Yeah, I would approach anything the NYT says about religion with extreme caution.
Honestly? Trying too hard to make very large leaps of interpretation which, conveniently, probably can’t be falsified even if they are unreasonable jumps.
Even if these are glosses, it doesn’t make the author’s conclusions about what was permitted correct, but could merely have been clarifications on what was understood.
And even if the text and cultural practice did change, which I’m not convinced it did, it doesn’t mean the scriptural development and what we’ve received today is incorrect. Christian’s don’t deny that God “raised the bar” in his expectations of how society should conduct itself. We see polygamy in the Bible, it doesn’t mean polygamy is acceptable today, and so on.
These types of articles can be curious, but again, it just seems a tremendous leap and wishful thinking which will be regurgitated everywhere now even if there’s little actual support.
This is precisely what some rabbis (generally not Orthodox ones) have been grappling with for some time but WITHOUT the notion of a revisionist text since admitting the latter would negate the giving of the Law in one piece as an inspired holy book. And, once again, this is why a knowledge and understanding of the codified Oral Law is equally as important to Judaism as that of the Written Law. The conclusion of many of these rabbinical scholars is that male homosexual intercourse with family is NOT the same as male homosexual intercourse with strangers, the former prohibited while the latter permitted. Note too that the leap to FEMALE homosexual intercourse with either family or strangers is still neither explicitly specified nor implied in a revisionist theory.
It’s really a moot argument.
Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
Homosexuals can’t be validly married.
Therefore homosexual sex is a sin.
By extension, in Judaism, if not Christianity, this revisionist account might be a valid consideration to permit homosexual marriage, being that love and companionship take precedence over procreation, important as the latter is.
As far as Christianity goes, the Church has declared doctrine that same-sex marriages aren’t valid, and the Church has that authority, so it’s still a moot point.
Furthermore, the Church decided and dogmatically decreed sacred scripture hundreds of years ago. The thoughts of some Rabbi’s are irrelevant.
Irrelevant to the Church, yes, but not to Jewish thinking.
I agree that what Rabbinical scholars say or what certain schools of Judaism decide on the moral teaching of scripture in the Christian era have little to no import for the Church. However, meltzerboy wasn’t implying that it should matter for us, merely offering a Jewish take on the article, which is of course fine. Your post comes across rather harsh, considering.
That is very insightful and adds greatly to the discussion.
Why are thoughts of Rabbis less worthy than priests?
Just want you to know that I appreciate the information and perspective you bring to the forum.
The NYT is a religion, albeit a secular one, and hates competition.
NT condemns it so it doesn’t matter.
Because the coming of Christ made Judaism irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Then why did Christ (a Jew) continue to attend synagogue and practice Judaism?
Cite me Chapter and verse where Jesus went to synagogue after His resurrection.
Also, point to me the Temple that Rabbinic Jews practice their faith and sacrifices in.
Modern Judaism is nothing like what Christ was raised practicing.
Because he hadn’t started the Catholic Church yet and he needed to go talk to His Father somewhere.
A more accurate word than “desperation” for the article might be “childish”, which sums up various movement’s attempts to reconcile their faith with post-Sexual Revolution popularity. Desperation is still good though.
The movement is a childish attempt to feel accepted in a world that would deem them uncool. A curiously convenient “discovery” exactly paralleling a point in time when much of mainstream society has conceded (and will concede further) on issues of sexual ethics.