Talk:Noahidism

message: The content of this article needs severe tidying-up. Not until section 3 ('The Great Renewal') it is revealed that B'nei Noah is a movement, but not very accurately defined. Is it a congregation of faith or more of a moral association? Still worse, the whole wording is unfocused and utterly subjective, like college students giving a street sermon for a yet undefined religion (maybe that is just what it is?). Please enlighten me. --Sasper 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope to work on this article soon. Chavatshimshon 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged into noahide laws? Jon513 17:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be against a merge.  The Noahide Laws are an ancient concept in Judaism while the B'nei Noah is a recent movement.  The articles are related but the contents are quite distinct. Robert Brockway 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying up

message: I just noticed that there is a discrepancy between this article and Seven Laws of Noah on the exact wording of the laws, especially laws 4 and 7. For example, this article defines Law 4 on "Sexual Promiscuity" in more concrete and wider terms than the main article, which only has "Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery". I'm by no means an expert on Jewish law, so I'm in no position to make amendments. Hope someone else can. Klehti (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're talking about. In the main article there's a longer list of prohibitions than here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen far longer lists than that too.  All that 'the book' actually prohibits is: Adultery, Incest, Sodomy, Bestiality, and Intentional Castration.  So, for example, pre - and post - marital sex are not specifically mentioned; neither is lesbianism or male-to-male non-penetrative 'outercourse'. As with all 'religion' topics, you will get people chipping in with their own little agendas. Even adultery is defined narrowly as sex between a married woman and a man other than her husband, and (for example) sex between a married man and another unmarried female is not mentioned either :-) MaxieT (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of the laws

message: Does anybody have any idea of the numbers of people involved?  I have noticed that Noahides (and the Christian 'backlash') are very 'noisy' on the internet, but I have never met a 'visible' Noahide yet (I am Jewish, by the way, with the emphasis on the 'ish':-). Perhaps it's because I am in the UK, where religion tends to be more of a quiet, internal thing.  Is it just yet another American cult with a few hundred vociferous members, or should we Jews all get ready to hide Christians in our attics?. 160.84.253.241 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its more of an ideological movement that is more represented by its explicitly-Noahide (as in having B'nei Noah or Noahide in their names) organizations than by particular individuals. AFAIK, its mostly consisting of Chabad and a few evangelicalist Christian groups, with a far greater visibility from Chabad's rabbis; I'll concur that they're a bit more vocal, which makes it all the more interesting. --Toussaint (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Rav Yoel Schwartz is connected; he is hardly Chabad. And what about Outreach Judaism; he isn't Chabad either.Mzk1 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Where does the commentary paragraph placed beneath each law come from? It doesn't appear to be referenced, and presents contentious viewpoints and value judgements as facts. Even if referenced, I'm not sure it belongs here, as it appears as a list of personal thoughts and meditations.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, transpires they were added, without an edit summary, by an anonymous editor, user:71.126.80.63, during a series of edits on 22 October 2008, and apart from a single edit more than two years previously, constitute the user's entire contribution to Wikipedia. This, along with the lack of sources and entirely unencyclopaedic tone puts these edits in flagrant contravention of WP:SOAP and leads me to removal.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary

message: *It should be pointed out that Noahidism is not a branch, spin-off or sect of Judaism. As such, is it right to impose the Talmud on Gentiles? No! I've been reading one rabbi who says there are at least 66 mitzvot for Gentiles. What next, a Gentile Torah, composed entirely by rabbis? No! This is the sort of thing I say is corrosive to the fundamentals of Noahidism. If you want to be Jewish, then go convert. If I must, I'll quote from the Torah from Adam to Noach and beyond. Because it is plain that for a ben/bat Noach, that is all that matters. And you cannot continue with Karaite references, because Karaites are technically Jews, as are Samaritan Jews. We will have fruitful debate about honesty, not about Jewish Law. For Jewish Law, go to the section on Jews and Judaism. I come from a proud Converso family, and I hate all this manipulation of authority regarding Gentiles. Will we rob them the way my family was robbed centuries ago? Force them to follow Jewish halachah, to obey the Talmud which isn't for them?
*The saying goes, "The rabbi said, 'Any Gentile who knows the Torah is the equal of the High Priest (Kohain Gadol).' " He, whoever he was, never said a thing about the Talmud or ben Maimon.
*RevAntonio (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop bulleting every paragraph you write, would you?  It's annoying.  In any case, none of what you say comes with a source, so it's nothing but your personal opinion.  Wikipedia requires sources.  Not your personal interpretation of sources, but actual, published, legitimate sources.  If you can find a book that says what you're saying, you can cite it, so long as it's a notable view. -Lisa (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In furtherance of Judaic heritage 

message: *My suggestions and pointing to the truth about the so-called seven laws are valid and easy for anyone to read. So I'll leave it there... I can't imagine a sane Righteous Gentile would even look at this discussion page. Lisa, how do you justify throwing 'original research' at me? Aren't your empty "sources" also the product of original research? Whereas my sources lie in the Torah. You don't want to give up, and I don't want you to give up... I want truth and accuracy. Ignore me then, but be fair to others who come here and produce your authority/sources! Meanwhile, I'm going over to repair the inaccuracies of the article Noahidism.
*RevAntonio (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research... not 

message: I have taken out the few lines at the very end of this entry, referencing conspiracy theories. They do not meet any kind of encyclopedic standard unless there is a reference to an actual conspiracy theory/theories publicized about Noahidism. Anyone reverting the lines will be reported as per regulations of this website. My properly cited addition to that section, for balance, was unjustly removed, therefore I propose that having no documentation at all of any conspiracy theories against the Bene Noach moevement, there should be no such ridiculous section.
75.21.116.175 (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of conspiracy theory-baiting 

message: The Lubavicher Rebbe's 89th birthday was March 26, 1991, it was this day in 1991 that was designated as "Education Day" (See source for H.J.Res.104http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:) not in 1989.
User:jcksnmrvn 10-05-2009  —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Date 

message: Added :Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies because this is a controversial topic among Jews and Judaism. Only the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe pushed this "campaign" and it's still not carried out really even by Chabad who give it lip service. All other groups are against a public push for this, certainly the non-Orthodox sector does not want it. The discussions on this talk page itself proves the scope and directions of the various controversies surrounding this subject. IZAK (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you bring any sources for any Jewish group against this? --Historian2 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Historian: First take a look at what the article itself cites, read the two paragraphs in Seven Laws of Noah#Noahide laws as a basis for secular governance, especially: "Traditionally, Judaism regards the determination of the details of the Noahide Law as something to be left to Jewish rabbis. This, in addition to the teaching of the Jewish law that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes a theoretical death penalty (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a), is a factor in modern opposition to the notion of a Noahide legal system. Jewish scholars respond by noting that Jews today no longer carry out the death penalty, even within the Jewish community." It is important to note in this article that most human beings have not heard of this system. In countries with strong Christian populations there are many groups that deny that Christianity is helped by Noahidism, in fact they take offense and oppose it (looks like from earlier editions of this article?) , and again Christian criticism  : "Christian critics of the Noahide laws contend that insisting upon a basic set of moral laws is contrary to religious pluralism. Some believe that their existence implies that Jews may set up a legal system that would effectively outlaw Christianity." This article also shows the deep problems in Torah scholarship froma Noahide site: Christianity and Noahide Law. Needless to say in Islamic lands, such as Saudi Arabia, there would be beheadings for preaching such an independent doctrine that is not Islam. Among Jews who know about this notion and mitzva, it fell into disfavor when Lubavitch first broached the idea, but then seemed to back off from it. It is still a controversial subject. Even among rabbis there is no universal agreement what this commandment entails in all its deatils, while the 7 general principles are known to Torah scholars. One cannot say that this is universally accepted movement or notion at this time according to anyone. IZAK (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed the "Noahidism as a basis for secular governance" section in the other article because it is an unsupported political statement. When I spoke to Rav Weinberg, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel about this topic, it certainly did not seem to be his view. So we need sources, and balancing.Mzk1 (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, then somneone needs to add stuff. I don't think that here any of the stuff is necessarily non-notable, just because Lubavich is mentioned. I believe Rabbi Yoel Shwartz and Rabbi Tovia Singer are involved, among notable personalities. Another issue to be explored is that some Noachide groups appear to be somewhat Christian.Mzk1 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a controversial topic 

message: Circumcision as a Divine commandment was given by G-d specifically to the descendents of Abraham. It is a sign of G-d's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17). It is also one of the 613 Jewish mitzvot that G-d commanded through Moses at Mount Sinai (Leviticus 12:3).
 
One should bear in mind that Noahides are not allowed to create additional religious obligations for themselves in the name of Divine commandments beyond their own 7 mitzvot and their details, nor to do additional acts with the intention that they are fulfilling additional Divine commandments.
 
But a faithful Noahide who desires to perform one the Jewish mitzvot may do so voluntarily for the sake of the benefits it will bring to him, with a few exceptions noted elsewhere: http://www.asknoah.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=15
 
With this understanding, a Noahide man may voluntarily have himself circumcised, or Noahide parents may voluntarily have a baby son circumcised. They may request this either of an Orthodox Jewish "mohel" (who is certified to perform traditional Jewish circumcisions), or of a trained medical doctor. Once a Noahide makes the decision to do this, he should follow through without delay.
 
Noahides may also choose male circumcision for the sake of either the benefits which circumcision can bring for a male's physical health, or refinement of personal character. (The extent of the health benefits of male circumcision have become better understood in the past few years: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/ )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.175.38 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision and procreation for Noahides 

message: Has anyone here taken issue with the fact that the title is so blatantly misleading? The title should be simply: Noahides. And the rainbow the common symbol of the Noahides. This is not an "ism" nor will it ever be. I, along with every observant non-Jew I know, goes out of the way to direct people to any article other than this one due to its scathing errors. Can we, at the very least, agree the title needs an update. I pray those who are editing actually are Noahides and not hateful defamers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.77.198 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the title should be changed. I tried making the move but was not able to do so. Maybe because Noahides is a wikipedia category? 238-Gdn (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ism? 

message: I don't get why this is dependent on judaism, as noahidists could say that the only sacred text is the Primeval history, thus rejecting other either judaist or christian teachings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.0.186 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  as an independent religion 

message: The article says "Noahides (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdɪs/), or Noahites (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪtɪs/)", but shouldn't it be (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdɪz/) in the first case and (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪtɪz/) in the second?</br>
Or do they even end with -ɪz in the first place? If not, then they should be (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪdz/) and (/ˈnoʊ.ə.haɪts/).--Adûnâi (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: You deleted a reference to a person who is mentioned in a reliable 3rd-party source as having been instrumental in organizing one of the first Noahide conferences in the 1980s. Why is that fact not relevant to an article on Noahidism? And what does being a far-right or far-left wing politician or an ultra-Orthodox or Modern Orthodox (more accurate in this case) rabbi or priest or imam have to do with being an early supporter of Noahidism? Why do you assert that a source that is talking about Sons of Noah and Noahides doesn't pertain to Noahidism? Havradim (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is regarding about Noahidism from a very fringe perspective and is not representative. No substantial reliable sources claim anything about Kahane as relevant to conferences about Noahidism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Arutz 7 has right wing bias and should be used with caution, but the same is true for left wing biased sources—we can use them for dry facts about who-what-where; so long as we don't have a different source that contradicts what they say (i.e. Kahane and Carlebach were never involved with Noahidism) it's safe to assume that they were whether we like it or not. Havradim (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meir Kahane and Shlomo Carlebach  

message: 1860s:  The idea of Noahidism as a Judaic religion for non-Jews was developed by Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh. 
1920-1930s:  Aime Palliere became a Noahide and spread the teachings of Elijah Benamozegh in Europe.
Two direct quotes from an allegedly "Reliable, academic source" (at the very top of the web page)  There is no justification for removing these important and relevant historical facts from the article. 
Jaredscribe (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: These historical facts are prominently mentioned on Feldman 2017 - world religions and spirituality project, which source the managing-editors have cited throughout the article for numerous claims. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I restored the content in which Benamozegh and Pallière are mentioned; I will expand that paragraph with further informations in the future. GenoV84 (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include mention of Elijah Benamozegh and Aime Palliere