Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave31 · 10-13-2009, 08:54 AM

Celsus, you're saying it's perfectly fine for Carrier to trash an authors work he has never read, which would be considered intellectual dishonesty (never mind any potential smears, libel etc) and is looked down upon by those with integrity and character. You're here giving Carrier a free pass for it - proving my point once again, so, thanks for that.

Toto, why the need to promote Rook/Tom and his trash here in this thread? The ONLY book that Rook/Tom claims to have read is "Christ Conspiracy" and he apparently skimmed through that years ago. The blog "review" you just posted is based on her 2nd book, "Suns of God" which rook/tom admits he hasn't read. So repeating after Carrier, he trashes an author who's works he has not read writing a severely intellectually dishonest diatribe against her and then goes on to post it everywhere like some sort of smear campaign. He even banned several people in that thread trying to set the record straight - I guess he wasn't interested. A quote from rook's blog:

Quote:

Freethinkaluva "If folks have a look at the thread there they would see how dishonest Rook is on the issue with Acharya's work. Rook omitted information provided to him in that thread & turned his "Problems with Acharya" into a straw man & an argument from ignorance. Mostly due to the fact that he hasn't read her work (which Rook admits in this thread) - especially "Suns of God" which addresses the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy."

Rook is dishonest here but seems to appeal to people who are too lazy to do their own research. And on top of that, It seems that Rook gets his false assumptions about Acharya from his hero Richard Carrier who also hasn't read Acharya's work. So Rook is RELYING on R. Carrier & doesn't go to the source - hows that for "sloppy scholarship"? Rook is an embarrassment to freethinkers & Jesus mythicists by dishonestly smearing Acharya like this.

Folks who haven't actually read Acharya's works clearly aren't qualified to make commentary on it making their comments utterly lacking in honesty and integrity. Rooks blog that he has posted everywhere is nothing less than a smear campaign. An apology to Achayra from Rook is in order."

Thing is Acharya has never done anything to anyone let alone these 2 guys. They both we her an apology. It's an embarrassment to Freethinkers

ApostateAbe · 10-13-2009, 09:13 AM

Dave31, you don't seem to be doing Acharya S any favors. You are reacting to perceived slights against Acharya S with too many hyperbolic personal attacks of your own, when you are best to respond with much greater civility than your opponents. Turn the other cheek, as Jesus/Horus/Mithras/whoever said. I appreciate that Acharya S is going to the original ancient sources, like the Luxor inscriptions. If she wants to have the upper hand, then she can find relevant experts in the field who share her same interpretations. Better yet, she can publish a detailed study on how the Luxor inscriptions fit with her interpretations.

Dave31 · 10-14-2009, 12:33 PM

LMAO! ApostateAbe only a few have trash Acharya S here more than you - you're not to be trusted at all when it comes to her work. You're always quick to jump in & pile-on however you can so, when you say "turn the other cheek" it's quite hypocritical.

"she can find relevant experts in the field who share her same interpretations...she can publish a detailed study..."

If you knew her work you'd already know that she has done that - Christ in Egypt (or via: amazon.co.uk) for example. Have you read it? No, probably not.

So again, Carrier is given a free pass on trashing an authors work out of professional jealousy & misogyny, even though he made serious egregious errors, it never occurred to the skeptics here to hold him accountable or responsible for it. It's embarrassing for Carrier.

ApostateAbe · 10-14-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

LMAO! ApostateAbe only a few have trash Acharya S here more than you - you're not to be trusted at all when it comes to her work. You're always quick to jump in & pile-on however you can so, when you say "turn the other cheek" it's quite hypocritical.

"she can find relevant experts in the field who share her same interpretations...she can publish a detailed study..."

If you knew her work you'd already know that she has done that - Christ in Egypt (or via: amazon.co.uk) for example. Have you read it? No, probably not.

So again, Carrier is given a free pass on trashing an authors work out of professional jealousy & misogyny, even though he made serious egregious errors, it never occurred to the skeptics here to hold him accountable or responsible for it. It's embarrassing for Carrier.

I haven't read Christ in Egypt (or via: amazon.co.uk). If you would like my address, you can send me a copy, and I'll be glad to read it. If you have the book with you, maybe you can you give me the details right here. Are there relevant experts who agree with her on the Luxor inscriptions? If so, who are they and what do they say? Or has she published a detailed study on how the Luxor inscriptions fit with her interpretations? If so, what are the details?

badger3k · 10-14-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I decided to bump this up rather than start a new thread.

Acharya S (who is now using her real name, D. M. Murdoch) has responded to Carrier in this detailed excerpt from her forthcoming book, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection.

I have just started going through it. Murdoch writes this to provide support for her thesis that Christianity borrowed from Egyptian religion. She charges that Carrier confused the Amenhotep and Hatshepsut birth cycles in the literature (which he says he skimmed, always dangerous) and introduced some unnecessary pornographic references. (Murdoch sticks to her Victorian scholars, who see the impregnation as happening when the ankh is held to the goddess' nose.)

Why does she stick with the victorian scholars, who could be real repressed and prudish, though they had their moments? I may have to read it and see her justification. It just strikes me as odd, if the inscriptions point towards something else, or if it is a bit garbled, to pick out the one thing that supports your hypothesis.

Quote:

There is some discussion of "immaculate conception," which Murdoch admits has a specific meaning in Christian cultures, referring to the conception of Mary without sin. But she justifies using the term for Horus, since the Egyptians did not think of ordinary sex as sinful, and all conceptions are therefore immaculate. She also identifies Isis with the pertetual virgin goddess, Neith.

The last could be true - there are so many Egyptian myths that the gods and goddesses were often absorbed into each other. But the whole "all conceptions are immaculate" bit sure sounds like a reach. I sincerely hope that isn't her argument for that.

Quote:

The conclusion is perhaps the strongest argument:

Quote:

The Luxor nativity scene represents the birth sequence of an obviously very important god-king, as it was portrayed in one of the most famous Egyptian sites that endured for some 2,000 years. Egypt, it should be kept in mind, was a mere stone's throw from the Israelite homeland, with a well-trodden "Horus road" linking the two nations and possessing numerous Egyptian artifacts, including a massive, long-lived fort and Horus temple at the site of Tharu, for instance. Moreover, at the time when Christianity was formulated, there were an estimated 1 million Jews, Hebrews, Samaritans and other Israelitish people in Egypt, making up approximately one-half of the important and influential city of Alexandria. The question is, with all the evident influence from the Egyptian religion upon Christianity presented in Christ in Egypt, were the creators of the Christian myth aware of this highly significant birth scene from this singularly important temple site in Egypt? If not, these scenes were common enough right up to and into the common era - could the creators of Christianity really have been oblivious to them?

I haven't read her works, although I have her first book, but this strikes me as odd. The Egyptian influence was, as far as I can tell (and I may be wrong) far stronger during the early development of Judaism. Didn't the Greek influences overshadow the Egyptian at the time of Christianity's development? Unless she's arguing for the Egyptian birthplace of Christianity, which I recently heard about. Might be interesting to see what evidence she has for her case. I've heard mixed reviews on her scholarship, but recently have heard more favorable ones - any opinions? Is she above the Freke/Gandy kind of work?

Toto · 10-14-2009, 06:19 PM

This thread got resurrected from the dead. It's been a while since I wrote that.

Acharya (Diane Murdoch) is IMHO more of a journalist or advocate than a scholar. Robert Price seems to think favorably of her, but I suspect that is because he really wants the 19th century scholarship to get a second look.

Murdoch definitely gets better when she is challenged - she improves her arguments and her research. But she needs much more of that sort of give and take with other reseachers to sharpen her own arguments and persuade others, and this is hard to do outside of an academic position.

Frankly, her internet supporters like Dave31 and freethinkaluva (?) are not doing her any favors by accusing her detractors of misogyny or other social crimes.

badger3k · 10-15-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This thread got resurrected from the dead. It's been a while since I wrote that.

Acharya (Diane Murdoch) is IMHO more of a journalist or advocate than a scholar. Robert Price seems to think favorably of her, but I suspect that is because he really wants the 19th century scholarship to get a second look.

Murdoch definitely gets better when she is challenged - she improves her arguments and her research. But she needs much more of that sort of give and take with other reseachers to sharpen her own arguments and persuade others, and this is hard to do outside of an academic position.

Frankly, her internet supporters like Dave31 and freethinkaluva (?) are not doing her any favors by accusing her detractors of misogyny or other social crimes.

Wow - you aren't kidding - I missed the 2004 date! You often see "fanbois" for various people, and I agree with your assessment. I saw this and was interested since my mom loved Egyptology and I had gotten interested in it very young (although I scampered over to mesoamerica and the Sumerians). I did find Price's turn around on her interesting, but I think you're right on his views. I'd like to read their arguments and evidence, and see if anyone actually countered them, but just about everything is either in German or is a bit too pricey for me to get right now. Thanks for the reply.

Dave31 · 11-08-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

badger3k "Why does she stick with the victorian scholars"

She doesn't. This is a myth in and of itself that is spread around the net in an attempt to dismiss her works without any real investigation. It only works on those who haven't actually read her work.

Quote:

Toto "Frankly, her internet supporters like Dave31 are not doing her any favors by accusing her detractors of misogyny or other social crimes."

Maybe, yet someone needs to call a spade a spade at some point now & again. The fact remains that there are several here at FRDB who haven't really studied her work yet, they fall over themselves trying to trash her & her work however they can...it's like some sort of obsession - they get worked-up into a frenzy.

I have actually read her work and can tell when peeps are not being honest about it. So, I point that out & somehow that makes me a "fanboy," which really just proves my point. When one who actually studies her work & knows for a fact when detractors aren't telling the truth & point that out, they get abused as well. "fanboy" is still name-calling & it's meant to be yet another derogatory comment. The peeps who attack her work the loudest & most aggressive are often misinformed on her work and quite shallow. Calling someone a "fanboy" is just a deflection away from the issue at hand & demonstrates the weakness of the argument. Thus, Carrier's Luxor article - I didn't see a single person here check to see if he was accurate. In fact, he made monumental egregious errors - he was wrong on some quite crucial points. And still nobody here holds his feet to the fire for it. If Acharya made those same monumental egregious errors there would be a pile-on here raking her over the coals for it forever (just like they still do with that old review of Christ Conspiracy by Dr. Price from 2001 they dig up from the archives which Dr. Price no longer supports as he took it down YEARS AGO). People on the net still hold-up Carrier's article as something that debunks Acharya's work when:

1. Carrier has never read a single book by Acharya S

2. Carrier made egregious errors in his Luxor article

I'm sure Acharya has had Carrier's Luxor article thrown at her many many times since 2004, even though she has proved him wrong in her response:

The Nativity Scene at Luxor - Acharya's response

Yet, nobody holds Carrier's feet to the fire for it. There is a clear hypocritical double-standard here & probably some misogyny as well and somebody needs to point it out. If that makes me a "fanboy" then, I'm a "fanboy." It's still embarrassing to freethinkers though. And an embarrassment to fellow mythicists.

Here's the review by Dr. Price of Christ in Egypt by Murdock.

Quote:

"...We are in agreement on the thoroughly syncretic character of primitive Christianity, evolving from earlier mythemes and rituals, especially those of Egypt. It is almost as important in Christ in Egypt to argue for an astro-religious origin for the mythemes, and there, too, I agree with the learned author....

"...I find it undeniable that...many, many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations..."

"[Horus] is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern."

“The book is more extensive and encompassing than many dissertations I have read, containing over 900 sources and nearly 2,400 citations in several languages, including ancient Egyptian. The text abounds in long lost references many of them altogether new to English rendering, including de novo translations of difficult passages in handwritten German….”

“I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock: we assert that Christianity constitutes Gnosticism historicized and Judaized, likewise representing a synthesis of Egyptian, Jewish and Greek religion and mythology, among others [including Buddhism, via King Asokas missionaries] from around the known world (p. 278). Christianity is largely the product of Egyptian religion being Judaized and historicized (p. 482).”

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...rist_egypt.htm

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-08-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

badger3k "Why does she stick with the victorian scholars"

She doesn't. This is a myth in and of itself that is spread around the net in an attempt to dismiss her works without any real investigation.

OK ... so who are the post Victorian scholars whose work you claim she uses?

And what exactly are the 12 languages you claimed she reads?

Jeffrey

driver8 · 11-10-2009, 12:05 PM

Dave, I am just starting to read Mircea Eliade's Patterns in Comparative Religion (or via: amazon.co.uk). I expect it to cover some common ground with Acharya, but I do not yet know how much. Have you read any of his works? He appears to be a much more authoritative source. I think he will address egyptology, but don't know to what extent.

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

10-13-2009, 09:13 AM	#22
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Dave31, you don't seem to be doing Acharya S any favors. You are reacting to perceived slights against Acharya S with too many hyperbolic personal attacks of your own, when you are best to respond with much greater civility than your opponents. Turn the other cheek, as Jesus/Horus/Mithras/whoever said. I appreciate that Acharya S is going to the original ancient sources, like the Luxor inscriptions. If she wants to have the upper hand, then she can find relevant experts in the field who share her same interpretations. Better yet, she can publish a detailed study on how the Luxor inscriptions fit with her interpretations.

10-14-2009, 12:33 PM	#23
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	LMAO! ApostateAbe only a few have trash Acharya S here more than you - you're not to be trusted at all when it comes to her work. You're always quick to jump in & pile-on however you can so, when you say "turn the other cheek" it's quite hypocritical. "she can find relevant experts in the field who share her same interpretations...she can publish a detailed study..." If you knew her work you'd already know that she has done that - Christ in Egypt (or via: amazon.co.uk) for example. Have you read it? No, probably not. So again, Carrier is given a free pass on trashing an authors work out of professional jealousy & misogyny, even though he made serious egregious errors, it never occurred to the skeptics here to hold him accountable or responsible for it. It's embarrassing for Carrier.

10-14-2009, 06:19 PM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This thread got resurrected from the dead. It's been a while since I wrote that. Acharya (Diane Murdoch) is IMHO more of a journalist or advocate than a scholar. Robert Price seems to think favorably of her, but I suspect that is because he really wants the 19th century scholarship to get a second look. Murdoch definitely gets better when she is challenged - she improves her arguments and her research. But she needs much more of that sort of give and take with other reseachers to sharpen her own arguments and persuade others, and this is hard to do outside of an academic position. Frankly, her internet supporters like Dave31 and freethinkaluva (?) are not doing her any favors by accusing her detractors of misogyny or other social crimes.

11-10-2009, 12:05 PM	#30
driver8 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 167	Dave, I am just starting to read Mircea Eliade's Patterns in Comparative Religion (or via: amazon.co.uk). I expect it to cover some common ground with Acharya, but I do not yet know how much. Have you read any of his works? He appears to be a much more authoritative source. I think he will address egyptology, but don't know to what extent.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.