Dr. Michael Brown says Noahide Law is a "conspiracy theory"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

Dr. Michael Brown is a Jewish convert to Christianity and a very well known evangelist. Dr. Brown tells us that while some (actually many) Rabbis consider Christianity idolatry, and that under Noahide Law idolators are to be beheaded, he tells us it is a conspiracy theory to put two and two together and come to the logical conclusions that since Christians are idolators they will be beheaded under Noahide Law, really how stupid does he think we are?

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/why-conspiracy-theorists-scare-me.html

Why the conspiracy theorists scare me
By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor\

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 25 books and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

I know the term “conspiracy theorists” is broad, so allow me to define what I mean. I’m referring to those who claim to know the secret truth behind the news, the hidden intrigues behind the historical narrative. I’m referring to those for whom what is reported publicly is virtually always a cover-up for some sinister plot.

Those kind of people scare me, since facts and truth and evidence have no meaning for them. At all costs, the theory must be preserved.

Should you show them a picture disproving their idea, the picture has surely been photoshopped. (Or the person in the picture is a shapeshifter!)

Should you present them with eyewitness testimony that refutes their theory, the eyewitnesses have been bribed – or, worse still, they are secret agents for a shadow organization that runs the world.

Should you say, “I’m 100 percent sure your claims are wrong, since I was there myself and I know exactly what happened,” that just proves you are lying. Obviously!

A sympathizer would reply, “You’re missing the whole point. We have our evidence too. We have our testimonies. That’s why we reject the commonly accepted narrative. The cover-up is obvious.”

In reality, however, in the vast majority of cases, the alleged cover-up is anything but obvious. Rather, you have to start with an unhealthy suspicion that questions the reasonable and doubts the probable. Then, you have to put undue faith in tenuous, far out theories, with scant supporting evidence.

Put in graphic terms, if you picture a scale with balances, then 5 pieces of tenuous evidence, plus a large dose of suspicion, outweigh 100 pieces of solid evidence.

To repeat: that kind of thinking scares me.

As the Wikipedia entry states, with fairness and accuracy, in my opinion, “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.”

Do I believe that there is “fake news” reported on a regular basis? Yes, I do, by both the left and the right.

Do I believe that there is some kind of “deep state” at work behind the scenes? On some level, yes, I do.

Do I believe that there are some secretive power players who wield substantial influence on governments and institutions? To a certain extent, yes, I do.

But I do not believe that “the Jews did 9/11.”

I do not believe that Free Masons control the world.

I do not believe that the Sandy Hook massacre was a giant hoax.

I do not believe that the injuries and deaths of the Boston Marathon bombing were staged.

And on and on it goes.

Most recently, I have encountered a wave of hysteria connected to the so-called Seven Noahide Laws.

The simple facts are that, according to rabbinic Judaism, God gave these laws to Adam and Noah for the Gentile world. But gave the Torah, with its 613 commandments, to the Jewish world.

So, in theory, if a Gentile follows these laws, that person is considered righteous. (The laws prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, adultery, and the eating of flesh from a living animal, and which call for the establishment of courts of justice). In contrast, a Jew would be required to keep all the commandments of the Torah.

You say, “So, what’s the hysteria all about?”

Well, according to the conspiracy theorists, it goes like this: 1) some Jewish rabbis believe that Christian worship of Jesus is idolatrous [this is true]; 2) according to the Noahide laws, which are becoming more popular and recognized, idolaters should be beheaded [this is also true]; 3) the Jews are secretly plotting to behead Christians worldwide [this is not true!].

And when I challenge this narrative with facts, I get blasted with comments like this: “We knew you were either foolish or lying. Now it's clear. It is easy enough to read this stuff on Talmudist-run Chabad [an ultra-Orthodox Jewish organization] and Noahide web sites. Find a backbone and challenge yourself. Then challenge the satanists.”

Or, “You’re full of it, promoting Noahide laws. Why not tell the Christians they are about to be beheaded for believing in Jesus?”

Or, “Dr Brown is lying to his audience about the Noahide laws and Judaism. He will never bring up the evidence.”

And what happens when I do bring up the evidence? The facts? The details? The specifics? What happens when I make clear that I have never supported preaching the Noahide Laws to the Gentiles but that I have only supported preaching Jesus to Jew and Gentile alike?”

I get responses like this: “The puppet of Zionist!!!”

Or, “Because you're in bed with the deep STATE because you flip flopped on Noahide laws that are NOT Torah. Their plan is to kill all Christians!”

Or, “You will have blood on your hands of those you lead astray. . . . Liars do NOT go to heaven. God is watching you, Dr. Brown. Openly debate, your lies with Christians. . . . [The Jews] are preparing you for the KILLER beast system. . . . Hysteria................? wait till they say, ‘OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!’” (For a recent video supporting this nonsense, see here. Note that the channel has 111,000 subscribers.)

And what happens when I invite the conspiracy theorists to call my show and present their evidence? The phones are eerily silent.

What happens when I invite the main proponents to come on my show or offer to go on their shows (if guaranteed equal time) or challenge them to a formal, moderated, public debate? My invitations go unanswered.

That’s because the worst enemy of the conspiracy theorists is the light of day. Let the light shine! If we love the truth, then the truth is our friend, not our enemy.

Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Jezebel's War With America: The Plot to Destroy Our Country and What We Can Do to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.

Now LifeNews goes Noahide

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

Like LifeSiteNews" (here), the online pro-life LifeNews has also gone Noahide, here they publish an article stating that euthanasia is not consistent with the Noahide Laws.

https://www.lifenews.com/2017/12/20/euthanasia-activists-want-to-legalize-assisted-suicide-in-all-50-states-we-have-to-stop-them/

Euthanasia Activists Want to Legalize Assisted Suicide in All 50 States, We Have to Stop Them
 OPINION   ARTHUR GOLDBERG   DEC 20, 2017   |   1:48PM    WASHINGTON, DC

We must act now to prevent assisted suicide from gaining a stronger foothold in the United States.

A bipartisan congressional resolution has been introduced by five Republicans and five Democrats to voice opposition to legalizing physician-assisted suicide, which has already become lawful in some states. These legislators seek to prevent euthanasia from gaining a greater foothold in the United States.

The congressional resolution recognizes that physician-assisted suicide devalues our fellow human beings. The resolution is also consistent with the Noahide Laws: seven laws proscribed by G-d to Noah after the Biblical flood, which are applicable to all of humanity. This code of conduct is the foundational premise for the three Abrahamic religions and formed the basis of American civilization as set forth in our founding documents. America’s founding fathers specified that our society was premised on certain inalienable rights given by our Creator, and that those rights are beyond the power of a legislature or the courts to give or to take away.

One basic principle of these Noahide laws and the Ten Commandments subsequently given by G-d is “thou shall not kill.” In the context of the debate over euthanasia, this means that no active intervention may be undertaken to terminate the life of a dying person or of a person not presently dying but suffering from an illness from which he or she may eventually die. Human life has been given to the human in trust and can only be taken away by G-d. Since G-d gives and takes away life, any form of suicide rejects G-d’s sovereignty. Animated by the soul, human life is fashioned by G-d in His image. Protecting and respecting life requires that we follow the universal ethical values of the Abrahamic faiths and reject contemporary secularism’s view that when suffering renders a person’s life burdensome to oneself or to others, that life can and may be disposed of.

The History of Assisted Suicide in the United States

The question of legalizing or prohibiting assisted suicide in America has been percolating for more than twenty years. In 1997, the Supreme Court dealt with two federal court cases, Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, in which it was asserted that assistance to commit suicide was a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Constitution. To the contrary, the Court determined that no such right exists in our nation’s Constitution. The Court said that a patient may decide to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, but that the Constitution does not protect a right to death intentionally inflicted by the joint effort of doctor and patient. The Court recognized that in one case the cause of death is the underlying illness; in the other, it is human action. There is an important distinction between letting someone die and killing someone.

Starting in the early 1990s, several liberal jurisdictions such as Oregon, California, and Washington began initiatives to have physician-assisted suicide approved by the voters or by the legislatures. Conservatives fought back and both New York and Washington passed statutes that specifically prohibited assisted suicide. The federal constitutional challenge ensued.

In determining that there is no federal constitutional right to commit suicide with the help of a physician (whether considered under the due process clause or the equal protection clause), the Court left the decision whether to legalize or to ban such actions up to the individual states. In the same year that the Court decided the Glucksberg and Vacco cases, President Bill Clinton signed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act in order to prevent any federal funds from being used to promote or carry out assisted suicide. In 1999, a crusader for the right to commit suicide with the help of a physician, Dr. Jack Kervorkian, was convicted of second-degree murder in a Michigan courtroom for killing a terminally ill man. Recently, a group called “the Final Exit Network” was prosecuted in several assisted suicide cases, and its former medical director lost his medical license for participating in such acts. In other parts of the world, as religious observance and belief have receded, prohibitions banning euthanasia are reversed by civil governments.

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. 

Dangerous Developments in Canada

Earlier this year, in the case of A.B. v. Canada, Justice Paul Perell interpreted the Canadian legislative standard that one’s natural death must be “reasonably foreseeable” in order to allow euthanasia to mean that the anticipated natural death need not be “imminent” nor that it even be “connected to a particular terminal disease or condition.” This decision has already had a deadly impact.

In response to the ruling, Dr. Ellen Wiebe, a British Columbian physician who “has helped more than 80 Canadians end their suffering since the [Canadian aid-in-dying] law was adopted just over a year ago,” reversed her previous practice of limiting her killings to those with a life expectancy of five years or less. (It should be noted that calculating life expectancy is at best an educated guess but can never be certain.) Dr. Wiebe announced her decision to kill Robyn Moro, a sixty-eight-year-old woman who suffered from Parkinson’s disease. She based her decision on a calculation that the woman in the A.B. case suffered from severe osteoarthritis and could have lived, based on actuarial tables, a maximum of ten years. This calculation of ten-year life expectancy, based on Dr. Wiebe’s reading of judicial precedent, became the new outside limit for Dr. Wiebe’s killings.

As Rabbi Dr. Shimon Cowen and I pointed out in a previous Public Discourse essay, it’s hard to imagine when death would not be reasonably foreseeable under the standard set forth in A.B. v. Canada. The absurdity of this kind of thinking (or more colloquially stated, “playing G-d”) proves how hard it is to control the consequences of the reasoning in the A.B. decision. The truth is, we have no way of knowing how long a person may live.

Jeffrey Davitz’s Story

Jeffrey Davitz’s recent article in the Washington Post powerfully illustrates this. Davitz, a resident of California, was diagnosed in 2015 with a lethal and aggressive brain tumor. Davitz was told that without treatment he might survive for a few months. With treatment, he would probably last no more than six months, and in no event would he survive more than one year. His doctor assured him that he would provide the appropriate prescriptions to help him end his life.

In October 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law allowing assisted suicide in the state of California. The California statute would not become effective until June 2016, a date beyond Davitz’s predicted death. Nevertheless, Davitz worked with family members to seek death prior to his natural demise. As his strength diminished, he went into a hospice program. But G-d had other plans! While in hospice, he began regaining his balance and walking ability. His physical strength increased, and his brain cancer became dormant. Eventually, his condition improved so much that he was “kicked out” of the hospice program and returned to normal life.

Because of this experience, Davitz is now seriously conflicted about self-termination. Once he regained his health, he was able to celebrate his brother’s sixtieth birthday, attend his daughter’s graduation, and celebrate his parents’ seventy-second wedding anniversary, all of which occurred after his medically projected death sentence. Davitz admits that he no longer has “clear simple feelings” about assisted suicide. “Instead, long beyond what was expected, I am simply living.”

The Inalienable Right to Life

Although America’s Declaration of Independence declared that Americans have an inalienable to right to life, a handful of American states are clearly ignoring that directive. Inalienable rights are by nature so essential to a person that they cannot be overridden by another or by a civil government.

America’s founding fathers specified that these inalienable rights—endowed by our Creator—are beyond the reach of civil government. The American Revolution was based on a religious belief that crucial fundamental rights and obligations derive from G-d, not from the government. Nevertheless, as we approach 250 years of independence, secular humanists continue to argue that the state has the power to override G-d’s commandments. The truth is, however, popular opinion cannot and should not override the foundation of inalienable rights and obligations granted by a Creator. These rights are beyond the influence of government.

Because secular humanism is attempting to replace G-d as the final moral arbiter of life and death, it is urgent that we restore the biblical values of America’s founders. We ignore at our peril the universal moral ethics given to us by G-d through the Noahide Code, which were incorporated in our founding documents. These values were recognized on a bipartisan basis as the ethical and moral underpinnings of America. One immediate action that can be taken to support these inalienable rights is to encourage Congress to pass its resolution condemning assisted suicide.

LifeNews Note: Arthur Goldberg is Co-Director of the American-based Jewish Institute for Global Awareness, former Co-Director of JONAH, Inc. JIFGA sponsors www.fundingmorality.com, a crowd-funding site for those committed to Biblical values. This article originally appeared in Public Discourse and is used with permission.

If you can't follow the Noahide Laws, at least be good to the Jews

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 
http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

Here is an interesting twist to Noahide Law. It would seem that in the Talmud the god of the Jews said that non-Jews as a group are not even capable of keeping the Seven Noahide Laws, so he said they could follow one of the MANDATORY laws in exchange for the reward of a VOLUNTARY law. According to some Rabbis because now even the seven mandatory Noahide Law are not even a minimum requirement, that leaves Jews with no bar, save one. According to Rabbi Nachman Kahna, there is one mandatory law and that is to treat the Jews well, because the Torah says that their god will bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse them... so it is sort of kind of like a natural law, like the punishment comes from heaven, that is very presumptuous. 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24471

Navigating with our periscope

Rabbi Nachman Kahana, 19/09/19 05:32 | updated: 05:27
Share



Rabbi Nachman KahanaRabbi Nachman Kahana is an Orthodox Rabbinic Scholar, Rav of Chazon Yechezkel Synagogue – Young Israel of the Old City of Jerusalem, Founder and Director of the Center for Kohanim, and Author of the 14-volume “Mei Menuchot” series on Tosefot, “With All Your Might: The Torah of Eretz Yisrael in the Weekly Parashah”, as well as weekly parasha commentary available where he blogs at http://NachmanKahana.com

A young man, son and grandson of a very special family, was just commissioned as a lieutenant after graduating our naval officers school and will serve on a submarine. He was honored in the community with a kiddush on Shabbat. He studied several years at the Bnei David Yeshiva in the community of Eli and decided that the time had come for him to actualize his love for Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael acquired from his family and the yeshiva.

I addressed the young officer saying: “a submarine prowls in a hostile environment, deep below the water’s surface. It is guided not by the senses of the crew, but by instruments created in a far different place than the sub itself. And when the commander wants to see the light of day, he says ‘up periscope’, and the beautiful sight of light and life comes into view.

But in fact, we Jews are all submariners in a sense; because this material world is hostile to the holy neshama that Hashem has placed within us, and we navigate not by our senses but by the instrument called “Torah” that guides us to safe shores. And when we wish to see the light of our existence, we look through the periscope of Torah wisdom that takes us beyond the stark reality of our humble existence.”

In a closed and threatening environment such as a submarine, there exists a bar or a level of anticipated performance from the commander down to the most junior sailor, where each must perform at peak ability. So too Hashem anticipates that his nation will conduct itself in a very unified, unique manner.

These are exciting times

Rosh Hashana is quickly approaching and we who value life and the quality of life are making preparations to honor the highest court’s subpoena to appear on the first day of Tishrei (and the second day by Rabbinic decree) for judgement.

The court action will be followed on the tenth of Tishri by beseeching our heavenly Father and Judge for compassion, pity and clemency, if indeed on Rosh Hashana our conduct during the past year was found wanting.

We cannot fathom the depth of Hashem’s judgement which takes into account our past, present, and future, and the implications of our actions on our own lives, on the lives of those close to us, and on the lives of those who we know - even faintly. It’s like a three-tier chess game being played without the boards by memory alone.

However, we do know the criteria according to which Hashem judges the Jewish nation. Hashem sets a bar of behavior 613 mitzvot high for the Jews as a nation and quite lower for individuals, because no one can perform all the Torah mitzvot, many of which do not apply to all individuals. The bar consists of the 613 Torah mitzvot, Rabbinic decrees and local customs which are also halakhically binding.

But the matter becomes confusing with regard to the bar of expectations that Hashem sets for gentiles. Well, one might say that the bar is placed seven Noahide mitzvot high. However, that is problematic in the face of the Gemara in Avoda Zara 2b that discusses the status of non-Jews vis a vis Hashem’s requirement of them. After debating the issue, the conclusion is reached that Hashem saw that as a group they are incapable of fulfilling even the basic seven Noahide mitzvot, so he retracted the requirement and replaced it with the principle that a gentile who performs one of the mitzvot would receive a reward as one who performs a voluntary mitzva, which is far less than the reward for one who performs a mitzva which is incumbent upon him.

So, this leaves the gentile world with no spiritual minimum requirement to even merit a bar. This is a bad situation. However, I suggest that Hashem did place a single compulsory mitzva on the nations of the world: it is the way in which they treat the Jewish people as individuals and as a nation.

Accordingly, world history can be reduced to one simple principle: a nation which is helpful to the Jews will prosper and flourish, whereas those who are detrimental to the Jews will descend from the stage of history and will be found only in museums, and the examples abound.

In our times we see phenomenon that seemingly contradicts this principle, that despite the cruelty of the Christian world of Europe and sadistic Islam they are flourishing today. But everything has a reason.

Both the Christian and Moslem worlds are opposed to our return to the holy land and are far from touching the bar that Hashem set for the gentiles. Nevertheless, both societies are large in population and in wealth because they have an important role in the not too distant future.

After they will join hands in attempting to expel the Jews from the holy land, they will destroy each other in a world war; that is; Esav and Ishmael will eliminate each other from the future history of mankind.

What is transpiring at this very time between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with worldwide repercussions, will not go away. Israel cannot escape the consequences, as we are at the crossroads of three continents, Asia, Europe and Africa, right in the middle.

These are exciting times. No one can predict what will happen. Israel (hopefully) will have a new government after today’s elections. Hashem’s timing is coming through again.

The Jews of Eretz Yisrael can breathe a sigh of relief and thank Hashem that we are here to be major players in the future of the world.



Rabbi Nachman Kahana is an Orthodox Rabbinic Scholar, Rav of Chazon Yechezkel Synagogue – Young Israel of the Old City of Jerusalem, Founder and Director of the Center for Kohanim, and Author of the 15-volume “Mei Menuchot” series on Tosefot, and 3-volume “With All Your Might: The Torah of Eretz Yisrael in the Weekly Parashah”, as well as weekly parasha commentary available where he blogs at http://NachmanKahana.com

The Noahide Laws are based in "rationalism" says Noahide

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

Jews are confused as to whether non-Jews simply need to follow Noahide Law (here), or do they have to follow and believe they are divine/ In this article a Noahide talks about the difference between the laws Noahides follow and the laws Jews follow. First the writer tries to tell us that the Noahide Laws are derived from rationalism, even though prohibiting idol worship, blasphemy and sexual expression are not rational but subjective ethics. But he says Jews have more of a supernatural element to their religion in that they have more commands upon them that are not necessarily rational, such as resting on the 7th day for Sabbath... why the 7th day... because god said so that is why. It would seem Noahides have much less supernatural customs, they obey the Noahide Laws and have few if any holidays or special requirements that contain any sort of supernatural element to them. But in this Noahide's opinion, even if these Noahides Laws are so-called "rational" (which they aren't), non-Jews still need to follow them because they are divine, not just because they feel they are wise. So what if they find out your just following the Noahide Laws to get away with it, are you beheaded? Will there be inquisitions? 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23979

Shavuot to a Noahide: Mosaic commandments and Noahide commandments

A moral system that lacks a sense of the divine is eventually degraded to a mere human convention, whose observance reflects utilitarian considerations rather than any transcendent goal. Are Noahide laws only ethical or is there a spiritual element?

Rafael Castro, 05/06/19 09:17 | updated: 22:09

Share

Rafael Castro

Rafael Castro is a Yale and Hebrew University educated business and political analyst based in Europe. Rafael specializes in proofreading, editing and ghostwriting quality texts for entrepreneurs and politicians. Rafael can be reached at rafaelcastro78@gmail.com

More from the author ►

Rabbi Dr. Shimon Dovid Cowen’s masterful exposition of the Noachide Commandments highlights how the seven universal commandments can be extended into a complex and sophisticated set of laws.* By doing so, Dr. Cowen disabuses Jews from the notion that God has only minimal ethical and spiritual expectations from Gentiles. On the other hand, he also demonstrates to Gentiles that the Jewish religious tradition provides the human race with a comprehensive and fulfilling set of ethical and spiritual responsibilities.

Dr. Cowen highlights how Noachide Law enjoins humanity to follow the ethical laws which the human mind is rationally capable of discovering. That is, the Torah’s Mishpatim. It is therefore not surprising that Noachide Commandments forbid adultery, murder and stealing, like virtually all moral systems throughout human history.

From the prohibition of stealing, Rabbi Dr. Cowen derives the commandment for Gentiles to honor their parents. Not doing so would result in a failure to repay a huge moral debt. Since defaulting on a debt that one is able to repay amounts to a form of theft, Dr. Cowen demonstrates how one of the Ten Mosaic Commandments is latent in the Seven Noachide Commandments.

Dr. Cowen's book illustrates how the Noachide Commandments can be extended to encompass virtually all rational commandments. Therefore the question arises whether the mitzvoth which God enjoins the Jewish People all contain elements of Chok, namely of a supra-rational statute. A close analysis of specifically-Jewish mitzvoth suggests this is true.
Shabbat, for example, contains elements of both Chok and Mishpat. The rational element of Mishpat is embodied in the cessation of work during the Jewish Sabbath which makes it special among the seven days of the week.  This rational element is partially found in the spiritual traditions of other nations, which also celebrate religious holidays with a cessation of commercial activities.

The Shabbat’s supra-rational element of Chok is discernable in the details of Sabbath observance and in the fact that God commanded the seventh day to be special, rather than the first day when God began creation or the sixth day corresponding to the creation of Man. The fact that Jews are historically alone among the nations in sanctifying the Sabbath shows that the timing and minutiae of this Jewish holy day are supra-rational.

The same admixture of Chok and Mishpat is discernable in all other mitzvoth unique to the Jewish people. Circumcision is rational since it serves a hygienic purpose. However, the selection of the eighth day for the performance of this mitzvah is supra-rational. Although claims have been made that the mitzva’s timing reflects a steep decrease in infant mortality due to circumcision on this day, the fact remains that a further reprieve would make sense from a purely medical point of view.

To state that all Jewish mitzvoth contain an element of supra-rationality does not diminish the wisdom and intelligence of these mitzvoth. On the contrary, the supra-rational survival of the Jewish people is owed to Jewish observance of commandments such as the Sabbath and Kashrut which are partially supra-rational.

This situation begs the question: Is it not demeaning for non-Jews to be excluded from supra-rational commandments? In this instance, the Rambam’s wisdom and universal horizons come to the fore. In the Mishna Torah he states:

“Anyone who accepts upon himself and carefully observes the Seven Commandments is of the Righteous of the Nations of the World and has a portion in the World to Come. This is as long as he accepts and performs them because (he truly believes that) it was the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Who commanded them in the Torah, and that it was through Moses our Teacher we were informed that the Sons of Noah had already been commanded to observe them. But if he observes them because he convinced himself, then he is not considered a Resident Convert and is not of the Righteous of the Nations of the World, but merely one of their wise.”

This passage demonstrates the non-Jews are also subject to a supra-rational commandment. Namely, to the belief that the rational laws they follow have a divine origin. This qualification is crucial. Any moral system that lacks a sense of the divine and absolute is eventually degraded to a mere human convention, whose observance reflects utilitarian considerations rather than any transcendent goal. In due time, as we observe in contemporary Western societies, this outlook promotes ethical relativism and behavior which degrades humankind.

The Rambam's injunction thus makes non-Jewish humanity a partner of the Jewish people in shared submission to supra-rational commandments. It also lays foundations for the universal ethics of humanity to be solid and durable.

Viewing Noachide Commandments as an expression of rational Mishpatim has important implications in contemporary Jewish discourse. If non-Jews are forbidden from aborting except in cases when a pregnancy endangers the mother’s health and if non-Jews are forbidden from sexual activities which have gained broad acceptance in secular society, this means that the grounds for the prohibition of these practices are rational rather than supra-rational.

Taking note of this fact is important. Many religious Jews who oppose abortion and sexual immorality do so with purely religious arguments, implying that no valid secular argument can be made against them. The fact that these prohibitions are included in the Noachide Commandments reminds us that above and beyond doctrinal credos, a deep rational wisdom underpins the position of traditional Judaism on these matters.
Rabbi Dr. Cowen’s masterful analysis of the Noachide Commandments thus enables the reader to better appreciate the Mosaic Commandments. By highlighting how each set of laws complements the other, the reader is able to understand that far from being a marginal aspect of the Jewish tradition, the Noachide Commandments assert the centrality of rational behavior for the non-Jewish world and a judicious blend of rational and supra-rational behavior for the Jewish world. This blend has allowed the Jewish nation to survive and flourish throughout the millennia. Eventually, it will also pave the way for the ethical elevation of all humanity.        

*The Theory and Practice of Universal Ethics – the Noahide Laws, New York: Institute for Judaism and Civilization (printed by Kehot Publication Society), 2015.

Jews should be Jews, but Noahides should be non-Jews

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

In this piece, a Noahide explains that it is not good for Jews to become Noahides or for non-Jews to become Jews, Jews should stay Jewish and non-Jews should be Noahides, he says this is because Jews have a special role to play as a priest nation and there is a symbiotic relationship between Jews and non-Jewish Noahides. A symbiosis of inequality (here) is not symbiosis, it is parasitism.


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23272

The Reform Movement sabotages the Jewish-Gentile symbiosis

The Reform Movement has turned most Diaspora Jews into ethical monotheists - that is, Noahides.

Rafael Castro, 08/01/19 00:46 | updated: 00:36

Share

Rafael Castro

Rafael Castro is a Yale and Hebrew University educated business and political analyst based in Europe. Rafael specializes in proofreading, editing and ghostwriting quality texts for entrepreneurs and politicians. Rafael can be reached at rafaelcastro78@gmail.com

More from the author ►

The Reform Movement takes pride in interpreting the Torah in what it considers a more tolerant and open-minded way. Since the mid-19th century this has meant stripping Judaism and Jewish life of ritual commandments.

The end result has been to effectively turn most Diaspora Jews into Noahides. That is, into ethical monotheists. This appears to be harmless until we remember that according to Judaism, Noahides are supposed to be Gentiles - not Jews!

Jews are meant to be a priestly nation and to take over a more challenging – and rewarding – relationship with God. This allows Jews to serve as a light unto the nations and gradually draw all of humanity towards Biblical morality and the worship of one God. The Seven Noahide Commandments intended for all humankind are: Not to worship idols; not to curse God; to establish courts of justice; not to commit murder; not to commit adultery or sexual immorality; not to steal; not to eat flesh torn from a living animal (i.e. not to gratuitously hurt animals).

Jewish denominational differences have global reverberations. If the Reform Movement hadn't co-opted Noahism, religious Jews might be able to successfully draw millions of people disenchanted with Christianity, Islam and agnosticism to the seven Noahide commandments that God enjoined upon all of humanity. This would promote the universal message of Judaism and facilitate the accomplishment of the Jewish people’s historical mission.

Religious Jews in the Diaspora cannot do this. If they did persuade more non-Jews about the merits and truth inherent in the Noahide commandments, these Gentiles might end up in Reform temples, where they would be induced to think that Noahism is Judaism and that Judaism is Noahism.

However there has never been any requirement in Judaism to join the Jewish people in order to embrace ethical monotheism.  That is why centuries prior to the emergence of the Reform Movement, synagogues in the Eastern Mediterranean attracted Gentile God-fearers. These God-fearers embraced Jewish ethics and Jewish theology, without surrendering their national, linguistic and cultural identities.

A representative of Reform Jews might object to this argument, claiming that religious Jews should promote Noahism irrespective of how similar Reform credo and Noahism actually are. Indeed, this argument might be legitimate in 50 years when most Reform Jews will be halakhic Gentiles. In the meantime, it is clear that any Jewish efforts to promote Noahism in the Diaspora will just add to the number of Gentiles who convert via Reform clergy . These conversions would however be regrettable since they aggravate the misunderstanding and misconceptions on what constitutes Jewish peoplehood, thus further dividing the Jewish world.

It would be wonderful if in the 21st century, irrespective of language, nation and race, the whole human family embraced the Noahide commandments. Expecting ethical monotheists to join the fold of Judaism is misguided.  Both Jews and Gentiles best fulfill our mission if we accept the commandments assigned to us as

God's priestly nation and God's lay children respectively. Unfortunately, diluting Judaism sabotages the spiritual symbiosis between Jews and Gentiles. This harms the advancement of humanity and – ultimately – the attainment of universal peace.

Noahidist Jews take aim at abortion and euthanasia rights

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 
http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

The unofficial Sanhedrin in Israel is attempting to create a religious Noahide body that can replace the UN (here, here, here & here).  Now, even though the United Nations has signed onto the Noahide Laws (here), the unofficial Sanhedrin is calling the UN to be brought before a Jewish international tribunal to be tried for advocating abortion and euthanasia rights, as according to them these violate the Noahide prohibition against murder, even though Jews may get abortions and non-Jews are only not allowed to abort because the fetus belongs to Jews (here)

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/117329/un-rejects-bible-noahide-laws-abortions/

UN Rejects Bible, Noahide Laws: Says Abortions/Assisted Suicide Human Rights

By Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz November 21, 2018 , 1:31 pm

At that time, [marching] from Tirtza, Menachem subdued Tiphsah and all who were in it, and its territory; and because it did not surrender, he massacred [its people] and ripped open all its pregnant women. II Kings 15:16 (The Israel Bible™)

United Nations Building in New York. (Credit: Drop of Light/Shutterstock.com)

FacebookTwitterEmailWhatsAppPrintShare2,215

The United Nations Human Rights Council recently declared that abortions are a universal human right in a move that one rabbi sees as a reenactment of drowning Hebrew babies in Egypt. The nascent Sanhedrin reacted by ruling that this is a clear violation of the Noahide laws incumbent upon all humanity, warranting a hearing before the International Court of the Sanhedrin.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) recently drafted a resolution placing the life of the mother ahead of that of the unborn child.

“Although states parties may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary terminations of pregnancy, such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights under the Covenant,” says the draft that passed before the committee last week.

The resolution went one step further, saying that countries should guarantee “safe, legal and effective” access to abortion. It also says that governments should guarantee “boys and girls access to a wide range of affordable contraceptive methods, and prevent the stigmatization of girls seeking abortion.”

Though the resolution will not be legally binding, a previous version read before the committee in July 2017 has already been used as the basis for lawsuits. Last year, the New York-headquartered Center for Reproductive Rights assisted an Irish woman in petitioning the UNHRC in a case against the Irish government.  Siobhan Whelan sued the Irish government for travel costs and psychological treatment after she was forced to travel to England to have an abortion. The Irish government agreed to pay her roughly $34,000 after the UNHRC ruled that Whelan’s human rights were violated.

This was the second case in which the UNHRC ruled against the Irish government awarding complainants monetary compensation because of Ireland’s laws restricting abortions.

It is likely that the UNHRC under new leadership will become even more active in promoting abortion as a universal human right. Former two-term Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, who was chosen to lead the committee in August, pushed through legalized abortion legislation in her country before leaving office despite challenges in Constitutional Court. Prior to Bachelet’s efforts, Chile had a total ban on abortion.

The new resolution from the UNHRC also establishes assisted suicide as a universal human right. The draft of the resolution calls on countries to allow medical professionals to provide treatment to “facilitate the termination of life of afflicted adults, such as those who are terminally ill, who experience severe physical or mental pain and suffering and who wish to die with dignity.”

Dr. Eli Schussheim, a highly regarded Israeli surgeon who is the director of EFRAT-C.R.I.B, an organization that assists pregnant women who want to give birth but can’t afford to keep their baby.

“There is a trend in the world today to make an ideal out of things that are bad for people,” Dr. Schussheim told Breaking Israel News. “As a doctor, it is my experience that abortions are not for the benefit of women. They harm women. I have not spoken with a single woman who did not deeply regret having an abortion. This is not a moral or religious issue.”

“Abortions cause harm to women as individuals as well as humanity as a whole. One of the major functions of governments and the entire basis for the UNHRC is to bring good to people and they are doing precisely the opposite.”

“The Torah holds human life above all. The entire world was created for our benefit, so we could live. The world has taken this highest values and put it at the very lowest point. This is not just a problem for religion. It is a problem for humanity which could destroy everything. People today are crazy. They will fight for the life of a tree, of a bug, a flower, fish, and dolphins. These things are important, but they have turned the destruction of human life into a moral imperative. What craziness to say that it is a good thing to kill a baby in the womb.”

Dr. Schussheim’s belief in this imperative has driven him in this work for the past 40 years, enabling him to save 72,000 babies from being aborted.

Rabbi Yosef Berger, the rabbi of King David’s Tomb on Mount Zion, believed that the UN move to promulgate these agendas was to be expected preceding the Messiah.

“Midrash (homiletic teachings) states that there will be a reenactment of the Exodus from Egypt just before the arrival of the Messiah from the House of David,” Rabbi Berger told Breaking Israel News. “This love of abortions is a replay of Pharaoh throwing babies into the [River] Nile.”

Then Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, “Every boy that is born you shall throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.” Exodus 1:22

“People read the Bible today and think it can’t be true. It is exaggerated and what is written could never happen today,” Rabbi Berger said. “But the situation today is twice as bad as it was in Egypt. Pharaoh only killed the male babies.”

“Pharaoh thought he was a god, master of life and death,” Rabbi Berger said. “There is only one God. Every parent knows where his child came from. Only God can give life and only God should take it away.”

Rabbi Hillel Weiss, the spokesman for the nascent Sanhedrin, reacted strongly to the pro-abortion/pro-suicide move by the UNHRC.

“This is simply horrifying. Abortions and assisted suicides are both explicitly against the Noahide Law which prohibits the spilling of blood,” Rabbi Weiss told Breaking Israel News. “These values they call human rights have only one possible outcome: the destruction of humanity.”

“Any official body that adopts these laws will be brought to justice in the international court of the Sanhedrin.”

“The origins of the United Nations was rooted in the Biblical concept of 70 nations,” Weiss said. “In their very beginnings they related to this by establishing the State of Israel. But when they turned their back on Jerusalem, they rejected their Biblical ideals and lost their mandate. They have become a forum for political plots that oppose holiness, purity, humanity, and the Bible This is how Sodom was built up.”

The Sanhedrin is working with the leaders of several nations to establish a new international body based in Jerusalem on Biblical values that will replace the UN.