The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnnyBadNews666
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

roman 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 2 votes the winner is...
JohnnyBadNews666
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 31859
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

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.
JohnnyBadNews666

Con

I'm pretty positive that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself before. And if you say they haven't, you can't deny that the Church did spend around 400 years or so murdering, raping, and pillaging vast amounts of people for the simple reasoning of not being a Catholic. That is contradictory to the message of Jesus Christ in itself. And let's not forget how many Catholic Priests have been accused of child molestation, and that's not even mentioning the ones that have been convicted. I'm not the most knowledgeable person there is when it comes to statements that Popes have made, but I'm pretty sure the deeds of the Church as a whole organization are beyond the realm of contradiction to their supposed beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

impeccable v infallible. that is, bad acts of men, are not teaching of the catholic church. it never taught as doctrine that they should have been killed, or that priest should molest or be allowed to or etc etc. even popes can sin... and that churches people can sin too. just like the apostles sinned, yet were able to pin the bible. (which many consider infallible) again, there's a difference ebtween impeccable and infallible.
JohnnyBadNews666

Con

What? These men run their church itself and are supposed to be examples to Catholic followers. I for one do agree with the moral messages presented by Jesus Christ, but for God's sake you can't honestly say that the Catholic church have been the beacon of hope for Christianity and a prime example of how to run a religious organization. Infallible, impeccable, it doesn't matter because the men who were and are in charge of these things RUN THE CHURCH.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

a contradiction in teaching is what must be shown, and you have not shown it.

all you have shown is that the church is full of sinners. as i said... the apostles sinned too. does that mean we dont follow the bible? peter denied Jesus three times... was that a beacon of hope? nope. still read the bible though. and it doesn't have anything to do with contradictions in teachings.

the pope could go on a shooting and raping rampage but it don't change anything. teachings are what matter, do as said, not as done.

it seems like your response is mostly visceral, knee jerk. in response to the crimes of the church.

impeccable v infallible. there's a difference.

a contradiction in teaching is what must be shown, and you have not shown it.
JohnnyBadNews666

Con

The Church claims that the Papal infallibility on limited theological matters does not signify that the Pope was a man specially exempt from liability to sin. Critics claim that this statement is self-contradictory, and I'm one to agree. How do you learn morality from an immoral teacher? You can't because that's bullcrap in the highest degree and surely you have to see that, if not you're blind.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by induced 4 years ago
induced
dairygirl4u2cJohnnyBadNews666Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: con didnt give an example of change in doctrine. the debate never even started
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
dairygirl4u2cJohnnyBadNews666Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither gave sources. Both relied on assumptions. Though Con did give me reason to think that the RCC is contradictry.