Freethought Nation

Thanks Neophyte. You say "the objective of the compilation was to express arguments against resurrection as a viable explanation even if sources and accounts of historical crucifixion and entombment were unimpeachable." The problem is that far from being "unimpeachable", sources and accounts of historical crucifixion and entombment of Jesus deserve to be impeached. You cannot understand resurrection based on a literalist reading of the Gospels. The academic censorship of this debate is utterly scandalous and makes a mockery of US commitment to free speech. They set ground rules of 'my way or the highway', agree with them or be cast into the outer darkness. It is superb that Acharya S has shown the courage to stand up against intimidation and bullying by mainstream so-called scholarship in order to try to uncover the truth behind the Bible. Carrier's emotive attack on Acharya S looks like the work of a cheap apologist, and is consistent with his sellout to the empire in the Empty Tomb debate.

Yes, and I do not fathom Jeffrey Lowder, a former evangelical or others who still cling to a historical Jesus with all the dubious claims and evidences, despite claims of evemerism.

Other claims for resurrection have been made historically, as Acharya has well related. Scholarship of the book of Revelation reveals that there was a belief in the resurrection of the Emperor Nero as "the Beast". There are fragments of evidence that there were short-lived beliefs in resurrections of other historical figures, or that a hero never actually died such as Haile Sellasie among the Rastafarians, or Elvis among urban legend Americans.

However, it is the mythical character of Jesus of Nazareth that most resonates in modern times as one who resurrected to interact with humans after death. I think it worthy of the intellectual effort to debunk such claims in a presumptive if dubious historical context even when the candidate in question is demonstrably ahistorical.

FTL, that was a pretty good response from what I can tell. Carrier certainly shows a bias towards Murdock. But then again, Price came off that way at first as well. Perhaps Carrier will come around at some point the same way Price did. Who knows.

His critique of the new companion guide does come off as rather ill informed. It looks like he just skimmed through it. And of course apologists like to use this sort of thing to try and pick at the MP. If Carrier disagrees with Murdock then they're certain to use that to 'divide and conquer'....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

You guy's remember this quote right? Well guess what, Richard Carrier responded...



Dubious sources cited Carrier?

"E.J. Brill
Peeters
Kegan Paul
Oxford University/Clarendon Press
Princeton University Press
Cambridge University Press
Cornell University Press
Yale University Press
University of Chicago Press
University of Pennsylvania Press
University of Wisconsin Press
Johns Hopkins Press
Harcourt, Brace & Co.
MacMillan & Co., etc...."

These are the publishers of some of the sources. Others include very esteemed authors such as Hayyim ben Yehoshua, A.L. Berger, James Bonwick, Joseph Campbell, R.L. Gordon, Jaime Alvor Ezquerra, John Gwyn Griffiths along with modern translations of ancient sources from translators like Raymond O. Faulkner's Egyptian Book of the Dead, James P. Allen's Pyramid Texts and ancient sources such Macrobius' Saturnalia Diodorus Siculus' Antiquities of Egypt and many more sources can be considered dubious?

I must state with conviction that you are just attacking the person presenting the source and the people cited instead of attacking the sources themselves (i.e. the Genetic Fallacy). I would appreciate if you could actually provide a reason as to why the source guide is faulty instead of saying "Oh Murdock is cited, it must be garbage!" I also draw attention the fact that Murdock's work only constitutes about 16% of the overall source guide in part 1... this does not mean that sources are "almost Murdock all the way down." As far as her not bothering her readers that she is Murdock... wtf? She has said that over and over and over again, she is not hiding that fact... I don't know what this is about but it would appear that you have some personal grudge against Murdock that apparently makes you blind to go beyond what was stated.

It will be interesting to see how he responds now.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

The similarities in myths and rejection of those similarities are sometimes good. To be blind by choice ensured preservation of sources that confirms similarities. This example is amusing;

12th-Century Tapestry of the Skog Church,
Hälsingland, Sweden


Scandinavian/Viking kings could easily be depicted as representions of the earlier pagan deities without the authorities of the Roman Church being any the wiser. In the same way that an anonymous woodcarver craftsman working on the Borgund Stave Church in western Norway could put a representation of the one-eyed Odin on the top of a column in the dark upper reaches of the sanctuary, so too could an artisan represent the pagan gods as medieval kings and/or saints. Consequently, with his axe, St. Olaf came to be associated with Thor and his hammer. In the tapestry, however, there seems to be a mixing of deities, as St. Olaf with his axe represents not Thor, but the one-eyed Odin who is placed next to a representation of a tree, perhaps the Yggdrasil from which he had hung. In addition, King Knud, killed at the alter of St. Albans Church in Roskilde, Denmark, is placed in the middle, holding a Thor-like hammer(the crucifix?), while King Erik ( the fertility diety, Frey) flanks him on his right holding an ear of corn. This arrangement, with Thor in the middle, is similar to Adam of Bremen's description of the idols in the great temple at Uppsala where Thor is said to be flanked by Odin and Frey.



According to Adam of Bremen: "If plague and famine threatens, a libation is poured to the idol Thor; if war, to Odin; if marriages are to be celebrated, to Frey." Because Odin, the All-Father, was generally more feared than loved and subsequently kept at a distance, his son, Thor, assumed the position as favored deity. He was the protector and trusted friend. Some myths associated with Thor had him as almost human, with his foibles and gullibility. His hammer came to be used as an amulet, not only to signify the wearers allegiance to the old faith, but also as protection against the evils abounding. Odin and Thor were the most prominent members of the militaristic Æsir family. Frey, god of fertility and fecundity, led the Vanir family, the early opponents of the Æsir. However, a truce between them brought Frey to Valhalla and elevated his status to be one of the Norse trinity. With the conversion to Christianity, the Norse trinity, although driven underground by the Christian church, nevertheless, remained significantly conspicuous, albeit in changed form.


Professor Terje I. Leiren

Department of Scandinavian history and culture - University of Washington
Department of History - University of Washington
Sverre Arestad Endowed Professor in Norwegian Studies| Ph.D. University of North Texas, 1978

_________________
Eyvitar firna - er maðr annan skal, þess er um margan gengr guma; heimska ór horskum - gerir hölða sonu - sá inn máttki munr.

Never place blame on man, because it happens to all. No matter how wise, a fool he becomes, when love steals his powers.

Hávamál

And we should probably add the recent youtube series (posted by Voice of Reason) about the similarities between the pagan myths and Christianity, as it pertains to this topic as well: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3436

Carrier needs to account for all of this. Does he think "the differences outweigh the similarities" like the others who took a smack down in the video series? I can't wait to see what direction "GodAlmighty" is going to take in the next video series about Osiris...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

Carrier's foolish defamation of Odin deserves analysis. I hesitate to cite wikipedia because I fear it gives bigots guidance to delete material in the grand tradition of Christian censorship of mythic wisdom. But it is worth looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1vam ... C3.BAnatal



I discussed here this theme as it is raised by Neil Gaiman in American Gods.

It does not surprise me that apologists regard the world tree myth as dangerous for them. After all, the Bible says contact with the tree of life was lost at the fall, and will be restored at the parousia. Actually reading the Bible to analyse the meaning and status of the tree of life destroys the coherence of the orthodox Christian doctrine of redemption and presents a path to the restoration of the status of pagan wisdom.

This isn't exactly something pertinent to the subject, but I thought it might be important to see Carrier's own version of "if you're not with me on everything, then you're against me on everything" which shows how truly irrational he is.

Ugh, I can't even read his narcissistic ramblings, which are clearly designed to demonstrate how clever and righteous he is. Snore.

It is neither clever nor righteous to slander and libel someone whose works you have not even studied, even to the point of wishing them to be burned. The ever-arrogant Carrier needs to engage in some self-introspection and come down off his high horse. The world does not revolve around him and his opinions, about which I really could not care less.

Your assessment seems to be spot on.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Hypocritical for Carrier to speak out against sexism in the atheist community when his comments about Acharya's work are based primarily on irrational misogyny.



Deconstructing the patriarchal basis of mainstream religion is not easy, but it is a big part of formulating a coherent explanation for the emergence of the Christ Myth in the real context of ancient culture. It would be nice if Carrier recognised Acharya's pioneering work in this field, instead of vilifying her on the basis of his irrational prejudices.

Um... I would say that Carrier's objections are made out of ignorance, arrogance and even cognitive dissonance. But sexism is hardly any of them I would say, just because Carrier does not endorse Murdock doesn't seem to indicate that it is for sexism.



Deconstructing the patriarchal basis of mainstream religion is not easy, but it is a big part of formulating a coherent explanation for the emergence of the Christ Myth in the real context of ancient culture. It would be nice if Carrier recognised Acharya's pioneering work in this field, instead of vilifying her on the basis of his irrational prejudices.[/quote]

The problem with Carrier and the rest of the freethoughtblogs crowd is that they do not want to dismantle any kind of patriarchal basis for mainstream religion (which is fine to do by the way), they want the destruction of all religion. They don't even want to associate themselves with religious people of even moderate consent which is why they are even associating themselves with Atheism+. It's a way to make it so they can have secular humanism without having to be associated with the religious that are secular humanist. Also, Patriarchy in the sense that feminism espouses is just dangerous because it requires that women be reduced to objects, not agents of their own free will and ignores historical, sociological and material contexts of the time they are speaking and engage in propaganda as well. Example of propaganda: rule of thumb. But anyways, it would appear that in an attempt to get away from religion Carrier has in fact fallen into another religion that is just as irrational as anything else, for which I find irony in.

The militant religion-haters are grotesque sociopaths who would replace religious tyranny with their own brand. Carrier most assuredly is a misogynist, as he entertains the most vile psychobabble about my person, in a transparent attempt to debunk the facts I present. He is part of the male guard that attacks and subordinates all females around. So long as these submissive females agree with the little dictators, they are welcome in their presence. Otherwise, these uppity women must be pilloried with all manner of hate speech and falsehoods until the end of time.

That's the potty these boys want to play in. Not a few people have noted to me that they consider my work to be far superior to that of Carrier's and that my IQ is clearly higher than his. I'm sure those observations would stick in his puerile and megalomaniacal craw.

In the meantime, we will continue to bring forth fascinating facts about the world's awesome philosophical tree dating back thousands of years. We will not be stopped by demented and irrational hatred of the world's great religious and mythological ideas, and these jealous and bigoted tyrants and fascists had better get used to it.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

I would have to disagree with you there in many ways about Carrier being misogynist because it is defined as a hatred and/or fear of women. Is he being incredibly dismissive without having read your work? Very much so. Has he been a dick in promoting slander and libel towards you by Fundamentalist Christians who apparently have a vested interest in dismissing the things you bring up? Sure he does. Does he do this out of his hatred of women? Of course not.

For the record though, Blaghag is actually backing out because her views about Atheism+ and the fact that she has supported misanthropic views of others. That is why she is quitting... and to that I say good, at least she can't poison the well anymore with her vile spewing bullshit.

^ Well frankly, you've got a lot of nerve posting that about the misogyny issue by Carrier here; you've been around here long enough to know this by now, but I suppose you're not aware of all the crap she's had to deal with as I do. Carrier's influence upon Rook/Tom demonstrates more misogyny tossed at a specific female. Carrier has been traveling around doing lectures telling people all sorts of misogynist things directed specifically at her and we hear about it because they e-mail her about it.

You're trying to define misogynist so broad that you're including all women everywhere and that simply doesn't have to be the case. The vague, undefined "dick" part of your comment is a part of Carrier's misogyny. Carrier is professional jealous of her, prejudice against her and holds much animosity towards her and he's not nearly as hateful towards others as he is with her (and he's never even read her work) - add it all up and it equals misogyny specifically against her. Many others have noticed it as well, here's just one example:

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube