Bnai-Noach

Here is a piece I wrote a few yrs ago on another forum.
Sorry it is long.

1. A conversion means a "change," from one thing into something different.
A Christian may surely convert to another religion because
the essential component in such a conversion is what a person
"believes," and beliefs are readily changeable.
It is impossible however for a JEW to convert to another religion,
because belief is irrelevant to Judaism.
Judaism is a covenant, a contract directly with God, and it doesn't matter what a person believes.
All that matters are the terms of the covenant, the contract clauses.
A Jew may violate Jewish law and BECOME an adherent to another
religion, but CANNOT CONVERT to it. The person is now a JEWISH
practitioner of those religions beliefs...but he is still a Jew. ]
The Christian convert to another religion however is NOT a Christian
Practitioner of that religions beliefs, nor even a Christian anymore.
As part of God's Noachide covenant however, one is in the same
position concerning conversion as a Jew.
A Noachide may BECOME an adherent to another religion, but CANNOT CONVERT to it,
as their Bnei Noach covenant with God has no escape clause for getting out of the contract.
Every non-Jew is contracted into God's Noachide covenant.
So really, it doesn't matter what a person is called. A ex this or
non that or any other name, they follow HaShem/El Shaddai or they don't.
We are either following the Jewish or Noach Covenant and turning to
HaShem or going down some strange path and turning away from him.
All religions rest on what you believe, not just Christianity.
That is the definition of a person's religion: His belief.
If I believe that Jesus was a fraud, not god, not moshiach, not a
prophet, and incredibly harmful to people, then I'm not a Christian.
If I wanted to be a Christian, I would have to change my beliefs.
A covenant on the other hand, is immune to belief.
A covenant is a contract.
For example: The bank doesn't care what you believe. If you pay the
bill you can keep the car, if you don't, they will take the car.
Whatever you believe about the ownership of the car is
worthless...only what is written in the contract counts.
A religion is one thing, a covenant is something else.
Christianity is a religion.
Judaism is a covenant.
Islam and Hinduism are religions.
Noachism is a covenant.
GOD DEALS WITH US IN COVENANTS, NOT RELIGIONS.
You have your covenant and I have mine.
All 6+ billion of us.
We are signed on, and God will judge us by the terms of His contract with us.
If we use our personal choice of religion to interfere with our direct
Covenant with God, that is a personal choice, and what we do with out personal
choices is what judgment is all about.
Christianity is not a covenant like Judaism:
Judaism is not based specifically on belief as is a religion:
You can convert to Judaism from being a Gentile, but you don't get there just on what you believe:
You would have to study Torah, convince a bet din that you were
determined to live as a Jew (perform mitzvahs), and then go to a
mikvah and say brochas (prayers) in the hearing of the rabbis.
YOU WILL NOT be 'grafted into' Bnai Israel via worshipping Jesus as
God no matter what you believe.
Why?
A good question is, why God arranged for a covenant where the
members are such even apart from what they believe?
Does not God prefer that Jews believe in their own covenant?
Sure.
The thing is (among other things), that God gave human beings minds,
and minds that are capable of questioning, analyzing, and yes, doubting.
If where one stands with God is limited to what one believes, the mind is also limited:
People tend to believe things against the verdict of their rational
minds; and what's more, embrace wholeheartedly things under God
against the full functioning of their minds. This is true, in varying
degrees, of all of the world's religions: An adherent of one of these
religions accept it's tenets in their hearts, but all too often against the logic of their minds.
Is believing in the things you do, as a Christian, rational?
In truth, you are not a Christian by the verdict of your mind, but
because it appeals to your heart. The onstart of Christianity imposed
the 'dark ages' on humanity, which was characterized by the stagnation
of intellectual life throughout much of the world.
This is because a defining limit of a relationship with God BASED ON BELIEF- works against intellectual growth.
Judaism, by contrast, in not limited or defined by belief.
In most cases, it is based on a birthright, which delineates one as Jewish
regardless of where their beliefs might lead them in life.
Because the Jews are not limited thusly, the Jewish people have often
served as purveyors of an intellectual vanguard in the societies where
they have been allowed to flourish.
God foresaw the need for this amongst His creation of us right from
the start of civilization, and thus foresaw the Jewish covenant.
If you obey the Lord, and He blesses you; do I believe that (you ask)?
My answer: It depends. Whether God blesses you, or someone else, or both of you, is up to God.
How is that based on what I believe?
What happens then is that people, not God, end up deciding in His
name, who is blessed and who is not blessed.
For you, being a Christian is only real based on true belief.
By contrast, a true Jew may ask how much of God's existence and
function in our world is based on belief in Him, and still remain, truly Jewish.
One approaches God by putting the heart of it first.
The other approaches God by putting the mind first.
This doesn't mean that Jews shouldn't embrace their covenant by heart and soul, too.
It's just that God decreed a different set of priorities to the Jews via their covenant.
Most religions put the heart before the mind; Judaism, by contrast,
takes the counterpoint, is a crucial juxtaposition, to all the
religions; starting with it being centered most oftenly on a birthright rather then a profession of belief.
It really doesn't concern bias. Actually, bias would only really play
a part if Judaism were also based primarily on what one believes.
Why should what God gives us be limited by what we believe?
Judaism is a birthright passed from mother to child. One also may
become a part of Judaism by conversion, guided by a Torah Observant Rabbi of course.
However, belief is also a crucial part of Judaism.
Maimonides Thirteen Foundations list the core beliefs.
The first Foundation ofJudaism, as I'm sure you already know, is the belief in One Almighty Creator.
The Unity of this Creator is one that is Infinite and beyond any physical boundaries to define.
This is a fundamental difference between Judaism and christianty.
Christianty has wrongly interpreted this Infinite Unity into a 'split infinity'.
One possible reason for this is that the 'founders' tried to 'bring it
down' to a level they thought people could understand. It would have
been better to have raised up the level of knowledge and understanding
of the people they were trying to reach.
Had they done this, and actually base all the teachings on the
Tanach, most likely there would never have been a
'trinity' type religion.
 
Yeah it was an interesting thread. Brings an unusual meaning to thinking outside of the 'box'.:p Thanks for the clarifications people.
 
shawn said:
That is so past tense dream.
Nothing to add?
Click to expand...
Well I don't know much about it!

In the thread that started this one (the one that Dondi started) someone brought forward a theory proposed by a rabbi that Christianity had started like Bnai Noach a little bit. Well, I don't usually argue with rabbis or seminarians. I disagree with that theory, but its not like I'm an expert. I thought that the internet would be a fad.

I think that Christianity could not have been anything like Bnai Noach for several reasons:
  • I think that the John the Baptist of Christianity is similar to some of the people in the dead sea scrolls & nag hammadi manuscripts. That tags Christianity as Jewish from the beginning, not Bnai Noach.
  • The priesthood of the Catholic church insists that they are Jews not Bnai Noach. Why would they say this if the people before them did not say it etc.?
  • In the gospels Jesus walks out of a boat and walks on the water. To me the meaning of this is very non-Bnai Noach-ish. I suggest it symbolizes living by the spirit, an idea common in Christian verse and suitable for a time when the temple got destroyed.
  • John 1 describes Christianity as a new creation -- this does not jive well with a Bnai Noach theory of Christianity. The flood can only happen once, so it must be talking about some other kind of new creation.
  • Christianity started around the time when the temple was destroyed. That means Judaism was in upheaval. It makes sense that many Jews would have been willing to become part of a new movement rather than to sponsor a separate one.
I'm interested if anybody wants to comment on these opinions. I will even argue with you if you'd like.

Bnai Noach sounds better than Noah Hide.
 
Ok, I forgot that when Jesus is baptized that the spirit descends upon him 'As a dove'. So when he walks out of a boat onto water, I really have not thought it through whether it makes him the dove or what exactly. It could be that it symbolized the Noah story; but it could also have represented a change in the laws etc. Too complicated for me perhaps; but you can see a clear difference between sitting in the ark waiting for a dove and just stepping out without drowning.
 
Dream said:
  • The priesthood of the Catholic church insists that they are Jews not Bnai Noach. Why would they say this if the people before them did not say it etc.?
Click to expand...
After spending some time with the bible and as an outsider somewhat of the RCC lately it seems obvious that they have tried to plagiarized the old testament priesthood in some ways. But in my 46 years there I can't ever remember any one actually admitting that or saying that they are real Jews. Hmm, never heard that one before.
 
Joedjr said:
After spending some time with the bible and as an outsider somewhat of the RCC lately it seems obvious that they have tried to plagiarized the old testament priesthood in some ways. But in my 46 years there I can't ever remember any one actually admitting that or saying that they are real Jews. Hmm, never heard that one before.
Click to expand...
You mean they're not Jewish? Why do people always say that Christianity comes from Judaism then? I am basically just thinking out loud in this thread, obviously a mistake; but I get the impression that *everybody* thinks Christians are a sect of Jews.

[QUOTE="]Despite its Jewish origins, it was not long before Christianity regarded itself as something other than a new Jewish sect. The first Christian council, convened by the apostles, concluded that pagan converts to Christianity did not have to follow Jewish ritual laws. Soon, converts to Christianity were almost exclusively pagans and Christianity moved further away from Judaism.


article: Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_judaism.htm

[/QUOTE]
 
dauer said:
Then what is the methodology by which you discern? As far as I can tell you're doing a lot of picking-and-choosing, opening yourself up to confirmation bias.

-- Dauer
Click to expand...
What is the most reliable method of discernment available to each and every human-being?
Direct experience.
I believed a lot of Christian doctrine for years which I based upon the authority of those who told me of it which was also based on what I read in scripture to confirm for myself.
Then I found out that it was mostly questionable and not something I could rely upon for guidance in life. This was due to me spending many months immersed in word studies and historical research.


NoahideNations.Com - Noahide - Torah of Eden

The heritage of Law dates from the common beginning of all Mankind.While many of the details are not related directly in the Written Torah we can understand that there had to be Law in the world. At the time of the Flood, we read in Genesis 6 that violence—lawlessness—filled the earth, and Gd regretted having created Mankind. If Gd is just—which we know He is—He could not have condemned all humanity for “lawlessness” if there had been no “law.” Just from this, we can know there had to have been law in the world. The Sages tell us that this Law came from the very beginning, with Adam. He passed it on to his children and grandchildren. He was the first judge and the first priest, teaching the subsequent generations to revere Gd and obey His Universal Law. This priesthood was passed down to his son Seth, then to Methuselah, then to Noah, then to Shem (who was known as Melchizedek), then to Abraham, then to Isaac, then to Jacob. The Laws for all Mankind were the foundation for the Torah of Israel.

Bnai Noah (Children of Noah) is the Hebrew term for this universal observance, because the seventy root nations of Mankind descended from Noah’s sons. Noah brought down the dedication of worship he had learned from his fathers and passed it to his sons. His was the first olah offering—complete burnt sacrifice—described in the Torah. This shows his surrender to Gd’s will in his life that is the legacy of all people. As we look back, we can realize that the universal beginning did not end with the giving of the Torah, that all Mankind can claim that heritage of Adam and Noah that defined the “order of Melchizedek.” Thus, the Sage of the Jewish People say a Ben Noah who cleaves to the Seven Universal Laws of Noah is on the level of the high priest of Israel.
Click to expand...


 
shawn said:
What is the most reliable method of discernment available to each and every human-being?
Direct experience.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Our experiences are subjective and highly fallible. Most people cosign the notion of shared epistemic responsibility for good reason. Each individual cannot be an expert on everything and our own direct experiences can mislead us. As to the rest of what you said that's all well and good. I just think your claim about direct experience is way too strong.
 
dauer said:
I disagree. Our experiences are subjective and highly fallible. Most people cosign the notion of shared epistemic responsibility for good reason. Each individual cannot be an expert on everything and our own direct experiences can mislead us. As to the rest of what you said that's all well and good. I just think your claim about direct experience is way too strong.
Click to expand...
So what would you think is a more reliable methodology for personal discernment?
 
You didn't say personal discernment. In the case of personal discernment one can assume a high degree of subjectivity. You said discernment. Additionally, the unquoted aspects of your text didn't describe mere direct experience. They described a great deal of interpretation of personal experience during which I assume you applied some other methodology or otherwise "followed your gut", as it were. I wasn't responding to any of that. But since you ask:

The most reliable ways to track truth are those formalized systems that have proven themselves to have strong predictability in the hands and minds of individuals who know how to apply them as well, those empirical findings that can be easily verified by other people and, to a lesser extent, situations similar to those where another person was present and could verify. While still fallible, those are the strongest methods for tracking truth. Otherwise it's better to assume a greater degree of fallibility. There are still varying degrees of truth tracking among formalized systems. For example, quantitative methods tend to be more reliable than qualitative methods. But mere personal experience is at the bottom rung. Academic journals are peer reviewed and cited because mere direct experience doesn't cut it. It isn't logical to propose that it is the most reliable method because the findings of direct experience alone have led many people to very contradictory conclusions. There was an excellent general audience book that I read that covered some of the neuroscientific findings about the ways in which our brains mislead us but I can't remember the name.

I'm not saying direct experience isn't good for anything, but experience itself doesn't tell us a lot. Using a stricter definition, it has to be understood in relationship to other sets of data. If I show you an array of somewhere between 50 and 100 irregularly patterned dots, you won't know the number of dots until you've in some way figured that number out. The number isn't communicated by the experience of the dots alone.

But even if we allow that you actually intended personal investigation, it's still not the most reliable method as can be easily recognized by a simple survey of people who've come to radically different conclusions. I've had a 50 year old friend of mine suggest to me that when I'm his age I'll agree with him that capital punishment is a good thing and we need more of it, that I just don't have enough experience to know that. A few of the issues that make one's own investigations less reliable than some of the methods I've described: confirmation bias, lack of the needed specialization to make sense of the data and the easily demonstrated variation in conclusions of people who've chosen to investigate matters for themselves. Certainly the stricter definition of direct experience, that is, the literal experience of the world around us, is an important element in understanding the world, but that alone isn't much.

Now I'm a person who is predisposed to the notion that not all of our moments, epistemologically or ontologically, must hold truth as their primary goal. If truth is not our primary goal for a given moment then it would not be pragmatic to let truth get in the way. But by letting go of truth as a primary goal we're admitting to the greater subjectivity of that moment, admitting that the data of that moment isn't about some externally verifiable reliability.

-- Dauer
 
Last edited:
dauer said:
You didn't say personal discernment. In the case of personal discernment one can assume a high degree of subjectivity. You said discernment. Additionally, the unquoted aspects of your text didn't describe mere direct experience. They described a great deal of interpretation of personal experience during which I assume you applied some other methodology or otherwise "followed your gut", as it were. I wasn't responding to any of that. But since you ask:

The most reliable ways to track truth are those formalized systems that have proven themselves to have strong predictability in the hands and minds of individuals who know how to apply them as well, those empirical findings that can be easily verified by other people and, to a lesser extent, situations similar to those where another person was present and could verify. While still fallible, those are the strongest methods for tracking truth. Otherwise it's better to assume a greater degree of fallibility. There are still varying degrees of truth tracking among formalized systems. For example, quantitative methods tend to be more reliable than qualitative methods. But mere personal experience is at the bottom rung. Academic journals are peer reviewed and cited because mere direct experience doesn't cut it. It isn't logical to propose that it is the most reliable method because the findings of direct experience alone have led many people to very contradictory conclusions. There was an excellent general audience book that I read that covered some of the neuroscientific findings about the ways in which our brains mislead us but I can't remember the name.

I'm not saying direct experience isn't good for anything, but experience itself doesn't tell us a lot. Using a stricter definition, it has to be understood in relationship to other sets of data. If I show you an array of somewhere between 50 and 100 irregularly patterned dots, you won't know the number of dots until you've in some way figured that number out. The number isn't communicated by the experience of the dots alone.

But even if we allow that you actually intended personal investigation, it's still not the most reliable method as can be easily recognized by a simple survey of people who've come to radically different conclusions. I've had a 50 year old friend of mine suggest to me that when I'm his age I'll agree with him that capital punishment is a good thing and we need more of it, that I just don't have enough experience to know that. A few of the issues that make one's own investigations less reliable than some of the methods I've described: confirmation bias, lack of the needed specialization to make sense of the data and the easily demonstrated variation in conclusions of people who've chosen to investigate matters for themselves. Certainly the stricter definition of direct experience, that is, the literal experience of the world around us, is an important element in understanding the world, but that alone isn't much.

Now I'm a person who is predisposed to the notion that not all of our moments, epistemologically or ontologically, must hold truth as their primary goal. If truth is not our primary goal for a given moment then it would not be pragmatic to let truth get in the way. But by letting go of truth as a primary goal we're admitting to the greater subjectivity of that moment, admitting that the data of that moment isn't about some externally verifiable reliability.

-- Dauer
Click to expand...
So by way of analogy, do you mean that you say you like coffee because the studies available to you have led you to have faith that you would like coffee?
or
Do you like coffee because you heard it was the bomb, you tried it and found it was to your liking?
 
Either you're changing the subject or we aren't having the same conversation. I wasn't talking about likes and dislikes. I was talking about the most reliable epistemic practices. My opinion about coffee is subjective and not concerned with the pursuit of truth (by which I mean objective truth). I can say "It is true that I like coffee", but that is a matter of semantics. It's not the subjective opinion itself. It's a logically discerned statement about the opinion. Further, your example of my subjective opinion is something to which I have privileged access. We are discussing ideas to which you don't have privileged access. You're conflating two very different issues. As I've said I have no issue saying that in some situations truth isn't the primary goal, but by devaluing truth as a goal we're admitting to the potential for greater fallibility.

Perhaps you should define exactly what you mean by direct experience. I've offered a few possible suggestions for what you might mean in post 52 and tried to respond to each.
 
I am on the same topic.
Religion is a matter of taste and really has very little to do with absolute, objective truth, even though they all purport to be just that.
Religious texts are mostly allegory and metaphor woven into complex stories which explain many things about the human condition....that is, unless one is a literalist, but that is another issue.
The thing is, most people, either religious or not, are of the mind they are due to custom, convention and tradition.... meaning they are just going along with the crowd.
We have a multitude of religions which claim that they have the truth and all the others are in error.
At the end of the day I cannot rely upon what anyone else believes or says I must believe as I am an individual and I must decide for myself what makes the most sense.
If I am building a bridge or designing a power system I will most certainly use available scientific data.
But
When talking about spiritual or religious issues, where is the empirical data?
It doesn't exist.
So all anyone is left with is subjective, personal experience.
You do what you believe is the right thing to do.
So it is a matter of taste, like the coffee analogy.
That indeed is questionable, but I am not expecting people to just believe what I tell them about such things.
You need to figure these things out for yourselves.
And you can draw upon the collective ideas of everyone else to help out with that.
 
shawn said:
Religion is a matter of taste and really has very little to do with absolute, objective truth, even though they all purport to be just that.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing against that. I was arguing against your statement that direct experience is the most reliable method of discernment available. It's clearly not. If you meant that to refer to subjective truth then it's a tautology and meaningless.

You have made fairly absolute statements about what does and doesn't qualify a person as a noahide. I have asserted that there are other ways of understanding the issue, that it's not as clear-cut and absolute as you state. If all any statements about religion amount to for you is equally valid opinions then logically you ought to accept that yes, there are ways of thinking about noahides via which there is nothing dishonorable about a Christian Noahide and you just happen to disagee. Anything stronger and you admit that there are some statements about religion that deserve greater epistemic privilege, that some religious questions are more than subjective. You may believe one thing but by your own understanding of religion that doesn't make it any more true than any other belief. You say that you agree with that notion but it seems to me that you talk the talk but don't necessarily walk it because you've refused to give equal validity to the notion that a Christian noahide isn't dishonorable. You've asserted at times that your opinion is right, end of story, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is getting so focused on the trees that one misses the forest.

I happen to disagree that all of the issues of religion are subjective. It may be that a particular group believes x or practices y. These are types of statements about religion to which some of my challenges about reliability apply. Similarly there is empirical data that conflicts with certain beliefs, religious or otherwise. It's not as black and white as you make it sound.
 
dauer said:
I wasn't arguing against that. I was arguing against your statement that direct experience is the most reliable method of discernment available. It's clearly not. If you meant that to refer to subjective truth then it's a tautology and meaningless.

You have made fairly absolute statements about what does and doesn't qualify a person as a noahide. I have asserted that there are other ways of understanding the issue, that it's not as clear-cut and absolute as you state. If all any statements about religion amount to for you is equally valid opinions then logically you ought to accept that yes, there are ways of thinking about noahides via which there is nothing dishonorable about a Christian Noahide and you just happen to disagee. Anything stronger and you admit that there are some statements about religion that deserve greater epistemic privilege, that some religious questions are more than subjective. You may believe one thing but by your own understanding of religion that doesn't make it any more true than any other belief. You say that you agree with that notion but it seems to me that you talk the talk but don't necessarily walk it because you've refused to give equal validity to the notion that a Christian noahide isn't dishonorable. You've asserted at times that your opinion is right, end of story, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is getting so focused on the trees that one misses the forest.

I happen to disagree that all of the issues of religion are subjective. It may be that a particular group believes x or practices y. These are types of statements about religion to which some of my challenges about reliability apply. Similarly there is empirical data that conflicts with certain beliefs, religious or otherwise. It's not as black and white as you make it sound.
Click to expand...

I have my opinions and I state them.
I have repeatedly in the past stated that all we have regarding religious understanding is educated speculation (I am not talking about science although direct experience in that area, in some fashion really helps develop ones faculties), and this includes my own.
But there are opinions of others that I do not agree with.
This is due to privileged information which I have access to and you do not as it is a result of direct experience.
But I strive to not be opinionated and be open minded.
At the same time there are things which I believe are errors or wrong.
Although I will admit that I allow for the fact that I could be mistaken in some cases, but I typically will not bring that fact up.

As for discernment, that is something that an individual cultivates, like a virtue.
This is developed through direct experience.
As a tradesman I can read all the books I want to on a trade, but unless I practice it I will remain skill-less, although knowledgeable.
There is a huge difference between theory and practice, or book-learning and the school of reality.
I have met very smart sounding people who when faced with real crisis weren't worth a damn as they had no relevant experience which helped. and I have met some rather simple people who surprised me with their depth and capabilities which came from experience and not the ivory towers.

Curiously, in the bulk of the religious tradition God would usually chose people who were not intellectually prominent, but rather lowly and even simple people. Maybe to put the proud in their place as they think too highly of themselves for the most part.


If we are discussing the relevance of my OP within the context of Abrahamic religion, then the statement of can one be a Christian Noach-ide would not be necessarily incorrect. But if one starts bandying about interpretations of different factions and is questioning the framework of the religion, then granted, it could be just a bunch of philosophizing and hot air.
I have no problem with that.

But here is an absolute just for you.
Not one of us here has got the truth in its objective and absolute form.
Including me and even you.
But we do have some interesting opinions:)
 
shawn said:
Curiously, in the bulk of the religious tradition God would usually chose people who were not intellectually prominent, but rather lowly and even simple people. Maybe to put the proud in their place as they think too highly of themselves for the most part.
Click to expand...

Shawn, I have my doubts about this theory. In the early days the stronger succeeded, this worked until the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Since that time, it has been the intelligent that have moved the world forward.
 
Avi said:
Shawn, I have my doubts about this theory. In the early days the stronger succeeded, this worked until the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Since that time, it has been the intelligent that have moved the world forward.
Click to expand...
Yup, and look where that has gotten us.:eek:
But seriously, to clarify, Lowly means just not of high caste
and simple does not mean simple-minded but commoners.
Many (but not all) of the prophets and other similar types were not the high caste people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top