Azdgari's picture

Azdgari

image

Stone Soup

Anyone else familiar with this story?  I think it's an interesting parable about how religious beliefs and leadership can be beneficial to a society, motivating it to actions it might not otherwise find the will to undertake.  All without necessarily being true.

 

Thoughts?

Share this

Comments

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

Stone soup has been around for long enought to have many different versions.  It is a wonderful story about the richness that comes from sharing, and the challenges of moving from a theology/belief of scarcity to a theology /belief of abundance.

Azdgari's picture

Azdgari

image

I'm not familiar with a great breadth of variations on the story.  What made me think of this thread is the core of the story, as I understand it:  Someone suggests that the hungry village make a meal based on the stone.  The stone contributes nothing in and of itself, but the belief that it does inspires everyone to contribute when they otherwise would never have congregated to do so.

 

I think the stone is more effective here than, say, a bunch of carrots.  Had the proposer put forth a bunch of carrots and suggested the village make a carrot-based melange, the villagers would have understood it to be as meager a contribution as each of their own.

 

The stone is unfamiliar; it adds an element of mysticism.  How does the stone contribute to the soup?  We don't know.  We can't understand how.  Because we don't understand how, we aren'd discouraged in the same way we might be for an ingredient whose limitations we understood.  Adopting the idea that the stone is "working in mysterious and beneficial ways" - rather than determining that the stone is inert - inspires everyone into action.

 

There are of course other readings of the story.  But I found this one very interesting.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Before our ancestors had fireproof containers, soup was made by heating stones in a fire and putting the hot stones into leather bags filled with cold water and soup ingredients. Hot stones were added until the soup was cooked. The stones, although not edible, were the most essential ingredient because they provided the heat to cook the soup and keep it warm. Stone soup was popular among the aboriginals of Canada when the first Europeans came here.

 

 

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

Jesus came with His gospel of the Kingdom. But until people got involved and the ingredients of the Kingdom came together and became real, there would be no soup where the people could partake of it's benefits. The Kingdom by itself without works would serve no more purpose than a stone in hot water.

seeler's picture

seeler

image

The stone soup story has been around for so long I was surprised that some people don't get it.  I came upon a recipe for 'stone soup' in a UCC cook book. 

 

The whole point of the story is lost if you use a recipe.  The point is with each contributing what he has there is enough and to spare.  A recipe, with predetermined ingredients in predetermined amounts misses the point.   You don't start off with a beef stock, three pounds of carrots, two pounds onions, so many potatoes, a tbsp salt, three bay leaves, etc. 

 

You start with a stone or two (I wash in javex water, rinse well, and boil the previous day).   Put your stones in a large pot of water, add a handful of salt.  Then it depends upon whatever the people bring.  Each time it will probably be different.  So one time you get lots of carrots.  Another time only one or two people bring carrots.  Perhaps somebody brings barley, or rice.  Somebody might add a can or peas, or kidney beans.  Somebody might have macaroni, or parsley, or leeks.  If somebody brings groundmeat, or beef broth, that's fine too (unless you have agreed to keep it vegetarian).    Stone soup is whatever the participating group contribute -- not a recipe.

 

 

seeler's picture

seeler

image

This is the story as I first heard it, and how I pass it on to my Sunday School children (it's been a decade or more - new crop of kids - time to tell and experience it again)

 

There was a poor village in a valley.  People were hungry.  They hoarded their food and ate behind closed doors so no one would see them and want a share.

 

Then, one day, a stranger came into their village.  He was dressed in ragged clothes, an carried nothing but a small sack and a large pot.  He looked to be as poor and hungry as they were.  But he looked cheerful.  He smiled at the children who came near.  He began to whistle as he set about filling his pot with water from the brook.  Then he looked about and found a few smooth stones and added them to the pot.  Finally he opened his sack and poured a handful of salt into the water. 

"What are you doing?"  questioned a little boy.

"Making soup,"  he replied.   "Would you like to share."

"You can't make soup from stones," an older girl shook her head.

"Well, maybe if I had a few vegetables ... " he mused.

"I think my Mom would give me a carrot," another child mentioned. 

"We don't have much but I can probably get you an onion."

The stranger nodded.  'Anything you can contribute would be appreciated."

So the children ran to their various homes.  Soon they were back.  Nobody could bring much, but each had something - carrots, onions, potatoes, lentils, whatever their family could spare.  The stranger thanked them and into the soup pot it all went.  Soon the hungry children could smell the delicious odour.  Some grown-ups gathered to see what was going on.  They too discovered that they had a little something to contribute.  One woman brought a loaf of bread, another a pan on rolls.  

 

When it was cooked, the stranger ladled it out into their soup-bowls.  There was enough and to spare. 

 

The village welcomed the stranger into their midst.  They continued to share with him, and with each other, and somehow they always seemed to have enough and to spare. 

 

I hope to tell this story to the Sunday School sometime this fall.  And the following week, have them bring in their contributions to a stone soup, to share during a fellowship feast after the worship service.

 

 

 

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

I have told this story so many different ways to the church school over the years and they GET it. They also wait ( in which ever way I told it) to help me with the long handled spoon(I duct taped a large spoon to a long stick) until I need them to help me stir the soup which has become thick  and  so large that it takes all of us to stir.

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

We made stone soup one summer at my aunt's cottage. It was my idea. It was so yummy!!! We used a real stone from the ocean, and fresh vegetables from the local area. Delicious!!! smileyheartkiss

seeler's picture

seeler

image

Crazyheart - long handledd spoons?   I have heard the story of someone who was being given a tour of the afterlife.  One room was identified as HELL.  Looking in he saw people sitting around a big table.  In the centre was an urn of delicious smelling soup.  The people were hungry.  But the only utensil each had was a long handled spoon.  So long they couldn't bend their elbow and put it in their mouth.  So they sat, hungry, with food before them, and unable to put it in their mouths.

 

The other room was HEAVEN.  Same scenario.  Soup urn in centre of large round table.  People sitting around.  Long handled spoons.  But in this room people were feeding each other.

 

Great image!   But I've never heard this story connected with stone soup.

 

 

Azdgari's picture

Azdgari

image

^^ I was taught that image growing up, as well.  Combined with the doctrine that non-Christians won't be getting to heaven.  The combination is an effective way to dehumanize the out-group:  They're so immoral, they won't even feed each other when starving.

 

I'm a part of that out-group now.  Ho-hum.

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

Same spoon, seeler, different story. hahahahaha

seeler's picture

seeler

image

Azdgari wrote:

^^ I was taught that image growing up, as well.  Combined with the doctrine that non-Christians won't be getting to heaven.  The combination is an effective way to dehumanize the out-group:  They're so immoral, they won't even feed each other when starving.

 

I'm a part of that out-group now.  Ho-hum.

 

Azdgan - I agree.  Although I am familiar with the story, and wondered if it was the same one Crazyheart referred to (glad to hear it isn't), I don't ever remember using it in Sunday School or elsewhere.  On the other hand, I love the stone soup story of sharing.

 

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

We made stone soup at school after reading the story (K or gr 1).  I don't recall any religious undertones being discussed, but there were students of different religions even though it was a Protestant school.

Azdgari's picture

Azdgari

image

The story isn't an inherently religious one.  But there are many different readings, as all the posts above have shown, and any of those readings is valid.

 

I like it best as a lesson about initative and social awareness.  If you see a problem in your community, chances are others do to.  Be the one to address it, and others will follow.  Everyone benefits.

seeler's picture

seeler

image

As I've said, I love the story about stone soup.  It has a nice, warm, touchy feel about it.  And all the elements of a good story:   mysterious stranger, children, scarcity, then sharing, rich aroma, good food, abundance. 

 

But, most of us enjoying this story have never known real hunger.  We have never known scarcity that resulted in malnutrition, disease, starvation, death.  Never since the great depression, except perhaps in the far north, have the majority of people lived under this threat:   isolated area: poor crops, early and severe winter or a year or two of drought and crop failure; or a year when the fishing failed and/or the supply ship didn't arrive.  No, we have never been in a position where survival was a question.  A position some people around the world suffer all too frequently.

 

So, how would we feel it it happened.  Isn't our own survival and that of our immediate family upper-most in our minds.  So wouldn't we have a tendency to hoard, to eat in private, to share just a little - especially if in sharing we would gain in variety - to keep something extra for ourselves?   And even if we knew our neighbour was hungry, wouldn't we try to protect our seed corn for the following year.  If water was a question - wouldn't we deny a thirsty neighbour in order to hold something back to prime the pump as the well slowly refills from deep in the ground?    At what point would the virtue lie in keeping our own alive in hopes for better times, rather than putting everything into a communal pot?

 

 

 

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

Eros 've share'n ...

 

A difficult place if you encounter greed in people ... difficult to get by and create a primal soup of the other kind!

 

In our case it could be ethereal ... sort of thin ... been there done that ... leaves me in a state of being a pain in the follower of keeping the heart oppressed! Compulsive obsessive case in much of humanity of inhumane and aggressive nature ... no give toem ... as a negative grace ...

 

Does stone soup suggest a community of hospitallier? There is a story that incites a thought that the crusades were turned against the Holy Land to put and end to such behaviour ... the European didn't like to share anything ... little more than nothing! Nothing being love and god in some metaphors ... you know what's out of the question ... don't ask!

 

Cunning ad version syndrome?

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

seeler wrote:

As I've said, I love the story about stone soup.  It has a nice, warm, touchy feel about it.  And all the elements of a good story:   mysterious stranger, children, scarcity, then sharing, rich aroma, good food, abundance. 

 

But, most of us enjoying this story have never known real hunger.  We have never known scarcity that resulted in malnutrition, disease, starvation, death.  Never since the great depression, except perhaps in the far north, have the majority of people lived under this threat:   isolated area: poor crops, early and severe winter or a year or two of drought and crop failure; or a year when the fishing failed and/or the supply ship didn't arrive.  No, we have never been in a position where survival was a question.  A position some people around the world suffer all too frequently.

 

So, how would we feel it it happened.  Isn't our own survival and that of our immediate family upper-most in our minds.  So wouldn't we have a tendency to hoard, to eat in private, to share just a little - especially if in sharing we would gain in variety - to keep something extra for ourselves?   And even if we knew our neighbour was hungry, wouldn't we try to protect our seed corn for the following year.  If water was a question - wouldn't we deny a thirsty neighbour in order to hold something back to prime the pump as the well slowly refills from deep in the ground?    At what point would the virtue lie in keeping our own alive in hopes for better times, rather than putting everything into a communal pot?

 

 

 

 

This is very insightful and yes I think in this day and age we already have these tendencies to hoard and protect our own. Another reason that churches that promote community and Jesus message are so important.

 

The message in stone soup is about sharing in order that others may live, which makes me wonder what Jesus would have thrown into that pot. He told the Samaritian woman that he had "living water" and she would never be thirsty again.

 

So as a Christian, I could also read into this story that Jesus was the stranger that came into town and the spiritually hungry came out to listen. He could take the water and turn it into wine, much like taking the stones and turning it into soup. Each promoting community and sharing except Jesus took it up a notch.

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

waterfall wrote:
The message in stone soup is about sharing in order that others may live, which makes me wonder what Jesus would have thrown into that pot. He told the Samaritian woman that he had "living water" and she would never be thirsty again.

 

In the version of the story that I read, the message was that you can dupe people into providing for you if you just ask each one to give you a little of something than if you rather ask but one person to give a lot.

 

Asking 500 strangers if you can have a loonie is a better scheme than if you ask 1 stranger to give you $500. This explains some of the daily action that goes on in downtown Toronto every day. 

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

I dont like the word duped. In the story of StoneSoup no one was duped. They were asked to give a little of what they had and by doing so they had enough soup for everyone. It was much like the story of Loaves and Fishes. If everyone shares a little there enough for everyone with some left over.. It is like the Lord's Prayer. A loaf to eat , a loaf to share and a loaf to give away. 

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

crazyheart wrote:

I dont like the word duped. In the story of StoneSoup no one was duped. They were asked to give a little of what they had and by doing so they had enough soup for everyone. It was much like the story of Loaves and Fishes. If everyone shares a little there enough for everyone with some left over.. It is like the Lord's Prayer. A loaf to eat , a loaf to share and a loaf to give away. 

 

Maybe they weren't duped in the story of Stone Soup that you heard crazyheart. You must have read a different version than I did as well. The story is an old folk tale which has been published in many, many editions, each author putting their own particular spin on the story. I just did a quick search at http://www.amazon.com for "Stone Soup" and turned up 1,204 results.

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=stone+soup

seeler's picture

seeler

image

Jae is right about many of the stories I found when I googled Stone Soup.  In each the stranger duped or tricked the villager(s) into giving him something. 

 

Not so with the story I first heard and retold above. In it the stranger sits by the brook.  The children come to him.  He doesn't ask for anything, but they offer.  And the soup isn't just, or mainly, for him.  It's for everyone.  Quit different from begging for a bit of this and a bit of that to make a soup for himself. 

 

Now back to my problem.  In times of famine is the individual (or family group) better off providing for himself or sharing with others.  When does rugged individualism and survival of the fittest work best?  And when does cooperation?

 

For of us have any experience in this type of severe deprivation.  So I turn to folk-lore, literature, stories.

  I have heard that the Inuit of the far north come together in times of good hunting, and share in the hunt and the work of slaughtering and preparing the meat; but when food is scarce (ie in winter) they spread out into little family groups, each trying to survive by their own resources.

In one of the "Little House" books the Ingalls family struggle through a long cold winter when they, and most of their neighbours, run out of food and fuel.  One man is discovered to have his seed corn hidden in a double wall of his house.  Thee Ingalls father notices, pulls out a plug in a knot hole and fills his pail with the grain.  Then he replaces the plug.  No criticism of the hoarder - but boldly taking what he needs to keep his family alive.

In "Random Passage" when a family arrives on the rugged Newfoundland coast on the last ship of the season, with no provisions, the priest shows the women his stores, meant to feed him through the winter, and tells them to 'make it last as long as you can.  There will be no more until spring.'

 

What is the right thing to do?  Do we have a duty and responsibility and inborn instinct to look after our own?  Or do we cooparate to try to feed everyone as long as possible and hope that we don't run out?    What does our answer say about the type of society we want to live in?

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

 

Oh the joys of a dual nature.

airclean33's picture

airclean33

image

Hi Seeler--You posted----

What is the right thing to do?  Do we have a duty and responsibility and inborn instinct to look after our own?  Or do we cooparate to try to feed everyone as long as possible and hope that we don't run out?    What does our answer say about the type of society we want to live in?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------airclean--post-- The answer for a Christian, should be easy .--------------------------------

k 10:27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

 

As the gospel spread, people fed each other until the food ran out but there was always another to come that would share what they had until it ran out and so on. Today the system of man shares if you can pay or are willing to stop growing food for yourself and grow for others so you can get paid so you can buy food. Somehow a middle man incorporated themselves into the picture, one who neither sows nor reaps but leaches off of those who do and comes out as the overall economic winner.

 

Duality makes this an interesting world. One group would share ingredients for a stone soup (the ways of the Kingdom) while another would say give us your ingredients for safekeeping and we will hand them out for soup for something in return and on  our discretion, (the ways of mankind) hence governments, big business and financial institutions.

seeler's picture

seeler

image

I get the impression that sharing is the moral, ethical, and correct thing to do even in times of severe want.  Does that also apply to necesities other than food (like clothing, shelter, clean water and air)?  Does it apply to larger groups, like nations?  Is this why we cheerfully pay our fair share in taxes to support social services and ensure that everybody has enough?  Is that what justice means? 

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

I don't remember the exact version we were told.  I recall it as being a happy story, not one of trickery.  I could very well be wrong.

 

The one of a man asking food from children sounds like one that would involve some good discussion afterwards.  Kids should (and usually are taught) when adults need help, they should seek the help from other adults, not kids.  The most kids should be doing is alerting an adult.  The story comes off a little creepy hearing it that way as an adult IMO.

seeler's picture

seeler

image

chemgal - I never thought of it that way.  In the countryside where I grew up, children travelled in packs, all over the neighbourhood.  Our parents were busy earning a living or keeping the home going.   We trusted others unless they did something that made us uncomfortable or leery.  And, believe it or not, I don't believe we were in any more danger than kids are today who are taught to be frightened of strangers. 

 

Teaching kids to be afraid of strangers can backfire.  A child was lost in a wooded area.  Searchers were out for hours - over night and the next day.  Finally the child was located, in an area that had been searched over time and again.  It seems that he hid every time he heard a stranger coming calling his name. 

 

Kids are in more danger of funny uncles and neighbours than they are of strangers.  And kids can quickly develop instincts about who to trust.

 

I have no problem about a group of kids encountering a stranger in an open area beside a stream and talking to him about food (and not body parts).

 

 

not4prophet's picture

not4prophet

image

seeler wrote:

Is that what justice means? 

 

matthew 22: 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

Seeler, I didn't say that children should be taught to be afraid of strangers.  An adult shouldn't be asking a child for directions or to help find their dog or something like that though.  The rare strangers who do abduct kids often use their willingness to help against them.

 

I agree with what is recommended what is taught to children.  If an adult is asking for help, you should direct them to another adult.  I don't see a problem with that.

seeler's picture

seeler

image

But in this story the adult isn't asking a child for help.  The children are volunteering.  I see an enormous difference. 

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

seeler wrote:

I get the impression that sharing is the moral, ethical, and correct thing to do even in times of severe want.  Does that also apply to necesities other than food (like clothing, shelter, clean water and air)?  Does it apply to larger groups, like nations?  Is this why we cheerfully pay our fair share in taxes to support social services and ensure that everybody has enough?  Is that what justice means? 

seeler, are you cheerfully paying your taxes? If so, you're the first person I've met who is.

 

Still, I do agree that taxes should be collected. We have a moral obligation I think to help provide for our fellow human beings across Canada and around the world.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

seeler wrote:

Jae is right about many of the stories I found when I googled Stone Soup.  In each the stranger duped or tricked the villager(s) into giving him something. 

 

Not so with the story I first heard and retold above. In it the stranger sits by the brook.  The children come to him.  He doesn't ask for anything, but they offer.  And the soup isn't just, or mainly, for him.  It's for everyone.  Quit different from begging for a bit of this and a bit of that to make a soup for himself. 

 

Now back to my problem.  In times of famine is the individual (or family group) better off providing for himself or sharing with others.  When does rugged individualism and survival of the fittest work best?  And when does cooperation?

 

For of us have any experience in this type of severe deprivation.  So I turn to folk-lore, literature, stories.

  I have heard that the Inuit of the far north come together in times of good hunting, and share in the hunt and the work of slaughtering and preparing the meat; but when food is scarce (ie in winter) they spread out into little family groups, each trying to survive by their own resources.

In one of the "Little House" books the Ingalls family struggle through a long cold winter when they, and most of their neighbours, run out of food and fuel.  One man is discovered to have his seed corn hidden in a double wall of his house.  Thee Ingalls father notices, pulls out a plug in a knot hole and fills his pail with the grain.  Then he replaces the plug.  No criticism of the hoarder - but boldly taking what he needs to keep his family alive.

In "Random Passage" when a family arrives on the rugged Newfoundland coast on the last ship of the season, with no provisions, the priest shows the women his stores, meant to feed him through the winter, and tells them to 'make it last as long as you can.  There will be no more until spring.'

 

What is the right thing to do?  Do we have a duty and responsibility and inborn instinct to look after our own?  Or do we cooparate to try to feed everyone as long as possible and hope that we don't run out?    What does our answer say about the type of society we want to live in?

 

 

The other question is should we share and all survive for a short time or do we not share in order that at least some will survive through the famine? Would we take the bread from an old man and give it to a child?

 

It's a really hard question to  honestly answer because we are not in those circumstances. Most of us know the correct and moral answer BUT when we're in it.....would our morality change? And not only that, would it be justifiable to change?

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

waterfall, I have been thinking about seeler's question all afternoon.

I feel disallusioned because I always thought of Stone Soup as a happy story that I told the kids. But now when I hear other interpretations and hear seeler's questions and listen to everyone else, I know what the moral answer is but............... if my family was starving or needing heat, I might not listen to the moral answer. I probably would look after my own even if it meant begging or  stealing. That doesnt make me feel good.

 

It makes me feel like a hyprocrite ( a Christian hypocrite) for preaching and telling the stories but know if push came to shove, I would probably look after my own, first.

 

 

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

seeler wrote:

Then, one day, a stranger came into their village.  He was dressed in ragged clothes, an carried nothing but a small sack and a large pot.  He looked to be as poor and hungry as they were.  But he looked cheerful.  He smiled at the children who came near.  He began to whistle as he set about filling his pot with water from the brook.  Then he looked about and found a few smooth stones and added them to the pot.  Finally he opened his sack and poured a handful of salt into the water. 

"What are you doing?"  questioned a little boy.

"Making soup,"  he replied.   "Would you like to share."

"You can't make soup from stones," an older girl shook her head.

"Well, maybe if I had a few vegetables ... " he mused.

"I think my Mom would give me a carrot," another child mentioned. 

"We don't have much but I can probably get you an onion."

The stranger nodded.  'Anything you can contribute would be appreciated."

So the children ran to their various homes.  Soon they were back.  Nobody could bring much, but each had something - carrots, onions, potatoes, lentils, whatever their family could spare.  The stranger thanked them and into the soup pot it all went.  Soon the hungry children could smell the delicious odour.  Some grown-ups gathered to see what was going on.  They too discovered that they had a little something to contribute.  One woman brought a loaf of bread, another a pan on rolls.  

 

When it was cooked, the stranger ladled it out into their soup-bowls.  There was enough and to spare. 

 

 

 

Seeler, to me it sounds as though this stranger is suggesting the children help, which is worse as it's more difficult for someone to say 'no' to.  If this really happened in real life, would you not have an issue with it (until the part where the grown-ups join in)?

 

I don't have a problem with the story itself, but I think it's a good idea to have a quick discussion if telling this story to young children.

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

CH, I think it really depends on the story.  I think it can be done in a very positive way.  If I have potatoes and you have carrots, we can share them with each other.  The more people getting involved, the more variety.  Getting enough people sharing can create a whole meal, it's hard to have a meal of just carrots.

 

That's what I took from the story as a child.  I do think it's interesting to connect it in a religious way too.

 

I asked chemguy, he remembered a very different story (a disney version he thinks).  Where the poor man tricks the wealthy man who doesn't want to share into sharing - and everyone enjoys great soup.

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

I remember telling the story one morning and following the service we were having Harvest Soup from the veggies brought the week before at Thanksgiving.

 

I said, "Do you know what we are having at lunch after church today. All the kids yelled "Soup". One little guy said,in a loud voice ,"That's why we came"

 

I looked on Stone Soup as a an action. Fed the hungry like the little boy who came from a very poor family. The elderly and anyone else who wanted got to take containers of soup home. We invited anyone who came through our doors that morning soup. The sign said Soup after church today. Many stopped in.

 

All it cost was the donated veggies, broth from Thanksgiving turkey, I donated homemade dumplings. Everyone ate - the hungry, the children, the elderly , the church family and strangers. This was a good thing. Thanks be to God for Stone Soup.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

crazyheart wrote:

waterfall, I have been thinking about seeler's question all afternoon.

I feel disallusioned because I always thought of Stone Soup as a happy story that I told the kids. But now when I hear other interpretations and hear seeler's questions and listen to everyone else, I know what the moral answer is but............... if my family was starving or needing heat, I might not listen to the moral answer. I probably would look after my own even if it meant begging or  stealing. That doesnt make me feel good.

 

It makes me feel like a hyprocrite ( a Christian hypocrite) for preaching and telling the stories but know if push came to shove, I would probably look after my own, first.

 

 

 

I think I might too CH, but I don't want to admit that I would.

 

These questions are making me realize that I shouldn't be so quick to offer platitudes to those in countries/or families that have less or wonder why wars break out, and wondering why others can't seem to find their way to peace. Privilege must disconnect us somewhat and we get a distant view from our ivory towers where we can tsk tsk to our hearts content.

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

Indeed

seeler's picture

seeler

image

In my own famly's oral history:

 

A group of coastal people (fishermen and their families) came from the northern treeless part of Scotland, to the forests of NB, having been promised land, housing and provisions for the first year, in return for cutting the lumber, clearing the land, and establishing farms.  They were dumped in a forested area about ten miles from the nearest settlement in November - no houses or other shelter - no experience in living in the forest - very few provisions. 

Sometime during the winter, so the local historian will tell you, a horsedrawn sled loaded with grain was going from the village to the capital.  A group of bearded men stepped out of the forest, blocked the road, then silently proceded each to pick up a bag of grain, hoist it on his shoulders, and disappear again into the forest, leaving the teamster with a much lighter load.

 

Now the people of the settlement must have had some word of the Scots people living in dire straits nearby, but no one offered help.  And the Scots knew that stealing was wrong - but not as wrong as letting their children die. 

 

Those Scots were my mother's paternal ancestors.  Some of the people of the settlement would probably have been my mother's maternal ancestors.  

 

To share or not to share.  That is the question?    Should th evillagers have delivered grain to the starving people, or sent it to the city to sell for other provisions, seed, and perhaps livestock to keep their own families prosperous? 

 

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

We did a Stonw Soup for a church luncheon once ...

 

It wasn't succesful ... I don't think our modern church could imagine such a hard thing as people sharing something as nutricous as a communal stewing of spirits!

seeler's picture

seeler

image

MC jae wrote:

seeler, are you cheerfully paying your taxes? If so, you're the first person I've met who is.

 

Still, I do agree that taxes should be collected. We have a moral obligation I think to help provide for our fellow human beings across Canada and around the world.

 

Unfortunately, Jae, I am not in a financial position to pay income taxes.  But I do pay property taxes, and GST, and other taxes.  And I am glad that during the years I worked I did pay my share of taxes to support some of the benefits (OAS and Medicare, for two) that I now benefit from.

 

Also unfortunately I don't consider that the tax system in Canada in recent years reflects the original purpose of redistribution of income, with the rich paying a proportunately larger share than the working poor.  It no longer is the rich paying more to help support the poor.  Rather it is the poor, or working class and lower middleclass paying to benefit the wealthy.  That is what I understand the Occupy movement of the 99% against the 1% was at least partially about. 

Cheerfully pay for something I believe in - yes, definitely.   Cheerfully pay into a system that I think is screwing the people - no.  But until it can be fixed, I will continue to pay. 

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

Business is busines tho' Seeler ... one must bleed the turn up until dead'n pale like a rose in winter or a horse without inkling ... gives rise to Kohl thoughts about authority of business ... then it bows out ...

 

Like poppy in the Afghani lands ... no one will teach anybody anything decent there ... consider the role of overwhelming violence as just one symbol ...

 

In truth we don't know what a screwing this will cause us until the dust settles and we can see through all the privacy rules! A few years ago a bunch of authority was really upset with Dan Brown and the suggestion of secret social orders ... is this sacred ground? Why do people retain what they know others won't like? That's intelligence for yah ...

 

Some say the church is big business ... whatcha think or feel about that?

 

Then there are some of us poor folk in there trying to make something of it ... perhaps 10% ... while the balance is just dark manna of energy wasted in energetic whines ... scienc projects these kind of unknown idealisms (close to God behaviour) without clues ...

 

A Muses the hei'Eire powers of thought ... something has to wake eM! Paean is sometimes gutte ... like 4-X kin when you bow out ... of a real screwing over without a thoughtful lover! Consider the heads of state, business, religion ...

 

God that sounds like James Joyce in disguise as a wahl of a character as probably would be the case if spelled out in Welsh ... eM's big words ... that the ivory towers can't understand as sat Air ... like an old fart ... pedre in old Gael ... just about crapped out ... the light passed and it got dark ... God stormed! Gabriel wrestled with it ... the ad vocate!

 

Nothing again was learned and the song was contrived ... "when will they eve-Eire ..." the Shadow is stretched ...

 

Spoken and written intercourse is like that ... changes with time contrary to the conservative bent! Warped out of shape by what the pagans sucked up ... in the distant drumming up of remnants of the oppressed to see what else can be extracted ... negatives routes of "ï" tis a silent imaginary thing like the soul in emotional soup ... eL ec trix ... might choqah a man in the descent mode ...

 

Gotta dig for the good ones tho' ... those that think were long ago sublimified ... as talents ... plainly just out a the presence state! Why God is only seen on the recess ... back tous/tues? Be the death of me metaphors ...

Azdgari's picture

Azdgari

image

I sure hope the stone people use isn't loaded with arsenopyrite...

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

To the physically bound that arsenopyrite would be another kind of chimera ... as light thought ... good as a song for waking the sophorific that can't see into the deeps ... shamayim ... wadis over head?

Neo's picture

Neo

image

Arminius wrote:

Before our ancestors had fireproof containers, soup was made by heating stones in a fire and putting the hot stones into leather bags filled with cold water and soup ingredients. Hot stones were added until the soup was cooked. The stones, although not edible, were the most essential ingredient because they provided the heat to cook the soup and keep it warm. Stone soup was popular among the aboriginals of Canada when the first Europeans came here.

 

 

 

That's pretty interesting Arminius. Makes a lot of sense too, since skins were availabe but not pots or pans. What do you do? You'd want to make sure that your stones didn''t flake or chip off though, you could break a tooth!

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Neo wrote:
Arminius wrote:

Before our ancestors had fireproof containers, soup was made by heating stones in a fire and putting the hot stones into leather bags filled with cold water and soup ingredients. Hot stones were added until the soup was cooked. The stones, although not edible, were the most essential ingredient because they provided the heat to cook the soup and keep it warm. Stone soup was popular among the aboriginals of Canada when the first Europeans came here.

 

 

 

That's pretty interesting Arminius. Makes a lot of sense too, since skins were availabe but not pots or pans. What do you do? You'd want to make sure that your stones didn''t flake or chip off though, you could break a tooth!

 

Hi Neo:

 

The Natives also used hot stones for their sweat lodges, and in traditional sweat lodge ceremonies still do. For this they use stones that look like they have been in fire before (volcanic rock) and don't crack when cooled with water. And, once one has accumulated a bunch of suitable stones, one can save them and use them over again. I once had a sweat lodge down by Shuswap River, together with a stash of crack-proof stones.

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

A primal stew of hot stones is hard to get your head around for a mortal ...

 

Why we start with the inside Job and then it become reciprocal? How does one reciprocate multidimensional space? There's something for a few to know and the balance to seach out ... in the darkness of soul? Self-examination! Inside going journey of vast dimensions! It is all in there and unconscious as sacred reflection ... close to mediated stance ... but you know what the extremes think of mediums ...

 

Now there's an upset in mental observation ... wee bit crazy .. balanced chaos?

 

The upright wouldn't go there. Psyche is difficult to contend with when chi has a foot up on yah! Well illustrated as "r" or the Cyrillic upset of "L" as "di" other form in plain reflection ... bi furcated? One has to know the lens and mire of it aL ... an overhead function of metaphorical values ... myths? Some people just call it divine ... to have feelings for an outside source ... your private friend? Illuminating or just illuminatii ... the genre, case etc. may vary ... from time to time ... why the vast agape sections ... as judgement is made without remembering the former case ... a mind blowing situation of the eternal triangle over the former's love? Amuses the wee support system ... why heat is applied internally ... with a good Reuben ... the squeeze between two infinite states .. one vastly unseen ... Jesus stated ...

 

Sagan did you see that?

Back to Religion and Faith topics
cafe