Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 332
  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdPersonPlural
    For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians.
    -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Christianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.
    In a sense, what existed prior to codification was not 'common law' but 'tribal law.' The English monarchy ordered a codification of those practices then in use throughout the kingdom (which were descendent of various Anglo-Saxon tribal laws). Once these were drawn up, they looked to what was in 'common practice' amongst the various areas, and this became 'common law'; that law which was in common throughout the realm. It only became 'common law' when this judgement was made.

    "In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliably criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems."
    http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Common_law

    It is indeed the basis of our law, but this common law was not codified until after Christianity had taken over, so you'd be guessing which bits are pre-Christian, unless you actually come up with some facts; that the various tribal laws of the Anglo-Saxons had already been modified by Christianity. The Common Law to which we refer to, is intrinsically linked to Christianity.

    Further, specifically to the example I used, Torts came not from any precedent in law, but derived specifically from the case I cited, and this was based on the Christian notions that Lord Aitken stated.

    Common law doesn't even cover all situations...
    "An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law

    Statute law will always take precedent over common law. "The relationship of statutory law (Acts enabled by parliaments) to common law was considered in Grace Bible Church v Reedman (1984) 36 SASR 376... One ground of appeal was that the common law conferred an inalienable right to freedom of ...worship....This claim was unanimously rejected. White J stated that nothing in the common law was capable of inhibiting the power of a State parliament to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the State an that it was the opinion of the parliament, not a court, that was 'paramount and conclusive' on the question whether a particular law was for the peace, welfare and good government of the state." Vermeesch, R E & Lindgren, K E "Business Law in Australia", p15.

    An appreciation of either history or law, or both might aid you in debating this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdPersonPlural
    Of course, Christ, and subsequent christian organs, were big proponents of democracy, now, weren't they?
    You mean you don't know? Why not read Carroll, V & Shiflett D "Christianity on Trial: Arguments against Anti-religious Bigotry" with special reference to Chapter Eight; "Christianity and American Democracy" p176ff
    Montalban has left this forum

  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Montalban
    Show me the code from Hammurabi that you think is the ancestor of Torts law! Actually come up with some facts, rather than mere speculation
    Do you mean "tort" as in property law, or something else? For the record, I have read over Hammurabi's code in the past, so it isn't speculation, despite your assertions.

    Main Entry: tort
    Pronunciation: 'tort
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, injury, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tortum, from Latin, neuter of tortus twisted, from past participle of torquEre
    : a wrongful act other than a breach of contract for which relief may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction


    Breach of contract, alrighty... coming up:


    • If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.
    • If a chieftain or a man (common soldier), who has been ordered to go upon the king's highway for war does not go, but hires a mercenary, if he withholds the compensation, then shall this officer or man be put to death, and he who represented him shall take possession of his house.
    • If a chieftain or man be caught in the misfortune of the king (captured in battle), and if his fields and garden be given to another and he take possession, if he return and reaches his place, his field and garden shall be returned to him, he shall take it over again.
    • If any one buy the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent, his contract tablet of sale shall be broken (i.e. voided) and he loses his money. The field, garden, and house return to their owners.
    • If any one fence in the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent, furnishing the palings therefor; if the chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent return to field, garden, and house, the palings which were given to him become his property.
    • If a man rent his field for tillage for a fixed rental, and receive the rent of his field, but bad weather come and destroy the harvest, the injury falls upon the tiller of the soil.
    • If he do not receive a fixed rental for his field, but lets it on half or third shares of the harvest, the grain on the field shall be divided proportionately between the tiller and the owner.
    • If the tiller, because he did not succeed in the first year, has had the soil tilled by others, the owner may raise no objection; the field has been cultivated and he receives the harvest according to agreement.
    • If any one owe a debt for a loan, and a storm prostrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year.


    Hammurabi's code deals with just about everything. Marriage and family, property, theft, the whole kit and caboodle.

    http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/hamm1.htm

    Having laws that dictate the mores of a country, based on a particular brand of religion is hardly peculiar to any nation, much less a Christian one:

    2350 BC: Urukagina's Code
    This code has never been discovered but it is mentioned in other documents as a consolidation of existing "ordinances" or laws laid down by Mesopotamian kings. An administrative reform document was discovered which showed that citizens were allowed to know why certain actions were punished. It was also harsh by modern standards. Thieves and adulteresses were to be stoned to death with stones inscribed with the name of their crime. The code confirmed that the "king was appointed by the gods".


    Check out the link for others...

    I especially like the last part, where the code confirms the "king is appointed by the gods." Sounds like Bush has history on his side... ;?

    http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/hist.htm#2350bc

    Now that being said, does that meet your criteria for Tort law? Just for giggles I Googled "Torts law" in case you were referring to something else, but didn't see anything specific...

    Lewis has spoken. :p
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  3. #63
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Monte
    Further, specifically to the example I used, Torts came not from any precedent in law, but derived specifically from the case I cited, and this was based on the Christian notions that Lord Aitken stated.
    Oh, I disagree. As I posted above, there is a definite historical basis for Tort law, prior to Christianity, and Lord Aitken.

    Lewis has spoken.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    Do you mean "tort" as in property law, or something else? For the record, I have read over Hammurabi's code in the past, so it isn't speculation, despite your assertions.

    Lewis has spoken. :p
    So, your theory is Hammurabi DOES have Tort law, based on the fact that they had contract law, (which is a different area of law) but it was ignored for thousands of years until Lord Aitken mistakenly quoted the Bible when he thought of re-applying it?

    As I stated, the modern consumer protection laws and 'duty of care' come under the tort case first heard by Lord Aitken who didn't quote a Babylonian king.
    Last edited by Montalban; June 19th, 2004 at 10:50 PM.
    Montalban has left this forum

  5. #65
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    Do you mean "tort" as in property law, or something else? For the record, I have read over Hammurabi's code in the past, so it isn't speculation, despite your assertions.

    Main Entry: tort
    Pronunciation: 'tort
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, injury, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tortum, from Latin, neuter of tortus twisted, from past participle of torquEre
    : a wrongful act other than a breach of contractfor which relief may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction


    Breach of contract, alrighty... coming up:

    Note: Tort - 'other than' a breach of contract
    your example 'breach of contract'

    I keep telling you about not knowing what you're talking about.My example of Lord Aitken's case was specific in mentioning that, previous to Aitken's decision, Donoghue was not protected EXACTLY BECAUSE there was no contract. That's what TORT means; suing for damages other than in contract cases

    Please research again with this in mind.
    Montalban has left this forum

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    Oh, I disagree. As I posted above, there is a definite historical basis for Tort law, prior to Christianity, and Lord Aitken.

    Lewis has spoken.
    You've yet to show this. All you've shown is that the origins of the word goes back to the Middle Ages.
    Montalban has left this forum

  7. #67
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Montalban
    So, your theory is Hammurabi DOES have Tort law, based on the fact that they had contract law, (which is a different area of law) but it was ignored for thousands of years until Lord Aitken mistakenly quoted the Bible when he thought of re-applying it?
    Yes, Hammurabi's code includes what happens in what would today be considered Tort law.

    As I stated, the modern consumer protection laws and 'duty of care' come under the tort case first heard by Lord Aitken who didn't quote a Babylonian king.
    I am not disputing that.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    Yes, Hammurabi's code includes what happens in what would today be considered Tort law.
    Okay, let's see it then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    I am not disputing that.
    Then even if you find Hammurabi-evidence, it'll not help your case as the 'Snail in the Bottle' case (as it is sometimes popularly called) was influenced directly by Christian teaching - with regards 'who is my neighbour'

    Thus, my statement about Christianity still influencing modern law remains true.
    Montalban has left this forum

  9. #69
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Montalban
    So, your theory is Hammurabi DOES have Tort law, based on the fact that they had contract law, (which is a different area of law) but it was ignored for thousands of years until Lord Aitken mistakenly quoted the Bible when he thought of re-applying it?
    No. My theory is that one could make the case that Judeo/Christian ethics are in turn derived from even earlier codes of conduct.

    YOUR theory brought up Lord Aitken.

    Here's that quote:

    “…The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are in question.”4


    Emphasis mine.


    As I stated, the modern consumer protection laws and 'duty of care' come under the tort case first heard by Lord Aitken who didn't quote a Babylonian king.
    You are right, but HE could have been by that statement and these examples.


    • If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.
    • If he be not able to replace the corn, then he and his possessions shall be divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded.
    • If any one open his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and the water flood the field of his neighbor, then he shall pay his neighbor corn for his loss.
    • If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of his neighbor, he shall pay ten gur of corn for every ten gan of land.
    • If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and without the knowledge of the owner of the sheep, lets the sheep into a field to graze, then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and the shepherd, who had pastured his flock there without permission of the owner of the field, shall pay to the owner twenty gur of corn for every ten gan.


    http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/hamm1.htm

    52-57 if you want to know which ones...

    Okay, so I missed the "not" in the statement. Here ya go. Note, these payments are derived from misbehavior or inattentiveness to one's property, with the requisite fines already inscribed.

    This seems to meet the definition.

    Let's try this for fun:

    Libel is a tort which deals with the publication of untrue statements which harm a reputation and are published in permanent form (this includes films, videos, audio cassettes, faxes, e-mail, the Internet, radio and television broadcasts, and theatrical performances), not just written material.

    Another Tort in this area is (slander)?, which deals with spoken statements which affect a reputation. The word “defamation” is one which covers both libel and slander, and it refers to the untrue statements whether written or spoken.


    http://www.bbcity.co.uk/rd/lwnew/index.php?page=Libel


    #127 of H's code:

    If any one "point the finger" (slander) at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked (i.e. probably by cutting to leave a scar).
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have made my own mistake by giving too broad a term to Lord Aitken's case. It was not, as I stated, the origins of torts, but of the tort of consumer protection.

    I apologise for this error. I should have consulted my legal dictionary sooner.
    Montalban has left this forum

  11. #71
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    It remains however, for Slipnish to show the link between Hammurabi's codified criminal laws and the modern law of consumer protection as expoused by Lord Aitken

    Further to this I note that Hammurabi defined neighbour in a literal sense, wherease Lord Aitken - in reponse to Jesus' words - says that a neighbour is anyone you have a 'duty of care' to. Recall the Biblical passages I cited. "Neighbour" means people you need not be next door to! This too is how Lord Aitken viewed it, thus 'neighbour' was someone in this case who ultimately consumed a bottle of ginger-beer.
    Montalban has left this forum

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Slipnish
    What you are researching for is my bad definition of tort as regarding Lord Aitken's case. For that I apologise. I meant to confine his ruling to that of modern consumer protection rather than of all tort law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.

    If he be not able to replace the corn, then he and his possessions shall be divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded.

    If any one open his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and the water flood the field of his neighbour, then he shall pay his neighbour corn for his loss.

    If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of his neighbour, he shall pay ten gur of corn for every ten gan of land.
    These come under trespass. One's property - the water, goes onto and damages another's land. Further, these are codified regulations and as such, being in breach of them is a crime, therefore it is criminal law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and without the knowledge of the owner of the sheep, lets the sheep into a field to graze, then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and the shepherd, who had pastured his flock there without permission of the owner of the field, shall pay to the owner twenty gur of corn for every ten gan.
    This last one comes under laws of trespass, and/or of contract... verbal permission to use a field for a specific purpose.

    Trespass: OF - to pass across. 1 Wrongful entry on to the land of another, without the consent of the person who has the rightful possession of the land.
    Butterworth's Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, Second Ed

    Trespass is a tort. So as far as actual examples of torts in general, you are correct with these examples. However, with reference to 'duty of care' by a manufacturer to a consumer, as proven by Lord Aitken, you have not...(in part because of my fault)

    "An example of the operation of the doctrine of stare decisis or precedent is the case of Donoghue v Stevenson.3 The facts of that case revolved around an action brought by a woman who had become ill after consuming ginger beer from a bottle which also contained a decomposed snail. Lord Aitken, who sat in judgment on the case, stated that:

    ??The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer?s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are in question.?4

    The case established the general principle of (tort of) negligence, that is, that persons who have some relation or proximity owe a duty of care to each other. Since it was established, this precedent has been further refined and applied and referred to in thousands of fact situations where a person complains of physical harm to their person or property."
    http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/report...sf/pages/clr_4
    Montalban has left this forum

  13. #73
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Montalban
    Note: Tort - 'other than' a breach of contract
    your example 'breach of contract'
    Yes, I read it wrong. I was trying to be careful and understand the exact context of your post, lest you cry to the heavens that I am benighted again. Interesting word that, where did you get it? Kind of archaic...

    I keep telling you about not knowing what you're talking about.
    I don't know what I am talking about, but even when I misread the practical application, I was still right. Oh boy! I see more happiness on this thread already.

    My example of Lord Aitken's case was specific in mentioning that, previous to Aitken's decision, Donoghue was not protected EXACTLY BECAUSE there was no contract. That's what TORT means; suing for damages other than in contract cases

    Please research again with this in mind.
    Let's do that:

    "The law of tort is primarily concerned with providing a remedy to persons who have been harmed by the conduct of others. In any society, conflicts of interest are bound to lead to the infliction of losses, a process that, not suprisingly, tends to increase with the level of social interaction."

    Tort is a difficult beast to describe. It has been described by many as a pool of legal liabilities and remedies which aren't crimes and aren't contracts. It is almost easier to describe what a tort is by what it isn't.


    http://www.bbcity.co.uk/rd/lwnew/index.php?page=Torts

    This is perhaps a better definition. As such, let us look at the previous list again.


    • If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.


    Seems to me that this is plainly a tort law designed to keep people from selling what isn't theirs and harming the owner of said property financially or through loss of property.

    My emphasis there. Note the lack of contract charge, plainly stated. As I have said, Monte, your vituperation for me, precludes you from seeing anything other than error.

    Now the rest were more in line with contracts and so on, but no worries, I found you some MORE examples.

    Aren't I the lucky one?

    Now, back to the cause.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  14. #74
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Montalban
    I have made my own mistake by giving too broad a term to Lord Aitken's case. It was not, as I stated, the origins of torts, but of the tort of consumer protection.

    I apologise for this error. I should have consulted my legal dictionary sooner.
    Makes my last post moot as well then. Oh well...

    Insomnia drives me on!
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  15. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok im going to put history and the bible together so this could work, bear with me for a moment.

    • Fact: Hammurabi's code predates the Judeo/Christian code of ethics.
    • Fact: The first people to know the true god were not Jews nor were they Christians (Adam and Eve, Adams offspring, Noah and his sons)
    • Fact: Even during the time of Abraham, people (maybe just a few) knew the true god existed (Melchisedech)

    It seems that Hammurabi's code could have been a verbal record of gods instructions on mankind, this could have been given to Adam originaly, then this could have been passed down from son to son, then the flood happens and god gives Noah this message again, and Noah gives it to his sons, and then they give it to there sons and so on and so forth.

    Now we can assume that this message wasnt written down, that the message itself could have been distorted over the centuries with people changing parts of this message over time.

    So now we have Hammurabi who actualy takes the time to write down these codes, only problem now is that this code is far different then from the original code. And since Hammurabi is not following gods original instructions, god chooses somebody who is better qualified to spread gods message. So he choses Abraham.

    Through Abraham and his decendants we get the true set of codes that god originaly intended.

    So depending on how you look at it, America as a nation has its ethics based upon by the Judeo/Christian ethics and this set of ethics were not in themselves derived from Hammurabi's code but were given by god himself through Moses.

    Comprende?
    Do or do not, there is no try. - Master Jedi Yoda
    He's Kermit on acid who happens to carry a big stick when pissed off. Big deal. - Apokalupsis
    Actually, didn't Frank Oz do Bert as well? We're cousins! - Withnail in reference to Bert and Yoda

  16. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    [Quote=RTShatto]Ok im going to put history and the bible together so this could work, bear with me for a moment.

    Fact: Hammurabi's code predates the Judeo/Christian code of ethics.
    Fact: The first people to know the true god were not Jews nor were they Christians (Adam and Eve, Adams offspring, Noah and his sons)
    Fact: Even during the time of Abraham, people (maybe just a few) knew the true god existed (Melchisedech)
    It seems that Hammurabi's code could have been a verbal record of gods instructions on mankind, this could have been given to Adam originally, then this could have been passed down from son to son, then the flood happens and god gives Noah this message again, and Noah gives it to his sons, and then they give it to there sons and so on and so forth.

    Now we can assume that this message wasn't written down, that the message itself could have been distorted over the centuries with people changing parts of this message over time.

    So now we have Hammurabi who actually takes the time to write down these codes, only problem now is that this code is far different then from the original code. And since Hammurabi is not following gods original instructions, god chooses somebody who is better qualified to spread gods message. So he choses Abraham.

    Through Abraham and his descendants we get the true set of codes that god originally intended.

    So depending on how you look at it, America as a nation has its ethics based upon by the Judeo/Christian ethics and this set of ethics were not in themselves derived from Hammurabi's code but were given by god himself through Moses.

    Comprende?/QUOTE]

    What you are arguing for is an absolutist notion, such as saying that even as the English language derives from older languages, then we can't claim Shakespeare as part of our heritage, because ultimately, our language derives from even older forms.

    However, taking your analogy back to the ultimate source, we find Adam being given law by God... in this case 'don't eat of the fruit of that particular tree'. So our laws come from God and God's Son stated how we should interpret God's law... Christ brought with Him right understanding. He didn't just say your neighbour is your actual physical neighbour. He said your neighbour is anyone you interact with, no matter how directly.

    Further, although Lev. 19:18 says 'love thy neighbour',*

    Christ said Mat.5
    43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour[1] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[2] and pray for those who persecute you,

    A notion repeated in Luke 6
    34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

    Thus the notion of absolute love and care comes from Him.

    *specifically it says
    18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD .
    Montalban has left this forum

  17. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,191
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RTShatto
    Ok im going to put history and the bible together so this could work, bear with me for a moment.

    Fact: Hammurabi's code predates the Judeo/Christian code of ethics.
    Fact: The first people to know the true god were not Jews nor were they Christians (Adam and Eve, Adams offspring, Noah and his sons)
    Fact: Even during the time of Abraham, people (maybe just a few) knew the true god existed (Melchisedech)
    It seems that Hammurabi's code could have been a verbal record of gods instructions on mankind, this could have been given to Adam originally, then this could have been passed down from son to son, then the flood happens and god gives Noah this message again, and Noah gives it to his sons, and then they give it to there sons and so on and so forth.

    Now we can assume that this message wasn't written down, that the message itself could have been distorted over the centuries with people changing parts of this message over time.

    So now we have Hammurabi who actually takes the time to write down these codes, only problem now is that this code is far different then from the original code. And since Hammurabi is not following gods original instructions, god chooses somebody who is better qualified to spread gods message. So he choses Abraham.

    Through Abraham and his descendants we get the true set of codes that god originally intended.

    So depending on how you look at it, America as a nation has its ethics based upon by the Judeo/Christian ethics and this set of ethics were not in themselves derived from Hammurabi's code but were given by god himself through Moses.

    Comprende?
    What you are arguing for is an absolutist notion, such as saying that even as the English language derives from older languages, then we can't claim Shakespeare as part of our heritage, because ultimately, our language derives from even older forms.

    However, taking your analogy back to the ultimate source, we find Adam being given law by God... in this case 'don't eat of the fruit of that particular tree'. So our laws come from God and God's Son stated how we should interpret God's law... Christ brought with Him right understanding. He didn't just say your neighbour is your actual physical neighbour. He said your neighbour is anyone you interact with, no matter how directly.

    Further, although Lev. 19:18 says 'love thy neighbour',*

    Christ said Mat.5
    43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour[1] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[2] and pray for those who persecute you,

    A notion repeated in Luke 6
    34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

    Thus the notion of absolute love and care comes from Him.

    *specifically it says
    18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD .
    Montalban has left this forum

  18. #78
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like
    So, round three and consumer protection is it? Well guess what, I am really too stupid to know when to quit. Check it out Monte:

    If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his own expense. The tight boat he shall give to the boat owner.

    http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/hamm3.htm

    Law number 235 of Good Ole Hammurabi, The Rapping Law Giver.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monte
    The case established the general principle of (tort of) negligence, that is, that persons who have some relation or proximity owe a duty of care to each other. Since it was established, this precedent has been further refined and applied and referred to in thousands of fact situations where a person complains of physical harm to their person or property."
    Negligence, duty to care for each other, physical harm to property, what more could you ask for? Well, one more sir!

    Number 273:

    If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has elapsed the benu-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to the seller, and receive the money which he had paid.

    So let's see. The property, in this case, the slave has a disease that doesn't show up for 2 weeks, you can TAKE IT BACK! And the seller must give you back your money for selling you damaged goods.

    If that isn't consumer protection, I will drag myself to the Better Business Bureau on my lips.

    Even more interesting, I thought, were the openers for Good Old H's Code.

    Check this out:

    I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. With the mighty weapons which Zamama and Ishtar entrusted to me, with the keen vision with which Ea endowed me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted. The great gods have called me. I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city. On my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad. In my shelter I have let them repose in peace. In my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to bespeak justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness.


    Now, what was I saying about earlier cultures influencing new ones? Do any of the bolded passages look similar to Christian concepts?

    No, I am not saying there is a link, but I am saying it is not inconceivable, that perhaps Christianity "borrowed" its ideas about laws and the treatment of others, from older civilizations.

    As for tort law, look at the italicized words there. "Settle all disputes" which I think sums up tort very nicely.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  19. #79
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like
    Want proof that our founding fathers are Christian influenced? Read here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=209
    Chris

    I've come to belive that without faith, mankind is doomed. - Michael Savage

    Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis? - Thomas Jefferson

    "You must never be afraid yo do what is right! Even if you have to do it alone" Support America!! So that in the future our children will never have to close their blinds!..."

  20. #80
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    1,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Feefer
    Want proof that our founding fathers are Christian influenced? Read here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=209
    Should you take the time to read the entire thread, you'll find that Apok's list of public homilies was soundly trumped by the published private letters of the founders in question.

    What Monty missed was that my quote identifying Common Law as predating Christianity was penned by Thomas Jefferson. It is his opinion that Common Law is a pre-christian body of law, and therefore his conclusion that our constitution is based on ideals that predate, and transcend, the specificly christian laws.

    It is also interesting to note that christianity was formed closely along the lines of Roman law and hierarchy, which adds a pronounced Pagan flavor to the faith as it rode europe for 1300 years prior to our constitution being written.

    Anyway, let's get some specifics into this pro-christian stance. Please outline 3 fundamental tenets of american governmental identity that can be specifically sourced from exclusively christian doctrine. Tort law is not exclusive to christianity nor is it a distinguishing charicteristic of our national identity - at least not a noble one.
    To begin to think is to begin to be undermined.
    Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning

    Who knows most, doubts most.
    Robert Browning

 

 
Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Christianity unique?
    By agricola in forum Religion
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: August 1st, 2012, 07:59 AM
  2. A Key to the Success of America
    By thtaplgtcguy in forum History
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: February 21st, 2005, 03:47 PM
  3. Founding Fathers: Christian Influenced? YES!
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: August 21st, 2004, 09:24 AM
  4. Why "God Bless America"?
    By Xalpharis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: June 26th, 2004, 02:38 PM
  5. The Order of the Universe and Reality
    By ZealousDemon in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 183
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2004, 02:59 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •