From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the beginning was the Jesus article, and it was good, but failed to be featured. One day Robsteadman arrived to challenge the consensus of religion and history alike. Suspected of sockpuppetry, SOPHIA took a break. She did not thrive on suspicion and conflict; most normal people don't. Avery Krouse advocated strong action against Rob, but CTSWyneken urged caution. Archola began to feel that the debate was becoming too polarized and binary. Jim62sch questioned whether we could ever really know anything. In time Robsteadman began to suspect that there was a cabal aligned against him. This prophecy came to pass when Avery Krouse's suspicions led to Robsteadman being convicted of sockpuppetry, although some questioned this. AveryKrouse then formed the Christian Cabal, which soon went underground. Meanwhile, The Centrist Faction was born. The Centrist Faction was renamed The Centrist Fellowship on April 6, 2006.

[edit] Sophistry

"You cannot claim a right that you are not prepared to grant to others." I love this quote! My goal all along has been to promote civility and equal rights, although I admit I have been as clouded as anyone else by my own subjective perceptions, hence my need to step back a bit and clear my head. Once we have civility, and if you decide to return, I look forward to working with you.

I'm basically a Perotite: I think we should all stop bickering, lift up the hood of the car and get to work. I'm tired of fighting against both sides, even when it's indirect. May peace and civility reign. Arch O. La 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Glad to hear from you! My own psychosocial analysis was a good faith attempt to understand Rob based on what he has said. I'm sorry if he was offended; on the Christian side there were those who felt I was being too sympathetic to him. Like I said, caught in the middle. I think Rob's beef is more with people like User:Jason Gastrich than with Christianity in general. By the way, Gastrich has had stronger action taken against him than Rob has. I support this even though I am a Christian. I hope Rob has the wisdom not to go as far as Gastrich has.

I understand Rob's frustration that few seem to be listening to him. I have done my best to separate his objective points from his subjective values that clash with mine, and I've been trying to get others to do the same. Rob is right that he is marginalized on the Jesus page, but there are other areas where Christians are just as marginalized (one need look no further than Gastrich). I think we need more moderate secularists to balance the debate, and I think Giovanni fills that role. There are those of us who affirm the truth on both sides. It all comes down to the adage that truth cannot contradict truth (that is NPOV), but perceptions of truth can and often do contradict (that is POV). Of course, that's just my viewpoint ;)

Cheers, Arch O. La 00:00, 25 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)

My father was color blind, so I appreciate the analogy. I have read Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and I recognized the parallels to the Bright website Rob pointed us to. There are also others trying to reign "our" side in--including a couple of conservatives that have given each other Alito barnstars. There are also those besides myself who miss your wisdom, SOPHIA (which is, after all, what "Sophia" means). Arch O. La 00:24, 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 have tried to say that I see nothing wrong with Bright in and of itself, what bothers me is lack of communication and apparent intolerance (and the political and broader sociological consequences of the same). Of course, religious experience is experience and thus by definition subjective--you do not experience my subjectivity, and I do not experience yours. As a Lutheran I believe that faith is itself a gift of God (single predestination), so beyond expressing my beliefs it's not up to me anyway ;) Beyond that, it all becomes rather philosophical. As I have mentioned today, I and much of Christianity have been influenced by Neoplatonism by identifying the spiritual with Plato's idealism (although this has become somewhat buried, the subtext is still there).

I find C. S. Lewis and especially Mere Christianity to be a good counterpoint to Carl Sagan. Arch O. La 22:54, 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)

Alright, we've both read both Sagan and Lewis and judged how well both authors correlate with our own experiences. (This is starting to sound technical). I am a genetic Lutheran, so the Force runs strong in my family. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether the Force is the Holy Spirit or merely psychosocial. ; Arch O. La 23:14, 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)

Thank you and welcome back! I had, however, fallen into the trap of playing the middle against both sides, expressing an opinion when I really wonder, what's the point? But welcome back. Arch O. La 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Uncabal

Just dropped by to see who the new guy on the Jesus talk page was. I love your Latin. In fact, I've thought of putting the following on my office door: Nisi pluet, nunquam fluet. But I'd have to move too many cartoons.

On the current tempest over there; If you have the time or inclination, take a look at the last five archives there. Any suggestions as to how to bring the sides together without one of those evil votes? --CTSWyneken 02:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It may never happen -- Some of the editors are too rabid in either their evangelicalism or in their apparent atheism. (personally, I'm an agnostic who knows that all religions have their good, bad, ugly, beautiful and neutral aspects, and I'm happy when people find peace in their religion, but very unhappy when they try to ram said religion down my throat, or use the legislative system to impose their views). I've noted that a few of you are quite rational, and that bodes well, but I feel that the nutters may overwhelm the discussion, with their anger and rabid nature (Homo homini lupus).

In any case, I'll take your advice and pore through the archives, looking for a way that might work. Alas, as one might say, Roma non die construta est.Jim62sch 11:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. While I am obviously a committed Christian, I'm looking for language that reflects the scholars. The evangelists, Christian and Atheist, need to find another forum to "talk" to each other.

The reason why we went to votes, which for me is a near last resort, is neither bunch is willing to chill. I don't expect it will make the losing side happy, but we'll gather enough folk to donate two reverts to keep it stable. --CTSWyneken 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see we are in agreement about what the article should be. And you are 100% correct about the evangelicals of all varieties -- they need to engage in their gladitorial battles elsewhere. It'll be interesting to see if the page can be guided toward being a more scholarly article.

(Oh, BTW -- I was raised Lutheran (LCA), but found far too many contradictions in the Bible to be able to suspend my skepticism. But, I've found the same or similar problems in all of the other major religions, so it's easier for me to just synthesise what I see as the best of their philosophies into my own philosophy, while leaving all the trappings of religion behind.) Jim62sch 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a little while since I've heard LCA. These days, it always has an "E" in front of it. I've got a friend who is a historian of ancient history, who says the differences between the gospels make him more sure they are authentic. 8-) If you'd like to get my take on the things you think do not add up, let me know. I love to talk about them. Who knows? I may find a new tool for your spiritual tool belt. --CTSWyneken 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Lacking the "E" shows how long ago it was.  :) Anyway, at a certain point in time, I was still willing to give things a bit of a chance, but I'm just too logical. I can't suspend disbelief enough to believe (that sounds dumb, but you probably get my meaning). I recall prior to my eldest son being baptised 20 years ago, the Lutheran minister asked me if I "renounced the Devil and all his works"...I stated that I did not believe in the existance of a Devil...after a v e r y long pause, he stated, "I'll take that as a yes". (I know there was a moral in that story somewhere, but the 2-year-old just interrupted my train of thought...oh well)

Anyway, one of the questions I posed on the talk page hadn't gotten anywhere as of yesterday: the question regarding the impossibility of a Jesus-Pilate conversation. I'm kind of bummed that no one bit. But, then, I don't know how many would have gotten my points anyway, especially without getting either overly elated or really mad. (BTW: I'm a really good linguist (yeah, yeah, yeah, be humble), so that plays into it, but it's hardly all of it). Anyway, if you'd be interested in talking about this and other things outside Wiki, feel free to send me an e-mail (no point in wasting a load of bytes in Wiki-land :) Jim62sch 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I will do that. It may wait, now that Robsteadman has be blocked for using sockpuppets to -- you guessed -- stack the vote on a meaningless phrase on the Jesus page. *sigh* Also, my daughter is headed for speech sectionals this weekend. If you want to get it started, go ahead and outline what you think is impossible in Jesus and Pilate's conversation. As a librarian, I have quite a few tools on hand and can do some digging, if needed. 8-) --CTSWyneken 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I truly despise sockpuppets -- I loathe dishonesty and deception. Jim62sch 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Want to join my cabal -- I mean, going to Kabul? 8-) Seriously, I put down a marker on the Jesus talk page. Enough of the Stürm und Drang! --CTSWyneken 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you live with being associated with an agnostic? ;) Jim62sch 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know? ;-) Seriously, agnostics are often good company! After all, we say, "two Lutherans, three opinions!" --CTSWyneken 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Archie:

I've put down my marker on the talk:Jesus page. Enough of this. --CTSWyneken 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TCF is born!

Forgive me for interupting. if I can live with being associated with SOPHIA (A former Christian who became an Atheist), I can certainly live with being associated with an agnostic. It's about time we form a centrist faction (not a cabal) to try to bring everyone together. Those who butt heads are named for that action. Arch O. La 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll join in...we should make a good centrist team...something both this article and Wiki needs. Jim62sch 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! Perhaps we should ask SOPHIA to join as well. She and I have pretty much agreed to allow each other our differing subjectivities. I should warn you, though, that she considers agnosticism to be a form of intellectual dishonesty. Arch O. La

That's OK, I think both theism and atheism are illogical, because what they support or oppose are neither provable nor disprovable.  ;) Jim62sch 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, some centrists are getting together to promote cooperation. See User_talk:Jim62sch#Love_Your_Latin and the responses on the appropriate talk pages. You're free to join if you wish. Arch O. La 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch, I see them as differing basic beliefs. I have made the invitation to SOPHIA. Arch O. La 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And what you said is OK too, just a matter of perspective. For me, the bottom line has always been how one deals with others, not what one espouses verbally. Jim62sch 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen — or whatever the Agnostic version is. Arch O. La 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take an honest agnostic any time! --CTSWyneken 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By my definition of agnosticism - yes. I used to consider myself agnostic until I read The Happy Heretic (a good read - highly recommended - the condensed bible is a hoot) and realised I had no reason to not be an athiest - that does not mean I am quantifying all I can ever know - just stating what I currently know (or don't know - you know.....). I think the centrist cabal is a good idea - no more binary (I was tempted to make another commando joke then but resisted). I respect anyone who shows respect to other people. We should have a go at a centrist jesus page and see what everyone thinks. SOPHIA 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I got the idea from posts between Jim62sch and CTSWynekan, is he involved? This should be fun. An Athiest, an Agnostic, and a couple of Lutherans walk into a bar... Oh, and there has been a proposed revision to the entire Intro that appears to have been summarily tabled. Arch O. La 14:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as you all can live with a stick-in-the-mud, fundie, Pascal Wager-spouting (add your own adjectives but remember, teens are out here) Theist, I'm willing to work with anyone who will agree to reflecting what scholarship says. I will beam with joy if a few even crack a book! --CTSWyneken 14:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pascal's wager is just part of a larger game. See User:Archola#Metaphysical_Poker. Arch O. La 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ya gotta know when to hold 'em... ;-) --CTSWyneken 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. On a warm summer's evening, on a train bound for nowhere, I added it. Arch O. La 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Beware, I might mention the Atheist's Wager.  :) [1]

In any case, what would happen if an atheist, an agnostic and two Lutherans walked into a bar? :) Jim62sch 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran says, "I'll buy you a beer." The Agnostic says, "I don't know." The Atheist... ;-) --CTSWyneken 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Athiest says, "I don't believe in beer." Arch O. La 18:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"........but I will if you buy me one!"SOPHIA 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Better yet: "There is no beer." Arch O. La 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bartender asks, "Is this a joke?" Arch O. La 17:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Check out the "Metaphysical Poker" link above. The Atheist's wager is already in the game. Strange game when some are not sure if one of the players even exists ;) Arch O. La 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed that -- pretty good. Of course, we could spend years discussing precisely what a deity or deities might be. Jim62sch 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ever read King Jesus by Robert Graves? It's quite fascinating. Jim62sch 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Graves—no, but I'll look into it. Interesting how people have been suggesting reading material lately. BTW, who is Rainbowpainter? I've reached the point where I've become agnostic about sockpuppets ;) Arch O. La 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to put your mind at ease, Rainbowpainter is not a sock-puppet, nor a meat-puppet. Jim62sch 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I finally know what the heck you were talking about -- one of my alleged friends put that there. If you get a chance, contact me on e-mail (from my user page). Jim62sch 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've created a section on my User page for The Centrist Faction. Arch O. La 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)