Note to Self #7, and Theology

[debka_notion]

Dear Self,
You've just been reminded that jakal88 doesn't do deep thinking late at night, and beyond that, that he reacts to concerns as problems to be solved, in rather classic male fashion. Therefore asking him to help you process theological concerns rather than finding solutions to pragmatic concerns, starting somewhere around midnight, is just going to be heavy going, no matter what.
Love and Sighs,
The Practical Female Part

That said- somehow I ended up very mildly freaking out about my inability to convey to others nor really to express to myself my view of the religious significance/origin/source of Torah, especially Torah she'b'al peh. I know that I do separate "divine origin", "cultural impact" and "human error" lenses, which I apply not only one at a time but overlapping as well. But since I have never had a crisis of 'what if this stuff doesn't come from G-d? If not, why should I follow it?", I feel like I neither have a worthwhile answer for that question, nor do I have the depth of explanatory tools that people who have had that experience are given through the sharing of that experience with other people who have had it, are having it, or the like. I feel like I've developed these different lenses, and I use them well, but when it comes to Torah she'b'al peh especially, I somehow assimilated its importance without having an answer to that question of "why" on a verbal level. It isn't that I think that G-d gave us every word of it exactly as it is- but it is derived from Tanakh to some extent, and perhaps I am trusting to the passage of time and religious passion to have refined it rather than polluting it. But I know that I haven't given it the attention that the question deserves- because all I hear is an either/or question (either it is from God, and therefore perfect, or it isn't and therefore worthless), and I've already rejected one side of that (the latter) without having needed to give it so much thought- it makes it hard to continue on: I think best by discussing, and most of the folks I talk to aren't working from any of the same starting points that I am.

Comments

[taylweaver.livejournal.com]

I feel like I use the same set of lenses, but maybe in a different way. Also, when it comes to torah she be'al peh, I tend to not use the "divine origin" one at all. Maybe the "divinely inspired" one. But I tend to go with, "these rabbis were very intelligent and learned people. They were experts on Torah and halakha. But sometimes they are products of their time, and sometimes they get things wrong."

Which is to say that I take things like the Talmud with a grain of salt - but mostly, I do take them.

[(Anonymous)]

I take Nakh as a portrayal of the I-thou relationship between God and various people; it informs what I seek in my own relationship with God. But it doesn't mean that I think it's permissible to divorce one's wife then take her back again (Hosea).

As to Talmud, what Taylweaver said: I go along with rabbinic law because I think that it still acts as some kind of civil law now. I honestly don't think that God cares if we filter our water or not. But it gives me a framework to live with everyone else, and family-hood is something that is much valued by God and by people. In the Talmud, there were people explicitly doing things just so they would not be thought of as sadducces (not necessarily because their interpretations were invalid).

[(Anonymous)]

And that was rivkayael. (ay)

[hotshot2000.livejournal.com]

How about: Every well-thought-out decision that weighs competing human needs and makes the decision with the best possible long-term outcome gets the appellation "divine". Once a culture manages to do that consistently enough, those who contribute to its development automatically get grandfathered in on the charitable assumption that they are doing the same thing, and thus also get called "divine". In this way, all of Torah (from the earliest stratum of Tanakh to today's responsible posekim) is "given by G-d" (in the Rambam's sense) -- human error appears exceedingly rarely (in those few cases where it can be decisively shown that someone fails to take into a human need, as opposed to weighing all the needs and making a well-balanced decision which turns out badly for whatever reason).

(The helpful corollary to this is that ideas/positions that fail to responsibly weigh all the human needs in a given situation are by definition not-Divine. After all, there's no point in using what is essentially a platitudinous term (that is, a term whose referent can never be identified in the physical world) to describe something evil or bad.)

(You knew I couldn't resist. לפני עוור נתת מכשול!)

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I suppose that you couldn't- I just still don't buy it. It makes G-d into an adjective and nothing more, and that is just a sad state to force religion into. It also presumes that human needs are the highest thing out there, and that feels horridly presumptuous to me. Can you really say that we, humanity, are the best and most important thing that the universe has to offer?

[hotshot2000.livejournal.com]

Even if the answer to the last question were negative (with which I might readily agree), I don't see how that would lead to the "best and most important thing that the universe has to offer" being an entity that is undetectable and communicates rarely, at best.

I think I'm starting to get why this line of argument is failing, though. If I correctly perceive your starting assumptions, none of these arguments will sound compelling until I present evidence that the texts & traditions that you currently consider authoritative (or Wise) because of their Divine origin (or stated focus on the Divine) are themselves concerned not with the Divine-qua-Divine but rather with balancing human needs responsibly (from which will flow the subsequent conclusion that worrying about the Divine [sometimes called kedusha] is about filling a human need as well, but that this human need is no stronger or weaker than any other, and that the entire balancing act itself is the best definition of Divinity). That's at least how it worked for me, but it took a long time and a lot of convincing by someone much, much, much smarter than myself, so I'll do better to contain my יצר הרע the next time around! :-)