Then maybe it wasn't a good thing and if it had been approached differently it would have passed on its own as the needs of the people changed. And I don't really see idolatry as sinful in nature, just prohibited by the monarchic authority in its independant forms.
I think the term avodah zarah is interesting. What makes the avodah zarah? Is it really zarah because it's what other nations do or is it simply what "bad citizens", the radicals who defy the iron fist of the monarchy do and has only been compared to the actions of other nations in order to make an appeal to a suggested Israelite ethical superiority? That is to say, "You're better than the rest of the people of the world. Act like it."
Or it could also suggest that the monarchy couldn't police itself effectively, the prophets were exaggerating, or they were really addressing a minority of the population while holding the entire nation accountable because the brit is national and not personal.
Because I don't believe the Torah is the word of G!d. It has nothing to do with idiocy at all. I wouldn't support idolatry today, but the conceptualization of G!d they had then, as I said, was radically different, and if it's upaya for them to have their fetishes then so be it. Let them have 'em.
I once had a wonderful conversation with a devout hindu and it made me realize the value there can be found relating to a tzelem Elohim. It helped me to understand too why it helps Christians to put a face on G!d in Jesus. And I find our tradition acknowledges that too as long as it's never physically built.
There's heichalot literature, adam kadmon, the analogues of the sefirot in the human body. I came across a hanhagah in the writings of Reb Kalonymus that went into great detail describing the heavenly court from G!d on His throne to the angels and suggested visualizing it explicitly. Elsewhere in his writing he suggests that this is not the best way, but he acknowledges the helpfulness of this practice.
No, it may call some practices wrong and evil, but it repeatedly uses anthropomorphic G!d language to make its point. If you're really trying to remove that type of thinking, then it becomes necessary to remove that type of G!d language for a people who think in those terms and then manifest it. Otherwise it will only create confusion, especially among the amei haaretz. Of course there would be no confusion if what was really being addressed was the illegal idolatry, the stuff that wasn't state-sponsored. You might argue that the people at that time needed the human G!d language, maybe still do, that the Torah speaks in the language of man. But then you'd be coming more into agreement with me, that an Israelite religiousity needed to address the concerns, motivations, and attachments of the Israelite people.
I don't think it really makes it a sin just because the text says so. If the text says it's a sin it means it's unlawful according to the theocratic Israelite monarchy. It may still be a sin, but I don't the literal read of the text alone can be the sole arbiter of such a pronouncement. It also depends on how we define sin. Is it defined by local communities and by society? Is it defined by the government? Is it defined by the government when it's expressing the wishes of the people? Is it defined by sacred literature? And then there's the possibility that there's no sin at all which, at least on the personal and subjectivie level, which can be verified is not true based on our own understanding and approach to the world.
Or that simply suggests the views of the authority. On the Second Life blog when Linden Lab make changes in policy or even introduce new features they know are unwelcome often they'll phrase it as them acting based on the wishes of the community even though there has been much opinion voiced against it and the protest continues in the comments section, as long as comments are enabled. In the case of the blog we call Torah, the voice of the amei haaretz was silenced.
And as you are aware, I would disagree. I'm really not interested in changing Orthodoxy. It does things its own way and works for some people, as did Sadducean Judaism during the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism. But the methods of hazal, not found in the Torah, won out. Later Rambam presented a very radical view of the supernatural and he still won out based on his midrashic interpretation of how Torah speaks based on a single verse of gemara. When Judaism gets rigid, to unstick it I think we really need to appeal to our heritage as midrashists, become more flexible and fluid. And I think at the same time we need to incorporate new methodologies as hazal did, which is really just bringing in new technology. I really see midrash playing out even in halachah, that the thought process is similar. It's about exegesis, redefinition, and a flowering outward of meaning.
I don't think most of Judaism is in a place anymore where the only way to make something valid is to attribute it to the plain words of Torah. I think that actually it's much harder for most of us to attribute new ideas to myth anymore and still see it as an extension of that old myth. We've gotten to the point that we're self-aware of our evolution. Mankind, as a whole, is coming more into the stage of watching its own thoughts and recognizing the patterns, the textures, cyclical thinking that emerges. But I also think it's important, even though we're aware of that to still get in touch with the myth-making, myth-loving part of ourselves, to continue to tell our story in the language, the metaphor of our ancestors. There's a power in connecting down the generations like that, and as you hint at, it builds continuity.
Can you imagine what it must have been like for hazal, evolving a new approach that could bring Judaism away from a focus on the Temple cult toward a more adaptable meritocracy? And everywhere there are people who do things differently, sometimes in the extreme, like the essenes, therapeutae, the early Christians, the sadducees. I think in some ways it's a bit sad that a lot of those voices were silenced in the ascenscion of rabbinic judaism. I think that all of the Jewish voices and expression need to be heard and honored, majority and minority voices. There were a number of articles in the last issue of Zeek: Zeek: A Jewish Journal of Thought and Culture | a monthly magazine of Jewish writing and art, featuring poetry, essay, fiction, criticism, spirituality, reviews, and original art and music. An integral voice of the "New Jewish Culture." about the sabbateans and the donmeh, I think in response to the threat that Shabtai's home is going to be raised. I think it's important to give them a voice, even if it's one most of us would disagree with.
And I know your answer to the first question, that the oral Torah is from sinai. I can agree with that if we're talking about sinai as a spiritual place, an inner place, the place of revelation. But if we are talking about that type of sinai then to me we're still standing there with a mountain over our head, still afraid of the voice, urging our leaders to do the receiving for us. And we need to stop screaming for the leadership, the authority, to take revelation into their own hands and become the DIYers, getting involved in listening ourselves.
This goes back to what I said about the israelite monarchy too. The story of revelation is framed as if to say, "You common people can't handle the voice of G!d. Leave that to the authorities who make these rules." It's propoganda for the monarchy.
And yet today many women desire to take part in the public performance of religion, including within Orthodoxy. I think it would be fair to say that men are generally more rules-based and women generally think more in terms of relationship, but that feminine relational thinking that can override the rigid legalism of the more masculine approach, I think it needs to be heard more now. Judaism needs to start integrating its anima.
Oh I completely agree on this. I think that for its day the Talmud was pretty progressive in the way it dealt with women, a step forward. And I think there's a pervasive intention to view a woman's role as good and healthy, as valid and valuable, but I don't really think it's progressive enough for our times. And it's hard to do justice to that type of work when women don't get a voice in the meetings.
Dauer
