Whose God

[Appa23]

I had a dear friend (may she rest in peace) who stood silently during the "he descended into hell" part of
the Apostle's Creed. She absolutely did not believe that and absolutely refused to let those words cross
her lips. I respected her for taking that stand.

Not being a religious scholar, I'm pretty sure there are versions that leave that phrase out.

Here is what I recall. There are two "differing" versions. In the "historical" version (meaning Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths closer to the RC tradition), one says "descended into hell." In the other version, one says "descended unto the dead."

Wintergreen or Earendel (or many others) likely can speak more authoritatively, but each is based on the original Greek "hades", meaning both dead and hell.

Prior to the crucifixion of Jesus, everyone who died (both righteous and unrighteous) were in a place, an undifferentiated realm of the dead, where they waited for the resurrection and the judgment. This realm of the dead is called sheol in Hebrew and hades in Greek. It is important to note that neither word had the modern connotation of "punishment" that we attribute to Hell/Hades. Rather, the thought was that it was merely a "waiting room" until the designated time.

If you are a Christian, however who say the Creed, you beleive that Jesus truly died on the cross, As such, each version really is saying the same thing: after the crucifixion, Jesus went to the same place that all other dead people went -- the realm of the dead. There, he preached to the dead, as he had to the living. However, through this act of sacrifice, He also created a separate "waiting room" for the rightous, for "His Own". It is the reason why he told the thief on the cross that he would take him into Paradise, as he did others (i.e Old Testament saints) .

If you consider "Hell" to be merely being separated from God, then everyone is saying the same thing. Jesus actually died, with all of the ensuing repercussions at that time of being dead.

[Appa23]

Some translations say "He descended to the dead." Or, into "Hades." Not necessarily "eternal punishment Hell" -- just the realm of the dead. Remember -- like all the ancient writings, it's a translation!

Here the creed hammers home the point that he was really dead. His death was not an illusion. He was nailed to a post. He died. He had a real body, a corpse, that was placed in a tomb. He was not merely unconscious — His spirit left His body and went to the realm of the dead. It is a common belief among Christians that on this occasion he took the souls of those who had died trusting in the promises made under the Old Covenant — Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and many others — and brought them out of the realm of the dead and into heavenly glory. But the creed is not concerned with this point. The reference to the descent into Hades (or Hell, or Sheol) is here to make it clear that the death of Jesus was not just a swoon or a coma, but death in every sense of the word.

I guess that I could have just said "ditto".

[Thousandaire]

If you consider "Hell" to be merely being separated from God, then everyone is saying the same thing. Jesus actually died, with all of the ensuing repercussions at that time of being dead.

How can Jesus be separated from God, since, according to the Nicene Creed, Jesus and God are the same?

[kayrharris]

I had a dear friend (may she rest in peace) who stood silently during the "he descended into hell" part of
the Apostle's Creed. She absolutely did not believe that and absolutely refused to let those words cross
her lips. I respected her for taking that stand.

Not being a religious scholar, I'm pretty sure there are versions that leave that phrase out.

If it doesn't include that clause, then it is not the Apostle's Creed.

The Nicene Creed does not include that clause.

Thank you , Cal. I had typed up something long and convaluted to answer Kay but decided it was too snarky.

Your answer correct and better.

You were gonna be snarky to me? Why? This concept is very hard to understand, even after reading very good
explanations here. I know my friend felt like she was doing the right thing by not saying it and I respected her
decision and never argued with her about it, ever.

[BigDrawMan]

If you consider "Hell" to be merely being separated from God, then everyone is saying the same thing. Jesus actually died, with all of the ensuing repercussions at that time of being dead.

How can Jesus be separated from God, since, according to the Nicene Creed, Jesus and God are the same?

dont forget the Holy Spirit

[Tocqueville3]

If it doesn't include that clause, then it is not the Apostle's Creed.

The Nicene Creed does not include that clause.

Thank you , Cal. I had typed up something long and convaluted to answer Kay but decided it was too snarky.

Your answer correct and better.

You were gonna be snarky to me? Why? This concept is very hard to understand, even after reading very good
explanations here. I know my friend felt like she was doing the right thing by not saying it and I respected her
decision and never argued with her about it, ever.

Nonononono. I wasn't going to try to be intentionally snarky. After I read what I was going to post I decided it was too holier than thou. I can certainly understand why someone might not want to say that Jesus descended into hell. Every time we recite the Apostle's creed, I cringe a little when we get to that part but I know it's true so I say it.

Being the good Baptist that he was (he's a Presbyterian now), David cringes a bit at the part where we say "the holy Catholic church"

[mrkelley23]

Can't he do like I do, and say it with a lower case "c?"

[Tocqueville3]

Can't he do like I do, and say it with a lower case "c?"

I'll tell him that.

Hey, David...next time we say the Apostle's creed...think of it as the holy catholic church.

That ought to cover it.

[Tocqueville3]

I'll prolly be equated with Holtdad after this explanation but I don't really give a care.

Whether or not we like it or agree with it we are all one nation under God. Whether we worship Him or completely ingore Him we are all under Him. Whether we love Him or we hate Him we are all still under Him. He is the ruler of all the world. All the universe for that matter.

That's the thing about the Lord. He rules. He is omnipotent. He is sovereign. He is perfect. He is in complete control all the time.

That is the truth for everyone whether or not they believe it is.

As for who is Him, I mean the God of the Bible. There is only one Lord. In the Bible, He says over and over again that He is the Lord. Anyone can try to put God in a little box and try to make him what they want. They can try to deny Him and ignore Him and say He isn't their God but He is.

And, no, he is not the God that I say He is. He is the God that He says He is.

It is an admirable quality to say that you don't believe what someone else believes without trashing them or their belief.

I don't believe what you believe, but I don't think I've ever trashed either you or it. (I think the closest I came was saying that a candidate for President who advocated, I can't recall the exact words, but something about having your God's law be the law of my land, was a nutball.)

I realize how confident you are in your beliefs. I am as confident in mine. I wouldn't presume to state my beliefs as undeniable fact in front of an audience that doesn't necessarily share them, because I would consider it trashing theirs.

Then I guess we have a difference of opinion on where it is appropriate to express beliefs. Pea asked and so I told her how I felt. It's not as if I posted all of that without the question being posed to me first. I certainly don't think you are trashing my beliefs when you say I am wrong and I hope your skin would be thicker than that when it came to defending yours.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I'll prolly be equated with Holtdad after this explanation but I don't really give a care.

Whether or not we like it or agree with it we are all one nation under God. Whether we worship Him or completely ingore Him we are all under Him. Whether we love Him or we hate Him we are all still under Him. He is the ruler of all the world. All the universe for that matter.

That's the thing about the Lord. He rules. He is omnipotent. He is sovereign. He is perfect. He is in complete control all the time.

That is the truth for everyone whether or not they believe it is.

As for who is Him, I mean the God of the Bible. There is only one Lord. In the Bible, He says over and over again that He is the Lord. Anyone can try to put God in a little box and try to make him what they want. They can try to deny Him and ignore Him and say He isn't their God but He is.

And, no, he is not the God that I say He is. He is the God that He says He is.

It is an admirable quality to say that you don't believe what someone else believes without trashing them or their belief.

I don't believe what you believe, but I don't think I've ever trashed either you or it. (I think the closest I came was saying that a candidate for President who advocated, I can't recall the exact words, but something about having your God's law be the law of my land, was a nutball.)

I realize how confident you are in your beliefs. I am as confident in mine. I wouldn't presume to state my beliefs as undeniable fact in front of an audience that doesn't necessarily share them, because I would consider it trashing theirs.

Then I guess we have a difference of opinion on where it is appropriate to express beliefs. Pea asked and so I told her how I felt. It's not as if I posted all of that without the question being posed to me first. I certainly don't think you are trashing my beliefs when you say I am wrong and I hope your skin would be thicker than that when it came to defending yours.

I'm not upset with you. You can say what you want about religion, and as long as you don't try to make me try to live according to your beliefs, I don't have a problem with you.

I think saying someone's beliefs are undeniably wrong is trashing those beliefs. Saying things like "that is the truth for everyone whether or not they believe it is" fits that definition for me. I'm a big boy, I can take my beliefs being trashed. As we've established before, I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong. But I say "I believe you're wrong" or "I think you're wrong". Because I don't know for certain. You don't know for certain either. You may feel certain, and you may think you know for certain. But if you do, you're wrong.

[lv42day]

It may not be the Apostle's Creed, but I know of several who say, "the Holy Universal Church" rather than the Holy Catholic Church.

[VAdame]

It may not be the Apostle's Creed, but I know of several who say, "the Holy Universal Church" rather than the Holy Catholic Church.

Hahahahahaha! Translation, again!

"Kata holou" -- according to the whole, often translated as "universal."

If I say I have "catholic tastes" in food, it doesn't mean my preferences are limited to Bread & Wine!

[Beebs52]

From what I was taught, when I was going to church, Lutheran, Christ's descension into hell was his triumph over it. His reign extended everywhere. He didn't descend into "hellishness" or "separation from God" or anything. He won.

Perhaps I wasn't given all the appropriate vernacular at the time. But, still.

Plus, isn't it a given that when one expresses an opinion that it is "yours"? Is it truly necessary to add "I think" or "I believe" or IMHO? Obviously, unless you're talking about someone else's statement, it's what YOU believe. It's sorta already in there.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Plus, isn't it a given that when one expresses an opinion that it is "yours"? Is it truly necessary to add "I think" or "I believe" or IMHO? Obviously, unless you're talking about someone else's statement, it's what YOU believe. It's sorta already in there.

I assume this is aimed at me. Usually, that's true. Statements like "I have a strong relationship with God", "I am going to Heaven" etc, sure. But statements like "This is true. Even if you don't believe it, it's true", no.

[Beebs52]

Plus, isn't it a given that when one expresses an opinion that it is "yours"? Is it truly necessary to add "I think" or "I believe" or IMHO? Obviously, unless you're talking about someone else's statement, it's what YOU believe. It's sorta already in there.

I assume this is aimed at me. Usually, that's true. Statements like "I have a strong relationship with God", "I am going to Heaven" etc, sure. But statements like "This is true. Even if you don't believe it, it's true", no.

Of course it is. If you don't think it's true, then it's not true for you. It IS true for someone else. And, obviously, it's what the other person believes. Why should a qualifier be necessary? Just curious, seriously. It's been a question of mine about a lot of posts about a lot of subjects.

[Bob78164]

Plus, isn't it a given that when one expresses an opinion that it is "yours"? Is it truly necessary to add "I think" or "I believe" or IMHO? Obviously, unless you're talking about someone else's statement, it's what YOU believe. It's sorta already in there.

It helps. It's the difference between acknowledging and failing to acknowledge the possibility, however unlikely, that you might be wrong. TLITF is willing to acknowledge that possibility. Tocque is not. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Plus, isn't it a given that when one expresses an opinion that it is "yours"? Is it truly necessary to add "I think" or "I believe" or IMHO? Obviously, unless you're talking about someone else's statement, it's what YOU believe. It's sorta already in there.

It helps. It's the difference between acknowledging and failing to acknowledge the possibility, however unlikely, that you might be wrong. TLITF is willing to acknowledge that possibility. Tocque is not. --Bob

You forgot to insert "I think that Tocque..." And, I disagree with you because how do you know? And, if you truly believe something then stand up for it. I really don't understand waffling on everything. Maybe that's my point. Waffling goes only so far.

[Bob78164]

Plus, isn't it a given that when one expresses an opinion that it is "yours"? Is it truly necessary to add "I think" or "I believe" or IMHO? Obviously, unless you're talking about someone else's statement, it's what YOU believe. It's sorta already in there.

It helps. It's the difference between acknowledging and failing to acknowledge the possibility, however unlikely, that you might be wrong. TLITF is willing to acknowledge that possibility. Tocque is not. --Bob

You forgot to insert "I think that Tocque..." And, I disagree with you because how do you know? And, if you truly believe something then stand up for it. I really don't understand waffling on everything. Maybe that's my point. Waffling goes only so far.

There's a difference between waffling and being open to further evidence.

I conclude with very high confidence that Tocque is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that she might be wrong (on this subject) because she pretty much said so. I don't see any other way to interpret the words that TLITF quoted. But if further evidence developed -- say, other posts that I haven't seen in which Tocque expressed some uncertainty on the subject -- I'd be willing to change my mind. That's not waffling. That's being open to evidence. --Bob

[Beebs52]

It helps. It's the difference between acknowledging and failing to acknowledge the possibility, however unlikely, that you might be wrong. TLITF is willing to acknowledge that possibility. Tocque is not. --Bob

You forgot to insert "I think that Tocque..." And, I disagree with you because how do you know? And, if you truly believe something then stand up for it. I really don't understand waffling on everything. Maybe that's my point. Waffling goes only so far.

There's a difference between waffling and being open to further evidence.

I conclude with very high confidence that Tocque is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that she might be wrong (on this subject) because she pretty much said so. I don't see any other way to interpret the words that TLITF quoted. But if further evidence developed -- say, other posts that I haven't seen in which Tocque expressed some uncertainty on the subject -- I'd be willing to change my mind. That's not waffling. That's being open to evidence. --Bob

I understand what you're saying. However, I still say "So what?" There are plenty of subjects about which we all expound and upon which we have definite opinions. I know that I'm always questioning stuff I may or may not believe, think, etc. but I don't feel it's necessary to put that modification in every statement I make. You're making a value judgment that someone is "wrong" if they don't entertain the possibility that they're "wrong" and elucidate that in the post. That's no different than saying "Well, I'm saying that this is what I think, but, if it's going to offend someone, then I can make myself feel better, and a "bigger person", by qualifying what I just said and lessen the impact of what I said I believed."

I think (I know, I just said that) that is wrong, too.

[Tocqueville3]

It helps. It's the difference between acknowledging and failing to acknowledge the possibility, however unlikely, that you might be wrong. TLITF is willing to acknowledge that possibility. Tocque is not. --Bob

You forgot to insert "I think that Tocque..." And, I disagree with you because how do you know? And, if you truly believe something then stand up for it. I really don't understand waffling on everything. Maybe that's my point. Waffling goes only so far.

There's a difference between waffling and being open to further evidence.

I conclude with very high confidence that Tocque is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that she might be wrong (on this subject) because she pretty much said so. I don't see any other way to interpret the words that TLITF quoted. But if further evidence developed -- say, other posts that I haven't seen in which Tocque expressed some uncertainty on the subject -- I'd be willing to change my mind. That's not waffling. That's being open to evidence. --Bob

Beebs, I really appreciate how you think that Bob should never ever jump to conclusions about someone he's never laid eyes on but his conclusion is correct. I think I am right because I think that the bible is correct. I think that what I posted in response to Pea is correct.

I certainly can see why I get such a strong reaction from unbelievers when I state what God says to be the absolute, unwavering truth. If they didn't believe it was so important deep down inside they wouldn't spend near as much time worrying about it.

[Beebs52]

You forgot to insert "I think that Tocque..." And, I disagree with you because how do you know? And, if you truly believe something then stand up for it. I really don't understand waffling on everything. Maybe that's my point. Waffling goes only so far.

There's a difference between waffling and being open to further evidence.

I conclude with very high confidence that Tocque is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that she might be wrong (on this subject) because she pretty much said so. I don't see any other way to interpret the words that TLITF quoted. But if further evidence developed -- say, other posts that I haven't seen in which Tocque expressed some uncertainty on the subject -- I'd be willing to change my mind. That's not waffling. That's being open to evidence. --Bob

Beebs, I really appreciate how you think that Bob should never ever jump to conclusions about someone he's never laid eyes on but his conclusion is correct. I think I am right because I think that the bible is correct. I think that what I posted in response to Pea is correct.

I certainly can see why I get such a strong reaction from unbelievers when I state what God says to be the absolute, unwavering truth. If they didn't believe it was so important deep down inside they wouldn't spend near as much time worrying about it.

And I understand what you're saying. I was just arguing the format of the saying. I think if one believes something one should just state that without qualifications. Which you do. And, I agree with you on many points.

[Bob78164]

I certainly can see why I get such a strong reaction from unbelievers when I state what God says to be the absolute, unwavering truth. If they didn't believe it was so important deep down inside they wouldn't spend near as much time worrying about it.

That's not why, at least in my case.

My issue with this mind set is that as far as I'm concerned, particularly over the last eight years, far too much public policy has been made from a position of belief without, and often in the face of, evidence. So it bothers me when otherwise-intelligent people buy into the meme that it's a good thing to believe something so strongly that no amount of contrary evidence could possibly change your mind.

I wouldn't care (or at least, not so much) if you and yours were the only people that meme could affect. But that's demonstrably not the case. --Bob

[Beebs52]

I certainly can see why I get such a strong reaction from unbelievers when I state what God says to be the absolute, unwavering truth. If they didn't believe it was so important deep down inside they wouldn't spend near as much time worrying about it.

That's not why, at least in my case.

My issue with this mind set is that as far as I'm concerned, particularly over the last eight years, far too much public policy has been made from a position of belief without, and often in the face of, evidence. So it bothers me when otherwise-intelligent people buy into the meme that it's a good thing to believe something so strongly that no amount of contrary evidence could possibly change your mind.

I wouldn't care (or at least, not so much) if you and yours were the only people that meme could affect. But that's demonstrably not the case. --Bob

That's a bit condescending, no?

[Bob78164]

I certainly can see why I get such a strong reaction from unbelievers when I state what God says to be the absolute, unwavering truth. If they didn't believe it was so important deep down inside they wouldn't spend near as much time worrying about it.

That's not why, at least in my case.

My issue with this mind set is that as far as I'm concerned, particularly over the last eight years, far too much public policy has been made from a position of belief without, and often in the face of, evidence. So it bothers me when otherwise-intelligent people buy into the meme that it's a good thing to believe something so strongly that no amount of contrary evidence could possibly change your mind.

I wouldn't care (or at least, not so much) if you and yours were the only people that meme could affect. But that's demonstrably not the case. --Bob

That's a bit condescending, no?

I don't think so. I'm fairly sure that Tocque would cheerfully agree that no amount of evidence could possibly shake her beliefs (she might use the word "faith") on this issue. The remaining statements I made either describe my own reaction to that world view (in response to Tocque's guess about why people who share my views have such strong feelings on the subject) or make the (I believe) uncontroversial statement that enough people make faith-based, rather than evidence-based, decisions to affect public policy. I don't see how any of that is condescending. --Bob

[Beebs52]

That's not why, at least in my case.

My issue with this mind set is that as far as I'm concerned, particularly over the last eight years, far too much public policy has been made from a position of belief without, and often in the face of, evidence. So it bothers me when otherwise-intelligent people buy into the meme that it's a good thing to believe something so strongly that no amount of contrary evidence could possibly change your mind.

I wouldn't care (or at least, not so much) if you and yours were the only people that meme could affect. But that's demonstrably not the case. --Bob

That's a bit condescending, no?

I don't think so. I'm fairly sure that Tocque would cheerfully agree that no amount of evidence could possibly shake her beliefs (she might use the word "faith") on this issue. The remaining statements I made either describe my own reaction to that world view (in response to Tocque's guess about why people who share my views have such strong feelings on the subject) or make the (I believe) uncontroversial statement that enough people make faith-based, rather than evidence-based, decisions to affect public policy. I don't see how any of that is condescending. --Bob

Faith based doesn't necessarily erase evidence based decisions. They are not mutually exclusive. Yes, it was condescending.

How about those folks who base their decisions on lobbyists, financial gain and miscreancy?