Did Jesus Christ die and rise rom the dead?

[skip]

Oh Skip..... , I think you see what you want to see. You must be real good at selective vision. You saying my view is myopic is incredibly ironic. And, it isn't' my view. It is just the view that is supported by evidence. Real evidence. Not made up falsified / doctored up evidence. There is a difference. I'm quite sure you are aware of that.

You've made it very clear that you are offended at the idea that there are teachings out there "indoctrinating" children that differ from yours. I have not made such a claim. You are welcome to hold to whatever belief system you have and I am not going to make attempts to change your mind. That is why a discussion like this is pointless.

The bolded statement is exactly what I mean. "THE" view. So you believe there is only one and only one interpretation of facts and evidence.

I am quite aware of falsified/doctored up evidence. It exists in the religious arena, the scientific arena, the political arena, etc. Anyone trying to put forth their own agenda attempts to use their interpretation of evidence and facts to try to prove their viewpoint.

[dlf_jaronf]

Oh Skip..... , I think you see what you want to see. You must be real good at selective vision. You saying my view is myopic is incredibly ironic. And, it isn't' my view. It is just the view that is supported by evidence. Real evidence. Not made up falsified / doctored up evidence. There is a difference. I'm quite sure you are aware of that.

Jaron, Really not a bunch of "what ifs and maybes" as you put it. Id say that your take there is minimizing some very substantial information. But, if that is how you interpret my explanation, so be it. It's really just basic organic chemistry. But, oh well. Pertaining to Spontaneous Generation, well, I think the name is the misleading part. It is really more of a snail like paced gradual incline of subtle advancements over a vast amount of time. (I'm guessing perhaps its the time involved that throws some folks for a loop because the chemistry part is fairly easy to comprehend once you understand Carbon and it's properties). As a scientist, I am never 100% certain of anything. As in you can't prove something to be true, but, you can disprove things. So, by that logic, If I were presented with solid, observable, testable, and tangible evidence for a god, I'd be forced to accept that information. I'd be just as skeptical of it and accepting of it as I am of any other type of testable / observable phenomena. I am a skeptic for sure but I am an open minded skeptic if that means anything to you. I am not LOCKED into my view. My view is in a way plastic, flexible, and ever changing, yet, contingent on facts and evidence and if the facts and evidence that currently exist in reference to any religion were to change, I too would then change my thoughts on them. The thing is, currently, the overwhelming mountains of evidence that does currently exist, heavily leans toward one side of this discussion.

Lucky, I'm in no position to tell you how to raise your family. You come across as a good person, a well educated caring guy from what I can tell. I don't think you somehow magically obtained these virtues from the religion you inherited however. You and I also have many of the same opinions on fantasy football. So, there is that! I don't blame you or think less of you as a human for holding beliefs within your family. My guess is you practice similar beliefs as your parents and they likely got theirs from your grandparents and so on. It is typical. I do however see the comparison of the teaching of the hot stove and the one about faith in "eternal salvation" as being quite different. One of them is a safety thing, the other is a belief rooted in faith. Faith is a belief which persists without sufficient evidence. Sometimes in the face of overwhelming opposing evidence. Anyway, Again, It isn't my place at all to tell you how to raise your family. If you are passing on values that are important to you that you feel will help your children - then, by all means do that. I may not agree with your logic, your reasoning, and your thought process by which you come to your conclusions, but, I don't disagree with your basic premise of trying to be the best Dad that you currently know how to be. I might suggest that you also teach your kids to think critically of information that is presented. That is ALL information from all sources. This would include but isn't limited to questioning (politely of course) all concepts that are taught in school, all concepts that are taught by you, and by your church authority figures. Questioning the world leads to getting answers. Answers lead to knowledge, and accruing knowledge leads to a well rounded and more accurate I think, world view. Teaching children to blindly accept without any questioning or reasoning - anything, is extremely dangerous in the long run for their development. Also, teaching children about religion in general as in multiple viewpoints, as opposed to just one viewpoint is also not a bad idea. - (This is what I have done) Let them attempt to figure some of it out. Why are we XYZ rather than WZX? There should be an explainable reason. What is the difference between our religion and the religion(s) of your friends? Why do we hold this belief? Where did this belief originate. Is the belief that we claim reasonable. The more effort you put into explaining things correctly, I'd imagine the better off your kids would be. If however, your child asks you - Dad, Why is the sky blue? Or, (points up in the sky), Dad, what is that ? How did it get there? etc, if you respond - Well, son/ daughter, I don't know its a miracle or - That's how God made it. Well, then, you are doing harm. Much better I think to answer honestly. If you don't know an answer or know how to explain something, Tell them so, it's ok to not know everything. Then, just actively look it up with your child. Show them that if there are things they don't currently know, that by being curious and having questions, they can learn about the world. And, if you do this with them, they'll never forget it, they'll appreciate your approach, and it will become a life time habit.

Question for you. Real question(s). I am also curious to see where you sit on these? Do you believe that there is a place called Hell? Do all who don't accept your faith go there when they die? Do all other religions that are not compatible with yours, or, other than yours, go there? Is it forever? Is it really a fiery hot place? Do rapists, murderers, cereal killers that repent at the last minute to ask for forgiveness get to by pass this Hell place of yours and then ascend into heaven to spend eternity with their forgiving / loving god? Meanwhile, in your world view, do Atheists like myself who spend their lives caring for their children and the children of others, giving back, educating, paying taxes, picking up litter, donating to needy, volunteering time to help community organizations, sacrificing gobs of time - just go to Hell then because I find religion to be an unsupported bunch of lies spread by authority figures to control behavior of large social groups? Do you tell your child that is raised under the saving umbrella of your "correct" religion that if he or she has a friend in school that is of a different religious persuasion, that Sorry, your little friend is destined for Hell because he/she doesn't believe what we do? Do your kids grow up fearing this "real" and tangible place? Are you a morally good person because you are afraid that if you are not, that you will go to Hell and suffer for eternity? Do you also believe that despite all the evidence that the earth is 6000 years old? Do you believe in the story of Noah's arc? Do you believe that 65+ million years ago that dinosaurs ruled the world? That Moses was 500 plus years old? Do you believe in a real Adam and a real Eve in a real garden of Eden? Do you believe it is moral, ethical, or forgivable, to kill a person or large groups of person because of personal revelation in a belief or a god? And, it seems simple but at the very root of a larger issue is this - Was Adam and Eve the 1st two people on planet earth? And, did your god really create the entire universe and all that is in it, including all life forms on planet Earth in 6 earth days or 144 hours?

If your world view is not compatible with the following information, I would be one to then not agree with your world view. Check this short clip to see if your current world view is compatible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_jyHp3bmEw

You're claiming to know more about basic organic chemistry than some of the greatest scientific minds in the last century? Wald adamantly opposed the notion of an intelligent creator, yet he said that was the only plausible explanation for our existence. Even the great "millions of years", "everything takes time", etc. arguments are ludicrious. Maybe... over the course of billions of years, based on inexact carbon dating... etc.... that's not scientific. That's grasping at straws.

[Jfever]

Nope Jaren, Don't twist my words please. George Wald did much of his work in the 1950's. I'm not at all claiming to "know more than he". What I am saying is that the scientific community today is not stuck in the mud. We do know more today about the very subject you claim Ward is an expert on. What Wald claimed was "the only plausible explanation" has simply advanced. Now, Ward was an expert in this study about 60-70 years ago. I'm sure that you understand that we all know more about many things than most people did 70 years ago. This is just how science works. Now for a smooth transition; Skip the part that I think eludes you is this. Science is a method, not a subject. By method I mean it is a system of self checking. If some scientists are wrong and go public, they quickly get called out and their false statements are rescinded. That is how it works. That is what separates Religion evidence and even some forms of political or economical - from scientific evidence. This is also why when we see over time that a noticeable majority of scientists that focus on one particular area all agree with a certain point / theory or what have you - the theory or point they agree upon grows in its validity. Science is built on a system of self checking and exceptionally high standard. This the very premise of how technology improves with time and precisely why it is ok to be wrong as long as you learn from your mistake and don't stubbornly insist that you weren't while digging your heels in the sand. I know you guys get upset at my delivery and my long rants but.... this very simple concept is at the very core of what I've been trying to convey.

I'm most certainly not grasping at straws. Carbon dating is limited in its use to ranges in the thousands of years due to carbon 14-carbon12 half life time. Radioactive isotopes of elements, such as Uranium-235, decay at constant, known rates over time (its half-life, which is over 700 million years). An accurate estimate of the rock's age can be determined by examining the ratios of the remaining radioactive element and its daughters. For example, when lava cools, it has no lead content but it does contain some radioactive Uranium (U-235). Over time, the unstable radioactive Uranium decays into its daughter, Lead-207, at a constant, known rate (its half-life). By comparing the relative proportion of Uranium-235 and Lead-207, the age of the igneous rock can be determined. Potassium-40 (which decays to argon-40) is also used to date fossils.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,568 years. That means that half of the C-14 decays (into nitrogen-14) in 5,568 years. Half of the remaining C-14 decays in the next 5,568 years, etc. This is too short a half-life to date dinosaurs; C-14 dating is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago (useful for dating organiams like Neanderthal man and ice age animals).

Now, I didn't make this up. This isn't "my" evidence. This is THE evidence. Based on this chemistry understanding - that you should have gotten (assuming the school you attended offered it) - It becomes increasingly difficult to stick to the line of thinking that states the Earth is 6000 years old. I just don't see how one can live with blinders on.

[lukkynumber13]

JFever, yes I do believe those things. If I read your questions correctly, my answer is yes to every single one of them posed (there were a LOT, haha so I might've missed one that you snuck in asking if Phillip Dorsett will turn it around & be a WR1 this year)

Specifically regarding your questions on Hell, and who goes there, etc. I don't pretend that every aspect of Christianity is easy to accept. Not at all. There are some tough truths that seem really unfair and are tough to swallow. But just because I don't always understand why God does something one way or another, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that thing isn't so.

The thing about who deserves to go to Hell isn't about fairness. It's definitely not PC. It's that literally EVERY human who's ever lived is inherently sinful & has chosen to reject God at some time in their lives, whether externally and flamboyantly (a serial rapist who murders and eats little kids and gives glory to Cthulhu) or subtly/internally (the family man who cares for his kids, doesn't cheat on his wife, and barbecues with his neighbors - yet he refuses to accept his need for a savior. Both of those individuals have sinned at some point in their lives. We all have. God doesn't grade salvation on a scale.

Yet, that's a BEAUTIFUL thing because I've taken some pretty horrific turns in my own life. I've certainly earned my ticket to Hell. And yet, the flip side of God's salvation equality rings true: God doesn't grade on a scale. I don't have to do extra credit to earn rescue from damnation, and you don't either. God opens his arms to all, who are humble.

[dlf_jaronf]

Nope Jaren, Don't twist my words please. George Wald did much of his work in the 1950's. I'm not at all claiming to "know more than he". What I am saying is that the scientific community today is not stuck in the mud. We do know more today about the very subject you claim Ward is an expert on. What Wald claimed was "the only plausible explanation" has simply advanced. Now, Ward was an expert in this study about 60-70 years ago. I'm sure that you understand that we all know more about many things than most people did 70 years ago. This is just how science works. Now for a smooth transition; Skip the part that I think eludes you is this. Science is a method, not a subject. By method I mean it is a system of self checking. If some scientists are wrong and go public, they quickly get called out and their false statements are rescinded. That is how it works. That is what separates Religion evidence and even some forms of political or economical - from scientific evidence. This is also why when we see over time that a noticeable majority of scientists that focus on one particular area all agree with a certain point / theory or what have you - the theory or point they agree upon grows in its validity. Science is built on a system of self checking and exceptionally high standard. This the very premise of how technology improves with time and precisely why it is ok to be wrong as long as you learn from your mistake and don't stubbornly insist that you weren't while digging your heels in the sand. I know you guys get upset at my delivery and my long rants but.... this very simple concept is at the very core of what I've been trying to convey.

Exactly. The scientific approaches have evolved. Carbon dating is no longer applicable. What we "knew" about evolution in Darwin's day is no longer applicable. Lucy is no longer the "missing link" (oh crap! there was a baboon bone found in her skeleton, let's find something else to "prove" evolution!). Standard examples of the atheist agenda picking and choosing to fit their anti-God narrative.

[Jfever]

JFever, yes I do believe those things. If I read your questions correctly, my answer is yes to every single one of them posed (there were a LOT, haha so I might've missed one that you snuck in asking if Phillip Dorsett will turn it around & be a WR1 this year)

Specifically regarding your questions on Hell, and who goes there, etc. I don't pretend that every aspect of Christianity is easy to accept. Not at all. There are some tough truths that seem really unfair and are tough to swallow. But just because I don't always understand why God does something one way or another, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that thing isn't so.

The thing about who deserves to go to Hell isn't about fairness. It's definitely not PC. It's that literally EVERY human who's ever lived is inherently sinful & has chosen to reject God at some time in their lives, whether externally and flamboyantly (a serial rapist who murders and eats little kids and gives glory to Cthulhu) or subtly/internally (the family man who cares for his kids, doesn't cheat on his wife, and barbecues with his neighbors - yet he refuses to accept his need for a savior. Both of those individuals have sinned at some point in their lives. We all have. God doesn't grade salvation on a scale.

Yet, that's a BEAUTIFUL thing because I've taken some pretty horrific turns in my own life. I've certainly earned my ticket to Hell. And yet, the flip side of God's salvation equality rings true: God doesn't grade on a scale. I don't have to do extra credit to earn rescue from damnation, and you don't either. God opens his arms to all, who are humble.

Exactly. The scientific approaches have evolved. Carbon dating is no longer applicable. What we "knew" about evolution in Darwin's day is no longer applicable. Lucy is no longer the "missing link" (oh crap! there was a baboon bone found in her skeleton, let's find something else to "prove" evolution!). Standard examples of the atheist agenda picking and choosing to fit their anti-God narrative.

This ^ is quite the statement. Carbon dating IS VERY applicable if it is used in the right context. Go re-read my above explanation on radio-isotope dating, I think you missed a part. ie; You wouldn't use a paint roller to paint a micro-sized model for instance. smh!!!!! What we knew in Darwin's day has been strengthened and confirmed after much deliberation and investigation. Where the hell are you getting your info you post? The Missing Link was a creationist agenda that shows missing understanding in how evolution works. In simplest of terms - each and every single living thing is a link.

Ok. I think I get it. but man.... it seems like we might just hold some beliefs because it is nice to believe them. Convenient, warm, and fluffy and children storyish. If we don't understand God - God is mysterious. When an earthquake hits and destroys a church with 134 people in the church.... what the crap do we take from THAT? It has happened. Millions of innocent children die each year from starvation and or diseases associated with dirty water. These things could be fixed fairly easily by a powerful, all seeing, all knowing god if he / she / it were to exist. But.... God is mysterious and innocent lives continue to be lost. There is so much horrible pain and torture in the world, it makes sense to imagine an afterlife in which all of that is left behind. It just doesn't make it so is all. I mean it is nice to think that there might be a loving father figure up in the sky, saving a place for me to chill in eternity. that when I die, it isn't over, that all my sins are forgiven because of a sacrifice and death, that my personal prayers can be heard and answered, that there is a purpose and design to life... I mean it is tempting and I understand the whole social side of it as humans are a social species, but, hmmm believing in something because it makes you feel good just doesn't seem like a valid reason to believe something at all. Just seems a touch wishy washy for my brain.

Is your reasoning and authority at the source of your chosen belief - the Bible? And, do you believe the bible should be taken literally in a historical context as well as a moral context?

[lukkynumber13]

Yes JFever, the Bible is my primary source for building my world view. And yes, I'm familiar with the Old Covenant

And please don't think I believe what I believe because it makes me feel better, given my own dark past. I didn't intend to come off that way. I simply was saying how it is specifically beautiful for me, and I'm thankful for it, but my belief in Jesus Christ as my savior came before much of my dark turns in life.

[Goddard]

Yes JFever, the Bible is my primary source for building my world view. And yes, I'm familiar with the Old Covenant

And please don't think I believe what I believe because it makes me feel better, given my own dark past. I didn't intend to come off that way. I simply was saying how it is specifically beautiful for me, and I'm thankful for it, but my belief in Jesus Christ as my savior came before much of my dark turns in life.

Don't be so hard on yourself Lukky, being a Colts fan isn't that terrible of a thing

[dlf_jaronf]

"believing in something because it makes you feel good" ... do you even realize what it means to be a Christian? It feels good to be constantly persecuted, and many Christians in other countries worship in silence because they would be killed if they were found to be Christians?

Following God is completely countercultural, and is becoming moreso by the day. It's not easy and it doesn't always feel "good", particularly in our society due to the types of comments that you have thrown around. Healthy discussion is one thing, but once one becomes a Christian and knows what it is to know Jesus there is no turning back. He is real.

[dlf_jaronf]

It's definitely getting to the point when this thread needs to get wrapped up, and is has been healthy discussion for the most part.

I won't lock it until everyone feels they've said their piece, though.

[Big Al]

Nobody will change their view so closing it isn't a bad idea. As a educated Christian man of faith, nothing on this thread came close to changing my view. God bless everyone who contributed.

[clarion contrarion]

Yes JFever, the Bible is my primary source for building my world view. And yes, I'm familiar with the Old Covenant

And please don't think I believe what I believe because it makes me feel better, given my own dark past. I didn't intend to come off that way. I simply was saying how it is specifically beautiful for me, and I'm thankful for it, but my belief in Jesus Christ as my savior came before much of my dark turns in life.

Don't be so hard on yourself Lukky, being a Colts fan isn't that terrible of a thing

lately that must be a serious practice of faith as I personally as a central indiana resident and life long steeler fan persecute colts fans at every chance

[clarion contrarion]

JFever, yes I do believe those things. If I read your questions correctly, my answer is yes to every single one of them posed (there were a LOT, haha so I might've missed one that you snuck in asking if Phillip Dorsett will turn it around & be a WR1 this year)

Specifically regarding your questions on Hell, and who goes there, etc. I don't pretend that every aspect of Christianity is easy to accept. Not at all. There are some tough truths that seem really unfair and are tough to swallow. But just because I don't always understand why God does something one way or another, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that thing isn't so.

The thing about who deserves to go to Hell isn't about fairness. It's definitely not PC. It's that literally EVERY human who's ever lived is inherently sinful & has chosen to reject God at some time in their lives, whether externally and flamboyantly (a serial rapist who murders and eats little kids and gives glory to Cthulhu) or subtly/internally (the family man who cares for his kids, doesn't cheat on his wife, and barbecues with his neighbors - yet he refuses to accept his need for a savior. Both of those individuals have sinned at some point in their lives. We all have. God doesn't grade salvation on a scale.

Yet, that's a BEAUTIFUL thing because I've taken some pretty horrific turns in my own life. I've certainly earned my ticket to Hell. And yet, the flip side of God's salvation equality rings true: God doesn't grade on a scale. I don't have to do extra credit to earn rescue from damnation, and you don't either. God opens his arms to all, who are humble.

Exactly. The scientific approaches have evolved. Carbon dating is no longer applicable. What we "knew" about evolution in Darwin's day is no longer applicable. Lucy is no longer the "missing link" (oh crap! there was a baboon bone found in her skeleton, let's find something else to "prove" evolution!). Standard examples of the atheist agenda picking and choosing to fit their anti-God narrative.

This ^ is quite the statement. Carbon dating IS VERY applicable if it is used in the right context. Go re-read my above explanation on radio-isotope dating, I think you missed a part. ie; You wouldn't use a paint roller to paint a micro-sized model for instance. smh!!!!! What we knew in Darwin's day has been strengthened and confirmed after much deliberation and investigation. Where the hell are you getting your info you post? The Missing Link was a creationist agenda that shows missing understanding in how evolution works. In simplest of terms - each and every single living thing is a link.

Ok. I think I get it. but man.... it seems like we might just hold some beliefs because it is nice to believe them. Convenient, warm, and fluffy and children storyish. If we don't understand God - God is mysterious. When an earthquake hits and destroys a church with 134 people in the church.... what the crap do we take from THAT? It has happened. Millions of innocent children die each year from starvation and or diseases associated with dirty water. These things could be fixed fairly easily by a powerful, all seeing, all knowing god if he / she / it were to exist. But.... God is mysterious and innocent lives continue to be lost. There is so much horrible pain and torture in the world, it makes sense to imagine an afterlife in which all of that is left behind. It just doesn't make it so is all. I mean it is nice to think that there might be a loving father figure up in the sky, saving a place for me to chill in eternity. that when I die, it isn't over, that all my sins are forgiven because of a sacrifice and death, that my personal prayers can be heard and answered, that there is a purpose and design to life... I mean it is tempting and I understand the whole social side of it as humans are a social species, but, hmmm believing in something because it makes you feel good just doesn't seem like a valid reason to believe something at all. Just seems a touch wishy washy for my brain.

Is your reasoning and authority at the source of your chosen belief - the Bible? And, do you believe the bible should be taken literally in a historical context as well as a moral context?

if the 134 died they would be removed from human suffering getting their eternal reward .You obviously miss that part entirely being a christian doesn't protect you from life's horrors it only allows you to take some solace and understanding. You can study all day and search for fairness all your life but missing that point that eternity is longer than the time you inhabit your earthly body - that vessel is disposable will leave you unfulfilled in the answers .
If I didn't believe there was an after then I wouldn't waste hours and days debating the unknowable I would be climbing mt everest ,sailing around the world , driving race cars , taking my kids fishing or visiting a sick friend knowing full well I would never get to see them again. Honestly if debating the existence of god is as important as you make it seem then write a book and at least get paid for your time and efforts . You have mentioned you are an educator , I as a parent would be furious if you expressed your beliefs as militantly in the classroom as you have here , think how much better you could teach your students if you put in the time spent here on their lesson plan?

[Jfever]

Thanks for the advice CC. I spend time here occasionally on the Off-Topic forum during our "off season" - discussing Science and the misunderstanding of evidence and religion because I enjoy doing so. I've already mentioned what I emphasize to my students. Go back and re-read. You're little jabs at each and every opportunity say one thing, at least you are consistent. I'm not offended at all. I've grown to have fairly thick skin. I may consider writing a book at some point but, now isn't the time. I guess we can look at this as a mental warm up or practice. I feel I have much more to learn about both my fields of study and religion. I don't at all feel I have everything figured out and will continue to work on learning more. I do find this discussion mostly helpful. Some comments are a tad redundant but, It is all good. All this mumbo jumbo stuff about an afterlife etc. is entertaining for me. And, I do not believe in any of it what-soever. Since you were seemingly interested in what I do with my time based off of that belief. CC, I'm nearly 43 years old. I'm happily married to my best friend in the world, I do fish often. I have 3 kids. 13,14,15. They are very busy with extracurricular and academic responsibilities. I take the kids hunting and fishing. I bow hunt, rifle hunt. I ice fish, bass fish in the summer, I coach baseball, and softball. Last week my mom had a heart attack, so, yeah I was visiting her in the hospital. I spend a lot of time in high school gyms watching my son wrestle.... So.... CC, if you don't mind, I don't think I need too much personal advice from ya. I'd rather stick to the subject of how we come to vastly different conclusions when we live in the same world and have vastly different ways of going about reaching our opinions.

Jaron, I mentioned earlier in our discussion - I was raised in a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran household. If you aren't familiar, it is strict. I didn't leave my religion until I was long since out of my undergraduate program and a few years into my career. I was in my early to mid 30's and it wasn't just a quit cold turkey type thing. I think you are greatly exaggerating your side in the above response you posted. I was a practicing, church going, offering plate passing, Pall bearing, brunch serving, program offering, hand shaking Lutheran for 35 ish years. I've never experienced the persecution you speak of. But, that isn't to say you haven't. It is possible I guess. Christians are not typically prosecuted much in our country. Assuming you live in the USA. In the latest poll, 44% of our country are believers in a young Earth. I think I read that right... This is THE reason I'm as active on these forums on this topic as I am. I've been approached many times by folks from different religions as far as my job and teaching subject matter is concerned. Teaching some type or version of intelligent design rather than the Science of Evolution. It is a problem. Religions are pushing into the public sector. This is true. Kids get out of school often and early. Athletes get out of practice each Wednesday. Non religious athletes then pay a price in a way as they then have less of a practice. Smaller schools outside of larger metro area schools handle this differently and often times Sure, in some countries yes there is some issues. But, lets not pretend that we here are like that. As a High school teacher in a public school. I can assure you that the public sector bends over backward for religious freedoms and liberties from days off school to tax exempt status. I think the religious folks in the USA anyway, are just fine.

Jaron, Why would you want to wrap it up? I think this is something that should be left uncensored. What would wrapping it up accomplish? Seems odd to me that you'd even feel the need to do such a thing. I think its been a healthy and informative discussion. I've seen far worse over the years on the dynasty discussion threads that have been left alone after much much worse was said back and forth between posters. Like any other thread on DLF, if you don't like it, don't read it or comment on it. Simple as that. Why take it down?
I see no reason to end it. One never knows when another member of our forum may want to contribute a thought or ask a question. I'd say leave it. When it ends, it ends, just like 99.9 % of other threads. If you yourself have lost interest, that is also fine.

[lukkynumber13]

Jaron, Why would you want to wrap it up? I think this is something that should be left uncensored. What would wrapping it up accomplish? Seems odd to me that you'd even feel the need to do such a thing. I think its been a healthy and informative discussion. I've seen far worse over the years on the dynasty discussion threads that have been left alone after much much worse was said back and forth between posters. Like any other thread on DLF, if you don't like it, don't read it or comment on it. Simple as that. Why take it down?
I see no reason to end it. One never knows when another member of our forum may want to contribute a thought or ask a question. I'd say leave it. When it ends, it ends, just like 99.9 % of other threads. If you yourself have lost interest, that is also fine.

Totally agree here. There have been some very minor barbs thrown around, but nothing harmful. Overall this has been a relatively healthy (albeit dead-ended) discussion.