Re: RELIGION: Some books about evolution and civilization

[Guest guest]

Have you seen the book 1491? It says American had a thriving

civilization to rival Europe, pre-Columbus, but at the first contact

with (Lief?) some germs were brought in that they had no immunity to,

mostly decendants of bovine diseases like TB. It swept through the

Americas killing some 90% of the people, after which their

civilization collapsed. The book has a lot of evidence, such as

great re-landscaping (creating hills in flood-prone areas, moving

mountains, flattening land for irrigation, etc) and says the natives

here were by no means backward or less civilized. Trade routes

extended from Mexico to Canada, from one coast to another. One

source even said their homes were more comfortable than the ones the

settlers had left to come here.

>

> 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

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> 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.

Are you working from Biblical exegesis? If so, I don't see what would

indicate from the text that Abraham believed in multiple gods. If

not, I don't see why you are assuming the existence of Abraham.

> 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.

Well you have a point there, since Cain was the first agriculturist,

murderer, and built the first city. But I think pastoralism is quite

a move away from hunter-gatherism, so I don't think they can be used

interchangably even though they may have some similarities.

> 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?

Apparently. The Biblical account begins meat-eating after the Flood.

> And if that were the

> case why give god the cooked meat as an offering, why not a sweater?

Cooked meat? It says he brought an offering of the firstlings of his

flock. Presumably it was a burnt offering although it does not say

that. But a burnt offering is hardly " cooked meat. " If he was eating

them as meat, he'd be giving up the meat by making the burnt offering,

and if he was using them for wool and/or milk, he'd be giving up the

milk and wool he would reap by making the burnt offering, so the

effect is essentially the same.

> 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?????

Why?

In the Garden, God gave humans the vegetation to eat, and after the

flood he said to Noah, " Every moving thing that lives shall be food

for you; and as I gave you the green palnts, I give you everything. "

(Gen 9:3)

> 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.

Oh no doubt whoever invented beer must have enjoyed it. Plenty of

people do today. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

[Chris]Are you working from Biblical exegesis? If so, I don't see what would

indicate from the text that Abraham believed in multiple gods. If

not, I don't see why you are assuming the existence of Abraham.

I wasn't assuming any part of the bible was historically, scientifically,

anthropologically or any other " ically " true. But Genesis is a collection of

oral stories that extend back a few thousand years or so and gives an

interesting take on what may have really happened[1]. As for the text and

Abraham [real or not], all that is indicated is that Abraham didn't believe in

idol worship [portraying a god in a material item], there is nothing to say he

did or did not believe in other gods. As a matter of fact, the Hebrews didn't

give up their other gods for quite a long time extending to the time of .

I concede you are probably right on the offering of Abel not being a burnt

offering. According to the 's Bible Dictionary I have, the reason Abel's

offering was accepted over Cain's is because Abel's offering was done in the

right spirit. But I seriously doubt that the herders weren't eating meat they

were so carefully tending.

One of the things this brings into question is whether or not man is a true meat

eater or a vegetarian. Our teeth are not the teeth of carnivores but are the

teeth of vegetarian creatures. There is a claim that we are omnivores and some

anthropologists are now claiming we were scavengers and our quick advances were

from eating bone marrow [2], about all that was left of scavanged carcasses.

Bone marrow, while full of protein, is not meat. I am not in anyway slamming a

high meat [protein] diet, for myself I have massive amounts of problems with

grains, particularily the wheat family and the oat family, rice seems to be ok.

Basically, what the bible is saying is that the early authors believed that far

back in prehistory, humans lived an idealic life for thousands of generations

and once cultivation and cities started, humanity was put into chains we have

not be able to overthrow. The part of human life being better before

agriculture and cities being true, I have no clue, the part of the chains now,

that I believe.

[1] " Certainly such momentous human achievements were not the work of single men,

certainly not all from the same family. The text is telescoping into a brief

span developments that took many, many generations. But interestingly, the text

does evidence the importance of these developments and places them in early

pre-history. " " Reading the Old Testament " by Barry L. Bandstra.

[2] Bone Marrow as Food: " Though once used in various preparations, including

pemmican, bone marrow for human consumption in America has recently fallen out

of favor as a food. Now, it is commonly used only as a flavoring for soups and

sauces, although dishes with intact bone marrow can still be found in some

European restaurants. Bone marrow is a source of protein and high in

monounsaturated fats. These fats are known to decrease LDL cholesterol levels

resulting in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, prompting some to make

bone marrow a dietary staple. The actual health effects of the addition of bone

marrow to the diet remain unclear. From Wikipedia.

Re: RELIGION: Some books about evolution and civilization

Hi ,

> 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.

Are you working from Biblical exegesis? If so, I don't see what would

indicate from the text that Abraham believed in multiple gods. If

not, I don't see why you are assuming the existence of Abraham.

> 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.

Well you have a point there, since Cain was the first agriculturist,

murderer, and built the first city. But I think pastoralism is quite

a move away from hunter-gatherism, so I don't think they can be used

interchangably even though they may have some similarities.

> 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?

Apparently. The Biblical account begins meat-eating after the Flood.

> And if that were the

> case why give god the cooked meat as an offering, why not a sweater?

Cooked meat? It says he brought an offering of the firstlings of his

flock. Presumably it was a burnt offering although it does not say

that. But a burnt offering is hardly " cooked meat. " If he was eating

them as meat, he'd be giving up the meat by making the burnt offering,

and if he was using them for wool and/or milk, he'd be giving up the

milk and wool he would reap by making the burnt offering, so the

effect is essentially the same.

> 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?????

Why?

In the Garden, God gave humans the vegetation to eat, and after the

flood he said to Noah, " Every moving thing that lives shall be food

for you; and as I gave you the green palnts, I give you everything. "

(Gen 9:3)

> 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.

Oh no doubt whoever invented beer must have enjoyed it. Plenty of

people do today. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> 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.

There seems to be an assumption here that nomads had to work harder

than farmers, and farmers had more free time. In " Against the Grain, "

Manning argues strongly against that assumption. Sabine has a

perfect example here; a small amount of work fishing produces a large

amount of food. 30 hours of labor in the grain fields would yield how

much... a week's worth?

We use the word " sedentary " to describe societies that are not

nomadic. The word carries a connotation of leisure. Now it is true

that some people in agricultural societies did have more leisure - but

that was bought by the backbreaking labor of hundreds or thousands.

Manning argues that shepherds and hunters had all the free time they

wanted, and would never willingly give up their life for farming.

By the way, I don't think you need to say that shepherds and hunters

are equivalent. They are simply able to coexist. Farmers can't coexist

with either because they need total control of the land. Manning

believes agriculture spread because not by recruiting, but by

reproducing; Failure to produce adequate food for agriculture's labor

force drove its practitioners to conquer more and more land,

displacing or killing the people already living there. It was a sort

of pyramid scheme that required constant growth to survive.

If you don't have a chance to read the whole book, Manning has an

article you can read online, " The Oil We Eat - Following the Food

Chain Back to Iraq. "

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915

You can describe burning the land as positive or healing, but what it

comes down to is a means to kill off perennials and make room for

annuals, mostly grains. Barbara Kingsolver talks about the violence of

tilling the soil in " Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. " She uses this

argument as a way of debunking the idea that vegetarians are somehow

kinder or more ethical, but you could also use it to say that nomads

are indeed kinder to the earth than sedentary agriculturalists.

[Guest guest]

I'd like to apologize for starting the argument about which came

first. I used the word " monotheism " in an imprecise way. I meant the

Biblical religions that use the stories of Genesis specifically. I

have heard that monotheistic religions tend to branch out into

polytheism over time - it makes sense, and it appears that

Christianity with its Trinity (and saints) is a step along the way. It

even explains why Protestantism is more adamant about worshiping God

and not saints or Mother, etc... it's a newer religion.

I'm curious about the introduction of meat after the Flood - that does

make Manning's argument seem backwards. And it explains a lot about

the Seventh-Day Adventist approach to diet. However, I think we're

arguing about a story that had already been through a lot of changes

before it got written down. It still sounds like ice-age humans lived

mostly on meat.

I had a quick look at the first couple chapters of Genesis. Here's

something:

Gen 1:29-30

God said, " See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is

upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit;

you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth,

everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant

for food. "

So humans ate seeds and fruit, and animals ate grass and leaves. There

were no carnivores at all! This connects with the Peaceable Kingdom

then - the lion lies down with the lamb and everyone eats vegetables.

I might read Ishmael - it sounds like it would shed some light on the

subject.

- Mike

--- In , " C. " <lecody2001@...>

wrote:

>

> [Chris]Are you working from Biblical exegesis? If so, I don't see

what would

> indicate from the text that Abraham believed in multiple gods. If

> not, I don't see why you are assuming the existence of Abraham.

>

>

> I wasn't assuming any part of the bible was historically,

scientifically, anthropologically or any other " ically " true. But

Genesis is a collection of oral stories that extend back a few

thousand years or so and gives an interesting take on what may have

really happened[1]. As for the text and Abraham [real or not], all

that is indicated is that Abraham didn't believe in idol worship

[portraying a god in a material item], there is nothing to say he did

or did not believe in other gods. As a matter of fact, the Hebrews

didn't give up their other gods for quite a long time extending to the

time of .

>

> I concede you are probably right on the offering of Abel not being a

burnt offering. According to the 's Bible Dictionary I have,

the reason Abel's offering was accepted over Cain's is because Abel's

offering was done in the right spirit. But I seriously doubt that the

herders weren't eating meat they were so carefully tending.

>

> One of the things this brings into question is whether or not man is

a true meat eater or a vegetarian. Our teeth are not the teeth of

carnivores but are the teeth of vegetarian creatures. There is a

claim that we are omnivores and some anthropologists are now claiming

we were scavengers and our quick advances were from eating bone marrow

[2], about all that was left of scavanged carcasses. Bone marrow,

while full of protein, is not meat. I am not in anyway slamming a

high meat [protein] diet, for myself I have massive amounts of

problems with grains, particularily the wheat family and the oat

family, rice seems to be ok.

>

> Basically, what the bible is saying is that the early authors

believed that far back in prehistory, humans lived an idealic life for

thousands of generations and once cultivation and cities started,

humanity was put into chains we have not be able to overthrow. The

part of human life being better before agriculture and cities being

true, I have no clue, the part of the chains now, that I believe.

>

>

> [1] " Certainly such momentous human achievements were not the work of

single men, certainly not all from the same family. The text is

telescoping into a brief span developments that took many, many

generations. But interestingly, the text does evidence the importance

of these developments and places them in early pre-history. " " Reading

the Old Testament " by Barry L. Bandstra.

>

> [2] Bone Marrow as Food: " Though once used in various preparations,

including pemmican, bone marrow for human consumption in America has

recently fallen out of favor as a food. Now, it is commonly used only

as a flavoring for soups and sauces, although dishes with intact bone

marrow can still be found in some European restaurants. Bone marrow is

a source of protein and high in monounsaturated fats. These fats are

known to decrease LDL cholesterol levels resulting in a reduced risk

of cardiovascular disease, prompting some to make bone marrow a

dietary staple. The actual health effects of the addition of bone

marrow to the diet remain unclear. From Wikipedia.

>

>

>

>

>

> Re: RELIGION: Some books about evolution and

civilization

>

>

> Hi ,

>

> > 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.

>

> Are you working from Biblical exegesis? If so, I don't see what would

> indicate from the text that Abraham believed in multiple gods. If

> not, I don't see why you are assuming the existence of Abraham.

>

> > 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.

>

> Well you have a point there, since Cain was the first agriculturist,

> murderer, and built the first city. But I think pastoralism is quite

> a move away from hunter-gatherism, so I don't think they can be used

> interchangably even though they may have some similarities.

>

> > 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?

>

> Apparently. The Biblical account begins meat-eating after the Flood.

>

> > And if that were the

> > case why give god the cooked meat as an offering, why not a sweater?

>

> Cooked meat? It says he brought an offering of the firstlings of his

> flock. Presumably it was a burnt offering although it does not say

> that. But a burnt offering is hardly " cooked meat. " If he was eating

> them as meat, he'd be giving up the meat by making the burnt offering,

> and if he was using them for wool and/or milk, he'd be giving up the

> milk and wool he would reap by making the burnt offering, so the

> effect is essentially the same.

>

> > 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?????

>

> Why?

>

> In the Garden, God gave humans the vegetation to eat, and after the

> flood he said to Noah, " Every moving thing that lives shall be food

> for you; and as I gave you the green palnts, I give you everything. "

> (Gen 9:3)

>

> > 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.

>

> Oh no doubt whoever invented beer must have enjoyed it. Plenty of

> people do today. :-)

>

> Chris

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I always figured the Peacable Kingdom was leaving out big chunks of the

whole story.

Like the lion and the lamb sharing a meal of veggies was just the one

time, a dinner invitation.

And then the lion invited the lamb over to share a meal of antelope.

Connie

> the Peaceable Kingdom

> then - the lion lies down with the lamb and everyone eats vegetables.

>

> - Mike