tanya

agree that not everything we propose will prove, ultimately, to be "absolutely true".

do not comprehend which horrific "felonies" have been committed by her....
I agree that this is partly my fault for being so uninformed.

But, surely, you could offer ONE example. Ah, here's one, from spin:
But, exactly...what is there about this thread that represents substance worth reading, especially, spin's comments about Robert Tulip, or spin's defense of Zwwarrddjjk?

This thread seeks to indict Acharya S. The goal is to demonstrate shoddy research, incompetent linguistic skills, and improbable conclusions derived from inadequate investigation.

Where's David Hindley when one needs him? We require, to truly fathom the depth of this horrible incompetence, the sort of genuine scholarship which Chaucer promised us, but which, as far as I can observe, is little more than name calling.

Maybe Acharya S has been incompetent, slovenly, or dim-witted. I wouldn't know, at least, not from perusing this thread. I know that spin and stephan have both betrayed their academic roots by writing gossip, instead of offering concrete illustration of her academic incompetence. Reliance upon ancient sources is routine, on this forum, and in the whole of biblical "scholarship". Every other sentence out of Stephan's mouth is Clement said this, or Clement said that: Based on WHAT?

Acharya S may indeed have erred in relying upon sources which had failed to live up to contemporary standards of academic pursuit, but that should not be portrayed as "felony". At least from my perspective, the "crime" of reliance upon outdated sources ought to be applied to every person on this forum who, at one time or another, has quoted Eusebius.

stephan huller

But what are the odds that a meta-theory like this which seeks to connect a million different unrelated things is possible true? It's hard enough to know the relationship between the synoptic gospels. How the hell do we make one of the ten thousand other leaps that get made after this? It's just silly. I can't tell you how Tertullian and Epiphanius come to similar yet different understandings of one text - the Marcionite gospel. How is the rest of this stuff provable if something so simple can't be fathomed? I don't know how someone can spend as much time as you do here and still be looking for the 'quick fix.' There are no quick fixes with any reliability of being correct.

tanya

AGREE!
but, then, why do you accept, uncritically the notion that "Irenaeus", (i.e. writing attributed to a "bishop", educated in Syria, who moved to France, and escaped the notice of the Roman army, which, however, did notice his predecessor, as leader of a congregation of true believers in Lugdunum) has any credibility?

Why do you accept the folderol that passes for "scholarship" on Mani, despite knowing, as you certainly do, the enormous quantity of outright forgeries, during the fourth century? Is there any credible scholarly inquiry about the life of Mani, which ignores the evidence from Persia? Doesn't every single document we possess bear the taint of "Christian" influence, regarding his life, and his religious movement? For me, the "scholarship" on Mani resembles the "quick fix" of the portrait of the blond haired, blue eyed Jesus on the billboards of Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Is it not a "quick fix" to assert that Mark or Marque, or whoever, lived in Alexandria?

Most of what is presented as "fact" is just imagination, on this forum--Tacitus, Josephus, Paul, all the different flavors of the several, mutually contradictory gospels. Why condemn her to death, for the crime of possessing a tad more imagination than the usual pencil pusher, unable to see anything beyond the end of their nose?

I admire her imagination, wish I had her linguistic skills, and am envious of the breadth of her knowledge on so many different areas of human endeavor: art, language, music, sculpture, literature, history.

I can plant corn and feed the pigs.

spin

As an interesting aside regarding Freethought Nation, the forum of the supporters of Acharya S, long ago I subscribed but did not use the forum until today when Dave31 linked to it. I posted a relatively innocuous post:
The post was accepted by moderation and placed in the thread Dave31 linked to. A little while later the post had disappeared and my account had been removed. I don't feel that needs further comment from me. I'm sure Robert Tulip and Dave31 might have insight.

aa5874

Your view is rather illogical. You presume that whatever you do not understand cannot be understood by anyone else.

What BS.

If you cannot figure out the relationship of the Synoptics then that is your own problem.

Other people can do such things rather easily.

Surely you must understand that there are "rocket scientists" that can fix things quickly that will probably take you a "million" years.

Zwaarddijk

Apparently, you and I are the same person, http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/...p=27153#p27153

Dave/FTL is beyond any reach.

Iskander

I have no experience of forums, but in general I should think that very few clubs would accept someone whose purpose is to ‘kick ass’

I wouldn’t welcome a kicking mule among the thoroughbred, either

Toto

This forum has always welcomed Christian and other apologists. We have no fear of debate.

Chili

Very true and I agree that this forum is open to all, considerate and kind even, with kudo's to you.

Sheshbazzar

And there is always the very convenient 'Elsewhere' 'The Trash' to which any inconvenient topic, unwanted opinions, or discussion can be locked and sent to permanently languish and die without any further comment or discussion allowed.

When 'Freethought' is limited to discussion of only 'approved' thoughts and opinions, censorship is still very much alive and well.