|
|
Post by Spirit Wolf on Nov 26, 2007 18:09:49 GMT -5
I was just wondering if anybody believes in superstition or monsters? I don`t believe in superstition but I respect them and as for monsters I believe in big foot and the lock ness. Don`t ask why.
|
|
|
|
Post by arcblade on Nov 27, 2007 14:42:28 GMT -5
I have general apathy towards superstition unless I can blame it for something. Monsters... they don't really affect my daily life. Anything that doesn't generally gets apathy until I have to think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragyn on Nov 27, 2007 15:20:22 GMT -5
My opinions on superstition are biased against them. I see no merit in fearing things for their symbolism, or the opposite.
As for monsters...that'd depend on your definition of monster.
|
|
|
|
Post by villageelder on Nov 27, 2007 15:40:32 GMT -5
I think some superstition is based on somewhat related facts. a fragment of truth that wasn't fully understood until mor information came to light. or it was done to influence children and grew with them.
for clarification:
A volcano eruption could be seen by a primitive culture as a wrathful god.
It's probably bad luck to walk under a ladder cuz someone once told his son it was bad luck cuz he didn't want him bumping the ladder he was standing on.....! and then he told his sons and so on and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox on Nov 27, 2007 16:35:16 GMT -5
I'm not superstitious at all. I do, however, believe in the supernatural.
As for monsters? I believe they exist, but not how people see them. New animals are being discovered constantly, and "bigfoot" could be nothing more than some sort of strange bear. Lake monsters I believe are in fact dinosaurs that survived extinction. I mean..there's been stories of so called "extinct" marine animals being caught more often than one would think. (plesiosaur, even)
I also believe in dragons. Again, though, not like other people see them. The word "dinosaur" is a fairly recent term, but back in bibilcal times "dinosaurs" were most likely called dragons. The Bible speaks of creatures with smoke pouring from its nosteral and also makes mention of dragons several times. So there you have it. I believe dragons were our modern-day "dinosaurs".
As for aliens? I believe they're out there. I just don't believe they're here, or ever will be. The Universe is endless, and because of that the chances of extraterrestrial life actually visisting here are way below zero. It would take many, many generations just to get halfway here. The chances of finding a wormhole big enough, yet alone one that leads here, is even less. Not to mention the controversial fact that worms holes might not even exist.
And there's my oppinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by villageelder on Nov 27, 2007 17:06:00 GMT -5
Wow, that's a lot of info for just one post.
but, that's exactly what i think. (except i have reason to believe we can artificially create wormholes)
|
|
|
|
Post by Spirit Wolf on Nov 27, 2007 17:31:12 GMT -5
I heard a story from my teacher about the superstition about saying Macbeth in a theater. Anyways their was a kid at school close to mine that would say Macbeth in the thearter at his school everyday. Then one day he said it repeatdly so the teacher told him to get up and do something so he wouldn`t be cursed or something. So when he stood up a light fell right where he was sitting. I think thats cool and kinda wierd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox on Nov 27, 2007 17:52:55 GMT -5
Oo..sounds cool like something from a horror movie. XD
~Yeah..the supernatural/paranormal topics always get me pretty talkative. Speaking of..I didn't mention ghosts in there. OO! Or the Burmuda/Dragon's Triangle..or the Chupacabras..blergh..Okay..I could start a whole new topic. Sorry. XP That's just what I do with my spare time..watch those wierd shows or look up things online. One of my biggest interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Faith on Nov 28, 2007 10:46:19 GMT -5
Heh... This sounds odd. But I have to get to school, so...  Well, either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragyn on Nov 29, 2007 13:41:48 GMT -5
The chupacabra...such a weird set of tales. You'd think they'd have a better name for it, but I suppose you go with what works...
I'm pretty sure dragons exist, or at the very least, did once.
Though, as a minor note, I believe that the same word as "dragon" in Hebrew referred to jackals, not fire-breathing reptilians. I could be wrong, but if I remember right...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox on Nov 29, 2007 14:34:31 GMT -5
Maybe. Though, I do recall Revelation making mention of a seven headed dragon..or..something like that.
Either way, back in those times dragons were dragons worldwide. It just seems rather strange that there were dragon statues, carvings, legends, and folklore wolrdwide, yet dinosaurs were hardly, if ever, mentioned. I honestly don't know any historical documents on dinosaurs way back when, but that's not to say they don't exist. I haven't done a lick of research in that area. XD So I'm just kinda throwing it out there....
Still...the resemblence between dragons and dinosaurs are uncanny. The Leviathon and Behemoth mentioned in the Bible, and the dragon myths of today. Some dragons swam, some dinosaurs swam. Some dragons towered over the rest of the world, while there are many large, long-necked dinosaurs. Most importantly, dragons flew. There are flying dinosaurs. There are many dinosaur species yet to be discovered, and some strange ones that really don't get any publicity as the t-rex and raptors did in Jurassic Park, thus people don't know them well or at all.
Of course, this is all based on things mentioned in the Bible. So of course not everybody would agree. Though there is one thing most people, Christian or not, would agree on. The dinosaurs most likely started to dwindle down to very few after a huge, catastrophic event. Now going back to my theory - Great flood. The flood would have wiped out most dinosaurs, as even they would be too big to carry on an ark, large as it was. Thus, that is why I believe that marine dinosaurs still exist today. Allthough evidence shows that lakes such as Loch Ness have very little to support life, that's not to say they're not out there. The oceans & seas are the least explored areas, thus there's a lot more yet to be revealed to humans.
And there I go again. Someday I'd like to meet some Christian paleontologists to discuss this with..it's hard to find anybody who'd likely debate it with me, since I don't go to public school. I guess I'd better stop now......
|
|
|
|
Post by arcblade on Nov 29, 2007 15:32:24 GMT -5
The 7-headed dragon was definitely related to the devil somehow...
|
|
|
|
Post by Faith on Nov 29, 2007 22:19:02 GMT -5
Hm... interesting. I didn't get to say what I was gonna', earlier... so, here goes. I, too, wonder of the definition of 'monster' used in Spirit Wolf's question. There is such a variety of 'monsters...' Like dragons, for instance, may not be/have been 'monsters.' (I agree with the existence of dragons.) But then, some people are more capable of claiming the title 'monster' than any creature falling into the supposed description. Though, I wouldn't call them that... Superstitous... I used to be, without realizing it. But I'm not, anymore. I want to see a dragon... it'd be awesome. ;D Looking things up online is fun.  Mythical or rare creatures or creatures of uncertain origin or existence are almost always fun learning, too... Does anyone here have a favorite cryptid, or whatever you want to call them? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragyn on Dec 1, 2007 14:42:51 GMT -5
I have to agree with you on Leviathan and Behemoth. The seven-headed, fire-breathing dragon was certainly something to do with the devil, though I don't remember what, exactly.
I also suspect that the word was interchangeable. Jackals and Dragons would have been sorta' scary, and probably got lumped together under the same phrase, like the way foxes and wolves tend to be lumped together.
Since the word "cryptid" isn't in any dictionary I've seen, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that...
|
|
|
|
Post by Faith on Dec 2, 2007 2:59:14 GMT -5
Anyway... Hm... interesting... ;D You mean I just used a word you've never heard.  I'm afraid... But then, maybe it's not a technically correct word. Kinda like 'ain't' wasn't, until recently. It may just have been someone's decision to call an animal studied in cryptozoology a cryptid, their own made up term derived from the name of the study, so that they could use it among their peers, and then it became more widespread... One definition I found on Cryptids: creatures presumed extinct, hypothetical species, or creatures known from anecdotal evidence and/or other evidence insufficient to prove their existence with scientific certainty. Understand, now? |
|
