Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Noachic laws (disagreeing with Rosen) Message-ID: <471@fisher.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 08:06:43 EST Article-I.D.: fisher.471 Posted: Tue Jan 8 08:06:43 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 03:59:47 EST References: <463@fisher.UUCP> <20980050@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics Lines: 13 Xref: watmath net.religion:5237 net.religion.jewish:1214 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