The Instigator
beanall
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The Catholic faith has the most logical arguments of any other Christian religion

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 2 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 43251
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

beanall

Pro

1st round will be debate acceptance. (I'd really rather my opponent to be of other religion than Catholicism or to have no religion at all)

Last round will be comments about the debate. no further debating after round 4.

This is only my second time debating :D my apologies beforehand if I do something wrong or make the debate unchallenging for my opponent. I will try my best.

Thanks to whomever accepts the debate. I hope that we may learn from each other or at least come to an understanding as to why one believes what the other does!
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

I accept this debate, as I am interested how my opponent is going to present logical arguments on something that is illogical. Regarding my position on religion, I am an atheist

I thank my opponent for this debate opportunity and over to you.
Debate Round No. 1
beanall

Pro

Notice I am arguing that Catholicism is the most logical Christian religion. Therefore my opponent would have to find a Christian religion with more logical teachings.

Argument 1 Purgatory

Catholicism believes in purgatory. Purgatory is a place where souls go when they do not commit sin of great gravity (mortal) but sins of a lesser gravity (venial) or to atone for mortal sins that they have in fact already confessed but have not completely atoned for. Other protestant religions (of my knowledge) do not believe this. they believe that sin is sin. They believe that stealing a car and stealing a penny have the same gravity. obviously this in the real world stealing a car from a poor person and stealing a penny from a millionaire are of two different gravitys. Stealing a car from a poor person would mean much more earthly suffering for that poor person than stealing a penny from a millionaire. Stealing a car from a poor person also means a person would have to overcome more of the "bad" conscience feeling. For example I would have a much more time overcoming the "bad feeling" I would get from stealing a car from an old lady. The "bad feeling" wouldn't be as strong for stealing a penny from a millionaire. Therefore I would have to go out of my way to do something sinful. Also the Catholic church teaches that for something to be mortally sinful three things must be fulfilled. The sin has to be of serious matter, knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong, and full consent of the will. Stealing a car from a poor lady would be obviously a serious matter. However if the person who stole the car was forced to by an outside source then he wouldn't be doing it with full consent of the will. or if he honestly truly believed that it was not a serious matter then he would not commit a mortal sin. It seems only logical that there are certain degrees of sin. If there are certain degrees of sin, then wouldn't in then be completely logical to have certain degrees of punishment? The answer must be yes.

Argument 2 Contraception

In many Protestant religions contraception is accepted. In Catholicism it is not and for good reason. Having kids is a byproduct of sex (as nourishing the body is to eating). The Catholic Church forbids even married couples to have sex unless they are open to having children. As sex's main purpose is not for pleasure (as eating main purpose is not for pleasure). Perhaps we do eat for pleasure sometimes but to be closed to taking in nutrients would be an illness known as bulimia (eating and taking in the pleasure but throwing up after depriving himself of the nutrients). The reason sex even exists in the first place is not for pleasure but for reproduction of our human race so that we may thrive and survive. The Catholic Church then teaches that using someone for pleasure is wrong because it is a selfish act and that the couple may use sex as a mere object of pleasure. Just as people with bulimia use food as an object of pleasure. Also, if a couple were not to be open to the production of children, and then the woman ends up pregnant, it would cause family problems (many times) over the unwanted pregnancy. To not have sex shows a respect for the person and gives you a better sensation during sexual pleasure, just as taking off from cake for an entire year would give you more pleasure than if you ate the cake everyday. (You might want to start wanting a different kind of cake and losing respect for that same kind you eat everyday)

These are two main differences of the Catholic Church over protestant religions. Not to mention the Catholic Church is nearly 1500 years older than any other Church and all other protestant churches stem from the Catholic one (directly or indirectly)

Credits
http://www.catholic.com...
http://wiki.answers.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://answers.yahoo.com...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Thanks to my opponent I will be debating from the Christian Universalism viewpoint as I believe this is the closest Christian viewpoint to Atheism.(1) In fact, I would classify the Christian Universalism view as "atheism in disguise". If my opponent wants me to expand on this view, I would happily oblige in another round. However, I digress lets consider the points my opponent has introduced.

I think it is important to point out that this is meant to be a logical arguments with respect to Christianity. However, where does this logic come from except for human interpretations of the Bible. For this reason, I think it is possible to use the Bible as the source of any logical argument. The problem with this, is that we will see that no one Christian interpretation fits well with the Bible but rather that some fit better than others.

With respect to Purgatory, I am not sure how the idea of sin having differing degrees of severity makes sense. In fact the Bible is very clear on this fact when you look at James 2 versus 10 to 11 which says "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."(2) From this verse we can see that no matter what the law transgressed you are guilty of all. In fact it carries on to equate murder with adultery, however in modern society we would not accept these two crimes as equal. The concept of subjective morality in modern society is what the argument for purgatory is related too, however this is not in line with the scripture.(3) The concept of Universal Salvation as defined by Christian Universalism is more in line with the Bible, as it says that everyone will be united with God after death.(4) As such this concept of universal redemption does not discriminate between sins it allows everyone to be resolved of sins which is in line with all sin been equal.

I disagree with my opponent that contraception should not be allowed, as then the logical conclusion follows that sex should only result in impregnation. So the idea is that sex should not be for pleasure but this goes against the bible which says in Corinthians 1 verse 7 that sex is encouraged; "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."(5) In fact it says to have sex that you should not be tempted to be unchaste (incontinency).(6) This is interesting as this is the exact opposite of what my opponent argues when he says "To not have sex shows a respect for the person and gives you a better sensation during sexual pleasure, just as taking off from cake for an entire year would give you more pleasure than if you ate the cake everyday. (You might want to start wanting a different kind of cake and losing respect for that same kind you eat everyday)". Additionally, the concept of pregnancy is not relevant as contraception can prevent pregnancy. The Christian Unilateralist does not have an official stance on this issue, in fact they hold the following position; "Members are free to believe whatever they want about other issues, and to interpret our shared beliefs in their own personal way".(7)

In closing, I do not think the age of a Church has anything to do with been right. If age was related to been right then as I am older than my opponent, my arguments should naturally be right.

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://www.auburn.edu...
(2) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(3) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(4) http://www.christianuniversalist.org...
(5) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(6) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(7) http://www.christianuniversalist.org...
Debate Round No. 2
beanall

Pro

argument 1

My opponent fails to show me where in the bible is says all sin is equal of severity. The only thing i can take from the bible verse he gave me is that: if he breaks one law he breaks all the laws. Of course this is true even in modern society. If you steal a penny you still break the law as if you had murdered someone, but the severity of your punishment would be different. I will quote a site.
"What James means when he says that whoever fails on one point of the law is guilty of breaking all of it is not that all humans are equally guilty if they sin once--then there would be no difference in the levels of punishment people would receive, yet Jesus says there will be (Lk 12:47-48; cf. Mt 10:15, 11:22-24). What James means is that anyone who breaks one point of the law is guilty of breaking the law itself, of breaking it as an entity. To give an analogy, anyone who breaks one part of a plate is guilty of breaking the plate. He may not have broken every part of it--smashed it into pieces--but he is guilty of breaking the plate as a whole."

Furthermore in 1 John 5:17 he says "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

Other verses in the bible talking about purgatory are: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59). "In which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,"(1 peter 3:19) "Will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32) "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43"45). "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27)

credits
http://www.catholic.com...

Argument 2

I did not say sex should always result in impregnation, but that the family should be open to this result just as one should be open to receiving the nutrients of the food that this person has just eaten (contraception makes this openness impossible). I also did not say sex could not be used for pleasure. I said that the person must be open to impregnation as impregnation is a natural result of sex.

I was explaining how old the Catholic Church was to show how other religions "stem" off of it. Of course our age does not matter but it is the "steming" off that does.

Sorry if I have misinterpreted anything. Thanks for the great conduct.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Thanks to my opponent for an interesting rebuttal.

My opponent has stated I did not show that all sin is of equal severity. This I believe is not true as I showed in my round 2 argument that in fact adultery is considered equal to murder in that it is breaking the law. This example given in the bible is relevant as it is a part of the Bible that discusses the breaking of law and sin. In response, my opponent said that Jesus said that sin does have different severity and quoted several verses which I want to look at.

The first verse Luke 12: 47-48 does not tell us about the severity of sin related to eternal punishment or purgatory. This verse in facts relates ignorance to real life punishment. Consider this example a child or an adult who pushes a baby into a swimming pool and the baby dies. This child is not a murderer as the child cannot understand (ignorant), yet we should reprimand the child. However in the case of an adult, it is considered murder as an adult is not ignorant of what will happen. I think its is relevant to post the verse here from Luke to clarify this position "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."(1)

The verses from Mathew 10: 15 and 11: 22-24 I am not sure how these relates to severity of punishment could my opponent please clarify. Mathew 10: 15 "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."(2) Mathew 11: 22-24 "But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."

The only verse from the bible which possibly hints at the severity of sin is the verse from 1 John 5:17. However, this just means that the sin goes un-repented before the person dies.(3) It does not mean that the sin lasts after death, as this goes against Gods loving nature.

The other verses my opponent gave which he said relate to purgatory I will try respond to as many as possible within the word limit.
Luke 12:59. Is referring to paying money to compensate for a crime, this is related to asking for forgiveness and seeking self punishment.
1Peter 3:19. This verse relates to Jesus going to hell and preaching there. I am not sure though how Jesus giving a sermon in hell relates to purgatory. If anything it seems that Jesus was in hell and that is all there is to it.
1 Corinthians 3:15 states "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." This is true, if your work burns you will suffer loss but you will not be burnt only your work. This does not relate to purgatory.
My opponent has quoted versus from 2 Maccabees 12: 43 -45, however it should be noted that this portion of the Bible is not accepted by all Christian denominations and the Jews.(4) I think it is important that my opponent needs to prove the relevance of this text for all Christian denominations before it can be accepted as proof.

Importantly there is one verse presented that deserves special attention here and it is the verse from Mathew 12:32 "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."(5) This verse relates that if you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit then you will suffer in hell for eternity. This verse means that both me and my opponent are wrong. This denies the existence of Purgatory and hence Catholicism doctrine and this denies the position of Christian Universalism. Do we decide this debate is a draw and ask for the voters to not vote?

Regarding contraception, I am sorry my opponent feels I misinterpreted him. I was just going to the logical conclusion that if sex is meant for procreation then it should only be used for making kids. I agree impregnation is a possible result of sex, however it does not state anywhere in the bible that it should not be avoided. The only reference I can find in the Bible is the reference to Onan not wanting to impregnate his dead brothers wife.(6) God put Onan to death as he was not impregnating he as he was told to do, not because he spilled his seed on the ground. Also, regarding the pleasure concept it was just a logical extension of the say no to contraception argument.

With respect to stemming of from Catholicism thereby making Catholicism more relevant. I think its important to realize that this is another false assumption as not every central stem is correct. In fact some stems have been shown to be wrong and have disappeared while the branches they lead to have refined their positions and flourished. In the 1970s people believed the world was cooling, then in the 1990s people showed the world was warming.(7,8) In fact both of these can be better described by the term climate change which was a branch that came from the stem of the previous conjectures.(9)

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(2) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(3) http://www.gotquestions.org...
(4) http://www.gotquestions.org...
(5) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(6) http://www.openbible.info...
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
beanall

Pro

beanall forfeited this round.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

My opponent has forfeited the last round, as such I extend all arguments.

Back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
beanall

Pro

beanall forfeited this round.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Again my opponent forfeited.

Its a pity as the debate held promise.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Ahem? Purgatory?

The Bible says nothing about Purgatory, it is not even Christian.
Josephus mentioned it, but he was nothing to do with Christianity.
The real fact is, Roman Catholicism is not even really Christian, Jesus did not start, nor condone the Hierarchy or Business model that the Catholic Church created.
The Roman Catholic Church was created by Constantine, not Jesus.
But, beside that all, is the Fact that the Bible concepts of Sin and Evil are entirely Irrational.
There's truly, no such thing as Sin.
Sin does not exist.
Sin is Irrational.
:-D~
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Hmm, Interesting Debate?????

When can one source of Irrationality be more Rational than another source of Irrationality.

The Bible is Utterly Irrational, regardless of which Interpretation is being considered.
All Christian faiths add their own Irrational doctrines into the mix and produce something that is even more Irrational than the Bible. Catholicism is an excellent example of this.
The Pentecostal ( speaking in tongue ) protestant Pseudo-Christian sects are the most Irrational groups on the planet, bar none. Even the Flat Earth Society is far more Rational.

I'm glad Pro isn't citing Anselm's Ontological argument and Thomas Aquinas's proof of God, both those are Extremely Irrational.

So, it's an interesting comparison, but that is all.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Sure. I've actually been wanting to have a debate on the theological soundness of the concept of purgatory for a while now.
Posted by beanall 3 years ago
beanall
Thank you for that insight!! I didn't know that. Perhaps one day we can have a debate lol
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Yes. Most Protestant scholars do.

God prescribes different punishments for different crimes in the Law, implying that some crimes are weightier than others. Also, there are several verses that indicate that some sin is more egregious than others. Here is an incomplete list: http://carm.org...

So while Protestants believe that all sin is damning, we do not (generally) believe that all sinners are equally guilty or that all the of those condemned will have equal punishment in hell.
Posted by beanall 3 years ago
beanall
1. okay I did not know. Every one I have debated with in the past was for contraception.

2. Then you agree that it would be logical to have different levels of punishment?
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
@Guidestone Only because Pro did.

@beanall 1. Some Protestants do consider birth control to be immoral.

2. Just because Protestants do not believe in purgatory does not mean that we believe all sins to be of equal weight.
Posted by beanall 3 years ago
beanall
Thanks for any tips. I selected these two because it seems to me like these are two big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I know there are several other key differences but I have debated about these two issues and have greater knowledge about these two than the several others.
Posted by Guidestone 3 years ago
Guidestone
@OtakuJordan

You make it sound as if all protestant religions believe the same thing.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
You need to brush up a bit on your Protestant theology.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
beanalliamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Well, the forfeits definitely don't help, but it seemed like Con's last arguments were really heavily responsive to Pro's points. So long as Pro doesn't provide any response whatsoever, it's difficult to find any reason to support his points, which don't come off as that logical to begin with.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
beanalliamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Double forfeit with a lot of dropped arguments.