[Luis Dias]

So you are really arguing that in christianity, whomever doesn't follow Christ will not go to hell?

I'd actually like to see you produce a quotation that says precisely that.  Considering the Old and New Testaments outright contradict each other in places, and translations vary wildly, and Bible versions also have a fair bit of variance, I think you may be hard pressed to do so.

Yeaaaah, it's soooo very hard to do.... wait the ****ing minute, no no it isn't. You just need half a minute in Google to get it. Hey, here is one that is very clear on the subject:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18)

I know it's a common interpretation in some branches of Christianity, but I'm fairly certain it's not a direct Biblical passage.

Embarrassment is the usual consequence of that kind of lazyness.... but I can't joke on you too much, I've committed similar faux pas myself in the past.

[MP-Ryan]

Luis, you should really read the parameters of what you're being asked to back up.  The quote you've selected refers to salvation and condemnation; nowhere does it discuss "hell" as a concept or otherwise.  Condemnation implies lack of eternal salvation; it doesn't refer to a consequence.  You specifically talked about failure to follow Christ = go directly to Hell.  The quotation you've selected does not say that.  I expect you might try harder this time around instead of being so glib.

Also, kindly indicate which Biblical version you're pulling from.  Translations vary.

[Dragon]

The line you quoted seems to look like that in my version too. Taken literally, Jesus does say that everybody who doesn't belive will be condemned.
Note that, before Jesus, hell was the place everybody went after death. Even Jesus went there, then he returned.
Jesus was offering salvation to mankind. What he said, in my understanding, meant that people who won't belive in his teachings refuse salvation, chosing hatred and egoism over love and thus ending up being morally lower than those who follow him. I don't think what you exactly belive in matters here, as long as this belief leads to love and not to hatred.

Of course, this is far from a word by word analysis my Polish teacher would be happy with, but I don't have time to read the entire evangelion and write an essay about it.

[Luis Dias]

Luis, you should really read the parameters of what you're being asked to back up.  The quote you've selected refers to salvation and condemnation; nowhere does it discuss "hell" as a concept or otherwise.  Condemnation implies lack of eternal salvation; it doesn't refer to a consequence.

Ok, if you are getting all sophistry on me, I'll just stop replying to you, mkay?

I can do that silly game too, you know? For instance, where the **** did you make the inference that "Condemnation" implies merely the lack of salvation? The word is not a statement of a "lack" of good things. You don't "condemn" people to not get good stuff. You "condemn" people to jail. So given this obviosity, where the hell did you read in the bible that "condemnation" only implies you don't go to heaven?

And btw, if you don't go to heaven nor hell, where else are you supposed to go within christian mythology? There is no Limbo anymore, you know? The pope has decreed its inexistence!

You specifically talked about failure to follow Christ = go directly to Hell.  The quotation you've selected does not say that.  I expect you might try harder this time around instead of being so glib.

You show that you are not here to actually exchange knowledge, merely to stupidify the discussion, so whatever.

Also, kindly indicate which Biblical version you're pulling from.  Translations vary.

King James. I guess that would take you an extra 2 seconds to confirm in google, so you made me waste 10 in writing this sentence. That's the kind of respect you show here.

[Luis Dias]

The line you quoted seems to look like that in my version too. Taken literally, Jesus does say that everybody who doesn't belive will be condemned.
Note that, before Jesus, hell was the place everybody went after death. Even Jesus went there, then he returned.

Hell as a place of torment is an invention of the New Testament. Sheol in the Old Testament is just the place where we go when we die, i.e., beneath the surface when people bury you.

So when Jesus meek and mild talked about the everlasting fire and stuff, he was not only "saving" some hundreds of thousands of people... he was condemning all the rest of the human race to a place of torment. But that's cool I guess.

Jesus was offering salvation to mankind. What he said, in my understanding, meant that people who won't belive in his teachings refuse salvation, chosing hatred and egoism over love and thus ending up being morally lower than those who follow him. I don't think what you exactly belive in matters here, as long as this belief leads to love and not to hatred.

Let's agree for a moment that we can "interpret" the bible in that way, and not by the way that most Christian denominations in the world actually interpret it. And this would be cool if you actually agreed with everything Jesus says and teaches. What happens when you do not? What happens when you realise that morals aren't absolute and this guy wasn't exactly the final word at it, much to the contrary?

[MP-Ryan]

Your insulting nonsense stops now, Luis.  That's not an acceptable form of debate, and the fact that you haven't been called on your thinly-veiled belligerence and contempt earlier is starting to become a problem.

If you make an assertion, you back it up.  You said that Christianity says that people who do not follow Jesus go to hell.  When asked, quite benignly, to provide a quote to back yourself up, you not only failed to do so, but you decided to give some attitude (not uncommon in your posts as of late, I might add).  The word "condemn" in your quote has no associated destination or meaning with it.  Thus, it doesn't provide a reference for what you were asked to provide.  Also, in debate, it is up to the person providing a reference to source it.  My job isn't to go around Googling references for whatever you decide to throw out in your posts - that's your job.  You spend a lot of time (in all threads) saying that information is "all over the netz" or "everywhere on the web" but I have yet to see you actually source a single bit of your belligerent statements directly.  Mixing in profanity just makes it more insulting and less worth reading to boot.

Either learn the rules of acceptable debate, or I have no doubt you will find yourself meeting the same fate as Liberator and Trashman both.

[Scotty]

Wow, Luis.  That post was, for a good 80% of it, geniunely retarded.

Instead of addressing MP-Ryan's post in a meaningful fashion, you instead declare a refusal to participate in civil discussion, immediately turn around and do the same thing you got all pissed about, and then to top it all off, broadly generalize all Christians to jumping at the Pope's beck and call.

And then a hilariously ironic dismissal of any want to make intelligent discussion in this thread.

And finally, an indication that you think your time (and by extension yourself) is more important than anyone else's here.  Yes, that's going to get you a lot of respect.

EDIT:  Also, what Ryan said.

[Luis Dias]

I provided the most clear quote you will find

Your insulting nonsense stops now, Luis.  That's not an acceptable form of debate, and the fact that you haven't been called on your thinly-veiled belligerence and contempt earlier is starting to become a problem.

I only show contempt when I feel that I am object of similar contempt of just plain sophistry. I've been abused in this manner frequently, not only on this thread.

When I produced a blatantly clear quotation that is as clear and transparent as glass, you know decide that because it isn't worded precisely as I put it, it's not true. That kind of attitude is what really puts me off.

I'm not a native english speaker, but "Condemn" is not exactly a difficult word to understand. So let's see what the dictionaries tell us:

1.to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
2.to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment: to condemn a murderer to life imprisonment.
3.to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring: His acts condemn him.

So to where will this allmighty God may condemn you to? What do you think?

I mean, and if you think I'm still being insulting and whatever, I just don't know how to put it more gently. You are denying word meanings, for christ's sake! Just to get a point!

The word "condemn" in your quote has no associated destination or meaning with it.

Let's be gratious and accept this giganormous cop out. If you aside with Battuta's criteria that the words only matter insofar at the attitude that people take when they read a sentence, let's question this. Is it or is it not the case that most christian denominations read this passage in the same exact manner as I do? Yes, yes it is. So there's your answer.

My job isn't to go around Googling references for whatever you decide to throw out in your posts - that's your job.

Yeah well I felt you were just nitpicking everything I said just in spite.

[MP-Ryan]

You said Christianity says that a failure to follow Jesus means you're going to Hell.  You were asked to provide a reference.  The reference you have provided refers to condemnation and does not discuss hell as a place or a concept.  As the definition of condemnation you posted says, the word does not carry implicit meaning of being sent somewhere (specifically a physical, psychological, or spiritual destination).

I'm not tangentially heading off to the semantics of the word condemnation.  You were asked for a Biblical reference to substantiate your point, and the one you've provided doesn't.  I'd suggest you may want to continue looking rather than attempting to argue semantics and defeating your own original point by saying this is the best quotation available.  If this as common a teaching throughout Christianity as you claim, then one would expect you can find Biblical reference to it.

[Luis Dias]

I have trouble reading condemnation in any other way, since in christian doctrine, there are only two metaphysical places where you eventually end up in. If you are "condemned", I don't see how it can be a condemnation if you're sent to heaven.

Ok, here's another one for your semantical criticisms:

"The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile...the idolaters and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulpher. This is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)

By unbelieving, we can, as you undoubtedly will, ask "in what?". Well, in the christian doctrine, surely. In God. And Christ is god in the christian doctrine. This is obvious for any christian, and the meaning of that phrase as well. But if you press enough, we can also agree that it may be read in a more ambiguous way.

Ok. I'll accept that. It still calls for atheists to be burnt in hell.

Now we have two sentences that you may not believe (but most christians do, so...) in the meaning I'm attributing to them, but they are still both immoral, even if you don't buy into this interpretation, and just accept that in the first God condemns people for not being gullible to his son, while the second condemns atheists to the "fiery lake of burning sulpher".

[General Battuta]

No it doesn't. Nothing in that passage you quoted suggests people will burn in hell. You're bringing in outside beliefs.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, that is logically true. I'm not going to be facetious here, look, I believe that the meaning of the words are what they seem to be, in english.

This assumes a belief that the meaning of these words have a deep similarity with the definitions of them in the dictionary.

This is not facetious - every single sentence ever proclaimed cannot sit by its own, it always, always depends upon the assumptions made.

The only thing we have to be careful about is if whether these meanings are sufficiently shared among the people here.

You say, "well I don't think it means what you say it means". Ok, so what's your take in that passage?

[General Battuta]

It looks pretty transparent to me: the souls of the unbelieving, vile, idolaters and liars will be cast into a lake of fire, where they will die for a second time and fail to receive eternal life in Heaven.

Doesn't sound too bad.

[Luis Dias]

Who mentioned anything about souls?

And if souls exist, I really don't see how casting them unto a fiery lake of fire is supposed to be a good thing, but I'll take it that you'll offer an explanation of that...

[Scotty]

He never said good, he said "doesn't sound too bad."  The two are not the same.

[General Battuta]

The Bible describes everyone as being resurrected for judgment, so I suppose souls is a bit of a misnomer - but yeah, you're judged, if you don't deserve immortal life you go into the lake of fire and are extinguished. No eternal torment, no eternal life, it just ends. Exactly what the atheist expects anyway!

Souls don't exist, bro. We're discussing the mythology of a religion here, which is only important to us (the atheists) in how it impacts the behavior of the believers.

[Mustang19]

Christians believe a lot of stuff that isn't in the bible. Why are you getting so hung up on eternal damnation?

[Luis Dias]

The Bible describes everyone as being resurrected for judgment, so I suppose souls is a bit of a misnomer - but yeah, you're judged, if you don't deserve immortal life you go into the lake of fire and are extinguished. No eternal torment, no eternal life, it just ends. Exactly what the atheist expects anyway!

This is just wrong. The "Second death" is explained just a chapter or two before this passage. Here, for your entertainment:

Rev 19:20

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Rev 20:1

 1And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

 2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

 3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

 4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

 5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

 8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

 9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

 10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Mind the last passages of that. It's patently clear what it means to have "the second death". As I said, in christian mythology, there are only two metaphysical end places: heaven or hell.

[Luis Dias]

Christians believe a lot of stuff that isn't in the bible. Why are you getting so hung up on eternal damnation?

Because I'm not discussing christians, I was discussing the bible.

[General Battuta]

There's nothing in the passages you've quoted to suggest eternal torment. This seems to be your own idiosyncratic belief.

The devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented forever and ever. The rest of them just die (again): second death.