ApostateAbe

The definition seems too broad, like it is meant to make her target audience (atheists and agnostics) think, "Yeah, that is what I believe, too!" so she makes such people believe that they are "mythicist," draws them in, and then she slips in a bunch of extra nonsense as part of the whole mythicist package. Oh, you don't believe that Jesus was a myth descended from the myths of Krishna/Horus/Buddha/Thor/Osiris/Chuck Norris? I thought you said you were a mythicist.

Toto

I think that the attraction of Acharya S's theories is that they are a grand theory of everything that can explain all religions and religious feelings. I don't think that she is trying to rope people in.

ApostateAbe

Can't disagree too much. Acharya S's model certainly counts as a grand theory of all religion and mythology, which is itself strongly appealing. It is her explicit goal to rope people in, and it seems to be an easily available explanation for what otherwise seems unreasonable.

Dave31

ApostateAbe, I don't see a big problem with "I am sure that Jesus Christ is mostly mythical but not purely mythical." There just simply doesn't exist any CREDIBLE evidence for a HJ. Nevertheless, there are two simple insights to keep in mind when it comes to the mythicist position:

1. When the mythological layers of the story are removed, there is no core to the onion.

2. A composite of 20 people is no one. In other words, a collage of 20 different people whether historical or mythical or both, is simply not one person and never will be.

Just because there existed a St. Nicholas doesn't mean that Santa Claus is real, even though his character may derive in part from St. Nick. Santa Claus is still a mythical character.

Are you an Evemerist when it comes to Jesus? If so, you'd need to substantiate the HJ with credible evidence to demonstrate that there really is a core to the onion.

So, where do you stand on your other religious figures, "Krishna/Horus/Buddha/Thor/Osiris/Chuck Norris"? And what about "Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon"? Where's the credible evidence of their existence? If they didn't exist then, it makes the probability of a HJ nearly impossible or at minimum it shows the bible is wrong in its genealogy or that Jesus may not have been related to any of those people.

ApostateAbe, your Robert E. Van Voorst thread was not impressive at all. It makes me wonder if you're a Christian who's afraid to come out of the closet? There are several comments in your thread over there that strongly suggest Voorst is easily dismissible.

What's funny is, I bet many of the people whining about the MP here would be falling all over themselves in support if the same thing came from Dawkins or Richard Carrier.

You'll need to demonstrate how she "ropes people in" and provide evidence to substantiate your claim that the mythicist position is "unreasonable."

Toto

It is not her "explicit" goal to "rope people in." She is promulgating ideas that she believes in, that seem to resonate with a lot of other people. We know from evolutionary theory that humans are hard wired to look for patterns and explanations. That's why you, ApostateAbe, are always trying to find reasons that make sense to you for everyone who disagrees with your theories - why you try to find some ulterior motive for people who don't agree with your pet theory of the apocalyptic historical Jesus.

She seems to make a modest amount of income from her books and donations, but is not running a cult or a church the way she would be if her motives were money or power. (I live in Los Angeles, and I know cults.)

ApostateAbe

To answer your questions, I believe that Gautama Buddha and Chuck Norris started as historical people who were integrated into myth. I believe that Krishna, Horus, Thor and Osiris are purely myth. I already told you what I think about the other characters, and I'll do a copy and paste for you.

Dave31, I have the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters.

I also recognize that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc.

I am sure that Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, and Moses are all purely mythical, I am not sure about King David and Solomon, and I am sure that Jesus Christ is mostly mythical but not purely mythical.

Dave31, am I a mythicist? If not, then please tell me how I do not fit the definition given by Acharya S.

If you will answer my question, then I'll be happy to answer more of your questions. Thanks.

Dave31

The definition turns out to come from her experience in mythology and evidence of astrotheology that actually exists. Most people have very little knowledge regarding astrotheology. They certainly don't discuss it in academia in any meaningful way. It certainly fills many gaps in our current understanding of religion. It's not meant to fill EVERY gap yet, it does address issues that have been ignored by academia.

I would agree with that. Acharya doesn't narrowly just focus on Jesus or Christianity. She takes more of a comparative religion approach. I think many people who are only focused on Jesus and Christianity get confused on that and that may be why they don't quite understand her work.

Toto

Acharya S uses the term "Evemerist" for what is usually called "Euhemerist" (derived from the Greek historian Εὐήμερος.)

Euhemerism

Dave31

Yes, that's true and the link I provided explains all of that but thanks for bringing that up.

ApostateAbe

I interpreted and co-opted your phrase, "rope people in," as just another way of expressing the intention of persuading as many people as possible, drawing the maximum number of people into her belief system. There is nothing wrong with that. Yes, I am trying to do the same thing. For her, it most certainly is an explicit goal. She answered an interview question about her goal, and she put it on her website:

After I discovered this information—which made so much sense—I felt it was vitally important for mankind’s spiritual, psychological and emotional health to understand these facts. I hope that my work will assist the world in transitioning to a wiser and more evolved manner of being.