|
|
|
03-11-2005, 12:31 PM
|
#1 | |
|
-◊|≡·∙■·∙≡|◊-
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Parts unknown.
Posts: 4,081
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
♠ ♥ ♣ ♦ |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 12:43 PM
|
#2 | |
|
High Propagandist
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 111
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 01:26 PM
|
#3 | |||
|
whig
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain |
|||
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 01:30 PM
|
#4 |
|
changed his status to single
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
|
watch it jag - we may have to send you to a reform school for the anti-social.
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin |
|
|
|
|
03-12-2005, 04:00 PM
|
#5 | |
|
High Propagandist
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 111
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by iamthewalrus109; 03-12-2005 at 04:29 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-12-2005, 04:19 PM
|
#6 |
|
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right?
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 01:38 PM
|
#7 |
|
whig
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
|
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.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 01:47 PM
|
#8 | |
|
changed his status to single
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
|
Quote:
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin |
|
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 01:54 PM
|
#9 |
|
whig
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
|
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.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 02:47 PM
|
#10 | |
|
changed his status to single
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
|
Quote:
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin |
|
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 03:03 PM
|
#11 |
|
whig
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
|
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.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain Last edited by jaguar; 03-12-2005 at 07:11 AM. |
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 08:10 PM
|
#12 | ||
|
King Of Wishful Thinking
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 6,669
|
From here
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama |
||
|
|
|
|
03-11-2005, 11:46 PM
|
#13 | |
|
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Point of interest.
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. Quote:
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-12-2005, 12:46 PM
|
#14 | |
|
The urban Jane Goodall
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,012
|
Quote:
I think that it would get really ugly, really fast.
__________________
I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle |
|
|
|
|
|
03-12-2005, 03:33 PM
|
#15 | |
|
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
