Re: Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:07 am
That is an incredibly silly analysis.ghost wrote:What's worse about Acharyanism than astrotheology is the gynocentrism/feminism. It's sexual manipulation.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
That is an incredibly silly analysis.ghost wrote:What's worse about Acharyanism than astrotheology is the gynocentrism/feminism. It's sexual manipulation.
One of my favorite, all time favorite, restaurants in London, had been called "Cranks". It would be an honor, to be regarded on this forum, as an eccentric crank, rather than simply as an uninformed dolt.Roger Pearse wrote:In which case, friend, you would mark yourself instantly as a crank. I suggest that you think very carefully here, because I can see that a classic obscurantist argument is appealing to you, with its siren call.
The obscurantist says to himself, "If I can debunk all of the evidence that shows my theory is wrong, by pretending there is none, or whatever, then I can put forward my own claim as being just as likely."
But intelligent people laugh at that kind of manipulation. Manufacturing an absence of evidence and then arguing from absence of evidence is a game for children. If there is no evidence, then all theories are off the table.
All the best,
That's not true of at least the last thousand, because of feudal romance.Robert Tulip wrote:Gynocentrism is a valid perspective that provides a useful balance to the crazy androcentrism that has actually dominated and destroyed the world for several thousand years.
I think perhaps there is some confusion here, and I am not confident that I understand you.bcedaifu wrote: You called for ancient references, Roger, and my error, I now understand, was to imagine that "ancient" meant sometime before fourth century, a date, after which, evidence suggests widespread forgery...
It is difficult for me to understand why someone seeking a reference, ... of Justin Martyr's birthplace, presumably in the second century CE, would seek as legitimate evidence of that birth date, an article or book, created out of thin air, a millennium after his life ended. If not "thin air", then where are the "ancient" documents employed by those who wrote books/articles on his birth date in the 14th century?
This appears to be a demand that only archaeological evidence should be considered as evidence. But in fact our best evidence about ancient society is not archaeological. We learn infinitely more about Roman society from the letters of Cicero or Pliny the Younger than archaeology can tell us. You may verify this easily enough, by looking at the early volumes of the Cambridge Ancient History, for places such as Mari which are only to us only from archaeology. The data contained in those pages, valuable as it is, tells us so little about what it was like to live there, what the people did, and thought, and what they had to say.I don't know of any evidence of the earliest Christian communities, do you? For example, where is the evidence of a "large" congregation of believers in Corinth, in the mid second century, when Paul's epistles had supposedly been sent to them? I know of zero findings from archaeological inquiries there, during the past two centuries. There certainly have been many artifacts, compatible with Christianity, recovered from excavations in Corinth, but all of them, without exception, date from after the fourth century CE, so far as I am aware.
I don't have it to hand, and never compiled a bibliography - sorry. I know that Richard Gordon has something to say on this, but for some reason can't find his site this evening!neilgodfrey wrote:Not doubting, but can you lead me to something to verify it has been pretty soundly rejected? Thanks.Roger Pearse wrote:Ulansey's theory has been pretty soundly rejected. But the general idea that the tauroctony represents a star chart is very fashionable at the moment. Unfortunately Roger Beck has pretty much admitted that it's all speculation.neilgodfrey wrote:My only point -- it obviously was not made emphatically enough -- was to draw people's attention to the simple fact that Ulansey's thesis is not a "done deal". It is still under debate and faces serious objections. I am myself quite open to Ulansey's hypothesis being correct but this question has not yet been settled.
Apologies, Roger, I do not wish to offer such a suggestion. I simply assert, that in the case of Corinth, the earliest evidence from excavations is dated after the fourth century CE.Roger Pearse wrote:This appears to be a demand that only archaeological evidence should be considered as evidence. But in fact our best evidence about ancient society is not archaeological.
The problem, Robert, is that you are not advancing any evidence based argument. You are spilling out nothing but fantastical eisegesis. So you have nothing to say about my points on logical valid processes and methods. You consider it discourteous to raise such fundamentals.Robert Tulip wrote:As I said before, I will respond to Mr Godfrey's views if others can put them in sensible form. I prefer that this thread stick to sensible and courteous analysis of evidence.
Thanks. That's a much harsher tone than some other reviews I have read. Now, who is this Dr Richard Gordon -- always one more burrow to check out before I can think about heading for home.Roger Pearse wrote: I don't have it to hand, and never compiled a bibliography - sorry. I know that Richard Gordon has something to say on this, but for some reason can't find his site this evening!
All the best,
Roger Pearse
UPDATE: Found it!
http://www.uhu.es/ejms/faq.htm
"David Ulansey is a case in point: a fantastic tower of nonsense, speculation piled on speculation, unremittingly promulgated on the inter-net and sold as ‘the truth about the cult of Mithras’.You would do well to take everything you read with a large pinch of salt."
I am perfectly happy to have my foundations threatened as long as the discussion is logical and courteous.neilgodfrey wrote:...you do not feel that your foundations will be threatened. Anyone coming from that angle is a wilfully evil sod.