re: #42 CuriousLurker

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.

But nobody rejects context, CL. The context of the Torah is that it was written in a patriarchal society for the use of the same society, thus in contains such laws.

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.

But we’re not talking about understanding some religion here (certainly not Judaism). We’re talking about understanding an ancient text. Ludwig insists that it should be understood through the prism of later commentary/expansion, i.e. as Judaism understands it (for him, of course, that is not a “later” expansion). But this understanding is not binding upon anyone but followers of Judaism. If I wanted to talk about Judaism’s attitude to women, I would have to address the Oral Law (as it is now) because for Judaism the written text of the Torah is not sufficient. But, to repeat, I’m not discussing this at all.

I could never be an atheist. It seems terribly boring to me (no offense).

That is a separate issue. It will suffice to say that I don’t choose my views cafeteria-style - whatever tastes better ;-)