The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Ignorance of the Lord Justifies Being Sent to Eternal Damnation

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,506 times Debate No: 10494
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Thanx to Emiraphone for accepting this debate and good luck. :)
Onto the debate.

Resolved: Ignorance of the Lord Justifies Being Sent to Eternal Damnation

Resolutional Analysis: In order for me to win this debate, I have to find one instince in which the ignorance of believing in God, logically and righteously, results in another alternative besides being sent to Hell for eternal punishment. My opponent must justify that ALL instinces call for a person to be sent to Hell.

I will let my opponent go first


The subject in question is whether or not God will send an ignorant person to Hell. My belief is no, God will not send an ignorant person to Hell. The only reason I say this is because nobody is ignorant. Most of the following verses are some that my pastor gave to me. I'd really like the verses to speak for themselves, so I won't be writing a lot. I would like to say, however, that God has addressed the issue that there are people who have not heard His Word directly, but He has made Himself evident throughout His creation - all of nature and us as human beings.

Psalm 19:1-4
NIV: 1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

This verse is saying that everything God has touched glorifies Him.

Romans 2:14-15
THE MESSAGE: 14-16When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences
NIV: 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

This verse is saying that our conscience is proof of God. We are created with a sense of right and wrong that God put into us at creation.

So, according to all these verses, people are not as ignorant as my opponent claims they are. Therefore, God does send ALL unsaved people to Hell.

Revelation 20:15
NIV:15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to Emiraphone for posting so promptly

First off I'd like to say that her beginning statement already negates the resolution. She states that ignorant people will not be sent to Hell. If she already believes that, then the debate is already won by con considering we're in mutual agreement. Pro also makes the presumption that there are not ignorant people in the world.

Example 1. Total ignorance of religion.

Although this would be deemed a very extreme case

"A woman has told police that she was held prisoner in a cellar for almost 24 years by her father, who repeatedly raped her and fathered at least six children.

Lower Austria police said in a statement that the 42-year-old woman, identified as Elisabeth F., had been missing since Aug. 29, 1984. She was found by police in the town of Amstetten on Saturday evening following a tip."

This tells of a daughter being trapped in a room, repeatedly raped and becoming the mother of six of her father's children for 24 years. Now, although she was released and the Word of God may have spread to her, there is a very likely possiblity of this occuring a number of times. Lets say that a girl is trapped in a room for the same amount of time, but is murdered? She would therefore be deemed ingnorant. An evil person's victim should not be another victim of another evil (Lucifer's Hell). It's illogical to see that. I don't think a loving God would deliberately would create a woman that's raped and held captive all her life to die and suffer again. That's being cruel.

Example 2.

There are many, many other children that have known one religion and one religion only. That's what the goals of missionaries spread the Gospel to people who haven't heard it. She does make a Bible reference that states, in a nut shell, that everyone one has heard of the Lord. Although the Bible can be a very effective piece of information, it's not a very accurate one. The Bible cannot account for the millions of people everyday that don't have the access to other religions like so many others do. Also the Bible makes a verse stating...

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom
the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,
and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of
Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness
in them that perish; because they received not
the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed
not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Okay...Jesus said He is the Way, The Truth

So those who were given the opportunity to know the truth (Jesus), but rejected him (the truth), would be sent to damnation. They only state the people who were given the opportunity. I'm sure that if a little kid in Eastern Tibet heard of the Word of the Lord, then he might be saved from burning eternally. But the thing is that God's message doesn't get to EVERY SINGLE PERSON...therefore, it's not logical that he'll send people to Hell for something that they had no prior knowledge about. It's like going to take a semester test for Spanish III....when the only language your school has is French. opponent and I are already in agreement of the resolution. I have also proven that there ARE ingnorant people in the world. Please vote Con.


I would like to start by requesting my opponent to explain himself further. I'm not sure why he thinks the Bible is not an accurate source. In my opinion, the Bible is the most accurate and reliable source in the world. For instance, there are 643 original manuscripts of Homer's "Iliad." There is a 500 year span between the first manuscript and when the Iliad was authored. The New Testament, however, has 24,000 manuscripts and only 25 years between the first manuscript and the year it was authored. Most people believe the Iliad was accurately recorded, so why is the Bible's validity in question? ( The Bible is an accurate source. It's been proven, people just don't realize that.

That being said, my opponent never disproved the Bible verses I used. Psalm 19:1-4 speaks of God being made evident throughout creation. Specifically, verse 3 says, "There is no speech or language where their voice ('their voice' refers to all the earth calling out towards God) is not heard." "NO SPEECH OR LANGUAGE" refers to "NO SPEECH OR LANGUAGE." Everyone has an internal being called their conscience that knows God is real and alive. God put your conscience there for a reason. Romans 2:15 says this: "Since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

My opponents first example described a women's horrible captivity and her torture. He then went on to say that there are probably other situations similar to this where the captive is murdered and never gets the opportunity to hear the gospel. I have two responses to this.

1. I don't appreciate the fact that my opponent is using hypothetical situations to debate my proven points. He started with a story about a women, then evolved the story into a "what if" situation. I would like to see more facts than opinions.

2. Taking my opponent's hypothetical situation, the only thing I know to do is reference him back to the Bible verses. They clearly state all have seen and heard. Since, this is a hypothetical situation, I'll provide hypothetical results. Maybe the women murdered heard the gospel before captivity, but still refused it. Maybe the women heard the gospel before captivity and accepted it. News coverages never provide this information to us. There in no way to either prove or disprove whether or not the women was exposed to the gospel in some way shape or form.

My opponent also gives the example of a child in who have only be exposed to one religion, that one not being Christianity. He uses the verse 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12. This verse doesn't really help either of our cases. It just says that people who have chosen to live their lives for themselves instead of for God, they will be sent to Hell. This point is fairly obvious, so I'm not sure why it was used in this debate.

I would like to finish my point by apologizing for "negating the resolution." If it's possible, I'll retract that statement and say this instead: God does send ignorant people to Hell. I make this statement only on my opponent's definition of ignorant. It's not so much about what you did or didn't do to deserve Hell, but whether or not you trusted Jesus to get into Heaven. Nothing imperfect can be near God. Ignorant people are imperfect therefore cannot be in Heaven. Christians are not perfect either, but they trust and believe that the death of Jesus will cover all their sins. That's the only way someone can get to heaven, ignorance alone will not get someone there.
Debate Round No. 2


mrbullfrog11 forfeited this round.


I don't have much to work off of until my opponent posts, so this is all I'll post.
Debate Round No. 3


I apologize for not responding, I've been at my grandmother's house for about 5 days...and she refuses to become technologically advanced (no computer).

First off, her first statement about the Bible being an accurate source of information, she that the time span is the most significant factor when regarding authenticity. What the voters have to realize is that, it's a book. Granted, it does have a lot of good messages, and people do trust it, but that still does not make the entire book legitimate. Take Greek mythology for example. There were many, many stories about heroes, Gods, and things of that sort. People back then believed every word of those stories. That was how they lived their lives. We now know that, through scientific explanations, that those events could not have happened, but still convinced millions of people. Bias can also be a possibility.

Here is a metaphor. Let's say that the University of North Carolina sportswriter writes a huge column about how UNC is the best basketball program ever. He's going to be a little biased, right? There are certainly other basketball clubs that are just as legitimate as UNC. Purdue, Duke, and UConn just to name a few. My opponents also says that the Bible says that everyone has heard of God. This is just like the sportswriter saying that everyone has heard of UNC. Now, it is easy to say that the majority of people in America have heard of UNC and the majority of people around the world have heard of God, but it's still not logical to think that that statement accounts for everyone.

Secondly, I think that I refute her first argument on Psalms 19: 1-4. Now...the verse states that EVERYONE has a conscience that know God is real and alive. I didn't know about God until about, age 10. It's foolish to think that blunt statement refers to every single person. Also, I'll just state again. The bible is not a viable source of information.

In response to her saying that I've made this into a "what if" situation

1. I don't see why this would be negative. I've simply given a hypothetical situation in which a person would be deemed ignorant of the word of God.

2. Again, I'll just go back to my defense of the Bible not being a viable source of information and my metaphor.
Also, I'm just giving a possibility as to how the word of God couldn't be spread to them.

3. Talking about something my opponent did...she completely turned this debate into something it shouldn't have been. She completely ignored the resolution and went off on a little part of the resolution instead of referring to the main point of it.

And, she says she doesn't understand why brought up my verse. I clearly state that it says that people who were given the chance to hear of the Lord and cast it away shall be sent to Hell...but again, it the Bible doesn't include every single person.

And in her conclusion, she apologizes about already negating the resolution, and she retracts that statement. Please, don't take that into account...we're not even debating the resolution, and we've already agreed upon that. Her explanation for doing so is it's not so much about what you did or didn't do to deserve Hell, but whether or not you trusted Jesus to get into Heaven. She also says that "ignorant people are imperfect." That statement alone proves that she believes that there ARE ignorant people. Thus, they are neither perfect nor imperfect. They're neutral...therefore, I do not believe that a logical and righteous God would send a neutral person to tell. Thank you and please, Vote CON.


I do not think that the validity of the Bible is the issue in this case. My assumption is that we are talking about the God of the Bible. I used Bible verses and he used Bible verses, so the only god we could be talking about is the God of the Bible. If we are talking about the God of the Bible, then it would make sense to use the Bible as a viable source. If my beliefs or my opponent's beliefs differ from the Bible, then a strictly opinion debate should be opened, but as we are debating a part of the nature of the God of the Bible, then I believe that the whole Bible should be relied upon as a trustworthy source of information.

I would like to comment that I never said that everyone has heard of God. I stated, as my opponent acknowledged, that God put a conscience in us as a way to show us Himself.

I read a story about a Muslim woman in the book, "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. I do not think I can retell the story or the moral any better than the book itself, so I will quote it. If you have access to it, it is on page 226. Ravi Zacharias is telling this story to Strobel in an interview.

"...let my tell you what happened in the case of a Muslim woman who worked for a very well-known institution in her country. She told me how she was leaving her office at the end of her day's work and was very unhappy in her heart. As she was walking, she muttered, 'I don't know why I am so empty,' and after that, out of the blue, she said, 'Jesus, can you help me?' She stopped on the sidewalk and said to herself, 'Why did I name him?' Well, that woman ended up becoming a Christian.
In her case, I think God saw a heart that hungered for him but did not know how to reach him in the cloister of her existence. I think this was God breaking past the barriers of her environment because she was already breaking through the barriers of her inner life, seeking after him. Thus, God can reach into any cultural situation in response to anyone who wants to know him."

Just one page ahead of this story, pg 265, Zacharias reads Acts 17: 26-27 to Strobel. It says this:

26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Zacharias then goes on the explain what the passage means. He says, "God knows where we will be born and raised, and he puts us in a position where we might seek him. We are clearly told that wherever we live - in whatever culture, in whatever nation - he is within reach of every one of us. There is always the possibility of a person crying out on their knees, 'God, help me' and if that happens, there ways in which God can minister to them that are beyond our understanding."

The verse my opponent used before did state that God sent people who rejected him to Hell. I didn't think that was a point of the debate. The debate was about whether or not God sends "ignorant" people to Hell. The verse doesn't mention "ignorant" people anywhere.

In his conclusion, my opponent is right about my quote. There are ignorant people, but the ignorance we are talking about is a very superficial ignorance. This ignorance in only mental. My examples, explanations, and verses have proven that there is a much deeper sense of God in every person. Whether or not they reject this or not is the determining factor of whether they will be sent to Hell or not. If they acknowledge their need for a Saviour, then God will provide a way for them to be saved. They are not spiritually ignorant, but mentally, yes, we can call them ignorant.

Thank you to my opponent for this debate and thank you to the readers and voters for reading and voting.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by mrbullfrog11 7 years ago
Well, you can use arguments in the Bible referring to the whole basic premise that everyone who the Lord has life, and he he doesn't have the Lord does not have life. I can prove my side is real, by making Bible referrences as well
Posted by Emiraphone 7 years ago
That's not fair. I can prove my side is real, but all you have to do is prove that your side makes sense. I say we go for bigger things and try to prove reality.
Posted by mrbullfrog11 7 years ago
I only need to prove that it's logical :P
Posted by Emiraphone 7 years ago
Prove that your alternate "post-life for the ignorant" theory actually exists.
Posted by mrbullfrog11 7 years ago
...prove whats existance?
Posted by Emiraphone 7 years ago
Hey, Jeraphone, before I accept this debate, you need to change something. You not only have to find to "find one instance," but you need to prove it's existance.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by realmadridfan 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20