I am always mystified by the assumption that the New Testament is the succesor of the Torah, though ‘supersede’ is technically the proper term. Generally speaking, Christians will avoid stating that the New Testament supersedes the Torah, opting for ‘successor’. It is a prudent choice, for it does not suggest the Torah’s irrelevancy, its fatuous and vacuous essence. Yes, it is very prudent.

Driven by a necessity for understanding, my mind seeks to discover or invent connexions. Consequently, I have become the artifice of an expansive and ever-growing, continuously-correcting mental concept map.

I was only able to understand Dante in terms of Rome and the Church — the mythical edifices predicated on some generally true but completely exaggerated stories. However, no understanding will ever make me stomach Dante. He is the naïf man that tries to close the idealistic gap that straddles two antipodes, and fails. Yes he fails to produce an ideal system that combines the good of Church and State; he fails to realize that Church and State are in essence one in the same, competing political organisms; in effect they are anything but allies, any temporary alliance is due to circumstances, e.g., the America and the Soviet Union during WWII.

Perhaps my desire for connectivity will forever seal off the intellectual pleasure I may feel upon isolating a work and enjoying it on its own, as if it s a causa sui. At College, i.e., St. John’s, I was told I needed to do this. My very being prevaricated against such notions; I simply could not bring myself to think this way. I don’t believe in creatio ex nihilio; a work is a product of its artifice, a demiurge who in term is a product of his condition, both natural and social.

Anon the New and Old Testament; I honestly fail to see the continuity. The Jewish god (for I think he is different from the Christian god) is a fickle and vascillating deity. He is both jealous and superficial. His anger is easily appeased by the delicious smell of the ritual sacrifices offered. In this respect, he is similar to the Hellenic gods, who automatically sallivate at the smell of burning fat. Indeed, the Jewish god is very à la grecque — his wrestling episode seems out of place in the compendium that is Abrahamic scripture.

But the Jewish god is a more honest god; as the measure of good and bad and because what is good and bad changes with his will, they cease to have any value. They are irrelevant. God’s will becomes synonimous with chance.

The Christian god is less of a tyrant; in fact he is nothing. He is the rendition of the Peripatetic deities left to petraffact in a cesspool of morality. But because he is nothing but the act of contemplation, which is nothing more than the deprviation of action — morality is external to his nature.; it does not conmingle with his essence.

And because the Christian god is nothing, he is everything. He is righteous and good, he is merciful and just but singularily: he is like an object of plastacine — he can be molded to suit the demands of other beings, i.e., religious leaders.

As an atheist, I am on the penultimate step to faith. I see God’s creation and I am awed. It is perfect, a perfection that denies the intentions and hand of a divine being. It is a sublime and flawless creation.