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.
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.
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.
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.
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 – https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/113104/jewish/Appendix-3-Relativity-and-Geocentrism.htm
In Defense of Geocentrism – https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/2387635/jewish/In-Defense-of-Geocentrism.htm
Does the Sun Really Revolve Around the Earth? – https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/2046989/jewish/Does-the-Sun-Really-Revolve-Around-the-Earth.htm
Does the Sun Really Revolve Around the Earth? (II) – https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/2046992/jewish/Does-the-Sun-Really-Revolve-Around-the-Earth-II.htm
Quotes and References: Quotes in Favor of Geocentrism – https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2016/08/quotes-in-favor-of-geocentrism.html
Forbidden thoughts: The atheist, the faithful heliocentrist, and the universe – http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/TorahCreation/biblegeo.html
Why geocentricity? – http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/TorahCreation/whygeocen.html
But smaller bodies must circle larger ones, right? – http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/TorahCreation/largerbodies.html
Enlightening quotes about modern science – http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/TorahCreation/sciencequotes.html
The Labour of the Sun – Walter van der Kamp – http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Kamp2.pdf
“… 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 sefaria.org
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 https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/vain.html 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 sefaria.org)
[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 sefaria.org 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.
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.
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.
Ah, a form of democracy, huh? Let me combine this with another part of the quote.
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,
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.
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.
This reminds me of what was written earlier.
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.
This has the same issues as expressed before with “majority” rule. I won’t repeat myself.
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.