catholic church has never contradicted itself

the only point id see you being able to bicker about is the limbo and no salvation points... but I just want to see if there's anything else out there so don't want to limit it to that." Yet in the beginning of the debate you state, "you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years." In the beginning you held to the view that the Catholic church was true because it had not contradicted itself. Now you say that it's possible to point out contradictions using the points you wanted to exclude. What's the point we are debating again? Wasn't this about showing contradiction to show the Catholic church is not true? Now you want to change the point of the debate and say, "I just want to see if there's anything else out there so don't want to limit it to that." If that was the point to the debate to begin with then I would agree with you about not using the points you excluded. But that was not the point of the debate. It's like saying, "If energy drinks helped keep you awake you'd think it would have things in it to help keep you awake...show me what it has? But you can't use the argument of caffeine etc etc." Then later in the debate saying, "Oh I wasn't trying to say that energy drinks don't help you keep awake...I just wanted to see if there was anything else besides those ingredients/chemicals." You changed the whole point of the debate in order to have an excuse for excluding things that prove you wrong. If the point of the debate was that there were other things besides these things that contradict the Catholic church then this would be fine. I don't think you actually know what you want to debate about. "you'd think if it was not true the catholic church, that it have contradicted itself. even beyond limbo and "no salvation outside." An infallible thing only has to contradict once to show it's not infallible. Ok, here's something The Fifth Lateran Council defines Usury as: "For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk". This would have included money (such as interest). The Catholic church now says it does not involve money. To be fair, they say the view has not changed....it is money that has changed. Now, that seemed fishy. Sounds like another way the church can benefit from money. "Hey, it's ok now...money has changed. It's all good." Hmm. Though there are times when they say it is usury like when a rich person takes advantage of a poor person. But wait...that of course is wrong...but how does that all of a sudden label it usury? From how the Fifth Lateran Council defined usury...how does being rich or poor change anything? There's one example. If you would have stated clearly what you wanted at the start of the debate we could have got this thing rolling but from your wording it seemed the point of the debate was to prove the catholic church untrue (without using what you knew could disprove it of course). Next time state the point you actually want to debate about. Don't change the point at the end of the debate.