User talk:Orangemarlin/Religion 2

For Religious discussion.

Personal editing with the Name

Regarding [1] may if it isn't too personal I inquire as to what religion you are and why you won't do this? JoshuaZ 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm Jewish, and it's like ingrained into my brain that we don't mention G_d's name. Therefore, I have chosen to not edit any sentence that requires the name, because someone will try to correct it. Kind of a simple thing, but I've avoided it, despite the articles I've chosen to edit. Of course, I edit some odd articles, so I get to avoid it frequently. Orangemarlin 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most people should realize that the Old Testament, which was mostly if not completely written in Hebrew, was written with no vowels whatsoever, including the various names for God, including the tetragrammaton YHWH (probably the most common transliteration, although there are many others). You might also find the article on Names of God in Judaism interesting.--Filll 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There we go. I was more interested in the cute girls in Hebrew school than actually paying attention to the Rabbi. Orangemarlin 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your behavior from an emotional perspective, I don't think it makes much sense halachicly. Almost everyone agrees that letter combination carries with it no strict halahic obligations, and given the non-permanent medium even an actual Hebrew name would presumably not be an issue. And if one were to think there was some sort of issue then there would be at least as much trouble editing any section that had that letter combination. JoshuaZ 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Valid points. It hasn't been an issue, frankly, so it's really no big deal. And as un-religious as I am, and how marginally do I believe in any higher being, it probably doesn't deserve this much conversation. Orangemarlin 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I was too flippant, mostly because I was replying while involved in other things. To be serious, I was taught that by using G_d, you were showing a sign of respect, although Orthodox Jews tend to have a more serious reasoning behind it. To simplify my reasoning down to a the lack of vowels in Hebrew does not reflect a religious attitude and teaching that is deeply ingrained into many Jews. It is a matter of honor. Whether it started because of the vowels, well, I buy that. And we don't eat pork for some sanitary reason that's not important today. For me, it's that Jewishness is not necessarily or exclusively a religion, but it is so much more. I hope that Filll and JoshuaZ respect my wishes. Orangemarlin 05:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not like pork and avoid it if at all possible. My mother always tried to get me to eat it and I think it is gross. But I do love shrimp and prawns I am afraid. Is this traif? I do not know how to spell it.--Filll 01:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Baraminology

Ye be right: We don't need to increase the section on scientific status: my fixes to the rest of the article fixed the POV problems already. Now just have to figure out what to do about Created kind. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Baraminology blog report

Had to update Part I to remove the site JoshuaZ pointed out was a parody. Luckily, Wayne Friar - undeniably for real - is just as mockable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. I thought we had 'em right where we wanted 'em. LOL. Orangemarlin 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Searches for Noah's Ark

But dude! "...it has been scintefically proved the earths core is damp(wet) all the bottom layer meanining it happened 100000 years ago"! Scintefically ! ;) (joke) Wjhonson 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Naval gazing

I've taken that bit of the discussion to User talk:Allenroyboy. Just in case you're in an disptuative mood and need to vent it somewhere. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not too disputative (I guess that's really a word). These people think several things that drive me nuts: 1) Anything published on the internet is fact, 2) Someone's internet credentials actually mean they know what they're talking about and 3) That real science is actually in dispute by reasonable and intelligent people. They're fun to tease, but there's serious editing to be done on real articles, like Evolution, and whole host of others. Orangemarlin 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see these pages and comment

Orange. Could you have a look at these articles and their talk. --Metzenberg 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

User:Metzenberg

I was not "stalking" User:Metzenberg. I looked at four related articles (Natan Slifkin at a generic request of said user, in attempt to gather more knowledge on the subject), and found similar problems on all four. It turned out those problems related to User:Metz, and he took my edits as a personal vendetta against him. As mentioned I stand by my edits and tagging, apart from an initial mistake to delete Anti-Defamation League opinions as unrelated to Jewry (oops!). I especially stand by my decision to delete an unrelated monkey picture on the article of Jewish opposition to evolution ([version], please look).

Could you please offer comments towards getting these articles unprotected so that editors can get back to improving these articles. User:Metz has quit wikipedia in lieu of trying something appropriate like mediation, or a genuine RfC; so I don't forsee any more "edit wars". The articles seem to have attracted minor attention from knowledgable wikipedians who may be able to expand the articles.--ZayZayEM 06:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi OrangeMarlin

I won't leave wikipedia! I've really enjoyed writing, and I am really proud of some of the contributions I have made. But I realize now that I was naive to think that I could simply use my real name and be who I am.

I somehow attracted a stalker. My stalker, if his profile is to believed, is a 21-year-old, Australian biomedical student. He simply decided that he wanted to always be where I was and work on whatever article I was working on. He would be deliberately contentious about everything.

Even so, I think he didn't have bad intent. I think he actually felt he was doing something good, that he was supposed to be there to "watch" what I was doing. Since I was changing wikipedia by editing, he had to watch what I did and make sure I did it his way. He had to make changes to my changes in order to own part of them himself. Perhaps, it makes him feel that he has contributed articles. (I doubt he was really capable of writing articles himself.) It was some kind of obsessive, personal psychological problem.

Since he knows every Wikipedia procedure and policy there is backwards and forwards, he is surely somebody who has other identities. I am guessing that he may have been kicked off the site at least once before, and come back.

I have been stalked before, in real life. But it has always been middle aged Jewish women. (I am a divorced, middle aged Jewish man.)

Being cyberstalked was different. Because it is wikipedia, every time I would log on, he could tell I was there. If I wrote a caption for a picture, he would want to re-write it. If I put a picture on the left side, he would want it on the right side. I would write a paragraph, and immediately he would want to rearrange it, put it somewhere else. I felt like he was looking over my shoulder as I was writing. His so-called "contributions" were not of any value, as far as I'm concerned. Suddenly I was spending all my time trying to answer him. We had edit conflicts (where I would try to save the page, and it would turn out I couldn't because he had just saved the page in the time since I had done it). Normally, that never happens to me. He clearly wanted to draw me into some kind of edit war or procedure war.

It was absurd because he really had no interest in the articles I was working on, other than the fact that I was interested in them. As I put it to him, he didn't know Teaneck from Tanakh. He followed me from one article I started or worked on to the next, constantly making annoying little changes to navigation, layout, design. I would change something, and he would immediately challenge me on it, claiming I was violating some wikipedia policy. It became exasperating. I asked him over and over to just leave me alone and come back in a few days. But he wanted to be there when I was there. I tried to work at odd hours, so as to avoid him. Read the Talk sections for those evolution pages. You'll find the comments funny!

I would like to continue working on these articles. My ultimate goal is to really polish the articles about Judaism and evolution. I have a new book of essays on the subject from the University of Chicago Press which I am reading right now, preparing to rewrite the page. Unfortunately, I can't do it with my Australian friend watching. If I go back there, he'll recognize my new wikipedia identity and my writing style and interests. I'm going to have to wait a few months.

I searched in vain on the Community pages for some solution about what to do. Everybody I asked to look at it looked at it as a "real" edit conflict, but that's not what it was. He was a stalker!

As I said before, my desire is to write. I am not interested in policies or procedures or administration. I just want to write.

--216.89.203.226 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (The real user M-E-T-Z-E-N-B-E-R-G)

---

Being stalked by an attractive Jewish woman sounds like fun. I'm a middle-aged Jewish physician/businessman, and I never get stalked. Of course, I live in a city with precisely one temple, so I believe the odds don't favor me. I like these articles a lot. As you can tell from my edits, I'm mainly interested in Evolution, much less so in religion, unless it impinges on what I know is sound science. Before these articles were written, you should have seen the garbage about "Jewish" dogma on a whole host of scientific subjects. In one article, Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, some editor, a christian creationist of some sort, quoted some Rabbi, seemingly confirming that ALL Jews were creationists. I was appalled (figuring that was it, I was converting to Unitarianism or something). Then I read the link, and the quote was out of context, and the Rabbi (who I believe was Orthodox), stated that there is no conflict between the Torah and Science. In essence, he stated that one shouldn't be afraid of Dinosaurs (in the sense that it invalidates the Torah), because Evolution and the Torah can coexist peacefully. I agree with you on Wiki policy--I accept most of it, but I don't think it was meant to stifle opinion. Write away. There are several of us who will step in to assist. you know this stuff well, so write what you believe is factual and/or verifiable. it'll get fine-tuned, I'm sure. Orangemarlin 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

References on evolution

It was a mistake, not a deliberate choice, as should have been obvious. Try not to assume that everyone else is an idiot. Thanks. Graft 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Monkey Girl

Looked up Monkey Girl (the book on the Intelligent Design page). Looks like it's actually just a journalistic history of Kitzmiller. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did look it up, and I thought it really was what you say it was, and that sounds pretty notable for the ID crowd. I wouldn't buy the book, but if I wanted to know how the Creationist crowd is thinking, I'd read it. Orangemarlin 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my request For arbitration.

You are allowed to make a statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Metzenberg-ZayZayEM

And, if you know others who can assist me, please help. --Metzenberg 16:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also entered proposal for a compromise on Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. If my proposal is accepted by User:ZayZayEM and User:Guettarda I will withdraw this request for arbitration, and we can consider this resolved. I have informed them. --Metzenberg 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spellings

Just curious why do you spell 'God' 'G_d'? 68.109.234.155 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm Jewish, and traditionally we don't. There are a number of theories as to why, including the fact that Hebrew does not contain vowels (which is an odd argument). It is a sign of respect, to be honest, because in Judaism, G-d's name should never be erased, so we cannot blaspheme Him if we do not spell his name. Since a computer screen is not permanent, it does not matter, but I do it as a sign of respect and honor to my L_rd and G_d. See, Names of God in Judaism#In English for more information. And I bet you thought I was an atheist. Orangemarlin 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you are anti-christian. Frankly the whole name of God thing to me seems superstitious. Do you not feel you should respect other's relgions as much as I think you would like others to respect your? 68.109.234.155 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not anti-Christian. I actually don't give two thoughts as to what you think about the name of G_d thing. I respect other religions as long as A) they keep it to themselves, B) keep it out of government and schools, C) are not anti-semetic, and D) don't shove it in my face. Orangemarlin 18:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem very angry at times. So others have to 'keep it to themselves'? Should jews not wear the headpiece in public? And not display the jewish symbol? And do not citizens have a right to petition the govt to have prayer in school and even petition to have the US become a Christian theocracy? Not saying they will succeed. But to stamp out their rights hurts others. I am sure you know the little saying where first they came for the jews, then the homosexuals, then the gypsies and then 'me'? I think the DI has a right to petition the government for what they feel is right and try to have laws changed and try to use the courts for what they think is right. You and I might disagree but they certainly have that right. They certainly have the right to free speech. Would you take that away from them so they would 'keep it to themselves'? 68.109.234.155 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope not angry. It's a yamaka, and keep it to themselves means precisely what I said--if you want to wear a cross, yamaka or turban, do so, just don't force the teaching of one religion over another. No, Citizens are expressly forbidden by the Constitution from having ANY mixing of religion and government. So no prayer in school. DI has no rights to do anything with schools or government (unless they want to run for a position), because it represents a religion. If you want to teach religion to children, go for it, but do it at home. I do. I sent my children to Hebrew school. Free speech is allowable as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. Prayer in school is not a protected right, it is, once again, mixing of religion and a government institution. There are a large number of fundamentalist christian PRIVATE schools in the country, go pray away in that atmosphere, I don't care. Orangemarlin 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For your information, another editor seemed very incivil to me so I've commented here. Please advise me if I'm mistaken. .. dave souza, talk 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put up with a lot of incivil comments from rbj over the past few months. But changing that, which is a personal faith issue, is borderline anti-semitic. I've just about had it. And no, why would I think you're uncivil? Orangemarlin 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Diff for rbj's uncivil edits anti-semitism? Orangemarlin 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was being a bit oblique, the intention was to make it clear it wasn't a suggestion that you'd been uncivil, and didn't think I'd been either. Have left a brief response to your heads-up, basically ANI seems sensible, sorry if I didn't appreciate how sensitive this was. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 20:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More Noah's Ark nonsense

Take a look at this bbc article:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4853890.stm

This guy is building a 1/5 scale boat (90 feet long or so then) and he plans to cruise around on the Dutch water canals with some baby animals on it to "prove" that Noah's Ark existed. He thinks that children hearing the creaking of the wood and smelling the poop will be convinced that Noah's Ark was real. Wow that sounds like really great proof doesnt it? --Filll 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's always good to know that Europe has a few fundies running around. What a nutjob!Orangemarlin 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth

Instead of blanket reverting me under factually inaccurate labels you could move yourself to explaining your objections on the article talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh you mean to gain consensus? Explain actions? Like you and your friends did with the article? You're right, I should spend 15 more seconds explaining myself than you did. Orangemarlin 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are enjoying your condescension. In any case, I have explained all my edits in edit summaries and on the talk page - explain meaning more than just throwing around acronyms. And note: I have no friends working on the article, the one coming closest is Sophia, which with I do not share a POV, and Paul B. I am not friends with Jbolden, if you are referring to him. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't care who are your friends or not. You could say you're friends with the Pope and how am I ever going to believe you one way or another. The fact is that the article got completely destroyed, and it was done in an underhanded way. I have no clue if you were part of the group that did it, but all I see are POV edits from you and the others. I do not condescend. Do not state what you "think" I am doing. I am matter-of-fact about this. I see POV, OR, and other issues, and I revert. It truly appears to me that you are destroying the article. If you are not, then why so much own research in it? Orangemarlin 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in guys but having worked with both of you I know that if we can just cool down, identify the real wild card here (jbolden) and backtrack to a place we all recognise, that we now have the sort of people around to build a good article. Yep Str has a POV but so do I and I know from working with him in the past that he is knowledgeable and fair in a dispute. Str was in no way part of the little huddle that had a "good idea" one day to mess things up and I personally was relieved to see him arrive as I knew we would then have discussions that were not "mickey mouse". I respect you both immensely and would love it if we could all work together constructively. Sophia 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still completely puzzled about what happened to the article and what the sides are. I wish we could roll things back to how they were.--Filll 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orange,

I did not call YOU names but commented on what I think unacceptable behaviour. You may disagree but it is not name-calling.

You didn't call me either .... and that was actually what I complain about. That you didn't tell me your concerns.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your explanation that I was "caught in the cross-fire": I did not edit based Jbolden's version - he was reverted quite independent of me and my edits - you did revert only my edits. And even if your explanation were true (I guess you reverted me without lookin under the impression that I upheld Jbolden) simply repeated unexplained reverting is not solution to this. :If you do "not read edits" than you should not revert them. "Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article." Not at all - I discussed several items on the talk page and got a go ahead. You reverted me asking where this was discussed but when I pointed it out to you, you didn't react (except by reverting).

Nor can I accept the reasoning that I was editing based on a disputed version (untrue, except from jbolden's perspective) and that was reason enough to revert me. If I revert someone on another page I must ensure that later valid edits do not get lost. And if I don't deem them valid, I must explain my case.

I also object to your deeming me guilty by association. I had contacts with Dbachman before (I can't remember where) but not on this article.

I will not get involved much on Noah's Ark but must say that article's are always subject to change, categories included. That's what the disclaimer on the edit page says. But never mind. I agree that the Ark is a mythological ship under a certain definition of mythology (with which I disagree but which happens to be accepted). The treasure ship however doesn't seem to fit that word under any accepted definition.

I copied your talk page content to the article talk page to get the discussion going. Had you only replied to me or would others not have ignored the issue, thinking jbolden the only issue worth rising, it wouldn't have come to this.

I am willing to let bygones be bygones and hope for peace. Could you please indicate on the talk page which of the several version is acceptable to you so that I can work on it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your metaphor quite well and do not assume violence. Metaphors are metaphors, after all. I will have a look into the new situation tomorrow. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NT literalism

I ought to have gotten back to you sooner, but I didn't have the time at the moment and then it slipped my mind until a recent essay was posted on my talk page. Have a look at this. Astonishing.

First let me say that you responded to a much stronger statement than the one I actually made. By "credible" I meant that the NT places Jesus in a cultural setting we can identify and which we know really existed, which is much more than we can say for the presentation of the ark story in the OT. While I do of course believe he really lived, that isn't what I was saying to CS just then. My point to him was that it's possible to believe in Jesus without abandoning the facts and reason.

Your objections go wrong from the very first, I think. We have a considerable amount of evidence that Jesus lived. While a secular scholar might discard the miracle stories of the Gospels and other NT material, there's no reason to not treat them as we would any other historical documents. The earliest material, the first of the Pauline epistles, was written within a decade or two of the events and thus well within the living memory of those who ought to have known if it was false. The picture we get from all this of Jesus is astonishingly consistent for a fictional character created over the decades-long period in which the NT was composed, by people not in direct contact with each other. It's less astonishing if Jesus is a real person. The NT at least as reliable as other such material where the existence of the people described is not seriously questioned.

For people of that era, we most often have to rely on indirect sources. Consider: of contemporary written material we have practically nothing. Yes, we have some philosophers, poets, and historians; all those whose work medieval scribes thought worth recopying. But what of the vast amount of official records and paperwork which a government as extensive as the Roman Empire would have required? Practically nothing except for an accidental survival here and there. It was written on papyrus, which needs the aridity of the Egyptian desert to survive for that long, but this is exactly the kind of material used to record someone like Jesus in his interactions with the authorities. In general, the only way we know of anyone from that time whose name was not preserved in a recopied manuscript is if it was literally carved in stone, or stamped in metal. Even for Emperors we often have to rely on their coinage for information.

If it's "telling" that there is no direct evidence of him, it's even moreso that there was no direct contradiction of him either. For all those who objected to Christianity and sincerely wished it would go away, the one objection never raised to it is that its founding figure never lived. It seems likely he was well-known in Jewish circles, but no one ever claimed he was well-known outside that context until his cult became widespread. Until then he was a Jewish preacher of the type the literati of Rome would have taken no notice whatsoever. How many of the rabbis of the time described in the Talmud can be independently verified? I do not doubt there are a great many people of the time, more important than Jesus to their contemporaries, of whom we now have no record.

It has proven hazardous to rely on the absence of evidence to debunk anything, the NT not excepted. Just one example among several: It was once a current opinion in some circles that the Gospels were fictionalized to the point where Pontius Pilate was made up out of whole cloth. (I suppose they ascribed his appearance in Josephus to later Christian tampering.) Then his name was found carved in a dedicatory inscription at Caesarea Maritima. Events like this, which happen from time to time, are one reason why I'm never too worried about current opinion in archaeology that seems to contradict a Christian historical claim. They're almost always based on an absence than something concrete, and are not infrequently disproved over time.

I think mentioned Socrates. It's really amazing that his existence is never questioned, and yet there is even less evidence for him than for Jesus. Again, there is no direct evidence for him, and he wrote nothing himself. What we do know of him comes from three main sources: two of his disciples, Plato and Xenophon, and several playwrights, particularly Aristophanes. The former idealize him out of all recognition and use him as a mouthpiece for their own ideas; the second parodies him. From all of these we get such dramatically divergent accounts that he might as well have been a standard fictional character to whom it was convenient to attach stories, or attribute dialogue.

The treatment the Jews have received at the hands of the Christians over the years is tragic no matter what the underlying truths. I really think it was always more the irrational fear of the "other" than anything else. No matter where they lived, faithful Jews were always an identifiable group distinct from the general population. In general, I don't see that any religion has been a cause of violence as often as it seems. I think it most often is used to justify violence that people want to carry out regardless, but want to appear morally upright when doing it. This is much easier if you can make people believe that God wants you to. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus the mythical article

I love this place. Having a full time job positively counts against you - huh? Sophia 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I give up - wikipedia will always have crap religious articles. Sophia 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course but I needed someone to let off steam to! I just haven't the time to pursue at the moment as I am snowed under, so I will just have to pick up the threads when I can and hope my worst fears have not been realised. Sophia 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

I just noticed your edit summary. Armenia is certainly a country, and as far as I'm aware Mount Ararat straddles the border between it and Turkey. --Gene_poole 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I know that. I meant that Ararat exists in Turkey, at least the part of concern with Noah's Ark. I know why it was changed however, because I'm not going to assume good faith--someone cares about the official name of where it's located. There's not a lot of room in edit summaries. I was more concerned about the POV edits however. Orangemarlin 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth

Hi. Well, all I have are personal opinions, for what they are worth. I spent a few minutes looking over the edit history and it is not clear to me what the main points of contention are - if you could spell it out for me maybe I could give better feedback. From what I reviewed I saw four main issues.

1. process. I agree that someone should not make major changes to an article without discussion, in principle.
2. does it matter whether Jesus was a real person? NOR is our savior, here. The question is not does any or all editors think that it matters whether Jesus was a mythical being that some people believe acted in history, or a real person around whom a large body of mythology has been developed. The question is, what do the major scholars writing on the issue think? My own understanding is that most believe he probably existed but that what we call Christianity was based as much or more on the incorporation of wide-spread near-eastern myths, than that guys actual life and acts. Maybe I am wrong. That doesn't matter - the point is, whatever it is that the main sources (scholars) the article draws on claims, ought to be in the article. If the major proponents of this approach are divided, the article should say so.
3. should the article state that these scholars are skeptics who espouse a naturalist view? Well, I do not find that objectionable because I assume that people who are skeptics and espouse a naturalist view are proud of the fact. That said, I would again appeal to NOR. I think the issue is this: what are the assumptions and methods used by these scholars? The answer should come from the books and articles used as sources themselves. Most ggood historians, especially when writing on the Bible, try to summarize their assumptions and methods and it is good to educate readers about this.
4. was the Talmudic Yeshu Jesus? I happen to believe that he was, but in a non-historic (i.e. mythic i.e. the Rabbis were constructing their own myth to counter the Christian myth) way. But again, NOR - it doesn't matter what I think. There are some scholars who have made just this argument, such as Jeffrey Rubenstein (no relation). However, this is contested and there is no I repeat no proof that Yeshu = Jesus.

So, is this what you were looking for? If not, please let me know and tell me more what you think the real issue is. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

myth

if you can specifiy a few particular edits, perhaps I can comment more specifically - or provide me with two clearly distinct versions to compare. --Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

An example of what I find so disturbing about the religious right

Just watch this one: [2]--Filll 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't get what's going on or what it's intended to mean, but it reminds me of some of the sequences from W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism. Well, as long as she's enjoying herself....... dave souza, talk 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ as myth

Changing the phrasing of a title is not "massive". People do it all the time. Since the actual debate was taking place on the Jesus-myth hypothesis page I explained it there. Do you think you could discuss matters in a less, shall we say, melodramatic fashion. Paul B 07:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is underhanded. If that's melodramatic, how about you try putting your arms around consensus, and maybe we won't. Please don't post your attacks on my page. Orangemarlin 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

God article

Reverted your removal of the paragraph on Intelligent design and tweaked it slightly to address the issue your edit summary raised. The paragraph still isn't ideally worded, but the topic is clearly relevant to the article and I believe the language should be improved by editing and sourcing rather than simply deleting. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that ID does not "prove" the existence of G_d, I guess I don't care. The editor of that point, as I recall, has been just this short of spamming a bunch of articles with what I believe are POV statements. I guess that was my point with this editor. But your edits look fine, as they usually do!!! Orangemarlin 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I must confess I don't know very much about the details of ID as the Discovery Institute promulgates it. However, I have this vague recollection that a few federal judges thought this particular distinction didn't really make a difference, so I imagine the point could be argued either way. I agree sourcing isn't adequate. Feel free to add a {{fact}} tag and/or some counter-argements, although no more space for that than the original paragraph, please. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth

I hope I didn't let you down - the edit history just confused me. Maybe you wanted to avoid naming names but if there is still a problem there and you can direct me to the two versions that represent the conflict, perhaps I can still help? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey slr, no way did you let me down. The attacks on numerous articles seems to have subsided, so I have time to work on more fun projects--I got some others to do the heavy lifting on the Jesus/myth articles. Frankly, I'm rather stupid about the whole Jesus thing, but I know when I'm reading POV stuff. I did read the EVO/DEVO article that you had suggested a few weeks ago. I found out that I knew nothing, and spent more time clicking on wikilinks reading up on other stuff. I was going to thank you for "wasting" about 3 good hours of my day while I learned some fascinating stuff. In fact, because of the links, I ended up at the Biology article, which I found to be a travesty. I've worked on it on and off, but I need to focus on it. I figure I've done some things to get it started, and the smart biologists around here will get on board. Orangemarlin 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Persecution by Christians

Please click on the wikilink above! When we've finished with The Mythical-Hypothetical-Loonie Jesus Theory we need to sort out why Wikipedia seems to think all persection by Christians is "historical". I tin Gay-rights and pro-choice groups would like to know this interesting fact! Sophia 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you very much for your kind words. At the risk of offending one of the many people who post here because you have offended them, I just can't see how any person living in a pluralistic society like ours can fail to appreciate that, on religious subjects especially, there are many possible points of view, and that even when one believes one's own is the Genuine, True, One-and-Only Way that there will not be universal agreement. This is true no matter how clear or obvious your own way happens to be for you. Acknowledging this shouldn't have to be a particularly unusual stance, and it's more than a little disturbing that it is, at least among American Christians. I count myself fortunate that I do not belong to a characteristically American church, and can thus dissociate myself from that milieu to an extent.

Sure, I'm a Christian, and I believe in it as something objectively true. However, I also know that many who reject Christianity do so for reasons that are perfectly sound by their own lights, the behavior of many Christians not excepted. If more Christians would take that into account, they'd be a lot more humble and easier to get along with.

I have to think that the real reason some Christians are so afraid of science done properly is that their own faith is actually very weak, and they don't want to hear anything rational or empirical that might bring the whole thing toppling down for them. These are the people for whom religion is mainly a matter of comfort, not of truth or challenges to growing in virtue. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've offended people? Really? I'm just shocked. Well, I have this thing about religion. If you need proof for your faith, then your faith is weak. Your religion should not be afraid of science, but should, if you wish, embrace it. But that's just me. I resolved this long ago. Orangemarlin

I do not MEAN to offend people (much). But I find these ignorant close-minded approaches to religion astounding. They are NOTHING like the version of Christianity I was brought up with. And certainly if anyone uses their brains, they will see that there are MANY different religions around the world, and many different versions of Christianity (tens of thousands), ALL of which are sure that their version is "correct" or the best. Well not ALL of them can be "correct" (maybe none of them is "correct", let's face it), but yet people act as though it is obvious that their personal set of beliefs is correct and everyone should agree on that. Just amazingly stupid and intolerant and unrealistic.--Filll 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Filll. I went to Catholic school for both elementary and junior high education. We had science class, and we had religion class. We were never told the two were mutually exclusive. We learned about the Bible, and we also learned Real Science. They never mixed. Then again, this was before those "Hey-you-got-peanut-butter-in-my-chocolate" commercials. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythical articles

I still haven't got my head around what goes in what article. I'm really pissed that those that split it up have naffed off into the blue without setting up clear remits for the two articles. I think they probably realised as we did from the start that the "lunatics" that take the theory all the way, so to speak, start from the same point as the comparative mythology crowd. All you are left with as a deciding factor is who upsets the status quo. I'm going to work with Jesus Christ and comparative mythology and see if I can make the other article effectively defunct. You have to laugh though when atheism makes it to the front page and christianity still doesn't seem to stand a chance. Sophia 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. Let's delete the other one eventually. Orangemarlin 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I went with that one as I think it's a better title. Also the reading I have done starts from this point - let's see where else the naratives and symbolism of Jesus Christ are paralleled and then look at what predates what. The concept of demonic imitation is tantamount to admitting that they nicked the ideas from older belief systems. I'm open to pursuading otherwise but I hate the "hypothesis" bit as it's pure OR - no one refers to it as such and I don't see why we have to allow the Chritian condemnation of the whole field to be reflected in the title. Even the critics of the theories don't refer to them in those terms. Sophia 19:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As you two may be aware, I'm not on as much as I'd like right now, so I'll be of little help doing the actual work - but please feel free to call on me if I can be of assistance if things become sticky and you need a third opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as myth

You asked where the content removal was discussed on talk, regarding the big deletion at Historicity of Jesus. I'd like to direct your attention at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth. It is confusing because usually talk page activity occurs at the bottom of a page. Anyway, hope this helps.-Andrew c 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Still don't think that qualifies. Orangemarlin 00:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You reverted an edit without, apparently, reading through the discussion in the talk section.

If you disagree with an edit please discuss first. Mercury543210 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a little bit difficult to claim after this same article was the object of an undiscussed assault and division some weeks ago, and still is in an awful state as a result. I would like to remind everyone that WP is not intended to be a religious tract or recruiting tool for any particular religious sect.--Filll 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated draft of Beyond Intelligent Design

If you can, please take a look at User talk:Filll/beyondintelligentdesign and give me your impression. I have tried to update it and put more references and material in it, and I have tried to clean up the text a bit.--Filll 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine tuned universe

You're right. I accidentally coppied some of Victor Stenger's work into the article. I had it in the word document that I was working with and some how I overlooked that it was still there. It's here. I've removed it from the article. You may find Stenger's work interesting. You may want to add some of it to Wikipedia paraphrased or with quotation marks.Barbara Shack 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about these two mistakes. You're a medical doctor so you will understand. I have two different health problems which came to a head simultaneously. This made me a bit careless. One is with my General practitioner and one with my Dentist. At least in the United Kingdom we have the National Health Service so I don't have to worry about how I will pay for treatment or about Medical Insurance premiums as well.Barbara Shack 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)