Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-08-2012, 06:16 PM

What??? No further discussion about the criticism allegedly written by Julian the Apostate??!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The essay only survives in quotes in Cyril of Alexandria and sounds like a back handed attempt at legitimizing a grassroots religion even in the words of such an enemy as a didactic or rhetorical device. No reason to get excited about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You MUST read the ancient writings to understand them. You seem to think that all writings were manipulated but you are DEAD WRONG.

If all the ancient writings were manipulated then we would NOT have "Against the Galileans" attributed to the Emperor Julian.

Who wrote "Against the Galileans"?? Eusebius or Irenaeus???

Against the Galileans

You have NO idea that NOT all sources or all books or every part of every book was manipulated.

Please read the ancient writings and you will easily be able to detect those sources that were NOT manipulated.

Was this the original or manipulated Nicene Creed composed by the Church??

...the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness....... it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

Zwaarddijk · 12-09-2012, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I would largely have to agree with Bob Price's recent article, which Dave gave us a link to. ... I was fascinated by the window she provided onto the old History of Religions school of the 19th century, something we've largely lost sight of since mainstream academia circled its wagons in the early 20th century and drove them into eclipse. I think Acharya has done invaluable work in bringing them back into the light, as she has the unduly neglected field of astrotheology....Earl Doherty

Very sound comment here from Earl. Acharya's hypothesis that Jesus Christ was invented as allegory for the sun is compatible with all evidence, and is highly explanatory, parsimonious and elegant, because it is true.

The numerous false and speculative theories about Christian origins make it hardly surprising that Acharya's ideas get treated with suspicion. However, her methods are sound and scholarly and logical and scientific. Sure, some of her sources have flaws (eg Higgins, Graves). But as Earl points out, this is a vast field of study that has been heavily suppressed.

Critics are wrong to impute the errors in earlier astrotheology into Acharya's work. Points of uncertainty should be considered as a basis for dialogue and mutual learning. Acharya is a pioneer of the new paradigm of human spirituality, showing how ancient wisdom contains important concealed truths, with religion grounded in observation of nature.

Even when trying to approach her in a dialogue-oriented manner, she gets very defensive, though, see e.g. my early posts on freethoughtnation where I just asked about some small errata that nowhere were listed at the time.

Much scholarly debate is phrased as criticism, though, and it seems criticism is one thing she just can not take at all.

aa5874 · 12-09-2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwaarddijk

Even when trying to approach her in a dialogue-oriented manner, she gets very defensive, though, see e.g. my early posts on freethoughtnation where I just asked about some small errata that nowhere were listed at the time.

Much scholarly debate is phrased as criticism, though, and it seems criticism is one thing she just can not take at all.

Again, you are wasting your time. Acharya S did NOT discredit her sources.

It was Ehrman who TRASHES his sources but still used them to assemble the history of his Jesus.

You claim you "document bullshit" up to now you have not addressed the bullshit in "Did Jesus Exist?"

Do you think the bullshit in "Did Jesus Exist?" will magically disappear??

At page 180 of "Did Jesus Exist?" Ehrman claimed the Gospels is among the besst attested books of antiquity even though he does not really know what they wrote originally.

At page 182 Ehrman claimed the NT is filled with discrepancies and contradictions both large and small. Any story about Jesus cannot be reconciled or has discrepancies.

Ehrman peddles BS. He discredits his sources and then claims they are among the best attested in the ancient world.

Ehrman effectively Vandalises his own writings.

That is a load of BS by Ehrman---Document it. Talk about it.

Acharya S did NOT discredit her sources and then turn around and use them.

Ehrman ADMITS that any story about Jesus in the NT is filled with discrepancies and contradictions.

Where did Ehrman get his story about his Jesus?? From the very same NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwaarddijk

In short: I document bullshit.

What a Load of BS in "Did Jesus Exist?". You have to document it.

You SEEM to be hiding behind Acharya S.

Dave31 · 12-09-2012, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zwaarddijk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I would largely have to agree with Bob Price's recent article, which Dave gave us a link to. ... I was fascinated by the window she provided onto the old History of Religions school of the 19th century, something we've largely lost sight of since mainstream academia circled its wagons in the early 20th century and drove them into eclipse. I think Acharya has done invaluable work in bringing them back into the light, as she has the unduly neglected field of astrotheology....Earl Doherty

Very sound comment here from Earl. Acharya's hypothesis that Jesus Christ was invented as allegory for the sun is compatible with all evidence, and is highly explanatory, parsimonious and elegant, because it is true.

The numerous false and speculative theories about Christian origins make it hardly surprising that Acharya's ideas get treated with suspicion. However, her methods are sound and scholarly and logical and scientific. Sure, some of her sources have flaws (eg Higgins, Graves). But as Earl points out, this is a vast field of study that has been heavily suppressed.

Critics are wrong to impute the errors in earlier astrotheology into Acharya's work. Points of uncertainty should be considered as a basis for dialogue and mutual learning. Acharya is a pioneer of the new paradigm of human spirituality, showing how ancient wisdom contains important concealed truths, with religion grounded in observation of nature.

Even when trying to approach her in a dialogue-oriented manner, she gets very defensive, though, see e.g. my early posts on freethoughtnation where I just asked about some small errata that nowhere were listed at the time.

Much scholarly debate is phrased as criticism, though, and it seems criticism is one thing she just can not take at all.

Baaa ha ha, Seirios/Miekko/Zwaarddijk, or whoever you are, the buffoonery from you along with the complete divorce from reality is just too much at times considering you have proven that you are not any sort of credible or reliable source on Acharya S. Your comment is just another falsehood of many at this point. Her very first direct response to you THANKED YOU as her posts responding directly to you were all very polite until you showed your true colours:

Quote:

"Thank you for your close reading and interest."

She even acknowledged that you were correct about the Drew's citation error and made a note of it for correction in her 2nd edition. So, what planet are you on? Why are you so obsessed with smearing her with malicious falsehoods? You must be getting paid for it as I can see no other legit explanation.

You've also been caught posting extremely malicious smears implying that she was a racist, which was proven to be a complete falsehood when one checks the book as explained here.

She gives a good explanation of the Pygmy issue here:

Pygmies in 'The Christ Conspiracy'

Garden of Eden originally a Pygmy myth?

Acharya posted a comment here essentially saying the same thing that Earl Doherty said above.

So, she is certainly open to mature, intelligent, constructive criticism. However, she has also shown that she will not put-up with the abuse, malicious smears and derogation. It takes an enormous amount of courage for a female to even try to enter this field of study let alone write books about it.

Quote:

"Having given a fair hearing to some of her online detractors and their 'rebuttal' videos, I have detected not only a lack of knowledge on the part of her critics, but also, in some cases, a thinly disguised misogyny."

- David Mills, Author of Atheist Universe

Zwaarddijk, as you said yourself in your own words on your blogspot that you are:

Quote:

A "computer science student" "a non-theologian" "not very well-versed on Church history, and it is in fact a topic I don't care that much about"

somerationalism.blogspot. fi/2012/09/on-acharya-s. html

I feel sorry for Chaucer after claiming "I wish I had half the level of scholarship shown by this blogger!" - sad to see anyone set their goals so ridiculously low. :huh:

It was explained to you many times:

Quote:

"Again, as explained to you several times previously, we're open to corrections because we strive for accuracy. Unfortunately, your blogs and comments make corrections nearly impossible to find due to the fact that we'd have to sift through your caustic blogs full of vitriolic insults and malicious hate-speech that makes finding valid criticism very difficult."

- From here

You nor the others have offered any apology for these outrageous malicious smears at all. If you had a conscience you would be ashamed.

ApostateAbe · 12-09-2012, 11:13 AM

Dave31, do you agree with Earl Doherty that the claims about the ancient global civilization of pygmies were objectionable but irrelevant?

Dave31 · 12-09-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Dave31, do you agree with Earl Doherty that the claims about the ancient global civilization of pygmies were objectionable but irrelevant?

No, it is absolutely NOT irrelevant or objectionable and folks will learn that soon enough when she writes her book on that. She is removing that entire chapter, "Evidence of an Ancient Global Civilization," from the 2nd edition of 'Christ Conspiracy' to turn it into a book of its own because she feels it's that important. She will most likely win Earl Doherty over on this issue at that point. It's part of Comparative Religion and Mythology. When you start tracing the information back from Christianity, if you follow the "Out of Africa" theory, you will find the basic "gospel" concept story among the more ancient peoples, like the Pygmies of the Congo or the San of South Africa. In a Comparative Religion and Mythology STUDY, she will include all manifestations of these motifs.

What I do believe is irrelevant and objectionable are your and GakuSeiDon's opinions on this subject.

She is interested in Comparative Religion and Mythology dating back as far as she can find it, especially the ideas in the gospel story, so she will continue to trace them as far back as possible. If Comparative Religion and Mythology STUDIES are not of interest to you, that's fine, but stop raining on everybody elses parade with your willful ignorance, because we ARE interested in them. All your and GD's complaints do is to make YOU look like irrational and unscientific ignoramuses.

She gives a good explanation of the Pygmy issue here:

Pygmies in 'The Christ Conspiracy'

Garden of Eden originally a Pygmy myth?

George S · 12-09-2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I would largely have to agree with Bob Price's recent article, which Dave gave us a link to. ... I was fascinated by the window she provided onto the old History of Religions school of the 19th century, something we've largely lost sight of since mainstream academia circled its wagons in the early 20th century and drove them into eclipse. I think Acharya has done invaluable work in bringing them back into the light, as she has the unduly neglected field of astrotheology....Earl Doherty

Very sound comment here from Earl. Acharya's hypothesis that Jesus Christ was invented as allegory for the sun is compatible with all evidence, and is highly explanatory, parsimonious and elegant, because it is true.

I am not, myself, familiar with Acharya. However, if we were to hypothesize that Revelation was an account of the eclipses of 59 and 71, the Son as Sun in a union of the Old Sun and Moon who reappears in the clouds. Equal to the Old Sun. The same. Father and Son the same.

Is that where Acharya begins? Revelation first?

Quote:

The numerous false and speculative theories about Christian origins make it hardly surprising that Acharya's ideas get treated with suspicion. However, her methods are sound and scholarly and logical and scientific. Sure, some of her sources have flaws (eg Higgins, Graves). But as Earl points out, this is a vast field of study that has been heavily suppressed.

Critics are wrong to impute the errors in earlier astrotheology into Acharya's work. Points of uncertainty should be considered as a basis for dialogue and mutual learning. Acharya is a pioneer of the new paradigm of human spirituality, showing how ancient wisdom contains important concealed truths, with religion grounded in observation of nature.

ApostateAbe · 12-09-2012, 11:39 AM

Dave31, I agree that it is relevant. If there was no ancient global civilization of some sort, then there is no plausible way that the myth of Quetzalcoatl of Central American natives could share so many alleged things in common with the myth of Jesus. I don't agree that there is any likelihood to it at all, but Acharya S attempting to build a stronger case for it should be interesting.

On a related note, can you think of any occasion where Acharya S has been significantly wrong in any of her claims about ancient history?

Zwaarddijk · 12-09-2012, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Dave31, I agree that it is relevant. If there was no ancient global civilization of some sort, then there is no plausible way that the myth of Quetzalcoatl of Central American natives could share so many alleged things in common with the myth of Jesus. I don't agree that there is any likelihood to it at all, but Acharya S attempting to build a stronger case for it should be interesting.

On a related note, can you think of any occasion where Acharya S has been significantly wrong in any of her claims about ancient history?

Yes, the one where she agrees with claims that Indian civilization goes back 100 000 years. Likewise the claim that the Polynesians (or their ancestors) were performing voyages spanning thousands of nautical miles several dozen millennia ago.

Likewise when she claims Ireland was colonized by Buddhists. Likewise when she claims that Nostraticists place the urheimat of Nostratic in India.

aa5874 · 12-09-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Dave31, I agree that it is relevant. If there was no ancient global civilization of some sort, then there is no plausible way that the myth of Quetzalcoatl of Central American natives could share so many alleged things in common with the myth of Jesus. I don't agree that there is any likelihood to it at all, but Acharya S attempting to build a stronger case for it should be interesting.

On a related note, can you think of any occasion where Acharya S has been significantly wrong in any of her claims about ancient history?

Why can't you understand that Acharya S does NOT agree with you?? Your claim that you do not agree with Acharya S is basic when she argues that Jesus had NO real existence.

Again, we have TWO fundamental arguments.

1. Jesus of Nazareth had NO real existence.

2. Jesus of Nazareth did Exist.

It is basic and fundamental that those who argue for one does not agree with the other.

It is basic and is inherent that HJers and MJers do NOT agree on the nature of Jesus.

[i]It is inherent that Acharya S does NOT agree with Apostatabe on the nature of Jesus.

But, what is extremely disturbing and wholly unacceptable is when Bart Ehrman write Multiple books and show that the original content of the NT is unknown, and that it is filled with forgeries, fiction, discrepancies, contradictions and events that most likely did NOT happen and still declare that the Gospels are among the best attested books in the ancient world.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" page 180-184.

Regardless of your disagreement with Acharya S you must admit that Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is far worse than any known books dealing with the HJ/MJ argument.

Acharya S did NOT trash her sources.

Ehrman destroys his own findings--his own writings--when he declared that the Gospels are among the best attested books from the ancient world.

People who argue opposing positions do NOT agree but Ehrman ADMITS he used sources that were known to him to be filled with discrepancies, contradictions, and events that most likely did NOT happen.

Effectively, Ehrman's Relied on sources of Perjury to assemble his argument for HJ of Nazareth.

Acharya S did NO such thing.

Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is far worse than any known book on the HJ/MJ argument.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2012, 11:13 AM	#545
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Dave31, do you agree with Earl Doherty that the claims about the ancient global civilization of pygmies were objectionable but irrelevant?

12-09-2012, 11:39 AM	#548
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Dave31, I agree that it is relevant. If there was no ancient global civilization of some sort, then there is no plausible way that the myth of Quetzalcoatl of Central American natives could share so many alleged things in common with the myth of Jesus. I don't agree that there is any likelihood to it at all, but Acharya S attempting to build a stronger case for it should be interesting. On a related note, can you think of any occasion where Acharya S has been significantly wrong in any of her claims about ancient history?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.