quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The way I understand it Jews are responsible for following the torah based on their birth. If they leave the faith they don't suddenly get to just follow the 7 laws of Noah.
<nod> It's like the Eagles said, "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." It's a one way door.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think that's the case with all of Christianity. We believe that the Law of Moses was in force for a time, and then was replaced by something else. In both cases, God was still God. In the case of plural marriage, it was a commandment for time, and then, for whatever his reasons, wasn't anymore. It had been a commandment before, but isn't now.
Hmm...that does make me wonder. What do you think about Abraham, etc. having multiple wives? Not okay then, or still okay today?
Polygyny is permitted by the Torah. Back around 976 CE, a great rabbi named Rabbenu Gershon issued a "temporary" ruling forbidding it. The ruling was said to be "until the end of 1000 years". There were some who felt that he meant until the end of the millenium, and the Jewish year 5000 started in 1239. But when 1239 came along, the other view won out, which was that he meant a full 1000 years from the time of the decree.
In 1976, the issue came up in Israel. Basically, it's technically permissible now, but we don't do it as a matter of custom. In very rare cases, such as if a woman refuses to accept a divorce, there are courts that will permit a man to marry another wife.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's better than God changing His mind, I think. But then, we think God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, which I've been told (by Geoff Card) isn't the case with Mormons.
I don't think God did change His mind in that case-- I think He retracted permission to live that commandment at the current time; it was never lived entirely the way it was intended, anyway. And I think the understanding of the last part can be different; I believe that God is all those things.
So you disagree with Geoff? I don't want to get in the middle of an internal Morman dispute, but he was pretty clear when he said that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why would non-Jews be held accountable for idolatry?
Why not? I mean, I don't mean to be flip, but it's one of the Noachide laws that God commanded all mankind. No one is permitted to be an idolator.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The way I understand it Jews are responsible for following the torah based on their birth. If they leave the faith they don't suddenly get to just follow the 7 laws of Noah.
This is a perfectly reasonable philosophical view, provided that the child is adequately schooled in his faith. Where this gets sticky for me is in a theoretical state where Judaism is both the predominate religious power and the law of the secular state. Are there "sins" or crimes for which death is the punishment for a Jew (but not a gentile) that would be enforced in a Jewish court? If so, is there a way for a Jew to denounce his Jewish obligation and thereafter be treated as a gentile? Or would Jews be putting to death both Jew and gentile who did not obey Jewish capital law?
Well, there's also an obligation to educate our children in the law. That obligation falls on the parents, but devolves to the community if the parents are unable or unwilling to do so.
But no, you can never stop being a Jew. Cardinal Jean Marie Lustiger of Paris is Jewish. Had he become pope, there would have been a Jewish pope. As there have been in the past. Cardinal Lustiger is an idolator. But Jewish law also has a category called tinok she'nishba, or "a captive child". It's the religious equivalent of a feral child. A Jewish child raised in ignorance of the law can hardly be considered to be sinning intentionally. So even though he's an idolator, it's a tragedy, rather than an outrage.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think in the ancient past the only punishable by death crimes were idolatry, adultry, incest, murder, and violation of Shabbat. All except Shabbat, non-Jews would be held accountable for.
Which sidesteps my question. Assuming a Jewish court with civil dominion, must a Jew observe Shabbat or be put to death even if he intellectually and/or philosophically rejects the Jewish religion?
Yes. But again, he'd have to really work at it to get the death penalty. Judaism hasn't been voluntary since the Revelation at Sinai.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Wait.... so was there ever an anwser to that question? Can you use an electric oven?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why would non-Jews be held accountable for idolatry?
G-d says so in the 7 laws of Noah.
So if the Jews ever get civil dominion over the rest of us we'd better follow the Jewish interpretation of what constitutes Idolatry or be put to death? This type of thinking terrifies me to the point of making Jewish persecution an understandable if regretable social by-product of a pluralistic society.
I wouldn't worry so much. We're not interested in civil dominion over anyone but ourselves.
If it ever happened, there'd be a conflict, sure. But take me, for example. I'm a fanatic extremist etc etc, but I would never dream of trying to enforce Jewish law in the US. I mentioned this during one of the interminable same-sex marriage threads. I am inalterably opposed to same-sex marriage within Judaism. And at the same time, I absolutely demand that the US government either get out of the marriage biz or make it equally accessible to gays and lesbians. It's not a contradiction.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Again, 3,000 years ago this may have been the case. Israel does not kill someone within its borders for worshipping idols.
That's for sure. There's a deli in the middle of Jerusalem that sells pork. The State of Israel is hardly a representative of Jews.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine. I'm just not going to stand by while serious accusations are hurled at specific people. If you want to keep it abstract, go for it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There are three (five, really) commandments that a Jew has to die rather than violate:
Murder
Idolatry
Gilui Arayot
That last is a category of sexual immorality that includes incest (specified), bestiality, male-male anal sex and adultery (limited to a married woman with a man not her husband)
In traditional Christian belief (or Catholic belief, in any case) something is not a sin if you do not have volition in the matter.
In Judaism, the factor of intent falls into three basic categories. Zadon is full intent and awareness of what you're doing wrong, and doing it anyway. Shegaga is doing it inadvertantly, but through negligence or insufficient knowledge when knowledge was attainable. And Oness means forced. This last includes true accidents. If I slip on a banana peel and fall against a lightswitch on Shabbat, turning off the light, it's oness and I'm completely exempt. If I'm walking out of a room and I flip the light off by habit, it's shegaga, and I'm not exempt, but it's not a huge deal, though in Temple times, I'd need to bring a sin sacrifice. If I decide, "Screw this, I want this light on," then it's zadon, and I'm a bad guy.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You have spoken several times of people hypothetically holding a gun to your head and ordering you to "sin," and when you could and when you must not, so I'm guessing that Orthodox Judaism does not make this distinction, or at least not all the time. Is this a correct assessment?
Not in the same way, it seems.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: In some of these cases you have specified that it would be better to die than to violate the commandment in, a person doesn't always have a choice. It's not "do this or I will shoot you." Rather, something is forced on a person, and they don't have the option to choose to die instead. I would argue that it's not a sin, but I'm not getting that sense from your post.
I'm not sure I understand the case.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: So what of a person forced to sin in such a manner? If you're supposed to die rather than commit a certain sin, then where does that leave you if you do sin?
There's always a choice. Choice can be influenced heavily by events, but it's still choice. If I'm hanging off the top of the Sears Tower by my fingernails, continuing to hang on is still a matter of choice. I could say it's the only real choice I have, but ultimately, I have the ability to choose. I mean, in the banana peel example above, there's no choice, but short of something like that, we don't recognize "no good choice" as being the same as "no choice".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I got that . . . that wasn't what I asked . . . in fact, I specifically mentioned a situation where there was not a gun to the head, where one had a choice between sin and death, but rather a case in which there was simply no choice . . . my question was what did it mean, in practical terms, to say that it would be better to be killed rather than to be forced to committ one of these sins? Does that mean that you're damned in some way if you are forced to commit such a sin? Or is "preferable" in this case just an abstract concept?
Could you give an example?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cardinal Jean Marie Lustiger of Paris is Jewish.
Luckily for Cardinal Lustiger he's Catholic, so he's not an idolator.
Unfortunately for Cardinal Lustiger, his being a Catholic has no effect whatsoever on his being a Jew, so he is an idolator [edit: according to Jewish law].
Luckily for Cardinal Lustiger, God will take his unfortunate upbringing into account.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately for Cardinal Lustiger, his being a Catholic has no effect whatsoever on his being a Jew, so he is an idolator.
Fortunately for Cardinal Lustiger, he has been baptized and, presumably, regularly received the sacrament of reconciliation. Moreover, he is a member of a line of apostolic succession that runs back to Christ himself.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. But then, I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Canon Law, and a great deal of indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish law.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is female-female sexual contact OK in Jewish law? (I'm asking in general and not prying into your personal activities, which of course are none of my business.)
Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, especially the one about an active court that required such a lengthy (but very interesting and informative) response. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. But then, I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Canon Law, and a great deal of indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish law.
I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish Law. Both of us were speaking in terms of what we believe to be the truth. Those truths are incompatible in this respect.
Your statements about the Cardinal are actual accusations levied at an actual person who is not here to defend himself, and presented not in the context of an explanation of Jewish Law but as a statement about him. I provided a contrary opinion, and will continue to do so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That comes back down to the "does a person who chooses not to be a Jew get out of Jewishhood in the eyes of other Jews and/or the law" questions, I guess.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I got that . . . that wasn't what I asked . . . in fact, I specifically mentioned a situation where there was not a gun to the head, where one had a choice between sin and death, but rather a case in which there was simply no choice . . . my question was what did it mean, in practical terms, to say that it would be better to be killed rather than to be forced to committ one of these sins? Does that mean that you're damned in some way if you are forced to commit such a sin? Or is "preferable" in this case just an abstract concept?
Could you give an example?
Okay. You list some categories of laws that one must die rather than violate. I interpret that to mean, specifically, die rather than be forced to violate, because if one were willingly violating a law, then dying doesn't really come into the question, right? (In other words, as in your "gun to the head" example.)
Among those categories is a category of sexual immorality which includes male-male anal sex. So, if I am interpreting this correctly, a man or boy who is forced to engage in male-male anal sex, and who "chooses" to do this rather than die, has committed a rather serious sin. Is that a correct interpretation?
Now, my specific point was that when you are forced to do something, it is not always with a gun being held to your head. One can be raped, for instance, and not have the choice of death as an out. So . . . then what?
In Catholicism, if you commit a serious sin, you have a manner of achieving reconciliation. Is there such an option in Judaism? If so, then what does it mean to say that it would be preferable to die before committing a certain sin?
(I realize that this touches on more than one point.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what folks have said about the "laws" it makes more sense to me to say that Abraham could not have been Jewish according to current laws, than to say that he was Jewish.
Given that he was not Jewish, or that the laws did not apply to him, however, it sort of raises the question in my mind about the immutability of the laws. If there was a time before the current laws applied, it seems to beg the question of why there could never be a future time when the laws would not apply, or might be altered. Communication directly with man by G_d hasn't been ruled out, and it just seems like there'd be precedent for G-d making a new set of rules from time to time.
As for the piece of Scripture in which G-d says no changes will ever be made to the Torah law...well, there'd be a number of ways to handle that: 1) G-d could reinterpret Torah law emphasizing some things and all but doing away with others. 2) G-d could simply be inconsistent and leave us with yet another puzzle (I don't think this would be unprecedented, but you may disagree) 3) G-d could simply assert that the new law is written because humans proved incapable of following the old law. 4) G-d could explain that the old law has expired, or that mankind is now mature enough to take advantage of a new understanding. 5) G-d could explain that the prohibition against changing scripture applied to man and especially to the prophets because G-d wanted to be sure that when it WAS time for the law to change, G-d wanted to be sure we knew the change was from G-d.
I'm not saying that all of these are equally likely. I do think at least some of them have happened already, though.
Some would obviously disagree.
The question for Judaism is whether or not there's room in the religion for people who hold any view other than the one that says "the law has never and will never change."
I suspect that there will always be people who claim the answer is obviously NO. But just like in Christianity where it some people argue over who gets to call themselves Christian, the rules for what makes a Jew a Jew are probably subject to personal interpretation as much as they are subject to tradition, Scripture and commentary.
It doesn't really matter much that some groups are more numerous and some groups are louder, or more strident.
All that matters is what G-d thinks. And it appears to me that we know less about what G-d thinks than we suspect.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I do. But we certainly would never have a "wedding".
ok, you won't have a wedding, but you're living with another woman as if you were married... isn't it like the intermarriage couples that are married by civil law, but no by Jupah? does that go with the Torá? your relationships are not my bussiness, but i'd like to know your opinion about that, thanks...
Posts: 11 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
I think that when Messiah comes and the Holy Temple is rebuilt that stuff will apply again. Until then, we muddle through.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
i think you weren't askng me, but i'd like to answer that. I do not see it. and more, i wouldn't like to see it, as you said, it fulfilled its purpose. sacrifices were needed in those times, and it wasn't G-d that needed them, but the People. no they're not necesary, we have other ways to comunicate with G-d, we have mitzvot(it wouldn't be correct to call it "laws", it's more commandments), we have tefilah (praying). I wouldn't like to see that Beit Hamikdash (Temple of Jerusalem) rebuilt, at least not for sacrifices. we have this tefilah, musaf. in it we ask for the Temple's rebuilding... but I give it another sense... actually i have a problem with that, because I pray saying that i want G-d to rebuild the Temple, but I really don't mean it! hope it cleared things...
and for bob_scopatz, about Abraham being jewish or not, there's a source that says that Abrahanm respected all the jewish laws, even those ones that didn't exist in his time. but there in the Tora, we have Abraham ofering milk and meat to the three "men" that visited him. and law can be changed, actually it's been changed before, in the times of the mishna. (S -II; SII) now i have to leabe, but i'll continue this, bye!
Posts: 11 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
oh? I didn't know that About StarLisa, now I'm suddenly more intersted in the conversation for some reason...
Seriously, is it ok in Jewish Law for a woman to sleep with another woman? I know male-male sex is "wrong" by jewish law but it doesn't seem to mention woman on woman sex, why is that? I can think of socialogical explanations, such as when men wnet off to war letting woman fool around with other woman was preferable to woman fooling around with other men at home, since with women you didn't get pregnant and thus didn't complicate matters and could be done rather privately without causing rumors.
To me, everything generally evolves from a socioligcal point of view, societies changing views of homosexuality for example I explain as in early tribalism tribes would when competing for scarce resources need to produce as much offspring as possible ot survive, homosexual behaviour reduced the amount of offspring thus reducing their chances for survival so stern measures would be need to prevent that behavior from occuring.
Now with todays widely populated world and rapidly depleting our natural resources reducing the number of births becomes needed, if not enoucraged by natural laws, through either gov't policy (ie: China's One Child Policy), or through society as a whole, through the acceptance of behavior while odd reduces births and thus now helps to increase the odds of society surviving.
My 2 cents on that issue, as for Jewish Law while some of it seems kinda harsh to me I'm not Jewish but given the circumstances it is rational. I'm learning alot of stuff here that is greatly inspring and helping to chip away at my fundamental ignorance of Jewish Culture and is highly enlightening.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: we have Abraham ofering milk and meat to the three "men" that visited him. and law can be changed, actually it's been changed before, in the times of the mishna.
But he served the milk first, and then the meat. So it did not violate the rules of Kashrus.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, everything generally evolves from a socioligcal point of view, societies changing views of homosexuality for example I explain as in early tribalism tribes would when competing for scarce resources need to produce as much offspring as possible ot survive, homosexual behaviour reduced the amount of offspring thus reducing their chances for survival so stern measures would be need to prevent that behavior from occuring.
Now with todays widely populated world and rapidly depleting our natural resources reducing the number of births becomes needed, if not enoucraged by natural laws, through either gov't policy (ie: China's One Child Policy), or through society as a whole, through the acceptance of behavior while odd reduces births and thus now helps to increase the odds of society surviving.
This is a very simplistic view of the issue, and one not really born out by the facts. Homosexuality has had varying degrees of acceptance in different cultures that seems to have little to do with population and tribal survivability. Many native American tribes accepted homosexual men as "two-spirited" and even gave them places of honor and influence in the tribe, believing them to be closer to the spirit-world because of their embodiment of both male and female characteristics.
The problem with making un-supported suppositions about homosexuality in tribal times is two-fold. First, few hard records exist documenting such practices. Second, there has been an active and often fierce effort on the part of dominant western society to purge such practices from conquered peoples and to irradicate records of such practices to avoid any cross-cultural influence.
[/derail] (Though I am very interested in starLisa's thoughts on lesbianism in Jewish law/culture).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, how I wish that the Orthodykes website (www.orthodykes.com) wasn't out of commission! It has a wealth of well-researched information on everything you ever wanted to know (and more) about Orthodox Jewish law and lesbians.
Kudos, by the way, to the author of the site. If you could see it, I'm sure you'd be impressed.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only just now popped into this thread, and I'm actually amazed and baffled to see people offended by the fact that other people aren't offended by something.
Lisa, seriously, your whole rant boiled down to "People, this whole holiday is about killing you! Why don't you get the point and die already?"
--------
quote: We're not interested in civil dominion over anyone but ourselves.
And since by "ourselves" you mean "anyone born to a woman born of a Jewish woman," you mean quite a lot of people -- including Catholic cardinals. The number of people who would choose to live under your interpretation of Jewish law is considerably smaller than the number of people you'd be putting to death for violating it.
This attitude, Lisa, is unrepentantly evil.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Now I remember why I haven't felt any great need to visit more often . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Not really, imho. Jewish Law seems from my understanding from paying atention to the thread is utilizing the death penalty for capitol cases and onyl capitol cases, there is several different versions of what constitutes a sin, as true accident, habitual accident, and intentional accident and the degree of punishment is metted out accordingly aong rather rational lines and the death penalty seems only to be metted out for cases that even in todays society are extremely rare and treated very if not equally seriously.
However, StarLisa also I don't think said all who are born to a Jewish Woman while automatically Jewish have to follow those laws if they are not Jewish except to when it was required for Gentiles to follow the other laws.
Alas there are plenty of Jewish Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists and just plain guys from Montana....
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you need to parse that and re-write it. You've just said basically that the death penalty is only handed out in cases worthy of death and only applies to Jews who are Jewish.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I got that . . . that wasn't what I asked . . . in fact, I specifically mentioned a situation where there was not a gun to the head, where one had a choice between sin and death, but rather a case in which there was simply no choice . . . my question was what did it mean, in practical terms, to say that it would be better to be killed rather than to be forced to committ one of these sins? Does that mean that you're damned in some way if you are forced to commit such a sin? Or is "preferable" in this case just an abstract concept?
Could you give an example?
Okay. You list some categories of laws that one must die rather than violate. I interpret that to mean, specifically, die rather than be forced to violate, because if one were willingly violating a law, then dying doesn't really come into the question, right? (In other words, as in your "gun to the head" example.)
Among those categories is a category of sexual immorality which includes male-male anal sex. So, if I am interpreting this correctly, a man or boy who is forced to engage in male-male anal sex, and who "chooses" to do this rather than die, has committed a rather serious sin. Is that a correct interpretation?
Now, my specific point was that when you are forced to do something, it is not always with a gun being held to your head. One can be raped, for instance, and not have the choice of death as an out. So . . . then what?
In Catholicism, if you commit a serious sin, you have a manner of achieving reconciliation. Is there such an option in Judaism? If so, then what does it mean to say that it would be preferable to die before committing a certain sin?
(I realize that this touches on more than one point.)
Being raped is not a sin. No repetence is required nor necessary. Dying or being forced to have male-male anal sex, the later would probably be preferred. Being forced to have sex with the threat of death or even being beaten is rape.
Repetence and reconciliation is not as big a part of Judaism as it appears to be in most Christian religions. Yes there are several forms of it including fasting on Yom Kippur, and apologizing to those you wronged. As Lisa mentioned there is sort of a time out zone for up to a year after death.
This all stems from Jews not really going for the whole Heaven/Hell thing as well. I think its actually much simpler. If you do good, good will come to you. (See My Name is Earl.) We are more concerned about making sure this is a good life, then we are about whatever world may come after.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
