User:IZAK/Hebrew Bible as reliable source

From a discussion on a user's talk page 11 Nov 2010; 13 Nov 2010; 17 Nov 2010; 17 Nov 2010; 18 Nov 2010, full text:

Reducing friction

Hi Cush: I do not believe we have crossed paths, but the latest discussions at ANI and your attempts at changing articles relating to Judaism are very troubling so I am writing the following lines to you in the hope of calming the situation:

1. Judging by the user boxes on your user page it is very clear that your POV is atheistic and your greatest wish is that there be no such thing as "religion."
2. But you must obviously understand that it is one thing to hold such views personally that we are all entitled to hold, but it's quite another matter to launch an editorial drive within articles relating to Judaism, Jews and religion in general that are bound to create friction and confrontation as is now happening.
3. You would not be happy if Judaic or other editors who do believe in God attack articles relating to atheism as being utter rubbish and dishonest.
4. Wikipedia is a big place and editors from different walks of life must respect each other per WP:CIVIL.
5. As an example, a Jewish synagogue may be built next to a secular university, but it does not give the university the "right" to dictate what the synagogue must believe in, and conversely the synagogue cannot condemn the university just because there are atheist professors and immoral students on campus.
6. Wikipedia is a reflection of that larger reality. It is neither anti-religious nor anti-secular and respects all walks of human knowledge and does not sit in "judgment" as if it were an artificial "secular god" on each and every topic.
7. Wikipedia lives by WP:NPOV that allows for all valid opinions to be voiced but within the bounds of WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS among editors and not by throwing wild accusations or by inducing rabid edit wars needlessly that is just flaming.
8. That is why there are, and Wikipedia has always relied upon, expert editors who have gotten to know each other over time, in each field who work to create accurate articles in their field of expertise. No one can be an expert in everything!
9. Wikipedia tries to convey what both the synagogues and the university teach and believe according to the methods of each, and must not fall into the trap of stating that one must negate the other because that would be foolish, intolerant and counter-productive.
10. Articles must firstly describe and explain what the subject is according to its original context and source, and then an article may have sections that offer alternate views, as in a debate's "rebuttal" time.
11. Wikipedia cannot sit in judgment on the Bible and doubt its veracity. That is not its job.
12. Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what is best for billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and Jews -- or what atheists "must" believe or "must" accept as this or that fact or theory or notion!!!
13. The best that Wikipedia can do is report what they believe and try to transmit in as authentic a way as possible the core of each religion's belief's and practices.
14. Feel free to hate the Bible, if that's your POV, but you may not inject that POV into your editing especially in the very midst of opening sentences in articles central to the religions you oppose. Similarly, someone who hates atheism is free to have such a personal view but they may not make that the basis for poisoning the well and creating editorial gridlock as you are now doing.
15. Similarly, in articles about atheism there should rightly be place to include the views of religion on that topic, but that is rarely done -- because what happens more frequently is unfortunately that editors opposed to religion, like yourself, feel they may attack religious topics and be immune themselves which is an absurdity.
16. So my advice to you is to stick to improving articles about atheism and secular humanism, and please refrain from commencing WP:WARS that undermine WP:CIVIL and lead to violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA as is now the case as the discussions spiral out of control. Take a deep breath. Step back. Take note of WP:REICHSTAG aka WP:SPIDERMAN and let peace return rather than the outbreak of WP:WAR that will not help anyone. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. WP is not supposed to present myth as history. "Because the Bible says it" does not establish historicity. Period. WP has given religiously driven editors too much latitude for too long. Whenever an article requires faith from its readers then there is something wrong with said article. I always try to imagine what a Hindu would think about the quality of an article that touches on subjects also in the scope of abrahamic religions. If you want to sell Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Saul, David, Solomon as real historical figures you must come up with more than just Bible quotes. And you cannot elaborate in all detail on such subjects and only in one sentence mention that the reality check conducted by archaeologists and historians has come back negative. I don't have to care what a reader believes. I only have to care about the accuracy of the information in an article. And I must not lie to readers in order to advance a religious position. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What if the "religious text" is the only thing left that says it's there? "'Because the Bible says it'" Sure, but if people believe it, I think it should be in Wikipedia.?.--intelati^talk 01:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither belief nor doctrine establish history. If the religious source is all there is, then the article must be unambiguous in saying just that (and not just once vaguely in the lead). An article must not convey speculation that is not based in archaeology or historical research as factual history. ≡ CUSH ≡ 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cush: Thanks for responding. Here are some more thoughts for you:

1. Your mistake is that you assume that archeology and history are "infallible" on the order of a secular "religious doctrine" and that they are the "only" yardsticks for knowledge.
2. Please do not twist WP policies by WP:LAWYERING to undermine entire faiths and belief systems that are no less serious than scientific theories and hypotheses, that is not what the goals of WP are, while you assume that religion is full of "lies" and "myths" so that you are creating an artificial conflict where none exists in reality. See category mistake in this regard.
3. A crisis of faith does NOT legitimize nihilism directed at religion in general, and does NOT call for iconoclasm against any and all of any religion's beliefs, texts, laws, HISTORIES and doctrines, on the order of a WP:WAR and creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND against those who do not agree with you!
4. For every "proof" from history you bring there is a counter-proof to disprove it (and you know it) and that can be conveyed in an article.
5. Even if there is no iron-clad "proof" of the type you demand to prove 3000+ year old Biblical personalities existence, as you say, an article may and should state that according to the Bible and Biblical scholars that such-and-such is the stated belief. That is fine as long as it's done in a WP:NPOV manner, however calling it a "myth" is a value judgment unbecoming of a truly philosophically neutral scientist of any ilk.
6. There is no need to trash the Bible merely because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and to cast both verified information as well as that which lacks verification according to your standards as being "mythology" and "lies".
7. For example, there is enough archaeological evidence to prove that the Hebrews were slaves in ancient Egypt (you must know this) and even thrived there, but obviously when they left that place, there was a massive reverse "De-Stalinization" (it's proven) and presto Hebrew/Israelite life in Egypt mysteriously "disappears" as happened with Jewish history in Germany under the Nazis, Jewish life in Germany and Europe for almost two thousands years was wiped out in an epochal-changing cataclysmic "flash flood Armageddon" 12 year aborted Third Reich's Final Solution.
8. Yet, you know, it's funny that Holocaust denial is taken very seriously, even by serious "HISTORIANS", in spite of the proven facts, what do they want, an "ARCHAEOLOGICAL" mountain of ashes of six million Jews burned to nothingness? So what does that tell us? That historians and archaeologists can be liars and frauds too!!!
9. Bottom line, the Jews/Hebrews/Israelites are a peculiar people, they can flourish and be prominent and then suddenly, poof, their existence is wiped out in historical and even in archaeological records.
10. Similarly, grave robbers have pillaged the pyramids and destroyed mummies but that does not mean they have wiped out other deeper facts related to those phenomena, such as the religions and beliefs of those once-live mummies and their subjects and the mystery of the methods and labor that built the pyramids and those slave societies.
11. Likewise, have Jews been praying in vain at the site of their ancient Temple in Jerusalem for 3000 years that they have steadfastly stated and believed, and know, was first built by Solomon?
12. Why make facts into myths and myths into facts as you are prone to do when approaching Biblical subject matter and accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing yourself?
13. The Romans, like the Babylonians before them, burned ancient Jerusalem to the ground and like with Carthage they plowed it into the dust with rough salt so that nothing remained of it, and the Arabs piled tons of manure and dung on it to further wipe it out -- yet presto, one day, almost 2000 years later up pops Jerusalem full of hundreds of thousands of real live Jews, yet again, in it!
14. If anything, the Biblical record conveys uncomfortable truths (even against Jews when they go against their religion) and has been verified as true over and over again.
15. As far as Christianity is concerned, would you want that a cross be dug up with a skeleton of Jesus and then you would agree to his historical existence? or does not what the Christians' testaments state verify that he existed while one can still try to figure out the rest, much like history and archeology have many riddles and create more questions that propose solutions.
16. Likewise with Islam and Buddhism, does one have to have photos of Muhamad and Buddha or massive excavations to be convinced of their existence? Ironically, Islam forbids graven images and there is no real portrait of Muhamad while Buddhism allows multiple statues of its founder, but what does that prove? Nothing much because the veracity of either Islam or Buddhism is extracted from their texts, teachings and followers throughout time that flourish up until this very day, while the existence of dinosaurs and men evolving from amoeba are just theories and cannot be "believed" because that is the difference between a science and a religion, but while not not all religion is automatically lacking scientific proof, yet science may never be allowed to become a "belief" for that would then be scientism and NOT "science". So as they say, PLEASE do not mix up the apples and oranges. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No evidence is no evidence. And the Bible is not trustworthy, because its authors are not trustworthy due to their religious fanatism. ≡ CUSH ≡ 09:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)