Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Please... don't include me into your bickering, I'm innocent. Even if I'm not, I'm not concerned. It makes you appear desperate to put me in a bad light... as in being confused.
Jacky apparently quoted your reply to Tcmc. Don't blur blur or act blur to cause confusion...Apologies extended then if I incorrectly thought Jacky was talking about you. Even so it doesn't really change the fact that there were also numerous occasions when I did point out your confusion too.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
EVeryone is confused except for you and your gang!
Please don't project your confusion to others.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Please don't project your confusion to others.
LOL!! -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
I never say we should lie regardless of what situation. I am saying lying can be good, it can be bad, depending on situation! And every situation is different. For example, its good to lie to the robber that your grandma is not in the house if he asks you where she is because he wants to rape her. It's also good lie to people sometimes for fear that they cannot take the truth because of a weak heart. It's also good to lie if the truth will hurt someone badly. (to tell him that he is really unpleasant looking).
Or if you were a German hiding Jews in your house during WW2, it would also be considered a GOOD deed to lie to the Nazi soldiers.
Lying can also be bad in many circumstances.
Saying "Lying is ALWAYS bad" is not an objective truth.
Lying can be bad and good.
Same applies for abortion, and the existence of gods. (christian, hindu or jewish god)
Tcmc, think about this: if there is no objective truth then there is no such thing as a lie. And to say that something is good is to presuppose an objective moral standard to judge between good and bad. Otherwise good and bad are meaningless terms.
Anyway, you are CONFUSED and not making the proper distinction between saying that lying is good and that lying is the acceptable thing to do under certain circumstances.
To say that lying is good is to insinuate that it is a virtue to lie. Is that what you are saying? I don't think so. God condemns and hates lying and one of the 10 commandments is not to bear false witness. So lying is wrong and not good. But under certain circumstances it is ACCEPTABLE especially when the truth is not owed to the other person. Note that saying it is acceptable does not mean it is good or right or virtuous. In a fallen imperfect world there are times when one moral value overrides another one. For example, protecting the lives of innocent people overrides the moral obligation to speak the truth. We don't owe a moral obligation to be truthful to someone who is a rapist or to the Nazis who seek the whereabouts of Jews so that they can be killed. However, such situations are rare and you should not use such rare instances to argue that moral values are therefore subjective or that there are no moral absolutes. I can't prescribe each and every conceivable situation for you but God has given us a conscience as a moral indicator, though the conscience can be hardened or seared through habitual sin. See also http://www.gotquestions.org/right-to-lie.html
Same goes for abortion which I mentioned earlier. Abortion is simply the termination of a viable pregnancy. But this must be distinguished from abortion-on-demand. As a general moral rule I would argue that abortion-on-demand is absolutely morally wrong. And most people arguing for it are talking about abortion-on-demand anyway, but they then uses extreme circumstances like rape or death-and-life medical situations to justify abortion-on-demand. This is intellectually dishonest.
And you are also confusing moral issues with the existence of God issue.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
His gang? You mean he represents one lot of subjective Christians here? Impossiibru...
Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.Question is, do you even understand the implication of this whole dialogue?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
I just could not fathom how anyone can believe wholeheartedly and blindly when the facts are quite obvious. maybe perception is reality to them is very true. when you believe in something (never mind what outsiders think or perceive), you perceive it to be true. so the truth is true to you and your religion, despite what others may say. but we also perceive it that the religion is so irrational and illogical, so this is also true to us despite their beliefs.
Jacky is another confused atheist.
Something is either true or false. It cannot be true to you but false to another. A perception is either true or false, i.e. it either corresponds to reality or it does not.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i was just having a chat with a christian colleague... and so this is how their perception of other religions are or at least buddhism...
buddha = human who is enlightened, so no matter how enlightened, also human.
God = God, super natural being, someone up there, he is god not human and so, christianity > other religions(or at least buddhism)
I explained that to buddhist, buddha is a equivalent of christian's god at least. But to her, buddha is human. I might have interpreted both religions wrongly. But through the conversation, thats roughly what i get.
Buddha never considered himself to be divine or a deity.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Buddha never considered himself to be divine or a deity.
i am mentioning in the perspective of the buddhist or what i feel i know about buddhist. Oh well, the funny thing is the expression and tone of the person when she told me that. =) -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
despondent
Dont be silly. Unlike BIC or you, I dont go around saying people from other religions/denomminations will end up in a torturous , fiery place eternally.
THAT is judgemental.
I dont say that.
If you have read my previous threads, I have even agreed that religions CAN be good (christian, hindu, jewish etc).
I just disagree with some religions with regard to an invisible deity. But I dont condemn them to hell!
BIC and probably most christians DO believe that other ppl from other religions do go to hell!
You have disregarded the issue of truth for the sake of political correctness. It is not whether it is judgemental to say that there will be people who end up in hell. The issue is whether it is TRUE that hell exists and that certain people may end up there.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i am mentioning in the perspective of the buddhist or what i feel i know about buddhist. Oh well, the funny thing is the expression and tone of the person when she told me that. =)Even so, most buddhists would not agree with you that Buddha is somewhat equivalent to a deity.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I think they do not understand is because they are not in your position to understand what Truth is. To them, your belief is subjective truth. You cannot deny that in thier p.o.v.
However, Aneslayer subscribes truth to be absolute. If that is true, and he has such high standard of truth.. actual reality/existence, then he cannot also deny that Truth may also reside in the Christian faith.
For example, gravity is truth. And if you subscribe to a very high degree of truth, the theory of gravity is true and not truth. As truth is absolute regardless of anyone thinking otherwise. A natural phenomenom that is there, and can be there and unaware to us at the same time but exists since time immemorial.
So for objective morals, it may be something like "against murder". That whole thing that makes us homo sapien, embedded in us, in our genetics seared into our instincts, into the brain. I suppose that is what BIC is saying. That innate ability to reject such act as a moral act, was given to man by God through his creation of Man and Woman and also through the Bible.
I am not sure if you are addressing the post to me. Assuming you are, I am not denying their point of view. I am pointing out that their view is wrong.
BTW, I do not hold the view that morality is seared in our genes. There is no gene for morality, for good or evil.
-
-
has no one realised things are going in circles once again?
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
has no one realised things are going in circles once again?
A lot of issues basically boils down to the six questions that by and large the atheists here do not want to answer.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
A lot of issues basically boils down to the six questions that by and large the atheists here do not want to answer.
No alot of issues boils down to ppl in here who refuses to accept any form of different arguments/opinions there could be to the same issues. Instead of having a open heart to embrace differen things, ppl goes around pointing fingers at each other. AKA the confusion issue.My understand - TCMC claim only BIC not confused and everyone confused. BIC say dun protray such things and claims that TCMC is confused. Infact, both thinks each other is confused but both refuse to accept it at all. So it goes round and round. No matter how TCMC proves you and your truth/facts to be confused,others agree, you dont. You go about proving TCMC is confused. You agree, TCMC doesnt. It will go on and on because both does not feel that they are confused.
But my personal take, TCMC has a bigger heart.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
No alot of issues boils down to ppl in here who refuses to accept any form of different arguments/opinions there could be to the same issues. Instead of having a open heart to embrace differen things, ppl goes around pointing fingers at each other. AKA the confusion issue.My understand - TCMC claim only BIC not confused and everyone confused. BIC say dun protray such things and claims that TCMC is confused. Infact, both thinks each other is confused but both refuse to accept it at all. So it goes round and round. No matter how TCMC proves you and your truth/facts to be confused,others agree, you dont. You go about proving TCMC is confused. You agree, TCMC doesnt. It will go on and on because both does not feel that they are confused.
But my personal take, TCMC has a bigger heart.
Awww Thank you love you
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc, think about this: if there is no objective truth then there is no such thing as a lie. And to say that something is good is to presuppose an objective moral standard to judge between good and bad. Otherwise good and bad are meaningless terms.
Anyway, you are CONFUSED and not making the proper distinction between saying that lying is good and that lying is the acceptable thing to do under certain circumstances.
To say that lying is good is to insinuate that it is a virtue to lie. Is that what you are saying? I don't think so. God condemns and hates lying and one of the 10 commandments is not to bear false witness. So lying is wrong and not good. But under certain circumstances it is ACCEPTABLE especially when the truth is not owed to the other person. Note that saying it is acceptable does not mean it is good or right or virtuous. In a fallen imperfect world there are times when one moral value overrides another one. For example, protecting the lives of innocent people overrides the moral obligation to speak the truth. We don't owe a moral obligation to be truthful to someone who is a rapist or to the Nazis who seek the whereabouts of Jews so that they can be killed. However, such situations are rare and you should not use such rare instances to argue that moral values are therefore subjective or that there are no moral absolutes. I can't prescribe each and every conceivable situation for you but God has given us a conscience as a moral indicator, though the conscience can be hardened or seared through habitual sin. See also http://www.gotquestions.org/right-to-lie.html
Same goes for abortion which I mentioned earlier. Abortion is simply the termination of a viable pregnancy. But this must be distinguished from abortion-on-demand. As a general moral rule I would argue that abortion-on-demand is absolutely morally wrong. And most people arguing for it are talking about abortion-on-demand anyway, but they then uses extreme circumstances like rape or death-and-life medical situations to justify abortion-on-demand. This is intellectually dishonest.
And you are also confusing moral issues with the existence of God issue.
BIC
You said:
"We don't owe a moral obligation to be truthful to someone who is a rapist or to the Nazis who seek the whereabouts of Jews so that they can be killed. However, such situations are rare and you should not use such rare instances to argue that moral values are therefore subjective or that there are no moral absolutes."
Why not?
These instances to lie make a hell lot of difference to someone else.
In these instances, lying is good and saves lives. And these situations should be taken into consideration.
BIC,
Acknowledge that lying can be good in some instances and can be bad in some instances.
You say lying is always bad.
Therefore you are being too extreme and generalising.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You have disregarded the issue of truth for the sake of political correctness. It is not whether it is judgemental to say that there will be people who end up in hell. The issue is whether it is TRUE that hell exists and that certain people may end up there.
BIC
Even your own bible says that it is up to your god (deity) to judge.
But yet you guys go around telling/hinting people that they will go to hell if they dont do certain things.
Whether hell exists or not (to me and many others, it doesnt), the issue is not about its existence.
The issue is about you being very judgemental to think that YOU can decide or KNOW who will end up in a place which NO ONE (not even YOURSELF) know where the hell it is.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Truth is not subjective. Truth CAN be subjective if you subcribe to a lower degree of truth. Perhaps like true = truth.
There are moral truths as well as subjective morals, often related to as relativist morality.
It just depends on your understanding of morality. Some people have spent thier entire lives on just what Truth is or what Morality is. There are subsequent schools of though within those schools of thought that breaks them down.
Now for you to instantly reject any objective truth's or moral's just means that you have not really spent the time really understanding the philosophy of morality.
In the end of day, does it matter subjective or objective ? What does your gut say ? What does it mean to do the right thing ? How do you know that what you are doing is the right thing ? Because the right thing is something deep down within yourself. Your gut.. your instinct... your humanity.
.
BadM,
Lets not talk so much. Lets go to examples.
What is your "objective truth" about lying? Is it always good or always bad?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I think they do not understand is because they are not in your position to understand what Truth is. To them, your belief is subjective truth. You cannot deny that in thier p.o.v.
However, Aneslayer subscribes truth to be absolute. If that is true, and he has such high standard of truth.. actual reality/existence, then he cannot also deny that Truth may also reside in the Christian faith.
For example, gravity is truth. And if you subscribe to a very high degree of truth, the theory of gravity is true and not truth. As truth is absolute regardless of anyone thinking otherwise. A natural phenomenom that is there, and can be there and unaware to us at the same time but exists since time immemorial.
So for objective morals, it may be something like "against murder". That whole thing that makes us homo sapien, embedded in us, in our genetics seared into our instincts, into the brain. I suppose that is what BIC is saying. That innate ability to reject such act as a moral act, was given to man by God through his creation of Man and Woman and also through the Bible.
Reasonable assessment. I do have my own interpretations of the bible... in essence. Anyway very kind of you to interrupt. :) when most would just ignore or watch... or take sides :p
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Apologies extended then if I incorrectly thought Jacky was talking about you. Even so it doesn't really change the fact that there were also numerous occasions when I did point out your confusion too.
"Apologies extended then if I incorrectly thought Jacky was talking about you."
"if" you say? Either you were correct or incorrect. Remember what Jesus about letting "yes" be "yes", "no" be "no". Hypocritical apologies not accepted, if it were ever extended.
You do take EVERY opportunity, don't you. I wouldn't take offense of what is said.
-
"The question I asked was “Since when is belief defined as subjective truth?” and you changed the subject by asking me since when I became a Christian. A diversion, and an irrelevant one no less."
You don't read rhetorics well... Your belief changes with time. Just think of the time you accepted Christ, which also mean there is a time where you did not accept Christ.
"Subjective truth is simply another label for relativism, that you cannot understand this simple truth is enough to deem you dull. Even this atheist website apparently got it righthttp://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/Subjective.htm"
Do you still not see subjective truth does not opposes or contradicts objective truth... regardless of what you believe as relativism. Nothing affects objective truths.
The way you bring in relativism is a strawman just because the discussion has nothing to do with relativism and you attack it like it does.
By stating relativism(a concept) = subjective truth (a noun) is a fallacy of composition. By stating anyone who accepts subjective truth is following relativsm is a hasty generalization.
And using the exact same insult intended words back to me makes you appear hypocrital because you claim you are Christian. Or did you forget what Jesus said about being slapped?"You repeatedly failed to differentiate and distinguish between a self-defeating argument and a circular argument. According to The Philosopher’s Toolkit, a self-defeating argument is an argument that, if taken to be sound, shows itself to be unsound. The term is often used for positions or theses as well as arguments where, if you take the principle proposed to be true, it undermines itself by its own logic. Such cases are more accurately described as self-defeating positions."
If you insist... Strawman away.
"And pray tell how do you plant your feet in mid-air or are you being facetious? "
"...plant your feet in mid-air..."
If you are agreeable to define,
"plant"= Place or fix in a specified position
"mid-air"=The middle of the air, as while in flightI would be willing to show you a simple phenomenon."You missed my point about relativism being a worldview. Oh well, never mind."
Yes please. Let it go to save youself more humiliation.
"And you are still sorely confused about what is objective truth. The objective truth did not change at all. You mean you disagree with me that before there was a Singapore there were no Singaporeans? Or are you just trying to be funny?"
It changed, with time. Appeal to ridicule?
"Worst, you quoted the Bible but FAILED to understand what it means. That verse is not saying that objective truth about the previous creation became non-existent, it is saying that the former physical earth will cease to exist and will not be remembered anymore because of the new heavens and new earth. See, this again proves my point that atheists really fare pathetically when they try to play Bible exegete."
No... the keywords are "forgotten" where subjective truths are made non existent, and "new" where implying implicitly the old is time related. Strawman away.
"And so what if there were some people who believed that the earth was flat? You still missed the point that the objective truth is that the earth is not flat and that these people were wrong."
No one was arguing the earth is flat is objective truth. Strawman away.
"And one can only be wrong if objective truth exists.""
Objective truths exist regardless of what is right or wrong. Begging the question much?
"You can play the dishonest game for all I care. You said that an argument is a statement. I corrected you and even provided a third party to correct you when you asked for it, and then you go ad hominem because of a bruised ego. And it’s not that I am insisting that you are wrong, but you are refusing to admit that you are wrong. The evidence is plainly on my side."
where " something" = argument/s
I really don't get the relevance of the third party... What 3rd party?I can let you win every argument if it bothers you so much...."You mean being cruel is not something that is morally wrong? Why would that be just my assumption and not your problem? And then you go shooting off alleged strawman fallacies when you realised that you have been cornered."
This where you risk being hypocritical again. Being cruel(causing hurt and suffering) is neither right or wrong. Your assumption of it being moralistic does not change a thing about it.
Its your strawman to pick on arguing the morals of the one saying God being cruel. <-- Appeal to guilt."You can read English, right?"
Apeal to ridicule much?
"What does the Bible say in Genesis about what is food for Adam and the animals? Hint: they were vegetarian. So it still means no death before sin. And according to the Bible, plants and fruits are not called “nephesh chayah” which is Biblical life as distinct from biological life. If you wish to debate intelligently with me on Bible interpretation please at least brush up on your Bible knowledge herehttp://creation.com/no-death-before-the-fall"
Challenge accepted.
Gen 1:30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
What did the plant feed on if not the life(“nephesh chayah")? So the plant ingest the animals alive and they survive somehow?
"The issue is not whether the rock badger is really a ruminant or engages in refection, but that the phrase “chews the cud” (to bring up) is applied to it because what it does is similar to the cow or other animal that chews the cud. The point was not to teach animal anatomy or biology but to inform the Israelites that they can eat only those that “chew the cud” and have split hooves, but that from among this group of animals they are not supposed to eat the rabbit and the coney and some others."
So you don't know how identify what animal or what behaviour is "chew the cud" is referred in Lev11:5. Thats ignorance. Can one objectively hold something to be objective truth when there contents of the objective truth one is not clear about?
"And there’s no false dilemma because you were really being ignorant. Else you were simply playing daft."
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
You gave me only 2 options either not insulted or being petty and narrow minded. Which strawmans away from disputing the validity of the insult.
"And you still continue to play daft when I exposed your fallacious claim that creationists are not credible."
To help you remember, I quote thee "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Creationists by and large already know that."
You are shifting the burden of proof when I ask what are the credibilty of the creationists to support your views.
You should just prove their credibity, as a whole. Oh you didn't..."And I don’t see how you have been trying to bridge any reasonable communication standard. What standard are you talking about? Whose standards? What criteria? None that can be discerned.
By identifying the common illogical fallacies in arguments.
" All that I have seen are your attempts to undermine the Christian faith, just like the other atheists here."
What you, me, he, she thinks, have absolutely no effect on the objective truths. What have I done to deserve this prejudice...
"Again, spewing out the names of fallacies proves nothing beyond the fact that you can spew out these names. When it comes to actually spotting and discerning them you repeatedly failed. And the more you do this the more your pretence will be exposed."
Disputable... plus I don't need pretend to be anything but you need to uphold your beliefs.
"The example of Singaporean was a good example of what is objective truth. Your attempt to dismiss it failed. Again if the fact is that you were born in 1990 in Singapore, then that is the objective truth, even if 1000 years have passed. It cannot be that you are born in 1850 in China when it is the year 3000."
If you insist... lets pretend you are right.
"I wonder why there is a need to continue on when you have already conceded the whole argument to me when your very words are that you pursue “absolute truth”.
Concede? What do you mean? Please define.
Was anyone discussing my pursuits? Was anyone challenging my pursuits? Did I deny what I was pursuing?
And you thought my English was bad... Whatever...."What then is absolute truth? Isn’t that the objective truth I have been talking about all along?"
I'm still chasing after it. No.
"And please explain in detail your point about time making truths subjective."
<Its_a_trap.jpg> Rephrase so that I would bother to elaborate.
P.S: To me, its fun to name, list, draw parallels from others argument to illogical fallacies. Its an exercise to improve identifying such so as to avoid using them if possible.
To me, its easier for you to cry "Fallacious!" and pretend like anyone one gonna believe than to argue logically. At least so far from my observations....
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
No alot of issues boils down to ppl in here who refuses to accept any form of different arguments/opinions there could be to the same issues. Instead of having a open heart to embrace differen things, ppl goes around pointing fingers at each other. AKA the confusion issue.My understand - TCMC claim only BIC not confused and everyone confused. BIC say dun protray such things and claims that TCMC is confused. Infact, both thinks each other is confused but both refuse to accept it at all. So it goes round and round. No matter how TCMC proves you and your truth/facts to be confused,others agree, you dont. You go about proving TCMC is confused. You agree, TCMC doesnt. It will go on and on because both does not feel that they are confused.
But my personal take, TCMC has a bigger heart.
You said that people refuse to accept any form of different arguments/opinions there could be to the same issue. While it seems that you are aiming that accusation at me, the accusation goes both ways. In addition you failed to make the distinction between accepting that a person may hold a different argument/opinion and accepting that different argument/opinion as true/valid.
I am NOT against anyone's right to hold a different argument/opinion on the same issue. But that does not mean that I cannot challenge that argument as to its validity or truth. If accepting every different argument, no matter how conflicting or contradictory, as true/valid is your idea of having a "bigger heart" then I am happy to be charged with having a "small heart".
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
You said:
"We don't owe a moral obligation to be truthful to someone who is a rapist or to the Nazis who seek the whereabouts of Jews so that they can be killed. However, such situations are rare and you should not use such rare instances to argue that moral values are therefore subjective or that there are no moral absolutes."
Why not?
These instances to lie make a hell lot of difference to someone else.
In these instances, lying is good and saves lives. And these situations should be taken into consideration.
BIC,
Acknowledge that lying can be good in some instances and can be bad in some instances.
You say lying is always bad.
Therefore you are being too extreme and generalising.
You still missed the point.
God CANNOT lie. God hates a lying tongue. Jesus said "I am the Truth...."
And you would be hardpressed to find a specific instance whereby God APPROVED of lying or praised the act of lying. One apologetics website has this to say and I quote,
"If critics of the Bible would consider the Scriptures in their entirety, rather than isolating individual passages in an attempt to justify their preconceived conclusion that the Bible contains contradictions and discrepancies, controversy over such matters would cease to exist. Furthermore, it reeks of inconsistency for the critic to pick and choose matters that at first glance appear to support his allegations and to ignore the plain and simple passages that refute those same allegations."
You cannot use exceptions to normalise things or use exceptions to prove that situational ethics is true. One must always start with the clear teachings of Scripture. Even in everyday life it is the same. It is an offense to go when the light is red. The law deems you to have committed an offense when you do that, but perhaps you did that because you were racing to the hospital with a injured person. In this case the law would accept this exception and not charge you with an offense. But you can't take this exception and say that the law is wishy washy or that one is too extreme to say that going against the red light is wrong.
And mind you, you did not distinguish between my saying that lying is acceptable and your saying that lying is good. Acceptable and good are not to be equivocated. The only thing I would acknowledge is that lying may be acceptable sometimes, and this is far from saying that lying is good. It is NOT good. It is not a moral virtue. There is a big difference between saying "You should not do this but under these extreme circumstances it is acceptable" and saying "There is no law for or against lying, it is morally neutral so just go with the flow and act accordingly as you deem fit." The latter basically means anyone can get away with anything so long as he thinks he has a good reason, and who are you to disagree or judge otherwise?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Even your own bible says that it is up to your god (deity) to judge.
But yet you guys go around telling/hinting people that they will go to hell if they dont do certain things.
Whether hell exists or not (to me and many others, it doesnt), the issue is not about its existence.
The issue is about you being very judgemental to think that YOU can decide or KNOW who will end up in a place which NO ONE (not even YOURSELF) know where the hell it is.
I am not judging you, I am telling you what the Bible says. Unless you can tell me this is not what the Bible says?
The issue IS about the existence of hell! And you are equally being judgemental of me. Besides, I never claimed to be the one who decides who goes to hell. If you repent and turn to God, you will be saved as well. The choice in this life is YOURS. I am only telling you what the CONSEQUENCES are if you choose to rebel against God. How can telling you of the consequences of your actions be deemed judgemental? Can the drug pushers accuse you of being judgemental for telling him that if he smuggles drugs he will get the death penalty?
Thesaurus entry for this meaning of concede