The Instigator
yansmil
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
loveu157
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Non Catholics are Preaching False Doctrines

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
loveu157
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,153 times Debate No: 31953
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

yansmil

Pro

Non Catholic Preached that the Cathic Church is a church of the devil which is absolutely WRONG. The truth is, Only the Catholic Church is the True Church that teaches the truth from heaven.
loveu157

Con

I think this will be interesting. I accept your debate. Now lay it on me.
Debate Round No. 1
yansmil

Pro

St. Paul said that No one can preach the gospel unless he is sent. (Romans 10:14-15). Why only Catholic Church have it? because Catholic Church can trace its origin back to the time of the apostles. Protestants begin after 1000 years ago that is why they are not the true preachers. St. John said, they are not in our numbers because they separated from us (1 John 2:19).
loveu157

Con

how do you know that they are giving false sermons. The preachers may think they are sent from god to. Jesus said to love our neighbors as ourselves. This means to respect all religions.

It really depends who you talk to. Your church may think they are doing the right thing but a different church may think they are doing the right thing.

Everyone has different beliefs and everyone has a different idea of whats right to preach.
Debate Round No. 2
yansmil

Pro

Jesus said,"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16). Yes other religions teach to love one another but they did not follow the complete truth written in the bible. Jesus established the church in (Matthew 16:18). If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). They did not believe that we have to take the body of Christ through the BREAD which is called TRANSUBSTANTIATION after consecration of the priest during mass. It is taught by our Lord Jesus but non-Catholic did not do this. And also images in the church which already taught in the old Testament. (Ezekiel 41:18-19). It is very clear that they are not preaching the truth.
loveu157

Con

Yes but this still says nothing about different beliefs. Jews have their own book and muslims have their own book. So your argument is null and void because you are arguing through beliefs of a group of people. Unless you have evidence besides a book that has many different interpretations, your argument is still null and void.
Debate Round No. 3
yansmil

Pro

Different groups throughout the world used their own books as you have mention but ONE thing you don't know that there is only God.
The Only God has one group for His Kingdom. Muslims believe to Allah Supreme God, Jews believe Yahweh as Almighty God and different sects have their own Supreme God. Their teachings are not completely the truth. If you study the revelation of God from the time of Adam and Eve up to this time you will know that there are variations of leaders. in the time of Abraham, Moses, and the Apostles have different style of teachings. All of this three groups believe to God Almighty. But the perfect teachings started from Jesus to the apostles delivered in our time. The only GROUP of believers who have a complete or perfect teachings is only the CATHOLIC CHURCH. God does not accept incomplete truth that is why He send His only Son Jesus Christ to teach the people which He entrusted
to the apostles and the followers of t apostles (John 15:16) Sorry to tell you that your arguments shows that you have not studied the history of the world. Your reasons are very weak!

loveu157

Con

Yes but how do you know that there is one god. You are still using evidence from personal beliefs. Atheists believe that there is no god. You need to use evidence other then the bible and personal beliefs. So far this argument is not looking good for you. You can't prove to me that god is true or that non Catholics are preaching false doctrines if you continue to use evidence from a bible. I have to say that you can't accuse me of not studying the history of the world when you only take in account of your personal beliefs. Until you use something real, all of your arguments are null and void. In other words, don't base your argument of a book or one religious source.
Debate Round No. 4
yansmil

Pro

YOU ARE REALY NOT STUDYING THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. Why I say this because you are using your computer with a special IP address. Computers have binary code of only two numbers ( 0 and 1 ). In human body there is what we call DNA which have letter code of G,A,T,C. In every person have different finger prints for special person's identification. All these things have not yet known on ancient times. The number 1 trillionaire in the world cannot buy even a single minute as an extension for his life. You don't believe in God because you don't see Him but you believe that there is an air. You only believe of what your senses have. But you don't think who made everything you have seen and unseen. You don't know that nothing will exist from nothing. The computer will not exist if there is no man who created it. It is very clear that all your arguments base from nothing that is why your way of reasoning is nothing!!!
loveu157

Con

*facepalm*

my opponent has used incorrect data. you can prove the existence of air. If you take a vacuum and suck up all air from a certain area sound won't be able to travel. so yes air does exist. you are still using your personal beliefs with makes this a hard debate. I don't believe what i scene because I need PROOF. You have failed to prove anything in this argument, and when you try to all your details are wrong. You have only used one source to gather information, and You have accused me of not knowing things.

Obvious decision.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dont-out-of-line.1 3 years ago
dont-out-of-line.1
I laughed at this one
Posted by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
it was fun though
Posted by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
this was a strange debate
Posted by Skynet 3 years ago
Skynet
I might debate you on this....if you completed the debate. As of right now you joined 27 minutes ago. I've debated too many first timers who bail before the end. I don't know you, but I don't know if you'll stay to finish what you started.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
yansmilloveu157Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets the argument points because he did not use pure subjectivity and unproven information to form his arguments and rebuttals. I give con the grammar point because he had better sentence structure. I was disappointed with Pro. Sorry.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
yansmilloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: You both kind of grumped me with your inabilities to debate, to be honest. Pro, your temper cost you conduct. Con wins arguments because Pro, carrying burden of proof, failed to completely link his arguments to why that meant they were false preachers. Sources to pro for using scripture. Both of you should direct your arguments to the voter, not to the opponent. You're not here to convince the opponent, you're here to convince the voters.