The Instigator
pivot
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

There are only two kinds of Christians

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 5 votes the winner is...
pivot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 58948
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

pivot

Pro

The two types of Christians are:

1 Client-Christians
2 Non-Client-Christians

A Client-Christian is more than a defeated Christian. A Client-Christian is guilty of aiding and abetting. A Non-Client-Christian refuses to submit to the will of the enemy.

All other modern day descriptions of Christians is camouflage.
Truth_seeker

Con

The Bible clearly states there is 1 kind of Christian and that is a follower of Christ
Debate Round No. 1
pivot

Pro

Truth_seeker,
Are you familiar with the study on non-belief that the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga did? Part of the study was to figure out how many different types of atheistics (is this a word?) there are. Here is the list that the University came up with-

1 Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic (IAA)
2 Activist (AAA)
3 Seeker-Agnostic (SA)
4 Anti-Theist
5 Non-Theist
6 Ritual Atheist/Agnostic (RAA)

Question: How does this list of Atheists relate to the types of Christians?

There are only two types of Atheists-
1 Client-Atheists
2 Non-Client-Atheists

The Client-Atheists don't believe in Christianity. But the Client-Atheists are controlled by the Christians.
On the other hand-

The Non-Client-Atheists refuse to be controlled by the Christians.
Truth_seeker

Con

We weren't discussing the kinds of Atheists, we were discussing the kinds of Christians right?
Debate Round No. 2
pivot

Pro

Ok Truth_seeker. Here you go. Your first one liner is false because the Church of Thyatira was following a false prophetess. A false prophetess cannot be Christ because
1 Christ had to be a male to fulfill the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah being a King.
2 Christ as the Lamb of God had to be without spot or blemish.
Here is what Christ said about Thyatira:
"Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead." Revelation 20-23a NIV)

Concerning your seconded one liner-

Humans are complicated. For instance, I have only been at this here website for a week or two and have come across several posters who claim to have been Christians for years and then after some sort of problem became non-believers, (agnostic, atheistic, etc).

So we can easily tie your two one liners together and come up with-

(1) Christians are one dimensional. (2) They are incapable of changing their minds or making mistakes. (3) They are mindless robots who follow Christ like zombies. (Sorry about the third one liner at this point but you got one more coming and I wanted to for sure address your last one.)

Thanks for the debate.
Truth_seeker

Con

My opponent failed to fulfill his burden of proof from the Bible.

Vote for me
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by pivot 2 years ago
pivot
This voting is going to be easier than any one liner-

Please give all available votes to Truth_seeker. This debate is one of three. My first is a no postings. This one here is a one liner. And the opponent in my third debate requested that I tie my hands behind my back first.
Posted by pivot 2 years ago
pivot
Less you think me coming up short there Bennett91-

The Christians who vowed allegiance to the Roman Emperor got to remain in their social status. But the allegiance to the Roman Emperor negated their Christian faith.

That is either good or bad depending on one's affiliation with Rome at the time.
Posted by pivot 2 years ago
pivot
Bennett91,
There is nothing personal about this here debate. Take a look at the first century and define Christianity in terms of 'denominations'. Whoops, that can't really happen. In Rome there were Christians in the arena and there were Christians in the catacombs. What is good and what is bad about that only the student of history can decide. Categorizing Christians and Atheists has nothing to do with good it is observation.
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
So Pro, your entire point is that there are only "good" devote Christians, and bad "in name only" Christians? Unless you define who these people are, or even better what a real Christian is, you're just setting your self up for "I'm a real Christian, all other interpretations are heresy." And who is this enemy you speak of?
Posted by pivot 2 years ago
pivot
The term 'client' is a throw back to olden times when an empire such as Rome would conquer another city/state. The client, in the case of this debate would be Christians who are subordinate to non-Christian ideas/thoughts/ways things like that.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
are client-christian and nonclient-christian commonly used terms? I have never heard them before.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
pivotTruth_seekerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: NO ARGUMENTS FROM CoN!
Vote Placed by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
pivotTruth_seekerTied
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: Pro's argument regarding the Church of Thyatira is certainly convincing. Con did not make any arguments. Equal spelling, equal grammar, equal in use of reliable sources.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
pivotTruth_seekerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never explained client/non-client Christians, so it is impossible to tell if a dichotomy exists. Hence, Pro fails BOP.
Vote Placed by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
pivotTruth_seekerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro completely fails to support his resolution. His sources were counter productive and stated 5 types of atheists. Which implies their should be more than one time of Christian (if that is what he argues)? Pro made no connection to what he states in Round 1. Con literally just had to sit there. Pro disproved himself (5 types of atheists) and "Christians are one dimensional". Pointless Debate :(
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
pivotTruth_seekerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fulfilled his resolution albeit not enough convincing details. All points except sources go to Pro because Con lack substance and erroneously implied Pro claimed his BoP was "biblical-based". Pro didn't make that claim.