still doesnt explain how we are worse... just naming people doesnt do much.
what have we done... hmmm.. well we stopped the international trade in slavery, we allow civil partnerships, it is pretty much universal in our country that we recognise the rights of homosexuals, we are actually trying to do something about global warming rather than denying it, we have an national health service which helps everyone no matter how rich or poor you are, we have a living minimum wage................
i know. and why ive lost faith in the intelligence of america. we've proved twice now that the majority of americans are dumb.
they are coming around.....kinda slow..but they do eventually get it. Also fear not......there are lots of idiotic beliefs in this and other countries due to religion...but justice and truth are winning...we've made huge gains in our generation. This charade can last only so long. (-:
Chill out. All I said was, don't come and make claims about something that needs "evolution", which is a deragatory thing to say, when you don't know about it.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Chill out. All I said was, don't come and make claims about something that needs "evolution", which is a deragatory thing to say, when you don't know about it.
huh!?! It's not deragatory.
Since i'm bad in english i'll quote webster:
Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
and it goes on and on... i wasn't saying it in a deragatory way, you're assuming stuffs...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
and it goes on and on... i wasn't saying it in a deragatory way, you're assuming stuffs...
To say that it is an evolution means that it evolved from something worse to something better. That makes it deragatory. If that's not what you meant to say, you should have used a different word.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
To say that it is an evolution means that it evolved from something worse to something better. That makes it deragatory. If that's not what you meant to say, you should have used a different word.
Wow, it doesn't mean it was bad, it could mean it wasn't adressed in the first places, but if you really want to debate about the meaning of words, then yes it's bad to have gays unequal to every other citizens (it's not exclusive to Jews, it's about almost every major religions), so in the end then yes, it's an evolution.
edit: example, It's an evolution for Canada to recognize gay weddings, it would be an evolution for the USA to recognize gay wedding.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Wow, it doesn't mean it was bad, it could mean it wasn't adressed in the first places, but if you really want to debate about the meaning of words, then yes it's bad to have gays unequal to every other citizens (it's not exclusive to Jews, it's about almost every major religions), so in the end then yes, it's an evolution.
edit: example, It's an evolution for Canada to recognize gay weddings, it would be an evolution for the USA to recognize gay wedding.
I think that gay weddings should be recognized, but necessarily as a religious ritual. I don't consider anyone to be a citizen of a religion. In this context, I don't know if it's better.
Read my earlier posts cause I don't feel like retyping everything.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
I think that gay weddings should be recognized, but necessarily as a religious ritual. I don't consider anyone to be a citizen of a religion. In this context, I don't know if it's better.
Read my earlier posts cause I don't feel like retyping everything.
Ok but also to make myself clear, i wasn't saying it in a deragotory way, it was not on my mind to say that Jewish religion is bad and need to evolve, just that the current recognition, is in my opinion an evolution, for gays and lesbians and human rights in general.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
still doesnt explain how we are worse... just naming people doesnt do much.
what have we done... hmmm.. well we stopped the international trade in slavery, we allow civil partnerships, it is pretty much universal in our country that we recognise the rights of homosexuals, we are actually trying to do something about global warming rather than denying it, we have an national health service which helps everyone no matter how rich or poor you are, we have a living minimum wage................
Your healthcare service sucks. Sure you recognized gay rights...other than that you just follow our lead.
Ok but also to make myself clear, i wasn't saying it in a deragotory way, it was not on my mind to say that Jewish religion is bad and need to evolve, just that the current recognition, is in my opinion an evolution, for gays and lesbians and human rights in general.
Ok, but this issue was raised a long time ago, and it is something that has been recognized as an important issue for a long time. Also, this is not the first time that the issue has been brought before the law committee. Again, my major concern isn't with the legislation they passed, its with why it was passed.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Ok, but this issue was raised a long time ago, and it is something that has been recognized as an important issue for a long time. Also, this is not the first time that the issue has been brought before the law committee. Again, my major concern isn't with the legislation they passed, its with why it was passed.
Yosi i felt your earlier post was very informative.
Why do YOU think they passed it? IMO it was done to fit in with the times, and is not backed by any type of jewish theology.
I am Jewish, and respect the fact that our laws are thousands of years old, but I think that laws need to change to adjust to societal norms (to a certain extent, of course).
I am not saying the laws should fully change to suit the needs of the masses, but they should change in order to keep people coming back to shul.
Society accepts gay unions, So, if the religion lets-up a bit to retain/re-embrace its members, is that so bad?
I am not saying we should support the pork industry (as an example of adjusting for those who like bacon), but if we embrace same-sex unions, we will hopefully be setting an example for other religions.
It is nice that religions have different sects, so that there can be varying levels of observance....if someone doesn't want to walk to shul, let them drive.....who knows if these people would totally stop going to shul if they couldn't drive.
It reminds me of a P Jam gig.....people here get all pissy when someone only knows the "hits" at a show......who really cares?...we all have our own levels of devotion to the band, so if someone doesn't know the new songs, who really cares!
We shouldn't totally compromise, but I feel we should adjust a bit!
I am Jewish, and respect the fact that our laws are thousands of years old, but I think that laws need to change to adjust to societal norms (to a certain extent, of course).
I am not saying the laws should fully change to suit the needs of the masses, but they should change in order to keep people coming back to shul.
Society accepts gay unions, So, if the religion lets-up a bit to retain/re-embrace its members, is that so bad?
I am not saying we should support the pork industry (as an example of adjusting for those who like bacon), but if we embrace same-sex unions, we will hopefully be setting an example for other religions.
It is nice that religions have different sects, so that there can be varying levels of observance....if someone doesn't want to walk to shul, let them drive.....who knows if these people would totally stop going to shul if they couldn't drive.
It reminds me of a P Jam gig.....people here get all pissy when someone only knows the "hits" at a show......who really cares?...we all have our own levels of devotion to the band, so if someone doesn't know the new songs, who really cares!
We shouldn't totally compromise, but I feel we should adjust a bit!
Thats a drastic change though, when it is clearly stated that 2 men lying together is an abomination.
To say that it is an evolution means that it evolved from something worse to something better. That makes it deragatory. If that's not what you meant to say, you should have used a different word.
It probably was far worse.
Evolution is more than just a physical concept. It's also a learning process. If not, God would not have saw the need for Eve.
In the context of marriage between homosexuals, who's to say people can't evolve from their prejudices. Isn't that what we keep referring back to, the fact that "God" gave us free will!
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
No offense taken. In fact, I think its a great and crucial question. The problem comes in, that I believe in Judaism and halacha and this legislation undermines Halacha. I think that there may be a way to come to this same conclusion while adhering to the law, but, because they did not pass this legislation in a halachic manner, it deligitimizes the Law Making body (in my opinion).
The question of morality is also complicated. You ask, and rightfully so, why someone who believes that this is immoral would still adhere to it. Well, the answer is, is that it is incredibly complicated what the verse in the Bible actually means, and what that means for gay men and women, and how to treat them while still adhering to halacha. For one to just say "fuck halacha cause I don't like this ruling" undermines all of Halacha, the entire system.
I personally do not know enough about this issue in Halacha to make a great argument for or against. But, if you'd like to browse, here is Rabbi Joel Roth's, one of the leaders of the Conservative movement, and often thought of as one of the more forwarding thinking, paper on Homosexuality in Judaism http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/roth_homosexual.pdf.
Not all Jewish leaders, just the majority of the law making body of the Conservative movement. This does not include the Orthodox movement (which DOES NOT only mean black hat, side locks... many people who you could not distinguish from secular Jews by looking at them, or just hanging out with them, consider themselves Orthodox).
If I haven't explained or said something clearly, please feel free to ask me more questions. Just don't attack (not that anyone has).
i see what you're saying, but it still seems odd to me. i always thought religion was supposed to promote moral behavior. it seems to my mind that there is little difference between saying "ok, we were wrong about that and we should accept these people" and trying to bend, stretch, and twist the letter of the law to produce the result you want. either one kinda seems to invalidate the law somewhat to my thinking. in fact, the latter seems worse. it's saying that the law is basically whatever you feel like reading into it and seems to strip it of its moral weight. also, if the law is immoral, it makes more sense to me to change it than try to artificially re-read it to make it seems moral.
I am Jewish, and respect the fact that our laws are thousands of years old, but I think that laws need to change to adjust to societal norms (to a certain extent, of course).
I am not saying the laws should fully change to suit the needs of the masses, but they should change in order to keep people coming back to shul.
Society accepts gay unions, So, if the religion lets-up a bit to retain/re-embrace its members, is that so bad?
Religion is not a give and take with the community. I'm not arguing against the legislation in particular. Just the capacity in which it was carried out. I don't support it in the way that you are saying.
To me, you are describing someone who is really a reform Jew (pick and choose what I like) but enjoys being more observant than most reform Jews (keep in mind I bear no judgement, I think that people need to do what is meaningful to them). The law committe, and the movement, if it wants to be considered halachic, cannot be like this though.
I am not saying we should support the pork industry (as an example of adjusting for those who like bacon), but if we embrace same-sex unions, we will hopefully be setting an example for other religions.
It is nice that religions have different sects, so that there can be varying levels of observance....if someone doesn't want to walk to shul, let them drive.....who knows if these people would totally stop going to shul if they couldn't drive.
It reminds me of a P Jam gig.....people here get all pissy when someone only knows the "hits" at a show......who really cares?...we all have our own levels of devotion to the band, so if someone doesn't know the new songs, who really cares!
We shouldn't totally compromise, but I feel we should adjust a bit!
I hear what you are saying, and I think that if a person would rather drive to shul than walk, and that is the only way they would come to shul, if that's what is meaningful to them, than they should do it. But, that doesn't mean that there should be legislation saying that it is ok. As a halachic movement, the law committe needs to pass legislation in a halachic capacity. Not to just fit with the times. Otherwise it undermines the importance of halacha and the Conservative movement as a halachic movement, in general.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
i see what you're saying, but it still seems odd to me. i always thought religion was supposed to promote moral behavior. it seems to my mind that there is little difference between saying "ok, we were wrong about that and we should accept these people" and trying to bend, stretch, and twist the letter of the law to produce the result you want. either one kinda seems to invalidate the law somewhat to my thinking. in fact, the latter seems worse. it's saying that the law is basically whatever you feel like reading into it and seems to strip it of its moral weight.
I see it more like the evolution of the law itself. We read it this way, because this is how we understood things at that time. We see that we were wrong, and this is really how it should be interepreted. Also, if you set up a precedent of something like this happening in a similar case in Jewish law, than it can really work. Laws have changed, through the understanding of the law for as long as it has been around. That is what keeps it alive. If it didn't change, it would get stagnant and the religion would have died.
Yosi i felt your earlier post was very informative.
Why do YOU think they passed it? IMO it was done to fit in with the times, and is not backed by any type of jewish theology.
I'm not entirely sure. I'm going to try and find out when I get home. It seems to me like it is probably because they felt like they needed to change to adapt to the times.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
It probably was far worse.
Evolution is more than just a physical concept. It's also a learning process. If not, God would not have saw the need for Eve.
In the context of marriage between homosexuals, who's to say people can't evolve from their prejudices. Isn't that what we keep referring back to, the fact that "God" gave us free will!
It doesn't seem like you've actually read anything I've posted.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
I see it more like the evolution of the law itself. We read it this way, because this is how we understood things at that time. We see that we were wrong, and this is really how it should be interepreted. Also, if you set up a precedent of something like this happening in a similar case in Jewish law, than it can really work. Laws have changed, through the understanding of the law for as long as it has been around. That is what keeps it alive. If it didn't change, it would get stagnant and the religion would have died.
i guess i see what you're saying. though i have to point out, didnt you just take huge offense at someone for calling this an evolution, and now you're calling it an evolution?
It doesn't seem like you've actually read anything I've posted.
Actually, I was careful to read what you were posting and the response of others to your posts before making the statement that I did. I guess it got through to you judging from #51.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
i guess i see what you're saying. though i have to point out, didnt you just take huge offense at someone for calling this an evolution, and now you're calling it an evolution?
I was offended because they were saying one was better than the other. I don't necessarily agree with that.
Actually, I was careful to read what you were posting and the response of others to your posts before making the statement that I did. I guess it got through to you judging from #51.
I don't think anything you said has influenced anything I said, but I could be wrong. See above.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Your healthcare service sucks. Sure you recognized gay rights...other than that you just follow our lead.
having lived in this country all my life i can say the nhs does not suck. it is in fact a brillaint service. sure it has some bad points but what doesnt? and we followed you lead? er... NO. we took the lead on stopping the slave trade. you guys followed us.
Comments
still doesnt explain how we are worse... just naming people doesnt do much.
what have we done... hmmm.. well we stopped the international trade in slavery, we allow civil partnerships, it is pretty much universal in our country that we recognise the rights of homosexuals, we are actually trying to do something about global warming rather than denying it, we have an national health service which helps everyone no matter how rich or poor you are, we have a living minimum wage................
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
oooooo, ok master....
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
they are coming around.....kinda slow..but they do eventually get it. Also fear not......there are lots of idiotic beliefs in this and other countries due to religion...but justice and truth are winning...we've made huge gains in our generation. This charade can last only so long. (-:
Chill out. All I said was, don't come and make claims about something that needs "evolution", which is a deragatory thing to say, when you don't know about it.
huh!?! It's not deragatory.
Since i'm bad in english i'll quote webster:
Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
and it goes on and on... i wasn't saying it in a deragatory way, you're assuming stuffs...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
To say that it is an evolution means that it evolved from something worse to something better. That makes it deragatory. If that's not what you meant to say, you should have used a different word.
Wow, it doesn't mean it was bad, it could mean it wasn't adressed in the first places, but if you really want to debate about the meaning of words, then yes it's bad to have gays unequal to every other citizens (it's not exclusive to Jews, it's about almost every major religions), so in the end then yes, it's an evolution.
edit: example, It's an evolution for Canada to recognize gay weddings, it would be an evolution for the USA to recognize gay wedding.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I think that gay weddings should be recognized, but necessarily as a religious ritual. I don't consider anyone to be a citizen of a religion. In this context, I don't know if it's better.
Read my earlier posts cause I don't feel like retyping everything.
Ok but also to make myself clear, i wasn't saying it in a deragotory way, it was not on my mind to say that Jewish religion is bad and need to evolve, just that the current recognition, is in my opinion an evolution, for gays and lesbians and human rights in general.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
There is nothing wrong about the old testament. It is a work of beauty.
Your healthcare service sucks. Sure you recognized gay rights...other than that you just follow our lead.
Ok, but this issue was raised a long time ago, and it is something that has been recognized as an important issue for a long time. Also, this is not the first time that the issue has been brought before the law committee. Again, my major concern isn't with the legislation they passed, its with why it was passed.
Yosi i felt your earlier post was very informative.
Why do YOU think they passed it? IMO it was done to fit in with the times, and is not backed by any type of jewish theology.
I am not saying the laws should fully change to suit the needs of the masses, but they should change in order to keep people coming back to shul.
Society accepts gay unions, So, if the religion lets-up a bit to retain/re-embrace its members, is that so bad?
I am not saying we should support the pork industry (as an example of adjusting for those who like bacon), but if we embrace same-sex unions, we will hopefully be setting an example for other religions.
It is nice that religions have different sects, so that there can be varying levels of observance....if someone doesn't want to walk to shul, let them drive.....who knows if these people would totally stop going to shul if they couldn't drive.
It reminds me of a P Jam gig.....people here get all pissy when someone only knows the "hits" at a show......who really cares?...we all have our own levels of devotion to the band, so if someone doesn't know the new songs, who really cares!
We shouldn't totally compromise, but I feel we should adjust a bit!
Thats a drastic change though, when it is clearly stated that 2 men lying together is an abomination.
very little. they keep to themselves and i dig that. im not keen on playing global policeman.
It probably was far worse.
Evolution is more than just a physical concept. It's also a learning process. If not, God would not have saw the need for Eve.
In the context of marriage between homosexuals, who's to say people can't evolve from their prejudices. Isn't that what we keep referring back to, the fact that "God" gave us free will!
i see what you're saying, but it still seems odd to me. i always thought religion was supposed to promote moral behavior. it seems to my mind that there is little difference between saying "ok, we were wrong about that and we should accept these people" and trying to bend, stretch, and twist the letter of the law to produce the result you want. either one kinda seems to invalidate the law somewhat to my thinking. in fact, the latter seems worse. it's saying that the law is basically whatever you feel like reading into it and seems to strip it of its moral weight. also, if the law is immoral, it makes more sense to me to change it than try to artificially re-read it to make it seems moral.
Religion is not a give and take with the community. I'm not arguing against the legislation in particular. Just the capacity in which it was carried out. I don't support it in the way that you are saying.
To me, you are describing someone who is really a reform Jew (pick and choose what I like) but enjoys being more observant than most reform Jews (keep in mind I bear no judgement, I think that people need to do what is meaningful to them). The law committe, and the movement, if it wants to be considered halachic, cannot be like this though.
I hear what you are saying, and I think that if a person would rather drive to shul than walk, and that is the only way they would come to shul, if that's what is meaningful to them, than they should do it. But, that doesn't mean that there should be legislation saying that it is ok. As a halachic movement, the law committe needs to pass legislation in a halachic capacity. Not to just fit with the times. Otherwise it undermines the importance of halacha and the Conservative movement as a halachic movement, in general.
I see it more like the evolution of the law itself. We read it this way, because this is how we understood things at that time. We see that we were wrong, and this is really how it should be interepreted. Also, if you set up a precedent of something like this happening in a similar case in Jewish law, than it can really work. Laws have changed, through the understanding of the law for as long as it has been around. That is what keeps it alive. If it didn't change, it would get stagnant and the religion would have died.
I'm not entirely sure. I'm going to try and find out when I get home. It seems to me like it is probably because they felt like they needed to change to adapt to the times.
It doesn't seem like you've actually read anything I've posted.
i guess i see what you're saying. though i have to point out, didnt you just take huge offense at someone for calling this an evolution, and now you're calling it an evolution?
Actually, I was careful to read what you were posting and the response of others to your posts before making the statement that I did. I guess it got through to you judging from #51.
I was offended because they were saying one was better than the other. I don't necessarily agree with that.
I don't think anything you said has influenced anything I said, but I could be wrong. See above.
having lived in this country all my life i can say the nhs does not suck. it is in fact a brillaint service. sure it has some bad points but what doesnt? and we followed you lead? er... NO. we took the lead on stopping the slave trade. you guys followed us.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I love you too Roskies. Can't fucking wait to see you this break.
Two exams and revisions than I'm done. When do you get home?