The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Catholics Are Unbiblical.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 37223
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




In this debate I will be showing you how Catholicism is unbiblical in many ways.

1st Round is Acceptance only.

2nd and 3rd Round are arguments and rebuttals.

4th Round is conclusion and no new contentions.
Debate Round No. 1


iUnderdog forfeited this round.


Catholics are Biblical. We Catholics adhere to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Magisterium. It is the Protestants that are unbiblical because the protestants, like the Pro, always take verses from Scripture out of context. Protestants also try to twist verses from Scripture into meaning something it does not. In fact, it was a Catholic Church council that compiled the manuscripts in 395 AD and deemed them to be the inspired word of God. In order to do that, the Church had to throw out over 600 other manuscripts/books that were floating about during that time period. So when you non-Catholics claim that you accept the Bible, then you are essentially claiming that you accept the authority of that Catholic Church council which originally gave mankind the Bible.

It wouldn't surprise me if you prottys believe the Bible fell out of the sky from heaven.
Debate Round No. 2


iUnderdog forfeited this round.


Here is a link to a Catholic website which gives evidence in detail from the Bible which proves that the Holy Catholic Church is indeed biblical.
Debate Round No. 3


First I would like to apologize for not posting arguments till now. I just completely forgot and got sidetracked with school but let's start this anyway.

First, I would like to start out by attacking baby baptism. The word greek baptizo which is translated to immersion as my sources will say. This is showing that when you dump water on kids it is unbiblical. First no where in the bible does it say to baby baptize. Yet you do it anyway and you don't even do it correctly. When you show me that the bible says to baby baptize I will believe you are biblical. You say that us Protestants take the bible out of context but this is you doing that.

Second, you worship the pope and say he is that head of the church. You say well Peter was a pope even though Jesus just said he going to build his church around Peter. You say this is justification to follow everything the Pope says. I read something on you most holy family monastery thing and they were quoting the Pope saying that he said something and that makes it correct. You basically worship the man and everything he does. Even if he does rape a bunch of little kids with his cardinals and say that gays will get into heaven as he has said very recently. It's idolatry the way you worship him.

Third, you pray to Mary and Hail her. I read your justification for it and you sir were the one taking verses out of context. All of the justifications could easily apply to Joseph saying that just because he was the father of Jesus. Also you say Mary hasn't sinned unlike everyone besides Jesus. What form of idolatry is this in that stupid "MOSTHOLYFAMILY". Have you heard all have fallen short of the glory of God. That just doesn't apply to Mary though because she was perfect like Jesus. That also justifies you praying to Mary. Lol. This is the second major form of idolatry. Praying to Mary so she can intercede even though the bible continually says that is what the holy spirit is for. But you just forget about him though because you know Mary was just perfect. If you can show me one way that the bible says to pray to Mary (believe me it doesn't) or that proves that Mary was good enough to be Hailed. And you say we take verses out of context. No sir you do.

I would like to apologize again for this debate being only one round but again I was very busy.

I was born into a catholic family but soon discovered after reading the bible how wrong catholics are in some things. However I know you believe that you are the arians of Christians the pure race but read the bible, stop being brainwashed like I was, and read the facts. The catholics are unbiblical for three ways and you can not argue them face it. Now stop telling everyone how you are the perfect christians and us protestants are wrong. I respect catholics because they have spread the gospel so much. However quit frankly they are wrong.



The Pro said, "I just completely forgot and got sidetracked with school but let's start this anyway."

The debate had already started a while back. You obviously didn't care enough about the topic of this debate to take any interest in debating it. Instead I am the one which kept this debate going.

The Pro said, "First, I would like to start out by attacking baby baptism"

So if you are going to attack baby baptism, then shouldn't we see the Bible also attacking baby baptism? After all, you claim that you hold to what the Bible teaches right? Strange how you would make such a claim and not post one passage from the Bible to back up your claim. But since we Catholics are biblical, then I will be the one citing Bible passages to make my case. Firstly, it must be noted that Protestants like yourself who reject infant baptism are in the minority, even among Protestants.

Second, the Bible teaches that whole households were baptized:

1 Cor. 1:16- "And I [Paul] baptized also the household of Stephanas..."

Acts 16:15- "And when she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household...

Acts 16:33- "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway."

Entire households were baptized. Think about these verses. The Bible refers to a woman and "her household." It refers to a man and his "household." Why didn"t the passage just say a woman and "her husband"? Why didn"t it say a man and "his wife"? Households generally include children. Scripture connects the two:

Gen. 18:19- "" he will command his children and his household after him""

Gen. 36:6- "And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house."

Since households generally include children " and the Bible repeatedly mentions that whole households were baptized " these passages by themselves make the case against infant baptism extremely unlikely. In fact, if a Protestant who rejects infant baptism believes in Scripture alone, he would have to find an explicit teaching in the Bible that infants should not be baptized. But there is nothing like that.

Please also listen to this recorded audio which goes into detail from the Bible as to why infant baptism is Biblical and also it explains from the Bible why baptism doesn't have to be by immersion,......

Pro said, "Second, you worship the pope and say he is that head of the church"

Strange how the Pro can't seem to focus on the topic of the debate. Nonetheless, I will respond to his accusations anyway. True Catholics who hold to the Holy Catholic faith do not worship the Pope. So that is a false charge. Now as to the Pope being the head of the Church, then yes. He is the head of the Church in authority given to the Apostle Peter by Jesus over the Church Jesus founded, but that does not mean that Jesus gave up his own authority. It is Jesus who is the ultimate head of the Church in Heaven and on Earth. So when Jesus handed authority to the Apostle Peter and the rest of the Apostles, then did not Jesus still hold ultimate and supreme authority over the Church he established, even though he gave his own 12 Apostles authority over that same Church? Ofcourse he did.

Jesus made St. Peter the first pope. The evidence is in the change of Peter"s name; the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter" Matthew 16 and Isaias 22; who is the Rock of Matthew 16? It"s Peter; Peter"s unfailing faith; Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to Peter; the prominence of Peter"s name in Scripture; Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas; Peter"s primacy in the Acts of the Apostles and more. There is Biblical (and some patristic) evidence for the Catholic teaching on the Papacy. The early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter"s authority.

The offices of the Apostles (bishops) and the office of St. Peter (the Papacy) were instituted to continue with successors. They were founded by Jesus to continue through the history of the Church after the original apostles and Peter had died. St. Peter was in Rome and was its first bishop; apostolic and papal succession come from the teaching of the Bible; the origin of the term "Catholic Church," Gal. 2:11 and more.

Please also listen to this recorded audio which goes into detail about Peter having been made the first Pope and all those who succeeded to his Papal office since then have been Popes,.........

The Pro said, "Third, you pray to Mary and Hail her"

So does the Bible say that we cannot ask the mother of Jesus to pray to her son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf? Again, if it does say that, then where is that verse? The reason you didn't post it is because that verse does not exists. Now, if I asked you to pray to the Lord for my 3 yr old daughter because she is very sick, then would you refuse? Would you tell me that you won't pray to Jesus for my 3 yr old daughter to get well, and that I should not be asking you but instead go straight to Jesus? Ofcourse you wouldn't say something like that. The Bible tells us to pray for others.

1 Tim 2:1-2 - the Apostle Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people

James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints" prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.

Matt. 5:44-45 - Jesus tells us to pray for (to mediate on behalf of) those who persecute us. God instructs us to mediate

Matt. 26:53 " Jesus says He can call upon the assistance of twelve legions of angels. If Jesus said He could ask for the assistance of angel saints, then so can we, who are called to imitate Jesus in word and in deed.

Again, the Pro said, "Third, you pray to Mary and Hail her"

So since I have proven from the Bible that we can ask the virgin Mary to pray to her son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf, then now I will respond to the part where the Pro claims we should not "hail her".

Has the Pro never even read the Bible before? When the angel Gabriel was sent by God to deliever the message to the virgin Mary that she would give birth to the Lord, then the very first words out of the angel's angelic mouth was,......

Luke 1:27-31- "" and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come
in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou
among women.

The Pro said, "Also you say Mary hasn't sinned unlike everyone besides Jesus"


So, if Mary was preserved from the stain of the original sin, does that mean that she didn"t
have a Savior? No. Mary answers that herself.

Luke 1:46-47- "And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath
rejoiced in God my Savior."

God saved Mary by preventing her from contracting original sin. Suppose that a man falls
into a deep hole in the forest, but is pulled out by his friend. It is true to say that the friend
saved the man. Now suppose a man sees a woman walking toward the deep hole, and
catches her just before she falls in. He stops her from falling into the hole in the first place,
so that she doesn"t get injured or dirty at all. Did he save the woman? Certainly he did. He
saved her in a greater way, by preventing her from falling into the hole and suffering any of
the harmful consequences.

That"s how God saved Mary. Jesus was her Savior in an even greater way, by preventing
her from ever contracting original sin, and by preserving her from sin throughout her life.
He did this for Mary, in view of her unique role. The sinlessness of Mary is indicated by
numerous types in the Bible.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by iUnderdog 3 years ago
To Mr. S the con said that all protestants are wrong, that we take scriptures out of hand, and that Catholicism is the original and best and only denomination of christianity.

And to your thing on me not using bible verses did you think that I did that because there is no verses on the controversial things because they aren't in the bible. Derp, they are man made up.
Posted by Sojourner 3 years ago
" I know you believe that you are the arians of Christians the pure race" What does this mean? This exemplifies your complete lack of understanding about Catholicism!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for because Pro forfeited rounds. Arguments to Con for effectively addressing each of Con's arguments. Sources to Con for siting the related passages in the bible which support his arguments.