If anyone wants to request and justify its reopening, post at the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, link below.
Adminnemooseus
Can this thread be reopened? Although it obviously keeps swerving all over the road, I am confident that forum members will concentrate more on staying between the lines. Message 100 may, in a strange way, be likened to Christianity wearing a suit tailored for a Haudenosaunee; interesting discussion? I'll edit the title. More so than that, a variety of quality posts have been asserted by a variety of quality posters thus far and a considerable number of attempts have been initiated towards keeping the thread on topic. May this, perhaps, balance the scales enough to ascertain mercy from the courts ...
Additionally, granting this request may alleviate any charge, that would indeed not be justified in the first place, concerning any gestapo/kkk/flamin' honkey, etc. complex that one may become confused and dream up about EvC moderation. Transparent charge indeed. Lastly, a response to Message 85 would be appreciated, should the respondent decide to debate in good faith. With favor, the good rev is beginning to understand that the world is not against him, and is rather for him as far as EvC goes, although the nature of the game requires one to contrast ideologies. Else, the point is lost.
Also, the author of the thread in question, should he stumble upon this message, has been invited to express his specific views of Christianity within ...
Anyway, whether the request to reopen the thread is granted or otherwise, thank you for the opportunities and consideration, as I am unworthy.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
It's a holiday weekend and I don't know when Adminnemooseus will be on line next, so I'll reopen this for you. When Adminnemooseus is next on line he can decide whether to keep it open.
ps: For some reason the message will not post if I have "Show Signature" checked. "Signature" to big?
First, apologies for posting between forums. The permissions afforded to me will not allow a direct response to the thread mentioned above.
I noticed that the sig below, within quote brackets, is currently no longer posting succesfully either. Hopefully this may assist in isolating the issue while troubleshooting. I was thinking that the bbcode commands such as [url=whatever] [/url], [b] [/b] and [i] [/i], may be causing an issue for one reason or another. While I was going to begin by replacing the 'url' code with 'a href' commands to see if that may provide remedy, I have yet to get that far and tinker with it myself. At the least, this may lend a reference point towards various possiblities such as length limitations, uncooperable commands, etc..
Perhaps it won't, but I do hope it helps some.
If the information proves useless, apologies for wasting you're bandwidth and time. Also, thank you kindly for re-opening the thread referenced in the posts below this one. Although there has been no response by the originator of the thread, granting the request was and is very appreciated.
quote:I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Just wanted to make sure we opened the right thread. And thanks for your help with finding the source of that bug.
No problem! Thanks again to you all & I'm glad to be useful.
[lol - for a change, perhaps]
I'm gonna try my sig!
abe: woot woot - it works! You're the best!!
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : abe
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
I did the closure. I guess I was feeling cranky the other night (what a surprise, the membership collectively thinks), and was under the impression that "final closing statements" had been happening over and over for weeks.
Basically, RAZD and Straggler (and others?) had said what they had to say, knew they had done such, but still wouldn't quit posting to the topic. So I closed it (never did notice the Admin message ).
Devolution (from The Fall) and "No New Information"
I disagree that the "Devolution (from The Fall) and 'No New Information'" thread was locked for being off topic.
I have been trying to ascertain why Smooth Operator believes as he does. All of the other threads have ended up debating the evidence, on one side or the other. I wanted a thread that could explore why such a belief, far from the mainstream, would be attractive, and where it originated.
SO denied that it was religious and related to "the Fall," as the initial post suggested, so I was exploring other alternatives.
You have done a disservice by locking that thread. It was not contentious, and there was a lot less bickering than on most threads. I would suggest that you were too quick on the "off topic" trigger.
Because this would be off topic on that thread, I would like to propose a thread to explore how one could come to the belief in devolution/no new information without a religious, and in particular a biblical, background.
In your most recent message you said, Message 32, you said:
I would like to keep the topic to how someone could accept the geocentric belief in spite of the immense scientific evidence to the contrary.
The change in focus from "devolution/no new information" to "geocentric belief" is why Adminnemooseus believed the thread to be drifting off-topic.
I think I understand that what you actually intended as the thread's central focus was making the case that all beliefs of this sort are religiously motivated rather than scientifically evidenced. I'll reopen the thread, but in your next post please make clear the thread's central focus.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
).