Ion

Too much taking of a "...happy pill and you'll feel better." in your own approach to the Bible, dk?

Again:
Exodus 21:4 and 21:6 are thrashing the Bible, not me.

Short of your own taking of a "...happy pill...", what should I do now, dk?

Erase Exodus 21:4 from the Bible?
Erase Exodus 21:6 from the Bible?
...
Erase Deuteronomy 13:4 from the Bible, because it has religious intolerance in it?
...

Gee dk,
what's left and good in the Bible, then?

Much?

lpetrich

I still don't see the connection.

Except that the Corpus Juris Civilis has mostly pagan Roman, and not Biblical, antecedents. Furthermore, the Church itself might be called a one-world government; it has an overall leader, the Pope, and a capital city, the Vatican.

The main thing that those two thinkers believed in was that human history is progress driven by dialectic laws. Although Hegel had believed that the Prussian State was an advanced stage in the dialectic development of history, Marx had believed that human history will ultimately produce a society of virtuous anarchists.

Which is the opposite of dk's just-like-the-Church villainy. dk reminds me of Mr. Spock in STTOS "I: Mudd" confusing two pretty-lady robots by saying that he loves one of them and hates the other, because the two are exactly identical.

So their main villainy was worshipping deities other than the one worshipped by the priestly faction that had composed much of the Bible.

However, Greece and Rome had, at least in earlier centuries, gone much further in establishing that leaders were not allowed to be absolute autocrats. Where do the terms "democracy" and "republic" come from? Not from the Bible.

(dk's moaning and groaning about the UN...)

While we are at it, let's not forget to moan and groan about the Church.

dk

dk: Cutting to the quick, we seem to agree on Hegel and Marx,. What Hegel called the Dialects of History, Marx called Dialectic Materialism.

Like all monotheists the Catholic Church sees an “unmoved mover” as the author of pluralistic reality where Hegel and Marx demand a Gnostic view that synthesized god from progress.

I would argue both Spock and Mudd were mistaken. In reality two identical things differ by nothing, and if two things differ by nothing then logic demands they are the same thing.
dk: The Kings broke the Covenant by worshipping false gods. The Bible applied the same law to priests and kings, so in a sense everyone got equal treatment under the law. Hey, that sounds like the concept of equality in the US Declaration of Independence.
dk: My dictionary says the term “democracy” was coined in 1574, and “republic” 1604. The Ancient Greeks had both democratic and a republic forms, and they still bled themselves to death fighting endless petty wars between city/states. Rome gave up a republic form of a government for a emperor, just like the French under Napoleon. My point is that both Hegel and Marx are left spinning their wheels in the blooded history of the 20th Century. I’m not saying there isn’t progress, only that morality and ethics progress on a different scale from science and government. The idea that systematically turns progress into a god has some serious flaws moving into the 3rd Millennium.

Ion

dk,
you keep on rambling in the thread 'UN Code versus the Bible'.

dk

What is the source of UN DoHR, apart from the bible?

Ion

The source of the UN Code of Human Rights, that's for another thread.

In this thread, the morality of the UN Code of Human Rights is compared against the morality in the Bible.

They are antagonist to each other, in examples that I gave.

lpetrich

dk: Cutting to the quick, we seem to agree on Hegel and Marx,. What Hegel called the Dialects of History, Marx called Dialectic Materialism.

That is correct -- they agreed that there were dialectic laws of history. Which I consider to be a big load of bovine excrement; Marxists seem fond of using "contradiction" as a synonym for "conflict".

dk seems to believe that all his villains are alike -- that they are villainous mirror images of the Catholic Church.

dk: The Kings broke the Covenant by worshipping false gods. The Bible applied the same law to priests and kings, so in a sense everyone got equal treatment under the law. Hey, that sounds like the concept of equality in the US Declaration of Independence.

Only by a rather extreme stretch of the imagination. One could deduce equality under the law from any set of laws intended to apply to all.

dk: My dictionary says the term ?democracy? was coined in 1574, and ?republic? 1604.

Good Grief! Those are when English speakers started using those words.

My point is that both Hegel and Marx are left spinning their wheels in the blooded history of the 20th Century.

Except that there has been no shortage of bloodbaths before that -- there were simply fewer people to kill.

So I don't think that the 20th century is especially depraved in that regard, which is what dk seems to believe.

lpetrich

I'm sure that dk can quote the exact Bible verses that the UN DoHR had been copied from.

dk

dk: I don’t see villains lurking under shadows, but I’m compelled to recognize the utopian hogwash that Hegel and Marx called progress. I’m prodding for an answer to my inquiry.
dk: I would agree wholly with the second sentence, and because equality under the law limits the power of governments all freedom loving people find the idea appealing, and opponents tend to find tyranny appealing. I would add people being rational creatures understand one another through the laws that govern them, just like people understand mechanics with Newton’s Laws.
dk: The roots of English have the same Latin Roots evident in all the Romance Languages.
dk: Since the 20th Century was the first measured century, we are left with an incomplete record of comparative facts, so in retrospect the question rests upon our perception of progress. Conservatively a 100mil died in direct relationship to ideological, political and economic struggles between fascist, communist and democrat factions. There’s no misery index to correlate the 20th Century with the past but unquestionably it was the bloodiest and most savage in human history and the 21st Century has gotten off to an inauspicious start. Meanwhile, the world’s cultural, social and economic disparities have measurably widened since the end of the Cold War, and a number of doomsday scenarios paint the horizon with a spectacular red hue. I submit the “rush to progress” stares blankly into a future with wide apocalyptic eyes. What rationally passed for progress in the 20th Century comprehends most people with apathy or contempt, iether clogs in a machine or grunge that needs to be removed. What the UN DoHR means in today’s post modernist world has changed in the 3rd Millennium.

Let me ask the question again, what is the source of Inalienable Human Rights.
It’s a legitimate question.

lpetrich

Actually, English is a Germanic language, though one with a lot of borrowed vocabulary. The Germanicness reveals itself in the more commonplace sorts of words and in various grammatical features.

So what if it is more difficult to find precise numbers? And there being fewer people to kill in past centuries does have an effect on body-count figures (dk's favorite index).

Also, previous centuries have been ravaged by diseases that are now curable or preventable. Would dk have enjoyed living during the Black Death?

And I wonder what dk thinks about the genocide commanded in the Bible; the Israelites were supposed to completely murder all the people already living in the Promised Land. Yes, every man, woman, and child.