No religion.

[lightgigantic]

Pretty reasonable OP.

I think the nuts here will trip on "subjective vs objective truth", so genuine dialogue is impeded by that. Maybe it works better to admit that, while there is no universal sense of absolute objective truth in matters of religious doctrines and credos, we can probably get by with the notion of "reasonably objective truth", especially as compared with the impaired reasoning that is required to follow superstition and the bizarre metaphysical beliefs of religions.

actually its bizarre/impaired reasoning to think one can have recourse to a universal sense of absolute objective truth/ reasonably objective truth on anything without relying upon metaphysics

 

[Balerion]

Not a "bible-thumper", except to those who favor hasty generalizations.

Well obviously you wouldn't agree with it. But you don't get to define yourself.

If you know the consequences of your actions then the choice of action is the choice of consequence. People find themselves in hells of their own making all the time. Any ultimate concept of hell is no more removed from the individual's choices/actions.

Speaking of hasty generalizations...

Clearly, the rejection of Jesus (remember, there is a context to this discussion) is also the rejection of the premise of "believe in Jesus or burn forever." So it can't even be said that unbelievers were choosing between Jesus and hell; they were rejecting the premise outright. A non-superstitious example of the err in your logic is the case of a woman who stops struggling when the rapist puts a gun to her head. By your count, she would be accepting the consequence of rape. In reality, the victim is accepting nothing, and merely choosing to live. To call that an acceptance of rape would be absurd.

In the usual religious context of hell, people are redeemed from their native fate and only condemned for choosing to remain in that state (rejecting redemption). There is still no consequence devoid of personal choice. Any thinking otherwise would seem to indicate a lack of responsibility for ones own actions.

Straw man, per usual. I never said there was no choice involved. I said that unbelievers disagree with the grammar of the question. But even if every unbeliever somehow agreed with the premise of going to hell for not believing in Jesus, to say that it was them who condemned themselves is ridiculous. If you put up a sign that said "Trespassers will be shot," and I walk in anyway, and I get shot, would it be correct to say that I shot myself? Obviously not. Even accepting the rules as legitimate does not absolve you of doing the act. You talk about lack of responsibility, yet you argue that your god should be responsible for none of it.

 

[Mazulu]

There are also reported out-of-body experiences, alien abductions, demonic possessions, haunted houses, Bigfoot and Chupacabra sightings, etc.. That you actually believe this crap only proves that you're gullible. That you falsely claimed one of these stories to be your own experience only proves you're a liar.

Not exactly a proud moment for you.

I didn't lie. I told you where I got the idea(s) from. I was just "yankin' yer chain". Don't be such a putz.

 

[wynn]

That's pretty much it. Obviously, Jan's thug logic doesn't fly, but that's what he's going with in order to protect his beloved God.

If anything, Jan is protecting himself, or at least trying to.

Arguably, as far as definitions go, God doesn't need protection.

Huh, ever hear of this thing called guilt?

guilt
feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : self-reproach​

No one feels guilt unless they have condemned themselves.

One cannot feel guilt unless one actually believes one has done something wrong.

For example, in order to feel guilty for not obeying Jesus' commandments, one already has to firmly believe that Jesus' commandments must be obeyed.
Without the firm belief that Jesus' commandments must be obeyed, one will not feel guilty when one doesn't obey them.


Although in the case of belief in God as mainstream Christianity would have it, there is a peculiar problem that arises:

John 3:18
New International Version (NIV)
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

IOW, in order to feel condemned, one already has to believe in Jesus. But if one already believes in Jesus, then one is not condemned.
Which is a peculiar double bind! It seems this double bind arises from falsely limiting the scope of the meaning of "believe" and focusing only on the strictly cognitive part of its meaning, while leaving out the components 'to be loyal, to be faithful, to appreciate'.


I think that originally, the passage may mean something like, to interpret it in line with the idea that sin is its own punishment:
"Whoever acts according to God's commandments will not be miserable, but whoever does not act according to God's commandments, is miserable already because not acting according to God's commandments results in misery for oneself."

This is a truism, of course, as far as definitions go ("Acting in line with God's commandments will make you happy, not acting in line with God's commandments will make you miserable").

 

[Balerion]

If anything, Jan is protecting himself, or at least trying to.

Well, yes. By "protecting God," I meant he was protecting the idea of God against perceptions that challenge his faith.

Arguably, as far as definitions go, God doesn't need protection.

Even if the Christian idea of God exists, the only common space believers share with nonbelievers are the foundational texts. To preserve God for each believer, and for future generations, God certainly does need some protection.

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. The person cannot condemn themselves, because the person does not stand in judgment of themselves.


2. God is judge (as well as jury and executioner), and as such is the one who doles out the punishment.


3. But the parameters of this "righteousness" and the judgment of transgression are laid out and made by God, not the person.


4. You're right.


5. 3:18 and 3:36 amount to the same thing, and are very similar verses.


6. No, the only thing you did was prove you can't read so well.


7. The question was where the scriptures showed God condemning people for unbelief, and this passage in John 3 is a good example of it.


8. You're trying to make it into a semantic argument, but since your language skills are so poor, you aren't getting anywhere with it.

1. The Bible disagrees...

Romans 2.1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.

Mark 7.20-23 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

2. The same Bible states..Romans 2.2. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.
The outcome of the student is ultimately down to his own actions although it is the examiners word that is the authority.

3. Just like the parameters for qualification, and the judgement of whether one passes or fails is made by a governing body, not the person sitting the exam.

4. I know.

5. I'd be concerned if they didn't, or weren't.

6. I think that applies to you.

7. Wanting it to be (as you do) isn't the the same as it actually being.

8. I don't have to try anything when arguing with you, it states what it states, and that's all there is to it.


jan.

 

[Balerion]

1. The Bible disagrees...

Again, it's a semantic trick. It is not the person who lays out the sentence.

The same Bible states..Romans 2.2. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.
The outcome of the student is ultimately down to his own actions although it is the examiners word that is the authority.

Read my response to Syne for an explanation of why that logic is faulty.

3. Just like the parameters for qualification, and the judgement of whether one passes or fails is made by a governing body, not the person sitting the exam.

Exactly. So how can you then say that God doesn't condemn people? The governing body also passes or fails a person, so why wouldn't God condemn or save?

5. I'd be concerned if they didn't, or weren't.

You clearly don't understand what either of them mean.

7. Wanting it to be (as you do) isn't the the same as it actually being.

Talking to the mirror again?

8. I don't have to try anything when arguing with you, it states what it states, and that's all there is to

It. That's all there is to it, you mean. And yes, that's correct. It states what it states, your lack of comprehension notwithstanding.

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. Again, it's a semantic trick. It is not the person who lays out the sentence.



2. Read my response to Syne for an explanation of why that logic is faulty.



3. The governing body also passes or fails a person, so why wouldn't God condemn or save?



4. You clearly don't understand what either of them mean.

1. A semantic trick?
Demonstrate.



2. Not my problem. If you have something to say to me, then say it to me.



3. The governing body acts according to the person's contribution.



4. Say's him who didn't even know they were different verses.


jan.

 

[kx000]

According to your faith, only God has the ability to determine who does and doesn't go to hell.

I have this ability.

 

[kx000]

Why is it always the bible-thumpers that have so much trouble reading?

One can deem their own actions wrong, but none can cast the judgment that God can. You can feel guilty all you like, but you can't send yourself to hell.

Dude, people plant their feet in hell. There are dudes who go to hell to be cowboys there. People really determine themselves to go to hell.

 

[Syne]

Not a "bible-thumper", except to those who favor hasty generalizations.

Well obviously you wouldn't agree with it. But you don't get to define yourself.

Bible thumper
(U.S.) someone perceived as aggressively imposing their Christian beliefs upon others. The term derives from preachers thumping their hands down on the Bible to emphasize a point during a sermon. The term's target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religion, fundamentalist or not. The term is most commonly used in English-speaking countries. -wiki​

So you are trying to say I am a Christian? How are you a better judge of my beliefs and affiliations than I am? If simply a public discussion of religion counts then you must be a bible-thumper as well.

Maybe you should contrast perception and self-knowledge.

People find themselves in hells of their own making all the time. Any ultimate concept of hell is no more removed from the individual's choices/actions.

Speaking of hasty generalizations...

Clearly, the rejection of Jesus (remember, there is a context to this discussion) is also the rejection of the premise of "believe in Jesus or burn forever." So it can't even be said that unbelievers were choosing between Jesus and hell; they were rejecting the premise outright.

Evasion, as I was responding specifically to this claim of yours:

One can deem their own actions wrong, but none can cast the judgment that God can. You can feel guilty all you like, but you can't send yourself to hell.​

If you know the consequences of your actions then the choice of action is the choice of consequence.

A non-superstitious example of the err in your logic is the case of a woman who stops struggling when the rapist puts a gun to her head. By your count, she would be accepting the consequence of rape. In reality, the victim is accepting nothing, and merely choosing to live. To call that an acceptance of rape would be absurd.

A blatant causal fallacy. Her action to stop struggling had nothing to do with whether she was raped, as the rape necessarily precedes any cessation of struggling against being raped. It is your reasoning that is obviously faulty. You even said it yourself, the victim's action only relates to the possible consequence of surviving the incident.

This also amounts to a appeal to ridicule straw man.

Straw man, per usual. I never said there was no choice involved.

No straw man, as I never said you did say "there was no choice involved".

I said that unbelievers disagree with the grammar of the question. But even if every unbeliever somehow agreed with the premise of going to hell for not believing in Jesus, to say that it was them who condemned themselves is ridiculous. If you put up a sign that said "Trespassers will be shot," and I walk in anyway, and I get shot, would it be correct to say that I shot myself? Obviously not. Even accepting the rules as legitimate does not absolve you of doing the act. You talk about lack of responsibility, yet you argue that your god should be responsible for none of it.

Lame non sequitur, as it definitely would be correct to say a trespasser got himself shot. His actions were causal to the consequence. If you ran out into a busy street, would you claim that you had nothing to do with getting hit by a car?

Again, seemingly ad nauseam, not my god. You argue that there is no god, so you should have no problem whatsoever with no god being blamed. Or are you having an identity crisis?

One cannot feel guilt unless one actually believes one has done something wrong.

For example, in order to feel guilty for not obeying Jesus' commandments, one already has to firmly believe that Jesus' commandments must be obeyed.
Without the firm belief that Jesus' commandments must be obeyed, one will not feel guilty when one doesn't obey them.

Pretty obvious. And?

Although in the case of belief in God as mainstream Christianity would have it, there is a peculiar problem that arises:

John 3:18
New International Version (NIV)
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

IOW, in order to feel condemned, one already has to believe in Jesus. But if one already believes in Jesus, then one is not condemned.


I think that originally, the passage may mean something like, to interpret it in line with the idea that sin is its own punishment:
"Whoever acts according to God's commandments will not be miserable, but whoever does not act according to God's commandments, is miserable already because not acting according to God's commandments results in misery for oneself."

This is a truism, of course, as far as definitions go ("Acting in line with God's commandments will make you happy, not acting in line with God's commandments will make you miserable").

Seems you have solved your own dilemma. Maybe you are on your way to being able to evaluate religion for yourself after all. Most of what constitutes "mainstream Christianity" is what is taught to children, so it should be expected to be lacking in abstract depth.

 

[wynn]

Pretty obvious. And?

Christians (and some other theists) will sometimes try to instill feelings of guilt in people for not obeying Jesus. Their line of reasoning is that it is the person's own fault if they end up in hell (of course, believing in God just so that one wouldn't end up in hell is considered damnable as well):

1. Jaylews question was a response to ''Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condemn others for not believing?''.
Explain how this is a ''condemnation for not believing?
This verse clearly shows that the person has already condemned their own self by not believing.

As already noted, this is the logic of a bully. As such, it is crude, and there isn't much to explain or to make it palatable.


And as I already noted, there is an explanation more in line with natural theology, for a verse like John 3:18 -

John 3:18
New International Version (NIV)
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

IOW, in order to feel condemned, one already has to believe in Jesus. But if one already believes in Jesus, then one is not condemned.
Which is a peculiar double bind! It seems this double bind arises from falsely limiting the scope of the meaning of "believe" and focusing only on the strictly cognitive part of its meaning, while leaving out the components 'to be loyal, to be faithful, to appreciate'.


I think that originally, the passage may mean something like, to interpret it in line with the idea that sin is its own punishment:
"Whoever acts according to God's commandments will not be miserable, but whoever does not act according to God's commandments, is miserable already because not acting according to God's commandments results in misery for oneself."

This is a truism, of course, as far as definitions go ("Acting in line with God's commandments will make you happy, not acting in line with God's commandments will make you miserable").

However, I yet have to see a Christian appeal to it; according to mainstream (or not so mainstream) Christianity, only (their particular version of) belief in Jesus can save a person from God's wrath, whereas all other forms of theism (such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism) are the work of the devil and will land their adherents in eternal damnation.

Seems you have solved your own dilemma. Maybe you are on your way to being able to evaluate religion for yourself after all. Most of what constitutes "mainstream Christianity" is what is taught to children, so it should be expected to be lacking in abstract depth.

How much depth can be expected from a religion, whether dumbed down for children or not, that teaches that God incarnated Himself, then staged a murder/suicide, all so as to save humanity from His own wrath ...

Of course, unless one already has certainty about God, one has to allow for what are on its face absurd, repugnant possibilities.

 

[Balerion]

1. A semantic trick?
Demonstrate.

I already have. The original verse quoted demonstrates this.

2. Not my problem. If you have something to say to me, then say it to me.

Grow up, kid. I'm not repeating myself when my words are right there for you to see.

3. The governing body acts according to the person's contribution.

THe governing body acts according to the parameters that they themselves have laid out. God would not condemn that person had God not made the rule that unbelief resulted in condemnation.

 

[Balerion]

Bible thumper
(U.S.) someone perceived as aggressively imposing their Christian beliefs upon others. The term derives from preachers thumping their hands down on the Bible to emphasize a point during a sermon. The term's target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religion, fundamentalist or not. The term is most commonly used in English-speaking countries. -wiki​

So you are trying to say I am a Christian? How are you a better judge of my beliefs and affiliations than I am? If simply a public discussion of religion counts then you must be a bible-thumper as well.

Maybe you should contrast perception and self-knowledge.

You can pretend to be a moderate, or even a non-Christian, but your belief are clear. You are a gibberish-spouting Christian apologist.

Evasion, as I was responding specifically to this claim of yours:

One can deem their own actions wrong, but none can cast the judgment that God can. You can feel guilty all you like, but you can't send yourself to hell.​

Speaking of evasion...You decided to treat the term "hell" as a figurative place, rather than a literal one, which is what I was referring to in the passage you quoted. We were talking about God literally condemning people to literal hell, and you come in with this BS about people sending themselves to "hells of their own making?" Take that nonsense elsewhere, please.

A blatant causal fallacy. Her action to stop struggling had nothing to do with whether she was raped, as the rape necessarily precedes any cessation of struggling against being raped. It is your reasoning that is obviously faulty. You even said it yourself, the victim's action only relates to the possible consequence of surviving the incident.

Another nonsensical statement. The rape does not precede the struggle. The attack does, but the rape comes after the gun and the cessation of struggling. By your logic, the woman would be accepting of the rape. As you said before: "If you know the consequences of your actions then the choice of action is the choice of consequence."

This also amounts to a appeal to ridicule straw man.

Your point was absurd. You can't call it a straw man simply because I pointed out how absurd it was.

No straw man, as I never said you did say "there was no choice involved".

Of course you did. You said: "There is still no consequence devoid of personal choice. Any thinking otherwise would seem to indicate a lack of responsibility for ones own actions."

You're so bent on having the appearance of being right that you forget your words are available for all to see. Simply saying "I never said that" doesn't make it true.

Lame non sequitur, as it definitely would be correct to say a trespasser got himself shot. His actions were causal to the consequence. If you ran out into a busy street, would you claim that you had nothing to do with getting hit by a car?

Again with the straw men. I never said that if you shot me, I would have no role in the shooting. In fact, I made it clear that even if I knew the rules and made the conscious choice to risk the shooting, you would still have shot me. If I walk into your house and am shot, you shot me. That's how it works. Even if I take responsibility for knowing the consequences, you still shot me. You don't get to pretend you had nothing to do with it.

Again, seemingly ad nauseam, not my god. You argue that there is no god, so you should have no problem whatsoever with no god being blamed. Or are you having an identity crisis?

Of course it's your God. Your arguments on this subject most often devolve into angry ad hominem attacks and blatant lies. This wouldn't happen if you didn't have some personal stake in the matter.

 

[Syne]

Christians (and some other theists) will sometimes try to instill feelings of guilt in people for not obeying Jesus. Their line of reasoning is that it is the person's own fault if they end up in hell (of course, believing in God just so that one wouldn't end up in hell is considered damnable as well):

Regardless of their reasoning, attempts to instill guilt is not biblically justified.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. -Matthew 7​

 

[Syne]

You can pretend to be a moderate, or even a non-Christian, but your belief are clear. You are a gibberish-spouting Christian apologist.

Only to those who insist on hasty generalizations and black and white thinking. No attempt to justify this nonsense by taking me up on my suggestion to contrast perception with self-knowledge, huh? So you either could not find anything to help make your point or just could not be bothered. Just ridiculous bare assertions.

Evasion, as I was responding specifically to this claim of yours:

One can deem their own actions wrong, but none can cast the judgment that God can. You can feel guilty all you like, but you can't send yourself to hell.​

Speaking of evasion...You decided to treat the term "hell" as a figurative place, rather than a literal one, which is what I was referring to in the passage you quoted. We were talking about God literally condemning people to literal hell, and you come in with this BS about people sending themselves to "hells of their own making?" Take that nonsense elsewhere, please.

Again, for someone who purportedly does not believe in a literal hell, you sure make a lot of fuss about it. I would say that arguing over something you think is pure fiction is the only nonsense here. Are you doing so for any other reason than to make an appeal to ridicule?

A blatant causal fallacy. Her action to stop struggling had nothing to do with whether she was raped, as the rape necessarily precedes any cessation of struggling against being raped. It is your reasoning that is obviously faulty. You even said it yourself, the victim's action only relates to the possible consequence of surviving the incident.

Another nonsensical statement. The rape does not precede the struggle. The attack does, but the rape comes after the gun and the cessation of struggling.

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse...

The term sexual assault is used, in public discourse, as a generic term that is defined as any involuntary sexual act in which a person is threatened, coerced, or forced to engage against their will, or any sexual touching of a person who has not consented. This includes rape (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration), inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner. -wiki​

Oh, I see, you are equivocating over what constitutes rape, as opposed to what constitutes sexual assault, but seeing as rape is a type of sexual assault, the victim would be resisting the entire assault (without any arbitrary distinction). Between splitting such hairs, erecting this perverse straw man about a woman accepting rape, and naively assuming that rape can only occur upon the "cessation of struggling" you do not seem to have any idea of what you are talking about.

Still doubt that struggling can occur during rape?

...the offender finds the victim's struggling an erotic experience.

Sadistic rape usually involves extensive, prolonged torture and restraint. [not sexual intercourse]

The victims of a sadistic rapist may not survive the attack. For some offenders, the ultimate satisfaction is gained from murdering the victim. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_rape#Sadistic_rapist​

As you can see, this type of rapist both includes things other than sexual intercourse and is the most likely to kill.

By your logic, the woman would be accepting of the rape. As you said before: "If you know the consequences of your actions then the choice of action is the choice of consequence."

This is a straw man that is leading me to question your own proclivities. The chosen consequence is to survive. A woman in such a situation does not have any CHOICE as to whether or not they are raped, as they are likely to be raped regardless of if they are killed in the end. Intimating that a woman chooses or accepts rape is truly vile, and wholly your suggestion.

This also amounts to a appeal to ridicule straw man.

Your point was absurd. You can't call it a straw man simply because I pointed out how absurd it was.

You are really obtuse. It is a straw man, by definition, because I never implied anything of the sort, and if it is not an appeal to ridicule then you are deluded enough to think that your perceptions and interpretations constitute the reality (all the while only a projection).

No straw man, as I never said you did say "there was no choice involved".

Of course you did. You said: "There is still no consequence devoid of personal choice. Any thinking otherwise would seem to indicate a lack of responsibility for ones own actions."

You're so bent on having the appearance of being right that you forget your words are available for all to see. Simply saying "I never said that" doesn't make it true.

You seriously need to learn what a straw man is. I never implied that you made that argument. What I did do was point out that there must always be some personal choice involved, hence the individual must have some hand in their own fate. I forgot nothing, but thanks for demonstrating your black and white thinking again.

Lame non sequitur, as it definitely would be correct to say a trespasser got himself shot. His actions were causal to the consequence. If you ran out into a busy street, would you claim that you had nothing to do with getting hit by a car?

Again with the straw men. I never said that if you shot me, I would have no role in the shooting. In fact, I made it clear that even if I knew the rules and made the conscious choice to risk the shooting, you would still have shot me. If I walk into your house and am shot, you shot me. That's how it works. Even if I take responsibility for knowing the consequences, you still shot me. You don't get to pretend you had nothing to do with it.

How can someone who supposedly does not believe a god exists argue so vehemently that one must be involved? Just because there is a risk does not mean that there is an intent. Your example of trespassing is a red herring. The consequences could just as easily (and biblically) be comparable to "warning: high voltage", where no other intent is involved.

Of course it's your God. Your arguments on this subject most often devolve into angry ad hominem attacks and blatant lies. This wouldn't happen if you didn't have some personal stake in the matter.

What ad homs? They are called logical fallacies. I do have a personal stake in that matter. I have a personal stake in anything being unreasonably misrepresented, whether it be science, religion, or even atheism. But no matter how much you insist, none of this makes it my god. Quit trying to convert me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. I already have. The original verse quoted demonstrates this.




2. Grow up, kid. I'm not repeating myself when my words are right there for you to see.



3. THe governing body acts according to the parameters that they themselves have laid out. God would not condemn that person had God not made the rule that unbelief resulted in condemnation.

1.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

How does this verse demonstrate a ''semantic trick''?


2.

Clearly, the rejection of Jesus (remember, there is a context to this discussion) is also the rejection of the premise of "believe in Jesus or burn forever."

Where in any scripture does it say this?
How have you arrived at this conclusion from the original verse quoted (if that is the ''premise'' you refer to)?


3. God doesn't condemn the person, that has already been established through the verses. Are you blind, or just plain ignorant?

jan.

 

[kx000]

To "condem" someone, they must have been all there own. One man faith, one man named doom. Let them have it.

This thing, to Faith Jesus. Go to Heaven hereafter, and had not. To have been a scientist, self proclaimed. Best ye' believe.

Now, who feels religious?

 

[Balerion]

Only to those who insist on hasty generalizations and black and white thinking. No attempt to justify this nonsense by taking me up on my suggestion to contrast perception with self-knowledge, huh? So you either could not find anything to help make your point or just could not be bothered. Just ridiculous bare assertions.

There's nothing ridiculous about the assertion that you're a Christian apologist. Your words make my case for me.

Again, for someone who purportedly does not believe in a literal hell, you sure make a lot of fuss about it. I would say that arguing over something you think is pure fiction is the only nonsense here. Are you doing so for any other reason than to make an appeal to ridicule?

So then discussing the logic of events or motivations of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire can be for no other purpose than to ridicule? And why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I could discuss the subject while also ridiculing it.

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse...​

Okay, you clearly aren't going to be honest about this, and would rather nitpick me to death than address the actual point, which was that people who reject Jesus are not condemning themselves, as they are also not accepting that eternal damnation is the necessary result of their unbelief. Instead of addressing that, you're going off on a tangent about what constitutes rape and sexual assault.

You seriously need to learn what a straw man is. I never implied that you made that argument. What I did do was point out that there must always be some personal choice involved, hence the individual must have some hand in their own fate. I forgot nothing, but thanks for demonstrating your black and white thinking again.

Yes, you did imply that. The words are right there.

How can someone who supposedly does not believe a god exists argue so vehemently that one must be involved?

Is it that you didn't read any of the posts you're quoting? I'm at a loss for how you could even ask this question. If you get into an argument regarding the ultimate fate of the kid at the end of Blood Meridian, must you also believe that the Judge is a real person? Or can you argue your case in the context of the book?

I mean, seriously.

Just because there is a risk does not mean that there is an intent. Your example of trespassing is a red herring. The consequences could just as easily (and biblically) be comparable to "warning: high voltage", where no other intent is involved.

That doesn't work on any level. First and foremost, the reason high-voltage areas exist is because there are technological limitations (and probably universal laws) preventing him from making such things as electricity completely safe. God has no such limitations. The gambit is of his own invention, so it cannot be said that there was no intent involved.

What ad homs? They are called logical fallacies. I do have a personal stake in that matter. I have a personal stake in anything being unreasonably misrepresented, whether it be science, religion, or even atheism. But no matter how much you insist, none of this makes it my god. Quit trying to convert me.

You don't need conversion, because you're clearly already a Christian. As for the ad homs, you've largely avoided them this round, which is uncommon for you. You haven't pointed out a single logical fallacy of mine, and in fact committed about a dozen yourself. And I have a feeling you know it. You tend to obfuscate when the argument is getting away from you.​

 

[Jan Ardena]

So what's the difference? In describing an ideology in which you are self-condemned for not believing, it is condemning you for not believing.

Where is the ''ideology''?
The overall statement is that ''Jesus is the truth''.

jan.