2008:Noah's Ark FOUND? Who Was informed?

[Orin]

You edited my post when I did not break the rules? That's poor form and abuse of moderating powers. You owe me an apology.

You did not ask my permission to quote me out of context. I would be happy to remove them and give you warn points if you did that to someone else and they reported it. Seeing as it's my quotes you cut up I didn't give you any points.

 

[PhilinYuma]

My own constricted view of the world has blinded me to the fact that while many members have expressed a credo, Orin's tacit but unmistakable and Henry's explicit, I have not done so, and I am sure that many of you must have been waiting eagerly for such a statement.

I have never seen anyrthing to make me suppose that there is a god, let alone a minority (in terms of worship by population) one like the Christian Yaweh/Jehovah. Nor do i suppose that the universe is controlled by an "intelligence". Intelligence is hugely overated and has caused much more harm on earth than any other source. I find the god of the OT to be disgusting and that of the NT nothing more than the owner of a travelling faith healing show who made obviously false (e.g. "the kingdom of god is at hand") prophecies and was rescued from well deserved obscurity by Saul of Tarsus ("no mean cirty") who explicitly supported slavery, and later by Henry's favorite, Constantine and his mom.

So how do I see eternity? I don't. On my death , I expct to enter "that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns". But I have a cop out. If I am wrong, a few of my molecules will hang around until Sunny, The Kid, dies. Our molecules will then hook up and we'll hang out, talk our heads off and maybe catch a show on the Food Channel.

What's that? No I AM NOT JOKING. What is the stronger love, the love of a slave (euphemistically "servant") for his master or a sheep for his shepherd, or that for someone who has your back and knows that you have his/hers?

Edit: Yay! This thread is now in triple digits!

 

[Precarious]

You did not supply evidence, you supplied unrelated quotes and hype about hidden gospels that don't exist in the way you portray them. I explained that you misunderstand the multiple names and of course you couldn't counter with an explanation for the many names of Jesus. I also offered you the most compelling evidence that the God of the Old Testament and New are not so different. You don't attack the substance but rather focus on a misplaced word here or there in your attack. In your quote above you made up a sentence I did not write and put it in quotes as though I said it. That is extreme dishonesty. You should apologize.

Interesting. I'm not relying on any hidden gospels per se. I said these ideas have been around since the beginning. That's a big difference from using or sighting a specific text. I merely mentioned there were many rejected from the official canon to express why there may be info outside of it worth pursuing.

Or: Obey the WORD of people much holier and much smarter than your lowly self. I mean, who are you to decide what does or doesn't make sense to you, ya serf? I mean it's only your eternal soul at stake, right? <- WARNING: self-righteous, Papal-inspired humor

So I'm not sure what you're trying to say by all that. But it is apparent you haven't studied the Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi. And why would you? The devil probably planted them in that cave to test your faith. Just like them darn dinosaur bones! OK, low blow. Sorry.

And to state the Gnostic tradition is undocumented is slightly more than a little nuts. Yes, it was forced underground for almost 2,000 years so adherents weren't burned at the stake by our wise and fair Papal overlords. (I missed that commandment: Thou shalt burn all witches!) But there is plenty of documentation of their writings and theology, which was really very advanced in too many ways to mention here. Elaine Pagels has written some really good books on the subject, for instance The Gnostic Gospels, and all you need to do is a search to find info if you don't want to waste money on getting an education.

Your comment about Jesus being called by various names was hardly a rebuttal. More like putting words in my mouth. All the sun-inspired accolades of course go to Jesus (i.e. light of the world). After all, he is the solar hero in the story. And oddly enough Jehovah gets all the darkness references. Oops! There goes my silly brain putting two-and-two together again.

Old Testament

"And the people stood far off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was."

Exodus 20:21

New Testament

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

1 John 1:5

Hmmm... :whistling:

But anyway... We are talking about the difference between descriptive accolades vs proper names. Jesus Christ is a proper name. Light of the World is an accolade. Likewise, Satan and Beelzebul are obviously proper names.

And saying that the New Testament God sacrificed his son in order to redeem all of mankind can hardly be compared with dashing the heads of children, raping women, and committing genocide against the whole world. In fact, you could say it is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of that! Jeeze...

No problem, for you first question read post #73. Jesus said "I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets." but Precarious was not concerned with what Jesus said but rather a perceived difference in personality and that is what was addressed.

You need to go back and look. That quote is not included in post 73. Would have been nice though. That's what I'm looking for. Actual rebuttal.

I'm guessing your quote was intended to be:

"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Matthew 5:17

Which is a very wishful mistranslation contained in the New Living Translation (©2007). Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the year 2007! :blink:

Here is a more accurate translation from the King James Bible (Cambridge Ed. 1611):

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Matthew 5:17

And that is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, people. Tweak it to imply what you want it to say and forget what it really said. See that's why I check all passages at http://bible.cc.

First of all, You are offering a modern translation intended to twist the meaning of the original text. BAD ON YOU!

Concerning the original text, Jesus taught tolerance and wanted mankind to have the opportunity to choose to follow the path of light or darkness, so he had no intention of destroying existing religions. His mission was to turn us away from evil by our own choice, not force us by destroying what came before like the Church decided to do. Secondly, this is by no means a glowing endorsement of Jehovah or the Old Testament. He's merely saying he didn't come to destroy the law or the prophets. It's quite a leap of logic to say that means he is the son of Jehovah and thinks you should hold the old covenant as sacred. And third he's talking about fulfilling prophecy which came from prophets, not Jehovah.

For your second question it is not an error. He made up a fake quote and placed it in quotation marks "...", post #92.

Now it is you who needs to be told to grow up. It is common practice to compile the gist of another's words into quotations. But to be nice I will fully apologize.

Did you hear that everybody? I'm sorry! Orin never said those things. He only implied them. Very implicitly and clearly, but he never said the actual words. :surrender:

But don't blame me. The Devil made me do it! :devil: Or maybe Satan. Possibly Lucifer or Beelzebul. Whatever...I'm pretty sure he had horns. Um, now I'm confused. Was it Batman? :batman:

 

[Orin]

No problem. :donatello:

 

[Peter Clausen]

Since we're all sharing...

I have no need to believe there is any God. It's fun to think about for a minute or two, but life is too short to spend much time inside the mind when there is so much in the natural world to observe. It's just not nearly as interesting to me to play make believe. For this same reason, I don't much like to "escape" by watching movies. Escapism in general is slightly uncomfortable for me and I find myself just wanting to get back to my reality. When it comes to anything paranormal, my BS meter runs hot.

If somebody wants to devote a seventh of their life to understanding the subject or many years reading about the similarities of the thousand religions human cultures have created, that's their prerogative (at least in this country). We've left many of history's misconceptions in the dust, as science has explained mystery after mystery. I personally see no reason to create (use the imagination) explanations for anything when we have a scientific methodology for understanding them. What we can't prove now, we can usually compartmentalize and offer a very likely scientific explanation for that future scientists will continue to work on. It's okay to know that we don't know everything. We are smart enough to admit we've got a lot to learn still. Scientists live for such mysteries.There doesn't have to be an answer to everything right now. Most certainly, though, the answer is not "God created this and everything". Anybody who gives that answer to any question is doing the opposite of what science aims to do. Think, learn, solve and build on our knowledge. The God explanation is a default switch that (some) people throw when they do not know the answer to a question. It is the easy way out, frankly. God and religion were probably important survival tactics for us at points in the past (or by-products of them), but their usefulness wanes now, as they continue to create more division than unity (see some parts of this thread).

Most people don't like reality. I am personally, plenty interested and amused and satisfied with my own interaction with nature (and human nature, mine and others'). When the J. Witnesses knock on my door twice a year, they stare at me with mouths open when I tell them I am perfectly happy without God. They cannot conceive of how that can be. But it is true. They almost seem to shudder when I say it. They look at each other, perhaps for reassurance, or perhaps to see if maybe it is a good time to leave before lightning bolts strike the porch. But yes, I am completely happy without their God or any God. It's a really curious thing to know they are human beings, seemingly convinced that their way is the right and only way and to see and know that they are very, very sincerely sad for my current and eternal existence. It is truly odd to me. And it is sad that ten houses on one block can have such disparate views on a subject we've all thought about since the beginning...of thought. And it can incite so much hatred and divisiveness!

I went through my ten year Art Bell phase with a very open mind, put my time in and got out. An open mind isn't something many religious people ever have, on account of being born into a particular religion. Well, it's not!

Space in general bores me in comparison to what we have right here at our fingertips. I don't have any questions about aliens or God or ghosts. Life on other planets? I'm sure somebody is going to classify a new mantis species on December 21st, 2012 while survivalists are holed up in caves waiting for the Mayan apocalypse or whatever. I don't even have any questions left for the people that believe in such things.

The burden of proof is on believers, but they don't have to prove anything to me. They can't. They don't even prove anything to themselves. They admittedly make facts on faith and wait for their everlasting reward, selling their consciences for a false hope. And I don't have to prove anything to them. The whole question of God is ridiculous. I don't consider myself an atheist because the whole question of God's existence is embarrassingly silly to me. To be labeled (an atheist) as a non-believer of something that doesn't exist in the first place is just plain silly and is really rather offensive. Many atheists take pride in the term, but I feel it is mostly used for derogatory categorical purposes by "non-atheists". Seriously, why am I ever going to consider having faith in one of a thousand religions that this planet has created and call the other 999 wrong? That's offensive. I mean, you can't be right about your religion or it makes everybody else wrong. Any person who says other religions are wrong is being offensive. At best, the nicest thing you can do (assuming nice is a goal) is to say "I'm not sure about the other 999". Of course, you can always learn about them. It's interesting also to consider how many people lived in times BC. So clearly, any person adopted as a child into another country with a different religion is likely to adopt the beliefs of the new country. Odd? Curious? Yes.

As a teenager, there was a point where my social circle included but was not limited to a Muslim, Hindu, Chinese Christian, a Mennonite, and a few other Christian types I cannot recall. They were all nice boys, born into their respective religions. It would be quite unfair for some of them to be offered different eternities on the basis of being born, say, in the green house instead of the blue one next to it.

I don't care about the God that created the God that created God, ad infinitum. Sure, I'm quite satisfied with the conclusion that science is in the process of explaining the origin of life on this planet and the planet itself. I'm quite certain that everybody reading this was created by their parents. We've come a long way in a short time, but the steps are clear to anybody who kept their mind and ears open during those 3 hours of exposure to evolution during high school biology. Yeah, three hours is all we get and most people in class aren't paying attention because nobody really wants to be in class when they are 16.

Science can explain the process for the divergence of life on Earth. Creation is an act of the human imagination, unless you count ooths.

The need to "believe in something" is ubiquitous across cultures. Our species has evolved the ability to think and ask questions about the world around us. We created different answers. New religions are STILL being created all the time! It's really interesting...if you find it interesting. Why not shop around for a new religion? Admit it, you'd get bored raising the same species of mantis all the time!

By the way, many churches undeniably provide wonderful services to communities. Many of my favorite people are strong believers. The differences are interesting in that "variety is the spice of life" kind of way, but less and less interesting to discuss once two people know each other, not because the discussion becomes more and more contentious, but because you get that they hold different beliefs and it doesn't affect the many reasons you do like the person.

I only chimed in to represent a viewpoint that seemed under-represented in this discussion. A single entry doesn't mean I'll have the time or energy to play again (re-creation), but I've enjoyed the discussion for the most part and wanted to say so.

 

[frogparty]

well said sir....well said.

 

[Orin]

Peter- I've seen people trashing Christians on this forum more times than I like to count. I generally don't chime in because I don't know that I can accomplish anything positive in the exchange.

Precarious - You choose to believe the words of Jesus as you think he meant them, not in the context they were written. He came to accomplish the law and words of the prophets through his atoning death on the cross. You ignore the fact he called the Temple of Jehovah his father's house and Jehovah his father. I tend to think you're pretending not to understand in sarcasm but if you really don't I'm sorry to misread your intentions.

 

[lancaster1313]

I tend to naturally wonder about the question of our (life of all kinds on this planet) existence. Discussing it with others usually makes me uncomfortable because of the strong feelings most people have about their beliefs. I try to tell myself not to worry about these things, and not be uncomfortable (like many others seem to be if I even mention the way I feel) with my lack of faith in things that I can't feel or see for myself, and therefore can't believe.

Post #104 makes me comfortable, for a change. I like the perspective. ^_^ Thanks Peter.

Btw, I have love for all life, large and small, even humans, regardless of their beliefs.

@ Phil: I enjoyed the Nyan cat dubstep video.

 

[Peter Clausen]

Peter- I've seen people trashing Christians on this forum more times than I like to count. I generally don't chime in because I don't know that I can accomplish anything positive in the exchange.

I've seen people trashing Christians, and I've seen people trashing people for every factor of difference under the sun. I haven't seen much "trashing" in this thread, this time, though. Like a few members have said, this is the "other discussions" category and everybody is entitled to an opinion as long as they don't cross the line with personal attacks, etc. I think everybody can accomplish something, at least for themselves, by sharing their thoughts and feelings.

Members here feel mantises make great pets, but we are all in that minority among humans. We are hobbyists, but we are all exposed to some science as way play and talk around with the various species in this hobby. The array of species occasionally, necessarily and naturally causes some of us to ask "why?". Hence the relevance and frequent emergence of this subject. It may seem like Christian trashing, but that is partially a function of Christianity being the predominant religion of familiarity among members and that group's methodology for participating in an intelligent discussion up to the point faith enters into the discussion. To give an analogy, many thoughtful people will accept that some of the 3000+ species of mantises are very similar. Some are more similar and are more closely related, like children to their parents and like the people of neighboring countries to each other, and like people to mammals (I think, by now, all people accept we are mammals, at least). Most people can see this relationship. In fact, it is obvious to the point of being intuitive. Yet, some people are taught from an early age to rebuke the obvious and instead attribute or credit what is obvious to some divine hand. Did that divine hand create 3000 species of mantises? Did that divine hand create the original mantis species? Well, science says no. Mantises are, themselves, closely related to other groups and the pattern of similarity and relation is traceable back to the earliest form.

I love Indian food. Recently, I tried a new place and the man behind the counter was from Senegal. I'd never met anybody from Senegal and it was very exciting and positively interesting. We talked about many things, but I sure enjoyed his company more than I'd enjoy the company of somebody just like me. And the food, as always, was amazing!

 

[Termite48]

Is this nymph a female or a male? I don't know, why don't you wait until it is obvious so we all don't look foolish. But it is obvious. To some, things are obvious and to others, they are way out. Can you put that in your philosophical pipe and smoke it. Yes! Let's all do that and try to improve mantid culture.

 

[patrickfraser]

HUH? I'm not into philosophical pipe smoking. :lol: I don't get the point. :huh:

 

[HoldThePickle]

I like your belief system, Peter. It's very much like my own as when I have to fill in the "religion" category on social networking websites, I simply write in "Mother Nature and Father Time".

 

[Precarious]

Because some of us (not I) are very expert in Mantidology does not make us very expert in Theology, Eschatology, or Philosophy. So when one who has earned his stripes on this Forum as a great breeder, macrophotographer, or bug hunter, he/she has not earned anything in the studies of the origin of mankind, Theology or the Bible and other ancient writings. We are equally confused.

I am not confused in the least.

It is true that expertise in one field does not transfer as expertise in any other. I don't think anyone, including myself, is suggesting that. Conversely, nor does acceptance of tradition or blind faith make one an expert on anything - other than submission to questionable authority. But just to put things into perspective; I've been keeping mantids for only a year and a half now, and I just bought myself this camera last Christmas. You could say I'm am a 'fast learner' and rather effective researcher, which is why I have excelled at these endeavors. Now consider, I have been studying religion, spirituality, symbolism and esoteric traditions for over 20 years and I do not limit myself to traditional boundaries as most others do. Of course, one premise does not equally support the other. I merely intend this to serve as example of my commitment and diligence.

Precarious - You choose to believe the words of Jesus as you think he meant them, not in the context they were written. He came to accomplish the law and words of the prophets through his atoning death on the cross. You ignore the fact he called the Temple of Jehovah his father's house and Jehovah his father. I tend to think you're pretending not to understand in sarcasm but if you really don't I'm sorry to misread your intentions.

We all choose to believe what we want. You think your contextual view is more accurate than mine. I disagree, and understand the conflicting nature of the message is multiplied by manipulation of the texts. The prophets represent the future, correct? That is why Jesus is aligned with their message. Jesus came out of the Judaic tradition yet represented a break from it. In John 2:16 he was reclaiming the temple. That's the whole point of that parable. That makes it his father's house - the one true God (more on this below) of his message.

What's even more telling, though, is what he says later in the parable:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

John 2:19-22

So you tell me, was he referring to the literal or figurative temple? His body is the true temple. Hmmm...

To his eyes the temples all belong to his Father though they are claimed by the usurper. I understand you will see it how you will. And there is no passage where Jesus calls Jehovah his father. Perhaps in your 2007 sanitized version, but not in the original texts.

Which brings up another point of conflict between the Old and New Testaments; The New Testament is Monotheistic, while the Old Testaments is Polytheistic or Henotheistic at best.

mon·o·the·ism

[mon-uh-thee-iz-uhm]

noun

the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

pol·y·the·ism

[pol-ee-thee-iz-uhm, pol-ee-thee-iz-uhm]

noun

the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

hen·o·the·ism

[hen-uh-thee-iz-uhm]

noun

1. the worship of a particular god, as by a family or tribe, without disbelieving in the existence of others.

2. ascription of supreme divine attributes to whichever one of several gods is addressed at the time.

Did you ever wonder why Jehovah is so jealous of "other gods"? Why be jealous of other gods if they are no believed to be real?

A few examples:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image..."

Genesis 1:26

"Who is like unto you, O LORD, among the gods?"

Exodus 15:11

"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them."

Exodus 18:11

"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward"

Deuteronomy 10:17

You can't have a "God of gods" or "a great God" if there is only one god. You'd just say "God" since there is no other to compare with. There are a ton of references (I engraved them on lead plaques and weighed them) to the other gods in the Old Testament. Do your apologist dance around that all you want but it doesn't change a thing.

...

I have but one simple rhetorical question to ask true believers. To my eyes, the world has not become a better place due to the inception of the consolidated Catholic Church. It has brought us the Crusades, the Inquisitions, suppression of knowledge, suppression of free thought, destruction of the records and traditions of entire cultures (South American especially) - just war, destruction, suffering and bloodshed. And now the corrupt institution you trust with assembling the accepted canonical texts and dogma is embroiled in scandal after scandal involving the rape and abuse of children. It appears this has been an ongoing undercurrent in the body of the church for a very long time and the institution has used its power to cover for known child rapists. I do not assume any of you believe this to be acceptable behavior.

So my rhetorical question to you is:

After 2,000 years to come to fruition, do you really believe the message of Christ has brought the change that, at its core, it represents, or do you think there is some possibility it has been subverted and corrupted?

Look around you at what the world has become and be honest with yourself. The message has failed and it did so by design, the design of those who worked so hard to pervert the message by merging it with the current it was intended to oppose. We can argue semantics over ancient texts that have been misinterpreted, edited and altered these past 2,000 years. But what it really comes down to is can you eat the bitter fruit you see around you?

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:15-20

Thus ends my ongoing rant on the gospels, unless there are responses directed at me... because I always get the last word.

 

[Precarious]

I love Peter's post! It's a good way to look at the world. If you have no interest in religion there is no reason to waste time on it. Same goes for any subject. I get something out of my interests, which is why I am compelled to engage them. I have no interest in sports, or most things the majority embrace. So to each his own. The important thing is to keep an open mind and continue to learn.

Once ideas are incorporated into dogma that cannot be questioned they are no longer rational. Even science does (or should) allow that its ideas/theories be debated, tested and proven/disproved. Not that spiritual ideas can ever really be proven in the empirical sense, but just as Einstein used thought experiments (The ancient Greek deiknymi, or thought experiment, "was the most ancient pattern of mathematical proof", and existed before Euclidean mathematics...) to find potential answers, the same can be applied to all aspects of life and consciousness. To not directly question beliefs is accepting that you are not worthy of grasping truth.

EVERYONE is worthy of TRUTH! EVERYONE!

So never sell yourself short and blindly accept an idea. If it holds particular importance in your life consider its source, investigate its origins, and always take a look at alternate interpretations. Weigh it against your personal experience and existing body of knowledge. Only after that can you make an informed decision. It's fine to use your gut as cursory examination, but a gut feeling is a far cry from actually understanding the meat of a topic. Plus the more you know about a subject the more convincing your convictions become, both to yourself and others.

I have always had great interest in spiritual matters, which led me to the study of symbolism, allegory and the esoteric side of things. (Esoteric - "understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge" vs Exoteric - "suitable for or communicated to the general public") The things I've stated here are not the result of reading an article online or a single book, or adopting the ideas of others. What others have discovered for themselves and committed to print can be immensely helpful, but true understanding seldom comes from submissive acceptance. It is won by hard work and direct experience.

There is no substitute for direct experience.

So all the gospel debating aside, in the end it's not so much about converting anyone to anything. I don't even identify myself with any particular group! It's about inspiring you to think about things you've been trained from birth not to think about. Believe me, you will not be struck by lightning. But you may be struck by a moment of discovery - an "ah-ha!" moment in which something that had previously been mysterious is understood. It is those moments that best serve as the defining framework of our character, because those are glimpses of enlightenment we earned for ourselves.

If there had never been a book written on religion, or spiritual matters I truly believe I would still have come to the same conclusions I have now, because they are based on personal experience and deep self-analysis. We can be our own greatest teacher because only we can know for sure if we are being honest with ourselves. And without that, what do we really have?

Love and peace to everyone! Have a great holiday! Enjoy your families and the time you are given to celebrate the beauty of life!

 

[Peter Clausen]

We don't have to wait until the end to tell the gender, and we certainly don't have to guess. It's not a matter of philosophy or religion at all. That's guesswork. Let's just count the segments (it's easier if you're sober)! Simply, it works.

Is this nymph a female or a male? I don't know, why don't you wait until it is obvious so we all don't look foolish. But it is obvious. To some, things are obvious and to others, they are way out. Can you put that in your philosophical pipe and smoke it. Yes! Let's all do that and try to improve mantid culture.

 

[Termite48]

To Peter and to all. The above was stated with tongue in cheek. I did not suggest waiting until the end. With some species it is easy to tell after a few molts. With some, you are taking your chances if you are sure too early and a sale is predicated on the sex. So wait a little is all I am saying. Surely not till there is an ooth. Thanks for the comment.

 

[Termite48]

Love and peace to everyone! Have a great holiday! Enjoy your families and the time you are given to celebrate the beauty of life!

The same to you Henry. We all love your stuff, dude. The music you put as background to your videos is great.

 

[Termite48]

Because one cook makes a great meal, does not mean that all things that that cook makes are wonderful to all. We all excell at something or more than one thing if we are really blessed. When our life nears its end as in case of perhaps a few of us old guys here on the forum, it is nice to look back and see where we have helped others and made the angels smile. That is my hope for myself. I will not convince too many people of walking along the exact path I have walked, nor would I want to. For advise on how to raise BBs from a few pupae, or wild flies, I will look only here on the Forum as see all that I need. For spiritual advise I know that I will not come to the Mantid Forum. That is all I will say about that.

 

[StevieHification]

As Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind".

 

[MantidLord]

Several things before I go eat.

1) If my op sounded like a "plea" to cut off the forum, it wasn't. Simply a call for there to be some respect for both sides. Like I said, no one's opinion's will be changed from this, but let's just keep it "clean". I'm not a censorship type person. (Look at my avatar! It's from Alice In Chains' "Man in the Box", a song about censorship).

2) Phil, you're half way right. One, I rarely if ever go to church (I'm not considered an "orthodox christian" or anything of the sort) and I don't have a counselor- I forgot about this post an hour after I posted last, and logged back on half expecting to be yelled at by other members. Luckily I wasn't. But anyway, I still keep mantids in college, only thing keeping me off the forum is lack of time (I'm on break right now). I still appear and browse the forum just to see what's going on. Don't worry phil, I don't see your post as an attack or anything, just clarifying a couple of things.

3) Hotpickle, I was going to ignore how idiotic your post was, but I won't. For one, I never claimed my beliefs were being attacked and I never "demanded" the thread be closed. Open your eyes and read over all (what three?) of my posts and point out when I demanded the thread to be closed. Second, when in the world was I not "tolerant"? You're trying to make me out to be like some intolerant, censored human being, when I'm not. If you READ, you'd see that I'd say the same thing for atheism, islam, Phil's religion of the Great Mantis Goddess, whatever. And finally, I couldn't care less if you're offending by name, because I AM THE MANTIDLORD.

4)Patrick...read.

5)precarious and pickle, I actually hesitated on what to say or how to word that sentence, glad you liked it.

Time to go eat. And the thread isn't adding any stress to me. But I've seen threads such as this (and with other topics) spiral into nothing but insults, lack of respect, and lack of thought.

3) Patrick, I never went to sunday school.