Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[mojo]

Are there any Christians here? If there are, I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. If I were to go theist, I am considering these two religions as the one to go for, and I need help as to which one is the true path to salvation. Thank you.

i.. i just about broke my neck just now trying to give you the benefit of the doubt this post isn't a blatant troll. please help me understand!
is it possible that you've never heard the history of the flying spaghetti monster? that has to be it. i can see where you'd have a hard time choosing between christianity and the flying spaghetti monster if you'd never heard of it before. the problem is that, unbeknownst to you, the flying spaghetti monster was actually created as a thought experiment meant to show the strangeness of some christian beliefs. it is known to be non-existent as it's creators fessed up long long ago. therefore creating a thread asking for advice as to which religion to choose between the two would be extremely offensive to christians as your other given option is to join a religion which the entire internet knows is false. i know that YOU didn't know, but can you see where that would piss them off?

You don't say?

So instead of being the asshole that has to explain the obvious, or the style over substance asshole that spends his entire post moaning about how offensive this thread is to Christians, why don't you actually answer the question? Why don't you explain to me how the Judeo Christian God has more evidence supporting it or is more logically plausible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Are there any Christians here? If there are, I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. If I were to go theist, I am considering these two religions as the one to go for, and I need help as to which one is the true path to salvation. Thank you.

i.. i just about broke my neck just now trying to give you the benefit of the doubt this post isn't a blatant troll. please help me understand!
is it possible that you've never heard the history of the flying spaghetti monster? that has to be it. i can see where you'd have a hard time choosing between christianity and the flying spaghetti monster if you'd never heard of it before. the problem is that, unbeknownst to you, the flying spaghetti monster was actually created as a thought experiment meant to show the strangeness of some christian beliefs. it is known to be non-existent as it's creators fessed up long long ago. therefore creating a thread asking for advice as to which religion to choose between the two would be extremely offensive to christians as your other given option is to join a religion which the entire internet knows is false. i know that YOU didn't know, but can you see where that would piss them off?

You don't say?

So instead of being the asshole that has to explain the obvious, or the style over substance asshole that spends his entire post moaning about how offensive this thread is to Christians, why don't you actually answer the question? Why don't you explain to me how the Judeo Christian God has more evidence supporting it or is more logically plausible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

for the love of god (haha), swst, be more careful and think before you post. do you realize that in becoming irritated with me you have actually caused praeothmin to give you a warning?! no amount of ignorance on my part is worth putting your ability to share knowledge and wisdom to this board in jeopardy. i plead with you to simply send me an IM next time you are angered, as i would never intentionally anger you in the first place, meaning the whole thing is inevitably a misunderstanding.
now, given that you seem to be asking me to throw my two cents in on the merits of the flying spaghetti monster versus christianity, i will be glad to do so regardless of the fact that you surely are aware of these things already, being at least 50,000 times as smart as i am.
so..
-the christian faith is a direct offshoot of the jewish faith and actually includes the old testament in it's teachings, meaning that the christian faith has existed without being conclusively disproven for over 6,000 years, although it has taken itself very seriously for all that time, and many, many, many people have spent their lives in the pursuit of that seemingly non-existent evidence.
-the flying spaghetti monster has existed for less than 20 years, and i fail to see the point of disproving something which does not even pretend to be true.
-many things described in the bible can be proven scientifically to have happened or existed as described. i do not include miracles, obviously, but there is evidence that a jesus of nazareth did in fact exist.
-the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, and it's creators fully admit that it does not exist, therefore evidence given by the church of said fsm is totally irrelevant.
-it is absolutely inarguable that no single human being, fictional or actual, has had a more significant effect on human civilization than jesus christ of nazareth. note that i DO NOT render a value judgement on that impact. whether the effect he has had on mankind is positive or negative is, i think, unimportant as far as this point goes. i admit it would make a good debate in another thread, or even later in this one, but i only point out that he has pretty well controlled the course of the last two thousand years simply by having been the subject of a few books. (i am open to debating the pros and cons of his impact on the world, but i think we would not have much to argue about on that topic.)
-the flying spaghetti monster's sole effect on mankind has been to make people who already do not believe in christianity think, 'yeah, take that! haha! your thing is just as stupid as this thing!'
-the ORIGINAL and TRUE purpose of pure christianity, as taught by the new testament, is to save mankind and allow us all to have access to an eternal afterlife which is completely devoid of suffering or pain of any kind, and which is imbued with total and complete satisfaction and joy. regardless of whether or not this actually exists, i am going to go ahead and make a value judgement and say that yes, this is a noble and worthwhile goal.
-the purpose of the church of the flying spaghetti monster is to cast doubt on christianity. given that christian beliefs cannot be totally proven or disproven, there is a chance, however slight, that they are true. if so, casting doubt on christianity with the intent of converting christians to atheism means sending them to hell. if they are happy with their beliefs, why take the chance?
-christians believe that christianity is the only possible way to enter the aforementioned afterlife. closed-minded or not, they believe that the only way to accomplish the purpose of the church is by converting people to christianity.
-the creators of the flying spaghetti monster do not believe that it is the only way to cast doubt on the beliefs of christianity. therefore they know that there are less offensive ways to do this (the space teapot thought experiment, for example), which means that going with the fsm idea anyway is needlessly cruel. if we accept that even in the absence of god pointless cruelty is 'evil', then doesn't that mean that choosing the fsm over christianity is the same thing as choosing satan worship over same?

[mojo]

Are there any Christians here? If there are, I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. If I were to go theist, I am considering these two religions as the one to go for, and I need help as to which one is the true path to salvation. Thank you.

i.. i just about broke my neck just now trying to give you the benefit of the doubt this post isn't a blatant troll. please help me understand!
is it possible that you've never heard the history of the flying spaghetti monster? that has to be it. i can see where you'd have a hard time choosing between christianity and the flying spaghetti monster if you'd never heard of it before. the problem is that, unbeknownst to you, the flying spaghetti monster was actually created as a thought experiment meant to show the strangeness of some christian beliefs. it is known to be non-existent as it's creators fessed up long long ago. therefore creating a thread asking for advice as to which religion to choose between the two would be extremely offensive to christians as your other given option is to join a religion which the entire internet knows is false. i know that YOU didn't know, but can you see where that would piss them off?

You don't say?

So instead of being the asshole that has to explain the obvious, or the style over substance asshole that spends his entire post moaning about how offensive this thread is to Christians, why don't you actually answer the question? Why don't you explain to me how the Judeo Christian God has more evidence supporting it or is more logically plausible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

for the love of god (haha), swst, be more careful and think before you post. do you realize that in becoming irritated with me you have actually caused praeothmin to give you a warning?! no amount of ignorance on my part is worth putting your ability to share knowledge and wisdom to this board in jeopardy. i plead with you to simply send me an IM next time you are angered, as i would never intentionally anger you in the first place, meaning the whole thing is inevitably a misunderstanding.
now, given that you seem to be asking me to throw my two cents in on the merits of the flying spaghetti monster versus christianity, i will be glad to do so regardless of the fact that you surely are aware of these things already, being at least 50,000 times as smart as i am.
so..
-the christian faith is a direct offshoot of the jewish faith and actually includes the old testament in it's teachings, meaning that the christian faith has existed without being conclusively disproven for over 6,000 years, although it has taken itself very seriously for all that time, and many, many, many people have spent their lives in the pursuit of that seemingly non-existent evidence.
-the flying spaghetti monster has existed for less than 20 years, and i fail to see the point of disproving something which does not even pretend to be true.
-many things described in the bible can be proven scientifically to have happened or existed as described. i do not include miracles, obviously, but there is evidence that a jesus of nazareth did in fact exist.
-the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, and it's creators fully admit that it does not exist, therefore evidence given by the church of said fsm is totally irrelevant.
-it is absolutely inarguable that no single human being, fictional or actual, has had a more significant effect on human civilization than jesus christ of nazareth. note that i DO NOT render a value judgement on that impact. whether the effect he has had on mankind is positive or negative is, i think, unimportant as far as this point goes. i admit it would make a good debate in another thread, or even later in this one, but i only point out that he has pretty well controlled the course of the last two thousand years simply by having been the subject of a few books. (i am open to debating the pros and cons of his impact on the world, but i think we would not have much to argue about on that topic.)
-the flying spaghetti monster's sole effect on mankind has been to make people who already do not believe in christianity think, 'yeah, take that! haha! your thing is just as stupid as this thing!'
-the ORIGINAL and TRUE purpose of pure christianity, as taught by the new testament, is to save mankind and allow us all to have access to an eternal afterlife which is completely devoid of suffering or pain of any kind, and which is imbued with total and complete satisfaction and joy. regardless of whether or not this actually exists, i am going to go ahead and make a value judgement and say that yes, this is a noble and worthwhile goal.
-the purpose of the church of the flying spaghetti monster is to cast doubt on christianity. given that christian beliefs cannot be totally proven or disproven, there is a chance, however slight, that they are true. if so, casting doubt on christianity with the intent of converting christians to atheism means sending them to hell. if they are happy with their beliefs, why take the chance?
-christians believe that christianity is the only possible way to enter the aforementioned afterlife. closed-minded or not, they believe that the only way to accomplish the purpose of the church is by converting people to christianity.
-the creators of the flying spaghetti monster do not believe that it is the only way to cast doubt on the beliefs of christianity. therefore they know that there are less offensive ways to do this (the space teapot thought experiment, for example), which means that going with the fsm idea anyway is needlessly cruel. if we accept that even in the absence of god pointless cruelty is 'evil', then doesn't that mean that choosing the fsm over christianity is the same thing as choosing satan worship over same?

-edited for formatting errors

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

but the idea that god is not omniscient is kind of a nono according to both christians and the bible. so as humorous as the second part was, i don't think we can allow that as an option.

You would think that being omniscient would have allowed god to see just what a retarded idea this whole "have faith" idea was from the start rather than providing sound irrefutable proof.

I mean all it did was for the last 2000 years or so allow dickhead after dickhead to charge around doing shitty things to others and claiming god told them to.

Lets face it if a pedophile was just about to touch and abuse a child and a burning hot pitchfork held by a red dude with horns and a tail appeared out of a lava filled hole in the ground got rammed up his shitter and was used to drag him screaming and burning into the crack that closed up right afterwards you can bet your bollocks people would start playing nice pretty frigging sharpish.

And the excuse shit like that does not happen "faith"..

[Admiral Breetai]

to be fair Kor old testament god has the personality..of those Greek dieties and all

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

to be fair Kor old testament god has the personality..of those Greek dieties and all

That is because he was invented by virtually the same people.

The fact is that mankind created human rights along with developing a considerably better morality in spite of religion rather than because of it.

[Mr. Oragahn]

There wasn't much flaming underground back then.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

for the love of god (haha), swst, be more careful and think before you post. do you realize that in becoming irritated with me you have actually caused praeothmin to give you a warning?! no amount of ignorance on my part is worth putting your ability to share knowledge and wisdom to this board in jeopardy. i plead with you to simply send me an IM next time you are angered, as i would never intentionally anger you in the first place, meaning the whole thing is inevitably a misunderstanding.

Praeothmin's logical reasoning skills are not good enough for me to take his word on anything.

now, given that you seem to be asking me to throw my two cents in on the merits of the flying spaghetti monster versus christianity, i will be glad to do so regardless of the fact that you surely are aware of these things already, being at least 50,000 times as smart as i am.
so..

Actually, I am. Which doesn't make me a genius by any means, but the least you can do is to USE CORRECT PUNCTUATION.

-the christian faith is a direct offshoot of the jewish faith and actually includes the old testament in it's teachings, meaning that the christian faith has existed without being conclusively disproven for over 6,000 years, although it has taken itself very seriously for all that time, and many, many, many people have spent their lives in the pursuit of that seemingly non-existent evidence.

Appeal to ignorance and appeal to popularity. By that same logic, Hinduism should be considered to be the One True Religion because it's been around for longer than Christianity and Judaism without being disproven by stone age primitives.

-the flying spaghetti monster has existed for less than 20 years, and i fail to see the point of disproving something which does not even pretend to be true.

So by your logic, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong because it's only been around for a century or so. But as time passes on and it remains valid, the laws of the universe change and it gradually becomes correct. Do you even attempt to mask your appeal to ignorance?

Standing the test of time isn't that impressive when 90% of that time had >50% of the population being illiterate and 70% of that time nobody knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

-many things described in the bible can be proven scientifically to have happened or existed as described. i do not include miracles, obviously, but there is evidence that a jesus of nazareth did in fact exist.

So this is supposed to make it true? That one character in the Bible may have existed (I invite you to try and "Scientifically" prove Jesus existed, because you can't) suddenly makes it correct?

-the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, and it's creators fully admit that it does not exist, therefore evidence given by the church of said fsm is totally irrelevant.

And since you have provided no evidence specifically implicating the Judeo-Christian God to exist, even if its "founders" believed in it, the only way He could exist would be by sheer coincidence, and given the infinite possible forms of God(s) the FSM is equally likely to be random chance exist, regardless of what the founders say.

-it is absolutely inarguable that no single human being, fictional or actual, has had a more significant effect on human civilization than jesus christ of nazareth. note that i DO NOT render a value judgement on that impact. whether the effect he has had on mankind is positive or negative is, i think, unimportant as far as this point goes. i admit it would make a good debate in another thread, or even later in this one, but i only point out that he has pretty well controlled the course of the last two thousand years simply by having been the subject of a few books. (i am open to debating the pros and cons of his impact on the world, but i think we would not have mch to argue about on that topic.)

Is this supposed to be an argument?

Jesus had an impact on human civilization, THEREFORE God exists?

Explain to me how Jesus having a big impact on the world logically has anything to do with God existing.

-the flying spaghetti monster's sole effect on mankind has been to make people who already do not believe in christianity think, 'yeah, take that! haha! your thing is just as stupid as this thing!'

Impact =/= truth. Y2K had a (somewhat) profound impact on the world.

-the ORIGINAL and TRUE purpose of pure christianity, as taught by the new testament, is to save mankind and allow us all to have access to an eternal afterlife which is completely devoid of suffering or pain of any kind, and which is imbued with total and complete satisfaction and joy. regardless of whether or not this actually exists, i am going to go ahead and make a value judgement and say that yes, this is a noble and worthwhile goal.

Noble =/= true. Once again you make completely irrelevant statements to cast the illusion that you're making sense.

-the purpose of the church of the flying spaghetti monster is to cast doubt on christianity. given that christian beliefs cannot be totally proven or disproven, there is a chance, however slight, that they are true. if so, casting doubt on christianity with the intent of converting christians to atheism means sending them to hell. if they are happy with their beliefs, why take the chance?

But the chances of Christianity being true are just as high as the chances of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being true. Whether or not the FSM's creators admit that he's fake is irrelevant. This is basic, middle school statistics; when all possibilities have an equal chance of being true (since all have no evidence and are just as implausible), one being true would be complete chance, like one winning a lottery even if he says "I'm just buying a ticket as a joke" and another guy says "I believe I can win".

Are you going to say that the latter guy has a bigger chance of winning.

-christians believe that christianity is the only possible way to enter the aforementioned afterlife. closed-minded or not, they believe that the only way to accomplish the purpose of the church is by converting people to christianity.

Which does not make it true. Muslims believe this too.

-the creators of the flying spaghetti monster do not believe that it is the only way to cast doubt on the beliefs of christianity. therefore they know that there are less offensive ways to do this (the space teapot thought experiment, for example), which means that going with the fsm idea anyway is needlessly cruel. if we accept that even in the absence of god pointless cruelty is 'evil', then doesn't that mean that choosing the fsm over christianity is the same thing as choosing satan worship over same?

I suppose that hanging heretics and burning witches while sprouting irrelevant statements to the OP's question is supposed to be better?

-edited for formatting errors

You know, you might as well edit for grammar errors too.

[Praeothmin]

Praeothmin's logical reasoning skills are not good enough for me to take his word on anything

Coming from you, that makes me the most logical person in the Universe...
Thanks! :)

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

As far as i am aware historically Jesus was just considered a prophet until several hundred years after his death when a lot of the Christian sects got together and decided to give him one heck of a promotion to being the son of god.

[sonofccn]

As far as i am aware historically Jesus was just considered a prophet until several hundred years after his death when a lot of the Christian sects got together and decided to give him one heck of a promotion to being the son of god.

Can't say I've heard that one before and I wouldn't believe it if I did.:)

Which is about all I want to say about religion, nothing good ever comes from arguing it. Too much like politics, you believe what you believe and not even a nuke can persuade you.

[Admiral Breetai]

Praeothmin's logical reasoning skills are not good enough for me to take his word on anything

Coming from you, that makes me the most logical person in the Universe...
Thanks! :)

oh damn...SWST he didn't just burn you he napalmed you

[

That is because he was invented by virtually the same people.

The fact is that mankind created human rights along with developing a considerably better morality in spite of religion rather than because of it.

that's going a bit to far Religion has come up with some humane and compassionate ideals..enlightenment and the preservation of knowledge. Some of the earliest human rights decree's were issued by the Catholic church and IIRC some early conquistadors got raked over the coals for it. Evidence shows that a concept of religion and an afterlife walked hand in hand with man since we first started making tools and painting on walls and likely is just as responsible for our advancement as anything else.

while it's certainly done harm it has also done good.

As far as i am aware historically Jesus was just considered a prophet until several hundred years after his death when a lot of the Christian sects got together and decided to give him one heck of a promotion to being the son of god.

actually no he was considered the Messiah in his life time was called this by his followers and everything. Now to be fair this was basically the sixties in terms of counter culture and sticking it to the man many Jewish sects ran around at the same time of Christ preaching the similar liberal and revolutionary teachings (hell IIRC John the Baptist might of been one my bible history is rusty though) and their followers said the exact same thing about them so take that as you will

Jesus is just the one who's message survived the longest and gained the most influence.

but if you mean legitimately recognized Messiahs by the Jewish faith? to my knowledge Christ like all the others would of been a heretic and a rabble rouser. The only Messiah and openly called as such and treated as such in Jewish History is Cyrus the Great and he pretty much earned it considering the lengths he went to, to humanely treat the Jews once he conquered Babylon and this can be backed up by his legal edict which survives to this day and recognized as one of the oldest human rights laws.

[mojo]

listen, i'm not going to pretend that i can argue against the lot of sdn all on my own, especially since i don't really have a set of beliefs on the subject. but it seems to me that logically, if you have two things, and you are asking for evidence making one of the two more likely to be true or more plausible in a sincere effort to make a decision between the two, which is how i took the initial question, and it is simple fact that:

1. choice A declares itself to be true, and no firm evidence proving that it is NOT true can be provided,
and
2. choice B declares both itself and choice A to be false, but offers NO EVIDENCE that choice A is false,

then choice A wins by simple default. choice b has already declared itself to be untrue. even if choice a only has a .00000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being true, that is still higher than 0%, which is the chances of the fsm being true when the OFFICIAL BOOK OF THE CHURCH OF THE FSM DECLARES ITSELF TO BE FALSE.
it's not as if i can't see where you're going with this, and you have a valid point, even if the vehicle you are using to make it is a decade old and wasn't that clever to begin with. i actually agree with most of what you're saying. i just think that you have chosen badly in your questioning, because using the fsm example with the phrasing you have used instafails.
you pride yourself on your debating skills, and you hate me, which are two things which are working against you in this particular situation. you SHOULD have pride in your debating skills, you have shown yourself to be adept at this when you have the right ideas. and you SHOULD hate me, this doesn't even need to be explained. but consider that in this one particular area, i may know more than you do. i freely admit that in the rest of the forum, you have the upper hand in knowledge.
now please, without rancor, consider your original wording:

Are there any Christians here? If there are, I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. If I were to go theist, I am considering these two religions as the one to go for, and I need help as to which one is the true path to salvation. Thank you.

you ask for a logical explanation as to how christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the fsm. i give you my response:

it is simple fact that if:

1. choice A declares itself to be true, and no firm evidence proving that it is NOT true can be provided,
and
2. choice B declares both itself and choice A to be false, but offers NO EVIDENCE that choice A is false,

then choice A wins by simple default.

this was my main point in my previous post, which i admit i could have made more succinctly.
you respond that the people who came up with choice B openly declaring that choice B is false is irrelevant to the topic at hand because by sheer coincidence they could have struck upon the truth. now, personally i would argue that the idea that god himself caused the bible to be written HAS to be more probable than the idea that a kid trying to argue against teaching religion in school accidentally used for his example of an absurd religion that couldn't possible be true the actual, true religion that noone up until that point had ever imagined or conceived as a possibility. and even if that were true, if we attribute to the fsm the same attributes as the christian god, it means that that kid's argument against religion being taught in school is the way that the fsm chose to announce his presence to the world. since the entire point of the argument was to show the ridiculousness of religion and an attempt to keep religion out of the school system, then the fsm is working hard to make sure noone knows it exists and that it is never taken seriously. if the fsm is the way to salvation, but has set in motion a plan that virtually guarantees noone attains that salvation, then it is again evil by any human standard and therefore unworthy of worship. this matters because the fsm is presented as a good and caring god who wants the best for humanity, so if you can easily show that the FSM HIMSELF, not his followers who are flawed humans, is seemingly damning us all for a laugh, doesn't that kind of put a damper on it's plausibility?
and what about the occam's razor approach, much beloved by sdn? you have stated that both christianity and the fsm are equally likely to exist. if you are trying to decide which one is more plausible, wouldn't the simplest solution that fits the facts be the one to go with?
christianity - god creates mankind. god loves mankind. man sins against god and becomes unworthy of his presence. god doesn't wish to cause anyone harm or suffering. god sends jesus to provide a method of becoming worthy of his presence to anyone who cares to do so. jesus sends people to all the corners of the earth to share this method with anyone who will listen.
fsm - fsm creates mankind. fsm purports to love mankind. but as the only possible path to salvation, the fsm damns every single human being that has ever lived by failing to show itself. 20 years ago, a high school student fights the introduction of creationism in his school with a variant of the teapot theory in the form of a purposely ridiculous alternative to christianity. the high school student freely admits that the fsm does not exist, then writes a sort of parody bible which also states that the fsm does not exist. what the student doesn't realize is that his creation of the fsm was actually divinely inspired by the actual fsm as it's first contact with man. and rather than providing a method of salvation to the people it claims to love, it chooses to use this opportunity to virtually guarantee that noone will ever be able to discover it's presence and gain salvation.
???
PROFIT!

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Evidence shows that a concept of religion and an afterlife walked hand in hand with man since we first started making tools and painting on walls and likely is just as responsible for our advancement as anything else.

"Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?"?

- F. Nietzsche.

[General Donner]

As far as i am aware historically Jesus was just considered a prophet until several hundred years after his death when a lot of the Christian sects got together and decided to give him one heck of a promotion to being the son of god.

You've fallen afoul of an atheist urban legend. Jesus Christ is called God, and/or Son of God in most of the New Testament books. Even mainstream secular scholarship nowadays won't argue any of those books are any younger than the early 2nd century, and most are from the 1st. Even John (the latest gospel, and the one that speaks most about Jesus's divinity) was alreadyy in circulation in the early 2nd century, as demonstrated by the Papyrus Rylands 52. Paul's letters (with explicit mention of "God manifest in the flesh," Jesus as divine judge at the end of days and etc) are commonly dated in the 50s-60s AD, and Revelation (Jesus as Alpha and Omega, King of Ages) usually somewhere around 90. The gospels and General Epistles (John, James, Peter etc) are somewhere in between ... except 2 Peter, which modern critics tend to dismiss as a 2nd-century forgery.

Still, Jesus as divine Son of God was well established pretty much from the start. It's only on the Internet and in conspiracy literature (by the kind of people who take the Da Vinci Code seriously) you can still hear today it was all invented at Nicaea.

actually no he was considered the Messiah in his life time was called this by his followers and everything. Now to be fair this was basically the sixties in terms of counter culture and sticking it to the man many Jewish sects ran around at the same time of Christ preaching the similar liberal and revolutionary teachings (hell IIRC John the Baptist might of been one my bible history is rusty though) and their followers said the exact same thing about them so take that as you will

Not really "liberal." Jesus -- if anything at all about him is accurately preserved in our New Testament -- was more kind of like a fundamentalist. That is, a "fundie" in the original sense that he went back to the Bible. (The Old Testament in his case, since he was talking to Jews.) Essentially he disregarded all the post-Biblical Jewish rules that the Pharisees had invented (which were basically what became the Talmud some hundreds of years later) and kept the Jews to the Old Testament dogma. With some noteable reinterpretations from the common reading, admittedly.

but if you mean legitimately recognized Messiahs by the Jewish faith? to my knowledge Christ like all the others would of been a heretic and a rabble rouser. The only Messiah and openly called as such and treated as such in Jewish History is Cyrus the Great and he pretty much earned it considering the lengths he went to, to humanely treat the Jews once he conquered Babylon and this can be backed up by his legal edict which survives to this day and recognized as one of the oldest human rights laws.

Ha-Mashiyach (=the Messiah) in Hebrew means simply "the anointed one." It's not its own word, just a title of one favored by God. Prophets, priests and kings are all variously anointed in ceremonies in the Old Testament -- one of the reigning king's official titles in ancient Judah was "the LORD's Anointed".

The word became especially associated with the coming supernatural redeemer of prophecy (the "Messiah" in our sense of the word) in time because that's the guy the Jews meant most often when they talked about the anointed one. It's a bit like English talking about "Her Majesty" or Americans about "the President" -- technically they could mean any queen or president, but usually it's their own one.

When Cyrus is called the LORD's anointed in Isaiah 45:1, it just means he's a king chosen by God and favored by Him, not that he's Messiah like we'd understand that.

[General Donner]

thank you for replying, but there are multiple instances of the bible specifically stating that hell is bad enough that it would be better for anyone who ends up there to have never been born. hyperbole?

No, you're correct. I'd only forgotten about those bits, but it's true as you say.

If so, my speculation goes out the window for obvious reasons.