bible does not necessarily teach that non-christians will be condemned

i'd think you're trying to weasle out of what the passages actually say. but you seem sincere, so i'm going to assume you have a reading problem. i think your profs are jsut regurgitating the conventional wisdom and tradition. it's not biblcial necessarily. i'd put my knowledge against theirs anyday, as i've got just as much education on it as they do. also i've led religious groups as president, and i've studied this stuff up to the high heavens, and taken courses etc. i'd also add that i'm almost about to pass the bar to practice law, so i think i know how to read, and could trump you and your professors any day on credentials. at the very least, trump them on how to read and think critically. professors notoriously simply regurgitate stuff often. they're not necessarily known for their originality etc. "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). i repeat what i said above. "i told you..." it's plausible that my interpretation is correct. your's i concede is more straightforward, but to deny that my interpretation is not plausible is flat out wrong andor stupid. we have to look at the rest of the bible to understand the rest and how to approach it. John 3:16 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. you seem to think that by capitalizing and separating the verses that say what you want from their context that you can make it say waht you want. this is a common biblical fallacy. "proclaim the gospel to the world... if they don't believe, they're condmned." is essentially what it says. that means they ahve to have heard it first. you cannot separate the second sentence from the first to suit your agenda. i think you have a reading comprehsion problems if you can't understand that context can change what a sentence standing alone means. "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." if it says they are condemend... then it goes on to define being condemned as "but instead of accepting" rejecting, then you can't separate your passage about how if they dont believe they're condemned because you're separating it from the context. (again most passages say "condemned" instead of "verdict" in what i just quoted. meaning they indeed did define it. but even if it says "verdict" that's the same difference and it's defining condemned.) if you go to my other debate on this, with justcallmetarzan, even he'd concede these say what i'm saying. i remember he had a high iq he told me and that seemed plausible... so maybe it's just something the smart people can comprehend. people like you and the dude who commented below are just having problems reading and getting past your preconceived notions. that, or you're just an idiot. the man on the island example. i thought i explained it, but didn't realize that you had absolutely no background on that issue. the man on the island example was explained by aquanis and augustine etc. they asked themselves "could it be that the man on the island secluded always from mankind would be condemned even though he never had a chance to hear the gospel?" one cocluded that an angel wuld apear to him and preach. ie interpretations could mean that he thought God wouldn't allow him to die, or he must hear. it's debatable what they ultimately thought. i assumed you'd know that basic knowledge. i shouldn't have dne that. people like me, and i'd hope your professors, know historical facts like that. it wasn't always so strict as modern evengelicals would have you believe either. but the point is not all that... it's what the verses say.