Judaism

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

Hatred is a valid emotion - an appropriate response - when directed at the truly evil: those who have gone beyond the pale of human decency by committing acts that unweave the basic fabric of civilized living. Contrary to Christianity, which advocates turning the other cheek to belligerence and loving the wicked, Judaism obligates us to despise and resist the wicked at all costs.

About two years ago, I was on the BBC discussing the tragic bombing of a gay pub that left three dead. I referred to the bomber as an abomination, to which Pastor Tony Campalo, US president Bill Clinton’s spiritual advisor, replied that we had to love the bomber in the spirit of compassion and forgiveness.

Similarly, in my years in Britain I was used to hearing victims of IRA terrorist attacks, after having lost fathers or brothers or sons, immediately announce on air their forgiveness and love for the murderers, in the spirit of Christian love. I disagree vehemently. The individual who, motivated by irrational hatred, chooses to murder innocent victims is irretrievably wicked. He or she has cast off the image of God that entitles them to love, and has forfeited their place in the human community.

Amid my deep and abiding respect for the Christian faith, I state unequivocally that, to love the terrorist who flies a civilian plane into a civilian building or a white supremacist who drags a black man three miles while tied to the back of a car is not just inane, it is deeply sinful. To love evil is itself evil and constitutes a passive form of complicity.

I suppose that we must agree to disagree.

About Abram lying to Pharoah & Abimelech, despite his greatness, Abram was, first of all & above all, human, replete with foibles. The notion of (perfect?) saints is alien to Judaism. However, Abram, seeing as how God spoke to him on a regular basis, should have had more faith in God. It is on that basis, I think, that our Sages criticize him.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

If someone does not have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in hypocrisy?

But if someone does have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in something holy?

I admit that maybe I’m not understanding this so I have to ask where the boundary is between telling the truth and hurting others feelings?

In addition to this, I also have to ask how one’s awareness of God can turn a lie spoken in order to maintain peace from hypocrisy to righteousness?

I think that it depends on motive, intention & ultimate purpose.

If, when I pull over to fill up the Mazda, our 5-year-old gets out & eagerly proceeds to wash the windshield and only succeeds in making it dirty and, when he’s finished, looks at me, positively beaming, and proud because he honestly believes that he’s helped his Daddy and thus contributed something to our relationship, and asks, “Daddy, is it good?”, should I then be an ogre and say, “No Naor, it’s not good. The windshield was clean but now it’s dirty because of you,” or should I say, “Yes, Naor, you’ve helped Daddy; thank you” and give him a hug and wait until we get home & he’s asleep and then go out and wipe the windshield?

One can tell the truth and still be guilty, say, of tale-bearing/gossiping. Truth (however one defines it) must be juxtaposed to other abiding values.

Be well!

ssv

 

[Magicsilence]

I suppose that we must agree to disagree.

About Abram lying to Pharoah & Abimelech, despite his greatness, Abram was, first of all & above all, human, replete with foibles. The notion of (perfect?) saints is alien to Judaism. However, Abram, seeing as how God spoke to him on a regular basis, should have had more faith in God. It is on that basis, I think, that our Sages criticize him.

I think that it depends on motive, intention & ultimate purpose.

If, when I pull over to fill up the Mazda, our 5-year-old gets out & eagerly proceeds to wash the windshield and only succeeds in making it dirty and, when he’s finished, looks at me, positively beaming, and proud because he honestly believes that he’s helped his Daddy and thus contributed something to our relationship, and asks, “Daddy, is it good?”, should I then be an ogre and say, “No Naor, it’s not good. The windshield was clean but now it’s dirty because of you,” or should I say, “Yes, Naor, you’ve helped Daddy; thank you” and give him a hug and wait until we get home & he’s asleep and then go out and wipe the windshield?

One can tell the truth and still be guilty, say, of tale-bearing/gossiping. Truth (however one defines it) must be juxtaposed to other abiding values.

Be well!

ssv

You could say:

“Thankyou Naor, you have done a wonderful job”

I know that to me, it is not what someone does but the reason behind it.

If lying is always sinful, and as Catholics we believe it is, then to say anything other than the truth is sinful.

If your wife asks you if she looks fat in her new dress, you reply “To me, dear, you look just beautiful”

Just because we cannot see a way out of a situation without lying does not mean it becomes okay to do so.

Peace and God Bless.

p.s Great thread, I have learnt so much from it + the links you have provided.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I suppose that we must agree to disagree.

But, to be fair, I don’t think we disagree on this to the point that I would say we are polar opposites.

stillsmallvoice:

About Abram lying to Pharoah & Abimelech, despite his greatness, Abram was, first of all & above all, human, replete with foibles. The notion of (perfect?) saints is alien to Judaism.

Excepting Jesus and Mary, this is generally true of Catholicism too. A good reading of the lives of the saints would never be complete without including their misgivings alongside their works.

stillsmallvoice:

However, Abram, seeing as how God spoke to him on a regular basis, should have had more faith in God. It is on that basis, I think, that our Sages criticize him.

Myself, I generally agree with you here.

If I’m understanding you correctly, like you I too agree that people who know God will be judged more strictly.

But I’ve always maintained that God judges the soul of each individual in proportion to that which is revealed to them. More specifically, I think God judges the soul of each individual in proportion to that which is revealed to them in contrast to that which the he has enabled them to understand.

stillsmallvoice:

I think that it depends on motive, intention & ultimate purpose.

I think this is true.

stillsmallvoice:

If, when I pull over to fill up the Mazda, our 5-year-old gets out & eagerly proceeds to wash the windshield and only succeeds in making it dirty and, when he’s finished, looks at me, positively beaming, and proud because he honestly believes that he’s helped his Daddy and thus contributed something to our relationship, and asks, “Daddy, is it good?”, should I then be an ogre and say, “No Naor, it’s not good. The windshield was clean but now it’s dirty because of you,” or should I say, “Yes, Naor, you’ve helped Daddy; thank you” and give him a hug and wait until we get home & he’s asleep and then go out and wipe the windshield?

Actually, I’d say, *“Not bad.” *

And I wouldn’t be lying either since the effort and kindness he used to help you certainly counter-balanced any failure to actually clean the window effectively.

In other words, like you noted above, I think intent counts to some degree when answering such questions-- and your child certainly had no intentions to be bad and deliberately make a mess of your windshield.

Likewise, I wouldn’t wait until later to clean the windshield.

If he were my own child, I’d carefully lean over him and, hand over hand, show him how to clean the window all the while saying, “Here…I’ll show you how to do it even better.”

As a kind father (and not an orge), I wouldn’t be doing anything wrong by showing my son how to do this. I wouldn’t be damaging his self-esteem with the words I use. And I wouldn’t be lying by saying any of these things either.

Please note: I’ve worked as a teacher-assistant working with special needs children for a few years. I also have an autistic son who can be very challenging at times. So I know a thing or two about positively correcting children without damaging their pride or hurting their feelings in the process.

stillsmallvoice:

One can tell the truth and still be guilty, say, of tale-bearing/gossiping.

But then we’re talking about intent more than the action. I do agree with you to some extent with this. Certainly I think many peoples sins are forgiven because they love much.

But, even still, if someone is using the truth to inflict harm onto another person, then I think they are actually hurting them more than building them up.

Either way, one can certainly explain something honestly to someone without maliciously seeking to inflict harm onto their reputation or lead them further into evil.

stillsmallvoice:

Truth (however one defines it) must be juxtaposed to other abiding values.

I agree.

But this still doesn’t explain how one’s awareness of God can turn a lie spoken in order to maintain peace from hypocrisy to righteousness.

If someone does not have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in hypocrisy.

But if someone does have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in something holy.

I admit that maybe I’m still not understanding this so I have to again ask where the boundary is between telling the truth and hurting others feelings?

Be well!

ssv

Thanks.

I hope all is well with you and your family too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You and Mark Twain. The illustrious Mr. Twain wrote in Concerning the Jews:

You can’t argue with supernatural selection.

stillsmallvoice:

We are not conquerors; neither have we any wish to be.

And yet, ironically, it is admitted by Jewish theological views that, as fore-bearers of the messiah, Judaism will indeed play at least some part, perhaps even the strongest part, in determining the course of world history.

stillsmallvoice:

If you mean enemies like Nazis & suicide-bombers & terrorists who methodically shoot little girls in the head, no, I won’t love them.

Yes. Actually, I did have people like that in mind.

How about King Solomon?

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.

They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.”

Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.

So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.

The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD’s command.

So the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.

Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen."

In the case of Ashtoreth it is understood that women were, to put it politely, obliged to sacrifice either their hair or their chastity. In fact, a shrine of this goddess was found also in the city of Askelon in Philistia.

In the case of Moloch, it is understood that children were made to pass between two lines of fire as a kind of consecration or februation. But it is clear from passages of the hebrew Scriptures that the children were killed and burned. In fact, the whole point of the offering consisted in the fact that it was a human sacrifice.

If so, what is the Jewish view on Solomon?

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued

“Loving” them is a macabre pretense. Rabbi Shmuely Boteach (the former Jewish chaplain at Oxford University & noted author) wrote a week after 9/11:

Then why does Leviticus 19:17 say…

Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.

Or again in Proverbs 25:21-22…

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.

Or again in Proverbs 24:17…

Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice,
or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him.

Certainly, even the Lord has become our enemy at times as Isaiah 63:10 clearly states…

Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

…and if this is the case that God can forgive us when we become his enemy, why can’t we forgive others when they become our enemies?

Seriously stillsmallvoice.

I’m not sure what the Jewish translations say, but I don’t think I’m misreading these passages. Perhaps there’s some minor differences, but I don’t think the NIV would have mistranslated these passages so much as to remove the entire context of these verses either.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this-- and I respect your point of view on this. But, nonetheless, the power to forgive enemies and do good to them has most certainly won out in the longrun over harbouring bitterness toward them.

 

[Valke2]

We are also told to kill someone who threatens to kill us. There’s nothing about Judaism that requires us to love those intent on murdering us. I don’t think you’ll find any commentary about anything in the Torah that says otherwise and was followed by traditional judaism.

 

[Valke2]

As we all know we are commanded to refrain from murder. Further God commnads that the murder be put to death. It is not reasonable to assume that we are commanded to love the very person who God says we must kill. Now, is it perhaps a greater thing to love the person who murdered your kinsman than to hate him? Maybe. But that is not relevant. Because the real question is, "is it a sin not to love the man or woman who murdered your kin? Because if we are commanded to love such a person, then if we fail to do so, we have committed a sin. Judaism says ‘no, it is not a sin.’

This is a fundamental difference between Judaism and Christanity, as I see it. It is not wrong to feel hatred for someone who kills your family or has killed your people. But we need to act on such hatred in accordance with the Torah’s commandments. In other words, emotions cannot be legislated through commandments (although we are commanded to love God, but that’s another issue involving, among other things, the biblical definition of love) – but how we act on our emotions is something that can be dictated by Torah.

Torah does not deny man’s nature. It takes an unbiased view of reality, and reality requires us to acknowledge that man has evil inclinations, and that it is God’s will that this is the case.

Look at the commandment to blot out Amalek.

Commanding us to love our enemies requires a supression of human instincts. Similarly, priests in Catholicsim are asked to deny their human instincts regarding marriage and this has had disasterous consequences. Sexuality is natural. Abstention goes against nature.

Judaism endorses life, not turning the other cheek (a commandment that Christanity has, with good reason, routinely ignored throughout history). When a person uses free will to act on evil instincts and brings evil to the world, then it may be instances when we should hate and be repulsed by such people. Loving them does not enter the picture.

 

[whosebob]

As we all know we are commanded to refrain from murder. Further God commnads that the murder be put to death. It is not reasonable to assume that we are commanded to love the very person who God says we must kill … This is a fundamental difference between Judaism and Christanity, as I see it. It is not wrong to feel hatred for someone who kills your family or has killed your people. But we need to act on such hatred in accordance with the Torah’s commandments. In other words, emotions cannot be legislated through commandments … Torah does not deny man’s nature. It takes an unbiased view of reality, and reality requires us to acknowledge that man has evil inclinations, and that it is God’s will that this is the case … Judaism endorses life, not turning the other cheek (a commandment that Christanity has, with good reason, routinely ignored throughout history). When a person uses free will to act on evil instincts and brings evil to the world, then it may be instances when we should hate and be repulsed by such people. Loving them does not enter the picture.

You seem to understand Jesus Christ’s commandment to love even our enemies as “emotions [being] legislated through commandments.” To be honest, I think many Christians make the same mistake. Let us read the following words of Our Lord found in the Gospel of St. Matthew:

[And the LORD said] "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48 [RSV])

The true Christian understanding is that the virtue of love, or charity, is principally realized in acts of the will, not in our emotions (although emotions may play a part). If I will to love someone who has done wrong to me or my family or friends, it means that I choose to act, speak, and pray in such a way that I further God’s holy will that such a one might know and receive God’s mercy and come to live with God forever in Heaven at the end of his life. My emotions, gut-instinct, nerves – however you want to put it – might scream within and perhaps get the better of me, but I should never desire that person’s eternal separation from God. On the other hand, this kind of love should not override the right and duties I have to defend those for whom I’m responsible, even should such defense require the use of deadly force. Moreover, such love is not incompatible with a commitment to seeing that temporal justice is properly carried out, such as jail-time and fines for criminals (even execution when warranted) and the repair of damaged property or reputations insofar as that is possible.

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

Commanding us to love our enemies requires a supression of human instincts.

As to this statement, see what I’ve written above. I would note too that Christians understand faith, hope, and love/charity to involve more than human virtues or instincts when God is part of the equation. When we say “yes” to God and cooperate with the grace He gives us to repent and to enter unto a life of faith, God then complements and perfects our human virtues by infusing in us their supernatural counterparts.

1804 Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.

The moral virtues are acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts; they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.

1810 Human virtues acquired by education, by deliberate acts and by a perseverance ever-renewed in repeated efforts are purified and elevated by divine grace. With God’s help, they forge character and give facility in the practice of the good. The virtuous man is happy to practice them.

1811 It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain moral balance. Christ’s gift of salvation offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow his calls to love what is good and shun evil.

1812 The human virtues are rooted in the theological virtues, which adapt man’s faculties for participation in the divine nature(76): for the theological virtues relate directly to God. They dispose Christians to live in a relationship with the Holy Trinity. They have the One and Triune God for their origin, motive, and object.

1813 The theological virtues are the foundation of Christian moral activity; they animate it and give it its special character. They inform and give life to all the moral virtues. They are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life. They are the pledge of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the faculties of the human being. There are three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity.(77)

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

76 Cf. 2 Pet 1:4.
77 Cf. 1 Cor 13:13.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

Charity

1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment.(96) By loving his own “to the end,”(97) he makes manifest the Father’s love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.” And again: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”(98)

1824 Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and his Christ: “Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love.”(99)

1825 Christ died out of love for us, while we were still “enemies.”(100) The Lord asks us to love as he does, even our enemies, to make ourselves the neighbor of those farthest away, and to love children and the poor as Christ himself.(101)

The Apostle Paul has given an incomparable depiction of charity: “charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Charity does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”(102)

1826 “If I . . . have not charity,” says the Apostle, “I am nothing.” Whatever my privilege, service, or even virtue, “if I . . . have not charity, I gain nothing.”(103) Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the theological virtues: “So faith, hope, charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity.”(104)

1827 The practice of all the virtues is animated and inspired by charity, which “binds everything together in perfect harmony”;(105) it is the form of the virtues; it articulates and orders them among themselves; it is the source and the goal of their Christian practice. Charity upholds and purifies our human ability to love, and raises it to the supernatural perfection of divine love.

1828 The practice of the moral life animated by charity gives to the Christian the spiritual freedom of the children of God. He no longer stands before God as a slave, in servile fear, or as a mercenary looking for wages, but as a son responding to the love of him who “first loved us”(106):

If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.(107)

1829 The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.(108)

96 Cf. Jn 13:34.
97 Jn 13:1.
98 Jn 15:9,12.
99 Jn 15:9-10; cf. Mt 22:40; Rom 13:8-10.
100 Rom 5:10.
101 Cf. Mt 5:44; Lk 10:27-37; Mk 9:37; Mt 25:40, 45.
102 1 Cor 13:4-7.
103 1 Cor 13:1-4.
104 1 Cor 13:13.
105 Col 3:14.
106 Cf. 1 Jn 4:19.
107 St. Basil, Reg. fus. tract., prol. 3G 31,896B.
108 St. Augustine, In ep. Jo. 10,4L 35,2057.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

Similarly, priests in Catholicsim are asked to deny their human instincts regarding marriage and this has had disasterous consequences. Sexuality is natural. Abstention goes against nature.

I think what you are speaking of is a lifetime of abstinence of from sexual relations, as opposed to all forms of sexual abstinence. Certainly, Judaism doesn’t teach that we can or should indulge every sexual whim, or else adultery and other sexual sins wouldn’t be considered sins at all. And God Himself commanded periods of sexual abstinence even in the Hebrew Scriptures, e.g. Ex 19:15.

From the Christian perspective, a priest’s or consecrated man’s or woman’s lifetime commitment to celibacy lived in perfect continence is not natural, but it is also not unnatural – it is part of a supernatural reality. The ability to live this choice is made possible by the grace of God, just as the command to love our enemies must be realized in cooperation with God’s grace. Consider the words of Our Lord and those of the Apostle St. Paul:

But [Jesus] said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Matt. 19:11-12 [RSV])

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. (1 Cor. 7:1-9 [RSV])] [emphasis mine]

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

From the Catechism:

915 Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple. The perfection of charity, to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,” they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

1599 In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God’s kingdom and the service of men.

2349 “People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single.” Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Please also see this article from Catholic Answers’ This Rock magazine: How To Argue For Priestly Celibacy. [Note that some of the Scriptural references in that article do not cite the correct chapter:verse; which fact must have escaped the editor.]

In the Hearts of Yeshua and Miriam.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Valke2]

The true Christian understanding is that the virtue of love, or charity, is principally realized in acts of the will, not in our emotions (although emotions may play a part). If I will to love someone who has done wrong to me or my family or friends, it means that I choose to act, speak, and pray in such a way that I further God’s holy will that such a one might know and receive God’s mercy and come to live with God forever in Heaven at the end of his life.

But it is still unnatural to will love. Even more so than to legislate emotion. It seems that if you don’t love your enemy in CHristanity, then you are commiting a sin. It is just as unnatural to pray that the murder of your spouse, for example, will find God’s mercy, as it would be to love them.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

But it is still unnatural to will love.

It’s also unnatural to bring order from disorder too.

And yet that is exactly what we see God doing in the creation account. It’s also, as you yourself have admitted, the very same thing that God apparently asks for all of us to do too.

To love one’s enemies requires something supernatural.

Valke2:

Even more so than to legislate emotion. It seems that if you don’t love your enemy in Christanity, then you are commiting a sin.

Actually, no.

Before I go any further, I guess I’ll just note three points within any legal system:

Deterence: These most basic laws are placed in effect to prevent further laws from being transgressed-- they include laws which pertain to certain limits of what any society will permit before an actual transgression is acknowledged.

Retribution: These more complicated laws are placed in effect to recompense the innocent when they lose something due to someone transgressing the previous laws-- they include laws on incarcertation, fines, and even corporal punishment if necessary.

Rehabilitation: These higher laws are placed in effect to modify the behavior of those who transgress the law-- laws which effectively to break the cycle of trangressions so that further transgressions do not accellerate toward the more destructive transgressions.

Please note, when one studies a religious text, they are effectively engaging in the ‘rehabilitation’ part before they actually transgress the law in the hopes that their knowledge of the law will prevent any transgression in the future.

Now bearing these things in mind, I’ll first off note that it’s considered extremely valid within Christinaity to justly defend oneself against an oppressor who seeks to do harm to you-- even if this means defensively slaying the opponent who has the intention of willingly slaying you with full recognition of the choice they are making.

But is it the best thing to do?

Maybe. Maybe not.

I think it depends of the circumstances to be honest.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued

You’ve heard of the phrase ‘the greater of two evils’ before, correct?

Well then flip this idea on it’s head and think of ‘the greater of two goods’. Actually, think in terms of the greatest of three goods.

Where Christianity excells beyond the base and secondary points of justice (as in deterence and retribution) is the thought that forgiving one’s enemies, perhaps even rehabilitating them, is actually the greater of the three goods available.

It’s not that administering justice in the forms of deterence and retribution are sinful. It’s just that the greater action of rehabilitation is the most excellent way.

At least that’s how I see it as a Christian.

Valke2:

It is just as unnatural to pray that the murder of your spouse, for example, will find God’s mercy, as it would be to love them.

And you’re right. It’s not natural to do this. In fact, nature cries out for retribution when a deterent law is transgressed. For sure, I’d say that Abel’s blood still cries out to this day.

But why does his blood cry out?

It seems to me that the ability to love one’s enemy is willingly transcendental.

Aside from some traits for self-sacrifice within certain species of creatures, traits where the creature in question instinctively gives it’s own life for its own offspring for example, nothing within nature generally seems to explicitly reveal this transcendental quality.

But should we expect to see this?

To answer this question, let’s come back to what one Rabbi I already quoted said concerning the creation account and the Torah…

It is taken for granted that chaos ensued at the beginning of existence. Though G-d could have made a completed world without passing it through a chaotic stage, Divine wisdom dictated otherwise, and therefore “null, void,” and “darkness” reigned in the early moments of the first day. Though it may be out of the question to ask why G-d decided to initially create a world in chaos, it is certainly not out of the question to ask what it teaches us. On the contrary, the fact the Torah records it means it is there to teach us something crucial.

Indeed, the second verse of the Torah provides an important clue to answer pressing questions, such as why, after five thousand years of history mankind has yet to achieve the coveted state of “universal brotherhood” and “peace for all mankind.” One would think that after witnessing the brutality of war and after experiencing unimaginable barbarism, mankind would abandon physical force and destruction as a means of resolving differences. But war is as prevalent today as it has ever been.

Why?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

As we all know we are commanded to refrain from murder. Further God commnads that the murder be put to death. It is not reasonable to assume that we are commanded to love the very person who God says we must kill. Now, is it perhaps a greater thing to love the person who murdered your kinsman than to hate him? Maybe. But that is not relevant. Because the real question is, "is it a sin not to love the man or woman who murdered your kin? Because if we are commanded to love such a person, then if we fail to do so, we have committed a sin. Judaism says ‘no, it is not a sin.’

It is a sin to forgive someone who has sinned against you?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Look at the commandment to blot out Amalek.

Look at how the Lord did not take the kingdom out of King Solomon’s hands specifically due to the promises he made to his father David.

Look at how the Lord did not destroy every last Israelite due to Moses’ petition before God.

Look at how the Lord sent angels to deliver Lot due to Abraham’s request to save the righteous-- and Lot did offer up his daughters to the mob if I recall correctly.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Similarly, priests in Catholicsim are asked to deny their human instincts regarding marriage and this has had disasterous consequences. Sexuality is natural. Abstention goes against nature.

You might want to check out this site. While I’m unsure of the accuracy of the Zohar texts (they may actually date from somehwere around the 12th century if I recall correctly), there certainly were Jewish sages which thought that virginity was especially virtuous if one was totally dedicated to God.

It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: “He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood” (Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) section Evenhar-Ezer 1:1,3,4). According to Yebamoth 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: "Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. “Man”).

Nevertheless, “if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned” (Skulkhan Arukh EH 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: “with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth” (Sotah 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul (Yebamoth 63b). He was an outstanding scholar (Kiddushin 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness (Berakoth 57b, B.T.).

Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu’im (lit. “chaste ones”) to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in “perfect purity” (Kiddushin 71a; Midash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11; Yer. yoma 39a, 40a).

Admittedly, viginity within the Rabbinical schools was rare. But it wasn’t entirely absent from Jewish thought either. And when it did occur, it seems to be spoken of in high regard if the choice to be celibate was a direct result of one’s longing to devote oneself solely to God.

 

[Valke2]

It’s also unnatural to bring order from disorder too.

And yet that is exactly what we see God doing in the creation account. It’s also, as you yourself have admitted, the very same thing that God apparently asks for all of us to do too.

To love one’s enemies requires something supernatural.

Actually, no.

Before I go any further, I guess I’ll just note three points within any legal system:

Please note, when one studies a religious text, they are effectively engaging in the ‘rehabilitation’ part before they actually transgress the law in the hopes that their knowledge of the law will prevent any transgression in the future.

Now bearing these things in mind, I’ll first off note that it’s considered extremely valid within Christinaity to justly defend oneself against an oppressor who seeks to do harm to you-- even if this means defensively slaying the opponent who has the intention of willingly slaying you with full recognition of the choice they are making.

But is it the best thing to do?

Maybe. Maybe not.

I think it depends of the circumstances to be honest.

continued…

It is not unnatural for us to bring order out of disorder. Creating (which is another way of saying bringing order out of disorder) does not go against human nature.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It is not unnatural for us to bring order out of disorder. Creating (which is another way of saying bringing order out of disorder) does not go against human nature.

But we’re not talking about simply creating. We’re talking about bringing order from disorder as various Rabbis have already commented. As I already quoted, it has been suggested within Judaic thinking that, like God, we have to take the world in chaos and create order and maintain that order. In fact, to fail to do so, the Torah apparently warns, is to let creation and society drift back to its more natural state: chaos.

Taking this one step further, R. Simeon b. Yohai once commented that God stipulated that the world was to return to chaos unless Israel accepted the Torah. He also commented on Israel’s joy in accepting it and Moses’ fight to obtain it — an appreciation of the fact that God’s kingdom on earth can be established only after struggle.

Another Rabbi comments as follows in What Judaism Means*…

Quote:
Rabbi Norman Lamm
President
Yeshiva University
New York City

TO THE EDITOR: David Gelernter beautifully captures the centrality of separation in Judaism. Yet Jewish thought also includes a contradictory strain relating to unity and wholeness. A midrash on the Creation story, for example, pictures the upper and lower waters weeping to be together again, not in order to return to chaos but to be reunited in God’s presence.

The thrust toward unity appears even in regard to the Sabbath, the most separate of days. Building on the words “remember” and “observe” that appear in the two versions of the Sabbath commandment (Exodus 20:8, Deuteronomy 5:12), the rabbis advise us to “remember” the Sabbath by bearing it in mind for three days after it has ended and to “observe” it by starting to prepare for it three days before it arrives. Instead of regarding the day as a gap in the week, they hoped to imbue the entire week with some of the day’s sanctity.

Perhaps the significance of this impulse toward wholeness in Judaism is an extension of the meaning of holiness. On the biblical verse, “Make yourselves a holy because I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44), Mr. Gelernter relays the midrashic comment, “As I am separate, so you be separate.” But another midrash says “As He is gracious and compassionate, so you be gracious and compassionate.” Holiness involves not only a separations, but also reaching across the separations to extend grace and compassion to others. The ideas may be contradictory but they are not mutually exclusive; the Jewish people have been sustained both by their separateness from the world and by their connectedness to it.

It would seem to me that forgiving one’s enemies would constitute the most extreme example of bringing order from disorder. In fact, whenever God forgives us, he’s doing exactly that: bringing order from disorder and thereby preventing creation’s and society’s drift back to its more natural state: chaos.

As Rabbi Lamm himself notes, holiness involves not only a separations, but also reaching across the separations to extend grace and compassion to others.

If we are to be gracious and compassionate just as God is gracious and compassionate, then can you honestly think of a greater example of reaching across the separations to extend grace and compassion to others as one does when one forgives their enemies?