Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5377
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:29 pm

Robert Tulip wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:wilfully evil sod.
willfully evil sodomy.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... fid=237654
The meaning 'sodomite' is a little old fashioned. More typically it's used as a softer form of 'fool', 'idiot', or 'bastard'.
"He's a daft old sod, but you've got to love him."
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by neilgodfrey » Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:00 pm

Robert Tulip wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:...you do not feel that your foundations will be threatened. Anyone coming from that angle is a wilfully evil sod.
I am perfectly happy to have my foundations threatened as long as the discussion is logical and courteous.

I have not seen the slightest evidence that you have the capacity to engage in such a discussion.

The foundations I present are grounded in empirical astronomy and analysis of ancient culture. It is certainly flamboyant and entertaining, if inaccurate, to call that willfully evil sodomy.
We'll I must be the naive one, then. I always thought "sod" simply referred to a clump of dirt. And I was NOT accusing you of being that. I was referring to your repeated accusations that anyone who fails to be convinced of your arguments is wilfully blind and stubbornly out of touch with the reality of the universe that would "save" them -- which is what your "scientific" religion is all about.

And yes, I am straightforward with my criticisms. But certainly not impolite or discourteous. Once again, criticism is accepted only if it is couched in a "right attitude" -- one that is favourable to your views.

I have been pretty blunt in addressing your failure to include all steps in the hypothetico-deductive method -- and you avoid responding -- and in your personal denigration of those who do not accept your arguments (which is part of the religious belief system you are peddling here) -- and you excuse yourself from engagement on the grounds that such criticisms are impolite.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by neilgodfrey » Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:59 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:wilfully evil sod.
willfully evil sodomy.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... fid=237654
The meaning 'sodomite' is a little old fashioned. More typically it's used as a softer form of 'fool', 'idiot', or 'bastard'.
"He's a daft old sod, but you've got to love him."
I'm reminded of my cult days once again when we always took to heart the literal origins of everything in our everyday life and speech. We would not even say "Gee" because we reminded ourselves it was a contraction of Jesus and would thus be committing the sin of blasphemy.

Normal everyday meanings and intents of words are replaced by the original meanings in a way that makes their use offensive. I see the same here and in various other reactions to otherwise harmless or mild sayings or expressions from advocates of astrotheology who see themselves as victims under constant attack.

It's a trait I've noticed too often among the "free-thinkers" advocating alternative lifestyles and belief systems. Judgmentalism is rarely in short supply.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Robert Tulip
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Robert Tulip » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:34 pm

neilgodfrey wrote:wilfully evil (=) harmless or mild saying
This extravagant error is what I mean by saying it is impossible for me to have a sensible conversation with Neil Godfrey.

He calls me "wilfully evil" and then asserts that is a "harmless or mild saying". I could point to numerous similar comments.

I was less concerned by the archaic homosexual reference than by being called "wilfully evil".

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by neilgodfrey » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:24 pm

Robert Tulip wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:wilfully evil (=) harmless or mild saying
This extravagant error is what I mean by saying it is impossible for me to have a sensible conversation with Neil Godfrey.

He calls me "wilfully evil" and then asserts that is a "harmless or mild saying". I could point to numerous similar comments.

I was less concerned by the archaic homosexual reference than by being called "wilfully evil".
What's the matter with you Robert? I did NOT call you wilfully evil at all. I have explained that already. Do you choose not to read what I say and then accuse me of saying the opposite of what I write? Get out of your wussy victimization syndrome and read what I say. Come on, now! I was mocking your accusation that anyone who is not persuaded by your arguments is a stubborn and hard-hearted -- evil -- clump of clay. See the next comment for one set of quotations of yours.

So why the fabricated "quotation" you try to present as mine? And you are the one who claims others treat you dishonestly!
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:16 pm, edited 6 times in total.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by neilgodfrey » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:38 pm

The failure to understand about the loaves. . . . produces hardness of heart, a wilful and cruel reinforcement of ignorant arrogance. Such hardness became the basis of church persecution of Gnostic vision, a syndrome which produced the dominant inverted religious pathologies that have come to see evil as good and good as evil.

. . . . a message within the Bible that salvation is about harmony with nature, whereas damnation is about alienation from nature. This is most vividly explained in the verse Revelation 11:18 which says the wrath of God is against those who destroy the earth.

. . . . Unfortunately you have to have some understanding to comprehend this, and what Mark calls hardness of heart makes it simply impossible for most people to understand.

An intense repressive hostility to cosmic comprehension is presented as the introduction to the loaves and fishes parable, with Salome asking for the death of the lead Gnostic in preference to Herod’s offer of temporal power. This psychological analysis of cultural polarisation remains pertinent today to the intense blindness to the natural scientific meaning of Biblical texts.
Robert, the above are your words. You make it clear (at least to me) that the message of hardness of heart is "pertinent today". This is what I was having a little dig at -- your accusation that those of us who do not accept your interpretation of the parable and reject your message all round are
  • smitten with a "religious pathology that sees evil as good and good as evil",
  • are judged to be "destroyers of the earth",
  • incapable of understanding because of hardness of heart,
  • harboring an intense repressive hostility to cosmic comprehension,
  • psychologically intensely blind.
And you turn around and tell ME I am calling YOU evil? Please lighten up and have a little laugh at yourself. Re-read what I wrote and acknowledge I was having a little dig at the way you accuse the rest of us of such pathologies the way Christ damned those who did not listen to and submit to his message.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Solo » Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:19 am

ghost wrote:What's worse about Acharyanism than astrotheology is the gynocentrism/feminism. It's sexual manipulation.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mary.html
In the end, like her Son the Sun, the Virgin Moon Mary is a mythical character based on older goddesses who were themselves astrotheological personifications of celestial and earthly bodies and principles. In its most poetic, feminine manifestation, the ancient astrotheology reached exquisite zeniths befitting the Divine Mother of All, flawlessly formless beyond all cultural camouflage and ethnic exteriority.
Interesting that few have commented on this aspect of Murdock which comes across loud and clear in even a brief and casual perusal of her writing. Her thought patterns fit neatly with, and seem clearly inspired by, the feminist Uber-Frau Weltanschauung and its home-cooked thesis 'gynocetntric' origins of civilized world. Of course in an age when the idee fixe of Marija Gimbutas - succicntly characterized as 'women-dominated paradise on earth until males screwed it up' - pass as the new academic normal, the breath-taking nuttiness of R.M.Murdock will soon look thoughtful and plausible.

Best,
Jiri

User avatar
Blood
Posts: 898
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Blood » Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:58 am

R.M. Murdock? You mean that wanker is into astro-theology as well?

Image
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp

The Crow
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 2:26 am
Location: Southern US

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by The Crow » Thu May 15, 2014 3:33 pm

hjalti wrote:
Maximos wrote:
hjalti wrote:I haven't either read any of her books, and don't intend to, the stuff I found after a quick browse on google-books is enough. I mean Maximos, she's saying that the similarity between the Greek 'potamos' and the name of the Potomac river is evidence of a "global civilization". Her apparent source? A guy who wrote about Atlantis being in the Bermuda triangle.
More lies, all she said was "The word for "river" in Greek is "potamos," which is very close to the Potomac river" and that's it. Your 'guilt by association' fallacy is noted.
Just before that she's told us that she's using the Atlantean expert as a source for a similar linguistical evidence, so I assume that that's where she got the idea of potamos being related to the Potomac river.

But let's assume that she made that up all by herself: It still remains the fact that she's using this absurd argument (gr. potamos being related to e. Potomac river) to argue for there being an "ancient global civilization". You don't find that absolutely silly?

And this isn't "guilt by association". She's just using crappy sources uncritically. "Read and repeat".
I have not read this whole thread I think got to about page whatever. But heres my opinion for what it's worth. Robert you and Maximos should do what they are asking and engage in a tactful debate about some of her claims. Quite frankly you are making yourselves out simple to be "book promoters"...I have two of her books Christ Conspiracy and Christ in Egypt and to be honest never got through reading either one of them. To be honest I like some of the things she puts forth but do I feel I have the arsenal to debate them? No. Simply put.

But I will say this to get the party started Mithras had no disciples this claim came from Godfrey Higgins in 1836 its unreferenced. From what little I do know Higgins work was used extensively by some one called Blavatsky. As to the virgin birth no ancient sources give Mithras that birth right or myth however you want to say it. Mithra is always described has being born of solid rock.

Metacrock
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 2:33 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy

Post by Metacrock » Mon May 19, 2014 5:21 am

my brother and I invented a field of study that takes in all of this, and more. we call it Waccyology. It's based upon my theory of fact vs. meta fact. we also started a Meta fact journal.
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

Post Reply