The most famous attraction is the Cerne Abbas giant, a 55 metre (180ft) naked male figure carved into the chalk hillside. The giant, owned by the National Trust, is thought by many to be an Iron Age fertility symbol but, as it is unlikely that the monks of Cerne Abby would have tolerated such a figure and with no records before the 17th century, this cannot be confirmed. Many scholars now think that it was created in the mid-17th century, and is possibly a cartoon of Oliver Cromwell as the Greek-Roman god Hercules. There is evidence, however, that there were Iron Age settlements on the downs nearby
Quote:
The earliest written reference to the Giant was made in 1694 in a record for payment in the Cerne Abbas churchwarden's accounts of 3 shillings toward the re-cutting of the giant. This was followed by references in 1742, and in 1751, John Hutchins wrote in his Guide to Dorset that the carving had only been done the previous century. It is now believed that it was probably made by servants of the Lord of the Manor Denzil Holles during the English Civil War. There has been speculation that the figure is a parody of Oliver Cromwell, who was sometimes mockingly referred to as "England's Hercules" by his enemies; the Hercules connection is strengthened by the recent discovery of an obliterated line perhaps representing an animal skin (see below). A local legend says that a real giant was killed on the hill and that the people from Cerne Abbas drew round the figure and marked him out on the hillside.
Truth of the matter is, no one really knows who carved the giant, or their reasons for doing so.
If it was indeed a 17th century cartoon, then that's pretty ironic. Who knows, in a couple of hundred years someone will find evidence of 'Giant Homer' and start a donut (sic) worshiping sect!
I guess I just have a different attitude about religion in general. IMO part of the problem with religion is that people take it too seriously. Religious belief should be a blessing not a burden. My belief is strong enough that it cannot be sullied by an other's ignorance.
Salman Rushdie had death threats over Satanic Verses. Christians get uptight over Harry Potter and DaVinci Code. I remember the hub bub that was created over The Last Temptation of Christ when it came out in the theaters. I found THAT movie to be absolutely inspiring and I had already shed my christian upbringing!
My point is this - like any good satire - it gets you thinking about the original image, story, thought, religion, etc. Even if just to expose someone to the FACT that a different worldview exists.
I too am a pagan and did not find it offensive. I think I like it as much as I liked Buddy Jesus from "Dogma". I think it is silly and find it amazing that the advertising entity involved with the Simpsons movie even knew about the chalk man.
I don't remember the same outcry when Homer "disrespected" Ganesh at Apu's wedding.
The image itself goes back much further than that depiction as can be witnessed in just about every culture in the world where an image of a man with an erect cock is seen as a sign of fertility. But clearly there's always going to be the ignorant who want to dismiss religious symbols as nonsense - and why there will always be people who have learned and understood the meanings and who will then try to teach the facts instead of allowing ignorance to be spread.
The site that the image is on is probably more to do with the reason the place is holy than the image itself. It'likely that the symbol would have been added as a signpost for a place of special significance. I'd be happy to go into the reasoning for that but a lecture on geo-magnetism is not in my remit... teh fact that there was a monastery there also pretty much proves the spiritual significance of the place with it being well known that the Church took over many ancient places of worship.
I think it is silly and find it amazing that the advertising entity involved with the Simpsons movie even knew about the chalk man.
I'd guess they employed a British advertising company, one who either is responsible for the glut of similar adverts (some of which I've posted here) or they're just ripping off the idea.
Marcella-FL wrote:
I don't remember the same outcry when Homer "disrespected" Ganesh at Apu's wedding.
But they didn't they go to a real Hindu temple and take the piss - that's the point as I see it.
It also helps to watch the video because I didn't understand what was meant by putting breasts and hips on it and how that would "empower the women" ... I understand what they were thinking but I think it would have been more empowering if the women would have been in an adjacent field and formed a fertility goddess shape by laying down in the shape. This stunt seems better suited to a transgender group.
Ownership may be something that is accepted, on a day to day level, but it's not part of the belief system as I understand it.
true but can you compartmentalize these two "belief systems" (secular and spiritual) that easily? I choose not to because IMO that is the basic problem with "organized" religion.... single mindedness.
I pretty much think "What would a fundamental do?" and try to do the EXACT opposite. just kidding! maybe ...
I see your point of course, but I don't understand the idea of choosing a religion if you want to pick which parts to observe. Surely that's the real problem with religion as it allows for deviations from the course which has (usually) been developed by many generations?
so are you saying there is no point in believing ANYTHING if you can't believe 100%? All or nothing?
My problem with most "organized" religions is not the basic belief but the followers. I was raised Roman Catholic. I don't have a problem with the "basic" beliefs - I may not agree with them but they aren't what burned people at the stake. It is the human interpreters that I usually have a run in with. It's the same with books or movies or conversations or threads or what have you ... it is the individual interpretation that causes "wars" ...
Reminds me of studying Saussure ... the test we used was "Course in General Linguistics" which was not actually written by him but was a compilation of the notes taken by his students at his lectures. Anyone who has gone to school at any time KNOWS that this is a crazy way to try to "learn" a subject as notes on the same lecture vary from student to student. I wish I had taken the course AFTER 1996 when his original notes on the lectures were found. ... BUT I digress ... sorry!
Well, I'd say that when you choose a religion, as opposed to being born into one, I would say that yes, you must make a conscious choice to accept at least its basic philosophies and to live by them.
Personally, I've come into contact with representatives from Christian, Islamic, Pagan, Buddhist, Scientologist, Masonic, and Satanic beliefs (not in that order necessarily) as a searcher and have knocked them all back on the basis that not any of them have the right to claim that theirs is the only way.
Are there any Zoro-Astrians in the house? I'd quite like to try that one next - haha
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
