Friday, May 12, 2006

Random bit of religious nonsense

I was recently in Canada for the bat mitzvah of one of my cousins. In her Torah portion, the laws of who you could not "uncover the nakedness" of were discussed. After she read and explained the portion, the rabbi gave his speech. One of the things the rabbi said was a bit weird. He had veered off into a talk about why the Jewish laws should be followed. Now, in my experience, most religious people will try to come up with a reason for each law. This rabbi, however, seemed to realize that some laws simply had no reason. He started talking about becoming a better person by following the laws of the Torah, and concluded by saying that even if there is no reason for the laws, a person doing good deeds AND following the Torah's laws would be a better person than someone doing good deeds but not following the laws. I'm really looking for comments on this post, I have no idea what to think of it myself. It's an example of what a lot of religion is all about.


At 5/13/2006 9:11 AM, Blogger Enil Edam said...

What denomination was the congregation?

It sounds like a much more conservative or orthodox type of statement, because the reform movement doesn't in fact, follow all the laws in the Torah as they are written.

At 5/13/2006 10:44 AM, Blogger seth said...

The rabbi bwas just being an apologist; coming up with excuses for his religion. If somebody did good deeds and followed the laws of the Bible, they'd probably be a "better" person as well. Same goes for any old American laws as well.

At 5/14/2006 8:29 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

what were some examples of those meaningless laws?

At 5/14/2006 8:53 AM, Blogger seth said...

I'd go with the majority of Leviticus 18 (who not to have sex with), Leviticus 20:13 (kill homosexuals), Leviticus 24:16 (kill atheists) know, the usual suspects.

At 5/15/2006 8:58 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

All I remember is that you can't eat a platypus, because it has a beak and claws and swims, but doesn't have scales or chew its cud. Something like that anyway.

A ban on shellfish was relevant when a society had no idea what a red tide was, or when one might happen. Mixing milk and meat creates toxins on a wooden trencher. When a law is no longer relevant, what makes it a law?


At 5/16/2006 4:02 PM, Anonymous Joe said...

well yeah the killing part is definately unnecessary, but they did it to keep down anyone who would oppose there religion, so it was really meaningless, just too extreme. Also it would seem that a lot of what they tell you to eat could be said because its more hygenic. As for the who to have sex with...other than the penalty of death, i happen to agree with most of those but i guess its a free world

At 5/16/2006 4:04 PM, Anonymous Joe said...

actually levitcus 24:16 does say to kill, but not the atheists, just anyone who "blasphemies the name of the Lord." I'm not saying i agree with that but they are two different things

At 5/20/2006 9:17 PM, Blogger breakerslion said...

And since the true name of God is a secret, I guess we're all safe. "God" is a title, "Yah-Weh" means "that which is (am)" or "who am". I wonder if God's true name was something impotent sounding, like the prehistoric equivalent of "Percy". "All hail the all-mighty Percy!" just does not command respect.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.