re: #31 Sergey Romanov

From a non-observant standpoint that is a mass of commentary that was authored by people not having a direct relation to the author(s) of the original text (or at least there is no evidence of such a relation). So it’s just a religious interpretation of the text. If there was evidence (aside from religious belief) that both Torahs were written by the same person (or groups of persons) that would’ve changed things.

I guess I just don’t understand that for a couple of reasons:

Observant Christians ARE part of the tradition, I mean Jesus (a.s.) was a Jew, so there’s a direct relation there. But nowadays some Christians say the Old Testament was abrogated by the New, while others want to use it (or at least parts of it). That confuses me. Were only some parts abrogated? If so, which ones? If not, are Christians following the parts that weren’t? This is where my original surprise came from upon reading the article. Maybe a Christian will come along and clarify.

With regard to people who are completely secular/non-observant, it still seems strange to me that they would reject context/interpretation, regardless of the source. How would we ever understand anything about each other if we insisted on some sort of clinical, detached perusal? Humans are emotional, sentient beings—everything we do all day every day is done in some sort of context, and our personalities & beliefs color our views of that context.

For example, I don’t believe in the Hindu gods (I realize Hindu beliefs are diverse and can include monotheism), but if I wanted to understand Hindus I would take the time to try and understand the Vedas, the Mahabharata, etc. as they see it, not as some lifeless, detached text/myth with no relationship to humans.

I could never be an atheist. It seems terribly boring to me (no offense). As Margaret Atwood would say, I like the story with the tiger better. It’s more human. ;o)