The Instigator
n89
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

If one rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, they can not be considered a Christian.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 29575
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

n89

Con

I first want to start by thanking KeytarHero for his consideration of this debate and hope he kindly accepts.

I have recently come across a debate where KeytarHero debated that Mormons are not Christians. A main justification of reasoning was that Mormons rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and therefore could not be considered orthodox Christians. I will take the stance that rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity is actually more rooted in original Christianity than acceptance of it. I will address the origins of the Trinity including its tie to the Council of Nicaea, its doctrinal issues from the Bible and how overall the belief is flawed.
I look forward to this debate and your prompt acceptance.
KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to thank Con for challenging me to this debate. I would just like to quickly define the Trinity, so there is no misunderstanding.

Trinity -- Trinity simply means "triunity." When properly understood, Trinitarians believe that the Trinity is one God but three separate persons. This means that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit, but the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. This is not one God in three different offices, as some pseudo-Christian sects believe. And this is not tritheism, three separate gods. Trying to accuse Trinitarians of holding a disguised "polytheistic" belief is a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. As Norman Geisler would add, "The Trinity is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. * Unlike an antinomy** or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason. It is known only by divine revelation, so the Trinity is not the subject of natural theology but of revelation." [1]

*By mystery, it is not meant in a "mysterious" sort of way, but rather something of which "there is no contradiction, but we do not have total comprehension." [2]

**An antinomy is an actual contradiction, paradox, or antithesis. [3] Geisler's usage of antinomy in this passage is to contrast it with one of Kant's reasons for his Agnosticism, that reality apparently contains antinomies, or logical contradictions. [4]

[1] Geisler, Norman L., Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, 2000), p. 730.
[2] ibid., p. 515.
[3] ibid., p. 28.
[4] ibid., p. 402.
Debate Round No. 1
n89

Con

n89 forfeited this round.
KeytarHero

Pro

Well, Con has forfeited, so obviously he has failed to meet his burden of proof. I will wait until next round.
Debate Round No. 2
n89

Con

n89 forfeited this round.
KeytarHero

Pro

Well, n89 has forfeited, once again. He has not upheld his Burden of Proof, so please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
No worries. It's done the same thing to me in the past. It might just be something I'll need to e-mail site support about.
Posted by n89 4 years ago
n89
Sounds good! I have changed it twice so I'm not sure why it won't update.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
I'll post my first round in a bit (I just want to clarify a definition before you make your opening argument, but I want to make sure my definition is as accurate as possible).
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
There must be something wonky going on with the website, because it still hasn't changed. I'll go ahead and accept anyway. Maybe the changes will take effect after I accept the debate. If not, then we'll just go with it.
Posted by n89 4 years ago
n89
They should be updated now. Thanks!
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
n89, I'm not seeing the changes that you made. It's still saying what it did before, that voting will last three days and there are only three rounds.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Thanks, n89. I have to take off, but I'll accept when I return. (I don't want to accept right away because I want to clarify something in this round).
Posted by n89 4 years ago
n89
Changes have been made and I look forward to the debate. I also thank the follower of this debate and look forward to your feedback.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
I will definitely be following this attempt to defend heresy.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
I'm ready to accept your debate, but a couple of things:

Could you please extend the voting to at least two weeks? That will give people plenty of time to read and vote on the debate.

Also, are you sure three rounds will be sufficient? I'll accept if you'd prefer only three, but that will only give us one round for rebuttals.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
n89KeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because con forfeits multiple times. Arguments is tied because no side actually got a chance to make their argument. I understand that pro used sources, however, they were never actually used in a real argument, so I'm going to leave that tied. S&G is good on both sides.