Talk:Seven Laws of Noah/Archive 2

message: I'm not qualified to edit the article, but I think one thing missing, that is relevant would be something about the beliefs regarding reconciliation for those that disobey the seven laws of Noah (i.e. beliefs regarding "forgiveness" (can a person supposedly LOSE their "place in the world to come" and/or gain back a "place in the world to come"?  Might also be relevant to better define what "place in the world to come" means (and equally important, what it means to NOT have a place in the world to come!)  
Also there is brief mention in the article about prosthelization - if it is generally accepted by Jews that following Noah's seven laws is the key for Gentiles to gain a place in the world to come why don't they generally share this information with Gentiles (I don't know anyone that has even ever heard of noah's seven laws, I just happened to stumble across it)?  This info seems pretty relevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.76.72 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improvements 

message: The list of external links includes what looks like some vanispamcruft.  I am pruning the list per my understanding of WP:EL:
*BnaiNoach.com - Noahide News and Information Center
*HaMayim.org - Noahide group
*Aish haTorah - Explanation on the 7 laws
*The Noahide Laws in the Mishneh Torah
*Moshiach and 7 Laws of Noah
*Noahide site with a somewhat wider definition of Noahidism
*asknoah.org
*The Rainbow Covenant
*Yahoo Noachide Group
Yahoo groups, tripod pages, "I think that too" pages and so on are not good, authoritative sources.  The Jewish Encyclopaedia is, and the Institute of Noahide Law apperars to be as well (although anyone can call themselves an Institute, so I might be misjudging that) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the link http://www.bneinoach.org/news.php twice because I do believe that it meets Wikipedia high standards for external links.  I you disagree please read Wikipedia:External links first and then explain here why you believe I am wrong.  Jon513 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems you are well versed in wikipedia rules already wikipedia:Ignore all rules: If the rules discourage you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them. The rules you want to look at in Wikipedia:External links are "What should be linked to" #4 and "Links to normally avoid" #2, please read them.  The site has a few articles, a few downloads, and a FAQ.  I don't think it has a "level of detail inapropiate for wikipedia"; in fact I think the current article, while not yet brilliant prose, contains all or most of the facts contained on the website.  Jon513 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: "the ... principles ... upon which our great Nation was founded ... known as the Seven Noahide Laws ... without these ... civilization stands in serious peril of ... chaos ... Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991 ... in tribute to this great spiritual leader ... his ninetieth year will ... turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws"
Sure do seem to be a bunch of "..."s in this quote. "the...principles...upon which our great Nation was founded...known as the Seven Noahide Laws..." Is this accurate and contextual? --Yodamace1 20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After you read the entire quote it hardly makes more sense... It's lip service to an influential constituency, something like the Jewish equivalent of the Christian right. Actually, many people, including many observant Jews, would find the statement as goofy, out of kilter, false, or any combination thereof. elpincha 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: In modern Hebrew, the term 'gilui arayot' refers to incest alone. In Biblical Hebrew, besides incest, it also referred to a woman having sex with a man who is not her husband, regardless of relation. 
However, none of these definitions imply a generic rule of sexual morality. Where did the broadening of the definition to include other supposed-sexually immoral acts come from? If this isn't a mistake, it needs to be sourced. --Telecart 21:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gilui Arayot both in the modern and biblical useage refers to all types of sexual imorality.  The source is the Mishneh Torah.  Accoriding to many opinions the rules in the bible are stricter than those for a non-jew.  Jon513 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For the statements of "Not to crossbreed animals" and "No castration" the sourse is stated as Shmuel ben Hophni Gaon.  Jon513 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Question

message: The Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein  who wrote a book about Noahide Laws is NOT the same Rabbi Dr. Aaron Lichtenstein, the Rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion.  I think he might be a first cousin.  Jon513 21:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein  

message: The ip address 203.214.133.79  believes that the section Christianity "need[s] to be rewritten with more accurecy".  Jon513 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  accurecy 

message: The article belongs in the Judaism section. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is idolatry according to the Noachide Laws. Keep this article under Judaism. This article shouldn't have anything to do with Jewish-Christian "dialogue."
The key word here is JEWISH-Christian.  You are eliminating the Jewish bit and keeping the Christian part
The article belongs in the "Judaism" section. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is idolatry according to the Noachide Laws. Keep this article under Judaism. This article shouldn't have anything to do with Jewish-Christian "dialogue."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.60.3 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaism

message: The external links on this page has gotten out of hand.  Looking at the links, very few of them met the criteria of Wikipedia:External links and should be removed.  I have already tried to removed many of these sites in the past and they seem to just be constantly put back in.  I don't have any inclination in edit waring with such people.  Jon513 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links II

message: I'm really not quite sure why a large amount of fairly high-quality content has been removed on 12 Dec. Specifically, the move for a Sanhedrin and the role of other religions were covered in a fairly even-handed manner. There is no indication that sufficient consensus was achieved before this removal. I have reintroduced said material. JFW | T@lk 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason JFW, was to remove material that was more relevant to Noahide Groups than Noahide Laws.  It had nothing to do with POV, just topics to be included in another article.  I'm fine with your revert because I was just trying to simplify the process.  Just keep in mind that your unilateral actions are not the definition of "consensus" either. Ovadyah 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: JFW, I'm here to help, not to pick a fight.  Several people have suggested a Noahide Groups article.  I'm assuming good faith on your part, but this suggestion cannot be summarily dismissed (like you just did) without discussion.  That explains why you reverted my move of the Noahide Groups material. Ovadyah 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demolition of the article 

message: I added requests for citations in the lead section.  Better to add them as you introduce new material than scramble at the end to find all the sources.  Right now, the article has a mix of reference tags and inline citations.  It's better style to go all one way or the other.  Personally, I think ref tags are less intrusive to the flow of the article. Ovadyah 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that reference tags are better, but most relevant literature seems to use inline. I've added the relevant ones. Bear in mind that the intro is meant to summarise the article's content in news style. Therefore, if a point is being backed up with more detailed references further down in the article it is probably not necessary to give all the references in the intro - this would disrupt formatting and ease of reading. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine for now.  Maybe not fine later for GA and FA.  The lead should be a self-contained summary, including references.  It will all shake out during peer review. Ovadyah 22:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: In the Clementine Homilies chp. 7.4 are part of the Proclamations of Peter that sound much like the Noahide Laws:
"And the things which are well-pleasing to God are these:
:to pray to Him, to ask from Him, recognising that He is the giver of all things, and gives with discriminating law;
:to abstain from the table of devils, not to taste dead flesh, not to touch blood; to be washed from all pollution;
and the rest in one word,-- as the God-fearing Jews have heard, do you also hear, and be of one mind in many bodies; let each man be minded to do to his neighbour those good things he wishes for himself. 
"And you may all find out what is good, by holding some such conversation as the following with yourselves: 
:You would not like to be murdered; do not murder another man: you would not like your wife to be seduced by another; do not you commit adultery: you would not like any of your things to be stolen from you; steal nothing from another.
The Homilies date from the 3rd or 4th century. Ovadyah 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ovadya, I'm sure the "Proclamations of Peter" is an interesting read but unfortunately it is irrelevant to the Noahide Laws. Please read more about the origin of the Noahide Laws so as to understand that later Christian sources eluding to similar principals remain irrelevant to construcing more sources and detail. Cheers. frummer 04:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Frummer, while these are not the Noahide Laws as defined in the Talmud, they clearly have some relationship.  Since the Homilies are stridently anti-Pauline, I don't consider them to be they are not "Christian" in the way we typically think of Christianity.  They are much closer to the NL than Acts 15 and may derive from a common source or oral tradition. Ovadyah 04:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I can find a place for this under Christian Adherence, although any adherence to these laws would be historical at best from a Christian perspective. Ovadyah 05:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these "don't consider them to be Christian" laws which you say may be similar to the Noahide Laws but which according to Judaism have no connection may be deserving of an article themselves, if you have primary sources backing up the title you give them. But from you say they are passing principles mentioned somewhere. frummer 07:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a high priority for the article.  If I find a source later I will consider adding it.  Right now, the article has bigger problems. Ovadyah 17:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clementine Homilies

message: I came across an article that argues, persuasively imho, that Acts 15 and the Noahide Laws do not share a common source.   It also discusses an alternative theory that the requirements of Acts 15 were derived from Leviticus 17-18.  Both theories have their problems, and the article debunks them in detail.  The article concludes that all four of the prohibitions involve things associated with pagan cults.  Almost lost in the footnotes is the observation that the Western text of Acts 15 has only three prohibitions, which agree with Rabbinic traditions about the three primary sins of the Gentiles - idolatry, shedding of blood, and immorality.  Interesting reading. :) Ovadyah 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A comment on Acts 15

message: As it is right now there are only two sentences mentioning Noahides. They are from "advertisements".
*One in the lead paragraph, saying adherents are often called Noahides, which is well known fact, in fact there are more than 25.000 thousands hits for "Noahides" and "Noachides" in Google. It also mentions they "network" in shulls, since they are not an independent religion that's what they do.
*The second sentence is in the third paragraph, which mentions they congregate less since they're not a proper organised religion compared to other current ones.
I have reinserted the Six Laws of Adam link. They are mentioned in primary sources such as the Talmud, and Yad Hachasaka of the Rambam. Please discuss. frummer 07:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, the expanded summary is better.  A summary in the lead section should be able to stand on its own and tell a complete story.  An unresolved issue is whether to include Noahide Groups within an article on Noahide Laws.  JFW seems to feel pretty strongly that they should be (correct me if I'm wrong), while other editors have said the article should focus on the laws themselves.  Until this issue is resolved, it will be hard to make progress.  I don't have a stake in this, and I am willing to mediate if needed, but by all means, continue to discuss it. Ovadyah 17:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would indeed be right that the article shouldn't read like an advert for such a small group, which is why they only get two mentions in the Lead. I think they are minimal and we should focus on other issues if this is to be a good article. Right now im working on getting sources for those three important fact tags. frummer 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead looks good to me, Frummer, although I'm not one of the editors with big issues. You will be glad later that you spent the extra time tracking down citations.  As a whole, the article is lacking in citations of verifiable sources.  An editors' exegesis of the Tanakh and Talmud is not a legitimate source.  One of the biggest reasons for revert wars is people throwing opinions back and forth.  It could all be avoided by just stating the facts as they appear in verifiable sources.  Keep up the good work. Ovadyah 20:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore it is actually forbidden by the Torah for non-Jews on whom the Noahide Laws are still binding, to elevate their observance to the Jewish mitzvot.Yerusha LeYacov, Talmud Bavli This contradicts the Rambam, who writes clearly that non-jews may observe certain Mitzvot. 
Could whoever posted this quote the exact source--not just the book's name but the author, date published, and page no. of this quote. If this info. is not provided, I think this phrase ought to be removed. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The general principle is that we do not allow them to make new religious rituals and to make Mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. Rather, they may either become a righteous convert and accept all the Mitzvot; or stand fast in their laws [the Noahide Code] without adding or detracting from them. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 10:9.
All that Maimonides says is that non-Jews do not technically violate the prohibition of idolatry be following Islam. But they do violate the above prohinition and therefore it is simply incorrect to imply otherwise. I am unaware of any statement of the Ran (Rabeinu Nisim) on this matter, but if whoever posted it would like to enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. In the meantime I've removed it because the whole concept is absurd, aside from the fact that it's unsourced. Yehoishophot Oliver 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maimonides never says that Islam violates the prohibition of inventing a new religion. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, chapters 8,9 and 10 which talk about Noahide law, never mentions the word Islam. But then again he doesn't say that Islam qualifies as a Noahide religion either.  What he does say is that Islam does not violating the prohibition of idolatry (Maimonides, Responsa II, 293., Letter to Obadiah). --85.250.206.228 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what that they don't mention Islam?! The forbid creating a new religion, and therefore it's false and misleading to suggest that Maimonides was okay with Islam and considered it an "acceptable Noahide religion. Yehoishophot Oliver 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You must bring a source that specifically says what you are saying, other your comment is WP:OR and disallowed in wikipedia. --89.138.17.199 08:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The article says:
:Furthermore it is actually forbidden by the Torah for non-Jews on whom the Noahide Laws are still binding, to elevate their observance to the Jewish mitzvot.Yerusha LeYacov, Talmud Bavli This contradicts the Rambam, who writes clearly that non-jews may observe certain Mitzvot. 
Could whoever posted this quote the exact source--not just the book's name but the author, date published, and page no. of this quote. If this info. is not provided, I think this phrase ought to be removed. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  observing laws for Jews 

message: The absurd claim is made here that Maimonides holds that "Islam is a Noahide religion." This is nonsense, if it means to imply that observance of Islam is permitted for non-Jews. It's not as it violates his clear prohibition of inventing a new religion:
:The general principle is that we do not allow them to make new religious rituals and to make Mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. Rather, they may either become a righteous convert and accept all the Mitzvot; or stand fast in their laws [the Noahide Code] without adding or detracting from them. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 10:9.
All that Maimonides says is that non-Jews do not technically violate the prohibition of idolatry be following Islam. But they do violate the above prohinition and therefore it is simply incorrect to imply otherwise. I am unaware of any statement of the Ran (Rabeinu Nisim) on this matter, but if whoever posted it would like to enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. In the meantime I've removed it because the whole concept is absurd, aside from the fact that it's unsourced. Yehoishophot Oliver 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maimonides never says that Islam violates the prohibition of inventing a new religion. Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, chapters 8,9 and 10 which talk about Noahide law, never mentions the word Islam. But then again he doesn't say that Islam qualifies as a Noahide religion either.  What he does say is that Islam does not violating the prohibition of idolatry (Maimonides, Responsa II, 293., Letter to Obadiah). --85.250.206.228 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what that they don't mention Islam?! The forbid creating a new religion, and therefore it's false and misleading to suggest that Maimonides was okay with Islam and considered it an "acceptable Noahide religion. Yehoishophot Oliver 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You must bring a source that specifically says what you are saying, other your comment is WP:OR and disallowed in wikipedia. --89.138.17.199 08:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: I have edited this section. The former version implied that if Christianity is not considered idolatrous as it is shituf and that is not forbidden for non-Jews, this necessarily implies that Christianity is acceptable for non-Jews. This is simply false. There are other aspects of Christianity  that can, and, many argue, do constitute violation of the Noahide laws. In any case, the fact that it is proven that there is a controversy over the specific prohibition of idolatry in no way proves the attitude of Judaism to Christianity in terms of other aspects of the Noahide Code. This distortion (intended or not) is identical to that of the section on Islam whose editing I have justified above. Yehoishophot Oliver 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all Jewish opinions consider Christianity idol worship.  Some however rule that shittuf (lit. "association") - that is attaching another entity to God and worshiping them together- is only forbidden as idol worship for Jews, but not for gentiles. see here for a small summary here for a long discussion, [more on the same page, also on that page. Jon513 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: I by no means claim to be a scholar in Noahide Laws or biblical studies.  Looking through the article though, I do not feel that there is a clear distinction between the things that are in the Jewish Bible (the Tanach) and the Talmud.  It seems like a lot of the claims do not come from the Tanach (or at least, I can't find them).  Looking at Genesis 9:4-6, for example, which is the first source, I can only find three of the seven laws explicitly stated.  Like I said, I'm not very familiar with all this, but it seems to me like it should at the very least clarified by someone who knows what they are doing.  As some of the earlier comments also said, there are also a lot of claims about what is "according to Judiasm" which do not apply to all practiced and accepted forms of Judaism.  I think perhaps this is a similar thing that needs to be clarified.  If the Tanach does in fact make explicate statement to the Noahide Laws (all seven that is), perhaps those sections should be added to the refrences.  Like I said, I'm not really very qualified to be changing or clarifying any of this, but as I do stand, I am confused.  Thanks!  Crito2161 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tanach includes the books of "Written Torah" - given by God to Moses, then put into text. Talmud is the "Oral Torah" - said to be first spoken by Moses to his people, then passed through generations of tradition-keepers, eventually put into text as well. Both Tanach and Talmud, with their commentaries, are binding the Orthodox Jews (and Noahides). Someone please correct me if I am saying wrong. TRakowski 13:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A difficulty here is that traditional Jewish discourse often uses "Biblical" as a translation of "D'oreita," a phrase that refers to material regarded as "from Sinai", whether or not it appears in the Bible. For example Artscroll's Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud routinely calls laws believed to be orally transmitted from Sinai "Biblical" whether they appear in the Tanakh or not, and routinely calls laws that appear in the latter portions of the Tanakh "Rabbinic" because they are believed to have been instuted after Moses. I would agree, however, that portions of the article as it stands present a Haredi Judaism point of view as being, not only "Judaism", but as fact. --Shirahadasha 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanach vs Mishna 

message: I wonder if it would be useful for readers if this was mentioned.  A brief quotation:  In the Krause MS, under the head of "the Laws or Obligations laid before his brother Masons by Prince Edwin," we find the following article .... 'The first obligation is that you shall sincerely honor God and obey the laws of the Noachites....'" http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/mackeyfr.html It would require an expert in the field, if admitted. 142.68.44.156 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry and Seven Laws 

message: "The Noahide Laws were predated by six laws given to Adam in 
the Garden of Eden."
Can anyone name these six laws ?
Siyac 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means all the seven laws except for tearing off flesh from a living animal, which was first commanded to Noah. That's when the seven laws altogether became known as the seven Noahide laws. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be mentioned in the article, and another article about the commandments and laws of Adam/Eve should be built then. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six Laws 

message: in hebrew: שבע  מצוות בני נוח. 
seven=שבע
mitsvot/laws=מצוות
sons (of)=בני
noah=נוח
please change it, it{s not the mitsvot of noah himself!!
:Technically you're right, but that article name would be too wordy. I vote to keep it as is. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the fact that Lichtenstein named his book "The Seven Laws of Noah" is enough to say that it is a valid translation. Jon513 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article's name has to be "seven laws of noah's sons" or "seven laws of bnei noah" 

message: While reading through this article I noticed that some material had either been misplaced or was scattered through the article.  I have taken the liberty of doing the following reorganizations. If they are of concern, please feel free to revert:
#the section formerly labelled "Christian Criticism" contained no Christian criticism. The material was regrouped as follows:
#* two paragraphs on the use of the noahide laws to form a secular government were moved to their own section.  I suspect there is additional citable material on this topic and hope this move will encourage another editor to find and develop this material
#* the paragraph on Noahide laws being seen as part of the 10 commandments was moved to a section titled Seven Laws of Noah#Christian observance of Noahide Laws.  This describes the content of this paragraph more accurately than "Christian criticism".
#Seven Laws of Noah#Public endorsement of Noahide Laws: A section was created to describe examples of public non-Jewish and secular endorsement of the Noahide laws. The two examples already provided (Druze and US Congress) were moved to that section. It is hoped that this grouping with encourage editors to find and add other notable examples of public recognition of this Jewish contribution to larger society.
#Seven Laws of Noah#Ger Toshav section - the section was renamed to Seven Laws of Noah#Legal status of an observer of Noahide Laws so that a non-Jewish reader would more easily understand what questions were being answered by this section and how Ger Toshav fits into the idea of Noahide laws.  A link to Ger Toshav as the main article was also added.
#Seven Laws of Noah#Christian observance of Noahide Laws - material discussing various issues relating to Christian observance/non-observance was moved to this section.  This seemed to better characterize the material currently in the article and also reduced the prominence of this material.  Noahide laws apply to all non-Jews, not just Christians so it didn't make sense for more than a third of the top level sections to be devoted exclusively to Christian issues.  In addition,
#* material on Trinity copy edited to make it clearer that (a) rabbinic opinion of the Trinity depends on how they understand it (b) the rabbinic understandings of Trinity upon which some decisions are based only apply to a minority of Christian denominations
#* uncited material on Ten commandments vs. noahide laws replaced with cited material on Christian ethics.  Christians don't explicitly take on the Noahide laws as a legal code but their ethics result in the same set of rules, with the possible exception of idolatry. Christians, of course, don't consider themselves idolators but some rabbinic authorities do.
#* I've removed a somewhat long off-topic section labelled "Christian adherence". I wouldn't normally dare to do such a large delete especially with cited material embedded but there are multiple problems with this section:
#** some material seemed more appropriate in other locations within the current article - e.g. Emden's opinions on Christianity and claims that some Christian groups are non-Nicene creed believers.  I've moved that to the appropriate section.
#** Off topic. Upon reading the remaining material closely, it is really about the extent to which Christians felt themselves obligated to follow regular Jewish law and not just noahide law.  There is a main article elsewhere that goes into great depths about how Christians understand biblical law and I've added that to the beginning of this section.
#** WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Some cited material appeared to have no connection other than it mentioned the word Noah and happened to be Christian. There was no cited material explaining how these had something to say about Christian noahide observance.  In fact there wasn't even an uncited statement.
#** WP:UNDUE: The Christian sects being described represent a very small segment of Christianity and their views should not be used to define christian observance as a whole. Their perspective is however noted in the revised text via a statement mentioning the fact of the disagreements, followed by extensive footnote discussing some of the details of those disagreements.
#** The section was originally added to explain that some Christians do indeed follow the Noahide laws (see #NPOV dispute) or at least percieve themselves as such.  The new cited material I believe explains this in a manner that pertains to the vast majority of Christian denominations.  The old material applied only to a very small fraction of Christians.
Egfrank (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a misunderstanding of the Congressional Act that makes references to the Noahide Laws.  The act is not actually an explicit endorsement per se, as that would violate article 1 of the Bill of Rights.  What it was, is fact, was simply a recognition, and it was done so in tandem with the recognition of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Chabad-Lubavitch movement, in honor of his 90th birthday at that time.  What the bill actually enacted was the establishment of `Education Day, U.S.A.' on that day, and now known as Education and Sharing Day.  Some have tried to argue that this bill is an official endorsement by our legisative branch of the Noahide Laws, but legally, this is not actually so.  To better clarify the nature and motivation for the mention of the Noahide Laws in the bill, I have changed he wording to of the paragraph. Jemiljan (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.Jemiljan (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some regrouping 

message: In Seven_Laws_of_Noah#The_Christian_Trinity_and_the_prohibition_against_idolatry I'm uncertain of the causal relationship explicit in the statement that "Christians consider themselves monotheists and as such non-idolators." This section seems to describe well the difficulties of the Trinity, but seems not to touch on more–if I may–obvious forms of potential idolatry, like Orthodox icons. I'm not making a judgement on whether it is idolatry or not; I just think that it might be discussed.
Additionally, making a sweeping claim for a group of people would do well with a citation, even if it seems obvious. --Msanford (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole section seems very problematic. The rabbinic view doesn't mention the Noahide aspect. And the Christian counter-argument on shituf, seems rather a stretch at this point from the article topic. Plus, there are no reliable sources cited for claims like "Most Christians reject a shittuf definition of the Trinity." (Consider that most Christians haven't any idea of shittuf, this sounds like WP:OR.) I'd knock out this section by giving it a summary sentence or so to the Shittuf or related article(s). HG | Talk 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trinity and idolatry 

message: Tractate Sanhedrin 56a/b, quoting Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:4. Never Gemara can quote Tosefta.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.61.58 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense: happens all over the place. It treats the Tosefta like any Beraita. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the IP wants more precision, like Sanh ..., quoting a baraita found in Tosefta.... After all, it's not clear quite that the Talmud writers had a version of "our" Tosefta. HG | Talk 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply a mistake, I suppose 

message: To actually take a look at Bava Kamma 38a (also spelled as Baba Kamma).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.61.58 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because... JFW | T@lk 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And I do also highly recommend you... 

message: There seems to be a lot of continuing disagreement and editing about what should go in this section and the current version has 32.  For consistency sake we should probably at least get the number right.  There's not much online content that I can find (I was disturbed to find a link to my own talk page on the 4th page of google results). but the best online sources I can find at the moment are:
:http://www.surferscentralsynagoguegoldcoast.com/mitzfot-laws.html
:http://www.milechai.com/judaism/bnai-noach.html
Although I cant vouch for either pages accuracy, they do at least appear to use different wording for the same concepts. I will try to look at the original source at somepoint, but in the meantime if anyone else can find anything better online it would be greatly appreciated.  Here is what the better of the sites lists however:
:1) The singularity of G-d (That is, to believe in G-d)
:2) No idolatry
:3) No blasphemy
:4) To pray
:5) No false oaths
:6) No suicide
:7) No murder
:8) No adultery
:9) Formal marriages via bride price & marriage gifts
:10) No incest with a sister
:11) No homosexuality
:12) No bestiality
:13) No castration
:14) Not to eat an animal that died naturally
:15) Not to eat a limb of a living creature
:16) Not to eat or drink blood
:17) Not to crossbreed animals
:18) [Justice]
:19) To offer ritual sacrifices
:20) No theft
:21) To respect father & mother
:22) No Molech worship
:23) No witchcraft
:24) No soothsayers
:25) No conjurers
:26) No sorcerers
:27) No ghost meeting
:28) No consulting devil-spirits
:29) No wizardry
:30) No consulting the dead
Also, I think a lot of the additions/deletions from this area may be coming from its perception as a general dumping ground rather than referring to specifically to Shmuel ben Hophni Gaon's subdivisions.  Id like to resolve this by putting them all under a single subcategory of their own. Black Platypus (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found http://www.noachide.org.uk/html/30_noahide_laws.html This one has references and looks more reliable, Im going to update the main page based on the 30 it lists and try to find a copy of its sources. Black Platypus (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shmuel ben Hophni's 30 

message: It's a dietary law, it has nothing to do with whether it's okay to harm animals or not, as that is irrelevant to the context. It's a dietary law and nothing more. Seems some ASPCA or PETA fanatic got a hold of this. I'm not saying I advocate cruelty to animals (quite the opposite) but I mean really, it doesn't belong here. I advocate removing the definition altogether.
Jersey John (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you so antagonistic? If you want to improve the article, please go ahead an improve it.  If you think your edit requires some explanation, then please, explain.  But there is no need to use anything other than a polite tone. Jon513 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruely to Animals...?! Are you serious?! 

message: I threw a couple of things in there to show how far back these concepts could go.  I put it right after a note someone else left in the article that we needed more on the history and origins of the concept -- but that may not be the best spot.  I don't like having two full quotes for Acts 15, because it gives it too much space.  But I put them both in there so someone else can pick and choose which one to prune.  If there are other ancient parallels I'll try to find them.Tim (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins and Early Parallels 

message: Are the seven laws received or given by Enoch ? Is there any relationship between the Noachide laws and the so-called teachings of Enoch ? 69.157.233.40 (talk)
:Do you have a Wikipedia:Reliable source that makes a connection? 75.15.202.170 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Enochian ?

message: Looking back on the edit history the listed enumerations seem to be a continuing bone of contention, at the moment including the confusing proscription: "God saw the lawlessness, so He flooded the earth. (Genesis 6:11-13)."  The current list is based on one I dredged up over a year ago from http://www.noachide.org.uk/html/30_noahide_laws.html that lists 30 according to Rabbi Shmuel ben Hofni.  I think the current format makes it somewhat ambiguous whether the list is simply a catchall or exclusive to Shmuel ben Hofni (in which case there should probably actually be 30, as opposed to 29).  Personally, Im not sure we should give preference to Shmuel ben Hofni, and think the article would be best served by doing away with the list all together, instead simply disusing notable features of Rabbinical interpretation (as is the case now anyway).  If there is objection to deleting the list as an item please let me know what you think the list should, in fact, refer to so that a header of some type can be put up. Black Platypus (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 29 enumerations 

message: 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. Jewish law, in contemporary practice, sees the death penalty as an indicator of the seriousness of an offense; violators are not actually put to death.
This quote is, for starters, pure OR. The strictures on capital punishment in Jewish law largely do not apply to Gentiles, I know Rabbi Weinberg of Ner Yisroel felt that Gentiles were violating the noachide law if they did not vote to uphold it. I bring this piece of my own OR just an example of why this is POV. I will tell you that I recieved a halachic ruling that I could apply the death penalty to a Jew or Gentile as a member of a jury.Mzk1 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR / POV quote 

message: Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The Genesis text says only "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This seems to means the same as Leviticus 7:26 "You are not to eat any blood", Deuteronomy 12:23 "Only be sure not to eat the blood", Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water." etc., namely a prohibition to consume blood (cf. kosher methods of slaughter and meat preparation). http://bible.cc/genesis/9-4.htm.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that this interpretation is in fact found in the Talmud (Sanhedrin), and it is one of the least far-fetched interpretations of the Tanakh that I saw in it (check out the "proof" that Adam and Eve were given 6 commandments!). So I'm removing my objections, but in both of these cases I'm adding the Talmudic reference as a source and clarify that these are the Talmud's interpretations. Providing just the Biblical reference, as the previous editors had done, is very confusing, because no reader would see such content in these quotes, and it is, hmm, not uncontroversial that the content is inherently present in them.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to explain, the quotes aren't necessarily "proofs"; the Talmud will often bring a Biblical quote (called an asmachta) as a sort of way to connect to the Bible something whose source is actually a tradition. One cannot always tell.Mzk1 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prohibition to eat flesh from a living animal 

message: One should start with the Talmud, the source for all of this. There should be a statement in the header that these laws are not exclusive, as this is explicitly stated there. Similarly, the concept of 30 laws (the Encyclopedia Tulmidit gives a number of lists) is right out of the Talmud, albeit in Agaddah. The whole section on subdivision is confusing, because it makes it sound like these are later opinions. Also, the header is wrong; there are clearly laws outside the seven.Mzk1 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not keeping the Sabbath, for starters. However, in deference to lecturer Aaron Lichtenstein's opinion in Seven Laws of Noah, I will admit that one should not make a categorical statement.Mzk1 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only seven? 

message: I have moved Dead Sea Scrolls and Acts 15 up between Hebrew Bible and Talmud. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bring post-Tanakh, pre-Mishnah material up between the two