Dave31

spin,

I honestly couldn't care less that's your problem not mine. None of that has anything to do with me or this thread. I don't think you're suppose to be posting your off-topic grievances of other forums here. I don't know for a fact that what you're saying is even true, nevertheles, it certainly doesn't belong here. So, I'll request your post be deleted.

Zwaarddijk

Duplicitous bullshit, isn't your post though?

spin

As I have received an indication from Zwaarddijk on the matter, can you confirm that you are the vociferous site admin, Freethinkaluva22, at Freethought Nation who, disliking the message, foolishly assumed that I was a sockpuppet of Zwaarddijk, when I posted that ftl22 was falsely representing the views of Acharya S regarding Churchward?? If so, would you like fairer treatment here than you gave me there? If not, you have my apologies. It would be good if you could clarify. I wouldn't want to give you a ftl22 summary judgment.

stephan huller

"more and more scholars coming to accept Acharya S" names please? In what field? Creative writing? mountainman's theory is genius by comparison

outhouse

LOL you made me laugh


Good one. But true. Ill run with "Creative writing" since I could care less about alternitive theories, other then a few that somewhat follow mainstream scholarships.

aa5874

Your "No Tax Jesus" is NOT mainstream.

You are a Creator.

EarlDoherty

Hardly.

I would largely have to agree with Bob Price's recent article, which Dave gave us a link to. What was objectionable in the original Christ Conspiracy was a handful of things, mostly at the end of the book, relating to global civilization or pygmies (I scarcely remember them), which I simply ignored as irrelevant to the book's meat when I first reviewed it myself. And yes, more primary sources should have been supplied.

I myself have admitted that my first book, The Jesus Puzzle, had a few flaws and missing elements. I'm sure every writer in this field could make the same admission. Of course, in Acharya's case, those predisposed to wanting to stomp all over her--like Gakusei Don (his pygmy fixation became buffoonish)--seized almost entirely on those irrelevancies and shred them for all to see like rabid pitbulls. Personally, I was fascinated by the window she provided onto the old History of Religions school of the 19th century, something we've largely lost sight of since mainstream academia circled its wagons in the early 20th century and drove them into eclipse. I think Acharya has done invaluable work in bringing them back into the light, as she has the unduly neglected field of astrotheology.

I have nothing against Pete personally, but c'mon, to elevate his strange and strained theories over the work of Acharya is simply ridiculous.

Earl Doherty

outhouse

Was overblown way out of porportion to meet her personal unsupported agenda.


Much ancient scholarships were used to support her personal agenda because modern scholarships didnt support her position.

This was intellectual dishonesty, and thus, I dont feel sorry for the wrath she has recieved.

Robert Tulip

Very sound comment here from Earl. Acharya's hypothesis that Jesus Christ was invented as allegory for the sun is compatible with all evidence, and is highly explanatory, parsimonious and elegant, because it is true.

The numerous false and speculative theories about Christian origins make it hardly surprising that Acharya's ideas get treated with suspicion. However, her methods are sound and scholarly and logical and scientific. Sure, some of her sources have flaws (eg Higgins, Graves). But as Earl points out, this is a vast field of study that has been heavily suppressed.

Critics are wrong to impute the errors in earlier astrotheology into Acharya's work. Points of uncertainty should be considered as a basis for dialogue and mutual learning. Acharya is a pioneer of the new paradigm of human spirituality, showing how ancient wisdom contains important concealed truths, with religion grounded in observation of nature.

ApostateAbe

Robert Tulip, do you agree with Earl Doherty that the claims about the ancient global civilization of pygmies were objectionable but irrelevant?