rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/18/84)
A number of people have pointed out that the list of 7 "universal" laws from Brunson (or perhaps Yiri, hard to tell without annotation) were what Jews refer to as the 7 Noachic laws, laws that apply not just to Jews but to all people. (Jews having an additional 606.) To which I would ask: do you adhere to the 102 Frangelistic laws of the Bufadelics, laws that apply to other people but not to them? Or to the 9 Holy Commandments of the Ubizmatists, which apply to you whether or not you are an Ubizmatist? The point being: what right does any religion have to impose arbitrary laws on people not under its domain? Do YOU adhere to the laws that other religions say that you must, even though you are not a member of their sect? Which brings up the more important point: to those who would claim I am attacking Christianity---I am attacking the right of ANY religion to impose its moral code on those who don't hold to *its* beliefs. Christianity has more of a "track record" to point to in this area. But given an enclosed environment in which any given religion sees itself as "right", such imposition (unwarranted as it may be), in areas of religion and of life itself, will appear. Look at how some Jews in Israel feel it is a form of "divine destiny" to usurp the property/land of non-Jews to expand *their* realm because *they* are Jews. (A modern day example of America's "manifest destiny", which played the same "game" with the native American Indians.) Thus, Christians aren't being "attacked" just as "persecution of their beliefs" (as some would love to make it out to be), but rather because they feel that their being the majority/status quo gives them some level of impositional "rights". Remember that. -- "Send the recording back into the medium." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/20/84)
(NOTE! Rosen quote at END of this article!)
It is unbelievably important that every religion establish its point
of view about what moral code outsiders are bound to. The reason for
this is surprising, but easy to understand if you look at history.
People tend to believe, unless instructed otherwise, that outsiders
not adhering to their religion are pieces of dirt to be treated any
which way and cheated/injured/etc when opportunity arises.
Most religions err in failing to specify enough about people's
reponsibilities to outsiders. I'm not sure that Judaism has gone far
enough!
Nor is it sufficient for a religion to tell its adherents how to treat
outsiders, without stating what is expected in return. One-sided
expectations don't work.
I think it is not quite fair to say that a religion is imposing its
laws to outsiders, but rather that it is stating how practicing
insiders should judge outsiders. It is actually impractical to ask,
say, Jews to judge every Buddhist, Catholic, Taoist and Hindi by their
own religions, since most of us know nearly not enough to do so.
- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
{allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison
The quote:
In article <341@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>The point being: what right does any religion have to impose arbitrary laws
>on people not under its domain? Do YOU adhere to the laws that other religions
>say that you must, even though you are not a member of their sect?
>
>Which brings up the more important point: to those who would claim I am
>attacking Christianity---I am attacking the right of ANY religion to impose
>its moral code on those who don't hold to *its* beliefs.smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (12/21/84)
> From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) > Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish > Subject: Noachic laws > Message-ID: <341@pyuxd.UUCP> > Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 15:25:58 EST > The point being: what right does any religion have to impose arbitrary laws > on people not under its domain? Do YOU adhere to the laws that other religions > say that you must, even though you are not a member of their sect? Brunson's original article was indeed claiming that everyone should follow those laws. This is, as Rosen points out, a bit arrogant. Let me put the matter in the proper perspective: Judaism says that as a *theological* matter, one need not be Jewish to be "saved" (pick your word here). If one is a non-Jew who follows just those seven laws, then one is considered righteous. That's a far cry from saying I want to compel you to follow them; rather, it's a contrast to religions that proclaim that they are the only path to salvation.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (12/22/84)
In article <341@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >A number of people have pointed out that the list of 7 "universal" laws >from Brunson (or perhaps Yiri, hard to tell without annotation) were what >Jews refer to as the 7 Noachic laws, laws that apply not just to Jews but >to all people. (Jews having an additional 606.) > >To which I would ask: do you adhere to the 102 Frangelistic laws of the >Bufadelics, laws that apply to other people but not to them? Or to the >9 Holy Commandments of the Ubizmatists, which apply to you whether or not >you are an Ubizmatist? > >The point being: what right does any religion have to impose arbitrary laws >on people not under its domain? Do YOU adhere to the laws that other >religions say that you must, even though you are not a member of their sect? As I understand it, the Noachic laws represent Judaism's statement of a minimal moral standard for gentiles. Christianity does not make a distinction between moral standards for believers and non-believers. In either case, the religion inself does not impose its moral standards on non-believers. The religion is merely informing those who do not believe as to its moral standards. I think that anyone who really believes in a moral system has a certain obligation to attempt its establishment, within the bounds set by the following criteria. First, in almost every case there is an obvious distinction between obligations upon believers and more general obligations. In Judaism, the distinction is quite clear. In Christianity, even though the system theoretically applys equally to all, in practice one cannot expect non-christians to, for instance, refrain from profanity. A lot of the nonsense about Christmas displays and such could be avoided if this principle were followed: that one does not attempt to enforce that part of the law which is meaningful only to believers. Second, one should not attempt to enforce "respect" for one's beliefs. Let them stand or fall on their own. Even within these guidelines it is obvious that there is lots of room for moral conflict. So be it. To those who would avoid conflicts, I can only reply that the inevitable result must be a steady decline in the average moral standard. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (12/31/84)
Toby Robison makes some good points about how having a standard for outsiders actually protects them to some extent. However, with reference to the Noachian law, note that it actually legitimizes the prejudice that polytheists are bad people and it is therefore legitimate to discriminate against them. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/03/85)
It's amazing how, in one breath, the religious believers, in response to
humanist/rationalist/whatever-well-pigeonholed-label-you-wish-to-use
philosophy, say that such a philosophy (involving minimal morality, rational
basis for societal rules, etc.) interferes with other people's/nations'
lifestyles/morality/whatever, because it doesn't allow such societies the
"freedom" to impose whatever rules it likes on individuals.
And in the next breath, they recite the Noachic laws...
--
BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong! You don't have to follow me! You don't
have to follow ANYONE! You've got to think for yourselves! You are
all individuals!"
CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlrdavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/04/85)
The Noachic laws are not an attempt to impose religous precepts on non- or other- believers, but rather an assertion that much of morality can be derived by universal standard INDEPENDENT of religous faith. They are an implicit acknowledgement that men of differing beliefs can disagree on many moral issues, but that reason and humanity demand certain behavior of all people. Dissent to them takes one of two forms: (1) Disagreement with the particulars (e.g. propose amendment, omission, or addition to the list). This, however, does not undercut the justification for such a set of laws. (2) Absolute relativism (i.e. the assertion that there are NO universal morals). This requires not only the repudiation of a divinity, but also the repudiation of ethics as a field of rational endeavor, and thus contradicts both Jewish and Western (a.k.a. Greek) heritages. From here there is no refuge from force occupying the role of final arbiter of human destiny. David Rubin
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/05/85)
[In this article, Rich Rosen says:] > The Noachic laws are not an attempt to impose religous precepts on > non- or other- believers, but rather an assertion that much of > morality can be derived by universal standard INDEPENDENT of religous > faith. They are an implicit acknowledgement that men of differing > beliefs can disagree on many moral issues, but that reason and > humanity demand certain behavior of all people. [DAVID RUBIN] An assertion that one particular position on "universal morality" should be accepted by others who had no say in the formation of the precepts. > Dissent to them takes one of two forms: > (1) Disagreement with the particulars (e.g. propose amendment, > omission, or addition to the list). This, however, does > not undercut the justification for such a set of laws. I didn't see the convention during which members of other groups could make such proposals. In most cases of such imposed moralities the notion of such proposals is the furthest thing from the minds of those who formulated the precepts. And there's quite a lot to disagree with, there (e.g., blasphemy: as I said before, it's something that we'd be better off REQUIRING instead of PROHIBITING!). > (2) Absolute relativism (i.e. the assertion that there are NO > universal morals). This requires not only the repudiation > of a divinity, but also the repudiation of ethics as a > field of rational endeavor, and thus contradicts both > Jewish and Western (a.k.a. Greek) heritages. From here > there is no refuge from force occupying the role of > final arbiter of human destiny. What about the middle ground between arbitrary "these-are-the-rules-for-you- whether-you-like-it-or-not" ideals and absolute relativism? This reminds me of Bickford's claims that without a rigid set of theocratic laws, we'd be reduced to what is described above. Nonsense! What about the minimal rational moral ideals I've described endless times before? I wasn't the first to put them forth. I think this Jewish guy named Yeshua (among others) said the same thing, although DuBois insists that tolerance of other human beings had little to do with what was being said. -- "Those without forms must appear, however briefly, at the Bureau's Astral Offices on Nooker Street..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (01/05/85)
In a message, with a number you won't remember, but which is stored in the header above for those who really want to know it, for whatever perverse reason, probably for some illegal purpose (don't mind me, I just love digressions), from site "fisher", David Rubin informs us that: >The Noachic laws are not an attempt to impose religous precepts on >non- or other- believers, but rather an assertion that much of >morality can be derived by universal standard INDEPENDENT of religous >faith. They are an implicit acknowledgement that men of differing >beliefs can disagree on many moral issues, but that reason and >humanity demand certain behavior of all people. That makes sense only if you ignore the fact that polytheism is expressly forbidden by the Noachic laws! It would be pretty hard to make any case that forbidding polytheism is "not an attempt to impose religious precepts", wouldn't you say, David? >Dissent to them takes one of two forms: > > (1) Disagreement with the particulars (e.g. propose amendment, > omission, or addition to the list). This, however, does > not undercut the justification for such a set of laws. Agreed. I have disagreed with the particulars. So far I have gotten no specific response, just claims of the sort David made above that it is just an attempt to provide a general ethical standard. I am still waiting for someone to either say that they have decided the polytheistic prohibition is invalid, or to defend the prohibition on some grounds not derived from monotheistic dogma and prejudices. (Incidentally, I disagree with the whole Code of Hammurabi/list of taboos approach to ethics, which monotheistic systems inherited from ancient monarchies. I believe in general principles which should be used to determine whether any particular act is ethical, not in enumerating the possible transgressions. So I would have to say that I disagree with the whole approach of the Noachic code.) > (2) Absolute relativism (i.e. the assertion that there are NO > universal morals). This requires not only the repudiation > of a divinity, but also the repudiation of ethics as a > field of rational endeavor, and thus contradicts both > Jewish and Western (a.k.a. Greek) heritages. From here > there is no refuge from force occupying the role of > final arbiter of human destiny. > > David Rubin This is off the point, since I don't repudiate ethics. However, a point of philosophical interest is that the repudiation of universal ethics does not require the repudiation of a deity, and an acceptance of universal ethics does not require the acceptance of a deity. Consider the Buddhist perspective, particularly as put forth in "The Supreme Net". If there is a deity or there are deities, they are just other beings in nature. Their existence does not define ethics in any sense -- their opinions are simply their own opinions. It is even possible to conceive of a malign, immoral Creator deity -- although of course his followers would claim that his power gave some special status to his opinions. (This is a rather appalling form of ethics-by-thuggery, also known as "might makes right", and it disturbs me that forms of it are so widespread.) Ethical laws are determined solely by the constitution of man and the universe, regardless of their source. We are so configured that certain things cause us pain, others pleasure, and ethics is the means of eliminating unnnecessary pain and maximizing the pleasure of all. (By "pleasure" I mean anything we find desirable, and by "pain" anything we find undesirable. Of course, many systems claim that there is "something beyond this" to the system, as if it were possible for there to be a thing more desirable than any desirable thing....) The whims of any being, whether composed of matter, ectoplasm, or wombat hide, have no effect on the nature of existence, and thus have no bearing on ethics. It is of course possible to use a monotheistic ethical model without the ethics-by-thuggery aspect, although in practice this is rare. Here, the Creator set the nature of human existence in the act of creation, and thus knows best the ethical principles of the universe. Ethics is then reduced to the study of some book purportedly revealed by the Creator. Perhaps unfortunately, study of such books shows that they all contain things which are most easily attributable to the cultural prejudices of the persons who claimed revelation, and so one has to pick and choose based on one's own interpretation and understanding, which is a return to square one. Here also the issue of possible malignity of the Creator arises, as well as the fact that creating something does not imply all-encompassing knowledge of its nature and behavior (as any programmer knows). -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/08/85)
I am evidently guilty of not having phrased myself well. It is evident that some particulars of the Noachic law do represent an attempt to impose a religous standard; however, it is not the attempt to "legislate" certain religous beliefs that is their fundamental purpose, but it is (as I originally stated) to establish a universal morality. To focus on this law or that is to miss the thrust of the existance of such a set of laws. Disagreeing with the results of an attempt to codify a universal morality ought not detract with the significance of such an attempt having been made. The existance of the Noachic law is both an assertion of universal morality AND an admission that morality is possible in many other faiths. David Rubin
gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) (01/09/85)
A lot has been said concerning these Noahic Laws. I would like for someone to give the Bible references to where these are found. I've looked in Genesis chapter 9 and find only that God told man to replenish the earth and not to kill other men. There is also something about eating flesh with life in it which is not too clear to me. I think that nearly all the people on the net would agree with the law concerning killing. As to replenishing the earth, I'd say we've more than done that! Sincerely, Gary McNees
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (01/10/85)
Just out of curiosity, in relation to that one of the (net-reported) Noachic laws relating to eating the flesh of a living animal, would the practice of the Masai of eating/drinking the blood of their cattle as a standard part of their diet be considered in violation? By the way, I tried explaining and discussing the concept of these "Noachic" laws with my wife (a widely-read fundamentalistic Protestant) and a friend who has had extensive Catholic religious training [spent some time as a monastic novice before deciding against continuing it]; neither knew anything about them. I tried finding references to them in the passages about Noah in both the King James Version Bible and a Torah, and found nothing at all. Later net traffic has referred to them as "Talmudic", which I guess in this case means they came from other sources. So are they really more than a "folk tradition" or do they have any justification in Torah? One last point -- what should the Jewish attitude be to members of a culture whose customs violate these laws, or to individuals who do so personally? (I keep thinking of some famous Chinese banquet dish of a fish which is still alive at the head end, but which is fried at the tail... Seems just what the one law is talking about...) Does not adhering to these laws make them less than human? Or just people to be avoided as bad influences? Or what? Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (01/11/85)
> By the way, I tried explaining and discussing the concept of these "Noachic" > laws with my wife (a widely-read fundamentalistic Protestant) and a friend who > has had extensive Catholic religious training [spent some time as a monastic > novice before deciding against continuing it]; neither knew anything about > them. Try Gen 9:1-17. After Noah came out of the Ark, he made a covenant with God. Everyone remembers that God promised not to flood the earth again. Not so many people remember that a covenant has two sides. The things Noah promised are the "Noachic laws". They are known among Christian scholars because they were involved in the first-century debates over what laws Christians had to obey. As you may recall, some Christians felt that Christianity was a sect of Judaism, and all new converts should obey the entire Mosaic law. Paul argued that this was not necessary. The compromise was that Gentile Christian converts would be bound by the Noachic laws but not the Mosaic ones. At the time, Jews apparently considered that the convenant with Moses applied only to Jews, but the covenant with Noah applied to all men. The reason is that only the Jews are decendants of Moses, but everyone is a descendant of Noah. Act 15:19-21 records this decision. This did not apply to Jewish Christians, who were still expected to obey the law of Moses.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (01/11/85)
> Try Gen 9:1-17.
WHERE in Genesis 9: 1-17 are these seven laws explicitly listed? THAT's
where I was looking! I found some vague references, some of which could
be twisted around until they corresponded to a few of the seven stated
laws, but not all of them.
(I'm doing this by memory; I don't have a Bible or Torah handy here at
work, but I seem to recall your citation as being where I was reading.)
Willteitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (01/15/85)
quote (short) at end. I don't know why you think all Jews are descendants of Moses because they aren't. They are all descendants of Jacob. Eliyahu Teitz. > The reason is that only the Jews are decendants of > Moses, but everyone is a descendant of Noah.