Mystical Priesthood

There is a certain sense of “mystical priesthood” about what is called “the scientists” nowadays. They hold the secret knowledge and tell us “the truth” (which is beyond the power of science). Go against popular theories and conclusions and be ridiculed and excommunicated.

More and more informs me that we humans are religious creatures, even those societies that deem themselves to be secular. In fact, it’s worse in the secular society because they delude themselves into thinking they are non-religious, but when you see their enforced indoctrination centres (schools), their gods (science, government, celebrity), and the group mindset of outing the undesirables, they are just as religious as the christians of the inquisition or pogroms, or the imperialistic moslems.




I’ll keep the title simple.

I’m not sure if it’s the cold I’m coming down with or something else, but I struggled to come up with a title. So I’ll just … you know … keep it simple?

I’ve said that already, haven’t I?

Anyway, in this article, I’m dropping a certain word: anti-Semitism. I ain’t using it. To me, it’s a silly term. It’s like someone who has hatred towards British people being called “anti-European.” I have no idea why Jews got the monopoly on being descendants of Shem, and I prefer to be precise with my statements. So I’m just gonna refer to “anti-Jew” or something of that sort to continue with this article.

Right now, I’ve got no idea how this article is gonna flow or go.

So, I’ve been using YouTube for years. I’ve subscribed to a good number of channels. I can normally find some videos that I enjoy. But more and more, in and around those types of video, I’ve been noticing a growth in anti-Jew sentiment. Hmmm … that’s not exactly what I mean. So much for being precise. I mean that I’ve noticed it more and noticed how frequent it is.

There’s a guy I watch because of his anti-state views. But he keeps making statements like “Israel really runs America,” “America is in the hands of Zionist bankers,” or other statements about Israel and something he calls “Zionism.” Even though I’ve asked him to clarify who exactly he’s referring to, he’s made no attempt to respond if he even saw my repeated questioning of his statements.

Recently he made a video about “Israelis” celebrating when/before the World Trade Centre got destroyed and he links his video to another that highlights “Israeli” spies being deported from America soon after “9/11.” I paid attention to the comments under the videos, his and the other person’s. Before I give an idea of what I saw, let me say that guy claims to not be “anti-Semitic” – I’m quoting him – but he does say he’s “anti-Zionist,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. I say this not because I give his claim any weight – I’m losing more and more faith in this claim of his – but because I think the uncontested comments on his videos show his claim to be questionable at best.

Anyway, the sort of comments I see are that the Jews are satanic, the cause of multiple crises in the world including 9/11, that Israel controls the USA, that certain people must hold their tongues lest they lose funding from Israel, that politicians are funded and therefore controlled by Israel, that Jews control the media, that Israel is a massive stain on every nation, that Israel is a cancer, that ISIS means Israel’s Secret Intelligence Service, that Jews are the greatest liars in the world …

Do I really need to continue?

I did a search for other videos about equating anti-zionism with anti-Jewish sentiment. Again, the comments under those videos are still filled with anger or suspicion against Jews.

I wondered to myself what the difference is between anti-Zionist and anti-Jew. When I contemplated the idea, of course, I would have to figure out what a Zionist is. Now my personal view is that a Zionist is someone who supports the idea of Jews returning to or staying in their homeland, the Holy Land, Israel. Is the dictionary definition the same? Just as an example:

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Zionism | nationalistic movement |

I think that’s just about what I said. A Zionist would support this.

But this shows me there is a difference between Zionist and Jew. Zionism is an idea which anyone can have, Jew or Gentile. But a Gentile can’t be a Jew. There are even Jews, even religious Jews, who are against the current existence of the state of Israel. But I can’t say they, the Orthodox ones, are anti-Zionist. They are only against the means by which or the time in which the land of Israel is restored to the Jewish people. They’re ok with the land of Israel becoming the possession of the people of Israel, but not using what can be seen as political or manmade means.

But there are Jews and Gentile against any sort of Zionism, any sort of return of Israel to their land. This could be for various reasons such as thinking that Jews have no claim to that land, that it now belongs to the so called “Palestinians,” that the land is now “Palestine,” that it is an invasion against the people living there, etc. I would say that these people reject the God who gave the Torah – yes, biological Jews do this too. These are anti-Zionists.

Therefore it could be said that anti-Zionism isn’t necessarily anti-Jewish since some of them are Jews. But then again, that reasoning isn’t cogent. People can hate others of their own race, treating them as lessers, working against their own people. So a Jew can still be an anti-Jew. So anti-Zionism could still mean anti-Jew.

In thinking about this, it’s important for me to realise that there’s a difference between theory or principle on one hand and effect on the other. Applying this to my current thinking, being blunt and saying this in unequivocal terms, the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. I’m not stating that with reservation as if it’s just a faith statement. God gave the land of Israel to the Jews and that claim of ownership hasn’t been revoked.

Thinking about the history of the Jews in exile and also acknowledging the weakened and vulnerable position of being foreigners in a strange land, the evictions in different lands, the persecutions and anti-Jewish trend across history, it is very important for the Jews not just to have a homeland (any place will do), but to have their own homeland back. Whether Jews are in their own land or in the land of others, the animosity and hostility that exists amongst the nations is a risk to the life of the Jew living amongst the nations. To be anti-Zionist, whether you’re a Jew or a Gentile, to not want the Jews to have a/their homeland means, in effect, a desire to keep them in a place of scattered vulnerability. And remembering where that has usually ended up in history, namely, dead Jews, to hold such a position is to be, in effect, against the welfare of the Jew, and is therefore “anti-Jew.”

So although, theoretically, being anti-Zionist is not anti-Jew, in effect, I believe the stance to be anti-Jew.

Add to that the overt anti-Jewish sentiment that finds itself somewhere near anti-Zionism, as I gave an example of above, how people who may deem themselves to be moral will allow uncontested Jew hatred on their forums without clarification of their stance. Such a position only adds to the evidence of the anti-Jewishness that is very close to anti-Zionism, if not equivalent.

Now, again, I know, Gentiles and some Jews are against Jews getting back to their homeland or maintaining a dominant presence in it for various reasons. They may perceive a conspiracy amongst Jewish bankers. They may believe the state of Israel carries out terrorist attacks against “Palestinians.” There may be other reasons. And they will see people, Gentiles or Jews, who agree with Jews remaining dominant in that land as “Zionists,” the word seen in an evil light by the anti-Zionist. I may not know how to change such a mindset, but tagging along that sentiment is the directly anti-Jewish sentiment, the anti-Jew.

The popularity that anti-Jewish sentiment has is concerning to me. I’m not a prophet or prognosticator, and I’m not aware of any ability within me to use the signs of today to predict a likely future. But I don’t see any reason why things would get better, why Gentiles will love Jews more or why more Gentiles will have at least a neutral view of Israel and the Jews, or a positive view.

But a question that comes to mind is this: what is the status of the anti-Jew in the eyes of God? How should I view or treat such a person?

You see, although Gentiles aren’t commanded to love the Jews, the Jewish Bible still declares that God says regarding Israel, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” A person who wishes harm for the Jewish people is not in good standing with God!

But does that mean that anti-Jew is now wholly evil? Or is he evil to a significant enough extent? The same guy who speaks out against Zionists and who allows anti-Jewish sentiment to go unchallenged in the comments under his videos will go out of his way to help a person in trouble. He is against injustice and deception, and wants peaceful, voluntary interactions between people. He sees abortion as murder. Do I disassociate totally from him? Do his good deeds and good intentions get covered over because of his negative characteristics?

Hmmm …

Why would a person who doesn’t accept Israel’s God keep the seven laws?

They keep saying it’s unlikely or even impossible, that the chances of it are so remote that people ponder why it’s even mentioned. I mean, you must know of God or Torah to keep the seven laws. You must!

And yet the logic, the reasoning of such people who hold this view, rabbis included, seems wrong to me.

David, do you have to take a dig at the rabbis with every post? No, I don’t have to. And I’m not talking about all rabbis. But as they’re there, in a place of high respect, and pushing this nonsensical way of thinking … errr … why not?

A friend of mine thinks it’s a “pipe dream” for a Gentile to keep commandments while rejecting the God who gave them. And I’m sure that many agree with him.

But I wouldn’t be writing this if I were among those people. Why write something to just go with the flow?

So why do I disagree with such thinking?

A simple answer would be that I believe such thinking to not be based on the seven commandments, but rather on the religion that more modern rabbis, Jews and their Gentile followers have built around the commandments. For a certain group of people, the seven laws are more like statements of faith rather than a standard for behaviour. And you may be able to see where I’m going with this, or where I’m coming from.

When I see “seven commands were enjoined on humanity,” I don’t see the following: “And God spake these words saying, I am the Lord your God who called you out from amongst the nations, from the other Gentiles. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. You must worship God and, on that basis, keep the following seven commandments …” I don’t see the following: “it was enjoined upon Gentiles to know God; it is commanded that non-Jews must keep the seven commandments because he commanded them in the Torah, telling Moshe that Noah’s descendants were previously commanded to keep them.” I see nothing of the sort.

When I see “seven commandments were enjoined upon humanity,” I see that there rests an obligation upon all non-Jews to keep the seven laws, the Jews having been set apart by a different body of divine law for themselves. And that latter part, the separation of the Jews by means of a different body of law, is very important regarding a non-Jew’s obligation and a Jew’s. I put it to you that it was the Jew that was commanded by God to know him (Deuteronomy 4:35,39), not the Gentile. I put it to you that the Jew was given commands to worship God at various times. I put it to you that the Jew was given the command to love God. And I put it to you that the Jews have this divine command, not the Gentile, not the non-Jew. And it is apparent and clear based on the fact that their whole nation experienced God in a most direct way, a tradition that was passed down from generation to generation, a part of their factual history. The non-Jew does not have this history, so there would be something inane in making knowledge of God, the worship of God and love of God a most basic obligation for Gentiles.

What are the obligations, the divine commandments, upon Gentiles? Heeere we go!

  • a command to set up systems of justice; a prohibition against perverting justice
  • a prohibition against cursing God’s name
  • a prohibition against actively worshipping idols and aspects of creation
  • a prohibition against murder
  • a prohibition against certain sexual partners
  • a prohibition against theft
  • a prohibition against eating meat taken from an animal while it’s alive

There is something strikingly obvious about these universal obligations: God does not demand for a Gentile to know, love, fear or worship him.

I believe it is hard for an ex-religionist or a Jew to take this on board. The Jew has this command and it should be a part of his psyche, something indelibly written on his heart, rehearsed as he goes through the written Torah during the yearly reading cycle. He knows the fundamental importance of God. It may see incongruent for a Gentile not to be commanded to recognize the Cause of all. For the ex-religionist for whom devotion to God is like breathing air, something that should be so natural, it may seem like an utter uprooting for a positive command to acknowledge God to be missing from the obligations he places upon his creation.

One of the best articles I’ve read is by rabbi Israel Chait called “B’nai Noah: The Religion, The Danger!” What I say next is not a quote from the article, but it’s what I get from the article.

There is always a temptation to add to God’s commandments, to improvise and improve upon them, to add rituals and commandments to fill some void. Someone who loves God will feel something is missing from the Gentile commandments and feel the urge to over-stress the need for the knowledge of God until it becomes a command. But it never was. Someone may crave some ritual to signify one’s yearning for spirituality, and the Jewish Sabbath is for the Jews (duh!) so there is a desire to create a seventh day celebration or think of a universal sabbath.

But God’s commandments, in a way, say “no” to this creative urge, this overspill of desire, and demands a person rein in their own urges in order to direct them to walk his actual path.

Echoing this, Maimonides teaches,

The general principle governing these matters is: [the Gentile] is not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create [religious commandments] for himself based on his own decisions. He may either become a righteous convert and accept all the [religious commandments] or stand/remain his own Torah/law without adding or detracting from them. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars, chapter 10, law 9, emphasis mine)

Personally, I see how rabbi Chait’s words reflect those of Maimonides.

So for a Gentile, there is no positive command from God to know, fear or worship him, although Jews and Gentiles try to add it.

Since the seven commandments do not enjoin acceptance of God’s existence upon any Gentile in the world, but it does enjoin the avoidance of certain actions from the people of the world, then that is the basis from which a Gentile can be judged. In other words, as a friend of mine would say, the seven laws are about correct actions, not correct beliefs. Therefore that makes it possible to not know God and yet live in a way that accords with the seven commandments, thereby living according to the obligations that exist objectively regardless of whether a Gentile accepts God’s existence or not.

“But such a Gentile won’t get a place in the world to come!!!”

I can hear that argument already! It’s such a shame that there is such focus on reward. I won’t argue with it now. My focus is on the obligation, the commandment incumbent on all Gentiles. I’ll let God deal with the afterlife.

Let me bring it back to the subject of this post. The question was this:

Why would a person who doesn’t accept Israel’s God keep the seven laws?

I will ask the question more specifically.

Why would a person not do acts that pervert justice without being commanded? Why would a person try to be fair and support fairness in his community?

Why would a person not curse God’s name without being commanded?

Why would a person not actively worship an idol or an aspect of creation as if it was a god without being commanded?

Why would a person not steal or murder without being commanded?

Without command, why would a person not have sex with another of the same gender? Or another man’s wife? Or a close family member? Or an animal?

Why would a person not eat meat taken from an animal while it was alive?

Now for each of these questions, I believe introspection and an examination of different peoples in the world gives various answers. I believe Maimonides’ words are suitable enough: it’s just an individual’s mental convictions or intellectual leanings. Some could say “it’s just how I was raised,” how that person was conditioned. Some would say “it just goes against what I feel to be right.” Or doing such an act doesn’t make sense to such a person. Or it could be that a person thinks that the world would be a worse place by doing these acts. It could even be that the idea of such an act didn’t even enter their mind.

When it comes to cursing God’s name, you need to have certain ideas about God and experiences in life to even consider doing such an act. When it comes to having sex with animals, some people would have no idea why a person would do such a thing.

Such people may have never heard of creation’s God giving instructions against such acts, but some internal or external component in their lives means they avoid the forbidden act.

And that’s all the core commands of God demand of Gentiles. Remember, they’re the minimal, the bedrock, not the totality of Gentile morality. So, as I told a friend of mine:
A person can choose not to do actions that pervert justice. So he fulfils the law of justice, without belief in God.
A person not knowing God or just not believing in him can see no need to curse him by his name. He fulfils the law against cursing God, without belief in God.
A person can respect no god and thus give no worship to any false god. He fulfils the law against idolatry, without belief in God.
A person can kill no one. He fulfils the law against murder, without belief in God.
A person can steal from no one. He fulfils the law against theft, without belief in God.
A man can choose not to have sex with another man’s wife, with another man, with an animal, with a family member. He fulfils the law against forbidden partners, without belief in God.
A person can simply think it’s cruel to hack the limbs off of animals and distasteful to eat such meat. A person may not even knowingly eat such meat. A person can even be vegetarian. Thereby he fulfils the law against eating such meat, without belief in God.
In all these things, this person fulfils the seven laws without belief in God. They keep commands of God who they may not even accept.

I look at all these fulfillments of law and wonder to myself if self-proclaimed “noahides” and Jews think all Gentiles are so depraved as to need external commands, accepting the truth of God, to avoid these actions. Or it may be more innocent, that they think that simply avoiding these actions is not the actual command, but rather God plus avoiding the actions is the actual command. But I’ve stated before, God and/or the Talmud stated what the actual obligations are and they don’t include an obligation to accept God’s truth, God’s existence.

One Jew attempted to argue that acceptance of God’s existence was assumed and thus not related clearly. But the following example shows such an idea to be lacking.

For example, let me look at the difference between a Gentile divine command, and a Jewish one.

The Jewish command: you shall love God with heart, life and substance.

The Gentile command: Don’t actively worship aspects of creation.

Question: what does loving God necessarily presuppose? Answer: the acceptance of the existence of God.

Question: what does not bowing in divine reverence to an idol necessarily presuppose? Answer: Only that the individual does not accept the divinity of the idol. The reasons for the rejection could be many, and not necessarily the acceptance of God.

That is the difference between the clear unstated assumption is Jewish Torah Law and the lack of such an assumption in the Gentile Seven Laws.

So to conclude, the notion of a Gentile without or rejecting knowledge of Israel’s God, without the notion of the Creator giving instruction, fulfilling the seven laws is not just theoretical. It’s not a pipe dream. Once it is accepted that the seven commands mainly prohibit action and do not include a positive command to accept God’s existence, then a person fulfilling the requirements of the law becomes not only a reality, but a way open to many a Gentile, even ancient ones.

It’s bound to come up: what’s the point in avoiding such acts if a person doesn’t accept Israel’s God? Other than the fact that it can just make that person’s life qualitatively and morally better, let me end this article with a quote that is very applicable to this article and question.

There is, sometimes, an opposite process when outside actions (not connected or controlled by the person) influence the internal thinking of a person as it is explained in Sefer Ha’Chinuch #16, explaining why the Torah has so many practical precepts:

“Know that a person is governed by his actions. His heart and all his thoughts are influenced by the actions that he is involved in be they good or bad. Even a wicked man whose thoughts are concentrated on doing evil all day, if he should start studying Torah and Mitzvot, even if he is not doing it for G-d’s sake, he will start acting in a more positive manner. This is because the heart goes after the deeds. The same holds true, concerning a righteous man, who lives according to the Torah and Mitzvot, but makes a living from dubious transactions, or if for example he is forced by the King or ruler to deal in such dubious matters, he will eventually be transformed from a righteous man to an evil one.”

Government: Meant for good things?

It’s been bugging me so I’m just gonna scratch the itch and get rid of it.

So I get emails from First Covenant Foundation with their newsletter, First Covenant Connection. Michael Dallen was one of the first to get me into the Seven Laws. I bought his book before I got the first edition of the Divine Code. I even had the book signed by him. He was a helpful resource. There’s little point in saying I disagree with him on certain things or his book on certain sections, but there’s no one’s book or stance that I fully agree with. Even going through the evolution portions of Alan Cecil’s book, Secular by Design, … my God! I’ve never been able to complete them because I just can’t stomach it. But the other parts are excellent; I think he unwittingly helped me on the road towards antiestablishmentarianism (YEAH!).

Anyway, I see the most recent newsletter has a section called “Government, Tyranny and Anarchy.” And you know I have to check it out. The online version can be found here. Let me deal with the pertinent sentences.

The Noahide Commandment is one of “dinim,” or “laws,” which means government.

I’ll define government. Government is that gang who claims to own a territory who people think has the right to threaten, hurt and kill people. It’s a monopoly on (legitimised) violence. The essential “power” of the government is death, because that’s at the end of every threat (“law”): if you don’t do what we say, we can kill you. That’s it.

For Dallen, one of the seven laws is “Laws,” and he believes laws must mean government. How did the Talmud share the understanding of “dinim?” In Sanhedrin 56a it focuses on courts and court procedure. That’s kind of odd if “dinim” means government, unless Dallen is conflating government with courts. In societies in the past, “laws” were generated by court decisions and precedents. But government isn’t about simply arbitrating conflicts, using fairness, but rather about domination and giving threats (laws) where there are no issues. If “dinim” is really and simply about government (which would be expressed in the Talmud more as “kingship” rather than “courts”), then the Talmud knows nothing of it. Rambam speaks nothing of it when he lists the seven laws in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars, Chapter 9. Ramban says nothing about kingship or government when he discusses the law of Justice commenting on Genesis 34:16, even though he puts forward the interpretation that Gentiles are obligated to have a system of punishments to deal with various immoral behaviours.

But Republicans have been professing great antipathy to governmental institutions, denigrating the power of government – that is, government of the people, by the people, for the people, in Lincoln’s words) – to elevate the people’s culture and do good.

There are serious delusions in this one sentence. He speaks of the notion that the power of government is to elevate the people’s culture and do good, and he thinks government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people,” words put forward by one of America’s most well-known tyrants, Abraham Lincoln.

Now, let me deal with the second claim first. Let it be known, I’m not calling the notion of “government of the people, by the people and for the people” delusion simply because Lincoln did bad things. I actually challenge the phrase in and of itself.

Now, in case you didn’t know, I utterly reject the claim that government owns everyone and everything. Such a position can only be a fiction. I say that unapologetically. It’s silly to say there’s a law against theft, the taking of a person’s property without their consent, and then to claim they, in effect, own nothing as the “government” owns it all. To me, it’s nonsense.

It goes back to what some Gentiles have deduced. Yes, I’m actually referring to Gentiles for once. Amazing, isn’t it? Gentiles can say good things. It’s a bit like that saying, “if someone tells you that there is wisdom amongst the nations, then believe them; but if someone tells you that there is Torah among the nations, don’t believe them.” [Aside: it would be interesting to find out what exactly “Torah” means in this saying. Why? Because according to Jewish tradition, there is a Torah that only Israel accepted, whereas the seven laws is or can be something different to “Torah”, see Anyway, there are two useful teachings I learnt from Gentiles.

Firstly, it’s important to distinguish between fact and opinion, between fact and interpretation. That’s the first teaching. I learnt that from a person called Marc Stevens and from people who reject the grand story of humans evolving from single-celled organisms over billions of years. For example, where the anti-evolution people are concerned, they helped me see the distinction between the observations that in certain rocks that have a certain proportion of radioactive “mother” material and a certain proportion of its “daughter” material, into which the “mother” material breaks down, and the observed current rate of radioactive “deterioration” on one hand, and, on the other hand, the opinion about the age of the rock. Another example would be the difference between evidence of a crime on one hand, and a guilty verdict on the other. It’s important to be aware of the distinction between the fact and the opinion.

The second teaching is attributed to some guy called Confucius.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.

Now using this sort of inspection, let me look at the idea of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

First remember that “government” is just the name for a bunch of humans having the same nature as the rest of us, made out of the same stuff. There is absolutely nothing innate to them that causes them to have authority over anyone else. There is no “right to rule.” What makes them different is only the opinion of other people who wish to grant this group, this gang, the manpower to force its will on others, and the faith that such “right to rule” or “ownership rights over others without consent or proper and real contract” exists. (It’s necessary to say “proper or real contract” since there are people who think an imaginary, fictional “social contract,” just a rationalisation that doesn’t meet the criteria of a proper contract, is actually real.)

So the gang, called government, humans like you and me, are supposed to be “of the people.” This has two possible meanings: made up of those from amongst the common people; or belonging to the people, ruling over them. These days, government isn’t made up of the common people, but rather of the rich and manipulative amongst them. America and the UK, like most other places, is essentially a plutocracy, rule of the rich. A person needs to get lots of money to get into politics.

But am I saying it is more moral for a member of such a gang to be from the common people? Hell no! Power corrupts and will still attract the corruptible. The amount of money a person has may not tell you about their moral fibre. I’m talking about the power to force people to do what you want, to take what is theirs without their consent and that being acceptable to the majority. That is an attractive power and leads inevitable to the harm, pain and death of many as can be seen in a cursory glance or an in-depth inspection of government history.

And “government over the people, belonging to them” is never really fully true because it’s normally a proportion of the people who accept the gang, and there is no real means to transfer the wishes of the apparent majority onto the minority without coercion. Of course, the gang called government will be over them, dominating them, but it will dominate regardless of whether a person wanted it or not.

So it’s really a government for some of the people and a gang/mafia for the rest.

“by the people” may refer to either, once again, the gang being made up of those from the common folk (dealt with), or the way that the gang is put in place by “the people,” i.e., democratically, might makes right. Once again, the latter is factually incorrect. It is only a proportion of the individuals that put the gang in place. The rest are trampled over. It’s never “by the people,” only “by some of the people.”

“for the people” means “for the good and benefit of the people.” Once again, the phrase is tripped up by the words, “the people.” “The people” is an abstraction of a group of individuals. A gang can never work for the benefit of all the people, only the portion of it whose interests align with that of the gang. And what actually normally happens is the gang works for its own benefit, for its own good, and whatever scraps fall upon everyone else is merely coincidental.

Think of the fact that the holy constitution of the united slaves of America is supposed to give Congress the “power” to create debts that the citizens are supposed to pay back via the thievery called “taxation.” It turns the people into indentured slaves for the gang. The amount of debt the US and the UK is in now means that future generations of citizens are involuntarily roped into paying the debt under the threat of violence and death that taxation brings. The gang gets to sell the people as slaves, and this is supposed to be for the benefit of people.

Add to that, the amount of people currently incarcerated because the gang makes up “laws” that criminalise actions that hurt no one. The benefit of the people? Or is it more the benefits of getting more votes by appealing to the fickle winds of public opinion?

In fact, the glorification of this phrase by Dallen only highlights the way he believes that the American form of government or idea of government is the ideal for everyone across the world. American exceptionalism at its best. Government has been varied across the world, and there is no objective grounds to show that the American way is the way it should be universally.

It’s gonna be hard for patriots of a certain kind to acknowledge that.

On so many levels, the notion of “government of, by and for the people” is rotten, from its core outwards. Again, factually, government is that group of people who issues threats, demands obedience, uses coercion, and can get away with it because enough of the other people think such behaviour is acceptable for that “special” group. It is not eloquence and righteousness, justice and fairness; it is violence. Right or wrong, it will still mow down anyone in its way.

This whole summation shows why Dallen’s belief that the power of government is “to elevate the people’s culture and do good.” I wonder if such an idea went through the Japanese-Americans who were put in concentration camps during the second world war. I wonder if that’s what goes through the mind of a mother put in prison for three months because a cop, using tests known to be faulty giving false results, mistook cotton candy for a chemical government forbade its citizens. “to elevate culture and do good.” What a distasteful joke!

The power of government is not for any of the lovely intentions its devotees impute to it. No, its power is for one thing: to control people. That’s it! That’s what the word necessarily implies: control.

Look, government is not some creation of God, revealed to Adam, reiterated to Noah and then to Moshe. It does not contain some ideal, God-given purpose intrinsic to its divine creation. Its first usage in the Jewish Bible is linked to Nimrod, that great hunter. That’s just the text. It’s been understood that Nimrod was a man who hunted and trapped people, ensnaring their minds by his words, misleading them to rebel against God (Rashi). He was the first to rule people by force (Ramban). According to rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, nations have emulated him ever since, that “hunter” is frequently used to refer to the hunting and entrapment of human beings, that Nimrod began to oppress (don’t forget that word, you’ll see it in Dallen’s words later, and reveals a way how he undermines his own claims) his fellow man “in the name of God,” misusing it to surround brute force with the halo of Divine approval, or, rather, to demand the recognition of his might “in the name of God.” (Hmmm, sounds a lot like how rabbis and other Jews teach that the force and people ownership of government is part of our divine commandments.)

That’s the first kingdom or government in the Jewish Bible, the thing that becomes Babylon! When people try to romanticise government into some pure force for good, to uplift, to preserve, edify and find a place in all corners of life … *cue the classic Disney music in the background* … where we all live in peace, law and order, where the lion shall lay with the lamb, and there’ll be … Ok. Cut the music! And let me cut the BS!

The “ideal” of government, its actual purpose, is as fickle as the men who created it and those who take office in it or use it. To take some of the words of Hirsch, governments are “rulers who craftily crown themselves with a halo of psuedo-sanctity and whose power, politics and hypocrisy are characterised by the saying “like Nimrod, a crafty hero before God.”

When someone tries to put forward some pleasant ideal for the purpose of government, all I hear is “it’s time for a fairy tale, children!”

Let me move to another of Dallen’s statements.

Contempt for government is no virtue.

As someone with contempt for government, I’m going to be biased against this claim of Dallen’s. But I’ll provide my reasons as to why my bias is justified.

The seven laws are the obligation of all Gentiles, our fundamental laws from God. They prohibit injustice, cursing God’s name, idolatry, certain sexual partners, murder, theft and eating the meat of a living animal. A Gentile legalising or protecting such acts cannot be deemed as good or righteous. A bunch of people who use threats to protect those acts that God forbids can be classed as evil or contemptuous. As Psalm 15 states, a base person is despised in the eyes of a good person. It is a virtue to hate evil.

Therefore, if government does that which is evil, then it is a virtue to hold contempt for it. Governments create, fund and profit from the mass slaughter called war, protect the murder called abortion, teach people that taking the money of others without their consent to get what they want (legal plunder) is right and good, protect idolatry and the creation of new religions, even make cursing God a legal and protected act. Injustice is enshrined in law, to use manipulators as salesmen called lawyers and to use the ignorant as a form of judge called “the jury.” They do much more evil than this.

Violence is the main power of government and death is the threat it hangs over its slaves and victims. Its history is filled with the blood of the innocent, with injustice, with corruption and pain. Even when people seek to use its violence for good, it ends up with evil ends, the law of unintended consequences.

Again, it is a virtue to hate evil. At its core, government guarantees evil, where even rabbis and good people revere the idea of the theft called taxation, putting it in the mouth of God as a divine law.

If there is anything in this world that deserves contempt based simply and only on its track record, it would be government. If you add all the other aspects of that beast, contempt, distrust and bitter scorn should be the first thing that comes to mind when government presents itself.

So Dallen, who was himself an attorney, a lawyer (fancy that!), thinks there is no virtue in holding government in contempt. The mountains of evidence against such a notion puts it to utter shame.

If a person is against bullying, to be consistent, that person should be against government. If a person thinks it’s wrong to take a person’s property without their consent – if, unlike what is taught, a person actually thinks they can have ultimate ownership of things through purchase, agreement or homesteading – then that person, to be consistent, must be against government. If a person doesn’t like inefficiency, incompetency and waste, they should be against government. If a person values human life, since government is the most successful mass murderer in history, then they must be at least highly suspicious, if not totally opposed to government.

To be blunt, if a person values morality, no positive estimation should be given of government. Even if it found the cure for AIDS, it was only through theft and robbery.

Unfortunately, I live in a world where people, even good people, think the ends justify the means, that beneficial results justify immoral means. A government that legalises abortion as well as a plethora of other immoralities can be seen as partially upholding the seven laws, as good, because it makes life comfortable and sends funds to the state of Israel. And we should all support the Jews, right? Right?

I miss the message of rabbi Meir Kahane that stressed the true independence of Israel rather than letting citizens of other countries think they are doing Israel a favour by sending them billions of government currency. What a sad state the world and Israel is in!

Dallen’s call for the removal of contempt for government, that violent gang, lacks any grounding in sense or morality.

One of the principal objectives of every human society should be to perfect a more perfect union: to make government work well. Government doesn’t exist merely to defend private property; its mandate is much larger than that. It’s perfectly proper for government to fix and maintain roads, for instance, or subsidize scientific research. The claim that’s so often heard today, that this or that is not “a proper function of government,” is often extremely dubious.

It takes so much temperance not to resort to the sort of bluntness and directness of speech that sentiments such as this deserve. But I’m fairly certain some of the religious people, the prudes, who read this article couldn’t tolerate such language, so I won’t use it, as much as I’m tempted.

Humans are to create a more perfect union, make the gang work well??? So, again referring to the warnings of old about government, its innate violence, its capacity for killing and wielding the threat of death, this guy thinks “a perfect union” is linked with a well-functioning mafia??? Can an idea be more crazy?

It could be asked what “a perfect union” means. Unsurprising for an American Jew, two traditions rife in statism and the worship of the ruling gang, the phrase comes from the preamble of the constitution of the united states of America. You remember the constitution, right? It’s that document with no innate authority that was imposed on the majority for all time by a small minority one time in history. It’s those scribbles of dead agenda-driven men (not saints or the wise) that was apparently supposed to limit government but rather both instituted it and either allowed it to grow to the mammoth it now is or was powerless to stop it. As Lysander Spooner opined in his book, “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,” (an opinion with which I fully agree), either way, the constitution is unfit to exist.

So having pledged allegiance to this dead worthless document, Dallen pulls from it to link some union to a good mafia. I believe the worthless document was referring to a stronger union between the states and colonies that made up America. It doesn’t have a strong meaning internationally unless he thinks having a good mafia, a good ruling gang, makes people in general more unified. It’s interesting that government makes people more divided. Capitalism vs communism/socialism. One political party against another. Everyone vying for control over the lives and funds of their neighbours. And a ruling class vs everyone else. A good mafia generally brings union if it can find something the people fear, somebody to be against. The governments of today are not forces of morality; being secular, they cannot be, as all moralities (that are agreeable to the state) are equally valid. So called “tolerance” and all that trash. Hence, division will always be a function of government.

Plus, if a mafia wants to retain power, which people in power generally want, then the people can’t be too unified. That’s too much of a threat. If the mafia does something the bigger group doesn’t want, then it can be threatened. But if enough division is added to the mix, maybe, for example, multi-culturalism, then it’s easier to stay in control of a broken people.

So it’s not in the best interest of the gang to have too much unity.

His idea of the ruling gang is that it can have its hands in as many pockets as it wants, anything to help society progress, right? It’s proper for the gang to do this, to do that, to become so integral that people can’t imagine life without it, that people can’t imagine life without a monopoly on legitimised violence, without a bunch of humans, like you and me, threatening compliance. Oooh, that didn’t sound as pretty and nice, did it? But hey, it’s a spade, so I’ll call it “a spade.”

So, for Dallen, and for many a Jew and Jew-following Gentile (“noahides”) and even just a normal Gentile, the idea that this or that is not a proper function of the gang is extremely dubious. In the eyes of the author of the Divine Code, the gang owns everyone and everything, and anything not covered by the seven laws – a whole lot when you consider that even human life can be considered part of the economy and, to rabbi Weiner, the government controls the economy – is fair game for the ruling territorial gang to stake a claim to, to demand obedience.

You see, for such people, almost anything is within the reach of the gang. Although we all realise liberty is not an ultimate goal, Dallen and likeminded people, in effect, want liberty rooted out, for the gang they revere to “fix” the world. And it may be said, “I don’t want that!” But look at what they teach! What is not a proper function of government? According to the words of Dallen, that’s a question with a dubious assumption: that there may be a place government shouldn’t touch. Outside of the seven laws, where it comes to personal choice, is there any real limit to the ruling gang? Realistically, no! They’re supposed to be limited by law, but guess who makes the laws? Yep, the same group! Who interprets the law? Those who the ruling gang choose. What is law, but their own opinions back by the threat of violence and death?

Dallen seems to want to fix the world with that, or at least use it to do some fixing. He’s free to want what he wants. I just think it’s folly to put faith to fix in something that has theft and destruction in its very essence.

Just look at the nonsense he follows up with.

One more point: people who don’t recognize that 1) government should be by and of and for the people – which, we believe, is the only type of government that is fully consonant with the principle that God made each person in His image – and that 2) law must govern leaders, rather than leaders, autocratically, determining what is law, generally deserve what they get. Which is to say, tyranny: oppression of the weak by the mighty.

I can feel sorry for christians. They’re so locked into their faith that they don’t see the delusions. Those who worship the state are in the same place.

Dallen firstly feels or believes that Lincoln’s depiction of government is the only type fully in agreement with each person being made in God’s image. That makes it seems as if the American version of government not only is the best (Babylonian elitism; Roman elitism), but it agrees with the notion of “all men being made equal,” in God’s image. But wait! We’re all equal right? All equally made in God’s image, right? So if we’re all equal, then no man has any innate right over another to rule him, thus undermining the whole concept of a ruling gang!

Well, that argument fell on its face. Tripped over its own feet.

Then he thinks law should govern what? “Leaders?” Dallen wants to be led? Where are those “leaders” taking him and those other sheep that follow? Each of the “leaders” of his country have bombed more and more people, have plunged his country deeper and deeper into debt, increasing the chains of slavery and serfdom that hold the people, those who are forced to give tribute (taxes) in his country. His “leaders” still go against the seven laws. His “leaders” still direct theft, murder and deception. Where does he want to be led again?

And “laws” must govern these “leaders?” It boggles my mind when such people treat the law on the books as if they’re something objective, cut off from the foibles and agendas of human beings. DUDE, THE “LAWS” ARE JUST THE EXPRESSED OPINIONS OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS!!!

My God!

It reminds me of people who take the “theories” of scientists as if they are Truth, as if they’re cut off from the limitations of the source of the theories.

Anyway, to Dallen, if a person rejects the American conception of government, revealed by Prophet Lincoln (he must have reached the levels of Moshe), and also rejects the idea that the opinions of humans should govern humans rather than humans governing opinions, then such a person “gets what he deserves.” Oooh, sounds negative, right? Well, Dallen says what that negative consequence is, right? “The oppression of the weak by the mighty.”

It’s … it’s like Dallen gets his stance just right, aims a gun carefully at his own leg, makes sure it’s just right, and proceeds to shoot himself in the foot!

Do you remember how I told you to remember the word “oppress” back when I was talking about Nimrod, the originator of government? Now Dallen wants to try to say those who reject the fruit of Nimrod, the oppressor, get oppression!?! How can lunacy by written by such a sane hand?

“Oppression of the weak by the mighty.” But what is government, that ruling gang that demands compliance from individuals that don’t have the power to resist? That sounds like “oppression of the weak by the mighty.” What about democracy, the democratic process used to institute “leaders?” Well you have a majority who gets to impose its leader, its rule, over the minority. So that’s the oppression by the mighty in number over the weaker in number. What about those individuals who see two or more evils, and don’t want to support evil by choosing the lesser one? They still get oppressed by the choices of the mightier numbers of those who will see two evils and think it best to support evil. What about the police force imposing themselves on people who haven’t broken one of their “laws?” Videos of that are so easy to find. So in the world of the statist, such as Dallen, the stronger police can get such an individual, and not only oppress him using weapons and the ability to call upon more of his pack of wolves, he can use the attorneys to create crimes to impute to the victim after the arrest. Or he can manhandle the victim for a few hours, release the victim and get away with it. “Oppression of the weak by the mighty.” How such people who give such honour to government can be so blind to its violence and then claim that those who reject government will get the results of government, “the oppression of the weak by the mighty,” is beyond my ability to fully understand. What utter bile.

Then I get a perfect view of his power of reasoning (as if I didn’t already see it).

Tyranny and anarchy are not opposites. When government is lacking, when anarchy rules, the result is still the oppression of the weak by the mighty.

Wow. That’s amazing. Since my point of view has certain similarities to philosophical anarchism, surely I must have been blown away by such an argument, such a claim.

How exactly do I deal with this? Hmmm … let me think.

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous. (a quote from Robert Higgs)

I could use that.

I could use the actual definitions of “tyranny” and “anarchy,” pointing out that a tyranny actually refers to unjust or oppressive governmental power or a government where a single ruler is vested with absolute power, or an abuse of authority, whereas anarchy, in this context, refers to having no government and no authority. Therefore tyranny and anarchy are actually opposites, unless he’s trying to compare the metaphorical meaning of tyranny (just oppression) with the literal meaning of anarchy (no rulers).

He has a very narrow view of what happens when governmental power wanes and anarchy rules. Why? Because places where government doesn’t get involved is still extant in our existence, but not as simply and as negatively as he depicts. When I have a dialogue with my friend, government is not there to govern how we communicate or how we become friends. Without government, we just get along. When someone sells their TV privately using a simple ad, with no government in mind, they can make a non-governmental exchange with another person. There are enough good interactions that happen without the interference of that gang, anarchistically. But Dallen focuses on the worst case scenario.

“But David, you focus on worst-case scenarios with government.”

Actually, no! Amongst the first things I said was about what government actually is, not simply a worst case scenario. It is just a gang of people demanding compliance via threats called “laws.” That’s not the worst case of government; that’s government 101, government basics. When I refer to taxation, the taking of a person’s property without their consent under threat of force, that’s not the worse case of government, it’s the daily grind of government, the very thing that gives it life. When I refer to war and abortion, these are a normal way of life for government, something the pilfered funds normally goes to. Whereas with simply living life without the gang, that’s not so set in stone, not so inevitably violent, unless you believe humans are inevitably and normally violent. I don’t believe that. There’d be little point in me believing we’re all made in God’s image if I thought we had such a nature. I used to think it was just a christian belief, but seeing rabbinical and noahide pessimism about Gentiles makes me doubtful.

Let’s wrap this up.

To underline the self-contradiction in Dallen’s newsletter, he says the following:

National sins are followed by national calamities. Trouble comes to every culture that fails to uphold the Seven Commandments.

I agree that trouble comes to every culture that fails to uphold the seven laws. Funnily enough, generally, governments don’t uphold the seven laws. Can I hold them in contempt now? Or would there be no virtue in it?


Derived or God-given – A possible answer

Well, I shared my previous blog post on some Facebook forums. There were some cool answers. Let me share a link someone responded with.

Please take a look.

Derived or God-given

So currently, I’m at a loss. It’s not clear in my head yet. I mean it makes sense in a way, but not.

I’ll explain myself.

I believed that God gave the seven laws in the same way as he gave the commandments to Moshe: direct, verbal, to be recorded for future generations. When Rambam says, “God commanded Adam and Noah,” I take that statement very simply, that God spoke to Adam and told him the seven laws exactly.

But the Talmud and other teachers speak of the rabbis deriving and codifying the seven laws. The Talmud has a rabbi asking where he gets the seven laws from, and the rabbi uses Genesis 2:16 to derive all the seven laws. The Talmud also records a few differences of opinion about the content of the seven. The view that there were seven is uncontested. And most of the laws are uncontested. But there is a difference of opinion about maybe two.

But then that makes it seem like what people say is true, that the seven laws are just the invention of the rabbis, like it’s just manmade law, not divine law. And it makes Rambam seem like a liar when he says that God commanded these laws.

But I still accept the written tradition, the written Torah, the books of Moshe, and the rest of the Jewish Bible as the revelation of God, as history. And it is evident there is a divine standard for humanity both before and outside of Israel. Adam gets punishment. Qayin (Cain) gets punished. Hanokh (Enoch) is commended. The people of the flood and of Sodom are called wicked. Nineveh is gonna get wiped out in 40 days because of some failing on their part. Again and again, there is clearly a divine expectation from humanity that is not the same as his laws for Israel.

Now one way of looking at it is that there could be a tradition about this code and, as per usual, there is only one group linked to the Jewish Bible claiming such a tradition: the so called “rabbinic Jews” or “the orthodox Jews.” Nothing wrong with that.

But they talk of derivation, which means that humans had to come together and use their methods of interpretation to derive the laws, making it seem like a manmade creation.

But then the rabbis say the methods of interpretation come from God, part of the oral tradition I too accept.

Hmmm …

Right now, I can’t see a clear and easy resolution. It doesn’t feel like a total contradiction, but … hmmm …

But then there are people that tell me that the seven laws were given to the Jews at Sinai.

But then, on the other hand, I mean look at the first minute of this video, a video I enjoyed.

Now you heard what he said. “We all know,” according to Jacob Scharff – I wasn’t part of the “we,” still not sure where I stand – “that the list of the seven laws was developed by the sages.”

So he says they were developed by the sages. But compare this with the statements of Rambam.

“Anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven commandments and is precise in their observance is considered one of ‘the pious among the gentiles’ and will merit a share in the world to come.

This applies only when he accepts them and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moses, our teacher, that Noah’s descendants had been commanded to fulfill them previously …

Six precepts were commanded to Adam … Even though we have received all of these commands from Moses and, furthermore, they are concepts which intellect itself tends to accept, it appears from the Torah’s words that Adam was commanded concerning them. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars, 8:11-9:1a, emphasis mine)

So either Adam was commanded them by God or Moshe received them from God, and if a Gentile wants to be considered as pious and deserving of prolonged futurity, then he must believe that at least Moshe got them when he received the Torah. But on the other hand, the seven laws are supposed to be developed by the sages.

Which is which? And to what extent? And how do I as a Gentile know?

I don’t have an answer yet.

Something to ponder.

Close to the Jew, far from the Gentile Part 2 – It’s theirs not yours

It was not the first time that I had heard the argument, but hearing it from one who I truly admire was a jarring sensation.

It was the claim that to study or keep the seven laws that were enjoined upon Adam and Noah apart from Jewish Torah tutelage was akin to theft. It was among other claims that perturbed me, and they can be found here amongst the rest of the thoughts he shared. I suggest you take a look, make sure I’m not going to take him out of context.

I made a choice some time ago when approached by a kind Jew, a good man, to attach myself to one rabbi. I said “no.” I couldn’t do it. I disagreed too much with the statements of that rabbi based on what others had said that made a lot more sense than he did to me. I think that could have been one of the significant decisions I made that led to me here, more adrift than ever from any seven-laws-cognizant Gentile. But I don’t think I would choose any differently if I was given that choice again. The few other Torah observant Gentiles I know with whom I have some closeness hold views taught by their rabbis or Jewish teachers that repulse me, deeply. The author of that blog is one of them. That doesn’t mean I reject him as a friend, only that we do what most people do: we simply disagree.

Let me go through some of the claims he makes and ponder on them here.

1) The Seven Laws were placed under Israel’s jurisdiction. Once the Seven were given at Sinai, they became under Israel’s rule.

To expand, in another article, he says,

The Tanach is a conversation that the Creator is having with Israel. Even the parts that include the 7 Laws. They were all part of the Sinai package to Israel.

According to Jewish tradition it was offered to the world but the world’s majority turned it down and Israel was the only nation to accepted it and that includes the 7 Noahide Laws.

2) Those who views the Seven Laws in a secular way, wanting to interpret those laws for themselves do something akin to theft, “no different to what the Romans[/Christians] did to the 10 Commandments (sic.).”

3) Gentiles are not to learn about God on our own or else we will turn evil like the people during the time of the Great Flood, the people of Sodom and Nineveh.

Now let me, as a Gentile, a non-Jew, absorb the implications of this stance.

It was taught by the great conman, Paul of Tarsus, that Gentiles were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and foreigners from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12). It seems that, according to my friend and most likely those teaching him, Paul wasn’t far off the mark.

According to Bava Kamma 38a and Avodah Zarah 2b in the Babylonian Talmud, one of the rabbis’ exposition of Habakkuk 3:6 was to say that at some unknown time in history, God saw that the descendants of Noah didn’t keep the seven laws, so he arose and … what do they say God did? Well, Soncino’s edition says that he “granted them exemption” (BK 38a) or “released them therefrom” (AV 2b). The William Davidson edition says he “permitted their prohibitions to them” (BK 38a) or “nullified for them the command to heed those [seven] [commandments]” (AV 2b). Both sections explain that what is meant is that Gentiles receive a lesser reward for keeping the commandments.

Did you spot that?

I just spotted it.

It says that the descendants of Noah didn’t keep the seven laws, not the nations, not the idolators, but the descendants of Noah! And it was the descendants of Noah who were released from the seven! Doesn’t that fly against the idea that there is some distinction between righteous Gentiles (“descendants of Noah”) and the unrighteous ones (the bog standard Gentile)?

Hmmm …

Anyway, what does this mean? For my friend, this means that it is now only for the Jews to not only teach us the seven laws (which makes sense) but also to interpret it for us “authoritatively.”

I’m not going to go against that for now, just focus on the implications I can see.

This means that all nations will be dependent states with limited autonomy, being beholden to “Israel.” They, the nations, must not only be taught about the seven laws but those laws must also be interpreted for them, and these are the laws that must be incorporated by all nations, “Israel” having the highest authority.

I wonder if you can see how that looks, how it looks to the actual nationalist, the person zealous for his people group, and how it looks to the anti-semite and the potential one. All of a sudden, there is a real truth to the notion of Israel and the rabbis ruling the world. I recently got done with writing my disagreement with the Divine Code’s claim that everyone is essentially a slave to the territorially accepted mafia called “government.” The author of that book was expounding on the law of theft, one of the seven laws. Based on my friend’s stance, there’s no point in complaining about where this apparent interpretation comes from. My friend’s conclusion can only mean that my writing is to no avail; it’s “Israel’s” authority to interpret our … no, I mean what is essentially their law for us. Hence, the Divine Code says we’re slaves to the dominator claiming ownership, so slaves we are and that’s all there is to it.

Also, look at who my friend said would be interpreting the seven laws: “Israel.” You can see that I keep using quotation marks around that word. Why? Because I don’t know exactly who he’s referring to. I did ask him who “Israel” specifically referred to, whether it was any genetic Jew, any rabbi, any modern rabbi, any ancient one, the ones who were part of the now non-existent but to be reconstituted Sanhedrin. Who exactly are the ones calling the shots for us? He didn’t know either.

You see, I’m not a collectivist. I don’t take a name referring to a group, have that group name do an action and then accept that groups can act in reality. Individuals act. And there are many different Jews and rabbis with different teachings, some good and some not so good. This is especially true in this day and age where a person can have the title “Jew” and “rabbi,” and, with that assumed authority, interpret the seven laws. Is that “Israel?” Didn’t a set of 4 or 5 rabbis recently condemn the teachings of two rabbis, Katz and Clorfene? Weren’t Katz and Clorfene Jews? Weren’t they rabbis? How would a Gentile know who’s the right “Israel” to listen to? Should I follow a “bar-Ron” or a “Weiner?” Maybe I should follow the rabbis at Yeshiva Pirchei Shoshanim? Maybe I should pick some other rabbi, like rabbi Asher Meza? You see, vague statements are not much help or guidance.

Then it is said that someone interpreting the seven laws without Israel, in a secular sense, are akin to a thief. Let me be blunt about the inevitable implication of this statement. Theft means you are taking something that belongs to someone else without their consent. This means that the seven laws do not belong to Gentiles, but to Israel. When Rambam teaches that a Gentile should either become a Jew if he wants more commandments or keep his own Torah, the seven laws (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 10:9), when rabbi Meir speaks of it being robbery for an idolator to study the Jewish Torah, like sleeping with someone else’s wife, but that idolator, that Gentile, studying his own seven laws makes him like a high priest (Sanhedrin 59a), the more modern rabbis flip the words in their head: it doesn’t matter if it is the seven laws or the 613, it’s all the Jews’ and it’s theft to treat any of it like it is meant for Gentiles to interpret for themselves.

Again, remember the word of God, comforting words, to the nation of Israel, “my word is near to you, so that you may keep it” (Deuteronomy 30:14). The message is the opposite for a Gentile without a Jew: keeping God’s law is out of your reach, so this life is all you have for yourself.

Paul’s message rings in the words of the Jewish teachers: you are Gentiles, with limited or no promise, no hope, alienated from the covenants because God sealed it from you with Israel. And it gets worse.

If I were doing mini-titles, sub-headings, I’d call this next section, “Salvation is of the Jews; the Depravity of the Gentile.”


Because not only is our only hope for “salvation” with the Jews, but if we try to “learn about God” on our own – and include interpreting the seven laws in that – we Gentiles are bound to get it wrong and end up destruction-bound, like the doomed and evil generation of the Deluge, like exceedingly wicked Sodom, like the ill-fated Nineveh. Without Israel, we WILL do it wrong.

It’s almost like we’re no longer in the image of God anymore, no hope for finding his path for us, like Abraham did. Wow, he must’ve been so unique, SO unique! No, even if it were the case that Israel’s only task was to hand us what God told them to hold for us, and then let us have what was originally ours, then we’d still mess it up, because … well, because Gentiles are doomed to sin and born to die.

Look, I may get fed up by people and their disappointing tendencies – I include both Jew and Gentile and myself in that disappointment – but I’m not into this doctrine of total depravity for Gentiles where the only good ones happen to be close enough to a rabbi to convert from being a bog standard Gentile to becoming “Noahide,” so the only good Gentile is a rabbinically governed one.

For me, more and more from the Gentiles that are more closely linked with rabbis, I’m hearing the sort of teaching that makes the concept of “righteous among the nations” hollow. It’s sometimes taught in the sense that in various parts of the world, there are non-Jews who manage to use their God-given faculties to actually sort through the trash in their own cultures to become good people, avoiding the acts prohibited in the seven laws, maybe without knowing the formulation of the seven, maybe going beyond the seven to be kind and upright individuals. But the Gentiles fashioned by rabbis are coming out with notions that would even exclude those good Gentiles because they may not know of or bow to the God of Israel. It’s not “the righteous of the nations,” but the Gentile products and subjects of the Jews.

Is that what it was always meant to be?

No, let me catch myself. Having read enough Jewish books, I should know this is one teaching amongst others. I don’t have to paint the whole thing in the colours of what I’ve been hearing.

Let me state one thing … well, I’ve stated a lot already, but anyways … The idea that what went wrong with the people of Sodom and Nineveh, even the generation of the flood, was that they had the seven laws and tried to interpret it for themselves resulting in the evil that made them worthy of devastation, or that they all tried to learn about God on their own without Israel, that’s an argument without evidence.

It seems that there is so much negative sentiment about Gentiles, us being prone to evil, and I guess it would be wrong to, you know, shine a spotlight back on the Jews who are meant to be our great example, huh?

I’m just … I’m disappointed, that’s what it is.

Actually, while I’m at it, let me just make something clear. I’ve referred to Paul a number of times in this article. He is a figure from the Christian religion. I do not bring him up because I think that my friend is still living with Paul’s doctrines. I strongly believe that he has forsaken them a long time ago. It is only that the sort of teachings remind me of what Paul taught. I wrote a whole book about the guy (Paul) and I used to be a christian with a good memory for the verses I studied, so I am bound to remember some of the things that he said.

Let me tackle some of what was put forward.

He said that God offered the nations of the world the Torah but they refused, but only Israel accepted it, this includes the 7 commandments. This is incorrect. The account is recorded in Avodah Zarah 2b but it isn’t a historical or literal event; it can’t be since it talks of the Romans and Persians. Anyway, in this passage, it is said that God went round to each nation offering them something called “the Torah,” and they rejected it. Did this “Torah” include the seven laws? Well, it doesn’t because later in the passage, the seven laws are brought up as something separate to Torah that the Gentiles (the descendants of Noah) had accepted previously but hadn’t kept.

It should also be added that this Torah was the one given at Sinai, something that would set Israel apart from the nations, something to make them special. That’s the 613 laws! That is clearly what this “Torah” is, not the seven laws.

There is no actual evidence that God took away the seven laws from the descendants of Noah, which in the Talmud refers normally to all non-Jews, and gave it only to Israel making it their sole possession, the taking of which would be theft.

Actually, think about it. Avodah Zarah says that this Torah was only accepted by the Jews. This was their possession, their inheritance. Yet in Sanhedrin 59a, it is that Torah, those 613 laws, into which a Gentile should not delve since that would be similar to theft and adultery. And according to Sanhedrin 59a, into what can an idolator, a Gentile, delve into without fear of the accusation of theft? The seven laws.

It appears that the seven laws are not the possession of the Jews to such an extent that it is theft for us.

A point by my friend is made with which I fully agree. If a person wants to know the refined details of the seven, then it is very important to find the right rabbi (not simply any Jew). But we Gentiles are at a weakness of not knowing who’s the right rabbi with the differences of views flying about. So it’s important to study what texts we can for ourselves.

But it is still possible for a person to be good without a Jew, to avoid the prohibited acts without even knowing the codification. The rabbi-following Gentile is not the elect, the true children of Noah, the ones who are “saved,” whilst all others, the “non-Noahide” Gentiles in the world, are lost.

Come on, is it really the case that the choices for being acceptable to God are either to be Jewish or Jew-connected?

Just as an aside, it has been taught that the texts I referred to, Avodah Zarah 2b and Bava Kamma 38a, show that Gentiles on a whole no longer have an obligation to keep the seven laws, for them it’s been abrogated or nullified, and the ones who get accepted by Jews now have the obligations back. For me personally, and the teachers I’ve listened to, such is not the case. All Gentiles are obligated. Let me quote rabbi Broyde on the topic.

Before one can explore the obligation upon Jews to enforce Noachide law, it is necessary to determine if Jewish law accepts that these commandments are still binding on Noachides. The talmud recounts, as one possible resolution of an unrelated tort law problem, that:

God observed the Gentiles of the land — What did He see? He saw that the seven commandments He gave the Noachides were not observed and thus He permitted these seven commandments to them.[5]

Based on this assertion, Bach,[6]Rabbi Chaim Abulafia,[7] Penai Yehoshua,[8] Maharit[9] (and perhaps Chatam Sofer[10] and a version of Tosafot[11] ) all indicate that Gentiles are no longer legally obligated even to keep the Noachide commandments and those who do keep them would be in the status of one “not obligated and observing.”[12] This can perhaps be inferred from the comments of Rashi, as well.[13] As noted by Penai Yehoshua, if these commandments are no longer binding on Noachides, the problems associated with assisting a violation or not encouraging observance would greatly decrease, and indeed Penai Yehoshua rules that the only thing that would still be prohibited would be actually enticing them to do something that Noachides cannot do without the assistance of a Jew.[14]

Most authorities reject this insight and accept that the Noachide commandments are fully binding.[15] They argue that it is difficult to accept that all of the talmudic discussions concerning Noachide law are predicated on the unstated assumption of the abrogation of the Noachide obligation or even the abrogation of the biblical obligation.[16] Indeed, this position appears to be rejected by every single one of the early authorities (rishonim) who codified the Noachide laws[17]and the numerous later authorities (achronim) who did so.[18] Thus, it is safe to state that Jewish law treats the Noachide laws as binding.[19] Indeed, there are numerous discussions within the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries which simply assume that the Noachide laws are fully binding.[20] (The Obligation of Jews to Seek Observance of Noachide[1] Laws by Gentiles: A Theoretical Review, by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, found at

Let me just make it clear for you that rabbi Broyde is using “Noachide” in the sense prevalent in most of the ancient Jewish resources I’ve read, namely, a “Noachide” is only and simply a non-Jew. That’s it! You can see that in the first footnote of his work.

Again, my friend is correct to say the seven laws are in the Jewish tradition. The whole Jewish Bible, the written and oral tradition, all of it is in their language. It is in God’s revelation to them.

But does that mean that righteousness, the quality of living according to a good standard, is locked away with the Jew as well? I put it to you that if there was a righteous person before the giving of the Torah to Israel, then there can be righteous people without that Torah. And it’s not because I believe in something called “natural law,” as I’ve been accused of before, but rather because I believe that God’s standards, his commands, for a Gentile to act right, are objective moral standards which a Gentile accords with by not doing those prohibited acts whether he knows the source or not.

Let’s look at the word “secular.” Looking at a dictionary, it has two meanings that seem relevant to this discussion. It means “worldly as opposed to spiritual,” and “not relating to religion, nonreligious.” According to my friend, a Gentile who views the seven laws in a “secular” way, wanting to interpret the laws for themselves is no different to what the Romans did to the “10 commandments,” and it can be seen as theft.

Here are the problems with this reasoning.

According to the dictionary definition, viewing the seven laws in a secular way means to view it in a worldly way as opposed to a spiritual way, or in a nonreligious way. “Religious” means relating to religion, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs. So nonreligious means not relating to or concerning such beliefs.

The seven laws themselves command no belief in God and can be kept without such a belief. How? The core seven laws are all prohibitions, concerning actions you are not to do. A Gentile is objectively obligated to keep the commands according to Sanhedrin 56a, “seven commands were enjoined upon the descendants of Noah (humanity, now the non-Jewish people of the world).” If he avoids what is prohibited, he is counted as law abiding.

[Aside: Someone put it to me that in the same way Jews had to accept their covenant at Sinai, the individual Gentile has to accept the “Noahic” covenant. This understanding is linked to the erroneous idea that God released the Gentiles from the obligation of “the original covenant,” a point of view refuted by rabbi Broyde above. There is no compelling link between the nation of Israel accepting their covenant at Sinai and an individual Gentile keeping laws he was already obligated to keep originally through Adam, only reiterated to Noah.]

Anyway, as there is no command for a Gentile to accept God’s existence according to the Talmud and even according to the wording of the Mishneh Torah, then the seven laws are nonreligious, secular.

It’s very easy to prove, based on Jewish tradition, that there is no command upon Gentiles to believe God exists. The question for me is whether I should use quotes or references. Hmmm…

All the seven laws save Justice are prohibitions, commands to refrain from actions.

Only negative injunctions are enumerated [in the Seven Laws], not positive ones. (Talmud Sanhedrin 58b)

Footnote 38 from Soncino edition on this statement.

The seven Noachian laws deal with things which a heathen must abstain from doing.

Two facts here: a) believing God’s existence is a positive, “active” thing, thus something not part of the seven laws; and b) the commentary refers to “doing,” an action, so the commandments cover actions not beliefs; since accepting God’s existence is not an action, it’s not covered by the seven commandments.

Next is the fact that the Talmud, Ramban and Rambam teach that breaking the seven brings the death penalty.

Their prohibition is their death sentence. Sanhedrin 57a

Footnote 29 of the Soncino edition says:

I.e., in speaking of heathens, when the Tanna teaches that they are forbidden to do something, he ipso facto teaches that it is punishable by death …

Rambam says:

A gentile who transgresses these seven commands shall be executed by decapitation. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars, 9:14)

Ramban teaches:

However, if they don’t do this (i.e., set up courts and judges), they are not put to death, for this is a positive commandment for them, and [the Sages] said only, “their admonition not to do a particular act is what leads to their death (i.e., the Torah’s warning that something is forbidden is sufficient to warrant the death penalty for Noahide laws)” (Sanhedrin 57a), … (pg 225, The Torah: with Ramban’s commentary translated, annotated, and elucidated, by Rabbi Yaakov Blinder, where Ramban comments on Genesis 34:13)

So whatever law is part of the seven laws, if a person should break it, then it is a capital offense. Not believing in God’s existence is not a capital offense. Just in case you don’t want to take my Gentile word for it, let me quote a rabbi.

For example, in the freedom of thought afforded by the Noahide Laws, there is no outright, penal obligation (in this World) to believe there is a God. Therefore, while an atheist forfeits his portion in the World to Come; if he wishes to live a quiet life among Noahides — so long as he does not curse HaShem or commit idolatry — he could be an upstanding citizen, in principle. (Introduction to Part III, Guide for the Noahide, by rabbi Michael Shelomoh bar-Ron, emphasis mine)

What about another resource?

The prohibition of idolatry provides that the non-Jew does not have to “know God” but must disregard false gods. (Jewish Concepts: The Seven Noachide Laws, Jewish Virtual Library,

So I’m not some lone Gentile pushing my ideas onto Jewish tradition.

All of this is to show that although my friend condemns the approach of those who see the seven laws in a secular way, a nonreligious way, worldly way, since, in the laws, belief in God is not a mandated prerequisite for keeping the seven, the seven laws therefore are nonreligious, secular, worldly in effect. Remember, religious means concerning a certain set of beliefs. It can even mean “having or showing belief in or reverence for a deity or power.” The laws are about actions, not beliefs.

At this point, someone is bound to drop in Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 8:11. “But didn’t Maimonides say that observance plus belief that God commanded the seven laws in the Torah gives a Gentile place in the world to come?”

Yes, he did. But this was not written as the prerequisite for keeping the laws, that this was the only way the laws would be kept, which many so called “noahides” seem to believe. The very same section in Mishneh Torah has Maimonides saying, “However, if he fulfills [the seven laws] out of intellectual conviction …” showing clearly that the seven laws can be kept just because they agree with a person’s inclinations or reasoning. I’m gonna have to write an article about why this is not as crazy as is made out, why the argument that such people aren’t really keeping the commandments …oh, wait, I think I did the latter already. Anyway, I don’t want to link myself with such religious elitist thinking.

The argument is sometimes given that the seven laws are religious because their source is God. This reasoning makes no sense. Why? Everything was created or given by God including the world, including the worldly things, i.e., the secular things. So just because the source of something is God, that doesn’t automatically make it religious.

Anyway, the fact is that the notion that the seven laws are religious or must be understood in a religious way lacks merit. Does it make any difference that there is no Hebrew word equivalent to “religion” in the Torah texts? Or that God is not put forward as a position of belief (religion) in the Jewish Bible, but rather of knowledge and truth? It may be that, in a way more essential than I even thought, the seven laws are not religious. But then it could be said that the word “secular” isn’t in the Torah texts. Hmmm … interesting. Maybe I’m getting focused on the wrong thing.

BUT … but, as I’m an English dude using my language, and therefore my concepts, since belief in God is not a part of the seven laws, and the laws are not beliefs, then the seven laws aren’t religious and can be seen as secular, especially since they’re supposed to be the ultimate law of nations with worldly (secular) punishments.

Should we Gentiles interpret the law for ourselves? I’ve already conceded that refined understanding of the details of the laws should come from the Jews, but what exactly is happening? My friend said the unknown “Israel” must “interpret” the laws. What does that mean? To “interpret?” Again, he used an English word, so I’ll again use an English dictionary.

To interpret means to explain or clarify the meaning of something. It makes sense that those entrusted with the seven laws should explain them to Gentiles, at least at first anyway. I can’t argue with that. Who would?

But – did you see that coming? – this is where we Gentiles are at a loss and a very serious disadvantage. Why? Let’s compare the seven laws as written down by Rambam or even as discussed in the Talmud with works like the Divine Code, like even the Path of the Righteous Gentile and similar works out there by rabbis. Remember, the seven laws are supposed to be those prohibitions that bring the liability of death according to Rambam, Ramban and the Talmud. So it would make sense that a rabbi explain to me what the law of idolatry is or the law of murder or the law of theft. But when the rabbi starts talking about things that don’t involve the seven core commands, he is no longer explaining the seven laws. If a rabbi teaches “It is forbidden to arrange a discussion or a debate with one who prophesies in the name of idols” (pg 59 of the Divine Code), then he’s not explaining the law of idolatry. If a rabbi teaches, “hunting merely for the sake of sport is not permitted because of the pain caused to the animal” (pg 350 of the Divine Code), then he is not explaining the prohibition against eating meat taken from an animal while it’s alive. If a rabbi teaches “it is forbidden for a person who was wronged to be cruel and not let himself be appeased” (pg 126), then he’s not explaining the seven laws at all. But we are in a loss in the way that many are conditioned to simply accept authority, and a rabbi is seen as being in a position of authority. This person is then declaring things forbidden which are not part of the seven. So he’s supposed to be part of the “Israel” that gets to “authoritatively interpret” or explain our law, yet now he’s authoritatively dictating all Gentile morality. I don’t think many people are gonna see a problem with that, but I do. Maybe a study into Milgram’s psychology experiment into the power of authority is applicable here.

In addition, think about this with me. So “Israel” has the seven laws to authoritatively explain and clarify it to Gentiles. Ok. That’s fine. Now a Gentile spends time learning the seven laws, studying them, understanding them. Now can’t this Gentile explain/interpret the seven? Even authoritatively? What stops him? Doesn’t his very knowledge give him the “authority?” Of course, I’m using “authority” in the sense of expertise, since in no way do Jews have “authority,” meaning the right to rule, over Gentiles, even in terms of our laws. Yet some seem to imagine a declaration from God saying to that non-Jew, “actually, no, you can’t explain it only and simply because you’re not Israel.” But the Jew learns the seven laws as a bystander, not actually part of the Gentile world that must apply the laws, and maybe he learns it to a lesser extent than a studied Gentile who actually lives and applies the laws. But in the worldview presented by my friend, the Jew can explain it “authoritatively,” but the studied Gentile cannot? Does that make sense?

It’s like certain rabbis, not all, enjoy holding and maintaining a monopoly on teaching Torah, enjoy having Jews maintain that monopoly. Even though their earlier sages distinguished between the Torah received at Sinai and the seven laws for Gentiles, these rabbis wish to expand that monopoly onto the seven laws and stake a claim on our divine laws when they teach that, no matter how educated a Gentile is, only the rabbis rule; only the Jews rule.

But remember! According to my friend, Gentiles are doomed to get it all wrong. So maybe we just need our hand held in everything. If someone like Alan Cecil saw this sort of teaching – he probably already has – he’d make some accusation against such rabbis believing their souls to be of superior nature to us inferior Gentiles such that only they can transmit our seven laws. It’s not difficult to come to such conclusions. Actually I just read an old article of his which is almost a rebuttal to my friend’s stance even before he wrote it. It can be found here.

Do NOT show this sort of thinking to an anti-Semite, a nationalist, in fact to any person who has a better view of humanity than this.

Also I have my doubts about how much is really in the seven laws for the rabbis to “authoritatively explain.” I’ll go back to my preferred subject, government. So some rabbis have “explained” that the Gentile law of theft has God commanding man that he is owned by whatever government gets enough people to accept its rule. Let me just remind you (myself) of how Rambam described the seven laws that Gentiles are obligated to keep.

This applies only when he accepts them and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moses, our teacher, that Noah’s descendants had been commanded to fulfill them previously. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 8:11)

So Noah, and possibly Adam, had previously been commanded to fulfil these laws. So God commanded Adam, who first got the law of theft, that, according to the Divine Code, there would been something called a king and that he would own everyone and everything in a certain territory, including the people, therefore implying that the vast majority of his descendants would be slaves, owned and coerced by others. It’s possible of course, just hard to imagine. Or maybe Noah, who was given his covenant before the coming of the first kingdom of Babel, was taught this detail. Or maybe this was one of those modifications that God attached to the seven laws at the time of Moses, that most Gentiles are slaves. But was this a tradition handed down or was it another derivation of the rabbis using their esoteric methods of law derivation? Who knows?

Again, I have my doubts. But I’m only a Gentile outside of the circle of the esoteric teachings only meant for Jews. It seems, according to more of those calling themselves “noahide,” it is my lot to just shut up and take what I’m given, lest I refuse and be lost.


I’m skeptical. I’m alone, adrift and skeptical. And if I continue typing, I don’t know when I’ll stop, so I’ll stop now.

My friend has shown himself to be one of the most honourable men I know. I am without doubt that his heart is God-ward. But his article is a sign of a trend I see which warns me even more against attaching myself to any rabbi. His article shows me a perceived great distance between a Gentile and the laws the tradition says is his. His message shows me that, in this worldview, most Gentiles historically and presently are doomed not because of what they do but because of what they don’t know or what they don’t believe.

That’s my conclusion. Maybe it’s wrong. Maybe

I know where I am

I’ve been very reluctant to share certain of my thoughts. I’ve been afraid that if I share them, they will be used to smear other people who respect Torah. For me to express these “heretical” thoughts could mean that the “reputation” of the seven laws may be tarnished to other Gentiles who uphold the seven laws.

I’m getting a sense of deja vu since I written something like this before.

You see, I hold extreme views that normally bring out laughter, scorn, pity and other negative emotions from others. Why would I want to do anything to cause people to insults the glory of God, his truth?

But I’ve said it more than once, so I’ll say it again. I already hold “heretical,” minority views, views that have led all sorts of people, including rabbis, to call me stupid. I’m adamant about the active truth of God’s existence, the God of Israel and Torah. By “active,” I don’t refer to some passive, private inner truth, but one that is actually meant to impact the world, both politically, educationally, economically, and that conflicts with so many of the people around me, even so called “noahides” and the secular system of the country I live in. This is part of what led to me getting kicked out of a noahide group.

I’m an anti-establishmentarian, anti-government, who could even be seen as a philosophical anarchist (no, not Antifa, or any violent chaos dealer or the violent communists of America). Such a way of thinking is so so rare, especially amongst the Torah-observers out there, an arena where it is taught that people should be subservient to the territorially accepted mafia called “government,” that every individual and all land belongs to that gang, which inevitably makes human life a question of wealth, part of the economics, to be used and dispensed with in a whole gamut of ways by the mafia that owns everyone. In this, my opposition to government, I’m almost totally alone amongst those who knowingly observe Torah.

I give no credence at all to the dictates of a certain, popular sect of “scientists” and much of society about our universal origins and history. I utterly scorn fictions such as “the Big Bang theory,” the story of universal and biological development, where man and the diversity of the ecosystem comes from single celled lifeforms known colloquially as “evolution.” In fact, with the whole scientific industry, I make a distinct difference between the useful theories and probable conclusions generated by the minds of men, and actual reality and objective truth. Such a stance is, again, seemingly rare.

And let me be brutally honest. I stand for the position that God meta-naturally created the universe, the sky and the earth, and all that is in them in six normal days and that he rested on the seventh day, and that this took place around 6000 years. I hold to be true that, in accordance with the ancient art and the record of humans throughout history, that man lived with what we now call “dinosaurs.” I hold to be true that God destroyed the vast majority of life on earth in a worldwide, global Deluge, a meta-natural event with physical consequences, saving only those who got on board the ark of Noah (some other lifeforms like water creatures and insects, some of each, were not directly included in the destruction).

So I already hold views that are looked down upon, scorned or held in ridicule by so, so many, even amongst a possible majority of those who are supposed to share my worldview. Why on earth would or should I care about sharing another “ridiculous” view on my own blogspace? It’s not as if I’m doing this for publicity or being attractive to others.

Why am I afraid? I should stop. I will stop. The few out there that hold my view share it regardless. When a person sees something as true, the possible ridicule of others should not silence that person, right? This is me and my view and I’ve never represented anyone except myself. So I’ll share my view regardless.

OK, enough introduction. Let me just get into it.

When I left Christianity, and even before that, my faith in many things was shaken. I saw the need, the importance, of having or seeking sufficient reason or evidence to hold the views that I have. At first, this principle covered what I believed about God and his Torah revelation, but I soon found that this applied to so many other areas. I could not take things for granted; I needed to find out if my views were based on a firm foundation.

I had already found reasons to be highly skeptical, to the point of outright dismissal, of the naturalistic story of the big bang, of the origin and development of elements, galaxies, stars, planets, and the notion of inanimate, sterile environments producing life naturalistically, and that simple life developing, over billions of years, into the diversity of the current ecosystem, and all this by means of a mindless, unintelligent, stupid and purposeless process. With that dismissal, I also rejected the attempts of God-fearers to incorporate that story into the Torah creation story of the universe, holding the naturalistic story to such a high level of truth that it could be used to reinterpret (to me, undermine) the early chapters of Genesis.

Learning more about what science was and what scientists actually do, I started to wonder about the foundation of my views about certain popular models produced by scientists. Knowing that God’s truth is absolute and man’s science was probable and tentative, able to be flipped over and overturned with the discovery of new evidence, I wondered what I held to be absolutely true from scientists.

I had been taught at school, in an uncritical manner, a lot like indoctrination … no, it was indoctrination, that the earth span on its axis and orbited the sun. I learnt later that, in this model, the whole “solar system” was also hurtling and great speeds in a spiral galaxy, a galaxy that may also be moving through the void. But this is what I was taught. That’s what I believed. When it was said, in an absolute and factual manner, on TV programmes and by other people, I just took it as fact.

But the earthquakes in my life caused me to wonder, why did I even accept this? I mean, I remember no evidences given for the idea. I personally had never seen the earth circle the sun or spin on an axis. From where I stand, most motion in the sky circles the Earth.

What about my highest authority, God? Did his revelation say anything on the subject? There’s no point in asking if he’s allowed to say anything on it because this is his universe, so that goes without saying that I should at least check with him. If anyone could say what really moves and what doesn’t, it could only be him. I’ll show later why I hold the view that only he could verify this.

Reading the Bible, there was more mention of the movement of the sun and the stability of the world than the notion of the world moving around the sun. I’m not gonna go into the verses as this article is more a summary than a detailed presentation. But the fact that the creation of the universe is centred on the earth and comments about the sun’s circuit or movement were quite clear to me.

My thoughts after that was not “should I view those passages metaphorically or simply in the language of appearances, how things would look from an earth-bound, human point of view?” In order for me to consider that way of thinking, there would have to be a firm and absolute Truth that would necessitate that method of interpretation. I didn’t have that. I had no evidence to make the sun-centred planetary system the true truth. I had only taken that on faith, because of secular indoctrination, not because of some direct observation or compelling reasoning.

But there was still the fact that many people, maybe the vast majority, believed in the spin and orbit of the earth. But when it came to asking those people for the reasons they held that belief, many times, they had the same experience as me: simple secular indoctrination and uncritical teaching. If they were bold enough to mention Galileo proposing or even proving the idea, when I asked them what the evidences were that Galileo presented, no one, not a single one, had a clue. Again, the power of secular indoctrination.

I took the time to try to find those evidences. What I found was that not a single shred of evidence he used – the phases of Venus, the moons that orbited Jupiter, and the sun supposedly rotating on its own axis once a month – not one of these “evidences” even touched the idea of the earth being still or the sun going round it. But the fact that people even bring up Galileo as proof for the sun-centred system, or even the notion of science vs religion, shows that “fake news” has been in existence for at least centuries (how much of accepted recorded history is not true?), and it shows the woefully poor quality of education in the western world. I shake my head in disappointment when I hear Torah observant Jews and Gentiles parrot this old piece of falsehood.

So if I had been in Galileo’s time, I would have rejected his presumptuous demands on those around him to accept his story as truth.

When I asked people around me when the sun-centred system was proven, they would tell that it was done centuries ago. As I investigated further and thought about the issues involved, a number of problems came in my mind.

Firstly, it was the problem of absolute motion and rest as opposed to relative motion and rest. When it comes to planetary and stellar movement, I had to wonder if humans were capable of measuring absolute motion. When people measure or observe motion, it is always in relation to (or relative to) something else. They must create a subjectively fixed position against which the object in question can be measured in terms of movement. But that’s relative motion. And everything around us is moving. We’re trapped in the “bottle” of universal motion, of relative motion, and there is no out. There’s only one being that can truly say what moves or not, one not bound by the universal motions. Yep, you guessed it: God!

So if no human can tell me what absolutely moves or rests, then how can they talk of the earth absolutely and truly moving? They could only say, if the earth was at rest relative to the sun, the universe kinematically (in terms of motion alone) would move in so and so a manner, and that if the earth was in motion relative to the sun, the universe would move in so and so manner. But then it would only be about picking a point of reference and all the rest of the motion would be relatively the same. This was said by scientists such as Fred Hoyle and Ernst Mach.

A person may say that they need to have the earth moving for their maths to make sense, for the house of cards of scientific hypotheses and stories to hold, for things to make sense. But as I said before, there is a difference between the scribbles and ideas of man and its limitations, and actual reality. The theories are not reality. They’re just a mental attempt to understand (an aspect of) it.

Secondly, I have an issue with the claim that earth’s absolute (not relative) movement (translation and rotation) was proved centuries ago. I’ve read about the supposed evidences for this absolute movement and it doesn’t prove it at all. In fact, it was shown to me that even in the 20th century, more well-known scientists, like Einstein, Hoyle and others, who were saying that no optical experiment had shown such movement, that the motion of the earth had never been detected. This is in spite of the discovery of stellar aberration and parallax, certain observed movements of stars, which were found before the 20th century. It seems the fact is that the Earth has never been shown to be moving. And I’ve seen the evidence proposed by various atheistic websites that throw insults upon such thoughts as mine, and every time what is measured is not the motion of the earth, but some other effect that is then interpreted as meaning the earth must move (although, relatively speaking, such motion must be accountable by the earth also standing still).

For me, I’ve seen no direct observable and experienced fact that shows the earth must be moving.

Here I must stop and clarify something. Many times when “geocentrism,” the notion of a non-moving, non-spinning earth in the centre of the universe, is brought up, the first model that appears in a person’s head is one where the sun and the planets moving in concentric circles around the earth, a bit like the solar system model but with the earth in the centre instead of the sun.

It’s like they conflate “earth-centred” with Ptolemy’s earth centred model, as if that was the only one around. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m only talking about the earth being the centre of the universe, not moving. The motions around it may not be as simple, but as long as the earth is in the centre, that the main point. For example,

When I approached a work colleague about evidences for a sun-centred planetary system, he brought the idea that scientists have found that the universe doesn’t work with an earth in the centre. But what he said there, about humans knowing how the universe works, highlights my view of the human mind and its role in the acceptance of many of the stories of scientists.

In so many ways, humans are specks in the grand scale of things, infinitesimal smudges in the pages of universal history. Yet we have claims from a bunch of them about the size of the entire universe, how parts we have never experienced must behave like our small region, even though as a sample size, the human experience of its local environment in comparison to the possible extent of the universe is laughably small for us then to impose our models and claim, as conquerers, that we know how the universe works. I just don’t have that much faith in the human perception or capacity. Sure, scientists makes useful models for the exploitation and manipulation of the world around us, but useful does not mean “the true truth.”

Then I appreciate that scientists delude people into thinking we’re gods, encouraging us to take flights of imagination, where I can now imagine myself outside of the “solar system,” able to look down on the Earth, the planets and the sun, and see what absolutely moves, the planets, Earth included, orbiting the sun. Some of their imaginative diagrams have an amazing camera that has travelled outside the galaxy to turn back, take a snapshot, and have an arrow pointing out our location … apparently.

But that is all fantasy, a product of imagination. I know where I am. I’m on this globe, looking out at the universe going around us. It reminds me of a statement by a scientist from the early 20th century, Sir Arthur Eddington, who said the following:

For the reader resolved to eschew theory and admit only definite observation facts, all astronomical books are banned. There are no purely observational facts about the heavenly bodies. Astronomical measurements are, without exception, measurements of phenomena occurring in a terrestrial observatory or station; it is only by theory that they are translated into knowledge of a universe outside.”
Arthur Eddington – The Expanding Universe: Astronomy’s ‘Great Debate’, 1900-1931 p.17

And a lot of people put faith in those theories, the creative explanations of other humans just as limited as the rest of us, to make absolute statements about things outside of human reach.

I no longer share that faith.

In my journey, I’ve seen evidences accessible to a relative layman, as I am, such as the Coriolis effect, Foucault’s pendulum, red shifts and blue shift, geo-stationary and geo-synchronous satellites, etc. I’ve heard the arguments that Newton’s laws or Kepler’s explanations prove that the Earth must be moving. When I say that I tried to make sure I wasn’t just going crazy, that I checked to see if the evidence for a moving earth were compelling, I’m serious. None of them escape the trap of relative motion and relative effects, that the effects explained by a moving earth in a “fixed” universe can be given by a fixed earth in a rotating universe. Also, the sort of issues people had with the idea of a fixed earth involved mental field trips to outer space, and it not fitting with the maths they had accepted. Apparently, maths and the stories of humans called science is equivalent to actual reality; if it doesn’t fit the maths, then it’s not real. All I do is plant my feet on the place I exist, look up at the moving starry sky (if I can, cloudy skies and all that) and realise that humans aren’t in the place of God to know what in the outer space truly and absolutely moves and what is in absolute rest.

Now I would never say that the science experiments of history proves 100% the earth is at rest. Science doesn’t provide truth. There have been experiments whose results can be seen as going against sun-centred, moving earth expectations, but I know that those in the science industry can be as much about explaining away contrary results as anything and anyone claimed to be religious.

I believe that, based on human observation and perception alone, there is only relative motion. And in light of that, if there is any chance that God has said the earth is still and the sun moves around it, then there is no just case that this is absolutely wrong from a human perspective. It can only be said that in some cases, not all, maths is easier if they pretend the sun is still and the earth and the planets moves around it, or it conforms with some model of movement if they imagine a different system of planetary movement. But they are not in the place to say what does and does not absolutely move.

An argument raised is that the Jewish Bible is not a science book, that to use it to make scientific declarations is wrong. But the Jewish Bible is the revelation of Someone in the place to give absolute truth statements about reality. Science is the human attempt to systematise our perceptions of reality and, hence, since we don’t perceive everything or know everything, it will always be limited and subject to change. God’s truth isn’t subject to change and is not based on incomplete knowledge. So to say that the Jewish Bible is not a science book is wholly true. To say it doesn’t make scientific statements again is true in that it doesn’t make tentative statements subject to change based solely on human perception or man’s reasoning. But it can and does make authoritative truth statements about physical and metaphysical reality.

Hmmm … thinking about science and Torah like this, there truly is no conflict between them. Science is not the purveyor of truth and Torah is not the arena of confidence in what is essentially useful guesswork and assumptions upon which statements are made about the invisible, untestable and unreachable.

I could have laced this article with quotes from scientists or even the Rebbe giving evidence or Jewish backing for my position but this is just about me explaining myself. But I will provide links to old articles I wrote that contain such quotes and links to what the Rebbe said on the subject. I’m not going to pretend I’m an authority, a scientist, or anything more than just me, a guy trying to figure things out for himself.

Appendix 3. Relativity and Geocentrism –

In Defense of Geocentrism –

Does the Sun Really Revolve Around the Earth? –

Does the Sun Really Revolve Around the Earth? (II) –

Quotes and References: Quotes in Favor of Geocentrism –

Forbidden thoughts: The atheist, the faithful heliocentrist, and the universe –

Why geocentricity? –

But smaller bodies must circle larger ones, right? –

Enlightening quotes about modern science –

The Labour of the Sun – Walter van der Kamp –

My Purpose

“… the end of the matter, all having been heard — fear God [i.e., do whatever you can, with your heart to Heaven)], and keep His commandments; for this is [the purpose of the creation of] all men.” Ecclesiastes 12:13, The Rashi Kethuvim, by rabbi Shraga Silverstein at

Every now and again, I reveal in this blog some of my thoughts about life, the act of my living my life. There is a dark place known as my heart, the inner recesses of my mind; and it’s not a happy place. That’s not to say that I see no joy in life. I do. There can be such beauty in it, and by beauty, I don’t mean pretty things that pull my eyes, my attention, but rather I speak of parts of life that fill me with a direction, a meaning. But …

You know, one of my favourite books in the Jewish Bible, possibly my favourite, is Ecclesiastes. It’s been my favourite for a long time. Just the second verse:

“Vanity of vanities, says [the public speaker], Vanity of vanities. All is vanity.” Ecclesiastes 1:2, Jewish Publication Society, altered by me.

That’s how I used to read it using the old English. But the word “vanity” doesn’t mean too much to me. Or at least the word “vanity” had various meanings that I didn’t think fit with the text. I mean, vanity nowadays means something selfish and conceited. A song goes, “you’re so vain; I bet you think this song is about you.” But I did mention old English, right? As a christian, I mainly used the King James Bible, but without a dictionary of the 17th century, so that leads to issues with understanding right there. I only later found resources like which would tell me that vanity referred to something empty, worthless, of no substance, ineffectual.

The Hebrew word translated “vanity” has a primary meaning of breath, vapour, air. There’s a useful commentary on this word and its usage in Genesis 4:2 by a rabbi called David Kimchi (Radak) that relates to how it’s used in Ecclesiastes. When commenting on why the first woman, Havah, whose name was butchered into a word that sounds like “eev”, “Eve,” called her second son “Hevel” (mutilated into the name “Abel” which people say like “AyBL”), Radak wrote something like this:

Perhaps, the reason why Chavah called the second son Hevel is an allusion to Psalm 62,10 … “men are mere breath, mortal illusions.” Perhaps Chavah expressed her realisation that even the good found in this material world may prove short-lived, illusory … (from

[Aside: yes, mutilating someone’s name with the excuse of “translating it into English” is a pet peev of mine. If you don’t know, “pet peev” means something irritating and vexatious that is personal to me.]

So the old English definition of vanity fits the meaning of Ecclesiastes 1:2 well enough. Actually, there is a translation of this verse by a Bruce Heitler from that resonates with me.

Only vanishing mist, vapour, says [the collector of wisdom], evanescence and mere appearance, everything is a vanishing mist.


This is how I live through life generally. As I tell others, life, living, is something I do, not something I enjoy. It’s a chore I do, that I must do, simply to finish it and get to the end.

I’ve been asked by a work colleague if I’m depressed or if I suffer from depression. I honestly don’t know. I don’t feel sad or down. I allow a sense of craziness to fill my language and the way I’m perceived by others to add levity to the day. A twist of language, letting the monotonous mundane seem hilarious, new or something to be studied and understood, and life can be a laugh or something I can spend time focusing on. It doesn’t negate the inevitable heel-chained-to-a-trotting-horse drag of life. But I can be distracted. Somewhat.

In my previous post, I mentioned the nihilism, the sense of inevitability, of fatalism, I can feel when seeing even good people praise and/or support a system that guarantees immorality and injustice. A good friend of mine expressed that nihilism is a godless philosophy. One aspect of nihilism is that existence is meaningless and thus my friend is definitely right. How can there be meaninglessness with a purposeful creator of everything? A contradiction in terms. But on replying to my friend the sense of purposelessness I tend to feel, he shared some essential curative advice to me, which, amazingly, is also echoed in that favourite Bible book of mine.

You have something more important in life than just making money, advancing a career or worrying about kids and your wife. You have a higher calling. A higher purpose. Yes, you do. You are obligated to follow the 7 commands because they are the eternal command of God. Everything else is secondary.

And he, maybe without knowing, had nudged my mind to the verse that sits atop this post. I don’t mind quoting it again.

“… the end of the matter, all having been heard — fear God [i.e., do whatever you can, with your heart to Heaven)], and keep His commandments; for this is [the purpose of the creation of] all men.” Ecclesiastes 12:13

Or in another version, Bruce Heitler’s version,

The end of the thing, when everything has been heard, is to be in awe of God and to observe His [commandments], for this is all that a person is.

Why should this message matter to me?

I’ll put it the best way I can for now.

Because, from when I was younger, when I started writing songs about my christian faith, when I started to get serious about finding truth, focusing on God’s truth always lifted me from myself. Tuning my thoughts, my mind, to the Greater-than-I, the true Beyonder, this let me know that behind everything was a trusted hand, a plan, an all-encompassing. And this helped me on both an emotional and intellectual level. It wasn’t just about feeling better, but knowing better. I would have my problems, get hurt, do stupid things and reap their bitter fruits, but there was always a foundation of … can’t find the word for that. But it’s God, you know? It’s the Primal Cause, the Reason!

And since I’m no prophet, and I don’t hear God, finding a path laid out for me, something beyond my subjectivity … that is a blessing. I don’t care if it’s perceived as “only” seven laws. It’s still a message from the Creator that he is not the utter stupidity of the atheist, the devotion to ignorance of the agnostic, and he’s not the neglectful, abandoning mental idol of the deist. He is the basis of reality!

But it’s not as if I’m gleeful. A grin neither fills my mouth nor my heart. I think I still have some pondering to do. Maybe it needs to let it sink deeper into me. Maybe I’m just not getting the fulness of it. But I’ve got enough to keep me going. I have a purpose, a good one. It’s not about some afterlife. It’s about the steps I take now. And for me, that is good.

The King continued: Who owns you?

So a man I highly respect responded to my previous article about the Divine Code’s words about the authority of the king. One of these days, I may have to write a tribute to him. Even when I’ve disagreed with his stance, he’s never rejected me, always shown such patience, even though others have cast me aside, treated me badly or disagreements have ripped us apart.

Anyway, he commented with clarifying quotes from the Divine Code. As it’s on my mind, I’ll bring the relevant quotes and comments here and then give my thoughts on them.


Government Authority; Laws of Land Conquered in War

1. Who is considered a valid king? A person who is appointed or accepted by a majority [!] of the citizens of the country to rule over them. If a valid king establishes a valid law for all the citizens of the country, they are legally bound to follow it. But if someone rules over a nation or a part of a nation despotically, he and all his officials are considered like a band of robbers [!], whose laws are not [!] binding (and any [!] taxes that he takes are theft on his part [!]).

Also, please see this important footnote to one of the rules in the topic 16:2, just before the topic you quoted from:

2. Any governing body chosen or appointed by the people of a country has the same authority as a king. Therefore, any country (or province, state, or city within a country) that is run by a government is under the rule of the “king.” [448]

[448] This is clear, as the reason that the laws of the king are legally binding is because his authority was accepted [!] by the people of the country, as explained in the wording of the aforementioned Rambam, Laws of Robbery. This is also obvious from Rashbam Bava Batra 54b and Ritva Bava Batra 55a in the name of Ramban, who say that a new decree of the king is not [!] legally binding until the majority [!] of the country’s people accept it. This would be the case with any governing group for whom the people of the country accept their rules.

This is likewise emphasized in Part VIII, Establishment of Laws and Courts, topic 1:3 (this chapter is posted on-line:…/noahide-laws-and-courts-ch1.pdf
“Gentiles are therefore obligated within their commandment of Dinim to make righteous [!] and beneficial [!] laws that are effective for all the country, in all matters between people… The people who write these laws which Gentiles may establish for themselves, and the judges who rule on the applications of these laws, must establish them according to their knowledge of the true needs [!] of the country’s population and the establishment of a moral [!] society… The laws must obviously conform to logical and moral [!] standards, and they must not be like the evil and cruel laws of the Biblical city of Sodom, on account of which G-d utterly destroyed that metropolis.


Also, in topics 8 and 9 in the chapter you quoted from “The Divine Code,” which speak about the right of a king to sell a criminal “as a slave,” and to “enslave the inhabitants” of a land that was conquered in war, it should have mentioned the very limited condition in which that applies, which was explained in Part VII, topic 9:10. It only applies to “a king whose subjects willingly accept that his sovereignty gives him the legal right to kill people who rebel against him.” For example, see Joshua 1:18 – “[The Reubenites and the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh said to Joshua:] Every man that shall rebel against your words and will not listen to your commands in all that you order him shall be put to death. Only be strong and have courage.”

You can see these quotes in the comments section under my recent post.

So, let me begin breaking it down for myself.

Who is considered a valid king? A person who is appointed or accepted by a majority [!] of the citizens of the country to rule over them.

Ah, a form of democracy, huh? Let me combine this with another part of the quote.

Any governing body chosen or appointed by the people of a country has the same authority as a king.

So, a government that the “majority” accepts owns everyone, regardless of consent. It’s like conquest of the individual. The “majority” and their king owns the minority.

Why do I keep placing “majority” in quotation marks? Because this really is a fickle number. It’s an idea that is hard to quantify. I remember the Brexit vote where just over 25% of the population of the UK were the “majority” who won over everyone else. It was slightly over half of the voting cattle, those who actually voted out of those who registered to vote, that were on the winning side. But that was the “majority.” That was the voice of “Britain,” whatever that’s supposed to be.

And you don’t want to know how many were the “majority” of the population of America that voted for the establishment of their constitution, the document that many Americans idolise as being the supreme law of their land, even though it gets ignored and “interpreted” out of existence, even though the document itself has no innate authority whatsoever. That’s an embarrassment in and of itself.

And it’s not as if someone is gonna do a poll of the populace to see if the majority accepts the gang that claims ownership. And it’s known that to go against the gang called government is death, kidnap or pain. Government is only a territorial monopoly on coercion and violence believed to be legitimate. So there is a significant chance that a person is going to acquiesce to its demands for simple self-preservation. So this is not volitional, free will acceptance but rather the sort of acquiescence that occurs when a hostage does the bidding of the kidnappers to stay alive.

So the standard for a valid “territorial owner,” majority acceptance, is pretty flimsy.

But, imagine, 70% of a people group accept a ruler, a government, all of them accepting that gang. But 30% don’t. Each individual in the 70% doesn’t have the right to own anyone else, to rule anyone else. Therefore the whole 70% does not have that right. The 70% say they want to be owned, to be bossed about by the gang, and somehow that acceptance covers the other 30%; the gang gets to boss everyone around, threatens everyone. And how? Magic … I mean it is supposed to be in a law God commanded all Gentiles that is supposed to lend itself to reason according to Rambam … supposedly.

You can argue that I changed the word “king” or “government” to “gang.” But without the authority, the presumed “right to own / rule,” what is a king except a bully, a government except a gang? And how does it get the authority? From people who have no such authority? Magic is needed. Or a clear command from God without reason. Both would be irrational.

But again, think about it! For the ruling class to rule, the majority must accept the claim of territorial ownership. But if truth and morality doesn’t depend on numbers, and large numbers of people can be misinformed or ignorant or even immoral, then that makes the nature of rulership questionable. Sodom? Nineveh? Egypt? There’s something questionable here.

Anyway, what I learn from the Divine Code is that a form of democracy, majority rule over the minority, is needed to turn bullies into government.

Hey, at least the Divine Code is plain and honest. It continues,

If a valid king establishes a valid law for all the citizens of the country, they are legally bound to follow it.

Amazingly again, this makes perfect sense. It may not be morally compelling but… Look, see!

So remember, a valid ruling class, as I ascertained from the previous part, is a gang a “majority” “accept” as territorial owners.

Now the Divine Code says that the law of the ruling class is legally binding on all. What is law? The opinion of the ruling class backed by the threat of violence. Essentially, it’s a threat. What does “legally” mean? It’s the adjective form of the word “legal,” which means having the force of law. Let me plug in the meaning of “law” into that definition. Legal means having the force of a threat from the ruling class. So what does the statement of the Divine Code mean in light of this? Here’s the reformulated statement.

“If an accepted territorial bully gives a “valid” threat for all the citizens of the country, they are bound to follow it because of the threat.”

And that would make sense in many areas of life. Unless you’re willing to take the risk in opposing a bully, an accepted one, and thus all of those that have accepted him and therefore will snitch or help the bully for the sake of self-preservation or devotion, then the safest thing to do is to just go along with it.

Some would say the next line limits the power of the ruling class.

But if someone rules over a nation or a part of a nation despotically, he and all his officials are considered like a band of robbers [!], whose laws are not [!] binding (and any [!] taxes that he takes are theft on his part [!])

Despotically? Who would judge? The majority? The individual who has been imposed upon by the majority and its accepted owner? The Jews?

I’m not exactly sure what is meant by “despotically” or “like a despot” here. Despot is one who has absolute power, one who rules in a cruel fashion, an oppressor, one who subjugates by force and possibly cruelty.

But the accepted territorial gang owns everything and everyone according to what it said before as I highlighted in my previous article. How is that not already absolute? Ah, it’s “limited” by their own dictates, the “law.” Riiiight.

I’m being cynical again, aren’t I?

So a territorially accepted bully takes your stuff … wait, no, according to the Divine Code it’s his stuff. Anyway, he takes it in the form of taxes and that’s not theft. But if he acts like he owns the place while he does it, taking stuff that the Divine Code says is his anyway, then it is theft? Huh? Maybe he was cruel and forceful … as most governments are when you don’t give them their stuff (according to the Divine Code, you have no stuff, it’s theirs). So now it’s theft???

Remember, in the eyes of the writer of the Divine Code, the land and its people are the property, the possession, of the ruling class. It can take a man and make him a slave of another man. When children are taken from parents, the children are not the ultimate or primary property of the parents, but rather of the rulers. So the rulers and their agents can do this because they are simply rearranging their property. And with enough force (and indoctrination), enough of the people “accept” this.

So the laws of kidnap and theft and murder only applies in a muted way to government in the worldview of the Divine Code, especially if they can make such acts “legal,” especially if they can get enough of the people to “accept” it. And the faith put in kings and governments, that’s not too hard.

Someone’s bound to say that this subject matter is obvious, that it’s easily understood and digested. Maybe that may be true for a statist, an authoritarian, one who thinks it’s ok for one man to tell another what to do, to force him to comply. It may be obvious for such a person, easy for that person. I’m not that person. I’ve backslidden and rejected the faith in the state, in the gang. It’s no longer obvious.

Another may say that it’s not for me to question or reject, that this is God’s law and that it’s only my lot to learn and obey. It’s in the Divine Code, the most authoritative book about the seven laws and so it must be what God demands. Again, I personally have reasons to doubt that everything in the Divine Code is God’s demands upon the Gentile.

Carrying on.

This is clear, as the reason that the laws of the king are legally binding is because his authority was accepted [!] by the people of the country

This reminds me of what was written earlier.

Any governing body chosen or appointed by the people of a country

The problem here is the concept of “the people of [a] country.” This statement isn’t factually accurate based on other parts of this quote. “The people” aren’t just one singular entity; it’s a bunch of different individuals. This thing called “the people” don’t really do anything per se. A set of individuals amongst that group do actions.

Now it could possibly be said that the “majority” of the people accepted this authority, but I personally don’t equate the majority of the individuals of a territory with the statement “the people of the country.” If the majority of the people made a choice, then it is limited to just that portion. It doesn’t magically become the whole thing.

It reminds me of the statement, “we, the people,” one of the most deceptive statements to be spoken or written. Only a portion of the people normally have anything to do with the statement, yet it is imposed on everyone. People are silenced for such a statement to be transmitted, and that makes it lack truth.

So “the people” appoint and accept nothing. A certain portion of them do and impose their decision forcefully upon the rest.

… a new decree of the king is not [!] legally binding until the majority [!] of the country’s people accept it.

This has the same issues as expressed before with “majority” rule. I won’t repeat myself.

Gentiles are therefore obligated within their commandment of Dinim to make righteous [!] and beneficial [!] laws that are effective for all the country, in all matters between people…

I dealt with this in my article about being repulsed by the idea that obedience to authority is part of the core seven laws. To summarise, who judges what is righteous or beneficial? If it is an objective source, then it’s not one readily available to Gentiles.

Also, in topics 8 and 9 in the chapter you quoted from “The Divine Code,” which speak about the right of a king to sell a criminal “as a slave,” and to “enslave the inhabitants” of a land that was conquered in war …

“criminal” … Can you already see my thinking? What is a criminal? One who broke the law. What is law? I won’t repeat myself. So the right of a bully to enslave someone who didn’t do as he was told … That’s it. Now this right is limited by what?

It only applies to “a king whose subjects willingly accept that his sovereignty gives him the legal right to kill people who rebel against him.”

Ah. Faith again. So if enough people say it’s ok for the king to do it, then it’s ok.

Numbers again, huh? The right amount of people?


I write this when the news is so thick with politics, when people are so soul-dependent on the system, so plugged in, when media shoves so much government-worshipping tripe down the proverbial throat that I almost choke on the sewage and scum-worthy bile. And I look hopelessly at the herds of sheep about me and imagine that the balance and weight of human moral wellbeing is so heavily loaded towards the side of self-destruction and part of me becomes cold and nihilistic. Even when I attempt to change focus and address my own life, it’s extremely difficult not to feel the same way.


I can’t think of a positive ending to that train of thought.

I mean, I have to think about this. Although I’ve focused on the words of the Divine Code, I already know that it’s not solely the view of Moshe Weiner. I have friends who think it’s fine for a person to get robbed by government as long as the victim gets some benefit in return for this act of coercion, fine for government to impose on one person’s ability to get tools for self-defense, to threaten them against owning certain items, or using the medicines they deem helpful. I remember being told that a city was now safe only because of government. One person even told me that people being coerced and restrained, not prisoners, not immoral people, but the everyday person, that it was a good thing; he was literally saying that it’s a good thing for many or most people in the world to be enslaved!!! Most of the people around me, in one way or another, treasure slavery and/or bullying, the government owning everyone.

I know it would be easier for me if I just fell in line, just agreed. But I don’t.

Back to the subject.

When these quotes and comments were put under my article, there was no need to respond because many of my points remained untouched. But I was tempted to express my thoughts in this manner. It helped me focus more on the weaknesses of democracy.

Oh well. Life goes on.