Mormons are Christians

===> A R G U M E N T -- A G A I N S T -- D E F I N I T I O N -- OF -- C H R I S T I A N I T Y <=== My opponent is attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary. Not that I disrespect using dictionaries to define a topic as that is there purpose. However, when the word Christianity is so pertinent to the topic of the debate, I believe that one should logically back up the definition. Furthermore, I made a logical argument for my definition. That argument must be rebutted. It cannot be wholly ignored as my opponent has ignored it. I derived my definition of Christianity from pure logic. I have shown how the addition or subtraction of a book makes a completely different religion. In this instance an online dictionary reference is insufficient enough to prove your claim. Logic must also be applied and in this instance rebutted if you are to succeed in proving your resolution. I will reiterate. The addition of the New Testament as a religious text changes Judaism to Christianity. The addition of the Quran as a religious text(authority) to the Old Testament changes Judaism to Islam. It logically follows that the addition of the book of Mormon to the Old and New Testament changes Christianity to a new religion, Mormonism. ===> C R E E D -- O F -- N I C A E A <=== My opponent stated that the texts were put together at the creed of nicaea. This is completely incorrect. The creed of Nicaea is a creed that was adopted at the first council of nicaea. The Creed is recited in the Roman Rite Mass directly after the homily on all Sundays and Solemnities (Tridentine Feasts of the First Class), and in the Byzantine Rite Liturgy following the Litany of Supplication on all occasions. I believe my opponent was referring to the First Council of Nicaea. If so then this is also incorrect and is most likely a belief that stems from the popular movie, the Davinci Code SOURCE: . http://www.beliefnet.com... The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "sons of God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½"318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops. SOURCE: . http://www.ccel.org... Scriptures were immediately recognized as being canonical as soon as they were written. Want scriptural proof? Simple, Peter provides that for us in: 2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. The key words being "as they do do the other scriptures" This was directly addressing Paul's scriptures. The only scriptures that it would be fair to say that the Epistle of Barnibus was debated as being canonical. That was it. Later councils only accepted what was already accepted by the Christian Church. However on another note I tend to completely drop this argument as it pertains little to the debate at hand which is mainly how do you define Christianity. My only point at bringing up the scripture in Revelation was to show the differences between Mormanism and Christianity. I realize that entire debates could be held about whether the book of morman logically follows the Bible, thus I intend to drop this argument as it pertains little to my main argument of defining Christianity. ===> C O N C L U S I O N <=== In conclusion my opponent has failed to offer any logical proof that rebuts my definition of Christianity nor upholds his own definition. A dictionary reference is insufficient to credit his definition as the definition itself relies on logic to support it in this particular instance of debate. Furthermore my opponent is completely wrong about the council of Nicaea and his belief that scriptures were canonized hundreds of years later, however I will drop this argument as it pertains little to my main argument that my opponent's definition of Christianity is flawed on a logical basis and that my own logical definition of Christianity has yet to be rebutted or even argued in the least.