Posted on 07/31/2010 6:26:07 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
A document written on two cuneiform tablets around the time of the patriarch Abraham, containing a law code in a style and language similar to parts of the famous Code of Hammurabi, has been discovered for the first time in an Israeli archeological dig.
The code, dating from the Middle Bronze Age in the 18th and 17th centuries BCE, was found at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s excavations this summer at Hazor National Park in the North. However, it has not yet been determined whether the document was written at Hazor – where a school for scribes was located in ancient times, or brought from elsewhere, said Prof. Wayne Horowitz of the HU Institute of Archeology.
Horowitz, who heads a team that is preparing the Hazor law code fragments for publication in book form, said this week that the discovery opened an interesting avenue for possible further investigation of a connection between biblical law and the Code of Hammurabi.
The Hazor excavations – known as the Selz Foundation Hazor Excavations in memory of Israeli archeologist and politician Prof. Yigael Yadin – are being held under the direction of Horowitz’s colleagues Prof. Amnon Ben-Tor and Dr. Sharon Zuckerman. Yadin directed previous excavations at the site in the 1950s and 1960s and found numerous documents in the palace area.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
“From the above, I guess that the both of you are supportive of euthanasia?”
This fails to include the key contextual aspect, which that unlike euthanasia in which man of his own prerogative takes life, the events at issue are those of God manifesting His reality, and ordaining destruction, as a judgment upon wicked society, by means which He saw best, and which prevents a further generation perpetuating it, and enabling for them them a far better future. But which some must refuse to allow, due to their beliefs, or unbelief, as the case may be.
As for euthanasia, the closest you get to that in the Bible is that of God telling Moses to climb up a mountain, where he would die.
The animals were culled... selectively. Not in totality.
Another point to ponder - the Amalekites didn’t live in total isolation. Other peoples mingled with them, and so too, their animals. There are endless possibilities for the diseases of your “theory” to have spread beyond the confines of the Amalekite territory. In fact, one of the verses specifically mentions Saul asking members of a particular tribe to leave the Amalekite territory, lest they too get killed in the divinely-ordered human slaughter.
Don’t see proofs to your points when they don’t exist. The points you’ve made continue to fail.
Okay, if you are that troubled by the technicality of the term, then stick to the intent of the comment - killing people to prevent them from spreading diseases. Is this ethical?
“To illustrate what true freedom is, consider an individual where there are no other people.”
I am well aware of this construct, but in mine we are dealing with the real world, in which some regulation is manifestly needed, for some more than others.
“So most choose, as you do, enslavement to some government that promises to make everything nice and safe, which no government can or ever has done. But, I wish you the best and hope your chains are light.”
I must say that unless you are living in a forest, you are living in a fantasy. Those do live honesty without being constrained by gov. laws, but recognize the need for such, as somehow enslaved, while in your world, no drivers or airline pilots ever need to be licensed, nor are their need for fire departments, much less police, and all rely upon their golden compass which somehow always points north. That delusion is real bondage.
*shrug* give me your theory.
:^)
It’s all made-up.
That does simplify the theory-fication.
It’s almost as satisfying and deep as saying God did it.
Well, at least it doesn’t have the burden of justifying how an act of child-slaughter becomes moral.
It is ethical for God to takes anyone’s life, by any means, both in judgment for sin as well as deliverance from a condition resulting from the sin of others. One is punishment, the other is mercy. This prerogative requires the omniscience, wisdom and holiness of God which man does not have, and to claim Divine sanction for doing such when He did not manifestly command it is sin. And to even prophesy falsely in the name of the Lord was a capital crime. Dt. 13:1,2,5; 18:20; Jer. 20:1-6; 28:11-17)
Islam wasn't around until the 7th century AD. But eye-for-eye has been in the the Old Testament (i.e. Exodus 21:20-25) anywhere between 1,300 to 2,000 years prior, in oral or written form.
Becha, all of a sudden it doesn't seem so barbaric, does it, genius?
Oh, you need to read more...and try a non santized version.
Blah, blah, the Muslims use the same argument...everyone's God is "just" and "morally right"...
“From the above, I guess that the both of you are supportive of euthanasia?”
Not sure it “euthanasia” but it is certainly genocide. Fear and loathing of others—”They’re nor one of our kind, and must be disease ridden and evil—kill them all, and their animals too.”
When brought into the clear light of day, no decent person could justify such blatant wholesale evil.
Hank
Even as an agnostic, I’d be a bit uncomfortable asserting that God engaged in unjustifiable blatant evil.
WELL PUT, AS ALWAYS.
THX.
And of course, since Muslims abusively (according to the Bible) do it, then it can never even be considered a possibility, as morality is only determined by the supreme objectively baseless moral reasoning of Godless man. As Mao, etc. will concur. Again, “do unto others” itself depends upon an underlying morality, and what seems fitting to one is rejected by another.
”They’re nor one of our kind”
Note how you must misconstrue the reason for this judgment from behavioral to racial, in your presentation of yourself as morally superior.
“no decent person could justify such blatant wholesale evil.”
Rather, according to the omniscient atheist who knows the end from the beginning, and how everything will work together in his supreme wisdom, then God could not have been acting mercifully as in delivering the innocent from perpetuating their terminal degeneration, including child-sacrifice, nor could he be just in destroying the wicked, or just his methodology was wrong, because they refuse to allow such Deity to even be a possibility.
Your moral myopia and its bias are increasingly manifest.
LOL, erroneous non-comparison!
The burden is only if you think that the NAZIs were good, but had to conduct the Holocaust for some "divine purpose".
Since such a contortion doesn't exist, there is no burden in relegating the NAZIs as the scum of the universe.
“Even as an agnostic, I’d be a bit uncomfortable asserting that God engaged in unjustifiable blatant evil.”
Who’s asserting that? It wasn’t God that committed the savagery, it was people, who, like many other’s who committ atrocities, claimed God told them to do it. I didn’t write the book, they did.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.