Reply to Theology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Theology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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 [i]if he wanted to.  [/i]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.[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics