Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 110 posts

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#51

Post by Minor49er »

cratermoon wrote: post #10

There are several problems with this article. To start with, it mixes up the Tree of Life[1] and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil[2]. Second, the Genesis story is Jewish, and predates Christianity by at least five if not ten centuries. And most importantly, early Christians were Jews first. Post-Pauline times, pagan or Gentiles in the Roman empire did join the growing movement that was soon to be called Christi…

> The Genesis story is Jewish, and predates Christianity by at least five if not ten centuries. And most importantly, early Christians were Jews first.

Just thought this contradiction was amusing.

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#52

Post by cratermoon »

Minor49er wrote: post #51
cratermoon wrote: post #10

There are several problems with this article. To start with, it mixes up the Tree of Life[1] and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil[2]. Second, the Genesis story is Jewish, and predates Christianity by at least five if not ten centuries. And most importantly, early Christians were Jews first. Post-Pauline times, pagan or Gentiles in the Roman empire did join the growing movement that was soon to be called Christi…

> The Genesis story is Jewish, and predates Christianity by at least five if not ten centuries. And most importantly, early Christians were Jews first. Just thought this contradiction was amusing.

How so? Jesus and the apostles, or any historical figures which they inspired, didn't think of themselves as "Christian", nor did they even imagine they were creating a new religion. They were Jews who didn't toe the Second Temple Judaism line.

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#53

Post by some_hacker33 »

iammisc wrote: post #19

The main problem of this article is that it uses modern cultural and artistic norms to interpret ancient art. Traditional Catholic and Christian iconography was not meant to be accurate, but rather to symbolize meaning. For example, in my church, the priest recently pointed out there is a dog in every single stained glass window depicting scenes of Jesus's life. In particular, the dog is a dalmation. If we were to ap…

Why are you still giving money to the catholic church?

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#54

Post by pulse7 »

Minor49er wrote: post #51
cratermoon wrote: post #10

There are several problems with this article. To start with, it mixes up the Tree of Life[1] and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil[2]. Second, the Genesis story is Jewish, and predates Christianity by at least five if not ten centuries. And most importantly, early Christians were Jews first. Post-Pauline times, pagan or Gentiles in the Roman empire did join the growing movement that was soon to be called Christi…

> The Genesis story is Jewish, and predates Christianity by at least five if not ten centuries. And most importantly, early Christians were Jews first. Just thought this contradiction was amusing.

There is no contradiction here: Jews (descendants of Judah, son of Jacob=Israel) were living at least 15 centuries before Jesus Christ. Jesus was also a Jew and his first followers were also Jews, later non-Jews (=pegans) joined the "movement"...

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#55

Post by anigbrowl »

iammisc wrote: post #37
52-6F-62 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they do: the priesthood. The Vatican itself restricts access to its own archives.

That's not the elect as you described. Priests are no more deserving of heaven than any other baptised catholic. The 'knowledge' in the archives is not religious in nature. You don't need to have access to it to know God or achieve the ultimate goals of catholicism.

You are not even replying to the same person. I think you're being a little over-literal here.

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#56

Post by bawolff »

cratermoon wrote: post #10

There are several problems with this article. To start with, it mixes up the Tree of Life[1] and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil[2]. Second, the Genesis story is Jewish, and predates Christianity by at least five if not ten centuries. And most importantly, early Christians were Jews first. Post-Pauline times, pagan or Gentiles in the Roman empire did join the growing movement that was soon to be called Christi…

> Second, the Genesis story is Jewish, and predates Christianity by at least five if not ten centuries.

This is silly. Its shared by a number of religions since abrahamic religions generally have a common root.

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#57

Post by Trasmatta »

hospadar wrote: post #32

Wow mostly unrelated, I had no idea that _Amanita Muscara_ was considered to be psychoactive (usually is described as poisinous in field guides). Also frequently considered to be edible (after treatment) in some places. Fascinating! (for those unfamiliar, the amanita genus as a whole contains a variety of extremely toxic mushrooms and is often avoided by novice edible collectors for that reason) See also: https://www…

FWIW, I wouldn't recommend trying to get high off of Amanita Muscaria. By all accounts it can be a rather unpleasant (and long) high. Best to stick with psilocybin.

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#58

Post by bawolff »

cratermoon wrote: post #46
xyzelement wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are probably "some scholars" that have argued for just about anything, but certainly the majority of knowledge on these treats them as different topics.

Exactly. Some "scholars" say that Genesis, along with the other four books of the pentateuch, was literally written by Moses and recounts actual facts as they happened. Wikipedia's NPOV utterly fails on topics like faith and belief.

Note, it would be against wikipedia policies to say "Some scholars say X". You're not supposed to use weasel words, and npov does not mean you have to give equal weight to all.

Case in point, wikipedia doesn't say that some scholars believe genisis was written by moses. Instead they say:

"Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, see them as being written hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC.[7][8] Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical. Biblical literalists do interpret it as actual history, giving rise to beliefs such as Young Earth creationism."

Which seems entirely fair to me.

Re: Does this medieval fresco show a hallucinogenic mushroom in the Garden of Eden?

#59

Post by cratermoon »

bawolff wrote: post #58
cratermoon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Some "scholars" say that Genesis, along with the other four books of the pentateuch, was literally written by Moses and recounts actual facts as they happened. Wikipedia's NPOV utterly fails on topics like faith and belief.

Note, it would be against wikipedia policies to say "Some scholars say X". You're not supposed to use weasel words, and npov does not mean you have to give equal weight to all. Case in point, wikipedia doesn't say that some scholars believe genisis was written by moses. Instead they say: "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but…

"Tradition credits" seems like as much weasel words as "some people say". Whose tradition? Since when? Where does the tradition come from?

> Note, it would be against wikipedia policies to say "Some scholars say X"

But.. that's exactly what the linked wikipedia article says! I'm not vested enough to care to change it, but if you're right, that is a violation of policy.

Post reply on HN