On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, ardeith l carter wrote:

> Give me a chance here!  I'm gonna connect it to food!!

Here we go again, eh?

> The "major" religions of the world.....Christianity,
> Islam, Judaism.....promote the attitude that nothing really
> matters here on this little planet except "perfecting" one's
> soul in preparation for the "afterlife."   Pollute the planet!
> Go ahead!  It doesn't matter because your "real" destiny
> is in the "afterlife."     Accept your poverty and/or
> slavery!  Go ahead!   These things don't matter because
> they are of this world and your "real" destiny is in the
> "afterlife."       Refuse to be responsible for your actions.
> Go ahead!   After all, all was ordained by "god" at the
> moment of "Creation" and you have no real control
> over anything anyway!

You see, this is the sort of thing that starts these discussions.
This representation is so far from accurate that it simply cries
out for correction.  Do the religions of the world teach that it
is fine to pollute the planet?  I don't think so.  For example,
in Genesis 1:27, the passage *after* the much-quoted one about
people having dominion over the fish, birds, etc., it says "Be
fruitful, multiply, and *replenish* the earth."  Is this
compatible with despoiling it?  No.  Does poverty not matter?
Then why do we find, at Deuteronomy 15:11, "I command thee,
saying, Thou shalt surely open thy hand unto thy brother, to thy
needy, and to thy poor, in thy land."  Didn't Jesus, at Matthew
19:21, say "If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou
hast, and give to the poor"?  What's the point of that if poverty
doesn't matter?  And slavery... Doesn't the Old Testament have a
story to tell about the Israelites being led out of slavery by
God?  Does that suggest that slavery doesn't matter?

> I see a connection between the "civilization"
> of wandering hunter/gatherers and the change
> in diet that lead to so much consumption of
> grains.........and religion played its part by telling
> the people that it didn't matter how hard their
> lives were......their "reward" was waiting for
> them in the "afterlife."    So.....in my own opinion....
> the growth of these sorts of religions was
> directly connected to the growth of what Daniel
> Quinn calls "totalitarian agriculture."

Then why is it that so many institutions of charity and relief
for the poor have been religious in character?

> Someone asked what "crop" these religions
> cultivated.....of course, the religious answer is
> "souls."   But by supporting the development of
> agriculture, the religions were supporting the
> development of the grain-foods.    How else
> does a "priesthood" arise?

Actually, the priesthood is a pre-agricultural role.  A priest
is, by definition, one who is authorized to present sacrifices to
the gods, to propitiate them.  Even in hunting societies, the
gods needed to be propitiated in hope of a favorable hunt.
Animal sacrifice is older than agriculture, and where there are
sacrifices there are priests, who may also be shamans.  When
societies turned to agriculture, the nature of the sacrifices
gradually changed as well.

> You must have
> enough 'surplus' food on hand that someone
> doesn't have to get out and hunt antelope.....
> that gives someone time to develop his/her
> 'spiritual leadership.'

Shamanism didn't have to wait for the arrival of agriculture.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]