Well then your post isn't really representing your point well at all, because I'm still reading it as, "The driver is ignoring the warnings, and if only he'd listen, he'd avoid the bridge."
You've ascribed some pretty dark motives to those who feel the need to evangelize; I felt this came from a misunderstanding about how 80's and other Christians view heaven and hell. You seemed to presume that this was just a "viewpoint" that Christians hold that they feel they must foist upon others in order to make themselves feel good, etc. I was simply arguing that if a person really believes "the bridge is out" then it's entirely possible that they might be trying to inform you of that out of sincerity and genuine concern for your well being.
The essential question is that if I die a virtuous man who never accepted Christ, would I go to hell? That's what I want to know.
I'm not going to answer for 80's on this one, but I can tell you my opinion. My opinion is no, you would not.
In general, I think it's unwise to speculate about the eternal fate of any person good or bad. I believe God judges the heart, not how we appear to be on the outside. That's something no person can do, and indeed have been warned not attempt: "Judge not. . ."
It's odd that thinking and saying that somebodies beliefs are in all likelihood wrong is considered worse than believing who do no harm but don't have faith will go to hell.
I would like to know have I claimed absolute knowledge?
In response to your first statement, why would you care if someone thinks you're going to hell, if you don't believe in it? After all if the believer's philosophy is based on your acceptance of a particular religious doctrine and not on whether you are a decent person, then they are not necessarily even impugning your character. On the other hand suggesting that those that desire to evangelize can only be motivated by self-interest etc is, to me, a worse accusation. It is "real-world" here and now suggestion about a person's character rather than about someone's fate in a nebulous afterlife that no one regardless of belief has any proof about.
In regards to your second question, no, you haven't used that type of language. But your implication in all of your posts is quite clear. There's nothing particularly questioning or doubtful about your point of view, or your summation of those who believe. You're not particuarly humble in promoting your point of view; you don't leave room for the possiblity that you might be wrong in any meaningful way. So while, you might not through around religious terms like "Absolute Knowledge" or "Truth", essentially you seem as much to have made up your mind as any fundamentalist Christian.
sure there are a bunch of authors that wrote the gospels over a period of years
and yes they were compiled, translated, and edited by different groups for their own purposes
but keep in mind that there is an all powerful, loving God that had the ability to make sure wisdom and truth ended up on the pages to enlighten his greatest creation mankind, so they can know his love and have their chance for salvation.
I knew deep was being sarcastic. Ironically, he pretty much summed up what I believe about the Bible. That's a remarkable level of disdain, to see a particular point of view as so ridiculous that it can be summed up accurately and presented as sarcasm.
Um, actually, the whole basis of Christianity is rooted in the idea of an intervening God. So....
I guess that can of worms has been opened. . .
Come on, be realistic. He can't help BOTH football teams win on Sunday night
Just because I believe in an intervening God doesn't mean I believe he intervenes in everything. Certainly not sports (or reality shows. . .).