**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> i believe that if every human abided by it, it would make world a better place
You also said that these laws only apply to Jewish individuals. If everyone were to follow these laws the way you arrived by them, then everyone would need to convert to Judaism first no?
Law 1 - no idolatry
> This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
How? Idolatry has different meanings to different religions. To follow this law, people would first need to know the Jewish definition of idolatry, compare that to their own faith and ensure that their religion followed Judaidm. Again, pointless unless the person converts. So for your argument, law 1 makes no sense unless you are Jewish.
Law 2 - no blasphemy
> The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
By your own answers, cultures that do not follow the same understanding of Law 1 or who practice polytheism, are blaspheming against your god. I would take this further and assume that anyone who doesn't generally follow your religious beliefs and practices is also a blasphemer.
Translation: everyone who isn't Jewish is a blasphemer and in violation of Law 2. So there's no mutual respect or understanding fostered by your explanation. Again, the only way to follow the law is to be Jewish. So # 2 is out.
Law 3 - no murder
> The third law is the prohibition against murder . . .
There are lots and lots of secular laws governing this over already. No religion or god required. So no need for Law # 3 specifically.
Law 4 - no stealing
> The fourth law is the prohibition against theft . . .
See law 3, also unnecessary.
Law 5 - no illicit sex
> The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect.
Since specific interpretations are required to clearly define what does and does not qualify as illicit sexual relations, one would be required to look to your specific religious texts to know what acts could be considered illicit.
For example, do you consider any sexual act not between husband and wife to be illicit? Further, is it illicit to engage in sexual acts for purposes other than procreation? Does sex require cleansing practices such as those practiced by Hasidic Jews? Is it illicit if one spouse is infertile? What about homosexuality? Sex between unmarried consenting adults? How would this even be governed or monitored?
What about moral values? Which values, what moral code? How are we promoting healthy relationships by barring entire groups from having god approved sexual contact? How are we promoting the sanctity of marriage by policing the behaviors of unmarried consenting adults?
Sounds like Law 5 leaves major gaps that are only clarified by following your religious interpretation. They also specifically exclude homosexual and unmarried individuals. So Law 5 isn't universally applicable and not suitable to support your argument.
Law 6 - eating live animals.
The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare.
I'm fairly confident that there's no need for laws telling people to not just start eating random live creatures. Further, there are lots of secular laws that prohibit such practices anyway. So Law 6 is redundant and weirdly specific. There's no point in law 6, so that one is out too.
Law 7 - laws are good
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably.
Extra redundant. We do this, have done so for millennia. These are basic principles of a societal contact. Collective societies fail without rules and laws.
A law telling us that we need laws when we already HAVE systems of laws is pointless. So Law 7 isn't necessary either.
> In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people.
Not based on the high level definitions you've provided. All 7 laws are either uselessly redundant or religiously specific to the point of excluding anyone not part of your particular faith.
> By upholding these laws, we can create a society that values compassion, integrity, and justice and fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
The laws as you've described them foster exclusion of people who do not follow your faith and who do not fit standard gender roles or sexual identities. They do not foster compassion, they foster homogenization. It's easy to show mutual respect and understanding if everyone has the same views and follows the same practices. But since that isn't how the world works, your suggestion would (at best) have no effect, and would like just continue to discourage resourceful communities with different faiths and values.
> Ultimately, the Seven Noahide Laws serve as a guide for humanity to live in harmony with one another and with the world around us.
Not really.
They'd work if we wanted to set up a homogenous culture from scratch, but it's too late for that.
If you wanted to improve human interactions and build a healthier society, then your best bet would be to find whatever set of beliefs govern the largest group of people, and assimilate to their value system. Instead, you are suggesting that you do nothing while everyone else assimilate to your world view.
But why? You've already shown that your beliefs serve no purpose in governing a modern multi-faith society. So what logic do you draw on to determine that we are better off as a species abandoning centuries of societal development in favor of oversimplified archaic laws that have long since been replaced with far more effective and modern versions?
>There are lots and lots of secular laws governing this over already.
Yet a lot of people murder anyways.
>You've already shown that your beliefs serve no purpose in governing a modern multi-faith society.
Holy strawmen! That wasn’t their claim.
>So what logic do you draw on to determine that we are better off as a species abandoning centuries of societal development in favor of oversimplified archaic laws that have long since been replaced with far more effective and modern versions?
Because we don’t follow the modern versions as a whole.
OP claimed the laws are a good way to live your life by.
They showed how.
Let’s say a gnostic murderer decides to follow the Noahide laws. They would have to stop murdering. That’s good.
There are lots and lots of secular laws governing this over already.
> Yet a lot of people murder anyways.
What's your point?
You've already shown that your beliefs serve no purpose in governing a modern multi-faith society.
> Holy strawmen! That wasn’t their claim.
Then what was their claim?
So what logic do you draw on to determine that we are better off as a species abandoning centuries of societal development in favor of oversimplified archaic laws that have long since been replaced with far more effective and modern versions?
> Because we don’t follow the modern versions as a whole.
Again, so what? People who don't follow secular laws certainly aren't following preexisting religious principles either.
> OP claimed the laws are a good way to live your life by.
They showed how.
No they didn't. The basic principles of these laws are not unique to OP's principles. Most of these ideas are represented across all major religions, and are represented in secular laws and moral codes as well.
> Let’s say a gnostic murderer decides to follow the Noahide laws. They would have to stop murdering. That’s good.
Let's say a gnostic murderer decides to follow secular laws. They would have to stop murdering. That’s good. AND they'd be able to do so without following any religion, without discriminating against any group of people, and without following all of the other beliefs, practices and rituals necessarily to adhere to Noahide laws as described by OP.
I’m unsure if your comment is poorly formatted or if you’re just repeating yourself.
>What's your point?
Since people still murder, OP’s claim that things would be better if they followed the Noahide laws preventing murder is true.
>that have long since been replaced with far more effective and modern versions?
If they still allow murder, how are they “far more effective”. What logic are you pretending to use for these unjustified claims?
>People who don't follow secular laws certainly aren't following preexisting religious principles either.
Which is why it would be better if they were following them. Understand?
>Let's say a gnostic murderer decides to follow secular laws. They would have to stop murdering. That’s good. AND they'd be able to do so without following any religion
Good for you?
That doesn’t contradict a OP’s claim. Look at the title of their post!.
Buddy, check your tribalism at the door and read the post again with a neutral mindset.
Poorly formatted, as I'm on mobile.
My point is simply that there are lots of rules and laws that govern everything that OP suggested already. Including OP's laws. Yet people disobey these laws constantly. If everyone were to truly follow secular laws then the crimes they outlaw would be prevented. But they don't. If everyone followed laws based on whatever religion then the crimes outlawed by that religion would be prevented. But they don't.
Point being, in an ideal and monolithic culture, all members would agree on and obey the exact same laws. But that is not how life works. There will always be people who disobey some law, regardless of source.
So at that point, the question becomes are the 7 Noahide laws a good way to live as an effective society, given that we do not live in a society governed by a single set of laws and beliefs.
And the simple answer is no, they are not.
As per OP's various responses to questions posed in this thread for example, op believes that it is blasphemous to worship any god or gods other than OP's god. I.e. everyone who does not share OP's faith, is automatically not adhering to OP's laws, and has no way of ever adhering to OP's laws unless they begin to follow OP's god.
So, since OP's laws (per op) can only be properly followed if one follows OP's faith, all of OP's laws become irrelevant.
This has nothing to do with tribalism. I'm just not a fan of religious rules that criminalize those who do not share the same religious beliefs.
>I'm just not a fan of religious rules that criminalize those who do not share the same religious beliefs.
It doesn’t.
OP said they’re a good way to life your life by, not to force everyone to live this way.
You are basing your interpretation on OP's title, I'm basing mine on OP's conclusion. OP isn't talking about individual references but rather about laws applied to an entire population.
There are many things that have roots in old religions, pagan rituals, etc. But OP is suggesting that the roots of these beliefs can be applied to current societies. Things just aren't that simple anymore.
I know it’s not simple, but still if a human being would follow these laws I wouldn’t see him as a threat to humanity nor to the planet overall, Would be more order but you can do it yourself without following the Jewish gods rules to gentiles. . I have studied a little bit jurisprudence and indeed many of laws that you see today here in the western world comes from the bible. I just wanted to respond to your first paragraphs.
Got ya. Definitely agree with that. I'm an optimist though. I feel like (wish) that most people inherently follow the rules concerning violence and crime / abuse.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths
What? Banning the rituals of certain religion promotes respect among different faith? Wtf is that?
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy,
It really depends on whats blasphemy. If another religion thats polytheistic, is that blasphemy towards ur monotheistic religion?
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations,
Illicit is a very vague word, it means nothing.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal
I dont understand. How is eating the organs and the body of the animal foster kindness?
>What? Banning the rituals of certain religion promotes respect among different faith? Wtf is that?
Just look at the Aghori tribe of India, just because something can be done, shouldnt be done
>It really depends on whats blasphemy. If another religion thats polytheistic, is that blasphemy towards ur monotheistic religion?
Yes
>Illicit is a very vague word, it means nothing.
This is just nitpicky
None of that was a response to the points brought up...
>just because something can be done, shouldnt be done
And if someone says you should or shouldn't do something because their imaginary friend says so, why should we listen to the opinion of your imaginary friend?
>Yes
Again, that's not an answer. You agree that polytheism referring to their plurality of gods is a blasphemy to your monotheistic god... so in what way is that respecting other religions?
>This is just nitpicky
Says the person who would not eat the *limb* of an aminal, but has no problem eating other parts of the same animal?
On Wikipedia, I see both variants included as a phrasing for that law. In the Torah there is a law against eating flesh torn from a living animal, but perhaps this is different
I live this response because you specifically didn’t respond to any of the points made. You just named one obscure practice you don’t like, said “yes”, and then complained.
I apologize for that, i realize my rebuttal was childish, but when I tried posting a new one reddit just said i had to wait a few minutes so i just deleted my big reply all together
So u are basically saying that almost all religion but ur religion is blasphemy and should be banned. How does that foster respect among different faith?.
>This is just nitpicky
How is that nitpicky. Illicit is indeed a vague word.
Why eating organs and the body except the limbs foster kindness?
>This is just nitpicky
'Illicit' means unlawful. Without actually saying which laws you're referring to, a law that forbids unlawful things is by definition useless.
Are you under the assumption that we all somehow 'know' what is considered illicit and what isn't?
>reasonable
press X to doubt.
Bronze age barbaric ritual is not a reason to mutilate anybody.
the Asians dont have this ritual and they still survive, same with everyone else
As I understand it, the god thing was messing with abraham but abraham took it too far so god said "no don't kill him, just cut off the useless bit of flesh on the end of his penis" but abraham got confused about which bit to keep.
I am a bit hazy on the exact details because the story is a bit crap.
but that still doesnt explain swittching from stabby stabby your boys to choppy choppy his dick a reasonable thing.
Moreover cults can have some arbitrary rituals to instill obidence. Overtime, myths help creating new meaning for those barbaric rituals.
I almost agreed with your op... Not, "Yeah, you're right" agreement, but "Sure. who cares?" agreement. But then you said this and I read closer. What a load of horseshit.
Are Solomon’s 700 wives allowed by Noahide law?
I don’t think he’s nit picking. Your law “don’t do anything illicit” is either so vague that no one knows what it means, or alternatively it’s so incredibly broad and poorly defined that you might as well have just said “don’t do anything bad” and reduced the 7 laws down to 1.
So, please explain, how does the first law promote unity and respect among people of different faits? Are there any polytheistic faiths that you respect? How about kneeling in front of a statue of Jesus, or mother Mary? What about Buddhism?
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
Idolatry is a victimless crime. Idolatry laws have historically been used to persecute religious minorities, not "promote respect and unity among people of different faith". It is a tool of religious intolerance, not a tool of religious tolerance.
Moreover, the assumption in calling something "idolatry" is that the "idols" are false gods, which, if you can't prove your god exists (which you haven't) makes **you** guilty of idolatry.
All in all, a crappy law, which debunks your thesis.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
Just like idolatry, blasphemy is a victimless crime and blasphemy laws have historically been used to persecute people from minority religions. Blasphemy laws are an attempt to uphold the unearned authority of the clergy, they are a tool of obscurantism.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony.
Nothing to do with a god, murder is forbidden pretty much everywhere.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability.
Same
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect.
Marriage has nothing to do with the health of a relationship. There are healthy unmarried couples, toxic unmarried couples, toxic married couples and healthy married couples. What makes the health of a relationship is informed and enthousiastic consent, not whether or not a couple got chanted over by a priest. Religious marriage is nothing but a remnant of the time where priests had the authority to decide or veto the way wealth would be inherited. I reject the authority of priests to judge my relationships, which are none of their business.
This law, again, is not very good.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare.
Do you really need to make "make sure the animal you're eating is dead" one of the seven fundational laws of your legal system? How many cases of people eating meat from partially butchered animals have you heard from? This law does not strike me as necessary. It is anecdotal at best.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
"Seventh law : oh, by the way, make other laws"
This is laughable. Out of the seven laws, three are there to uphold the unearned authority of the clergy, one is useless, two are trivial (and have nothing to do with a god) and the last one is so vague as to be useless. Thinking this is the product of an omniscient mind is ridiculous on the face of it. Your interpretation of these laws is obviously at odds with the way those laws are actually applied, which makes me wonder whether you are selling them in bad faith or if you are blinded to the (lack of) quality of these laws by your own upbringing.
The idea that “if everyone followed these ideas I subscribe to then the world would be a better place” is a fairly common way of thinking almost regardless of the ideology one believes in.
The world is as complicated as it is partially because there are so many different beliefs that people have. The difficulty is not in getting everyone to follow your system, but in how we can preserve dignity and rights of every person regardless of which beliefs they have. You can’t convert everyone, so finding ways to work together despite our differences is the goal.
Even within a belief system though, one can have different interpretations. For example, you say that the first law promotes respect among people of different faiths… how? What if someone else is a polytheist? How does the law that teaches you to worship only one God help you respect their beliefs?
Same thing about the second law. I don’t see how Reverence towards the divine and the sacred helps me be kind or considerate to other people. Interacting with others, learning their perspectives and situations can do that far better.
Third to fifth laws are common rules in most human cultures, at least in the vague sense. There’ll be different applications of them, but there’s nothing unique here. Secular society already has these on the books.
Unsure how to even interpret the sixth law. Feels like a “you should be vegan” rule, but I assume that’s not how it works.
And the seventh is too vague to be useful. Yeah, we should have a way to ensure that people are treated fairly and build a system that promotes justice and equality. Religion has never once in the history of humanity managed to build such a thing and it is currently one of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of us building one. Mind you, you and your personal beliefs are not under scrutiny on this one. I am saying that overall, religion tends to hold back progress when it comes to rule of law becoming more equal and fair.
>The idea that “if everyone followed these ideas I subscribe to then the world would be a better place” is a fairly common way of thinking almost regardless of the ideology one believes in.
I definitely remember thinking how much better the world would be of we were all Christian when I was a Christian, and now I think it would be better if we were all secular (if not non-religious).
I imagine that this is a common experience for people as they mature. The more we learn about the world around us and all the different perspectives that exist, the more difficult it becomes to stick to the idea that it’s “my way or the highway”. It’s why extreme religious groups are so frightened by education.
It’s also why the idea that objective morality doesn’t exist is so toxic to religion. If your beliefs aren’t objectively correct, then that means that other people’s views have equal value regardless of how different they are. Suddenly you have to figure out a way to compromise instead of forcing your views on others.
These laws are not specific to Judaism. I assume you're saying (as you're on a debate sub) that because your religion has these rules that are good, it proves your religion. Most religions have some form of it. Why are yours special?
Also, I'd argue that religions have adapted general societal rules as their own and then claimed them- in reality, apart from the animal one and the blasphemy ones, these are rules that allows a community to exist and thrive. Nothing God given about it.
Regarding the sixth law, is vegetarianism common in Jewish communities? I know you don't eat pork but that rule encompasses all meat right?
edit: Hadn't fully considered the iffy nature of the sex one. I think clean sex practices helps stop inbreeding and STIs in early civilisations so that's why it's not a bad rule. I don't think it applies nowadays.
>These laws are not specific to Judaism. I assume you're saying (as you're on a debate sub) that because your religion has these rules that are good, it proves your religion. Most religions have some form of it. Why are yours special?
Yes these were given to the Prophet Noah after the flood so that humanity thrives and we can all agree that if we have a society on the basis of these laws, there's nothing wrong with it
> Also, I'd argue that religions have adapted general societal rules as their own and then claimed them- in reality, apart from the animal one and the blasphemy ones, these are rules that allows a community to exist and thrive. Nothing God given about it.
This is just nitpicky, also why couldnt blasphemy be a societal rule then, if we are being objective surely there are some rules that are societal that could be bad
>Regarding the sixth law, is vegetarianism common in Jewish communities? I know you don't eat pork but that rule encompasses all meat right?
We are allowed to eat meat that is kosher meaning cut in a kosher way, vegetarianism for the sake of the environment is allowed as far as I know, since vegetarian food doesnt need to be cut
>Yes these were given to the Prophet Noah after the flood so that humanity thrives and we can all agree that if we have a society on the basis of these laws, there's nothing wrong with it
No evidence of a flood, so doubt the Noah claim. Again though, why are these any different to the basically identical ones from other religions?
>This is just nitpicky, also why couldnt blasphemy be a societal rule then, if we are being objective surely there are some rules that are societal that could be bad
Of course there are rules that are societal that could be bad, but back in early civilisations bad rules means failure. Blasphemy I guess matters in terms of a "Don't piss your neighbours off" type deal, but from my point of view it doesn't matter. If you and your God are so sensitive about your beliefs that the words of others impact you that much, maybe you need to have a think about it?
>We are allowed to eat meat that is kosher meaning cut in a kosher way, vegetarianism for the sake of the environment is allowed as far as I know, since vegetarian food doesnt need to be cut
Hang on- "The sixth law is the prohibition **against eating the limb of a living animal**" so surely you can't eat meat? This may be my admittedly somewhat militant vegetarianism coming through, but in my opinion just having clean quick kill cuts does not a painless slaughter make- not even going into animal perception of slaughter, for the vast majority of farming animals are kept in some pretty shit conditions. As a practicing Jew, if you were to find out a chicken you were about to eat was factory farmed and spent the entirety of it's short life barely enough space to turn around, would you not eat it?
That rule is so all over the map depending on how its stated, but I read OP's version of it meaning "kill the animal before you eat it".
I don't know why you'd need that as a rule, unless there was a specific practice -- lost to time -- that it was meant to forbid. That it's a problematic rule is apparent to me from the things that it's been used to justify or that it's twisted into.
Like "don't cook a baby goat in its mother's milk" -- "We don't know what he f... it was supposed to prevent, so we'll just make a rule that you can't eat meat with any dairy products, to avoid whatever it was god was pissed off about when he said that."
I've never eaten the limb of a living animal. Every animal I've eaten has been dead.
I don't get this one, is that a thing that was happening in the middle east 3000 years ago.
It's possible. In Japan there's a practice of eating a particular kind of fish while it's still alive.
I can see where people who had feelings about animal welfare might object to boiling a goat in its mother's milk. It's like rubbing the ewe's face in the fact that you killed her kid for food.
>Yes these were given to the Prophet Noah after the flood
Quick question, you mean the claim of a **global** flood?
What evidence do you have that a flood that covered the entire globe was an actual event?
> Yes these were given to the Prophet Noah after the flood so that humanity thrives
Of course, this is factually incorrect, so can only be dismissed outright.
> and we can all agree that if we have a society on the basis of these laws, there's nothing wrong with it
Well, I don't agree. Why would you think "we can all agree"?
>Hi everyone, i am Jewish and in our religion we believe that our laws arent applicable for non jews but they are still part of the original covenant with G-d, i believe that if every human abided by it, it would make world a better place
Following the torah rules was what gave humankind the dark ages, a.k.a. The age of faith, a.k.a. Medieval times.
Why don’t you try better with the human’s rights declaration?
>So a quick recap, The Seven Noahide Laws are a set of moral and ethical principles that are believed to have been given by God to Noah after the Great Flood as a universal code of conduct for all of humanity.
Are you sure they are moral or ethical?
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
No, because is based either on a lie or an error. This single paragraph has divided humans for the past 2000 years on different faiths and also in the different sects of the same faith. What is a spiritual connection? What is the divine? And why we should reverence it?
Also this paragraph had been the justifications of wars and the death of thousands of people who asked for a justified evidence in their believes.
I have a compromise with the truth. Not a believe based on faith, with no evidence.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
This is the single and most dangerous paragraph of all. Have served all abrahamic religions to punish and kill everyone who opposes the ones in power or in charge of their religion. Have no meaning. I have learned that nobody can hurt my feelings or offend me without my permission… how this deity is so childish not to get it?
Then it makes force people to pay religious people for “services” as mediators? Wut?
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony.
It originally didn’t sanctioned against murder, but killing. Even though, almost all the next ones can be resumed in the simpler: do not do to others what don’t want to be done to you. (1).
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability.
Do not do to others what don’t want to be done to you. (2).
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect.
Do not do to others what don’t want to be done to you. (3).
What is an illicit sexual relationship? Homosexuality? And should it be punishable with death?
Having sex with whom you live? Even if your parents don’t agree?
Who determines what kind of relationships are sanctioned between two adults?
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare.
Where is the justification? Why eat some animals is ok? And some not? Should all human kind eat kosher? What is exactly what are you saying?
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
No, it didn’t stablished a righteous way to deal with justice, but the prevalence of the status quo.
>In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people. By upholding these laws, we can create a society that values compassion, integrity, and justice and fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding. Ultimately, the Seven Noahide Laws serve as a guide for humanity to live in harmony with one another and with the world around us.
This moral framework was not right biblical times, was not right in medieval times, is not right now, that is why we need the humans rights declaration.
1 and 2 are completely useless and I fail to see how they would entail this interfaith and intercultural respect, especially given that you started this post by saying this is only for your people.
I have a hard time taking 3 and 4 seriously coming from a god that repeatedly instructs its people to murder, rape and pillage and has wiped out every living thing itself. Nonetheless, I don't need a god to wave its fingers at me for me not to want to do any of these activities.
I do not accept that the Jewish holy texts promote the same nuclear family that we think about in the 21st century west. I do not accept that our heteronormative nuclear family idea is healthy or worth promoting in any shape.
(Edit to this point, I do not mean that heteronormative nuclear families are invalid, I mean its damaging to claim that only they are valid)
I think your idea about what 6 means is a stretch, I don't exactly know what original you're referring to, but I have a strong suspicion that originally, its a bronze age solution to a bronze age problem. But in principle, I don't have an issue with trying to minimize animal suffering.
(Small edit, is number 6 reconcilable with slow-bleading butchering methods?)
Number 7 sounds fair
>I do not accept that our heteronormative nuclear family idea is healthy or worth promoting in any shape.
Do you mean it's not the only relationship we should be promoting? Or do you actually believe heterosexuals shouldn't get married and start families?
What I meant is that I find the rigidity of the idea that family is only hetero couple + children offensive and damaging. Any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult for all I care
That's sounds much more reasonable. You might want to edit your original statement though if that's the idea you intended to express because that wasn't my first impression.
It's a Dragonball Z reference. Goku and his pals are called the Z warriors. A mod gave it to me years ago and I saw no reason to complain. Someone had asked if we had to pick a god to be real, which would we pick. I said King Kai and this flair suddenly appeared the next day.
* first law is arbitrary and self serving why is your god so insecure that he needs worshipe
* the second is alsoarbrirary and self servng. why is your god so thin skinned that heget upset by a bit of name calling?
* third law i can't help notice that you said murder rather than killing which i guess leaves the door open for god to alsocomman his followers to kill, which he does frequntlytin your mythology. Otherwise a preey common senselaw thatis older then your religion.
* another common sense law that is older then your religion
* the fifth law is overly restrictive and narrow minded. The only law regarding sex thattis needed is one about informed consent. This is very different then what you presented.
* the sixth law is just plain weird, why would someone do that? And so often that you needed a law to prohibit it?
* The seventh seems like kind of a catchall. sure we need a system of justice but not oe which will enforce the 1st, 2nd or 5th law above, thouse are nonsense. I'm also against capital punishment which the above seems to allow as a loophole.
in conculsion, your making the general if everyone agreed to follow my religion things would be better argument. But the thing is that every religion makes this exact same argument. Yes if everyone agreed things would be better, but expecting other to adapt to yoursrules is just not going to work unless you are also wilding to give a little. that means a common set of secular laws.
EDIT: Also i find the total lack of rule against slavery distrurbing. Any moral code that fails to outlaw slavery is incomplet and not sufficent for building a just society.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to ***worship only one God***. This law promotes unity and respect among people of ***different faiths*** and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
How does "only my god is real and worshipping anything else is a grave sin" lead to unity and respect with people worshipping other things?
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
Kindness and consideration to those who worship the same God, of course, but fuck anyone who says that that God isn't real, am I right?
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability.
Three and four are fine, but not exactly something we need the Noahide Laws to know.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect.
Big oof. A homophobic religion with holy books full of sex slavery, rape, concubines, and incest might not be the best source material for determining sexual morality.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare.
Yeah, the only weirdos eating live animals are, like, seafood enthusiasts in the wierder parts of Asia. Not sure how this is relevant for most of the world, but at least it isn't as problematic a law as the previous.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
Again, we already do this without the Noahide Laws.
So, it seems to me that there are three Laws that are fine but everyone does anyway, one law that a handful of Chinese tiktok foodies need to follow, and three Laws that are crap. Leaves me feeling... underwhelmed.
1st and 2nd laws are irrelevant for atheists, 5th law is both sexually repressing and homophobic, and the others can all be achieved without subscribing to the notion of an unproven god.
But all the evidence suggests that human beings are evolved apes - there's no evidence a god exists.
So what you see as "lust" is actually an evolved ape behaviour. It's not an expression of evil or wrongness, it's a feature of evolved human nature. Sure, we need negotiated constraints on people's sexual behaviour so they don't harm each other, but there's no reason those constraints need to map onto "marriage."
Also, marriage can't have "sanctity" if nothing "holy" exists, and you haven't demonstrated that your god exists.
So the atheist position is:
* There's no evidence to support the claim that god exists
* There is evidence that human beings are evolved social apes who get horny sometimes, including for members of all sexes/genders
* Other evolved apes, EG bonobos, also get horny for apes of all sexes/"genders"
* We need as societies to negotiate boundaries of acceptable behaviour in order to optimise our quality of life
* But those boundaries need not be as restrictive as "marriage between one person assigned male at birth and another person assigned female at birth." We can negotiate any boundaries we like that allow people to be happy and safe
Got any evidence for either why marriage should be sacred or lust should be perceived as something negative? Or just diktats from the book? Seems like if all these people are saying "no these are bad laws to live by" then your premise may be flawed.
Why should I care where you claim to have received the rules? I care that you're claiming:
> i believe that if every human abided by it, it would make world a better place
That is a claim that I'd expect to see evidence for.
Your deflection onto an attack on what you assume is my position on an unrelated issue tells me you have absolutely fuck all. Please prove me wrong.
There are also rules about promoting your own religion. I don't see how "Some of these rules appear elsewhere or have found value elsewhere" is evidence for your claim. If you'd like to just tick off theft and murder, please provide evidence that, say, 1, 2, 5, or 7:
> can create a society that values compassion, integrity, and justice and fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding
Nada. Not that I've seen you provide. So far, you've gone with "God said so", "you do better", or "But theft and murder are bad, obviously". Those are not support for your wild claim in the OP that all, *all* of these rules are what would make a better world.
No stealing and no killing aren’t the only rules. We want you to justify all of them, not just the ones that literally every society managed to come up with on their own without your book
There arent rules like no killing, only when your god says it ok. So whens the last time you stoned a woman to death who didnt cry out loud enough during her rape?
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die . . . the damsel, because she cried not . . .” (Deuteronomy 22:22, 24)
>Can you not answer the questions without asking a question?
No, they can't. Religious apologists are incapable of engaging honestly. If they did, they'd have to acknoledge how shit their points are..
> Isnt it obvious when there are rules like no stealing and no killing?
Are you really saying that if the law didn't tell you not to kill you would be a murderer? It seems like you are the one who needs to work on your morality, not us. We understand that you shouldn't kill people.
>My morality comes from G-d so thats my claim
So, that means you don't have a moral system. You have unproveable moral programming at best, divine commands at worst.
If your morality comes from god, then your god is the one that worked out what's good and what's bad. And you just follow along. You don't evaluate moral quandries yourself.
Which means you don't have a moral system.
So, let's ask you a moral question. Please directly answer the question I'm asking you. Ready? Here it is: **Is owning another human being as property a good thing, or bad thing morally speaking?**
Your god murdered the first born sons of Egypt because it had prevented the Pharaoh from releasing the Israelites, that does not seem like a morality that is worth following.
>G-d: Uphold the sanctity of marriage and do not give in to lust
>Atheist: This is sexually repressing
>Really telling on yourself there
No, it's really telling that god is a bigot who created gay people and then punished them for it. Your god is evil.
>Uphold the sanctity of marriage and do not give in to lust
And what does this mean? I'm gonna assume that this means 'sex is for procreation only, no sex outside marriage'.
The idea that "the sanctity of marriage" is the be all and all and that people being sexually free would be a bad thing is an arbitrary standard your religion chose to impose.
It's not "telling on ourselves", it's "telling you that your standards are arbitrary and that we disagree with them."
It literally is. You're saying people can't have sex before marriage, only have sex for procreation, can only find out if you're sexually compatible with your partner AFTER entering into a lifelong bond with them instead of before, can't even look at another person lustfully because Jesus said that counts as committing adultery, can't divorce if the marriage doesn't work and can't open the marriage even if both people consent. That's the definition of sexual repression and it's laughable that fundies deny it.
Also, if you want to talk shit, you came into this debate sub positing rules that talk about upholding belief in your god. But you haven't even proven your god exists. It's a debate sub.
> can't even look at another person lustfully because Jesus said that counts as committing adultery
You're responding to someone who is explicitly Jewish, so going off about Jesus makes it sound like you're ranting. Just an FYI.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I say this as a (presumably) fellow atheist. You ranting about following the teachings of Jesus to a Jew undermines whatever point you wanted to make. It wouldn't convince the OP of anything but that you're ranting about a completely off-topic subject, and comes across to fellow atheists as embarrassingly ignorant.
If that wasn't your intention, then you should rethink how you come across to others.
You ranted at a Jew about the teachings of Jesus. That just smacks of ignorance.
If you don't care about how you come across to others, why are you commenting in a debate sub? It's not r/offmychest.
I didn't rant to a jew about jesus though. *I mentioned Jesus once.*
Nobody cares about your nitpicking other than you, so why bother? I commented on the debate sub to debate with OP, not quibble with you about what does or doesn't constitute a rant about Jesus, now kindly scadoodle from me.
>recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
Does it? Then why doesn't it say that? Why doesn't it say "cooperate and respect each other irrespective of what different gods different groups worship"?
Instead it prohibits many faiths which worship idols.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things
So the second law is censorship. I see no good reason to ban this type of speech. I say a better law would be "only limit expression which is harmful".
>The third law is the prohibition against murder
An excellent law, except a little weird since it's given just after god killed everyone except a few animals and one family. But I guess sometimes the best thing to do is kill everyone, including babies and that's not murder. It depend on the context. Anyway, all cultures have this and already had it before it was written into this religious text.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft
Again already had this.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life
This is too vague to be good. It all comes down to what you decide is, and isn't illicit. It would be a good law if it allowed all sexual relations that are consenting, but it doesn't.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect
No, this is a weird rule. A law which would aim to treat animals with compassion and respect would prohibit the eating of all meat, or at least prohibit animal abuse, but it doesn't.
>By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare.
No, you could just torture animals non stop, bathe in their blood and wear their corpses as long as you don't eat their limbs while alive and be innocent of violating this rule. You could literally make all animal species extinct under this law.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitable.
Citation needed. I put it to you that it nowhere says "all laws must treat everyone equally and no person is above the law".
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
It literally doesn't though, unless you were born yesterday you should know this. You, christians, and muslims believe *the exact same* god, and you guys get into spats all the time. Christians have been killing each other over protestantism and catholicism for centuries. This is such a demonstrably false statement that I can't fathom how anyone could type it with a straight face.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
How does not shit talking God cultivate kindness and understanding? Just like the first one, christians and muslims also believe in blasphemy but that hasn't cultivated a culture of kindness and understanding.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony.
Murder is one of the things that's a given in terms of being illegal in civilizations wholesale. So you're not special.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability.
Same with murder.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect.
Same with murder and theft. How about slavery? That's something people had to figure out for ourselves and wasn't pre-packaged with evolution and the stability needed when a bunch of funny ape men decide to live in the same general area. Is that in one of these laws? Because that would at least be novel for the time.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare.
Dude I don't think there's a huge issue in this day and age of people eating limbs of living animals. What the fuck was going on with jews back then that someone had to make a rule against that, and put it on the same pedestal as murder?
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
Once again, pre-packaged into civilization itself by evolution and the fact societies destabilize and fall apart if people don't adhere to this. Now whether or not the justice carried out is actually fair or actually treats people equally is another matter.
>In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people.
Two of them were strictly religious and *demonstrably* don't work. Four of them are things that every other civilization also figured out including modern secular ones. And one was really fucking weird and you should probably ask what the hell was going on back there.
So yeah. Society would be better if we didn't murder each other, steal, and rape. And if we had a system of justice that's able to hold accountable people who do break the social contract. You guys were able to figure it out, and so was everyone else.
But the religious laws fail wholeheartedly. As I've pointed out, people fight all the time despite believing in the exact same god. And they're convinced that they're worshipping God the right was and the other guy is committing idolatry. They're convinced that they're speaking about God the right way and the other guy is committing blasphemy. Hell, a christian can type 'God' and feel just fine. You think you have to type 'G-d'. How do you two figure out which is abiding by the Noahide Laws and which is acting like a shithead to the big G? Historically, the 'debate' hasn't been pretty.
And seriously? Don't eat an animal's limb while it's alive? Not slavery? Not a law against abusing power? Not a law that gives equal rights to the sexes? Not a law against destroying the environment? Not a law demanding respect for privacy? Not a law that demands no one starves or goes homeless? Just 'Hey you see that donkey over there? Make sure it's dead before you start munching on its leg, bub.'
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
How would that law be of any use to me as an atheist who recognizes no higher power or even knows what spirituality is supposed to mean?
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy,...
So would that apply to me making jokes about Harry Potter in the face of Harry Potter fans? Because, again, as an atheist I do not recognize any gods. Laws against blasphemy are an attack on freedom of speech and opinion.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder,..
Well, I don't need Noahide laws for that one. Laws prohibiting murder have been pretty widespread through out cultures and history. So nothing special.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft,...
Again, same principle as with the 3rd. This isn't anyting special and ground breaking.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations,...
What does illicit even refer to in this context? Is it about marriage? Is it about hetero relationships? Either way, I don't care. I don't plan to marry and neither does my partner. We are friends with a few people with open relationships who are more than happy. Any law telling me that a couple needs to be married, monogamous and heterosexual just gets flat out rejected by me. There is no reason that ANY of this should be a law other than opinions.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal,...
I am a bit confused on this one. Does this talk about being vegan/vegetarian or just not eating animals while they are still alive?
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice,...
Well, great. So the same conclusions thousands of cultures came to as well.
To be honest. I reject several of those laws and others aren't anything special. It's just some basic ideas plus things I reject as immoral combined under a label. Overall nothing special.
can you define "illicit sexual relations", "moral values", "healthy relationships", and "blasphemy"?
also is "system of justice" refering to a specific system of justice? because if not it's vagueness is doing a lot of legwork.
Ah ok so everyone should be vegan. I thought you were saying that it specifically had something to do with atheism.
As for your question, I don't think there is any difference in the intrinsic value of an animal vs. a human.
Humans are omnivores, we evolved to where we are \*because\* we eat meat. Meat is the easiest source of the proteins that we use to grow and feed our brain. Look into studies on the effects of a "vegan" diet on young children and how it's practically child abuse.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7863396/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7863396/)
Known risks of a vegan diet on infants, children and adolescents include:
* poor eye sight, and increased risk of eye related problems
* poor metabolism
* stunted growth
* bone density problems
* immune system crashing, and increased risk of immunity related diseases, such as asthma
* increased risk of learning disabilities
So yeah...you do need to eat meat. We evolved to do so, and to claim otherwise is bullshit.
Now, do we need to eat mega-farm, inhumanely produced, overcrowded meat? Nope. We have ways of making humane, sustainably farmed, and as cruelty free as possible meat products that we can all feel better about.
Plus, if we as humanity were to stop eating and producing meat, then cows and chickens would go extinct, as we literally over a thousand years bread them to be farm animals. They cannot survive in the wild in a sustainable population.
Lab grown meats are another great way we can better our environmental impact of our biological need for meat. And I really hope the tech continues to advance quickly. If we can get to the point where every live animal that we grow for food has large pastures with several acres of land available to live freely on during their lives, and the bulk of our meat consumption can be lab grown to increase food production density, then I think we're heading in a good direction.
Yea, that study isn't considered thorough or a significant enough sample size for 6 vegan kids.
>Known risks of a vegan diet on infants, children and adolescents include:
>* poor eye sight, and increased risk of eye related problems
* poor metabolism
* stunted growth
* bone density problems
* immune system crashing, and increased risk of immunity related diseases, such as asthma
* increased risk of learning disabilities
Is this specific to vegans or just a risk for kids and humans? Because humans have been eating meat for centuries, and all of these have been risks to kids regardless of diet, and I don't see any evidence for an increased risk for vegans.
The common thing, regardless of diet, is making sure kids eat enough and get a healthy diet.
>yeah...you do need to eat meat. We evolved to do so, and to claim otherwise is bullshit
Oh, the ignorance is astounding. You do realize that Asian countries have a larger vegan population and a longer history of being vegan and have a better overall health compared to Western countries.
>making humane,
So how do make humane meat? That's an oxymoron to make it sound better than it is.
Is capital punishment humane? Is a gas chamber humane? Is slicing a throat humane?
>Plus, if we as humanity were to stop eating and producing meat, then cows and chickens would go extinct, as we literally over a thousand years bread them to be farm animals. They cannot survive in the wild in a sustainable population.
So animal sanctuaries would cease to exist?
Finally, if you look at the environmental impact, animal farming and the crops and water associated with them it's killing the plant. Drying up rivers and aquafors to feed them.
Wow, how clever, I haven't heard this one before so original. This is the kind of question I get from teenagers who never thought about veganism or knew what it meant.
No, we have a moral agency. We are moral agents. Ya know one of the things atheists argue as to why we don't need religion to be moral. Lions aren't agents.
Other animals have prions too.
Well, not everyone likes the same thing, maybe we need human veal, or should eat other parts like liver, heat, tongue, etc. Maybe there's a specific part that tastes really good, like how people farm for shark fins. We won't know unless we try.
Number 2: critiscing is different from blasphemous.
10-20% of known pregnancies end up in miscarriages.
if that's the best your god could do ask it to be humble and accept criticism. That is not to mention the botched plan of creating human and then flood the whole planet killing every todlers, infants and fetuses.
>This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths
"You can't practice your faith, you have to practice MY faith" is not respect for people of different faiths.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
If you hurt my feeling by saying something mean, I'll kill you.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy.
Right after god drown literally everyone on the planet, including millions of babies
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships
You can't love that person, you can only love these people.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal,
Don't eat the limbs, but you can eat the rest of it. Wut. Why didn't god command veganism if he wants us to respect animals?
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
The laws you listed are evil, the god who you say commanded them is evil.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
How does this law promote unity with other people who follow multiple gods, or none at all? Furthermore, why is "a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine" a good thing that should be fostered? It might be helpful for some people, but forcing it on *everyone* is sure to cause problems.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
Taking a charitable view of the "spirit" of this law - that is, that everyone should avoid offending people with other beliefs - I suppose it's not so bad. But then it directly conflicts with the first law, which says that everyone should worship a single higher power. And a strict reading of the law gets into a lot of problems regarding free speech and scientific freedom. At one point it was considered blasphemy to say that the earth revolved around the sun, for example. Would such claims break this law, despite having strong evidence? Should all new knowledge have to go through this religiously-motivated blasphemy filter before being accepted?
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony.
This law seems pretty standard, with very similar rules common to most cultures throughout history.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability.
Same as the third law.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect.
What does this law mean by "illicit sexual relations"? As-written this law is *way* too vague to be useful as anything but a bigoted cudgel to be used against LGBTQ people and nontraditional relationships and families. Promoting and protecting families is fine, I guess (though I think it's a bit outdated in a world where overpopulation is a realistic problem on the horizon), but surely there's a way to do that without demonizing people who don't fit that narrow mold. Consenting adults shouldn't need to worry about "morality police" spying on their bedrooms.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare.
Promoting "environmental sustainability and animal welfare" is a fine goal, but the wording of this law is *very* strange. Is the goal to protect animal welfare, or food safety? Are the *organs* ok even if the *limbs* are not? Is the prohibition only against eating the limbs while the animal is still alive - meaning it becomes ok again after the animal is dead - or is the prohibition against eating any animal that was once alive, effectively banning all meat? As another commenter pointed out, this seems like a Bronze Age solution to a Bronze Age problem.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
This sounds good, but doesn't it kind of make the rest of the laws unnecessary? Why go to the trouble of writing the first six laws when the last one is simply to write a good set of laws?
Yeah we can learn a lot from these laws, look at the thriving Israel that is one of the most rac!st countries in the world with lots of cruelty towards non-jews and non-israelis.
But to answer your post, no these laws are no different than Islam or Christianity, it's not a way to live life, and it's not something to have others follow, especially the idolatry... people can believe in whatever they want, and also prohibition of blasphemy just sounds like your God doesn't like criticism..... I mean he doesn't as shown in the old testament.
In conclusion here is a better way to live life in a more peaceful way:
Be free and let others be free, separate religion and government and don't take things too seriously.... also don't occupy a land that isn't yours, you know no colonialism or getting mad that someone criticized someone else's imaginary friend, or that oh this guy has 3 imaginary friends? Thats idolatry!! Just let people stick to their own business.
If I said that "Make sure to bow to every third magpie you see and salute every fifth pigeon" promotes a regular, controlled life, peace, harmony, and unity, does that mean following that rule actually does those things? Or does it just mean that I'm claiming it promotes those things?
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
This seems strange to me. How could a law which requires people to worship exactly one god, promote unity and respect toward polytheists? It literally outlaws their beliefs.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
I can see how you got there, but please understand that "kindness and consideration toward others" and "mutual respect and understanding" is *definitely not* the only way that law could've been interpreted. There are plenty of contexts in which prohibiting blasphemy and respecting sacred things still allows you to consider other people as if they're not sacred, and treat them like shit. Again, I appreciate that your particular interpretation didn't end up at that place, but you need to acknowledge that other far more heinous conclusions are possible, and that means the law is insufficient.
>prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony.
Again, we could prohibit murder and still treat everybody like shit. I appreciate that you've not reached that conclusion, but your (good) conclusion is certainly not required by the law as you've stated it.
>prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability.
Same thing. Where's the prohibition against selling snake-oil cures and MLMs? It's not there, because it's quite easy and reasonable to not view those as theft. You'd need a separate law against trickery or unfair contracts or something.
>prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect.
Except some people flourish best in the types of relationships your law considers illicit, yet which don't in any way harm others. Your law would work well for the majority of people, while harming a minority -- for absolutely no benefit, since the "illicit" relationships which would benefit them would not harm anybody.
>prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare.
No it fucking doesn't teach people to treat animals with kindness and respect. It teaches them to not eat animals in vivo. Why do you keep extrapolating? Yet again, I appreciate that it gets you to a better place, but the law should start at the better place, getting there should not be optional!
>requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
No! Just having a "system of justice" doesn't mean the laws themselves are good and just.
>the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people.
... if you happen to reach all the same conclusions you have, instead of stopping short and remaining in barbarity. I'm glad you've turned your laws into a good thing -- but they, in themselves, certainly don't seem to be good.
Some of these are obviously applicable to virtually everyone, while some of these only make sense for theists, and arguably only Jews depending on your interpretation. For context, I myself am an ex-Jew.
Let's go through these.
**Good for virtually everyone**
In my mind, this applies to numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7. I won't spend too much time on these since this is what we agree upon already. I'll just say that I agree that murder, animal cruelty, and theft are broadly bad, and having systems of justice are good (so long as they actually uphold justice.)
**Not applicable to non-theists**
Numbers 1, 2, and 5 are not applicable to everyone, or perhaps their status as valid or valuable for some people is heavily dependent on wording or interpretation.
**Number 2** is the most glaring as being a poor fit for people who are not theists. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods. What does it even mean for me to blashpheme? The definition of that word is so highly fungible depending on which god or religion we're discussing, or even which practitioner we're talking about. If I were to conduct my life in a manner such that I never blashphemed against any god according to everybody's collective conception, I couldn't even begin to list all the activities I would be prohibited from. Moreover, this tenet strikes me as contradictory to one of your initial points:
> Hi everyone, i am Jewish and in our religion we believe that our laws arent applicable for non jews
If I ought to abstain from blasphemy against the Jewish god, then I am necessarily respecting at least some of the 613 commandments.
I reject the notion that abstaining from blasphemy against any or every god implies kindness towards the people who believe in them. Moreover, in your understanding of this tenet, does it apply to everybody's god, or does it only apply to Yaweh?
Respecting an entity which I don't believe to exist is not a reasonable assertion.
**Number 1** is also only narrowly applicable to monotheists. By the statement of this tenet, all polytheists are committing idolatry, including all Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans etc. Again, this contradicts your claim that the 613 commandments need not apply to everybody. If the Seven Noahide laws are applicable to everyone, then you're suggesting that all members of numerous world religions ought to abandon their chosen faiths.
**Number 5** is highly dependent on interpretation. What is an *illicit* sexual relationship? Some folks will argue that this applies to any sex outside of marriage, or any non heterosexual relationships. What do you think constitutes an illicit sexual relationship? Are you suggesting that gay people need conversion therapy? Because then I would disagree vehemently. Are you saying that illicit sexual relationships are primarily sexual encounters in which people get hurt or consent is violated? In that case I would agree. However, now we segue into my broad issue I have with your thesis.
**Conclusion**
To suggest that the Seven Noahide laws are a good fit for anyone attempting to live a moral life is methodologically and philosophically flawed. You assert a combination of tenets which are so trivially obvious and common that I didn't need Judaism to adopt them (no murder, no theft, etc,) and you package in some additional laws which are innately theistic.
Moreover, those theistic laws either need to apply specifically to Judaism or to all religions equally. If you apply them specifically to Judaism (ie tenet number 2 says that you can't blaspheme yaweh specifically,) then you're granting such a high degree of special consideration to Judaism that you violate your premise that Judaism as a whole need not apply to everybody.
Conversely, if you apply the Noahide laws broadly to all religions, you end up with a paralyzing framework that still contradicts the chosen faiths of billions of people (tenet 1 seems to explicitly forbid polytheism.) If I drink coffee, am I blaspheming the Mormon god? If I draw the propet Muhammed, am I blaspheming the Muslim god? Here you violate your premise even more severely. You're not only asking me to observe a great many Jewish commandments, but also a whole swath of laws of every other conceivable religions, many of which contradict with one another.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
"You can have any color car you want, as long as it is black." -Henry Ford
So as long as you are monotheistic all is well? This sounds like "worship only me, but you might be confused about my properties because I don't actually manifest to people". At a time when most were polytheistic, this is every bit as divisive as you claim it is not.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
So first off, what is blasphemy? It it blasphemy to say that God doesn't exist? To say false things about God? (Which really makes the narrow "openness" of the first a mute point.) How is it that we create mutual understanding by censoring ourselves? I would think that freedom of speech would be a better way to gain mutual understanding.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder
If murder is an illegal killing, then this is a prohibition on breaking the law. Given the number of killings prescribed by the God of the Tonach, it seems this cannot be a genuine law against killing people intentionally.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft,
Yes, it is believed by archeologists that the invention of the lock was a major step forward in allowing people to allow their home to be empty during the day. If we accept the concept of ownership, then we must accept the crime of theft.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations,
Another law against breaking the law.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect.
Ok, so does this require that when we eat a locust that we kill it first? What if we suck the blood off a wound of our own? In general however, I can get behind the idea of not causing unnecessary harm to animals, but that isn't what this law says. This law is a subset of that, but maybe at the time this practice was common.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
"One of these things isn't like the others, one of these things doesn't belong..."
It is always so weird to have a set of laws that apply at the individual level and end with a societal law. Honestly, I don't think any society lacks this even if is as simple as "what the Khan says goes." Which can hardly be called unjust by one (God) that has just dictated a set of laws that they think everyone must abide by.
>In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people
I saw the first two leading to division (as people squabble over what is blasphemous), two laws against breaking the law, one law that simply follows from the concept of personal ownership, one law that kind of addresses some part of animal cruelty (but doesn't address any cruelty to the animal prior to being eaten), and one requiment for society to make laws which again seems to follow from just having a society. I honestly can't say that I am impressed.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
Uh... what? I'm not sure I follow. How can "you can't worship what you want" promote unity and respect among people of different faiths? It's literally saying "don't do that" to believers of other faiths.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things.
See! The first two are literally "don't do that" to people of other faiths. I really don't see how you got "respect" from that. Unity I could see, depending on how murderously effective you are at enforcing these laws.
Also, I'm firmly of the opinion that blasphemy laws are among the most blasphemous things to exist. If your god found the thing so offense that something needed to be done about it then they could have done something about it themselves unless you're saying that the god has less power than a human. If they have enough power to handle it themselves and didn't then what you're saying is that you know better than the god as to what offends the god.
You're either saying you have more power than your god or you know better than your god. Either way blasphemy laws are incredibly blasphemous.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy.
Uh... that seems *really* contradictory. Quick, what happened *right before* the noahide laws were given? I'll give you a hint: God killed every human on the planet except one family.
But aside from that, I'll go ahead and address 3 and 4 at the same time. Those are essentially required for any sort of functional society. So sure, I can get on board with those. Except define 'murder' and define 'theft.' Murder is killing when killing is not justified and theft is taking when taking is not justified. So the really important thing here isn't the prohibition on murder and theft, but when are killing and taking justified.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations,
This also kinda goes with 3 and 4. What is "illicit"? To me "with someone you own a property" and "with someone you kidnapped after murdering their city" is pretty high on the illicit list, but there's some wacky stuff in those scrolls of yours that says otherwise.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal,
I also agree here. Eating something that's still alive is needlessly cruel. Plus cooking is incredibly important and arguably lead to the rise of humans as we know them today thanks to cooking's ability to kill parasites and increase energy extraction by easing digestion.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably.
This one's a total nothing. It's really, *really* easy to get unjust laws (I really shouldn't have to spell this out, especially for a jewish person) and really hard to have a society larger than a large family/small tribe without explicit rules/laws. And could you imagine if you had different rules for slavery for the in group and the out group? That would be totally unequal! Of course, owning people as property is a pretty terrible miscarriage of justice in my opinion. I hope you agree that owning people as property is probably something that shouldn't be enshrined in law, especially in foundational documents so important they even get named after the one they nominally came from.
> The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
Rule 1 is religious intollerance where God models being jealous is the most important personal trait.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
Rule 2 is that you must not question or insult authority, but that treating other human beings with such deference is not important enough to mention.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder
1 out of 3 so far is a good rule. This is the lowest bar of any moral system. However, given that it comes on the heals of the a mass slaughter, the idea that such a law demonstrated that god wanted to show human life is valuable is 100% undercut.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft
2 out of 4. But again, this is basically the bare minimum of a legal system.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life
Except that the kind of sex god prohibitions bear no connection to whether or not one can form loving relationships or lead fulfilling lives. So this rule seems that god based his belief on primitive beliefs instead of actual understanding of how humans work.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect.
I'm sure a slaughtered animal feels much better knowing that his arms are thrown in the trash while it's torso is cooked and consumed. Of anything, forcing people to waste part of the creature means having to kill more of them
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice
So rule 7 is "go make all the rest of the laws i didn't to."
Don't get me wrong. I like your interpretation. Humans have always done a good job of fixing religious texts to improbe them over time.
But out of 7 laws, 2 out of 7 are good laws, 1 is "go figure the rest out", and the rest are oppress other religions, repress freedom of speech, feel guilty about indulging in natural human sexual bonding, and waste part of the animal that could be used to sustain yourself.
Of god had wanted, he could have made the laws
1) respect other people
2) humans are valuable
3) respect animals and minimize the number you harm.
4) maximize love and cherish relationships.
5) be better than me and don't murder
6) don't steal (but duh, you knew that).
And with a little extra space could have added some stuff about rape, slavery, child beating, etc.
It is interesting that over the years Jewish tradition has taken the laws and read into them the laws that they wish God had been wise enough to prioritize.
>which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God.
Why is this a "good way to live your life"?
I get why you believe it is good: you believe in god. But for someone that doesn't believe in god this would not be ween a good way to live your life. It's a waste of time and energy and would be lying, all things that are considered bad.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy
I mean same question as above. To a non-believer blasphemy against god is no different than blasphemy against Luke Skywalker.
This one is just neutral at best
>The third law is the prohibition against murder
Fair enough.
Is it only "murder" or any killing of any kind? Or if specific kinds, why is the line drawn where it is drawn? Compassion and empathy are great, but what if there is a conflict?
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft
Fair enough
Not sure why you need a god to spell that one out for you but it's reasonable.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations,
Much like the murder question, where and why is the line drawn for "illicit" sexual relations? What is a healthy sexual relationship for some would be horrific to others.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal
Bit of an odd phrasing on that, but it's not something I care enough about to bother with.
Again, dunno why you need a god for this.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice
And this couldn't be figured out without a god?
What should be the goal of this justice system?
How does this justice system function?
More importantly, how did we decide that is the goal and how it should function?
>the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace
Not really. It's a bunch of incredibly vague rules (most of which god isn't necessary for) that pretend to preach harmony but anyone can twist these to their own views pretty easily.
It provides *a* moral framework, it's just not a very good one.
>By upholding these laws, we can create a society that values compassion, integrity, and justice and fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
Lol no.
Let's take an example one, how about the "illicit sexual acts" one. Something this vague basically means I can say anything is or is not an illicit act. More importantly, I can use this to argue homosexuality is not moral. Which means I can then argue that a fundamental aspect of a person (that they don't choose and can't change) is not moral.
Even if we ignore the grounds for all kinds of horrific things this invites, on a more simple level this is not compassionate towards homosexual people. And "justice" in this case is punishing (even if minor) people for who they are. That's the grounds for evil.
This system is does not provide values of compassion, integrity, nor justice. It calls itself that while stripping itself of all of those.
1) this first law doesn’t really seem important to me because I don’t believe in a god. I’m not going to create an idol and worship it. If you do I don’t really care as it doesn’t bother me.
2) what do you define as blasphemy? If I said the god that is presented in the Torah and the Old Testament is not moral, should that be blasphemy? Generally free speech is better than restricting speech. The way this is written it seems vague where any truthful yet critical statement can be interpreted as blasphemous. This provides no value in my eyes.
3) this is good. Although, I don’t see why we need covenant with god. This is literally the bare minimum. Every culture has similar law in place. And it seems this is just a basic proponent of any social contract.
4) same as law 3.
5) how are you defining illicit sexual relations? Would this be referring to rape, abuse, molestation, or even a cleric from sucking on an newborns foreskin? Or is this just criminalizing sex outside of marriage with “which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life” it seems like you are setting up a law where homosexuals and any type of premarital sex is outlawed when there are many other measures in place today that can allow premarital sex to be safe and healthy. It’s easier and more effective to just let consenting adults do what they want. I know this is probably well intentioned, but when people take this literally you end up with the scarlet letter while the real abusers are hiding in plane sight.
6) yeah. Livestock should be treated humanely.
7) this is good. But it begs the question. Why have the other 6 laws if you have this one? I had issue with the intent vs enforcement of laws 1,2, and 5 where it would be easy for people not to be treated equally and fair as stated in law 7. I feel like the only reason to codify these laws was to prevent people from realizing that a specific one of the 7 big laws actually was not fair to some people and prevent law 7 from fixing it. Meaning I think there is some pretty messed up bias in these laws. Additionally, wouldn’t laws 3,4, and 6 be pretty obvious if law 7 was the only focus of this list?
Doesn’t virtually every culture nation at least have rule 7 and therefore 3 and 4 as well? This just seems more complex than needed. You don’t need god for these rules and if anything the Old Testament and Torah god is anything but an example of good morality. Like you have the 7th law about fairness and equity, but then god gives you rules and procedure for owning slaves. Obviously these 7 laws and the 10 commandments are not all inclusive on making the world a better place. I could spend an hour in any third grade classroom and come up with a better list of laws without much effort.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God.
You are commanded to make an idol of a god you don't even know to exist. Do you think it is good?
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy
Which puts the idea of God beoynd criticism. Is it good?
>The third law is the prohibition against murder
Agree, good. It's good that we can codify it into law ignoring the first two.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life.
That is questionable. The only two things that is immoral in sexual relations are having those relations without consent and breaking one's vow (if you vowed an exclusive relationship with one partner, but start another relationship behind their back). Maybe I am forgetting something. This fifth law is often used to justify bigotry. It's not good.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal
Oddly specific. Why it doesn't just command to treat animals with compassion and respect?
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice
Which is fine and good, but it doesn't tell anything about justice and human rights. It tells about system of upholding the law. It doesn't tell that this law is supposed to be just, it doesn't clarify what is a just law. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is much better. If those Noahide Laws were as good as you try to portray them, we wouldn't need the Declaration, but alas, it took humantity thousands of years to progress from Noahide Laws to it.
>In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework
It's neither moral nor ethical. Morality and ethics are established among moral agents (humans, animals in general) on grounds of mutual respect and benefit. These laws outline obligations of humans towards an unknown and unseen entity.
Killing and stealing is not bad because it can upset a god. It's bad because other humans will suffer.
So,
Law #1: Intolerance of other religions. This relates to the commandment of Yahweh to stone to death anyone found bearing witness to a “false” god. This law is horrible and xenophobic.
Law #2: Same thing. Intolerance towards other religions and opinions. Someone disrespecting your deity is cause for their subsequent execution. Intolerant xenophobia.
Law #3: A prohibition on murder is ostensibly good, but as anyone who reads the Jewish Bible is acutely aware, Yahweh does not follow this law, and often exhorts his followers to kill. The Midianites being killed man, woman, and child for the “crime” of transmitting sexual disease to the Israelites is a good example.
Law #4: A prohibition against theft is ostensibly good, but as anyone who understands the history of Israel will know, it stole its entire homeland from the Canaanites. It genocided people such as the Midianites at the behest of Yahweh and then stole everything they ever owned—including their virgin daughters.
Law #5: Sexual hangups. This is not a good law, no. Swinging is fun, and why should monogamy be any more righteous than polyamory or polygamy?
Law #6: Why does anyone need to be told not to eat living animals? Don’t most people kill their food before they eat it? This may have made more sense in the Iron Age, but eating living animals is pretty uncommon these days.
Law #7: Every sedentary civilization, even ones far older than the ancient Hebrews, had established codes of justice. This doesn’t need to be a law. It’s a thing humans living in societies universally do.
So like, 2/7 that are decent and applicable in modern times and that ancient Hebrews broke whenever they felt like it. That’s not a great covenant, in my opinion. Societies throughout the world have prohibitions on murder and theft. It’s not unique or new. It was prohibited long before the ancient Hebrews began worshipping Yahweh. You will find similar prohibitions in the Code of Ur-Nammu, as an example—or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Yu xing 禹刑 of the Shang Dynasty.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
On the contrary, this verse more than any other is the source of conflict between monotheists and non-monotheists (that means polytheists, animists, agnostics, atheists, etc.)
It hasn't promoted respect for other worldviews at all and that was also not the intention of that particular law if you would bother to read the story surrounding it.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy.
Murder and genocide are commanded by that very deity several times in the OT. So then it's OK?
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life.
But marrying off young girls to their rapist was totally OK according to those laws you hold in such high esteem.
Also, that would mean your god creates people gay and then punishes them for their nature. Sick.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably.
How is it justice to kill all women and children of a tribe? (Except the young women who were still virgins, those could be kept as sex slaves). How is any of that just?
I agree with laws 3, 4, 6 (though oddl y specific), and 7. These laws are good principles even taken on base empathy, and are in no way contingent on any religious belief.
Laws 1 and 2 can be summed up to "If everyone had the same religious beliefs, there would be harmony. Therefore everyone should follow *our* faith."
Law 5 is too vague for my liking. At first glance, it seems to be against adultery and cheating on your partner, and okay, yeah, fine, but the wording seems vague enough to also allow judging harshly anyone who doesn't follow some arbitrary chaste ideal.
**More generally, these seven laws take principles that are more or less universally agreed by humans, shoehorn in arbitrary religious beliefs, and possibly sneak in a value judgement against sexuality.**
I think laws 1 and 2 could be replaced by a simple "Respect other people's beliefs and don't impose your own beliefs on them" law and make this a lot better.
Law 5 would be better replaced by a "Be kind and faithful to your loved ones" and have the same benefits without imposing a specific conception of how sexuality ought to work.
**I have no issue with the idea that these laws can be a good way for some to live their lives. However, for reasons outlined before, I object to the idea that these laws are the One True Guide, as there are many alternative laws that would achieve the same goals while not imposing an arbitrary religious belief.**
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God.
And you think atheists are going to agree with this?
And why is it bad to worship more than 1?
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things.
And you think atheists are going to agree with this?
And it is a bad rule just based on the vagueness of it.
3 and 4 are basic ones that every society has.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life.
Again vague, and unnessary medeling in personal freedom.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect.
Lol
The former has nothing to do with the latter
The 7th one you get naturally if make laws.
>In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework
It is not a framework, it is a list of 7 rules
> Ultimately, the Seven Noahide Laws serve as a guide for humanity to live in harmony with one another and with the world around us.
How does it deal with cultures that eat limbs of animals and worship 8 gods?
Yeah, the first two points are an attempt to privilege a specific religious belief over others.
What's wild to me is that I think you actually believe what you said.
So let's dive in:
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
Would you mind explaining how a requirement to only worship one God - I assume your god - promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths?
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
Can you define blasphemy for me?
How does blasphemy apply to someone who does not believe in your God - like someone who rejects the Jewish god but believes in the hindu deities?
Is it blasphemy to state that your god does not exist, but the hindu gods do exist?
>I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
>II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
>III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
>IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
>V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
>VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
>VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
I find the seven tenets of Satanism to be far more useful. If everyone followed these the world would be a better place. Have I convinced you?
I reject law #1 outright. I have no religious belief, have no particular desire to acquire religious belief, and as such I recognize no "higher power" at all.
Law #2 is just nonsense to me - I can't respect or revere something that isn't there, and "sacred" is a meaningless concept to me.
Laws #3 and #4 are fine, but they're not unique to the Noahide laws.
As for law #5, marriage isn't some magical thing that legitimizes a sexual relationship. If I want to have such a relationship with a consenting adult, I will not be marrying them first. Been there, done that, divorced the souvenir T-shirt.
Law #6 is fine. That's just common sense - if you're going to eat meat, strive to obtain it humanely with minimal suffering to the animal.
Law #7 is an odd thing to codify as a law. How does a single individual establish a system of justice? What if two Noahide followers disagree on how to structure the justice system? What do you do with this law if there's already such a system in place where you live?
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry,
Not applicable.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy,
Not applicable.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder,
How original.
>The fourth law is the prohibition against theft,
Again, how original.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations
How archaic.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal,
But the head, organs, etc. are fair game. But no prohibition against rape or cruelty in general? Barbaric.
>The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice,[...]By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all.
You can't promote capital punishment and equity in the same breath. We already have a system of justice and despite broad support for equality, there's sweeping injustice even in so-called developed countries.
The noahide laws are predicated on a specific view of the world, and consequently are only applicable if you can successfully prove the view to not only be right, but the only one that applies. Given that historically the idea of one god that requires worship and is affected by human activity was very much a minority view its going to take quite some work to prove it true and more importantly the only belief allowed.
Theft is about property and ownership, by no means universal values, so the concept of individual private ownership needs to be defended. Justice is also a tricky concept, ones mans 'justice' is another's petty revenge, its so complicated that most cultures have rows and rows of lawbooks to deal with that, your simple summary is barely a starting point, its kindergarten level stuff.
That leaves two laws which quite frankly are covered by the golden rule of *just be decent*, really you are not offering much at all.
I place zero moral value on worshiping one god or the "correct" god or in not using images in worship. Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, also started as a pagan war and storm god https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKst8zeh-U.
Freedom of speech is more important than your feelings. Government suppression of freedom of speech to prevent criticism of religion or to force you to practice a religion is evil.
I believe in the equality of men and women. I believe in human freedom. I believe that love is one of the most beautiful aspects of human life, and believe adult persons have the right be in a relationship as long as it is consensual. A relationship to me is a voluntary union between two people. I reject the Biblical view that a daughter is the property of their father until a husband comes to buy her from her father and transfer ownership. Marriage is a cultural construct, I do not believe there is any moral difference between sexual actions before or after a marriage ceremony.
I’m an atheist
1. Seems to me like god saying “pay attention to me and only me, you can’t have other friends”, which seems like a **petty, controlling and divisive** idea *but I think ‘worship’ of anything is problematic anyway, so I agree in a sense*
2. Don’t think god exists, which kinda causes issues when defining what blasphemy is or why anyone ought care about it
3. Seems good to me, as long as it’s not stated as requiring a god to justify it.
4. Ditto
5. Yes? Depending completely on how one defines ‘illicit’ here. LGBTQ stuff and kinky stuff is fine too (with all the same caveats of straight, non-kinky sex)? What does the ‘sanctity of marriage’ even mean? Sex outside marriage is not immoral, if that’s what you’re trying to imply.
6. Limb? That includes like…most meat, you realise that right? And **eating the non-limb parts of animals has the exact same ethical concerns as the limbs, so any distinction is ridiculous.** That aside, I don’t have a problem with vegetarianism or veganism
7. Sounds great, and not requiring a god to justify it.
It strikes me that, of the laws I already think are moral, none require a god concept to derive them.
>So a quick recap, The Seven Noahide Laws are a set of moral and ethical principles that are believed to have been given by God to Noah after the Great Flood as a universal code of conduct for all of humanity.
I agree with some of these rules, but not what they are based in. I think what system we base our morality in is just as important as how we use it.
We shouldn't use a popularity contest that counts on whoever is in charge to have our best interests at heart.
We should use our observations of reality. That will give us an objective baseline to base our subjective ideas around instead of someone else's subjective ideas.
>> This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths
It sounds like it does the exact opposite, as it would prevent those who use idols from using them
This would also be prevented by
>> The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy,
As my faith is your blasphemy.
>> By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding
Again, it does the opposite, as it blocks other ideas and understanding.
>arent applicable for non jews but they are still part of the original covenant with G-d, i believe that if every human abided by it, it would make world a better place
So I don't have to abide by your rules which can't be demonstrated to be from a god which can't be demonstrated to exist at all. There is no covenant between this god thing and me, there never has been because the god thing never existed.
Rules 1, 2 and 5 aren't applicable to anyone who isn't part of your tribe. Keep your tribal customs if you like as long as your tribe actually abides by them there shouldn't be any problems.
Law 1 and 2 is explicitly against other faiths. How is that supposed to promote unity and respect among people of different faiths?
Law 3 and 4 are already covered by law 6 re: justice system. It's just pointless padding, but otherwise acceptable.
Law 5 is against same sex marriage, this law excludes a minority from experiencing love commitment and mutual respect.
Law 6 and 7 are okay.
Overall score: 4 out of 7. That's barely a pass if we allow the padding. Not very impressive.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony.
Gaza has entered the chat.
I'm not even pro-Palestine, but given the current state of things, this is rich.
How about “these are a good way to live MY life.” Why are religious people ever-eager to shove things in your face? These are just seven random laws, not even all-encompassing, and the first two are just rules saying My god is best. A list of seven of anything is hardly a framework, its a vaguery stripped of context that means both little and everything depending on how you fill in the blanks yourself.
> The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine.
Interesting, because historically it has had the exact opposite effect.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
This can be achieved without your god and religion.
Just one of many problems in your post.
First law - destroys freedom of religion.
Second law - destroys freedom of speech.
Third law - already illegal.
Fourth law - already illegal.
Fifth law - destroys bodily autonomy.
Sixth law - I actually like this one.
Seventh law - We already have this.
Alright, so what’s the value here other than just further restricting people’s freedoms and rights?
As an atheist, I find your rules mostly silly.
I mean who eats raw flesh of a live creature? That's just sick.
As to anything "god" related, see the first sentence. There is no god, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional.
I give love and respect to those people in my life who deserve it, and the others not. That's my golden rule.
I don't kill or steal, because those are not nice things to do to a person.
Fuckin hilarious that not a single one of your laws says, DONT OWN PEOPLE AS PROPERTY!
It's almost like those laws were invented by a backwards dessert dweller that literally had no idea that owning people was wrong.
The issue of slavery will forever reaffirm to me that all abrahamic faiths are just made up bullshit.
Interesting. I think you make quite a leap from the laws to what you say they teach us. I’m not sure that unity and respect between religions thing is working out so well.
I’ve never heard the one about not eating the limb of a living animal. Fascinating that was such a problem it made the top seven.
Your rules are dumb. Give me evidence your god is real or you're just wasting time.
The first two are just god saying "notice me senpai, I'm so special". It's actually pathetic that someone heard this and thought, yes god is an insecure child, that's what the best being ever is.
Sex should be viewed exclusively through the lense of consent. Consent must be freely given, reversible, enthusiastic, informed, and specific. There is absolutely nothing wrong in any sex that meets all of these criteria. Restricting sex in any way above that is harmful.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations
What exactly are illicit sexual sexual relations?
>upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life
Not sure what "sanctity" means here exactly, but I'm guessing divorce should be forbidden then?
>worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths
I feel this law excludes me and others that worship more than one god. Why do you consider excluding most of the sub content of India "promoting unity?"
Don't you find something odd about God handing down laws on the sanctity of human life and treating animals with compassion and respect directly after exterminating practically all human and animal life on the planet by drowning it?
Why not ask the priests of Baal if they agree that Jewish law "promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths"? Oh, that's right, you can't. They're dead. They were all murdered for having a different faith.
Those are all entirely useless (first and second) or are not sourced from, and most definitely not exclusive to, your religious mythology. And are generally incomplete and misleading.
Thus, demonstrably, the Jewish mythology is moot and irrelevant.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> i believe that if every human abided by it, it would make world a better place You also said that these laws only apply to Jewish individuals. If everyone were to follow these laws the way you arrived by them, then everyone would need to convert to Judaism first no? Law 1 - no idolatry > This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. How? Idolatry has different meanings to different religions. To follow this law, people would first need to know the Jewish definition of idolatry, compare that to their own faith and ensure that their religion followed Judaidm. Again, pointless unless the person converts. So for your argument, law 1 makes no sense unless you are Jewish. Law 2 - no blasphemy > The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. By your own answers, cultures that do not follow the same understanding of Law 1 or who practice polytheism, are blaspheming against your god. I would take this further and assume that anyone who doesn't generally follow your religious beliefs and practices is also a blasphemer. Translation: everyone who isn't Jewish is a blasphemer and in violation of Law 2. So there's no mutual respect or understanding fostered by your explanation. Again, the only way to follow the law is to be Jewish. So # 2 is out. Law 3 - no murder > The third law is the prohibition against murder . . . There are lots and lots of secular laws governing this over already. No religion or god required. So no need for Law # 3 specifically. Law 4 - no stealing > The fourth law is the prohibition against theft . . . See law 3, also unnecessary. Law 5 - no illicit sex > The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect. Since specific interpretations are required to clearly define what does and does not qualify as illicit sexual relations, one would be required to look to your specific religious texts to know what acts could be considered illicit. For example, do you consider any sexual act not between husband and wife to be illicit? Further, is it illicit to engage in sexual acts for purposes other than procreation? Does sex require cleansing practices such as those practiced by Hasidic Jews? Is it illicit if one spouse is infertile? What about homosexuality? Sex between unmarried consenting adults? How would this even be governed or monitored? What about moral values? Which values, what moral code? How are we promoting healthy relationships by barring entire groups from having god approved sexual contact? How are we promoting the sanctity of marriage by policing the behaviors of unmarried consenting adults? Sounds like Law 5 leaves major gaps that are only clarified by following your religious interpretation. They also specifically exclude homosexual and unmarried individuals. So Law 5 isn't universally applicable and not suitable to support your argument. Law 6 - eating live animals. The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare. I'm fairly confident that there's no need for laws telling people to not just start eating random live creatures. Further, there are lots of secular laws that prohibit such practices anyway. So Law 6 is redundant and weirdly specific. There's no point in law 6, so that one is out too. Law 7 - laws are good >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. Extra redundant. We do this, have done so for millennia. These are basic principles of a societal contact. Collective societies fail without rules and laws. A law telling us that we need laws when we already HAVE systems of laws is pointless. So Law 7 isn't necessary either. > In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people. Not based on the high level definitions you've provided. All 7 laws are either uselessly redundant or religiously specific to the point of excluding anyone not part of your particular faith. > By upholding these laws, we can create a society that values compassion, integrity, and justice and fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding. The laws as you've described them foster exclusion of people who do not follow your faith and who do not fit standard gender roles or sexual identities. They do not foster compassion, they foster homogenization. It's easy to show mutual respect and understanding if everyone has the same views and follows the same practices. But since that isn't how the world works, your suggestion would (at best) have no effect, and would like just continue to discourage resourceful communities with different faiths and values. > Ultimately, the Seven Noahide Laws serve as a guide for humanity to live in harmony with one another and with the world around us. Not really. They'd work if we wanted to set up a homogenous culture from scratch, but it's too late for that. If you wanted to improve human interactions and build a healthier society, then your best bet would be to find whatever set of beliefs govern the largest group of people, and assimilate to their value system. Instead, you are suggesting that you do nothing while everyone else assimilate to your world view. But why? You've already shown that your beliefs serve no purpose in governing a modern multi-faith society. So what logic do you draw on to determine that we are better off as a species abandoning centuries of societal development in favor of oversimplified archaic laws that have long since been replaced with far more effective and modern versions?
>There are lots and lots of secular laws governing this over already. Yet a lot of people murder anyways. >You've already shown that your beliefs serve no purpose in governing a modern multi-faith society. Holy strawmen! That wasn’t their claim. >So what logic do you draw on to determine that we are better off as a species abandoning centuries of societal development in favor of oversimplified archaic laws that have long since been replaced with far more effective and modern versions? Because we don’t follow the modern versions as a whole. OP claimed the laws are a good way to live your life by. They showed how. Let’s say a gnostic murderer decides to follow the Noahide laws. They would have to stop murdering. That’s good.
There are lots and lots of secular laws governing this over already. > Yet a lot of people murder anyways. What's your point? You've already shown that your beliefs serve no purpose in governing a modern multi-faith society. > Holy strawmen! That wasn’t their claim. Then what was their claim? So what logic do you draw on to determine that we are better off as a species abandoning centuries of societal development in favor of oversimplified archaic laws that have long since been replaced with far more effective and modern versions? > Because we don’t follow the modern versions as a whole. Again, so what? People who don't follow secular laws certainly aren't following preexisting religious principles either. > OP claimed the laws are a good way to live your life by. They showed how. No they didn't. The basic principles of these laws are not unique to OP's principles. Most of these ideas are represented across all major religions, and are represented in secular laws and moral codes as well. > Let’s say a gnostic murderer decides to follow the Noahide laws. They would have to stop murdering. That’s good. Let's say a gnostic murderer decides to follow secular laws. They would have to stop murdering. That’s good. AND they'd be able to do so without following any religion, without discriminating against any group of people, and without following all of the other beliefs, practices and rituals necessarily to adhere to Noahide laws as described by OP.
I’m unsure if your comment is poorly formatted or if you’re just repeating yourself. >What's your point? Since people still murder, OP’s claim that things would be better if they followed the Noahide laws preventing murder is true. >that have long since been replaced with far more effective and modern versions? If they still allow murder, how are they “far more effective”. What logic are you pretending to use for these unjustified claims? >People who don't follow secular laws certainly aren't following preexisting religious principles either. Which is why it would be better if they were following them. Understand? >Let's say a gnostic murderer decides to follow secular laws. They would have to stop murdering. That’s good. AND they'd be able to do so without following any religion Good for you? That doesn’t contradict a OP’s claim. Look at the title of their post!. Buddy, check your tribalism at the door and read the post again with a neutral mindset.
Poorly formatted, as I'm on mobile. My point is simply that there are lots of rules and laws that govern everything that OP suggested already. Including OP's laws. Yet people disobey these laws constantly. If everyone were to truly follow secular laws then the crimes they outlaw would be prevented. But they don't. If everyone followed laws based on whatever religion then the crimes outlawed by that religion would be prevented. But they don't. Point being, in an ideal and monolithic culture, all members would agree on and obey the exact same laws. But that is not how life works. There will always be people who disobey some law, regardless of source. So at that point, the question becomes are the 7 Noahide laws a good way to live as an effective society, given that we do not live in a society governed by a single set of laws and beliefs. And the simple answer is no, they are not. As per OP's various responses to questions posed in this thread for example, op believes that it is blasphemous to worship any god or gods other than OP's god. I.e. everyone who does not share OP's faith, is automatically not adhering to OP's laws, and has no way of ever adhering to OP's laws unless they begin to follow OP's god. So, since OP's laws (per op) can only be properly followed if one follows OP's faith, all of OP's laws become irrelevant. This has nothing to do with tribalism. I'm just not a fan of religious rules that criminalize those who do not share the same religious beliefs.
>I'm just not a fan of religious rules that criminalize those who do not share the same religious beliefs. It doesn’t. OP said they’re a good way to life your life by, not to force everyone to live this way.
You are basing your interpretation on OP's title, I'm basing mine on OP's conclusion. OP isn't talking about individual references but rather about laws applied to an entire population.
To be fair many of the laws in the Western Countries come from the Judeo-Christian faith.
There are many things that have roots in old religions, pagan rituals, etc. But OP is suggesting that the roots of these beliefs can be applied to current societies. Things just aren't that simple anymore.
I know it’s not simple, but still if a human being would follow these laws I wouldn’t see him as a threat to humanity nor to the planet overall, Would be more order but you can do it yourself without following the Jewish gods rules to gentiles. . I have studied a little bit jurisprudence and indeed many of laws that you see today here in the western world comes from the bible. I just wanted to respond to your first paragraphs.
Got ya. Definitely agree with that. I'm an optimist though. I feel like (wish) that most people inherently follow the rules concerning violence and crime / abuse.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths What? Banning the rituals of certain religion promotes respect among different faith? Wtf is that? >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, It really depends on whats blasphemy. If another religion thats polytheistic, is that blasphemy towards ur monotheistic religion? >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, Illicit is a very vague word, it means nothing. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal I dont understand. How is eating the organs and the body of the animal foster kindness?
>What? Banning the rituals of certain religion promotes respect among different faith? Wtf is that? Just look at the Aghori tribe of India, just because something can be done, shouldnt be done >It really depends on whats blasphemy. If another religion thats polytheistic, is that blasphemy towards ur monotheistic religion? Yes >Illicit is a very vague word, it means nothing. This is just nitpicky
None of that was a response to the points brought up... >just because something can be done, shouldnt be done And if someone says you should or shouldn't do something because their imaginary friend says so, why should we listen to the opinion of your imaginary friend? >Yes Again, that's not an answer. You agree that polytheism referring to their plurality of gods is a blasphemy to your monotheistic god... so in what way is that respecting other religions? >This is just nitpicky Says the person who would not eat the *limb* of an aminal, but has no problem eating other parts of the same animal?
A Jew is not permitted to eat any part of animal ripped off from it when it is living.
That doesn't appear to be what that law says though.
On Wikipedia, I see both variants included as a phrasing for that law. In the Torah there is a law against eating flesh torn from a living animal, but perhaps this is different
I live this response because you specifically didn’t respond to any of the points made. You just named one obscure practice you don’t like, said “yes”, and then complained.
I apologize for that, i realize my rebuttal was childish, but when I tried posting a new one reddit just said i had to wait a few minutes so i just deleted my big reply all together
Bummer. I hate when Reddit does that. Seems to be letting you post now, though, if you want to continue the conversation.
So u are basically saying that almost all religion but ur religion is blasphemy and should be banned. How does that foster respect among different faith?. >This is just nitpicky How is that nitpicky. Illicit is indeed a vague word. Why eating organs and the body except the limbs foster kindness?
>This is just nitpicky 'Illicit' means unlawful. Without actually saying which laws you're referring to, a law that forbids unlawful things is by definition useless. Are you under the assumption that we all somehow 'know' what is considered illicit and what isn't?
ah, yes. everyone's ritual is wrong except the my ritual of chopping a bit of the dick of young boys then suck on it. 10/10 great insight.
That entirely reasonable mutilation proceedure hardly ever transmits siphillis.
>reasonable press X to doubt. Bronze age barbaric ritual is not a reason to mutilate anybody. the Asians dont have this ritual and they still survive, same with everyone else
I'm pretty sure that the comment you are responding to is sarcastic.
yeah, i did relize it a bit later in the chain. i was at work skim through and thought they were serious.
As I understand it, the god thing was messing with abraham but abraham took it too far so god said "no don't kill him, just cut off the useless bit of flesh on the end of his penis" but abraham got confused about which bit to keep. I am a bit hazy on the exact details because the story is a bit crap.
but that still doesnt explain swittching from stabby stabby your boys to choppy choppy his dick a reasonable thing. Moreover cults can have some arbitrary rituals to instill obidence. Overtime, myths help creating new meaning for those barbaric rituals.
It's not arbitrary it's the word of the voice in my head! /s
Yep. You are correct. I concede and take this L
Ah yes, the transmission of siphilis was my only concern /s. And wtf, it’s not reasonable
There’s other options
> Yes So your laws are ban all other religions except mine, and then we'll be able to live in peace and harmony?
I almost agreed with your op... Not, "Yeah, you're right" agreement, but "Sure. who cares?" agreement. But then you said this and I read closer. What a load of horseshit.
Are Solomon’s 700 wives allowed by Noahide law? I don’t think he’s nit picking. Your law “don’t do anything illicit” is either so vague that no one knows what it means, or alternatively it’s so incredibly broad and poorly defined that you might as well have just said “don’t do anything bad” and reduced the 7 laws down to 1.
So I can not eat a limb of an animal but I can eat there belly and their organs? That makes zero sense.
So, please explain, how does the first law promote unity and respect among people of different faits? Are there any polytheistic faiths that you respect? How about kneeling in front of a statue of Jesus, or mother Mary? What about Buddhism?
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. Idolatry is a victimless crime. Idolatry laws have historically been used to persecute religious minorities, not "promote respect and unity among people of different faith". It is a tool of religious intolerance, not a tool of religious tolerance. Moreover, the assumption in calling something "idolatry" is that the "idols" are false gods, which, if you can't prove your god exists (which you haven't) makes **you** guilty of idolatry. All in all, a crappy law, which debunks your thesis. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. Just like idolatry, blasphemy is a victimless crime and blasphemy laws have historically been used to persecute people from minority religions. Blasphemy laws are an attempt to uphold the unearned authority of the clergy, they are a tool of obscurantism. >The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony. Nothing to do with a god, murder is forbidden pretty much everywhere. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability. Same >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect. Marriage has nothing to do with the health of a relationship. There are healthy unmarried couples, toxic unmarried couples, toxic married couples and healthy married couples. What makes the health of a relationship is informed and enthousiastic consent, not whether or not a couple got chanted over by a priest. Religious marriage is nothing but a remnant of the time where priests had the authority to decide or veto the way wealth would be inherited. I reject the authority of priests to judge my relationships, which are none of their business. This law, again, is not very good. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare. Do you really need to make "make sure the animal you're eating is dead" one of the seven fundational laws of your legal system? How many cases of people eating meat from partially butchered animals have you heard from? This law does not strike me as necessary. It is anecdotal at best. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. "Seventh law : oh, by the way, make other laws" This is laughable. Out of the seven laws, three are there to uphold the unearned authority of the clergy, one is useless, two are trivial (and have nothing to do with a god) and the last one is so vague as to be useless. Thinking this is the product of an omniscient mind is ridiculous on the face of it. Your interpretation of these laws is obviously at odds with the way those laws are actually applied, which makes me wonder whether you are selling them in bad faith or if you are blinded to the (lack of) quality of these laws by your own upbringing.
The idea that “if everyone followed these ideas I subscribe to then the world would be a better place” is a fairly common way of thinking almost regardless of the ideology one believes in. The world is as complicated as it is partially because there are so many different beliefs that people have. The difficulty is not in getting everyone to follow your system, but in how we can preserve dignity and rights of every person regardless of which beliefs they have. You can’t convert everyone, so finding ways to work together despite our differences is the goal. Even within a belief system though, one can have different interpretations. For example, you say that the first law promotes respect among people of different faiths… how? What if someone else is a polytheist? How does the law that teaches you to worship only one God help you respect their beliefs? Same thing about the second law. I don’t see how Reverence towards the divine and the sacred helps me be kind or considerate to other people. Interacting with others, learning their perspectives and situations can do that far better. Third to fifth laws are common rules in most human cultures, at least in the vague sense. There’ll be different applications of them, but there’s nothing unique here. Secular society already has these on the books. Unsure how to even interpret the sixth law. Feels like a “you should be vegan” rule, but I assume that’s not how it works. And the seventh is too vague to be useful. Yeah, we should have a way to ensure that people are treated fairly and build a system that promotes justice and equality. Religion has never once in the history of humanity managed to build such a thing and it is currently one of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of us building one. Mind you, you and your personal beliefs are not under scrutiny on this one. I am saying that overall, religion tends to hold back progress when it comes to rule of law becoming more equal and fair.
>The idea that “if everyone followed these ideas I subscribe to then the world would be a better place” is a fairly common way of thinking almost regardless of the ideology one believes in. I definitely remember thinking how much better the world would be of we were all Christian when I was a Christian, and now I think it would be better if we were all secular (if not non-religious).
I imagine that this is a common experience for people as they mature. The more we learn about the world around us and all the different perspectives that exist, the more difficult it becomes to stick to the idea that it’s “my way or the highway”. It’s why extreme religious groups are so frightened by education. It’s also why the idea that objective morality doesn’t exist is so toxic to religion. If your beliefs aren’t objectively correct, then that means that other people’s views have equal value regardless of how different they are. Suddenly you have to figure out a way to compromise instead of forcing your views on others.
These laws are not specific to Judaism. I assume you're saying (as you're on a debate sub) that because your religion has these rules that are good, it proves your religion. Most religions have some form of it. Why are yours special? Also, I'd argue that religions have adapted general societal rules as their own and then claimed them- in reality, apart from the animal one and the blasphemy ones, these are rules that allows a community to exist and thrive. Nothing God given about it. Regarding the sixth law, is vegetarianism common in Jewish communities? I know you don't eat pork but that rule encompasses all meat right? edit: Hadn't fully considered the iffy nature of the sex one. I think clean sex practices helps stop inbreeding and STIs in early civilisations so that's why it's not a bad rule. I don't think it applies nowadays.
>These laws are not specific to Judaism. I assume you're saying (as you're on a debate sub) that because your religion has these rules that are good, it proves your religion. Most religions have some form of it. Why are yours special? Yes these were given to the Prophet Noah after the flood so that humanity thrives and we can all agree that if we have a society on the basis of these laws, there's nothing wrong with it > Also, I'd argue that religions have adapted general societal rules as their own and then claimed them- in reality, apart from the animal one and the blasphemy ones, these are rules that allows a community to exist and thrive. Nothing God given about it. This is just nitpicky, also why couldnt blasphemy be a societal rule then, if we are being objective surely there are some rules that are societal that could be bad >Regarding the sixth law, is vegetarianism common in Jewish communities? I know you don't eat pork but that rule encompasses all meat right? We are allowed to eat meat that is kosher meaning cut in a kosher way, vegetarianism for the sake of the environment is allowed as far as I know, since vegetarian food doesnt need to be cut
>Yes these were given to the Prophet Noah after the flood so that humanity thrives and we can all agree that if we have a society on the basis of these laws, there's nothing wrong with it No evidence of a flood, so doubt the Noah claim. Again though, why are these any different to the basically identical ones from other religions? >This is just nitpicky, also why couldnt blasphemy be a societal rule then, if we are being objective surely there are some rules that are societal that could be bad Of course there are rules that are societal that could be bad, but back in early civilisations bad rules means failure. Blasphemy I guess matters in terms of a "Don't piss your neighbours off" type deal, but from my point of view it doesn't matter. If you and your God are so sensitive about your beliefs that the words of others impact you that much, maybe you need to have a think about it? >We are allowed to eat meat that is kosher meaning cut in a kosher way, vegetarianism for the sake of the environment is allowed as far as I know, since vegetarian food doesnt need to be cut Hang on- "The sixth law is the prohibition **against eating the limb of a living animal**" so surely you can't eat meat? This may be my admittedly somewhat militant vegetarianism coming through, but in my opinion just having clean quick kill cuts does not a painless slaughter make- not even going into animal perception of slaughter, for the vast majority of farming animals are kept in some pretty shit conditions. As a practicing Jew, if you were to find out a chicken you were about to eat was factory farmed and spent the entirety of it's short life barely enough space to turn around, would you not eat it?
That rule is so all over the map depending on how its stated, but I read OP's version of it meaning "kill the animal before you eat it". I don't know why you'd need that as a rule, unless there was a specific practice -- lost to time -- that it was meant to forbid. That it's a problematic rule is apparent to me from the things that it's been used to justify or that it's twisted into. Like "don't cook a baby goat in its mother's milk" -- "We don't know what he f... it was supposed to prevent, so we'll just make a rule that you can't eat meat with any dairy products, to avoid whatever it was god was pissed off about when he said that."
I've never eaten the limb of a living animal. Every animal I've eaten has been dead. I don't get this one, is that a thing that was happening in the middle east 3000 years ago.
That's why I went for the eating meat angle. It must be a weird translation from Hebrew though right?
It's possible. In Japan there's a practice of eating a particular kind of fish while it's still alive. I can see where people who had feelings about animal welfare might object to boiling a goat in its mother's milk. It's like rubbing the ewe's face in the fact that you killed her kid for food.
>Yes these were given to the Prophet Noah after the flood Quick question, you mean the claim of a **global** flood? What evidence do you have that a flood that covered the entire globe was an actual event?
My book
You know as Jews we’re not required to believe all that stuff literally, right? (Fun fact: we weren’t slaves in Egypt either)
>My book This is the answer I also hear from Muslims when I ask them for evidence of the division of the moon.
> Yes these were given to the Prophet Noah after the flood so that humanity thrives Of course, this is factually incorrect, so can only be dismissed outright.
> and we can all agree that if we have a society on the basis of these laws, there's nothing wrong with it Well, I don't agree. Why would you think "we can all agree"?
>Hi everyone, i am Jewish and in our religion we believe that our laws arent applicable for non jews but they are still part of the original covenant with G-d, i believe that if every human abided by it, it would make world a better place Following the torah rules was what gave humankind the dark ages, a.k.a. The age of faith, a.k.a. Medieval times. Why don’t you try better with the human’s rights declaration? >So a quick recap, The Seven Noahide Laws are a set of moral and ethical principles that are believed to have been given by God to Noah after the Great Flood as a universal code of conduct for all of humanity. Are you sure they are moral or ethical? >The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. No, because is based either on a lie or an error. This single paragraph has divided humans for the past 2000 years on different faiths and also in the different sects of the same faith. What is a spiritual connection? What is the divine? And why we should reverence it? Also this paragraph had been the justifications of wars and the death of thousands of people who asked for a justified evidence in their believes. I have a compromise with the truth. Not a believe based on faith, with no evidence. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. This is the single and most dangerous paragraph of all. Have served all abrahamic religions to punish and kill everyone who opposes the ones in power or in charge of their religion. Have no meaning. I have learned that nobody can hurt my feelings or offend me without my permission… how this deity is so childish not to get it? Then it makes force people to pay religious people for “services” as mediators? Wut? >The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony. It originally didn’t sanctioned against murder, but killing. Even though, almost all the next ones can be resumed in the simpler: do not do to others what don’t want to be done to you. (1). >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability. Do not do to others what don’t want to be done to you. (2). >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect. Do not do to others what don’t want to be done to you. (3). What is an illicit sexual relationship? Homosexuality? And should it be punishable with death? Having sex with whom you live? Even if your parents don’t agree? Who determines what kind of relationships are sanctioned between two adults? >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare. Where is the justification? Why eat some animals is ok? And some not? Should all human kind eat kosher? What is exactly what are you saying? >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. No, it didn’t stablished a righteous way to deal with justice, but the prevalence of the status quo. >In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people. By upholding these laws, we can create a society that values compassion, integrity, and justice and fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding. Ultimately, the Seven Noahide Laws serve as a guide for humanity to live in harmony with one another and with the world around us. This moral framework was not right biblical times, was not right in medieval times, is not right now, that is why we need the humans rights declaration.
1 and 2 are completely useless and I fail to see how they would entail this interfaith and intercultural respect, especially given that you started this post by saying this is only for your people. I have a hard time taking 3 and 4 seriously coming from a god that repeatedly instructs its people to murder, rape and pillage and has wiped out every living thing itself. Nonetheless, I don't need a god to wave its fingers at me for me not to want to do any of these activities. I do not accept that the Jewish holy texts promote the same nuclear family that we think about in the 21st century west. I do not accept that our heteronormative nuclear family idea is healthy or worth promoting in any shape. (Edit to this point, I do not mean that heteronormative nuclear families are invalid, I mean its damaging to claim that only they are valid) I think your idea about what 6 means is a stretch, I don't exactly know what original you're referring to, but I have a strong suspicion that originally, its a bronze age solution to a bronze age problem. But in principle, I don't have an issue with trying to minimize animal suffering. (Small edit, is number 6 reconcilable with slow-bleading butchering methods?) Number 7 sounds fair
>I do not accept that our heteronormative nuclear family idea is healthy or worth promoting in any shape. Do you mean it's not the only relationship we should be promoting? Or do you actually believe heterosexuals shouldn't get married and start families?
What I meant is that I find the rigidity of the idea that family is only hetero couple + children offensive and damaging. Any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult for all I care
That's sounds much more reasonable. You might want to edit your original statement though if that's the idea you intended to express because that wasn't my first impression.
I did, thanks. Since were on the topic of bad first impressions, what does your flair mean?
It's a Dragonball Z reference. Goku and his pals are called the Z warriors. A mod gave it to me years ago and I saw no reason to complain. Someone had asked if we had to pick a god to be real, which would we pick. I said King Kai and this flair suddenly appeared the next day.
Man has an origin story
Lol, that's really wholesome
* first law is arbitrary and self serving why is your god so insecure that he needs worshipe * the second is alsoarbrirary and self servng. why is your god so thin skinned that heget upset by a bit of name calling? * third law i can't help notice that you said murder rather than killing which i guess leaves the door open for god to alsocomman his followers to kill, which he does frequntlytin your mythology. Otherwise a preey common senselaw thatis older then your religion. * another common sense law that is older then your religion * the fifth law is overly restrictive and narrow minded. The only law regarding sex thattis needed is one about informed consent. This is very different then what you presented. * the sixth law is just plain weird, why would someone do that? And so often that you needed a law to prohibit it? * The seventh seems like kind of a catchall. sure we need a system of justice but not oe which will enforce the 1st, 2nd or 5th law above, thouse are nonsense. I'm also against capital punishment which the above seems to allow as a loophole. in conculsion, your making the general if everyone agreed to follow my religion things would be better argument. But the thing is that every religion makes this exact same argument. Yes if everyone agreed things would be better, but expecting other to adapt to yoursrules is just not going to work unless you are also wilding to give a little. that means a common set of secular laws. EDIT: Also i find the total lack of rule against slavery distrurbing. Any moral code that fails to outlaw slavery is incomplet and not sufficent for building a just society.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to ***worship only one God***. This law promotes unity and respect among people of ***different faiths*** and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. How does "only my god is real and worshipping anything else is a grave sin" lead to unity and respect with people worshipping other things? >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. Kindness and consideration to those who worship the same God, of course, but fuck anyone who says that that God isn't real, am I right? >The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability. Three and four are fine, but not exactly something we need the Noahide Laws to know. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect. Big oof. A homophobic religion with holy books full of sex slavery, rape, concubines, and incest might not be the best source material for determining sexual morality. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare. Yeah, the only weirdos eating live animals are, like, seafood enthusiasts in the wierder parts of Asia. Not sure how this is relevant for most of the world, but at least it isn't as problematic a law as the previous. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. Again, we already do this without the Noahide Laws. So, it seems to me that there are three Laws that are fine but everyone does anyway, one law that a handful of Chinese tiktok foodies need to follow, and three Laws that are crap. Leaves me feeling... underwhelmed.
1st and 2nd laws are irrelevant for atheists, 5th law is both sexually repressing and homophobic, and the others can all be achieved without subscribing to the notion of an unproven god.
G-d: Uphold the sanctity of marriage and do not give in to lust Atheist: This is sexually repressing Really telling on yourself there
But all the evidence suggests that human beings are evolved apes - there's no evidence a god exists. So what you see as "lust" is actually an evolved ape behaviour. It's not an expression of evil or wrongness, it's a feature of evolved human nature. Sure, we need negotiated constraints on people's sexual behaviour so they don't harm each other, but there's no reason those constraints need to map onto "marriage." Also, marriage can't have "sanctity" if nothing "holy" exists, and you haven't demonstrated that your god exists. So the atheist position is: * There's no evidence to support the claim that god exists * There is evidence that human beings are evolved social apes who get horny sometimes, including for members of all sexes/genders * Other evolved apes, EG bonobos, also get horny for apes of all sexes/"genders" * We need as societies to negotiate boundaries of acceptable behaviour in order to optimise our quality of life * But those boundaries need not be as restrictive as "marriage between one person assigned male at birth and another person assigned female at birth." We can negotiate any boundaries we like that allow people to be happy and safe
Got any evidence for either why marriage should be sacred or lust should be perceived as something negative? Or just diktats from the book? Seems like if all these people are saying "no these are bad laws to live by" then your premise may be flawed.
My morality comes from G-d so thats my claim If you claim we come from nothing you cant claim that something is objectively true
Why should I care where you claim to have received the rules? I care that you're claiming: > i believe that if every human abided by it, it would make world a better place That is a claim that I'd expect to see evidence for. Your deflection onto an attack on what you assume is my position on an unrelated issue tells me you have absolutely fuck all. Please prove me wrong.
>That is a claim that I'd expect to see evidence for. Isnt it obvious when there are rules like no stealing and no killing?
There are also rules about promoting your own religion. I don't see how "Some of these rules appear elsewhere or have found value elsewhere" is evidence for your claim. If you'd like to just tick off theft and murder, please provide evidence that, say, 1, 2, 5, or 7: > can create a society that values compassion, integrity, and justice and fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding Nada. Not that I've seen you provide. So far, you've gone with "God said so", "you do better", or "But theft and murder are bad, obviously". Those are not support for your wild claim in the OP that all, *all* of these rules are what would make a better world.
No stealing and no killing aren’t the only rules. We want you to justify all of them, not just the ones that literally every society managed to come up with on their own without your book
There arent rules like no killing, only when your god says it ok. So whens the last time you stoned a woman to death who didnt cry out loud enough during her rape? If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die . . . the damsel, because she cried not . . .” (Deuteronomy 22:22, 24)
More deflection. Can you not answer the questions without asking a question?
>Can you not answer the questions without asking a question? No, they can't. Religious apologists are incapable of engaging honestly. If they did, they'd have to acknoledge how shit their points are..
Yeah, OP sure as hell isn’t here in good faith
There aren't rules for no stealing or no killing. The rules tell you who you are allowed to rob and kill and who you're not allowed to rob and kill.
Two laws. The others are of interest only to believers. Like most theists you actually care about people, do you?
> Isnt it obvious when there are rules like no stealing and no killing? Are you really saying that if the law didn't tell you not to kill you would be a murderer? It seems like you are the one who needs to work on your morality, not us. We understand that you shouldn't kill people.
….The amalekites would like a word.
>My morality comes from G-d so thats my claim So, that means you don't have a moral system. You have unproveable moral programming at best, divine commands at worst. If your morality comes from god, then your god is the one that worked out what's good and what's bad. And you just follow along. You don't evaluate moral quandries yourself. Which means you don't have a moral system. So, let's ask you a moral question. Please directly answer the question I'm asking you. Ready? Here it is: **Is owning another human being as property a good thing, or bad thing morally speaking?**
>My morality comes from G-d so thats my claim Your morality comes from an old book. >If you claim we come from nothing Nobody fucking claimed that.
Obeying your laws would cause dissension, anger, fear hatred , and war.
Then you need to demonstrate to us that your god exists.
I could argue that objectively your whole argument is garbage as long as we agree that fallacious thinking is bad.
Ok. Can you provide evidence for your claim?
Your god murdered the first born sons of Egypt because it had prevented the Pharaoh from releasing the Israelites, that does not seem like a morality that is worth following.
>G-d: Uphold the sanctity of marriage and do not give in to lust >Atheist: This is sexually repressing >Really telling on yourself there No, it's really telling that god is a bigot who created gay people and then punished them for it. Your god is evil.
>Uphold the sanctity of marriage and do not give in to lust And what does this mean? I'm gonna assume that this means 'sex is for procreation only, no sex outside marriage'.
The idea that "the sanctity of marriage" is the be all and all and that people being sexually free would be a bad thing is an arbitrary standard your religion chose to impose. It's not "telling on ourselves", it's "telling you that your standards are arbitrary and that we disagree with them."
It literally is. You're saying people can't have sex before marriage, only have sex for procreation, can only find out if you're sexually compatible with your partner AFTER entering into a lifelong bond with them instead of before, can't even look at another person lustfully because Jesus said that counts as committing adultery, can't divorce if the marriage doesn't work and can't open the marriage even if both people consent. That's the definition of sexual repression and it's laughable that fundies deny it. Also, if you want to talk shit, you came into this debate sub positing rules that talk about upholding belief in your god. But you haven't even proven your god exists. It's a debate sub.
> can't even look at another person lustfully because Jesus said that counts as committing adultery You're responding to someone who is explicitly Jewish, so going off about Jesus makes it sound like you're ranting. Just an FYI.
Idk if Jews follow the same teaching so thought it relevant to include, but my point still stands
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I say this as a (presumably) fellow atheist. You ranting about following the teachings of Jesus to a Jew undermines whatever point you wanted to make. It wouldn't convince the OP of anything but that you're ranting about a completely off-topic subject, and comes across to fellow atheists as embarrassingly ignorant. If that wasn't your intention, then you should rethink how you come across to others.
>You ranting about following the teachings of Jesus to a Jew I mentioned jesus once but OK. Idc how I come across to you
You ranted at a Jew about the teachings of Jesus. That just smacks of ignorance. If you don't care about how you come across to others, why are you commenting in a debate sub? It's not r/offmychest.
I didn't rant to a jew about jesus though. *I mentioned Jesus once.* Nobody cares about your nitpicking other than you, so why bother? I commented on the debate sub to debate with OP, not quibble with you about what does or doesn't constitute a rant about Jesus, now kindly scadoodle from me.
What do you find so shameful that we’re “telling” on ourselves?
Do you think we haven't read Leviticus? Because I've read Leviticus.
Have you ever stopped to consider why a person might be concerned about laws restricting sex done between consenting adults?
>recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. Does it? Then why doesn't it say that? Why doesn't it say "cooperate and respect each other irrespective of what different gods different groups worship"? Instead it prohibits many faiths which worship idols. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things So the second law is censorship. I see no good reason to ban this type of speech. I say a better law would be "only limit expression which is harmful". >The third law is the prohibition against murder An excellent law, except a little weird since it's given just after god killed everyone except a few animals and one family. But I guess sometimes the best thing to do is kill everyone, including babies and that's not murder. It depend on the context. Anyway, all cultures have this and already had it before it was written into this religious text. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft Again already had this. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life This is too vague to be good. It all comes down to what you decide is, and isn't illicit. It would be a good law if it allowed all sexual relations that are consenting, but it doesn't. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect No, this is a weird rule. A law which would aim to treat animals with compassion and respect would prohibit the eating of all meat, or at least prohibit animal abuse, but it doesn't. >By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare. No, you could just torture animals non stop, bathe in their blood and wear their corpses as long as you don't eat their limbs while alive and be innocent of violating this rule. You could literally make all animal species extinct under this law. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitable. Citation needed. I put it to you that it nowhere says "all laws must treat everyone equally and no person is above the law".
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. It literally doesn't though, unless you were born yesterday you should know this. You, christians, and muslims believe *the exact same* god, and you guys get into spats all the time. Christians have been killing each other over protestantism and catholicism for centuries. This is such a demonstrably false statement that I can't fathom how anyone could type it with a straight face. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. How does not shit talking God cultivate kindness and understanding? Just like the first one, christians and muslims also believe in blasphemy but that hasn't cultivated a culture of kindness and understanding. >The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony. Murder is one of the things that's a given in terms of being illegal in civilizations wholesale. So you're not special. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability. Same with murder. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect. Same with murder and theft. How about slavery? That's something people had to figure out for ourselves and wasn't pre-packaged with evolution and the stability needed when a bunch of funny ape men decide to live in the same general area. Is that in one of these laws? Because that would at least be novel for the time. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare. Dude I don't think there's a huge issue in this day and age of people eating limbs of living animals. What the fuck was going on with jews back then that someone had to make a rule against that, and put it on the same pedestal as murder? >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. Once again, pre-packaged into civilization itself by evolution and the fact societies destabilize and fall apart if people don't adhere to this. Now whether or not the justice carried out is actually fair or actually treats people equally is another matter. >In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people. Two of them were strictly religious and *demonstrably* don't work. Four of them are things that every other civilization also figured out including modern secular ones. And one was really fucking weird and you should probably ask what the hell was going on back there. So yeah. Society would be better if we didn't murder each other, steal, and rape. And if we had a system of justice that's able to hold accountable people who do break the social contract. You guys were able to figure it out, and so was everyone else. But the religious laws fail wholeheartedly. As I've pointed out, people fight all the time despite believing in the exact same god. And they're convinced that they're worshipping God the right was and the other guy is committing idolatry. They're convinced that they're speaking about God the right way and the other guy is committing blasphemy. Hell, a christian can type 'God' and feel just fine. You think you have to type 'G-d'. How do you two figure out which is abiding by the Noahide Laws and which is acting like a shithead to the big G? Historically, the 'debate' hasn't been pretty. And seriously? Don't eat an animal's limb while it's alive? Not slavery? Not a law against abusing power? Not a law that gives equal rights to the sexes? Not a law against destroying the environment? Not a law demanding respect for privacy? Not a law that demands no one starves or goes homeless? Just 'Hey you see that donkey over there? Make sure it's dead before you start munching on its leg, bub.'
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. How would that law be of any use to me as an atheist who recognizes no higher power or even knows what spirituality is supposed to mean? >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy,... So would that apply to me making jokes about Harry Potter in the face of Harry Potter fans? Because, again, as an atheist I do not recognize any gods. Laws against blasphemy are an attack on freedom of speech and opinion. >The third law is the prohibition against murder,.. Well, I don't need Noahide laws for that one. Laws prohibiting murder have been pretty widespread through out cultures and history. So nothing special. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft,... Again, same principle as with the 3rd. This isn't anyting special and ground breaking. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations,... What does illicit even refer to in this context? Is it about marriage? Is it about hetero relationships? Either way, I don't care. I don't plan to marry and neither does my partner. We are friends with a few people with open relationships who are more than happy. Any law telling me that a couple needs to be married, monogamous and heterosexual just gets flat out rejected by me. There is no reason that ANY of this should be a law other than opinions. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal,... I am a bit confused on this one. Does this talk about being vegan/vegetarian or just not eating animals while they are still alive? >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice,... Well, great. So the same conclusions thousands of cultures came to as well. To be honest. I reject several of those laws and others aren't anything special. It's just some basic ideas plus things I reject as immoral combined under a label. Overall nothing special.
can you define "illicit sexual relations", "moral values", "healthy relationships", and "blasphemy"? also is "system of justice" refering to a specific system of justice? because if not it's vagueness is doing a lot of legwork.
>The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, No Chicken wings??? Then Hell Nah!
no he meant not eat an animal while it is still alive.
If that's what he meant, he should said what he meant.
Not even a religious thing, atheists should be vegan. Oh, please continue to downvote me, you sad atheists. You know I'm right. You're just pathetic.
> Not even a religious thing, atheists should be vegan. Oh, I can't wait to see your justification for this line of thought.
SO WRONG! You are telling what atheists supposed to do...... Sounds like a god.
Lmao, what a crazy line of thinking. Moral ideals? sounds like a god.
Why
Simply a respect for life. You don't need to eat meat. What's the difference between a human life and any other animal?
Ah ok so everyone should be vegan. I thought you were saying that it specifically had something to do with atheism. As for your question, I don't think there is any difference in the intrinsic value of an animal vs. a human.
Humans are omnivores, we evolved to where we are \*because\* we eat meat. Meat is the easiest source of the proteins that we use to grow and feed our brain. Look into studies on the effects of a "vegan" diet on young children and how it's practically child abuse. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7863396/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7863396/) Known risks of a vegan diet on infants, children and adolescents include: * poor eye sight, and increased risk of eye related problems * poor metabolism * stunted growth * bone density problems * immune system crashing, and increased risk of immunity related diseases, such as asthma * increased risk of learning disabilities So yeah...you do need to eat meat. We evolved to do so, and to claim otherwise is bullshit. Now, do we need to eat mega-farm, inhumanely produced, overcrowded meat? Nope. We have ways of making humane, sustainably farmed, and as cruelty free as possible meat products that we can all feel better about. Plus, if we as humanity were to stop eating and producing meat, then cows and chickens would go extinct, as we literally over a thousand years bread them to be farm animals. They cannot survive in the wild in a sustainable population. Lab grown meats are another great way we can better our environmental impact of our biological need for meat. And I really hope the tech continues to advance quickly. If we can get to the point where every live animal that we grow for food has large pastures with several acres of land available to live freely on during their lives, and the bulk of our meat consumption can be lab grown to increase food production density, then I think we're heading in a good direction.
Yea, that study isn't considered thorough or a significant enough sample size for 6 vegan kids. >Known risks of a vegan diet on infants, children and adolescents include: >* poor eye sight, and increased risk of eye related problems * poor metabolism * stunted growth * bone density problems * immune system crashing, and increased risk of immunity related diseases, such as asthma * increased risk of learning disabilities Is this specific to vegans or just a risk for kids and humans? Because humans have been eating meat for centuries, and all of these have been risks to kids regardless of diet, and I don't see any evidence for an increased risk for vegans. The common thing, regardless of diet, is making sure kids eat enough and get a healthy diet. >yeah...you do need to eat meat. We evolved to do so, and to claim otherwise is bullshit Oh, the ignorance is astounding. You do realize that Asian countries have a larger vegan population and a longer history of being vegan and have a better overall health compared to Western countries. >making humane, So how do make humane meat? That's an oxymoron to make it sound better than it is. Is capital punishment humane? Is a gas chamber humane? Is slicing a throat humane? >Plus, if we as humanity were to stop eating and producing meat, then cows and chickens would go extinct, as we literally over a thousand years bread them to be farm animals. They cannot survive in the wild in a sustainable population. So animal sanctuaries would cease to exist? Finally, if you look at the environmental impact, animal farming and the crops and water associated with them it's killing the plant. Drying up rivers and aquafors to feed them.
Do we need to put all lions in cages to stop them eating other animals?
Wow, how clever, I haven't heard this one before so original. This is the kind of question I get from teenagers who never thought about veganism or knew what it meant. No, we have a moral agency. We are moral agents. Ya know one of the things atheists argue as to why we don't need religion to be moral. Lions aren't agents.
The moral thing to do is let people eat what they want.
So humans too? Farming them? Breeding them? Killing them?
Haha yeah of course. Totally what I meant.
Based on reply, it can be. You make no distinction on what can or can't be eaten. Your logic is flawed and you know it.
Is your username just ironic?
Movie reference
So, ironic but not on purpose. Got it.
>What's the difference between a human life and any other animal? Humans aren't delicious.
Says who have you had human? Maybe they're delicious too.
Well people have tried human and apparently it’s good. The problem with eating human is the prions though.
Other animals have prions too. Well, not everyone likes the same thing, maybe we need human veal, or should eat other parts like liver, heat, tongue, etc. Maybe there's a specific part that tastes really good, like how people farm for shark fins. We won't know unless we try.
You can try if you want, but I warned you. If your brain starts decaying don’t come for me.
I'd try ethically sourced human, you got a dealer?
Yea, I live in a state with strict abortion laws. I got some baby veal.
> Oh, please continue to downvote me, you sad atheists. Well, it's not r/DebateAVegan, so there's that.
So? Doesn't mean it's not true.
You are misinterpreting it, see the other comment
Number 2: critiscing is different from blasphemous. 10-20% of known pregnancies end up in miscarriages. if that's the best your god could do ask it to be humble and accept criticism. That is not to mention the botched plan of creating human and then flood the whole planet killing every todlers, infants and fetuses.
>This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths "You can't practice your faith, you have to practice MY faith" is not respect for people of different faiths. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. If you hurt my feeling by saying something mean, I'll kill you. >The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. Right after god drown literally everyone on the planet, including millions of babies >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships You can't love that person, you can only love these people. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, Don't eat the limbs, but you can eat the rest of it. Wut. Why didn't god command veganism if he wants us to respect animals? >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. The laws you listed are evil, the god who you say commanded them is evil.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. How does this law promote unity with other people who follow multiple gods, or none at all? Furthermore, why is "a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine" a good thing that should be fostered? It might be helpful for some people, but forcing it on *everyone* is sure to cause problems. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. Taking a charitable view of the "spirit" of this law - that is, that everyone should avoid offending people with other beliefs - I suppose it's not so bad. But then it directly conflicts with the first law, which says that everyone should worship a single higher power. And a strict reading of the law gets into a lot of problems regarding free speech and scientific freedom. At one point it was considered blasphemy to say that the earth revolved around the sun, for example. Would such claims break this law, despite having strong evidence? Should all new knowledge have to go through this religiously-motivated blasphemy filter before being accepted? >The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony. This law seems pretty standard, with very similar rules common to most cultures throughout history. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability. Same as the third law. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect. What does this law mean by "illicit sexual relations"? As-written this law is *way* too vague to be useful as anything but a bigoted cudgel to be used against LGBTQ people and nontraditional relationships and families. Promoting and protecting families is fine, I guess (though I think it's a bit outdated in a world where overpopulation is a realistic problem on the horizon), but surely there's a way to do that without demonizing people who don't fit that narrow mold. Consenting adults shouldn't need to worry about "morality police" spying on their bedrooms. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare. Promoting "environmental sustainability and animal welfare" is a fine goal, but the wording of this law is *very* strange. Is the goal to protect animal welfare, or food safety? Are the *organs* ok even if the *limbs* are not? Is the prohibition only against eating the limbs while the animal is still alive - meaning it becomes ok again after the animal is dead - or is the prohibition against eating any animal that was once alive, effectively banning all meat? As another commenter pointed out, this seems like a Bronze Age solution to a Bronze Age problem. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. This sounds good, but doesn't it kind of make the rest of the laws unnecessary? Why go to the trouble of writing the first six laws when the last one is simply to write a good set of laws?
Yeah we can learn a lot from these laws, look at the thriving Israel that is one of the most rac!st countries in the world with lots of cruelty towards non-jews and non-israelis. But to answer your post, no these laws are no different than Islam or Christianity, it's not a way to live life, and it's not something to have others follow, especially the idolatry... people can believe in whatever they want, and also prohibition of blasphemy just sounds like your God doesn't like criticism..... I mean he doesn't as shown in the old testament. In conclusion here is a better way to live life in a more peaceful way: Be free and let others be free, separate religion and government and don't take things too seriously.... also don't occupy a land that isn't yours, you know no colonialism or getting mad that someone criticized someone else's imaginary friend, or that oh this guy has 3 imaginary friends? Thats idolatry!! Just let people stick to their own business.
If I said that "Make sure to bow to every third magpie you see and salute every fifth pigeon" promotes a regular, controlled life, peace, harmony, and unity, does that mean following that rule actually does those things? Or does it just mean that I'm claiming it promotes those things?
You failed with the first law. Unity and respect... not really it creates division and war. Just read the old testament.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. This seems strange to me. How could a law which requires people to worship exactly one god, promote unity and respect toward polytheists? It literally outlaws their beliefs. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. I can see how you got there, but please understand that "kindness and consideration toward others" and "mutual respect and understanding" is *definitely not* the only way that law could've been interpreted. There are plenty of contexts in which prohibiting blasphemy and respecting sacred things still allows you to consider other people as if they're not sacred, and treat them like shit. Again, I appreciate that your particular interpretation didn't end up at that place, but you need to acknowledge that other far more heinous conclusions are possible, and that means the law is insufficient. >prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony. Again, we could prohibit murder and still treat everybody like shit. I appreciate that you've not reached that conclusion, but your (good) conclusion is certainly not required by the law as you've stated it. >prohibition against theft, which teaches us to respect the property and possessions of others and to act with honesty and integrity in all our dealings. By upholding this law, we can create a culture of trust and cooperation that fosters economic prosperity and social stability. Same thing. Where's the prohibition against selling snake-oil cures and MLMs? It's not there, because it's quite easy and reasonable to not view those as theft. You'd need a separate law against trickery or unfair contracts or something. >prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. By promoting healthy relationships and moral values, we can create a society that values love, commitment, and mutual respect. Except some people flourish best in the types of relationships your law considers illicit, yet which don't in any way harm others. Your law would work well for the majority of people, while harming a minority -- for absolutely no benefit, since the "illicit" relationships which would benefit them would not harm anybody. >prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. By upholding this law, we can cultivate a culture of kindness and empathy towards all living beings and promote environmental sustainability and animal welfare. No it fucking doesn't teach people to treat animals with kindness and respect. It teaches them to not eat animals in vivo. Why do you keep extrapolating? Yet again, I appreciate that it gets you to a better place, but the law should start at the better place, getting there should not be optional! >requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. No! Just having a "system of justice" doesn't mean the laws themselves are good and just. >the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people. ... if you happen to reach all the same conclusions you have, instead of stopping short and remaining in barbarity. I'm glad you've turned your laws into a good thing -- but they, in themselves, certainly don't seem to be good.
Some of these are obviously applicable to virtually everyone, while some of these only make sense for theists, and arguably only Jews depending on your interpretation. For context, I myself am an ex-Jew. Let's go through these. **Good for virtually everyone** In my mind, this applies to numbers 3, 4, 6, and 7. I won't spend too much time on these since this is what we agree upon already. I'll just say that I agree that murder, animal cruelty, and theft are broadly bad, and having systems of justice are good (so long as they actually uphold justice.) **Not applicable to non-theists** Numbers 1, 2, and 5 are not applicable to everyone, or perhaps their status as valid or valuable for some people is heavily dependent on wording or interpretation. **Number 2** is the most glaring as being a poor fit for people who are not theists. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods. What does it even mean for me to blashpheme? The definition of that word is so highly fungible depending on which god or religion we're discussing, or even which practitioner we're talking about. If I were to conduct my life in a manner such that I never blashphemed against any god according to everybody's collective conception, I couldn't even begin to list all the activities I would be prohibited from. Moreover, this tenet strikes me as contradictory to one of your initial points: > Hi everyone, i am Jewish and in our religion we believe that our laws arent applicable for non jews If I ought to abstain from blasphemy against the Jewish god, then I am necessarily respecting at least some of the 613 commandments. I reject the notion that abstaining from blasphemy against any or every god implies kindness towards the people who believe in them. Moreover, in your understanding of this tenet, does it apply to everybody's god, or does it only apply to Yaweh? Respecting an entity which I don't believe to exist is not a reasonable assertion. **Number 1** is also only narrowly applicable to monotheists. By the statement of this tenet, all polytheists are committing idolatry, including all Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans etc. Again, this contradicts your claim that the 613 commandments need not apply to everybody. If the Seven Noahide laws are applicable to everyone, then you're suggesting that all members of numerous world religions ought to abandon their chosen faiths. **Number 5** is highly dependent on interpretation. What is an *illicit* sexual relationship? Some folks will argue that this applies to any sex outside of marriage, or any non heterosexual relationships. What do you think constitutes an illicit sexual relationship? Are you suggesting that gay people need conversion therapy? Because then I would disagree vehemently. Are you saying that illicit sexual relationships are primarily sexual encounters in which people get hurt or consent is violated? In that case I would agree. However, now we segue into my broad issue I have with your thesis. **Conclusion** To suggest that the Seven Noahide laws are a good fit for anyone attempting to live a moral life is methodologically and philosophically flawed. You assert a combination of tenets which are so trivially obvious and common that I didn't need Judaism to adopt them (no murder, no theft, etc,) and you package in some additional laws which are innately theistic. Moreover, those theistic laws either need to apply specifically to Judaism or to all religions equally. If you apply them specifically to Judaism (ie tenet number 2 says that you can't blaspheme yaweh specifically,) then you're granting such a high degree of special consideration to Judaism that you violate your premise that Judaism as a whole need not apply to everybody. Conversely, if you apply the Noahide laws broadly to all religions, you end up with a paralyzing framework that still contradicts the chosen faiths of billions of people (tenet 1 seems to explicitly forbid polytheism.) If I drink coffee, am I blaspheming the Mormon god? If I draw the propet Muhammed, am I blaspheming the Muslim god? Here you violate your premise even more severely. You're not only asking me to observe a great many Jewish commandments, but also a whole swath of laws of every other conceivable religions, many of which contradict with one another.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. "You can have any color car you want, as long as it is black." -Henry Ford So as long as you are monotheistic all is well? This sounds like "worship only me, but you might be confused about my properties because I don't actually manifest to people". At a time when most were polytheistic, this is every bit as divisive as you claim it is not. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. So first off, what is blasphemy? It it blasphemy to say that God doesn't exist? To say false things about God? (Which really makes the narrow "openness" of the first a mute point.) How is it that we create mutual understanding by censoring ourselves? I would think that freedom of speech would be a better way to gain mutual understanding. >The third law is the prohibition against murder If murder is an illegal killing, then this is a prohibition on breaking the law. Given the number of killings prescribed by the God of the Tonach, it seems this cannot be a genuine law against killing people intentionally. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, Yes, it is believed by archeologists that the invention of the lock was a major step forward in allowing people to allow their home to be empty during the day. If we accept the concept of ownership, then we must accept the crime of theft. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, Another law against breaking the law. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. Ok, so does this require that when we eat a locust that we kill it first? What if we suck the blood off a wound of our own? In general however, I can get behind the idea of not causing unnecessary harm to animals, but that isn't what this law says. This law is a subset of that, but maybe at the time this practice was common. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. "One of these things isn't like the others, one of these things doesn't belong..." It is always so weird to have a set of laws that apply at the individual level and end with a societal law. Honestly, I don't think any society lacks this even if is as simple as "what the Khan says goes." Which can hardly be called unjust by one (God) that has just dictated a set of laws that they think everyone must abide by. >In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace, harmony, and respect among all people I saw the first two leading to division (as people squabble over what is blasphemous), two laws against breaking the law, one law that simply follows from the concept of personal ownership, one law that kind of addresses some part of animal cruelty (but doesn't address any cruelty to the animal prior to being eaten), and one requiment for society to make laws which again seems to follow from just having a society. I honestly can't say that I am impressed.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. Uh... what? I'm not sure I follow. How can "you can't worship what you want" promote unity and respect among people of different faiths? It's literally saying "don't do that" to believers of other faiths. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. See! The first two are literally "don't do that" to people of other faiths. I really don't see how you got "respect" from that. Unity I could see, depending on how murderously effective you are at enforcing these laws. Also, I'm firmly of the opinion that blasphemy laws are among the most blasphemous things to exist. If your god found the thing so offense that something needed to be done about it then they could have done something about it themselves unless you're saying that the god has less power than a human. If they have enough power to handle it themselves and didn't then what you're saying is that you know better than the god as to what offends the god. You're either saying you have more power than your god or you know better than your god. Either way blasphemy laws are incredibly blasphemous. >The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. Uh... that seems *really* contradictory. Quick, what happened *right before* the noahide laws were given? I'll give you a hint: God killed every human on the planet except one family. But aside from that, I'll go ahead and address 3 and 4 at the same time. Those are essentially required for any sort of functional society. So sure, I can get on board with those. Except define 'murder' and define 'theft.' Murder is killing when killing is not justified and theft is taking when taking is not justified. So the really important thing here isn't the prohibition on murder and theft, but when are killing and taking justified. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, This also kinda goes with 3 and 4. What is "illicit"? To me "with someone you own a property" and "with someone you kidnapped after murdering their city" is pretty high on the illicit list, but there's some wacky stuff in those scrolls of yours that says otherwise. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, I also agree here. Eating something that's still alive is needlessly cruel. Plus cooking is incredibly important and arguably lead to the rise of humans as we know them today thanks to cooking's ability to kill parasites and increase energy extraction by easing digestion. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. This one's a total nothing. It's really, *really* easy to get unjust laws (I really shouldn't have to spell this out, especially for a jewish person) and really hard to have a society larger than a large family/small tribe without explicit rules/laws. And could you imagine if you had different rules for slavery for the in group and the out group? That would be totally unequal! Of course, owning people as property is a pretty terrible miscarriage of justice in my opinion. I hope you agree that owning people as property is probably something that shouldn't be enshrined in law, especially in foundational documents so important they even get named after the one they nominally came from.
> The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. Rule 1 is religious intollerance where God models being jealous is the most important personal trait. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. Rule 2 is that you must not question or insult authority, but that treating other human beings with such deference is not important enough to mention. >The third law is the prohibition against murder 1 out of 3 so far is a good rule. This is the lowest bar of any moral system. However, given that it comes on the heals of the a mass slaughter, the idea that such a law demonstrated that god wanted to show human life is valuable is 100% undercut. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft 2 out of 4. But again, this is basically the bare minimum of a legal system. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life Except that the kind of sex god prohibitions bear no connection to whether or not one can form loving relationships or lead fulfilling lives. So this rule seems that god based his belief on primitive beliefs instead of actual understanding of how humans work. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. I'm sure a slaughtered animal feels much better knowing that his arms are thrown in the trash while it's torso is cooked and consumed. Of anything, forcing people to waste part of the creature means having to kill more of them >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice So rule 7 is "go make all the rest of the laws i didn't to." Don't get me wrong. I like your interpretation. Humans have always done a good job of fixing religious texts to improbe them over time. But out of 7 laws, 2 out of 7 are good laws, 1 is "go figure the rest out", and the rest are oppress other religions, repress freedom of speech, feel guilty about indulging in natural human sexual bonding, and waste part of the animal that could be used to sustain yourself. Of god had wanted, he could have made the laws 1) respect other people 2) humans are valuable 3) respect animals and minimize the number you harm. 4) maximize love and cherish relationships. 5) be better than me and don't murder 6) don't steal (but duh, you knew that). And with a little extra space could have added some stuff about rape, slavery, child beating, etc. It is interesting that over the years Jewish tradition has taken the laws and read into them the laws that they wish God had been wise enough to prioritize.
>which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. Why is this a "good way to live your life"? I get why you believe it is good: you believe in god. But for someone that doesn't believe in god this would not be ween a good way to live your life. It's a waste of time and energy and would be lying, all things that are considered bad. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy I mean same question as above. To a non-believer blasphemy against god is no different than blasphemy against Luke Skywalker. This one is just neutral at best >The third law is the prohibition against murder Fair enough. Is it only "murder" or any killing of any kind? Or if specific kinds, why is the line drawn where it is drawn? Compassion and empathy are great, but what if there is a conflict? >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft Fair enough Not sure why you need a god to spell that one out for you but it's reasonable. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, Much like the murder question, where and why is the line drawn for "illicit" sexual relations? What is a healthy sexual relationship for some would be horrific to others. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal Bit of an odd phrasing on that, but it's not something I care enough about to bother with. Again, dunno why you need a god for this. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice And this couldn't be figured out without a god? What should be the goal of this justice system? How does this justice system function? More importantly, how did we decide that is the goal and how it should function? >the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework that promotes peace Not really. It's a bunch of incredibly vague rules (most of which god isn't necessary for) that pretend to preach harmony but anyone can twist these to their own views pretty easily. It provides *a* moral framework, it's just not a very good one. >By upholding these laws, we can create a society that values compassion, integrity, and justice and fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding. Lol no. Let's take an example one, how about the "illicit sexual acts" one. Something this vague basically means I can say anything is or is not an illicit act. More importantly, I can use this to argue homosexuality is not moral. Which means I can then argue that a fundamental aspect of a person (that they don't choose and can't change) is not moral. Even if we ignore the grounds for all kinds of horrific things this invites, on a more simple level this is not compassionate towards homosexual people. And "justice" in this case is punishing (even if minor) people for who they are. That's the grounds for evil. This system is does not provide values of compassion, integrity, nor justice. It calls itself that while stripping itself of all of those.
1) this first law doesn’t really seem important to me because I don’t believe in a god. I’m not going to create an idol and worship it. If you do I don’t really care as it doesn’t bother me. 2) what do you define as blasphemy? If I said the god that is presented in the Torah and the Old Testament is not moral, should that be blasphemy? Generally free speech is better than restricting speech. The way this is written it seems vague where any truthful yet critical statement can be interpreted as blasphemous. This provides no value in my eyes. 3) this is good. Although, I don’t see why we need covenant with god. This is literally the bare minimum. Every culture has similar law in place. And it seems this is just a basic proponent of any social contract. 4) same as law 3. 5) how are you defining illicit sexual relations? Would this be referring to rape, abuse, molestation, or even a cleric from sucking on an newborns foreskin? Or is this just criminalizing sex outside of marriage with “which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life” it seems like you are setting up a law where homosexuals and any type of premarital sex is outlawed when there are many other measures in place today that can allow premarital sex to be safe and healthy. It’s easier and more effective to just let consenting adults do what they want. I know this is probably well intentioned, but when people take this literally you end up with the scarlet letter while the real abusers are hiding in plane sight. 6) yeah. Livestock should be treated humanely. 7) this is good. But it begs the question. Why have the other 6 laws if you have this one? I had issue with the intent vs enforcement of laws 1,2, and 5 where it would be easy for people not to be treated equally and fair as stated in law 7. I feel like the only reason to codify these laws was to prevent people from realizing that a specific one of the 7 big laws actually was not fair to some people and prevent law 7 from fixing it. Meaning I think there is some pretty messed up bias in these laws. Additionally, wouldn’t laws 3,4, and 6 be pretty obvious if law 7 was the only focus of this list? Doesn’t virtually every culture nation at least have rule 7 and therefore 3 and 4 as well? This just seems more complex than needed. You don’t need god for these rules and if anything the Old Testament and Torah god is anything but an example of good morality. Like you have the 7th law about fairness and equity, but then god gives you rules and procedure for owning slaves. Obviously these 7 laws and the 10 commandments are not all inclusive on making the world a better place. I could spend an hour in any third grade classroom and come up with a better list of laws without much effort.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. You are commanded to make an idol of a god you don't even know to exist. Do you think it is good? >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy Which puts the idea of God beoynd criticism. Is it good? >The third law is the prohibition against murder Agree, good. It's good that we can codify it into law ignoring the first two. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. That is questionable. The only two things that is immoral in sexual relations are having those relations without consent and breaking one's vow (if you vowed an exclusive relationship with one partner, but start another relationship behind their back). Maybe I am forgetting something. This fifth law is often used to justify bigotry. It's not good. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal Oddly specific. Why it doesn't just command to treat animals with compassion and respect? >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice Which is fine and good, but it doesn't tell anything about justice and human rights. It tells about system of upholding the law. It doesn't tell that this law is supposed to be just, it doesn't clarify what is a just law. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is much better. If those Noahide Laws were as good as you try to portray them, we wouldn't need the Declaration, but alas, it took humantity thousands of years to progress from Noahide Laws to it. >In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework It's neither moral nor ethical. Morality and ethics are established among moral agents (humans, animals in general) on grounds of mutual respect and benefit. These laws outline obligations of humans towards an unknown and unseen entity. Killing and stealing is not bad because it can upset a god. It's bad because other humans will suffer.
So, Law #1: Intolerance of other religions. This relates to the commandment of Yahweh to stone to death anyone found bearing witness to a “false” god. This law is horrible and xenophobic. Law #2: Same thing. Intolerance towards other religions and opinions. Someone disrespecting your deity is cause for their subsequent execution. Intolerant xenophobia. Law #3: A prohibition on murder is ostensibly good, but as anyone who reads the Jewish Bible is acutely aware, Yahweh does not follow this law, and often exhorts his followers to kill. The Midianites being killed man, woman, and child for the “crime” of transmitting sexual disease to the Israelites is a good example. Law #4: A prohibition against theft is ostensibly good, but as anyone who understands the history of Israel will know, it stole its entire homeland from the Canaanites. It genocided people such as the Midianites at the behest of Yahweh and then stole everything they ever owned—including their virgin daughters. Law #5: Sexual hangups. This is not a good law, no. Swinging is fun, and why should monogamy be any more righteous than polyamory or polygamy? Law #6: Why does anyone need to be told not to eat living animals? Don’t most people kill their food before they eat it? This may have made more sense in the Iron Age, but eating living animals is pretty uncommon these days. Law #7: Every sedentary civilization, even ones far older than the ancient Hebrews, had established codes of justice. This doesn’t need to be a law. It’s a thing humans living in societies universally do. So like, 2/7 that are decent and applicable in modern times and that ancient Hebrews broke whenever they felt like it. That’s not a great covenant, in my opinion. Societies throughout the world have prohibitions on murder and theft. It’s not unique or new. It was prohibited long before the ancient Hebrews began worshipping Yahweh. You will find similar prohibitions in the Code of Ur-Nammu, as an example—or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Yu xing 禹刑 of the Shang Dynasty.
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. On the contrary, this verse more than any other is the source of conflict between monotheists and non-monotheists (that means polytheists, animists, agnostics, atheists, etc.) It hasn't promoted respect for other worldviews at all and that was also not the intention of that particular law if you would bother to read the story surrounding it. >The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. Murder and genocide are commanded by that very deity several times in the OT. So then it's OK? >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. But marrying off young girls to their rapist was totally OK according to those laws you hold in such high esteem. Also, that would mean your god creates people gay and then punishes them for their nature. Sick. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equitably. How is it justice to kill all women and children of a tribe? (Except the young women who were still virgins, those could be kept as sex slaves). How is any of that just?
I agree with laws 3, 4, 6 (though oddl y specific), and 7. These laws are good principles even taken on base empathy, and are in no way contingent on any religious belief. Laws 1 and 2 can be summed up to "If everyone had the same religious beliefs, there would be harmony. Therefore everyone should follow *our* faith." Law 5 is too vague for my liking. At first glance, it seems to be against adultery and cheating on your partner, and okay, yeah, fine, but the wording seems vague enough to also allow judging harshly anyone who doesn't follow some arbitrary chaste ideal. **More generally, these seven laws take principles that are more or less universally agreed by humans, shoehorn in arbitrary religious beliefs, and possibly sneak in a value judgement against sexuality.** I think laws 1 and 2 could be replaced by a simple "Respect other people's beliefs and don't impose your own beliefs on them" law and make this a lot better. Law 5 would be better replaced by a "Be kind and faithful to your loved ones" and have the same benefits without imposing a specific conception of how sexuality ought to work. **I have no issue with the idea that these laws can be a good way for some to live their lives. However, for reasons outlined before, I object to the idea that these laws are the One True Guide, as there are many alternative laws that would achieve the same goals while not imposing an arbitrary religious belief.**
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. And you think atheists are going to agree with this? And why is it bad to worship more than 1? >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. And you think atheists are going to agree with this? And it is a bad rule just based on the vagueness of it. 3 and 4 are basic ones that every society has. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations, which emphasizes the importance of upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life. Again vague, and unnessary medeling in personal freedom. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, which teaches us to treat animals with compassion and respect. Lol The former has nothing to do with the latter The 7th one you get naturally if make laws. >In conclusion, the Seven Noahide Laws provide a moral and ethical framework It is not a framework, it is a list of 7 rules > Ultimately, the Seven Noahide Laws serve as a guide for humanity to live in harmony with one another and with the world around us. How does it deal with cultures that eat limbs of animals and worship 8 gods?
Yeah, the first two points are an attempt to privilege a specific religious belief over others. What's wild to me is that I think you actually believe what you said. So let's dive in: >The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. Would you mind explaining how a requirement to only worship one God - I assume your god - promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths? >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. Can you define blasphemy for me? How does blasphemy apply to someone who does not believe in your God - like someone who rejects the Jewish god but believes in the hindu deities? Is it blasphemy to state that your god does not exist, but the hindu gods do exist?
Buddhism's "Eightfold Path" does a much better job of "Here are rules you need to live a better life! #4 will surprise you!" than these do.
>I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. >II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions. >III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone. >IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own. >V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs. >VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused. >VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. I find the seven tenets of Satanism to be far more useful. If everyone followed these the world would be a better place. Have I convinced you?
I reject law #1 outright. I have no religious belief, have no particular desire to acquire religious belief, and as such I recognize no "higher power" at all. Law #2 is just nonsense to me - I can't respect or revere something that isn't there, and "sacred" is a meaningless concept to me. Laws #3 and #4 are fine, but they're not unique to the Noahide laws. As for law #5, marriage isn't some magical thing that legitimizes a sexual relationship. If I want to have such a relationship with a consenting adult, I will not be marrying them first. Been there, done that, divorced the souvenir T-shirt. Law #6 is fine. That's just common sense - if you're going to eat meat, strive to obtain it humanely with minimal suffering to the animal. Law #7 is an odd thing to codify as a law. How does a single individual establish a system of justice? What if two Noahide followers disagree on how to structure the justice system? What do you do with this law if there's already such a system in place where you live?
>The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, Not applicable. >The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, Not applicable. >The third law is the prohibition against murder, How original. >The fourth law is the prohibition against theft, Again, how original. >The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations How archaic. >The sixth law is the prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal, But the head, organs, etc. are fair game. But no prohibition against rape or cruelty in general? Barbaric. >The seventh law is the requirement to establish a system of justice,[...]By promoting justice and equality, we can create a society that values human rights and promotes social justice and equality for all. You can't promote capital punishment and equity in the same breath. We already have a system of justice and despite broad support for equality, there's sweeping injustice even in so-called developed countries.
The noahide laws are predicated on a specific view of the world, and consequently are only applicable if you can successfully prove the view to not only be right, but the only one that applies. Given that historically the idea of one god that requires worship and is affected by human activity was very much a minority view its going to take quite some work to prove it true and more importantly the only belief allowed. Theft is about property and ownership, by no means universal values, so the concept of individual private ownership needs to be defended. Justice is also a tricky concept, ones mans 'justice' is another's petty revenge, its so complicated that most cultures have rows and rows of lawbooks to deal with that, your simple summary is barely a starting point, its kindergarten level stuff. That leaves two laws which quite frankly are covered by the golden rule of *just be decent*, really you are not offering much at all.
I place zero moral value on worshiping one god or the "correct" god or in not using images in worship. Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, also started as a pagan war and storm god https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKst8zeh-U. Freedom of speech is more important than your feelings. Government suppression of freedom of speech to prevent criticism of religion or to force you to practice a religion is evil. I believe in the equality of men and women. I believe in human freedom. I believe that love is one of the most beautiful aspects of human life, and believe adult persons have the right be in a relationship as long as it is consensual. A relationship to me is a voluntary union between two people. I reject the Biblical view that a daughter is the property of their father until a husband comes to buy her from her father and transfer ownership. Marriage is a cultural construct, I do not believe there is any moral difference between sexual actions before or after a marriage ceremony.
I’m an atheist 1. Seems to me like god saying “pay attention to me and only me, you can’t have other friends”, which seems like a **petty, controlling and divisive** idea *but I think ‘worship’ of anything is problematic anyway, so I agree in a sense* 2. Don’t think god exists, which kinda causes issues when defining what blasphemy is or why anyone ought care about it 3. Seems good to me, as long as it’s not stated as requiring a god to justify it. 4. Ditto 5. Yes? Depending completely on how one defines ‘illicit’ here. LGBTQ stuff and kinky stuff is fine too (with all the same caveats of straight, non-kinky sex)? What does the ‘sanctity of marriage’ even mean? Sex outside marriage is not immoral, if that’s what you’re trying to imply. 6. Limb? That includes like…most meat, you realise that right? And **eating the non-limb parts of animals has the exact same ethical concerns as the limbs, so any distinction is ridiculous.** That aside, I don’t have a problem with vegetarianism or veganism 7. Sounds great, and not requiring a god to justify it. It strikes me that, of the laws I already think are moral, none require a god concept to derive them.
>So a quick recap, The Seven Noahide Laws are a set of moral and ethical principles that are believed to have been given by God to Noah after the Great Flood as a universal code of conduct for all of humanity. I agree with some of these rules, but not what they are based in. I think what system we base our morality in is just as important as how we use it. We shouldn't use a popularity contest that counts on whoever is in charge to have our best interests at heart. We should use our observations of reality. That will give us an objective baseline to base our subjective ideas around instead of someone else's subjective ideas.
>> This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths It sounds like it does the exact opposite, as it would prevent those who use idols from using them This would also be prevented by >> The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, As my faith is your blasphemy. >> By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding Again, it does the opposite, as it blocks other ideas and understanding.
>arent applicable for non jews but they are still part of the original covenant with G-d, i believe that if every human abided by it, it would make world a better place So I don't have to abide by your rules which can't be demonstrated to be from a god which can't be demonstrated to exist at all. There is no covenant between this god thing and me, there never has been because the god thing never existed. Rules 1, 2 and 5 aren't applicable to anyone who isn't part of your tribe. Keep your tribal customs if you like as long as your tribe actually abides by them there shouldn't be any problems.
Law 1 and 2 is explicitly against other faiths. How is that supposed to promote unity and respect among people of different faiths? Law 3 and 4 are already covered by law 6 re: justice system. It's just pointless padding, but otherwise acceptable. Law 5 is against same sex marriage, this law excludes a minority from experiencing love commitment and mutual respect. Law 6 and 7 are okay. Overall score: 4 out of 7. That's barely a pass if we allow the padding. Not very impressive.
>The third law is the prohibition against murder, which emphasizes the sanctity of human life and the importance of treating others with compassion and empathy. By respecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, we can create a society that values human life and promotes peace and harmony. Gaza has entered the chat. I'm not even pro-Palestine, but given the current state of things, this is rich.
How about “these are a good way to live MY life.” Why are religious people ever-eager to shove things in your face? These are just seven random laws, not even all-encompassing, and the first two are just rules saying My god is best. A list of seven of anything is hardly a framework, its a vaguery stripped of context that means both little and everything depending on how you fill in the blanks yourself.
> The first of the Seven Noahide Laws is the prohibition against idolatry, which teaches us to recognize the existence of a higher power and to worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths and helps to foster a sense of spiritual connection and reverence for the divine. Interesting, because historically it has had the exact opposite effect.
>The second law is the prohibition against blasphemy, which teaches us to speak and act with respect and reverence towards God and sacred things. By upholding this law, we learn to show kindness and consideration towards others and to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and understanding. This can be achieved without your god and religion. Just one of many problems in your post.
First law - destroys freedom of religion. Second law - destroys freedom of speech. Third law - already illegal. Fourth law - already illegal. Fifth law - destroys bodily autonomy. Sixth law - I actually like this one. Seventh law - We already have this. Alright, so what’s the value here other than just further restricting people’s freedoms and rights?
As an atheist, I find your rules mostly silly. I mean who eats raw flesh of a live creature? That's just sick. As to anything "god" related, see the first sentence. There is no god, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional. I give love and respect to those people in my life who deserve it, and the others not. That's my golden rule. I don't kill or steal, because those are not nice things to do to a person.
Fuckin hilarious that not a single one of your laws says, DONT OWN PEOPLE AS PROPERTY! It's almost like those laws were invented by a backwards dessert dweller that literally had no idea that owning people was wrong. The issue of slavery will forever reaffirm to me that all abrahamic faiths are just made up bullshit.
Interesting. I think you make quite a leap from the laws to what you say they teach us. I’m not sure that unity and respect between religions thing is working out so well. I’ve never heard the one about not eating the limb of a living animal. Fascinating that was such a problem it made the top seven.
Your rules are dumb. Give me evidence your god is real or you're just wasting time. The first two are just god saying "notice me senpai, I'm so special". It's actually pathetic that someone heard this and thought, yes god is an insecure child, that's what the best being ever is.
Sex should be viewed exclusively through the lense of consent. Consent must be freely given, reversible, enthusiastic, informed, and specific. There is absolutely nothing wrong in any sex that meets all of these criteria. Restricting sex in any way above that is harmful.
>The fifth law is the prohibition against illicit sexual relations What exactly are illicit sexual sexual relations? >upholding the sanctity of marriage and family life Not sure what "sanctity" means here exactly, but I'm guessing divorce should be forbidden then?
>worship only one God. This law promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths I feel this law excludes me and others that worship more than one god. Why do you consider excluding most of the sub content of India "promoting unity?"
Don't you find something odd about God handing down laws on the sanctity of human life and treating animals with compassion and respect directly after exterminating practically all human and animal life on the planet by drowning it?
Why not ask the priests of Baal if they agree that Jewish law "promotes unity and respect among people of different faiths"? Oh, that's right, you can't. They're dead. They were all murdered for having a different faith.
Those are all entirely useless (first and second) or are not sourced from, and most definitely not exclusive to, your religious mythology. And are generally incomplete and misleading. Thus, demonstrably, the Jewish mythology is moot and irrelevant.
So feel free to live according to them! Im not a fan of the first one and the fifth one but kinda live according to the rest already as an atheist :)
I’m Ashkenazi by heritage. The Jewish religion can have just as much ridiculousness as our other favorites to criticize here.
Mate, I'm not following the rules of anyone who floods the entire world and kills everyone when he gets in a tizzy.
How do you feel about Solomon’s 700 wives and 200 concubines? Is that in compliance with the Noahide laws?