Re: Robbing the Cradle - St. and the Spartans

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/3/03 6:43:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> So their attempt to trap Jesus backfired. He upheld the law, since both

> parties were required to be present, and they were not. And when he said

> let he who is without sin cast the first stone, I'm sure he was talking

> about that specific sin, of which they apparently were *all* guilty.

>

This is a very interesting point, but some of the manuscripts that predate

the canonical one add a sentence that he proceeded to write the sins of each in

the sand, where as the canonical one I think just says he started writing in

the sand (or maybe it leaves it out all together, I forget). But if that

sentence is authentic, it seems to indicate that he was referring to sin per se,

and not the specific sin.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:01:07 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> And yeah, the OTHER side raised the same arguments

> you did -- what about people who disobey their parents?

Yeah I always get a kick out of people who ignore the Scriptures as a

rule except when they want to use it to discredit someone who believes

in them and then all of sudden they think they are scholars. They come

up with the silliest arguments.

The passage dealing with the child and his parents is actually referring

to an *adult* " child " who is trying to do his parents in.

> And should we stone women who commit adultery?

This is an even funnier one since the law required both the woman and

the *man* to be potentially subject to the same sanction.

That is one reason why Jesus was able to play off the Pharisees so well

in that very infamous story that everyone seems to know, at least

superficially.

In order for them to have caught the woman in the act, they would have

had to catch the man as well. Where was he? No where to be found. Their

hypocrisy

was clearly on display. Best guess? It was one of them since they seemed

to know exactly where *she* was. Probably a regular consort of the

Pharisees.

So their attempt to trap Jesus backfired. He upheld the law, since both

parties were required to be present, and they were not. And when he said

let he who is without sin cast the first stone, I'm sure he was talking

about that specific sin, of which they apparently were *all* guilty.

> Outlaw meat cooked in milk? (I wonder if coconut milk

> counts?).

LOL! The OT food laws were part of a sophisticated prefiguring of the

coming of the Messiah (a Messiah the Christian Church believes has

already come), find their fulfillment in that coming, and thus need no

longer be observed. They were but shadows.

Basically what is interesting to me is that we

> are facing the same questions in this country that the

> Middle East is: secular vs. religious society, and if

> religious, exactly HOW religious? And which brand

> of religious?

All countries face this question, even ones that claim to be atheistic

or secular. Atheism is in fact itself religious, intensely so, since,

like all belief systems it deals with questions whose foundations cannot

be answered or measured empirically. In other words, it operates on a

set of non-negotiables or philosophical first principles that are

pre-theorectical, and therefore religious in nature.

That isn't a bad thing, it is just the nature of the case.

>

> Now the Spartans were rather extreme in this ...

> they would not go into battle if the entrails

> fortold disaster nor would they postpone

> religious days for *anything*. Athens was rather

> the opposite ... free and easy (for that time period).

> So Sparta and Athens had the same Right/Left

> Conservative/Liberal Religious/Science schism

> that is affecting the rest of the world right now,

> which makes it really interesting.

It is very interesting, but the real issue, IMO, is how the belief

system plays out in the public square. One can be very " conservative "

and still allow for a ton of freedom. One can be very " liberal " and be

very oppressive. How one's belief system impacts their view of the state

is what ultimately gets played out.

>

> And how does this relate to food, you may

> ask? Well probably in that people who decide

> to drink raw milk and not go to Mc's

> are deciding not to support the " Status Quo "

> and defying the current " food culture " , so

> you have the same liberal vs. conservative

> factors at play (whether a person considers

> themself liberal or conservative in a political

> sense is beside the point -- if you " do NT " at

> this point in time, you are a " food liberal " , I

> think, making your own food decisions ...).

>

I guess one could be a food liberal in the sense of bucking the status

quo. On the other hand we could easily be called food conservatives

since we are seeking to restore traditional food values.

I guess it all depends on whether you look at conservatism as

conserving the status quo or a return to saner times. I think you will

find people of both stripes, politically speaking. Politicians in the

former category, the rank and file in the latter category.

I actually think the food wars tend to make people practicing

libertarians if not philosophically such, since they often get up close

and intimate with the heavy hand of gov't in very practical ways, and

don't like what they see.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/3/03 8:30:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I really like the Swiss canton government ... all the males vote (well,

> can't be perfect) and make the laws once a year. Each canton is small enough

> that this can actually happen. There is a national gov't too, I think, but

it's

> as close to self-rule as I've ever seen. And every male is a member of the

> army, which makes it hard to declare war unless you really, really think you

> need it because chances are, you'll be fighting in it! Actually Switzerland

> reminded me of the Shire!

In New England we pride ourselves on the " town meeting " which is direct

democracy. In the 19th century, 90% of taxes went to the municipal government,

so

this was very much direct rule. I forget the exact statistics, but a male had

something like an 85% chance of filling public office, and rather than

running for them, most people were generally elected without running. They

weren't

paid, but rather they were fined for not doing the job if they tried to sneak

out of it.

This was REAL democracy, which is wholly unlike the pseudo-democratic

oligo-fascist whatever the heck we have now.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>All countries face this question, even ones that claim to be atheistic

>or secular. Atheism is in fact itself religious, intensely so, since,

>like all belief systems it deals with questions whose foundations cannot

>be answered or measured empirically. In other words, it operates on a

>set of non-negotiables or philosophical first principles that are

>pre-theorectical, and therefore religious in nature.

>

>That isn't a bad thing, it is just the nature of the case.

I agree, and the issue comes up in sending your kids to school. When

you teach kids ANYTHING there is an implicit philosophy and culture.

>It is very interesting, but the real issue, IMO, is how the belief

>system plays out in the public square. One can be very " conservative "

>and still allow for a ton of freedom. One can be very " liberal " and be

>very oppressive. How one's belief system impacts their view of the state

>is what ultimately gets played out.

Yeah, the issue of " everyone has to be the same " vs. " we can tolerate diversity "

plays in here. In terms of the Spartans though, I don't get the impression they

were trying to convert the rest of Greece. I was specifically talking about

their sense of rigidity, more than " sticking to the old ways " . They just refused

to bend when circumstances might require it, which led to problems. Some people

can be very conservative and still be flexible -- i.e. they might be

conservative about their religion but flexible in responding to their kid's

needs, and people who are liberal politically are sometimes rather rigidly so!

>I guess one could be a food liberal in the sense of bucking the status

>quo. On the other hand we could easily be called food conservatives

>since we are seeking to restore traditional food values.

>

>I guess it all depends on whether you look at conservatism as

>conserving the status quo or a return to saner times. I think you will

>find people of both stripes, politically speaking. Politicians in the

>former category, the rank and file in the latter category.

I'm thinking mainly in the way Ori describes his idealized warrior, which I

guess the closest word for is " freethinker " (in Ben lin's sense, as I

understand it). If you truly think about something and experiment and come up

with the idea that the old ways are the best, that is " liberal " (freethinking)

in my book. If you follow the old ways because that's what your Mom told you and

you won't change them or even think about if they are any good, and esp. if you

are afraid something awful will happen if you don't put up your kimchi by the

dark of the moon, then that makes you rigid and conservative. Or maybe there is

a better word.

>I actually think the food wars tend to make people practicing

>libertarians if not philosophically such, since they often get up close

>and intimate with the heavy hand of gov't in very practical ways, and

>don't like what they see.

The heavy hand of gov't can be a big problem. I'm not sure I trust the power

companies to not spew mercury all over the countryside though, in a completely

libertarian society. Having seen what unbridled commercialism does, it's hard to

say which is worse.

I really like the Swiss canton government ... all the males vote (well, can't be

perfect) and make the laws once a year. Each canton is small enough that this

can actually happen. There is a national gov't too, I think, but it's as close

to self-rule as I've ever seen. And every male is a member of the army, which

makes it hard to declare war unless you really, really think you need it because

chances are, you'll be fighting in it! Actually Switzerland reminded me of the

Shire!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> In New England we pride ourselves on the " town meeting " which is direct

> democracy. In the 19th century, 90% of taxes went to the municipal

> government, so

> this was very much direct rule. I forget the exact statistics, but a

> male had

> something like an 85% chance of filling public office, and rather than

> running for them, most people were generally elected without running.

> They weren't

> paid, but rather they were fined for not doing the job if they tried to

> sneak out of it.

Well, I can't say I'm a big fan of democracy, but if I could pick my

poison, I'd definitely prefer someone who has to be threatened with a fine

to do the job over someone so keen on the idea that he's willing to spend

millions of dollars of his own money to get it.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>In New England we pride ourselves on the " town meeting " which is direct

>democracy. In the 19th century, 90% of taxes went to the municipal government,

so

>this was very much direct rule. I forget the exact statistics, but a male had

>something like an 85% chance of filling public office, and rather than

>running for them, most people were generally elected without running. They

weren't

>paid, but rather they were fined for not doing the job if they tried to sneak

>out of it.

>

>This was REAL democracy, which is wholly unlike the pseudo-democratic

>oligo-fascist whatever the heck we have now.

>

>Chris

I like it! Of course in an area like I live in, we wouldn't be able to

afford our school ... that is one problem with funding. The rich

areas would get better schools.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/4/03 12:31:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I like it! Of course in an area like I live in, we wouldn't be able to

> afford our school ... that is one problem with funding. The rich

> areas would get better schools.

I say trash the schools. The better the schools get, the lower the literacy

rate gets, so I don't see the point. Back in the day I'm talking about,

school was one room, there was one teacher, and kids went to a lot less of it.

Yet

people were more literate and smarter.

Anyway, speaking of schools, this method is interestingly still workable

despite much larger towns. Most New England town meetings aren't good examples,

because the federal and state gov'ts have hijakced the roles of the municipal

governments so noone cares about town meetings. However, our school district

just voted on a budget, and the meeting had over 3,000 people, and the vote was

taken by direct democracy *without* a secret ballot. Everyone was allowed 1

and 1/2 minutes of floor time to speak their mind, though only a fraction used

it. The budget was successfully debated and voted on. It took all night but

it worked fine.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/4/03 6:10:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

>

> I did send my daughter to such a school, but the finances didn't work out

> and it closed. The problem with MOST of the small schools around here is that

> they are very much an offshoot of one religion or another that I don't

> subscribe to. Very few kids wanted to go to a school that was not

church-oriented.

> My kids LOVE school and it gives them the motivation to be really organized

> (getting up on time, which their parents are not great at) and a social group.

> The public school here is very, very local in how it is run and the parents

> are in class a lot. However, it is gravely underfunded and the parents buy the

> supplies, which is REALLY inefficient (buying retail costs a lot more than

> wholesale, but I haven't had time to reorganize their thinking!).

>

> Getting all the locals together for town meetings would be a great idea

> though. I guess enough parents complained that they ditched the pop machines

(and

> now have milk machines, and water machines ... but it's a start ...).

The one out here is a public school. We don't have any religious schools in

my town. We're small enough that we share a high school with the neighboring

town, but in general we've had enough money to be a fantastic school, as far

as schools go. Now that we have the evil usurper from Utah as governor who

wants to take all the money from schools and otherwise destroy every single

thing

in the state, we are also grossly underfunded, and almost shut down our

school, like several other public schools in the state have already done.

> As for literacy, I'm not sure that is what school teaches, kids seem to

> learn to read, or not, on their own.

School's purpose isn't education-- take it from this award-winning teacher:

<A

HREF= " http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt " >http://www.worldtrans.o\

rg/whole/schoolteacher.txt</A>

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Anyway, speaking of schools, this method is interestingly still workable

>despite much larger towns. Most New England town meetings aren't good

examples,

>because the federal and state gov'ts have hijakced the roles of the municipal

>governments so noone cares about town meetings. However, our school district

>just voted on a budget, and the meeting had over 3,000 people, and the vote was

>taken by direct democracy *without* a secret ballot. Everyone was allowed 1

>and 1/2 minutes of floor time to speak their mind, though only a fraction used

>it. The budget was successfully debated and voted on. It took all night but

>it worked fine.

>

>Chris

I did send my daughter to such a school, but the finances didn't work out and it

closed. The problem with MOST of the small schools around here is that they are

very much an offshoot of one religion or another that I don't subscribe to. Very

few kids wanted to go to a school that was not church-oriented. My kids LOVE

school and it gives them the motivation to be really organized (getting up on

time, which their parents are not great at) and a social group. The public

school here is very, very local in how it is run and the parents are in class a

lot. However, it is gravely underfunded and the parents buy the supplies, which

is REALLY inefficient (buying retail costs a lot more than wholesale, but I

haven't had time to reorganize their thinking!).

Getting all the locals together for town meetings would be a great idea though.

I guess enough parents complained that they ditched the pop machines (and now

have milk machines, and water machines ... but it's a start ...).

As for literacy, I'm not sure that is what school teaches, kids seem to learn to

read, or not, on their own.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:31:19 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/3/03 6:43:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> slethnobotanist@... writes:

>

> > So their attempt to trap Jesus backfired. He upheld the law, since both

> > parties were required to be present, and they were not. And when he said

> > let he who is without sin cast the first stone, I'm sure he was talking

> > about that specific sin, of which they apparently were *all* guilty.

> >

>

> This is a very interesting point, but some of the manuscripts that predate

> the canonical one add a sentence that he proceeded to write the sins of each

in

> the sand, where as the canonical one I think just says he started writing in

> the sand (or maybe it leaves it out all together, I forget). But if that

> sentence is authentic, it seems to indicate that he was referring to sin per

se,

> and not the specific sin.

>

Yes I was aware of that, but I don't think it necessarily means sin per

se, and if it does perhaps that is why is not a part of the canon, which

just says he was writing in the sand. He could have been writing

adultery over and over and over, once for each man standing there.

And since the general approach of Scripture/Tradition is that one cannot

bring discipline against someone if they are actively engaged in that

particular sin, it would make sense.

Anyone, if you want to comment more, be my guest. The last word is yours.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:26:58 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/4/03 12:31:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> heidis@... writes:

>

> > I like it! Of course in an area like I live in, we wouldn't be able to

> > afford our school ... that is one problem with funding. The rich

> > areas would get better schools.

>

> I say trash the schools. The better the schools get, the lower the literacy

> rate gets, so I don't see the point. Back in the day I'm talking about,

> school was one room, there was one teacher, and kids went to a lot less of it.

Yet

> people were more literate and smarter.

LOL!!!

I say separate the schools from the state: http://www.sepschool.org/

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html