The person cannot condemn themselves, because the person does not stand in judgment of themselves. God is judge (as well as jury and executioner), and as such is the one who doles out the punishment. But the parameters of this "righteousness" and the judgment of transgression are laid out and made by God, not the person. You're right. 3:18 and 3:36 amount to the same thing, and are very similar verses. No, the only thing you did was prove you can't read so well. The question was where the scriptures showed God condemning people for unbelief, and this passage in John 3 is a good example of it. 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.
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.
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.
You're only self-condemning in a colloquial sense. In reality, no one can condemn themselves unless they are the judge of themselves. Only God (in the logic of this fiction that is the bible) can condemn, because only he is judge.
Well I'm going to go ahead and mark people to Hell. I judge myself fairly, even harshly just to make sure. I really did some messed up shit to prove I know things. Yea, I judge, EVERYTHING.
Yup! I wasn't walking by the Atheist Club of America, when one of them dropped dead of a heart attack. His ghost popped out. He looked around and said, "Oh my god! I have a soul!" Then, a bunch of blackened demons with bat-like wings flew out of the ground. They were screaming and making scary growling noises. Then, they attacked this dead man's soul, and dragged him into the ground. He was screaming, "Oh my god! No! No!" Then, the sky parted in a beam of light, and there was a booming voice. It was God. God said, "I didn't hear him say: I repent!" A few moments went by while we listened to the man screaming. Then God said, "Cook 'em!".
I don't know what you mean by that, but knowing the rules doesn't mean that one therefore is their own judge.
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.
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.
I wasn't trying to be funny. There are reported near death experiences where people do go to hell (for a few minutes). That's where I got some of these ideas. Well, "Cook 'em" I borrowed from the Adam's Family. The policeman says to Gomez Adams, "Hook 'em. Book 'em. Cook 'em." Funny you should say that. Evil does have to be burned away.
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.
Not a "bible-thumper", except to those who favor hasty generalizations. 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. 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.
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.
