The Instigator
WWJD1245
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BigAl95
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Non-Denominational churches are not the most reliable churches

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 11/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,668 times Debate No: 41420
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

WWJD1245

Pro

I do not believe that non-denominational churches are reliable churches. They seem to only preach what people want to hear.
BigAl95

Con

I guess since this is an acceptance round I would merely like to clarify that the topic is non-denominational, not "non-denominational." A point can't be made in regards to potential bias in the churches themselves as to a "non-denominational" church being more Methodist-based or any other like example. Secondly, since we as humans can't technically test end results, (you know, after death and what-not), we must view reliability as how well it promotes Christian ideals.
Debate Round No. 1
WWJD1245

Pro

I just believe that since the doctrine is not very accurate, the churches are not very reliable when it comes to finding a church with accurate theology. I am Eastern Orthodox and I believe that ever since the Protestant Reformation, every church that breaks off from the other becomes more inaccurate in their interpretation of the scriptures.
BigAl95

Con

Okay, so since my opponent gave no way to judge "reliability" we must look to mine; same can be said for terms used in this past round like "accurate." Going on to the actual debate. Non-denominational churches best promote Christian ideals because they don't preach any specific interpretation thus directly teaching the Bible's word. With the most direct teaching of God's word it best promotes Christian ideals and does so better than denominational churches.

Also, going off of what my opponent said in the first round, "They seem to only preach what people want to hear," I'll accept this and then show why it still fights for my side. When Christianity was first getting started, preachers merely preached what they wished. The success of a preacher had to do with what the people wanted to hear, therefore what people wanted to hear got preached more often even when Christianity was first starting to gain popularity. This was how the Bible was "written." Preachers would take the books/verses that were most often preached and then used those to form the Bible we know today. That's how the Apocrypha came about; it's not that they're less accepted, they just weren't as popular when Christianity was starting to spread. Non-denominational churches would then be best exemplifying Christian ideals because of the fact that it gets more traditional if you will in terms of the way the sermon is structured and because of this it's more accurate of the way Christianity was and ought to be.

Also, going on to what he said about how when more denominations are created it gets less accurate; that would only be fighting for my side. Non-denominational is just that, NON-DENOMINATION-based, meaning that it's less separated from the original stem of Protestantism meaning it's not only more closely following the Bible, but also better promoting Christian ideals and not those watered-down by divergence from Protestantism.

Lastly, I would like to restate what I said earlier. My opponent gives no way to judge "accuracy." So going back to what he said last round that those that break-off more are less accurate; 1) he gives no description of what he means so we have no idea what this point is actually saying and I have no way to refute it completely; however, 2) all he says is, "I believe..." My opponent forgets that this debate isn't about what you believe it's about making others agree with you, because he gives no reasoning backing his claims and no examples of what he even means, by my criteria for judging this round, you must vote for con.
Debate Round No. 2
WWJD1245

Pro

In truth, non-denominational churches are a denomination. Also, the Bible was not written in the way people wanted to hear. That one statement you made destroys the entire meaning of the Bible. Prophets like Jeremiah were beaten for the words they said. Saint Peter and Stephen were also persecuted for the words they said. Non-denominational churches are Protestant since they do not hold to nearly any Orthodox/Catholic teachings. Non-denominational it's take the Bible very literally. Not everything in scripture is literal. Otherwise, in Revelation when it says John saw a lamb looking as if it had been slain, he saw just that.

This is a little off topic but, when there is a corrupt pastor, no one holds them accountable. There is no chain of command.

Non-denominationalism is too apathetic in my opinion. Every time I go to a non-denominational church, I only see people who want to hear what they want to hear. Therefore, God's word is totally destroyed.
BigAl95

Con

Okay, right off the bat he goes against a statement I specifically clarified in the first round, WHICH HE DID NOT ADDRESS!! Non-denominational churches are by definition not a denomination. He also didn't look at my "" on the word written in my second speech. I know that the Bible wasn't written the way people wanted it. They took the books that WERE ALREADY WRITTEN and then used what was taught/preached to piece together the Bible and left out that which wasn't preached as often...which was determined by what people wanted to hear. Then he goes on to say how the Bible isn't literal in certain areas. I'm not here to debate the Bible and apparently my opponent isn't hear to even debate the topic at hand. The fact that "the Bible isn't literal" is an interpretation up for debate, and holds no weight/relevance in this debate. It merely seems that my opponent is trying to argue his viewpoint right and not that non-denominational churches aren't reliable, WHICH HE ALSO DOESN'T GIVE ANY WAY TO JUDGE. He gives no way to take his side seriously in a debate aspect, he also doesn't give any reason to believe his side right. He merely says "In my opinion..." It is not my job to convince you, it's to debate you! Not anywhere in this entire debate has he given a reason to believe his viewpoint. But not only that, I would like to go on further down what he said last. Addressing the point about corrupt leaders, that's an easy red herring. Nowhere does he link non-denominational churches to corrupt leaders and not only that, common knowledge tells you that corrupt leaders happen in many aspects of basically everything and religion is no exception. I don't mean to offend anyone but in Catholicism, there have been problems with their leaders; that's just fact. But when was the last time anyone has heard of a non-denominational preacher getting in trouble for *fill in whatever you want?* There is no weight in him saying the "corrupt leaders" comment. And lastly, his last paragraph is the worst of all. He makes an appeal to authority, (himself), fallacy and then next sentence has a fallacy of anecdotal evidence. His "arguments" made have no debate worth and because I have actually fulfilled the burden set forth in the first round, (which was agreed upon), I urge a vote in the negation.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
This is an interesting debate. I personally believe that scripture can also be wrong, and so we cannot solely rely on the Bible for wisdom about the world; in many instances the advice given can also be wrong.

I believe that God wants mankind to learn things. I believe God also wants us to learn that the Bible (the written perspectives and opinions of previous religious people) can also be wrong.
Posted by BigAl95 3 years ago
BigAl95
You didn't explain it. There are 10,000 characters per round for a reason. Don't say something and then try and say, "trust me," as your backing. Had you used more than, "Non-denominational churches are worse than whatever," or, "Non-denominational churches suck," you could've actually had a good debate, but you didn't give any criteria for judging "reliable" or "accurate." You need to do that so it's clarified not only for those judging but those that are trying to actually have an intelligent discussion.
Posted by WWJD1245 3 years ago
WWJD1245
You misunderstood my entire argument haha
No votes have been placed for this debate.