Re: RELIGION: Some books about evolution and civilization

January 19, 2008

Hi Mike,

> I used to think of monotheism as a sort of coagulation of the

> nature-worshipping religions of animism or shamanism preferred by

> hunter-gatherers. One God encompasses all, as it were, and in my mind

> that resolved a lot of conflicts between religions. I've heard that

> the One God is a sun god, and that seemed acceptable too. After all,

> all of our power, all of our life, comes from the sun. But after

> reading these books, I wonder, is the God of Abraham really a god of

> grain, in direct opposition to the gods of hunters and herders?

What is the evidence that polytheism predates monotheism?

[snip]

> The one and only prayer given to us by Jesus Christ himself asks God

> to " give us our daily bread. " People tell me this is metaphorical, but

> I have trouble with it.

The word in the original Greek is " epiousion " which is a conjunction

of " epi " meaning above or beyond and " ousion " meaning essence. The

evidence on what the word means is somewhat unclear, but the shorter

version of the prayer in Luke uses " daily, " so I think that is why the

English translations use daily for the more familiar form in .

In any case, he states quite explicitly not to pray for food, and they

he says to pray for your " epiousion " bread. I think the case that

bread is metaphorical here is pretty strong.

Chris

January 19, 2008

--- Mike <captainmikee@...> wrote:

What's your take on it?

Mike, one of the more interesting views of Christianity I have read

recently is on the " Jesus Puzzle " web site. Here is part one of a

twelve piece puzzle that you can follow to build the view:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/puzzle1.htm

Here's a bit about the author:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

I'm sure it's quite controversial

January 20, 2008

Some years ago, a book called " Ismael " by Quinn, put forward the same

thing, via the story of Cain and Able. Cain representing everything bad about

agriculture and Able, the more noble and purer hunter gatherer. The controversy

over that book is still going on. There is also a theory out there that the

only reason " man " began to cultivate grains was to make beer. I don't doubt it.

The need for humans to escape reality is strong, probably something to do with

our acute awareness of our impending non-existence.

there is plenty of confirmation out there that historically polytheism

predates monotheism and the Hebrews may have picked up the notion from Egypt.

As for pre-history, no one is quite sure which arose first, but I can recommend

an interesting book by Armstrong called " A History of God " , that posits

that it was we who created God and then Gods. And as long as we are at it I

highly reccommend her book " A Short History of Myth " , that brings home the human

need for myth even, especially today.

RELIGION: Some books about evolution and civilization

I recently read a couple of books that really rocked my faith. The

cantankerous St. said " to each of us is given the measure of

faith, " but sometimes I feel my measure is a bit small.

The first was Manning's " Against the Grain: How Agriculture

Has Hijacked Civilization. " Right after that I discovered

Budiansky's " Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication. "

Recently I read some quotes in Wild Fermentation from Terence

McKenna's " Food of the Gods " that also piqued my interest.

Manning asserts that at the end of the last ice age, when people

started to settle down and grow grains, the intensive labor required

started an expanding wave of conquest, oppression, industrialism and

environmental destruction that could be nearing its natural limit now.

Budiansky describes the phenomenon of neoteny, by which " wild " animals

carry juvenile traits into adulthood, making them more sociable,

curious and " tame, " while shortening their lives and reducing their

natural defenses in exchange for cooperation with other species. This

evolutionary change is extremely rapid and appears to be a mechanism

for an entire species to adapt to a swiftly changing environment.

McKenna seems to be saying that in early civilization, mind-altering

substances were used only by special people such as priests and

healers. As I gather, their drug-addled visions spawned the religions

of entire societies.

Manning describes how the stories of Genesis have direct bearing on

the birth of agriculture. The Tigris and Euphrates delta, the Ur of

Abraham's origins, was subject to frequent flooding. Forests are

destroyed by floods, but grains grow very well after a flood. The

story of Noah could easily relate to this phenomenon. The expulsion

from Eden could also describe this shift, from freewheeling

hunter-gatherers to hard-slogging farmers.

The remains of early agricultural societies are impressive. Everywhere

they were are huge earth mounds, massive multi-generational labors,

ziggurats, pyramids, stone structures, on up to cathedrals and

temples. Manning posits that the huge labor forces enlisted for

farming were also employed in these constructions of religious

significance. The Tower of Babel story might hint at this work.

Manning and Budiansky hint at the forces behind the change. Neoteny

brings many animals closer to humans, so now creatures such as sheep

depend entirely on humans for their species' survival. Manning

discourages us from blaming governments for the inequities of society

but asks whether humans were actually " domesticated " by the

evolutionary forces of grains -- to ensure those species' expansion

over huge areas of the globe previously occupied by forests. Neither

actually mentions that humans have been subject to neoteny, but it

seems likely to me.

I used to think of monotheism as a sort of coagulation of the

nature-worshipping religions of animism or shamanism preferred by

hunter-gatherers. One God encompasses all, as it were, and in my mind

that resolved a lot of conflicts between religions. I've heard that

the One God is a sun god, and that seemed acceptable too. After all,

all of our power, all of our life, comes from the sun. But after

reading these books, I wonder, is the God of Abraham really a god of

grain, in direct opposition to the gods of hunters and herders?

The Catholic church requires that the communion wafer contain some

quantity of wheat. Since I am gluten-intolerant and can't even have

trace amounts of gluten, I am barred from this sacrament. Since I gave

up yeast and alcohol, I can't have wine either. Even if they offered

grape juice I would not accept it because of sugar and candida issues.

I've heard the assertion that the earliest farmers weren't so much

interested in bread as they were in beer. Alcohol is still a hugely

powerful force in society. Maybe the ultimate evolutionary winner here

is yeast? Maybe our god is really Bacchus, god of drunkenness and

destructive revelry?

The one and only prayer given to us by Jesus Christ himself asks God

to " give us our daily bread. " People tell me this is metaphorical, but

I have trouble with it. When I was trying to convince my family to

keep gluten out of the house, they told me it was cruel to our guests,

since bread is the " staff of life. "

I don't want to give up being Catholic but all this discovery has

given me a headache. Have you read any of these books? What's your

take on it?

January 20, 2008

" There is also a theory out there that the only reason " man " began to cultivate

grains was to make beer. "

But the American Indians grew grains, and never fermented or distilled anything.

Katy Brezger

Recent Activity

a.. 16New Members

Visit Your Group

Health

Live Better Longer

Find new ways

to stay healthy.

Need traffic?

Drive customers

With search ads

on

Sell Online

Start selling with

our award-winning

e-commerce tools.

.

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

Perhaps their life was truly more pastorial and they had no need. Plus they had

a very strong mythological and spiritual life....

Re: RELIGION: Some books about evolution and civilization

" There is also a theory out there that the only reason " man " began to

cultivate grains was to make beer. "

But the American Indians grew grains, and never fermented or distilled

anything.

Katy Brezger

Recent Activity

a.. 16New Members

Visit Your Group

Health

Live Better Longer

Find new ways

to stay healthy.

Need traffic?

Drive customers

With search ads

on

Sell Online

Start selling with

our award-winning

e-commerce tools.

.

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

Oh yea... many of the Native Americans had other ways to get high... smoking

tobbacco was one way, not counting all the southwest natives and their drugs of

choice.

Re: RELIGION: Some books about evolution and civilization

" There is also a theory out there that the only reason " man " began to

cultivate grains was to make beer. "

But the American Indians grew grains, and never fermented or distilled

anything.

Katy Brezger

Recent Activity

a.. 16New Members

Visit Your Group

Health

Live Better Longer

Find new ways

to stay healthy.

Need traffic?

Drive customers

With search ads

on

Sell Online

Start selling with

our award-winning

e-commerce tools.

.

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

Katy Brezger

Possibly, but the " Primitive " Europeans had a rich tradition that seemed to be

very much the same, [cave drawings] I really don't think that is a cogent

argument. The Amerindians were very warlike, territorial and vicious, by all

their own accounts. Oc much More warlike After the Europeans arrived. But, one

difference... Amerindians barely rose above the fight-to-live stage of human

development. I haven't seen an 'expert' testimony on this but my personal

theory is that as long as people had to spend most of their waking life just

maintaining their life, there was little time to develop art and leisure

activities. I think Alcohol falls into that category. Kinnikinnick and other

herbs were easy to gather along the trail, to smoke in the evenings, but a still

or a brewery was something that one needed to build and stay with, not for even

semi-nomadic types. Some tribes never got above the hiding in caves [holes dug

into the ground] and foraging stage, until the Western invasion.

Katy B.

Perhaps their life was truly more pastorial and they had no need. Plus they

had a very strong mythological and spiritual life....

Re: RELIGION: Some books about evolution and civilization

" There is also a theory out there that the only reason " man " began to

cultivate grains was to make beer. "

But the American Indians grew grains, and never fermented or distilled

anything.

Katy Brezger

Recent Activity

a.. 16New Members

Visit Your Group

Health

Live Better Longer

Find new ways

to stay healthy.

Need traffic?

Drive customers

With search ads

on

Sell Online

Start selling with

our award-winning

e-commerce tools.

.

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

--- Katy Brezger <webriter@...> wrote:

> But the American Indians grew grains, and never fermented or distilled

> anything.

Katy, native Americans did ferment maize, as well as other starchy

vegetables like manioc (cassava). One of the fermented drinks was

chicha, which can have about 1-3% alcohol. They made pulque from the

maguey plant and distilled it into mezcal, although maguey is

certainly not a grain

pulque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulque

chicha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicha

January 20, 2008

--- Katy Brezger <webriter@...> wrote:

> But the American Indians grew grains, and never fermented or distilled

> anything.

Katy, native Americans did ferment maize, as well as other starchy

vegetables like manioc (cassava). One of the fermented drinks was

chicha, which can have about 1-3% alcohol. They made pulque from the

maguey plant and distilled it into mezcal, although maguey is

certainly not a grain

pulque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulque

Ah I did something I don't approve of I generalized and I didn't specify, I

guess if I'd said North Amercan Indian,[btw I am a Chippawa but only a teensy

bit, Canada...I am a US citizen but way back, you know....] I could have gotten

away with it. but even there the Amerindian was as varied and diverse in all

their ways and uh, yes even their ancestry as we are now.

Chicha as made from Maize was a very weak alcohol. Wikipedia is not my source

of choice, I yield to you on this.

Katy

chicha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicha

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

Hi ,

> Some years ago, a book called " Ismael " by Quinn, put forward the same

> thing, via the story of Cain and Able. Cain representing everything bad

> about agriculture and Able, the more noble and purer hunter gatherer. The

> controversy over that book is still going on. There is also a theory out

> there that the only reason " man " began to cultivate grains was to make beer.

> I don't doubt it. The need for humans to escape reality is strong,

> probably something to do with our acute awareness of our impending

> non-existence.

Abel was a sheep-herder, neither a hunter nor gatherer. In the

Biblical chronology, no one ate meat until after Noah's flood, so

hunting can't be associated with Eden either, as a previous post

suggested.

> there is plenty of confirmation out there that historically

> polytheism predates monotheism and the Hebrews may have picked up the notion

> from Egypt.

Apparently this is controversial. I Googled " monotheism polytheism

which came first? " without the quotes. The first article cites

scholarship dating back to 1931 indicating that in ancient Sumeria

monotheism gave way to polytheism. The next article is a Biblical

exposition rather than scholarship. Then there is an article tracing

polytheism giving way to monotheism within Hindu texts, but not on a

global scale. I admit I'm not well versed in the archaeological

evidence, but it looks like this is an assertion that needs to be

supported rather than taken for granted.

> As for pre-history, no one is quite sure which arose first,

Well what is the point of claiming that historically polytheism came

first, if pre-history came before history? Obviously if pre-historic

man was monotheist and then polytheist, and historic man was

polytheist and then monotheist, then the single answer to which came

first is monotheism.

> but

> I can recommend an interesting book by Armstrong called " A History of

> God " , that posits that it was we who created God and then Gods.

So she asserts, then, that monotheism came first?

> And as

> long as we are at it I highly reccommend her book " A Short History of Myth " ,

> that brings home the human need for myth even, especially today.

Thanks. I don't foresee being able to read any of these books any

time soon, though the previous one sounds more relevant to the

question of whether monotheism or polytheism came first.

Chris

January 20, 2008

,

> Perhaps their life was truly more pastorial and they had no need. Plus they

> had a very strong mythological and spiritual life....

But if it is correct that they domesticated grains but did not ferment

them, then that stands as a very clear refutation of the theory that

the only reason humans ever domesticated grain was to make beer.

Chris

January 20, 2008

,

> Oh yea... many of the Native Americans had other ways to get high... smoking

> tobbacco was one way, not counting all the southwest natives and their drugs

> of choice.

This really doesn't change anything, because the question at hand is

whether the only reason man ever domesticated grain was to make beer,

not whether every society needs a way to get intoxicated.

Chris

January 20, 2008

--- Katy Brezger <webriter@...> wrote:

> the Amerindian was as varied and diverse in all their ways and uh,

> yes even their ancestry as we are now.

Katy, from what little I know, most of the native American groups that

did not grow maize were nomadic. Agriculture was more associated with

settled tribes and often included maize, including those tribes that

were in what is now the USA.

> Wikipedia is not my source of choice

I view wiki as a quick and somewhat dirty reference choice

It often has reliable info - but not always.

User beware.

BTW, I think we should have a better name for the people that

originally inhabited the New World - a name derived from what these

people called themselves - instead of a European derived name. The

word " America " is derived from the name of the Italian explorer

Amerigo Vespucci. And of course New World inhabitants were initially

called " Indians " because early European explorers thought they had

reached India, and the name stuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

January 20, 2008

,

> BTW, I think we should have a better name for the people that

> originally inhabited the New World - a name derived from what these

> people called themselves - instead of a European derived name. The

> word " America " is derived from the name of the Italian explorer

> Amerigo Vespucci. And of course New World inhabitants were initially

> called " Indians " because early European explorers thought they had

> reached India, and the name stuck.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

Isn't part of the problem with this that we are trying to forge a

heterogenous collection of groups with distinct identities into a

single identity? Did " they " have a name for " themselves " that applied

to these groups collectively but excluded European inhabitants of the

continents?

Chris

January 20, 2008

Thanks I guess it is true, I know the Amerindians,[northern variety] did

grow some grains and I don't think they did for alcohol but to eat.

,

> Oh yea... many of the Native Americans had other ways to get high... smoking

> tobbacco was one way, not counting all the southwest natives and their drugs

> of choice.

This really doesn't change anything, because the question at hand is

whether the only reason man ever domesticated grain was to make beer,

not whether every society needs a way to get intoxicated.

Chris

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

First Nations is what many tribes call themselves, I'm a lazy typist and since

most of my friends on the 'rez' said Indians it's a term I usually use. By the

way there is little consensus in the people's we call American Indians. Some

tribes of Sioux call themselves in a language few even know now, The people.

Now that's really definitive.

Katy

,

> BTW, I think we should have a better name for the people that

> originally inhabited the New World - a name derived from what these

> people called themselves - instead of a European derived name. The

> word " America " is derived from the name of the Italian explorer

> Amerigo Vespucci. And of course New World inhabitants were initially

> called " Indians " because early European explorers thought they had

> reached India, and the name stuck.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

Isn't part of the problem with this that we are trying to forge a

heterogenous collection of groups with distinct identities into a

single identity? Did " they " have a name for " themselves " that applied

to these groups collectively but excluded European inhabitants of the

continents?

Chris

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

Katy, from what little I know, most of the native American groups that

did not grow maize were nomadic. Agriculture was more associated with

settled tribes and often included maize, including those tribes that

were in what is now the USA.

Pretty much All NORTH Amerindians were at least semi-nomadic, they'd foul a

spot and move. I'm making no comment here, but you can take from it what you

will. But many stayed in an area where they did grow crops for at least a

season.

> Wikipedia is not my source of choice

I view wiki as a quick and somewhat dirty reference choice

It often has reliable info - but not always.

User beware.

That's kind of what I was saying.

BTW, I think we should have a better name for the people that

originally inhabited the New World - a name derived from what these

people called themselves - instead of a European derived name. The

word " America " is derived from the name of the Italian explorer

Amerigo Vespucci. And of course New World inhabitants were initially

called " Indians " because early European explorers thought they had

reached India, and the name stuck.

as I said there is little consensus between tribes except what is imposed by

the BIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

i have to really disagree with this notion and also of

the perception that native americans were merely

hunters and gatherers. i recently listened to a talk

by the author of tending the wild where she has spent

the last 17 years or so with the local natives in the

bay area learning their ways. the history is one of

cultivation. she mentions the indians used to tend to

the wildflower gardens, harvest seeds and roots, and

plant seeds. they managed the wild, not just went out

there and foraged. burning techniques were used to

clear the area and produce ash which in turn created

healthy soil. this was also done if bug infestation

was a problem. burning and cultivating also helped to

produce more food for wild life as well. the gardens

also created beauty which was admired by early

" discoverers " as paradise. as far as leisure time

goes, the food was plentiful. salmon filled the

rivers and 30 hours of labor could produce enough fish

for the whole tribe for a year. art was quite

developed in these tribes. for instance the pomo are

known for their expert basket weaving techniques.

some baskets were weaved for purpose and some as

gifts. this was an art. also... ever seen indian

beadwork? the natives had leisure time, no doubt.

probably way more than we do today. they even had time

to play games and gamble and eat not just out of

hunger but for fun.

sabine.

>

> Katy Brezger

>

> But, one difference... Amerindians barely rose

above the fight-to-live stage of human development. I

haven't seen an 'expert' testimony on this but my

personal theory is that as long as people had to spend

most of their waking life just maintaining their life,

there was little time to develop art and leisure

activities.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

January 20, 2008

Sabine wrote:

i have to really disagree with this notion and also of

the perception that native americans were merely

hunters and gatherers. i recently listened to a talk

by the author of tending the wild where she has spent

the last 17 years or so with the local natives in the

bay area learning their ways. the history is one of

cultivation. she mentions the indians used to tend to

the wildflower gardens, harvest seeds and roots, and

plant seeds. they managed the wild, not just went out

there and foraged. burning techniques were used to

clear the area and produce ash which in turn created

healthy soil. this was also done if bug infestation

was a problem. burning and cultivating also helped to

produce more food for wild life as well. the gardens

also created beauty which was admired by early

" discoverers " as paradise. as far as leisure time

goes, the food was plentiful. salmon filled the

rivers and 30 hours of labor could produce enough fish

for the whole tribe for a year. art was quite

developed in these tribes. for instance the pomo are

known for their expert basket weaving techniques.

some baskets were weaved for purpose and some as

gifts. this was an art. also... ever seen indian

beadwork? the natives had leisure time, no doubt.

probably way more than we do today. they even had time

to play games and gamble and eat not just out of

hunger but for fun.

Again, there were many different tribes, the ones who settled in areas where

they didn't have to fight the weather so much like the Pacific coastal tribes,

were able to develop art, this proves my point. If they had a society that

could rise above just subsistance they could develop art and leisure activities.

When every waking moment is taken up with hunting/gathering and preserving

foods , tanning hides for clothing and shelter, to last a harsh winter or an

extremely dry hot summer, it makes it hard to find the time for painting totem

poles, or making any artwork just to look at etc. [i'm not counting the

embellished baskets or clothing]

Katy Brezger

>

> But, one difference... Amerindians barely rose

above the fight-to-live stage of human development. I

haven't seen an 'expert' testimony on this but my

personal theory is that as long as people had to spend

most of their waking life just maintaining their life,

there was little time to develop art and leisure

activities.

__________________________________________________________

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008

7:32 PM

January 20, 2008

--- <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > BTW, I think we should have a better name for the people that

> > originally inhabited the New World - a name derived from what these

> > people called themselves - instead of a European derived name.

>

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Did " they " have a name for " themselves " that applied to these groups

> collectively but excluded European inhabitants of the continents?

I'm guessing that the many tribes with many languages had many

different names for people living in the world they new. But I also

think their descendants might be able to come to a consensus on one or

more of those names to apply to the larger group of original New World

inhabitants so that we don't have to use a European name, like " native

American " or " Indian " .

January 20, 2008

,

> I'm guessing that the many tribes with many languages had many

> different names for people living in the world they new. But I also

> think their descendants might be able to come to a consensus on one or

> more of those names to apply to the larger group of original New World

> inhabitants so that we don't have to use a European name, like " native

> American " or " Indian " .

On the other hand, if they now have a common identity, this is

intimately tied to the European migration, so it might not be so

senseless to use a name of European origin. I've read that Indian is

pretty commonly used, and Katy said the same. I call myself an

American even though I'm not Italian, so I wouldn't be a stickler on

the issue. If there's a consensus among the people they want to be

called by some particular name I'm for it, but if there isn't one, it

doesn't seem that important to try to stimulate one or wait for one.

Chris

January 20, 2008

i recommend the book " The River of God "

(http://www.amazon.com/River-God-History-Christian-Origins/dp/0060669802/ref=pd_\

bbs_1?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1200869332 & sr=8-1

) which gives a somewhat evolutionary perspective on religion.

-jennifer

On Jan 20, 2008, at 9:42 AM, C. wrote:

> Some years ago, a book called " Ismael " by Quinn, put forward

> the same thing, via the story of Cain and Able. Cain representing

> everything bad about agriculture and Able, the more noble and purer

> hunter gatherer. The controversy over that book is still going on.

> There is also a theory out there that the only reason " man " began to

> cultivate grains was to make beer. I don't doubt it. The need for

> humans to escape reality is strong, probably something to do with

> our acute awareness of our impending non-existence.

>

> there is plenty of confirmation out there that historically

> polytheism predates monotheism and the Hebrews may have picked up

> the notion from Egypt. As for pre-history, no one is quite sure

> which arose first, but I can recommend an interesting book by

> Armstrong called " A History of God " , that posits that it was we who

> created God and then Gods. And as long as we are at it I highly

> reccommend her book " A Short History of Myth " , that brings home the

> human need for myth even, especially today.

>

January 21, 2008

>

> Again, there were many different tribes, the ones

who settled in areas where they didn't have to fight

the weather so much like the Pacific coastal tribes,

were able to develop art, this proves my point. If

they had a society that could rise above just

subsistance they could develop art and leisure

activities. When every waking moment is taken up

with hunting/gathering and preserving foods , tanning

hides for clothing and shelter, to last a harsh winter

or an extremely dry hot summer, it makes it hard to

find the time for painting totem poles, or making any

artwork just to look at etc. [i'm not counting the

embellished baskets or clothing]

> Katy Brezger

> >

i'm just not sure which tribes you are referring to,

but if it is the nomadic ones, i still disagree. i

think if any of the native tribes were merely living

just to sustain themselves and working just from fight

or flight response, they wouldn't have had time to

create a deep sense of spirituality either, which

means no time for dancing. i also believe that art of

the indians was rarely if ever " art just to look at " ,

but instead held deeper meaning of their spirituality

and culture. as for nomadic tribes, their art was

expressed, but it had to be carried with them instead

of stationary works--i personally really don't think

art needs to be stationary to be considered art.

judging by the intricacy of plains indian artwork, it

appears to me that every waking moment was not

consumed by getting basic needs met. not only did

they embellish clothing and articles, they also

painted on tipis and hides. everything was a canvas

for creation.

here's a link with an example from the plains indians

who were nomadic.

http://www.camerontradingpost.com/beadworkhx.html

as for harsh weather climate indians, well the eskimos

did some pretty cool stuff too.

sabine.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

January 21, 2008

Yes, she posits monotheism first, but this god was too remote, so we then

created more accessible gods [pantheism] that interacted directly with man.

Perhaps this helps support the theory the history is cyclical and not linnear.

I am not even sure that the early God of Abraham had anything to do with this

original monotheistic god. In fact, it is more like Abraham chose Jahweh out of

a pantheon of gods and claimed him to be invisible yet personal.

Let's not get to picky about herding being outside the hunter gather lifestyle.

They can all be nomadic so perhaps I should have used that word. Nomadic vs.

the creation of cultivation and staying put in cities. It makes sense that

herding would be the direct offshot of and co-existed with the h-g lifestyle.

Perhaps while in the Garden Adam and Eve didn't eat meat. But by the time of

Cain and Able, they were no longer in the Garden. And if they weren't eating

meat, what was Abel herding for, milk and wool? And if that were the case why

give god the cooked meat as an offering, why not a sweater? And if it were

truly the case that there was no meat eating until after the flood, shouldn't

the story of Cain and Abel come later with the son's of Noah?????

Ancient beer was nutrient rich, unlike the beers/ales of today. I don't know

much about beer making, but if heat is involved it would have killed organisms

in the water and would have been safer to drink than most common water sources.

I don't think ancient beer had a strong alcohol content either since even

children drank it.

The fact that all human groups crave altered states may not have had anything to

do with the original cultivation of grains, but I am sure that it was a side

benefit they appreciated considering how tough life is.