Monday, September 24, 2007

Yom Kippur 2007: Part II

(Read Part I here.)

Yom Kippur day I went to shul late. I found my same seat from the night before and continued reading The Making of the Fittest. I didn't do any praying. I also didn't bow. In Hitchens' book god is not Great he tell the story of being forced to go to church as a student in school. At prayers his fellow non-believing friend points out to him that they can be forced to attend but they can't be forced to pray. Hitchens and his friend sit in their places but they also refuse to bow to a god they don't believe in. The story resonated with me and I have taken on the practice, or lack thereof. I'm finished groveling before a make-believe deity.

We finished musaf fairly late. I wasn't planning to go back on time but around 6:00 I started getting ready to go back to shul. The baby was crying and my wife asked me to "Please don't go." Her request was half joking/half serious. The little babe is a bit fussy. I told her I don't mind staying. "You really don't mind?" she asked. "I don't have a problem staying at home" I said.

The irony is that because I stayed home I actually had to pick up a machzor to keep her from getting too suspicious. For mincha I read the mincha Torah reading and then Yonah.

The Torah portion didn't resonate at all. More than half of the posukim are either telling me not to have incestuous sex (thanks for the tip) or only apply to polygamists. Included in this reading is the "classic" don't lie with another man line. I feel like that line is just one more proof that the Torah didn't come from god. The line shows clear ignorance of what it means to be gay. The implication of the passage is that homosexuality is a choice, which it isn't. (Just ask any of your gay friends, or relatives). Amid all this sex talk the portion also brings up giving your kid to pass through for Molech (some form of idol worship). Commentaries explain that this is some kind of passing-through-fire-test but the fact that it is mentioned amid all these examples of "immoral" sex makes me wonder if it was really some sort of child molestation. [shivers]

Yonah is a strange story. Forget about the fish. Here you have this guy who has every reason to believe in and fear god but he spends so much of his time trying to run away from him. Clearly, Yonah's concept of god was different from the omnipotent god Jews pray to today. That, or he was crazy. After Yonah skips town and spends a few nights in a fish Yonah and god start talking again but god gets all touchy every time Yonah speaks. Nice of god to take such an interest but why would god care to nit pick this guy every time he opens his whinny little mouth? Then there is the idea that all of wicked Nineveh repented because some guy showed up and said god would punish them all if they didn't. Now it seems plausible to me that Yonah convinced the king of his story and then the king ordered the people to do all of the repentive actions described. However, I find it impossible that this chain of events would result in the actually repentance (something god would know) by these wicked people. People just don't work that way.
Eh, what can you do, it's a kashah oyf a masseh (a question on a story).

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

just wondering if you still have a beard, kapota, gartel & crushed hat!

GoingGoingGone said...

The line regarding homosexuality has always been a huge problem for me as well, as I've known plenty of gay people in my life, and very few would have chosen that lifestyle if they had a choice. It is something that even through my most believing times, I refused to accept.

Beno said...

The only homosexual act in scripture that I can think of is attempted by an entire town. Of straight men. (Sodom.)

Beno said...

Interesting idea about Molech. I've always thought that the absence of child molestation prohibitions was proof that God didn't write the Bible. Also, the fact that even the Talmud is mum on this topic is very damning to the values of the Rabbis. There should have been an entire tractate about child molestation.

Anonymous said...

Does this mean that your wife has so idea that you are not frum anymore ? Are you just going through the motions to keep the peace in your home ? Avi

Lubab No More said...

ben, I had a beard and crushed hat but they are long gone.

benjamin, great point about the Torah's lack of child molestation prohibitions.

Avi, I am still frum in practice just not in intent. You are correct, at this point I am just working to keep the peace.

thanbo said...

no, it's outlawing a specific gay behavior. just like kashrut outlaws certain specific foods. it's not a question of choices, other than the choice to limit one's sexual activity as one limits one's food.

perhaps for those who are attracted to both sexes, it's more a matter of choice. i tend to think there's a continuum, between 100% straight and 100% gay, with relatively few on the 100% gay end, the bell curve closer to the straight end, but with an awful lot of people with some attraction to both sexes. for them, it's certainly a matter of choice.

and what is "child molestation" in a world where a father can marry off a daughter younger than age 12 (as was done in Yemen before 1948, to prevent Arab men from snatching up the Jewish girls)? where the Midrash tells us that 37 year old Yitzchak married 3 year old Rivka? The rules against rape are about it, and don't distinguish between a girl of 3 and a girl of 23.

Things do change for marrieds.

Lubab No More said...

thanbo,
Prohibitions on some food is not comparable to prohibition on preprogrammed forms of sexual activity. I can have all of my food cravings satisfied with some form of kosher food. I might want to try a cheeseburger but it won't cause me emotional distress to avoid it. On the other hand, if you told me I can't have sex with my wife (or any other woman) ever I would not be able to shrug it off the same way that I've shrugged off McDonald's. There are many people for whom homosexuality is not a choice.

As far as "37 year old Yitzchak marrying 3 year old Rivka" I find the whole thing revolting. Even if she was merely betrothed to him and he didn't consummate the marriage until later I would still find the story barbaric. Rivka amounts to little more than a piece of property and could not possibly have consented to any aspect of the arrangement. The fact the rules don't distinguish between a girl of 3 and a woman of 23 speaks volumes about their source.

Your blog looks interesting. I'm going to check it out.