Talk:Acharya S/Archive 9

-:Thank you Charles...

69.19.14.24 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC) el Lobo

-

It has been questioned as to what this article should look like. I see it thus: To remove slant, bias and prejudice from this article it would have to look something like this. A truely neutral article in its point of view would simply inform the reader of the premises of the books, give a short background of the author and give the reader options (even to detractors) in the form of links to investigate them further. It is not necessary to do more. This article should not be a forum for debate where allegation, accusation, conjecture, and innuendo are allowed to run rampant.

Acharya S From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Revision as of 02:18, 10 December 2005; view current revision ← Older revision | Newer revision → Jump to: navigation, search

Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock. As a mythicist, she has authored two books and operates a website called "Truth be Known". Her contention is that all religion is founded in earlier legend, myth and morality stories and that the characters depicted in Christianity are the result of the plagiarizing of those myths to unify the Roman State. Contents [hide]

   * 1 Books
   * 2 General premise
   * 3 Education
   * 4 External links

Books

Her book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, is an expanded version of her website. A follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, discusses her views further to clarify and document the sources used in the first book. In it, she comments on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She points out parallels to the life of Jesus, presenting this as evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing myth and not the life of a real person.

General premise

Acharya's claim is that the Christ story is based upon pagan myths, and is explainable in "astro-theology" or the story of the Sun. She asserts that the pagans understood these stories to be myths but that Christians destroyed the works stating this, and killed all who did not accept it as literal, factual history.

This purportedly led to widespread illiteracy in the ancient world and ensured that the mythical nature of Christ's story was hidden. Scholars of other sects continued to oppose the historicizing of a mythological figure. She presents as evidence, that this is because the arguments were destroyed by the chruch but are preserved through their own refutations.

Education

Acharya is a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, and archaeologist. She received an undergraduate degree in Classics–Greek Civilization from Franklin and Marshall College. She is a member of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, Greece. She has field archaeology experience in Athens and Crete and has been admitted into the Center for the Scientific Examination of Religion. She has been admitted as a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER).

External links

   * Truth be Known (Acharya S's website)
   * The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ by Acharya S
   * Interview with Acharya S in Paranoia Magazine
   * Earl Doherty reviews The Christ Conspiracy, see Earl Doherty
   * Robert Price reviews The Christ Conspiracy
   * Paranoia Magazine review of Suns of God by Joan d'Arc
   * "A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy" by Mike Licona, and rebuttal
   * ebtx.com reviews The Christ Conspiracy
   * Tekton Apologetics Ministries reviews The Christ Conspiracy

Category: Religious philosophy and doctrine

69.19.14.33 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:06 AM EST

-

tHE aBOVE WIL NOT WORK.

It omits the Critisms altogather, and adds superfluous linsk to her website. THe Origins essay si NOT central. It is only central here because her following wills others to "Know" Jesus didnt exist.It is eaisly located form the homepage of her website hwoevr, and we do not need two links to her website. Likewise, the claim that she "Is a Historian, Linguist, Rleigiosu Shcolar, and Archeologist" is not acceptable. FOr three reasons.

1: It is not true academiclaly. SHe works fror no institutions in these capacities, has piblished noa rtilces in LEanred jounals , and is not accpeted int hese feilds. She also holds no degrees in them.

2: Her supporters claim she is all fo the above, base dpn her books. Yet if we attmeot to palce their own logic into the aritlce, ti too is removed. It seems that, ont he tlak page, you cna use anyhtign at all to raitoanlise inclusion of this list. Yet, try to use the same logic int he artilce and it is removed. If the list of he r"Credentials" is to be included, then at leats tlel the rader on what basis she is " A Historian, Linguist, Rleigiosu Shcoalr, and Archeologist."

Her disiples here say she has written two books on religion, this makes her a religoosu schoalr by the dicitonary deifnition. On this basis they seek the inclusion of her as a rleigiosu schoalr int he aritlce. Yet they deny the reader the basus of htis claim. We cnanot tle the reader she is a rleiiosu schoalr bas don writitng two books on religion, because her supporters realise that a causal readr iwll earmark this as not acceptbale gorunds. It slants the aritlce.

3: No other vlaidation of her as any of the above exists. Its solely base don ehr word. We cannto say she is " A self proffessed" the above list, because this makes he rlook bad. But, she is slf proffessed. Acceptign uncritivlaly the claism of the author is biased. Lobo, you may pretend the above verison is " Neutral and unbaised" and will claim I am beign unfair here, but hwo is acpetign blinly wht she calls herself anyhtign btu Bias in her faovur?

Also, omititng life details is poitnless. The aritlc s intitled "Acharya S" not "The Hrist Conspriacy" and is not a cover flap for a book of hers. It shodltn include only a breif bit abot the author and focus onthe books. Its abotu the author, nto the books. Life detials that are knwon shudl be incorporated in the article.

ZAROVE 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Under policy, biographical details should only be included if they can be checked in credible sources. In this case those are relatively scarce. There are difficulties even in inlcuding matters on the Acharya S website (this is mentioned on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). It is quite legitimate to give an idea of the content of the books. But issues arising should clearly be treated on pages such as Jesus-myth. It should be obvious to all here, but Wikipedia articles are in no sense meant to come to any conclusions on contentious issues in the field of religion. Charles Matthews 16:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

-

In checking how other authors were dealt with in Wikipedia, I modeled this version on them. Reference... Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Robert Frost, John Milton, George Bernard Shaw, Carl Sandburg, Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Thurber, Jane Austen etc.

There is no rule that says that a category called "criticisms" has to be created. We have run the gamut on the definitions of

historian, linguist, scholar and archeologist and though throroughly explained numerous times, they have been ignored and rejected. By definition, she is all those things... it is not a valid complaint. If you mean "learned journals" such as in scientific journals then probably not... what sort of "learned journal" would publish any writer on myth? A religious journal? She has had articles published in Exposure, Steamshovel Press, Paranoia magazines to mention a few as well as appearing on tv and radio.

She is an author. The title of the article reflects her name just any other author in Wikipedia. Were she not an author, her name would not be at the top of a Wikipedia article.

69.19.14.22 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 04:40 PM EST

-I am in agreement with you charles, that issues arising from the books should be treated on the Jesus-myth page. Obviously, coming to conclusions on contentious issues thereby are not the forum for wikipedia or it's editors, but for those knowledgeable in the field dialoguing outside wikipedia. When that happens, then they might become articles for inclusion. Biographical details with reliable sources for Acharya are indeed scarce, unless they can be gotten from the author herself to confirm her credential for example.

However, some people will not be satisfied with that, insisting she is not a linguist (differentiated from a linguistic scientist); that she is not a mythologist--though that is the thrust of her whole work with a view that may differ from others in the field; that she is not an archeologist--though she is qualified as working archeologist by virtue of her training, which can be verified; that she is not a religious scholar, though that too is part and parcel of the study of myth as religon and religon as myth. This requires the study of myths, religious texts, and writings of religious figures widely and assiduously, often in their original tongues--not just accepting the translations and interpretations of pioneers in the field.

I am addressing this to you Charles, because Zarove keeps insisting that she is none of the above--at least to his satisfaction. I really don't have any idea what he means by "institution" she should be working for, or what learned journals she should be writing for on this subject. I don't expect you to answer this latter, but since Zarove will read it, perhaps he can answer that. Otherwise, I see few difficulties with making a decent article as you have said.--Skull 22:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of her qualifications, I have pointed out to Zarove in offline emails that there is no reason for the article to comment on any she does not have. It is not the way here, normally, to do that. Charles Matthews 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Lobo: I think what exists at the page presently is not too far off base--double links could be removed. The article on Mae Brussels could be removed, the article on Enochian Laws and the Price criticism. Price could be included as external links and you are being generous to include Tektonics and Licona. I say let them stand as links, with the proviso that answers to their critiques can be found at Truthbeknown. I doubt that Zarove will concede to Acharya's qualifications, even if she produced documents unknown to him (because he can't find them and wouldn't consider them good enough to stand on their own.

In the last archive, he has exhibited his detestation for the author and thus will not likley accept any reasonableness. His mind was and is made up. It appears to be easy for him to put others under great scrutiny and demand standards that he himself could not likely hold up to if he were the subject of the page. So I see very little reasonable concessions from him at all. I will agree with Zarove on this one thing (begrudgingly)---the Origins essay could be removed since it is available at her site. As Charles has said, the criticisms section re: the underlying thesis of the books could be treated at the Jesus-myth page, although the underlying thesis has much more to do than with just that particular religious myth. I don't know if there is a page at wiki for that covers the range of religious mythology that is inclusive of all of them.--Skull 23:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Now to address.

-----Lobo: I think what exists at the page presently is not too far off base--double links could be removed. The article on Mae Brussels could be removed, the article on Enochian Laws and the Price criticism. Price could be included as external links and you are being generous to include Tektonics and Licona. I say let them stand as links, with the proviso that answers to their critiques can be found at Truthbeknown.

In other words, omit all critism, and leave the arile worded in such a way to make her sourd reaosnable. Again, no matter how you word it, thsi is the intent. We need to give the critism, knwon life detials, and an accurate view of her beleifs. Not a slanted aritlce iwht redundant links.And we are nto beoign generus to inlcuse Tektonic and Lucida's mateiral. They are valuable as they speak for ht eoposiiton to her ideas.SOemthigny uo want to rmeove altogather.

I doubt that Zarove will concede to Acharya's qualifications, even if she produced documents unknown to him (because he can't find them and wouldn't consider them good enough to stand on their own.

The only qualificaitosn that have been prodiced thusfar is her Bachelors degree. She has no other or else wshe woudl have trumpeted them. Relaly,y ou may pretend I brag abotu my degrees ( When in fact all I did was answer objectiosn tot hem) But you needn't smear me at all times.

In the last archive, he has exhibited his detestation for the author and thus will not likley accept any reasonableness.

Im sorry, but this is a lie. I have neither shown detestaitonf or the auhtor, nor have U nbeen unreasonable. Of coruse, by reaosnable here you mean agreeign with her, and telling the world she is what she claism to be. It is also reaosnabel in yor midn to call me a Psyhcopath.

ALl I have doen is insist that her views be presented fairly, and not presnted in a way to hide her tru e beleifs. I ahv also insiste don shwoing her critics, and her life, and not lying about her credentials.

His mind was and is made up.

The same can be said of you. In fact more so, since you ignroe facts ot the poitn fo attakcign any who oppsoe your worldveiw.

It appears to be easy for him to put others under great scrutiny and demand standards that he himself could not likely hold up to if he were the subject of the page. So I see very little reasonable concessions from him at all.

This is simply unnessisary personal attack. You have no evidnece that I detest the auhtor, aside form her own hatred of me because I wrote the article and Jame's attakcs on me. And no evidnece that Ivebeen thusfar unreasonable. Need I remind you that yout attakcs on me have proven far worse.

I will agree with Zarove on this one thing (begrudgingly)---the Origins essay could be removed since it is available at her site. As Charles has said, the criticisms section re: the underlying thesis of the books could be treated at the Jesus-myth page, although the underlying thesis has much more to do than with just that particular religious myth. I don't know if there is a page at wiki for that covers the range of religious mythology that is inclusive of all of them.--

Wikipedia vcovers it all, of corue it doesnt show the "DIrect parrallels" beteenthe Pagan myths and CHirndom tat underlie The CHrist COnspiracg,y, as they do not truely exist.

ZAROVE 01:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

-

There is no need to print the criticism if the link for it is provided. Let those interested readers follow the link if they are so inclined. Label them detractors if desired. The article could just as easily outline basic information and provide access to any pro or cons and thus avoid constant bickering. The complaint about input that is felt to be showing Acharya in a positive way because it does not show her in a negative way is unacceptable reasoning.

66.82.9.46 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:16 PM EST

-

Lobo, you misrepresent me again.

1: I did not say that she needed ot e presnte din a negative light. Nor is is true that I say that she is presented in a positiv light simply because its not negative. However, descirbign er as she descibes herself unqueasitonignly is a bias. She shoidl be shown naeutrlaly.

2: That siad, if links are th eonly thing, the casual reader will nto be made aware of the critisms. THis is irresponcoble. THeir shoudl be a basic outlien of critiissm included, unless we omit the topic of her books altogather.

TO be truely fairh, we need to poitn out that she has no real cfrrdentials, and is an amateur.( Self proffessed.) Likewise, we need to shwo that she has been critised.

ZAROVE 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

-

Deja Vu all over again. Pretend you are not you and read what you just wrote. You said... "In other words, omit all critism, and leave the arile worded in such a way to make her sourd reaosnable. Again, no matter how you word it, thsi is the intent." In other words, whatever is said it must jibe with the judgment that it show her in a bad light. You say that "descirbign er as she descibes herself unqueasitonignly is a bias. She shoidl be shown naeutrlaly"... so, neutrality would be negative? Well, in any event, this is shear opinion and by now, now one can mistake the message... no amount of arguing, regardless of how true, is going to lead you to see it any other way. The concern over the "casual reader" is not rightfully a valid concern... this is treating the reader as though a child and is attempting to censor what is put before them. It is amply clear that there is a fear that they might read it in some other manner other than the way it has been prejudged and that there is an obvious attempt to word things in such a way as to insure that judgment is stated in that way rather than allow the reader to form their own opinion on their own.

66.82.9.55 06:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:49 AM EST

-

Disort all you like

What I eman is what Ive said before. Yoru distortions of my intent will not, of coruse, fly. You can twist my words all you like, btu I want ehr ideas rpesented as is. IE, that hse claism CHristantiy is a conspiracy foidned by masons and jews. Not 'She advocates the chirst Myth Hypothatiss" omitign the critical detail that her idea is fringe even for a firnge theory.

By omiting the true extent of her beleifs you attemo to soft sell her, which is, of coruse, the purpose of her disiples preasence here.

As for accusaitosn of censorship, this is laughable. You seek to omit the criticsm ofher, AND what she acutlaly ebelifs. You wish to steer the readers opinion in faovur of accpetign her veiws. If we plac ein her more incredulous ideas, you eill omit them. Her theories will eb reworded ot mirror other CHrist Myters, to onbfusiciuate.

You are censoring any attmeot o show the real extent of her claism.

ZAROVE 02:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

-

I will let the readers of this page make up their own minds. Changing the subject by shifting to another issue? She has not claimed that Christianity Is a conspiracy founded by Masons and Jews. May I point out that Christianity was founded by Jews and to this day use the old testiment (The Tanakh, comprising of The Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim) as it's base... but technically, the Jews of Jerusalem were Arabs. She has an article on it... see: http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm I'm not certain why you are using this as some kind of proof of your reasoning but we have already discussed the Masons. Do quote her as saying it is her belief. If you are truely interested... this site explores all the old Masoic legends: http://www.oelodge.uklinux.net/history.htm

What Acharya has done is gathered all those writings from the past that has questioned or has proposed the theory that religion and especially Christianity is formed from legend, myth and morality stories and put them together in book form. I consider your applying the term "disciple" to me to be an ad hominem. I think on my own and follow no one. I already proposed what I think the article should look like to be NPOV. Since you have repeatedly claimed that this article is not about her ideas and views, why are you now stating that your pklacing them in the article will be removed? Is complaining that your "plac ein her more incredulous ideas" to make her look bad?

66.82.9.54 03:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 10:53 PM EST

-I think Zarove is confusing "Freemasonry" with the ancient mystery schools. Correct Lobo...the Hebrews were but a stream of the same semitic-speaking cultural stream as the Arabs/Bedouins (though over 90% of todays Jews are not Semites, but the descendants of Khazars converted en-masse by edict..ala Constantine by the Kagan Emperor). However, even the bible states that Jerusalem was co-founded by the Hittites (non-semites) and the Amorites (adopting semitic-speach after a very long time period of having lived among them), but described by Eygptians 1200 BC, as white-skinned blue-eyed! Hardly the typical Arab of today.

Which brings me to the meaning of Solomon, which I know it is said to be derived from "shalem(i) for peace, but that is not S-L-M's original meaning--ladder or mount. Moreover, it has etymological roots far older and in different cultures, millenium before the existance of the Israelites and their myth of David and Solomon. Just so Zarove knows, I have the proof of Horus crucified, which if he can't find on his own, I will produce when the time is right..snicker, snicker! I hope he doesn't complain about the this not being the subject matter at hand--which is Acharya...repeat like a mantra. LOL!--Skull 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now now

Lobo, I have been cnsistant. Her vies are to be losted butnot central, andmust be neutelaly listed, and not scewed to make them appear mainstream, as you and her other disiples do aconstant, for you know they will be rejected by a causal readership unless they are doctored.

Skull, you have no such evidence, or else it woudl have been rpesented already. By all means, show it. AGain, this is an encyclopedia. I am nto actgn as an apologist out to discredit Dorothy's ideas ( Regardless of this beign the way you depict me with your compatriots) nor have I even tried to refute her claims. I have merley poitne dout that others do critise her work, and on spacific gorunds. An Enclyclopedia gorws wih informaiton, and is nto threatened. Regardless of yru need ot defend Acharya S and her ideas ( Mainly her ideas) you fail to grasp the basic truth of this contraverzsy on Wikiepdia. I am not here to prove or disproe anything, I am here ot balance the artcle.

Likewise, any evidence you submit itsself will be open to the scrutiny of all editors. Relise this, before posting soem Geocities site or pop-book.

ZAROVE 02:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

- (Somehow, this got deleted)

To my knowledge, no one has posted "soem Geocities site or pop-book." except you. I certainly agree and have noted, on numerous occassions, the repeatition of the same dogma over, and over, and over... ignoring every point made refuting the complaints of those "Geocities and pop book" sites you used to defend and justify beliefs. Tell you what, why not cite a source that is published outside the net? How about a source that is not an apologistically driven? If one were to make the statement that all religion is the result of previous legend, myth and morality stories, what can be said to refute it that is not "doctored" itself? Even the presentation of the bible as a source is an "unverifiable source". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The reader has a mind of their own... an encyclopedia is not the place to gear a presentation in such a manner as to interject belief into its presentation. It is propaganda when information is presented in such a way for the purpose of promoting some cause, dogma, tenent or doctrine. By holding firm to a discription of the content of the book without comment, would be to display a npov. To elaborate by countering the views presented in them would be an effort to influence the reader either in favor or against them. No defense of the books is necessary... a defense is only needed when an attack is mounted against them... thus the debate being promulgated here.

66.82.9.49 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:12 AM EST

-

>nor have I even tried to refute her claims. I am not here to prove or disproe anything

>No actual Ancient Egyptian paparys, rock surfacer, engraving, ect, has ever depicted the god as >Crucified. Their ar eno knon extant Crucificitosn of Horus. Rather real or ficitonal, the body of >texts about Horus we have lacks such an acocunt. >Indeed, their is only oen knwon vaint in which he even dies. And this is not via Crucificiton. >Solomon comes form SHolom, menaing peaceful. I am not here to prove or disproe anything

For a person who is neither attempting to refute, nor prove or disprove anything, you are quite insistent on making pronouncements to the effect that you personally are attempting to disprove by way of refutation, as if you were the expert and final arbiter of what are the facts and what are not, in contradiction of Acharya. You selectively choose what you perceive as article of impeachment by your limited knowledge or arbitrary sources. As you have seen, I have given a different meaning for SOLOMON, than either you or Acharya have given. Mine is just as legitimate as yours or hers. But we are not "experts" are we, nor sophisicated enough to determine who are. Then maybe again you are sophisticated enough, and I am really an expert!

Surley, you must give me more credit than to insinuate I should present evidence for Horus crucified from pop ups or some goofy source. My contribution will come at a price---I am waiting for you and others to hang yourselves some more. If indeed I were deaing with non-biased contributors, with no axes to grind and in the spirit of open and friendly discussion---I would have presented it already. But it is so much more fun to allow the arrogant to make fools of themselves. Perhaps, thereby lessons of humility can be learned. Since that tiddy bitty peice is of so much importance to you and others, as vital to criticism, I await other pronouncements on Horus/Osirus/Harpocrates and their Mother/sister/wife Isis. Meanwhile, see if you can find legitimate sources of criticism from the scientific community on much more than just tiny bits and peices of which is an all encompassing thesis.

Either that, or stick to the subject of Archarya...what do you know about her other than her name (perhaps..wink wink), the general premise of her work, the fact she is a member of a SCHOLAR group that includes Robert Price and numerous others that I recognise as authors and specialists in this field; that she reads, writes and speaks several modern and ancient languages and that she specialises also in the study of mythology and religon from a HISTORICAL perspective.--Skull 07:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusations

Lets see, you and your confederatss distort facts, compalin abotu me and try to get me banned form wikipeida ( By lies and inuendo, I didnt contact any ex lover of Dorothy's, nor did I need ot to get oublic informaiton for my article) anx you distort what is said.

AGain, I am sophisticated enouh to know the root of the word Solomon. I know the Hebrew language. ( Which, in toyour former claim, makes me a "Linguist".)

I knw the History.

Simply put, doothy's "Schlarship" is poor.She is not a scholar, nor a member of a "SCHOLAR group". Shes the member of an Ahtiest apologetics group.Signifigant difference.

Now, rather than hurl accusatiosn and try to silenc eoponants by makign false accusations and claims that hye are baised, try to stay focused. Yoru the one, along wiht your cohorts, who made htis abot her work. Remember? DOnt compalin when what you say is not beleived and incorproared base don yur say so.

ZAROVE 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Havign checked the Hisotyr page, James has doen soem cleanup.Thanks.

ZAROVE 01:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

-

The fact remains that without her works, she would not have an article on her. She is an author of two books so the article is about her works. The complaints listed are due to those books having been published. No case can be made without admitting that without the books... there could be no complaints made of her. Making unsubstantiated comments regarding any aspect of her abilites

is against wiki policy. Personal attacks are frowned upon. Repeating such accusations from biased internet sources that are clearly detractors and certainly not qualified due to fact that they fail to meet wiki requirements for Verifiability... i.e. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."

66.82.9.77 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 03: AM EST

-Zarove-try to stay focussed and refrain from sympathy-tripping. You are your own worst enemy as you contradict yourself repeatedly...often in the very same post! It is put right in front of your face and you deny, deny, deny. Once again, you have shown your bias toward the subject of this article on the person of Acharya and her material thesis, the latter being the only reason for the creation of this page in the first place. Now you KNOW Hebrew! (Where's that online dictionary now?! I need to show how sophisticated I am! LOL!) Well maybe I do too...want to make your next post in Hebrew?

Now you refer to the scholars at CSER, which includes your much vaunted critic Robert Price, as an Atheist "apologetic" group! You read minds now too?! You get more zany as we go on here. You know History. You must be the only Scholar, linguist, historian and well...all round expert of any worth to speak of! This must surely entitle you to your own page, as a notable scholar! While were at it, why don't we just let you write this and all "wiki" articles, since you proclaim yourself to be an unbiased expert on everything! A suggestion: why don't you provide a demonstration of what you would have the article on Acharya look like, as Lobo has done earlier and you rejected (cause you know it all).--Skull 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

TO MY DETRACTORS.

1: you persist in cheap eprsonal attakcs, and do not provide anyhtign of substance other than attacks on me.

2: I know Hebrew. I do not need an online Dictionary, nor to prove to you I knwo it. I also know German and Latin. Both are imaterial except to shwo a point. That knowing other languages doesnt make me call myself a Linguist, and neither is DOorthy Murdock a Linguist.

3: CSER by its own admission si not an accredited Scholarly group, but rather an arm of a Secular Humanist orgenisaiton. It is in existance to support and promote Secular Humanism. This makes it an apologetics roginisaiton, no matter who ar emembers. I can sho you Christain thinktanks that have PH.D's in them as wlel, it doesnt make the htinktanks "Schoalr gorups" any mroe htan CSER.

4: The Detractors have more credentuals that Dorothy, and ar eoftne mroe reputed than she is. SImply clalign them detractors and claimign they shoudlnot be included is a smokescreen to bid for thei removal so you can contorle th einformaiton congent of the aritlc and slant it in favour of Acharya S. ( More accuratly her thesis.) This is unacceptable cnsorship, in which you present only one side. It is also Ironic, since it is the same Tacitc you claim the Ealry Church used to silence the Pagans.

If she is so credible, then allow her critics to present htier argumetns.

5: Thsi artlce is a Biopeice. It is not foudned upon her works. Liekwise, ehr books aren't what mad he rinitially noticable. Her website predates it, and her books grew form it. Iregardless, the text of the aritlce is focuse don Acharya S, not on her books, and shoudl flow form this central topic.

6: I have made no personal attacks against her. I have hwoever attmeoted to shwo the true extent and nature of her beelifs. THese are edite dout whilst her central rpemise ( THat Jeuss didnt eixst) is given a veneer of respectability. The fact remaisn that her ocnclusion is base don poor reseaRHC and bad soruces. This cannot be swept away and is verifiable to anyoen lookign at thse vuanted 1500 footnotes. She even quotes from The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. Another whom I wrote an initial aritlce on. ( SO I do not confine myself to acttakcs on Critics of CHristainity, ntr women, as previosuly accused. I also wrote on Kersey Graves. But in general STick to Dinosaurs.)

All I have doen is tried to include knwon prsonal informaiotn ( Often made availble on her own website.) Or else expalin her beelifs in full. This is not tantamount to eprsonal attack.

7: If you will cease clalign me a Liar, which itsself is unsubstantuated, and cease in your misguided attacks on my charecter, and please acutlaly discuss the arutlce, it wodil be appriciated.

8: I have presented proposal arricle sint he past, and had them rejected as they arent spin.Presentin agauin the same woul be fruitless.

SHalom.

ZAROVE 00:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

-

In response to Zarove:

1. From an objective point of view... if one puts a thing on the table, it is fair game, not personal attack. Crying personal :attack is just as easioly a diversionary tactic. For my part, I have stated on several occassions that if one does not want to to :go somewhere, don't walk the path to it.

2.When one uses their own expertise to validate the disparaging of someone else's, it is expected that those credentials receive :the same scrutiny. A linguist, by definition is: " A person who speaks several languages fluently." If that applies to you, then it :certainly applies to Acahrya rendering your point moot.

3."CSER by its own admission si not an accredited Scholarly group..." ??? Prove it... quote this admission. What I read is: "CSER :examines the claims of Eastern and Western religions and of well-established and newer sects and denominations in the light of :scientific inquiry. The committee is interdisciplinary, and includes specialists in Biblical and Quranic studies, the history of :religion, archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, the social sciences, and philosophy. Its fellows and consultants represent a :variety of secular and religious traditions. While its perspective is broadly humanistic, the Committee values the academic :contributions of critical scholarship regardless of orientation. Its motto, from Seneca, “Ignis aurum probat” (“Fire proves gold”) :suggests the importance assigned to critical method and scholarly debate in its activities."

4. None of the detractors have any More credentials than Acharya... not in the area that she writes about... i.e. mythology. So :this point is totally bogus.

5. This article is not a biography. Not even close. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Her web site was developed from quotations made from the book she was developing... "The Christ Conspiracy" to promote its :impending publishing. The entire site was built on the back of her book. Were it not for the authorship of her books, she would not have had this article made on her. Her website has been in existence for eight years... were this article because of the site, she would have had an article made on her long before now and not After the books were published. What all this means is that a red herring is being offered up to misdirect attention from its real purpose to destroy the credibility of the author to render her thesis invalid.

6. The verifiablity of her thesis lie in reading the books... once done, the reader can draw their own conclusions. But it is :obviously clear that the intent of disparaging the author is to interject a negative view to dissuade the reader from doing so.

66.82.9.89 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:18 PM EST

Tables

I ddn tput my credentials on th table. Jmes did. In an attmeot to disparage me. Muckh Like Skull called me a liar for no reaosn when I said I know Hebrw. Again, I am not considered a linguist fo speakign different languages.

Nor shoudl Acharya S be.

And if she is on that absis, then it shoudl be note din the article she is a linguist base donthis. Just as shes a "Religiosu schoalr" based on writting two books, andnot academic merit.

Her critics have better degrees and have proven mor creidble thna she has, which is not difficult to do or prove of others.

As ro CSER, their site is blatant that they are Secular humanist, and that their mission is to sprad it. See the about seciton on their own website. Likewise, Acharya S is listed as a "Writter", not a Scholar, on their site.Which is not closed to the general publis but is open to anyone who happens ot oppose religiosu beleifs in favour of secular humanism.That is not objective.

Now, if you will excse me, I will await an intellfnt answer.

ZAROVE 04:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually

Every xomment I made was addressed to yoru points. Not meant to disparage.

Either Acharya S shoudl nto be clled a Linguist, Religious Scholar, and Archeologist, and Historian, or else the reasosn fr callign her these htigns shoudl be int he article.

On the tlak page you will use dctionary definitions to defned its inclusion in the article. Yet try to use the same logic you use here int he article, and you yourselves delete it. ( In other words, if I put intot he artlce she is a Historian and rligious shcolar because she written twobooks on rligion, it is omited, in faovu rof the plain " SHe is a rleigiosu schoalr and Historian", wihtout notifyign the reader on what basis she is as she claims.)

Your own bias shows clealry as well. You cliam that peopel who hold to a rleigiosu beleif system and have PH.D's ar eprisoners of fairy tales. Is this not clear evidence of Bias? I hvent claiemd all Athess as stupid, but you certianly are derogetory aboty those hwose beleifs differ dfrom your own.

Now, their is no raosn to withhold the truth abotu Acharya S formt he reader, excpet that it makes her less than she wills herself ot appear. Obfusion s not the policy of Wikipedia.

ZAROVE 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

-

It is not a valid complaint that someone is calling another a liar when they caught in the act. The claim as to degrees and language skills were freely offered in comparison to Acharyas to minimalize her credentials. Anyone wishing to check this out can check back in these archives and read it for themselves. The definition of linguist and scholar stands in refutation aside from any disbelief of it. Whether any critic has "better degrees" is of no merit... what does "better" mean unless spoken in envy? Opinion is cheap especially if meant to denigrate another. CSER overtly states that they are a division of the Council for Secular Humanism and to give an example of how a lie is exposed... they do not state anywhere that it is their mission to spread it. As previously quoted... "While its perspective is broadly humanistic, the Committee values the academic contributions of critical scholarship regardless of orientation" which belies the idea that they cater to those who oppose religious beliefs in favor of secular humanism. That is far more objective than any apologetic religious mission statement. Ok... now my feelings are hurt. I realize the limitations of my intelligence but to publically whip me this way and without repercussion for personal attack... well, I feel the deck is stacked.

69.19.14.23 05:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:43 AM EST

---

Salami...and lots of bologne to go with your whine.

Well you know what they say about Phd's and B.S etc. Many of the most accomplished and brightest people in the world didn't have high academic training (emphasis on training), and just as many academics hardly ever excelled beyond it. How else could one explain Phd's still being prisoners of their belief in fairy tales? Really, this arguement of academic qualifications has little bearing on matters of substance when it comes to "faith". Reggie, you apparently hold the latter in high regard and thereby expose yourself as being impossibly incapable of neutrality.

The long line of claims you have made from the beginning up to this point are self-contradictory and self-denial all the way. Perhaps, your multi-lingualism must be spinning your mind out in a babel of languages and voices confusing yourself. You have muckraked and lied your way through this whole thing and then whine like a child when you are exposed. I can see, that as long as this article on Acharya is here, it will never be reasonably safe from vandals of your kind. So if this article gets deleted, it will take the attention off you at this site and the wind out of your egos. --Skull 09:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: CSD G3: "Pure vandalism; this includes redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism." If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself.

Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deleting.

Actually

I only address the poitns made by her disiples, El Lobo and Skull and James. You poitn to her degrees, then say pthers arnt qualified to act as Critics. This is simply not true. Nor do her academic records indicate she is a scholar.

My poitn was nto to disparage, but to make a point about how you woidl laugh at me for making suhc agrandious claims abotu myself base don what I have.

For instance, she bills herslef as " A Historian, Linguist, Religiosu Shcolar, and Archeologist." Tghis is include dnt he artcle without queasiton. In the tlak page, her disiples claim she is all these thigns base donth fact that she has written tow boosk on rleigion and Hisotry. Yet, include this basis intot he aritlce itsself, the very arguemtn used by her disiples as a reaosn for inclusion, and it is omited. You do not wan thte casual reader to be aware of the bais for her claims to such a list of creentials, rather, you seek to hid the reasonign for gh claims, and use them only to impose your will on the aritlce and enhance her appearance befor the world. Obfusiating the isue seems to be a common tactic.

Likewise, Rene, you are Biased againt religious beleifs and htose who hodl; them. Syagn I am Biased is a poorly thoguth out argument. You claim tnat those who hodl PH.D's and yet hod to rleigiosu beleifs are imprisoned by Fairy Tales. This, soemohe, makes you impartial? Woudl this not colour your view of thre aritlce and render you more prone ot ignoring and rmeovign opinions of those who hodl rleigiosu beleifs? Thus, you are in Violation fo Neutrlaity, whereas I have never lashe dout agaisnt Atheist as a whole, or anyone of another faith.

Yoru Bias is clear. They must agree with your worldview or they are nto relevant. Thus you impose your own rleigiosu beelifs upon WIkipedia.

Now, I have not lied. Nor do I hear voices. Personal assaults on my CHarecter ar ein Violation fo Wikipedia policy and ar ento prodictive ot the aritlce at hand.

ZAROVE 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

-

The "Christ Conspiracy" is a book... her web site was developed to promote that book. On her site, the book is promoted thus...

"In this highly controversial and explosive book, archaeologist, historian, mythologist and linguist Acharya S marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence to demonstrate that Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion. In making such a fabrication, this multinational cabal drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era, and reworked them for centuries into the story and religion passed down today." http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

When it is claimed that "she bills herself" as "A Historian, Linguist, Religious Scholar, and Archeologist."... this is a distortion. What is being disclaimed is what someone else has said without so much as a reference to its origins. In fact, the article itself quotes the same thing from Paranoia magazine. As stated and ignored... the definitions of historian, linguist, scholar and archeologist belie the personal opinion and belief that they are invalid. It has been shown, without any evidence to the contrary, (except for this disbelief) that they are legitimate and apply. The constant denial on this and other points is the primary reason why this article should be a candidate for deletion. There is no way it can receive an impartial, neutral point of view.

Wikipedia states as policy that... "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas." There is an inherent conflict between believers who claim to have the one and only way and the rest of the world. Since this article stands in opposition to such beliefs... it can never receive an unbiased review. It needs to be removed from Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia, NPOV...

"Religion

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.

An important note on using the term "fundamentalism". Please see the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is often used in articles on religion, but should only be used in one of its technical senses. We should take care to explain what we mean by this term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (most people being unaware of how this word should be used.) We should not use this term as a pejorative phrase, and should remember that it is not a synonym for "opposition to science" nor "deeply held beliefs" and it should not be used to refer to religion or political conservatism when those do not meet the word's technical senses. As religion is a controversial topic, be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV

Due to these considerations... remove this article from Wikipedia.

69.19.14.28 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:32 PM EST

- Well Reginald, you just couldn't refrain from whining again. For your information, I am not anti-religon. I am against lies and fraud--one-sided brainwashings that are institutionalised. I am not an Athiest either...I consider that just as much to be a belief. I am only interested in what I can know and what can scientifically be proven and verifiable by everyone, or experienced as a personal revelation. Religious dogma for every sectarian "believer" is readily available at Wiki and eslewhere quite abundantly. I have much more reason to be neutral than you, as I am defending a minority view, while you are representing the bastion of "belief-systems".

However, this is irrelevant now....I am asking the admins. to have this article deleted, because as you can see each side claims the other is "biased" and that is true indeed. The point being that for the majority visitors at this site, it has been against allowing a counterview to be unmolested with unfair downright fraudulent edits and malicious claims intended to balance the article in favor of maligning, defaming, ridiculing etc. the character and reputation of the author and her thesis without shame. In particular, the creator of this page did so with that intent in mind despite his silly imposture to the contrary. Admins.---instead of leaving this page locked up, I request that it be deleted ( I am finding it to be a maze to figure out how to make this request officially on my own. Would be grateful if someone could do the speedy deletion--this discussion page is going nowhere and unlocking it will only allow the continual obstinate refusal of certain characters to refrain from debasing it).--Skull 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So

You ignore hte actual points made to take further potshots at me.

Again, if the aitcle calls her an Archeologist, rleigiosu shcolar, ect... based on her written books, it shoidl also include the absis of these claims. They ar ento base don Academic merit, and his shoudl be mentioend.

I dont relaly see how this makes me NPOV or malignant towards her.

Likewise, I am not defendign any beleif system. DIspite the oft-toted claim, I am not here as an apologist, and my personal veiws are not truely motivaitonal to this article. This is a lie on your part. ( Much liek your acusation of me beign a liar is a lie on your pat, to defame me and create an environemtn hostile to me to silence me.)

I have been fair and balanced int he article at hand. You only say otherwise because you are supportign your position, not objectively giving facts.

Whereas I am accused of defendign a worldview, you cannot show me to have doen so.On the other hand, you clealry defend a worldview and amdit to it,. You claim you are capable of objectivity because yours is a Minority view. THis does not, however, render you Neutral in assessig facts. It is a Nonsequitor.

ZAROVE 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

-

For the umpteemth time, Acharya is an archeologist by the definition of the word, she is a historian by the definition of the word, she is a scholar by the definition of the word, she is a lnguist by the definition of the word. Over and over and over... we run this circle. As has been said previously, it simply cannot be allowed that the tactic of ignoring a fact go unchallenged. Not "defending a belief system"? The fact that the major complaints listed are from avowed Christian apologist sites and the defense mounted in their favor, demostrates the deceptiveness of such a statement. When bias sees itself in the mirror, it sees itself as normal. There are none so blind as those who will not see. No lie is quite so complete as the one believed.

66.82.9.61 07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 02:01 AM EST

FOR THE LAST TIEM i HOPE.

:For the umpteemth time, Acharya is an archeologist by the definition of the word, she is a historian by the definition of the word, she is a scholar by the definition of the word, she is a lnguist by the definition of the word.

But can we include the reasosn for her claims ot such thigns int he aritlce? No, its omite dby her disiples. If, for isnatcne, i say she is a rleigiosu scholar because she has written two book on rleigion, and it is not base don Academic merit, the fact is removed form the aritlce. So, claimign " She is a rleigiosu schoalr by the deifnition fo thw word" is moot. The basis of her claim of beign a rleigiosu scholar is not permited int eh aritlce. On the tlak page you use it to foce the ridiculosu claim base don an absurd stretch form a dictionary definiton int he artile, but will nto allow the reasosn why in it. The way you woudl ahve it worded, the causal reader will think she has actual academic qualificaiton, which she lacks.

Again, if you wan tto play that game, and say shes a Rleigiosu schoalr, by dfinition fo the term, a Linguist, by definition fot he term, an Archeologist, by deifnition fo the term, and a Historian, by definiton fo the term, I need to remidn you that you wont allow us to put int eh artcle that she is these thigns only by the dfiniton fo the term.

Again, if the list goe sin, so does the bais of the claim. If you want ot tote her as an archeologist, the reader shoudl be aware that she is an archeologist not on the merit of accredited dgree or work fo an institute, but because she did undergrad word in a trench. THey shoidl be made aware htat she si a linguist not because she works extensivley for any orginisaiton in linuitics, but because she happens to be multilingual. ( So am I, so I am a linguist.)

The resder needs to be aware that she is a Hisotrian and rleigiosu schlar because she write two books. N ot because she works for any known University, Museum, or institute, and not on the basis of academic merit.

In case I am not beogn clear, if you want the list fo what she pretends to be to be included base don the dictionary definiton ( WHich in both rligiosu choalr and Hisotiran she fails) then it shodl also be include dint he aritlce that she is these htigns because of a dicitonary deifnition, an dnot because she earned any merit int hese feilds by proffesisonals.

Over and over and over... we run this circle.

Only because you will not allow the basis of her claim in the article. You want the reader to rad that she is an Archeologist, rleigiosu schoalr, lingist, and Hisotirn. You do not want the reader ot be made aware of the basis ofor her beign these htigns beause you yourself relaise that its a poor basis.

As has been said previously, it simply cannot be allowed that the tactic of ignoring a fact go unchallenged.

You are th eone ignorign the fact that caling her the list above, and removign the absis ofr the claims you yourself list formt he arilce, is obfuciation. Again, why not tell the teader of the aritlce she is the list above, but then tell them she is the abive base don writtign tow books and undergrad work?

Not "defending a belief system"? The fact that the major complaints listed are from avowed Christian apologist sites and the defense mounted in their favor, demostrates the deceptiveness of such a statement.

No it doesn't. You presume that including a CHristain take on her work is tantamout to bias? She makes er livign by trashign CHristainity.

Logiclaly she shoudl dealwith Critism form Christains, which si needful for the aritlce.

When bias sees itself in the mirror, it sees itself as normal. There are none so blind as those who will not see. No lie is quite so complete as the one believed.

AGain, answer the follwoign queasitons.

1: If tshe is an Archeologist, by deifniion fot he term, why are you afriad of tellign the reader of the aritcle she is an Archeologist because she went on undergrad researhc in GReece? Why must this be omited?

2: If she is a Historian, by deifnition fo the term, and you ar econfedent of this enough to inssit she be called htis, why do you remove form the article the reason for this claim you yourself use int he tlak page? WHy not tell the treader she is a Historian because she has written a book that soemwhat invovles Hisotry? And not ot he basis of Acadmeic merit?

3: If she is a rleigiosu schoalr, by deifnition fo the term, so that this shoudl be said int he aritlce qithotu queasiton, why shoudl you remove from the artilce the BASIS for this claim? WHy not tell the treader that she has no degre in the feild of THeology and has no publicaiton Hisotury in leanred Journal, ect, and se is a rleigiosu schoalr because of her two books?

4: If you say she is a Linguist by deifnition fo the term, why not tell the reader she is a Linguist based on beign Mulilingual?

5: If Acharya S makes a living defamign CHristainity, why si it Bias to include Christin repsonces?

6: Christains arent the only oens critising her, why say they are?

ZAROVE 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Reginald is easily shown to be a liar. ("If you will cease clalign me a Liar, which itsself is unsubstantuated, and cease in your misguided attacks on my charecter, and please acutlaly discuss the arutlce, it wodil be appriciated.")

In the first place, he claimed repeatedly that A.S is not a member of the American School of Classical Studies. He was shown to be wrong - in other words, a liar - but he never acknowledged that fact. Secondly, he claimed that A.S. was never recognized by any scholar, which is a lie.

Thirdly, continuing to disparate her language skills - which by dictionary definition makes her a linguist - is a lie. Being merely multilingual doesn't make one a linguist unless that is applied in a field of professional field of study that requires it and of course in the study of language origins and affinities itself.

Fourthly, on James's page he says A.S. had "poor grades" - a complete and total lie. One does not get into the American School of Classical Studies with "poor grades." Nor does one get into Franklin & Marshall College with "poor grades." A.S. had excellent grades throughout her entire schooling, so I really resent these defamatory remarks.

Saying that Acharya is not a scholar and that her books constitute "poor scholarship" is also a lie. Suns of God could in no way be considered "poor scholarship." By whose opinion? His? Who is nut job?! Speaks for itself.

Saying that Acharya S has a "criminal past" is an utter lie - entirely libelous - for which he could easily be sued.

Insinuating that her "court record" is something other than a restraining order based on a psychotic person beating her is a LIE.

Holding and Licona should be required to present their academic qualifications within or without their specifical Christian training and to produce published works that are specifically geared toward refutation of the Christ Myth or the view represented by Acharya. Also, Holding in particular, should have a link to the challenge in dialogue made with Infidel Guys as to his background and failure to take up the challenge, so the reader can see what kind of "detractor" or critic this fellow claims to be.

My request for deletion has been turned down--apparently there is a time limit--so many rules and procedures, a time consuming effort to wade through the maze. My faith in this kind of public created encyclopaedia is greatly diminished for many reasons--a failure and a trap its seems. Many veteran Wikans have said so too, and as other subjects of Wiki are aware also (I have seen the hatchet jobs on others considered outside mainstream). So be it.--Skull 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

-

Zarove...

No one has the power to read minds? How else would one divine someone's reasons for anything? The fact that anyone would feel they know what another persons reasons for doing or saying a thing would make their testimony more than just a little bit dubious. Acharya has written two books comparing ancient mythology with religious dogma and explained how that has been worked into 2000 years of doctrine. A scholar is "A learned person; A specialist in a given branch of knowledge" (such as a classical or religious scholar). Who decides this "academic merit"? What criteria is used to make such a decision? As you were told previously, she has not made the claim to religious scholar, it was made for her. Again, you ignore what has been proven. The dictionary is the dictionary, it is the foundation of common understanding... to disparage it only points to the typically superior

attitude of the believer who has all the answers he will ever need. She has more than just academic qualifications... she has the research to prove it.

The only game in town is the one already put into the works... of which I am a latecomer. If you want to say that she is these things by virtue of dictionary definition, without further qualification, then be my guest. I would like point out that the first entry of these were first seen when you created this article... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acharya_S&oldid=12424319

What bias? Without adequate evidence, it is not bias. Your say so and your disagreement with the dictionary does not qualify as proof otherwise. The definition is clear.

The reader needs to be made aware of the fact of the two books having been written, by whom and presented with a description of what the books are about. You cannot judge a person by what they are not... making such statements as "N ot because she works for any known University, Museum, or institute, and not on the basis of academic merit" is intellectually immature.

She only fails as a religious scholar and historian in your mind... and that is just not good enough.

I will not allow fallacious opinion to be the gauge by which an article is judged. The reader can make up their own minds as to such judgments after they have read the books, they do not need the likes of you and I to make those determinations for them.

Thank you for that choice of words... to obfuscate is to make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand; to render indistinct or dim; to darken. That is a perfect description of the input that you suggest.

It is not a presumption when they call themselves apologists... "Apologetics is the study and practice of the intellectual defense of a belief system. An apologist is someone "who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution."... (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary). Bias is "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"... nothing describes faith any better. And, again, thank you for pointing out the obvious... logically, she does deal with the criticism from Christians, she does so in her books, read them.

1. Because there is no need. Your insistence on some shadow criteria that you have invented in your mind does not warrant consideration... an archeologist is someone who has participated in the systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery.

Your opinion that the definition is inadequate due to some perceived requirement of your own making has no place in the article. Let the reader make their own judgment.

2. I have defended the adulteration of the term... the fact that she has written the books is its own justification. Let the reader make their own judgment.

3. You cannot make a judgment by what you believe a person is not.

4. Since that is the definition of being a linguist, it is a moot point.

5. She does not defame Christianity... that is your interpretation of what her books do. To defame is to damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel. That requires evidence. To say so without proof is indeed bias.

6. The books show how all religion is the result of legend, myth, and morality stories... such is the fate of superstition that it fails in the light of knowledge.

69.19.14.27 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 4:04 PM EST

Skull.An address abotu my purported lies.

Reginald is easily shown to be a liar. ("If you will cease clalign me a Liar, which itsself is unsubstantuated, and cease in your misguided attacks on my charecter, and please acutlaly discuss the arutlce, it wodil be appriciated.")

Still defamign me and not discussing hthe article.

In the first place, he claimed repeatedly that A.S is not a member of the American School of Classical Studies. He was shown to be wrong - in other words, a liar - but he never acknowledged that fact.

Actually I said I foudn no record of her membership, and when membershiop was shown I did acknowledge it and did allow it in the article.

Secondly, he claimed that A.S. was never recognized by any scholar, which is a lie.

Tehcniclaly I said no academic instetute recognised her owrk. Which is true. Thirdly, continuing to disparate her language skills -

I never disparaged her language skills.

which by dictionary definition makes her a linguist - is a lie.

Bringign this poitn up, when will we twll the world that she is a linguist by the dictioanry deifnition, but lacks acredition or work in this feild?

Being merely multilingual doesn't make one a linguist unless that is applied in a field of professional field of study that requires it and of course in the study of language origins and affinities itself.

If this is the case, then Dorothy Murdock is not a Linguist. HS doesnt work int he field of language origins or affinities itsself. SHe simply quotes others, which doesnt constitute origional work.

Fourthly, on James's page he says A.S. had "poor grades" - a complete and total lie.

Not relaly. Her grades whee poor on a few courses and average in a few. She excelled in a few as well, but not as many as whee average.

One does not get into the American School of Classical Studies with "poor grades." Nor does one get into Franklin & Marshall College with "poor grades." A.S. had excellent grades throughout her entire schooling, so I really resent these defamatory remarks.

Saying that Acharya am is not a scholar and that her books constitute "poor scholarship" is also a lie.

No its not. She hasno academic qualificatiosn, has no publised work in learned jorunals, and is not recongised in any knon acadmeic feild. Liekwise, her books are published by a fringe conspiracy Publiher.

Suns of God could in no way be considered "poor scholarship." By whose opinion? His? Who is he? Speaks for itself.

The book is a regurgetation of her claism in the CHrist CPnspriuacy, and isnt even origional work. Its only a book that documents other peoesl claims, suh as Barbara Wlaker. It has no origional contentand lakcs any validity of soruce material.

This makes it poor Schoalrhsip. ( Relaly its cheap fodder for a conspriacy press, but thats not th issue.)

Saying that Acharya S has a "criminal past" is an utter lie - entirely libelous - for which he could easily be sued.

She had soemebt issues in her past, as well as kown affiliation with other nefariosu sorts. Ill keep it vested unless I need to publish my article online to serve as a soruce for htis wikipedia article.

Ive given enough berth.

Insinuating that her "court record" is something other than a restraining order based on a psychotic person beating her is a LIE.

At leats accoridng ot her. Not the coruts.

She herself has minor criminal incedents. Inlcuding soem debt issues.

Holding and Licona should be required to present their academic qualifications within or without their specifical Christian training and to produce published works that are specifically geared toward refutation of the Christ Myth or the view represented by Acharya.

They do. Holding has a Masters in Library Sicnece and Licidia is owrkign on a degree in the fild of Theology I beelive. ( COrrect me if I am wrong.)

Likewise, the Degrees they hodl are comparable to Dorothy's in that noen are related tot he fields she tries to rpesent herself an expert in. Theology and Histry.

She has a Bachelors degree in Classics. My own Masters in Journalism trumps her.

Also, Holding in particular, should have a link to the challenge in dialogue made with Infidel Guys as to his background and failure to take up the challenge, so the reader can see what kind of "detractor" or critic this fellow claims to be.

That makes no sence in context o this artilce. Infidel Guy is not rellay beign discussed, nor is Tekton Ministires. They ar eincluded to balance the article. Include the link in Holdign sown artilce. ( Just as the E-Exchange with Dorothy and King David needs ot be included here.)

Relaly, this is pointless.

My request for deletion has been turned down--apparently there is a time limit--so many rules and procedures, a time consuming effort to wade through the maze. My faith in this kind of public created encyclopaedia is greatly diminished for many reasons--a failure and a trap its seems. Many veteran Wikans have said so too, and as other subjects of Wiki are aware also (I have seen the hatchet jobs on others considered outside

In shot, you cant get your way so you pout.

ZAROVE 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

+Now, Lobos turn.==

No one has the power to read minds? How else would one divine someone's reasons for anything?

It fairly apparnet here. And letsnto forget hopw many times you have claimed my motives for my preasence here.

Hypocracy is te Norm I suppose for an Acharyite.

The fact that anyone would feel they know what another persons reasons for doing or saying a thing would make their testimony more than just a little bit dubious.

Yet you dothis to me all the itme. And again, your reaosnign is obvious.

Acharya has written two books comparing ancient mythology with religious dogma and explained how that has been worked into 2000 years of doctrine.

That is oen way of puttign it. Here is another. SHe culled quotes that agreed with what she wanted ot rpesent to the world, and wrote two vitorolic books ro attackl Christianity with an uttely nonsensical conspriacy theory.

A scholar is "A learned person; A specialist in a given branch of knowledge" (such as a classical or religious scholar).

SHe has shown herself incompetant in the field of Hisotry and the field of rleigiosu stidies.I sincerley wish you coudl see that. Alas, you dotn want to.

Who decides this "academic merit"? What criteria is used to make such a decision?

If its so unimportant to you, why dont you allow the reader to be made awae of the true nature of her eexpertese? Again, the queasiton si this. If we are to accept your lien of reaosnign and conclude hse is , indeed, a rleigiosu scholar, and htus includethe claim in the article, why cant we also include in the article the basis for the claim?

1. Because there is no need. Your insistence on some shadow criteria that you have invented in your mind does not warrant consideration... an archeologist is someone who has participated in the systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery. Your opinion that the definition is inadequate due to some perceived requirement of your own making has no place in the article. Let the reader make their own judgment.

Their is need. We need to tell the reader she is not an Archeologist because she works as one, or works for an institute, or has a degree int eh feild. We need ot tell them she is an Archeologist because she helped in a Trench in Greece.

This is the reaosn she is "An archeologist" is it not? Her "Expeirnce" in the fueld? Why is htis unimportant?

Because youy rpefer the reader to think she soemhow has mroe claim on the title than this.

2. I have defended the adulteration of the term... the fact that she has written the books is its own justification. Let the reader make their own judgment.

The poiutb you overlook is this. If we are to call her a rleigiosu scholar, base dont he fact that she has written two books, why cant we also tell the reader that she is a relgiiosu schoalr because she has written tow books?

AGain, assumign we accept that she is a rleigiosu schoalr base don your abuse of the dicitonary definition, why is it wrogn to tell; the reader of the artcile that she is a rleigiosu schoalr on the absis of her writtings, and not base don degrees she has earned? You ignore his queasiton, which is at the heart fo the matter.

You simply do not want the reader to be aware of why she is a schoalr, just hta she is one.

3. You cannot make a judgment by what you believe a person is not.

You do it all the time. Abd agin, all I want ot do is inclue int eh article the basi of her claims. IE, if we accept her as a Lingist, we need ot tlel th reader hsd didnt relaly do anyhtign to win this claim buyt learn adiditonal languages besides English.

Or, if we call ehr a rleigiosu shcoalr, because the dicitonary calls oen a leafned peson who specialises in a field, then lets tell them what she has doen to earn her the tirle of schoalr. Namely, tlel them she is a rleigious shcoalr because she has written tow books.

FOllowign the logic yet?

4. Since that is the definition of being a linguist, it is a moot point.

No its not. The poitn is this. If we accept the definition that you impsoe on it, and htus include the claim in he aritlce, we also must include why she is a Lingist.

5. She does not defame Christianity... that is your interpretation of what her books do. To defame is to damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel. That requires evidence. To say so without proof is indeed bias.

Her website alone is proof. Hwer books also constitute proof. The Venhom she spews is aparent to anyoen who objectily lookat it.

6. The books show how all religion is the result of legend, myth, and morality stories... such is the fate of superstition that it fails in the light of knowledge.

Actually they extensicley quote outdated, biased, and innacurate soruces that happen to agree with her, or else are orced ot agre with her when she distorts the quotes or removes them form context. She shows nothing.

And I didnt stalk her or commit cfiminal activity. Neither did I contact her esstwhiel Ex Lover. Bakc when I was a rpeorter I did a basic Criminal Backgorudn search. SO go ahead, call the fed son me. hen we shall have fun expalinign why you bothered. I can hen countersue for harrassment. ( Yes, threatenign me with legal action si OK, btu me doign the same will eb seen as poor form, I know.)

ZAROVE 04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

-

<>Apparent? Show me... making an accusation without reference is just so much hot air. I have never claimed anything about your motives... quote me. Hypocracy indeed and name calling won't change it. Acharya-ite indeed.

I do not do this this to you all the time... again, show me where I have stated what your reasons for doing or saying a thing. Making accusations without substantiation is just a cheap propaganda ruse.

What Acharya has done is culled 5000 years of legend, myth and superstition and compared them to religion... all religion, to show how it is the foundation of religious belief. The examination of Judiaism, its predeliction for a messiah and hence the developement of Christianity and Islam and shown them to be born out of legend, myth and superstition. By referencing the 1500 or so works of others, she makes a case for the thesis that is impossible t escape.

Without reference, accusation is the resort of those who have none themselves. She has not shown herself to incompetant in the field of history or religious studies... but she has exposed the ignorance of those who engage in blind belief.

I say do let the reader be the judge... without the interjection of prejudice or bias to influence them by you or I. Let them read the books and make their own determination as to their merits, truth and logic. Any effort to dissuade the reader from reading the book is promoting your udgment of them. You are the one claiming that she is not an archeologist. You are the one disclaiming the definition unfit, not I. That she has worked in the trenchs is exactly why she is an archeologist. Read the definition: an archeologist is someone who has participated in the systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery.

The fact is... her experience in the field was so noted as of December of 2005 where it stated: "She has field archaeology experience in Athens and Crete"

Being an archeologist is not a title, it is a description of what someone does or has done.

I am not overlooking anything... the proof is in the pudding. The definition of a scholar precisely fits her because of her having written the books. That the books are about religion and myth makes her a scholar of both. I have never made a judgment based on what a person is not. Quote me where I have done so. These wild accusations you throw out there without any reference or quote are red herrings to divert attention away from the lack of any evidence otherwise. A linguist is: "A person who speaks several languages fluently." A specialist in linguistics studies "the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics." She is a linguist by definition. <>A scholar, be it religious, political or otherwise, is a description of what one does or has done... it is not a title. A scholar is a learned person who has studied a field of knowledge and gained a mastery of it.

What are you talking about? As stated, the definiton of a linguist is a person who speaks several languages fluently. Since she does, she is a linguist. Why would you want to define its meaning as though some kind of disqualifier? If you did that for everyone of your points, you would have 15 pages of garbage. <> To defame has its definition. You chose the word, not I. The key words here is slander and libel... and that accusation requires proof. Your interpretation of venom is how you see it, others may see it entirely different.

It is your call that the sources used in the books are outdated, biased and inaccurate... such conjecture is mere opinion and has no relevancy.

And I didnt stalk her or commit cfiminal activity. Neither did I contact her esstwhiel Ex Lover. Bakc when I was a rpeorter I did a basic Criminal Backgorudn search. SO go ahead, call the fed son me. hen we shall have fun expalinign why you bothered. I can hen countersue for harrassment. ( Yes, threatenign me with legal action si OK, btu me doign the same will eb seen as poor form, I know.)

I have never said you stalked anyone or committed criminal activity... accusing me of having said this constitutes what crime?

I have no idea as to whether you had any first or second party contact with her ex-lover... but in any event, a basic, non police computer criminal background check reveals felonies, not credit card debts, social services adjudications, misdomeanors, parking tickets, jaywalking, restraining orders against others or the like. Only 10-20 percent of all court records are available online. In order to obtain such information, you have to go to the courthouse where the action took place and look them up manually in the public records and at that, you have to know pertinent information... i.e. names, dates, and which court the action took place in. In general, arrest records are not public; only convictions are public-record.

Do share with us what you think you know. As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

69.19.14.23 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:35 AM EST

QUotake

I need not quote you, the archives are fille diwht such.

As to Dorothy, she has not culled 5000 years of anyhting. Her earliest soruces are 17th century.

SHe extensivley quotes other authors that suppor her particular worldiew. This is harldy impressive.

As to lettign the reader be the judge, this is what I am tryign to do. You, hwoever, seek to make the detemrianiton for htem. You refuse to allow the basis of her cliam ofbeign a rleigiosu shoalr, arhceologist lingist, and hisotiran in he artilce, instead, you seek to call her all these thigns, and thus tell the reader hse is all of the above, withotu tellign them how she came tobe them. Thus the reader iwll be lead toconclude hse is. And you will defend thus by using a dicitonary deifntion.

EVen syaubf se is he above list, byt not base dona cadmeic merit, is to allowed. Rather, you choose to remove all reference o her claim to these titles, simply because you know no one will take her seriosuly if yiu leave hen in.

You also seek to minimalise or remove those who critise her work.

Yiu seek to whitewash her exaxt claims.

You will nto allow critical examinaiton of her own works, or other ideas.

This is makign the readers midn up for them. Not inlcuding the basis of her cliams and true nature of them.

ZAROVE 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

>>>Well done Lobo. You have a lot of patience, and present your arguements well. I of course, have little patience and no respect for Reginald, who I maintain is a muckraking liar. I do consider the very notion of "checking someone's" background and continual efforts to denigrate a person they do not know--to persist in this behaviour---as a stalker. The insistence of twisting, distorting, attempting to belittle ad infinitum on the part of this person are actions of one who has an agenda that is unwholesome by normal human standards of civility and constitutes a deviant and possibly dangerous mind with a vendetta.

I have absolutely no regrets in saying this, as I have observed the ongoing discussion at this page and reviewed the archives. The defense of being an alleged "journalist" doesn't hold water either. Anyone can make pretense as to who they are and what they do, but they can't hide their thinking and behaviour as expressed, nor would it grant immunity from ethical, moral and legal standards. Reginald has assaulted her character, by making claims out of whole cloth then making excuses later--which is typical of deviant minds. No one, not Acharya, or anyone else should be subject to this kind of anonymous behaviour on a public venue, intruding upon their privacy without consent. Does Wikipedia want to continue to be used this way? We shall see.

My only statement specific to the author's thesis concerns the pretense by editors and "critics" about the "outdatable" sources used by Acharya is that this includes the dinosaurs who were the leaders of Churchianity from its infancy in their attempts to refute, explain away, or even downright admit what should be known today. The fact the thesis is about subjects, which are themselves dinosaurs necessitates referencing those elements still surviving from the dinosaur age, when it should have been clearer--and such clarity should have continued down through the ages unbesmirched if "truthful history" of such important and divinely-ordained institutions were indeed representative of literal historical truths from by/about one god or another. However, "CLARITY" of mind evades the deviant(corrupt) and the wilfully blind (as it does those who get Personal in the defense-by-attack the messenger mode of many intiating seemingly harmless biographies or collective-editing of Page articles in what deems to be an encyclopaedia---that's a farce!).

Zarove/Reginald or whatever your name is, you can use any kind of convoluted "logic" that you will to explain away your actions, but you are not fooling anyone with a brain.--Skull 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

-

False accusations are just another way of making personal attacks. Since you cannot quote any instance where I have ever mentioned your motives. You've been caught again.

Her earliest sources are from teh 17th century? How old is Judaism? The Torah? The Egyptian dynasties? Greek and Roman history and myth? Why do you make such outlndish claims.

Any time an author makes a reference, it is in quotes. Making the statement that they support their worldview is entirely untrue, she often quotes the suppositions of other authors and then comments on the differing views of them.

It is clear that your input is designed to dissuade the reader from ever reading the books. I determine nothing if all I do is tell the reader what the books are about. After that, if they are so inclined, they can read them or not. I didn't put those terms into the article, you did. The question is... why? The effect of which is to discredit the author and in making her look bad to influence the reader. To repeat, and again ignored by you, these are not titles, they are terms describing what a person has done or is doing.

Acedemic merit? What's that? That is so ambiguous a claim as to qualify as nonsense.

I challenge those detractors who mislead, are dishonest, biased and prejudiced. I do not do it by minimalizing them.

I never whitewash anything. Show me where it is so.

Be as critical as you plaese... but where you are in error, biased, or prejudiced, expect to be challenged.

66.82.9.85 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:32 PM EST

Tpthem all.

Skull, your personal attakcs on my lakc of CHarecter are simply abomianable. Yo contiue to say I am fixated on Acharya S and have a vendetta. But you seem obsessed with discreditign me and anyoen else who doesnt flal in to my line. Seriosuly you dont even address any vlaid points that I dont hve.I wrot an article on her, which I was assigne dot write form an edotir. I didnt volunteer for it. I had not hear do her tilL I wrote the article either. Seriously, your accusaitosn are taht I lie are hrtful and abusice to me. I dnt do thid to anyone evr. Why you do thiis to me you scumbag Skull?

EL Lobo, I wa snot cauhgt. I simply donto wan tot go bakc over the archives and ifnd quortes form you to show what lies i have done. And you have doen as I said, the evidence is avialble to any who wish tosee it.

Also, to both you and El Lobo, the CHruch Fathers are not direclty QUoted in the CHrist Conspiacy, she quotes others who quote them. THey ar epresented in no docntext and present  real understandign fo the acutal body of Ealry CHruch writtings of which Ihave none mself.

Acadmeic standards ar eunderstood as peer review and accpetanc ein eh larger Acadmeic community. HEr books ar enot Subjec tot Peerr review and are popular press available. She has not addressed Critics formally in an open Acadmeic setting ( HEr website doesnt cont as an acadmeic setting) and has presented no acutal new Data.( HEr boosk uote others extnesivly and she presents no self-origionatign case.)in my omnicseint oponion,

Now, rathe rhtan tarnish mY lack of Charetcer as a liar, let us focus on the abasing the arther.

ZAROVE 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

-

You were caught... any good journalist would be fully accustomed to researching whatever he put in print before he commits it to any media. He would understand that the first rule is to cya because anyone even half way good at debate is going to challenge whatever he says that is unreferenced.

She quotes the bible in both books extensively. To name a few... the archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Saint Athanasius, Saint Augustine et al. Naturally, she would quote the published works of others who quote them... that's what a good researcher and scholar does. It is by virtue of the various interpretations of experts that an author authenticates their facts, logic and premise.

Do name one academic mythology peer. This is a bogus complaint. Her books are most certainly subject to peer review... they are published and therefore are available to any review. According to Wikipedia, internet sources are not to be relied upon, including wikipedia itself as witnessed by the recent troubles and law suits it has experienced which, I might add, includes teh sorry mess this article is in.

A liar by deed is a liar indeed. But, like crime, it is true that you have to get caught for it to be so.

66.82.9.73 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:20 PM EST

Not this again.

Lobo, I waant caight. I am just not wastign time on a side issue abotu hwo I want ot make htis abotu me.

Her books are NOT be neded to subjec tot Peer review. The term doesnt mean "Published and accessable", it means submitted for actual review by teh public. Any atemto at revieiwng it othe than "Yeah, shes great" will be met with venhomous attakcs by myslef agaisnt the author. No acadmeic press has been required, so no departments have been made aware.Nothing.

As to her wuotes, all the quotes from the Chruch Fathers twnd to be from others who quote form them. I wont recall an instance of her using the CHurch Fahters, rather, her wuotes are aslo taken form other shwo quote them. This is what schoalrs do. Shcoalrs do say "Jouquise quoted Justin Martyr as saying". They quote Justin Martyr aslo. She didnt just qot authros who quoted the CHruch Fathers. SHw culled her wuotes formt he Chruch Fathers from the books that quoted htem, NOT prints of their acutla works somone tolledme.

Her Biblical scitaitons are the ONLY prime soruce she uses, and even their she misquotes or misundrtsands what she quotes acorddng to My soruc--me.

Now. Lets connoitue try to make this abtu me shall we?

ZAROVE 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

-

How many times do you have to be told that if you don't want to go somewhere, don't take the path that leads to it. You do this incessantly... you make unsubstantiated accusations and then ignore them when challenged.

Peer review merely means that a work be evaluated professionally by a colleague. She has had many colleagues who have reviewed her works. That can be done without any submission of the work to any acedemic press... where do you get these outlandish ideas.

Not so... she quotes church father/historian Eusebius alone on numerous occasions. This is one of them... "When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These devils apostles have filled with tares, taking away some thigs and adding others....Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts". She quotes the bible extensively throughout. If you feel they are misquoted or misunderstood, then cite them and defend your stance. In order to quote a church father direct, it would have to be in their language... which means that a translation has to be made. Often, it becomes necessary to quote several translations. Using such sources as the Catholic Encyclopedia, historians, religious scholars and intrepretations of ancient documents, art and artifacts is exactly what a good scholar and reseacher does.

I am not making this about you... you are.

66.82.9.57 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 08:44 PM EST

-

Re: "This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus."

"The result of the debate was no consensus (I counted 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005"... 3 to delete and 2 to keep is not a concensus? I guess voting was a farce, all that had to be done was have the admins just decide.

66.82.9.57 02:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:21 PM EST

-

Lobo, think liek me.

When she quotes the Fahers its in conex of soemoen elses quotign them. This may nto nbe true 100% of the itme ( Been a whiel since I rad it) but it certisnly is true the majority, and I do beleive it is true now.

What page numebr was this qote taken form, and form which book? ( I only have the CHirst COn.)

If I am wrong, Ill admit it, but it stil doesnt invlaidate what Ive said. Herbooks aren tpeer reviewed acadmia, their pulp consoriacy books.

As for defendig my stance, I odn need to. It owudl just dragthis into the direciton fo debatign her books.Thats nt why I am here. I iwsh you coudl see that.

ZAROVE 03:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

-

From the Christ Con... quoting Eusebius alone: page 5, 27, 31, 37, 49, 166, 221, 265, 266, 290, 320, 321, 350, 373, 374

You said you read the book... just how is this so and have missed so obvious a number of quotes? You grow smaller and smaller in stature with every one of these unfounded claims you come up with.

66.82.9.92 04:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 11:43 PM EST

To Lobo and Unnamed.

Lobo, the wquores are still not accurate. All one need do is check.For instance, Eusibus is quoted on page 27 as sayign the Gospels had been forged. If need be I wil shwo why this is false. If you promise to actually not debate her owrk.

To Unnamed. I am knwon for lying. That is just a truth used by you and other free tinker follwoers to undercut me. Yes I have slandered Dorothy Murdock. Sayign such only diminishes myself. You aprise yourslef wiht assessment andtruly facts. Indeed,your entire above post is an truful Ad Hominim attakc on me, and does address evreytnig I have acutlaly siad OR shows every abuse I have leveled againt Acharya S. Its all fcataul. This is a tactic never used by ume. I onyl ridiclule until Iget may way. It is used by me to force my opinion over others. So do othrs use it by attakcign Achrya S creidbility to blodnly deminish Acharya S.

ZAROVE 21:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

-

Another source for:

When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking :away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word :of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts."

Eusebius, of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea, ca. 260-ca. 340, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Tr. by G.A. :Williamson; rev. and ed. with a new introd. by Andrew Louth. Rev. (London, England: Penguin, c1989), 132

Understand that the ancient historian, Eusebius, is quoting Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth around 170 A.D., as complaining that :even his letters were being tampered with... and that is not taken out of context. You are wrong, admit it.

It is a common tactic that when challenged... dodge and deflect to another point. To my knowledge, I have not attacked you :personally, it is not my style. I have been banned for doing so but there was no citing of what was felt to be a personal attack so :I figured it was just an arbitrary way of shutting me up to favor you... (did you complain to someone?) the admins here have given :you far greater latitude than they have others. I try to stick to fact, logic,reason and stick to issues. One of the reasons I am :so stubborn and will never leave this whole charade to its own recognizance is precisely due to such tactics as bullying. Glad to :see your admitting to its use. But be aware... I never, ever, run from a challenge or a fight. It's not in my nature. If you :haven't noticed, I am not swayed by someone's merely saying a thing is so. The Missouri state saying is apropo here... "I am from :Missouri. You have got to show me."

I don't have to defend her... I came to the conclusion many, many years ago, before she even went to college, and wrote of it at :the time, that religion was the institutionalization of belief... and belief requires faith to exist, breathing life into that :which would otherwise have none. Again, I defend the principle of combating bias, prejudice, dishonesty and false accusation.

66.82.9.62 12:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:10 AM EST

-

PS... ones credibility is accumulated in the manner in which they conduct themselves. It is the integrity they employ in their dealings with others, the principles under which they operate, and the standards they inflict upon themselves that reflect in the eyes of others, the respect they see in them... If you think you see your credibility diminished, then perhaps, like a mirror, you are seeing your own reflection in their eyes.

66.82.9.62 12:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:23 AM EST

lOBO, i DIDNT SAY YOU PERSOANLLY ATTACKED ME. hOWEVER, YOU ARE GETIGN LUMPED WITHTHE OTHER aCHARITES BY aDMINS BECAUSE THEY ARE. ( suCH AS CLALIGN ME A lIAR, ECT, WHEN i DINT LIE.) tHE ONLY THING i SAID WAS THAT YOU ASCRIBED MOTIVES OT ME, WHICH YOU DID EVEN ABOVE.

Now. I rad the book. I didnt memoriose it. Also, the wuotes are out fo context, and do not deal extensively with the true intent of the author or the Hisotircal setting. Im not dodgign the issue, Im avoidign your deflection. You want me to debate th emerits of her work. Im nto willing to do this. Becuase its not my place to tell you or anyoen else that shes right or wrong. I amy tlak fast and loose ont he tlak page abotu ehr work, btu hats because Im tryin to avoid a direct debate. Im nit an apologist here ot defend the Chrisain faith, Im a Wikipedian here to defend the Neutrlaity of the Encyclopedia.

SO, the Eusibus commetns arent rlelay importan tto me, sicne I didnt intent to place any referenc eo them in th artilce an dknow no oene else who did. Im the one who wants only a Brief overvie of her work ( As in, tlel peopel shes a CHrist Myther and shes written two books) and hten brief critisms ( Such as thr old Criits seciton, that doesnt esxtnesily quote anon and just gives basic points of contention.)

Then expand the lfie section. ( You know, what makes me low and evil...inclusing Data abotu ehr life that has been made knwon... This is an Ad Hioom attack to an Acharyite,even if its doen solely to notify the reader abot the knwon lif of Acharya S, and not used to discredit her work.)

Now, lets be a bit more reaosnable. I will defend you here Lobo, and tlel the Admins that you have not attacked me persoanlly. The other Acharyites must be banne dif thy persist int her personal vendtta, but you havent violated rules. But even yoyu must admit the truth.

The ailce is abotu her, nto her works. Her works beign why shes famous is not the point. STart a new article on the CHrist COnspiracy, the book, for dicussion of its merits. Even then dont expect a debate.

Here is a basic outline for the aritle as I see it.

Section one-Preamble. A brief, DIctioanry-like definitom of her.

Section two.- A Biogrtpahical scetch. ( And yes this includes the now public knoeldg eo fher schild. Im not lwo for inclusifn ghtis. Its on ehr own website.)

Tell abotu her past, her career, ect...

Section three- General Idea baot the books. Tell the worlkd she is a CHrist Myther, and a bfief synopiss ( Not thourough) of her views.

Section Four- Crtiics of her work, includign HCristain respince.

Section five- Her othr views presented here.( Againm not to defame her, or attack the messenger, just to tlel what she beelives in. Thus if I say shes pro-legilisaiton fo Enthogens, this doesnt mean Im attakcing her for it.)

Section Six- External links. This includes both Hostile and Supportive sites. Thus, even the Email exchange with her.

Now, is htis basic outlien agreeable?

ZAROVE 18:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

-

Well... thank you for that. As for motive, motive is an emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an :incitement to action. All that is required to describe motive is the probable reason a person did or said a thing. Usually, it :indicates some emotional or intellectual cause for that action. That you think I was describing motive to you is a matter of :interpretation... an interpretation that I have no power over.

You brought up the subject her book not having any direct quotes from the church fathers... if you didn't want to debate, you :should have left it unsaid. It is the apologists duty to defend the faith... it is what you are doing even if you don't see it.

As regards biographies of living persons... Wikipedia says, "Editors must take particular care with writing biographies of living :persons, which require a degree of sensitivity as well as strict adherence to our content policies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

"You should document, in a non-partisan manner, what credible third party sources have published about the subject and, in some :circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves.

The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. :Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.

There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, :and with that power comes responsibility."

You should read this very carefully.... and heed the warning that Charles Mathews gave you.

Well thank you again. I do not agree with name calling, unverifiable accusation, innuendo, conjecture, dishonesty, bias and :prejudice no matter who does it. Hopefully, my posts reflect these principles.

Since there are no criticisms that do not reflect the books, the article is inherently linked to them. I know you have maintained :that this is not so but from your very first entry in the creation of this article, your introduction states: "Her book, "The :Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story dever Sold" is an expanded verison fo her website, and both have been heavily critisised for :their lack of use of primary soruces, diliberate obtuse and obviosuly biased remarks, lack of formal reaosning, and promenant use :of secondary soruces, which themselves ar often suspect." which is self explanatory... this article is about her book and the ideas :it promotes that Christ is a fiction.

I have already stated what I think a neutral point of view article should look like.

A basic description of why this article has been created showing her site and the books she has written.

A bio in the form a brief sketch of her education and career. It should comply with wiki policy regarding biographies of living :persons.

Tell what her books are about.

The criticisms category should be expanded to show both pro and con links to allow the reader to pick and choose what they want to :read. That alleiviates the article from having to debate every claim either of them support. This can include links that show her :personal views as well.

66.82.9.91 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 03:18 PM EST

-

now

I cannot comply. The Biogrpaphy seciton must be expanded and central. The article is, after all, about her, andnot her books. ( This is why I had proposed much earlier to remove all tlakof her books altogather.)

Now, valid Wikipedia policy allows criticsm, this includes from Christain soruces, such as Tekton Ministires of Lucidia.

Just as actual descriptuon of her real credentials needs ot be given. IE, we cannto just say "Shes a rleigious schoalr" an dnot tell the reader the bais of htis claim. If she is a religiosu schlar, by definition of the term, then tell the reader this, btu also tell them its not based on academic merit or work int he fild tha has been rcognised. ( Her books arent recognised.)

Validly tell them she has no real credentials form major institutions and has basic undergrad work as an Arhceologist.

( Indeed, that sort of thing is actually useless for the article btu if uoy insist...)

I still say it shoudl retain litle actual referenc eto her books hwoever.

ZAROVE 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

-

Tell you what... you post what you think the article should look like without any mention of the books or site here in the talk :pages and let's see what it looks like.

Read Wiki policy on verifiablity... "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer :only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable :publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that :their edits may be verified by readers and other editors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Her credentials are proven and sound. We have gone through that many times. As you have been told previously by Charles Mathews... :you cannot judge someone or their works by what they are not. You may place importance in this concept of "academic merit" but is :an imaginary figment of your imagination. Her books most certainly are recognized, after all, they have warranted attention from :the likes of JP Holding, Mike Licona, Robert Price and yourself.

To say she has NO credentials from a major institution would be a lie. Franklin and Marshall College is a very prestigious college :and the 25th-oldest institute of higher education in the United States. Check their ratings. As I understand it, the undergrad :program was a one year study abroad under a PhD... a years experience at an ancient site is nothing to sneeze at.

Typically, those doing the work at a dig are all undergrads, so what's your point?

66.82.9.83 02:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:47 PM EST

-

lOBIO, LETS NOT DISTORT.

Lobo, let snot disort. I didnt say that their ought be no mention fo her works, only that hr works are secondary, given that the aritcle is, and shoudl be, a Biopeice.

That said, soemthign along the lin sof a brief descirptuon, and a brief encapsulaiton fo her critics, shodil so, as opposed ot lengthy and unnessisary uotations.

Such as the otrigional Critism section.

As for her acadmeic merit, my poitn is this. You at firts WANT to call ehr these htigns, and justify callign her th list she calls ehrself base don dicitonary definition. Yet, when I attemto to plac ein the rticle the basis for this claim, you rmove it.

So, if we are to call ehr a rleigiosu scholar because she has written two books on rleigion, shoudlnt we also notify the reader that she is a rleigiosu schoar because she has written two books on rleigion? Otherwise, ti makes it appear that she may have a degree in theological studies or works for a Major institute that studies rleigion. If you want to dres sup the dicitonary definition, and force t to an absurd point, then we can, but only if we ar ehoenst with the subject and to the reader. She cannot be calle d"A relgioius scholar" blankly, we must tlel them why she is a rleigious schalr. Namely becuase she has written two books on rleigion.The same must be said of her bign a Linguist. She is a Linguist because she speaks more thna oen language. So, tlel th reader she is a Linguist because she speaks mroe than oen language. The only reason you want the basis of the claims removed form the aritlce is because you knwo that if it is included, the casual reader will see throguh her. You only include it int he tlak page to justify it sinclusion in the article, btu even you realise this is not a storng laim.

As for her creentials, Franklin and Marshal is a nice school, but her Bachelors of Liberal Arts degree in the Classics is not relaly impressive, considerign what she claism to be. She is not a Recognised Archeologist, nor does she work int h field of Archeology. ( Indeed, her student dig was abotu 15 to 20 yars ago, so she cannot be called "An Archeologist" at this point. When is th elast time she went ona dig?)It also doesnt qualify her as a rleigiosu schoalr or linguist. It is, in short, not worth mentionign as vlaidation for her other claims. I did include that she has a Bachelors form F&M, however.

ZAROVE 16:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

-

OK... no distortions. You said, "( This is why I had proposed much earlier to remove all tlakof her books altogather.)" and now, you say you didn't say that... how can you complain about people this behavior for what it is? You do not have any biographical information about her and certainly none that has been "published by a reputable publisher" as Wikipedia policy outlines.

If you want to list the complaints of her detractors that's fine but it would not be balanced or neutral if you did not also list those who favor her. In any event... the two apologists you have used are not independantly published and as you know, using a self published internet site is open to bias and prejudice because the editing is in the hands of those who do the writing. They should not be used because of a lack of verifiability. Even Wikipedia tells you not to use Wikipedia as a reference source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources

Credentials are what they are, they are one's experiences which entitles one to confidence, credit, or authority. There are many credentials one can claim that is just as appropriate such as writer, journalist, radio personality, mythologist, waitress, chaufer, editor, reviewer, ad inifinitum. You are placing way to much importance on this in your efforts to diminish her experiences.

I just do not see what it is you are getting at... define "religious scholar". Her books are not on religion per se... tey are on mythology and how that relates to religion. Your assessment how something might "appear" is wholly subjective. If one were paranoid, they might conceive such visions but no normal person would be so fearful. The definition of scholar also includes student... which would make her a student of religion. Perhaps that sould also be feared. Tell you what, drop the word linguist and replace it with "she speaks and writes modern Greek, French and Spanish fluently, but be sure to check it out.and provide references.

You say that "Franklin and Marshal is a nice school, but her Bachelors of Liberal Arts degree in the Classics is not relaly impressive, considerign what she claism to be." Why do you say this? What is your basis for your observation? What is a recognized archeologist? What you are saying is that an non degreed archeologist who spent 20 years on a dig but hasn't done it for 20 years is no longer an archeologist? This is way over inflated rationalization.

67.44.17.60 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo

-

Misreading

On the Lakc of books, I htink we have a misunderstanding. OK, Initially I put in hr books. WHn they became an Issue I asked they be removed. However, Id rather have htem mentioend, just not central. I think we are readign different pages of the script.

As to that, Im sorry I misunderstood.

As to the Apologists, they ARE as credible as Acharya S. Indeed, she herself is not considered credible by many. Furthermore, you must realise by now that they are acceptable by WIkipedia standards, and of ocurse WIkipedia doesnt laow itsself as a source.

As to her credentals, you ocnstantly clal her a Religiosu schialr, ect, base don a dictionary definition, which is not Wikistandard. Even if it where, the main compalint is htis. If we are to use the list she calls herslef, why not also tell the reader the bais of the claim? You sidestep this issue every time.

In short, tell the reader she is a rleigiosu schoalr becaus shes written two books on rleigion. Why rmeov that? Why rmeov that shes an Arhcoelogist because she was a trenchmaster at a student dig? Why rmeove that shes a Linguist because shes multilingual? Why argue for their inclusuion on these baiss and not allow the same basis in the aritlce?

As f Acarya S, she no longer does any Archeological work. She also had no real proffesion of it in hr past, just student digs.

Thats why shes not an Archeologiust.

ZAROVE 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

-

I see... well, this is certainly all over the field, but it proves the point that without the books and thier ideas, there would be no article.

I defer to the two sites own discription of themselves... i. e. JP Holding's "Tekton Apologetics Ministries" and "Risen Jesus the apologetics ministry of Mike Licona". Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense (apologetics) of Christianity and is is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines. Licona is a defender of the faith that believes in the inerrancy of the bible as the infallable word of god.

"The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. It is the supreme and final authority on all matters it teaches."

- Mike Licona http://www.risen-jesus.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=146

It doesn't matter what fact is presented to an apologist... if it does not fall within the purview of Christian belief or doctrine, it must be refuted. By virtue of their piety, they are of necessity... biased, prejudiced and bigoted.

I don't call her anything... I have defended against the bastardisation of the terms that have been posted. So what you are saying is that the Wikipedia standards are less than that of dictionary definitions? The descriptive terms used are self explanitory by virtue of their definitions... what need is there to define every term used in this piece?

Why remove that? Because it is so by virtue of its being so... tell you what, preface the descriptions with "she has been or is currently"... that should cover it.

66.82.9.55 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:62 PM EST

-

Apologist

Lobo, Acharya S is an APologist. No matter what facts ar presented ot her, she will accept only that which supports her proposiiton.

In this way she is exactly like the Christain apologists, RisenJesus and Tekton Ministreries. The Christain respomnc e must be included ot balnce the article.

No one queasitoend if the books mad hr famous, but the poitn remains, she is the subject of the aritlce, nto her books. They woudl require a seperat article.

As for the terms, you fight ofr their inclusion, which is poitnless since if they ar eincluded yo then refuse, with yo confederates, to allow peopel to know why she is whats h claism to be.

This is what I object to.

But, here is the concnesus so far.

1: More Bio Info.

2: Include brief description of books. ( I say allow all 33 or so poitns in the aritlce.)

3: Allow the origional Critism section back.

4: Realisticlaly dispaly her credentials. Tell the world she has a Bachelors degree. Then , tell thm she claims to be an Archeologist, Religious Scholar, and Linguist, and Hisotiran, but tell the reader the reasonign for these claims. ( IE, not academic merit.)

5: Allow links to sites abotu her that arent positive. Resotre the King David link, as the Farril Till VS JP Holding exchange is in his artile, andso ar emany others, and it is relevant as it invivled her direlcty. And, I will allo any othr aritlce ( Or relevance) abotu her. ( his is why I idnt objec tto Earl Doughtery or that feminist site beign added.)

Deal?

ZAROVE 03:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

-

That is simply not so. Neither you or I have any idea what she will accept or reject.Fact is, we're not asking her. She has beliefs of her own, I'm the one that has no truck with belief. A fact is that which fulfills a criteria... i. e. that which is discovered through a process of experimentation and demonstration. We observe a phenomena, formulate a hypothesis about it, experiment to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and conclude in its having been validated or modified. It becomes accepted when the process it can be taught to others who can perform the process and put it to use. Belief begins where fact ends... belief requires faith to exist, breathing life into that :which would otherwise have none. Actually, what she has done is make an observation that all religion is the result of older and previous myth. Religion today is just as much a myth as all those that have preceded them. Her books are merely a comparison to them and show that it is so. There is nothing to defend, a fact stands as its own witness.

Take away the books and there is no purpose in the article. She has no biographical background available unless you are prepared to interview her parents, no longer alive, friends, teachers, schoolmates, neighbors ad nausia. If what you seek to do is make your article a scandal sheet, count me out.

If you want to leave those terms out, fine. But what bio can be made if her experiences and abilities are suppressed?

1. A simple, brief bio telling who she is and why she has an article in Wikipedia appropriate to any other author in Wikipedia.

2. Briefly tell what the books are about...

3. Create a pro/con list of links instead of a criticism category.

4. Brief description of her education and experience category.

Deal?

69.19.14.16 06:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:21 AM EST

-

sCANDAL SHEET

Creatign a Biogrpahy is not the same as creatign a scandal sheet. And the article is abotu her. AGain, this is what you miss and why Im not ovlry fond of crackign open my copy of The CHrist Consouracy o debate its finer points. Thje books ( Well, th sebsite relaly) won her notiriety, btu the articl eis still abotu her and her life, not her works.

That is harldy scandal.

Critism must also remain. Its standard Wikipedia Policy. Not a ridicukous "Pro-Con" list that minimalises the fact that what she says is firmly opposed.

As for the breif descriptn o her educaitona nd expeirnce, I tried that. But the uncomfortable facts are removed. ( IE, that hr sole cliam to beifn an Archeologist is graduate student expeirnce asa trenhmaster.)

again, we need to include critism, and we need mroe on her life and other veiws besides the Jeuss Myth.Its simple policy.

ZAROVE 17:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

-

A biography is a written account of a person's life... you do not have access to such information. What you are proposing is a profile of her past garnered from bits and pieces of internet gossip justified by calling it a biography. Its what scandl sheets do. Do crack the book and look at the larger picture... you might surprise yourself in spite of any minor, finer points oyu may take issue with. The web site was developed to promote the impending publishing of the book. The article cannot be about her life because you have no idea what that is and you do not have access to that information.

I'm not arguing against criticism, just the method of its presentation. I am also stating that if criticism is presented then it is also incumbant to present those views in favor to preserve balance and a npov. The way you present your idea is precisely why

it is imperative to at least put forth teh appearance of neutrality. After all... there are those who hold just as strong feelings in opposition of your views.

As for the breif descriptn o her educaitona nd expeirnce, I tried that. But the uncomfortable facts are removed. ( IE, that hr sole cliam to beifn an Archeologist is graduate student expeirnce asa trenhmaster.)

Uncomfortable to whom? Leave them out and merely show her educational background and expereinces that relate to mythology. Do not use the tags at all.

There is no Wikipedia policy on creating a "criticisms" category... it is not required and in most instances, is not used.

66.82.9.60 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC) -elk Lobo 04:11 PM EST

-

To illustrate what I have been recommending...

=======================================================================

Acharya S is the pen name of D. Murdock who has authored two books and operates a website called "Truth be Known". She contends that all religion is founded in earlier myth and that the characters depicted in Christianity are the result of the plagiarizing of those myths to unify the Roman State.

Contents [hide]

   * 1 Books
   * 2 Claims about Christianity
   * 3 Claims about other religions
   * 4 Criticisms
   * 5 Life
   * 6 External links

Books

Her 1999 book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold and a follow-up book, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, discusses her observations further. Suns of God is addresses criticisms of her former book and expands teh topic measurably. In it, she comments on the Hindu story of the life of Krishna, as well as the life of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). She claims parallels to the life of Jesus, presenting evidence that the story of Jesus was written based on existing myth and not the life of a real man.

Acharya describes the historical existence of Jesus Christ and the New Testament as a work of mythic fiction with an historical setting. The story of Christ, she maintains, is actually a retelling of various pagan myths, all of which represent "astro-theology" or the story of the Sun. She asserts that the pagans understood these stories to be myths but that Christians obliterated evidence to the contrary through religious persecution, and thorugh the destruction and control of literature, such as the Library of Alexandria, once they attained control of the Roman Empire. [1]

This purportedly led to widespread illiteracy in the ancient world and ensured that the mythical nature of Christ's story was lost in the Dark Ages. Scholars of other sects continued to oppose the historicizing of a mythological figure. Where no evidence exists, Acharya claims that this is because the arguments were destroyed by Christians. However, Christians preserved these contentions, she states, through their own refutations. [2] [3]

Acharya compares Jesus' history to that of other gods—such as Mithra, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Odin—claiming that the similarities result from a common source, the myth of the sun-god. In "The Christ Conspiracy" she describes this theory, claiming allegorical parallels between the story of Christ, and the story of the solar deity: "The sun 'dies' for three days at the winter solstice, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th", and "The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30 [degrees]; hence, the 'Sun of God' begins his ministry at 'age' 30."

Background

Acharya S has been described, by the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist, archeologist; and even, by Internet essayist John Kaminski, as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era". She has a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, and attended the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. She been interviewed on a variety of radio stations.

Critical and non critical external links

   * Truth be Known (Acharya S's website)
   * The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ by Acharya S
   * Interview with Acharya S in Paranoia Magazine
   * Earl Doherty reviews The Christ Conspiracy, see Earl Doherty
   * Robert Price reviews The Christ Conspiracy
   * Paranoia Magazine review of Suns of God by Joan d'Arc
   * "A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy" by Mike Licona, and rebuttal
   * ebtx.com reviews The Christ Conspiracy
   * Tekton Apologetics Ministries reviews The Christ Conspiracy

Categories: Protected | Religious philosophy and doctrine

===============================================

69.19.14.20 14:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:44 AM EST

-

Again

You may not beleive me, btu Ive read the entre book. It cant surprise me, its just a commection fo other peopels quotes thta agree with what the author wants to say. Soemtimes she even MISQUOTES them...

I havent read the full thing in two years, but Im harldy interested right now. Again, the articl is not about "The CHirst COnspruacy" book, nor the suns of God, nor her website. Those things are to be mentioned yes, btu in passing. Her own mailign list gives substantial informaiton abotu her, that can and shoudl be in the arutlce proper, as well as her son. I know I know, Im low brignign him into it.Im a sick psychotc who foudn out form a mental patient... well no... I foudbn out from her own website when she posted the link of the news strory abotu it to garner sympathy. She used her own sons kidnapping to get attention for herself.Nonetheless, its their. And its now well known, thanks to Doorthy herself.

Rememebr, the ideas she presented need to be examiend neutrlaly, which means allowance of the Critism section, and not just quotes from her critics. Also, her other veiws BESODES her CHrist Myth ckalaism need to be preasent. Also, her past email exchange with King Daid needs inclusion. ( Again, Farrel TRills exchange with Holding is presented, why not an email exchange betwen Acharya S and King David.?)

You simply want ot whitewash her and present her ideas to th world, this is not hwat Wikipeida exists for, and not h eintent of this article.

ZAROVE 18:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I will eb ognde this week, so no concensus discussion till Monday, if this is acceptbale?

ZAROVE 02:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

-

Whether I believe you or not is not material... the proof is in the pudding. You decide the validity of your words by those you use and the truth they demonstrate. Her books weave a picture from the volumes of sources she researched on a theme or hypothesis showing all religion to be based in myth. An example of modern day myth is Judaism and its progeny... Christianity, and Islam. Since you have done your reading, you already know that in most instances, she not only shows one view but those that offer a differeing view. I cannot let you go with saying she "misquotes" without challenging you to show exactly where and what she says is misquoted.

So you say, but you are interested in wading knee deep into it thusly unprepared. Again, to say that the article is not about her books (et al) when every contention you present is so obvious about them that making this statement shows the duplicity of your stance. Now... what do you mean "mailing list"?. Do you mean her discussion groups? Are you a troll there? The only information there is limited to an incident and fragmented at best. As stated previously, it's the stuff of scandal sheets... and to claim that it was to garner sympathy or attention, is a warp of your mind. If not, prove that was why it was posted.

To examine a thing neutrally is to examine all sides of an issue. That is clearly not what you do. To keep this article from being a debate platform, it is imperative that some sort of solution be instituted to keep it free of petty bickering. My solution is to offer an equal number of pro and con urls to the reader who can then choose what they want to investigate, especially since what is being posted is form those sites to begin with. I'm not certain what your intention of offering her views on other issues accomplishes for your stance but the fact that you have her site listed allows the reader to explore it to the degree that they are interested. Who is "Farrel TRills" and what does his exchange with Holding have to do with anything? When you do things like this you open the flood gates to those criticisms of the opposite vein turning this article into a fiasco. Do you have any idea of the amount anti Holding material there is out there? Who is this "King David" character and where is this exchange to be found?

The blackwash you portend is far more unacceptable. Wikipedia is also not a platform to air your beliefs either. All that can be determined as to your intent for this article is the views you present... and thus far, there is little guessing needed.

There can be no concensus between belief and fact. This article needs to be removed altogether. It serves no good purpose if all exists for is to be a platform for its denial.

69.19.14.31 14:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:28 AM EST

-

-

Unprotected

There seem to be no ongoing discussion in the past few days, and the article has been protected for a ridiculously long period. I've unprotected and will watch this article. --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

hmm, why was this article protected again by Woohookitty? I didn't see any vandalism after Tony's unprotect. --Ragib 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Woohookitty seems to be following an incredibly aggressive protection policy on this article, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Neuro-linguistic_programming (where at least he has an article mentorship system to justify protecting for so long). I'm absolutely flabberghasted. A few months ago I had this site running on a protection cycle of well under a week. I come back and, in trying to clear a huge backlog, I find that there are people who will not permit an article to be edited even after many weeks of protection. Very worrying. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

-

I think unprotecting this article is the wrong thing to do... It should be removed from Wikipedia because it will not stand as a benign article telling of an author who has written two books. I patterned this change in accordance with a half dozen other Wikipedia authors and have shown these changes in the talk pages previously. They were only met with one detractor and have been here for a month without comment. I will state again... 'This article needs to be removed altogether. It serves no good purpose if all that it exists for is to be a platform for its denial.' 66.82.9.82 07:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 02:21 AM EST

Why not list it for deletion? Having said so, I don't think it likely that you'd find many people to agree with you, but I could be wrong. --Tony Sidaway 12:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony, this has been to AfD and back - as is noted on this page. The discussion around the article is also the subject of a case for the ArbCom, being brought by Michael Snow. Charles Matthews 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Listing it for deletion doesn't seem to matter... the last time it was "voted on" the count was "3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments"... and it didn't get deleted. So what's the point if the admins decide in spite of any vote? The article should be removed because of the track record it has had, not because anyone says so. It cannot and will not be treated with neutrality or equanimity because of the emotional attachemnt involved in a belief that simply cannot and will not let the ideas the books represent go without challenge... remove the article and you remove the incentive to vilify them.

66.82.9.89 12:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 07:38 AM EST

Actuialy the emotional attatchment to ideas rests on Acharya's supporters. many who support the acturincle inclusion of Critism to the author, and the rtmeoval of self-agrandising fluff beign rpesented as fact, are Atheists, and the claim that those gosh darn rleigiosu folks cant stand the truth gets old when her adherants must insist on rmeoval of links htta do nto flatter Acharya S.

As it stands now, as of my last revert, it includes an Email exchange withhte author, which will of ocurs ebe rmeoved by her adherants, and a cirtism seciton, which has been removed repeateldy. It also contians real informaiton about her credentials, which is usually glossed over in faovur of her verison of events.

Its not so much that evil rleigious folks cannot leave it alone because of their emotional tattatchment, btu Acharya S's didisples attatchment to her ideas prevent them form fiarly presentign the aritlce.

By the way, Im nt the only "Detractor" and thusfar havent detracted her at all. It snot liek the aritlce exists to trash her, but it does present Critism of her owrk, as do artilce son...

1: The CHruch of Sicnetology

2: The writtings of Biologist Richard Dawekins.

3: The aritlce on Jesus CHirst

4: The Aritlce on Dmeocracy.

5: The Article on Christain Sicnece

6: Articles on ABoriton include Critism of ABoriton.

ect...

Its standard Wikipedia policy and not base don emotional attatchment.

ZAROVE 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To make an address...

Whether I believe you or not is not material... the proof is in the pudding. You decide the validity of your words by those you use and the truth they demonstrate. Her books weave a picture from the volumes of sources she researched on a theme or hypothesis showing all religion to be based in myth. An example of modern day myth is Judaism and its progeny... Christianity, and Islam. Since you have done your reading, you already know that in most instances, she not only shows one view but those that offer a differeing view. I cannot let you go with saying she "misquotes" without challenging you to show exactly where and what she says is misquoted.

Thix is what I eman by emotional attatchment. Anyone who doesnt flal in lienb with this thinkign is branded a fanatical Zealot. Acharya S is brillaint, and thus must be called so int he aitlce. Her critics are just detractors and ought to be omited. Beleive this! its the turth!

COem on now, this isnt abotu Rleigionists attackigng h article an dpreveting neutrality because they cant stand the truth, its about you attakcign anyone who dares write a neutral aritlce, because it doesnt favour Acharya S.

As for me showign quotes, Ive avoide dsuch because, unliek you and her other supporters, Im nto here ot debate her books, or the merit of her thesis. Its not Wikipeidas palce to Judge the books or author. it is WIkipeida's place to present the authros life and known credentials as best it can base don piblic informaiton.

Which is what Im tryign for here.

I did nto write the aritlce to refute her work. Thats wht its abotu her, and not her work.

Of corus to you this is Ad Hom attakc to iundermien her, tis not. Its the point of the aritlce.Then again you htink she "SHows both sides", havign read the Christ COnspriacy, I can assure anyoen that she does nto. If my word isnt sufficient, as my hoensty is attakced often, ask Crazieeddie or nayoen else thats not an Acharyan who has read her book.

I do witsh you woudl relaise htis, but it interferes too much wiht your Crusade to eliminate RTleiigon in faovur of essentisally the Dogmas of your Guru.

ZAROVE 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So you say, but you are interested in wading knee deep into it thusly unprepared. Again, to say that the article is not about her books (et al) when every contention you present is so obvious about them that making this statement shows the duplicity of your stance. Now... what do you mean "mailing list"?. Do you mean her discussion groups? Are you a troll there? The only information there is limited to an incident and fragmented at best. As stated previously, it's the stuff of scandal sheets...

No, its what she has stated herslef. If she says " I went to Greece between 1983 and 1986" I take it that she went to school between these years and can use htis on Wikipeida to write abotu her life.

Im not a troll anywhere, and do not post to her mailign lists.

And a discussion gorup and mailign list are often the same thing.

and to claim that it was to garner sympathy or attention, is a warp of your mind.

Actulaly tis self evident. She posted the aritlc eon her son on her website after Wikipedia "Attacked" her by allowign critis of her work. SHe also claism I contacted ehr ex lover an he is the sourc eof informaiton. "ZAROVE/Holdinfs osure of Informaiton, Help momy help" coems to mind.

Harldy indicative of soemone who posted out of genuine concern for her son.

If not, prove that was why it was posted.

OK, she poste don her mailign list to show how much a Monste I was and how great she was. She posted on her website the same link to show how much a victim she was and how wrong it is to pesectute her. The ocntext of the postigns reveal the motivations.

Given that Acharya S claism everyone elses motivs, its harldy wrogn to be subject tot he sme and I htink my findigns on her ar emore solid.

To examine a thing neutrally is to examine all sides of an issue. That is clearly not what you do.

Of coruse not. I present her ideas, then her critics. To be fair, I have to lable her critics "Detractors" and pnly barley mention them, or else not mention them at all. HWich woudl be better.

Relaly, you dont want both sides, you want Acharya S's side, and thats it.

The whoel argmet is over critiissms to ehr work and her bign rpesnte din a less than great light.

To keep this article from being a debate platform, it is imperative that some sort of solution be instituted to keep it free of petty bickering. My solution is to offer an equal number of pro and con urls to the reader who can then choose what they want to investigate, especially since what is being posted is form those sites to begin with.

We've tried that. Yet, the number of Pro sites outnumber the COn, because many Con sites are removed...

I'm not certain what your intention of offering her views on other issues accomplishes for your stance but the fact that you have her site listed allows the reader to explore it to the degree that they are interested.

Again, this is where your intentiosn blind you. You think Im out to destory Acharya S for her attacks on CHristyainity. Im not. You also think I exist here to debate her ideas and prove them wrong. I dont.

Her other veiws are reelevant because the aritlce is titled "Acharya S" and is abotu her.

She is not all about the CHrist COnspiracy, and as a Livign Human beign her other interests and ideas are also noteworthy for a Biography.

Thats been my stance sicne Day 1.

That this is for her biogrpahy, and not to attakc her for anyhtign shes written.

Who is "Farrel TRills" and what does his exchange with Holding have to do with anything?

Farrel Till. And my point in including it here was to poitn out a standard Wikipeida policy. An Email Exchange betwen Acharaya S and "King David" is constantly rmeoved by her Loyal disiples. Yet a similar exchange exists on the Holdign Artilce. And in several other aritlces similar exchanges are linked. Why rmeove the one abotu Acharya S, except that it makes he rlook less-than-fantastic?

When you do things like this you open the flood gates to those criticisms of the opposite vein turning this article into a fiasco.

In ther words, rmeove all critical links because htye disagree with toyr worldview... and stikc to her books, because htis promotes her ideas. Im sorry, thats not what this encyclopidia exists for.

Do you have any idea of the amount anti Holding material there is out there?

I relaly dont care.

I mean, I showed it because of YOUR obsession with Holding. Many Wikipeida aritlves inlcude direct exchanges, and as the exchange was direct and Acharya S was direlcty invovled, its nto just a "Detractor website".

Even if so, what haopened ot the "Equel Numbers" argument?

Who is this "King David" character and where is this exchange to be found?

In the external links.

The blackwash you portend is far more unacceptable.

POnlybecause Acharya S sends her lakcy's to attakc WIkipeida and me personally becayse she needs ot throw a tantrum to get her way.

And thats not a sexist remark, this is a tantrum.

Wikipedia is also not a platform to air your beliefs either.

I acknoledge htis. THis is why I havent debated my beleifs. Nor added them tot he artilce.

All that can be determined as to your intent for this article is the views you present... and thus far, there is little guessing needed.

Of coruse, becuase Dorothy has decreed that Im out to desotry her because her boosk speak againt mybeleifs. Nohtign int eh article even hints at it beign an apologetics work, btu this si what it is because I soemhow queasiton the validity of uncritivlaly acceptign her self-promotiuonal claism abotu herself.

There can be no concensus between belief and fact. This article needs to be removed altogether. It serves no good purpose if all exists for is to be a platform for its denial.

Actulaly this is so muhc Hot air. Again, no part of the aritlce says "Achara IS is clealry workg", we arneg enfdign in the SInners Prayer, and most of the mateiral I included had little to nohtign to do with her books. ( WHich you htink is strange as it doesnt advance my supposed stance of debatign her book, btu makes sene as I want this to be a Biography.)

Now, lets play nice and write a real article shall we? And leave the recreminatiosn behind.

ZAROVE 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Administrators... see? I told you waht would happen. Remove this article... it's only purpose is to provide a platform for Zarove to deny the ideas of the books by denigrating their author. Be done with it... perform a speedy deletion now. Otherwise this never ending debate will go on nad on and on.

66.82.9.48 23:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:25 PM EST

-

Denegrate

I havent denegrated the Author, Lobo.

All I did was reinstall the Links tht where rmeoved and reestablish the article' Critisism section, as well as give a more approproate Credentials section.

ZAROVE 04:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-

I like your improved spelling.

All you did was reestablish a bunch of superflous pulp that only accomplishes to trash, sully and slander an author to render the message of her writings less viable... a typical propagandistic tactic. It's not needed and covered in the external links to any interested reader. Keep the article simple, make it tell about the two books written by an author... just lke any other author on Wikipedia. All you are accomplishing is an edit war.

Pay heed admin's to the track record this article and how this has consistently boiled down to one persons vindeta. As I said from the very start... I will not budge nor back down or, as one of the admins at the very start said in their user talk pages, "get bored and go away".

66.82.9.56 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 01:10 AM EST

-

nO LOBO

Lobo, you ar ebeign dishoenst now. No part of the former aritlce revision was designed ot disparage her, and the current article barley speaks of her as a perosn, and merley exists to further her ideas. The "Simple is better" angle is , simply put, a smokescreen. You simply want her ideas expressed wihtout competition. In other words, propoganda, which is what you asusse me of. I have no vendetta here, but a Critisism seciton is nessisary for balance, and was agreed to easlier in concensus. Liekwise, actula Biogrpahical informaton is manditory as this aricle is abotu her life, not her owrks. As to her owrks, we shoudl ropresent them as they rlrelay are, an dnot as they woudl appear in a full page Advert. Liekise, whya re you fixated wiht her CHrist Myth books and theories? She has more ideas, which also shoudl be presented.

Agin, standard Wikipeida policy dmands it. Just because you want everyone ot think the way she doesn and conclude CHristainity is a fraud, desnt mean WIkipeida shoudl simply cater tothis agenda, nor does it make me vendictive if I try to unbias the article.

ZAROVE 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Actually, I am being as forthright as possible without being insulting. As you have pointed out, her books are an amalgum of many, previous observations on a similar theme... and yet, now you claim that they are "her ideas"... you can't have it both ways. The similarities between prior myth and current myth are inescapably apparent to anyone not emotionally attached to a belief. I want any and all criticisms that you can dig up but... put them in the external links and balance them with an equal number of favorable reviews so that the reader can choose what they want to read. I don't expect a believer in the bible to read anything other than those things that agree with their beliefs any more than those who question those values will read what sides with their views. But giving them a choice in the external links keeps them from becoming subjects of debate.

I have no problem with a brief bio describing the basics, just like any Wikipedia article about authors and their books. But her personal life? I have told you before that you have no idea about her life. As stated, what you propose is a profile of her past garnered from bits and pieces of internet gossip which you are attempting to justify by calling it a biography. What does a biography consist of? Things like date and place of birth, family information, lifetime accomplishments, major events of their life that may have influenced their accomplishments, effects or possible impact on society, and their historical significance... that is not how you want to her portrayed.

Admin's, can you not see what is happening here? A speedy deletion, if ever warranted, is warranted here.

66.82.9.84 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC) el Lobo -12:27 PM EST

-

New

Lobo, the use of the term "Her ideas" is not to mean she origionated them, only that she hodl them.

And the Biogroahy section is all confirmabn;le, often form Acharya S herself.

Your "Simple is better" arugment fails to appease since, in its use, you omit the Critism of her work, because you disagree iwht critics of her work. You also omit links that make her seem less than stekler.

In other owrkds "Simple" means "Propoganda" and form an Acharyan, "Propoganda" means " Unbiased". Accyuse me all you like. Im even on trial now. But your verison greatly distorts the true nature of her owrk, omits pertenant informaiton, rmeoves critism,a nd rmeoves an eamial exchange where she is shwon not to have vlaid answers.

In other owrds, Acharya S is whitewashed in your "Simple. saner" version.

ZAROVE 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

- That she concurs with these views is inherent in the fact that she wrote the books. Gossip is the fodder of scandal sheets. By using gossip, without court presentable evidence is pandering to innuendo, conjecture, and unsubstantiated accusation. I told you to put in any links you want just as long as you balance them with those that present a positive view. Besides, I don't disagree with those so called critics you have presented... I, point by point, refuted them completely and toitally. Which you conveniently ignored. Propaganda means what it means... " 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."

As regards your article revision...

Acharya S is the Pen Name for D.Murdock, a New Age Guru who advocates the Christ Myth theory.She Operates a Website, TruthBeKnown, and has writen twobooks on this subject. The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold , and Suns of God, Krishna, Buddha, and Christ Revealed!

What is it your consistent labeling? "New Age Guru" is your interpretation. What's that mak you? An old age guru?

=====

Little has been mad public about her life. She states in an Interveiw in Paranoia Magazine that she was raise din a Moderate Christian home, and that this was not, as she described it , "traumatic or Fundamentalist".

Meaninglessly superflous and contributes nothing to to the article.

=======

She ceased going to Chruch regularly at age 12.

So what? What does that have to do with the price of wheat in China?.

============

In collage, she had a Breif revival of interest in rleigious beleifs, but swiflty lost Interest. It was at this general tie that she came tothe conclusion that Jeuss was a Myth,a conclusion that seems to have initilaly been Inspired by Joseph Wheeleses book, "Forgery in Christianity." Soon, she read other works, such as Kersey Graves's The Worlds 16 Crucified Saviours and Barbara Walkers Womens Encyclopidia of Myths and Secrets, amon others.

Again... so what? What does that have to do with anything?

========

She Holds a Bachelors of Liberal Arts Degree in the Classics from Franklin and Marshal Collage, and, as an undergraduate and Graduate student, attended Student Digs in Greece, whilst associated with the American School of CLasical STudies, Athens, Grece.

Overly wordy.

======

It is form this expeirnce that she claims ot be an Archeologist. She also claims to be a Linguist, base don Knowign several languages. In addition to these claims, she also boasts of beign a Historian and Religious Scholar, the basis of which is not Academic Merit, however, but rather that she has written two books and several Essays on the topics.

I told you, if you want, just leave out the tags altogether,. her experiences and education are enough.

========

In 1999, she Completed writting "The CHrist Consoiracy" and published it through "Adventures Unlimited Press". THis seems to have been thebeginnign of her writting career as Acharya S.

Superfluous, not needed and not true.

===========

She was later accepted into the Center for the Scienetific Examination of Rleigion, a Branch of the Cousnil for Secular Humanism, shich exists to Criticially Observe religious beleifs and claims, where she is listed as a Writer.

Goes in the experiences and credentials list.

=====

Although she tends ot keep herself out of the Public Spotlight and privacy is a concern, she grants several interviews on Radio or in variosu occult or Consiracy Magazines.

She did not grant anything... she has been invited to speak or be interviewed.

========

She bills herself as one of the foremost rleigiosu schoalrs of our time, A claim that is repeated by her followers and by Fellow COnspriacy Journalist John Kaminski, but that lacks verification form Established Institutions, who have largley ignroed her work. (By her own admission.)

She does not bill herself... these are quotes from others. Her works have not been ignored... that is not provable and a falacious statement. What you are saying is that because you cannot find where she has been acknowledged it consitutes being ignored.

69.19.14.35 18:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:46 PM EST

-

In other owrds...

In other words, anyhtign that sitn a sterling reveiw of her tlign how wonderful she is and then procceedign to giv ehr ideas ( WIthout critism no less) will not pass muster.

The "Superfluous" informaiton is known abotu her form her. Its an article baout her and he rlife.

This is quiet different form your proposals which fixat eon he rbooks, make thm seem more credible than they are, puff the auhtors credentials up, and hten tlel hnohtign substantial abotu her.

AGain, this isnt Degradign to her and al linformaiton is Verifiable.

And the aritlc eis abotu her.

SO whats your problem? It doesnt promote her owrk.

As to her boosk beign recognised, no, their not.

As for Ne Age Guru, she advicates the Philosophy commonly called "NEw Ahge." What I am is not relvant since I am not the topic of the artuicle.

ZAROVE 18:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-

I gave no review of her or her books, I spariingly described the books and briefly told enough about the author to let the reader know who she was. Don't list the archiologist, historian, linguist, religious scholar notationtions... just list her education and experiences. It did not promote her books in any manner, shape or form whereas what you have put together endeavors to confront them turning the article into a platform of denial.

Charles, care to explain why you chose an earlier Zarove version over his latest one instead of mine? Are your own beliefs showing through?

Delete this thing... it is so far gone that it beyond repair. No one can trust anyone here.

66.82.9.84 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 03:37 PM EST

-

Not so.

1: It snot a "Zarove verison." It includes endless linsk to the sam webpage. The "Hisotircal origins" essay. ( CHarles says not to remove soruces, but the same source is reepated at lats 5 times...)

THis is mroe of a "Comprimise Verison" issued by James, in the hopes of further editign it lat rto suit the need to propogat the Agenda.

2: Your last verison omited all Critism, and all Life detials. You focus on her ideas and boosk in a promotional way. You deny it, but its the obvious truth.

ZAROVE 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

-

On March 5, 2006, and January 28, 2006 you used this version... whether or not you originated it or not. Don't know what you are refering to regards the same source being repeated 5 times. My last version used the externa;l links to denote pro and con arguments. Of obvious truths: Your life details are a farce because they are uncalled for, serve no purpose as appied to an article about an author and the books written unless it is your intent to cast a shadow over them to serve your own purposes.

This article is doomed and damned to repeat this same scenario ad inifinitum... delete it, it's not worth the struggle.

66.82.9.52 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:47 PM EST

-

nO MORE EXZCUSES.

Lobo, you are makign excuses. My Life detaisl arent superfluous, precicely because this is not abotu her books. It is abotuy her, and these are knwon facts. Again, you can ask what any of it has to do with my arugment agisnt her works. It has nothign to do with arguments agsint her works. Bug it also doesnt cast doubt on her works. All it does is present who she is. A Biogrpahical sketch. Because the article is about who she is, not her owrks, and not her books.

I do wish this owuld sink in, but as a Devoute follower of Acharya S ( Who as most of her follwors claism to be a frethinker, but obviosuly your not) you must defend her CHrist-as-plagarised-Pagan-myth idea,a nd think that anyone opposign his agrenda is defendign the revers eposition. This is wikipeida, not a debate forum for her works. Im not casting doubt on her works, Im tellign whio hse is. Her books are enturly secondary to the article, dispite the dfact that shes famous for thebooks, because the article is abotu her, an dnot her books.

Incedentlaly when I said she "GRants Interviews", she does. The term means " SHe accepts invitaitosn to be interviewed." If she arranged the interveis, she woudlnt be grantign them.

ZAROVE 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

-

For the hundreth time, were it not for the books, this article would not exist. Your "known facts" are a hodge podge of travails that have beset a woman and have nothing to do with the article. What possible reason would you post this garbage? To repeat... your claim of biography is a shallow ruse. You have no idea when her birthday is, how many times she has been married, how many children she has, her parents names, where they live or how many brothers and sisters she has. The only purpose in publishing her troubles is to demean her to dilute the message of her books. It can serve no good or other purpose. You are what you know and hold true, but you are known to others by what you do. A person breaks an arm, gets into a car accident, or gets mugged is not who they are. The idea that you thinks so is twisted. I refer you to th every first posting of this article that you created...

==

"Acharya S is the pen name of dorothy Melne Murdock.

She is an American Critic of Christainity who operates a website, "Truth be Known" in which she contends to reveal the truth, that Jesus CHrust is a fictional person, and a plagerised pagan myth stilen by the early Chruch and supposed as an actual personso as to unify the Orman State.

She claims many impressive things abotu herself, billing herslef as a Historian, mythologist, rleigious scholar, and linguist, as well as Archeologist.

Hosever, in relaity she seems to hold only a masters of Liberal arts form Frankin University.

Her book, "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story dever Sold" is an expanded verison fo her website, and both have been heavily critisised for their lack of use of primary soruces, diliberate obtuse and obviosuly biased remarks, lack of formal reaosning, and promenant use of secondary soruces, which themselves ar often suspect.

such as Barbara walkers "womens encyclopedia of Mysh and Secrets" and "The worlds 16 Crucified Saviors" by Kersye Graves. The latter beign the pimary soruce ofr her book, which relies heavily on quotatiosnform others to generate an artificial air of authority for the work,which if examined wants you to beelive thwt Jesus did nto exist as an actual person because the author has found people who say he didnt. This beign the primary weakness of the book, which sems geared to sales rather than scholarship, dispite its claims".

========

You mention her name and from there launch into her works.

You are so far off base... I have been reading and investigating this stuff since before she was was out of grade school. I am not a devout follower... I am in agreement with her books. As for those "freethinkers"... they would probably welcome your label because it means One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. The alternative, as presented by your demeanor and tactic, demonstrate exactly why this article is in the condition it is in.

69.19.14.29 23:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 06:25 PM EST

OK.

What part of the actual article that was in display acutlaly demeaned her or undercut her message? Again, tellign peol;el she has a collage degree is nto undercutting, nor that she spent time in Greece.

You are ovdrinflating the signifigance, and, evemn tbough her books make hwr famous, the books arent wo she is either.

Stop imputing into mempotives that do not exist.Accept the article is abotu her. STop tryign to amke it a promotion of her books.

ZAROVE 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

-

My argument concerns what you stated you wanted to insert into the article. The article that is currently posted has a track record and went unchallenged for quite some time. Excuses don't cut it. What I posted was a simplified version of the current one and was in line with our discussions. By no stretch of the imagination was there any promotion of the books. You do not know who she is so how can you pretend that this is what the article is about?

66.82.9.89 02:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:27 PM EST

-

no

What you posted inflated her credentials, ignores basic faxts abot her, and omits critisims, while presentign ehr ideas as if thye are Academic Mianstream ( thier not by her own admission) and omiting th emro eembarrasing portions of her cliams.

In short, tis a whitewacsh desigend to poromote her ideas and spacificllay the CHrist Myty, whih is not what wikipedia exists for.

As to my earlier version, I intended to clean it up later, and didnt get to it. To be frankly hoenst, Im not as obsessed with Acharya S as she makes me out tobe on her website and mailign list. I am however concerned with atci,es I created for Wikipedia and makign sur they are neutral.

ZAROVE 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

-

What I posted is the exact samr thing that has been posted for months. You constantly do this. Do not just say a thing to hear yorself talk, provide examples. What basic facts were "about her" were changed? The criticisms category was converted to external links. There were no ideas presented that had anything to do with the academic mainstream. Nothing she claims is embarrasing but thanks for posting to the world what your intent is... to publish what you feel is embarrassing to her. Which all shows that what you desire is to blackwash her.

So, you believe that you should censor Wikipedia to protect it from her books which expose religion and Christianity as being the product of myth... more specifically the "Christ myth"? And that you feel that it is not what Wikipedia exists for. Well, I've newws for you... th eChrist myth is no myth. If you don't think so, produce hard evidence otherwise. Produce anything contemporary from that time that shows otherwise.

Strange how it seems that you are indeed on a crusade. I will have to defer that assessment to those who have been here all along and kept up with what you have said.

66.82.9.53 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 6:53 PM EST

-

Not again

Actulaly Lobo I used it to shwo your intent. Only goodsites included. Origionally you and your cohorts removed all critism, inclusing links.

The Critiism secitons needs otbe in the article, as with all other Wikipeida subkects htat have critism sectiosn, which is most.

Imagine if I rmeoved all Critism from the Jesus Christ page, and placed it int he External links. Woudl this be justified? No, because you use a doubel standard.

As far as Academic mainstreadm, Acharya S is nto academic mainstream. The Christain apologists and Bobn Privce are mroe mainstream than she is.

Im not trygn to censor Wikipeida, Im not tryign to hide anything. What I am tyrign to do is present a non-baised artlc, and the boiks have becoem an obsticle since you wan totmake the aritlce abot them, and then debae them on the tlak page.

ZAROVE 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

SHift.

Acutlaly your shiftign the blame. Ive shown you wehere their where ptoblems.

You gonored it.

RHe current Charles MSthew rvert has probelms.

You just dotn liek not getting yor wya, just as your Guru hates not gettign ehr way.

ZAROVE 03:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Zarove... whatever are you talking about? I think you may have outlasted your usefulness. You've devolved this whole thing to a nit picking. hair splitting nonsense. I'm going to repost the version that comes closest to that which we discussed to show you that your compaints are groundless. Check it over and use quotes from it when voicing your complaints.

Admins, quick delete this article and put it out of its misery.

66.82.9.77 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 10:47 PM EST

-

Now, isn't the latest revision cute? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me Oh well, little else could be expected.

Zarove, what did you do? The order of this page has been tamperd with and some new but unresponded to verbage added.

69.19.14.17 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 12:32 PM EST

-

I reverted the article back according to our discussion so that you could show me exactly what your complaints are... do it in quotes, not accusations though.

66.82.9.82 12:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo o7:31 AM EST

- Lobo, we have goen over this before.

1: Critisism is omited. You want ot claim this is because it snot Mainstream, btu Acharya S isnt mainstream, so what do you expect? Her critics are LESS fringe than she is. Omitign the Crutism truely serves only Porpogandistic purposes of makign sur ewe only get one side of this story.

2: Her life is omited, even though she is the subject of the arutlce, we cannot include life info as it doesnt further the agenda of her and her disiples, you included.

3: Extenral links have issues. The needless links to her own website, including her "Rebuttal" to Lucidia. Also note, the link to his pafe is follwoed by her rebuttal, but not his rejoinder. This gives her the last word. Isnt that nice...

Likewis the E-Mail exchange that she wa seprsonally nvovnmed in is omited as it does nto serve to propote the positive image you wish to generate. (A nd no, I do nto wan to generate a negative image, I want an accurate image.)

3: Her "background" is nto her bakcground. Ir omits known facts and exisst solely to show that she has credentials. Even this will be modified int eh fututre to further fliff her into somethign grrater than she is.

Acharya S has a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, and attended the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. She is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. She been interviewed on a variety of radio stations.

4: The article as it now reads is an Advert for her. Withthe exception fo the word "Purportedly" and "Alledgedly" bign added ehre and hteir to give ghe vneer of it beign an encyclopedia aritlce, it seems to exist to ptomore her boosk and ideas. Not simply to give informaitom. Thus why Critism is omited.Indeed, this Aritlce can now be pasted ont he back of one of her books, wiht only mild alteration. ( Remove the "Purportedly" and "A;lledgedly" and you jhave a nice back cover blurp.)

Basicllay, this aritlce is not "LEss verbage and acucrate", tis a commercial for your hero and guru., Oh and I didnt do anyhting. Im not " Cant sleep the clown will eat me." Paranoia runs rampent in Acharyaland, where verythign is connected, but, CLownand I havent even spoken.

ZAROVE 14:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Criticism is noted in the links that you have provided. What "mainstream"? That is a figment of your imagination. She does not have critics... she has detractors whose objective is to refute her contentions, not to criticize them... there is a difference.

You have not produced anything about her life... so how can it be omitted? Quit name calling... when you do this you encourage a like behavior. The fact that you classify her life information as agenda, you define what you intend to use it as. Your complaint is, whose agenda it will be used as. Eliminate it and it serves neither purpose and the article remains neutral.

Edit the links the way you see it... just make certain you balance pro with con. If there is a problem, we will work it out.

I have asked you previously to produce these emails... if you cannot do so, drop the subject because otherwise they appear to be fabrications.

Her educational background and experience, as pertains to the reason she has an article at Wikipedia is whatever it is. You can attempt to demean, ridicule and diminish that but you cannot make her take it back no matter how much you might like it.

There is no advertising in it... again, you make wild accusations without so much as a drop of evidence. When you do this, it appears more like paranoia. The qualifiers you mention were none of my doing... they were added by your "disciples". Tell you what... you edit what the books are about the way you see fit but do so in a manner that makes no attempt to refute them... just simply tell what they are about and nothing more.

The article is half the size it was... it is an accurate discription of an author and her books... that is all that it has to be. Refutations, debates and denials would be better carried out under a different venue.

66.82.9.41 14:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 09:56 AM EST

-

Criticism is noted in the links that you have provided.

And omited in the main body, because the causal reader iwll likly not viist the links, and its the best you cna manage.

What "mainstream"? That is a figment of your imagination.

Your the one tthat broguth it up lad.

She does not have critics... she has detractors whose objective is to refute her contentions, not to criticize them... there is a difference.

Actually she has critics, even amid athrusts who agre with her.

She is a Critic of CHristaintiy, and seeks to desotry it, not present schoalrly truth. And when spoken agaisnt or cross examiend, she silences oposition.

As do her Disiples.

You have not produced anything about her life...

Actulaly, I have, and iwll prsent more later.

so how can it be omitted?

By you deletign it in faovur of writitgn an advert.

Quit name calling...

I didnt namecall.

when you do this you encourage a like behavior.

Such as when Dorothy calls peopel "PSychotic" and "Nazi"...

The fact that you classify her life information as agenda, you define what you intend to use it as.

Actulaly I classified your actiosn as Agenda. Not he rlife info.

Your complaint is, whose agenda it will be used as. Eliminate it and it serves neither purpose and the article remains neutral.

Her Biogrpahical Data is NEutral ina nd of itsself.

Edit the links the way you see it... just make certain you balance pro with con.

I acutlaly tiured that, rermmeber? You kept removing hte King David Link and add the "Refutation" link.

If there is a problem, we will work it out.

No you wont, and have shown you ar eunwillign to do the righ thting consistantly.

I have asked you previously to produce these emails...

I did, they where in a link...

if you cannot do so, drop the subject because otherwise they appear to be fabrications.

CHeck the old articles Link section.

Her educational background and experience, as pertains to the reason she has an article at Wikipedia is whatever it is. You can attempt to demean, ridicule and diminish that but you cannot make her take it back no matter how much you might like it.

Actulal;y yor "NEw and simplified and neutral" Verison omits her real expeurnces and rsts on "Paranoia magazien calls her"...

You omit that she went to GReece even!

There is no advertising in it...

Yes their is.

again, you make wild accusations without so much as a drop of evidence.

I have plenty of evidnece. Your verison omits informaiton andnayoen can chack the Hisotry.

When you do this, it appears more like paranoia.

And yet, I have evidence. FUnny...

The qualifiers you mention were none of my doing... they were added by your "disciples".

Actually Ih have no disiples here. And rmember, I spent most of my itme with Dinosaurs. Yoru current aritlce does not tell fo the author, it mtley gives a breifn promotional view of her as a scholar and acomplished researcher. It mainly addresses her books and hwo they pive JEuss is a myth. THis is, of coruse, not refuted by any critism.

Again, it belongs on h bakc of one of he rbooks, not on WIkipeida.

Tell you what... you edit what the books are about the way you see fit but do so in a manner that makes no attempt to refute them... just simply tell what they are about and nothing more.

I did that last time. And we also need Critism, as noted, Scinetiology is Critisised and so is JEsus. SO why not Acharya S?

The article is half the size it was...

And this is a alrg epart of the prblem, pertenant informaiton is deleted.

it is an accurate discription of an author and her books...

No tis not. It omits htings like who she rellay is, and her teahcign expeirnce in Grecd, ect...

And it omits Critism. ( Detracotrs they are called, their still omited and belogn int he arilce). It doesnt rlelay cover the turth of her claims.

that is all that it has to be. Refutations, debates and denials would be better carried out under a different venue.

No one wants ot debate the books. What we ant is Critism of the books include dint he ailce, real informaiton abotuhte true nature of her claims, and mor eBiogrpahical Data.

ZAROVE 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-

I deferred the "criticism" comments to the links as discussed in order to keep from using the article as a platform for denial and debate. If a reader has an inclination to pursue further investigation the links will provide an avenue to that end. This has been explained to you numerous times. For some reason, you cannot fathom the concept. As for "mainstream", I never once used the term except in response to you... So, Again... I say to you, don't just cast empty-headed accusations about and quote where I have done so. You are becoming tiresomely empty. For instance, if she has "critics", i.e. those who are defending their own agenda, then name them.

The term "Critic of Christianity" is a term coined by you in the second sentence of your having created this article. It is meaningless jargon... if for no other reason than the fact that it specifies Christianity when her books are about all religions. She only uses Christianity as a glaring example of her premise. She is not out to destroy Christianity she is not capable of destroying Christianity... you, and those of a like mind, are way ahead of her there. The only opposition that is silenced is that which is incapable of mounting an argument capable of refuting her books.

I repeat... I have deleted nothing but that which you have taken exception to. You should be pleased. You do not have even the most basic information about her life and your saying you do means nothing. If you did you would have produced it before now. All you have is empty threats. You keep calling me a disciple. I am not . Acharya and I have very different concepts. I do not follow her. What she points out in her correlation's of religion to myth doesn't even need being said... it rings so true that it stands by itself. Again, how she or anyone else responds to things is no concern of mine... do not clump me into a category that you have built in your mind to match your rejection. My agenda is to defend against lies, unsubstantiated accusation, conjecture, and supposition.

Your use of the term "biographical data" is laughable... define the term. Apparently you have absolutely no concept of what constitutes a biography. All you have ever mentioned are a few incidents and threatened to "expose" private information about her...

Where have you ever put up a King David link? Post it! I have asked you numerous times Who and what it is and all you do is keep complaining while ignoring it. I checked... it was nowhere to be found. As for Paranoia magazine... that was removed. You said her experience in Greece didn't qualify her... so why include it? Personally, I think that a year spent in an archeological trench is a perfectly good experience. But since you did not, it was removed. You claim the article is an advertisement while perpetuating it. Have it deleted and end of problem. There is no mention of her as a scholar but it is good that you state that "It mainly addresses her books and who they pive JEuss is a myth." and that further it is your intention to make of this article a platform for refutation by saying that "THis is, of coruse, not refuted by any critism."

And as for no one wants to debate the books, if what you want is to a criticism of the books then all this talk about the article being about her was mjust an elaborate lie to further your agenda?

69.19.14.31 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 05:42 PM EST

-

Now now

I deferred the "criticism" comments to the links as discussed in order to keep from using the article as a platform for denial and debate.

Acutlaly the links alreayd existed, and the Aritlce is not a paltofrm for debate with or withotu them, as its an aticle in an encyclopedia. However, your removal of them does serve to prevent the reader form seeing how others have critised her owrk, and isnetad presents a whitewashed verison of her books.

Your true motivaiton is that, you simply do not want he rboosk critiissed.

If a reader has an inclination to pursue further investigation the links will provide an avenue to that end.

And if not, he can see how great Acharya S's researhc is and get her ideas unchallenged! Yay!

Srry, this is ridiculosuly stupid as an idea. It omits Critism, so as to remove all opposiiton tot he Achayra S agenda.

This has been explained to you numerous times.

And, tos been seen throgh as a cheap excuse, numerous times. And Im not even the one reveritng the aritlces this time. Ive stopped for a while...

For some reason, you cannot fathom the concept.

Whitewashign and Censorship I undestand quiet well. TH Soviets did it to suppress any idea htat they didnt like. So did the Nazi's. And now, Acharya S disiples.

As for "mainstream", I never once used the term except in response to you... So, Again... I say to you, don't just cast empty-headed accusations about and quote where I have done so.

Scroll up on this page. You claim the Critism must be remived as it is not Mainstream.

You are becoming tiresomely empty.

Yet your repsonces to me are getitng longer. Interesting.

For instance, if she has "critics", i.e. those who are defending their own agenda, then name them.

OK.

Tekton Ministires. RisenJesus Ministires. Robert PRice. ( WHo shares her agenda, by the way.) Basiclaly anyone whop understands baisc Hisoyr and knows wreligious and secular world Hisotry.

The term "Critic of Christianity" is a term coined by you in the second sentence of your having created this article.

Oh Im pretty sure the term has existed for wuoet soem time bfore my itme on this planet. IOndeed, ti was applied to THomas Huxley. And Voltaire. And Samuel Langhorn CLements.

And, she critises Chistainity, this makes her a Critis of CHristainity.

It is meaningless jargon...

It means she Critises Christainity. THis is like the "SHe doesnt GRant interviews" argument. tis an argumetn for the sake of findign fault.

if for no other reason than the fact that it specifies Christianity when her books are about all religions. She only uses Christianity as a glaring example of her premise.

Let me get this straight.

1: The Book is Entitled "The CHrist COnspriacy".

2: It contains several Chapters about the CHurhc, JEsus, and God, and links them with everythign form Homosexuality, to Drug use, to Astorlogy, all the while telling how Corrupt and vile th CHruch Fathers where, and tfor the ole pupose of showing the reader ( With Dubiosui evidence) that JEuss did not exist.

3: The enture book concludes with her tlelign us the "Age of Pices" is over and no JEsus must fade away.

Yet its abotu all rleigions?

Im sorry Lobo, you may want to pretend I havetn read her book, but, COMEON!

Her book doesnt exist to present a reaosned, schoalrly examination fo the origins of rleigions, and uses CHrisyaintiy only as an example of this premise. The firts book exists solely to undermine the CHristain faith, and is advertised as such on Amazon.COm!

She even advertises it as such on her own website!

She is not out to destroy Christianity she is not capable of destroying Christianity... you, and those of a like mind, are way ahead of her there.

Im way ahead of her by being maliciou and cruel and Psychotic and showing all that is wrogn with CHristyainity, because I refuse to allow you to distort, lie, and manipualte on WIkipeida. I havent exaclty gone otu of my way to further toe Cause of HCrist here, because this is a palce of Neutrality.

Acharya S however wrote two boosk and seveal Essays to show how terible HCrisyaisn are, Characaturising them in several obscene ways.

She dodnt write a Shcoalrly theses on all rleigons, she wrote a HAte book, that is propoganda ofr her own move to gt peopel to loose faiht int eh rleigoon.

The only opposition that is silenced is that which is incapable of mounting an argument capable of refuting her books.

Which is uttelry irrelevant here as this is Wikipeida. I odnt see why this has eluded you. THen again, you remove all the Critisism fromt he article, because you dotn want peopel to even try to refute her, so you can claim no one can or else their owudl be refutaitons. THeir are, you delete them.

I am not refutign her owrk, I am merley presentign an articl eabotu her.

I repeat... I have deleted nothing but that which you have taken exception to. You should be pleased.

You deleted the Crtism, and viable informaiton abotu he rlife, and reworded the sections abotu her books slihtly to make them seem more academic than they are.

You do not have even the most basic information about her life and your saying you do means nothing.

I acutlaly have Informaiton on her life, thats why Im up for Arbitration on Wikipeida, because you and toyr fellow DIsiples twisted out fo contexg my statement into me beign a stalker, rmemeber? Im not allowed to rpesent it now.

At leats for ht eitme being.

If you did you would have produced it before now.

See above. Also, I did give wide berth, this si because Im rellay not out to destory this wman. I just want Wikipeida to be Neutral, and for her goons ot bakc off.

All you have is empty threats.

And if I show my aritlce later, then what?

You keep calling me a disciple. I am not .

You act liek one.

Acharya and I have very different concepts. I do not follow her.

And yet, your here to ,basiclaly, secure her agenda.

What she points out in her correlation's of religion to myth doesn't even need being said... it rings so true that it stands by itself.

Uhm, she claism Freemasons and JEws formed Christaintiy to unify the ORman State... this rings true? And the Myts she compares JEuss to dont even corrleate with each other, lt alone JEsus. And her Astorlogy CHapter wa sbased on a system of Astorlogy that ddint even exist at the time of JEsus.

Rings true? Its Vitirolic and petulant.

Again, how she or anyone else responds to things is no concern of mine...

Obviosuly it is, as you are here reacting.

do not clump me into a category that you have built in your mind to match your rejection. My agenda is to defend against lies, unsubstantiated accusation, conjecture, and supposition.

No its not, tis to eliminate Critism of Acharya S, remove an examinaiton fo her bakcgorund, fluff her credentials, and make sure her boosk sournd acadmeic after you silnce the oposiiton.

Your use of the term "biographical data" is laughable... define the term.

Data about her life. Informaiton used to form a Biogrpahy.

Apparently you have absolutely no concept of what constitutes a biography. All you have ever mentioned are a few incidents and threatened to "expose" private information about her...

I wrote an aritlc eon hr and know her bakcgorund.

Regardless, all you can do is remove informaiton she wrote abotu herself as, in context, it reveals that her Grandios claism abotu herself are rather meagerly supported, if at all, by hte facts she herself has made known.

Where have you ever put up a King David link? Post it! I have asked you numerous times Who and what it is and all you do is keep complaining while ignoring it.

It is int he Links section. In the current form of the Aritlce, which you will later revert.

I checked... it was nowhere to be found.

Links section.

As for Paranoia magazine... that was removed.

Also not rlelay wise.

You said her experience in Greece didn't qualify her... so why include it?

Actually I said that this was the Baiss of her claims to bign an Archeologist.

Which is true. And now the reader will know she is an Arvheologist, by the dicitonary definitoon of the term, because she was at a student dig as a trenchmaster.

Personally, I think that a year spent in an archeological trench is a perfectly good experience. But since you did not, it was removed.

Good or bad, it needed ot be kept for two reasons.

1: it is relevant Biographical Data.

2: It is the basis of her claim to beign an Archeologist.

You claim the article is an advertisement while perpetuating it.

Actulaly I claim your Verison of it is an Advertisement.

Have it deleted and end of problem.

Of coruse. THis is hwo Bulleis are. They weither get their way, or they remov the offendign obticle.

There is no mention of her as a scholar but it is good that you state that "It mainly addresses her books and who they pive JEuss is a myth." and that further it is your intention to make of this article a platform for refutation by saying that "THis is, of coruse, not refuted by any critism."

Wuotign out of context is DIshoenst, you know.

Again, your current aritlce is mor eabotu her books than her. And is notign but a whitewash.

My verison will vfeature a gorwing Biogrpshysection.

And as for no one wants to debate the books, if what you want is to a criticism of the books then all this talk about the article being about her was mjust an elaborate lie to further your agenda?

Now your twistign facts.

If the books and their premise ar eto be included, then also included shoudl be critism of these books and her other ideas. If the Critism is removed, then also should the Books and theses be rmeoved, mentionign pnly in pasisng that she wrote them, and a general "THeir CHrist Myth books, published by Advnetures Unlimited" tag.

You cnanot present he Books as central in either case, as the aritlce is abothte author, andnot the books.

ZAROVE 00:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

-

Yes, the links already existed. I didn't do anything with them because that is where you copied the refutations to her books from. It does not prevent anything... it just doesn't present them to them. You can stop the ruse, though... there is a difference between being critical and refuting. I have told you, I could care less about any criticism of her works... feel free to list any and all links that are anti religious myth. So, you are afraid of providing a description of the books... guaging by the arguments thus far presented. I thought you said that you were not interested in debating her ideas? You reverted once... and several others have in your stead, but since I am the lone voice of reason here I have had to do so several times in an effort to get you to respond to out discussions with actual quotes which you seem incapable of doing.

A journalism major doesn't do what you do... for one thing, you are calling me a Nazi sympathizer and a Communist since you lump me into the category of Acharya disciple... but further, simply telling what the books are about is just not whitewashing and most certainly not censorship. What you want is to debate the message of the books and to use Wikipedia as the forum to do so. The fact that the admins have not called you down on this is a travesty justifying the complaints about the weaknesses of Wikipedia. It also shows that they are in sympathy with your position. So guess who the true disciples are.

I scrolled up as you said and found the first entry for the word "mainstream" was... "Lobo, I have been cnsistant. Her vies are to be losted butnot central, andmust be neutelaly listed, and not scewed to make them appear mainstream, as you and her other disiples do aconstant, for you know they will be rejected by a causal readership unless they are doctored." My use of the term was in reference to your remark. My responses are longer because they answer, point by point, your comments because if I don't, you tend to run wild, roughshod and incoherent if you are not called down on them.

Your list is comprised of nothing but those who are defending their own agenda. Their titles alone declare their advocacy... "Tekton Apologetics Ministries" and "Risen Jesus the apologetics ministry of Mike Licona". Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense (apologetics) of Christianity and is is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines. The fact that Robert Price is a competitor should tell you of his agenda... besides, I refuted about 25 of his assertions posted by one of your compatriots without rebuttal. The term "Critic of Christianity" is a term coined by you in the second sentence of your having created this article is an assertion made by you without cause. "The Christ Conspiracy, The Greatest Story Ever Sold" is a hook to garner attention.After all... Judaism, Christianity, and Islam combined represent 2/3rds of the worlds devout. She doean't have to undermine that which undermines itself. You shoot yourself in the foot at every turn.

Talk of your historians... what is the track record of religion and Christianity in particular?

"I acutlaly have Informaiton on her life, thats why Im up for Arbitration on Wikipeida, because you and toyr fellow DIsiples twisted out fo contexg my statement into me beign a stalker, rmemeber? Im not allowed to rpesent it now." So, you bring this up here for what reason? You want to debate the threats you made against her?

She quotes Thomas Paine... "The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." Since Christianity is formed from the Torah... yeah, Jews had something to do with it. The myths not only correlate but are strikingly alike. Astrology existed thousands of years before Christianity and predated writing. http://www.meta-religion.com/Esoterism/Astrology/distant_beginnings.htm

"Data about her life. Informaiton used to form a Biogrpahy." Which consists of? If you wrote an article on her... then produce it. Better yet, produce it here. I checked out the email link. What good is it? You have someone who has difficulty in doing a meager research on Horus... he/she gets direction but doesn't follow through in researching all the material. Are you trying to find fault in this person for failing to do his homework? My version is just a copy of the current article with all the fluff taken out of it. Hey, you set the rules of engagement... if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, get out.

Admins... speedy delete this article. It's condition is a product of your medling and belief. It is your garbage, do clean it up.

66.82.9.56 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 11:25 PM EST

-

Stop the atack on me.

This siont abotu me, Lobo, but smearign me seems ot be the charge of the day.

Yes, the links already existed. I didn't do anything with them because that is where you copied the refutations to her books from. It does not prevent anything... it just doesn't present them to them.

You see thats whayt you don't get. Yoi are withholdign informaiton fromt eh reader. Withholdiong informaito, I may add, form a side you personally do not take. THis generates a Biased aritlc ein Faovur of Acharya S. To cover it you claim those who want to add Critism are "Religiosu beelivers" with an agenda.

You can stop the ruse, though... there is a difference between being critical and refuting.

Again, this is Wikipeida. I dont wan tot refute her. I wan tot present Critism to her worl to make the aritcle balanced, and increase the Bio section.

I have told you, I could care less about any criticism of her works...

Of ocurs enot! Sicn you will bldnly defend her work and agenda, you do nto care to see whatothers say and wish to hide what others say if it contradicts yoe beleifs.

feel free to list any and all links that are anti religious myth.

By claing it sll "Religiosu Myth" you hsow your own Bias as well. It doesno good to charge that all religious beelivers are Biased and intlerent when you are, it simply makes you a Hypocrite. That said, what woidl eb the point of it? THis eticle shoudl contians links about Acharya S, not articles abotu religoon in General.

So, you are afraid of providing a description of the books...

No Im not. I tried ot include a fair one in the artilce, btu zs it has bocme a boen fo contention, I am willign to cut it out fo the aritlce. THe Life seciton ought to be central, withthe boosk secondary.

And when iscussing the books, we shoudl rpesent what they rellay are, Cheap Conspriacy books, and opresent ana ccurat epicutr eo htei content.

I thought you said that you were not interested in debating her ideas?

I havent been.

You reverted once... and several others have in your stead, but since I am the lone voice of reason here I have had to do so several times in an effort to get you to respond to out discussions with actual quotes which you seem incapable of doing.

You are harldy the SOle voice of reaosn here, you are simply an Acharya S disiple willign to futher her agenda.

A journalism major doesn't do what you do... for one thing, you are calling me a Nazi sympathizer and a Communist since you lump me into the category of Acharya disciple...

That, frabnkly, is a liablous Lie abotu me. I said that you are employing the same tactics they have, and that Acharya S is as well, the same tactics, Ironiclaly, tjhat she claism the early Christain Chruch used, and the modern Christain CHruch uses, to supporess the truth.

You are rmeoving all voice in oposiiton ot the idea you wish to further, villinising those who oppose, and mking her idea soud better or mor eplausable, while generatign a glowong image of her.

Its manipualtion fo the readrship to further a goal.

but further, simply telling what the books are about is just not whitewashing and most certainly not censorship.

It is censorship however to forbid others who disagree a voice, and ot lead a conclusion based on concealign arugments ot the contrary and forbidding informaiton to be considered.

Likewise, it is a whitewash when you reword wthe synopsis to omit several impriotant details.

What you want is to debate the message of the books and to use Wikipedia as the forum to do so.

By including Crisisim? No, I simply wan tot onclude what othrs have said of her.Wikipeida remaisn neutral.

The fact that the admins have not called you down on this is a travesty justifying the complaints about the weaknesses of Wikipedia.

Or, I am right and everyone agrees.We need to include Critism.It balances the aritlce.

It also shows that they are in sympathy with your position. So guess who the true disciples are.

I have no posiiton other than "The Encyclopidia must remain Neutral." the Biel says it is not good to be a respector of persons. ( Modern trans. says SHwo Partiality.) I will be fair and juust even to Acharya S, and have no disiples here. Nor do I have a posiiton. Neither do I mear her. ( Tellign life details she herself has made known is not a smear.)

I have hwoeve rincluded oposiiton.

I scrolled up as you said and found the first entry for the word "mainstream" was... "Lobo, I have been cnsistant. Her vies are to be losted butnot central, andmust be neutelaly listed, and not scewed to make them appear mainstream, as you and her other disiples do aconstant, for you know they will be rejected by a causal readership unless they are doctored." My use of the term was in reference to your remark.

Now your just playign wordgames.

My responses are longer because they answer, point by point, your comments because if I don't, you tend to run wild, roughshod and incoherent if you are not called down on them.

THid is more liablus claim designe dot villinise me and raitonalise your own acitons, provitding justificaiton for your filibusters.

Your list is comprised of nothing but those who are defending their own agenda.

So? If we excluded anyone who had any agenda, then no critics woudl eb allowed. Nor supporters. Thus the links ot Favourable sites woudl ahve to be removed.

Wikipeida remaisn neutral, burt reports on hte sayings partainign to Acharya S or her work.

THe poitn is to give a balanced veiw, which inlcudes alternate points.

Liekwise, you have not relaly evidence that they have an agenda.

Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense (apologetics) of Christianity and is is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.

Acutla;ly thir are apologists n other religions. And again, this is irrelevant. Acharya S speaks agaisnt Christainity, and so, Christain repsonce is demanded. Wikipeida will nto repsond to her claims, btu will report other peopels respinces, and the CHristain rpsonce to Critisms of Christendom is par for course.

The fact that Robert Price is a competitor should tell you of his agenda...

In adidtion tt hje facg that it is irrelevant as all we exist here for is to promote informaiton abitu her, which includes wat others say ofher, this is also a statement that lacks grounding, as no evidence is presented to show he is a comeptitor of hers.

besides, I refuted about 25 of his assertions posted by one of your compatriots without rebuttal.

Perhaos the whole "This is an Encyclopidia" claim is not sinkign in.

The term "Critic of Christianity" is a term coined by you in the second sentence of your having created this article is an assertion made by you without cause.

SHe makes a living by trashign CHristendom. She critises it. THus she is a Critic of CHristainity.

"The Christ Conspiracy, The Greatest Story Ever Sold" is a hook to garner attention.After all... Judaism, Christianity, and Islam combined represent 2/3rds of the worlds devout. She doean't have to undermine that which undermines itself.

If it undermiens itsself, why is it so predomenant?

And, liekwise, her book clealry attacks Chrisyainity. She is a Critic of CHrisyainity. Syaing such is ardly bias or in need of verification.

You shoot yourself in the foot at every turn.

By pointing out the Obvious?

Talk of your historians... what is the track record of religion and Christianity in particular?

Not only irrelevant, btu not as bloody as many woudl think, least of all Acharya S. But, again, irrelevant.

"I acutlaly have Informaiton on her life, thats why Im up for Arbitration on Wikipeida, because you and toyr fellow DIsiples twisted out fo contexg my statement into me beign a stalker, rmemeber? Im not allowed to rpesent it now." So, you bring this up here for what reason? You want to debate the threats you made against her?

I broguth it up, because you keep sayign I have no facts on her and know nohign save what I learned online. THis isnt true, I cannto present the informaiton. And I made no threats agaisnt her, save the threat of postign my own article to serve as a WIkipedia source, to thus give a new wbsite for which informaiton cna be found indpendant of Tekton and Lucida.

But I see now that even this woudl be caleld a viciosu attakc and Biased and objevted too, unless it was a priaisng repo of how wonderful she is.

And, its not.

She quotes Thomas Paine... "The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." Since Christianity is formed from the Torah... yeah, Jews had something to do with it.

Perhaps your misisng this. In your blind dilusional Paranoida , you rlelay beleive Im here as a Chrstain Zealot ut to destory ehr due to her message and she beign a threa tot my faith...

OK, let me expalin.

THe above informaiton is irrleevant to the problems on Wikipedia.

THe aritce is abotu her, and Wikipeida itsself is Neutral, but will use NonNeutral soruces, but ba;ance th aritlce to make sure this is presented as what it is.

IE, of the infomaiton is form a Christyain apologist,. it will be said tobe from an Apologist of the Christain faith.

EVen Adolf Hitler is presented Neutrlaly.

The myths not only correlate but are strikingly alike. Astrology existed thousands of years before Christianity and predated writing. http://www.meta-religion.com/Esoterism/Astrology/distant_beginnings.htm

No, their not alike, and, astorlogy existed yes, but not the type ofwestenr astology she uses. IE, she claism JEsus was the avatar for the Age of Picese. THeir wa sno suhc animal as the AGe of Pices in the firts cnetury.

The suystm of Astorlogy hse claims is the basis for CHristyainity did not exist. This is nto the same as syaign Astorlogy overall did not exist.

"Data about her life. Informaiton used to form a Biogrpahy." Which consists of? If you wrote an article on her... then produce it.

And get banend form Wikipedia. Do you rellay think this soert of Intimidation will work? If I dont prodice it, I am a liar. If I do, I am banned. This is relaly rather tyranical of you.

I checked out the email link. What good is it? You have someone who has difficulty in doing a meager research on Horus... he/she gets direction but doesn't follow through in researching all the material. Are you trying to find fault in this person for failing to do his homework? My version is just a copy of the current article with all the fluff taken out of it.

Mlore happens than just King David not checkign facts. He was also not merley givne direciton and refused to follwo up. Acharya S failed ot give direction, and when she could not present the verison fo the Horus Myth with the relevant Data, she ceased the corrospondance.

And, you rmeove the crtism, a more balanced represwentaiton of her works, and her Life details.

Hey, you set the rules of engagement... if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, get out.

Not only am I comfy warm and not hot, but, the "rules of engagement" where in motion before I entered Wikipedia. Ive only been on a little over a year and a half.

Admins... speedy delete this article. It's condition is a product of your medling and belief. It is your garbage, do clean it up.

In short, you cnnot have your way, so you want to have the whole thing deleted rathe rhtna let popel have a less than pormotional veiw presented.

ZAROVE 01:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

-

No... stop this attack on me! This is not about me either. Smearing me seems to be the only thing you have to say.

If the information is available... it's available. There wouldn't be this argument if what you presented was information but that isn't the case. You present defamatory statements and call it information. For example when you say that: "Critics have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Mainstream scholars have paid little attention to her work." is unsubstantiated, biased and prejudicial... all that can be done is to refute it with something like: "Other critics have lauded her scholarship, especially in the field of Hindu and Buddhist tradition and further has warranted the attention of such mainstream biblical notaries as JP Holding, Mike Licona and Robert Price."

But this isn't about her work... it's about her.

I have nothing to do with belief... facts serve me far better.

All religion is based in myth... but if you say it is not, then produce hard evidence of otherwise. More name calling... Hypocrisy is the professing of beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess. Like saying this article is about Acharya when every aspect of it is based in refuting her works.

A description of the books is not the same as a refutation of them. You are afraid of presenting them for what they are... you are scared to death that unless you show them in a bad light, someone might read them and agree with what they say.

Reason is the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought... I rest my case.

I employ no such tactics... stating a thing straight forward is not a tactic. You are wrong... Pisces has been in the Zodiac since 2300 bc. Libel? Haha.. now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

But you said that Wikipedia is no a place for debaiting (arguing opposing views). There is nothing wrong in putting opposing views and views that agree with her in links and make them available to the reader. Since religion is about emotion, it is simply the wisest move that can be made and avoids the entanglements that religion inevitably instigates.

You have two choices... allow countering views to your refutations or put them in links. It's that simple.

To remain neutral it must not be aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side of a dispute. I challenge you to produce one thing that I have posted to that article that was not neutral... now look at your input and say the same thing.

That you are right and everyone agrees? Such ego.

The bible says what? I don't recall that one, care to give chapter and verse? I do remember one about slaves giving respect to their masters, though. It is one thing to tell "about" ones life, quite another to engage in exposing the details of a traumatic incident, one for which she had no control over and was not culpable in any way for. That is nothing more than a tabloid.

As regards word games... well, I guess they proved their point.

You'll have to show how this was libelous... anyone who has been following your input here can see exactly for themselves how it is a true statement and not making you a villian of you.

Fine, remove both pro and con links and let the article be about the books and the author that produced them. Keep it straightforward, simple and just the facts. Can't get anymore neutral than that.

Provide alternate views, then... not just the one you want presented.

Acahrya's books shows where christianity and all religions come from. That is not against them... you just take it that way. If one were to tell of the Dark ages and Christianity's part in it... would it be speaking against Christianity? Apologetics is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines. It has nothing to do with fact, or right or wrong as long as it justifies itself.

By virtue of the fact that Price agrees with Acharya's hypothesis, it should be dropped because all he did was nitpick on the differences between his research and hers... his comments are just professional competition.

Define just what encyclopedia means.

You can't trash trash... all you can do is disbelieve those who believe in it and that makes for your contentions and debate. But only a fool would say there is nothing about christianity and its history undeserving of criticism.

The books verify their titles. If you want to take them on then create another article for that purpose.

History irrelevant? I see... ignore what you don't want to hear. Typical.

I repeat... the only information you have is bits of gossip. The essentials of her life are not publicly known. So, you are in league with Tekton... and that is where you have been getting your information. I figured.

So... I am blind, delusion and paranoid. Thanks. My feelings are hurt and my reputation is in the toilet. I'm no good and don't deserve to live. Guess I'll just have to go fine an ice flow somewhere and let the polar bears have their way with me. I don't know if you are a zealot or not... but gauging by your actions here... it comes close.

You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Let me get this straight... you read the Christ Conspiracy and drew from it the conclusion that Jesus was the Hindu god Vishnu for the age of Pisces in the first century... would you quote the page where this is found?

Again... cite what you are talking about. What system of astrology did not exist?

The problem is... you keep bringing it up that you want to produce data about her life and then hide behind that you may get banned for doing so. All I'm doing is telling you is to put up or shut up.

That's not so... she told this King David exactly where to find the information he was looking for. The correspondence that he copied over into his forum ended... neither you nor I know why or whether he quit copying it or she stopped replying.

We already know that you ignore wikipedia policy... (such as biographies of living persons) but what I was referring to was how this article has been handled.

This article is little more than a format for the denial of her books. At best, the most it can produce is an eternal debate. It would be better to simply remove it and let the parties move on to other and better things to do.

69.19.14.23 19:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 02:21 PM EST

-