In five posts about Christian doctrine and the Bible you haven't offered a single actual substantial argument. All you're doing is making excuses for not having a proper argument, and it seems any pretense of an excuse will do. Five posts, no support; any excuse to avoid making a proper argument. 1) Given that the next section of your posts runs, "I missed your earlier reference to Matthew 25.31-46", perhaps you shouldn't be asking about reluctance not in evidence. 2) It is not insignificant that you need make things up about other people in order to justify yourself; that's pretty awful, Capracus. Still, though: Any excuse to avoid making a proper argument. Is it that you're unwilling, or are you simply not capable? No it doesn't. To the other, as I said, before: That everybody else should do the work for you, so that you can devote your labor to fallacy and satisfaction, is itself a ridiculous proposition. Yet here we are; five posts in and no actual supporting argumentation. But you did find time to decide my religion for me. Religious zealotry is religious zealotry; the day, also, happens to end in -y. Again, that everybody else should do the work for you is itself a ridiculous proposition. Let us be clear, here, as you roll through these weird standards, alternately, your idea of Christian doctrine (uncited), what the Bible tells you (uncited), the New Testament (uncited), commonly held tenet of Christianity (uncited)), personal (i.e., generally condemning) characterization of Christian expectation, relevant Bible citation (uncited), mainstream Christian thought (uncited), and New Testament God (uncited). Meanwhile, the whole routine with, "one of many citations that basically support my statement", and "one citation that validates my statement, we both know there's more to show", only highlights the dearth of actual citation in your argument; furthermore, the lack of any explanation how your expropriation works presses an underlying question of whether you have a clue what you're on about. You haven't cited anything, and the best you can come up with is making believe about the person you're disputing with while attempting a clumsy maneuver of first saying there is nothing there and then trying to claim what is actually there for your own purposes, and at some point it is enough to accept that you really don't know what you're on about, because this kind of performance as a deliberate act of obstinance would be nothing more than bigoted trolling. Here, consider your own retort: To the one, the disrespect you show makes it clear how you feel about Chrsitianity. To the other, if it seems you apparently don't give much thought to their actual beliefs and how those work, it is because despite being your wife, friends, and relatives, you don't seem to have received from them anything substantial. The point of religious figures is far too obvious a response, but it does highlight the difference; consider: You made the effort to use the word "unjustifiably"; this is pretty straightforward. First, consideration of self shown in such ministries as Jesus, Ghandi, and MLK are subordinate to a larger principle. Like I said, this could be about the harm something causes in the world, which would actually be a bit more like the religious figures you mentioned, but you actually chose this should be about you and yours: "Unless someone is using their religious beliefs", you wrote in #56↑, "to adversely effect my real world ideals". Certes, our own ideals are essential to defining our perceptions of harm in the world, but don't waste time posing with words like, "unjustifiably", when you explicitly made it about yourself and what is yours. Still, though, as you sputter out— —it is enough to note that, yet again, you avoided making any real argument. This behavior has become so desperate that it can be taken at face value: "What's your reluctance to cite scriptural passages that address salvation and punishment as I have described?" Well, one might take the moment to wonder at your reluctance to address the citations I posted, but if we check the language, you said, "as I have described". It's one thing to be confused about the One Hundred Forty-Four Thousand, or the Book of Life; the faithful are, and, furthermore, these aspects are part of the mystery. But, at the same time, those aspects are also what you overlook, or else exclude, when trying to expropriate, without explanation, a fragment considering a different question. That overlooking those aspects happens to coincide with the needs of your complaint in lieu of argument— —is neither surprising nor insignificant. Still, perhaps you disdain the consideration of the for some reason, but simply passing over it twice (see #54↑, 57↑), especially as the second iteration was a reminder of the first, does stand out. What addresses "salvation and punishment as [you] have described"? Well, clearly, the part seeming to disagree with your outlook on "the New Testament god" fails to address the issues as you have described. That is, when you inquire about a "reluctance to cite scriptural passages that address salvation and punishment as [you] have described", the way that question isn't falsely founded is if you are asking why I won't cherrypick the record to accommodate your godhead. Do you understand problem with chopping away those parts of the record failing to accommodate the deity you require? That is to say, how would you actually fail to comprehend the fact that excluding parts of the record in order to promote fallacy is functionally problematic? And the problem with saying you understand would be the concomitant question of why you require such fallacy.