Would you be a Christian if there was no afterlife?

[ozso]

If I Cor 15 is not true, then NO I would not be a Christian.

The question is simply, other than going to heaven, why are you a Christian?

 

[Saint Steven]

That’s not a phrase the writers of the OT used, just the NIV translators.

what are some other proof verses?

Acts 2:26-28
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’

Acts 2:31
Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah,
that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.

 

[ozso]

It's interesting how a simple philosophical question turned into a contentious doctrinal theological debate.

 

[RDKirk]

It's interesting how a simple philosophical question turned into a contentious doctrinal theological debate.

There are no simple philosophical questions.

 

[ozso]

There are no simple philosophical questions.

Simple and basic philosophy are accepted schools of thought.

Simple philosophical question

 

[Religiot]

I decided to reword this.

The Old Testament has very little to say about what happens in the afterlife. Yet throughout the OT many worshipped and served God, even to the point of execution. So hypothetically speaking if heaven and hell were put aside, would you still follow Jesus?

Answers could be something like "no way, I'm just in this because I don't want to fry" or "yes I would continue to follow Jesus no matter what" to "as long as the church serves coffee and doughnuts, I'm in"

To use the term "afterlife" requires a network of presuppositions so confused, as to not be able to differentiate between actual life and actual death. --It is a deceptive term designed by Satan to promote the idea that death doesn't actually exist: this is his first lie.

 

[ozso]

To use the term "afterlife" requires a network of presuppositions so confused, as to not be able to differentiate between actual life and actual death. --It is a deceptive term designed by Satan to promote the idea that death doesn't actually exist: this is his first lie.

Some only want to be Christians to get a ticket to heaven, while others want to be Christians because of what it means to Jesus, themselves and others while here on earth.

Or put another way, some only take into consideration what happens after they die, while others are focused on their time here on earth and what they do with it for Jesus.

 

[Religiot]

Some only want to be Christians to get a ticket to heaven, while others want to be Christians because of what it means to Jesus, themselves and others while here on earth.

Or put another way, some only take into consideration what happens after they die, while others are focused on their time here on earth and what they do with it for Jesus.

A real Christian is someone who has Christ inside: this kind of person is concerned with both, how they live now, and how they live later.

 

[ozso]

A real Christian is someone who has Christ inside: this kind of person is concerned with both, how they live now, and how they live later.

True, but should their focus be more on now or later?

 

[RDKirk]

Simple and basic philosophy are accepted schools of thought.

Simple philosophical question

"Mirroring the special composition question is the Simple Question.[1] It asks what the jointly necessary and sufficient conditions are for x to be a mereological simple. In the literature this question explicitly concerns what it is for a material object to lack proper parts, although there is no reason why similar questions cannot be asked of things from other ontological categories.

There have been many suggested answers to the Simple Question. Answers include that x is a simple if and only it is a point-sized object; that x is a simple if and only if it is indivisible; or that x is a simple if and only if it is maximally continuous. Kris McDaniel has argued that what it is for an object to be a simple is a matter of brute fact, and that there is no non-trivial answer to the Simple Question (2007b)."

Notice that even the contemplation of "simple philosophical question" is not simple. It's an entire philosophical school of thought.

So...not simple.

 

[Religiot]

True, but should their focus be more on now or later?

It is a false comparison: all who are in Christ live righteously now because of the hope in His promises--the future is presupposed in all that they do.

 

[Saint Steven]

To use the term "afterlife" requires a network of presuppositions so confused, as to not be able to differentiate between actual life and actual death. --It is a deceptive term designed by Satan to promote the idea that death doesn't actually exist: this is his first lie.

No. God could have just as well created a universe with no promise of an afterlife for that which was created physical. Granted, that is not what happened, though we would be hard-pressed to prove it. (these things are taken on faith)

And you seem to find this question so threatening and diabolical that you would attribute it to Satan himself. Wow. Are we unsettled that easily?

So, just for the sake of discussion, if God had indeed created a universe with no promise of an afterlife for that which was created physical, would you you choose to be a Christian based on the benefits in this life alone? It seems as if you would say, "No."

 

[Saint Steven]

"Mirroring the special composition question is the Simple Question.[1] It asks what the jointly necessary and sufficient conditions are for x to be a mereological simple. In the literature this question explicitly concerns what it is for a material object to lack proper parts, although there is no reason why similar questions cannot be asked of things from other ontological categories.

There have been many suggested answers to the Simple Question. Answers include that x is a simple if and only it is a point-sized object; that x is a simple if and only if it is indivisible; or that x is a simple if and only if it is maximally continuous. Kris McDaniel has argued that what it is for an object to be a simple is a matter of brute fact, and that there is no non-trivial answer to the Simple Question (2007b)."

Notice that even the contemplation of "simple philosophical question" is not simple. It's an entire philosophical school of thought.

So...not simple.

You are fighting tooth and nail against the question. Must have hit a nerve?

 

[Saint Steven]

It is a false comparison: all who are in Christ live righteously now because of the hope in His promises--the future is presupposed in all that they do.

So, without an afterlife you would see no value in the Christian life in the here and now? Worthless on this side of "eternity"?

Like a gun held to your head with the threat of eternal conscious torment? Seems like spiritual extortion by a cosmic tyrant. Is that the God we have chosen?

 

[ozso]

"Mirroring the special composition question is the Simple Question.[1] It asks what the jointly necessary and sufficient conditions are for x to be a mereological simple. In the literature this question explicitly concerns what it is for a material object to lack proper parts, although there is no reason why similar questions cannot be asked of things from other ontological categories.

There have been many suggested answers to the Simple Question. Answers include that x is a simple if and only it is a point-sized object; that x is a simple if and only if it is indivisible; or that x is a simple if and only if it is maximally continuous. Kris McDaniel has argued that what it is for an object to be a simple is a matter of brute fact, and that there is no non-trivial answer to the Simple Question (2007b)."

Notice that even the contemplation of "simple philosophical question" is not simple. It's an entire philosophical school of thought.

So...not simple.

Well that reply tells why this was turned into such a convoluted argument. Reminds me of the saying, 'if you ask him what time it is, he'll build you a clock'.

 

[Saint Steven]

Well that reply tells why this was turned into such a convoluted argument. Reminds me of the saying, 'if you ask him what time it is, he'll build you a clock'.

The question in the topic title shines a light on the motivation for coming to Christ. Was it out of fear, or out of love?

Was it a decision based on self-preservation, or the desire to fill the dark empty hole inside of every human, the longing for a reconciled relationship with God. A relationship that has value in the here and now, regardless of what the future may hold.

The majority seem to say, "No." Without the promise of a blissful afterlife (in exchange for the eternal conscious torment the majority will face), they would not follow Christ. What a pathetic confession. Repent!

 

[RDKirk]

The question in the topic title shines a light on the motivation for coming to Christ. Was it out of fear, or out of love?

Was it a decision based on self-preservation, or the desire to fill the dark empty hole inside of every human, the longing for a reconciled relationship with God. A relationship that has value in the here and now, regardless of what the future may hold.

The majority seem to say, "No." Without the promise of a blissful afterlife (in exchange for the eternal conscious torment the majority will face), they would not follow Christ. What a pathetic confession. Repent!

You are saying, "My reason for being a Christian is superior to your reason for being a Christian, so your reason for being a Christian is a sin!"

 

[Saint Steven]

You are saying, "My reason for being a Christian is superior to your reason for being a Christian, so your reason for being a Christian is a sin!"

If your reason for being a Christian is based purely on fear and self-preservation, then yes, it is a sin. What else could it be?

Not unlike those men who took the lifeboats and left the women and children to die on the Titanic.

Saint Steven said: ↑
The question in the topic title shines a light on the motivation for coming to Christ. Was it out of fear, or out of love?

Was it a decision based on self-preservation, or the desire to fill the dark empty hole inside of every human, the longing for a reconciled relationship with God. A relationship that has value in the here and now, regardless of what the future may hold.

The majority seem to say, "No." Without the promise of a blissful afterlife (in exchange for the eternal conscious torment the majority will face), they would not follow Christ. What a pathetic confession. Repent!

 

[Dkh587]

Acts 2:26-28
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’

Acts 2:31
Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah,
that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.

That’s not a proof verse. The manuscript doesn’t say “realm of the dead”, but Hades, which is the Greek word used for Sheol.

you can’t show a “realm of the dead” without a biased English translation.

 

[hedrick]

Some only want to be Christians to get a ticket to heaven, while others want to be Christians because of what it means to Jesus, themselves and others while here on earth.

Or put another way, some only take into consideration what happens after they die, while others are focused on their time here on earth and what they do with it for Jesus.

I would hope Christians value both. I’m finding in this thread that it seems not to be true.