The Instigator
tornshoe92
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Isap8
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to 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
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 882 times Debate No: 14558
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

tornshoe92

Pro

Definitions from Dictionary.com:

Unreasonable - not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational

Benevolent - characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings

If my opponent wants to restrict our discussion to the god of Christianity then I would be fine with that. Let me know if there are any further parameters that need identifying in the comments section as this is my first time setting up a debate. We will start debating in round 2.

Good luck!
Isap8

Con

I do not find it unreasonable that God would do such a thing.
If the people did not believe in God in the first place then why would they be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven?
A person who does not believe in something should not be allowed to have or enter it. If for example I were to stop believing that a car is real or never believed cars were real then would I be able to accept a car as a prize? No because I would believe the were lying. That is the same thing that happens with God. If a person were to not believe in him or his kingdom of heaven then they should not be allowed to reach it if they do not accept it as truth after the reign of the anti Christ. God gave them chances and put others on their paths to tell them about God so it is not even Gods fault.

A perfect God cannot come into contact, let alone live for eternity, with a sinful man. That is the exact reason for Satan, or the devil, and his angels to be cast to the earth. He cast them there since he could not live with sin. Sin would remove his sinless purity. He is perfect and cannot survive with imperfection in heaven.

A man who betrayed God with sin is Satan's blood. That is why Satan tempts us with sin. If we are Satan's belongings we live in eternity with him. The same way that in the Chronicles of Narnia when Edmund betrayed Aslan he was considered the White Witches "blood" and "belonging." That is also why he was thrown in jail which was a symbol for hell. God cannot take you back from Satan if you do not ask for forgiveness.

With these points I state that this resolution must and will stand.
And yes I would like to view this debate in a Christian viewpoint not a catholic viewpoint but a baptist or presbyterian one.
Debate Round No. 1
tornshoe92

Pro

I thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate and while I had planned on making opening statements and starting the debate in this round I guess I'll just jump right to it.

The comparison between not believing in a car and not believing in god are not equivalent. I can touch, feel, see, and unfortunately taste a car, while the same can't verifiably be said for god. Therefore, while a person who denies the existence of a car that they can see and feel is delusional, someone who doesn't believe in god (though not necessarily actively denying the possible existence of one) is merely skeptical.

"God gave them chances and put others on their paths to tell them about God so it is not even Gods fault."
Simply having people tell someone that god exists should not be enough to fully convince them. I'm not saying that absolute proof is required because in many of the ideas that we take for granted there is no such proof. However, unlike in many of those ideas (gravitation, evolution, etc.) there isn't really much evidence that would point towards the existence of a god. Therefore, if god has not provided people who question the way the universe works with indications that he/she exists, then it is god's fault that they don't believe.

In regards to the statement about god not being able to come in contact with sin, in what way are believers less sinful than non-believers? If it's because, as I've heard it described before, accepting Jesus as your savior and believing in god absolves you of sin then I refer back to my previous paragraph where I say that it's god's fault that non-believers don't believe.

To further explain my idea that it is not the fault of the individual that they don't believe in god, I will explain my own situation. My dad has always been the kind of person to question most everything and anything he hears. Because he has been a huge influence on me through us talking about viewpoints and the like on hunting trips and just in idle conversation, it naturally follows that I have developed a similar mindset of questioning the world and trying to the best of my ability not to simply accept that something is true just because I was told so. If my mindset has been molded, not by choice but by my surroundings, to be skeptical, then how is it my fault (and therefore a logical reason for damnation) that I don't believe in a being when I have nothing to indicate that he/she exists?
Isap8

Con

Isap8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tornshoe92

Pro

I'm not sure if my opponent has forfeited the debate entirely or just this round. Either way I invite them to rejoin the argument.
Isap8

Con

Isap8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tornshoe92

Pro

If anyone would like to actually debate me on this topic then feel free to message or invite me.
Isap8

Con

Isap8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
Well this is weak.
Posted by SurvivingAMethodology 6 years ago
SurvivingAMethodology
As an Orthodox Christian, I agree 100%.

Thankfully that's not Christian doctrine.

There is a saying in Orthodoxy, "We can only say where the Spirit is, not where the Spirit is not"

I could take this debate up, but I would have to invert your premise to do so.
Posted by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
I'm not quite sure how to be more clear than the topic title. What's confusing you?
Posted by ordiwayselene 6 years ago
ordiwayselene
i would take this but im not sure what your trying to say
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
tornshoe92Isap8Tied
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 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: im not going to bother writing it, the ppl prior to me got it down pat
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
tornshoe92Isap8Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeit a conduct violation and leaves arguments unanswered. Con had S&G errors ... catholic => Catholic, etc. Note many Buddhists, Jains are atheists and so may not have been exposed to the Christian God.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
tornshoe92Isap8Tied
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 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: Conduct and arguments to Pro. Obvious win is obvious.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tornshoe92Isap8Tied
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 
Vote Placed by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
tornshoe92Isap8Tied
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 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: My opponent forfeit.