COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Nudity is being with nature , it is so refreshing and there is nothing wrong being nude or a nudist .There should be more of it , as my next door neigbour ( who is a 83 year old lady )would say , its only skin .If there was more of it around children , there would be less trouble. Naturist looks like you and I and come from all walks of life. You will find it to be a relaxing lifestyle that is free of the daily stress we all experience. Naturist groups like naturistmingle.com are looking for people who are open minded and want to enjoy the company of others of a like mind.

Comment by Claudia on 10/07/08 at 10:24 pm

As pointed out elsewhere; murder, rape, incest, violent assault, theft, menacing and intimidation, exploitation etc. are all natural as well. At least some of these are precipitated by natural physical attraction and natural promiscuity combined with natural jealousy and natural posessiveness, to all of which we may add a need for revenge which is only natural. I am sure that Claudia will assure us that her gatherings are completely positive and free of social tensions. I can’t fully imagine it, and in a way I am glad I can’t.

I am only going to guess that although there are no private parts in her group per se, the actual usage of the various private parts for the three basic functions I can think of remains unnaturally private. If so, that is a good departure point for reflection. A general goal of religious discipline is to acknowledge that humans can apply their talents to improve on the kinds of societies based on nature. ‘Pre-fall-fundamentalist Christians’ sound like a kind of Trojan horse for neo-Paganism.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/08/08 at 5:53 am

Nothing new, about every other century a group of Christians takes the Gospel very literally. Not a bad idea, if you ask me, unfortunately the world is still in a fallen stage so things are not as simple as they could be. If modern day society would treat the tongue as a “private part” we would be all much better off.

Comment by Jochen on 10/11/08 at 5:20 am

After the defeat of Nazism, they invent post-war terrorism. 50 years after the Holocaust, details leak out of their own involvement in it. Now Brad Greenberg takes it upon himself to threaten practising Christians.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 10/12/08 at 10:02 am

Brad Greenberg is threatening? Just because he flies a black missile-equipped helicopter on orders from the Elders doesn’t make him a threat!

btw would that be Richard of ‘Reclaim the Swastika’ Comaish?

Now for a brain bender… if there are a hundred times more antisemites than Jews in the world (a reasonable figure), why is it that we can go for long periods of time not thinking about antisemites, while you cannot go for a day without thinking about Jews?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/12/08 at 11:07 am

Ben Plonie, I am a practicing naturist, and I can assure you that, while no human organization is perfect, our naturist gatherings tend to be amazingly free from both sexual and social tensions.  Really, sexual activity is no more likely at a naturist event than at the average Christian church service.

Comment by jochanaan on 10/13/08 at 5:46 pm

I have no reason to doubt your word on that. I would only point out that to that extent they are not stricly speaking natural, and further that nature is not a model for human society and behavior. And that the goal of spiritually-based discipline is not to be unnatural but to align with the supernatural. I realize that some people do not allow for a supernatural existence but then some people are obtunded and color blind as well. The Judeo-spiritually-based guide for social behavior does mandate the wearing of clothes most of the time, and all the time between sexes in the limited non-sexual situations.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/15/08 at 11:41 pm

If you are offended by nudity, you are disrespecting God’s greatest creation.

Comment by Michael E. Maconnell on 10/22/08 at 11:44 pm

Also, I wonder what God was wearing when He walked and talked with Adam And Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Comment by Michael E. Maconnell on 10/22/08 at 11:46 pm

Where in the comments above do you detect ‘offense’ or disrespect? Everything in my comments has to do with comparative social benefits and the stated mandates within the source of Christianity.

The question about what God was wearing reflects a primitive mindset. God is not detectable by the physical senses, nor does God walk and talk in the conventional sense other than in euphemisms used to represent God’s interaction and communication. If I gave you the benefit of any doubt it would be to refer to Gen 2:8 which has been clumsily translated as walking but the evocative Hebrew for it clearly says that God’s voice was traveling on the breeze, using the root for walking but not the grammatical form for it.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/23/08 at 12:15 am

When the wright brothers flew they were criticized and told “If man were meant to fly, he’d have wings!” Well if man were meant to be nude, he’d be born that way!” Oops, guess what… we were! OH! Maybe somebody should have told Isaiah that God lied to him, and he should not have wandered town to town preaching the word of God in the nude for 3 years…

Comment by Walter M Green III on 10/25/08 at 11:39 am

The classical Jewish teaching on that is that Isaiah wore some torn rags rather than be stark naked, but be that as it may he did not go around preaching nudity. You might check out the next sentence Isaiah 20:4. So shall the king of Assyria lead the captivity of Egypt and the exile of Cush, youths and old men, naked and barefoot, with bare buttocks, the shame of Egypt.

And similarly Micah 2:11 Pass ye away, O inhabitant of Saphir, in nakedness and shame; the inhabitant of Zaanan is not come forth; the wailing of Beth-ezel shall take from you the standing-place thereof.

And lest we forget Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles.

And I don’t know what they said to the Wright brothers but they may well have been inspired by Gen 1:28 blessing Adam to dive with the fishes and to join the birds of the sky.

It’s a free universe, go naked if you wish but let’s not make it God’s will.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/26/08 at 4:16 am

Ben,
You mention it’s a free ‘Universe’ / aka Country (USA), but yet you have been bashing this church’s interpretation of the Bible and their right to be free and naked.  This is not the first nude church service, and everyone attending it, in the Neatherlands, knew there would be a nude service and that it was in a safe legal designated location.  As it is there right to do so, especially in the Neatherlands.  The Europeans have a much more relaxed attitude toward nudity, then the predominately prudish Americans.

You mention not making nudity God’s will.  This church is only interpreting the Bible (Perhaps the King James Version, and/or the Book of Thomas) as they see fit.  If you wish to debate the Bible in relation to Nudity, I suggest you take your discussion here ( http://naturist-christians.org/ ).

Brad trying to be funny mentions the Catholics.  Brad might be interested to know what Pope John Paul II says about nudity:

“Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty.”
—Pope John Paul II
Ref: http://www.naturist-christians.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48&mode;=&order=0&thold=0

Interpretation of the Bible (and what ever version you reference) is of course your right as it is ours.  Regarding the mentioned Isaiah 20:4 (The shame they would suffer was not due to being naked, but rather not being able to care for their own bodies).  Many other Biblical references regarding Nudity are listed below.

Nudity in the Bible:
A question that is often asked, is does God approve of nudity? We believe He does, in fact that’s the founding principal behind this website. Through the lists of scripture below, we aim to show that nudity was an everyday part of life in Biblical times, in fact one of the disciples fished without clothing in front of Jesus.  Ref: http://www.naturist-christians.org/modules.php?name=Supporting_Scriptures

I suggest that you are attempting to influence the readership here, of your interpretation of the Bible, as evidence that Nudity is bad.  I counter that point with the many extensive comments and research above that non-sexual Nudity is ok as stated in the Bible.

I’m sure that you won’t change your mind, as we won’t change ours.  And I don’t mean any ‘offense’ or disrespect.  Everything in my comments has to do with comparative social benefits and the stated mandates within the source of Christianity.

I would ask that you and other naysayers leave these God fearing good people alone to practice their religion as they see fit, and take your Biblical / Nudity debate to the site above.  I would ask that you keep an open mind and read the many references at http://www.naturist-christians.org/ before you post opinions similar to the above comments so that you are not considered offensive.

Peace in Christ….Mark

Comment by Mark on 10/27/08 at 10:02 am

It’s an intellectual discussion initiated by the Brad the Blogger, and everything I have said is on the intellectual plane; not emotional; not legal and not moral. Right under the article it says: “We welcome your feedback.” Well, that’s my feedback. I don’t agree that I have bashed anyone and especially not their rights; my comments on review have been mild, fact-based and neutral. It is some kind of satisfaction to me to work out my thoughts and express them, and if they make sense to anyone else to influence them. That’s what blogs are about, and I am just as happy to discuss my points with you, although you seem just to be trying to get me to stop thinking and commenting.

According to the article, it is not just some guys on a distant foreign blog who are not leaving these good people alone to practice their religion, it was the non-American, non-prudish, relaxed European Dutch Christians who flooded them with threatening phone calls and emails. Why not, in the same way you ask me, take your advocacy to them, locally?

Of course I think I am right about my views, and this one is rather easier for me to make points on than some others. You say “nudity was an everyday part of life in Biblical times”. No kidding. It’s an everyday part of my own life and everyone else’s, in a pragmatic if not in a cultural way. In private, in intimacy, in a medical office, in a locker room at the gym, in a ritual bath. Not public nudity however. The Biblical interpretations on that website are ridiculous. I am not a Christian nor an expert on Christian values, but the New Testament personalities and their followers would have at least physically and culturally been part of the larger Judean society. Life in those ancient times may well have been even more pragmatic about nudity than today but routine public nudity was strictly a Greek practice or a Hellenist one among Biblical societies. There were plenty of leftover Hellenists in those days. Talmudic discussion (I know Christians do not credit it as applicable to them but it WAS contemporaneous with the events of the NT) also contains no blithe public nudity. Neither the Bible nor the Talmud is otherwise shy about nudity or sex as a topic.

As for Adam before the Fall, fine; everything after that is after it. It is clear that something permanently changed with the Fall, firstly that clothing became necessary to maintain the distinctive human element in pride and dignity and privacy. Almost every Biblical reference to nudity is associated with shame and degredation; not as you say due to being naked, but rather as you don’t say due to their compromising on their humanity. A human who is not the crown of creation is no more than the king of beasts, and I don’t need to take the time to illustrate how transcendant or how bestial humans can be.

You might say that a distinctly human capacity is that of fooling ourselves. Or more to the point, you might not know that in the verse (Gen. 3:1) that states “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.”, the word for ‘subtle’ (or also translated as ‘clever’) derives from exactly the same Hebrew root as the word for ‘naked’ in 3:7 just six verses later. Wow! In obeying the serpent rather than God the humans actually internalized some quality which downgraded their humanity and introduced death to the species.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 10/28/08 at 12:18 am

Well, a lot of opinion about public and private nudity.  So what?  I have found that some people are innately more modest than others and others are innately less modest than the majority.  Modesty itself is, of course, entirely culturally driven so that a woman raised in a typical Christian household in the U.S.A. thinks nothing of prancing about a beach in a tiny bikini and does everything she can to be sexually attractive at all times (makeup, etc.), raised in the Mideast, she might hesitate to go without headscarf (but she’ll do everything she can to look beautiful within the limits allowed by her culture.  Both women will adamantly defend the morality of their fashions and both will also adamantly argue that it is their choice and that it makes them freer.  However, ones choice of modesty in fasion, as one’s choice of religion, is primarily determined by one’s culture and by one’s family within that culture.  Well, if one determines to dress in a manner inconsistent with the modesty norms (or other norms) of one’s family, one can expect to have to bear with whatever level of ostracism the family chooses to apply; but the person should be expected to not be physically threatened and harmed by other family members for their choices; indeed, they should expect to be protected from such harm by the authorities.  On society’s level, one might expect a degree of ostracism from the society for bucking its clothing mores, but can not one expect to be protected from physical abuse by others.  Why do societies have to jail and/or fine people (or worse) merely for not wearing clothes or for wearing too few clothes? 
I like to be naked.  It is not an activity, it is a state of being.  Yet I can be punished by law just for sitting quietly on a beach if I happen not to be dressed “appropriately”,; yet seeing nakedness has never harmed any onlooker.  Any offense taken is totally culturally derived, which is why, for instance, National Geographic has always been able to publish images of naked Africans, but not pictures of naked Europeans on nude beaches (until very recently).  I find being naked to be spiritually uplifting, for it reminds me that I am a spirit in possession of a body, not the body itself. 

  A University of Michigan Study determined that the happiness of people is higher in free societies and that the United States, in social freedoms and in happiness, ranked well below Denmark and other freer societies.  Denmark, which topped the happiness list, allows for nudity on all beaches except a very few. Are most Danes nude on the beaches? No.  But they have the freedom to be so and many are.  Why make the wearing of clothes or nudity an issue?

In a free society, there is no legal code for the wearing of clothes! In private homes, churches, and businesses,of course, a code can be established as these areas are not free.  The congregation can determine for itself what clothing, if any will be required; a family can determine for itself what is appropriate in its house; a business owner should make the determination for his business.  Any of them can even decide that clothing is forbidden (as some nudist camps do.)

In a public venue, neither clothing nor nudity can be required.  To argue that a government has the right to determine what is acceptable in clothing is to argue that the worse of them, say the Taliban, is perfectly legitimate in imposing the full burqua upon women.

I don’t care how stifling you dress yourself or what clothing rules you place on me should I visit your home, church, or business.  Just don’t support laws that impose your fashions in the public arena.

Comment by Matthew Kerwin on 10/30/08 at 12:04 pm

I’m Naked and neither I, my god, or my friends could care less.  That is in truth what matters.  I do not bare myself..I am only who I am and they are themselves.  That is in itself the higher power that makes us uneque in the world. No religeon specifically states dress or undress.  It’s faith that dictates all men’s (or womans) actions.  My faith is clear and unsounding..With all your questions..Perhapse you should question your own FAITH rather than a simple written manuscript that was intended for good.

Comment by T White on 11/22/08 at 4:55 pm

God, Shmod. I don’t recall right now if I have mentioned a news item of a few years ago about a New England college town noted for its easygoing attitude about nudity among the students. The town did not act as long as coeds were coasting around topless on bicycles, but when an old kook from the Midwest came to town and started walking around naked action was taken.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/23/08 at 2:00 am

SCRIPTURES INVOLVING NAKEDNESS IN THE BIBLE

(Genesis 2:25, 3:11) God never told Adam and Eve they were naked.

(Genesis 3:7, 3:11) Man clothed himself after he sinned, because of fear and as a self-righteous act to redeem himself.

(Genesis 1:31) God declared His handiwork, including the nude human figure, is “very good”.

(Micah 1:8 ) Prophets were known for prophesying in the nude. (See below.)

(1 Samuel 19:23-24) Saul, Samuel and all those who went before him, prophesied naked “all day long” after the Holy Spirit of God came on them. (see quotation below)

(Isaiah 20:2-4) Isaiah was commanded by God to go naked before everyone for 3 years as a sign. God who hates sin does not command people to something sinful or wrong. (see quotation below)

(2 Samuel 6:14) David danced naked, i.e. wearing a vest (or “linen ephod”) before all Israel as an “act of worship” to God. Michal claimed he was acting as a “vulgar man would,” but was cursed for her rebukes.

(Mark 14:51) A follower of Jesus fled naked from the Garden of Gethsemane during the arrest. He had come out to see it, dressed only in a light linen night covering.

(John 19:23) Jesus was hung on the cross completely naked, the way Romans crucified all their victims.

(John 21:7) Peter, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, fished naked, and was doing so when Jesus came to him after he was resurrected. It was customary for people to work without the encumbrance of clothing in those days.

(Galatians 5:16; Titus 1:15) A transformed, purified heart is stronger than clothing, to keep you free from lust and sin.

(Matt 25:41-43) “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”

There is no sin in being homeless, hungry, thirsty or even naked here. The sin is in seeing a need and choosing not to fill it. Those who were naked were so because of poverty. It is similar to our homeless people today.
 
 

 
  SCRIPTURES THAT SUPPORT NATURISM

Gen 1:31 “and God saw ALL that He had made, and it was very good.”

Gen 2:25 “and they were naked and felt no shame ...”

Exodus 22:26-27 “If ever you take your neighbour’s garment in pledge, you shall restore it to him before the sun goes down; for that is his only covering, it is his mantle for his body; in what else shall he sleep?”

God’s focus here is on the man’s comfort when he sleeps in the cool of the evening rather than on the fact that he might be naked during the daylight hours.

1 Sam 19:23-24 “and he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah. 24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?”

The sense of the story is that public nudity was common and expected of the Hebrew prophets, and even served as a standard professional practice.

Isaiah 20:2-4 “at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, “Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet.” And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot. 3 Then the LORD said, “Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, 4 so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared-to Egypt’s shame.”

Isaiah, the prophet, was commanded by God to go naked for three years as a witness against Egypt, of the shame they would suffer for not obeying God, and God would not command someone to sin. The shame they would suffer was not due to being naked, but rather not being able to care for their own bodies.

Matt 6:25-34 Jesus says, 25 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? 28 “So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29 and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”

Mt 21:8 “And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road;”

Lk 12:22-24 “Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23 Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!”

Lk 12:27-28 “Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labour or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendour was dressed like one of these. 28 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!”

Rom. 14:14 “...I am fully convinced that nothing is unclean of itself. But if someone considers something unclean then for him it is unclean.”

Col 2:23 “Such regulations indeed have the appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.”

2 Cor 5:17 “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation”

1 Tim 4:4 “everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving…”

Tit 1:15 “To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure.”
 
 

 
  FURTHER SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT IS EVIDENCED IN THE FACT THAT….

In 1 Timothy, he gives instructions as to HOW we should dress, not THAT we should dress. It’s a fine line, but it’s quite distinct. To give another example, he gives many directions as to HOW we are to treat slaves; but he doesn’t anywhere say THAT we should have slaves. See the difference?

Rev 3:17 “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.’”

In these last two verses, obviously clothing doesn’t even cover your spiritual nakedness.

Rev 3:4,5,18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9,13,14
“White robes or garments” - Clean, white clothing in the book of Revelation is consistently a symbol of religious and moral purity, especially in the face of persecution (see 3:18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 13), while soiled or disheveled clothing, or no clothing at all, is a symbol of religious and moral impurity and shame (see 3:17-18; 16:15).
 
 

 
  WHAT THEN ARE WE INSTRUCTED TO CLOTHE OURSELVES IN?

Rom 13:14 “Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”

2 Cor 5:2-4 “Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.”

Gal 3:26-27 “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

Col 3:12 “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.”

1 Tim 2:9-10 “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” Dressing modestly, in this case, means “don’t dress up” in order to show off.

1 Pet 3:3 “Do not let your adornment be merely outward-arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel, 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.”

Rev 19:8 “And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.”
 
 

 
  CLOTHES DURING BIBLICAL TIMES

In Greek (New Testament era) the common garment is called a himation. The himation was typically the only and single garment owned by the common majority in those times (recall the Law of Moses commandment against keeping a debtor’s garment, Exodus 22:26-27). More wealthy persons also could own a chiton, made of linen. In the Old Testament, wealthy persons and royalty also possessed multiple garments. The garment industry slowly developed in the ancient Near East over the period between 4,000 BC to the time of Christ, as the population increased, and the economy made it feasible. Clothing was worn for warmth, to show that a man had married a woman (Ezek 16:7-8 ), and to show prestige (as in Joseph’s coat of many colors), but not to hide “private parts.” That came later with the teaching of the Gnostics and later, Augustine.

Historically, underwear as we understand it first came into general use only about 200 years ago (see The Importance of Wearing Clothes by Lawrence Langner, 1991 edition, chapter 16). Thus, lacking underwear, when people removed their himation (and chiton if they had one) they would inevitably have been totally naked.

Comment by Paul on 11/23/08 at 2:36 pm

Coming a little late to the discussion I see. Thanks for cutting and pasting from some website, not. As I said, your whole thesis is ridiculous. As a non-Christian, I am not concerned with your quotations from anything past the Jewish scriptures alone and I have handled some of those above, especially from Greek-influenced societies, but just for illustration I will deal with the first of your quotes.

You say: “Genesis 3:7, 3:11) Man clothed himself after he sinned, because of fear and as a self-righteous act to redeem himself.”

But in Genesis 3:21 “And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.”

I said: “Almost every Biblical reference to nudity is associated with shame and degredation”

Your list of nonsense is fine for anyone who is ignorant of Biblical text and values, and too lazy to look them up for himself. Which is probably most people, so nice try. I still note that nudist camps are going extinct for the reason I noted above: Young people are not joining and nobody wants to look at what’s left.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/23/08 at 3:20 pm

Paul, I think u may have nailed it!  It’s as if u’re not a recently born Paul… more like St. Paul time-travelling to these days & explaining the NT plainly & simply!  I know that’s not possible!  LOL.  U know what I mean.  U’re a scholar!  Amazing talent!
That’s very true, folks.  Think of this, too:
If nudity must be punished because of how lustful people abused it, wouldn’t that imply that great taste must be punished because of gluttons?  If nudity is wrong b/c it invokes lust, it only makes sense if all we eat must taste like crud, or else it invokes gluttony.  If one is absurd, why isn’t the other just as absurd?
Consider also this:
Know of so many Europeans who have practiced roaming in a nudist culture w/o lusting since before puberty?  All their lives Satan tempting the Christians there, & the Christians victorious each time.  By the time puberty strikes, what they practiced has become 2nd nature… scratch that… 1st nature to them.  American parents in general wouldn’t let their kids practice that because it’s so “far-fetched”.  But because the kids don’t practice that, they don’t succeed at it.  Accidental “wardrobe malfunction” to their eyes becomes a problem, especially when puberty strikes.  If they think Playboy, etc. is the only path to “solving the mystery”, 99% of the time they’re tempted to use it b/c they’ve never practiced that other path.  They’re likely then to try to straddle the fence secretly, which becomes dangerous.  So demanding gymnophobia is most often counter-productive.  For those who feel safest to use gymnophobia, more power to y’all, & I pray that, on the off-chance, it won’t counter-produce.

Comment by Natur-El on 5/27/09 at 5:19 pm

The reason for clothing is not from fear and ugliness and lust, it is to beneficially organize the human social experience into times to be naked and times not to be naked. We are all physically animals, and it is our mental ability and its interpretation of our experiences that make us human. We did the naked thing for umpteen thousands of years before we got the bright idea to protect our vulnerable places and skins. I once read about an African boy who entered indentured servitude for a period of time so he could buy shoes. “Houses for the feet” is how he described them. Maybe he had ‘foot-o-phobia’?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/28/09 at 6:33 am

Ben - beneficially organise your own ‘human social experience into times to be naked and times not to be naked,’ and quit trying to organise mine (ours).
And, while we’re at it, what’s wrong with ‘Reclaim the Swastika?’ Unreconstructed on that as well? Trouble with the word ‘Reclaim?’

Comment by Richard Comaish on 5/28/09 at 7:44 am

Obviously I can’t organize your morality; only tell you when you’re wrong. And I am afraid the swastika has forever become associated with evil. The only way to really reclaim it would be to change the symbol of the Red Cross to the Red Swastika in line with the antisemitic outlook of its administration.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/28/09 at 6:46 pm

Offensive to far eastern religions, Ben. Am I right or am I right?

Comment by Richard Comaish on 5/29/09 at 10:12 am

Read the commentary. ‘Offensive’ is not part of mine. I personally couldn’t care less. My religion happens to be precisely centered; both Eastern and Western or neither, depending on your point of view.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/31/09 at 1:23 am

Centred geographically, perhaps, but politically and psychologically somewhere west of La-La Land.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 5/31/09 at 4:38 am

Or consider that it is La-La Land that has been a moving target and the aptly named eternal people that has not.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/31/09 at 6:02 am

I think we can agree on that one.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 5/31/09 at 7:40 am

It being understood that most consider that a good thing for a people whose job description is to belong to and serve an eternal unchanging god - God is not a man that He should lie, nor a mortal that He should change His mind. (Numbers 23:19)

And also the Eternal One of Israel will not lie nor change His mind; for he is not a man, that He should change His mind. (I Samuel 15:29)

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/31/09 at 11:18 pm

That too, it being understood that the bit before the ‘-’ is you.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/01/09 at 3:01 am

Thanks (blush) but I couldn’t do it alone. Eternal people, eternal law, eternal god; starting to see the pattern? Malachi 3:6 “For I am the L-rd, I do not change.”

No sense reinventing the wheel.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/01/09 at 7:07 am

I know the pattern - both sides of it. I do not change, but the world does, and wheels, among other things, move on…

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/01/09 at 7:19 am

You have it backwards. The world does not essentially change while viable living systems such as those described by the moral perspective of the Bible are responsive. It is a matter of perspective. You just have to understand the big picture vs. the little picture, or the difference between progress and regress.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/01/09 at 8:04 am

First I have it backwards because because I acknowledge change, then because I believe in timeless values. Something tells me you are constitutionally unable to be happy.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/01/09 at 10:35 am

Obviously some things change and some don’t. Some things should change, and some shouldn’t. The simple passage pf time and life-cycles is not a fundamental change. The associations for the swastika is an example of something that has changed. If not forever, than like those radioactive substances with a half-life of thousands of years rather than decades. The drive to reclaim it tells us something of your realism, judgment and priorities.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/01/09 at 10:52 pm

Agreed - not to mention my revolutionary, dynamic potential for healing/turning things around. You see, Hitler stole it in the first place…

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/02/09 at 1:24 am

Right. It meant ‘good luck’, or symbolized some elemental force or whatever. Hitler also stole Auschwitz, and some people want to reclaim it too. Build a convent there, how about a kiddie park, my vote is for a shopping mall with a pigeon-stained plaque about what happened there.

When the Messiah actually shows up, many things will change fundamentally. I suggest you bring up the fate of the poor swastika to him; maybe he will hold a referendum on it, especially after the resurrection of the dead. Those lucky enough to get resurrected, that is.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/02/09 at 5:42 am

I think modernist twentieth century political movements, despite their heinous crimes, as it turns out, are a bit beyond ‘good luck,’ Ben. I believe the Swastika was a conjoined double S representing ‘SOZIALISTISCHER SIEG’ (‘SOCIALIST VICTORY’), a socialist victory dreamt of by early Nazis, only to have their dreams smashed by totalitarian methods used early on against their own movement, amongst other more obvious victims. The travesty of, and smear against socialism which Nazism came to represent doesn’t succeed in undermining the name or practice of socialism, nor its symbols. Whether the Swastika can be reclaimed as a socialist symbol is irrelevant to the fact that it has an ancient and innocent use in global culture & tradition to this day, among peoples who may rightly regard any notion of needing to ‘reclaim’ the symbol as preposterous and presumptious, from their perspectives.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/02/09 at 12:14 pm

My point: Just as Auschwitz had a long independent history including Jewish habitation and is lovely this time of year, it can never in our lifetimes go back. The ancient and innocent meaning of the swastika is irrelevant in comparison to its acquired meaning, and the effect of its use on diluting the modern meaning is too great a risk to take. Obviously there are those who think that diluting the modern meaning is a good thing, and you are certainly opening yourself up to that. Those people who think there is any importance to reclaiming it are morally unequipped to have a meaningful opinion. And the socialism thing is preposterous and presumptuous, by the certainty that if what you say is true someone would have mentioned it sometime in the past seventy five years.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/02/09 at 11:53 pm

It’s not an ‘ancient’ meaning, but a current one, in Hinduism, Buddhism and Theosophy, to name but three: a holy symbol. And if you are as ‘centred’ as you claim, why am I telling you this?
I agree that my theory on the symbol sounds unfamiliar, but it would be, because of the power of the taboo. But, since childhood, I always found it oddly out of character for Nazis to have been bent on bestowing ‘good luck’ in their principal graphic symbol(!) - there must be more to it than that. As a creative person with interests in politics, history and synchronicity, I now see the swastika as a synchronistic symbol having the psychological power to seduce the Eastern enemies of the pre-war British Empire (which arguably, in some cases it did; see also the ‘Aryan’ thing). But Nazis would not, when you think about it, be content with a predominantly Eastern symbol, unless it had some special significance for them, which my theory accounts for, as no other. And there are many things about Nazism which are taking seventy five years to come out into the public consciousness - such as Jewish collaboration.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/03/09 at 3:06 am

Ouch, wotta blast - Jewish collaboration. I have seen this crap so many times it doesn’t even wake me up anymore. Before you said that I was going to ask you if you are a Hindu, to take the swastika so personally. Now I see that you are just confirming my premonition that swastika rehabilitation is really Hitler rehabilitation.

I told you that Nazis were into the occult. The Nazis were also neo-pagans and most interested in crafting a new kind of Jew-replacement using elements of Judaism and altering and misdirecting them. The Hindus use a Jewish star as well, but until Obama writes his ‘India speech’ nobody is going to care about any of that.

Jewish involvement with Hitler was the least important fact in his rise and operation but can be used to deflect attention from . Before Hitler was Hitler, everybody collaborated with him. After Hitler was Hitler he was an established fact, and many collaborated with him out of self-interest or desperation. The handful of Jews who did so can be called despicable but not acting as Jews or for Jews. And speaking of Hitler he as an established fact, Hitler was brought down by God and nobody else; certainly not the god represented by the swastika. If you like we can reprint Gandhi’s butt-kissing correspondence with Hitler. Speaking of Hindus.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/03/09 at 4:57 am

‘Swastika rehabilitation,’ as you call it, is in fact, by definition, not ‘Hitler rehabilitation.’
Jewish, as other collaborators should be viewed in the context that they may or may not have had little or no choice in the matter. But it might go some way towards explaining the lawless, self-centred racism and fascism in contemporary Zionism, the Jewish state and some of your replies.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/03/09 at 5:44 am

Maybe by your definition. I see swastika and Hitler rehabilitation as entirely compatible and synergistic. Every time you provide a degree of moral cover for Hitler and malign the Jews proves my point.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/03/09 at 10:06 pm

Not just my definition - I wouldn’t have signed up at the Reclaim the Swastika site if it had been about rehabilitation of Nazism. But it does focus the mind on the period and the need to avoid black-and-white misrepresentations if one’s quest for the truth is in earnest. If you want to go on playing Demons and Heroes and ignoring the complex and subtle realities of human history, you, and all who do likewise, will incline to become the very thing you affect to detest. ‘When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things’ (1 Corinthians 13:11).

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/04/09 at 3:36 am

What focuses my mind is that you are actively willing to ignore the gross and blatant realities at for the sake of the complex and subtle realities of history. At this point, ‘reclaiming the swastika’ would dilute (hey, I said this already) the meaning it has for most of the world for most of a century. If one was to see a little gold swastika on a chain on a girl’s neck, as in Nazi propaganda films, what meaning would we take? Or would we like us all to be conditioned to withhold judgment, a bad idea in this case?

As for Corinthians, es vet dir gornisht helfen.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/04/09 at 4:56 am

I ignore no realities - you continually misrepresent me. I do understand and to some extent share your well-stated doubts about reclaiming the symbol. But if you love art and hate oppression as much as I do, you will share my reluctance to let them keep even the swastika (actually it’s called the ‘fylfot’ in English) and my belief that anything is possible.
‘Es vet dir gornisht helfen’ - ‘it won’t help.’ So it was true about the vampire, then (http://fun-a-blog.blogspot.com/2008_02_24_archive.html)?

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/04/09 at 5:26 am

I don’t love art. It’s ok but it has no brain or conscience. Art is creative expression which is spiritual in nature and therefore why its use is regulated in religious practice. The Nazis used every artistic medium to advance their program and the artists in their ‘quest for the truth’ were as cowardly and compliant as the academics. And your own backwards understanding of contemporary Zionism and the Jewish state as lawless, self-centred racism and fascism calls your own ‘quest for the truth’ into question.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/06/09 at 10:13 pm

= You don’t love art because you are too interested in control (but let’s see where it gets you & your kind!). Some of the artists and academics you mention liked it, but in any case, it wasn’t as tho they necessarily had a choice in the matter.
The Jewish state does = self-centred racism and fascism, when you compare it to a modern, civilised state with all-singing, all-dancing equalities commissions etc.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/07/09 at 3:11 am

I happen to incline more to crafts than art, but as for ‘my kind’... (we come full circle once again) Israel itself is exploding with traditional and creative arts of all kinds; call it cultural or a factor of being the preeminent diverse mixture on the planet and in history. A government ministry is devoted to cultural support and development. My uncle happens to be an artist in several traditional and experimental media with a catalog of works around the country, and receives a stream of visitors which is stuffed with his work. You will never hear of him because on principle he never made a living from his work or sold anything, and certainly never entered the ‘art world’.

But this is all nonsense. You primitive perception of the Jewish state and the Jewish people accounts satisfactorily for your infantile obsession with ‘reclaiming’ a symbol of holy evil. I suppose it was once an obsession with the contents of your diapers, but you know what they say…  ‘When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things’ (1 Corinthians 13:11).

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/07/09 at 6:02 am

As I came close to specifying in my previous post (but decided against), I think the fylfot is indeed more a symbol associated, globally, in both primitive & modern contexts, with crafts rather than ‘art’ - perhaps because it is an obvious, easy and effective symbol for the weaver, embroiderer or potter to replicate. Therefore an ancient and ‘down to earth’ symbol which we don’t really want to confer in perpetuity to fascists.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/07/09 at 11:51 am

As stated, the farfel has been rendered radioactive with a half-life exceeding all of our lifetimes. If you want to make progress on this issue, I recommend activism to halt the regressive association of the farfel with the Star of David by the antisemitic herd.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/07/09 at 3:50 pm

But Theosophy, which isn’t antisemitic, uses a fylfot and a Star of David conjoined, and your innovative(?) use of the word ‘farfel’ seems to contradict the main thrust of your point, too. And to assign ‘radioactivity’ to the symbol could be a concession to the wartime Nazi losers. It would seem to make more sense to assign it to less innocuous, more influential Nazi projects such as autobahns and mass car production, with their seemingly inevitable, ongoing human consequences.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/07/09 at 5:59 pm

Au contraire. do you imagine all these to be coincidence? Though I don’t plan to make a study of this, a simple Google search for the terms theosophy antisemitism, not to mention variations on the above will reveal the theosophical roots of racial theory, Nazism, the introduction of the use of the farfel, the promotion of Jew-hatred to the point of incitement to massacres.

Here is a rather detailed page on theosophy
http://www.geocities.com/newworldorder_themovie/theosophy.html

Here is an interesting tome relevantly entitled
“The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption?” by Steven Heller (art director of NY Times) and Jeff Roth (researcher) (New York: Allworth Press, 2000) 167 pages
http://books.google.com/books?id=uEgB_XfxyAoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:ISBN1581155077

They are not unsympathetic to your view. They conclude that given the use of it and the attachment to it by evil people, it is tough luck.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/07/09 at 10:29 pm

Forgot to address the ‘contradiction’. I have an interest in dissociating the good Jewish Star from the fascist farfel as representing antagonistic ideals. You have an interest in dissociating the good farfel from the fascist Jewish Star. You have no hope of doing so as long as neo-Nazis cling to it, and they will never let it go.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/07/09 at 10:47 pm

1. I feel that you evade the thrust of my previous message amongst all that.
2. Thanks for the link ‘on theosophy,’ but it goes to reinforce my understanding that you can find almost anything on the Internet, attacking almost anything from almost any perspective. Therefore, I advise looking closely at any such link, especially in regard to whether it is representative, well referenced and based on contemporary personal experience.
The reality of the Theosophical Society, of which I am a current member, and which can be easily googled, is of a group which insists, on joining, on an egalitarian interracial brotherhood. As a progressive innovator, I am naturally most interested in any ‘dirt’ which can be dug up on the Society’s founders, but didn’t feel that your link article was sufficiently well researched to provide me with any solid, ‘from the horse’s mouth’ ammunition - just suspicion and innuendo from an obvious opponent, which therefore somewhat lacks value in any in-house or other debate. 
3. Your case is still weakened, also, by clinging onto tribal loyalties which paint everything a lurid black or white. It goes beyond that, to attributing all good to your own and all evil to the rest. Whatever happened historically in various groups, that, to me, is indicative of a somewhat naive, contemporary fascism.
4. The Nazi-fylfot association could or might theoretically be undermined by the association of the symbol with a larger movement unconnected with Nazism, especially if its aims were opposed by Nazis or occasioned deep division among them (altho I don’t anticipate any enthusiasm on your part for changing your views about anything).

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/08/09 at 5:26 am

I am not evading the thrust of your previous message. I am just saying that nobody cares. Or more specifically, the number of people who care about the swastika one way or the other as a symbol of racial superiority and fascism and antisemitism exceeds by orders of magnitude the number who would like to go back to the old days. Get it? There is no ‘larger movement’. The only time theosophy was larger than Nazism was when Nazism did not exist. Yet it did not take a historical moment to be superseded by the precursors of Nazism.

If you want to say that theosophy was misused to create Nazism a case can be made, but misused it was and by insiders. The horses have escaped and the barn door cannot now be locked. That one article is a drop in the bucket and we can dredge up a ton more (let’s not), with various degrees of research and documentation and analyses and focuses.

I will address the ‘tribal’ aspect later when I have time. Just for now, who in your opinion are the opponents of Theosophy, and why do they care?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/08/09 at 6:55 am

When you say/allege that ‘nobody cares,’ that isn’t true - I care, and am not alone in this. And I am not trying to win a vote among people of varying levels of awareness and conscience. I accept that the swastika might be a more salient symbol in the public or activist mind than the figure of road-related injuries & deaths, but this, to me, is evidence that the war against Nazism is not yet won, and that the consensus, including you and your nation, has adopted or retained a Nazi view of the value of human life as ‘modern’ and ‘normal,’ while not entertaining or permitting any other.
When I suggested the possibility of a movement larger (or more conspicuous) than Nazism adopting the swastika, I wasn’t in fact thinking primarily of Theosophy, which is tiny, in decline, and, as you so amply proved, prone to misunderstanding.
Who are the opponents of Theosophy? The de facto Nazis, and the adherents to intolerant and barbarian sects; for, at the end of the day, the thing that attracts me to Theosophy is that it is, to me, kosher, when the alternatives aren’t.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/08/09 at 7:56 am

I was in the Theosophical Society earlier this evening, and I explained to a (practising) Jew I know that the Society was getting the blame here for Hitler and all that. He pointed out that the ‘Aryan’ thing was Madame Blavatsky’s, but didn’t look convinced that she was therefore to blame; nor did he make a bolt for the door.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/08/09 at 6:21 pm

In summary, it all seems to be about levels of consciousness, or awareness. At one end of the scale, there are people who have never heard of Theosophy, or words like ‘farfel’ and ‘fylfot.’ And to populist rabble-rousers like Ben Plonie, with one eye on the ballot box and the other on the bank balance, these are the only people who really matter.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/09/09 at 5:00 am

Woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, did we? I enjoy discussing ideas but I need to leave for work in a few minutes, so let’s just leave you with this.

If you are at the level of understanding that there are levels of awareness and consciousness, then you are also saying that there are the far greater levels of unawareness and unconsciousness below the tip that is visible above the water line.

Just as Freud insisted that his cigar was really only a cigar, it is not a stretch to say that Mme Blavatsky was not immune to this general run of error, particularly with regard to the mystery of the practical mysticism of the Jews and Judaism, against which she struggled in vain. I didn’t want to get into it but Theosophy itself is part of the eternal war against the Jews, and your comments support that notwithstanding your ‘practicing’ Jewish friend who evidently brings nothing Jewish to the table. What does he do, light a candle and eat a matzoh?

For all of the sifting of fragmentary legends and shards in the effort for transcendance, knowledge and power, she and her followers including you are creatures of your time and place far more than you would like to admit to your own awareness and conscience. In a way that is the downfall of all such movements. Just as Jimmy Carter created the political engineering that started the sub prime mortgage market that led to a worldwide financial collapse, so did Blavatsky monkey around with a spiritual syncretism that led to a worldwide firestorm, what with the root race, the pure, superior advanced race, the inferior race etc. If Blavatsky did not kill anyone, it was supremely easy for more activist people to attempt to use agricultural techniques improve humanity by culling the herd and selective breeding.

In Genesis 21:19, Hagar has despaired of finding water for the failing Ishmael. “And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water, and she went and filled the pouch with water and gave the lad to drink.” The well was there all the time. It is God and our relationship with God that determines our awareness and consciousness, not psychic engineering which can produce only spiritually defective mutations and clones like Dolly the sheep.

I know at your meetings you probably just chat about the higher vibrations and all that, but

Part and parcel to the philosophy was the belief that one day, the race of superior human beings who inhabited the semi-mythical Lost City of Atlantis would reappear, through the superior Aryan peoples. They also argued that there have been successions of ‘root races” and that we are in the 5th root of 7. When the 7th arrives, it will be equated with power and perfection. A beginning, inferior race which they equated with the Hebrews of History found in the Bible would be utter replaced, and necessarily for the more advanced to take hold. Blavatsky and others believed that as the human race evolved, the ‘superior’ race would find its place by supplanting this earlier root race. A Utopia in Theosophy would only come about eventually as an evolved, genetically superior persons descended from the Atlanteans would take hold, displacing a people they identified as the Jews and other inferior races.

There is more to it of course, in the New Age and neopagan movements. This comes not from Nazis but from Holocaust studies at http://www.shoaheducation.com/rootrace.html

Oh snap! Late for work.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/09/09 at 6:27 am

Awake and off to work? I thought you were dead!
‘Theosophy itself is part of the eternal war against the Jews, and your comments support that’ - Why? I don’t think so; ‘..notwithstanding your ‘practicing’ Jewish friend who evidently brings nothing Jewish to the table. What does he do, light a candle and eat a matzoh?’ He’s started going to the synagogue again.
You keep mentioning Mme Blavatsky’s alleged antisemitism, and linking to sites which depict her as racist, but without quoting chapter & verse. If Mme Blavatsky was racist I’m sorry, but there’s very little I can do about that, at tonite’s discussion meeting about Theosophy, for example, without direct quotes. I don’t dispute their existence, because it’s something you find with that generation (as with contemporary Zionism). 
‘I know at your meetings you probably just chat about the higher vibrations and all that.’ One thing that was discussed there last night, albeit in a client meeting group, was the biggest SF show of all time - Dr Who, and the key influence of HG Wells & his ‘Time Machine’ in that. Oddly, no-one present wanted to manipulate the discussion round to the fundamental wrongheadedness of Dr Who & its following, based on the little known but well documented racism to be found in smidgeons of Wells’ huge oeuvre.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/09/09 at 7:10 am

For someone who complained that I was avoiding the thrust of your previous message, I put out several that you avoided by defensive misdirection. I am disappointed; as stated I enjoy discussing ideas, and I had planned to do so but I won’t waste my time playing ping-pong.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/09/09 at 9:14 pm

‘Pots & kettles:’ I won’t waste my time playing ping-pong without a referee.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/10/09 at 8:10 am

Your loss.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/11/09 at 1:51 am

For the record, I did bring up Ben’s accusations at Tuesday evening’s talk about Theosophy. The speaker, a sweet, middle-aged man, looked genuinely taken by surprise by it, and reiterated my initial reaction, to the effect that you can find anything rubbishing anything. The situation, likewise, was not helped by the lack of direct references: he seemed knowledgeable about Mme Blavatsky, but, given the size of her oeuvre, can be forgiven for not immediately knowing of any offending sentences or passages. He did say that Theosophy had predicted scientific discoveries, and that Albert Einstein kept a heavily annotated copy of Blavatsky’s works by his bedside, which somewhat quashes the simplistic picture Plony, with his one challenging but unreferenced link, presents.

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/11/09 at 2:34 am

‘Plonie’ (I apologise for my mistakes).
If Mmme Blavatsky did attack biblical era Jewry - which we have not yet satisfactorily established as a fact - one obvious reason for it might be the stultifying grip (or paralysing fascination for) it retains on modern culture - then as now. Another might be its intellectual inadequacy (e.g., the failure to condemn violence in the Ten Commandments or elsewhere).
One of the things I dislike about Theospophy, on the other hand, is its authoritarian, hierarchical, Indianesque, Eastern tendency to cast us all as adept gurus or gullible followers - but the fact is that there is a huge and ready market for that, in fact it is a criticism which seems to apply to every modern institution - (altho I occasionally observe rare and special moments of democratic knowledge sharing in IT).

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/11/09 at 6:07 am

I apologize for leaving it for now but I really am late for work and do not have a desk job these days (and don’t use a computer on the Sabbath). Have a bit of patience and I want to discuss the issues over the next few days.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/11/09 at 7:17 am

Do you really need to apologise for leaving things of the spirit to go to work? I haven’t ‘worked’ for ages, unless you count forays into things like IT and joinery studenthood. Who is going to employ a buddha these days, anyway? :D
Sometimes a computer is the only way thru on the Sabbath.
I will be patient, as you suggest, but beware of falling into the (racial) stereotype of the faultfinder, the niggler, the hyperactive, calamitous cat who inadvertently knocks the careless tower of misfortune upon her brood.
This Internet discussion thing isn’t ‘work,’ BTW, is it? - it’s a walk in the park!

Comment by Richard Comaish on 6/11/09 at 7:47 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories