Freethought & Rationalism Archive

George S · 03-03-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharrock

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Whence then morality?

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

That is certainly consistent with Marc Hauser's Moral Minds.

sharrock · 03-03-2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

It is affirmed that no laws followed in any western institution comes (sic) from the Romans or the Greeks.

Roman law in a broad sense refers not only to the legal system of ancient Rome, but also to the law that was applied throughout most of Western Europe until the end of the 18th century. In some countries like Germany the practical application of Roman law lasted even longer. For these reasons, many modern civil law systems in Europe and elsewhere are heavily influenced by Roman law. This is especially true in the field of private law. Even the English and North American Common law owes some debt to Roman law although Roman law exercised much less influence on the English legal system than on the legal systems of the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law

Am I missing something ?

show_no_mercy · 03-03-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

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].

Pure democracy means following the multitude whether it's "corrupt" or not. You seem to be twisting definitions to suit your argument. Any argument can be "won" if you're allowed to change the definition of words willy-nilly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

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.

Just to pick on the 10 commandments...

"You shall have no other gods before me"? - in other words, screw the 1st Amendment

"Remember the sabbath"? No one seems to be getting arrested for working on Saturday

"You shall not make any graven images? (Idols) - in other words, screw the 1st amendment

"Don't take the lord's name in vain"? - in other words, screw the 1st amendment (free speech is for the blasphemous)

None of these laws are upheld in the US.

And of course, the other 6:
Don't murder (you know, this was COMPLETELY UNHEARD of before Judaism)

Don't steal (again.. COMPLETELY UNHEARD of concept before those radial Jews!)

Don't lie (What? Don't lie? There's NEVER been a religion prior to Judaism that had this tenant! NONE!!!)

Don't commit adultry/steal your neighbor's wife/house/possessions (again... this was such a radical concept! Jews were on the cutting edge of morality - no other religion prior to the establishment of the 10 commandments even THOUGHT of such progressive morality!)

Honor your parents (wow... filial piety was such a foreign idea to those confusians/buddhists and other Eastern philosophies/religions! I wonder why they adopted such obviously Occidental laws???)

marc123 · 03-03-2009, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

'All' moral, ethical and Judiciary laws the world follows comes exclusively from the Hebrew bible. Sounds very far fetched and haughty - but please - check it out. :wave:

Um, the british common law, which is where the canadian common law comes from is based on the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta makes no reference to the bible.

Toto · 03-03-2009, 09:01 AM

Most of us know that. "IamJoseph" is a newcomer who is posting too much stuff to keep up with, but seems to have some very strange ideas about Judaism but no reliable sources.

semiopen · 03-03-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajgrovery

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

There was a quite interesting discussion of this on here a few months ago.

Your interpretation is rather amazing.

The girls spared probably had never had their first period.

The chapter goes on to suggest that some of the girls may have been human sacrifices. This may partially explain why mature women weren't selected because they would be ritually impure.

I can't think of many things more imoral than sacrificing impure women.

I suggest you read the bible more carefully.

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

I was sort of joking.

But, you are reading rape and virgin into the text when it is not justified.

Rape is unlikely because the Midianites induced the Israelites into sexual excess. Only one out of 500 was sacrificed, if that is how we interpret verse 28.

This is from this link:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html

Quote:

31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

Rape does not follow from this.

31:28 And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
31:29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

Human sacrifice? Maybe. Personally, I think I'm taking it pretty calmly.

I've mentioned in previous posts that moral lessons are hard to come by in the Hebrew Bible, maybe that's one of the reasons its such a great book.

IamJoseph · 03-03-2009, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

Perhaps you can point me in the direction of the Israelite democracy at any time before 1948?

This was quite an advanced society even 3000 years ago: human sacrifice and capital punishment was forbidden for the first time in history, and the will of the people was represented by an elected Profit [biblespeak for the peoples' rep]; sp. the case between King David and the prophet Nathan - the king lost when Nathan accused him of wrong doing - and he had to accept the punishent, which he did readilly. Such is not seen any place again - maybe till Nixon was impeached!

Quote:

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

Being atheist can also be described as in negation of medevial Europe [Galeleo can also be termed the same way, so can Eiinstein by virtue they were imprisoned by non-sustainable doctrines and dogmas]. This does not change the issue of which laws and precepts the Constitution emerged from. No one to my knowledge has ever been demanded to circumsize - except it is seen as condusive to better health and lesser risk factors.

IamJoseph · 03-03-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharrock

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

It is affirmed that no laws followed in any western institution comes (sic) from the Romans or the Greeks.

Roman law in a broad sense refers not only to the legal system of ancient Rome, but also to the law that was applied throughout most of Western Europe until the end of the 18th century. In some countries like Germany the practical application of Roman law lasted even longer. For these reasons, many modern civil law systems in Europe and elsewhere are heavily influenced by Roman law. This is especially true in the field of private law. Even the English and North American Common law owes some debt to Roman law although Roman law exercised much less influence on the English legal system than on the legal systems of the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law

Am I missing something ?

Your confusing laws with procedure and process. These are not laws but a protocol how the law is to be processed:

Quote:

The Twelve Tables

TABLE I (Civil procedure)
Si in ius vocat, ito. Ni it, antestamino. Igitur em capito.
If someone is called to go to court, he has to go. If he doesn't go, a witness should be called. Only then should he be captured.

Si calvitur pedemve struit, manum endo iacito. Si morbus aevitasve vitium escit, iumentum dato. Si nolet, arceram ne sternito.
If he shirks or flees, he should be captured. If illness or old age is an impediment, let him be given a carriage. If he doesn't want it, it should not be covered.

Serious illness. . . or else a day appointed with an enemy; . . . if any of these is an impediment for the judge or any party, on that day proceedings must end.

Cui testimonium defuerit, is tertiis diebus ob portum obvagulatum ito.
One who seeks the testimony from an absent person should wail before his doorway every third day.

IamJoseph · 03-03-2009, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

"You shall have no other gods before me"? - in other words, screw the 1st Amendment

'IN GOD WE TRUST'. Singular. There is no alternative to this factor for those who uphold any beliefs - not even via science and math.

Quote:

"Remember the sabbath"? No one seems to be getting arrested for working on Saturday

One day of rest in 7 is mandatory.

Quote:

"You shall not make any graven images? (Idols) - in other words, screw the 1st amendment

You can make graven images - except for worshiping. This is not against the Constitution, but serves as an advocation denoting the singularity of it. 'YOU SHALL NOT' = you will not be able to vindicate such a belief.

Quote:

"Don't take the lord's name in vain"? - in other words, screw the 1st amendment (free speech is for the blasphemous)

This refers to contractual law and one's pledges.

Quote:

None of these laws are upheld in the US.

All does not have to be upheld to warrent exclusively where the laws of the C come from - in fact the source factor is acknowledged by those who compiled the Constitution. The substantial majority and essence are upheld, while no other religion's laws are contained therein.

Quote:

And of course, the other 6:
Don't murder (you know, this was COMPLETELY UNHEARD of before Judaism)

Don't steal (again.. COMPLETELY UNHEARD of concept before those radial Jews!)

Don't lie (What? Don't lie? There's NEVER been a religion prior to Judaism that had this tenant! NONE!!!)

Don't commit adultry/steal your neighbor's wife/house/possessions (again... this was such a radical concept! Jews were on the cutting edge of morality - no other religion prior to the establishment of the 10 commandments even THOUGHT of such progressive morality!)

Honor your parents (wow... filial piety was such a foreign idea to those confusians/buddhists and other Eastern philosophies/religions! I wonder why they adopted such obviously Occidental laws???)

That they subsisted pre-Hebrew bible is an affirmation of their valdity, not a negation. Many other eronous laws are not included. One can learn of the theory of relativity - but how many can edit and correct it?

IamJoseph · 03-03-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

'All' moral, ethical and Judiciary laws the world follows comes exclusively from the Hebrew bible. Sounds very far fetched and haughty - but please - check it out. :wave:

Um, the british common law, which is where the canadian common law comes from is based on the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta makes no reference to the bible.

The MC was a late affirmation of the law subsisting - as opposed to the whims and dogmas of rule over citizens. This affirms the Hebrew bible, which declares the law shall rule, namely the message - not a name of a messenger. There are no names attached to the Hebrew laws, they are prisitine and stand on its own validity - the reason it was accepted by the world.

Quote:

Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to nobles and barons), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2009, 09:01 AM	#25
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Most of us know that. "IamJoseph" is a newcomer who is posting too much stuff to keep up with, but seems to have some very strange ideas about Judaism but no reliable sources.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.