The Gospel of Unbelief

[rtwngAvngr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws


The Seven Noahide Laws (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נ&#1495, also called the Brit Noah ("Covenant of Noah") or the Law of the First Covenant, are the Jewish mitzvot (commandments) and halakhot (laws) that are morally binding on non-Jews.

 

[jillian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws


The Seven Noahide Laws (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נ&#1495, also called the Brit Noah ("Covenant of Noah") or the Law of the First Covenant, are the Jewish mitzvot (commandments) and halakhot (laws) that are morally binding on non-Jews.

Not really...non-Jews are only bound to follow the seven Noahide Laws...

Gentiles and Jewish law
All denominations of Jews hold that gentiles are not obliged to follow Halakha; only Jews are obliged do so. Judaism has always held that gentiles are obliged only to follow the seven Noahide Laws; these are laws that the oral law derives from the covenant God made with Noah after the flood, which apply to all descendants of Noah (all living people). The Noahide laws are derived in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 57a), and are listed here:

Murder is forbidden.
Theft is forbidden.
Sexual immorality is forbidden.
Eating flesh cut from a still-living animal is forbidden.
Belief in, and/or prayer to "idols" (cult images) is forbidden.
Blaspheming against God is forbidden.
Society must establish a fair system of legal justice to administer these laws honestly.
Although not mentioning the Noahide Laws directly by name, the Christian convention of Apostles and elders in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15 appears to validate the idea that all gentiles follow the constraints established by the covenant of Noah. Supporting this idea, the list of constraints to be applied to the gentiles that are converted to Christianity, verse 15:20, is similar to the Noahide laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha

As a sidenote, Jews are forbidden to proselytize, so that whole thing about "bringing the knowledge of the Jew to the world", not quite correct.

 

[5stringJeff]

Absolutely. Hence it needing to be put into its proper historical context. For example, I don't think anyone has recently been stoned to death for wearing cloth made of mixed fibers or planting more than one crop in a field like it says in Leviticus.

Have you been watching the West Wing in syndication?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not really...non-Jews are only bound to follow the seven Noahide Laws...

According to whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha

As a sidenote, Jews are forbidden to proselytize, so that whole thing about "bringing the knowledge of the Jew to the world", not quite correct.

They can't be jews officially, but they can be second class, subject to only the noahide laws. The noahide laws are the laws JEWS want to enforce on non jews, in the world they wish to build for the lord.

 

[jillian]

According to whom?


They can't be jews officially, but they can be second class, subject to only the noahide laws. The noahide laws are the laws JEWS want to enforce on non jews, in the world they wish to build for the lord.

Ummmmmmm...a bit selective. Let's try again.

Murder is forbidden.
Theft is forbidden.
Sexual immorality is forbidden.
Eating flesh cut from a still-living animal is forbidden.
Belief in, and/or prayer to "idols" (cult images) is forbidden.
Blaspheming against God is forbidden.
Society must establish a fair system of legal justice to administer these laws honestly.
Although not mentioning the Noahide Laws directly by name, the Christian convention of Apostles and elders in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15 appears to validate the idea that all gentiles follow the constraints established by the covenant of Noah. Supporting this idea, the list of constraints to be applied to the gentiles that are converted to Christianity, verse 15:20, is similar to the Noahide laws.

The Noahide laws are the only ones considered universal enough to be expected of ALL members of society. If you've been told otherwise, you're hearing incorrect things. It's not about being second class, it's about Jews not imposing their beliefs on others.

And why do you think anyone who chooses to can't be a Jew? And haven't you ever heard of the concept of the "righteous gentile"?

Anyway, you should try reading up on this stuff... no hate speech about it. Frankly, I've never seen any essential religious work which is, in and of itself, hateful, except for certain passages of the Koran which are pretty awful if taken literally.... and I've read both testaments, the Koran, the Bhaghavad Gita, Buddhist writings and some Kabbalah.

 

[jillian]

Have you been watching the West Wing in syndication?

No. Why?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Supporting this idea, the list of constraints to be applied to the gentiles that are converted to Christianity, verse 15:20, is similar to the Noahide laws.

The Nohide laws are the only ones considered universal enough to be expected of ALL members of society.

Enforced by whom? Expected by whom?

I call it hate speech ironically. Check out this article. If this was written by white christians, The ADL would have it classified as hate speech.


This is just part of it.
http://www.ou.org/public/publib/tikkun.htm

When you have to defend a land you need an army; when you are defending a faith and Jewish continuity, you need schools. In the same space of time it took to rebuild the state of Israel, fifty, so did those individuals rebuild Torat Yisrael, the strength of Jewish learning and hence of the identity of our children.

You are all familiar with those extra-ordinary figures cited in Alan Dershowitz’s book The Vanishing American Jew,[10] about the extent to which in the United States, Orthodoxy has finally cracked the problem of how to pass our heritage to our children: 200 secular Jews, in four generations attenuate to 10; 200 Reform Jews to 27; 200 Conservative Jews to 48; 200 Orthodox Jews increase to 692; and 200 Hasidic/yeshiva Orthodox Jews to 5175. We have seen two great miracles: the rebuilding of the land and the rebuilding, among Orthodox circles, of Jewish children. What has happened to the Orthodox community since the war is every bit as remarkable as the rebuilding of Israel. This community, so afflicted, has multiplied and repopulated itself. It has come to pass that the two dominant issues of modern Jewish life - building Israel and building Jewish children - are the issues encoded in our national DNA at the beginning of time. These issues that concern us are the very issues that concerned our biblical forefathers. We have confronted them magnificently and we have achieved, at least within Israel and within Orthodoxy, the answer to both.

Now, I want to ask the great historical question - what next? What is the next challenge facing the Jewish people if we have finally solved the problem of rebuilding the State and discovered the key to Jewish continuity. Of course, to answer this question I must ask another. Were there really only two challenges, only two promises to Abraham and the others? If so, we have done all that we need to do. However, you and I know the answer. There were not two promises made to Abraham; there were three. What is the third promise? When G-d first summons Abraham and Sarah to set out on the journey that becomes Jewish history, after he said go to the land-- the challenge and promise of the land, and after I will make you a nation-- the promise of Jewish children, what is the third promise?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

More about Noahide Laws
http://www.truthbeknown.com/theocracy.htm

Providing evidence of a possible One World Religion, on March 26, 1991, U.S. President George Bush signed Public Law 102-14, a congressional resolution on the Seven Noahide Laws (H.J. Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14). Prior to that event, as Val Valerian says, "The bill was passed in the House by a voice vote on March 5, 1991 and was passed by the Senate on March 7, 1991." The Proclamation was as follows:

 

[LOki]

Yeah, for that particular meaning. Didn't Webster give definition #1 and #2?

He did. Already discussed--thoroughly.

No, I am asserting that something can ONLY illogically reject itself.

On what basis?

You're kidding, right?

You honestly can't parse out that 5 =/= 5 is logically self contradictory?

That "I am not I." Is a logical self contradiction?

You don't get that? It must be explained to you?

Why can't they? The ACLU is promoting their brand of Secularism. Plenty of people see the ACLU activities as practicing a "religion" of sorts.

Plenty of people are dumbfucks. Particularly those who think you can be a practicioner and rejector of religion at the same time.

Now you are introducing a new qualifier - "necessarily". It may or it may not.

It's been there the entire time--implied in your asserted definition of secularism which uses a mutually accepted definition for religion.

If secularism does not require a statement of faith, then it is not religion as defined.

Since you insist secularism is religion, then you insist that it neccessarily must be formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith; and the formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith that is being rejected--now get this--according you YOU! is: a personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.

What is it about this that is NOT logically self contradictory for you? The rejection of that which defines religion, is exactly what makes it impossible to define secularism as religion.

It is exactly the same logical contradiction as "I am not I."

If you want to make your point, make THAT point. That on a statement of faith, secularists reject all beliefs based on a statement of faith--including their own stament of faith.

I thought I was.

You're not. If you're trying, you're failing miserably. You might yet succeed, just tell me what that statement of faith is.

Then they are illogical. How can they reject something they don't know exists or not?

WTF? What makes you think they are unaware of the existence of religion? They know religion exists.

Secularists are rejecting religion in "worldly matters" BECAUSE they have no proof that God does NOT exist, or that God DOES exist.

Exactly who is stating a fallacy of presumption (re: the existence of God) here?

Obviously, NOT secularists.

Obviously? I think not.

Think again. Really.

I'm not desperate at all. About 90% of the American people would agree with me.

Trying on a new fallacy, eh? My ride is reason, I don't need your Bandwagon.

The only reason the ACLU Secularists are successful is because they sneak through the Courts using doublespeak like you.

<blockquote>ScreamingEagle's Argument Paraphrased:
The Atheists that are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Christianity in our country, are using secular arguments. Secularists are therefore Atheists, who are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Christianity in our country.</blockquote>Dude, my definitions and usage are precise and consistent--don't attempt to project double speak on me when you attempt the "big S/litte s" solution for perpetuating your "Masked Man Fallacy."

I am not after a Christian theocracy. You Secularist guys are the pathetic ones. For some reason you can't tolerate individual beliefs being expressed from EVERY type of American.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are not talking about me.

You are not talking about secularists.

Then what are your guiding Principles?

Oh, I've got a real good one for you:The Freedom of Religion is a right. The real power of government is in the use of force: the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Police, all their appurtenant firepower, and the power to use it. You're a retard if you don't respect how dangerous all that ordnance, in all those hands, can be. The most tolerant and benevolent of Christian government, whether Christian consitutionally or by default, still means the practice of all other religions by the permission of those with governmental power, not by right--and that a founding principle upon which this country was created is the Freedom of Religion by right.

 

[5stringJeff]

No. Why?

The argument you're using about killing people for wearing clothes with two different types of material is really old (and debunked many times over), but was made famous on an episode of the West Wing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Destroying the previous power structure is a quality all revolutionary doctrine embraces. I'm not willing to let communism hold a monopoly on it--particularly if it becomes the power structure. From what I've seen, this or something similar appears to be the standard order from God regarding cities/nations of non-believers--kill them all, spare no breathing thing, spare not the women or suckling child, etc...

That's stuff god did when he was pissed. Those aren't standing orders.

Please cc: that memo to me. Your quote-tag mastery has me confused ... which "Christian teaching"?I see. For clarity when discussing morals I've (and those around me who know better than I about it) always used "moral" neutrally, and modified it with an appropriate adjective--sensible morals, good morals, bullshit morals, evil morals, etc...

Example:
Thievery and slavery are certainly bullshit, and a moral code that considers thievery and slavery to be the acceptable norm is a bullshit moral code, and those who ascribe to tha code have bullshit morals.

Works for me at least.

Destructive (and bullshit) as communist morals are, I am not convinced that those who subscribe to them ultimately intend harm, consequently I am reluctant to go "evil" on communism in general--though I'm not so restrained with communists in particular (e.g. Che Guevara).

It's an evil ideology. Those who believe it's really great for society are just idiots moreso than evil. They just think it sounds nice.

 

[jillian]

You really believe this stuff? Might want to keep away from the hate sites.

More about Noahide Laws
http://www.truthbeknown.com/theocracy.htm

What utter silliness.... it was a ceremonial bill honoring Rabbi Schneerson on his 89th birthday... has zero legal effect. Funny how a proponent of theocratic thought would find this offensive. Next maybe you'll link me to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.J.Res.104--

H.J.Res.104


One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:

And by the way, doesn't change my mind that religion and government don't mix.

 

[jillian]

The argument you're using about killing people for wearing clothes with two different types of material is really old (and debunked many times over), but was made famous on an episode of the West Wing.

You mean the bible doesn't say:

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

So how was it "debunked"?

And no, didn't see that West Wing.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

He did. Already discussed--thoroughly.You're kidding, right?

You honestly can't parse out that 5 =/= 5 is logically self contradictory?

That "I am not I." Is a logical self contradiction?

You don't get that? It must be explained to you?

Lots of beliefs are self-contradictory. Who said Secularism is necessarily logical? The dictionary? Using a definition in the dictionary to define something conclusively is an "act of faith" in itself...all hail Webster our new god!

Plenty of people are dumbfucks. Particularly those who think you can be a practicioner and rejector of religion at the same time.It's been there the entire time--implied in your asserted definition of secularism which uses a mutually accepted definition for religion.

I agree there is no shortage of dumbfucks, especially in the Democrat Party.

If secularism does not require a statement of faith, then it is not religion as defined.

Since you insist secularism is religion, then you insist that it neccessarily must be formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith; and the formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith that is being rejected--now get this--according you YOU! is: a personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.

What is it about this that is NOT logically self contradictory for you? The rejection of that which defines religion, is exactly what makes it impossible to define secularism as religion.

It is exactly the same logical contradiction as "I am not I."

Secularism is rejecting religion/God in favor of the worldly/no God. It requires a belief in the worldly without relgion/God. Therefore a Secularist must be an Atheist to be consistent. And you yourself said Atheism is a religion.

Your not. If you're trying, you're failing miserably. You might yet succeed, just tell me what that statement of faith is.

Once again, the rejection of religion/God necessitates a belief in no religion/no God. You can't have it both ways.

WTF? What makes you think they are unaware of the existence of religion? They know religion exists.

If they know that religion/God exists, how can they reject its existence in the world? If they don't know that religion/God exists, then how can they reject something they don't know?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are not talking about me.

You are not talking about secularists.

Yes I am. Secularists are the ones who are attempting to rid our country of every shred of religious reference. We can't have Christmas trees in the public square because we must "separate church and state". That's an example of the intolerance of the so-called tolerance of Secularism. Where does it end? A man cannot separate his religion from himself nor his government from himself. They are all interrelated. According to your insane logic of secularism nobody who is religious could be a representative in the government. That would mean only about 10% of the people in the U.S. (the non-religious Secularists) could serve in the government.

Oh, I've got a real good one for you:The Freedom of Religion is a right. The real power of government is in the use of force: the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Police, all their appurtenant firepower, and the power to use it. You're a retard if you don't respect how dangerous all that ordnance, in all those hands, can be. The most tolerant and benevolent of Christian government, whether Christian consitutionally or by default, still means the practice of all other religions by the permission of those with governmental power, not by right--and that a founding principle upon which this country was created is the Freedom of Religion by right.

Sure, you believe in Freedom of Religion.... but not anywhere in our government, right? Just exactly where do you draw the line?

Religion and government are intertwined. No silly definition, logical or not, is going to erase that. (Unless the Secularist-promoting ACLU gets its way.) Religion is not only an individual duty, but a social duty as well. You cannot separate citizens from their consciences.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You really believe this stuff? Might want to keep away from the hate sites.



What utter silliness.... it was a ceremonial bill honoring Rabbi Schneerson on his 89th birthday... has zero legal effect. Funny how a proponent of theocratic thought would find this offensive. Next maybe you'll link me to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:

And by the way, doesn't change my mind that religion and government don't mix.

Utter silliness? These are the laws jews have for everyone else. That means they posit themselves as judge and jury of mankind, in the world they seek to establish.

I never said this was a law enacting the noahide laws.

 

[jillian]

Utter silliness? These are the laws jews have for everyone else. That means they posit themselves as judge and jury of mankind, in the world they seek to establish.

I never said this was a law enacting the noahide laws.

I already explained to you why that proposition is wrong. That whole Jewish conspiracy thing dosn't fly. And you do know you're talking about like 1% of the population of the world, right? But ya got issues, babe.... :scratch:

 

[MissileMan]

Lots of beliefs are self-contradictory. Who said Secularism is necessarily logical? The dictionary? Using a definition in the dictionary to define something conclusively is an "act of faith" in itself...all hail Webster our new god!


I agree there is no shortage of dumbfucks, especially in the Democrat Party.


Secularism is rejecting religion/God in favor of the worldly/no God. It requires a belief in the worldly without relgion/God. Therefore a Secularist must be an Atheist to be consistent. And you yourself said Atheism is a religion.


Once again, the rejection of religion/God necessitates a belief in no religion/no God. You can't have it both ways.


If they know that religion/God exists, how can they reject its existence in the world? If they don't know that religion/God exists, then how can they reject something they don't know?



Yes I am. Secularists are the ones who are attempting to rid our country of every shred of religious reference. We can't have Christmas trees in the public square because we must "separate church and state". That's an example of the intolerance of the so-called tolerance of Secularism. Where does it end? A man cannot separate his religion from himself nor his government from himself. They are all interrelated. According to your insane logic of secularism nobody who is religious could be a representative in the government. That would mean only about 10% of the people in the U.S. (the non-religious Secularists) could serve in the government.


Sure, you believe in Freedom of Religion.... but not anywhere in our government, right? Just exactly where do you draw the line?

Religion and government are intertwined. No silly definition, logical or not, is going to erase that. (Unless the Secularist-promoting ACLU gets its way.) Religion is not only an individual duty, but a social duty as well. You cannot separate citizens from their consciences.

You keep arguing like you believe that secularism and atheism are the same thing. They aren't. A secularist wants religion to be separate from government...that's it. They aren't out to abolish religion as you allege. Most atheists don't give a crap about whether you go to church either. You and others make this exaggerated claim about the attempt to eradicate Christianity in an attempt to attain reparations where none are due.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I already explained to you why that proposition is wrong. That whole Jewish conspiracy thing dosn't fly. And you do know you're talking about like 1% of the population of the world, right? But ya got issues, babe.... :scratch:

You haven't explained anything. I've said nothing of a conspiracy. Tikkun Olam is the jewish notion of fixing the world. The noahide laws are the laws think everyone should follow, even non jews. What's your damage?

You can tell me Tikkun Olam is a defunct inoperative aspect of jewish theology. Is it?

 

[Bullypulpit]

These are the laws jews have for everyone else. That means they posit themselves as judge and jury of mankind, in the world they seek to establish.

The same could be said of America's religous right wing-nuts. You are both paranoid AND delusional.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The same could be said of America's religous right wing-nuts. You are both paranoid AND delusional.

What? There's a separate set of laws for christians and non chrisitians, that we seek to enforce on the world through a set of religious courts?

Are you tripping?