The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
mdc32
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Catholics make great christians if they get saved

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 2 votes the winner is...
mdc32
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 65339
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

If a person is saved, they are saved from their sin, they are saved from their death, and they are saved from Hell. They have eternal life now, their sins are forgiven now, and they know that the moment their time in their body of death is finalized, they will be with the Lord Jesus Christ forever and will be forever changed into His likeness freed from sin. A saved person knows for sure that all of their sins, past, present, and future (if God gives them more time in their body of death) are forgiven. A saved person knows that the moment their body expires, they will be in heaven because their sins are completely forgiven now, paid for by God Himself by His blood on the cross.

Catholics make great Christians if they get saved. My opponent can argue that Catholics do not make great Christians if they get saved or that they are already Christians, or that they are saved. I will argue that they are not saved and they cannot be Christians when they are not saved. I will also argue that they make great Christians if they get saved because they are completely changed if they get saved.

I now welcome my opponent's opening argument.
mdc32

Con

I accept this debate. I will refrain from posting my arguments this round. I would request that Pro provides definitions of key terms in this debate, namely Catholic, Christian, saved, and anything else that comes to mind.

Please note that while I am a Christian, I will do my best to argue this from an unbiased standpoint. I hope Pro will do the same.
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

If you can't understand the language, you should not have accepted the challenge.

My opening argument is extended, you have forfeited the first round as I cleary said I was waiting for your opening argument. Requesting definitions is not an opening argument. If you don't understand the words, you should have looked them up in a dictionary before accetpting the challenge. Are you going to debate or what?
mdc32

Con

I was simply allowing Pro to post their first argument in the second round. I didn't realize that your first round was an argument. This would have been more clear if the debate had been structured, which it obviously wasn't. I have nothing to rebut against Pro, as I see no argument presented, just a stance on a position. I will, however, attempt to challenge the previous round's "argument".

The reason that I asked for definitions is to give you a chance to use whatever definition you want and possibly twist them into an effective point for your side of the argument. You have forfeited this right, so I will define key terms as I want. The definitions I post later will be the only definitions used in the debate, unless you disagree with them next round. Also, BoP will rest on Pro, as he is the one making the claim.
The first paragraph of Pro's first round states what "saved" means, from solely a religious standpoint. I agree with this, but there is no argument. Pro does not state how one becomes saved, nor even give an example of a person who is not saved. Because of this, it is not a useful argument.
"Catholics make great Christians if they get saved."
This is the only argumentative point I can find in Pro's first round. Seeing as it is the topic of the debate, it is not an argument, just a stance on this idea. I will argue that Catholics are already Christians, as that is one option presented in Pro's first round. The definitions are as follows.
Catholic, n. - A person who belongs to the universal Christian church; a member of the Catholic church.
Christian, n. - One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Catholicism, n. - Roman Catholicism; the faith, practice, or system of Catholic Christianity

Catholics, by definition, are Christian. Catholics believe in Jesus Christ, making them Christians by default. Also, Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity itself. I really have nothing else to say, as the BoP is on Pro who is making the claim.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

You are not a Christian if you are not saved. If you are a Catholic, your religion which pretends to be Christian forbids you from knowing your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven. Catholicism calls this "the sin of presumption", a mortal sin, and the sin for which the Catholic church burned many people alive thoughout history when they refused to recant their assurance of knowing they were saved. Catholics make great Christians if they get saved because when they get saved, they see the wonderful difference of knowing you are saved which the Catholic church dogmatically worked to deprive the religious adherit from knowing.

I am relieved to see my opponent showing some understanding of English.
mdc32

Con

I will go through Pro's last round, and rebut every point that I can.

Rebuttal

"You are not a Christian if you are not saved"
This is wrong according to the definition I posted last round, which Pro subsequently agreed to by not challenging the definitions. I could just end my rebuttal here; for now, let's continue on like this is true.

"...your religion which pretends to be Christian..."
If one was Catholic, I would assume that this would be extremely offensive, as Catholics view themselves as Christians. No matter, I just think it is an unnecessarily harsh statement, especially seeing as this debate is about Catholics themselves.

"...knowing your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven. Catholicism calls this 'the sin of presumption'..."
From the sources I have found [1][2][3], presumption is assuming your sins are forgiven without any attempt to change your behavior. This is different then assuming your sins are forgiven if you live a morally righteous life after being saved by Christ.

"Catholics make great Christians if they get saved..."
They already are saved, and are also Christians, both of which I have shown. This argument is mainly invalid, then.

"I am relieved to see my opponent showing some understanding of English."
This just seems like a straight ad hominem against me. I clearly understood English in my first round; my lack of an argument, or simply asking for definitions, was out of respect and an attempt to allow you to post your own definitions. This didn't work, so I defined relevant phrases, which you did not follow. I even gave you another chance to alter the definitions as you saw fit; you either ignored this, or you thought the definitions were acceptable. I assume it was the former. Either way, the definitions stand as I stated them in Round 2.

Arguments

I have no need to state more arguments, as Pro didn't acknowledge mine and also failed to fulfill the BoP. I rebutted his arguments successfully.

Quite literally, Pro has no possible way of winning this debate. My definitions have been accepted by both sides and they clearly show that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. If Pro had changed, questioned, or even mentioned the definitions that I provided, then I would be open to altering the definitions themselves.

Conclusion

Pro's argument from this round has been rebutted, and he has failed to fulfill the BoP. He also didn't mention my arguments, which either means they are acceptable, or he can not challenge them. My definitions also stand as Pro failed to challenge them or change them. Voters, keep in mind the ad hominem attacks in both this round and the last. Thank you.

Sources

[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 3
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

If you were saved by Christ, when did you get saved and what did you get saved from? If you are saved, you know your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven without any doubt. If you are not sure you are going to heaven, you are not sure you are saved and that is because you are not a Christian. A christian is saved from their sins, death, and Hell. A Christian is going to heaven immediately and nowhere else with their sins forgiven now and forever completely. Catholics make great Christians if they get saved.

By your definition of a Christian being a person who professes belief in the teachings of jesus Christ, the devil, Satan, is a Christian since he believes the teachings of Jesus Christ. Catholics are no more christians than the devil. A christian is saved from Hell. The devil is bound for Hell, and so are Catholics if they don't get saved before they die.

Catholics make great Christians if they get saved, but they tend to get offended when you tell them they are lost and not Christians and they won't listen to the Bble telling them how they can know for sure today, now and forever, that their sins are forgiven and without any doubt they can be sure they are going to heaven the moment their time in earthly life is finalized. Catholics are religious people who are trusting in their own good works to earn a "Don't burn in Hell" card from the Pope. The Pope is a fraud. The Pope has no power to get you out of Hell. The Pope is a sinner the same as you who needs to be saved before He can be a Christian. If the Pope gets saved, he will be a Christian and resign from being the Pope of a religion with no real hope.
mdc32

Con

I will approach this as I approached last round. Rebuttals first, then my arguments if necessary.

Rebuttals

"If you were saved by Christ, when did you get saved and what did you get saved from?"
This is irrelevant, assuming Pro is talking to me. If not, it's still entirely pointless - it doesn't matter where and when you were saved.

"If you are not sure you are going to heaven, you are not sure you are saved and that is because you are not a Christian."
Also irrelevant. I agree with this and so do Christianity and Catholicism.

"A christian is saved from their sins, death, and Hell. A Christian is going to heaven immediately and nowhere else with their sins forgiven now and forever completely."
This is a good example of the sin of presumption that you mentioned in round one. A Christian cannot assume they are going to heaven after being saved. You cannot go to heaven if you live life after being saved the same way that you did before you were saved.

"the devil, Satan, is a Christian"
No, this is faulty logic. Believing something is different than believing in something. It is both a transitive and an intransitive verb. The intransitive form, which takes no direct object, is defined as "to have a firm religious faith" by Merriam-Webster. The transitive form means "to consider to be true" giving us a similar but different meaning. Christians believe in Jesus, God, and the Bible; Satan merely believes Jesus, not in him. He believes that Jesus performed miracles; we believe in Jesus' power to perform these miracles.

"Catholics are no more christians than the devil."
You must be missing something here. You have nothing to back this up, and frankly, I'm offended and I'm not even Catholic. This is an offensive, biased, and bigoted belief, with no support whatsoever.

"so are Catholics if they don't get saved before they die."
You haven't even shown me that Catholics aren't Christians, let alone that they aren't saved. At least make an attempt at using evidence to back up your claim.

"...a religion with no real hope."
Again, a pretty offensive statement if you ask me. I don't know if you realize this, but it's possible to say you don't agree with a religion without downright slamming it and saying it is false, hopeless, and on the same religious level as the devil.

Arguments

Again, Pro didn't acknowledge my arguments, but this time he at least acknowledged the definitions. I will restate my arguments in the clearest way possible for Pro to understand.

P1) Christians are, logically, members of Christianity.
P2) By definition, Catholicism is part of Christianity.
C1) Members of Catholicism are Christian.
P3) Likewise, Catholics are members of Catholicism.
C2) Catholics are Christian.

Conclusion

Pro has refused to acknowledge my unarguable logic, as there is no way to defeat it. He also has not provided any concrete evidence, only blatantly prejudiced, biased, bigoted, statements of belief, while at the same time claiming to be Christian, a very tolerant and accepting religion.
Debate Round No. 4
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

If you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? If you cannot say "yes" without doubt to this question, you are not a Christian. If you answer "yes", you know that your sins were paid for by God's blood in Jesus Christ and nothing you do can add to this and nothing you do can take away from this. If you think the blood of Jesus Christ is not enough to pay for your sins, and you have to do things to earn salvation, you are working to get to heaven and you are not saved and you are not a Christian. You can pretend to be a Christian, you can be a good moral person doing wonderful acts of kindness and claim to follow the teachings of Jesus but not be saved and not be a Christian. God makes a lost person into a saved person who is a Christian. Dicitionary definitions of "Christian" may be Catholic, but they are not God's definition of Christian. A Christian knows their sins are forgiven and they are going to heaven and they don't need any help from any Poope or Mary or any idol of Catholicism such as the Rosary or pennance candles (used by the Vatican to rob people who hope they can earn favor from God for paying money on stuff like this)

If you think being a Christian is being a good person who follows the teachings of Jesus, you are not a Christian if you say you are a Christian or not. Being a Christian is knowing God personally as your Father because jesus Christ Himself lives in you and is your life and your sins are forgiven and completely forever covered by His blood.

I have no burden of proof in this. Jesus Christ makes a believer a Christian. He proves Himself. My opponent is trying to fool himself into believing that being a good person makes God owe him a pass so he does not have to burn in Hell. The fact remains that Catholics make great Christians if they get saved. My opponent is not saved, he does not know if his sins are now and forever completely forgiven no matter what he does or does not do tomorrow. My opponent is trusting in his own goodness rather than in the blood God paid for his sins. My opponent can't be good enough to be sure heaven is his home NOW, so he is not a Christian Now. It is not possible for my oppenent to prove me wrong. It is possible for him to allow himself to be fooled by the Pope and for voters to agree with him and be fooled. Vote for me or against me, it will not change the fact that Catholics make great Christians if they get saved.
mdc32

Con

Same drill, yet again.

Rebuttals

"If you die today. are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven?"
Once again, I don't see what this has to do with Catholicism. I'm not Catholic, so it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't even matter if I'm Christian or not.

"If you think the blood of Jesus Christ is not enough to pay for your sins, and you have to do things to earn salvation, you are working to get to heaven and you are not saved and you are not a Christian."
False, even according to the Bible. From Micah 6:8, "He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?" The Lord requires us to do justice, which is doing something in order to be saved. Good try though.

"Dicitionary [sic] definitions of "Christian" may be Catholic, but they are not God's definition of Christian."
Then you should have clarified or even mentioned the definitions I provided. Sorry, but this is irrelevant, seeing as Catholics are still Christians by definition.

"your sins are forgiven and completely forever covered by His blood."
Again, this is irrelevant and pretty useless. This doesn't even matter according to the actual topic of the debate.

"I have no burden of proof in this."
Yes, you do. I definitely don't have all of it. You're the one trying to prove that Catholics make good Christians if they are saved.

"He proves Himself."
Is this a way of saying that Jesus fulfills the BoP? If so, then you're just flat out wrong; if this isn't what you're saying, then this statement is irrelevant, like most of your arguments thus far.

"My opponent is not saved, he does not know if his sins are now and forever completely forgiven no matter what he does or does not do tomorrow."
Alright, are you kidding me? I am religious. I am saved. I am Christian, but not Catholic. Your arguments are comprised of prejudiced bigotry, irrelevant religious statements, and pointless, confusing questions. They do not consist of useful rebuttals, important evidence, relevant sources, unbiased statements, logic, or even powerful statements relevant to the debate.

"It is not possible for my opponent to prove me wrong."
Yes, it is. Catholicism is defined as a branch of Christianity. There you go.

"It is possible for him to allow himself to be fooled by the Pope and for voters to agree with him and be fooled."
Once again, I AM NOT CATHOLIC. I do not listen to the Pope; I do not really care what new changes happen with Catholicism; I don't even care how Catholicism differs from my denomination. Don't assume that I am Catholic just because I am arguing in favor of Catholicism.

Conclusion

My opponent has not provided any meaningful arguments to this debate. Instead, he relies on religious faith to say that I am wrong. From the standpoint of a debate, there was no argument presented against me. I don't see how I could possibly lose this debate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
Does that mean that if you claim that you are going to go to heaven then you are going to heaven, based on nothing else.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
Simply claiming your a christian does not make you a christian. That is part of the point of the argument.
Posted by mdc32 2 years ago
mdc32
@amigodana

I got my definitions from merriam-webster.com. If you look in any trusted dictionary (dictionary.com, oxford dictionaries.com, etc.) they all list Roman Catholic Church as a part of the Christian Church.

Protestants and Catholics do have differences, but as far as I know Protestants still think of Catholics as Christian. The Webster's 1828 Dictionary that you mentioned (which is outdated, as it is from nearly 200 years ago) doesn't say that Catholics aren't Christians.

In your RFD, you give Pro conduct because I am not Catholic. Pro is not Catholic either. I don't see your argument here. I have knowledge about Catholicism. I am not ignorant about the subject. I do not make myself the final authority on these definitions. Pro didn't even provide another definition, even after I gave him two opportunities. I can argue for the belief system of a group I am not a member of, just as Pro can argue against it. I am not "using excuses" to save a winning streak. Pro didn't provide an argument, and didn't address most of what I said. Your vote was biased and still is. I won't report it this time, though, because you will just vote again as soon as you can.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
I've been following this a bit, and it's slightly frustrating.

Con didn't just state that he is the authority that decides what a christian is. He offered a definition, gave Pro a chance to adjust them or to disagree, which he failed to do. Even if the definitions aren't correct (which I don't see how they are), they still stand for this debate.

What I am wondering, and am attempting to maintain a civil manner, is what defines a Christian then? Because even catholic.com states that Catholics are Christians. I'm failing to see where Con's definitions are false for this debate. If Pro thought the definitions were unfair or wrong, he should have said something.

Don't act as if I am being close-minded either. I know people that are Catholic, and they state that they are Christian. I'm well read on the subject, and it's quite unfair to say that, because Con isn't Catholic, he can't debate the topic, then automatically give conduct to Pro. Strangely, you don't define yourself as Catholic either, according to your profile, so I'm lost on how you would be fit to judge the debate. If that was just a mistake, then I apologize, and I'd understand if you had put down your religion as Catholic.

Oh wait, it's Christian - Catholic. So is still wouldn't make sense.

The debate wasn't even on salvation, it was on defining Catholicism.

http://www.catholic.com...-
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
Catholics and protestants have such major doctrinal differences, that the word Christianity is not clearly defined from a dictionary. Which is why each religion has termed it in their own words.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
Out of curiosity which definition did you make yourself judge and jury over deciding what a christian is?

You have the catholic def.:

http://www.newadvent.org...

Or you have the one in the websters 1828 dictionary:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com...

Or should we just trust your definition. Is that not a biased opinion?
Who is qualified to be the final authority on this matter? Is that not what part of the debate is about, or did you miss that point?

You see catholics believe sacred scripture and sacred tradition, which is contrary to the protestant reformations teaching of sola scriptura.

I find it quite rude to assume that you are the deciding authority on the definition.

There is only one authority that we all agree on, the Bible.
So why do you get to decide that your the winner?
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
I stand by what I say. And I don't think you understand what being a christian means. But its not worth arguing about.
Posted by mdc32 2 years ago
mdc32
@amigodana

The debate was on whether or not catholics are Christians. A dictionary can, in fact, define this pretty clearly. I understand what saving someone means from a religious standpoint. I am Christian. I understand this very well.

Catholics are Christians. Pro provides no argument as to why they should not be, other than saying they are not saved. Why? Why aren't Catholics saved? My intent and spirit were justified, even if I am not Catholic. Pro is not Catholic either. I don't show a lack of disrespect (which is the same as disrespect, genius), and I am pretty well-educated about this topic.

About me commenting on your other debate, what other way was there to reach you? I don't want to just flag it outright without any communication, and I did comment on this debate, but you didn't respond. I'm not going to add you as a friend just to send you a message.

I didn't claim anything against you - I just told you that your vote was biased, which it was, then asked you to revoke it or I would report it, which I did. I don't see what's so hard for you to understand.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
This was the first thing that Pro posted and you think that you can define all this from a dictionary, then you are an idiot!

Quote; "If a person is saved, they are saved from their sin, they are saved from their death, and they are saved from Hell. They have eternal life now, their sins are forgiven now, and they know that the moment their time in their body of death is finalized, they will be with the Lord Jesus Christ forever and will be forever changed into His likeness freed from sin. "

These are religious questions that must be defined upon belief. Only addressed through scripture.
If it was man that could save you then we would not need Jesus! Even catholics would not argue about that. Therefore this is NOT a biased opinion.

The intent and spirit of this debate was indicated by addressing catholics. Con admitted, knowing this, intent and spirit that he was not a catholic.

Therefore Con shows a serious lack of respect, disregard, and disrespect for this debate. Not to mention he goes to other debates and attacks people for voting against him.

This also shows his immaturity and self righteous attitude towards this situation.

The plain and simple fact is he will do and claim anything against anybody who rightly judges against him.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
For the purpose of this debate, though, they do. Dictionary definitions do apply.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
LifeMeansGodIsGoodmdc32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con, because he did in fact use several sources throughout the debate. Conduct also to Con because of the ad hominem attacks thrown at him. Arguments goes to Con because his arguments stand. Unfortunately, even if it is not the correct definition, and even if Con isn't the overall authority of the definition, he still gave definitions and Pro accepted them. Therefore, not in the bigger schemes of things, but certainly for this debate, Con's logic remains true.
Vote Placed by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
LifeMeansGodIsGoodmdc32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate is based on who is the final authority on what a christian is, by salvation. The two religions presented are teaching two separate versions of Christianity. By ignoring the doctrinal differences, which pro tried to address, and con ignored. Con shows no understanding of what the debate was about. He admitted this by stating that he is not catholic. A non catholic cannot argue the belief system of a catholic. The very definition that Con presents is contrary to what catholics teach is a christian. Con was not in a position to properly argue this debate. There very fact that con judges that he is final authority on which definition is to be used shows his lack of understanding the debate. I judged the debate fairly. Even if Con is just trying to save his winning streak, and will try using any excuse to do it.