Debate thoughts....

Since I forgot to write questions for the debate, I am instead writing about my thoughts of the debate:

Both sides of this debate were wonderfully argued.

From the Reform point of view I thought the idea of sticking with Judaism but interpreting the religion was very interesting. Religious texts are writer in a time period where laws and regulations were needed for structure and balance. Some of these laws, however, are now out of date. So I agree with the interpretation work that the Reform movement is doing. They are taking a deeper look into the text and looking out what verses apply to Judaism in a more modern era.

For the Anti-Reform movement the idea of interpretation was a negative and illegal practice. There can be no deletions from the text itself. The text, even if it were written in the past, is still a religious text and shouldn't be altered. Every event and law in Judaism is written for a specific purpose and holds deep religious meaning, so the text should not be altered.

Interesting enough, when I look at a religious text, I am constantly struggling with these same ideas. I know there is a historical background to these texts but at the same time some of the laws don't apply to the modern era. A very interesting and controversial point brought up by both sides.