Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Richard Carrier Owes Acharya S An Apology


Sassafras

Recommended Posts

Please read this link below and pass it around. More people need to be made aware of all the malicious smears Richard Carrier has been spreading on Acharya S for 10 years now and it's finally time he was called out for it:

 

STUPID THINGS RICHARD CARRIER HAS DONE AND SAID:

Richard Carrier Owes Acharya an Apology

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771


Somebody needs to make a video exposing Carrier's lies from the link above.

For starters:

 

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor

"However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)...."

- Acharya S


Bayes Theorem, from the 18th century

 

Richard Carrier constantly bludgeons Acharya to death for discussing 18th/19th century works, yet, Carrier's 'Bayes Theorem' originates from the 18th century!!! "Bayes' theorem is named after Thomas Bayes 1701–1761". :shock: How much more hypocritical could Carrier possibly be?

 

"Carrier admits on video he has no interest in studying Astrotheology:

In a recent 2014 video, Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" Video Chat, Carrier admits (at 53-54 minutes) he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology as he finds it "dull," which is basically an admission that Carrier has never studied the subject and has no interest in doing so, therefore, Carrier is not qualified to comment on it with any authority or competence whatsoever. Carrier says he "could never write a book on the subject" (ain't that the truth!). Carrier is simply not a reliable or credible source on the subject of astrotheology or Acharya's work and he needs to be called out on it by others."


 

"It's important to note that Richard Carrier has never read a single book by Acharya S/Murdock as the information he obtains of her work apparently comes from e-mails from others asking for Carrier's opinion. Since Carrier's critique above he has actually gotten worse, Dick Carrier's criticisms of her work have been very sloppy including egregious errors, so, be very skeptical of his criticisms as Richard Carrier is not a reliable or credible source on Acharya's work. It's also important to realize that Carrier has been criticizing Acharya's work for at least 10 years since 2004, yet, he has never proven anything of significance wrong. Take note how Carrier has always been quick to criticize Acharya's work even though he has never actually read a single book of hers, yet, he also has never acknowledged that she may be right about anything - all signs of biases and ulterior motives. In fact, he's so quick to criticize her work that he consistently makes sloppy and egregious errors, which he NEVER apologizes for. We expect far more integrity, character and ethics from the mythicist camp. It appears his agenda is merely to 'poison the well.'

Somebody needs to explain to Carrier that part of being a good scholar is also having good ethics and the treatment he gives to Acharya, a fellow mythicist, has been disingenuous and unethical and others also need to call him out on it."


Those who actually care about accuracy and honesty and have integrity and character will have no problem calling Carrier out on all of his malicious smears he has tossed at Acharya S for 10 years now.

 

I'm currently reading her new book, Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver and it's outstanding. Carrier has no legit reason to maliciously smear her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read this link below and pass it around. More people need to be made aware of all the malicious smears Richard Carrier has been spreading on Acharya S for 10 years now and it's finally time he was called out for it:

 

 

STUPID THINGS RICHARD CARRIER HAS DONE AND SAID:

 

Richard Carrier Owes Acharya an Apology

 

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

 

Somebody needs to make a video exposing Carrier's lies from the link above.

 

For starters:

 

 

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor

 

"However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)...."

 

- Acharya S

 

Bayes Theorem, from the 18th century

 

Richard Carrier constantly bludgeons Acharya to death for discussing 18th/19th century works, yet, Carrier's 'Bayes Theorem' originates from the 18th century!!! "Bayes' theorem is named after Thomas Bayes 1701–1761". :shock: How much more hypocritical could Carrier possibly be?

 

 

"Carrier admits on video he has no interest in studying Astrotheology:

 

In a recent 2014 video, Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" Video Chat, Carrier admits (at 53-54 minutes) he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology as he finds it "dull," which is basically an admission that Carrier has never studied the subject and has no interest in doing so, therefore, Carrier is not qualified to comment on it with any authority or competence whatsoever. Carrier says he "could never write a book on the subject" (ain't that the truth!). Carrier is simply not a reliable or credible source on the subject of astrotheology or Acharya's work and he needs to be called out on it by others."

 

 

"It's important to note that Richard Carrier has never read a single book by Acharya S/Murdock as the information he obtains of her work apparently comes from e-mails from others asking for Carrier's opinion. Since Carrier's critique above he has actually gotten worse, Dick Carrier's criticisms of her work have been very sloppy including egregious errors, so, be very skeptical of his criticisms as Richard Carrier is not a reliable or credible source on Acharya's work. It's also important to realize that Carrier has been criticizing Acharya's work for at least 10 years since 2004, yet, he has never proven anything of significance wrong. Take note how Carrier has always been quick to criticize Acharya's work even though he has never actually read a single book of hers, yet, he also has never acknowledged that she may be right about anything - all signs of biases and ulterior motives. In fact, he's so quick to criticize her work that he consistently makes sloppy and egregious errors, which he NEVER apologizes for. We expect far more integrity, character and ethics from the mythicist camp. It appears his agenda is merely to 'poison the well.'

 

Somebody needs to explain to Carrier that part of being a good scholar is also having good ethics and the treatment he gives to Acharya, a fellow mythicist, has been disingenuous and unethical and others also need to call him out on it."

 

Those who actually care about accuracy and honesty and have integrity and character will have no problem calling Carrier out on all of his malicious smears he has tossed at Acharya S for 10 years now.

 

I'm currently reading her new book, Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver and it's outstanding. Carrier has no legit reason to maliciously smear her.

 

Freethinkaluva, who wrote that stuff, has misunderstood quite a bit of what Carrier is saying. 

 

For a more in-depth review of D.M. Murdocks' The Christ Conspiracy with clear documentation that the review has read and understood what Murdock is saying I will direct you to my project - http://somerationalism.blogspot.com . If you look closely at these, you find many of Murdock's sources misunderstood their own sources, many of them cannot point at any solid evidence for wide-ranging claims, many of her twentieth century sources either don't understand their sources or make shit up wholesale (e.g. James Churchward, who claimed to have access to stone tablets from the sunken continent of Mu). A surprising amount of Murdock's claims rely on such sources. Meanwhile, she is very meticulous about documenting trivial claims - claims no one would question - and several hundred of the references in The Christ Conspiracy are thus entirely superfluous. The remainder - still about a thousand - are either to sources that genuinely are worthless, or to sources that Murdock misrepresents. 

 

The significance of Carrier's admission that astrotheology is dull in his view is overstated by Freethinkaluva. Modern scholarship is such a huge mass of literature and disciplines that no one can have the time to study every field - ten lifetimes is not enough, fifty lifetimes is not enough either. Carrier focusing on what he feels is more productive scholarly endeavours is fully in his right. Alas, Freethinkaluva is carrying out a "smear campaign" against Carrier, and as usual loves to accuse everyone else of being on a smear campaign.

 

Regarding the age of Bayes's theorem, it is important to realize that in maths, theorems are tested very rigorously in ways that simply is not possible in any other discipline. With regards to probability calculus, they are even tested empirically, both as individual studies and meta-studies. Nevertheless, even then dr. Carrier won't have learned Bayes's theorem from any 19th century sources, but modern text-books by mathematicians that have carefully studied these topics. Carrier is not being hypocritical by applying Bayes' theorem, he is being genuinely scholarly. Murdock's old sources are problematic because in the fields from which she gathers her data, 18th and 19th century scholars often were not particularly good - their methodology was thoroughly flawed. Maths has been significantly more solid for way longer.

 

 Contrast that with the problems I highlight in my blog previously. The distinction is not just one of degree, it's one of science vs. pseudoscience, it's one of genuine search for truth and understanding vs. misleading your audience. Freethinkaluva is quite far from having even the slightest sense of scholarliness, and Murdock's fans should be ashamed of Murdock having FTL as her forum moderator. Even then, Murdock's fans should be ashamed of Murdock's disregard for good scholarly practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read this link below and pass it around. More people need to be made aware of all the malicious smears Richard Carrier has been spreading on Acharya S for 10 years now and it's finally time he was called out for it:

 

 

Somebody needs to make a video exposing Carrier's lies from the link above.

 

 

It has been my understanding that "Acharya" is the one who lies and/or misrepresents the evidence and stretches the truth.  From what I have read Carrier is an outstanding historian and writer and does not cut the corners that Murdoch does...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I get it, so somerationalism is Miekko's blog and he's well known for being one of the most dishonest blogs ever and he's already been addressed: Some Rationalism's Smear Campaign

Anybody who's not a biased, bigoted anti-Acharyarite can see that Richard Carrier has been on a smear capaign against Acharya for 10 years. Acharya has never done anything to Carrier ... it's always Carrier attacking her. She merely exposes his dishonest rants and sloppy and egregious errors, like:

 


After going thru Miekko's blog it's obvious that he will do anything to smear Acharya. Miekko is a joke and not any kind of reliable or trusted source on information on anything. The guy is obviously a troll.

Again, "Those who actually care about accuracy and honesty and have integrity and character will have no problem calling Carrier out on all of his malicious smears he has tossed at Acharya S for 10 years now."

That certainly leaves Miekko out as he would never admit Carrier or anybody else was dishonest or lied about Acharya no matter what. It's time for a little honesty for a change. Miekko has zero credibility here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please read this link below and pass it around. More people need to be made aware of all the malicious smears Richard Carrier has been spreading on Acharya S for 10 years now and it's finally time he was called out for it:

 

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

Somebody needs to make a video exposing Carrier's lies from the link above.

 

 

It has been my understanding that "Acharya" is the one who lies and/or misrepresents the evidence and stretches the truth.  From what I have read Carrier is an outstanding historian and writer and does not cut the corners that Murdoch does...

 

 

After a quick search, Marty appears to be another anti-Acharyarite just out to smear Acharya at any opporunity:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/42580-another-specious-claim-by-acharya-s/#.U3eAdhDvjv0

 

That was an issue Bart Erhman brought up and she destroyed him on all of that, so, where's your apology, Marty?

 

The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

http://freethoughtnation.com/the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican/

 

Acharya S gets far, FAR more outrageously dishonest attacks than she ever deserved. Some of it seems like misogyny to me and blind hatred, like Miekko's blog. All while Richard Carrier gets a free pass.

 

Again, "Those who actually care about accuracy and honesty and have integrity and character will have no problem calling Carrier out on all of his malicious smears he has tossed at Acharya S for 10 years now."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't I edit my post?

 

Marty "From what I have read Carrier is an outstanding historian and writer and does not cut the corners that Murdoch does..."

 

 

Marty, speaking "cutting corners," here's Richard Carrier getting caught red-handed making sloppy and egregious error in his criticism against Acharya. She caught him due to the fact that she can read many languages and she read Brunner's book herself to catch Carrier's pathetic error. Acharya has never gone after anybody and made such an egregious error but, if she did she obviously would never hear the end of it but, Carrier always just gets a free pass. I challenege Marty to admit Carrier's error here or admit he will never be honest about anything by Acharya.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Please read this link below and pass it around. More people need to be made aware of all the malicious smears Richard Carrier has been spreading on Acharya S for 10 years now and it's finally time he was called out for it:

 

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

Somebody needs to make a video exposing Carrier's lies from the link above.

 

 

It has been my understanding that "Acharya" is the one who lies and/or misrepresents the evidence and stretches the truth.  From what I have read Carrier is an outstanding historian and writer and does not cut the corners that Murdoch does...

 

 

After a quick search, Marty appears to be another anti-Acharyarite just out to smear Acharya at any opporunity:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/42580-another-specious-claim-by-acharya-s/#.U3eAdhDvjv0

 

That was an issue Bart Erhman brought up and she destroyed him on all of that, so, where's your apology, Marty?

 

The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

http://freethoughtnation.com/the-phallic-savior-of-the-world-hidden-in-the-vatican/

 

Acharya S gets far, FAR more outrageously dishonest attacks than she ever deserved. Some of it seems like misogyny to me and blind hatred, like Miekko's blog. All while Richard Carrier gets a free pass.

 

Again, "Those who actually care about accuracy and honesty and have integrity and character will have no problem calling Carrier out on all of his malicious smears he has tossed at Acharya S for 10 years now."

 

 

Lol, I am not "anti Achayra", as you say, I simply consider her to be one of the least accurate and trustworthy of the "anti christianity" authors.  It's like saying I am "anti David Letterman" because I prefer to watch Leno.

 

A lot of her sources are outdated, and, like the cock statue in the link you dug up, unverifiable.  Because of that (and a few other reasons) I do not consider her a trustworthy author and would not recommend one of her books to someone who is searching for answers.  There are better ways to get similar information.

 

I have read both authors and I find the difference to be striking.  What you are saying (to my ears) is like saying Bill Nye is smearing the reputation of Ken Ham.  Carrier and Murdoch are on opposite ends of the scale, imo.  The reason I had a snarky attitude in that old link you found was because we had a drive by member, Thor, who, just like you, insisted Murdock was the end all be all of authors and anyone who disagreed with her was on a hateful smear campaign against her.

 

And you will get the ability to edit posts after 25, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marty, you're previous comments here and in other threads prove you are not even remotely close to being any kind of honest, trustworthy source of information regarding Acharya or her work. Your complete biases has already been noted here. There's just no legit reason for anybody to trust a word you sayon the matter.

 

Marty "The reason I had a snarky attitude in that old link you found was because we had a drive by member, Thor, who, just like you, insisted Murdock was the end all be all of authors and anyone who disagreed with her was on a hateful smear campaign against her."

 

 

Well, it sounds like Thor knew what he was talking about. If you want to talk about someone claiming to be the "end all" one need not look any further than Richard Carrier in his own words on video:

 

Other stupid things Richard Carrier has done or said:

If it doesn't come from Carrier it can't be true

 

Richard Carrier: The Historicity of Jesus
watch?v=XORm2QtR-os

At 3:10 Carrier proclaims: "The first thing to know is, forget about all the other mythicist theories ... so, I say, if you want a simple rule, basically, if you don't hear it from me (Dick Carrier) be skeptical of it."

 

It's a sad shame that you're so blatantly biases and bigoted against her when Carrier has been the maliciously dishonest one all along.

 

There are plenty of other scholars performing work as good as and often much better than Carrier's. As Earl Doherty said, Carrier has an "ego the size of a bus." Dick Carrier's utter arrogance and conceit is out of control!!! He is an embarrassment to all of us Freethinkers / Mythicists!

 

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771

 

 

Scholars and others who've actually read her work are supportive of it:

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations ... I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology
Review of Acharya's book "Christ in Egypt"

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
- Dr. Robert Eisenman

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
- Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
- Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so hurt and upset you don't think I am an honest and trustworthy person!  Whatever will I do without the respect of a brand new member who is obviously here with an agenda?  Wendywhatever.gif

 

Attack me all you want, Ive read both of them and no amount of arguments from authority or ad hominem attacks will sway me.

 

It was nice chatting with you, g'bye now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sassafras--- perhaps you are a bit biased towards your point of view---- I like both DM Murdock and Richard Carrier--- and find them both to be credible on a number of counts--- but their views do diverge at points. Everyone should be entitled to their views on the information provided by both these scholars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I get it, so somerationalism is Miekko's blog and he's well known for being one of the most dishonest blogs ever and he's already been addressed: Some Rationalism's Smear Campaign

 

Anybody who's not a biased, bigoted anti-Acharyarite can see that Richard Carrier has been on a smear capaign against Acharya for 10 years. Acharya has never done anything to Carrier ... it's always Carrier attacking her. She merely exposes his dishonest rants and sloppy and egregious errors, like:

 

After going thru Miekko's blog it's obvious that he will do anything to smear Acharya. Miekko is a joke and not any kind of reliable or trusted source on information on anything. The guy is obviously a troll.

 

Again, "Those who actually care about accuracy and honesty and have integrity and character will have no problem calling Carrier out on all of his malicious smears he has tossed at Acharya S for 10 years now."

 

That certainly leaves Miekko out as he would never admit Carrier or anybody else was dishonest or lied about Acharya no matter what. It's time for a little honesty for a change. Miekko has zero credibility here.

Your evasive arguments get even more tiresome. Care to actually read what I am saying and criticise that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sassafras, when Murdock misunderstands Merlin Stone's claim that levirate marriage customs were a shared trait between the Semitic Hebrews and Indo-European tribes and refers to Stone as saying that levitical marriage customs show that the levites were an indo-european group among the Hebrews, is this not quite a significant error in reading comprehension? Her misrepresenting (by accident?) her source - who also is a pretty shoddy source at that - makes her argument seem all the more convincing, and since there actually exists separate levitical marriage customs, few would even go and check whether Murdock got the word right. 

 

This is just one example out of dozens and dozens again. And you, who go around accusing everyone of smear campaigns have failed to answer to a single argument I've put forward. The only thing ever presented in response to all the actual problems in Murdock's books that I have listed is ad hominem attacks. 

 

Please, fucking think about that for a fucking moment. AND PLEASE, BLOODY DEAL WITH THE ARGUMENTS, DON'T FUCKING GO ON THAT USUAL SPREE OF AD HOMINEM-ARGUMENTS THAT YOU MURDOCK-FANS APPARENTLY ARE SO FOND OF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow

 

 

I have no idea what you guys are all on about, but.. well, wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow

 

 

I have no idea what you guys are all on about, but.. well, wow.

By Sassafras posting style, I am pretty sure Sassafras is exactly the same person as Freethinkaluva on Murdock's forum. Ever since I started scrutinizing Murdock's books and finding loads of problems in them, Freethinkaluva has had a very strong hatred for me, and accuses me of being on a smear campaign. Duly note that every thing I point out actually is in the books and I have the sources to show that Murdock is wrong, relies on outdated sources or sometimes even misunderstands her sources or relies on sources that in turn misunderstood their sources. This does not sit well with Freethinkaluva, who therefore keeps flinging ad hominem attacks at me whenever we meet online. Never has FTL answered a single argument with anything but invective.

 

The example I gave above is just one I recently found. My blog - http://somerationalism.blogspot.com has for some time been where I post detailed reviews of chapters of The Christ Conspiracy. Soon I will start reviewing Suns of God. (I do think I will review Who Was Jesus - Fingerprints of the Christ inbetween; that book is actually orders of magnitude better than The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God, and therefore the review will end up shorter.) 

 

Notice how the criticism of Carrier says he hasn't read Murdock's books? This is an argument they fling at every person who has criticized Murdock's books. Therefore, I decided to properly and really carefully document that I indeed have read them and that they genuinely are even worse than most critics say. So, either you don't read her books or don't make it clear that you have done so, and get accused of not having read them, or you do read them and demonstrate that this is the case and get Freethinkaluva calling you a sociopath: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27137&sid=87bb90a74738f8d7633a0d676ea30beb#p27137

 

Way to be fucking scholarly, dontchathink?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOOD FIGHT!!!

 

battle.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*throws food*  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Is there not some way y'all could take this fight back to the other blogs and websites where it all started?  This is ex-c.  We're here to help deconverting christians.  Thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read either.. though I do believe I have quoted Carrier once or twice in excerpts. Now I have to read it… sheesh. Miekko, I don't always agree with your stance on things but I have seen you do good scholarly work. I will take a gander at your criticisms posted elsewhere...

 

and probably enjoy them!

 

As for Sassafras… attempting to start a smear campaign to stop an (alleged) smear campaign is indicative of BPD or even Narcissism. If you wish to criticize a criticism.. stick to the facts and leave the ad hominem's out of it. It makes your argument look weak and by soliciting our support this way you undermine your position and any sympathy anyone would have for it. Seriously - it's very counterproductive, and it's: personalities before principles, never a good way to start.

 

 

I do have to agree with the Prof… this is not the appropriate venue for this kind of disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there not some way y'all could take this fight back to the other blogs and websites where it all started?  This is ex-c.  We're here to help deconverting christians.  Thank you.

Freethinkaluva banned me from Murdock's forum, without me having violated any rules there. Another person - who I know through other fora - was accused of being my sockpuppet and summarily banned as well. FTL wrote that thing I linked where he or she accuses me of sociopathy after banning me, giving me no chance to respond. 

 

The only way Murdock's fans ever interact with me over the internet is through invective at various fora. If we were to do like you say, Murdock's fans (or as I suspect, Murdock's one particular fan) would go around the net advertising Murdock's books while all critical voices are silenced. Scholarly pursuits develop through opposition - dissenting voices and disagreement is one of the driving forces of scientific discovery. If only one side is permitted to make their voice heard problems arise. This applies both ways - criticism of the mainstream positions must be aired, but so must criticism of criticism, etc. Murdock's fans don't want this, they want to be in a privileged position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds familiar...

 

maybe you need to make a webpage that they can't touch… just a suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sassafras is not the first Murdoch worshiper to visit us here at ex-c.  Unless Thor is the same person, they both act exactly alike, attacking anyone who doesn't worship her in their very first post.

 

This attitude alone would give me pause to consider reading any of her books.  The cultish way her followers behave is not inviting at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say I am probably a mythicist… so far - and have seen the astrotheology of the OT(and other ancient belief systems) for myself - it's all there. But critical analysis of Murdoch's work… or Carrier's is not something I would presume to do without researching the papers/books, whatever, myself. My background in mythology and ancient history/art.. etc… make me quite interested in this subject. It's been a while since I've had the time to keep up with this subject though.

 

I am very wary of 'worshipping' any one avenue of understanding, or any one author. That is dogmatism.

 

I'll be back when I have had a chance to peruse said material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say I am probably a mythicist… so far - and have seen the astrotheology of the OT(and other ancient belief systems) for myself - it's all there. But critical analysis of Murdoch's work… or Carrier's is not something I would presume to do without researching the papers/books, whatever, myself. My background in mythology and ancient history/art.. etc… make me quite interested in this subject. It's been a while since I've had the time to keep up with this subject though.

 

I am very wary of 'worshipping' any one avenue of understanding, or any one author. That is dogmatism.

 

I'll be back when I have had a chance to peruse said material.

 

I agree with many of the claims made in Murdoch's books, but I am uncomfortable with her sources, evidence, and the way she came to her conclusions.  For example, if you follow the first link that sassafras posted of mine, you will see she has a hand drawn sketch as proof of a statue supposedly in the hands of the vatican.  Her first book was full of hand drawn sketches, other books I have read have actual pictures of the artifacts in question.

 

Its been over 10 years, but I also seem to remember her making some sort of connection to sun worship and jesus being the "son" of god.  I remember thinking, "wait, surely this is only the same sounding word in english?"  However, being that jesus is the center of 12 followers does seem to invoke the zodiac calendar, and I have read much better researched books about it.  

 

I don't necessarily disagree with her conclusions, just how she got there and how she presents it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds familiar...

 

maybe you need to make a webpage that they can't touch… just a suggestion.

Well, that's not really the problem - they leave my compilation of criticism well enough alone. I would actually love it if they did criticize my criticism in a rational manner; who knows, there's probably a bunch of mistakes I have done as well, snippets of texts I have misunderstood, things I am generally unaware of, etc. 

 

However, I would be remiss if I did not voice a dissenting opinion whenever they voice their opinion in their ever-so-promotional way. If the criticism sits by itself, ever unread, no one benefits from seeing the amount of distortions, false facts and other problems present in Murdock's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sassafras is not the first Murdoch worshiper to visit us here at ex-c.  Unless Thor is the same person, they both act exactly alike, attacking anyone who doesn't worship her in their very first post.

 

This attitude alone would give me pause to consider reading any of her books.  The cultish way her followers behave is not inviting at all.

 

^ This.

 

Acharya S seems to be following the pattern of Madame Blavatsky, in developing a cult-like following in which the first rule is that the Master cannot be criticized. What makes this so absurd, besides making a religion out of anti-religion, is that she makes tons of mistakes by dredging up outdated scholarship. She's an intelligent person, but there isn't much rigor in her work. 

 

By contrast, I've directly criticized Carrier on his own blog, and he didn't permanently ban me from posting, or delete the posts, like Acharya S would have. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.