Do you believe that 2007 will have the second coming of Jesus Christ?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I can't vote either way. The only reason why this is amusing is because those of us who strongly believe in the second coming of Christ believe that Jesus will come in the hour we least expect.

"in the hour we least expect"? 

Are you sure you are quoting that correctly?  Or, did he simply say, "in an hour you do not expect"?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No but this type of belief has been going on since the beginnings of Christianity.

Yes, the Second Coming has always been part of Christianity.  Jesus himself spoke of his return.  And when the disciples witness his Accession into Heaven, two angles appeared and prophesied Jesus return:

Acts 1:9-11 He was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.  10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

---

Every Christian seems to want to believe that he is living in the End of Days.  It seems as if all revel in the thought of Doomsday...

I disagree.  I do not want to be alive during the “End of Days” since I believe Christians will be imprisoned and put to death.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

After time went by, there was all of this wild stuff about rising from the dead, etc, etc.

How long after the death of Jesus do you believe this "wild story" about rising from the dead started?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No proof.

Of course, those who assert that the Biblical account is 100% accurate have roughly equal proof.

The only people who are not required to give any are the smart ones who simply assert that we don't know.

actually, there is proof:

The book of Acts, believed to have been written by Luke, describes: 54 various cities… 9 various islands in the Mediterranean Sea…32 various countries…and 95 various people including 62 who are not mentioned by any other New Testament book and 27 who are unbelievers including civil and military leaders.

No discrepancies between Acts and the historical record have been found.  Such accuracy of the 1st Century world could have only come from a 1st Century eyewitness.

Where discrepancies have once thought to have existed, archeological evidence has proven the accuracy of the Book of Acts. 

Examples:

Titles used in Acts to describe various authorities have been proven to be correct. McDowell observes how some scholars assumed that Luke's use of the word 'politarchs' (17:6), as a title for civil authorities in Thessalonica was thought to be an inaccurate description since the word was not known to exist in classical literature.31 However, more recent discoveries have shown Luke to be perfectly accurate in his use of this word, since some nineteen inscriptions were discovered that make use of the title, five of which are used in specific reference to Thessalonica.32 The title "chief man" is also an accurate description used by Luke to describe the Roman governor (Publius) of Malta where Paul was shipwrecked (28:7). This official title has been archaeologically attested with the discovery of two Maltese inscriptions, one in Greek and the other in Latin.33
 
Acts specifically mentions individuals by name and is accurate in describing their positions in society as well as their surrounding circumstances. For example, the proconsul, Gallio is named in Acts 18:12-16. He governed over Achaia and was also known as the brother of Seneca, the famous Roman philosopher and tutor of Nero.34 In ancient Delphi a letter of the Emperor Claudius indicates that Gallio must have become Proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 51.35 Achaia was a Senatorial province from 27 B.C. to A.D. 15, and also from A.D. 44 onward.36 It is particularly interesting to note that Luke accurately calls Gallio by his official title, "proconsul of Achaia." By doing this, Luke departs from his usual custom of calling countries by their general titles and instead of referring to the province of Achaia by the more ordinary name of Greece he does not call Gallio the proconsul of Greece but of Achaia.37 Luke's mention of the Agabus' prophecy of a great famine extending over all the world, being fulfilled in the days of Claudius Caesar (11:27-30) has also been proven to be an historically correct reference when compared with other ancient writings. For example, the historian Suetonius spoke of frequent famines transpiring under Claudius (A.D. 41-54), Eusebius speaks of famine in Greece, and Tacitus, along with Dion Cassius, both make reference to two famines in Rome at this particular time.38 In addition to these sources, Marshall notes that Josephus describes how Helena of Adiabene contributed towards helping the hungry of Jerusalem by sending corn in A.D. 46.39

Archaeology has shown the book of Acts to be accurate in its references to commerce. For example, Acts 16:11-15 records how at Philippi, Paul and his companions converse with some of the cities local women, one of whom is specifically named as "Lydia...a purple merchant from the city of Thyatira..." The womans name is a reminder that Thyatira was situated in the ancient kingdom of Lydia; a place that was well known for the manufacturing of purple dyes extracted from the juice of the madder root.40 In addition to this, there is also inscriptural evidence to show that the trading in purple dye was prevalent in Philippi at this time.41

McDowell has noticed how Luke has often been accused, by some, of presenting inaccurate information. The statement that Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia and Iconium was not (Acts 14:6) was considered to be wrong by archaeologists and consequently unreliable as an historical source.42 Their reasons for coming to these conclusions were based primarily on the writings of Cicero and the elder Pliny who refer to Iconium as being in Lycaonia.43 Although Xenophon, writing in 401 B.C. does say that Iconium was "the last city of Phrygia" the earlier statements by Cicero and Pliny were given more serious consideration on account of them living much nearer to apostolic times.44 However, archaeologists were eventually led to conclude that Luke's implication in Acts was indeed correct. This change of thought occurred when Sir William Ramsay (who originally held to the Tubingen theory)45 discovered inscriptions that clearly revealed that Phrygian was spoken in Iconium right up to the end of the second century. The statements by earlier writers were simply speaking of Iconium as being in Lycaonia in a general sense on account of it being situated near the Lycaonian frontier and therefore partook in the fortunes of that region.46 Luke was therefore correct in referring to Iconium as a Phrygian city in the first century.

The book of Acts proves itself to be historically reliable from archaeology when presenting various religious activities and practices that were common to Luke's first century environment. While at Athens Paul makes reference to the people being "very religious" (Acts 17:22). Thompson notes how other ancient writers such as Sophocles, Pausanias, and Josephus also made similar observations.47 The idol that bore the inscription "to an unknown god" (v. 23) is of interest. Although this inscription has not yet been discovered in Athens,48 Pauanias, who visited the city in 150 A.D. gives a thorough account of the religious activity of the Athenasians in his book Description of Greece and mentions "alters of the gods named unknown."49 The practice of exorcism is another area for consideration. Thomson observes how Luke's description of attempted exorcism by the Jewish Seven Sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13-16 is in accordance with Jewish practices prevalent in the first century.50 Often, the practice was associated with various magical rites and practices whereby the sacred name of God would be pronounced.51

Probably one of the most significant archaeological discoveries supporting the historical reliability of Acts was unearthed by the architect, J.T. Wood. Inspired by the story of the silversmiths of the Ephesian goddess Artemis in Acts 19:23-41, Wood began a work of excavation in May 1863 which eventually led to the discovery of the Temple of Artemis. Beneath 25 feet of soil and rubble Wood's first significant discovery was a magnificent pavement, the bases of colossal pillars, and cylinders adorned with sculptures in honour of Artemis.52 From the remains of the temple itself, it has been calculated that it was about 343 feet long and 164 feet wide, and contained one hundred columns over six feet in diameter.53 During excavation, evidence was unearthed that revealed that the interior of the temple (measuring seventy feet wide) was lavishly decorated with brilliant colours, gold and silver.54 The altar, where it was thought the principal statue of Artemis stood behind, was twenty feet square.55 It was beneath this altar that one of Wood's own countrymen, David G. Hogarth, discovered a large array of statues of the goddess made from bronze, gold, ivory, and silver, thirty five years after Wood's initial discovery.56 It is quite possible that these were the very statues that were crafted by the silversmith's of Artemis as described by Luke in Acts 19: 23-41.57 Luke records how these craftsmen, influenced by Demetrius, were led to respond to the threat that Paul's preaching had on their livelihood with the words: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians" (vv. 28, 34). There are in existence several ancient inscriptions proving that these particular words were commonly used in the practice of devotion and prayer.58 The great theatre where the Ephesian people rioted was situated on the slope of Mount Pion and capable of holding about 24,500 people.59 The ruins that can be seen today represent a later reconstruction than what existed in New Testament times although the basic structure was essentially the same as what existed in Paul's day.60

http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/acts.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The book of Acts, believed to have been written by Luke, describes: 54 various cities… 9 various islands in the Mediterranean Sea…32 various countries…and 95 various people including 62 who are not mentioned by any other New Testament book and 27 who are unbelievers including civil and military leaders.

No discrepancies between Acts and the historical record have been found.  Such accuracy of the 1st Century world could have only come from a 1st Century eyewitness.

[snip]

And... that proves that Jesus died and was resurrected how?  I don't know why I would dispute the fact that there was a guy named Luke who wrote some stuff in the first century.

The fact that Luke was good at describing stuff does not exactly prove that Jesus was the Son of God who came back to life three days after being crucified, etc.

But there lies the trap…

Since the book of Acts could only have been written in the 1st Century by an eyewitness of those events, for what other reason would they have had opportunity to experience so many different places and meet with so many civil/military leaders…if not for preaching the Gospel?

And if they did indeed preach the Gospel to all these places and people during the middle of the 1st Century, for what reason would they have conspired to make up the story of Jesus’ resurrection?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But there lies the trap…

Since the book of Acts could only have been written in the 1st Century by an eyewitness of those events, for what other reason would they have had opportunity to experience so many different places and meet with so many civil/military leaders…if not for preaching the Gospel?

And if they did indeed preach the Gospel to all these places and people during the middle of the 1st Century, for what reason would they have conspired to make up the story of Jesus’ resurrection?

I don't know, but there are an awful lot of possibilities given the fact that all of that was 2000 years ago, and I don't exactly think that "Jesus was the Son of God and everything they said was 100% true" is the likeliest.  It's entirely possible that they all saw something, but were mistaken about what they saw, or perhaps only one person saw something and the others didn't want to admit that they hadn't seen it, or whatever.

It's entirely possible that all of them did indeed earnestly believe in everything, but even if they did, that doesn't mean that everything actually was as it was written.

I am saying the evidence is the following:

1) From the historical accuracy of all the places and leaders mentioned in the Book of Acts, it can be concluded, with a high degree of certainty…that the Book of Acts was written in the middle of the 1st Century.

2) No other activity, other than the teaching of something controversial (like a religion), could explain the situational accounts of the book of Acts…meaning, the places and descriptions of the Book of Acts were not borrowed from the diary of a fish monger, the Book of Acts was originally what it claims to be – an intentional record of the activities of the first generation of Christians.

3) The first generation of Christians actually believed what they taught, they had no alterative motives, for if they had alterative motives (profit, fame, etc), they would have fallen away in short order, they would not have endured loss of possessions, freedom, and life...they would not have endured what they endured.

Therefore, since the trail of Christianity leads directly to eyewitnesses living in the middle of the 1st Century who taught, without alterative motives, what they earnestly believed, there is no basis for a conspiracy.

The only basis for not believing the Gospel is the wonder of the story itself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Since I am not asserting a conspiracy of any kind, you're going to an awful lot of trouble to disprove something that I haven't said.

granted, I was simply presenting you with an argument, not using you as my example.

---

People are capable of believing things to be true that aren't true in reality.

True, but that is irrelevant to my point:  There is no evidence of a conspiracy behind Christianity, nor is there motive for one.  The trail leads directly to eyewitnesses in the middle of the 1st Century soon after the death of Jesus.

---

L. Ron Hubbard has successfully convinced thousands of people of the validity of Scientology.

Is Scientology L. Ron Hubbard’s eyewitness account of history?  If not, then the beginnings of Scientology can’t be compared with the beginnings of Christianity.

And, unlike Scientology, there is no individual source of Christianity, rather it sprang from the accounts of a group of eyewitnesses.  Christianity is a product of the eyewitness accounts of many witnesses. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Actually there is considerable historiographial evidence that there has been editing, both of the greek text and of course examples of papal edicts resulting in changes in translation alongside numerous existing and losts texts that never made the 'final cut' so to speak of the NT. And it is ludicrous and historically false to suggest otherwise (I have earned a qualification in historiography from a biblical context this gained at Jesuit college so I'm not saying this for the sake of argument!)

Ok, may we put your qualifications to a sincere test?

If you have studied the “editing” of the bible:
1) What passages were edited?
2) How has the changes (through the various edits) impacted my doctrine?

What I mean is this…I have three overreaching tests for accepting any doctrine that claims to be Christian.  These are the three tests and any single doctrine must pass ALL 3 tests:
1) The Foundation Test - It must have a basis originating in the Old Testament.
2) The Echo Test - It must be based on two or more passages of scripture.
3) The Mesh Test - It must not contradict other parts of scripture.

Demonstrate, through your qualifications in historiography of the bible, how the historical editing of the bible impacted any doctrine in which I believe.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I did several weeks- or do you have a short memory?

No, what you did was argue modern TRANSLATION of the ancient Greek, not the EDITING of the original Greek text.

But, even in your translational argument which I conceded to you without objection, allowing you to wipe any anti-homosexual context out of the bible, I still insisted your conclusion (your doctrine) met the following guidelines:

1) The Foundation Test - It must have a basis originating in the Old Testament.

Your conclusion that Jesus allowed homosexuals to practice sex without marrying in Matthew 19 not only VIOLATED the foundational pattern of the Old Testament establishing the only proper context for sex was within the confines of a marriage, it violated the original pattern set forth during Creation – a pattern that Jesus himself upheld in that very passage of scripture.

2)  The Echo Test - It must be based on two or more passages of scripture.

Your conclusion that Jesus allowed homosexuals to practice sex without marrying was based on a single passage of scripture (Mat 19) in which Jesus talked about avoiding the pitfalls of marriage, thus your conclusion VIOLATED the rule not to jump to conclusions without the testimony of two or three witnesses.

3) The Mesh Test - It must not contradict other parts of scripture.

Your conclusion that Jesus allowed homosexuals to practice sex without marrying in Mat 19 VIOLATED every scriptural example including: the pattern established during Creation which Jesus himself upheld, the formula Paul gave to avoid sexual immorality (celibacy or marriage).

---

So, I will ask you again….

Please name an example of editing (or even mis-translation) of scripture which has altered my doctrine in any way, shape, or form.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if you look back you will realise I said two things. The Bible has been 'edited' (a loose word to use I admit) 1. The books of the Bible have altered due to human choice; ie what books are considerd 'canon' and what are considered 'heretic' changed considerable right through to the Reformation. 2. The Greek has been mistranslated. I did not say the Greek text has ever been edited.

Ok, but my question was “how exactly has mistranslation led me into doctrinal error?”, for my doctrine is NEVER the product of translation, rather my doctrine if a product of overall cohesion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, but my question was “how exactly has mistranslation led me into doctrinal error?”, for my doctrine is NEVER the product of translation, rather my doctrine if a product of overall cohesion.

… You are therefore asking me an open ended question which has no answer, because I cannot proceed to adress your doctrine if I am not aware of what that doctrine is.

Well, first let me define my “doctrine on how to form doctrine”, which I believe is biblically based:

1) The Foundation Test - It must have a basis originating in the Old Testament.

It is my belief that EVERYTHING of doctrinal significance in the New Testament has a reference based in the Old Testament. 

I believe this because:
i) I have yet to find anything in the New Testament of doctrinal significance that can not be derived out of the Old Testament.
ii) The Old Testament is what Jesus taught out of.
iii) The Old Testament was the bible of the early church.
iv) All of Paul’s doctrine could be taught from the Old Testament - “They examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11)...“Do not go beyond what is written” (1Cor 4:6)

2)  The Echo Test - It must be based on two or more passages of scripture.

“A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Dt 17:6; 19:5; Mat 18:16; 2Cor 13:1; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28)

This simple law about not jumping to conclusions based on a single piece of evidence was given in the Old Testament, confirmed by Jesus himself, and used throughout the New Testament

3) The Mesh Test - It must not contradict other parts of scripture.

Jesus himself taught that the doctrines of man will contradict the teachings of scripture (Mat 15:3; Mark 7:8 ).

---

I believe adhering to these common sense rules will make one’s doctrine immune from scriptural revisions and/or translational errors.

Someone may claim a certain verse translated “correctly” requires believers to spin a pickle three times on their nose before praying.  My retort does NOT have to argue the translation, rather I can simply say:  “If that is the case, then from where in the Old Testament can that teaching be derived?  Where is the second witness in scripture for such a requirement?  Why doesn't that mesh with the rest of scripture?”

Such was the case in our previous debate.  Your conclusion that a correct translation and interpretation of Mat 19 has Jesus allowing homosexuals to have sex outside of marriage not only has no basis from the Old Testament and no second witness, it also contradict Paul’s recipe to avoid sexual immorality (get married or stay celibate) and contradicted the uniform biblical code of marriage being the proper context for sex.

Your interpretation of Mat 19 did not coincide with any example or teaching in the rest of scripture.  That is what I was trying to explain to you.

In contrast, my interpretation of Mat 19 has Jesus referring NOT to homosexuality, but only to marriage and celibacy.  And it just so happens that my interpretation of Mat 19 dovetails precisely with the rest of scripture.  It passes “The Foundation Test” where the Old Testament initially defined sex in the context of marriage (Gen 4:1).  It passes “The Echo Test” in that choosing between marriage and celibacy is the recipe Paul gives to avoid sexual immorality.  And it passes “The Mesh Test” by dovetailing with every example of proper sexual conduct in the bible.

If my interpretation of Mat 19 is wrong, then why does it so perfectly mesh with the rest of scripture?  And if your interpretation of Mat 19 is correct, why does it contradict the rest of scripture?

---

Is not formation of doctrine tantamount to reverse engineering scripture?  And isn’t the best test for a reverse engineered product a comparison test to see if the final product matches the original?  If the end product of a theory contradicts the product it was seeking to reverse engineer, doesn’t that make the theory null and void?

In all your studies of proper translation, you seemed to have forgotten that the conclusions of your theory have to jive with the overall structure of what you are studying.  So, you can argue the details of translational errors all you want, down to even the DNA level of a duck.  And you may claim the duck you engineered has all the proper gene sequencing down to the minutest detail…But, in the end, the duck you engineer better look, quack, and walk like a duck. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Somehow I feel that those 25% have probably predicted the second coming of Jesus every single year since 2000 or so.

Since long before 2000. People have been believing the return of Christ was at hand since he left the first time.

Oh really?  Then why did Paul teach that Christ can NOT return until the apostacy and the revealing of the AntiChrist?

2Thes 2:1-4  "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

However, the introduction of a deity as a solution to the question of why we exist raises more questions than it answers.

isn't that usually the case with exploration and discovery?  don't space probes to planets raise more questions than they answer? 

it is simply a function of discovering how ignorant we really are.

---

Where is this deity, and why did it create the universe?

yet, those very questions are directly and explicitly answered in the bible.

---

The question of whether any sort of supernatural power(s) exist is essentially meaningless, because if they do exist, we have no idea of knowing what their qualities are and why they created us.

again, all answered in the bible

---

What we can discern is that if there is a deity, they a.) don't care about human affairs very much, as demonstrated by numerous factors

actually, God cared so much that he revealed himself in human form through Jesus Christ

---

(the incredible detail put into the millions of species that inhabit the earth

yet God placed humans in charge of all of the earth and made us rulers over it

---

as contrasted to the short timespan of human existence, the sheer size of the universe and the relative insignificance of the earth and even our solar system

which only demonstrate to us the eternal qualities of God

---

, and the existence of immense suffering and evil within the world)

all caused by our sin

---

and thus b.) are not deserving of our worship, love, devotion, or admiration.

so, you hate God because life isn't fair...how is that news?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?

because there is no one 'good' but God alone

---

  It seems to me that it would be entirely possible for someone who truly believes himself to be the Son of God (and is not) to still have a good message to tell.

His 'good message' was that salvation was attained through him alone, which is why they killed him

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Many of my fellow Christians miss this.  The Great Commission of Jesus was to go into all the world and preach His Gospel.  Well and good.  But His Great Commission should never supercede or overrule His Great Commandment (do unto others).  The two should, ideally, compiment one another.

actually, if you reject Jesus as God, then you can't say "do unto others" was Jesus' Great Commandment, for "do unto others" originated in the Law of Moses.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All people are evil.  What a wonderful worldview.

yes, the ground around the cross is level - which is why Paul said, "Christ came into the world to save sinners, of which I am the worst."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

His 'good message' was that salvation was attained through him alone, which is why they killed him

I always thought there was something in there about loving your neighbor as yourself and about generosity and not blindly seeking revenge and all that, but I guess not, since I tend to never hear a word about that.

Why is it a dichotomy between 'salvation in Christ alone' and 'loving your neighbor as yourself'?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus very clearly recognised that good, in this case the expulsion of demons, can be performed by a non follower.

What?

And whose to say that the man casting out demons in the name of Jesus was a "non follower"?!

If anything, Jesus' statement is lesson against sectarian conflicts within Christianity.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is what the Bible says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus very clearly recognised that good, in this case the expulsion of demons, can be performed by a non follower.

A good act. However first we...

No, I think first both you and J.J. need to reread that passage, for it NEVER states that the man who was casting out demons in Jesus' name was not a believer in Jesus.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I voted 'No'

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Many of my fellow Christians miss this.  The Great Commission of Jesus was to go into all the world and preach His Gospel.  Well and good.  But His Great Commission should never supercede or overrule His Great Commandment (do unto others).  The two should, ideally, compiment one another.

actually, if you reject Jesus as God, then you can't say "do unto others" was Jesus' Great Commandment, for "do unto others" originated in the Law of Moses.

Of course, I don't reject Jesus as God. 

understood, i was talking through you not to you.  sorry for the confusion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Probably one of the most distasteful parts of Christianity for me is the part that you hear over and over from people trying to convert others, which is that you get eternally tortured in hell if you don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, etc.

No, Hell is the consequence of sin; it is NOT the consequence of disbelief:

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

But Salvation is the consequence of living by faith:

John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Probably one of the most distasteful parts of Christianity for me is the part that you hear over and over from people trying to convert others, which is that you get eternally tortured in hell if you don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, etc.

No, Hell is the consequence of sin; it is NOT the consequence of disbelief:

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

But Salvation is the consequence of living by faith:

John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Dude, you're contradicting yourself - first you say that non-belief isn't the reason you go to hell, then you say non-believers are condemned (a.k.a. going to hell) because they don't believe. It's right there in plain English, the second half of the last sentence in your post.

No, you're just taking the verse out of its greater context, which is further explained a little later in the chapter:

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

So, you are NOT condemned because of unbelief, rather you are condemned if you don't believe because only faith in Jesus removes God's wrath from you.  And the wrath was on you in first place because you sinned.

So, sin came before condemnation, and faith removes the condemnation, and it's your choice to use faith to remove the condemnation that resulted from your sin. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

this is real simple:

if you get caught stealing and have a "get out of jail free" card that you refuse to use, are you convicted and sent to jail on the charge of stupidity or on the charge of stealing?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

this is real simple:

if you get caught stealing and have a "get out of jail free" card that you refuse to use, are you convicted and sent to jail on the charge of stupidity or on the charge of stealing?

Except under the concept of "original sin" I'm guilty of a crime I didn't commit. Since the condemnation comes from something I didn't do in the first place, your example is flawed.

need I remind you that you're not debating with a Catholic