(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

A couple of times, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has written on Beliefnet about homosexuality in the Bible -- declaring that it is a religious sin, and not a moral or ethical sin -- making it just as sinful as, say, eating shellfish.

Basically what this means is that it is not inherently wrong, it is just something that Jews, as they observe the rules and laws of their religious teachings, are supposed to avoid.

This has some interesting ramifications. For example, it may have the effect of making Reform Judaism more tolerant of gays and lesbians in general, but LESS tolerant of gays and lesbians who are practicing Jews.

Secondly, one is tempted to ask what benefit one has from adhering to codes or laws that one knows are "religious" vs. ethical -- IOW if they serve mainly to identify the Jewish community, isn't this an arbitrary and stylized distinction that has little inherent meaning?

Comments

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

more over, it posits that a group has the authority to make its members feel *wrong* for behavior that is ethical-- which , to my mind, makes the group illogical at best & unethical itself at worst.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

EXCELLENT point. Thank you.

& furthermore

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I have no real problem asking someone to make a show of devotion or indentification thru some illogical gesture or personal sacrifice that serves to heighten his awareness of commitment. Where it gets squicky for me is when that act may be one that diminishes the well being of the participant (sexual repression) & when the participant has no say in renegotiating the terms of the sacrifice.

Re: & furthermore

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Ironically, I think this is where modern Judaism seems to be headed -- these days being an active Jew is portrayed almost as a state of "voluntary informed consent" -- not unlike the voluntary servitude one finds in BDSM. AFAIK Jews do not claim to have a lock on religious truth nor do they teach any kind of exclusionary salvation.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

It sounds almost like an issue of cultural identity, much like the wearing of yarmulkes and side curls - this serves no practical purpose other than to identify the person as Jewish, much in the way that two opposing football teams wear differing uniforms for easy identification. This made sense in a small society perpetually at war with its neighbors. It also encourages that groupthink, pep rally type of feeling which inevitably goes along with a group membership. Someone who dresses in the colors of the opposing team is committing a sin against the spirit of the group and its attempt to stand out as seperate from surropunding society, and such behaviors are harshly punished in most if not all groups, by stining, shunning, jail, etc.
This, oddly enough, seems to go along with the other topic you posted today. Or maybe not so odd - they both have to do with issues of sin or right vs. wrong, good vs. evil.

Jewish concept of Law

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

First anyone looking over our shoulders should
not suppose this, nor of course should you, as my
own thought on these questions... But perhaps it
is worth to say that an Orthodox Jewish idea
(I say "an" because people may differ but I think
it is a fairly deeply thought sense of that idea)
is that the Law is not always for an apparant reason
but because these are tracks of the movement of things
above as reflected here and are to be followed in
effect not because they are the "right way or the wrong
way but the army way"...this adherance to the paths
of the supernal is for the Jew and not for all...
there are places where this thought strains and to my
sense breaks down, nor do I know that Orthodox(as
distinct from Reform Jews) would addopt a distinction
of morality and law, it sounds like a fellow attempting
to be pc and faithful to his thought at the same time which
can lead to breakdowns of order...
but this just to point up a perhaps Kabbalistically sound
(again saying as in another context I did what the
likutei amrim tanya observes that even the tree of life
is but an image and a dream) distinction of the paths
above reflected here and the merely rationally moral.

and again this is to express as I understand it a Jewish
thought rather than my own,
+Seraphim.

Re: Jewish concept of Law

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Seraphim,

the Law is not always for an apparant reason
but because these are tracks of the movement of things
above as reflected here and are to be followed in
effect not because they are the "right way or the wrong
way but the army way"...this adherance to the paths
of the supernal is for the Jew and not for all...

Yes, this point is not lost on me -- especially since I understand that this is often the way a spiritual or mystical point has to be taught to someone who hasn't learned yet to view things with a certain kind of, how to put it, perspective.

The approach hinted at with a distinction between "religious" vs. "ethical" law makes Judaism, for all intents and purposes, a form of esoterica. I am not opposed to this -- how could I be? Except to note that esotericism is distinct from religion and cannot successfully present itself as such...

an unresolved disjunction behind it maybe

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

I suppose it can be called esotericism
or as you say be in a sense that but it
is also a certain belief about law, that it
is not the same for one as for another
(in a sense a little like the dispensationalist
idea of various covenants historically only
applied in the same period of time isnt it?)
law for men and for women differs ,for
Israel and the Nations...
I think the source of the awkwardness as it
seems to me is in the unresolved tension
between saying that all have an equal access
to God only in different ways so one does not
invite really people to Judaism and perhaps even
thinks if anyone shows up that it is because in a
previous life they were on Mount Sinai, and a sense
of being the crown of things(chassidus the crown
of orthodoxy the crown of judaism the crown of
human religion in one perspective)
I think likely it may be, may it not?, because
at the moment Judaism was transitioning into
being a world religion--or rather facing the question
of how and whether to do that by making a new
vision of law to encompass the "god fearers", that
new way appeared from within Judaism but was
accepted by only that part of the faith's family,
and the remaining part kind of left at the station
as the train pulled out...and finding itself commited
to a complex historical task complementary to
but not inclusive of the task of the departed train.

or in another mode to ask why there is not
Jewish monasticism after all the historical spade
work for it in the essenes and thereputae*spelling
wrong surely but heck with it, is to point again to
a breakdown of things and a reordering not
at all seamless...and not to the discredit of the
Jewish faith but also not as yet fully resolved
within or without.
This line of thought would be accepted in close
to these terms I think by some Jewish faithful
but in any case it is as it seems to me...
too wordy but in sum that it is less esotericism than
an unresolved historical disruption.
+Seraphim

well that is to

Re: an unresolved disjunction behind it maybe

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

There is a lot of wisdom in these observations... I have nothing to add, except thank you for giving me a thought to meditate on.

shellfish

[weishaupt.livejournal.com]

You know, this is exactly what's wrong these days. People are becoming degenerate and far too accepting of the abomination that is shellfish. There isn't a doubt in my mind that all worldly ills can be traced to this disgusting modern permissiveness.

[ladyoscar.livejournal.com]

In the New Testament, Acts 21: 20-26, there's text to the effect that Jewish are supposed to follow Jewish law, but Gentile Christians are only supposed to "abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication."

So in some fundamentalist churches today, Gentiles who themselves don't follow Jewish law have been known to require converted Jews to do so. Nice.

This also explains why conservative Christians believe why Jewish law relating to homosexuality is relevant to Gentiles and that relating to shellfish is not, as homosexuality qualifies as "fornication", i.e., sexual immorality.

But I don't think it would occur to the average conservative Gentile Christians to have a problem with rare steaks or check to make sure that the chicken that provided the drumsticks wasn't strangled...

Personally I think the prohibition on homosexuality probably originally had to do with discouraging forms of sex that did not produce children within the patriarchal extended family structure, just as many dietary laws appear to have originated for health reasons.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

In the New Testament, Acts 21: 20-26, there's text to the effect that Jewish are supposed to follow Jewish law, but Gentile Christians are only supposed to "abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication."

In I Corinthians 8 Paul explicitly wrote that there is no deep reason why Christians should avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols, except to avoid upsetting other more sensitive Christians.


So in some fundamentalist churches today, Gentiles who themselves don't follow Jewish law have been known to require converted Jews to do so.

They are probably trying to follow Paul's comment in Galatians 5:2-3 that anyone who is circumsized is a debtor to the whole Law. I wonder what they (fundamentalists) make of the comment that Christ's sacrifice is lost on those who have been circumsized? Hmm, that's a good question for sacred_opinion or challenging_god.


This also explains why conservative Christians believe why Jewish law relating to homosexuality is relevant to Gentiles and that relating to shellfish is not, as homosexuality qualifies as "fornication", i.e., sexual immorality.

Mainly because, I think, of the anti-gay rap in Romans 1.


But I don't think it would occur to the average conservative Gentile Christians to have a problem with rare steaks or check to make sure that the chicken that provided the drumsticks wasn't strangled...

Or to buy their slaves from neighboring nations... I suppose you've seen the wonderful letter to Dr. Laura that's been circulating around the net for years?


Personally I think the prohibition on homosexuality probably originally had to do with discouraging forms of sex that did not produce children within the patriarchal extended family structure, just as many dietary laws appear to have originated for health reasons.

This mirrors my own thoughts, which are that morals tend to reflect the economic needs of a society. I have an old post about that here which I keep referring to:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/40326.html