The Instigator
infam0us
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Ren
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

It is ethical for God to send people 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 1 vote the winner is...
infam0us
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,002 times Debate No: 11752
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

infam0us

Con

-DEFINITIONS-

God: The Christian God... omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-benevolent.
Hell: the abode of Satan and the forces of evil; where sinners suffer eternal punishment (Princeton Wordnet)
ethical: ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong (Princeton Wordnet)

-BURDEN-

Pro must show that it is completely ethical or mostly ethical for God to condemn people to Hell. Pro can do this by showing why my points are irrelevant, unethical, fallacious, etc. In doing this, pro must avoid those attributes himself. Pro is NOT welcome to play with semantics.

Oppositely, Con must show that is completely unethical or mostly unethical for God to condemn people to Hell. Con is bound by the same guidelines as Pro (see above).

To begin, I believe it is UNETHICAL for God to send people to Hell. Onto my case...

-NEGATIVE CASE-

A: Criteria for acceptance into Heaven, estimations, and sin

Sin = vialation of a law of God (e.g. 10 Commandments)

A1. In order to go to Heaven from a Christian perspective, one must faithfully believe in God and that Jesus died for his/her sins, admit to being a sinner, and ask for forgiveness [1]. Doing more good deeds than bad deeds is simply not enough and will actually land you in Hell.

A2. "Now, let's say that one in ten people are genuine born-again Believers. We are clearly told in Matthew 7:14 that few people ever make it to heaven!, 'Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, AND FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT' (Matthew 7:14; Luke 13:23,24). Consider the billion people in China who know not the Lord Jesus Christ! Consider the countless hundreds of millions of Arabs (Islamic Muslims) who worship Allah and the prophet Mohammed. Consider the billion Catholics around the world that worship Mary and are trying to earn their way into Heaven through the keeping of the Seven-Sacraments and good works. Countless billions of people are trusting in their religion to save them instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have no doubts whatsoever that 90% of the people in this world are going to Hell. Why? For one simple reason friend, they do not have the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, their sins have not been forgiven. We estimated that 232,876 humans die every day on average. 232,876 minus 10% equals 209,588 people that perish into hell fire and destruction every single day that passes. So roughly, 200,000 HUMANS PLUNGE INTO HELL FIRE EACH AND EVERY DAY! We also see that 23,287 people (10%) make it to Heaven each day on average." [2] So, on an average day, 10% of people are going to Heaven and the other 90% are headed to Hell.

A3. Sinning is in our nature and is an innate process [3]. The ONLY way around sin is explained in A1. God hates sin [4].

A-Arguments: As established in my A section, God absolutely hates sin. However, we are sinners by nature, it's not something we can control. Since God is omniscient, he knew that Adam and Eve would begin this innate, sinful nature for all of mankind to be doomed to. This is questionable on its own but to further my argument, I'll let it slide for the moment. Now, sin is just a factor in going to Hell, it's not the main reason. If it was, absolutely no one could get into Heaven. The main reason for going to Hell appears to be NOT asking for forgiveness and not correctly conforming to Christ. Pro may wonder why this is so challenging but when we examine the diversity of religion, you will see condeming people to Hell is unethical. I would argue that even condeming serial killers or child molesters wouldn't be just.

Hell is eternal punishment and I doubt it is possible to even fathom such a thing. I'm sure Pro knows of the victims in the Holocaust and how they were savagely treated - can you imagine the Hellish torture they are currectly receiving and will be receiving forever? After all, Jewish people don't go to Heaven because they technically reject Christ [5]. This ISN'T ethical.

B: Ethics of sending people to Hell, religious observations, and tolerance

B1. There are a practically endless list of religions and they are true to each of their respective followers. Religion is a significant component of many cultures.

B2. Eternal suffering is the worst punishment one could receive. You can be tortured, raped, beat up, etc. but those do not last forever. It would be nearly impossible to even imagine eternal suffering.

B3. In some cultures, finding Christianity wouldn't be possible nor acceptable.

B4. God essentially sends you to Hell for not being accountable to him and devoted to Jesus Christ. He will also send you to Hell if you have different beliefs. To draw this to scale and apply it to real life, it would be as if I wouldn't be friends with someone because they held different beliefs than me. This is unacceptable, especially of a being that is supposedly all-good.

B-Arguments: I stated in my A-Arguments section that condeming people to enternal punishment no matter how severe their transgressions were is unethical. Sending people to Hell just because they do not believe in you and do not worship you is barbaric. On a similar note, sending people to Hell because they worship a different God than you is also barbaric and an extremely jealous act. God loves all his creations yet according to my A2, most people are going to Hell anyhow. God is omniscient, he knows this is going to happen and apparently he is perfectly fine with it because he won't do anything about it. Surely, if you loved someone, you wouldn't let them suffer; especially not for eternity. No matter how far a human sins, he/she is still one of God's creations.

-NEGATIVE CONCLUSION-

It is definitely unethical to send people to Hell for the reasons I have provided. I await Pro's response. Vote Con.

-SOURCES-

1. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com...
2. http://www.soulwinning.info...
3. http://www.associatedcontent.com...
4. http://www.christiananswers.net...
5. http://www.biblestudy.org...
Ren

Pro

Thank you for beginning this intriguing debate.

Foremost, I believe that the definitions you are using are not sufficient and thus belie a good deal of logic in your argument. This is due to the fact that you use the Princeton Wordnet definition of the word "Hell." I bring this up not as a semantic argument, but as a logical one, as the only veritable reference one can use for Christian dogma is the Holy Bible -- although texts written by seasoned theologists might also suffice. Princeton Wordnet may provide a commonly-accepted and generally applicable definition, but it may not accommodate the specific definition provided in the Holy Bible. The main discrepancy in that definition is that it suggests that Satan has a good time living in Hell with his angels, while Hell was actually made for human sinners. In fact, if one were to canvass the Revelation, one would find that everyone is a sinner, but only those who reject Jesus Christ under God are cast into Hell. Satan is to join them in torment, rather than torment them himself: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10). In fact, according to the Bible, Hell was made *for* Satan and his angels, and humans only go there if they choose to: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS." (Matthew 25:41). Essentially, God even *asks* those about to be cast into Hell to repent before it happens. Remember -- a man who lived in sin, a thief, was pardoned by God (Jesus) moments before he was killed.

But, moving on...

A1. In order to go to Heaven from a...land you in Hell.

- Even in your citation, you offered no qualifier that one must *faithfully* (strict or thorough in the performance of duty -- dictionary.com) believe in God. Considering the aforementioned points, one can acknowledge God/Jesus at any time, and still find salvation. Furthermore, you have no logical or factual foundation for asserting that a good deed/bad deed ratio has no affect on one's salvation. The logic here is that if one were to choose to live a life of sin, it is most likely that one would die a sinner without repent. Why live your entire life in a way in which you do not believe? This sounds more likely of those who are religious than those who are not.

A2. "Now, let's say...THERE BE THAT FIND IT' (Matthew 7:14; Luke 13:23,24).

- That biblical quote does not prove your argument as there is no indication that "life" refers specifically to "Heaven" -- especially considering that Heaven and Hell are places (or states) that one goes to (or assumes) after life. Heaven is most often referred to as "Eternal Life" in the Holy Bible. Also, I find it hard to believe that you are copying a direct quote, as a strait is a body of water, while continuity without curves or angles is spelled "straight."

Consider the billion people in China who know not the Lord Jesus Christ!

- You didn't know that there are Christians in China?

- http://www.christianityinchina.org...

Consider the countless hundreds of millions...who worship Allah and the prophet Mohammed.

- It is said that Allah and the Christian God are one in the same. It turns out that Jesus is supposed to be considered synonymous with God, while the Judaism and Islam suggests that there are no human manifestations of God, and worship prophets instead.

Consider the billion Catholics...Seven-Sacraments and good works.

- This is irrelevant, as although that behavior could be construed as sin, it does not disqualify a soul from entering Heaven en lieu of Hell.

Countless billions of people...their sins have not been forgiven.

- 33% of the world is currently acknowledged as Christian. Not a huge proportion, but not 10%. http://www.religioustolerance.org...

A3. Sinning is in our nature and is an innate process [3]. The ONLY way around sin is explained in A1. God hates sin [4].

- This is worded in a way that suggests that God set humanity up. This isn't quite the case. Humanity is full of sin, but that does not meant that God hates humanity: "The Lord is...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9)

- On the other hand, it is true that God hates sin, but that is not a qualifier for going to Hell. Rejecting God is.

A-Arguments: As established in my A section, God absolutely hates sin. However, we are sinners by nature, it's not something we can control.

- That, I also find a little misleading. Although we are going to sin one way or another (since it requires perfection to live an entire life without sin, and we are imperfect), this does not mean that we have a predisposition to sin. A simple analogy could be a typo. Although a typo is inevitable, it does not mean that we as typists prefer to, intend to, or have any inclination toward typos.

Since God is omniscient...questionable on its own but to further my argument, I'll let it slide for the moment.

- Adam's sin was following woman over God. Eve's sin was following Satan over man. I mean, one can consider that dubious when viewed through the lens of contemporary philosophical perspectives, but there is actually an explanation for this: God simply loved us too much to let us go. Repeated again and again throughout the Bible.

Now, sin is just a factor in going to Hell, it's not the main reason.

- Nope. It's irrelevant, as made apparent in previous arguments (on both sides).

If it was, absolutely no one could get into Heaven. The main reason for going to Hell appears to be NOT asking for forgiveness and not correctly conforming to Christ.

- How does one "correctly conform to Christ"?

Pro may wonder...even condeming serial killers or child molesters wouldn't be just.

- Wtf? Even humanity agrees that condemning serial killers and child molesters is just here on earth. In fact, for many serial killers, we help put them in Hell.

Hell is eternal punishment...After all, Jewish people don't go to Heaven because they technically reject Christ [5]. This ISN'T ethical.

- If Jewish people don't go to Heaven, the Jesus went to Hell. I mean, He *did*, but He didn't stay there, is the point. Anyway, this is false. Although they reject the notion that Christ is God, that is a bit of a gray area. Christ is an avatar, an analogy of God, but He did speak to God while He was here on earth as a man, and He is regarded as God's son rather than God Himself.

B4. God essentially sends you to Hell ...a being that is supposedly all-good.

- That is an illogical simile. It is more akin to your children rejecting you after you dedicate your life to them. You'd want to kill those little bastards, too

B-Arguments: I stated in my A-Arguments section that...he/she is still one of God's creations.

- Not allowing someone to live in your home because they do not respect you should thus be considered likewise barbaric. Then why not somewhere else? Because our only options are Earth, Heaven, and Hell, and Earth is terminal. For God to intervene is for Him to remove free will, so I prefer He does nothing about it. This doesn't mean He likes it (see supra). As far as letting someone suffer -- if the love of your life got a disease from someone with whom she cheated on you, are you going to spend your last dime on helping her live?

Conclusion: Ethics are subjective, but Con has made no viable argument that God's precepts for sending souls to Hell are unethical.
Debate Round No. 1
infam0us

Con

-A. REBUTTALS-

"You offered nothing that says one most faithfully believe in God."

Con: You're wrong. I clearly state at the beginning of A1, " In order to go to Heaven from a Christian perspective, one must FAITHFULLY believe in God..." I guess you missed this, but it is there.

"Furthermore, you have no logical or factual foundation for asserting that a *good deed/bad deed ratio has no affect on one's salvation.*"

Con: Yes I do. One of my sources states *that* explicitly.

"The logic here is that if one were to choose to live a life of sin, it is most likely that one would die a sinner without repent."

Con: I don't see how this is connected. No matter what one has done with their life, I don't think anyone would seriously choose eternal damnation. Besides, this debate is not about what actions WILL send one to Hell, it's about the ethics of God sending people there. I don't think there is any sin or action that qualifies someone for eternal damnation which is why I think it is unethical for God to send people there.

"Why live your entire life in a way in which you do not believe?"

Con: Well, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a Christian who is a bad person makes it into Heaven over an atheist who is a good person, I have a problem with this. I should be able to live my life in any which way I desire - eternal damnation is a completely unreasonable punishment. It's not like the person suffering will learn anything.

"That biblical quote does not prove your argument as there is no indication that life refers specifically to Heaven."

Con: The quote states something along the lines of, " the strait gate leadth TO life." If they're not talking about afterlife, what are they talking about? You can try to make a case for something irrelevant but eternal life is being implied.

"Heaven is most often referred to as "Eternal Life" in the Holy Bible."

Con: Try quoting a source and I'll consider that point. As for now, it holds no merit.

"Also, I find it hard to believe that you are copying a direct quote, as a strait is a body of water, while continuity without curves or angles is spelled straight."

Con: First of all, I provided the link to the particular source that contains the quote you're referencing. Second of all, English wasn't as developed during the time of the Bible so I don't see how the spelling of straight even matters.

"Christians in China."

Con: China is still predominantly Buddhist and other religions make it up as well [1].

"It is said that Allah and the Christian God are one in the same."

Con: That doesn't matter. Salvation lies through Jesus and Muslims are doomed if they choose to worship anyone over God.

"This is irrelevant, as although that behavior could be construed as sin, it does not disqualify a soul from entering Heaven en lieu of Hell."

Con: Why not?

"33% of the world is Christian."

Con: Being Christian =/= going to Heaven. Even if I were to accept that all 33% of them are going to Heaven, 77% of the world is still going to Hell. Not acceptable.

"Humanity is full of sin, but that does not meant that God hates humanity."

Con: Probably not, but that's not why I was implying. Still, why would God allow the incident with Adam and Eve? If he hates sin so much, why did he basically let mankind fall to sin? Did he want a reason to send men to Hell?

"It is true that God hates sin, but that is not a qualifier for going to Hell. Rejecting God is."

Con: But at the same time, this isn't about going to Hell. It's about God sending people there. I was going over the criteria to demonstrate how truly unreasonable it is. Furthermore, rejecting God is a sin. Believing in God WILL not save you alone (refer to my first and second link in the first round).

"Although we are going to sin one way or another (since it requires perfection to live an entire life without sin, and we are imperfect), this does not mean that we have a predisposition to sin."

Con: If we're going to sin in one way or another since we are imperfect, then that means we DO have a predisposition for sin. It doesn't mean we prefer or intend to though; you misunderstood. We can't HELP but to sin, we are mere humans. You concede this when you say we are going to sin at some point in some way. Sinning is innate.

"...there is actually an explanation for this: God simply loved us too much to let us go. Repeated again and again throughout the Bible."

Con: I'd consider that an EXCUSE, not an explanation. There was no sufficient reason to allow mankind to fall into something God hated (sin).

"How does one "correctly conform to Christ"?"

Con: By not FAITHFULLY believing. You provided a definition of this.

"Wtf? Even humanity agrees that condemning serial killers and child molesters is just here on earth. In fact, for many serial killers, we help put them in Hell."

Con: Red herring. What can one learn from eternal damnation? They have nothing to take away from it because it lasts forever. Therefore, it is an unethical and unreasonable punishment.

"If Jewish people don't go to Heaven, [then] Jesus went to Hell."

Con: Oh please. Jesus was the literal son of God and the Bible is testament to Jesus's holiness.

"Although they reject the notion that Christ is God, that is a bit of a gray area. Christ is an avatar, an analogy of God, but He did speak to God while He was here on earth as a man, and He is regarded as God's son rather than God Himself."

Con: Jews do not serve Christ nor do they look at him as a window to salvation. See the source I referenced in that argument.

-B. ARGUMENTS-

"That is an illogical simile. It is more akin to your children rejecting you after you dedicate your life to them. You'd want to kill those little bastards, too."

Con: You label my simile illogical and then attempt to refute it with an illogical analogy. There are valid reasons to reject God and even your parents (consider abuse). However, you couldn't ever deny your parent's existence, now could you? After all, they clearly exist. Anyway, how exactly do we harm God by not worshiping him? Anything about Satan or the ugliness of sin won't work because Satan is basically God's subcontractor and sin was something God could've easily prevented. I don't see how you're going to dig a way out of this hole.

"Not allowing someone to live in your home because they do not respect you should thus be considered likewise barbaric."

Con: Non-sequitur. This doesn't making God sending people to Hell anymore ethical, something that you must establish as Pro.

"For God to intervene is for Him to remove free will, so I prefer He does nothing about it."

Con: Do you believe the Bible predicted events? Please answer me in your next rebuttal.

"As far as letting someone suffer -- if the love of your life got a disease from someone with whom she cheated on you, are you going to spend your last dime on helping her live?"

Con: This comparison seems effective but doesn't follow correctly. I suppose disease = sin but we are going to sin even if we believe in God. Also, if disease = Hell... Hell is from God, so again, it doesn't work. Explain.

-CONCLUSION-

Pro has done nothing to fulfill his burden. He has not shown in even one way why it is ethical for God to send people to Hell. Meanwhile, my points stand. Vote Con.
Ren

Pro

- Rebuttals -

Con: You're wrong. I clearly state at the beginning of A1, " In order to go to Heaven from a Christian perspective, one must FAITHFULLY believe in God..." I guess you missed this, but it is there.

You didn't approach my rebuttal to that argument, thus, it cannot be considered a veritable argument to defend your claim.

Con: Yes I do. One of my sources states *that* explicitly.

Which source? Of the information from all of the sources your provided, the closest to that is:

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)

...which does not indicate that bad deeds outweigh good deeds, or that God simply ignores them.

Con: I don't see how this is connected. No matter what one has done with their life, I don't think anyone would seriously choose eternal damnation. Besides, this debate is not about what actions WILL send one to Hell, it's about the ethics of God sending people there. I don't think there is any sin or action that qualifies someone for eternal damnation which is why I think it is unethical for God to send people there.

Consider the story of Faust.

Ethics have nothing to do with personal opinion, but what is generally regarded as "right or wrong" in a construct.

The dictionary defines "ethical" as: pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

Since the construct that we're referring to is technically God's, you cannot posit an argument about ethics that contradicts God. Furthermore, sending people to Hell is not a standard of conduct -- it is a personal decision by God within His own domain -- which, for all intents and purposes, especially given that we live in a society that accepts the concept of ownership and personal rights within one's own domain (for example, you can shoot trespassers), then nothing about God sending people to Hell is unethical. Especially, given He gives us the opportunity to avoid it.

Con: By not FAITHFULLY believing. You provided a definition of this.

I did provide a definition for "faithfully believing," and also posited that nowhere in the Bible does it state that one must "faithfully believe."

Con: Red herring. What can one learn from eternal damnation? They have nothing to take away from it because it lasts forever. Therefore, it is an unethical and unreasonable punishment.

The ethics of punishment is not predicated on its ability to reform the transgressor. Indeed, some are beyond reform, and others don't want it.

Con: Oh please. Jesus was the literal son of God and the Bible is testament to Jesus's holiness.

That's irrelevant.

Con: Jews do not serve Christ nor do they look at him as a window to salvation. See the source I referenced in that argument.

While that does not approach my argument in any way, observe: http://jewsforjesus.org...

Con: You label my simile illogical and then attempt to refute it with an illogical analogy. There are valid reasons to reject God and even your parents (consider abuse). However, you couldn't ever deny your parent's existence, now could you? After all, they clearly exist. Anyway, how exactly do we harm God by not worshiping him? Anything about Satan or the ugliness of sin won't work because Satan is basically God's subcontractor and sin was something God could've easily prevented. I don't see how you're going to dig a way out of this hole.

Of course you could deny your parent's existence. People do it all the time.

I said nothing about harming God -- but, He is a jealous God, which means that He feels emotion. Thus, he can conceivably feel emotional pain if He loves us and we reject Him.

I'm not in a hole (wtf?). Sin is only something that contradicts God. Everything exists separately of God. Thus, free will is essentially the ability to sin. He literally gave us that ability to choose Him or otherwise. It just so happens that, after a while, it comes at a price. You can't party with God at his bungalow.

Con: Do you believe the Bible predicted events? Please answer me in your next rebuttal.

Not necessarily. According to the Bible, everything contained within it has already happened.

Con: This comparison seems effective but doesn't follow correctly. I suppose disease = sin but we are going to sin even if we believe in God. Also, if disease = Hell... Hell is from God, so again, it doesn't work. Explain.

No, in that analogy, cheating = sin.

SO, that's that.
Debate Round No. 2
infam0us

Con

-A. REBUTTALS-

"You didn't approach my rebuttal to that argument, thus, it cannot be considered a veritable argument to defend your claim."

Con: Your whole argument was based off the claim that I didn't say faithfully. If I wouldn't have said faithfully, it would have allowed your last minute salvation argument. Unfortunately, I did say faithfully which disables it. Repenting during your dying moments doesn't count as "believing faithfully." Furthermore, what about a man killed in a car crash who was an atheist who never got his chance to know God? Car accidents are abrupt and unpredictable so it's not like the victims ever had their last minute chance to repent. You say humans choose to go to Hell but this goes against all my notions. No one would choose eternal damnation and this should be abundantly clear. I doubt any atheist, Buddhist, Deist, Hindu, etc. would want to be sentenced to Hell. This last minute argument cannot be applied and fails.

As for the good/bad deed ratio... "The Bible teaches that even your righteous acts are like filthy rags to God. It does not matter how many good deeds that you do, YOU STILL CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN BASED ON YOUR DEEDS. The Bible teaches that your good deeds do not commend you to God in any way. You've ignored him choosing to live life the way YOU see fit," (See RD1, S1). This indicates that your deeds do not matter, it's your faith and devotion to Christ that do.

"Consider the story of Faust."

Con: Make into an argument and I might.

"Ethics have nothing to do with personal opinion, but what is generally regarded as right or wrong in a construct."

Con: I guess sending people to suffer for all eternity is okay then. I'm being sarcastic but I'm pretty sure consensus would say that eternal damnation is wrong.

"Since the construct that we're referring to is technically God's, you cannot posit an argument about ethics that contradicts God."

Con: You're basically saying that since God owns the world, we don't have a say in whether or not his acts are right or wrong. By your logic, that means the slave owners that owned slaves in the U.S. were completely justified in whatever they chose to do to slaves because they had the power. Besides, we know people suffering is (usually) wrong. However, it is my assertion that it is always wrong when it is eternal suffering because there is no good reason to eternally punish someone. They will not be able to learn anything or take anything away from it which makes it a completely unethical punishment. Any criteria which sends one TO Hell doesn't matter at this point because their is no offense that can ETHICALLY send souls to Hell in the first place. This is part of Pro's burden, keep that in mind, voters. Also, God has no adequate reason to send people to Hell. Is he afraid people are going to overthrow him? I mean, an omniscient being would see this coming and since he is omnipotent, he'd also be able to stop it.

"Furthermore, sending people to Hell is not a standard of conduct -- it is a personal decision by God within His own domain."

Con: This is just a variant of the slave example I gave. Pro says that ethics are right and wrong, not subject to personal opinion, but goes on to say that since it's God's personal decision, ethics don't really matter. Obviously, this debate IS going to center around ethics so quit trying to dodge it. Using Pro's own example, killing someone is (generally) wrong. However, Pro brings up the point of killing a trespasser. First of all, is he comparing humans to trespassers on Earth? Since God supposedly put us here, that doesn't make sense. Second of all, wouldn't warning them be a nicer way rather than killing them? If you shot first without any warning to the unsuspecting trespasser, you could be killing a perfectly good person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. This relates back to my car accident argument - conditions OUTSIDE of one's control shouldn't factor into salvation. Besides, in Pro's trespassing scenario, the man with the gun is obviously supposed to be God and I hardly consider shooting someone as soon as you see them step foot in your yard as "merciful." Personal decisions can still be judged by ethics.

"Especially, given He gives us the opportunity to avoid it."

Con: Then I guess you'd support the man with a gun in this following scenario. A man holds another man at gun point and tells him he is going to kill him at the count of three. He says to the unarmed man that if he moves out of the way, he will probably live as the bullet will miss. As the gunman says three, the man can't get out of the way in time and dies from getting shot. I'm not playing with Pro's arguments - I'm simply rewriting them in a more pragmatic way to show voters how they aren't valid.

"Nowhere in the Bible does it state that one must faithfully believe."

Con: Fair enough, but God, given his omniscient state, will know whether you truly believe and are devoted to him. He will also know if you really feel bad for what you've done. If people could just fake faith, repent and loving God, don't you think getting into Heaven would be way easier? Also, faith and believe come from two very similar Greek root words and English doesn't do the original meanings justice [1]. See my source to understand what I'm implying if you're confused. I understand this delves into semantic territory but even in their current usage, faith and believe are pretty similar and go hand in hand. If you believe in something, you have faith in it.

"The ethics of punishment is not predicated on its ability to reform the transgressor. Indeed, some are beyond reform, and others don't want it."

Con: I have two refutations for this which are connected. Part of the purpose of punishment is indeed reform [2]. Ethics come into play when weighing the severity of offense on an ethical scale and using this to match it with an appropriate punishment. With that said, I will repeat my key point that eternal damnation is unjust because it offers no chance of reform and the "criminals" pose no threat because God is omnipotent. Pro has tried to sidestep this argument while offering no ethical reasoning within his arguments for Hell. Although the Bible states oppositely, there are far worse things than not believing in God, worshiping another deity or not repenting. One can get life in prison for premeditated murder. A life sentence is just on Earth because according to my purpose of punishment source, part of the punishment is to keep the offender from committing more crime. An omnipotent being wouldn't have to worry about this so Hell is even more unethical. It is completely gratuitous suffering.

"That's irrelevant."

Con: Actually, Christianity is based off of the resurrection of Christ so my point stands. You can't go to Hell for not believing in Jesus when you ARE Jesus.

"Jews for Jesus."

Con: Completely irrelevant. My usage of Jew was as an example of someone who worships the same God without devotion to Christ.

"I said nothing about *harming* God -- but, He is a jealous God, which means that He feels emotion. Thus, he can conceivably feel *EMOTIONAL PAIN* if He loves us and we reject Him."

Con: My point proven. Sending someone to eternally suffer because you are jealous of their devotion to a false deity is blatantly wrong anyhow.

"Thus, free will is essentially the ability to sin."

Con: See gunman argument about sin.

"Analogy."

Con: You wouldn't punish a lover for having sex with a person who wasn't really there (essentially masturbation), meaning God has no reason to be mad at people who worship other gods.

At the end of RD1, Pro states ethics are subjective but in RD2 states, "Ethics have nothing to do with personal opinion." Can't be both.
Ren

Pro

Ren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
infam0us

Con

Extend my RD3 arguments.
Ren

Pro

Ren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
infam0us

Con

It appears my opponent has completely forfeited. Extend all my arguments as final and vote Con for conduct and arguments. Thank you.
Ren

Pro

Ren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ricklannoye 7 years ago
ricklannoye
Infam0ous has made a number of great points, so I would only like to add a couple more. First, Hell can only exist if God is evil. All the talk about "God's justice" is irrelevent, because a God who had any good in Him at all, would have stopped himself from creating a race of beings that he would ultimately have to subject the majority to torture, even if we could accept the ludicrous notion that his sense of "justice" would compel him to do so.

But what is most interesting is how advocates of Hell also claim to believe in Jesus. The fact is, they have to reject all he stood for, both in his surviving words and example of his life. If Jesus is THE WORD of God, then all he did was a demonstration of what God is really like, and he never, ever responded to sin by getting back at the sinner.

His teaching make Hell impossible, again, assuming one believes Jesus knew and spoke the truth about what God is really like. In his sermon on the mount, he made it very plain that God does NOT desire any sort of "justice" or revenge, but that He responds to our sin with forgiveness and calls us to imitate Him (to be "children of the Father") by also turning the other cheek.

I've written an entire book on this topic, Hell? No!, Why You Can Be Certain There Is No Such Place As Hell, if Pro or anyone else would like to learn more (available at www.thereisnohell.com).
Posted by Ogan 7 years ago
Ogan
The use of 'reason' to fully comprehend anything FULLY is fairly hopeless. All we can hope to do is to think then image a 'truth', which is not the Truth itself - although an accurate image say, of an oak tree, will allow us to discount the other trees until we find a REAL oak tree. Reason or Intellect is only a tool used by the unconscious Observer to create forms and then seek to become Conscious of what the forms lead us to. If the forms are not accurate they lead us nowhere or to a wrong match, in which case we get the bigot who may be a religious fanatic or an atheist. Keep searching until you awaken.
Posted by ricklannoye 7 years ago
ricklannoye
Infam0us makes a number of good points. I would only add that the religion of Jesus is often at odds with what Jesus originally taught, particularly when it comes to the doctrine of Hell. In other words, Jesus did not believe in Hell.

I've actually written an entire book on this topic--Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell, but if I may, let me share just one of the many points I make in it to explain why.

If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.

So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
RD3 SOURCES (character limit wouldn't allow me to post them)

1. www.twopaths.com/faq_faith.htm
2. home.page.ch/pub/rfm[at]vtx.ch/punishment.html
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
@OreEle: i don't think so. i'm not too worried about people who want to play with semantics. here's to hoping my opponent will argue the clearly intended topic of this debate. thank you for accepting, Ren.
Posted by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
This should be very interesting.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Semantical victory a huge posibilty with the way this is worded.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
infam0usRenTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60