In reference to DITWD’s usual claims about “presentism,” let me ask for clarification.
In modern-day Judaism, slavery is tolerated? In theory, Orthodox Jews would see nothing immoral about instituting slavery in Israel?
Or by “Judaism” are you only referring to the Judaism of 4,000 years ago?
-Ben
**Zev wrote:
Well, I can’t tell you about Christianity, but, in Judaism, slavery is tolerated while homosexual behavior is forbidden. Yes, you heard right, Freyr.**
So, slavery is considered moral, it doesn’t break God’s rules. Homosexual acts are immoral, they DO break God’s rules.
Zev, this is the logical inconsistency that I was trying to get at. That may have been fine some 3200 years ago, but I think it’s pure idiocy in modern society.
**DitWD wrote:
Don’t be guilty of the crime of “presentism”- ie judging those of the past by todays standards- remember, a couple hundred years from now it is YOU that will be judged.**
I’m not trying to judge anyone. I was merely trying to point out a major, glaring logical inconsistency in Judeo-Christian law. I think I’ve made my point.
Whoops, my bad, my bad!
**Freyr wrote:
I was merely trying to point out a major, glaring logical inconsistency in Judeo-Christian law.**
That should read major, glaring, MORAL inconsistency
No, slavery isn’t considered moral, it’s considered legal. The rule doesn’t go, “Have slaves”…the rule goes, “If you have slaves, treat them like this.”, but there’s nothing wrong with saying, “We, as a society have decided slavery is a moral evil, so we won’t let anyone have slaves, no matter how they’re treated.”, which is what most of the world has decided, today. You can also find verses in the Torah that say that slavery probably shouldn’t be done at all.
And one more thing I should point out. If Jews live in a place where slavery is outlawed, then they are forbidden to own them.
Zev Steinhardt
There is another item I should mention. It is simply this: just because something is permitted, it does not necessarily recommend that it be done.
For example, smoking is permitted in the United States. However, I personally (as do many other people) find the practice detestable and would never do it. Eventually, we as a society may learn not to smoke at all. Will smoking remain legal? Yes, but not really practiced anymore. The same could be said about slavery (not that I’m really equating the two). Although it is technically “on the books,” I like to think that we, as a society, have moved beyond that and no longer want or need it, even if it is still technically legal. And please note that slavery IS outlawed in Israel (despite the fact that the Torah permits it).
Zev Steinhardt
:: Just sitting back and waiting for a Pit thread about me to open ::
Zev Steinhardt
If you now recognize that slavery IS a moral wrong, then do you also acknowledge that the Torah did not go far enough to protect human rights in this case? Is the omission of this protection equivalent to being wrong in this case?
And if so, could you then recognize that perhaps other parts of the Torah, particularly concerning the treatment (murder) of homosexuals, also be wrong?
Although I’m asking Zev about this, the same principle applies to the NT.
The arguement made about judging people of ancient times by today’s standards is not relevant to a discussion of supposedly G-d inspired directions. If it is wrong to G-d now, it must surely have been wrong then.
Which is EXACTLY what I mean by my sig line!
DITWD is banned?
Color me a bit confused still.
Certainly it’s not considered an activelt moral way of life (as in “the righteous man owns slaves”). But it would be possible, under Talmudic law, to live a moral life as a slaveowner, right?
I guess I still don’t understand. Cap, Zev, are y’all saying that unless the Torah and the Talmud explicitly forbid something, they can be trumped by “societal morals?”
First, I want to say I’m not trying to bash on Judeaism here, just get a clarification and understanding of the point of what is and isn’t allowed and wondering, after some 3200 years of history, if things couldn’t change.
But Zev & Captain Amazing, you both seem to agree with the inconsistency that I’ve been driving at; one activity was once accepted and practiced, but now is considered morally repugnant and rightfully shunned, even tho technically allowed. The other activity, then considered repugnant, is still considered repugnant and forbidden, even tho it’s totally innocuous. If the interpretation of the rules for one can change, why not the other, too?
**Puddlegum wrote:
The Bible says what it says, you can either accept it or reject it but you can’t make it say something else by wishing.**
The Bible says lots of things and is open to interpretation by many people and that’s the point we’re making here. The conservative Christians say it means one thing, the liberal Christians say it means something else. Which is the correct interpretation? Biblical verses were onced used to show that the earth was the center of the universe and was stationary. Like I said, it all depends upon your interpretation.
Actually, I remember reading about a Rabbi of the 19th century who argued that not only was slavery moral, but that since Abraham was a slaveowner, and since Abraham is declared by the Bible to be a righteous man, it must be immoral to be anti-slavery because by doing so you are criticising the Bible’s moral judgement.
-Ben
**
No. God has, for whatever His reasons, decided to allow slavery. However, just because the law exists, it doesn’t mean that we, as a society, have to accept or institutionalize it. We can, among ourselves, say “We aren’t going to allow anyone to own slaves.” And that is what we have done. There is no law requiring the ownership of slaves. A similar case could be made about marriage laws. In Judaism, a boy of thireen can, technically, get married. However, as a society, we’ve come past that to the point where we encourage men to wait until they are older before they contract a marriage.
**
First of all, the Torah doesn’t advocate the open murder of homosexuals. It is true that homosexual behavior does carry the death penalty in Judaism, however, the practical application of that is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Secondly, as I pointed out above, there is a big difference between forbidding the permitted and permitting the forbidden. Forbidding slaves is possible (as was forbidding polygamy). Permitting homosexual behavior, OTOH, is not possible.
Zev Steinhardt
Not at all.
Just because something is permitted, that doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. Smoking, for example, is permitted, but I don’t think you’ll find anyone who says that Judaism encourages people to smoke.
Zev Steinhardt
Because there is one fundemental difference. As I said above permitting the forbidden is not the same as forbidding the permitted. THAT’S the difference.
Zev Steinhardt
Yes, I heard about that one too. It happened in the days leading up to the Civil War. I wouldn’t be surprised if his personal opinion didn’t color his interpretation.
In any event, I doubt you’ll find many rabbis who share the same interpretation that you presented above.
Zev Steinhardt
zev:
Are you a practicing Jew? Orthodox?
If so, I have a question:
Have you ever considered that the reason that the Torah allows slave ownership, but forbids homosexuality, is that it was written by men who were products of their time, not some inscrutable God?
If you are not of the opinion that the Torah is the word of God (you’re decision to spell out the name ‘God’ gives me some doubt), but are rather simply explaining the Jewish position on it, please ignore and carry on.
Slaves in Judiac Law were not equivelent to slaves in the antebellum South. Unlike the latter, who could be and were abused at will, Judaic law required slaveowners to treat their slaves well. Just one example of this is that if, between the master and his slave, there’s only one pillow to sleep with, the master must let the slave have it. And if a slave were to be abused to the degree that he loses a tooth, he is given his freedom.
What about the bit that if you beat the slave nigh to death, yet he surivives for a day or two, the master is not to be punished? Exod 21:21. It doesn’t seem quite so idyllic. (What’s the pillow rule from, BTW? I’ve never run across any reference to that)