Afghani Eject Computer Experts

[thaiboxerken]

Sorry, he said "much" of secular law.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

I never said they were. With the number of devout muslims over 1 million enough of them either support jihad against Britiain or actively engage in it to constitute a grave threat.

You are most confused. You are not a terrorist if you support jihad or actively engage in it?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

I NEVER said Sudan per se was an enemy of AlQueda. Your question makes no sense.

It makes a lot of sense, because it proves you wrong: That the longitudes of the area described by Zawahiri describes the countries that are his enemies.

You simply don't pause and think your arguments through. That's why you again and again end up having to defend the most ridiculous claims and make the most pathetic excuses.

[SteveGrenard]

It makes no sense because there are two Sudans -- Islamic sudan and non-islamic Sudan. The non-moslems do not want to become
moslems. This causes the Islamic Sudanese to go into jihad mode which as you should know by now means either you convert to Islam or
die.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

It makes no sense because there are two Sudans -- Islamic sudan and non-islamic Sudan. The non-moslems do not want to become
moslems. This causes the Islamic Sudanese to go into jihad mode which as you should know by now means either you convert to Islam or
die.

You know that jihad can also mean e.g. studying the Koran.

You do yourself a great disservice by perpetuating this lie of yours.

[CFLarsen]

Are you not a terrorist if you support jihad or actively engage in it?

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Are you not a terrorist if you support jihad or actively engage in it?

The war between the jihadist moslems in sudan and the non-muslims is not terrorism. It is an outright war. Get your definitions straight.
There is nothing inherent in the definition of holy war or jihad that has to mean terrorism. It could involve terroristic acts but doesn't have to.
Of course all war could be considered terroristic depending on how far you are willing to expand the definition.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

You know that jihad can also mean e.g. studying the Koran.

Not in this case. Two million dead sudanese and counting makes your assertion a bit of a laugh.

Quote:

You do yourself a great disservice by perpetuating this lie of yours.

Thanks for the ad hominem again. There is no lie involved in the definition of the jihad in the sudan.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

You know that jihad can also mean e.g. studying the Koran.

You do yourself a great disservice by perpetuating this lie of yours.

Could you cite a source that says Jihad can also mean studying the Koran? That's an interpretation I've never heard before.

[SteveGrenard]

According to some interpreters of the word jihad it means struggle. In context of this discussion re the Horn of Africa, it means to wage holy war.

The strugglers then extend this to mean struggle to study the koran. While I have no personal experience studying the koran, I suppose studying this document could be construed as a struggle. Especially if you can't read.

I suppose also given the struggle definition you can have jihad for just about anything. It's a very convenient term for Islamic apologists.
It enables them to place the goal posts on wheels and move them at will.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The war between the jihadist moslems in sudan and the non-muslims is not terrorism. It is an outright war. Get your definitions straight.

What is the difference? Don't the Islamist terrorists wage war against the West? Isn't that what you claim jihad means?

You get your definitions straight.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

There is nothing inherent in the definition of holy war or jihad that has to mean terrorism. It could involve terroristic acts but doesn't have to. Of course all war could be considered terroristic depending on how far you are willing to expand the definition.

But that's what you have been very busy doing, Steve. Focusing on the war-against-non-Muslims definition.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Not in this case. Two million dead sudanese and counting makes your assertion a bit of a laugh.

What are you talking about? Nowhere have I claimed that the Sudan jihad was about studying the Koran.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Thanks for the ad hominem again. There is no lie involved in the definition of the jihad in the sudan.

It isn't an ad hominem, Steve. You do lie. Again and again.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Could you cite a source that says Jihad can also mean studying the Koran? That's an interpretation I've never heard before.

Naturally.

[SteveGrenard]

Get your definitions straight:

Quote:

Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad or Djehad, (Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ǧhd ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle to further the Islamic cause. Individuals involved in the political or military forms of jihad are often labeled with the neologism "jihadist".
The term "jihad" is often simplisticly reduced in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as generally "holy war", but this "physical" struggle, which encompasses religion, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad.

Among the jihads listed by wikipedia are:

Quote:

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).

This is the context to which the reference herein applies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

[thaiboxerken]

Muad'dib also started a Jihad that had nothing to do with Islam.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

What is the difference? Don't the Islamist terrorists wage war against the West? Isn't that what you claim jihad means?

Please show me where I allegedly say this. I claim only that jihad in this context means holy war. See extract from wikipedia above.

...get your definitions straight.

...get your contexts straight.

Quote:

But that's what you have been very busy doing, Steve. Focusing on the war-against-non-Muslims definition.

That's what the jihadist definition of holy war comes down to. I am busy proving that you have become an apologist for the pan Islamic movement, for violent jihad or holy war and for the anachronistic, barbaric religion that calls itself Islam.

Quote:

What are you talking about? Nowhere have I claimed that the Sudan jihad was about studying the Koran.

The last geopolitcal area of conflict posted concerned the Sudan and Somalia. You responded to my remarks on the jihad occuring in this region by calling into play the other definition of jihad. This was out of context.

Quote:

It isn't an ad hominem, Steve. You do lie. Again and again.

Since you can't prove this by your twisted logic and fallacies coupled with posting remarks completely out of context, your assertion of lying is rejected. I would appreciate it if you would take more care in applying this ad hominem before doing so.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Muad'dib also started a Jihad that had nothing to do with Islam.

If you want to count a mouse (jerboa) as a jihadist. He was rather destructive.

Quote:

Possibly the near eastern jumping mouse is not as famous as the American indegenous animal. But F. Herbert has a liking of misleading people in his universe. This jerboa is at home in the Arabian desert. It has a strong meaning in Arab mythology. One of the most important is that in Pre-Islamic times the jerboa, the small little animal, destroyed the centuries old monumental stone built dam of Marib in Yemen. The stream (sail al-Arim) tamed by the dam watered the two desert gardens (oases) of Marib and was its vital life stream. The mouse dug a hole underneath until it collapsed. After the historical destruction of the dam about 580 AD, life was not anymore possible in Marib. It became deserted. The destruction of this famous dam is even noticed in the Qur'an in the Surat Marib. In the context of F. Herberts Arabic-Islamic symbolism this connection - 'the small destroys the monumental', water, desert, changing of ecology by Muad'dib - makes much sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muad%27dib

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Please show me where I allegedly say this. I claim only that jihad in this context means holy war. See extract from wikipedia above.

Liar:

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

You think I am making up al Zawahiri's videotaped broadcasted speech calling for jihad from Spain to Iraq? If anyone is making up stuff as they "go along" its you.

I have alrfeady said al Zawahiri was not clear on what countries between
Spain and Iraq which is a geographic expanse based on longitudes and not latitudes.

Here is a relatively recent political map of Europe where you can decide what countries would bein al Zawahiri's Spain to Iraq jihad call.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_MAP/1_...1_enlarged.htm

Thanks for mentioning Britain which is not located east of Spain so is not included in those remarks. Granted Britain is rapidly becoming The Islamic Republic of West Pakistan.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Why do you lie? The list of countries is based on the geography outlined by al Zawahiri as calling for jihad from Spain to Iraq. These are some of the major countries in the area occupied from Spain to Iraq.



Do you actally believe the UK is located between Spain and Iraq? Ooookay.

It is inane comments about inane comments like these that proves you selectively read what suits your agenda and that you employ deception in debate. Why do you lie about the UK's geographic location?




In the absence of secular law some colonists enforced God's law which, hey, wait a minute, it's the good ole ten commandments again. Only 1, 720 years after they were first published. Did Indians kill each other in tribal war, feuds and other rituals. Yes. Were they legally punished .No. If you disagree or claim otherwise, kindly provide the Native American Indian legal code extant between 100 BCE and 1620 or 1776. I'll accept either latter year.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Wrong. I provide cites, URLs, references. Your sole purpose here is not to do anything but ask silly or inane questions. You lie by misattribution and asking questions which have no answers because of the way they are worded. These are cheap, deceptive tricks. Your ticket has been punched.





Good. Then why did you bring up the UK then since they were not in the specified jihadi area. I was talking about longitudes, Spain to Iraq. I stipulated, now for the fourth time, that al Zawahiri did not specify the latitudes of the area of his called for jihad. It could be anarrow strip of the globe between Spain and Iraq or it could cover from South Africa to the Arctic Circle. Somehow I surmise it is the broader area given islam's overall globalization aim.

The UK is NOT only in a higher latiude than Spain, it is also NOT longtiudinally between
Spain and Iraq which is why I did not include it but you demanded to know why it wasn't included. I was following al Zawahiri's words in my report of them. It's called accuracy, not deception.


There is a map on the net of the islamization of Europe by the year 2015.

Yes in feuds, challenges, as well as tribal warfare. Instead of answering by asking a silly question prove your claim that native American Indians had laws against perjury, larceny and murder extending back before 100 BCE.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Wrong I did not list the countries.

al Zawahiri did that when he called for jihad from Spain to Iraq. You asked what countries would be involved, you are the one feigning ignorance of the map between Spain and Iraq.

If Zawahiri and AlQueda were responsible for the London train and bus bombs, and I have
no doubt that their centralized authority does have such responsibility, it is clearly
Zawahiri who left Britain out of the formula from Spain to Iraq in his call for jihad. Maybe he figures Britain is already a done deal and will be islamicized without jihad. How many devout moslems live in the UK now?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Larsen: What map? Based on what? Reality or fantasies?

This map:

http://vikingphoenix.com/blog/antido...rope-2015.html


Sorry. UK is just renamed North Pakistan. France is called Islamic Republic of New Algeria.

It is a pessimistic rendition based on the stated objectives of the jihad called for by moslems against Europe. With folks like you apologizing for the muslim jihadists and defending them, this projected map becomes more and more of a reality with each passing moment.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Wrong.

Dr. al Zwahiri defined the countries when he called for jihad from Spain to Iraq. Any sane rational person knows what this means. I see that you don't.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Larsen: How I know he drew a line? You told me!
How can it not be imaginary?

Reply: al Zwahiri called for jihad from Spain to Iraq. I said I don't know where the latitudes are, only the longitudes based on his statement. They are from Spain to Iraq.

Why do you think al Zawahiri would call for jihad from Spain to Iraq and then decide everything in between was "imaginary."

The longitudes of the area described by Zawahiri is West 4 degrees and east 45 degrees.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

I never said they were. With the number of devout muslims over 1 million enough of them either support jihad against Britiain or actively engage in it to constitute a grave threat.





I NEVER said Sudan per se was an enemy of AlQueda. Your question makes no sense. If you are talking about the situation in Somalia and the Sudan it is either Moslems in control or who want control who are waging jihad against the non-Muslim peoples of these two nations. The jihadist governments or rebel groups or militias are not enemies of Al Queda...if anything they are allies. As of this morning the muslim president of Sudan stated he takes inspiration from Hezbollah and doesn't want international intereference in his efforts to wage jihad (= killing or converting non-muslims).

Recently Time Magazine did a review of the situation in Africa which can explain it better than I can:



and this regarding Somalia:



get the rest of the situation here:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1218273,00.html



The situation in the jihad lodged against the Sudan has been brewing for years with 2 million Sudanese dead already. Here is a review from 2002:



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26672


Here is the situation as of today:



http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=42104&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

And so it begins. It looks like AlQueda is formenting strife which analysts say could spread an islamic jihad shooting war across east Africa.


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11391971.htm

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

It makes no sense because there are two Sudans -- Islamic sudan and non-islamic Sudan. The non-moslems do not want to become
moslems. This causes the Islamic Sudanese to go into jihad mode which as you should know by now means either you convert to Islam or
die.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The war between the jihadist moslems in sudan and the non-muslims is not terrorism. It is an outright war. Get your definitions straight.
There is nothing inherent in the definition of holy war or jihad that has to mean terrorism. It could involve terroristic acts but doesn't have to.
Of course all war could be considered terroristic depending on how far you are willing to expand the definition.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Not in this case. Two million dead sudanese and counting makes your assertion a bit of a laugh.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

According to some interpreters of the word jihad it means struggle. In context of this discussion re the Horn of Africa, it means to wage holy war.

The strugglers then extend this to mean struggle to study the koran. While I have no personal experience studying the koran, I suppose studying this document could be construed as a struggle. Especially if you can't read.

I suppose also given the struggle definition you can have jihad for just about anything. It's a very convenient term for Islamic apologists.
It enables them to place the goal posts on wheels and move them at will.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Among the jihads listed by wikipedia are:

Quote:

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).

This is the context to which the reference herein applies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

When you refer to "jihad" in your argumentation, you constantly and exclusively use the meaning of violent, terrorist war against the West.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

That's what the jihadist definition of holy war comes down to. I am busy proving that you have become an apologist for the pan Islamic movement, for violent jihad or holy war and for the anachronistic, barbaric religion that calls itself Islam.

And you are failing spectacularly.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

The last geopolitcal area of conflict posted concerned the Sudan and Somalia. You responded to my remarks on the jihad occuring in this region by calling into play the other definition of jihad. This was out of context.

Bull.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Since you can't prove this by your twisted logic and fallacies coupled with posting remarks completely out of context, your assertion of lying is rejected. I would appreciate it if you would take more care in applying this ad hominem before doing so.

I don't care if you reject it, Steve. I provide the evidence.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Liar:

When you refer to "jihad" in your argumentation, you constantly and exclusively use the meaning of violent, terrorist war against the West.

And you are failing spectacularly.

Bull.

I don't care if you reject it, Steve. I provide the evidence.

But you don't. I looked over the quotes you provided and I didn't see any evidence of SG lying.

I see you making personal attacks and being abusive, but I don't see that you've substantiated your claim.

Why do you pursue this vendetta?

[CFLarsen]

The evidence is there. How you handle it is your business.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

3. I think you need to provide me with dated copies/references of secular laws against perjury, killing and theft/larceny in order to back up your question. I cannot answer a question for which the evidence is null which is my point.

I really think that this is a remarkably silly demand, given the immidiatly and blatantly obvious truth of non Christian commandments against at least murder and theft. Still if you require evidence that water is wet the Code of Hammurabi predates your date by not much less than 2000 years. Perjury is somewhat harder, but a very short search revealed this article which indicates that a commandment/law against perjury in the Illiad, the Illiad dating from around 6th or 7th century BC, according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiad

The code of Hammurabi might have something on perjury as well. It states several times that witnesses take an oath for exampel : "23. If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and ... on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen.", but I can't find any specification of what exactly happens if this oath is violated. http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Where is your evidence that three of the commandments clearly predate secular laws against killing, stealing and perjury?

You ever take a Western Civ course in your life?

How many years of "western" civilization were influenced by the intricate fusion of secular and religious law before the founding of the Western Civ's new outpost in North America? About 1500 years. (Consider Constantine's officialization of Christianity as a beginning point to Constitution and statues in the US.) A few hundred to about a thousand or so less for most of Europe.

When a habit or agreed assumption passes into common law, the codification of it into common law is a natural progreession. There is no need to find a footnote that says "Oh, professor, my source for this law is the bible, Ten Commandments, Commandment X" when the habit for 1500 years (or more) has been that murder is unlawful. At that point, the matter is one of a common cultural assumption, and a common law. Human endeavour is not all digital.

Quote:

Can you show me where it says it is the god behind the 10 Commandments or not? You might just prove me right.

You know good a damned well that God is a matter of Faith. You either buy into God, or you don't. The scriptures were written, and are a reference to this conversation whether or not you (or anyone in this conversation) believe them to be God inspired, or simply a codification of purely human-derived norms, laws, and customs of XXXX BC. As a set of standards, those 10 (or 11 or whatever) and a whole lot of other guidance in Exodus have been embraced as a common cultural assumption for centuries. But they didn't survive the centuries unchanged, did they? Manslaughter? Murder? Degrees of murder? Witchcraft? As a foundational base, it is sort of hard not to see the evolution of such norms. That Roman law already had similar norms surely can't have hurt, and Roman law is ALSO an influence. It is not an either or proposition.

It is worth note that these common cultural assumptions seem to meet a common human need for structure and order, and when confronted with new ideas, compile additively.

I am having a hard time understanding why there is some kind of argument about the roots of modern laws in Western Societies. The body of what is now law in America is the result of a massive accumulation of norms and rules. Besides the usual Western Civ courses, I had a few law courses in my day (no, not a lawyer) each of which discussed the rather complex path that the various societal agreements derive from. If Hammurabi et al pre date the Ten Commandments, they either were developed in series, or in parallel. Was the culture of Hammurabi exported to the West, or the Culture of the two oldest Abrahamic religions? The latter, so it makes more sense to point to the OT reference, as that is what has sustained and remained consistent into the present as a cultural baseline.

FWIW: The Blue Laws are not all that old, in terms of application. When I was a boy, blue laws in Virginia kept all stores closed. Blue laws in Connecticut, when I lived there a few years ago, prohibited sales of alcohol before noon on a Sunday. They still do here in Texas.

In America, prohibitions against commercial activity (on a Sabbath) are directly traceable to Biblical norms and rules that the Puritans in both Virginia and Massachussets imported from Puritans in England. For another example, Sandy Koufax (A Jew / great left handed pitcher for the Dodgers) refused to pitch in a baseball game on the Sabbath as recently as the 1960's. He cited a religious prohibition based on his Faith as the reason.

DR

Edited for a missing sentence or two concerning Hammurabi.

[Kerberos]

Also, my count of which of the ten commandments can be found in US law:

1) you shall have no other gods before me.

US law: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (miss, US law directly contradicts the commandment)

2You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
US law: Says no such thing. is Freedom of expression a part of the stadard interpretation of the Constittutien? (miss, no US law, possibly directly contradicted by American law.

3)You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
US law: Prohibitations agaisnt swearing, such as exist, apply regardless of whether the lords name is involved. (miss, no US law, arguably a violation of the free speech clause)

4)Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
US law: Some laws concerning sundays. US Constitution forbids slavery (partial hit, but exposses norms directly in conflict with the US constitution)

5)Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
US law: Under normal circumstances you must obey you parents till you're 18, but no longer. (partial hit, but childrens parents being responsible for them is a norm so obvious that it can be probably be found in almost any culture. correlation; yes, causation; no evidence)

6)You shall not murder.
US law: You shall not murder (hit, but obvious norm, correlation,b ut no evidence for causation)

7)You shall not commit adultery.
US law: some states have laws against adultery, but those are not always inforced. (partial hit)

8)You shall not steal.
US law: You shall not steal. (hit, but obvious. Correlation; check, Causation; no evidence.

9)You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
US law: Perjury is illega. (hit, but norm is only slightly less obvious than not stealing and murdering, correlation, but no bassis for assuming causation).

10)You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
US law: No law against coverting, slavery is unconstitutional (blatant miss, exposses norms directly violating the US Constitution)

Count:

4 misses, 1-3 unconstitutional, remaining not directly unconstitutional, but exposses norms that are.

3 Partial hits, one exposssing norms that violate the US constitution, and one being obvious.

3 hits, all blatantly obvious, and fundamental to any civilized socierty, no evidence of causation.

In sum 2 partial hits, where som causation can reasonably be presumed, none concerning fundamentally important legislation. Not an impressive track record, considering that there are 4 clear misses which are arguably directly against fundamental aspects of US law.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You ever take a Western Civ course in your life?

How many years of "western" civilization were influenced by the intricate fusion of secular and religious law before the founding of the Western Civ's new outpost in North America? About 1500 years. (Consider Constantine's officialization of Christianity as a beginning point to Constitution and statues in the US.) A few hundred to about a thousand or so less for most of Europe.

When a habit or agreed assumption passes into common law, the codification of it into common law is a natural progreession. There is no need to find a footnote that says "Oh, professor, my source for this law is the bible, Ten Commandments, Commandment X" when the habit for 1500 years (or more) has been that murder is unlawful. At that point, the matter is one of a common cultural assumption, and a common law. Human endeavour is not all digital.

I think you are missing the point here. The point is not how laws (of any kind) fuses over time. The point is that Steve Grenard claims that before the 10 Commandments, there were no secular laws against killing, stealing and perjury.

This is a claim of such magnitude that it will rewrite all of early history, if Steve was right. That's why it is imperative that he shows evidence of his claim.

Of course, he couldn't. Just another wild, false claim from Steve Grenard.

[Kerberos]

Just found this: Article 3 of the code of Hammurabi:
"3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death."

There you have it, the code oh Hammurabi, predating the old testament by centuries if not millenia, prohibits murder, theft and bearing false testemony against you neighbour.

[davefoc]

Nice job on the 10 commandment analysis Kerbero. It looked definitive to me.

So to sum up your summary. Arguably two partial hits:
1. blue laws restricting buisness on Sundays (TC #4)
2. some, not widely enforced, laws against adultery (TC# 7)


Where a hit is defined as area of US law that is different because of an influence from the ten commandments, than it might have been in a completely secular society

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Just found this: Article 3 of the code of Hammurabi:
"3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death."

There you have it, the code oh Hammurabi, predating the old testament by centuries if not millenia, prohibits murder, theft and bearing false testemony against you neighbour.

There you have it, the Prologue to the Code of Hammurabi which seems to involve deities as well:

Quote:

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Of the more 200 "crimes" spelled out in Hammurabi, many specifiy death sentences for what we would consider non-capital crimes. In fact the Code seems not so much to prohibit certain acts as it is a
an early version of rather harsh sentencing guidelines.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

There you have it, the Prologue to the Code of Hammurabi which seems to involve deities as well:


http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Of the more 200 "crimes" spelled out in Hammurabi, many specifiy death sentences for what we would consider non-capital crimes.
In fact the Code seems not so much to prohibit certain acts as it is a
an early version of rather harsh sentencing guidelines.

Which is older, the Code of Hammurabi or the 10 Commandments?

[SteveGrenard]

This is a very divisive issue with many court cases on both sides of the divide having appeared. Here is a filing in favor of the concept that the Ten Commandments has influenced American law dating back 400++ years or to the official documented arrival of Europeans in what is now the United States


http://www.moseshand.com/studies/db400yrs.htm

My argument is not whether or not in all of history and in all of the world there didn't exist other law giving documents but which most influenced the earliest incursions of settlements by Europeans in
North America. It is not also about what came first, Hammurabi, the Magna Carta or the Ten Commandments. This is irrelavant to the whether or not the ten commandments influenced American law. The Hammurabi code dates from around 2250 BC.The Ten Commandments at least from 1000 BC.
Hammurabi is much older then compared to the commandments.

But, if a society knows of the ten commandments but not of hammurabi (remember this is pre-Internet)then one can say it is the ten commandments that formed the basis for their laws say against killing and not hammurabi. You cannot accord an attribute of knowledge of something which didn't exist for the people upon whom you are conferring this knowledge.

The first permanent European colony in North America is founded at St. Augustine in 1565 AD.
Can we presume that the Spanish who colonized Florida in 1565 incorporated the Hammurabi Code into their local law or the ten commandments? And later, in Virginia and in Massachusetts were English colonists versed enough in Hammurabi (which wasn't
discovered in hard copy until I believe 1902) or is it more likely they embraced the Ten Commandments to base their laws--- something they had in all their bibles and with which they were extremely familiar aalong with the Magna Carta.

-----------------------------------------------
The following is from the note accompanying a picture of a rock face in New Mexico:

Quote:

"The Las Lunas Decalogue is an example of early Hebrew script resembling Phoenician writing(cir. 1000 BC) under Greek influence............it consists of nine lines, reading from right to left. It is a summary of the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:2-17."

http://www.asis.com/~stag/americab.html

Do we actually know the exact date the Ten Commandments were written, even the year plus or minus 10 or a hundred?

Here is the oldest known Hebrew papyrus containing the decalogue:


which dates to around 100-150 BC.

http://www.judicial.state.al.us/tour_displayhtml.cfm

[SteveGrenard]

The complete Code of Hammurabi as transcribed from the copy found can be found at URL just below..There are 282 violations listed along with punishments for committing said violations. There Are several which, for example, deal with the renting of carts or boats and the punishments should such vehicles or vessels be damaged or lost ….paragraphs which clearly have relevance to Hertz and Avis today but had nothing to do with the earliest settelements in North America.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM


However, most pertinent to this argument is the following historical fact:

Quote:

By far the most remarkable of the Hammurabi records is his code of laws, the earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument, eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view. This noted stone was found in the year 1901, not in Babylon, but in a city of the Persian mountains, to which some later conqueror must have carried it in triumph. It begins and ends with addresses to the gods. Even a law code was in those days regarded as a subject for prayer, though the prayers here are chiefly cursings of whoever shall neglect or destroy the law.

So the entire documented Hammurabi code was not found or discovered or re-discovered by Europeans until 1901. I ask, therefore, how likely it was in 1565 or in 1620 when the first explorers and colonists settled in North America that such people were as familiar with this compared to their Ten Commandments?

Here is an edited time-line (some items deleted as irrelevant) derived from the URL below it:

Quote:

1000 A.D. - Leif Ericson, a Viking seaman, explores the east coast of North America and sights Newfoundland, establishing a short-lived settlement there.

SG: Since Hammurabi pre-dates Ericson, did ole Leif bring a copy with him to govern his short lived colony? I doubt it.

1215 - The Magna Carta document is adopted in England, guaranteeing liberties to the English people, and proclaiming basic rights and procedures which later become the foundation stone of modern democracy.

SG: But not of all the laws which were enacted and followed it.

1492 - Christopher Columbus makes the first of four voyages to the New World, funded by the Spanish Crown, seeking a western sea route to Asia. On October 12, sailing the Santa Maria, he lands in the Bahamas, thinking it is an outlying Japanese island.

SG: Please tell me Columbus didn't govern his actions by the bible and the ten commandments but instead by the code of Hammurabi.

1497 - John Cabot of England explores the Atlantic coast of Canada, claiming the area for the English King, Henry VII. Cabot is the first of many European explorers to seek a Northwest Passage (northern water route) to Asia.

1507 - The name "America" is first used in a geography book referring to the New World with Amerigo Vespucci getting credit for the discovery of the continent.

1513 - Ponce de León of Spain lands in Florida.

1524 - Giovanni da Verrazano, sponsored by France, lands in the area around the Carolinas, then sails north and discovers the Hudson River, and continues northward into Narragansett Bay and Nova Scotia.

1541 - Hernando de Soto of Spain discovers the Mississippi River.

1565 - The first permanent European colony in North America is founded at St. Augustine (Florida) by the Spanish.

SG: Did the Catholics settling in Florida and building their monastery there depend on Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments?

1587 - The first English child, Virginia Dare, is born in Roanoke, August 18.

SG: Did this child grow up tutored in the laws of Hammurabi or those in the Ten Commandments?

1606 - The London Company sponsors a colonizing expedition to Virginia.

1607 - Jamestown is founded in Virginia by the colonists of the London Company.

SG: Did Jamestown post the Code of Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments and the Magna Carta as their governing documents?

1609 - The Dutch East India Company sponsors a seven month voyage of exploration to North America by Henry Hudson. In September he sails up the Hudson River to Albany.

SG: Did the Dutch arrivals embrace the Code of Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments to guide their laws and ethical positions?

1613 - A Dutch trading post is set up on lower Manhattan island.

1619 - The first session of the first legislative assembly in America occurs as the Virginia House of Burgesses convenes in Jamestown. It consists of 22 burgesses representing 11 plantations.

SG: Did this first legislative body base their laws and punishments on Hammurabi or the Ten Commandments and the Magna Carta?

1620 - November 9, the Mayflower ship lands at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, with 101 colonists. On November 11, the Mayflower Compact is signed by the 41 men, establishing a form of local government in which the colonists agree to abide by majority rule and to cooperate for the general good of the colony. The Compact sets the precedent for other colonies as they set up governments.

SG: Did the Mayflower Compact set-up a local government based on Hammurabi? I think not.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst.../rev-early.htm

Fast forward now to the time America sought its independance from Britain and the thought processes that went into codifying its laws. Show me verifiable references that Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and the other founders/framers were basing their deliberations on the Code of Hammurabi. I can't find any but I did find this discussion from elsewhere:

Quote:

....the first tablet also has secular aspects. As the Chief Justice pointed out in his speech unveiling the monument, Samuel Adams gave a speech, the day before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, referring to the King as a false idol, alluding to the Commandment that "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

From its beginning, America was based on establishing the worship of the True God. I have cited the early charters here:

http://members.aol.com/TestOath/08theocracy.htm

This did not change at the time of the Constitution. The purpose of our nation was to advance the true faith, but not to do it through the establishment of a national church/denomination. The most remarkable thing about America was the possibility it created a clergy-free theocracy. That possibility was stillborn, but its future was not precluded by the Constitution.

http://members.aol.com/TenC%204%20USA/UShistory/1st.htm

[CFLarsen]

You are talking around the issue, Steve.

You claimed that:

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Three of the commandments clearly predate secular laws against killing, stealing and perjury.

You have seen evidence that this is not correct.

Do you admit that you were wrong, yes or no?

[SteveGrenard]

But most importanty to this entire argument is that laws formulated in America by its earliest European settlers could NOT have been based on
the Code of Hammurabi because these settlers indicate they were not aware of the Code nor could they have had a copy of it, which was discovered on an eight foot high stone tablet in 1901 cached away in some obscure mountain village in Iran/Persia whereas the old testment was readily available to them both before and after Gutenberg used the first movable type (circa 1450) to print bibles. Therefore there is no doubt that the secular laws against theft, perjury and killing as well as swearing, holding the sabbath and even the earliest anti-adultery laws in the Americas were based on the ten commandments as no other source were available to these early settlersand that the ten commandments in America is the pre-eminent and first such document or source on which such laws were based.

I see somebody above went through the exercise done previously linking the ten commandments to civil laws. I will do so again:

1. Killing. Prohibited.

2. Theft. Prohibited.

3. Adultery. Prohibited. Laws against adultery still exist in Virginia but were more widespread in the 1700 and 1800s. (Prev ref above)

4. Perjury (Bearing false witness) - Prohibited.

5. Holding the sabbath. Sabbath closing laws were once common but continue to persist in some locations in the U.S.

6. Obeying mothers and fathers. Age of majority and legal consent laws based on this.

7. Swearing and profanity using g's name in vein. Largely gone now but once commonplace along with sabbath and adultery laws.

Seven out of ten Commandments can find their roots in the ten commandments in American laws first. Why? Because for the earliest Americans the Code of Hammurabi was unknown, did not exist,was not yet discovered. You cannot change all aspects of an historical truth just because a new discovery is made (e.g. The Code of Hammurabi as discovered in 1901).

PS: It is duplicitous lying to quote a statement/premise out of context. The context for this argument was that the laws based on the commandments ocurred (first) in America and predate by several hundred years any historically earlier laws. You cannot retoractively change history. This is the worst sort of revisionism.

[CFLarsen]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

But most importanty to this entire argument is that laws formulated in America by its earliest European settlers could NOT have been based on
the Code of Hammurabi because these settlers indicate they were not aware of the Code nor could threy have had a copy of it, which was discovered on an eight foot high stone tablet in 1901 whereas the old testment was readily avilable to them both before and after Gutenberg used the first movable type (circa 1450) to print bibles. Therefore there is no doubt that the secular laws against theft, perjury and killing as well as swearing, holding the sabbath and even the earliest anti-adultery laws in the Americas were based on the ten commandments as no other source were available to these early settlers
and that the ten commandments in America is the pre-eminent and first such document or source on which such laws were based.

I see somebody above went through the exercise done previously linking the ten commandments to civil laws. I will do so again:

1. Killing. Prohibited.
2. Theft. Prohibited.
3. Adultery. Prohibited. Laws against adultery still exist in Virginia but were more widespread in the 1700 and 1800s. (Prev ref above)
4. Perjury (Bearing false witness) - Prohibited.
5. Holding the sabbath. Sabbath closing laws were once common but continue to persist in some locations in the U.S.
6. Obeying mothers and fathers. Age of majority and legal consent laws
based on this.
7. Swearing and profanity using g's name in vein. Largely gone now but once
commonplace along with sabbath and adultery laws.

Seven out of ten Commandments can find their roots in the ten commandments in American laws first. Why? Because for the
earliest Americans the Code of Hammurabi was unnown, did not exist,
was not yet discovered. You cannot changes all aspects of an
historical truth just because a new discovery is made (e.g. The Code of Hammurabi as discovered in 1901).

PS: It is duplicitous lying at to quote a statement out of context. The context for this argument was that the laws based on the commandments ocurred (first) in America and predate by several hundred years any historically earlier laws.

You are talking around the issue, Steve.

You claimed that:

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

Three of the commandments clearly predate secular laws against killing, stealing and perjury.

You have seen evidence that this is not correct.

Do you admit that you were wrong, yes or no?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

I see this as no different from the missionaries who were expelled from Indonesia (in spite of their good intentions) for spreading X-tianity after the tsunami. It seems that the aid of Christians always comes with a price tag - after all, you can't really expect them to do anything out of the goodness of their heart, right?

Actually, that is exactly how early Christianity spread so rapidly -- people loved how they selflessly cared for the sick. They let their actions show, and people came and joined up.

Those who would force to stop them are in the wrong.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

There are missionary groups that pretend to be humanitarian organizations, but use that as a cover for attempted conversions. I went to college with a guy who later went to Egypt as a crypto-missionary. He was thrilled that he'd be pretending to dig wells, or whatever, while actually "spreading the word of Jesus's love". Nobody's heard from or of him in about six years. I wouldn't make a large bet on his safety.

With any luck, he's found true love in the arms of an alabaster-shouldered, black-haired beauty and converted.

Originally Posted by Satan, in one of Mark Twain's Letters From The Earth

First of all, I recall to your attention the extraordinary fact with which I began. To wit, that the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys -- yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything -- even his queer heaven itself -- to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by bjb

But apopasty is listed as a capital offense in the Christian bible:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
But I'm pretty sure this is a leftover from the Hebrew beliefs so I don't believe that Christians (followers of the teachings of Christ) ever actually did this.

That's Old Testament. The all-knowing, all seeing God has changed his mind since then and you no longer have to kill apostates, or "men who lie with men as with a woman", or witches (which actually exist) or those who worship other gods (which actually exist) or eat crickets or deny yourselves cheeseburgers.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

But they HAVE murdered abortion doctors and bombed clinics, all in the name of God.

And blown up buildings. Or was that purely a secular move on McVeigh's part?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Please. There is no OS but Linux, and Linus is its coder.



Whereas programmers wear t-shirts and code on actual computers.



It's nothing to be ashamed of. The first step is to admit you have a problem...

I've done embedded SQL in COBOL about fifteen years ago. My left eye still twitches occasionally...

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard

All three major faiths - Christian, Jew and Muslin - embrace the ten commandments. Even if not god given these rules have formed the basis for much secular law.

However they greatly preceed Judaism, as does the Golden Rule. As Elton John is to REO Speedwagon, so, too, did early Judaism totally copy other religions.

And in any case, "don't murder" and "don't steal" are fairly reasonable things for people to agree on to live in a civilized manner.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Cleon

No, they didn't. Let's review, shall way?

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. (Blue laws not withstanding, there's really no secular law keeping me from doing whatever the $%^& I want on Shabbos.)

Reminds me of how guilty I felt crankin' one out as a teenager one Christmas morning.

Seriously, wouldn't a god have anything better to do than sit around getting furious at you for doing this?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Elind

I thought you said the commandments were the basis of OUR secular law (never mind if some are not today, but might have been yesterday, but discarded due to innate injustice).

Actually, much of our law is anti-ten commandments.

Thou shalt not steal -- Say buh-bye to welfare, social security, and taxation of any kind. "But rich people do what is akin to stealing!" Sorry, tell it to Satan in the ETERNAL HELLFIRE. God doesn't buy into your theft-oriented populist rhetoric.

Thou shalt not kill -- Hard to argue for capital punishment except in instances specifically called out elsewhere in the Bible, although doesn't "turn the other cheek" waive all that anyway? Let the person have their way with you, take your stuff, wreck your life. Be a good, witnessing Christian to convert people.

And we won't even get into Christians working for credit card companies, loaning out tons of money, then when people get into a little trouble, jamming the interest rate up to 34.99% so it's now impossible to dig your way out.

Or voting for the government that lies about you winning "50%" of the lotto money, then turning right around and taking 36% or 39% of your 50% right back again.

[Beerina]

I'm only halfway through page 2, so I'm gonna take a breather on this thread.

[SteveGrenard]

Beerina wrote:

Quote:

Thou shalt not kill -- Hard to argue for capital punishment except in instances specifically called out elsewhere in the Bible, although doesn't "turn the other cheek" waive all that anyway? Let the person have their way with you, take your stuff, wreck your life. Be a good, witnessing Christian to convert people.

It is interesting you brought up this commandment and tied it to capital punishment. That's because the Ten Commandments merely says Thou Shalt Not Kill. It DOES NOT specify punishment, capital or otherwise. It leaves the issue of judgement and punishment up to god which for the perp is probably a good thing.

On the other hand some here are arguing that the Code of Hammurabi, for example, says "thou shalt not kill" before the ten commandments did but these folks may not have read the code of Hammurabi thoroughly enough to realize that it DOES NOT say "Thou Shalt Not Kill." But it does specify capital punishment for killing and a lot of other things. It presumes that people will kill but does not specifically make a statement to prohibit killing. It presumes people will steal and specifies punishment for that, and so on.

Here's an example directly from a competent translation of the Code of Hammurabi:

Quote:

1 If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.


6 If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.

7 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.

8 If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.

There are 282 "crimes" for which punishments are cited so this is a small but representative example. Review the rest at:


http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

#8 above does apply today. It's called celebrity or rich man's justice .... but seriously there are some posters here who would have us believe that:

a. The Code of Hammurabi predates the ten commandments on the the prohibition of killing.
Clearly it does no such thing. It specifies capital punishment for killing and other crimes but does not state they are prohibited.

b. The code of Hammurabi is the basis for secular law in America and elsewhere. If it was we would be executing people for stealing and other trivial offenses. If these posters were running the legal system and using the Code of Hammurabi as their guide our executions would be taking place on a conveyor belt.

c. Poor people would be executed for crimes which rich people can buy their way out of.

d. As far as America is concerned, the founders of this nation could not have used Hammurabi (thankfully) since it wasn't discovered until 1901.


They are just plain wrong on several levels.