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