Talk:Acharya S/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

Someone who adheres to Acharya S's book has altered this page. The origional content was deleted and replaced with a promotional about her that appears to be an edited form of the oen on her own website.


In relaity, Acharya S is not considered an Avadmic and doesnt relaly worfk for the American Society of Greek Studies.

I wrote the origionala rticle, and also included critisisms of her work, such as the supposed parrallels between Krishn aand Buddha and the Christ are not foudn in the actual religions that follow them.


I tried and fialed to email Wikipedia,a ndnwo ask that this probem be sorted int he onlya venu open tome.


I tired to edit the page, btu it had no edit feature exceothere.

  • I don't know this person or any of the editors, but the original article was badly written, needed wikifying and was POV. If you disagree with the current article, you are free to edit it and add other points, as long as you adhere to the NPOV policy, and document your sources. Elfguy 19:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Rewrite (07:36, 12 September 2005)

I just rewrote this page. It was in an awful state, so I backed up a couple of months to find a decent version to work from. For the links, I chose A.S.'s site, a favorable magazine interview, and a criticism that's well written and non-ranting and which includes a rebuttal by A.S. I gathered the criticisms into a separate section and threw out anything I couldn't substantiate from the web.

I think I've pretty well given equal time, in both article and links, to A.S. and her critics. If anyone disagrees, then for goodness sake say so here, not in the article itself.

— Nowhither 07:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Removed two POV additions by reverting back to Nowhither's rewrite. Please, folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Discussions and useful opinions should go here on the talk page.
For Nowhither, where do you find her real name? I couldn't find this name in a websearch. Someone apparently didn't like it and removed it, so i was just wondering.

— Phi beta 19:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Answered below. — Nowhither 23:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


  • For 24.64.223.203: It's fine to include some sort of objective support for Acharya S in this article. But what is currently in this "Compliments" section is clearly biased. Please reword your additions, and change the name of the section from Compliments to something like Support. "Compliments" are not objective.

Edit-

Acharya S is subject to repeated harassment and threats from religious fanatics. Wikipedia is being used to disseminate personal information about the author. I doubt the creators of Wikipedia envisioned that it would be used in such a way. I find it disgusting. It is akin to publishing the whereabouts of Salmon Rushdie, then feigning innocence as to the implications.

Very well. As I now understand it, your issue is with Acharya S's name, and I'll simply leave it out. However have been (perhaps inadvertently) reinserting the following content with your reverts:

Compliments

  • "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" is well researched with over 1200 footnotes and hundreds of quotes.
  • Acharya S masterfully draws comparisions demonstrating without doubt, that Christianity is founded in thousand year old myths.
  • Her determination to reveal the truth about Christianity is seen in the sheer number of painstaking quotes from such as Thomas Paine, Rev. Robert Taylor, Gerald Massey, JM Robertson, Joseph Wheless, GA Wells and Barbara Walker leaving her detractors to resort to the last resort of denial... the personal attack.

This content was added by someone else, 216.166.246.178. I will leave out Acharya S's name, remove the above content, and remove the POV tag. Deal? I apologize for the confusion.

— Phi beta 21:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! 24.64.223.203 21:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What a bizarre article. Let's either delete it or make it a real article with real facts about a real person, including name. There is nothing in the website or the links that can't be purchased at any big bookstore in the country or hasn't been suggested repeatedly for the last 2 centuries. Any freshman who has taken a comparative mythology course has heard the basic ideas. Are we dealing with a pathetic bit of self promotion here? alteripse 22:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make each sentence factual and defensible. Her work is about as dangerous and radical as The Da Vinci Code. Please no more psychodramas, thanks. alteripse 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Acharya S's name: I think I was misunderstood. When I said I threw out what I couldn't substantiate from the web, I meant that I threw out all of the criticisms that I couldn't substantiate (and some that I could, actually; I thought they went a bit overboard). I don't have any source for the full name, except for Wikipedia. I can't see any reason not to put her name in the article.

By the way, concerning the statement that "Acharya S is subject to repeated harassment and threats from religious fanatics": I really didn't know that. In fact the first time in my life that I ever heard of this woman was yesterday, when I found this article by clicking "Random page". (And strictly speaking, I still don't know it, I guess.)

Concerning the substantiation of the criticisms: everything but the info on 16 Crucified Saviors is backed up by the critique I linked to. The fact that 16 Crucified Saviors is a source is stated by A.S., for example, here: http://www.truthbeknown.com/footnote4.htm . And some of the problems with that book are discussed here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html . I note that the author of the essay in this last link is clearly an anti-Christian fellow, so he doesn't have the obvious axe to grind. The reason I did not include this link is that I wanted to limit the External links section, for now, to a single solid criticism. Perhaps it can be expanded later, to include more sources, both for and against.

Concerning the general state of the article: How about actually discussing things before starting to yell and put up POV tags? And let's remember that it is not Wikipedia's place to defend or vilify this woman, but rather to indicate what scholars and other experts are saying. This is not a contest between those who love her vs. those who hate her, but rather an attempt to present what she says and what others say about her.

Thus, the problem with the (now removed) "Compliments" section was not that the statements in that section were not true, but rather that it was Wikipedia who was complimenting her; and that no references were given. Statements supportive of A.S.'s work would be good to include, but those statements need to be backed up, and they need to be attributed to others, not simply stated.

Actually, I looked into this a little, and I found it hard to do. The web is full of warm & fuzzy thoughts about A.S. (her work is "liberating", etc.), but scholarly or semi-scholarly works in support of her appear to be few and far between. Does anyone know of any?

— Nowhither 23:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I never heard of her either but was attracted by the preposterous persecution claim. My compliments to you on hacking your way through the "scholarship" and doing some of the pioneering work on converting the original hagiography. I drastically shortened the article to the assertions which could be objectively supported with evidence. Do you think I omitted anything objective and substantive? alteripse 00:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

To our anonymous remover: please do not remove important factual information from this article. It is considered vandalism since you have offered no good reasons. alteripse 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You guys haven't even heard of her or read her books?! Then what the heck are you doing posting on this subject????

As to the 'preposterous persecution' claim, fanatic Christians routinely threaten non-believers with violent, dire consequences if they do not convert. It's part of the religion. Are you saying you do not believe that fanatic religious people threaten or commit violence against those they perceive as threatening in some way, like writers, or abortion doctors? That seems simply naive. Ever heard of 911? (She's even more critical of Islam from what I've read...)

She has a right to her privacy, especially considering the amount of documented threats she receives. She is a target, I suspect, becasue she is trying to take a subject out of the stuffy confines of acedemia and into the mainstream.

Many writers have pen names. If you consider her name to be an incidental, insignificant detail, then why are you so determined to include it? Especially after an admin has agreed to leave it off.

As to the above claim of 'removing factual information', I removed extremely vague and disparaging POV commments like 'not original' and 'relys on secondary sources'. Since you are admittedly relying on dubious critiques and not on 'primary sources' yourself, (you haven't read her books) I wonder how you can justify posting them.

24.64.223.203 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Nowhither and Alteripse. About the incident earlier, that preposterous "Compliments" section kept turning back up, and I didn't have the patience for a revert war, I was getting no response on this talk page, and I was suddenly getting called a "religious fanatic" in an edit summary, so I just put up the POV tag. I just didn't realize that our anon user apparently wasn't aware that s/he was reverting the Compliments section in his/her campaign against Acharya S's name.

Now, to the article—I think most of it is fine as it stands. However, simply tacking "Her writings are derived from secondary sources, with no original theses or research" to the end of the article seems like an unsubstantiated or biased claim. I suggest Nowhither's Criticism section be reinstated, with at least two valid criticisms. The alternative is to remove any criticism of her completely from the article, which is fine with me as well.

As for her real name, I suggest Wikipedia only states what information is publicly available. Someone mentioned (it's deleted now, I see) that a shortened version of her real name could be found on a work published by herself, yes?. I suggest this name be used in the article.

And for 24.64.223.203, I am familiar with Acharya S and her works, and have been for some time. I am staunchly non-Christian, and I find what Acharya S has to say interesting. However, I believe everything should be considered objectively, especially in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. This is no place to preach anything, whether it be religious or anti-religious. — Phi beta 01:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

To our anonymous vandal: 1. Her name is a core piece of information in the public domain. 2. Describing a book as derivative and without original theses is not an insult or statement of opinion. It is a statement of fact about what kind of book it is, not my opinion. All you have to do to refute it is to describe a significant original thesis in her writings, especially that has been cited by other scholars as original or has stimulated new scholarly research. There are many respected books that are derivative in that sense. Please use your dictionary. 3. Fanatic Christians in the 21st century in the US do not threaten people who write this kind of book. This is no more dangerous or offensive than what Dan Brown wrote in the da vinci code, is it? You can buy this kind of stuff in any bookstore. It is safe to criticize Christianity in the US in this century; in fact it is boringly de rigeur in many educated circles and publications.

To phi beta: How about if we modify the description as follows: Her work is a popularization of many themes found in popular works on comparative religion and mythology over the last century, rather than scholarly. No new scholarly research or theses are offered. Do you think that is similarly accurate and fair? alteripse 01:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

How about leaving off the last sentence?
Also, to address your earlier question of whether you left out anything "objective and substantive" out: Well, yes, but so did I. A.S.'s opponents have a lot to say about her work, and quoting any or all of that would be "objective and substantive". But most of it would also be needlessly negative, not to mention long & boring. So the real question is not so much "Is this objective and substative", but "Is this o. & s. & a helpful addition to the article?" And that question is a good deal harder.
Well, gotta go. I'll come back tomorrow and see what kind of shape this thing is in ....
— Nowhither 01:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, one more: 24.64.223.203 wrote "You guys haven't even heard of her or read her books?! Then what the heck are you doing posting on this subject????"
When I came here on a "Random page" click, the article itself was being used as a talk page. I saw that even someone seriously non-expert (like me) could easily improve the article. So I did. And now that the article is in a little bit better shape, I can still tell a POV rant from encyclopedic content. And I can read A.S.'s website, along with other references, and make sure that facts can be backed up. The sad fact is that this article (along with many others on WP) is a long way from a point at which only an expert will be able to improve it. What it needs now is not so much highly knowledgeable people, as editors who understand and will abide by Wikipedia policies, who can operate based on consensus as part of a community, and who can write — and format their writing — well.
— Nowhither 01:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Phi Beta, the answer to your question regarding her pen name is 'no'.

I edited out her personal information (as per agreement), and a little bit at the end which was misleading and redundant. Will be pleased to address some comments and questions made above at a later date.

I would also suggest that the link criticising her work is hardly scholarly or unbiased itself. I would also be pleased to debate the quality of that work, if any are interested. Take a look at some of the other articles, for example.

Regarding the existence of fanatic Christians who make threats towards authors they disagree with: this happens, and they do exist. However, as I pointed out, Acharya S also writes about Islam. So your point is moot... unless you want to argue that Muslims do not threaten authors they disagree with?

Please respect her privacy and show some concern for her safety and well being. Thank you.


24.64.223.203 03:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I never asked any question about her pen name, and what is this "agreement" you speak of?

That aside, I ran several searches on dogpile.com for several variations of her name, and came up with nothing. I ran a search on her first initial, last name, and "Acharya" and did get a number of hits, but they were all from active critics and informal discussion boards. Acharya S is protective of her real name, and I would argue that a) it is not an encyclopedia's job to expose or dig up any information that's not readily available elsewhere, and b) any individual has the right to privacy. For example, Natalie Portman kept her real surname private for quite some time, and Wikipedia did well in respecting that... and Natalie was a highly public figure, and anyone who wanted could scrounge around on the web a bit and find her real name. So, I vote to leave out the name.

As for that last sentence, I still just don't think it is appropriate. I propose removing the last sentence altogether, and suggest considering Nowhither's original section with some changes, as follows:

Criticisms

The claims of Acharya S have attracted a number of critics. Her detractors say:

  • Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims.
  • The sources for her books — for example, The World's 16 Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves and Women's Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets by Barbara Walker — are themselves of suspect authority and lacking in primary research.

These are actual claims by actual critics, and I think they should be returned to the article pending sufficient evidence from our anonymous user (or anyone) that these claims are unsubstantiated.

Honestly it's a rather small yet feisty circle interested in this. Perhaps we should just leave out the criticisms, and let those who are actually interested in this visit the external links, and we can move on.

— Phi beta 06:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the agreement I'm speaking of: "I will leave out Acharya S's name, remove the above content, and remove the POV tag. Deal?"

The other question I misinterpreted.

Re: "any individual has the right to privacy." Thank you.

Regarding proposed 'Criticisms' section: Broad, sweeping statements, such as "Acharya S's works are poor scholarship", if they are to be included, should be direct quotes or at least attributed to somebody. Otherwise, we could include a 'Support' section and say just the opposite: "Supporters say: Acharya S's works are excellent scholarship." That would be ridiculous.

Also, why should the onus be on me (or anyone) to refute such sweeping, anonymous claims about her work?

Personally, I vote to move on. I'm ok with the statement "Her work is a popularization and synthesis of many themes found in popular works on comparative religion and mythology over the last century." Heck, we could just delete the whole page, as Alteripse has suggested!

BTW, I found more redundancy in the article: "This thesis is outlined in her web site and expanded in her books. In The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, she expanded the arguments of her web site."

Also Phi Beta, are you an admin? I thought you were for some reason. I'm new to wikipedia.

Cheers!

24.64.223.203 07:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think what bothers me is the essential dishonesty of your claims.

  1. You spread your comments about this trivial and abominably written article all over our public places, drawing everyone's attention to your made-up stories that you were in fear for your life from Christians. When we pointed out how ridiculous the idea of threats over this was you changed your story to Muslims. Really? Then why bash Christians? Let's change the article to describe her as a critic of Islam, shall we?
  2. I am the one who cut the criticisms entirely. I said nothing except that your work was based on secondary sources and was a popularization of widely disseminated ideas. I did not call it "poor scholarship" because it isn't scholarship. It hasn't been criticized by scholars so there are no criticisms to cite. You keep twisting and misrepresenting what I wrote. Please stop removing a basic description of the type of work or give us the evidence I cited above that would demonstrate that it should be described as original scholarly research.
  3. I keep replacing your name because the article is about a person. You did everthing you could to draw attention to this article and you succeeded. If your only argument is privacy, it doesn't work once one participates in the public marketplace. There are dozens of articles containing identifications of people who would rather have not been identified. People who publish scholarly research claim credit for their work. Let's give it. If you don't want the name behind the work, it further reduces credibility, don't your think? If she wishes to bash Christians anonymously as you have been doing, I would be ok with simply deleting this article as a trivial one about a minor crank web site. Which way do you want to play it?
  4. You are new to wikepedia? OK, let me acquaint you with our customs. Contents of articles are a matter of consensus. When an anonymous editor without an account keeps removing factual material from an article we call it vandalism. We have vandals who attack our content for sport. Please do not think of yourself in any other way if you intend to persist in this behavior.
  5. Oh, and thanks for pointing out the possibility of further conciseness.

alteripse 10:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to each of the above in kind:

  1. I am not Acharya S. Why make such a baseless assumption? I agree that the article is trivial and is largely poorly written. The 'made-up story' that the author is sent a constant stream of verbal abuse from fanatic Christians is not made up, it's a documented fact. I did not change my story to muslims. What I said, was that even if there were no fanatic christians threatening the author, muslims threaten her as well. Christianity is not the only religion she writes about. I have not bashed Christians in general, I have taken care to show that my concern is with the crazy fanatics. My post was to alert admins that wikipedia was being used by these fanatics to disseminate personal information regarding the author. Religious fanatacism of all stripes is real, and I am surprised you would argue otherwise.
  2. Why is the onus on me (or anyone) to prove that the criticisms, disputed by the author, taken from an admittedly non-scholarly (and frankly ridiculous) website aren't true?! What is your basis for the claim that her work is not a work of scholarship? (Surely not simply because someone from RisenJesus.com says so?!) Please specify.
  3. The author has chosen not to use her real name. Please respect that. I do not understand why an admin such as yourself would be so adamant about publishing personal information about an author, especially considering the circumstances. (Which you seem to refute with a puerile 'I don't believe you!' Please stop making wild accusations as to my motives!)
  4. Many authors use pen names. It is her choice. Please respect that. Please don't allow wikipedia to be used by religious fanatics to disseminate personal information about authors they disagree with. I vote delete!
  5. Thank you for the information regarding customs at wikipedia. I will set up an account shortly. On that note, could you direct me to where I can complain about your handling of this whole affair? Thank you.


24.64.223.203 16:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

One more note. What was the point of your last edit? Why would you deliberately smear this author, calling her an amateur, when you know that to be untrue? How can you possibly justify replacing the listing of her credentials with what you wrote? Frankly, it makes you come off as biased, with an axe to grind. Is that the case?

24.64.223.203 17:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. I had the feeling that I was talking to the subject of the article, since you added details that are unlikely to be public record. I have my doubts but if say you aren't, I will accept that and switch back to 3rd person.
  2. I am curious as to why you think calling her an amateur is a "smear" or is inaccurate. It means she doesn't work as a professional religious studies scholar or academic classicist. It changes the standards by which we judge an author's work. Why is that a smear?
  3. I didn't insist on inserting any criticism. I removed some. I would like this article to provide a clear characterization of her work, and I have offered several versions of describing it. I take it from what isn't in her bio that she is not employed as a professional academic classicist, or she would be offering her scholarship in academic form instead of anonymous web sites and books. To many readers it makes a difference whether she holds herself to academic and scholarly practices and standards and is willing to be judged and criticized by fellow professionals.
  4. I will stop trying to insert her name if you stop making ridiculously false generalizations about Christians (or supply some evidence). A critical email or book review is not a fatwa of death nor is the author of this kind of book targeted by those who attack abortionists. There is no evidence that the person who inserted her name in this article can be characterized as such. Can we have a simple statement that she prefers to criticize Christianity anonymously and has asked to have her name removed from this article? alteripse 18:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: "I will stop trying to insert her name if you stop making ridiculously false generalizations about Christians (or supply some evidence)."

Agreed!

24.64.223.203 18:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Another long, boring speech by Nowhither

My goodness, folks. is this article really worth all the fuss? In any case, here are more thoughts:

  • First, to those who say, essentially, "I won't write inappropriate stuff if you don't.": Wikipedia articles are governed by broad consensus, not agreements between individual editors. Further, wouldn't it be better if you just stopped writing inappropriate stuff? Let the good guys and bad guys show who they are by their behavior; don't deliberately bring yourself down to a low level just to make some misguided point.
  • Second, to whomever it was who pointed out that my "Criticisms" section contained entirely unattributed material: You are correct. Normally, I guess we don't worry too much about this, simply noting that it's in the links somewhere (which it was, as I pointed out above, giving specific sources). However, in a controversial article like this one, I agree with you that it is best to nail down everything clearly with a reference. I'll expand on this in some of my points below.
  • Regarding the name: "D. Murdock" is public information. It is on the "Refutation" link, for example. Also, I got a copy of a review of A.S.'s work ("Aquarian Sceptic", from "Free Inquiry" magazine, reference #1 in the "Refutation" article). It has the name "D. Murdock" as well. I don't think we have any good reason to withhold clearly public information. So I would say that "D. Murdock" can go in the article; everyone knows it already, it is reasonably well substantiated, and it is certainly relevant. On the other hand, I can find no reference for the full name anywhere except Wikipedia and its mirrors. And the editor who placed the full name in the article was an IP, so it's tough to ask them where they learned it. Therefore, in line with my statement above that everything should be substantiated, I would say that the full name should not be in the article.
  • Now, about A.S.'s education, knowledge of languages, and institutional affiliations: These should certainly be included, but, like everything, they need to be backed up. The current information on these appears to come from A.S.'s own "About the author page": http://www.truthbeknown.com/author.htm . This is a reasonably acceptable source, but for someone as controversial as this, it would be nice to have corroboration from somewhere else, for at least some of the info. Can anyone provide any? If not, we might want to point out somehow that A.S. says she has these qualifications, and not merely state them outright. We don't need to be nasty about it, merely saying that, "According to the Truth be Known web site Murdock has a Masters ...."
  • About the beginning of the article: We write about A.S. not because we love or hate her ideas, but because she is notable, in some sense. The first sentence of the article should indicate how she is notable, and what "category" (so to speak) to put her in. How about this:

    Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock, an American critic of Christianity who operates the web site "Truth be Known".

  • About formatting: book titles are italicized, not quoted. Relevant wiki articles should be linked to.
  • About the external links: Let's avoid redundancy. Since we have link to A.S.'s site, we don't need to link to specific pages on that site. And the "Refutation" link already contains a link to A.S.'s rebuttal, so let's just note that in the External links section (as my edit of the article did), so we do not need to link to the rebuttal directly. This leaves us with A.S.'s own site, one highly complimentary interview, and one highly negative, but non-ranting criticism.

By the way, the title of this section was written by me, and is supposed to humor. Laugh. :-|

— Nowhither 20:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I made my last article edit before reading your new post above, Nowhither, but it seems we're both on the same page here. I think my last edit was reasonable. Anyone who has issues with it beyond wikifying and copyediting can discuss here first.

That especially goes for Anonymous. Your edit was senseless and made a non-encyclopedic disaster out of Alteripse's sensible article, and these constant cries about "smearing the author" is getting old. Calling an amateur an "amateur" is not an "obvious, redundant smear." And removing Acharya S's full name is one thing; turning an article upside down and backwards is another. If you continue to routinely sabotage this article, I will move to put this up for AfD, and take my oh-so-valuable time and effort (heh, heh) elsewhere.

And no, I'm not admin. But User:Alteripse is.

Lastly, concerning my edit. I turned it back right-side up as Alteripse had it, moved her book titles and web site to the intro sentence, provided proper italics and quotations, did some much-needed wikifying, fixed the external links and removed a redundant one, changed some words, fixed some spelling, etc. I removed the part about Acharya S having a Masters Degree, as I couldn't find this info anywhere, and certainly not on her own bio on her own website. I've left out her real name, and did not add criticisms.

Concerning the initial and surname, it's my opinion that it isn't important enough info, nor is it enough of a name to include as her real name. "Acharya S" is the name she is known by. I notice JP Holding's real name isn't given in his article, either.

— Phi beta 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I might have done things differently, but I have no major problems with it. Maybe we can all drop this silly issue now. (By the way, about JP Holdings: maybe his name should be in the article.) — Nowhither 21:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Alexander Kent's name is mentioned.Ellis Peters is a redirect (how that fits in with MOS on nameing of articles I'm not sure but no matter). It appears to be standard practice to give the real name.Geni 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
These authors are dead, and are not being harassed and threatened by religious nuts. Achary S is a living breathing person who is being harassed and threatened by religious nuts. Please respect her privacy, and show some concern for her well being. 24.64.223.203 00:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought we had enough of the hysterical delusions? Your story doesn't make sense. If you are not exaggerating or inventing the harassment, what is she doing that provokes it? Is she trolling religious sites and picking fights? Simply publishing the kinds of books that have been published for a century in this country is not provoking that kind of attention. I repeat my conviction that you are being less than candid and honest about this. alteripse 02:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact that fanatic religious people of all stripes harass and threaten others is obvious. Wars are fought over religion. The Christian religion was built on threats. And consider Islam. I find it difficult to understand why you would cast doubt on this, especially since 911. It should be obvious to you.
One need not troll religious sites when you have a website, open to all, devoted to popularizing ideas like 'Jesus never existed' and 'Religious leaders have been lying to you for centuries'. Links are passed around, and the nuts come to you.
However, I am interested in your eagerness to tar me as a lier. Making baseless personal attacks reflects on you poorly, especially in your capacity as an admin.
I realize that you are an amateur at this, but please show some restraint.
24.64.223.203 17:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I just went and actually read her web site!

Guess what, User:24,I just went and actually read her web site! She calls herself a visionary seer, features quotes from the author she bases her "scholarship" on comparing her favorably with Robert Graves and James Frazer, and features pictures of her captioned to illustrate what a babe she is! She proudly ridicules the emails from Christians exhorting her to love Jesus: the worst threat listed is the promise of hellfire, but it didn't seem to bother her. Her claim to scholarly expertise is that she has a college degree and they entrusted her with her own trench?! What the hell were we doing taking your fears for her welfare and arguments about her "scholarship" seriously? This whole exchange over the last couple of days reminds me of our experience with Sollog, so you will be relieved that I am "restraining" myself right off this waste of time. alteripse 18:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Alteripse, I would have thought that as an admin, you would have familiarized yourself with Acharya S's website before editing the wiki page to call her an 'amateur'. I guess reading the article from 'www.RisenJesus.com' was all you needed to know? Or do you just make stuff up? In your capacity as an admin, I think your standards are disgraceful. By the way, what's your real name?

Regarding your 'criticisms', she does not call herself a 'visionary seer'. She calls herself a 'visionary'. As in... she envisions a future where human beings don't kill each other over two thousand year old fairy tales? Where people respond to reason rather than being suckered by predatory priests into a passive state of blind belief? Where people reject a sentimental and emotionally indulgent 'Jesus loves me', refusing to abdicate their responsibility to think for themselves? I think that's a positive vision.

Were you really surprised to discover that an author featured favorable quotes on her website? Or that she would post pictures of herself? Or that she has a little fun with the pictures, to show that she's not some stuffy old academic male, obsessed with appearing respectable and scholarly? Lighten up. She brazenly refuses to conform to some rigid stereotype of what it means to be intelligent and scholarly. I respect that.

What's wrong with ridiculing people who exhort her to love a fictional character in a fairy tale? That is the crux of her argument, after all. When people make ridiculous claims, such as a literal belief in the resurrection, they deserve to be called ridiculous. Besides, what you wrote certainly sounds like ridicule to me. Can't play by your own rules?

Regarding threatening and harassing quotes, the very first reads: "Sir, your teachings are against God, and as his servant, I will inform you of your own immanent death." And yes, in the face of this kind of verbal abuse and harassment, she is courageous. In light of these threats, I think it would be prudent to show some common decency: please respect her privacy!

Why this curious fixation on publishing her name??

Scholar:

  1. A learned person.
  2. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.

Acharya S:

Acharya S was classically educated at some of the finest schools, receiving an undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College. She is a member of one of the world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece.
Acharya S has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete.
Acharya S has traveled extensively around Europe, and she speaks, reads and/or writes English, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese and a smattering of other languages to varying degrees. She has read Euripides, Plato and Homer in ancient Greek, and Cicero in Latin, as well as Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales in Middle English. She has also been compelled to cross-reference the Bible in the original Hebrew and ancient Greek.


Thank you in advance for your restraint.

24.64.223.203 21:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

User 24, you really do have trouble simply understanding what someone has written, don't you? I did exactly what I wrote: I looked at her web site. I did not look at any of the other web sites linked. Her thesis is something I have been aware of since I was a teenager with an interest in classics and comparative mythology; that is why I called it derivative and a synthesis. There are lots of books published with the same idea. Remember Alan Watts or The Passover Plot in the late 1960s? Even Bible Review had an article on the parallels between Jesus and Buddha a year or two ago. This is old stuff, but there is always a market. In the context of an argument about scholarship, I was using the term academically: there are books that are popular syntheses or recountings and there are works that purport to report new scholarly work, either new research or new ways of looking at old evidence. All you had to do to refute the description of her work as derivative was to cite an original idea: but I felt safe in betting there aren't any. There are excellent books of synthesis and retellings of myths and legends: I was trying to accurately characterize her work, not insult her. What annoys me is misrepresentation and overblown grandiosity. I have made no secret that I suspect you are deliberately misrepresenting something, but maybe you are really as sincere and simple as you claim to be. Did you not see anything hilariously unscholarly about her quoting Barbara Walker as saying she is greater than Frazer and Graves? This is Barbara Walker, the author of "The Women's Encyclopidia of Myths and Secrets," a work she apparently used as a principal source? C'mon! A college degree does not a scholar make: nearly everyone who writes at Wikipedia has a college degree or is getting one, but this encyclopedia is not considered scholarly activity or professional activity: neither our livelihoods nor our reputations are at stake here. And speaking of reputations, her desire for anonymity also undercuts a claim of scholarship: scholars put their reputations on the line with their work. If she makes a living on her books it makes her a professional writer, not necessarily a scholar. The final straw was the contrast between her "kick-ass" "in your face" web site with its "bring it on" expressions of contempt for Christians and your expressions of "respect for her privacy" and fear for her safety. If you are a troll, you are pretty good, because you had me taking your concerns and arguments seriously yesterday. However, I meant what I said above and will leave this article alone. Read the Sollog article and our exchanges with his "followers" and some similarities may strike you. I do appreciate the politeness and absence of legal bluster from you. Perhaps you will someday see through her as she has seen through the great delusion of our age... alteripse 00:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

When I said:

I would have thought that as an admin, you would have familiarized yourself with Acharya S's website before editing the wiki page to call her an 'amateur'. I guess reading the article from 'www.RisenJesus.com' was all you needed to know? Or do you just make stuff up?

I asked if you were relying (in your decision to call Acharya S an amateur) on RisenJesus.com, or if you just made it up without doing any research whatsoever. Now we know.

Since you admittedly didn't do a modicum of research on Acharya S, not even reading her website, why is it up to me to refute your baseless claims?

If you were trying to accurately characterize her work, and not insult her, why not call it a "popularization and synthesis" instead of "derivative and unoriginal"? Your word choice speaks volumes. And how exactly do you justify characterizing works you have not read?

24.64.223.203 01:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please strive for accuracy in your accusations. If you look at this edit, I was the first to offer the description of her work as a "popularizaton and synthesis." In the talk paragraphs above I offered two or three ways to say that. As for your other complaints, I do not need to read a book to know what genre it is if all evidence points to a familiar type. I gave a couple of examples of books in this genre above: a popular debunking or exposition of the mythic elements of the gospel stories. I could come up with a few more. I deduced the lack of original ideas and scholarship from the lack of any significantly novel ideas mentioned here or on her web site, as well as from her unscholarly web site, lack of academic ties, and the lack of any academic interest in her work. What she and you choose to include tells us what she doesn't have: an original thesis and the respect and interest of other scholars and researchers in this field. However, I have repeatedly offered to modify the characterization if you can cite something significantly original. It's put up or shut up time on that topic.

alteripse 02:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


You forgot the bit you added at the end: "rather than original scholarly research." Again, how do you know? And why is it up to me to prove that her work has original content and ideas in it, simply because someone who hasn't read her books or even looked at her website makes the claim?

How is it that on 18:15, 14 September 2005 you say "I just went and actually read her web site!", but above you say you based your claims of her work lacking "original scholarly research", (made on 01:19, 13 September 2005) by reading her website? It appears you've been caught in a bald faced lie. Please explain this discrepancy.

Again, I question your competency as an admin.

24.64.223.203 02:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A quick look and a more thorough look is the short answer, but you know what, whether the books contain original ideas doesn't depend on whether I read a single word, does it? I explained above in painstaking detail the evidence that led me to conclude that there is no original content. You claim that there is but have offered NO evidence for such a claim. I remain unconvinced, but you could change my mind by evidence, not assertions. But there isn't anything both original and academically defensible in her work, is there? PS, I question my competence as an administrator too, so I have not used a single administrator power in this whole debate, in any way. Doesn't that make you feel better? alteripse 02:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


Alteripse,

The point is that you made the claim that her work lacks "original scholarly research", when you candidly admit that you know very little about Acharya S, haven't read her books, and had only taken a "quick look" at her website... then act as though it's my responsibility to prove you wrong!

"Shifting the burden of proof: The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."

J 24.64.223.203 03:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

One more inaccurate or dishonest description of what I wrote: I gave you several pieces of evidence for my assertion. You have given none for yours except she has a college degree and lots of footnotes. Don't preach logical fallacy at me; if you could recognize it you wouldn't be arguing like this. alteripse 10:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What claims have I made? I only remember challenging yours. Please refresh my memory. How could your claims be based on anything more than knee-jerk assumptions you've made about Acharya and her work, since you haven't read her books, know very little about her, and had only taken a "quick look" at her website? Please explain this to me. J 24.64.223.203 18:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

As near as I could tell, your support for claiming that her books were original scholarship consisted of reminding us that she has a college degree and wrote 1200 footnotes. Not very convincing evidence. If I missed any other pieces of evidence you offered, please remind me. About 3 replies above, I listed the evidence that convinced me that the books should not have been described as original scholarship. Once more, the evidence was:

  1. No original theses are mentioned in this article, in her website, and in your many posts. This would of course be the quickest way to disprove my assertion, but is increasingly conspicuous in its absence.
  2. There are no references to reviews of her books in scholarly Bible studies or classical studies or religious studies journals. Surely if she uncovered new evidence or offered new interpretations, she or her publisher would have solicited scholarly reviews from scholars and academics. If she features a hyperbolic blurb from another writer of minimal scholarly status on her web site, surely that means she would have been quick to post any reviews more impressive. Her website doesn't hide her light under a bushel so to speak.
  3. Anonymity is not scholarly behavior.
  4. She seems to have no current academic affiliation and the things she bothers to mention (being a teacher's assistant and being in charge of a trench at a dig) tell us she certainly isn't being modest about her achievements. Hundreds of graduate students a year can claim those things.

This is not a knee-jerk reaction, because I had no preconceived opinions about her and had never heard of her before this week. So what can you offer to disuade me that this evidence means exactly what it seems to mean-- that her books are either not original scholarship or ignorably poor scholarship? alteripse 19:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times... since you are the one making the claim, the burden is on you to prove it.

To address each of your points:

Re: "No original theses are mentioned in this article, in her website, and in your many posts."

Prove it. Show how all the various points and claims she makes, both on the web and from her books, are derivative, and from what works. And explain how the copius amounts of research and work done in writing those books and articles is not 'scholarly' in nature. Be specific. Otherwise, you are carelessly throwing around vague sweeping accusations, a common smear tactic... or a sign of shoddy thinking. Which is it?


Re: "This would of course be the quickest way to disprove my assertion, but is increasingly conspicuous in its absence."

Again, why should the burden be on me to disprove your assertions?


Re: "There are no references to reviews of her books in scholarly Bible studies or classical studies or religious studies journals. Surely if she uncovered new evidence or offered new interpretations, she or her publisher would have solicited scholarly reviews from scholars and academics..."

Logically doesn't follow. Rephrasing the above: If academic reviews existed... that would be evidence of 'original scholarly research'. You haven't found any academic reviews, and claim that is evidence of 'unoriginal unscholarly research'. That's a logical fallacy called "denial of the antecedent".


Re: "Anonymity is not scholarly behavior."

Lol!


Re: "She seems to have no current academic affiliation..."

Does being a member of "one of the world's most exclusive institutes for the study of Ancient Greek Civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece" count in your books? And no, she's not claiming to be a university professor.


Re: "and the things she bothers to mention (being a teacher's assistant and being in charge of a trench at a dig) tell us she certainly isn't being modest about her achievements. Hundreds of graduate students a year can claim those things."

You left out a few things... a deliberate mischaracterization?


Thanks for the discussion, its been fun. BTW, what are your thoughts on the scholastic quality of the RisenJesus.com critique? I think it's atrocious. It should be removed.

J 24.64.223.203 21:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

OK you win. She is the most brilliant original researcher ever to have sent manuscript to publisher. You have the most overwhelming mastery of logic and the most irrestistable arguments I have ever encountered. You clearly have nothing to learn about scholarship and research for the rest of your days and the rest of us should sit at your feet. Her work deserves a disciple of your incisive intellectual grasp. Go ahead and make this article a masterpiece of hagiography! alteripse 23:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite/reorganization

Self-promotion aside, the article looked totally dis-organized, so I organized it into sections. Seems that some anon had deleted information on the person's name from the article, I reinserted it too. As for the "rebuttal" section, it sounded completely incoherent, and almost like a copy-paste job, so I removed that nonsense text. The section is still there, it might be useful if the "anon" or anyone can make rebuttals in the proper context, that is have rebuttals against the criticisms. Thanks. --Ragib 20:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Ok, I edited the header text, because her claim to fame is based on her criticism of religions, I don't see any notability in being a historian, blah blah, whatever profession the anon claims her to be. So I put the "critic of christianity" header text back. I also removed the "she speaks English, blah blah" etc., does that mean anything? I speak and can write 3-4 languages, does that make me something notable? I don't see anon 24* doing anything productive beside picking up a fight with alterprise. As for her name, I don't see any reason to exclude that from here. All people with pseudonyms also get their real names published in case they have a wikipedia article. Thanks. --Ragib 00:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Smear Tactics

I've got several other problems with the page. For example, the constant insinuations that the author may be lying about her credentials:

...who bills herself as a "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist".

She is an historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist. If you have information suggesting otherwise, please provide it. Otherwise you are not-so-subtly suggesting she is a lier. A smear tactic.

She claims to be a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece, Though they haveno record of her as a member.

She is a member of the American School of Classical Studies. If you have information suggesting otherwise, please provide it. More smear tactics to cast doubt on the authors character and credibility.

Her primary sources for her Premise Are the works of Kersey GRaves... and BArbara Walker...

That is blatantly false, and easily checked. (Oh yeah, nobody arguing with me on this has even read her books, so how can they check?!) She does reference these works, among many. 'The Christ Conspiracy' contains hundreds of quotes and 1200 footnotes, for example. These so-called critics (so-called because this smells like a deliberate smear) pick out a couple sources they feel confident attacking, then try to characterize them as her "primary sources".

Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, innaccurate, and outdated soruces to prove her point.

Ummm, how exactly are we to rebut this sweeping claim??? Sheesh. Seriously, how about some specific, attributed crticisms that we can sink our teeth into, instead of broad sweeping unattributed statements... that suggest, once again, that wikipedia is being used to smear an author.

I also note that nobody has challenged the quality of scholarship of the RisenJesus.com article in the links section. It is quite plainly abhorrent. Why not?

As to the accusation of self-promotion, delete the page (as was offered by an 'admin' above, and agreed to by me) and the whole issue (wikipedia being used to smear and disseminate personal information about an author) would disappear. Since I am not yet familiar with the procedures on wikipedia, please forgive my ineptness in dealing with the issue.

J

24.64.223.203 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


Jesus/Krishna/Buddha Parallels

Here are some notes posted by another anon in the rebuttles section that was subsequently removed, thought they might be of interest. J 24.64.223.203 10:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


Do use footnotes at least as diligent as Acharya does:

Cite the reference that this is indeed her real name.

This article is not exactly fair and balanced... isn't it an apologists tactic to seeks to discredit an author instead of addressing the points made?

The claim that her "primary" sources is bogus. Define primary. And Why consider this a fact, because you say so? What, then, are your credentials? To quote from the Paranoia article which addresses this cery subject:

"SF: Speaking of controversy, Kersey Graves seems to have been a big influence on your work. Unfortunately, Graves seems to be maligned above other past mythicists. Why is this?

AS: If you look at the citations in The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God, you'll see I used relatively little of Kersey Graves's writing, and he did not have all that much of an influence on my work. In reality, I didn't need his work, because what he was conveying could be found all over the place. That being said, I will comment that the brouhaha over Graves's work has led to some very interesting parts of Suns of God, IMHO. Also, I was inspired enough by Graves's courage and insight that I wrote the foreword to AUP's edition of his book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. I don't know if anyone else has taken the time to really explore why Graves wrote what he did. Without having done such in-depth investigation - as I have done, engaging in what I believe to be fascinating detective work that absolves Graves of hasty and ignorant criticism - his critics are not particularly impressive. I would pronounce the fracas so much blowing of smoke. Graves is a favorite target because his book appeals to the mainstream and has endured for well over a century. Yet, I certainly don't concur with Graves's conclusions that all these "16 crucified saviors" were "real people" who bizarrely kept saying and doing the same things and getting themselves crucified in different places and eras, over and over again! Ridiculous. These are myths. As concerns influences on my writing, Barbara Walker and Gerald Massey are two scholars whose work I sincerely esteem. Because I used their work so abundantly in The Christ Conspiracy, I turned to numerous other sources for Suns of God, nevertheless showing the same salient motifs in mythologies from around the world. So, you see, it matters not what the source is: The truth is out there."

To repeat, the criticism that "Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, innaccurate, and outdated soruces to prove her point", is referenced by what? Are we to take your word for it? Who are you?

Re: "The similarities between Krishna, Buddha and Jesus..."

In the Bhagavad-Gita, the Hindu Trinity, god took human form as Krishna, it says: I am the beginning, the middle, and the end' (BG 10:20 vs. Rev. 1:8 ). His advent was heralded by a pious old man named Asita, who could die happy knowing of his arrival, a story paralleling that of Simeon in Luke 2:25 . Krishna's mission was to give directions to 'the kingdom of God' (BG 2:72), and he warned of 'stumbling blocks' along the way (BG 3:34; 1 Cor. 1:23 ; Rev. 2:14). The essential thrust of Krishna's sayings, uttered to a beloved disciple, sometimes seems to coincide with Jesus or the Bible. Compare: "those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead" (BG 2:11) with the sense of Jesus' advice to "let the dead bury their own dead" (Matt. 8:22 ). Krishna's saying, "I envy no man, nor am I partial to anyone; I am equal to all" (BG 9:29) is a lot like the idea that God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11 ; see also Matt. 6:45 ). And "one who is equal to friends and enemies... is very dear to me" (BG 12:18) is reminiscent of 'love your enemies' (Matt. 6:44 ). Krishna also said that "by human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day" (BG 8:17), which is very similar to 2 Peter 3:8." 10

Even if Graves did make mistakes (due to the state of religious history in his time or negligence not withstanding) he did make points that should be addressed rather than be dismissed out of hand for them. For instance he points to these similarities:

Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God. Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. His adoptive human father was a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head." Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki." Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection." Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth. Both were "without sin." Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases." Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

The same kind of list can be made for Buddha.

You state that both Buddha and Krishna were not considered to have been crucified... however Acharya S did not say Buddha had been crucified. She recounted the similarities of the virgin birth and the resurection. Read the book.

Re: December 25th: What Acharya actually reports is this in regards to such an assertion by another author:

"In The Christ Myth, John Jackson relates other important details of the Buddha myth, some of which also are "esoteric," i.e., not found in the orthodox story":

"The close parallels between the life-stories of Buddha and Christ are just as remarkable as those between Krishna and Christ. Buddha was born of a virgin named Maya, or Mary. His birthday was celebrated on December 25. He was visited by wise men who acknowledged his divinity. The life of Buddha was sought by King Bimbasara, who feared that some day the child would endanger his throne. At the age of twelve, Buddha excelled the learned men of the temple in knowledge and wisdom. His ancestry was traced back to Maha Sammata, the first monarch in the world. (Jesus' ancestry is traced back to Adam, the first man in the world.) Buddha was transfigured on a mountain top. His form was illumined by as aura of bright light. (Jesus was likewise transfigured on a mountain top. "And his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." After the completion of his earthly mission, Buddha ascended bodily to the celestial realms."

"The motifs of Jackson's synopsis not emphasized or mentioned in the orthodox tale are the virginity of Buddha's mother and his December 25th birthdate, both of which have merit, however, as is the case in the Krishna myth. Also, like Titcomb, Jackson asserts that Buddha "ascended bodily."

It seems that these criticisms suffer no less from poor research, one-sidedness, biased, and innaccurate observations as those it accuses of. I have an idea... tell the reader what it is about and let them read it on their own to judge it for themselves instead of doing it for them.

Acharya S's name and Wikipedia Guidelines

I lost most interest in this article, but I'm just dropping in to repeat my opinion that Acharya S's full name should not be included in this article. Again, she is making a deliberate effort to keep her name private, and I believe she has that right to privacy. More importantly, we should adhere to Wikipedia's very own guidelines:

Wikipedia:Verifiability

  • Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.
  • For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable.
  • Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.

Wikipedia:Reliable Sources

  • If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor.
  • Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they don't have any other corroborating information. It's important to seek credible sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete them.

I encourage everyone involved in this article to read the above guidelines in full.

I also hereby challenge any editor to provide a reliable or verifiable source of Acharya S's full name. Reliable sources do not include Wikipedia or its mirrors, nor discussion board posts. I suggest her real name be removed until anyone can come up with a verifiable public source and posts it here immediately.

Thank you.

— Phi beta 21:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've pretty much lost interest, too. But I'll chime in to agree with the requirement of a source for the full name. If we do not have a source for the full name, then it should not be in the article. I've done some research on A.S. lately, and I've found a number of references, both Web & print, that give "D. Murdock" as her name, so I have no problem with the inclusion of this shortened name in the article. But except for Wikipedia & mirrors, I have found nothing at all that gives her full name. By the way, I don't agree with the "right to privacy" argument. But the lack of a source, and Wikipedia's policies, make it clear what should be done. — Nowhither 00:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
"D. Murdock" is fine, and I'm adding that back. I don't see the big fuss about having her name here. --Ragib 02:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


What is the big fuss about leaving it off? Where is the reputable source cited? Are you aware that the author is routinely harassed and occasionally threatened by religious fanatics? Did you know that the latest threat included a link to this very wiki page? (The threatening email was forwarded to me and others, which should explain the flurry to remove it.) Why is it okay to disseminate personal information about an author against her wishes, especially under these circumstances? When I initially read the forwarded email, I was disgusted that these religious nuts would use wikipedia in this way. I was hoping the admins here would feel the same way and it could be quickly resolved. An admin earlier said he would leave her name off if I could provide evidence that the author did indeed receive threatening emails. I provided that evidence. What more do you want? You have no reputable source, no real good reason to leave it on, and one really good reason to remove it. Please! --24.64.223.203 03:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The big fuss is that, on one hand you claim her notability, on the other hand, you try to hide her name. Since her name can be found by a a simple google search, the information is public. You can't prove that having her name here made the world know her name, it is the other way around. Also, you claim that there is no reputable source backing up the name, do you imply it is wrong? Then it should have no affect on her, right? On the other hand, if you admit the name to be correct, then why do you ask for "reputable sources"? Please get your logic right, you are kind of talking in circles. My point is, without her name, the article loses any shred of credibility. I can make up an article claiming "Scooby Doo (not his real name) is an astrnomer, a scientist blah blah blah", and have a webpage supporting it, would it make the article look credible? If Acharya S is a real person, no point in hiding her name. If you feel any further problems, take it to an RfC. Thanks. --Ragib 04:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I based my reputable source argument on the Wiki guidelines listed above: "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". So please verify from a reputable source. Second, many writers use pseudonyms. It's commonplace. Third, I didn't claim that having her name here made the world know her name. I'm just asking that you not allow wikipedia to be used to help disseminate it. --24.64.223.203 05:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, you can read interviews with her, buy her books on amazon, look at pictures of her on her website... It's easy to determine that this is a real person. You don't need her real name for that.

You've referenced an obviously religious site 'www.tektonics.org' (credible?) where the author, a former prison librarian (scholarship?), insures his own privacy while violating Acharyas! Please examine the quality of the site. This is one of the groups that has been harassing Acharya in the first place!

Consider for example, the second source, "RisenJesus.com", a site that strives to prove that Jesus really did rise from the dead! Why do you suppose that her real name is used throughout the entire article, instead of just a brief note at the beginning? I suspect it is intended as a form of harassment.

And while the third source cited is certainly the most intelligent of the three, (note that he clearly acknowledges the 'risks of physical assault' that these controversial authors face), what is his source? I suspect he learned her name from the above websites, as do most. These people are on a campaign to spread Acharya's name against her wishes. I'm asking again that you not allow wikipedia to be used in this way. Please delete this entire article, or at least remove her name from the main page.

I am told that Natalie Portamans privacy was respected for some time. Please extend the same courtesy to this author! Thank you. --24.64.223.203 18:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I assume you are addressing Geni, but I'm tempted to question your motive. Once again, you are not being logical. D. Murdock can either be her name or not be her name. If it is her name, why do you ask for "Reputable sources"? If it is not her name, then why do you bother asking us to remove it? If we are to have an article on a person, it doesn't harm to give her real name. Otherwise, the article loses any credibility. A person's name is not a private thing, so no question of privacy problems arise here. I suggest you open an RfC and have it discussed there. Because you are continuing your circular logic and "demands". Thanks. --Ragib 19:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


Ragib, you are not reading my posts very carefully. As I explained above, my reputable sources argument is based on wiki guidlines: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Many authors use pseudonyms. It's common. She wishes to remain anonymous, and considering the threats and harassment she receives, I was hoping the admins here would understand and respect that, a courtesy granted others so I am told. --24.64.223.203 19:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok I'm adding a reference to her name from a book review [1] I found from google search, the review is from "Robert Price, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies, Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary". This serves as a verifyable source, and hence I reinserted the name. Stop vandalizing the article again and again. As I said, if you have a problem, open an RfC. Thanks. --Ragib 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Ragib, if my challenges have spurred verification and greater accuracy, why on earth would you characterize that as vandalism? J --24.64.223.203 20:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
there are ways and means (see WP:point)).Geni 20:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I was acting in accord with the wiki guidelines listed above: "...bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor." Your link doesn't seem to work. J --24.64.223.203 21:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
What link doesn't work? Or do you mean it is not "credible"? What would, then, be credible by your definition? The link is from a person's website with his contact info noted, how is that not credible? If you continue to term every link/reference as "not credible", it is your credibility that comes into question. You were asking for references, so you have one now. --Ragib 21:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Ragib, again you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I was responding to Geni, and letting him know that the link he offered didn't work.
WP:POINT. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done since it was pretty clear you were deleteing factulary correct information.Geni 21:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
Geni, I agree wholeheartedly. And it follows, that just because you can publish Acharya S's real name, doesn't mean that you should. Please consider: she routinely recieves distressing, harassing emails, and occasionally outright threats. While she cannot force sites like www.tektonics.org to respect her privacy, she can ask sites like Wikipedia.org to extend her that very courtesy. 24.64.223.203 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
She can ask however blunt refusal can often offend. Wikipedia is not censored. It is common practice on wikipeidia to give the name of writers who use pysdonims. The name is already trivial to find through google so what we are doing makes no difference.Geni 01:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Other

Above de-vandalized by Nowhither 01:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC). Following comment by User:Geni kept:

voteing was closed at 01:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC) on the basis that wikipedia is not a democracy and everyone knows what the consensus is here.Geni 01:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

not vandalism. wikipedia is not a democracy. Useing a poll here is a bad idea. Polls do not foster consensus which is what we are ment to aim for. Straw polls can be useful when trying to figure out how things stand but is anyone really uncertian of that on this page?01:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed on most points. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Majority rule and consensus are different things. Wikipedia works according to the latter, not the former. Thus, the vote is non-binding. Perhaps it is a bad idea. But it is legitimate discussion. It probably does not foster consensus, but tearing up the legitimate work of others is much more polarizing, and an effective way to tear down a consensus. So let's not do it. — Nowhither 01:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
look at my deletion log it's what I've been doing for the last couple of hours. Ok if people really want a poll I can't stop them but I think it is a less than optimium course.Geni 02:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed voting section ^^James^^ 10:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Proposal.

My idea's to make the page non-bias, and thus not a commercial for Acharya.

1: Leave the name D. Murdock.

2: Unless it can be demonstrated that sh is, in fact, a member of the ASOGS, either remove the reference, which is only supported on her website, or else add that this si non-sunbstantiated.

Also remove the list of "Shes a Historian, Mythologist, ect...", as its also nonsubstantiated mateiral.

3: Tell valid reaosn's why her work iscritisised. Acharya and her following hate any critisism, thinkign that only positive reviews shoudl be presented, btu this is bias. Freke and Gandy make similar claism and no one has queasitoned allowing a critisism section fr them. Pointign out critisism to Acharya S's work is not only appropriate, but nessisary for a balanced article, as muchas she hates it.

4: I woudl say post suppot, but there is no real support, so maybe just basicrebuttles ot the critisisms.

5: Expand it with the factthat shegrants interveiws on radio.

6: Point out her own vitirolic writitng style. This is because its noted even by fellow CHrist <ythesists ont he web.

7: Allow the link to Tekton Ministires abotu her, as it is the only site ot bothe iwth a coprehensive refutation. Again, Ahcaryaites may haete this, but it is the truth. Wikipedia sint getitgn invovled in rather or not Tekton is masonic, or if its a reputable soruce. Acharya is not seen as reputable by anyone. I used her as my firts artlce on wikipedia to try to see how to write aritvcles...not to discredit her and nto because ofher high profile.

8: Try to add biogrpahical informaiton to flesh it out, but make sur its neutrally derived. Not " I left CHristaintiy because it sucks". Just the facts. IE, that she stopped attendign Chruhc at age 12, as per her interview.


9: Allow reference tothe fac thtat ehr mateirals are neither new nor origional, nor even groundbraking. They are a synthesis of earlier works, mainly discredited.

Althogh she currnetly disclaism Graves as a principle soruce for her owrks, this is a recent develop,ent. If you look over her writitns form the last two years, she often spent a great deal fo time arguing th oposite, that he was a brilliant scholar ahead of his time that deserves mroe credit. it was only when this was proven irrvocabely wrong that she changed her tune to sayign he was nto a major influence on her.

Pointign otuthat her soruce mateiral is suspect is not bias, its fact.


I do not knwo if its been 24 hous yet, but Ill post tomorrow my new version. Its not baised. Check for yourseves.


Done

OK< I edited it. Itsnot Biased. Acharya's fans may think it is, because itacutlaly includes real critisisms of her book, and points to the fact that her evidence is alcking, instead of just beign glowing praise and a list of how many wonderful things she is, but its not baiased. I codl nto validate her claim that she was a "Mythologist, linguist, Religious Scholar, historian, and Archeologist." I did confirm that she hodls a masters. So do I in Journalism. That's not that impressive. I also could not confim that she is a member of the ASOGS, so I basiclaly omited this claim, as it serves no real end. ill put it backin with a "This claim is not substantiated" if insisted upon, but I realy dotn think Wikipedia shoudl say she is a member unless solid evidence comes to light. Again, Ahcarya fans, solid evidenceis not her word on her website.


I do ask that her supporters please allow Wikipedia to be a really unbiased source. Which doesnt mean a source that disemenates the odfficial Acharya S point fo veiw and rejects critisisms you persoanlly do not like.

a link is requested.Geni 18:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


Link

Sorry, handt checked the discussion page in a while.

http://www.fandm.edu/x11.xml

You can check student credits there. Its the collage she attended. SHoudl this go int he article?


I went ahea and added the link to Franklin and MArshal. I also wonder, since none of the informaiton is now disputed, should the dispute tage be removed? Or is it better to leave it on there?

It's better to leave it on there. Your edits add nothing of value, and remove information that does add value.

For example, why remove the link to her essay on Christian origins? Why remove her responses to her critics? Why add in 'critiques' of dubious quality written by fringe Christian groups? Why remove "...and many other saviour Gods throughout history", since to leave it out blatantly mischaracterizes her work? Why remove wikification to Jesus_myth and Historicity_of_Jesus? Why add back in the straw man criticisms regarding buddha and krishna, as noted above? Why add back the vague and sweeping 'claims' by unnamed critics that are themselves baseless, distortions, and outright falsehoods?


Why remove her credentials? For example, you originally claimed that the ASCSA had no record of her, and that you could provide evidence to substantiate your claim. I asked you to provide that evidence. None was forthcoming. Then you flip-flopped and claimed that you don't have any evidence because you can't prove a negative! So, you were lying. Speaks of your intent to smear. Now you say you "could not confim" that she is a member. Really, how hard can that be? Either she is or she isn't.

And while you remove her credentials and much of the meat of her arguments, you add fascinating details like: she found church "boring". !?

On my talk page, you even threaten to check into her credit history if I or others continue with this 'edit war'! WTF?!

Admins please take note!

^^James^^ 20:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've taken note. Frankly neither of your versions appears to be hugely NPOV and quite frankly a threat to produce an article full of sources and citations isn't one that worries me overmuch.
Now it's pretty clear this all out edit war isn't going to get anyone anywhere. So lets look at a comprimise. "How about Acharya S is the pseudonym of D. Murdock, a controversial American supporter of the mythological Christ hypothesis."?Geni 21:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
A simple "Acharya S is the pseudonym of D. Murdock, a controversial American supporter of the mythological Christ hypothesis." would suit me just fine. ^^James^^ 21:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Geni, mine is NPOV. Look at my old article. It was balanced. I didnt cast aspersions.

It may look it, but I have no real vendetta to meet here. I just hate seeing wikipedia turned into Acharya S's private commercial, espeiclaly when everythign she allows in ehr article is just shameless self promotion, and she rfuses critisism.

Good to hear but it is still not NPOV. Still that can be fixed.Geni 21:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Ive edited it. But can someoen pelase tell me how this is POV? I mean, Ive edite dout her proeposterou list of vocations, where no evidence exists for them, and added informaiton abotu her life. ( Which is optainable in her own interview).

And rmemeber, the article is about her, not her ideas. Her ideas ar eonly n the site for the sole putpose of tellign us hwo she is.

Thats why the "Boring CHurhc" clomments are made.

Critisism was allowed bcause this is what peopel say of her.


So, whats POV abotu allowing divergent veiws?



As to her life, its added for a rason as well. This aritlce is abot her, persoanlly. Not her works. Her works define her tot he public and are mentioend, but the artilce isnot, itsself, abotuthe CHrist Conspiracy, its abotu Acharya S, and veeryhtign written now cna be foudn on the links provided.

Ok lets look at the seond sentance. We need to state why she is notable. This needs to be done with solid verifible claims. Something along the lines of "She has published two books in which she attempts to support the hypothesis and maintains a website to the same end."Geni 21:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Bio

I threatened to write a full Biography of her. My main point is this, this is a Biographical article.

Her self professed credentials aren't really verified. If you want confirmation, you look at sources.

Credit history may be a bit extreme, but tis public record. I was not fully serious there however. But I was in checking her academic background in full.

I mean, come on, real scholars have their backgrounds on line. We have full biographies for Stephen Hawking, Machio Kaku, and Robert Price. Why not Acharya S?

Obviously its because you, personally, want to present her as soemthing other than she is.

You wanther predsented as a plethra of things. An archeologist? SHe went on a few student digs. That doesnt make her an archeologist, if it did then I cna clal myself a Paleontologist. I went to COlorodo once and helpd with a Doosaur dig on vacaiton. A Historian? How? SHe has NO traiing in this as I can tell. Religiosu scholar? She has no theological backgroeund whatsoever.


Checkthe F&M Site I posted. Her records are there. She has a minor degree in classical studies. That makes her wqualified ot teach high school students classical literature. It does not make her a Historian, archeologist, linguist, religious scholar, or anyhtign else.


Again, I am ogign on what is substantiatable. This sint a threat. But if she persissts in makign these claism and inssitign they be on Wikipedia, and not allowign acutal critisism to her work, why canrt we examien ehr claims?

Because you prefer to swallow her cpnspiracy theories hook, line, and sinker doesnt mean wikipedia is a palce for her shinanigans. As I said, her background as ascholar is open for examination. its not liek I woudl be stalking her. It slal on Franklin and MArshal and other sites.

And shes the one makign these stupid claims that ar eunfounded.


The reason I "Removed her credentials" is because the list is not her credentials. Its a list of thigns she claism to be to trump up her resume. She hodls no degre in Hisotry, religious studies, or archeology. Her degree is in classics. She can teahc classics in High School. But shes not a Historian, Linguist, Archeologist, or a religious scholar.

I added critisisms ebcause these are the common critiissms she is given. Rather you liek it or not. This is what peopel are sayign abotu her.

I added the "CHruch is Boring " line because this is an article abotu her, not her works. I dont see why thats hard for you to understand. Her works ar ementioend because this is what shes famous for. It defiens her in the oublic interest. But, in the end, th atcilce is abotu he rlife.


This is why I threatendd to write a real Biogrpahy.

Im not beign Biased here, Im fightign Bias. You ar ebaised. Youw ant rid of all critiissm, to dictate what is and is not a vlaid source ( WHich means itf its Christain its invlaid), and to make sure her webpage is linked ot refute everythignthat happens to be allowed by mean of critism. Thats hwy I removed th Robert prive link to "Truth be Known."


We have a link to truth be knwon, we dont need three.

Do you really not have access to any spell checker? Your contributions are incredibly hard to read. Please try to be concise, and clear. Charles Matthews 21:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Her bio is accurate as far as I can tell.

For example, consider the excerpts from her second book found on this page: http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

Now consider the definitions for Historian:

  1. A writer, student, or scholar of history.
  2. One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.
  3. a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it.

So please explain how this shoe doesn't fit. To suggest that only the historians you agree with should be called historians seems a transparent attempt to attack the persons credentials in lieu of their argument.

Many other points I've made (listed under the 'link' section above) have not yet been addressed.

And please explain the problems you have with this version. And please be specific in your arguments, rather than the usual vague and sweeping condemnations.

Thanks.

WP:NOR We can't say she is a historian since that involves makeing a subjective judgment. We can say that person X or source Y describes her a historian.Geni 22:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Zarove's note: Another problem with this article is that it omits the newly added Biogrpahy secton. It aseems you are approachign this whole topic as if this artcle is about "The Christ Conpsiracy" or the idea that underlays it. The Article is, hwoever, abotu Acharya S. Not her books or ideas. Her ideas are included as they define her in the public life.

Critisims are included because as much as you object, peopel ARE makign these critisisms.

Omiting them does a disservice.

It also has a glowing feel to it, its too promotional, and needs ot be toned down and neutralised.

Thus why My article was reverted.


If you are going to post what "people" are saying about her, you should use attributed quotes. Otherwise it's really what you are saying about her. Who exactly are these "people" you keep talking about??

more to come ^^James^^ 10:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hpw abotu Tekton Ministries? You keep de;leting them for no real reason. ( I know, I know, their Biased... but Acharya is not? She writes abotu Christainity for cryingo out loud, you dont thionk CHristaisn need to rebuttle?)


How abotu Risen Jesus? ( See above, just because their CHristain doesnt mean they ought to be silenced. WIkipedia doesntdiscriminate.)

How abotu robert Price?


The critiissms are generalised.

And its not liek you just removed the critisism, you treinserted the " Historian blah b;ah" crap that is clealry not nessisary for this article. You also removed the life informaton. Remmeber, this article is abotu HER , not her books. And its nto a soapbox to prove Jeuss didnt exist.

I ask the admins to forgive my revert. However, I think what James is doign is vandalism.He gives no vlaid reaosn forthe removal of Tekton and risenJesus, offers no realreaosn why Critism isnt allowed, and if we POST QUOTES, he is likely to just say " they are buased, so don't belong int he aritcle." Any critisms wont be allowed, except form a fellow CHrist Myther, and even then Acharya's rebuttle must be given. Arent allt he links ot her site a bit redundant?

Look. If you use internet explorer you can download a free spellcheaker here. If you are useing firefox or monzilla you can get a free one here. Please do so. I can't spell either so as a result I run all my contibutions to the article namespace thorugh a spellcheaker. Could you please do the same.Geni 13:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I do for the articles. Talk pages I dont. Mainly because I am a severe Dyslexic. Spell chekcers are monsterous to use, and often getthe wordswrong. Sorry for th einconvience, the articles will be done wiht few errros in spelling. However, the tlak pages are not rlelay directly on the artucle.

Well, I thought it might be that. But really, you should try to post concisely and clearly. There is policy about that kind of thing. Your points will get lost, otherwise. Charles Matthews 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, I tried the spellcheckers mentioned by Geni, and they are quite easy to use. A garbled message is really hard to read, and so is any article section you introduce. Since this is making a problem here, you should look into this. Thanks. --Ragib 22:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


More Comments on Zaroves version

  1. You remove pertinent information, like the line: 'among many other saviours'. This ommision makes it appear that Acharya's work focuses soley on Buddha and Krishna. This is obviously far from the case. A telling omission. Yet at the same time you add irrelevant information like: she found church boring when she was a child. ??
  2. Unless you attribute them, the so-called 'criticisms' you offer are your criticisms. Your explanation of why you refuse to attribute these criticisms is also telling: because they are likely to be challenged on the basis of bias and credibility.
  3. Also regarding your criticisms: I think you are creating straw man mischaracterizations of her work to make it easy for you to knock them down. I think your criticisms don't apply to what she actually wrote. Please offer some direct quotes so we can see Acharya's claims for ourselves. For example, where does Acharya say that Krishna was born on Dec 25th? I don't recall reading that. Please give direct quotes so we can examine context. Do the same for all your other 'criticisms'.
  4. You wrote "She has also served as a Trench aid in Athens and Crete." Where did you get that information? Please share your source with us.
  5. Please explain how you are justified in removing: "She is a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece". You have her name, and you have the name of a credible source that can be checked, so what's the problem?
  6. And just because some fringe christian website posts an article on Acharya S doesn't mean that it should be included here.

More to come...^^James^^ 10:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)



address

You remove pertinent information, like the line: 'among many other saviours'. This ommision makes it appear that Acharya's work focuses soley on Buddha and Krishna. This is obviously far from the case. A telling omission. Yet at the same time you add irrelevant information like: she found church boring when she was a child. ??


I omit it becausae this is not abotu her works or argument. Krishna and The Buddha are both the major theme of her second book. This artilce is, however, abotu her, not the CHrist Conspiracy.

Her intervnewi offered the informaiton that she foudn CHruch borign as a CHild. Why is htis irrelevant? Its part of her life story, and htus pertenant in the aricle.( remember, this article is abotu her life... not abotu her works... nor is it abotu "The Christ COnspriacy" that shes so hyped up about.)


Unless you attribute them, the so-called 'criticisms' you offer are your criticisms. Your explanation of why you refuse to attribute these criticisms is also telling: because they are likely to be challenged on the basis of bias and credibility.


Hahaha, no, yoyu already challenge any criticsm based on "Bias and incredibility." IE, YOU find Tekton ministies " Not a credible soruce." Why? Becuase its a CHristain soruce and because Acharya hates Tekton Ministires.

You think Risen Jeuss is notcreidble. Can I post any CHristain repsonce to her works? Her works critisaise Christainity, thus, a Christyain repsonce to her work woudl balqnce the aritlce, btu aparetnly you want to pretend Christyains are baised and htus dotn need to be allowed in. Well guess what, Dorothy is biased.


Also regarding your criticisms: I think you are creating straw man mischaracterizations of her work to make it easy for you to knock them down.


The article i abotu ehr and what others say of her. Its not abotu debating her case, and I didnt write the aritlce to knock down her arguments.



I think your criticisms don't apply to what she actually wrote.


They arent my critisisms, and what you think is not relevant here. whats important hwre is what otherssay of her. The Critisisms are found in both Robert Price's article and the Tekton article and the risen Jesus article.


Please offer some direct quotes so we can see Acharya's claims for ourselves.


I linked to her site. Your constant vandalism to whitewashher is becomign monotonous. Indeed, it seems for every crititsms tyou allow, which must be from a fllow sceptic and nto from a Christain dispite her constant attakcs on Chrisyainity, you must also link the page form her website that addresses that critisms. IE, Robert Prices book review of her book is follwed by her address to Robert Price. Ultimatley her own website is linked mroe than anyhtign else.


I dont need to offer direct quotes, peopel whoa re interested can look over th Tekton site, th Risen Jesus site, and robert Price's site.

I dotn need to addreess quotes form Acharya. This isnt a debate queasitonign the meritd of her work. However, this not a promotion of her work either.

For example, where does Acharya say that Krishna was born on Dec 25th?

try page 116 of "The CHrist Conspiracy." She says he was Born of the Virgin Devaki on December 25th. She is citign "The World's 16 Crucified Saviours", by Kersye GRaves.Check footnote 64.


I don't recall reading that. Please give direct quotes so we can examine context. Do the same for all your other 'criticisms'.


Its in a list fo similarities between Krishna and Jesus. ITs the first item listed. He was Bron of a Virign on Decmeber 25th.

See, I do have a copy of her book.

You wrote "She has also served as a Trench aid in Athens and Crete." Where did you get that information? Please share your source with us.

http://campus.lakeforest.edu/academics/greece/Partic-OtherSchools.html

Need more? Dorothy Murdock is there.



Please explain how you are justified in removing: "She is a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece".


I did alreayd. I have seen no substantiation of this claim.


You have her name, and you have the name of a credible source that can be checked, so what's the problem?


Why is this so dofficult for you to grasp? I have no record shwoign her as a member. Thus the item in queasiton is removed. Stop acgign like a petulant child.


And just because some fringe christian website posts an article on Acharya S doesn't mean that it should be included here.


Why not? Her website is a firnge mythesisst one. Beside, Tekton Ministiees isnt fringe. Its far mroe Mainstream than Acharya herself.

Stop usign Ad Hom. The aricle is abotu her, nto her works. This sint a debate tryignt o discredit her, nor tryign to critisally examine her books. its abotu her, thus why I add the Bio information that she foudn CHruch Boring. I list her full known credentials. I also listed my source for Krtishna beign Born on December 25th. Now stop vandalising the Article with your whitewash verison that acts like a Minicommercial.

I havent gone out of my way to just iup and say " Acharya S is a fraud." But I didnt disallow critiissm while allowign GLowing praise either.

I added tot he aricle the page numebrs in "The Christ Conspriacy" to where she makes the dspacific similarities between Christ and The Buddha and Krishna known. Happy now? Its backed up.

Response to "address"

You remove pertinent information, like the line: 'among many other saviours'. This ommision makes it appear that Acharya's work focuses soley on Buddha and Krishna. This is obviously far from the case. A telling omission. Yet at the same time you add irrelevant information like: she found church boring when she was a child. ??


I omit it becausae this is not abotu her works or argument. Krishna and The Buddha are both the major theme of her second book. This artilce is, however, abotu her, not the CHrist Conspiracy.

Nonsense. She's notable for her works, so of course it is about her works to some extent. You tacitly acknowledge this by including a whole section to address her works. So your arguments are inconsistent with your actions. And again, this omission is glaring as it only serves to misrepresent her arguments.

Her intervnewi offered the informaiton that she foudn CHruch borign as a CHild. Why is htis irrelevant? Its part of her life story, and htus pertenant in the aricle.( remember, this article is abotu her life... not abotu her works... nor is it abotu "The Christ COnspriacy" that shes so hyped up about.)

Defend your inclusion of that trite bit of information all you like. It further illustrates your lack of discernment.

Unless you attribute them, the so-called 'criticisms' you offer are your criticisms. Your explanation of why you refuse to attribute these criticisms is also telling: because they are likely to be challenged on the basis of bias and credibility.


Hahaha, no, yoyu already challenge any criticsm based on "Bias and incredibility." IE, YOU find Tekton ministies " Not a credible soruce." Why? Becuase its a CHristain soruce and because Acharya hates Tekton Ministires.

No. I object because Robert Turkel (AKA JP Holding) is obviously not a credible source. Note that I have not objected to Robert Prices critique. Just because some dubious, fringe christian website has written a critique does not mean it should automatically be included here. And no, the fact that they are Christian is not grounds enough for their inclusion. Chrisitianity is not one homogenous group. There are various sects and beleifs. I've even encountered Christians who are mythicists.

<snip>


Also regarding your criticisms: I think you are creating straw man mischaracterizations of her work to make it easy for you to knock them down.


The article i abotu ehr and what others say of her. Its not abotu debating her case, and I didnt write the aritlce to knock down her arguments.

If it's not about debating her case, why do you include a whole section devoted to debating her case? The inconsistency between your words and your actions is telling.


I think your criticisms don't apply to what she actually wrote.


They arent my critisisms, and what you think is not relevant here. whats important hwre is what otherssay of her. The Critisisms are found in both Robert Price's article and the Tekton article and the risen Jesus article.

If they aren't your criticisms, then please attribute them directly. I think your reasons for not doing so are telling: because they are likely to be challenged on the basis of bias and credibility.


Please offer some direct quotes so we can see Acharya's claims for ourselves.


I linked to her site. Your constant vandalism to whitewashher is becomign monotonous. Indeed, it seems for every crititsms tyou allow, which must be from a fllow sceptic and nto from a Christain dispite her constant attakcs on Chrisyainity, you must also link the page form her website that addresses that critisms. IE, Robert Prices book review of her book is follwed by her address to Robert Price. Ultimatley her own website is linked mroe than anyhtign else.

Bizarre. You complain about adding direct links to her rebuttles because of redundancy... but at the same time you not only supply links to her critics, but then devote an entire section to restating their arguments! Another telling inconsistency between what you say and what you do.

I dont need to offer direct quotes, peopel whoa re interested can look over th Tekton site, th Risen Jesus site, and robert Price's site.

I dotn need to addreess quotes form Acharya. This isnt a debate queasitonign the meritd of her work. However, this not a promotion of her work either.

You do need to supply direct quotes of Acharyas claims, since it is obvious to me that you are misrepresenting her works. A direct quote in context would settle this. You made the claim (about what acharya claims), didn't back it up with a direct quote, then expect me to do the digging to prove you wrong.

For example, where does Acharya say that Krishna was born on Dec 25th?

try page 116 of "The CHrist Conspiracy." She says he was Born of the Virgin Deki on December 25th.

Again, please supply a direct quote so we can all see what she says in its proper context. It is clear to me that you are cherry picking minor details, misrepresenting what she actually wrote, then attacking your own misrepresentation. And you use this tactic to try to cast a negative light on the entire body of her work. A common smear tactic.
For example, is Acharya actually the one making the claim as you say, or is she discussing what other authors have written on the subject? Does she specify that the information is mainstream and well-known as you suggest in your criticism, or does she specify that the sources are non-canonical and esoteric in nature?
Is this detail so significant that her entire body of work hinges upon its validity, or are you cherry picking the few minor details you feel confident attacking (because they are obviously not well known)? Is wikipedia the place to be debating the various minor details in her work? Consider the following 'coincidences' she mentions in her essay on Christian origins:

Buddha Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived around 500 B.C.E., the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also be demonstrated to be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of various holy men both preceding and succeeding the period attributed to the Buddha.37 The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:38

  • Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."38a
  • He was of royal descent.
  • He crushed a serpent's head.
  • Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.38b
  • He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.38c
  • He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."38d
  • He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
  • He was transfigured on a mount.
  • Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.38e
  • He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
  • Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd"39, the "Carpenter"40, the "Infinite and Everlasting."40a
  • He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."
Horus of Egypt The stories of Jesus and Horus are very similar, with Horus even contributing the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one").41 The legends of Horus go back thousands of years, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:
  • Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger42, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.43
  • He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.44
  • Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
  • He had 12 disciples.
  • He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
  • He walked on water.
  • Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
  • He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
  • He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
  • He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").45
  • Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."46
  • Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.47
In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child"48 - and the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra49, who shares many qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced50. Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions.51 Mithra, Sungod of Persia The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:
  • Mithra was born on December 25th.
  • He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
  • He had 12 companions or disciples.
  • He performed miracles.
  • He was buried in a tomb.
  • After three days he rose again.
  • His resurrection was celebrated every year.
  • Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
  • He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
  • He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
  • His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
  • Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
  • His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."52
Krishna of India The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are many. Indeed, Massey finds over 100 similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors, and Graves, who includes the various noncanonical gospels in his analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.53
  • Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") 53a
  • His father was a carpenter.54
  • His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.54a
  • He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.55
  • He was of royal descent.
  • He was baptized in the River Ganges.55a
  • He worked miracles and wonders.
  • He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
  • Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
  • "He lived poor and he loved the poor."56
  • He was transfigured in front of his disciples.57
  • In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.58
  • He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
  • Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."59
  • He is the second person of the Trinity,60 and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."60a
  • He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
  • His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."61
  • Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.62
Clearly Krishnas birthday is just one minor detail amongst many. You are cherry picking.


<snip>


You wrote "She has also served as a Trench aid in Athens and Crete." Where did you get that information? Please share your source with us.

http://campus.lakeforest.edu/academics/greece/Partic-OtherSchools.html

Need more? Dorothy Murdock is there.

Yeah, I do need more. Your information is quite specific and I'm curious: where did you get it?


Please explain how you are justified in removing: "She is a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece".


I did alreayd. I have seen no substantiation of this claim.

Substantiation? A reputable source has been supplied: the name of the institution itself. What more do you need? Simply supplying the name of the institution seems to be the standard practice on wikipedia. You can contact them if you are in doubt and verify for yourself.


You have her name, and you have the name of a credible source that can be checked, so what's the problem?


Why is this so dofficult for you to grasp? I have no record shwoign her as a member. Thus the item in queasiton is removed. Stop acgign like a petulant child.

Lol! Please try not to get personal. Again, looking around on wikipedia, it seems that simply supplying the name of the institution is source enough. I think it's ridiculous to remove one of her credentials just because you can't verify the information via the internet.


<snip>

Do note: On page 116 of The Christ Conspiracy, it says Krishna was Born of a Virign. Maybe not inine, but certianly in the book.

Dear James

Please stop vandalising he article. If you own a copy of TCC you can see Krishna's Birthday listed, by Acharya S, in her book, as December 25th. She doesnt add a disclaimer that thsi is another auhtors work. She tells it as a fact.


Im not so much CHerry pikcing as placing the major points in. DO I need to add why each and every claim she makes is fake to sate you? If so, Ill write this weekend an artilc eon TCC, and we shall movethose ocmmetns there.


This article is abotu her life. Thus in the "Life" section. I add the general informaiton she has revealed to the public. Its in the "Life" section.

Removignthat seciton on the gorunds that its "Trite" makes no sence. No critidsism of her work exists in that section.


Dispite yor claims, this articl eisnot abotu her owrk, and only a brief overview is given as htis si what shes noted for.

And as I siad, I have contacted the ASOGS, THEY told me they had no record of her. Nor does her name appear on the member rosters.


I contyacted htem whilst doign a sotry on her abotu two years back, maghbe three.


Now, rather than try to distort evertthign I say, stop removign informaitonf or no reaosn, and adding informaiton thats is nto proven.

You wan tot make her into a brillain t scholar dispite the fac thtat she is not taken seriosuly in any known academic feild.

Also, answer the wueasiton. Will ANY Christain sources be allowed tore buttle Acharya's claims? Or will they all be summerily dismissed as "Biased"?

more to come... ^^James^^ 19:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing anything. I'm doing just as you are doing: reverting the article. Yours happens to be of poorer quality and contains obviously biased, vague and sweeping claims like "Acharya S's works are poor scholarship." (Of course, none of the admins around here seem to care...) Meanwhile, who exactly are making these claims? You? Is wikipedia your personal soapbox?

Re: ASCSA - Elsewhere you have said that she has participated on ASCSA digs, yet on their website it states that nobody can use school facilities unless a member. How do you reconcile that? And why do you keep referring to it as ASOGS? Perhaps you are thinking of the wrong institution. Also, since you are now sourcing the story you wrote about her, please reference it properly: give your name, the name of the article, and where it can be found. And of course she is not listed on their website, as it appears they only list current members.

Again, repeating myself, if the "articl eisnot abotu her owrk" as you put it, why do you add a whole section devoted to discussing (refuting in this case) her work? You are being inconsistent. I think a simple description of who she is and a basic summary about her work is fine. The article I am reverting to suits that purpose. If you have a problem with it, please be specific.


You are now claiming that Acharya doesn't even supply a source for the information on Krishnas birthday. And those without access to Acharya's books should simply trust that you're accurately representing her body of work? I don't think so. Please provide direct quotes. Is this the only place she discusses it? In a single bulleted list in "The Christ Conspiracy" as you seem to suggest? If so, then you're picking out a tiny detail mentioned once in the entire book, and focusing on that to the exclusion of all else. You obviously don't understand what cherry picking means. Is wikipedia really the place to be nitpicking over minor details?

Of course, this is not the case. In the errata for the Christ Conspiracy, she refers readers to "Suns of God" for a more thorough exposition of her views relating to the "various characteristics" of Krishna. But you haven't read that book, so what exactly are you basing your argument on? The views of Robert Turkel?

And what of the other claims you present in your criticisms section? I see no reason to trust your characterizations of her work. Please supply direct quotes, in their proper context, as well as the sources she cites. Back up your statements so we can see for ourselves the basis of your criticisms. And note: these are your criticisms unless and until you attribute them properly.

Re: DO I need to add why each and every claim she makes is fake... Yes, if this is what you are claiming... as you are the one who is apparently open to debating the merits of each and every detail. Personally I think the christ myth debate belongs here and here.

Re: Will ANY Christain sources be allowed tore buttle Acharya's claims? Offer some and I'll discuss their merits and credibility then. Or are you expecting me to debate criticisms I haven't even seen yet?


66.183.168.152 00:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

why the claim of belonging to the Am School in Athens should stand

James, I hate to break it to you, but her "membership" in the Am School of Classical Studies is as impressive as her "scholarshp". Any graduate student in classics or archeology sponsored by any faculty professor even remotely related to the subject can simply fill out the form, pay the fee, and they become a "member". It gets them the right to use the library in Athens and to enroll in some of the school's courses (after paying a fee of course). It is not in any sense a "peer election" or a merit appointment or a recognition of scholarship. If you look at your website, you can get the application materials yourself. This is on a par with claiming you are a scholar because you joined the Am Archaeological Assoc and paid their dues. It is one more example of misleading exaggeration aimed at the ignorant and one more piece of evidence against your claim of real scholarship. However, I am in favor of letting it stand, just like the "trench master" claim, and mention of her college degree. You don't seem to understand that putting these these claims in the article as her chief qualifications tells real scholars exactly what she doesn't have in the way of credentials (like papers published in refereed scholarly journals or favorable reviews in academic journals or a university teaching appointment). These claims are excellent indicators of her character and career and should certainly stay in the article. My only question is whether we should make plain the significance to casual readers of the article. What do you think? alteripse 20:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Alteripse,

It took me five seconds to find:

Regular membership is generally open to advanced graduate students, although well-prepared undergraduates who will have earned the B.A. before the start of the program may apply. Admission is granted on the basis of the School's qualifying examinations, letters of recommendation, and other information submitted to the School's Committee on Admission and Fellowships.

66.183.168.152 00:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting exactly what I described. It is an organization that runs courses open to grad students and undergrad students who have their dept support and pay a fee. My suspicion is that her relation to the school is that she took a course there a few years ago or that her dept paid for her access one summer when she was on a dig over there. If you find this impressive evidence of scholarship it further documents to perfection the rest of my argument as to why we should let it stand. Thanks for being so obliging. alteripse 06:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

-Zar-I'd agree with Alterprise. Except I havent relaly been able to confirm she even paid a due! My only reaosn for removal of it is because of the factthat her name doesnt appear on the list. If shes a mmber Il lput it in and epxlain what it means.

Heck, Im two steps away form that full Bio on her, cut the critisisms of her work altogahte,r or even anythignover " She wrote a could of books" and just tell all abotu ehr childhood, elementary school, and career. Im sure peopel woud be fascinated, and itsall public knwoeldge nayway.


Bjt I have performed many edits today. Mostwhere just cleanups, but I have three revets.so Ill wait til tomorrow to do anythign else. Except the tlak page. But James, consider this. How is it Not baised to exlcusde any and evrey Christain soruce whenthe owman Critisismed CHrisyainity, and to only allow Fellow Mytheossts? Why is it that these fellow Mytehesists arent left alone, and her answeer to her critics must be made known as soon as their sites are linked? why is it that Acharya gets mroe say thananyone else?

Why is it that on ana rtlce abotu her life, revelaign informaiton abotuher so offends you?

And have you ever rad any books by reputable schoalrs? if you do, you iwll see why she's seen the way she is.-Zar.

In response to zarove...


Above you say "My only reaosn for removal of it is because of the factthat her name doesnt appear on the list. If shes a mmber Il lput it in..."

But earlier you say: "I have contacted the ASOGS, THEY told me they had no record of her."

Please explain this apparent discrepancy.

66.183.168.152 00:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


What discrepancy? I called, they did not find her name on the list.It's not onlien either

Sheesh, you try too hard to find discrepancies. You act liek this is some large conspriacy to discreit the saviour of the wolrd Acharya S. Its not, I just dont see anyhtign that confirms her as a member.-Zar


The way you phrased "the fact that her name doesnt appear on the list" made it sound as though you were working from the list published on the internet, which doesn't list members who previously attended the school (which should have been immediately obvious to you). And when you say: "If shes a mmber Il lput it in..." Well, if I had called ASCSA and talked to them personally, I wouldn't be so timid in my assertions. So I wondered if perhaps you were expecting to be proven wrong on this issue, and were deliberately leaving yourself some wiggle room in anticipation. Even in your follow up you seem to be leaving yourself wiggle room: "I called, they did not find her name on the list." instead of: "I talked to them personally and she is definately not a member." Why so flaccid?
Regardless, I'm glad I asked. And now you are firmly on record saying that you contacted ASCSA by telephone and used them as a source for a newspaper article you wrote. Thanks for the clarification.

^^James^^ 11:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverts and edit disputes

Zarove and James, please come to a consensus, rather than continuously reverting each others edits. From yesterday, there has been at least 9 reverts in the article, which is not really good. Zarove: Please address whatever points the other parties make, and PLEASE use a spell checker , otherwise your points can hardly be read. James: Please participate in the discussion rather than reverting it with "rv - see talk".

Both of you, please refrain from continuously edit warring with each other. There are ways to resolve edit disputes: Request for comments is the first step if you can't resolve the dispute in the discussion page. Further edit wars would only result in violation of WP:3RR, and a block on both of you, or the article being protected. So, please resolve your disputes in the talk page. Thanks. --Ragib 05:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Again...

I'm not vandalizing anything. I'm doing just as you are doing: reverting the article. Yours happens to be of poorer quality and contains obviously biased, vague and sweeping claims like "Acharya S's works are poor scholarship." (Of course, none of the admins around here seem to care...) Meanwhile, who exactly are making these claims? You? Is wikipedia your personal soapbox?


James, we have explaiend htids before. I'll do it again.


All of the Critisisms made abotuher are eaisly verified by visitign the Criticsites we posted. They aren't "Vauge and Sweeping." Heck, I woudl be willign to add links to each cliam within the article if I jnew how to do the [1][2][3] external links items. Each critism is backed up. Even the Fortean times called her book " One of th worse books on he subject."


My "Obvious Bias" is what. exaclty? You seem to think your "Superior and nonbiased" article shoud include her ridiculous list of self proffessed vocations. Can you show me her Degree in Theology? Can you show me what major institution has hired her as an Archeologist? THAT is Bias. You not only won't allow us to remove that list. but you wont veen let us say this is what she claism fpr herself, you stck it on as if peopel are suppose to just belive she is all those things. Shes none of them.


Frankly, I',m only invovled because your current "Better" article is biased. You can claim all day mine is Biased, but your examples of Bias concern pnly the Critisms section. How is the restr Bias?


And again, wil any CHristain source be allowed to rebuttle? Obviosuly not, because they will all be seen as Bias. And won't you at elat admit that Dorothy is Bias?


Come on! My "Infirior" articlr gives real informaiton. I even went out of my way, got my copy of "The Cirst COnspiracy" off my shelf, and provided page numbers to her spacific claism, and adde dback "the other pagan godmen" claims.


Why delete them?



Re: ASCSA - Elsewhere you have said that she has participated on ASCSA digs, yet on their website it states that nobody can use school facilities unless a member.


No I didn't. I said she participated in student digs. Not ASOCSAG digs.



How do you reconcile that?


See above.


And why do you keep referring to it as ASOGS? Perhaps you are thinking of the wrong institution.


American School Of Greek Studies. Its an accepted shortening. And irrelevant since I dont use the shortenign in the main article.This is an absurd "point."




Also, since you are now sourcing the story you wrote about her, please reference it properly: give your name, the name of the article, and where it can be found.


Reginald Cook. Former reporter, But the paperno longer exists. Went under, purchased a few yars back by the CHattanooga times. However, the story can be sent to other papers I have contacts with, Such as the Washingtom Post, or the New York Times, or USA Today.


Do you relaly want me to do that?


Again, you are tempting me to.



And of course she is not listed on their website, as it appears they only list current members.


If she is not a "Current member" then, exaclty hwo can she claimto be "A member", even if she was a memebr, shoudlnt it read " Was a member"?


Again, the only reaosn I remove her name is because I see no evidence of her as a member. Even if she was its nto impressive, as Alterprise said. But until I see verificaiton, its nto in the article.


Again, why is this hard ot Grasp?


Again, repeating myself, if the "articl eisnot abotu her owrk" as you put it, why do you add a whole section devoted to discussing (refuting in this case) her work?



You act like the critisisms section is th eonly section that discusses her work. her work is also mentioend in the top section...




You are being inconsistent.


No Im not. I mention her work, as this is what shes noted for, at the top. I then go to her life, which you omit as "Irrelevant" for no real reaosn. I then go into critissms.


That's pretty standard in other Wikipedia articles.



I think a simple description of who she is and a basic summary about her work is fine. The article I am reverting to suits that purpose. If you have a problem with it, please be specific.



OK, here are a few problems.


1: It completley exagerates her improtance. It lies to the audience by claimign shes " A Historian, linguist, rleigiosu scholar, and arhceologist." Shes noen of those htigns, has no degree in any of those feilds, and has absolutley NO work expeirnce form major institutions, holds no positions in any major institutiosn, and is not recognised by any instetution. SHe lacks any articles publishe din any reputable journal. She has not been Peer reviewed. Shes not an Archeologist, or a Historian, or a Linguist ( thugh she may be Multilingula.) Shes nto a rleigiosu scholar.


2:It omits any informaiton abotu he rlife. As I keep saying, this is abotu her, not her work.


3: It omits any critism. The Critisisms I add intothe aritlce are form other soruces, easily checke dbyt he links you lais delete,except to Robert Price's article.Which you also must add her "refutation" of his claim, which alone is bafflign since all she does its make cheap personal atacks agisnt him in it. IE, she uses the factthat he likes Lovecraft horror fiction as a mean to prove how he has no right ot critisism new age Mystesism. COme on! What the man reads as entertainment has no barign on what his world view is!


Any Christian soruce is seen as "Bias" and " Not Credible." Again, Acharya is bias. However, she is a Critic of CHristainity. And no, she doesn't go after Islam more. She claism Christainity has a higher body count than Islam. This in an artcle abotu Islam, where such a dig was unnesisary. Need I post that link, its on her site?


Aparently Christaisn are epxected to shut up and deal with it, while she " Proves" the beleif system wrong based on Kersey GRaves and Joseph Wheeles.Grow up, thats censorship.That makes he arilcd Bias. It owudl be like a Christain Critic of Islam bieng written about, and not lettign an Islamic site that refutes his claism be posted.


4: It represents her ideas as if they are legetimate, credible ideas, taken seriosuly by academia. No one takes her work seriosuly and her work is not " A synthesis of Comparative rleigiosu thought", its a cheap cpnsoriacy theory, just like the other books advertised in the back of her book.Adventures Unlimited Press deals in Conspriacy Theories.


5: The current aticle linsk her site more often than anyhtign else. She ends up gettign all thr say in everything.





You are now claiming that Acharya doesn't even supply a source for the information on Krishnas birthday.


No I didn't. I said she used Grave's "Worlds 16 Crucified Saviours."


Footnote 64 in her book "The CHrist Consiracy" in chapter nine.


That is her soruce.


And those without access to Acharya's books should simply trust that you're accurately representing her body of work?


I gave her citation. You are now lying.


I don't think so. Please provide direct quotes.


I provided page numbers. in case you had not noticed, typing is a bit of trouble for me.



Is this the only place she discusses it?


She never stops dicussing it, but her soruce for Krishna beign born on December 25th is Kersye Graves...


In a single bulleted list in "The Christ Conspiracy" as you seem to suggest? If so, then you're picking out a tiny detail mentioned once in the entire book, and focusing on that to the exclusion of all else.


Again, I gave a brief example. THis one is particularly fitting as she wrote a whoel book on Krishna and Buddha and hwo they compare to Christ. "Suns of God." Rmember? thats why I focused on them.

I do mention others, but vaugley. Again, this si not a detialed analysis of her owrk, for that we woudl need an article on the books. Not her.


You obviously don't understand what cherry picking means. Is wikipedia really the place to be nitpicking over minor details?


Those "Minor Details" where selected for a reason. I wanted to give an example of her work, not a detailed analysis of it.

Again, this article is not abotu her work. And your "Superior aticle" which gived a "Breif account " of her work basiclaly exists ot praise her and confuse the casual reader. Thats manipulation.




Of course, this is not the case. In the errata for the Christ Conspiracy, she refers readers to "Suns of God" for a more thorough exposition of her views relating to the "various characteristics" of Krishna. But you haven't read that book, so what exactly are you basing your argument on? The views of Robert Turkel?


You won't beleive me but I don't really go to Tekton ministires that often. I had heard of them in the past, but Im not an apologist so I don't really care. When I did the aritlce on Dorothy, for wikipedia, I didnt initially include any link but to her website.


Later, when her loyal follwors, yourself included, started postign only flattering links with only oen critical one, form a fllow mythesost, I included Tekton Ministries as a mean to balance the artilce. The origional Wikieditors selecte Risen JEsus, which you dont even disuss. You act liek Tekton was the only Cjhristain lik added. It was not.


Why did you remove RisenJEsus? Because its a Christain site it seems.All this time the only thing you have said was that Tekton Ministries is not a Creidble soruce, overlookign the problem that Acharya S is herself not seen as Credible.

But you never give a good reason for Risen Jesus to be excludded at all.


And I knwo all About how Acharya and her little followign hate TEkton, btu tis still one of th longest and best refutaitosn on the net abot her. Since few evn take her seriosuly enough to do refutations.


Her book "The CHrist COnsoriacy" only really mentions Krishna beign bron on December 25th based on Graves. Regardles sof hwo often she makes this claim, the real Krishna was nto said to have been Born on December 25th.


Coem to think of it, neither was Jesus Christ...




And what of the other claims you present in your criticisms section? I see no reason to trust your characterizations of her work.


Again, they arent mine. I didnt even write the critism section. I just reinscerted it.


And hey, the part I did write abotu Krishna and Buddha didnt just include them any more. I did as you asked, and reinscerted the "other saviour gods".


Why did yo delete that? what was wrogn with pointign oththat Appolo wa snot Born of a Virign on december 25th? Why not let the reader read abotu Horus and hwo he was not Crucified?




Please supply direct quotes, in their proper context, as well as the sources she cites.



In short, you want me to di a cirtical review of her book rather than an encapsulation invovlign only samples. THis is an encyclopidia, not an essay on Acharyas work.


Back up your statements so we can see for ourselves the basis of your criticisms. And note: these are your criticisms unless and until you attribute them properly.


They are attributed, to the links you keep deleting.


And they arent my Critissm, I didnt even write the bullet form of them...




Re: DO I need to add why each and every claim she makes is fake... Yes, if this is what you are claiming... as you are the one who is apparently open to debating the merits of each and every detail. Personally I think the christ myth debate belongs here and here.


I did add links to the "other saviour gods" she referenced.


I went ahead and did this.



Re: Will ANY Christain sources be allowed tore buttle Acharya's claims? Offer some and I'll discuss their merits and credibility then. Or are you expecting me to debate criticisms I haven't even seen yet?



Soemhow I get the feleign you will fidn fault with them all. Heck, you fidn fautl with them here...


New Proposed Article=

It is ridiculosuly long and detaield, with extensive quotes form her critics and herslef. ( Just liek ehr book ey?)


Here goes. See what you think.


The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.


Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock, an American critic of Christianity who operates a web site, "Truth be Known", and is the author of two books which expand on the websites premise."The Christ Conspiracy, The Greatest Story Ever Sold" and "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled!" She holds a Bachelors of Liberal Arts degree from Franklin and Marshall College.

On the web site she contends that Jesus is a fictional person, and a plagiarized pagan myth stolen by the Early Christian Church, created with the goal of unifying the Roman State.

Her book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, is an expanded version of her web site. A follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, discusses her views further, and is largely written as an address to critics of her former book. In it, she writes on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She points out parallels to the life of Jesus, presenting this as evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing stories, and not the life of a real man.

These similarities are contested however, see Criticism section below.

Life

Little has been made public of Acharya's life. In a recent interview, however, she relates to how she came from a moderate Christian background. Though not traumatic or "Fundamentalist", she described it as "boring". She ceased going to Church regularly at age 12.



Her main inspiration for accepting Jesus Christ as a myth seems to be from stumbling upon Joseph Wheeles's book Forgery in Christianity. From there her pursuit of this topic grew. Wheeles is also one of her primary sources. She then read other Freethought works, such as Kersey Graves' The World's 16 Crucified Saviours, which also serves as one of her main references, and Barbara Walker's The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myth and Secrets.

She has also served as a Trench aid in Athens and Crete, as well as a teaching assistant in Crete.

Acharya has also granted several late night radio interviews on a variety of Radio stations, usually discussing her work in The Christ Conspiracy. She Has Granted her firts Internet Video interview for the BroadBand LEarning Channel, online.


Her views

Acharya S’s views may best be described as Extrmely left wing, as well as New Age.

She advocates the use of Hallucinogenic drugs, as well as different types of meditation and communion with nature to expand ones mind. She also advocates a libertine morality in regards to sexual ethics.

Her political views are extremely left wing, But verging on Anarchist. She has written on her site a “Declaration of Life and Freedom” in which she declared everyone freeform the older governments, lead by “ Egotistical men and Coercible women.”

Her views can be sexist in favour of women, and She is in general critical of the Government, especially conservatives.


General Premise.

Her general premise is that Jesus Christ is based on older Pagan myths, all of which represent what she calls “Astro-theology”, or, the story of the Sun. Her claim is that the original pagans understood these stories to be Myths based on the sun, which where Carnalised. However, Christianity destroyed the works stating this, and killed all who did not accept the story of Jesus Christ as Literal, factual History.

She claims that The Christians went on a censorship rampage that led to the virtual illiteracy of the ancient world and ensured that their secret would be hidden from the masses, but the scholars of other schools/sects never gave up their arguments against the historicizing of a very ancient mythological creature. This claim is refuted because no evidence exists, but she claims that this is because the arguments where destroyed by the Christians to hide their secret. However, Christians preserved these contentions, she states, through their own refutations.


In reality, the Story of Jesus is the story of the Sun, according to Acharya S. Her general outline is below.



1:"The sun 'dies' for three days at the winter solstice, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th." 2:"The sun of god is 'born of a virgin,' which refers to both the new or 'virgin' moon and the constellation of Virgo."

3:The Sun's Birth is attended by” the Brightest Star", either Sirius/Sothis, or the planet Venus, and by the "three Kings", which represent the three stars it he belt of Orion.

4:"The sun at its zenith, or 12 noon, is in the house or heavenly temple of the 'Most High'; thus, 'he' begins 'his Father's work' at 'age' 12."

5:"The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30 [degrees]; hence, the 'Sun of God' begins his ministry at 'age' 30."

6:"The sun is the 'Carpenter' who builds his daily 'houses' or 12 two-hour divisions."

7:"The sun's 'followers' or 'disciples' are the 12 signs of the zodiac, through which the sun must pass."

8:"The sun is 'anointed' when its rays dip into the sea."

9:"The sun 'changes water into wine' by creating rain, ripening the grape on the vine and fermenting the grape juice."


10:The Sun "Walks on Water" referring to its reflection .

11:The Sun "Calms the Sea" as it "rests on the boat of Heaven."

12:"When the sun is annually and monthly re-born, he brings life to the 'solar mummy,' his previous self, raising it from the dead."

13:The Sun triumphantly "Rides an Ass and her Foal" into "The City of Peace" when it enters the sign of Cancer, which contains two stars called "Little Asses" ,and reaches its fullness.

14:"The sun is the 'Lion' when in Leo, the hottest time of the year, called the 'throne of the Lord.'

15:"The sun is 'betrayed' by the constellation of the Scorpion, the backbiter, the time of the year when the solar hero loses his strength."

16:"The sun is 'crucified' between the two thieves of Sagittarius and Capricorn."

17:"The sun is hung on a cross, which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter."

18:The Sun Darkens when it "Dies": "The Solar god as the sun of evening or of Autumn was the suffering, dying sun. or the dead sun buried in the netherworld.

19:"The sun does a 'stutter-step' at the winter solstice, unsure whether to return to life or 'resurrect,' doubted by this 'twin' Thomas."

20:The sun is "With us always, to the Close of the Age" (Mathew 28:20) , Referring to the ages of the precession of the Equinoxes.

21:The sun is the 'Light of the World,' and 'comes on clouds, and every eye shall see him.' "


22:The Sun wears a Corona, or "Crown of thorns", or Halo.

23:The Sun is called the "Son of the Sky (God), "All-Seeing",and "the Comforter.""Healer""Saviour', "Creator" "Preserver" "The Ruler of the World" , and "Giver of Daily Bread."

24: "The sun is the Word or Logos of God."

25: The All-Seeing sun, or the "Eye of God", was considered the Judge of the living and the dead who returned to Earth "On a white Horse."

She Compares Jesus to the following gods, claiming each has a near identical life story, as all of them are based on the sun, and Jesus Christ is a plagiarism of them.


Adad of Assyria Adonis, of Greece Apollo, of Greece Heracles ("Hercules") of Greece Zeus of Greece Alcides of Thebes Attis of Phrygia Baal of Phoenicia Bali of Afghanistan Beddru of Japan Buddha of India Crite of Chaldea Deva Tat of Siam Hesus of the Druids Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34 Indra of Tibet/India Jao of Nepal Krishna of India Mikado of the Sintoos Mithra of Persia Odin of the Scandinavians Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece Quetzalcoatl of Mexico Salivahana of Bermuda Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35) Thor of the Gauls Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36 Wittoba of the Bilingonese Xamolxis of Thrace Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia Zoar of the Bonzes



Criticisms

The claims of Acharya S have been criticized for a number of reasons. The below links will give you the source for each Criticism. Her detractors say:

  • Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims.
  • Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, inaccurate, and outdated sources to prove her point.
  • Her work shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, and in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

See below for verification, and visit the links for further detail.

Of Particular interest are her claims concerning Lord Krishna and the Buddha, which is the theme of her second book, “Suns of God”, where she compares them with Christ to show the parallels, and how the three are all really the same story.

These Similarities are refuted. For instance, On risenJesus, for instance, Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is quoted as giving a rebuttal to Acharya’s claims Concerning Krishna.


a. Similarities to Krishna Ms. Murdock contends that Jesus as crucified savior was merely borrowed from other religions. For her, one of the most striking similarities is found with Krishna, the Hindu god. Indeed, her forthcoming book, "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" expounds on this position.(21)

What about Ms. Murdock’s claim that Krishna is so similar to Jesus that Christianity must have borrowed from Hinduism? Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University is a scholar on Hinduism. As of the writing of this paper, he has just translated the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) for Peguine World Classics and is currently writing a book to be titled, In Quest of Historical Krishna.

When I informed him that Ms. Murdock wrote an article claiming that Krishna had been crucified, he replied, "That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion."(22) He also added that Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in the heal. He died and ascended. It was not a resurrection. The sages who came there for him could not really see it.(23)

Then I read a statement by Ms. Murdock from her article "Krishna, Crucified?" an excerpt from her forthcoming book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.(24) In it she states, "it appears that Krishna is not the first Indian god depicted as crucified. Prior to him was another incarnation of Vishnu, the avatar named Wittoba or Vithoba, who has often been identified with Krishna." To this Bryant responded, "She doesn’t know what she’s talking about! Vithoba was a form of Krishna worshipped in the state of Maharashtra. There are absolutely no Indian gods portrayed as crucified." Then he became indignant and said, "If someone is going to go on the air and make statements about religious tradition, they should at least read a religion 101 course."(25)

Later I emailed him regarding her 24 comparisons of Krishna to Jesus which the reader may find in The Christ Conspiracy.(26) He stated that 14 of her 24 comparisons are wrong and a 15th is partially wrong.(27) What about her 9 _ that are correct; especially Krishna’s virgin birth, the story of the tyrant who had thousands of infants killed (a parallel to Herod), and Krishna’s bodily ascension? Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth, childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary developments in India, "[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name."(28) Bryant also comments that these parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes the former "to be prior to the 7th century AD (although many scholars have hitherto considered it to be 11 century AD."(29) Yet this is hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date. However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in circulation.(30) An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of but that it may be as early as the second century.(31) Even if this early date is accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires.

Ms. Murdock further claims that Christianity has failed in India because "the Brahmans have recognized Christianity as a relatively recent imitation of their much older traditions."(32) To this, Dr. Bryant simply commented, "Stupid comment."(33)

Ms. Murdock’s claim that Christianity has borrowed substantially from Hinduism is without merit. Her claims are false, unsupported, and exhibit a lack of understanding of the Hindu faith.


On the same site, her similarities to The Buddha are challenged. This time by Professor Chun-fang Yu, Chair of the Department of Religion at Rutgers University.


b. Similarities to Buddha In addition to Krishna, Ms. Murdock cites similarities between the Buddha and Jesus as an example of how Christianity has borrowed from Buddhism. As with Krishna, she lists 18 similarities Jesus shares with Buddha in The Christ Conspiracy.(34) Regarding these, I emailed Professor Chun-fang Yu, Chair of the Department of Religion at Rutgers. Dr. Yu has specialized in Buddhist studies. I listed the 18 similarities recorded by Ms. Murdock and asked if these were actual traditions of the Buddha. She replied writing, "None of the 18 [are] correct. A few, however, have some semblance of correctness but are badly distorted." She then listed a total of eight that had some similarities and provided details.(35) Dr. Yu ended by writing, "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism. It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. You should not honor [Ms. Murdock] by engaging in a discussion. Please ask [her] to take a basic course in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she does not know."

It is appropriate to mention here that Ms. Murdock claims to have mastered several religions. Her book, The Christ Conspiracy claims a mastery of Christianity and her new book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, with excerpts found on her web site also indicate that she believes Hinduism and Buddhism to be two other religions which she has mastered in terms of her knowledge of them. However, as we have seen, she is terribly ignorant of the actual traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism. And as we are about to see, she is likewise mistaken when it comes to her understanding of Christianity.


Other notable Critics of her book’s include Tekton ministries, a site which she has a particular Grudge against, claiming they harass her, her followings claiming the source as Non-credible.

On the site, J.P. Holding lists her “Similarities to the sun” and offers rebuttal to each point, illustrating problems with her analysis.



The next chapter contains the thesis that "the Son of God is the Sun of God," and has as its focus the pretense that the story of Christ is paralleled by sun mythology. This may not have dawned on you before, so let's look at some of the Achyiac reasoning behind this thesis [154-6]. Some of the parallels drawn are badly misinformed; thus:

1:"The sun 'dies' for three days at the winter solstice, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th." Is this meant to parallel something? If so, somebody is missing the target: Aside from the fact that 12/25 was a later choice of the church based on pagan thought rather than on Biblical data, the story is that Christ was born 12/25 -- not born again or resurrected.

2:"The sun at its zenith, or 12 noon, is in the house or heavenly temple of the 'Most High'; thus, 'he' begins 'his Father's work' at 'age' 12." Lots of problems with this one: First of all, the Hebrews reckoned what we call noon as the "sixth hour" of the day. Second, the sun hardly "begins" it's work at noon; it begins it's work at dawn. Third, related to that, noon isn't even "age" 12 for the sun; at that point the sun is around five to six hours "old," depending on the time of year. It's amazing how practical, hard data tends to overturn these wondrous parallels. Perhaps it is more likely that this story of Jesus alluded to has something to do with the fact that at 12, Jewish boys were considered to be taking steps into manhood and independence. Our Old Yeller chime replies:" Okay, obviously this guy is reconfirming my suspicion that he doesn't have a clue about Jewish religion or practices. A boy is "Bar Mitzvah" when he reaches his thirteenth birthday, while girls are Bat Mitzvah when they are twelve." Old Yeller is confirming his own ignorance. The Mitzvah ceremony is a later institution; in the first century, 12 was the age for boys to assume adult responsibilities, not 13. Skeptics are quite amusing when they anachronize uncritically. (And when they make funny word-game jokes, like this one: "To El-ect someone is to put them into a 'God' or a higher position. When you get married, you put a ring on. The ring represents the ring around Saturn. This is also the reason for the Round Crowns worn by the Kings. This is also the source of the Yammakah, the is worn by the Hebrews. Saturn in Greek is Kronos, or Chaos. Saturday comes at the end of the week and is associated with Chaos." Is there anyone out there that actually needs to have this nonsense disassembled?!? This nonsense, by the way, is lifted uncritically from a web page "dedicated to Jordan Maxwell and John Allegro and their research." Or: "The Sun is 'Most High' at 12 or noon, thus Jesus begins his ministry then." Confusing altitude with rank now?!? Are the Hebrew words for "high in rank" and "high in altitude" the same as our English words can be?!? Did Jesus begin his ministry at 12?!?)

3:"The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30 [degrees]; hence, the 'Sun of God' begins his ministry at 'age' 30." Whoops again: Luke 3:23 tells us that Jesus was about 30, not actually 30. (Old Yeller chimes in: "Arguing off the basis that the Biblical authors had no idea how old Jesus was? Sounds like self-defeating rationale to me. It seems that with Jesus mother, brother, and Jesus himself, someone would have known exactly how old he was..." This is not at all the case. In an era before desk calendars, only the wealthy could keep track of such things with accuracy; even in less-developed societies today, one's birthday is not known with perfect recollection! Consider that as recent as this century, there have been disputes over who the oldest person in a certain area is, because one candidate was a slave in the middle of the 1800s and there was no precise record of their birth!) 4:"The sun is the 'Lion' when in Leo, the hottest time of the year, called the 'throne of the Lord.' " What say? The hottest time of the year is called the "throne of the Lord"? By whom? Or is it Leo that is called that, and again, by whom? 5:"The sun is 'betrayed' by the constellation of the Scorpion, the backbiter, the time of the year when the solar hero loses his strength." (! - It sure fits well to put that "betrayed" in quotes! Using that word to describe what happens is a crime against language that deserves lethal injection!) 6:"The sun is hung on a cross, which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter." 'Scuse me, but for this analogy to work, wouldn't the sun at least have to go east to west part of the year, and north and south some other part of the year? Where does a cross fit in, other than in the imagination? (Old Yeller responds to this by offering pictures, lifted again uncritically from the Maxwell/Allegro site, showing the cross combined with a sun -- which proves nothing other than that it is possible to draw the concept Acharya has created! There is still no "cross" -- just a straight line, an arc across the heavens, that the sun traces east to west. Using nonsense like astrology, of course, one can draw an imaginary symbol of any type in the heavens, but the sun doesn't follow our whims in that regard. Old Yeller also advises us to check local churches for a circle around the cross representing "God's Sun" -- I haven't seen one yet. Have you?) 7:"The sun does a 'stutter-step' at the winter solstice, unsure whether to return to life or 'resurrect,' doubted by this 'twin' Thomas." Wow, this one really misses a fleet of boats! How did Jesus do a "stutter-step" at the winter solstice? How was he "unsure" whether to resurrect? Thomas wasn't his twin, and he didn't doubt until after the resurrection. Perhaps Achy needs to read the Bible itself rather than those horoscope charts she got off the counter at the 7-11.

Holding’s refutaiton include’s other issues with her book and premise.

Also among her critics is Dr. Robert Price, of the Jesus Seminar, and a ellow Christ Mythesist.

He is quoted as saying…

Extreme Biblical Studies It will surprise no one that 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 will turn out to be sophomoric. That is not to say it does not offer the reader a wealth of fascinating information, but this is all second-hand. The Christ Conspiracy is a sort of Mr. Hyde version of Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict, a patchwork of research notes. Ms. Murdock has read widely in the shadow world of what I like to call Extreme Biblical Studies, books written by eccentrics, freethinkers, and theosophists mainly in the 19th century and kept available today in coarsely manufactured reprint editions by obscure publishers. None of which should imply they are unworthy of regard: far from it! These delightful books are game preserves of otherwise extinct theories, some deservedly dead, others simply never widely known. And Murdock’s book, a rehash of points from these books, shares their faults as well as their virtues. Writing at second hand, she is too quick to state as bald-faced fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculations or complex inferences from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations. And sometimes she swallows their fanciful etymologies like so many shiny goldfish at a frat party. Worse yet, she just goofs here and there and betrays a lack of ability to weigh evidential claims.


In his review of her work, he also relates these criticisms.


Were the Druids really Buddhists? Godfrey Higgins thought so. He was a nineteenth century occultist who in his double volume Anacalypsis: The Saitic Isis ventured his own counterpart to Madame Blavatsky’s two two-parters, Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine, compendia of esoterica and wild etymology. Here and in another work, The Celtic Druids, he makes this identification, highly dubious to say the least, but apodictically laid down by Ms. Murdock. Was Augustine of Hippo a former Mandaean (p. 60)? Surely she means Manichean. 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!). Was Irenaeus a Gnostic (p. 60)? She accepts Higgins’s judgment that he was, mentioning Higgins’s observation that the church at Lyons had the Zodiac spread across it’s mosaic floor (did it?), an interesting but hardly conclusive bit of evidence. She neglects the intriguing part of Higgins’s speculation: he infers that Irenaeus believed Jesus was never crucified, and that, though church censors did their best to censor this belief from his writings, they missed a spot, where Irenaeus says Jesus died at age 50. Most readers have naturally assumed Irenaeus just meant Jesus was about 50 when he was crucified, itself a jolting oddity that discredits any claim Irenaeus might have had to be taken seriously as a source of information about Jesus. But Higgins read it to mean that Irenaeus thought Jesus passed age 33 without crucifixion and died peacefully many years after the supposed event. Fascinating, but a pretty wild speculation. 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. Was 1 Enoch written in 2400 BCE (p. 362, crediting Higgins this time, and his charting of the book’s astronomical coordinates)? Murdock imagines that one of the Book of Jashar pseudepigrapha (the three medieval ones or the modern one?) is the genuine article mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel, expelled from the canon by the authorities (p. 137). And here is her thumbnail solution of the vexing Synoptic problem: “It would seem, then, that the compiler of Mark used the Latin version of Marcion’s gospel, while Luke and Matthew used the Greek version, accounting for the variances between them” (p. 38). Murdock, you see, identifies Mark with Marcion, and she figures Mark must have written a Latin gospel because she has read that Mark’s gospel is written by someone whose native language is not Greek but Latin. This last is a garbled version of the well-known theory that Mark’s gospel might have been written in Rome because of borrowed Latinisms.


Crucified Saviors

One of the most intriguing claims made repeatedly not only by Murdock but by her sources and others dependent upon them (e.g., Kersey Graves, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours), is that among the mythical predecessors of Jesus as a crucified god were the Buddha, the blue-skinned Krishna (whom these authors always like to spell "Christna" or some such, just to smuggle their theory in ahead of time), and Dionysus. Is there any basis to these claims, which Murdock just drops like a ton of bricks? Again, she does not explain where they come from, much less why no available book on Buddha, Krishna, or Dionysus contains a crucifixion account. (It is absurd to suggest that any book on Eastern religion written today would be victem to ecclesiastical censorship!) If we want to know, we must delve into her footnotes, and then into their footnotes. Let's go.

Luckily, her principal sources, Higgins and T.W. Doane's Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions (originally published in 1882), do provide a bit of data. And the results are altogether more ambiguous than Murdock thinks. She seems to be impatient of scholarly niceties like evidence and inference. But we must not be. First, was the Buddha crucified? Not that I can see. The origin of this claim is a myth of Kama, the Hindu Eros/Cupid. Firing a love-arrow at a higher god, his outraged target hurled the shaft back, transfixing Kama to a treetrunk. Since the arrow must have implanted itself roughly at right angles with the tree, one could in a manner of speaking say that Kama had been crucified. Then after universal mourning ("I don't care what they say; I won't stay in a world without love."), the high god relents and raises Kama to life. Now this is interesting. It is an apparently pre-Christian resurrection parallel, and it is significant. Barbara G. Walker has pointed out the parallel between Longinus spearing the side of the crucified Jesus and the Norse god Hother killing Baldar with Loki's dart (Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, p. 549). Like it or not, one can demonstrate the wide dispersion of ancient Indo-European myth and language from India to Ireland (see Jaan Puhvel's Comparative Mythology, 1987), with a lot of archaic Greek-Semitic interchange to boot. It is not out of the question to see a genuine link between myths here, between Christ, Baldar, and Kama.

But what does Kama have to do with the Buddha? Nothing I can see. The identification seems to stem mainly from Higgins's desire to see all gods as avatars, synonyms of one another in the service of the theosophical notion that all ancient traditions were esoterically the same. Similarly, Higgins (Anacalypsis, volume 1, p. 230) relates the discovery by an early missionary to Nepal of a likeness of a figure on a cross of leafy shafts. The Nepalese explained that it was the ancient Vedic god Indra, who according to myth, had been thus crucified, with visible wounds on hands, feet, and forehead, all in punishment for his sneaking into Paradise and stealing a piece of fruit. Doane (p. 187) adds that the nail-pierced Indra was revered by the Nepalese as having redeemed humanity with his blood. The Jesuits ascribed all this to hypothetical Manichean influence, and I wonder if we may nominate Nestorian missionaries, too. Doane dismissed any thought of Western influence on the gratuitous ground that, in general, Hindu religion is older than Christian. At any rate, the next time Higgins mentions the Nepalese crucifix, it has become "Indra or Buddha" (p. 444), and then later Buddha pure and simple. I do not think we have here sufficient grounds for saying that the Buddha's legend, like that of Jesus, included crucifixion.

But what does Kama have to do with the Buddha? Nothing I can see. The identification seems to stem mainly from Higgins's desire to see all gods as avatars, synonyms of one another in the service of the theosophical notion that all ancient traditions were esoterically the same. Similarly, Higgins (Anacalypsis, volume 1, p. 230) relates the discovery by an early missionary to Nepal of a likeness of a figure on a cross of leafy shafts. The Nepalese explained that it was the ancient Vedic god Indra, who according to myth, had been thus crucified, with visible wounds on hands, feet, and forehead, all in punishment for his sneaking into Paradise and stealing a piece of fruit. Doane (p. 187) adds that the nail-pierced Indra was revered by the Nepalese as having redeemed humanity with his blood. The Jesuits ascribed all this to hypothetical Manichean influence, and I wonder if we may nominate Nestorian missionaries, too. Doane dismissed any thought of Western influence on the gratuitous ground that, in general, Hindu religion is older than Christian. At any rate, the next time Higgins mentions the Nepalese crucifix, it has become "Indra or Buddha" (p. 444), and then later Buddha pure and simple. I do not think we have here sufficient grounds for saying that the Buddha's legend, like that of Jesus, included crucifixion.


Please vidit links below for more detail.



Post

I'll post this friday, if no one objects. It's filled withthe citations, may morify it slightly to include the page numbrs in her book where spacific claism are made.But its nto goign to look too differentthant he above.


So, now, all the Critisisms are verified to coem form other people, and those other peopel will be linked, dispite Acharya's hatred of them in the case of RisenJesus and Tekton Ministries.

This will give a Christian responce to a Critic of CHristianity, and a critisism by a fwllow CHrist Mythger. I could nto find support pf her book that was substantial, just vaug praise like " Shes brillaint" and " She expses the truth" and " Shes the greatest schilar of all time". Nothign of worth that gives merit to the book itsself.

If anyone finds anythig like that let me know.


Note to 216-


Cute. "See Followign Christain Apologist" line...

I am a Jorunalist. I am invovled here for the sake of accuracy. If you woidl sto; rootign for Acharya and look a thtis objectively, you woudl relaise that just rpesentin the image she presents thr world on her website, and sil;encign all oposition, and aceptign ehr clais uncriticlaly , is the Antithesis of Unbiased reporting.

Again, I cannto claim she is a Historian. Why? Because she hodls no degree in Hisotry and is not recognised as a Hisotrian, and doesnt work for any institution that delves in hisotry.


Linguist? Well, can you provide any evidence she works in languages?Speakign them doesnt count.I sdpeak Hebrew, Latin, and German, as wlel as English. Does that make me a Linguist? Of coruse not!

Religiosu Scholar? Please, she has no degree in Theology and has shown an abysmal lack of understandign both the Hisotry and philosophy that undergirds each religion she speaks of, and tirs to lonk it all with Astorlogy in absurd ways using forced parrallels and often false attributions. She doesnt hold a posiiton in any known Institution that makes her a rleigious scholar. She doesnt hold any known degre in theology. She shows no competance in discussing rleigion when she makes her points.

How is she a rleigiosu scholar?

Arehcologist? Gve me a break. Ive been to a Paelontology dig, I heped excavate some boens in Hell Creek. Does this make me a Paleontologist? No, and Dorothy is not an Archeologist just because she had her own Trench in Athens as a Grad student.

This isnt apologetics, and the Isony is that you ar eengagign in apologetics to defend her. Every claim she makes you uncriticlaly accept as truth. But on a neutral venue, you cant just support Acharya S and ignroe her critics.

You have now done exaclty what she does, prove your hypocracy.

You resort to personal attakcs just liej she does in her "rebuttal" to Robert Price and J.P. Holdign, yet she, and you, fial to really bakc up anyhtign she says or address the poitns made to counter her.

Just referign to me as a Christyain Apologist to smear me doesnt make my complaints magiclaly go away.


Now stop vandalising the aritcle because it doesnt rwad in faovur of Acharya S and start thinkign this out.


The plder articles includs soem critisim, the one I am planning will be a deeper expose on how fraudulent she is, because we can objectivley rpove she is a fraud. This sint unbias, thissint an attmept tp prove shes a fraud, she proves herself a fraud by her use of bad Eptymolofgies, ridiculosu allogations, Use of outdated soruces, and false claims. FUrther her use of Ad Hom attakcs is not goign to make the problems with her thesis disapear.


Your inconsistency is astonishing. Before you whined about redundancy because of a couple of direct links to pertinent articles on her website (there's already a link to her website, you said)... While now, instead of simply adding some critical links, you're also pasting entire sections directly into the article! Ha!

What ever happened to "This is not about her work"??

Re: Every claim she makes you uncriticlaly accept as truth.

What the heck are you talking about? Perhaps you are projecting your own sense of blind devotion onto others, I don't know. (You are Christian, correct?)

You keep insisting that you used to be a reporter. I'm impressed, if true. It is a bold choice of profession, considering your severe dyslexia.

What was the name of the now defunct newspaper that published the article you wrote on Acharya? What was the exact date of its publication? Could you send me a copy of the article via email? Thanks. myusenetaccount@mailsent.net

the story can be sent to other papers I have contacts with, Such as the Washingtom Post, or the New York Times, or USA Today.

Do you relaly want me to do that?

Again, you are tempting me to.

Is that another one of your threats?? That is really uncalled for.

And it says alot about the confidence you have in your arguments that you feel you have to resort to those sorts of tactics to try to get your own way.

Regarding article content: I think a simple description of who she is and a basic summary about her work is fine. The article I've been reverting to suits that purpose. If you have a problem with it, please be specific in your criticisms.

May I ask, if you are so concerned about promoting acharya, why did you write the article in the first place? She seems to be the sole focus of your attention here on wikipedia. I know, I know, it's not like you're 'stalkign' her as you repeatedly reassure us (which I find kind of creepy, considering the various threats you've been making).... but seriously, what gives?


Perspnal attacks on my charecter aside...

Lets just discuss the article, not your personal attacks.

OK, the reaosn I added thigns abotu her work is simple. YOU won't leave the aritlce alone and inssit on it. Im not beign inconsistant. Im giving you what you want. You want this article to be abeu how whs clelary prpven, wihtout a DOUBT, THAT jESUS cRIST IS APLAGERISED pAGAN MYTH, AND CALL THE BIT ABOTU HW RLIFE "TRITE." YOU ALSO INSISTED i ACXCURACLTY QUOTE HER IN CONTEXT.


The Bullet list about the sun and its "Similarities" to Jesus encapsulates her whole argument, form a book that is 417 pages in length, omiting the Index and Bibliogrpahy.


Her entire book rests on this, and since you INSISTED on makign this abotu how brilliant a scholar she was and a "Breif descriptin fo her work", I now give her work, and sicne you INSISTED I credit her critics, I quotethem at length.


Syaing this is me beign inconsistant is absurd. I wanted to offer a brief sample of the Critisism to her work. You said these where my critissms because, guess what? I didnt give exact quotes form Critics. Fine. I give exact quotes form Critics and then you tuirn around and say this is unfair becausae "its not abotu her work." Well, again, your the one who asked for it. Which was do yo want it? Do you want it to include an analysis of her work, including quotatiosn and citationz form her critics? Or do you want it to be abot egr lif givign pnly a brief reflection fo what others ar saying? Make uo YOUR mind. this sint me beign inconsistant, I am giving you what you asked for. Now not a single on of the criticism is uncited, and each is a direct quote, JUST LIJE YOU ASKED FOR.


As to my whole intent on Wikipedia beign to smear Acharya, grow up. Ive contributed to the Kent Hovind page, and did nto promote him either,. I think ehs a fraud too.

I also write the aerticle, the origionall article, on Alexander Hislop, who is, Ironiclaly, one of Acharya's soruces. ( See her Bibliogrpahy.)

I also did the Article on Kersey Graves. I have a hobby interest in Dinosaurs and crackpots. Dinosaurs are pretty well covdred on wikipedia, but not Crackpots.

My religiosu affiliation sint relevant here eithr. You may think only Christaisn woudl "Want to smear her", but even Phi Beta, who is an Atheist. thoght hte Criticism where valid.

This is not me tryign to si;lence a critic of my faith. THis is me tryign tobe hoenst and fair in an assessment of her.

Now, will you answer MY critisism?


1: How is she a religiosu Shcolar? Writting two books on rleigion doesnt make you a religiosu scholar, especially sicne the books where Popular books not subjec tto Peer review, in whichthe author condmens any critism of, and refuses to submit to any institution or jorunal for reveiw. She has no credentials int he feild of Religiosu study.She doesnt work for a religous instituion as a scholar. She doesnt hold a chair in a University as a religious scholar. Shes nto a religiosu scholar, she just wrote twobooks on rleigion. Actors dothis. They arent rleigiosu scholars either.


2: Again, how is she a Linuist? I soeak German, Latin, and Hebrew, as well as English. Does this make me a Linguist? if not, why is Acharya?

3:How is she a Historian? She doesnt hold a degree in Hisotry, she doesnt work at a University twahcign Hisotry or performing any researhc into Hisotry, she doesnt work for any accredited Institution that deals with historical studies, and she doesnt even seem to have a grasp OF Hisotry as she tlak about "Goddess worship" as if it relay was widespread as a European religiosu practive before "Patriarchy." BEign able to Parrot New Age gibbirish doesnt make you a Historian.


4: Again, she is an arhceologist how? Because she went on a student Dig in Athens, Greece? Big deal, I went to Hell Creek Colorodo and helped dig up SDinosaurs. I'm not a Paleontologist though,a nd dotn claim ti be.

Where is her degree in Archeology? WHat Institution has hirted her? What University has her as a CHair? WHy call her an Archeologist of she lacks any real Credential to be caleld such?

Dorothy lacks any and every credential she claism.So why reinscert them?


Why asusme that only Christains think her work is useless and fnatical? The Fortean times sint friendly to CHristainity, and THEY called her work " One of the wort book s on the subject." Bob Proce called her work Sophomoric. Atheists dotn liek her work any more htan Christaisn do.

You may get togathe with her supporters and convence yourselves that shds Brilliant, exposes the truth, and any raitonal person wpudl be clalry convneced by her argument, so that only Apologist CHristaisn wudl challenge her, and she can easily rebuttal them, but again, read her rebuttals. Tgey ar laced withcheap persoanl attakc and fialt to even address the potns raised by her detractors. They arent even real rebuttals, they are smear tactics designed to minimise her critics.


I'll say it again, her "Rebutal" to Bob Price includes " He likes Lovecrafy Horror so cant complain abotu Mystisism." Well, thats just stupid! Again, what the man reads as Entertainment has bo barign on how he perceives the real world.


Wanna tlak Holding? OK, her "Rebuttal" to him basiclaly calls him " A Gay Nazi FOr CHist" ( And I knwo she said " SHe woudlnto clal him that" but she did call him that by even typign it...)

It calld him a Neanderthal.

It went out of its way to smear alL Christasn everywhre.

But it dodnt address a single poitn he made.


And RisenJesus. OK, you think Tekton shoudl nto be included dispite the fact hat onYahoo the second link on a searhc engine if you type in "Acharya S" is his site and he has the most detialed refutaiton of her.All because you lciam hes Biased, as if Dorothy is unbiased.

Now, what, exaclty, is wrogn with RisenJesus? The origional link posted? And why arent you postign any real answers to my concenrs?

Ive been spacific in my compalints. You may pretend toy didnt read them, but I have been.


Above I posted spacific critisisms to your verison as well. IE, that it doenst speak of her havign any detractors, and leaves the casual reader htinking that her works are soemhow not contested.

I also point out she snon of the htings she cliasm to be.


Want ot get overtchnical?

Ive posted spacific critisisms, now deal with them and answer them BEFORE you revert the article.

Now

You said that theCritisisms, in order to stand, shoudl be qyuotesfrom her critics, fully cited, in order to stand and not be mine. I made them such. Why do you object? You say I am beign inconsistant, but in relaity uoui are. I didnt wan tot go out of my way and make long unnessisary quotes. Just the gist was OK with me. But you insisted I quote her at lenght and her critics at length. So I did.

Then you turn aroudn and say I am beign inconsistant becausd I said ts not abotu her work.


Also, I notice, you sdidnt compalin abotu me quotign, at lenght, her sun god items? Let me guess, it can stay in, and the criticsisms cant.


Relaly, tis painfully obviosu by now that anyhtign that adovctaes her will be left in the article, while actual critiissms of her work will be omited.

You woudlnt mind if the "Sun similaities" where left in, woidl you? then why complain about the Critisms? They are vlaid becausw htis is what peoepl say. They arent redundant because they ar eint eh body of the article, as opposed to beign in the links, where you cna go to get yet more.


Now stiopbellyaching and start tyrign to answer my objecitosn, rather than say that I need spacific critisisms of the arilc as you wrote it, even though Ive given spacifics already.

Let's settle this

Until we can work out a consensus version, I propose that we construct a temporary fix version: Use James' revision as of 04:13, 27 September 2005, and add in the Criticism section from Zarove's revision as of 20:34, 26 September 2005. I believe that this is a good compromise of completeness and readability, which can serve until we work out a more permament compromise. I also propose that both Zarove and James cease and desist editing the article and hash out their differences on the talk page. I also request that Zarove make every attempt to make her talk page posts as readable as possible - write them in a word processor, use spell check and grammar check, proofread them, maybe get a friend to proofread them. I understand you have dyslexia, but throw us a friggin' bone here! crazyeddie 16:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

James, do we have sources for the biographical information? Does she describe herself as "an historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist"? Religious scholar, historian, mythologist, archaelogist seem to be fairly self-explanatory (if a bit grandiose, perhaps), given her education and career, but is it established that she is a linguist, or considers herself to be such? Also, do we have sources for her education and career? crazyeddie 17:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I made a small edit. Removed her grandstanding, replaced the less bias and faovurable extenral lins section.

Her Bio informaiton is in the Paranoia Magazine Interview she granted. HEr credentials are on the Franklin and Marshal site.

As for the F&M, Ill check, as it is on their. But Im with the flu right now, so I may have to wait till my visitor leaves in three or so days. ZAROVE 19:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

She's a Ba in Classics. She's not a Linguist, Archeologist, Historian, or religiosu Scholar.

Thansk for the attemto to help thogu Ed, but keep in mind, just ebcause she claism soemthign doesntmake it true.

First rule of the Wikipedia: Understanding is a three-edged sword. Just because God Himself claims something doesn't make it true, but we can attribute that belief to Him. (Oh, I'm an atheist by the way, just clearing that up.) If she self-describes herself as a "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist", we can say that she self-describes herself as such. crazyeddie 17:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist" claim is made by Paranoia magazine itself, not Acharya. Of course, it is likely that this information came from Acharya, but let's assume that Paranoia did some fact-checking. This faith might well be misplaced, but at least this information isn't coming from just Acharya. Do you have a more specific link for the Franklin & Marshall site? I'd rather not have to dig through the entire site just to get to Acharya's bio page. crazyeddie 17:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Paranoia Magazine ddnt do anyhtign but take her word for it. Its nto exaclty rpeutable itsself.
Again, look at the above ocmments.
How is she any of those thigns? Shes a "Religiosu shcolar" because she wrte two books on religion! thats how she can cpalim that.
Coem on Ed, this snt abotu a devout Christain tryign to silence an Atheist writter. I leave alone Earl Dourghtery's artulce and Freke and Gandy's. And the claim that Im just after Acharya is dirdidulous as I authored KErsye GRaves's article as well. Not to mention a coulel of others.
The bototm line is she has no degrees in any of those frields.

Let me get this straight: a publication is called Paranoia Magazine, which apparently doesn't have an article on Wikipedia already, and, if I'm not mistaken, has a picture of an UFO on the cover, and you're telling me that it isn't a reputable publication? I'm shocked!

Seriously, my impression of Acharya, which I developed about three seconds after coming across this article, was "flake, but harmless". I'm an atheist, but I'm a mainstream atheist who is pretty sure that Jesus was, in fact, a historical figure. If she is saying that Buddha was crucified, then she is clearly in Tin Foil Hat Territory, since even the most casual student of Buddhism knows that Buddha died at a quite ripe old age of natural causes - his deathbed sermon is one of his most famous. That's assuming, of course, that she did say that Buddha was crucified, and that this allegation isn't a creation or misquote of her critics. This far out in the hinterlands of the fringe, anything is possible. Of course, I could verify this claim rather quickly by actually reading her book, but, on the whole, I think I would get more intellectual stimulation from reading the back of a box of cornflakes.

By listing these claimed accomplishments, saying who claimed them, then giving an account of her career based on a slightly more reputable source (which hopefully will be a closer approximation of what I laughingly call "reality"), a certain dissonance just might appear. This dissonance might well give the discerning reader (i.e., one who has more than two brain cells to rub together for warmth) some indication of the nature of Ms. Acharya's career to date. From this, some speculations might arise as to the academic value of Ms. Acharya's magnum opus.

And, the best part is, all of this is unimpeachable NPOV. So, yeah, if you could get me the link for her college bio page, that would be great. crazyeddie 22:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Well, take for example her claims about Krishna, obviously at odds with modern mainstream Hinduism.... except she's not necessarily talking about modern, mainstream Hinduism. Hinduism, like Christianity, is not homogenous; it has a variety of sects, texts and traditions, some less well known than others. If you look on the page Zarove references below, you will see that she mentions the use non-canonical texts, for example. IOW, she does not limit her study to mainstream religious texts and beliefs. In her errata for 'The Christ Conspiracy', she directs readers to "Suns of God" for a more thorough exposition of her views on this subject. (Zarove hasn't read that book.) So the crticisms are akin to writing a bit about snake dancing and speaking in tongues in a book on Christianity, then being criticised because "most Christians don't believe in that stuff". Well who said they did! But it is a part of Christianity.
Similarily, Buddhism is not a homogenous religion either. The point is that it's easy to take something out of context, something that seems obviously wrong on the surface, and condemn it without examining what the writer is actually writing about. It may be found that the writer is delving deep into the subject and turning up little known facts. Laypeople who have never heard of these facts are quick to say "well that's obviously wrong", simply because it contradicts what they already know and believe. (Of course, she also argues that religions are rife with contradictions...)
In other words, the whole "it contradicts well known facts about hinduism" etc. is a straw man argument.

^^James^^ 00:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


ZAROVE 03:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) She did say Buddha was Crucified.

Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.38e He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."

See this page.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Zar

ZAROVE 03:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon's edits

anon from 216.166.246.178 edited the article to make it look hilarious. POV Compliments!!!! From whom? While it is perfectly ok to have solid rebuttals, adding a section titled "POV compliments" makes the article a joke. Also, it raises the question, compliments from whom? So anon, if you have to put rebuttals, please word them carefully and add to a rebuttal section, without launching more personal attacks. You are most welcome to add to this article in constructive ways. Thanks. --Ragib 21:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It occurs to me that anon 216 might be the subject of this article. Several times when the debate first grew, comments suggested that some of her "disciples" were in contact with her about the content here. This is just a guess, of course, but I would like to invite her to sign in and explain.

However, you do have to like the irony of her most recent edit where she complains about how "anonymous rebuttal" is no rebuttal at all, since her whole career appears to be an atttempt to anonymously rebut Christianity. alteripse 10:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Me Time

She is ortchestratign the changes, to make sure the article reads as a Commercial, and therefore she prefers nto to allow any CHristian repsonce to her work, as they are "Bias". we can't veen mention problems to her premise, because tis "rock olid" and ptroves "Without a Doubt" that Jesus was a myth...


How dare you incompetent cretens chalenge her...(Sarcasm...)

ALso, sorry all for my own behaviour in some instances. I lost ,y cool, namely because I do care abotu Neutral content on thsi Encyclopedia, and because I knew ful well that Acharya and her Disiples wheren't going to allow Neutrality.I wanted even the casua reader to get an accrurate veiw of her. This is seen as Biased by the Followwers of Acharya, because it doesnt endlessly rpaise her and makes her look rather a bit like a Fraud. Unfortunatley, these are the real facts.


As I said, if shes " A Historian, Linguist, Religous Scholar, and Archeologist", then I'm a "Statesman, Historian, English Scholar, and Paleontologist."

After all, I have given political tlaks to people, have a Masters in Jorunalism, have read many thigns in Hisotry books as its a hobby of mine, and been to Hell Creek to dig Dinosaur Bones.ZAROVE 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that you have comparable credentials. Her puffery to impress the uninformed, the intellectual cowardice of her pseudonymous religious bigotry, and the dishonest claims of her disciples here make make it really hard to ignore this silly article about (in my opinion) a silly person. alteripse 16:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear James- Again...

Well, take for example her claims about Krishna, obviously at odds with modern mainstream Hinduism.... except she's not necessarily talking about modern, mainstream Hinduism. Hinduism, like Christianity, is not homogenous; it has a variety of sects, texts and traditions, some less well known than others. If you look on the page Zarove references below, you will see that she mentions the use non-canonical texts, for example. IOW, she does not limit her study to mainstream religious texts and beliefs.


And, as her soruce is "The worlds 16 Crucified Saviours" by Kersye Graves, who seems to have not rlelay referenced this at all, I doubt that its een as particulaly impressive.


Have you read Suns of God? Your criticism is based on the few scraps on the subject found in Christ Con. She expanded the subject into a whole book, which you haven't read!


In her errata for 'The Christ Conspiracy', she directs readers to "Suns of God" for a more thorough exposition of her views on this subject.


No one cares James. Your apologetics excersises to vendicate Acharya do not negete the need ot ba;lance the aritlce. You still havent told why "RisenJesus" was a "Fringe Christain Site" and shoudl be excluded. Form what Ic an tell Tekton Ministires, the largest site ont he topic, and theseocnd link when you type in "Acharya S" in Yahoo, is removed, it seems, because you hate J.P.Holding.

Bob Price is left in, so long as Acharya's "rebutal" is also linked imediatley after. Makign her ssite linked two to three times,which is redundant.


With all your blustering about scholarship and credibility, it's funny that you put so much stock in these guys. Sheesh. And where do I say I 'hate' Robert Turkel? You're putting words in my mouth, a common smear tactic.
I have to laugh: You dedicate more lines in the articles to her critics, not only linking to them, but even paraphrasing their bogus arguments, then complain about a couple extra links to Acharyas site! Talk about blatant inconsistency! You say you want "casual readers to get an accrurate veiw of her"... in other words: your view of her. You want to prove to everyone that Acharya is a "crackpot" as you've put it. Sorry! Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox!


o, whgat we have is this. No CHristain site will be recognised as they ar eall "Fringe", and only a Fellow Mytheisst will be seen as Critical. Noen of his Critisisms will make it intot he acutal body of th atucle, and the reader iwll know Acharya has Rebuttaled him. ( If you call a long scathing rant a rebutal, she didnt address his points, or Holdings on her "Rebttal" t him either...)


I will discuss any site you suggest on their merits. I've said so before, but it seems you can't resist misrepresenting my arguments and putting words in my mouth... a common smear tactic. Note that I've not objected to Robert Price's article, even though I don't necessarily agree with him.


CHristains cant tlak, they are Bias becausehtey beleive Jesus was rela and rose fothe Dead. Btu Acharya is OK to quote...

Of course she is! She is the subject of the article! Lol. Again, stop putting words in my mouth. That's three times already. Just because they are Christians doesn't mean that their views and credentials shouldn't be challenged. You've sure challenged Acharyas, but don't seem to be too concerned about those of her critics... another inconsistency, suggesting... ?

In a porposed aritlce, which I am now serisouly contemplatign adding, I gave exacting Criticsms and their sources. ( this way you cat sya they are bogus and uncited.) Your repsonce tothis was that its "redundant" and not fair, even thoguh this is what you asked for.

Ummm... no. I've argued this point on two levels. One: this is not the place to debate the minor details she may or may not have gotten wrong, nor is it the place for the Christ-myth debate, or the Historocity of Jesus debate. As I've said a number of times, it should have a bit about her, a bit about her work, and some relevant links, including credible critiques and rebuttles. What's wrong with that?
On another level, I've attacked the criticisms themselves for a variety of reasons. ie: they're not sourced, the sources turn out to be bad, they're nitpiky over minor details, the premise for many of the arguments are just plain false straw men arguments etc etc.

Its very aparent now that you are a vandal. You just wnt the aritlce to sing the priases of Acharya. Yoru earliest efforts, along wit your confederates, made he rout to be a Brillaint shcolar who cannot be challenged, and wose conclusions ar eproven fact. Nwo you will settle for a glowing, warm and fuzzy artilce talkign aboty hiw brlliant she is, and highly credentialed, and how her book is a synthesis of Comparative Mytholgy works and other mytgical texts. ( Even thouh it fdoesnt use any mythical texts, according to TCC's Bibliogrpahy, and the "Comparative religion" books are near universlay Freehtoguth works... most fo which discredited.)


Try to tar me as a vandal all you like. After we settled the name issue, we had a decent version up, then you came along and started changing things. So... I guess that makes you the vandal.
Re:You just wnt the aritlce to sing the priases of Acharya. etc...
You are putting words in my mouth... again. Can't you stick to the facts? Please stop misrepresenting my views, and stop trying to paint me as her 'disciple' etc. Can't you keep from getting personal?

James, leave this alone. You cant just make her out to be a bruilliant shcolar whose conclusiosn ar euncontested and irrefutable. Thats not neutral and unbais unless proven, and clelary Acharya is not a proven Schoalr and her case is not decidedly facutal.

More words in my mouth. I guess that's your only recourse? Allows you to avoid addressing what I actually write? A cowardly move and a common smear tactic.

Rather than lie tot he world to protect your Idol, lets have a neutral article shall we?

Accusing me of lying now? You have no shame.


(Zarove hasn't read that book.)


Do I need to? its just more of the same.

LOL! Soooo telling....


So the crticisms are akin to writing a bit about snake dancing and speaking in tongues in a book on Christianity, then being criticised because "most Christians don't believe in that stuff". Well who said they did! But it is a part of Christianity.


Yes a part. And if the book says its part of CHristainity thats fine. The problem is that Achara cannto show us where, exaclty, in Hindu tradition Krishna is said ot be Crucified. Even in "Krishna, Crucified?" She relates a stroy of how he was shot with several arrows and died reclinign agaisnt a tree.

Thats not the same as Crucifiction.


Acharya may like to sya it is, but tis not.

And you didn't notice the question mark at the end of the chapter title? Ever heard of a variation on a theme? A similar motif?? Here's the excerpt from the chapter for anyone who wants to compare what she actually writes to how zarove has characterizes it above.


Similarily, Buddhism is not a homogenous religion either.


But where in any Buddhist texts does it say Buddha was Crucified? I'm pretty sure hsi lie story is relatively similar in eahc varient...


Oh, so this debate is because you feel "pretty sure" about what you know. Your gut feelings? Egads. I'm "pretty sure" you don't know what you're talking about.

The point is that it's easy to take something out of context, something that seems obviously wrong on the surface, and condemn it without examining what the writer is actually writing about.


Maybe you miss the point.

Let me reexpalin.

Wikipedia is relatign what other peopel are sayign abotu Acharya S. Thus, Wikipedia palces Critisisms intot he article.


So when you write that "people say: shoddy scholarship" in the criticisms section, I should write a rebuttles section: "people say: excellent scholarship". That would be funny, but ridiculous. Sheesh. I'm surprised that so many here can't seem to see the obvious absurdity of having such sweeping statements included.


Again, thsi si not a debate. If it where, Acharya woidl be in real toruble as she, and you, wodil need ot show how anyhtign she wites is true. Rememebr, she makes the claims, not her critics, in this isnatnce. Show us Krishsna, crucified! Shwo us Buddha, born of a Virign on December 25!

Read her second book dedicated to the parallels between Krishna, Buddha and Christ, and see for yourself what she says about the subject before you presume to be able to debate her on it. :P

It may be found that the writer is delving deep into the subject and turning up little known facts.


Or it may be that she's just plucking whatever works for her ut of outdated books written by excentirc nuts fom the 19th century... you kno, whatever.

Guess what... the bible is "outdated"! Lol!

ut again, let me ask this James.


Do her critics make these charges agaisnt her work? If so, then it is obviosu why Wikipedia says her critics make these charges.


Laypeople who have never heard of these facts are quick to say "well that's obviously wrong", simply because it contradicts what they already know and believe. (Of course, she also argues that religions are rife with contradictions...)


But no one cares.

Because her critics are saying that she doesnt knwo anyhtign abotu Buddhism, Hinduism, ect...


Get it yet? Arguign with us over this won't change the fact that Bob Proce, RisenJEsus, and Rueger University say shes wrong. Thats why its in Wikipeida, to balance the arutlce out.

Ummm... there are others who do care, and say she's 'right'! Should I put that in there? As I've said, it would be ridiculous, but I'll do it. And in fact, Robert Price agrees with her major tenets. I've not read the Rueger University review. Please supply it. Or are you refering to the straw man argument of risenjesus.com, where they sent some prof a list and asked if it comformed to mainstream hindu beliefs?? Then see my straw man discussion above.
Speaking of RisenJesus.com, that website is trying to "prove" that jesus really died and really did come back to life three days later! Personally, I prefer the sun allegory. It neatly explains the origins of the story: the sun metaphorically dies at the winter solstice (Dec 21/22), then three days later (Dec 25th) starts visibly moving again in its seasonal journey, each day rising to a higher point in the sky. It has come back to life, has been resurrected, has been reborn! And so the villagers rejoice and celebrate! RisenJesus indeed! Happens every year.

In other words, the whole "it contradicts well known facts about hinduism" etc. is a straw man argument.


Take it p with Bob Price and tekton Ministies and RusenJesus and Ruetger University. Wikipeidia just rpeorts what pthers say about her, if you cant understand that, then I feel sorry for you.

Forgot to sign. ZAROVE 01:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that wikipedia blindly repeats "what others say", no matter the quality of what they say, nor the credentials of who's saying it. I guess I really don't understand. Hey admins... is this truly the case? Can I post a quote from any hack w/ a web site and insist that it be included because it's what "someone" is saying????


^^James^^ 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

James, you do so this. You post form Acharya abotu Christ obviously nto existing. She lacks any real Credential, and has no realevidence ot bacxk her claims.

ZAROVE 13:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

66.183'S COMMENTS.

The article is about her! Of course it's going to give a little blurb on what she writes about! Maybe you shouldn't have written the article in the first place if you didn't want anybody to know about her work.

Personally, I think that if you want to debate whether Christ actually existed as a historical figure, go here or here. It's quite a big debate, and not likely to be settled on this little page. Simply describing her work and what it encompasses is not bias.

Regarding you continued accusation of vandalsim, this is considered an edit war... however what you are doing does fit the shoe:

Sneaky vandalism: Sneaky vandals are those users that think they can outsmart the wiki and put their little comments, misinformation, and typos on articles, without anyone noticing.

Misinformation that you try to slip under the radar with the transparent addendum that it's what "other people are saying".

Regarding your repeated threats and personal attacks:

We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed.

Regarding your agenda to tar Acharya as a "crackpot":

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.


66.183.168.152 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

mINE TO REPSOIND TO 66.183.

The article is about her! Of course it's going to give a little blurb on what she writes about! Maybe you shouldn't have written the article in the first place if you didn't want anybody to know about her work.


My origional article actually tells of her work, as have all subsequent articles. That is not the issue of contention. The issue of ocntention is how you and her other supporters try to whitewash her and make her appear to be more respected than she is. IE, you omit the critisisms to her work, and omit any problems to her owrk. You also seem to want to exagerate her improtance and credentials.


Rather than reflectign an unbias and neutral posiiton, you want the world to beleive she is as she claism, a " Historian, Linguist, Religious Shcolar, and Archeologist", while teling the owlrd hwo she has proven conclusively thwat Jeuss didnt exist. Your article revisions try to make her sound as if she is not even challenged seriosuly, which is a lie.

I agree that ehr owrk ought to be menitoned, but not whitewashed to give a fals eimpression.


Personally, I think that if you want to debate whether Christ actually existed as a historical figure, go here or here.


No one has thusfar debated this.


It's quite a big debate, and not likely to be settled on this little page. Simply describing her work and what it encompasses is not bias.


Nor is ist bias to tell of the critiissm to her work by others. This seems ot escape you. Also, I want to tell her real credentials and accomplishments, not the fluff she has onb her website abotu her hats unsubstantiated.

Again, beign a member of the ASOGSAG is not an accomplishment.

Nor does it make her an Archeologist.


And her works arent a sythesis of Comparatie religious thought, she wrote a conspiracy theory book comprosed of bias soruces, noen of which expert or promary, and she chose a book colleciton that agreed with her, which is Cherry picking.


Sheezsh for those hwo wan tot poitn to supposed Logical Fallacies in imaginary opponants in a non-existant debate, you certianly commit too many to keep track of.


Regarding you continued accusation of vandalsim, this is considered an edit war... however what you are doing does fit the shoe:


How so?


I try to make sure the Article is free form Bias and edit out false claims and POV Comments. I also remove the whitewash that maes her work look liek seriosu scholarship and allow the reader to knwo she has both been critiissed and holds no real credentials.


You, on the other hand, try to make her appear to be an uncgal.nged autority, queastioend only by Chfistain apologists because of their religiosu beleifs, who has clealry demonstrated Jesus doesnt exist. You also try to make her appear more accomplished than she is.


Basiclaly, you want a oen sides article that sings her priases, ansd ignores any potentially bads remakrk everer said of her. You want wqikipedia to be like her website, a promotion of her, not a neutral artucle abotu her.


Sneaky vandalism: Sneaky vandals are those users that think they can outsmart the wiki and put their little comments, misinformation, and typos on articles, without anyone noticing.


You mean liek you and James, and 216, trying to sneak intot he aritlce "COmpements" and omit criticsm on false gorunds...


Misinformation that you try to slip under the radar with the transparent addendum that it's what "other people are saying".


Unfortunatley, Acharya's work is validly critisised. Readers need to knwo this. Readers are also deservant of the truth of her credentials and the real nature of the books she writes. This is not Vandalism, but accuracy. Writtign an artilce of praise abotu her, howver, is bias and continuing to make false claism abotu how great she is is vandalism. Hypocracy however I expected form her devput legions. Your too busy defendign her to even see how she may posisbley be wrong.


Regarding your repeated threats and personal attacks:


I made no personal attakcs nor did I threatwen anyone. I simpley told the truth. The molre attention you draw to this arilce, the more peopel will investigate it and th woman behidn it.

As for perosnal attacks, what persoanl atacks? Pointign out that this womans work is critisised is not a persoanl attack, nor is pointign out that her credentials arent rlelay that rock solid.


We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed.


I havent harrassed anyone. Neither have I made persoanl attacks.



Regarding your agenda to tar Acharya as a "crackpot":


This is only a presumed agenda. I have no such agenda. My only agenda is to present her for what she is. Yiur agenda is to present her as a Bfulliant Scholar whose work cannot be refuted. That is a one sided veiw, especially in light of the valid critisisms to her work.

James and his Error... NOT!

James said the Critisism section is longer than the segment abotu Acharya herself. Well, given that the Critisisms are abtu Acharya, this is itsself absurd. Hoeever, I just coutned tem. Includign the introdiciton, the "Career and educaiton" section, and the 'Theme of Books" section, the Critisism section is acutlaly shorter than the text abotu her only. Not longer. SO more time is not given to her critics than she herself. Please take note.

ZAROVE 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Can't you count? ^^James^^ 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

I am hereby issuing a final warning to both ^^James^^ (talk • contribs) and ZAROVE (talk • contribs) for breaking the 3-revert-rule for editing articles. Both of you have been involved in continuous reverts of the article. Since I had warned both of you earlier, and have involved you about the rules regarding that, any further activities like this will result in immediate bans, according to the WP:3RR policy. I will also be forced to protect the article, something which is quite unfortunate for the development of an article. If you guys have any differences in opinions, discuss that in the talk page, if you can't come to a consensus, there are other ways of dispute resolution, like opening a Request for comments. In any case, mindless edit wars are harmful in the long run. Please refrain from such behavior. Thanks. --Ragib 06:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Italic text==rev==

I only reverted three times in 24 hours though. The other itme I just added a line.

I'll not revert further till tomorrow.

If need be.

But I do think what Jaems and 216 are doign is Vandalism.

I did revert this mornign the aritcle. But if you read the older version, it was obviosuly vandalism, as the "rebuttal" was clealry Bias.

I suppose this means I ought to be banned, but I did htink that Vandalism, especially obviosu Vandalism designed to denegrate others, would be allowed ot be reverted. Even withthe 3RR.


Read for yourself what 216 said. It wa clearly useless POV.

ZAROVE 13:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll not touch the page again till Monday. Though I may still participate nt he tlak page.

ZAROVE 15:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)



Now to james again... and his useles sbu;;ly tactics of false acusation.

Dear James- Again...

:Have you read Suns of God? Your criticism is based on the few scraps on the subject found in Christ Con. She expanded the subject into a whole book, which you haven't read!


Ive read parts of Suns fo God online, tis no mor eimrpessive than Christ COnpsiracy...





With all your blustering about scholarship and credibility, it's funny that you put so much stock in these guys. Sheesh. And where do I say I 'hate' Robert Turkel? You're putting words in my mouth, a common smear tactic.



Its also funny that you never give a goopd reaosn for risenJesus to be removed. Teh alst "good reaosn" was that they beleived in the Ressurection of Jesus Christ...


Again, its th elongest and most thourough arrticle on Acharya S , as to critisism fo her work. it si also the secpnd link oen gets when on a seaehc engine. And that aticle is nthign btu more smear tactic agaisnt Holding. Its nto going to impress anyone here.


Unelss you sho somethign wrogn with the artuicle form Holdign itsself, then Im afraid you have no grounds for exclusion.


I have to laugh: You dedicate more lines in the articles to her critics, not only linking to them, but even paraphrasing their bogus arguments, then complain about a couple extra links to Acharyas site!


Actually her segments are logner, line for line. And, as stated, her critics and their critiissm need ot be in the article to balance it. Yoru removal of htem is to meet your desired end of promotign her.



Talk about blatant inconsistency!


Nope, Im consistamnt. I want peopel to undertsand that her works arent standign as uncontested as she woudl liek to pretend.


You say you want "casual readers to get an accrurate veiw of her"... in other words: your view of her.


This is a lie James. Indeed, the oposite seems true. I havent written an aretucle to discredit her, an dincluding Valid critisism of her work is not the same as a smear campaign agaisnt her.

Nor have I shown favouratism in the articles themselves.

You. on the other hand, have repeatedly written the aritlce so that she is presented faovurabley, omit all critissm except form a fellow CHrist Mythesist, but made sure the reader see's her repsonce to this ( Sole) critic of hers. You include her inflated list of accomplihsments and credentials, and present her works as if they are works of seriosu schialrhsip. They are not.

You want the reader to be instilled wiht your view of her, that is, a Brilliant schoalr who has exposed the lie of CHristainity. I want peopel to knwo the general claism she makes, a but abotu her, and the critissms raised abotu her work.


This makes my articles unbiased, and yorus biased.



You want to prove to everyone that Acharya is a "crackpot" as you've put it. Sorry! Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox!


No, I dont, and htis is a false accusaiton agaisnt me, designed as a smear agaisnt me so that no oen will listen to me. This is what Bulleis do, they accuse their vicitms of the tacticsthey themselves employ.


Again, yoru artile presents her faovurabley, and distorts the factd abotu her, whiel omitign all critiisms.


How is that Unbaised?

I will discuss any site you suggest on their merits. I've said so before, but it seems you can't resist misrepresenting my arguments and putting words in my mouth... a common smear tactic. Note that I've not objected to Robert Price's article, even though I don't necessarily agree with him.


No you wont. Heck, Ive asked repeateldy abotu risenHJesus, and you STILL havent given a good reaosn for its exclusion.

Your only reaosn for removign Tekton ministries is because another article says Rpbert Turkel is a liar. But you have not discussed he merits of his work on acharya S.


No, you do not address the mertits of he sites, you just expect us to agree that Tekton is a bad source because Turkel is a liar, and you expect us to forget that RisenJesus is a seperate site.


Of course she is! She is the subject of the article! Lol.


But as a result, shoudltnthe reader be made aware of the flaws to her premise? As well as the known facs of her life?


Again, stop putting words in my mouth. That's three times already.


I haent put words in your mouth, I have demonstrated what your actiosn are saying.

There is a difference.


And need I remind you of hour repeated attemtps at Charecter assasingation aiemd at me? IE, your reepated claim thayt I just follow Robert Turkel?



Just because they are Christians doesn't mean that their views and credentials shouldn't be challenged.


I didnt say they shoudltn be. But Turkel relaly does hold a Masters in Library S ience...


And thusfar we havent even discussed RisenJesus.

You are assumign I am bias in faovur of CHristains, and want to spmear Acharya to defend my religious beleifs. But, this is clelary bot the case.

Again, the oposite is the truth. You want to smear me so as to make me look liek soemoen out to harm her so I wont be listened to so that you are free to make the aritlce into a lfuff peice that omits all critiissm and presents her work as a briullaint synthesis of wel known facts and her conclusiosn unchalelgned int eh realm of academia. Rthis is aparent as you have basiclaly doen nothgin else but whitewash her.


You've sure challenged Acharyas, but don't seem to be too concerned about those of her critics... another inconsistency, suggesting... ?


Its nto inconsistant.

The article is abotu her, nto her critics. Also, you have not discussed the meritcs of the sites you omit. IE, you say Robert turkel is a liar because you foudn a site ont he net that said he was. Well, what are the author of that sites credentials? It becoems an endless runaroudn liek that.


Form what I can tell, he rellay was a Prison librarian, rellay rusn a ministry now, and rellay has a masters.


And you dotn even discuss RisenJesus at all. You just delete the link to it as if its OK to do so.


You dotn discuss the ocntent of said aritlces.

The peoepl thmselves can be discussed on their own aritlces.



:Ummm... no. I've argued this point on two levels. One: this is not the place to debate the minor details she may or may not have gotten wrong, nor is it the place for the Christ-myth debate, or the Historocity of Jesus debate.


Her whoel second book is abot the puported similarities betwen KRishna and Buddha. I woudl harldy clal these "Minor details."


And no oen discussed the Historacity of Jesus.



As I've said a number of times, it should have a bit about her, a bit about her work, and some relevant links, including credible critiques and rebuttles. What's wrong with that?


Well for starters you dotn allow a bit abotu her. You only allow her works to be mentioen and her sterling credentials and acocmplishments. Basiclaly. shes a briallint scholar, a rleigious schoalr a that, and a Hisotrian, and a linguist, and arhcielogist to boot!

Thwn you tell hwo her work is nothgin new, its clelary been proven fact!


Yori article is a fluff peice, designed to impress peoepl with her. Thats whats wrong.


The aritlce shoudl include all perteneant informaiton.

Thgis includes all available informaitonabot her life ( CHeck other arilces, we have Biographicla data on most) not hust a litlt ebit on her life.This hsodu include her real cfredentuals, not her fluff.


It shodil also include the general premise of hwr work, as this is what shes famosu for, but it should be tolsd in a nutral manner. IE, we tell her baisc idea. Not that ts a synthesis of comparitive religiosu themes. Its not.

We shodl also allow valid critiicsm. All other wikipedia aritlces allow critiismss. Sollog includes critiisms. So fdoes Larry Orr. So do most contraversial persons. Each inlcudes critisism int he body of the aritlce itsself.

Removing the critisms makes the article bias because it basicllay presumes the critusisms arent valid.

As to linsk to credible Critics, this is also a lie on your part. The only "Creidble critic" is PRoce, because he is also a Hrist Mytgher.


Tekton Ministies arent Credible because Turkel is a liar accorind to some atheist site. We have no acutal problem withthe aritlce we acutlaly link, btu Trukel is a lair accoridn got soem other site so hes out...


Oh and RisenJesus isnt creidbel either. No real reaosn nwo is given, btu above yits described as not creidble because the guy beelives Jeuss litelrlay rose form the dead...


Relaly, you dont want credible critisms, just critisms form fellow CHrist Mytgers, so logn as her rebuttals ar eincluded.



On another level, I've attacked the criticisms themselves for a variety of reasons. ie: they're not sourced, the sources turn out to be bad, they're nitpiky over minor details, the premise for many of the arguments are just plain false straw men arguments etc etc.


The sources arent bad. Thast a POV Sttaement.

And they are soruced, thats why we have links.


This is also why my inconsitancy isnt inconsistant. I wanted a breif description of the errors, an you insisted on detials. I give detials, and you call me inconsistant.


:Try to tar me as a vandal all you like. After we settled the name issue, we had a decent version up, then you came along and started changing things. So... I guess that makes you the vandal.


No you didnt, and I gve actual reasons for alteration, and was not the only oen alterign the aritlce.



Re:You just wnt the aritlce to sing the priases of Acharya. etc...

:You are putting words in my mouth... again. Can't you stick to the facts? Please stop misrepresenting my views, and stop trying to paint me as her 'disciple' etc. Can't you keep from getting personal?


I am stikcign witht he facts. The fact is you are a follower of Acharya S, and want the critissms removed because you want to contorle peopels perception of her. When peoepl object, you attemto to smear them to silence their objections, so you cna have toyur way.

That is a demonstratable fact.

Also a fact, you want to remove RisenJEsus because it is a Christain site. Tekton is also a site that actually addresses Acharya, and yet you want it removed and try to smear Robert turkel to get ytour way.

I am not beign personal, I have evidence you are her disiple.

And that she has orchestrated this war.

I am not misrepresentign your views. You want to remove all critissm, and paint her in a faovurable light. This of coruce under the ruse that this is the turht and any other verison is a smear tactic.





:More words in my mouth. I guess that's your only recourse? Allows you to avoid addressing what I actually write? A cowardly move and a common smear tactic.


Your the one who acutlaly wotn give a reaosn for the removal of RisenJEsus, and I address everythign you say...



Accusing me of lying now? You have no shame.


Given the level of Vitirol you level againt me constantly, sayign that I am makign lersonal attakcs agsitn you for pointing out the obvious is rather amusing...




(Zarove hasn't read that book.)


Do I need to? its just more of the same.

LOL! Soooo telling....


I think it was Ed who said a box of COrnflakes was mroe intellectually stimularting. So I harldy think this is a minority view.







And you didn't notice the question mark at the end of the chapter title? Ever heard of a variation on a theme? A similar motif?? Here's the excerpt from the chapter for anyone who wants to compare what she actually writes to how zarove has characterizes it above.


Tghis is a rationalisation, James. She reepateldy says Krishna is Crucified in Christ COnspriact. Need I shwo each page number?


I'm willign to.

And in Suns of Gd she also I am told reepats that he is Crucified. Thsi si nto emre similarity in theme, she flatly sttaes this as a fact.



:Oh, so this debate is because you feel "pretty sure" about what you know. Your gut feelings? Egads. I'm "pretty sure" you don't know what you're talking about.


Its an expression lad, best not to overanylise them...

No known Buddhist varient contians a Crucifiction accouint, and all contian his dyign at old age.





:So when you write that "people say: shoddy scholarship" in the criticisms section, I should write a rebuttles section:


This isnt true James, the critism seciton ( which I didnt write btu copied, buy the way) says poor schoalrship. And no oen calls her schoalrship excellent aside formher own follwoers,and in many cases her own sources.

Do you rlelay think Barbara G. Walker is a good soruce for sayign she has "Excellent Schoalrship" in her books?



"people say: excellent scholarship". That would be funny, but ridiculous. Sheesh. I'm surprised that so many here can't seem to see the obvious absurdity of having such sweeping statements included.


We gain that sort of thing form her follwoers already, hwover, poel need ot be informed that critissm exists fof her book, and what this critisism is.




:Read her second book dedicated to the parallels between Krishna, Buddha and Christ, and see for yourself what she says about the subject before you presume to be able to debate her on it. :P


HWer firts book makes these positive assertions, so no need.

And again, these arent my critisisms, they come form other osruces...




:Guess what... the bible is "outdated"! Lol!


Kersye GRaves is. So is Gerald Massey...

Dotn try to get cute, it doesnt owrk.

ut again, let me ask this James.





:Ummm... there are others who do care, and say she's 'right'!


Yws but their credentials are suspect as well...


So why not challegne them as mucha s you do Robert TUrkel?

Why cant I just find a Geocities soemwhere that razzes Barbara Wlaker?

Grow uo James, the peopel who syas hes right are either her own soruces, or else her follwoers.

You onsider this objective?

Peopel know her follwors reject the critissm.


Should I put that in there? As I've said, it would be ridiculous, but I'll do it.


For what end? We knwo she and her supporters agree, so theirs rlelay no need to put it in, except to make the artlc eunbalanced and in her faovur.


And in fact, Robert Price agrees with her major tenets.


So? He only agrees Jeuss didnt exist, he doesnt agree with her consoriacy notion.


I've not read the Rueger University review. Please supply it.


I did, it sint he risenJesus artilce, and the quoted segments above.


Or are you refering to the straw man argument of risenjesus.com, where they sent some prof a list and asked if it comformed to mainstream hindu beliefs?? Then see my straw man discussion above.



Again, thsi sitn a debate so straw man doesnt apply. THis is actual critism form acutal critics. And again, they knwo more thna just mainstream Hinduism.

Do you rtlelay think acutal shcoalrs knwo less than Acharya S?


Speaking of RisenJesus.com, that website is trying to "prove" that jesus really died and really did come back to life three days later! Personally, I prefer the sun allegory.


Your preference matters how? Other than the fact that you obviously want this aritlce to dside with tou, instead of beign Neutral.



It neatly explains the origins of the story: the sun metaphorically dies at the winter solstice (Dec 21/22), then three days later (Dec 25th) starts visibly moving again in its seasonal journey, each day rising to a higher point in the sky. It has come back to life, has been resurrected, has been reborn! And so the villagers rejoice and celebrate! RisenJesus indeed! Happens every year.


At elats accoridnto Acharya S, who fials to address the obviosu problems associated with this theory. IE, that Christmas is the celebration fo Jesus's birh, not rebirth, hsi ddath and resusrection occure at Easther. Or the fact that CHristmas was nto origionally celebrated by the ealry CHruch. Or the fact that Capricorn and Sagetarius are NOT seen as theives. or the fact that the Astorlogy she uses is Midaevel in origin...

Again, your prefernece is not rlelay relevant.


I didn't realize that wikipedia blindly repeats "what others say", no matter the quality of what they say, nor the credentials of who's saying it.


Ironiclaly her critics have more credentual ot their names than does Acharya Herself...

I guess I really don't understand. Hey admins... is this truly the case? Can I post a quote from any hack w/ a web site and insist that it be included because it's what "someone" is saying????


Now your just beign facisious.


^^James^^ 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

James, you do so this. You post form Acharya abotu Christ obviously nto existing. She lacks any real Credential, and has no realevidence ot bacxk her claims.

ZAROVE 13:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

POV Rebuttals.

Soem childish "Neutral" Rebuttals ar enwo int he article, can semone pelase remove them? They do nothgin btu make shallow accusation agaisnt Acharya's critics and do nto rlelay advicate the Neutrality of the article, instead they ( Again) give more time to her disiples, in a vain attemto to make Acharya look as if her detractors ar all just relly mena peoepl who use nameclaling...


Take a look for yourselves.


FOr instance, this...


The complaint that Acharya's research is a one-sided, biased, inaccurate and outdated opinion, without substantiation, is an attempt to smear and denigrate the author with agenda driven opinion.


Is this rellay nessisary? Her critics critise her work. Nto her persoanlly, and arent tyrign to smear her.

But this is ther way of things with hwr disiples, as htye try to force Wikipeida to play by their rules.


ZAROVE 02:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Will you cut the 'disciples' crap out? Trying to cast me as her 'disciple' and 'follower' is a form of personal attack.

66.183.168.152 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (James)


No its not. Its kinda clear you are a follower of her book, and that you are part of her fan club, this makes you a disiple of hers.


ZAROVE 02:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Can't read a dictionary either? I don't 'follow' AS, nor am I her 'disciple'. Yes, I am a fan of her work. I am a fan of many peoples work, so does that make me their 'disciple' and 'follower' as well? I understand that it may be hard for those conditioned into uncritical acceptance of religious dogma to understand, but it is possible to entertain ideas without necessarily believing them, and it is possible to read and enjoy a good book without having to lose yourself in mindless devotion to its author (or its main character as the case may be). Your lame attempts to excuse your personal attacks reveal either shoddy reasoning or deliberate distortion. Which is it? ^^James^^ 18:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


OK, listen James.

UYou want spacifics, Ill giv you spacifics.


1: The current article omits criticms. Valdi critisms of her work exist, and to not include even a mention of her critisism in the aritlc eis bais. You remove the critisms for no valid reaosn, you jujst say they shoduk eb removed and the aitlce hsodu be a litte abtu her and a ltitle abotu ehr work. THis is a false statement. Everyone form David Ike to even Stephen Hawking have had critisms allowed on their pages on Wikipedia. Why nto Acharya?> SI she so fragile that even a hiont of Critism brigns her down?

Dispite your obviosu lie that the Critisms ar einvlaid tot he aritlce, the truth remaisn that to rmeove them only makes the aivle Bias.


2: in the "Life and career" seciton, ti just gives her ouffery.

3: HEr works ar enot a Synthesois of whats foudfnb in COmparative religion and Mythology over the last tow centiries. Their a stynthesis of whats foudn in a few eccentrics and occultist works over ht elast cnetury or two. TRHey arnet considered rpeubtable by anyone on the feild, yet we soemhow make her owrk osund bette rthan it is. Why? BEcause her fanbase cant stand an acutally neutral article and prefers to present THEIR veriosn of acharya, and if any attmeot at Neutrlaity coems along, its considered bais.


4: The links to her site are redundant. For every critical link ( And I remidn you, no critism is int he aritlce itsslef, so th eunsuspectign radermay be forgiven if he doesnt think her work is contested form the current article) anothe rlink is emidatlry posted under it. THis other link is to her "Rebuttal." WHich I cna be amazed since her rebuttals are embarraisngly poor, they referenceno real poitns raised by her critics, and just rant abotu how stupid they are.

Do we need 3 links ot her site? No. Do we need spacificllay the "ORigins of the HCist myth" link? No, her homepage is good.

Form her hoem page you an find all the othe rlinks.

Why do we need her rebuttal to Dr. PRivce lined emidealtry below Privce's aritlce? Why do we need her rebutal to risen JEus emideatly below it? If you whertent her disiple, you owudl undertsand htat htis fofm of Manipulaiton is not hoenst. Yoy wan tot present this as if she has the high gound and wantot create an imag eof her as a CHampionign expet int eh field of Myhtology and COmparativd rleigoon. Shes not.


The redundant links, the misrepresentaiton in the themes of book seciton, and the removal of Tekton Ministires because soem othe site ( and its credible?) Says tiurkel is a liar, prive you are triolling.

Grow up.

As tot he whole "Get a DIcitonary" a disiple is a follower . You are her follwoer. You blidnly beelive whateve ris in ehr book, aparelty because you prefer it. You dotn stop to criticlaly anylise the Data or else you woudl eb forced to concude as any raitonal person has here htat shes a to bit conspiracy theorist. Her premise and evidence are both poor, and unsubstantiate dby actual knoeldge of the fields she speaks pf.


You just liek ehr work and follwo her example, thats why I call you her disiple. hekc your only herebecause shes upset over the wikipedia article.


ANd now that the arile is a whitewahs, tlelign hie her books are a synthesis of rleigoon an comparative mythology scholarship and offer no critisism at all, they have removed the "totally disputed" tag. This is fair, sicne heaven forbid peopel dispite her claims to beign such a wonderful scholar...


ZAROVE 00:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected page

Following the insane edits/reverts to the article, I have protected it. Please cool down and come to a consensus. A good way can be to propose and argue for your additions in the discussion page. Once you reach a consensus, let me know, so that the page can be unprotected. --Ragib 01:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Ragedit you know full well a concnesus cnanot be reached. Her disiples here are runnign an edit war for hte sole purpose of protecitng her image. Thus, they will alwyas objec tto the critism seciton. And wont allow the "theme of books' seciton to read that her soruces are frethogyuht and othe critics of CHristainity, instad preferign to lie to the reader nby saying its a stnthesis of mythology and ocmparative rleigion, which its not.


Nothign short of glowing praise will be allowed, and nay attmept at allowign a realistic view will eb shot down.

That siad, cna I suggest a revert bakc to Crazyeddies version, that wa sup till the "rebuttals' where added? that oen included critisisms, and inlcided a mroe accurate discreption of hr works.


ZAROVE 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


WHy nto this verison?

its shlrt and gives an accurat acocunt.


Acharya S is the pseudonym of D. Murdock, an American critic of Christianity. She operates a website, "truth Be Known", and has written two books concerned with the Historicity of Jesus Christ, contending that he was a pagan Myth plagerised by the Early Christian Church to Unify the Roman State. The Book titles are " The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" and "Suns of God: Krihshna,Buddha, and Christ Revealed!" Both published by Adventures Unlimited Press.

Her works are contested as being unreliable for lack of use of primary sources, and use of outdated and inaccurate Secondary Sources, chiefly Freethought mateirals that agree with her.

Not bad, Zarove. Here's my preferred version.

Acharya S is the pseudonym of D. Murdock, an American critic of Christianity. She operates a website, Truth Be Known, and has written two books purporting to expose the Christian Gospel story as a fiction derived from pagan myths.

Her books are The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, (year, ISBN 0932813747), and Suns of God: Krihshna,Buddha, and Christ Revealed! (year, ISBN 1931882312). They are popular syntheses of works in the freethought tradition. Both were published by Adventures Unlimited Press, which specializes in occult and alternative books.

Her website proclaims her the "ranking religious philosopher of our era" and an "expert in the field of comparative mythology" "superior to James Frazer or Robert Graves". It describes her several languages, a college degree, attendance at the American School of Classical Studies, being trenchmaster at an archeological dig, and being an assistant teacher. Her website derides Christianity, and various Christian websites have responded with rebuttals and catalogs of the errors in her books.

External links

What do you think? Relatively concise, not hagiographic but containing her main claims, with a single sentence pointing the reader to her critics. I don't think a single fact is inaccurate, and this version lets the reader know that these are not academic books and controversies. This is way too much time on this article but I have had my fill of the bad arguments, religious bigotry, and dishonest claims of her disciples. alteripse 13:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Not bad excpet it stull makes it, to the casual reader, seem as if its a battle between "truth and CHristainity." remember, CHristians arent the only ones with issues with her work, and she derides mroe than Fundamentalists. She derides CHristaisn as a whole, wiht hwat she cliasm is " Worhsip of an invisible Giant Jewish or Arabain Man in the sky."


It nees to be clear that her works arent schoalrship, are contested by peopel wiht real degreez in rleigious studies and hisotry, and arent taken as anyhtign other thna cheap cpnspriacy theory.


CrazyEddies verison, with the modificaitosn that her soruces where freethought and Critics of CHristendom, as opposed ot the use of Mythologya nd comparative rleigion, suit at leats temporarily.

I just know thta her disiples won't let it stand.

I also think a link tot he homepage, rathr than her essay, is more approprioate, and the lunk to Tekton needs ot be reinstalled.

I also think the multip;e links to the spacific "rebiuttals" ( If you call rants and ad hom rebuttal) need ot be deleted.

OK, how about this. I agree that the freethought reference is certainly legitimate, accurate, and objective. You are right she is targeting all Christianity, not just fundamentalism. I did already take out the links to her rebuttals and mentioned they can all be found on her site as linked. Can you put the tekton link back in to my list?

While I agree wholeheartedly that this is not serious scholarship, I think the signals are pretty obvious: no academic appointment, no links to scholarly rebuttals or support, meanspirited religion-trashing, a publisher who specializes in ufos and nazi mysticism, her claim to a college degree and being an assistant teacher once, and of course her puffery quoted directly from her site. I think it pretty clearly sums her up while being 100% objectively accurate and 95% derived from her own site; don't you? No more than a single sentence about critics, with no details. I don't think anyone interested in "truth" will be confused and it is composed of almost everything her disciples want. What could them happier? alteripse 22:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


I like the version that is up there now, with the following suggestions:

  1. Remove the line: "Her work is a popularization and synthesis of many themes found in works on comparative religion and mythology over the last century." It serves no real purpose, and is somewhat misleading.
  2. I think the risenjesus site should be removed, as it is not a credible source, nor a quality critique.
  3. Religious scholar, mythicst etc should be added back in.


It nees to be clear that her works arent schoalrship

That's just your opinion. (See soapboxing) While it may be true that most scholars don't subscribe to the mythicist perspective, does that make it any less scholarly? You can't limit the definition of scholarship to include only the scholars you happen to agree with. I don't hear you complaining about the quality of scholarship regarding sites like tektonics.org or risenjesus.com. You are inconsistent: you apply your standards selectively.

More inconsistency: On the one hand, adding links to critics plus cut and pasting their args directly into the article is ok, but simply adding a direct link to her rebuttles is superfluous? You'd have people guess that there is a rebuttle somewhere on Acharyas site, then have them dig through and find it for themselves? Methinks you are transparent in your intent.


Zarove, we're still waiting for the details regarding the article you say wrote, plus the direct link to her college info. (You see, direct links are helpful.)

^^James^^ 22:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

James, my distaste for her puffery and your inability to discuss what is actually written is freely stipulated and not part of the article. I'm not going to argue whether she is a scholar with you any more: please notice I put no such statement in this version of the article. The Christian rebuttal sites are clearly labeled in the article as exactly what they are: they are not claimed to be scholarly either. I did not remove links to her rebuttals: I consolidated them into one link, clearly explained. Remember this is an encyclopedia article, not a debate. There are no "critical arguments" in this version, merely a mention that they exist and a couple of links. Please criticize what is actually written, not what you want to imagine it says. Can I assume since none of your criticisms apply to what is actually there, you are ok with it? alteripse 23:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


No, you may not assume. I vastly prefer the current version, with a couple of minor changes suggested, as I clearly wrote above. If you have a problem with this version, please specify. I see no need to rewrite the entire article.
The rest of what I wrote was obviously in response to Zarove. So it seems it is you who has an "inability to discuss what is actually written". ^^James^^ 00:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Zarove's comments were about my last version above. If yours referred to a different one, it wasn't clear to me. The currently protected article has numerous problems and is not acceptable to Zarove or me. I was adapting some of his suggestions into something to replace what is protected. So please start over and comment on the same version Zarove and I were talking about. I am recopying it immediately below this for your convenience. No arguments about "scholarship." Is there anything inaccurate in it? It is almost entirely derived from her website, with an accurate description of her books and a mention that some Christians have responded. The criticism has been stripped down to half a sentence and couple of links. Links are to both her arguments and a couple of selected critical sites. Best regards as always. alteripse 00:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Acharya S is the pseudonym of D. Murdock, an American critic of Christianity. She operates a website, Truth Be Known, and has written two books purporting to expose the Christian Gospel story as a fiction derived from pagan myths.

Her books are The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, (year, ISBN 0932813747), and Suns of God: Krihshna,Buddha, and Christ Revealed! (year, ISBN 1931882312). They are popular syntheses of works in the freethought tradition. Both were published by Adventures Unlimited Press, which specializes in occult and alternative books.

Her website proclaims her the "ranking religious philosopher of our era" and an "expert in the field of comparative mythology" "superior to James Frazer or Robert Graves". It describes her several languages, a college degree, attendance at the American School of Classical Studies, being trenchmaster at an archeological dig, and being an assistant teacher. Her website derides Christianity, and various Christian websites have responded with rebuttals and catalogs of the errors in her books.

External links


If yours referred to a different one, it wasn't clear to me.

It should have been clear to you that I was responding to what zarove wrote, specifically the quote that I cited.

The currently protected article has numerous problems...

Please specify.


^^James^^ 00:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The problems it has are the differences between it and this version, tediously and repetitively detailed in the acres of print above. If Zarove is willing to support this new version, will you? It contains virtually every fact you wanted and only half a sentence of criticism. alteripse 00:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Alteripse,

Could you be any more vague? Please specify the problems you have with the current version. Or is it safe to assume that the only problem you have with it is that it doesn't cast her in a negative enough light? The "differences" you cite seem to suggest this.

For one example, you write: Her website proclaims her the "ranking religious philosopher of our era" etc.... In so phrasing it in that way, you have make it look like she's the one saying these things. But that is not the case. Yes, she features favourable quotes on her website. Is that unusual for an author? Yet you twist it to make it look like "puffery", as you've put it. Is that an honest mistake or are you deliberately casting negative aspersions? I mean, why didn't you say "John Kaminski has called her.... Barbara Walker says...." etc?? That would be a more accurate telling, and would avoid the negative connotation.

I included the quotes because they are seemed to me so representative of the site and her character, sort of a metonymy you might say. I didn't say that she made up those quotes, but she obviously put the site together herself and chose to feature them in large type on the first page. I didn't name Walker and Kaminski because they are not notable enough to mention by name. If I really wanted to be negative I might have pointed out that many people might think Walker's endorsement of a work significantly derived from her own doesn't count for much. alteripse 02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

(Note that I have never asked that these quotes be included in the article.) 66.183.168.152 01:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, I know you denied it, but I can feel the visionary presence...


Id prefer a Non-Comprimise with her Disiples. They have been actiuvely coordinating to Alter wikipedia in her favour, and thats why this matters to me so much to begin with.

James is oblivious to hte Multiple postigns of spacific problems with the current verison, which he raitonalises as Unbaised and fair because it "Gives a breif exampel of her owrk and who she is." Which is, of coruse, a lie. it tells what she claism to be and presents too faovurbale an image, and was written principley by her fan base to this end.

Problems, again, include the Claim that her work is a Synthesis of Mythology and COmparative religious studies. its not. its a synthesis of weak and uncredibkle soruces datign mainly form the 19th Century, a feminist writers work, and a few 20th century writters not taken seirosuly, active in frethought.

Thus, ikts more a synthesos of frethought writers and Critics of CHristainity. EVen her quotes form CHruch Fathers coem form frethoguth books.

And since the Fathers of the CHurhc are freely avalable online, thats just lazy.

Also, it omits any critism, and instead makes out int e body of the text a if her work is soemhow incontestable. Which is usrley not the case.


The multiple links ot hwr website are unnessisary, btu ti seems the links you "graciously" allowed in the form of critism must also be followed by her addrerss ot the citics, dispite the fact that no oen else on Wikipeida has such extended ot them.

Likewise, a link tot he home page of her site, as oppsoed to her essay on CHristain Origins, woudl be vastly better as the article is not abotu her agenda, btu her.

It also needs to be made to read abotu the validity of her credentials, and not serve as a promotion fo her. Again, this si an Encyclopifdia, not a paid Ad for Acharya S.

Now, I have not written anyhtign Bias agaisnt he in any form of my arutlvces, thoguyh you claim constantly I did, but you certianly bias the artilc ein her favour because you ar her follower.


Her Cheap, hypocrtiical bullying and her xhallow posteuring and hidding behidn her legions tell me all I need to know of her charecter.


Also, take note. Saying that Tekton is not credible isnt exactly a winnign defence. its mroe credible than Acharya S.

And you give no reason at all for why RisenJesus is nto credible. Of coruse, tis a CHristain site, and I suspec tthis is all it takes. After all, Christaisn are baised. If we point the obvisu out to you, that Acharya is Bias, you will raitonalsie this away, but again, Jmaes, please consider the following.


Acharya S is a Critc of CHristyainity. DOn't you think that maybe, just maybe, Christains who offer review of her book woudl add balance ot this article? Why shoudl we silence CHristains? Because you want Acharaya S to not be opposed, and will to silence those hwo do not share your views, seems th elogical answr given how you raitonalise away various other claims.


IE, liek when you show the link to hwo Robert Turkel is a liar. Well, Ive foudn links that say Acharya S is a liar, btu you wouldnt allow those either, as you woiudl say they are biased. Dont you see how Hypocritical this is?


Poepel clelary notice how its a Christain site, and if they distrust Christaisn will not be moved by an apologist, but as this woman Critisises hrisyainity, a couple of CHristain repsonces ar ein order.


Fair paly is not tellign her side only, James.


This you also seem to not acknowledge in toyr vain pursuit of supportign your Idol.


Addendum.

also, why is risenJesus a poor critique? I mean, just because you say so doesnt make it so.

Readign it, I find it actulaly mroe barable than Acharya S's writtings, and not because of my rleigous beleifs. It is calm, raitonal, and polite. Her rebuttal hwoever is vitirolic an dlaced with personal attacks, her rebuttal also fails ot resoind ot a sinlg e point raised in the critisism.

RisenJesus disucsses the actual beelifs concernign Astorlogy, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as a fw other points, showing how they arnt represented corrclty by dorothy.

So, why is it a bad Crigique? Again, I say it, its because it is a Christain source, and we all know that they ought to be quiet while you badmouth them...


Yes, thats fair...

ZAROVE 01:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Zarove,

It is very hard to read your posts. You have been asked repeatedly by others to use the free spellcheckers available on the web. Please do. Why should everyone else make an extra effort to read your posts, when you could be putting a little extra effort into making them more readable? 66.183.168.152 02:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


This is a mean to avoid what I said. Th above is highly readable.

Again, tell us all here, why is RisenJesus to be exclused, becasise you findign it "Not credible"?

Ater all, if I sya acharya is not credible, you say its my opinion. why is yor opinoon relevant James? ZAROVE 02:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


James and Dorothy, don't read this. (Zarove, you are taking these people far more seriously than necessary. Detailed accuracy is the best response. How about a link to her publisher [2], so people can see her books next to such clearly kindred works as Spiritual Vampires, Atlantis and the Power System of the Gods, the Orgone Accumulator Handbook, Anti-Gravity and the World Grid, and my personal favorite, Reich of the Black Sun? As CrazyEddy put it, Tin Foil Hat territory indeed! The article absolutely needs a couple of links to the best rebuttals though. Which do you think are the best?) alteripse 02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


The best are the ones not credible to THe flock... NAmely TEkton and RisenJEsus. THis is because few have even heard of her book, dispite it beign " A Classic CHanging the world."

I do agree, a link to her site, a link to her publisher, and three rebuttals, tewo form Christain sites, and oen from a fellow Christ Myther, Bob Price.

Also, a summery of who she is ( And I mean in reality, not as she depicts herself) woudl do wonders.


I have dealt with Acjarya Before, she intimidates and Harrases peopl until she gets her way, htis is why fewer sites have responces to her. This, and as I noted, few have heard of her.

But I do want valid reaosns why RisenJesus is a poor Critique, given that Dorothy's own rebuttla is of infirior quality when layn nex to RisenJesus's critisisms.I just do wonder what new raitonalisation James and Dorothy will invent.

ZAROVE 02:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Alteripse,

"Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups." It is telling that you feel you must resort to such tactics. Your logical rigour has not improved.


Zarove,

I have said numerous times that the risenjesus review is rife with blatant mischaracterizations and straw man arguments. See the buddha / krishna discussions above for example.

And no, your post is not 'highly readable'. The spelling is atrocious, and you refuse to take due care despite freely available remedies, as suggested by others.


I ask again: Please supply the direct links to her college information, as I cannot find them. If you do not, then I think it is safe to assume that they are not there, and that you have been caught lying.

And please supply the information regarding the article you say you wrote: who published it and when. If you do not, then is it safe to assume that you have been lying about this as well?

Please cease with the personal attacks and accusations.


66.183.168.152 02:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, 66 this is not a court of law, and judging a book by its associates is an efficient and usually accurate heuristic.

And Zarove, I think you already got all the answers they have against the RisenJesus site. If the RisenJesus and Tekton rebuttals are best, then the links belong, clearly and accurately labeled as Christian responses and rebuttals. Her site is so clearly half of a conversation that any reader interested enough to read the article deserves a link to those who took her seriously enough to respond. Is Bob Price a supporter or critic of Acharya? As to who she is, I am willing to take her as presented on her website. The main reason I believe it is that it really isn't all that impressive: any drop out from a graduate school in classics or archeology could match her resumé. It is irritatingly puffed but I guess I am willing to accept that she is a College Graduate, took a course at the American School, was in charge of a trench once, and was an assistant teacher. The site even describes what she read in a couple of her college Greek courses! How can you doubt such candor? Where do you think such a promising grad student went off the rails? Dorothy might be a nice, intelligent person, but Acharya's Classically Educated nasty pompousness just begs for puncture. alteripse 03:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) PS, do you think those are antlers, batwings, or mountains around James' head? I sort of like them.

Horny

I took them for horns. I find it Ironic that all eh can do is disparage other peopels characters who he is now opposed to, yet somehow cliams we attack Dorothy persoanlly.

As to her puffery, Im sorry, but th euninformed will be imoressed by such claims, and the real signifigance of these claism must also be brought to light. when I was a reporter, I was otld to write at a fifth grade level, precicely because many won't understand the geenral comments.

Her site is impressive to high school students who dont know any better, or uneducated adults, so it is best to notify them of the extent of these claism and what they mean.

I do agree hwoever, as I siad, that th elink to her publisher is adequate, but then another cliam of ligical fallacy will be hurled, even htough this is an Encyclopedia, and not a debate.Soemthgin James looses site of.

ZAROVE 03:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Zarove, I understand what you mean about uninformed readers not understanding. However, it is tricky and unencyclopedic to have to explain things like:

  • The American school gives courses to grad students and others, even undergrads; if your school sponsors you and you pay the fee, you are in. I have used their library in Athens. It's a nice place, but signing up for a course does not make you a "scholar" in any but the most trivial sense of the word. I suspect that her claim of membership means nothing more than that she took a course there and is still on their mailing list.
  • When she says she was an assistant teacher on Crete, she is saying that she has not taught in a university setting, something most grad students can claim. If she had, you know that that is what she would have claimed.
  • Being a classics major means she learned Latin and Greek in college and read some of the ancient authors. Some classics majors are required to take a modern foreign language, and anyone contemplating graduate school and an academic career should take a couple. She describes a couple of her Greek courses, reading Euripides etc. I can respect that; I didn't get farther than a bit of the Iliad, but then I don't claim to be a greater scholar than Frazer and Graves.
  • Many college students go on a dig for a summer. With a little experience, perhaps second summer, they might be put in charge of a couple of the paid workmen or the absolute neophytes for a few yards of the dig. This is what being a trenchmaster means. It's about the second step of being an apprentice archeologist.
  • Most readers won't realize that if she was saying something new and perceptive about the Gospel story based on real evidence that she would be giving talks at universities, presenting papers at the annual meetings of the Biblical Studies meetings (they are very ecumenical; you certainly don't have to believe in God to present a paper). She would be publishing papers in academic journals where they would be peer-reviewed, critiqued, and debated. If she mentions "being an assistant teacher on Crete" you can sure as hell bet that if she had published any real scholarship it would trumpeted to the heavens on her website.
  • It has been fashionable in universities to bash Christianity for decades; nothing forbidden. Any bright teenager who reads some comparative mythology recognizes what some of the content of the Bible is. There is neither originality nor danger in saying it out loud. Furthermore, she makes it clear on her website that she enjoys baiting and provoking Christians. That's why James' original claim of fear for her safety was such a load of dishonest crap.
  • Most readers won't see the irony of the difference between where she was headed and what she apparently ended up doing. She claims to have taken the firt steps in a academic career. We can only guess what happened between the start of grad school and her website. Was real academic research too hard? No original ideas? Baiting and debating Christians more fun than actual academic research? Did she get seduced into the world of let's pretend because she found she could impress the naive and uneducated and it was a whole lot more rewarding than working her way up the academic ladder? Is she cynical enough to have decided that classics and archeology are a poorly paid entertainment for a narrow segment of society and consist mainly of making up stories about alien societies based on a shard of evidence and a whol'lotta imagination, so why worry about how "true" the story might be? I am just making up stories and the real story might be more interesting or less interesting than any of these.

So I can speculate and interpret with confidence to the point of boredom, but my guesses don't belong in this article unless we can confirm them and making the article a point by point deflation of everything mentioned on her website wouldn't be very encyclopedic or very interesting.

So where do we go from here? I have been absolutely up front and transparent about my knowledge, speculation, and motives for working on this article, unlike our horned friend. I am still curious about his relationship to her. alteripse 04:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


His relationhsip to her is my whole reaosn for this beign very improtant to me.

He's on her mailign list.

Here is where they discuss the Wikipedia Edit War.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/superconsciousness/messagesearch?query=wiki

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christ_Conspiracy/messagesearch?query=wiki


Also, poster 216 is Dorothy it seems.See link below.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/superconsciousness/message/21238

The whole time Jams posst raitoanlisatiosn as excuses ot remove Critism and inscert proipoganda, claimign nturality and callign to make the article Neutral, he was postign on these lists, assisting Acharya and crew in making sure the arilce rea din ehr favour, as I said, liek an Advertisement.

This is what prompted my interest, because I cnanto stand such underhandd tactics, elast of all when this is what they accuse the CHristain Chruch of doiung and use this as a reaosn that it must be desotyed, and then accuse anyoen who dares write a criticam revieew of her as "Not Credible" and makes simialr charges. As you can see, they are guilty of what they protest.

ZAROVE 06:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

216 writes:

Just couldn't stand being called a woman. I am not Acharya.

Re: Rissenjesus aka Mike Licona

From his site: http://www.risenjesus.com "Mike Licona is a New Testament historian and Christian apologist who speaks to groups providing Christian evidences. He is the director of Apologetics Evangelism at the North American Mission Board (Southern Baptist Convention). He has written three books, the most recent being The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Mike has an M.A. in Religious Studies from Liberty University and is a Ph.D. candidate in New Testament at the University of Pretoria."

In other words, he has a vested interest in his POV because his living depends on it. On his side of the scale, he is no different in his views than Acharya is in hers.

Re: JP Holding aka Robert Turkel

Read Dr. Robert Price's review of his book. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_holding.htm You will find that his criticisms of Acharya are little different than that of Holding and if you give Price's comments they merit you do, you thereby discredit Holding's against Acharya in the process. It seems also significant that Price has made an exceptional living (and so notes his own works and credentials) that his remarks should be taken with as much a grain of salt as those of Liciona thus nullifying Price as an objective source in one foul swoop. Do note, Price and Acharya are on the same page as to the non historical Jesus and he does give her credit many times in his review of her book even while labeling her as having gone to far in many instances. That's his opinion. If one wants to make their own assessments, they must read the book. He does nothing of the kind for Turkel's book or Tekton Ministries.

To accuse of POV with POV is ludicrous. The "you're wrong and I'm right" biased attitude being promulgated here is beyond the scope of knowledge much less enclopedic standards. The bible is a self justifying book. If it is removed from the table of discussion, what else in all we know is its claims verified? Relying upon those whose entire justification for their beliefs are therein contained limits their knowledge to that which can dance on the point of a needle.

As previously stated: Religion is a symptom of a greater malady... belief. The only intelligent alternative is education and first hand experience. It is advised to approach her works with great caution. Study her books, check out her premises and then decide for yourself whether her assessments are correct or not. If all you know is what others say, you don't actually know anything.

I would like to thank the cool headed intervention on this article. At last, the article is mostly neutral and factually accurate and due to these recent changes, it was felt that the warning banner (The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed) was not needed any longer, so I removed it. But, if Wikipedia feels it must warn the uninitiated that the writers of this article lean in the direction of bias and factual discrepancy, so be it. It is especially appreciated that the article is now protected in the most unbiased manner that has survived for more than a day.

Is it possible that someone could sign in as two or three characters to respond to a piece where it would allow them to change it that many times a day more than everyone else?


216

Thanks for the opinion and straightening us out about your gender. My only stake in this is trying to ensure something accurate survives the earlier nonsense offered here. I am not involved in this article as a Christian apologist. The key pieces of information that need to be in the article, in my opinion, besides mention of the books and website are:

  • The mailing list links and website suggest that she is sort of an anti-Christian evangelist with a flock of disciples, not simply someone who doesn't feel called or someone skeptical of some versions of the Gospel narratives. If she earns a living doing this it makes her sort of a "professional anti-Christian", doesn't it? Very few people known for public affirmations of atheism (like Richard Dawkins) engage in such public venom and ridicule.
  • This tends to make Christian rebuttal links likely interesting to the average reader who might look up this article. It can be mentioned that her site purports to rebut the rebuttals.
  • The third fact that strikes one who encounters her website for the first time is the tone of exaggerated puffery and presentation of pretty ordinary undergraduate schooling and experiences as if they are evidence of scholarship in themselves. This is what Zarove is complaining about, and I agree it is one of the most distinctive characteristics of her website and disciples. All evidence suggests she parted company with academic scholarship standards when she graduated from college. Her work has not attracted the interest of professional scholars in this area, or she would undoubtedly have cited it. The discrepancy between the claim of being the "ranking religious philosopher of the age" and the fact that no academic scholar who does research in the area even bothered to respond to the books is pretty striking and pretty informative to the new reader. While one of her supporters argued that it doesn't make her work wrong or unoriginal, her website seems to want it both ways and this too seems distinctive enough and of enough potential interest to readers to warrant mention.
  • The fourth distinctive characteristic of her website and work is her desire to engage in mean-spirited insults and invective while concealing her name. She of course has a right to do this, but it certainly is unusual behavior for a typical scholar. The dishonest claims of her disciples here again suggest someone who wants it both ways.
  • The fifth distinctive characteristic of her books is that they have a very recognizable lineage in a series of similar works based on comparative mythology over the last 2 centuries. This genre is generally described as freethought and to my knowledge the term is not considered pejorative and is embraced as self description by many who hold such views. To the informed reader the label orients and locates her work. Apparently she used to agree with this assessment but now rejects it, but it seems accurate and non-pejorative to me.

So, I think these are the major points worth making in an objective and accurate encyclopedia article. I am open to suggestions on how to objectively describe these points, but I don't think you can accurately dispute the truth of any of them. Finally, I have no idea what your last sentence was intended to mean. alteripse 15:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


TO MAKE CLEAR THE REASONING

The Christain reponces are important to include, ebcause she is a critic of CHristainity. It is not up to Wikipedia to remove all POV links, only to not poresent POV in the body of the aerticle itsself.


Many who critisise Christainity, or anyhtign else, have in their articles refutaiton links, this is standard practice for QWikipedia.

So, your complaints baout the Critiissm beign unneeded is a bit silly, woudlnt you htink?

Just like your complaints that they are proffessional Apoliogusts and htux have vested interests. Well, Doesnt Dorothy hav vested interests? She is a proffessional Anti-Christain, her livign is earned by tearign into CHristain beleif, often badly using poor workign knwoeldge and namecalling.

So, if we remove all POV links,we woudl also remove the link to he r site, which is OOV itsself. Since she is a critic of CHristainity, it owudl be unfair to remove CHristain reposnces, and since nly these two Christasb seemed interested enough to write abotu her and yet showed boldness in not buckling under her ocnstant harrassmnet, soemtghign she cliams they do to her, but which no evidnce exists for, then it seems rather ridicukous not to include them, no matter hwo you raitonalise thes things.


As to the current article, the reaosnt he Neutrality tag remains is because your curent "Nonbiased" verison links her site three times. It does htis to make sure, at leats in her disiples minds, that her rebuttals are read and so that her critics are seen as useless fools.

It Also claism that her works is a synthesis of a study of Mythology and comparative rleigion. No books on COmparative rleigion or mythology ar eeven in her Bibloogrpahy for the CHirst COnpsiracy. Just books by Godfry Higgens and Barbasa Walker, neiher of whihc where considered very scholarly.

Her books are nothign but copious uotaitons form occultists, freethinkers form the 19th century, radicals, and malcpontents. She even quotes Rvernd Robert taylor, who was a Paranoid Schitzophrinic, as a source. Who seriosuly takes his writtings as schoalrship these days?

To repeat, the removal of CHristain repsonce to her site only serves to illustrate the duplicity of Acharya S. She wants to attack Chrisyainity wiht impunity. She wants the right and fredom to namecall, deride, and slander CHrista8ns in general as stupid morons who worship an incvisioble Jewish Man in th sky while singing her own praises for how intellgent she is for not beleivign n the invidible Jewish man int he sky, which is a straw man. Yet she and her disiples seem to become upset whenever anyoen critisises her work, and asusme that when readers see the owrd "Christain" they will react int he same fashipn they do, recoiling in horror. Most non-CHristains, however, do not tend to have a deep seated hatred of all thigns CHristain and a Knee Jerk reaction to th word.

Likewise, if she can sit about and make annonymous internet atacks on Christainity, why can't Christain speak up and offer their rebuttals? Sayign they ar ebias and have a vested interest is itsself a bit strange, considerign that so does Dorothy Milne Murdock.

Again, how can both sides be fairly presented whilst we Bar one side altogather? Obviosuly her disioles want to silence the CHristain side of the debate, because they rpefer peopel to only hear their own.


Whats incredibely Hypocritical of them is that they say this is whatt he Ealry Christain Chruch did. they burend libraries, books,a nd even people, to keep their deep dark secret hidden and to ensure pepel only read their version fo events. This is considered an evil practice that forbids free inuery and choice in beelif and must be opposed, which si why CHitsainir is thought to need ot be destoryed.

Yet Why then does Dorothy fear the official version? Why do CHritain apologusts frighten her and her follwoers?

If ethey only resort to personal attakc and fialt o rfute her poitns,a nd if her rebuttals clealry show them wrong, why is it that the Apologstss must eb removed?

This is censorship fo the sake of cowardice.


As the Articl stands now her fluff remains, and the casual reader may mistake her for an actual scholar, who has doen legitimate research, and sicne no Critisms are rpeasent, she may appear to be vert rputabel indeed. this is of coruse the image her followers want to project, and they claim that this si what she is. Btu anyoen visiitng her website or mailign list knows that she snothgin btu a petty Venom spewign bully and tyrant who wants things her way.


And htis, not my CHristain convicitons and an attmeot to smear her, is why I am so adamnet in this aritlce.

Truth, not propoganda, belogn on Wikipedia.

And, to repeat, I have read the CHrist Conspiracy, and know its remarkabeky badly written...


I have better frethoguht books on my shelf than hers, which isnt even sititng among them, but is amongst the books by such illuminaries as Kent Hovind and Silver Ravenwolf...

This ought ot show where I rank her myself after readign her Magnum Opus. Her second book, which Ive sen fragments of online, are indicative of her great Malady. Shd took the critisisms form hr ast book and attmeoted to venducate herself with a new book. She cnanot styand ot be critisised.


Which si why shes nto a real Scholar. That and lack of credible research.


ZAROVE 16:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

216 writes:

  • From her writings, her positions are obvious, all religion is derived from mythical sources. Thus, she is anti Christian to Christians as well as Hindu's and Buddhists because they are having their belief structure doubted and questioned. I don't know if she makes her living through these books but from what I understand, they do not provide her a living, thus her efforts are more a labor of conviction or love rendering it an assumption that she makes a living by virtue of them.


-This is an outright lie. Love is one thign that, dispite constantly emindign peooel that she has, Acharya never demonstrates with her repeated demonstrations of hatred and derision. Her insistance that Preachers are all conmen and CHristians are all Psychotic, and her mockery aimed at CHristains ( And she mentions CHristaisn in her articles on oher religions, which happen to make up less than 2% of her religiosu writtings) demonstrates that this is hatred and not love. Her use of slander and vile language whilst discussing her critics also belays this as a labour of love.

And she also says in he rmailign list she wants ot start giving lectures for money, and her books do give her royalties.-Zar


  • Christian rebuttal links deny and engage in self justification, they do not question.


-This is another lie. The links to both Tekton Ministires and RisenJesus are actually far clamer in discusisng her work ( and it is her work they discuss,nto her perosanllhy) than her rebuttals. Both sites show demonstratbale errors in ehr book and discuss their veiws openly, and ae hoenst iwht their afiliations.

Neither deny vlaid critisism.


And again, since Acharya is equelly a preacher, though one in conflict with those on risenJesus and Tekton Ministry, sayign that they exist only to firther their own agenda is hypocritical. Acharya exists only to firther her own ends as well, even if thi whwre "A Labour of love".


Aghain,s he is a critic of CHristainity, so a Christian repsonce ought to be given to balance the article, sayign otherwise is simply censorship designed to ensure her messgae is heard without beign queastioned, similar tot he Soviet Uniosn censorship, or that used byt eh Christain CHruch in Acharyas conspriacy theorty...that you cnanto appriciate this Irony doesnt negete it.-Zar


What they rebut is the author, criticize their authority, and engage in tactics designed to thwart any who disbelieve them.


-This is also a lie. Both Tekton Ministires and RisenJesus acutlaly refute the mateirals int he books. Both go to grat lengths to explain the mythology and history that Acharya reports on as not base don current academic understandign of the events, and neither site goes out of its way to discuss the shrotcomigns of the author.

COntrtast this to her rebuttals, where she freely uses names like "Neanderthal" and "USed religiosu salsesmen" and refuses to even address the pijtns raised agsint her, faovuring this sort of Ad hominum attakc on her critics,a nd it becoems clear that she hasno defence agaisnt their critiism and resotrs tot he personal atack to make them look bad so others ownt listen tot hem.

But risenJesus remaisn polite and respectful, and though Tekton does use some irreverent tones, it also sytikcs primarily wihthte facts, and doesnt address her personal life or engage in rampent ad hom atacks. Syaign otherwise is just firther proof that you are here only to support ehr blidnly. Unelss, that is, tou can shwo me where on RisenJesus such ad homs cna be found.-Zar



Their conjecture is no more valid than any other religion nor non religion but certain religion's do claim a sacrosanct superiority to others which puts them in a position to have to defend what they believe.


-Which is relevant how to this article?

Again, Acharya S is a critic of CHrisyainity. You may pretend she gives equel tratment to all rleigions, but a swift visit to her website dispells this cliam rapidly. Even in ehr articles on budhism and Islam, she takes potshots at CHrisyainity, and has multiple rants agaisnt CHristains, and few agaisnt any other faith.

So, again, why cant we include Christian reposnces ot her works? Becuase you think its innapropriate ot alo them to defend themselves?

You basiclaly want Acharyas ideas expressed,a nd her ciritcs silenced, and htusis is the epitome of manipulation and contorle.

You want her approved verison told, not the truth, and nlot an alternate view. You want her presentaiton in atsck of the Chrisyain faiht presented, but not their reposnces. And you use any raionalisaiton to justiy their rmeoval.-Zar



After years of threats, castigation's, and outright fanaticism, it is not beyond the pale to understand that her reactions are in kind to what she confronts.



- And as of this writtign no evidence of suhc fanatisism on the part of the CHristains are displayed. Both the Twkton site and RisenJesus are far mroe respectful of Acharya S thanshe is of them. Both sites are far mroe iwllign to discuss th issues, and both stick to the claism she makes in ehr books, and offer cvalid critisisms to her work.

Meanwhile, she sends her disiples to alter wikipedia to make sure the arcle abotu her reflects the claism she wants made, and makes he rlook good, whole claimign any critism included int eh article is Biased.

You want to tlak fanatisism? Look at Acharya. She will sytop at nothign tio silence all who oppsoe her, abd will use wikipedia to manipualte and distort peopels imrpesison of her, and this is considered to you fair and just? This is fanatisism, and you are a fanatic, and a BLind follower of this woman.-Zar


  • In today's world, sensationalism is as common as dirt. That she has been in the trenches getting her hands dirty and suffering the heat and exhaustion of year's at a dig just might be more enlightening than any dry and dusty halls of academia.



-But cliamign that she si an Archeologist based on beign in charge of a trench while a graduate student is a lie... thats the point. Again, pelase stop tryign to raitonalise these things.-Zar



Whether she parted company with academia is an interpretation not an indictment.



- its a provable fact.

She has no appoitnments with any major University. She lacks any and all credentials to any fieils she lays claim to. She has not published any aticles for peer rview in a reputable jorunal...

Followign yet? Her ublisher publishes consoiracy works, its a popular owrk, and she refuses critics their voice. This is not academia.-Zar.



She has attracted enough attention to have gained the responses that have thus far been listed.


- Yes repsonces you want rmeoved. Again, the only peoepl who have repsonded to her are Robert Price, RisenJesus and Tekton Ministries. This isnt exaclty the Harcard Review...-Zar



The fact that she has not listed what others deem professional scholars doesn't mean they don't exist.



- Then by all means shwo them.-Zar



I saw where Kaminski made this statement, you'll have to take that up with him, not Acharya.



- He's a "Journalist", rellay a consoriacy tabloid writter. Not an academic any mroe thna I was when I worked for ht epaper...and the reaosn we takw it up with Dorothy is because she lists him as evidence of her beign a Scholar, on her own site.Such Humility certanly deseves attention.-Zar


I don't think her presentations are gauged to demand to be called right or original. I do note that she can be very aggressive to those who attack her. If that's her personality, then so be it.



-No oen here has attacked her yet she sent her legions. The reaosn is because we wanted an unbiased article abotu her. She,a nd now you, seem only to take this as an atakcx on her because we insiste don givin her real credentials and offered Christain, and even an atheists, repsince to her works, and didnt allow her to make false claims. You want the article to read in her faovur, and thus make her appear to be a promenant and repsectabel scholar, who has priven her case solidly. This is your agenda, and why your verison fo the article, now protected, is nothign but a lie.-Zar


  • To some, mean spirited and vindictive, to others tame and shy.



- I know of no oen who calsal her tame or shy... excpet maybe her disiples when tryign to vendicate her.-Zar


That's a matter of personal sensitivity.



- Her writting style wouidl only be seen as Tame and shy by soemone who comes form a world so ravaged by hatred and anger than its a dorp int he bucket. Any raitonal person, no matter if they agree wiht her or not, can say her writtigns are tame or shy. They are laced with foul tempered attack son CHrisyainiy where she takes several stabs at Christain beleifs and follwoers, clalign them "Morons" "Bigots" and "Psychotics."

This cnanot be seen as shy, least of all given tis broadcasted to the world, nor is it tame. Its na outright attack.And its obvious.-Zar



I know of no actual disciples or followers, much less dishonest ones but I do know of a good number who come forward in her defense.



- You are a disiple of hers, and your defnece of her is precicely this, apologetics. You want to make her appear to be a brillaint schoalr who stands unchallenged as the owlrd leadign expert on rleigoon whi has clealry proven her case. When soemone points out critiism of her owrk, and offers to tone down her self proffessed excellence to a mroe ralistic picutre,y ou claim this is baised. You crtianly havent demonstrated neutrality, and currently engage in he sort of apologetic works that you dispise.

All so you csan protect your iamge of her and present what you wan tthe world to see of her, so they all see her your way.-Zar



  • But this fact negates the claim that she has no primary sources. Even Price noted this fact. Whether considered free thought or not is of no consequence if one is questioning a premise, hers or otherwise.


- TRhis means it snot acadmeiclaly acceptable, and if all she did was make selective use of quotaitosn form peopel who agreed with her, then her cherry picking demonstrates a bias that forbids anyoen form seeing htis as a valid docukent neutral, and seekign truth.

Price notes her works are lalgye based on looney soruces that donot relay demonstrate anyhtign that even approximates evidence. yet you woudl have the world see it differently.-Zar



Free thinkers are those who derive their conclusions by employing the rules of reason, logic and knowledge especially in the question of religion and by virtue of rejecting supernatural authority or ecclesiastical tradition, dogma, tradition and culture. What's wrong with that?



-Nothing, except that thats only a tehcnical definition. Syrprisingly, many Christaisn where at oen time caled Freethinkers. A Freethinker cna hold to beelif in God and veen traditional rleigious beleifs, so long as they arrived at these conclusions base don lgic and reaosn.


However, these days the word tends ot mean Atheist.Everyone undertsand the term to mean, in essence, a critic of CHristainity who tries to rationalise the faith and prve it wrong, thats what the term is currently sued for.

If you dont beelive me, look up Freethought in this very encyclopidia.

Not all freehtinkers used logic. Barbara walker doesnt, nor did Godfrey Higgens.

They both rested on rampent speculation and often poorly thoguth out schemes.



  • I think that the article should be about the person and why they are being mentioned. To debate them belongs on another forum.


-We arent debatign them. But even the above linked Richard Dawson article included critissm of his beelifs and works. So why not Acharya? Dawkins is far mroe respected than she is, and puts fourht more vlaid artguments, and yet critisism is allowed.

Why is it, then, that this aricle wshoudl include only the praises sung to Acharya S?-Zar


My question was to ask if someone could sign in with several different names thus allowing them to make more changes than the three allowed.

-I do not know, but liekly yes, and I suspect such has occured.-Zar

  • Zar is correct. One could log in many times under different names (called sockpuppets). This of course happens with contested articles. It is nearly always obvious to all involved, as is the case when someone with an outside mailing list recruits multiple disciples to "join the battle," as apparently she has done. This tends to elicit negative reactions from those of us with a long term commitment to the encyclopedia project as opposed to a certain veiw on a specific article. This probably accounts for some of my negative response to this behavior from at least 3 of her disciples/defenders. Doing reversions with sock puppets attracts lots of attention from regulars here and will have the opposite effect than you want. alteripse 20:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Zarove

I would respond to you but in its present state, what you have said is as incomprehensible.

- For soemone who says personal attakc s ought not be made, you two certianly excell at this one. Aagin, I am dyslexic, and these pages too luid for me to bother with a two hour edit session.-Zar 216

I make no claim to know her personally and I described exactly what I saw when I read her website, her mailing list messages posted here by Zarove, and her publisher's website. You have not provided evidence against any of the points I listed above, nor any reason why those don't warrant mention in a brief overview article for a reader of this encyclopedia unfamiliar with her. As I said, I am open to suggestions about how we phrase each item, but each point is obvious from her own work and sources, not that of her critics. Whether those points are what she would choose on her own is another issue and not particularly relevant to this article, as it isnt paid advertising. alteripse 20:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Acharya fans

Here is the major problem I see. Acharya S devotees will defend her no matter what, and se the world throguh a filter. those who are nto Acharya S fans are attakcign her if they dont spout th endles priase and compelenmtns.

Above, 216 sys Tekton Ministies is far worse than Acharya at disparaiges. This is a lie, and an obviosu one. Ive read the Tekton Artilce on her, which is the second link in a Yahoo search concernign her. Acharya in her "Rebuttal" comaplins htat its laced iwth Ad Hominim attakcs and fails to rebut any of her points, btu in reality when oen lays the two articles side by side, oen swuftly relaises Acharya doesnt even remotely begin to attwmto to discuss the poitns raised by Tekton. And although Holdign does use a few cute Nicknames, such as Acxhy, I see them not so mucha s offensive as simply an attmeot to be cute. Granted, tekton does make a few little jabs, such as "S is for Stench", which Acharya reminds the reader of thre times, but few acutlaly eixst int he artilce. Mainly, he Tekton Article is concerned with the "Astortehology" claism made by Dorothy.

Indeed, Tekton raises interstign points, such as the date of CHristmas beign the date of hte ressureciton fo the sun. Jesus's ressureciton sitn celebrated at CHristmas. And the two theivs of Capricorn and Sagetarius, wheree are htye calle theives?

Tekton goes through the toruble of acutlaly providign arguments agsint Acharya S and her claims, and all she can do is retort that he si a Neandethal, a used rleigiosu salesman, and possibely a publicity stunt for a CHrust Myther becuase hes so stupid.


No, anyone who objectivley looks at the matte riwll conclude that Tekton ministies is more civil and polite than Acharya S. Her ranting is notign btu a personal attack on Holding.

And it slaced with rude, beligerant comments, but no real facts that actally meet his points, of ocruse she lciasm he makes no poitns an donly attacks he rpersoanlly, whcih si also false.


RisenJesus is another exampel of her disiples turngin a blidn eye to reality. Tehy paly the " Haccoridng ot his soruces btu his soruce smay be worng and hwo is he" card. Well, lets ompare his soruces iwth hers. he used two repected Proffessors form Ruetger University. Acharya S uses occultists, feminists, and an assortment of eccentircts that have been long ago discredited.

I certianly think his two proffessors outwights th elikes of Kersye GRaves, barbara Walker, Reverend Robert taylor, Higgins, Hislop ( Write the articl eon him too, by hte way, not just here for Dorothy's sake) and Massey.

RisenJesus remaisn respectful, polite, and civil. And presents its case in a thoughout and acucrate manner. her rebuttal, which you insist on kepeign here, is again laced with nothig more htna cheap personal assault on the charecte of Lucida.

Again, she fails to rellay address anyhtign he acurlaly wrote, and instead prefers to make comments abotu how stupid he is, and calls him a "Used rleigiosu salesman." THis is a brillaint rebuttal?


Forgive me, btu Dorothy doesnt simply respond harshly to those who attakc her, shes vicious, cruel, rude, arrogant, self agrandising, and petty.

She also cannot stand to be challenged, and wants frree speech for herslef and her follwoers but denies freedom to anyoen else.


Her rebuttals are poitnless excersises in personal attack. Her books nothign but a collection of other badly researhced books. Her premise a cheap cpnsiracy theory. her manner nothign short of a totolitarian bully.


And to not see this because you are too busy to defend her is reaosn enough not to bother thse of us with no personal stake in this.


I do not earn my lifing off CHristain apologetics, im a reporter. I do not relaly have much interest in this woman except to make sure she doesnt pollute Wikipedia with her lies abotu herself and her hate fileld venom. I dotn think Alterprise has much stake in this either.I know Phi Betea doesmnt.


You, on the other hand, have an agenda othe htna objective fact. You are here to defned her. thus, you are an apologist for Acharya S. You will defend anyhtgin she says or does, and if she is chalelgned, you will invent an escuxe to supprot her.


You currnetly invent exucses tfor the exlcusion of CHristain critiissm disoite the fact that She critisis Christainity, you try to defend her hateful attiude by sayign shes just defendign herself form ehr attackers. But rlwlay, do you htink that those who critise her started this? Her website hosts articles written before her book wa soublished, and before sh went oublic. her hatefulnes sand nastyness is evident fofm any of her articles she has written.

C,ealry, syaign she sdidnt start this is only an escape mechanism she uses to extricate herself form repsoncibility of her own actions, and you syaign shs just defneidign herslef form attakc is nothign btu a reaction to support her, when the relity is obvious. She critised others first.She thus ought not to b surprised when thy dotn lay dosn and die for her.

She started this hwole affair by her own need to critise others, and if she didnt wan tot be critisised herslef, she ought nto have begun slinging mud, and no amount of your defnece of her will wipe away her repsoncibiltiy to handel herslef with dignity and address reasonable critisim, which is on display here as well.


Neither does it invalidate Wikipedias mandat ot tell the real truth abotu her, not her own verison fo it to promote sales and her own image.

More "Love" From Acharya.

Belwo she claims she did nto oortchestrat this Wikipedia Edcit war, but it ough tot be noted that she "told others abotu it", and I seriously doubt she wqas just venting as she pl;eaded for help amonsgt members and diliberatly proviked them to editt he page in her faovur. Such abandonment of rresponcibility sickens me, Miss Dorothy.

So does cheap bullying.

ZAROVE 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


I hate to break it to YOU, pseudonymously named Alteripse, but you are quite wrong. In order to be chosen AS A MEMBER of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, I took a 9-hour exam and was interviewed by several individuals, including professors from the School itself.

Alteripse, you simply do NOT know what you are talking about, and you should remain quiet about this issue. I am a MEMBER of the School, I spent a YEAR there, rigorously attending ALL courses on a daily basis, which included serving as a trench master on the dig at CORINTH, headed by Dr. Charles Williams.

Your information about the School and about me is FALSE, period. Your remarks about me are LIBELOUS. And the quality of YOUR work is very poor, lacking in integrity and not at all intelligent.

I have NEVER claimed to have "worked" for the School, as the illiterate critics here have falsely stated. I have ALWAYS said that I am a MEMBER of the School, and I am.

No, the School does NOT list its members of previous years on its website, so my name does not appear there. Neither do the names of the dozens of other members who attended that year, many of whom, have been professors for many years. A MEMBER IS A MEMBER FOR LIFE. When my father died in 1986, my family and I went to the School in Athens and received some assistance on our memorial tour.

From the same page of illiterate idiocy (this guy claims to have written a newspaper article about me! Wow--that must have been impressive):

"1: It completley exagerates her improtance. It lies to the audience by claimign shes " A Historian, linguist, rleigiosu scholar, and arhceologist." Shes noen of those htigns, has no degree in any of those feilds, and has absolutley NO work expeirnce form major institutions, holds no positions in any major institutiosn, and is not recognised by any instetution. SHe lacks any articles publishe din any reputable journal. She has not been Peer reviewed. Shes not an Archeologist, or a Historian, or a Linguist ( thugh she may be Multilingula.) Shes nto a rleigiosu scholar."

So sorry, but there's no exaggeration there, and your wave of the hand is insufficient to make your false claims true.

As concerns the "Risen Jesus," please, go ahead and use it. I understand that in this nutty world, someone whose entire life is dedicated to "proving" that a Jewish guy was raised from the dead 2,000 years ago is considered "credible." Those who challenge this extraordinary (outrageous) claim are considered "crackpots." Jesus can claim that he is the Son of God, but don't you say that you are a "historian!" We believe him, not you! Talk about a bunch of crackpots.

No, I have not "orchestrated" this wikiwar. These harpies started it, and I merely told others about it. I have no other recourse. I personally cannot post there to refute these ENDLESSLY LIBELOUS AND FALSE STATEMENTS about me. Wikipedia will not allow my server to pass its hallowed gates.

Disgusting. Wikipedia is for the birdbrains.

Wow, this is an honor, your visionariness. If you notice, I have repeatedly argued to keep the Am School reference in the article and did not doubt it. If you took a year's course instead of a summer or a semester, and you had to pass a 9 hour exam to do it, I have no reason to doubt you, but think it a relatively small correction of my surmise. Since that is the one statement of mine you choose to rebut, can I assume you have no corrections to the rest of my deductions in the proposed new version? alteripse 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, this reminds me of the joke where someone says, "God is coming tomorrow, and boy is she pissed!" However, let's see if we can untwist your unmentionables and reach a modus vivendi. How about a list of the 10 important facts a brief article about your Acharya persona should include? You notice above that I have clearly distinguished what I might guess about you from what is factually demonstrable from your website and messages; do you have any corrections of fact to offer to my proposed article version above? I tried very hard to separate my personal reaction and surmises from what can be clearly seen on the website and in your postings.

Also I am puzzled at your resistance to including a couple of critic's link, clearly labeled as Christian criticism. They weren't presented as more authoritative than yours, and we mentioned that you have responded to their rebuttals. Someone with an open mind might want to read their responses. It appeared to me that the primary purpose of your Acharya persona and website was to deride and bait Christians. If I am mistaken, you might want to remove some of the stuff that would lead an ordinary person to think so. Your message above tends to support my characterization. So why act offended when they respond in kind, as if they are doing something unethical and unexpected? Did you really not expect that? Do you really not understand what kind of person your website makes you seem like? If you don't enjoy this kind of hassle, why provoke them? You could publish your books and bask in the admiration of your flock of devotees in peace.

Finally, you might have figured out that your devotees/disciples/defenders, whether bedecked with numbers or antlers, have all too clearly arrived here via the gates of ivory and may not be doing your image a service. Since you apparently unleashed them with a word on your mailing list, might I respectfully suggest you return them to their pens? It's so hard to conjure good help these days, isn't it? alteripse 00:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


She also claism she didnt initiate the mean spirited attacks...


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/superconsciousness/message/21288


In other words, it snot er fault that peopel reacted to her website and books htis way. Granted, sh has made several attakc son all Christaisn everywhere, but if one writes to her in anger, they started it as she didnt ask for them to repsond! She calsl all Christains morons, tlaks abotu "Fat, screaming, obtuse" preachers, and makes nedless rants agaist their faith, btu if they repsond with a harsh word, its all their fault and they started it...


whats truely interestign is her level of hatred toward JPHoldign and Tekton ministires, which is the real reaosn she wants it removed as a source.

He may use cute nicknames, but does discuss the issues. Hdr 'Rebuttals" on the other hand resort to namecalign and never address the poitns he made. Insteads it claism he made no points and only rested on namecalling. Also, the nameclalign is far mroe mild on Tekton Ministries, which I do nto support in any real way as I am nto an apologist and fnd beter thigns to do with my time.

Truely this woman is a coward. She seeks to critisse and belittle people, and if they take offence, he blames them with their repsonce ot her hatred and derision. This is iek all bullies. She wishes to hurl her insults with compelte freedom of speech, btu then to solence any who may tske offence or poitn otu weakensses in ehr staements. If osmeone does have the temerity tostand up to her, she will complain endlessly and berate their charecter.


This is what her disiples follow, a self servign hypocritical bully who makes annonymosu attakcs agaisnt peopel ont he internet, and in books, and thinks its nto right for nayoen to chalelnge her absurd claism and outrageous acucsations.


Again,s he acts the way she claism the ealry Christain Chruch does, usign manipulation, lies, slander, and deceit to win her way, and hwen these fial and peoel stand up tp hr, she seeks to deotry them.

Such dupicity earns my contempt. And this is why I stan here, to repeat.

ZAROVE 02:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Parsed out that way with the unintelligble and mangled responses interspersed makes the whole thing a mess. Here it is again in its all together for the interested reader.

216 writes:

   * From her writings, her positions are obvious, all religion is derived from mythical sources. Thus, she is anti Christian to Christians as well as Hindu's and Buddhists because they are having their belief structure doubted and questioned. I don't know if she makes her living through these books but from what I understand, they do not provide her a living, thus her efforts are more a labor of conviction or love rendering it an assumption that she makes a living by virtue of them.

   * Christian rebuttal links deny and engage in self justification, they do not question. What they rebut is the author, criticize their authority, and engage in tactics designed to thwart any who disbelieve them.

Their conjecture is no more valid than any other religion nor non religion but certain religion's do claim a sacrosanct superiority to others which puts them in a position to have to defend what they believe. After years of threats, castigation's, and outright fanaticism, it is not beyond the pale to understand that her reactions are in kind to what she confronts.

   * In today's world, sensationalism is as common as dirt. That she has been in the trenches getting her hands dirty and suffering the heat and exhaustion of year's at a dig just might be more enlightening than any dry and dusty halls of academia. Whether she parted company with academia is an interpretation not an indictment. She has attracted enough attention to have gained the responses that have thus far been listed. The fact that she has not listed what others deem professional scholars doesn't mean they don't exist. I saw where Kaminski made this statement, you'll have to take that up with him, not Acharya. I don't think her presentations are gauged to demand to be called right or original. I do note that she can be very aggressive to those who attack her. If that's her personality, then so be it.

   * To some, mean spirited and vindictive, to others tame and shy. That's a matter of personal sensitivity. I know of no actual disciples or followers, much less dishonest ones but I do know of a good number who come forward in her defense.

   * But this fact negates the claim that she has no primary sources. Even Price noted this fact. Whether considered free thought or not is of no consequence if one is questioning a premise, hers or otherwise. Free thinkers are those who derive their conclusions by employing the rules of reason, logic and knowledge especially in the question of religion and by virtue of rejecting supernatural authority or ecclesiastical tradition, dogma, tradition and culture. What's wrong with that?

   * I think that the article should be about the person and why they are being mentioned. To debate them belongs on another forum.

My question was to ask if someone could sign in with several different names thus allowing them to make more changes than the three allowed.

Re: Zarove

I would respond to you but in its present state, what you have said is as incomprehensible.

216

216 writes:

   * From her writings, her positions are obvious, all religion is derived from mythical sources. Thus, she is anti Christian to Christians as well as Hindu's and Buddhists because they are having their belief structure doubted and questioned. I don't know if she makes her living through these books but from what I understand, they do not provide her a living, thus her efforts are more a labor of conviction or love rendering it an assumption that she makes a living by virtue of them.


-This is an outright lie. <>*So say you, but then who are you? Certainly no better than I and I say this is a prevarication

Love is one thign that, dispite constantly emindign peooel that she has, Acharya never demonstrates with her repeated demonstrations of hatred and derision.

  • The books that she wrote were a labor of conviction and love. Turning the thought into something you could deride won't work.

Her insistance that Preachers are all conmen and CHristians are all Psychotic, and her mockery aimed at CHristains ( And she mentions CHristaisn in her articles on oher religions, which happen to make up less than 2% of her religiosu writtings) demonstrates that this is hatred and not love. Her use of slander and vile language whilst discussing her critics also belays this as a labour of love.

  • Her response is her response just as your rejection of anything different than your beliefs are yours. In your comments of her, what makes your viewes any less mocking, deriding and lacking in love and respect any different than hers? Because you are right and she is wrong?

And she also says in he rmailign list she wants ot start giving lectures for money, and her books do give her royalties.-Zar

  • Yeah, her efforts to make money on her endeavors is clear. That makes her motives as suspect as any of the others you have quoted. I suggest you read her works with fear and trembling and when done researching what she says, make your own decisions withoiut prejudice and bias.


   * Christian rebuttal links deny and engage in self justification, they do not question.


-This is another lie. The links to both Tekton Ministires and RisenJesus are actually far clamer in discusisng her work ( and it is her work they discuss,nto her perosanllhy) than her rebuttals. Both sites show demonstratbale errors in ehr book and discuss their veiws openly, and ae hoenst iwht their afiliations.

Neither deny vlaid critisism.

  • You need to read them. Holding is worse than Acharya when it comes to disparaging what he doesn't like. Generally, Mike Licona holds his own sources as superior to Achary's which, in effect, is a means to discredit her. An old tactic to be sure. His facts are better by his reckoning but not necessarily anyone elses.

And again, since Acharya is equelly a preacher, though one in conflict with those on risenJesus and Tekton Ministry, sayign that they exist only to firther their own agenda is hypocritical. Acharya exists only to firther her own ends as well, even if thi whwre "A Labour of love".

  • A preacher is someone whose occupation is preaching the gospel.

Aghain,s he is a critic of CHristainity, so a Christian repsonce ought to be given to balance the article, sayign otherwise is simply censorship designed to ensure her messgae is heard without beign queastioned, similar tot he Soviet Uniosn censorship, or that used byt eh Christain CHruch in Acharyas conspriacy theorty...that you cnanto appriciate this Irony doesnt negete it.-Zar

  • Actually, her works are only criticizms when looked at from the perspective of a believer. She questions the veracity of religion and especially Christiany by virtue pointing out the connections to earlier myth that have been observed over the centuries.

What they rebut is the author, criticize their authority, and engage in tactics designed to thwart any who disbelieve them.

-This is also a lie. Both Tekton Ministires and RisenJesus acutlaly refute the mateirals int he books. Both go to grat lengths to explain the mythology and history that Acharya reports on as not base don current academic understandign of the events, and neither site goes out of its way to discuss the shrotcomigns of the author.

COntrtast this to her rebuttals, where she freely uses names like "Neanderthal" and "USed religiosu salsesmen" and refuses to even address the pijtns raised agsint her, faovuring this sort of Ad hominum attakc on her critics,a nd it becoems clear that she hasno defence agaisnt their critiism and resotrs tot he personal atack to make them look bad so others ownt listen tot hem.

But risenJesus remaisn polite and respectful, and though Tekton does use some irreverent tones, it also sytikcs primarily wihthte facts, and doesnt address her personal life or engage in rampent ad hom atacks. Syaign otherwise is just firther proof that you are here only to support ehr blidnly. Unelss, that is, tou can shwo me where on RisenJesus such ad homs cna be found.-Zar

  • Not true. Both sites are Christian apologists. They make no bones that what they are about is a theology whose goal is to defend and prove Christian doctrines. The methods to accomplish this are standard fair and used lavishly. Just because she reacts to criticism in a manner you don't approve, doesn't mean that her presentations should be trashed and yours instituted.

Their conjecture is no more valid than any other religion nor non religion but certain religion's do claim a sacrosanct superiority to others which puts them in a position to have to defend what they believe.

-Which is relevant how to this article?

  • By the choices made in refutatioin. The parroting follower is confined to what he hears.

Again, Acharya S is a critic of CHrisyainity. You may pretend she gives equel tratment to all rleigions, but a swift visit to her website dispells this cliam rapidly. Even in ehr articles on budhism and Islam, she takes potshots at CHrisyainity, and has multiple rants agaisnt CHristains, and few agaisnt any other faith.

  • Acahrya makes the point that all religion stems from earlier myth. Her rants are primarily the result of responding to her critics which are, in the main, Christians. You can call that criticism if you like but it's justified. The truth often hurts, but it's seldom unjust.

So, again, why cant we include Christian reposnces ot her works? Becuase you think its innapropriate ot alo them to defend themselves?

  • To what end? If you disallow any response to counter it. If you do what you accuse in effect when you censor out any rebuttal in kind. .

You basiclaly want Acharyas ideas expressed,a nd her ciritcs silenced, and htusis is the epitome of manipulation and contorle.

  • I want all ideas expressed. I have repeatedly expressed the idea that everyone should read it all and make up their own minds.

You want her approved verison told, not the truth, and nlot an alternate view. You want her presentaiton in atsck of the Chrisyain faiht presented, but not their reposnces. And you use any raionalisaiton to justiy their rmeoval.-Zar

  • Criticize if you will, just allow its rebuttal. I still think it a debate and do not think that this is the right forum for it. But that's my opinion. If the article were to put forward who she is and why she is being included in the encyclopedia, you have accomplished its ends.

After years of threats, castigation's, and outright fanaticism, it is not beyond the pale to understand that her reactions are in kind to what she confronts. - And as of this writtign no evidence of suhc fanatisism on the part of the CHristains are displayed. Both the Twkton site and RisenJesus are far mroe respectful of Acharya S thanshe is of them. Both sites are far mroe iwllign to discuss th issues, and both stick to the claism she makes in ehr books, and offer cvalid critisisms to her work.

and reread what Holding has to say. To be sure, Licona is more subtle but no less dogged in his support of Christianity and his willingness to trash any who dare stand in opposition.

Meanwhile, she sends her disiples to alter wikipedia to make sure the arcle abotu her reflects the claism she wants made, and makes he rlook good, whole claimign any critism included int eh article is Biased.

  • So say you. But then is it npot your goal to do the exact opposite? Defending a stance does not necessarily make it biased unless it seeks to quash any opposing view. Now who has done that?

You want to tlak fanatisism? Look at Acharya. She will sytop at nothign tio silence all who oppsoe her, abd will use wikipedia to manipualte and distort peopels imrpesison of her, and this is considered to you fair and just? This is fanatisism, and you are a fanatic, and a BLind follower of this woman.-Zar

  • Accusations do not a fact make. When I saw what was going on, I mearely added my two cents. From the first, I let stand the criticisms choosing instead to rebut them. When I reacted in kind by removing the rebutals with removing the criticisms as an objective lesson, you took exeption to it.
   * In today's world, sensationalism is as common as dirt. That she has been in the trenches getting her hands dirty and suffering the heat and exhaustion of year's at a dig just might be more enlightening than any dry and dusty halls of academia.

-But cliamign that she si an Archeologist based on beign in charge of a trench while a graduate student is a lie... thats the point. Again, pelase stop tryign to raitonalise these things.-Zar

  • The rationalization is yours based on hearsay from apologists with their own axes to grind.


Whether she parted company with academia is an interpretation not an indictment. - its a provable fact.

  • Then prove it.

She has no appoitnments with any major University. She lacks any and all credentials to any fieils she lays claim to. She has not published any aticles for peer rview in a reputable jorunal...

  • Better read them again. Her participation is explained below. Deny it you may, refute it you cannot. Acharya has just announced that she has been appointed as a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. A prestigious honor.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cser/index.html

She notes that the Committee is comprised of some of the best religious scholars and writers in the world. Someone is paying attention. Followign yet? Her ublisher publishes consoiracy works, its a popular owrk, and she refuses critics their voice. This is not academia.-Zar.

  • Getting controversial material published is always a difficult process. That she found a publisher willing to take the heat for it is saying a lot in itself.

She has attracted enough attention to have gained the responses that have thus far been listed.

- Yes repsonces you want rmeoved. Again, the only peoepl who have repsonded to her are Robert Price, RisenJesus and Tekton Ministries. This isnt exaclty the Harcard Review...-Zar <>*Where did I once state I wanted them removed? In fact, I added to them. And you accuse me of lying. You need to do a google book reviews with the name of the book. Those reviews were by people who had a vested interest in their own works. That doesn't mean they don't have right to their feelings but they should be at least as carefully investigated as her works.

The fact that she has not listed what others deem professional scholars doesn't mean they don't exist.

- Then by all means shwo them.-Zar

  • Done, see above.

I saw where Kaminski made this statement, you'll have to take that up with him, not Acharya. - He's a "Journalist", rellay a consoriacy tabloid writter. Not an academic any mroe thna I was when I worked for ht epaper...and the reaosn we takw it up with Dorothy is because she lists him as evidence of her beign a Scholar, on her own site.Such Humility certanly deseves attention.-Zar

  • So? You brought it up and by doing so gave it weight.

I don't think her presentations are gauged to demand to be called right or original. I do note that she can be very aggressive to those who attack her. If that's her personality, then so be it. -No oen here has attacked her yet she sent her legions. The reaosn is because we wanted an unbiased article abotu her. She,a nd now you, seem only to take this as an atakcx on her because we insiste don givin her real credentials and offered Christain, and even an atheists, repsince to her works, and didnt allow her to make false claims. You want the article to read in her faovur, and thus make her appear to be a promenant and repsectabel scholar, who has priven her case solidly. This is your agenda, and why your verison fo the article, now protected, is nothign but a lie.-Zar

  • You can't be unbiased and not allow a response in kind. The only resolve is to not present either of them.
   * To some, mean spirited and vindictive, to others tame and shy.

- I know of no oen who calsal her tame or shy... excpet maybe her disiples when tryign to vendicate her.-Zar

  • But then she seems mean spirited and vindictive to her detractors when confronted by her ideas.


That's a matter of personal sensitivity. - Her writting style wouidl only be seen as Tame and shy by soemone who comes form a world so ravaged by hatred and anger than its a dorp int he bucket. Any raitonal person, no matter if they agree wiht her or not, can say her writtigns are tame or shy. They are laced with foul tempered attack son CHrisyainiy where she takes several stabs at Christain beleifs and follwoers, clalign them "Morons" "Bigots" and "Psychotics."

This cnanot be seen as shy, least of all given tis broadcasted to the world, nor is it tame. Its na outright attack.And its obvious.-Zar

  • But then, if that is her experience, then that is what they are to her. I'm not big on name calling but in most instances of her use of these terms it is mostly in reponse to Christian attacks on her. Besides, are you saying that there are no Christians who are "Morons" "Bigots" and "Psychotics."? If so, then her appraisal is not out of line. <>

I know of no actual disciples or followers, much less dishonest ones but I do know of a good number who come forward in her defense.

- You are a disiple of hers, and your defnece of her is precicely this, apologetics. You want to make her appear to be a brillaint schoalr who stands unchallenged as the owlrd leadign expert on rleigoon whi has clealry proven her case. When soemone points out critiism of her owrk, and offers to tone down her self proffessed excellence to a mroe ralistic picutre,y ou claim this is baised. You crtianly havent demonstrated neutrality, and currently engage in he sort of apologetic works that you dispise.

  • I am not a disciple of hers. My approach is far wider ranging than hers delving into human nature and our propencity to belief. If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't.

All so you csan protect your iamge of her and present what you wan tthe world to see of her, so they all see her your way.-Zar

  • I protect her right to say and think as she will. I would do the same for you. You have the right to your criticisms just as I have the right to rebut them.
   * But this fact negates the claim that she has no primary sources. Even Price noted this fact. Whether considered free thought or not is of no consequence if one is questioning a premise, hers or otherwise.

- TRhis means it snot acadmeiclaly acceptable, and if all she did was make selective use of quotaitosn form peopel who agreed with her, then her cherry picking demonstrates a bias that forbids anyoen form seeing htis as a valid docukent neutral, and seekign truth.

  • You mean like Christians use the bible?

Price notes her works are lalgye based on looney soruces that donot relay demonstrate anyhtign that even approximates evidence. yet you woudl have the world see it differently.-Zar

  • Price also castigates JP Holding on the same level. Holding then takes Price to task. So, by your use of each of them, you justify Acharya by virtue of inclusion.

Free thinkers are those who derive their conclusions by employing the rules of reason, logic and knowledge especially in the question of religion and by virtue of rejecting supernatural authority or ecclesiastical tradition, dogma, tradition and culture. What's wrong with that?

-Nothing, except that thats only a tehcnical definition. Syrprisingly, many Christaisn where at oen time caled Freethinkers. A Freethinker cna hold to beelif in God and veen traditional rleigious beleifs, so long as they arrived at these conclusions base don lgic and reaosn.

  • Maybe so, maybe not. I have no idea whether Chistians were at one time considered freethinkers. Somehow the definition does not lend itself to the idea. Perhaps you could provide some examples.

However, these days the word tends ot mean Atheist.Everyone undertsand the term to mean, in essence, a critic of CHristainity who tries to rationalise the faith and prve it wrong, thats what the term is currently sued for.

If you dont beelive me, look up Freethought in this very encyclopidia.

  • Perhaps you had better read it yourself. It says nothing of the kind.

<>Not all freehtinkers used logic. Barbara walker doesnt, nor did Godfrey Higgens. They both rested on rampent speculation and often poorly thoguth out schemes.

  • You can call them freethinker if you want, I don't see them as even close.
   * I think that the article should be about the person and why they are being mentioned. To debate them belongs on another forum.

-We arent debatign them. But even the above linked Richard Dawson article included critissm of his beelifs and works. So why not Acharya? Dawkins is far mroe respected than she is, and puts fourht more vlaid artguments, and yet critisism is allowed.

  • Again, you shoot yourself in the foot. Read Dawkins and see for yourself.. To quote

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

Why is it, then, that this aricle wshoudl include only the praises sung to Acharya S?-Zar

  • Because to deny them makes you the villain.

My question was to ask if someone could sign in with several different names thus allowing them to make more changes than the three allowed.

-I do not know, but liekly yes, and I suspect such has occured.-Zar

   * Zar is correct. One could log in many times under different names (called sockpuppets). This of course happens with contested articles. It is nearly always obvious to all involved, as is the case when someone with an outside mailing list recruits multiple disciples to "join the battle," as apparently she has done. This tends to elicit negative reactions from those of us with a long term commitment to the encyclopedia project as opposed to a certain veiw on a specific article. This probably accounts for some of my negative response to this behavior from at least 3 of her disciples/defenders. Doing reversions with sock puppets attracts lots of attention from regulars here and will have the opposite effect than you want. alteripse 20:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Zarove

I would respond to you but in its present state, what you have said is as incomprehensible.

- For soemone who says personal attakc s ought not be made, you two certianly excell at this one. Aagin, I am dyslexic, and these pages too luid for me to bother with a two hour edit session.-Zar 216 <>*That was a statement of fact. If you had your tongue cut out, you would be just as unintelligble when speaking. When one has a disability it is wise to find ways to compensate. You can cry and bemoan your outcast state all you want but it won't make you less a burden to those you put upon.

I make no claim to know her personally and I described exactly what I saw when I read her website, her mailing list messages posted here by Zarove, and her publisher's website. You have not provided evidence against any of the points I listed above, nor any reason why those don't warrant mention in a brief overview article for a reader of this encyclopedia unfamiliar with her. As I said, I am open to suggestions about how we phrase each item, but each point is obvious from her own work and sources, not that of her critics. Whether those points are what she would choose on her own is another issue and not particularly relevant to this article, as it isnt paid advertising. alteripse 20:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I did not attempt to provide evidence. I didn't know that was wanted. I responded to what appeared as opinion, inuendo, accusation

and conjecture. If evidence was what was wanted, then evidence should have been provided to refut.


216

Acharya fans

Here is the major problem I see. Acharya S devotees will defend her no matter what, and se the world throguh a filter. those who are nto Acharya S fans are attakcign her if they dont spout th endles priase and compelenmtns.

Above, 216 sys Tekton Ministies is far worse than Acharya at disparaiges. This is a lie, and an obviosu one. Ive read the Tekton Artilce on her, which is the second link in a Yahoo search concernign her. Acharya in her "Rebuttal" comaplins htat its laced iwth Ad Hominim attakcs and fails to rebut any of her points, btu in reality when oen lays the two articles side by side, oen swuftly relaises Acharya doesnt even remotely begin to attwmto to discuss the poitns raised by Tekton. And although Holdign does use a few cute Nicknames, such as Acxhy, I see them not so mucha s offensive as simply an attmeot to be cute. Granted, tekton does make a few little jabs, such as "S is for Stench", which Acharya reminds the reader of thre times, but few acutlaly eixst int he artilce. Mainly, he Tekton Article is concerned with the "Astortehology" claism made by Dorothy.

Indeed, Tekton raises interstign points, such as the date of CHristmas beign the date of hte ressureciton fo the sun. Jesus's ressureciton sitn celebrated at CHristmas. And the two theivs of Capricorn and Sagetarius, wheree are htye calle theives?

Tekton goes through the toruble of acutlaly providign arguments agsint Acharya S and her claims, and all she can do is retort that he si a Neandethal, a used rleigiosu salesman, and possibely a publicity stunt for a CHrust Myther becuase hes so stupid.


No, anyone who objectivley looks at the matte riwll conclude that Tekton ministies is more civil and polite than Acharya S. Her ranting is notign btu a personal attack on Holding.

And it slaced with rude, beligerant comments, but no real facts that actally meet his points, of ocruse she lciasm he makes no poitns an donly attacks he rpersoanlly, whcih si also false.


RisenJesus is another exampel of her disiples turngin a blidn eye to reality. Tehy paly the " Haccoridng ot his soruces btu his soruce smay be worng and hwo is he" card. Well, lets ompare his soruces iwth hers. he used two repected Proffessors form Ruetger University. Acharya S uses occultists, feminists, and an assortment of eccentircts that have been long ago discredited.

I certianly think his two proffessors outwights th elikes of Kersye GRaves, barbara Walker, Reverend Robert taylor, Higgins, Hislop ( Write the articl eon him too, by hte way, not just here for Dorothy's sake) and Massey.

RisenJesus remaisn respectful, polite, and civil. And presents its case in a thoughout and acucrate manner. her rebuttal, which you insist on kepeign here, is again laced with nothig more htna cheap personal assault on the charecte of Lucida.

Again, she fails to rellay address anyhtign he acurlaly wrote, and instead prefers to make comments abotu how stupid he is, and calls him a "Used rleigiosu salesman." THis is a brillaint rebuttal?


Forgive me, btu Dorothy doesnt simply respond harshly to those who attakc her, shes vicious, cruel, rude, arrogant, self agrandising, and petty.

She also cannot stand to be challenged, and wants frree speech for herslef and her follwoers but denies freedom to anyoen else.


Her rebuttals are poitnless excersises in personal attack. Her books nothign but a collection of other badly researhced books. Her premise a cheap cpnsiracy theory. her manner nothign short of a totolitarian bully.


And to not see this because you are too busy to defend her is reaosn enough not to bother thse of us with no personal stake in this.


I do not earn my lifing off CHristain apologetics, im a reporter. I do not relaly have much interest in this woman except to make sure she doesnt pollute Wikipedia with her lies abotu herself and her hate fileld venom. I dotn think Alterprise has much stake in this either.I know Phi Betea doesmnt.


You, on the other hand, have an agenda othe htna objective fact. You are here to defned her. thus, you are an apologist for Acharya S. You will defend anyhtgin she says or does, and if she is chalelgned, you will invent an escuxe to supprot her.


You currnetly invent exucses tfor the exlcusion of CHristain critiissm disoite the fact that She critisis Christainity, you try to defend her hateful attiude by sayign shes just defendign herself form ehr attackers. But rlwlay, do you htink that those who critise her started this? Her website hosts articles written before her book wa soublished, and before sh went oublic. her hatefulnes sand nastyness is evident fofm any of her articles she has written.

C,ealry, syaign she sdidnt start this is only an escape mechanism she uses to extricate herself form repsoncibility of her own actions, and you syaign shs just defneidign herslef form attakc is nothign btu a reaction to support her, when the relity is obvious. She critised others first.She thus ought not to b surprised when thy dotn lay dosn and die for her.

She started this hwole affair by her own need to critise others, and if she didnt wan tot be critisised herslef, she ought nto have begun slinging mud, and no amount of your defnece of her will wipe away her repsoncibiltiy to handel herslef with dignity and address reasonable critisim, which is on display here as well.


Neither does it invalidate Wikipedias mandat ot tell the real truth abotu her, not her own verison fo it to promote sales and her own image.


ZAROVE 16:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

216 writes:


I will try to make this as much point by point as I can.

Au contrare, the major problem is that apologetic devotees will defend the absurd until hell rises right OR wrong. Any question of religion is a question of their faith and they take it personally as though attacked themselves.


-Zar- This is not acutlaly true. Many apologists do nto take any and all queasitosn of their faith personally.Saying othereise is just moe smear tactic by you agaisnt thise gol dunr eveil Christains.

On the other hand, Acharya S's disiples take any attempt at providing objetivity as a persoanl attack agaisnt her. See the difference?-Zar-

You are fond of calling everything said that doesn't agree with you a lie.


-Zar-No Im not. Im fond of clalign lies lies. You ar elying because you are pretendign the current WIkipedia article i fai and balanced because it omits critiissm of her work, even though Richard Dawkins, an acutal repsected scientist, as critism of his work posted. You then raitonlise this away by sayign the aritlce shoudk be about what she says of herslef because its baotu her. You remove the bits abotu ehr life because you think tis "trite". You exagerat eher signifigance and claism shes a "Historian, Linguisyt'Religiosu AShcolar, and Archeologist" withotu the least bit of evidence outsode fo her word for it.


You then berate CHristaisn, claim tey are worse than she is on spreadign hatred ( even thoguht his sint shown by the linsk on Wikipedia.) and try to raitonalsie her hatred away as if its all self defence.


That is apoogetics and lies.Not because it disagrees with me persoanlly, many disagree with me persoanlly and Im OK with it. Its because your curnet article presents her as soemthgin shes not.-Zar-



Is this to stir some sort of retaliatory response, or what?


-Zar-No. its to point out the hubiris and hypocracy of the guru and her disiples...and why their objecitosn to wikpeidea alteratiosn that ar eproposed ought to be ignroed.-Zar-


The quoting of Robert Price to lend weight to arguments against Acharya should note what he says about JP holding of Tekton Ministries... to quote: "Internet apologist James Patrick Holding (as he chooses to be known) has thus far seen fit to by-pass the pages of published books..." and "...he seems to me sometimes perversely to misread his opponents’ arguments and to reduce them to strawman status." Yet, it seems you give more weight to him as long as it is against Acharya... why is that?


-Zar-Maybe its because the artilce is abotu Acharya? Ever think fo that? Again, Im not a supporter of Tekton Ministires. I dotn sit devoutly reading every aritcle, I dotn follwo JP Holding, and I dotn donat emoney. I knwo of it because of Acharya S, when I did a yahoo searhc its the seocnd link, and I read the articles on HER.

Since htis Wkipedia article is bout HER, then the Bob Price review of Holdigns books arent rlelay rlevant.


Also, you just commited the sin of ommisison you liek accusing us of. Price also said that Holding coudl easly get piblished by any mainstream Christain publisher... he also had soem nice thigns to say abotu him int he artilce. Contrast this to Acharya S...


Sorry, Dorothy had no real merit in Price's aritle, where Price did co,plement Holding. Cherry pikcing isnt rellay evidnece.


And again, the review of Holdigns book by Price isnt really needed for an artilce on Acharya S. Maybe add it to the JP Holding article. But, the only reaosn you woudl add it here is to discredit Hodling, which si strange as Holding's artilce on Acharya S isnt mentioend by Bob Proce at all.

aain, why are we even tlakign abotu him and his book and hwat Bob Price thinkjs of Him? Its a distraciton frm the fac thtat this aritle is not abotu discreditign all who oppose the great and mighty Acharya S, tis abotu Acharya S. get it?-Zar-




By giving grace to one's disparagement's as being cute while condemning it on the other is the height of hypocrisy.



-Zar-No its not. Dorothy's entire rebuttal to holding, or risenJesus for that matter, consists of nothign BUT inflamatory remaorks abotu his intelelgence, manhood, and mental health. Contraat this to Holdings reveiw of her book.

He makes several points about the hisotry and myhtology that she uses in ehr books, and uses several credible souces to dmeonstrate errros in her book.

Achy is just a nickname, and I doubt it was meant ot be taken as a disparagy at all. S is for Stench may be, but tis only rlelay in the title. And I didnt rellay agree with holdigns style, I do, however, rtecognise thst he has made vlaid poitns and is a vlaid critic of her work.


its not loke his whole reviewof her was nothign but a cheap ad hominim.Unliek Dorothy.-Zar-



You might think it interesting if you had read it yourself instead of taking someone else's word for it.


-Zar-Read what? Dorothy's rebuttal? Id di read it. If you mean the Tekton Ministies website, I read that aritlce too. Ivd also read "The Christ COnsoiracy, the Greatset Story Ever Sold", long before I heard of JP Holding. Ive mentioend this before. So what is it I ahvetn read that Il woudl find interesting?-Zar-



"The Christian doctrine of the resurrection had its origin in sun worship. As the sun, the Father, rose from the dead, so it was believed that his earthly children would also rise from the dead. "The daily disappearance and the subsequent rise of the sun," says Newton, "appeared to many of the ancients as a true resurrection; thus, while the east came to be regarded as the source of light and warmth, happiness and glory, the west was associated with darkness and chill, decay and death. This led to the custom of burying the dead so as to face the east when they rose again, and of building temples and shrines with an opening toward the east. To effect this, Vitruvius, two thousand years ago, gave precise rules, which are still followed by Christian architects." Chapter 7 Christ Conspiracy


-Zar-So? Again, why is it you predume I havent read the book? Just becasue Dorothy rpetensds all her critics ar either Chrisytain apologists or havent read her book doesnt make it true. Truth be known ( Pun intended) I own two copies of CHrist COnspitacy. oen was bought for my editor and oen for me. He didnt wanthis so I ended up with it. For the arilve I wrote on hr I read the enture thing, even the notes and index.


However, w arent discussing my problems withthe CHirst conspiracty, and indeed, this article isnt even abotu the book, tis baotu its author...-Zar-


Acharya is not the only one making these astrological connections. http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/castchar.html


-Zar-Of coruse shes not, given that she was uttelry incapable of acutlaly comign up with anythign on ehr own and her book is enturley based ont eh worls of others, she clalry coudlnt be. However, this doesnt validate her claims, neither does it make all critisism of her book invalid, neither is this relevant informaiton for th Atcle in wikipeida abotu her. Again, this sint a debate abotu her work, I simply want her critics to also be noted so th reader gets a fair assessment of her. Not a whitewash htat she approves of


By the way, the link you offer that shwos "others" agree wiht her... its not independant researhc either. It uses her as a soruce. It also uses soem of her osurces as soruce. Poepel quotign each other as evidence is not evidence.

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/bookr.html


See a problem?.-Zar-



December 25 is celebrated as the Winter solstice.


-Zar-No its not, thats the 22nd, even in CHrist Con, she claism the ressurection fo the sun after its death ocures ont he 25th, three days later, and links htis to CHristmas, which overlooks several problems, such as the fac tthat Christmas is the celebration fo HCurst Birth, not his ressurectiin, which wodl be Esther, and hte fac thtat CHristmas wasnt celebrated till aroudn the 400's, rendeirng it a late development not rlelay part of Christain formative Hisotry. If Jesus where a sun god as she pretends, then woudlnt the ealry worhsippers Celebrate CHrustams roght form the start?-Zar-



The 25th is celebrated because commemorates the sun stopping its decent to the horizon and three days later, it begins its climb back into the heavens and is thus resurrected. In the story of the crucifixion, Jesus was crucified between two thieves. In astrology, November is Sagittarius, the Archer, from November 23 to December 21 and Capricorn is December, The Goat, from December 22 to January 20, the last two and most barren of the months of winter thus heralding the resurrection of the sun. This set the scenario for the crucifixion and resurrection. If you are really concerned about the accuracy of the bible... look up what the month corresponds with the Jewish calendar Nisan. It's in August.



-Zar- Im sure you think this is interesting, btu I fail to see how it provides any informaiton abotuthe author of the book, which is the real interest here. Yiu may beelive these fairy tales she chruns out, bu this doesnt mean Wikipedia has ot pretend they ar eoroiven fact or ignroe the obviosu criticsms ot them.If you coudl distance yourself form your beleifs and acutlaly look at this objectivley, you woudl relaise that critisisms are valid in any article.-Zar-




The Roman Catholic Council of Nicea made the decision in 325 A.D., to "commemorate" the resurrection of Jesus Christ on "Easter Sunday," a day on which pagan celebrations had always been held in honor of the pagan goddess, "Ishtar!"



-Zar- Actulaly this is also false. The reasonign was that it was a romanisation of the Jewish Calencer, and fell on an approximate date for the Passover. in most Languages, "Easter" is "Pasche" or some varient, meanign Passover.

In english its Easter, but this has nothgin to do with Ishtar, and is liekly a mention of the East, where altars aimed. Likewise it may have been a lingual merger btwene a Celtic holy day that fell in abotuthe same tie. But no real linguistical evidenc elinks it to Ishtar.-Zar-



There is nothing Christian about Ishtar (Easter)!


-Zar-Ok, and htis has to do with Acharya S how? Doreothy can use this old wives tale if she likes but regarldess, tis not relevant here.-Zar-



In fact, there is only one place in the King James Version Bible where the word Easter is to be found, and even that is a mistake!



-Zar- And your point being?-Zar-


Properly translated, the word would have been Passover "And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after "the Passover" to bring him out before the people." (Acts 12:4 NAS)


-Zar- Luckily most Bibels do translate it Passover, so your objeciton isnt rellay gettign us anywhere...-Zar-




Apologists traditionally offer deniaLS, not arguments.


-Zar- Muhc liek your doing...-Zar-




You need to read what his critics say of him and his attacks on them. Read Wells, Doherty et al and get their reactions to his attacks on them.


-Zar- Why? Is this aritle on JP Holding or Dorothy Murdock? AKA Acharya S? Again, posting linsk to Hodligns critics only firther proves that you hate Holdign and want him discredited. it doesnt prove anyhtign at all about Dorothy, so why is it that it even matters? This sint a debate, and Im not usign Holding to defned my position while yo use DOrothy, Im postign his review as it is a vlaid criticsm to her work. Critissms ot his work, even if valid, arent rlelay relevant in an article thats abotu Dorothy. I dotn see why you fail to grasp this.-Zar-



He only has one source and that is the bible... a self validating book, unsubstantiated by in any other writer of the day.


-Zar- Even if this was true, again, what does htis have to do with Acharya S? And again, this sitn true, I read the aritlce on Christ COnspriacy on his site, and he links to several independant sources beside the Bible. -Zar-


Claiming one source is better than another is your opinion and opinion does not a fact make.


-Zar- And yet your opinion is fact. think abot it. You know Tekton Ministires is a bad source and shoud not be included.

COudlnt I just as readily say that your opinion is not fact and so Tekton is vlaid?

Why is it that My opinion is not a fact and htus shoud be ignored, but your opinion is to nbe listened to whilst we exclude all thsoe who critisise Dorothy's work? THis screams of manipulation. In other words, use the approves of soruces Dorothy likes, and reject her critics, claim them as unteliable. If one calls her soruce sunreliable, say its just their opinion. This is why I call you a liar.-Zar-


None the less, Licona's approach is the same old deriding of others sources to make your own legitimate.


-Zar-No tis not. He emailed tow respected priffessors of Hinduism and Busddhism, as well as Astornomy. And he learned that Dorothy's won soruces said she was wrong...


Dorothy's soruces are bad, because they are just lik ehr, apologetics. they argue to prove a pojtn, not to fidn truth. Dorothy began withthe presuppositio that JEuss wa sa myth, then set out to prove it. She want objective. Neither wasHiggins, nor was Graves. Nor is Barbara Walker.

Objectivity is what makes a source mroe valid, and noen of hers are objective.-Zar-




Even if so, so what? That does not constitute grounds to dismiss her books out of hand. If it were it would constitute a pettiness on mind only equaled by the book burners of the past. A bullying, totalitarian act in itself.


-Zar- You know what else bullies do? They make sure their cirtics are harrassed and silenced so that their voice is th eonly oen heard.Of coruse they say they had good reaosn too...


See,this isw aht tou ar edoing. You wan tot rmove Dorothy's cirtics because you say they arnet vlaid. You want to criisise and undermien hem and their soruces, but refise anyone the same luxury on DOrothy, who must be heard with repsect and not qiasitoend.

This is totolitatrianism.It is cnesorship.-Zar-

That's your opinion but to insist that your opinion be placed on everyone else is nothing short of the inquisition.


-Zar- I do not place my opinion anywher eitn he aritlce. Unliek you, I have no real agenda except to make Wikipeida fair and unbias. You o the other hand wat to rmove her critics because you wdo not want people to queasiton her owrk. HYou also want her exagerated "credentials" placed in the aritlce to fool peoepl intt hinking shes a vlaid and respected scholar. You want her poitn fo vriw given and her theory demonstrated a if a priven fact, and want to ensure that only the best posisble image of her exists.

All because you agree with her book.

So, rather than blame me with Bias, blame yourself.-Zar-



You speak for Aterprise and Phi Beta?


-Zar- I didnt claim ot. But Phi Beta said himself he finds this sort of thing interesting, btu I doubt he wudl find Christ Conspiracy that iluminating. I aid poitn blank that I odnt knwo Alterprises beelifs.-Zar-



You do have a personal stake in this.


-Zar- No I dont.-Zar-


It is your belief system that is being subjected to question.


-Zar- How do you know? You dotn even know what my beleif system is, your guessing.Just liek you "Know" I havnt read her book, and "Know" that her sources are vlaid and "Know" that it sjust my opinion that their not.For all you rlelay knwo Im an atheist. I dotn tell my beleifs on wikipedia, because they arent relevant.-Zar-


Do not pretend to speak for me. It is standard fair that the apologist cannot help themselves but to get personal and question the motives of all those they disagree with.


-Zar- This is an attemto to silence me based on discrdition. Obviosuly, its a ploy. You habvent relaly addressed any of the convenres we have raised againt Dorothy, and instead prefer to attakc me oersoanlly while sayign I am attakcign you and have a secret agenda... relaly this is childish blather.-Zar-



Religionists typically are reduced to a lack of objective criticisms because they have to deny those different than themselves to affirm their own beliefs.


-Zar- Says who? You? Dorothy? THis is a pretty broad brush your usign to paint all "Religionists." COdnt the same be said of anyone? IE, atheists all have to disparage peooel who hodl rleigious veiws, because htey have to support their own world view. Its just as easy to acucse all atheusts of not being rational and incapable of objctivley lookign into rleigious beleifs bcause of their own desire to prove them wrong. It however does a disservice to everyone to be so general.


Their ar emany who hodl to a rleigion that noentheless accept objective analusis of their faith and can withstand vlaid critissm. Sayign otherwise is simply a generalised smear.-Zar-



This also translates to intolerance and tolerance which traditionally and historically has been shown that intolerance has a stronger hold.


-Zar- This is not rlelay a poit by point address tot he concenrs abothte WIkipedia article, tis just an attemto to label me a religiosu fanatic and silence me becua eof a supposed prsonal bias...

Maybe if you had bothered to address the real concenrs abotu Dorothy, then w coudl have fgottne soemwhere.

Instead, you proive your own hypocracy.


Why dont you look objecitvley at Dorothy? Oh I knwo you lcaim to, but if you examien her book in light of actual mythology books, or better yet, Primary soruces such as the Iliad and Virgils Anead, you will soon dicover the truth, that her book is not representitive of the myths and legneds of old,a dn none where rlelay base don Astro-theology.

Instead however, you prive that tyou ar hwst o accuse me of, a fanatic, incapable of objctive thought. You take any critism of her work as a eprsoanl attakc, and fail to make logical arguments agsitn these poitns raised, instead preferin to attack the peipel who ciritise her. In short, you are acting liek hat you sauy I act like.


You attakced my charecter ( thogyh lcaimed it was just since I resorted to eprsonal attakc, but you cannto prv e this.) you refuce to look objectivley at htis and instead insist the article read facourabley to Dorothy, and only has what she claism in it, with no ecxamination, and ar so havily invested in her beleif system that you cnanot stand anyoen to queasiton it.


Likewise, your own intoelrence of other views, nanely Chrutsian ones, an you seem to assume everyone is a CHristian that opposed DOrothy's whitewash, are wrong and shoul be silenced. You ar eintoelrnet of others rleigiosu veiws and make the exucse that thy ar eintoelrent first.

Such malarky is the core of the problem hre. Your hypocracy and lies and cheap personal slander didnt even address the flaws to the current artucle. Will yo ever? I doub it, your too busy defendign Acharya to step back and even see why others want critisms added and her real credentials presented, not hr self agrandisement.-Zar-



She wrote a book and by virtue of that you consider it criticizing?


-Zar-Ive writen a book, so no. I consider her mean spirited and crude because of th ocntent of said book, as well s th ocntent of said website. You claim rleigionists are intoelrent and rude, btu look at her site. Of you lcaim to be a CHrisyain to her or her disilles, you owudl be treated badly, and not becaue you staretd it.

Her hatred is obviosu to anyone who reads her owrk.Need I go to her website and durelcy wuote her in eessays using her disparagies? im sure yo have read htem, but oretneidng shes nice an doiuvng while all rleigionists ar eintoelrtent is idiotic.-Zar-



Only if you have taken it personally as an affront to your beliefs.


-Zar- Go to Amazon.Com. Read the one star reviews. A coule ar eby Athests and THEY say the woman is rude and condescending...


One does not have to hodl the beleifs she critisises to find her manner rude and unappelaing.


H.G.Wells was an Atheust. I have read his works, and they are generally seen as warm and firenly. In his outline of Histry, he says the Bible is a wonderful collection of old DOcuments, btu then pricceeds ot exlain how h belives thet cmae baout. No oen was offended.

Even though he critised CHristianity, Wells did so as an ENglish Gentleman.

Dorothy does it as an annonymous screamign vice, whose shrill sounds echo only venom and hatred, easily recognisable by anyone, rather a beeliver or not.-Zar-



Otherwise, her responses to those who have attacked her because of such knee-jerk reactions may be resented but do not constitute any legitimate response other than personal feelings.


-Zar- Perhaos you missed th epoint lad.

Her "Repsincs: arent th eonly poiblem. THe ocntent of her books ( And Ive read CHrist COn to remind you) and the ocntent of her website BEFORE she revicieved emails are inflamatory.

Her oldest aritlces onlien contain one degrogitory remark after another.

This is before she recieved a single email form a CHristain. Before she recieved any critisism form an apologuyst. Just her.Alone.On her wbsite.


These arent Knee Jerk reactiosn to those hwo attakc her, these articles represent her ont h attack with no provikation.


And ahain, her rebuttals to her critics are all ad hominim, and fail to address th eoints raised, and her critics raise vlaid points.-Zar-



If Wikipedia is committed to Knowledge then it cannot be about your truth or my truth.


-Zar- I concur emost wholly. And I ont have a truth. Truth is Universal.

The oroblem is, the truth of the matter exissts in this case againt DOrothy. Her works are suspect an dopn to critism. Critissm form Christains and nonchristans ought ot be allowed int he articld so the reader can detmrine for himself if the critism is valid. Otherise, tis a bais aticle wirtte in ehr faovur.-Zar-



It has to be about facts, not beliefs.


-Zar- This is what Ive tred to make it about. Yiu ar eht eone rmeovign informaitin that isnt appealign to her. IE, that cirtism exists, or that her book is not one of Schoalrship, or that she has no real credientiasl and hodls only a BA.

Those are facts that you want ot distort , cover up, or remove.-Zar-


Facts have no need of belief to own their on reality aside from our view of them. Belief isn't needed until fact is no longer a consideration.


-Zar- OK, here are a few facts for you.


1: Dorothy is a coward who hides behidn a false name to present Religiosu bogotry.

2: Her books ar elaced with hitrical and theological innacuracies and are base don seocdnary osruces that agree iwth her, she refuses to acknoledge soruces htat disagree.

3: She is hatreful, eman spirited, and lieks to attakc peiopl, but f they reosind to her, she makes mro attacks an dplays the vicitm like a typical bully.

4: She sends her disiples to make sur her verison fo events is revealed and no oen challegnes her.

5: Critisism exists for her owrk, and is vlaid, because he rpremise is flawed, and hsouk b allwoed so th reader can make up his own mind.

6: Her work is published by a conpsiracy publishign house for the sks of advocatign a consoiracy theory.-Zar-

WEBouygh fact yet?

ZAROVE 15:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)



216

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

TO RECAP

1: You said that Acharya is nto the only oen who cliasm Jesus is Astro-thjeology, then linked to David Deley's website. Problem was, David Delay uses Acharya S as a soruce. So, it doesnt matter if he says the same thign or not, he just got it form Acharya S. Thats not proof of anyhting.

2: Also, nothing in her book is origional, its all pilfered form other soruces, which she copiously quores. This isnt plagerism, as she gives full cigation, btu rather a bit proves its not an origional thesis either.

3:Dorothy cannot stand any form of Critisism.As a result, she feels compelled to lash out at anythign said in oposiiton to her book,claimign its just defneidng herself form the hate fille,d, Venom spewing Phycho pubks for HCirst. IE, she recently complaiend about a negative Amazon review. She hwoever soruced much mroe hateful thant he Amazon reviewe, and whats rlelay strange is that the Amazon reviewer only cirtised her work, not her persoanlly. And sincd her book on Amazon is getitng 4 and a half stars as an average rating, why complain abut a few oen star ratigns int he fits place? Surley you expect thus, even Shakespeare gets 1 star on occassion. She hoensty wants all ratigns ot be five star? int that pety an dunrelaistic?

4: She, and her disiples, rationalise her petty behaviour and vindictiveness by syaing hse is just defneding herslef, and he critics either havent read her boomk ( I remind you, I have read her Firts book.) Or les they ar hate fulled bigots who make no point agsint her and fail to refute her, and rley on eprsonal attakc.

The reality is, of coruse, the opisite. they can make several good points, and she will rest on eprsonal attack each and every time.

5: She claims sh didnt start this. this is typical of a SOcialisted Psychopath, which I feel Dorothy may be. She claism that others attacked her, so hr hatefulness is just self defence. She never attacked anyone.

However, the first artilce she wrote, and the firts collection of Essays she write, including the now deleted "Anti-Entheogen peopel have dirty minds" , are filled with so much Invictive, so much hatred, and so much vile that oen cnanot ignroe them.

DOes she rellay think she can CHaracaturise all Preahcrs as fat, ungly, and screaming retards, all Christaisn as midnless schitzophrinic Psychotics, and all peopel who worhsip God as Violent, disturbed individual as who lakc the abiltiy ot think and reaosn, and still claim inocence?


She claims that all she does it tlak abotu Mythology and rleigion. this is a lie. She goe sout of her way to abuse those who are CHristain. I know she speaks about other rleigions, but her writitgn son them are negligable, and even in hr essays abotu Buddhism and Islam she attakcs CHristainity.

She isnt an innocent vicitm of bigotry, nor did she write peacefully abothte truth only to meet violent Oposition form a horde of brainwashed barbarians out for blood.

She started this by attackign pepel herself, and makign outrageous claims. She cannot claim that if anyone now attacks her, it is unjustified, and if she lashes back she cannot stay they statred it. Her mudslingign predates that of anyoen who has critisied her, as she started out the gate badmouthing everyone in the enture CHristain faith.


6: Likewise, her critics arent as vile tempered as she is. Tekton Ministires refused to post personal informaitonthy learned abotu her form her Ex-Boyfriend who wanted ot give them dirt. Had Dorothy gotten dirt of robert Turkel, she owudl gleefully post it.

And even thogh he has an irreverent styl, he mainly stuck to facts abot he book. ( And I sincelry doubt the name "Achy" was meant as an insult.)

IE, Tekton Ministires article on ehr contaisn a step by step analysis of the Cycles of the sun and hwo it is the story of Jesus. Each step pf th way he brigns up good poitns ot coutner Dorothy's proposals.

All Dorothy can do then aft ritn eh form of Rebuttal is to mak a cheap personal smear agist Utrkel, a rant that procceeds to take up a few pages of E-Text and occupies itself iwth findign yet mroe ways ot insutl him, by claling him an idiot, or indecent, or rude, ect...

The only thing she daned to address is the "Beigns" comment.


You may say Tekton is fa rmore belegerant than Dorothy, btu you ar epartial to her side. You may think I am partial to Tekton and am bias, but Im not. I dotn care abotu Tekton Ministires. I used them as they are hte seocnd link on an Amazon search for Acharya S, and are the most thourouhg rebuttal to her claims. THis alone wa thr basis of my claim. I have no real relationship withthem at all.

You, on the other hand, are a member of DOrothy's fan club. You ar eon ehr mailign list, and are here for the sole purpose of defendign her. This means you arent capable of lookign a tht ematter objectively. Because your intnt here is to defend Dorothy.

You may want tp pretend religion forbids peooepl form beign objective, and sicne tou arnet rleigious and DOorthy is a secular"Schoalr", then you are beign objective, btu thats just silly. You are defneidng her ideology and beelifs a s well as her persoanlly just liek a Christain apologsts defends Jeeus and his Ideology, their is no difference except in your own mind.

However, to say Dorothy is fa rmroe civil than Tekton is an afront ot logic and reaosn. Every lien she wrote in rebuttal to Tekton was a personal attakc agisnt Orbert TUrkel. Most of the body of his texg was, though sarcastic, always abotu ehr work, and gave good, solid points.

Mark Lucadia (Sp?) on RisenJEsus is another source that is vastly supeior to Dorothy in civility. I had not even so much as heard of his site till I came ot Wikipedia. It was slected by soemoen else. Remmeber, I was contnet to link only her site origioanlly.

But I read his aritlce, and it was very respectful fo her, it merley refuted her points.

Even Robert Price is far more civil than Dorothy is.And her address to him now claism he is mentlaly unstabke because he was once an Evangleical Christain! Tlak about Ad Hom. And again, she also slam him for bing a fan of Lovecraft Horror Stories, as if this makes any difference to anything.

Saying she is soemhow less venomous than her critics is insanity, sicne she resorts ot the personal attakc wiht the slightest provikaiton, whoch is, as her "Compleemnts" section once rad, th last resort of those who have run out of facts.


7:Dorothy claism she is a Schoalr, and quotes others clalign ehr a world leader in Rleigiosu studies. Peoel such as Barbara G. Wlaker and John Kaminski. Neither ofthem are schoalrs hwoever, Barbara Wlaker is aFeminist writter, and John Kaminski

is a COnspiracy reporter.

No oen i the hallowed halls of Academia seem to make use of ehr books. They arent standardised textbooks in rleigiosu studies classes, hey arent read as mandatory readign in COmparative rleigion, theological coursesfail to ention her work, in hsort, she is not named, not mentioend, not palced anywhere in the listing of religiosu schoalrs.

She isnt even wualified by degree. She hodls a BAchelors of the Liberal Arts Degree in Classics, and her straw man tactic of pointign otuthat Franklingand Marshal is a good school doesn toerk. No matter hwo good the school is, her degree doesnt make her a rleigiosu scholar. It also fials to make her an Archeologist, Linguist, or Historian.

She further doesnt work for any institution inthis capacity and is not recognised by any, and has not written any journals on the topic.


She is a memebr of variosu self serving orginisaitons. IE, the "Institute ofr Historical Accuracy", which is run by a group fo Paranormal devoteees, and surprisingly no longe rlisted on ehr site. ( Or maybe not so much, as with her Advocation of Entheogens, as she now wants ot appea rmore respetful she will revise her site ot eliminate those thigns which will amke hr appear more queasitonable...)

SHe is also pat of the Committee for the Sceittific Examinaiton of Rleigion. THis is suppose to make her osurnd impresssive. But, if you look into the gorup , you learn swiftly the problem iwht usign it as a mean to vindcate her.

It is run by ht COusnil For Secular Humanism. It exists not so much to be a neutral and objective party investigatign rleigions, but rather as a eman to discredit rleigions in the name of Humanism. THis renders them bias, and they too are not seriosuy accepted in Academic circles, even among ahtiest proffessors, ebcause theyhave alreayd detemriend their is no God, and Miracles do not happen. They then set out to prove what they alreayd beleive. Again, this is diferent form Christain apoloigtusts only in the modns of the devotees who follow such. It is in relaity the same meathod. Try to prove what you alreayd beelive and ifnd reaosns to justify your own beleifs.

it is not a respeted academic commettee, it is a self servign intety.


So, to date Dorothy lacks anyhtign at all. She ha NO membership in anythgin that woudl rlelay impress anyone but he Nieve and ignroant, and neithe rhas she nay real schoalrly rpeorts in any major jorunals. No Teachign aassignemtns, No work for a major institution, Nada.

How is she a schoalr then?


It cant be her methodology, all she has done is selecgivley read a handful of books on the subject that agree withhte conclusion she wants ot beelive in, and then extensivley quoted these authros to prove her case and added soem rantign comemntary. THis is what her book is, rantign comemntary to extnesive wuotaitons form other freethoguth texts.

I have ehre been acucsed of CHerry picking, which si a ogical fallacy, but this is what Dorothy is ofing in ehr selective use of Data, and her selected soruces ar eoften discredited.

So again, hwo is she a schoalr?


8:Dorothy is a coward who critieed the CHruch for is scensorship campaign then Hypocritivlaly censors her cirtics as muha s posisble, even snedign her disiples to ensure the proper image of her is given to her audience.

Relaiy is otu th window, only the official and apprved verison will eb allowd!


She hidesbehind a fake name and hurls insults ( And I gave my name abive, before you say I hide behidn a Pseudonym)

She makes stupid anti-Rleigious arugments thta odnt hold water but ar eused to indict evryoen who beeleives in a rleigion, namely CHrisainiy, and targets them for hatred an dintolrence while prachign tolernece.

She cannot allow inwuery into her ideas, oen must simply accept hem , or else be labled a brainwashed idiot.

She hidesbehidn others and even has gon so far as ot creat emultiple usernames on Amazon.com to artificially inflate her book ratings, this has also been the Motis operandi for ohers with little known and/or unpopular works.


She refuses to face responcibiltiy for her actiosn, instead claimign inncoence and htat if anyone spaks againt her they are attakcign her withotu provikation. Any citiissm is sen as an attakc no matter how politley givn, and no matter how plitely given is called a spewing rant laced iwth venom. Dorothy meanwhile claism it is all undeserved as she never said a hurtful word to any until she needed ot defned herself.


THis refusal to address citisisms, and her dplacign all the blame on those hwo queasiton her veiws, makes her a tyranical bully, and he rlgions only thigds tryignt o ienfroce this as a nw status quo.


9: Try as much as you like, this is not personal to me. Ive managed to write objecticley on other writters, eb they atheistic or CHrisyain or Hindu or Buddhist. Namly because I do not allow my own belifs to cloud my jugment on others. I can call Richard Dakins Brulliant even if I dotn agree with him, I tend ot Faovur Stephen J Gould's ideas.

I can talk on Steven Hawking. I can discuss Billy Graham. I can tlak on Mahatma Ghandi. I cna do this because unlike you, I do not shwo up just to enforc emy views. I am not here to make all Wikipeida aritcle s conform to my views. I like the neutrality of Wikipeida and wan to keep it Neutral.


You ahev admited that you are here to defend Dorothy. this is why you arent beign onbjective. Anh ciritism must eothe rb rbuffed, or else removed. Her crdentials must ve given as she woidl give htm, to daxzle and impress, and not be wueasitoend. Her idea smust be rpesented as credible. This is because hti is hwo she woudl want it and hwo you udl want it, you wasnt hr ideas, afte rall, to spread.


You do not want a neutral and baalnced artile that includes critism, a relaistic view of her credentials, and a brief diription of who hse is and her life. You want to dazzle and amaze readers iwht how wonderful she is. Jeuss isnt called wonderful in WIkipeida, but thats OK because he doesnt exist, but Acharya S th wise does , so must be praosed!


If you dotn see the problem with this, then let me spell it out. PRaisign her is not IWkipeidas job, its Wikipeidas job to writ a netural and objective artilce on her.


Thus, relaisticlaly examining her credentials and offerign reaosnable critism to her ideas is vlaid, because htis is how all other wikiepdia aritlces are written. Again, this sint a paid advertisemnt for her, its an encyclopids. All avialabel informaion on ehr shoudl be inlcuded,even the "trite" but abotu her findign HCurhc boring, and even her critics.

Now, why is it we need her defneders here? Surley you can see that Im only writitng an aritlc eon her, not a critique.


About James And 216

Can we please stop them form editing the page? They are clearly biased in her faour and will reject any attmeot at Neutrlaity in an attmept tp makle their hero look as wonderful as posisbke. They constantly rmeove links, add redundant links to her website, and do nothgin tbuit add her useless fluff.

James keeps demanidng if we have probelms withhte article he keep s psoting to "Be spacific." we are spacific and go to grat lenghtst to tell him why a biased aritticle that read sjust liek her website in how great she is and omits ciritissms is not vlaid, and he ifgnores it, revertsthe page,a nd dmenads we "Be spacific" again.


216 just writes useless anti-religious garbage and poitnless POV Rebuttals.


Can this be fixed soemhow?


What is your problem with my last edit? Please be specific.

And no, you haven't addressed the current article specifically. Much of what you've written above for example, doesn't seem to apply to anything, or is wholly irrelevant. Where is this "praise" you mention? How does it "dazzle and amaze readers" as you say?? Maybe we're reading two different articles, I don't know.

Typical that you try to have others banned who don't share your viewpoint.


(James) 66.183.168.152 17:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

216 writes:


Apologetics is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines. You cannot do that honestly without disallowing anything that conflicts with that.That's what faith is about.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_tactic "Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to 'rubbish' a group or an individual and to seek to undermine their credibility."

Dawkins has been discussed previously... go back and read the piece on Dawkins, then check out what you are calling criticisms. There are none. There is a heading called Debates. The debates mentioned quote Dawkins but not his opponents. What you are posting against Acharya is designed to discredit.

I have not once berated Christians. Show where I have.

The current article tells who she is with a brief background and what she has done to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.

As stated before, any contradiction to a belief finds it rejected. The claim to the one and only way is the automatic condemnation of all other ways. This requires true hubris. What greater hypocrisy than that which pretends its double standards are not bias or engages in a tactic that they condemn?

Nonetheless, it is relavant that if one quotes a source to discredit another source, their own veracity be verified. You mistook. What Price said was that Holding had thus far seen fit to by-pass the pages of published books but that in spite of that, he can only imagine numerous evangelical publishers who would love to have him. Contrast that yourself.

As regards Holding, Licona, and Price... in touting these three detractors so proudly you demonstrate your selectivity and unwillingness to admit only unfavorable responses that agree with your preconceived notions of biblical inerrancy even though two of those mentioned do so with regularity. Price even agrees with Acharya's premise that a historical Jesus is a myth. Would you post the url where I can find Holding's review of her book?


Cite Holding's points about the history and mythology Acharya uses to demonstrate errors in her book. I think you will find that what he typically does is misrepresent them to deride them.


To what end would Holding call Acharya "Achy" if not a playground name calling? In saying that Holding made valid points, do quote them. Your so saying they merely speaks to your willingness to see his remarks that way. Holding's take on Acharya is fraught with self protectionism that bespeaks the believers willingness to hold his own view sacrosanct above others.

Read what? Do refer to the paragraph regarding Price preceding the statement.

I guess there is a difference between reading a thing and understanding it. In a nut shell, what she says is that religion is founded in myth. Can you show where this is not so?


I disagree. What is transpiring here is exactly your problems. If it were soley about Acharya,her books would only be a footnote. Price was a critic, Holding and Licona are denyers. Price is also a critic of Holding. If you want to get a fair assessment of Acharya then show those who agree with her also. If all you want to do is tout her detractors, then what yoiu are doing is showing that what you believe is superiro to anyone else.

The 25th is "celebrated" as the winter solstice. Not, is the winter solstice. The selection of December 25th, as a Christian holiday, was first recorded in scholarly texts dating to 325 A.D., although the actual practice was first decreed in 274 A.D. by the Emperor Aurelian. It commemorates the birth of the new sun resurrected from its decent.

If you could provide "information"


This will explain Ishtar/Easter for you. http://www.ldolphin.org/ishtar.html


Like I'm doing? What do I have to deny? I want inclusion, not exclusion.


If you can't include those who praise her along with those who disparage her tehn you are biased. If you take the word of one who has been at least as much discredited as her over all others theen it is only proper to point that out.

Holding links to several independent sources? Do cite them.

You are saying and have been demonstrating that in your opinion, my opinion is not fact and Tekton's is valid.


Manipulation is posting one side while denying representation for the other. If you present one side, then present the other. The prerequisite of the accusation of liar is that one presents false information with the intention of deceiving. Do present any evidence of my having done this. If you cannot, then it becomes you.


Who were these respected professors of Hinduism and Buddhism? Do provide sources that I can read for myself.


Just because you say Acharya's sources are bad, doesn't make is so. Jesus is a myth. Discounting the bible, what have you to show that it is otherwise?


I am not cognizant of what bullies do but there are always those who will seek to gain their way by force through an overbearing attitude and intimidation. One method of silencing opposition is present your own side while not allowing the other side present theirs.

Again, you repeat this fallacy. If you present one side, present both. If you cannot, don't present any.


To be fair, both sides have to be heard. If you can't do that, then don't do any.


All that I can know of you is what you present of yourself.


As near as I can tell, I have addressed each and every point made. If I have not then do cite it.


I didn't paint "all" religionists. Read it again. That said, what can you offer in rebutal to the observation? The prerequisite of religion is belief. Belief begins where fact ends. Fact has no need of belief to exist. Belief breaths life into that which would not otherwise exist without it. When belief is challenged the believer must retreat into their own emotional conditioning to support it.


If you see yourself as a religion fanatic, who am I to argue?


I have addressed every concern listed. If I missed one, do point it out.


I'm not certain what you have said here. Do enlighten, please. For if the Illiad is not a primary source, I don't know what is.


You will have to show me examples of I am acting like you.


The only intolerance I am guilty of is when people hurt other people. You are becoming redundant. This game you play is becoming tiresome but for your edification, I have the patience of Job. I can keep htis up for as long as you want.


You can't bait me. May as well take a different tact. Call me whatever names you will, but if you don't call me stubborn, you're missing the point.


The content of her book is mean spirited? Show me. Don't put words in my mouth just because you feel them in yours.


If you perceive hatred it's because it is recognizable in yourself. Personally, I find no hatred in her book of any kind. If you would quote what you are claiming it could save a lot of time. No review on Amazon made mention of her being rude and condescending.


HG Wells? It is purported that he was my fourth cousin. Read God the Invisible King


If you are hearing shrill sounds and experiencing venom and hatred while reading a book, religion won't help you, it is the cause.


In the first place, how can you know of what she did or did not receive before she received derogatory emails? Her critics, yourself included, do not rebut her, they seek to deny and nullify her premises. Premises, I might add, that are in many cases a thousand plus years old.


If truth is universal, then post both sides of the issue. But if the best you can muster are your feelings, the your universal truth is yourself.


Religion is based in belief, not fact. In order for there to be balance, there must be a pro to balance the con. If you incapable of understanding this very simple premise then don't post either of them.

==========

1: Dorothy is a coward who hides behidn a false name to present Religiosu bogotry.

2: Her books ar elaced with hitrical and theological innacuracies and are base don seocdnary osruces that agree iwth her, she refuses to acknoledge soruces htat disagree.

3: She is hatreful, eman spirited, and lieks to attakc peiopl, but f they reosind to her, she makes mro attacks an dplays the vicitm like a typical bully.

4: She sends her disiples to make sur her verison fo events is revealed and no oen challegnes her.

5: Critisism exists for her owrk, and is vlaid, because he rpremise is flawed, and hsouk b allwoed so th reader can make up his own mind.

6: Her work is published by a conpsiracy publishign house for the sks of advocatign a consoiracy theory.-Zar-

WEBouygh fact yet?

ZAROVE 15:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


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

Your bias stands naked before the world in the names you call, . the accusations you make, the conjectures you promote and your insistent desire to censor out any opposing view to your beliefs.


216

Nice try, Im not the one removign Critisism hwoever.


My Bias is to allow valid critisim and an hoenst examinaiton fo her credentials.

Your Non-Biased artilve hust tlaks baotu how wonderful she is, omits all critism, and makes false claism about her.

I have made no attemto to smear nyone, btu you and James have.

ZAROVE 18:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


What false credentials, Zarove? You keep making wild accusations without backing them up. It's ridiculous. 66.183.168.152 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


No I dont. Ive said before.

Ill repat hopefully it will sink in.


1: Her membership in ASOGS, its ntiot impressive and is only inlcuded ot give her an air of validity.

2: Im a ammeber of the CSER, pay 60 dollars and fill out a form and your in. Placing this in he r"Education and career" seciton makes many who are unaware of this prginisaitons real purpose think shes a vlaidschoalr...

3: She doesnt hodl degrees in, nor work for any instituion that specialises in, History, Language, Religiosu studies, or Archeology.


She hodls a BA in classics, thats it.

In response:

1: Your opinion on whether her ASCSA membership is impressive is irrelevant.

2: She's a fellow of the CSER. You fabricate, then attack your own fabrications. Get your facts straight.

3: Another irrelevancy. What has that got to do with the article we're discussing?

Your claim of 'false credentials' is bogus.

66.183.168.152 20:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (James)

I interject to remind both of the warring entities above that both of you have performed 3 reverts already today, and any further acts would earn you a block. You have been warned before on this. Also, I would like to remind that the number of reverts apply to entities, not sockpuppet user names/ip addresses. So, please don't make up accounts or change IPs and revert. --Ragib 19:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope

I wsnt to revise agaisnttoday. But I do think that James and 216 need to be prevented orm further alteration of he article, as it seems they will nto allwo critism of Acharya in the text, rmeove vital informaiton, and mislead the reader with false claism abot her credentials. As I have enumerated above.

ZAROVE 20:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


If I wherent a Pysch major...

1: Your opinion on whether her ASCSA membership is impressive is irrelevant.

It's not my opinion. Its a fact. Biegnb a memebr doesnt make her a Shcoalr, and the way the text is worded, this stn made clear, in fact the oposite is implied, that she is a schoalr. On ehr website now shes change id tso that the gorup is "One of the most exclusive".

Your opinion that this needs otbe in the artilce as written withotu notifying the people who rea dit caually that this is a non-impressive credit doesn thold water. IT proves onlythat she studied the classics, not hat shes a recognised Schoalr.


First, she is obviously a scholar. But that's irrelevant, since the article in question simply lists her membership. It's a fact.


2: She's a fellow of the CSER. You fabricate, then attack your own fabrications. Get your facts straight.

No I dont. Im a mmber, pay a few dues, and your in. thats harldy peer reviewed and base don Merit.

want the same privoledge as your hero? Shell out 60 dollars.


You are not a member. Are you just making this stuff up? Truly bizarre.


3: Another irrelevancy. What has that got to do with the article we're discussing?

Not sure what tyou mean here.


I mean: where does the article in question say anything about Acharya holding degrees in, or working "for any instituion that specialises in, History, Language, Religiosu studies, or Archeology"?? You're not responding to what's actually there.


Your claim of 'false credentials' is bogus.

No its not. You use the ASOGS and CSER as prooif that shes a recognised schoalr, and the way you place it in the article ytou want others decieve dinto beelivign this, whilst removing the critisms.

I am a mamebr of the CSER, it wasn htat hard ot join.

It doesnt make her a shcolar, as its not merit based.

Just like its not Merit-based evidence that she si a schoalr that she as a grad student joien dhte ASOGS.

Why this doesnt isnk in I dont know, excpet iwllful ingorance on her disiples paert.

ZAROVE 00:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Again, you're not responding to what's actually there. Where does the article say anything about 'proving' she's a recognised scholar? (Of course, she has been recognized by the CSER, but that's besides the point.)


I repeat: Your claim of 'false credentials' is bogus.


^^James^^ 02:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (James)

=========

216 writes

So, you are a member of CSER? Where's your name on the list? Do present evidence of this claim but first read on.


"While membership of CSER is reserved to those having the status of fellow of the Committee, it is possible to become an associate. Associates receive the publications of the Committee, including the CSER Review, at a discounted rate and receive regular updates concerning activities."

Acharya is a Fellow of CSER and as such, a member, not an associate. Look at the names listed. It's an impressively prestigious group of schaolars and guess whose noam is there among them. Sort of shatters all you have been saying, doesn't it?

See http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cser/


What is there that will not be said or done to justify a belief?


216


Shatters?

No, it doesnt chatter what Im saying. Again, fill otthe form and oay the 60 dollars ad yo rin.

As for the "Beign a fellow" crap, look at the actual orginisaiton. Its not run by a majopr Universiy or instituiton, tis run by the COusnil for Secula Humanism. THe sole intent of the orginisaiton is to discredit Rleigion. This to you is unbias?

This is recognised Schoalrship?

Simply havign a guy with a PH.D as one of the members doesnt make the gorup particulalry respectable. Again, this isnt Harvard Press or Camrbidge review. This is basicllay a self serving group that is run out of the consl of Secular Humanism. He rmembership is as shokcign as Jerry Falwell beign accepted at an Evangleical Asosciation.

You amy think its wholly different because "religion requies Beleif" and thid is "Scientific", but theirs nothgin rellay Sceintific about htis ORginisaiton, it already presupposes rleigion to be false an then set s out to investigate the claism to prove this forgone conclusion.


Its liek ehr signign up to be part of Internet Infidels or Skeptical Review.

Its a partisan private orginixation that has no feal credibility in mainsstay academia.

And again, I have joiuend, filed the form just today. Just to show I could, and to show how easy it is. DOen knwo whent he listw ill eb updated, btu when it is, Ill post it.

But this sitn "Evidence thta shes a schoalr", its evidnece onlythats hes a skeptic.

Which is in the article zalready.

Again,y yo seek anyhign to validate ehr, and ignroe anythign agsitn her, this tells her side and her approived verison of reality. It ignroes the actual full picture.


She isnt rellay a shcoalr, shes a BA in classics. Im an MA in Jorunalism, this doesnt mske me a scholar, and I have a higher degree than she has.

ZAROVE 04:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CSER is an international research and educational consultation comprising members (fellows) of the Committee who are nominated and appointed by an executive board. (emphasis added)

Executive Board:

  • Robert Alley (University of Richmond)
  • Hector Avalos (Iowa State University)
  • J.A. Barnhart (University of North Texas)
  • Vern Bullough (University of Southern California)
  • Carol Delaney (Stanford University)
  • Antony Flew (University of Reading, UK)
  • Van A. Harvey (Stanford University)
  • R. Joseph Hoffmann (Wells College), Chair
  • Paul Kurtz (SUNY and Center for Inquiry, Amherst)
  • Joyce Salisbury (University of Wisconsin, Green Bay)
  • Robert Tapp (University of Minnesota)


^^James^^ 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ragib

I know you want to be fair and assign equel blame in a dispute over tow biases, but if you rea dmy wrttings, I have been unbiased, dispite the constant claim that I am not.


Its not ad hom to point out that Dorothy is using every mean posisble to make ehrself look liek a respected scholar.


Look at the current claim. SHes a memebr fo the COmmittee for the Sceintific Examinaiton fo Religion. wow, imprssive, this must prove she a real scholar, just liek her ASOGS does. Alterprise pointed out that the ASOGS isnt rlelay relevan tinformaiton. Nor is CSER.

Its run by the COunsil ofor Secular Humanism. It woudkl be as unbiased a "Scientific" institution as any evanglcial Christain association would.

If I posted a link to an evangleical Christain asosication, they wpiudl cr bias becuase htye have to protect thier beleifs, but he cunsil of Secular Huamnsim doent? The standard fair here is to claim that since htey are basiclaly athists they have bo beleivs to protect, btu a visit to both the COunsil for Secular Huamnsist and CSER sites reveal that they bith have a mission statement that bascllay states they ecixist to discredit rleigiosu beleifs.


SInce Acharya S is only rellay well known due to beign a critic of CHristainity, this fits well with them, but it harldy proves that she s a recognised scholar, alal Camrbidge University level.


It just proves that shes joined a bunch of other skewptics in their pursuit of discreditin rleigious beleifs. Thats harldy impressive.


Its this sort of trecherous underhanded manipulaiton fo the audience, many of whom will be unaware of even what the CSER is, that litters both her website and her claims on wikipedia when her disiples come ehre ot make sure she sound simpressive and to delete criticsms. Afte rall, they reaosn, her Critics are Christain thus have beleifs ot protect, theirfore ought not be heard.


Again, take a look at the site, for the CSER, its bogus. It doesnt prive shes a regognised schoalr, even thy list her as a "Writter" not a researcher, and again, thye exist to disprove rleigious beelifs. They arent rlelay scentific to that end. Scence woudl be neutral, dispite the term "Science" in the name of the gorup, its basiclaly out to prove its own posiiton. Thus makign it sectarian.

Its just like a Christain apologetics site. It exists to voice the seucalr sie. If apologetics websites arent vlaid fof Wikipeida, why is htis?


Obviosuly they want to play by seperate standards. Oen for ther critics, and oen for her. SHe can be an apologist, and join an apologist orginisaiton, and we are to be in awe and asume shes right.

Her critics , if they are apologits, must vbe ignroed.

Thsi dpubel standard is rather pointless, woudlnt you zgree?


Its fluff, designed ot make peopel think shes reputable whens hes obviosuly not.


Thats not ad hom, thats relaity.

ZAROVE 14:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Simply stating that Acharya attended the ASCSA, or is a fellow of the CSER is "trecherous underhanded manipulaiton" in your world? Bizarre.


Regarding science being "neutral" towards religion: Religion is based upon faith and belief. Science is based upon reason and the scientific method. For religious people to demand that their claims, be they tales of nirvana, angels, saviours or devils, be alloted equal status and consideration in the world of scientific inquiry is quite absurd. For example, where is the criticisms section on Darwins article, where Christian creationists get to use half of his page to "debunk" the theory of evolution?


The fact remains, there is no solid evidence that Jesus was a real person, as can be seen here. Yet despite this fact, people still believe he existed, sort of by default. That seems irrational to me.


^^James^^ 03:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)(James)

Protected the page again, unfortunately

I hate to protect this page again, but with 15 reverts in the last 2 days, I had to move in again. Also, seems like there are several sockpuppets participating in the edit war.

Anyway, ZAROVE (talk • contribs), ^^James^^ (talk • contribs), 216 (talk • contribs), 66.183.168.152 (talk • contribs), please discuss any differences, open an WP:RfC or do anything else to settle your disputes. At the present state, none of you are helping to do anything to resolve this. All your discussion in the talk page look like rants, Ad hominem attacks, etc. So please discuss in a proper, civil, logical manner. Thanks. --Ragib 05:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Hey Ragib,

Re. sockpuppets: If you're referring to 66.183.168.152, I've put my name in brackets a number of times behind that sig, to make it clear that it was me. Sorry for the confusion. ^^James^^ 06:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Here is why James need to be ignroed...

His posts, and 216's, ar ebaised in Faovur of Acharya S and her position.Its oen thign to hold htis as a eprsonal beleif, tis naother to posit that this beleif is superior to naother and tyr to force WIkipeida to promote it above and over the alternate. Wikipedia is not ehe to detemrien Jesus's existance, nor to dospirve it, neither to offer only critisms ot CVHrisyanirty, unliek Dorothy and her website, this palce is respectefful to all siedes of a discussion.


Simply stating that Acharya attended the ASCSA, or is a fellow of the CSER is "trecherous underhanded manipulaiton" in your world? Bizarre.


You don't simply sttae it. You plac it in her " Career and education" section and word it in such a way as to mak her appear a credibel scholar as a result. Even in this tlak page you have used these thigns to "Shatter" everythign peopel sya in objeciton to her beign called a shcolar. Acter all, the CSER recignised her as a schoalr, or so you say. ( In reality they kist her as " A writter". I am a writter, this doesnt make me a schoalr.)

I have no objecitosn to the informaiton beign int he article, I have obwctiosn to hwo you word them to confuse the ignorant into beleivign these are signifigant acocmplishemnts.


ASOGSAG is a grup any graduate student in clasics can join. CSER is a Skeptic gorup. Her membership in CSER is as impressive as an evanvelial Chrisyain beign hired for an apologetics publication. You may like to think their workds apart, btu in reality the CSER exists to promote a rleigoosu worldview,that of Secular Humanism, which IS a recognised rleigiosu worldviw. It exists to debunk religion andbegins withhte preise tht rleigious beleifs are false. this tn Sceintific, therefore, this is not rlelay an accredited grouo. Its nto affiliated iwth any major instetutions, and admits openly on its own site that its a Sceptic grup.


The informaiton cna be in the aritlce, so long as peopel knwo that its basiclaly an apologetics site geared toward the defnece of the Secular Humanist worldveiw.

ot to make her appear to be a credible, roeutable, recognsied Schoalr, as you try to mske her appear.


That is trecherous, underhanded, and manipulativce.



Regarding science being "neutral" towards religion: Religion is based upon faith and belief.


Not always, this is a straw man argument which shows you have a crude, narorw view of what rleigion is. Rleigion is often based upon ethical philosophies, and can be beleived based on variosu forms of Faith, nto just blind acceptance with no evidence. it is this sort of cursory, blind, unintellegent prattle abotu theology that shwos that you read Sceptids like Acharya and dotn bother to check what they say.


Science is based upon reason and the scientific method.


Oddly enough, so can rleigion be based ont hese thigns. Again,y our lack of understandign of what rleigion is is not equel to rleigion beign infirior to science.


Likewise, I have no problems with Science. I have problems with you using an apologetics website to pad Dorothy's resume as if she is now proven beyond doubt to be a regognised schoalr. She writes for Skeptical inquery Magazine, the publicaiton run by te OCusnil for Secular Humanism, an institution that ecists to promote a certain worldvriw.


Science must take a neutral stand, not a preset one then attmot to prove this.

Te OCunsil for Scualr Huamninm, and by extentiin the CSER, exist to discredit religious beleifs other than their own, and to promote their own worldveiw. this makes thenm as credibek as Tekton, except that we arnt usign TTekton ministires to prove Robert Turkel is a great and recognised Schoalr, it is admited even in this artilce as an Apologetics site.


Dorothy's memebrshiop in an apologetics gorup is harldy imprssive. She is a critc of Hritsainity, after all, and the enemy of my enemy is my firend. This doesnt mean shes recognised by actual adcademic societges, only that she is recognised by others who want to critise Christainity and promote a secualar worldview.


For religious people to demand that their claims, be they tales of nirvana, angels, saviours or devils, be alloted equal status and consideration in the world of scientific inquiry is quite absurd.


What if evidnece exists for these things? And again, you are divertignformnt eh main point. THe Committee for the Sicnetific Examination of Rleigion is not a Sicnetiifc goruo, dispite the owrd "Scientific" in the name, if it where,t han every Creaiton Sicnece gorup woudl have to be reognsied as Scintific.

The logic seems to elude you, so let me reexpalin slowly.


The CSER is not a sicnetiifc committee. Its an apologetics orginisaiton designed t promote secular Humansim. This is not how Sicnece works.


You can stow yor unbridaled entheisyaism for SOrothy;s appoutnbemtn on the committee, and please lay aside yoyr rleigiosu bigotry.


The factf is, this oesnt prove shes a shcolar and isnt imprssive, and relaly doesnt show why we shoudl take Dorothy's side and not CHirstnitiyes. Wikipeida is a neutral soruce, so we arent flatly sayign shes wrong, we are hwoever offerign vlaid critism to her work.


For example, where is the criticisms section on Darwins article, where Christian creationists get to use half of his page to "debunk" the theory of evolution?


You rellay hate CHristaisn dont you?

And, need I remind you this is an Encyclopeida? Th Irony is that Creaitonism is mentioend in Dawkins article, it states that he refuses to dbate Creaitonisst.Therefore, your poitn is mooted.

Also, note this, Dawkins is not a critic of CHristainity, or Creationism. He doesnt hodl to Creationism, but he hasnt exaclty goen out of his way to critise it. NEither has any known creationist orginisaionmade a seiosu effort agaisnt Dawkins. They oppose the theory of Evilution itsself, not spacific proponants.


Dawkins critisms of Christainity hwioever are not what he is most famous for. Dorothy on the other hand is soley a Critic of CHristainity, a sort of "NEw age Atheistic" evangelist. Whereas Dawkisn is notewrthy for his Biological efforts, which the aritlce onhim is mainly about, as well as his life ( Which you call trife when added ot SDorothy;s article) Dorothy's aritlce is abotu her work only, omiting ehr life ( again you think it snot important csicne you jst want peiepl to beelivr Jeuss is a myht base donthe sun.)

I know of no books by Dawkins that exist for the sole purpose of discreditign CHristaunity.

On the other hand, Doorthy's website and both ehr books exist to this end.


I dotn rellay see why this is hard for yo to understand.


Well, I do rlelay, the truth is yo want iwkipeida to pronounce that Jeuss never existed and wa sa palgerissed Pagan myth and tlel how many wonderful acocmplishemrnts Dorothy hs. In short, you want it to be paetial to her liek ehr Disipls are.


Thats a no deal.



The fact remains, there is no solid evidence that Jesus was a real person, as can be seen here.


Ironiclaly this is false. THe vast majority of Historians agre that he eas rela precidcely because of the evidence given.

Even on the Histriccity of Jesus page on Wikipedia, it doesnt just give the mytheists view and then say " Well, no real evidence on the pro hisotircsl side", it grants evidnece for a Hisotircal Jesus, such as the rapidity of the movements origins, the facthtat no oen rellay challenged his Hisotriacity urign the firts cneturiy, an hge fsact htat the Gospels themselves, writtenint eh firts century, are rife with very humanmomentsnot common for myths of the period.

Indeed, on the Historacity page, ti says most accepthis existance, they do nto say most accept it by default wiht no evidence. Such is merley your vian attempt at making out as if you are soemhow ore intellegent for rejectign a Historical Jesus, but the fact is most SCHOLARS, even if Athistic, beleive a man existed att he centre of the faith.Which is noted on the oage you linked, but did not read carefully, it appears.


Dorothy refutes this,btu her datign of the GOspels is an attrodcity to reason, her claim that the mvement didnt psread rapibly is dispiriven by hisotircal reords,a ndher claim that many of the "Intelelgensia" of the pagans challegned the Histroacity takes only quotes out fo context to orce her view,a ndeven when rsd in Isolation, the quotes form Justin Martyr and Iraneus and Company do not revela that they admit that the sotry is identical to Pagan ones, or that Jeuss sidint exist. Noen of the early Ciritcs of CHristjtiy mace htis claim. Payul even says their are soem 500 witnesses still alive in his time that SAW Jeuss persoanlly.


The Historacity of Jesus isnt queasitoned seriosuly in Academia, and their is plenty of evidence suggestign a real man at the core fo the faith.



Yet despite this fact, people still believe he existed, sort of by default. That seems irrational to me.


What seems irraitonal to me is that you beleive everythign Dorothy tells you. Perhaos they beleive he existed because hteirs reaosn to beelive he existed? Dorothy's ecvidenc ehtta he didnt exist seems irrational to me, yet you beelive it uncritically.


And again, why does htis matter? THis si Wikipedia, we arent sayig JEsus existed, we are presentign Criticsm to Dorohy's works just liek everyone else.


ZAROVE 14:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


"She is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, and a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece."

Oh my, what treacherous and underhanded wording. And yes, her attendance at a certain school certainly doesn't belong in the education section! People might get the wrong idea!


You rellay hate CHristaisn dont you?

Not at all. However, I note that simply because we disagree, you make vile accusations and try to have me... physically removed from the discussion. You unwittingly demonstrate one of Acharyas arguments.


Regarding the gospels, according to AS: "...the majority of modern bible scholars have simply gone along with the dates of c. 70-110 ce, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of the gospels’ existence until a century later..." Given this one-hundred year window, scholars chose to date the gospels as close as possible to the actual life of Jesus, which is understandable if you assume a-priori that he really existed. But to then use this early date as evidence for an historical Jesus is circular reasoning.


the fact is most SCHOLARS, even if Athistic, beleive a man existed at the centre of the faith.

Personally, I don't see how "what most people believe" is relevant. It only goes to show how deeply ingrained religious dogma can become. Obviously, as can be seen above, AS disagrees with "most scholars". Is that not allowed??


And I said "Darwin", not "Dawkins".

^^James^^ 17:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


Oh and do tell Dorothy two things.


1: I am Reginald Maxwell Cook,Soem peopel call em Reg, others Max. Most call em Zarove these days, a sort of Nickname. I am not hiding behind a Psyudonym, this is a Screenname. Base don a Screenplay I wrote once that was never filmed.

2: I don't follow J.P.Holdong. why is she so paranoid ove htem anbyway? Obviosuly Tekton is a "Crap soruce" because Dorothy persoanlly hates them above all other apologetics sites and has a personal feud going wihthtem.

But I dont work for Tekton, or reas it regularly. So why assume I do, just ebcause I want to add critisms and he knwon informaiton to her work?


ZAROVE 14:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


nOW.

I do wonder hwen you will get roudn to the spacific peroblems with yor aritlce, btu I guess pretendignno oen is spacific is enough for you...


"She is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, and a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece."

Oh my, what treacherous and underhanded wording. And yes, her attendance at a certain school certainly doesn't belong in the education section! People might get the wrong idea!


The way it is presented is similar ot her website, ti is used to pad her out and make her appear liek areal hoenst to goodness scholar.

Relaly, you knwo as well as I this is manipulaiton, its palced in the text as if its a major acocmpishment, wit h no explanaiton as to what this gorup is.

Similar to her "Fellowship" in the CSER.



You rellay hate CHristaisn dont you?

Not at all. However, I note that simply because we disagree, you make vile accusations and try to have me... physically removed from the discussion. You unwittingly demonstrate one of Acharyas arguments.


No I havwnt, you odnt even know if I am a CHristyain or not. I want you removed because you are Dorothy's little lacky and wont be satisfied with an article unless it is a CHrist Myther approved aritlce that sings her praises.

I want you rmoved because you think informaiton on he rlife is trite because you want to concentrate on her ecvidence Jeuss didnt exist, and want to omit critissm to her work, even though critism is promenant.

I want you rmeoved because you shamelessly distort facts int eh aritlce then make false accusaitosn agsin people.

this sint me tryign to defned my Christain fiaht agaisn ytou tryign to write an objective aritlce, this si you playign the Acharya apologist whole tryitng to make th aricle bias in ehr favour.


Now stop tryiogn to pretned this is a debate over her ideas, start treatign it liek an ENcyclipieda, stop ptetendign I am a CHrisyain apologist out to smear Ahcarya becuase I cant out debate her as shes obviosuly right, and start lookina tht e real problems iwht her work, stop treating me as if I am only tryign ti solence you because you disagree, and start seeing why peopel dotn liek you, and hten we can make progress.

RoyBoy is an Ahtiest and HE reverted the article because he thoguth your versionw as baised.


This isnt a battle between Christians and "Followers of truth",m this is a battle between Ahcarya disiples who want to promote her ideas and ensure only her voice is heard,a nd wikipeida's polic to be neutral.

How does that dmeonstrate her arugments at all?



Regarding the gospels, according to AS: "...the majority of modern bible scholars have simply gone along with the dates of c. 70-110 ce, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of the gospels’ existence until a century later..."


They didnt just go along with it, and if you did more than just read Ahcarya AS mateirals, and acutlaly read what real shcoalrs said, you woudl relaise fragments of the Goslels, as wlel as writitngs form CHruch Fathers, inclusing firts cneutry ones, actulaly refernece the Gospels. theirs mroe than enough Evidence to prove Dorothy is wrogn in ehr datign of the GOspels, and just because she dismisses the evidnece out of hand doesnt mean it magiclaly goes away.


Given this one-hundred year window, scholars chose to date the gospels as close as possible to the actual life of Jesus, which is understandable if you assume a-priori that he really existed. But to then use this early date as evidence for an historical Jesus is circular reasoning.


The problem is htis isnt true. Even Dr. Price dates them to this period...


Again, theirs evidencr htat indicates them bign wirtten in the firts cnetury, not to be too long on this as the article isnt abotu the Gospels but DOrothy.

Just because DOorthy says their is no evidence, and peopel just go along withhte date, doesnt make what she says true.



the fact is most SCHOLARS, even if Athistic, beleive a man existed at the centre of the faith.

Personally, I don't see how "what most people believe" is relevant.


Given that Doorothy calls herself a Shcolar, and htis is te reason she wants peopel to listen to her, the answer is obvious.


I didnt say "Most people" I said "Most Shcoalrs." And again, they ditn just go along wiht it blidnly. Dorothy is not better than the best int he field, even thoghs he says she is.

Again, their is evidnece that Jesus existed, which si even mentioen dint eh Historacity of JEsus page on Wikipedia. The fact that you ignroe this evidnece, and just assume anyoen who beleives Jeuss the man existed is irraitonal, is not rellay evidence that he didnt exist, just lje' THe HCirst COnsoiracy' isnt proof of anyhtign.

Their IS historical reaosn ot beleive Jeuss of Nazareth existed, rather you or Dorothy admit it or not.

The evidence can be found on any major Univesities site, or right her eon Wikipedia, int he same artiles you link to.


It only goes to show how deeply ingrained religious dogma can become. Obviously, as can be seen above, AS disagrees with "most scholars". Is that not allowed??



it also shows the deapth of your own ignroance for makign this statement. Again, many irrleigiosu scholars, indeed the overwhelomg majority, concure that Jesus as a man existed, and they otn just agre to go alogn withthe crowd.

The Hisotrical evidnece for Jesus include the humanity shown int he Goslels, not soemthgn that was ocmmon in ficitonak writitgns int he firts cnutry, the fact that no one rellay challenged his existance int he firts cnetury ( I know, I know, Acharya S shwos plenty that did, btu her wuotitons doent rlelay say "Jesus ididnt exust", they usully arnet tlakign abot that at all.)

the fac thtat Paul ( I know I know, anothe rmyth,..) mentioend 500 livign witnesses.


The fact that we have extenral hisotrical cooberaiton in the form of Josephus, which she magiclaly dismisses as a complte forgery in spirt f the obviosu fac thtta at least aprt f the references are real, tacitus, which she dismisses iwt no reason at all, an th eother usual list.


The fact that the movement is based aorund a common CURSE, that poel would not rlelay like to have been associated with int he period, Crucifiction.


Sorry lad, theirs too much evidnece that their was soemone at the centr eof the legend, ot snkt all plageried pagan myth, as DOorthy says.

Indeed, theirs mroe agaisnt her notionthan agaisnt the Historiacity of Jesus. IWE, we have no crucified Savoitus who hasdd been Born of a virign, had 12 "Disiples" , ect... she just sort of gets these thigns form Kersye Graves and Godfry Higgins, and cannot dmeonstrate the ancients actulaly beleived this.


Why do you do uncriticlaly accpet whatever Dorothy telsl you, thn demand we look cirticlaly at other htings.? I have looked critic,aly at CHristainity, you havent looekd crticlaly at it, you just look at it as all wrogn and use Doorthy as a crutch to proive it.

Your bias in her faovur prevents you form allowing critism int he aritlce, prevents you form accptign that the arile is abotu her ansbnot a promotion of her ideas,and orbids you form beign hienst iwhthte exact natur eof her credentials.



And I said "Darwin", not "Dawkins".


Ah sorry. wlel both Dawkins and Darwins life is mentioend. IE, Dawkisn wa smarried three times, and we knwo where Darwin was burried. why was the "She foudn Chruhc boring" part, which si apet of what she gav in an interview, not rleevant for htr aritlce? Of corus eI knwo the answer, you want it ot present her ideas, and presn tthem as accepted schoalrship, and emliminate all oposiiton so it is accpoeted. You dotn think the life informaiton is relevant as it doesnt advance the cause.

Darwin's critics are howeve rmenitoend in the artilce abotu him, the reason Creaiton Sicnece isnt mentioend is because it emerged int eh 20th Century, soem 60 years after he died.

ZAROVE 18:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/c/h/Talk%7EAcharya_S_archive_1_fe54.html"