User talk:SOPHIA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Archive 1 From 6th Jan 2006 to 6th March 2006
• Archive 2 From 6th March 2006 to 15th April 2006
• Archive 3 From 16th April 2006 to 6th July 2006
• Archive 4 From 6th July 2006 to 8th October 2006
• Archive 5 From 8th October 2006 to 14th June 2007
• Archive 6 From 14th June 2007 to 25th May 2008

[edit] Jesus Myth discussion

As on the talk page, I understand that that was one of the points that was raised (the general "proponents are not respectable"), but other claims like the one I was talking about were also brought up, and I was trying to figure out what the deal was. Thank you for answering.

However, I don't really understand how you're pinning the "bringing too much emotion" thing on me - I have been trying to be as neutral as possible on this page, frequently reverting anti-myth material that has no basis and trying to preserve pro-myth material as much as possible, and yet you keep attacking me as biased and seemingly denigrating me for the other kinds of articles I edit (like immediately assuming I'm trying to "apologetics the article out of existence", when even a cursory glance of my edits would show that prediction as ridiculous). I can try to be compromising and keep the discussion on the article, but at a certain point it's impossible for me to not get annoyed when I am near constantly attacked by you and certain other of the article's editors.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

...And I don't remember "crusading" for the Gospels to be taken as the ultimate source on that page. In fact, the closest thing to it that I can remember is claiming that the earliest of the canon Gospels were written in the first century, which is accepted by most historians. My question had been that earlier discussion had complained about any criticism (the topic starter specifically mentioned the "reputable" bit, but the discussion as a whole covered any criticism) being in certain sections of the article. That's it. No asking for a greenlight to remove the article, as you accused, just a question of what the positions currently were, so that, for example, I knew whether an editor adding quotes or info against the theory in a section should be reverted as POV, or merely have the edit checked and integrated.

As I said, I'm doing my best to be as un-biased as I can be on that article, and all I'm asking you to do is to not attack me every step of the way. I honestly can't see anything I've done on the article that would warrant the things you accuse me of.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

...I understand that I don't have as much expertise in the topic as you, and have read less applicable books. I've never disputed that, as far as I can see. That's why I've studiously avoided editing any of the parts of the article that are out of my depth - I generally stick to vandalism reversion and general copyediting. In fact, I think I've actually made more edits which would be considered pro-myth than anti-myth on that article. I'm not asking to be given as much authority as you, I'm not asking for anyone to view me as any kind of authority on the subject - I'm just asking for you not to constantly attack me, since, again, I can't see where I've "overstepped my bounds" or done anything to actually warrant the accusations you've made towards me.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)