Talk:Acharya S/Typo in archive

"Acharya" Is spelled wrong in the archive above, but I don't know how to fix it so its corrected... Someone who knows how, oughtta do that :p Windsagio 15:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

____

I beelive thats how the authro spells her pen name.

Incedentlaly can we now ad bacj the Biogrpahical data? ( HEr follwors rmeove it as it doesn support her position, btu given the article is abotu her, I think its also relevant.)

ZAROVE 18:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well *ONE* of them is wrong... the main page and talk are "Acharya", but the archive is "Archaya"... Its on the npov page.  Windsagio 21:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed the typo. Thanks. --Ragib 00:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: the biographical data. 1) Clear your proposed addition with the talk page first. This is a controversial article and doing this might stop an edit war before it starts. 2) Let's take care of the criticism section first. crazyeddie 19:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

=
==================== Robert M. Price

Robert M. Price seems to be the most reputable of the critics (which ain't saying much). One of the other two critics mentions this review. Linkage: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_murdock.htm He is an atheist and a "fellow" Christ-as-a-Myth theorist, so the "Christian apologetic" ad hominem attack doesn't apply here. His avowed reason for criticizing Acharya is to distance himself and his serious (or so he says), but marginallized, scholarship from her "extreme biblical studies". IIRC, Acharya says that Robert M. Price's review is an example of professional jealousy. Anyway, here's the points he brings up in handy bite-sized packages. Let's try to get them into a form approaching encylopedic, and, while we're at it, let's see what rebuttals/refutations Acharya et al has for these specific points. (Links would be good!) crazyeddie 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

=
========= First of all, it isn't an ad hominem unless being a christian apologist is held to be a derogatory statement.

Second, Let's not fool ourselves. Price refers to his own book and articles no less than _________ times. In using them as the yardstick to measure the work of another, it can hardly be seen as purely objective. Check out what he has to say of JP Holding.

=
==========   P.S.: I've wikified in places where I thought it might be a good idea to see what the mainstream theories are.

* "a book which uses words like 'plagiarize' and 'pilfer' to describe biblical borrowings from ancient mythology and castigates all the early Christian theologians as 'psychotics' pure and simple"

=
===================

A book that uses words like "biblical borrowings from ancient mythology" validates the observation. Taking issue with the use of "plagerize and pilfer" merely means that he wouldn't use those words to describe it.

Religion is the bane of mankind. The great atrocities of mankind have been committed in the nake of one belief or another. To justify religion in the light of its deeds is nothing, if not psychotic.

=
====================   * Acharya relies on secondary sources that are suspect themselves.

* "We sometimes feel, in these pages, to be lost in a forest of false cognates. Can it be true, for instance, that 'Solomon' is a trilingual synthesis of words for 'the sun'? 'Sol' from Latin, 'Om' from Sanskrit, 'On' from Ethiopic. This conceit she derives from John Hazelrigg. Elsewhere she endorses a contradictory theory, from the same writer, that Solomon is instead derived from Suleyman (=universal emperor), a Persian title."

=
==================

Any decision made in the throes of emotion is likely to be wise. What one feels is the least of all motives to make an objective determination. The passage quoted is an exploration of what another author has proposed as a way to view how language can be worked to an end. At the very least, it sets forth the question as to its influence.

=
===================   * Acharya uses "kettle logic" any argument, even if inconsistent with others she uses, is good so long as it tends to support her thesis.

=
=================

When exploring dozens of theses on a theme, no two will be alike. Finding sense in some and not in others is what the exploration, in light of the theme, is what it should be about.

=
================   * Acharya ignores mainstream biblical studies, focuses only fundamentalists as the main opponents of Christ-as-a-Myth.

=
====================

Who are the main opponents of "Christ-as-myth"? What are mainstream biblical studies if not its apologetics? That this was even said bespeaks the level of thinking involved.

=
=====================   * "she notes that “In Dutch, a Lucifer is a match, a purely utilitarian object that brings light and fire” (p. 229), as if this were relevant linguistic evidence."

=
==================

If one only explores one way, no other will be seen.

=
=====================   * "In her attempt to explain Mount Sinai as an active volcano (actually an outmoded Rationalist attempt to retain the story as residually historical)"

=
==================

The alternative would be that it's non-historical? Ok.

=
====================   * "she points out that 'the benediction... of the Feast [of Weeks commemorating the giving of the Torah] is the same as the split-fingered, ‘live long and prosper’ salutation of the Vulcan character Spock on Star Trek. Vulcan, of course, is the same word as volcano, and the Roman god Vulcan was also a lightning and volcano god' (p. 96)."

=
======================

Which illuminates the process of the human mind to incorporate previous symbolism even into today's fiction. This symbolism can be seen in a hundred thousand works over the centuries which is validation if not an indictment that demonstrate how the process validates the Christ-as myth theme.

=
===========   * "Likewise, discussing pagan origins of the eucharist, she quotes the libretto of Jesus Christ Superstar as if it were an ancient source (p. 200)."

=
=============

Again, pointing out how modern fiction incorporates ancient myth merely illuminates the process by which we arrive at our beliefs.

=
=============   * "'gospel,' we are told, means 'magic spell.'"

=
==========================

Where does she say this?

In The Christ Conspiracy, she writes that the term "gospel" is "God's spell," And has explained that the basic etymology of "gospel" as provided by The Concise Oxford Dictionary English Etymology, states that godspel is Old English (not Greek), and is composed of god and spel. The dictionary equates god as "good" and spel as "spell," with the first definition indicated.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Godspel

=
===========================   * "Were the Druids really Buddhists? Godfrey Higgins thought so. [...] he makes this identification, highly dubious to say the least, but apodictically laid down by Ms. Murdock."

(According to dictionary.com, "apodictially" means "necessarily or demonstrably true; incontrovertible."

=
==========================

http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/idr/idr14.htm http://www.aboutulverston.co.uk/celts/magatamas.htm http://www.aboutulverston.co.uk/celts/celticspirituality.htm http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/faqs/shaman.html http://www.metahistory.org/MysteriesDied.php

Apodictially, indeed.

=
==============================   * "Was Augustine of Hippo a former Mandaean (p. 60)? Surely she means Manichean."

=
=============================

According to legend, Mani was a Mandaean. Mandaeanism still exists [and] that its influence subtly continues in Christian thought via Augustine of Hippo. This concept has been widely known and accepted for centuries, apodictically or otherwise, it is thought that Mani was either a Mandaean who created Manichaeism or founded Manichaeism upon it.

"Mandaeanism

The Mandaeans were a Gnostic religion which revered John the Baptist instead of Jesus. According to legend, Mani was a Mandaean. Mandaeanism still exists.

Manichaeism

"Manichaeism was one of the major ancient religions. Though its organized form is mostly extinct today, a revival has been attempted under the name of Neo-Manichaeism. However, most of the writings of the founding prophet Mani have been lost. Some scholars and anti-Roman Catholic polemicists argue that its influence subtly continues in Christian thought via Augustine of Hippo, who converted to Christianity from Manichaeism and whose writing continues to be enormously influential among Catholic theologians.

The religion was founded by Mani, who reportedly was born in western Persia and lived approximately 210-275 AD. The name Mani is mainly a title and term of respect rather than a personal name. This title was assumed by the founder himself and so completely replaced his personal name that the precise form of the latter is not known. Mani was likely influenced by Mandaeanism and began preaching at an early age. He claimed to be the Paraclete, as promised in the New Testament: the Last Prophet and Seal of the Prophets that finalized a succession of men guided by God and included figures such as Zoroaster, Hermes, Plato, Buddha, and Jesus.

The Manichees made every effort to include all known religious traditions in their faith. As a result, they preserved many apocryphal Christian works, such as the Acts of Thomas, that otherwise would have been lost. Mani was eager to describe himself as a "disciple of Jesus Christ", but the orthodox church rejected him as a heretic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/j/jo/john_the_baptist.htm http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hi/history_of_christianity.htm

See also: http://bopedia.com/en/wikipedia/m/ma/mandaeanism.html

=
===========================   * "Was Tertullian ultimately, as Murdock avers (p. 158), an apostate from the Christian faith? Of course not: Murdock has read and misunderstood that Tertullian left Catholicism for the New Prophecy, equally Christian (if not, one might say, more so!)."

=
===========================

If Tertullian left Catholicism for the new Christian prophecy then he was an still an apostate of Christianity.

=
===========================   * "Was Irenaeus a Gnostic (p. 60)? She accepts Higgins’s judgment that he was [...]"

=
==========================

By "accepts"... this means? Reading minds is, at best, a baffling practice. Nonetheless, she quotes Higgins, no one can know whether she accepts his judgment or not. What she refers to is: "Bishop Iranaeus was a Gnostic and had a zodiac on the floor of his church at Lyons." I see no dispute as to the information he provides which rather renders this statement as moot.

=
==========================   * "The dates of biblical writings is a subject far from settled, especially the way conventional scholars try to settle it. Still, one wants more evidence for allegations like these. Was the text of the Book of Revelation partly the work of Andrew, Bishop of Caesarea in the sixth-seventh century (p. 267)? Murdock doesn’t explain or tell us where to look for the basis of this statement."

=
=========================

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007487 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01473a.htm

It seems to be somewhat common knowledge.

=
=======================   * "Was 1 Enoch written in 2400 BCE (p. 362, crediting Higgins this time, and his charting of the book’s astronomical coordinates)?"

=
============================

"1"? Enoch? The book does not refer to "1" Enoch. Further, Acharya states "Higgens AVERS that, based on the astrology, Enoch reflects it was originally composed around 2400 BCE in the latitude of Northern India" in exploring the premise that Enoch was composed long before the advent of Christianity and was astrologically driven.

=
=======================

In short, it does indeed seem a very definate likelihood that Dr. Price's criticisms areat best a nit picking for other purposes than just scholoarship.

OK?
So if Joe left the Catholic CHurhc and becam Baptist, he woudl be an apostate to the Christain Faith?

No, he still followed Christ,. he just did not belong tot he Cathlci CHuch.

=
====================

An apostate is one who who is disloyal and abandones one cause (esp. political or religious) for another.

=
========================= The res o your critisism of Price is useless. we are nto ehre to determine who is right, only to be objective. You are here to mes sup tlak pages and to make sure Acharya S gets to look good with no complaints whatsoever agasint her risen.

=
=======================

The claim of having the one and only way is the condemnation of all other ways. Unless counter points are allowed, all that you do is prove your own bias. That is not objectivity, that is belief in its finest robes.

=
========================= Again, propoganda in her name is what you and James push, and why I htink it is wise to sufggest you and he be banned. After all, you only contribute to this article, and only rellay wan tto attakc those who try to present critisisms o your Guru.

=
=========================

What propaganda? Do illustrate your claim. Saying so doesn't make it so. By your logic, you would also have to be banned for doing what you accuse others of. It is clear that the purpose of your input would have this article erased and no mention of the author or her works be presented at all... however, since that is not going to happen, you do the next best thing, disparage and dinigrate in an effort to discredit her work in favor of what your beliefs.

=
========================== Also, The Term Christain APologist is not derogitory.

And the apologists will be clealry labled as such, btu will be included here.

=
=====================

I thought not but it was not I who called it an ad hominem... take that up with the person who made the claim. It is interesting that you feel you can dictate who is eligible to respond to a Wikipedia article and what is allowed to be said. It is even more remarkable how those in a position to choose... follow your lead as though bedfellows in belief. Hipocracy is the practice of pretending objectivity while limiting it to what is desired to be heard.