Conversation
Notices
-
@SuperSnekFriend Would you be interested to hear the shower thought I have turned into an effort post about puritanical nonsense and hygiene?
- New Janny in Town likes this.
-
@wgiwf Sure :jahy_hmm:
-
@wgiwf @SuperSnekFriend tag me in brother.
-
@SuperSnekFriend I have the basic outline of a hypothesis in regards to historical and current oddness about the human form and poorer hygiene and sanitation than there would be otherwise. This isn't really talking about theology but more incidental to is as it is concerned with cultural precepts and interpretations that went unchallenged for centuries by all, mostly.
One may or may not know, but during the Middle Ages people bathed far more regularly than in the Renaissance or the "enlightenment" period. Bathhouses, as well as being centers of prostitution unfortunately, were a key part of daily life, even in rural areas, with church and secular authorities often paying for the poor to partake of its hygienic services as a form of charity. Although clergy were only allowed to bathe twice a year, Easter and Christmas, iirc.
In the transition from Greco-Roman civilization to a more Germanic European one (Faustian as Spengler calls it), the corporeal emphasis of the classical was displaced. One that maintained complex sewage, waterworks systems, and public bathhouses as a matter of public health gave way to free for all that mistakenly saw Jesus refusing to wash his hands before eating as a teaching moment as a condemnation of bodily cleanliness over time, at least in the west, culminating in Louis XIV who was said to reek of a corpse from lack of bathing and powdered wigs put on top of cropped hair to combat lice. Historically speaking many parts of the Orient and Northwest Asia had more hygienic customs in comparison to Europe at the same time.
This has had cultural and philosophical repercussions to how one would see scripture as a denial of the flesh and its mortification as a de-facto ideal without much resistance until the 19th century and Germ theory in particular showing the folly and danger of these habits. One can of course see historical counter arguments to the idea that the flesh is in and of itself sinful and dirty in art other fields that varying impacts also misguided things like the Adamites.
Traditional Israelite/jewish customs like Mikvahs and other ritual bathing underscored that, while very much correct belief that the old laws are no longer binding, there is wisdom in some of its teachings that shouldn't have been ignored while others about different aspects of ceremonial law are held up.
How this all relates to bodily weirdness is a sort of separation of the person from their bodily self that doesn't have a place in classical understanding. If your body isn't important then why will it be resurrected with your soul as well? The thought of "transgenderism" would be unthinkable to ones who truly understood the body as a temple, and not just a metaphor. If one sees the human form as the peak of God's creation, one will not mark it up with obscenities nor let it slide into formlessness and squalor. Furthermore the view of the body as dirty and sinful in all likelihood increases lust and pornography in society, replacing appreciation of human beauty with disordered sexual desire. Also any reading of the bible that makes you come to the conclusion that people should walk around unbathed and reeking of animal dung is fundamentally retarded.
Do say if this really makes any sense. It's kind of a bundle of ideas I've had swirling around in my head to try and make sense of some long held Western cultural oddness.
Reading the first volume of "The Decline of the West" (a slog to read, tbh) left a sort of mark in me that I have examined things with from that point on. And with inspiration from the commitment to historical accuracy of "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" also helped put some of this into perspective after a bit of research.
-
@berkberkman @SuperSnekFriend @wgiwf it is a testament to human's body ability to adapt to extreme circumstances.
-
@berkberkman @SuperSnekFriend The Aryans that conquered India millennia ago had plumbing like the Romans did. The Dravidians are messed up and worshiping shit producing machines (cows) doesn't help. I know of no other culture that believes eating excrement has health benefits; and I believe it all lies downstream from that fact.
-
@wgiwf @SuperSnekFriend With the constant amount of dung eating, it still baffles me how those Dravidians still persist even today.
-
@wgiwf @SuperSnekFriend With that kind of history regarding hygiene, I often wonder how those designated shitting streets got popular for decades, especially within India.
-
@wgiwf 1. I was wondering where you getting some of this information. I'm leery of any thesis that relies on generalized versions of generalized knowledge. I wish you had dedicated sources.
It seems like the general history is correct though:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9632745/
2. Though from what I understand, something you can gather from the article above, it was not religious or philosophical reasons that prevented people from practicing good hand hygiene mid 1700's-1800's, but the scientific and medical institutions themselves. It does not seem to come from a particular metaphysical or ethical view of the body, so the question becomes: what caused that resistance during the Enlightenment to early Victory period?
3. I like that you ascribe wisdom to the ceremonial laws. The main concern when Jesus lashed against the "tradition of hand washing" was the act adding those traditions to God's law as a sign of God's approval and spiritual cleanliness, when the Sanhedrin and rabbis ignored "the weightier matters of the law" (Mat 23:23). The washing of the feet was a sign of Christ cleansing the disciples and us, but it was also hygienic as you did not have shoes or boots in the ANE, so dirtying your feet was very easy. It's a shame that was never connected by early theologians.
4. I'm not sure if I agree with this statement, "the view of the body as dirty and sinful in all likelihood increases lust and porn." From what I have researched, the church fathers and medieval theologians typically viewed sexual desire and sexual feelings themselves, good and evil, as the source of the problem and not man's sinfulness. It was a view that carried over into all three branches of Christianity. I have research again to be sure.
The view of the body itself did not figure into their view of sexual thoughts, feelings, and desires.
5. Paul's use of "the flesh" was typical not referring to the body, but strictly the believer's sin nature while he remains on Earth in the flesh, a nature that was fighting the new heart and the Holy Spirit God places in a believer, or the unbeliever's unrestrained sin nature.
Thank you for sharing this! :02_heart:
Wolfgirl in Wheatfield
❄️:padoru: SantaSnekFriend :padoru:❄️
New Janny in Town
Berkeley Berkman
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the