The Instigator
Aziar44
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Catholicism is more morally admirable than Protestantism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 14 votes the winner is...
beem0r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,754 times Debate No: 8043
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (14)

 

Aziar44

Pro

I will argue here that Catholicism is more morally admirable than Protestantism, as a whole. In the tenets in which the two differ, Catholicism is more admirable. It is more consistent in its stances, preaches better morals, and its principles have more positive ramifications than those of Protestantism.

I will go into more detail in the next rounds. My opponent must debate that Protestantism is more morally admirable than Catholicism. Thank you to whomever accepts this challenge.
beem0r

Con

Nay, says I. Catholicism is not more morally admirable than Protestantism.

First, let us define some things.

"PROTESTANTISM"
Obviously, Protestantism is not one single religion. However, most protestant religions differ form Catholicism in the same ways.

That's it for definitions. Time for some contentions.

CONTENTION ONE: Faith leading to obedience to a worldly power

One of the main differences between Catholicism and other brands of Christianity is that the Catholics have a Pope. They believe this Pope speaks with divine authority.
In this sense, Catholicism turns people into drones willing to follow a master. Remember the Crusades? They happened in large part because people thought the Pope was speaking divine truth. . . when he was sometimes just a corrupt man with corrupt goals. By teaching people that the Pope has divine authority, Catholicism has given a man the right to say ridiculous things and have masses of people follow him without question.
Recently he claimed that condoms were one of the main reasons AIDS is so widespread in Africa. He probably didn't even have corrupt motives here, he was just wrong. Under normal circumstances, people would look at that statement and say "That doesn't make any sense at all." While many people still did that, many people took what he said as truth simply because he said it.
Humans should not be viewed as having divine authority. Such a doctrine is morally negative.

CONTENTION TWO: Protestantism was borne of some moral problems with Catholicism

Catholicism was built largely on the Bible and other supposedly holy texts, where Protestantism was largely built on the qualms people had with Catholicism. EX: In the Bible, Jesus states that bread and wine are transformed into his flesh and blood in the eucharist. Catholicism takes this literally, but few other forms of Christianity do. Why? Because those other forms of Christianity found the idea of eating your savior's body to be morally repulsive. They're right. Claiming that the bread and wine really turn into flesh and blood of Jesus is not only a lie that doesn't have to be propagated, but it's also morally unsavory. The only form of morality that where eating Jesus' flesh and blood is admirable is a morality based specifically on the Catholic religion.

There are no doubt many other moral qualms the protestants had when they split off from Catholicism.

CONTENTION THREE: Catholicism is more ritualistic

Catholicism has always kept their traditions running strong. Unfortunately, many of these traditions are very ritualistic. Rituals confuse people and stop people from thinking critically about issues - certainly not morally admirable.
Closely related to the ritualistic nature of Catholicism is the "saints." In Catholicism, saints are very important - in fact, most devout Catholics pray to certain saints. Prayer is very important in Catholicism, with catholics spending much more time praying and to all sorts of different folks. This distracts Catholics from issues that are more important - and that is not morally admirable.

I would like to hear my opponent's theory on why Catholicism is morally superior to Protestantism.
Debate Round No. 1
Aziar44

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. I will come up with my own contentions and then answer my opponent's.

Argument ONE - Consistency in beliefs

The Catholic Church says they are pro-life and then they actually have the ideals to prove it. Protestantism says "we are pro-life" and then only mean in cases of abortion. For Catholics, pro-life means no war, no death penalty, no abortion, no killing, etc. Catholicism is much more consistent in their beliefs here, which is morally admirable. Protestantism claims to be pro-life, but then only means it in one way. They talk about the sacredness of life, yet are in favor of war and the death penalty much of the time. This inconsistency is a detriment to them.

Argument TWO - Doing good works vs. faith alone

Salvation through faith alone. Ah yes, that Protestant phrase so often quoted from Martin Luther. It is the basis of Protestantism. Yet what does this lead to? Catholicism preached that good work had to be done to be saved. Yes, of course, there were ritualized sacraments and some dogma that the Church preached, but generally Catholicism saw merit in works that benefited mankind.

However, Protestantism basically said "Hey, forget about good works - you don't have to do that if you don't want to. All you have to do is truly believe, and you'll go to Heaven." Protestantism put such a focus on the individual (which I will bring up next) and such a focus on faith alone that good works were not seen as meritous and good works were not an indicator of one's goodness. Only faith in Christ would save you. Good works were encouraged, sure, but there was less of a need for people to do them. Catholicism saw that good works needed to be done and that telling the people that good works would get them into Heaven was the best way for that to practically occur. Protestantism encouraged the tossing aside of good works in favor of individualistic "salvation through faith alone."

Argument THREE - Protestantism has espoused extreme individualism

Protestantism is often linked with the rise of individualism and capitalism, but I will argue that this rise of individualism is in fact a negative. It took away from the sense of community welfare and basically told everyone to look out for themselves. No need to do good works to get into Heaven. No need for anything except what you do on your own for God. This led to (and Protestantism itself stemmed from a bourgeois individualism) a type of individualism that made people feel okay to be self-centered, greedy, and individualistic; the sense of a common good was lost.

COUNTERARGUMENT 1 - Catholics listen to the Pope just like Protestants listen to their pastors. Both are put in positions of authority. Jesus and God are still seen to be above the Pope. Doesn't any church with a leader have the possibility to say ridiculous things and have masses of people listen? The Pope simply has a larger following than individual Protestant pastors. These evangelical mega-churches that have 10,000-person congregations and more all listen to one person, and they are just as likely to listen to that pastor as a Catholic is to the Pope. To say that Catholics are more likely to listen is to the Pope than a Protestant to his/her priest is an unsubstantiated claim. In fact, there are many examples of Catholics not really believing the infallibility of the Pope. Just look at any Catholic government representative. They do not always agree with their Pope.

The argument that obedience to a worldly power occurs more with Catholicism is untrue. The issue is really a wash, as both Protestantism and Catholicism have religious figureheads that people are supposed to listen to, and do much of the time, but not always.

COUNTERARGUMENT 2 - Sure, there were qualms Protestants had with Catholicism when they split off. That's why they split off. The South also had qualms with the North when they tried to secede from the United States. Does that make the South more morally admirable? Because it stemmed from disagreements with the North? Does it make Protestantism more morally admirable because it stemmed from disagreements with Catholicism? The answer is decidedly, no. Just as the Confederacy stemmed from the United States, so did Protestantism from Catholicism. That, inherently, does not make it morally admirable.

There are many moral qualms that Catholics have with Protestants, worse than "believing" the wine is the blood of Christ. Catholics have a problem with Protestants' pro-death penalty stance. That involves the taking of a human life. This is substantially more important than a disagreement over wine.

COUNTERARGUMENT 3 - Catholicism does indeed have ritual; I will not deny that. So does Protestantism. Communion is taken, the same prayer is said each time, services often start in the same way in many churches, baptism, dedication of a child, etc. All of these are seen in Protestantism. So if you would be so kind as to list Catholic rituals that outnumber these greatly, I would gladly concede this point that Catholicism is more ritualistic (though I may try to justify ritualism :) )

More contentions and debate to come! Thank you again for my opponent's taking up of this challenge.
beem0r

Con

I will first address my opponent's claims with counterarguments, then I will defend my own points.

COUNTERARGUMENT ONE - Consistency in Beliefs

Consistency in beliefs is not in itself morally admirable. For instance, wociety would like a cold blooded killer to act inconsistently with his beliefs, society would want him to have as many views inconsistent with his murderous ways as possible. Consistency itself is not good; consistent moral behavior, however, is.

War, and perhaps even the death penalty, have their proper times. It is not morally admirable to have a blanket opposition to them. One must learn to weigh each situation and decide if war is worth it, rather than opposing war at all costs. My opponent has even suggested that Protestantism is more in line with this sort of deliberation (Protestants neither are in favor of every war nor are against every war, whereas, if my opponent is to be believed, Catholics oppose war on a fundamental level).

COUNTERARGUMENT TWO - The way to salvation - good works vs. faith alone

There are two sides of this point. First, as my opponent has noted, Catholicism gives people more incentive to do good works, and that's admirable. However, it gives people the worst reasons to do 'good works' - greed and selfishness - ideals Christianity itself looks down on. Any morally good act means quite a bit less when the reasoning behind it was some guy seeking eternal happiness for himself. It is more morally admirable to do good works out of ones own character rather than merely to reap some reward.

COUNTERARGUMENT THREE - Individualism

My opponent argues that Protestantism has always stood for individualism. This is superior to the alternative - conforming to the agenda of some group. Sure, some group might want you to not be greedy and care about your fellow man, but if the only reason you're doing those things is because you're conforming to a group, that's not very morally impressive. Thinking for oneself and deciding to be moral on ones own - that is morally admirable. Supressing the ability of people to think for themselves - that is morally repugnant.
Further, most Protestant sects teach that generosity is superior to greed.

DEFENDING ARGUMENT 1 - Pope, Misplaced Authority

My opponent has compared the pope to ordinary pastors, but this is fairly nonsensical. If a pastor says something ridiculous, it is not taboo to call him out on it. Pastors are not seen as having divine authority. While pastors may have more authority than they should, there is a larger amount of undue authority in Catholicism, and thus Protestantism is more admirable in this regard.
Also, the example of Catholics who don't believe the infallibility of the Pope is a non-sequitur. Catholicism, the religion, is what we're discussing, and it teaches that the Pope does have that authority. The fact that many Catholics happen to be smart enough to see through that is not morally beneficial for the religion itself, though it is fortuitous.

DEFENDING POINT TWO - Moral Qualms

My opponent asks if this is similar to the American Civil War. It is, in a way - but in a reverse way from how my opponent tries to paint it. Slavery had been the status quo. Part of the country decided that slavery wasn't okay. The ones who remained the same (as the Catholics largely did) was the south, who continued keeping slaves in spite of the moral qualms many people had with it. The north reformed its beliefs, as the Protestants did in splitting from Catholicism.

My opponent claims that Protestantism is "pro-death penalty" but this claim is unsubstantiated. It may be true that many Protestants happen to be Pro-death penalty, but Protestantism itself does not preach a pro-death penalty stance. We are arguing the moral admirability of religions, not of followers thereof.

DEFENDING ARGUMENT THREE - Rituals

My opponent points out that Protestantism, too, is ritualistic. True enough, but Catholicism outritualizes it. Catholics, for instance, place a large focus on repeating certain prayers, like in the Rosary, where the Lord's Prayer and Hail Mary prayer are repeated a good amount of times. There's the praying to various saints to which I referred in my last round. There's penance (confession) - if you do anything wrong, you have to undergo the sacrament of penance, telling some priest whatever sins you have comitted (he often makes you do some more praying, for good measure). In fact, there is a much larger focus in Catholicism on sacraments and rites overall. This not only wastes a great deal of time for all people involved, it also makes people think prayer is more important than it is (all studies on prayer have shown it has no effectiveness in curing disease, helping the impoverished, etc.) - people will be more likely to just pray for someone instead of going out and helping them - they'll think their prayer constitutes help when it does not.
Such ritualism necessarily draws people away from understanding how the world actually works. This is morally negative.

I now give the floor back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Aziar44

Pro

ONE - I believe you are talking about a different consistency. Your murderer example is talking about consistency between belief and action. I am just talking about consistency across beliefs.

Catholics can be admired because they say they are pro-life and they mean it. They aren't pro-life for this but pro-death for that, as are many Protestants. Don't we admire people who say "I am against killing" and then do not kill? Don't we admire people who say "I am against stealing" and do not ever steal? People who stick to their guns like that are to be admired. And those who go back and forth between "Yes we are for life!" and "Kill that criminal" are not quite as morally admirable.

TWO - Catholicism is more realistic. People act in their own self interest. So, if you tell people that good works will get them to Heaven, people will do lots of good works. It's not greed and selfishness they're preaching - they really ARE preaching good works. Catholicism just realizes how many people actually are. People who will do it out of their own character are just encouraged by Catholicism, so there is no harm at all in this practice. It is particularly admirable.

THREE - Extreme individualism vs. community. This is Protestantism vs. Catholicism. This sense of looking out for yourself and screw everyone else stemmed from Protestantism. Arguing the merits and disadvantages of capitalism is for a larger debate, but look at the greed and selfishness that have come from this extreme individualism in the current economic crisis.

Individualism is okay in moderation, but the Protestant individualism threw aside care for community and others in favor of the glorification and support of the sole self.

DEFENSE 1 - It does indeed make sense to compare the Pope to pastors. Pastors are seen as people that are very close to God and therefore have the authority to preach to you. The Pope is the same way. I will concede that divine authority is given more to the Pope than other pastors, but the general difference is not extreme. Perhaps the Pope is given more authority, but it is not a way in which Protestantism is overwhelmingly more morally admirable.

DEFENSE 2- Well done with turning that example. However, my point still stands that just because something stems from something else does not make it better. The Mormon faith stems from Protestantism, but is it better? Its founder had disagreements with Protestantism, so is it better? Branch Davidians (remember Waco?) split from The Seventh Day Adventists Church because of moral qualms. They were absolutely not better. So just because Protestantism stemmed from moral qualms with Catholicism does not make it more morally admirable. It is an irrelevant point.

DEFENSE 3 - You have good points here, but I would say that Christians overall believe in the power of prayer, so the outcome is essentially the same.

The seven sacraments you mention (as opposed to the two by Protestantism) actually have Biblical support. In the Bible, it says that Jesus gave 7 sacraments to his Church. This is another example of Catholicism actually adhering to what is said in their faith.

Beyond consistency, I will agree that Catholics may have slightly more rituals. Protestantism has much of the same thing. Forgiveness of sins through communion = confession, for example. I will concede that Catholicism is somewhat more ritualized than Protestantism. But, you have not shown that that ritualization leads to anything negative (your prayer example is null since Christianity overall believes in the power of prayer - Protestantism included), so it is not necessarily less morally admirable to have ritual. It is neither more or less.
beem0r

Con

ONE:
My opponent first criticizes me for talking about the consistency between belief and action, but then he does the eact same thing: "Don't we admire people who say "I am against killing" and then do not kill? Don't we admire people who say "I am against stealing" and do not ever steal?"

In any case, fanatical, unquestionable belief in a principle is not good. There are scenarios where stealing would be the right thing to do, there are scenarios where killing another human being would be the right thing to do. Closing yourself to those scenarios and claiming that on a fundamental level these things cannot be done ever, that there are no circumstances under which they should be done - that is not morally admirable. That is simply ignorant and closed-minded. For example, if your children are starving and the only way to feed them is to steal, stealing is very much justified. And, perhaps, if a member of society blows up a schoolbus, it is morally right for society to end that person's life. That is another debate - the important thing is, Protestantism allows its followers to examine the pros and cons and come to whichever decision, whereas Catholicism has decided that if killing is ever wrong, it must therefore ALWAYS be wrong. That may be 'consistent,' but it doesn't follow logically. Everything is not black and white - there is plenty of grey out there.

To weigh each scenario on its own, and then to follow the best course of action - that is morally admirable.

TWO:
While it's true that Catholicism tells people to do good works, it does this by bribing people with some reward. That's not morally admirable. Even so, I have admitted that it isn't all bad - that the increased amount of good works is indeed morally admirable. However, Catholicism does not encourage good works very much more than other Christian sects. No Christian sects tell believers to just act however they want - however, they don't try holding eternal wrath over people's heads to force them into behaving well. While Catholicism has an advantage on the good works it gets people to do, that advantage is ever so slight and is counterbalanced by the fact that bribery is used to make people 'act' moral against their own nature.

THREE:
Protestantism does not preach extreme individualism. It simply does not put AS MUCH focus on listening to whatever your community (church) wants you to do. Both Catholicism and Protestantism are community-based, just Protestantism is a bit less extreme about it. My opponent paints Protestantism as some self-worship cult, an assertion that is completely unfounded and entirely false.

ONE #2:
My opponent and I largely agree here. I know that Pastors are given undue authority as well, just not as much as the Pope and other Catholic clergymen (clergy is not seen to have much power in Protestant religions, largely due to the larger focus on actual people and the smaller focus on the church itself).
But yes, the advantage Protestantism holds here is slight.

TWO #2:
I'll concede that my point here was largely irrelevant - though I do have to say one last thing on this point.
The real moral qualms that Protestants had were the abuses of power in the Catholic church (like the sale of indulgences and the exclusive preaching in Latin to the detriment of the people). While I admit that those individual things are not part of the religion of Catholicism, they were made possible because Catholicism places so much authority in the Church and its clergy. If Church officials have too much power, they will be more likely to abuse it, especially if everyone's a greedy person on the inside like my opponent says. Protestantism does not give the church major authority over individuals - the power is largely seen to be in the hands of those individuals and in the hands of God (though, admittedly, Protestant officials do have some level of power, just not enough to do very much damage).
This point (and the one about the Catholic clergy vs. Protestant church officials) really just augments the other point about individualism vs. community (church).

THREE #2:
Ah, yes, my opponent goes back to the point about consistency. The seven sacraments, part of the ritualistic nature of Catholicism, are based on the bible. Note that this does not make them morally admirable, it just makes them based on the bible (Ex.: all sorts of immoral rules in Leviticus).

This is also true of Prayer. Yes, Catholicism and Protestantism both say that prayer is effective, but studies have time and time again showed that this is not the case. By praying, people are given a sense that they've somehow done something good when they actually haven't. I agree that this is a problem for both Protestantism and Catholicism, but it is moreso for Catholicism, where there is a much larger focus placed on prayer.

I will concede that many other ritualistic parts of Catholicism aren't really all that harmful, though some other rituals do discourage secular thinking. It's not a very large effect, and probably not even worth discussing or considering here. But I do hold that focus on prayer is harmful, since it makes people think they're being helpful when they're really just wasting time they could have spent actually being helpful.
Debate Round No. 3
Aziar44

Pro

ONE - My mistake there, what I really was trying to get across is that Catholics say they are against killing, and they are actually against it in all situations. There's no qualifying "well it's okay to kill murderers, but not fetuses." At least they have consistency in their beliefs. You see many Protestants who are against killing fetuses, for killing murderers, and are okay with war. Now, I will concede that sometimes blanket beliefs are a bad thing, true. But take this for example: Let's say Protestants say they are against spending money on defense, but they are okay with spending money on fighter planes, tanks, and missiles. They may try to argue that those things are actually OFFENSE, so it's okay to spend money on it.

I feel like we have to cut through B.S. with many Protestant beliefs to figure out what they mean by pro-life, for example, whereas Catholics, if they say they are pro-life, you know they mean it. For your stealing example, not stealing the food = killing, so Catholics would stay consistent in their beliefs in such a way.

TWO - Yes, Catholicism does have an advantage in the good works department, but looking at it as 'bribery' is misleading. It is not bribery so much as it is an accurate view of human nature. I mean, come on, how many people are going to commit selfless acts on their own? The very existence of selfless acts is questionable, at best. Catholicism encourages good works by saying people can get into Heaven with them - the net gain is great. Who cares if people are doing it a little bit for themselves in the process? The morally admirable quality is that Catholicism is getting people to do it at all. Taking advantage of human nature in order to promote the welfare and benefit of others is a good thing.

THREE - True, it is not some self-worship cult, but its focus on individuality was unseen before its time. Again, not to debate the merits of capitalism, but it led to such things as what we saw on Wall Street recently. The Protestant Work Ethic lead to capitalism and its ideas led us directly into this economic mess we are in right now. (See Max Weber's book, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.") Protestant ideas of individualism did not reject wealth and possessions, something other religions, and Christianity in its pure form, looks down upon. Protestantism supported materialism. Again, see Weber's book.

It also deified the individual. You talk of the Pope being raised up, but this Protestant individualism deified everyone, taking something away from Christianity as a whole. But this is a smaller point.

THREE 2 - Going back to prayer, I doubt that it really wastes that much time to say a few prayers each day. You could spend that time in much worse ways. It only takes a minute out of a day to say several of those prayers, so it is not like some big time-wasting ordeal.

But let's make this one a wash, because the ritualism is not harmful or helpful, I think we can both agree. The rituals really don't waste that much time anyway. They don't take hours and hours, so it doesn't have anything to do with an argument of which is more morally admirable. The same with prayer, and especially since both Protestantism and Catholicism focus on prayer.

CONCLUSION

- Catholicism holds a bit more consistency than Protestantism in its beliefs. If they say they are pro-life, they actually are, not just conditionally pro-life as with many Protestant denominations. They are pro-life when it benefits them and they're okay with death when it benefits them. Catholicism is pro-life even when supporting such a position may not be popular and they cannot be called out on being hypocrites.

- Protestantism preached individualism that leads to greed and a want for wealth, very non-Christian ideals. Materialism and want for possessions were okay with Protestant morals. Catholicism does not preach such individualism.

- Protestantism's "salvation through faith alone" took away the focus on good works. Catholicism preached faith AND good works to get into Heaven. Catholicism just recognized how humans are and decided that the best way to do the most good for the world would be to have incentives for people to do good deeds. It is morally admirable that they recognized this fact and very morally admirable that they got so many people to focus on doing good deeds in the process. The positive impact Catholicism created through that teaching is quite significant and admirable.

These three major points show that Catholicism is more morally admirable than Protestantism. There are various less significant issues in which Protestantism has a slight edge, but these issues are more paramount and Catholicism holds the higher moral standard for all of them.

Thank you to my opponent for a great debate. This is one of the better ones I've had here. VOTE PRO!
beem0r

Con

I will conclude first by going over all relevant points briefly once more.

FIRST - Consistency
My opponent has once again brought up the issue of "consistency" as some sort of badge. He levels the claim that while Protestants decide when it is and when it isn't okay to kill another human being, Catholicism teaches that murder is ALWAYS immoral. As I stated in my previous round, this is simply not true, and moral absolutes like this are dangerous and wrong. Even murder, very arguably the worst thing you can do to someone, is sometimes justified. For instance, it is justified when your own life is in danger, or when the life of another person hangs in the balance. It may also be justified as a punishment for people who take the lives of innocent people, though this is arguable. Protestantism does not teach either specific viewpoint on the death penalty, but it does let people go through a rational though process and arrive at a conclusion from that, rather than just shoving a false "absolute" down people's throats.

SECOND - Good works
Yes, Catholicism preaches that good works get you into heaven. But how moral are good works when you're being threatened into doing them, threatened with eternal torment if ye do not comply? Once virtuous acts become simple acts of obeying an authority. While the additional good works Catholicism creates are positive, the means are negative and this entire point really comes out as a wash.

THIRD - Individualism
Individualism itself is a good thing, unless taken to extremes where greed and power wholly outweigh any thought for the welfare of the community. My opponent claims that Protestantism does take individualism to this level, but it does not. Protestantism still teaches charity to its members, and still encourages good works (though not at the edge of sword). Protestantism does NOT teach greed and self-worship as my opponent suggests, and it is not the religion's fault that many of its members prefer individualist economics rather than communal economics. Rather, it is likely that extreme individualists, at certain points in history (during the reformation, for example), were drawn to Protestantism. Protestantism didn't cause these people to become such extreme individualists; it is not the fault of the religion that these people exist. If anything, Protestantism would have made these people's beliefs a bit less Individualist, since even Protestantism preaches doing good for the community, charity, and humility.

These are the main points of the debate, my opponent and I agree. I believe I have shown, through these points, that Protestantism is morally superior to Catholicism. Consider too, that even if I have failed to do that and only shown that Catholicism and Protestantism are equal in moral admirability, I have still upheld my side of the resolution, which is "Catholicism is not more morally admirable than Protestantism."

Thanks to my opponent for a good debate and to the audience for listening.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by theCall 8 years ago
theCall
About the killing thing, actually in Hebrew, the word kill of "Thou shalt not kill" was actually the word murder, "thou shalt not murder.", the Bible has lots of scenarios when God allow people to kill, in the wars, in circumstances to defense yourself, imagine if a murderer's coming to you and want to kill you? Then you kill him to protect yourself though you didn't want to, then it's a sin/ It's a one die, on live situation.
Posted by tBoonePickens 8 years ago
tBoonePickens
If you think about it, Catholicism is an extension (or comes from) Judaism but Protestantism is sect or cult from Catholicism. You can follow all of the tenets of Judaism and be a Catholic so long as you believe Jesus to be the Messiah (and the Trinity but that's part of Jesus being the Messiah.) However, a Jew or a Catholic cannot be a Protestant without compromising his beliefs. Hence Protestantism broke of and invented there own thing. If not for England and English support, there would be no protestants today. All because "someone" wanted to get married & divorced as many times as his hearts content! Hehehe!
Posted by pewpewpew 8 years ago
pewpewpew
ournamestoolong is right. Since Protestantism is not one religion altogether like Catholicism, it is not as consistent. Although Protestants are the ones blamed as heretics, the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has helped Adolf Hitler with sending Nazis to South America (Pope Pius XII), and has been a debased and corrupted organization in the past. Hopefully things have changed with them but one thing is true. BOTH denominations have their faults.
Posted by SuperPerfundo 8 years ago
SuperPerfundo
"Nay, says I."-----------My RFD for CON
Posted by Aziar44 8 years ago
Aziar44
Sorry, I should have specified. Catholicism is more consistent in its ideals than any major Protestant denomination.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
There is a reason Protestantism is not consistent. It isn't one religion.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
ehhhhhhhh who cares , religion is there anything it can do ?
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 8 years ago
tBoonePickens
Aziar44beem0rTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Aziar44beem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by sershawn44 8 years ago
sershawn44
Aziar44beem0rTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pewpewpew 8 years ago
pewpewpew
Aziar44beem0rTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
Aziar44beem0rTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
Aziar44beem0rTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
Aziar44beem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Aziar44 8 years ago
Aziar44
Aziar44beem0rTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by DSanteramo 8 years ago
DSanteramo
Aziar44beem0rTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by daboss 8 years ago
daboss
Aziar44beem0rTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70