03-25-2014, 06:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2014, 03:06 PM by Director Michael.)
Hi Reb Schulman, Rabbi Weiner, AskNoah,
You've tempered my blade of "righteous indignation" ... at least somewhat. The way you explained it, that it is about the good of the community, showed me the essence of what seems to be said. I won't go into taxation. I think I'll leave that for my own platform. I hope that's OK with you.
So its inclusion in the Noahide Code (not the core Seven Commandments) is due to its rational nature. Oh ... oh yes, rational nature. I remember reading in your book in the laws concerning idolatry about the nature of rational obligations. Thank you for that.
With some of your wording, I still question it. For example,
"... also the Gentiles themselves, have an obligation in G-d's eyes to abide by their government's monetary laws"
I can understand when you say it is a logical or rational obligation. But when the phrase "in God's eyes", that's where I'm not so sure. It's a bit like where in other responses on this forum where it is said "God wants you to [insert something about obedience to government]". It seems dangerous to say "God wants x" when x can be so volatile and has a track record of not doing what God wants. That's why the judgment call is rather "for the good for the society" and faithfulness to the Seven (and wisdom with regards to protect one's own life and family) that would be restraints against just obeying government, even with regards to money.
As you may see, I don't equate courts with government. In the Hebrew (or Aramaic, forgive my ignorance), there is a difference between dinim (or dinin) and melchuta. I think Rambam just comes right out and says "king". Although there may be some overlap, these are two different entities. In the english, there is a difference between courts and kings.
Have I missed the point? Have I misunderstood what was said? Please help me if I have.
Thanks again for your time and patience.
You've tempered my blade of "righteous indignation" ... at least somewhat. The way you explained it, that it is about the good of the community, showed me the essence of what seems to be said. I won't go into taxation. I think I'll leave that for my own platform. I hope that's OK with you.
So its inclusion in the Noahide Code (not the core Seven Commandments) is due to its rational nature. Oh ... oh yes, rational nature. I remember reading in your book in the laws concerning idolatry about the nature of rational obligations. Thank you for that.
With some of your wording, I still question it. For example,
"... also the Gentiles themselves, have an obligation in G-d's eyes to abide by their government's monetary laws"
I can understand when you say it is a logical or rational obligation. But when the phrase "in God's eyes", that's where I'm not so sure. It's a bit like where in other responses on this forum where it is said "God wants you to [insert something about obedience to government]". It seems dangerous to say "God wants x" when x can be so volatile and has a track record of not doing what God wants. That's why the judgment call is rather "for the good for the society" and faithfulness to the Seven (and wisdom with regards to protect one's own life and family) that would be restraints against just obeying government, even with regards to money.
As you may see, I don't equate courts with government. In the Hebrew (or Aramaic, forgive my ignorance), there is a difference between dinim (or dinin) and melchuta. I think Rambam just comes right out and says "king". Although there may be some overlap, these are two different entities. In the english, there is a difference between courts and kings.
Have I missed the point? Have I misunderstood what was said? Please help me if I have.
Thanks again for your time and patience.