The Instigator
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does Heaven and Hell exist?

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,007 times Debate No: 85455
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

PowerPikachu21

Con

I argue that it is unlikely that Heaven and Hell exist.

Definitions:

Heaven; The place ruled by God, where it is said that if you're a good person, you get rewarded with Heaven.

Hell; Ruled by Satan. It is said that if you are a criminal, and/or you sinned a lot, you will be eternally punished in Hell.

Exists; to have objective reality or being.

Rules:

1. No trolling, kritiks, semantics, etc.
2. Burden of Proof is shared. Con's duty is to show that it's unreasonable Heaven and Hell exist. Pro must show reason to believe in a Heaven and Hell.
3. Forfeiting 2 rounds counts as an automatic loss.
4. Posting arguments in Round 1 will count as an automatic loss.

Round Outline:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Constructive arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and defenses
Round 4: Rebuttals and defenses
Round 5: Closing arguments

If there's anything you want clarified or added, let me know.
harrytruman

Pro

I will first clarify, whose version of hell are we talking about? Whether Hell and Heaven exist is based entirely on what hell and heaven exists. Let"s look at a few versions of hell and heaven shall we?

Your definitions of hell most match the Judaism version, but Satan does not rule hell, not in Christianity, not in Judaism. According to scripture, Satan is in Sh'ol, which is basically, according to Isaiah 14, a deep dark pit full of gross worms and maggots. The actual version of hell, according to Judaism, is two hells, the first being more like a purgatory, everyone go through it, and basically what it does is it "burns" the bad parts of your character (soul) out of you, leaving only the good parts, but if you are totally an evil person, there will be nothing left of you, hence you are destroyed. The other hell in Judaism is a place that people go to that is rule my demonic entities, but not Satan, who would be in Sh'ol, getting punished for all the destruction he did to mankind.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com...
The Christian version of hell, is very different, according to the New Testament, if you are evil, you go into I guess some kind of "temporary hell", which there is apparently two of. According to Revelation 20:13:
"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done."
This proves that you are sent to hell or heaven according to your works, but that is a different debate, with a Christian. Anyway, according to this, there is both a Hades hell, where there is burning and pain for, well, until judgement day, then there is another hell, called the sea. This has its roots in Judaism where they believe that demons are trapped under water, maybe under rivers, or in the depths of the sea. This may also be the root of the belief in Davy Jones Locker depths of the sea. Anyway, this is referred to by Jesus here: Mark 9:48:
"Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched."
My theory is that the flames he is referring to are black smokers, and the worms are Giant Tube Worms. Then there is the final hell, where basically the wicked get destroyed.

According to Sikhism, hell and heaven are a little different, they apparently believe in a fiery pit, but the specifics are not mentioned. Except that if you worship a man rather than God you go into a fiery pit, the main theory here is that that is the only way you go to hell, anything else, you just get reincarnated for all eternity, which is their version of hell, can you imagine? Think of it, what if you are born a bacteria, and you die every day and are reincarnated as a bacteria! Whereas their heaven is basically, you stop getting reincarnated and, go up with God, I guess.

Buddhism shares the same concept as Sikhism, except minus the fiery pit and God, in Buddhism, when you reach "enlightenment" you stop getting recycled for all of eternity. Whereas in Sikhism, you stop getting reincarnated for all of eternity when you "achieve salvation", which, according to Sikhism, is Enlightenment.
Debate Round No. 1
PowerPikachu21

Con

I thank Pro for accepting this debate, and we'll get right into this.

Summary of Burdens:

Before I start my arguments, I want to make something clear. My burden is to suggest "It is unreasonable to believe in Heaven/Hell", not that it just doesn't exist, as "evidence isn't evidence of absence". I will be showing a logical reason to assume my position.

Pro's burden is "It is reasonable to assume Heaven/Hell exists". He is not required to show a photograph or anything like that.

Obversation:

I'm not entirely sure if Pro made his arguments in Round 1, or just really wanted a better definition of Hell. I'm going to assume he wants a better definition of Hell. Hell will basically be "A fiery pit where criminals are eternally punished. God sends sinning mortals to Hell after they've died" from now on.

And now, for my argument.

Argument:

Point 1: Can we reach heaven?

In order to reach Heaven, the following criteria are needed:

- You must believe in Christ
- You must pay for your sins
- You must obey the word of God (Which is basically, believe in God, and don't sin)

Criteria 1; Belief in Christ

This is a bit cruel of criteria. It's difficult to fully believe in something you haven't believed in beforehand. Many people are athiests (don't believe in religion), and they don't let up easily. Chances are, you can't change an athiest without a) concrete evidence of God, b) a good motive to obey god, and c) a way for the athiest to make up for his 15 or so years of non-belief. By that time, it's probably too late.

Criteria 2; Sinning

We have all sinned, according to the bible; "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Heaven is said to be a reward. However, how does one reach which can't be reached? Besides, it's within our own nature to sin. No matter the good deeds we do, it doesn't make up for our nature.

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isaiah 64:6) According to this verse, our good deeds mean nothing. We see these deeds are moral, yet it isn't God's command in which we do these things.

Criteria 3; Obeying God

Alas, this, too, is impossible. How can we obey God if we can't hear him? There's no amount of prayer that can reach to God, to have Him tell you what is truly moral, unless Pro can prove a way to reach for God, and follow his commands. However, it would be too late. Again, every mortal has sinned, and there is no way to make up for it.

With that, I'll hand the debate over to Pro.
harrytruman

Pro

"Before I start my arguments, I want to make something clear. My burden is to suggest "It is unreasonable to believe in Heaven/Hell", not that it just doesn't exist, as "evidence isn't evidence of absence". I will be showing a logical reason to assume my position."

"Pro's burden is "It is reasonable to assume Heaven/Hell exists". He is not required to show a photograph or anything like that."

That would be difficult to get you.

I'm not entirely sure if Pro made his arguments in Round 1, or just really wanted a better definition of Hell. I'm going to assume he wants a better definition of Hell. Hell will basically be "A fiery pit where criminals are eternally punished. God sends sinning mortals to Hell after they've died" from now on."

I wanted to clarify what you mean by hell and heaven, but OK.

"In order to reach Heaven, the following criteria are needed:

- You must believe in Christ
- You must pay for your sins
- You must obey the word of God (Which is basically, believe in God, and don't sin)"

This is very inaccurate, the first one is the interpretation of occult pastors, the second makes no sense, and the third one, well, for the most part, you have to try your best to obey the word of God.

"Criteria 1; Belief in Christ

This is a bit cruel of criteria. It's difficult to fully believe in something you haven't believed in beforehand. Many people are athiests (don't believe in religion), and they don't let up easily. Chances are, you can't change an athiest without a) concrete evidence of God, b) a good motive to obey god, and c) a way for the athiest to make up for his 15 or so years of non-belief. By that time, it's probably too late."

Belief in Jesus is something fabricated, the christian pastors are trying to teach the opposite of what the bible teaches, under traditional Judaism, this whole "just have faith" doctrine is absent,m it isn't there, Judaism seems to have been much less so affected by christianity, the way Rabbi Mizrachi described it is "We are not interested in believing, we are interested in knowing", these two videos provide proof of God, I cannot go too much into it as to keep on track here, so I will just provide the links:
http://www.divineinformation.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

"Criteria 2; Sinning

We have all sinned, according to the bible; "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Heaven is said to be a reward. However, how does one reach which can't be reached? Besides, it's within our own nature to sin. No matter the good deeds we do, it doesn't make up for our nature."

This is completely inaccurate, if you read Ezekiel 18, the bible says that if you turn from sin, and try (not succeed, try to succeed), to obey the bible, God will not account the sin to you.

"Criteria 3; Obeying God

Alas, this, too, is impossible. How can we obey God if we can't hear him? There's no amount of prayer that can reach to God, to have Him tell you what is truly moral, unless Pro can prove a way to reach for God, and follow his commands. However, it would be too late. Again, every mortal has sinned, and there is no way to make up for it."

Obey the bible, which is the word of God, all of these things are completely unbiblical, the bible never suggests this, so your debate is utterly flawed.

With that, I'll hand the debate over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
PowerPikachu21

Con

In round 2, Pro only did a rebuttal to my case, and not really making a case of his own. His burdens haven't been fulfilled yet. With that, I'll defend my case.

Defense:

Argument 1 (Introduction)

"This is very inaccurate, the first one is the interpretation of occult pastors, the second makes no sense, and the third one, well, for the most part, you have to try your best to obey the word of God." I will get into these further in my defense.

Criteria 1; Belief in God

"Belief in Jesus is something fabricated, the christian pastors are trying to teach the opposite of what the bible teaches, under traditional Judaism," So basically what you're saying is that belief is irrelevant. This is incorrect, as the following verses suggest:

"John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." [John 3:36]

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." [John 5:12]

I have provided evidence supporting my 1st criteria is valid.

My opponent has said "the first one is the interpretation of occult pastors" But doesn't go into detail on how this is important. My 1st criteria stands.

My opponent presents evidence of God/Creationism. So seeing these videos (might) have an atheist believe in God. However, I still think it would be too late then. Not believing in God is a sin in itself, if I'm not mistaken. If I am, Pro must show a way to make up for this sin.

Criteria 2; Sinning

"the bible says that if you turn from sin, and try (not succeed, try to succeed), to obey the bible, God will not account the sin to you" How do you "turn from sin"? It's within our very nature as man to sin. Are we supposed to turn away from our own lives and... do what, exactly? Pro will have to elaborate a bit for me.

Criteria 3; Obeying God

"all of these things are completely unbiblical," All of what things? All 3 criteria, or just my 3rd one? Pro needs to clarify.

"the bible never suggests this, so your debate is utterly flawed." My debate? You mean all of my criteria are flawed because my 3rd one isn't spoken of? Just because one criteria is flawed doesn't mean my entire position is flawed. My arguments still stand.

Conclusion:

I have successfully defended my case, keeping my Burden of Proof. Pro tried to refute my arguments, yet hasn't fulfilled his own burden yet.

With that, I'll hand it over to Pro.
harrytruman

Pro

"John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." [John 3:36]

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." [John 5:12]

I have provided evidence supporting my 1st criteria is valid."

The gospel of John, I also found this scripture from the Gospel of John:
John:4:
"Woman, what does that have to do with me?"
Is this any way to talk to your mother, it is one of the Ten Commandments that you should honor your father and mother, and this is in a direct violation of that, hence, a sin. Jesus is supposed to be free of sin, so either Jesus is not the Messiah, or the Gospel of John is not credible, chances are you're going to go with the second one, so your verses have proven to be void. If you go with the first, you cannot use any New Testament verses whatsoever. So, what is it, option 1, or option 2?

"My opponent has said "the first one is the interpretation of occult pastors" But doesn't go into detail on how this is important. My 1st criteria stands."

The first claim you made, is not in the bible, it is the interpretation of occult pastors, who proposed this idea, even if it is completely unbiblical.

"My opponent presents evidence of God/Creationism. So seeing these videos (might) have an atheist believe in God. However, I still think it would be too late then. Not believing in God is a sin in itself, if I'm not mistaken. If I am, Pro must show a way to make up for this sin."

It is a sin of mistake, which gets a far less punishment than knowledgeably doing something. But if they have evidence, and they deny the truth anyway, yes, the punishment will be worse. Though you can never fully put the blame on them, they have a biased remember.

"How do you "turn from sin"? It's within our very nature as man to sin. Are we supposed to turn away from our own lives and... do what, exactly? Pro will have to elaborate a bit for me."

God judges your actions on effort, you turn away from sin by trying your best not to sin. When you do, just get up and keep going, that's how. You simply try not to sin, it's that simple.

"All of what things? All 3 criteria, or just my 3rd one? Pro needs to clarify."

All of the doctrines you are bringing up, Christian pastors made it up, God won't punish someone for, not believing in Jesus, what? And definitely not if they never had the chance to hear of him.

"My debate? You mean all of my criteria are flawed because my 3rd one isn't spoken of? Just because one criteria is flawed doesn't mean my entire position is flawed. My arguments still stand."

You are attacking at doctrines that are completely unbiblical to prove you cannot go to heaven. These doctrines are not true, hence attacking them serves no purpose. The way you propose the bible says you get into heaven is actually never even suggested in the bible, save a few verses from completely not credible sources.
Debate Round No. 3
PowerPikachu21

Con

Before I get into this, I'll restate the burdens. My burden is to prove Heaven and Hell are unlikely to exist. I'm disproving Heaven by casting doubt on whether it can be reached or not.

Burden overview:

My opponent's burden is to suggest it is likely that Heaven and Hell exist. My opponent has done nothing of the sort. Instead of making his own arguments for Heaven/Hell, he is attempting to refute my case. However, a lack of "points" on my case doesn't fulfill the need for the opposing case's lack of "points".

Let's say my case is worth 5 points. My opponent refutes my case, leaving me with 2 points. However, my 2 points compared to Pro's 0 points (since he hasn't made a constructive case) still has me winning in the end. So I suggest Pro look up evidence for Heaven to exist.

And now with that out of the way... Defense time!

Defense:

Gospel of John's Credibility [Belief in God]

"Is this any way to talk to your mother, it is one of the Ten Commandments that you should honor your father and mother, and this is in a direct violation of that, hence, a sin."

So? How does that ruin the credibility of my source? Sure, he might've talked rude once (we all have at one point or another) but rudeness and/or sinning has nothing to do with belief in the Lord, only the fact that you have sinned. My point that you require belief still stands!

"Jesus is supposed to be free of sin" Jesus? I thought we were talking about John, not Jesus Christ.
"so either Jesus is not the Messiah (Savior)" I claimed nothing of the sort, and this is just irrelevant.
"or the Gospel of John is not credible" Okay, let's view the argument in this form:

P1: John has been rude to his mother, and sinned
P2: Jesus is supposed to be free of sin
C1: Therefore, either Jesus is not the Savior, or John cannot be trusted

Jesus and John are not the same person, therefore your rebuttal is invalid.

"chances are you're going to go with the second one, so your verses have proven to be void. If you go with the first, you cannot use any New Testament verses whatsoever. So, what is it, option 1, or option 2?"

I'll go with the 3rd option and say that Jesus is the Savior and John can be trusted, since Jesus and John aren't the same person, and have little to do with each other. John never said Jesus committed sin, and Jesus never said that John cannot be trusted.

Occult Pastors;

"The first claim you made, is not in the bible, it is the interpretation of occult pastors, who proposed this idea, even if it is completely unbiblical." So what if I agree with a side? That doesn't mean my argument is invalid, even if it's against the bible. My opponent failed once again to counter my 1st criteria of "You must believe in God to reach Heaven."

Criteria 2, Sinning;

"You simply try not to sin, it's that simple." No, it's not. Even if you avoid murder, drugs, theft, and all that stuff, one fact remains: You are a man. And man's nature is sinning.

Even if you don't do crime, it is your nature which is the true sin. Man have sinned for ages. It is their nature. Pro must present evidence proving that it's that simple. I already have verses that suggest what I'm saying:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

"[L]et God be true, but every man a liar..." ( Romans 3:4)

And no matter what good things we do, "we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." [Isaiah 64:6]

Criteria 3, Obeying God

"All of the doctrines you are bringing up, Christian pastors made it up" Does that make my stance invalid? No, it doesn't.

"God won't punish someone for, not believing in Jesus, what? And definitely not if they never had the chance to hear of him." We won't be punished, sure. But we won't be rewarded either, that's for sure. Since there's no chance we'll be rewarded with Heaven, why think it exists in the first place?

"You are attacking at doctrines that are completely unbiblical to prove you cannot go to heaven." I'm not attacking any doctrines. I'm using verses from the bible to suggest Heaven can't be reached, therefore doesn't exist. What I am attacking, rather, is my opponent's arguments, as a means of keeping my burden in balance.

"These doctrines are not true, hence attacking them serves no purpose." Supposing I am attacking doctrines, those doctrines are being used by Pro; my opponent; henrytruman. He says these doctrines are not true, therefore conceding that his own verses cannot be trusted, hence this debate serves no purpose.

"The way you propose the bible says you get into heaven is actually never even suggested in the bible" So my website I've been using all this time is wrong?

1) Then how come Pro has not presented an alternative?
2) Assuming my verses are faulty, How would one go about proving it?
3) How does one reach Heaven in this case?
4) If Heaven is easy to reach, how about the other point of the debate: Hell? How would one go about proving Hell's existence?

I would like Pro to answer all 4 of my posed questions.

[Here's my site: http://jesus-is-lord.com...]

Here's some things henrytruman must show:

- Does heaven exist? If it does, then how do you reach it?
- Think carefully when answering the above question. Is your argument valid?
- If I don't think it's valid, I'll refute it with ease.

Good luck.
harrytruman

Pro

"My opponent's burden is to suggest it is likely that Heaven and Hell exist. My opponent has done nothing of the sort. Instead of making his own arguments for Heaven/Hell, he is attempting to refute my case. However, a lack of "points" on my case doesn't fulfill the need for the opposing case's lack of "points"."

So you want me to prove it exists, scripture scriptures in this debate, whereas you, in your proving that it does not exist, CAN use scriptures to back this. Meaning, you can use scriptures as evidence, I can't, well this is not fair. If you are allowed to use scriptures in your case, I should be able to use them in mine, and I should not be forced to produce physical evidence as opposed to scriptures, just as you have only come up with scriptures in your debate, I should be expected no more of. So, here is scriptural evidence:

http://www.openbible.info...
Here is the train of logic I am going off of, there is two of them:
LOGIC #1:
1. According to John, Jesus disrespected his mother.
2. Disrespecting your mother/father is a sin
3. According to John, Jesus sinned
4. Jesus is the messiah, and cannot sin.
5. John is wrong about Jesus saying this.
6. The gospel of John cannot be trusted.
7. Your scriptures from John are void.
LOGIC #2:
1. Jesus was rude to his mother.
2. Disrespecting your mother/father is a sin
3. Jesus sinned
4. Jesus, enable to be the savior,cannot sin.
5. Jesus is not the messiah
6. The New Testament is un-credible
7. John, as it is part of the New Testament, is un-credible.
8. Your verses are void because John is void.

Both of these indicate that your verses from John are inaccurate.

Also, there is no third option, regardless of if John said Jesus sinned, he recorded that he said something, that is disrespectful to his mother meaning he sinned. So either Jesus was not the Messiah, which you will not say, or John is flawed, which you are more likely to say, but i which case your scriptures are flawed.

I did rebuttal your point, it goes against the bible and hence it is false.

Humans are subject to sin, but it is not a sin "to be subject to sin", you don't go to court on account of "might have ended up committing a crime but didn't", that is ridiculous. All may have sinned, but you get forgiven of them by trying not to do them, examine these verses:
Ezekiel 18:21-22:
"But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live."

This indicates also, that you can atone for sins through "good deeds."

You are trying to prove heaven does not exist by proving it cannot be reached, and you are proving this with unbiblical doctrines that are not true. Then saying it is from the bible, if I were to come up with a doctrine that said heaven is accessible, it would not prove it is real, the doctrines you propose are irrelevant to this debate and do not discredit my argument in any way.

My verses, these are not my verses my Friend, these are verses that Christian pastors use, they are not mine, considering them, I am beginning to be convinced that Talmid was right about the New Testament, but I won't make up my mind until I have enough evidence to prove it, in case I am wrong.

1) Then how come Pro has not presented an alternative?

To what?

2) Assuming my verses are faulty, How would one go about proving it?

Inaccuracies, morally, historically, and theologically.

3) How does one reach Heaven in this case?

Living a godly life, atoning for sin via good deeds.

4) If Heaven is easy to reach, how about the other point of the debate: Hell? How would one go about proving Hell's existence?

If I can prove God's existence, this will prove hell's existence.
Debate Round No. 4
PowerPikachu21

Con

PowerPikachu21 forfeited this round.
harrytruman

Pro

Harrytruman wins by knockout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: traylzac// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: God

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a word.
************************************************************************
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
There is a very simple explanation, the 2 witnesses rule, which states that there must be two or more witnesses for every matter, also, Jesus did not come to destroy the law, and the law says that there will be no alterations to it, so if something in the Old testament is not in concordance with the new, it is inaccurate, and if anything in the New Testament is not in concordance with the Old, it is wrong, so there must be two verses from the New Testament, and 2 from the Old Testament, if there is no such verses, it is wrong.
So you have to get 2 verses from the Old Testament enable for this mater to be established.
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
@harrytruman

I agree that it's silly and wrong for people to go to Heaven or Hell based on whether or not they accepted Jesus. But this is what the Bible teaches. If you disagree with this, then you disagree with orthodox Christianity. Look at what Paul says in Romans 3: "Righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe . . . We maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
No squonx,
This is completely inaccurate, it hardly takes anything more than a bit of moral compass to tell that this is wrong,
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
An elf truely exist, (called Alf)...And it is not a imagination...
http://www.imdb.com...
Posted by Aayankhan 1 year ago
Aayankhan
Theory of judgment day is true. Heaven and hell surely exist. For information click here http://www.dawateislami.net...
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
There are trolls. Elfs. Monsters. Hells. Unicorns. Dragons. Heavens. Santas and creationism...It is all in your mind and no where else....
Posted by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
@harrytruman 1) if you are conscienceless, you won't be able to be board. That's the up side to not existing. 2) Heaven or He'll are not the only possibilities for an afterlife. There are a lot of possibilities that don't involve being judged for your mistakes on earth, being "forgiven" for those mistakes, and then hanging out with people who went the same church you did. I don't know about you, but there are a lot of "good" people that I cannot stand and a lot of non-Christians that deserve to be in Heaven. I don't how God is deciding who gets in and who doesn't, but I guarantee that not everyone he lets in is going to happy with everyone else he lets in or rejects. That right there is enough to tell me the entire concept of a Heaven is flawed.
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
@harrytruman

Let's look at that verse in context: "Then I saw a great white throne . . . I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done . . . Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

What happens when you accept Jesus? Your name IS found written in the book of life, and the record of your sins is erased. 1 John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." Acts 3:19 says, "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that YOUR SINS MAY BE WIPED OUT, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord." In John 14:6, Jesus says, "No one comes to the father except through me."

According to Christianity: all non-Christians will go to Hell. But, if you're a follower of Jesus, all your sins are forgiven and you'll go to Heaven.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Actually, you do not go to hell or heaven based on if you know about Jesus or not,
Revelation 20:13:
"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done."
See? It is based on how you lived your life.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
PowerPikachu21harrytrumanTied
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: Both of the parties here had bad arguments. The debate became a biblical debate instead of a metaphysical one (which was the required thing if you want to debate if heaven and hell exists). I have to make conduct a tie because, although Pro didn't forfeit any round, He made an arrogant statement at the last round (if he hadn't do that I would have given him the conduct point).