Christianity and eternal life

Goshin said:

it is entirely possible in the next 10-40 years that medical science will devise ways to greatly extend human lifespan and preserve relative youth and health. .

Click to expand...

I met a person, actually I have met several people that have lived 20 or so years with a heart transplant.

CrabCake said:

Not just random people. People like Martin Luther and William Tyndale were proponents of that view. It usually goes hand in hand with Christian Mortalism. It's a view that has always had proponents going as far back as at least the 3rd century when, according to Eusebius, Origen took part in a synod to address this issue and changed the opinion of those dissenters.

It should be noted however, that the church has always considered this view to be heretical (that means it goes against orthodox teaching on the matter). It almost certainly was not something the early disciples taught. In fact, in describing the synod mentioned earlier, Eusebius refers to that teaching as being "foreign to the truth" and calls those who held those teachings but had now changed their mind thanks to Origen "formerly fallen".

Today only the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses promote this view.



1 Peter 3 does not say what you claim it does. It gives absolutely no time frame for when Jesus went to "make the proclamation to the imprisoned spirits". It does not say he spent 3 days doing it or that it occurred in the three days prior to being resurrected.



There are countless options once we see what the bible actually says as compared to what you claim it says.

1. The "proclamation to imprisoned spirits" could have occurred after his bodily resurrection.
2. The "proclamation to imprisoned spirits" could have been one of many things he did throughout his stay in heaven.
3. The "proclamation to imprisoned spirits" could have taken just one day and the other two he spent with the thief on the cross.
4. The "proclamation to imprisoned spirits" might not refer to people who were in hell at all (it never says hell, it says "imprisoned spirits").
5. etc. etc..

The possibilities are endless once we read the actual bible instead of taking your word for what it says.

Click to expand...

First, to clarify, I'm not in total alignment with 7th Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witness on this. They teach annihilation, which I do not. I think your soul still exists. When a person dies, their body doesn't disappear, it just decomposes; all the matter still exists. It's not as if it poofs away. I think the same thing happens to the soul. It loses it's unity (although it doesn't have parts) and stops animation. Technically the person no longer exists, since people are that unity of body and soul, but they aren't annihilated and recreated from memory in my understanding.

Also, I think Christ is divine, and silly JW's don't.

You're right in saying that 1 Peter 3 does not give time stamps. There are other things that lead me to believe Jesus was in hell for three days, mostly typology. That, and it's the traditional view. I'm no Romanist (obviously), but tradition does supplement the interpretation. For example, Ignatius was very adamant about the real prescence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist. Therefore, to interpret "this is my body" as real presence is the better argument, other things aside (but best argument other things included too).

The typology is basic. You seem pretty familiar with this kind of stuff seeing your understanding of Church Fathers, so I'll go by it quickly. I'm also tired, but want to finish the post. A person was not really dead until after 3 days. The Jews didn't understand a coma, so they just assumed dead. But after 3 days, rarely did anyone get back up. That's why Lazarus was just into day 4 when Jesus raised him. It demonstrated Jesus' real power over life and upcoming victory over death. So Jesus too was in the grave for three days. Death is not a friend, but an enemy. So, the analogy is that Jesus was in the enemy camp for 3 days. Also, it seems intuitive that at his resurrection Jesus finished his humiliation and was in his exaltation. So prior to his exaltation, Jesus should be in humility, and therefore submitting to death. I think it's not a bad assumption to say Jesus was in hell all three days.

Also, verse 18-20 is one giant, crazy run on sentence. It proves Peter wrote it, since that kind of grammar is only acceptable to professional fisherman. Anyway, I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I don't know Greek (though my Latin isn't bad), but is Jesus in the dative or genitive? If so, then Jesus didn't proclaim to the spirits at all. The Latin doesn't help, since the "by also which he went..." the word "he" may or may not be there. Everything in the Latin is nominative, so it's unhelpful as to what/whom is proclaiming. Fishermen...

Radical said:

You're right in saying that 1 Peter 3 does not give time stamps.

Click to expand...

Your word choice is misleading. Not giving time stamps is an understatement. It doesn't even give a ballpark. It just talks of things Christ did after death. It doesn't specify how long after death, whether or not it was after his resurrection, and says nothing about how long he did this for.

The bottom line is that the verse doesn't support your claim. It is, at best neutral to your case.

Radical said:

There are other things that lead me to believe Jesus was in hell for three days, mostly typology.

Click to expand...

That's a very shaky foundation on which to stake your position.?

Radical said:

That, and it's the traditional view.

Click to expand...

It's a traditional view, but we can easily trace where this tradition comes from and why it developed. Once we do, we see the reason why it became a traditional view, since it filled in a greater narrative. This view had to do with the idea of "the harrowing of hell"; that triumphant event when Jesus entered into hell to free the captives. This idea, in turn, forms part of the 'christus victor' theology of atonement. This view on atonement posits that Satan had a legitimate claim on the souls of all sinners due to their sinful nature and that Christ acted as bait to trick Satan into killing him leading to him losing his claim over the souls of men for having overstepped his authority and killed a sinless person. Obviously, no contemporary Christian church (at least that I know of), holds this view of atonement. The harrowing of hell fit neatly into that atonement narrative: having tricked Satan and accomplished the release of the souls of men, Christ charges into hell, smashing the gate down to free those imprisoned.

So here we have a tradition for which there is nearly no scriptural support, yet it becomes the traditional view....why? It fit their narrative. It made a lot of sense within the dominant view of atonement at the time. But now, we don't have that view of atonement and Christ descending into hell no longer even makes sense to us. If we go back and look for the scriptures that support the view, we find nothing. In fact the only scripture we have that purports to say anything about where Christ was after he died features Christ himself telling someone he will be in paradise with him.

I think this is a clear case where we know enough about the tradition and its origins to say that it is not a tradition worth keeping.

Radical said:

I'm no Romanist (obviously), but tradition does supplement the interpretation. For example, Ignatius was very adamant about the real prescence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist. Therefore, to interpret "this is my body" as real presence is the better argument, other things aside (but best argument other things included too).

Click to expand...

Other things aren't aside. My view does take tradition into account. In fact my view looks for not just 'what does the bible say' and 'what does tradition say' but 'how did that tradition develop and why'?

Radical said:

The typology is basic. You seem pretty familiar with this kind of stuff seeing your understanding of Church Fathers, so I'll go by it quickly. I'm also tired, but want to finish the post. A person was not really dead until after 3 days. The Jews didn't understand a coma, so they just assumed dead. But after 3 days, rarely did anyone get back up. That's why Lazarus was just into day 4 when Jesus raised him. It demonstrated Jesus' real power over life and upcoming victory over death. So Jesus too was in the grave for three days.

Click to expand...

The fact Jesus was in the grave for three days was never in question.

Radical said:

Death is not a friend, but an enemy. So, the analogy is that Jesus was in the enemy camp for 3 days.

Click to expand...

What analogy? You're the first to mention enemy camps. Are you wanting to pull in other verses and try to build a whole system to support that view?

Radical said:

Also, it seems intuitive that at his resurrection Jesus finished his humiliation and was in his exaltation. So prior to his exaltation, Jesus should be in humility, and therefore submitting to death.

Click to expand...

Humiliation and exaltation? I guess you did build a whole system to support that view.

Radical said:

I think it's not a bad assumption to say Jesus was in hell all three days.

Click to expand...

Given all we know, the belief that Jesus was in hell for three days is unwarranted.

Radical said:

Also, verse 18-20 is one giant, crazy run on sentence. It proves Peter wrote it...

Click to expand...

The authorship of the text isn't in question. The fact it doesn't say what you claimed it does is what was in question.

I think we have now established that it does not say Jesus spent three days in hell it merely tells of one thing Jesus did at some point after dying.

Goshin said:

"It is appointed unto Man once to die; and after this, the Judgment."

Click to expand...

A great verse.

Hebrews 9:27 if I recall, and that verse effectively rules out reincarnation, much to the dismay of some Eastern religions, Edgar Cayce, numerous psychics and 'New Age' gurus.

Bodhisattva said:

We don't know that Jesus was actually a God or not... that said, that has nothing to do with God allowing innocent babies to be raped and strangled to death by some creepy freak. For him to make us in his image, giving us logic, and then to do things that are illogical and just expect us to accept it is the opposite of the gifts he gave us and is literally retarded.

Click to expand...

I believe He is who He says He is. Further, I don't believe for an instant He does anything illogical or irrational - or hateful. That He is in control, that raw evil occurs on "His watch," so to speak doesn't, I believe, mean He either condones it or is pleased with it. Yes, He "allows" it. He allows it in the sense (I believe) a parent "allows" their children to break away from them and venture out into the world on their own. That doesn't mean that any evil the children experience against them (or which they may commit themselves) is the parent's fault for "allowing" any of that to occur.

Yes, God is in control. He's told us however that He's ceded temporary control of this world, and us, to a being His total opposite. And yes, if you want to be angry at Him for "allowing" that, you might have a point - but only if He didn't, at the sme time as He "allowed" that He didn't allow a solution, a way out - which I believe He has.

bodhisattva said:

...and apparently that is God's plan no matter how ridiculous it sounds... right?

Click to expand...

I haven't the wisdom or knowledge to judge all the why's and wherefore's of God's plan. But I believe Him when He says He loves us and has provided a way through, and out of this mess we call ourselves and this world. He's given me hope... and peace He knows what He's doing; and the strength to endure my brief time here. I trust Him implicitly He know what He's doing... and that He has our best interest in mind doing it.

bodhisattva said:

To put us on earth for 70 years out of eternity again... makes no sense. That we are randomly here makes far more sense.

Click to expand...

I believe it does make sense. I don't like what goes on down here any more than you do. I hate injustice, cruelty, torture, greed, lust, murder, and everything else some want to [imho] irrationally ascribe to God for "allowing," as if He approves it.

EdwinWillers said:

I believe He is who He says He is. Further, I don't believe for an instant He does anything illogical or irrational - or hateful. That He is in control, that raw evil occurs on "His watch," so to speak doesn't, I believe, mean He either condones it or is pleased with it. Yes, He "allows" it. He allows it in the sense (I believe) a parent "allows" their children to break away from them and venture out into the world on their own. That doesn't mean that any evil the children experience against them (or which they may commit themselves) is the parent's fault for "allowing" any of that to occur.

Yes, God is in control. He's told us however that He's ceded temporary control of this world, and us, to a being His total opposite. And yes, if you want to be angry at Him for "allowing" that, you might have a point - but only if He didn't, at the sme time as He "allowed" that He didn't allow a solution, a way out - which I believe He has.

I haven't the wisdom or knowledge to judge all the why's and wherefore's of God's plan. But I believe Him when He says He loves us and has provided a way through, and out of this mess we call ourselves and this world. He's given me hope... and peace He knows what He's doing; and the strength to endure my brief time here. I trust Him implicitly He know what He's doing... and that He has our best interest in mind doing it.

I believe it does make sense. I don't like what goes on down here any more than you do. I hate injustice, cruelty, torture, greed, lust, murder, and everything else some want to [imho] irrationally ascribe to God for "allowing," as if He approves it.

Click to expand...

Or it could be that he doesn't exist.

Ironfist17 said:

Are there any real Christians here? How do you feel about eternal life? Just imagine that one day scientists will be able to create the elixir of life. Would you drink it to stay forever young? Is it ethical enough for you? I am Christian myself but recently my faith weakened greatly since there are too many terrible things happening in the world. I would've abandoned my faith if I had a chance to live forever (though I still stand for the Christian values).

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about your issues (I'm assuming something bad happened to you or someone you know). I would. Not because of my faith. I want to see more. I don't know if I would want to live forever though.

Bad things happen. I think there is a duality in the world. I think humans understand good by understanding bad. And vice versa.

Bodhisattva said:

God did not create man.

Click to expand...

Your position is pathetically laughable!

If science cannot prove that there is no God, and even your atheist slogan expresses skepticism instead of certainty - check it out -


https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...=yhs-mozilla-004&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004


- here you are giving your conclusion. Based on what? Nothing!





If there is anything that's being expressedly fallacious - and incredibly ignorant -that would be your statement. Hands down!

tosca1 said:

Your position is pathetically laughable!

If science cannot prove that there is no God, and even your atheist slogan expresses skepticism instead of certainty - check it out -


https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...=yhs-mozilla-004&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004


- here you are giving your conclusion. Based on what? Nothing!





If there is anything that's being expressedly fallacious - and incredibly ignorant -that would be your statement. Hands down!

Click to expand...

You cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence of God. Not scientific evidence. And that is what non believers desire. You won't be able to provide it. Personally I feel that proof is against faith. But denying the existence God is logical and rational. Faith is not rational.

Do not succumb to the belief that this debate is about evidence. You will never produce enough "evidence." It is about understanding your position as irrational and accepting it. I have accepted it. I'm a Christian. What do I care that it is not logical or rational? How many things in life can be defined as such?

Worship of logic and reason is not the only way to live.

stonewall50 said:

You cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence of God. Not scientific evidence. And that is what non believers desire. You won't be able to provide it. Personally I feel that proof is against faith. But denying the existence God is logical and rational. Faith is not rational.

Do not succumb to the belief that this debate is about evidence. You will never produce enough "evidence." It is about understanding your position as irrational and accepting it. I have accepted it. I'm a Christian. What do I care that it is not logical or rational? How many things in life can be defined as such?

Worship of logic and reason is not the only way to live.

Click to expand...

Those things are tools for dealing with human kind and our inquiries into the function of things. They are not necessarily and entirely the right equipment for other inquiries.

humbolt said:

Those things are tools for dealing with human kind and our inquiries into the function of things. They are not necessarily and entirely the right equipment for other inquiries.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree

stonewall50 said:

You cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence of God. Not scientific evidence. And that is what non believers desire. You won't be able to provide it. Personally I feel that proof is against faith. But denying the existence God is logical and rational. Faith is not rational.

Do not succumb to the belief that this debate is about evidence. You will never produce enough "evidence." It is about understanding your position as irrational and accepting it. I have accepted it. I'm a Christian. What do I care that it is not logical or rational? How many things in life can be defined as such?

Worship of logic and reason is not the only way to live.

Click to expand...

Ohhh never mind proving a negative! Atheists love to use that for an excuse. It's kinda like a guilty perpetrator getting off on a "technicality." :lol:
Doesn't work in her case, however. If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to give proof!

Science says it cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore the probability is there. Even the atheist slogan expresses that probability.

The probability that God exists is supported by numerous evidences that are provided in various threads. It's not a matter of whether you accept them or not.
Whether you accept them or not, the evidences are there!


Bods is making a claim (assertion) - concluding that God does not exist - which is contrary to scientific fact. The onus is on her to provide her proof.
Surely she must have something, if she can negate scientific claim! Where is your proof?

CrabCake said:

What analogy? You're the first to mention enemy camps. Are you wanting to pull in other verses and try to build a whole system to support that view?

Humiliation and exaltation? I guess you did build a whole system to support that view.

Given all we know, the belief that Jesus was in hell for three days is unwarranted.

The authorship of the text isn't in question. The fact it doesn't say what you claimed it does is what was in question.

I think we have now established that it does not say Jesus spent three days in hell it merely tells of one thing Jesus did at some point after dying.

Click to expand...

You do know what typology is, yes? Like Exodus 24:11, the concept of manna, and the Lord's Supper? There is a type of consuming that which is from God. It's a proof that Jesus is God using similar accounts in scripture. This is helpful in discovering how to interpret passages.

I didn't think I had to explicitly reference the passages I got the information from. I figured you'd just pick up on them. My bad. So upon the incarnation, the second person of the Godhead entered the humiliation. This doesn't really mean "embarrassment" as much as it means "humble state". This humble state continued until the Father raised him up on the third day. I get this primarily from Galatians 4:4-5 and Philippians 2:4-11. Because of Jesus' humble state, I see no reason for him to have any more powers than the normal person after death. So to a normal person, what is death and what happens after it?

Genesis 3 makes it very clear that death is not a good thing. Death is a punishment because we are sinful (I will also say that it's a natural consequence, but that's another topic). To place any kind of blessings onto people while dead is totally contrary to Genesis 3. And the soul does not currently have most of the powers ascribed to it. It does not have eyeballs. It does not have ears. It doesn't have feet. It doesn't have a brain. It doesn't have hands. It can't do things that require anything to do with the body. It can't see. It can't hear. It can't move. It can't think. It can't work. The easiest way to know this is think about anesthesia. When people go under (say for surgery), the chemical numbs their senses so they can cut them open without pain. Many people say that they don't even sense the passage of time, such that they are counting backwards and then suddenly the wake up in a new room. Did the chemical affect their soul? Of course not. The soul doesn't sense time or pain, it doesn't see or hear anything. The persons body is inert, and the soul simply waits for it to wake up. To say that after death, people go to a temporal waiting place and talk to each other or whatever is to say that upon death, the soul is blessed with superpowers. That is not death.

Someone once argued that the soul doesn't die. Of course it does. It sins just as much as the body does, and the wages of sin are death.

So what did Jesus do while dead? Same thing we do: nothing. He waited until the Father raised him. He did not travel from this place-of-the-dead to heaven or whatever. He did not rescue people from hell. Jesus was dead. And dead does not secretly mean alive.

Where was Jesus' body? Sheol. Where was his soul? Sheol. What happens in Sheol? Nothing (Ecc. 9:10). How long was his body in Sheol? Three days. How long was his soul in Sheol? Three days. What happens in Sheol? Nothing.

EdwinWillers said:

I believe He is who He says He is.

Click to expand...

He has never spoken to anybody...

Further, I don't believe for an instant He does anything illogical or irrational - or hateful. That He is in control, that raw evil occurs on "His watch," so to speak doesn't, I believe, mean He either condones it or is pleased with it. Yes, He "allows" it. He allows it in the sense (I believe) a parent "allows" their children to break away from them and venture out into the world on their own. That doesn't mean that any evil the children experience against them (or which they may commit themselves) is the parent's fault for "allowing" any of that to occur.

Yes, God is in control. He's told us however that He's ceded temporary control of this world, and us, to a being His total opposite. And yes, if you want to be angry at Him for "allowing" that, you might have a point - but only if He didn't, at the sme time as He "allowed" that He didn't allow a solution, a way out - which I believe He has.

I haven't the wisdom or knowledge to judge all the why's and wherefore's of God's plan. But I believe Him when He says He loves us and has provided a way through, and out of this mess we call ourselves and this world. He's given me hope... and peace He knows what He's doing; and the strength to endure my brief time here. I trust Him implicitly He know what He's doing... and that He has our best interest in mind doing it.

I believe it does make sense. I don't like what goes on down here any more than you do. I hate injustice, cruelty, torture, greed, lust, murder, and everything else some want to [imho] irrationally ascribe to God for "allowing," as if He approves it.

Click to expand...

You believe even though there are no facts and is fine but goes against the argument that I made that God gave us logic but the only way to believe in Him is to throw away logic and put it all on faith. Illogical. Makes ZERO sense.

tosca1 said:

Your position is pathetically laughable!

If there is anything that's being expressedly fallacious - and incredibly ignorant -that would be your statement. Hands down!

Click to expand...

What is pathetic is seeing you blunder through the thought process here... The other guy gave a False Dilemma logical fallacy. I said that there is at least one other option, that God did not create man. This proves his fallicious argument. God did not create man. That is a possibilty. I did not say that is how it is... it is a third option that could be. You literally do not understand. I get it.

Bodhisattva said:

He has never spoken to anybody...

Click to expand...

Well, that's not accurate. At the very least we know He existed historically, so it's not reasonable to think He never spoke to anybody during His life here. One might be skeptical about what He said, or to whom, but that He spoke to people during His life is pretty much a historical given.

That being said, I firmly believe He still speaks to us. I believe He speaks to us through His word, the bible.

bodhisattva said:

You believe even though there are no facts and is fine but goes against the argument that I made that God gave us logic but the only way to believe in Him is to throw away logic and put it all on faith. Illogical. Makes ZERO sense.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say there are no facts. I accept that there may be no facts as might satisfy those who refuse to believe, and I accept that to the skeptic none of this makes any sense, that they may find it illogical - and perhaps they should. I frankly found it illogical myself at first. It even turned me off for a long time; so I get how it makes zero sense for many.

EdwinWillers said:

Well, that's not accurate. At the very least we know He existed historically, so it's not reasonable to think He never spoke to anybody during His life here. One might be skeptical about what He said, or to whom, but that He spoke to people during His life is pretty much a historical given.

That being said, I firmly believe He still speaks to us. I believe He speaks to us through His word, the bible.

Click to expand...

Why are there so many mistakes and contradictions in the bible? He seems to be confused.

EdwinWillers said:

Well, that's not accurate. At the very least we know He existed historically, so it's not reasonable to think He never spoke to anybody during His life here. One might be skeptical about what He said, or to whom, but that He spoke to people during His life is pretty much a historical given.

That being said, I firmly believe He still speaks to us. I believe He speaks to us through His word, the bible.

Click to expand...

I know that you think that Jesus is/was God but there is zero proof of that. Just your hopes... That said, God has never spoken to anybody with real, audible words.

I wouldn't say there are no facts. I accept that there may be no facts as might satisfy those who refuse to believe, and I accept that to the skeptic none of this makes any sense, that they may find it illogical - and perhaps they should. I frankly found it illogical myself at first. It even turned me off for a long time; so I get how it makes zero sense for many.

Click to expand...

Objective people like me would accept any fact that God exists... but there are literally zero facts that God exists.

zyzygy said:

Why are there so many mistakes and contradictions in the bible? He seems to be confused.

Click to expand...

That can/is written off as man's mistake in interpretation more often than not/...

Radical said:

You do know what typology is, yes? Like Exodus 24:11, the concept of manna, and the Lord's Supper? There is a type of consuming that which is from God. It's a proof that Jesus is God using similar accounts in scripture. This is helpful in discovering how to interpret passages.

I didn't think I had to explicitly reference the passages I got the information from. I figured you'd just pick up on them. My bad. So upon the incarnation, the second person of the Godhead entered the humiliation. This doesn't really mean "embarrassment" as much as it means "humble state". This humble state continued until the Father raised him up on the third day. I get this primarily from Galatians 4:4-5 and Philippians 2:4-11. Because of Jesus' humble state, I see no reason for him to have any more powers than the normal person after death. So to a normal person, what is death and what happens after it?

Genesis 3 makes it very clear that death is not a good thing. Death is a punishment because we are sinful (I will also say that it's a natural consequence, but that's another topic). To place any kind of blessings onto people while dead is totally contrary to Genesis 3. And the soul does not currently have most of the powers ascribed to it. It does not have eyeballs. It does not have ears. It doesn't have feet. It doesn't have a brain. It doesn't have hands. It can't do things that require anything to do with the body. It can't see. It can't hear. It can't move. It can't think. It can't work. The easiest way to know this is think about anesthesia. When people go under (say for surgery), the chemical numbs their senses so they can cut them open without pain. Many people say that they don't even sense the passage of time, such that they are counting backwards and then suddenly the wake up in a new room. Did the chemical affect their soul? Of course not. The soul doesn't sense time or pain, it doesn't see or hear anything. The persons body is inert, and the soul simply waits for it to wake up. To say that after death, people go to a temporal waiting place and talk to each other or whatever is to say that upon death, the soul is blessed with superpowers. That is not death.

Someone once argued that the soul doesn't die. Of course it does. It sins just as much as the body does, and the wages of sin are death.

So what did Jesus do while dead? Same thing we do: nothing. He waited until the Father raised him. He did not travel from this place-of-the-dead to heaven or whatever. He did not rescue people from hell. Jesus was dead. And dead does not secretly mean alive.

Where was Jesus' body? Sheol. Where was his soul? Sheol. What happens in Sheol? Nothing (Ecc. 9:10). How long was his body in Sheol? Three days. How long was his soul in Sheol? Three days. What happens in Sheol? Nothing.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you switched from your initial claim that there is a passage of scripture which supports your view to a new claim that there is a theological position one can reach systematically which supports your view. Those are different kinds of knowledge and it's important to be clear about that. You simply stated Jesus spent three days in hell as if it were a fact and included a reference to the passage of scripture that supposedly backs up that claim. But it turns out the passage of scripture doesn't back up that claim and makes absolutely no claims about what Jesus did while his body was dead. It's important to be clear. What you claimed as a fact which we can look up in the scripture you provided turns out to be a doctrine founded primarily on tradition which can only be inferred from scripture through a specific way of reading and interpreting a variety of scriptures and biblical themes.

We could have a whole discussion on what happens after you die. Maybe that would be a good discussion. But that wasn't the point of challenging your misuse of scripture. The point was to demonstrate what has now been made clear. The passage you referenced does not say what you need it to say in order to support your position. In order to support your position you have to build an entire theological system because there isn't any verse of the bible that says what you need it to. That's fine, I don't have a problem with systematic theology. But you initially made it sound as if the bible says Jesus went to hell for three days and the fact of the matter is that it does not. One can use scripture to build a theological system which includes Jesus descending into hell for three days, but it's not something the bible says, it is a dogma or doctrine that is part of your particular theological system.

tosca1 said:

Ohhh never mind proving a negative! Atheists love to use that for an excuse. It's kinda like a guilty perpetrator getting off on a "technicality." :lol:
Doesn't work in her case, however. If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to give proof!

Science says it cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore the probability is there. Even the atheist slogan expresses that probability.

The probability that God exists is supported by numerous evidences that are provided in various threads. It's not a matter of whether you accept them or not.
Whether you accept them or not, the evidences are there!


Bods is making a claim (assertion) - concluding that God does not exist - which is contrary to scientific fact. The onus is on her to provide her proof.
Surely she must have something, if she can negate scientific claim! Where is your proof?

Click to expand...

You REALLY don't understand the scientific method do you? I used to make the same argument you did. Then I realized why it doesn't work. It actually makes it very simple. Something cannot exist until it is proven. You cannot prove a lack of existence.

An atheist is not trying to prove the lack of existence. They are asking you to provide evidence of existence. Hard evidence. Because there is any to date. None that definitively proves existence.

So tell me...what "evidence" do you have? Keep in mind that I want something that is hard evidence that can mean nothing other than God exists.

Please do keep in mind I am a Christian. But I'm not fooled into thinking that my faith is rational or logical. It would be a fools errand to try and rationalize and make it logical. God didn't want us to believe because it was logical or rational. That isn't what faith is. Faith is more sacred than that.

Bodhisattva said:

That can/is written off as man's mistake in interpretation more often than not/...

Click to expand...

You forgot the smiley!

stonewall50 said:

You REALLY don't understand the scientific method do you? I used to make the same argument you did. Then I realized why it doesn't work. It actually makes it very simple. Something cannot exist until it is proven. You cannot prove a lack of existence.

An atheist is not trying to prove the lack of existence. They are asking you to provide evidence of existence. Hard evidence. Because there is any to date. None that definitively proves existence.

So tell me...what "evidence" do you have? Keep in mind that I want something that is hard evidence that can mean nothing other than God exists.

Please do keep in mind I am a Christian. But I'm not fooled into thinking that my faith is rational or logical. It would be a fools errand to try and rationalize and make it logical. God didn't want us to believe because it was logical or rational. That isn't what faith is. Faith is more sacred than that.

Click to expand...

If only all Christians were like you.

stonewall50 said:

You REALLY don't understand the scientific method do you? I used to make the same argument you did. Then I realized why it doesn't work. It actually makes it very simple. Something cannot exist until it is proven. You cannot prove a lack of existence.

An atheist is not trying to prove the lack of existence. They are asking you to provide evidence of existence. Hard evidence. Because there is any to date. None that definitively proves existence.

Click to expand...

Cookie-cutter response is all that's required here. Here's my response to another poster with similar argument.

If you claim that there's a dog in your house - you'd have to prove that, if your claim is being challenged.

If you don't make that claim, who's gonna ask you to prove it?

If you assert that God does not exist - even though there is SCIENTIFIC probability that He does exists - then, you'd have to prove your claim, if challenged. If you don't make that assertion/claim, who's gonna ask you to prove it?

But you are making such assertion despite science's claim. I'm challenging your ridiculous, fallacious claim.
The onus is on you to provide evidence to support your claim!


Is that clear now?

Click to expand...

zyzygy said:

If only all Christians were like you.

Click to expand...

MANY are. But why would we get press? We can't be exploited for political gain.