Jeffrey Gibson

What she apparently does not do is to attempt to publish in peer reviewed journals or through academic presses or actively engage scholars. Has she tried to present her "work" at actual academic conferences where the history of religions are discussed?

Can you please name these "various scholars" who have challenged her "work" and where their challenges have appeared?

Everything? If her bibliography is anything to go by, she's not even scratched the surface of what's out there. And how do you know that she's dug into "everything in between". Do you have the familiarity with the nature and extent of these "sources" that is recquiste for your claim to be accurate?

May or may not have been found??? Don't you know. Are you now admitting that you do not know whethere there were works from 19th century scholars that parallel AS's "work" and theses? If so, this would mean that you are hardly qualified to make any claims about AS's "work" being original, let alone an advance on previous mootings of her theses or as showing that she is at all in touch with the relevant scholarship on the matters she discusses.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

And what study of "the subject" (i.e. ancient mythologies) have you actually done that allows you to claim, as you do, that "Acharya did not "create" any mythology"? Has it been in the primary sources or only in secondary literature? Has it been in any literature at all? If so, what?

What qualifies you as an an authority on (ancient) mythology? Do you hold a degree in it? Have you had any formal training in this field? Do you read the languages in which ancient mythographers wrote?

Jeffrey

Ronin

I'm not sure if this thread is on track at this point.

Are people arguing that her credentials are invalid and, therefore, anything written and published by her are "made up" and equally invalid?

Reading her biography, she seems extraordinarily well-educated and (I would presuppose) not many here are anywhere near her level of achievement...if it isn't a forgery (which I would have expected should have been exposed during the past ten years or so she has been on the scene).

I mean I really have no dog in this hunt and last read The Christ Conspiracy around seven years ago, but this current theme of dog piling and ad hom is really not a qualified examination of her work one way or the other...though people seem to have made quite a few presuppositions.

Is it that folks here in this thread want some sort of Theological Seminary Council to support her thesis?

Can anyone provide a list of atheist or, better yet, pantheist theological scholars whose credentials would be acceptable to validate her assorted claims?

There is more than one trick bag being presented here, in my view, and quite a bit of tail chasing.

I've read her book, it was a better than decent expose for the layman and really does get people on track to at least question religious claims and religious history.

Ultimately, it is a mixture of academia, physical research and her own philosophy...much like the work of Carrier, Hitchens, Dawkins and others.

The difference between atheists, pantheists, deists, humanists and organized religion is that we don't get our authority to seek answers from representatives presenting dogma...we go and find them ourselves.

My personal disagreement with Acharya S is her reliance on equally unfalsifiable mystic gibberish reflected here:

God

and:

I'm no validated theological scholar...but that is one big load of unsupported and unsubstantiated hooey laden with sexed up wishful thinking.

In any event, I don't think the world needs another World Pantheist Movement or Theosophical Society formed around a central "papal" authority ala Paul Harrison or Krishnamurti.

YMMV

Amaleq13

If you were genuinely interested in correcting what you consider a mistaken impression of Acharya S, you would answer my questions rather than dodge them.

You bitch about people saying things you consider untrue about her but refuse to answer straightforward questions about the evidenciary basis for her claims? :huh: I would think this to be exactly the opportunity you wanted.

So there is evidence of a sun-worshipping sect actually using such a phrase in describing their beliefs? Where?

mens_sana

Hmmm, makes me think of an old fashioned charismatic tent revival conversion experience, one described in an updated, more-or-less inoffensive terminology. Welllll — inoffensive to some...
To clarify: I think of all conversion experiences as being charismatic in the sense that one is filled to bursting with ________ (fill in the blank). They are identical in that they are a "feeling" that carries no information, the information being supplied after the fact by the cultural/community that surrounds the convert.
(Edited for "clarification" in the hope that sheer shock won't stupify the reader.)

ApostateAbe

Freethinkaluva, I know I have said this before, but I strongly suggest that you stop making ad hominem arguments your primary tools of debate. This includes answering challenges and claims with accusations that the person has not read Acharya's material. You can make that claim (or maybe just make it a suggestion), but what should be most important to you is to fulfill the challenge, answer the inquiry, or contradict the claim with evidence in your favor. The fact that the other guy didn't read Acharya S's books should be secondary to you. Does this make sense?

GakuseiDon

Be careful not to buy into the claims made by Acharya's followers about the criticisms made against Acharya. I've found that when Acharya or one of her followers are asked to back up specific claims, the questioner gets accused of all sorts of things rather than having their questions answered.

Cults are known for being highly defensive and sensitive to criticisms. Let's just see how Freethinkaluva and others from Acharya's forum handle questions.

Jeffrey Gibson

She does?? Does she possess anything beyond a BA?

Jeffrey

skullnboner

<adit>

skullnboner

I notice that some members of this forum "critiquing" Acharya's work are devoid of backing up their specific claims also. When questioned to their total knowledge of her work, they either ignore the question, rant and rave about "credentials" and similar diversions. Or they resort to calling people "cultists". I would be careful not to take "critiquers" of her work too seriously, because they know next to nothing about it or the mythology behind religon.