Flying Spaghetti monster

[Camron]

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)…

Precisely!

There’s a very big difference between someone dying for nonsense and people dying for what they know is a lie. The matter of faith should convince others that people in these situations really believe these things to be true.

This doesn’t prove that what they believe is true (which, as this thread reveals, is another strawman version of what we’re actually claiming). But it does, as far as we can tell, reveal whether or not they really believe this to be true.

To actually determine the truth or reasonableness of any claim requires many more factors to be investigated more deeply.

Technically speaking the Flying Spaghetti Joke is not a statement of faith. Starting primarily as joke against the ID movement, it really has evolved into something much more malicious. The Flying Spaghetti Joke is statement revealing a lack of faith, which is exactly what would happen if persecuted for their “faith”.

Other religions do have true faith as far as we can determine. It may indeed be faith in a nonsensical thing. But they do have true faith nonetheless, which is a lot more than those who claim faith in the Flying Spaghetti Joke have. It would take a more thorugh investigation to see which genuine faith is the most reasonable of them all, which is what I started to investigate in this thread.

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?

It means that Christianity is on a much surer footing than her critics are willing to admit.

Amen to that!

 

[tommiatkins]

Firstly, blessed be his noodly appendages.

Secondly,the ten eyewitnesses were all purported to be Jesus’s best m8’s and drinking buddies. The only place that testifies to this happening is in the bible.

The man who said he was god dies. How can god die? well the easy answer is lets say he diddnt. Lets say he came back to show that he was who he said he was.

So God wants to prove that the dead man was actually him. He dosnt show up in Jerusalem and pay a visit to pilate, or to the Rabbi’s who had him killed, or to Mrs Goldstein at number 42. He shows up to his mates who are wondering what the heck to do now.

He changed water into wine. Only his mates seemed to notice or write about it. The rest of the party just carriedon getting hammered.
He raised the dead. Lazerus was no doubt a bit chuffed at this, but diddnt tell anyone to mention it.
5000 people ate out of a small basket of grocerys, then went home thinking that someone else would mention it.

When he died dozens of Zombies walked around the street in a “night of the living dead” in a major city. Not worth putting pen to parchment really. The Romans must have passed it off as a bit of local unrest. They wrote down everything, but all this, the walking on water, the crucifixion, the zombies, the miracles…
The only people who actually notice it happening is…The Apostles.

It’s almost as if they badly cobbled up the stories in a pub just beffore they scattered to the winds.

 

[Spirithound]

The man who said he was god dies. How can god die? well the easy answer is lets say he diddnt. Lets say he came back to show that he was who he said he was.

So God wants to prove that the dead man was actually him. He dosnt show up in Jerusalem and pay a visit to pilate, or to the Rabbi’s who had him killed, or to Mrs Goldstein at number 42. He shows up to his mates who are wondering what the heck to do now.

He changed water into wine. Only his mates seemed to notice or write about it. The rest of the party just carriedon getting hammered.
He raised the dead. Lazerus was no doubt a bit chuffed at this, but diddnt tell anyone to mention it.
5000 people ate out of a small basket of grocerys, then went home thinking that someone else would mention it.

When he died dozens of Zombies walked around the street in a “night of the living dead” in a major city. Not worth putting pen to parchment really. The Romans must have passed it off as a bit of local unrest. They wrote down everything, but all this, the walking on water, the crucifixion, the zombies, the miracles…
The only people who actually notice it happening is…The Apostles.

It’s almost as if they badly cobbled up the stories in a pub just beffore they scattered to the winds.

A couple points here: First, you imply that God should make Himself totally obvious and undeniable. This would negate free will, would it not?
Second, you seem to think that the general Jewish population was actually capable of writing, and totally ignore the fact that those 5000 people were “voting with their feet”, so to speak, by following Jesus around, and were later on the first generation of Christians. Seems like a form of oral tradition, something we Catholics are quite big on.
Finally, you’re assuming that all manuscripts from that era have survived, and that someone stubborn enough to note said “Zombies” and still doubt Jesus would actually confirm the zombie-walk on parchment.

 

[SFTor]

A couple points here: First, you imply that God should make Himself totally obvious and undeniable. This would negate free will, would it not?
Second, you seem to think that the general Jewish population was actually capable of writing, and totally ignore the fact that those 5000 people were “voting with their feet”, so to speak, by following Jesus around, and were later on the first generation of Christians. Seems like a form of oral tradition, something we Catholics are quite big on.
Finally, you’re assuming that all manuscripts from that era have survived, and that someone stubborn enough to note said “Zombies” and still doubt Jesus would actually confirm the zombie-walk on parchment.

Well, there is the book titled “the Antiquities of the Jews” by Flavius Josephus, which covers the exact period when this supposedly took place. And Josephus, who wrote extensively about all things large and small that happened in Jerusalem, doesn’t mention any of these events with a word.

Best,

Tor

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, there is the book titled “the Antiquities of the Jews” by Flavius Josephus, which covers the exact period when this supposedly took place. And Josephus, who wrote extensively about all things large and small that happened in Jerusalem, doesn’t mention it with word.

Best,

Tor

Which is funny, if it was true, because the Talmud does.

And Josephus, for instance, makes various statements on the total ban on images. And yet the archeologists’ spade has uncovered synagogues full of images.

Josephus is neither as impartial nor as complete as you are making him out to be. And you have completely ignored the Testamentum Flavium.

Btw, your comparison to Osiris, Adonis, etc. Jonathan Z. Smith in the article in the Encyclopedia of Religion on resurrection gods tears it down, and he is by no means a friend of Christianity.

 

[Camron]

A couple points here: First, you imply that God should make Himself totally obvious and undeniable. This would negate free will, would it not?

I’m not sure about negating free will. The devil knew God face to face and still went against God, along with 1/3 of the angels. But I think you are right that God allows enough evidence so that people should not be in doubt about God’s existence.

Second, you seem to think that the general Jewish population was actually capable of writing, and totally ignore the fact that those 5000 people were “voting with their feet”, so to speak, by following Jesus around, and were later on the first generation of Christians. Seems like a form of oral tradition, something we Catholics are quite big on.

Very good point!

I especially like the part about people were “voting with their feet”. Many nowadays seem to take their education for granted and don’t seem to catch on that the original disciples were mostly unlearned men. One cannot discount oral tradition when dealing with these cultures.

Finally, you’re assuming that all manuscripts from that era have survived, and that someone stubborn enough to note said “Zombies” and still doubt Jesus would actually confirm the zombie-walk on parchment.

I think that tommiatkins may have confused the resurrection of the dead spoken of within Matthew 27:53 with the Jewish concept of a golem based, oddly enough, on Psalm 139:16.

Very strange.

Anyway, perhaps this proves a point. Those who have “faith” in the Flying Spaghetti Joke may have the courage to get banned from a Catholic forum. But I highly doubt they would stand under fire if threatened with a sword to recant their faith or die.

"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 Standard Flying Spaghetti Worshipper’s Monstrous Witness of Noodly Faith​

 

[po18guy]

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)

How does this differ from the reason that one should not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Richard Dawking’s invention) or invisible unicorns?

Because Dawkins believes in everything. We believe in Christ. Oh, there are no atheist martyrs.

 

[WindyHair]

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.

oh c’mon. like christians have never burned anyone before either.
there are good/bad people whether you are of one religion or not!

but hmmmm… i wonder why muslim and christianity are the two
biggest conrtibutors?? gee is it because they are the two
biggest and richest organised religions? how did they become the two
biggest organisations in religion?? oh, politics and domination,
“my ways is the right way!”

ofcourse they’re going to have more resources to buy people’s
souls - i mean help people. with one hand i give you bread,
with the other i give you my god. a basic business tactic practiced
in every major corporation in america today.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

oh c’mon. like christians have never burned anyone before either.
there are good/bad people whether you are of one religion or not!

Sutteee is an institution of Hinduism, not a personal failing. Wrong again, windy.

but hmmmm… i wonder why muslim and christianity are the two
biggest conrtibutors??

Actuually communism is. And it managed to surpass the failings of Chrisitans in a cedntury or so. Wrong again, windy.

gee is it because they are the two
biggest and richest organised religions? how did they become the two
biggest organisations in religion?? oh, politics and domination,
“my ways is the right way!”

Yes, I do recall the Gospels stating Christ said that from the Cross, and the martyrs from the lion pit. Wrong again, windy.

ofcourse they’re going to have more resources to buy people’s
souls

Yes, the Church had an abundance of resources her first three centuries that she was an illegal, on pain of death, institution. Wrong again, windy.

• i mean help people. with one hand i give you bread,
  with the other i give you my god. a basic business tactic practiced
  in every major corporation in america today.

As opposed to a basic political tactic practised in every major socilaist regime in the world today: with one hand I take your bread, with the other knock you silly. Wrong again, windy.

And I’ll ask you again: have you ever been outside the safety of Christendom?

 

[WindyHair]

Sutteee is an institution of Hinduism, not a personal failing. Wrong again, windy.

Actuually communism is. And it managed to surpass the failings of Chrisitans in a cedntury or so. Wrong again, windy.

Yes, I do recall the Gospels stating Christ said that from the Cross, and the martyrs from the lion pit. Wrong again, windy.

Yes, the Church had an abundance of resources her first three centuries that she was an illegal, on pain of death, institution. Wrong again, windy.

As opposed to a basic political tactic practised in every major socilaist regime in the world today: with one hand I take your bread, with the other knock you silly. Wrong again, windy.

And I’ll ask you again: have you ever been outside the safety of Christendom?

are you trying to say america is a christendom?
that’s an arrogant thing to say and again supports
my point about christians not able to see outside of themselves.
if not for separation of church and state we would be
a christendom.

i’m sure according to you, it’s christianity that made
america the great and powerful country it is.
there is a difference between democracy and
“christendom”. they’re opposites actually.

 

[Spirithound]

Which is funny, if it was true, because the Talmud does.

And Josephus, for instance, makes various statements on the total ban on images. And yet the archeologists’ spade has uncovered synagogues full of images.

Josephus is neither as impartial nor as complete as you are making him out to be. And you have completely ignored the Testamentum Flavium.

Btw, your comparison to Osiris, Adonis, etc. Jonathan Z. Smith in the article in the Encyclopedia of Religion on resurrection gods tears it down, and he is by no means a friend of Christianity.

Thanks for this Isa. Can you give us a reference for Talmudic mention of Jesus?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

are you trying to say america is a christendom?

I had no idea where you were/are. So you’re in the States?

that’s an arrogant thing to say

it’s a historically accurate thing to say.
If you ventured out of the safety of Christendom, you’d see that.

and again supports
my point about christians not able to see outside of themselves.

Ah, the herd of independent minds on a stampede again.

if not for separation of church and state we would be
a christendom.

Btw, do you know what the word Christendom means? Maybe I should have asked that first.

i’m sure according to you, it’s christianity that made
america the great and powerful country it is.
there is a difference between democracy and
“christendom”. they’re opposites actually.

Again, if you could see outside your “free” thinking revision of American history, you could know what I was talking about. Or knew about societies outside of Christendom.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thanks for this Isa. Can you give us a reference for Talmudic mention of Jesus?

What I had specifically in mind was Sanhedrin 43a (which is rougly contemporaneous with the Early Church).

On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

There is, however, more. Two things to bear in mind: the Talmud citations are part of a polemic with the early Church, and show it; and the Talmud had been censored by order of Christians on a number of occasions. Some references only appear in the Babylonian Talmud: Christians never ruled there.

 

[Spirithound]

Sanhedrin 43a

On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

There is, however, more. Two things to bear in mind: the Talmud citations are part of a polemic with the early Church, and show it; and the Talmud had been censored by order of Christians on a number of occasions. Some references only appear in the Babylonian Talmud: Christians never ruled there.

The tone of the passage doesn’t really concern me too much, since it does admit that Jesus existed, was hanged, (which could refer to crucifixion), and was executed for sorcery (miracles).
Now, I’m unfamiliar with this account, does it mean that Jesus was basically tried in absentia 40 days before His death?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The tone of the passage doesn’t really concern me too much, since it does admit that Jesus existed, was hanged, (which could refer to crucifixion), and was executed for sorcery (miracles).
Now, I’m unfamiliar with this account, does it mean that Jesus was basically tried in absentia 40 days before His death?

You have a point. I always took it as a denial that Christ was denied due process with a show trial in the dead of night. Many, then and now, discount the Gospel account on the basis that it doesn’t fit proper procedure. As if it was the first and last trial that didn’t.

Since such objections usually focus on the issue of it not really being public and no corroborating testimony, I thought this element was added by the rabbis to say Christ got a fair trial.
But you’re right. It makes it seem he was tried in abstentia.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You have a point. I always took it as a denial that Christ was denied due process with a show trial in the dead of night. Many, then and now, discount the Gospel account on the basis that it doesn’t fit proper procedure. As if it was the first and last trial that didn’t.

Since such objections usually focus on the issue of it not really being public and no corroborating testimony, I thought this element was added by the rabbis to say Christ got a fair trial.
But you’re right. It makes it seem he was tried in abstentia.

I am told that there is within kabbalistic Jewish circles of oral tradition physical evidence of Yahshua being blotted out from the record and in the place of his name were euphamisms like “he that should be damned” or “he that shall never be spoken of” (sounds like Rowling got her Harry Potter book ideas for Lord Voldemort here - “he that shall not be spoken of” or “you know who” ).

I would say the best evidence of someone’s existence is in the strength of the contempt and scorn for that so called mythological person in the people who bear hatred and contempt for 2000 years for a person who never supposedly existed. The Kabbalistic records of oral tradition would certainly be the most compelling case that Jesus was real.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

You have a point. I always took it as a denial that Christ was denied due process with a show trial in the dead of night. Many, then and now, discount the Gospel account on the basis that it doesn’t fit proper procedure. As if it was the first and last trial that didn’t.

As far as legal protocol goes its clear that Herod’s kingdom was corrupt to the core when it puts a popular prophet like John the Baptist to death with no trial on the flippant whim of a man’s lust for his wife’s (previously his brother’s wife) daughter. We see in Acts of the Apostles where Peter and others are publicly flogged after being supernaturally sprung from jail with no trial. Clearly, the Jewish laws and legal proceedings if ever they were as fair as they would have us believe were degrading rapidly into a cascade of secularism and chaos.

I am not historian but intuition tells me that the rule of intimidation, political will and gerrymandering was more the case to be expected in Jerusalem than was a formal proceeding of rule of law. I’d like to hear someone’s opinion who knows the historical period well.

James

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I am told that there is within kabbalistic Jewish circles of oral tradition physical evidence of Yahshua being blotted out from the record and in the place of his name were euphamisms like “he that should be damned” or “he that shall never be spoken of” (sounds like Rowling got her Harry Potter book ideas for Lord Voldemort here - “he that shall not be spoken of” or “you know who” ).

I would say the best evidence of someone’s existence is in the strength of the contempt and scorn for that so called mythological person in the people who bear hatred and contempt for 2000 years for a person who never supposedly existed. The Kabbalistic records of oral tradition would certainly be the most compelling case that Jesus was real.

James

Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew), and slight variations thereof such as Jeshu (Bible English transliteration) or Yeishu (Yiddish pronunciation), is the name of at least a few people in various works of classical Jewish rabbinic literature, including the Babylonian Talmud (redacted before 600) and the classical midrash literature (written between 200 and 700). Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew) is also an abbreviation for the Hebrew words ימחק שמו וזיכרון “Y’machk Sh’mo v’Zichron” (May his Name and Memory be Erased).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu

 

[CentralFLJames]

Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew), and slight variations thereof such as Jeshu (Bible English transliteration) or Yeishu (Yiddish pronunciation), is the name of at least a few people in various works of classical Jewish rabbinic literature, including the Babylonian Talmud (redacted before 600) and the classical midrash literature (written between 200 and 700). Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew) is also an abbreviation for the Hebrew words ימחק שמו וזיכרון “Y’machk Sh’mo v’Zichron” (May his Name and Memory be Erased).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu

So, then from the Talmud we have a formal case of the Jews trying to obliterate the record of someone or some persons who they considered so vile and dangerous to their faith that they would openly admit to the concept by naming them “Yeshu” as a place holder for “we hate you”. Sounds to me like this is the missing historical link that needs to be followed to confirm who the person or persons were. If the Jews did not think the person behind the name “Yeshu” was not a deadly foe of the Jews or were ashamed of the record they would not have even mentioned the name at all. No, this was more like an anathema to curse the person forever. In so uttering the curse the Jews have publicly admitted that there are people in their history that are considered so formidable that they will change the public records. This is ironic since its essentially a public admission that the scribes could change any of the prophet’s words that some legal council later considered to be inflammatory to to their beliefs.

The bottom line here is how can we believe anything the Jews say now that they admit to obliterating the record? It begs the question “how many times have the Jews revised history” to paint themselves in a light most favorable to what they wanted the public to know?

I still see this as the strongest case for a man we call Jesus that scared and rattled the Jews so much that they had to turn him over for crucifixation then strike his name from the records.

Someone told me that the Jews still have individuals who pass on the complete oral tradtion from memory from generation to generation. If this is true then next time the Jews demand justice for crimes committed against humanity we need to go interview one of these people, put him on a lie detector machine and start asking some hard questions for the sake of humanity.

James

 

[Contarini]

I am told that there is within kabbalistic Jewish circles of oral tradition physical evidence

How can “oral tradition” have “physical evidence”? This makes no sense.

The Kabbalistic records of oral tradition would certainly be the most compelling case that Jesus was real.

Since everyone who is not a traditional, orthodox Kabbalist thinks that these “Kabbalistic records” mostly originated in the High Middle Ages, it’s not clear how they are compelling evidence for anything that happened a thousand years earlier. The claims that the Zohar, for instance, records oral tradition from the ancient rabbis are discounted by scholars. Since you are not an Orthodox Jew of Kabbalistic leanings, why on earth would you believe these claims?

Ediwn