Why Did Christ Descend into Hades?

[Jack Knave]

As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.

It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.

Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.

People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of then non-religious and/or political. So that counts that one out.

[BashfulAnthony]

As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.

It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.

Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.

People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of then non-religious and/or political. So that counts that one out.

No it doesn't.

[Nearly Sane]

So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?

[BashfulAnthony]

So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?

I see you've just come on to go through the thread and contradict all the theist posts.  What a sad life.  Pity Eastenders has finished.

[Nearly Sane]

So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?

I see you've just come on to go through the thread and contradict all the theist posts.  What a sad life.  Pity Eastenders has finished.

My post tried to pick up your argument that dying for something validates it. If that isn't the point, happy for you to elaborate.

If you simply want to indulge in random nonsense as your above post about East enders, I am also happy to ignore and in this specific case point out your hypocrisy about attacking people for indulging in personal attacks rather than engage in argument, albeit robust argument.

There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss. If you are not I would hope you might rise above the approach you seem.to feel the need to take and actually discuss. If not then as times before, not interested.

[BashfulAnthony]

So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?

I see you've just come on to go through the thread and contradict all the theist posts.  What a sad life.  Pity Eastenders has finished.

My post tried to pick up your argument that dying for something validates it. If that isn't the point, happy for you to elaborate.

If you simply want to indulge in random nonsense as your above post about East enders, I am also happy to ignore and in this specific case point out your hypocrisy about attacking people for indulging in personal attacks rather than engage in argument, albeit robust argument.

There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss. If you are not I would hope you might rise above the approach you seem.to feel the need to take and actually discuss. If not then as times before, not interested.

I've been abused and vilified, bullied and all sorts; but to be associated with Shaker - you go too far!!

[Nearly Sane]

I am sure Shaker thinks the same

[BashfulAnthony]

I am sure Shaker thinks the same

Shaker, "thinks"?  You flatter him.

[floo]

So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?

I see you've just come on to go through the thread and contradict all the theist posts.  What a sad life.  Pity Eastenders has finished.

My post tried to pick up your argument that dying for something validates it. If that isn't the point, happy for you to elaborate.

If you simply want to indulge in random nonsense as your above post about East enders, I am also happy to ignore and in this specific case point out your hypocrisy about attacking people for indulging in personal attacks rather than engage in argument, albeit robust argument.

There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss. If you are not I would hope you might rise above the approach you seem.to feel the need to take and actually discuss. If not then as times before, not interested.

Blimey I think you do poor Shaker a terrible disservice, even thinking like that. Shaker comes over as intelligent!

[Shaker]

There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss.

How very dare you 

[floo]

There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss.

How very dare you 

You poor darling, that would be a fate worse than death!

[Spud]

So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?

Killing people does not in itself validate a cause.

[BeRational]

So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?

Killing people does not in itself validate a cause.

BA seems to think that dying for a cause does in fact make it somehow true, or likely true?

[Spud]

As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.

It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.

Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.

People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of them non-religious and/or political.

And some of those reasons and causes would have been good ones.

[Shaker]

Quite apart from who decides what is and isn't a good cause, BA seems to think that a person's readiness to die for a cause says something in support of the truth of that cause. Do you agree with him?

[floo]

Quite apart from who decides what is and isn't a good cause, BA seems to think that a person's readiness to die for a cause says something in support of the truth of that cause. Do you agree with him?

What about the ISIS terrorists who are willing to die in support of Allah, does that make their faith the true one?

[Spud]

For example, if someone had shot Hitler knowing that he had ordered the Holocaust, and then was shot himself, that would be a good cause based on facts established by more than one witness, ie that Hitler did indeed order the Holocaust. However, not everybody knew that Jews were being killed in Germany. Only some people knew. Likewise only some people saw Jesus alive again, but enough to make it (for them) established fact.

The reason some of the first Christians died is because they were telling people that Jesus could give them eternal life, because he had risen from the dead. This angered religious leaders because it put them out of business. They were killed because of jealousy.

But the point is, you need a combination of testimony from multiple witnesses to validate a cause as well as a willingness to die for it, to show that it is true. We have multiple written reports of Jesus being alive after his death, and we know that the Christians were willing to die so that their message got out, and also that their message was for the good of the recipients.

[Spud]

Thus we know that the message is true.

[Shaker]

In the face of stiff competition that's some of the shoddiest would-be 'reasoning' I've had the misfortune to see since the last time.

[floo]

For example, if someone had shot Hitler knowing that he had ordered the Holocaust, and then was shot himself, that would be a good cause based on facts established by more than one witness, ie that Hitler did indeed order the Holocaust. However, not everybody knew that Jews were being killed in Germany. Only some people knew. Likewise only some people saw Jesus alive again, but enough to make it (for them) established fact.

The reason some of the first Christians died is because they were telling people that Jesus could give them eternal life, because he had risen from the dead. This angered religious leaders because it put them out of business. They were killed because of jealousy.

But the point is, you need a combination of testimony from multiple witnesses to validate a cause as well as a willingness to die for it, to show that it is true. We have multiple written reports of Jesus being alive after his death, and we know that the Christians were willing to die so that their message got out, and also that their message was for the good of the recipients.

That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!

[Gordon]

Thus we know that the message is true.

You don't.

1. You still haven't excluded the risk that alleged witness reports are a mix of exaggeration and/or lies about the Jesus character. These early Christians are no less susceptible to these risks than are supporters of any controversial figure today.

2. Not only do you not have credible evidence for a resurrection claim, which is a natural impossibility anyway, you don't have a method to clearly identify any supernatural intervention. Therefore, there are no good reasons to take this claim seriously.

3.That people die for a cause doesn't validate their cause whether they believed their cause to be true of not - since if that were so then we'd have to accept that the cause of every suicide bomber is justified by their voluntary deaths.

Cue some special pleading from you.

[floo]

Thus we know that the message is true.

You don't.

1. You still haven't excluded the risk that alleged witness reports are a mix of exaggeration and/or lies about the Jesus character. These early Christians are no less susceptible to these risks than are supporters of any controversial figure today.

2. Not only do you not have credible evidence for a resurrection claim, which is a natural impossibility anyway, you don't have a method to clearly identify any supernatural intervention. Therefore, there are no good reasons to take this claim seriously.

3.That people die for a cause doesn't validate their cause whether they believed their cause to be true of not - since if that were so then we'd have to accept that the cause of every suicide bomber is justified by their voluntary deaths.

Cue some special pleading from you.

Ah but it is only 'TRUE' where Christianity is concerned!

[Spud]

That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!

This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek 

[floo]

That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!

This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek 

Oh sure they did! Most of the wars over the centuries have been inspired by the Christian religion like the Crusades! 

[jeremyp]

That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!

This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek 

Christians have frequently killed their enemies.