Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Noachic laws Message-ID: <2059@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 17:10:57 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2059 Posted: Fri Dec 21 17:10:57 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 00:41:24 EST References: <341@pyuxd.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 41 Summary: They are not imposed; they pre-exist 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