The Instigator
Luna3
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Christianity is the most inclusive faith, despite the fact that it is accused of being exclusive.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,107 times Debate No: 2163
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (55)
Votes (18)

 

Luna3

Pro

Christianity has for years been scrutinized for being exclusive, that it leaves out folks. That only "Christians" are going to Heaven and everyone else is going to Hell, so therefore Christians have an us and them mentality which excludes many folks.

However, when measured against other faiths (Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, and Buddhism) in which the Heaven or Heaven-like entity is attained through some kind of meritorious way, it is obvious that Christianity is the only one that includes ALL.

Most faiths have a credit and debit system. If you do one good deed you are in favor with God. If you do one bad deed you are not. Even the prophet Mohammed did not know the status of his soul. He "hoped" he had been good enough for God. This explains Catholic and Jewish "guilt" because there is always that thing hanging over the heads of those followers which is that you are not being "good enough" for God.

In all other faiths if a sin is BAD enough that person is no longer eligible for salvation.

Christianity is designed for the worst of us. And because so many of us are bad, it is designed for all of us.

It is the only faith that says you can not earn your way into Heaven. It is the only faith that says that no matter HOW much you do, you can never do enough for God. Whereas other faith's followers still try to work their way up the ladder to Heaven one rung at a time, Christians are substituted into Heaven by way of the atoning sacrifice of Christ (for those that believe).

In Christianity 6.3 billion people are candidates for salvation.
In all other faiths, only the "good people" get in. Because Christians believe that we are all bad (none is righteous, no not one; our righteousness is like dirty rags) it makes no sense to measure one sinner against another in terms of his or her candidacy for salvation.

The Buddhists believe that in order to attain enlightenment you must understand everything. This excludes unitelligent people.

Other faiths believe that you must be good to get to Heaven. This excludes people with a bad past (like me).

Christianity is the only faith whose Heaven is reserved for all people and requires nothing more than a single word: "yes"
Tatarize

Con

Buddhism is far more inclusive the Christianity, in that you don't need to be a Buddhist to be included. If you do bad you get to try again, if you do good you get to try again, eventually everybody will do perfectly and achieve nirvana. As far as faiths go, everybody is already included is as broad as you can get. To say that it excludes stupid people is wrong and rather naive as far as the tenets go.

In Christianity "good people" can be excluded because they don't believe in Christianity. How is that inclusive? Your argument is that anybody can get into heaven within Christianity all they need to do is be Christian. What if they aren't? Seriously, Gandhi... Gandhi was a Hindi and is currently burning in hell for not accepting Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

John 3:18, 36 - He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

You do not get to tally up those those who *COULD* convert to your religion to argue that your religion is inclusive. That isn't being inclusive, that's allowing people to be included.

Further there are some religions which have a doctrine of Universal Salvation such as some sects of Unitarian and Quakers. That says that ultimately everybody goes to Heaven regardless what they believed or did. How do you possibly beat that? Your claim that your religious faith has a potential to have all 6.3 billion people saved... well in some religious faiths, all 6.3 billion people are already saved. -- Trump that.

---

Let me make a couple quick points to the readers. I am not arguing the truth of Christianity just whether or not Christianity is the most inclusive faith. The claim that it is perfectly inclusive is wrong on the grounds that it doesn't include non-Christians. Some religions actually do believe that everybody goes to heaven. Buddhism believes everybody gets reincarnated, whether they are a Buddhist or not.

I am not arguing whether Luna's faith is correct or faiths which say that everybody goes to heaven are correct. I am pointing out that everybody goes to heaven is more inclusive that everybody who believe what I believed goes to heaven.

---

Christianity is not one faith, it is a large umbrella group of religions, sects, and cults. There are thousands of subgroups and many of them are absolutely convinced that the other groups are going to hell because they don't believe what the first group says.

A friend of mine said of his fundamentalist upbringing that he 'grew up in a city of fifty thousand with a church on every block and thought that he was the only Christian in town.'

The majority of Christians are very exclusive... you need to be a Christian to be saved. That isn't wrong or right, I'm not judging but I am pointing out that other faiths are more inclusive than that. However, different sects and religions exclude other sects and religions from being accepted.

Case and point, when Luna was listing "other faiths", Catholicism was included as one of the non-Christian faiths. Further, several months ago the Pope made a statement that non-Catholics were flawed Christians on the wrong path.

http://www.cbsnews.com...

This is inclusive?

---

Further, allow me to point out a flaw in reasoning here.

Matthew 12:32 - And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Blasphemy against the holy spirit is unforgivable; I deny the holy spirit. So apparently you can be excluded.

---

Personally I don't see declaring everybody to be bad and evil is very inclusive. That always strikes me as rather vindictive and petty. Though, all in all it says nothing about including or excluding people. Christianity is the only faith in which you can't earn your way into heaven and everything you do is going to fall short? However since the bar was set too high, Christ sacrificed himself to himself and let everybody in so long as they revel in his blood. Going from excluding everybody to including Christians.

However, some faiths claim you are already saved even without a word or a belief. That good people go to heaven because good people go to heaven.

The idea of salvation by faith alone may be fairly inclusive. If Hitler dropped to his knees and ask Christ for forgiveness before he died he'll be up there to greet you at the pearly gates. Gandhi however is burning in hell. It's an odd sort of inclusion, rather than strict criteria the only criteria is that you have to be Christian.

However, that criteria is demonstratively most strict than other faiths employ.

Although some other faiths like Islam view Christians as people of the book and many adherents believe that good Christians will go to heaven. Here you need to weigh the difference between including sinners vs. including good people of other faiths. I contend that there are fewer evil Christians getting salvation under Christianity than there are good Christians getting salvation under Islam.

And again... universal salvation within some sects is one hell of a trump card.
Debate Round No. 1
Luna3

Pro

Hello Tatatize. I must say I am intimidated by your photo. So I changed my kitty assassin photo to a man wrasslin' a bear, just so I can feel a little more confidant against your "thinking man's look." Consequently (or not), I shall call you Tat for short.



According to Thich Nhat Hahn a famous Buddhist author there is no such thing as a Buddhist, just one who agrees with Buddhist thinking. To say "I am" anything is incorrect. According to Buddhists all of us are Buddhists. This debate is in terms of each doctrine's ideas on obtaining "salvation" not in terms of what we all call ourselves. Anybody can call themselves Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim, doesnt mean they necessarily are. Sitting in a garage does not make you a car.


Those that "do bad" try again, according to Buddhism, at a lower level. Thus they are behind the 8 ball each time. If there is some kind of punishment for bad that refuses you enter to nirvana than by definition you are not redeemed. If you are not redeemed because you were bad than my point is proved. According to Buddhist philosophy the bad are unredeemable, which make the bad ineligible for Nirvana.

The term eventually actually because of past lives and such could refer to 20 billion years or so, or how about 600 billion years. If someone is "bad" and is recreated at a lower level than before, than it is more difficult for them to become more enlightened. Thus the downward spiral away from nirvana is exponential. And eventually that person could be a worm. And then what? If bad could eventually equal worm, I would define this definitely as exclusive. Especially if the requirement in Buddhism is to no everything.

How many people do you know that are close to knowing everything? Probably not a soul. In fact one of the dichotomous tenents of Buddhism is that you can not know everything.



Not everyone is intelligent enough to know everything in the universe. In fact I would argue that the Buddhist is right when he says you can not know everything in the universe. Requiring that a Buddhist knows everything about everything in order to achieve Nirvana does indeed exclude folks like me that still don't know how to be civil to my father. Your term "eventually reach Nirvana" could be replaced by "eternally seeking Nirvana" and a Buddhist would not argue with you.

It is inclusive in that they are invited to believe it.



Actually I do get to tally up all those that could. In fact that is exactly what I am doing. The child molester is not redeemable in Islam. He is only redeemable in Catholicism and Judaism if he is lucky enough to have God forgive him. My point is that Christianity offers REDEMPTION and the ASSURANCE of redemption without having to DO anything besides accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior. To say that something is not inclusive when it allows people to be included is a strange argument on your part. I would say that, yes, by allowing people to be included you are in fact being quite inclusive.



The debate was about Christianity and the major religions. I will not use exception as example if you do not use exception as example. Deal? I am sure if I tried hard enough I could find a Jonestown or Manson type "religion" to discredit this whole debate. So, allow us to keep it simple.



By definition a Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ is their personal Lord and Savior, that He is a redeemer necessary to bridge the gap between the disconnect that exists between man and God, a result of the Fall of Adam. So therefore any "cult" albeit LABELED Christian is not, by definition, Christian. So you are incorrect to say that Christianity is not one faith it is. I cant start Islam Part 2 and call it Islam. It wouldnt be fair to the folks that hold that faith near and dear. And as far as sects go (we call them denominations) they do all believe in the tenents I described above. Check out the WHAT WE BELIEVE sections of Pentacostals, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Assemblies of God, Church of Christ and on and on. It is incorrect to say that the umbrella of TRUE Christianity is as wide as you say.

we are talking about the tenents of Christianity, not the tangents of some of its followers.



Using some exclusivist thing the Pope said doesnt help your argument because Christians dont agree with what he said anyway. And seeing as I am a Christian and this is a Christian point of view, bringing the Pope's opinion into it means nothing to me.



It is quite inclusive, because it means WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT. All of us start at the same starting line. Where as other faiths have righteous and unrighteous based on many criterior. Consider Islam: (Q'ran) SURA 6:164 - Each soul earneth only on its own account nor doth any laden bore another's load." So for those that have say murdered at the age of 13, they dont have enough TIME left in their life to tip the scales of righteous and unrighteous back in their favor before the time comes. They could use a man like Christ then, couldnt they?

Chris was designed for the person who made mistakes, the one who needs help, the one who cant do it alone. The only exclusion happening is the self imposed exclusion of the man or woman who looks at CHrist and says "NO THANKS, BUB!"

God bless
Tatarize

Con

I changed the picture. Tat is fine for short, in fact, that's what the name was initially short for, but was simply too common (actual name in some Asia). And Tatarize is fairly unique a Google search for it turns up my information rather exclusively. Now on to the topic at hand.

---

I would like to object to this topic on a radically different grounds.

That's not what is meant when people say Christians are exclusive. They don't mean to say that Christianity has a high bar for salvation. Most people don't really care what your criteria for salvation might be (bargain basement prices aside). They mean to suggest that Christianity is backwards, anti-gay, bigoted, xenophobic, and intolerant. The idea is if you're not Christian or if you don't believe what Christians believe you're a sack of crap and going to hell. Coming around and offering a debate to suggest that the criteria for salvation is such that 'anybody could believe what you believe and not have to go to hell' is proof of the point, not a cogent argument against it!

You are largely admitting that people need to radically transform their beliefs and believe what you believe or they are doomed to hell. That everybody is a potential convert is dishonest and a shows a very flawed understanding of the criticism actually being leveled against you. The real accusation is absolutely valid. Your debate misses the point completely.

There are a lot of different brands of Christianity and many specifically insist that if you don't subscribe to some specific set their doctrines then you go to hell. So even professing a believe in Jesus isn't enough to save you from hellfire a lot of the time. You have bigoted people insisting that only Christians are saved or worth saving. That blacks have the Curse of Ham (more of an 1900s belief) or homosexuals are damned for their wickedness. And you have the Christian groups on the inside damning each other for different beliefs. That's what people mean when they say Christianity is exclusive. They don't mean the salvation is too hard. If anything Christians have cornered the market on inflated worthless effortless salvation.

I'll gladly win on the merits of the debate as you framed it.
Buddhists... I win.

---

Now, to the substance of your claims.

I see you're conceding. Perhaps I'm misreading that but you seem to agree that according to Buddhists we're all Buddhists. I'm sorry but that's inclusive! Not only inclusive of humans but animals too. That's hard to beat.

It may take some time to finally reach Nirvana what does it matter? Eternity is eternity. If it took you 100 years or 100 billion... forever is a long time too. It is more satisfying to think Hitler could spend a trillion years as a cockroach than could have simply asked for forgiveness and be up in Heaven right now greeting people at the pearly gates.

You're making a false distinction while being on both sides of it. For one, you want to argue that Christianity encompasses everybody because they *COULD* convert. But insist that because Buddhism already encompasses every living thing on the planet that it doesn't count unless they actually call themselves Buddhist? You can eat your cake or have your cake; not both.

Also, the requirement for enlightenment isn't to know everything. Knowledge is not understanding and understanding is not knowledge. Which is why not knowing everything doesn't bother Buddhists (or anybody really, that's trivially true).

Besides, the journey is half the fun.

---

-"He [a child molester] is only redeemable in Catholicism ... if he is lucky enough to have God forgive him." - subtle...

Although you seem to regard Catholicism as not a form of Christianity, even though they invented the religion. It seems remarkably odd to talk of how inclusive Christianity is and yet seem to exclude Catholicism.

---

How do you define major religion? There is an old saying that the only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of property they own. Further, I contend that Quakerism is a very real religious group and it's extremely insulting to boot them out of your club for no good reason (but then you're exclusive after all even with the term "religion"). The Quakers kick started the abolitionist movement and lead to the eventual prohibition of slavery all over the world. Some sects of Quakers do adhere to universal salvation and as such everybody is already saved. That is, by definition, more inclusive than one which requires you profess belief in your specific doctrines.

But, yes, I could invent a religion where everybody is saved automatically but not only once but twelve times. Don't ask me, it's a mystery. In fact just I have. Win please?

--

Next, you believe I mean cult in some sort of derogatory sense. I do not. I mean it as a small religion outside the mainstream usually with markedly different beliefs and little acceptance. There are a number of Christian Cults such as the Branch Davidians. Who formed under a schism with a more traditional Adventist church in 1955. Their beliefs did include that Jesus Christ was their personal Lord and Savior and the redeemer necessary to bridge the gap between the disconnects that exist between man and God. They also thought the world was going to end and that Christ was going to float as the world turns and pull the Christians up to heaven (which is actually a standard Adventist belief). Further, a number of Christians don't believe in the fall anymore or really in a real Adam or Eve. Mostly because the evidence rather firmly contradicts that. Rather they have some vague beliefs and accept the fall as metaphorical. I know it seems a little silly as then Jesus sacrificed Himself to Himself for a metaphorical sin. But, what can you do?

Your definition is exclusive enough that though it would include the Waco cult it would exclude a vast number of Christians. You wonder about the accusations of being exclusive?

"I cant start Islam Part 2 and call it Islam." -- Why not Ali did?

"It is incorrect to say that the umbrella of TRUE Christianity is as wide as you say." - I said the term covered a wide variety of different religions. You listed half a dozen of those included. That's hardly undercutting my claim that it describes a vast number of different religions. Christianity itself isn't exactly a religion other than Christ there's no real firm established rituals or beliefs. -- It's tangential to the main point.

--"Using some exclusivist thing the Pope said doesnt help your argument because Christians dont agree with what he said anyway. ...I am a Christian and this is a Christian point of view, bringing the Pope's opinion into it means nothing to me." -- WHAT? Are you saying that "Christians" don't agree with what the pope says? Not even Catholics? Or are you again directly implying that Catholics aren't Christian? That's not being exclusive... the POPES BEING EXCLUSIVE! Lol.

I've lived a good life and do good things, I have love, happiness and joy... and yet I'm in the same boat as Hitler because some mythological great great ... great grandpappy of mine ate a fruit? -- That is absurd. Further, as the Pope was Catholic and I'm an atheist he gets to go to heaven (if he repented) and I decidedly don't (no heaven exists anyway). That's just a bid off.

Buddhists already include everybody. Universal Salvation believers already include everybody.

Further, blaspheming against the holy spirit gets you rather remarkably excluded. As does a quick survey of the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that Christianity is full of crap. I can't wrap my head around some of those absurd beliefs you need to live forever and ever in happyland. So, regardless how low you set the bar I can't believe stupid things. Though apparently I'll get reincarnated regardless what I do.

Go Buddhists!
Debate Round No. 2
Luna3

Pro

Luna3 forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Forfeiting is probably the best move you've made in this debate.

Thank you all for reading the debate.
Tatarize.
Debate Round No. 3
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Fixed!
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
I think tatarize doesnt know it. lol
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Further, the idea that when I read the Bible I do it wrong is silly. Odder yet when I can't even take the word of people who are Christians and read the Bible and take those passages to mean exactly what they obviously mean. Ofcourse, those people who also read the Bible and take it's meaning to be exactly what it clearly says are probably kicked out of Christianity too.

What a useful tool that is! Everybody who disagrees with you is not a Christian. Everybody who disagrees with your interpretation can't interpret the Bible right.

Naw... you're not being exclusive.

"THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS!" - God warrior.

Not exclusive at all.
Posted by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
-- Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior

TAZ: You've the Arians. Though, outside of Isaac Newton that's about nobody.

LUNA3: Is that all we "lost?" What will mainstream Protestantism do without Arians? (Take note of sarcasm.)

TAZ: -- Salvation by Grace through Faith (not works)
Here you lose a lot. Most read the Bible and say that salvation is through works. Mostly because that's what it says. Ezekiel 18:27, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 16:27, John 5:29, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Corinthians 11:15, James 2:14, James 2:21-25, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23.

LUNA3: You make these sweeping statements like "Most read the bible and say that salvation through works." Who is MOST. If you bothered to read the mission statements of EVERY SINGLE MAINSTREAM PROTESTANT DENOMINATION you would know this is false. Its erroneous.

You are not a Christian. You read the bible out of context and try to shape it so it says something it doesnt. (see next post)

TAZ: -- The second coming of Christ/final judgment: You probably don't lose any of those you didn't already lose.

LUNA3: You mean like Witnesses, Mormons, and Arians?! Oh my.

TAZ: -- The divinity of Jesus
You lose Thomas Jefferson.

LUNA3: Glad to lose him. He was not a Christian. He was a Deist (as I asserted in my argument before)

TAZ: -- Conversion experience (born again) You lose the episcopalian and other not born again faiths. Anybody, born right the first time.

LUNA3: Again, could you describe these "other non born again faiths" by name. And if you type Mormon or Witnesses I am gonna wash my hands of this conversation. You may have noticed that I did not include the Episcopalian Church, Anglicans, in my argument and subsequent comments. I would say that because they self proclaim themselves as CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT (http://www.episcopalchurch.org...)that we can both agree that this is a unique EXCEPTION to the term "Mainstream Protestant."
Posted by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
Lets go over these gems, Taz.

TAZ: --One God (manifested in 3 forms)
--The triune God Not one God in three different roles? There's a lot of hairs to split there. You've lost the Witnesses, Mormons, couple minor groups.

LUNA3: Exactly. I am glad to "lose" the Witnesses and Mormons. Thats the point. Theire rejction of the Trinity is what MAKES Them not Christians. Stay with us here.

TAZ: -- The Genesis creation account: You've lost most every liberal Christian church.

LUNA3 - Like who? Lets see the WHAT WE BELIEVE sections of these denominations cut and pasted. Which Protestant Denominations deny the Genesis account? Be specific.

TAZ: -- The Bible as divinely inspired: You've lost fundamentalists (on the extreme side) and some more extremely liberal churches.

I'm sorry, dude, since when do Fundamentalist Christians deny the divinely inspired word? And as far as the "some more extremely liberal churches," a) if they are marginalized like you say they are, they are thus oustide of the box of MAINSTREAM PROTESTANT thinking which has been my point from the get go b) It wouldnt be incorrect to say these folks would not be Christians -by definition.
Posted by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
You dont listen (or read) it seems. It's quite tiresome.

First of all your fighting on me about this statement "the difference between Mormonism and Christianity is the same as the difference between Methodists and Lutherans," is very curious seeing as that quote was listed with other concessions (see: I concede) in a rather sarcastic display on my part. This, to me, only says that you probably skim through my posts without making an attempt to comprehend my points. Try again.

My definition is narrow because the definition of a Christian is narrow. Narrow is the gate, the bible says. And its true.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Christianity isn't a religion. It's an umbrella term for a large group of messiah based religions, cults and sects.

Ask a Catholic or a protestant if they are Christian and they will both say yes. They aren't the same religion. They are both Christian. Because, again, Christianity isn't a religion, it's an umbrella term for a large group of messiah based religions, cults and sects.

The definition is the problem. They aren't concrete ideas as you have been lead to believe. Definitions in dictionaries and the like are basically descriptions of how words are used. The problem is many Christian groups have different definitions of what Christian means.

Christian:
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

By those definitions Catholics and Mormons are Christians.

>>"The difference between Mormonism and Christianity is the same as the difference between Methodists and Lutherans"

Far from it Mormons are way way out there even compared to your standard issue protestant Christians. The difference between Methodist and Lutheran is far smaller than between Mormonism and Lutherans. Martin Luther and John Wesley produced markedly different brands of Christianity but Joseph Smith (that's downright kooky).

I'm strictly saying that your definition is overly narrow for no good reason. Christianity is a general term for a broad range of religious faiths. I contend that it contains Mormonism not that Mormons are remotely as reasonable as an Episcopalian.
Posted by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
Taz, it is really such a radical idea?

They call it the Mormon religion because it works within the frameworks of a SPECIFIC DOCTRINE. It is distinctly Mormon.

They call it the Catholic religion because it works within the frameworks of a SPECIFIC DOCTRINE. It is distinctly Catholic.

They call it the Christian religion because it works within the frameworks of a SPECIFIC DOCTRINE. It is distinctly Christian.

When you turn on the Catholic TV channel it doesnt say "Welcome Christians." It says "Welcome Catholics."

Once again you miss the (baseball) analogy. It is quite simple. If ABC makes you a Christian. And you believe DEF, than you are....surprise NOT A CHRISTIAN!

Why is this revolutionary? Why is this strange? Ask a Catholic if Protestants are of the same faith. They will say no.

Its not the same. Its different.

By definition you are not Christian if you believe what Mormons believe. You are ..... surprise: A MORMON.

I am not sure how you can debate even this smallest idea.

I am frankly bewildered.

So I guess I shall concede.

Jesus never walked the earth.
In order to be a Christian all you have to do is call yourself a Christian.
The difference between Mormonism and Christianity is the same as the difference between Methodists and Lutherans
If I call myself a Muslim I am a Mulsim no matter what my personal belief about Allah is
Even though Buddhism is more inclusive than Christianity, it makes sense to despise Christianity for saving a person like Hitler so easily, more easily than Buddhism does.

OK....everybody vote for Taz. He wins.

How can you argue with it?
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Tatarize is right. Buddhism is not exclusive at all!

luna3: "According to Buddhists all of us are Buddhists."

You just made his point. Christians are more exclusive than Buddhists.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
So though, Mormons would say they are Christians and you would say they aren't. Pentecostals would say that Baptists are Christians. Though, some Pentecostals would say that even other Pentecostals aren't Christians those Pentecostals are Christians (or aren't). Catholics would say that protestants are Christian but flawed. And though, I've run into very few groups which actually conclude that Catholics aren't Christians. Your baseball team says they aren't, so they aren't. Liberal Christians aren't real Christians if they believe the universe is remotely as old as the evidence says. Catholics might be Christians if they agree with some belief you mentioned, but otherwise they aren't.

Yeah... I'm clearly wrong when I say that different dominations disagree with each other as to who a Christian is.

Further your analogy is wrong. The Mormons don't say they haven't watched a game. They claim that not only are they fans they were fans back when they were the Cleveland Dodgers. Though, there's no evidence they ever played for that city, they are still fans today.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
Luna3TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Luna3TatarizeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Luna3TatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Luna3TatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
Luna3TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by desk19 9 years ago
desk19
Luna3TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
Luna3TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
Luna3TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
Luna3TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Messingerzt 9 years ago
Messingerzt
Luna3TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30