It is ethical for God to send people to Hell.

-A. REBUTTALS- "You offered nothing that says one most faithfully believe in God. " Con: You're wrong. I clearly state at the beginning of A1, " In order to go to Heaven from a Christian perspective, one must FAITHFULLY believe in God. .. " I guess you missed this, but it is there. "Furthermore, you have no logical or factual foundation for asserting that a *good deed/bad deed ratio has no affect on one's salvation. *" Con: Yes I do. One of my sources states *that* explicitly. "The logic here is that if one were to choose to live a life of sin, it is most likely that one would die a sinner without repent. " Con: I don't see how this is connected. No matter what one has done with their life, I don't think anyone would seriously choose eternal damnation. Besides, this debate is not about what actions WILL send one to Hell, it's about the ethics of God sending people there. I don't think there is any sin or action that qualifies someone for eternal damnation which is why I think it is unethical for God to send people there. "Why live your entire life in a way in which you do not believe? " Con: Well, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a Christian who is a bad person makes it into Heaven over an atheist who is a good person, I have a problem with this. I should be able to live my life in any which way I desire - eternal damnation is a completely unreasonable punishment. It's not like the person suffering will learn anything. "That biblical quote does not prove your argument as there is no indication that life refers specifically to Heaven. " Con: The quote states something along the lines of, " the strait gate leadth TO life. " If they're not talking about afterlife, what are they talking about? You can try to make a case for something irrelevant but eternal life is being implied. "Heaven is most often referred to as "Eternal Life" in the Holy Bible. " Con: Try quoting a source and I'll consider that point. As for now, it holds no merit. "Also, I find it hard to believe that you are copying a direct quote, as a strait is a body of water, while continuity without curves or angles is spelled straight. " Con: First of all, I provided the link to the particular source that contains the quote you're referencing. Second of all, English wasn't as developed during the time of the Bible so I don't see how the spelling of straight even matters. "Christians in China. " Con: China is still predominantly Buddhist and other religions make it up as well [1]. "It is said that Allah and the Christian God are one in the same. " Con: That doesn't matter. Salvation lies through Jesus and Muslims are doomed if they choose to worship anyone over God. "This is irrelevant, as although that behavior could be construed as sin, it does not disqualify a soul from entering Heaven en lieu of Hell. " Con: Why not? "33% of the world is Christian. " Con: Being Christian =/= going to Heaven. Even if I were to accept that all 33% of them are going to Heaven, 77% of the world is still going to Hell. Not acceptable. "Humanity is full of sin, but that does not meant that God hates humanity. " Con: Probably not, but that's not why I was implying. Still, why would God allow the incident with Adam and Eve? If he hates sin so much, why did he basically let mankind fall to sin? Did he want a reason to send men to Hell? "It is true that God hates sin, but that is not a qualifier for going to Hell. Rejecting God is. " Con: But at the same time, this isn't about going to Hell. It's about God sending people there. I was going over the criteria to demonstrate how truly unreasonable it is. Furthermore, rejecting God is a sin. Believing in God WILL not save you alone (refer to my first and second link in the first round). "Although we are going to sin one way or another (since it requires perfection to live an entire life without sin, and we are imperfect), this does not mean that we have a predisposition to sin. " Con: If we're going to sin in one way or another since we are imperfect, then that means we DO have a predisposition for sin. It doesn't mean we prefer or intend to though; you misunderstood. We can't HELP but to sin, we are mere humans. You concede this when you say we are going to sin at some point in some way. Sinning is innate. ". .. there is actually an explanation for this: God simply loved us too much to let us go. Repeated again and again throughout the Bible. " Con: I'd consider that an EXCUSE, not an explanation. There was no sufficient reason to allow mankind to fall into something God hated (sin). "How does one "correctly conform to Christ"? " Con: By not FAITHFULLY believing. You provided a definition of this. "Wtf? Even humanity agrees that condemning serial killers and child molesters is just here on earth. In fact, for many serial killers, we help put them in Hell. " Con: Red herring. What can one learn from eternal damnation? They have nothing to take away from it because it lasts forever. Therefore, it is an unethical and unreasonable punishment. "If Jewish people don't go to Heaven, [then] Jesus went to Hell. " Con: Oh please. Jesus was the literal son of God and the Bible is testament to Jesus's holiness. "Although they reject the notion that Christ is God, that is a bit of a gray area. Christ is an avatar, an analogy of God, but He did speak to God while He was here on earth as a man, and He is regarded as God's son rather than God Himself. " Con: Jews do not serve Christ nor do they look at him as a window to salvation. See the source I referenced in that argument. -B. ARGUMENTS- "That is an illogical simile. It is more akin to your children rejecting you after you dedicate your life to them. You'd want to kill those little bastards, too. " Con: You label my simile illogical and then attempt to refute it with an illogical analogy. There are valid reasons to reject God and even your parents (consider abuse). However, you couldn't ever deny your parent's existence, now could you? After all, they clearly exist. Anyway, how exactly do we harm God by not worshiping him? Anything about Satan or the ugliness of sin won't work because Satan is basically God's subcontractor and sin was something God could've easily prevented. I don't see how you're going to dig a way out of this hole. "Not allowing someone to live in your home because they do not respect you should thus be considered likewise barbaric. " Con: Non-sequitur. This doesn't making God sending people to Hell anymore ethical, something that you must establish as Pro. "For God to intervene is for Him to remove free will, so I prefer He does nothing about it. " Con: Do you believe the Bible predicted events? Please answer me in your next rebuttal. "As far as letting someone suffer -- if the love of your life got a disease from someone with whom she cheated on you, are you going to spend your last dime on helping her live? " Con: This comparison seems effective but doesn't follow correctly. I suppose disease = sin but we are going to sin even if we believe in God. Also, if disease = Hell. .. Hell is from God, so again, it doesn't work. Explain. -CONCLUSION- Pro has done nothing to fulfill his burden. He has not shown in even one way why it is ethical for God to send people to Hell. Meanwhile, my points stand.