The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
BrianCBiggs
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

If Christianity is true, then Catholics are right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,362 times Debate No: 29219
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (62)
Votes (3)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Our audience of voters will likely be comprised of mostly non-Christians; burden of proof is shared. Also, only general arguments will be presented in the first round (no supporting evidence), and no new arguments will be introduced in the last round. Last round is for rebuttals only.

I believe that if Christianity is the truth, then Catholics are right.

1. Catholicism can be traced back to Jesus better than other Christian religions can.

2. Catholicism is the only Christian religion whose members are compelled to believe the same doctrines.
BrianCBiggs

Con

I thank my opponent for setting up this challenge and look forward to debating him.
I belong to a church that is not denominationally affiliated and has theological distinctives that are pretty close to that of Reformed Baptists.

I believe that Christianity is true, and given that Christianity is true, Roman Catholicism is a distortion of Christianity.

1. Roman Catholicism, as it is presented today, is remarkably different from what Jesus taught and from the early church.

2. Catholicism is not the only Christian religion whose members are compelled to adhere to specific doctrines.

3. Catholicism's members do not all hold the same doctrines.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thank you, BrianCBiggs, for accepting this debate as Con.

I drop my 2nd claim from round 1 and concede to Con's argument 3 from round 1; all Catholics do not believe the same doctrines. However, all Catholics are compelled to believe in the same dogmas. Now I will support my first claim.

Catholicism can be traced back to Jesus better than other Christian religions can. The authoritative hierarchy which Jesus founded is the Catholic Church, and it's origins are in the Bible. In John 15:1-20, Jesus appoints a few, select men to carry out his divine mission:

[Jesus talking to his apostles]
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing"
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you."

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus singles out Peter from among the others and gives him unique authority. He tells Peter that he will build his church on him, then proceeds to give him the "keys to the kingdom of heaven"; whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever Peter makes loose on earth is loose in heaven. According to the original translation, and as evidenced by the footnotes in the NIV Bible, Jesus actually told Peter that whatever he teaches has already been decreed true by God, meaning Peter is given the authority to speak on God's behalf. This makes him infallible, at least when teaching on religious matters. This is where the concept of papal infallibility comes from in the Catholic Church.
The role that Jesus gave to his apostles included the authority to teach and baptize, as evidenced in Matthew 28:19-20:

"Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

On top of the power to baptize, he also gave them the power to forgive sins in John 20:23:

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

In Luke 10:16, Jesus gives legislative power to about 70 more disciples:

“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

The apostles (the early Church) used their divinely provided authority to expand the Church since the early beginning, as demonstrated in Acts 2.
The hierarchy of the Church was again made clear in 1 Corinthians 3:1-10.

The Catholic Church is the only church whose origins can be traced back to Jesus and Peter, and the only one with reasonable claim of the infallibility that Jesus gave to Peter. The tradition of apostolic succession started with Acts 1:21-26, when Judas was replaced after his suicide.

Letters of early Christians support the genuine origin of the Catholic church, and other Christian religions don't have similar historical support for their own religions. These writers make it clear that there can only be one true church.

In 253 A.D., Cyprian of Carthage said: "[Peter speaks], teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another [...]"

There is more historical evidence of the origins of the Catholic Church than that of other Christian religions. Also, as evidenced previously, any other Christian religion is not the true religion, and does not have the fullness of the truth.

My opponent claims that "Roman Catholicism is a distortion of Christianity", but I believe the Cyprian quote shows that any other Christian religion besides Catholicism is a distortion of the true Church.

My opponent also says that "Roman Catholicism, as it is presented today, is remarkably different from what Jesus taught and from the early church", but it is not different in anyway that would detract from it's legitimacy, which is greater than that of any other Christian religion.

I await my opponent's rebuttals.
BrianCBiggs

Con

According to my opponent, Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18 "infallible, at least when teaching on religious matters." Why does Jesus rebuke Peter just a few verses later, calling him Satan and a hindrance? He tells Peter he isn't setting his mind on the things of God. Why does Paul not distinguish between Peter and James and John in Gal 2? And why does Paul rebuke him?

In contrast to the Magisterium structure you want to prop up, Jesus says in Matthew 23:8-10, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."

Likewise 1 John 2:27-28 says:

As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has touch you, you abide in him.

Not only this, but Clement of Alexandria said,"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" (Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2) So, James, not Peter, was the bishop of Jerusalem. And if there was any church with preeminence, it was Jerusalem. Why was the first pope not the head of the preeminent church? Why was it James, not Peter delivering the ruling in the first counsel?

Is Matthew 28:19-20 a command?

Does John 20:23 only apply to those present when it was said? That is, did Thomas not receive the power to forgive sins?

In Luke 10:16, was Judas among those given "legislative power"?

If 1 Corinthians 3:1-10 is about hierarchy, why does verse 10 end with a warning to be careful how you build? And why is it followed by verses about how that work (of building the church) can be built up? Can the church hierarchy fail?

If Acts 1:21-26 is about the succession of apostles, why are there only 12 foundation stones mentioned in Revelation 21:14? And, which name is written on the 12th: Matthias or Paul?

It is called noble in Acts 17, when the laity held an Apostle to the standard of Scripture rather than taking him at his word. Does this fly in the Roman Catholic church?

I wonder why Cyprian didn't mention the pope" Perhaps it is because there was no pope at the time he was writing. I find it more likely that Cyprian was talking about the current state of the Church than paving the way for papists. If the Church is in *all* Bishops, what are we to make of it when a Bishop, rather than the multitude under him, goes astray? If an apostle can go astray, why can't a Bishop?

St. Macrina the Younger (330 - 379) wrote:

We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. (NPNF2, Vol. 5, Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and Resurrection)

St. Basil (329-379) wrote to a widow:

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right. (NPNF2, Vol. 8, Basil, Letters, Letter 283)

Basil seems to be in accord with the 1 John passage above and seems to be asserting not just the material, but the formal sufficiency of the Bible.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Roman Catholicism, as it is presented today, is remarkably different from what Jesus taught and from the early church.

How is it 'remarkably different,' and how does this prove that the Catholic Church is a distortion of Christianity?

Catholicism is not the only Christian religion whose members are compelled to adhere to specific doctrines.

I concede this point, because it doesn't make me wrong.

Catholicism's members do not all hold the same doctrines.

I concede this point to for the same reason; however, this doesn't prove that that Catholic Church is a distortion of Christianity. Just because people don't follow the rules doesn't mean the rules are wrong.

Why does Jesus rebuke Peter just a few verses later, calling him Satan and a hindrance? Why does Paul not distinguish between Peter and James and John in Gal 2? And why does Paul rebuke him?

Papal infallibility only applies under particular circumstances, and doesn't change the fact that Peter, like other popes since him, were sinners like everyone else. Also, this doesn't support your claim that the "Catholic Church is a distortion of Christianity."

In contrast to the Magisterium structure you want to prop up, Jesus says in Matthew 23:8-10, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."

Jesus was using hyperbole to make a statement. Surely you don't think Jesus is forbidding sons from calling their father, 'father'? Jesus was admonishing the Pharisees' pride because they were acting as the ultimate authority, instead of seeing God as the ultimate authority.

So, James, not Peter, was the bishop of Jerusalem.

I never said that Peter was bishop of Jerusalem. How does this prove that Catholicism is a distortion of Christianity?

And if there was any church with preeminence, it was Jerusalem. Why was the first pope not the head of the preeminent church? Why was it James, not Peter delivering the ruling in the first counsel?

The underlines premise is a baseless assumption, so I'll ignore the arguments following that are based on it.

Is Matthew 28:19-20 a command?
Obviously. What's your point?

Does John 20:23 only apply to those present when it was said? That is, did Thomas not receive the power to forgive sins?

It doesn't matter; how would either scenario prove that Catholicism is a distortion of Christianity? Why are you posing irrelevant questions?

In Luke 10:16, was Judas among those given "legislative power"?

See my previous reply.

If 1 Corinthians 3:1-10 is about hierarchy, why does verse 10 end with a warning to be careful how you build? And why is it followed by verses about how that work (of building the church) can be built up?

The first verses are explaining why it doesn't matter who the people think is the 'best' apostle, because it ignores the fact that the apostles are merely doing God's work, not their own. The 10th verse is talking about building your faith on a strong foundation as opposed to blind faith.

Can the church hierarchy fail?

Members of the Church can falter in their faith (even Peter did when he denied Jesus!) but that doesn't mean the Church's dogma is wrong. There have been scandalous popes and bishops, but Catholic dogma has always stayed intact regardless.

It is called noble in Acts 17, when the laity held an Apostle to the standard of Scripture rather than taking him at his word. Does this fly in the Roman Catholic church?

What's your point? Stop asking me seemingly random questions and start making arguments please!!

I wonder why Cyprian didn't mention the pope

Because the word didn't exist yet. If I write a letter to my friend but don't mention my wife, does that mean my wife doesn't exist? No. Also, what's your point?

St. Macrina the Younger (330 - 379) wrote:

No, St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote the following quote:

We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet

What is this supposed to prove? In the same writing, St. Gregory says:

"As for ourselves, we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church"

St. Basil (329-379) wrote to a widow:

You took the quote out of context. Here it is in more context:

"Your dream, I think, reveals more perfectly the necessity of making provision for spiritual contemplation, and cultivating that mental vision by which God is wont to be seen. Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right."

Basil is not saying that "Christians don't need help interpreting the Holy Scriptures" as my opponent seems to be implying. Rather, he is telling the widow she doesn't need help to "comprehend [her] duty." How my opponent jumps from this to the conclusion that Basil believe in Sola Scriptura I have no idea.

Basil seems to be [...] asserting not just the material, but the formal sufficiency of the Bible.

Absolutely not. Here is Basil again:

“Of the dogmas and kerygmas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force” (The Holy Spirit [375 AD])

Con has failed to convincingly refute any of my arguments; furthermore, he hasn't explained or supported his argument that the "Catholic Church is a distortion of Christianity." He also hasn't explained how Catholicism doesn't trace back to Jesus better than any other religion.

Back to you, Con.

BrianCBiggs

Con

BrianCBiggs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

All arguments extended.
BrianCBiggs

Con

BrianCBiggs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

All arguments extended. Thanks for this debate. Please vote Pro!
BrianCBiggs

Con

BrianCBiggs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
"but I fail to see how this skill can be applied productively in life"--garret cried dupre

Unfortunately, youre not the only delusional and confused human actively impeding the growth of human conciousness by clinging to outdated answers to the universe and life. Your leaders are the real enemy, youre just a punching bag :)

Splashing the world with a glass of ice water isnt childs play, we've got our work cut out for us here.

So in order for me to be efficient, I have hundreds of ways to say the same thing, and that boils down too, religion is the single most divisive and destructive invention in the history of mankind :)

Now the book has a working title "Seriously DuH..Because reading one book with scripture, is a lot easier than a bunch of other hard ones.

Like the double meaning, my book and the holy binky written 2000 yrs ago (binky slang for pacifier) both easier to read than a bunch of other hard ones :)

There will also be a CD set of recorded phone calls with religious leaders while the Genie is under the guise as one of their followers, members, whatever role is necessary to get the ridiculous responses from a concerned ned flanders :)

Plus I will have DVD interviews with both scientists and religious leaders asking them the same questions.

How about true scripture t-shirts, hats and other apparel, bumper stickers, key chains, posters, whatever, Spencers Gifts, you'd love to see DevientGenie branded wouldnt you?

So take the time to go back and read what youre crying and pouting about, appreciate the intricate beauty, and I'll get back to splashing the world with a glass of ice water :)

Delusional 9:16--44% of Americans believe "the reason for everything" literally gave the land of israel to the jews. Awwww, he's also a real estate broker how cute :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
CaptainObvious 1:1--There are millions of versions of gods people believed in thruought time, everyone is right or everyone is wrong, now lets get back to this Higgs Boson and let kissing girls get married in court :)
Posted by timou 4 years ago
timou
Jesus is prophet without father
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
father=God

check this, Adam is son of father= servent fo God
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

islam is the only way to heaven ,anyone want to save himself from hell contact me.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Come on guys, there's no crying in baseball. You guys know that already. Walk It Off :)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

ParentalChoices 1:37--As a parent you can indoctrinate your children with What to think thru religion or you can teach them how to think thru logic, facts, evidence, science, common sense, proof , reasoning, probability, thinking, intelligence, feasability, confirmation, observation, experiments, testing, wisdom, liklihood, knowledge, rationality, openning ones mind, awareness, not being a complete moron their entire life, trusting yourself, believing in yourself, and doing good because you want to be accountable to yourself, Not because a sky daddy is watching and waiting to give you a scooby snack when you die :)

CaptainObvious 11:16--DNA is talked about a lot in the bible, as a matter of fact, DNA is mentioned 3,000 times more often in the bible, than electricity, the principle causes of disease, all advanced science and complex math, cars, and airplanes combined. The math doesnt lie, 3000 x 0 = 0 :)

BigKids 4:23--Scientific discoveries and 21st century knowledge of biology, and genetics have proven beyond any doubt that the adam and eve story is completely impossible. Without the adam and eve story, there is no "original sin". Without "original sin", there is no need for a jesus to die on a cross. Without the human sacrifice of jesus, christian religion falls apart completely. The entire religion is based on and relies totally on a creation story that cannot possibly be true, all evidence clearly points to a common ancestor billions of years ago :)

Research 5:3--Scientists have discovered that large dinosaur brains were as big as a tennis ball. Thats interesting. Religious leaders only use a tennis ball size of their brains, maybe religious leaders just have enlarged dinosuar brains. It could be something to look into, the ignorance permeating a religious mind is palatable and visible in todays society, evidence is in gay rights :)
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
deviant.genie? more like deviant.troll. He's got some skills at devising incredibly condescending and offensive posts, but I fail to see how this skill can be applied productively in life. Maybe he can send an incredibly offensive letter to some enemy country's leader and get them to lose their mind in rage? I don't know...
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
Deviant you could have just stated your point without the nonsense no one is going to take you serious like that. No need to get like that.
Posted by timou 4 years ago
timou
Allah promissed to guard quran from corruption.
http://quran.com...
http://quran.com...
http://quran.com...
Jesus is muslim ,islam is the only way to heaven .

bible and torah
http://quran.com...
corruption:
http://quran.com...
christians and jews:
http://quran.com...
Posted by timou 4 years ago
timou
alot bibles corrupted !
islam came to show truth , God saved Jesus and made christians lost.
http://quran.com...
http://quran.com...
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
"None of your sources fit the required criteria;"

Well that's too bad. Multiple legitimate criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event. (3)

"That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus [...] agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." (1)

"[The baptism and crucifixion] are two facts in the life of Jesus [that] command almost universal assent." (2)

(1) Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8.
(2) Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339
(3) John P. Meier "How do we decide what comes from Jesus" in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 pages 132-136
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
GarretKadeDupreBrianCBiggsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Great job, Pro.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
GarretKadeDupreBrianCBiggsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Too bad, I think it could have been a very interesting debate!
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
GarretKadeDupreBrianCBiggsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited.