The Instigator
Reluctant_Liberal
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The Bible does not promote the idea of eternal hell of extreme torment.

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 2 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 969 times Debate No: 24562
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Reluctant_Liberal

Pro

Con will be arguing that the Bible does support the idea of a hell with three elements:
1) Eternal in duration
2) Extreme in torment
3) Exists to be punishment

Feel free to begin your argument in round one.
InVinoVeritas

Con

To have an equal number of argument rounds, I will not make an argument during the first round.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Reluctant_Liberal

Pro

My argument is fairly simple.

1) There was no concept in the Greek or Hebrew cultures analogous to the idea of a place of eternal punishment and extreme pain. The words usually translated into "hell" in the Bible are:
a. Sheol - Hebrew place of the dead. It was not a place of punishment, in fact, everyone goes there. And many Jews did not even believe in this place.
b. Hades - Greek version of Sheol. I'm sure there's more of a difference than that, but for our purposes, this will suffice.
c. Gehenna - This referred to a burning garbage pit outside Jerusalem. While this does sound painful and looks like punishment, since Jews didn't exactly know about conservation of mass, there's no reason to suppose it was thought of as eternal.

2) Biblical references more often implied destruction or universal salvation than anything resembling eternal painful punishment.
Actually forget the implied bit. The Bible talks about "destruction," plain and simple, all the time. Likewise, the death of the soul in no way implies eternal existence after death. Then you have all those verses about how God desires none to be lost.

Anyway, I'm just trying to prove a negative, so I'll wait for my opponent to post a more detailed argument before I go any further. And remember the wording of title, eternal painful punishment hell needs to be not only plausible within the Bible, but actually promoted. And no, I do not consider the Gospel according to Dante a part of the canon of scripture.

Good luck! And may the best argument win.
InVinoVeritas

Con

1) Eternal in duration

Everyone will exist eternally either in heaven or hell (Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28; Revelation 20:14,15)
"… thrown into eternal fire." (Mt. 18:8)
"… eternal fires prepared for the devil and his angels." (Mt 25:41)

2) Extreme in torment

“furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:50)
where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48)
“he will be tormented with fire and brimstone” (Revelation 14:10)

3) Exists to be punishment

"Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ" (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).
"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17)

Re: 1) The opponent just defines the terms for "Hell" in different cultures. The Hell of the Bible clearly differs, and this is depicted by the context in which it can be found. See excerpts above. For example, I can say, "There is a red cloud in the sky." Although clouds are traditionally white, the context in which I use the word "cloud" and modify it changes it. The opponent tries to examine a culture through the contents of other cultures, and it fails.

Re: 2) The Bible clearly depicted destruction of an unceasing nature. See excerpts above.


Debate Round No. 2
Reluctant_Liberal

Pro

Reluctant_Liberal forfeited this round.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
Reluctant_LiberalInVinoVeritasTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
Reluctant_LiberalInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF