"Oh boy, are you one of those dull Love/Light types I keep hearing about?"
No.
"There will be no differences of opinion on this planet! Peace is the only way to go!" Limiting, conformist nonsense."
I didn't say that. Peace is the only way to go. You're confusing what you're doing with constructive criticism. I've seen a lot of flat-out elitism in this thread.
"I respect Moralman's views and opinions, but I also respect my own ability to feel differently about things and express such."
That's a slippery slope. Terrorists also feel this way. There's a difference between discussion and ridicule. I don't know if you came off that way in this thread, I didn't read a part of them.
"No one here has said that Moralman is any "less" of a person than anyone else, and I don't think anyone would because it would be utter bullshit."
But you can undermine their beliefs and opinions. You see a lot of that in anti-christian forums. To so blatantly disregard someone's belief or faith or whatever, is akin to undermining their self. While I believe it is important to undermine the ego to achieve enlightenment, I don't believe in chaotic barking and tearing apart.
"What I find odd is the way he seems to view wrestling as being somehow divinely connected or something, and then places it as an essential ingredient of a post-apocalyptic world."
I think he was trying to give his opinion on certain lines of thinking supporting his theory. He would have never brought up the divinity of wrestling if someone hadn't condemned it as evil or reptilian or any other undermining statement.
"This is an alternative forum. But, my friend, there's alternative and then there's really alternative. And I know which side of things THIS thread belongs on. Nuff said."
That's subjective. Moralman made a good point in putting the light on some of these posts against his reasoning. I don't think any information should be ignored, lest you miss something. I'm not saying treat everything sacred, but don't automatically dismiss something. Do you realize how many of you are so programmed that you have your mind made up before you consider it? You might think that being open to certain spiritual realities as enlightened, but that means squat if you still have that closed-attitude. It's like you missed the point of learning all those things in the first place.
"I know, you mentioned this earlier already."
I know I mentioned it already, just like you keep rehashing your own opinions. Most people speak once, and you know who they are.
"You're entitled to feel that way. If you don't have a problem with Moralmans' posts, then so be it. Not everybody sees things the same way or hold the same views about people."
There's a difference between disagreeing and being outright rude.
"Also, person can "talk" about higher things and still question what someone is saying. It doesn't make us unworthy of talking about the "higher" things, nor does it make us hypocrites, as your post subtly implies."
Again, there's a difference between questioning and undermining, for no purpse, either, other than to convince moralman or whoever else is reading that moralman's opinion is ridiculous. I didn't say it made you unworthy of talking about higher things, that's something your filter picked up. Maybe you're very competitive, or feel at a disadvantage. I don't know. I didn't say you were hypocrites, either. My point was that there's a difference between being enlightened, and talking about enlightened things.
"Talking about the "higher" things also doesn't mean one has to behave as a saint, be perfect, or carry on as Buddha or Jesus (supposedly...) did, at all times."
I assume, and I may be wrong, that you have a problem with christianity. I don't really want to discuss that, but I may suggest that your anger is misplaced, as moralman is clearly on the christian party-line. All I implied was that I imagined that such open minded people such as yourselves are, in a lot of ways, still at square one.
"Maybe you're new here, but Moralman's had a lot of posts that were along the lines of this one"
I don't know his record, but I don't think it gives anyone the right to try to force moralman into submission because he doesn't fit your idea of enlightenment, or how to behave properly. I find it egotistical to attack someone for something such as this thread.
"Yet it seems you've missed a hell of a lot, namely, the mentions of Moralman's past posts which explains why we're all reacting the way we are."
I don't think I've missed anything. There is no reason, in my opinion, to attack someone for being "silly" or "dumb" or whatever name anyone wants to give it. I think you may have missed the compassion part on the road to enlightenment. As Jesus says, "even an evil father will give his child bread when the child asks for it."
"As has been pointed out before, Moralman repeatedly asks the unanswerable questions."
What's the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, will it make a sound?
"Again, you might not be aware of all those past posts, you might be basing your judgment on this one thread alone, but, that's the back story."
I don't need to know the backstory. Moralman has been very gracious, and I would never ridicule someone who had no intention of harm. Your posts, lyra, on the other hand, are inflammatory.
* When we start identifying wisdom with our ability to comprehend its form, what wisdom is that?
* Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
* People want platitudes, not progress.
Now THAT was a funny sentence! 
