Catholics VS Protestants Debate Thread

[Crossless2.0]

·        If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?

Why did he wait [x] years before showing somebody how to build a camera? I mean, man, imagine how many followers he'd have if we had photo evidence of the walking on water.

. . . or -- I don't know -- maybe dying and being resurrected. You know, the little stuff.

Oh, but if we had that, there wouldn't be any need for faith!

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. It's called evidence.

[Catholic_Lady]

Why did he wait [x] years before showing somebody how to build a camera? I mean, man, imagine how many followers he'd have if we had photo evidence of the walking on water.

. . . or -- I don't know -- maybe dying and being resurrected. You know, the little stuff.

Oh, but if we had that, there wouldn't be any need for faith!

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. It's called evidence.

I dunno... I think even if it was caught on tape, skeptics would still say it was a trick or w/e. I don't think anything would be evidence enough.

[Aegon]

. . . or -- I don't know -- maybe dying and being resurrected. You know, the little stuff.

Oh, but if we had that, there wouldn't be any need for faith!

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. It's called evidence.

I dunno... I think even if it was caught on tape, skeptics would still say it was a trick or w/e. I don't think anything would be evidence enough.

If Jesus Christ magically invented a camera on the spot in 20something A.D. Jerusalem, I think he would be universally worshipped to this day.

[Crossless2.0]

. . . or -- I don't know -- maybe dying and being resurrected. You know, the little stuff.

Oh, but if we had that, there wouldn't be any need for faith!

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. It's called evidence.

I dunno... I think even if it was caught on tape, skeptics would still say it was a trick or w/e. I don't think anything would be evidence enough.

There's healthy, reasonable skepticism, and there's skepticism that is indistinguishable from obstinate idiocy. I like to think I'm on the side of the former.

Of course, this is a moot point as regards Christianity because the "Supreme Being" and creator of the universe didn't think leaving credible evidence of THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT EVER was all that important. Lol.

[ApeNotKillApe]

The problem more being that even if it was proven he walked on water, that wouldn't automatically prove the credibility of the other miracles, in the same way that even if he did rise from death to ascend to heaven as described, that doesn't mean he ever turned water into wine, even if he was capable of it. If the other miracles were proven to be genuine, that still wouldn't prove that his claims of divinity were true. And even if it was proven he was indeed divine, that still wouldn't prove the truth of his message.

[abaris]

Intriguing concept, though I'm personally not interested in debating with our brothers, the protestants.

What is a protestant in your opinion? It's certainly something very different in Europe than the abundance of protestant denominations in America. Some of them I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and it's more than fair to compare them to the Taliban. In Europe protestants are mainstream in their vast majority, and in most cases more liberal than the Catholics as far as social issues are concerned. Can't say the same about America though.

And, personal caveat, that OP guy isn't real. At least not in the sense of what he pretends to be.

[Catholic_Lady]

Intriguing concept, though I'm personally not interested in debating with our brothers, the protestants.

What is a protestant in your opinion? It's certainly something very different in Europe than the abundance of protestant denominations in America. Some of them I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and it's more than fair to compare them to the Taliban. In Europe protestants are mainstream in their vast majority, and in most cases more liberal than the Catholics as far as social issues are concerned. Can't say the same about America though.

And, personal caveat, that OP guy isn't real. At least not in the sense of what he pretends to be.

A protestant is simply a Christian who is not Catholic. Some of them here in the US are very liberal, others are uber conservative. It's pretty diverse.

[Minimalist]

Until some catholick picks up the gauntlet I guess we can have some fun with this.

[brewer]

OK sugar tits, er........ Eddy Baby, um.......... Edward.

Catholics place aborted fetuses on altars as a prop for political gain. 

Game/set/match! Winner, winner, transubstantiation dinner.

[Huggy Bear]

Welcome to the Catholic VS Protestant Discussion Thread on atheist forum! This thread is all about debating which form of Christianity is true, Catholic or Protestant. Feel free to discuss any topic relating to Catholicism or Protestantism(all denominations 33,000+ Welcome!)for or against arguments.
I Catholic will start this off. Questions Catholics usually ask protestants. There’s more to it than just these.
·        If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?
·        If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
·        Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?  The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
·        Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
·        Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)
·        some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)? 5) Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?
·        If the meaning of the Bible is so clear—so easily interpreted—and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, then why are there over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
·        If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
·        Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority? Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?
·        If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?

Give me some time to respond, pretty busy the rest of today, should have my reply by sometime tomorrow.