bible does not necessarily say nonchristians will be condemned

I'll start by adressing the claims made against me by my opponent in order to maintain my Burden of Proof, and then I will move on to my opponent's case as a whole. HER REBUTTAL: "it is ironic that con cites "whoever does not believe will be condemned..." as i quoted that in my intro, and said that that verse itself goes on to define condemnation... ie, that those who have seen heard etc the light reject it, because their ways were evil." If there is any reason why my citing of the verse is ironic, it's because your own quote is being used against you :P, but I don't find that to be an acceptable definition for condemnation for two reasons. 1.) Nowhere in the scripture does it state that's what condemnation is 2.) That is describing who will be condemned, not what condemnation is. I simply provided the definitions to prevent an argument over semantics, which seems to have occurred anyway. But regardless, as her "definition" does not actually define what condmenation is, but rather who will be condemned, look to my definition in the round. "if you have not had that chance to reject, and or your ways are not evil per se (had you had the chance).... then you are not necessarily condemned." If you notice in the quote you provided over the light, it doesn't say anywhere that it only refers to those who have had the chance. However, what I have proven in the round is that the Bible holds non-believing as an evil act, and so not believing makes you evil, and so condemns you to hell. "and, as i said in my initial post, the only way to mesh all verses together to make sense, is to require the least common demonimator... that you ahve to hear and reject as the justquoted verse requires." The least common denominator in every one of the verses provided is the fact that non-believers will be condemned to Hell (some even use the word condemn). If you look for "that you have to hear and reject" as the least common denominator it will fail because no verse actually says that, not even the one you quoted. "to use con's terminology, you have to hear and reject in order to be a non believer. while con's quotes are on the surface stead fast against nonbelievers, things are not always so black and white as trying to be a fundamentalist to certain things in the bible. you have to read it all together etc. holistically" Although I don't think that's the proper use of the term etcetera, I'll save that for a future debate :P. However, I don't really see what you mean by "the con's terminology", as I only define say and condemn, and you don't mention either of those. However, this debate is not over fundamentalism, this over "The Bible does not neccesarily say nonchristians will be condemned", and as I have proved, not only does it "neccesarily" say that nonbelievers will be condemned, it says it flat out. As my opponent has not negated any of my scripture, and the only argument she has doesn't actually come from the verses she quoted, my BOP remains fullfilled, and the resolution is negated. I will now move on to my opponent's case: MY OPPONENT'S CASE: "the only passages that might indicate the necessity of believing in Jesus are the preceeding." Actually, I provided 4 entirely different verses proving that nonbelievers are condemned to Hell if they don't believe in Jesus, and I highly doubt they are the only ones. So there are at least 7 verses condemning nonChristians, and likely many more. "i'd argue that they all seem to be getting at only if you "reject" what you've been told would you be condemned. so, the hypothetical man on the island who has not heard, is not necessarily condemned." Actually, the verses you've provided don't point to that at all. However, they do say "whoever does not believe stands condemned already", which is in direct opposition to what you're trying to argue. " i'd argue that simply hearing a man shout out damnations at people isn't hearing the gosple, or a crude understanding isn't hearing.. such that you'd have rejected, or even a misunderstood/appreciated doesn't count." And I'd argue the opposite. According to the Bible verses we've both provided, anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ or God is condemned to Hell. Plain and simple. However, even if we were to look at your case as correct, we would see a contradiction. You say that only those who have heard of Jesus as being the son of God and of the existence of God, and yet you also say that hearing someone tell these things and still not believing them doesn't gaurantee condemnation. "but, all i have to do to p[rove my point for this thread is show that hypothetical man, who never had a chance to reject." Even though that's an incomplete statement, I'm going to assume you mean that a man who never had a chance to reject will not be condemned. I will negate this in two points. 1.) This does not make an impact on the resolution. The resolution discusses what is said in the Bible, and what is said in the Bible is that nonbelievers go to Hell. If you were to propose an example of scripture that actually says "If you don't know the word of God, you won't be going to Hell", feel free, but you won't find it. 2.) In your own quote, you show that Jesus/God compares his presence as light, and all men see light even if they don't comprehend it. The same goes for Darkness. So what I would argue this means is that as long as a man accepts the idea of a God, as long as it's not one that contradicts the Christian God (as this is shown in the scriptures as blasphemous) he can be saved. However, this still does not make an impact, because a man on an island who does not accept any God would still be going to Hell. "i'd also point out that the passage from mark is disputed by scholars are to whether it's legit, given that it wasn't in hte earliest texts. but this doesn't matter as the text itself lends to saying you have to reject something." 1.) Considering the quote is "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.", no, no it doesn't. 2.) You're negating your own evidence here, so technically I don't have to. According to yourself, it's not actually part of the Bible as dictated by God, so it doesn't impact teh resolution whatsover, negating your own evidence. "the first quote says "I told you" which presupposes an informed person." You're assuming to much, and I can't remember which razor it is (I think it's Occum's) states that the theory that assumes the least is the most probably to be correct. Your stance takes the fact that "I told you" and assumes it means "If I didn't tell you, you're good". My stance on the other hand, assumes nothing as what i do is directly show that the Bible states non-Christians will be condemned, and so mine is the more likely to be correct. "the second quote goes on to say what condemnation means... rejecting the light because their ways are evil... after they've seen or heard the light. if you don't reject because your ways are evil, eg, cause you don't know any better like the man on the island, then you are not condemned." I seperated this into sections because of your lack of quotation marks. However, I do know from the quote you showed that it nowhere states "after they've seen or heard the light", so you're lying to get a vote at this point and so I suggest that I should get the conduct vote for this. "the last quote says that the gospel was preached to those who either believed or didn't. presupposing an informed rejection" Once again, you assume that only those who were preached to were counted, and as mine assumed nothing it is the more likelyto be true while yours assumes what is not said by your quotation. In conclusion, my BOP remains fullfilled, and the Bible specifically says Non-Christians will be condemned. Furthermore, my opponent relies entirely on assumptions rather than actual scripture to be counted as correct. So, I urge a con vote :)