I agree. I was taught by a smart Master to never put God on the left side of the equation, implying that debating on God is pointless
So, I don't debate on this. I would like to know IF you feel a difference (see spoiler for my feeling about claims):
"1: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved"
"2: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for me"
"3: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
"4: Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
"5: You go to Hell unless you accept Jesus"
* Freedom of Speech means "I 'can't' be forced to speak", so I never "need to give proof, even if making a claim" (it has consequences)
* IF using "I believe, I feel, I know, I think" the person shares his opinion ('I'-message), so he makes not a claim
* IF imposing one's opinion on others, one must give sufficient proof IF one wants them to accept it
= = =
IF someone on RF tells me "1: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might ask "for you, for me or for all?" (no need for proof)
IF someone on RF tells me "2: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for me"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might say "I am glad for you" (no need for proof)
IF someone on RF tells me "3: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you/all"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might say "Quite some pretentious knowledge" (no need for proof; he shares his opinion "I know....")
IF someone on RF tells me "4: Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
THEN I might act upset, and I might ask "Quite some pretentious claim" (needs proof*; he makes a clear claim AND imposes it on me)
IF someone on RF tells me "5: You go to Hell unless you accept Jesus"
THEN I might act upset, and I might say "You are rude, belittling and arrogant" (needs no proof; as I have self respect)
@stvdvRF
Interesting. I think that I'm upset before anyone does anything probably, which might point to some sort of inflammation going on and causing some subtle pain that makes me irritable or ready to pounce and defensive all the time. I can't let people just sit there smugly always, because if I care about them then I would want the best for them. Luckily, people appear so hideous or ugly to me that I don't really care about them at all or what I believe their future condition may be, or may even feel some pleasure in the belief that they are wrong, stubborn in their wrongness, and therefor doomed to a bad fate in my opinion. This becomes an issue though if I actually like or care about a person (which can develop very quickly) or if they are attractive or viable as some sort of human resource or even a potential sexual resource or someone stimulating who I'd like to have what I believe would be a better fate. Then I might not let the matter so easily rest if I can somehow convince them to adopt a view more compatible with my own beliefs.
So what that means in clarified summary is this:
-It is no one's fault probably for my temper, which is likely due to some sort of pain that has nothing to do with the annoyingness of people, who seem all the more irritating when a person is in some sort of even subtle physical pain or something going on, maybe some bad meals, not enough sleep, who knows.
-I have opinions and ideas that I would not believe in if I didn't think they were best, sure, and right.
-If people don't match up with my opinions, then they are in my opinion choosing something wrong, and anyone who chooses something wrong or that I think is idiotic, is an imbecile in my view.
-If people are gross seeming to me, or worthless, I might happily leave them alone in their ignorance to perish or use them as an example for badness and wrongness or whatever, the point being I don't care about them or their wellbeing or else I would work for them to be "saved" by what I think is the right opinion and so they can be closer to me and part of my group or like kin in the mind.
-If people are somehow valuable seeming to me, pleasurable in some way, and thus have worth, I might try to guide them to my way of thinking so that they might prosper and I might prosper through them, vicariously and by extending their likelihood of providing increased pleasure to me in whatever ways they might and do.
-I become more distraught and disappointed by the rejection of such people that provide me with pleasure and can provide me with more potentially by their resistance to becoming more like peers and kin by believing what I believe and agreeing with what I agree with, and seeing things the way I do, at least somewhat approximately or close enough, so that I can be comfortable with them and can feel free about my opinions and phrasing them as expressions of feelings they can relate with and agree with, and having generally pleasurable interactions without disagreements or differences which can make for unpleasantness or feelings of apartness and less pleasure.
So, since you mentioned Jesus for example, as soon as someone even says "Jesus" I might get a tinge of displeasure at the assumption that this person is very likely to be outside of my peer group or difficult to bring to my beliefs or whatever or be comfortable with.