I again quote an extract from Cons Source) " the son is god . . . . . . . . the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. " (Cons Source - http://www.newadvent.org...)

Referring next by comparison to Con's evidence again towards my two analogies also fatal to Con's cause besides Cons own self-destroying contribution -

Con claims (I quote) " the son is god . . . . . . . . the Son of God, came upon earth . . . .

cf.

If Story book jesus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org............... - Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss!)

& further more -

Con claims (I quote) " the son is god . . . . . . . . the Son of God, came upon earth . . . .

cf.

IF Story book jebus = 100% a man (As Con also claims), then there is absolutely NO room for a god!

Con claimed (I quote) " the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system ".

So let readers be reminded by Con's own trinitarian fatal catholic evidence taken from Cons own catholic Source, that the entire foundation of Con's catholic trinitarian ideology is founded upon. -

. . . the Son of God, came upon earth . . .

Oops! & fatal for trinitarians -

cf.

If Story book jesus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org............... - Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss!)

&

Con claims (I quote) " the son is god . . . . . . . . the Son of God, came upon earth . . . .

Oops! & again fatal for trinitarians -

cf.

IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god!
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con


Again, PRO has left me very little to work with in terms of relevant arguments that would attempt to affirm the resolution. I'll deal with him more or less line-by-line, to try to ensure that he understands his error before the close of the debate.


PRO: Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss!


CON: No it doesn't, because his 'factual' statement has nothing to do with the Trinitarian premises. Assuming the veracity of this statement, which is in itself a dubious venture, the only conclusion that could possibly be drawn is that which is explicitly stated, i.e. 'he was never a real man'. However, that doesn't even begin to touch upon anything Trinitarian.


PRO: IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god.


CON: Who, besides PRO, has said anything about Story book jebus being 100% a man? It doesn't appear anywhere in the definition I provided in Round 1. In fact, nothing even vaguely similar to that expression appears anywhere in the entire article whence I obtained that definition. PRO is strawmanning Trinitarianism at worst, or using a nonstandard definition of his own devising without informing anyone at best.


PRO: Con has failed to provide any legitimate evidence that he doesn't believe those facts!


CON: My belief or disbelief of anything is irrelevant.


PRO: Conversely Con freely admits that the trinity formulation is founded upon the belief that a literal supernatural being pre-existed elsewhere, then came down to earth in the form of a 100% man & 100% Supernatural god in one human form.


CON: No, I do not freely admit that. Look at the definition of the Trinity I provided if you don't believe me, and you'll find that it nowhere says anything of the sort.


PRO: Con keeps demanding my evidence fatal to his cause and Con is apparently also oblivious to the other facts apart from my two analogies already a given, other facts fatal to Cons cause that Con has actually provided for me;'


CON: Even if these other facts are indeed fatal to my cause, they still fail to affirm the resolution.


-----Skip PROs pointless quoting of my source-----


PRO: Con claims (I quote) " the son is god . . . . . . . . the Son of God, came upon earth . . . .


CON: It never says that he came upon earth as a 100% man 100% god, does it? It never says that he came upon the earth as a real man, does it? Of course it doesn't, and that should be obvious to anyone.


-----Skip PRO repeating himself several times-----


Conclusion


PRO hasn't really addressed my arguments, nor has he affirmed the resolution.


Debate Round No. 4
Composer

Pro

PRO: Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss!

CON: No it doesn't, because his 'factual' statement has nothing to do with the Trinitarian premises. Assuming the veracity of this statement, which is in itself a dubious venture, the only conclusion that could possibly be drawn is that which is explicitly stated, i.e. 'he was never a real man'. However, that doesn't even begin to touch upon anything Trinitarian.

PRO: The statement decimates the trinity concept easily as it exposes the trinitarian belief that a literal pre-existant ' god-person ' allegedly became a 100% human + 100% god person in human form!

Con vindicates Pro by these facts by Con's own catholic testimony -

(I quote) " the son is god . . . . . . . . the Son of God, came upon earth . . . .

PRO is vindicated by Con using Pro's analogy -

If Story book jesus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org.................. - Alan Hayward is a christadelphian and his factual statement also thrashes the entire trinitarian premiss!)

&

Oops! & again fatal for trinitarians -

cf.

IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god!

&

CON: Who, besides PRO, has said anything about Story book jebus being 100% a man? It doesn't appear anywhere in the definition I provided in Round 1.

PRO: Of course you didn't want to openly provide that also as it is again fatal to your ideology!

I would of course be delighted for you to provide proofs that you DO NOT believe Story book trinitarian jebus was 100% a man & 100% a pre-existent god come to earth and I wait in further delight for you to do so in the last round OR at ANY time?

CON: My belief or disbelief of anything is irrelevant.

PRO: What a dishonest statement of yours that is!

e.g. IF your belief or disbelief of anything is irrelevant then explain why you are trying (allbeit it shockingly poorly) to express what your beliefs & disbeliefs are here in this Debate?

CON: Even if these other facts are indeed fatal to my cause, they still fail to affirm the resolution.

Bottom Line: Those facts you can not legitimately refute!

Those facts (my 2 analogies) you can't legitimately refute and you wanted to try to ' Move the Goal-Posts ' from the start of your responses -

CON WROTE: Resolved: Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies decimate trinitarian & J.w. ideologies

If PRO takes issue with this, I am amenable to modifications.

PRO: I didn't take issue with that because I agree with you that the Resolution you put forward is fatal to your cause and your wanting to ' MODIFY ' those fatal facts to try to squirm away from I wouldn't permit because it is a scam / duck & dive ' tactic for you to attempt to do so!

CON: -----Skip PROs pointless quoting of my source-----

PRO: Not pointless by any means!

CON's LINK claims that a literal pre-existant godperson ' literally came to the earth '.

CON: It never says that he came upon earth as a 100% man 100% god, does it? It never says that he came upon the earth as a real man, does it? Of course it doesn't, and that should be obvious to anyone.

It is OBVIOUS TO ANY rational reader that it is common knowledge likely even to blind Freddy, that the Johnny Come Lately corrupt catholic trinitarian ideology incorporates other fabricated and 100% human concocted terms like (Hypostatic union & Incarnation) in their feeble attempt to explain what they subsequently admit all boils down to a ' trinitarian mystery? ' LOL!

CON Conclusion

PRO hasn't really addressed my arguments, nor has he affirmed the resolution.

PRO: You have failed to actually present ANY rational arguments showing that you do not believe my two analogies!

ALL you have tried to do is move the goal-posts, restrict the evidence to the single Link you gave and denying the obvious that the trinitarian ideology incorporates 3 god-persons and one of them coming to earth disguised as a human being.

Read that fatal admission from the pages of your own catholic verses - "Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God, with mighty works and wonders and sings which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- (Acts 2:22) RSV catholic Story book 1966 edition

ANY sane reader would accept that Acts 2:22 is unambiguously clarifying that Story book jebus WAS NOT GOD but merely a man that was empowered by his God to to Godly things!

However trinitarian catholics like YOU do not accept NOR believe your own Story book, because you claim it was literally 100% Story book GOD in 100% Human form / literally a 100% god in literal 100% human flesh!

Hence you have proven my arguments that 1. YOU DO in fact believe as follows -

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

CON has failed to disprove that fact!

&

2. CON actually is proven to believe my other analogy also and both my analogies remain vindicated also even by CONS own overall testimony actually supporting & vindicating my two analogies both fatal to Cons cause i.e. -

IF Story book jebus = 100% a man, then there is NO room for a god!

CON has failed to disprove that fact!

Conversely - This is precisely what CON has been shown and proven to believe; despite CONs failed attempts to deceive us that he doesn't!
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

AlwaysMoreThanYou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
Ewwww.......Interesting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.