Talk:Seven Laws of Noah/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Noahide laws. Aervanath (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Seven Laws of Noah → Seven laws of Noah – In the recent previous RM, the only opposition was from User:JCScaliger, now-indef-blocked sock of User:Pmanderson, who was banned from commenting on MOS-related issues and technical aspects of English usage. By using the sock to evade the ban, he corrupted the RM and left it with the wrong result. In response to hesitation by User:In ictu oculi, I note that sources show a distinctly mixed capitalization, not consistent capitalization, which means that WP should not treat these "seven laws" as a proper name, per MOS:CAPS. I apologize that I didn't notice and support the previous RM, which might have made this one unnecessary. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Hesitate Noahide laws gets 9070 GBhits, Seven laws of Noah (either cap) 3090 GB hits In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're proposing to move to Noahide laws instead, I'm OK with that; see n-grams. This RM is just about the case of "law". Probably we should let this RM close as move and then do another, but if an admin prefers to close it with a shortcut, I don't mind. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to Noahide laws. Check out this awesome ngram, showing variations of casing with "Seven Laws", "Noachide", "Noahide", "Code", and "Laws". Each combination shows up to some degree, but "Noahide laws" seems the clear winner. Dohn joe (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support move to Noahide laws. I should learn how to use ngrams. I don't see the need to do another RM as all 3 comments are agreed, but if someone else comes along then probably will be required. (NB. How certain is it than in all refs to "laws of Noah" there are always 7?) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The capitalization of "laws" is a trivial matter, although we might use "commandments". I would however oppose the term "Noahide", this is an unnecessarily obscure term for the general reader. PatGallacher (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's an interesting case. While the words "Noahide" and "Noachide" are certainly obscure when compared to plain "Noah", it's clear that reliable sources - where the general reader is likely to encounter the phrase - much prefer "Noahide" or "Noachide" over "Seven Laws of Noah" (however capitalized). Dohn joe (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Noahide campaign

In closing the above requested move, I noticed that Noahide campaign was supposed to have been merged with this article 3 years (!) ago. I've simply implemented a redirect here. Should there be any information in that article which would still be useful here, look at the most recent version. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede Chabad

This sentence is v ambiguous 'While some Jewish organizations, such as Chabad have worked to promote the acceptance of Noachide laws, there are no figures for how many actually do.' Is it intended to mean that there are no figures for how many Jewish organisations proselytise for the NL? That is unlikely, as the number could be found. Or is it intended to mean that there are no numbers for those who 'accept' the NL? This leads to the question as to what is meant by 'acceptance.' Does acceptance really mean follow, or keep? This is not useful, as it does not distinguish between those Gentiles who are declared members of the various NL organisations, (very few) and those who would accept or follow these 'laws' without ever having heard of them. I propose to change the wording to: Some Jewish organizations, such as Chabad work to promote the adoption, by Gentiles, of the Noachide laws. Comments welcome.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

System of justice

I added in the note that the establishment of courts of law is to enforce the NL themselves. Here are some references that state that.

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/am/goyim.php

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Seven_Noahide_Laws.html

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9679-laws-noachian

http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id65.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+future+of+Jewish+values+in+Israel-a020119164

http://www.en.noahideworldcenter.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=57:the-seven-noahide-laws-a-brief-outline&Itemid=8

I would be prepared to discuss a wording that includes the later interpretation that the establishment of law courts are to enforce other laws as well, but the original purpose needs to be there. Comments please before I revert. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See the last link you provided.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

exactly, so the wording needs to reflect that, do you want to propose a wording?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's either both interpretations or the current ambiguous state. Stylistically, I would prefer the latter for the lede and an expansion on both interpretations in the body of the artilce. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with either, do you want to propose a ne wording? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I prefer the current ambiguous state for the lede, so nothing to propose there. If you want to propose wording for the body, I will be happy to provide feedback.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this for the lede, after the text 'The Noachide Laws comprise the six laws which were given to Adam in the Garden of Eden, according to the Talmud's interpretation of Gen 2:16,[8] and a seventh one, which was added after the Flood of Noah.' New text as follows: Religious Jewish sources differ in their claims as to whether the seventh law refers to the establishment of courts of law generally, or in order to administer only the Noahide laws themselves. This can be followed by references showing examples of both if you wishDalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Islam and Christianity accepting the noahide laws

As somebody who is from a Reform Jewish background I have always believed and was always told that Jewish scholars such as Maimonides taught that Christianity and Islam fulfil the requirements of the Noahide laws and the "righteous" of the world to come would include Muslims and Christians. I imagine this would extend to other religions such as Sikhism which also teaches about one god as well, and all of these faiths also fulfil the Noahide laws' requirements.

From a Jewish theological perspective has anyone tried to make any criticisms of the concept the way that Chabad is interpreting it? And should these criticisms be on the page? I would say that they should.

20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.63.6 (talk)

Edit first section of Noahide Laws. *riteous gentile*

<as currently written> According to religious Judaism, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the World to Come (Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous. <the issue> The use of righteous gentile is not correct. That person would be a Ger Toshav, at gate proselyte. <action> Revise the section; replace 'riteous gentile' with 'Ger Toshav' or 'gate proselyte'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudley68 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Lightest" punishment?

Why is it mentioned that decapitation is the lightest form of execution here? The other three are not elucidated and it sounds that the author is attempting to fluff up capital punishment and make this system somehow "nice". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.191.84 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalists seem to be targeting this page.

Christian fundamentalists seem to be targeting this page. If you want to make a separate article with criticisms of the Noachide Laws from a Christian perspective with proper citations please do so. I reverted the massive changes done by user Edit 12345. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonney2000 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Heading and Explanation of Each law

The basic explanation on each law is missing. There are some explanations disorganized here and there.

I think we should make a heading for each law explaining and analyzing the law. Caseeart (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Establish a court

Wiki has a notable burden of constantly deciding which bits to keep. This if we were to follow Noahic law we would need one. That court process however has often resulted in injustices. Wikipedia must effortm bring about bettwr service. Haveing see notable omissions intended to harm this system shoud be developed. This is a new system and it needs new devices to prevent exclusion. That technology exists. But it requires a good fath effort and openness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.241.13 (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

'Do not kill'

The correct wording of the 3rd Law of Noah is the same as one of the 10 Commandments of GOD to Moses, "Do not kill." 69.180.104.60 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct wording is "Do not murder". I don't know how it is translated at 10 Commandments, but there it also should be "murder". Debresser (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See Thou shalt not kill, where it says in the first sentence "Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV)". Debresser (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Obedience or order

Even though the source says "obedience", obeying the law is so there should be order, so I think that "order", as the clearer word, can be used here. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's treading close to WP:Original Research. How about "obedience to the law"? Editor2020, Talk 03:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. Just for the record, I see no original research in paraphrasing our sources. To the contrary, that is what we're supposed to do. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove section which is repeated elsewhere.

This whole section (see italicised text) should be removed, as it is just a reproduction of material that is contained elsewhere.

Chabad movement Maimonides stated that Moses was commanded by God to compel the world to accept these seven commandments. In 1983, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson urged his followers to actively engage in activities to inform non-Jews about these seven commandments, which had not been done in previous generations. As a result, in 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed a proclamation speaking of "the historical tradition of ethical values and principles, which have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws, transmitted through God to Moses on Mount Sinai,"[54] and in 1991, Congress did the same.[55]

The proclamation that is referred to was signed as part of the notification of "Education Day, USA" and this is covered in the section (see bold text)

Public recognition United States Congress The Seven Laws of Noah were recognized by the United States Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day in honor of the birthday of rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.[58]

The material about Menachem Mendel Schneerson, is repeated in the section Sefer Sheva Mitzvot Hashem (see bold text)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch, started his Noahide Campaign in the 1980s

Therefore the whole Chabad movement section is repeated elsewhere, and should be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as the first part is concerned. Reagan and Congress are not the same. But I would agree that the part about Reagan should be put in the same subsection as the part about Congress, which could be renamed from United States Congress" simply "United States"..

Regarding the second part. It could be shortened. "Menachem Mendel Schneerson, rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch, started his Noahide Campaign in the 1980s. A codification..." could become "Since Rabbi Schneerson started started his Noahide Campaign in the 1980s, a codification..."

If you agree, I'd be happy to make the edits. We can always discuss further afterwards. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was that everything would go into the second section. The credit to Chabad and MMS could be transferred to that section as well. Reagan and Congress did sign the same proclamation I believe. However I'm happy to look at any proposal. Thanks for offering to do this..Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please look over my edit, as per the above consensus. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)