I’m just sharing what I see as a true statement. The author or sharer is a person on Twitter known as “cyclopticalusion” (@cyclopticalone).
I believed in all science for my whole life and laughed at religion until I realized I had been deceived by the religion of science.
I don’t know how I got to hear about the “flat earth” issue or what got me to actually listen to that side of the debate. I had always heard of it in derisive terms, always with a sneer, a view that the people who held such a view were dullards, stupid, retarded. But something had peaked my interest about it, maybe a suggested video on the side of a video I was actually watching. Since I’m in the path of questioning why I hold certain things to be true, I thought I’d give it a listen.
Now let me set this straight now: I have not adopted the flat earth position.
Did I hear a sigh of relief? David’s not gone totally crazy, right? I won’t pretend I’m now acceptable to those who see my views as stupid, Luddite, “pre-scientific.”
Yes, there’s a “but.”
But I no longer see the globe idea as the “true truth” either.
What, you’re still here? Not signed off? Not zoned out? Oh, wow. Errrr … do I … do I go on?
Oh yeah, I write this primarily for me, right? So at least if I’m talking to myself, I’ll always have an audience. (Damn, that sounds conceited … actually, not fully. I talk to myself a lot of the time, so writing my thoughts isn’t too distant from that.)
So, yes, looking into the flat earth subject revealed something to me that I should have known, that I know, but I didn’t fully. It showed me that I still take certain ideas for granted, accepting them as true, when I’ve never had a good basis for it.
For example, why did I accept that the earth was a ball? Because it’s what I was always told. That was simply and only it. It was always in the books or pictures around me as I grew up. If someone challenged me on why it is a globe and not another shape, or flat, I could provide no rationally compelling reason, no evidence. I had taken the words of people on faith. Added to that, I personally had never seen any curve to the place I live on. Added to that, I’ve never felt the alleged spin of the place I live, or its alleged orbit around a sun, or its speed around some galactic centre or its universal movement. Yet I took the words of people on faith.
But I had done that before. Many times. And many times, that faith or confidence was shown to be unfounded and false. So, apart from the comfort of having a viewpoint acceptable to the majority of people around me, why did I accept this teaching about a ball earth?
In the standard understanding of the “local” planetary system, the ball has people and an atmosphere stuck to it by means of a force called “gravity,” yet it spins at its equator at a speed of over 1,000mph, orbiting a gigantic fireball at a speed of 67,000mph, and that fireball is moving at a speed of 448,000mph with planets surrounding it, orbiting it, each planet having moons and there also being an asteroid belt in that system. And it all sticks together because of “gravity.” And the galaxy that the fireball is in is also moving at a speed of 1.34 million miles per hour.
People accustomed to looking at the numbers or who are acquiescent to what they’re told, those with an imagination to picture such a thing in the mind as if they were watching a sci-fi movie may shrug their shoulders and say, “so what?” I look at such an idea and realise one thing, a thing that I mentioned in a previous article: I know where I am and what I’ve experienced. I’m not a cameraman in space, in a place of perfect and absolute rest from which I can judge absolute universal motion. That would be a metaphysical position. That’s another way of saying I’m not in the position of God. I’m here, stuck on the land, looking out around me.
From my position, from the human position, I don’t experience any of that gloriously insane picture. Since humans live on this “plane” of existence, no person has ever experienced such a universe either, neither can they. They can theorise such a picture. They can calculate and create based on assumptions such a picture. They can use their computers to model such a scenario. But, as I’ve learned, science is a method that can be used to create tentative models, but it yields no dogmatic truth beyond what we experience.
Oh, added to that, the idea of the ball earth came with some evidences that don’t hold up, such as objects becoming hidden due to going over the earth’s alleged curvature? Binoculars and telescopes contradict that idea.
I’m not gonna go through the short list of evidences given. The issue is not that I’m convinced one way or another – or maybe I am convinced of something – but that I took an idea for granted and that I now have a skeptical view of all or both ideas.
“DUDE, ARE YOU DENYING GRAVITY?”
Depends what you mean. Do I deny that things tend to fall downwards, to the ground, unless enough thrust is applied? That’s what we experience. Do I believe, therefore, that gas can join together to become a fragment of rock which then attracts other rocks, like a non-metal-attracting magnet, and then becomes a great big rock that both manages to become an almost perfect sphere and ignites its insides to make a molten core, and then manages to get another massive rock to orbit it rather that just be attracted to it to become a bigger clump of rock? I’ve never experienced that or anything like it. And it doesn’t sound credible or plausible to me.
“DUDE, ARE YOU DENYING SCIENCE?”
See, now I’m glad you asked that question because this helps reveal to me the authority, the “god” that many bow to today.
When a person asks this question, here’s what they both imply yet can never truly mean:
“Are you denying the obvious and absolute truth?”
There’s something … That’s the elevation that’s been given to “science” in that it is now the measure of the truth. But what can science never give? The truth! It is a method, one method or a group of methods, that a person can use to investigate the world. But it is limited by the user, a user of imperfect knowledge and limited perception, affected by biases and internal and external pressures cannot hope to get “the Truth” from it, only plausible ideas that are subject to change or abandonment.
But also note, a person can also mean, when they ask such a question, this: “how can you deny what the consensus of the authorities say?” It’s an appeal to authority and consensus as if that too is a measure of a truth to be invested in. In order for such an appeal to be valid, the authority (understood as “experts” not the controllers or owners) must be valid. The expertise must be based on truth. In order for consensus to be worth anything, the individuals and establishment must be bereft of bias or agenda.
The authority/expertise fails immediately in this context. The subjects I’m pondering are not within human experience but are outside of human experience, involving something metaphysical: absolute motion.
And the scientific endeavour would have to have a sufficient record of morality, truth and correctness. But it’s a house built on inferior foundations. Every so often there is a paradigm shift and it’s not based on correctness or truth but popularity and politics. Its method necessitates falsifiability and probability, and its history is strewn with the many carcasses of theories once held dear but were falsified. The science industry, normally a tool of the powers that be to control the people, much like the priesthood of old if not its direct descendant, the science community is set apart from the rest of us humans as objective and selflessly searching for truth when, in truth, it behaves like any religion. It gives a veneer of agreement and consensus, giving simpler statements of belief to outsiders and laypeople, but look deeper and there’ll be the same discord and dissent, disagreement and debate. Its edicts are meant to be taken as gospel with those questioning or rejecting those dictates being discarded and excommunicated, ridiculed and reviled like any religious heretic. Its adherents fancy themselves to be skeptics and claim to be testers (witch-hunters) using objective scrutiny when they are simply acolytes and followers of the words of the scientific prophets.
But the basis of the expertise is still earth-bound humans, the vast majority of which hasn’t left this “plane,” this earth, small minds of imperfect knowledge and limited perspective.
For some people, for many, the pomp attributed to the scientific priesthood is enough, even for declarations with no basis in everyday life or experience. Quantum fluctuations? The distortions in spacetime? A curved water layer, conforming to a curved surface, a notion that makes no experiential sense? For them, the experts know more than us and we must trust the experts. But experts in what? Experts in absolute motion? Experts in mathematical models? Experts in practicals ignorant of the underlying philosophy? Experts who are still earth-bound humans like you and me? Experts in a field with as much of a history of failure as that of success, if not more failure? Experts that demand we assign the appellations “absolute truth” and “fact” to the products of their endeavours which necessarily must be deemed tentative? Isn’t that last point a sign of deep ignorance within these “experts?”
And here I am. How much have I swallowed and absorbed in my youth, throughout my life without a second thought? How many times have I been guarded about and against the obvious religions in the world and ignored the secular one, and hence been unguarded?
The essence of this post is that, again, I’m made aware of things I’ve just assumed to be true simply because I was programmed so by the repetition of ideas from my youth, ideas for which I sought no basis, yet never challenged. And once again, what I saw as fact to be assumed is now seen as a claim needing sufficient reason to be adopted afresh, or else I’ll just flush it.
I think I’ll end this one with no disclaimer.
I live in the UK. My brother and sister are probably more into politics than I am, with my brother having taken a school course in politics (or was it university?), and my sister being a voter, both of whom have probably better knowledge than me of current affairs.
My brother mentioned a choice that the political parasites and the voting chattel have to make with regards to “Brexit,” how the country will leave the European Union.
You know, even mentioning those words, “country” and “European Union,” highlights for me how the words I feel compelled to use are ambiguous distractions with regards to what is actually happening. The “country” leaving? What does that mean? The individuals that make up the occupants of a landmass? The politicians that make up the visible part of the gang called “government?” And leaving what, the “European Union?” A union of what? Politicians that didn’t have the cloak of mob rule, so called “democracy,” to legitimise their control over the legislation that would affect the disparate people groups that live in the fiction called “Europe?”
And the amount of weight given to such a linguistic ambiguity, where if the wrong choice is made, people paint predictions of pandemonium, poverty and pain. GRIN! Hmmm … just a bit of alliteration there. But people make it sound as if the world or “Britain” will end. So much is invested, financially and emotionally by so many.
When my brother brought up the sort of deals the British politicians would have to make to leave the European set of politicians, it reminded me of why I do my best to dissociate from politics, at least the volitional support of it.
I think when you run a system based on theft, coercion and against God’s law, the choices you choose in and for that system will always be immoral.
It brought my mind back to what should be my basic values: the seven laws. And in my mind, the seven laws are the standard for humanity, for all of us, for the attempts at control that politicians create called “laws.”
Where I live, the politicians put “laws” on the books, or sustain such laws, that go against the seven laws, that oppose them. For me, it is that simple. God makes law forbidding certain evils. Wannabe gods, politicians, make laws permitting and protecting evil. Playing with the superficial, in effect legitimising the band of wannabes, can’t lead to a better world.
I’m sure people find a lot of importance in politics and see it as an avenue for meaningful change. But, for me, as long as the roots drink from a poison stream, the fruit can’t be a remedy, only another form of poison.
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 | Britannica.com https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism
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?
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.