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

Resolved: Non-Christians can enter Heaven

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 833 times Debate No: 26122
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Before we can begin this debate, my opponent (Con) should be a Christian.

Con's job is to refute the above topic, according to his/her point of view or the teachings of his/her Church. Just to clarify, I myself, is a Roman Catholic. My Church greatly opposes to this and I am having my perspective and knowledge of my years of understanding as a Catholic, be my basis in defending the above topic.


Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Presentation of Arguments
Round 3 - Rebuttals
Round 4 - Counter Rebuttals
Round 5 - Conclusions


1.) Legitimate sources is required
2.) No Ad Hominem Attacks

* My opponent can feel free to add more, "sensible rules". But, he/she should ask my permission, as the Instigator, before such rule will be implemented on this debate. Also, he/she should do it in his/her "Acceptance" speech.

Definition of Key Terms:

1.) God- an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being.
2.) Heaven - where God dwells and the souls departed
3.) Non-Christian - a non-believer of the religion "Christianity". E.g. Atheists, Muslims and other factions of religion.

I wish the best to whomever accepts this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Alexander_The_Great for accepting to refute the above topic.


1.) He is a christian and has vast knowledge about his religion.
2.) Accepts the rules

Let us now begin.

We know that God, is an omniscient being. He is a just, merciful and fair deity. He is the perfect judge this world
has ever known. He loves everyone and hates no one. But only the worthy should be allowed to enter His kingdom in the afterlife. By "worthy" I meant it as people who have been good throughout their lives or has done bad but changed.
People such as Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Gays/Lesbians, Serial Killers, Robbers, Prostitutes-- can, for me, be allowed to enter Heaven, if and only if, they were good in their entire life, or has done bad but changed for the better.

For any people to enter Heaven, he/she should not be required or forced to even believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But rather, and simply, done kind acts, or is kind, or is bad but has changed for the better.

To understand this further, let us translate this, into a situation.

"Farooq is an Atheist and a famous local serial killer. He has killed dozens of innocent people. Raped dozens of little girls. Stole a heap lot of money from poor people and also burned sacred images from the Church to the ground. After a couple of days, he was arrested, found guilty and sentenced 12 years in prison. Even in jail, he has caused trouble with his fellow inmates; trying to have a fight, plotting to escape and attacking several guards. His uncontrollable behavior forced them to put him on a special cell and also adding 3 more years for the offenses he has done. After his 15 years in staying in jail, he was now a free man. His family is now gone. No one was there to even fetch him. He felt a little sadness, but his mind and heart made him strong. The next months, he has done everything for his community. He helped the elderly on a local home-for-the-aged. Volunteered for the fire department. Donated blood on his local hospital monthly and being a model for those who want "change". Yes, he is a changed man. After years of good service and still doesn't believe in the Christian God or bashing people's beliefs, he died of old age."

Will God, allow the Man enter Heaven?or will he cast him down to burn in Hell for eternity for the sake of not being baptized or not believing in Him, despite his good contributions at the final chapter of his life? If God would to put the man on hell, "just because he isn't a believer or baptized, which was the only stumbling block for his entry in heaven" is God still just and fair?


With what I said above, there is no reason for God to block the entry of the souls who are worthy by logic to enter his kingdom. I await your arguments.

*I have placed no sources at the moment, as all of these are of my own knowledge and intent.


And Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -John 14:6
According to the new testament, the only way to enter Heaven, is to accept Jesus into your heart. You must accept Jesus into your life, only then will you be with God in his kingdom.
Also, consider this verse.
"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:40

I do not see how any Christian could deny this. Only though Jesus Christ can one gain entrance to Heaven. If you are a non believer and you have not accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior, According to the Christian Bible, you will not go to heaven.
If you are a good person, you pay your taxes, you don't lie as often as most, you are kind and courteous to others, you will still not be able to go to Heaven if you do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.
Debate Round No. 2


"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -John 14:6

"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:40

These verses can mean something else.

It is possible that what Jesus meant was not exactly a "follower" of him in a way praying or worshiping him. But rather, being a follower of him in a way of doing good deeds. Yes,

These were the most important commandments he gave to his disciples:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 Jesus replied: ""Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

Matthew 22:36-38

"Love" can have hundreds of meaning. Certainly, "love", as stated on Jesus' first commandment did not say to "worship nor believe". Love, as stated there, means to love God by way of doing good works.

As I said, God, the christian God is omniscient, therefore he is just and fair. If he would cast down people to eternal damnation even though they were good in their entire lives, is he still just and fair? We keep hearing the saying, "God is good, all the time and all the time, God is good" For God is good, He, by default shouldn't even do that. For he loves everyone, all of His creations and he hates no one. But, for those who were really bad, had serious crimes against life and haven't changed, God has no choice, as the perfect Judge he should cast those to hell.

There is nothing wrong with the verses. But rather, the people's wrong use of it's meaning to it. The Bible does not speak for itself, it cannot defend itself, it's a book, a non-living thing. So there can be a lot if interpretations from scholars and religious people alike. The important thing is, we should use everything "goodest" (if you will) possible way. The "love" that Jesus wants us to do.

I await your rebuttals.


Alexander_The_Great forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


It is sad that Con forfeited this round for unknown reasons. However, this shan't be the reason for the termination of debate. For his sake, as Instigator, I am revising the "overview" of this debate. This round, shall be Con's rebuttal to my argument stand. My counter-rebuttal will be next, on round 5, also the closing of my argument. Con can respond to my counter-rebuttal or simply state his closing remarks (in round 5).

I wish Con the best.


Alexander_The_Great forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Given him the chance. Vote Pro


Alexander_The_Great forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
The instigater seems to be a kid to me. This is so annoying that he asks his opponent as rule, that proper source should be quoted from the church you belong- he claimed to be catholic. Yet he gave the whole case without any source from catholicism, it simply goes against catholic doctrines. Catholic sources long ago has condemned the rest of Christians to hell for being heretics ; however they might changed their mind in later times though.

Pro, your case is not catholic at all, so why asking church reference? Only the bible is authority for Christianity. You cant possibly debate on such topics claimin yourself to be a catholic. Second; you are arguing for "inclusivism" or Accessibilism -- that salvation can be received without faith ; based on Romans 2, where Paul says about the gentiles being doing the law without knowing it, in their nature and conscience. Read this article

perhaps the level of inclusivism is higher in your position than mine. I also hold that its true. But its no way held by catholic cult. Dr Craig's level of inclusivism is extremely low. You shuold just alter the rules and stop calling urself catholic to make the debate sensible
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
The Christian bible never once describes Yahweh as "omnipotent," a designation that has been customarily reserved for gods such as Brahma and the unity principle in Taoism.

The bible uses the word only once, and then only in the rare translation - most versions omit the term entirely. In the one example of its use that I can find, it is clearly intended to be poetic and not literal.

It is very clear that the bible describes its high god as a sort of powerful fool - an easily tricked tyrant who is prone to comical stupidity. Or, rather he would be comical, if he weren't so murderous. Consider the many examples wherein he accidentally murders a few million too many innocent persons, destroys his gardens in Eden, has his son tortured and killed, allows Satan to humiliate and destroy his most loyal followers, fails to murder Moses in his tent - because Moses quickly cut off his foreskin...etc.

Each time this god admits that Satan "moved him against his will," or apologizes for drowning too many children - he also necessarily admits to having improved himself. Improvement is impossible in a state of perfection, and omnipotence must be considered a perfect state.

Therefore, the bible describes an imperfect god.
Posted by Dovahkinn117 4 years ago
The bible states that "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)"
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago

Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are characteristics traditionally attributed to the Christian God. To consider the terms as self-contradictory or as a description of only a pantheistic deity is to misinterpret the original intended meaning of that word. Omnipotent means that He can do anything He wills, save to contradict His own nature (self-contradiction being arguably a kind of weakness in itself). You say you consider this self-contradictory, but offer no reason this should be considered a contradiction. Finally omnipresence means presence "everywhere", not presence "as everything", which would be the pantheistic understanding.

So, while the definition of God in this debate could stand a bit more precision, I think it is sufficient as things stand.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
Your premise, and Round One statement contains a few flaws, which I will point out:

"I myself, is a Roman Catholic" should read, "I am a Roman Catholic."

"Legitimate sources is required" should read, "legitimate sources are required."

"But, he/she should ask my permission, as the Instigator, before such rule will be implemented on this debate." Should read, "However, my permission should be obtained prior to implementation..." In formal situations, we should avoid the use of "but" to begin a sentence, and also avoid as much as possible, the use of "I," or "you," or any other personal references. It is very rare to actually need to designate a gender in modern writing, so the angst over "he/she" is unnecessary.

English aside...

"No Ad Hominem Attacks" This is a strange thing to request. As perhaps the most unrepentant of all trolls, I know full well the usefulness of being made the target of ad hom attacks. These logical fallacies are great ways to win debate points against an opponent, by luring that opponent into sacrificing conduct scores in order to "have a go at you." I argue that you should allow these insults at all costs.

"God- an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being" .... as the fiercest enemy of the gods that can exist, I am also prone to ask "which god" anytime such vagaries as this pop up. I should also point out that you are committing blasphemy towards the Judeo-Christian-Islamic gods when you refer to them in this way: the bible disagrees with you. The type of god that you are describing is pointedly Hindu, or perhaps Wiccan, but in any case Pantheist... and decidedly not monotheistic. Remember that "omnipotence" is nonsensical as a description of an individual entity - this attribute can only apply to pantheistic religions. "Omniscience" is a self-contradictory term that is always nonsensical. "Omnipresent" also cannot be made to logically apply to anything other than pantheism.
No votes have been placed for this debate.