One can be a Christian and not believe in Hell

Thanks, Con. Considering my opponent had something around 6000 characters left to refute my case and chose to leave it untouched, I'll consider it dropped, extend it to the next round and point out where it clashes with his case and why mine is better. I'll start by refuting Con's syllogism. P1. This premise is false for a variety of reasons. First, because the definition of a Christian is those who *profess* to follow the teachings of Jesus, even if you buy everything else Con says wholesale you still vote Pro because one can *profess* to follow the teachings of Jesus while *failing* to actually believe them. Indeed, religion is a much more nuanced thing than simply holding to a certain belief set, it's a combination between the personal and the cultural in an individuals quest to find a relationship with God. This is why inclusive interpretations should be preferred. Secondly, he only gains any offense off of this point if he proves that the belief in Hell is one of the doctrines all Christians must accept in order to be defined as a Christian. Since he dropped my point about how Christian doctrine is open to interpretation, there's no reason to accept that Hell is a necessary part of the Christian doctrine. Thirdly, there's no warrant on a Christian having to believe in *all* of Christ's teachings. After all, Christ endorsed the Old Testament in several verses such as Matthew 4:4, and the Old Testament makes scientifically inaccurate claims like the Earth being fixed, the Universe being made in six days, and that snails melt in the sun. Very few, if any, Christians believe in absolutely everything taught in the Bible and Con gives no reason why they should have to. P2. This is where the syllogism really falls apart. Con dropped all six of my arguments showing how the idea of Hell is incoherent and goes against the established nature of God, as well as my warrant for why we should prefer the nature of God as benevolent and loving as fact over Hell. Thus, you're going to look for *any* reason to reject the verses my opponent brought up, because since reason contradicts Hell, we're going to have to revise our Biblical understanding somehow should we view Biblical inerrancy as necessary for one to be a Christian. Since Con never established that to be a Christian one has to accept everything the Bible says as the uncorrupted teachings of Jesus, I extend my argument about Hell conflicting with reason and reject the verses he brought up as Biblical canon. You're voting Pro right now. It's worth noting that the Bible is a collection of books that are thousands of years old and have been imperfectly translated time and time again. Christians absolutely can and should question the legitimacy of everything the Bible says. Moreover, even *if* we accept without any argument from Con that we need to believe everything the Bible says as the inerrant word of God, that doesn't mean we always interpret it correctly. Just as the discovery of the Earth orbiting the Sun and modern cosmology and evolution have altered our understanding of scripture, so too should our idea of Hell be altered once we acknowledge that it's incompatible with reason. Remember, Christianity has mechanisms in place to reconcile changes in our perception of scripture, it's happened before. So you're going to be looking for any reason whatsoever to reject Con's verses. One reason to reject them is that there are Universalist verses which directly contradict the idea of Hell, and we should prefer them because they are more compatible with the nature of God. Romans 5:18 states: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. " This is saying that Christ's sacrifice was given to all people. I Corinthians 15:22 states: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. " Philippians 2:11: "and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" and so on and so forth. When we have two sets of competing verses, we have to subject one set to a different interpretation. Given everything outlined in my case, the set we ought to take another look at is Con's. Once again, you can vote Pro. When we have two conflicting accounts in the Bible of how far Christ's sacrifice goes, we have to choose one. I've made my argument for why my interpretation should be preferred and Con made no response. Indeed, we have good reasons to suspect that the verses Con cites are corruptions of original teachings. Terje Ronnenberg[1] explains: "Jesus spoke of some being thrown into a "furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 13:50) to His Jewish followers, many Christians today would say He is talking about the place where they believe a large portion of humanity will suffer without hope of escape. However in the Old Testament the word "furnace" is used to describe temporary earthly trials and afflictions such as slavery (Deuteronomy 4:20, 1 Kings 8:51, Jeremiah 11:4, Isaiah 31:9, 48:10, Ezekiel 22:18-22)God told the captive Jews in Babylon that He had refined them and chosen them "in the furnace of affliction" (Isaiah 48:10). Being slaves in Egypt was spoken of as being in an iron furnace (Jeremiah 11:4). But God brought them "out of the furnace" (Deuteronomy 4:20, 1 Kings 8:51). Scripture speaks of God's furnace being in Jerusalem (Isaiah 31:9), In Ezekiel, God declared that the house of Israel had become dross and He would gather them into the midst of Jerusalem, and melt it there (Ezekiel 22:18-22). At a time when Israel had become more wicked than her neighbouring countries, God used the image of hair being cast into fire to describe the destruction of Israel by the Babylonians (Ezekiel 5:4-5). It is clear that being cast into fire speaks of God's earthly wrath on the wicked. " Thus I've won the debate for several key reasons:a) Con doesn't dispute that we should accept religious self identification instead of adherence to a specific dogma to decide who is a Christianb) Con doesn't prove that Christians must accept Biblical inerrancyc) Hell probably doesn't exist, and verses that say it does are probably misinterpreted.