Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Esquilax]

Ok... I don't have any problem supporting my position (and I think anyone who has studied theology would agree with me).  However I'm not interested in explaining, just to have someone dismiss what I say and jumping to another topic, or simply claiming it's all a fairy tale anyway, or just saying that is only my interpretation.  I'm not going to put in the effort to inform someone who doesn't really care or is willing to check out what I say, and go back to making the same ignorant argument next week.

I always love how willing you religious types are to dip into the well poison with the constant refrain of "I'm aware my arguments probably aren't convincing, but that's your fault!" Because it can't just be that you're wrong, or that someone could disagree with you for legitimate reasons, can it? It has to be something intellectually untenable, that they just don't want to know the truth, because it's not possible that anyone could think you were wrong for real reasons, right?

There are verses in scripture, which say or allude to those who do not believe facing the consequences of the second death.  And this is correct.  However; it is incorrect to say that they are sent to hell, for simply not believing.  (I would also point out here, that it is not just an intellectual acknowledgement of belief).  Scripture states a number of times, that the judgement and the reason why hell is deserved, is because of sin.  Jesus lowered himself and became man, and gave up His life;  because of this very problem.  He came to save us from the penalty of sin.  Saying that people are going to hell; because they don't believe in Jesus is similar to saying that a person died, because they refused treatment for illness.  This may be accurate, but if the person then goes on to blame the doctor, because they didn't give them a choice to their liking, or to imply that it was the refusal that killed them, is just silly.

This is a distinction without a difference; a person can live exactly the same life that I do, plus Jesus, and go to heaven, but if I live that life without Jesus, I'm going to hell. Therefore, the operative difference that's going to land me in hell is my non-belief, not my sins, because somebody with the same sins can get to heaven if only they'll believe the one proposition that I do not. It's pure sophistry to try and redirect toward the sins, when clearly the sins are not a problem should other criteria be fulfilled. It's roughly equivalent to having two people driving their cars, one of whom got into an accident and the other did not, and you're sitting here saying that the cause of the accident was driving a car, while completely ignoring that the guy who got in an accident was drunkenly driving backwards through traffic.

Your doctor analogy, by the way, fails on two counts; the first is, as has already been pointed out to you, that the doctor infected me with sin in the first place by creating the sin concept, creating humans with a sin nature, and then holding us to a standard without our consent. The second is more fundamental: sin is not a disease. Sin is not some inevitable naturally occurring thing that sends people to hell without any input from god, no, god sends people to hell. He doesn't need to, it's within his power not to, he could just as easily send us to heaven, or just let us die and stay dead, but he sends us to hell out of a conscious choice of his own.

A more accurate version of the doctor analogy would be that a doctor bursts into my life without my consent, regardless of whether I want it and presents me with a list of demands. If I don't fulfill the demands then he's going to inject me with a fatal disease. Is the doctor then completely blameless, as you wish to characterize god as, in my poisoning and subsequent death? Or is it, in fact, his fault entirely for accosting me so when he absolutely didn't need to?