 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / August 2007Sumerian Ishtar of the Black Heads to Venus and question of Califia
Sumerian Ishtar of the Black Heads to Venus and question of Califia The Sumerians, frequently in their own writing, referred to themselves as the black-headed people, Africans (by our definition), which can probably be taken literally (see web page [3] below). Among them, Ishtar was their head goddess known as the Mother of Heaven, and the goddess of Love and War, among several other titles. Here, it is the goddess of War attribute we are discussing for Athena was cut in her mold and in each case, they were, in a sense, the queens of their society acting in the role of king: their word was law and their power was overwhelming. Humanity bowed and even cowed before them in their warrior role. While we cannot say that Califia, African (phenotypically) and proposed namesake of California ( [2] below], was historical, she may have been. Supporting this tenuous possibility, we have Ishtar wearing the title "Queen of Heaven" who exemplied an age where the Mother Goddess reigned supreme. This time of Ishtar was also the era of the matriarchcal societies in Africa and the Near East. Having such a background, that is all the more reason why we can entertain as a real social entity (historical or generic African Amazon) - female queen and absolute ruler: one sanctioned or justified by an Ishtar presence (sometimes derived: as in the case of Asarte) throughout much of the Asia Minor-African prehistoric world. In the web page below, we explore Ishtar as a model for future goddesses over the coming four millennium. And (not on that web page but our discussion here) we keep open the possibility that in a real sense she represented the model in which a ruler like Califia could have been cast. [1] Ishtar, Asarte, and Venus http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Gods.MotherGoddeses/02-16g-500-01.html [2] Califia page: http://www.beforebc.de/Related.Subjects/Queen.Califia.and.California/02-16-900-0 9.html [3] Sumerian Black heads http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-16-200-00-02.html Please use the email at the web-page bottom with your suggestions or advice as your comments are important and it's easier save them that way. Thank you. HOME PAGE: http://www.beforebc.de/AboutAuthorAndAfricanGoldenAge.html www.BeforeBC.de Marc Washington > Sumerian Ishtar of the Black Heads to Venus and question of Califia > > The Sumerians, frequently in their own writing, referred to themselves > as the black-headed people, Africans (by our definition), which can And what about the rest of their bodies? Black-headed probably refers to the colour of their hair. Most people have brown hair even those who live in northern Africa who were considered Caucasian by the anceints. Only the Chinese have completely black hair. There is not a trace of non-Caucasian African DNA in Mesopotamia whatsoever. Their language is not even Afro-Asiatic, so you can rule out the Sumerians originating from Africa. It's most likely they came from Asia. > probably be taken literally (see web page [3] below). Among them, > Ishtar was their head goddess known as the Mother of Heaven, and the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the title "Queen of Heaven" who exemplied an age where the Mother > Goddess reigned supreme. This time of Ishtar was also the era of the There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the imagination of Robert Graves. > matriarchcal societies in Africa and the Near East. Having such a > background, that is all the more reason why we can entertain as a > real social entity (historical or generic African Amazon) - female > queen and absolute ruler: one sanctioned or justified by an Ishtar Ishtar has absolutely nothing to do with Africa or any queen as absolute ruler. She was a Goddess of war and prostitution who was deified by her descendents who ruled over Sumeria at the time the Gilgamesh story was written down. > presence (sometimes derived: as in the case of Asarte) throughout much > of the Asia Minor-African prehistoric world. In the web page below, we [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Marc Washington > There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the imagination of > Robert Graves. How do you know that? What were all those Venus figurines from the Neolithic? >> There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the imagination >> of >> Robert Graves. > > How do you know that? What were all those Venus figurines from the > Neolithic? Here we go again. They are not Venus figurines. They are stone age pornography and masturbation aids which the HUNTER GATHERERS took with them on long expeditions away from their wives. They are nothing whatsoever to do with fertility other than something which gave the cave man that made it a hardon. I mean is this newsgroup full of stupids that can't think ahead for more than a second or is it. Why would a civilisation which at the time only consisted of hunter gatherers worship a mother goddess when they did not grow crops or farm animal, but hunted them. These things do not have a religious significance whatsoever. If these hunter gatherers worshiped a god it would have first and foremost been a war god or a god of hunting and we find none of those. They are pornography, nothing more and nothing less. >>> There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the >>> imagination of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > first and foremost been a war god or a god of hunting and we find none > of those. They are pornography, nothing more and nothing less. woo-ee! cites please? BTW, the neolithic period was characterized by subsistence farming and herding with occasional hunting forays. >>>> There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the imagination >>>> of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > woo-ee! cites please? I don't need cites. I am not the one making up science fiction fantasies. We have historical recrds from Eusebius and others who state that before the Pantheons were established the only gods which people worshiped were the forces of nature and the celestial objects. "You find, too, in the Phoenician theology, that their first 'physical philosophers knew no other gods than the sun, the moon, and besides these the planets, the elements also, and the things connected with them'; and that to these the earliest of mankind 'consecrated the productions of the earth, and regarded them as gods, and worshipped them as the sources of sustenance to themselves and to following generations, and to all that went before them, and offered to them drink-offerings and libations.' But pity and lamentation and weeping they consecrated to the produce of the earth when perishing, and to the generation of living creatures at first from the earth, and then to their production one from another, and to their end, when they departed from life. These their notions of worship were in accordance with their own weakness, and the want as yet of any enterprise of mind.'" > BTW, the neolithic period was characterized by > subsistence farming and herding with occasional > hunting forays. Not in the places these porn dollies are found. >>>>> There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the >>>>> imagination of [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Not in the places these porn dollies are found. Let me rephrase: Neolithic CULTURE was characterized by subsistence farming and herding with occasional hunting forays. If the culture was not subsistence farming AND using stone tools it was NOT, by definition, Neolithic. If it was hunting and gathering AND using stone tools it was Paleolithic or maybe that gray area that some paleontologists use "mesolithic" but NOT Neolithic. My error was in referring to Neolithic as a "period". It's not, it's a cultural "toolkit", it overlaps cultures who still hunted and gathered and cultures which used metal. By the way, how would Eusebius or any of those dudes writing "history" back when know ANYTHING about Neolithic cultures. Those cultures were dust and tells and mounds with no written records of HISTORY. You, who put so much emphasis on written records are making statements about people who had NO WRITTEN RECORDS. Think about it. I know you are being backed into a corner by others with axes to grind, but this is plain and simple bullshit. You have NO insight into the minds of these people and you can't say you do, especially from your "written record" point of view. >>>>>> There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the >>>>>> imagination of [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > by subsistence farming and herding with occasional > hunting forays. Irrelevent. The term Neolithic refers to a specific time period beginning 10,000 years ago and at this time the people of Europe were Hunter Gathers. Now why would these porn dollies be found in central Europe at a time when the only people there were hunter gathers unless they were porn dollies. > If the culture was not subsistence farming AND using > stone tools it was NOT, by definition, Neolithic. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Neolithic cultures. Those cultures were dust and tells > and mounds with no written records of HISTORY. Eusebius would have known of hunter gatherers who were still in Europe and Africa and he would have known that they had no Gods whatsoever. Religion is something which was invented in Mesopotamia in about 3500 BC at the same time as writing and was nothing more than ancestor worship based on recorded history. This religion was then exported to their neighbours who then exported it to their neighbours until it reached Europe, China and even the Americas. Left alone man had no reason whatsoever to believe in any kind of God. Christ, Adonis, Dionysus, Baal-Hadad and Osiris are all rehashes of the story of the resurrection of Tammuz transposed onto other historical figures. Monkeys don't believe in Gods and neither do Cats and Dogs and neither do isolated communities of Humans unless they have a religion imposed on them as part of one huge con, and the for proof of that you can read Dawkins. > You, who put so much emphasis on written records are > making statements about people who had NO WRITTEN [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people and you can't say you do, especially from > your "written record" point of view. >>>>>>> There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the >>>>>>> imagination of [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Europe at a time when the only people there were hunter gathers unless > they were porn dollies. No, my definition of "Neolithic" stands. >> If the culture was not subsistence farming AND using >> stone tools it was NOT, by definition, Neolithic. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Baal-Hadad and Osiris are all rehashes of the story of the resurrection > of Tammuz transposed onto other historical figures. It was not common in classical times to do original research. Did Eusebius vist existing hunter-gatherer societies? I don't think so. He probably only knew of them by word of mouth, most likely from traders who would be apt to exaggerate in various directions based on their own ignorance of people's inner lives and their own bias. From those reports Eusebius may have "assumed" that primitive (in Eusebius' view) people didn't have gods or spiritual beliefs. There was a movie within the last 20 or so years that was about a 'Kung tribesman of Namibia, who was clearly a hunter (his wife would have been the gatherer) who saw some of the effects of "civilization" and its effect on his part of the world. The very title of the movie strongly suggests his belief in the supernatural, "The Gods Must be Crazy". Further, Shamanism and animism are spiritual beliefs often held by "primitive" peoples. Then there is Buddhism, which is a "civilized" religion which doesn't require belief in any diety. Religion, as we know it, was indeed invented in Mesopotamia over 5000 years ago. The "as we know it" is the key here. Other peoples in other times have had religious experiences. The just never had the Abrahamic God to instill fear and keep us under the "Man's" thumb and tied to the soil to produce food. Religion as we know it is the handmaiden of civilization. Civilization creates abundance and its opposite, poverty. Religion is needed as a promise to those who live in poverty to keep them there so that they can reap their reward in the hereafter. > Monkeys don't believe in Gods and neither do Cats and Dogs and neither > do isolated communities of Humans unless they have a religion imposed on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> people and you can't say you do, especially from >> your "written record" point of view. >>>>>>>> There were no such things as Mother Goddesses except in the >>>>>>>> imagination of [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > No, my definition of "Neolithic" stands. No. You cant pick an mix. Either it refers to a specific time period or is totally meaningless because it could be applied to anyone. >>> If the culture was not subsistence farming AND using >>> stone tools it was NOT, by definition, Neolithic. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > It was not common in classical times to do original research. Rubbish. Herodotus did, Archimedes did, so did Themistocles, Xenophon, Euclid, Hippocrates, Aristotle and literally everyone. > Did Eusebius vist existing hunter-gatherer societies? I don't There were plenty of them in Africa and the people he quotes did. > think so. He probably only knew of them by word of mouth, most Rubbish. He knew from reading historical, geographic and scientific texts and doing his own research. > likely from traders who would be apt to exaggerate in various > directions based on their own ignorance of people's inner > lives and their own bias. POPPYCOCK. There is not one reference to traders being the source of scientific information in any ancient historical text whatsoever. The assumption that they were is PURE SCIENCE FICTION! > From those reports Eusebius may have "assumed" that primitive > (in Eusebius' view) people didn't have gods or spiritual beliefs. More SCIENCE FICTION! > There was a movie within the last 20 or so years that was about > a 'Kung tribesman of Namibia, who was clearly a hunter (his > wife would have been the gatherer) who saw some of the effects > of "civilization" and its effect on his part of the world. The > very title of the movie strongly suggests his belief in the > supernatural, "The Gods Must be Crazy". Rubbish. His so-called Gods were invented by the Europeans who filmed him or passed on to him through contact with earlier civilisation such as the Greeks and Egyptians. > Further, Shamanism and animism are spiritual beliefs often held > by "primitive" peoples. No, they are made up by Europeans or are simply ancestor worship jazzed up by European fantasists. >Then there is Buddhism, which is a > "civilized" religion which doesn't require belief in any diety. WRONG. Buddhism is a form of ancestor worship and its deity is Buddah himself weather it admits to it or not. > Religion, as we know it, was indeed invented in Mesopotamia over > 5000 years ago. The "as we know it" is the key here. Other > peoples in other times have had religious experiences. The just No they did not. You have no evidence whatsoever of religion prior to 5000 years ago. > never had the Abrahamic God to instill fear and keep us under > the "Man's" thumb and tied to the soil to produce food. They didn't have any God or Gods at all. Abraham worshiped the Phoenician pantheon of Gods just like everyone else in Syria-Palestine. > Religion as we know it is the handmaiden of civilization. > Civilization creates abundance and its opposite, poverty. > Religion is needed as a promise to those who live in poverty > to keep them there so that they can reap their reward in the > hereafter. No. Religion is nothing more than ANCESTOR WORSHIP and nothing more. The only religion that has ever existed that did not involve worshiping ancestors but recognised a universal God unconnected with the past, present or future is Platonism and even that acknowledged the existence of ancestral Gods and reincarnation as the method of reaching this God, thereby making every man into his own God. >> Monkeys don't believe in Gods and neither do Cats and Dogs and neither do >> isolated communities of Humans unless they have a religion imposed on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> people and you can't say you do, especially from >>> your "written record" point of view. > >>> I don't need cites. I am not the one making up science fiction > >>> fantasies. We have historical recrds fromEusebiusand others who > >>> state that before the Pantheons were established the only gods which > >>> people worshiped were the forces of nature and the celestial objects. While we must always respect what the late chronographers of antiquity were able to learn, while the temples of Egypt and Babylon still were open and the priests could still read the ancient writings, we have to allow for the limitations of the information-gathering processes available to them, and the substantial corruptions that had crept into the tradition by this point. > >> Let me rephrase: Neolithic CULTURE was characterized > >> by subsistence farming and herding with occasional > >> hunting forays. I wonder how one knows this, given that they left no writings. I imagine this is merely a deduction from "we can discover archaeologically evidence of xx yy zz." It would probably be safer to stay closer to the data. > No, my definition of "Neolithic" stands. I cannot imagine why an atheist is fighting about Neolithic culture, about which we must know very little. > >Eusebiuswould have known of hunter gatherers who were still in Europe > > and Africa and he would have known that they had no Gods whatsoever. Um, I think he would be reliant on other writers. These certainly do describe hunter-gatherer cultures; how accurately, well, we'd need specifics. > > Religion is something which was invented in Mesopotamia in about 3500 BC > > at the same time as writing and was nothing more than ancestor worship > > based on recorded history. I doubt we know this for a fact. What are the facts from which this is a deduction, I wonder? > > This religion was then exported to their > > neighbours who then exported it to their neighbours until it reached > > Europe, China and even the Americas. Left alone man had no reason > > whatsoever to believe in any kind of God. Christ, Adonis, Dionysus, > > Baal-Hadad and Osiris are all rehashes of the story of the resurrection > > of Tammuz transposed onto other historical figures. I would be most interested to see the proof that Tammuz is the aboriginal Corn-King and that all the others are derivative. Again I suspect hearsay is being repeated here. > It was not common in classical times to do original research. This is correct. > Did Eusebius vist existing hunter-gatherer societies? I don't > think so. Ah, but in antiquity existing hunter-gatherer societies tended to visit YOU!! (Hence the invasions of the huns). :-) There is no evidence that he did, and it seems fairly improbable. > He probably only knew of them by word of mouth, most > likely from traders who would be apt to exaggerate in various > directions based on their own ignorance of people's inner > lives and their own bias. Bias is an easy word to throw around. Let's not suppose it without evidence, hey? The real difficulty he would face was the lack of the system of scientific knowledge gathering and organisation which we inherit from the Victorian age. > From those reportsEusebiusmay have "assumed" that primitive > (inEusebius' view) people didn't have gods or spiritual beliefs. Why "assumed", and why the quotation marks? If he states this, he relies on his authority to that effect. > Religion, as we know it, was indeed invented in Mesopotamia over > 5000 years ago. The "as we know it" is the key here. I suspect this is a tautology. > Religion as we know it is the handmaiden of civilization. > Civilization creates abundance and its opposite, poverty. > Religion is needed as a promise to those who live in poverty > to keep them there so that they can reap their reward in the > hereafter. Your faith in those who set the media agenda of our times, from whom you repeat this twaddle, must be very strong. I don't trust the buggers an inch myself. Five minutes thinking is enough to see that these stale phrases do not reflect the world in which we live, where the media is dominated by people who scoff at Christianity (but are very tender towards New Age religion). It would be better to think for ourselves, surely. > > Monkeys don't believe in Gods I was wondering how this statement could be tested. :-) All the best, Roger Pearse Roger, I'm answering you here because I generally respect your scholarship and knowledge though I don't share your belief system. You are in several instances replying to Aggie's words, not mine, and in one or two instances you snipped my reply which came close to what you said. >>>>> I don't need cites. I am not the one making up science fiction >>>>> fantasies. We have historical recrds fromEusebiusand others who >>>>> state that before the Pantheons were established the only gods which >>>>> people worshiped were the forces of nature and the celestial objects. Aggie's statement, not mine. > While we must always respect what the late chronographers of antiquity > were able to learn, while the temples of Egypt and Babylon still were [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > archaeologically evidence of xx yy zz." It would probably be safer to > stay closer to the data. My statement. Archaeological data tells us that Neolithic cultures engaged in farming (fossilized pollen and plant remains). They engaged in herding (herd animal remains in conditions strongly suggestive of domestication). Note that apparently no animal except the dog, and the dog may have domesticated itself, appears in the arch. record as domesticated before the domestication of plants. >> No, my definition of "Neolithic" stands. > > I cannot imagine why an atheist is fighting about Neolithic culture, > about which we must know very little. It would appear that Aggie knows less about it than either you or I. >>> Eusebius would have known of hunter gatherers who were still in Europe >>> and Africa and he would have known that they had no Gods whatsoever. > > Um, I think he would be reliant on other writers. These certainly do > describe hunter-gatherer cultures; how accurately, well, we'd need > specifics. Again, you are not addressing my statement, but Aggie's. I replied (and you snipped) my reply to Aggie, which was similar to yours. >>> Religion is something which was invented in Mesopotamia in about 3500 BC >>> at the same time as writing and was nothing more than ancestor worship >>> based on recorded history. > > I doubt we know this for a fact. What are the facts from which this > is a deduction, I wonder? Again, Aggie's statement. >>> This religion was then exported to their >>> neighbours who then exported it to their neighbours until it reached [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > aboriginal Corn-King and that all the others are derivative. Again I > suspect hearsay is being repeated here. One more time, this is Aggie's statement. >> It was not common in classical times to do original research. > > This is correct. Thank you. We agree on something. >> Did Eusebius vist existing hunter-gatherer societies? I don't >> think so. > > Ah, but in antiquity existing hunter-gatherer societies tended to > visit YOU!! (Hence the invasions of the huns). :-) Oooooh, big one here Roger. You should know better. The Huns were NOT a hunter-gatherer society. They were a pastoralist society, herding horses and probably sheep and goats as were many of the Central Asian nomads of the time. > There is no evidence that he did, and it seems fairly improbable. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Bias is an easy word to throw around. Let's not suppose it without > evidence, hey? Okay, but OTOH we are all biased to some degree. It's only natural regardless of what your beliefs are now to have some 'baggage' which came from your upbringing. That's bias. Or rather it's the cause of bias in your point of view. With that in mind, I offer the following: Trader trades with people who follow a hunter-gatherer economy. The way the Portuguese did it was to land their long boat on the African coast, put out some goods and stand back a ways. The local population then came out and 'exchanged' some of what they had with some of what the sailors put on the beach. How, in this situation, does one observe the inner life of the people they are trading with? How does one even know the economy of these people? In all likelihood, the local aren't even hunter-gatherers. West Africa, where the Portuguese traded has been the home to settled farmers and herders since at least 1000 BCE. Bias? The devoutly Catholic Portuguese sees no sign of any religious belief (at least that he can recognize as such) and probably no clothes for that matter and his 'bias' of clothing being part of being civilized and having the 'true' religion might make him assume that these locals on the beach have no religious belief. I think I recall some early writing referring to American natives as "naked savages". > The real difficulty he would face was the lack of the system of > scientific knowledge gathering and organisation which we inherit from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why "assumed", and why the quotation marks? If he states this, he > relies on his authority to that effect. Back to my statement that people in classical times didn't do much original research, I'm suggesting that from what Eusebius heard he drew an uninvestigated conclusion that hunter-gatherers had no religion. I don't even know if Eusebius actually said (wrote) this. It's from a statement Aggie made. >> Religion, as we know it, was indeed invented in Mesopotamia over >> 5000 years ago. The "as we know it" is the key here. > > I suspect this is a tautology. It may well be because what we know of Mesopotamian religion from written records is not so different from what we now practice as religion. My tautology is to infer that there may well have been religious beliefs that we don't know about because there was no written record. >> Religion as we know it is the handmaiden of civilization. >> Civilization creates abundance and its opposite, poverty. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > very tender towards New Age religion). It would be better to think > for ourselves, surely. I'm not sure why you are taking exception to my statement. Isn't 'civilization' the child of 'agriculture'? Isn't it agriculture that creates the need for the organization provided by civilization? I think these phrases DO reflect the world in which we live. Perhaps not for you or me in England and New England respectively, but certainly in much of the rest of the world where there is just enough food to get by on and when old mom nature, or political upheaval, delivers a sunday punch, there isn't enough and we have a starvation disaster somewhere in the world on our hands. >>> Monkeys don't believe in Gods > > I was wondering how this statement could be tested. :-) Me too. > All the best, > > Roger Pearse "The entire system of religion as we know it derives from Gilgamesh." Ahh I see- the native americans derived their god Coyote from Gilgamesh. And the polynesians derived their volcano god from Gilgamesh too. And the aborigines got the gods of the wlk-about from the story of Gilgamesh. And the neanderthals spread ochre on graves so that Nergal would accept them into the underworld with good ol' Gilgamesh. Wonder how they all transcended ime and space to do that. Out of curiousity- Do you actually have some evidence for the porn as figurine theory or were you just joking? And to anyone who knows: When is the generally accepted date for herding? > Out of curiousity- > Do you actually have some evidence for the porn as figurine theory or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > When is the generally accepted date for herding? After the invention of agriculture. It varies from place to place and in some places never got invented at all. The earliest seems to the Zagros and other middle eastern areas which had agriculture early on AND animals that were easy to domesticate and control, goats, I think. In the western hemisphere, only the camelids of South America and turkeys were domesticated before the Europeans arrived. I don't think there were any animals domesticated on New Guinea. Jared Diamond put the domestication of sheep and goats in Southwest Asia at 8500 BCE. A good guess for dogs is 10,000BCE or earlier. > Out of curiousity- > Do you actually have some evidence for the porn as figurine theory or > were you just joking? Ask yourself this simple question. Why are they name Venus figurines after the Roman Goddess of prostitutes, and why are they always naked. They are porn dollies plain and simple. > And to anyone who knows: > > When is the generally accepted date for herding? > Ask yourself this simple question. Why are they name Venus figurines after > the Roman Goddess of prostitutes, Who cares what people who dug them up named them? They have no idea what they were for, and can only theorize like you and I. They probably named them Venus because she is one of the most popular fertility gods in myth and popular culture. The layman doesn't even associate Venus with prostitution. I'd bet most people just think of a girl in an opening shell under the water, somehow vaguely associated with birth. and why are they always naked. Why are Hindu gods naked? Why do cave paintings have attractive slender women, but your so called porn has fat unattractive women? We've already established that a cave artist can easily fire a small attractive figurine just as easily as you could fire a small fat one. They are > porn dollies plain and simple. Conjecture, with as much evidence as the other mere theories as the ones I tossed out off of the top of my head. >> Ask yourself this simple question. Why are they name Venus figurines >> after [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > probably named them Venus because she is one of the most popular > fertility gods in myth and popular culture. The layman doesn't even Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION and that alone. > associate Venus with prostitution. I'd bet most people just think of a > girl in an opening shell under the water, somehow vaguely associated > with birth. Demeter/Cares was the goddess of the corn not Aphrodite/Venus. Why weren't they called Demeter figures. It's because they were identified as PORNOGRAPHY and associated with prostitution. They may have even been used as necklaces to identify women as prostitutes to their johns. > and why are they always naked. > > Why are Hindu gods naked? No they are not. > Why do cave paintings have attractive slender women, but your so > called porn has fat unattractive women? I already explained that. Stick figures were easy to draw on cave walls, women with large breasts and large c.nts were easier to carve in detail out of bone > We've already established that a cave artist can easily fire a small > attractive figurine just as easily as you could fire a small fat one. Poppycock. Small fat figures break less easily than small thin ones. Its not until you start casting them in hard metal that small slim figures become viable. > They are >> porn dollies plain and simple. > > Conjecture, with as much evidence as the other mere theories as the > ones I tossed out off of the top of my head. Pornography is the only credible explanation. > Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION and > that alone. And angels were asexual and had no halos or wings. The question is not what Venus was when she was actually worshipped. The question is what she represented to popular culture when those dollies they named after her were dug up. Must I explain everything as if to an infant? > Demeter/Cares was the goddess of the corn not Aphrodite/Venus. Why weren't I bet a very small percentage of laymen would recognize those names. If scientists named those dollies Cares, they might as well have named them Wunga-Bunga, because neither name would have any meaning to popular culture. You are like my computer; able to crunch numbers and facts but devoid of common sense. > > Why are Hindu gods naked? > > No they are not. Yes there are naked statues of female gods in Indonesian and Indian Hindu religious places. Thank you very much. > > Why do cave paintings have attractive slender women, but your so > > called porn has fat unattractive women? > > I already explained that. Stick figures were easy to draw on cave walls, > women with large breasts and large c.nts were easier to carve in detail out > of bone Nope. They were not stick figures. I have a coffee table book right here at home with exquisitely painted perfectly slender women, dating from roughly the same time period. The Venus figurines were pregnant. Plain and simple. Never heard of any evidence suggesting that Cro-Magnons thought pregnant=sexy > > We've already established that a cave artist can easily fire a small > > attractive figurine just as easily as you could fire a small fat one. > > Poppycock. Small fat figures break less easily than small thin ones. Its not > until you start casting them in hard metal that small slim figures become > viable. Again, you want to bet $250? Put your money where your mouth is. >> Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION and >> that alone. > > And angels were asexual and had no halos or wings. Angels you ignorant were messengers. That's what the worded aggelos means. > The question is not what Venus was when she was actually worshipped. > The question is what she represented to popular culture when those > dollies they named after her were dug up. Sex and prostitution. Demeter was the goddess associated with the corn. > Must I explain everything as if to an infant? You are a stupid so it's no wonder your intellect is no greater than that of disusing with infants. >> Demeter/Cares was the goddess of the corn not Aphrodite/Venus. Why >> weren't > > I bet a very small percentage of laymen would recognize those names. WRONG. > If scientists named those dollies Cares, they might as well have named > them Wunga-Bunga, because neither name would have any meaning to > popular culture. > > You are like my computer; able to crunch numbers and facts but devoid > of common sense. You are devoid of any sense. You are an ignorant and a stupid. >> > Why are Hindu gods naked? >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Again, you want to bet $250? > Put your money where your mouth is. >> Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION and >> that alone. > > And angels were asexual and had no halos or wings. Angels were messengers as the word means. In Greece they were typically owls. The non-biblical version of the death of Herod has an owl in the rafters. The biblical copy has a messenger and in English this is left untranslated as angel so as not cause believers to question the mythology.  SignatureEvery paid position as a university professor originated as a labor of love without any form of financial reward. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3849 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7 ... > Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION and > that alone. Can you actually narrow it down that far or would it be more fair to say she was the non-virgin type of goddess? Or do you mean literally Venus as opposed to Aphrodite? And if you can which was the goddess for women in general that took care of surviving child-birth, menstrual pain and generic women's issues? We are missing a goddess here. SignatureAn entire cool summer is trumped by a warm day in January if you are a global melter. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3836 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml http://www.giwersworld.org > ... >> Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > she was the non-virgin type of goddess? Or do you mean literally Venus as > opposed to Aphrodite? No. Aphrodite/Venus was the goddess of love/sex and prostitution. She served no other purpose. All of her temples were whorehouses. > And if you can which was the goddess for women in general that took care > of surviving child-birth, menstrual pain and generic women's issues? Eileithyeia was the goddess of childbirth. Menstruation and other women's issues were related to the Dionysus cult. Demeter was the corn goddess and had nothing to do with women's issues. > We are missing a goddess here. There were gods before recorded history because logical philosophical thought brings any intelligent being to the absolute need for an unmoved mover. Simple as that. > There were gods before recorded history because logical philosophical > thought brings any intelligent being to the absolute need for an > unmoved mover. Simple as that. No it does not. When you are a hunter gatherer you think like an animal, where to sleep, how to eat and what to f.ck. >> There were gods before recorded history because logical philosophical >> thought brings any intelligent being to the absolute need for an >> unmoved mover. Simple as that. > > No it does not. When you are a hunter gatherer you think like an animal, > where to sleep, how to eat and what to f.ck. When did what become whom? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> There were gods before recorded history because logical philosophical >> thought brings any intelligent being to the absolute need for an >> unmoved mover. Simple as that. > > No it does not. When you are a hunter gatherer you think like an animal, > where to sleep, how to eat and what to f.ck. Horseshit!!! > There were gods before recorded history because logical philosophical > thought brings any intelligent being to the absolute need for an > unmoved mover. Simple as that. And knowledge of the physical universe, once called natural philosophy and now called science, rejected the undisciplined ravings of philosophers as totally worthless bullshit. SignatureThe Great Wall of Palestine soon to be a world wonder. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3835 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Israel says no extermination http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a13 On Aug 18, 11:31 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote: > > There were gods before recorded history because logical philosophical > > thought brings any intelligent being to the absolute need for an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > called science, rejected the undisciplined ravings of philosophers as totally > worthless bullshit. OK then. Since you are smarter than Hawkins and Einstein, explain to me how something gets moved without something moving it? Here is a link to explain why the Paleolithic diet is superior to the Neolithic (or civilized) diet; http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html > On Aug 18, 11:31 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > OK then. Since you are smarter than Hawkins and Einstein, explain to > me how something gets moved without something moving it? Obviously never studied basic physics then. Refer yourself to Newton's first law of motion. > On Aug 18, 11:31 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> called science, rejected the undisciplined ravings of philosophers as totally >> worthless bullshit. > OK then. Since you are smarter than Hawkins and Einstein, explain to > me how something gets moved without something moving it? Once upon a time there was this bang. Because it was the first bang it is called the big bang. Before the bang there was nothing. The bang is motion. The motion will never cease. Motion was the beginning. If that is too hard for you I won't bother going into the inflation model and giving you suggestions for further reading although Hawkins "Short History of Time" is an easy place to start and as good as any. And if you want to try to go all mystical on me about "motion" then I going to have to ask you to give a working definition of motion so you might as well provide it up front. And should you wish to try some variant upon "it stands to reason" do not say that produce the reasoning itself that it stands to. SignatureThe only knowledge Christians and Jews have of the bible comes from the companion 'What is really means' book. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3853 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6 > Once upon a time there was this bang. Because it was the first bang it is > called the big bang. Before the bang there was nothing. The bang is motion. The > motion will never cease. Motion was the beginning. What changed nothing to motion? > If that is too hard for you I won't bother going into the inflation model and > giving you suggestions for further reading although Hawkins "Short History of > Time" is an easy place to start and as good as any. I have read them already and they all admit that they don't know why nothing changed into a big bang. You think you are so smart but you don't even realize that Hawkins admits that there has to be an original force to make it all begin. Spontaneous generation was disproven in the 1800s, and it still hasn't been reproven. It seems like the atheists would have grown some common sense by now. I mean, still trying to disprove the unmoved mover with the Big Bang is laughable. The Big Bang just heightens the need for an unmoved mover, for Pete's sake! Nothing doesn't just come from something. If something is nothing, it is going to stay nothing, unless something else acts on it. Not only is that science, but it's also common sense. Period. > It seems like the atheists would have grown some common sense by now. > I mean, still trying to disprove the unmoved mover with the Big Bang > is laughable. The Big Bang just heightens the need for an unmoved > mover, for Pete's sake! No one is "disproving" anything. The burden of EVIDENCE, not proof and not argumentation, has always been the burden of those claiming there is a god. They haven't got to step one. > Nothing doesn't just come from something. If something is nothing, it > is going to stay nothing, unless something else acts on it. Not only > is that science, but it's also common sense. Period. That is mere argumentation which has no bearing upon reality. You may successfully argue that a bull is a cow but I still do not recommend drinking the milk. You have to first show that causation existed prior to the inflation. As you can know nothing about anything outside of inflation you can not show it. SignatureWhen a Chinese company causes the death of customers the CEO is charged with murder and executed. Who said we cannot learn from the Chinese? -- The Iron Webmaster, 3854 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5 >> Once upon a time there was this bang. Because it was the first bang it is >> called the big bang. Before the bang there was nothing. The bang is motion. The >> motion will never cease. Motion was the beginning. > What changed nothing to motion? As it is not possible to know because we are within the inflation no one can know nor can anyone even guess. You can't get a god of out because you cannot know anything prior to inflation. >> If that is too hard for you I won't bother going into the inflation model and >> giving you suggestions for further reading although Hawkins "Short History of >> Time" is an easy place to start and as good as any. > I have read them already and they all admit that they don't know why > nothing changed into a big bang. You think you are so smart but you > don't even realize that Hawkins admits that there has to be an > original force to make it all begin. > Spontaneous generation was disproven in the 1800s, and it still hasn't > been reproven. Did not read with comprehension as he do not know because he clearly states nothing can be known. All causality is within the inflation. As there is no way to get beyond the inflation causation cannot extend from before to after. SignatureThe families of every Iraqi we have killed has an absolute right in law and morality to kill Americans to balance the scales. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3840 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5 > There were gods before recorded history because logical philosophical > thought brings any intelligent being to the absolute need for an > unmoved mover. Simple as that. Balls. Interestingly enough Aquinas did not think that. Creation was what he believed as a Christian and he said so. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >> ... >>> Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Eileithyeia was the goddess of childbirth. Menstruation and other > women's issues were related to the Dionysus cult. Got another common name for her or do I have to look it up myself? ;) > Demeter was the corn goddess and had nothing to do with women's issues. SignatureWhen a Chinese company causes the death of customers the CEO is charged with murder and executed. Who said we cannot learn from the Chinese? -- The Iron Webmaster, 3854 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11 >>> ... >>>> Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Got another common name for her or do I have to look it up myself? ;) Eileithyia Eilithia Eilythia Eileithyiai Eleuthia Ilithia Ilithyia Known since Mycenaean times. Roman equivalent Lucina. >> Demeter was the corn goddess and had nothing to do with women's issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilithyia "Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message news:46c7cf24$0$11032$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> "Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:46c6a6a6$0$16506$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> ... >>>> Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of PROSTITUTION >>>> and that alone. >>> >>> Can you actually narrow it down that far or would it be more fair to say >>> she was the non-virgin type of goddess? Or do you mean literally Venus >>> as opposed to Aphrodite? >> >> No. Aphrodite/Venus was the goddess of love/sex and prostitution. She >> served no other purpose. All of her temples were whorehouses. >> >>> >>> And if you can which was the goddess for women in general that took care >>> of surviving child-birth, menstrual pain and generic women's issues? >> >> Eileithyeia was the goddess of childbirth. Menstruation and other women's >> issues were related to the Dionysus cult. > > Got another common name for her or do I have to look it up myself? ;) > Eileithyia Eilithia Eilythia Eileithyiai Eleuthia Ilithia Ilithyia Known since Mycenaean times. Roman equivalent Lucina. >> Demeter was the corn goddess and had nothing to do with women's issues. > > -- > When a Chinese company causes the death of customers the CEO is charged > with > murder and executed. Who said we cannot learn from the Chinese? > -- The Iron Webmaster, 3854 > nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml > Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml > a11 >>>> ... >>>>> Venus was NOT a fertility goddess. She was a goddess of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> women's issues were related to the Dionysus cult. >> Got another common name for her or do I have to look it up myself? ;) > Eileithyia > Eilithia [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Roman equivalent Lucina. I needed that. With Eleuthia, Ilithia and Lucinda I know where to start. Thanks. >>> Demeter was the corn goddess and had nothing to do with women's issues. SignatureHodie decimo tertio Kalendas Septembres MMVII est -- The Ferric Webceasar nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2 ... > Why do cave paintings have attractive slender women, but your so > called porn has fat unattractive women? Why do women in the porn industry get breast implants far larger than women in the legitimate movie industry? You can also find hip and butt implants if you closely study their films for many hours as to most men. SignatureOne finger is all a real American needs. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3838 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10 > Why do women in the porn industry get breast implants far larger than women in > the legitimate movie industry? You can also find hip and butt implants if you > closely study their films for many hours as to most men. They didn't only have big butts and breats; they had hugely overemphazided stomaches too. >> Why do women in the porn industry get breast implants far larger than women in >> the legitimate movie industry? You can also find hip and butt implants if you >> closely study their films for many hours as to most men. > They didn't only have big butts and breats; they had hugely > overemphazided stomaches too. In many parts of Africa a woman cannot get a husband until after her first child to show she can have children. I think it was Reubens whose women were all chubby and red faced, that is, pregnant. SignatureRepublicans are more interested in protecting the president than the troops. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3839 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3 >> Ask yourself this simple question. Why are they name Venus figurines after >> the Roman Goddess of prostitutes, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > We've already established that a cave artist can easily fire a small > attractive figurine just as easily as you could fire a small fat one. Perhaps she was the original Big Mamma. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > "The entire system of religion as we know it derives from Gilgamesh." > > Ahh I see- the native americans derived their god Coyote from > Gilgamesh. The native Americans had no gods. Their so-called gods were invented by the Europeans who first encountered them out of their immediate ancestors. The Eskimos had not word for house until Europeans taught them the Greek word Oiko, which they corrupted to Iglu. The Mauri did not even have an name for their people untill Euopeans named them Mauroi from the Greek word for Blacks. > And the polynesians derived their volcano god from Gilgamesh too. They never had a volcano god at all. Europeans invented their gods after contaminating their culture. > And the aborigines got the gods of the wlk-about from the story of > Gilgamesh. They had no gods. Europeans invented their gods after contaminating their culture. > And the neanderthals spread ochre on graves so that Nergal would > accept them into the underworld with good ol' Gilgamesh. Wonder how > they all transcended ime and space to do that. POPPYCOCK. The Neanderthals copied the Homo Sapiens who did it so as to get rid of the smell of decaying flesh. > The native Americans had no gods. Their so-called gods were invented by the > Europeans who first encountered them out of their immediate ancestors. The > Eskimos had not word for house until Europeans taught them the Greek word > Oiko, which they corrupted to Iglu. The Mauri did not even have an name for > their people untill Euopeans named them Mauroi from the Greek word for > Blacks. Nice conspiracy theory. Let me guess, because writing didn't come until Europeans and that's the first time you see the stories written down. Next you are going to tell me that the Aztecs didn't actually do any human sacrifices. > > And the polynesians derived their volcano god from Gilgamesh too. > > They never had a volcano god at all. Europeans invented their gods after > contaminating their culture. Good theorizing from behind books and PC screens. Go to Hawaii and witness magma walking and the associated ceremonies and tell me that they got the faith in Pele from Europeans. > > And the aborigines got the gods of the wlk-about from the story of > > Gilgamesh. > > They had no gods. Europeans invented their gods after contaminating their > culture. Again, because you have no records of it before Europeans because the aborigines couldn't write. > > And the neanderthals spread ochre on graves so that Nergal would > > accept them into the underworld with good ol' Gilgamesh. Wonder how > > they all transcended ime and space to do that. > > POPPYCOCK. The Neanderthals copied the Homo Sapiens who did it so as to get > rid of the smell of decaying flesh. Yup, 5,000 years before they ever saw a homo sapien sapient. (The Neanderthals WERE homo sapiens, my misguided friend). >>>>>> I don't need cites. I am not the one making up science fiction >>>>>> fantasies. We have historical recrds fromEusebiusand others who [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > It would appear that Aggie knows less about it than either > you or I. What on earth are you raving on about. I am not an atheist. I am a polytheist. >>>> Eusebius would have known of hunter gatherers who were still in Europe >>>> and Africa and he would have known that they had no Gods whatsoever. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Thank you. We agree on something. Then you are both wrong. Pythagoras who proved Pythagoras theorem, Euclid the inventor of geometry, Aristotle the inventor the study of Biology. Hippocrates the founder of modern medicine, Archimedes the inventor of Calculus, Thales who discovered how to predict eclipses, Meton who discovered the Metonic Cycle, Hipparchus who measured the distance of the Earth to the Sun, Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger, Herodotus, Thucydides and Xeonophon to mention but a few all did original research. >>> From those reports Eusebius may have "assumed" that primitive >>> (in Eusebius' view) people didn't have gods or spiritual beliefs. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Back to my statement that people in classical times didn't > do much original research, I'm suggesting that from what Which is totally fallacious since I have named over a dozen that did off the top of my head. > Eusebius heard he drew an uninvestigated conclusion that WRONG. Eusebius didn't hear anything. He read the works of his predecessors and contemporaries and investigated what they said. The only thing he did not investigate was his own religion of Christianity and that is the only source of error in what he wrote, since he was deluded by it. > hunter-gatherers had no religion. I don't even know if > Eusebius actually said (wrote) this. It's from a statement > Aggie made. Read Preparation For the Gospel. I already quoted it for you. It's what he said. >>> Religion as we know it is the handmaiden of civilization. >>> Civilization creates abundance and its opposite, poverty. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > upheaval, delivers a sunday punch, there isn't enough and we have > a starvation disaster somewhere in the world on our hands. People do not go contemplating a higher intelligence or the afterlife until they are first comfortably well off enough not to need to think about where their next meal is going to come from, defending themselves from invaders or having to work for a living, and this one comes with the foundation of cities and city states, and city states do not exist without writing as a means of accounting and organisation. You can therefore take it for granted that there were no Gods of any kind before the Sumerians. Gods are a consequence of organised civilisation not agriculture or hunting and gathering. >>>> Monkeys don't believe in Gods >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Roger Pearse >>>>>>> I don't need cites. I am not the one making up science fiction >>>>>>> fantasies. We have historical recrds fromEusebiusand others who [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > What on earth are you raving on about. I am not an atheist. I am a > polytheist. I think he was referring to me. And I don't know what the atheist question is about either. >>>>> Eusebius would have known of hunter gatherers who were still in Europe >>>>> and Africa and he would have known that they had no Gods whatsoever. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Herodotus, Thucydides and Xeonophon to mention but a few all did > original research. So that's about the extent of my list also, but I might add Archimedes the inventor of many wonderful mechanical devices (as well as calculus that you mention). That's 13 or 14 dudes out of how many? The rest simply rehashed what this 13 or 14 accomplished. >>>> From those reports Eusebius may have "assumed" that primitive >>>> (in Eusebius' view) people didn't have gods or spiritual beliefs. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and that is the only source of error in what he wrote, since he was > deluded by it. And didn't question whether or not his predecessors and contemporaries could have been wrong. >> hunter-gatherers had no religion. I don't even know if >> Eusebius actually said (wrote) this. It's from a statement [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > the Sumerians. Gods are a consequence of organised civilisation not > agriculture or hunting and gathering. If you told me white was white, I wouldn't take if for granted. And I for sure will not take an unsupported assertion made from ignorance of the inner lives of hunter-gatherers made by you for granted. Hunter-gatherers tend to work fewer hours per day than agriculturalists in marginal areas (arctic, deserts). How well do they do when conditions are actually favorable? The hunter-gatherers of Australia had a marvelously complex inner life when they were discovered by Europeans. They still do. >>>>> Monkeys don't believe in Gods >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>> Roger Pearse >>>>>>>> I don't need cites. I am not the one making up science fiction >>>>>>>> fantasies. We have historical recrds fromEusebiusand others who [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > (as well as calculus that you mention). That's 13 or 14 dudes > out of how many? That is more than half of the extant scientific writers (ie. not poets, playwrights, orators and philosophers). >The rest simply rehashed what this 13 or 14 > accomplished. No they did not and you have no evidence or basis to claim that they did. All of the scientific works we have from ancient times are original research. It was the Greeks who invented the method of modern scientific investigation and proof. You can also add Stabo, Arrian, Apollodorus, Josephus, Livy, Pausanius, Plutarch, Plato, Tacitus, Julius Caesar, Hirtius, Galen and many more. >>>>> From those reports Eusebius may have "assumed" that primitive >>>>> (in Eusebius' view) people didn't have gods or spiritual beliefs. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And didn't question whether or not his predecessors and > contemporaries could have been wrong. Yes he did question them, after all he was an apologist, and agreed with the whole body of scientific thought of his time that they were right, which is why he quoted them. >>> hunter-gatherers had no religion. I don't even know if >>> Eusebius actually said (wrote) this. It's from a statement [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > The hunter-gatherers of Australia had a marvelously complex inner life > when they were discovered by Europeans. They still do. What a load of poppycock. The Aboriginals were living every day in fear of where their next meal would come from and being attacked by intruders and wild animals. They had not science, philosophy, sophisticated art, metallurgy, pottery, literature, proper music, or anything that would indicated they had contemplated anything of a higher nature such as religion which only come with civilisation and being well of, safe and secure both physically and financially. >>>>>> Monkeys don't believe in Gods >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>> >>>> Roger Pearse > What a load of poppycock. The Aboriginals were living every day in fear of > where their next meal would come from and being attacked by intruders and > wild animals. They had alot more free time than we have, and alot more of a leisurely existence. >They had not science, philosophy, sophisticated art, > metallurgy, pottery, literature, proper music, or anything that would > indicated they had contemplated anything of a higher nature such as religion > which only come with civilisation and being well of, safe and secure both > physically and financially. What exactly is "proper" music? They had melody and rhythm and even sympathetic harmony. Do you think Sitar ragas are primitive or "improper?" The cave paintings in Australia circa 50,000-125,000 ybp are amazing, and would put many modern artists to shame. >> What a load of poppycock. The Aboriginals were living every day in fear >> of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > What exactly is "proper" music? They had melody and rhythm and even > sympathetic harmony. No they didn't. The theory of harmony was not invented until the middle ages in western Europe. The only thing the aboriginals did was used a didgeridoo in the same manner that the Romans used a war trumpet and it could only play one note. Proper music is Mozart, Beethoven, and composition based on Pythagorean principles and scales. > Do you think Sitar ragas are primitive or "improper?" We are talking about Aboriginals. > The cave paintings in Australia circa 50,000-125,000 ybp are amazing, > and would put many modern artists to shame. Given that a monkey with a paintbrush and a pot of paint would put modern artists to shame, it isn't very impressive. > No they didn't. The theory of harmony was not invented until the middle ages > in western Europe. The only thing the aboriginals did was used a didgeridoo I said sympathetic harmony- drone notes. Eastern music still has no theoretical harmony, and is no less complex than western music. > in the same manner that the Romans used a war trumpet and it could only play > one note. Digs play more than one note. > Proper music is Mozart, Beethoven, and composition based on > Pythagorean principles and scales. In other words, everyone is a barbarian except Europe because Europe invented one short-lived form of music that was more egoist than the rest? > > Do you think Sitar ragas are primitive or "improper?" > > We are talking about Aboriginals. Neanderthals had 5 note flutes. > Given that a monkey with a paintbrush and a pot of paint would put modern > artists to shame, it isn't very impressive.- Hide quoted text - They could think abstractly, and were probably worshipping Megalania Prisca by the congregation-full. >>> What a load of poppycock. The Aboriginals were living every day in >>> fear of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > We are talking about Aboriginals. No, you were talking about "proper" music. Again you show your ignorance in the assumption that you need a "theory" of harmony in order to have harmony in your music. Laughable. >> The cave paintings in Australia circa 50,000-125,000 ybp are amazing, >> and would put many modern artists to shame. I'd add the painting in Lasceaux and Altamira and other locations to that list from 40 to 25k years ago. Also, see http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/ re: age of paintings in Australia. and http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ for modern humans in Australia, no later than 75k years ago. > Given that a monkey with a paintbrush and a pot of paint would put > modern artists to shame, it isn't very impressive. >>>> What a load of poppycock. The Aboriginals were living every day in fear >>>> of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > No, you were talking about "proper" music. Again you show > your ignorance in the assumption that you need a "theory" And yet again you show your ignorance of the history, this time of music > of harmony in order to have harmony in your music. > Laughable. You need a theory in order to compose it and tech other people the correct arrangements in order to play it. It wasn't until the invention of western music notation that complex harmonise were possible to arrange and be reproduced, otherwise you just make it up as you go along and that's not proper music because you can't pass it on to other musicians who have never heard it. Jazz for instance would never have caught on if it hadn't been for the ability to record it. >>> The cave paintings in Australia circa 50,000-125,000 ybp are amazing, >>> and would put many modern artists to shame. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Also, see http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/ re: age of > paintings in Australia. Were they on drugs or something? it makes you think that Picasso and Van Gaugh were probably on drugs too. Did LSD exist in Van Gaughs time? Only a child of 5 years old would paint that badly because it would be learning hand eye coridination. Any normal person above the age of 5 given a paint brush and told to paint what they saw would paint something that was in the correct proportions even if they knew nothing about how to paint. > and http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ for modern humans > in Australia, no later than 75k years ago. > >> Given that a monkey with a paintbrush and a pot of paint would put modern >> artists to shame, it isn't very impressive. >>>>> What a load of poppycock. The Aboriginals were living every day in >>>>> fear of [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > musicians who have never heard it. Jazz for instance would never have > caught on if it hadn't been for the ability to record it. I'll take Charlie Parker's version of "Autumn in New York" against whoever backed Frank Sinatra any time. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > You need a theory in order to compose it and tech other people the correct > arrangements in order to play it. No you don't need to "compose" harmony. And you don't need to teach other people your song in order for them to play in harmony with you. Someone plays a note, and you play a different note that sounds good with their note. People do it all the time and it's called improvisation. As well as being unfathomably ignorant about prehistory, you're also obviously not a musician. >It wasn't until the invention of western > music notation that complex harmonise were possible to arrange and be > reproduced, otherwise you just make it up as you go along and that's not > proper music because you can't pass it on to other musicians who have never > heard it. Jazz for instance would never have caught on if it hadn't been for > the ability to record it. Exactly. But we weren't talking about complex harmonies or being able to pass it on. The phrase "proper music" is your own made-up term. We were talking about rhythm, harmony, and melody, which are what make up "proper music" to me. Your basically saying that jazz and indian Ragas are "improper" music too. Caveman music could have been every bit as complex as either of those two. > Were they on drugs or something? it makes you think that Picasso and Van > Gaugh were probably on drugs too. Did LSD exist in Van Gaughs time? Only a > child of 5 years old would paint that badly because it would be learning > hand eye coridination. Any normal person above the age of 5 given a paint Have you seen every paleolithic painting? There are cave paintings that are absolutely perfectly painted, approaching photographic. Also, over 50,000 years paints tend to fade. Most of what we have of cave paintings is just a fraction of what was originally painted. >> You need a theory in order to compose it and tech other people the >> correct [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with their note. People do it all the time and it's called > improvisation. In that case you can't teach your song to other people and everyone is basically rediscovering the principles of music theory every time them make an improvisation. Doing it that way means that you cant improve on what has gone before. Just imagine all our scientists and engineers first having to re-derive all the laws of physics from basis principles, in fact re-deriving the basic principles to begin with every time they conduct an experiment or try to build a bridge or a car engine. You'd never get further than the bow and arrow. > As well as being unfathomably ignorant about prehistory, you're also > obviously not a musician. I'm a DJ and unlike you I know something about both music and history whereas you know nothing except how to invent science fiction stories. >>It wasn't until the invention of western >> music notation that complex harmonise were possible to arrange and be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > were talking about rhythm, harmony, and melody, which are what make up > "proper music" to me. No. Proper music is being able to improve on what has gone before. A bird can do music but no matter how much it tries it will never be Mozart. > Your basically saying that jazz and indian Ragas are "improper" music > too. Indian Ragas are based on mathematics, not improvisation. There's a fixed number of combinations of notes that can be used in them and all of them have been written down. > Caveman music could have been every bit as complex as either of those > two. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Have you seen every paleolithic painting? There are cave paintings > that are absolutely perfectly painted, approaching photographic. But not the Aboriginal ones. > Also, over 50,000 years paints tend to fade. Most of what we have of > cave paintings is just a fraction of what was originally painted. > >> You need a theory in order to compose it and tech other people the > >> correct > >> arrangements in order to play it. Tell that to Jimi Hendrix. Ever heard of perfect pitch? > In that case you can't teach your song to other people and everyone is > basically rediscovering the principles of music theory every time them make > an improvisation. I don't have to teach a good musician a song. He's played enough and trained his ear enough to just pick it up as I play it. > Doing it that way means that you cant improve on what has > gone before. Just imagine all our scientists and engineers first having to > re-derive all the laws of physics from basis principles, in fact re-deriving > the basic principles to begin with every time they conduct an experiment or > try to build a bridge or a car engine. You'd never get further than the bow > and arrow. You really have no idea how a musician works. > > As well as being unfathomably ignorant about prehistory, you're also > > obvio |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message