"

 Comparing bronze apples to fresh sprouts 
Ah, so now you spring your little argument youve been itching for a while to do. In otherwords, 'How can Wikipedia support the supernatural claims in the Bible, and not those in my particular brand new religion.' 

First of all, Wikipedia doesnt support anything. Articles are to be written NPOV - that doesnt mean that articles dont ever use Biblespeak, rather when it is used, its used in proper context: ""In the Bible, etc. etc."" 
This is not the Schucmanism Encyclopedia. Even if the claim that Jesus wrote the thing was universal among Christians, this is not the Christian Encyclopedia.  

Im not particularly attached to the term ghostwriting, but your wording - that [whatever it was called] is like channeling, etc - was not neutral, and placed too much emphasis on a trivial matter - trivial, because supernatural claims, despite our understanding of them in faith, are not encyclopedically substantive. 
This is of course the problem with religion - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a lot of knowledge of just one thing is just plain dogma. You seem to be asserting that there is a dogmatic bias in wikipedia regarding the Bible. Its interesting, but you need to poing out specific examples, and then you need to deal with them on a case by case basis. Maybe you have a point here - I cant tell ATP. Dont forget ""the log in your own"" BTW.

Its obviously a very touchy subject, but we deal from time to time with people seeking to push a POV in their writing, and after a while they realize that theyve already added all the information necessary to the article, but leave the writing to others. Its an important distinction - I myself have a couple times had to defer to others sometimes in cases where a conflict arose between two different POV writing styles. The question is: are yours and mine different enought to require outside help in resolving any dispute. Finally, ""Ill let you..."" doesnt work here - its not your article, though you have had more part than anyone in developing it. And I was simply rewriting it for sake of neutral tone - something which you should welcome, not reject - as it legitimizes and adds to your work, just as your work adds to the project. Sinreg -|t 05:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)"