User talk:Cush

MyTalk

Tolkienion Maps

Hey there Cush! I didn't know you were the owner of Tolkienion, I love that site, been going to it since the early days and have been working on getting that #1 spot on your links page for years :) All this talk about maps has got me thinking about uploading my maps I have offline to Tolkien Gateway, I know there are some in there that are yours from Tolkienion and I wanted to ask for permission from you first. Keep up the great work! --Hyarion 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Rohl

20th Dynasty of Egypt with 3 distinct lines

I have a question about Rohl's chronology (and yours I think). I see you divided the 20th Dynasty into three parts and overlapped them. It is a very interesting approach. Where can I find evidence for and against such approach? Is there any evidence that would not allow you to do this? Thanks and I'll be looking forward to your answer. AG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.27 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there are three distinct lines within the 20th Dynasty (see image). Cush (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you take the chart off the Rohl page? Are you amending it? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have downloaded the New Chronology (2005).xls from the Yahoo group and I have entered its data into my Local NC manager. Now I have to structure it so I can produce a new overview. I will also have to update my database, which will take quite some effort... Cush (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NC manager

Cush, I am mightily impressed with your NC software. Is there any way you would share this wonderful tool? I have no programming capability and a million dates and names scattered throughout a bunch of notebooks. What do you think of the Lords of Avaris? I haven't read it yet. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you support the New Chronology as proposed by Rohl? That would be a requirement. And then I'd have to think about giving you access to my database (the software connects to a server).

As for the Lords of Avaris, I am still struggling with the complexity of interconnections that Rohl shows to exist. I am re-reading it at the moment to extract usable dates out of it.

Is there a way to send a personal message on wikiedia?

Cush (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ever since I saw his Pharaoh's and Kings TV special when I was about 16. I have tweaked the years up and down because I have a different Exodus date, but all the synchronisms are the same. I haven't begun Lords of Avaris yet, and my contributions to the Yahoo! Group have been less than sparse since I started work on my PhD, but I am still a Rohlian at heart.

Is the NC manager a standalone piece of software?

I don't know about the personal messaging, if I had to guess I would say no.

TuckerResearch (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The NC manager (which is a .NET application) is not really a standalone software. It requires a database on a (web-)server and a php script that will relay the data (since my provider does not host a .NET framework yet). But if you'd install e.g. xampp on your machine it'll work. I could also write an aspx page to replace the php on a local machine, but that would require IIS to be on your machine (comes with the windows setup). On the other hand I could of course let you use my database, so everything is stored in one place ;-) It would be best if you sent me an e-mail. Just use "E-mail this user" link on my user page.

Cush (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, y'all, I have implemented an offline-version of the NC manager. Who wants it?? Cush (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, it works great so far. It is a helpful tool for people making chronologies and working with the New Chronology. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No bugs found yet? :-) I think I will implement a few new ways to export data, maybe to Excel or so. Cush (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still enjoying the NC Manager - capital work! I just began reading The Lords of Avaris, it seems there are a million more dates to look into! TuckerResearch (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

 CUSH 
CUSH

{{bibleverse||John|3:16|KJV|}}

• Example1: {{bibleverse|1|Samuel|3:16-4:18|31}} produces a link to the NIV translation (31 in the source list as linked below): 1 Samuel 3:16–4:18
• Example2: {{bibleverse||Genesis|1:15-16|HE}} produces: Genesis 1:15–16

Here is a sample list (this list is subject to change, please check link above):

Code	Translation
(do not include or, just number or text)
1000	Show user all options
31 or NIV	New International Version (Biblegateway)
49 or NASB	New American Standard Bible (BibleGateway)
9 or KJV	King James Version (BibleGateway)
105 or HE	Hebrew-English - paraellel MT and JPS 1917 (Mechon Mamre)
65 or TM	The Message (BibleGateway)

Auditory processing disorder

Akhenaten and Palestine

"No he didn't!" (Sorry, getting into kid-talk mode there :). What's your source for saying he did? PiCo (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can track down a book source, but have you ever read the Amarna letters PiCo? TuckerResearch (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC) -- Here: Elwell, Walter (2001). Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 409. ISBN 0842370897. - I added the citation to the Exodus page. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronology at the Crossroads

Cush,

Do you own a copy of Bernard Newgrosh's Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia? If you don't, I can make a pdf copy of its chapter 18, entitled "A Chronicle of the New Chronology," which give a nice list of events, synchronisms, and dates between 1182 and 870, and post it on the forum.

TuckerResearch (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed appreciate it very much, if you could make such a pdf for me. :-) Cush (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the pdf to your History-Book.net New Chronology forum, under Mesopotamian Chronology, in the Assyrian Chronology thread. I hope you find it informative. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Helpful site

I figured that this could be helpful to you: http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/ TuckerResearch (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into that. Seems interesting at a first glance. Cush (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your recent reversion at Pi-hahiroth‎. I think we have a recurring problem, have you seen [1]? 17:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

This is the the same stuff that is edited every now and then into the "Stations list of the Exodus" article. I am not sure there is a need for a Pi-hahiroth article in the first place. Cush (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary

This edit summary is very similar to the writings of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, or is it a direct quote from him? What is your problem? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep your personal attacks to yourself. The point is that only such people who have a religious interest in the Exodus being real will ever claim that it is. Without the Exodus Judaism and subsequently a number of Christian denominations are finished. The archaeological record for an actual Exodus as described in the bible is exactly ZERO. And what I hate is that the articles and discussions on WP are obviously driven by religious people. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia and not some fairy tale land.

BTW the Jewish ideology of chosenness is a lot closer to Mr Goebbels' ideals than what I could possibly write. The Jewish claim to be God's people is practically the same as Nazis claiming to be the Herrenrasse. Cush (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure some would draw some major contrasts between the two; but I'll leave you to your own opinions; just remember this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, then why is all the religiously biased POV material allowed to remain? Every article that starts with "according to the bible" but then goes on to elaborate on the issue as if it were history is basically worthless. Such as the "The Exodus" article. Cush (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's one of several competing views of history. It's not worthless to explain what the competing views are - as long as we make it clear that there are competing views. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No. History and archaeology are sciences like all others. Either you have evidence to support your claims, or you don't. The reason why the "Exodus" is dated in a wide temporal range from the 13th Dynasty to the 20th Dynasty is exactly the complete lack of any evidence. All there is are the claims of a fundamentalist religion. That is worthless. And a book that was written hundreds, even thousands, of years after the events at issue and written by folks who have an interest in creating history is no reliable source whatsoever. Cush (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cush. You have new messages at Gidonb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rehoboam

Needs a good rewrite. Some is written by a Creationist I'm pretty sure, the same person who used Bible and Spade for the chronology at Solomon which I've rewritten but needs work also. It needs to be rewritten in a non-universe style and the chronology bit reworked. Interested? Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can sure take a look at it and make some suggestions. Cush (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ubaid

Yeh, I updated the Ubaid Period article to include the actual site (archaeology etc) and some misc updates, and coords. Seemed mostly ready to add to COTANE.Ploversegg (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

I have adjusted the coordinates somewhat. I suppose this is the right spot?

I used http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/usace/ and entry off http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraq05a.html which were about the same. Ploversegg (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

The latter of your websites has 30.955608920,46.046645324 for Ubaid. However there is nothing visible at the surface. And it's almost 2 km from the location I gave. So which one is right? Cush (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some links

You might be interested in this site - it's a blog (very academic and respectable) with lots of links to online resources. Haven't found anything in it about biblical chronology yet :) PiCo (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Which site? Cush (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - [2]. PiCo (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a lot of religiously motivated material. I do not trust religious people when it comes to archaeological and historical accuracy simply because of their obvious conflict of interests. Especially I do not trust Jews, because people who fabricate deities have no trouble fabricating history as well. Jewish records of the Exodus or of the glorious kings and judges are just not sound. I wouldn't trust or even ask the Vatican or Evangelicals about the historicity of Jesus either... Cush (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The site is academic, not religious. "PaleoJudaica.com is an experiment that aims to chronicle and comment on current developments (mainly as recorded in Internet sources) in the academic field of ancient Judaism and its historical and literary context." People with a religious slant would call it atheistic. It's run by Jim Davila, Reader in Early Jewish Studies at St Andrews University, Scotland - quite respectable in terms of his competence to pick what's relevant and interesting in the field. The link I put above is to various sources Davila has found online. His actual blog is here. PiCo (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What in the world distinguishes Jews from Christians, Hindus, etc when it comes to 'fabricating' gods? It's just part of human nature in any case. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Rktect

Although I'm not happy about your comments about me, I thought I'd tell you I've removed some of his material from Moses and Midian and am looking at the articles he created. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So if you are going after the Rktect stuff, please remove the File:Horeb.jpg image, because it is a map altered by himself to advance his position that the Exodus took place at the Gulf of Aqaba (he inserted the Horeb label at the bottom of the image himself).

And what comments? Sometimes I am just not so sure whether you demand adherence to WP rules from everybody in the same manner. Many articles about issues related to the ancient Middle East and subsequently the bible come across like religionist manifestos and are full of OR, e.g. from editors like User:Lisa (wasn't she an admin once?). Adherence to WP rules does not always produce the best results anyways, because the demand for secondary sources does not at all ask for the quality and neutrality of those sources (reliability is not the same as accuracy, Kenneth Kitchen is regarded a reliable Egyptologist but a closer look at his work reveals sloppiness and a clear submission to his christian fundamentalism). And many articles only have jewish or christian encyclopediae in their references section. That is just ridiculous. And I also wonder why you are the only admin around to take care of this whole mess of bible/history-related articles. WP is not religiously neutral, and I have no clue where you stand on that. Cush (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you don't remove the map yourself, why is that? I try to be consistent, I'm sure I fail at times. I believe in WP:RS and the statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." If you can built an argument that Kitchen shouldn't be used in an article that I can support, I gladly will. Don't ask me why other Admins aren't involved in some of the articles I am, I've no idea why that is. I hope you've read WP:Religion because it could be a real problem and you might want to comment on the talk page, although at the moment it seems pretty quiet. I'm not sure what you mean by WP is not religiously neutral, do you mean by policy or? Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How do I remove an image?

WP:RS fails in producing reliable WP articles. Just because something has been published does not mean it is worth anything. What's more, the source of a publication is essential to its reliability. If an article about the historicity of a biblical figure refers to soures that are published by jewish or christian institutions then the reliability is zero because of the COI that these would be in if they were to produce accurate material. I wouldn't expect the pope to publish anything meaningful about the historicity of Jesus, but nevertheless a book by the current pope on exactly that matter exists and it would be accepted by WP as a reliable source. Does a reliable source not have to be neutral? Equally using Kitchen as a source should be rejected exactly because he is a devout pentecostal evangelical. What I have learned about the Kitched-Rohl enmity is that the chronology by Rohl does in fact open a possibility for the bible to be real history, but it also makes divine involvement superfluous. I think that is the real reason behind Kitchen's disproportionate rejection of Rohl. He reminds me of creationists rejecting evolution. But such considerations cannot reflected in WP articles, because it would amount to OR and personal POV.

WP is not religiously neutral because it allows editors to use non-neutral language in articles. Whenever I try to alter "Chosen People" to "Israelites" or "Promised Land" to "Canaan" I get reverted. I mean, such language can appear in quotations, but certainly not in the text body of the WP article itself, even if the context is clear. There are tons of neutrality violations in WP, and I suppose you know that. It is my impression that due to the large number of religionist editors such charged language is tolerated, although it violates WP:Religion "There is no "default" position".

Oh, and I really see no use in having citations in Hebrew as if this were the Encyclopedia Iudaica. Cush (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Religion has no status right now I believe, a good thing because it would not help. I know there are a lot of neutrality violations, but I can only do what I can.

You can delete the image from the article easily, just as though it was text.

David Rohl considers the Bible to be more or less historical truth even though he's not a Christian, so I'm not sure how much better he is than Kitchen, he's just makes different arguments. I wouldn't make a creationist-evolutionist comparison here. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• So WP:Religion is a guideline, not a rule? I did not say you should remove all the neutrality violations, but I definitely miss a concerted effort of admins to reduce the religious bias in the wording of so many articles.
• No, I mean removing the image, not just the usage in an article.
• Ok, there are two sides to this. Rohl's revision of Egyptian chronology had the effect that the biblical dating suddenly fell in place with the new dates he arrived at for Egypt. So, unlike everybody else in the past 150 years he did not start out with the bible and sought to verify it. He went on from there and tried to inject the info given in the bible into his Egyptian chronology to explain certain peculiarities in Egyptian history. I do notice there is sometimes too much readiness to take a biblical tale seriously. I did in fact realize while reading his books that in some passages he went overboard, which of course reduces the credibility and unfortunately moves Rohl in the Velikovsky direction. Some of these passages are clarified in his later publications, unfortunately not all. The point I am making is that although I do not uncritically accept Rohl I know for sure that the incorporation of the biblical story into the orthodox chronology does just not work, except when one arbitrarily picks and chooses from the bible whatever seems fitting. I like the coherence in Rohl's model which I miss in the others. I do agree, however, that Rohl and others needs to refine the model. But if Rohl is overall wrong, why has he not been shown to be wrong? Where is the evidence-based refutation? If he is wrong, showing so should be easy... Cush (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Religion is just a draft, not even a proposal, and it may never get any further than a draft. I don't see any grounds to delete the image, what grounds would there be? I don't think that the Exodus, etc ever took place, I'm one of those that think the Israelite tribes in the main were indigenous to Canaan and that Judaism developed there during the first millennium. It doesn't appear many people take Rohl seriously enough to try to refute him. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So you follow Finkelstein's reasoning? Cush (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New Chronology page

Hey Cush. I just wanted to drop by and say that you've acquitted yourself very well in the "battle royal" over the New Chronology (Rohl) page. I particularly like your image, "File:NC Egyptian chronology comparison.png," though I'd like to recommend that you tell us who the "Shaw" of the conventional chronology and what work you got it from. You could put it in the caption or on the image description page. Otherwise, kudos.

TuckerResearch (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the identification of Shaw above. You probably noticed I fixed up the image's page. Also, so you know, I merged David Rohl - geographical theories into the New Chronology (Rohl) article, as I think there was a consensus that the page wasn't notable enough or necessary (see: Talk:David Rohl - geographical theories). TuckerResearch (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning about your behavior

moved to User talk:Cush/Warning about your behavior

A nice read.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush

An RfC on User:Cush's behavior has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush. -Lisa (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Next time you post something like "Read the fucking Bible" [3] I'll do anything I can to get you blocked. Such language is insulting to the Bible as well as to me personally. If you can not keep a cool head while editig Wikipedia, better you shouldn't edit at all. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To you personally I apologize. But there is no way to insult a book. Cush (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Appologies accepted. I am not the person to keep a grudge. What I meant is that one shouldn't use such words about a book that is revered by many as a holy book. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh

Cush, if I can tear you away from your exchange with Seeker, I really would like your views on what we can do to reduce the amount of space taken up in Yahweh by huge slabs of quotation, and to re-focus that section more on the nature of Yahweh as depicted in the various books. (And frankly, I don't think that discussion with Seeker is ever going to be fruitful). PiCo (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact I fail to understand what these quotes do to illustrate the character of the biblical deity. There should be descriptive text instead to explain what the quotes imply. Just quoting the bible without giving interpretation by a reliable secondary source is OR and should be tagged with the religious-text-as-primary-source tag. CUSH 02:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be grateful if you'd put that on the Yahweh talk-page. PiCo (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

POV Yahweh Vocalization Side-note

Hello Cush. Just replied to your latest reply to me in the Talk:Yahweh page, and I wanted to add a personal side-note to that. I don't think we actually disagree on what I was saying, I may just not be explaining my thought clearly enough. I have generally noted that you and PiCo are — for the most part — on the same page as I am on cleaning up the Y article.

Now that we have finally removed the behemoth sections about the vocalization that use to be in the article, I want to be vigilant about making sure all that does not creep back in. That discussion should, instead, go to the Tetra"n article, and that any discussion about the vocalization that remains within the Y article be kept to a absolute minimum (only present where really necessary, not going into much detail about it) and that it be neutral about that discussion (if people want to know more about it, they can go to the Tetra"n article for it).

That's a basic summary, and I get the feeling that you agree with these thoughts. — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Genesis talkpage

Really, no hard feelings. I find it much more difficult to work with people when they think I find their most heartfelt beliefs childish and distasteful, so I try to distance myself from such arguments. The worst thing you can do in an argument with a fundamentalist is drop to their level of argumentation. Try soundly refuting it instead. If they don't listen, you can walk away and still win (presuming there are witnesses ;D) --King Öomie 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have given up having arguments with religionists. I have no more intentions to somehow get them back into reality. But I will not let their charged terminology be spread in WP. The Genesis creation story is a myth, just as everything else in Genesis. There is no historical or archaeological basis for it whatsoever. So "account" is a misnomer. CUSH 15:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's why I continue to argue and debate on the page (and so far the page reflects that). I'm saying your method of argumentation is counterproductive. If a civil, non-snarky argument can't be made, I'm asking you as a fellow secularist to leave it alone. --King Öomie 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, we'll have a hard time proceeding if the people in favor of 'account' don't acquiesce. The last thing I want to do is piss them off, which might make them hunker down and stick to their guns for ANOTHER week, regurgitating the same arguments. --King Öomie 15:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you are somehow afraid of the sheeple. CUSH 19:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot physically stop them from being obstructionistic towards changes. It's outside of my power. So I avoid incentivising that behavior. It's hardly fear.

I place Wikipedia policy before my own convictions here. Which means I stand firmly behind Wikipedia's non-judgemental nature (within the constraints of WP:DUE). Which means no edits like this. --King Öomie 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you just stick to what you have reliable sources for, you are safe. Because the religionists never have reliable sources. You don't have to be judgmental. CUSH 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

When you're talking about religion, a law adage comes into play- "For every PhD, there is an equal but opposite PhD". No matter how good your source is, someone with sufficiently advanced google-fu will be able to find someone just as qualified saying the exact opposite. Just look at templeknight taking a source Gabbe provided and using the NEXT PARAGRAPH from the cited text to 'disprove' the point that the previous section made.

And to what I said before, you talking about the inherent lack of truth in the bible directly gave TK an argument, which I'm sure we'll be seeing again. Argue from the sources- about the term Creation Myth. This entire argument stems from people not knowing, or not caring, what the definition of the term is. They're 'under attack', and your style of argumentation vindicates their suspicions and amps them up. The factual veracity of the text it refers to is entirely irrelevant to the discussion- and is detrimental to the argument at hand. If you want to debate people on religion itself, Wikipedia probably isn't the place. --King Öomie 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But the issue is not religion as such, but whether or not we treat different religions differently. I see absolutely no reason to give Judaism/Christianity/Islam any preference over other contemporary or extinct religions. If we use the designation "myth" for the Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian creation stories, we must apply the same terminology to the creation story of Judaism and its offshoots. And we cannot let someone present the biblical creation story as factual (by calling it an "account") without evidence. I am of course aware that there is no such evidence. CUSH 17:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush2

An RfC on User:Cush's behavior has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush2.Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, you just got accused of being an "Anti-Semite" on the RFC's talk page by Weaponbb7 Nefariousski (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about such labels. You can call me whatever you want. That won't make the biblical god real. You only assault me because I am telling you that Yhwh is a human invention. · CUSH · 08:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at Genesis Creation Myth

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Last as far as i understand post can be removed if they violate WP policies Please assume good faith Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are in no position to remove other editors comments unless you are an admin. And I will not tolerate religious propaganda on Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with "good faith". And I am not stupid.· CUSH · 01:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

good to know... hmmmWeaponbb7 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think i am into religious Propaganda you are sadly mistaken Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way that ip Telling you off is what i was hoping to avoid by deleting that text Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I will not suffer being censored by you. Who do you think you are? The one who punishes dissent from belief in the biblical deity? · CUSH · 01:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I aplogized once and said i thought i was working within in Wikilaw, you informed me i was not an Admin. And Frankly Cush if i am the Gods instrument than watch for watch for a plauge of frogs in you neighborhood seeing as its pass over and all. and if frogs do happen to appear then please do inform so i go wreak havok on anyone who has ever disagreed with me on wikipedia, grade school, work et al Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you were "God's instrument", which would be a silly thing to say for an anti-theist. What I say is that you use your religious convictions to justify your fight against dissent to said religious convictions. You seek to abuse AFG to silence rejection of your religious positions. · CUSH · 03:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No you didnt but you implied that that is how i thought of myself as and frankly Cush, You attacked me the momment i stepped on the page in question. So yes, i am gonna slap you with one of nice warning templates every time you are out of line. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am never out of line, because I am neutral. You are out of line by being religious. You adhere to a concept of deity that demands the death of me and everyone else who rejects the silly idea of the supernatural. By adherence to said concept you ask for my death (although only indirectly). I call that a very personal attack, so watch what you accuse me of. There is no room in abrahamic religions for any dissent, for personal freedom, or equality among humans. You threaten everyone with death and go even beyond that by threatening eternal torture in an alleged afterlife. The blood that has been spilled in the name of the "god of Abraham" and the ideological aggression inherent in that concept of god makes the atrocities committed in the great wars of the 20th century seem miniscule. I have read the Bible and understood it. Have you?

My original interest on Wikipedia is ancient history, but unfortunately the numerous religious editors seek to introduce their alternative history that is based on the Bible instead of archaeological and historical research into articles about history. And in articles about the teachings of the Bible it is even worse, as in Genesis creation myth, where they seek to make creation or any other divine activity appear real. You can of course write in articles about what the Bible says, but cannot make its teachings the position of Wikipedia. · CUSH · 10:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:ATP -- User:Cush/Userbox/NoReligion

NoReligion Userbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Warning Please do not make personal attacks as you did at User:Cush/Userbox/NoReligion. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Warning Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This image, consisting of a Star of David with a prohibitory sign through it, was used for no other purpose than existing WP:CSD#G10-deleted userboxes. Please refrain from uploading similar images or content intended to disparage or attack their subject in the future. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Warning Please do not remove warnings from your talk page and/or replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page, or removing the warning text, will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC) What do you want? You have already deleted the Userbox in question. I have been under constant attack for my rejection of religion for the past 5 years. How about protecting me from editors who adhere to deities that demand my death? How much of personal attack is that? Religious people threaten me, in particular and in general. It is religious people who fly planes into buildings and who seek to work the world back to what they see as its proper religious foundations. · CUSH · 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Dear Cush: If other editors are violating Wikipedia policy (such as making personal death threats to you here in Wikipedia), I invite you to let me know of such instances. However, assumption of such via religious adherence is at best paranoid and at worst an attack on the ethics and motives of other Wikipedia contributors. If other editors are violating Wikipedia policy, please feel free to ask me or another administrator -- if you wish another administrator to look into it, please post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents requesting review, citing examples of conduct; otherwise, please leave those examples on my talk page, refraining from any extraneous content. I don't personally want anything from you, but what I do want is for you to behave respectfully, amicably and responsibly in your work on Wikipedia, and refrain from engaging in the behaviours that I have cautioned you about. I would suggest that you take a step back from your own point of view for a moment, and perhaps work on other article topics in which you have less of a vested interest. In closing, I should point out that I am not a Christian, and am not even a theist. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC) You see, the point that I am making is that I insist on religiously neutral language in WP articles. Editors such as Weaponbb7 or Lisa, however, seek to manipulate articles so that they express an inclination towards these editors' beliefs. This is against WP policy as well as against neutrality and fairness in general. Editors like these claim to represent the majority of editors. But that is of course only the case because editors on this WP are from the US where the religious landscape is considerably different from the rest of the world. Here in Europe their PoV is fringe and no debate on whether Genesis is an actual account of the world's origin would ever arise. As for turning my focus elsewhere: I would in fact like to go back to editing articles about ancient history. Unfortunately these articles get more and more fucked by religionist editors who seek to introduce biblical tales as real history into said articles. By now I am furious about the religiously charged language that is slipped into articles everywhere. And it seems there are no admins who care about this trend. · CUSH · 21:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I had absolutely zero contact with Weaponbb7 until after I had already deleted your userbox. I have received no e-mail messages from Weaponbb7. I neither support nor oppose his point of view over yours. Wikipedia is, however, not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a place where you have a "right" to any kind of expression of position at all (as per WP:NOT; it is a project for building an encyclopedia. If you wish to exercise that right of free speech, you must go elsewhere other than Wikipedia, such as perhaps to your own webpages, MySpace, Facebook, et cetera, all venues where expression of free speech may be exercised. Whilst you are a Wikipedia contributor, you are here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Nobody is using me for any fight whatsoever, and nobody will be. If you feel you are having difficulty editing articles because of other users, those other users are bound just as much by Wikipedia policy. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) That is not my experience. Religious statements are made ubiquitously without any check for the actual reliability of sources. When in an article the result of archaeological and historical research can be replaced by a bible reference, then there is something wrong with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. The end of it is that we have Judeochristian doctrine in articles about ancient history. Why is there no admin actively controlling the WP policies here? · CUSH · 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) There are such admins "controlling" the enforcement of WP policies. You are talking to one. Show me examples, and I will look into them. However, my suspicion is that you fall for the trap of advocating "the truth", and dislike the existence of sourced material that relates to religious belief within articles -- this is a common error. Biblical accounts of history have their place in historical articles, provided that they are annotated as such and come from reliable secondary sources. as per WP:CS, WP:V, etc. On a further note; I would like to remind you to please keep to a single account for editing Wikipedia, and whilst I am not at the present time intending to take any administrative action further to this I think you know which account I am referring to. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) So, you are accusing me of having sock puppets? Wow, you better have evidence. I consider that a personal attack on my integrity. Cush has been my only account on WP for 4 years, 5 months, and 8 days. Before that I had another account, but I have not used that since I am Cush (I don't even remember its name, I would have to look that up). Now you really got me furious. And I am not advocating "truth". I advocate verifiability and reliability. The Bible is neither reliable nor verifiable when it comes to its use as a historical source. · CUSH · 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Alright. I was trying to give you a chance to stop using the other account with dignity... but so be it, an RFCU is on its way. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Insufficient evidence. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Are you serious? WHAT OTHER ACCOUNT???? I have no other account. · CUSH · 21:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC) My thoughts were initially that Sanskit (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of yours, since both of you exhibit very similar prose regarding being considered under death threat by Judeo-Christian editors, and both created userboxes that are substantially similar in intent and tenor on the same subjects. In addition, both MfDs (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cush/Userbox/NoReligion) were on the queue at the same time, and both owners voiced their view of being subject to death threats from Judeo-Christians in a similar tenor. In addition, both of you seem to have a similar dogged persistence in heated behaviour regarding Genesis creation myth, etc. Since there *are* differences in your behaviour, from what I can see, I don't honestly know. If I have made a mistake here, I apologise. However, you are free to request comment on my behaviour at WP:AN/I -- and actually I would be grateful for an outside opinion regarding the diaspora of this dispute. I have not, as of yet, actually placed a Request for Checkuser, given there does not seem to be quite enough evidence to do so. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I have already posted the remark at ANI. Too much is too much for one day, especially with a condescending sentence like "I was trying to give you a chance to stop using the other account with dignity". After all, that is a serious allegation. · CUSH · 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The best place for Dawkins' teaching is Richard Dawkins

You have stated lately in a number of places that your hostility to the God of Christianity arises, because you believe that the God of Christianity wishes you (and everyone else) to be dead. While this is interesting (though unusual) personal theological perspective, I don't see where such sentiments should have anything at all to do with the wikipedian's main task, which is basically, just to find representative sources to cover all significant viewpoints, on any given topic, in a balanced way. If this teaching you subscribe to (that the God of Christianity wishes everyone dead) can indeed be attributed to Richard Dawkins, then his article might be the best place to describe this no doubt controversial teaching, if that's what you think needs to be contributed to wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear jester, you delight me so much. · CUSH · 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Exceedingly glad to meet you

I'm just dropping by to congratulate you once again for asking great questions. Unfortunately, there were other points I felt contributed more to the discussion at Genesis creation myth, 'cause I wanted to congratulate you there.

The sincere atheist, imo, is wasting time talking to Genesis literalists, if they can't accept (or understand) astronomy, they're ripe to swallow all manner of obfuscation regarding the fossil record, and they're lost to the evidence God has given them regarding the actual history of the world. It's sad, but leave 'em to me and other Christians like me, we want to convert them to science too, because it's embarrassing to have loose canons on the Christian ship. Your job is not converting them, it is converting people like me.

And, here's the thing. Your last questions pinned me down on the important issue. As far as the article goes, all I need is a notable number of scholars with the PoV that Genesis demythologizes to demonstrate the current title is inadequate as a heading inclusive of all notable PsoV. BUT! But, so what, what's an article title here or there? Is Genesis really myth in the technical sense: symbolic narrative. That gives Bible believers like me a free pass, doesn't it? We can dodge the accusation of having claimed to know the science of the past and failed. Not only that, we can interpret the symbols any way that suits us, can't we? If Genesis 1 is myth, i.e. symbolic narrative, all is lost for the atheist who hoped to pin the Bible believer down to a claim that can be true or false and turns out to be false.

Half-hearted Christians, unsure of what they really believe, almost invariably jump at a mythological reading of Genesis. But can we let them escape so easily? I think you are absolutely right to say, "not so fast!" And you have Darwin on your side (not to mention all those creationists who agree with you that Genesis 1 is literal). If you meet any Christians like this, they are almost yours. Challenge them on the resurrection. Is that a "symbolic narrative" too?

If you want to force Christians to be unscientific, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and Jesus' miracles are the way to go. These are where the Bible diverges from science as we know it.

I became a Christian as an adult, but there was a time I was open to a literal reading of Genesis 1. If there were a God, he could do anything, and the Bible couldn't make mistakes. But I knew too much science. Science told me Genesis 1 couldn't be literal, but that was assuming the Bible had to end up not being wrong. I needed something better. Do the words of Genesis themselves, without science influencing my interpretation, suggest a literal or figurative reading? That was my question. Henri Blocher took me through the Hebrew and, at last, I could see a lot better how the words worked.

Genesis is still absolutely wrong if there is no God, because that cannot be explained away as merely part of an artistic symbol. It's still absolutely wrong if there is a God, but that God didn't influence the way it is phrased, for complicated reasons that take us a long way from our core questions.

But as far as language and literature go, I think you will find the scholars who've worked on that have done a great job. Yes, for believer or unbeliever alike, it can be seen that the language of Genesis 1 is special, artistic and deliberate: three days creating spaces by separations, three days populating each of those regions and giving two of those regions rulers.

Sorry if this post is too long. I'll close with a quick comment in response to evesdropping on your discussion above. I think you have a better case as an atheist in following the line that the God of the Bible is immoral (just like it seems you personally do). A God could organize things the way the Bible claims its God organized things. God kind of trumps science, up to a point, and the God of the Bible doesn't "pull rank" over the natural world all that much at all. But it's a far more important point to decide if an all-powerful God is actually deserving of moral respect. Might does not make right. Why is the Bible's God so hung up about sin? Why is the death penalty appropriate? Perhaps, even if the Bible's God was actually real, he'd be a tyrant that deserved to be resisted. He's really into himself if you read the whole book (or even a small sample of it), and it seems you might have done this already. If I've picked it correctly, I think you have exactly the right understanding of the Bible. The God of the Bible makes things horribly personal. Keep fighting him! No harm if he's not real, and it's a lot safer to fight him than to ignore him if the Bible is actually true.

Please feel free to delete this, and to savage me on my talk page, or both, whatever you wish. But I mean what I said, I am exceedingly pleased to meet you, and respect your advanced point of view against the God of the Bible. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou

Weaponbb7 has extended an olive branch of peace.

---

Thank you for admitting you may have been mistaken at our first encounter Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't overdo it. · CUSH · 14:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Call me weird, but isn't Cush the one who extended the olive branch? Just 2 cents from a casual observer. --84.44.143.183 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I only said that I reacted harshly. The issue in question remains. Someone who says that the creation tale in Genesis has as much credibility as the Big Bang Theory has no respect or understanding of science whatsoever. · CUSH · 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you extended as much of an olive branch as reasonable and appropriate, not more, not less. --78.34.217.191 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am a rationalist and reasonalist And I am generally opposed to such people who are not. I know I am sometimes not appropriate in that. ;-) · CUSH · 10:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bible

Regarding this edit, I am reading the sentence you've tagged as unreferenced, and it doesn't seem to make much sense to me, or at the very least it is out of context. In other words, the lack of a reference is not the real problem with this statement. Would you object to having it removed altogether? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see who exactly makes the interpretations that the biblical books create a story arc, and on what grounds such interpretation are made. · CUSH · 10:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"most Christian denominations teach that the Bible itself has an overarching message." So they do: they say that the narrative arc begins with the Creation, moves on to God's election of Israel as his Chosen People and to whom he promises the Messiah, that Israel then sins and that God instead sends his son (the Messiah) to the whole world instead of just the Jews. This is pretty basic to Christian theology, surely? (You don't have to believe it, just note it in the article). PiCo (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that. However, there are warring interpretations of such an arc, especially between Judaism and Christianity. So it is of importance who claims what and on what grounds. And not just vaguely, but who exactly claims what and based on what biblical passages. · CUSH · 06:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A statement

I have learned for myself that your beliefs are not true. 216.49.181.128 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I hold no beliefs. · CUSH · 08:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Be aware that a matter concerning you has been raised at WP:WQA#User:Cush. You are encouraged to respond with your views. Dolphin (t) 04:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello and "Grüeß di!"

I've found you as a new user in the Bavarian (Boarisch) Wikipedia. Do you have special interests there? Having been landed here, I see that you consider yourself non-religious, what's your good right; but moreover you think that the world would be better without any religion. Also your good right - but don't you presume that this might influence your editing negatively? For instance, I am a Catholic; but see just my artice on Miguel Torga, that agnostic Portuguese poet and writer (if you have any Bavarian, of course ;-) ). Hellsepp 10:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)