-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/51576/marriage-equality-maine-and-washington-d-c/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I was studying the commandment in Leviticus against homosexual behavior just the other day, in my Torah with Commentary (there are hundreds of them; this one is Richard Elliott Friedman), and he has an extended commentary on what the proscription means, or how it should be understood, in today's world, given the knowledge and understanding we have today about homosexuality that the writers of the Torah did not have. He also looks at the language -- the Hebrew words -- and since he is a rabbinical scholar his knowledge of ancient Hebrew is quite deep and nuanced.
I won't go into all the details unless you want me to, but his conclusion is that, in his opinion (see, even a renowned rabbi and biblical expert who spent years writing a Torah commentary realizes that others may not agree with him and that he is not The Source of All Religious Truth), the time when this particular commandment had binding force is now over.
Aside from all his other supporting arguments, he points to a passage in Deuteronomy (Deut. 17:8-9) in which God tells Moses that for any difficult problems of law that come up and don't have an answer (or cannot be resolved satisfactorily using the law as given), the people should consult the authorities of their own place and time for guidance. And at that cite, in my Commentary, Friedman's annotation on that verse reads (itals are Friedman's):
Although Friedman does not say this explicitly, the text above suggests that Judaism is not the only religious tradition that has such a mechanism. Most if not all religious traditions do. The other reality is that every religion has its extremists -- not just individuals, but organized subgroupings within the religion. The religious doctrine of biblical inerrancy is one such extreme subgrouping within Christianity. It is NOT the mainstream view, in Christianity or any other religion. I suppose the very nature of extremism is that it does not see itself as extremist, but the doctrine of biblical inerrancy IS a very extreme religious doctrine and it does not represent all Christians, or even most.
By the way, Talbot is a line of clothing stores. The Talmud is the collected oral rabbinical law to which you referred. And also, I'm not sure why you keep using the word "Jehovah." If you're thinking that's the Jewish word for God, it isn't.
"how it should be understood, in today's world".
This is the main flaw in your argument. "Thou shalt not kill". That statement, in your logic, could be translated as "you people who are reading these commandments RIGHT NOW shalt not kill, but your children can if they want to."
Do you honestly believe that? I do not believe that you do.
When "homosexuality is abomination" is stated in Leviticus and in Romans and Timothy; you want me to believe that they were talking jargon that was intended for that generation only. That is complete and utter nonesense and cannot be justified Biblically or within the Torah.
You mention "consulting the authorites of their own place and time" in Deuteronomy. Which authorities, Kathy? Would that mean Levite authority? Roman authority? You know as well as I do, that it means Levitical authority. Since that was done away with under Christ's rule, Christians now have the complete Word in which to refer - we have no need for Levitical authority since it was put in place specifically to rule the Jewish people until the arrival of the Christ. It was also the reason behind strict geneological rules and lineages to bring about the Son of Man.
Once again.... You keep saying "Biblical literalism". Taking the commands of God as fact is nothing less than observing the faith you proclaim. "Biblical Selectivism" is actually prohibited by the Bible as well. And that is what you are practicing, as well as those within certain denominations who pick and chose which of God's commandments don't fit their lifestyle.
Want to get drunk? Chose a denomination that doesn't frown upon it.
Want to engage in sexual promiscuity? Chose another.
Want to gamble? Hey, there's a congregation down the street that holds casino night.
Want to be gay? There's a denomination for that too.
Man has consitently done this since the first century.
You are doing it now.
EDIT: Sorry about the "Talbot". I meant "Talmud". I was wrong. (ya see how easy it is to say that?) :)
And what a lovely moment in the clip!
That's HARDLY saying that it is holding up in Maine.
This is actually where this issue belongs - at the State level. The problem then becomes the recognition of these unions (I refuse to call it marriage) by other states which do not allow same-sex unions. It then becomes a Federsal issue regarding interstate law.
The problem then becomes the recognition of these unions (I refuse to call it marriage) by other states which do not allow same-sex unions.
The Constitution and Supreme Court case law is crystal clear on this one - states MUST recognize legal marriages from other states, and the binding rule is the legality of the marriage in the state it was performed.
Update:
44% of the votes counted in Maine:
337 vote difference in favor of rejecting Gay marriage law.
I guess the pendulum went the other way for a while. This is going to be a very close one - it appears.
I am a Christian who believes in the rules and commands in the Bible under the New Convenant of Jesus Christ. As such, I will love homosexuals and all people. I will not, however, condone or do anything to help that behavior become more commonplace.
You have mentioned that you are of Judeao-Christian faith structure. But you have appeared to invent your own god who didn't mean anything that was said in any book - Talbot, Torah, or Bible. You justify unGodly acts consistently, and attempt to back it up with faith. As with most of the rest of your liberal ideals, you cannot have it both ways. You are either stand for Godly principles, or you do not. But you cannot just make up what is "Godly" according to Kathy Kattenburg. You are not God and you, quite frankly, haven't earned that right.
So, to answer your comment. Yes, believing in Jevhovah or God IS the same as opposing gay and lesbian behavior. I never questioned their equality. They are men (and women), and all men are created equal by their CREATOR. Once again, if they want to be gay, they can have sex with whomever and whatever they want. That's their right. Go for it. But as a Christian I cannot say "I'm so proud of your marriage. Congratulations!", no more than I can say, "Wow, what an awesome murder you've commited"! Both are sin.
I have consistently said that legislative and electoral decisions are the only way this issue can get resolved satisfactorily as court mandates never carry the same weight as the will of the people.
Recount is likely
I don’t give a flip what any religion thinks about the any issue, this one included.
However, anyone who has remotely followed the overall battle over gay marriage knows that regardless of which side won this vote, lawsuits are coming. The only question was who would be the plaintiffs.
No, it can't. First of all, the commandment in question is not "Thou shalt not kill." It's "Thou shalt not murder." And although I said "First of all," that pretty much takes care of all your other arguments, if you understand the difference between killing and murder.
When "homosexuality is abomination" is stated in Leviticus and in Romans and Timothy; you want me to believe that they were talking jargon that was intended for that generation only.
Again, there is a potential problem with your word usage. I realize that the proscription on homosexuality uses the word "abomination" in many translations; however, the Hebrew word can also be translated as "offensive" -- and, in turn, according to Friedman, whose authority I respect, the Hebrew word for offensive (or at least, this particular word) has a *relative* meaning. In other words, it connotes something that may be offensive to some but not to others -- like, say, women who smoke. In the long-ago past, some people thought that was offensive (as opposed to just lethal, which they didn't even know then, ironically); others didn't. Hebrew is a much more nuanced language than English, in part (as I understand it) because it has far fewer words. One word can have many shades of meaning. That's why, unless your fluency in biblical Hebrew is on that level, you have to turn to wise authorities for guidance.
You mention "consulting the authorites of their own place and time" in Deuteronomy. Which authorities, Kathy?
You should very well know which authorities I meant, JD, since I explained it at length in my comment. Your response here tells me you either didn't read or don't understand the meaning of, what I wrote.
Once again.... You keep saying "Biblical literalism". Taking the commands of God as fact is nothing less than observing the faith you proclaim.
Once again, indeed, JD, *you* continue to beg the question of what "fact" is with regard to scripture. Your "fact" is nothing more than an interpretation -- a literal interpretation, but an interpretation none the less. You cannot justify (rationally or logically) your position on homosexuality by referring back to the literal language in the Bible. You cannot use a line in the Bible as its own prooftext, JD. You can't use a biblical text as its own literal proof for the meaning you ascribe to it. It doesn't matter that you are 100 percent convinced you can. You can't.
Want to get drunk? Chose a denomination that doesn't frown upon it.
Want to engage in sexual promiscuity? Chose another.
Want to gamble? Hey, there's a congregation down the street that holds casino night.
Want to be gay? There's a denomination for that too.
This is just nonsense. Doubtless you sincerely believe it, but it's still nonsense. It's not anything even close to what the argument against biblical literalism is saying. At best, it's a profound misunderstanding -- at worst a willful perversion. I won't pretend to know which of those applies in your case.
Sorry about the "Talbot". I meant "Talmud". I was wrong. (ya see how easy it is to say that?) :)
Yeah, JD. It's easy to say you're wrong about the spelling of a word.
I'll ask again..... Are you saying that "Thou shalt not commit MURDER" is only pertaining only to those who were there with Moses? You obviously refuse to answer this because it undermines your entire argument.
And you also refused to answer the question on Jewish authority. Yes we both meant Levitical authority. You went and found a lone Rabbi that agrees with your position. What do 99% of the other Rabbis say, Kat? What do MOST Jews follow? Your loose "interpretation", or the Levitical one? You performed the very act that you called "nonsense" about finding a "religion" that fits YOUR beliefs instead of believing and FOLLOWING a particular faith.
"Biblical Literalism" is a term invented by Liberal humanists to undermine Christianity. I am not surprised that you used it. This is not my opinion or interpretation. The rule book in which my faith is supposed to govern itself specifically and directly forbids homosexual behavior by its members. Period. The rule book by which Muslims govern themselves specifically and directly forbids homosexual behavior. There's no interpretational defense to that since the book has not changed languages since its beginning. The FACT of the matter is that God's people should not engage in or condone this behavior. God outlines rules. People think they know better and attempt to change them. My goodness, how arrogant is that?
I don't even begin to understand this question. What are you talking about? I have not refused to answer this question because you've never asked this question before and I don't understand what it means now that you have.
And you also refused to answer the question on Jewish authority. Yes we both meant Levitical authority. You went and found a lone Rabbi that agrees with your position. What do 99% of the other Rabbis say, Kat? What do MOST Jews follow? Your loose "interpretation", or the Levitical one? You performed the very act that you called "nonsense" about finding a "religion" that fits YOUR beliefs instead of believing and FOLLOWING a particular faith.
I did not refuse to answer the question on Jewish authority. I quoted the biblical cite and Friedman's commentary on it -- if that doesn't answer your question, there's not much I can do.
No, we didn't both mean Levitical authority. Again, read what I wrote. It's clear.
No, I did not "find a religion that fit my beliefs." My religion is Judaism. I am Jewish. I have been since the day I was born and I will be until the day I die.
I did not "go and find a lone rabbi who supported my position." I have had the Torah, newly translated by and with commentary by Richard Elliott Friedman for about 3 or 4 years now. I bought it at Barnes & Noble when I worked there. Also, Friedman is not "the lone rabbi" who takes this position on homosexuality. As he himself wrote, almost every movement in Judaism is struggling with this issue right now and to one extent or another trying to make good faith efforts to reconcile the ancient biblical text with contemporary understandings of and knowledge about homosexuality. Even Orthodox congregations are doing this. Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist synagogues all now permit openly gay and lesbian Jews to be ordained as rabbis.
There is, in fact, no such thing in Jewish tradition as "99 percent" agreement on anything. If you knew even one molecule about Judaism or Jewish history, you would know that.
It really would behoove you to make reasonably sure you know what you're talking about before you start telling me things, with such absolute certainty, about Judaism and Jewish belief and Jewish tradition that you know nothing about. It's a very offensive thing to do, and it makes you look really bad, as well.
You said long ago:
"the time when this particular commandment had binding force is now over. " and
"the people should consult the authorities of their own place and time for guidance"
Using this logic, I then asked you that "thou shalt not kill" is subject to debate.
Then you said ,"No, it can't. First of all, the commandment in question is not "Thou shalt not kill." It's "Thou shalt not murder." And although I said "First of all," that pretty much takes care of all your other arguments, if you understand the difference between killing and murder."
(Totally avoiding the question).
And for the third time. If homosexuality can be revisionistically revisited, why can't the commandments against murder, lying, adultery, etc? Or was that your entire point?
God's will for his people just gets more liberal as time goes by? God is constant, the alpha and the omega. He just doesn't change his mind like you assert He does.
Thanks, Kat. I always thought desert cammoflauge matched my eyes better anyway. :)
No, it wasn't.
(Totally avoiding the question)
No, not true. The meaning of words in the Bible matters. And since the writers of the Bible wrote it in an ancient form of Hebrew, the skill and accuracy of the translation matters a lot in understanding the meaning.
And for the third time. If homosexuality can be revisionistically revisited, why can't the commandments against murder, lying, adultery, etc?
The underlying premise of this question is completely wrong. Reading the Bible -- and especially the Torah -- over and over and over and over, in a cycle every year, and studying it using other sacred and authoritative texts to provide guidance, is what Jews do. The concept of "revisionistically revisiting" the Bible, in the sense you mean that phrase (rewriting it and changing its meaning to suit the desire of the moment, on a whim) is a wrong-headed, mistaken, totally inaccurate concept to start with. It implies there is some other meaningful way to engage with the Bible, and that simply isn't the case. The Bible cannot be meaningfully understood on a literal level. I know you don't agree with that, but that is the truth as I see it.
As far as your question about the commandment against murder: murder is always wrong. The issue or question that arises is not, "Is murder still wrong, or is it okay now?" Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. The issue or question that arises then is that of what constitutes murder, what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about the taking of human life in various contexts, as well as what other authoritative Jewish texts say. As well, the definition of lawful taking of life may change over time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery, or putting someone to death for working on the Sabbath, is not something contemporary human society, as a rule, considers a lawful or legitimate taking of life.
Adultery is another good example of something that has been "revisionistically revisited" as you put it, in ways that you do not question. In our contemporary society, adultery is still considered to be wrong. In fact, it is wrong. However, we do not kill adulterers, nor do we sanction them by force of law in any manner whatsoever. We don't fine them or put them in jail or impose any punitive consequences at a government level. And the reason for that is because we live in a society in which government and religion are two separate institutions. Furthermore, in our society, we have developed the concept of a private life, in which the government may not interfere, unless harm is being caused to others. We have decided, as a society, that adultery, as reprehensible as it is, falls into the category of a private issue to be handled by the people involved. It's not a matter for government interference or control.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason for supposing that the biblical ban on homosexuality is any different from this contemporary point of view. First of all, most people now understand that homosexuality refers to something a person is as well as something a person does -- that in itself is different from adultery. But in addition to that, homosexuality is a private matter that neither harms nor adversely affects anyone in the larger society. It does not belong in the realm of matters that should properly be proscribed or regulated by government.
You really must understand that same sex attraction is a sickness not an equality issue.