Jump to content

Apologists Take Swift Kick In The Nuts


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

Ok, the so called "Copy Cat Theory" has been a real focus for many of the leading Christian apologists. I don't know whether they just haven't researched good enough or whether they have out right lied knowing full well that there are many, many sources from before the common era which state very plainly beliefs and ideas claimed unique to Christianity. Gary Habermas, for instance has claimed that there is no resurrection in mythology until after the 2nd century of the common era. No virgin births either. In other words, no motifs similar to Christianity until after Christianity had set the stage. And they've all taken issue with DM Murdock over these claims while carefully ignoring the sources and "data" (Habermas loves that term, I suppose he thinks it makes him sound scholarly and scientifically credible) that she's been providing in several books following behind "The Christ Conspiracy" that spell it all out in greater detail. 

 

And oddly enough some atheists and agnostics have sort of sided with the apologists in this debate, strangely. I think that the main problem is that while the evidence and "data" that apologist's like Habermas demand is really there for the taking, it takes a certain amount of effort to find it. Such as actually reading what the comparative mythologist's have to say in their books and also carefully checking all of the sources that are provided therein. Those who have rattled their sabers the loudest seem to also be those who have turned a blind eye to engaging the cited source material. Can't find the source material when they don't read the books. Can't give an intellectually honest assessment without actually reading either. 

 

So along comes my friend DN Boswell who reads books like "Christ in Egypt: The Jesus - Horus Connection" and carefully follows the citations. He was taken back by how much evidence is actually there despite all of the saber rattling and denial coming from the theist and atheist opposition. He gets really caught up in checking out all of the sources and even sets out to uncover more of them. Eventually he decided that he was well on his way to writing a book of his own.

 

His ebook is available on scribd. and is free to the public: 

 

The Amen Creed

 

 

 

A satirically written source guide for evidence & scholarship which affirm the presence of major motifs from the dying-rising hero archetype within the mythos of the Egyptian god Osiris and various other gods of the ancient Mediterranean world who were identified with him.

 

This is a clean sweep of every major apologetic denial pertaining to the "Copy Cat Theory." By the end of this book I can't see any one even attempting to deny the fact that Christianity is through and through a Judaized and Hellenized remake of the Egyptian religion of resurrection. 

 

*So not to get too confused by the Satire reading into it early on, He's showing the priority that the Egyptian religion had to concepts later adopted by Christianity where the Christians and apologists are the "Heathen" in this case* 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you followed up the sources in The Christ Conspiracy? It's full of distortions, bullshit and lies. Keep lauding your favourite pseudoscholar though. I will admit though, that The Suns of God does come off as an improvement, but not beyond criticism. In a couple of years, maybe I'll be reviewing Christ In Egypt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read most of these works. I try to get my history from historians, ancient literature and archaeologists when I can. Certainly I am aware of many demigods who were born of gods and mortals BEFORE the common era. Hercules is but one. I should read up on Attis et al, I guess.

 

Athena sprung fully formed from her father Zeus (probably in armour!  lol)

 

I'll have to look more into the virgin birth thing… it's an area I haven't yet delved into.

 

The strange thing is that Christians don't see Mary's conception like the Greeks and others would have seen it… as the lust of a god towards a mortal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The strange thing is that Christians don't see Mary's conception like the Greeks and others would have seen it… as the lust of a god towards a mortal.

The Mormons kind of do see it that way, although they don't use the word "lust." Nevertheless, in their version of the story, Elohim is rather anthropomorphic, and he does have 'sexual relations' with Mary.

 

Oh.. I didn't know that.. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty

 

And oddly enough some atheists and agnostics have sort of sided with the apologists in this debate, strangely. I think that the main problem is that while the evidence and "data" that apologist's like Habermas demand is really there for the taking, it takes a certain amount of effort to find it.

Is it that some atheists and agnostics are not making the effort to find the evidence, and so are deferring to the Christian apologists on many points? And how do these deferring atheists and agnostics respond when the evidence is presented?

 

 

I think it more that Murdock is not considered a valid or trustworthy source.  She stretches things very far, does not provide good references for everything, many of what she does cite are very very old sources, and just all around sloppy research.

 

This is my opinion based on reading The Christ Conspiracy, but others have said similar.  I have not read anything else by her because that book was so poorly done I had no desire to read anything else by her...

 

Another thing that gives me pause with her is that twice now a "follower" of hers has come to these boards and been very aggressive if anyone dare question the reliability of DM Murdock's books.  It is to the point of a cult, if you ask me.  Anyone who does not agree with her conclusions is trying to put her down because she is a woman, blah blah, etc etc.  I remember one of the posters was called Thor, that was a while ago.  There was one more recent but I do not remember the handle.  Very aggressive people.

 

*EDIT*

 

Here is the most recent thread with a follower, Sassafrass:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62508-richard-carrier-owes-acharya-s-an-apology/#entry950890

 

Can't seem to find Thor's posts but Im in a rush this morning.  Perhaps it was on the old site...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And oddly enough some atheists and agnostics have sort of sided with the apologists in this debate, strangely. I think that the main problem is that while the evidence and "data" that apologist's like Habermas demand is really there for the taking, it takes a certain amount of effort to find it.

Is it that some atheists and agnostics are not making the effort to find the evidence, and so are deferring to the Christian apologists on many points? And how do these deferring atheists and agnostics respond when the evidence is presented?

 

 

I think it more that Murdock is not considered a valid or trustworthy source.  She stretches things very far, does not provide good references for everything, many of what she does cite are very very old sources, and just all around sloppy research.

 

This is my opinion based on reading The Christ Conspiracy, but others have said similar.  I have not read anything else by her because that book was so poorly done I had no desire to read anything else by her...

 

I do think she has made some progress since The Christ Conspiracy; Suns of God shows signs of the same utter nuttery beneath the surface, but does not seem to be just as badly sourced - she seems to have reduced her reliance on Higgins, Churchward, Barbara Walker and a few really unreliable sources, and increased the use of genuinely reliable ones. Still, SoG does have its problems as well. I did find a clear mistake in the first chapter of Christ in Egypt, so who knows. Rumours are Robert M. Price has helped her get rid of a lot of problems - however, having read his review of her work, it seems he also failed to spot a lot of the problems, and I intend to go through his own work critically at some point soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And oddly enough some atheists and agnostics have sort of sided with the apologists in this debate, strangely. I think that the main problem is that while the evidence and "data" that apologist's like Habermas demand is really there for the taking, it takes a certain amount of effort to find it.

Is it that some atheists and agnostics are not making the effort to find the evidence, and so are deferring to the Christian apologists on many points? And how do these deferring atheists and agnostics respond when the evidence is presented?

 

 

I think it more that Murdock is not considered a valid or trustworthy source.  She stretches things very far, does not provide good references for everything, many of what she does cite are very very old sources, and just all around sloppy research.

 

This is my opinion based on reading The Christ Conspiracy, but others have said similar.  I have not read anything else by her because that book was so poorly done I had no desire to read anything else by her...

 

Another thing that gives me pause with her is that twice now a "follower" of hers has come to these boards and been very aggressive if anyone dare question the reliability of DM Murdock's books.  It is to the point of a cult, if you ask me.  Anyone who does not agree with her conclusions is trying to put her down because she is a woman, blah blah, etc etc.  I remember one of the posters was called Thor, that was a while ago.  There was one more recent but I do not remember the handle.  Very aggressive people.

 

*EDIT*

 

Here is the most recent thread with a follower, Sassafrass:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62508-richard-carrier-owes-acharya-s-an-apology/#entry950890

 

Can't seem to find Thor's posts but Im in a rush this morning.  Perhaps it was on the old site...

 

So the agnostics and atheists who seem to side with the Christian apologists are moreso intentionally disassociating themselves from Murdock and her cult celebrity status, and as you describe it, her questionable research methods. These particular agnostics and atheists are not necessarily in agreement with any of the Christian apologists on any points. Rather, the are taking a stand for intellectual and academic integrity.

Thanks for the link.

 

One can disagree with the apologists without agreeing with Murdock. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
...all the preceding myths were mere shadows, but Jesus Christ was the concrete embodiment of truth.

 

That was the approach my former pastor took. He was smart and well educated, and he couldn't deny the similarities of previous mythologies. Rather than seeing Christianity as "borrowing" from previous stories, he had to see all prior history and such storytelling as a foreshadowing of the birth of the real deal, Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...all the preceding myths were mere shadows, but Jesus Christ was the concrete embodiment of truth.

 

That was the approach my former pastor took. He was smart and well educated, and he couldn't deny the similarities of previous mythologies. Rather than seeing Christianity as "borrowing" from previous stories, he had to see all prior history and such storytelling as a foreshadowing of the birth of the real deal, Jesus.
I think back to my Christian days and when I read things like this, it makes me wonder if I ever had "that much" faith. Faith so strong that it trumps any and all logic. How many excuses can be made for trying to pass off Christianity as the real deal. Idk. :-/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, foreshadowing.

 

I attended a Christian high school; four years of Bible class and we were well drilled on all the "foreshadowings" in the Bible.  Of course at the time I assumed that everything in the Bible was 100% history.  Of course God was making history repeat itself.  But if the Bible were fiction then plagiarism is the simpler explanation.  Nearly every movie made today is a remake or retelling of a story that appeared in a movie, on TV or in a book a few decades ago.  So naturally religious would do the same thing and rework the stories they had laying around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty

 

 

 

 

And oddly enough some atheists and agnostics have sort of sided with the apologists in this debate, strangely. I think that the main problem is that while the evidence and "data" that apologist's like Habermas demand is really there for the taking, it takes a certain amount of effort to find it.

Is it that some atheists and agnostics are not making the effort to find the evidence, and so are deferring to the Christian apologists on many points? And how do these deferring atheists and agnostics respond when the evidence is presented?

 

 

I think it more that Murdock is not considered a valid or trustworthy source.  She stretches things very far, does not provide good references for everything, many of what she does cite are very very old sources, and just all around sloppy research.

 

This is my opinion based on reading The Christ Conspiracy, but others have said similar.  I have not read anything else by her because that book was so poorly done I had no desire to read anything else by her...

 

Another thing that gives me pause with her is that twice now a "follower" of hers has come to these boards and been very aggressive if anyone dare question the reliability of DM Murdock's books.  It is to the point of a cult, if you ask me.  Anyone who does not agree with her conclusions is trying to put her down because she is a woman, blah blah, etc etc.  I remember one of the posters was called Thor, that was a while ago.  There was one more recent but I do not remember the handle.  Very aggressive people.

 

*EDIT*

 

Here is the most recent thread with a follower, Sassafrass:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62508-richard-carrier-owes-acharya-s-an-apology/#entry950890

 

Can't seem to find Thor's posts but Im in a rush this morning.  Perhaps it was on the old site...

 

So the agnostics and atheists who seem to side with the Christian apologists are moreso intentionally disassociating themselves from Murdock and her cult celebrity status, and as you describe it, her questionable research methods. These particular agnostics and atheists are not necessarily in agreement with any of the Christian apologists on any points. Rather, the are taking a stand for intellectual and academic integrity.

Thanks for the link.

 

One can disagree with the apologists without agreeing with Murdock. 

 

 

Human, yes.  From what I have seen from previous followers of Murdock, I take the quote from the OP about Atheists siding with the apologists and translate it as "​since these Atheists and Agnostics are not accepting the truth of Achriya S, they are siding with the christian apologists who also will not see the truth of her books".  I could be wrong with the intent here though.  

 

Like Miekko, I don't agree with apologists, I just dislike Murdock's methods.  When I read her first book, it felt like a creationism book or that Morris book about the flood (forgot the title of that one).  IOW, not a lot of references and what was referenced was obscure and very out of date.  I felt like she was starting from her conclusion and forcing things to fit her interpretation.  I think she used Kersey Graves a lot, and he was a 19th century historian who has been largely discredited today.

 

PS, DM Murdock writes under the pen name Archyia S.  When I first heard "Murdock" on here, I didn't know who that was at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Marty, Meikko, and all, the jab I made at the atheist and agnostics who have sided with the apologists is aimed at the copy cat theory in general, not specifically Murdock. I just named her because she's the reason that the author of the Amen Creed started reading up on the Egyptian primary source texts. But I do think that Murdock takes a lot more flack than she deserves at times. So did DM Boswell who decided to study her later works like http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Egypt-The-Horus-Jesus-Connection/dp/0979963117?&linkCode=waf&tag=truthbeknownfoun'>Christ in Egypt in detail as a launching point for his own investigation into the primary source texts.

 

As Meikko so generously stated, as you go through her books they get increasing better with time. The CC is a bit New Agey with a lot of references from 19th Theosophists, Freemasons and others of a mystical bent. And this is what I believe has turned Marty off to her work considering his last few posts. But I have read my way through and beyond that stage and understand that it was simply her introduction to mythicism and she was writing about the initial journey as she was aware of it at that time. And then she went on to uncover more sources that confirm a lot of what these 19th century writers were talking about to the point of bringing more credibility to what they were trying say. 

 

But Meikko is right in that as you continue to move into Suns of God (2nd book) you find that she had taken much of the criticism of the first book (CC) and tried to improve upon her approach and started citing more modern scholarship and direct primary source material. And this same general trend of trying to adapt to the critics over time then carries into the "Christ in Egypt" book. In that book she's citing everything from the primary source material straight from the Egyptian texts to modern Egyptologist's commentary about these issues. All of the previous criticism about her 19th century sources was taken into account and she went out of her way to try and over come that type of criticism with an enormous amount of citation to modern scholars. I do consider her a friend. An online friend but a friend nonetheless. She's gone so far as to print a 2nd edition to the Christ Conspiracy and clean up what she thought needed cleaned.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But alas, the point of this thread goes past the issue of Murdock's work to DM Boswell's book The Amen Creed, linked at the top of the thread. 

 

Any one read into the link I posted yet? 

 

It's full of sources and citation concerning virgin birth, crucifixion, and basically all of the major points of contention that apologists have flat out denied ever existing before the common era. Primary source material is cited on every page along side of modern scholarship. The book is not connected to Murdock aside from the fact that Boswell has read her recent works and concluded that many of the points are valid despite the harsh criticism they have received. Perhaps he feels that he needed to articulate some of the points and try and air them out from a different perspective. And he does. It's truly a clean sweep of apologetic denial. But at the same time so has Murdock - many people have just not caught on to that yet do to disliking her first book or whatever. 

 

What I'd like is for some of the more interested critics of the so-called Copy Cat Theory stuff to give this free ebook a good going over, source check it and basically give it an intellectually honest review if you would.

 

I'm thinking that this is good material for ex-christians to be made aware of so that they can argue these points with apologists instead of giving these guys the benefit of the doubt and agreeing that there's no data for pre-christian crucifixion, virgin birth, and so on. And I can see that Meikko is starting to see that there's more to this theory than he may have once thought possible. 

 

I haven't checked into the hostile Murdock fan posters that were mentioned earlier but I'll check out the links. I won't let any one come in here getting hostile about the subject if any of you want to bring more criticism of the theory to the table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, having taken a deeper look at Suns of God today, I will maintain that it is better than The Christ Conspiracy, BUT NOT BY MUCH. There's still an undercurrent of weird ideas on ancient history stretching much further back than any evidence would indicate, and other similar problems. I will go on to produce a review of that book as well over the next year or so. Until then, my review of The Christ Conspiracy at http://somerationalism.blogspot.com should demonstrate beyond any doubt that The Christ Conspiracy is mostly utter bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, having taken a deeper look at Suns of God today, I will maintain that it is better than The Christ Conspiracy, BUT NOT BY MUCH. There's still an undercurrent of weird ideas on ancient history stretching much further back than any evidence would indicate, and other similar problems. I will go on to produce a review of that book as well over the next year or so. Until then, my review of The Christ Conspiracy at somerationalism. blogspot  should demonstrate beyond any doubt that The Christ Conspiracy is mostly utter bullshit.

mey, problem is that your blog has been debunked, and you, miekko, are well known for your over-the-top pseudo-skepticism on Acharya's work. So, you have no credibility on the subject. If credibility is what you're after, I would recommend a large dose of objectivity and honesty for a change instead of quote-mining in order to strawman.

 

Meikko: "I did find a clear mistake in the first chapter of Christ in Egypt, so who knows."

 

The comments by Phillip and Robert in your blog below debunk you so, you are being less than honest posting here what you already know is a lie.

 

A Small Discovery and some musings on Christ in Egypt

http://somerationalism.blogspot.fi/2012/11/a-small-discovery-and-some-musings.html

 

Some Rationalism's Smear Campaign

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4286&start=15

 

And this is a perfect example of the problem trying to discuss Acharya's work when you have loads of dishonest people smearing and lying about it to defame and "poison the well" attempting to shut down any objective conversation of the primary sources and scholar commentary on them. It's a disservice and should be ridiculed. Shame on you, miekko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, having taken a deeper look at Suns of God today, I will maintain that it is better than The Christ Conspiracy, BUT NOT BY MUCH. There's still an undercurrent of weird ideas on ancient history stretching much further back than any evidence would indicate, and other similar problems. I will go on to produce a review of that book as well over the next year or so. Until then, my review of The Christ Conspiracy at somerationalism. blogspot  should demonstrate beyond any doubt that The Christ Conspiracy is mostly utter bullshit.

mey, problem is that your blog has been debunked, and you, miekko, are well known for your over-the-top pseudo-skepticism on Acharya's work. So, you have no credibility on the subject. If credibility is what you're after, I would recommend a large dose of objectivity and honesty for a change instead of quote-mining in order to strawman.

 

Meikko: "I did find a clear mistake in the first chapter of Christ in Egypt, so who knows."

 

The comments by Phillip and Robert in your blog below debunk you so, you are being less than honest posting here what you already know is a lie.

 

A Small Discovery and some musings on Christ in Egypt

http://somerationalism.blogspot.fi/2012/11/a-small-discovery-and-some-musings.html

 

Some Rationalism's Smear Campaign

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4286&start=15

 

And this is a perfect example of the problem trying to discuss Acharya's work when you have loads of dishonest people smearing and lying about it to defame and "poison the well" attempting to shut down any objective conversation of the primary sources and scholar commentary on them. It's a disservice and should be ridiculed. Shame on you, miekko.

 

So, why do you never answer a single one of the errors I have brought up? Why with the ad hominem attacks constantly? Why did Murdock's blood hound Freethinkaluva not let me defend my position? Why were two other guys banned over pointing out that I actually am right?

 

Why does Murdock lie about what the nostraticists claim? Why does Murdock use Churchward as a source - the guy who fantasized up the entire idea of the lost continent of Mu and fabricated evidence? Why does Murdock claim that Jerusalem is based on an early MEDIEVAL Indian town? Why does she claim LEVITICAL marriage customs are shared with Indo-Europeans when this is not the case? This is just a sample of all the errors, and these are the less bad ones, really. (Well, lying about nostraticists says something about scholarly honesty.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually, having taken a deeper look at Suns of God today, I will maintain that it is better than The Christ Conspiracy, BUT NOT BY MUCH. There's still an undercurrent of weird ideas on ancient history stretching much further back than any evidence would indicate, and other similar problems. I will go on to produce a review of that book as well over the next year or so. Until then, my review of The Christ Conspiracy at somerationalism. blogspot  should demonstrate beyond any doubt that The Christ Conspiracy is mostly utter bullshit.

mey, problem is that your blog has been debunked, and you, miekko, are well known for your over-the-top pseudo-skepticism on Acharya's work. So, you have no credibility on the subject. If credibility is what you're after, I would recommend a large dose of objectivity and honesty for a change instead of quote-mining in order to strawman.

 

Meikko: "I did find a clear mistake in the first chapter of Christ in Egypt, so who knows."

 

The comments by Phillip and Robert in your blog below debunk you so, you are being less than honest posting here what you already know is a lie.

 

A Small Discovery and some musings on Christ in Egypt

http://somerationalism.blogspot.fi/2012/11/a-small-discovery-and-some-musings.html

 

Some Rationalism's Smear Campaign

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4286&start=15

 

And this is a perfect example of the problem trying to discuss Acharya's work when you have loads of dishonest people smearing and lying about it to defame and "poison the well" attempting to shut down any objective conversation of the primary sources and scholar commentary on them. It's a disservice and should be ridiculed. Shame on you, miekko.

 

So, why do you never answer a single one of the errors I have brought up? Why with the ad hominem attacks constantly? Why did Murdock's blood hound Freethinkaluva not let me defend my position? Why were two other guys banned over pointing out that I actually am right?

 

Why does Murdock lie about what the nostraticists claim? Why does Murdock use Churchward as a source - the guy who fantasized up the entire idea of the lost continent of Mu and fabricated evidence? Why does Murdock claim that Jerusalem is based on an early MEDIEVAL Indian town? Why does she claim LEVITICAL marriage customs are shared with Indo-Europeans when this is not the case? This is just a sample of all the errors, and these are the less bad ones, really. (Well, lying about nostraticists says something about scholarly honesty.)

 

 

LOL, your errors were already discussed in the links I provided, duhh. There are so many errors and so much dishonesty in your blog that nobody is ever going to waste their time on it ... all you have done is ruin your own credibility. I don't think they need to waste their time on every troll that comes along.

 

Why do you hide behind a sock puppet account? If you're so credible, then, why don't you let people know who you really are? Probably due to the fact that you are not the expert you want people to beleive you are. You have no related credentials or qualifications whatsoever. You say on your blog that you are in computers. Ok, so you're qualified to start a blog and spread lies and take no responsibility for it ... good for you.

 

I did not ad hom you, providing the facts is not an ad hom. You sir, are just another anti-Acharya zealot out to troll every thread you come across with an opportunity to post a link to your garbage blog and this thread is another prime example.

 

I'm sure the mods at Acharya's forum are burned out on trolls like yourself. You were not right and neither were your dishonest friends (trolls).

 

Meikko: "Why does Murdock use Churchward"

 

LOL, you're way behind the times. She rejected Churchward years ago and will remove any reference to him and several others from her 2nd edition. So, I'm sorry to have to tell you that you've been wasting your time on all those outdated blogs nitpicking and quote-mining things and sources that have already been addressed and will not be in the 2nd edition.

 

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Revised 2nd Edition

 

Meikko's blog, exposed and debunked: Some Rationalism's Smear Campaign

 

Have you even looked at the book from the original post, The Amen Creed? Nope, you're only posting here to smear Acharya, same as always. Maybe it's time to get a life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot seriously mean I am not permitted to review the book? Murdock still refers to it repeatedly throughout her website, and from the way these references speak of it, one can only conclude she still holds it as a fairly good work. I cannot be required to be prescient about the content of the next edition, whose estimated time of publishing has been repeatedly pushed back - I do hope my reviews have had a hand in that.

 

Sassafras, I've posted something like 30 posts ever since that particular thread on freethoughtnation, and you have not looked at a single one of them since that. 

 

Take your pick, debunk my debunkage either of this one: http://somerationalism.blogspot.fi/2013/09/the-christ-conspiracy-ch-16-etymology.html or this one: http://somerationalism.blogspot.fi/2013/10/the-christ-conspiracy-chapter-15-pt-1.html

 

Neither of those has been commented by any Acharya-fan, and not a single attempt at debunking my arguments since I was banned from freethoughtnation has been presented. I would love if my arguments are debunked, but alas, freethinkaluva is such an epic retard that he or she doesn't understand the arguments in the first place, and the responses to them are therefore so lacking that I wonder how he or she gets by in a real-life conversation. Robert Tulip is a bit smarter, but he is so willing to jump through hoops to salvage Acharya's texts that he would strip them of meaning to rescue them.

 

I would be especially impressed if you took on my reviews of chapter 24 and 25 - and any single one argument you show to be wrong I promise to correct!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal attacks will not be tolerated.  Drop it now and keep this thread on topic or it will be locked and other moderator action taken.  If there is some kind of personal grudge, take it somewhere else.  This is my one and only warning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...all the preceding myths were mere shadows, but Jesus Christ was the concrete embodiment of truth.

 

That was the approach my former pastor took. He was smart and well educated, and he couldn't deny the similarities of previous mythologies. Rather than seeing Christianity as "borrowing" from previous stories, he had to see all prior history and such storytelling as a foreshadowing of the birth of the real deal, Jesus.

 

 

Or as C.S. Lewis put it, "Christianity is a true myth."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, you're way behind the times. She rejected Churchward years ago and will remove any reference to him and several others from her 2nd edition. So, I'm sorry to have to tell you that you've been wasting your time on all those outdated blogs nitpicking and quote-mining things and sources that have already been addressed and will not be in the 2nd edition.

 

Perhaps she should have rejected those sources years ago, before she was published in the first place?  Most authors vet out their resources before publishing.  All I hear is "give her a second chance, she did her homework this time"…  

 

 

I did not ad hom you, providing the facts is not an ad hom. You sir, are just another anti-Acharya zealot out to troll every thread you come across with an opportunity to post a link to your garbage blog and this thread is another prime example.

 

Oh yes you have ad homed Miekko, and myself.  Maybe not in this thread, but in the previous one I linked to earlier you were very big on the personal attacks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I have to read through some of the links and catch up on the back and fourth. I'm sure we can discuss this without any personal attacks. I need to read through Miekko's reviews and get my bearings on the true vs untrue problem. But rest assured if for some reason the reviews are personal attacks against Murdock or untrue straw man type fallacies, as alleged, I'm sure we can agree on labeling these things as such without crossing over into a counter personal attack.

 

But more to the point, many of the controversial issues like Jesus's relation to near eastern solar deities and virgin birth in the pagan world, in Egypt in particular, are issues raised in the topic at hand - The Amen Creed.

 

I've raised this topic simply because I'm aware of Murdock and her opposition and this new ebook is sort of in response to that sort of thing. And in my opinion The Amen Creed lends some support to many of the hot topics. Some people don't like Murdocks writing style or whatever, Ok. But many of the things that she's claimed as parallel are in fact parallel. all personal vendetta's against Murdock aside. And some people have just brushed many of these things aside as if they're not real when in fact they are real and can be shown in the primary source texts and elaborated upon by mainstream modern scholarship. Murdock actually did this in Christ in Egypt but for what ever the reason many people have just turned a blind eye over not liking some previous work or whatever. The Christ Conspiracy first edition was something that was put together in the 90's as an introduction to the mythicist argument. Sort of like how Peter Joseph made the Zeitgeist movie for a film festival and then put it online not knowing just how much attention it would receive. So in both cases they had to go back and detail the work a lot closer due to the popularity it received. So there's a 2nd edition in the works which should satisfy the complaints about the first CC.There's no good reason to try and attack Murdock over the CC. I don't think she really deserves that. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Amen Creed is a 900 + page ebook. Let's just pick something like the The Star in East in relation to Horus and then see what DM Boswell came up with.

 

That claim initially sounds just made up out of thin air, right?

 

It starts on page 526 The Amen Creed

 

So what do you guys think of the case Boswell made? 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Meikko, I think I get a better picture of this ordeal. I'll quote your issue with Christ in Egypt below along with how I interpret the situation:

 

 

 

Considering that Christ in Egypt sets out to show how Christianity is Egyptian in origin, this does reduce my ability to spot inaccuracies. However, there still are flaws in her scholarship that even the least Egyptologically inclined reader can spot - and after I point this out, her fans will, again, accuse me of "smearing" her. In that case, I can only reply "how can telling the truth about the quality of someone's work be smearing?"

 
As I said,  after reading an author a while, you get to know the author in a way. 
 

Although many people remain unaware of the real meaning behind “Christmas,” one of the better-known correspondences between pre-Christian religion and Christianity has been the celebration of the god’s birth on the 25th of December.[343] Nevertheless, it has been argued that this comparison is erroneous because Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th, an assertion in itself that would come as a surprise to many, since up until just a few years ago only a miniscule percentage of people knew such a fact. Indeed, over the many centuries since the holiday was implemented by Christian authorities, hundreds of millions of people have celebrated Jesus’s birthday on December 25th, or Christmas, so named after Christ. [...]  In this regard, a century ago Dr. K.A. Heinrich Kellner, a professor of Catholic Theology at the University of Bonn stated concerning “Christmas, or the feast of our Lord’s birth,” that the “whole Church, and all the sects, agree in observing the 25th December as this date.”[345] [1, p. 137]

Somehow, this is the kind of thing that looks as though there may be a quote-mining thing going on: agreeing in observing the 25th as that date is not the same as agreeing that the 25th is that date. So, I went to trace it down. There's a slight detour here, but this is the kind of thing I start to expect. The relevant passage is given as Kellner, p 127.

 

So it looks to me at first glance like you've approached this situation with the intention of accusing Murdock of quote mining. Right away I can see that Murdock, who's thesis and point is that the gospel Jesus never existed as one fixed person as described in the Bible (but rather is a mythological construct), is clearly NOT trying to quote mine some one in order to prove a fixed date for the birth of Jesus. Remember now, her very point is that she doesn't believe that Jesus even had a birth in the first place. Her point, again, is that Jesus is a myth and that his birth sequence follows in the tradition of previous myths some of which we'll see took place in Egypt far predating the common era. That's where the book is headed. I know this because I've read the book beyond the quote you've outlined. 

 

I hope no one thinks of this as a personal attack of any type because it's not. I'm just trying to interpret the conflict which recently arose here. And in this instance, Meikko, it appears that you've developed a type of bias against this author and that for some reason you're actually trying to find some fault with what she's saying. In a way this review of yours does begin as a type of quote mining her in what appears to be an intentional smearing of her work.

 

Now that's the accusation that was raised against you earlier and perhaps some thought it was a personal attack towards you. But I don't think it was. Because I have no personal problem with you myself, but at the same time I too think that you're misinterpreting what's being said in the book. I don't know if I'll use the word lying because the whole thing could well be an innocent misunderstanding, but there is a certain degree of, shall we say, 'untruth' involved in what you've accused her of. 

 

 

 

 

But this is clearly a quote-mine, as the professor of Catholic Theology doesn't say that the church thinks the birth did occur at that date, only that the church (and sects) celebrate at that day the

fact (I am not saying it is a fact, only that they think of it as such) that their savior has been born, and implies that the idea that his date of birth was the 25th December was a later development."

 

You must have missed the fact that she acknowledged that Dec 25th is considered the birth of Christ in the quote you're questioning. She made it clear that until recently most folks thought that Dec 25th was the actual birth date, aside from the few who knew other wise. When she said that up until recently "only a minuscule percentage of people knew such a fact" she was saying that it's a fact that this really isn't Jesus' birthday. Such as higher up's in the church perhaps? If you were to read on you'd actually find a lot more clarity to what she actually is saying. 

 

Why would any one do this to an author?

 

To a fellow ex-christian author taking Christianity to task at that? 

 

And as an ex-christian with an emphasis on helping along Christians and ex-christians to better understand the hypocrisy and contradiction of Christianity, I think she's done a hell of a good job in my own opinion. Why would I care if any one tries to straw man this women? Well because I wouldn't very well stand idle and watch any well meaning ex-christian get straw man fallacies thrown at them by apologists or even atheists and agnostics who seem to want to tear down fellow ex-christians for whatever the odd reason. I for one don't think that it's correct to take that route especially not when it involves the sort of dishonesty that I'm seeing in this review so far.  

 

Continued:

 

Formerly it was taken for granted that Christ had actually been born on this day, and, accordingly, the learned were of opinion that the Church had observed it from the beginning as the day of His birth. Even at the present day, it will be difficult for many to give up this idea. But there is no Christmas among the Christian feasts enumerated by Tertullian, Origen, and the recently published Testament of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, there is clear proof that even in the fourth and fifth centuries it was unknown in some parts of the Church, where its introduction, at a much later period, can be proved historically. ...
At the beginning of the fifth century the learned monk, John Cassian, betook himself to Egypt to study the observances of the monasteries there, and later on, between 418 and 427, he wrote down the result of his observations in his Collations. He informs us that the bishops of those parts at that time regarded the Epiphany as our Lord's birth-day, and that there was no separate festival in honour of the latter. He calls this the "ancient custom." . ...
 The learned Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis lived in Cyprus at the end of the fourth century. In his answer to the Alogoi he gives the chronology of our Lord's life, according to which the 6th January is the day of our Lord's birth, and the 8th November the day of his Baptism in Jordan. For him the Epiphany was plainly the festival of Christ's nativity. ...
 It is a well-known fact that the festival of the 25th December, as Christ's birth-day, was entirely unknown to the ancient churches of Armenia and Mesopotamia, and remained so partially until on in the fourteenth century.
 [2, pp 127-130]

 

Ok, now let's keep in mind that Murdock hasn't even said any thing contrary to what the source she quoted is saying in the above quote. She acknowledged the very thing he's saying above in that until very recently most people assumed that Dec 25th was literally the birth date of Christ, aside from the few learned in such matters. As in the church clergy would be the few who knew better and the ignorant masses being the majority who did not. 

 

So now how did you come in behind this quote Miekko? Let's see below:

 

 Such quote-mining is dishonest and rightly frowned upon in academia, and the conclusion she props it up with cannot be supported with the evidence she distorts to fit her agenda.


I have heard good things of Christ in Egypt even from people fairly critical of her earlier work - that it, indeed, is better researched, less shoddy and so on. My first impression is similar - that she may have learned a thing or a dozen between the publishing of her earlier works and this one, yet quote-mines such as this indicates that there still is a lot of very flawed research in it. Maybe she has learned to hide her tracks better? As I also point out, I would not recognize distortions and fabrications with regard to Egyptian mythology as easily as I recognize mistaken linguistics or mistaken logic. Further, she often refers to her earlier books in it, using them as supporting evidence, hence demonstrating how flawed they are is sufficient to tear out a big hole out of Christ in Egypt as well.

 This will be the only post on Christ in Egypt for a while, as I return my focus mainly to The Christ Conspiracy, and to a lesser extent Suns of God and Higgins' Anacalypsis. I will return to The Christ Conspiracy later.


[1] Acharya S/D.M. Murdock, Christ in Egypt - The Horus-Jesus Connection, 2009.
[2] Heinrich Kellner, Heortology: a history of the Christian festivals from their origin to the present day (1908)
 
Posted by Miekko at 12:49 PM 
 

 

So now do you see what happened? 

 

The reason some one would say that you've lied is because your accusation of Murdock quote mining to prove that from the beginning the church believed that Jesus was literally born on Dec 25th is an obvious error. Perhaps you didn't catch the error and you were not intentionally lying - that you really believed that she was saying something that she isn't actually saying. But at the end of the day the effort is dishonest and I'll leave it up to you on how you'd like to proceed.

 

I'll post some of the comments that were left on your blog page, some of which I'm sure you've read already which basically point out the same general error that I've outlined above. 

 

Philip wrote:

 

If you had bothered to read the rest of it you would have saw this:

Moreover, hundreds of millions continue to celebrate the 25th of December as the birth of Jesus Christ, completely oblivious to the notion that this date does not represent the “real” birthday of the Jewish son of God.[344]

S, Acharya; Murdock, D.M. (2011-01-29). Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (Kindle Locations 2185-2187). Stellar House Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Further down:

birthdays.” The truth is that, as is typical of myths, Christ’s birthday from the earliest times of his conception has been variously placed, on a myriad of dates such as: January 5th, January 6th, March 25th, March 28th, April 19th, April 20th, May 20th, August 21st, November 17th and November 19th.[347]

S, Acharya; Murdock, D.M. (2011-01-29). Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (Kindle Locations 2202-2205). Stellar House Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Your obviously not reading it just scaling it trying to find a weak spot to exploit it. How about reading it before you draw assumptions for a change.

 

Yes, I believe Philip is correct. It's not Murdock who was quote mining, in fact you did the quote mining of her work for what appears to be an attempt at finding what you thought was a weak spot and exploiting it. There's some type of an agenda involved in the quote mine that you shot for in this instance. 

 

I wonder what agenda that would be? 

 

I'm not seeing the point of one ex-christian doing this to another. 

 

You acknowledged all of the comments and then responded:

 

Meikko wrote:

 

I would have pointed this out if it weren't for the fact that this is irrelevant with regards to the fact that she misrepresents her source.

See, I am starting to doubt Acharya's fans understand why it's wrong to misrepresent what a source says. Quote-mining is a reprehensible practice, and one that is rightly considered unethical in academic praxis. Yet I have spotted several in her works that I am doubly and triply checking so as not to accidentally accuse her of misrepresentation. 

Seems even the paper she got published in a journal contains a quote-mine. And her fans are happy with this situation. Academical honesty is not your thing, apparently.

 

You were completely amiss to the fact that you browsed her work, quote mined it, and then accused her of quote mine that she clearly never even committed - she never even misrepresented her source in the first place as well proved by Philip who simply quoted what she actually went on to say above and beyond the very quote in question which, itself, never even misrepresented the source as I demonstrated in the opening of this post.

 

Why you didn't understand the error of your logic I'm not quite sure because it was pointed out to you very clearly by simply providing the rest of what Murdock went on to say beyond the quote you outlined. She even gave a list of dates thought of by the church to be the birth dates of Christ and they're divergent to say the least. How then does that mean that she used a source to try and prove that from the beginning the church believed that Christ was born on Dec 25th and that her source was insinuating as much? 

 

You've started out from an incorrect assumption and everything quickly snowballs from there.  

 

You see the problem here is that you appear to have skimmed the quote too quickly and then never went on to read the rest of the work in order to see what she's even talking about in the first place. You're correct in your stern words of advise about how academia feels about quote mining, however you seem to have not taken the hint that you yourself have committed the quote mine in this instance in an attempt to accuse some one else of doing it. Just re check all of this and see if it starts sinking in and getting clearer. There's no reason to attack you personally or ad hom, however you ought to be made aware of some of the errors that you've committed to writing and perhaps you may need to reconsider a little closer before getting too carried away. 

 

I guess the main problem here is that you're essentially trying to poo-poo this authors book sales which if successful could potentially hurt that author.

 

Once again, why?

 

Why lash out with false accusations at one of our own?

 

I don't quite get the reasoning behind any of this. Unless, you're basically saying that you bad reviewed her first book, then heard that she got better with time, then quickly browsed this more recent book quickly looking for what you thought was a fault to find in order to justify the bad reviews that you've already committed to writing. A back peddling of sorts. Given the circumstances and wording of your blog I'd place my bet on the above. That's the answer to all of my questions isn't it? 

 

The thesis here is that Christianity was a copy cat religion who usurped the pagan religions and Judaized many previously held mythological symbols and beliefs. The thesis is correct. Nit picking like this doesn't fold it. 

 

It's the Christian apologists who stand to loose something here, atheists and agnostics need not take their side and share in their shame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joshpantera, if I retract that post will you ever read some of the other criticism I have written? There's about 50 of them, yet that's the only one Acharya's advocates keep harping on about, even though I do maintain it's a quote mine.

 

The reason I have not written more about Christ in Egypt is simply that from that point onwards, I focused my effort on The Christ Conspiracy - the little stuff I've written on other authors (Karlsson, Barbara Walker) was the result of being exposed to these sources repeatedly when tracing claims in TCC. I intend to go on to Christ in Egypt soon, though, after finishing off my reviews of two or three more chapters out of TCC and a conclusion to the TCC reviews. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meikko, I think I get a better picture of this ordeal. I'll quote your issue with Christ in Egypt below along with how I interpret the situation:

 

 

I have been trying to write a response to your post a few times now, and alas, it will be longish. I am sorry for that. There are some pretty important points you have misunderstood in my original blogpost, and this sours your entire argument significantly.

 

 

But this is clearly a quote-mine, as the professor of Catholic Theology doesn't say that the church thinks the birth did occur at that date, only that the church (and sects) celebrate at that day the

fact (I am not saying it is a fact, only that they think of it as such) that their savior has been born, and implies that the idea that his date of birth was the 25th December was a later development."

 

You must have missed the fact that she acknowledged that Dec 25th is considered the birth of Christ in the quote you're questioning. She made it clear that until recently most folks thought that Dec 25th was the actual birth date, aside from the few who knew other wise. When she said that up until recently "only a minuscule percentage of people knew such a fact" she was saying that it's a fact that this really isn't Jesus' birthday. Such as higher up's in the church perhaps? If you were to read on you'd actually find a lot more clarity to what she actually is saying. 

 

 

 

 

 

You must have missed where it's obvious that I know this and acknowledge that Murdock does not believe Jesus ever was born, and you must have missed the fact that nowhere do I attribute that belief to Murdock. This is a pretty significant misunderstanding on your part, as your entire criticism of my post falls flat. Murdock's beliefs regarding Jesus are irrelevant to the claim dealt with in that particular context.

 

Let's look closer at the context! The structure, essentially, could be summarized as an exchange along these lines - this is pseudo-dramatized, so don't think I am ascribing direct quotes to Acharya here. Acharya's claims (or those of her ideological allies) are represented by lines starting out with 'A', the "opponent"'s lines start out with O.

 

A: The claimed birth date for Jesus, 25 Dec, demonstrates that Jesus is a mythical saviour figure, based on earlier saviour figures in ancient paganism.

O: But 25 Dec as his birth date is a later addition, added in part because it gave a convenient excuse to steam-roller all over popular pagan celebrations held during the solstice. The Jesus character was already fully formed by the time this idea was added.

A: Here, see what Kellner says. He says 'all the churches and sects celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 Dec!' Thus debunking your argument!

 

My point is that using Kellner's statement as valid debunkage of O's argument in this case is misleading, as Kellner does not state anything that would debunk O's utterance. NOTHING. In fact, later on in Kellner, you find him giving good ammunition to O, rather than A. Thus it is a quote mine, she's inserting the idea that Kellner basically says the Dec 25 date is doctrinally held as Jesus' birth date.

 

If she's not quote-mining Kellner, she's strawmanning O. Both approaches are fallacies.

 

And as an ex-christian with an emphasis on helping along Christians and ex-christians to better understand the hypocrisy and contradiction of Christianity, I think she's done a hell of a good job in my own opinion. Why would I care if any one tries to straw man this women? Well because I wouldn't very well stand idle and watch any well meaning ex-christian get straw man fallacies thrown at them by apologists or even atheists and agnostics who seem to want to tear down fellow ex-christians for whatever the odd reason. I for one don't think that it's correct to take that route especially not when it involves the sort of dishonesty that I'm seeing in this review so far.  

And as an ex-christian with an emphasis on helping people along to better understanding of science and logic so that they'll get a more informed view of the world, I think she's done a hell of a bad job. In fact, the job she's done has been downright damaging. Should I stand idly by and watch any well meaning ex-christian distort facts, misrepresent other scholars and fabricate shit? I for one do not think that it's correct to take that route, especially when it involves the sort of dishonesty you'd see if you were to read her books honestly. Look at the other posts I have made, detailing her distortions by the dozen:

  • she lies about what nostraticists think
  • she misrepresents etymologies by the dozen
  • she misrepresents the history of the polynesian peoples
  • she misrepresents evolutionary theory repeatedly
  • she misrepresents the evidence regarding pygmy populations worldwide

Seriously, read through the posts on my blog in general, and you will change your opinion of her work. Why is that one post the only one you guys care about - while misunderstanding its point gravely at that!

 

You have built a very compelling narrative for any reader who does not try to understand the relevant point raised in the post. Maybe I should write my posts even more clearly so that not even Robert Tulip's way with words can twist what I am saying into the opposite of what I actually am saying or diverting the minds of impressionable readers onto weird detours. You're buying into Tulip's way of making words mean nothing and then ascribing his own meanings to them - just like made 'cognate' mean 'not cognate' in another post, when he tried to interpret what Murdock was saying in a way that would make her claim right. Even when the entire context of that passage made it clear that I was right and he was just being stupid.

 

 

 

 

The reason some one would say that you've lied is because your accusation of Murdock quote mining to prove that from the beginning the church believed that Jesus was literally born on Dec 25th is an obvious error. Perhaps you didn't catch the error and you were not intentionally lying - that you really believed that she was saying something that she isn't actually saying. But at the end of the day the effort is dishonest and I'll leave it up to you on how you'd like to proceed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just read what she is saying, and you'll see that my understanding of that snippet of text is the only one that can be accurate. No one else has provided a reading that takes the context into account that would a) make sense, cool.png account for the wording she uses and c) not be some kind of shoddy fallacy. All the readings others have proposed either make no sense or do not account for the way words are used in that context.

 

 

I'll post some of the comments that were left on your blog page, some of which I'm sure you've read already which basically point out the same general error that I've outlined above. 

 

Philip wrote:

 

If you had bothered to read the rest of it you would have saw this:

 

Moreover, hundreds of millions continue to celebrate the 25th of December as the birth of Jesus Christ, completely oblivious to the notion that this date does not represent the “real” birthday of the Jewish son of God.[344]

 

 

 

 

Murdock is an interesting author in that she at times will acknowledge a fact, when it fits her argument. At others, she'll reject that very fact, when it fits her argument. She does that a few times in The Christ Conspiracy too, which can be especially clearly seen with regards to her shifting opinions of the Indo-European theory, which go from acknowledging it outright to being very suspicious of it. Yet the conclusions she draws from it, as well as the conclusions she draws from denying it both are left to stand. Likewise, if she were an honest scholar, she'd admit that her argument against the objection that I represented by "O" previously is invalid. The fact that she lets her argument based on a certain claim stand while later on acknowledging the oppsoite of that claim does not make her quote-mining any better. 

 

Your obviously not reading it just scaling it trying to find a weak spot to exploit it. How about reading it before you draw assumptions for a change.

 

 

 

 

Unlike you, I've read that paragraph and its surrounding context several times while thinking it over, trying to salvage it so as not to post an incorrect criticism. I am afraid of pointing incorrect criticisms, since I know exactly what people like Freethinkaluva, Robert Tulip and Murdock herself would do out of a genuine blooper. The fact that they're good at fabricating the impression of their critics having made bloopers is astounding, however. But as I say, read that paragraph and several surrounding paragraphs closely. Think about the structure of the argument. Think about to what extent her argument is valid when you've looked into what exactly this Kellner says, think about to what extent her argument is valid in the light of things she acknowledged later on. You will see that the only way it adds up is if she thinks Kellner there is saying the church originally thought Jesus was born on Dec 25.

 

 

 

You acknowledged all of the comments and then responded:

 

 

I did no such thing. I never "acknowledged" any other comments than those I responded to, in part because I found the arguments inconceivably dumb. Unlike D.M. Murdock's forum, however, I do not like censorship, and therefore let every non-spam comment stand. You will find that Murdock and her forum goons do not believe in such a freedom of discussion.

 

 

You were completely amiss to the fact that you browsed her work, quote mined it, and then accused her of quote mine that she clearly never even committed - she never even misrepresented her source in the first place as well proved by Philip who simply quoted what she actually went on to say above and beyond the very quote in question which, itself, never even misrepresented the source as I demonstrated in the opening of this post.

 

Why you didn't understand the error of your logic I'm not quite sure because it was pointed out to you very clearly by simply providing the rest of what Murdock went on to say beyond the quote you outlined. She even gave a list of dates thought of by the church to be the birth dates of Christ and they're divergent to say the least. How then does that mean that she used a source to try and prove that from the beginning the church believed that Christ was born on Dec 25th and that her source was insinuating as much? 

 

If you still do not agree with me that her claim is a quote mine, I have a hard time believing you're approaching this soundly and logically. Unlike you, I've actually been able to argue from what she says, whereas you just point at something a few paragraphs off that in fact invalidates her very claim. I can point to other places where she contradicts herself. By the point the list of alternative dates appear, the argument she responds to has been forgotten - she thinks that the fight over that argument has been won, so now she no longer has to pretend that what Kellner said means what she had it to mean when quoting it.

 

Alas, the post must be split in two due to the number of quote blocks surpassing the permitted number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thesis here is that Christianity was a copy cat religion who usurped the pagan religions and Judaized many previously held mythological symbols and beliefs. The thesis is correct. Nit picking like this doesn't fold it. 

 

It's the Christian apologists who stand to loose something here, atheists and agnostics need not take their side and share in their shame. 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I seriously doubt the bulk of Murdock's interpretation of this thesis. She's extending the evidence far beyond what it demonstrates. Christianity can very well be false without Murdock's thesis being correct, and Murdock's way of dealing with criticism of problems in her thesis has been far from scholarly. It has had more similarity with how religious cultists react to having their beliefs questioned. Critics of Christianity have stuff to lose here, as her shoddy scholarship dumbs down certain ex-christians.

 

 

 

 

 

I hope no one thinks of this as a personal attack of any type because it's not. I'm just trying to interpret the conflict which recently arose here. And in this instance, Meikko, it appears that you've developed a type of bias against this author and that for some reason you're actually trying to find some fault with what she's saying. In a way this review of yours does begin as a type of quote mining her in what appears to be an intentional smearing of her work.

 

 

The interesting thing, as you would notice if you've read this post this far, is that your description of the situation is wrong and misleading. In this instance, Joshpantera, it seems you've either failed to try to understand what was going on, or just willy-nilly attributed malevolent intentions or inability to grasp what she's saying to me while you yourself are guilty of that very same failure.

Thus, this statement must be reversed, really:

Now that's the accusation that was raised against you earlier and perhaps some thought it was a personal attack towards you. But I don't think it was. Because I have no personal problem with you myself, but at the same time I too think that you're misinterpreting what's being said in the book. I don't know if I'll use the word lying because the whole thing could well be an innocent misunderstanding, but there is a certain degree of, shall we say, 'untruth' involved in what you've accused her of. 

 

I think you're misinterpreting what I am saying about the book. I don't know if I'll use the word lying because the whole thing could well be an innocent misunderstanding, but there is a certain degree of untruth involved in your accusation against me. 

 

You ask why anyone would to this to any author. I ask, conversely, why an author would present fabrications and bullshit to his or her audience. Is misleading morally better than pointing out that someone is misleading people?  You attribute a (nefarious?) agenda to me - or at least you hint at me having such an agenda. 

 

Your attributing malice to me for no tangible reason is a pretty harsh claim, and I would count it as a personal attack if I hadn't got out of bed on my kinder foot today. My intention is to prevent people from being mislead into beliefs based on theosophical speculation.

 

Your question is further given an even more detailed form:

 

To a fellow ex-christian author taking Christianity to task at that? 

 

 

 

 

 

Because she's a fellow ex-christian misleading ex-christians as well as Christians into shoddy use of logic, shoddy understanding of evidence and shoddy thinking in general. These are not qualities we want to become more common among ex-christians, these are qualities we want both ex-christians and christians to leave behind. With her weak evidence and shoddy arguments, she further arms the Christians. Disproving the evidence she provides in Suns of God and The Christ Conspiracy - both books that she refers to repeatedly in Christ in Egypt - is easy. If you rest your unbelief on Murdock's arguments, you're likely to turn back to Christianity when the wind turns.

 

Do you fail to understand that lying is bad, even if it's done to deconvert people? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.