Did Affluence Spur the Rise of Modern Religions?

[Super Nova]

So what possessions did they have?

Good questions... carefully targeted.

This demonstrates that hunter-gatherers do not exist on a mere subsistence economy but rather live among plenty. Through knowledge of their environment hunter-gatherers are able to change what foreigners may deem as meager and unreliable natural resources into rich subsistence resources. Through this they are able to effectively and efficiently provide for themselves and minimize the amount of time spent procuring food. "[T]he food quest is so successful that half the time the people do not know what to do with themselves".[3] Hunter-gatherers also experience "affluence without abundance"[3] as they simply meet their required ends and do not require surplus nor material possessions (as these would be a hindrance to their nomadic lifestyle).

It appear that did not have material possessions as we consider them however they must have had personal items like knives, clothes, stone tools, weapons ...etc. However, who knows.

If all things were owned by the tribe and not the individual then I guess stealing could not happen.

However I find it hard to believe that people did not own things even if they are hunter gatherers. jewelry maybe.

So I guess stealing only became a real concept during the Neolithic period when we started to farm.

The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200–8,800 BC.

This is the same place/region the 3 modern religion were born that had morals at the core.

[freediver]

How do morals differ from the 'taboos' of polynesian societies?

Tribes were basically large families and worked along similar lines. Kids share toys. You can only have what you can carry so there is not much point having one each. The family has as many as are needed by the family.

Jewellery may be an exception. In many societies it was a status symbol for hunters, like having a trophy mounted on your wall. There is not much point having someone else's, as everyone knows whether you killed the Lion yourself. A lot of the large, wealthy African tribes collected gold etc, but these were little communist mini dictatorships and I think that only started after exposure to western traders.

[Super Nova]

How do morals differ from the 'taboos' of polynesian societies?

Tribes were basically large families and worked along similar lines. Kids share toys. You can only have what you can carry so there is not much point having one each. The family has as many as are needed by the family.

Jewellery may be an exception. In many societies it was a status symbol for hunters, like having a trophy mounted on your wall. There is not much point having someone else's, as everyone knows whether you killed the Lion yourself. A lot of the large, wealthy African tribes collected gold etc, but these were little communist mini dictatorships and I think that only started after exposure to western traders.

How do morals differ from the 'taboos' of polynesian societies?

You must know the answer to every question you ask.

Anyway, from what I know their taboos are more like rules not to offend the gods and they can be stilly but need to be avoided. Rile of what they should not do. Morals are about what we should and should not do as acceptable behaviour. So if there is a difference is, one is only about what you should not do, the other includes both. Fundamentally there is no real difference.

So if someone took my jewelry in a hunter gather society, it would be classified as my possession and would be classed as theft... wouldn't it and something worthy of a law or a taboo or a moral god prescribed by the word of god or ruler.

[freediver]

Anyway, from what I know their taboos are more like rules not to offend the gods and they can be stilly but need to be avoided. Rile of what they should not do. Morals are about what we should and should not do as acceptable behaviour. So if there is a difference is, one is only about what you should not do, the other includes both. Fundamentally there is no real difference.

Sounds like you are confusing morals and virtues.

[Super Nova]

Anyway, from what I know their taboos are more like rules not to offend the gods and they can be stilly but need to be avoided. Rile of what they should not do. Morals are about what we should and should not do as acceptable behaviour. So if there is a difference is, one is only about what you should not do, the other includes both. Fundamentally there is no real difference.

Sounds like you are confusing morals and virtues.

I don't think I am.

[Rorschach]

To be virtuous, surely you must first have a moral code.

[freediver]

Morals generally refer to things you behaviours from, while virtues refer to your good deeds.

[Rorschach]

Nope...


virtue
[ ˈvərCHo͞o ]
NOUN

1.behavior showing high moral standards:

"paragons of virtue"

synonyms: goodness · virtuousness · righteousness · morality · integrity ·

Virtue[/b] - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue

Virtue is moral excellence. A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being.

virtue - definition of virtue by The Free Dictionary
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

vir·tue (vûr′cho͞o) n. 1. a. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness. b. An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.

Virtues are traits deemed to be morally good...

[freediver]

Are you attempting to disagree with me?

[Rorschach]

No attempt... are you incapable of logical thought?
I merely pointed out that to be virtuous there must first be a moral code.
Common sense really.

What is virtuous in one society is not always virtuous in another... you do know that right?
hence virtue being dependent on a moral code.
it aint rocket science you know.