Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:50 am

mr. donner-
having grown up with a dad who is a straightline christian preacher, i have always had a very strong interest in religion.
i am curious as to your position on a couple of odd beliefs that my dad has picked up along the way. again, no mockery involved. i have read the bible 3 times, cover to cover, the quran, the satanic verses, the necronomicon, that crazy-ass lds book, various books on wicca and such, and now the goddamn fsm book (thanks swst). i throw this stuff out in the open to show that i take it seriously enough to put a massive amount of time in over the years.
1. what is your personal position on whether or not the bible is to be taken literally? did everything in it happen as described, or do you believe that some of it is allegory? i ask because when i was small, my dad taught that everything happened exactly as described, but as he grew older and got more mellow and open-minded, he began to teach that it is possible that some of the things in the bible are meant to be taken as object lessons, or as parables. he seems to have changed his mind based on the story of job, which, no disrespect, is pretty fucked up if literal.
2. this one is actually me. the last time i read through john, i came across a lot of very strange stuff that i didn't notice the first time through. there are multiple instances in which jesus seems to be saying things that disagree with common christian beliefs. more than once he flatly denies that his coming has anything to do with heaven and implies that heaven on earth is possible. have you read john, and if so, what did you think of that? (i don't mean to call you out. honest to god. ha! i can provide the quotes if you like.)
3. old pop has recently started teaching something i've never read or heard about before, which is the idea that once a person has been saved and accepted christ, damnation for that person is no longer possible. have you ever heard of such a thing? i don't claim to understand it, but he seems to be saying that once a state of grace is achieved, the connection between a person and jesus is so strong that it can never again be severed by any means. this is nuts, right? it seems like if this were true, SURELY i would have come across it by now. honestly, as a guy who was baptized and then later became pretty firmly agnostic, i kind of think (no disrespect to pop) maybe that's wishful thinking?
sorry for throwing more and more at you, but my options for discussing religion are incredibly limited, and i've always found it fascinating.

General Donner
Bridge Officer
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by General Donner » Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:10 am

mojo wrote:mr. donner-
having grown up with a dad who is a straightline christian preacher, i have always had a very strong interest in religion.
i am curious as to your position on a couple of odd beliefs that my dad has picked up along the way. again, no mockery involved. i have read the bible 3 times, cover to cover, the quran, the satanic verses, the necronomicon, that crazy-ass lds book, various books on wicca and such, and now the goddamn fsm book (thanks swst). i throw this stuff out in the open to show that i take it seriously enough to put a massive amount of time in over the years.
No problem. :) You don't need to qualify yourself every other sentence -- I don't mind at all. In fact, it's great to hear someone who's honestly interested in this stuff. Even if you probably don't believe like I do. Honest inquiry is always to be commended.
1. what is your personal position on whether or not the bible is to be taken literally? did everything in it happen as described, or do you believe that some of it is allegory? i ask because when i was small, my dad taught that everything happened exactly as described, but as he grew older and got more mellow and open-minded, he began to teach that it is possible that some of the things in the bible are meant to be taken as object lessons, or as parables.

he seems to have changed his mind based on the story of job, which, no disrespect, is pretty fucked up if literal.
Depends on what you mean. If you mean explicit allegories and parables like the parables of Jesus and of some of the prophets, then obviously those are allegories and stories "in-universe". If you mean figures of speech (eg, "the four corners of the Earth") or apocalyptic imagery in Revelation (a man with seven stars in his hand and a sword in his mouth representing Jesus), then I think those too are symbolic images. (Picking symbolic from literal in Revelation is among the harder bits of Bible interpretation, IMO.) And if we look at statements in dialogue within the stories by ordinary people (as opposed to God or inspired prophets/apostles), I take the view those represent the opinion of the speaker and, while not necessarily false, aren't guaranteed to be totally true either. In that sense, I approach the Bible kind of like I do VS debate evidence ... :)

(For example, that's how I personally reconcile the two accounts of Judas' death, if you're familiar with those. The one about him hanging himself in the narration of Matthew was the truth, the one Peter had heard of in Acts was just a rumor he believed. This was before he was invested with the Spirit, so he was just a fallible man and got the details wrong from whoever told him.)

If we're looking at the historical prose narratives, on the other hand, I believe those should be construed as more or less literally true. That includes Job, though I agree it's a sort of difficult story.
2. this one is actually me. the last time i read through john, i came across a lot of very strange stuff that i didn't notice the first time through. there are multiple instances in which jesus seems to be saying things that disagree with common christian beliefs. more than once he flatly denies that his coming has anything to do with heaven and implies that heaven on earth is possible. have you read john, and if so, what did you think of that? (i don't mean to call you out. honest to god. ha! i can provide the quotes if you like.)
Like above, I don't mind. I've read John several times -- it's probably my favorite Bible book. And I believe I might have some idea what you're talking about. Nevertheless, it'd be easier to discuss if you'd say more exactly what bits you mean.
3. old pop has recently started teaching something i've never read or heard about before, which is the idea that once a person has been saved and accepted christ, damnation for that person is no longer possible. have you ever heard of such a thing? i don't claim to understand it, but he seems to be saying that once a state of grace is achieved, the connection between a person and jesus is so strong that it can never again be severed by any means. this is nuts, right? it seems like if this were true, SURELY i would have come across it by now. honestly, as a guy who was baptized and then later became pretty firmly agnostic, i kind of think (no disrespect to pop) maybe that's wishful thinking?
I've heard of it. It's a Calvinist doctrine that goes by slightly different names in different contexts. Most often I believe it's called unconditional assurance. It ties in with their general modus of emphasizing God's omnipotence versus any component of human free will -- if God's chosen for you, nothing you do will ever matter, whether you're saved or damned, and whether you want to or not.

Though I'm somewhat close to Calvinism on some other issues, I disagree with this teaching. I believe the Bible teaches clearly against it. (Based primarily on the Hebrews passages cited in the "objections" but in the wiki article I linked to.)
sorry for throwing more and more at you, but my options for discussing religion are incredibly limited, and i've always found it fascinating.
No problem, and likewise. I have to say, I didn't expect to find someone interested in discussing these things seriously on a sci-fi web board. :)

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:19 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Actually, I am. Which doesn't make me a genius by any means, but the least you can do is to USE CORRECT PUNCTUATION.
my apologies. i'm not so good with punctuation, or capitalization, for that matter.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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.
we are not discussing which religion is the one true religion, i am simply attempting to make the point that there is no evidence which shows christianity to be false. given that your request was for evidence for one of two choices being more plausible,
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
this is relevant. whether or not hinduism has less or more evidence on it's side, however, is not.
you also make an interesting point yourself in specifically stating that 'stone age primitives' were not able to disprove religion. given the fact that you clearly think present era science is vastly superior, where is the evidence that the 'stone age primitives' were not able to find? it's odd that you would make that distinction between 'stone age primitives' and current science when science has had no better luck. there is no such evidence, and you threw out 'stone age primitives' to make the belief in religion seem absurd and outdated.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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?
for the first time ever, i am actually interested in a debate with you. so, regardless of your irritation and clear belief that i am either retarded or flatly lying, i assure you that i am not presenting any appeals to blah blah blah or logical fallacies intentionally and have never been diagnosed with any mental deficiency or defect.
i didn't mean to give the impression that i think the fsm is less plausible because it hasn't been around as long as christianity, although rereading what i wrote i can definitely see where you'd think so. it's clear that debate is not something i do on a daily basis. what i was trying to say is that the fact that christianity has existed for 6,000 years without being disproven, despite the best efforts of some of the smartest people in history which continue to this day with the full force of science behind them, is surely worth something when compared with the fsm in terms of which religion is more plausible, especially when the fsm is a 20 year old thought experiment which it would be pointless to debunk since it never claimed to be true in the first place. i must be starting to sound like a broken record on that point, but i had to go through it again so that i no longer seem to be saying that a theory or belief's age affects it's plausibility.
my logic is not 'older = better'. it is 'enduring constant attack for the entirety of known human history without being disproven > provoking laughter from the internet while freely admitting itself as a fiction' when attempting to judge the plausibility
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
of one thing over another thing.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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.
but these things are no longer true, and have not been true for quite some time now. science expands our understanding of the universe in leaps and bounds. we've advanced so far in that last 10% that the people who lived in the first 90% would no longer recognize us. so why is there still no evidence?
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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?
but, again, you did not ask for evidence which absolutely proves christianity as the one true way. you asked for evidence supporting the plausibility of christianity as opposed to the plausibility of the fsm.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
if various people, places, and events from the bible, over the course of 6,000 years, can be shown to have existed or to have happened as described, doesn't that add plausibility to christianity as opposed to the book of the fsm, whose people, places, and events can actually sometimes be shown to NOT have existed or to NOT have happened as described?
as for jesus, of course i can't scientifically prove that he existed. but dawkins, promoting atheism, has said that you don't need to prove something 100% to make it worthy of belief. anything over 50% is more likely to have happened than to not have happened. and there are many, many sources outside of the bible that support the idea that jesus of nazareth lived. i could post a few if you like.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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.
i don't know that i'm following you here. we've already established that you are 50,000 times smarter than i am. could you possibly explain what you're saying here a little more simply and clearly? because if you're saying what i think you're saying, hoo boy.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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.
for the 3,000,000,012th time, you have not asked for foolproof evidence of god's existence. you have asked for evidence that shows the plausibility of christianity as opposed to the plausibility of the fsm to determine which is more likely to be the one true religion.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
christianity - controls human history for 2,000 years.
fsm - makes 2,000 internet atheists feel superior, then is forgotten when someone posts 'I JUST LOST THE GAME' on twitter.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Impact =/= truth. Y2K had a (somewhat) profound impact on the world.
but surely, when comparing two ideas and trying to determine which is more plausible, the impact the ideas have had on the world can at least be considered?
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Noble =/= true. Once again you make completely irrelevant statements to cast the illusion that you're making sense.
i understand the difference between the words 'noble' and 'true'. again i remind you that i am not required to prove that christianity is true.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
i am trying to make a point that requires you to read my next paragraph to understand.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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.
of course not. but believing that both christianity and the fsm are equally implausible doesn't make it so. i think i addressed this idea in my other post when i talked about occam's razor.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Which does not make it true. Muslims believe this too.
please stop reminding me that my arguments do not prove christianity to be true. i realize that. it can't be proven any more than it can be disproven. i'm not even trying. i'm arguing that between the fsm and christianity, if you're going to pick one based on each's plausibility of being true as opposed to the other's plausibility of being true,
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:..I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.
i think the evidence favors against the fsm.
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:I suppose that hanging heretics and burning witches while sprouting irrelevant statements to the OP's question is supposed to be better?
see, that's the thing though. when you ask whether christianity or the fsm is more plausible, i assume you're talking about christianity as taught by jesus and the new testament. neither source ever encourages the hangings or the burnings or any of that admittedly horrific stuff. christianity is about love and forgiveness and 'turn the other cheek' and 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'. you know that. jesus specifically tells us not to fuck with each other.
which is why my argument is indeed relevant to your initial question.
which is more plausible as a path to salvation?
christianity - clearly means well
fsm - easily shown to be evil
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:You know, you might as well edit for grammar errors too.
is my grammar so bad that i am incomprehensible?

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Admiral Breetai » Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:21 pm

General Donner wrote:[

I've heard of it. It's a Calvinist doctrine that goes by slightly different names in different contexts. Most often I believe it's called unconditional assurance. It ties in with their general modus of emphasizing God's omnipotence versus any component of human free will -- if God's chosen for you, nothing you do will ever matter, whether you're saved or damned, and whether you want to or not.
on this subject matter there is currently a preacher who is going around saying no matter what you believe every one born after Christs sacrifice no matter what is one hundred percent absolutely guaranteed to go to heaven no matter what including people like Hitler and so on

this is as far as I know complete crap it also flies in the face of Christian values..it's heretical yes? nearly apostate style bad? he's gained a strong following recently

General Donner
Bridge Officer
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by General Donner » Sat Aug 06, 2011 11:09 pm

I haven't heard of any such thing phrased so directly, though I suppose that'd be the logical endpoint of the efforts for a liberal, tolerant and all-inclusive Christianity so many people nowadays promote. There is a tradition called universalism that goes back to some fairly old roots and generally advocates an idea that all souls will eventually be saved, but then usually after some form of purgatory or other post-mortem punishment in case of the unrepentant. They also don't usually tend to discriminate between those born before and after Christ's sacrifice -- at least not the modern variety.

But to get back to your question, yes, such a teaching would be clearly anti-Biblical, and indeed heretical. Or so I'd believe, at least, but I'd like to think I could support that rather well from the source text.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:56 am

uh, yeah. it's bad when people just start flatly making things up. it is not possible to argue that from a biblical perspective.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:03 am

and swst, hey, no hurry buddy, but i think that if you look at what you originally asked for, i provided it x1000. how about if i admit that what i gave you is not actually what you were looking for, and you admit that given your original phrasing, i did indeed provide. then, if you like, you could rephrase and we could continue from there. i'm still interested and ready to go.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:38 pm

mojo wrote:if various people, places, and events from the bible, over the course of 6,000 years, can be shown to have existed or to have happened as described, doesn't that add plausibility to christianity as opposed to the book of the fsm, whose people, places, and events can actually sometimes be shown to NOT have existed or to NOT have happened as described?
Mojo, you provided evidence to SWST...
This is where you went wrong, because, as you well know, SWST doesn't care for evidence which goes contrary to his beliefs...
Please use a new tactic: just say "because I say so!", and then you'll be fine... :)

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Picard » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:13 pm

Admiral Breetai wrote:
General Donner wrote:[

I've heard of it. It's a Calvinist doctrine that goes by slightly different names in different contexts. Most often I believe it's called unconditional assurance. It ties in with their general modus of emphasizing God's omnipotence versus any component of human free will -- if God's chosen for you, nothing you do will ever matter, whether you're saved or damned, and whether you want to or not.
on this subject matter there is currently a preacher who is going around saying no matter what you believe every one born after Christs sacrifice no matter what is one hundred percent absolutely guaranteed to go to heaven no matter what including people like Hitler and so on

this is as far as I know complete crap it also flies in the face of Christian values..it's heretical yes? nearly apostate style bad? he's gained a strong following recently
And that preacher is 100% certain to go to hell for spreading misinformation... maybe he's follower of Flying Spaghetti Monster with Big Ugly Hat?

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:08 am

Praeothmin wrote:
mojo wrote:if various people, places, and events from the bible, over the course of 6,000 years, can be shown to have existed or to have happened as described, doesn't that add plausibility to christianity as opposed to the book of the fsm, whose people, places, and events can actually sometimes be shown to NOT have existed or to NOT have happened as described?
Mojo, you provided evidence to SWST...
This is where you went wrong, because, as you well know, SWST doesn't care for evidence which goes contrary to his beliefs...
Please use a new tactic: just say "because I say so!", and then you'll be fine... :)
i actually liked this one. maybe he'll come back and respond.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:34 am

Picard wrote:
Admiral Breetai wrote:
General Donner wrote:[

I've heard of it. It's a Calvinist doctrine that goes by slightly different names in different contexts. Most often I believe it's called unconditional assurance. It ties in with their general modus of emphasizing God's omnipotence versus any component of human free will -- if God's chosen for you, nothing you do will ever matter, whether you're saved or damned, and whether you want to or not.
on this subject matter there is currently a preacher who is going around saying no matter what you believe every one born after Christs sacrifice no matter what is one hundred percent absolutely guaranteed to go to heaven no matter what including people like Hitler and so on

this is as far as I know complete crap it also flies in the face of Christian values..it's heretical yes? nearly apostate style bad? he's gained a strong following recently
And that preacher is 100% certain to go to hell for spreading misinformation... maybe he's follower of Flying Spaghetti Monster with Big Ugly Hat?
this brings up one of the most controversial religious debates of all time, and one of the ones i find most interesting. what happens if he believes what he's saying?
on the one hand, you have Jesus saying that NOONE can get to Heaven except through him, and considering he sent his people to the ends of the earth in order that everyone get that chance i'm inclined to take him seriously there.
on the other hand, though, there can be no doubt that people die, even today, having never heard the 'good news'. do these people go to hell? how can a man deserve to go to hell for making the wrong choice, if the choice is never presented?
people who are brought up in another religion and sincerely believe that THEIR religion is the way to heaven? can being born into the wrong religion send you to hell?
and as to what you were talking about, if a man studies his Bible and comes away with an idea that is wrong, believes it completely, and then converts others to that idea, is that worthy of hell? i have always heard that unlike the law, ignorance of a sin IS a valid excuse. that if a person doesn't know that something is a sin, he can't be damned by it. wouldn't preaching a false belief with 100% confidence that it is true fall under that?

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:06 pm

mojo wrote: this brings up one of the most controversial religious debates of all time, and one of the ones i find most interesting. what happens if he believes what he's saying?
on the one hand, you have Jesus saying that NOONE can get to Heaven except through him, and considering he sent his people to the ends of the earth in order that everyone get that chance i'm inclined to take him seriously there.
on the other hand, though, there can be no doubt that people die, even today, having never heard the 'good news'. do these people go to hell? how can a man deserve to go to hell for making the wrong choice, if the choice is never presented?
people who are brought up in another religion and sincerely believe that THEIR religion is the way to heaven? can being born into the wrong religion send you to hell?
and as to what you were talking about, if a man studies his Bible and comes away with an idea that is wrong, believes it completely, and then converts others to that idea, is that worthy of hell? i have always heard that unlike the law, ignorance of a sin IS a valid excuse. that if a person doesn't know that something is a sin, he can't be damned by it. wouldn't preaching a false belief with 100% confidence that it is true fall under that?
The problem is that the threat of hell is exactly what it seems, it is a threat of dire consequences if you do not convert.

Now they softened it by showing the carrot first (heaven and eternal bliss yada yada) but the fact is it is a simple carrot and stick situation setup to force people to accept the authority of the church.
if various people, places, and events from the bible, over the course of 6,000 years, can be shown to have existed or to have happened as described, doesn't that add plausibility to christianity as opposed to the book of the fsm, whose people, places, and events can actually sometimes be shown to NOT have existed or to NOT have happened as described?
It means the belief has been around longer and may contain a few accurate details, while the book of the fsm just shows what a cock-hole SWST is that is all i am afraid.

Oh and:-
AFROL.com:

"In mid-2006 archaeologists unearthed a 70,000 year old carved statue of a snake in Botswana. Snakes as religious symbols have been discovered all over southern Africa and may represent a single unifying concept of the earliest form of organized religious practices. It is also interesting to note that snakes and serpents played central roles in religions everywhere around the world, from Central Asia to North and South America and this may further reinforce the current findings that point to humanity's beginnings in Africa and its subsequent migration across the globe.'
So if we go by age we should be worshiping snakes and we have clear proof they actually exist so i suppose they trump both the FSM and the christian god.

Although it is quite entertaining to note that the new kids on the block (Judaism and later Christianity) went about vilifying the snake to the point of calling it the devil in Adam and Eves story...the first example of propaganda perhaps?.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by mojo » Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:58 am

Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
mojo wrote: this brings up one of the most controversial religious debates of all time, and one of the ones i find most interesting. what happens if he believes what he's saying?
on the one hand, you have Jesus saying that NOONE can get to Heaven except through him, and considering he sent his people to the ends of the earth in order that everyone get that chance i'm inclined to take him seriously there.
on the other hand, though, there can be no doubt that people die, even today, having never heard the 'good news'. do these people go to hell? how can a man deserve to go to hell for making the wrong choice, if the choice is never presented?
people who are brought up in another religion and sincerely believe that THEIR religion is the way to heaven? can being born into the wrong religion send you to hell?
and as to what you were talking about, if a man studies his Bible and comes away with an idea that is wrong, believes it completely, and then converts others to that idea, is that worthy of hell? i have always heard that unlike the law, ignorance of a sin IS a valid excuse. that if a person doesn't know that something is a sin, he can't be damned by it. wouldn't preaching a false belief with 100% confidence that it is true fall under that?
The problem is that the threat of hell is exactly what it seems, it is a threat of dire consequences if you do not convert.
how can you be willing to debate STAR WARS and STAR TREK as if everything contained therein were true, but have such a problem doing the same thing with the bible? if it makes you feel better, just accept the bible as canon and christian dogma as what we may debate. i'm not even attempting to prove the truth of christianity one way or the other. i just find the whole thing interesting, as i grew up constantly learning about it. so trying to respond with 'but hell isn't real' is about as valid as 'but anakin has to win the fight or the story won't make sense'.
no offense, honestly, i mean none.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:Now they softened it by showing the carrot first (heaven and eternal bliss yada yada) but the fact is it is a simple carrot and stick situation setup to force people to accept the authority of the church.
same thing.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:
mojo wrote:if various people, places, and events from the bible, over the course of 6,000 years, can be shown to have existed or to have happened as described, doesn't that add plausibility to christianity as opposed to the book of the fsm, whose people, places, and events can actually sometimes be shown to NOT have existed or to NOT have happened as described?
It means the belief has been around longer and may contain a few accurate details, while the book of the fsm just shows what a cock-hole SWST is that is all i am afraid.
that doesn't actually answer the question, though. i believe that it DOES make it more plausible than the FSM.
Kor_Dahar_Master wrote:Oh and:-
AFROL.com:

"In mid-2006 archaeologists unearthed a 70,000 year old carved statue of a snake in Botswana. Snakes as religious symbols have been discovered all over southern Africa and may represent a single unifying concept of the earliest form of organized religious practices. It is also interesting to note that snakes and serpents played central roles in religions everywhere around the world, from Central Asia to North and South America and this may further reinforce the current findings that point to humanity's beginnings in Africa and its subsequent migration across the globe.'
So if we go by age we should be worshiping snakes and we have clear proof they actually exist so i suppose they trump both the FSM and the christian god.

Although it is quite entertaining to note that the new kids on the block (Judaism and later Christianity) went about vilifying the snake to the point of calling it the devil in Adam and Eves story...the first example of propaganda perhaps?.
it seems as if you're jumping back into the original topic and trying to prove that snake worship, having been around longer than christianity, is more plausible. unfortunately, regardless of what point you're trying to make with the snakes, it's irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the plausibility of christianity versus the plausibility of the fsm. it is odd that you would make the EXACT SAME MISTAKE as the 'cock-hole'.
for the record, though, i'd be more than willing to participate in that debate. the plausibility of christianity versus the plausibility of snake worship would be interesting. if you'd like to go that route, please begin!

also, the serpent is never referred to as the devil, and it's not even implied in the original text in any way. in fact, it could not have possibly even been a snake, as only after it successfully tempts eve is it punished with having to move around on it's belly all day.

General Donner
Bridge Officer
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by General Donner » Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:38 am

mojo wrote:on the one hand, you have Jesus saying that NOONE can get to Heaven except through him, and considering he sent his people to the ends of the earth in order that everyone get that chance i'm inclined to take him seriously there.
on the other hand, though, there can be no doubt that people die, even today, having never heard the 'good news'. do these people go to hell? how can a man deserve to go to hell for making the wrong choice, if the choice is never presented?
The answer to this will depend on who you're asking. But as for the traditional Protestant understanding, it argues that all humans suffer from total depravity. This means that indwelling sin has made us unable to be good -- we're all evil, at heart, and thus all deserve to go to Hell. Some more than others, perhaps, but all are "evil enough," so to speak. Human personality is not a "good/evil" spectrum, but a "more/less evil" one. This includes the most devout Christians, by the way -- that's what the Protestant idea of "saved through grace, not works" is all about.

Condemnation to Hell is not a punishment for not choosing Christianity. It's a punishment for all a person's sins. For Christians who believe in Him and ask for His forgiveness with repentant hearts, God merely chooses to pardon us for the sins that would otherwise have condemned us. Not because of anything we do, but purely out of goodness and grace.
people who are brought up in another religion and sincerely believe that THEIR religion is the way to heaven? can being born into the wrong religion send you to hell?
As best I can understand it, the Bible is absolute that there's no salvation to be found outside Christ. For example, John 3:36 (King James Version): "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

I'm just a flawed human being, so I could be wrong. But that's how I understand it, and I haven't seen any other model that explains Scripture better so far. Being brought up in any particular place would be no excuse. Otherwise there'd be no point in converting the heathens, if they were saved anyway.
and as to what you were talking about, if a man studies his Bible and comes away with an idea that is wrong, believes it completely, and then converts others to that idea, is that worthy of hell? i have always heard that unlike the law, ignorance of a sin IS a valid excuse. that if a person doesn't know that something is a sin, he can't be damned by it. wouldn't preaching a false belief with 100% confidence that it is true fall under that?
I can't say I've heard that. Paul says in his letters that there is sin both inside the Law (Biblical teaching) and outside it. Heathens sin without knowledge, while Jews (and Christians) who sin do so with full knowledge. But all sin. That would be in Romans primarily, if you want to do further reading on your own.

As for where we should draw the line for divergent readings of the Bible -- again, it varies. Some Christians believe only their particular sect is saved, while others are more "tolerant" in that respect. Sorry, I can't give a general answer on that one, since opinions are very divided. :)

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Praeothmin » Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:57 pm

mojo wrote:how can you be willing to debate STAR WARS and STAR TREK as if everything contained therein were true, but have such a problem doing the same thing with the bible?
So we should also class the bible in the realm of fictional works now?
Because that's why we accept everything contained therein, we know these universes to be fictional...

Post Reply