Instigator / Pro
0
1590
rating
91
debates
58.79%
won
Topic
#5968
Catholicism is the "true" Christianity
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”Footnotes
- Matthew 16:18 The Greek word for Peter means rock.
- Matthew 16:18 That is, the realm of the dead
- Matthew 16:19 Or will have been
- Matthew 16:19 Or will have been
Saint Peter is the "rock" upon which the church is to be built. Not just any church, but THE church of Jesus Christ. Catholics believe that Peter was the first pope, and that there is an unbroken line of succession from saint Peter the apostle to the current pope.
Now I ask you, which church is the oldest church in all of christendom? It is the catholic church. If the oldest church can trace the line of succession of it's leadership back to the man that Jesus himself appointed as the foundation of the church, then how is it not THE church of Christ?
Well, there is no true Christianity which can be shown in this debate, because the system for determining such truth with certainty can only be God which my opponent isnt.
Also, nowhere in the New Testament is this "catholic" thing even mentioned. And when it comes to building "Church", Jesus meant the Church in form of faith and not some crazy religious dictatorship of the corrupt pope who even did crimes throughout history.
Anyway, your position is self contradicting, because your position is that only pope determines religious truth. If that is true, then you cannot determine that pope is right in religion because only pope can determine what is right in religion. But pope cannot determine himself to be right because that is circular logic.
So there is no logical way pope can be a final authority on the Bible or religion, because the very requirement to determine that requires either free thinking which contradicts the very premise of final authority of the pope, either circular logic which fails to prove itself.
Round 2
Well, there is no true Christianity which can be shown in this debate, because the system for determining such truth with certainty can only be God which my opponent isnt.
Your logic is flawed because it is one-sided. If only God can determine that there is a God then only God can determine that there isn't a God. Not that I accept your baseless assertion that you need to be God to determine either one to begin with.
when it comes to building "Church", Jesus meant the Church in form of faith and not some crazy religious dictatorship of the corrupt pope
The word church does not mean faith nor does it mean a mere place of worship, but an actual system of spreading and teaching the faith. This is the only interpretation that makes sense because otherwise the true christianity can be lost and corrupted. How do you determine what scriptures are canon and how to interpret them? There needs to be an earthly authority who's job is to both guard and spread God's word.
The oldest surviving candidate for this job is the catholic church, who's leadership has the most direct line of succession from the actual apostles who Jesus put in charge of the church. This is the thing that Jesus said hell cannot prevail against, as in "corrupt". This is the institution that is responsible for preserving and teaching true christianity. Not your local baptist pastor interpreting things however he wants, but an actual systematic and structured institution which can make sure that people are having faith in the right thing to begin with.
Anyway, your position is self contradicting, because your position is that only pope determines religious truth.
This is an egregious strawman of my position. The pope is only able to become the pope through the approval of many other bishops who all are part of the line of apostolic succession. The pope cannot "determine religious truth" unless he is indirectly approved by the apostles and hence by Jesus and hence by God.
Because the catholic church has been teaching the biblically true version of christianity for 2000 years, which we know is true because it was the church started by Peter who was given authority by Jesus and told that his church is incorruptible, even if the pope somehow started inventing unchristian "religious truths" the true christians in the church would immediately catch him in his error and depose him.
Because the catholic church has been teaching the biblically true version of christianity for 2000 years, which we know is true because it was the church started by Peter who was given authority by Jesus and told that his church is incorruptible, even if the pope somehow started inventing unchristian "religious truths" the true christians in the church would immediately catch him in his error and depose him.
Your logic is flawed because it is one-sided. If only God can determine that there is a God then only God can determine that there isn't a God.
This is not a negation of my logic, just extending it. It stands as fact that only God can determine if there is God or not, and only God knows what kind of God he is. It is not possible for human to determine it, as much as it is not possible for human to even observe God. Thus, with this alone, I have won this debate, because my opponent cannot prove that God cannot lie or that humans simply misunderstood his word. The very nature of God is such that humans cant understand God at all. Since only God can determine which Christian(maybe follower of God) is true Christian(true and actual follower of God), and my opponent isnt God, it very much follows that my opponent cannot prove his position at all. Now, he might claim "I am God", but that would mean the rest of us arent Gods, which then goes back to original problem of how non-Gods cannot determine who is God. It would also not solve the problem of lying God.
The word church does not mean faith nor does it mean a mere place of worship, but an actual system of spreading and teaching the faith. This is the only interpretation that makes sense because otherwise the true christianity can be lost and corrupted. How do you determine what scriptures are canon and how to interpret them? There needs to be an earthly authority who's job is to both guard and spread God's word.
My opponent here just repeats the logical fallacy from round 1. If the rest of us can decide that Catholicisim is wrong, then that disproves his position because his position is that only Catholic Church can decide. But if only Catholic Church can decide, then it follows that my opponent and the rest of us cant decide, making it impossible for us to decide that my opponent's position is right.
This is an egregious strawman of my position. The pope is only able to become the pope through the approval of many other bishops who all are part of the line of apostolic succession. The pope cannot "determine religious truth" unless he is indirectly approved by the apostles and hence by Jesus and hence by God.
Even if we were to replace "pope" with "Catholic Church", we would still have the same problem. Your position is still that Catholic Church determines religious truth, which then is a concession that you dont.
Because the catholic church has been teaching the biblically true version of christianity for 2000 years, which we know is true because it was the church started by Peter who was given authority by Jesus and told that his church is incorruptible, even if the pope somehow started inventing unchristian "religious truths" the true christians in the church would immediately catch him in his error and depose him.
Pope of past did commit many crimes, historically. You dont seem to be addressing that argument at all. So since pope did error, it follows that Catholic Church made error in selecting him, which then just destroys your position that catholic church can determine what is right.
Round 3
This is not a negation of my logic, just extending it.
There is no logic, you are merely asserting that only God can know God without further elaboration.
God doesn't even need to be real in order for me to win this debate. The argument is about which church is the most logical to be a part of for those who believe in Christianity. Obviously it's the original one that has direct apostolic succession and not the ones who split off from it and made up their own thing.
if only Catholic Church can decide, then it follows that my opponent and the rest of us cant decide, making it impossible for us to decide that my opponent's position is right.
You CAN decide. You can either decide to follow catholic doctrine or go to hell because you were so stupid that you followed the doctrine of an offshoot of the christian church rather than the real one.
Pope of past did commit many crimes
Were these crimes against God, or man-made laws? If they are the latter then I don't see how it matters.
The pope doesn't have to be perfect for catholic church to be the true church. Indeed, for none are perfect other than God.
The pope doesn't have to be perfect for catholic church to be the true church. Indeed, for none are perfect other than God.
Forfeited
vote?
Make the debate which says that fire magic and blood magic are beneficial. Fire magic is magic of worshipping fire and making food offering to the fire to gain favor of Sun God. Blood magic is when person uses his own blood as offer to the Gods to gain their favor.
I'm not a Christian but I've been thinking about religion lately and one of the conclusions I am drawing is that the most accurate form of Christianity is Catholic. I'm not saying it is true in the sense that I believe it to be fact, but in the sense that it is more true to the original Christian teachings than any other denomination.
I will make a debate about fire magic and blood magic.
Did you by any chance become a Christian? If not, we can have a debate about some less popular religions. I know you doubt fire magic and blood magic. I cant really prove how good they are, other than that they feel really good. Also, early Christians used to practice fire magic by burning of food, but the actual fire magic consists of worshipping fire and offering food to the fire. It must be food you like to eat, like chocolate or some other really good food. The main logic behind fire magic is that the Sun is God made of fire, and all fire on Earth is his offspring, and feeding nice food to his offspring grants favor from the Sun God.