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

"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.