The Break-Up
So, tonight I watched the movie with Vince Vaughn (Gary) and Jennifer Aniston (Brooke), "The Break Up." I wanted to share some thoughts, questions, and possible answers. So, I organized this entry, but not into sections, rather into categories that show the progression of thought. In other words, the category from before will still be present in the subsequent ones.
Personal Impacts
It not only had some portions that reminded me of my short story compilation, "The Quietudes" which shows the relationship from the male's, female's, and their religious advisor's perspectives. It also reminded me of G-d. Emunah (faith; certainty; firmness) is meant, from a Hebraic perspective, to abound in our lives. Whether we are working in the field or the king - to consider G-d and "the world" (Olam: my idiom for other people, animals, nature...) first in those particular efforts. This is paramount to understanding all the mitzvoth (commandments) of Torah like letting the sheafs that fall to be gleaned or to keep a corner of the field for the poor.
Whereas it may seem like a struggle to identify all aspects of life with G-d (and sometimes, we do so in rationalistic ways in order to allow ourselves to do something not a cultural or religious norm) and in fact it is a struggle, it is also a desire and natural.
Review and Analysis
So, back to the movie. I enjoyed it; the characters were dynamic enough, but not too dynamic to make it confusing for the audience. Though classified as a comedy, its more of a dark comedy or dramady; it was funny, but what I enjoyed was the character development. The evolution of the character's and their paradoxes was intriguing and real; the mark of a good writer is to show paradox and contradiction to the reader in a real way, a verisimilitude, that draws the reader into the world's & character's own functionalities.
Considering my parable about internalizing desire and love for HaShem and Torah, it made me wonder. Would people then see G-d as Jennifer Aniston's character: controlling, desiring internalization on other's part without respecting or internalizing love for them, bitchy and non-communicative, retributive for not desiring? Are we like Vaughn by only having self-interest in our own things, down-time, and not seeing the importance of those small things that we do to show another person we truly care about them?
The fundamental problem was not a lack of communication, ignorance or avoidance of dealing with conflict, personality or compatibility issues, or a one-sided selfishness - it is clearly that neither person understood the nature of a good relationship. Even though Aniston wanted a reciprocal love, she was still caught up in his lack of internalizing desire to help her (like with the dishes) as well as caught into the games of manipulation & rules/boundaries/respect (or getting upset without speaking her desires). She may have been less at fault for the breakdown, but I do not think she is scott free of charges. In fact, as an aside, I wonder what others think: who is more at fault in the movie? Why? And, I wonder if sociological implications can be drawn from it - did a majority of men find Vaughn more at fault (maybe because of self-incrimination) or Aniston more at fault (maybe due to an unresolved anger towards women who desire to change them, or more precisely, that the man would change on his own to some preconceived notion).
Religious Implications
So, lets say that my premise of internalizing Torah leads people to believe that G-d is much the same way - bitchy, controlling, selfish. What is my role in combating this possible perception? Does G-d respond to us differently and give us room to make mistakes? Isn't He more loving because He will never forsake us and we can always repent? When we are punished (i.e., for lack of charity, compassion towards widows, idol worship, etc.) is that indicative of a divine selfishness (that we must be like Him or not at all) or is it indicative of HaShem's desire for us to have healthy, vibrant, and positive relationships with each other (that if we do not, the oppresor can trample underfoot and grow fat on the innocent - there must be a consequence to serve as a teacher, but more importantly that we are in His image and thus, He will present His image to show us this form of benevolent stewardship over the world). Do we really seek to become one with, or actually to walk with, Him? Or, do we seek to be clean before Him and reflect His image without losing our own (like "the statue with faces on every side" describing G-d's revelation of Sinai indicating that the assembly of Israel all saw G-d in different forms. This comes from pesikta de-Rav Kahana)? Do we "play the notes" of Torah in some rigid, original fashion, or do we make them our own and come alive? What is the role of internalization and desire?
Since we were not made as representations (idols) and replicas of G-d (rather in an image of), then why would that (exactness) be what He expects from us? What is the role of the Divine Love in this matter? Are Christians correct in their propogation of Divine Love through Jesus (though they have a funny way of showing it throughout history and even now!), or have we, as Jews, failed to demonstrate that this quality is richer and more meaningful in Judaism without Jesus? I sincerely believe it is the latter. Divine Love for us is present in Jewish theology, but it is not one of the prime thoughts that non-Jews have about what Judaism is - indeed it may be a works-based model of repairing the world, one that shows the devotion of love towards G-d. It should also be not only about our liberty and love for G-d, but His liberty and love for us. Some examples: Deut 7:8-13, Deut 23:5, Deut 33:3, Jer 31:3, Isa 54:8, Psa 146:8.
What about indirect forms of this communication in Scripture: His Torah, His giving of atonement, calls for repentance, delivering people from bondage, keeping a remnant to save the corporate, revoking curses, et. al. - we are His children, He is Avinu Malkeinu (our father, our king). We need to reappropriate these rather than continually reacting to Christianity and responding to it (even in search engines, finding Jewish perspectives on Scripture can be challenging) - in other words, yes we are different because we do emphasize how we treat our fellow man with specifics that Christians do not, ie good deeds, but we cannot overemphasize our duty to love G-d over G-d's natural desire and love for us. We just have to define our terms.
In this vein of reasoning that if two people are not seeing eye to eye, what is the role of breaking up, did G-d really divorce His people in Jeremiah? Does G-d leave us because we have yet to internalize Torah and be completely pleasing to Him? Emphatically, no! It is out of His love that we are not abandoned and this concept is not new with Christianity nor is it essential only to it - in fact, the Jewish form of understanding this is more profound.
I wanted to write further and perhaps engage in polemics about this with its religious implications to the Christian concept that G-d divorced Israel (though some say not Judah, or at least not Judah until Jesus came), I want to refer readers here because they said it much better than I would have. If you don't normally follow links, that one is one to definitely follow.
In closing...
Jeremiah 31:31-34 is central to why we are not abandoned and to understanding G-d's love - He will forgive us and we will walk in His ways and follow Torah - commands to us on how we are to repair the world that we break/broke with iniquity because stewardship and responsibility for evil is in our hands, not HaShem's (in justice, He could let us perish due to it, but in His mercy, He forgives and provides atonement, delivering the world for us and with us). We are responsible for evil because we choose what we believe to be good and evil (i.e., partaking the knowing of good & evil) and act on it rather than to believe and act within the contexts of what G-d has chosen, which has latitude. This does not mean that personal choice is absent, but that G-d's desire is that we return to Him. Sure, He may also want us to be perfect and holy, but in repentance it is a call to turn back that leads to His gracious salvation and promises. He wants us to have good and fun lives too, not some kind of replica of Himself.
Whereas Aniston's character (Brooke) wanted Vaughn (Gary) to love her in a particular way without communicating it, HaShem has communicated to us, but gives us latitude in our expression of that Torah. We should still stay true to Torah, but we can make it our own. Like Aniston realizing that there could've been a pool table in the condo after all, HaShem is always cognizant of us and our happiness as well (IMHO, as long as all parties can be happy without interference). He gives to us not because we deserve it or He wants us to reciprocate, but because He honestly loves us and so He gives fruitfully from His firstfruits of justice (delivering us from evil) and mercy (forgiveness). He gives graciously. He gave graciously to Abraham, Moses, David, even to Job (esp. at the end)...Psa 133:3, Prov 10:22.
"The L-RD bless you from Tzion; He that made heaven and earth!" Psa 134:3
In Defense of Liberty...
Personal Impacts
It not only had some portions that reminded me of my short story compilation, "The Quietudes" which shows the relationship from the male's, female's, and their religious advisor's perspectives. It also reminded me of G-d. Emunah (faith; certainty; firmness) is meant, from a Hebraic perspective, to abound in our lives. Whether we are working in the field or the king - to consider G-d and "the world" (Olam: my idiom for other people, animals, nature...) first in those particular efforts. This is paramount to understanding all the mitzvoth (commandments) of Torah like letting the sheafs that fall to be gleaned or to keep a corner of the field for the poor.
Whereas it may seem like a struggle to identify all aspects of life with G-d (and sometimes, we do so in rationalistic ways in order to allow ourselves to do something not a cultural or religious norm) and in fact it is a struggle, it is also a desire and natural.
Review and Analysis
So, back to the movie. I enjoyed it; the characters were dynamic enough, but not too dynamic to make it confusing for the audience. Though classified as a comedy, its more of a dark comedy or dramady; it was funny, but what I enjoyed was the character development. The evolution of the character's and their paradoxes was intriguing and real; the mark of a good writer is to show paradox and contradiction to the reader in a real way, a verisimilitude, that draws the reader into the world's & character's own functionalities.
Considering my parable about internalizing desire and love for HaShem and Torah, it made me wonder. Would people then see G-d as Jennifer Aniston's character: controlling, desiring internalization on other's part without respecting or internalizing love for them, bitchy and non-communicative, retributive for not desiring? Are we like Vaughn by only having self-interest in our own things, down-time, and not seeing the importance of those small things that we do to show another person we truly care about them?
The fundamental problem was not a lack of communication, ignorance or avoidance of dealing with conflict, personality or compatibility issues, or a one-sided selfishness - it is clearly that neither person understood the nature of a good relationship. Even though Aniston wanted a reciprocal love, she was still caught up in his lack of internalizing desire to help her (like with the dishes) as well as caught into the games of manipulation & rules/boundaries/respect (or getting upset without speaking her desires). She may have been less at fault for the breakdown, but I do not think she is scott free of charges. In fact, as an aside, I wonder what others think: who is more at fault in the movie? Why? And, I wonder if sociological implications can be drawn from it - did a majority of men find Vaughn more at fault (maybe because of self-incrimination) or Aniston more at fault (maybe due to an unresolved anger towards women who desire to change them, or more precisely, that the man would change on his own to some preconceived notion).
Religious Implications
So, lets say that my premise of internalizing Torah leads people to believe that G-d is much the same way - bitchy, controlling, selfish. What is my role in combating this possible perception? Does G-d respond to us differently and give us room to make mistakes? Isn't He more loving because He will never forsake us and we can always repent? When we are punished (i.e., for lack of charity, compassion towards widows, idol worship, etc.) is that indicative of a divine selfishness (that we must be like Him or not at all) or is it indicative of HaShem's desire for us to have healthy, vibrant, and positive relationships with each other (that if we do not, the oppresor can trample underfoot and grow fat on the innocent - there must be a consequence to serve as a teacher, but more importantly that we are in His image and thus, He will present His image to show us this form of benevolent stewardship over the world). Do we really seek to become one with, or actually to walk with, Him? Or, do we seek to be clean before Him and reflect His image without losing our own (like "the statue with faces on every side" describing G-d's revelation of Sinai indicating that the assembly of Israel all saw G-d in different forms. This comes from pesikta de-Rav Kahana)? Do we "play the notes" of Torah in some rigid, original fashion, or do we make them our own and come alive? What is the role of internalization and desire?
Since we were not made as representations (idols) and replicas of G-d (rather in an image of), then why would that (exactness) be what He expects from us? What is the role of the Divine Love in this matter? Are Christians correct in their propogation of Divine Love through Jesus (though they have a funny way of showing it throughout history and even now!), or have we, as Jews, failed to demonstrate that this quality is richer and more meaningful in Judaism without Jesus? I sincerely believe it is the latter. Divine Love for us is present in Jewish theology, but it is not one of the prime thoughts that non-Jews have about what Judaism is - indeed it may be a works-based model of repairing the world, one that shows the devotion of love towards G-d. It should also be not only about our liberty and love for G-d, but His liberty and love for us. Some examples: Deut 7:8-13, Deut 23:5, Deut 33:3, Jer 31:3, Isa 54:8, Psa 146:8.
What about indirect forms of this communication in Scripture: His Torah, His giving of atonement, calls for repentance, delivering people from bondage, keeping a remnant to save the corporate, revoking curses, et. al. - we are His children, He is Avinu Malkeinu (our father, our king). We need to reappropriate these rather than continually reacting to Christianity and responding to it (even in search engines, finding Jewish perspectives on Scripture can be challenging) - in other words, yes we are different because we do emphasize how we treat our fellow man with specifics that Christians do not, ie good deeds, but we cannot overemphasize our duty to love G-d over G-d's natural desire and love for us. We just have to define our terms.
In this vein of reasoning that if two people are not seeing eye to eye, what is the role of breaking up, did G-d really divorce His people in Jeremiah? Does G-d leave us because we have yet to internalize Torah and be completely pleasing to Him? Emphatically, no! It is out of His love that we are not abandoned and this concept is not new with Christianity nor is it essential only to it - in fact, the Jewish form of understanding this is more profound.
I wanted to write further and perhaps engage in polemics about this with its religious implications to the Christian concept that G-d divorced Israel (though some say not Judah, or at least not Judah until Jesus came), I want to refer readers here because they said it much better than I would have. If you don't normally follow links, that one is one to definitely follow.
In closing...
Jeremiah 31:31-34 is central to why we are not abandoned and to understanding G-d's love - He will forgive us and we will walk in His ways and follow Torah - commands to us on how we are to repair the world that we break/broke with iniquity because stewardship and responsibility for evil is in our hands, not HaShem's (in justice, He could let us perish due to it, but in His mercy, He forgives and provides atonement, delivering the world for us and with us). We are responsible for evil because we choose what we believe to be good and evil (i.e., partaking the knowing of good & evil) and act on it rather than to believe and act within the contexts of what G-d has chosen, which has latitude. This does not mean that personal choice is absent, but that G-d's desire is that we return to Him. Sure, He may also want us to be perfect and holy, but in repentance it is a call to turn back that leads to His gracious salvation and promises. He wants us to have good and fun lives too, not some kind of replica of Himself.
Whereas Aniston's character (Brooke) wanted Vaughn (Gary) to love her in a particular way without communicating it, HaShem has communicated to us, but gives us latitude in our expression of that Torah. We should still stay true to Torah, but we can make it our own. Like Aniston realizing that there could've been a pool table in the condo after all, HaShem is always cognizant of us and our happiness as well (IMHO, as long as all parties can be happy without interference). He gives to us not because we deserve it or He wants us to reciprocate, but because He honestly loves us and so He gives fruitfully from His firstfruits of justice (delivering us from evil) and mercy (forgiveness). He gives graciously. He gave graciously to Abraham, Moses, David, even to Job (esp. at the end)...Psa 133:3, Prov 10:22.
"The L-RD bless you from Tzion; He that made heaven and earth!" Psa 134:3
In Defense of Liberty...
Comments