Talk:Acharya S/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Acharya S. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

For Crazy

<<Regarding Masonry... do quote where Acharya states a "belief" "that a conspiracy involving free-masons, pagans, and Jews fabricated not only the gospel accounts of Jesus and the story of Jesus' life, but also the story of the apostles, and Paul, and apparently John the Baptist." You state that she "believes" this... any proof that this is a fact?>>

Is there any evidence that she has this belief? (There is an epistemological difference between "proof" and "evidence", just to nitpick. Even if I had a signed note from Acharya saying that she holds these beliefs, that would not be proof, because it could be forged. It would, however, be fairly strong evidence.) At least in the criticisms, there is evidence to support this statement.

Epistemological difference? The nature of knowledge can be applied to the diffference between proof and evidence? Belief begins where fact ends and relies upon faith without proof to breath life into that which would have none otherwise. I think you need to check your dictionary before nitpicking or guessing the meaning of words... proof is "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." Evidence means "To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove." In law, evidence is that which is "Plainly visible; to be seen".

Freemasons: Mike Licona states, "The thesis of The Christ Conspiracy is that pagans and Jews who were Masons from the first and second centuries got together and invented the account of Jesus and his disciples in order to create a religion which it was hoped would serve as a one-world religion for the Roman empire." Acharya, in her rebuttal, doesn't see fit to challenge this characterization. Further, he expends an entire section on Freemasonry. In her rebuttal, Acharya does not rebut the allegation that she believes that Masons were involved, but rather defends her allegations that they are. For example, she states that "In addition, in establishing the Masonic connection to Christianity, I reproduce a long excerpt from Thomas Paine's 'Origin of Freemasonry.'"

She does challenge that characterization...

"Regarding Masonry, while disparaging my information concerning its involvement in the creation of Christianity, Licona holds up an "expert" Mason as if he were omniscient! And all this "expert" does is say, "False," etc. Apparently, that settles the case, because, after all, he is an omniscient expert! If such is the case, then the Magistrate and Mason Godfrey Higgins must have been correct in his many assertions that Licona is attempting to assail. Moreover, other Masons, such as Knight and Lomas in The Hiram Key (314), validate some of the claims found in The Christ Conspiracy, such as the obvious Masonic symbolism of "Peter," i.e., the Rock, or stone, and his keys, elements which Licona's all-knowing expert simply and unconvincingly denies as having Masonic meaning."

She also states: "There is actually nothing "radical" at all in the theory that a bunch of men got together and created a god or godman in order to produce a religion. In fact, it's the most important aspect of priestcraft and has been done thousands of times over the millennia. What about all the gods and goddesses such as the Sumerian, Egyptian, Indian, Greek, Roman and European? I assume that Licona doesn't believe them to be genuine gods or "real people." Hence, he would doubtlessly claim that the "lying Pagan priests" made them up! Well, all I am saying is that the "lying Christian priests" made up one more!"

He also quotes Acharya as saying "The historian Josephus certainly knew of the Masons and allegedly was one . . ."(108) This demonstrates that Acharya believes that the Masons have been around since at least the first and second centuries AD.

Even assuming that Licona is flat out lying, Acharya's words in her response show that she believes that there is a Masonic connection to Christianity. The above quote demostrates that she believes them to have been around for much longer than is commonly suspected. At most, he is lying about Acharya claiming that they were involved in the original conspiracy. Acharya saw no reason to contradict him in this statement though. In short, I see no reason to doubt Licona's characterization of Acharya's thesis as stating that freemasons were involved in the creation of the "Christ Conspiracy". My main confusion is this: does Licona mean (pagans and Jews) who were free-masons, or pagans and (Jews who were free-masons)?

Licona selectively picks only that which he can take issue with. http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

As for the masons being around, that has been covered previously: "The "burden of proof" for the existence of Freemasonry before the 17th century can be found in the url you provided... just read what it says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry If that is not good enough try these: http://www.oelodge.uklinux.net/history.htm http://users.1st.net/fischer/MASHST01.HTM http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

And as stated before: "you provide where she made that claim beyond speculation and the drawing of correlations."

Paul: Again, according to Mike Licona: "She believes that all of Paul’s letters are forgeries. In support of this position she quotes Joseph Wheless: "The entire ‘Pauline group’ is the same forged class . . . says E. B. [Encyclopedia Biblica] . . . ‘With respect to the canonical Pauline Epistles, . . . there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or eight, nor yet even the four so long "universally" regarded as unassailable. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false-writings, forgeries). . .’"(48) She also quotes Hayyim ben Yehoshua who writes, "we are left with the conclusion that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic" and he also refers to Paul as a "semi-mythical" figure.(49) Again, this is a position that no major scholar takes."

I suppose it could be that she believes that Paul was only semi-mythical - that there was a historical Paul, but his letters are forgeries and virtually everything we know about him is false.

The Apostles: I have no evidence to submit, except to note that 1) Mike Licona's summary of Acharya's thesis characterizes it as saying that, 2) Acharya didn't see fit to rebut the point, 3) if Acharya is going to say that Paul, who appears later in the mainstream historical narrative and had no personal interaction with Jesus, is (semi)-mythical, then I see nothing preventing her from claiming the same for the earlier apostles who are recording as having interactions with the mythical Jesus.

Other references: http://www.truthbeknown.com/jesuspuzzle.htm http://www.truthbeknown.com/cutner.htm http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins2.htm http://www.truthbeknown.com/footnote.htm footnote 22 http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra_05.htm http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins6.htm

John the Baptist: Again, Mike Licona: "Murdock's claim is grossly naïve as well as false. Josephus’ passage on John the Baptist(73) is regarded as authentic and is hardly disputed by scholars. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History at Miami University writes, "No scholar has questioned the authenticity of this passage, though there are some differences between Josephus's account and that in the Gospels . . ."(74) New Testament scholar, Robert Van Voorst of Western Theological Seminary likewise comments that the passage by Josephus on John the Baptist is "held to be undoubtedly genuine by most interpreters"(75) and that "scholars also hold [it] to be independent of the New Testament."(76) John Meier, professor of New Testament at The Catholic University of America writes that Josephus' mentioning of John the Baptist is "accepted as authentic by almost all scholars" and that it "is simply inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period."(77) Jewish scholar, Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University and perhaps the most prominent expert on Josephus comments on this passage: "There can be little doubt as to the genuineness of Josephus’ passage about John the Baptist."(78) Therefore, Murdock's comment that this passage has "been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries" is demonstrably false.

"The reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage are: (a) The style and vocabulary belong to Josephus. (b) If a subsequent Christian editor added the passage, we would expect a comment about John's preaching regarding the Messiah who was Jesus. (c) An interpolator would most likely not have included the discrepancy between the Gospels and Josephus in terms of the reason John was executed."

I seem to recall that Josephus is the only source we have on John the Baptist outside the Gospels that was written close to the time that he lived. (My memory might be shaky on this.) Since no scholar believes that this passage of Josephus was fake, the only reason I can see for her to allege that it is is if she wants to imply that John the Baptist is mythical. Admittedly, my evidence on this point is rather shaky, hence the "apparently".

This is blatant beliefism doing its cya dance. Most minstream scholars say that the entries to the Testimonium are not by Josephus. E.g. "The passage 3.3 fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus, according to the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, ed. K. H. Rengstorf, 2002."

It should be noted that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, Josephus did not mentioned Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three.

The history of scholarly argument over the years is as follows.

93 The book Jewish Antiquities by Josephus was published in Rome. It contained at least one reference to "James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ." Manuscripts surviving today also contain a description of Jesus. But was this description present in the year 93?

c. 230-250 The Christian writer Origen cited Josephus' section on the death of James "the brother of Jesus" in Book 20 of the Antiquities. But he stated that Josephus did not believe in Jesus, and did not cite the TF passage in Book 18.

c. 324 Eusebius quoted the TF in full, in the form that survives today in all manuscripts.

10th Century The Arab historian Agapius quoted a version of the TF that differed from that of Eusebius. It did not have the most obvious Christian elements. However, this version was lost to scholarship until 1971.

16th Century Joseph Scaliger first suspected the authenticity of the TF due to its Christian content.

17th Century Richard Montague, Bishop of Norwich, declared that the phrase "He was the Messiah" is a later Christian addition.

1737 Whiston published his translation of Josephus, and argued that the TF we have is entirely authentic. He argues that the passage should be read from the perspective of a contemporary of Josephus, in which case the Christian elements are not so alarming; and that, in any case, Josephus could very well have been a Jewish believer in Jesus (a Jewish Christian or "Ebionite").

18th - early 20th Century Other scholars argue the passage is forged in whole or in part. Later scholars opposing authenticity include: Schurer, Niese, Norden, Zeitlin, Lewy, and Juster.

1929 H. St J. Thackeray supported the interpolation theory, and credits Josephus' "Greek assistants" for variation in styles throughout the Antiquities. He also noted several correspondences (but not the TF) between the Gospel of Luke and the Antiquities, and suggested that Luke may have been present at readings of Josephus' work in Roman, and that the two may even have met.

1931 R. Eisler, in his influential The Messiah Jesus, suggests Christians censored and deleted large portions of the original text, and offered a reconstruction by inserting new text into the passage.

1941 C Martin identified select portions of the Testimonium as probably interpolations, while the rest he considered authentic.

1954 Paul Winter argued that there are just three interpolations in the TF, and the rest is genuine. "He was the Messiah" and "if indeed he can be called a man" are considered most suspect, as is the latter section describing the resurrection and the prophecies. This identification of the interpolations became a popular view (reiterated by John Meier, 1991).

c. 1960 Hans Conzellman notes that the TF resembles "the Lukan kerygma", the essential beliefs presented by Luke in his gospel and in Acts. He therefore concludes that the passage must be entirely forged by a Christian.

1963 Feldman writes: "The most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote, but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator".

1971 In a startling find, Shlomo Pines published citations of the TF appearing in Arabic and Syriac works of the 9th-10th centuries. These quotations substantially resemble our current Testimonium, but do not have two of the most suspicious phrases: "he was the Messiah" and "if indeed he can be called a man". Pines suggested these editions may have used an authentic, un-interpolated version of Josephus' work.

1973-1983 Karl Rengstorf published his massive concordance of Josephus' work, listing references to every word, allowing scholars for the first time a tool to study Josephus' style quantitatively.

1984 J. Neville Birdsall used Rengstorf's new concordance to study the style of the TF. He concluded that there are too many discrepancies for the passage to be genuine, and it may be entirely forged.

1991 John Meier studied the question again, repeating his support for Winter's view. This work is influential among contemporary scholars, including John Dominic Crossan and John O'Connor-Murphy.

1995 G J Goldberg identified a regular series of correspondences between the TF and the Emmaus narrative of Luke. He argued that these are so close the two must have been derived from a common source, a Christian document now lost. http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/background/josephusonjesus.htm

You must understand where Mike Licona is coming from. He states that he believes in the inerrancy and infallibility of the bible. To him, it is the word of god. He has two major credibility problems... one, he is duty bound to defend his beliefs by any means he can to justify his beliefs, and two... he is financially dependent on having the one and only truth.

Does Acharya believe this? Actually, I have considered the possibility that all of this is a truly massive practical joke on the part of Acharya. However, that would be a violation of Hanlon's Razor.

I'll admit that I have not read Acharya's books. However, based on the evidence present in her critic's writings and in her own responses to those critics, I must concluded that her thesis is much as I have described it. If anybody who has actually read the book wishes to dispute my characterization of her thesis, my ears are wide open.

Would iit not be so that if you have not read the books, then relying on what others say to refute them is hypocrisy and by virtue of your choice as to what to use merely demonstrates your own blind, biased, prejudiced beliefs?

<<Mike Licona must not be aware of the timeline of christianity... Hinduism dates to around 5000 BC http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_antiquity.htm and Buddhism to circa 500 BC http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/history-of-buddhism.htm>>

The emphasis here is on certain obscure branches of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Hinduism and Buddhism themselves. The phrase "certain obscure branches" is my own, not Licona's, and it may be that, at least for the Hinduism branches, they are not all that obscure.

Nonetheless, Christianity would have only influenced other religions after its inception. What proof is ther eof this Christian influence and when did it transpire?

Krishna: In Licona's reply to Acharya's response to his first article: "Regarding your “Christian sources,” Lundy and Georgius, even if you are correct, Lundy and Georgius write of their contemporary experiences with present-day Hindus. This does nothing to support your position that Hindus in antiquity worshipped a crucified Krishna. Hindu traditions on the life of Krishna come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa, which as I pointed out in my paper, both post-date the rise of Christianity and, therefore, do nothing to support your thesis.(57)"

Buddha: From Acharya's rebuttal to Licona: "One aspect that demonstrates my knowledge of the orthodox story, which, naturally since it is readily available, long preceded my becoming aware of the contested information, is the fact that I cited these same contested characteristics. The same may be said concerning Buddha, which is obvious from my numerous footnotes, in particular as concerns the contested motifs, and from my statement on p. 109 of The Christ Conspiracy:

"'Because of this non-historicity and of the following characteristics of the Buddha myth, which are not widely known but which have their hoary roots in the mists of time, we an safely assume that Buddha is yet another personification of the ancient, universal mythos being revealed herein.' (Emph. added.)

"For the intelligent, it should have been obvious that I know very well the orthodox tales of these various godmen. Hence, Licona is either being deceptive in his presentation of the facts or he is not as clever as he likes to think."

From Licona: "In your rebuttal and citing your own words from The Christ Conspiracy, you write of, “this non-historicity and of the following characteristics of the Buddha myth, which are not widely known [ital. yours] but which have their hoary roots in the mists of time . . .”(58) We still have yet to learn from where you get your “not widely known” information. You simply quote others who many times turn out being terribly wrong and unscholarly in both their exegesis and reasoning."

This is what I gather Licona is getting at: Acharya's characterizations of Buddhism and Hinduism are, on the whole, false. In the case of Krishna-worship, they might be true of certain sects, but the origins of these sects post-date the writing of the gospels, and therefore either represent a convergent, but independent, development in two religious traditions, or are else borrowings from Christianity. Assuming that Acharya's "not widely known" information pans out, the same might be true of Buddhism - not true for the vast majority of sects, but possibly true for certain sects. It has yet to be determined whether these hypothetical sects pre- or post-date the gospels.

At any rate, the dispute over the possible Eastern origins of certain themes of Christianity is merely a sideshow. What should be focused on is her allegation that large chunks of the New Testament are the fabrications of a conspiracy. While her allegation that Eastern religious traditions were used as source material by the conspiracy is interesting (because it would mean that this ancient conspiracy had far greater knowledge of India than what we think the Romans had), but I don't suppose it matters too much where the conspiracy got their material from. Her allegations of borrowing from Eastern traditions has about the same level of interest as her allegations that the sections of Tacitus dealing with the Christians are interpolations of later Christian editors. crazyeddie 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa122200a.htm http://www.salagram.net/jesus-christ-kristos-page.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07358b.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02730a.htm http://www.experiencefestival.com/similarities_between_christianity_and_buddhism http://watthai.net/talon/wheel/wheel16_1.htm http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-34

12/30/05 -el Lobo

I tied to add this external link to the external links section, because if Tekton is to be considered a reliable source for refutation of the "Christ-myth" or any myth, links should be provided by the plethora of its critics (not merely on the basis of it's allege refutations, but on the methods it uses). The reading public can get a sense of the credibility or incredibilty of the site from others and not just from the Acharya view.

Here is the site, I proposed to add to the external links which were remove. (I am aware that I am not profient at how to use the wiki programs as effectively as others here and do not have the time to learn quickly enough): http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.html I had it on the Acharya page, but it was either removed for whatever reason. It has as much validity to the subject as the email banter posted as a link at that section. I will try again.--Skull 17:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's off-topic. You want to write about that website, start an article. Charles Matthews 17:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Or add it to theJP Holding article. See, this is my problem withthe Acharya Disiples to begin with. They dont want the arulce ot be abotu Acharya S. They want it tobe about her ideas, and how she proved COnclusivley Jesus did not exist.They want, in short, a Biased, oen sided Wikiarticle.

-Zarove

I have told you before not to personalise this. And that's a non sequitur, anyway. And it's ridiculous to think this article is going to do more than summarise some points in Acharya's writing, and some of the counter-arguments that have been brought forward. As you seem to have no shame in subverting your 3RR blocking, I'm going to block this IP number too. Charles Matthews 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

-Charles

I am not sure I agree with you that it is off topic. It is a website of its own, just as Tektonics is, with a viewpoint that is "Christ-mythicist" and a contrast to the Tektonic site used to so-call refute "Acharya" specifically. There will be found Doherty and others refuting Holding just as Holding assumes to refute Acharya's view. I still think the credibility of the Tektronic site as a legitimate serious attempt to "critique" the christ-myth view through Acharya has to be seen in the full context of it's perceived "illegitamcy" by genuine scholars and knowledgeable critics in inside or outside that field. One might as well allow any shady huckster to stand as an honest example of a serious critic, without his credentials and practices being exposed as such.

I prefer an honest Truth-seeking Christian critic to do his utter best to refute/debate the subject with integrity. However, as Zarove keeps saying, while its about her...it is clear it is about her stance. He is dead wrong about about wanting a one-side biased article....I want legitmate criticism, else I would not agree to allow the Tektronics site to stand at all, or the Licona site and others that are critical. By all means, let the critics stay, but also let the public know that their views and credentials are under scope of credibility by many others--not just Acharya. Thankyou Charles. I hope you will reconsider it and place it back in as befits your best judgement. If you decide against....no hard feelings. --Skull 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the tektonics article has recently been changed. It was originally titled "S is for Stench". ^^James^^ 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Then

Not surprisingly, I came back to discover a screwed up article.

No one else uses my account.

You all DO know that no concord will ever be reached, right? There's no way there's going to be a compromise, unless the groupies decide to lie and then break the deal when editing's reopened.

Charles Matthews wrote:

And it's ridiculous to think this article is going to do more than summarise some points in Acharya's writing, and some of the counter-arguments that have been brought forward.

The part I underlined is exactly what they object to, and will ALWAYS try to remove as long as you let them. Or, as a second best, they'll try to turn the Criticisms section into a personal soapbox to attack all her critics as bad and evil people. Go look at her site. Can you imagine something like "My esteemed colleage has made a small error in his otherwise insightful critique"? No, of course not. Every student when he is fully instructed will be as his master, and the groupies take the same tack: there is no possible valid criticism, all criticism is a personal assault on Acharya's person that only a foul blackguard could carry out. Considering that she is, in fact, a crackpot, that's the only defense of her possible.

Go look at the criticisms of Criticism that James of the ^ wrote. Now, is it just me, or did he happen to object to every last criticism for some reason or another? Exactly.

Now, why do we need a whole paragraph of Acharya's accusations against Holding? For that matter, is there any proof other than her own say-so?

I have said before that we don't need Holding at all. He is not particularly qualified; I have characterised this row as beneath WP's threshold for inclusion. You have insisted that the Christian-apologetics view be represented. I would have no problems with that, if there were bigger guns. You have removed the 'Biblical inerrancy' characterisation, which I thought was helpful in context. You'd be wrong to assume I'm happy with the content as it stands. Charles Matthews 10:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Even letting that second paragraph from Price stand was a mistake and needs undone. It's not even about her: he just felt the need to throw in some stuff backing his own theory. Stuff about Rabbis fooling everyone, which lines up nicely with some of Acharya's own feelings, now doesn't it? Its only function is to tell the reader that he agrees with her basic theory. But the reader knows that, because the article tells him.

A.J.A. 20:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask User:Oleg Alexandrov to lift the protection, then. But if you continue to attack other editors here, you will be contravening policy in a serious way. Charles Matthews 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So do you want me to stop noticing what's going on, or just pretend to stop noticing? A.J.A. 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I want your concerns directed towards the content of the page, and not other Wikipedia editors. That is because policy says that personal attacks are out. Now I'm going to archive most of this page, which is nearly 100K, for a fresh start in 2006. Charles Matthews 23:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The content is the whole point, it's just that it's very clear the content will never be any good on a consistent basis, and not at all without a continual edit war. I won't say why anymore, per policy. A.J.A. 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would wager that if someone called you a "crackpot" for your views, seeing as they are based in your beliefs, I doubt you would receive it as well as she does. The point you made about this article never esaping a continual edit war is exactly what I have said a dozen times and the prime reason I think it should be removed from Wikipedia altogether. 01/01/06 -el Lobo

The difference is that the whole point of ... is to hide things (an odd posture for daring exposers of truth, but there you go). Which removing the article does even better than editing out anything that isn't promotional. A.J.A. 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that logic is that it is just as good in its opposite view. The view that you are promoting is less able to defend itself than her observations that religion is born in myth. Sweeping what she has to say under the carpet of belief is just as valid a point in her favor. The editing out of anything that is not in support of biblical beliefs serves only to show what you desire others to have presented to them. In so doing, the premises persented in her work fall heir to denial by the use of opinion, innuendo, conjecture, accusation and name calling. If you could present any fact in support of what it is that you do believe it might weigh more in your favor than all you can present against hers. 01/01/05 -el Lobo

So now I'm being criticized for not hijacking the article with theistic proofs. Which proves, not only that Christianity is wrong, but apparently that her particular theory is right. A.J.A. 04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, other than off topic ramblings from Price and her personal (and as far as I'm aware unsubstantiated) accusations against Holding, what exactly have I edited out? You guys CONSTANTLY remove everything from simple presentations of what her critics say to what she says to highly relevant links that you guys don't like (while insisting on redundant links to subpages of her site). By the end of the revert war that got the page locked all that was at issue appears to have been one link that quite obviously belongs in, yet is now excluded. A.J.A. 05:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with caves is that there is nowhere to go if a trap has been set at the opening. Once committed, all that is left is to hide. The only way to avoid it is to avoid going in there in the first place. JP Holding has made his own bed. Check out his site.

http://www.tektoonics.com/parody/parody.html Then see what all those he has offended have to say of his doings... http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.html The fact that all there has been in refutation of the books are three people with more problems than she has says volumns. The safer route would have been to have simply told about the books and a brief bio of the author and let it drop. Short, sweet and to the point and as benign as it is possible to be. That way, it might have gone unnoticed and would have piqued very little interest except by those few interested in such subjects. The fact that it simply is not possible for those who have been indoctrinated into a belief system to not respond negatively to any and all who challenge dogma, doctrine, ritual and rite has brought this article to its current state. 01/01/05 -el Lobo

You have now linked to some stuff which allegedly discredits one, and declared that all three have "more problems than she has". On what basis? Then we get your typical rambly stuff about how everyone who doesn't agree with you is hopelessly stupid and indoctrinated. But you never produce the deletions. A.J.A. 07:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Big request to the anonymous editor

Dear el Lobo. I would like to ask you a favor. I wonder if you would you consider making an account. With an account you can get a true talk page, a watchlist, ability to create new articles, ability to move articles. And most importantly, it will be easier to keep in touch with you. The way things are now, you use a differnt IP address each time you contribute, and that can be frustrating a bit. :)

You can choose a user name which is not connected to your real identity, if that's a concern to you. Wonder what you think. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: With account, it will be easier to sign your comments too, you would just need four tildas, ~~~~ and the date and user name will be inserted for you automatically. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A. You say "You have now linked to some stuff which allegedly discredits one, and declared that all three have "more problems than she has". On what basis?" On the basis of the links provided on Holding and the fact that, as stated before, Mike Licona has credibility problems in that he openly states that he believes in the innerrancy and infability of the bible... http://www.risenjesus.com/index_aboutmike.htm He believes the bible is literally the word of god and the fact that his livelihood, his books and his position are dependent on his refutation of anything that counters his beliefs makes his stance less than creditable. He is reduced to denial.

"Then we get your typical rambly stuff about how everyone who doesn't agree with you is hopelessly stupid and indoctrinated. But you never produce the deletions." Well, the hopelessly stupid is your interpretation, I never said that... but now that you mention it, perhaps I should give consideration to the thoughtform. As for that "rambly stuff"... it seems that it is what is disconcerting to you. Is that because you haven't any fact or better reasoning than to dismiss it out of hand? It's true that I have rarely deleted any of the edits but have chosen to either revamp them or to counter them with an opposing view... which has typically been deleted out of hand. This is the pot calling the kettle black. 01/02/06 -el Lobo

That's the "credibility problems"!? You're still one for three, even if I accept your claims about Holding.

Why would I need fact or reasoning to dismiss your stuff about how anyone who disagrees is indoctrinated, etc? I haven't seen any to support it, just assertion ad nauseum. What is asserted without reasons may be denied without reasons. A.J.A. 17:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to make any claims about any of the three... their own presentations do that for me. If you had checked into the url's that I posted instead of dismissing them in favor of denial, you would have been able to see that on your own and countered the "claim". Belief has no need of fact or reason... nor does it require knowledge, intelligence or thought. All belief needs is emotion. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. That's not an assertion, that's an observation.

01/02/05 -el Lobo

Here's an observation for you: if you had actually managed to produce some fact and reason, that might have come out better. Emotion (smugness) is all you've got to back that stuff up. A.J.A. 19:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha... smugness? I hate having to give credance to such remarks but there is nothing self righteous in anything I have ever said but you might check out your own stance in that regard. Reducing argument to bickering is just another tactic to derail discussion. Not that I can't hold my own and toss about tit for tat's but really, is this the best you've got? If so, maybe you'd be better served to just make your edits and leave the banter alone. Besides, this isn't the place for this sort of thing. Any time one gets personal in their responses, it only shows how they have failed otherwise.

01/02/05 -el Lobo

"Any time one gets personal in their responses, it only shows how they have failed otherwise."

Which makes Acharya what? A.J.A. 21:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone jumps off a bridge, that's no reason to follow suite.

01/02/05 -el Lobo

What next?

The point of protecting the article page was to give the people some chance to resolve the disputes on this talk page. What I see so far is unproductive discussions, followed by silence in the last day. I would encourage you to start a constructive discussion. I guess I will keep the page protected for a couple more of days, but will unprotect it sooner if I see attempts at talking things up. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest but I would suggest that you read through all the archives to bring yourself up to speed on just where this article has been. Then decide whether there is any possibility that this article can be salvaged. For my part, this article has been around the horn and back and I have consistently called for it to be removed primarily because there is no way to resolve the religious belief that is driven to justify itself by refuting what hte books say. But don't take my word for it, read all the archives and then decide. I have a feeling that just as soon as it is unprotected, it will revert to the same old edit war song and dance.

01/02/03 -el Lobo

LOL! Intelligent Falling! IMAO! Oleg, was wondering what this external link at your site meant!

Anyhow, I agree with Lobo. The disputes on this page will never be resolved, because of the wilful bias on the part of "religonists" allowing their bias to affect their editing. That was clear from the beginning, as you might see if you read through the archives. Most of the discussion has been unproductive; moreso lately with A.J.A merely farting in the windstorm as usual. There is no escaping this article about Acharya is about her views and so to present them in a fair and unbiased way, with "credable" critics leaves these kinds of editors with no choice but to turn to critics with lack of integrity.

It would be alright to allow these awful critics to stand, if only their credibility were allowed to be shown for what they were in the eyes of genuine scholars and knowledgeable integritous authors in this area. Otherwise, the three critics represented here should just be removed, until such genuine criticism comes along (and I dont mean blanket-statement claims made via author Price for example). The external links is just an extension of the critic section, if it is not balanced and in proper perspective for the user of Wikipedia. Nor do I think the article should be the place for "critics" to continually expound their critiques (however viable or not), where the author herself is not fairly represented in defending her person and her views. It becomes a forum for misleading a wiki user into accepting so-called refutations as legitimate representations of what she has said and written(as often happens, the mistaken or wilful critic will represent something out of context).

However, it looks like that this issue is not going to be resolved in a fair or simple manner, so as Lobo has said, as soon as the protection is lifted, new and or veteran "editors" will revert to their old shameful practices. I haven't argued for deletion but it looks like that is where my vote is going. Thankyou--Skull 14:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have no need of negative predictions so early in 2006. Dealing with the criticism is indeed the issue. (It is not for Wikipedia to do'investigative journalism' on the author, certainly.) It is (I think) unfortunate that the Earl Doherty link was cut out of the Critcisms section, since we already had an article on him. But I put it with the ext-links, since edit-warring over those sorts of points is not good. Robert Price: someone could write a page on this person. I say again that including Holding is a bad idea. 'Balance' is not a good guide, but I suppose to include something from Licona might break the logjam here. The other major points made have been on prominence, I think. Well, this is for the general reader, not an old-style kremlinologist reading Pravda for clues. So I believe we should just aim for a readable article. Charles Matthews 15:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Archetype

Has this lady heard of Carl Jung, and his Archetypes? How about phenomenology? There are perfectly reasonable explanations for commonalities between faiths. On anither note, is anyone aware of who this "mentally ill fugitive" go-between w James Patrick Holding is? My guess is its prob an ex-husband, reading between the lines of her story. Some context on that may give the quote more perspective. What needs done to get this page unprotected, btw? I'd like to do some editing... Sam Spade 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could start by not making such inflammatory suggestions about people's private lives. Charles Matthews 15:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the quote? I used inductive reasoning in order to encourage the provision of verifiable information. How many women and their children are abused by strangers? I don't claim to know anything, I learned what I know from the article, esp. regarding this particular. We both know how I started, could you perchance respond to my questions? How will we get the article unprotected? Sam Spade 16:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people: It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. You have asked 8 questions (with one repeat).

Has this lady heard of Carl Jung, and his Archetypes? I imagine so.
How about phenomenology? You mean Husserl, or what? I have no idea what this is about.
On anither note, is anyone aware of who this "mentally ill fugitive" go-between w James Patrick Holding is? You know perfectly well that we could not report anything that wasn't already attested elsewhere; and under the policy page quoted should not, without some pressing reason.
Have you read the quote? You mean the quote in the article? Have you looked at the page history?
How many women and their children are abused by strangers? Disgraceful question.
We both know how I started, could you perchance respond to my questions? You've got it.
How will we get the article unprotected? You may have put this off by a month. Ask Oleg, not me.

Charles Matthews 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was so taken aback by the vitriol above that I asked my wife to have a look first at the quote in question, and then our conversation regarding it. Her take was much the same as mine, altho I will admit she criticised my "Has this lady heard of Carl Jung" as being abrupt. Perhaps I was overly casual, but that sentiment was so strong after reading the article that I wanted to edit it immediately to provide a link to Jungian archtypes.

As far as this "mentally ill fugitive" is concerned, I make no apologies, her quote begged the question. There is an argument to be made for not including such a quote, her actual name, or even the article at all. She certainly is on the edge of encyclopedic content. That said, if information is provided to me, I will discuss it and seek to verify and rationalise it if i so choose, and I will continue to do so here.

I am here for one reason only. I received an email stating that this article and its editors were a source of concern, and that the majority (perhaps even unanimity) of editors here have a vested interest in the topic. I do not. They asked me to come here knowing I had no clue who this lady was, and would insist upon neutrality.

As an aside, my wife is co-chair of a domestic violence awareness board, and exclaimed repeatedly while reading the quote that she must be referring to a former partner, for every reason. That was precisely my reading of the same, and I doubt many people could read that excerpt without asking, suggesting, or exclaiming something regarding the identity of this "mentally ill fugitive (wanted on three felonies, including child abduction) who has committed violent crimes against [the author] and [her] small son". Its a natural assumption to make, question to ask, and citation to request.

In sum, I apologise if I offended you, or anyone else, including the subject of this article, that was not my intention. Perhaps I was too conversational. I will strive to be as formal as possible with you regarding this particular in the future, Charles Matthews. Sam Spade 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly that Holding need not be mentioned in the article. User:A.J.A. has disagreed. I think Wikipedia should not touch such issues with a bargepole. Now, with all due respect to your own family members, it is not any part of Wikipedia's brief to probe the family doings of others; and that includes curiosity on your part. I have quoted the relevant policy to you. Charles Matthews 18:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! What an entrance Sam! A great come back Charles! You deserved it Sam...came on kind of cocky (lol!). Charles...so far you haven't said a thing I disagree with. Lets see how this proceeds...once Oleg removes the protection. Sam, you are being coy...I spent a fair amount of time at your wiki site and you are definitely no slouch! Unfortunately, I have to agree with your opinions on wikism (and much else I saw there). I was already thinking...oh no..here comes another windbag to demonise and slant.

However, if you desire to know what Acharya is about, I hope you do familiarise yourself with the whole of her thesis. Jungianism doesn't fit as you would see. I am not familiar with "phenomenolism", but if you insist that this should explain the commonality of religons....then I will force myself to learn about it, but for now, I have this sense that you will be wise and truthful enough to know if this applies at all to the thesis presented by Acharya. Please also familiarise yourself with the discussions on this page and the pleas to respect the author's privacy (which seems a bit too late to do now, since uncouth personalities and editors have seen fit to disregard human civility out of sheer malice). Otherwise, welcome to this edit page. I am curious to see your views and presentation on it, hoping you really can be neutral.--Skull 01:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I was as neutral as a person can be, not knowing anything about this woman 24hrs ago. Cocky or coy (or any other sexual adjectives my statements might inspire), Charles reading of the above policy is wildly inaccurate, and his stance here unacceptable. He is attempting to treat the subject of this article as tho she were not the subject of the article. Perhaps, indeed, she should not be, but thats a matter for VfD and so forth. It would appear a false dichotomy has been presented to our readers, offering the choice of a sympathetic POV vrs. nothing at all. Those are not the only options, and the sympathy Charles demands in untenable.

In my research I have found no neutral sources of information regarding this woman. If there is to be one, it will be us. All others are either in support, or highly critical, and none of any great quality. Indeed the highest quality, most expert review of this woman and her writings I have yet seen is that of James Patrick Holding, the very author Charles would like censored from the article.

My advice is clear: put the article on VfD if it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You might be right, perhaps none of this should be discussed, and the article should be deleted. But if it is kept, much like sollog, or Ashida Kim, embarrassing details will be put in the light. Figures who are only notable by fervent supporters and angry detractors do not achieve mild and impersonal wiki-articles. Thats simply not how things work here, as Charles should know by now. Sam Spade 06:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Neutral you say and you cite JP Holding as having the highest quality, most expert review? Your research? Have Do you mean like this: http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.html Now, would you provide the url that will show where JP Holding ever wrote a book review of either of her books? I couldn't find it. I would point out that what this article acomplishes is provide a forum for debate... not pass long information. I do agree... remove this article, it's the only resolve to belief because,stated previously, there is no way to resolve the religious belief that is driven to justify itself by refuting what the books say. :01/05/05 -el Lobo

I'll just say that this article has been to AfD and back; and that I think Sam's interpretation of the policy page is completely off base. I have never said that the Holding page should not be in the external links; but he is not 'expert' in theology, and the personal exchanges are not good to include here. Charles Matthews 09:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[Personal attack removed Charles Matthews]

I would appreciate it if no one makes any further sexual or scatological comments in my regards, thank you. My competance and ego are also not a subject of debate here, altho you may bring your concerns up on my talk page, or applicable policy pages if you must. Sam Spade 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Rpsugar (Skull) blocked

48 hour block for personal abuse: cf. note at top of this page. Charles Matthews 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting this page

I plan to unprotect this page in a day or two, as it has been protected for a while.

However, please note that that will not mean that anything goes. In the meantime, I would suggest as reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which says that articles need to be written in a balanced way representing all views. That is, whether you love or hate the subject of this article, try to get down to writing a somewhat neutral biography. No need for too many external references embedded inside of the text (use the external links for that), no need for excessively strong language one way or another. No need for too much passion either.

Also please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It sums up to the fact that even if you disagree, you should treat each other with respect. It is impossible to get an agreement about anything if anybody throws offences around. Excessive personal attacks may result in a block from editing.

Please note that reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours will also result in a block, see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Note that a revert does not need to mean plain undoing of an edit from the page history. Repeated addition or removal of some text is considered also a revert, and again, no more than three of those in 24 hours (although preferably not at all).

And if the situation goes out of control I plan to protect this article again. No, I don't enjoy doing that, I hope I will be out of here as soon as possible. The whole point is to keep a productive atmosphere. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And thank you very much! I looked over your user page, and I think we can expect neutrality from you if no one else, Oleg! It is my guess that the personal attacks and edit warring is less fierce regarding the articles @ User:Oleg_Alexandrov/Contribs? %) Sam Spade 22:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Good day Oleg, Charles and Sam (thankyou for sending me the newby information to my page Sam). Please don't take anything I may have said too personally.....I just aint that sensitive myself! I await to see what Sam's ideas are about the page under discussion. I personally think, that if Holdings articles are to stay, then so should the link exposing his "credibility" as a genuine critic (as once posted by Lobo..I can retreive it, though I suspect it is readily available here at Wiki). Otherwise, I don't see too much off-base as the article stands now. Tell me what you think. I don't intend to do anymore editing for now, until I get some feedback (that is after Oleg decides to remove the protection). You all are much more talented than I...and so you have my respect!--Skull 17:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

page is unprotected

Please read what I wrote above about not returning to edit wars and about not using personal attacks. No matter if you love or hate that person, try to give a neutral outline of this person and her work. Given enough information, the readers should be able to choose what to think of this author. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert

The reasons for the revert, as was said on Dec 28th:

re: "little primary research". How many times must this be brought up? Maybe AJA or Zarove could define primary research for us, to show they even know what it is.
re: "heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources". Who said this? In reference to what? What is meant by "outdated" exactly? How does it square with reality? Since the christ-myth theory is itself fringe, ie non-mainstream, how exactly is this a criticism? Isn't it a fallacious argument?
re: "show ignorance on what she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. ". Who said this? In reference to what? Was this in reference to the book she wrote on the subject??
How is Robet Price's embarrassment pertinent?
re "Solomon" reference: Isn't Acharya merely discussing various theories relating to the etymology of the word 'solomon'? What's wrong with that? How can Price possibly justify using this one flimsy example to characterize her whole book?
Why is the brief aside of "professional jealosy" considered pertinent? Couldn't you pick a more substantial example from Acharyas rebuttle? Ditto for her comments in response to Prices 'embarrassment'. Isn't this focusing on personality exchanges at the expense of substance?
re: "JP Holding, has no integrity" This quote is clearly taken out of context. Remove it or add context. Two ways to balance.

I want to reemphasize that while these criticisms are being applied to her work in general, they are based entirely upon book reviews of her first book.

Also, she attended the ASCSA, that should be included. Her essay should be included. The life section is a jumbled mess, it should be reorganized. Where it characterizes certain authors as her "main" references, can that be shown to be true? Where is that info from? Does it apply to her whole body of work?

I've revamped the article to reflect much of this perspective.

^^James^^ 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the old reasons (which do not cover all the changes you made).
Go read Price's review. Even as sympathetic as he is to "Extreme Biblical Studies", he makes it clear that her uncritical reliance on that material is, to say no more, a serious flaw. Licona also chacterized her sources as secondary and unreliable. Critics do in fact say that stuff. You may not like it, but the statement is accurate and supported by the links provided in the section. There's no valid reason whatsoever for taking it out.

re: "show ignorance on what she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions." The people saying that are professors who specialize in those subjects. And yes, they are saying that in reference to her book. Here the case for the removed clause is even stronger: the critics in question are scholars in the relevant fields.

While we're talking about the "book she wrote on the subject", other offerings from her publisher include Invisible Residents: The Reality of Underwater UFOs and VISITORS FROM HIDDEN REALMS: The Origin and Destiny of Humanity as Told by Star Elders, Shamen, and UFO Visitors. Caveat lector.

If even people she agrees with are at pains to disassociate themselves, how in the world is that not relevant?

If you had bothered to read the whole thing, he has a lot more examples.

"Professional jealosy" is what she chose to lead with. And even if it had been included later, the fact that she herself makes it about personality (every single time she interacts with anyone) ought to be reflected in the article. Or does Wkipedia have to make her look more credible than she makes herself look?

"Context" does not mean a license to add long extraneous (and still as far as I've seen totally unsupported) rants against her critics.

Now, you have not even attempted to justify many of the changes you made.

The Library of Alexandria. The article itself is biased, but even on the most anti-Christian interpretation of the ancient evidence, Christians destroyed a pagan temple that happened to have a library in it. You imply they specifically targeted the library, which is factually wrong and does not belong in the article.

"noting for instance the allegorical parallels between the story of Christ, and the story of the solar deity". The word "noting" means she has observed something which is objectively there. Which is exactly what the dispute is over.

The secret Buddhist society. Is it our job to make her look more credible than she makes herself look? Can you justify why it's not notable?

You have again added a redundant link and removed a non-redundant link. Totally unjustifiable.
A.J.A. 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the old reasons (which do not cover all the changes you made).

Go read Price's review. Even as sympathetic as he is to "Extreme Biblical Studies", he makes it clear that her uncritical reliance on that material is, to say no more, a serious flaw. Licona also chacterized her sources as secondary and unreliable. Critics do in fact say that stuff. You may not like it, but the statement is accurate and supported by the links provided in the section. There's no valid reason whatsoever for taking it out.

Price says "None of which should imply [her sources] are unworthy of regard: far from it!". So your issue is with AS's "uncritical reliance" and not the sources themselves? Make the case then, but that's not what's written.

And again, please define "primary research" for us, and explain its inclusion in the criticisms section.

re: "show ignorance on what she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions." The people saying that are professors who specialize in those subjects. And yes, they are saying that in reference to her book. Here the case for the removed clause is even stronger: the critics in question are scholars in the relevant fields.

What professors? I don't see any book reviews by "professors who specialize in those subjects". Did they review Suns of God too? I think if the point was that the Krishna/Buddha section in Christ Con was dropped "like a ton of bricks" on the reader... her response was to write a whole book on the subject.

While we're talking about the "book she wrote on the subject", other offerings from her publisher include Invisible Residents: The Reality of Underwater UFOs and VISITORS FROM HIDDEN REALMS: The Origin and Destiny of Humanity as Told by Star Elders, Shamen, and UFO Visitors. Caveat lector.

Relevance? Besides, do these books make claims any more ridiculous sounding than walking on water, turning water into wine, virgin births, and raising the dead?

If even people she agrees with are at pains to disassociate themselves, how in the world is that not relevant?

As I read it, Price takes issue with the fact that Christ Con was written for the general public, and is not a strictly academic treatise. (She even includes pop culture references! *Gasp!* How unscholarly!) This has evidently stirred some insecurities about his self-image as a "serious scholar": he feels "embarrassed". My take is that his personal insecurities are not relevant here.

Besides, AS has since been appointed a fellow of the CSER (of which Price is also a member). Seems the only "people" you're talking about here is Price himself.

If you had bothered to read the whole thing, he has a lot more examples.

Then specify them.

"Professional jealosy" is what she chose to lead with. And even if it had been included later, the fact that she herself makes it about personality (every single time she interacts with anyone) ought to be reflected in the article. Or does Wkipedia have to make her look more credible than she makes herself look?

She makes it about personality? You do realize that rebuttles come after the reviews??

Re:"Every single time she interacts with anyone..." This is obviously a gross exaggeration. Do you feel your arguments need to be artificially buttressed?

"Context" does not mean a license to add long extraneous (and still as far as I've seen totally unsupported) rants against her critics.

There are two ways towards balance: remove the offending quote, or add context. Since you included it in the first place, I decided to add context, lest I be accused of "removing everything that makes her look bad".... while demonstrating how you will add out of context remarks if it serves to assail her credibility. That you feel the need to stoop to such levels suggests what?

Now, you have not even attempted to justify many of the changes you made.

The Library of Alexandria. The article itself is biased, but even on the most anti-Christian interpretation of the ancient evidence, Christians destroyed a pagan temple that happened to have a library in it. You imply they specifically targeted the library, which is factually wrong and does not belong in the article.

Your personal beliefs are hardly relevant. The example is taken from her book. Your "apologist revisionism" is at least recognized for what it is on the Alexandria talk page, I see.

"noting for instance the allegorical parallels between the story of Christ, and the story of the solar deity". The word "noting" means she has observed something which is objectively there. Which is exactly what the dispute is over.

Fine.

The secret Buddhist society. Is it our job to make her look more credible than she makes herself look? Can you justify why it's not notable?

That was removed because it clearly wasn't the most relevant criticism of Buddhism. We have to pick and choose. (What criteria are you using, I wonder? Anything that can be twisted to make her appear less credible?) Here she is recounting a legend/myth from Tibetan lore. Why? For one, it shows that not all Buddhists conform to Western stereotypes. For another, it's one of those tidbits of info that are just plain interesting. For you to suggest that this is what she personally believes is beyond ridiculous.

You have again added a redundant link and removed a non-redundant link. Totally unjustifiable.

The "redundant link" argument is bogus. Zarove even referred CrazyEddie to that link so he could become more familiar with her work. It's obviously quite relevant.

^^James^^ 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"None of which should imply [her sources] are unworthy of regard: far from it!". The very next thing he said is, "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." I guess your claim of overwhelming concern that all quotes recieve context ad nauseum can be set aside as the special pleading for a (still!) unsupported attack it always transparently was.

You've missed the point.

I have now cited two specific critics who say she relies on secondary sources, both already linked. Policy that information should be verifiable (and, just to spell out every little thing, we have verification that critics say what my version says they say), it doesn't say that people have to jump through arbitrary hoops before they can add verifiable information.

"Secondary sources" is not the same as "primary research".

"What professors?" Licona brought Acharya to the attention of profs. Noel Swerdlow, Richard Patterson, Edwin Bryant and Chun-fang Yu.

I'll get into this later if I must. But for now... these people haven't reviewed her work. It's all hearsay, statements made based on "personal conversations" with Licona, not based on their familiarity with her books.

"a whole book on the subject" I get the impression you expect us to suppose that since she wrote a book, she MUST be right. Which is why examining her books' publishing context might be of value as a warning.

Your "impressions" are wholly unreliable. And again, you miss the point. As to her publisher, I don't see any relevance to this article.

"As I read it, Price..." Then a little later you ask me to specify the other examples of her poor scholarship he mentions. Either you have read his article and the request for specifics is another game of yours, or you really do stand in need of an enumeration, in which case your reading is irrelevant.

Another missed point. Note that I'm adressing the content of the article.

"There are two ways towards balance: remove the offending quote, or add context." Since you feel qualified to demand I jump through hoops before adding relevant and factual information, I think we're owed some kind of proof beside her personal say-so before we even consider cluttering up the article with this off topic ranting.

Yet another missed point. Since I'm supposed to assume good faith, I won't accuse you of playing dumb. So let me explain: You are the one who added the quote in question. You say the quote is unsubstantiated and "off-topic ranting", yet in the same breath, refer to it as "relevant and factual". A truly bizarre example of doublethink.

You have the nerve to accuse ME of revisionism after adding straight-up inaccuracies? The way it reads, Christians specifically targeted the Library with the intent of destroying books about mythology, which has no support whatsoever. If Acharya said it, that's yet more proof she spouts worthless nonsense.

Your personal opinion with respect to the Library of Alexandria and the Christian persecution of pagans is wholly irrelevant.

If it's such an interesting tidbit that's just non-stereotypical Tibetan lore, why leave it out?

The point was explicitly made. Reread if you must.

"The "redundant link" argument is bogus. Zarove even referred CrazyEddie to that link so he could become more familiar with her work. It's obviously quite relevant." Well, considering that it's an article about Acharya S, I'd think her whole site is obviously quite relevant. Good thing WE ALREADY LINK TO HER WHOLE SITE, isn't it?

That's a laughable argument.

No mention of your vandalistic unjustifiable removal of a relevant link. Not only is the link going back in, it belongs in the criticisms section. A.J.A. 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So every webpage that makes mention of AS, no matter how trivial and unsubstantial, gets mention here?

^^James^^ 01:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Dear A.J.A. and James, I don't think your approach is productive. This will escalate in an edit war, when I will revert the page to the protected version and protect it again. Lots of frustration and wasted effort spent on nothing.

I would suggest you work on the text paragraph by paragraph. Do not go to the next paragraph until you agree on the current one. Things you can't agree on put them up for vote, with each of you explaining your reasoning. Other people watching this page will comment then. Your approach of rasing issues by the boatload and then doing wholesale reverts won't work. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am also unhappy w the reverts. Merge your text, discuss your ideas, and slow down. There is no rush, and at this rate you'll get the article reprotected anyhow. Sam Spade 07:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that again. I did so once before at Charles' suggestion, but it didn't work. If you want to establish some kind of process to work this out, what happens if not everybody abides? If for every point discussed there are suddenly three more "additions" to deal with?

Also, I've been looking around on wikipedia, and I have to ask again: what's the threshold for inclusion? It seems to me that tektonics.org and risenjesus.com are questionable sources, to say the least.

One more question: shouldn't it be clear where the criticisms are coming from? Not all of them are cited, so I don't know if I'm discussing a Robert Price criticism or a Tektonics.org criticism.... or if somebody here just made it up. ^^James^^ 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello? 154.5.113.247 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Sam Spade

Re: Archetypes. Do archetypes explain the political aspects of establishing a large religious institution? Is it possible that the early church fathers "yoked the power of myth", harnessed the archetypal power of these stories for political purposes? That they were well aware of their mythical and symbolic nature, yet passed them off as literal history? ^^James^^ 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Have you ever heard of mysticism? It runs thru nearly all religions, a shared understanding of the truth behind the allegory. Sam Spade 07:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The truth often hurts but it's seldom unjust

Note: The truth behind the allegory? You mean like as in archetype being just another word for pattern and having no significance or meaning beyond that? You mean like there is no such thing as mysticism or precognition beyong the imagination? Barring the fact that I predicted accurately that the believers couldn't help themselves and begin editing as soon as the protection was lifted... that said, what is presented as criticism in this article begins by claiming they are by "critics". I take exception to this. If one Googles "The Christ Conspiracy book reviews it will come up with an Amazon showing of 231 reviews by readers of which two thirds were favorable. Same results with the rest of the Google had very few negative comments about it. Further, what is being touted as "critics" is nothing more than detractors to the theme of the book(s). Holding curses any light that sheds a view other than his own. His refutation is more at ridicule than refutation (See tektoonics.com site). Licona states in his header that his is a refutation of the book and Price begins his review with a soliloquy describing how his research is superior to most others and especially Acharya S. Detractors, all. To improve the article, remove this section as it is not information about the books but rather in denial of them.

01\11\05 -el Lobo

Page protected again

Dear all,

It seems that the only way people are willing to deal with these pages is via edit wars. That is unacceptable. I protected that page again to give everybody a chance to talk. Please use that chance. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, demanding discussion is pointless. Discussion can avail nothing, since the only purpose of discussion is working out a compromise. But the issue here is, can there be such a thing as legitimate criticism of Acharya S? Not, are the critics right, but is the practice of criticizing her itself even in principle legitimate? Or are all critics by definition "detractors" who have nothing whatever worth saying, and therefore should be noted only by way of ad homs direct against them? There is no compromise between the two. A.J.A. 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there can be legitimate criticism. People should read W:NPOV. As long as the opinions of the critics are accurately stated, and maybe some counteropnions provided, that should be OK.

I am sure common ground can be found. I just don't see any desire to reach it. Please, focus on paragraph-by-pagagraph discussion, that works best. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

But the policy you just linked is exactly what I've been insisting on all along. If they will abandon the idea that the article ought to be a PR piece for Acharya, we can talk. But I don't expect that. And unless that happens, I'm not bothering. A.J.A. 01:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oleg, perhaps you could answer the questions I posed above. Thanks. ^^James^^ 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about this stuff, so I can't help. James, was it you the anonymous editor who reverted these days? Please use your account, things are clearer that way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, sometimes I clear out my cache and forget to sign in again. Sorry for the confusion. As to my questions, I'm referring to my response to your suggestion above. ^^James^^ 01:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

James, you may want to comment below. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy

"Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate."

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views"

"The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints." WP:NPOV

A.J.A. 01:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Having a point of view should not include accusation, conjecture, innuendo, personal opinion, prejudice, or speculation. A point of view should be backed by fact, not feelings. A point of view, by definition, is "A position from which something is observed or considered; a standpoint" that inherently offers a comparison by which it can be assessed. If these aspects were attended to in this piece, the result would be a neutral article which would displease some who would see it as a PR piece. This article should not be a debate on the merits of the thesis presented... but that is what is transpiring. If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably doesn't. This leaves argument without fact, the only recourse it has in which to take refuge... accusation, conjecture, innuendo, personal opinion, prejudice, and speculation.

01/13/06 -el Lobo

"A point of view should be backed by fact, not feelings."

Fact: a scholar in a relevant field says she needs a Religion 101 class.

Feeling: But he must be indoctrinated, or jealous, or, or...

A.J.A. 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay. Statements made based on "personal conversations" with Licona, not based on his familiarity with her books. ^^James^^ 05:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

^^James^^'s Contributations.

Looks like a pattern, doesn't it? A.J.A. 06:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a concession. ^^James^^ 06:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I conceeded nothing. You came up, unsurprisingly, with some utterly flimsy reason to set aside a criticism based on real learning, contrary to policy. The problem here is you. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter if you personally find a criticism persuasive -- we already know you won't, regardless of what the criticism is. It matters that official Wikipedia policy calls for criticism to be included. A.J.A. 07:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No matter the scholarship... opinion, if incurred in self interest, emotion, belief, jealousy, or ignorance, is just as poor as the wisest rock. There is no surer fool than the one who believes his own lie. Where belief is an emotional response to ones environment and existence, it finds that it does not exempt them from themselves no matter how educated or intellegent.

01/13/06 -el Lobo

So... are you claiming anything specific about Edwin Bryant, or is it just some hazy feeling he might perhaps have an unworthy motive? A.J.A. 07:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Krishna crucified topic has been covered several times. Do go back, do a search and read what has been said. I'm not claiming anything... I'm questioning, a thing true believers tend to shun. Did Edwin Bryant read the books or was he responding to Licona's "answer yes or no... did you stop beating your wife" query? Is Bryant a parisioner of Licona?

From "Krishna Crucified?" http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm "(This chapter from Suns of God is 46 pages long, with 142 footnotes and 4 pages of illustrations comprising 12 images. This article represents reportage of a debate and does not draw any firm conclusion as to whether or not Krishna was ever depicted as "crucified" in the Christian sense.)" Just what does the question mark in the title mean? It would appear, by virtue of his answer, that Bryant was not made aware that Acharya was entertaining the possibility of considering Krishna's death as a "sacrifice" by quoting such authors as Jacolliot, Doan, and Remsburg et al.

01/13/06 -el Lobo

For a questioner who isn't a "true believer", you seem awfully certain of yourself, not to mention awfully certain anyone who questions your... non-beliefs... must be ignorant, or emotional, or indoctrinated, or, or...

So we get a comment that Licona's question was "did you stop beating your wife", which doesn't even make sense, and yet another vague implication Bryant must be a Christian. Except that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about: Bryant practices Bhakti Yoga [1].

Entertaining possibilities certainly sounds like the kind of thing we'd expect a real "scholar and visionary" to do. Except that Byrant, instead of reading authors like Jacolliot, has been reading things like yogic sutras and Upanishads and Vedas. Got that? He doesn't need Acharya to regurgitate Extreme Bible Studies to educate him about Hinduism. Let's try an analogy. If someone read Three Views of Judas without knowing it was fiction, and then repeated it in writing, and then someone in a place where there aren't many Christians came across this second writing and starting writing books saying that some Christians believe that God was actually incarnated in Judas, a practicing Christian and scholar of historical theology wuld not need to study those books to know that it's nonsense.

Ah, but "no matter the scholarship". What are things like facts and reason when you've got vague insinuations about motives? A.J.A. 17:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've read the book... even got a hand signed copy of his biography (gave it to my college library). Sure of myself? Don't mistake an assertive nature as anything more than it is. I saw no one questioning my "non-belief"... did I miss something? If you apply what I said to your self and find it fits, I have no control over what you feel about it. The comment was to illustrate how the phrasing of a question can dictate the answer... it's an old lawyer trick... if you answer yes, you have quit beating your wife or no you have not... you are made to be a wife beater either way. You donot know how Licona phrased his question to obtbain the answer he did.

The wearing of blinders will result in only seeing where you look. If all you read is the bible, all you will know is the bible (or sutras etc). If Bryant were unaware of the question being posed in "Krishna Crucified?"... and was asked to comment on the possibility, what answer would be forthcoming? If all Bryant knew was in that narrow view, then of what purpose would be asking him the question in the first place unless you were counting on his response? No matter what books are studied, if one does not ask the fundamental questions... then it won't matter what answers are found. If one already has all the answers they need, any further information is of no account.

In order for a thing to exist, it must first actually be. The onus of the claim of the existence of a thing lie with the claimant. Facts do not require you and I for their existence... they exist in spite of us. The most simple of evidences is show me... if scholarship fails here, it fails all.

01/14/06 -el Lobo

Uh huh. Uninformed speculation about what he's read, which isn't even plausible on the surface: you don't get a postgraduate degree by only reading one thing. If you had bothered to check his Wikipedia entry, you would see two books about a modern scholarly controversy. That is, a controversy among actual scholars, not like this crap we're arguing about here. And no biography. A.J.A. 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Uninformed speculation? Well, speaking of which... I'm not the one who stated that "Byrant, instead of reading authors like Jacolliot, has been reading things like yogic sutras and Upanishads and Vedas." You will have to take that up with the person who made that statement as to whether Bryant did or did not study Jacolliot among others... personally, I don't know and wouldn't presume to put words in his mouth. Jacolliot is listed along with Bryant at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indologists as an Indologist. Jacolliot also has a Wikipedia entry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Jacolliot

01/14/06 -el Lobo

Okay, suppose he *did* read Jacolliot. So much the worse for Acharya. A.J.A. 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryant did not base his statements on his knowledge of Acharyas work, he based them entirely on "personal conversations" with Licona - a Christian apologist (meaning: an interested party). I find it difficult to believe that he would offer a professional opinion on the qualifications of an author whose work he hasn't even read! I wonder if Bryant knew that his words would be used in such a way.

On another note, I do not think it appropriate for Liconas and Holdings views to be summarized in the article. They are essentially propagandists. Holding for example has a notorious reputation. I don't think their views would be summarized on any other article in wikipedia, and the same should apply here. ^^James^^ 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Licona read it to him over the phone. Unless you're prepared to prove he didn't read Acharya's real work and that Bryant would find her actual claims unobjectionable, you have no case.

The whole point is that her work is obvious crackpottery to anyone familiar with the field. It's as if Licona had asked a geography professor what he thought of a flat Earther's views, and you say he doesn't really know enough to object because he hasn't studied the flat Earther's work, and the flat Earther really does know the subject because he wrote a book about it. No, professors have no obligation to waste time studying nonsense before dismissing it.

Finally, it doesn't matter what you think. Policy calls for the inclusion of criticism. A.J.A. 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not so clear cut as you would like it to be. Hinduism "encompasses many religious traditions that widely vary in practice, as well as many diverse sects and philosophies." Was Acharya strictly writing about the common, orthodox story of Krishna? No. But Bryant seems to think she is, otherwise he wouldn't have suggested a "religion 101". So where did he get this impression from? Wholly from Licona, a Christain apologist engaged in writing a hit piece. Did Licona read her whole book to him over the phone? Did he relay her sources? Did Bryant research her sources, and delve into the nuances of her arguement before presenting an opinion? Obviously not. It appears as though he thought he was being asked general questions about general Hinduism, and responded in kind, based on what he already knows, and not based on the evidence Acharya presents in her books.

A better analogy would be: An author references non-canonical Chrisitian material, to which the theologist (who hasn't read the book and was only told about the reference second hand) replies: "This material is clearly not in the bible. The author needs Bible Studies 101."

Finally, wikipedia does not harbour propaganda. ^^James^^ 00:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It rather depends on which non-Canonical Christian material you're talking about. A "theologist" (sic) would immediately recognize Gnostic or Swedenborgian or Arian material, for example, and would say so. But if you're relying on, say, the Gospel of Barnabas, he would rightly dismiss what you say as worthless as far as describing any form of Christianity. Whether he'd ever read the text is beside the point, since he'd be right either way.

You continue to use vague implications of dishonesty without bothering to prove anything.

What I reject, and official policy rejects, is any notion that YOU have veto power over the contents of the encyclopedia by claiming to have some kind of objection (especially since you are shameless in using not only ad hominems, but ludicrously flimsy ones at that). Including substantive coverage of the criticism is not up for debate. They will be included. If you will accept that Price, Holding, Licona, and perhaps others belong in the article regardless of whether you personally find them persuasive, then we can discuss how that should happen. Otherwise, you're simply in the wrong and your presence here is merely a problem. A.J.A. 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything, it's all there on Liconas site. Bryant clearly hasn't read her books. So what's his opinion based on? Whatever it was that Licona told him. Pure and simple.

This is not about me. Stick to the facts. Not everybody with a website gets to have their views summarized. Especially when a strong case can be made that they are propagandists with an explicit agenda to push. ^^James^^ 01:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Licona's site says he misrepresented Acharya's position (which is what you're insinuating)?

By definition, a critic (or "detractor") is explicitely "pushing" the "agenda" that the subject is wrong. So in principle you reject including anything negative at all. But you got one thing right: it's not about you. Policy says we DO include the views of critics. If you don't accept that, you have no valid contribution to make. A.J.A. 01:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that since Bryant hasn't read her books, his opinion on their quality is baseless.

Official Wiki policy: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. Licona and Holding are propagandists with an agenda to push. ^^James^^ 02:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been paying attention. Her misatakes are basic. There's no more need for Bryant to bother reading her arguments than there is for a geography professor to study the arguments of a flat Earther. If her work had any value she wouldn't be saying what she says.

You have mistated policy, of course. Even if it is propaganda (is that word your new ad hom talisman to keep unwelcome thoughts at bay?):

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view.'" LIcona said that Bryant said thus-and-such is fully objective, verifiable, and not original research. In other words, a model fact for inclusion. A.J.A. 06:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Acharyas excerpt on the subject starts out with: "The orthodox depiction of Krishna's death relates that he was shot in the foot by a hunter's arrow while under a tree." It's the very first sentence. Yet Bryant feels the need to "correct" her by pointing out that "Krishna was killed by an arrow from a hunter who accidentally shot him in the heal".[2] As I've said repeatedly, it's ridiculous to include a criticism by someone who obviously hasn't read her books. With regard to Acharyas work, Bryant is not a reliable source.

I will accept your definition of critic as detractor as it has been applied in this article but that is not its actual definition:

A critic is "One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter, or One who specializes especially professionally in the evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works or one who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder. A detractor means "to draw or take away; divert. To speak ill of; belittle. v.intr. To reduce the value, importance, or quality of something."

01/14/06 -el Lobo

Reliability

I suggest we delve into the issue of reliability with respect to Licona's and Holding's websites. I encourage interested parties to read wiki policy on the subject, with special attention paid to partisan websites and evaluating the reliability of online sources.

^^James^^ 08:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You are of course misrepresenting both policy and the standard Wikipedia practice by any suggestion we shouldn't include critics.

The issue we NEED to discuss is whether you have any valid reason for being here. I see you've branched out to attacking a related article, but you still have yet to do anything at all except try to impose your own fringe POV on this and every so often a small number of related articles. A.J.A. 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never argued against including critics in general. I have argued against including the likes of Licona and Holding. And I have argued against criticisms that are misleading, insubstantial, or rely on misrepresentations of her work to make their point. Your constant efforts to attack me personally suggest that you find my arguments compelling. I have as much right to be here as anybody else. ^^James^^ 22:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Your constant efforts to attack me personally suggest that you find my arguments compelling."

Wow, I didn't see that one coming.

Addressing your arguments is a waste of time because you're not writing in good faith. A.J.A. 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks. Intended to obfuscate a lack of substance? ^^James^^ 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The worst personal attack on here is you notion I might find your utterly worthless special pleadings compelling. What I say about you is conclusively proven. A.J.A. 23:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a personal attack? Seems you will say anything, no rhyme or reason. Care to cast any more vague aspersions? All you've "proven" is that I have a particular interest in the quality of this article, which is no secret. You are wasting your time trying to make this personal. Besides, it's against wiki policy. ^^James^^ 00:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you accused me of being stupid enough to think you've said anything "compelling". The person who'll say anything is you -- as in "vague aspersions". Nothing vague about it: you're here for the specific purpose of imposing a bias on one particular article. But "vague aspersions" sounds bad, so you'll just throw it out there, and now I expect increasingly strained defenses of it, just like your defense of the odd notion that a qualified scholar can't recognize nonsense because a "propagandist" quoted it to him, because evil propaganda germs got all over the quote, or something: you didn't have the courage to come right out and say Licona misquoted her, but he somehow or another made Bryant not understand her direct words, or maybe not realize he needs to learn about both his accademic discipline and his religion from someone who couldn't get published anywhere but the press that brought us "Underwater UFOs". But if you repeat "vague aspersions" on Licona and Bryant, that makes it true.

No, I'm not interested in re-opening that argument. You're so obviously in the wrong and so obviously pushing an agenda -- and nothing more -- that discussion is pointless.

Or to take your garbage above about reliability. Can you tell the difference between "X" and "so-and-so said 'X'"? The article ought to say, "Licona quoted several scholars..." Now, can you imagine a more reliable source for what Licona said than the writing itself? But you don't like Licona, and you think that's enough to keep him out. It wouldn't be even if you were a legitimate Wikipedian. But you aren't even that.

That ^^James^^ finds nothing to disagree with is not required for inclusion. He himself will never accept that (unless he's lying) because it doesn't support his agenda. A.J.A. 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It should go without saying that a person who is not familiar with an authors work is not a reliable source of criticism. Never mind that the information is unverifiable, since it is based entirely on "personal conversations", and comes to us second hand, via Licona, a highly partisan source.

And what are these "criticisms" based on? Liconas own summaries of Acharyas work: a few brief sentences. This further underscores the disingenuous tactics he is willing to stoop, demonstrating that his only interest is to discredit the author. He is a propagandist with an agenda to push. That is the very definition of an apologist: their entire purpose is to defend a partisan position. Unfortunately, it appears you will vehemently argue for anything that makes the author look bad, regardless of quality or the source, and those who disagree get a steady stream of personal attacks. Please stop. ^^James^^ 01:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if all those were decent arguments (they're worthless), that's no reason to keep it out of the article. "Licona quoted Bryant as saying..." it 100% objectively true. You would rather substitute your singleminded apologetics for Acharya for the reader's judgement. (Odd that you would be the guy to talk about how we should automatically discount apologists -- don't worry, I have discounted you.) A.J.A. 02:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You really are grasping at straws. ^^James^^ 21:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Maybe a different approach is in order... What say a Wikipedia article be created representing what it is that the detractors wish to represent. Let this article inform readers of the two books that present the view that all religion is the result of legend, myth and morality stories and teh other present whatever view that is trying to be represented here. That way the two articles can counter balance each other without all this trying to do the same thing on one page.

01/21/06 -el Lobo

Unprotecting

Been 2 weeks. Will try unprotection. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear woohoo... Big mistake. Did you not read what has transpired previously on this article? The believers just simply cannot help themselves... they are driven to refute the notion that religion is founded in legend, myth, and morality stories. The way this is accompolished is to make the author of such notions look as bad as they can. If you do not remove this article altogether then at least return it to its previous state and freeze it again.

01/27.06 el Lobo

Actually this is fas flase as CHarles Mathews claim that Im the only Anti-Acharyan on here, and Jame's claim that Im a Zeloted Christyain who write the aritcle as a Hitpeice.

The truth is evident. Her supporters want the aritlce to endleslsy link to her own website, minimalise ( Origionally tried ot rmeove altogather but this failed) all objectiosn to her work, and present her as a Scholar's scholar.

Look at what I post. Tell me how its Biased. SHow me how it is an attmeot to undermine her.

I dare you to this end.

Reality is this, I am mor emild even than thr Ahteist Crazieedie. We all know, and can demonstrate, thats he beelives Masons existed int he furts cneutry. I tried putitn this int he artocle, btu it was rmeoved. Now Crazy has read her book. He sees the same htigns I did.

We arent beign derogitory by reportign the full extend of her beleifs. It is however disemblance to attemot to conceal the full extendt of her ideas because you know that, until one has beelived the lighter premkse which soudns more plausable, they wont beleive the rest.

PSeakign fo my apst, I have a long hsotyr of tolernce to other beleifs. I do not hwoever have a toleration for manipualtion of facts to win converts thoguh coercion and deciet.

This, of coruse, is what you are doing by yor own accusaitons agsint any here.

Leave the page be, and allow critism and full disoclosure of her ideas. This is an encyclopidia. Not an Advertisement.

Zarove.

63.17.213.93 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been well established that two of these three detractors that have been dug up are outright biased and the third has his own agenda and openly so states in his very first paragraph. Tell you what, I challenge you to remove these three detractors (they are most certainly not critics) from the article and then find other legitimate critics to replace them.

What is being attempted is at best a shallow farce to render the books and their message null by discrediting their author.

02/28/06 -el Lobo

Discredition and other fun lies.

Actally this is a frauduelnt statement.

Here is why.

1: Acharya S is a COnspriacy theorist. Her poursuit is to discredit Christainity. Her books arenot Scholarship. Thus, comments form Christain apologists fit. They both have MORE credibiklity than she does.

2: This article is about Acharya S, not her books. I have formthe start advocated expaaniding the "Life" sectionwith more detials abotu her actual life. Including the kidnapping of her sion, informaiton avialabel form her own website. This is where my itnerest lies since the artilce is not abotu ehr books at all.

3: what is beign attmeoted hee is to write an article on Acharya S. Her devotees, yourself included, have been persistant in an attmeot not to protect yhe truth, btu to present her in th best posisbel light, and focus on the less- hard to swallow of her ideas, rendering them more palatbake tot he uninitated. Even you knwo her veiws on amny topics woudl lable her a crank if read by the majority of internet users of Wikipedia. IE, you do not want her veiws on legilisaiton fo drugs in the aritlce, even thohg it is pertenant to the woman herself, because it woidl cast doubt on hr creidbility and htus hamper the message you support.

In this way, you act liek the "Beleivers" with whom you bemoan. You say beelivers cnanot rsit alterign the aritlce to protect their faith, btu you must alter it to protect yours. No one rellay is tryign to discredit her here, except Eddie perhaps. No one. All I want, as th lead Christain zealot, is to writ an article that is balanced and unbiased.

A.J.A. agrees with me, as do most here, that critism is needed ot balance the aritlce. Only her supporters seek to find folly in this.

4: As evidence of partisanship on the side of you, El Lobo, as well as James and SKull and your othe Cohorts, I point ot that a link relevant to Acharya S is removed every tien it is included. A link to an E-Mail exchange withthe AUthor, which fgoes less-than-well for her. It is removed not ont he basis that it has no rleevanc ( Which it is claimed of ocurse, to have no rleevance) btu because if it wher epermitted her true mindset and lack of evidence oqudl be revealed.

You must rmerove all critism, andhopefully seek to remove all links to critcs, in order to rpeserve the image of Acharya S as an uncontested shcolar who has clalry proven Jesus was a conspiracy and not a man, designed ot contorle the asses and repsoincible for the most evil period in Human Hisory.

Thus, any critc of hers I find will be rejected, simplybecause htye critissie her.

5: No actual problems withhte artcle as it stands is even mentioend by you.

6: Can you, without tlakign abotuthe critics she has garnered, shwo anyhtign acutlaly wrogn witthe arigticl that shwos Bias? Other, of course, than the fac that it doesnt show a slant toward promotign her?

7: Please stop adding links ot her own website in the atitle proper,. we have a link to her site already, and their is no need for two or three links ot her sit eint he extenral links. The link to her 'Rebuttal" to Liconda is a good poitn fo refernece. he wrote a rejojnder, whichis not include dint he extenral links, by anyone. The "Anti-Acharyan" side doesnt include it as its a rdundant link. The Acharya Disiples add the rebuttal but omit therejoinder as they want Acharya S to hget the last word. THus why they also link to main articles on her site.

Notabely also is the link to the "Orogins of the CHrist Myth" essay. Its "Needed' as it is the main essay on the CHrist COnsiracy. However, since this Artilc is not about the Christ Conspriacy, and as this artilce is abotu Axcharya S in general, its needfless.

8: As the article is abotu Acharya S, and not bher books, her other viees need alo ot be presented,as well ahow she typiclaly responds to critics, usually in vindictive, hate filled prose.

9: Now, can we settle this with an agrement to Nutrality? No, because her disiples will constantly attakc anyhtign that doesnt flagrently support their hero.

Schoalrs havent voiced a vewiiw o the book in force because its not a shcolarly work, dispite its claims. And the book isnt even central. The article is abotu Acharya S.

Zarove

63.17.215.188 21:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

-

1 She is not a "conspiracy theorist". A conspiracy theory is an argument alleging alternative explanation, hidden information, secret coordination and nefarious motive behind what is commonly considered to be a straightforward historic or current event. In popular culture, "conspiracy theory" is associated with eccentric or dubious narratives. The phrase is sometimes used to ridicule or dismiss an argument by implying that the theory is unworthy of serious consideration. The phrase is more often used by detractors than proponents of a theory. "The Christ Conspiracy, The Greatest Story Ever Sold" is a title meant as a catch phrase as is "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled". There is no theory in her works, she shows a direct correlation between myth and the advent of organized religion.

2 If this article is about Acharya only, then remove all mentoion of them except to say she wrote them. I disagree with you that her personal life is valid territory for publication except by her or by her expressed permission. What you are advocating is turning this article into a tabloid.

3 Devotee? I am a devotee of honesty, principle and realism. I have never wriiten a single word to the end of promoting her views... I espouse my own. Let me enlighten you if you haven't gotten the message: If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably

doesn't. Belief that requires faith is an emotional response to ones existence breathing life into that which would otherwise have none. It is an investment of ones self that puts a name and a face on the unknown to qualm fears, to salve ego and grant greed its due. God was not a consideration for 15 billion years and yet, in the advent of the human brain, it comes to us as though we were always here to rationalize its existence. I say that in order for a thing to exist, it must first actually be and that requires a criteria be filled. There is no need for the concept of god and thus the institutionalization of it in religion because nothing changes in the failure to conceive it. There is no belief or faith required in fact.

Truth? You say the article is about her and then in the next line say what you are doing is make her ideas less palatable? I quoted exactly what she said about drugs (go back and read it) and in your typical fashion ignore that truth you say you espouse to paint a picture that you feel will discredit her.

4 Partisanship? You speak of partisanship while exhibiting it? Do demonstrate this evidence you claim. I have not removed any links. I have rebutted, point by point, every so called criticism you and others have listed but have not removed any of them. I have called for their removal on the grounds that they do not qualify as criticism but have not removed them. You cannot claim a lack of scholarship on someone elses word without first determining their qualifications to say so. I have debunked this claim on several occassions but still it remains a staple in your stable of exhortations. What are your qualifications for making this claim?

If one were to say that there never was a Jesus Christ, what can be shown of him outside the use of the bible? Where was any mention of him made by any contemporary that lived during his time? The bible is a self validating tome.

5 I haven't butted in because I would revamp the entire thing to reflect only that information needed to inform the reader of the two books, what they were about with a brief bio of the author. That's what an enclylopedia does. It does not debate the merit of the works. What you have done is turned it into a pissing match and that is a formula for a neverending battle of words.

6 Sure... see number 5.

7 I hhave not touched the links. There is no greater truth than the lie that is believed. This article would not exist were it not for the books Acharya has written. Saying it is anything other than about them shows just how profoundly you have duped yourself.

8 See number 7. I would point out that however she responds is her perogative. By your responses it is just as clear that no matter how she responded you would find fault with it.

9 If you want neutrality, then you will have to give up the attack... you can't attack something and be nuetral in doing it. You automatically have taken sides when you do such a thing. What scholars do you quote? Do present them. I could not in all good conscience take your word for it... you have ruined that.

01/02/06 -el Lobo

Page protected

I protected the page, at the current version, which is by 66.82.9.84. That is in no way an endorsement of that version, rather, was the simplest thing to do.

Please heed my earlier suggestion of talking things paragraph by paragraph. And if anything, the number of links to http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm is excessive. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you at leats revert it to AJA's thenprotect it? Zarove.

Now for Lobo's "resoince."

' 1 She is not a "conspiracy theorist". A conspiracy theory is an argument alleging alternative explanation, hidden information, secret coordination and nefarious motive behind what is commonly considered to be a straightforward historic or current event.'

She alledged Jesu CHrit was a COnspriacy createdby the ORman Empire, by Jews and Fremaosns, as a mean to contorle the masses and all informaiton revelaign his mythic nature hidden. That is a COnspriacy theory by definition.

In popular culture, "conspiracy theory" is associated with eccentric or dubious narratives. The phrase is sometimes used to ridicule or dismiss an argument by implying that the theory is unworthy of serious consideration. The phrase is more often used by detractors than proponents of a theory.

It's used her ebecause the book itself claism its a Conspiracy thery. Both the title (The CHrist Conspriacy) and the back cover, and the publishers own preface , all of them claim its a consopruacy theory.

"The Christ Conspiracy, The Greatest Story Ever Sold" is a title meant as a catch phrase as is "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled". There is no theory in her works, she shows a direct correlation between myth and the advent of organized religion.

1: No, she does not. Hse uses unjudtified fre asoscation, erroenous soruces,and often leaps to conclusions.

2: Sven iftrue, tis still a conspriacy theiry.Its nt true, and van be proven utelry false, but this is of no consequence.

2 If this article is about Acharya only, then remove all mentoion of them except to say she wrote them.

I tried that ages ago. Her fans kept insistign that the aritlces arebaotu he rbooks and not her... this includes you...

I disagree with you that her personal life is valid territory for publication except by her or by her expressed permission. What you are advocating is turning this article into a tabloid.

Actually I am following standard proccedure. The aicle is not entitled "THe worlks of Acharya S." It is titled "Acharya S." She is the actual focus of the aritlc, not her theories and ideas. Any other Bio artilce ocntains informaiton on said persosn life. Acharya S shoudltn be any different than Steven J Gouls, Ian McKellen, or Jack CHick.

3 Devotee? I am a devotee of honesty, principle and realism.

If this where true, you owudl not revert the article ott he obviosu promotional form that you have reverted it to. You wodl recognise that redudnantly linkign to her own website is simply ridiculous. Rmeoval of critism , or minimilisaitnof it, is counter productive. Hoensty? You want al of her off-the-wall ideas rmeoves as to knwo they will not be considered and will make Acharya seem as a fraud. You thnen raitonalsie this decisiona nd claim anyone who wishes their inclusion is simply otu to discredit her. You ignore facts concerning her, and omit relvant Data.

No, you are a Devotee of Acharya S and also, form below, an Anti-Chrisyain who wants to udnermien th faith for soem personal reason or another.

You can accuse me of smearign ehr all you liek, yo have convneced osme ehre that this is my aim. But the reaity is, you are not a Devotee of hensty, integrety,a nd truth, you ar ea Devotee of Acharya S.

I have never wriiten a single word to the end of promoting her views... I espouse my own.

No, you have reverted the aritlce,a ndeven written in it, promotional lines for her.

Let me enlighten you if you haven't gotten the message: If a thing requires belief to exist, it probably

doesn't.

This isn enlightenment and is not germane tot he topic of hte aritlce.

Belief that requires faith is an emotional response to ones existence breathing life into that which would otherwise have none. It is an investment of ones self that puts a name and a face on the unknown to qualm fears, to salve ego and grant greed its due. God was not a consideration for 15 billion years and yet, in the advent of the human brain, it comes to us as though we were always here to rationalize its existence. I say that in order for a thing to exist, it must first actually be and that requires a criteria be filled. There is no need for the concept of god and thus the institutionalization of it in religion because nothing changes in the failure to conceive it. There is no belief or faith required in fact.

The above, remarkely narorw and fallaciosu argument, is uttelry menaignless as it is disconnected form the poiutn of the artilce.

It has nothign to do with Acharya S or this disopite, your personal Atheism is not the topic of discussion,a nd you ought o lay aside your own beelifs and approach this neutrlaly, soemhtign the above proves you have not done.

Truth? You say the article is about her and then in the next line say what you are doing is make her ideas less palatable?

This is distortion, and disemblance is a common tactic employed by you and James.

I said that you remove her less palatable ideas in order to conceal her outragoues claims, in order to affect a fornt of credibility.

I did not say I made diliberate attemt to make her ideas less palatable. They wsimply are recognised as such by you.

I quoted exactly what she said about drugs (go back and read it) and in your typical fashion ignore that truth you say you espouse to paint a picture that you feel will discredit her.

This is a lie. And I shall not address it firther.

4 Partisanship? You speak of partisanship while exhibiting it?

How do I demonstrate it? I hve strived ot retain the neutrality of the aritlce her fans remove form it.

Do demonstrate this evidence you claim. I have not removed any links.

The E-Mail exchange with King David is removed. In it, Acharya Fails to present evidence fr her lcim and simply ceases the corrospondance.

I have rebutted, point by point, every so called criticism you and others have listed but have not removed any of them. I have called for their removal on the grounds that they do not qualify as criticism but have not removed them.

Actually you just find knee jerk reaosns base don ratioanlisation. Again, fi the situaiton where reversed, and acharya S wanted to critise soem CHristyian book, you owuld not see a reaosn to object o her, even thguh hse has no real buisness critisisng anything.

You cannot claim a lack of scholarship on someone elses word without first determining their qualifications to say so.

I am in a PH.D programme for Psycology, and hold a MAsters Degree in Journalism. So, I have my own expeirnce. Her shcolarship is poor.

Robert Turkel is also a hodler of a Masters Degree, which is superior to Dorothy Murdocks Bachelors in Liberal Arts.

Licadia is in a Docgoral programme.

Bob PRice is a PH.D.

I have debunked this claim on several occassions but still it remains a staple in your stable of exhortations. What are your qualifications for making this claim?

Masters of Journalism Arts, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Bachelors of Psycology.

If one were to say that there never was a Jesus Christ, what can be shown of him outside the use of the bible? Where was any mention of him made by any contemporary that lived during his time? The bible is a self validating tome.

Well, in addition tohe fac thttaother soruces do mention HJesus, and the usual evidence thathas convneced the majority of Actual Historians, I have to wonder why the Bibel shoudl be treated differnelty than other ancietn soruces simply because yo wn tot cast doubt upon it due to your own baises?

Bu then again, who cares? Wikipeida doesnt exist to cast doubt ont he Bibels reliability, nor to tell anyone that Jesus existed or not. And the wueasiton is reelvant tot he discussion as much as NASA's efvidence for Appolo 13 is relevant to it.

5 I haven't butted in because I would revamp the entire thing to reflect only that information needed to inform the reader of the two books, what they were about with a brief bio of the author. That's what an enclylopedia does. It does not debate the merit of the works.

You woidl link endlesly to her own page, present her works itneh best posisble light, omit all critism, and leav eht eimrpesionthat shes a world renown shcoalr who has clealry proven her case. THis is bias.

What you have done is turned it into a pissing match and that is a formula for a neverending battle of words.

No I havent., I have stood firm by neutrality and fair presentaiton. Acharya andher leguosn are simpy afriad of beignexposed for what they are.

6 Sure... see number 5.

DOne.Only those hwo need to hide flee the light.

7 I hhave not touched the links. There is no greater truth than the lie that is believed. This article would not exist were it not for the books Acharya has written. Saying it is anything other than about them shows just how profoundly you have duped yourself.

I origionated the article. I didnt dupe myself with my own intentions.

8 See number 7. I would point out that however she responds is her perogative. By your responses it is just as clear that no matter how she responded you would find fault with it.

I did not email her. THe link was to soemone elses site. When you revet to Jame's version fo the aritlce, you rmeove the Link.

I am critising your rmeoval of the relevant link because it makes her look bad as she cannot answer the queasitosn rpesented to her.

9 If you want neutrality, then you will have to give up the attack...

I am not attakcign her. I am simply rmeovign the redundant links ot her site, makign sure her self appointed grandiose claism arent presented as credentials falsley, shwoign that her ideas are critised, shwougn the full extent of her actual beelifs,and rpesentign all known informaiton on her life.

This is not an attack.

you can't attack something and be nuetral in doing it. You automatically have taken sides when you do such a thing.

SHow me where I have acutlaly attackeed her.

What scholars do you quote? Do present them. I could not in all good conscience take your word for it... you have ruined that.

I havent ruine dmy word. I never had standignwith tou as you came her eot attakc all those who dare to speak of your Guru in anyhtign but loving praise.

And I think you fail to grasp this, I do not need to quote schoalrs, since no schoalrs exist that bothered withher book.

Zarove

63.17.208.217 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Thank you Zarove... you make my case.

01/28/06 -el Lobo

Please make account

People, try to make an account, all of you. Besides the strong dogmatic differences you are having here, one can't even tell who is talking to who. This page is a mess, and the post right above this illustrates that very well. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dogmatic? Yes, well... such is truth when founded in fact, logic and reason. It is a mess, yes... but not for lack of an account. Can you guarantee complete and total anonymity if an account were made? From what I see, all it gives you is a blue signature at the bottom... I don't see any advantage to an account... if there is one, do show me.

01/29/06 -el Lobo

I have an acocunt, Ijust cant stay signe dointo it. And Im not Dogmatic, the Ahcaryans are, btu all I want s for them to stop rmeovign pertenant informaiton they disagre with and to end slantign the aritlce too much into ehr favour.

Zarove

63.17.239.87 22:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you can edit just a section, not the whole talk page, to leave a message.

Agred.

You get more anonymity with an account. Now I know your IP address, and know that you contribute from direcpc.com. This is not very helpful of course, but in general, knowing your IP address can be a big thing. With an account, nobody will know your IP address.

No comment

And the advantages are not so much for you, they are for everybody else. It will be easier for us to discuss with a person with a stable username rather than a random and changing array of digits. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heard the same repitions from Zarove and the refutations from James and Lobo over and over again. It is pointless to rehash this nonsense. The opinion expressed above by Lobo is mine also, cause it is logical....something that escapes Zarove. If this articles is about Acharya, remove the material relating to her views. Start another page on those or I will.

I have seen few credible "editors" here, genuine "crtiques" or any sense of "journalism". I have seen, distortion, misrepresentation, libel and downright lies. Zarove knew nothing about Acharya and still doesn't, but his motive is to ridicule, smear and do anything to belittle her person and her views. That is why as the alleged creator of this page.

I present a challenge to the anons. Reveal your true selves. My ip addresse will always be the same, my user name (you may call me Rene or Skull (or numbskull if you wish--I am not anywhere near as sensitive as those need protection from the personal attack warning posted at the top of this discussion page.

My name is Rene Scherger, I live in Calgary, I work as Foreman in Parks. I am 52 yrs. old. I have read and forgotten more than most people in their life time.

My interests range from History, Science, religon, the occult, mythology, philosphy,linguistics, politics,fiction of all varieties. I am who I say I am. I consider all sides thoroughly. I am not a "believer"...just the facts. Lies, Liars, falsehoods, agenda driven deceivers and fraudsters are beyond repugnant to me. I stand for Ethics and unforgiving honesty in all things.

In case you need to know, I was raised Roman Catholic, served as Pres. of Knights of the Altar, and the Young Christian students. I arrived at Acharya's viewpoint more than 30 years before she published her works. Yes, I support her views and I like her cause of her courage to tell it like it is, to the chagrin of "believers" and vested interests in all religons perpetuating the falshoods. I read, weigh and analyze all sides of any question--no holds barred. I don't play favorites, nor do I allow anyone to tell me what is true or worthwile to consider.

It is a pure utter waste of time to argue detail by detail the repetitive nonsense that "editors" bring up in here. As the rules for Wiki...rules are made to be broken..and they are repeatedly regarding this page. #1 challenge...come out of the closet. #2 Limit the page about Acharya about Acharya--not the details of her views. Create another page for that or I will. --Skull 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC) -

As you can see, woohoo, it is not for want of an account that the postings are screwed up. I sign all of my postings so that there can be no doubt as to who is saying what. You should address the guilty party and instruct them on the proper way of posting and the value of clear, concise language. Congratulations on freezing this article... this is the only way it can stand in fairness and honesty. The better solution would be to remove it from Wikipedia altogether but as it has been demonstrated, the admins here felt it was better to leave it in its adulterated form than to admit they could not control those who made it that way. Your statements as to what it is you would have of this piece is not unlike the rhetoric they used to rationalize their decision not to remove it. I have repeatedly pointed out why this piece will not be left in peace. Believers cannot help themselves... they are driven to justify their beliefs... for, after all, any contradiction of them destroys their system of rationale exposing their fears and relegating them to being the same as all creatures to live by the same rules as the rest of nature. By negating their special place with their god, they are left with a big empty hole because no one has taught them that self sufficiency counter balances dependency. Believers are duty bound to hold this article in ridicule.

01/29/06 -el Lobo

Slandr again

You knw, Lobo, rather than acuce all who edit the aritlce aay form your "Fair and balanced" advertisement for your mistresss, you could try showign the aculs Bias. Personal attakcs on anyoen who defies the will of Dorothy Murdock, AKA Acharya S, doesnt rellay substantiate htis.

Now, theproblems withthis "

Fir and hoenst" article are repeated. Address htem, and donot simply try to bash peopel for reigious beleifs tyoy presume they have.

1: THir are too many links ot "Truth be known." Wikipeida typiclaly doesnt link to the sam site over twice, and mist tiem sonly once. The aritlc eis ont h author andnot her idea so thier is no need ot link tot he " Christain prigins" essay. The min site of the author is the only oen eneded. The intenral linsk ot he site are absolutley absurd in their continuation.

2: Removal of the Email Exchnge betweenthe Authori and another is also unaccepbale. If this had been a pisitive display, it owudl be greatly wrelcomed, btu as it makes the reader suspicius of Acharya S, it is remved. You saybeleivers are duty bound to alter the arilce to defne fhtier fiaht, but this omisison shows an exampel of hwo you ilnce oposition to further your own faith.

3: Mor eon her acutla life is needed.

4: The critism seciton needs ot be abotu actual critism of her owrk, andnot turncated to remove the meat of the arugments agisnt her. it wa sher fant th elctedt o make hgis abotu her owrk, andhtye ought to relaise htis means alloign her deficets and contradicitosn to be exposed as well;.

5: Why is it that, we cannot rmeove the absurd claim that sh is " A Historian, linguist, rleiiosu Shcolar, and Archeologist" and yet, the very argumetns you us to support htese lciam int he tlak page, nanely, that xhes written towbooks on religion and htus is a rleigiosu schoalr, ect, cnanot alsobe inthe aritlce sto shwo the reaosn why its absurd? it seems you wantot vindicate he lable int he tlak page whle rmeoving the fac thtta he has no creentials form the arilc itsself ot conceal the truthabotu her.

6: Why is it that yoy disemble informaitonon her views, tyin to normilise them with recognised theories? why nto allwo the reader to see the true extent of this conspriacy theorists work?

7: why stoop tp cheap charecter asdasinaiton and claim abotu ow beleivers cant leav ehte arile alone, when in fact yo have neithr shwion how beleivers try to ridicule her or promote thie blifs, nor have you hshown how you tyourself are fair andbalanced?

Really, thecurrent form of the aritlce cnanto stand as it is Biase din ehr faovur and is not NPOV. Any attmot to make it POV is sen as beelivers riidculign ehr, but this is a joke.

Zarove

63.17.131.76 04:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC) -

The "origins.htm" essay is clearly the most pertinent link, besides the website itself. So lets remove the extraneous citations. Problem solved. ^^James^^ 06:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

-

I agree... with the caveat that when a link is provided to answer a specific charge, it makes sense to leave it. The Truth Be Known site is way to vast to expect the reader to wade through it to disspell a specific charge. Putting a link in as though a footnote relieves the necessity of citing it in part or on whole thus relieving the effect of taking up way too much space and making the article cumbersome.

01/30/06 -el Lobo

-

James and Lobo...your suggestions make good sense. Zarove--if you want to respond to me, do it in your own space. I am not likely to respond to you anyway, because first of all it is tortuous to even read your posts. Secondly, your record keeps skipping--I toss mine in the garbage bin. I sure as heck can't repair yours. --Skull 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of ocurse...

Of course Lobo and Jmes make mroe sence than I do. They support Acharya S.

Her website isnt that massive. its acutlaly much msaller than her critics websites, and they typiclaly house fa rmore essays than she does. The links are repetitious. And again, the "Origins" essay is nt the most pertenant. The artocle is on Acharya S, not about hwo she pretends ot have uncovered the shokcign truth that Jesus didnt exist and presnet it in her "Irrefutable" way.

Again, look at other Wikipeida artilces. No other aritlce has so many links to the same website, muhc les the sameessay on said website.

And agin, rmeoval of ghe critism makes the aricle bias, just as presentign her self-proffessed credentials withotu explainign that she doesnt rlelay have any credibility in these fields is a revelationfo bais.

Removal of the King David link, with an E-Mail exchange withthe author, is bais. ( And oden to prevent pepel form relaisign that she cnanot answer direct critism.)

Relaly now, yoyur claism agaisnt editors who donot agre that Acharya S is the most brillaint schoalr of all times has becoem an absurdity. The aritlce is not her to promote her ridiculosu conspriacy theory. Neither hsodul we tryto hide her mroe outlandish beelifs because you wnt ot artificially create for her credibiltiy.

Oh and Skull, mockery of my spelling, even while knowing I am dyslexic, is harldy germane to the topic. I knwo you prefer to call me a Psycho along wiht orothy, but lets not bother brigning such mudslignign ehre. Even in my abscnece the article was ocntested, and I am afraid that all charges agaisnt me beign soemhow Bias arent supported by evidence. On the otherhand, you, James, and Lobio, are clealry bias.

63.17.212.2 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, remove the various citations, and the link problem is solved. Is that not satisfactory to you? ^^James^^ 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words, rmeove all critism, and the problem is solve. Sorry, thats not hwothings wortk in reality.

Liekwise, Why rmeov the link tothe Email Exchange withhe Authoress? Why not present the "Case" for her rlelay eign Hisotrian and linguist and artcheologust and religoous schoalr you presetne dont he tlak page? Why not present acutal informaiton on her life?

No, James, you wan to coerce this article into an advertisement, as is noted, and accuse others o bogn "Beelivers" and htus incompetant to an unbais work.

Her critics need voice as well as hse, het full views need ot be presented, her life expanded upon, and the Arilce needs no mor ehtna one link to her wn wesnbsite. It snto liek we lined to three or foru tekton ministires artocles. ( and abotu three are relevant.)

4.153.53.11 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please limit your responses to what I write, instead of constantly going off on long vacuous rants?? I take offence to you constantly putting words in my mouth. ^^James^^ 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Words in the mouth

I didnt put words in your mouth, James, this is both what you intend andwhat you or ypru compatriots have stated.

You want the citations form critcs removed. You want the link to the email excange removed. You want the link to the CHrist Myth essay in, as well as a link to the mainpage. ( Thus having two links ot the same website.) Its claimed this is needful due to the fact that its the main essya. But main essya ofwhat? Keep in mind this is about her, not her ideas.

Likewise, if it was the most mportant link, why not omit the link to the mainpage and just the essya? The answer is simple, because she isnt 100% about that oen essay. But he essya can be eaisly foudn by anyone hwo goes to the mainpage of her site as its pprominalty linked.

Its redundant, but its needed because it promotes your agenda.

JKust like removign the citaitosn form crritics meets it.

Int he apst you and your confederates claimd the Critism section was biased as it wasnot citaitons, tellign others what was siad, and was just a poitn fo point sayign what her critics have sated. Then, when we put in citaitons, yoy complain about htese as well.

So, we cnanot add generic sumation of the Critism leveled at her owrk, and we cannot wuote the critics of her work. This is what you ocnsider fair and balanced, silencign any who point out hat her facts and research are not grand, and ar eindeed erroneous.

Liekwise, you endlesly link to her page, mainly tot he CHrist Myth essay, in viutlaly every paragrpah. Even if it where ocnceeded otbe nedful it shoudl be only linekd once, int he external lunks section. You merley link it to assure thta its read.

Just as you link to her "Rebuttal" to risenJesus's article, but not the rejoinder, in the extenrla links.

Its obviosu that you want her to gt hte last word and to appear credibel tot he reader, rathere thna simply giving the facts.

Now, smeare me. Sya I am a zealoted fundamentlaist Christain out to destory Acharyas good name. I no logner am concened, you have ruine dmy rpeutaitonehre nayway as the "Only Anti-Acharyan:. But its nto true, and nohtign Ive written int he aitcle reflects either personal beleifs I hold nor are an attemot to smear the author. On the other hand you and your cohorts smear me acosntant, and Dorothy has taken potshots at me. All the while yo come up with one excuse after another to make sure the aritlc reads faovurabely to her.

We cannto sumerise the critism of her book, as its not a direct citaiton. And we cnanto include citaitons form ehr critics as this serves no purpose. In other words, her work muist stand uncontested. Just as her Credentials must be accepted at face Vlaue, even ignorign the fac that she is not a Historian, Linguist, or religios schoalr, and her Archeology career ended with undergrad work.

Really now James, you and your company atre transparent in your endeavur to bias Wikipedia and will not forever continue to win here.

ZAROVE 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If only you would address the bit about long ranting...

"you endlesly link to her page, mainly tot he CHrist Myth essay, in viutlaly every paragrpah."

HUH??? Do you just make this stuff up??? I count one link to the origins.htm essay. Most of the other links I didn't add. And yes, I want the criticisms sourced. It's wiki policy. But that doesn't mean the citations need to be on the article itself.

Where criticisms are included, rebuttles should also be included. And rejoinders as well.

Of course, Holding's and Licona's websites should not be included in the first place. They are not reliable sources. Wikipedia does aspire towards certain standards: WP:RS WP:V

"Just because information is sourced doesn't mean that it is acceptable to add it to Wikipedia."

"the source has to have a good reputation for accuracy for the sort of information it is being used to reference." [3] [4] [5] [6]

Evaluating Sources: "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?"

"Find out what other people say about your sources."

"Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution..."

Based on the above, I intend to remove these sites as soon as the page protection is lifted. ^^James^^ 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

lets see

If only you would address the bit about long ranting...

Im not ranting. "you endlesly link to her page, mainly tot he CHrist Myth essay, in viutlaly every paragrpah." HUH??? Do you just make this stuff up??? I count one link to the origins.htm essay. Most of the other links I didn't add. And yes, I want the criticisms sourced. It's wiki policy. But that doesn't mean the citations need to be on the article itself.

You as collective. You. El Lobo, Skull. All of you.

Where criticisms are included, rebuttles should also be included. And rejoinders as well.

Do you relaly think cllign somone a Psycho or scumbag is deservant of actual inclusion?

Dorothy does not rebutt charges. She only makes verbal attakc son any who point otu defecets in ehr work.

As for rejoinders, yoi wotn allow Liconas rejoinder inthe external link section.

Of course, Holding's and Licona's websites should not be included in the first place. They are not reliable sources. Wikipedia does aspire towards certain standards: WP:RS WP:V

Accordign to whom? I told evryone you owudl attmeot to rmove them. THe fact that Acharya S critises Christainity is no reaosn to include a CHristain apologist? COme now, their more rputable than Dorothy Murdock is.

The only reason you seek their removal is because you seek to silence the oposition> You want ot promote the Christ Myth idea that Dorothy promotes. This, of ocruse, means not allowign a Chrisyain to sya anything. ANy apologetivs site will be objected to, dispite the fact that Dorohy is firt and formost an oponant of CHristendom.

"Just because information is sourced doesn't mean that it is acceptable to add it to Wikipedia."

"the source has to have a good reputation for accuracy for the sort of information it is being used to reference." [3] [4] [5] [6]

And TEkton has this. Unless you want us to beelive their detractors. Of coruse, you want us nto to bother with Acharya S's detrtactors. But you wont scuple to shut down any of her critics base don their critics. Justa s you lie and distort abotu ditors motives here.

RisenJesus has not evenbeen discussed as unreliable, and you offr no reaosn for its rmeoval. Btu thats OK, sicne you dotn need to, The criterion is simple, If it is a CHrisyain soirce, it is bad.If it is an Ahtiets soruce that beelvies Jeuss was a rela man, its queasitonable. If its a fellow CHristmyther, it passes, btu barley, as it challegnes the gretaest schoalr on earth.

Evaluating Sources: "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?"

COnsider this aritlce for a moment.

Acharya S herself has a sorng bias. ANd by allowing the objecitons ot be raised we do nothing more htn what i doen with other Critics of CHristendom. Most allow Christain repsonces to be rpesented, dispit the (Obvious) Bias. If you defend CHristantiy form soemoen elses attakc, you have taken a side. This is not agaisnt wikipedia policy for inclusion hwoever. If it wher, then we woudl need ot edit out the fact that RIchard Dawkins madd attac on Christendom, and rmeove the enture section of Apologetics. lets nto foget te link yyo added that Crritisised Tekton Ministries. Added, of coruse, tot h Tekton site. You wodul invent an excuse for its inclusion, justa s you woudl for th exclusion of apologetics sources here.

"Find out what other people say about your sources."

"Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution..."

Agian, Acharya S attakcs CHristainity. Apoogist sites are obviously gign to be included ot balance the artilce.Liekwise, the "Other people" can themselves be critised. Why is it that if you find an Anti-Tekton Ministires site, you automaticllay cry out as if its proof that they are disreputable? Why nto scrutinise them? Of coruse, the rason is that they do not but aid you in your own agenda.

Based on the above, I intend to remove these sites as soon as the page protection is lifted. ^^James^^ 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

By so doing you prove how biased you are and hwy you shoudl nto be permitted to edit this page.

-

"A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self." -Eric Hoffer

02/02/06 -el Lobo

El Lobo, puttign aside your prsonal malice and vendictiveness aagaisnt Religion in general and Christianiy in particular, how does the above quote relate tot he current issue of the aritlce at hand? Zarove-

63.17.141.86 18:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

-

If you take it as anything, then it is you that relate to it... as witnessed by your interpretation of my personal malice and vindictiveness against religion demonstrates. I have no malice against the institutionalization of belief... (aka religion) my objective would be the enlightnement that shows that there is no need of it. If religion were banned from being taught to minors and only allowed to be presented to adults... it would only garner the sick and weak. Take money and power out of the equation and it would dry up and blow away. It is not vindictiveness that calls for an education and training that would create a society that is self reliant and independent comprised of individuals that are free from the dependency on government and religion for their well being. That said... believers that cannot escape their indoctrination and whose fear and selfishness drive them cannot and will not allow any contradiction to their beliefs to go undenied. This article will not be left to exist without that denial first and formost in its presentation. There is nothing that religion does that cannot be done without it.

02/03/06 -el Lobo

- I would like it to be known that someone here has deleted my last post in here which made some suggestions, which I will repeat here. I should also let you know that the same person sent a request for change of password for me, which I did not. I have sent a letter back to wiki. This is just the kind of thing someone would do who changes their ip addrese frequently and is only in here for malicious mischievous intent. You know of who I am accusing! I will be suggesting that the anonymity of using Wikipedia should be removed...with some suggestions, as it only draws malicious mischief makers. Admins.---is that possible?

My suggestion was to put all the so-called "critics" in a "detractor" section, because they are but fraudsters out to protect a fraud. Infidel Guys has shown Holding to be nothing but a money grubbing scamster. Licona is not considered by anyone to be of reputable worth to be used as a critic either. Until a genuine one comes along---and Price could be one, if he weren't so petty--I suggest he also be put in this category. I will not accept any "critic" unless they publish their critiques in a popular secular format, wherein responses can be given. I do not object to apologists attempting to refute---but in a place where everyone can see the foolishness of their arguements and where trickery is much harder to do.--Skull 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)