Ted Walther's Private Diary

A couple months ago Andreas and I corresponded on my earlier article on the two prostitutes. He sent me some posts he wrote a year ago on the topic of the law, and the importance of obeying God and his commandments. His comments seemed to show a young man (Andreas is 22) full of promise, on the real path to enlightenment. I was shocked when he clarified his position by this, after reading his earlier defense of the Law.

Date: May 26, 2006
From: Andreas

I read about your insistence on some ancient practices that are no longer in use. While I find these practices valid for the ancients, I do not find them valid for today's life. In fact, I think that today they can prevent a man from worshipping God by pointing him to the wrong direction, instead of showing him the right direction like they did on the past.

I'll share with you what Andreas had sent me originally. It is a good example of how a blind person can still write out good doctrine, and have a good analysis. The problem is, many Bible teachers don't believe the very truths they teach. This is one example; other faithful ones will be able to point out their own examples. None of us know everything, and often the blind use different definitions or meanings for words. What is clear to us, can mean the exact opposite to a blind person.

Text 1

Dear ******

Jesus did upheld the Law. He never violated the Law. Can you show Him violating the Law? I don't think you can. You impose your idea of the Law on Jesus. Your idea is based on a protestant interpretation of Paul with many influences from secularist thinkers. I want to make it clear: Jesus never did something contrary to the Law.

Jesus is the one that interacted with the Jewish people and taught them the Law, long before he became man through the Virgin. Therefore, the Law is the result of the interaction between a holy people and the triadic God.

The Law itself exists outside human cultures. The human understanding of the Law is something to be experienced; it's the result of the interaction and the communion between a holy people (or a holly man) and God. This experience, like all other experiences can be depicted in the written word. However, this depiction, like all other written accounts of human experiences, is limited. This is why, when society changes, the Law needs to be re-expressed in a way so that the changed society may understand it. The old formulas become difficult to understand and new formulas to express the Law are needed. This is why the Law was written gradually. A core of documents made the written Law and subsequent documents were written to fulfill the needs of the changing society. That's why the Deuteronomy, for example, was written. That's why the prophets taught their thoughts. That's why the Psalms were written and used in daily life. That's why Jesus taught. That's why the Apostles taught. That's why the Church Fathers taught. That's why we are discussing things today.

I think you are confused.

The Uncreated God creates the universe constantly. This means that He is active in Sabbaths also. For God, there is no time. God works through time. Can someone interpret the Law so as to limit God? This cannot be done, because the Law is an uncreated energy of God. God is the cause of the Law. The Cause is not limited by what is caused. However, it is expressed in a most intimate way through that which it causes. My point is that the law does not say that God is not to work on Sabbaths. This is absurd. If that was the case, then the creation would have stopped existing on the first Sabbath. The Law is saying something else. That something else, which cannot be defined properly through words, is not violated by Christ, neither in His humanity nor in His divinity.

I am trying to communicate things that are hard to communicate here. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

It's hard talking about these things outside the Orthodox Church. But I think it's worth trying.

Text 2

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that when humans try to put the Law in writing, these writings are to be used by specific communities because these communities know what the writings are actually saying. That's why Deuteronomy was written for example. It was to be used by the community that wrote it. When the community changed (i.e. some hundred of years passed by) the Law had to be re-expressed so that the community could understand it.

I'm not talking about the letter of the Law and the spirit of the Law. There is but one Law. I'm not talking about a reality that is meant to be heavenly only. Sure, it is heavenly because it is uncreated, but it is meant to be incorporated by human beings. The Law is meant to be realized by creation itself. Or, rather, creation is to realize the Law.

It is difficult to communicate this experience of the Orthodox Church. How much more difficult it is to communicate the Law of God!

When the prophet says that "sacrifice you don't want", he does not actually saying something against the Law. He is re-expressing the Law so that his community could understand it. When David ate from the bread of the prothesis he did not violate the Law. It was an re-expression of the Law. Did the prophet's community think that he was abolishing the Law? Did David's community think that he was violating the Law? No, because the old expression of the Law was meaningless to them; they could not understand what the written Law conveyed. Therefore a re-expression was needed. There is no contradiction between the two expressions, even if to a modern man, both expressions of the Law might seem difficult to understand and accept. The same applies for early Christian communities. When Paul for example argues about baptism being the circumcision of Christians, he is right, but today, this meaning cannot be expressed using the same words. Not many people would realize the need to affirm that baptism is circumcision. This does not mean that Paul's point was wrong. It only means that our community will understand Paul's point if presented in a different formula.

My point is that the history of Israel and Christianity is not a linear movement towards less wrong practices and a fuller understanding of God. The Jewish community was not a slave to what some people (but not I) call the dead letter of the Law as opposed to Christians who (according to the same people) are the followers (or should be the followers) of the spiritual Law. The Jewish community (when holy to God) worshiped him according to His Law, just like the Christian community (when holy to the Lord) does the same thing. It's the way we put our understanding of the Law in writing that makes things different. We are actually doing the same things (when holy).

The Law does not change because it is uncreated and it infuses the entire creation. But different communities use different formulas to put it in writing. That's why every community is to re-express the Law that the community gets through being in communion with God. This is why the early church wrote the New Testament, that's why they even spoke of a New Testament, that's why the fathers of the church wrote what they wrote, that's why we are discussing things at the moment.

Above all, let me make it clear, that what we put in writing is the result of the community's experience with the Uncreated God and we put it in writing so that we can use it, because it is we that understand what our written formulas mean. Things get strange when a different community tries to understand what another community wrote. If that community is in communion with God, then it has the potential to understand what the other community meant (although that's not important, since the Law is a living experience of the community; it's not something we read in books). But if the community is not the living continuation of the community that gave that written text (or, if they are not in communion with God, if you prefer), then it is impossible for them to understand what that other community meant.

Text 3

I don't know what's the best way to reply to your posts. This is why I keep re-writing this text.

You are talking about things like "interpretation" or "book" or "change the order of the books" or "words". The Orthodox understanding is completely different. We don't read the book; we live the book. I was not talking about interpretation of the Law; I was talking about embodying the Law, and, after experience that the Law is good, expressing the Law using words, using formulas that can be understood by the communities we belong to.

You are so focused in ancient scrolls and words as if this is the way the writers of these books intended for you to understand what they wrote. Since you cannot, I repeat, you cannot understand what these books are really saying, because you are so focused in the words and the formulas they use to express a complex reality, you have to do something radically different in order to approach the Law. There is no other way. If one cannot see the living sovereignty of the Law, it's wisdom, it's beauty, it's goodness, it's coming from the Father, it's being neither spiritual nor physical but uncreated, then, if one really wants to understand the Law, one has to do something different with both boldness and caution. One needs to be bold, because using the intellectual framework one is used to is to no avail. Something radical needs to get done, in order to escape the impasse, to change the barriers the culture has set, to go beyond the boundaries of the usual way of approaching things. But being radical may lead one to an error more dangerous than the errors one did. It is really dangerous, so the new way must be explored in great caution. This means that one needs a guide so that one can explore the new way. So, ******, can you find such a guide? I suggest you find one before trying something radical.

I see the creation. I see man. I see the church. I see the bible. I understand that there is a deep connection between these four. I realize that this four are miniatures of the Uncreated Law. Pay attention to this: I understand the Law to be neither spiritual nor physical. It's Uncreated. The Lord sets the Law forth before the universe, before time was created. The Law is one of the Uncreated operations of God. One can say that the Law is an aspect of God Himself. Man can partake in the Law of God. Like with the other uncreated operations of God, man can partake in it, and, so long man partakes in it, we can say that man is partaker of the divine nature. What we really mean is that man experiences the uncreated energies of God (a synonym for energy is operation, but these words, like the book of the bible, do not seem to be understood by you properly, so we will have to re-express them using other words, to make the old formulas anew.) without man understanding God in his essence. This is the ancient formula of what it happens. I feel perfectly fine with it. But you have problems understanding it. Therefore, since our religion is a living religion, I have to find other ways to communicate these ancient meanings. But since I am not a guide, and nobody put me a guide in this exploration, I will use what bishop Callistos said. He says that about God there are things that can be understood and things that can never be understood. Because there is a fundamental difference between us and God, we can never and will never understand some things about God. These things the ancient people called divine essence. But because God is good and wants to be known by man, he makes himself known to man. What man may know about God, know not through dead books, but by being in relation with God, in communion with God, in direct interaction with God, in changing one's mankind, in overcoming the boundaries our nature sets, these things have been called divine energies or divine operations. So, I experience that God is good. This is because I partake in some of His energies. God's operations are uncreated. They are not what we call God's interaction with man in time. For example, if a voice was to be heard in the skies, and that voice came from God, we would not use the traditional term "operation" to express what God did. This is something else. I would like to be sure that you understand the difference between the meanings in the word "know" I used and the word "know" other people use. I can say I know God, not because I have read about him, or because I have heard about Him, or even because I have heard him. This is not what I have in mind when I use the word "know".

So, the things that can be known about God, we know from experience through the creation. These things, which are uncreated, just like God, they are infused in creation; they are everywhere. Wherever I look, I see God. How on earth can I communicate my experience to you? The ancient Christians said "if I take a stone, you are there. If I break a plant, you are there." This formula was enough for them to understand what I am trying to communicate. Other people now days say that "God is within you". This formula seems to work for them. Paul said that "we understand that God exists through creation". This formula was Paul's effort to describe in words a complex reality. It's the same thing. God, while being radically different from all things, is in all things. Both the affirmation and the negation are valid. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

Therefore, the Law, being something uncreated, can be seen in all things. The way we use words to express what we see may vary, but there is one understanding. So, by partaking in the Law, by experiencing the Law, we get to know God.

This understanding of things is deeply Christian. No movement like what ****** suggested is needed. This is the Christian religion. If men are showing you a different religion, forgive them first, and then leave them and keep walking the Way. Sure, it's not compulsory for all to be Christians, but if one really wants to be a Christian, then one needs to follow the Way.

Let me end my long post with another example. The first Christians called their religion "the Way". Jesus said "I am the Way". He also said "I am life" and "I will give living water to those that ask it of me" and "if any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves, take their cross, and follow me". John assures us that God is light. He also says that Jesus is the "word of life". All these formulas express the same reality. It's the same thing! At the same time "nobody has seen God" and "God is light" to be seen. So, experience the Lord and taste that He is good.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

After years of taking Luke 22:36 metaphorically, I have changed my mind. Like many true sons, I understood the verse to mean that males of military age (20-60) should own weapons and know how to use them. I still stand by that understanding. But, as with so many rules in the Bible, I have now seen that the command works on the metaphorical and literal level together. Yes, every Godly home should have defense weapons of every sort. But specifically, every home should have at least one sword. A literal sword. Every other weapon is a bonus. I gave a sermon on this at the last Sabbath, which you can listen to by clicking here: Should Christians Own Swords

With this new understanding I turned to the web to find cheap, effective swords. I got side-tracked by the wonderful story of "wootz", the special steel that the legendary blades of Damascus were made from. Considered a lost secret by many, swordsmith Ric Furrer has rediscovered the secret of making wootz steel, and forging real swords out of them. His swords are not cheap; they start at $5000. Not having held one myself, if all the reports are true, $5000 is a fair price.

Ric immediately impressed me with his humility and his seeking attitude. He is still seeking further knowledge to better his craft, and is generous in sharing what he knows. It is because of these qualities that he was chosen to forge the Dragonslayer, a very special sword described in the February 2001 issue of Wired Magazine. (read it here: Forging the Dragonslayer) When I emailed Ric some questions about his discoveries, he replied promptly and politely. He agreed to let me share his responses here on the web.

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:53:25
From: Ted Walther

Hi Ric, I've been reading about you and your work on the web. For religious reasons, I have to own a sword, and I'd like it to be a nice one. Also for religious reasons, it has to be a real one, not a replica. I'd like a Viking or Roman one handed model.

I'm on a budget, and $1000 is my absolute top limit right now, although I'd be much happier with something in the $500 range. You are a master craftsman, so if that is not worth your time, I do apologize, and ask if you have any recommendations.

I'm interested in the blade of Saladin (Selahattim in Turkish) which sliced the pillow. Would there be any benefits to making a Viking or Roman sword out of wootz? What would such a Saladin style blade cost, done in strictly functional style?

Questions about your wootz:

• Is it flexible? Can one of your wootz swords be bent in two then spring back?
• Does the wootz blade have a characteristic resonancy? Does it make a clear ringing sound?
• Have you had a chance to evaluate the wootz produced by the Russian Serguey Lounyov? Does he have the real deal? How does his compare to yours?

If you take the time to answer these questions, I would be very happy to post your reply up on the internet to save you having to answer these questions again, with links to your website of course.

Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:39:26
From: Ric Furrer

Hello Ted, My swords start at $3000 and go up from there. Wootz swords start around $5,000. The complex Viking pattern-welded blades are also in the $4,500 to $5,000 starting range.

As to wootz: I have bent old blades and my steel performs as or better than the old blades I tested and I have a Univ report supporting this and a video of the bend testing. All samples broke and none would be considered to have bent in half.

The structure of wootz prevents many of the stories and legends which wootz is said to have done....myth is myth and steel is steel and rarely are the two in agreement.

If you want swords to be flexible then make them thin.

I have not seen any of Lounyov's steel in person and have not seen any second party studies of that material.

As to resonance...most any steel if heat treated (hardened and tempered) will ring.....in the end it means little as far as performance, but it does sound good when it cuts.

As to other suggestions for less expensive blades:

• Arms and Armour in the Twin Cities (Editors note: the Twin Cities are Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minnesota)
• Albion in Wisconsin

There are some other custom makers who have a different price structure than I and you may find what you are looking for there. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about other craftsmen ... I may know them or their work.

Also, I am not a master of anything as of yet, but in twenty or so years I may understand a bit more than I do now.

Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:12:40
From: Ted Walther

Ric, thank you for your quick reply. I had my eye on Albion already; your endorsement makes me feel a lot better.

Would a wootz Viking sword start at $5000 as well? The worker is worthy of his wage, and in a year or two I'm definitely interested in upgrading to some of your quality craftwork.

I hope to post your reply tonight. I had planned to clean it up a bit to make it look like more of a question answer format, but if you want me to leave our correspondance intact and post it as is, I can do that too. Please let me know if that is how you want to proceed.

Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:32:44
From: Ric Furrer

Ted, I think it best if you post your email and then mine below...both intact. The folk can sort out the point on their own I am sure.

Send me a link so I can have a look later if you would.

Viking wootz: Yes the cost would be in the $5,000 starting range as well.

Why did women wear long skirts? Why on earth did people get into a flap over an exposed ankle? How is it that men could find an ankle sexy or attractive? Were they kinky? The answer is more prosaic, and lends much credence to our ancestors. They weren't dummies or kinky. Childbirth used to be a common experience. The average woman bore eight children. Then, as now, women got varicose veins. Varicose veins are not beautiful. They are the mark of a married, productive woman. Varicose veins are a clear sign of unavailability. Now, imagine a young lady without varicose veins. She is most likely a virgin, unmarried, and available. Since young, healthy, virgin females are the standard of beauty, we have an answer to the puzzle. The ankle that was considered "pretty" was the one without varicose veins, the one without blotches or sores, the one that did not bulge with fat, moles, or tumors. In short, the ankle was the indicator of a womans availability. Once she got married, the ankle invariably became varicose.

Why was it so shocking for a young lady to expose her ankles? It was because she was being forward. To expose her ankle was to openly tell all onlookers "Look at me! I am marriagable! I am available!" The implication was that she was seeking a husband for herself rather than letting the men seek her. For a girl to seek her own mate is crude and vulgar; a decent girl could rely on her mother, father, and extended clan to bring decent suitors before her for consideration of marriage. If the girl needed to be forward, it was a blot on her family, showing them failing in their duty to help their kinswoman fulfill her function in society.

The question of why women wore long skirts in times past leads to a more pressing question. Why don't women wear long skirts now? Two things come into play. First, the majority of women today hate children. That is, they hate the idea of having their own children, from their own womb. So they have very few children, if any, and don't get varicose veins until much later in life. The ankle is no longer a reliable indicator of a womans marital status. The second reason is panty-hose, popularly known as nylons. These synthetic, stretchy pieces of industrial strength cloth have all the right attributes. Nylons hide varicose veins. Nylons hide hair on legs, giving them a smooth-shaven look. Nylons cling to legs, showing off their exact shape. Now that every woman can wear nylons and have great looking legs, why wouldn't they show them off? As long as we have nylons, I don't think the long skirt or ankle length dress will ever come back into vogue.

Shabbat shalom!

What do the phrases rack your brains, rack it up, ship wreck, dead reckoning, and recklessness have in common? What does a shipwreck have in common with a careful accounting? An accounting is a reckoning, and wreck and reckon both come from the same root word, rack. It takes a little knowledge of English history to see how this works, so I'll help out.

In modern times, wreck has come to stand for destruction, while reck, pronounced exactly the same way, means to count. Rack comes from the ancient Anglo Saxon word hraca, referring to the throat, neck, and spine. This area is a framework in which the vital organs, like the heart and tongue are stored. Rack came to have the sense of a framework, something used for storage or support.

Why is it that when you rummage through your brain, carefully examing everything in it for the idea or fact you need, you are "racking" your brains? Most dictionaries assume it is because mental exertion is painful, like being stretched on the rack. Being stretched on a rack was a common enough punishment in old times that to be "racked" or "wracked" meant to be stretched to the point of pain, dismemberment, and death. It is from this that we get the word "wreck", used no longer to refer to the racking process, but to the result. A wreck is something that was racked. If you've seen a wooden ship torn asunder by the waves, the etymology is correct. In the year 1800 this connection was clearer; you can see for yourself in the novel Castle Rackrent, by Maria Edgeworth. It is about an Irish estate where the landowner "racked" the rent out of the tenants until the estate was ruined.

Enter the abacus. The humble abacus was the original pocket calculator, used by computers back in the day when computers were men with pencils in their fingers. An abacus is a form of rack, and was often referred to as a rack. That is why you "rack up the charges" by adding them up. When you "reckon" or "reck" (rack) something, it means you count it up carefully. The French words reconoitre and reconnaissance have the same origin as the word reckon; they mean to carefully scout, observe, and measure an area. Which would have been done with a rack, or abacus. To be reckless means to take no account of consequences. Note the connection between accounting and reckoning. The entire craft of accounting consists of racking up the numbers.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

  Rack \Rack\, n. [AS. hracca neck, hinder part of the head; cf.
     AS. hraca throat, G. rachen throat, E. retch.]
     The neck and spine of a fore quarter of veal or mutton.

     1. To extend by the application of force; to stretch or
        strain; specifically, to stretch on the rack or wheel; to
        torture by an engine which strains the limbs and pulls the
        joints.
  
     2. To torment; to torture; to affect with extreme pain or
        anguish.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

  Rack \Rack\, n. [Probably fr. D. rek, rekbank, a rack, rekken to
     stretch; akin to G. reck, reckbank, a rack, recken to
     stretch, Dan. r[ae]kke, Sw. r[aum]cka, Icel. rekja to spread
     out, Goth. refrakjan to stretch out; cf. L. porrigere, Gr.
     'ore`gein. [root]115. Cf. {Right}, a., {Ratch}.]
     1. An instrument or frame used for stretching, extending,
        retaining, or displaying, something. Specifically:
        (a) An engine of torture, consisting of a large frame,
            upon which the body was gradually stretched until,
            sometimes, the joints were dislocated; -- formerly
            used judicially for extorting confessions from
            criminals or suspected persons.
        (b) An instrument for bending a bow.
        (c) A grate on which bacon is laid.
        (d) A frame or device of various construction for holding,
            and preventing the waste of, hay, grain, etc.,
            supplied to beasts.
        (e) A frame on which articles are deposited for keeping or
            arranged for display; as, a clothes rack; a bottle
            rack, etc.
        (f) (Naut.) A piece or frame of wood, having several
            sheaves, through which the running rigging passes; --
            called also {rack block}. Also, a frame to hold shot.
        (g) (Mining) A frame or table on which ores are separated
            or washed.
        (h) A frame fitted to a wagon for carrying hay, straw, or
            grain on the stalk, or other bulky loads.
        (i) A distaff.
            [1913 Webster]
  
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

  rack
       n 1: framework for holding objects
       2: rib section of a forequarter of veal or pork or especially
          lamb or mutton
       3: the destruction or collapse of something; "wrack and ruin"
          [syn: {wrack}]
       4: an instrument of torture that stretches or disjoints or
          mutilates victims [syn: {wheel}]
       5: a support for displaying various articles; "the newspapers
          were arranged on a rack" [syn: {stand}]

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:

  RACK, punishments. An engine with which to torture a supposed criminal, in 
  order to extort a confession of his supposed crime, and the names of his 
  supposed accomplices. Unknown in the United States. 

I meant to post these photos before Debconf6, but things piled up. Here they are, for those who care about penguins.

As penguin afficionados know, mama penguin goes away for weeks at a time to feed her guzzle with fish, leaving papa penguin with the young one. He patiently stands still while baby penguin huddles between his feet. Baby penguin uses papa penguin as a thermal blanket and windbreak all in one.

Tux and his enigmatic smile

Does the Mona Lisa share a secret with Tux?

In May 9 of 1996 Linus Torvalds left some doubt in peoples minds as to whether Tux the penguin was smiling because he was stuffed full of herring, or because of other reasons. The photos above reveal that herring was not what gave Tux his enigmatic smile in a portrait that now rivals Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" in fame. We can now refer to him as "Papa Tux".

Has no one else found it odd that Debian has no penguins in its official logo and artwork? One wonders if they know something. Could they be hiding the secret of the Holy Grail in the bowels of their Linux kernel package? Does the Holy Grail involve penguins somehow? Is the Debian Cabal a clandestine reincarnation of the Priory of Zion? Why are Debian Developers sworn to secrecy in a Free-Mason style initiation ceremony? Why do they include the full text of the King James Bible on every CDROM they ship?

As a former Debian Developer, all I can say is "I am sworn to secrecy". But you might profit from watching The Da Vinci Code at your local cinema.