Noahide Ex- Christians

[Nakosis]

I can kind of see why ex-Christians become Noahide after actually reading the Bible. From my own experience with Christianity the OT is pretty much ignored. Christian belief really lacks the foundation of the Torah. And then they find that foundation by asking questions and finding answers in the OT.


"Each of us found out about Noahides in our own way. Some are looking for a clarification or better understanding of a word, verse, or concept held within our "faith". As the majority of the Noahides we have spoken with are former Christians, we found we were simply looking for answers that directly or indirectly concerned our relationship with God. For each of us, there were always questions about Christianity that were never fully answered, dismissed as being disruptive, or outright ignored by church leaders and members. While others, who were outside the Christian faith system, appeare to have been looking for Spirituality or a means in which to find a connection to a higher plain of existence."

The Experience of Becoming A Noahide

Can an atheist be Noahide? At this point I don't see why not, but plan to look into it further.

 

[Laika]

I can kind of see why ex-Christians become Noahide after actually reading the Bible. From my own experience with Christianity the OT is pretty much ignored. Christian belief really lacks the foundation of the Torah. And then they find that foundation by asking questions and finding answers in the OT.


"Each of us found out about Noahides in our own way. Some are looking for a clarification or better understanding of a word, verse, or concept held within our "faith". As the majority of the Noahides we have spoken with are former Christians, we found we were simply looking for answers that directly or indirectly concerned our relationship with God. For each of us, there were always questions about Christianity that were never fully answered, dismissed as being disruptive, or outright ignored by church leaders and members. While others, who were outside the Christian faith system, appeare to have been looking for Spirituality or a means in which to find a connection to a higher plain of existence."

The Experience of Becoming A Noahide

Can an atheist be Noahide? At this point I don't see why not, but plan to look into it further.

I had no idea this even existed so thanks for sharing. Wikipedia says that "according to Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah to be assured of a place in the World to Come (Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous."

Noahidism | Wikiwand

The thing that sticks out is that the seven laws of Noah includes (1) Do not deny God and (2) Do not Blaspheme God so Atheism would not be strictly compatible with it at a guess. However, you may find some level of compatibility if you were to take a secular interpretation of the laws and follow it for yourself as some people do with Jewish Atheism, Christian Atheism and Jesusism. No harm in trying maybe?

 

[Nakosis]

I had no idea this even existed so thanks for sharing. Wikipedia says that "according to Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah to be assured of a place in the World to Come (Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous."

Noahidism | Wikiwand

The thing that sticks out is that the seven laws of Noah includes (1) Do not deny God and (2) Do not Blaspheme God so Atheism would not be strictly compatible with it at a guess. However, you may find some level of compatibility if you were to take a secular interpretation of the laws and follow it for yourself as some people do with Jewish Atheism, Christian Atheism and Jesusism. No harm in trying maybe?

In atheism I really mean agnostic atheism. Such that you aren't actually denying God. More that you continue to question all beliefs about God instead of accepting any specific one.

Other than that, just maybe there is some teaching/wisdom for Non-Jews from the OT.

 

[columbus]

an an atheist be Noahide? At this point I don't see why not, but plan to look into it further.

I'm nothing like a scholar, but I wouldn't have a problem being Noahide myself. Partly because I am already most of the way there, being more of an agnostic deist than a solid atheist. Although there's no functional difference between them. Frankly, I'm pretty conservative when it comes to morals and ethics. And I wouldn't ever blaspheme God, although I take great delight in making fun of the people who believe in irrational things like Trinitarianism monotheism. I don't think that would at all conflict with Noahide beliefs.

Possibly the biggest obstacle to identifying as Noahide, after my unwillingness to label myself, would be bacon.
That's if I understand the whole concept properly. I might well not.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

Not being at all familiar with Noahide I looked into it and found it has seven laws, which are:

1 Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One G-d alone and worship only Him.

2 Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden. Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the ultimate goal of life.

3 Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in G-d's image, is sacred.

4 Cursing the name of G-d is forbidden. Besides honoring and respecting G-d, we learn from this precept that our speech must be ......sanctified, as that is the distinctive sign which separated man from the animals.

5 Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do with as we please.

6 Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This was commanded to ......Noah for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. The rest were already given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.)

7 Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other ......useful laws or customs.​

Looking into #2, Incestuous and adulterous relations, it says these are:

against (a man) having union with his mother
against (a man) having union with his sister
against (a man) having union with the wife of his father
against (a man) having union with another man's wife
against (a man) copulating with a beast
against a woman copulating with a beast
against (a man) lying carnally with a male
against (a man) lying carnally with his father
against (a man) lying carnally with his father's brother
against engaging in erotic conduct that may lead to a prohibited union
source
​

Interestingly enough, while this law does recognize women, it prohibits them from copulating with a beast, all the other relationships that are prohibited to men are open to women.

A woman is not prohibited from

having union with her father
having union with her brother
having union with the husband of his wife
having union with another woman's husband
lying carnally with a female
lying carnally with her mother
lying carnally with her mother's sister
​

And while a man is prohibited from having union or lying carnally with his father and mother, fathers and mothers are not prohibited from having union or lying carnally with their children.

Kind of odd if you ask me.

.

 

[Kemosloby]

There are no such things as "Noah Laws". It's a contradiction of the bible which says no law was given until Moses. People may have been aware of sin, Noah may have preached righteousness and repenting from sin, but there was no law.

 

[columbus]

against (a man) lying carnally with a male

Hmm...
At my age, I don't find sex all that big of a deal. Maybe I just wore it out back in the day. Apparently, though, I don't have to give up bacon. So, bacon but no sex.
I could probably live with that.

If something ever happened to Doug, I don't think I would be interested in starting over with someone else anyway. I would probably just never do "it" again. Or is it like Christianity, where I am required to sincerely repent? 'Cause that ain't happenin'.

Tom

 

[Skwim]

There are no such things as "Noah Laws". It's a contradiction of the bible which says no law was given until Moses. People may have been aware of sin, Noah may have preached righteousness and repenting from sin, but there was no law.

I'm in no position to argue or clarify the concept of Noahidism, the subject of this thread, but in reply to your remark here I suggest you take a look at THIS Wikipedia article, or do a Google search.

.

 

[Kemosloby]

I'm in no position to argue or clarify the concept of Noahidism, the subject of this thread, but in reply to your remark here I suggest you take a look at THIS[/ur] Wikipedia article, or do a Google search.

.

The Talmud is not the old testament and has no part with the bible. The original thread suggests people who like the bible would like Noahidism, which is not true. Only people who like the bible but have not read the bible would fall for Noahidism. The Talmud is more for the Jews who don't believe in Jesus...modern day Judaism..

 

[columbus]

Only people who like the bible but have not read the bible would fall for Noahidism.

Nonsense.
I have read the Bible. Probably not every word, because Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, and the New Testament were mostly what I cared about. Lots of parts I skimmed.

Noahide makes far more sense for someone drawn to the God of Abraham, but not ethnically Jewish, than the strange set of beliefs that are mostly from Paul and John. As opposed to Jesus. I am confident that Jesus would roll over in His grave if He knew that He had been deified and worshipped, in direct contradiction to the 1st Commandment of the Decalogue.
Tom

 

[Kemosloby]

Nonsense.
I have read the Bible. Probably not every word, because Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, and the New Testament were mostly what I cared about. Lots of parts I skimmed.

Noahide makes far more sense for someone drawn to the God of Abraham, but not ethnically Jewish, than the strange set of beliefs that are mostly from Paul and John. As opposed to Jesus. I am confident that Jesus would roll over in His grave if He knew that He had been deified and worshipped, in direct contradiction to the 1st Commandment of the Decalogue.
Tom

John and Paul are in the bible, people who like the bible would like John and Paul, not strange Rabbinical texts not found in the bible. You go follow Noahidism though, I have no problem with that. You're not fit for Christianity if you believe Christ is in a grave.

 

[Tumah]

I can kind of see why ex-Christians become Noahide after actually reading the Bible. From my own experience with Christianity the OT is pretty much ignored. Christian belief really lacks the foundation of the Torah. And then they find that foundation by asking questions and finding answers in the OT.


"Each of us found out about Noahides in our own way. Some are looking for a clarification or better understanding of a word, verse, or concept held within our "faith". As the majority of the Noahides we have spoken with are former Christians, we found we were simply looking for answers that directly or indirectly concerned our relationship with God. For each of us, there were always questions about Christianity that were never fully answered, dismissed as being disruptive, or outright ignored by church leaders and members. While others, who were outside the Christian faith system, appeare to have been looking for Spirituality or a means in which to find a connection to a higher plain of existence."

The Experience of Becoming A Noahide

Can an atheist be Noahide? At this point I don't see why not, but plan to look into it further.

Understanding that the source of the concept of Noahidism comes from the Talmud, I made a post a ways back about it as understood in its original context. Today, when nothing is sacred, people call themselves whatever they want so I have to specify Jewish Noahidism.

With respect to your question, it doesn't seem like there's anything stopping an atheist from calling himself a Noahide, but when you get into the details, it would be impossible for a Jewish Noahide to do so.

 

[Tumah]

Not being at all familiar with Noahide I looked into it and found it has seven laws, which are:

1 Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One G-d alone and worship only Him.

2 Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden. Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the ultimate goal of life.

3 Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in G-d's image, is sacred.

4 Cursing the name of G-d is forbidden. Besides honoring and respecting G-d, we learn from this precept that our speech must be ......sanctified, as that is the distinctive sign which separated man from the animals.

5 Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do with as we please.

6 Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This was commanded to ......Noah for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. The rest were already given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.)

7 Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other ......useful laws or customs.​

Looking into #2, Incestuous and adulterous relations, it says these are:

against (a man) having union with his mother
against (a man) having union with his sister
against (a man) having union with the wife of his father
against (a man) having union with another man's wife
against (a man) copulating with a beast
against a woman copulating with a beast
against (a man) lying carnally with a male
against (a man) lying carnally with his father
against (a man) lying carnally with his father's brother
against engaging in erotic conduct that may lead to a prohibited union
source
​

Interestingly enough, while this law does recognize women, it prohibits them from copulating with a beast, all the other relationships that are prohibited to men are open to women.

A woman is not prohibited from

having union with her father
having union with her brother
having union with the husband of his wife
having union with another woman's husband
lying carnally with a female
lying carnally with her mother
lying carnally with her mother's sister
​

And while a man is prohibited from having union or lying carnally with his father and mother, fathers and mothers are not prohibited from having union or lying carnally with their children.

Kind of odd if you ask me.

.

I'll point out that your source is a Christian site. They don't seem to have listed their sources for their list. In Jewish sources, a non-Jew is restricted from 6 people (well, 5 and an animal): mother, father's wife, married woman, sister from the same mother, male and an animal.

They're listed from the perspective of the male, because that's just how it is. But the same way a man can't have relations with his mother, a mother can't have relations with her son. Its a question of recognized relationships, not individual prohibitions. The relationship between a mother and child is recognized, the relationship between a father and child is not. Hence its prohibited for a person to have relations with his mother

Lesbian relationships are not recognized by Torah Law and are permitted (although for Jews, they are prohibited by Rabbinic decree). Therefore theoretically, it wouldn't be prohibited for a women to have relations with her mother.

Similarly, a relation between a male and his father is prohibited, not because its his father, but because his father is a male. Therefore relations between a woman and her father isn't prohibited by Noahide Law.

 

[Skwim]

They're listed from the perspective of the male, because that's just how it is.

Which I could understand if it wasn't for the glaring exception. "against a woman copulating with a beast." This alone shows that the perspective of the female mattered and not overlooked.

But the same way a man can't have relations with his mother, a mother can't have relations with her son. Its a question of recognized relationships, not individual prohibitions.

That's the obvious implication, not unlike prohibiting clapping with the left hand but not saying anything about the right, which would logically imply the right hand would also be prohibited. However, there's still the implication (stretching it a bit) that in the case, say, of a son and mother "having union," the onus would fall upon the son but not the mother, the list not stating the mother was prohibited from such a union.

Lesbian relationships are not recognized by Torah Law and are permitted (although for Jews, they are prohibited by Rabbinic decree). Therefore theoretically, it wouldn't be prohibited for a women to have relations with her mother.

Yeah, I noted that as well.

Similarly, a relation between a male and his father is prohibited, not because its his father, but because his father is a male. Therefore relations between a woman and her father isn't prohibited by Noahide Law.

Nor, as I pointed out, prohibited from

having union with her brother
having union with the husband of his wife
having union with another woman's husband
lying carnally with her mother's sister
​

So, other than being prohibited from copulating with a beast, women were free to unionize and carnallate with whomever they wished. All in all a far better deal, sexually speaking.

.

.​

 

[Tumah]

Which I could understand if it wasn't for the glaring exception. "against a woman copulating with a beast." This alone shows that the perspective of the female mattered and not overlooked.

I think that was something your source put in on their own volition. My source (Maimonides, a Jewish codifier) just lists it as "six prohibited relations: ...and an animal". He doesn't specify a female with an animal.

That's the obvious implication, not unlike prohibiting clapping with the left hand but not saying anything about the right, which would logically imply the right hand would also be prohibited. However, there's still the implication (stretching it a bit) that in the case, say, of a son and mother "having union," the onus would fall upon the son but not the mother, the list not stating the mother was prohibited from such a union.

That's generally not the case in Jewish Law between two mature individuals.

Nor, as I pointed out, prohibited from

having union with her brother​

​

With her brother from her father.

having union with the husband of his wife

That doesn't even make sense.

having union with another woman's husband

That's never forbidden by relation laws.

lying carnally with her mother's sister

Or any female.

​

So, other than being prohibited from copulating with a beast, women were free to unionize and carnallate with whomever they wished. All in all a far better deal, sexually speaking.

That would be assuming that you were right about the onus only falling on the male, which I don't believe is the case as I can't think of a logical reason it should be.

 

[Rival]

The Talmud is not the old testament and has no part with the bible. The original thread suggests people who like the bible would like Noahidism, which is not true. Only people who like the bible but have not read the bible would fall for Noahidism. The Talmud is more for the Jews who don't believe in Jesus...modern day Judaism..

Haha, I've read the Bible cover to cover more than once and I'm still a Noahide.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Kemosloby]

Haha, I've read the Bible cover to cover more than once and I'm still a Noahide.

Would you like to try again?

I think you skimmed. How can you believe in "Noahide laws"? There is no mention of them anywhere in the bible and contradicts scripture.

 

[Rival]

I think you skimmed. How can you believe in "Noahide laws"? There is no mention of them anywhere in the bible and contradicts scripture.

Because no-one has ever said that the Noahide Laws are set down in the Bible the same way the Torah is set down. Also, I didn't skim. It's just because you can't seem to comprehend that a person can read the Bible and not see Jesus there. The first time I became an effective Noahide I had no idea that it was even a thing - and it was through reading the Bible and coming to the conclusion that Jesus was not in it (the Hebrew Scriptures). At this time, I had no internet, no phone and no Jewish contacts. I was on my own and that is still the conclusion I came to. I've been reading the Bible since I recieved my first real copy at age 9. I used to attend church regularly, both Anglican and Roman Catholic ones. Nothing on G-d's earth could convince me that Jesus is in the Tanach.

So I'd really appreciate you not trying to tell me what I read and don't read.

Secondly, this Christian hatred of the Talmud is laughable. I hope you realise that your messiah would have followed the Oral Law and the NT demonstrates this in places.

 

[Kemosloby]

Because no-one has ever said that the Noahide Laws are set down in the Bible the same way the Torah is set down. Also, I didn't skim. It's just because you can't seem to comprehend that a person can read the Bible and not see Jesus there. The first time I became an effective Noahide I had no idea that it was even a thing - and it was through reading the Bible and coming to the conclusion that Jesus was not in it (the Hebrew Scriptures). At this time, I had no internet, no phone and no Jewish contacts. I was on my own and that is still the conclusion I came to. I've been reading the Bible since I recieved my first real copy at age 9. I used to regularly attend church, both Anglican and Roman Catholic ones. Nothing on G-d's earth could convince me that Jesus was in the Tanach.

So I'd really appreciate you not trying to tell me what I read and don't read.

Secondly, this Christian hatred of the Talmud is laughable. I hope you realise that your messiah would have followed the Oral Law and the NT demonstrates this in places.

I doubt it, He seemed to have a real problem with the Rabbis and basically everything that came out of their mouths. They also couldn't see Jesus in the old testament.

 

[Rival]

I doubt it, He seemed to have a real problem with the Rabbis and basically everything that came out of their mouths. They also couldn't see Jesus in the old testament.

Jesus took part in the Feast of the Dedication (John 10:22). This is Chanukkah. It is Rabbinic and not found anywhere in the Written Torah. It's part of Oral Torah.