dk

(double post) sorry

dk

lpetrich: I notice that dk has refused to look at any of pre-Justinian Roman law, much of which had gone into Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis. And he has refused to look at the rest of the Bible's numerous laws.
dk: I haven’t refused. I asked you guys to admit the modern judicial system didn’t begin with the Enlightenment, but a directly from the Justinian Code. I’ll assume you’ve conceded the point, and in conceding the point you’ve admitted the possibility that the UN DoIHR could be contingent upon the Ten Commandments.
lpetrich: Let's consider Rome's Twelve Tables, which had been composed completely independent of the Bible, and about which Cicero says (De oratore, L44),
Though all the world exclaim against me, I will say what I think: that single little book of the Twelve Tables, if anyone look to the fountains and sources of laws, seems to me, assuredly, to surpass the libraries of all the philosophers, both in weight of authority, and in plenitude of utility.
They have nothing related to religion in it, nothing about how to worship the Republic's recognized deities.
dk: You’re singing to the choir, I only reached back to the Justinian Code to demonstrate progress, jurisprudence and republican government were potted in a unified concept of moral law, derived from human nature, independent of [g]God[s][ess][es]’s. It was the Jews that refused to worship at the clay feet of Hellenism or Roman gods. It was the early Christians that refused to worship the Roman Emperors or their gods. I submit the concept of a constitutionally limited form of republican government follows from the Jews, not Hellenism or Romanism. Rome’s Twelve Tables ruled a society built upon class stratification of slaves, plebes, and partisans. The bloody Maccabean Revolt makes the point. The rule of law was founded on the concept of the 1st Commandment “Thou Shall Not have false God’s before me”, and “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” In Romans 2:14 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves” The Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg address drive the point home, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”

Ion

I disagree with this:
If the UN Chart of Human Rights was contingent upon commandments in the Bible, then there wouldn't be stark contrasts in between human rights like I posted above.

The Bible should be stand alone in defining eternal and absolute human rights, and not needing any evolution because it is alleged to be divine.
As a stand alone, the Bible loses in human rights when compared with the UN Chart of Human Rights.

Simply said:

Bible = bad, which throws suspicion about being 'divine';
UN Chart of Human Rights = better, and evolving with humans.

lpetrich

dk:
I asked you guys to admit the modern judicial system didn?t begin with the Enlightenment, but a directly from the Justinian Code.

Much of which is derived from pre-Justinian Roman sources. Also, modern European and European-derived legal systems have other sources, like Germanic sources. Anglo-Saxon countries have a remarkable faith in the verdicts of juries in criminal trials; other countries tend to prefer committees of judges.

I?ll assume you?ve conceded the point, and in conceding the point you?ve admitted the possibility that the UN DoIHR could be contingent upon the Ten Commandments.

The DoHR has nothing to with the 10C's.

Freedom of religion is completely contrary to command to worship no gods but one, not to practice whatever might be interpreted as "idolatry", to make every seventh day a day of sacred laziness, etc.

Forbidding murder and theft was not invented by the writers of the Bible, contrary to what some people seem to think. Also, the 10C's do not forbid injuring others or destroying others' property without permission, as the Twelve Tables do.

... I only reached back to the Justinian Code to demonstrate progress, jurisprudence and republican government were potted in a unified concept of moral law, derived from human nature, independent of [g]God[s][ess][es]?s.

Which is completely absent from the Bible, though present in Roman law. The Twelve Tables mentioned no gods whatsoever, and later legal scholarship tended to treat them as peripheral at best.

It was the Jews that refused to worship at the clay feet of Hellenism or Roman gods.

How were those religions supposed to be so absurd?

It was the early Christians that refused to worship the Roman Emperors or their gods.

The worship of which was allegedly at the command of the Christian God, according to Romans 13.

I submit the concept of a constitutionally limited form of republican government follows from the Jews, not Hellenism or Romanism.

Pure donkey dung. The only governments of the ancient Jews were either absolute monarchies or theocracies. And I wonder where dk thinks the term "republic" comes from.

Rome?s Twelve Tables ruled a society built upon class stratification of slaves, plebes, and partisans.

And the societies in the Bible were not much different; they took slavery for granted.

BTW, that was patricians vs. plebeians in the Roman Republic.

The rule of law was founded on the concept of the 1st Commandment ?Thou Shall Not have false God?s before me?, and ?Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar?s, and to God the things that are God?s.?

That is so idiotic that I do not know what to say. I wonder what dk calls many Romans' idolization of the Twelve Tables.

dk

dk: I asked you guys to admit the modern judicial system didn?t begin with the Enlightenment, but a directly from the Justinian Code.
lpetrich: Much of which is derived from pre-Justinian Roman sources. Also, modern European and European-derived legal systems have other sources, like Germanic sources. Anglo-Saxon countries have a remarkable faith in the verdicts of juries in criminal trials; other countries tend to prefer committees of judges.
dk: I have no idea what you mean by remarkable faith, but it sounds religious.

dk: I?ll assume you?ve conceded the point, and in conceding the point you?ve admitted the possibility that the UN DoIHR could be contingent upon the Ten Commandments.
lpetrich: The DoHR has nothing to with the 10C's.
Freedom of religion is completely contrary to command to worship no gods but one, not to practice whatever might be interpreted as "idolatry", to make every seventh day a day of sacred laziness, etc.
Forbidding murder and theft was not invented by the writers of the Bible, contrary to what some people seem to think. Also, the 10C's do not forbid injuring others or destroying others' property without permission, as the Twelve Tables do.
dk: I don’t know what some people think, and I certainly didn’t imply the Bible was an exclusive or original source of Human Law. It wasn’t until Saul that Israel was ruled by a King. Deuteronomy’s provisions for kingship separated Moses and Saul (first King) by almost 500 years. In 1Samuel 8:3 when the Israel people make known to Samuel (last Judge) their desire for a king, Samuel feels like he failed. God consoles Samuel by saying the Israeli people’s request was against Him, not Samuel. When I say the 1st Commandment conceives of a limited government, I mean that the Bible views kings with suspicion. In fact, the books of Deuteronomy, Samuel and Kings warn and rail against the dangers of kingship. Surely you see the point, the concept of a limited constitutional government stems from the 1st Commandment, and aluminates the concept of religious liberty in conjuncture with limited government powers. Comte, Nietzsche, Hegel and Marx rationalized that all human power be centralized in the institutions of government. Call it the Third Age of Knowledge, the Third Reich, Communism, Positivism, Scientism, or One World Government, what they all mean is a centralization of power.

dk: ... I only reached back to the Justinian Code to demonstrate progress, jurisprudence and republican government were potted in a unified concept of moral law, derived from human nature, independent of [g]God[s][ess][es]?s.
lpetrich: Which is completely absent from the Bible, though present in Roman law. The Twelve Tables mentioned no gods whatsoever, and later legal scholarship tended to treat them as peripheral at best.
dk: Really in Deuteronomy 17:16 limits the kings power saying, “But he shall not have a great number of horses, nor shall he make his people go back to Egypt to acquire them, against the Lord’s warning that you must never go back that way again. Neither shall he have a great number of wives, lest his heart be estranged, nor shall he accumulate a vast amount of silver and gold.” The “rule of law” under the principle of subsidiarity balances liberty, utility against freedom, but the “rule of Law” centralized in a few government and corporate institutions proposes tyranny.

dk: It was the Jews that refused to worship at the clay feet of Hellenism or Roman gods.
lpetrich: How were those religions supposed to be so absurd?
dk: I don’t understand the question, who said the Roman gods were absurd?

dk: It was the early Christians that refused to worship the Roman Emperors or their gods.
lpetrich: The worship of which was allegedly at the command of the Christian God, according to Romans 13.
dk: We seem to agree on the point, obviously the concept of religious liberty originates from the highest authority. The idea of a diverse society began with God, as opposed to whims of kings, tyrants or fascists.
dk: I submit the concept of a constitutionally limited form of republican government follows from the Jews, not Hellenism or Romanism.
lpetrich: Pure donkey dung. The only governments of the ancient Jews were either absolute monarchies or theocracies. And I wonder where dk thinks the term "republic" comes from.
dk: According to Webster ©
If the Greek City States were a republic they were ignorant of the fact.

dk: Rome’s Twelve Tables ruled a society built upon class stratification of slaves, plebes, and partisans.
lpetrich: And the societies in the Bible were not much different; they took slavery for granted.
BTW, that was patricians vs. plebeians in the Roman Republic.
dk: Societies of the ancient world differed. Most lay in ruins today, so perhaps you mean the ruins of extinct civilization and nation are all the same. Only a few ancient civilizations in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe survived and it appears they were all Jewish, Islamic or Christian.

dk: The rule of law was founded on the concept of the 1st Commandment ?Thou Shall Not have false God?s before me?, and ?Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar?s, and to God the things that are God?s.?
lpetrich: That is so idiotic that I do not know what to say. I wonder what dk calls many Romans' idolization of the Twelve Tables.
dk: The concept of universal inalienable human rights limits government power by appealing to a higher human ideal above the crass brutality and ceremony amplified by kings, militaries, bluebloods and demagogues.
The Roman Republic ended when the Senate made Augustus a living god.
Under Roman Law, it was treason not to worship the Roman Emperor or the gods of Rome, the first being Augustus (31 bce - 14ce). I have no idea where you’re going with this line, but the Roman Empire peaked around 200CE, under an imperial emperor worshipped as a living god.

dk

dk: The Ten Commandments don’t mention Slavery, but slavery exists all over the modern world and the UN turns a blind eye.
dk: Again, the Ten Commandments don’t mention slavery or torture. Slavery like divorce is tolerated in the OT, but they were not meant to be. In Jubilee years the slaves were given the opportunity to become freeman, or remain slaves. I would argue paying an employee 25 cents a week for a 80 hours work is worse than slavery! History shows slaves were often treated better as property than the working poor as freeman. Today modern day shanty towns in South America, Central America and Mexico exist to serve international corporate giants. Technically these shanty towns are built by freeman, but the reality is freeman can be treated worse than slaves because the working poor don’t count against the corporate balance sheet. One of the most striking examples in the US occurred in 19th Century New Orleans to clear the swamps. Slave owners diverted ships packed with Irish immigrants to the swamps where malaria, dysentery and consumptions struck down 2/3 Irish labors. A simple matter of utility, economics and inhumanity, slaves as properties were assets, and starving Irish freeman easily replaced by the next boat.

The UN DoIHR in a sense sanctions torture, slavery and corperate abuse with a blind eye where the Bible dealt honestly with the consequences of human corruption to make Israel a blessing to all the nations of the earth. You're the one that can't deal with reality.

Sorry Ion

Ion

dk,

in your last post you quote me, but mistakenly you write Ipetrich.

So your last post, attempts to answer me.

I say 'attempts', because it is another wide shot by you.

The thread is: 'UN Code versus the Bible'.

Instead, you are obsessed with a part of the Bible, the Ten Commandments.

Overcoming that obsession, you now can see that I pit:
UN Chart of Human Rights, Article 4 versus Exodus 21:4 from the Bible, and
UN Chart of Human Rights, Article 5 versus Exodus 21:6 from the Bible.

Conclusion:

a) Exodus 21:4 and 21:6 from the Bible, that's garbage;

b) Article 4 and Article 5 from the UN Chart of Human Rights, that's better.

dk

The thread topic compares the Ten Commandments to the UN DoIHR, not the bible. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on the book of Exodus or the institution of slavery, but relevance requires a link between Exodus and the Ten Commandments. You've provided no link, slavery exists today and existed 3,000 years ago. I submit regulating slavery doesn't condone, rationalize or moralize the institution, but can actually reform it.

lpetrich

lpetrich: ... Anglo-Saxon countries have a remarkable faith in the verdicts of juries in criminal trials; other countries tend to prefer committees of judges.
dk: I have no idea what you mean by remarkable faith, but it sounds religious.

Maybe it's something quasi-religious, but it is NOT something derived from the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible specify trial by jury.

dk: I don?t know what some people think, and I certainly didn?t imply the Bible was an exclusive or original source of Human Law.

Get a clue, O dk. On which planet have you been living?

dk: It wasn?t until Saul that Israel was ruled by a King.

So what? Moses had been a theocrat, if that makes any difference.

dk: ... When I say the 1st Commandment conceives of a limited government, I mean that the Bible views kings with suspicion. In fact, the books of Deuteronomy, Samuel and Kings warn and rail against the dangers of kingship. ...

That was NOT rejection of monarchy, just criticism of monarchs deemed wicked. And I notice that none of these monarch critics proposed replacing the monarchy with some other system of government.

dk: ... Surely you see the point, the concept of a limited constitutional government stems from the 1st Commandment, and aluminates the concept of religious liberty in conjuncture with limited government powers.

Which is absolute absurdity. It doesn't follow. It's like talking about a round square or a green chirp.

dk: Comte, Nietzsche, Hegel and Marx rationalized that all human power be centralized in the institutions of government. Call it the Third Age of Knowledge, the Third Reich, Communism, Positivism, Scientism, or One World Government, what they all mean is a centralization of power.

Where did Comte, Nietzsche, Hegel, and Marx allegedly propose this? Be specific.

Nietzsche did not propose rule by an impersonal state, but instead by aristocrat-heroes.

Marx's ideal society was one where the State had withered away, leaving behind a society of virtuous anarchists.

dk: Really in Deuteronomy 17:16 limits the kings power saying, ?But he shall not have a great number of horses, nor shall he make his people go back to Egypt to acquire them, against the Lord?s warning that you must never go back that way again. Neither shall he have a great number of wives, lest his heart be estranged, nor shall he accumulate a vast amount of silver and gold.? ...

So freaking what? This guy did NOT reject monarchy; he simply stated that monarchs ought not to be too greedy.

dk: It was the Jews that refused to worship at the clay feet of Hellenism or Roman gods.
lpetrich: How were those religions supposed to be so absurd?
dk: I don?t understand the question, who said the Roman gods were absurd?

What do you mean by "clay feet" here?

dk: It was the early Christians that refused to worship the Roman Emperors or their gods.
lpetrich: The worship of which was allegedly at the command of the Christian God, according to Romans 13.
dk: We seem to agree on the point, obviously the concept of religious liberty originates from the highest authority. The idea of a diverse society began with God, as opposed to whims of kings, tyrants or fascists.

Horse manure. Romans 13 states that whoever is in power is in power because the Christian God got them into power. Including kings, tyrants, and fascists.

dk: I submit the concept of a constitutionally limited form of republican government follows from the Jews, not Hellenism or Romanism.
lpetrich: Pure donkey dung. The only governments of the ancient Jews were either absolute monarchies or theocracies. And I wonder where dk thinks the term "republic" comes from.
dk: According to Webster ©
If the Greek City States were a republic they were ignorant of the fact. ...

So what if they had not called themselves "Public Things"?

dk: The concept of universal inalienable human rights limits government power by appealing to a higher human ideal above the crass brutality and ceremony amplified by kings, militaries, bluebloods and demagogues.

As opposed to allegedly saintly theocrats?

Ion

The thread compares all the Bible with all the UN Chart of Human Rights.

Having reading and comprehension shortcomings, dk?

Because I quote here, from the starting post, scigirl's goal for this thread:
Exodus is in the Bible, that's why.

Exodus 21:4 and 21:6 are 'divine' garbage, compared to the human made Article 4 and Article 5 of the UN Chart of Human Rights.