American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

It's amusing to hear this coming from someone who so eloquently chastisted others on picking and choosing from Christian doctrine.

Thanks. I think...

Anywho, you can't take out the law against murder just because it says "thou shalt not kill". More to the point was that over time you could show people that not killing each other is just, generally, a good idea for everybody because it is sound reasoning not just because your invisible entity(ies) say so.

[jaguar]

Fuck, you're in need of a while on the whetstone aren't you? The whole goddamn point of the code of Hammurabi was that is NOT from the fact he was king, until then that's what a law meant - a king's edict, he changed all that. Fundamental to the code was the idea that some laws were too fundamental for even the king to change! Learn how to spell Hammurabi before you mouth off too. Hammurabi didn't believe he was descended from the gods either. Divination is what you're doing when you look for water with a forked stick or spend too long looking into your green tea, pick up a dictionary while you're looking for the history book.

Beestie - I seem to remember there was evidence that Roman law was descended from the code of Hammurabi, can you confirm/deny?

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by jaguar

...I seem to remember there was evidence that Roman law was descended from the code of Hammurabi...

No one can say for sure. But many have compared the two and some reasonable conclusions suggest the answer is yes while others suggest perhaps not.

Hammurabi's Code had 281 provisions - most of which were extremely specific (e.g., the eye for an eye as well as one for a bone for a bone) where as The Twelve Tables (Roman) are very brief and very general with few specificly outlined offenses. The Tables are half procedural and half actual laws. The Code tried to anticipate every wrong that might be done and specifically outlaw it whereas the Tables (with remarkable forsight) instead created a structure for resolving wrongs between citizens and actual criminal activity and, therefore, basically created the explicit distinction betwen criminal and civil law. You could essentially sue someone in ancient Rome. Another interesting thing about the Tables is that they were originally Ten. Two were later added: one for prohibiting marriage between the classes (codifying a 200 year old class struggle) and one that said essentially: "the laws and judges verdicts that preceded the Tables are still in effect". Such a provision is, one could say, the origin of common law - the notion that the collective decisions of judges actually becomes incorporated into subsequent interpretations of the law.

Since the Code predated the Tables by over 1,000 years, its hard to imagine that the Romans were not at least aware of it although they certainly did not simply adopt a marked-up version of it. They really started from scratch and created an entire legal system whereas the Code was really a comprehensive set of rules. Hammurabi indicated that he wrote the Code so that "men might know what is expected of them." The Romans, I think, were more concerned with coming up with a consistent and systemitized way of dealing with criminal and tortuous behavior over the entire Empire.

Good question, though.

[iamthewalrus109]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Fuck, you're in need of a while on the whetstone aren't you? The whole goddamn point of the code of Hammurabi was that is NOT from the fact he was king, until then that's what a law meant - a king's edict, he changed all that. Fundamental to the code was the idea that some laws were too fundamental for even the king to change! Learn how to spell Hammurabi before you mouth off too. Hammurabi didn't believe he was descended from the gods either. Divination is what you're doing when you look for water with a forked stick or spend too long looking into your green tea, pick up a dictionary while you're looking for the history book.

Beestie - I seem to remember there was evidence that Roman law was descended from the code of Hammurabi, can you confirm/deny?

Testy, testy. Must be on one of your cycles Jag or should I call you rag. If you noticed I spelt Hammurabi right the first time, I guess mispelling isn't part of your set of faults now is it, or wait your perfect, you've never hit a key one key stoke away in error. In any event, the term divination has more than that meaning associated with it than that, which includes: "uttered under divine inspiration" basically refering to the king's supernatural connection as a representative of a god here on earth. If I wanted to use the term divine right I would have used it. Furthermore, I would like to say one can pick apart any of your posts, but most of them are too short and emotional to take anything away and have a true discussion. Furthmore, there's no need for personal insults or profanity, let's look at the reality of the code.

Here's a good example taken from a Fordham paper on the subject:

'The Code did not merely embody contemporary custom or conserve ancient law. It is true that centuries of law-abiding and litigious habitude had accumulated in the temple archives of each city vast stores of precedent in ancient deeds and the records of judicial decisions, and that intercourse had assimilated city custom. The universal habit of writing and perpetual recourse to written contract even more modified primitive custom and ancient precedent. Provided the parties could agree, the Code left them free to contract as a rule. Their deed of agreement was drawn up in the temple by a notary public, and confirmed by an oath "by god and the king." '

'The judges' decision might, however, be appealed against. Many contracts contain the proviso that in case of future dispute the parties would abide by "the decision of the king."'

The god of a city was originally owner of its land, which encircled it with an inner ring of irrigable arable land and an outer fringe of pasture, and the citizens were his tenants. The god and his viceregent, the king, had long ceased to disturb tenancy, and were content with fixed dues in naturalia, stock, money or service.

Bibliography.
Contracts in general: Oppert and Menant, Documents juridiques de l'Assyrie et de la Chaldee (Paris, 1877); J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser, Aus dem Babylonischen Rechtsleben (Leipzig, 1890 ff.); F. E. Peiser, Babylonische Vertrage (Berlin, 1890), Keilinschrifiliche Actenstucke (Berlin, 1889); Br. Meissner, Beitrage zur altbabylonischen Privatrecht (Leipzig, 1893); F. E. Peiser, "Texte juristischen und geschaftlichen Inhalts," vol. iv. of Schrader's Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (Berlin, 1896); C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents relating to the Transfer of Property (3 vols., Cambridge, 1898); H. Radau, Early Babylonian History (New York, 1900); C. H. W. Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters (Edinburgh, 1904).

In reviewing the literature it is apparent that the code was a refinement of laws, deeds, and policy as put down and recorded by the temples and clerics. This was to consolidate cities, and remove many of the vestiges of nomadic life. In the end the king still held powers over the social strata that was also laid out in the code. This power was dervived not from popular will but by sucession and blood lines. Do you really think that individuals in 1780 BC would listen to any other authority?

"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, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." - Hammurabi's code of laws (translated by L.W. King)

-Walrus

[jaguar]

the term divination has more than that meaning associated with it than that, which includes: "uttered under divine inspiration" basically refering to the king's supernatural connection as a representative of a god here on earth.

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.

In future time, through all coming generations, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have written on my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the rule, statute, and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the miscreants and criminals from this land, and grant prosperity to his subjects.

Just in case that was unclear:

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. May Bel, the lord, who fixeth destiny, whose command can not be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a rebellion which his hand can not control; may he let the wind of the overthrow of his habitation blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in groaning, years of scarcity, years of famine, darkness without light, death with seeing eyes be fated to him; may he (Bel) order with his potent mouth the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal of his name and memory from the land.

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.

[lookout123]

watch it jag - we may have to send you to a reform school for the anti-social.

[jaguar]

Hey, it's cathartic, I've had 7 hours sleep since sunday and I'll be redlining it till tuesday, get it out my system here I'm less likely to do it to a client or some random unfortunate.

[lookout123]

I've had 7 hours sleep since sunday

lay off the meth, man. it is bad for your skin.

[jaguar]

If I was going to use anything it'd be coke but let's face it, i'm arrogant enough without rubbing that stuff into my gums.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

...
a general spirtuality engenders compassion,

I've seen no evidence of this.

In addition western secular law is based on religious teachings, laws, and philosophy. Without it there would have been no secular law as we know it.

That's insane. There simply is no way to support the concept that without religion there would be anarchy. I even will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would not start murdering people if you lost your faith - likewise, even in the absence of religion, murder would remain illegal.

Without the concept of inherent rights there would be no United States, or great modern republics to speak of. Rights given by man, can be taken away by man, it's a simple as that.

The exercise of all rights can be abridged by man, no matter where you claim the rights came from. Hopefully, other men will attempt to prevent the abridgement of those rights, but there are no divine guarantees of that. In the end, what we call inalienable rights are rights that we do not believe the government is ever justified in abridging. If the government disagrees, it is up to the people to stop it.

In fact, if religious people believe the government has a religious basis, they will be less inclined, not more inclined, to dispute any abridgement of rights, as is evident under kings and George W Bush.

What is to guide government in the future without a higher order. Government can't guide itself, governments then would become a religion un to itself.

Only if they are considered to be infalible. Governments should be secular and suspect. When a government gains a sheen of divine basis, that discourages suspicion.

Government must be steered by something other than itself.

It must be steered by compassion and the people. Not all of us require God's orders in order to be compassionate, and I suspect that even most people who believe that morality comes from God would have still been moral if raised as atheists.

If not than the federal government should stop being in the business of tax collection and intrusion into the lives of the inhabitants of this continent and serve itself.

Well, that's a non-sequitur. Government isn't a corporation, it is the mechanism to regulate the smooth operation of society.

Government for government's sake is self-serving and illogical.

True. Government isn't for government's sake, it is for the sake of doing things collectively that we can't do individually.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

It's all well and good to compartmentalize like that, no religion in politics, but secualrism isn't enough, I'm sorry. It's literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. State sponsored religion is one thing, but not to acknowledge the existence of something above man's world is narrow. The simple fact that GW rode a horse, and George Bush drives around in a bulletproof Cadilac means nothing, what does that have to do with anything. Both share death. Both need and needed to take a shit at least 3-5 times a week too. These types of details are irrelevant. I think it's wrong to strafe America just for it's economic system, it removes the underlying forces that created it and fostered it's growth. This ardent move toward overt secularism is a shift wrought at the hands of humanist slime willing to deep six the spirit of this country for there pocket book and they're plithy world view. Politics must be guided by some moral conscious, the will of secular law is not enough, and never will be. Fine remove more organized religious idealology, ie. evangelical Chrisitainity, from the core of political motivations, but never allow the belief that something created us all, be tampered with. Whether it be fate, science, or Hashem, there needs to be a recognition of a higher power. That's the core of all of our legal documents, unalieable rights, given from up on high, not by man!

-Walrus

Come on now, I think you know what my analogy mean't concerning Gw And Gb. I think you chose to oversimplify my point purposely. You know, this country was founded on christian theology. At that time, secularism was not prevalent. I agree politics should be guided by basic morality. However, that does not mean religion. We have a president, that based his election on morality. He was backed by the likes of Jerry Faldwell and other right wing religious groups with money as well as public media attention. I don't ever remember seeing the word "higher power" in the constitution. Also, I have never heard that term used by GB. I have seen the word God used in the pledge of allegiance. I have heard our president speak of God, But I have never heard him say the word "higher power". You did not address the rest of my post. We are promoting democracy in Iraq. What happens when one sect of the Islamic faith rules the country. Will that be democracy. I don't think so
I think it will be closer to cival war, which in the long road will lead back to a dictatorship of some kind. I hope not. However, societies appear to be cyclical........

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by jaguar

, i'm arrogant enough without rubbing that stuff into my gums.

i once new a guy who rubbed it on his cock between innings. what an obscene waste of money, eh?

[jaguar]

I don't know what's worse, fucking on coke and thinking you're god's gift while you probably can't get it up of doing the equivalent or smoking by sticking it in your ear.

[richlevy]

From here

Adolfo Scilingo
"They were unconscious. we stripped them, and when the flight commander gave the order, we opened the door and threw them out, naked, one by one. That is the story, and nobody can deny it." With these words, former Argentine navy Captain Adolfo Francisco Scilingo, 48, spilled one of the dirtiest secrets of the "dirty war" that raged in his country from the mid-1970s through the early '80s. Human-rights workers and relatives of at least 9,000 Argentines who "disappeared" under military rule have long contended that the missing were systematically murdered by troops acting on orders from the ruling generals. But Scilingo is the first ex-officer to echo these charges in public.

For the next two years, he remembers, some 15 to 20 prisoners were trucked every Wednesday to the Buenos Aires airport, put on a military plane, and then dropped, drugged but alive, from a height of about 13,000 ft. into the Atlantic Ocean.

Scilingo estimates that between 1,500 and 2,000 people "disappeared" in this manner from his base alone. He admits responsibility for 30 of them. He says he was ordered to participate in two of the death flights in 1977, adding that his fellow officers drew the same sort of assignment: "It was to give everyone a turn, a kind of Communion." On his first flight, Scilingo helped strip and then throw 13 victims out of a coast guard Sky Van; on his second, he did the same to 17 more out of a navy Elektra.

"Personally, I could never get over the shock," he says now, even though he still feels the fight against "subversives" was for a righteous cause. His first death flight so disturbed Scilingo that he went to a navy chaplain: "He told me that it was a Christian death because they did not suffer, that it was necessary to eliminate them." The Roman Catholic Church, long criticized for tolerating the military, responded last week with a veiled mea culpa chastising priests who may have condoned the "dirty war." But human-rights activists still called upon the church to acknowledge openly its sins of omission.

I have read claims that religion is the source of law, and that human law is derived from religion. In my opinion, the opposite is true. Religion is created, and is amended, in response to human desires for order and absolution. I added the quote from the Argentine trial to illustrate that when circumstances changed in Argentina, as they have changed in the US, even religious authorities changed in their response. Instead of religion providing leadership, religious authority was lead by events and moral cowardice into ignoring their responsibility.

God either exists or does not. If God exists, he existed before religion because religion was created by men. Religion is to spirituality and God what farming is to plants growing, it is an attempt by man to domesticate what occurs naturally. Saying that you need religion to experience spirituality or God is like saying that plants only grow on farms.

Natural law exists for all animals, especially mammals. Most animals are arranged in groups - prides, flocks, packs, etc. Many of these groups have some form of natural law. In most cases, the natural law is brutally efficient. Man's law probably started out as primitive as that of a wolf pack. It was only later that any attempt to protect the weak was considered, probably when conditions improved to allow it.

Saying that religion is the only path to social order is almost as bad as saying that one specific religion is better than all of the others at providing social order. History pretty much disproves that idea. If God instilled in us, through divine spark or evolution, the qualities of compassion which most animals lack, he did it before there was any religion to worship him for it.

Mankind is perfectly capable of seeking social order without religion. Sometimes this is through positive efforts like charity and inclusion. Sometimes this is through negative efforts like authoritarianism and tyranny. Either of these types of efforts can be wrapped in religion, but they do not have to be. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was not religious.

In general, without knowing anything else, I can trust a man who declares himself an atheist as much as I can trust a man who wears his faith on his sleeve. I don't know many atheists, but I do know some self-proclaimed 'righteous men' who I wouldn't trust with a nickel.

Men imprint themselves on their religion, not the other way around.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian, maybe that's why writing the basis of our government was left to him.
He was his own man with his own beliefs similar to deism
He even wrote his own bible.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.