Re: The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)

Sodom (
Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:51:09 -0400

Marie L. Foster wrote:

> >Curious though, if it ain't nudism, what is it?
> >
> >Sodom
> >
> They were nearly naked. One of the original specifications of the
> ritual
> was the wearing of shoes and a hat. I knew these guys.
> I do not know if this explains the distinction?
> Marie
> Marie
> Marie L. Foster
> <>

I agree with that, but think that we are saying the same thing. Nudism
in Judiasm and it's prodgeny is considered sinful. As a result it is
illegal in this country to go about nude. They were sinning against
society = "I do not think it was nudism as much as
it was rebelion, celebration of being young and flaunting of rules".
They imputes was different, the result the same. I suppose it could have
been other things, like stealing, or killing, but those were probably
too far out of bounds - or too risky. There are lots of good axamples of
homocide in this manner too (urban gangs for instance).

So basically, what makes "flaunting authority" so appealing, and
sometimes dangerous. We all say "question authority" but mean it only in
areas that aren't that important to us. You and I would never kill to
question authority, Chardin would never blaspheme to question her
authority, Yet i would go nude, and Chardin would put a cross on Govt
land (hypothetically) to edfy authority or have a good time.

At what point is the line drawn between "having fun" and "doing what you
believe" or is the area mostly gray, with extreems at the end?