Talk:Acharya S/Archive 2

Crazyeddie's Bit

Some points I'd like to make:

1. We need to keep the Criticims section. This is standard Wikipedia format with any controversial topic.
2. We need to provide more attribution in the Criticisms section. The Wikipedia does not criticise anybody, the Wikipedia only reports what criticisms others are making. We need to say who those "others" are. From the "external links" it looks like there are only two major critics of Acharya that we are using, so it shouldn't be that hard to say "These are the points critic 1 makes. These are the points critic 2 makes."
3. Rebuttals are fine, but let's keep them in the Criticisms section. They also need attribution, just as the criticisms do. "Critic 1 says... Acharya (or supporters of Acharya) responds by saying...". It might also be helpful to link to related articles (such as the life story of the historical Buddha) to help the reader discover what mainstream authors have to say about these topics.
4. We don't really need extensive block quotes from her work. A link to specific parts that are of interest might help though. Same thing with criticisms and rebuttals. Summarize.
5. We need to compromise. The goal here is to create a consensus article. Around here, consensus is more-or-less defined as a 2/3rds majority. So, consensus doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous (although that is the ideal, and voting is used only as a last resort), but neither POV is big enough to go it alone. The "final" (nothing here is ever really final) product is going to have to have support from both sides. So, please, be polite. If you can't be polite, leave.

That's my three cents. crazyeddie 22:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Three

Contents moved to Talk:Acharya S/Three

Criticisms

Robert M. Price

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

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

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

• Acharya relies on secondary sources that are suspect themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "'gospel,' we are told, means 'magic spell.'"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Murdock imagines that one of the Book of Jashar pseudepigrapha (the three medieval ones or the modern one?) is the genuine article mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel, expelled from the canon by the authorities (p. 137)."

• "And here is her thumbnail solution of the vexing Synoptic problem: “It would seem, then, that the compiler of Mark used the Latin version of Marcion’s gospel, while Luke and Matthew used the Greek version, accounting for the variances between them” (p. 38). Murdock, you see, identifies Mark with Marcion, and she figures Mark must have written a Latin gospel because she has read that Mark’s gospel is written by someone whose native language is not Greek but Latin. This last is a garbled version of the well-known theory that Mark’s gospel might have been written in Rome because of borrowed Latinisms."

This is less of half of Mr. Dr. Price's review, but let's start with this. crazyeddie 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Minor corection. Its Dr. Price. H is a PH.D Holder.

I likw this so far, btu needs a ltitl cleanup, the snippets need ot be explaiend, eprhaps with light paraprhasing to make it shroter, on soem points.

And I stll think the Quotaitosn frm the proffessors at Ruetger University form RisenJEsus eed to also be included. They ar eused by a Chrisain apologist, btu are not themselves Christain apologists.

ZAROVE 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So noted on the Dr. bit. A little cleanup? Try completely rewritten. The above is intended as a reference for writting a new criticism section, not as a proposed addition to the article itself. I would also like to add material from the other two critics at a latter point in time, but Dr. Price's review is probably the best place to start for now. Note that the above isn't the whole of the review, either, but represents less than half of the material covered in his review. We should cover the rest later. Let's work with this for now. Would any of the pro-Acharyans like to comment on the above points? Or better yet, do we still have that link to Acharya's rebuttal? crazyeddie 05:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Typo in archive

Contents moved to Talk:Acharya S/Typo in archive

will you?

1: will you stop makignthe talk oage hard to us withthe endless equel signs?

2: Yours is obviosu propoganda. You mov the "Totally disputed" tag tot he critism section to giv the (False) impresion that only this is disputed as needed int he article. You com ehre to bolster her ( Exagerated and someetiems false) rpresentaiton fo herself, you silence any and all critics of hers, and you only allow the CHirst Myther veiw. If Christian apologists are added you remove them because you htink their bias. well duh, so is Dorothy. Thats sort of the point, we ar ebalancing this out. She attacks Christianity, so Christain responces are germane.

My "Bias" so far seems to be that I dont just fall down and worship at the feet of Acharya S and want some ba;ance ot the article by postign critisisms to her work, and givin a fair veiw of what she is.

Your " Objectivity" is to basicllay copy her self promotive clism abotu herself an present her case as if it is indisputable and absolutley rpooven.

Now stop projecitgn your bias on others and let actual Wikipedians ehre to present facts write the article. I have abstained till now in writtign anyhting, because you claim I am bias. But if you insist, Ill rewrite the hwoel artulce. But you will fogive me for not inluding your concenrs, sicne ytou, and James, ar enothign btu her lakcies form her mailign list tryign to force her will onto the site.

as you wish

Re: "1: will you stop makignthe talk oage hard to us withthe endless equel signs?"

The equal signs allow a response to each of your comments individually. To respond to them elsewise requires that they be retyped. A chore I am unwilling take. I understand and am accommodating for your near incomprehensible to express yourself. This is another version of doing the same thing.

Re: "2: Yours is obviosu propoganda. You mov the "Totally disputed" tag tot he critism section to giv the (False) impresion that only this is disputed as needed int he article. You com ehre to bolster her ( Exagerated and someetiems false) rpresentaiton fo herself, you silence any and all critics of hers, and you only allow the CHirst Myther veiw. If Christian apologists are added you remove them because you htink their bias. well duh, so is Dorothy. Thats sort of the point, we ar ebalancing this out. She attacks Christianity, so Christain responces are germane."

Then you have no idea of what constitutes propaganda.

prop·a·gan·da Pronunciation (prp-gnd) n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

You say: "My "Bias" so far seems to be that I dont just fall down and worship at the feet of Acharya S and want some ba;ance ot the article by postign critisisms to her work, and givin a fair veiw of what she is."

I don't have to think what you promulgate is propaganda because you do that for me. You are not posting criticisms. You are posting derogative statements to discredit. By disallowing any challenge to your responses you prove your bias, your indoctrination and your inability to allow any other view other than your own.

When you state: "Your " Objectivity" is to basicllay copy her self promotive clism abotu herself an present her case as if it is indisputable and absolutley rpooven."

I challenge you to present ANY evidence of this false accusation in anything I have presented.

You state: "Now stop projecitgn your bias on others and let actual Wikipedians ehre to present facts write the article. I have abstained till now in writtign anyhting, because you claim I am bias. But if you insist, Ill rewrite the hwoel artulce. But you will fogive me for not inluding your concenrs, sicne ytou, and James, ar enothign btu her lakcies form her mailign list tryign to force her will onto the site."

I have not presented any bias except the bias for fairness and equal representation. Better a lacky for that than a blind and devout follower of faith. Do rewrite the whole article. It will be interesting to see how the "admin's" follow your lead.

Not equal sign heading 1

By the way, read this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html Actually what Im ding is posting standard critiisms.

Yiour propoganda is to advance her. You do not try to simply rpesent what she is, and forbid life details that are knwon, inf aovur of presentign ehr as a world leading Historian and rleigiosu schoar, wose books have clary been accepte din academia and prove JEsus didnt exist.

Th problem hre is that, its not true. SHe is a COnspriacy theories who is not recognise dby any major instetution, andveen her "Appotunent" intot he CSER is useless as its an Atheist apologist group.

Yoru removal of the critisisms of her owrk si also telling. You say that I post derogitory remarks abotu her. I dont.

I simply post what others have said about her. THis is standard pracitce at Wikipdia, rather you like it or not. Wikipedia doesnt just advance an dpriase people.

Zarove 22:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not equal sign heading 2

What you are doing is posting the derogatory statements of two apologists, whose sole purpose is to protect and refute anyone who dare challenge their beliefs and an author who agrees with her and says the exact same thing but has chosen to alllow his elitism to hold her work in contempt.

I have yet to make any comment that is in itself a promotional of her work. You can go to hell for lying the same as stealing. I have not forbidden anything. The only time I removed any criticism was to illustrate what an unbiased article would look like with neither criticism or nor counter criticism. Her life details, as you put them, are what they are. You have them posted after having lost the battle to disparage them. Her works reflect hundreds of authors over the centuries who have all said the same thing. You do not refute them, your endeavor, instead, is to trash the messenger instead in the hopes that the message will be lost. The fact that you post what little you can find against her but refuse to allow anything be said in her behalf, tells its own story.

That Christianity is founded in the myth of Jesus is the message of your very own detractor of Acharya, to wit: "Christ may be said to be a fiction in the four senses that 1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. 2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us. And 3) the Jesus who "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own" is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction. And finally, 4) "Christ" as a corporate logo for this and that religious institution is a euphemistic fiction, not unlike Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, or Joe Camel, the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html

Her appointment to the "CSER" puts her in league with some very heavyweight scholars and to dismiss them all as atheists, as though that is somehow pertinent, in no different than your sources being disqualified because they are Christian apologists. Beside.you have no idea their beliefs are. Some may be Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Unitarian Universalist et al and not atheist at all. The boad brush or generally sweeping attempt to summarily exile any opposin view is a use of those propaganda techniques that you accuse other of.

The removal of criticisms comment has already been answered.

That you feel that you speak for Wikipedia is also very telling. I'll tell you what. You put everythinig that has been said and the actions taken on this article before a Wikipedia review board and see what they have to say about what you and your Admisistrators have been doing here and see what they have to say about it.

I have responded to every criticism you have presented, explained them and shown them in the light of reason, only to have you and your compatriots ignore them in favor of these typical propagandistic tactics. Belief begins where fact ends. Facts have no need of belief to exist. A conspiracy is that in which two or more conspire to and end:

From admin Alteripse's talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alteripse#Acharya_S_2

Acharya S I say we oughta take off and nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure. Any ideas how? crazyeddie 06:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I share your opinion. I'd be happy to have it simply vaporized, but then one of her disciples would create a new article and start the whole mess over. Will you support the last version I posted on the talk page if zarove and I can get a couple of other people to do so? I am sorry to ask you to go looking for it amid all the word fog. alteripse 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking more about the contributors than the actual article. We'd be vaporized as well, but at this point, I'd be willing to write that off as acceptable losses. I was actually thinking about starting up a fork as a subpage off of my userpage, work with you to hash out a compromise between us on it, then sit the principles down one by one and see if we can work out a compromise with each of them in turn - with us two having complete veto, at least initially (as long as its a subpage off of my userpage, then by convention, I own it...). The idea here is to deal with one maniac at a time. Right now, they're feeding off each other. Eventually, we'd have to open it up to the community as a whole, but this might be a way to proceed at first.

Since I think we're both of the "Acharya S is a quack" POV, then I think it makes sense to sit down with ^^James^^ first (since he is of the opposition), then move on to Zarove after that. We can work on 216 after we've dealt with those two. Hopefully, 216 will get bored and wander off... It might be the word fog, but James seems more-or-less reasonable, at least as out-and-out POV warriors go. crazyeddie 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Show me what you have in mind. Anything different than this. alteripse 10:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

blanking

Blanking vast sections of the pages are the first signs of vandalism, so if you feel any problem with any section, discuss it here rather than deleting it completely. Also, adding links like "See the talk page" is not encyclopedic. Users are suggested to resolve their edit disputes via established methods of dispute resolution, which includes discussion in the talk page Request for Comments and Arbitration. Please discuss your problems here first. Thanks. --Ragib 16:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Blanking

What discussion? If vandal there be, it is with thee. By your deed in blanking out "vast" counter criticisms placed earlier in this debate, you have been guilty of the offense yourself. By failing to be fair and honest, you fail the job of Administrator by bowing to bias and restricting fair rebutal and an alternative view. If you had been following the discussion here, you would have seen that it simply doesn't matter what anyone says because, unless it is in line with a believers dogma, it is summarily dismissed and removed. I have offered a counter to the "criticisms" section on numerous occassions but you and others have seen fit to blank them out and restrict all input except to that of an apologistic view. In this instance, I did not blank. I altered what was said and refered readers to the discussions page where they can read all of what the criticism section said (and much more) and the rebutals to it as well. What alternative does one have since you and others refuse to allow it to be said up front? That is not blanking, that is complying with the term of "blanking" both in spirit and letter.

If a review of this article and the discussion/history be the next course of action, do, by all means, place this article and its relative discussion/history before the board members of Wikipedia for arbitration. And, since you seem to be so adament in supporting the view currently presented, I ask that you rise above your bias and do the presenting of it to them yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.76.201 (talk • contribs) .

Duh, are you really talking to me? Please check out the existing and very very commonly followed practice of archiving talk pages when they get too much bloated. If you can't find the link to the archive, please look at the top of the talk page. Also, it is interesting that my comment about vandalism was directed against 70.217.125.232 (talk · contribs), not you, unless you have been IP hopping to avoid WP:3RR. That particular user is continuously blanking the article, which is clear vandalism. If you have any alternative views, please go ahead and add them to the page in appropriate sections. Calling me biased makes me laugh really hard, please check out the history of the page. I only had protected the article a few times recently to prevent edit wars. If you can't even stand that, feel free to place a notice on Administrators Noticeboard, so other admins can check out this. But please don't just pick on me because you see my name in the recent edits list, go ahead and improve the article rather than the blanking spree. And frankly, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's different policies (e.g. archiving) before going on a rant. And instead of ip-hopping, sign in with an account. You are always welcome and encouraged to edit the article to make it better and balanced. Thanks. --Ragib 22:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, note that the "blanking" (actually, archiving) of the talk page was done by another user. Didn't you see the link or see the archival notice in page history? Here is the link to the archived talk page for your convenience: Talk:Acharya S/archive 1 archived 2005-10-14 by crazyeddie. Thanks. --Ragib 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Duh? I'm sorry, I didn't know that I was dealing with a teenager. I never blanked a single word on the discussion page. I wasnot refering to that at all. If you were under the impression that I did, then please provide an example of it. The Archiving of a talk page is not blanking.

Re: Blanking: see definition [1]

"Removing all content from a page. Newcomers often do this accidentally. On the other hand, if blanking an article is done in bad faith, it is vandalism. If blanking is done to a vandalised brand-new page, it is maintenance, and the page will be deleted by an admin within a few hours if no dispute arises. {{delete}} should be added to the blanked page to draw attention to it, rather than just blanking it. Newcomers often mistake blanking for deletion."

It appears that your version of what constitutes blanking is a misinterpretation at best. I did check out the history of the page... there have been numerous additions and changes to the article in which you reverted to another posting thereby eliminating them as a result (which is nothing more than a form of blanking be it legitimate or otherwise). I am not picking on anyone. My editing of this article has been to champion fairness, objectivity and equal representation which has thus far shown the administrators of this article to be unfairly biased, prejudiced and contriving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.217.27.103 (talk • contribs) .

Who am I talking to? Would you please sign up for an account. It is very very difficult to continue a dialogue when you keep leaving unsigned comments. To sign an article, you can use 4 ~. Also do not delimit your comments with a lot of "="s, that just messes up wiki's page/section formatting.

As for content, come on, rather than ranting here, wouldn't it be better to work on the article? If your editing is to "champion fairness", please add to the contents of the article. No one is preventing you from that. Really!! Not even me! You are always very much welcome to enhance the article. I personally have no issues with Ms. Murdock's doctrine, from a religious viewpoint. Nor do I subscribe to the critic's viewpoint. At times, I have removed exaggarations from the article --comments that looked very much like a promotion. Other than that, you are completely free to contribute. Differences appear in wiki-editing pretty often, and there are very good ways to resolve it. The first step is to discuss. The discussion in this page often result in long rants (from both sides), but in any case, it is through discussion that you can come to a consensus. So, please sign up for an account, edit vigorously, and discuss any massive change you make. That's the Wikipedia-way of making article better. By the way, removing large sections from an article completely does count as blanking, but I don't want to argue with you on that, rather I'd hope you will start adding content to the article. If you need any editing/formatting help, feel free to contact me or look into the Help pages. Thanks. --Ragib 03:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone here has a "handle" or front, which, in effect, allows them anonymity. To address me, call me el Lobo. This will be the name I will sign to my input. There is no need to do anything more. I Have been working on the article by adding an opposing counter to the criticisms rather than allow them carte blanche reign. I have stated from the start that the proper method would be to present options to the reader and let them decide for themselves. By refering readers to the debate contained in the discussions page, that end is honored. Let them see for themselves what is being said about it and let them make up thir own minds according to their need. If you show what one does, you describe what they are... you are known to others by what you do. I have no issue with there being detractors to these books just as long as their counter is also allowed. -el Lobo

Sorry, I misread soemthing. Its been a logn weekend.

Anyway, I think we should merley bar Dorothy's followers,and then allow actual, unbaised persons to complete the article. Id beven volunteer to leave, if Acharya's Devotees would wish it, provided those who rework the article would be so kind as to keeptot hte facts...

Zarove 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any Administrator willing to revert the article back? Or will it be left to prove the point... ? -el Lobo

Why?

Why rvrt it back? The :Nonbiased" Verison you propos is indeed bias. It trieds to inflate her resume to sound imoressive and omits critisism to her work. Again, she can bash CHristains all she wants, but heaven forbid we lt an apologist critisise her!

And befoe you mention it, I am aware that Bob Price is a CHrist Myther. The point of includign him is he also critisised d her. Remember, this is anencyclopidia, we arent apologists here. Zarove 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? Because it offers all that you have insisted be stated plus it alerts the reader that there is a well of information that is concealed from that page. What it did was insert an update on her credentials (a legitimate insertion) and alert the unaware reader of the existence of the counter criticisms provided on the discussion's page including a point by point counter to the criticisms posted of Price. What you have effectively accomplished by removing these alternatives is little different than book burning and it appears that, by your reckoning, this is the duty of an encyclopedia. It is also becoming apparent that the next stage of these controversies be invoked in what can only be called a stalemate, especially in light of the actions (or lack thereof) of its Administrators. Where the light of reason fails, the only alternative is to strike another match. I think it time to consider recourse in an investigation of the methods, procedures and prejudice recorded in the history of this article through arbitration even to considering the granting of the underlying objective of these charades in having the entire article removed from Wikipedia altogether. -el Lobo

Several of us are waiting for this to burn itself out. You and your friends demonstrated a long time ago that your purposes aren't ours. alteripse 04:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That tactic was apparent a long tme ago. My purpose is to provide fairness, objectivity and equal representation to allow the reader to be exposed to all sides of the debate and thus allow them the opportunity to make up their own minds... it is amply obvious that your purposes and mine are not the same. -el Lobo

Interestingly, isn't there a logical fallacy here? You acted in a quite hostile manner when I reverted the article from your section-blanked version, but now you want an admin to revert it to your version. Why should your version be preferred over the other one? You accuse admins of inaction ... well when there was admin mediation of the article, you raised a big hue and cry (see above!!) about the bias.

Anyway, I'm not doing anything here because any action in my part would be a conflict of interest (since you have had some problems with my mediation). There are very well qualified admins in wikipedia, so if you feel any issue, please raise it in the Admin's noticeboard. Of course, I don't expect any one to act in any different way than those who already tried to mediate. But you are free to raise the point there, and I would recommend doing that. By the way, your preferred version is not the way a wikipedia article is structured ... NO wikipedia article points to its own talk page. The talk page is there for the convenience of the editors who edit the page. It is not where the article readers should be directed to "see the dispute". The article page itself is the appropriate place to put the controversy related to the subject of the page. And in this case, you are always free to put your counter-criticisms in the page in a structured manner. Thanks. --Ragib 06:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no begging the question here. That is simply a wrong assessment. I think you must be confusing me with someone else for I have not acted in any hostle manner whatsoever. As for "my version" being the prefered version... that is a simple question to answer. My version is inclusive of both sides, yours is exclusive of any side that does not agree with it. When one exhibits a failure to an impartial judgment so as to appear as unfair or upholding a policy stemming from prejudice, it is called bias. What I called for was equal treatment, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I was thinking of arbitration in the hopes that the publicity would avoid a "good old boy's" club response. They don't need any input from me. All they have to do is read it for themelves and draw their own conclusions just as I have suggested the reader of the article itself should do.

The problem with your observation that no Wikipedia article points to its discussion pages for enlightenment is precisely because of its "convenience of the editors who edit the page". Personally, I cannot atest to whether "no" Wikipedia article refers to its own discussion pages. There is no way to prove a negative without researching all Wikipedia articles. I see little difference in my having provided a link to the discussion page (noting "for further reading") to those provided by the "external link" heading. Your offering of seeking solution at Admin's noticeboard is a dime short and a dollar late. I have responded to this CYA move previously and challenged you to put it to them yourself for your involvement in the brouhaha. I don't know what would be at stake if they were to return a true bill but at least it would get a review of the indiscrepancies that seem to be systemic to this subject.

As for "The article page itself is the appropriate place to put the controversy related to the subject of the page", every effort to place any form of rebuttal or counter criticism has been thwarted by its being reverted back to, basically, what is on the page now, effectively quashing anything contradictory. None of this would be happening were it not for that fact. -el Lobo

The current version has gone for several days now and it appears that this version of the ariticle not going to be reverted back by any of the Administerators even though it is amply proven that it is one-sided and prejudiced. Again, the alternative of last resort is to alter it to alert the reader of the fact that the contents of the discussion page does explore both sides of the issue. Since there was a request to show rebuttals or counters to the criticisms, I reverted the page (after cleaning it up a bit) to a previous version which was removed. It is sad, the that the level of thinking on this subject is fraught with such fear and trepidation that the Admins cannot see that tey are advocating censorship, an avoidance of neutrality and objectivity in favor of a prejudiced view. 11/4/05 -el Lobo

You just copied text from the web page and pasted it. That's not the correct way to revert. Note that I reverted this edit of you *only* because of the messed up page. Please find the appropriate version from edit history and use that to revert ... see Wikipedia help for how to revert properly. I'm keeping my hands off this article for the time being, other than format issues. Thanks. --Ragib 06:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That is well...

You are right, I did do as you said because I wanted to clean it up a bit. But this version will do just as well. 11/05 -el Lobo

Hopefully

This weekend Ill presnt a new article.

It will be broken as follows.

1; Intorduction.

2: General Biogrpahical Data. ( YEs I knwo it doesnt affect her arguemtn, but this si abotu ehr not her arguent.)

3: Her claimed credentals, and critisism of these. THis secitonwill tell that she hodls a Graduate CDegree in Arts, and that her major was Clasical studies.

It will thn include her memebrships, btu tlel exaclty what these gorups are, so the reader will not be misguided into thinkingthis makes her a legitimate schoalr.

IE, I will put CSER up, but expalin that it si an Ateist group designd to disprove the laism of religion. THus, its the Sceptics equiolent to an Apologist orginisaiton.

I will nto attmeot to undermien er, but I will tell exaclty what these grousl relaly are.

4: I will include the baisc premise of her book. THis will include basic exherpsm including her general thesis that Jesus was s Solar Myth and the simialrieis beteeen the pagan gods.

5: I will add valid critisisms to her work, and expalin that Christan apologists as well as A fellow christ yter, in adiditon to the scant few Academics whi have ooked over her owrk, have foudn it queasitonale at best.

I'll also make note that her book is not well accepted in Academic circles, and is best descirbed as COnspriacy THeory.

6: External Links.

THis will give her website, the Interveiw form paranoia Magazine, possibely another Interview, and then Tekton, RisenJesus, and Robert Price.

If I find any other sites, either for or again, Ill include them.

This will be fair.

And if not, pleae tll hwo tis not. DOtn justr evert it becauseit contians critisisms.

Zarove 03:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice going Admins. We continue to stand in fear and trembling, I see. Well, I'm not afraid. Z, don't bother with your ad libs. Since you are incapable of understanding that I had the reader go to the discussion pages for an enlightmentment of the sides being drawn... I added a rebuttal up front to your onesided "criticisms", aka accusation, conjecture, inuendo section. But don't blame me if it helps people to see what you are doing even more clearly. -el Lobo

I would like to respond to what you call scholars. Seeing as you only use three of them let's examine them in the same vein as they and you hold Acharya.

A look at these scholarly Christists will show that Mike Licona is in league with other noted evangelists such as Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts and Jerry Falwell. From his site he states: "Mike Licona (RisenJesus) is a New Testament historian and Christian apologist who speaks to groups providing Christian evidences. He is the director of Apologetics Evangelism at the North American Mission Board (Southern Baptist Convention). He has written three books, the most recent being The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Mike has an M.A. in Religious Studies from Liberty University and is a Ph.D. candidate in New Testament at the University of Pretoria. In July of 1997, Mike formed TruthQuest Ministries through the National Heritage Foundation in order to give an official name to his growing ministry and to allow future donors to make tax-deductible gifts. In October 2001, the ministry was renamed "RisenJesus" in order to avoid confusion with other ministries with the same name and more closely reflect its vision of equipping 100,000 Christians to share their faith using the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Mike Licona's ministry has become a outreach to the lost and a solution to training Christians how to share their faith. Author of three (3) books: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, (a self study course which includes an interactive CD), Cross Examined, a legal novel defending the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, and Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock, which lays out in a concise manner what to say to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses when they knock on your door." You can order his book "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" Minimum Donation ($18.00)

Re: James Patrick Holding AKA Bob Turkel.

From James Still. "Things between us blew up quite some time ago when I found him plagiarizing my work. I have a super-low tolerance for plagiarism and I wrote him about it. Basically he had lifted whole paragraphs of mine, word for word, and prefaced them with the introductory "some critics suggest that," thus making it look as if the argument were his own formulation rather than mine. These are the lengths to which he's willing to go in order to censor others and prevent his readers from discovering opposing points of view. Yet, even though citations and the back and forth of arguments are the glue that hold scholarship together, Holding will have none of it. He did finally edit the article in question but in his own mean-spirited way he wrote that he did so only because I had written to him and complained that I wasn't getting my due credit. In other words, I was an arrogant bastard and he was the innocent victim of my enormous ego. I didn't say anything at the time because I knew that he knew the real truth and that was enough for me. We're in an exciting time when any yahoo with a modem can publish to the web for all the world to find. The trick is to discriminate between careful research and sheer lunacy. [ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: James Still ]

When Wells asked Turkel to supply his credentials after stating his usual and customary "This person has no credentials. None whatsoever" reply about a biblical critic... at first, he wouldn't even answer. After he was asked enough times, the story then came about that he was a Librarian. After that, he developed, "A standard librarian's education, a master's in Library Science". But if so, check out his grammatical mistakes and self contradictions. He shoots himself in the foot all the time.

As for Dr. Price, we have gone through his criticisms one by one and have shown that he and Acharya are saying the exact same thing and that his criticisms are a nitpicking that is more one competitor's view of his compitition than anything else. For further reading check this discussion page or the history to confirm this.

As for your comment on Atheism... I would point out to you that there cannot a charge of atheism without there first existing a belief to disbelieve. It is as meaningless as the charge of heretic. An atheist is not so because of his belief that there is no god... he becomes an athist when he disbelieves you and your concept of god and you give him the label. If one does not find the god concept reality enough to reject then it isn't even a thoughtform. -el Lobo

So>?

We shodul edit many artcle sonline. All Athiests will have th owrld "Ahtiest" removed...

1: I did not create the critisism section. I simply resod it.

2: Yoru "Rebuttlas" are a joke. Sorry.

3: And I care oftheir " In leuge" with Pat Robertsonand Jerry Falwell why? Acharya S is in leuge with BNigfoot Hunters and UFO researchers.So what? Shes also in Leuge iwth Ahtiest Apologists and with NEw Age adherants. Noen of that rlelay means that any of the others shoudl be removed.

4: A prsonal attakc on me is cheap. Sicne all you do is push Dorothy and her work.

There you have it Administrators. There was no removal of the criticisms but the rebuttals to them were removed and this how it has been all along. To cry vandalism and blanking only if it is in support of the view desired is a shame of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice that cloaks these proceedings.

By the way... what personal attack? You proved the veracity of the statement by your having removed the counter criticisms. That said, it is not cheap, it is deserved due to the essence of the message you deliver by your deeds.

I have yet to promote her work but I have stood up for principle, ethic, and equality. What I garner from these exercises is that the gift of enlightenment has befallen us in the almighty hand of Zarove and there are none to challenge it. The claim that the rebuttals to the criticisms are a joke is to believe you have the one and only way and in so declaring render all other ways as foul and rank. Follow this principle if you must but at least remove this article from Wikipedia to keep the stench from what the principles of Wikipedia does do. After all, one bad apple will spoil the whole barrel. 11/8/05 -el Lobo

Read.

I know that whenever an acutal problem that illustrates yoyr bais is shwon, you iwll tyr to cerncumvent it by placign the sma einformaitonin, but reeworded, btu ehre goes.

The article you revert contaosn things such as this.

"Also, we are in concurrence with the "ancient advanced civilization" theory ("Atlantis") that would allow for one or more centralized civilizations to have spread throughout the world during a very remote period in protohistory, thus taking with it the well-developed Mythos and Ritual, which would then mutate into the various forms found around the globe." "

Wikipedia Endorses this theory?

Who is "We"? Exaclty? THis indicated wither Wikipedias stance that Ajhcarya S is right, or else indicates the seciton was wirtten by Acharya's followers.

Either way,tis Biased. the rest of he COutner Critisisms exist for no other reaon than to make sure the reader sides iwth Acharya, and are not Nutrally derived.

Do I honedly need ot go Point-by-point?

It is obviosu that you are he eot ptomote her and advance her ideas. it is further obviosu that tou seek to maek her seem better thna she is, and to add credentials that arent imrpessive, but that you make ound impressiveby not rlelay tlelign peoe what they are. Her entracnce into an Atiets Apologetics society, thoguh accurate, is presente din such a fashion that it makes he rout to be " A Shcolar", which she on he rmaikling list aslso uses ot prove how legitimate she is.

Her admitance in the Greek School is further evidnec of manipualtive authorship.

As we have noted beforre.

The Coutner Critisisms are biased and designed ot confuse the reader, not offer neutral fats. They present her as vlaid and the critisims as werong, which is nto WIkipeidas place.

Zarove 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrators... where are you? 11/8/05 -el Lobo

It is amazing that you Wikipedians allow this disturbed individual to continue his unethical and obsessive rant. Nuke this page while Wiki still has any credibility.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard some nut say this... well, I wouldn't have to work any more, that's for sure! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Terrible

This page is neither NPOV or well formatted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to deal with these points. (I do watch this page.) Charles Matthews 10:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, regarding formatting - I'd like to remove just about everything in the list under "General premise". Even if this were an article about the book, which it's not, the list of gods does nothing that couldn't be summarised in thirty words.
brenneman^(t)(c) 11:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You could try summarising that list, then, down to a handful of representative figures. Charles Matthews 12:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I like tyhe current article. THanks guys! ( I knwo tis not abouthte book, that was added du o her Disiles.)

Zarove 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole piece is a farce. It is filled with the bile of piety, accusation, inuendo, and conjecture. It does so without a scrap of evidence otherwise depicting the style and method of fundamentalist propaganda to discredit, defame and deniggrate any challenge to its indoctrinations and dogma. As long as it is about how someone feels about a thing, it is just another waste product that only demonstrates what happens when a one sided belief is allowed exposure while subjugating alternative views. It is worthless to any but to those who subscribe to its tenents. This is how the masses are manipulated to excuse the conforming of intelligence into an instrument of destruction in the name of some holy domination. GIGO works. This piece would be better if it were removed.

11/10/05 -el Lobo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.174.79.227 (talk • contribs) .

If you have specific points, perhaps you'd like to state them here. Charles Matthews 11:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, you must mean state them again? Had you been keeping abreast of discussions and history this charade, you would not have made such a comment. But,for your edification:

First paragraph

Let's start with the exposure of her pen name. It's not that her name is revealed, it's the hypocracy revealed in the duplicitious and malicious intent by those who hide their own identity behind a pseudonym themselves. Unless being an American is held in some contempt her citizenship, is not pertinent. After all, she could also hold Greek and British citizenships as well but this statement is not meant to differentiate such a conjecture. Acharya is critical of all religion and writes of how this is applied to Christianity.

Second paragraph

In what interview? Without a footnote, the section on life is wasted space. By pointing out the tender age at wich she began to question the value of belief points out the young age Christianity begins its indoctrination and just how bright a child she was to challenge its authority in such tender years. Re: Joseph Wheeles: "Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion". This book can be read on the Net by a brilliant lawyer who uses the Catholic Encyclopedia as his evidence or you can buy it here http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1564592251/truthbeknownfounA/103-1668208-5399850 and decide for yourself.

Unless "freethought" is meant in derogatory terms, its use here is meaningless. Free thought is derived from "freethinkers" as those who arrive at conclusions, particularly in questions of religion, by employing the rules of reason while rejecting supernatural authority or ecclesiastical tradition.

Acharya's library contains Kersey Graves' "The World's 16 Crucified Saviours", and Barbara Walker's "The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myth and Secrets" as well as Akerly, Ben, The X-Rated Bible. Albright, WF, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, Athlone Press, London, 1969. Allegro, John, The Sacred Mushroom & the Cross; a Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth. Andersen, Johannes, Myths and Legends of the Polynesians. Armstrong, Karen, A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. also Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, Muhammed: A Biography of the Prophet, Through the Narrow Gate. (Armstrong's biography as a Catholic nun). Anesakie, M, History of Japanese Religion. Augustine, The City of God, and Confessions. Avedon, John, In Exile from the Land of Snows: The Dalai Lama and Tibet Since the Chinese Conquest. Baigent, M & Leigh, R, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception and Holy Blood, Holy Grail (a bestselling thriller), and The Messianic Legacy. Barker, Dan, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. Barnstone, Willis, ed., The Other Bible. Bassett, John, The Lost Books of the Bible. Begg, Ian, The Cult of the Black Virgin. ben Yo'hai, Shimon, Zohar, Amsterdam, 1714. ben-Jochannan, Yosef, Africa: Mother of the Major Western Religions. Besant, Annie, tr., The Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad-Gita Buber, Martin, Tales of the Hasidim. Budge, E.A. Wallis, Egyptian Magic, and Egyptian Book of the Dead. Bulfinch, Thomas, Bulfinch's Mythology. Cameron, Ron, ed., The Other Gospels. Campbell, Joseph, The Masks of God: Creative Mythology & Muses, C., In All Her Names: Explorations of the Feminine in Divinity. Carpenter, Edward, Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning. Churchward, Albert, The Origin and Evolution of Religion. Conybeare, F, tr., Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana: The Epistles of Apollonius, and the Treatise of Eusebius. Cross, Frank, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Davidson, Hilda, Gods and Myths of Northern Europe. De Rosa, P, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy. Dhammapada, The, (The Sayings of "Buddha"), Thomas Byrom, tr. Dilling, Elizabeth, The Plot Against Christianity, Noontide Press, CA. Doane, TW, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions. (Originally published in 1882, Doane's classic has caused a debate ever since). Dore's Illustrated Bible. Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ? Drews, Arthur, The Christ Myth. Dujardin, Edouard, Ancient History of the God Jesus. Eisenman, R & Wise, M, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for over 35 Years. Eliade, Mircea, The Eliade Guide to World Religions. "This guide to the world's religions, past and present, distills Eliade's three-volume History of Religious Ideas and sixteen-volume Encyclopedia of Religion into one up-to-date and accessible volume." Ellerbe, Helen, The Dark Side of Christian History. Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Evans-Pritchard, EE, Theories of Primitive Religion. Evans-Wentz, WY, The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Feng, Gia-Fu & English, Jane, trs., Lao Tsu. Fideler, David, Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism. Fiorenza, Elizabeth, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. Foster, Barbara & Michael, Forbidden Journey - The Life of Alexandra David-Neel. Foxe, John, Foxe's Book of English Martyrs. Frazer, James, The Golden Bough. Freke, Timothy & Gandy, Peter, The Jesus Mysteries. Fremantley, Francesca & Trungpa, Chogyam, tr., The Tibetan Book of the Dead: The Great Liberation through Hearing in the Bardo. Friedman, Richard, Who Wrote the Bible? Excellent, scholarly but accessible work. One of the definitive books on the subject. Gadon, EW, The Once & Future Goddess. Gaylor, Annie, Women Without Superstition : No Gods - No Masters. Gimbutas, Maria, Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500-3500 B.C.: Myths, and Cult Images. Golb, Norman, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Search for the Secret of Qumran. Goldenberg, Naomi, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions. Goodspeed, Edgar J, tr., The Apocrypha. Graham, Lloyd, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible. Graves, Robert, The Greek Myths. Haught, James, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness. Heidel, A, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Jackson, John G, Christianity Before Christ. Jacolliot, L, The Bible in India. James, MR, The Apocryphal New Testament. Kapleau, P, The Three Pillars of Zen. Koran, The, NJ Dawood, tr. Kuhn, Alvin Boyd, Who is this King of Glory? The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, Robert Graves. Larson, Martin, Story of Christian Origins. Leedom, Tim, ed., The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read. Lewis, CS, The Screwtape Letters: Also Includes 'Screwtape Proposes a Toast'. The Lost Books of the Bible: Being All the Gospels, Epistles and Other Pieces Now Extant Attributed in the First Four Centuries to Jesus Christ McKinsey, C. Dennis, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. Maccoby, Hyam, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity and, The Origins of the Holocaust: Christian Anti-Semitism. As they say, Hitler, a Roman Catholic, learned it all from the Church. Mack, Burton, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth and The Lost Gospel of Q. The Mahabharata, William Buck & BA Van Nooten, trs. Martin, Malachi, The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion Between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West, and Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Americans, The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, Windswept House; A Vatican Novel. A fictionalized account of the downfall of the Holy See by, naturally, Satan himself! Martin, Michael, The Big Domino in the Sky: And Other Atheistic Tales, The Case Against Christianity. Massey, Gerald, Ancient Egypt the Light of the World: A Work of Reclamation and Restitution, A Book of the Beginning, The Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Mysteries of Amenta, Gerald Massey's Lectures, The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Natural Genesis. Merton, Thomas, The Wisdom of the Desert. Meyer, Marvin, tr., The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels, The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus Nhat Hanh, Thich, Old Path White Clouds: Walking in the Footsteps of the Buddha. Pagels, Elaine, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, The Gnostic Gospels. A very popular, concise overview of Gnostic Christianity based primarily on the Nag Hammadi texts, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters, The Origin of Satan. (How Satan was created as propaganda and used to demonize non-Christians). Patai, Raphael, The Hebrew Goddess. Patanjali, Yoga Sutras. Platt, RH & Brett, JA, Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. Rajneesh, Bhagwan Shree, (Osho) The Book: An Introduction to the Teachings of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: Series I, A-H. A terrific starting point from one of the world's greatest thinkers and rascal saints, The Book: Series II, I-Q, The Book: Series III, R-Z, My Way: The Way of the White Clouds, Priests and Politicians: The Mafia of the Soul,The Rajneesh Bible, Vol. 2. The Rig Veda, Wendy O'Flaherty, tr. Robertson, JM, Pagan Christs. Smith, George, Atheism: The Case Against God. Smith, Huston, et al., The World's Religions, Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World's Religions. Taylor, Rev. Robert, The Diegesis. Tedlock, Dennis, Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life. The Upanishads, Eknath Easwaran & Michael N. Nagler, trs. Thompson, Thomas, The Mythic Past : Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. Vermes, Geza, ed., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Walker, Barbara, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects. Warner, Marina, Alone of all her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. Weil, Simon, Intimations of Christianity Among the Ancient Greeks, NY, 1987. Wells, GA, The Jesus Myth, The Jesus Legend, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Did Jesus Exist?, Who Was Jesus?: A Critique of the New Testament Record.

Now that we know some of the books on her bookshelves... what's on your bookshelf? More than just the one, I hope, even though I have little faith of otherwise.

That Acharya has served as a Trench master in Athens and Crete, as well as a teaching assistant in Crete belongs in the credentials section.

It is nice to know that she is at least semi famous and Acharya has been granted late-night interviews on a variety of radio stations, (usually discussing her work in The Christ Conspiracy? of course)but its pertinence here is unwarranted.

Paragraph three

Her views stated in the "Declaration of Life and Freedom" are more thzn this simple line. read the whole thing:

The Time is Now - A Declaration of Life and Freedom

We, the People of this Earth, are completely fed up with the continuous war machines of our so-called governments. We, the Earthkeepers, are utterly disgusted with the constant need to fight to clean up and heal our planetary body. We, the Lovers of Life, are exhausted by our ceaseless struggle to end misery, suffering and poverty and to produce respect and nourishment for all life.

We announce here and now that our vision is established on this planet. We declare today that our battle is won. We state to all that the warmongers have fallen, and we can live in peace. We proclaim that we have the right to live unharassed and according to our internal, universal laws, and not by the laws of a handful of egotistical men and coercible women. We announce that the vested interests, who continually fabricate conflict to pad their pockets, no longer have any say on this planet. We vow that they cannot stir us to do evil to our fellow men and women in the name of some phony cause. We pronounce these greedy, uncaring, mentally ill people subverters and disturbers, provokers and perverters. We assert that they are not our authorities, they do not carry our vision, they are incapable of building a loving world because they create disturbance for profit. We maintain that we are more capable to determine the way of living because we respect the individual, because we recognize existential liberty, because we have no desire for control over someone else's thinking and destiny. We insist that our way is the most egalitarian, the most spiritual, the most sacred.

We are not bellicose like the present ruling parties, and we have no desire or right to enter anyone else's land, remove anything or anyone, or harm any of the occupants or the land itself. We will not be told that our way is wrong, utopian or naive and that there is no other way but the unending killing and seizure of living beings or their property. We will not participate in this warped way any longer.

The governing bodies, whether sacred or secular, consist of criminals who have broken universal and humanitarian laws millions of times. They have killed, tortured and kidnapped billions of living beings against their will. We break ourselves from this mentality, from this disease. We turn away in disgust from this deluded and unconscious state.

We declare here and now that our vision is clearer, more encompassing, more compassionate, and as such, we deserve the right to establish it here and now, on this planet, without regard to the present system, which is corrupt and dying. We disassociate ourselves from this dead and hateful system here and now to pronounce a new covenant, not with an unknown and aloof god but with each other, as sentient beings whose right to live is guaranteed by our own determination. Our covenant is not within the confines of any religion but requires simple religiousness. It needs no belief, no ritual but incorporates all worthy visions with respect. Our understanding is not dependent on any external authority but comes through our own cognizance, our own knowing. Our covenant is ever-changing according to necessity and has no dogma. Our oath depends on our trust in our own intelligence and in that of others. We are all sublime creatures. We are all divine creators. We are one.

When you say that she advocates the use of hallucinogenic drugs, you had best be ready to back that up with actual quotes. Show where she has made such such a statement. As a victim of cancer myself, twice, if there were any possibility that the use of a drug would, no matter what form, that would stop this intermidible vomiting, I would gsaldly endorse it. And to hell with those who would condemn it.

Just what is wrong with meditation and communion with nature? To expand one's mind, I would suggest taking up her reading list. To contract one's mind, I would limit what you know to that which you are told is true without investigation or question. As for advocating a libertine morality in regards to sexual ethics... Again, do show where this is stated and then show how it is pertinent to this article.

Paragraph four

Generally, her premise is that all religion is developed by the hand of man. As with life itself, all things stand on what has gone before. What exists today is what has survived in spite of us.

Paragraph five

Rebuttals previously posted:

In response to each of the above criticisms, the following are offered in the hope that any serious attempt at neutrality, fairness and objectivity will allow them to stand.

Define primary research. Whoever these mysterious detractors are, they apparently haven't the foggiest idea what research means, much less primary and secondary research. Primary research is information gathered through some form of interaction with other people. Primary research is obtained through meetings, one-on-one interviews, focus groups, surveys and etc. Secondary research is information gathered through literature, publications, broadcast media, and other non-human sources.

Primary research is specific data gathered for a study. It is gathered by by an investigation of a subject or a phenomenon either directly or indirectly. Direct communication includes in-depth interviews, telephone interviews, surveys and so on. If an investigation involves 5000 years old subjects, it is glaringly obvious that any claim as to a lack of primary research is a bogus attempt to smear and discredit.

Note: there is a difference between primary sources and primary research. A primary source is an accounting of records as described or recorded by someone who either participated in or witnessed an event or who obtained their information from those who did, such as those found in newspaper accounts, letters, diaries, notebooks, interviews including original records created at the time of a historical event.

It is just as easily said that her research is in-depth, unbiased, accurate and up to date. Given a choice between a one-sided, biased, inaccurate and outdated opinion without sources and a work filled with them, an honest intellect will have to choose on their own by a thorough investigation of the claims.

The Christ Consipracy contains 1200 footnotes. These are two of those noted. Out rightly condemning the entirety of these works is a ruse to disparage. What was quoted of them that is taken as being "suspect authority" and "lacking in primary research".

To state that "Her work shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, and in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions"

is the opinion of the writer and bears no more weight than any said to be for her works. There is no ignorance quite so complete as that which condemns what it does not know. In making such statements, it is clearly shown that The Christ Conspiracy and The Suns of God were not even so much as opened.

This is pure fabrication. Acharya does not claim that Krishna and Buddha were crucified, in fact, the chapter on this is named "Krishna Crucified? In venturing the question, she cites Remsburg, Jacolliot, Doane, Guigniaut, Lundy, Moor, Higgins, Graves, Taylor, et al in their various contentions on the subject. Acharya herself goes on to report of other godmen in other cultures who purportedly suffered the same fate stating that: [the] 'mark of the cross upon the forehead was common among a number of pre-Christian peoples, including the Persians and Hebrews. Obviously, we possess traditions and images of crosses and crucified gods not only in the Pagan world at large but also in the Israelite/Jewish world, and in the very area where Christianity is purported to have been created."

In the chapter "Mythra, Light of the World" a reference to Attis and Dionysus was in regard to human and animal ritual sacrifice. Dionysus was mentioned as having been from a story of Hermes having been born in a cave and wrapped in swaddling clothes placed in a basket or manger. In Krisna Crucified she notes that Lundy finds that Agni, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, Apollo, and Orpheus to be types of Christian verities. She explains that Orheus was depicted on a cross, although this image apparently dates to the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Regarding Quetzalcoatl... she quotes Lundy and in explanation says "In other words, the "bearded man," Quetzalcoatl, is not only an "air god" but also a sun god, and these Mexican rites are not "Christian" but proto-Christian. In fact, as abundantly demonstrated, these various important religious motifs and rites existed long before the Christian era, and were not copied by Paganism from Christianity but the other way around."

Nearly every contention made in her books are explicitly due to so many independent sources that to say otherwise only depicts the depths a believers fervor will go to substantiate their own beliefs. As regards the list of characters she states:

"The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area, such as many of the following world saviors and "sons of God," most or all of whom predate the Christian myth, and a number of whom were crucified or executed." with a footnote that says:

"Many on this list come from The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Graves. This is not to suggest that all of these godmen characters were utilized in the formation of the Christian myth, as overt contact had not occurred in such places as Mexico or Bermuda. Also, modern orthodoxy does not allow for the dates provided by Graves, i.e., that Quetzalcoatl originates in the 6th B.C.E., a date far too early in the orthodox perspective. However, we utilize this list to demonstrate that the same concepts are found worldwide with and without cultural exchange, because they are derived from the same astrotheological observations. Also, we are in concurrence with the "ancient advanced civilization" theory ("Atlantis") that would allow for one or more centralized civilizations to have spread throughout the world during a very remote period in protohistory, thus taking with it the well-developed Mythos and Ritual, which would then mutate into the various forms found around the globe."

To be point specific. 11/12/05 -el Lobo

Well, I'll take out the comment about hallucinogens, if it cannot be supported by a solid citation. Otherwise I'd like to make it clear that articles here are not subject to any sort of 'approval' by their subjects. Charles Matthews 11:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is amply proven here. After all, this is what it is about, is it not? Check this out.

From admin Alteripse's talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alteripse#Acharya_S_2

Acharya S I say we oughta take off and nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure. Any ideas how? crazyeddie 06:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I share your opinion. I'd be happy to have it simply vaporized, but then one of her disciples would create a new article and start the whole mess over. Will you support the last version I posted on the talk page if zarove and I can get a couple of other people to do so? I am sorry to ask you to go looking for it amid all the word fog. alteripse 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking more about the contributors than the actual article. We'd be vaporized as well, but at this point, I'd be willing to write that off as acceptable losses. I was actually thinking about starting up a fork as a subpage off of my userpage, work with you to hash out a compromise between us on it, then sit the principles down one by one and see if we can work out a compromise with each of them in turn - with us two having complete veto, at least initially (as long as its a subpage off of my userpage, then by convention, I own it...). The idea here is to deal with one maniac at a time. Right now, they're feeding off each other. Eventually, we'd have to open it up to the community as a whole, but this might be a way to proceed at first.

Since I think we're both of the "Acharya S is a quack" POV, then I think it makes sense to sit down with ^^James^^ first (since he is of the opposition), then move on to Zarove after that. We can work on 216 after we've dealt with those two. Hopefully, 216 will get bored and wander off... It might be the word fog, but James seems more-or-less reasonable, at least as out-and-out POV warriors go. crazyeddie 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Show me what you have in mind. Anything different than this. alteripse 10:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

So, all in all.. it's very condscending of you to capitulate a point to us subjects. After all, to have the one and only way is to exclude any that say otherwise.

11/13/05 -el Lobo