FedUpAmerican

I already did my homework. This is a lot more fun than homework anyways...

 

FedUp just wants to question the way people believe in things, nothing wrong with that, just like in the politics forum when people are like "dude, how the fuck can you believe in that"

However, the Christian forum really has gone from people discussing their religion and answering general questions to having to defend it almost, which is why I still support this idea:
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187580&page=1&pp=10

 

I have to agree with you there.

 

I love reading threads and responses made by FedUp. He has made me laugh on a few occasions. Right now I'm just starting to find my "spritual path" and I really hope that I will be able to ask some of the hard questions that FedUp asks of others.

The only thing that disturbs me the most is that picture of Bush. I just know that finger is going straight into his mouth when no one is watching.

 

Is that what he does to you?

 

No, it is that you will stake a side of an ontological indeterminancy and ask folks to proove or disapprove that. When most often you are extrapolating conclusions from the miniscule data as badly as the myth believers are. I am not a believer, but I have quickly come to have no respect for the trash that you mete out to those who are.
You use the handle "FedupAmerican," as many of us Americans are Fed Up including myself, by the religious right, and the abuses of power they have promulgated. But I refuse to trample the beliefs of others for personal glee the way you seem to. I have noticed since you have started with your arrogant tripe on this message board...many of the other "Christian" voices have faded away. I guess in that aspect you have won...or atleast you feel that you have, but I suspect it is a pretty shitty victory at so meager a price.

 

I don't dispute the facts. It is the implied conclusions that you jump to that are as improvable as the views of the believers. As i have stated i agree with the vast majority of what you post EXCEPT the implied conclusions. An ontological indeterminancy is a belief or view that can neither be proven or disproven by the facts or artifacts at hand. Ontological Indeterminancies pervade religion, religious critics and anthropology. In a word some things cannot be proven or disproven.
To take from another thread...All of what is known about Jesus is heresay...correct. Therefore, all the religious claims about jesus are wrong (implied in later posts)...wrong...simply not provable by any standards. Common sense says this things are myths (YOURS and MINE) but we simply cannot pull the evidence out of the ground to do so. There was no mass of evidence pulled out of historical the writtings to justify these beliefs but regardless there is no reliable concrete evidence to refute the claims either. Thus ontological indeterminancy.
Modern Biblical critisism such as the reliance on the "Q" document theory, the undiscovered "sayings of Christ" document and so on, are all just theories. I intellectually support them but understand, as do the authors of these theories, that until evidence is found that concretely proves them, they are just theories.
The ancients believed that the book Of Mathew was the first gospel written. They believed that it was written by Mathew for a Jewish audience in Judea or Jerusalem and was a first person account of the life of Jesus. They believed that Mark and Luke were second hand accounts and John was always open to a bit of disagreement. This view of the primacy of Mathew was held BEFORE the end of the first centuary by the entire christian world.
The modern view of Mark being the first gospel written is a view that is substantiated by modern theory alone and that none of the gospels were first hand accounts.
How does anyone prove either view 2000 years after the event with no hard physical evidence at hand to back either view?
These are facts. The implied conclusion of what I just wrote is that these things are improvable. You are guilty of the same kind of logic without admitting openly that half of what you write is implied conclussion and that half is simply improvable by any standard...yours or mine.
The difference is that I am honest about it and you are not. One cannot prove the things that you argue simply because there is often no way to prove it...and if there were you would not accept the evidence anyway. You profess the worst kind of argument and debate and that style is based on arrogance and a form of closed mindedness that is as nausiating as world view of the Fundamentalist that we both despise.
Finally the one thing that you posed that is correct is that your posts get people thinking. Unfortunately from what i have read from all the counter posts to yours is that the one thing that most people get to thinking is that you are an ass. Most of these folks seem to be 'FedUP with FedUp.'
I bet you live a lonely life.

 

He's obviously got issues.

Whether they are with people in general, with himself, with Christianity, with the world... whatever, he has them. Maybe he has friends, but if so, they probably have issues as well.

I'm not even a Christian and this guy bugs me.

 

If you imply no conclusions then you need to read the first few lines of your new thread where you conclude that jebus must have been a self impossed eunech. If you are not implying it then where is your documentation to prove it other than your twisted and weird imagination.

 

That is just it. You and I BELIEVE that these are fictional claims and common sense says that they are fictional claims BUT we don't have actual concrete proof of that either. Our view is just as much conjecture, however common sense it may be, as the myth believers conjecture. I do not believe that jebus raised anyone from the dead...and yet I have NO WITNESS or EVIDENCE AT HAND that I can proove that with. My OPINION is no more provable than a believers opinion.
When you place your opinion as fact and ask others to disprove it you are being obsurd. Remember, I actually agree with you but I have to be intellectually honest when it comes to facts and honest debate. Opinion is not debate.

 

You also use the word 'PATHETIC' alot when you disagree with folks, and not just when you disagree with me. It seems to me that you have some serious personal problems with visions of grandeur to be able to deem anyone that argues with you as "pathetic.' I started to list the number of times that you have pulled the word out of your limited lexicon but decided that I had better things to do with my pathetic life.

 

I think that if we were to take a straw pole as to the number of folks here that are 'FedUp' with Fed up you might just find that I am correct.

 

Wait, what is this argument about again?