lpetrich

Violence, like what the Bible has a lot of? Imagine making a movie from many of the more notable incidents in the Bible. Can anyone say lots and lots and lots of violence?

I wonder if Haran appreciates how the Sept. 11 kamikaze hijackers believed that they would be REWARDED for their actions in the Next World. Yes, REWARDED, with getting to have some very nice new wives and other very nice things (Muslims believe in a very carnal Heaven).

And yes, they were to say "There is no god but Allah".

Haran

Please do try to read all of what I wrote...

Haran

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

lpetrich

I did, and I found no earlier response to my mention of violence celebrated in the Bible.

And as to saying that the Sept. 11 kamikaze hijackings were politically motivated, I wish to point out that many Middle Easterners do not draw a very clear line between religion and politics.

godfry n. glad

Layman:

Y'know, I pretty much agree with your assessment of Acharya S. The vast bulk of her work is marred by a lot of "new-age" bunko artistry and marginal opinions.

But this?

"For a review of her work, check this out:
<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_SFS.html"" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_SFS.html"</a>

You suggest that we take the word of a bunch of zombie worshippers on Acharya S? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

godfry n. glad

Layman

I don't consider Holding an expert or an authority, but his review of Acharya S's work reveals she's crazy. Especially the bit about the aliens.

I always find it amazing that so many "free-thinkers" embrace a new-age prophetess's work when she apparently is on a mission from alient beings to enlighten the world. To be fair, many free-thinkers realize how problematic she is, but she continually pops up has someone worthy of attention.

godfry n. glad

Layman passed the following judgment:

"Crazy"? As in "certifiably insane"?

Don't you think that's a bit harsh? I'd go for "misguided" or even "deluded". There are millions of folks out there who live perfectly adequate (if not fulfilled and rewarding) lives who hold beliefs similar to those held by Acharya S. Evidently there are some in this forum.

Then, there's the issue of whether we can discount _all_ the opinions of a person who holds one opinion judged "crazy", "misguided" or "deluded". For example, should we dispense with the Newtonian physics because Newton was a known spiritualist?

And...You missed my point. You have cited sources who hold to opinions that are just as woefully unsupported (and unsupportable) by falsifiable empirical evidence, if not more so. They believe that the "son of god/god himself" was incarnate in 1st century Palestine, worked miracles, got himself killed and yet rose from the dead, and that if we all believe this load of nonsense (unsupportable by falsifiable empirical evidence), it will provide a quick ticket to some imagined blissful afterlife. To me, that's just as misguided and deluded as believing that aliens have come here in UFOs and are attempting to enlighten us...maybe even more so.

So... I'll repeat my question:

Is not J.P. Holding's condemnation of Acharya S a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

godfry

[Edited for emphasis]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>

Layman

No, just crazy.

Even morons and imbeciles can lead adequate (?) lives. What's your point? And being a member of this forum sure doesn't infer adequacy.

Acharya S is not Newton. She's a moron.

No, I did not miss your point. You have missed mine. As a Christian, I don't fine anything unreasonable about Christian beliefs. So the fact that Holding believes in basic Christians beliefs is not inconsistent with my reliance on him.

Not in the least. As I explained, as a Christian, I have no conflict with Holding's beliefs in Christian ideas. What I expressed amazement about was not that anyone would believe Acarya S, but that so many reputed "free-thinkers" are constantly relying on her and defending her. For people to claim to have some special right to identify themselves as "critical-thinkers" to believe accept so uncritically the writings of a mormonic new age guru who is on a mission from space aliens (and thinks AIDS doesn't exist) is simply fascinating. It strikes me as grossly inconsistent and revealing of their hardened biases against Christianity.

So no, a Christian referring to a Christian website is not the same as a "free-thinker" relying on a new age guru who believes AIDS is all in our heads and is on a mission from space aliens to spread the word.

Toto

I haven't read the book, so I don't want to comment on it directly.

<a href="http://infoweb.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/BkrvTCC.htm" target="_blank">Earl Doherty</a> gives it a favorable review but notes On the other hand, Robert Price gives it a negative review (from the Journal of Higher Criticism, v.7, n. 2, p. 294f.

Price gives Acharya S. the dubious distinction of comparing her to Josh McDowell.

Jayhawker Soule

And waht is the reason for accepting Adam and Eve, Moses and Jonah, the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and Holy Trinity, while rejecting every not-Christion theology?

Layman

Umm. In other words, why am I a Christian? Because I believe in Christian doctrines and I do not believe in Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, etc. doctrines. Why? Personal experience, the historical accuracy of the New Testament, and the evidence for the resurrection.