The Instigator
Marauder
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
xxdarkxx
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

never leaving hell after judgement

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/2/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 958 times Debate No: 11308
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Marauder

Con

I would first like to state that I do not necessarily take this side outside of this debate. I am uncertain, but I don't out-right consider it wrong. But for this debate I am taking the con side full on. If my opponent is good mabey I will have a definitive oppion afterwards.
taking the Pro side means defending the tipical christian view, as if you are wishing to argue with an athiest perspective that there is no hell to start with, that would not contradict the my side but embrace it an new extream.
when I say 'leaving hell' I am not asking you defend the position from experinces like Mr Wieses (see video) , This is why I included the term 'Judgement' in the top so that I could not argue with someone elses possible experinces that clearly are only for the purpose of making someone belive or motivate to reach out to those who dont. after judgement means not going to hell breifly as a warning but rather after the warnings are up.

In essence my position is that of Universleism, sorta. But I dont have to argue that all get out, only that all could, which allows room for the possibility that some never do because they hold themselves there.

The primary argument against universleism is that in the bible it uses the greek word 'anios' wich can only be translated as eternal or everlasting. That this leaves no room for filling in the blanks ourselves on time duration.

but Traditional teachings about Hell and Heaven is that time is irrelevant there, for eternity is outside of time, it occurse as if at the same instante as every instant in the past, present, and future. So if one were to go to ethier of these two places, Heven or Hell, and then leave to somewhere else, How long would you have to state you there? The only descriptive term avalible is 'for eternity' because it is in eternity. If you left Heven or Hell and returned here on Earth, and someone gave binoculers to see into Heven or Hell at the present moment, I propose you would infact still see yourself there (witchever you were in, Heven or Hell), because there there is no time there.

If are there ever, you are there always, even if you leave.

plus this would provide room for theology that explains true purpose for hell's fire. If they can not be reconsiled, why not have anihalationism be true? after all they no longer can be prepared for any function stuck in hell forever to never leave, no legistical value is accomplished from there continued existance. I am not judgeing god on a permenant stay being cruel or just, only noting a lack of constructive purpose.

But fire is often used as poetry for our trails that make us grow. the exersise of endurance that makes us stronger individuals. and best of all, its association with the purefication of metals. the kind of character that is associated with being sentanced to hell, if we were to ask 'what would it take to make them good'. Well Hell's fire may be the only way.

Now an mabey an individual could have solidified there anger against god in this life that there will against God might fundamentaly hold themselves in Hell, despite the fires. But there are no more extream means conceavible to implement after this so they do end up stuck there forever.

So to recap:

1) This place does not include time.
2) without times relevance, if you are there ever, you are there always, regardless of your departure.
3) annialationism makes legistical sense in dealing with an unreconcileble soul.
4) 'Fire' methephoric or not, could potentialy be used as a reconcilling tool for the worst case scenario's.
5) even granted 4, it may not be inevitable that it will break a soul to Gods will, even if its the only way possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://flyinabove.bloghi.com...
http://www.poemhunter.com...
xxdarkxx

Pro

First I would like to thank Marauder for starting this interesting and controversial debate and I wish my opponent the best of luck.

Secondly I would like to point out that I in no way believe in either Heaven or Hell or a God in any way, however I used to be a Christian so I do indeed know many things about the bible and Christianity.

It seems apparent that my opponent is attempting to take a biblical side to this debate so I shall follow suit.

There are a few things that my opponent has neglected to mention about the bible. There are actually five places that exist after you die.
1)Heaven
2)Hell
3)The pit of burning sulfur
4)The New Jerusalem
5)Purgatory (which in the bible technically does not exist but there is another place similar to it in the sense that you are waiting for judgment yet you are not able to repent while there.
Time does indeed Exist in the bible, in the sense of the afterlife.
Currently there are people dying every single day. According to the bible these people then proceed to the purgatory type location where they will be judged according to there sins and such. Depending on there life they will then proceed to either Heaven or Hell. According to this there are people entering Heaven and Hell every single day. Therefore they are there now.
Finally there is the point the is the most important, the return of Christ. Revelations outlines the events that will unfold when Christ returns to take his people home. Part of the events that unfold is when Satan is locked into the abyss for 1000 years after which he would be released for a short time.[1] However, shortly after being released he would then be thrown into the pit of burning sulfur (the pool of fire and sulfur), along with Death and Hades, and anyone who's name is not written in the book of life. Those who's names are not written are those people that went to hell. It becomes apparent that hell no longer exist. Hell is simply a the place where sinners wait until they are transferred to the true eternal place of suffering, the pit of burning sulfur.

To respond to my opponents point of "1) This place does not include time." I must say that in a sense I have already proved this point incorrect. Not only is time apparent in Heaven and Hell but it happens to be a large importance there. Hell and Heaven only exist until God returns for his people, there after when God takes his people home there will the be seven years in which the earth goes through massive peril. After these seven years god returns again, creates the New Jerusalem and locks Satan into the abyss for 1000 years. Where after Satan returns and once again tries to take over God's reign but of course he fails. The fact that he is in there for 1000 shows that time does indeed exist.

[1]http://www.usccb.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Marauder

Con

Thank you for arguing with the Christian perspective as that is what I intended this debate for. To bring attention to the arguments being given between Christians on this issue.
However, when you say ‘Biblical side' if you mean a side purely from the bible, then no. I am a Methodist and try to follow the Methodist style of taking from 4 things for our conclusions. Reason, Tradition, Scripture, and Experience.

I have no idea what scripture my opponent references when he speaks of Purgatory, even in the sense he describes, and request specification. I do know of where he is getting New Jerusalem and the pit of burning sulfur commonly referred to as the Lake of Fire. Both of which are located in Revelation. If any of you have ever read Revelation all the way through it will not take long to realize that its one big vision. And they are many aspects to this vision that make it clear it's not a literal representation of the future, such as women with rainbow hair.
Next off, if you're going to bring up places like these as other locations you can be mentioned in the bible, then you will have also bring attention to Abrahams Bussem and the many names translated as Hell that are not used in the same context except for Sheol and Hades. Besides Sheol and Hades these include Geheena (which is this place http://www.flickr.com... ) Tarterous, the pit, and the abyss, and the outer darkness. Any time you read Jesus saying the word Hell you will find it was translated from the term Gehenna, a real place the people of his time new of as a garbage dump that smelled awfull due to the brimstone that was in that valley. Sheol or Hades are terms for all encompassing places for the Good and the Evil that very little is truly known about. Tarterous is used only once and the passage only indicated that demons would go there. Abyss and grave are general references to death all together it would seem from their use. Abrahams Bussem and Outer darkness are only used in Jesus parables, which is much the same as representative analogy.
Strait forward teaching on where you go when you die simply isn't in scripture. We really largely on Tradition to establish any thought about this matter.

Though I did say I don't solely rely on Scripture it is still important and the only one presented by my opponent is the passage from revelation. You mention Satan being in there for 1000 years show's there is time. You cannot explicitly say this is conclusive of any particular passage of time as that is even more hotly debated by biblical scholars. http://en.wikipedia.org... This link shows the 4 prevailing theories, not all of which include literal interpretations of time. Amillinialism goes fine with no time in hell. And so long as both can be interpreted out of scripture that leaves us to choose based on what makes the most sense in its consistency with the rest of Christianity. You make mention of the hell being thrown into the lake of fire, where the eternal torment awaits. I'm fine with referring to the hell in the resolution as a reference to this Lake of Fire as the discussion deals with after judgment. An Annihilationist would argue the Lake is final oblivion but as the passage you linked to reads this is further evidence against that as (metaphoric or not) Satan is there forever onward. He does not cease to be once thrown in. But do take not the only eternal reference is to Satan, when it makes mention in verse 15 of everyone else being judged who is sent there it makes no mention of their eternal duration there. It simply say's they are sent there.
Now if I could draw your attention to the term torment used in the passage, scholars have noted that the Greek word kolasin, rendered punishment, should be rendered chastisement, as reformation is implied in its meaning. http://www.tentmaker.org...
Discipline is not something you do for the sake of discipline, it is for a constructive end, but given eternal stay nothing constructive can occur.

Also the use of the Greek term for eternity in the new testament is explored by the last source I gave as not meaning infinite unless applied to God, and infinite being. The author states:
"'Duration determined by the subject to which it is applied.' Thus it only expresses the idea of endlessness when connected with what is endless, as God. The word great is an illustrative word. Great applied to a tree, or mountain, or man, denotes different degrees, all finite, but when referring to God, it has the sense of infinite. Infinity does not reside in the word great but it has that meaning when applied to God. It does not impart it to God, it derives it from him. So of ai�nion; applied to Jonah's residence in the fish, it means seventy hours; to the priesthood of Aaron, it signifies several centuries; to the mountains, thousands of years; to the punishments of a merciful God, as long as is necessary to vindicate his law and reform his children; to God himself, eternity. What great is to size, ai�nios is to duration. Human beings live from a few hours to a century; nations from a century to thousands of years; and worlds, for aught we know, from a few to many millions of years, and God is eternal. So that when we see the word applied to a human life it denotes somewhere from a few days to a hundred years; when it is applied to a nation, it denotes anywhere from a century to ten thousand years, more or less, and when to God it means endless. In other words it practically denotes indefinite duration"

So the points I leave you with are
1) Visions should not be taken literally
2) Most of our ideas of the after life are founded in Tradition, as Scripture does not let us know the exact nature of any of it, only ruff ideas from analogies.
3) The greek terms ai�nion and kolasin are not even translated correctly.
4) Applying Reasoning after understanding kolasin as discipline and not torment its only logical to conclude the lake of fires flames has a constructive purpose for you personally if you're in there, as any parent knows discipline is for training your kid to behave better.
xxdarkxx

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for there timely response to my arguments.

Firstly to respond to your questions about purgatory. There are many different parts of the bible that lead one to believe that you do not immediately proceed to hell. The main one however is Job 14:12 which states "so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep."[1] This shows how when you die and are to be sent to Hell you wait in Hades, which also translates to the grave, but can also be known as purgatory by the Catholics.

I find it highly unreasonable to take Revelations simply as a vision, and to use it as a guideline as to the events that shall unfold. Revelations is not written simply as a vision but is meant to be taken as an account of the events that shall unfold. When a person dies that is to be sent to hell they wait in Hades until the day that god returns for his people, at this time during the seven years in which multiple plagues and events will unfold those people that were in Hades will then be moved into hell for the duration of those seven years, after which when the angel from heaven locks Satan into the abyss, those in Hell will proceed to the lake of fire. This is explained exactly in revelations as you can see in my source above. And since it is my job in this debate to prove that you can indeed leave hell it seems quite apparent that you can leave. For the main point that hell only exist for seven years in a sense. Yes it does indeed exist before gods return but those people that have died on earth have not yet proceeded to arrive there, as they are in Hades. Then they proceed to reside there for seven years while the anti-christ rules over the earth. Thereafter they will be thrown into the lake of fire even before Satan. Thus, they leave hell.

[1]http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Marauder

Con

Marauder forfeited this round.
xxdarkxx

Pro

It is unfortunate that my opponent failed to post an argument. I extend my arguments and strongly urge a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
because of the time perspective, I still said you leave. I even said I was defending a form of Universallism, witch is what I wanted the debate to be about the belief in eternal duration of hell. There are a lot of variations of the argument so I thought a resolution like 'never leaving hell after judgement' would be incompassing enough cover them all. But you have taught me now that it was far to suceptible to semantic change.
Posted by xxdarkxx 7 years ago
xxdarkxx
In fact you would be incorrect. The debate is "Never leaving Hell after Judgment". You have the con position thus you are against never leaving hell, therefore you must proove that you stay there once you go. You are against never leaving once you are there. Therefore you are supporting the point that you will always be there even if you leave, therefore I am to proove that you can indeed leave.

In the first round you said, "If are there ever, you are there always, even if you leave." This makes it pretty aparent that you believe you will be in hell even if you leave.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
I am very sorry for being to late to post.

I know nothing I say in the comments should technically matter towards the debate but I would like to point out that you are PRO. you stated that its your job to show you can leave hell, but if you read the context of my argument, read the way the resolution is phrased, and then observe that I am CON it should not take long to see that defending that you can leave is hell is in fact my position. Taking pro for the reselotion 'never leaving hell...' means you are to prove you do stay there for eternity if you go there at all.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
You beat me to punch, I noticed that too.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
#%^!, I mean
'How constructive'

I just cant win can I?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
"Constuctive"??
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
how constuctive
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
You go through 14 years of schooling to fix it. Apparently it didn't work.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
spell check stoped giving me any suggestions, and it stoped at every word, I dont know why. Has this happened to anyone before, and if so what did you do to fix it?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
LOL @ Spelling
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
MarauderxxdarkxxTied
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 
Vote Placed by xxdarkxx 7 years ago
xxdarkxx
MarauderxxdarkxxTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
MarauderxxdarkxxTied
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