Flying Spaghetti Nonsense
On January 17, 2008 in In the News, Uncategorized
Humans are pretty amazing creatures. We’re capable of doing and achieving wonderfully amazing things, and at the same time we’re guilty of some of the dumbest ideas and actions ever witnessed on this ball of dirt we call Home.
I want to talk about one of our latest and greatest feats of stupidity, the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). This “Spaghedeity”, as it’s called by Atheists today, is the Creator of the Universe according to the religion of “Pastafarianism”. This “religion” was started in 2005, during the hot debates on whether or not children should be taught Godless Evolution, or allow for the interpretation that a Creator may have been involved. Atheists got upset because kids might actually believe that they were created, so they came up with the FSM to parody other Creation stories.
The thing that is so stupid about this idea is that it in no way resembles that which it attempts to parody. Some Evolutionists and Atheists actually attempt to debate intelligent Christians with this nonsense too. So let’s just clear up a few reasons why the Bible (I’ll use that as my example), and the FSM religion are not comparable:
- The collection of writings known as The Bible was authored by multiple convergent sources, spanning more than a thousand years, from varying geographical locations. The Pastafarian belief-system was conjured up by an Oregon State student named Bobby (The Prophet) Henderson.
- The Bible has survived the test of time, and has convinced highly intelligent people who have lived and died by the text. The FSM has converted absolutely no intelligent people who would die by the Pastafarian religion.
- The Bible makes legitimate claims that can be systematically tested with reliable Scientific methodology. The FSM makes no such claims that can be scientifically tested, and furthermore declares that it is impossible to trust Science.
- The writings contained in the Bible are original and not the work of plagiary. The “Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” show clear signs of plagiary and mimicry of the Bible.
- The Bible commands people to “Study”, “speak to the Earth”, “Consider the ways of insects”, and “Seek Knowledge”. The Bible clearly commands people to use Science in order to gain a better understanding of the World around us. The Church of the FSM declares that Science cannot be trusted, as the FSM actively interferes with the data, thus fudging the results intentionally.
I feel like I’m wasting time even discussing it, but there are many very stupid people out there who sincerely feel that the FSM is on-par with Christianity, or any other Faith. In reality, it’s one of the most worthless attempts to defend Atheism I have ever witnessed. It has no logical defense, no testable claims, no internal consistency, no historical value, no effect on society, and no convergent sources. These are just a few things it lacks to even begin to be considered as an alternative to any religious system.
I could go on and on, but I feel like a complete idiot even taking this serious enough to write a blog-entry on it. The sad thing is that they take it even more serious than I could drugged-up and inebriated swimming in a cloud of Nitrous oxide.
Hi - I appreciate your post. I can’t stand it when someone like Dawkins gets up and starts talking about the FSW like it equals God, and puts down any other scientist that may believe in God. I’ve studied computer science, neuroscience and mathematics degrees (still working on math) and I believe in God because I find it logical to believe in a creator. The FSW arguement is just intended to insult people. Proper philosophical discussion would address issues like First Cause, and other debates of the ages. All you have to do is look at the titles of his books to get the idea of what his real objective is.
Richard,
Very well put, and welcome to the blog. I agree with you completely, and feel that the FSM argument is nothing more than an insult to intelligence, and a yelp from the Atheist on account of their inability to debase Theism logically.
Regarding Dawkin’s and your pursuit of a math degree, you might enjoy his recent debate with Mathematician John Lennox - a preview can be found online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnO6-RjLnxs
Best Wishes,
Jonathan
1. The Bible was edited down to remove any contradictory passages, editors ultimately make the decision what sounds fit to print. If they contradict, it’s evidence it wasn’t forged by the same person, if they are consistent, it’s evidence it could be done by the same person.
2. “Survived the test of time” just means you have enough people to believe it. Evolution has survived 100 years and that proves nothing. If an intelligent person willing to die for a religion makes it valid, you must acknowledge everytime a Jew, Muslim or Buddhist dies, their religion is more valid than Pastafarianism.
3. So it’s not impossible to trust science says Christianity? Is your worldview not entirely on a different foot to start with? (Faith in God before trusting senses)
4. This could not be more false, anybody who’s read “Secret Origins of the Bible”, “Who Wrote the Gospels”, or seen “Zeitgeist” & “The God Who Wasn’t There” knows the Bible is not original (but you’ll tell me this is proof the Bible has a basis and not made up.)
5. “Speak to the Earth”? “Way of the insects”? Sounds like hippie animal rights Earth-worshipping pantheism if you ask me!
1. This is a base-less assertion. Resembling wishful-thinking, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt…care to cite your sources for believing this?
2. Yes, the Religions of Jews, Muslims, etc are all more valid than Pastafarianism - I have no problem stating that. Shoot, the Hannah Montana fan-club is more of a religion than Pastafarianism
(joking) Nothing can survive time unless it makes sense to many people. A Creator made sense to Einstein, Kepler, Bacon, etc. Practically all major Universities (Including, Harvard, Yale, etc) were started by Bible-Believers. We’re not talking about a bunch of idiots helping prolong a theory. We’re talking about incredibly intelligent people who found the evidence sufficient.
3. Christianity says to trust Science. Not to trust the interpretations of those who investigate the data. The data doesn’t tell the story. The data only tells the facts. It’s the person interpreting the data that creates the story. No, Christianity doesn’t teach to naively believe everybody’s stories about the data. Evolutionists cannot seem to get it into their head that their are data, and there are interpretations - both aren’t equally valid.
4. Please, share with me your unequivocal facts that discredit the Bible from your perfect books?
5. Call it what you want. Intelligent people call it Personification.
1. http://zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm are just few that point out where New Testament stories originate from. So the fact KJV and NIV are different are not edits to you? The fact Gospel of St Thomas didn’t make it in the Bible doesn’t mean anything to you? If the editor didn’t edit the Bible? Who did? God?
2. Ok, so throw away Pastafarianism as a religion (they themselves know they are a parody, in case you haven’t realized). What makes Christianity more valid than Islam, Judaism, Buddhism? Things survive time for many reasons, it’s socially constructive, it’s politically oppressive, or it’s just easy to believe for stupid people. The fact Einstein, Kepler and great thinkers of our time believed in a Creator is not the same as saying they believe in the literal truth and fundamentalist creationist interpretation of Christianity. This is not counting the fact that Christianity was a major part of our culture (just like hanging ornaments on Christmas trees is), this only means it’s popular and the norm. Does Buddhism “stand the test of time” to you?
3. No, evolutionists as well as scientists know data and interpretation are different, which is why they disagree with Creationists’ interpretation. Even if Christianity says “trust science” does it say trust science before and beyond blind faith? (Science certainly says trust science period)
4. I never said I have perfect books, but you seem to have already made up your mind, so there is no conversation. I never said the Bible is discredited (whatever that means to you), I said the Bible is not original and therefore far from unplagiarized (FSM Pastafarianism maybe have intended to satirize this point).
5. Personification indeed, do you eat animals if you can personify them? Or what’s wrong with aborting babies if you’ve not personified them?
1. Any specific points? The KJV and NIV aren’t really different. Aside from some linguistic difference, “You” instead of “Thou”, etc., they’re pretty much the same. It’s not like one mentions Judas betraying Jesus, and the next mentions John betraying Jesus. The Gospel of St. Thomas was likely not included because it as far too late to be included. The writings of Jesus’ immediate disciples, and their disciples were the books only included to maintain accuracy. Do you think they should just keep tossin’ new books in up to 150+ years?
2. I’m fully aware that Atheists don’t really think Pastafarianism is a religion, which is why I’ve been saying it isn’t as valid as REAL religions - but those noodle-lovin’ idiots can’t seem to get that logic-thing to work long enough to realize this.
This “Literal truth and fundamentalist creationist interpretation of Christianity” has been around for thousands of years, and today is most active in the most Scientific Country on Earth. It’s upheld logically and scientifically by Geologists, Geneticists, Physicists, Biologists, etc.
Evolution has been around more than 100 years (might want to check your dates). Shoot, we’re approaching the two hundreds years of Darwin. Evolution stems back beyond Darwin for thousands of years. The reason it’s still around today is because it seemed to make sense to some thinking people, and it had the luxury of existing in a World before Modern Science.
Buddhism stands the test of time, yes.
3. Christianity doesn’t have “blind faith”. It’s based on Scientific statements about the Universe and Earth we live on. Testable claims that can be touched with Modern Science, including Genetics, Geology, Geochemistry and Archaeology.
Do you think Evolutionists don’t have interpretations of the Data? Do you think the Data just magically spells out the story of its existence?
4. Your claiming your books unequivocally discredit the origin of New Testament subjects. You better believe that these books that these books are accurate, or you’ll be guilty of peddling frivolous arguments, and surely wasting my time.
5. Yes, I eat animals even though I can personify them. And I walk all over the earth, even though I can personify it. And I throw rocks, even though I can personify them. Personifying something doesn’t change what is moral or amoral. Murdering children is wrong, in the womb or out of it. If you think there’s nothing wrong with forcing scissors or some other sharp object into a child’s brain to kill it is acceptable, then I pity you.
1. Why shouldn’t they toss up books today (based on the assumption it is the truth from God)? You don’t consider Gospel of St. Thomas, Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic text quite different than the tone the 4 Gospels teach? Today we are taught Judas is a bad guy who betrayed Jesus. From Judas’ point of view, Jesus was God, and knew it was coming, therefore it’s not betrayal (similarly, God saw himself being crucified but let it happen anyway, so it’s not anybody’s fault and we shouldn’t feel for it).
2. Pastafarians are not serious, they’re only serious to the effect of pointing out what they believe are fallacies of Creationist and anti-scientific arguments. Ok, so you admit Christianity is not the only religion that’s stood time. Fair enough.
3. I see, so believing in every word, from “let there be light” to “Jesus wept” can be scientifically proven? Yes I KNOW evolutionists have interpretations, and they believe their own (and don’t believe others)
4. No, I never claimed anything. I was pointing out from examinations and comparisons, one can easily conclude the Bible is not an original text. I never said I beleive these books are accurate, but at least willing to test and analyze the writings of the Bible which you’ve already taken as facts. I am willing to believe I am wrong, are you willing to believe you are wrong? If yes, feel free to check those books (or movies) yourself. If not, that’s the difference between you and I, my mind is more open.
I don’t use the word “discredit” if it means “proven wrong” or “proven to have no reliability”. There is no doubt the Bible, like Homer’s Illiad, like Beowulf, have scientifically plausible as well as historically matching claims. This does not make the whole book accurate unless they are separately tested (which the books I’ve mentioned have attempted to do).
Don’t put words in my mouth, I responded to you saying the Bible is not plagiarized, and there are claims that it was. Saying the Bible is copied and not original is NOT discrediting the Bible, it can be interpreted as “external sources prove and back the Bible”.
5. I think it’s wrong to hurt a child because I personified a child. Obviously you don’t personify a rock the same way you personify a child, not so much you’d talk to a rock and expect it to talk back (oh wait, a baby in a womb can’t talk back either, nevermind).
1. For the same reason a court would prefer an eye-witness to somebody who was not an eye-witness, nor had any direct communication with an eye-witness. The early church only allowed the writings of disciples, and direct students of the disciples. Try this argument in a court, and see how it holds up. “Why not accept anybody who claims to be a witness?”
Judas willingly betrayed Christ. This is why out of guilt he returned the blood-money and hung himself. Christ said, “The offenses must come, but woe unto him by which they come.” It WAS going to happen. But it didn’t have to be Judas. Could have been somebody else. But Judas made the decision to do it. Consider the following, “We have a legal system. If you steal, you will be punished. Stealing IS going to happen, because no society is perfect. Eventually somebody is going to disregard the law, and steal anyway. That person will still deserve to be punished. Because it was his or her decision to do it.”
2. Pastafarians don’t have any resemblances with Christianity. Did their belief shape convert an entire hostile nation without violence? Did their belief convince some of the most intelligent thinkers of Science’s history? Does their belief have any backing in archeology, or the sciences? None what-so-ever. They claim the exact opposite, that their beliefs cannot be tested scientifically. Christianity doesn’t hold that position - there is no resemblance between Pastafarianism and Christianity to the thinking person. To a naive Evolutionist who desperately wants something to substantiate their positions and beliefs, it’s the most awarding idea to date.
3. As an intellectual, you should know that nothing in science is “proven”. So, no, “let there be light” cannot be scientifically proven. It cannot be scientifically proven that Abraham Lincoln existed, or that you experience thoughts. It can be shown to be highly probable, and yes, the Creation event in Genesis has been demonstrated (and continues to be demonstrated) as highly probable, which is why it wins over even ardent Evolutionists like Dr. Dean Kenyon, the author of Biochemical Predestination - a book glorifying naturalism and accrediting it to bringing forth life…up until his switch to accepting the Creation-model based upon his Scientific investigations.
4. “I never claimed anything…one can easily conclude the Bible is not original…I never said I believe these books are accurate” Referring to Books discrediting the Bible’s authenticity…do you see your contradiction? You’re not claiming anything, and then you claim that it’s easy to tell the Bible isn’t original, and then claim that you don’t believe the books that you cited are even accurate? So do you think the sources you cited are accurate, or don’t you?
My mind is wide opened. I’m not about to say “If the Bible doesn’t say it, then it isn’t true.” The Bible isn’t the only source for knowledge, there’s a whole world full of events and properties that can shed more light than even the Bible is some cases. So please, tell me which book convinced you that the Bible isn’t original, and I’ll sit down and check it out.
How exactly do you propose we test the entire Bible? Take it verse by verse? What is your model for testing it? Does it have to be empirically proven by your five senses? Do you have to personally experience it? Are you accepting of eye-witness accounts, and historical narrative?
5. “I think it’s wrong to hurt a child because I personified a child.” So is it then wrong for a man to beat a women if he objectifies her?
You don’t attribute human qualities to humans - they already have them. These qualities include, but are not limited to, a beating heart, human DNA, thoughts, feelings, features, etc. A baby in a womb cannot talk, no, but if you prick it, it feels the pain. You can monitor thought-patterns, and measure the development of it. You can do early-testing for genetic issues, etc.
1. Oh ok, so what basis do you have that the early church did the job of discriminating who are witnesses instead of picking stories that fit the mold?
And it didn’t have to be Jesus, but it doesn’t change the fact Jesus/God knew it was going to happen, and if it didn’t, it wouldn’t have made Jesus’ crucifixion & resurrection story what it was, would it?
The same cannot be said about stealing, I would LOVE my society to be perfect and prevent any time of evil including stealing, but I am not God, if I were, I’d have made it better. (and yes, I am saying God is responsible for letting what Judas did happen).
To say allowing stealing and allowing Judas to betray Jesus is degrading God to the same humanly responsibilities as us sinful humans, I’m glad I don’t believe in God or I’d consider this quite heretic. DID God have power to stop Judas’ betray or not? If not, God is not almighty and all knowing, if yes, God allowed it, therefore is complicit.
2. “Pastafarians don’t have any resemblances with Christianity” yet you cry they are mimcry of the Bible. I wish not to discuss Pastafarianism as niether of us follow it and we agree it is baseless and silly. However, to say Pastafarianism lacks test of time is simply saying it’s not lasted long enough. Buddhism and Islam makes no less sense than Pastafarianism, yet they stood the test of time because there’s enough stupid people to believe it.
3. Highly probably according to what? Science? You’re splitting hairs between “proven” and “higly probable”. Would you consider every religious story highly probably by the same standard? (Again, checking out the books Secret Origins of the Bible and Who Wrote the Gospels, what do you have to say to stories that have very high resemblence to Bible stories or have existed longer than Bible stories?)
4. I never said the Bible is not authentic, even though yes I do believe that (as there’s no evidence that it is). But I was saying it wasn’t original (please tell me you’re smart enough to know original from authentic)
I said I never claimed the Bible was discredited or inauthentic, yet you put those words in my mouth, and I then responded by saying it can be concluded, I am open to being wrong too, yet you are quit to point out my allegations and contradictions when you put the words in yourself.
“How exactly do you propose we test the entire Bible? Take it verse by verse? What is your model for testing it? Does it have to be empirically proven by your five senses? Do you have to personally experience it? Are you accepting of eye-witness accounts, and historical narrative?”
You tell me, you’re the one who claims the Bible is somewhat scientifically or historically accurate. Ok, fine so the verses that can’t be proven, tested, are they equally as valid as Homer’s Illiad? What percentage of the Bible have you tested to be true? (I can safely say any peer reviewed biological book is 80-90% tested, if not 100%)
You have successfully dodged the books and sources I have cited for you, which tells me you are not even interested in hearing of it. What evidence would it take to convince you you are wrong?
5. Ok, therefore to “personify” dead and non-human objects and animals is absurd. Personification is evil (its for hippies, vegetarians and pantheists), because it leads people to think animals are just like humans and deserve the same rights as humans. (I may be an evolutionist and atheist, but I don’t personify anything but humans)
The accounts themselves tell us who was qualified to be a teacher to the early church, and who wasn’t. We know that Christ had 12 initial disciples, and one post-judas. The record holds that Paul, who was Saul the persecutor, experienced a miraculous conversion, and was later serving with Christs initial disciples.
Each of those Disciples had their own students, many of them explicitly named. This is what guided the “who should be trusted” debate. Those closer to the Truth (Christ) were trusted.
Yes, God (and Jesus) knew that Christ was going to be betrayed, and murdered. Yes, God has the power to stop Judas from doing anything foolish, but as Christ said, “The offenses must come”. Christ HAD to die for your sins, Josh. You cannot pay the price, nor can I. He HAD to die. That’s according to the orderly rules of Creation. Crimes must be punished.
God allowed His Son to die in our place. If he hadn’t, there would be absolutely no hope for salvation. That being said, Judas could have simply decided not to betray Christ. Many people at that time wanted him dead. Judas was the only one who actually pursued it.
Reminds me of a story I once heard. A railroad worker brought his son to work one day, to show him what his father did for a living. “See Son, pull this lever and the bridge goes up so the boats can pass. Push it so the bridge goes down so the train can pass.” His son was excited about his dad’s job.
Lunch came along and they were sitting and eating. All of a sudden the train-horn sounded, and it was time to lower the bridge. The little boy raced over to the stairs, and started climbing up to the lever. Losing his balance he fell and caught himself in the large gears beneath the stairs.
His father panicked and tried to reach his son. The train horn sounded yet again, and it was time to make a decision. Hundreds of people on that train are going to die, or his son is going to die. After a painful moment, he turned away from his son and reached for the lever.
As the train passed with the hundreds of people who were just saved on account of a horrifying sacrifice, the father screamed at the carts, “Don’t you see what happened! Don’t you see what I gave for you!” The people laughing, drinking, and carrying on to their own business didn’t even see the father screaming, or know what of he did for them.
The Father allowed his Son to be killed, for the many people passing by on the train. The same way, God the Father allowed his Son to be brutally murdered in order to save us. Unfortunately, some of us refuse to believe we are in any form of danger - just as the passengers had no idea the bridge was up. Some of us cannot hear the Father crying out, because of other distractions.
I am thankful God allowed his Son to be my payment. And I’m thankful the Son allowed himself to be my payment. I sure hope that you someday accept the offer too.
Your friend,
Jonathan
With this said, Judas was the real Jesus (or Savior), because he took the bullet all others wanted to he made the story complete.
If people were smart enough to have seen God’s plan, and not taken God’s bait, God would have no completed his prophecy, of course this is absurd, there’s always somebody stupid enough to do it. Therefore, this stupid person took the fall and guilt of betraying Jesus, therefore making Jesus the Savior story what it was. Judas then is the person worth thanking for for have completed the story so others wouldn’t have to.
PLEASE do not use this railroad worker analogy again, by doing so you are stripping God of his supreme powers, and comparing God to being limited like man! God is all powerful, therefore He could’ve saved BOTH His son AND the train! But according to you God is no better than a train worker who had to sacrifice His son! If I believed in God I’d be quite offended that you consider your God so powerless that He couldn’t even miraculously save His son! (or worse yet, intentionally did it, BUT if it was for a greater good, than it’s meant to be done and there’s nothing to be sorry about).
I am your friend and I love you for who you are (and I treat people like I’d like to be treated). I do not treat you any differently for what you believe. This has not changed since we’ve talked, and I respect your belief, it is nice that you are respecting of it too. But if you wanted to start a debate I hope you finish it. Ending it with an emotional appeal to the Lord is not debate or discussion. I don’t mind ending it here, but I’ve seen you are either unable or unwilling to be challenged for your beliefs, which is fine, but if so, I suggest you cool off the arrogance against atheists and Pastafarians.
“Pastafarians don’t have any resemblances with Christianity” yet you cry they are mimicry of the Bible.
Excuse me for not being clear then. Pastafarians don’t exist. Just like Clingons don’t exist, even though I’ve seen them on TV. Me insisting that Pastafarianism be treated equally as Christendom is like asking Nasa to seriously consider my thesis of Planet Clingon as revealed in Star Trek.
Would you consider every religious story highly probably by the same standard?
What standard? No, not all Religious stories are highly-probable.
Again, checking out the books Secret Origins of the Bible and Who Wrote the Gospels, what do you have to say to stories that have very high resemblence to Bible stories or have existed longer than Bible stories?
Can you give me a specific? I don’t exactly have the book here with me.
I said I never claimed the Bible was discredited or inauthentic…
You claim that it’s not original, that the records aren’t true. You posted a link to a page that lists numerous books attempting to discredit it. Yes, I said “discredit”. You are discrediting the Bible based upon the definition:
You tell me, you’re the one who claims the Bible is somewhat scientifically or historically accurate. Ok, fine so the verses that can’t be proven, tested, are they equally as valid as Homer’s Illiad?
So far the Creation account has been demonstrated Scientifically to be highly probable. It has even lead to Asronomical discoveries and theoretica entities like white-hole cosmologies. The Noachian flood was shown to be plausible when our knowledge of Geology was matured. The historical account of the old testament and new testament is confirmed over and over again with Archeology. The life and teachings of Christ was recorded and preserved with reliability as accepted by Historians today.
Do un-testable verses have as much credibility as Homers Iliad? I would say they have more. Just as a friend who doesn’t lie to you would be more trustworthy than say a friend who constantly plays with your mind and tells you stories.
Doesn’t really matter though, since empiricism isn’t the only way to learn truth. We can reason that if a man answers 50 question correct, it’s highly probably that he’ll get the 51st correct too. If the Bible makes 9 scientific/historic claims that are backed up by empiric testing, then it’s highly probably that the 10th claim will likely be reasonable.
Homers Iliad doesn’t even fall in the same camp, as it exists primarily of untestable claims and wasn’t accepted as Fact by even the author(s) or its contemporaries.
You have successfully dodged the books and sources I have cited for you, which tells me you are not even interested in hearing of it. What evidence would it take to convince you you are wrong?
I haven’t dodged anything. It’s been maybe an hour since you linked me to a page of book titles. Do you expect me to drive out and buy all of these books up in order for you to take me serious? If so, send me the cash and I will.
I have asked you for SPECIFICS, which you haven’t given me yet. Please don’t make demands that you know I cannot meet.
Ok, therefore to “personify” dead and non-human objects and animals is absurd. Personification is evil (its for hippies, vegetarians and pantheists), because it leads people to think animals are just like humans and deserve the same rights as humans. (I may be an evolutionist and atheist, but I don’t personify anything but humans)
It’s not absurd. It’s expressive, and used by some of the greatest authors of all time. What is so wrong with Vegetarians, and Hippies? Why is personification wrong because Pantheists also do it. Is it then wrong to eat carrots, because Pantheists do that too? Or how about drinking water - is that wrong because Murderers do it?
Nothing is wrong because a certain group does it. That’s one of the most illogical forms of relativism I’ve witnessed. Right and Wrong are Absolute terms, not based upon relative behavior of other groups of people.
lastly, you don’t personify people. You personify things that don’t have the qualities of people. People already have the qualities of people - you don’t have to give them these qualities to express your thoughts regarding them.
“Suppose you were a human, I could talk to you.”
With this said, Judas was the real Jesus (or Savior), because he took the bullet all others wanted to he made the story complete.
That doesn’t make any sense. Judas didn’t save anybody. The whole issue of Salvation rested on Christ, and Christ alone. Judas turned Christ over, so in reality, he doesn’t even get the credit for Christs death. No more than your Mom is blamed for your heart attack since she birthed you.
Christ lived the perfect life. Christ allowed himself to be captured. Christ condemned his followers for attempting to fight the arrest. Christ told his followers that he would be captured and killed. Christ allowed all of this to happen. He could have allowed his disciples to kill Judas, the guards, etc., but he didn’t. Christ alone is the Hero of the story.
The railroad analogy doesn’t strip God of any power. God is a rational and logical being. He has order and design established in History and the Universe. No analogy covers its back-story 100%. Would you scold me for saying, “It’s like kicking a dead dog”, and claim that you don’t have a tail or dew-claws? C’mon.
God, from the beginning, established a cause-and-effect Creation. If you do wrong, there has to be payment. If you sin, there must be a sacrifice. Unfortunately, no earthly sacrifice is great enough to bring sin into a perfect Gods presence, since all of Creation (even the things we could sacrifice) are fallen.
For this, only a perfect sacrifice could cover the sins of the World. That is Christ, the Son of God. According to a rational, and reasonable system, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If we are to be saved, the sin has to be punished. If there is no sacrifice, we die in our sin. God isn’t illogical, or random. He’s coherent and reasonable, which is why He sent His Son, so that the debt could be rationally paid.
I have no arrogance regarding Atheists. Some Atheists are very intelligent. Pastafarians, yes. They don’t exist, so you could say I’m arrogant to magical butterflies and leprechauns too… I respect you, and think you’re a great friend, which Is why I have no absolutely no problem talking about Creation Science, or Theological topics with you.
Comments are activated on my blog so I can talk with people, and so people can object. I’m fully capable and fully interested in discussing my thoughts and ideas, and defending them against dissenters.
No, Judas did save people, he saved people from taking the guilt of betraying Christ, somebody had to do it, the story isn’t complete without both a betrayer and the betrayed.
However, this is a minor point, it all comes down to whether you believe God, the all knowing, all power, all caring, ever present is responsible for evils in the world.
As long as you consider me a friend and some atheists intelligent people, I can end the discussion knowing you don’t categorize people based on their beliefs, or quick to label their beliefs as irrational, illogical and wrong. Obviously Pastafarians don’t represent any greater group other than satirists for a good laugh.
Jonathon, you indeed are confusing my pointing out resemblence as “discrediting”. I said the Bible is NOT original, as in it can be plagiarized from other places, this is no evidence it’s not true and accurate (please!). If I copied the news story, it means my story is not original, but its good news that I have backing. You can interpret the backing as either a myth unexamined or evidence it is true, but niether are nearly close to the idea of “discrediting”. Have you ever heard somebody who reads off the news story called “discredited”? No, but you can certainly say “you got that from Channel 6, you didn’t write the story”.
And no, I do not expect you to have read all the things I’ve cited, just making sure I got you the message and answered your question. You can read and check any time you want, if able and willing, many of the pages are re-written (plagariazed) online. The movies Zeitgeist (first 30 minutes) and The God Who Wasn’t There (an hour long, but first 30 minutes will do) are free online to watch and I certainly encourage you to watch them.
But, if you are not open to believing them or the possibility you can be wrong, don’t waste a minute. The info is there for those curious, otherwise it’s useless.
Josh,
Would you thank your wifes murderer if you received a life-insurance check upon her death for $500,000? I mean, it’s because of him that you will no longer worry about work, or the bills. If you can honestly say that you would consider him a hero, for delivering you financial freedom, then you have got some serious reconsidering to do.
Jonathan
First of all, I am smart enough not to have wife and kids specifically for reasons like this.
Secondly, it’s absurd to say $500,000 can pay for my wife or any close family member’s life.
Thirdly, if the murderer had any motives such as giving me or himself money, that’s a totally different story. In Judas’ case, it was.
So the only way to make this argument & analogy work is IF, like in Jesus and Judas’ case. My wife told me she wants to buy an insurance claim and she WILL BE MURDERED (not if, not possbily) and that when it happens I can happily take the money because it’s all in the plans, and there’s nothing either of us can do.
I assume you’re saying my wife’s murder (like most others) is unexpected and sad. But this is not what Christ’s prophecized story was about.
You’re smart enough not to get married and have kids because somebody might kill them? You make friends, I suppose you’re not worried about somebody killing them ever. You probably don’t take tests at school, in fear that somebody might give you a failing grade. I bet you don’t drive a car, due to the chance a tire might blow out, or the gas runs low. Okay…this is just silly, I’m done talking.
Yes, I said what I meant, I’m smart enough not to have somebody so attached to me and financially interdependent so these things are not of worry. Friends killed doesn’t give me an insurance check so you can’t make this argument, can you?
You made the analogy that if there’s a reward for something evil, would I take it to make up for it. My answer is NO, as well as other factors that are wrong with your analogy. You went ahead and said I am afraid of bad things so I avoid things altogether, not even putting this back into context of where your Judas argument is going.
You’re still missing a BIG POINT, all these you raised as analogies are UNEXPECTED bad things, Christ’s betrayal and murder was prophesized and had to be fulfilled!
Dude, you seriously don’t make any sense. I say that out of sincerity, but you cannot seem to keep a consistent position. You make an argument, I correct you, and then you go back and create completely new conditions - it’s getting a bit annoying.
I’m sorry, but I sincerely feel the same way. I am making a point, you make an analogy, and I tell you why your analogy doesn’t work and the only way it can work is if you consider the context & essential details.
I did answer your questions, didn’t I? I didn’t change any position, I am wording things in context and perspective to respond. The audience can decide whether I’m making sense or who’s being logical (I assume your audience are smart thinking people).
I tell you why your analogy doesn’t work and the only way it can work is if you consider the context & essential details.
Wrong. An analogy is supposed to convey a POINT. Not agree with the real-world example in every area. You continue to complain because analogies don’t cover all of the areas you like, and you feel this is worth arguing over.
The Railroad worker and the Son analogy was to convey the point of a father making a sacrifice for people who are too busy to hear him cry out. That is the point the analogy is crafted to make - so you have absolutely no room to complain that the father had to climb stairs when God can float, or the son was a boy when Jesus was a man, or the people were on a train when trains didn’t exist 2000 years ago - blah blah.
If you can create a point, and then STICK to that point, I would be more than happy to talk with you, but you have failed to demonstrate any such ability. Addressing your arguments is like nailing jello to the wall - you keep changing and shifting your points illogically to avoid correction, and to be frank, it’s a bit annoying.
Conversations are best when both parties have a position, that they have thought out, and STICK to their positions without introducing random topics and additives along the way.
So again, ask a question or make a point. Then we can talk as long as you can stick to your guns on the subject.
I agree your analogy of the railroad worker conveys the point that God made a sacrifice, I just don’t agree it’s fair to put God in that perspective. And I don’t agree “sacrifice” is a property consistent to a God who is all powerful, all knowing, all caring, ever present. Can you imagine Bill Gates crying over a penny? If yes, and you analogize this to God, you’re saying God has limited resources like Gates has limited money. If not, then you see my point, God, having unlimited resources is caring too much about such little (yes, even his son can be considered little if God is infinite).
You probably won’t like it if I said it’s like “a drunk father who neglected his son and let him die”, because that’s far from the truth in your belief, but in my opinion, for God’s power, he let it happen so it’s no different than any father who let his son die knowingly and willingly when he had the power to do differently. Most importantly, God is all knowing, therefore could’ve known way too long in advance to have prevent it (no human analogy can convey this one).
Okay, I’m going to say this one more time. Read closely, Josh.
God didn’t allow Christ to die because he was unable to save Christ. God allowed Christ to die because according to the system that is in place, a sacrifice had to be made that was sufficient to wipe away the sins of man-kind. NOTHING is sufficient, because everything is Fallen on account of Adam’s sin. ONLY Christ, the Perfect One, would suffice.
This is how it had to happen, if God is logical, consistent, and rational. To do it any other way would be illogical, inconsistent, and irrational.
You can put your head in the sand, and ignore the logic behind this decision, but you are only fooling yourself.
Ok, or I can disagree that was the logical move for God, and I’m probably wrong, I’ll wait and argue with God directly when I calls me tonight. Super Tuesday is a good day for God to help out!
I can disagree that was the logical move for God
Then what is the logical move in your opinion, and why is it more logical than adhering to a system of order and rationality?
I already said what I believe, but it doesn’t matter to you because you believe your beliefs are more logical and I don’t care.
I believe : God created logic, so he’s capable of violating it. Same with science. And he can, and he should, especially to show people he can, or if it serves good.
Did God answer enough prayers on Super Tuesday?
What benefit is there in God acting illogical and irrational? What kind of request is it for the Christian God to be irrational and illogical in order for you to consider Him? Don’t you see how dumb your request is?
What benefit? For man to believe him, OK, I guess that’s not a benefit.
“If you want people to believe you, be irrational.” - Josh
Is that a valid quote?
Not exactly, if you want people to believe you, do what they ask (if it matters to you).
If you want people to believe you, do what they ask? You cannot be serious…Scenario:
Man A: “Hey, I’m 23 years old.”
Man B: “Really? I’ll believe you if your license says you’re 21.”
Man A: “What? That doesn’t make any sense…”
Man B: “I know it’s not rational, but if you want me to believe your claims, then you’ll do what I asked.”
I think you see that your suggestion only works when the people are asking logical and reasonable requests. Asking a Rational Person to be Irrational in order to convince you they are Rational is illogical.
Yes, that’s only because the rational person doesn’t care whether this illogical person believes him so he won’t do it.
So does God care whether I believe Him? Probably not. If according to you I am illogical, and God is logical, and God hasn’t met my request to make me believe Him, maybe He doesn’t care.
If I were person A, I won’t care whether this person believes me, so I’d stop talking to him. Has God given up on me the same way?
Josh,
God isn’t going to make you believe Him. Again, that would conflict with an orderly system where we decide for ourselves what we accept.
Your main problem is that you view the Christian God as some arbitrary entity. This axiom is ruining your ability to understand that the Bible teaches, and Nature proclaims, that He is a Creator with a rational and logical mind.
Does God want you to believe in Him? Doubt it, why would he care? The Bible says Demons believe in God, yet reject Him. God DOES (according to scripture) want you to receive Salvation, but he is not about to interrupt a rational model in order to appeal to your personal desires - who are you to think the Would should stop turning for you?
According to God’s rational model of sin/payment, the price has been paid, and God has made it extremely convenient for everybody, including yourself, to be acquitted of any sin.
When you stand before Him, you will have absolutely no excuse. And if you think, “I asked you to violate logic and reason to convince me, but you didn’t” is going to get you sympathy, then you’ve certainly got another thing coming.
You claim that if you were Person A, you couldn’t care if the Person B believed you. In this scenario, sure, I wouldn’t either. But suppose you’re Person A, and you see Person B walking into a building that is about to be demolished…you cry out, “Stop! Don’t go in there! That building is coming down!” and they reply with “Make a jelly sandwich appear in my mouth, and I’ll believe you”, wouldn’t you then care if Person B believes you? Or are you fine with watching a person walk blindly into death, simply because they are acting illogical?
Jonathan
“Does God want you to believe in Him? Doubt it, why would he care? ” Fair enough.
I’m fine letting a person walk to his death if he doesn’t appreciate the warning.
Looks like we don’t disagree, we just care differently. Yes, I won’t have any excuse when I face God, and I’m willing to accept it.
“I’m fine letting a person walk to his death if he doesn’t appreciate the warning.”
I guess that is the difference between us. I’m NOT fine watching somebody walk to their death simply because they didn’t act rational or reasonable.
I’m far too compassionate for my fellow-man to just shrug off their ignorance when its leading them to their demise.
“Yes, I won’t have any excuse when I face God, and I’m willing to accept it.”
This is an extremely arrogant and foolish statement, Josh. If you know that you will have no excuse, and you know the punishment for sin, then are you being foolish for not wanting to take care of the situation when the solution is laid out before you, and so easy to acquire.
So, therefore, you don’t believe a person has the right to make stupid choices, that’s how much you believe in freedom. You don’t believe a person is capable or willing to accept death, pain and suffering because you don’t like it for yourself.
I think it’s more arrogant to believe one can be free of guilt, murder, rape, incest, child molestation simply by accepting a Savior. I believe people should be punished, and since I don’t believe God will do that, I believe men should. But if God does, all the better.
“So, therefore, you don’t believe a person has the right to make stupid choices,”
Sure, they have that right, but if I see that they are unknowingly putting themselves in danger, then no, I will not stand by and let them do so.
Would you allow a child to run into the street after a basketball? I mean, it’s only a stupid choice, and that child has freedom to decide what to do, right?
You wouldn’t run in and save the child from its own ignorance?
“I think it’s more arrogant to believe one can be free of guilt, murder, rape, incest, child molestation simply by accepting a Savior. I believe people should be punished…”
Which is why they are punished. Jeffrey Dahmer accepted Christ as his savior after murdering over a dozen people, and eating much of their bodies. He was free from his sin, but he still had to be punished by man for transgressing against people too.
This system is clearly laid out in Scripture. If a man kills another man, he is to be killed himself…even if he accepts Christ as his savior - the transgression against man must be dealt with, and the transgression against God must be dealt with.
Read Romans 13:4. You’ll see that the Law is very important, and placed into position by God himself to punish transgressions against man.
Knowingly hurting themselves is their freedom, not according to you.
Fair enough, a child is not smart enough to make his choice. Are you saying a person is never smart enough or old enough to say his death is a well thought out option?
How sad our society is, God can forgive man for such great crimes yet we cannot. Why can’t we be like God and just let people do wrong? And leave it to God? (I can’t allow that because I don’t believe in God, but you do, so why do you care about man’s punishment before death?)
Josh,
I’m not talking about stopping somebody from knowingly hurting themselves. I’m talking about somebody unknowingly hurting themselves. If a person is about to swallow cyanide, and unaware of it, I’m going to slap it out of their hand.
If a person is knowingly about to swallow cyanide, I’m going to object to them doing so and invite them to think about the consequences.
In neither situation will I sit by and just want it happen without trying to change it.
“How sad our society is, God can forgive man for such great crimes yet we cannot. Why can’t we be like God and just let people do wrong?”
Who said God doesn’t punish sin? Did you forget about Christ!? “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities”. Christ took our sin upon himself, and God judged it. Christ suffered a horrible death to set you free. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” - II Corinthians 5:21
We cannot dismiss sin, because God does not dismiss sin. That is why when you kill somebody, you yourself should be punished for it.
Yes, but you are saved and forgiven, so you’ll avoid hell and be in heaven. What point is there for man to do any punishment when God can and does?
Man punishes man because we are commanded to, and it’s just and right. If a rapist assaults a child, he must be punished. He must not be freed from transgressing against man.
Our system works because it reflects God’s system. God instituted a system of sin/payment. His system exists in a spiritual, non-material way.
Our system works in a crime/punishment way. Our system handles the physical world.
It has been the system for handling crime for 6,000 years, and it works pretty well.
Works pretty well? That means nothing, you think it works well, some don’t, who decides what works well? Was it just to imprison Dr. Dino for tax evasion?
Why is man allowed to punish man when man is violating God’s laws? Who is man to punish man when all men are sinners?
“Was it just to imprison Dr. Dino for tax evasion?”
Yes. Shocked?
“Why is man allowed to punish man when man is violating God’s laws?”
The Government, an establishment from God, is allowed to punish man. It follows the rational hierarchy of God’s structure. Why did God allow the Government this authority? Dunno - don’t really see why it’s a big deal.
According to Scripture, Christ will eventually rule on the Earth. So whatever authority the Government of man has, it is only temporary until Christ returns and establishes his Kingdom.
Yes ? Fair enough. For all the disagreement I have with Dr. Hovind on his view of Creation and evolution, I’m with him 100% on evading evil tax laws that rip off hard working people and give us nothing in return. That’ll be the 2nd difference you and I have.
So the government passing Roe V Wade to make abortion legal is ok with you and ok with God? Who judges the government for allowing the killing of babies, and the civilians in Iraq? Is this what you call just? (if yes, why do we need God? if no, where is God when we need Him?)
Add A Comment