The Instigator
Proving_a_Negative
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
danzchen7
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does the Christian god send aborted babies to hell?

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...
Proving_a_Negative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 69805
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (5)

 

Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Closing Statement

The NIV Bible says that aborted babies do go to hell. My opponent will argue that it doesn't.

Rules:
1. Assume god exists.
2. Must use NIV Bible.
3. BoP is shared.
danzchen7

Con

I accept. I want Con to give me the verse(s) from the NIV Bible regarding aborted babies, because other translations of the Bible, particularly the KJV that I use, do not say such things so clearly.

I also have to correct Con on something: God doesn"t send anyone to hell. According to the Christian doctrine, you send yourself to hell by not being 100% responsible for all your sins, not accepting the breadth of God by refusing the validity of baptism or refusing to get baptized, and not accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
Debate Round No. 1
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
God clearly says here that sinning leads to death. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Those who sin and haven't received the gift of god go to hell. The gift of god is presumable his one and only son. Unborn babies don't have the cognitive ability to believe in his son, even if the child somehow was hearing the gospel from the outside world.

Psalm 51:5 says, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." The moment you are conceived, god sees you as sinful.

There must be some sort of grace period right? If there was one, I haven't found it ever mentioned in the Bible. God never states something like, "After age 6, you are accountable for your sins." If you do state that such a thing exists, please point it out in the NIV Bible. Thank you and good luck.
danzchen7

Con

Indeed you are correct. The wage of sin is death-
Death in this world.

I. The Bible does not say anything about abortion because the Bible already states that any sort of ending a life on purpose is murder, therefore a sin (it can be forgiven).
However, since today we do have abortion, this is indeed a more difficult situation, particularly regarding where the unborn go.
The unborn never reach any kind of situation mentally where they can make a decision about Christ. And God will not hold the unborn accountable when they can"t mentally understand their own condition; they do not bear the knowledge of good or evil (although they are born with the natural instinct to do so).
Like anyone who cannot make the decision, they are most likely covered by the Lord in ascension to Heaven.

Those who are aborted "suffer".
"Christ suffered" He let God, the One who judges rightly take care of him (I Peter 2:23)"
From this verse, we understand that God will judge rightly for those who suffer. I do not believe God what close the gates of Heaven to the unborn.

II. This is what the Bible says about heaven:
Then the blind people will see again, and the deaf will hear. Crippled people will jump like the deer, and those who can't talk now will shout with joy (Isaiah 35:5,6).
He (God) will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, sadness, crying, or pain, because all the old ways are gone (Revelation 21:4).

I"d say ascension to Heaven would be the ultimate curing and rebirth for aborted children, so it"d be reasonable to send the unborn to Heaven, just like the mentally ill and other cases.

III. In 2 Samuel 12, we learn about how David had an affair with Bathsheba, in which he had commited adultery with because Bathsheba was the wife of another man. Bathsheba had concieved a child of David. David was informed by a Hebrew prophet, Nathan, that the child was born of sin, and will die before birth. Indeed this happened.
Then when asked about the situation, David replied:
"Now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."
(2 Samuel 12:23)
In the last sentence, David indicates that he would go to wherever the baby went in the afterlife.
In Psalm 23:6, we are assured that David would ascend to Heaven.
Therefore, the unborn child probably went to Heaven, since he supposedly shared the same fate as David as spoken by him.

IV. The Old Testament believers did not require salvation (especially since it did not exist yet), and entered Heaven anyways. Only after Jesus came, the sinful had to recieve salvation. Since it is impossible for an unborn to recieve salvation, just like it is impossible for the Pre-Jesus believers to, the Old Testament ways should apply to the unborn.

V. Victims of abortion might fall under the category of a martyr, because they have shed their blood for the benefit of others when people have rejected them. All martyrs ascend to His kingdom.

My last point is more reliant on faith: I believe Jesus will not close Himself from the innocent young whom were sent to judgment for another man or woman"s sin.
Debate Round No. 2
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Rebuttal

"The Bible does not say anything about abortion because the Bible already states that any sort of ending a life on purpose is murder, therefore a sin (it can be forgiven). However, since today we do have abortion, this is indeed a more difficult situation, particularly regarding where the unborn go. The unborn never reach any kind of situation mentally where they can make a decision about Christ. And God will not hold the unborn accountable when they can"t mentally understand their own condition; they do not bear the knowledge of good or evil (although they are born with the natural instinct to do so). Like anyone who cannot make the decision, they are most likely covered by the Lord in ascension to Heaven.Those who are aborted 'suffer'. 'Christ suffered' He let God, the One who judges rightly take care of him (I Peter 2:23) From this verse, we understand that God will judge rightly for those who suffer. I do not believe God what close the gates of Heaven to the unborn.
"

This is a nonsensical argument. The passage, I Peter 2:23 says, "When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly." It doesn't support any of his argument, which was just composed of random assertions.

"This is what the Bible says about heaven: Then the blind people will see again, and the deaf will hear. Crippled people will jump like the deer, and those who can't talk now will shout with joy (Isaiah 35:5,6). He (God) will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, sadness, crying, or pain, because all the old ways are gone (Revelation 21:4). I"d say ascension to Heaven would be the ultimate curing and rebirth for aborted children, so it"d be reasonable to send the unborn to Heaven, just like the mentally ill and other cases."

These passages don't tell who gets to go to heaven. It only states what the people in heaven will experience. Once again, those who get to go to heaven are people who believe in god's son, according to John 3:16. That implies that those who do not believe in his son, for any reason, will not go to heaven and will in turn go to hell.

"In 2 Samuel 12, we learn about how David had an affair with Bathsheba, in which he had commited adultery with because Bathsheba was the wife of another man. Bathsheba had concieved a child of David. David was informed by a Hebrew prophet, Nathan, that the child was born of sin, and will die before birth. Indeed this happened. Then when asked about the situation, David replied: 'Now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.' (2 Samuel 12:23) In the last sentence, David indicates that he would go to wherever the baby went in the afterlife. In Psalm 23:6, we are assured that David would ascend to Heaven. Therefore, the unborn child probably went to Heaven, since he supposedly shared the same fate as David as spoken by him."

I give credit where credit is due. This was a well supported argument that I had a lot of trouble with, however, it isn't flawless. Perhaps he was referring to the baby's grave. Families were usually buried together in that time. "The one thing expressed most clearly by Israelite burial practices is the common human desire to maintain some contact with the community even after death, through burial in one's native land at least, and if possible with one's ancestors. "Bury me with my fathers," Jacob's request (Gen. 49:29), was the wish of every ancient Israelite. Thus, the aged Barzillai did not wish to go with David, "that I may die in mine own city, [and be buried] by the grave of my father and of my mother" (II Sam. 19:38)" I got that quote directly from this source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... David may have been just saying it's pointless to grieve over the death of a loved one since you can't change the past.

Another Problem with this is that David could have been delusional. He may have convinced himself that the baby was in heaven to deal with the depression. People in the Bible are known to say blatant lies. Some examples are Genesis 27:19 which says, "Jacob said to his father, 'I am Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game, so that you may give me your blessing”' and Genesis 39:17 which says, "Then she told him this story: 'That Hebrew slave you brought us came to me to make sport of me.'" The last one is a bit confusing to spot the lie out of context. It is the story of Potifar's wife trying to frame Joseph for rape. To find more occurrences of lies in the Bible, check out this: http://chestertonwilde.hubpages.com... As we can see, people don't always tell the truth, so we can't be sure David was either.

"The Old Testament believers did not require salvation (especially since it did not exist yet), and entered Heaven anyways. Only after Jesus came, the sinful had to receive salvation. Since it is impossible for an unborn to recieve salvation, just like it is impossible for the Pre-Jesus believers to, the Old Testament ways should apply to the unborn."

This is an unsubstantiated claim. We need evidence. People often dispute how the Old Testament believers were saved. It is most likely that those who believed in the promise of the savior would be saved. I have no evidence for this, but neither do you.

"Victims of abortion might fall under the category of a martyr, because they have shed their blood for the benefit of others when people have rejected them. All martyrs ascend to His kingdom. My last point is more reliant on faith: I believe Jesus will not close Himself from the innocent young whom were sent to judgment for another man or woman"s sin."

This is exactly what we are debating. You can't argue that your stance is correct because you have faith it is.

Thanks for another interesting round and good luck.

References

1. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
2. http://chestertonwilde.hubpages.com...
danzchen7

Con

danzchen7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Conclusion

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited a round. After analysing all my rebuttals and arguments, I see no need to reinforce any of them in this closing statement. Thank you for a good debate con.
danzchen7

Con

danzchen7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
Yup same.
Posted by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
FaustianJustice
I reported the "2nd" vote I made, chalked it up as a computing glitch.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
============================================
>Vote report: Lexus // Moderator decision: no action appropriate

[*Vote report*] The user who reported this instructed me to look at the comments section.

[*Reason for no action*] From what I can see, there is a disagreement over Lexus refusing to award argument points (deciding this was a tie). Moderators do not force voters to award points, so we don't review a decision *not* to award points.
=============================================
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
I removed the photos since it was breaking a conduct rule according to Airmax, since it was a PM between Lexus and me. My point still stands though that this vote should be tossed. In response to Lexus's comment regarding the RFD, I have a rebuttal.

"Maybe he got it from a different place (either further in the NIV bible or in a different one)"

He didn't show us the source. He therefore had no evidence. We can't assume he did. I need to see the passage in order to refute in my debate. If it wasn't in the NIV Bible, it doesn't count at all. In the rules it states that if the Bible is quoted, it must be from the NIV Bible.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
I have added a photo album in my profile showing the conversation between me and Lexus. This is enough evidence I believe.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
I have this quote from Lexus which should immediately result in the removal of Lexus's vote. "I have no obligation as a voter to actually think about those rules unless you specifically say that a rule was broken, which I did not say." Honestly, I think that is worthy of losing voting privileges forever. You shouldn't be allowed to monitor debates simply after stating that. I will screenshot the evidence.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
My vote is based on the argumentation that he employed. I understand that he broke rules, and I would give you conduct points for that, but I already have for the FF, it's not a possibility to add even more points.
His claim shows that fetuses go to Heaven because all sufferers are judged equally by God and are admitted into Heaven. If a fetus suffers, then it goes into Heaven, and con proved that they do suffer.
You do not adequately refute this at all, you just shrug it off as "different passage, so I won't refute your claim, just where it came from". Maybe he got it from a different place (either further in the NIV bible or in a different one), but this is a breach in sourcing rules, so pro gets sources.
My RFD is justified
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
Lexus's vote gives points to Con for arguments. His RFD is that the suffering argument was good enough to disprove the resolution. In that argument, Con failed to substantiate the claim which was composed of random assertions based off of one Bible passage that wasn't even relevant to the topic. I pointed out in the next round all that I have just said. Lexus gave him points for this assuming "He was using a different Bible." This is a horrible reason because A: He didn't give evidence for the claim still and B: Rules state that you must use the NIV Bible. Please remove Lexus's vote
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
Copy and Paste this if you don't believe the character count:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you knew how to comprehend what I was saying, I'd debate you, but because of your lack of comprehension, it would be to easy, I need an actual challenge.

If you can't understand that an infant does not know what sin is, then you don't know the Bible. Your telling me that as soon as an infant is born, it'll going to go pick up a gun and kill someone because it will know right from wrong?

Infants do not know what sin is. They do not know right from wrong. They do not know what good and evil is. If they did, they pick up a gun or a bible at birth. You don't understand our book, if you did, you'd know what sin is!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Again, here you go: http://www.lettercount.com...
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
By the way, here are your logical fallacies and unsubstantiated claims in that last comment just to show how ridiculous you are:

"If you knew how to comprehend what I was saying, I'd debate you, but because of your lack of comprehension, it would be to easy, I need an actual challenge."

Ad hominem (and perhaps poisoning the well)

"If you can't understand that an infant does not know what sin is, then you don't know the Bible. Your telling me that as soon as an infant is born, it'll going to go pick up a gun and kill someone because it will know right from wrong?"

Straw man

"Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreouer, your litle ones, which ye said should be a pray, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge betweene good and euil, they shall goe in thither; and vnto them will I giue it, and they shall possesse it."

Cherry picking

"Infants do not know what sin is. They do not know right from wrong. They do not know what good and evil is."

3 back to back unsubstantiated claims THAT AREN'T EVEN ABOUT THE TOPIC BTW LOL

"You don't understand our book, if you did, you'd know what sin is!"

False dichotomy (and possibly more ad hominem)

TOTAL STUPIDITY: 7(+2 sort of debatable) Logical Fallacies/Unsubstantiated claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nappa: Vegeta, what does the scouter say about his power level?
Vegeta: It's over 9000! *scouter explodes*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just for the fun of it, I counted the total # of characters in your post. I didn't include the quote though.

# of Characters: 623 (Proof: Copy and paste my next post onto this site: http://www.lettercount.com...

Think about this. Every 70 times (623/9=69.222...) you brainlessly click your keyboard, you probably have created yet another logical fallacy. *mind blown*
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Proving_a_Negativedanzchen7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Proving_a_Negativedanzchen7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
FaustianJustice
Proving_a_Negativedanzchen7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Condocut due to FFs, Pro's case also was more grounded in the text of the source, where as Con seemed to take a much more interpretive (sp) stance. Con's assertions were also demonstrated in some instances to be irrelevant to the case at hand.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Proving_a_Negativedanzchen7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - a double forfeiture was made, thus I have to provide pro conduct | Args - Con's argument that "all sufferers shall be judged rightly by God" severely outweigh's pro's argument that because fetuses have no cognitive ability, they cannot accept Jesus into their hearts. This is because, yes, they may not be able to accept Jesus and thus redeem themselves that way, they will be judged by God for their suffering and will be allowed into Heaven. If they are allowed to get into Heaven one way, then con wins, and he has proved that there is at least one way that they can get into Heaven. Basically, he has said that all babies are judged by God for their suffering and are sent to Heaven, which is a dichotomy from Heaven and Hell, and thus they can't go to Hell. However, they did not properly use the NIV bible or cite it correctly, per the rules, so I cannot give con args. Args tied.| Sources - Con apparently didn't use the NIV bible, or properly source it, so pro gets sources.
Vote Placed by Reeseroni 1 year ago
Reeseroni
Proving_a_Negativedanzchen7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff and Con fails to refute Pro's arguments and thus fails to uphold the shared BoP.