Talk:Acharya S/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Dubious qualifications 2 Less useful info 3 Reverts 4 mE AGAIN 5 CHarles Mathews block 6 "Less is more" 7 Reply to the Reply to Me 8 Further Revision 9 Me again

Dubious qualifications

I emailed the American School for Classical Studies in Athens http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/ to verify "Acharya's" claimed affilation with them. The response was "we do not know who she is and we disassociate ourselves from her." Anyone who wants to can do as I did and ask the same question by email or phone to them. 206.106.76.175 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not mentioned recently in the article. Charles Matthews 10:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

--

Can anyone tell me a good reason the article should have less useful information rather than more? A.J.A. 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Less useful info

Becuase Acharya's disiples want to scew the artile in ehr favour and then rail agaisn tnayone who wishes to balance it out and sya they are biased agasinther.

I treid to expand the life seciton while they continually omited it. Now they elave it as they have little choice. Indeed, I ocnsider it ht emost improtant part ofthe aritlce as its abotu her, nto ehr ideas. SOemthign her fans seem obliviosu too.

THe supporters of Acharya S want the aritlce to read as her website does, and htus promote her ideas and books, and present her in thebes tposisble light.Thus informaiton on her critics will eb eliminated if posisbel or at leats neutralised if htis fails.

Further, informaiom on her life they cnanot use will eb removed, and any remote chal;;enge to her credntials is rmeoved while WIkipedia is made ot read as if she is unqeuasitonabely a "Historian, rleigiosu schoalr, linguist., and arhceologist."

Basicllay, this is a war betwen her sup[porters, and anyoen who wants a fair artilvce.

67.216.215.107 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I reject the terms in which that is formulated. It is basic policy here to discuss article content, not the editors of the article. I give you fair warning that personalising the discussion in those terms is deprecated, may violate basic policy, and can lead to a period of blocking. Charles Matthews 09:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

re "Can anyone tell me a good reason the article should have less useful information rather than more?"

According to whom? Read the above and you tell me. The twisting of facts that remove any contradiction and then cries woe when it is reversed... is not balancing it out, it is endeavoring to eleminate anything contrary to its view. The life section replaced the education heading anad includes some meaningless babble about her childhood. It's harmless nonsense but if it pleases, so what. The idea that someone who seek fairness, objectivity, and principle are supporters of Acharya is folly... by that reasoning, Charles would be a supporter. Acharya is a historian, religious scholar, linguist and an archeologist. The proof is in the books she has authored and her experiences. Just because someone prefers to disbelieve it doesn't make it so. Read her books through cover to cover and then deny it. But be ready to answer questions as to how those conclusions were reached. The fact is, these notions have been challenged in a demand to show cause and has not once been answered. This is just cheap clap trap to keep that very war in motion and is the primary reason why this article should be removed.

12/17/05 -el Lobo

That's a peculiar answer to make, consider who it is eliminating any contrary information. It seems to me the above oddly-spelled claim is right: the idea is to make up the reader's mind for him that Acharya is reliable and credible by hiding anything that might discredit her. Present both sides fairly along with sourced facts and let the reader make up his own mind. An encyclopedia exists to make known, not conceal. A.J.A. 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, just getting back into this discussion after more than month away... Doesn't look like too many things have changed.

<<the life section replaced the education heading anad includes some meaningless babble about her childhood.>>

I recognize that meaningless babel - it's from the interview Acharya gave Paranoia Magazine, I believe. I agree that we probably do need a bio section, but it could be better written.

<<The idea that someone who seek fairness, objectivity, and principle are supporters of Acharya is folly...>>

Actually, if the anon is Zarove (as I have good reason to believe is so :-)), I rather think that he meant that everyone who seeks fairness, objectivity, and principle are opposed by the supporters of Acharya. Which would mean that Charles is opposed by the supporters of Acharya, which doesn't seem true - yet. (Said the self-professed anti-Acharyan...) So, for now at least, the statement is untrue.

<<Acharya is a historian, religious scholar, linguist and an archeologist.>>

That's what Paranoia Magazine says, and I have no problem with saying in the article that "According to Paranoia Magazine, Acharya is...". (In other words, put it in, but cite the source.) Problem is, what we've seen of her actual accomplishments (or at least my hazy memories of what Zarove dug up), this statement is, if not an actual lie, then it's at least a bit of a grandiose way of putting her qualifications. I mean, I could claim that I'm a historian and a religious scholar - I'm currently going to school for a bachelor's in history, and I've edited religion-related articles here. But it would be a bit over the top for me to actually go around saying that. That's why we need some background on her life - to put that statement into perspective.

I think a short description of her religious history would not be out of place. Neither would an exact description of her educational background and scholarly qualifications. It should not be too hard to do this in an NPOV way - and sources are needed!

<<Read her books through cover to cover and then deny it.>>

Quite frankly, I'm afraid to do that. One, I don't want to give Acharya money by buying the book. Two, the local libraries don't have it, and if I request it through Interlibrary Loan, the librarians might think it's a popular book and order it - I'd be indirectly giving Acharya money. And third, quite frankly, from what I've heard about her work, I'm a little bit afraid that there might be some sort of mind virus involved, and I might get infected. I'm only joking about that last - I think.

<<But be ready to answer questions as to how those conclusions were reached.>>

While we're on the subject of conclusions, I'm a bit curious about Acharya reached hers. According to the current version of the article her central thesis is: "that all religion is founded in earlier myth and that the characters depicted in Christianity are the result of the plagiarizing of those myths to unify the Roman State."

This alledged thesis is so far out in left field that I'm going to ask somebody who has actually read her work to verify that. I mean, it sounds like something a detractor would put in the article as a joke!

Nevermind, found it myself: "As demonstrated in The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by a multinational cabal of members of the various religions, sects, cults, mystery schools and secret societies in the Roman Empire and beyond. This artifice was designed to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion." [1] crazyeddie 07:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the criticisms levelled against Acharya is that she acts if the only desenting opinion to her thesis is Christian fundamentalist scriptural literalism - that history actually played out exactly as the Bible says it did. Personally, I'm a Discordian, which is about as far from Chrisitian fundamentalism as you can get. I'm not a Christian of any sort, and, while I'm an atheist, I don't carry a chip on my shoulder about it. I'm as close to a neutral source on the Bible as you're going to find. (Although I'll gladly admit to being biased, if you wish!) So this is my opinion of the Biblical account of Jesus:

• Jesus - an actual foundation for the "Jesus Myth" (i.e., the Gospel account) - probably did exist. Granted, we have little evidence for this, outside of the Gospels. Some think Josephus, a contempory Jewish historian, might have written something about him, but that is still disputed. But on the other hand, we have no reason to think he didn't exist.

• Large parts of the the "Jesus Myth" were borrowed from other religions - especially Grecco-Roman mystery religions.

• These borrowings probably did not include Eastern religions. There is certainly evidence of cultural transfer going from West to East - Greek artistic traditions brought over by Alexander the Great certainly influenced Mahayana religious art, for example. But there is very little evidence of a flow the other way, until quite modern times. Any similarities between Western and Eastern traditions probably either the result of convergent evolution, or the East borrowing from the West. Mostly the first. (Here's an example: Compare Analects of Confucious 13:18[2] to the setup for Plato's Euthyphro. Spooky!)

• The borrowings were probably just the natural result of an oral tradition (originally based on real events) mutating, until such time as the story got written down. (Possibly the story continued mutating even then - see the synoptic problem.) Postulating some sort of cabal deliberately confabulating the Gospels... that's literally a conspiracy theory!

Here's a more offical theory (basically the same as mine, but these people actually know what they are talking about): Jesus Seminar crazyeddie 07:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody briefly relate how Acharya reached a slightly different hypothesis - or is it misreported in the article? (Or did I misunderstand what was correctly reported in the article?) crazyeddie 06:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Just started to read this: http://www.truthbeknown.com/theocracy.htm Since Discordianism is widely known to be a front for the Illuminati (or is it vice versa? I can never keep that straight), I can quite authoritatively state that the One World Religion that the Illuminati is pushing is Discordianism - specifically, Discordianism as practiced by the Crazy Eddie Cabal, of which I am the Episkopos and sole member (now accepting converts!). The reason I can state this authoritatively is because I am a Pope of Eris Esoteric (as is every single man, woman, and child on this planet - no cabbages though). And, as everyone knows, Popes are infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

Sigh. Try as hard as I might, I think Acharya still beat me for sheer weirdness. What kind of Discordian am I? Though I must admit, that bit about "the United States [...] is evidently being pushed instead towards a fascistic theocracy" seems to be scarily true. Ah, well.

I apologize for the distraction. I now return you to your usually scheduled argument, already in progress... crazyeddie 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, actually, come to think of it, what are the chances that Acharya is actually something similar to a Discordian, and that all this is just some really massive practical joke? Her stuff does read a lot like one of our sacred shaggy dog stories... crazyeddie 07:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

RE "That's a peculiar answer to make, consider who it is eliminating any contrary information. It seems to me the above oddly-spelled claim is right: the idea is to make up the reader's mind for him that Acharya is reliable and credible by hiding anything that might discredit her. Present both sides fairly along with sourced facts and let the reader make up his own mind. An encycopedia exists to make known, not conceal. A.J.A. 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)"

You didn't read what I said. Go back and reread it. Actually, you prove the point. Your solution would be to allow making up the readers mind that Acharya is unreliable and un creditable without by denying any response contrary to that opinion. If both pro and con were allowed there would be no debate. The version you posted only presented the con state while eliminating the pro. Thank you for your lack of dilligence in proving the point. 12/18/05 -el Lobo

I did read it. What you apparently DIDN'T read is my version of the article. My latest version is at:

[3]

Please note that I made a blockquote of her defense. I personally consider it very weak, but she chose to write it. It was her choice, not mine, to frame her defense in mostly ad hom terms. I consider it fair that her defense on Wikipedia should reflect that. If you don't agree, find some more substantive comment of hers and replace the one I chose. That's fine. Don't delete the whole thing. You should also note that I added three links, including one of her defense, which now have NO representation in the article, in a Reviews section or anywhere else.

I admit some of what I said wasn't as NPOV as it could have been. But now really; you keep writing over and over how bad it is that people believe in religions. That's not a good reason to carefully omit everything that might make a person doubt her credibility. A.J.A. 19:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

RE crazyeddie

You are correct, not much has changed except that a much fairer presentation has been made of the article. But then, same o same o begs the fact that this is never ending is just cause to remove this piece.

A brief bio is ok... but is covered by noting her education and past experience as it relates to the writing of the books.

Actually, what Zarove, et al has done from the start is revert any counter to his version eleminating anything contrary to it. The statement stands as true.

The "historian, religious scholar, linguist and an archeologist" statement has been thoroughly validated by her books and experience. You don't need any other source. Go back and read what has been said of this in the discussions page.

In an interview, a question was asked about her training as a christian and she replied that she became disenchanted in it around the age of twelve. That the journalist who asked this question and printed the answer only showed their lack of material by including it. What someone felt at age twelve is immaterial unless it was a lead in to explain how this led to her studying other religions or possible convertion to them. A point not mentioned in this section.

Re: your infection... By your responses thus far, the fear factor is quite apparent.

It is sad this human propensity to belief, especially when facing the unknown. In institutionalizing belief to create religion, it has produced the bane of mankind. The thesis is born out in her books. Read them. The creation of Christianity was s systematic conversion of older myth into what became Christianity and over the course of a thousand plus years developed into the religion today.

If you are a discordian then you are a heretic as well. The Fifth Commandment of the Pentabarf, from "Principia Discordia": "A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads." There is no evidence of a historical Jesus Christ outside of the self validating tome called the bible. The dispute over the Josephus entry about Jesus exists for a reason and it has been disputed for hundreds of years. We have every bit as much reason to think that Jesus was a myth as not.

All religion (institutions created from beliefs) are founded in the elements of myth. Myth is founded in the codifying of tradition through ancient stories that dealt with supernatural beings and ancestors. They typically explained aspects of the natural world whose causes were unknown or set forth models to indoctrinate the psychology, customs, or ideals of a society in fables and stories. Much of ancient history is the result of centuries of word of mouth including the embelllishments of the story tellers. The creation myths of every ancient society alone certainly suggests some fusing of them has transpired.

The name of, "The Christ Conspiracy" does hint that there was literally a conspiracy theory!

Science fiction is just a newer version of myth.

12/18/05 -el Lobo

Reverts

With a dozen reverts within 24 hours to this page, I should like to remind all parties that

• engaging on this talk page is the only way of proceeding that is likely to bear fruit; and
• the three-revert rule, 3RR, will be enforced, and is not to be 'gamed' or got round - it represents a principle of policy.

Charles Matthews 09:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

mE AGAIN

[Personalia here removed Charles Matthews]

And there you have it... this is a perfect example why this article will never have a moments peace. Anyone who can decipher this can see how transparant its intentions are. The fact that administrative warnings have to be issued says reams about the conflict of it. Remove this article! Protect it from the righteous. It's bait to the followers of ignore all and plod ahead with the same old line over and over and over. The only right thing to do is remove it from them. 12/18/05 -el Lobo

I have applied a 48 hour block to the IP number of the posting - given that the warning further up the page has been disregarded. Charles Matthews 12:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

CHarles Mathews block

If the above was to me, I apologise. The block didnt take hold,a nd I reverted the aritlce.

Ill leave for two days. I will read the tlak page. Unless the block was aiemd at El Lobo.

Was a bit Ambiguous.GIventhat my entire entry was deleted.

Zarove.

67.213.53.49 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your IP number appears to be dynamic. Please take to heart the idea that discussions on this page must take a different form in future, and respect the idea that this page is for debate on the page content only. Charles Matthews 18:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You put back the AfD notice. It also looks to me as if you may have infringed the 3RR. It would be a good idea if you kept away from this article for a couple of days. Charles Matthews 18:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was leaivng for two days ot respect the ruel anyway. And I have been careful abouthte 3RR. I only revert it twice a day.

No mor ehtns htre times per day.

And as for the dabate ont e page only, I muist make opneprotestation. How many times has my name Zarove been used ot hdiscredit me? IE< James and El Loboboth continually addressme perosnally, wiht impunity. James veen sauid I was a Covert CHristain Zealot out to discredit Acharya. That was nto abouthte artilce. And yet he gets way with htis.

I at leats cited that their motives are whats hindering progress.

As forthe notice, I didnt notice ( Pun intneded0 It had been rmeoved.

Im off for two days.Please do not allow the aricle to stand as is. Its merley catering to the articles subjects agenda.

"Less is more"

The revision bearing that description is anti-encyclopedic and is a Wikicrime:

"A wikicrime can be, among others,

• deliberately, knowingly removing relevant, documented facts from an article."

If you check my last verson [4], there is a highly relevant, properly sourced fact which I discovered by the simple process of reading her site, viz., she believes in a Jewish conspiracy. I noted this fact without editorializing and with documentation. Gone. Why? Because it challenges someone's POV that Acharya is a credible source?

Please, everyone, read the NPOV article:

"The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them". This needs further clarification, as follows."

"First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange."

There is no excuse for omitting this material because you fear your POV might look the worse for it. A.J.A. 20:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of simply accusing the anon contributor who is currently assigned IP address 66.82.9.78 (couldya please get a friggin' login?) of a "wikicrime", I would rather ask why you want this information removed. Are you ashamed of this view of your guru? (If Acharya S is not your guru, what is your relationship to her?) Do you feel it best if as few people as possible knew about this belief? Do you feel that the language used did not accurately reflect Acharya's views as described in the linked article? (If so, would you like to propose alternate language?) Do you feel that this information would be best placed in a different section of the article, not the introductory paragraph? Do you feel that this information is not notable enough for inclusion in this article?

Please let us know how we can better accommodate you. crazyeddie 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a better way of going that what I'd said.

After midnight local time (which I'm pretty sure will be good under the TRR) I intend to replace the current version with a revision of my last version. I'm going to take the Mr. Spock stuff out and perhaps make other revisions or additions. A.J.A. 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would advise changing "She bills herself as" to "According to Paranoia Magazine...", and providing a link to the Paranoia interview. (The langauge comes from the bio blurb at the end, IIRC.) It might be that Paranoia Magazine is the one engaging in grandiose self-promotion, not Acharya. If you find an example of Acharya referring to herself in that manner on her website, please provide a link. crazyeddie 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply to the Reply to Me

<<The "historian, religious scholar, linguist and an archeologist" statement has been thoroughly validated by her books and experience. You don't need any other source. Go back and read what has been said of this in the discussions page.>>

I would prefer evidence in addition to her books - whose scholarly value I strongly dispute. Specifically, has she written anything that survivied peer review? If so, has her (peer reviewed) work been cited in other's work? That is the true test of a scholar. IIRC, she has a bachelor's (or was it a master's?) in history - hence the historian. She wrote her books, and this makes her a religious "scholar". She knows more than one langauge, hence the linguist. She served as a trench aide at a dig in Athens - hence the archeologist. As I said, this description is not false - but it is grandiose when the true facts are known.

<<In an interview, a question was asked about her training as a christian and she replied that she became disenchanted in it around the age of twelve. That the journalist who asked this question and printed the answer only showed their lack of material by including it. What someone felt at age twelve is immaterial unless it was a lead in to explain how this led to her studying other religions or possible convertion to them. A point not mentioned in this section.>>

Agreed - so let's rewrite the section. I would strongly advise running your draft by the talk page for comment before editing the article itself.

<<Re: your infection... By your responses thus far, the fear factor is quite apparent.>>

Yes. To be blunt, I'm afraid of being turned into a nutjob or a blithering idiot myself. It ain't Acharya S's beliefs I find fear-inspiring, but the mind capable of coming up with them - that, and the lengths her followers are willing to go to "defend" her. (While actually hurting her reputation in the process - you have made few friends here with the regular, established Wikipedians, and that is going to cost you. I'd recommend doing some damage control...)

<<If you are a discordian then you are a heretic as well.>>

That goes without saying. Discordianism is deliberately designed to be self-subverting. If there existed a Discordian who wasn't a heretic, that would truly be a sign of the End Times, and would probably be a stonable offense. (I'd recommend grass rather than silicon, but your choice.)

To put it more elegantly...

<< The Fifth Commandment of the Pentabarf, from "Principia Discordia": "A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing What he Reads.">>

I don't believe this. crazyeddie 07:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

<<All religion (institutions created from beliefs) are founded in the elements of myth. Myth is founded in the codifying of tradition through ancient stories that dealt with supernatural beings and ancestors. They typically explained aspects of the natural world whose causes were unknown or set forth models to indoctrinate the psychology, customs, or ideals of a society in fables and stories. Much of ancient history is the result of centuries of word of mouth including the embelllishments of the story tellers. The creation myths of every ancient society alone certainly suggests some fusing of them has transpired.>>

No doubt. And most mainstream scholars would agree, although Acharya seems to be suggesting a rather extreme amount of fusion. The similarties can also be explained by independent convergent evolution.

<<We have every bit as much reason to think that Jesus was a myth as not.>>

Not necessarily. Because the Gospels do exist. It's one thing to say that there was a Jesus, but what actually got written down had a few adventures over the years. It's another to say that the Gospel writters made up the whole thing out of whole cloth. I mean, there wasn't that large of gap between the alledged date of the alledged events, and the time the gospels were written. The consensus is that Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. Mark was (according to tradition, but we have no reason to doubt this tradition), Peter's translator in Rome. Mark wrote down what he heard from Peter following Peter's death. Quite a bit of room there for error, but not that much.

You could say that somebody besides Mark wrote the first gospel, and thereby give things a bit more time to ferment - but what date would you/Acharya suggest?

<<The name of, "The Christ Conspiracy" does hint that there was literally a conspiracy theory!>>

And that's where I draw the line! It's one thing to say that Christ is a myth, it's another to say that Christ is a deliberately fabricated tissue of lies. Myth generally implies something that happened naturally - something starts out as a fairly true story, then starts mutating from simple errors, "improvements", and even a few deliberate self-serving lies. But to suggest that a cabal created the Gospels... I'm mean, come on, the Romans couldn't keep the Empire from damn near imploding during the Crisis of the Third Century. It's like all those conspiracy theories about the US government - the US government just ain't that competent!

Can you see why we might be just a leetle bit skeptical about Acharya's alledged qualifications, which you have stated are based on her books - which are rather dubious themselves? "Science fiction is just a newer version of myth." I would say that Acharya's books fit the bill - but they ain't even good science fiction! crazyeddie 23:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"You could say that somebody besides Mark wrote the first gospel, and thereby give things a bit more time to ferment - but what date would you/Acharya suggest?"

Marcion, IIRC. Marcion was a second century figure who was rejected as a heretic because he believed in two gods, an evil Old Testament god and a good New Testament god. Except not the God of the actual New Testament, which quotes the OT extensively. So he wrote his own Gospel, which history records as Luke with all the OT references redacted out and no nativity, as well as "the Apostle", which was Paul's letters redacted into a single work with all the OT citations taken out. Now Acharya no doubt heard that Marcion's gospel was Luke's, only with the nativity and other material taken out, and said, "That sounds like Mark!" Except that Mark has Jesus quoting the Old Testament, and is therefore not Marcion's gospel. (I suppose you could argue they were added in later, but the verses selected don't show any signs of anti-Marcionite polemic. They *do* show signs of anti-Pharisee polemic, which is what we would expect.)A.J.A. 04:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the relevant article: Marcion of Sinope Hmm. What exactly is Acharya's proposed narative? At what point was this conspiracy hatched? How far does her narative diverge from the mainstream one? Does she believe that John the Baptist was a real person? How about Paul? How many people were involved in this conspiracy, and who were the main actors? Who does she say wrote the canonical gospels? Was Marcion's used as a source, according to her? When was Marcion's gospel written, according to her narrative - by Marcion, or did he merely discover it? crazyeddie 04:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And to work the other way - what circumstances would have to exist for Jesus to have been a fictious person? For example, let's assume that the two-source theory is correct - that Mark, (canonical) Matthew, and Luke are based on two sources - Mark and Q (with Q possibly being the Gospel of the Hebrews/Authentic Matthew). The evidence suggests that John was written independently, but was written sufficiently later that it might have been indirectly influence by word-of-mouth by the earlier gospels. At least parts of it were written after the events surrounding Paul (according to mainstream scholars).

Further, let's assume that the traditional accounts of the writting of these sources are true - that Mark was written by Peter's Roman interperter following Peter's death, and that Authentic Matthew was written by the Apostle who was the tax collector. So, we could have two people who conspired to fabricated the gospel account - Peter and Matthew. Furthermore, they might have been able to bring together the primative Christian cult which Paul would wind up hijacking. This seems to me to be the simplest conspiracy that would bring the evidence we have about. And even that is dangerously complicated, and in violation of Occam's Razor. Does anybody see a way for a fictional Jesus to arise without a conspiracy theory? If so, how much of a divergence would be required from the mainstream historical account? crazyeddie 07:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It does seem peculiar that you make this presentation as though versed in its tenets and using them to compare to works that you not only have admittedly not read, but feared to do so. In so doing, what you provide is an excellent example of prejudice.

There is no independent evidence of a historical Jesus. The course of last resort and least reliable of all evidence is the eyewitness and yet, all of the Christian dogma, doctrine, tenets, ritual and rites are founded on this, the worst possible of all evidence.

It is so glaringly obvious that this discourse is never going to end. Admin's, exercise your power to quick remove an article and end this nonsense once and for all!

12/19/05 -el Lobo

I think a whole subsection might have to be added for her views on the Gospel authorship, including relevant criticisms (e.g., Markan OT citations).

IIRC, she says Marcion himself wrote it in Latin and it came out in two Greek editions, one being the Mark we have now, the other being behind the other Synoptics. A.J.A. 20:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

<<It does seem peculiar that you make this presentation as though versed in its tenets and using them to compare to works that you not only have admittedly not read, but feared to do so. In so doing, what you provide is an excellent example of prejudice. >>

I have some familarity of the bible-as-history, although I would not describe myself as an expert on the subject. My "fear" is somewhat joking - my main objection to reading Acharya's work is that I feel it would be a waste of my time. Since I have only a limited lifespan and many things to read, I believe wasting reading time is a legitimate source of fear. I believe that my main contribution to the development of the article is to have a somewhat-level head. It does appear that I can rely on your and AJA's report on the contents of Acharya's writings, and since your are of directly opposed POVs, you two can be used to doublecheck each other.

<<There is no independent evidence of a historical Jesus.>>

Indeed. But there is, for lack of a better word, dependant evidence, and we must make the best of what we have. Unless somebody invented a time machine and forgot to tell me.

<<all of the Christian dogma, doctrine, tenets, ritual and rites are founded on this, the worst possible of all evidence.>>

You will have no argument from me on that point. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence we have available, I think the most plausible explanation is that a historical Jesus did exist. However, the gospel account and what actually occured may differ widely. I doubt very much that Jesus would recongize the dogma, doctrine, tenets, ritual and rites of the modern Church.

<<I think a whole subsection might have to be added for her views on the Gospel authorship, including relevant criticisms (e.g., Markan OT citations).>>

Perhaps. But I would personally be much more interested in her proposed historical narative - what exactly is the story of the "Christ Conspiracy"?

<<It is so glaringly obvious that this discourse is never going to end. >>

Fortunately, it is not our task of settling the Christ-as-a-Myth vs. mainstream biblical history debate. Rather, our task is to create a quality NPOV article that reports on Acharya S. That, too, may be a never ending process, but it can at least be hoped to be a progressive, converging one. You are welcome to assist.

<<Admin's, exercise your power to quick remove an article and end this nonsense once and for all!>>

Admins have the power to delete this article, but not the authority. The deletion of an article is authorized by a quasi-democratic process, which we have already completed. The conclusion was that there was no consensus in favor of deletion. If any admin deleted this article, they would be removed from office - for good reason. It will now be sometime before this article can again be listed for deletion - something like double jeopardy applies. Even if this was done, I believe that there would again be no consensus in favor of deletion. I would advise you to make the best of a bad situation, and assist in the negotiation of a mutually-agreeable version of the article. crazyeddie 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Further Revision

First, I deleted the attribution to "Two Christian Apologetics sites and authors, who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible," of the criticism that she uses poor scholarship as simply inaccurate. Quite a few people evidently believe that, including a mainstream scholar Licona corresponded with and cited in his piece.

I appreciate an additional, more positive, quote from Price as a good NPOV addition. However, this is not the place to load up every quote from him in favor of the Christ-myth hypothesis. They belong, in anywhere on Wikipedia, on an article devoted to that specific topic. If none exists, someone should start one. That will provide a smoother way for criticisms of his own Christ-myth case to be presented (they would seem necessary for an NPOV).

I added a link after the Price quote I kept which, I admit, undermines it. I for one am certainly not shocked that the Israelites were polytheists, because I've read the Prophets.

While I was working more revision were made. I merged them by including the links someone else added. A.J.A. 19:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. IP has reverted it. However, my criticism stands. The "two apologists" line is still wrong, and from the POV that the only criticism possible is fundamentalist. It simply has no place in the article. The longer quote from Price is treating the article as an excuse to argue in favor of the Christ-myth in general, which belongs on its own entry. A.J.A. 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

First... both Licona and Holding profess to being apologists and to a belief in the inerrancy or infallability of the bible. So stating sheds a truer light on what they have to say. In any event, what they state is not fact, it is their opinion and since it is based in their belief of the infallabilituy of the bible... that clarificatoion of their opinions is imperative. When you say quite a few people hold that opinion, it is just as easily said that many more people hold her works to be excellent scholarship. Saying so is what would constitute creating a neutral view.

12/19/05 -el Lobo

The link to Holding already opened with a reference to the fact that he's an apologist, so opening the whole section that way is redundant, beside being inaccurate. Again, it is simply false to attribute all criticism to Christian apologists, let alone TWO Christian apologists. She herself complains about mainstream scholars not jumping on her bandwagon! It's clear even from your defense of the line that it is and is intended as POV. A.J.A. 20:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is now a whole article for the Christ-myth hypothesis, so you can move stop smuggling arguments in favor of it here. (I predict much wrangling over POV there.) Also, the POV has been removed from the opening of the criticism section. A.J.A. 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The criticisms listed are from Holding, Licona and Price. Since you quoted Price, I laid the rest on the other two. These are the only critics ever mentioned in all these talk pages. I never laid the responsibility for those statements on all appologists. I would point out that using the logic that my defense of the line is POV... that it then leaves your own in the same quandry. I would note, that even though Licona and Holding are what they are... their opinions should not be removed but I see no reason why their opinions should not be presented in the light of their own reality. For instance, Licona mentions having emailed someone who knew about astrology and he belittled the idea of astrology in early religion... but a simple check found http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm which soundly contradicts his statement. It behooves those who seek to discredit an author to check out that what they say is actually true rather than accept what they carte blanc because it agrees with what is felt about it.

12/19/05 -el Lobo

I'm planning on extensively rewritting the criticism section myself. It's very similar to the same kind of work I've been doing in my History of Philosophy class. So why not concentrate on the other sections for now? crazyeddie 00:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy? Well, what do I know of philosophy... not that much has changed these past 40 years since studied. But it is a wonderment that the history of philosophy might lend itself to the rewriting of the pretence of a criticism designed to discredit an author (to which you have been a contributor) to render their works invalid. Noting your involvement in this charade... I have sincere doubts as to your objectivity. But, if you can make it better, render it in a fashion that presents both sides, it would be an improvement.

Admin's, remove this page. The more things change, the more they stay the same. 12/19/05 -el Lobo

To repeat what I have written above:

Admins have the power to delete this article, but not the authority. The deletion of an article is authorized by a quasi-democratic process, which we have already completed. The conclusion was that there was no consensus in favor of deletion. If any admin deleted this article, they would be removed from office - for good reason. It will now be sometime before this article can again be listed for deletion - something like double jeopardy applies. Even if this was done, I believe that there would again be no consensus in favor of deletion. I would advise you to make the best of a bad situation, and assist in the negotiation of a mutually-agreeable version of the article.

<<Philosophy? Well, what do I know of philosophy... not that much has changed these past 40 years since studied.>>

Which is one of the reasons why it appeals to me - it's a refreshing change from being a computer tech, where anything older than two years is quite obsolete, and anything ten years old is a museum piece. Nevertheless, things do change in philosopy - slowly. I'm afraid that I'm a bit out of date - my knowledge of philosophy more or less comes to a complete stop about the 19th century. Which is one of the many reasons I'm going to school.

<<But it is a wonderment that the history of philosophy might lend itself to the rewriting...>>

Both involve scholarship. You might want to read that article on scholarship, as it might give you a few clues to why this scholar-in-training finds Acharya's work so objectionable, and why her claims to being a religious "scholar" are so laughable. Essentially, I'm going to have to go over all these criticisms, rebuttals, rebuttals of the rebuttals with a fine-tooth comb, chop them into bite-sized morsels, and then reassemble them into some semblence of a coherent structure - preferably one that is only a few paragraphs in length. I've been doing basically the same thing with Platonic dialogues for the past four months. I only wish these bozos were as good at writing as Plato. From what I've seen, they are fully Acharya's equals - or at most, marginally better. It's going to take me a little while, so I encourage you two (and anybody else who happens to come along) to work on the other sections of the article while I'm off doing that.

<<I have sincere doubts as to your objectivity.>>

Then let me remove them. I'm am firmly of the anti-Acharyan POV, and am likely to stay that way unless you or one of your comrades-in-arms manages to convince me otherwise. Which you have made no attempt to do. I fully intend to etch my particular POV into the article at the deepest possible level - by any means necessary. That includes compromising with my ideological opponents. You see, if I unilaterally attempt to introduce language into the article, then that language will be quickly removed. In order to make a permanent mark in the article, I'm going to have to gain consensus backing for my proposals - including the backing of my ideological opponents if at all possible. Therefore, it is in my and my POV's best interests to give you every opportunity to review my proposals and allow you every opportunity to raise objections. You counterproposals will be included if and only if you can gain consensus backing for them. crazyeddie 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You have illustrated exactly why this piece should be removed. That you assume to hold the power of life or death over this article bespeaks the arrogance of belief, prejudice, and bias. Such are the pitfalls of ideologies, religions and racism. Just because two thirds of this nation are Christian giving concensus to whatever it desires should not mean that it should be allowed to preclude objectivity, a neutral (unprejudiced, unbiased) pov, fairness, honesty, honor, justice, or intelligence, fact or wisdom. As you so well demonstrate, belief is an emotional response to ones environment... you make it clear that there is nothing anyone can say that will dissuade you and your beliefs. Get rid of this trash. It dishonors the principles of Wikipedia.

As regards Admin's having the authority to delete an article... See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD It's called the "Criteria for speedy deletion". Which this hit piece certainly is qualified for. Let me point out that though you may be Anti Acharyan... I am just as adament an opponent to prejudice, belief, bias, hate, racism and subjectivity. The fact that you openly state your reluctance to an objective view (and your involvement in in conspiring to make this a hit piece in the first place) is just cause to remove you from having anything to do with this article.

Admin's... remove this article.

12/20/05 -el Lobo

[Personal attack by User:Alterpise removed. Charles Matthews]

The fact that you admit that what I present is argument... validates its presentation. That you personally consider it false accusation or personal insult is your subjective opinion and is not born out by any evidence of it. I am forthright in my assertions, yes, call it blatant if you like but since you were in on the original conspiracy to get Acharya labeled as a kook, your own veracity is highly subject and it is not surprising to see you again team up with carzyeddie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alteripse#Acharya_S_2

I would relish your reflecting the idea of Achary's intellectual approach to the world... please do see to it that it is properly presented instead of endeavoring to undermine it by the reverse of it. If you will read the counter arguments to this piece noted in these discussion pages, you will find that every criticism of her and her works has sucessfully been challenged and countered including "using her own words" which were presented out of context in an obvious attempt to cast her and her books in an unfavorable light. As an example: the introduction of the Noahide Laws without referencing where you obtained the information is an example of slanting the article to make it seem that she is antisemitic. It is worthy of note that she has criticisms of Buddhism and Islam, as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_tactic

12/20/05 -el Lobo

The page stays. If it now lacks balance - and I'm not happy with recent edits - let us fix it up, point by point. Without personal attacks. Charles Matthews 12:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Me again

I beeliv my two days are up. If not, I apologise but will confine myself to here till tomorrow.

This hasbeen my issue all along. Her supporters coem ehr eot purposely write a POV artivcle, and accuse anyone who dares chang eit, or who wants to include statements nto authorised and approvved by Acharya out.

Charles Mathew banned me base don eprsonal attacks. But they make mroe than I.

ITs fialry obviosu that unless the article unqueastioningly accepts Acharya's claims, then its Biased int he eys of her supporters, andhtis is the real root of the edit war. Simply put, James,. El Lobo, and the rest are here to support Acharya, and will acuse others of beiogn ehre to smear her if the aritcle doesnt reflect a spacific view. THey rmeove Critism of her for htis end, in an attmeot to prevent peopel form seeing both sides of the issue. They, if the critism cannot be removed, attmeot to minimalise it with terms such as "Chrisyain fundamentlaists say" or "Apologsyst say" r "Peopel dotn liek it as it contradicts the Bible". This hwile on the tlak page launchign acucsaitons agaisnt editors along the same ines.

If we include that Acharya is in faovur of LEgilisaiton of Entheogens, its rmoved. Sh even removed the essay form her own websote, as it mad her look bad. But it still eixsts online. They dotn want you to kow she supports this. They also rmeove the life seciton, which is woefully underdevloped. It doesnt support her agenda to have her lif discussed.

THey then claim she is an "Historian, Linguis, Religiosu Schoalr, and Archeologist" in the aritlce. Any attmeopt to remove this is shot down. ANy attmet to clarify that she is only self proffessed and has no degree in this is shot down.

THey defend on the tlak page this claim by aying her bopoks prve sheis htis. Btu write itn h aritlce " SHe is a Hisotiran, rleigiosu shcolar, and lingusit base don her writting two books" and they edit this. Its apparnet they want her to look lioek an accredited scholar in the aritlce, as they are aware fewwill readthe tlak page.

And, shes nto a Hisotruan either. HEr BLA is in Classics, not Hisotry. She now can teach clsssics in High school. Maybe collage.

Any attmept at formulatign a fair and baa;nced artilce is undercut because her supporters exist here to blatantly scew the aritlce in ehr faovur, andminimalise or rmeove critism.

Relevant informaiton wll eb removed, and her support will simply word everythign to read as if shes a wonderfull and well repsected scholar. Not just a crank conspiracy writter.

And I do nto sya htis an an evil fundamentalist Chrisytain coverly here to destroy her. As I said, I am an evoltionist. I am mainly on WIkipedia for Dinosaurs. I liek nutcases. THis is my artilce. I want ot balanced, not in the hands of her fanatical supporters.

And the reaosn I dotn have a log in is because I do. I am Zarove. I just cant stay logged in.

And I hope Charles MAthew doesnt ban me again, I am not usign Ad Homhere, I am simply pointign outthe pattern her Disiples ar eusing.

67.213.47.35 18:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Zarove, experience has shown me that you do tend to have a disruptive presence here. I can't force you, unless you violate policies, but I'm begging you - please make yourself scare. Go work on some dinosaur articles for a while. If you want, continue to make spot checks on this article from time to time. I would appreciate as many people as possible keeping me honest. But, for now, please trust AJA, Alterpise, and myself to hold up the anti-Acharyan end of the discussion. As for your log in problems, I would advise going here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for help. Thank you. crazyeddie 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that editing the article is not off-limits to Zarove (or anyone else like-minded). But that personal attacks are not only contrary to policy, they have tended to fill up this discussion with stuff that does not progress the article. No one is going to underestimate the difficulty of getting some sort of consensus version — least of all me. But what we do here is to aim for exactly that, by documenting the controversial and selecting the 'encyclopedic' from it. When it comes to the flaming on this page, 10 kilobytes seems to evaporate, in stuff no one wants to read. So please keep it concise, clear and on-topic. The only topic here is the article content. Charles Matthews 19:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am only disruptiuve as my name is now the one for " Evil hateful bias bigot who wantsa to deaotyr Acharya." It snto ture, of coruse, but its the way I am depicted.

get ot know me beter, and not just the image.

67.213.79.203 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not off-limits to Zarove or anybody else, regardless of their bias, perjudices, beliefs, etc., so long as they do not violate policy. I have no right to ask Zarove to leave - nevertheless, I'm begging him to do so, out of respect for our common cause. crazyeddie 20:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Zarove, I have responded to your message on my talk page. Please check out if you have not done so. As for everybody else, please don't visit my talk page unless you wish to talk to me. Eavesdropping on semi-private conversations is considered rude. crazyeddie 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)