Jump to content
PolicyGoddess

Consult Jesus Counter Plan

Recommended Posts

 

1. There is no Jesus

2. You can't prove it

3. Vote aff on presumption

 

You can't beat that. Try cutting a consult EU counterplan instead.

 

If I were aff and some ran the Consult Jesus Counter Plan I would never make the arguments you made above... Not only could you possibly offend the Judge but you also open yourself up to a dozen critiques that would take you off topic  leaving you to defend crazy anthroprocentric impacts in your rebutles.. No.. If some one ran this I would fall out of my chair laughing. stand up /bow and spend no more than 45 seconds on a perm / mutual exclusive theory and move on.

However..

1. Non-Unique - people act with out consulting JC in day to day goverment / "seperation of church in state"

2. No Impact

3. Perm

4. Mutual Exclusive theory -

5. Loss of Aff Ground theory

6. Loss of education

7. explain your impacts of 5 & 6.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manymonths.jpg

Also, judges who are offended by saying Jesus can't be proven are probably rare. I usually think judges are dumber than dirt, but even I don't think that would happen very often, even on conservative circuits. Obviously you don't want to rant about how God is a lie, but saying that policy debates should focus on the provable and the universal beliefs like reason instead of faith would probably work well almost every time.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still argue faith out weighs reason. Even so it would be non-sensual to try and compare the two. The only good religiouse negative position I've ever used or seen success with would be the zealot end times K - I ran the argument when any affirmative has huge impacts / global destruction. The evidence says overly aggressive end times rhetoric used in a political world spurs economic collapse because people would give up planning for a future if we're all going to die of nuclear war etc. at that point your only debating internal links it was pretty fun if rolled out correctly.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were aff and some ran the Consult Jesus Counter Plan I would never make the arguments you made above... Not only could you possibly offend the Judge but you also open yourself up to a dozen critiques

 

I highly doubt there are many judges that would simultaneously

 

a. vote you down for suggesting that Jesus might not exist, and

b. find Consult CPs acceptable.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so it would be non-sensual to try and compare the two.

 

If faith and reason are incommensurate with one another, it's difficult to successfully apply faith to debate, an institution that is premised entirely off of reason.

 

Also, why consult Jesus when you have the alternative of achieving eternal salvation by consulting the flying spaghetti monster?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen this counterplan run but I'm guessing that it would be extremely weak on multiple fronts.

1) The question of is religion/Jesus/Christianity real? Which would definitely piss people who do believe vs people who don't believe or hate organized religion.

2) Empirical proof... yeah about that...

3) Separation of church and state, cp is unconstitutional

4) cp cannot possibly solve for any external net benefit, permutation solves cp, presume aff (and if it does then...) and

5) it will offend people, this seems as a repeat of the first point but I cannot stress this enough. For me as a debater (who is possibly ending my season b/c my college does not offer debate), I disliked organized religion and how certain people interpret it and my partner is a very extreme believer in Hinduism, also most judges that I know are not christian or believe in Jesus.

Like I said, I've never hit/heard this counterplan before these are just a few answers that I thought up.

 

edit:

 

I would still argue faith out weighs reason. Even so it would be non-sensual to try and compare the two. The only good religiouse negative position I've ever used or seen success with would be the zealot end times K - I ran the argument when any affirmative has huge impacts / global destruction. The evidence says overly aggressive end times rhetoric used in a political world spurs economic collapse because people would give up planning for a future if we're all going to die of nuclear war etc. at that point your only debating internal links it was pretty fun if rolled out correctly.

 Yeah have fun selling that idea

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. There is no Jesus

2. You can't prove it

3. Vote aff on presumption

 

You can't beat that. Try cutting a consult EU counterplan instead.

 

Disregard this post. Chunkry is 19-1 on the Consult Jesus CP (the 1 round Chunkry lost on the Perm triple bind and PICs good is a reverse voting issue). Consult Jesus is a very strategic argument, you are correct in thinking that judges will be willing to vote on it.

 

Good tidings!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregard this post. Chunkry is 19-1 on the Consult Jesus CP (the 1 round Chunkry lost on the Perm triple bind and PICs good is a reverse voting issue). Consult Jesus is a very strategic argument, you are correct in thinking that judges will be willing to vote on it.

 

Good tidings!

this is phenomenal...

9/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chunkry, if the USFG asked you whether they should substantially increase their economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela, what would your response be? I feel as though your answer may be invaluable to the future of the debate community, not to mention its potential benefits to the rest of Section 7.HB and the multiverse at large.

Also, I haven't seen your lovely (anti)wymiiin in a while. Is it planning on stopping by sometime soon? ZHer cooking was delicious.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chunkry, if the USFG asked you whether they should substantially increase their economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela, what would your response be? I feel as though your answer may be invaluable to the future of the debate community, not to mention its potential benefits to the rest of Section 7.HB and the multiverse at large.

 

Also, I haven't seen your lovely (anti)wymiiin in a while. Is it planning on stopping by sometime soon? ZHer cooking was delicious.

 

The USFG already consulted Chunkry. Chunkry said the USFG should increase its White Castle engagement towards Multiverse Section 4.HB. 

 

Chunkry is far too busy traversing the fantasy to waste time hanging out with Cross-X scum.

 

Good tidings.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I could see myself voting for a Consult Jesus CP, if the people running it had enough theology to paint a sufficiently compelling story.  (Its no less believable than a lot of the ridiculous jargon-heavy critiques, except chances are higher that people will actually understand what you're talking about, and I know I've voted for some of those.  I don't have to believe Deep Ecology or the advocated stupid Heidegger is claimed by debaters to be supporting to think it was the winning argument in the round, so why should I have to believe in Jesus or Allah or whomever to find it the winning argument).

 

I think Consult Jesus would work better if your response to the inevitable perm arguments is you argue he'd say no, and thus don't do plan.  Impact going against Jesus's wishes in the block.

 

Bonus points if you include metaphysical implications and run gnosticism.  That sort of puts you at the same level of incomprehensibility as, for example, all these philosophers who write about Neitzche whom everyone loves to cite (ie, totally incomprehensible, which is sad since Neitzche himself is so easy to read), but it lets you claim cool things like 'the world is inherently evil'.

 

Actually, the most compelling framework would probably involve a pure Kantian The Good Will / Categorical Imperative thesis, because you'd just be embodying The Good Will as deity of choice and masking your Kantian K behind it.  And tons of people believe in Kant's philosophy or derivatives, even if they find the deity of choice questionable.  That allows Kritik of Pure Reason on their epistemological claims.

 

I'm almost tempted to try to cut several versions of this... except my kids would hate it, since it actually works better if you don't believe.  (Because you're going to have to pretend at some level of confessional beliefs - theology is a lot more complicated than 'Jesus - yes/no?', and the high level commitment on general belief is a lot more simulatable than trying to adjust probably multiple low-level confessional beliefs - the non-believers won't have conflicting beliefs on the specifics of the theology).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Pascal’s Wager means any risk of God outweighs aff offense. Kreeft 94 writes[1]

 

But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to.

 

Second is the Cosmological argument. Kreeft-2 writes[2]

Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is. Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle, but there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence. Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God. Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn’t then the whole universe is unexplained and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained.

 

Third is the ontological argument. Plantinga 74 writes[3]

 

There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated. And the analogues of (27) and (28) spell out what is involved in maximal greatness: (30) Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in every world. And (31) Necessarily, a being has maximal excellence in every world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every world. Notice that (30) and (31) do not imply that there are possible but nonexistent beings -- any more than does, for example, (32) Necessarily, a thing is a unicorn only if it has one horn. But if (29) is true, then there is a possible world W such that if it had been actual, then there would have existed a being that was omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, would have had these qualities in every possible world. So it follows that if W had been actual, it would have been impossible that there be no such being. That is, if W had been actual, (33) “There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being†would have been an impossible proposition.

 

 

 

 

Fourth is the argument from mathematical reality. Goldstein 10 writes[4]

 

Mathematical truths are necessarily true. (There is no possible world in which, say, 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, or in which the square root of 2 can be expressed as the ratio of two whole numbers.) The truths that describe our physical world, no matter how fundamental, are empirical, requiring observational evidence. (So, for example, we await some empirical means to test string theory, in order to find out whether we live in a world of eleven dimensions.) Truths that require empirical evidence are not necessary truths. (We require empirical evidence because there are possible worlds in which these are not truths, and so we have to test that ours is not such a world.) The truths of our physical world are not necessary truths (from 2 and 3).The truths of our physical world cannot explain mathematical truths (from 1 and 4). Mathematical truths exist on a different plane of existence from physical truths (from 5). Only something which itself exists on a different plane of existence from the physical can explain mathematical truths (from 6). 8. [Therefore] Only god can explain mathematical truths (from 7).

 

Fifth, Christianity is most likely correct. Only the existence of the Christian God can explain historical facts. For example, in the Old Testament there were over 300 prophesies made about Jesus hundreds of years before his birth, and every one was correct. The probability of any one man fulfilling just 8 of these prophesies by present day was found to be 1 in 10 to the 17th power. Stoner and Newman write[5]

 

Suppose that we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell [a man] him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom.

 

When considering all 300 plus prophecies, the odds are even smaller.

 

Stoner and Newman-2 explain5

 

There are more than three hundred prophecies dealing with Christ's first advent. If this number is correct, and it no doubt is, you could set your estimates ridiculously low on the whole three hundred prophecies and still obtain tremendous evidence of inspiration.

For example you may place all of your estimates at one in four. You may say that one man in four has been born in Bethlehem: that one of these children in four was taken to Egypt, to avoid slaughter; that one in four of these came back and made his home in Nazareth; that one in four of these was a carpenter; that one in four of these was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver; that one in four of these has been crucified on a cross; that one in four was then buried in a rich man's tomb; yes, even that one in four rose from the dead on the third day; and so on for all of the three hundred prophecies and from them I will build a number much larger than the one we obtained from the forty-eight prophecies.

 

 

 

The existence of God commits one to theological voluntarism. God’s will is the source of moral goodness – 8 reasons. Murphy 12 writes[6]

 

Some of the considerations in favor of metaethical theological voluntarism are historical. Both theists and nontheists have been impressed by the extent to which at least some [First,] moral concepts developed in tandem with theological concepts, and it may therefore be the case that there could be no adequate explication of some moral concepts without appeal to theological ones. On this view, it is not merely historical accident that at least some moral concepts had their origin in contexts of theistic belief and practice; rather, these concepts have their origin essentially in such contexts, and become distorted and unintelligible when exported from those contexts (see, for example, Anscombe 1958).

Theological considerations in favor of theological voluntarism Some of the considerations in favor of theological voluntarism have their source in matters regarding the divine nature. Several such arguments are summarized in Idziak 1979 (pp. 8–10). Some appeal to omnipotence: [second,] since God is both omnipotent and impeccable, theological voluntarism must be true: for if God cannot act in a way that is morally wrong, then God's power would be limited by other normative states of affairs were theological voluntarism not the case. Some appeal to God's freedom: [Third,] since God is free and impeccable, theological voluntarism must be true: for if moral requirements existed prior to God's willing them, requirements that an impeccable God could not violate, God's liberty would be compromised. [Fourth,] Some appeal to God's status as supremely lovable and deserving of allegiance: if theism is true, then [means] the world of value must be a theocentric one, and so any moral view that does not place God at its center is bound to be inadequate. Even if individually insufficient as justifications for adopting theological voluntarism, collectively they may suggest some desiderata for a moral view: that God must be at the center of a moral theory, and, in particular, that the realm of the moral must be dependent on God's free choices. It seems that any moral theory that met these desiderata would count as a version of theological voluntarism. Metaethical considerations in favor of theological voluntarism A third set of considerations in favor of theological voluntarism has its source in metaethics proper, in the attempt to provide adequate philosophical accounts of the various formal features exhibited by moral concepts, properties, and states of affairs. One might claim, that is, that theological voluntarism makes the best sense of the formal features of morality that both theists and nontheists acknowledge. Consider first the normativity of morals. [Fifth,] Both theists and nontheists have been impressed by the weirdness of normativity, with its very otherness, and have thought that whatever we say about normativity, it will have to be a story not about natural properties but nonnatural ones (cf. Moore 1903, section 13). John Mackie, an atheist, and George Mavrodes, a theist, have both drawn from this the same moral: if there is a God, then the normativity of morality can be understood in theistic terms; otherwise, the normativity of morality is unintelligible (Mavrodes 1986; Mackie 1977, p. 48). As Robert Adams has suggested, given the serious difficulties present in understanding moral properties as natural properties, it is worthwhile taking seriously the hypothesis that morality is not just a nonnatural matter but a supernatural one (Adams 1973, p. 105). For the standard objections against understanding normativity as a nonnatural property concern our inability to say anything further about that nonnatural property itself and about our ability to grasp that property (see, e.g., M. Smith 1994, pp. 21–25). But if morality is to be understood in terms of God's commands, we can give an informative account of what these unusual properties are; and if it is understood in terms of God's commands, then we can give an informative account of how God, being the creator and sustainer of us rational beings, can ensure that we can have an adequate epistemic grasp of the moral domain (Adams 1979a, pp. 137–138). [sixth,] Consider next the impartiality of morals. The domain of the moral, unlike the domain of value generally, is governed by the requirements of impartiality. To use Sidgwick's phrase, the point of view of morality is not one's personal point of view but rather “the point of view … of the Universe†(Sidgwick 1907, p. 382). But, to remark on the perfectly obvious, the Universe does not have a point of view. Various writers have employed fictions to try to provide some sense to this idea: Adam Smith's impartial and benevolent spectator, Firth's ideal observer, and Rawls' contractors who see the world sub specie aeternitatis come to mind most immediately (Smith 1759, Pt III, Ch 8; Firth 1958; and Rawls 1971, p. 587). But theological voluntarism can provide a straightforward understanding of the impartiality of morals by appealing to the claim that the demands of morality arise from the demands of someone who in fact has an impartial and supremely deep love for all of the beings that are morality's proper objects. [seventh,] Consider next the overridingness of morals. The domain of the moral, it is commonly thought, consists in a range of values that can demand absolute allegiance, in the sense that it is never reasonable to act contrary to what those values finally require. One deep difficulty with this view, formulated in a number of ways but perhaps most memorably by Sidgwick (1907, pp. 497–509), is that it is hard to see how moral value automatically trumps other kinds of value (e.g. prudential value) when they conflict. But if the domain of the moral is to be understood in terms of the will of a being who can make it possible that, or even ensure that, the balance of reasons is always in favor of acting in accordance with the moral demand, then the overridingness of morals becomes far easier to explain. Consider next the content of morals. There is a strong case to be made that [Eighth,] moral judgments cannot have just any content: they must be concerned, somehow, with what exhibits respect for certain beings, or with what promotes their interests (cf. Foot 1958, pp. 510–512; M. Smith 1994, p. 40). Theological voluntarism has a ready explanation for the content of morals being what it is: it is that moral demands arise from a being that loves that being's creation.

 

 

 

Counterplan Text: Consult Jesus and then do [Plan Text]

 

First, secular ethical theories all reduce to virtue ethics. It’s the only way to make morality motivational. Jason Kawall 09 writes[1]

 

One of the major problems that ethical theories face today is to determine the precise connection between the recognition of ethical dilemmas by a moral agent and his subsequent motivation to act. Frequently, philosophers argue, it is not enough for a moral agent to know ethical principles that apply only to universalized situations; something else has to occur for the agent to truly jump into gear. Simply knowing theoretical ethical principles does not provide the agent with the fine-tuned perception necessary to actually recognize a specific situation as deserving of action. This is one of the reasons why rule-based systems of ethics are problematic, as they already assume that the moral agent has discerned ethical salience in a given situation. However, that is not necessarily the case. In other words, knowing that “one should be benevolent to those less fortunate†does not give any specific information as to what action to take when one is faced with a homeless person on the street, for instance. In such a situation, one first has to recognize that the other person has a good of his or her own, is in need, and thus deserving of help. In the same way, the rule does not provide information regarding what form the aid should take: should one simply give the person money for food? Or should one try to help in more profound ways, such as finding him or her a job etc.? All these scenarios already depend on the moral perception of the moral agent; that is, the situation first has to be perceived to be a moral one, for otherwise moral activity is not at all required. As Blum puts it: The point is that perception occurs prior to deliberation, and prior to taking the situation to be one in which one needs to deliberate. It is precisely because the situation is seen in a certain way that the agent takes it as one in which he feels moved to deliberate. 40 Therefore, the significance of moral perception for subsequent action is undeniable. The question now becomes: What is moral perception and how does it develop in a moral agent? Clearly, rules and regulations in and by themselves are not guides to moral perception, since they only prescribe how to act once a moral situation is already perceived as requiring action. Therefore, deontological and utilitarian theories of ethics generally begin too far down the road, as they already presuppose the moral perception of the moral agent. The principles provided can only be applied if the situation has been recognized as a moral one. However, moral perception appears to be a component of the characteristics and dispositions of a person, as they are an integral part of how a person dwells in and interacts with the world. Thus, moral perception, which is essential and prior to any moral judgment, is closely linked to ethical theories of virtue, as the virtues are generally regarded to shape an agent’s understanding of his or her moral environment.

 

Fostering virtue requires role models. Therefore, a moral agent ought to emulate virtuous people. Rebecca Carhart 09 writes[2]

 

Another strength of virtue ethics is that it emphasizes the development of personal character through the teaching and practice of virtues. A key component of this process is the imitation of individuals who are recognized as examples of virtuous character. A pacifist would thus emphasize studying the lives of figures recognized for their peace-promoting standards in order to develop the same positive traits as those people. Different individuals may be upheld as examples of different virtues, and the same may be true for vices. According to William Frankena, the recognition of a moral ideal is critical in motivating one to be a certain kind of person (1993). One interesting implication of these concepts is a high valuation of history, art, and other disciplines that offer insight into human character. Considerations of particular people and whole societies may lead to an understanding of how actions are shaped by character and values, knowledge that is valuable in making practical decisions.

 

 

 

Jesus is the best role model. He represents the perfection of all virtues.

 

Mahatma Gandhi writes[3]

 

 [All ellipses were in the original text.] Love is the strongest force the world possesses. And yet it is the humblest imaginable. The more efficient a force is, the more silent and subtle it is. Love is the subtlest force in the world. When I read the Sermon on the Mount, especially such passages as ‘Resist not evil,’ I was simply overjoyed and found my own opinion confirmed where I least expected it. The message of Jesus Christ, as I understand it, is contained in the Sermon on the Mount… which competes, on almost equal terms, with the Bhagavad Gita for the domination of my heart. It is that sermon which had endeared Jesus to me. The gentle figure of Christ, so patient, so kind, so loving, so full of forgiveness that he taught his followers not to retaliate when abused or struck but to turn the other cheek… it was a beautiful example, I thought, of the perfect man.

 

Second, practicing religion is key to Eudaimonia. Atheists get all angsty.

 

BBC 08 writes[4]

 

A belief in God could lead to a more contented life, research suggests. Religious people are better able to cope with shocks such as losing a job or divorce, claims the study presented to a Royal Economic Society conference. Data from thousands of Europeans revealed higher levels of "life satisfaction" in believers. However, researcher Professor Andrew Clark said other aspects of a religious upbringing unrelated to belief may influence future happiness. This is not the first study to draw links between religion and happiness, with a belief among many psychologists that some factor in either belief, or its observance, offering benefits. Professor Clark, from the Paris School of Economics, and co-author Dr Orsolya Lelkes from the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, used information from household surveys to analyse the attitudes of Christians - both Catholic and Protestant - not only to their own happiness, but also to issues such as unemployment. Their findings, they said, suggested that religion could offer a "buffer" which protected from life's disappointments.


[1] Jason Kawall. “In Defense of the Primacy of Virtues,†Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy. Vol 3, Num. 2. 2009.

[2] Carhart, Rebecca (Philosophy Major @ Taylor University). “Pacifism and Virtue Ethics.†LYCEUM. Volume XI, No. 1 (Fall 2009)http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/126

[3] Mohandas “Mahatma†Gandhi (VIP [Virtuous Indian Person]). No date. Reprinted in Favorite Heroes and Holy People: Chosen by People from All Walks of Life. Compiled by Deborah Cassidi. Continuum Books: London & New York (2008).

[4] BBC. “Religion 'linked to happy life.'†18 March 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7302609.stm

[1] Kreeft, Peter (Professor of philosophy at Boston College). Handbook of Christian Apologetics. 1994.

[2] Kreeft, Peter (Professor of philosophy at Boston College). Handbook of Christian Apologetics. 1994.

[3] Plantinga, Alvin. (Emeritus professor @ U Notre Dame). God, Freedom, and Evil. (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).

[4] Goldstein, Rebecca (PhD in philosophy from Princeton, visiting professor of philosophy at Trinity College). 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction. Pantheon Books: New York (January 2010). [Goldstein only explains the argument from mathematical reality; she doesn’t endorse it.]

[5] Peter Stoner (Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College and Chairman of the science division, Westmont College) and Robert C. Newman (Professor of New Testament at the Biblical Theological Seminary of Hatfield, Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, under-graduate degree in physics from Duke University, and doctorate in theoretical astrophysics from Cornell University. He has done scientific research for the U.S. Weather Bureau and the Franklin Institute.) Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible, 1944.

[6] Murphy, Mark (McDevitt Chair of Religious Philosophy at Georgetown University). “Theological Voluntarism.†12 August 2012. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voluntarism-theological/

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can run this as an alt on a cap K, too.  You'd probably want to prove God's existence first, though, so use the cards above too

 

The alternative is to embrace Catholicism.   'Not to share wealth with poor is to steal': Pope slams capitalism as 'new tyranny'

RT 26/13 Russia Today Published time: November 26, 2013 14:34 ¶ Edited time: November 28, 2013 13:51 http://rt.com/news/pope-francis-capitalism-tyranny-324/

Pope Francis has taken aim at capitalism as "a new tyranny" and is urging world leaders to step up their efforts against poverty and inequality, saying "thou shall not kill" the economy. Francis calls on rich people to share their wealth.¶ The existing financial system that fuels the unequal distribution of wealth and violence must be changed, the Pope warned. ¶ "How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?" Pope Francis asked an audience at the Vatican. ¶ The global economic crisis, which has gripped much of Europe and America, has the Pope asking how countries can function, or realize their full economic potential, if they are weighed down by the debts of capitalism. ¶ “A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules,†the 84-page document, known as an apostolic exhortation, said. ¶ "To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which has taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits", the pope’s document says. ¶ He goes on to explain that in this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which has become the only rule we live by.¶ Shameful wealth ¶ Inequality between the rich and the poor has reached a new threshold, and in his apostolic exhortation to mark the end of the “Year of Faithâ€, Pope Francis asks for better politicians to heal the scars capitalism made on society. ¶ "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills," Francis wrote in the document issued Tuesday. ¶ His calls to service go beyond general good Samaritan deeds, as he asks his followers for action “beyond a simple welfare mentality".¶ "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor,†Francis wrote. ¶ A recent IRS report shows that the wealth of the US’s richest 1 percent has grown by 31 percent, while the rest of the population experienced an income rise of only 1 percent. ¶ The most recent Oxfam data shows that up to 146 million Europeans are at risk of falling into poverty by 2025 and 50 million Americans are currently suffering from severe financial hardship. ¶ "As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote.¶ Named after the medieval saint who chose a life of poverty, Pope Francis has gone beyond general calls for fair work, education, and healthcare. ¶ Newly-elected Pope Francis has stepped up the fight against corrupt capitalism that has hit close to home - he was the first Pope to go after the Vatican bank and openly accused it of fraud and shady offshore tax haven deals. ¶ In October, Pope Francis removed Vatican bank head Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, after revelations of alleged mafia money laundering and financial impropriety.

 

The Pope is infallible on the matter of interpreting Jesus’s teachings – multiple warrants. CA 04 writes[1]

 

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). Vatican II’s Explanation Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

 

Historical consistency confirms the Pope’s infallibility. CA 2 writes[2]

 

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes [have] been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

 


[1] Catholic Answers. “Papal Infallibility.†10 August 2004. Nihil obstat: Reviewed for doctrinal accuracy by Censor Librorum Bernadean Carr (licentiate in theology @ University of Fribourg, Switzerland; former editor and current columnist of the San Diego diocesan newspaper, The Southern Cross; diocesan Director of Media Ministry and an instructor for the San Diego Diocesan Institute).  Imprimatur (“let it be printedâ€) issued by Robert H Brom (bishop of San Diego). http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

[2] Ibid. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a warning, that is not a good alt for cap, and any good team would either link you back to the K or just use empirical examples of how Catholicism has not ended Cap

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a warning, that is not a good alt for cap, and any good team would either link you back to the K or just use empirical examples of how Catholicism has not ended Cap

lol you thought I was serious?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 years of Catholic school are finally paying off

 

Just a warning, that is not a good alt for cap, and any good team would either link you back to the K or just use empirical examples of how Catholicism has not ended Cap

 

Truth. If anything Catholicism (according to its social and economic justice principles) embraces liberal social democracy. When practiced according to the catechism and its social justice doctrine, it's a pretty left-leaning (at least economically) religion - it declares labor unionization to be a human right, social solidarity is encouraged (especially against violent excesses of globalization), social welfare and benefits programs for the poor and elderly are strongly supported, as are affirmative action policies. Cool stuff, but then you also have the "men and women are complementary," and "homosexuals shouldn't indulge their desires," (and sexual repression generally) and other problematic beliefs. People like to make Pope Francis out to be on some kind of leftist rampage but really he's just the first pope in a very long time to actually voice the social and economic doctrine of the Church and, well, follow through on them at a personal and public level.

 

Oh and the Pope is not infallible when speaking on even social, economic, or political matters at all times, according even to Catholic writing. KimJongUn's card reads:

 

The Pope is infallible on the matter of interpreting Jesus’s teachings – multiple warrants. CA 04 writes[1]

 

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). Vatican II’s Explanation Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

 

[1] Catholic Answers. “Papal Infallibility.†10 August 2004. Nihil obstat: Reviewed for doctrinal accuracy by Censor Librorum Bernadean Carr (licentiate in theology @ University of Fribourg, Switzerland; former editor and current columnist of the San Diego diocesan newspaper, The Southern Cross; diocesan Director of Media Ministry and an instructor for the San Diego Diocesan Institute).  Imprimatur (“let it be printedâ€) issued by Robert H Brom (bishop of San Diego). http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

 

This card just explains the biblical justification for papal infallibility. Papal infallibility is extremely rarely invoked (only twice ever if I remember correctly from a few years back), and only in very grave instances. These teaching are based on tradition & scripture (the twin basis of all Catholic belief), and are preserved from error. The important thing is that these have to do with clarifying internal bits of Catholic doctrine, rather than massively reforming Catholic beliefs. The actual language from the First Vatican Concil is that

 

when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

 

In other words, the cards are misleading about Catholic faith and don't warrant the argument you're making. I get that it's a joke, but still, it's probably one of the most commonly misunderstood things about Catholicism. I'm not Catholic, I just know a gross amount of stuff about it...

Edited by dancon25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...