I don’t understand why you all hate God. Why don’t you believe He exists? I read in an earlier message that the Bible is filled with historical errors. Actually, it is very historically accurate. Christianity has been around since the beginning of time - it just didn’t have the name Christianity. The belief in God was the very first religion, until man sinned.
-COG
Connect with other Pastafarians
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
RSS Feeds
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
oposum
Is right there is the same amout of evidence that god is really exist or is it just fsm, it can even be an icecream crapping taco for all i know. i know one thing thought…MAN CREATED GOD NOT GOD CREATED MAN. just like oposum hell is just to scare you into beliving that god exist and the church gets monye from gov. and donations jews christans and mulims are way better then sincetolgly and inteligant disingh shit. all the religons to me seem like a load of shit.FSM is the best. becuse he can kick your gods ASS. remember… MAN CREATED GOD NOT GOD CREATED MAN! RAMEN!
-R.A.S
he should go stick his hand into a buring bush a see what happens i know what happens. YOU WILL BURN YOUR FUCKING HAND OFF THE BIBLE IS FLAWED.
The best hatemail comes from people who have no idea what they’re talking about.
I don’t know who created this site or for what readon this site was created but all i know is that you are trying to imply that people cannot prove the spaghetti wateva monster does not exist. Although noone can really prove a negative unless maybe scientifically. But as for proving God exists, noone can really prove that. Just the same as someone cannot prove to a blind person that the moon and the stars are really there. Just as a blind man cannot see the moon and the stars, there fore a spiritually blind person cannot be led to proof that God exists. simply because they are blind to it and they can’t see. Its all about FAITH.
zach- love you. however, jesus wasn’t born 2008 years ago. he was created about 1650 years ago. you know somewhere around there when constantine needed to find a way to save the failing rome, at the concil of neici (or however the fuck it is spelled). ask a christian about that shit. bet they won’t know…
brendan: Show me a Bible verse that says Judaism was the first religion and I’ll believe you. As far as I know, there is none. And Christians do believe in one God, but that there are different ways to think about God, and that God has shown himself to people in different ways over time (as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). I would love to explain this to you in more detail if you want, but if you just like to complain about Christianity and don’t care if you know what the heck you’re talking about, I won’t waste my time.
.
KraftDinner: In my opinion, that’s a valid thought. No one should claim they know everything about the Bible and what its authors wanted readers to get out of it.
.
I’ll be back soon to reply to more…
Darkcitymedia.
You have twice (so far) referred to peoples inability to read the messages your are posting (”You obviously have trouble reading because….” and “I don’t know if you understand English, but that”).
Now, I don’t want to be pedantic but unfortunately it’s in my nature so here goes. Don’t you think you should learn to write properly? So that people don’t give up reading your posts through sheer frustration at the twisted misspelled rant you seem to favour? I can almost see the spittle leaving your lips as you shout out your desperate defence for what is essentially your imaginary friend.
A few mistakes here and there are to be expected, but a tiny bit of proof reading and maybe a little thought (if you haven’t used it all up “challenging” your faith) would enable you to express your ideas in a manner which is easy to read and properly communicative.
A quick comment on fundamentalism before I go. You say “By 2030, Fundamentalism will be all but gone from this earth because just as many Christians are sick of it as Atheists and non-Christians”. Well, you’re fundamentally wrong. Fundamentalism only exists because of religion. If you insist that there is an unquestionable truth i.e God, then you have all the ingredients to create a fundamentalist. God is the framework on which people who are afraid of death hang their rather sad little delusional curtains to block the rather fantastic truth of life. We got lucky! We won the lottery and we’ve got about 70 years to make the most of it. Then it’s over. Ever wonder why you can’t remember Ancient Egypt? It’s because you didn’t exist then, and this state of affairs will be reinstated when you cease to exist again. Why do you people have such a difficult time figuring this out?
Erm, can’t be arsed to carry on for now.
Daniel: I’m not sure who you’re saying calls him/herself a Christian, but I do so I’d like to respond. I don’t call myself a Christian because I want to be grouped with any particular type of person. I worship Jesus, and that is all I mean by using the word “Christian”. It is unreasonable to prefer that people not assume more about me because of this one label? As for the rest of your post, I’m a little confused as to what you’re trying to prove. Just because the New Testament was probably not written before 50 AD doesn’t make it worthy of complete dismissal. None of what you said “disproves” Christianity in any way, if that’s what you’re attempting to do.
.
Blackbard: You said, “It is unreasonable to maintain that when people are good, it is attributable to their religion, while when they are bad, it is the fault of human evil.” I agree with this; I don’t think I ever said that good qualities in people are all due to religion. About half my family is not religious but they are still great people.
.
“I view all “True Believers” as the problem. Anyone who claims to have “The Truth” should not be trusted. He/she is the most dangerous.” Why do you assume that one cannot know the truth? By saying this, aren’t you claiming to know the truth?
.
I agree with most of the rest of your post and I don’t want to debate just for the sake of debating. I just don’t think that a person’s religion should be immediately blamed for that person’s rudeness (or anything else you don’t like), when it could be due to any number of things (bad parenting, for example).
.
Nudemonkei: “There is a real higher power, and this power is not represented in ANY
currently accepted ‘HOLY’ documents.” Wow. I’m curious as to what authority you have to say this…?
.
TheMaskedAvenger: Christianity isn’t just about Jesus’ teachings.
.
OPosum: “We have the same amount of evidence for existance of Jesus as for existance of FSM.” No you don’t. There are historical records of Jesus’ life as a man on earth. You can choose not to believe them, but they actually exist. You can claim the FSM was sighted by Henderson, but this is just one person claiming to have seen God. If you had said, “We have the same amount of evidence for the existence of the Christian God as for the existence of FSM”, that would have been valid.
.
“If your parents were brainwashing you since you were born with religion, it’s really hard to see something beyond things you were brainwashed to see.” You’re probably not talking to me here, but neither of my parents believes in God (as far as I know). I became a Christian at age 15. You’re not the only one who thinks.
Rachel
Mar 16th, 2008 at 9:23 am
brendan: Show me a Bible verse that says Judaism was the first religion and I’ll believe you. As far as I know, there is none.
*
Ever read the old testament?? Quite a few verses in there I believe…
*
But then I never specialised in religious history, but I do know I read of quite a few religions pre-dating both judaism and therefore christianity. They just were wiped out before our time, that’s all.
James,
There is no need to apologize for your cursing. This is a topic which is both fueled and contaminated by the passion of our knowledge and beliefs, so people are bound to become disgruntled.
I have to agree with you, James, that thought conditioning is applied throughout many Christian denominations. Just understand that there are Christians, who are working towards restoring that which has been taken and can be restored and believe me when I say there are more Christians working towards restoration than you’ll ever know.
Christian doctrine across the board has been going through gradual changes over the past decade, but since we’re combating 400 years of extreme thought conditioning, it can’t be restored overnight. An example of these changes would be the Azusa Street Pentecostals, who are the fastest growing denomination. 10 years ago they were preaching mono-righteousness, burning books, ordering their members to not own TV’s, listen to any music that wasn’t authored by pentecostals, ordering their women to never cut their hair, never wear any pants or dresses cut above the knee, while ordering their men to remain clean shaven, never wear shorts, tank tops, and keep their hair trimmed.
Now they are advocating Buddhism, removed their ban on literature, while teaching that their religious beliefs aren’t the only religious beliefs which should be deemed as holy.
So understand that you’re not the only people combating the oppression of fundamentalism, there are many Christians who are in the battle next to you and to see this, all you have to do is turn your head.
Robert,
Clearly the FSM message has reached the inbred colonies of the West Virginian Appalachian Mountains.
Justme,
This site is centered around the constitutional amendments & US citizens right to not have their children subjected to religious ideology that they don’t practice or believe.
Usually I rip into naive Christians who attack this site and it’s community members, but I can tell that you had the good intentions with your post. So my advice is that you look into the ideals of this FSM further and understand that just like Christians, the vast majority of community members here are good and friendly people with a bad apple here or there.
This conflict isn’t fueled by personal belief, it’s fueled by misconception and misunderstanding.
Jessica,
What was the point of referencing an offshoot of trivial knowledge that the general public normally wouldn’t know?
Rachel,
Well this really isn’t to Rachel, but rather to everyone in this comment thread who’re arguing over which religion was first. So allow me to put an end to this debate for you…
The eldest documented religion is “Vedas.”
Vedas is the Ancient Indian which evolved into Hindu Dharmaism. Followed by Egyptian Polytheism & Zoomorphism.
Some have argued that Egyptian Polytheism was crafted as a delivery system for Egyptian laws of the time, but there is ritual practice, celestial icons/deities, and pantheons of devotion. Therefore it does meet the criterion standard of being called a “religion.”
Both Vedas and Egyptian Polytheism appeared 3000 years before Judaism.
Dave,
LoL! Write properly? I think that it’s best to address your comment separately, rather than my usual format of confederated replies.
Don’t try to sell or beg to be excused from your pedagogue intentions as being merely the result of your biochemical make-up.
You clearly mean to be pedantic & if that is your chosen vehicle of disputation, that is fine by my own standards, because I ignore context and acknowledge substance. With that being said, the next time that you wish to published a pseudo and ostentatious remark, don’t insult our intelligence by packaging your deign remarks in the mountebank gift wrap of an amicable suggestion or friendly advice. It’s the tactic of intellectual cowards who’re trying to establish cerebral preeminence through the use of indignant barbs, while avoiding the confrontational consequence that normally would result. Plus, targeting irrelevant issues such as compositional structures and making unsolicited edits is fairly deplorable.
It seems that the vast majority have no problem with comprehension because there is nothing wrong with my 1st draft writing and grammar. While the origins of the incomprehensible burden is native to their own short comings. Further more, when typographical errors can be found, anyone with a grade school education could decipher the original intent, so who cares? It’s not like I can go back and edit my comments, nor do I intend to spend time proof reading casual posts which generate no income, especially when the vast majority of my posts are authored while I’m working. Therefore my occupation siphon the vast majority of my time and rightfully so.
Now as far as your point on fundamentalism is concerned. I’m sorry to break this to you, but you’re wrong. There has been a multi-denominational coalition working together for over a decade with the sole purpose of restoring a basic criterion of original teachings. Further more, your expressed rationale which led to your conclusion is in itself both faulty and presumptuous, because it’s based on a universal interpretation and doctrine that doesn’t exist in a multi-denominational structure.
The progress being made in the Restoration Movement is a gradual and carefully considered, because we’re combating over 400 years of extreme thought conditioning & 400 years is plenty of time for that which is second nature to the father and mother, to mutate into a biochemical disposition, thus we’re combating concrete zealotry that is fortified by chromosomal predetermination.
What this means is that it is impossible to make a complete restructuring without losing the vast majority of our congregation to Fundamentalism, because as we all know individually humans are intellectually lucid, but together the instinctive herd mentality takes precedent. Even so, great progress has been made since the introduction of the Restoration Movement just over 200 years ago & now that an official organized alliance has been made inside the social boundaries of the Christian community, the kind of changes that have been made over the past decade far exceeds any liberal expectations and educated forecast, so the end of organized Fundamentalism (with the exception of small independent sects.) by 2030 is a very real prognostication.
Assumptions that are absent of research and rationale are far more dangerous than any creation of man. You should heed those words.
ummm christianity has not existed since the beginning of time dumbass, according to the bible there were jews that converted because jesus was born dumbass but according to logic atheism came 1st then when man was confused they made explanations saying “it was god”
Rachel (quoting from your post on 3/16/08),
.
“Blackbard: You said, “It is unreasonable to maintain that when people are good, it is attributable to their religion, while when they are bad, it is the fault of human evil.” I agree with this; I don’t think I ever said that good qualities in people are all due to religion.”
.
True, you didn’t say that good qualities are all due to religion. But you did say on March 9th, “Yes, Christians have done terrible things in the name of their religion. This is not the fault of Christianity itself (which is clearly a nonviolent religion), but the fault of human evil.”
.
This is where we disagree. My point was and is that some evil things people have done have been as a result of their religion, not in spite of it.
.
You said, quoting me, “I view all “True Believers” as the problem. Anyone who claims to have “The Truth” should not be trusted. He/she is the most dangerous.” Why do you assume that one cannot know the truth? By saying this, aren’t you claiming to know the truth?
.
No. Without going too far into epistemology, let me just say that “True Believers” are beyond questioning. The possession of “The Truth” ends inquiry. No contrary evidence is possible. In the “True Believers” view those who question “The Truth” are heretics who must either be denied or eliminated. What I am saying is that stifling inquiry is a bad thing. That is why “True Believers” are evil.
.
You said, “I just don’t think that a person’s religion should be immediately blamed for that person’s rudeness (or anything else you don’t like), when it could be due to any number of things (bad parenting, for example).”
.
Neither do I. Context is a necessary component in order to know the source of a person’s behavior. If someone cuts me off in traffic, I would not blame their religion. However, if someone uninvited comes to my door with the intent to convert me to his/her religion, that is not the fault of “bad parenting.” That is the fault of his/her religion, unless you include religious indoctrination in your definition of “bad parenting.”
.
Of course, there are more momentous things to be concerned with than the small annoyance of someone at the door, but I maintian that some very bad things that people have done were clearly only a direct result of their religion.
.
RAmen
(smacks forehead)…Is this guy serious? Please say this guy is a troll…
In all accuracy, while the Hebrew faith does claim to be the first religion in existence, this must be analytically taken with a grain of salt, as it cites as evidence its own holy book, rather than externally verifiable information sources. In fact, the farther back one traces human spirituality, the more gods are part of the embraced, popular belief, right up to the earliest faiths… various tribal forms of animism, which asserted that every living thing has a holy spirit.
With that in mind, the advancement of religion would best indicate that faiths that evade the issue of a deity altogether are most likely to be the core of the religions of the future.
i BELIEVE I BELIVE I BELIEVE
Look, you were an atheist when you were born.
From there, it’s what religion you were raised to believe, were introduced to, or some form of faith you invented yourself.
Some religions are good at organizing some people in a positive way, but all are a poor substitute for complete intellectual freedom and attaining a genuine care for your fellow human. Buddhism excepted, perhaps.
It is my hope that someday people finally cast off the shackles of religion and realize as humans we only have ourselves and our planet to create a “heaven” for us to live in during our short lives. Unfortunately it takes a lot of courage and a slightly higher intellect to do so in our age; most people are not up to the challenge yet. Eventually, not in our lifetimes, with open communication like the internet and guaranteed free speech such as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, will this inevitably come to fruition.
you are all way off on this it comes down to one man dying for the sins of every person in the world becuse god loved us so much he sent his inly begotten son that who ever belive will not parish but have etarnal life for crist was not sent to condmem the world but to save it if you havw any qustions or comments my email is irishleprechaun_36@msn.com
ps im sry for the really bad spelling
to Red DutchPasta Wench/ rachel umm in the beging there was no relgion it was only one man who belvied in god then one man one woman who belived in god then came sin and after sin came religons and others after that
For god sake, figuritavely speaking, because neither Judaism or christianity were around at the beginning of time, firstly it took a long timefor the known lifeforms to emerge which is fact and if you dont believe it tough. secondly people worshipped phenomena not a one true god, people praised the rising of the sun the flowing of the rivers and so forth, Egyptians were around long before everyone else i believe