User talk:Archola/Sophistry

Chattel
I was referring to the "obey" clause in christian marriages that you need to opt out of if you wish.

I am really angry about being dragged into this sock puppet fiasco as I feel it has undermined my credibility. The only reason my husbands account came under scrutiny is that he agreed at some point with Giovanni - his edit patterns never kept any correlation with Giovanni's so other than agreeing with him there was no reason to suspect they were linked and therefore no reason to investigate him.

I shall be giving wiki a big break - possibly permanently as I'm not sure I can work with a bunch of people who set the admins on you if you disagree with them. I'm still pretty new but have been around long enough to know that sock puppetry is considered editorial duplicity of the worst kind. People like Gator don't need any encouragement to think lesser of disagreeing editors and since he and the 'cabal' as they have been termed obviously know the system I think it's pointless me carrying on. If I have been discredited any edits I make are pointless. I know I supposedly have been vindicated but since I've had to drag my private life into this and explain myself to everyone to dispell the 'sock' label I feel I'm under a cloud and anything I write will carry less weight than it should.

Thank you for making the note on Gators page. It's nice to know some people care about getting the story straight. Sorry I won't be of any help with sorting out the jesus/christianity data structure but you seem to have made a good start so I wish you well with the work. SOPHIA 10:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
yeah I wasn;'t terribly concerned about all of that sockpuppet stuff, which is why I never did anything with it. Others did for good or for bad. I hope she, eventually, returns, but she needs the break anyway so I think it's for the best. See yah around.Gator (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote
I have been following things - in disbelief I must add. I couldn't cope with having my childhood/personality/world view speculated on the way Rob has had to - so as they say "if you can't stand the heat...".

I have always loved that quote and try to live by it. It's really just another way of saying "love thy neighbour as thyself" - something much needed on the Jesus/Christianity pages at the moment. SOPHIA 23:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to really understand a different viewpoint is very difficult - like trying to understand "colour" if you are colour blind. I've done a lot of work with autistic/aspergers children and it has helped me to realise there are not just differing views but completely different thought processes. That is why people clash - they genuinely don't see where the other person is coming from. It's probably easier for me than Rob as I grew up a christian but got to my teens and started asking too many questions - so I know both sides. Carl Sagan was the guy who finally gave me the answers that seemed to make sense to me. Who knows why we each view things so differently - it would be pretty boring if we all agreed!

All I've ever wanted on the articles is links to other views and brief mentions to guide the interested reader. This must be done in an NPOV way to stop people feeling they are somehow "wrong" or "loony" (thanks Str1977) if they can't buy the mainstream view. SOPHIA 00:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words. Being a Bright (something I also consider myself to be) purely means living without recourse to the supernatural - to have a totally naturalistic view of life. I have never experienced anything of a supernatural nature - no religious experiences or unexplainable events. I have never read anything (including the bible) to convince me I should have "faith". Honesty is so important to me (hence my upset with the sock stuff) that I can't just go along with something because other people think I should or to hedge my bets - to quote Monty Python "God would see through a cheap trick like that".

However - my children are my "miracles" and the sun on my face feels so good. Music transports me to places that seem outside of time - seeing a total eclipse was a "magical" experience because not inspite of knowing how it all worked. The mistake can be made that we have no understanding of the wonder and specialness of existence.

"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." as Carl Sagan wrote - a humbling but not frightening thought. When you know our earth could disappear tomorrow and even our solar system would hardly notice (we have very little gravity in comparison to the gas giants) it gives you a real sense of our importance in the scheme of things! SOPHIA 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I like the idea of not being "anti" anything - just a different view. As you rightly say all we can know is what we subjectively experience. I have read C S Lewis' Mere Christianity but I always come back to the same problem - even if I would want something to be true does not make it so. SOPHIA 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep - we are what we are. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong - just human! I think the main thing is to stay open minded and respectful of others - something I have seen you do in very difficult circumstances. You are one of the reasons I have bothered to edit again - there are good guys! SOPHIA 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, Archola is one of the good guys : ) Just wanted to drop by and tell you, Archie, I appreciate your attempts to mediate earlier on the Jesus talk page.  I'm happy that things appear to have resolved on the Judaism's view of Jesus section. Now the rest of the article... :P -- M P er el ( talk 03:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have loads of time for you as you are the only person I come across who can entertain the concept that other people can think they are just as right as you do without being loony/delusional/ignorant etc...

Also your "lack of extant contemporaneous editors" quote really made me laugh.

I think this historicity vote thing is off on the wrong foot as the issue is not just about the documents. There were loads of guys called Jesus at that time and lots of scholars accept there may have been a real "core" to the myths. However loads question the view of Jesus presented in the NT. The problems come from having the historicity and historical articles split. The historical article should be presenting all the historical data available and raising questions as to the gaps where evidence would be expected if the NT was wholly true. The historicity (existence) issue is really a subset of this. To question the historicity of Jesus is not just to ask if we have his birth certificate but to question whether the man presented by the NT can be reconciled with the external (non NT) historical evidence.

I can't even begin to contemplate the fuss this would make if I suggest this - am I off track? SOPHIA 21:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Antithesis
Sounds a bit "anti" to me and as you know I prefer to be thought of as "pro" certain view points however it's really good to see some common ground being established. How do you do the TCF in the signature thing? I'll add it to mine. SOPHIA 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The pro form of antithesis is thesis. Jim62sch 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I still prefer synthesis, as long as it's an accurate synthesis! Arch O. LaTalk TCF 03:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Pets
Poor you - I love my "babies". Unfortunately my husband is allergic to cats so I'm not allowed anymore and the two I have are not well. Still the dogs and rabbits make up for this. I want a puppy but I'm about to go back to work so it's a no no. SophiaTalk TCF 19:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Martin (philosopher)
Yall ARE BITCHES I think the main point he tries to make is that if Jesus was the man the NT says he was - feeding the 5,000/semon on the mount/entering Jerusalem in triumph/performed miracles etc then there should be external contemporary evidence for this as there were quite a few people writing detailed accounts at the time of all the various goings on in that region. So either he's not the man the NT says or he didn't exist - either way it underpins his argument that Christianity is illogical (we're back to Mr Spock again). I have the book so I can get more details if you wish! SophiaTalk TCF 23:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think they would say "if we reject the biblical account of Jesus why should we accept that Jesus existed at all?" SophiaTalk TCF 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"He is the Messiah - and I should know I've followed a few" - Monty Python knows how to put it best! You and I get on because you don't need me to agree with you to make you feel that what you think is true. The Christians who have the most problems with me are the ones with shakey faith/doubts who need other peoples surety to back them up. I have been to bible studies classes and asked questions on things that puzzled me - genuine questions - not trying to show up "dumb" christians. Early on I struggled with the value of Saul/Paul's conversion as I would be a Christian if I had his proof of the existence of God! I also have always struggled with what happened to Judas and could never reconcile the necessary part he played with eternal damnation. I have been delighted to find that others have also had this problem through the ages by reading the Judas Iscariot pages here. I was asked not to go back to the bible classes as I upset the others - none of them knew who Constantine was or Nicea etc etc. To be brutally honest they were there to drink coffee with their mates and make themselves feel good about doing some sort of duty to God - I know - I should AGF!

I would be a Christian if I didn't have to believe it was true! Instead I've had to acknowledge my Christian heritage, interweave it with the pagan/earth respect elements I have come across and the Gnostic influences - but not the matter is evil bit as that's all I know exists! I do struggle also with all the paraphernalia associated with church heirarchies - what happend to the wandering peasant who dressed the same as normal people of that time?

My college motto was "To Work is to Worship" and I have always tried to live by that - I do what I can and remain as open minded as I can. If ever I question things it is a genuine question - my intention is never to "prove" anyone wrong. As a scientist I have to gather all the data I can to make sure my conclusions are not flawed!

I enjoy our exchanges as I like to learn new things and see old things in new ways - I can't gaurantee I'll ever totally agree with you however! SophiaTalk TCF 08:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PAS
Post abortion syndrome. Someone added it to the pseudoscience category and when it was reverted I put it back. I hate to see political (or religious) arguments dressed up as science even though there is nothing to support this and no medically recognised symptoms. I think I've made your mistake of getting caught in the middle as personally I would never have an abortion (even if my life were threatened if there was a chance for the baby to survive) so I'm not your average pro-choice lobbiyst but I have friends who have been there and made a different choice and I don't feel it's my place to tell them they can't or are wrong. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  18:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really want to get into this either but it led on from partial birth abortion which is an even trickier place. My interest in that subject came about as I have two friends who's babies would never live as their lungs didn't develop (the kidneys were faulty in one case and not joined to the bladder in the other so without circulating the amniotic fluid the lungs won't grow). They both had LTAs as these problems didn't show up until early 3rd trimester. It meant they could both recover more quickly and be pregnant again sooner than if they had had to go full term. In fact one of my friends can't deliver full term babies without a c section as she has hip problems so without an LTA she would have been even more limited in the number of children she could safely have (the doctors told her 3 c sections was her limit for safety so she now has 3 healthy children thankfully). I'm not sure what I would do in a similar situation - as there is no medical issue with me I would probably carry on so the baby could make the most of what little life it had but I fully understand if someone felt differently as you get so involved with them the further you on with the pregnancy and one of my friends said it was so hard having this bump and knowing it would never live.

Your friend may resurface in the coming years as you may have been cut off in an attempt to move away from that part of her life and all that was associated with it. Also you get so wrapped up in your kids lives it's hard to have a life of your own. Now my youngest is 11 I'm feeling like the non-mum me is reappearing and with my oldest about to leave home for Uni in the next 18 months I'm realising that over the next decade the whole focus of my life will change as they all grow up and go. I do hope your friend will come to terms with what happened and make contact again as I can imagine you are a very good friend in the "real" world. I enjoy our little chats on wiki very much as you are thoughtful and actually take the time to try to understand another persons point even if you don't agree with it - quite rare and very valuable in a friend! Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia Talk  TCF  19:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Elves
I have an Elf name now Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 21:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to make membership of the reborn TCF conditional on having a hobbit or elf name! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gator
Thanks - I'd missed that one. I think it's terrible that this sort of thing can happen and they must work out how to effectively deal with this otherwise the project is doomed. BTW I sent you a wiki e-mail the other day - did you get it? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 07:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)