God does not love you.
Debate Rounds (5)
Here is an example of somebody who understood the terms of this debate and showed himself to be well mannered and civil.
He accepted the rules and ddi not violate in even the slightest way. This is the kind of debate I am looking for. The Con postion for this new debate is against the assertion that God does not love you. As Pro, you will argue that God does not love you. Ahteirstic or agnostic assertions are forbidden for this debate. You can say "God has not proven Himself to me.". "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. For this debate you must allow that it may be possible for God to prove himself to you and it is possible that He is there. Agnosicism insists that you cannot know, Atheism insists there is no God. For this debate, you must allow the possiblilty that God can prove Himseff to you. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Pro, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Pro agrees to forfeit the debate and Con will not be required to supply any further arguments. Pro may ask questions about God, but a rhetorical question that allows only for denial of God's existence is disqualiying and forfeits the debate. Pro must argue how he knows God does not love him or her, and not argue that God is not there or that it is not possible to know God is there.
People often say things like "if God loved me, He would not have allowed bullies to beat me up" or if God loved me, He would not have let my son be killed by a drunk driver" or "if God loved me, He would not have allowed me to be crippled in an accident" These are acceptable arguments. Saying that God has not proven Himself to you because there was a time when only God could help but He did not help is acceptable. Simply saying God has not proven Himself to me with no explanation is acceptable. But saying God cannot be proven because nobody can know that God is there is the agnostic argument and unacceptable in this debate. Saying God is not there is the atheistic argument and is unacceptable in this debate. Saying "I don't know if God is there" is acceptable, but you cannot say "nobody can know God is there" in this debate or you forfeit. Atheism and agnosicism which says you cannot possiblly know God is there or that He absolutely is not there are not allowed in this arguement.
The definition of God is common and will not be argued in this debate.
God is God and any contrary argument is automatic forfeiture.
I look forward to an interesting debate.
God loves you. I am against the idea that God does not love you. God loves you and He wants you to go to heaven. He loves you because you are made in His image. He made you for His own enjoyment, He wants to give you all of His blessings in heaven with so much good for you that you cannot even begin to imagine the good things God has in store for you if you go to heaven. God does not want you to burn in hell. He loves you and He is giving you time, pleading with you to let him save you from the fire of Hell.
ou stated in your comments:
Posted by SkepticalDebatee 9 hours ago
My argument revolves around the fact that if God loved me he would not send me to Hell.*
This is why I took the direct approach referring to Hell.
I hope you will continue to abide by the rules and not make any kind of atheistic or agnorstic argument. This will be an interesting debate if you will keep it in the guidelines.
God loves you, but if you are in rebellion against Him you cannot expect Him to allow you to be with Him in heaven. If he allowed rebellion to continue in heaven forever, heaven would be spoiiled. His anger builds against those who reject his love and choose to continue in rebellion untill he runs out of patience and they are cast away from him forever into the fire of hell that was made for the devil and his angels. God did not make hell for people, but there is no other place to put them if they are going to talk to Him and about Him like devils untill they die. God still loves you. He's still giving you time hoping you will trust Him to save you from the fire of hell.
God loves you. He loves you so much He came down from heaven and paid for your sins against Him. Death could not hold Him in the ground because He had no sin of His own. He died in your place to pay the price that you can never pay even in the fire of Hell which is, as you said, where you will go if you finalize your death trampling His blood under your feet after He gave His blood to pay for your sins, so He can be satisfied that the execution you deserve was done and you can be forgiven. If you don't care what He did for you, if you finalize your death rejecting Him who created you from being the One who could save you, He will reject you as you are rejecting Him. He loves you or He would not give you time to reconsider your deserved fate. If you end up in the fire of hell, it is only because you rejected the Saviour who died for you and you chose to pay for your own sins instead of believing on Him as your payment. If you say you will go to hell and you don't care, then you will be right and when you get there, it will be too late and you won't like it at all, never, forever, and the smoke of the torments of the people there will go up forever. There will be no arguments against God in heaven. he loves you and does not want you to burn in Hell or He would not tolerate your arguments against Him now and He would not give you any more time to reconsider your fate.
God loves you. If that is not sufficient for you, you will run out of time and as you are rejecting God's love, you will be rejected by Him. "God loves you" does not mean you can continue in rebellion against Him forever. Your rebellion will be confined away from His heaven forever to the fire of hell if you don't drop it before it's too late. You man win this debate, but what good is that if you lose your soul forever in the fire of hell? God loves you and he wants you to reconsider believing Him. If you will not reconsider, you will get what you deserve, the same rejection you are giving to Him, He will give to you. If you don't care that He died in your place, why should He care when you choose to die for yourself by yourself? why should he not have you cast away like garbage? he loves you and He does not want you to burn in Hell. You are chooing the fire of Hell rather than to believe that He loves you. You are arguing against yourself, and you think you are winning? I'm sorry.
I guess you don't have any fear that there is a Hell because you started your debate by saying you are going there and you obviously do not care. You don't know what you are doing. God loves you and He is pleading with you to believe him before it's too late. I guess you won't believe Him. He loves you and you are free to not believe Him if you don't want to believe Him. If he did not love you, it would be too late now and you would have no more time to reconsider. He won't wait for you forever. He is giving you more time than you deserve. He is giving you time because He loves you and does not want you to be lost to the fire of hell. You don't have to believe it. God loves you and he allows you to believe anything you want to believe. You can't say He didn't try to warn you. You can't say He did not lovingly plead with you to let Him save you from the fire of hell. Well I guess you can say that, but it won't change the fact that He loves you and He is pleading with you to trust Him and let him save you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's Hell argument won it, Con really didn't present any good argument only Proselytized, which appears to be the purpose of instigating this debate. Con's continual attempts to Proselytize Pro also deserved a Conduct point to Pro for putting up with such continual attacks, lesser people would have forfeited.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.