Jeremy Christian: Image of God and Free Will?

Yeah, that’s what usually happens. They use DeMeo’s reputation to dismiss and ignore everything entirely. Another expected result.

DeMeo’s book is only a catalog of evidence. Yes, in his view the psychological change he’s attempting to track down is in relation to Reich’s concept of armoring, but that’s beside the point. The evidence he catalogs is telling.

What Taylor takes from that and overlays over the evolution of human societies is the key to better understanding.

And I should also note that I’ve yet to find anything contrary to what either of them say. And I’ve checked. Extensively.

I’m suspecting that Taylor too is a fringe figure. I do wonder what real archeologists think of his work.

Taylor’s interest is primarily in psychology and spirituality. But let’s not dismiss on reputation alone. I’m vouching for what they’re saying. I’ve vetted this to the best of my ability to this point. I’m not asking for the reputations of these authors to add credibility. I didn’t just take their word for it and I’m not asking anyone else to do so either. I’m pointing out a place where you can go to get a better explanation than you’re getting here.

You realize that this adds no credibility, right?

I’m well aware. I’m asking to do what I have done for years now. Try to prove this false. Try to prove this wrong so I can drop it and move on with my life. I’ve had plenty of people tell me I’m wrong, but not once has it been shown.

In my experience, it doesn’t distort both books, it clarifies both. Here’s another result of viewing things through this framework …

Oct2018 …

Now, in this thread, I’m using the same tactic to tackle “Imago Dei”/Image of God

In this context ‘Image of God’ is nature. Everything in the universe. All life. Including Gen1 humans. We, from Adam forward, are the divergence. We are the only things in existence to not be an accurate representation of God. Nature, the image of God, is the perfection that we destroy.

Oh, look, a quote-mine.

Note the large gap between 250,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, then look at what the cited site says happened during that time:

Between about 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, the pace of innovation in stone technology began to accelerate very slightly. By the beginning of this time, handaxes were made with exquisite craftsmanship, and eventually gave way to smaller, more diverse toolkits, with an emphasis on flake tools rather than larger core tools. These toolkits were established by at least 285,000 years in some parts of Africa, and by 250,000-200,000 years in Europe and parts of western Asia. … These toolkits last until at least 50,000 to 28,000 years ago.

and

Later Stone Age tools include the toolkits called ‘Upper Paleolithic’ in Europe and ‘Late Stone Age’ in Africa. These toolkits are very diverse and reflect stronger cultural diversity than in earlier times. The pace of innovations rose. Groups of Homo sapiens experimented with diverse raw materials (bone, ivory, and antler, as well as stone), the level of craftsmanship increased, and different groups sought their own distinct cultural identity and adopted their own ways of making things.

But those innovations between 250,000 years ago and 6000 years ago don’t fit Jeremy’s preconceived ideas, so were ignored.

The progression described on that site can, as we were just talking about, fall into the category of learning and adapting. A very long process. But then something changed and humans began inventing all kinds of stuff.

Another quote mine …

“The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD” - Archaeologist and Philologist V. Gordon Childe

“a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself.” - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess

And in the context of the story …

Gen1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

These are the things that that first wave of humans was commanded to accomplish. Building and using tools is one of the things that gave humanity dominion in the animal kingdom.

Then, after Adam, when the Lord came down to observe …

Gen11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

Gen11:8 - So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth …

That’s when groups of humans in at least three different places (Sumer/Egypt/IndusValley) started inventing writing systems and all kinds of other things. In close proximity to one another, but independently.

Only by ignoring the second quoted section. But that’s what you do, isn’t it? Ignore anything that doesn’t fit your ideas.

I’m not ignoring it. The upward pitch of the progression here doesn’t in any way explain the burst of inventions to come not long after. From some new materials and few variations of stone tools to writing, mathematics, and astronomy. It’s clear that there’s a significant boom here that departs from the pace as it had been set. A boom that closely matches what’s described.

You literally ignored it when you responded only to the first part of the cited text.

I responded to the whole thing. I quoted a portion of the first bit to highlight the range of timeline it’s discussing. The second part doesn’t change that in any significant way.

It’s innovations to the same invention. Again, stone tool innovations over a quarter of a million years … vs … writing systems, astronomy, mathematics in a few centuries. What doesn’t fit?

Here’s the section you quoted:
Between about 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, the pace of innovation in stone technology began to accelerate very slightly.”
Here’s some of what you didn’t quote:
“These toolkits last until at least 50,000 to 28,000 years ago.”

So you’re claiming that changing 200,000 years ago to 28,000 years ago doesn’t change the timeline in any significant way.

Bollocks.

One portion of that second portion I’d like to know more about is this …
“different groups sought their own distinct cultural identity and adopted their own ways of making things”

I’d like to know what exactly this conclusion is based on, that they were seeking their own distinct cultural identity. Is it that or is it just diversity?

Then read the source you cited.

I will. I was just mentioning it as it’s the most relevant element to what I’m talking about in anything I’ve read on that site, and what you should have keyed in on if it’s to challenge what I’m claiming. It didn’t go into detail about that particular conclusion. Just states it that way.

How does that change anything other than extend the amount of time that the same tools persisted?

So 200,000-28,000 years ago pretty much covers the entirety of human history from anatomical modernity up. Which only further endorses my claim.

Primate societies have hierarchical structure and violence, with rank both among males and females. How is it that primate hunter-gatherers would have more “free will” than human hunter-gatherer?

YouTube - When Chimps Go To War.

This isn’t just chimpanzees. Japanese macaque hierarchies determine who gets a spot in the hot springs, competition allocates which urban rhesus monkeys get mates and who gets banished. It is good to be alpha, but uneasy rests the crown.

There’s competition, which has always been a factor for all living things, and then there’s class stratification and subjugation. These aren’t comparable. One is the result of free will, the other is just natural.

Class stratification and subjugation is competition. Primate behavior is comparable with human hostility.

I’m pretty much done with this odd thread, so the last word is yours.

All humans had competition, since the beginning. Those same tendencies didn’t just rear their ugly heads out of nowhere again later.

If it were truly just an extension of normal competitive social dynamics then it would have been there the whole time. It wasn’t.