The Instigator
brian.bors7
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
futurepast05
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

"People enter hell trough no fault of their own" is true.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 609 times Debate No: 103403
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

brian.bors7

Pro

Axioms within this debate
1. "Hell" within this debate is defined as "The place of punishment described in the Christian religion".
2. "fault" within this debate is defined as "responsibility for a misfortune".
3. "responsibility" within this debate is defined as "Being accountable by virtue of having control over the outcome"
3. "is true" within this debate is defined as "has more predictive merit when compared with any mutually exclusive statement" (A pragmatic theory of truth)

So the statement that is the topic of the debate could also be stated like so:
"People enter the place of punishment described in the Christian religion without them having control over this outcome and therefor not being responsible for this misfortune." is true.

Background
I am taking the position of Pro/for in this debate. I do not personally believe in the concept of hell because I deem it an unjust concept within the definition of justice provided by the Christian religion and I think this contradicts the concept of a loving and just god. Therefor I do not think the Christian religion is a correct model of reality.

I will attempt to show that hell is an unjust concept because either trough determinism or a form of randomness people end up doing evil things beyond their control. All choices are made either because of prior causes or because of random events, neither are a good basis for condemning people to eternal punishment (or even temporary punishment).

Opening statement
People are not responsible for their actions. They are born with a certain set of personality, genes, disposition and resources (which they did not choose) and trust into a situation (which they did not choose). They make choices in life influenced by those factors. Some would say those factors are the only factors people base their choices on.

So let us take a murderer as an example. The person (let's name him Brian) chose to murder based on his personality (formed by his upbringing, etc) and the situation he was in at the time (formed by prior choices, his upbringing, etc) Neither of which he choose for ultimately based on choices he choose for himself.

Some people would state that there is a true form of quantum randomness in the world (or even other forms of randomness) that also have an influence on the choices people make. If this is true than Brian is in no form controlling this randomness. So Brian has no control over the situation he is in (which includes his personality and the roll of the random quantum dice) and therefor has no control of his choice.

Some people would state that Brian has a soul. And that soul has a free will. I do not personally believe in the soul, but lets state for this arguments sake that an undying soul exists.

Why do some souls in Brian his situation choose to murder and other souls in that same situation choose to not murder? Do "weak souls" exist? Or "evil souls"? And if so, what determines if a soul is weak or evil? If that is randomly determined it is not the control of Brian. And if Brian gets to choose his soul, with what personality, situation etc. is that choice made? Surely all those factors are beyond his control.

My conclusion is that whatever factors influence the choice (personality, genes, upbringing, situation, quantum randomness, strength of the soul, etc) they are all beyond the control of Brian. Therefor Brian is not accountable because he has no control over the cause and thus no control over the outcome. If Brian is not accountable he is not responsible. And if he is not responsible he is not at fault and if he is ever thrown in hell for murdering it is not his fault that he got there.
futurepast05

Con

Background-


I am taking the con/against side for this debate, and personally, I do believe that there is a real concept of heaven and hell, and I believe that the definition of justice provided by the Christian religion does not contradict the idea of a loving and just God, unlike my opponent. Through this debate, I will try to provide a non-theological and pragmatic argument; however, in reference to the basic idea of the nature of the Christian God, and other such points, I will go to a more theological argument.


Opening Statement-


I would like to start off by stating that I understand the axioms provided and will try to use these words as defined.


First, I understand that you are using the idea of “randomness” and all of these things are just taking place by chance and that people are by chance doing “evil things beyond their control”. By this, it is my understanding that you mean things like deaths, births, car accidents, etc. I would like to take out the word “randomness” from this argument because of a theory called Causal determinism, which is the theory that every event has a cause. If there is a cause for the event, and effects are found after it, then nothing is really “random” because something had to cause it. By definition, “random” means proceeding, made or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern (Dictionary.com). Nothing proceeds as “random” because of how life proceeds on after events happen, when something had to happen for the event to occur. For example, a car accident. If a car got T-boned leaving a driveway, a cause for the crash could be a driver forgot to look back at the oncoming lane before merging into traffic, and so an oncoming driver could not stop in time and hit the other driver due to his error of pulling out in front of him when he forgot to look back at the oncoming lane. Therefore, let’s be cautious when using the word.


So, with this in mind, I believe people are responsible for their actions. We, as human beings, have free will to do what we want, when we want, if we so chose to do so. One may respond, but what about the law? And in that, I would say you don’t have to follow it if you didn’t want to. However, if you break the law, you will face the punishment, or justice will be served, due to your transgression. Let’s look at the Christian Religion for a second.


In the Bible, the compilation of books (the Bible is not a traditional book with chapters, but a compilation of 66 books written by 40 authors, on 3 continents over a span of 1,500 years all basically telling the same story of God’s love, God’s law, what happened to the transgressors of said law, and the story of Jesus and his place in God’s “plan”. Look it up) that the Christian religion uses as the basis for its organization and beliefs, is a set of laws that Christians follow. “Evildoers” are people who break this law, and are thrown into hell for their transgressions. But those who believe in Jesus and repent of their “sin” (a transgression of divine law [Dictionary.com]) will be saved and go to heaven. This is just the basis of the Christian religion, I will tie this back in soon. So, just as a person is thrown in prison for their transgression of our law in America, people are thrown into hell for their transgression against God’s law.


Now to argue his point, as I said earlier, people have free will. My opponent makes the point of “All choices are made because of prior cause…”. I would like to say that while a person might not be able to control events, as people are born into certain circumstances, it IS our choice on how to deal with a situation. So to use your example, if Brian killed someone because his father did, and many of his friends also had killed someone, and he was violent because he had been a drug dealer at a point in his life, then according to your argument, the law doesn’t quite matter due to “randomness”, and no justice should be served for Brian because his upbringing was rough. I like to think of myself as a logical person, and I have to say, this is quite absurd. I’ll go through by situation. His father killed someone, did he take that as normal? More importantly, did he learn that since his father was imprisoned for his murder, did he not see that there was a consequence for his action? That his father’s action was wrong and against the law? What about his friends? We choose our friends, do we not? If you hang with a bunch of murderers by choice, and you end up killing someone with them or because they did too, is it not your fault you chose to hang by those people? And what about the drug dealing? Maybe Brian picked it up from his friend or his father. Did he choose to be a drug dealer? Yes. He saw the money they were making and he knew it was illegal (every dealer does, drugs aren’t sold in broad daylight illegally) and yet proceeded to transgress the law for personal gain. And finally, in the murder situation itself. Killing comes from a hatred or want for personal gain, hence why the motives are usually overreaction to an event, or a chance to cash in on life insurance. Does this sound “random” to you? You choose to respond to different situations. For example, I saw this debate and chose to respond over others on the same topic. Is it “random” that I chose to take the time to respond to this? No. It was out of my own free will that I chose to respond to this.


Now, on the issue of souls. I believe we have them, and I believe it is our consciousness. Out of our consciousness and awareness to our surroundings, we have the will to react in certain ways. Hence, free will. Relationships of any kind are built on free will, since you must choose the other person or living creature and be nice or mean and they must choose you to be nice or mean, to build a good or bad relationship with each other. As asked by my opponent, “Why do some souls in Brian his situation choose to murder and other souls in that same situation choose to not murder?”. I would have to answer that by using your own evidence. People have different morals based on their upbringings, personality, genes, situation etc. and so they choose with their free will to act differently based on their current situation. Now, what about the law? The law is established and is the same all around that particular area. Same with God’s law. It is established. If you break it, punishment, if you are pardoned by Jesus (Christians believe in the Trinity, or God in 3 parts, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit (which is basically part of God sent to Christians and lives within them, and with this spirit, they live out the Bible and its ways, regardless of how well they choose to do so), you receive eternal life. Souls in humans are not necessarily different, everyone has one, it’s just what a person believes in the consciousness and free will. It is not the strength of the soul, but rather the reaction to uncontrollable events in our lives (which are controlled events in other people’s lives, based on their choices and reactions to previous situations) that determines the outcome of an event. As humans, we learn by experience to such events, which end up shaping who we are. So, our reaction to events (our experiences) with our free will changes our morals. Different experiences bring different morals, which cause some to murder and others to not. So, technically, these “factors” of Brian, are really all in his control based on his reaction to his earlier and current experiences.


So, in conclusion, in terms of Brian, he IS accountable for his deeds because of the way he chose to respond to previous events. If he is ever thrown into hell, it is because in that moment he chose to transgress God’s law(which is like any law, if you break it, you break it), which is what the decision of what life or death comes to in Christianity. By his choices, he would be cast into hell for breaking God’s law, just as he would be thrown into jail for breaking the law here.

Debate Round No. 1
brian.bors7

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and showing consideration and understanding of the axioms. My opponent is also intelligent and articulate which gives me hope for a fun and productive debate.

Randomness
My opponent states it is his understanding that I mean things like "death, births, car accidents, etc" to be random. However I do not. apparently I have not been clear enough on this point.

In both my background and opening statement I have only used the term "random" in cases where I was referring to quantum randomness, not the seemingly(!) random events of our lives. My opponent is entirely correct that on a larger than quantum level there is less and less (if any) randomness because of the law of large numbers.

I am at the moment unsure whether or not quantum randomness exists as there are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics.

But, as my opponent hasn't argued for quantum randomness as a source of free will I will be happy to forget all about randomness within the confounds of this debate.

So let us continue as if Causal Determinism is real and we shall not speak of randomness again.

Law
My opponent states that people are responsible for their actions and that we have free will to do what we want, when we want if we chose to do so. My opponent provides no argument for this fundamental assertion but does(!) provide an often heard objection to free will: "Law".

I actually agree with my opponent on this point. The fact that a law exists is not magical deterrent to act in a certain way. People can and often do break the law and indeed they are thrown in prison for it. In so far I also agree with the fact that a divine law would not rob people of free will.

Let us continue with the agreement in mind that law doesn't disprove the existence of free will.

Choosing how to respond to situations
My opponent states that "a person might not be able to control events, as people are born into certain circumstances, it IS our choice on how to deal with the situation" but gives no argument why the choice "how to deal with a situation" is different from any other material chain of events that is bound to causality. It is true that a person can chose how to deal with a situation, but what choice that person makes is determined by factors beyond their control (some would say these factors are "part" of the very situation).

My opponent asks whether our hypothetical murderer took the murder his father committed as "normal". The answer to this question is that it depends on factors beyond Brian's control whether or not he took it as normal. The same can be said of any other question my opponent asked. "Did he learn from his father being imprisoned?", "Could he have not chosen better friends?" etc. The answers to all these questions is "Brian did what he did because of factors beyond his control."

So in conclusion: people can choose how to react to a situation but that choice depends on prior causes and factors beyond their control. It is not random at all. It is Determined by Causality. Casual Determinism.

On souls
My opponent states "Out of our consciousness and awareness to our surroundings, we have the will to react in certain ways.". I agree that we have a certain will to react in certain ways and that some of that will comes from our consciousness and awareness. But we have not chosen what "will" we end up with.

My opponent answers my question "Why do some souls murder and others don't?" with "people have different morals based on their upbringings, personality, genes, situation etc." which are all factors that are beyond the control of the soul. So does my opponent agree with the fact that some souls seems to choose murder and others don't because of factors beyond their control? No, because my opponent follows up with "... and so they choose with their free will to act differently based on their current situation.".

If two souls would be in the exact same situation (both have the same upbringings, personality, genes, situation etc.), why would some souls murder and others don't? What causes the one soul to do the one thing and what causes the other soul to do the other thing?

My opponent seems to try and answer that with the following statement "It is not the strength of the soul, but rather the reaction to uncontrollable events in our lives (which are controlled events in other people’s lives, based on their choices and reactions to previous situations) that determines the outcome of an event." and with the statement "So, technically, these “factors” of Brian, are really all in his control based on his reaction to his earlier and current experiences." and the statement "So, in conclusion, in terms of Brian, he IS accountable for his deeds because of the way he chose to respond to previous events."

In other words he states that it is this souls reaction to other(!) events that determines the outcome of this(!) event. I agree with this, but the reaction to other events is also(!) caused by factors beyond the control of the soul and reactions to other prior events. So it comes down to the first choice of the soul which wasn't(!) influenced by prior choices of this soul (because it is the first) and therefore is only(!) influenced by choices beyond the control of the soul.

My opponent states that "Souls in humans are not necessarily different", I would like to ask what exactly my opponent means by this. Because if souls are not different from each other that what causes them to choose differently in the exact same situation?

Prison vs Hell
My opponent frequently compares hell with prison throughout the opening statement and seems to suggest that if I accept the concepts of prisons I should logically also accept the concept of hell.

"So, just as a person... against God’s law."
"then according to your... this is quite absurd."
"The law is established... you receive eternal life."
"By his choices, he... breaking the law here."

I am all for throwing people in jail. But I do not(!) believe people are responsible for their own actions. There are many differences between hell and prison. For example:
  • Prison stops people from doing illegal things that bother people outside of prison. But people only go to hell when they are already dead and therefore can no longer Sin on Earth.
  • Prison sentences are finite. The punishment (hopefully) teaches people not to break the law again and (hopefully) deters them from doing it again when they get out of prison. This mechanism doesn't work with the concept of hell.
  • The treat of sanctions like prison sometimes deters people from acting in a manner we don't want them to act. The treat of hell only stops people that believe in hell and doesn't deter people that don't believe in hell (because of factors beyond their control).
In conclusion: It is just to sacrifice the well-being of people that have no control over their actions to protect other people but it is not just to punish people that only act in certain ways because of factors out of their control after death when they are no longer a treat to anybody. But even if hell had some practical means of bettering the world it still didn't mean that people entered it by virtue of having control over their actions.

Summary
I agree the world is probably not random and we should not discusses randomness as it has no influence on the subject at hand.
I agree the law doesn't disprove free will.
I have shown souls respond to situations based on factors beyond their control and prior responses.
There must have been a "first response" to a "first situation" that was based entirely on factors beyond the soul's control.
Which means all responses of the soul are ultimately based on factors beyond the soul's control.
Hell is different from prisons as prisons are practical means to influence the choices still being made. But even if hell and prison where the same it still didn't mean that people entered it trough fault of their own, as people enter prison trough no fault of their own.

Which argues for the statement.
futurepast05

Con

Opening


I would just like to start off by saying that you too are intelligent and seem to know what you are talking about. I can tell you are way more intelligent than I in logic, but I still hope I can bring about an interesting debate on the topic. I apologize if my argument seems to have shifted, it's just the way I have worded everything has changed with new developments.


Causation…?


So, keeping in mind Causal Determinism and the fact that law doesn’t disprove the existence of free will, let’s start with responding to situations. I would have to say that, you are correct. There are factors out of our control in situations, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t in the hands of other individuals. Now, on a deeper note, where do thoughts come from? Why do we have them? Why do we feel the need for justice? If we think thoughts, where do they come from? Now, I realize there are two sides to the question I am about to ask, I acknowledge that fact. Is it possible our thoughts are supernaturally affected? In the sense that there are forces of “good and evil” that affect our thoughts. What is the cause of such thoughts? My opponent would say that “it is beyond our control”. So whose control is it in? What person or things or forces, supernatural or natural, is behind our thoughts? The thing that makes up our opinions, the thing that makes up everything we are and what we do. What is the source of our thoughts? If it is not natural, what is it? Neurons fire in our brain, but why does that result in what we think? If “something can’t come from nothing”, where do they come from?


The Condition of Souls vs. Having two Souls


First, when has there ever been two souls in the exact same situation? To have two souls in the exact same situation, you would have to have the exact same person, since the only person who had the exact same upbringings, personality, genes, situation, etc. is you. So, the result would be the exact same, since the people think exactly the same, and on wouldn’t do something the other would since they are the same person, same soul. I mean by that statement that the “soul” humans have is no different than anyone else really, we all see what we see through our eyes, feel with our skin, breath with our lungs, how we live is no different. The soul is no different in that regard, in which having a soul would be the same in anyone, but this does NOT mean the condition of the soul is different. For example, as the body is hurt by smoking, those conditions are impacted on the soul as well. I believe that people’s perspectives on a soul are different, as no one has seen one, but that means nothing, since we can’t see the wind or feel or see space (like, empty space, you only see what’s behind it), and my personal belief of our soul is a “double” of us living inside, that records everything we do, say, and think, for later examination. When we die, our body will decompose and return to dust, but our soul will face judgment for what is found on and in it. People have different opinions on such a matter, but that is my personal belief. And again, I do not see a physical situation where such a matter would happen. Provide me a situation, but be wary because two souls are the same in one regard, but you will never find two people with the same condition of the soul. Why? No two people with different conditions of the soul will respond to every previous event (not everyone goes through the same events) the exact same, as the condition of our soul is ours and ours alone, since no situation can reach a point of 100% resemblance to even test such a theory due to the progression of time (New technologies, outdated ones, etc.) Which, like fingerprints, will never theoretically produce an exact copy, because if it did, theoretically they would react the exact same because if the souls had the EXACT same condition, they would react the same since they think exactly alike.


Finally, the Prison vs. Hell controversy.


I frequently compare Hell and Prison because I think of them as kind of similar places. For example, their purposes are to keep the transgressors away from those who abide by the law. This is where the condition of the soul comes in. John 14:23 (NIV),”Jesus replied,’If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Why do I quote this? There are countless conditions of the soul, but they fall under two categories in the end, they love Jesus or they do not. I’m not trying to get theological, but when talking about Hell, I believe there is need of a bit of the Bible since that is where we get the Christian “depiction” (if you will) of Hell. While the purpose of Hell is nearly the same as prison, Hell exists as a punishment for transgression, not as a correctional facility. Why? Because the time on Earth was given to the people so they have a choice on how they are going to live. “Outside Factors” you may say come into play, but in the end, it comes down to whoever chooses to listen and repent of “sin” (meaning changing from actions the Christian God finds detestable [side note: God never said he hates anyone, but he does say he hates the ways of people. Again, he doesn’t hate the people, he hates their sin] and listening to the ways of Jesus, as in John 14:23). While prison is not 100% effective in dealing their punishment, as sometimes guards can be bribed for better treatment, people escape, and people serve their sentence yet do not change, meaning that the transgressors get back among and mingle amongst the law abiders. This is where the eternal punishment kind of makes a little sense, since people got the chance on Earth but chose not to listen (which choosing to listen is 100% a choice of ours, regardless of upbringing and such, the choice of listening is ours.), but since they did not listen, they are kept away in the darkness they chose to flee to, away from those who did listen. Hell has a 100% effectiveness rate since none can escape and none can have a termination of their sentence, meaning that for the rest of eternity, those deemed righteous by the blood of Jesus in God’s judgement (sinners who accepted and lived out Jesus’ words) will be kept forever separate in “paradise” as it is described from those who transgressed the law and did not listen, without sentence termination, forever separating those who fled to purity from those who fled to transgression. Meaning: In our prison system today, while some do change, many are released from their sentence and are allowed to mingle among the law abiding people, causing chaos and trouble.


In conclusion, All it takes to avoid Hell is listening then living. Regardless of how we act, if we do not listen, there will be no learning from actions and mistakes. Listening is our choice, it is not something that comes and goes or an event that people do not have any control over the factors. In a way, you could say the only way to Hell is not listening, and listening is the only way to heaven (at least, in the Christian Religion. Listening also means believing what the Bible says, hence, why it is often called “God’s Word” among Christians. Not only because that is what we believe God to have spoken through people, but those are the words we must listen to.).


Summary-


I agree not every interaction is not necessarily in our control, but it is in someones. For example, what is the cause of our thoughts? (see about the brain in the section).


The Condition of the Soul is what determines entrance into heaven or hell, as if (in my belief of the “state” of the soul), which the evidence of such condition would only be found in the actions of someone. The things leading to such actions would be a result of refusing to or listening to [the truth] (as Christians think/know/believe it to be). The action of listening is a controllable action, so regardless of other actions, it comes down to one of the few controlled things. (apologies again for any mishaps).

Debate Round No. 2
brian.bors7

Pro

Thank you for your interesting and quick response. I accept your apologies for any mishaps. I am sure I made some mistakes in my reasoning here and there. It happens.

Control
My opponent states that I am correct in that there are factors out of our control in situations. But ultimately my point is that all(!) factors that determine our decisions are beyond our control. They aren't in the hands of other individuals either, as they are also deciding things based only(!) on factors that are beyond their control. Of course their past decisions have influenced some of the factors in turn (and you can "call" that a form of control), but those past decisions are also based only(!) on factors that are beyond their control. But I am unsure why my opponent even brought up the control of other individuals. Other individuals having control over our decisions has no influence on whether or not we have control.

Where do thoughts come from?
My opponent asks several questions starting with "where do thoughts come from?" and suggesting those thoughts come from supernatural sources. I have no answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" and although I don't believe in supernatural things I will of course in the fairness of this debate act as if those things exist. If those supernatural forces that give us our thoughts are bound by causality (as my opponent says when he is stating that duplicate souls would react the same) they will also not be in control of the factors that they base their decisions. If those forces even make "decisions".

Comparing two Souls
There have probably never been two souls in the exact same situation. The probability of that happening approaches infinitely small. But my opponent states that if two souls where(!) in exactly the same situation they would react the same. This is understandable and noble as my opponent subscribes to Causal Determinism. But this is my entire point.

Imagine being Saint Peter (or whoever or whatever makes the judgement of a soul) and two souls come before you. Soul 1 is the "double" of body 1; a good Christian that loves Jesus. Soul 2 is the "double" of body 2; somebody that lived a hedonistic and evil life, filled with sin, causing other people to suffer, he is also an atheist, or maybe he even secretly believes in Jesus and isn't an atheist at all but actively hates and rejects the savings of Jesus, think of the worst person you can think of.

Now you know and realise that these souls started out the same and they are shaped by decisions that where caused by factors outside of the control of these souls. Sure past decisions of soul 1 (the decisions to regularly attend church for example) influenced later decisions (giving to charity) but soul 1 had no control over the factors that steered the first few decisions of soul 1. Now soul 2 also had no control. Sure past decisions of soul 2 (the decision to skip school to torture small animals) influenced later decisions (starting a criminal gang) but soul 2 had no control over the factors that steered the first few decisions of soul 2.

You state that if soul 1 had been tethered to the body 2 and soul 2 had been tethered to body 1 the roles would have been reversed. So it seems souls need to get "lucky" with what body they get attached to. They can't choose the body they get attached to because they are all the same before being affected by life, so they would all pick the same body. So something else chooses what body they get attached to.

Now would you truly send soul 2 to hell to suffer eternally? Knowing that if soul 1 would have been in the shoes of soul 2 they would have reacted the exact same way? Knowing that your own(!) soul would have reacted the exact same way if you where tethered to body 2? If you did, you would be condemning soul to to hell trough no fault of their own.

Prison vs. Hell.

Even if prison was exactly the same as hell (which my opponent states it is not), it would still not invalidate the subject to be discussed as people end up in prison trough no fault of their own as I have shown, so they would logically also end up in hell trough no fault of their own.

But in my opening statement I have boasted that I would show that hell is an unjust concept, as that is of course the ultimate goal of the subject of this debate. So I will need to work a bit harder on this prison vs. hell comparison as I do believe prison has it's merits where hell has not.

Of course hell keeps transgressors away from those who abide by the divine law. So in that regard it shares the same function of prisons I mentioned. But is murder possible in heaven? Is theft? Is any other form of harming another? I would say no; otherwise it would not be paradise. So what is the harm in keeping transgressors and non-transgressors together? Why keep them away? They can't do any harm anyway.

My opponent states that hell is not a correctional facility but simply exists as punishment. This very concept of "punishment" without a need for correction or teaching is unjust. The only good that comes from punishment is influencing people to do otherwise. Prisons that exist only to punish for the sake of punishing are not just.

My opponent hasn't(!) stated one of the last "uses" of prison and hell, but might in the last round; in that it betters the lives of the victims (as they revel in knowing the people that hurt them are being hurt themselves). But I would say that feelings of revenge are irrelevant in heaven (and a sin to boot!). And a lot of murderers (and such) end up in heaven anyway as a lot of sinners choose to "listen" later in life.

Just listen!
My opponent states that all it takes to avoid hell is listen and accept Jesus saving your soul. In fact my opponent states that "which choosing to listen is 100% a choice of ours, regardless of upbringing and such, the choice of listening is ours." and "Listening is our choice, it is not something that comes and goes or an event that people do not have any control over the factors."

Choosing to listen is 100% a choice of "ours", regardless of other factors? So if no other factors influence this choice, how come some souls choose to listen and others choose not to listen? My opponent said that "strength of the soul" had nothing to do with this, "upbringing" and other factors we have no control over (including our past choices that where influenced by factors we had no control over) has nothing to do with this particular choice to listen or not. So what is left? What determines this choice? What causes some souls to listen and other to shut their ears? My opponent has one round left to come up with a factor that the soul has control over.

Summary
The fact that others might be in control of our interactions or the creation of our thoughts (even if true) doesn't help this unjust system.

In conclusion, according to my opponent "All it takes to avoid Hell is listening then living". But if this choice isn't influenced by the shape of the soul so far than all souls will make the same choice, and they will all end up in heaven or they will all end up in hell and I presume this is not the case. And if it is(!) influenced by the shape of the soul so far than that choice is not "100% a choice of ours, regardless of upbringing and such" because such factors shape our souls according to my opponent. In fact in that case the choice to listen or not will be determined 100% by those factors beyond our control.

Endings
I want to thank futurepast05 for this lovely debate. It is an important and tricky subject that deserves the attention my opponent has given it. Futurepast05 has avoided semantic discussions and has remained both courteous and frank while I "attacked" a subject that must be central to his core beliefs about the world.

Futurepast05, I would love to debate you again (on a subject of your choosing) or simply continue our conversation in a more casual tone in the comments or personal messages, if you desire. And I look forward to your last round.
futurepast05

Con

Thank you for accepting my apologies and being understanding about such situations.


Control


I stated that my opponent was correct that there are sometimes factors out of our personal control, but I did not make the statement that our lives are out of our control, because simply they are not. While situations granted to us may be out of our control, that does not make our actions out of our control. I brought up other individuals for the fact that situations are made by the choice we make to place ourselves around. Other individuals that are included in a situation are a direct result of the environment we place ourselves in. Sometimes we have no control over an event, because of the choices other people make. For example, the attacks of 9/11.


Why does it seem I support my opponents side? I don’t. It’s just I can’t deny simple truth that in life there are events that we don’t have control over. I acknowledge this fact. HOWEVER, there WILL be events we have total control over. For instance, it is a choice to commit adultery. It is a choice to lust, It is a choice to break the Law of God. Why does every person face the threat of Hell? James 2:10-11 (NIV),”For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said,’Do not commit adultery,’ also said,’Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.” What does this mean when we get judged one day (speaking theologically)? All Satan has to do is prove there was one point in our lives that we broke the Law and we deserve punishment for that transgression. It’s not about how many situations you’re in, It’s about that one situation that we chose to break God’s Law. But you see, this is not unjust, since then all of humanity would be condemned to Hell, since God provided a choice for those who believed that would cover not just that one sin, but all of them. Not just for the first transgression, but all of them, so a person would appear perfect before God because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross. This is God’s love and character seen throughout the Bible (John 3:16). The Legal implications of such an actions come in Romans 5:19 (NIV),”For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Note: It says will be made, not ARE. That means they have the chance to be made, if they listen. All it takes is one. All it took was one. Simple.


Thoughts and Souls


I see my opponent throughout this debate has to “act as if those things exist”. In regards to the topic, I do not believe there is many ways to discuss this without bringing in the “possibility” of having souls. Anyways, I do not believe the supernatural controls our thoughts, for that would rule out free will, since we would be controlled. What I meant was that our thoughts themselves are “supernatural” in a sense since they have no real beginning. Yes, neurons fire off, but no one has any idea why neurons firing leads to the intricate information thought of in the mind, such as language, problem solving, and care for personal wellness and growth. I only wish to bring about the idea that our thoughts can be influenced supernaturally.


Now, in your argument, you tell us to put ourselves in the shoes of God, who makes judgements. Hence, “God’s mighty judgement” (expressed at Sodom and Gomorrah, in Revelation, and throughout the Old Testament). I must express I am in no place to do such thing (for Judgement is God’s alone the Bible states), but for sake of the debate, I will enter into this argument.


I see what you are saying about soul one and two, and I still see the idea of randomness. I hate to use the word, but I know that’s what you believe and I respect that. Let’s put this into the example though: Soul 1 had an interaction one time with Soul 2. Soul 1 spoke of God’s love, hope, justice, and purpose for Soul 2’s life, if Soul 2 would listen to the words of the Bible and to the love Soul 1 testified to. Soul 2 chose to ignore Soul 1, ignoring the purpose, love, hope, and justice so proclaimed, and chose to continue to live in darkness. In that interaction, Soul 2 decided with his/her will to ignore Soul 1, even if he offered peace. In that instance, Soul 2 had a chance. But Soul 2 chose to remain in darkness. You seem to believe that I believe that by our actions and good deeds are the only way to heaven. Ephesians 2:8-9(NIV),”For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.” The biggest words in this are grace and faith, meaning it is by God’s grace through our (Christians) faith in him and choosing to live like Jesus did (Ephesians 5:1-2) so that we may spread his love and save those with the open arms of grace.


Regardless, back to the souls. Maybe soul 1 would have done what soul 2 did, but what does that say about the missed opportunities of hope, love, and joy Soul 2 missed had he been in Soul 1’s shoes? Soul 2 chose, as seen in the interaction earlier, to stay in his darkness of dealing, or immorality, etc. Therefore, he missed his own salvation by choosing to ignore soul 1. So by the choice of choosing his darkness, soul 2 would be punished, but soul 1, had he/she lived their life for Jesus, as such books of James, Ephesians, Colossians, etc. say they are to live, and were truly repentant of their transgressions, they would receive paradise for their choice to listen to words of salvation. No one is born saved, everyone just has the chance to listen to it or not. By Soul 1’s faith, he would be saved from eternal damnation, which had Soul 2 chosen to had, he would experience as well.


Prison vs. Hell revisited


So, First off I would like to address that you seem a little confused about the role of Hell. I said that it was to permanently keep away transgressors by law abiders. By that I stand, but the reason theft and murder is not in heaven is because it has not been corrupted by evil. That is why there is a place for the righteous and a place for the transgressors. The reason to keep them away is so that there would not be murderers among men as there is here on Earth. Righteous with righteous, transgressor with transgressor, so that the paradise would not be corrupted. It is a paradise because it is pure. If you slide in the dirt with white pants on, you stain the pants brown. In the same way, you let darkness into light, and light disappears.


Hell does not exist to punish just to punish, it is to keep the pure, pure. So dirt would not get into the seams and stain the white. Now, some “previous murderers” probably do “end up” in heaven. Why? That’s so unjust right? There’s this thing in Christianity, and it’s called being “born again” and when this feeling is described in the book of Acts, it is described of having a new heart with new desires. It’s a very complicated matter, and basically means that that the person no longer purposefully goes on and transgresses the law, but lives a righteous life by the Bible. They are “born again”, or in better words, they have a new identity in Christ. They are not who they were. They knew their actions were wrong, and repented of their evil ways. They live to not be the people, and they often share their stories of coming from the evils of their life to light in “testimonies”. It’s truly a deep subject. And to simply answer your question, some people listen because they need a purpose, they need hope, they need love, and others do not because of their love for “darkness”. Many do not listen because they are satisfied with immorality, murder, lust, etc.


Conclusion-


Unfortunately, this topic requires more space than what is given. Just like how this debate ends, with a vote on your choice of who wins, it is your choice to listen. It’s in your control this time. Thank you for this, I would say more, but I’m out of space

Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brian.bors7 1 year ago
brian.bors7
Hey FuturePast05,

I would love to continue our conversation here (or in personal messages, or mail, whatever you prefer) as I highly enjoyed it as well.

Feel free to explain your position here further if you need more room. I'll be happy to read it and maybe you can get met to understand your position.

Instead of you writing long blogposts about it, we could also start with me simply asking you questions on where I have trouble understanding your position. Than you only need to answer those small questions.

You say in your last response: "HOWEVER, there WILL be events we have total control over." My first question would be this I guess: in those events you mentioned where we have total control, what causes us to choose one thing over the other?

Thank you for your respect during this debate and these comments.

Greetings,

Brian
Posted by futurepast05 1 year ago
futurepast05
If dsjpk wishes he can take it, Its been pretty hectic here as well, not much time to do much responding... So, anyways, I literally made 8,000 characters exactly so thanks for the debate, if you wish, in a more "less competitive" manner you want to talk here we can. I like to think I have pretty decent knowledge in Christian theology, as well as trying to be a reasonable person, but winning or losing here isn't the end of the road. You can only do your best, you know? It is a very "sensitive" issue, which I know always leads into some kind of "attack" but it's nothing I haven't seen. I respect you a lot more than other people whose whole argument is literally just calling me a moron and an Idiot, and saying I know nothing when their evidence isn't even at least reasonable (They tried to bring atheist opinions into proving Christianity is wrong, which I can't take as proof as being wrong, since I was asking him specifically the wrongs of the Bible). I would just like to say that while I disagree with your view on the topic, I still respect that is your opinion and what you believe because in the same way, I also am expressing my opinion and what I believe to be truth. I really appreciate that you recognize we are both individuals with our own opinion and don't call me a "moron" for believing what I do. That was a pretty fun debate, it really got the brain working on how I wanted to answer. I wish I had more room to explain and such, those characteristics add up quick, so in some areas I didn't explain as well as I wanted to. I've got a lot going on right now so I can't like write a blogspot or something on it, as summer comes to a close and school is picking back up soon, I don't have the time I would like to have to fully explain myself, but you know this is just an online debate and what really matters is what happens in life. Random or not, believer or not, everyone has a life to live and choices to be made. I had fun with the debate, thank you for the respect.
Posted by brian.bors7 1 year ago
brian.bors7
Hey dsjpk5,

Sorry for the late reply. Was a bit of a hectic few days for me. Sorry I was unable to reply and adjust the debate to your wishes before Futurepast05 sniped the challenge. ;)

If you want I can debate you after this one (unless Feuturepast05 convinces me of course). Would you appreciate that?
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Also, if you could edit the resolution to "All those who enter Hell do so through no fault of their own."
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I'm considering taking this debate, but have an issue with your definition of "fault". I would prefer the word"misfortune" to be replaced with "action" or similar word.
Posted by brian.bors7 1 year ago
brian.bors7
I am a big fan of sticking "is true" on any(!) statement and than defining truth to define what epistemological framework the discussion is going to use, and I have a personal preference for the pragmatic epistemological framework because its so darn handy. The "true situation" described/modeled by the pragmatist probably (hopefully) approximates the "true situation" described by the correspondensist (is that the correct term? Is there a correct term?) anyway.

I agree that a correct correspondence model of reality would be preferred over a merely pragmatic model of reality, but as we have no mechanism to know which correspondence model of reality is correct and we do have a mechanism that determines which pragmatic model of reality is approximating the correct correspondence model of reality more closely (namely science... and possibly Occam's razor?), I usually use the pragmatic definition of truth in practice.

I agree that this additional detail would indeed make judging the debate harder, but in theory nobody could judge a debate without an epistemological framework defined and a mechanism for testing the validity of the models. But maybe I am thinking about this to hard. Most people (unknowingly) use pragmatism anyway (even when judging debates in a correspondence epistemological framework).

I think most people haven't really thought much about the word truth, but I think they would use the correspondence definition when pressed (I know I used to before learning about pragmatism from AntiCitizenX youtube video's).

Thank you again for your thought provoking comments.
Posted by NDECD1441 1 year ago
NDECD1441
Oh, it was just the motion that made it unclear. I couldnt really process the wording. Yes I understand now.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
I would just take out the "is true" part and leave the resolution as, "People enter hell through no fault of their own."

It seems to me that all these debate presuppose a correspondence view of truth because Pro is trying to demonstrate, through arguments, that the resolution is an accurate description of how things really are, and Con is trying to undermine that case. Most people, I think, would have a very difficult time judging a debate that didn't presuppose the correspondence view of truth. Even if you were able to make the case that some proposition has predictive value, we'd still be left wondering whether it's true, in the correspondence sense, that the proposition has predictive value.

Maybe you should initiate a debate over the correspondence vs. pragmatic view of truth. Do you subscribe to the pragmatic view as a matter of personal preference, or do you think it's a more accurate view of what truth is or what people mean by the word, "true"?
Posted by brian.bors7 1 year ago
brian.bors7
Excellent question Philochristos.

I suppose it would indeed be very hard to come up with a good testable prediction that would either validate or invalidate the statement. Hmmm.

I always use this definition of truth, but I see that it could be seen as rather silly in this case because it is probably strait out impossible to build a form of "injustice" or "responsibility" measuring device.

But if we had a sort of entity or machine that was able to, without flaws, determine wether or not a person was in their current predicament trough no fault of their own. It would detect this as one of those situations correct? (and any other situation I would guess).

I am really grappling with your question actually. It is really making me think that I worded this all wrong. Hmmm. Maybe it has something to do with trying to take on the burden of proof?

I think you understand my point. Would you be able to help me word it better?
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
I think everything is clear except how you are using "true" in the resolution. What confuses me is that you say you're using the pragmatic view of truth, but you argue as if you're using the correspondence view of truth. What does "People enter hell through no fault of their own" allow you to predict according to the pragmatic view that it's denial does not allow you to predict?
No votes have been placed for this debate.