"Does God Still give Revelation?"



 The most disturbing aspect of the religious world and their thirst for supernatural experience and supernatural encounter is their claim that God is still revealing Himself verbally to them. They claim that God is speaking to them; that is a constant claim.

It has been a curiosity to me and should be to us, I think, that if God is still giving revelation, the only ones that He gives it to are founders of various cults.


The Rambam said just like one can not and must not add to the written law so he must not add to thee oral law.




In the more spiritual sense the oral and written law [Old Testament and the two Talmuds]  are the standard by which you measure truth.


Just to give you a little deeper insight into that, the Old Testament Canon was closed about 425 B.C.. The last prophecy was written by Malachi, placed into the canon.

Now there were many attempts made by Satan to infiltrate the Old Testament with uninspired books. At least 14 of them have been accumulated and together they are called the Apocrypha.  They are not a part of our Torah. They are not inspired books. They are books 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon,  Baruch,  the History of Susanna,  the Prayer of Manassas, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. All spurious. They were clearly fakes. How do we know they were fakes? They were written long after the canon was completed and they lacked the prophetic quality and authorship to stamp them as inspired Scripture. None of their writers claimed divine inspiration and some openly disclaimed it. And Apocrypha books contained errors of facts, errors of ethics, errors of doctrine.

For example, some of the Apocrypha books advocate suicide. Some of them advocate assassination and some of them teach praying for dead people.  The Old Testament was unquestioned; it is still unquestioned because it is so evident what was inspired.



There is now also a formidable group of fakes


These are were attempts to pollute the authentic Law of Moses text with spurious revelation. Now, listen to me. That attempt didn't end in those days; it is still going on. People and groups have continued to claim their works and their writings are inspired by God, and are true, and authoritative and binding. And whenever they do that, it leads to aberrant doctrine.

To add anything to Torah or to downplay the singular, unique, inspiration of Torah, then is to not only go against the Word of God ("Thou shalt not add nor subtract from this law I give unto you this day."), but it is to bring yourself into the very dangerous place where you are susceptible to the curse of God. And, of course, what happens when you introduce something as true is you open up a spiritual free-for-all, unintentionally perhaps.

The religious world today has initiated that free-for-all as serious as any error in that movement is the error of claiming revelation from God. It is reckless; it is indiscriminate. 

Musar means the books of Ethics of the Middle Ages which focus on character development and fear of God.
The aspect of Musar that is the most important is the lack of "Shtick."
I mean to say, there is the basic message of what the Torah says to do--which is contained in the written and oral law--the Tenach and two Talmuds.
But the Middle Ages were unique in decoding that message.
And after the middle ages an onerous amount of garbage got mixed in to what is supposedly authentic Torah.
[Thus I avoid all religious groups because they teach pseudo Torah. The only kind of religious place I would be willing to walk into would be a Litvak Yeshiva. (These places are roughly based on the path of Gra and Reb Israel Salanter.)]

[The basic approach is that what ever the Torah says that is what we believe. There is no emphasis on doctrine but rather learning and keeping Torah, and it is God centered, not man centered. This is what makes Litvak Judaism unique-there is not idolatry of human beings, but rather worship of God.]

[The truth be told the basic set of Mediaeval Musar books does the best job of giving over the essence of Torah, that is the Obligations of the Heart, Gates of Repentance, אורחות צדיקים ,ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם]


[I am not uniformly against Musar based on mystics. Mystics like the Ari and Avraham Abulafia I have a lot of respect for. It is just after the events of 1648 A.D. that the Sitra Achra {Dark Side} got mixed up with almost all religious Judaism. So books written after that period tend to lead people down the road to hell.] 


The idea of getting which books form a legitimate part of Torah is important, and excluding the books that pretend to be part of this tradition but in fact are promoting an agenda is important. The word אפיקורוסות heresy is a harsh word but useful. Every group has defining beliefs.  If it would not then it would not be a group. As distasteful as the word can be, it is  normal and inevitable in the process of marking boundaries, drawing lines of exclusion, and defining group identity. The term marks the most important boundaries of a group, beyond which a group understands its own identity to be profoundly harmed or compromised. It is a key flag in trying to determine how a group perceives its fundamental essence. All groups, religious or not, have boundaries. Without boundaries of some kind it would be impossible to have a sense of group identity. Granted, religious boundaries often make claims to truth, but these are hardly more exceptional than claims made by ethnic groups or political parties. Religions, when speaking of heresy, are simply doing what groups do generally. 

Black and white sex relations

The ultimate and irreversible repudiation of one’s identity is to have children with someone of another race. This is a particularly stinging repudiation when done by a woman, and it is especially true in the context of the state-engineered genocidal assault on white peole, from aggressive desegregation in the United States to the massive importing of immigrants into European homelands. Fifty years ago in homogeneous places, a White woman who crossed racial lines may have been benevolently dismissed as a rare curiosity. Today, she is an unwitting tool in a global war on our people.

South Africa is a great example of what happens when blacks are in charge. No one is safe.

The option of a girl friend is much better than marriage.
See Chronicles I  2:46 on the girl friends that Caleb the friend of Yoshua Ben Nun had.
To most rishonim this is perfectly allowed, Raavad, Ramban, Rosh etc.
This issue is brought up right in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in Even HaEzer [by RavJoseph Karo] and the commentaries there show that the Rambam is not so far from the Raavad as people think.



On marriage, the  guys I know,  are telling me the same story; don't do it. It just turns to garbage no matter what you do. They'd rather be independent. At best it's a tedious bore. At worst a living hell with financial ruin thrown in for good measure. The problem is that when you're young, you just naturally fall into this mind set where your whole self image is based on how women regard you, and so you spend all your money and energy trying to make yourself acceptable to them. Then later in life the shine wears off and you finally realize that you've wasted yourself on a bunch of garbage.


I couldn't even begin to list all of the  folks I know from work or through my family with kids they either don't get along with, are disappointed in, or are so distant as to not even be a factor in each other's lives.


Marriage is a sham for men. There is no benefit. If you are about to get married, think it over. Don't let your sexual desire do your thinking for you. Don't let your  "I'm in love" euphoria put you on auto-pilot. You will wake up in a hell of a hangover staring at this woman who will control your life.

A few years ago  I started talking to all the  guys I knew...and they all said the same thing; "don't do it, it's hell. Even when it's not bad, it's hell." You end up being closely tied to an old woman. Think about that. I can go to Europe or the south seas tomorrow. If I was married I wouldn't have the money and I'd have to ask HER permission. Don't get married unless you are absolutely, religiously in love with her. Like you'd carry her sick aged body to the toilet and wipe her ass and be happy to do it kind of love.

What I'm saying is that human beings are nasty weak treacherous creatures that are for the most part totally untrustworthy. Experience is my basis for this statement, both mine and others who I know or who have written reliable histories. If you can find a woman to be your companion who is not treacherous, a deceitful little actress, a sly whore or a manipulative nag or a shrieking hag, then you are among the lucky few. Congratulations. I hope your luck continues to hold out.

OK, assume that you will end up divorced and won't see your kids and lose half of your assets, how different is that from being married? The religious world makes a show as if they are pro marriage but did everything they could to destroy mine, and to rape my children. Their facade of righteousness is largely a scam to get money.

Most married guys I know are working their asses off to pay bills, rarely to get to spend time with their families, mediocre or no sex life, and have wives that spend as much of their money as absolutely possible.

My problem with marriage isn't a fear of divorce; it is that the whole thing sucks divorce or not.

What security is there for men in marriage?

If I cheat on my wife, she gets half my stuff.

If she cheats on me, she still gets half my stuff.

Why the hell should I get married?

Man, it's easy to get depressed about not being married when we live in a society that constantly feeds us the image of the happy couple. It's one big lie. The happiest person alive is someone who isn't a prisoner dependent on another human being... We only have 80 or so years on this rock to achieve true freedom

Very few marriages last nowadays, and even guys older than me are telling me not to even think about it... It's a grossly overrated source of happiness. And for the 80% that do go through divorce, it will financially ruin you for life. Period. You can take your best 10 earning years from say, 35 to 45 and take all the wealth you would have accumulated and flush it down the toilet. Because it will go to her and her lawyer. If it happens naturally and it's good then great, good luck. But the worst thing is to force it, to make gross exertions and ignore all sorts of red lights going off just to be hooked up and "normal." Get some hobbies. Relax. Hang out. Enjoy. Take life as it comes.

As men, we all know that a woman's primary objective is to marry. After years of experience I've discovered their most commonly used strategy. here it is:

1. Girl pressures guy for marriage.

2. Guy delays.

3. Girl gradually starts destroying guy's self-esteem and eliminating his friends.

4. Guy becomes too weak and too much of a loser to find something better than what he has.

5. Girl starts to limit sex. In effect, she's controlling the only good thing in the guy's life.

6. Guy is in despair. Capitulates to marriage.

Then 5-10 years later the guy is an empty shell of his former self. Girl is a ruthless manipulating machine. Girl divorces loser husband. Girl takes 80% of guy's stuff because the guy is too brain-dead to find a good lawyer. Girl lives happily ever after. Guy becomes bald alcoholic who dies of heart attack at 45 years old.

Marriage turns to garabage no matter what you do. At best, it's a tedious bore - at worst, a living hell with financial ruin thrown in for good measure.
American women put up a "pre-marital  show" to impress you. Make you think you're in love. But once you sign the dotted line of marriage, BAM, they get fat, bitchy, cheat on you, and screw you in divorce court.
American women offer up a  worm sandwich and then get pissed off when men go elsewhere to eat.
If I ever think I want to get married, I'll find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

If not for that previous president, the USA never would have awoken. He showed people the rate of decline  under socialism. That is, people realized it would not stop, but go from worse to worse.

Are men and women really of light and good will and love?

Are men and women really  of light and good will and love?

This does not seem to be so according to the Torah. The Torah states that God wanted to destroy all human beings because "their thoughts are only evil all day." [מחשבות לבו רק רע כל היום] Then he brought the flood. And that did not change anything. So then He decided not to destroy mankind because "their thoughts are only evil,"  so why bother?  What' the use anyway? Why take the trouble? Let them tear each other to pieces. Who could care less?
Rousseau disagrees with this and John Locke also.

 Rousseau paints a picture of someone sitting by the rill of a stream,  away from the corrupt sophistication of
the cities, listening to the whistling of the wind in the reeds and to
the peaceful grazing of cows, and therefore able to get himself into
a state of moral tranquility. This picture is pure fantasy. It is not valid. 

Nature is a world in which every animal rips every other animal to pieces. I would go to the mikveh in a river frozen in the winter and almost every day I saw the remains of birds that had sat down to rest in the cold with no heat or food, and some other animal sneaked  up on them and torn them to pieces.  
The Jewish religious world likes to capitalize on this view of Russeou, painting themselves as people of light and good will, the protector from the forces of evil, the secular Jews and the gentiles.
 Nature is a world in which there is nothing but bloodshed; fearful struggle goes on between various races of animals, even between those of plants. In fact, nature is one enormous slaughterhouse.
A power of violence is permeates everything. Each species  of animal  devours the others. Over all these numerous races of animals man is placed, and his destructive hand spares nothing that lives. He kills to obtain food and he kills to clothe himself. He kills to adorn himself, he kills in order to attack, and he kills in order to defend himself. He kills to instruct himself and he kills to amuse himself. He kills for fun and he kills in anger. He kills to kill. 
 The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar, upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.
The earth calls for blood. The whole of the world is filled with
slaughter and the sounds of slaughter. Dark and irrational
forces move men, and  to treat them as if they were creatures
of light, to treat them as if they were rational or benevolent, is
simply an empirical error. Anyone who does so  leads men to their doom.  Anyone who pretends to be a being of light and good will is most certainly leading men to their doom. 

So what is my solution? People that see religious communities as the answer have never lived under the rule of religiosity and pseudo righteousness. Even in religious groups in Israel, things are better because of the secular government which limits the tyranny the religious want, but can not have.

(1) I was looking at the Old Testament and I had just a few random thoughts that I just wanted to jot down.

Caleb the friend of Joshua, the disciple of Moses had more children from his concubines [girl friend] than he had from his wives. His family tree is spelled out in Chronicles I 2:46 (chapter 2 verse 46) and later on the chapter 4 of that same book. The Gra pointed out that this seems to disprove the idea that only a king can have  a concubine. 
(That is to say: The Gra used this fact as a proof against the Rambam and in support of the Raavad and the Ramban and most other rishonim.)


The fascinating thing here is that Caleb seems to be one of the only persons in the Old Testament that never a word of reproach is uttered against by God. He is declared "וימלא אחרי השם" "He went totally after God." Everyone else seems to get some words of critique.
(2) The snake when he wanted to get Eve to eat from the Fruit of the Tree said a true statement. "You will  be like God knowing the difference between good and evil." Later when God threw them out of the Garden of Eden in fact it says He said to his angels "See tat man has become like us knowing the difference between good an evil."

He also said another half true statement.לא מות תמותון You will not die. As God had said on the day that they eat from the fruit they would die. Well again the snake won the debate. They did not die on that day. [But they did die eventually Adam 930 years later.]

Hegel also noticed that the snake at least in his statement, "You will be like God" did not lie. [The Talmud says any lie that does not have some truth mixed with it can not stand.]


(3) I also wanted to mention that it is not clear to me right now if the Rambam [טעון ונטען פרק ו' הלכה ג] hold by the idea of the Ketzot HaChoshen that I mentioned in my previous essays. I still need to do some thinking about that.

(4) Reb Shmuel Berenbaum noted that the same complain about mankind that was used to destroy mankind by the flood was the exact same argument used to save mankind. First it was "I will destroy mankind because his thoughts are only evil all day." Then it was "I will never destroy mankind again because his thoughts are  evil (and therefore what would be the point)?"

(5) Who are the "sons of God" (in Genesis) that came on the daughters of men and gave birth to the great heroes of old?