Theology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Anonymous]

New poster. I was raised in an evangelical Christian church, and I can tell you that those people believe that God grants wishes, that he is interested in how you did on the test, that Earth was created in 7 24-hour days, that heaven and hell are actual places, etc etc. And these are very, very "serious believers." Catholic theology is much different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I was raised in an evangelical Christian church, and I can tell you that those people believe that God grants wishes, that he is interested in how you did on the test, that Earth was created in 7 24-hour days, that heaven and hell are actual places, etc etc. And these are very, very "serious believers." Catholic theology is much different.

Perhaps "Serious" is not the best word to describe what the previous poster meant -- I'va also heard the term "mature" used, suggesting, of course, that anyone who believes in a personal god is immature (though churches seem happy to take their sunday offerings)

[Anonymous]

I'll let the evangelicals and the "serious" or "intellectually mature" believers duke it out for who has the "correct" concept of God, since I don't believe in either version.

Have fun. I'll be over here "not collecting stamps."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster here. We are mixing a bunch of issues here, and I think this conversation would benefit from separating them out.

First, the question about how a God that is not a separate being can have a son (the Trinity question that's been going around). I don't find this idea challenging at all. The God who is not a separate being is all-powerful (I think we can agree that this power is still part of this concept of God), to the point that God created the heavens. the earth, and all the creatures in it including humans. So this idea of an all-powerful God-being is consistent with the idea that God can create another human, a very special human, to give his message to us. (As opposed to the proverbial bolt of lightening and voice from the sky, in the old testament, which works for me too as a way of God giving us his message.) You can believe it or not (I believe it) but I don't think the concept is very challenging from an intellectual standpoint.

It's a separate issue to ask whether this "being" can intervene in our daily lives. I think it's possible for God-being (as opposed to God the guy with a white beard) to intervene in my daily life if he wanted to. Again, this is consistent with my conception of God as an essence is consistent with a God who is endowed with many powers. But I think this is sort of besides the point. This is really a question along the lines of, does God care if the high school football team wins, if they pray before the big game? To me, the answer is, no. God doesn't care if the football team wins; we can't know what God wants, but to me he wants people to love each other, be kind to the poor, et cetera. To me, "walking with God" is more like partaking of the goodness and faith that is his essence, trying to figure out what the Christian response would be in a given situation, and generally trying (not necessarily succeeding, but trying) to share in God's goodness.

I’m a little confused about the god who is not a “separate being” being the same as the god that is “being itself,” but that aside, you seem to know that the non-being is all powerful, created heaven and earth, etc., etc., which sounds a lot like the god in the bible, including that he was capable of sending a very special human here to die for our sins, (pretty much like it says in the New Testament), and that the non-being, did, in fact, send his son for that purpose. I suppose such an all-powerful non-being would be capable of doing anything, so it’s very convenient that he decided to do what’s in the bible. Clearly, according to you, this non-being is a Christian, or at least partial to Christians.

Some of the many things I wonder about this idea, are: How do you know so much about the non-being and its activities and motives? Where did it come from and how can we determine its dependability? How broad is this belief? Is it openly taught in any churches or in Sunday schools? Does it only apply to Christians, or does this non-being exert power over religions too? If so, how does it manifest among Jews or Muslims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I was raised in an evangelical Christian church, and I can tell you that those people believe that God grants wishes, that he is interested in how you did on the test, that Earth was created in 7 24-hour days, that heaven and hell are actual places, etc etc. And these are very, very "serious believers." Catholic theology is much different.

Perhaps "Serious" is not the best word to describe what the previous poster meant -- I'va also heard the term "mature" used, suggesting, of course, that anyone who believes in a personal god is immature (though churches seem happy to take their sunday offerings)

I think rather than "serious believers" the phrase you're looking for is "nearly all believers". If you polled the global population of Christian believers you'd find that those who believe in a big guy in the sky who grants wishes is the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christians. The scholastic theologians like the dude in the video have zero relevance to the Christian on the street--other than to lend a patina of intellectual respectability to the brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I was raised in an evangelical Christian church, and I can tell you that those people believe that God grants wishes, that he is interested in how you did on the test, that Earth was created in 7 24-hour days, that heaven and hell are actual places, etc etc. And these are very, very "serious believers." Catholic theology is much different.

Perhaps "Serious" is not the best word to describe what the previous poster meant -- I'va also heard the term "mature" used, suggesting, of course, that anyone who believes in a personal god is immature (though churches seem happy to take their sunday offerings)

I think rather than "serious believers" the phrase you're looking for is "nearly all believers". If you polled the global population of Christian believers you'd find that those who believe in a big guy in the sky who grants wishes is the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christians. The scholastic theologians like the dude in the video have zero relevance to the Christian on the street--other than to lend a patina of intellectual respectability to the brand.

I agree with your speculation and would like to see the results of such a poll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here. We are mixing a bunch of issues here, and I think this conversation would benefit from separating them out.

First, the question about how a God that is not a separate being can have a son (the Trinity question that's been going around). I don't find this idea challenging at all. The God who is not a separate being is all-powerful (I think we can agree that this power is still part of this concept of God), to the point that God created the heavens. the earth, and all the creatures in it including humans. So this idea of an all-powerful God-being is consistent with the idea that God can create another human, a very special human, to give his message to us. (As opposed to the proverbial bolt of lightening and voice from the sky, in the old testament, which works for me too as a way of God giving us his message.) You can believe it or not (I believe it) but I don't think the concept is very challenging from an intellectual standpoint.

It's a separate issue to ask whether this "being" can intervene in our daily lives. I think it's possible for God-being (as opposed to God the guy with a white beard) to intervene in my daily life if he wanted to. Again, this is consistent with my conception of God as an essence is consistent with a God who is endowed with many powers. But I think this is sort of besides the point. This is really a question along the lines of, does God care if the high school football team wins, if they pray before the big game? To me, the answer is, no. God doesn't care if the football team wins; we can't know what God wants, but to me he wants people to love each other, be kind to the poor, et cetera. To me, "walking with God" is more like partaking of the goodness and faith that is his essence, trying to figure out what the Christian response would be in a given situation, and generally trying (not necessarily succeeding, but trying) to share in God's goodness.

I’m a little confused about the god who is not a “separate being” being the same as the god that is “being itself,” but that aside, you seem to know that the non-being is all powerful, created heaven and earth, etc., etc., which sounds a lot like the god in the bible, including that he was capable of sending a very special human here to die for our sins, (pretty much like it says in the New Testament), and that the non-being, did, in fact, send his son for that purpose. I suppose such an all-powerful non-being would be capable of doing anything, so it’s very convenient that he decided to do what’s in the bible. Clearly, according to you, this non-being is a Christian, or at least partial to Christians.

Some of the many things I wonder about this idea, are: How do you know so much about the non-being and its activities and motives? Where did it come from and how can we determine its dependability? How broad is this belief? Is it openly taught in any churches or in Sunday schools? Does it only apply to Christians, or does this non-being exert power over religions too? If so, how does it manifest among Jews or Muslims?

Good points.

I think the part that offends me is the rhetorical disingenuousness. First the define "God" in such a way that all meaning is removed (I.e. He is nothing more than the quintessence of being itself!). That debate is won, immediately pivot to trying to make claims about how "He" created the universe as a positive act of will; and how he "gave His only begotten Son", etc...

It's as though I claim the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you ask why I'd believe in something so arbitrary, Inreply that the FSM is nothing more nor less than "Love". Well okay then, if that's the case, I believe in the FSM too. Love exists.

And once I get your concession, I immediately start making proclamations about his pants size, and what brand of scotch he favors.

If the theologians want to define God downward to "being" that's fine, but you forfeit all right to make claims about Being's position on same-sex unions, or whether Being prefers the rhythm method to The Pill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I was raised in an evangelical Christian church, and I can tell you that those people believe that God grants wishes, that he is interested in how you did on the test, that Earth was created in 7 24-hour days, that heaven and hell are actual places, etc etc. And these are very, very "serious believers." Catholic theology is much different.

Perhaps "Serious" is not the best word to describe what the previous poster meant -- I'va also heard the term "mature" used, suggesting, of course, that anyone who believes in a personal god is immature (though churches seem happy to take their sunday offerings)

I think rather than "serious believers" the phrase you're looking for is "nearly all believers". If you polled the global population of Christian believers you'd find that those who believe in a big guy in the sky who grants wishes is the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christians. The scholastic theologians like the dude in the video have zero relevance to the Christian on the street--other than to lend a patina of intellectual respectability to the brand.

I disagree with the first part (the majority of believers think God is an actual big guy in the sky) and agree with the second part (God grants wishes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think rather than "serious believers" the phrase you're looking for is "nearly all believers". If you polled the global population of Christian believers you'd find that those who believe in a big guy in the sky who grants wishes is the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christians. The scholastic theologians like the dude in the video have zero relevance to the Christian on the street--other than to lend a patina of intellectual respectability to the brand.

I disagree with the first part (the majority of believers think God is an actual big guy in the sky) and agree with the second part (God grants wishes).

Well, he's your God, so he can do whatever you think he can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here. We are mixing a bunch of issues here, and I think this conversation would benefit from separating them out.

First, the question about how a God that is not a separate being can have a son (the Trinity question that's been going around). I don't find this idea challenging at all. The God who is not a separate being is all-powerful (I think we can agree that this power is still part of this concept of God), to the point that God created the heavens. the earth, and all the creatures in it including humans. So this idea of an all-powerful God-being is consistent with the idea that God can create another human, a very special human, to give his message to us. (As opposed to the proverbial bolt of lightening and voice from the sky, in the old testament, which works for me too as a way of God giving us his message.) You can believe it or not (I believe it) but I don't think the concept is very challenging from an intellectual standpoint.

It's a separate issue to ask whether this "being" can intervene in our daily lives. I think it's possible for God-being (as opposed to God the guy with a white beard) to intervene in my daily life if he wanted to. Again, this is consistent with my conception of God as an essence is consistent with a God who is endowed with many powers. But I think this is sort of besides the point. This is really a question along the lines of, does God care if the high school football team wins, if they pray before the big game? To me, the answer is, no. God doesn't care if the football team wins; we can't know what God wants, but to me he wants people to love each other, be kind to the poor, et cetera. To me, "walking with God" is more like partaking of the goodness and faith that is his essence, trying to figure out what the Christian response would be in a given situation, and generally trying (not necessarily succeeding, but trying) to share in God's goodness.

I’m a little confused about the god who is not a “separate being” being the same as the god that is “being itself,” but that aside, you seem to know that the non-being is all powerful, created heaven and earth, etc., etc., which sounds a lot like the god in the bible, including that he was capable of sending a very special human here to die for our sins, (pretty much like it says in the New Testament), and that the non-being, did, in fact, send his son for that purpose. I suppose such an all-powerful non-being would be capable of doing anything, so it’s very convenient that he decided to do what’s in the bible. Clearly, according to you, this non-being is a Christian, or at least partial to Christians.

Some of the many things I wonder about this idea, are: How do you know so much about the non-being and its activities and motives? Where did it come from and how can we determine its dependability? How broad is this belief? Is it openly taught in any churches or in Sunday schools? Does it only apply to Christians, or does this non-being exert power over religions too? If so, how does it manifest among Jews or Muslims?

Sunday schools do not teach that God is a big guy in the sky. Why are you so hostile to the idea that believers can imagine God as anything but an old white dude with a beard? I'm here to tell you that the vast majority of believers don't buy into the big-guy-in-the-sky image. You're problem is this: you're confusing (a) the big guy in the sky with (b) "God will answer all of my prayers", and here I will agree with you that many believers think that if they pray for the football team's victory, God (as spirit/essence, not as sky-daddy) actually cares and will pick winners. It's fine that you don't believe in God, but you need to sort these distinct issues out so that when you challenge believers, you are actually saying something relevant as opposed to just demonstrating that you are misinformed.

Your first paragraph seems almost entirely illogical, and I'm talking about your rhetorical (arguing/expressing) problems not your misconceptions about religion. This is surprising for someone who claims to be grounded in reason. You snark about how it's "very convenient" that "he decided to do what's in the bible" which means "this non-being is a Christian." I'm not sure where to start with your logic, but basically you're confusing cause and effect here: the Bible was written after God took the actions that it records. Finally, you seem to be accusing me of believing "this non-being is a Christian". I am indeed a Christian, so your accusation doesn't bug me. What bugs me is the confused point you seem to be trying to make, by smooshing your accusation into the same para with your "very convenient" snark. Clearly, your hatred of Christians has clouded your ability to see that the first part of the Bible is shared by Jews, and that many of the events in the Bible are also in the Quran, sometimes in slightly different form. The point is, these holy books record God's many actions that are important to Jews and Muslims, so you can't write any of these holy books off as mere "convenience" or coincidence that Christians deceive themselves with. SMH.

And a final point: yes, it's true: Muslims, Jews and Christians believe different things about God. Which is fine. And it's fine that you don't believe in God. Just try to put away your knee-jerk hostility, because your hair-trigger accusations reveal your ignorance and also prevent you from even arguing basic concepts logically.

Anyway. I doubt you're interested in having an actual discussion. Judging by the lack of thought you put into your questions, and the silliness of your accusations, I'm pretty sure you're just throwing cr@p out there hoping something might stick. Good night, I won't be returning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good points.

I think the part that offends me is the rhetorical disingenuousness. First the define "God" in such a way that all meaning is removed (I.e. He is nothing more than the quintessence of being itself!). That debate is won, immediately pivot to trying to make claims about how "He" created the universe as a positive act of will; and how he "gave His only begotten Son", etc...

It's as though I claim the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you ask why I'd believe in something so arbitrary, Inreply that the FSM is nothing more nor less than "Love". Well okay then, if that's the case, I believe in the FSM too. Love exists.

And once I get your concession, I immediately start making proclamations about his pants size, and what brand of scotch he favors.

If the theologians want to define God downward to "being" that's fine, but you forfeit all right to make claims about Being's position on same-sex unions, or whether Being prefers the rhythm method to The Pill.

How is it disingenuous to think of God in a way that actually makes sense? It's not. The problem is, you don't believe in God. Bully for you. But people are different. You need to learn to accept that some people have belief, and it's a good thing that some people are different from you. (A really good thing....)

[Anonymous]

How is it disingenuous to think of God in a way that actually makes sense? It's not. [\quote]

It's not disingenuous to say that God is "the essence of being" and that it is something infinite that sits outside of existence, and claim that, because of that, the existence of God can't be challenged. Because that's a true statement.

I cannot prove, via any means at my disposal, that there is not such a thing. That concept of God is pretty much invulnerable to science, because that concept of God is completely disconnected from our physical universe. It is the last hideaway for the concept of God as some kind of physical motivator of the universe (ie, the idea that a deity makes the seasons happen, the weather, etc. - all of which have been explained by science).

However, to then pivot and claim that deity is also specifically responsible for everything described in the Bible and that it actively receives our prayers and wants our devotion and worship, that's the disingenuous step.

But, as I've said before, as soon as you start discussing something supernatural and magical, all logical bets are off. If you want to believe in an entity that is simultaneously infinite, inconceivable and indescribable, and sits outside the physical realm of our existence, but that also allegedly (and jealously) wants the worship of beings like us, that's your business.

And if you want to go through the tortured steps to try to make that logically consistent with the physical reality of the universe around you, that's your business.

But it's no less illogical than Xenu or the Golden Plates of the Book of Mormon.

If you want to believe and have faith and comport yourself accordingly, that's your business and I support your right to do so.

[Anonymous]

Dammit. Wrong slash.

[Anonymous]

OK, let's drop the "big guy in the sky" language for a minute, because I've only heard that to deride a simplistic concept of God.

Let's use language actually heard during church services, like "God in Heaven" and the Nicence Creed, with its numerous mentions of heaven, including Jesus ascending into heaven to sit at the right hand of the father.

and think of all the references to our heavenly father in the hymns

Maybe the only way for "serious" people of faith to take this is metaphorically, but I don't think many people hear about that in church or are taught that in sunday school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, let's drop the "big guy in the sky" language for a minute, because I've only heard that to deride a simplistic concept of God.

Let's use language actually heard during church services, like "God in Heaven" and the Nicence Creed, with its numerous mentions of heaven, including Jesus ascending into heaven to sit at the right hand of the father.

and think of all the references to our heavenly father in the hymns

Maybe the only way for "serious" people of faith to take this is metaphorically, but I don't think many people hear about that in church or are taught that in sunday school.

And I think there's more than a smattering of contempt for the vast majority of believers here as well. At least as an atheist, I think they're wrong, but sort of thoughtlessly buying into what they've been taught since childhood.

The "real believers" seem to have an even greater contempt for them--refusing to even admit they're "real" Christian.