In a message dated 8/6/99 7:42:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< My point is this:   The common feature of all agri-cultural "spiritual"
 traditions is the idea that you NEED "salvation" and you must go against
 your Nature to attain it.  The whole problem is this:  Agri-culture teaches
 us that we are not OK, we are "fallen" and "not spiritual enough" so we have
 to do something unusual. or turn something natural into something unusual,
 to be "saved".

 Paleo culture accepted man as he is, just as we accept the lions and orynx
 and monkey.   Those animals don't need spiritual "salvation".  They are OK
 just as Nature made them.  So why does man need "salvation"?  He doesn't;
 the whole idea is an agri-cultural hoax.  Man is  not "fallen", he's not
 "imperfect."   Man is just another animal,  OK just as Nature made him.
 Once we accept that, and stop viewing our selves as "fallen" or imperfect,
 and sto ptrying to "fix" ourselves, we start to make some progress.


 Don
  >>
Some people make believe about salvation and religiosity, while others make
believe that you can blame something called agriculture for everything they
find distasteful and for which they can imagine an idealized fantasy that
existed 10,000 years ago.  Is there a difference?