613 commandments and converses

[Boyd]

But (and do correct me if I am wrong) the idea indeed is that a jew should strive to follow all of them if able, right? I mean no one in any religion is perfect I believe, but the idea is that those are commandments that jews would do good in the eyes of G-d to follow, right?

For example, how do you reconsile that with the commandments on hmosexuality that you bring forth? Whats your perspective on it?

I know this response is a little late, but I wanted to respond.

I would say that a Jew should strive to follow the laws in which they can. Because of the difficulty, there have been various means to deal with this. For instance, because of the difficulty to actually abide by the food laws in many areas (such as small rural towns), there are those who don't. The law was not created to be a burden.

As for homosexuality, there are the verses in Leviticus that has been understood as to referring to male same-sex practices, and often regarded as a reference to homosexuality. Such a condemnation though does not reflect a loving G-d (at least in my opinion), and thus is troublesome. I can't see G-d condemning a whole population because of who they were born as. Thus, I can not abide by the interpretation that those laws actually condemn homosexuality.

So there is wiggle room, as well as thousands of years of evolving interpretation.

 

[Me Myself]

I know this response is a little late, but I wanted to respond.

I would say that a Jew should strive to follow the laws in which they can. Because of the difficulty, there have been various means to deal with this. For instance, because of the difficulty to actually abide by the food laws in many areas (such as small rural towns), there are those who don't. The law was not created to be a burden.

As for homosexuality, there are the verses in Leviticus that has been understood as to referring to male same-sex practices, and often regarded as a reference to homosexuality. Such a condemnation though does not reflect a loving G-d (at least in my opinion), and thus is troublesome. I can't see G-d condemning a whole population because of who they were born as. Thus, I can not abide by the interpretation that those laws actually condemn homosexuality.

So there is wiggle room, as well as thousands of years of evolving interpretation.

No prob on the "lateness"

So how do you interpret them then? You do believe G-d sent those commandments? If you do, how do you interpret them in a way that to you does not collide with a loving G-d?

 

[Boyd]

No prob on the "lateness"

So how do you interpret them then? You do believe G-d sent those commandments? If you do, how do you interpret them in a way that to you does not collide with a loving G-d?

I interpret the Torah through a lens of love. I believe G-d is loving, and thus I read his commands as loving. I also understand that those commandments were given in a very different time and place, and were not meant to be set in stone. Which is why G-d also gave us the oral Torah. One could consider it as a living work, one that evolves with time. So I don't think that G-d gave those commands, and that was that. I think it was just the beginning.

If I can not rectify the commands with a loving G-d, then I have to assume that the actual meaning has been lost to us. It may be that more research on a verse is needed in order to really get at the meaning. There is also the possibility that maybe the prophets were wrong and misinterpreted what G-d was trying to command. That or maybe they interjected their own ideas, such as in the margins, and later it was taken as part of the actual scripture. As in, a scribal error.

 

[Me Myself]

I interpret the Torah through a lens of love. I believe G-d is loving, and thus I read his commands as loving. I also understand that those commandments were given in a very different time and place, and were not meant to be set in stone. Which is why G-d also gave us the oral Torah. One could consider it as a living work, one that evolves with time. So I don't think that G-d gave those commands, and that was that. I think it was just the beginning.

If I can not rectify the commands with a loving G-d, then I have to assume that the actual meaning has been lost to us. It may be that more research on a verse is needed in order to really get at the meaning. There is also the possibility that maybe the prophets were wrong and misinterpreted what G-d was trying to command. That or maybe they interjected their own ideas, such as in the margins, and later it was taken as part of the actual scripture. As in, a scribal error.

Interesting. Do you identify with a specific judaism movement more than other? Say conservative, reform, etc?

Would you say your views are more or less common among jews regarding this issues ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for homosexuality, there are the verses in Leviticus that has been understood as to referring to male same-sex practices, and often regarded as a reference to homosexuality. Such a condemnation though does not reflect a loving G-d (at least in my opinion), and thus is troublesome. I can't see G-d condemning a whole population because of who they were born as. Thus, I can not abide by the interpretation that those laws actually condemn homosexuality.

How would you translate the text? There is a difference between not accepting the intention of the text and not abiding by the interpretation of the text -- that latter implies that alternate 'interpretations' are viable.

I think we have a responsibility to seek to understand, to the best of our ability, what the authors intended.

So there is wiggle room, as well as thousands of years of evolving interpretation.

There is exegesis and there is eisegesis. Two of my favorite quotes come from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

"Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
"Would you tell me, please," said Alice "what that means?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Still, with all due respect to Humpty Dumpty, I see no theological value in assuaging our discomfort by pretending that the text means something clearly at odds with its apparent, literal meaning.