The Instigator
acvavra
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Mr
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Catholicism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
acvavra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,206 times Debate No: 24566
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

acvavra

Pro

Catholicism violates many doctrines of the Bible. Use the Bible to refute Catholic teachings.
Mr

Con

Well by my general knowledge the Catholicism does not violate any doctrines of the bible but instead catholic teachings were rather made later because the bible hadn't said they couldn't, it is what they believe God has told them to do, and if i see right you have not showed any evidence to support the idea.
Debate Round No. 1
acvavra

Pro

I Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." This does away with a confessional booth and a priest because you can talk to Jesus alone through prayer to reach God. Mary is considered a "mediatrix" by Catholics, yet the Bible says Jesus is the only mediator. Jesus says in Matthew 23:9 to, "call no man upon the earth your father," and he was talking to religious leaders when he said it, the priest is a religious leader, yet he is called father. The Bible tells in 3 places to not drink blood(Gen 9:4), Lev(17:10), and in Acts 15:20. The Catholic Church teaches, though, that when you partake of the mass you are literally drinking the blood of Christ and eating his flesh according to the Council of Trent.Also, wouldnt that be cannibalism? The term "Catholic" isnt even mentioned till 113 AD by Ignatius, its not in the Bible. Popes arent to be married, yet Peter was married(Matt 8:14) and he is supposed to be the first Pope. The book of Romans wasnt even written by Peter, it was written by Paul, and Peter was supposed to have been in Rome? Somebody's crazy. Hitler was a confirmed and baptized Roman Catholic. If your baptized, your considered born again in the Catholic Church, does that mean Hitler went to Heaven?
Mr

Con

Of how long it took for you to post that argument looking for evidence in the bible i guess i could do the same thing but sine i want to save my time and yours i'll just say in my church we don't actually drink blood but instead simple drinks like grape juice for example, and just because someone says its blood when you partake in the practice does that make it true?
I have no idea why you included Hitler in this, my thought is maybe you felt good for your opposing argument and threw that in there. but just for you i'll tell you anyone can go to heaven no matter how wrong someones done do you need me to give you a bible lesson my friend?
Debate Round No. 2
acvavra

Pro

Your profile says your a Baptist, yet you just argued like you are a Catholic defending your church. The debate was on Catholicism, not what you do in your church. Also you didnt address one thing I mentioned in the Bible where it violates Catholic doctrine, except I suppose Hitler? If you want to debate, you better start defending Catholic tradition, or else decline from this debate and allow me to be the winner.
Mr

Con

"...or else decline from this debate and allow me to be the winner" yeah you want me to do that huh just give you the win? and is it impossible to say that i used to be a catholic and changed? is it a sin to defend this topic? want me to define that word for you.
change/CHānj/
Verb:
Make or become different: "a proposal to change the law"; "beginning to change from green to gold".
Noun:
The act or instance of making or becoming different
i see it as though i've said what i needed to say why don't you reread it before telling me how to debate. thank you and don't take forever looking at my profile, in the bible, or other sources in order to beat me.
Debate Round No. 3
acvavra

Pro

Alright, well tell me then, why you havent tried to defend Catholic tradition that I said contradicted the Bible. Dont you remember something when you were a Catholic to defend that religion. After all, they use a Bible too. I am sure they can use it to defend their traditions, or does tradition override what the Bible says? If so, then the Catholic Church is built on shifting sands because the Popes have contradicted themselves before. I know Jesus Christ never cared for tradition, He cared about the Scriptures. Mark 7:5-6,9 reads, "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the TRADITION of the elders, but to eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And he said unto them, FULL WELL YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.
Mr

Con

And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!
yes but if you obey Gods commands you can still observe your traditions, thank you and continue to read my friend.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Brandon444 4 years ago
Brandon444
When you mentioned that peter was married, it's true priests and other church figures could be married but some Pope I can't recall who changed that and said they're not allowed to be, because they should be married to god or whatever. The pope could change this and allow priests to get married again, not sure why they don't. And as for the whole Jesus and confession thing, he gave his apostles the ability to act in his place to take away sin, and eventually they passed that ability down to all priests now
Posted by Mr 4 years ago
Mr
sorry for the bad debate i am kinda new to this now, but now i get what you are supposed to do, instead of winning the argument you must win the debate, my apologies to Acvavra and anyone else it may concern thank you for the experience and the fact that i can grow from this.
Posted by girg 4 years ago
girg
I could hardly tell what was going on. You guys needed a much better structure and points to make it very clear what you are presenting or refuting.
Posted by MarconiDarwin 4 years ago
MarconiDarwin
It says

I Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

So the Bible confirms that Jesus is a man, and that man is dead. Ergo, no more mediators left.

Forget Catholics, Christians are conversing with the dead.
Posted by jd325494523 4 years ago
jd325494523
This is literally one of the saddest debates I have EVER seen. I am ashamed.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
It hurts...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
acvavraMrTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm surprised pro did not bring up idolatry, not only of Jesus, but of saints as well. I feel both sides lacked in their argument. Pro had the BOP which I felt was lacking, however Con's rebuttals were weak. Pro gave sources yet con didn't. Pro used periods for questions, and used all caps at one point, so con gets grammar.
Vote Placed by Khana 4 years ago
Khana
acvavraMrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con didn't exactly debate. He acted like he assumed he won, and his position didn't need defending. Arguments also go to Pro because Pro actually made relevant arguments. And sources go to Pro because Con referenced no sources at all, and Pro referenced the Bible, the primary source for the nature of this debate.
Vote Placed by jd325494523 4 years ago
jd325494523
acvavraMrTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro actually provided citations from the bible while the Con just began to speak about change which is completely OFF TOPIC.