Talk:Acharya S/Archive 1

message: Someone who adheres to Acharya S's book has altered this page. The origional content was deleted and replaced with a promotional about her that appears to be an edited form of the oen on her own website.
In relaity, Acharya S is not considered an Avadmic and doesnt relaly worfk for the American Society of Greek Studies.
I wrote the origionala rticle, and also included critisisms of her work, such as the supposed parrallels between Krishn aand Buddha and the Christ are not foudn in the actual religions that follow them.
I tried and fialed to email Wikipedia,a ndnwo ask that this probem be sorted int he onlya venu open tome.
I tired to edit the page, btu it had no edit feature exceothere.
* I don't know this person or any of the editors, but the original article was badly written, needed wikifying and was POV. If you disagree with the current article, you are free to edit it and add other points, as long as you adhere to the NPOV policy, and document your sources. Elfguy 19:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

message: The claims of Acharya S have attracted a number of critics. Her detractors say:
* Acharya S's works are poor scholarship. They contain essentially no primary research and little substantiation for her claims. 
* The sources for her books — for example, The World's 16 Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves and Women's Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets by Barbara Walker — are themselves of suspect authority and lacking in primary research. 
</blockquote>
These are actual claims by actual critics, and I think they should be returned to the article pending sufficient evidence from our anonymous user (or anyone) that these claims are unsubstantiated.
Honestly it's a rather small yet feisty circle interested in this.  Perhaps we should just leave out the criticisms, and let those who are actually interested in this visit the external links, and we can move on.
— Phi beta 06:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: Self-promotion aside, the article looked totally dis-organized, so I organized it into sections. Seems that some anon had deleted information on the person's name from the article, I reinserted it too. As for the "rebuttal" section, it sounded completely incoherent, and almost like a copy-paste job, so I removed that nonsense text. The section is still there, it might be useful if the "anon" or anyone can make rebuttals in the proper context, that is have rebuttals against the criticisms.  Thanks. --Ragib 20:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I edited the header text, because her claim to fame is based on her criticism of religions, I don't see any notability in being a historian, blah blah, whatever profession the anon claims her to be. So I put the "critic of christianity" header text back. I also removed the "she speaks English, blah blah" etc., does that mean anything? I speak and can write 3-4 languages, does that make me something notable? I don't see anon 24* doing anything productive beside picking up a fight with alterprise. As for her name, I don't see any reason to exclude that from here. All people with pseudonyms also get their real names published in case they have a wikipedia article. Thanks. --Ragib 00:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite/reorganization 

message: I've got several other problems with the page. For example, the constant insinuations that the author may be lying about her credentials: 
:...who bills herself as a "historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist".
She is an historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist. If you have information suggesting otherwise, please provide it. Otherwise you are not-so-subtly suggesting she is a lier. A smear tactic.
:She claims to be a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece, Though they haveno record of her as a member.
She is a member of the American School of Classical Studies. If you have information suggesting otherwise, please provide it. More smear tactics to cast doubt on the authors character and credibility. 
:Her primary sources for her Premise Are the works of Kersey GRaves... and BArbara Walker...
That is blatantly false, and easily checked. (Oh yeah, nobody arguing with me on this has even read her books, so how can they check?!) She does reference these works, among many. 'The Christ Conspiracy' contains hundreds of quotes and 1200 footnotes, for example. These so-called critics (so-called because this smells like a deliberate smear) pick out a couple sources they feel confident attacking, then try to characterize them as her "primary sources".
:Her research is one-sided, and uses biased, innaccurate, and outdated soruces to prove her point.
Ummm, how exactly are we to rebut this sweeping claim??? Sheesh. Seriously, how about some specific, attributed crticisms that we can sink our teeth into, instead of broad sweeping unattributed statements... that suggest, once again, that wikipedia is being used to smear an author. 
I also note that nobody has challenged the quality of scholarship of the RisenJesus.com article in the links section. It is quite plainly abhorrent. Why not? 
As to the accusation of self-promotion, delete the page (as was offered by an 'admin' above, and agreed to by me) and the whole issue (wikipedia being used to smear and disseminate personal information about an author) would disappear. Since I am not yet familiar with the procedures on wikipedia, please forgive my ineptness in dealing with the issue. 
J
24.64.223.203 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smear Tactics 

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

message: Above de-vandalized by Nowhither 01:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not vandalism. wikipedia is not a democracy. Useing a poll here is a bad idea. Polls do not foster consensus which is what we are ment to aim for. Straw polls can be useful when trying to figure out how things stand but is anyone really uncertian of that on this page?01:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on most points. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Majority rule and consensus are different things. Wikipedia works according to the latter, not the former. Thus, the vote is non-binding. Perhaps it is a bad idea. But it is legitimate discussion. It probably does not foster consensus, but tearing up the legitimate work of others is much more polarizing, and an effective way to tear down a consensus. So let's not do it. — Nowhither 01:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: look at my deletion log it's what I've been doing for the last couple of hours. Ok if people really want a poll I can't stop them but I think it is a less than optimium course.Geni 02:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: OK< I edited it. Itsnot Biased. Acharya's fans may think it is, because itacutlaly includes real critisisms of her book, and points to the fact that her evidence is alcking, instead of just beign glowing praise and a list of how many wonderful things she is, but its not baiased. I codl nto validate her claim that she was a "Mythologist, linguist, Religious Scholar, historian, and Archeologist." I did confirm that she hodls a masters. So do I in Journalism. That's not that impressive.
I also could not confim that she is a member of the ASOGS, so I basiclaly omited this claim, as it serves no real end. ill put it backin with a "This claim is not substantiated" if insisted upon, but I realy dotn think Wikipedia shoudl say she is a member unless solid evidence comes to light. Again, Ahcarya fans, solid evidenceis not her word on her website.
I do ask that her supporters please allow Wikipedia to be a really unbiased source. Which doesnt mean a source that disemenates the odfficial Acharya S point fo veiw and rejects critisisms you persoanlly do not like.
:a link is requested.Geni 18:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Done

message: I threatened to write a full Biography of her. My main point is this, this is a Biographical article.
Her self professed credentials aren't really verified. If you want confirmation, you look at sources.
Credit history may be a bit extreme, but tis public record. I was not fully serious there however. But I was in checking her academic background in full.
I mean, come on, real scholars have their backgrounds on line. We have full biographies for Stephen Hawking, Machio Kaku, and Robert Price. Why not Acharya S?
Obviously its because you, personally, want to present her as soemthing other than she is.
You wanther predsented as a plethra of things. An archeologist? SHe went on a few student digs. That doesnt make her an archeologist, if it did then I cna clal myself a Paleontologist. I went to COlorodo once and helpd with a Doosaur dig on vacaiton. A Historian? How? SHe has NO traiing in this as I can tell. Religiosu scholar? She has no theological backgroeund whatsoever.
Checkthe F&M Site I posted. Her records are there. She has a minor degree in classical studies. That makes her wqualified ot teach high school students classical literature. It does not make her a Historian, archeologist, linguist, religious scholar, or anyhtign else.
Again, I am ogign on what is substantiatable. This sint a threat. But if she persissts in makign these claism and inssitign they be on Wikipedia, and not allowign acutal critisism to her work, why canrt we examien ehr claims?
Because you prefer to swallow her cpnspiracy theories hook, line, and sinker doesnt mean wikipedia is a palce for her shinanigans. As I said, her background as ascholar is open for examination. its not liek I woudl be stalking her. It slal on Franklin and MArshal and other sites.
And shes the one makign these stupid claims that ar eunfounded.
The reason I "Removed her credentials" is because the list is not her credentials. Its a list of thigns she claism to be to trump up her resume. She hodls no degre in Hisotry, religious studies, or archeology. Her degree is in classics. She can teahc classics in High School. But shes not a Historian, Linguist, Archeologist, or a religious scholar.
I added critisisms ebcause these are the common critiissms she is given. Rather you liek it or not. This is what peopel are sayign abotu her.
I added the "CHruch is Boring " line because this is an article abotu her, not her works. I dont see why thats hard for you to understand. Her works ar ementioend because this is what shes famous for. It defiens her in the oublic interest. But, in the end, th atcilce is abotu he rlife.
This is why I threatendd to write a real Biogrpahy.
Im not beign Biased here, Im fightign Bias. You ar ebaised. Youw ant rid of all critiissm, to dictate what is and is not a vlaid source ( WHich means itf its Christain its invlaid), and to make sure her webpage is linked ot refute everythignthat happens to be allowed by mean of critism. Thats hwy I removed th Robert prive link to "Truth be Known."
We have a link to truth be knwon, we dont need three.
:Do you really not have access to any spell checker? Your contributions are incredibly hard to read. Please try to be concise, and clear. Charles Matthews 21:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR We can't say she is a historian since that involves makeing a subjective judgment. We can say that person X or source Y describes her a historian.Geni 22:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Well, I thought it might be that. But really, you should try to post concisely and clearly. There is policy about that kind of thing. Your points will get lost, otherwise. Charles Matthews 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, I tried the spellcheckers mentioned by Geni, and they are quite easy to use. A garbled message is really hard to read, and so is any article section you introduce. Since this is making a problem here, you should look into this. Thanks. --Ragib 22:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio

message: #You remove pertinent information, like the line: 'among many other saviours'. This ommision makes it appear that Acharya's work focuses soley on Buddha and Krishna. This is obviously far from the case. A telling omission. Yet at the same time you add irrelevant information like: she found church boring when she was a child. ??
#Unless you attribute them, the so-called 'criticisms' you offer are your criticisms. Your explanation of why you refuse to attribute these criticisms is also telling: because they are likely to be challenged on the basis of bias and credibility. 
#Also regarding your criticisms: I think you are creating straw man mischaracterizations of her work to make it easy for you to knock them down. I think your criticisms don't apply to what she actually wrote. Please offer some direct quotes so we can see Acharya's claims for ourselves. For example, where does Acharya say that Krishna was born on Dec 25th? I don't recall reading that.  Please give direct quotes so we can examine context. Do the same for all your other 'criticisms'. 
#You wrote "She has also served as a Trench aid in Athens and Crete." Where did you get that information? Please share your source with us.
#Please explain how you are justified in removing: "She is a member of an institute for the study of Ancient Greek civilization, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece". You have her name, and you have the name of a credible source that can be checked, so what's the problem? 
#And just because some fringe christian website posts an article on Acharya S doesn't mean that it should be included here. 
More to come...^^James^^ 10:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Comments on Zaroves version 

message: Please stop vandalising he article. If you own a copy of TCC you can see Krishna's Birthday listed, by Acharya S, in her book, as December 25th. She doesnt add a disclaimer that thsi is another auhtors work. She tells it as a fact.
Im not so much CHerry pikcing as placing the major points in. DO I need to add why each and every claim she makes is fake to sate you? If so, Ill write this weekend an artilc eon TCC, and we shall movethose ocmmetns there.
This article is abotu her life. Thus in the "Life" section. I add the general informaiton she has revealed to the public. Its in the "Life" section. 
Removignthat seciton on the gorunds that its "Trite" makes no sence. No critidsism of her work exists in that section.
Dispite yor claims, this articl eisnot abotu her owrk, and only a brief overview is given as htis si what shes noted for.
And as I siad, I have contacted the ASOGS, THEY told me they had no record of her. Nor does her name appear on the member rosters.
I contyacted htem whilst doign a sotry on her abotu two years back, maghbe three.
Now, rather than try to distort evertthign I say, stop removign informaitonf or no reaosn, and adding informaiton thats is nto proven.
You wan tot make her into a brillain t scholar dispite the fac thtat she is not taken seriosuly in any known academic feild.
Also, answer the wueasiton. Will ANY Christain sources be allowed tore buttle Acharya's claims? Or will they all be summerily dismissed as "Biased"?
more to come... ^^James^^ 19:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear James

message: Zarove and James, please come to a consensus, rather than continuously reverting each others edits. From yesterday, there has been at least 9 reverts in the article, which is not really good. Zarove: Please address whatever points the other parties make, and PLEASE use a spell checker , otherwise your points can hardly be read. James: Please participate in the discussion rather than reverting it with "rv - see talk". 
Both of you, please refrain from continuously edit warring with each other. There are ways to resolve edit disputes: Request for comments is the first step if you can't resolve the dispute in the discussion page. Further edit wars would only result in violation of WP:3RR, and a block on both of you, or the article being protected. So, please resolve your disputes in the talk page. Thanks. --Ragib 05:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts and edit disputes 

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

message: She is ortchestratign the changes, to make sure the article reads as a Commercial, and therefore she prefers nto to allow any CHristian repsonce to her work, as they are "Bias". we can't veen mention problems to her premise, because tis "rock olid" and ptroves "Without a Doubt" that Jesus was a myth...
How dare you incompetent cretens chalenge her...(Sarcasm...)
ALso, sorry all for my own behaviour in some instances. I lost ,y cool, namely because I do care abotu Neutral content on thsi Encyclopedia, and because I knew ful well that Acharya and her Disiples wheren't going to allow Neutrality.I wanted even the casua reader to get an accrurate veiw of her. This is seen as Biased by the Followwers of Acharya, because it doesnt endlessly rpaise her and makes her look rather a bit like a Fraud. Unfortunatley, these are the real facts.
As I said, if shes " A Historian, Linguist, Religous Scholar, and Archeologist", then I'm a "Statesman, Historian, English Scholar, and Paleontologist."
After all, I have given political tlaks to people, have a Masters in Jorunalism, have read many thigns in Hisotry books as its a hobby of mine, and been to Hell Creek to dig Dinosaur Bones.ZAROVE 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Me Time

message: Well, take for example her claims about Krishna, obviously at odds with modern mainstream Hinduism.... except she's not necessarily talking about modern, mainstream Hinduism. Hinduism, like Christianity, is not homogenous; it has a variety of sects, texts and traditions, some less well known than others. If you look on the page Zarove references below, you will see that she mentions the use non-canonical texts, for example. IOW, she does not limit her study to mainstream religious texts and beliefs.
And, as her soruce is "The worlds 16 Crucified Saviours" by Kersye Graves, who seems to have not rlelay referenced this at all, I doubt that its een as particulaly impressive.
:Have you read Suns of God? Your criticism is based on the few scraps on the subject found in Christ Con. She expanded the subject into a whole book, which you haven't read!
 In her errata for 'The Christ Conspiracy', she directs readers to "Suns of God" for a more thorough exposition of her views on this subject. 
No one cares James. Your apologetics excersises to vendicate Acharya do not negete the need ot ba;lance the aritlce. You still havent told why "RisenJesus" was a "Fringe Christain Site" and shoudl be excluded. Form what Ic an tell Tekton Ministires, the largest site ont he topic, and theseocnd link when you type in "Acharya S" in Yahoo, is removed, it seems, because you hate J.P.Holding.
Bob Price is left in, so long as Acharya's "rebutal" is also linked imediatley after. Makign her ssite linked two to three times,which is redundant.
:With all your blustering about scholarship and credibility, it's funny that you put so much stock in these guys. Sheesh. And where do I say I 'hate' Robert Turkel? You're putting words in my mouth, a common smear tactic. 
:I have to laugh: You dedicate more lines in the articles to her critics, not only linking to them, but even paraphrasing their bogus arguments, then complain about a couple extra links to Acharyas site! Talk about blatant inconsistency! You say you want "casual readers to get an accrurate veiw of her"... in other words: your view of her. You want to prove to everyone that Acharya is a "crackpot" as you've put it. Sorry! Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox! 
o, whgat we have is this. No CHristain site will be recognised as they ar eall "Fringe", and only a Fellow Mytheisst will be seen as Critical. Noen of his Critisisms will make it intot he acutal body of th atucle, and the reader iwll know Acharya has Rebuttaled him. ( If you call a long scathing rant a rebutal, she didnt address his points, or Holdings on her "Rebttal" t him either...)
:I will discuss any site you suggest on their merits. I've said so before, but it seems you can't resist misrepresenting my arguments and putting words in my mouth... a common smear tactic. Note that I've not objected to Robert Price's article, even though I don't necessarily agree with him. 
CHristains cant tlak, they are Bias becausehtey beleive Jesus was rela and rose fothe Dead. Btu Acharya is OK to quote...
:Of course she is! She is the subject of the article! Lol. Again, stop putting words in my mouth. That's three times already. Just because they are Christians doesn't mean that their views and credentials shouldn't be challenged. You've sure challenged Acharyas, but don't seem to be too concerned about those of her critics... another inconsistency, suggesting... ?
In a porposed aritlce, which I am now serisouly contemplatign adding, I gave exacting Criticsms and their sources. ( this way you cat sya they are bogus and uncited.) Your repsonce tothis was that its "redundant" and not fair, even thoguh this is what you asked for.
:Ummm... no. I've argued this point on two levels. One: this is not the place to debate the minor details she may or may not have gotten wrong, nor is it the place for the Christ-myth debate, or the Historocity of Jesus debate. As I've said a number of times, it should have a bit about her, a bit about her work, and some relevant links, including credible critiques and rebuttles. What's wrong with that?
:On another level, I've attacked the criticisms themselves for a variety of reasons. ie: they're not sourced, the sources turn out to be bad, they're nitpiky over minor details, the premise for many of the arguments are just plain false straw men arguments etc etc. 
Its very aparent now that you are a vandal. You just wnt the aritlce to sing the priases of Acharya. Yoru earliest efforts, along wit your confederates, made he rout to be a Brillaint shcolar who cannot be challenged, and wose conclusions ar eproven fact. Nwo you will settle for a glowing, warm and fuzzy artilce talkign aboty hiw brlliant she is, and highly credentialed, and how her book is a synthesis of Comparative Mytholgy works and other mytgical texts. ( Even thouh it fdoesnt use any mythical texts, according to TCC's Bibliogrpahy, and the "Comparative religion" books are near universlay Freehtoguth works... most fo which discredited.)
:Try to tar me as a vandal all you like. After we settled the name issue, we had a decent version up, then you came along and started changing things. So... I guess that makes you the vandal. 
:Re:You just wnt the aritlce to sing the priases of Acharya. etc...
:You are putting words in my mouth... again. Can't you stick to the facts? Please stop misrepresenting my views, and stop trying to paint me as her 'disciple' etc. Can't you keep from getting personal? 
James, leave this alone. You cant just make her out to be a bruilliant shcolar whose conclusiosn ar euncontested and irrefutable. Thats not neutral and unbais unless proven, and clelary Acharya is not a proven Schoalr and her case is not decidedly facutal.
:More words in my mouth. I guess that's your only recourse? Allows you to avoid addressing what I actually write? A cowardly move and a common smear tactic. 
Rather than lie tot he world to protect your Idol, lets have a neutral article shall we?
:Accusing me of lying now? You have no shame.
(Zarove hasn't read that book.)
Do I need to? its just more of the same.
:LOL! Soooo telling.... 
So the crticisms are akin to writing a bit about snake dancing and speaking in tongues in a book on Christianity, then being criticised because "most Christians don't believe in that stuff". Well who said they did! But it is a part of Christianity. 
Yes a part. And if the book says its part of CHristainity thats fine. The problem is that Achara cannto show us where, exaclty, in Hindu tradition Krishna is said ot be Crucified. Even in "Krishna, Crucified?" She relates a stroy of how he was shot with several arrows and died reclinign agaisnt a tree. 
Thats not the same as Crucifiction.
Acharya may like to sya it is, but tis not.
:And you didn't notice the question mark at the end of the chapter title? Ever heard of a variation on a theme? A similar motif?? Here's the excerpt from the chapter for anyone who wants to compare what she actually writes to how zarove has characterizes it above. 
Similarily, Buddhism is not a homogenous religion either.
But where in any Buddhist texts does it say Buddha was Crucified? I'm pretty sure hsi lie story is relatively similar in eahc varient...
:Oh, so this debate is because you feel "pretty sure" about what you know. Your gut feelings? Egads. I'm "pretty sure" you don't know what you're talking about.  
The point is that it's easy to take something out of context, something that seems obviously wrong on the surface, and condemn it without examining what the writer is actually writing about.
Maybe you miss the point.
Let me reexpalin.
Wikipedia is relatign what other peopel are sayign abotu Acharya S. Thus, Wikipedia palces Critisisms intot he article.
:So when you write that "people say: shoddy scholarship" in the criticisms section, I should write a rebuttles section: "people say: excellent scholarship". That would be funny, but ridiculous. Sheesh. I'm surprised that so many here can't seem to see the obvious absurdity of having such sweeping statements included. 
Again, thsi si not a debate. If it where, Acharya woidl be in real toruble as she, and you, wodil need ot show how anyhtign she wites is true. Rememebr, she makes the claims, not her critics, in this isnatnce. Show us Krishsna, crucified! Shwo us Buddha, born of a Virign on December 25!
:Read her second book dedicated to the parallels between Krishna, Buddha and Christ, and see for yourself what she says about the subject before you presume to be able to debate her on it. :P 
It may be found that the writer is delving deep into the subject and turning up little known facts.
Or it may be that she's just plucking whatever works for her ut of outdated books written by excentirc nuts fom the 19th century... you kno, whatever.
:Guess what... the bible is "outdated"! Lol! 
ut again, let me ask this James.
Do her critics make these charges agaisnt her work? If so, then it is obviosu why Wikipedia says her critics make these charges.
Laypeople who have never heard of these facts are quick to say "well that's obviously wrong", simply because it contradicts what they already know and believe. (Of course, she also argues that religions are rife with contradictions...) 
But no one cares.
Because her critics are saying that she doesnt knwo anyhtign abotu Buddhism, Hinduism, ect...
Get it yet? Arguign with us over this won't change the fact that Bob Proce, RisenJEsus, and Rueger University say shes wrong. Thats why its in Wikipeida, to balance the arutlce out.
:Ummm... there are others who do care, and say she's 'right'! Should I put that in there? As I've said, it would be ridiculous, but I'll do it. And in fact, Robert Price agrees with her major tenets. I've not read the Rueger University review. Please supply it. Or are you refering to the straw man argument of risenjesus.com, where they sent some prof a list and asked if it comformed to mainstream hindu beliefs?? Then see my straw man discussion above. 
:Speaking of RisenJesus.com, that website is trying to "prove" that jesus really died and really did come back to life three days later! Personally, I prefer the sun allegory. It neatly explains the origins of the story: the sun metaphorically dies at the winter solstice (Dec 21/22), then three days later (Dec 25th) starts visibly moving again in its seasonal journey, each day rising to a higher point in the sky. It has come back to life, has been resurrected, has been reborn! And so the villagers rejoice and celebrate! RisenJesus indeed! Happens every year.
In other words, the whole "it contradicts well known facts about hinduism" etc. is a straw man argument.
Take it p with Bob Price and tekton Ministies and RusenJesus and Ruetger University. Wikipeidia just rpeorts what pthers say about her, if you cant understand that, then I feel sorry for you.
Forgot to sign. ZAROVE 01:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that wikipedia blindly repeats "what others say", no matter the quality of what they say, nor the credentials of who's saying it. I guess I really don't understand. Hey admins... is this truly the case? Can I post a quote from any hack w/ a web site and insist that it be included because it's what "someone" is saying????
^^James^^ 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear James- Again...

message: ----
The article is about her! Of course it's going to give a little blurb on what she writes about! Maybe you shouldn't have written the article in the first place if you didn't want anybody to know about her work.  
Personally, I think that if you want to debate whether Christ actually existed as a historical figure, go here or here. It's quite a big debate, and not likely to be settled on this little page. Simply describing her work and what it encompasses is not bias.
Regarding you continued accusation of vandalsim, this is considered an edit war... however what you are doing does fit the shoe:
:Sneaky vandalism: Sneaky vandals are those users that think they can outsmart the wiki and put their little comments, misinformation, and typos on articles, without anyone noticing.
Misinformation that you try to slip under the radar with the transparent addendum that it's what "other people are saying".
Regarding your repeated threats and personal attacks:
:We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed.
Regarding your agenda to tar Acharya as a "crackpot":
:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.
66.183.168.152 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 66.183'S COMMENTS.

message: James said the Critisism section is longer than the segment abotu Acharya herself. Well, given that the Critisisms are abtu Acharya, this is itsself absurd. Hoeever, I just coutned tem. Includign the introdiciton, the "Career and educaiton" section, and the 'Theme of Books" section, the Critisism section is acutlaly shorter than the text abotu her only. Not longer. SO more time is not given to her critics than she herself. Please take note.
ZAROVE 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you count? ^^James^^ 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: James and his Error... NOT!

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

message: :Have you read Suns of God? Your criticism is based on the few scraps on the subject found in Christ Con. She expanded the subject into a whole book, which you haven't read!
Ive read parts of Suns fo God online, tis no mor eimrpessive than Christ COnpsiracy...
''
:With all your blustering about scholarship and credibility, it's funny that you put so much stock in these guys. Sheesh. And where do I say I 'hate' Robert Turkel? You're putting words in my mouth, a common smear tactic. 
Its also funny that you never give a goopd reaosn for risenJesus to be removed. Teh alst "good reaosn" was that they beleived in the Ressurection of Jesus Christ...
Again, its th elongest and most thourough arrticle on Acharya S , as to critisism fo her work. it si also the secpnd link oen gets when on a seaehc engine. And that aticle is nthign btu more smear tactic agaisnt Holding. Its nto going to impress anyone here.
Unelss you sho somethign wrogn with the artuicle form Holdign itsself, then Im afraid you have no grounds for exclusion.
''
:I have to laugh: You dedicate more lines in the articles to her critics, not only linking to them, but even paraphrasing their bogus arguments, then complain about a couple extra links to Acharyas site!''
Actually her segments are logner, line for line. And, as stated, her critics and their critiissm need ot be in the article to balance it. Yoru removal of htem is to meet your desired end of promotign her. 
Talk about blatant inconsistency!
Nope, Im consistamnt. I want peopel to undertsand that her works arent standign as uncontested as she woudl liek to pretend.
You say you want "casual readers to get an accrurate veiw of her"... in other words: your view of her.
This is a lie James. Indeed, the oposite seems true. I havent written an aretucle to discredit her, an dincluding Valid critisism of her work is not the same as a smear campaign agaisnt her.
Nor have I shown favouratism in the articles themselves.
You. on the other hand, have repeatedly written the aritlce so that she is presented faovurabley, omit all critissm except form a fellow CHrist Mythesist, but made sure the reader see's her repsonce to this ( Sole) critic of hers. You include her inflated list of accomplihsments and credentials, and present her works as if they are works of seriosu schialrhsip. They are not.
You want the reader to be instilled wiht your view of her, that is, a Brilliant schoalr who has exposed the lie of CHristainity. I want peopel to knwo the general claism she makes, a but abotu her, and the critissms raised abotu her work.
This makes my articles unbiased, and yorus biased.
 You want to prove to everyone that Acharya is a "crackpot" as you've put it. Sorry! Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox! 
No, I dont, and htis is a false accusaiton agaisnt me, designed as a smear agaisnt me so that no oen will listen to me. This is what Bulleis do, they accuse their vicitms of the tacticsthey themselves employ.
Again, yoru artile presents her faovurabley, and distorts the factd abotu her, whiel omitign all critiisms.
How is that Unbaised?
''
:I will discuss any site you suggest on their merits. I've said so before, but it seems you can't resist misrepresenting my arguments and putting words in my mouth... a common smear tactic. Note that I've not objected to Robert Price's article, even though I don't necessarily agree with him. 
No you wont. Heck, Ive asked repeateldy abotu risenHJesus, and you STILL havent given a good reaosn for its exclusion.
Your only reaosn for removign Tekton ministries is because another article says Rpbert Turkel is a liar. But you have not discussed he merits of his work on acharya S.
No, you do not address the mertits of he sites, you just expect us to agree that Tekton is a bad source because Turkel is a liar, and you expect us to forget that RisenJesus is a seperate site.
''
:Of course she is! She is the subject of the article! Lol.''
But as a result, shoudltnthe reader be made aware of the flaws to her premise? As well as the known facs of her life?
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. That's three times already.
I haent put words in your mouth, I have demonstrated what your actiosn are saying.
There is a difference. 
And need I remind you of hour repeated attemtps at Charecter assasingation aiemd at me? IE, your reepated claim thayt I just follow Robert Turkel? 
Just because they are Christians doesn't mean that their views and credentials shouldn't be challenged.
I didnt say they shoudltn be. But Turkel relaly does hold a Masters in Library S ience...
And thusfar we havent even discussed RisenJesus.
You are assumign I am bias in faovur of CHristains, and want to spmear Acharya to defend my religious beleifs. But, this is clelary bot the case.
Again, the oposite is the truth. You want to smear me so as to make me look liek soemoen out to harm her so I wont be listened to so that you are free to make the aritlce into a lfuff peice that omits all critiissm and presents her work as a briullaint synthesis of wel known facts and her conclusiosn unchalelgned int eh realm of academia. Rthis is aparent as you have basiclaly doen nothgin else but whitewash her.
You've sure challenged Acharyas, but don't seem to be too concerned about those of her critics... another inconsistency, suggesting... ?
Its nto inconsistant.
The article is abotu her, nto her critics. Also, you have not discussed the meritcs of the sites you omit. IE, you say Robert turkel is a liar because you foudn a site ont he net that said he was. Well, what are the author of that sites credentials? It becoems an endless runaroudn liek that.
Form what I can tell, he rellay was a Prison librarian, rellay rusn a ministry now, and rellay has a masters.
And you dotn even discuss RisenJesus at all. You just delete the link to it as if its OK to do so.
You dotn discuss the ocntent of said aritlces.
The peoepl thmselves can be discussed on their own aritlces.
:Ummm... no. I've argued this point on two levels. One: this is not the place to debate the minor details she may or may not have gotten wrong, nor is it the place for the Christ-myth debate, or the Historocity of Jesus debate.
Her whoel second book is abot the puported similarities betwen KRishna and Buddha. I woudl harldy clal these "Minor details."
And no oen discussed the Historacity of Jesus.
As I've said a number of times, it should have a bit about her, a bit about her work, and some relevant links, including credible critiques and rebuttles. What's wrong with that?
Well for starters you dotn allow a bit abotu her. You only allow her works to be mentioen and her sterling credentials and acocmplishments. Basiclaly. shes a briallint scholar, a rleigious schoalr a that, and a Hisotrian, and a linguist, and arhcielogist to boot!
Thwn you tell hwo her work is nothgin new, its clelary been proven fact!
Yori article is a fluff peice, designed to impress peoepl with her. Thats whats wrong.
The aritlce shoudl include all perteneant informaiton.
Thgis includes all available informaitonabot her life ( CHeck other arilces, we have Biographicla data on most) not hust a litlt ebit on her life.This hsodu include her real cfredentuals, not her fluff.
It shodil also include the general premise of hwr work, as this is what shes famosu for, but it should be tolsd in a nutral manner. IE, we tell her baisc idea. Not that ts a synthesis of comparitive religiosu themes. Its not.
We shodl also allow valid critiicsm. All other wikipedia aritlces allow critiismss. Sollog includes critiisms. So fdoes Larry Orr. So do most contraversial persons. Each inlcudes critisism int he body of the aritlce itsself.
Removing the critisms makes the article bias because it basicllay presumes the critusisms arent valid.
As to linsk to credible Critics, this is also a lie on your part. The only "Creidble critic" is PRoce, because he is also a Hrist Mytgher.
Tekton Ministies arent Credible because Turkel is a liar accorind to some atheist site. We have no acutal problem withthe aritlce we acutlaly link, btu Trukel is a lair accoridn got soem other site so hes out...
Oh and RisenJesus isnt creidbel either. No real reaosn nwo is given, btu above yits described as not creidble because the guy beelives Jeuss litelrlay rose form the dead...
Relaly, you dont want credible critisms, just critisms form fellow CHrist Mytgers, so logn as her rebuttals ar eincluded.
:On another level, I've attacked the criticisms themselves for a variety of reasons. ie: they're not sourced, the sources turn out to be bad, they're nitpiky over minor details, the premise for many of the arguments are just plain false straw men arguments etc etc. 
The sources arent bad. Thast a POV Sttaement.
And they are soruced, thats why we have links.
This is also why my inconsitancy isnt inconsistant. I wanted a breif description of the errors, an you insisted on detials. I give detials, and you call me inconsistant.
:Try to tar me as a vandal all you like. After we settled the name issue, we had a decent version up, then you came along and started changing things. So... I guess that makes you the vandal. 
No you didnt, and I gve actual reasons for alteration, and was not the only oen alterign the aritlce.
:Re:You just wnt the aritlce to sing the priases of Acharya. etc...
:You are putting words in my mouth... again. Can't you stick to the facts? Please stop misrepresenting my views, and stop trying to paint me as her 'disciple' etc. Can't you keep from getting personal? 
I am stikcign witht he facts. The fact is you are a follower of Acharya S, and want the critissms removed because you want to contorle peopels perception of her. When peoepl object, you attemto to smear them to silence their objections, so you cna have toyur way.
That is a demonstratable fact.
Also a fact, you want to remove RisenJEsus because it is a Christain site. Tekton is also a site that actually addresses Acharya, and yet you want it removed and try to smear Robert turkel to get ytour way.
I am not beign personal, I have evidence you are her disiple.
And that she has orchestrated this war.
I am not misrepresentign your views. You want to remove all critissm, and paint her in a faovurable light. This of coruce under the ruse that this is the turht and any other verison is a smear tactic.
:More words in my mouth. I guess that's your only recourse? Allows you to avoid addressing what I actually write? A cowardly move and a common smear tactic.
Your the one who acutlaly wotn give a reaosn for the removal of RisenJEsus, and I address everythign you say...
 
''
:Accusing me of lying now? You have no shame.''
Given the level of Vitirol you level againt me constantly, sayign that I am makign lersonal attakcs agsitn you for pointing out the obvious is rather amusing...
(Zarove hasn't read that book.)
Do I need to? its just more of the same.
''
:LOL! Soooo telling.... 
I think it was Ed who said a box of COrnflakes was mroe intellectually stimularting. So I harldy think this is a minority view.
 
''
:And you didn't notice the question mark at the end of the chapter title? Ever heard of a variation on a theme? A similar motif?? Here's the excerpt from the chapter for anyone who wants to compare what she actually writes to how zarove has characterizes it above. 
Tghis is a rationalisation, James. She reepateldy says Krishna is Crucified in Christ COnspriact. Need I shwo each page number?
I'm willign to.
And in Suns of Gd she also I am told reepats that he is Crucified. Thsi si nto emre similarity in theme, she flatly sttaes this as a fact.
:Oh, so this debate is because you feel "pretty sure" about what you know. Your gut feelings? Egads. I'm "pretty sure" you don't know what you're talking about.  
Its an expression lad, best not to overanylise them...
No known Buddhist varient contians a Crucifiction accouint, and all contian his dyign at old age.
:So when you write that "people say: shoddy scholarship" in the criticisms section, I should write a rebuttles section: 
This isnt true James, the critism seciton ( which I didnt write btu copied, buy the way) says poor schoalrship. And no oen calls her schoalrship excellent aside formher own follwoers,and in many cases her own sources.
Do you rlelay think Barbara G. Walker is a good soruce for sayign she has "Excellent Schoalrship" in her books?
"people say: excellent scholarship". That would be funny, but ridiculous. Sheesh. I'm surprised that so many here can't seem to see the obvious absurdity of having such sweeping statements included. 
We gain that sort of thing form her follwoers already, hwover, poel need ot be informed that critissm exists fof her book, and what this critisism is.
:Read her second book dedicated to the parallels between Krishna, Buddha and Christ, and see for yourself what she says about the subject before you presume to be able to debate her on it. :P 
HWer firts book makes these positive assertions, so no need.
And again, these arent my critisisms, they come form other osruces...
:Guess what... the bible is "outdated"! Lol! 
Kersye GRaves is. So is Gerald Massey...
Dotn try to get cute, it doesnt owrk.
ut again, let me ask this James.
:Ummm... there are others who do care, and say she's 'right'!
Yws but their credentials are suspect as well...
So why not challegne them as mucha s you do Robert TUrkel?
Why cant I just find a Geocities soemwhere that razzes Barbara Wlaker?
Grow uo James, the peopel who syas hes right are either her own soruces, or else her follwoers.
You onsider this objective?
Peopel know her follwors reject the critissm.
Should I put that in there? As I've said, it would be ridiculous, but I'll do it.
For what end? We knwo she and her supporters agree, so theirs rlelay no need to put it in, except to make the artlc eunbalanced and in her faovur.
And in fact, Robert Price agrees with her major tenets.
So? He only agrees Jeuss didnt exist, he doesnt agree with her consoriacy notion.
I've not read the Rueger University review. Please supply it.
I did, it sint he risenJesus artilce, and the quoted segments above.
Or are you refering to the straw man argument of risenjesus.com, where they sent some prof a list and asked if it comformed to mainstream hindu beliefs?? Then see my straw man discussion above.
Again, thsi sitn a debate so straw man doesnt apply. THis is actual critism form acutal critics. And again, they knwo more thna just mainstream Hinduism.
Do you rtlelay think acutal shcoalrs knwo less than Acharya S?
 
''
:Speaking of RisenJesus.com, that website is trying to "prove" that jesus really died and really did come back to life three days later! Personally, I prefer the sun allegory.''
Your preference matters how? Other than the fact that you obviously want this aritlce to dside with tou, instead of beign Neutral.
''
It neatly explains the origins of the story: the sun metaphorically dies at the winter solstice (Dec 21/22), then three days later (Dec 25th) starts visibly moving again in its seasonal journey, each day rising to a higher point in the sky. It has come back to life, has been resurrected, has been reborn! And so the villagers rejoice and celebrate! RisenJesus indeed! Happens every year.''
At elats accoridnto Acharya S, who fials to address the obviosu problems associated with this theory. IE, that Christmas is the celebration fo Jesus's birh, not rebirth, hsi ddath and resusrection occure at Easther. Or the fact that CHristmas was nto origionally celebrated by the ealry CHruch. Or the fact that Capricorn and Sagetarius are NOT seen as theives. or the fact that the Astorlogy she uses is Midaevel in origin...
Again, your prefernece is not rlelay relevant.
''
:I didn't realize that wikipedia blindly repeats "what others say", no matter the quality of what they say, nor the credentials of who's saying it.''
Ironiclaly her critics have more credentual ot their names than does Acharya Herself...
''
I guess I really don't understand. Hey admins... is this truly the case? Can I post a quote from any hack w/ a web site and insist that it be included because it's what "someone" is saying????''
Now your just beign facisious.
^^James^^ 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear James- Again...

message: Soem childish "Neutral" Rebuttals ar enwo int he article, can semone pelase remove them? They do nothgin btu make shallow accusation agaisnt Acharya's critics and do nto rlelay advicate the Neutrality of the article, instead they ( Again) give more time to her disiples, in a vain attemto to make Acharya look as if her detractors ar all just relly mena peoepl who use nameclaling...
Take a look for yourselves.
FOr instance, this...
The complaint that Acharya's research is a one-sided, biased, inaccurate and outdated opinion, without substantiation, is an attempt to smear and denigrate the author with agenda driven opinion. 
Is this rellay nessisary? Her critics critise her work. Nto her persoanlly, and arent tyrign to smear her.
But this is ther way of things with hwr disiples, as htye try to force Wikipeida to play by their rules.
ZAROVE 02:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you cut the 'disciples' crap out? Trying to cast me as her 'disciple' and 'follower' is a form of personal attack. 
66.183.168.152 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Rebuttals.

message: UYou want spacifics, Ill giv you spacifics.
1: The current article omits criticms. Valdi critisms of her work exist, and to not include even a mention of her critisism in the aritlc eis bais. You remove the critisms for no valid reaosn, you jujst say they shoduk eb removed and the aitlce hsodu be a litte abtu her and a ltitle abotu ehr work. THis is a false statement. Everyone form David Ike to even Stephen Hawking have had critisms allowed on their pages on Wikipedia. Why nto Acharya?> SI she so fragile that even a hiont of Critism brigns her down?
Dispite your obviosu lie that the Critisms ar einvlaid tot he aritlce, the truth remaisn that to rmeove them only makes the aivle Bias.
2: in the "Life and career" seciton, ti just gives her ouffery.
3: HEr works ar enot a Synthesois of whats foudfnb in COmparative religion and Mythology over the last tow centiries. Their a stynthesis of whats foudn in a few eccentrics and occultist works over ht elast cnetury or two. TRHey arnet considered rpeubtable by anyone on the feild, yet we soemhow make her owrk osund bette rthan it is. Why? BEcause her fanbase cant stand an acutally neutral article and prefers to present THEIR veriosn of acharya, and if any attmeot at Neutrlaity coems along, its considered bais.
4: The links to her site are redundant. For every critical link ( And I remidn you, no critism is int he aritlce itsslef, so th eunsuspectign radermay be forgiven if he doesnt think her work is contested form the current article) anothe rlink is emidatlry posted under it. THis other link is to her "Rebuttal." WHich I cna be amazed since her rebuttals are embarraisngly poor, they referenceno real poitns raised by her critics, and just rant abotu how stupid they are.
Do we need 3 links ot her site? No. Do we need spacificllay the "ORigins of the HCist myth" link? No, her homepage is good. 
Form her hoem page you an find all the othe rlinks.
Why do we need her rebuttal to Dr. PRivce lined emidealtry below Privce's aritlce? Why do we need her rebutal to risen JEus emideatly below it? If you whertent her disiple, you owudl undertsand htat htis fofm of Manipulaiton is not hoenst. Yoy wan tot present this as if she has the high gound and wantot create an imag eof her as a CHampionign expet int eh field of Myhtology and COmparativd rleigoon. Shes not.
The redundant links, the misrepresentaiton in the themes of book seciton, and the removal of Tekton Ministires because soem othe site ( and its credible?) Says tiurkel is a liar, prive you are triolling.
Grow up.
As tot he whole "Get a DIcitonary" a disiple is a follower . You are her follwoer. You blidnly beelive whateve ris in ehr book, aparelty because you prefer it. You dotn stop to criticlaly anylise the Data or else you woudl eb forced to concude as any raitonal person has here htat shes a to bit conspiracy theorist. Her premise and evidence are both poor, and unsubstantiate dby actual knoeldge of the fields she speaks pf.
You just liek ehr work and follwo her example, thats why I call you her disiple. hekc your only herebecause shes upset over the wikipedia article.
ANd now that the arile is a whitewahs, tlelign hie her books are a synthesis of rleigoon an comparative mythology scholarship and offer no critisism at all, they have removed the "totally disputed" tag. This is fair, sicne heaven forbid peopel dispite her claims to beign such a wonderful scholar...
ZAROVE 00:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, listen James.

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

message: * The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ This is a synopsis of her principal claims. Other pages on this site argue with critics.
* PARANOIA: Acharya S Interview
* Review of Acharya S's The Christ Conspiracy, by Robert M. Price
*"A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy" from RisenJesus.com
----
:If yours referred to a different one, it wasn't clear to me.
It should have been clear to you that I was responding to what zarove wrote, specifically the quote that I cited. 
:The currently protected article has numerous problems...
Please specify. 
^^James^^ 00:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I took them for horns. I find it Ironic that all eh can do is disparage other peopels characters who he is now opposed to, yet somehow cliams we attack Dorothy persoanlly.
As to her puffery, Im sorry, but th euninformed will be imoressed by such claims, and the real signifigance of these claism must also be brought to light. when I was a reporter, I was otld to write at a fifth grade level, precicely because many won't understand the geenral comments.
Her site is impressive to high school students who dont know any better, or uneducated adults, so it is best to notify them of the extent of these claism and what they mean.
I do agree hwoever, as I siad, that th elink to her publisher is adequate, but then another cliam of ligical fallacy will be hurled, even htough this is an Encyclopedia, and not a debate.Soemthgin James looses site of.
ZAROVE 03:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Horny

message: The Christain reponces are important to include, ebcause she is a critic of CHristainity. It is not up to Wikipedia to remove all POV links, only to not poresent POV in the body of the aerticle itsself.
Many who critisise Christainity, or anyhtign else, have in their articles refutaiton links, this is standard practice for QWikipedia.
So, your complaints baout the Critiissm beign unneeded is a bit silly, woudlnt you htink?
Just like your complaints that they are proffessional Apoliogusts and htux have vested interests. Well, Doesnt Dorothy hav vested interests? She is a proffessional Anti-Christain, her livign is earned by tearign into CHristain beleif, often badly using poor workign knwoeldge and namecalling.
So, if we remove all POV links,we woudl also remove the link to he r site, which is OOV itsself. Since she is a critic of CHristainity, it owudl be unfair to remove CHristain reposnces, and since nly these two Christasb seemed interested enough to write abotu her and yet showed boldness in not buckling under her ocnstant harrassmnet, soemtghign she cliams they do to her, but which no evidnce exists for, then it seems rather ridicukous not to include them, no matter hwo you raitonalise thes things.
As to the current article, the reaosnt he Neutrality tag remains is because your curent "Nonbiased" verison links her site three times. It does htis to make sure, at leats in her disiples minds, that her rebuttals are read and so that her critics are seen as useless fools.
It Also claism that her works is a synthesis of a study of Mythology and comparative rleigion. No books on COmparative rleigion or mythology ar eeven in her Bibloogrpahy for the CHirst COnpsiracy. Just books by Godfry Higgens and Barbasa Walker, neiher of whihc where considered very scholarly.
Her books are nothign but copious uotaitons form occultists, freethinkers form the 19th century, radicals, and malcpontents. She even quotes Rvernd Robert taylor, who was a Paranoid Schitzophrinic, as a source. Who seriosuly takes his writtings as schoalrship these days?
To repeat, the removal of CHristain repsonce to her site only serves to illustrate the duplicity of Acharya S. She wants to attack Chrisyainity wiht impunity. She wants the right and fredom to namecall, deride, and slander CHrista8ns in general as stupid morons who worship an incvisioble Jewish Man in th sky while singing her own praises for how intellgent she is for not beleivign n the invidible Jewish man int he sky, which is a straw man. Yet she and her disiples seem to become upset whenever anyoen critisises her work, and asusme that when readers see the owrd "Christain" they will react int he same fashipn they do, recoiling in horror. Most non-CHristains, however, do not tend to have a deep seated hatred of all thigns CHristain and a Knee Jerk reaction to th word.
Likewise, if she can sit about and make annonymous internet atacks on Christainity, why can't Christain speak up and offer their rebuttals? Sayign they ar ebias and have a vested interest is itsself a bit strange, considerign that so does Dorothy Murdock.
Again, how can both sides be fairly presented whilst we Bar one side altogather? Obviosuly her disioles want to silence the CHristain side of the debate, because they rpefer peopel to only hear their own.
Whats incredibely Hypocritical of them is that they say this is whatt he Ealry Christain Chruch did. they burend libraries, books,a nd even people, to keep their deep dark secret hidden and to ensure pepel only read their version fo events. This is considered an evil practice that forbids free inuery and choice in beelif and must be opposed, which si why CHitsainir is thought to need ot be destoryed.
Yet Why then does Dorothy fear the official version? Why do CHritain apologusts frighten her and her follwoers?
If ethey only resort to personal attakc and fialt o rfute her poitns,a nd if her rebuttals clealry show them wrong, why is it that the Apologstss must eb removed?
This is censorship fo the sake of cowardice.
As the Articl stands now her fluff remains, and the casual reader may mistake her for an actual scholar, who has doen legitimate research, and sicne no Critisms are rpeasent, she may appear to be vert rputabel indeed. this is of coruse the image her followers want to project, and they claim that this si what she is. Btu anyoen visiitng her website or mailign list knows that she snothgin btu a petty Venom spewign bully and tyrant who wants things her way.
And htis, not my CHristain convicitons and an attmeot to smear her, is why I am so adamnet in this aritlce.
Truth, not propoganda, belogn on Wikipedia.
And, to repeat, I have read the CHrist Conspiracy, and know its remarkabeky badly written...
I have better frethoguht books on my shelf than hers, which isnt even sititng among them, but is amongst the books by such illuminaries as Kent Hovind and Silver Ravenwolf...
This ought ot show where I rank her myself after readign her Magnum Opus. Her second book, which Ive sen fragments of online, are indicative of her great Malady. Shd took the critisisms form hr ast book and attmeoted to venducate herself with a new book. She cnanot styand ot be critisised.
Which si why shes nto a real Scholar. That and lack of credible research.
ZAROVE 16:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TO MAKE CLEAR THE REASONING

message: Belwo she claims she did nto oortchestrat this Wikipedia Edcit war, but it ough tot be noted that she "told others abotu it", and I seriously doubt she wqas just venting as she pl;eaded for help amonsgt members and diliberatly proviked them to editt he page in her faovur. Such abandonment of rresponcibility sickens me, Miss Dorothy.
So does cheap bullying.
ZAROVE 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More "Love" From Acharya.

message: Here is the major problem I see. Acharya S devotees will defend her no matter what, and se the world throguh a filter. those who are nto Acharya S fans are attakcign her if they dont spout th endles priase and compelenmtns.
Above, 216 sys Tekton Ministies is far worse than Acharya at disparaiges. This is a lie, and an obviosu one. Ive read the Tekton Artilce on her, which is the second link in a Yahoo search concernign her. Acharya in her "Rebuttal" comaplins htat its laced iwth Ad Hominim attakcs and fails to rebut any of her points, btu in reality when oen lays the two articles side by side, oen swuftly relaises Acharya doesnt even remotely begin to attwmto to discuss the poitns raised by Tekton. And although Holdign does use a few cute Nicknames, such as Acxhy, I see them not so mucha s offensive as simply an attmeot to be cute. Granted, tekton does make a few little jabs, such as "S is for Stench", which Acharya reminds the reader of thre times, but few acutlaly eixst int he artilce. Mainly, he Tekton Article is concerned with the "Astortehology" claism made by Dorothy.
Indeed, Tekton raises interstign points, such as the date of CHristmas beign the date of hte ressureciton fo the sun. Jesus's ressureciton sitn celebrated at CHristmas. And the two theivs of Capricorn and Sagetarius, wheree are htye calle theives?
Tekton goes through the toruble of acutlaly providign arguments agsint Acharya S and her claims, and all she can do is retort that he si a Neandethal, a used rleigiosu salesman, and possibely a publicity stunt for a CHrust Myther becuase hes so stupid.
No, anyone who objectivley looks at the matte riwll conclude that Tekton ministies is more civil and polite than Acharya S. Her ranting is notign btu a personal attack on Holding.
And it slaced with rude, beligerant comments, but no real facts that actally meet his points, of ocruse she lciasm he makes no poitns an donly attacks he rpersoanlly, whcih si also false.
RisenJesus is another exampel of her disiples turngin a blidn eye to reality. Tehy paly the " Haccoridng ot his soruces btu his soruce smay be worng and hwo is he" card. Well, lets ompare his soruces iwth hers. he used two repected Proffessors form Ruetger University. Acharya S uses occultists, feminists, and an assortment of eccentircts that have been long ago discredited.
I certianly think his two proffessors outwights th elikes of Kersye GRaves, barbara Walker, Reverend Robert taylor, Higgins, Hislop ( Write the articl eon him too, by hte way, not just here for Dorothy's sake) and Massey.
RisenJesus remaisn respectful, polite, and civil. And presents its case in a thoughout and acucrate manner. her rebuttal, which you insist on kepeign here, is again laced with nothig more htna cheap personal assault on the charecte of Lucida.
Again, she fails to rellay address anyhtign he acurlaly wrote, and instead prefers to make comments abotu how stupid he is, and calls him a "Used rleigiosu salesman." THis is a brillaint rebuttal?
Forgive me, btu Dorothy doesnt simply respond harshly to those who attakc her, shes vicious, cruel, rude, arrogant, self agrandising, and petty.
She also cannot stand to be challenged, and wants frree speech for herslef and her follwoers but denies freedom to anyoen else.
Her rebuttals are poitnless excersises in personal attack. Her books nothign but a collection of other badly researhced books. Her premise a cheap cpnsiracy theory. her manner nothign short of a totolitarian bully.
And to not see this because you are too busy to defend her is reaosn enough not to bother thse of us with no personal stake in this.
I do not earn my lifing off CHristain apologetics, im a reporter. I do not relaly have much interest in this woman except to make sure she doesnt pollute Wikipedia with her lies abotu herself and her hate fileld venom. I dotn think Alterprise has much stake in this either.I know Phi Betea doesmnt.
You, on the other hand, have an agenda othe htna objective fact. You are here to defned her. thus, you are an apologist for Acharya S. You will defend anyhtgin she says or does, and if she is chalelgned, you will invent an escuxe to supprot her.
You currnetly invent exucses tfor the exlcusion of CHristain critiissm disoite the fact that She critisis Christainity, you try to defend her hateful attiude by sayign shes just defendign herself form ehr attackers. But rlwlay, do you htink that those who critise her started this? Her website hosts articles written before her book wa soublished, and before sh went oublic. her hatefulnes sand nastyness is evident fofm any of her articles she has written.
C,ealry, syaign she sdidnt start this is only an escape mechanism she uses to extricate herself form repsoncibility of her own actions, and you syaign shs just defneidign herslef form attakc is nothign btu a reaction to support her, when the relity is obvious. She critised others first.She thus ought not to b surprised when thy dotn lay dosn and die for her.
She started this hwole affair by her own need to critise others, and if she didnt wan tot be critisised herslef, she ought nto have begun slinging mud, and no amount of your defnece of her will wipe away her repsoncibiltiy to handel herslef with dignity and address reasonable critisim, which is on display here as well.
Neither does it invalidate Wikipedias mandat ot tell the real truth abotu her, not her own verison fo it to promote sales and her own image.
ZAROVE 16:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Acharya fans

message: 216 writes:
I will try to make this as much point by point as I can. 
Au contrare, the major problem is that apologetic devotees will defend the absurd until hell rises right OR wrong. Any question of religion is a question of their faith and they take it personally as though attacked themselves.
-Zar- This is not acutlaly true. Many apologists do nto take any and all queasitosn of their faith personally.Saying othereise is just moe smear tactic by you agaisnt thise gol dunr eveil Christains.
On the other hand, Acharya S's disiples take any attempt at providing objetivity as a persoanl attack agaisnt her. See the difference?-Zar-
You are fond of calling everything said that doesn't agree with you a lie.
-Zar-No Im not. Im fond of clalign lies lies. You ar elying because you are pretendign the current WIkipedia article i fai and balanced because it omits critiissm of her work, even though Richard Dawkins, an acutal repsected scientist, as critism of his work posted. You then raitonlise this away by sayign the aritlce shoudk be about what she says of herslef because its baotu her. You remove the bits abotu ehr life because you think tis "trite". You exagerat eher signifigance and claism shes a "Historian, Linguisyt'Religiosu AShcolar, and Archeologist" withotu the least bit of evidence outsode fo her word for it.
You then berate CHristaisn, claim tey are worse than she is on spreadign hatred ( even thoguht his sint shown by the linsk on Wikipedia.) and try to raitonalsie her hatred away as if its all self defence.
That is apoogetics and lies.Not because it disagrees with me persoanlly, many disagree with me persoanlly and Im OK with it. Its because your curnet article presents her as soemthgin shes not.-Zar-
Is this to stir some sort of retaliatory response, or what? 
-Zar-No. its to point out the hubiris and hypocracy of the guru and her disiples...and why their objecitosn to wikpeidea alteratiosn that ar eproposed ought to be ignroed.-Zar-
The quoting of Robert Price to lend weight to arguments against Acharya should note what he says about JP holding of Tekton Ministries... to quote: "Internet apologist James Patrick Holding (as he chooses to be known) has thus far seen fit to by-pass the pages of published books..." and "...he seems to me sometimes perversely to misread his opponents’ arguments and to reduce them to strawman status." Yet, it seems you give more weight to him as long as it is against Acharya... why is that? 
-Zar-Maybe its because the artilce is abotu Acharya? Ever think fo that? Again, Im not a supporter of Tekton Ministires. I dotn sit devoutly reading every aritcle, I dotn follwo JP Holding, and I dotn donat emoney. I knwo of it because of Acharya S, when I did a yahoo searhc its the seocnd link, and I read the articles on HER.
Since htis Wkipedia article is bout HER, then the Bob Price review of Holdigns books arent rlelay rlevant.
Also, you just commited the sin of ommisison you liek accusing us of. Price also said that Holding coudl easly get piblished by any mainstream Christain publisher... he also had soem nice thigns to say abotu him int he artilce. Contrast this to Acharya S...
Sorry, Dorothy had no real merit in Price's aritle, where Price did co,plement Holding. Cherry pikcing isnt rellay evidnece.
And again, the review of Holdigns book by Price isnt really needed for an artilce on Acharya S. Maybe add it to the JP Holding article. But, the only reaosn you woudl add it here is to discredit Hodling, which si strange as Holding's artilce on Acharya S isnt mentioend by Bob Proce at all.
aain, why are we even tlakign abotu him and his book and hwat Bob Price thinkjs of Him? Its a distraciton frm the fac thtat this aritle is not abotu discreditign all who oppose the great and mighty Acharya S, tis abotu Acharya S. get it?-Zar-
By giving grace to one's disparagement's as being  cute while condemning it on the other is the height of hypocrisy.  
-Zar-No its not. Dorothy's entire rebuttal to holding, or risenJesus for that matter, consists of nothign BUT inflamatory remaorks abotu his intelelgence, manhood, and mental health. Contraat this to Holdings reveiw of her book.
He makes several points about the hisotry and myhtology that she uses in ehr books, and uses several credible souces to dmeonstrate errros in her book.
Achy is just a nickname, and I doubt it was meant ot be taken as a disparagy at all. S is for Stench may be, but tis only rlelay in the title. And I didnt rellay agree with holdigns style, I do, however, rtecognise thst he has made vlaid poitns and is a vlaid critic of her work.
its not loke his whole reviewof her was nothign but a cheap ad hominim.Unliek Dorothy.-Zar-
You might think it interesting if you had read it yourself instead of taking someone else's word for it.
-Zar-Read what? Dorothy's rebuttal? Id di read it. If you mean the Tekton Ministies website, I read that aritlce too. Ivd also read "The Christ COnsoiracy, the Greatset Story Ever Sold", long before I heard of JP Holding. Ive mentioend this before. So what is it I ahvetn read that Il woudl find interesting?-Zar-
"The Christian doctrine of the resurrection had its origin in sun worship. As the sun, the Father, rose from the dead, so it was believed that his earthly children would also rise from the dead. "The daily disappearance and the subsequent rise of the sun," says Newton, "appeared to many of the ancients as a true resurrection; thus, while the east came to be regarded as the source of light and warmth, happiness and glory, the west was associated with darkness and chill, decay and death. This led to the custom of burying the dead so as to face the east when they rose again, and of building temples and shrines with an opening toward the east. To effect this, Vitruvius, two thousand years ago, gave precise rules, which are still followed by Christian architects." Chapter 7 Christ Conspiracy
-Zar-So? Again, why is it you predume I havent read the book? Just becasue Dorothy rpetensds all her critics ar either Chrisytain apologists or havent read her book doesnt make it true. Truth be known ( Pun intended) I own two copies of CHrist COnspitacy. oen was bought for my editor and oen for me. He didnt wanthis so I ended up with it. For the arilve I wrote on hr I read the enture thing, even the notes and index.
However, w arent discussing my problems withthe CHirst conspiracty, and indeed, this article isnt even abotu the book, tis baotu its author...-Zar-
Acharya is not the only one making these astrological connections.
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/castchar.html
-Zar-Of coruse shes not, given that she was uttelry incapable of acutlaly comign up with anythign on ehr own and her book is enturley based ont eh worls of others, she clalry coudlnt be. However, this doesnt validate her claims, neither does it make all critisism of her book invalid, neither is this relevant informaiton for th Atcle in wikipeida abotu her. Again, this sint a debate abotu her work, I simply want her critics to also be noted so th reader gets a fair assessment of her. Not a whitewash htat she approves of
By the way, the link you offer that shwos "others" agree wiht her... its not independant researhc either. It uses her as a soruce. It also uses soem of her osurces as soruce. Poepel quotign each other as evidence is not evidence.
http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/bookr.html
See a problem?.-Zar-
December 25 is celebrated as the Winter solstice. 
-Zar-No its not, thats the 22nd, even in CHrist Con, she claism the ressurection fo the sun after its death ocures ont he 25th, three days later, and links htis to CHristmas, which overlooks several problems, such as the fac tthat Christmas is the celebration fo HCurst Birth, not his ressurectiin, which wodl be Esther, and hte fac thtat CHristmas wasnt celebrated till aroudn the 400's, rendeirng it a late development not rlelay part of Christain formative Hisotry. If Jesus where a sun god as she pretends, then woudlnt the ealry worhsippers Celebrate CHrustams roght form the start?-Zar-
The 25th is celebrated because commemorates  the sun stopping its decent to the horizon and three days later, it begins its climb back into the heavens and is thus resurrected. In the story of the crucifixion, Jesus was crucified between two thieves. In astrology, November is Sagittarius, the Archer, from November 23 to December 21 and Capricorn is December, The Goat, from December 22 to January 20, the last two and most barren of the months of winter thus heralding the resurrection of the sun. This set the scenario for the crucifixion and resurrection. If you are really concerned about the accuracy of the bible... look up what the month corresponds with the Jewish calendar Nisan. It's in August.
-Zar- Im sure you think this is interesting, btu I fail to see how it provides any informaiton abotuthe author of the book, which is the real interest here. Yiu may beelive these fairy tales she chruns out, bu this doesnt mean Wikipedia has ot pretend they ar eoroiven fact or ignroe the obviosu criticsms ot them.If you coudl distance yourself form your beleifs and acutlaly look at this objectivley, you woudl relaise that critisisms are valid in any article.-Zar-
The Roman Catholic Council of Nicea made the decision in 325 A.D., to "commemorate" the resurrection of Jesus Christ on "Easter Sunday," a day on which pagan celebrations had always been held in honor of the pagan goddess, "Ishtar!"
-Zar- Actulaly this is also false. The reasonign was that it was a romanisation of the Jewish Calencer, and fell on an approximate date for the Passover. in most Languages, "Easter" is "Pasche" or some varient, meanign Passover. 
In english its Easter, but this has nothgin to do with Ishtar, and is liekly a mention of the East, where altars aimed. Likewise it may have been a lingual merger btwene a Celtic holy day that fell in abotuthe same tie. But no real linguistical evidenc elinks it to Ishtar.-Zar-
There is nothing Christian about Ishtar (Easter)! 
-Zar-Ok, and htis has to do with Acharya S how? Doreothy can use this old wives tale if she likes but regarldess, tis not relevant here.-Zar-
In fact, there is only one place in the King James Version Bible where the word Easter is to be found, and even that is a mistake! 
-Zar- And your point being?-Zar-
Properly translated, the word would have been Passover  "And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after "the Passover" to bring him out before the people." (Acts 12:4 NAS)   
-Zar- Luckily most Bibels do translate it Passover, so your objeciton isnt rellay gettign us anywhere...-Zar-
Apologists traditionally offer deniaLS, not arguments.
-Zar- Muhc liek your doing...-Zar-
 
You need to read what his critics say of him and his attacks on them. Read Wells, Doherty et al and get their reactions to his attacks on them. 
-Zar- Why? Is this aritle on JP Holding or Dorothy Murdock? AKA Acharya S? Again, posting linsk to Hodligns critics only firther proves that you hate Holdign and want him discredited. it doesnt prove anyhtign at all about Dorothy, so why is it that it even matters? This sint a debate, and Im not usign Holding to defned my position while yo use DOrothy, Im postign his review as it is a vlaid criticsm to her work. Critissms ot his work, even if valid, arent rlelay relevant in an article thats abotu Dorothy. I dotn see why you fail to grasp this.-Zar-
He only has one source and that is the bible... a self validating book, unsubstantiated by
in any other writer of the day.
-Zar- Even if this was true, again, what does htis have to do with Acharya S? And again, this sitn true, I read the aritlce on Christ COnspriacy on his site, and he links to several independant sources beside the Bible. -Zar-
Claiming one source is better than another is your opinion and opinion does not a fact make.
-Zar- And yet your opinion is fact. think abot it. You know Tekton Ministires is a bad source and shoud not be included.
COudlnt I just as readily say that your opinion is not fact and so Tekton is vlaid?
Why is it that My opinion is not a fact and htus shoud be ignored, but your opinion is to nbe listened to whilst we exclude all thsoe who critisise Dorothy's work? THis screams of manipulation. In other words, use the approves of soruces Dorothy likes, and reject her critics, claim them as unteliable. If one calls her soruce sunreliable, say its just their opinion. This is why I call you a liar.-Zar-
None the less, Licona's approach is the same old deriding of others sources to make your own legitimate.
-Zar-No tis not. He emailed tow respected priffessors of Hinduism and Busddhism, as well as Astornomy. And he learned that Dorothy's won soruces said she was wrong...
Dorothy's soruces are bad, because they are just lik ehr, apologetics. they argue to prove a pojtn, not to fidn truth. Dorothy began withthe presuppositio that JEuss wa sa myth, then set out to prove it. She want objective. Neither wasHiggins, nor was Graves. Nor is Barbara Walker. 
Objectivity is what makes a source mroe valid, and noen of hers are objective.-Zar-
Even if so, so what? That does not constitute grounds to dismiss her books out of hand. If it were it would constitute a pettiness on mind only equaled by the book burners of the past. A bullying, totalitarian act in itself. 
-Zar- You know what else bullies do? They make sure their cirtics are harrassed and silenced so that their voice is th eonly oen heard.Of coruse they say they had good reaosn too...
See,this isw aht tou ar edoing. You wan tot rmove Dorothy's cirtics because you say they arnet vlaid. You want to criisise and undermien hem and their soruces, but refise anyone the same luxury on DOrothy, who must be heard with repsect and not qiasitoend.
This is totolitatrianism.It is cnesorship.-Zar-
That's your opinion but to insist that your opinion be placed on everyone else is nothing short of the inquisition.
-Zar- I do not place my opinion anywher eitn he aritlce. Unliek you, I have no real agenda except to make Wikipeida fair and unbias. You o the other hand wat to rmove her critics because you wdo not want people to queasiton her owrk. HYou also want her exagerated "credentials" placed in the aritlce to fool peoepl intt hinking shes a vlaid and respected scholar. You want her poitn fo vriw given and her theory demonstrated a if a priven fact, and want to ensure that only the best posisble image of her exists.
All because you agree with her book.
So, rather than blame me with Bias, blame yourself.-Zar-
You speak for Aterprise and Phi Beta?
-Zar- I didnt claim ot. But Phi Beta said himself he finds this sort of thing interesting, btu I doubt he wudl find Christ Conspiracy that iluminating. I aid poitn blank that I odnt knwo Alterprises beelifs.-Zar-
You do have a personal stake in this.
-Zar- No I dont.-Zar-
It is your belief system that is being subjected to question.
-Zar- How do you know? You dotn even know what my beleif system is, your guessing.Just liek you "Know" I havnt read her book, and "Know" that her sources are vlaid and "Know" that it sjust my opinion that their not.For all you rlelay knwo Im an atheist. I dotn tell my beleifs on wikipedia, because they arent relevant.-Zar-
Do not pretend to speak for me. It is standard fair that the apologist cannot help themselves but to get personal and question the motives of all those they disagree with.
-Zar- This is an attemto to silence me based on discrdition. Obviosuly, its a ploy. You habvent relaly addressed any of the convenres we have raised againt Dorothy, and instead prefer to attakc me oersoanlly while sayign I am attakcign you and have a secret agenda... relaly this is childish blather.-Zar-
Religionists typically are reduced to a lack of objective criticisms because they have to deny those different than themselves to affirm their own beliefs.
-Zar- Says who? You? Dorothy? THis is a pretty broad brush your usign to paint all "Religionists." COdnt the same be said of anyone? IE, atheists all have to disparage peooel who hodl rleigious veiws, because htey have to support their own world view. Its just as easy to acucse all atheusts of not being rational and incapable of objctivley lookign into rleigious beleifs bcause of their own desire to prove them wrong. It however does a disservice to everyone to be so general.
Their ar emany who hodl to a rleigion that noentheless accept objective analusis of their faith and can withstand vlaid critissm. Sayign otherwise is simply a generalised smear.-Zar-
This also translates to intolerance and tolerance which traditionally and historically has been shown that intolerance has a stronger hold.
-Zar- This is not rlelay a poit by point address tot he concenrs abothte WIkipedia article, tis just an attemto to label me a religiosu fanatic and silence me becua eof a supposed prsonal bias...
Maybe if you had bothered to address the real concenrs abotu Dorothy, then w coudl have fgottne soemwhere.
Instead, you proive your own hypocracy.
Why dont you look objecitvley at Dorothy? Oh I knwo you lcaim to, but if you examien her book in light of actual mythology books, or better yet, Primary soruces such as the Iliad and Virgils Anead, you will soon dicover the truth, that her book is not representitive of the myths and legneds of old,a dn none where rlelay base don Astro-theology.
Instead however, you prive that tyou ar hwst o accuse me of, a fanatic, incapable of objctive thought. You take any critism of her work as a eprsoanl attakc, and fail to make logical arguments agsitn these poitns raised, instead preferin to attack the peipel who ciritise her. In short, you are acting liek hat you sauy I act like.
You attakced my charecter ( thogyh lcaimed it was just since I resorted to eprsonal attakc, but you cannto prv e this.) you refuce to look objectivley at htis and instead insist the article read facourabley to Dorothy, and only has what she claism in it, with no ecxamination, and ar so havily invested in her beleif system that you cnanot stand anyoen to queasiton it.
Likewise, your own intoelrence of other views, nanely Chrutsian ones, an you seem to assume everyone is a CHristian that opposed DOrothy's whitewash, are wrong and shoul be silenced. You ar eintoelrnet of others rleigiosu veiws and make the exucse that thy ar eintoelrent first.
Such malarky is the core of the problem hre. Your hypocracy and lies and cheap personal slander didnt even address the flaws to the current artucle. Will yo ever? I doub it, your too busy defendign Acharya to step back and even see why others want critisms added and her real credentials presented, not hr self agrandisement.-Zar-
She wrote a book and by virtue of that you consider it criticizing?
-Zar-Ive writen a book, so no. I consider her mean spirited and crude because of th ocntent of said book, as well s th ocntent of said website. You claim rleigionists are intoelrent and rude, btu look at her site. Of you lcaim to be a CHrisyain to her or her disilles, you owudl be treated badly, and not becaue you staretd it.
Her hatred is obviosu to anyone who reads her owrk.Need I go to her website and durelcy wuote her in eessays using her disparagies? im sure yo have read htem, but oretneidng shes nice an doiuvng while all rleigionists ar eintoelrtent is idiotic.-Zar-
Only if you have taken it personally as an affront to your beliefs.
-Zar- Go to Amazon.Com. Read the one star reviews. A coule ar eby Athests and THEY say the woman is rude and condescending...
One does not have to hodl the beleifs she critisises to find her manner rude and unappelaing.
H.G.Wells was an Atheust. I have read his works, and they are generally seen as warm and firenly. In his outline of Histry, he says the Bible is a wonderful collection of old DOcuments, btu then pricceeds ot exlain how h belives thet cmae baout. No oen was offended. 
Even though he critised CHristianity, Wells did so as an ENglish Gentleman.
Dorothy does it as an annonymous screamign vice, whose shrill sounds echo only venom and hatred, easily recognisable by anyone, rather a beeliver or not.-Zar-
 Otherwise, her responses to those who have attacked her because of such knee-jerk reactions may be resented but do not constitute any legitimate response other than personal feelings.
-Zar- Perhaos you missed th epoint lad.
Her "Repsincs: arent th eonly poiblem. THe ocntent of her books ( And Ive read CHrist COn to remind you) and the ocntent of her website BEFORE she revicieved emails are inflamatory.
Her oldest aritlces onlien contain one degrogitory remark after another.
This is before she recieved a single email form a CHristain. Before she recieved any critisism form an apologuyst. Just her.Alone.On her wbsite.
These arent Knee Jerk reactiosn to those hwo attakc her, these articles represent her ont h attack with no provikation.
And ahain, her rebuttals to her critics are all ad hominim, and fail to address th eoints raised, and her critics raise vlaid points.-Zar-
If Wikipedia is committed to Knowledge then it cannot be about your truth or my truth. 
-Zar- I concur emost wholly. And I ont have a truth. Truth is Universal.
The oroblem is, the truth of the matter exissts in this case againt DOrothy. Her works are suspect an dopn to critism. Critissm form Christains and nonchristans ought ot be allowed int he articld so the reader can detmrine for himself if the critism is valid. Otherise, tis a bais aticle wirtte in ehr faovur.-Zar-
It has to be about facts, not beliefs. 
-Zar- This is what Ive tred to make it about. Yiu ar eht eone rmeovign informaitin that isnt appealign to her. IE, that cirtism exists, or that her book is not one of Schoalrship, or that she has no real credientiasl and hodls only a BA.
Those are facts that you want ot distort , cover up, or remove.-Zar-
Facts have no need of belief to own their on reality aside from our view of them. Belief isn't needed until fact is no longer a consideration. 
-Zar- OK, here are a few facts for you.
1: Dorothy is a coward who hides behidn a false name to present Religiosu bogotry.
2: Her books ar elaced with hitrical and theological innacuracies and are base don seocdnary osruces that agree iwth her, she refuses to acknoledge soruces htat disagree.
3: She is hatreful, eman spirited, and lieks to attakc peiopl, but f they reosind to her, she makes mro attacks an dplays the vicitm like a typical bully.
4: She sends her disiples to make sur her verison fo events is revealed and no oen challegnes her.
5: Critisism exists for her owrk, and is vlaid, because he rpremise is flawed, and hsouk b allwoed so th reader can make up his own mind. 
6: Her work is published by a conpsiracy publishign house for the sks of advocatign a consoiracy theory.-Zar-
WEBouygh fact yet?
ZAROVE 15:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ============================================================================================================

message: Can we please stop them form editing the page? They are clearly biased in her faour and will reject any attmeot at Neutrlaity in an attmept tp makle their hero look as wonderful as posisbke. They constantly rmeove links, add redundant links to her website, and do nothgin tbuit add her useless fluff.
James keeps demanidng if we have probelms withhte article he keep s psoting to "Be spacific." we are spacific and go to grat lenghtst to tell him why a biased aritticle that read sjust liek her website in how great she is and omits ciritissms is not vlaid, and he ifgnores it, revertsthe page,a nd dmenads we "Be spacific" again.
216 just writes useless anti-religious garbage and poitnless POV Rebuttals.
Can this be fixed soemhow?
----
What is your problem with my last edit? Please be specific. 
And no, you haven't addressed the current article specifically. Much of what you've written above for example, doesn't seem to apply to anything, or is wholly irrelevant. Where is this "praise" you mention? How does it "dazzle and amaze readers" as you say?? Maybe we're reading two different articles, I don't know. 
Typical that you try to have others banned who don't share your viewpoint. 
(James) 66.183.168.152 17:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About James And 216

message: 1: Dorothy is a coward who hides behidn a false name to present Religiosu bogotry.
2: Her books ar elaced with hitrical and theological innacuracies and are base don seocdnary osruces that agree iwth her, she refuses to acknoledge soruces htat disagree.
3: She is hatreful, eman spirited, and lieks to attakc peiopl, but f they reosind to her, she makes mro attacks an dplays the vicitm like a typical bully.
4: She sends her disiples to make sur her verison fo events is revealed and no oen challegnes her.
5: Critisism exists for her owrk, and is vlaid, because he rpremise is flawed, and hsouk b allwoed so th reader can make up his own mind.
6: Her work is published by a conpsiracy publishign house for the sks of advocatign a consoiracy theory.-Zar-
WEBouygh fact yet?
ZAROVE 15:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ==========

message: Your bias stands naked before the world in the names you call, . the accusations you make, the conjectures you promote and your insistent desire to censor out any opposing view to your beliefs.
216
Nice try, Im not the one removign Critisism hwoever.
My Bias is to allow valid critisim and an hoenst examinaiton fo her credentials. 
Your Non-Biased artilve hust tlaks baotu how wonderful she is, omits all critism, and makes false claism about her.
I have made no attemto to smear nyone, btu you and James have.
ZAROVE 18:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ================

message: I wsnt to revise agaisnttoday. But I do think that James and 216 need to be prevented orm further alteration of he article, as it seems they will nto allwo critism of Acharya in the text, rmeove vital informaiton, and mislead the reader with false claism abot her credentials. As I have enumerated above.
ZAROVE 20:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nope

message: No, it doesnt chatter what Im saying. Again, fill otthe form and oay the 60 dollars ad yo rin.
As for the "Beign a fellow" crap, look at the actual orginisaiton. Its not run by  a majopr Universiy or instituiton, tis run by the COusnil for Secula Humanism. THe sole intent of the orginisaiton is to discredit Rleigion. This to you is unbias?
This is recognised Schoalrship?
Simply havign a guy with a PH.D as one of the members doesnt make the gorup particulalry respectable. Again, this isnt Harvard Press or Camrbidge review. This is basicllay a self serving group that is run out of the consl of Secular Humanism. He rmembership is as shokcign as Jerry Falwell beign accepted at an Evangleical Asosciation.
You amy think its wholly different because "religion requies Beleif" and thid is "Scientific", but theirs nothgin rellay Sceintific about htis ORginisaiton, it already presupposes rleigion to be false an then set s out to investigate the claism to prove this forgone conclusion.
Its liek ehr signign up to be part of Internet Infidels or Skeptical Review.
Its a partisan private orginixation that has no feal credibility in mainsstay academia.
And again, I have joiuend, filed the form just today. Just to show I could, and to show how easy it is. DOen knwo whent he listw ill eb updated, btu when it is, Ill post it.
But this sitn "Evidence thta shes a schoalr", its evidnece onlythats hes a skeptic.
Which is in the article zalready.
Again,y yo seek anyhign to validate ehr, and ignroe anythign agsitn her, this tells her side and her approived verison of reality. It ignroes the actual full picture.
She isnt rellay a shcoalr, shes a BA in classics. Im an MA in Jorunalism, this doesnt mske me a scholar, and I have a higher degree than she has.
ZAROVE 04:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shatters?

message: I know you want to be fair and assign equel blame in a dispute over tow biases, but if you rea dmy wrttings, I have been unbiased, dispite the constant claim that I am not.
Its not ad hom to point out that Dorothy is using every mean posisble to make ehrself look liek a respected scholar.
Look at the current claim. SHes a memebr fo the COmmittee for the Sceintific Examinaiton fo Religion. wow, imprssive, this must prove she a real scholar, just liek her ASOGS does. Alterprise pointed out that the ASOGS isnt rlelay relevan tinformaiton. Nor is CSER.
Its run by the COunsil ofor Secular Humanism. It woudkl be as unbiased a "Scientific" institution as any evanglcial Christain association would.
If I posted a link to an evangleical Christain asosication, they wpiudl cr bias becuase htye have to protect thier beleifs, but he cunsil of Secular Huamnsim doent? The standard fair here is to claim that since htey are basiclaly athists they have bo beleivs to protect, btu a visit to both the COunsil for Secular Huamnsist and CSER sites reveal that they bith have a mission statement that bascllay states they ecixist to discredit rleigiosu beleifs.
SInce Acharya S is only rellay well known due to beign a critic of CHristainity, this fits well with them, but it harldy proves that she s a recognised scholar, alal Camrbidge University level.
It just proves that shes joined a bunch of other skewptics in their pursuit of discreditin rleigious beleifs. Thats harldy impressive.
Its this sort of trecherous underhanded manipulaiton fo the audience, many of whom will be unaware of even what the CSER is, that litters both her website and her claims on wikipedia when her disiples come ehre ot make sure she sound simpressive and to delete criticsms. Afte rall, they reaosn, her Critics are Christain thus have beleifs ot protect, theirfore ought not be heard.
Again, take a look at the site, for the CSER, its bogus. It doesnt prive shes a regognised schoalr, even thy list her as a "Writter" not a researcher, and again, thye exist to disprove rleigious beelifs. They arent rlelay scentific to that end. Scence woudl be neutral, dispite the term "Science" in the name of the gorup, its basiclaly out to prove its own posiiton. Thus makign it sectarian.
Its just like a Christain apologetics site. It exists to voice the seucalr sie. If apologetics websites arent vlaid fof Wikipeida, why is htis?
Obviosuly they want to play by seperate standards. Oen for ther critics, and oen for her. SHe can be an apologist, and join an apologist orginisaiton, and we are to be in awe and asume shes right.
Her critics , if they are apologits, must vbe ignroed.
Thsi dpubel standard is rather pointless, woudlnt you zgree?
Its fluff, designed ot make peopel think shes reputable whens hes obviosuly not.
Thats not ad hom, thats relaity.
ZAROVE 14:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ragib

message: I hate to protect this page again, but with 15 reverts in the last 2 days, I had to move in again. Also, seems like there are several sockpuppets participating in the edit war.
Anyway, , , , , please discuss any differences, open an WP:RfC or do anything else to settle your disputes. At the present state, none of you are helping to do anything to resolve this. All your discussion in the talk page look like rants, Ad hominem attacks, etc. So please discuss in a proper, civil, logical manner. Thanks. --Ragib 05:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected the page again, unfortunately 

message: His posts, and 216's, ar ebaised in Faovur of Acharya S and her position.Its oen thign to hold htis as a eprsonal beleif, tis naother to posit that this beleif is superior to naother and tyr to force WIkipeida to promote it above and over the alternate. Wikipedia is not ehe to detemrien Jesus's existance, nor to dospirve it, neither to offer only critisms ot CVHrisyanirty, unliek Dorothy and her website, this palce is respectefful to all siedes of a discussion.
Simply stating that Acharya attended the ASCSA, or is a fellow of the CSER is "trecherous underhanded manipulaiton" in your world? Bizarre.
You don't simply sttae it. You plac it in her " Career and education" section and word it in such a way as to mak her appear a credibel scholar as a result. Even in this tlak page you have used these thigns to "Shatter" everythign peopel sya in objeciton to her beign called a shcolar. Acter all, the CSER recignised her as a schoalr, or so you say. ( In reality they kist her as " A writter". I am a writter, this doesnt make me a schoalr.)
I have no objecitosn to the informaiton beign int he article, I have obwctiosn to hwo you word them to confuse the ignorant into beleivign these are signifigant acocmplishemnts.
ASOGSAG is a grup any graduate student in clasics can join. CSER is a Skeptic gorup. Her membership in CSER is as impressive as an evanvelial Chrisyain beign hired for an apologetics publication. You may like to think their workds apart, btu in reality the CSER exists to promote a rleigoosu worldview,that of Secular Humanism, which IS  a recognised rleigiosu worldviw. It exists to debunk religion andbegins withhte preise tht rleigious beleifs are false. this tn Sceintific, therefore, this is not rlelay an accredited grouo. Its nto affiliated iwth any major instetutions, and admits openly on its own site that its a Sceptic grup.
The informaiton cna be in the aritlce, so long as peopel knwo that its basiclaly an apologetics site geared toward the defnece of the Secular Humanist worldveiw.
ot to make her appear to be a credible, roeutable, recognsied Schoalr, as you try to mske her appear.
That is trecherous, underhanded, and manipulativce.
Regarding science being "neutral" towards religion: Religion is based upon faith and belief.
Not always, this is a straw man argument which shows you have a crude, narorw view of what rleigion is. Rleigion is often based upon ethical philosophies, and can be beleived based on variosu forms of Faith, nto just blind acceptance with no evidence. it is this sort of cursory, blind, unintellegent prattle abotu theology that shwos that you read Sceptids like Acharya and dotn bother to check what they say.
Science is based upon reason and the scientific method. 
Oddly enough, so can rleigion be based ont hese thigns. Again,y our lack of understandign of what rleigion is is not equel to rleigion beign infirior to science.
Likewise, I have no problems with Science. I have problems with you using an apologetics website to pad Dorothy's resume as if she is now proven beyond doubt to be a regognised schoalr. She writes for Skeptical inquery Magazine, the publicaiton run by te OCusnil for Secular Humanism, an institution that ecists to promote a certain worldvriw.
Science must take a neutral stand, not a preset one then attmot to prove this.
Te OCunsil for Scualr Huamninm, and by extentiin the CSER, exist to discredit religious beleifs other than their own, and to promote their own worldveiw. this makes thenm as credibek as Tekton, except that we arnt usign TTekton ministires to prove Robert Turkel is a great and recognised Schoalr, it is admited even in this artilce as an Apologetics site.
Dorothy's memebrshiop in an apologetics gorup is harldy imprssive. She is a critc of Hritsainity, after all, and the enemy of my enemy is my firend. This doesnt mean shes recognised by actual adcademic societges, only that she is recognised by others who want to critise Christainity and promote a secualar worldview.
For religious people to demand that their claims, be they tales of nirvana, angels, saviours or devils, be alloted equal status and consideration in the world of scientific inquiry is quite absurd.
What if evidnece exists for these things? And again, you are divertignformnt eh main point. THe Committee for the Sicnetific Examination of Rleigion is not a Sicnetiifc goruo, dispite the owrd "Scientific" in the name, if it where,t han every Creaiton Sicnece gorup woudl have to be reognsied as Scintific.
The logic seems to elude you, so let me reexpalin slowly.
The CSER is not a sicnetiifc committee. Its an apologetics orginisaiton designed t promote secular Humansim. This is not how Sicnece works.
You can stow yor unbridaled entheisyaism for SOrothy;s appoutnbemtn on the committee, and please lay aside yoyr rleigiosu bigotry.
The factf is, this oesnt prove shes a shcolar and isnt imprssive, and relaly doesnt show why we shoudl take Dorothy's side and not CHirstnitiyes. Wikipeida is a neutral soruce, so we arent flatly sayign shes wrong, we are hwoever offerign vlaid critism to her work.
For example, where is the criticisms section on Darwins article, where Christian creationists get to use half of his page to "debunk" the theory of evolution?
You rellay hate CHristaisn dont you?
And, need I remind you this is an Encyclopeida? Th Irony is that Creaitonism is mentioend in Dawkins article, it states that he refuses to dbate Creaitonisst.Therefore, your poitn is mooted.
Also, note this, Dawkins is not a critic of CHristainity, or Creationism. He doesnt hodl to Creationism, but he hasnt exaclty goen out of his way to critise it. NEither has any known creationist orginisaionmade a seiosu effort agaisnt Dawkins. They oppose the theory of Evilution itsself, not spacific proponants.
Dawkins critisms of Christainity hwioever are not what he is most famous for. Dorothy on the other hand is soley a Critic of CHristainity, a sort of "NEw age Atheistic" evangelist.
Whereas Dawkisn is notewrthy for his Biological efforts, which the aritlce onhim is mainly about, as well as his life ( Which you call trife when added ot SDorothy;s article) Dorothy's aritlce is abotu her work only, omiting ehr life ( again you think it snot important csicne you jst want peiepl to beelivr Jeuss is a myht base donthe sun.)
I know of no books by Dawkins that exist for the sole purpose of discreditign CHristaunity.
On the other hand, Doorthy's website and both ehr books exist to this end.
I dotn rellay see why this is hard for yo to understand.
Well, I do rlelay, the truth is yo want iwkipeida to pronounce that Jeuss never existed and wa sa palgerissed Pagan myth and tlel how many wonderful acocmplishemrnts Dorothy hs. In short, you want it to be paetial to her liek ehr Disipls are.
Thats a no deal.
The fact remains, there is no solid evidence that Jesus was a real person, as can be seen here.
Ironiclaly this is false. THe vast majority of Historians agre that he eas rela precidcely because of the evidence given.
Even on the Histriccity of Jesus page on Wikipedia, it doesnt just give the mytheists view and then say " Well, no real evidence on the pro hisotircsl side", it grants evidnece for a Hisotircal Jesus, such as the rapidity of the movements origins, the facthtat no oen rellay challenged his Hisotriacity urign the firts cneturiy, an hge fsact htat the Gospels themselves, writtenint eh firts century, are rife with very humanmomentsnot common for myths of the period.
Indeed, on the Historacity page, ti says most accepthis existance, they do nto say most accept it by default wiht no evidence. Such is merley your vian attempt at making out as if you are soemhow ore intellegent for rejectign a Historical Jesus, but the fact is most SCHOLARS, even if Athistic, beleive a man existed att he centre of the faith.Which is noted on the oage you linked, but did not read carefully, it appears.
Dorothy refutes this,btu her datign of the GOspels is an attrodcity to reason, her claim that the mvement didnt psread rapibly is dispiriven by hisotircal reords,a ndher claim that many of the "Intelelgensia" of the pagans challegned the Histroacity takes only quotes out fo context to orce her view,a ndeven when rsd in Isolation, the quotes form Justin Martyr and Iraneus and Company do not revela that they admit that the sotry is identical to Pagan ones, or that Jeuss sidint exist. Noen of the early Ciritcs of CHristjtiy mace htis claim. Payul even says their are soem 500 witnesses still alive in his time that SAW Jeuss persoanlly.
The Historacity of Jesus isnt queasitoned seriosuly in Academia, and their is plenty of evidence suggestign a real man at the core fo the faith.
Yet despite this fact, people still believe he existed, sort of by default. That seems irrational to me.
What seems irraitonal to me is that you beleive everythign Dorothy tells you. Perhaos they beleive he existed because hteirs reaosn to beelive he existed? Dorothy's ecvidenc ehtta he didnt exist seems irrational to me, yet you beelive it uncritically.
And again, why does htis matter? THis si Wikipedia, we arent sayig JEsus existed, we are presentign Criticsm to Dorohy's works just liek everyone else.
ZAROVE 14:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is why James need to be ignroed...

message: I do wonder hwen you will get roudn to the spacific peroblems with yor aritlce, btu I guess pretendignno oen is spacific is enough for you...
''
"She is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, and a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece."
Oh my, what treacherous and underhanded wording. And yes, her attendance at a certain school certainly doesn't belong in the education section! People might get the wrong idea!''
The way it is presented is similar ot her website, ti is used to pad her out and make her appear liek areal hoenst to goodness scholar.
Relaly, you knwo as well as I this is manipulaiton, its palced in the text as if its a major acocmpishment, wit h no explanaiton as to what this gorup is.
Similar to her "Fellowship" in the CSER.
You rellay hate CHristaisn dont you?
Not at all. However, I note that simply because we disagree, you make vile accusations and try to have me... physically removed from the discussion. You unwittingly demonstrate one of Acharyas arguments.''
No I havwnt, you odnt even know if I am a CHristyain or not. I want you removed because you are Dorothy's little lacky and wont be satisfied with an article unless it is a CHrist Myther approved aritlce that sings her praises.
I want you rmoved because you think informaiton on he rlife is trite because you want to concentrate on her ecvidence Jeuss didnt exist, and want to omit critissm to her work, even though critism is promenant.
I want you rmeoved because you shamelessly distort facts int eh aritlce then make false accusaitosn agsin people.
this sint me tryign to defned my Christain fiaht agaisn ytou tryign to write an objective aritlce, this si you playign the Acharya apologist whole tryitng to make th aricle bias in ehr favour.
Now stop tryiogn to pretned this is a debate over her ideas, start treatign it liek an ENcyclipieda, stop ptetendign I am a CHrisyain apologist out to smear Ahcarya becuase I cant out debate her as shes obviosuly right, and start lookina tht e real problems iwht her work, stop treating me as if I am only tryign ti solence you because you disagree, and start seeing why peopel dotn liek you, and hten we can make progress.
RoyBoy is an Ahtiest and HE reverted the article because he thoguth your versionw as baised.
This isnt a battle between Christians and "Followers of truth",m this is a battle between Ahcarya disiples who want to promote her ideas and ensure only her voice is heard,a nd wikipeida's polic to be neutral.
How does that dmeonstrate her arugments at all?
Regarding the gospels, according to AS: "...the majority of modern bible scholars have simply gone along with the dates of c. 70-110 ce, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of the gospels’ existence until a century later..."
They didnt just go along with it, and if you did more than just read Ahcarya AS mateirals, and acutlaly read what real shcoalrs said, you woudl relaise fragments of the Goslels, as wlel as writitngs form CHruch Fathers, inclusing firts cneutry ones, actulaly refernece the Gospels. theirs mroe than enough Evidence to prove Dorothy is wrogn in ehr datign of the GOspels, and just because she dismisses the evidnece out of hand doesnt mean it magiclaly goes away.
Given this one-hundred year window, scholars chose to date the gospels as close as possible to the actual life of Jesus, which is understandable if you assume a-priori that he really existed. But to then use this early date as evidence for an historical Jesus is circular reasoning.
The problem is htis isnt true. Even Dr. Price dates them to this period...
Again, theirs evidencr htat indicates them bign wirtten in the firts cnetury, not to be too long on this as the article isnt abotu the Gospels but DOrothy.
Just because DOorthy says their is no evidence, and peopel just go along withhte date, doesnt make what she says true.
the fact is most SCHOLARS, even if Athistic, beleive a man existed at the centre of the faith.
Personally, I don't see how "what most people believe" is relevant.''
Given that Doorothy calls herself a Shcolar, and htis is te reason she wants peopel to listen to her, the answer is obvious.
I didnt say "Most people" I said "Most Shcoalrs." And again, they ditn just go along wiht it blidnly. Dorothy is not better than the best int he field, even thoghs he says she is.
Again, their is evidnece that Jesus existed, which si even mentioen dint eh Historacity of JEsus page on Wikipedia. The fact that you ignroe this evidnece, and just assume anyoen who beleives Jeuss the man existed is irraitonal, is not rellay evidence that he didnt exist, just lje' THe HCirst COnsoiracy' isnt proof of anyhtign.
Their IS historical reaosn ot beleive Jeuss of Nazareth existed, rather you or Dorothy admit it or not.
The evidence can be found on any major Univesities site, or right her eon Wikipedia, int he same artiles you link to.
It only goes to show how deeply ingrained religious dogma can become. Obviously, as can be seen above, AS disagrees with "most scholars". Is that not allowed??
it also shows the deapth of your own ignroance for makign this statement. Again, many irrleigiosu scholars, indeed the overwhelomg majority, concure that Jesus as a man existed, and they otn just agre to go alogn withthe crowd. 
The Hisotrical evidnece for Jesus include the humanity shown int he Goslels, not soemthgn that was ocmmon in ficitonak writitgns int he firts cnutry, the fact that no one rellay challenged his existance int he firts cnetury ( I know, I know, Acharya S shwos plenty that did, btu her wuotitons doent rlelay say "Jesus ididnt exust", they usully arnet tlakign abot that at all.)
the fac thtat Paul ( I know I know, anothe rmyth,..) mentioend 500 livign witnesses.
The fact that we have extenral hisotrical cooberaiton in the form of Josephus, which she magiclaly dismisses as a complte forgery in spirt f the obviosu fac thtta at least aprt f the references are real, tacitus, which she dismisses iwt no reason at all, an th eother usual list.
The fact that the movement is based aorund a common CURSE, that poel would not rlelay like to have been associated with int he period, Crucifiction.
Sorry lad, theirs too much evidnece that their was soemone at the centr eof the legend, ot snkt all plageried pagan myth, as DOorthy says.
Indeed, theirs mroe agaisnt her notionthan agaisnt the Historiacity of Jesus. IWE, we have no crucified Savoitus who hasdd been Born of a virign, had 12 "Disiples" , ect... she just sort of gets these thigns form Kersye Graves and Godfry Higgins, and cannot dmeonstrate the ancients actulaly beleived this.
Why do you do uncriticlaly accpet whatever Dorothy telsl you, thn demand we look cirticlaly at other htings.? I have looked critic,aly at CHristainity, you havent looekd crticlaly at it, you just look at it as all wrogn and use Doorthy as a crutch to proive it.
Your bias in her faovur prevents you form allowing critism int he aritlce, prevents you form accptign that the arile is abotu her ansbnot a promotion of her ideas,and orbids you form beign hienst iwhthte exact natur eof her credentials.
And I said "Darwin", not "Dawkins".
Ah sorry. wlel both Dawkins and Darwins life is mentioend. IE, Dawkisn wa smarried three times, and we knwo where Darwin was burried. why was the "She foudn Chruhc boring" part, which si apet of what she gav in an interview, not rleevant for htr aritlce? Of corus eI knwo the answer, you want it ot present her ideas, and presn tthem as accepted schoalrship, and emliminate all oposiiton so it is accpoeted. You dotn think the life informaiton is relevant as it doesnt advance the cause.
Darwin's critics are howeve rmenitoend in the artilce abotu him, the reason Creaiton Sicnece isnt mentioend is because it emerged int eh 20th Century, soem 60 years after he died.
ZAROVE 18:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: nOW.