The Instigator
dis8996
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ArcTImes
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

If one claims to be Christian, he should be part of the Catholic Church

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ArcTImes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 836 times Debate No: 53319
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

dis8996

Pro

If one claims to be a Christian, he should be a part of the Catholic Church for it is the Catholic Church that is the Church of Christ. If one wishes to follow Christ in all things, one should join His Church which He has founded which is the Catholic Church alone. The claim of the Catholic Church is that the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. ALL of the infallible and dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are correct and without err for they are the direct teachings of the Early Church. To be a Catholic is to be truly Christian.
To oppose this my opponent must either:
-show at least one teaching that is not the teaching of Christ and His Apostles
-show how the Catholic Church is not Christ's Church or doesn't teach the truth
I hope this criteria is better. Thank You.
ArcTImes

Con

Thanks for the debate.

I have to clarify first that the burden of proof is on Pro because he is claiming the topic of the debate. That means that I only have to disprove his arguments to win.

1. "If one claims to be a Christian, he should be a part of the Catholic Church for it is the Catholic Church that is the Church of Christ"

There are no sources for this, not even biblical ones in Pro's argument, but still, I'm going to show why this is false.
The definition of Christian is:

Christian: of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings.
of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. [1]

Now, these definitions mention Jesus, but Christ is not his name, but a title.
Christ comes from the Greek Kristo and it means Messiah or anointed. [2]

So when did the modern Christians or the followers of the Christian religion get that name or title?

In the bible the word "Christian" appears few times:

Acts 11:26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

Acts 26:28
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."

1 Peter 4:16
"Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

So basically this means that the word Christian was a despicable one. The followers accepted and embraced that name.
In any part it says that the meaning of the word was about the Church, not in the original meaning , nor the modern meaning.

2. "The claim of the Catholic Church is that the teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ and His Apostles."

This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what are the claims of the Catholic Church. It doesn't prove that you should follow the Catholic church to be called, considered a Christian.

3. "ALL of the infallible and dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are correct and without err for they are the direct teachings of the Early Church."

Again, we can't do much without sources.
Still, that would not prove the principal claim either. The meaning of "Christian", at least the modern meaning is clear.
It is about following the religion, not the institution.

The last thing I want to note that my last source is the bible. I didn't specify what version because those verses are pretty similar and are not ambiguous.

Vote CON.


Sources

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. The bible.
Debate Round No. 1
dis8996

Pro

Well forgive me but usually I like to clarify what I am trying to prove in my opening statement and did not want to rush right into the debate.

1) You first claim that a Christian is "derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings" or "belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ". This definition is correct, however, what is the "religion based on the teachings of Christ". Now, we have 1000s upon 1000s of "churches" yet they all claim to be the "religion based on the teachings of Christ". They all contradict one another in teachings and doctrines but all claim to be the "religion based on the teachings of Christ". Obviously the definition is speaking of Christianity as a whole, however, Christianity is divided significantly so one needs to be specific as to what church is truly of Christ. Now, Christ established ONE Church and not several churches. The Catholic Church ALONE existed before any of the other churches came to be. Therefore, a question arises, "what Church is the Church Christ made"?

"This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what are the claims of the Catholic Church. It doesn't prove that you should follow the Catholic church to be called, considered a Christian.......Still, that would not prove the principal claim either. The meaning of 'Christian', at least the modern meaning is clear. It is about following the religion, not the institution."
As stated before, Christ instituted ONE Church (Matt. 16:18) and this Church is visible and not invisible.

The Church of Christ would need to be the original Church and the first Church because this would of course be the Church founded by Christ. So Christ's Church had to have been first. The Catholic Church, historically, is this original Church and even Protestants admit to this claim. Also, even during this debate, I see comments from people saying, its obvious the Catholic Church is wrong, it goes against the clear teaching of the Bible, the Bible teaches this and the Catholic Church teaches that, etc. etc. and yet, if the Bible is so clear, why do we have 1000s of denominations contradicting themselves about the teachings of the Bible? Obviously, Sola Scriptura is heretical and starts confusion and was never the teaching of the Early Church. Any church that teaches such doctrine is not Christ's Church. As I stated in a previous debate:
"Another point I would like to address is the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura. This is the teaching that the bible is the sole rule of Faith and that it is the final authority in all things. This too is heresy. Practically all of the Protestant denominations today teach Sola Scriptura and it is because of this teaching that there are so many Christian denominations to this day. By whose authority and by whose interpretation do we go by and follow? How can we trust a fallible man to interpret an infallible book? ST. Augustine said it best, "In no other way have heresies arisen, and perverse doctrines that ensnare souls and cast them into the abyss, than because the Scriptures, which are good in themselves, are ill understood, and what is thus ill understood is rashly and boldly asserted." " (In Joan. Tract, xviii. tome, iii, col. 430). We have thousands of interpretations of Scripture yet, there is only one meaning not countless. All of this confusion is not the work of God for he is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). "No prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Pt. 1:20) and Scripture can be hard to understand and misinterpreting it can lead to one's destruction (1 Pt. 3:15-16). Therefore, there must be an infallible guide that can interpret it and give us the true meaning of the infallible and inspired Scripture and that is the Church.

The Church is the "pillar and the foundation of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). This means that the Church uphold the Truth and keeps it stable. If the Church went into apostasy and was corrupted, the Church of course could not be the "pillar and foundation of the Truth" since it could not be considered a firm foundation making the Truth itself slump and plummet. Evidently, the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of the Truth" is the Catholic Church, since, it is the original Church therefore making this Church the Church that sustains the Truth.

...the Authentic Church of Christ would need to have been the original Church. The Church must not believe in Sola Scriptura (and this is the teaching of the majority of Protestant denominations), the Church must not have been founded by man or by schism. The Catholic Church alone existed since the time of Christ, the Catholic Church alone is the 'pillar and foundation of the Truth' and the Catholic Church alone is the Authentic Church of Christ" guided by the Spirit of Truth, preserved by Christ with his promise that the 'gates of hell shall not prevail against it'."

Why would any "Christian" want to be a part of a church that was not founded by Christ? Christ did not institute a visible Church for nothing. He founded it a Church for the purpose of people joining it, not so that people would make their own churches. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Him and He will that all come to the knowledge of the Truth and embrace His Church.


ArcTImes

Con

"Now, we have 1000s upon 1000s of "churches" yet they all claim to be the 'religion based on the teachings of Christ'."

Yes, and they all are indeed based on the teachings of Christ. Remember that those teachings are different because they interpret different the same book. People of different beliefs inside the same religion don't agree, but they all believe they are following the same teachings.

The definition of Christian is about believing one is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no such a thing as a "real Christian" because there is a disagreement.

"Obviously the definition is speaking of Christianity as a whole, however, Christianity is divided significantly so one needs to be specific as to what church is truly of Christ. "

Pro conceded with this statement. The definition is speaking of Christianity as a whole, it is speaking about all the Christians and not only about those who belong to the Catholic Church, not only about some, that like the rest, believe that they are following the same teachings of Jesus Christ.

This means that Pro already accepted that they can be called Christians.

And again, this is not about Church, this is not about institutions or be organized, it is about believing that Jesus Christ is the savior and believing that one is following his teachings.

Pro could not say a Muslim isn't a Muslim just because you don't believe in what they believe.

"Therefore, a question arises, 'what Church is the Church Christ made'?"

This is incorrect. There is no connection between the definitions and the question.

"As stated before, Christ instituted ONE Church (Matt. 16:18) and this Church is visible and not invisible. "

Even if the definition of Christian was about churches, the foundation of the Church means nothing if the Church as it is now it is not like the original. What you are claiming here is that the Catholic Church should not be called a Christian religion because it is not the same as the Church founded by Christ.

This is important because we are sure that the Church evolved, it changed with the world. Their beliefs and their traditions are not static.[1][2] You could say that it is because "humans changed it", but then you would concede this argument too because I would be right.

I'm not here to claim things about the real teachings of Jesus. I'm using logic here. The catholic Church changed, and it not exactly like the original. Therefore, if we used your definition about the relation of Christianity and the churches, the Catholic Church should not be considered Christian. Which is false.

And the last paragraphs are about why the Catholic Church was the first and original, which means nothing to the definition of Christian. The reason the rest of Christians are not following the Catholic Church is because they don't believe they are following the same teachings of the original Church as how it was the first time. They have the right to be called Christians because of the same reason Catholics have the right to be called Christian, they all believe they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Sources

1.
http://www.forbes.com...
2.
http://elitedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dis8996

Pro

Yes, and they all are indeed based on the teachings of Christ.

This statement contradicts itself. They cannot teach something different and be based on the teachings of Christ, this would mean Christ contradicted himself since the churches' teachings are not the same. An example is the teaching of hell. The majority of Christians believe in hell. Jesus taught the existence of hell (Matt. 7:13-14; Matt. 25:25:46; Mark 9:9:47-48) but Unitarians, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists and Mormons do not believe in the existence of hell and yet they all claim to be following the teachings of Christ.

Remember that those teachings are different because they interpret different the same book.

Exactly, and that is what I am saying. Sola Scriptura is not the teachings of Christ and is not even a biblical teaching. The teachings cannot be different if they are the teachings of Christ. Christ taught either one or the other so they both cannot be correct.

People of different beliefs inside the same religion don't agree, but they all believe they are following the same teachings.

The keyword is "believe". Just because they "believe" they are following the same teachings do not mean they are. If one mathematician says 2+2=4 and another says 2+2=5, are they right? Are they both right? No, it is either one or the other.

The definition of Christian is about believing one is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no such a thing as a "real Christian" because there is a disagreement.

I never said anything of a "real Christian" but of course one who follows the authentic teaching of Christ are indeed the true followers of Christ.

This means that Pro already accepted that they can be called Christians.

Yes, I agree. I never said non-Catholic Christians are not Christians. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (CCC 838)

And again, this is not about Church, this is not about institutions or be organized, it is about believing that Jesus Christ is the savior and believing that one is following his teachings.

Yet if the bible praises the institution (Church) as being the "pillar and foundation of the Truth" then they means it is important.

This is incorrect. There is no connection between the definitions and the question.

No actually there is. The debate is about why Non-Catholic Christians should be Catholic. This is why in my opening statement, I wanted to clarify what I was supporting before I got into the discussion. The connection is that Christians believe and teach different things but we only have ONE Jesus who taught ONE meaning and established ONE Church, therefore, shouldn't all followers of Jesus wish to discover this Church and be apart of it so that they can be fully united with Christ in His Church?

Even if the definition of Christian was about churches, the foundation of the Church means nothing if the Church as it is now it is not like the original. What you are claiming here is that the Catholic Church should not be called a Christian religion because it is not the same as the Church founded by Christ. This is important because we are sure that the Church evolved, it changed with the world. Their beliefs and their traditions are not static.[1][2] You could say that it is because "humans changed it", but then you would concede this argument too because I would be right.

The teachings of the Catholic Church have never changed. As you would say, to simply claim that without showing any sources or evidence is irrelevant. Of course certain laws in the Church has changed and practices and some components of the liturgy, but the meanings have not changed and the dogmatic teachings of the Church have not changed.

And the last paragraphs are about why the Catholic Church was the first and original, which means nothing to the definition of Christian. The reason the rest of Christians are not following the Catholic Church is because they don't believe they are following the same teachings of the original Church as how it was the first time. They have the right to be called Christians because of the same reason Catholics have the right to be called Christian, they all believe they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Yes they may believe that they are following the teachings of Christ but obviously, they all are not. I have never said that they should not be called Christian, I said if they are claim to be Christian, they should be a part of the Catholic Church. The reason is because the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and every Christians' objective should be to embrace Christ's Church and uphold its teachings.
ArcTImes

Con

"This statement contradicts itself. They cannot teach something different and be based on the teachings of Christ"

Yes they can. The interpretation is different, but the interpretation Catholic church makes is also different. But all the teachings, even different are based on the same teachings.

The argument of hell is fallacious because it is claiming that one of all the different interpretations is indeed the correct one and it is using it as a source. Remember also that translations are also an important factor here.

"The keyword is "believe". Just because they "believe" they are following the same teachings do not mean they are."

Yes, but it doesn't matter. Because the teachings are subject to interpretation. Therefore the definition is based on the believing of the teachings and the following of the religion. The point is that you are all disagreeing. You can't try to prove your point showing a verse of the bible and think it is obvious that your interpretation is correct. Any Christian thinks it is obvious that his interpretation is correct.

"mathematician says 2+2=4 and another says 2+2=5, are they right?"

Again, this is not about being right. 2+2 is not ambiguous. The reason a mathematician can't say that 2+2=5 is not true is because it is not subject to interpretation. That is a bad example or analogy and it is a fallacy indeed.

"Yes, I agree. I never said non-Catholic Christians are not Christians."

That's exactly what the resolution says. You claim that non-Catholic are not Christians because you claim that a Christian should be part of the Catholic Church. There is no other interpretation. The key word here is "claim". You are challenging the claim of Christianity.

"The connection is that Christians believe and teach different things but we only have ONE Jesus who taught ONE meaning and established ONE Church"

Again, this is not about being organized. And the "ONE meaning" is ambiguous. Not because it is intended that way, but because they are all based on interpretations, even the Catholic one.

"As you would say, to simply claim that without showing any sources or evidence is irrelevant."

I gave sources. Pro is the only one that is not providing sources to his claims, even when he is the one with the burden of proof.
I will remind Pro again. You are the one claiming the resolution and are the only one that has to give prove. I only have to disprove Pro's claims to win.

Pro is failing to prove what he is claiming and it is not giving sources to support his claims. The verses do not supports his claims because the meaning of the verse he is trying to use is just one interpretation, one that is as valid as the rest.

" I said if they are claim to be Christian, they should be a part of the Catholic Church. "

This means that Pro doesn't believe they are Christians. It is simple logic.

P1: There are people that claim to be Christian.
P2: Some of these people are non Catholic but claim to be Christian.
P3: Every Christian should be part of the Catholic Church.

C: Non Catholic are not Christian unless they become part of the Catholic Church.

This is the logic behind the resolution. This is what Pro is claiming. And I'm here to disprove it.

The problem with the logic is in the P3. It is false.
It is fallacious that a Christian should be part of the Catholic Church. Pro is not able to prove his claims.


In this round I'm not giving any source because I'm not claiming anything new. I used this round only for rebuttals because Pro is not giving new arguments. Pro has one more round to try to prove his claims.

Thanks, vote CON.

Debate Round No. 3
dis8996

Pro

Yes they can. The interpretation is different, but the interpretation Catholic church makes is also different. But all the teachings, even different are based on the same teachings.
But the difference is that the interpretation of the Catholic Church is unique since the Catholic Church is historically the original Church and is therefore the Church founded by Christ. Non-Catholics also attest to this claim. As I shown in a previous debate:
"If you are a Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ began your religion in the year 33. "(Ann Landers (Jewish), syndicated columnist in the Daily Record of Morris County, N.J. (from which we take this piece) for Monday, November 11,1996 reads)
ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions " 1999, page 938 )
The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy. The claim of supremacy on the part of the bishop of Rome rests on the belief that Christ conferred on the apostle Peter a 'primacy of jurisdiction;' that Peter fixed his see and died at Rome and thus, that the bishops of Rome, as successors of the apostle Peter, have succeeded to his prerogatives of supremacy. In this light, historians read the facts of the early history of the church---and they trace to this acknowledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churches, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies---of which the first five centuries, especially the 4th and 5th, present examples. . . In all the controversies on the Incarnation---the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite---not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. ( Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 " 1903)
The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome.(The World Book Encyclopedia " 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)
(The Catholic) Church... traces an unbroken line of popes from St. Peter in the 1st century AD to the present occupant of the papal throne. During this nearly 2,000-year period there were more than 30 false popes, most notably during the late 14th and early 15th centuries. These men were merely claimants to the position. There have rarely been periods when a genuine pope was not ruling the church. In 1978 John Paul II became the 264th true pope.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia " 1996)
"The Roman Catholic church ... the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken Episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ...Until the break with the Eastern church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity" (The Encarta Encyclopedia " 1997 says)
"33-40 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ"(The Timetables of History " 1975)
"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica "1999)
"Roman Catholicism Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure that traces its history to the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD." (Encyclopedia Britannica "1999)
"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all." - Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.
Therefore, this means the Catholic Church is the "pillar and foundation of the Truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) and is therefore the upholder of the Truth and cannot err for a foundation of Truth would be infallible and indefectable.
Yes, but it doesn't matter. Because the teachings are subject to interpretation. Therefore the definition is based on the believing of the teachings and the following of the religion. The point is that you are all disagreeing. You can't try to prove your point showing a verse of the bible and think it is obvious that your interpretation is correct. Any Christian thinks it is obvious that his interpretation is correct.
Exactly! That is why we must go by the authoritative interpretation of the Church since it is the pillar and foundation of the Truth meaning any Church that believes in sola Scriptura could not be founded by Christ.
Again, this is not about being right. 2+2 is not ambiguous. The reason a mathematician can't say that 2+2=5 is not true is because it is not subject to interpretation. That is a bad example or analogy and it is a fallacy indeed.
The reason for this example wasn't to show how one interprets something, what the example proves is that there can only be one correct solution. 2 +2 = 4 therefore, it cannot equal 5. If there are two churches are teaching two different meanings of something, either one is right or both or right but they both cant be right.
That's exactly what the resolution says. You claim that non-Catholic are not Christians because you claim that a Christian should be part of the Catholic Church. There is no other interpretation. The key word here is "claim". You are challenging the claim of Christianity.
The reason why Non-Catholic Christians should be a part of the Catholic Church is not because they are not "Real Christians" but because, as the Catechism states:
"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

Its like saying all Americans should be Democrat. By saying that, does that mean All Republicans are not American? No I am not.

The Catholic Church is the Church of the beginning. The Church that Christ promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Believe in an apostasy? Look at my previous debate and see that there was not ("The Catholic Church is the Authentic Church of Christ"). Sola Scriptura is a new invention that practically every Protestant denomination believes in, therefore, it is not an original teaching. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the Truth" not the Bible. We must listen to the Church for it is the upholder of the Truth and the interpreter of Scripture. The Early Church attests to this:
"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).
"[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand." Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

So Scripture must only be interpreted in the light of the Church as the Early Church Fathers tell us, and Blessed Peter himself (2 Peter 3:15), "No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation". If a Christian wants to know the true meaning of Scripture, he needs to recourse to the Church, the Catholic Church, which is the "pillar and foundation of the Truth" and this Church alone since all other churches are not the pillar or foundation and are therefore, not trustworthy.
ArcTImes

Con

"But the difference is that the interpretation of the Catholic Church is unique since the Catholic Church is historically the original Church and is therefore the Church founded by Christ."

It doesn't matter it was the original. Your interpretation is that because it was the first it follows the teachings of Jesus, but that's not true. It is still an interpretation.
And that's the point, the rest of believers disagree that that's true.

"The reason for this example wasn't to show how one interprets something, what the example proves is that there can only be one correct solution. 2 +2 = 4"

This is fallacious. Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe Jesus wanted something else. Maybe what he wanted got lost in the translation and the versions.
Or maybe the Catholic Church is the one with more mistakes related to the teachings even if it is the first.
It is a bad example or analogy. This is not about who is right.

And you accept this, you say, because we can't know about the interpretation we should just follow the first Church. You may try this with another resolution, but this would be half the debate.

"Its like saying all Americans should be Democrat. By saying that, does that mean All Republicans are not American? No I am not."

This is another bad analogy. Remember that "claim" is the key word of the resolution. In debates you can't just use ambiguous sentences and expect everyone understand what you think is obvious.

You can try a resolution like "Catholic church follows the correct teachings of Jesus" or "Catholicism is the correct interpretation of Christianism", but this claims have their own problems.

Thanks for the debate. Please think multiple times before writing your titles and resolutions. Avoid semantic debates and ambiguous resolutions. Or explain everything with your arguments or set of rules.

Vote CON.





Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
I remind everyone who commented to vote for this debate after reading the argument.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Sorry, but that's what can be inferred from the title. If you claim what the title says, then you claim that the only Christians are the Catholics, or those no catholics that become part of the Catholic church.

You can't use "Christians" to differentiate every Christian with what you believe are the followers of the correct teachings of Jesus (Catholics). That's the problem with your resolution.

Again, you can fix the resolution in a future debate. But you are not proving r point with a fixed resolution either. A non catholic doesn't need to be Christian to be a follower to the correct teachings of Jesus because they are all based on interpretations. Catholicism is one of the interpretations.
Posted by dis8996 3 years ago
dis8996
If I were to say that only Catholics are "real Christians" then that would I am saying that Protestants are "Fake Christians" and I am not. As I've stated before from the Catechism, "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox churches, this communion is so profound that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord"s Eucharist" (CCC 838). Non-Catholic Christians are put in a "certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" but are not fully members of the Church. The Catechism says "...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
In my last argument I show that it is not the case. Using simple logic the only conclusion is that the resolution means more than that. Maybe in another debate with another title. Still it is not only the title and the word "c;aim". The resolution means that Non catholic are not Christians and this is something you are claiming.

You say that you never said "real Christians" but then you accept you meant it. Of course you meant it, and I proved logically in my last argument.
Posted by dis8996 3 years ago
dis8996
The argument is not "Only Catholics are Christian" but that those who are Christian and are not Catholic, should be a part of the Catholic Church. A Christian is a follower of Christ and Christ established a Church. A Christian should wish to be a part of that Church and the argument is that this Church is the Catholic Church.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Well, you are not agreeing on the definition, but you agree that the resolution is false.
Posted by Irishboy 3 years ago
Irishboy
I agree with Carthage. I am Catholic, but believe that being a Christian means believing that Christ is the Son of God and that he is one and the same. There are differences in Christian Religions, but they are all Christian.
Posted by Carthage 3 years ago
Carthage
Well, I'm a Baptist. A Christian should join a church, plenty of biblical evidence for that. But not necessarily Catholicism.
Posted by irreverent_god 3 years ago
irreverent_god
Of all the available religions from which to choose, why catholicism? There are more pagan doctrine copies in the catholic church than in any other. Being the first to organize does not make it even remotely based on the teachings of the jeebus of the bible. Further, if one were able to read the entire NT (without vomiting, that is), one would see that praying to the saints, canonization, THE POPE and the reverence he receives, most of the church hierarchy's behavior, and a multitude of dogmatic doctrine DIRECTLY contradict biblical teaching. Aside from being completely devoid of even the best parts of the message 'claimed' by the jeebus, the catholic church follows not peace, but has an history of violence and forced servitude. This debate was lost, as soon as the title was written.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Something that contradicts the canonical teachings of Jesus would be the last resource.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
dis8996ArcTImesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: After reading both arguments, I don't see how anyone but a Catholic would see Pro's arguments as convincing. The claim is made that all other forms of Christianity are false or untrustworthy, because the Catholic Church came first. I do no see this as a convincing argument and so I give that section to Con. Con also accurately pointed out that the bible is based on interpretations that have clearly changed over time (and a source was provided). I also give points for the use of most reliable sources because Con's sources were relevant to the article. Countless sources showing that the Catholic Church came first has no relevance to the debate. Pro needed to prove that Catholocism is the only correct form of Christianity, and simply claiming that "we started it" does not mean they are the only true form. That is like saying iPhones aren't real smart phones because Blackberry came out first.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
dis8996ArcTImesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to withhold my vote, because I mistook pro's opening round for a troll debate (very good use of sarcasm in it), and thus cannot take his proceeding arguments seriously. I mean just look at "ALL of the infallible and dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church are correct and without err for they are the direct teachings of the Early Church." Just consider their official contradictions on who can get into heaven.