User talk:BenC7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Loomis Here 2 Gospels 3 Unfulfilled prophecies 4 Thanks 5 Thanks for the wonderful link and ur answer 6 Your edit to Jehovah's Witnesses. 7 Wikipedia Brisbane Meetup - Invite 8 LOGRTAC Editorials delisting - please vote in poll 9 Hmmm...reply

[edit] Loomis Here

Thanks so much for backing me up! Sometimes I feel like the own sane person in an insane assylum, making ME start to feel like the nutcase!

In any case, I'm not a Christian as you are, so our respesctive faiths and understanding of God may differ somewhat (Don't get me started on the whole Jesus thing! lol) But all that really doesn't matter. I have no intention of converting the world to any particular faith. That's why in these debates I NEVER insist that MY PARTICULAR understanding of Him is superiour to anyone elses. I have a great deal of respect for all believers (with one BIG exception, those who use the name of God justify the killing of innocents). In fact, I have a great deal of respect for agnostics as well. They have the courage to simply state "I really don't know". And to paraphrase Socrates "The surest sign of true wisdom is to recognize one's ignorance". Yes I believe in God, call it a feeling, a hunch, whatever you wish. Yet being highly devoted to logic, my mind can't help to possess some degree of doubt. The "I really don't know for sure" part of my brain. But not to worry, the former outweighs the latter by a great deal.

Though I have a great deal of respect for agnostics, I take a very dim view of atheists, particularly those who claim to KNOW FOR SURE that there isn't a God, and then proceed to ridicule any believer as no more than a mindless sheep following the rest of the herd to the slaughter. It's insulting, arrogant and downright bigoted. To me atheism is really no more scientific than religion: The belief in something (i.e. the NON-existence of God) without a shred of proof. Even if they said "I don't believe, but I respect your right to believe", that would be somewhat of an improvement. Anyway, I can babble on, but I'll stop here. In fact, I don't think I'll bother posting YET ANOTHER reply on the RefDesk, some people just have to have the last word, and besides, I think you've done a good job of replying yourself.

In any case, thanks so much for your support at the RefDesk. I don't usually end my posts this way, as I consider religion to be a private matter, and I prefer to keep my comments and arguments as secular as possible, but I feel it to be appropriate here: God bless you, and come to think of it, God bless that anonymous atheist who just doesn't seem to get my point! Loomis 11:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I can see why you're a lawyer! BenC7

[edit] Gospels

Thanks for weighing in on the topic I posted on the reference desk. I was wondering, if you had the time, could you perhaps post a third opinion on the Talk:Gospel page, or better yet, be bold and edit the article to make it better! I am not that fond of confrontation and debate when it is just between two editors, so IMO, another perspective is always welcome. Thanks for your time and consideration. --Andrew c 00:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfulfilled prophecies

The problem is that Wikipedia has a rather silly habit of saying that pretty anyone who claims to be Christian counts as Christian :/. Now, I assume you know the Watchtower isn't Christian, I know the Watchtower isn't Christian, but unfortunently, Wikipedia will note that they claim to be Christian and consider them as such generally :/. However, in this case, I consider it an instance of rather nice irony that this qualification comes back to haunt the watchtower in the form of their false prophecies being laid out for the world to see along with a bunch of other things, but I don't think there's enough JW material to make up it's very own False prophecies of Jehovah's witnesses article. Homestarmy 04:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, but is what's in the article now long enough for it's own section? Homestarmy 04:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the link on my talk page. I will keep it in mind. Looks like the RfC has already reached a conclusion which all parties are happy with and in record time. Lucy 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the wonderful link and ur answer

thanks for the wonderful link and ur answer on [1]. it was really helpful.

actually, i also have some more anxities about bible/quran and there relationship with modern science. well, i m a Hindu, and wanted to talk about them with someone. probably if u dont mind (i know many, especially muslims, who do mind), i can put a few more questions to u. thanks anyways. nids 09:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Thanks, I really appreciate that you reached out like that. George 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Brisbane Meetup - Invite

-- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOGRTAC Editorials delisting - please vote in poll

Hi BenC7,
I'm not sure if you are editing right now. If you are, and are still interested in List of groups referred to as cults please vote in the poll calling for a controversial major change in the rules — the motivation for which is to prevent Wikipedia from being self-listed as a cult, as charged by Charles Arthur of The Guardian. Milo 15:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm...reply

I understand your concern. There are plenty of anti-Jehovah's Witness sites. I was attracted to editing on Wikipedia because of the consensus editing policy. Now that JW editors are being discouraged from being involved with the editing process this could drastically change the mix. I think this should be noted so that everyone knows. I think the challenge that remains for us is to make sure we uphold Wikipedia standards as we continue to edit these pages. Dtbrown 04:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)