Are the Seven Commandments Religious or Secular? – Part 2

So Elisheva Barre, one of the voices who had a strong formative role in my learning of the Seven Commandments, chose to shove her head into my cogitations … And I’m glad she did.

Now, have no doubt: just because I respect the woman quite highly, her work being very influential in my development in the 7M (shorthand for “seven commandments”), doesn’t mean I accept everything she says. But the insight she did give made it so that there’s a second part to this monologue.

So my initial written internal monologue asked the question: “are the seven commandments religious or secular?” And I attempted to answer that question on that basis. But there were some things that I wrote in that article and previously on this blog that should have raised some red flags.

I told the rabbi I was speaking to that there was no word in biblical Hebrew for “religion.” The concept doesn’t come from the Torah but from, I believe, Gentile thought trying to come to grips with what Torah and Israel was. So it forced a circle peg into the square hole of “religion” and made up the concept of “Judaism,” which many Jews up until now have absorbed and assimilated. So considering this is my view of how Torah interacts with the concept of religion, I should have noticed that this should have undermined the idea of “secular” being in the Torah as well.

I won’t conclude that thought just yet. Let me bring up another fact.

I wrote an article in the past about “The [Myth of the] Separation of Church and State.” In it, I said the following:

Although the sloppy statement “separation between church and state” has an American taint to it, the concept of separating “religion” or faith from the secular or worldly has much longer history and is accepted over much of the world. In fact, the concept may even have been influenced by christian thinking, oddly enough, with its statements about the spiritual and the carnal, the fleshy, giving to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

But despite its possible history and influences, there is something much more telling, more suspicious about this concept of “the separation between ‘religion’ and government/secular.” It is absent from the laws of the Torah, the Law of God. Its absence from Torah is both apparent with regards to the laws that apply to Jews, but also the laws that are directed towards the rest of humanity.

The absence of this artificial separation of life (God and the government) is fairly obvious in the Torah.

So putting both of these thoughts together, I have to wonder, does the question “Are the Seven Commandments Religious or Secular?” have any bearing in a Torah worldview?

In my previous article, when I asked that question, what did I mean? What was the fundamental question I was asking? It was this: Using English words and concepts, do the Seven Laws necessitate or overtly command belief in, worship of or devotion to God or not? That’s the question I was answering in the previous article since “religion” in my language (English) means “belief in some ultimate reality,” “religious” means “pertaining to such a belief,” and “secular” means “not pertaining to such a belief.” To me it is clear that the law concerning idolatry was originally not a positive command to belief in, acknowledge or worship God. The Talmud says this, that all the seven are simply prohibitions with only the law of Justice having a positive or active aspect (Sanhedrin 58b-59a). So the law of idolatry was only a prohibition against a certain action, namely idol worship. And the law of cursing God was only a prohibition against a certain action, namely cursing God’s name using his name. Therefore, taking the other laws into account, the laws do not command acceptance of or devotion to God. Therefore the laws themselves would fit the definition of “secular,” not pertaining to a belief in an ultimate cause.

But that’s in my current context, that’s the society I live in where they carve God away from day-to-day life. To quote again from “separation of church and state” article again:

“It is no longer fashionable to avow a belief in Satan or his entourage of evil archons, but the fact is, nonetheless, that we are dualists. We have divided the world between God and ourselves. Part of what we consider our own, we are willing to turn over to Caesar, but—believing in civil liberties—part we retain as our private domain. Some are willing to share part of this domain with God, but some are very jealous of their privacy and exclude Him from it; they divide the world only between themselves and Caesar. The dualist is either a total or partial atheist. If he totally excludes God, then obviously he is an atheist. If he excludes God from a substantial part of the world, then to that degree he is an atheist.” Konvitz, Torah & Constitution, 57. (quoted on pg 139, footnote 16 [in Secular by Design by Alan Cecil].)

What about based on the Torah worldview where such a distinction is meaningless? Where objective reality is that God is the source of the laws for Jews and Gentiles and we are simply to live by it?

That’s where I hit upon a problem. The written and oral Torah is in Hebrew where certain concepts don’t exist. And I’m English where the concepts do exist. But this part of the written and oral tradition, the seven laws, is meant for me, is an obligation for in my land, not as a Hebrew state but as a possibly English one. What happens then? Is there a problem in translation?

I guess that’s something I can ponder for part 3.

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. Got a simple question.
    In simple English – In the Prohibition of idolatry – What exactly are we prohibited from?
    The original prohibition is in Hebrew, I know we are English, is it our responsibility to stay with an translation or is go back to the original?
    You keep mentioning the Talmud which I do not have access to but by the internet. If I have to surf for the Talmud than I can also the original language of the Seven Commandments, they do come by us under Hebrew authority of Moses which was translated to us in the English.

    • Thank you for asking.

      In simple English, we’re forbidden from, in our actions, worshipping any aspect of creation as a god, from worshipping idols according to the custom of their worship and from serving these things by means of prostrating (bowing low with face to the floor), sacrifice (ritual slaughter), incense (special smoke offering) or libation (special liquid or drink offering). Is that exact enough?

      The original prohibition is in Hebrew. If one understands Hebrew, then they can read the Hebrew. If not, we gotta go with translations, even if they are from the verbal words of a rabbi. The editions of the Talmud I have access to are mainly online, both in Hebrew and English although I have a hard copy of a section of one.

      “the Hebrew authority of Moses” – huh? What’s that? Are you just saying the tradition is originally in Hebrew? Since I’m English and I’m not going to become a Jew, I’ll learn what I can in English. I can learn Hebrew. I know a bit. But all the teachings I get from rabbis, all the books I read are in English. So it seems like it’s possible to learn as I am.

  2. Thank you for answering me, I have a few more questions. I love playing the proverbial devil’s advocate. It helps me see things from a different view.
    1. Are the prohibitions do they have what many may call sub-Laws? By sub-Laws I mean expectations. Laws that may not be commanded; but as they are studied, expectations of the primary prohibition that are not commanded.

    2.By what authority do we as humans have the right to push the 7commandments on another. Whose authority assigns that some of them carry a death penalty?

    3. Who gives who authority to spread the 7 commandments with its punishments? Is it another gospel with punishments if someone does not believe?

    • No, ET, thank YOU for challenging me to think thru my conclusions. As fellow students, we sharpen each other thru such conversation, and I can test out my structure for weaknesses. It’s actually interesting to find out where the term “devil’s advocate” comes from.
      1. I believe the seven core laws do have expectations and necessary background knowledge, for example, what is marriage in order to know what is adultery.
      2. Please tell me what you mean for me to understand when you say “push the 7M.” They all carry the death penalty potentially (whether a just court gives that penalty or not). It seems to me to be part of the tradition given by God. But a just court decides when to actually apply it based on the factors involved at the time.
      3. I don’t understand this point. The “authority” to spread the law and its punishment? Are you talking about the worldwide implementation of the law? As it is supposed to be the basis of international law amongst Gentiles, then it would need a fundamental global shift in consciousness (thought). I’m not talking about something people are coerced into doing due to invasion and war and oppression, but rather a grassroots mental and societal renovation. And what do you mean by “gospel?” As it is law, it’s not about belief but action.

  3. Hrvatski Noahid

    TO ZIONIST CONSPIRATOR:
    I was banned from Free Republic. I cannot post or contact you in any way.
    We need to find some other way to stay in contact. If you are reading this, please contact me by email.
    Hrvatski Noahid

  4. “1. Are the prohibitions do they have what many may call sub-Laws? By sub-Laws I mean expectations. Laws that may not be commanded; but as they are studied, expectations of the primary prohibition that are not commanded.”

    First of all, you have to quit thinking of Noahide Law as a type of Judaism. It’s not. Torah Law is quite different for Noahides than it is for Jews. Yes, there are “sub-laws” such as the prohibition of theft having sub-laws about kidnapping, moving property boundaries, unfair weights, taking by stealth, taking by force, etc. But that isn’t the point of Noahide Law. What we are supposed to do is to replace our Constitution with a form of government and legal system based on Noahide Law, not Roman Law. Think about all that our legal system contains, laws about industry, business, education, health care, etc. This is what we are supposed to be focusing on, not on how a Noahide is supposed to pray.

    “2.By what authority do we as humans have the right to push the 7commandments on another. Whose authority assigns that some of them carry a death penalty?”

    Again, you have to think outside the box on this. The Seven Laws are the basis for a legal system, not a religion. What authority do we have to have laws to protect property, arrest and convict thieves, and send murderers and rapists to the electric chair? We have our own authority, that’s what. But we have to have a legal system based on Torah. What we have now is a legal system based on Roman and other non-Torah legal systems.

    “3. Who gives who authority to spread the 7 commandments with its punishments? Is it another gospel with punishments if someone does not believe?”

    Again: the Noahide Code is not a religion. It’s not about “belief.” It’s about law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: