Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Acharya S · 01-16-2008, 05:41 PM

If these posts are addressing me once again, the fact is that I have never used Google books before this past year. But, once more, you have to nitpick someone to death with an unending barrage of criticism to the tiniest point. "Oh, which browser did you use when searching Google books, because, you know, that makes a difference."

Give me a break.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Oh wait, I guess we're in the "digital age" now where "research" means utilizing Google and Google Books, right?

Since Google Books produces actual facsimiles of the original tomes, there should be little or no difference in research results quality between finding something in the hardcopy form of Migne and finding something in the digital form. Google differs from Google Books in quality of research in precisely that regard.

Though of course I agree that research should include more than Google Books... at least for now. If Google ends up scanning virtually every single book ever printed, it will be better than any library so far as quality of research is concerned.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-16-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Since Google Books produces actual facsimiles of the original tomes, there should be little or no difference in research results quality between finding something in the hardcopy form of Migne and finding something in the digital form. Google differs from Google Books in quality of research in precisely that regard.

Though of course I agree that research should include more than Google Books... at least for now. If Google ends up scanning virtually every single book ever printed, it will be better than any library so far as quality of research is concerned.

There's a serious methodological problem with relying on texts which nearly all date before 1923.

Oh, I get your point. I was talking about finding the same books on Google as in a library, but of course many will not be freely available on Google for about 70 years (depending on changing copyright laws).

A surprising number of texts in Migne have not been edited since. It would, however, probably be best to look up those that have in their most recent editions. Good point.

Ben.

ETA: As I understand it, Google is hoping to cut deals with publishers to make even more recent books available for a fee. In that case, it would be like a huge research library for those who can pay the fee.

Solitary Man · 01-16-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acharya S

If these posts are addressing me once again, the fact is that I have never used Google books before this past year. But, once more, you have to nitpick someone to death with an unending barrage of criticism to the tiniest point. "Oh, which browser did you use when searching Google books, because, you know, that makes a difference."

Give me a break.

I can hardly see you justified in using that simile. Surely I am not criticizing you for using Google Books. I'm thoroughly disgusted with your total lack of real scholarship, your ignorance of current scholarship, and your poor and pathetic methodology. Those things do make a difference.

Solitary Man · 01-16-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

There's a serious methodological problem with relying on texts which nearly all date before 1923.

Oh, I get your point. I was talking about finding the same books on Google as in a library, but of course many will not be on Google for about 70 years (depending on changing copyright laws).

A surprising number of texts in Migne have not been edited since. It would, however, probably be best to look up those that have in their most recent editions. Good point.

Ben.

You're absolutely right, Ben, that if Google books had scanned all the books in the world, it'd be infinitely preferable than going to a library. But alas, copyright will prevent that, and as such, thorough library research is mandatory. There are other sources, like journal databases, which are equally useful. I find myself relying a bit too much on JSTOR at times.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-16-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acharya S

Oh for Christ's sake, Jeffrey - knock it off.

Knock what off? Asking you to back up your boasts that you use and are familiar with primary sources when there are strong indications that the boast is empty?

Quote:

I will not answer to you and your snide insinuations every step of the way. Just for this ONE post I will answer, as it reveals the absurd comportment of this board.

I obtained the book from the UCLA library - do you want to see my library card? I don't have the book, as I stated, so I can't provide the citations you are dunning me for. If you are so interested, please go get the book yourself. Do you make everyone do research for you?

So you didn't consult the Latin text and you don't know what book and line the part of the Davies translation that you "quote" is a translation of.

Got it.

Quote:

No, I'm terribly sorry, but I didn't have the time or resources to worry about whether or not the Davies translation is accurate.

Can you tell me now? I provided you with the Latin. Or is this not the text that stands behind the bit of Davies that you adduced?

Quote:

Unlike you, evidently, I am not suspicious of everyone's work to the point where I can't even trust a COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY publication.

So you did use only a 20th century source for your "knowledge" of what of what Macrobius "said", not the original source. I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:

What is see here is not clever scholarship but quite the opposite. Does such unending nitpicking and pettiness truly accomplish anything, besides running people off? Or is that your intent?

Nope. I'm just trying to get some handle on the nature and extent of your scholarship and the accuracy of your claims and the actual depth of your research.

Thanks for letting me know just what this is.

Jeffrey

Dave31 · 01-16-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acharya S

If these posts are addressing me once again, the fact is that I have never used Google books before this past year. But, once more, you have to nitpick someone to death with an unending barrage of criticism to the tiniest point. "Oh, which browser did you use when searching Google books, because, you know, that makes a difference."

Give me a break.

I can hardly see you justified in using that simile. Surely I am not criticizing you for using Google Books. I'm thoroughly disgusted with your total lack of real scholarship, your ignorance of current scholarship, and your poor and pathetic methodology. Those things do make a difference.

Solitary Man, you've never read anything by Acharya before either, right? That's what you admitted in another thread here. So when you claim the above, you actually have no Idea what you're talking about do you.

* Do you guys give Dawkins, Harris, Dr. Price and Richard Carrier this same hostile treatment - doubtful.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-16-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acharya S

If these posts are addressing me once again, the fact is that I have never used Google books before this past year. But, once more, you have to nitpick someone to death with an unending barrage of criticism to the tiniest point. "Oh, which browser did you use when searching Google books, because, you know, that makes a difference."

Wow! I trust this is hyperbole. If not, it's a woeful misrepresentation of what "Solitary Man" and others have done "to you" and another use of the argumentum ad miserecordiam.

Deja Vu, anyone?

Jeffrey

MarmINFP · 01-16-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaming Moe

So, is the general consensus here that there is NO truth to the idea of astrotheology having an impact on the character of Jesus and equally that that pagan sun worship is NOT at the root of Christianity?

No, there is no consensus here. When we reach a consensus on this question, we will go on to argue about something else.

Quote:

The equilibrium of this thread is fragmented and straining towards alternative tangents without clarifying where the accepted academic position lies. As someone without qualifications in this area I would be grateful to know exactly where we can agree and what specifically undermines the astrotheological position for those who do not subscribe to it.
Thanks:devil2:

This is just off the top of my head -

At one time, most cultural anthropologists saw everything in terms of fertility cults. There is probably a grain of truth in this, and also a grain of truth in the idea of solar worship lying at the root of a lot of religious traditions, alathough these roots may be hidden. We know that the Egyptians were big on worshipping the sun. Academics accept that there are solar deities in the Hebrew Scriptures - the golden calf that the Israelites worshipped was the rising sun. Samson is recognized as a solar deity.

There is no academic agreement that Jesus was a solar deity, although there are tantalizing hints. Tacitus knows little about Christians except that they get up before sunrise (to welcome the rising sun) and sing hymns to Jesus as a God. What's this all about? Why does Tertullian say that Christians pray facing east (towards the rising sun?) The relation between Jesus and John the Baptist fits into an astrotheological pattern, which you can read about in Joseph Campbell. But was it a story invented around the astrotheology, or astrotheological themes fitted around actual historical figures?

And Acharya's quote or paraphrase from Macrobius appears to be accurate, although you can debate what it means.

As Toto points out, there is academic support for evidence of astrotheology in ancient religions including Christianity. Astrotheology isn't in question, but rather how pervasive it is. What is in question is Acharya: her style, her specific citations, her reliability, etc. The doubts brought up are about how fundamental is astrotheology, to what degree did ancient religions influence eachother, are Acharya's interpretations too biased, and whether she generalizes too much.

Toto asks, "But was it a story invented around the astrotheology, or astrotheological themes fitted around actual historical figures?" This is a question of what came first. Acharya is arguing that astrotheology came first... not only first before actual historical figures, but first in terms of being at the very beginning of all mythologizing.

Dave31 · 01-16-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

ApostateAbe "ALL of the loyalists of Acharya S have one thing in common: they incessantly demand that I read her material. The more loyal they are, the more they do it."

- No Abe, you've made repeated false claims about her work and you've been corrected SEVERAL TIMES. You refuse to make the necessary adjustments and insist on repeating those false claims over and over. That's why I suggest reading the book. As I would think anyone else would do. "Loyalist" has nothing to do with it but nice try. It's just basic common sense.

Quote:

ApostateAbe RE: Tertullian's paraphrase: "seemed to imply that Tertullian conceded the charge"

- That is a total misunderstanding and not what Acharya said at all. It has been explained several times now. Your comprehension on this issue is non-existant, maybe you should just let it go.

Quote:

ApostateAbe "let me give you a lesson on how to do research. You won't get this lesson from Acharya S"

- Honestly Abe, you're not the goto guy...unless I need examples of ad homs, fallacies and insults.

Again, my point in sharing those 3 quotes was to show you that Acharya did not rely on 19C. sources as you repeatedly claim. And I gave the page numbers from her books for further reading.

Quote:

Abe "Finding the scholarly-translated writings of early Christian authors is very easy."

- You've never done it have you - not in Latin or Greek attempting to find something never before translated into English.

Quote:

Abe "You repeated the same faulty paraphrase. Do you see a problem with this?"

- The paraphrase was not Acharya's as you would love to assume, Abe. If you have an issue with the paraphrase then, you need to take it up with the Catholic Enc.

GakuseiDon · 01-16-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarmINFP

I don't think Acharya's conclusion is improbable, and in interpreting ancient texts we're limited to probabilities. It does seem to imply that some non-Christians perceived Christianity as sun worship. However, you could argue that Tertullian was responding to a slanderous attack rather than an honest observation.

It's not whether Acharya's conclusion is possible, but whether it is reasonable from the information given.

Dave31 reproduced this quote:

For example, early Church Father Tertullian (@ 160-220 C.E.), an "ex-Pagan" and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, "You say we worship the sun; so do you."

AS IT STANDS, and as given by a supporter of Acharya, is it reasonable to conclude from what we know Tertullian actually did write that he "ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen"?

Now, Acharya may have more to support her conclusion from Tertullian's remark. But don't you agree that her conclusion, as presented by Dave31, is stated too strongly and at least borders on the unreasonable?

If she could admit that her analysis is overly confident, or if she could supply other evidence from Tertullian, then we could move on.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.