Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christian/Creation PB followers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
    Because naturally it is the men who make the art.
    By man I meant mankind or humankind.

    Although if the Venuses were really idealized, then that would suggest they were made by men.

    I would not be surprised if fat was seen as a sign of prosperity since they now actually had enough leisure time to carve idols and be sedentary.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
      Nope. Exhibit A: Sea horses.

      There are plent of 'flawed' species that are managing to survive still. I agree with you there there have been times in the paleolithic era that we nearly died out, but we didn't.
      How are sea horses flawed? Who decides it is flawed?
      Female, age 51, 5' 9"
      SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

      Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
      2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
        How are sea horses flawed? Who decides it is flawed?
        Have you ever tried riding one? Just sayin'

        Comment


        • Originally posted by canio6 View Post
          Have you ever tried riding one? Just sayin'
          Why... yes. Yes, I have.

          It didn't end at all well.
          Durp.

          Comment


          • Worst. Steed. Ever.
            Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

            Griff's cholesterol primer
            5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
            Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
            TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
            bloodorchid is always right

            Comment


            • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
              Worst. Steed. Ever.
              Inorite?

              They totally got me kicked out of the aquarium.

              Not cool.
              Durp.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
                Nope still doesn't do it.
                "If people were flawed, wouldn't they have gone extinct in 190,000 years?" Maybe maybe not. No way to know.

                "Wouldn't they have destroyed the world like we are in just 10,000 years way before they reached an age of 190,000 years?" Maybe, but maybe there were not enough of us at that point. I did an experiment in Biology in gr 9 where we took a jar of pond water and sealed it up (except for air holes, so except for the holes a closed system) weekly samples revealed a slowly growing population of organisms that exponentially grew and then exploded - and then suddenly nothing. Maybe we just haven't reached the nothing point yet.

                "Did we somehow evolve from non-flawed creatures to flawed creatures? OR, did just our belief system evolve to be flawed?" How the hell would I know that? I actually understand that you are proposing that the way many people view themselves as flawed (or sinful) is wrong, and this is your best question yet to that point.

                I said "I think what you are asserting is that the religion of the past 10-12,000 years is the catalyst for the damage our socity has done (based on some of the other posts)."
                Then you ask "Religion is the catalyst for our damage. Why? It is what keeps us in this way of life."
                I don't know, I was asking if that is what you are saying, so maybe that is not what you are asserting then.
                You get on track near the end. If human beings were innately sinful and flawed, we would have destroyed ourselves over 190,000 years. You claim there were not enough of us. Fair response. If it weren't for our flawed belief system though, we never would have gotten to be at a point today where we have "too much". 190,000 is plenty of time to grow to whatever size we have today if that was innately something that we are.

                We are not innately world conquerors. We are tribal peoples that have gone down the wrong path for the past 10,000 years. Normally in nature, you say "well, sucks for them" and you go your own way. This case is different and the reason I am adament about talking about it. Our society will not die alone. It kills as it goes, and it is on the path to kill a whole lot more.

                As for the last paragraph: I wasn't asking you a question; I was asking myself a question. You had it right on my assertion.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by stable31 View Post
                  Did you really just analogize alcoholism to religious belief? SMH.
                  Alcohol is the crutch which the alcoholic becomes at peace with while drinking, but it causes damage to other areas of life and hurts his future.

                  *Modern religion* is the crutch to which the religious become at peace with while believing, but it causes damage to others and hurts the future of the world.

                  Technically all religion is a crutch of some form, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's good for mind at some point. It's a crutch for explaining mysteries, contradictions, confusions, etc that the layman can't explain. If you don't know logical reasons for everything, it's more pleasing to think you know than to admit you don't know. This crutch is only bad when these beliefs cause damage. This is how it relates to alcoholism.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                    You get on track near the end. If human beings were innately sinful and flawed, we would have destroyed ourselves over 190,000 years. You claim there were not enough of us. Fair response. If it weren't for our flawed belief system though, we never would have gotten to be at a point today where we have "too much". 190,000 is plenty of time to grow to whatever size we have today if that was innately something that we are.

                    We are not innately world conquerors. We are tribal peoples that have gone down the wrong path for the past 10,000 years. Normally in nature, you say "well, sucks for them" and you go your own way. This case is different and the reason I am adament about talking about it. Our society will not die alone. It kills as it goes, and it is on the path to kill a whole lot more.

                    As for the last paragraph: I wasn't asking you a question; I was asking myself a question. You had it right on my assertion.

                    So, if we are not flawed then how do we have a flawed belief system? Gone down a "wrong" path? How is it "wrong" if we are not flawed? I don't get it....
                    Female, age 51, 5' 9"
                    SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

                    Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
                    2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
                      In many cultures still today full thick thighs and buttocks are considered "optimum" by men.
                      Hell, some American men still feel this way.
                      Skinny, narrow boyish hips have NEVER been idealized in world culture unless you count the modern 20th century 'heroin waif' catwalk look. Modern world views do not apply to old cultures.

                      Now, take those preferred thick rounded buttocks and thighs where healthy women store extra fat to sustain pregnancy in lean times...
                      In late pregnancy add to that the huge roundness of the belly, full and distended with child, and the engorgement and enlargement of the breasts...
                      Also add on some weight gain due to the fact that pregnant women were offered extra food when possible because they were cherished as the bringers forth of new life...
                      There ya go... idealization of "fat" women.
                      Except that it has less to do with fat than it has to do with the figure of motherhood and the caloric prosperity necessary for women to attain motherhood.
                      Best explanation that I've heard yet about the Venuses. Of course they would be describing motherhood. Notice the drooping boobs and butt. Do these not indicate a woman who's had tons of babies? Is that not something to be proud of? These women literally brought the most life into the world for these cultures.

                      As for the references in previous posts, I have to disagree somewhat on the "free time" aspect of this art. Tribes even nowadays have tons of free time in some areas. Some tribes work all day, some work like 4 hours a day. We don't know what the land was like where these Venus cultures existed. It's possible that it was very lush and easy for living. The greatest limit on population was likely tribal violence. (If food is plentiful, population booms until it gets checked). If it was lush, my imagination goes back to this account I read on here one time. It describes Europeans meeting Native Americans in the South where rice paddies grew applenty, huge muscadine grapevines hung along the river banks, etc. They made some basic bread out of likely mashed up roots/tubers, and they doused it in bear oil. I think this was taken from a book called the Red Man's Dixie.

                      [1]Red Man's Dixie

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                        Whether you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu......you all believe in the same basic facts. Even if you don't follow a bible, you still believe in the same basic facts. You commonsensically separating yourself from church B.S. does not separate you from the core beliefs.

                        -If you believe in a heavenly god, you might still believe that he can save us.
                        -If you believe in a heavenly god, you might still believe there is an afterlife.
                        -If you believe in a heavenly god, you might still believe people are flawed. Then, you think the world would be better if people (not just their way of life) were better.

                        How does this hurt me?
                        -You and others spend your days hoping to be saved, doing superstitious things to be in his good graces (not always a bad thing but sometimes impeeds on the community like the above mentioned Sunday prohibition);
                        -Not worrying about Earth because you have a heaven to go to later not worrying about the environment, not worrying about wars;
                        -Thinking people are flawed and either thinking it's all hopeless because of that or trying to impose laws where people have to be perfect to follow them and then penalizing them for being unperfect. (What should be done if people realize they don't have to be perfect for things to work is to simply change our way of life. It's literally that simple because it is our way of life that is failing us, not our imperfections.)

                        The Judeo-Christian God in my American vernacular means you believe in heaven, you believe in an afterlife, and you believe you/world can be saved.

                        If you honestly, deep down, do not believe any of these things... My talk does not apply to you. You really should have poked your head in here and said you believe in god but don't follow the stereotype of that religion. You aren't a part of that religion at all, and you don't even believe in any form of heavenly god at all. You are simply superstitious who believes in spirits. That's not god or whatever "modern religion" you claim to be a part of loosely. I try not to name call, but that makes you a phony.
                        How am I a phony? You had better not mean me personally. As I stated, clearly, I don't claim to believe in any of those things. I'm merely pointing out, as someone who has studied many world religions and religious philosophies in university, that the term "Christian" is a very diverse one, and it is not the place of atheists, or anyone to determine whether a self-identifying Christian "really" is or isn't a Christian. My mother-in-law, for example, is a reverend of the United Church of Christ, she and her church, donate to Planned Parenthood, actively embrace gays and lesbians, participate in outreach the the homeless, and feature guest speakers from other religions into the church. I am not a Christian, nor a member of her church, but clearly they aren't the backwoods bible-thumpers mentioned on this thread. Nor would they take kindly to someone determining that they can't be Christian because they don't believe in a literal Hell.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Grok View Post
                          This is such total B.S. Who the hell idealizes fat women?!

                          This is more likely a historical record of the first fat woman man has ever seen caused by eating wild cereal grains.
                          It might be worth your while to study some art history; you will find that indeed FAT women have been revered through out history. As Cori said they were symbols of the goddess and fertility.

                          If those sculptures are historical representations of the first fat women caused by eating grains then what about those gigantic phallus in Greek sculpture do you think those too actually existed?
                          I suggest you look up Priapus. Maybe you also believe that the images you find are actual documents of the anatomical structure of Ancient Greek men. Hmmm, I wonder what those men ate and did their women really prefer men of those proportions?
                          Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
                            So, if we are not flawed then how do we have a flawed belief system? Gone down a "wrong" path? How is it "wrong" if we are not flawed? I don't get it....
                            A flawed person has flawed genetics. A flawed society has flawed beliefs.

                            How could a non-flawed person have flawed beliefs? We are a species that evolves not just genetically but memetically too. Our memetic evolution took a wrong path. Normally, this was corrected much more quickly during our history as a species. The Hohokam and the Anasazi did not waste time enjoying their sucky way of life. They left. In other cases, this way of life could have nearly killed out the entire group or tribe which attempted it.

                            Now you ask "why did our memetic wrong-path continue instead of being stopped in its tracks"? The very memes we adopted were sustaining memes that are possibly more strong or somehow slightly unique from previous attempts at totalitarian agriculture. Our attempt continued because we believed we were meant to live that way, suffering/hard work is good and natural, that we were flawed, that we will get salvation, that our way of living is the right way, that more will always solve the problem of not enough (unlimited abdundance of nature to expand into as well as a shallow economy involving monetary/resource hoarding).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DarthFriendly
                              I always kind of liked the idea that those carved stone "venuses" were like gag gifts meant to satirize some cave dude's mother in law or something.
                              "Thanks a lot Brock. You better go bury this outback. You're not the one who has to sleep next to her every night."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
                                It might be worth your while to study some art history; you will find that indeed FAT women have been revered through out history. As Cori said they were symbols of the goddess and fertility.

                                If those sculptures are historical representations of the first fat women caused by eating grains then what about those gigantic phallus in Greek sculpture do you think those too actually existed?
                                I suggest you look up Priapus. Maybe you also believe that the images you find are actual documents of the anatomical structure of Ancient Greek men. Hmmm, I wonder what those men ate and did their women really prefer men of those proportions?
                                Priapus was just a single artist. These Venuses span over thousands of years across many parts of the world. Although not all of them are of obese women, some are clearly accurate representations of a very obese woman. Not something out of the ordinary.

                                Gigantic phalluses don't exist in real life, but very obese women actually do exist in real life. Difference there.

                                The creators of the Venuses must have seen an actual obese woman.

                                http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/8/86/20060510211705!Priapus_Fresco.jpg <-- doubt that really existed in real life.
                                http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Willendorf.jpg <-- looks like a modern day SAD diet woman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X