Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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 ...
It never happened because it contradicts the Golden Rule that any divinity should have been able to pass.
In other words, whatever was recorded was Stone Age barbarism, devoid of any divine or moral value.
They are not universally applicable except among groups, not even nations, where such laws are rigorously applied. We don't stone adulterers, we don't kill disrespectful children, etc.
The Ten Commandments are basic human tenets that were seen as harmful for the society. Except for the first one, which is entirely cultural, the rest of the universal moral laws are found in most if not all cultures and are not tied to any particular God, but rather to basic human nature.
And moral laws in America overall have historically had a strong derivative foundation therein. What is a matter of social consensus is whether, or to what degree, a society will assent to such, including by adaptation.
In other words, morality is a current practical relative application of the universal principles. Nothing absolute about them. In fact, in our society it is not against the law the covet one's wife. It's not a felony to commit adultery; it's not even a misdemeanor. It may be good grounds for a divorce, but you don't go to jail or get a ticket for cheating on your spouse. Not even in Israel. Only in strict Islamic countries they still stone to death—and everyone thinks it's barbaric!
Well, yeah, it is and it was barbaric in biblical times too! Bottom line is: morality is a social agreed-upon standard.
Certainly “morality is a social agreed-upon standard,” but one of my points was that it does not occur in isolation, but usually contains transcendent laws or cultural adaptions, as well as departures from such.
However, my statement that the basic *moral* laws of the Bible are universal applicable is indeed true, meaning they can be directly applied, while your rejection of that premise is based upon societal rejection of such, not due to a lack of compatibility. All cultures can honor parents, forbid murder, etc.
“We don’t stone adulterers.” True, and where there are no stones this would not be exactly feasible. But when i refer to basic moral laws i am referring mainly to the proscriptions against practices, not necessarily the same penalties, as would be expected under a theocracy where people have assented to a covenant of all these laws, as Israel did, and the exact means of punishment was provided.
In addition, capital punishment for adultery and certain other things, in the context of other laws for a society which agrees to this high standard and the training that enables it - and makes them more accountable - is not barbaric, but in the long term is beneficial. As is the accompanying requirement of 2 or 3 eyewitnesses for conviction, with false witnesses receiving the penalty their false testimony incurred upon the innocent. The risk of AIDS itself does work as a deterrent factor, among the wise.
“The Ten Commandments are basic human tenets that were seen as harmful for the society.”
“Harmful?” Are you serious?
“In other words, morality is a current practical relative application of the universal principles. Nothing absolute about them.”
My reference to immutable absolutes is to basic universally applicable laws, and to universal principles underlying others, whether accepted or not.
I guess we go to this discussion due to my statement that “’do unto others” itself depends upon an underlying morality, and what seems fitting to one is rejected by another.” My point being that those who invoke the golden rule as the standard to live by are ignoring the larger context of morality which is necessary. And apart from an agreed-upon objective authority which basically defines such then men can and will easily justify various conflicting ideas of what is moral or immoral. As i wrote in post #73,
Using the golden rule by itself, some would forbid punishment of criminals, as they would not want that done to them. Many parents give their children anything they want, as they want their own lusts to be fulfilled, and thus slowly harm their kids. And while souls can argue about what is beneficial, the moral reasoning of some can easily allowed them to justify what is self-serving and deleterious, and reject what is overall most beneficial.
“the rest of the universal moral laws are found in most if not all cultures.”
Not all, but rather than every person only doing what seems right according to his understanding, which one poster contends for, i was pointing out the need for an objective standard. And my contention is that the Bible, in its totality and being understood in the light of its progressive revelation, the New interpreting the Old, and other interpretive aspects, is the supreme transcendent objective authority, providing beneficial morality, applicable to all, directly or by adaptation. Thanks be to God.
This is true and I do agree...good post once again Daniel. Thank you.
“the arguments made by you or your cohorts have been thoroughly vanquished, as a confirmation of the same. Imagine me putting up another well-won trophy on the shelf.”
While your atheism otherwise places your mind in a straitjacket, your imagination regarding your polemical proficiency runs wild.
Reiterating what i stated in post 109 stands, and reiterating what i said in 124 to another after you left me,
the atheists position is still only viable if their rejection of an omniscient and moral Deity commanding this is correct, and they can prove that
1. His ordaining the utter destruction of an exceedingly sinful people was unjust, or that
2. destroying the innocent with them was not to their eternal benefit, or that
3. the method of destruction was wrong, as not accomplishing good.
As you cannot, to reject this even as a possibility presumes that it is you is omniscient, and that your human reasoning is infallible.
They are applicable only if a society exists, and then only by convention. Why is stealing inherently wrong? Because it is perceived as harmful for the society by the society.
[kosta: The Ten Commandments are basic human tenets that were seen as harmful for the society.”]
“Harmful?” Are you serious?
My mistake. I wanted to say the Commandments prohibit those things the society sees as harmful. Something got lost in my sentence and I didn't notice it. Thank you for catching this omission.
My reference to immutable absolutes is to basic universally applicable laws
Noting is immutable about any standards. The Hawaiian culture permitted, and even required, incest from its royal family. the story of Lots daughters practicing incest is biblical and therefore must be morally acceptable. Right?
Most societies, including biblical Israel, practiced polygamy. If it is biblically acceptable, why is it is immoral among Bible-believers?
If racial segregation was morally acceptable 50 years ago, why is it now immoral? If homosexuals were considered felons in England until 1960's, how come they are not today?
("God..Wins...")
BTW, please do two things before commenting, Hank.
1) Please show me cites from the Nazis that the Jews were to be exterminated *primarily* on hygenic grounds (syphilis, AIDS, fatal debilitating diseases) rather than on cultural grounds.
2) Show me statistics about Jewish health in Europe from the same time frame.
3) From this, infer whether the Nazis were coming up with a propagandistic reason for the killings.
4) Now see whether the accounts within the Old Testament by the Jews, at that time (or other pre-Christian Jewish commentators), that the attacks on the goyim in/about the time of Joshua were done for hygenic reasons.
If there is a divergence, your claim fails: there is a difference betweeen a contemporaneous rationale for action at the time, and ex post facto speculation.
Cheers!
It is for the same reason that today, in spite of all the technology and testing procedures, farm animals are culled to totality when deadly diseases are suspected.
That might be true in India. But in the US it's probably the lawyers' fault.
Cheers!
"Most people do not understand the difference between a well deserved insult and ad hominem. An insult is not an ad hominem, only repudiating the character or intelligence of an arguer, with the intention of repudiating his argument thereby, is an ad hominem."
Example:
PS: What ever happened to your reply to me in that thread on laser-based weapons that your arrogance found itself painting you into a corner? Want to delve into it again... you know, to baffle me with your "brilliance"?
Your challenge to me was posted at 1:41:49 AM on Thursday, July 22, 2010: challenging a post of mine at 1:32 AM that same day.
You then posted a "Hulloa?" to me at 1:47 AM.
By the time the next day rolled around, there were a number of posts by other people, and continuing into the weekend, which demonstrated the essential absurdity of your challenge.
So my reply was unnecessary by that point.
Cheers!
Sorry son, I have no intention of doing your homework for you. Believe whatever you want to believe. Justify savagery if you like, but it is still savagery.
Those who justify the wholesale indiscriminate slaughter of the inhabitants of a city, or a culture, or a race are genocidal maniacs, whatever else they are—Some are Christians, perhaps. Too bad, most Christians are opposed to such things—apparently you are not.
Hank
Begging the question -- but the original contention, according to the Jews, is that they had divine sanction, and that it *wasn't* indiscriminate. (From my earlier post #130, "Does God ever have the right to kill people?", cf. daniel1212's post #109, "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. " with OT verses appended.)
Of course, as an atheist, you are going to (and have) denied even the possibility of divine command.
But then, you also seem to have neglected / brushed over the contents of the link in Post # 16.
For my own arguments, I don't think that the Jews were doing it primarily for conquest, despite their sobriquet as "God's Chosen People" -- given verses in the OT which God both promises fearful things as a result of sin (Deuteronomy 28:57 with women eating their own children, see also 2 Kings 6:29 where such an incident is related as happening to the Jews), and verses in which God foretells suffering for the Jewish people (e.g. Genesis 15:13-14).
The point is not whether *you* believe it: the point is that, if the Jews believed it, then they weren't merely making up a "sky-god" only to justify their territorial ambitions as you charge, since they quote the actions of the *same* God as kicking their ass pretty badly from time to time. And, consistent with this, is the them throughout the OT that it is not just the *land* which is the real reason, but the behaviour of the nations involved -- both Israel and the Gentiles.
There might be some analogy to the Brit precision bombing / US carpet bombing of Germany, or the atomic bombs which ended World War 2 (since nobody ever seems to think it fit to trash Stalin or Mao these days).
How much guilt did the individual Germans bear? At what point does inaction, apathy in the face of great evil cease to become a matter of individual conscience and become one of joint culpability?
And the Christian Church gives no uniform answer: we have scads of martyrs as well as The White Rose and Bonhoffer.
Cheers!
Well, I know a couple of British farmers who used to raise excellent beef cattle, who’d had to eliminate all of their animals during the variant-CJD (Mad Cow) crisis.
Your arguments supporting the slaughter of infants and children as a moral act works perfectly well with the Muslim god, Allah as well.
Eh? Check that thread again. What I said was both supported and corrected by the others on it. I was expecting a reply from you, and you chose to maintain silence, lest you further embarrass yourself due to ignorance of the limitations of laser weapons.
The string of comments on that thread would have made it obvious, to anyone with the ability to think, that a reply was owed.
“Begging the question ...”
Well, you have ad hominen down, now you need to work on begging the question.
Begging the question is also a fallacious argument, essentially asserting the thing that needs to be proved as a premise. But, since I wasn’t making an argument, only stating my opinion, not trying to convince you, it could not be begging the question. You’re not going to change your mind, I’m sure, and I have no desire to change it.
Hank
“Your arguments supporting the slaughter of infants and children as a moral act works perfectly well with the Muslim god, Allah as well.”
True, insofar as allowing the ultimate source of morality to be acting consistent with such in actions that would be unjust for man, due to His unique attributes, such as knowing the effects of actions and the eternal state of beings (a little deeper than “a boy named Sue”).
But as it is the nature of man to invoke Divine authority for his own unholy causes and curses, etc., thus i stressed the critical importance of Divine attestation of authority in post 28 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2562273/posts?page=28#28). And in which realm a critical contrast is manifest between the Bible and the later religion of Islam, though it invokes its authority. But which contrast by no means stops there, rather Islam’s critical contradictions of the Bible disallows it from resting upon Biblical authority, which it ultimately was required to effectively deny.
And rather than the Bible validating such things as the Inquisitions or the Utah war, what is to be feared is when men presume to be the supreme authority over the Bible, as it is then that the souls of good men are in most danger.
“if the Jews believed it, then they weren’t merely making up a “sky-god” only to justify their territorial ambitions as you charge”
Indeed, going by the texts themselves, the Israelites were reluctant solders, given to fear and rebellion, and manifesting a victim mentality (Ex. 17:3), and would have returned to Egypt. And Saul actually failed to carry out the Lord’s command fully, which command was contrary to a selfish material motive for captives and goods.
>They are applicable only if a society exists, and then only by convention. Why is stealing inherently wrong? Because it is perceived as harmful for the society by the society.
I think it is a given that laws regarding interpersonal actions are applicable only if there are other humans. But while the reason for moral laws being wrong is to be seen, and thus breaking certain conditional laws in the Bible actions is sometime sanctioned when it fulfills their manifest intent, the authority for these laws in the Bible was God, who abundantly manifested (and continually) His authority to do so.
>>My reference to immutable absolutes is to basic universally applicable laws
>Noting is immutable about any standards. The Hawaiian culture permitted, and even required, incest from its royal family. the story of Lots daughters practicing incest is biblical and therefore must be morally acceptable. Right?
Wrong. But first, again, when i say immutable i am referring to basic moral laws and principals which are applicable to any society, directly or by adaptation. That some refuse such does not negate this, though it will have consequences. And there is such a thing as Biblical hermeneutics, that is, principals of interpretation which the Bible itself evidences.
As for incest, it is necessary to understand that,
1. Laws were given for a reason, and the Mosaic Law was added because of transgressions, (Gal. 3:19) and for good purpose. And that Biblical revelation is progressive, with the latter overall most fully explaining the former, with covenantal distinctions being given, all of which it manifests itself to do, and examining a subject in the light of what the Bible says as a whole is necessary.
2. As regards incest, it is evident that for some time after the Fall this was sanctioned, though restricted to some level, but it was clearly outlawed later. (Lv. 18) This is rather unique for this type of law, as from beginning to end there are no real changes in laws regarding illicit sexual relations. But understanding that the adverse affects of the Fall were partly progressive, thus the negative physical effects from incest need not yet have been a problem. The yet lengthy lifespans also allowed greater disparity between ages, so that all siblings need not have to been that close, if that makes any difference.
2. Merely recording an action does not, by itself, confer sanction, a fact which many examples can testify to. And in the case you refer to, (Gn. 19:30ff), the negative effects of this lack of faith (which is akin to resorting to worldly means to build a church) are alluded to, by its statements that fruit of this declension was the birth of the Moabite and the Ammonite tribes, (Gn. 19:37,38) Israel's future enemies.
Most societies, including biblical Israel, practiced polygamy. If it is biblically acceptable, why is it is immoral among Bible-believers?
Because the LORD Jesus, who would institute the promised New Covenant, intensified the law of Moses, and in so doing not only affirmed that what God joined together in marriage was (distinctly ) male and female, but that in the beginning it was supposed to be for life, and that it was one women for one man, (Mt. 19:4-9; Gn. 2:24) though allowances had been made due to the nature of man. And the New Testament, in dealing with marriage, treats it as the bond between one man and one women.
If racial segregation was morally acceptable 50 years ago, why is it now immoral?
Because it was not part of the basic immutable universal moral laws, but was a culturally applied law given to regulate, or manage, a preexisting practice which God did not institute. And that a progressive amelioration is evidenced in the Bible's dealing with the subject (which was not a monolithic institution, and is worthy of deeper analysis such as seen here), and that it was an institution which was only made tolerable for cultural reasons, as the church focused on spiritually overcoming situations, but is contrary to the practical outworking of such, and its foundational ideal of love for neighbor. Which thus enabled its complete abolition when the effects of a revived Christianity and a political context enabled it. See here for more on all this. In contrast, the basic positional distinction between males and females is upheld.
If homosexuals were considered felons in England until 1960's, how come they are not today?
Because England is post-Christian, and increasing legislating according to a depraved and infinite human reasoning, calling evil, good, and good, evil, and is increasingly suffering the effects thereof. As America is. are. That homosexual relations are condemned in the Bible is evident, being part of basic moral laws, and which has its foundation in the very beginning. See the whole examination here (my site) on this. Thanks be to God. And thank you for your questions.
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.