100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: GOOD AND EVIL ?? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 09/12/08 06:04 PM
|
|
The Greco Roman period was when Rome invaded and occupied Greece and that would have been only about 150 BC or so. There is evidence of Goddess worship extending back to the Neolithic. As noted, it was these Indo-European pastoralists that eventually grew in numbers and destroyed or occupied these cultures.  Dont get hung up on the name Im using. The "Diana Archetype" existed long before recorded history and probably always will exist in one form another. It makes perfect sense if you consider that the Diana archetype is the embodiment of the traits that most modern western women value. Its perfectly natural that they would be drawn to this particular archetype.
Well I think you are off here. Couldn't I just as easily state that men are really drawn to Christianity and Jesus because he was a swell guy and his father (God) is mighty and powerful and tough and scary and he lives up in the clouds and he throws "non-Believers" in hell? I mean whats the difference there? Aren't those all of the qualities that men generally hold in high esteem? 
Im basing the Goddess worship theory on these discoveries in the Neolithic, pre-dating the conceptualization of Monotheism by thousand of years.  Not really. The Diana archetype is at its heart a male archetype. "Diana" is a female doing a (traditionaly)male activity, hunting (among other things). A female doing traditionally "male" things succesfully. I need to go brush up on my Carl Jung.
Except that you do realize the Neolithic was 10,000 BCE?  I know you are not arguing the dominance of these earlier religions however. The Greco Roman as stated was about 150 BCE. Something like that. By that time, your dominant "skygods" are on the scene. You still have the Goddess in worship but she has been conquered and subjugated by these male god conceptualizations. Then the Hebrews came and then we start getting into Monotheism and that was the nail in the coffin. You should take the time to read that "skygod" invasion history. I feel like Im repeating it but you could just read it for yourself.
Im not referring to a particular culture or time period Krimsa. Im refering to a pattern that repeats itself in all developing societies. I just use the Greco-Roman deities as examples because they are the ones most people are familiar with. I just dont subscribe to this "male vs.female" interpretation of history that you keep bringing up. I know there are people who write books saying that. But Im not one of the people that buys into that interpretation of history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 09/12/08 06:14 PM
|
|
Fair enough. Are you making a point? Im just waiting.
I ask also because you seemed to not fully be comprehending who conquored who in that information. You kept stating the opposite.
No Mirror. No no. Its not a "us against them" That would be repeating the same model. No one wants to do that. Are you asking how were these Goddess societies as far as social structure and functionality? It is felt that they adhered more to a "partnership model" Meaning male and female were much more egalitarian. They were also "matrifocal" as are many American Indian Tribal social structures, even today. Of course now there is modern influence and stressors placed on them so that is not a fair comparison. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure that was what he was asking me. He was asking what is "the Goddess" meaning the one and only. There is no one that is empirically more important or substantial than the rest. It is simply the dominant belief system predating monotheism. Its an entirely different concept than having one all powerful male god such as the Christian faith dictates. On earth, the Hebrew expression of the feminine attributes of God is called Shekhinah. Shekhinah is held by some to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud. There is only one actual female being worshiped as a deity in this milky way galaxy. It is the Draconian Queen, ruler of the draco's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At first it was like the proverbial biblical cloud "no bigger than a man's hand"-the activities of seemingly insignificant nomadic bands roaming the less desirable fringe areas of our globe seeking grass for their herds. Over millennia they were apparently out there in the harsh, unwanted, colder, sparser territories on the edges of the earth, while the first great agricultural civilizations spread out along the lakes and rivers in the fertile heartlands. To these agricultural peoples, enjoying humanity's early peak of evolution, peace and prosperity must have seemed the blessed eternal state for humankind, the nomads no more than a peripheral novelty. We have nothing to go by but speculation on how these nomadic bands grew in numbers and in ferocity and over what span of time.' But by the fifth millennium B.C.E., or about seven thousand years ago, we begin to find evidence of what Mellaart calls a pattern of disruption of the old Neolithic cultures in the Near East.' Archaeological remains indicate clear signs of stress by this time in many territories. There is evidence of invasions, natural catastrophes, and sometimes both, causing large-scale destruction and dislocation. In many areas the old painted pottery traditions disappear. Bit by devastating bit, a period of cultural regression and stagnation sets in. Finally, during this time of mounting chaos the development of civilization comes to a standstill. As Mellaart writes, it will be another two thousand years before the civilizations of Sumer and Egypt emerge.6 In Old Europe the physical and cultural disruption of the Neolithic societies that worshiped the Goddess also seems to begin in the fifth millenniUM B.C.E., with what Gimbutas calls Kurgan Wave That would indicate the opposite of your theory MM. The nomadic hunter/gatherers came in and conquered these advanced, Goddess worshiping city dwellers and forced their "skygods" on them. Remember all that you were talking about last evening?
It would be odd for hunter/gatherers to worship more advanced gods than city dwellers.The hunter/gatherer cultures worship deities that are usually tied closely with nature since the hunter/gatherers are more at the mercy of nature.Most of the time these are animal totems used to invoke blessing(good luck) on the hunt. Agriculture requires settlements. Agricultural societies domesticate animals and are at the mercy of the weather. The gods of agricultural societies usually dwell in high places such as hills,mountains, and even clouds to imply power over the weather (among other things).Most of the times deities who are passing into obscurity are incorporated into the new belief system as servants or enemies (such as angels and devils). Hence, as societies evolve in complexity, so to do their religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. Are you making a point? Im just waiting. I ask also because you seemed to not fully be comprehending who conquored who in that information. You kept stating the opposite.
No Mirror. No no. Its not a "us against them" That would be repeating the same model. No one wants to do that. Are you asking how were these Goddess societies as far as social structure and functionality? It is felt that they adhered more to a "partnership model" Meaning male and female were much more egalitarian. They were also "matrifocal" as are many American Indian Tribal social structures, even today. Of course now there is modern influence and stressors placed on them so that is not a fair comparison. I wasnt literally meaning male vs. female. My mistake. What I mean is that I dont subscribe to the male/female version of history. Gender is what it is. I dont believe it shapes societies. Rather,Im saying that I believe that it is the technological and cultural level of a society that is the guiding force of that societies belief system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure that was what he was asking me. He was asking what is "the Goddess" meaning the one and only. There is no one that is empirically more important or substantial than the rest. It is simply the dominant belief system predating monotheism. Its an entirely different concept than having one all powerful male god such as the Christian faith dictates. On earth, the Hebrew expression of the feminine attributes of God is called Shekhinah. Shekhinah is held by some to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud. There is only one actual female being worshiped as a deity in this milky way galaxy. It is the Draconian Queen, ruler of the draco's. the talmud is before the written torah, when the torah was formed the talmud became secondary in jewish belief all though there are some that still hold to what you stste - it is not believed widely. shekina/parousia in greek have the main meaning of presence, only a few hold to it's feminine qualities as far as i know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At first it was like the proverbial biblical cloud "no bigger than a man's hand"-the activities of seemingly insignificant nomadic bands roaming the less desirable fringe areas of our globe seeking grass for their herds. Over millennia they were apparently out there in the harsh, unwanted, colder, sparser territories on the edges of the earth, while the first great agricultural civilizations spread out along the lakes and rivers in the fertile heartlands. To these agricultural peoples, enjoying humanity's early peak of evolution, peace and prosperity must have seemed the blessed eternal state for humankind, the nomads no more than a peripheral novelty. We have nothing to go by but speculation on how these nomadic bands grew in numbers and in ferocity and over what span of time.' But by the fifth millennium B.C.E., or about seven thousand years ago, we begin to find evidence of what Mellaart calls a pattern of disruption of the old Neolithic cultures in the Near East.' Archaeological remains indicate clear signs of stress by this time in many territories. There is evidence of invasions, natural catastrophes, and sometimes both, causing large-scale destruction and dislocation. In many areas the old painted pottery traditions disappear. Bit by devastating bit, a period of cultural regression and stagnation sets in. Finally, during this time of mounting chaos the development of civilization comes to a standstill. As Mellaart writes, it will be another two thousand years before the civilizations of Sumer and Egypt emerge.6 In Old Europe the physical and cultural disruption of the Neolithic societies that worshiped the Goddess also seems to begin in the fifth millenniUM B.C.E., with what Gimbutas calls Kurgan Wave That would indicate the opposite of your theory MM. The nomadic hunter/gatherers came in and conquered these advanced, Goddess worshiping city dwellers and forced their "skygods" on them. Remember all that you were talking about last evening?
It would be odd for hunter/gatherers to worship more advanced gods than city dwellers.The hunter/gatherer cultures worship deities that are usually tied closely with nature since the hunter/gatherers are more at the mercy of nature.Most of the time these are animal totems used to invoke blessing(good luck) on the hunt. Agriculture requires settlements. Agricultural societies domesticate animals and are at the mercy of the weather. The gods of agricultural societies usually dwell in high places such as hills,mountains, and even clouds to imply power over the weather (among other things).Most of the times deities who are passing into obscurity are incorporated into the new belief system as servants or enemies (such as angels and devils). Hence, as societies evolve in complexity, so to do their religions.
So you are drawing the conclusion that the nomadic hunter gatherers that eventually conquered these more civilized Goddess worshiping cultures were for whatever reason, worshiping "more advanced deities?" Why would the concept of gods and goddesses need to be ranked in such a manner? Is that because you are Christian and that is how Christians view it? In a hierarchical format? The archeological evidence seems to indicate that these Indo Europeans were fascinated with angry, powerful, male deities. The more powerful and oppressive the better. Their deities tended to live high in the clouds or atop volcanoes or mountains. If you interpret that as "more advanced" um okay. I've never really thought of it in those terms as one being "superior" to the other. Just set for different agendas and different priorities as it related to social importance.
Im sorry but I am at the mercy of the actual archeological evidence and discoveries found at these various Neolithic excavations. The entire settlement of Çatalhöyük was composed of domestic buildings; the site has no obvious public buildings. While some of the larger buildings contain rather ornate wall murals, the purpose of such rooms remains unclear. The population of the eastern mound has been estimated at up to 10,000 people, but population totals likely varied over the community’s history. An average population of between 5,000 to 8,000 is a reasonable estimate. The inhabitants lived in mud-brick houses which were crammed together in an agglutinative manner. No footpaths or streets were used between the dwellings, which were clustered in a honeycomb-like maze. Most were accessed by holes in the ceiling, which were reached by interior and exterior ladders and stairs. Thus, their rooftops were their streets. The ceiling openings also served as the only source of ventilation, letting in fresh air and allowing smoke from open hearths and ovens to escape. Houses had plaster interiors characterized by squared off timber ladders or steep stairs, usually placed on the south wall of the room, as were cooking hearths and ovens. Each main room served as an area for cooking and daily activities. The main rooms contained raised platforms that may have been used for a range of domestic activities. All interior walls and platforms were plastered to a smooth finish. Ancillary rooms were used as storage, and were accessed through low entry openings from main rooms. All rooms were kept scrupulously clean. Archaeologists identified very little trash or rubbish within the buildings, but found that trash heaps outside the ruins contain sewage and food waste as well as significant amounts of wood ash. In good weather, many daily activities may also have taken place on the rooftops, which conceivably formed an open air plaza. In later periods, large communal ovens appear to have been built on these rooftops. Over time, houses were renewed by partial demolition and rebuilding on a foundation of rubble—which was how the mound became built up. Up to eighteen levels of settlement have been uncovered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure that was what he was asking me. He was asking what is "the Goddess" meaning the one and only. There is no one that is empirically more important or substantial than the rest. It is simply the dominant belief system predating monotheism. Its an entirely different concept than having one all powerful male god such as the Christian faith dictates. On earth, the Hebrew expression of the feminine attributes of God is called Shekhinah. Shekhinah is held by some to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud. There is only one actual female being worshiped as a deity in this milky way galaxy. It is the Draconian Queen, ruler of the draco's. is there any archaeological proof of this Draco queen? any statues or paintings? etc..? just curious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 09/12/08 06:35 PM
|
|
At first it was like the proverbial biblical cloud "no bigger than a man's hand"-the activities of seemingly insignificant nomadic bands roaming the less desirable fringe areas of our globe seeking grass for their herds. Over millennia they were apparently out there in the harsh, unwanted, colder, sparser territories on the edges of the earth, while the first great agricultural civilizations spread out along the lakes and rivers in the fertile heartlands. To these agricultural peoples, enjoying humanity's early peak of evolution, peace and prosperity must have seemed the blessed eternal state for humankind, the nomads no more than a peripheral novelty. We have nothing to go by but speculation on how these nomadic bands grew in numbers and in ferocity and over what span of time.' But by the fifth millennium B.C.E., or about seven thousand years ago, we begin to find evidence of what Mellaart calls a pattern of disruption of the old Neolithic cultures in the Near East.' Archaeological remains indicate clear signs of stress by this time in many territories. There is evidence of invasions, natural catastrophes, and sometimes both, causing large-scale destruction and dislocation. In many areas the old painted pottery traditions disappear. Bit by devastating bit, a period of cultural regression and stagnation sets in. Finally, during this time of mounting chaos the development of civilization comes to a standstill. As Mellaart writes, it will be another two thousand years before the civilizations of Sumer and Egypt emerge.6 In Old Europe the physical and cultural disruption of the Neolithic societies that worshiped the Goddess also seems to begin in the fifth millenniUM B.C.E., with what Gimbutas calls Kurgan Wave That would indicate the opposite of your theory MM. The nomadic hunter/gatherers came in and conquered these advanced, Goddess worshiping city dwellers and forced their "skygods" on them. Remember all that you were talking about last evening?
It would be odd for hunter/gatherers to worship more advanced gods than city dwellers.The hunter/gatherer cultures worship deities that are usually tied closely with nature since the hunter/gatherers are more at the mercy of nature.Most of the time these are animal totems used to invoke blessing(good luck) on the hunt. Agriculture requires settlements. Agricultural societies domesticate animals and are at the mercy of the weather. The gods of agricultural societies usually dwell in high places such as hills,mountains, and even clouds to imply power over the weather (among other things).Most of the times deities who are passing into obscurity are incorporated into the new belief system as servants or enemies (such as angels and devils). Hence, as societies evolve in complexity, so to do their religions.
So you are drawing the conclusion that the nomadic hunter gatherers that eventually conquered these more civilized Goddess worshiping cultures were for whatever reason, worshiping "more advanced deities?" Why would the concept of gods and goddesses need to be ranked in such a manner? Is that because you are Christian and that is how Christians view it? In a hierarchical format? The archeological evidence seems to indicate that these Indo Europeans were fascinated with angry, powerful, male deities. The more powerful and oppressive the better. Their deities tended to live high in the clouds or atop volcanoes or mountains. If you interpret that as "more advanced" um okay. I've never really thought of it in those terms as one being "superior" to the other. Just set for different agendas and different priorities as it related to social importance.
Im sorry but I am at the mercy of the actual archeological evidence and discoveries found at these various Neolithic excavations. The entire settlement of Çatalhöyük was composed of domestic buildings; the site has no obvious public buildings. While some of the larger buildings contain rather ornate wall murals, the purpose of such rooms remains unclear. The population of the eastern mound has been estimated at up to 10,000 people, but population totals likely varied over the community’s history. An average population of between 5,000 to 8,000 is a reasonable estimate. The inhabitants lived in mud-brick houses which were crammed together in an agglutinative manner. No footpaths or streets were used between the dwellings, which were clustered in a honeycomb-like maze. Most were accessed by holes in the ceiling, which were reached by interior and exterior ladders and stairs. Thus, their rooftops were their streets. The ceiling openings also served as the only source of ventilation, letting in fresh air and allowing smoke from open hearths and ovens to escape. Houses had plaster interiors characterized by squared off timber ladders or steep stairs, usually placed on the south wall of the room, as were cooking hearths and ovens. Each main room served as an area for cooking and daily activities. The main rooms contained raised platforms that may have been used for a range of domestic activities. All interior walls and platforms were plastered to a smooth finish. Ancillary rooms were used as storage, and were accessed through low entry openings from main rooms. All rooms were kept scrupulously clean. Archaeologists identified very little trash or rubbish within the buildings, but found that trash heaps outside the ruins contain sewage and food waste as well as significant amounts of wood ash. In good weather, many daily activities may also have taken place on the rooftops, which conceivably formed an open air plaza. In later periods, large communal ovens appear to have been built on these rooftops. Over time, houses were renewed by partial demolition and rebuilding on a foundation of rubble—which was how the mound became built up. Up to eighteen levels of settlement have been uncovered. no just the opposite. I was under the impression that you were proposing that hunter/gathers had a more advanced belief system than agrarians. Thats why I found it odd. I am proposing that as societies become more complex, the belief systems of that society also grow more complex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 09/12/08 06:37 PM
|
|
Im not sure that was what he was asking me. He was asking what is "the Goddess" meaning the one and only. There is no one that is empirically more important or substantial than the rest. It is simply the dominant belief system predating monotheism. Its an entirely different concept than having one all powerful male god such as the Christian faith dictates. On earth, the Hebrew expression of the feminine attributes of God is called Shekhinah. Shekhinah is held by some to represent the feminine attributes of the presence of God (shekhinah being a feminine word in Hebrew), based especially on readings of the Talmud. There is only one actual female being worshiped as a deity in this milky way galaxy. It is the Draconian Queen, ruler of the draco's. is there any archaeological proof of this Draco queen? any statues or paintings? etc..? just curious. You'll have all the proof you will need when you are a Draco sandwich Tribo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 09/12/08 06:38 PM
|
|
Im not sure where you thought you heard that. Like I have said here, please read the article that was posted. Its very interesting and would help you understand. You dont have to believe it but it would help us discuss this. I am taking the position that the article is a fair account based on research of these cultures. So that way it would help you to understand where I stand if you wanted to address this in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I hate to spring this on you guys, but even the ancient Hebrews um,
The Hebrew Goddess is a 1967 book by Jewish historian and anthropologist Raphael Patai. In this book, Patai argues that the Jewish religion historically had elements of polytheism, especially the worship of goddesses and a cult of the mother goddess. The book supports the theory through the interpretation of archaeological and textual sources as evidence for veneration of feminine beings. Hebrew "goddesses" identified in the book include Asherah, Anath, Astarte, Ashima, the cherubim in Solomon's Temple, the Matronit (Shekhina), and the personified Shabbat Bride. The later editions of the book were expanded to include recent archaeological discoveries and the rituals of unification (Yichudim) which are to unite God with his Shekinah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 09/12/08 07:00 PM
|
|
Im not sure where you thought you heard that. Like I have said here, please read the article that was posted. Its very interesting and would help you understand. You dont have to believe it but it would help us discuss this. I am taking the position that the article is a fair account based on research of these cultures. So that way it would help you to understand where I stand if you wanted to address this in any way. I assume you are refering to the disruption of agrarian societies by hunter/gatherer societies. That doesnt change anything Ive proposed as far as I can tell. Im looking at the "broad view" of history. The "big picture". More primitive invading cultures often incorporate more advanced beneficial aspects of the conquered societies. Including religions if neccessary. Even when that isnt the case societies still evolve. It isnt neccesarily about conquest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I hate to spring this on you guys, but even the ancient Hebrews um, The Hebrew Goddess is a 1967 book by Jewish historian and anthropologist Raphael Patai. In this book, Patai argues that the Jewish religion historically had elements of polytheism, especially the worship of goddesses and a cult of the mother goddess. The book supports the theory through the interpretation of archaeological and textual sources as evidence for veneration of feminine beings. Hebrew "goddesses" identified in the book include Asherah, Anath, Astarte, Ashima, the cherubim in Solomon's Temple, the Matronit (Shekhina), and the personified Shabbat Bride. The later editions of the book were expanded to include recent archaeological discoveries and the rituals of unification (Yichudim) which are to unite God with his Shekinah. Yes the god of monotheism once was part of a "skygod" pantheon (that included goddesses). I stated that last night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 09/12/08 07:01 PM
|
|
Except I provided evidence to the contrary that essentially these earlier cultures (dating back to the Neolithic) had a female based spirituality. Female/nature/Earth based more than likely. However, these cultures were attacked and conquered over a period of time. These new invaders tended to have a very different set of gods and spiritual identity (men and warfare). They valued oppression and the ability to force in order to control and subdue. Essentially we are encroaching upon the concept of "The Chalice and the Blade" as it relates to ideologies . Different cultures, separate values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 09/12/08 07:24 PM
|
|
Except I provided evidence to the contrary that essentially these earlier cultures (dating back to the Neolithic) had a female based spirituality. Female/nature/Earth based more than likely. However, these cultures were attacked and conquered over a period of time. These new invaders tended to have a very different set of gods and spiritual identity (men and warfare). They valued oppression and the ability to force in order to control and subdue. Essentially be are entering into the concept of "The Chalice and the Blade" . Different cultures, separate values. I never said anything regarding "female-based spirituality" Krimsa. Thats not what Im proposing.In addition, you seem to identify males with oppression and conquest. I dont know what thats all about. Yes,its typical for women in hunter/gatherer societies to "own" the property since the females are usually the gatherers and therefore remain closer to home camp while the men pursue game over longer distances. Thats just because men are physically superior to women (in general). Men are more suited to hunting and combat. Thats not anyones fault. Its just the way it is. No one deliberately made it that way. But mentally, women are equal to men and make all the same mistakes that men do (when given the opportunity). Yes,there are differences in gender roles but the cultural values remain the same. Thats why I dont subscribe to this male/female paradigm you keep bringing up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 09/12/08 07:28 PM
|
|
Except I provided evidence to the contrary that essentially these earlier cultures (dating back to the Neolithic) had a female based spirituality. Female/nature/Earth based more than likely. However, these cultures were attacked and conquered over a period of time. These new invaders tended to have a very different set of gods and spiritual identity (men and warfare). They valued oppression and the ability to force in order to control and subdue. Essentially be are entering into the concept of "The Chalice and the Blade" . Different cultures, separate values. I never said anything regarding "female-based" societies Krimsa. Thats not what Im proposing.In addition, you seem to identify males with oppression and conquest. I dont know what thats all about. Yes,its typical for women in hunter/gatherer socities to "own" the property since the females are usually the gatherers and therefore remain closer to home while the men pursue game over longer distances. Thats just because men are physically superior to women (in general). Men are more suited to hunting and combat. Thats not anyones fault. Its just the way it is. No one deliberatly made it that way. But mentally, women are equal to men and make all the same mistakes that men do (when given the opportunity). Yes,there are differences in gender roles but the cultural values remain the same. Thats why I dont subscribe to this male/female paradigm you keep bringing up.
But Im not. You are so fearful of any of this information that you are immediately assuming that is what I am proposing here. I am telling you that there is evidence to support this. You dont have to believe it. Show me that what I have posted thus far is fallible in some respect. You always have that option. I cant change it in order to make you feel more comfortable in being a man. You are projecting that onto me. Why? Because Im female? Dont be silly.
I also attempted to explain to you how these Goddess worshiping cultures would have functioned and you glossed over that and did not want to hear it. They were thought by cultural anthropologists to adhere to a "partnership model". This means that they were very focused on their own culture, arts, entertainment, decorating, raising food, raising crops and more than likely animal husbandry although not nomadic because they were stationary peoples. You seem to also be confusing once again who attacked and subjugated whom here. It was the NOMADS that lived on the outskirts of the more fertile areas that conquered these more sophisticated civilizations during the Neolithic period. You keep reversing it somehow. They were already in established, small towns. It was the wandering pastorals who attacked them. They would have had their females also, so it is not a male/against female situation like you are presuming it to be. It is a Culture vs. Culture dynamic. Understand? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except I provided evidence to the contrary that essentially these earlier cultures (dating back to the Neolithic) had a female based spirituality. Female/nature/Earth based more than likely. However, these cultures were attacked and conquered over a period of time. These new invaders tended to have a very different set of gods and spiritual identity (men and warfare). They valued oppression and the ability to force in order to control and subdue. Essentially be are entering into the concept of "The Chalice and the Blade" . Different cultures, separate values. I never said anything regarding "female-based" societies Krimsa. Thats not what Im proposing.In addition, you seem to identify males with oppression and conquest. I dont know what thats all about. Yes,its typical for women in hunter/gatherer socities to "own" the property since the females are usually the gatherers and therefore remain closer to home while the men pursue game over longer distances. Thats just because men are physically superior to women (in general). Men are more suited to hunting and combat. Thats not anyones fault. Its just the way it is. No one deliberatly made it that way. But mentally, women are equal to men and make all the same mistakes that men do (when given the opportunity). Yes,there are differences in gender roles but the cultural values remain the same. Thats why I dont subscribe to this male/female paradigm you keep bringing up.
But Im not. You are so fearful of any of this information that you are immediately assuming that is what I am proposing here. I am telling you that there is evidence to support this. You dont have to believe it. Show me that what I have posted thus far is fallible in some respect. You always have that option. I cant change it in order to make you feel more comfortable in being a man. You are projecting that onto me. Why? Because Im female? Dont be silly.
I also attempted to explain to you how these Goddess worshiping cultures would have functioned and you glossed over that and did not want to hear it. They were thought by cultural anthropologists to adhere to a "partnership model". This means that they were very focused on their own culture, arts, entertainment, decorating, raising food, raising crops and more than likely animal husbandry although not nomadic because they were stationary peoples. You seem to also be confusing once again who attacked and subjugated whom here. It was the NOMADS that lived on the outskirts of the more fertile areas that conquered these more sophisticated civilizations during the Neolithic period. You keep reversing it somehow. They were already in established, small towns. It was the wandering pastorals who attacked them. They would have had their females also, so it is not a male/against female situation like you are presuming it to be. It is a Culture vs. Culture dynamic. Understand? sounds no different to me than the native indian cultures here if you read their histories. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right. Exactly Tribo. Remember we kind of discussed this by private message a while back. Very similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Fri 09/12/08 08:28 PM
|
|
Except I provided evidence to the contrary that essentially these earlier cultures (dating back to the Neolithic) had a female based spirituality. Female/nature/Earth based more than likely. However, these cultures were attacked and conquered over a period of time. These new invaders tended to have a very different set of gods and spiritual identity (men and warfare). They valued oppression and the ability to force in order to control and subdue. Essentially be are entering into the concept of "The Chalice and the Blade" . Different cultures, separate values. I never said anything regarding "female-based" societies Krimsa. Thats not what Im proposing.In addition, you seem to identify males with oppression and conquest. I dont know what thats all about. Yes,its typical for women in hunter/gatherer socities to "own" the property since the females are usually the gatherers and therefore remain closer to home while the men pursue game over longer distances. Thats just because men are physically superior to women (in general). Men are more suited to hunting and combat. Thats not anyones fault. Its just the way it is. No one deliberatly made it that way. But mentally, women are equal to men and make all the same mistakes that men do (when given the opportunity). Yes,there are differences in gender roles but the cultural values remain the same. Thats why I dont subscribe to this male/female paradigm you keep bringing up.
But Im not. You are so fearful of any of this information that you are immediately assuming that is what I am proposing here. I am telling you that there is evidence to support this. You dont have to believe it. Show me that what I have posted thus far is fallible in some respect. You always have that option. I cant change it in order to make you feel more comfortable in being a man. You are projecting that onto me. Why? Because Im female? Dont be silly.
I also attempted to explain to you how these Goddess worshiping cultures would have functioned and you glossed over that and did not want to hear it. They were thought by cultural anthropologists to adhere to a "partnership model". This means that they were very focused on their own culture, arts, entertainment, decorating, raising food, raising crops and more than likely animal husbandry although not nomadic because they were stationary peoples. You seem to also be confusing once again who attacked and subjugated whom here. It was the NOMADS that lived on the outskirts of the more fertile areas that conquered these more sophisticated civilizations during the Neolithic period. You keep reversing it somehow. They were already in established, small towns. It was the wandering pastorals who attacked them. They would have had their females also, so it is not a male/against female situation like you are presuming it to be. It is a Culture vs. Culture dynamic. Understand? Well, Im not talking about the neolithic period. Im talking about ALL of history Krimsa. Obviously ,agrarian societies conquered the hunter/gatherers. or we wouldnt be here would we? A good example of this would be the Native Americans. Did the Native Americans win some battles? Yes. But which society won in the long term? The answer is obvious. And I dont know what your talking about me being fearful of the information. I got no problem with "Goddess" wordship or "female spirituality". I just dont make the distinction. I dont believe that spirituality has genders. I believe men and women to be moral and intellectual equals. Both capable of making the same decisions and reaching the same conclusions for "good" or "evil" with the same information. In other words,if gender roles were somehow reversed, I believe history would have proceeded on a similar course. Im proposing that women would have made all the same advancements and mistakes that men have. Thats all Im saying Krimsa. And just because I challenge your assumptions doesnt make me a mysogynist. I feel like your the one projecting that onto me.
|
|
|
|
|
