in search of ? a contemplative post

i feel it. as i read more and more about judaic thinking, principles, the torah. my soul revels in the compassion for g-d, for humanity, that flies from each word.

In stark contrast to Christian dogma -- where marriage is seen as a concession to the weakness of the flesh, and celibacy is extolled as a virtue -- the Torah accords matrimony an exalted and holy position.

what a difference this makes! such a difference ... i will not elaborate much further at this point, but just say that my soul feels liberated at the underlying sentiment of the torah wrt marriage and sexuality. repression has no place in the torah. in fact, it commands healthy sexual intimacy for all married couples. one removes the villainous tinge from sex and sexuality when one promotes open healthy expression as natural and necessary, rather than a grotesque manifestation of human weakness.

think on it. how many rabbi's are sexual predators? and how many so-called catholic men of the cloth are sexual predators or deviants? and how does a man, a celibate man who has no family experience whatever, possess the experience and knowledge and wisdom to guide his laiety in matters of family living, child rearing, marital strife? what counsel could such a repressed, oppressed and sheltered man provide an average person?

and now, in my convoluted thought pattern, this takes me to the issue of jesus. the being whom christians call the 'christ' .... the messiah. i have done, and continue to do, some reading on the divinity of jesus. on his message. the notion of jesus as divine does, when one delves into the facts of the matter, seem at odds with various prophecies that existed regarding the messiah. ie - one of many small seemingly insignificant details - jesus, not being joseph's biological son according the gospels, does not then descend from the davidic line, then does he? puzzling.

when it logically causes one to call prophecies into question. is not the word of g-d constant and unchanging for all time? and does it not evoke confusion, to think of g-d in a human form? and ... on top of all this consider the social dynamics of the time. the followers which jesus picked did not follow the laws of their faith - had a diminished experiential knowledge and understanding than, say, your average judean jew would have possessed. and ... at the risk of superimposing 21st century values upon an ancient society, i want to ask - what of all the families that jesus basically encouraged his followers to abandon? i wonder ... its suspect. so many things just don't add up.

so ... that's some of it. i can say now that i don't believe in the divinity of jesus ... that he is the messiah. that's not to say he was not an important figure in judaic thinking ... just that calling him a 'son of g-d (man)' does not imply his divinity - it imples a titled traditionally bestowed upon ancient sages/rabbis - a title of respect, a title which honours a man for his wisdom in interpreting the law of g-d.

and ... well, given that jesus appeared himself sort of conflicted about the torah, i think it would even be a stretch to call him 'son of g-d (man).' one must remember, that to the jewish diaspora of his time, jesus seemed as revolutionary and extreme as, say, osama to the mainstream muslims. a charismatic, maverick outspoken individual who aspires to lead a revolution against the status quo and who represents manipulative disrespect for the law of g-d.