Debate- Trad Catholic vs protestant

[Peeps]

i disagree. A true debate is not at all an argument over who’s right and who’s wrong.

To equate debate with “arguing” is just not correct.

A good debater should be able to defend BOTH sides of an issue with equal force.

A debate is a competition, but unless you are opposed to competitions (e.g., sports, writing contests, pie-eating contests, etc.), there is nothing unhealthy about competition. Even St. Paul references the Olympics (or perhaps one of the other sporting events held during that time in history) in a positive way. And I believe it was Ted Cruz, a Christian man, who was a champion debater.

Just curious–did your high school have a debate team? Even if you didn’t participate, did you learn how a debate works, and how the competitors prepare?

I agree, we should not argue over our faith, but when two Christians, or a Christian and a non-Christian, agree to a debate, a true debate with rules and a moderator–that’s faith-building, not faith-destroying.

 

[kainosktisis]

For the record plenty of Protestant churches consider water a necessity or at least proper form.

Yes, but they don’t all agree on baptism as a sacrament of initiation that saves. Most perform baptisms as mere symbol, & some view it even as unnecessary.

 

[Catholics777]

Yes, but they don’t all agree on baptism as a sacrament of initiation that saves. Most perform baptisms as mere symbol, & some view it even as unnecessary.

True,… Many protestant baptisms are invalid because of this.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually most Protestant Baptisms are valid and accepted by the Catholic Church.

It’s that some don’t accept Catholic Baptisms given to infants.

Jim

 

[MichaelP3]

Most perform baptisms as mere symbol, & some view it even as unnecessary.

I am really not sure where get this from? Most mainline, if not all view it in exact the same way as the CC. The othet ones, well I am still not sure where your “most” came from?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As long as the proper words of Baptism are used, “I Baptise thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” it’s considered a valid Baptism

My son was born premature, 27 weeks. I was in the operating room when he was delivered and I asked the doctor to Baptise him. I saw and heard the doctor Baptise my son properly.

My son survived and our priest/friend, finished the rite of Baptism at our house, which he had permission to do.

Jim

 

[kainosktisis]

I’m former Baptist/Fundamentalist/Nondenominational…

 

[MichaelP3]

And?

My wife is a former Catholic. What does that mean? “Most” on here will just say she wasn’t properly educated in the faith. Personally I just never understand “being a former denomination” as any kind of argument.

 

[Catholics777]

Personally I just never understand “being a former denomination” as any kind of argument.

Sadly, some persons that convert to Catholicism bring over some of their protestant beliefs as well. They then want the Church to conform to their beliefs.

 

[TNMan]

Some fundamentalist backgrounds don’t view Baptism as necessary. Some are of the the “I got saved and then I’ll get baptized,” belief. They almost treat baptism as something they are doing, rather than what God has done for them.

All that to say, if it’s administered correctly, it’s valid.

 

[Catholics777]

Some fundamentalist backgrounds don’t view Baptism as necessary. Some are of the the “I got saved and then I’ll get baptized,” belief. They almost treat baptism as something they are doing, rather than what God has done for them.

All that to say, if it’s administered correctly, it’s valid.

You’re correct if it’s done to an infant or early child. However, if it’s done to someone to whom believes as you just describe, then their baptism would be invalid. This is because anyone to whom is in rejection of Catholic teaching at the moment of baptism , receives an invalid baptism. Belief is a requirement for anyone above the age of reason.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Where in the world would you get that information from? Not the Church.

 

[MichaelP3]

Wait a minute?

So you say a baptism properly done with water and the Trinitarian formula is invalid if that individual is above the age of reason and rejects the teachings of the CC?

I have so many questions right now but my first one which should answer all the rest is “where are you getting that from” and please give a Catholic source?

 

[FiveLinden]

I exist.
I didn’t make myself.
My parents only co-operated in my existence.
Therefore something (someone) else must be existent for me to exist.
That’s a pretty basic starting point towards the existence of God.

The alternative is “I am a meaningless accident who doesn’t search for meaning and purpose”

You exist but as a result of past human societies and as part of present human societies. You ability as a newborn to exist without others was zero. So to be quite accurate you should say ‘We exist and I am a self-conscious part of us’.

It is not possible to discuss you assertion that you did not make yourself if you accept my first response.

Without your particular parents doing exactly what they did do before, during and after your ancestral egg and sperm united, you would not exist. I don’t know if that is what you mean by ‘only cooperated’.

When you reason from the above to there being ‘something else’ involved in your existence I no not see the logic of what you infer.

Even if what you said to this point was logical, to claim that this is a starting point for believing in God is not logical. Even if you choose to identify the ‘something else’ with God, you have no reason for doing so. Why not a plan inbuilt into life by its designers who are aliens living 100 light years away who will soon come and take Netflix away from us? Just as logical.

 

[goout]

goout:

I exist.
I didn’t make myself.
My parents only co-operated in my existence.
Therefore something (someone) else must be existent for me to exist.
That’s a pretty basic starting point towards the existence of God.

The alternative is “I am a meaningless accident who doesn’t search for meaning and purpose”

You exist but as a result of past human societies and as part of present human societies. You ability as a newborn to exist without others was zero. So to be quite accurate you should say ‘We exist and I am a self-conscious part of us’.

This is good. It is assumed.
“I exist in community” if that makes it more clear.

It is not possible to discuss you assertion that you did not make yourself if you accept my first response.

Please elaborate, as this doesn’t hold any water as you stated it.

I exist with others, after others, and before others.
And I didn’t make myself.
Seems like commons sense stuff.