Freethinkaluva

In post #69 by GakuseiDon, what he failed to mentioned about the quote was that Acharya's comment was in response to Rook Hawkins blog who has also launched a smear campaign without ever having read any of Acharya's work. I was a member of RRS from nearly the beginning and when I pointed out the obvious errors to Rook and RRS I was banned, my posts were edited or deleted as were other threads and posts by other members at RRS.

If you agree with their false assumptions on Acharya and her work - you're okay. If you point out the fact that they even admit they haven't read her work and where the errors and intellectual dishonesty is, you can consider yourself banned. Rook gets most of his false assumptions about Acharya from Richard Carrier who also admits he's never actually read any of her books either. On & on it goes.

If folks are going to launch tirades against someone, in this case Acharya - it's fair to ask what specifically have they actually read. I know I've never seen Acharya go around launching preemptive diatribes against anyone. So she does *NOT* deserve this treatment.

GD's comment here is telling - - GD you really should check yourself. You still continue to believe in an invisible Jewish guy floating about in the sky waiting for the opportune moment to save all the "believers" while the non-believing 2/3rds are left to be destroyed at the end times?

The accusation floating here that Acharya heads a "cult" is another ploy to launch more vicious rumors that are totally bunk.

As one who has studied cults and their tactics in order to help others get out of or steer-way from cults, now, being accused of it here, is absurd and demonstrates how LOW some people will go to spread false rumors. I can't count how many people I've shared the following information with.

"HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT"
http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm?FACTNet

http://www.freeminds.org/fmi_faq1.htm

http://www.freedomofmind.com

I don't appreciate the attempt being made here accusing me or Acharya or anyone who has read her work and supports her work as a "cult" - this needs to stop. This is defamation of character. This is absolutely disturbing how LOW some of you really are.

- Interesting because for 2 years I've seen your own tirades against Acharya's work, you have yet to read it. Lets then also add who has read what specifically of Acharya's. Why wasn't that also added GD - the bias here is crystal clear.

- Had you actually read even an online article you'd know that it is simply the REFLECTION OFF OF THE WATER. GEEESH! Even her online videos show this. I think this point was even in the Zeitgeist video.

GD's post #25 explains why he simply needs to read the book especially "Suns of God" to see the historical evidence within comparative mythologies to see what she is talking about there. IT IS MYTHOLOGY based on natural phenomena.

Still, Malachi151/rationalrevolution/R.G. Price, what exactly are your credentials anyway? What fields of biblical training have you studied? Do you speak/write any other languages? What college did you go to, if any? And what does the R.G. stand for in your name - I can’t find it anywhere on your website.

What are the credentials of Malachi151/rationalrevolution/R.G. Price? I don't see anything on his website at all about his background.

Geetarmoore

Actually, I don't want to come off as defending Acharya S. There is plenty in her work that I found troublesome. I've posted about it in this thread, actually. I do think that people tend to come off irrationally about her and what she is saying, and I'd like to see a reasoned and rational examination of her and what she's put forward. I'd be the first to put down any actual claim she makes that can't be supported by evidence.

The seemingly endless list of gods that match perfectly the 'Jesus' story is one such a thing that I find troublesome. I've never been able to verify 100% any claim that she makes there. It's obviously stretched to the breaking point and beyond.

I'd like to defend honesty as much as possible, and no particular person.

I take the list of her 'sun' attributes in this thread as it is. It's personal speculation which fits within her theory.

Toto

Speculation is speculation. When a community of scholars who devote their careers to the question examine the evidence behind the speculation, discuss and argue among themselves, and decide what is most probable, you have a consensus of experts, and if the process works, the consensus has some reasons and facts that make it a probable explanation (until some young iconoclast comes along and upsets it all).

Acharya's speculation has not gone through this process. She has read some interesting books from the 19th century and repeated their allegations. She has not engaged (as far as I know, and up to now) with other scholars who can challenge her ideas and force her to refine them. What she says might have value, or might be true, but probably has at least a few factual errors, slip ups, etc.

Jeffrey Gibson

And if folks are going to laud her work as academically top notch, it's fair to ask them whether they have the qualifications to accurately evaluate it

What are the credentials of "Freethinkaluva"?

Why should anyone take seriously your evaluation of the merit of AS's work?

That you are refusing to answer this question is telling.

I'll ask one more time.

Are you or are you not qualified in the ways you imply one needs to be qualified to be able to evaluate the accuracy and the validity of her claims?

Why should I take seriously your judgment of the value of her work.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

So, there is no evidence that any sun-worshipping sect actually used such a phrase in describing their beliefs?

But is it mythology she has created or mythology that can be shown to have actually existed?

And please stop badgering Price about credentials. They would only be relevant if he based his conclusions on his own professional training. To my knowledge, that is simply not the case.

Freethinkaluva

Yes, but that's not what Acharya does, and her work has been challenged all over the place, including by various scholars, for the past decade. By your comments, it appears that you too have not read her work. I really have to wonder at all the people who feel the need to make commentary on something they haven't really studied, but that seems to be the nature of the internet and its forums.

Acharya has not just "read some interesting books from the 19th century and repeated their allegations." That erroneous claim reflects that you don't know her work at all. In fact, she's dug into the oldest sources she can find - and the most modern ones as well, and everything in between. She reads the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek, and she also studies the originals of the writings of the Church fathers where appropriate. She even quotes these writings in their original languages, especially in her more recent works. And, in doing so, she's backed up the contentions that may or may not have been found in "19th century books."

In Suns of God, Acharya has over 1800 footnotes, with 250 sources, from all periods, including the most ancient, some of which, again, Acharya herself reads. Here's the bibliography to Suns of God.

So, once again we have someone else engaging in speculation as to what Acharya has written about and what her sources are, because you haven't actually read her works. It grows very tiresome to constantly have to repeat the same facts over and over again, in response to the same erroneous and speculative claims.

Solitary Man

What does it really matter how many footnotes she has? Bullshit is bullshit? I've got plenty of books, some far less radical than hers, which are tantamount to garbage and they're chock full with footnotes. Footnotes doesn't mean a whole lot. I don't see any evidence for her using critical reason in her analyses, and that's what counts.

Toto

You missed my point, completely.

And when I look at that biography, I see a lot of internet pages (some written by people who post here), Theosophists, newspaper articles, Barbara Walker. . .

Freethinkaluva

If you actually studied the subject, you would know whether or not this mythology is ancient. Acharya did not "create" any mythology - are the people here creating mythology of their own by the thousands of posts on whatever subjects may come up? I suppose it depends on how you define "mythology."

mens_sana

When you check your local library, look for J. Glen Taylor's Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel (JSOT Supp 111; 1993). [*] The library won't have it, but you can request it through their InterLibrary Loan program. While this revised doctoral dissertation does find plenty of evidence for officially recognized sun worship in ancient Israel, it argues cogently that Yahweh should not be viewed as a "sun god" any more than he should be viewed as a "storm god" on the basis of borrowed Baal imagery.

I believe the book is out of print. I was lucky enough to stumble across a copy that had been annotated by Sara Mandel in preparation for a CBQ book review. She called it "an outstanding piece of scholarship."

[*] mod note - check google books for an extensive preview