Noah/noach - "rest" aka the patriarch of the flood. Patriarch implies God the father, and flood the motion thereof, hence the unmoved (rest) mover of flowing (inception towards death) form (life).
Repeating my comments since this was deleted and reposted:
What do you think Noahidism is? What antisemitism laws are perceived as unconstitutional? How could criticizing Israel be legislated as forbidden in America? Since the video is about Australia, what do Australia's laws have to do with the US Constitution?
If a law is unconstitutional it can be challenged up to the Supreme Court, which to my knowledge hasn't permitted any unconstitutional antisemitism law. The speaker's first conclusions don't follow from his clip of Netanyahu doing the ordinary posturing and demanding that sovereigns do one to another.
Since the video is 3 hours without transcript, I'm not bothering to continue beyond the start, which would be to enter the middle of an argument when definitions are not provided upfront.
It's not the Noahide laws, but their abuse. Since you and I are Noahides we have just as much right to contribute to the interpretation of Noahide law as anyone else. In fact, the constitution of the Swamp Rangers meets all the regulations one could ask of a Noahide court so we can put our interpretations up against anyone else's that claims to be a Noahide court. Anyone who reasonably volunteers to mediate disputes, like Deborah or Roy Bean, constitutes a Noahide court. So the objection is not to the reality but to some imagination based on ambiguous actions and misread Talmudic passages.
Now, as a Constitutionist I point out that all Americans are sovereigns and have responsibilities as such. Many don't take that responsibility and then complain that American law is sliding; but the fact is that as sovereigns they are free to protect themselves, to instruct their public servants differently, and to reject servant overreach by refusing to comply with unconstitutional demands, and when they complain that nothing can be done they abrogate responsibility. So if you don't like an interpretation of Noahide law, promulgate your own interpretation as a Noahide court!
There are seven laws; the law of no idolatry prohibits belief in other than the Creator God; and Abrahamic religions each recognize the principle of diversity of expression in the one God, in different ways. Therefore none of the Abrahamic religions is idolatry in itself under Noahide laws, they are only judged idolatrous within one religion as it judges another.
Maybe since nobody else is really doing it I should just declare myself a Noahide court and start judging, and admitting interrelationship with anyone else who declares a Noahide court. That would be fun, especially when the Jews come along. We could use the Abolition of Man appendix as our base interpretative framework. Then we could put these objections about such courts to rest. Noahidism is not unique to Judaism but can be claimed by 100-200 cultures that each have flood traditions.
[Noahide court would work] like any other court (Deborah and Roy Bean are great examples). You accept those who consent to the jurisdiction of the seven laws and you rule accordingly and in consultation with other jurists doing the same thing. You can also publish ex parte rulings to speak to situations on your own initiative. Nobody has a monopoly on Noahidism, and the doomers are mistaken to think that those who've spent more time planning the subject have some natural advantage over those who have equal communal access to understanding the laws. This would be a good place to ask questions, but suffice for now that it appears eminently doable and would in theory answer any 3 hours of dooming.
Noah/noach - "rest" aka the patriarch of the flood. Patriarch implies God the father, and flood the motion thereof, hence the unmoved (rest) mover of flowing (inception towards death) form (life).
No rest for the wicked though...
Repeating my comments since this was deleted and reposted:
What do you think Noahidism is? What antisemitism laws are perceived as unconstitutional? How could criticizing Israel be legislated as forbidden in America? Since the video is about Australia, what do Australia's laws have to do with the US Constitution?
If a law is unconstitutional it can be challenged up to the Supreme Court, which to my knowledge hasn't permitted any unconstitutional antisemitism law. The speaker's first conclusions don't follow from his clip of Netanyahu doing the ordinary posturing and demanding that sovereigns do one to another.
Since the video is 3 hours without transcript, I'm not bothering to continue beyond the start, which would be to enter the middle of an argument when definitions are not provided upfront.
It's not the Noahide laws, but their abuse. Since you and I are Noahides we have just as much right to contribute to the interpretation of Noahide law as anyone else. In fact, the constitution of the Swamp Rangers meets all the regulations one could ask of a Noahide court so we can put our interpretations up against anyone else's that claims to be a Noahide court. Anyone who reasonably volunteers to mediate disputes, like Deborah or Roy Bean, constitutes a Noahide court. So the objection is not to the reality but to some imagination based on ambiguous actions and misread Talmudic passages.
Now, as a Constitutionist I point out that all Americans are sovereigns and have responsibilities as such. Many don't take that responsibility and then complain that American law is sliding; but the fact is that as sovereigns they are free to protect themselves, to instruct their public servants differently, and to reject servant overreach by refusing to comply with unconstitutional demands, and when they complain that nothing can be done they abrogate responsibility. So if you don't like an interpretation of Noahide law, promulgate your own interpretation as a Noahide court!
There are seven laws; the law of no idolatry prohibits belief in other than the Creator God; and Abrahamic religions each recognize the principle of diversity of expression in the one God, in different ways. Therefore none of the Abrahamic religions is idolatry in itself under Noahide laws, they are only judged idolatrous within one religion as it judges another.
Maybe since nobody else is really doing it I should just declare myself a Noahide court and start judging, and admitting interrelationship with anyone else who declares a Noahide court. That would be fun, especially when the Jews come along. We could use the Abolition of Man appendix as our base interpretative framework. Then we could put these objections about such courts to rest. Noahidism is not unique to Judaism but can be claimed by 100-200 cultures that each have flood traditions.
[Noahide court would work] like any other court (Deborah and Roy Bean are great examples). You accept those who consent to the jurisdiction of the seven laws and you rule accordingly and in consultation with other jurists doing the same thing. You can also publish ex parte rulings to speak to situations on your own initiative. Nobody has a monopoly on Noahidism, and the doomers are mistaken to think that those who've spent more time planning the subject have some natural advantage over those who have equal communal access to understanding the laws. This would be a good place to ask questions, but suffice for now that it appears eminently doable and would in theory answer any 3 hours of dooming.