Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:no way. The patafarians have no chance. All the spiritual messengers of the great Speghetti monster are utterly delicious with some marinara sauce.
Frazzled, eating the pastafarian' god with a nice tomato base for two millenia.

I prefer sending him to the Kitchenquisition for delicious heresy...

@Manchu: I know, I was questioning Orlanth's logic in that particular matter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Relaspe: I thought it was supposed to be the Feathered Serpent? Qzctelquotel...or however the hell the damn thing is spelt.

@GG: Sorry, mate, but I'm finding the logic behind some of these arguments to be a tad ridiculous. BTW, Bobby Henderson may have been the first "prophet" of the Spagetti Monster, but who can really say for sure when this being first came into existence?

Here's a brief explanation, more full ones can be found, also.

http://crystalinks.com/quetzalcoatl.html

I'm sorry, this was supposed to be a serious thread. But I lol 'd. Thanks JEB.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:no way. The patafarians have no chance. All the spiritual messengers of the great Speghetti monster are utterly delicious with some marinara sauce.
Frazzled, eating the pastafarian' god with a nice tomato base for two millenia.

I prefer sending him to the Kitchenquisition for delicious heresy...

You will deny Pastafarias three times before the cock crows:
First in marinara,
Second alfredo style
Third with Swedish meatballs.

Don't be so closed-minded Frazzled!

Frazzled wrote:

Pastafarianism has exactly the same legitimacy as any other religion.

I find it insulting that you would deny Pastafarianism when it meets the EXACT same criteria as any other religion.

no way. The patafarians have no chance. All the spiritual messengers of the great Speghetti monster are utterly delicious with some marinara sauce.
Frazzled, eating the pastafarian' god with a nice tomato base for two millenia.

Someone needs to draw this. Now.

BTW, I'm sorry if my posts are cuasing offence. I will back off and let them have thier have thier cake. Last thing I want is to get Manchu's thread locked.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Ironhide wrote:Going to have to say you are wrong there JEB. I can cite evidence in the Bible, where people went to heaven without the saving grace of Christ.

Please enlighten me further then...

Both Enoch and Elijah were taken by god to heaven, without the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

It seems like we're going back to Biblical literalism or at least unwarranted Biblical exegesis here. Unlike the mere "timeline" of Salvation History (the historical chronology of Christ's life, death, and resurrection), salvation itself is eternal. There was no "before grace" or "after grace."

A person cannot be saved by a someone who has not even been born. Or are you trying to say that the "saving grace of Jesus Christ" is retroactive, when it depends on a person to believe in said individual? If Enoch or Elijah never met Christ until after the fact they went to heaven, then they were not saved by Jesus' grace. Hence, Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without the benefit of Jesus' saving grace.

I don't think it's helpful to think of it as "retroactive" because that word is still dealing with time. The grace of Christ's resurrection is present eternally. When you think about the historical event of Jesus's death and resurrection, i.e., that this actual historical man Jesus was killed on a Friday some two thousand years ago and then His tomb was found empty the following Sunday, then yes it is possible to speak of "before" and "after." But grace exists not only in time but outside of it. The Son of God (one of three Persons of the Triune God) is eternal. He did not begin to exist in the moment of His incarnation when He was born of the virgin Mary.

Relapse wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...

Your God is a sham!

But he doesn't go unobserved. He, and his angels have been seen by various prophets and others throughout the ages.

When I get drunk, I see things, too. I have no doubt that *your* prophets were drunk, high, or crazy.

*MY* prophets are sane and rational. Our Word is Legion.
____

generalgrog wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...

Your God is a sham!

of course as well all know the flying spaghetti monster was an idea invented to mock modern religion.

If it weren't completely ridiculous, it wouldn't be possible to mock it.
_____

generalgrog wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:There is no (irrefutable) Proof that a Spagetti Monster does not exist.

Of course there is, since it was an invention in 2005 by Bobby Henderson of Oregon state univeristy as an attempt to mock the Kanas school boards attempt to get Intelligent design incorporated into it's school system curricula.

So please stop insulting us by bringing up the mockery invention of Bobby Henderson.

I find it insuling for you to do this.

It is insulting for you to deny the one true divinity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as revealed by his Prophet Bobby Henderson.

Next, you'll be telling us that Smith was high when he founded the Mormon Church, and that Hubbard was must pulling stuff out his butt when he created Scientology.

@John: If you are truly interested in discussion there are surely better ways to go about it. Would you mind being somewhat less facetious and more serious? If it's not worth your time to do so then I think you've probably made as much of a point as you're going to already.

Ironhide wrote:Both Enoch and Elijah were taken by god to heaven, without the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Enoch is not taken to Heaven. It is merely stated that God took him, and he knew death not. Elijah is taken to the heavens in a chariot of fire. Before the death and Resurrection of Christ all faithful were taken to a place called Abraham's Bosom. This is for all intensive purposes Limbo. This does not constitute Heaven.

More literalism . . .

Orlanth wrote:

Manchu wrote: Here's the relevant syllogism: All that exists is empirically observable. God is not empirically observable. God does not exist.

I strongly challenge your doctrine on the point highlighted. Much of what we believe exists is not observable, in fanct the vast majority of it if we accept current theories on dark matter.
I would also challenge the final point because God as defined in scripture has the property of being able to move without trace.

With the ability to observe comes confirmation. Theory brings an incentive to observe and confirm. Marie Curie comes to mind. Whether or not God/Jehova/Allah/FSM exist is currently only in theory because they cannot be confirmed by observation (yet). Using mathmatics as a tool to further confirm a theory (such as Dark Matter) only helps with an incentive to confirm by observation.

The principle that only the observable exists depends on the ability and tools available to observe. Scripture is at best hearsay and its credibility is in question.

On the other hand, JEB's idea of a Kitchinquisition sounds like a fine idea right now. I'm peckish.

Ironhide wrote:A person cannot be saved by a someone who has not even been born. Or are you trying to say that the "saving grace of Jesus Christ" is retroactive, when it depends on a person to believe in said individual? If Enoch or Elijah never met Christ until after the fact they went to heaven, then they were not saved by Jesus' grace. Hence, Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without the benefit of Jesus' saving grace.

By your meaning, if I take it correctly, people that died before Jesus, have no chance at Heaven or Salvation. I have to disagree here from what I've been taught. An all loving God is not going to bar someone from his presence based on when they were born. I've been taught that all will get an equal chance at Salvation.

@Manchu: This topic was destined for disaster from the get-go, once people started "seriously" discussing religion and atheism.

I was hoping for something more porn-related, rather than watching this thing stay derailed on religion.

However, as it's not possible for me to take this seriously, I'll take my leave of this thread.

Thanks for all the fish!

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Relapse wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...

Your God is a sham!

But he doesn't go unobserved. He, and his angels have been seen by various prophets and others throughout the ages.

When I get drunk, I see things, too. I have no doubt that *your* prophets were drunk, high, or crazy.

*MY* prophets are sane and rational. Our Word is Legion.
____

generalgrog wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...

Your God is a sham!

of course as well all know the flying spaghetti monster was an idea invented to mock modern religion.

If it weren't completely ridiculous, it wouldn't be possible to mock it.
_____

generalgrog wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:There is no (irrefutable) Proof that a Spagetti Monster does not exist.

Of course there is, since it was an invention in 2005 by Bobby Henderson of Oregon state univeristy as an attempt to mock the Kanas school boards attempt to get Intelligent design incorporated into it's school system curricula.

So please stop insulting us by bringing up the mockery invention of Bobby Henderson.

I find it insuling for you to do this.

It is insulting for you to deny the one true divinity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as revealed by his Prophet Bobby Henderson.

Next, you'll be telling us that Smith was high when he founded the Mormon Church, and that Hubbard was must pulling stuff out his butt when he created Scientology.

I don't think your flying spaghetti monster church would stand the persecution that the early LDS religion endured, and I don't think it's founder would be willing to suffer imprisonments, beatings, and tarrings tha Joseph Smith endured. Nor do I think he'd be willing to die the way Joseph Smith did to proclaim his truth.

Oldgrue wrote:Scripture is at best hearsay and its credibility is in question.

Harsay is a poor word to describe the Gospels as they are accounts of events described by witnesses. Even if the Gospels were not written down by said witnesses there is sufficient historical-critical evidence to show that they were written down by people who were taught by people with first hand knowledge of the events. (As a lawyer, I can agree that there is a sort of pseudo-technical argument that they are hearsay as per the Federal Rules of Evidence, but I'm not convinced that you meant to call them hearsay in a technical sense.) Moreover, any statement's credibility can be called into question. I can question the credibility of an atomic physicist whether I have the technical knowledge to do so or not, for example. It is the same with religion. Many people think religion is a topic that everyone can and does have an informed opinion about but nothing could be further from the truth.

Manchu wrote:If you are truly interested in discussion there are surely better ways to go about it. Would you mind being somewhat less facetious and more serious? If it's not worth your time to do so then I think you've probably made as much of a point as you're going to already.

Why is that subject granted impunity? Its no more special than science, American Idol (note: I *did* leave Britney alone.), History, FSM, or Pistachio Ice cream. The point of a thing being special or worthwhile is that it can be discussed, shared, experienced, and reflected on. If I were to demand the sanctity of either vermicelli or pistachio ice cream it would be considered laughable at best.

@Oldgrue: I do not follow you at all in your last post.

Manchu wrote:I don't think it's helpful to think of it as "retroactive" because that word is still dealing with time. The grace of Christ's resurrection is present eternally. When you think about the historical event of Jesus's death and resurrection, i.e., that this actual historical man Jesus was killed on a Friday some two thousand years ago and then His tomb was found empty the following Sunday, then yes it is possible to speak of "before" and "after." But grace exists not only in time but outside of it. The Son of God (one of three Persons of the Triune God) is eternal. He did not begin to exist in the moment of His incarnation when He was born of the virgin Mary.

If Jesus did exist prior to his birth, then why did god make up a set of rules for man to follow so that might gain access to kingdom of heaven? The bible states that Jesus is the son of god, not part of a holy trinity. That was invented by man. By saying that the grace of Christ's resurrection is eternal, you invalidate god's own decrees/promises in the old testament on how a person is to gain entrance to heaven. Which, in my view, would make god a liar. However, god is supposed to be infallible.

@Relapse: I thought I was out, but you drag me back in?

I don't think the LDS "endured" any special persecution compared to any other interfaith / minority faith struggle. I'm pretty sure that the LDS has nothing on the Catholics under British rule (post-Anglican, of course), and I'm darn sure it wasn't even close to early non-Judaic Christianity under the Roman Empire (pre-religion).

If you think Mormonism is a religion, then so is Pastafarianism. Also Scientology. If people are openly mocking Pastafarianism here, then turnabout is fair play.

Manchu wrote: Many people think religion is a topic that everyone can and does have an informed opinion about but nothing could be further from the truth.

So are you one of those people? Or were you taught your faith by a person also taught by a third party from a self referential book? If these people were supposedly persons in authority we might ask questions on the parallels of Milgram's experiments regarding authority?

@Ironhide: The Church was around before any book of the New Testament. "What the Bible says" is not as clear as you seem to think. When you claim that the Bible says a certain thing what you are doing is presenting your interpretation of the Bible. I avoid this by relying on the tradition of the Church. Additionally, you will find that Maosaic law was not a system of rules by which people got into heaven. The ancient Jews did not have this concept of an afterlife, as we can learn from historical-critical analysis of the Old Testament books themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you think Mormonism is a religion, then so is Pastafarianism. Also Scientology. If people are openly mocking Pastafarianism here, then turnabout is fair play.

I would ask that the Mormonism v. Pastafarianism discussion be taken to its own thread as the subject has nothing to do with Trinitarian Christianity or the morality of pornography.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:So are you one of those people?

If by "one of those people" you mean "a Catholic," then yes, I am one of those people.

Oldgrue wrote:

Manchu wrote: Many people think religion is a topic that everyone can and does have an informed opinion about but nothing could be further from the truth.

So are you one of those people? Or were you taught your faith by a person also taught by a third party from a self referential book? If these people were supposedly persons in authority we might ask questions on the parallels of Milgram's experiments regarding authority?

@ manchu:
Why is religion more special than pistachio ice cream? (This is why I left britney alone.)
How does religion somehow become exempt from scrutiny? Martin Luther was so good as to make Christian scripture available to the masses to review. If it was somehow special, shouldn't this have been impossible?

@Oldgrue: Everyone can see clouds in the sky but few people are meteorologists.

Manchu wrote:If by "one of those people" you mean "a Catholic," then yes, I am one of those people.

So your understanding of a certain book is somehow more special and valid than someone without your teaching?

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Relapse: I thought I was out, but you drag me back in?

I don't think the LDS "endured" any special persecution compared to any other interfaith / minority faith struggle. I'm pretty sure that the LDS has nothing on the Catholics under British rule (post-Anglican, of course), and I'm darn sure it wasn't even close to early non-Judaic Christianity under the Roman Empire (pre-religion).

If you think Mormonism is a religion, then so is Pastafarianism. Also Scientology. If people are openly mocking Pastafarianism here, then turnabout is fair play.

Just answering a statement that needed answering when you insulted someone I venerate. But thank you for bringing up the early Christian persecution. Do you honestly have any belief that could stand up to what these people went through and yet kept their faith?