> BTW, I don't see how Jesus would've phrased the "judge not lest you be judged" as a threat if that's what he meant. I don't think he meant, "You can't judge 'cause you're not saved yet, but once you're saved, go to town."

I cut out about a third of your post before getting to here, and I still have yet to figure out who or what you are refuting. Certainly not me. Nor does any of it continue to be relevant to my post, as far as I can tell, until here:

> Might I add that I see only a rhetorical difference between condemning to Hell and condemning the unsaved to death.

...where you make a statement that I am so incapable of comprehending that I lack the ability to refute it.

> ...And the Bible tells us that we will be held accountable for those who failed to receive the Gospel as a result of our (in)actions; their blood is on our hands.

Book, chapter, verse, please?

> Look, here's what I think I'm permitted, just for myself: I'm permitted to say that McVeigh did many, many things that were wrong. I'm permitted to say that these things are worth the fires of Hell. I'm permitted to say that *but for* the saving grace of Jesus Christ he would have no destiny but Hell.
>
> But I am *not* permitted, in the light of God's mercy to me, to say that, given two possible outcomes, McVeigh's salvation or his damnation, that his damnation is the preferable possibility.

Again, nothing we disagree on....

> ...Nor do I think I could conscience myself going along with steps to make the latter possibility the more probable one. That's my interpretation of "judge not".

This is taking instruction for individuals and assigning it to human government. Death by lynch mob does not equal capital punishment.

Then you close with about three more paragraphs that are rephrasings of things I've said elsewhere in this thread. Not that you can't reiterate them in your own words if you share the sentiment, but I'm not sure why this was part of a reply to me.