Originally posted by sumydid
Ok I'll take the last word.
Where did that ad hominem come from? Sounds like you have some pent-up aggressions. I explained my position in opposition to yours.
And I'm sorry if you took my general statement about skeptics as a lash-out at you. I didn't realize you are a bible believer. I should have thought it through a little more. My apologies.
Okay, man. I lost my cool, and apologize for the venom. I responded to that “general statement” before I even saw your response directly to me. Disagreement is fine (in fact, in the context of a Jewish paradigm, is affirmed; see my comments below).
As for my being a “bible believer”, probably not in the way that you mean it. See my post to Galveston. I’ve been around here a long time, and I should realize that people who are not familiar with what I’ve written and argued (from different perspectives) in the past might have a reasonable expectation that I explain myself when I am not willing to take the time to go into stuff that I went into so deeply before. Maybe it’s wrong of me to wade in under those circumstances.
I should correct something I said in my first post: it is not that Judaism, in general, eschews literal readings (which are included under the Hebrew term
p’shat: the “plain” meaning). It is that Judaism, in general, eschews any univariate reading/understanding. On the other hand, the main form of Torah study is—argument: you are supposed to take different positions (different interpretations) and argue them, so that all options (1) get recognized, and (2) are challenged. This process, like Gal’s mention of the “Sabbath without closure” (if I can use those words, which are not his), is ongoing, and there are few readings that are ever “closed out” (except for the one-ness of YHVH, which can be taken either monotheistically or nondualistically without “heresy” ). That means, in the spirit of a Torah study avoiding any “idolatry [which may or may not be used metaphorically here] of the one right meaning”, I can only argue for one reading—and as ably as I can—but without pretending to a final “closure”. (Mostly, the rabbis of the talmuds and the midrashim do not offer a final closure, either—which is why it is mostly incorrect to say something like “the Talmud says…”, even though people sometimes use that a a sort of shorthand.)
So, no doubt you disagree with all of that (or nearly all of it). That’s okay. My refusal to make the time now to debate these questions further is no reflection on anyone here. We’re cool, as far as I’m concerned.