Withered

Please back this up with some sort of evidence.
Since you said exclusively, how does Sharia law fit into that view? Does it come exclusively from the hebrew bible?

gdeering

I have always wondered about this, particularly since our political philosophy stems from the Greeks and our governing system bears the stamp of the Romans?

Perhaps you were thinking of Iran?

ajgrovery

so you replaced rape with sacrifice and say i misread??

IamJoseph

If the world is still in chaos and conflict, it must equally be pointed at the Greeks and Romans - blindly glorified by Christianity. These were horrible empires which set the status quo for the medevial church, the Stalinst and Nazi regimes.

The Greeks and Romans held laws allowing one to murder a baby if it was considered not beautiful enough, and genocided many nations if they did not accept their religions. While there was great conquerings - the so-called advancements for humanity [e.g. new tarred roads and allowing inter-marraige] were solely based on more efficient conquerings and concubines of the conquered, and hardly to foster good laws and advocations for humanity. Some of the chanted slogans were:

WOE UNTO THE MEEK - GLORY TO THE VICTOR.

Greeks did not introduce Democrasy either - this comes from the Hebrew bible, which the Greeks totally corrupted. Democrasy is NOT:

LET THE MAJORITY DECIDE. [This is open to great corruption - because it has no precedent factor of first assuring no corruption or enforcement imposed on the peoples!].

True demcrasy is here:

'YOU SHALL NOT FOLLOW A CORRUPT MULTITUDE' [Hebrew bible/ One of the mandated laws from the Mosaic five books].

The latter establishes that the majority can and must decide - but only where there is no corruption in the laws preamble. In the absence of the Hebrew version - it is not democrasy, nor did Greece follow the majority votings. Arafat got only 96% voting sccess - but he was beaten by Sadaam Hussein who got a 100% voting success.

It is affirmed that no laws followed in any western institution comes from the Romans or the Greeks. This is due to the discovery of America, which based its Constitution on the Hebrew laws - which is a negation of those held in her kin peoples of Europe. It is the reason behind a subtle underlying discourse between these two nations today. The light was shown via America to humanity, and despite some errors here and there - she strives to incline on a higher treshold.

IamJoseph

One must define what a law is - and this is not what only one religion's adherents follow, but what is accepted by others from many different religions, and accepted into their judiciary, family and civic Institutions. I know of not a single Islamic law which falls in that category - please correct me if I'm wrong?

George S

My Roman Catholic older sister dismisses such OT verses as applying to Jews, not Christians.

My Orthodox Jewish younger sister dismisses such OT verses as historical injunctions given only once. In that time and place it was God's orders. Confined to that time and place only.

I tell them both that their God is imaginary. They laugh and say, "Won't you be surprised!" They somehow manage to agree that the three of us will meet in an afterlife regardless of individual beliefs!

No fixed set of rules can embody morality. Pure Kant (morality is solely the result of reason) is just not the way we do it. (I am reading Marc Hauser's Moral Minds this week.)

No Ten (or N) Commandments can possibly encompass morality.

Whence then morality? Endowed by the blind watchmaker with mirror neurons we have empathy. Actual emotions/feelings activated when either I or a conspecific is observed to do a specific behavior. We can imagine what it must be like to be another human being (psychopaths lack this skill).

Our built-in moral calculus involves reasoning sometimes, emotional reaction sometimes, and sometimes both at once. When probed for an explanation as to why the particular decision was made (utilitarian, deontological) experimental subjects usually did not accurately identify what their unconscious did. Empathy -- projection of what it must be like -- plays a role. When the imagined situation leads to disgust that plays a role. When the imagined situation leads to pain and suffering on the part of a feeling being that plays a role. Whether the consequences are intended or merely foreseen plays a role. And sometimes calm reflection actually overrides the gut reaction. The "on second thought" phenomenon.

IamJoseph

That's an omission of a fulcrum factor: European christianity mass murdered more innocent peoples than any other source in geo-history - even when their last 3 worst centuries are not included in that count. Nor is there any question where the world's moral laws comes from - exclusively. The 'COME CURSE ME ISRAEL' is based on distortions and omissions:

How can a moral premise be made without mentioning the Israelites were first targeted for genocide – it becomes a lie-by-omission. The Medianites first made attempts to massacre the Israelites, attacking them in the deserts, from behind and in the night, targeting the last row of mothers and children and the aged, taking hostages, and leaving the Israelites no food by burning all storage of grains. When it was seen that the Israelites became a hardy and powerful peoples, and had conquered ther nations in the deserts – they saught to eliminate them via other means - including sending their women dressed as provocative harlots, who poisoned the men's drinks and the men then attacked them. The chant, ‘COME CURSE ME ISRAEL’ was meant to destroy the entire Israelite nation with no confusion possible – because it was known that Israelites were returning to their own land, which they lived in before, and had this right of entry. If history repeats itself - some countries are equally engaged in the same phenomenon today.

gdeering

Wow, that was hard to follow. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of the Israelite democracy at any time before 1948? Luckily most of the founders of the US were as close to atheists as was possible in polite mid-18th century intellectual society. They backed up their words with deeds. Luckily we don't have to be circumcised to be US citizens.

Gregg

sharrock

A digression but possibly of interest... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0226141108.htm

Keith&Co.

Affirmed? In some circles, they say 'I promise that...' or 'I swear that...'
In the Navy we said: "This is no shit..."
Doesn't make it any more true, no matter how much you really, sincerely mean to say that it is.


The problem is, many of the Ten Commandments would be unconstitutional if legislated in America. Exactly how can our legal system be based on something it finds so philosophically offensive?