The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
enclave101
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

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 5 votes the winner is...
enclave101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 32326
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church".

you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years.

the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes.

note:

-this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference.
-since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years.
-also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation.
-there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc
enclave101

Con

I will accept the challenge.

Now, you said that you would rather not use the bible so I will not use the bible , but you must know that the religious book of a religion that is being debated on is a big factor.
I will start with this: The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself.
That is the biggest contradiction that the Pope could have. Again, you would rather not use the religious book that this religion is based on.

As I have said, it will be VERY hard to debate religion if we do not use the basis for that religion...which is the whole point for that religion. The fact you don't want to use it and then go on to exclude other huge aspects of Catholicism ("in this debate, I am not counting the issues of limbo, or no salvation outside the catholic church".) tells me you are trying to defend your position by taking out the basis for any argument to be made."you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years." John Paul II contradicted the fact that only Catholics can be saved. You basically say, "the Catholic church has not contradicted itself so I challenge someone to say otherwise...but you can't use this certain contradiction against me." That defeats the WHOLE purpose of the debate. Again, I'm not using this as an argument against you...I'm just pointing this out to show you why you can't pick and choose things like that in a debate. I thought one who held to the bible was one who seeks truth? Yet it seems you try to run from it and mold it into whatever you want it to be.I am diverting from the topic, I apologize. But I feel those were very valid points to make.

I have stated my argument: The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

why are you copy and pasting another person's argument? see the comment section.
especially since it took so long to get to the point in that debate. please get to the point and stop beating around the bush.
enclave101

Con

alright than I will.

Your stupid for thinking the catholic church has not had a contradiction in 2000 years. for starters the catholic priests are called fathers ex. the name father john. when it clearly states that no one should use the father for he is in heaven and that statement was made by a priest.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you are being too literal with the prohibition on "father". first, that is a practice, not a doctrine. and second, we have to look at it as less literal. Jesus meant not to call people father as if they are God etc. here are some father son verses from the New Testametn.
"I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul"s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
"But Timothy"s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
"To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13"14).
plus if you were to take the verse as literally as you could, that would mean you cant even call your own dad, father, which everyone does. and it'd be ridiculous to expect otherwise

that argument has been used before (again in a way violating the rules). I have debated this topic many times, and if you are curious, you can read all my replies in my profile.

also calling someone stupid in the same sentence as you are misspelling words doesn't make you look good. "your stupid" (right after using the wrong form of then and than

id much rather stick to the rules of the debate.
I suppose if you have more rule violating objections, I will entertain them for your benefit, knowledge.
enclave101

Con

You said we were not able to use the bible in our argument so half of your response is illegal according to your rules. Also I did not go through all of your previous debates on the same topic I only went through the one, its kind of hard to find a point in time which the catholic church said a contradiction when you have had over 5 debates on the same topic. So I will come up with a new argument.

Some things pope John Paul II has said that are contradictions are is.

1. People can be saved by living a good moral life, without knowing anything about Christ and the Catholic Church.
2.There is sanctification outside the Catholic Church.
3.The martyrs of any religious community can find the extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit.

Also a pointer for your future arguments on the same topic: learn to start sentence with capital letters, also if you want to nitpick about your spelling I can go on you 26 year old washed up community college dropout.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
stealing another person's initial post was trite.
trying to make a statement that was trite. if you have something to say, just say it. if you want to argue the father point in violation fo the rules, go for it. if you want to say we should be able to use the bible, go for it.
im also willing to debate the catholic church v the bible if you really want, start the debate. It will simply show you I was right all along that the bible is too open to interpretation, and id contend show you there are no obvious violations of the bible.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
I only used the bible after you already did. I told you not to but you did anyway. I told you to say what you are going to say, and I will entertain it. if we change the rules so that you can use the bible, I don't see why it's out of line for me to not use it in response. you can use the bible, and then i'm suppose to use outside bible sources to show how there's nothing wrong? no one would accept outside sources from the bible anyway.

you also can't stand on substance, so you have to try to find a way to win on technicality, the fact that I responded to your bible verse with a bible verse. ? I won the debate on substance as the bible clear has examples where it was okay to use "father".

you have issues because you seem unstable, normal people don't call others stupid when they are simply trying to have a debate, say things like "I have issues????" with all the question marks etc. just to name a few.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
I only used the bible after you already did. I told you not to but you did anyway. I told you to say what you are going to say, and I will entertain it. if we change the rules so that you can use the bible, I don't see why it's out of line for me to not use it in response. you can use the bible, and then i'm suppose to use outside bible sources to show how there's nothing wrong? no one would accept outside sources from the bible anyway.

you also can't stand on substance, so you have to try to find a way to win on technicality, the fact that I responded to your bible verse with a bible verse. ? I won the debate on substance as the bible clear has examples where it was okay to use "father".

you have issues because you seem unstable, normal people don't call others stupid when they are simply trying to have a debate, say things like "I have issues????" with all the question marks etc. just to name a few.
Posted by enclave101 3 years ago
enclave101
I have issues????? Your the one who used the bible first and than blammed me for what you did???
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i only used the bible cause it was obvious enclave was going to use the bible, and did.

he has issues, insecurity maybe, i dont know. based on the lack of intelligence of his posts, that is probably the case.
Posted by candid_atheist 3 years ago
candid_atheist
How many times are you going to try and debate this subject dairygirl4u2c ...?

This is well over the 5th time you've tried..
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
Is enclave101 the same as Slenderman. He uses the same arguments and style.
http://www.debate.org...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Volk23 3 years ago
Volk23
dairygirl4u2cenclave101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This is some pretty lazy crap, I have to say. CON's initial contradiction claim doesn't make sense and isn't warranted, but the ridiculous standards set up by PRO don't give him much to work with. However, inasfar as the PRO excludes Biblical argumentation at the top of the case, the CON's move with the "father" contradiction is ill-advised. There are plenty of ways to go about finding contradictions in the Catholic Church, even under the myopic view of the PRO's construction. So in the end I go CON, but basically only by presumption.
Vote Placed by yuiru 3 years ago
yuiru
dairygirl4u2cenclave101Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This guys grammar and conduct could have been bottoms and would've won.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
dairygirl4u2cenclave101Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Protest vote.
Vote Placed by bazinga390 3 years ago
bazinga390
dairygirl4u2cenclave101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Con said some.. offensive things, he still gets conduct. Pro broke her own rules when using the bible. s/g goes to Con. I suggest Pro finds the shift key.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
dairygirl4u2cenclave101Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because pro first insisted that her opponent not use the bible, and than used it herself. Arguments, pro used the same arguments of hers that were refuted previously in the same way con just did. s/g to con, as con managed to discover the shift key.