Appeal: direct answer
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #131248:52upheld Mike Lowry epainos: direct answer (+1)
The council upheld the call: Mike Lowry earned 1 point.
“I don't have any problem with that person if they're connecting with Christ. If their doctrine or their theology is wacky…”
Diogenes: Mike takes the Mormon parity case head-on and bites the bullet consistently with his own stated principle that inward communion, not doctrinal correctness, is what counts, rather than evading the analogy.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike's declared position from the start is that inward communion and the fruit of the spirit, not doctrinal correctness, is the test of genuine religion, and this answer restates and applies that principle rather than departing from it. Mike has held since the opening that inward connection to the Father/Christ, tested by fruit of the spirit, is what counts and doctrine is secondary; when Jay poses the Mormon-parity case he does not evade it but bites the bullet in line with that stated principle, saying doctrinal wackiness doesn't disqualify someone who is connecting with Christ. That is a direct answer to the specific analogy put to him, consistent with his framework.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer". Asked point-blank how he'd treat a Mormon's competing subjective certainty, Mike answers plainly that doctrinal correctness doesn't matter to him so long as the person is "connecting with Christ," which is a direct answer that also faithfully expresses his recorded experiential framework (fruit of the spirit over doctrine), later restated consistently when he names "the fruit of the spirit" as his standard.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S2 declared from the opening that inward communion and personal connection to the Father-spirit are primary and doctrine is secondary, and this answer applies that stated framework directly to the Mormon analogy rather than evading it. Jay's Mormon burning-bosom question directly challenges Mike's subjective-experience epistemology, and Mike answers it head-on rather than deflecting, applying his own opening principle (inward connection/fruit of the spirit over doctrinal correctness) consistently to the parity case.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.