azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

I don't believe your argument. So am I NOT rejecting it?No; I am.Quod erat demonstrandum.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

You are under the wrath of God now for your sin. You are being punished now for your sins. You are dying for your sins now, you are condemned to die now and it is JUSTICE. You need to be saved or you will be lost forever in death as you are now lost in death....only the fire of Hell will prevent your sin from affecting the living as it will be consumed with the dying forever in it's burning.Wake up and repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and know God's love while you can. In Hell you will only know His wrath. God loves you if you believe it or now. I would believe it if I were you, but I'm not you and I can only believe it for myself....sorry I can't help you in your dying.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

You must be really bored to reply to all these 5 year old posts.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

If people were only ever afraid of things that were real, then the horror film industry would be in a lot of trouble.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Please, everyone has irrational fear. You don't have to believe something is possible to be afraid of it. And if God doesn't WANT to send people to Hell, why does he? He's God, he can do whatever he wants. There are people on this Earth, fail able humans like you and me, who love all people unconditionally, even if they don't deserve it. People like Gandhi, who wasn't a Christian. Can you really tell me that any mortal man can be more accepting and loving than God? Because that's what your telling me, that God is more loving than anyone yet has less empathy than even the average person.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

It is a myth. No one knows. But, according to the myth, yes.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

.......................................................................................
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

Yes a benovelent god would send people to hell because he is benovelent and he does send people to hell.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

A statement of faith, does not make for a good argument. Tautological argument.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

True that, but the premise already flattens God into His benevolent side alone, which comes out as a lie. God is just too. Can one be just and not punish the wicked? No. Hence God, who is - benevolence aside - just, would send people to the final destination of the Prince of Lies because they turned to things that they made - and that they can't get help from - to help them through crisis.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

God is just too. Can one be just and not punish the wicked? No. Hence God, who is - benevolence aside - just, would send people to the final destination of the Prince of Lies Is it 'JUST' to correct finite mistakes with infinte punishments?
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

Disobedience to God, which is sin, cannot be allowed into heaven./It's obvious that we as humans, with our very finite understanding cannot truly understand why just any sin can condemn us to hell for an eternity./We can try and understand, but we won't completely until God has revealed it to us./The fact is, God has told us ahead of time that we will be judged and that any, even the smallest amount of disobedience, such as eating a mere fruit like Adam and Eve did when told not to, is hell-worthy for all of eternity./We may not understand this, but it is so. And we can either accept that, move on and do our best to do what's right through Christ, or we can reject it and move on with doing what we think is right. /The choice is presented, and it is ours to make. No one else can make that decision for us. Not even God will make that decision for us. It is our sacred and divine right to make that decision for ourselves./However, do not forget that God has not just done away with us. God has not left us without a way out. He knows how strict He is, but He has given us mercy, He has provided a way of being redeemed so that we can choose not to suffer for all eternity./We do not have to do this or that. We do not have earn this or prove that. All we have to do is merely choose to accept Christ and follow Him. /We follow Christ, accept his sacrifice and resurection, and follow God by growing ever closer to Him by learning about Him and honoring Him, and we will not only be saved, salvation is the free part, but we will earn rewards. Rewards are the things you have to actually earn by your works. However, works are necessary after salvation to grow in God. If you do not grow in God, you will be tripped up somewhere along the way and may be pulled back into the life of sin that you left for Christ.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Exactly what I'm trying to say! It's very different when a human judge punishes a murderer with prison or even execution; that is fair. But can it be called fair to ETERNALLY punish for anything? I'm not saying that people like Hitler got a free pass into Heaven, but temporary "hells" like Purgatory are far more just in the mind of any rational being.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

I agree with that. God, who is benevolent, cannot be anything but just. As true peace is held by those with the willingness and ability to fight to defend themselves and destroy their enemies, so also true benevolence cannot be but by one who is willing and able to punish the guilty. We are all guilty, therefore, true benevolence and justice, which go hand in hand, would require that we be punished. Except for the the fact that the Son of God, Christ himself gave His life, became obedient to the unjust punishment of death, which is reserved for those that actually sin, we would all go to hell as our just punishment for sin. We may not fully understand why the smallest sin is hell-worthy now, but we will at judgment. However, if we put our faith in Christ Jesus, we will be saved because Christ Jesus was unjustly punished, and therefore has the right to spare us, allowing his unjust punishment cover for our just punishment, thus saving us for as long as we remain with Him. And after this life, if we remain with Him to the point of death, we will be with Christ Jesus for all eternity because the Son of God will never go to hell because he has never sinned.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

We may not fully understand why the smallest sin is hell-worthy now, but we will at judgment.This is a presumption of an unknown future confirmation of your current belief. It is just as likely that we may find out that it isn't a JUST punishment. Please make an actual argument.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

And why are we all guilty? Because our ancestors ate fruit from a tree and committed a crime that was only a crime because God told them not to, for no reason other than to test their faithfulness? And now because our ancient ancestors did that even we who never do much as steal a piece of candy as small children are required to believe in the sacrifice of Christ or else burn for the supposed sin of someone else, especially if we DO steal a piece of candy, or lie to our parents, or, God forbid, fall in love with someone who just so happens to be of the same sex, or do any other number of things that can only be called evil in the minds of the writers of the Bible who I can only assume were some of the most apathetic persons to ever live? Even if we do make a truly terrible mistake it is all a part of being human. If God loved us but has to send us to Hell because we make some wrong choices in our lives, he wouldn't let us make those choices to begin with
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Obviously, no benevolent being, supernatural or otherwise, would subject another being to even 5 minutes of indescribable agony for believing a certain way. In order to accept the notion that a God would do such a thing one must believe that;a) God would bring into existence billions of creatures knowing that the vast majority of them would end up suffering in Hell,b) That a minority of these creatures could escape this fate by accepting the religious beliefs that they were taught as children,c) That the vast majority of these creatures could escape this fate only by utterly rejecting the religious beliefs that they had been taught as children and (not just that!) also, picking out from the thousands upon thousands of remaining religions the one "True" one.The kind of God that would set this sort of system into motion is the exact antithesis of benevolent. Picture a child that squats over an ant hill with a magnifying glass burning all the ants that come out of the hole except for those that travel a very narrow path. Is that child benevolent towards the ants? Or is that child mean-spirited and cruel?
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: You Have A Choice

So what you're saying is. . .You would prefer a God who didn't give you freedom of will and choice?? That He would bring you into existence and then say, "You bow down to me. You have no choice."God doesn't send people to hell, they do it themselves.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Why does free choice have to include Hell? I can certainly make a choice without being punished if the choice is not the one that God prefers. In fact, since the tools that I use to make the choice (my mind and my reason) were supposedly given to me by God, it seem pretty cruel to punish me if I come up with the "wrong" answer. And how can you say God doesn't send people to Hell? Who's in charge? Is He omnipotent or not? It's His system, not mine, it seems silly to absolve Him of any responsibility.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

God gave you free choice. That is what makes you human. God does not give you the thoughts in your head. That is the beauty of free will. God doesnt send people to hell. People send themselves to hell. They have the Free will to believe whatever they please. God does not force anyone to believe in Him. He does however give you exactly what the world does. Every choice you make has consequences. You can not dispute that. Hell is simply the consequence of not accepting God. His system was perfect by the way. He designed a perfect sinless world. Man fell and as a result of that falling hell has to exist. He created man with free will and if he wouldnt have created something for them to fall in they would be robots. God very simply created order and purpose. The most simple answer is that you cant deny that your choices have consequences.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

It only included hell becasue of people who introduced themselves to sin. Hell was made for the Devil to punish him for HIS sin: the humans actually exposed themselves to it though by disobeying God. God had actually created the garden of Eden for humans to stay before the first sin, and that's what started our path to hell: human nature. Heaven is ACTUALLY a second chance for people to redeem themselves. it now up to people to choose to redeem them self or not.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

I have no patience or energy to argue about "right"and "wrong"choice. Nor is it worth my time to explain why God bestowed you with these tools. If you can't accept the reality of the matter in that you will always have a freedom of will, then go shoot yourself. And when you're dead finally, you will then know the final outcome of your final decision.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

If you can't, or won't defend you position you shouldn't try to express it in the first place. And if the best you can do is "that's the way things are because that's the way things are", don't even bother.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Don't Speak

No, I'm refusing to answer your stupid rhetorical questions. And I don't have an insult to match the caliber of your idiocy.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Don't Speak

What was the rhetorical questions being asked? Why are you getting so personally angry when all the original poster did was inquire about some very important things that you dismissed without any support? You had rather intense logical fallacies in your response, how about you clear those up for everyone reading this?
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Two Can Play

If you consider my responses to be filled with personal anger then you were personally offended by them and I am not to blame for your bruised ego.Name them and I'll clarify.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

"No, I'm refusing to answer your stupid rhetorical questions. And I don't have an insult to match the caliber of your idiocy."^AngerI have no patience or energy to argue about "right"and "wrong"choice. Nor is it worth my time to explain why God bestowed you with these tools. If you can't accept the reality of the matter in that you will always have a freedom of will, then go shoot yourself. And when you're dead finally, you will then know the final outcome of your final decision.^Anger&^Dismissing the previous inquiries without any proof.So what you're saying is. . .You would prefer a God who didn't give you freedom of will and choice?? That He would bring you into existence and then say, "You bow down to me. You have no choice."God doesn't send people to hell, they do it themselves.^And this is simply wrong. If your speaking about God and Hell, then your speaking directly about a Christian God correct? (Please tell me if I am wrong.) Or at least a "Western" God.God created rules to force mankind to follow, if these rules are not followed then they will be sent to a place which God deemed necessary: Hell. To make an analogy to the extreme, this is like putting a human being on top of a 10000 foot tall pole, with a 12 inch diameter. Under this human is lava, spikes, things that go "PewPewPew." There are 2 choices, fall and die, or stay and ____. Staying is having faith, falling is not having faith. God created a scenario where no matter what, people will go to Hell. People get to choose to go to a place where the most excruciating pain is present. This is not the product of a benevolent God. The benefits of having faith are unknowable, and therefore Hell is unknowable, and therefore the truth of there being a God who created Hell is unknowable.I mean, my 2 cents.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

jthm39, you are engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Other

o.O I sorry. He can arm himself with a book written by Carl Sagan "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". But Epicurus basically makes my argument for me in 8 sentences. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing?Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing?Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing?Then why call him God?When you apply this to any portion of any modern religions interpretation of God, it tears that figure apart. The only way to remedy Epicurus's logic is to create God as either being imperfect, or not benevolent. Either of which would make God, as nearly every religious person understands the being, completely different. This would shatter Judaic Religions, Hinduism, and practically all other modern faiths.I think a common understanding is all that is needed. The separation from Truth (JTB) and Faith really should be understood by everyone. Of course...IMO.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

There's one other way around the Epicurean argument, that is to hypothesize a God that does not interfere with the universe, or at least has not done so since setting it in motion. Such a God might even be seen as the sum total of the universe and the laws of nature. Mind you, that is not my belief, but it is the only view of God that I see as logically defensible.Obviously, such a God is not relevant to a discussion of the evil and cruel God imagined by Christianity and Islam.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

That God would have to be Deistic God?I mean, and people could just plain argue that there God is infallible and the human mind can not conceive of anything regarding to God. That reason is a fruitless attempt. But where is the enjoyment in life in that? If you can not have knowledge of anything for sure, and can only trust faith and belief?Seems very unbecoming of anyone who thinks the way i do.But, back to hell...Hell is one of 3 things.1. Non-Existent2. Created by a non-benevolent God3. Hell, Michigan
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

"God created a scenario where no matter what, people will go to Hell. People get to choose to go to a place where the most excruciating pain is present."The Bible doesn't support an eternal torture. I'm guessing that idea of hell was created by the Catholic church a few hundred years ago to better control the masses. It's easy to blindly follow the Pope when the alternative is eternal torture.No, the Bible teaches of a brief hell. In Revelation, after Jesus' Second Coming, there is a Third Coming (yes, a third), which brings the New Jerusalem to Earth. The unsaved rise from the dead and attempt to take the Holy City by force, thus sealing their fate. God then finally, literally, burns sin from the face of the planet. That's it. No eternal suffering for them, just death. They experience the Second Death, which is separation from God.Jesus experienced this death on the cross, which is why he cried, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" God had to remove himself from His Son, so the sacrifice could be complete.Back to Hell, the Bible equates Hell with the fires that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The word used to describe such fire is 'eternal'. Obviously, the fires themselves aren't eternal, or the cities would continue burning to this day. However, the cities have been destroyed to the point that we still don't know where they were. The effects of the fires are eternal. Thus, the effects of hell are permanent. The dead will never come back."The benefits of having faith are unknowable"Faith isn't just believing in God. Satan 'believes' in God. This isn't a 'is there a God' faith. This is faith that Jesus' sacrifice will allow us to not be permanently separated from God. You can't just 'believe'. If you really want to spend eternity with your Creator God, than you probably will.If, however, you don't believe there is a God, then you are resigned to living out your 80-some years here and dieing, and that's it, right? That's what Hell is. Death. No eternal torture. You are no worse off if there is a God than if there isn't.If you do believe in God, but, for some reason, don't wish to spend eternity with Him, than the real hell would be for God to force you to do so!As for your 12-inch-diameter pole, that's probably based on the belief that you're only saved if you do good things and follow the rules. But the Bible is filled with people who are shining beacons of faith who were messed-up dudes. David raped a girl, and then killed her husband to cover it up! And God called David a 'man after my own heart'. Not that God is sadistic, but because David felt truly sorry and guilty and repented of his sin. Moses disobeyed God, and yet Jesus met with him on the Mount of Transfiguration!God isn't standing over the anthill with a magnifying glass, waiting for us humans to mess up and say "A-HA!" and burn us to a crisp.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: You Have A Choice

No, I'm refusing to answer your stupid rhetorical questions.What was the rhetorical question? You never answered that in any posts, so I would like to know
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: You Have A Choice

Exactly! Also, God created Hell for all Satan and the third of the angels that rebelled against him and planned to overthrow him! He never intended it to be for us!
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

no, I believe that the general consensus is that G-d would bring you up into existence and then say "You did what you thought was right, now lets party"
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

Look, Hell, by definition, is separation from God. Do not mistake it as a place a punishment that came into being because God does not like them. Hell is torture because we are separated from the Holy Spirit. And God, in His infinite wisdom, is too "high up" for us to completely understand His motives and thoughts. Don't patronize Him.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

Obviously, you are ignorant of the scriptures,and have no knowledge, or a desire to have such knowledge. If you did, You would know that according the doctrine, he created Adam and Eve , who were then decieved by an angel gone wrong. Now, How would He know this demon would become so full of pride and hatred that he would rebel against him?Do u think that was his intention?! He didnt bring into existence billions of creatures that He KNEW would end up in Hell.Actually that was actually the OPPOSITE of the Plan. without this Demon the other religions would not have been created. And besides, If everyone knows there is a god, and it is shown all the time, How is it a religion? Its Not. Instead, Its a way of life.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

You know who else decided to punish people for not believing in Christ?Hitler.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

That's a stupid thing to say. Hitler punished people who he thought would be hindrances to him as he sought to control the world. Hitler was full of devils, nothing to do with the Holy Spirit of God who always points people to Jesus Christ so they can know His love.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

So you believe Hitler was Jesus Christ, or the same as Jesus Christ?People comparing Hitler to Jesus Christ or saying he as a Christian is some of the stupidest stuff I hear people say.