Are you a Noachide?

[Zardoz]

NOTE: This is a D.I.R.

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism

No debating please, I don't want to move this out of the DIR.

(FYI: :Last word of 3rd choice got cut off somehow... 'ones'. )

 

[Brickjectivity]

I do not rationally accept a worldwide flood, and if I take Noah's covenant sincerely it has to come from agreement with the principles upon which it is made rather than upon a miraculous agent. If anything the story of the Great Flood is a discouragement from taking them seriously. Almost every day some thing is debated on these forums pertaining to one of those seven things. We talk about what God is, whether God exists, about sexual morals, about treatment of animals, murder, theft and laws. I do not feel that it is appropriate to embrace Noah's Flood since the enlightenment unless compelled by physical evidence. If its a metaphor or just a story then we should say so. We now all have responsibilities to question everything, such as priests and the things that they claim. If we don't we are already breaking at least one of those laws through negligence, so...what can I say? How can I claim to follow something I have to break in order to follow it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I suppose I am. I mean, I already abide by those laws to the best of my ability.

 

[RedDragon94]

NOTE: This is a D.I.R.

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

No debating please, I don't want to move this out of the DIR.

(FYI: :Last word of 3rd choice got cut off somehow... 'ones'. )

I believe that the Messiah has come and although he did not override the old covenant he did fulfill it. It's the era of grace. We accept that grace just by belief. Over time that initial work of grace turns into a lifestyle, although we don't have to manufacture that lifestyle it's entirely a work of God in us. We are supposed to follow the law of Moses as a list of guidelines. Not everything in the Old Testament is binding on the Christian like it was with the Jews.

 

[ChristineES]

Can someone be a Noachide without knowing it? I've followed those rules pretty much.

 

[Zardoz]

I do not rationally accept a worldwide flood, and if I take Noah's covenant sincerely it has to come from agreement with the principles upon which it is made rather than upon a miraculous agent. If anything the story of the Great Flood is a discouragement from taking them seriously. Almost every day some thing is debated on these forums pertaining to one of those seven things. We talk about what God is, whether God exists, about sexual morals, about treatment of animals, murder, theft and laws. I do not feel that it is appropriate to embrace Noah's Flood since the enlightenment unless compelled by physical evidence. If its a metaphor or just a story then we should say so. We now all have responsibilities to question everything, such as priests and the things that they claim. If we don't we are already breaking at least one of those laws through negligence, so...what can I say? How can I claim to follow something I have to break in order to follow it?

I also have doubts there was a global flood. It's silly to think of polar bears migrating to the middle east to get on the ark. How can the poles flood, anyway? I think there might indeed have been a flood and ark, but maybe a local event not a global one. I have doubts, but this for me does not diminish the importance of Genesis 9.

It's G-d's first covenant, and everything else follows. It also has a physical element (rainbow) that still is clearly present.

 

[Zardoz]

Can someone be a Noachide without knowing it? I've followed those rules pretty much.

Of course. The Abrahamic faiths cover and expand on these. Well, the first five anyways.

 

[LampunHenki]

I think that these laws are excellent laws, but prohibition on eating of a live animal is in my opinion outdated, because I think that (fortunately) nobody eats of live animals these days.
Could that law be translated so that it prohibited maltreatment of animals? That kind of law would be highly needed nowadays because as far as I know animals are treated like dirt in food industry. A couple of months ago, I saw cows being hit repeatedly with electric batons in a slaughter house just for sport...
If this law would prohibit maltreatment of animals, I definitely would like to be a Noahide!

NOTE: This is a D.I.R.

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism

No debating please, I don't want to move this out of the DIR.

 

[Flankerl]

because I think that (fortunately) nobody eats of live animals these days.

Uhm ever heard of Oysters?

And there is more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_live_animals

 

[LampunHenki]

Ok. I know oysters... Fortunately I have never eaten anything like that! So that prohibition isn't outdated, and I guess that treatment of animals is more a matter of one's conscience... no commandments are needed for that.

Uhm ever heard of Oysters?
And there is more.

 

[Zardoz]

Ok. I know oysters... Fortunately I have never eaten anything like that! So that prohibition isn't outdated, and I guess that treatment of animals is more a matter of one's conscience... no commandments are needed for that.

Actually it's a bit more than that. G-d commands Noah not to eat blood; Genesis 9:4

(Yes, people eat blood. They have names to hide this fact like 'black pudding'.)

 

[Tumah]

Actually it's a bit more than that. G-d commands Noah not to eat blood; Genesis 9:4

(Yes, people eat blood. They have names to hide this fact like 'black pudding'.)

It looks like that verse is saying not to eat the blood of a live animal.

 

[Zardoz]

It looks like that verse is saying not to eat the blood of a live animal.

Prohibition of blood is repeated in Leviticus 7:26
Blood with or without the flesh, live or not, is prohibited.

 

[Tumah]

Prohibition of blood is repeated in Leviticus 7:26
Blood with or without the flesh, live or not, is prohibited.

Right, but one of them is a Noahide Law and the other not. I thought the discussion was Noahide Laws. My mistake.

 

[Zardoz]

Right, but one of them is a Noahide Law and the other not. I thought the discussion was Noahide Laws. My mistake.

This is not a clear issue, but since there is no assurance that blood removed from an animal was done before or after it expired, better to err on the side of caution, since the Noahides do not have the same laws of slaughter.

See Sanhedrin 59a

Also,

Leviticus 17:10
"'I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people."

So here it is applied the Ger Toshav

Here it is in the extended 30 laws:

http://www.noachide.org.uk/html/30_commandments.html

 

[Brian Schuh]

I think that these laws are excellent laws, but prohibition on eating of a live animal is in my opinion outdated, because I think that (fortunately) nobody eats of live animals these days.
Could that law be translated so that it prohibited maltreatment of animals? That kind of law would be highly needed nowadays because as far as I know animals are treated like dirt in food industry. A couple of months ago, I saw cows being hit repeatedly with electric batons in a slaughter house just for sport...
If this law would prohibit maltreatment of animals, I definitely would like to be a Noahide!

Mountain oysters are the testicles of still living farm animals which are then consumed as a food product. This still occurs all over the nation and I guess around the world.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I do not rationally accept a worldwide flood, and if I take Noah's covenant sincerely it has to come from agreement with the principles upon which it is made rather than upon a miraculous agent. If anything the story of the Great Flood is a discouragement from taking them seriously. Almost every day some thing is debated on these forums pertaining to one of those seven things. We talk about what God is, whether God exists, about sexual morals, about treatment of animals, murder, theft and laws. I do not feel that it is appropriate to embrace Noah's Flood since the enlightenment unless compelled by physical evidence. If its a metaphor or just a story then we should say so. We now all have responsibilities to question everything, such as priests and the things that they claim. If we don't we are already breaking at least one of those laws through negligence, so...what can I say? How can I claim to follow something I have to break in order to follow it?

The Seven Laws are not binding because they were given to Noah after a great flood, but because they were repeated at Mt. Sinai by God (through Moses.) This probably doesn't help some people, because if they deny the Flood, some would also deny the revelation at Mt. Sinai.

 

[Shem Ben Noah]

...
It also has a physical element (rainbow) that still is clearly present.

Well, never thought of that. Not proof really, but God does call it the token of his everlasting covenant, so it's something actual to point at .

I chose 'Yes, I'm a Ben/Bat Noach exclusively'. Now I do carry over elements of past faiths not covered, such as prayer.

Right, so where do Noachides post here, just in this general forum?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Seven Laws are not binding because they were given to Noah after a great flood, but because they were repeated at Mt. Sinai by God (through Moses.) This probably doesn't help some people, because if they deny the Flood, some would also deny the revelation at Mt. Sinai.

Thanks for your words. no comment

 

[Tumah]

The Seven Laws are not binding because they were given to Noah after a great flood, but because they were repeated at Mt. Sinai by God (through Moses.) This probably doesn't help some people, because if they deny the Flood, some would also deny the revelation at Mt. Sinai.

The Talmud does not agree with you.