Content deleted Content added
^^James^^ (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
ZAROVE (talk | contribs)
Answered.
Line 1:
==tEKTONICS==
 
 
''Re: "Tekton doesnt mean 'Fremason'... I checked."
 
You checked? Are you sure? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions, based on such scant research. Get to know your subject a little deeper before forming set opinions. A little rigour and extra care never hurts. I've fact-checked this in the past, but did so again today. Here's what I came up with:
 
"the Modern Greek word for mason, or free mason, is Tektonas. And the word for "Masonic" is tektonikos (Reference: "Oxford Greek Mini-dictionary"; Watts, Niki; Oxford University Press, 1997)"''
 
 
 
It means Masonas in Builder. Not Mason asin "Freemason."
 
I checked an online Greek Lexicon. It is not rlelay the same as Freemasonry.
 
Tekton only means builder. Its nto a proof of any conspiracy theory you may adhere to. Even if it where, this is Wikipedia, not Acharya S's personal commercial. Freemasons have a right to an opinion as well. TEkton Ministires is a vlaid refutaiton of Acharya simply because they make valid points. Acharya herself is not considered a vlaid soruc eby many, even athiests, so I odn't see why you insist on harping.
 
 
THis aside, the term "Tekton" even f taken to mean Mason relaly isnt relevant here.
 
 
 
 
 
 
''Hey, by the way, did you know that the masons are rumoured to be in the religion crafting business? For example, I've read articles suggesting that prominent freemasons were involved in the creation of the Jehovas Witnesses and the Mormons. Interesting, no?''
 
 
Not really. We are discussing your useless editign of Acharya S's article, not where religiosn came form.
 
 
 
 
''As to your claims about ASCSA, if you can post information to suggest that Acharya S is a lier, then be my guest.''
 
 
 
Let me spell the logic out again, slowly.
 
 
You and she and others make the claim he is part of the American Shcool of GReek Studies. This is a posiitve. I cannot prove a negative.
 
Thus, those advancign the claimmust make the evidence knwon. As it stands nw, there is no real evidence. The ASOGS has no reord of her. I stated int he aritlce that the claim could not be substantiated. I origionally tried to edit the claim out, completley. Now I have to make due with "it is not substantated." As I cannot fidn any evidence that she is in the ASOGS, aside form her own self proffessed membership and evidence that she recievs a newsletter I coudl recieve if I asked for one, as a Non-Member, this doesnt bode well.
 
 
The Burden of proof is on you to show that she is,in fact, a member of the Society. If you cannot, then what can I say other than " this claim is not substantiated." SHiftign 100% of the repsoincobility tome, especiially when I am not the claimant, is absurd.
 
 
 
 
 
''I'm all ears. Personally, I could care less about guarantees. I don't take things on 'faith', and I don't take things on 'trust'.''
 
 
 
Yes tyou do. You have faith in and trust whatever Acharya says. Otherwise you woudl understand why I dont beelive that shes part of the ASOGS since I lack any and every evidence linkign her to this.
 
You took that, alone, on faith. I also take it you trusted her researhc implicitely.
 
 
 
 
'' I require solid evidence and an intelligent argument.''
 
 
 
OK, here goes.
 
 
I see no evidence that she is in the ASOGS, and she is not mentioend on the rosters of members.
 
I see no verificaiton for her claim. Thus her clim is unsubstantated.
 
 
See, how what can you do to rectify this?
 
 
''And even then I'm open to new information. Otherwise, people would be able to manipulate me just by telling me lies.''
 
 
 
Kinda liek Acharya, no?
 
 
 
 
''Also, I need some clarification: please explain (with examples) as to what you mean when you say 'primary sources'.''
 
 
 
As in, sources that ar primary, or first. IE, when discussing the story of Krishna, it is best to go tot he Vida's. Not "The Worlds 16 Crucified Saviours." I knwo Acharya sauys she didnt rley on Graves, btu last year she defended her use of Graves. And indeed, her writtigns note him often in th edition of "The CHirst Conpsiracy" that I wopwn. Shoudl I count the number of references?
 
 
Firts Century soruces actually wrtten in the firts century are prmary. Firts century soruces written int he 19th century are clealry not.
 
 
 
''And feel free to "list as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details.''
 
 
 
I tried that. Thats why I focused on her current claim that Buddha and Krishna share the same life sotry as CHirst. Thy dont. Any reader of Wikipedia will learn swiflty the differences between Buddha and Krishna, much less either of them and CHrist.
 
 
Read the Hisotry section.
 
 
 
 
''And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?"''
 
 
I own her book "The Christ Conspiracy." I read it. I knwo whats in it.I know its fukll of hot air. What moe can I say?
 
 
 
 
 
== Tektonas ==