In her case we are both Reform Jews so have similar values, but I know what you mean about the interpretations being different. We talk about how some sections are interpreted by Orthodox Jews vs Reform.
That section you deconstructed is a great example of what I’m saying that these were laws that don’t really update to modern times easily.
I always wonder how people could even try to take the Bible literally because the translation is not easy and is contested in many areas. In our Torah study group we have the text in Hebrew and in English. One man grew up in Israel. He reads fluent Hebrew and will explain how the text translates literally but Every Single Time we have a conversation about how Biblical Hebrew is different from regular Hebrew and about the art of Torah interpretation involves r looking at How a word is used elsewhere and how the verb tenses work differently than in modern Hebrew. It’s not always clear what the authors meant to say.
Uh, because Sola Scriptura! it means that if there’s any translation, then the laity’s interpretation is just as good as anyone else’s.
People are stupid.
Get this: when I was a kid, I was told by multiple pastors and my parents that the bible was the first book ever written.
It took me until high school to learn that was utter bullshit. There are numerous ancient writings much older than the bible.
The attitude of anti-intellectualism in the US is very strong, we know that. And anti-intellectualism says: my ignorance is as true as your knowledge.
Agreed. Basically that what was in The Atlantic article I posted much earlier in the thread.
Which translation do y’all use? Its frustrating how every one of em seems to have “issues” with certain translation agendas.
Out of curiosity does the version you use include any Rashi/RAMBAN or other commentary?[quote=“ChickieD, post:182, topic:94345”]
it’s rare that I read any portion that I feel applies to my own life.
[/quote]
Wow, we seem to have very different approaches!
I dont actually disagree with that but I come from an approach where “obvious” entails also having the owner/operator manuals (Talmud & rabbinic scholarship).
Really? Seems to me that the specificity of taking someone’s garment as security on a loan isnt the lesson but that even today setting extreme conditions on loans are forbidden. As for judges treating the poor and rich equally, that applies anytime from Creation to L’Olam HaBa.
The rules of hermenutics are well established and really very few points are left open (until such time as a a new Sanhedrin can rule on them). Seriously, even Reform Jews can benefit from a set of Chumash with Rashi or Nachmanides. If you have access to those, read how they differ on the laws concerning the captive bride. They take totally different approaches but both are so humane its amazing!
Oh wow. First book ever. That’s a doozie.
Yeah, I was also raised YEC, and to put women on the traditional christian pedestal of either them being the madonna or a whore.
Evangelical fundamentalism is really good at screwing a kid up. I’m glad I’ve seen through at least that.
We are reading Plaut. We have other translations brought in by various people and the Rabbi brings in translations and texts sometimes, depending on the section. It’s fun. I don’t think we’ve done a whole lot of Rashi.
I’m not saying that the things in Torah aren’t applicable, but just that they aren’t literally relevant in the way @LDoBe describes being taught. Sure, you can say “This is about judicial overreach,” but you still are taking what was a very specific injunction and then working to apply it in a broader, more modern context and the rules they lived by I think were quite different from ours so to me it’s more of a conversation starter on moral issues than a rule book that I follow slavishly.
So use the tools you have been given when talking to your friends in the Tribe.
Backhander?
EDIT:
Isnt the foundation ideal of Reform Judaism about individuals making informed choices about Torah? How does that work when you arent given context?
I think that she tries to give us context as best as possible within the space of an hour in which there is room for our own conversation plus discussion of the translation of the text in Plaut. It’s clear she has the deeper background and she’s discussed all the sources she refers to and pulls from, but we are lucky to get through a few sentences at a time as it is. I’ve been studying now for three years with her and we are just on Exodus. At some point you’ve got to move through the story and not just hash over every commentary. We have about five texts in the room besides the Plaut that people are referring to and bringing into the discussion. Maybe I should get a Rashi commentary and bring that in.
Rashi is a must for the “plaintext” but seriously also look into a Nachmanides set as well, he has lots of great stuff to say. IIRC the Artscroll sets for both are pretty reasonably priced.
What’s Sola Scriptura?
I think it’s good to remember that in online discussions, there is often at least an order of magnitude more people reading than the ones you see actively liking and commenting. Convincing individuals is not the primary aim.
This. If you have a Trump voter who is willing to engage, if you post your point of view in the comments you may reach others who are more moderate in their views.
It’s one of the “Three Solae”: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fides (scripture alone, by grace alone, through faith alone). There are two more that were added in the 20th century: Solo Christo (through Christ alone) and Soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). They’re basically Reformation principles to distinguish Protestantism from Catholicism, and Sola Scriptura is to downplay the authority of tradition and church teachings.
I have to Google fu now. I have never heard those terms. Thanks for giving it some context.
Sola Scriptura people are a little irritating. These are the people who literally think that Catholics are not allowed to own Bibles. These people also tend to be legalistic and overly literal believers in the Unerring Word Of God, and saying they can’t see the forest for the trees is a little bit of an understatement. If there was a passage in the Bible that could be interpreted as advocating ritual child sacrifices, then by God, they’re sacrificing babies.
Sola Gratia and Sola Fides people are a little more infuriating. Sola Gratia people believe that they were doomed no matter what happened before they got “saved”, then they’re going to heaven no matter what, even though they might be doing the exact same things before and after they were saved. Someone who believes this stuff is more receptive to thinking “so what, it’s my guy doing it, not theirs, so who cares”. Sola Fides is similar in effect, at least as far as I’m concerned, because they think they don’t have to be a good person, just believe in Jesus and everything will be okay.
Disagree. If they’re actually racist, they think black lives don’t matter. They think that black people have low IQs because some book they’ve never read definitively says so, and that they bring violence because they all come from the jungle (yeah, like the fucking caves the Europeans evolved in were that much better), and none of them were raised in loving suburban families with a mom and a dad and dad’s 25-year-old side piece, and blah blah da blah blah, and in order to save all lives we must shunt off the throwaways to destroy each others’ lives so they leave all White God-fearing Christian suburban people alone. Racists actually think that way. They think black lives aren’t worth saving, so they should be quarantined at best, systematically murdered at worst. These people don’t give a fuck about “standing together”, they just care about protecting their own. 
Yeah I’ve tried the conversation as police want to be safe in the neighborhoods they serve and protect and so do the people who live there. No dice.
That was my point. Rather than saying “Someone who says ‘all lives matter’ is racist, and that’s a racist thing to say,” I expect you to prove that the lives that are being threatened matter to you, because that is what you’re claiming. If you think it’s a general issue and isn’t especially related to race, stand with those who are protesting police brutality, i.e. Black Lives Matter. Think about why they are on the street in numbers and so many white people are not seeing anything worth complaining about. If you think that they have too narrow a focus, that doesn’t stop you from supporting them; All Lives Matter is your movement, not theirs. If you are trying to deflect attention and suggest that there isn’t actually a problem or the black people deserved it, you should probably say something like “Nobody else’s life matters to me, you’re on your own,” because that is what trying to silence a movement like BLM is saying. Evidence from other countries and from the many witness accounts and video recordings shows that deaths on this scale are not normal and not necessary to protect blue lives.
They don’t care.
If anything, they’ll say that blue lives, not black lives, matter, and black people endanger cops just by their inherently violent existence, and that Black Lives Matter is a terror group actively killing cops.
Then, when you ask them to provide an example of a police officer, or literally anyone else, killed by BLM, they’ll mention something that’s been debunked long ago, and if you point that out, they’ll just say you’re being dismissive. They may focus on crime statistics as well, and they will ignore any attempts to explain these statistics.
I’ve gone down this whole flow chart many times.
But… but… but if they just pull their pants up, speak proper English, and don’t disrespect the police, they should have no problem, right?
They don’t notice it because they’ve never experienced it.
They not only don’t notice the racial component, they don’t even notice or care about their own biases in what a “thug” looks like. Hint: white people are assumed to be good law-abiding citizens without having to look Mormon, but black people need to look super clean-cut* in order to avoid any suspicion.
*it worked for Cosby… almost.
Easiest movement ever. Basically just throwing shade on whatever BLM does. There are no goals to advance and no meetings to attend, but if there were meetings they’d look something like this:
But… but… Scandinavia is a much smaller country,* and it’s racially homogenous** with no inner cities!***
*yeah, yeah, I know, it’s not a country at all
**not this shit again
***bullshit
If you are absolutely convinced that the person you’re talking to is an incorrigible racist and nobody else is listening in, there’s no point using any argument at all. If this is not true and it’s more of a “Why shouldn’t we care about everyone?” statement (or someone listening in may think that’s a reasonable assumption), it’s worth insisting that the person follows through with their own argument. Actually prove that you care about all lives in the way that Black Lives Matter cares about black lives, or you cannot claim to care about all lives at all. It’s like saying “Checkmate!” when you see a victory in three moves, and the other person still thinks they have plenty of room to manoeuvre.
The problem is that All Lives Matter can become a rallying cry for a team, or shorthand for an an argument that is presumed to have some weight if you’re on that side – without ever being followed through and challenged. “They don’t care about white people, so why should we care about them” seems to be the actual claim, and it needs to be flushed out and addressed. Saying, “that’s racist” just gets a (possibly unspoken) response of “BLM are the ones specifying the lives that matter, they’re the real racists.” Many conservatives are proud of the idea that they treat everyone equally and dislike identity politics. There needs to be a way to answer the question of why focusing on a particular group is warranted in this and other cases.
