Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaguar
Let's see a ref for that thanks, personally I use the Cambridge dictionary, I see no reference to this in there. You didn't mean to use divine, that wouldn't have made any sense. Stick to shorter words, they suit you. I have a long history of some impressive typos here, some of the older users will be able to attest to that one however misspelling the key term doesn't bode well for your understanding of the topic. It didn't. If you wish, with the ease and grace that the awesome latent powers as you suggest you possess would imply, go ahead and pick apart my posts. Don't hold back now, I'd hate to get the wrong impression of you because you were debating with one lobe tied behind your back.
Now while you've managed some impressive use of cut and paste there, bonus points for that. You seem to have failed to make a point though, pity about that. Yes, in the event of disputes the king was the final authority. I never denied this. You know most people would have been happy to accept that statement without a bibliography longer than your post content, you're wasting precious electrons.
I will however reinforce my position with these little quotes from the code epilogue.
Just in case that was unclear:
Both taken from this translation.
Aren't primary sources great?
I hope this makes it clear, the code was meant to be above kings, this was key. There aren't many ways of making this clearer than hoping someone's scepter breaks, them's fightin' words. Hammurabi wrote the code to please his gods but did not consider himself of divine lineage. I cannot make this any clearer. Go on, prove me wrong.
Personally, I feel there is a need for personal insults and profanity. A condition brought on by this flagrant case of not knowing what the fuck you're talking about exacerbated by insipid flirtations with the moral high ground. I make no attempt not to be abrasive when I feel the need, of course that need tends to be linked to displays of intemperate stupidity. |
Well it's nice to see that there are still blatant elitists/pompus asses/clods still walking around on earth, sometimes I get worried that aren't enough of you around. You still haven't gotten my point and doubt you ever will. I was making reference to the authority of the king through God, and that this code was constructed to see that goodness and greatness of God bestowed on all his people. In the Epilogue of the code it also states that Hammurabi also condems destruction to whomever breaks the code to the God of righteousness, because he would be dead you brute, of course it was supposed to go past the lives of kings. Men carrying on man made tradition is fool hearty and ill-advised, but as exhibited by the ruin of Babylon. Your continued obsession over the word divination gives me a hint that you are probably nothing more than a hyped up bean counter with time to waste posting here for all the many years you've been spouting your nonsense. I would love to scrutinize one of your posts, but they seem to be attack oriented and of a venomous and contemptious nature with little more than negative dim whitted sarcasm attached to each worthless word.
To my point:
"Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I. My words are well considered; my deeds are not equaled; to bring low those that were high; to humble the proud, to expel insolence. If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king's reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I have written in my inscription,
if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods, who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his scepter, curse his destiny"
- This section binds his curse to future leaders by the will of God, which is my point on the code it's bound by God, the king is just the God's representative, that was my contention, you chose to view it as only the king's authority, that's your problem.
"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth;
then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land"
- this goes to my point on divination, in many accounts of Hammurabi's inspiration of the law, and in the very text of the code, he makes reference to divine inspiration, in the name of righteousness, being spoken to and so forth. This isn't even taking into account that he consulted an oracle from time to time.
On the issue of my use of divination, my usuage of the word was in reference to what Hammurabi felt was his calling. My usage was as such: Example: Oxford English Dictionary: "the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural needs" Example : American Heritage Dictionary: "Something that has been divined"
Whether Hammurabi believed it to be set from high or not, which I believe he did, the fact remains that the authority set out in the law stems from God, or Gods in this case, that's it, and frankly I refuse to be daunted by your chastising, it's a matter of interpretation on the usage of this word. Your chose to look at any possible given meaning to the contrary, avoiding the fact that, although this set of laws had many secular applications and regualted many mundane processes, the prologue and the epilogue make reference to the heavenly nature of its origin. The concept of doing good is the key point here, why do good, because its the right thing to do? Says who? Some guy, no it's the representive of God in this case, that's all. I refuse to address any further commentary my spelling mistakes, I think a simple spelling error says nothing about comprehesion or knowledge of a subject if done in haste and in an informal medium such as this.
-Walrus