- Reaction score
juantoo3 . . . have you actually read through this thread?
Then you probably concur with my previous post -> http://www.interfaith.org/forum/257879-post8.htmlYes, I have, yet again. It doesn't change what I wrote.
The difference between my POV and the rest here presented being the symbolism layered by human mythos and superstition versus the anthropological history. The Genesis story specifically, and particularly how it relates as the traditional "apple and serpent" folklore, relates to the period of mental awakening derived directly from the agricultural revolution.
Carts and horses, and all that...
I assume you are talking to me? And it would be Professor Carl Jung that was suggesting this to an overwhelmingly accepting audience of his peers. I am only agreeing with him.
What association with shape shifting...or lycantropy...do you see here?
What association with shape shifting or lycantropy is there with any of the so-called "Venus" and fertility figures found in same and similar places as these kinds of paintings?
And are you suggesting that the Genesis threshold had to do with eating meat, and that humans did not eat meat prior?
You are showing what I believe to be an ancient cave drawing, what has this to do with Genesis aside of the fact that early Man was indeed hunter & gatherers, and later civilized Man became agricultural which gave birth to organized religion . . . hence my post stands.
Perhaps you are not understanding the post clearly . . . it explains Genesis as going forth 'from' hunter/gatherers/carnivores to gentler, more intelligent agricultural communities and the change from vicious predator to enlightened omnivore. The moral implement of Genesis is the statement that the "indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests." is wrong and in the eyes of a Christian the Original Sin.
Again romantic, but hardly realistic. We are only "gentler" in our own minds. If anything, war and the propensity to war *increased* in breadth and scope with the advent of agriculture (walled cities, advanced weaponry, development of battlefield tactics). Even in the Abrahamic context, there is a great deal of war and bloodletting following the banishment from the garden, and especially after Noahic times.it explains Genesis as going forth 'from' hunter/gatherers/carnivores to gentler, more intelligent agricultural communities and the change from vicious predator to enlightened omnivore.
As for Lycanthropy, what is your understanding of it?
Man Into Wolf; An Anthropological Interpretation of Sadism, Masochism and Lycanthropy is a book by Robert Eisler, published in 1948 . The text is based upon his readings in archeology and anthropology; anything not covered by these disciplines is then dealt with using Jungian methods of dream analysis and the theory of archetypes.
Silly, silly little juantoo . . ."turning" into Werewolves DOESN'T exist This IS the scholarly understanding and mine. The manifestation of Being, such as the Were-Being is another name for the Transference of Animal presence in all of us, it was most effectively used by the Norse Berserkers who first gave the archetypal image of the powerful and blood-thirsty image to our Mind.
Silly, silly little juantoo . . .
Any better than the mindless mental cud strewn about by someone that hasn't a clue about the etymology, history, or neurological aspects of what they vomit forth? I think not.See...this is precisely the type of petty feeble minded belittlement that makes any scholarly discussion around here impossible.
You wouldn't have to if you made the effort to clarify in the first place, which only led me to believe you were/are lack in Lycanthropic knowledge.YOU are the one who broached "werewolves," as I knew you would, as if I were some child enamored of some old Lon Chaney movie.
YOU still don't get it...I never said werewolf.
More utter nonsense . . . try comprehending the origin of the Word and its ancient form with its current/modern form.I *DID* say, multiple times...shape shifter. BIG difference. And whether you believe or not, this is a real phenomenon within many cultures besides Celtic Europe. The difference being, the Euro version is a boogie man, where other versions I am aware of are not.
You're a Sheeple, I forgive you.But that just demonstrates to me decisively your pettiness. So be it. Clearly an intelligent discussion is impossible.
There's the problem for you ... what people are discussing here is not Scripture, but their imported understandings they're over-laying on Scripture. Because serpents or eagles or trees or whatever mean things in different cultural contexts, the assumption seems to be 'the one I know about applies to all universally', rather than trying to find out what the text says.At no point in scripture does it say anything about an apple tree in the Garden of Eden.
That seems a rather arbitrary moment in time against which to read the Genesis story? There is evidence of religious worship, for example, that pre-dates the agrarian revolution, and man must have been able to reason before he turned to agriculture.I would add further, that the "fruit" of "the knowledge of good and evil" seems to me to point directly to reason...that is to say, it was at this time (the agricultural revolution, development of beer, and the effect of grain on the brain) "opened the eyes" of the mind in humanity to reasoning.