>>618366
> I haven't libeled you. Even if I'm mistaken, your personal reputation is not at stake here, as you're anonymous.
So this is your excuse after I point out how you lie about me judging and condemning others? Semantics about how it is ackchually libel? And how it doesn't count because the context is reduced to a thread?
There is a reason for me to use those words: you made up retarded things, so I use the appropiate adjectives. Don't get mad when someone points out the quality of your lies
> I told you that you shouldn't "assume."
And I told you that there is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't assume, just like you assume you are talking to a real person and I assume no piano will fall on me, even though only God knows.
>I know what the word "judging" means
You clearly don't, since I have not declared that I am the one to decide who gets to Hell or to Heaven. I have not declared to have dogmatic knowledge with complete certainty.
It is you who engages in semantics, since in order to mindlessly prevent my common sense assumptions, you pretend they are the same as "judging", switching the word so that you can condemn it
>The thing that you're assuming is the eternal fate of another human being's soul
Which I can do
>Declaring the eternal state of another's soul is not our place
I do not declare anything. That seems to be a fantasy of yours
>The problem isn't that you're assuming. It's what you're assuming
What I'm assuming is completely normal. There is nothing special about it. In your theological bankrupy you pretend there is, but there is not. I call you a simpleton. There is nothing special about assuming someone goes to Hell or Heaven when I have no reason to think otherwise.
>I doubt that we've heard about every deathbed conversion that has ever happened. Not everyone who dies is a celebrity. If the deathbed conversions we've heard about are common
I don't think you get the simple, easy to understand point. It doesn't matter if I have personally ehard of them. Any known deathbed conversion was made public by the one who converted. This is not the case. You literally can't give any example of conversion by someone with absolutely 0 signs of the conversion. So don't try to use examples you don't have. You don't have a single example of conversion with nobody knowing and no signs. Otherwise, if you had it, it would be because there was communication of the conversion and signs.
When your point is that "his conversion is not unlikely because there are known examples", the fact that there are no examples does matter.
And what I say is not really a hyperbole. You are talking about a case where someone converted in the very last moment of his life, without even communicating anyone his conversion, nor leaving any message, nor any evidence that there was a conversion.
Sure, we don't know everything, just like I don't know that the piano in flames will not fall on me.
So in your attack on common sense you try to make two points: first, that I can't make assumptions because we don't know everything, but that would apply to literally every single thing in our lives.
Second, that it is immoral to assume that someone went to heaven or hell. There is nothing that indicates this to be the case. I don't declare, I don't judge. There is just no reason to believe that this person did not go to Hell. Now you can find this as sad as you want, but denying it is to be insane, while a sane person acknowledges it, and accepts that unless there is some sudden revelation, there is no reason to not to assume he is in Hell.
>I'll take that as a yes. Your own words stand for what they are.
I did not say them, but even then, they are just a way of lamenting something that there is no reason to doubt.