Flying Spaghetti monster

[CentralFLJames]

The Jesus you’re referring to probably didn’t even exist.

Best,

Tor

If you accept the religion of probabilities did you just flip a coin or arbitrarily choose the denomination that prefers to place its life wager at the table with a pot that at best is zero and at worst has a negative eternal debt (if you bet right)? Just curious if there was a method to the apparent madness over the intuitively superior approach of playing at the table with a shot at an infinite valued pot?

If God doesn’t exist then I bet Naure just randomly produced Jesus to confound and torment the atheists.

James

 

[VociMike]

It is also rational to assume Dawkings wrote the book, as I have seen him speak about it.

Who wrote Romeo and Juliet? Who wrote War and Peace? Who wrote Pride and Prejudice? Surely you have not heard those authors (or people pretending to be those authors - how do you know that person on TV was Dawkins?) talk about them.

What proof, exactly, would you accept regarding the Resurrection? Do you insist on mere numbers of witnesses? But how will you tally such numbers? Who’s count will you trust?

How do you know anything about what happened before you were born?

 

[Camron]

Not so I have seen Dawkins speak about his book. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection (that I know of) is from the testimony of his disciples.

Yes. And in 2000 years how reliable will your witness to these events be considered?

Besides don’t extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

I think this comes to this next part you asked in a different post later…

If it was someone else’s book why would the author let him talk on his behalf, surely reporters would uncover the fraud? What of his colleges at the University of Oxford surely they would recognise his work and denounce him if it was not his? What about his publishers? His fans? How would he defend his work if he did not write it?

All these considerations point to Dawkins as author.

True. So then why do you not allow these same factors to be considered concerning the historical witness of Jesus from 2000 years ago?

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead surely the Scribes of the Law and Soldiers of Roman Empire would uncover the fraud? What of the Sanhedrin surely they would recognize that Jesus did not rise form the dead and denounce the Apostles if he did not rise? What about the authors of the Gospels? His disciples? How could His claim of being Resurrected spread so quickly if He did not indeed rise from the dead?

As far as comparing the Flying Spaghetti Monster to Jesus, I find this argument lacking, as no one that I am aware of will be willing to die for their faith in Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can certainly guarantee that in two thousand years we will not see 1/3rd of the world’s population sufficiently convinced of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s existence either.

Now if one wants to argue that people can be deluded, sure no doubt this can happen. But how can someone look back 2000 years, given all the corroborative testimony to the movement of Christianity throughout the first 300 years (and after), even from outside sources beyond the Christian writers, and safely assume this?

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then the testimony of the existence of Jesus via the apostles, disciples, followers and witnesses of Jesus should be considered as just that: extraordinary evidence.

Cults may thrive temporally for some time. But eventually the illusion wears off, leaving the person in a disillusioned state seeking faith elsewhere. Christianity, and the witness of the Christian faith, has far exceeded the expectations of any doubters and skeptics, either in Jesus’ time or after.

Generations come and go with novel new movements. But, provided the culture actually has the social freedom to reject the claims of the dominant religion, many movements go by the wayside. Christianity, in regard to this freedom, has certainly surpassed any other world religion in growth over the last 2000 years. It actually thrives under persecution. And if someone is not even willing to consider this, then they are not really being honest in their search for Truth either.

There is simply no comparison between one’s faith in the Flying Spaghetti Joke and one’s faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Jesus is True God and True Man. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is plain and simply a joke.

 

[Spirithound]

Cults may thrive temporally for some time. But eventually the illusion wears off, leaving the person in a disillusioned state seeking faith elsewhere. Christianity, and the witness of the Christian faith, has far exceeded the expectations of any doubters and skeptics, either in Jesus’ time or after.

Indeed. The Acts of the Apostles actually references Theudas and Judas the Galilean, who claimed to be the Messiah, and pointed out that their movements died right after they did.

 

[Camron]

Indeed. The Acts of the Apostles actually references Theudas and Judas the Galilean, who claimed to be the Messiah, and pointed out that their movements died right after they did.

Very good point!

I had forgotten about the testimony of the Bible itself on this point.

One part is here…

The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.

They seized Peter and John, and because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.

The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest’s family. They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

He is…

’…the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.’

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together.

“What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”

Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.

But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them.

When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:

‘Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.’

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."

More below…

 

[Camron]

More below…

And it continues here too…

Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail.

But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people the full message of this new life.”

At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.

When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles.

But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, “We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.”

On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.

Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.

Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest.

“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.

Then he addressed them:

"Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men.

**Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. **

**After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. **

Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.

**But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." **

His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

I will briefly note that I’ve never heard any testimony from those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Joke that even approaches this level of faith.

And if anyone who actually really believed in the Flying Spaghetti Joke (and I will note that they do not actually believe in it, since they’ve admitted this themselves), then they would quickly recant their nonsense and say…

“Come on…I was just joking around, using contemporary inane and ambiguously anonymous internet logic while making a invalid comparison of faith in God to improvable non-existent things…come on…please don’t stick that red hot iron rod into my eye…please don’t…PLEASE!”

The Flying Spaghetti Joke would not have endured and surpassed the corruption, persecution and decline of the Roman Empire.

Christianity, on the other hand, already did. That’s the power of faith.

 

[Polaris]

And it continues here too…

I will briefly note that I’ve never heard any testimony from those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Joke that even approaches this level of faith.

And if anyone who actually really believed in the Flying Spaghetti Joke (and I will note that they do not actually believe in it, since they’ve admitted this themselves), then they would quickly recant their nonsense and say…

The Flying Spaghetti Joke would not have endured and surpassed the corruption, persecution and decline of the Roman Empire.

Christianity, on the other hand, already did. That’s the power of faith.

The hidus have survived both muslim and christian persecution. The shintos safely protected their people from all persecution by stoping the invasion of the west and today little if any impact has been made on them by chrisitians. The christians did survived roman persecution eventually becoming the roman empire and becoming the persecutors themselves attacking and destroying the pagan religions but then a majority of Christian territories middle east and north africa were lost to Muslim persecution. The muslims in the beginning were persecuted too The Mormons have survived christian persecution and flourished. Secularism which has been attacked vehemetly by the church even when it was a more powerful entity also flourishes today surving that persecution. Many revolutionaries are willing to die for socialist ideas as well and still survives today even with the suppression by one of the most powerful countires in the world. So if persecution is a test of real faith, which is the real faith? Are they all true?

 

[WindyHair]

The hidus have survived both muslim and christian persecution. The shintos safely protected their people from all persecution by stoping the invasion of the west and today little if any impact has been made on them by chrisitians. The christians did survived roman persecution eventually becoming the roman empire and becoming the persecutors themselves attacking and destroying the pagan religions but then a majority of Christian territories middle east and north africa were lost to Muslim persecution. The muslims in the beginning were persecuted too The Mormons have survived christian persecution and flourished. Secularism which has been attacked vehemetly by the church even when it was a more powerful entity also flourishes today surving that persecution. Many revolutionaries are willing to die for socialist ideas as well and still survives today even with the suppression by one of the most powerful countires in the world. So if persecution is a test of real faith, which is the real faith? Are they all true?

whoa… a great reply. christians often have the problem of
not being able to see outside of themselves. religion suddenly
equals christianity, god is suddenly jesus, and with their
head in the sand, they’re unable to see the world for what it is.

if you have a personal belief, that’s great for you. but believing
that it is the only truth gives you a disadvantage towards
compassion. from their point of view, only the christians
have suffered.

 

[SFTor]

Who wrote Romeo and Juliet? Who wrote War and Peace? Who wrote Pride and Prejudice? Surely you have not heard those authors (or people pretending to be those authors - how do you know that person on TV was Dawkins?) talk about them.

What proof, exactly, would you accept regarding the Resurrection? Do you insist on mere numbers of witnesses? But how will you tally such numbers? Who’s count will you trust?

How do you know anything about what happened before you were born?

I haven’t seen this answered, so I’ll take the trouble.

The question is: “how do you know anything about what happened before you were born?”

A whole lot, as it happens. Different contemporary reports, artifacts, letters, photos, video tape, audio recordings, etcetera, etcetera, and the later writings of different historians describing the same periods and events, with references and footnotes, will build a strong case for someone’s or something’s historicity.

To establish the historicity of people living in antiquity we had writings, inscriptions, their own letters, statues, engravings on coins, official records of various kinds, and in some cases paintings, and modern historical works that evaluate, order, and report the content and veracity of historical sources.

I the case of Jesus Christ, we have nothing. One mention in Josephus’s “Antiquities of the Jews”, widely regarded as a forgery (we have complete copies of Josephus from eight centuries later that lack the passage,) and one mention of a “Chrestus” in Tacitus, which was a common Greek name at the time and almost certainly referred to some agitator working in Rome during the time of Claudius.

Once we start talking about “the Resurrection” we talk about a common event in the life of divine characters from Antiquity (Mithras, Osiris, Adonis), which was reported by no one except the believers of Jesus. (We can marvel at the fact that neither the Sanhedrin or the Romans took issue with the claim, but if the claim was made at some later point it is unlikely they would care much about the whole thing.)

When we talk about the Resurrection of Jesus, the basic indictment is that it and the preceding events: the triumphant return to Jerusalem on a donkey (well, two actually), replete with adoring crowds, the cleansing of the temple, crowds turning ugly, hand-washings by Pilatus, floggings, crucifixion, and resurrection (or rumors thereof) did not make it into Josephus. Josephus wrote about everything and everybody in old Jerusalem—he is well known for his exacting attention to completeness and detail. He wrote about the specific time when the resurrection must have taken place. For him to have missed the whole thing makes no sense. When we find a complete lack of mention of the affair in other historical sources as well, we have to wonder whether we have a narrative describing real events, or the typical life trajectory of a hero/God-man.

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[Isa_Almisry]

whoa… a great reply. christians often have the problem of
not being able to see outside of themselves. religion suddenly
equals christianity, god is suddenly jesus, and with their
head in the sand, they’re unable to see the world for what it is.

if you have a personal belief, that’s great for you. but believing
that it is the only truth gives you a disadvantage towards
compassion. from their point of view, only the christians
have suffered.

In both India and Japan, over half of all social networks (hospitals, soup kitchens, orphanages, etc.) are founded and run by Christians, mostly for non-Christians, for in both places Christians make up only around 2% of either country. Those persecuting Christians!

If it were not for the Baptists, the Hindus would still be burning their widows. Bad! Bad! Bad Baptists!

My guess Windy is that you’ve never been outside the safety of Christendom.

 

[Polaris]

In both India and Japan, over half of all social networks (hospitals, soup kitchens, orphanages, etc.) are founded and run by Christians, mostly for non-Christians, for in both places Christians make up only around 2% of either country. Those persecuting Christians!

If it were not for the Baptists, the Hindus would still be burning their widows. Bad! Bad! Bad Baptists!

My guess Windy is that you’ve never been outside the safety of Christendom.

I would like to see the proof of your japanese statistics and for the record the first hospital in Japan was buddhist where the sick was cared for by monks, the first western style hospital however was Catholic.

Baptist in India.  hmmm You mean like the peace loving National Liberation Front of Tripura members?  They are a great bunch. :rolleyes:  What about the good old fashioned goa inquisition by the Portugeuse.  Hindus were also persecuted and marginalized during british rule, (Anglican). Take off the rose coloured glasses. Blood is on everyones hands, no one is clean.

The point however still stands, to show that persecution does not prove a faith is real.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I would like to see the proof of your japanese statistics

You will have quite a wait. I first came across the statistic in the late 80’s, (the point was the number in India: Japan’s statistic was added to show it wasn’t just a rich Christian West/poor heathen East divide) and just have made a mental note when ever such stats crossed my path. The last time I poured out data on this was in 2002 (new Statistical Atlas of India). I’ve had a full agenda elsewhere since then.

and for the record the first hospital in Japan was buddhist where the sick was cared for by monks, the first western style hospital however was Catholic.

As the Buddhist’s got a millenium plus head start, I don’t deny the had the first.

Baptist in India. hmmm You mean like the peace loving National Liberation Front of Tripura members?

No, like William Carey and William Wilberforce (who also led to the abolition of slavery, religious fanatic he was. See “Amazing Grace?” )

They are a great bunch.

Not familiar at all with them (since the Baptist by and large think I’m a pagan, so not so interested in their goings on). In a quick look I notice that they violate what I thought were some central tenets of the Baptists. I also noticed they run hospitals and schools, although, again, the numbers of Baptists is miniscule.

What about the good old fashioned goa inquisition by the Portugeuse.

Yes, we Orthodox were at the receiving end of that one too.
Goa is one of India’s richest states with a second highest GDP per capita and two and a half times that of the country as a whole, and one of its fastest growth rates: 8.23% (yearly average 1990–2000).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa#Economy

Hindus were also persecuted and marginalized during british rule, (Anglican).

They were persecuted and marginalized during Mogul rule.
Any evidence that Anglican converts fared better, or were they just as much a wog as cultivated Hindus and Musulmans? They didn’t do anything much for Christians in the Middle East.

Take off the rose coloured glasses. Blood is on everyones hands, no one is clean.

Including the Humanists and the Secularists.
So your point was…?

The point however still stands, to show that persecution does not prove a faith is real.

Didn’t claim it did.

 

[LaSalle]

Firstly I should say that I am a Catholic however I have been having trouble with this question:

Why should someone believe Jesus rose from the grave? (Please do not give reasons such as the disciples held that what they saw was true even during martyrdom)

If you want to exclude the answer … why bother asking?

 

[LaSalle]

Shannon9791;4161679:

sorry but u and ambrose have the weakest argument.
just because people are willing to die for their OPINIONS,
does not make it true.

right now, that’s happening everday in the middle east and africa.

try again.

You’re 100% correct. Just because people die for their opinions doesn’t make those opinions correct, it just means that they really believe in their opinions.

The first martyrs did not die for their opinions. They died for refusing to deny what they SAW. They SAW Jesus raising the dead, they SAW being killed and then they SAW Him alive and well and even ate with Him. Then they SAW Him go UP to heaven!

Those weren’t opinions.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I haven’t seen this answered, so I’ll take the trouble.

The question is: “how do you know anything about what happened before you were born?”

A whole lot, as it happens. Different contemporary reports, artifacts, letters, photos, video tape, audio recordings, etcetera, etcetera, and the later writings of different historians describing the same periods and events, with references and footnotes, will build a strong case for someone’s or something’s historicity.

To establish the historicity of people living in antiquity we had writings, inscriptions, their own letters, statues, engravings on coins, official records of various kinds, and in some cases paintings, and modern historical works that evaluate, order, and report the content and veracity of historical sources.

I the case of Jesus Christ, we have nothing. One mention in Josephus’s “Antiquities of the Jews”, widely regarded as a forgery (we have complete copies of Josephus from eight centuries later that lack the passage,) and one mention of a “Chrestus” in Tacitus, which was a common Greek name at the time and almost certainly referred to some agitator working in Rome during the time of Claudius.

Once we start talking about “the Resurrection” we talk about a common event in the life of divine characters from Antiquity (Mithras, Osiris, Adonis), which was reported by no one except the believers of Jesus. (We can marvel at the fact that neither the Sanhedrin or the Romans took issue with the claim, but if the claim was made at some later point it is unlikely they would care much about the whole thing.)

When we talk about the Resurrection of Jesus, the basic indictment is that it and the preceding events: the triumphant return to Jerusalem on a donkey (well, two actually), replete with adoring crowds, the cleansing of the temple, crowds turning ugly, hand-washings by Pilatus, floggings, crucifixion, and resurrection (or rumors thereof) did not make it into Josephus. Josephus wrote about everything and everybody in old Jerusalem—he is well known for his exacting attention to completeness and detail. He wrote about the specific time when the resurrection must have taken place. For him to have missed the whole thing makes no sense. When we find a complete lack of mention of the affair in other historical sources as well, we have to wonder whether we have a narrative describing real events, or the typical life trajectory of a hero/God-man.

Respectfully,

Tor

I unfortunately don’t have a lot of time, but

You seem to act as if we have sooo much information contemporaneous with any personage in the pre-modern period. We don’t. Which is bad enough for emperors, and only gets worse as you move down the social classes.

While a lot of the material does deal with the figure of Christ versus the actual man (I think you are oversimplifying “the typical life trajectory of a hero/God-man”), we are dealing with it from His enemies (Talmud, Roman authorities/intelligensia) as well as His followers (the Pauline corpus dates within only a few decades of Christ’s mission on earth: although he didn’t know Him personally, St. Paul interacted with those who walked with Him).

Most historians find the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus on Jesus) genuine but corrupt: it survives in Arabic documents in the caliphate. Btw, Josephus makes a number of statements that archeology has proven false: he has an agenda. Tacitus’ places Christ in Palestine crucified by Pilate. Suetonius is the one who talks of “Chrestus” and he mentions him in connection with Nero’s torching Rome.

Btw, the Talmud comments on the Temple doors swinging open every night of their own accord, the Temple lights going out, etc. for 40 years before the Temple’s destruction, which corelates to what Christians believe of the Temple’s changed role (e.g. the veil ripped in two), something Judaism has no reason to corroborate.

 

[Camron]

Polaris, before I respond, I will note that the OP was discussing the difference between the Flying Spaghetti Joke and Christianity. My response to this is that it is nonsense to even suggest there is a valid comparison between the two movements.

Would you agree with this?

If not, why?

If so, then let me set up a preamble on your next response.

The larger point in discussion is what is the most reasonable of all religious faiths taking the entire spectrum of religious elements in mind when making one’s decision. My contention is that, on the whole, when one reasonably compares and contrasts the various religions of the world, taking the good with the bad, no other faith really compares to the integrity and fidelity of the Christianity faith, specifically the Catholic faith.

The hidus have survived both muslim and christian persecution.

Yes, no doubt, although I would suggest the “Christian persecution” of the Hindus seems to have more in common with British Colonialism than Christianity itself. As Gandhi said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

And, unlike the Flying Spaghetti Joke (which is what was originally under discussion IIRC), the Hindus do have valid elements of faith, some of which are loosely compatible with the Christian faith, and Hinduism is a religion which deserves its proper respect.

It has been suggested by some adherents of the Hindu religion that their faith can be traced back into the prehistory of humanity. Yet, currently, after all this time, Hinduism only possesses approximately a billion adherents, most of whom (about 905 million) live in India.

My observation is, if indeed this faith can be traced back into the prehistory of humanity, why on earth has it not totally encompassed the entire population of the world by now, especially if its roots are prehistoric?

Christianity, having her unveiling occurring only 2,000 years ago, has already exceeded the Hindu faith.

And, *unlike Christianity *, the major portions of the Hindu faith live mostly concentrated in the exceedingly cramped conditions of one generally impoverished nation: India. No doubt that there are richer and more cultured parts of India. But I think you get my drift.

I respect their faith. But this is not an impressive track record in my opinion. I thank God that Mother Teresa spread so much love there.

The shintos safely protected their people from all persecution by stoping the invasion of the west and today little if any impact has been made on them by chrisitians.

Again, unlike the Flying Spaghetti Joke, Shinto, as with Hinduism, no doubt does posses valid elements of faith.

They also most certainly possess elements of faith within Shinto which are loosely considered compatible with Christianity, such as their deep respect for nature.

Likewise, there is no doubt that they are capable of defending their faith.

But, given that Shinto started as an ancient Japanese religion that around 500 BC (or earlier according to some sources), one again has to wonder why the faith has not vastly expanded beyond being called the “Religion of Japan”, which is it no longer even really considered anymore. In fact, it accounts for only 0.04 percent of the entire world’s population.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...dwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png

Again, I will respect their faith. But I’m not overly impressed with the impact of their faith on the world. It seems to be mostly a cultural thing. In fact, with the introduction of Daoist, Confucian, and Buddhist themes into the Japanese religion, one could argue that Shinto currently bears little resemblance to its ancient Japanese origins.

Again, while some development in doctrine and growth in the faith is expected, Catholicism has most certainly not changed this much since she was founded by Christ Jesus around 2,000 years ago.

Taking all these factors on the whole, I find very little to really compare and contrast between Christianity and Shinto. It may actually be better to compare Buddhism and Christianity in my opinion.

More…

 

[Camron]

The christians did survived roman persecution eventually becoming the roman empire and becoming the persecutors themselves attacking and destroying the pagan religions but then a majority of Christian territories middle east and north africa were lost to Muslim persecution.

Ok, let’s talk about the Muslims for a moment.

The muslims in the beginning were persecuted too.

The Muslims, in the beginning, were the persecutors and were quite busy putting anyone who disagreed with them to the sword, which brings up my next point, something which I already mentioned before…

Generations come and go with novel new movements. But, provided the culture actually has the social freedom to reject the claims of the dominant religion, many movements go by the wayside. Christianity, in regard to this freedom, has certainly surpassed any other world religion in growth over the last 2000 years. It actually thrives under persecution. And if someone is not even willing to consider this, then they are not really being honest in their search for Truth either.

See how I mentioned that, “provided the culture actually has the social freedom to reject the claims of the dominant religion”.

Do you really think that people have the freedom to reject the Islamic faith within fundamentalist Islamic nations?

I don’t.

The Mormons have survived christian persecution and flourished.

The Mormons have not survived persecution to the level that Christianity did under the Roman Empire. If you are not playing devils’ advocate on this then I honestly suspect that you may be very ignorant of the Church’s earliest days and exactly what they endured so that you and I might have the faith today. The closest that can be said is that many Mormons gave a bold witness under the Nazi reign. And while I respect their faith it needs to be stated they were virtually wiped out IIRC.

This is the opposite of a group thriving under persecution and flourishing, like Christianity did (and still does at varius places). And the only reason why the Mormons are flourishing in other nations is because of the Christian influence of the nations they abide in tolerate and respect their faith (even though they consider their teachings blasphemous).

Secularism which has been attacked vehemetly by the church even when it was a more powerful entity also flourishes today surving that persecution.

I think you’re underestimating how much Christianity still suffers in many parts of the world and exactly how much Secularism has been attacking many faiths, not just Christianity. In addition to this, it needs to be stated that when Secularism totally took over, as in the French Revolution and under the Soviet Regime, the death tolls were far more staggering. Similar to Islam noted above, Secularism has not actually done a very good job when they actually were fully in control

Many revolutionaries are willing to die for socialist ideas as well and still survives today even with the suppression by one of the most powerful countires in the world.

No doubt that some people are willing to die for something other than Christianity. I never claimed otherwise.

What I am saying is one has to look at the long term effects of their martyrdom and the long lasting seeds it produces.

Communist China, for example, is less than 100 years old and Russia’s already economy collapsed IIRC. Even if Putin seems to be bringing back the old style Soviet control it needs to be admitted that Soviet Union has already collapsed economically.

What’s to compare at this point?

If Communist China is here and the dominant power in another 2,000 years, then I will tip my hat in heaven to your claim. I think that underground changes are already taking place in China though. I could be wrong but I wouldn’t give it another 100 years to be honest. And if it doesn’t change, it’s not because the people don’t want to change. It’s because the government is, much like the fundamentalist Islamic nations noted above, violently forcing them to keep to the governing body’s status quo.

So if persecution is a test of real faith, which is the real faith? Are they all true?

I didn’t say that enduring persecution was the only test of faith. Of course not all faiths are true, even if most true faiths (which don’t include the Flying Spaghetti Joke) share some common elements. As I noted above, the OP was discussing the difference between the Flying Spaghetti Joke and Christianity. My response to this is that it is nonsense to even suggest there is a valid comparison between the two movements.

Now if you want to discuss the reasonableness of faith in the various religions, and which one is the most reasonable, I would have no problem in discussing that in another thread. But this thread is apparently dedicated to question of whether there is any valid comparison between Christianity and the Flying Spaghetti Joke.

My answer is that there is not. The Flying Spaghetti Joke really doesn’t even validly constitute as a world religion. It’s not even a real faith to speak of.

Not sure what else I can say at this point.

What exactly are you looking for?

 

[Camron]

I haven’t seen this answered, so I’ll take the trouble.

The question is: “how do you know anything about what happened before you were born?”

A whole lot, as it happens. Different contemporary reports, artifacts, letters, photos, video tape, audio recordings, etcetera, etcetera, and the later writings of different historians describing the same periods and events, with references and footnotes, will build a strong case for someone’s or something’s historicity.

To establish the historicity of people living in antiquity we had writings, inscriptions, their own letters, statues, engravings on coins, official records of various kinds, and in some cases paintings, and modern historical works that evaluate, order, and report the content and veracity of historical sources.

I the case of Jesus Christ, we have nothing.

The first major section is true. But your claim regarding Jesus, that’s not true. I think you are modifying the existing body of evidence to suit your fancy.

I’ll explain below…

One mention in Josephus’s “Antiquities of the Jews”, widely regarded as a forgery (we have complete copies of Josephus from eight centuries later that lack the passage,)…

It’s not widely regarded as a forgery. Some think this. But many who do not even believe in Jesus do believe there was an authentic reference to Jesus which was later modified to make Jesus better than Josephus originally portrayed him, which is reasonable since Josephus did embellish his work in favor of the Jewish-Roman dialogues.

…and one mention of a “Chrestus” in Tacitus, which was a common Greek name at the time and almost certainly referred to some agitator working in Rome during the time of Claudius.

Here’s a better response to the question as hand…

Does this passage really refer to Jesus?

This is the key objection to using this passage. “Chrestus,” as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a true Greek name, so that some would say that it does not refer to Jesus Christ.

Benko, for example, has suggested that “Chrestus” was some kind of Jewish agitator who had no association with Christianity, perhaps a semi-Zealot reacting to plans by Caligula to put a statue of Zeus in the Jewish Temple; as for the spelling issue, he points out that Suetonius spells “Christians” correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled “Christus.” [see Benk.EC49, 410-3] .

Some may find support for this in that Suetonius’ sentence literally refers to “the instigator,” not actually “the instigation.” [VanV.JONT, 31, 33; who counters, though, that the name “Chrestus” is otherwise unattested among the Jews.

On the other hand, one oddball author suggested that the reference was to Jesus Himself - still alive, and visiting Rome in the 40s AD!]

Mason [Maso.JosNT, 166], on the other hand, believes that the reference is to Jesus, but that Suetonius altered the name he heard to that of a common slave name.

Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 22; see also Harr.GosP5, 354, VanV.JONT, 34-5] notes that the substitution of an “e” for an “i” was “a common error in the spelling of proper names” at the time;

Van Voorst adds the peculiarity of a gravestone that offers both spellings at once! Harris also says that because Suetonius did not say, “at the institution of a certain Chrestus,” the historian expected that his readers would know the person that he was referring to - hence, this “Chrestus” could not have been merely a Jewish agitator, for there was only one possible “Chrestus” that Suetonius could have been referring to that would have been so well known at the time he was writing (120 AD).

It may be that Suetonius wrongly presumed from one of his sources that Chrestus had at some time in the past personally delivered His message to Rome, and that is why he seems to indicate that Chrestus was directly behind the agitation. [ibid., 356]

Harris also explains, in an amusing footnote, that to Greek ears, the name “Christos” would have sounded like something drawn from medical or building technology, meaning either “anointed” or “plastered”! (The Romans who heard these Jews talking about “Christus” assumed that, perhaps, another type of “plastering” was going on!) So, they switched it to the more comprehensible “Chrestus,” which means “useful one.”

Harris further indicates, via a quote from the 4th-century Latin Christian Lactantius, that Jesus was commonly called “Chrestus” by those who were ignorant.

More…

 

[Camron]

Once we start talking about “the Resurrection” we talk about a common event in the life of divine characters from Antiquity (Mithras, Osiris, Adonis), which was reported by no one except the believers of Jesus.

That’s not true either. There are references to what the believers of Jesus actually believed in. The Resurrection was indeed one of those things which were believed from the earliest times.

(We can marvel at the fact that neither the Sanhedrin or the Romans took issue with the claim, but if the claim was made at some later point it is unlikely they would care much about the whole thing.)

And maybe the Sanhedrin did make a big deal about it, just as the Bible indicates. Furthermore, Rome did eventually convert to Christianity, so it seems to me that they eventually cared very much about what happened on the cross.

When we talk about the Resurrection of Jesus, the basic indictment is that it and the preceding events: the triumphant return to Jerusalem on a donkey (well, two actually), replete with adoring crowds, the cleansing of the temple, crowds turning ugly, hand-washings by Pilatus, floggings, crucifixion, and resurrection (or rumors thereof) did not make it into Josephus.

Josephus wrote about everything and everybody in old Jerusalem—he is well known for his exacting attention to completeness and detail.

He is also known for sometimes making archeologically incorrect statements too. Josephus did embellish his work in favor of the Jewish-Roman dialogues. But, on the whole, he is generally accurate.

He wrote about the specific time when the resurrection must have taken place. For him to have missed the whole thing makes no sense. When we find a complete lack of mention of the affair in other historical sources as well, we have to wonder whether we have a narrative describing real events, or the typical life trajectory of a hero/God-man.

Respectfully,

Tor

So let me get this straight: When we find complete copies of Josephus from eight centuries later that lack the passage, this is automatically assumed to mean that the earlier references were false?

I thought that historical research worked the other way around, so that the earlier the reference the more likely the authenticity of the reference?

No doubt some take the Josephus passage at face value and claim it proves Jesus existed exactly as stated. I don’t.

As I said before, many who do not even believe in Jesus do believe there was an authentic reference to Jesus which was later modified to make Jesus better than Josephus originally portrayed him, which is reasonable since Josephus did embellish his work in favor of the Jewish-Roman dialogues.

If you want to discuss this, that’s fine. But you should at least be prepared to present all sides of the argument equally and without partiality. The God man hypothesis has some serious errors too, much of which has been tailored to fit the pre-conceived notions of those who reject Jesus as the Christ.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I will briefly note that I’ve never heard any testimony from those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Joke that even approaches this level of faith.

And if anyone who actually really believed in the Flying Spaghetti Joke (and I will note that they do not actually believe in it, since they’ve admitted this themselves), then they would quickly recant their nonsense and say…

Quote:
"Come on…I was just joking around, using contemporary inane and ambiguously anonymous internet logic while making a invalid comparison of faith in God to improvable non-existent things…come on…please don’t stick that red hot iron rod into my eye…please don’t…PLEASE

The Flying Spaghetti Joke would not have endured and surpassed the corruption, persecution and decline of the Roman Empire.

Christianity, on the other hand, already did. That’s the power of faith.

Indeed. I amazed that this “argument” keeps going back to the same old evasions and logical fallacies; the straw man of “history is replete with people dying for nonsense” when we say “people dont die for what they KNOW IS A LIE” (BIG difference) and even the “there’s no proof Jesus even existed” or the “pagan Christ” copycat hypothesis that was abandoned in religious studies circa 1940 (source, Miesel & Olsen, The Da Vinci Hoax), or picayune straw grasping, such as the “Crestus” spelling.

If the arguments against the historicity of the Resurection keep devolving to straw man (boy that particular one is very well scattered all about the place ) and like fallacies, what does that tell you about the argument against Christianity in the first place?