Maybe everyone prior to this understood the clearly-written OP and you didn’t, so you tried to be clever by throwing out the name of a logical fallacy to try to impress people.
P.S. What does “slightly amazing” mean?
One, I cannot condemn another a person to Hell.
Two, simply because I believe there is a Hell, it does not stand to reason that the entirety of my life should be devoted to ensuring that others do not go to Hell. If, for example, I already spoke to you once and you rejected what I said, why should I continue speaking to you about the same subject? Even Paul gave up on those who did not want to listen (the Jews).
Three, people who do attempt to get others to conform to Godly principles to prevent them from going to Hell are generally accused of “forcing their beliefs on others” and/or “trying to create a theocracy”, so it’s a lose-lose situation anyway.
Yeah, that’s what it was. Clearly.
Just what I said.
My second guess was that you don’t give a fuck what happens to other people as long as you’ve got yours, like a true modern conservative, but I thought that would be threadshitting. But since you’re in your own sad little bunker, have fun arguing about that straw man amongst yourself.
Riiiiiiiiight.
And you figured this out, how…?
ETA: I mean, if you want to go down this route, then I guess it’s worth pointing out that conservatives are more generous with their time and money than are their liberal counterparts, but hey. Whatever floats your boat to believe 
Where’s the straw man? Quote in my post where I suggested this is the case. I repeatedly used the phrase “their god’s test” in reference to who determines who goes to hell.
If you meant the part where I said the greatest evil you can commit is to cause someone to go to hell, what I meant was - if you were to influence someone’s behavior in a way that ultimately caused them to fail their god’s test, say, for instance, by tempting them with a sin they might not otherwise commit, your action lead a person towards unfathomable suffering. That doesn’t mean that you condemned a person to hell - only the merciful loving god does that - but you influenced whether they’d pass the test or not.
Again, where’s the straw man? This just makes you, at best, extremely callous to the suffering of others. If you know that someone is on a path that will cause them to suffer infinitely, to suffer beyond all comprehension and beyond the entirety of the human experience, and yet you can’t be bothered to try to steer them from this path, you are so callous as to, in my view, fall well into “evil” territory.
Because the consequences of their failure will be greater than the sum of all consequences of all of human experience combined. I’m not speaking hyperbolically. This is what the popular conception of hell is. If dedicating your entire life to trying to save someone indeed saved one single person, it would’ve paid off infinitely. Your inconvenience in life is nothing compared to their potential suffering. If you could steer someone away from this, and fail to do so through indifference, inconvenience, or lack of motivation, you are committing an atrocity greater than anything any person has ever inflicted on Earth.
Who cares? Any Earthly inconvenience is trivial. Yes, people will indeed be annoyed at you. And rightfully so, since you’re peddling them bullshit. But if you are sincere in your belief, none of that matters. If it’s the best way to save people from eternal punishment (and this is debatable, obviously), then a worldwide theocracy and forcing your beliefs on someone with the greatest possible influence is not only an option, it’s the only morally correct one.
I think that you’re failing to grasp just how utterly trivial all Earthly concerns are in comparison to the prospect of eternal punishment.
In any case, none of what you posted here actually points out a straw man I made. You misunderstand and/or disagree with my conclusions, which is not the same as a straw man. I would suggest that if you are indeed one of the people who believes that others will be condemned to eternal suffering, and you’re so indifferent to it, that you are the sort of person I’m describing.
It was a guess that you confirmed for me in your second post. Donating time and money to your favorite church is not generosity.
Who’s the “You” in your example here? Some random stranger? Sure, I can see you being that callous. “Welp, I tried once, he didn’t listen and I don’t want to be accused of forcing my beliefs on him. Plus it’s God sending him to hell, not me, so what can I do?!”
Now imagine it’s your child. The fruit of your loins, someone you’d freely lay down your earthly life for. Then one day they tell you they’re an atheist. You try once and then wash your hands of the situation? Doesn’t eat you up inside at all?
For what it’s worth, this is one of the reason I became an atheist way back when. I’d spend 1 hour a week hearing about what was unarguably the most important consequence of anything ever, and then hear about how Jesus wanted people to live in utter humility, turn the other cheek, wash the feet of prostitutes, not be rich, etc, and then I’d spend another 167 hours living in a middle-class mostly secular world where nobody seemed to give eternal damnation the importance it obviously deserved. It’s hard to take hell seriously when nobody else is.
How can it be Heaven if a loved one is in Hell?
How can it be Heaven knowing Hell is there at all?
I tend not to shy away from long posts.
That’s a lot to type for a simple rationalization and backtrack. Let me remind you of what you said in full:
There are two separate issues here.
One, everyone is responsible for their own actions and will be held responsible for their own actions (the Bible, since I’m a Christian, is clear on this). Sin, in itself, does not cause one to go to Hell. A lack of repentance, on the other hand, does. And the decision to repent is a personal one. It would be no more my problem than is you blaming me for causing you to smoke simply because I handed you a cigarette.
(I guess personal responsibility really IS a conservative principle.)
Two, I am unable to “save” anyone (I ain’t Jesus). I could preach until I pass out, but that is something that I, nor any other Christian, am able to do.
Wrong. You’ve done nothing but take a tenant of my beliefs, wilfully and woefully misconstrue them, and try to make me culpable for other people’s choices so as to pat yourself on the back for being oh-so-enlightened while trying to portray those religious people who do less than what you think they should as either hypocrites or weak theists.
Lolwut? Essentially, you’re arguing that I’m responsible for other people’s choices in life. Sorry, pal, but it doesn’t work that way. You can write hundreds of paragraphs trying to explain why it should be do; it still won’t make it so. Notice how you ignored my Paul reference? I wonder why…?
Though, I do have to wonder just how you (think you) know what other people do or don’t do? Or how you feel your qualified to judge the sincerity of one’s beliefs?
I don’t. I’m pointing out to you how you guys rig the game (damned if you do, damned if you don’t).
And I think (actually, I know) you’re wrong.
Start over from the top.
Is that rent controlled?
You do? What do you think goes on there, and for how long?
Auto correct >.>
If I had to guess, constant reruns of the Golden Girls coupled with mandatory Nickelback concerts.
Not only this, but punishments are supposed to deter a person from both committing a crime and being a repeat offender. The fact that hell is unknowable to us mortal sinners and that it lasts for all eternity would seem to negate both of these functions.
I imagine that most reasonable Hell Believers know this. So they allow for the possibility that God gives repentant sinners a second chance after some period of time. But to me, this is an attempt to make God’s ways understandable and more consistent with a loving, merciful creator. If these Believers were informed at the pearly gates that nope, everyone in hell stays there for all eternity just as promised, what would their reaction be? Would they find this just and fair? Or would they wonder what kind of crazy Q-continuum entity they’ve been praying to for the last 70 years?
The purpose of the sufferings of hell is punitive, not deterrent. It’s not supposed to deter anyone from anything. More important, though, it’s meant to give the damned exactly what they want: life without God. If God is the source of all goodness, than a life without God would by definition be unimaginably horrible.
I also think that the mercy of God is limitless, and that anyone who repents, ever- in this life, or in the life to come- will be forgiven. Even in hell. (Dostoyevsky’s Parable of the Onion comes to mind here). So in that sense, I don’t think the pain of hell is necessarily eternal, and I don’t know how many people, if any, will spend eternity there. But hell needs to exist, in principle, for human free will to be real. As they say, if one plays a game, it must be possible to lose it.
Watching and gloating over the torments of the damned has historically supposed to be one of the pleasures of Heaven, as I understand it.
Oh look, compassionate christians not caring about the suffering of others.
Color me shocked.
Whatever happened to the idea of solidarity? “Am I my brother’s keeper” and whatnot? Of keeping those around you safe from harm? The idea that “this person will suffer forever and I’m done trying to keep that from happening to them” is one of the most inhumane, disgusting things I can imagine - not far behind the idea of eternal suffering for not believing in something for which there is no convincing evidence whatsoever.
OMG, I don’t believe in god, yours or anyone else’s. What will happen to me if I die about 10 seconds after finishing this post? And do you feel that that’s morally justifiable?
If you do… Wow.
If you don’t, then I’d inquire how that meshes with a god who’s supposedly perfect being the one to perform these actions.
…Oh, and Merry Christmas.
Oh, look. Another, well… You know.
So, if you choose not to believe in God-- Christian or otherwise-- what, exactly, do you expect me to do? Strap you to a bed and force you to believe? I guess the concept of free will and personal responsibility are lost upon some.
I’d surmise you’d be on the fast track to Hell. And, yes, it’d be “morally justifiable”, since you knew the consequences and decided to engage in specific actions anyway.
What actions? And bah humbug 
Can you elaborate on this? Because it doesn’t make any sense to me. Especially the last sentence. How are we playing a game? (I for one didn’t sign up for any game. Did you? Was this before or after you were born in sin?)
Can you envision a game where no one loses? Because I can. I can envision a game where there are individual winners and losers, based on the amount of points they accrue, but everyone gets a trophy and a pizza party at the end. Or the top players get special recognition, while the others sit in the audience and politely clap for them. Or how about a game where we’re just playing for fun and no one is keeping score? Are you saying that if the game of life was like this, we wouldn’t have free will? Seems to me that a game with no punishment would promote individual agency more than take it away. Because in such a case, one’s choices would hinge not on coercive emotions (fear of hell), but rather the player’s intention to do good for goodness sake.
All snark aside, I was raised as a Catholic, and I tried to believe - I really did, but no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t reconcile it with the reality I lived in. It never added up. Christianity’s answers to the questions of who we are and why we’re here never made sense to me, and no amount of mass or scripture ever made it any easier.
I don’t feel that I made the choice to not believe in God, and I never decided to “engage in any specific actions” as you put it - except that I think Jesus was totally righteous and I wish I could be the same, but we’re all sinners (whatever that means to each of us). If God exists, I believe (s)he failed me. If my eternal suffering is morally justified, of what is it a consequence?