American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Thomas Jefferson...

I keep trying to imagine what Jefferson, or someone like him, would do today.

I think that it would get really ugly, really fast.

[Happy Monkey]

He would be labeled as a nut and ridiculed on the 24 hour news networks.

[Undertoad]

"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."

OK TS, you give him the bad news.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

I keep trying to imagine what Jefferson, or someone like him, would do today.

I think that it would get really ugly, really fast.

WWJD~~ What Would Jefferson Do?

[iamthewalrus109]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Let's see a ref for that thanks, personally I use the Cambridge dictionary, I see no reference to this in there. You didn't mean to use divine, that wouldn't have made any sense. Stick to shorter words, they suit you. I have a long history of some impressive typos here, some of the older users will be able to attest to that one however misspelling the key term doesn't bode well for your understanding of the topic. It didn't. If you wish, with the ease and grace that the awesome latent powers as you suggest you possess would imply, go ahead and pick apart my posts. Don't hold back now, I'd hate to get the wrong impression of you because you were debating with one lobe tied behind your back.

Now while you've managed some impressive use of cut and paste there, bonus points for that. You seem to have failed to make a point though, pity about that. Yes, in the event of disputes the king was the final authority. I never denied this. You know most people would have been happy to accept that statement without a bibliography longer than your post content, you're wasting precious electrons.

I will however reinforce my position with these little quotes from the code epilogue.



Just in case that was unclear:



Both taken from this translation.
Aren't primary sources great?

I hope this makes it clear, the code was meant to be above kings, this was key. There aren't many ways of making this clearer than hoping someone's scepter breaks, them's fightin' words. Hammurabi wrote the code to please his gods but did not consider himself of divine lineage. I cannot make this any clearer. Go on, prove me wrong.

Personally, I feel there is a need for personal insults and profanity. A condition brought on by this flagrant case of not knowing what the fuck you're talking about exacerbated by insipid flirtations with the moral high ground. I make no attempt not to be abrasive when I feel the need, of course that need tends to be linked to displays of intemperate stupidity.

Well it's nice to see that there are still blatant elitists/pompus asses/clods still walking around on earth, sometimes I get worried that aren't enough of you around. You still haven't gotten my point and doubt you ever will. I was making reference to the authority of the king through God, and that this code was constructed to see that goodness and greatness of God bestowed on all his people. In the Epilogue of the code it also states that Hammurabi also condems destruction to whomever breaks the code to the God of righteousness, because he would be dead you brute, of course it was supposed to go past the lives of kings. Men carrying on man made tradition is fool hearty and ill-advised, but as exhibited by the ruin of Babylon. Your continued obsession over the word divination gives me a hint that you are probably nothing more than a hyped up bean counter with time to waste posting here for all the many years you've been spouting your nonsense. I would love to scrutinize one of your posts, but they seem to be attack oriented and of a venomous and contemptious nature with little more than negative dim whitted sarcasm attached to each worthless word.

To my point:

"Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I. My words are well considered; my deeds are not equaled; to bring low those that were high; to humble the proud, to expel insolence. If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king's reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in righteousness over his subjects. If this ruler do not esteem my words, which I have written in my inscription, if he despise my curses, and fear not the curse of God, if he destroy the law which I have given, corrupt my words, change my monument, efface my name, write his name there, or on account of the curses commission another so to do, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, or commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods, who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his scepter, curse his destiny"

- This section binds his curse to future leaders by the will of God, which is my point on the code it's bound by God, the king is just the God's representative, that was my contention, you chose to view it as only the king's authority, that's your problem.

"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"

- this goes to my point on divination, in many accounts of Hammurabi's inspiration of the law, and in the very text of the code, he makes reference to divine inspiration, in the name of righteousness, being spoken to and so forth. This isn't even taking into account that he consulted an oracle from time to time.

On the issue of my use of divination, my usuage of the word was in reference to what Hammurabi felt was his calling. My usage was as such: Example: Oxford English Dictionary: "the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural needs" Example : American Heritage Dictionary: "Something that has been divined"

Whether Hammurabi believed it to be set from high or not, which I believe he did, the fact remains that the authority set out in the law stems from God, or Gods in this case, that's it, and frankly I refuse to be daunted by your chastising, it's a matter of interpretation on the usage of this word. Your chose to look at any possible given meaning to the contrary, avoiding the fact that, although this set of laws had many secular applications and regualted many mundane processes, the prologue and the epilogue make reference to the heavenly nature of its origin. The concept of doing good is the key point here, why do good, because its the right thing to do? Says who? Some guy, no it's the representive of God in this case, that's all. I refuse to address any further commentary my spelling mistakes, I think a simple spelling error says nothing about comprehesion or knowledge of a subject if done in haste and in an informal medium such as this.

-Walrus

[xoxoxoBruce]

If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."

OK TS, you give him the bad news.

While I'm certainly no stranger to sarcasm, you needn't be so heavy handed with it.

I don't think that our accomplishments to date are as important as our current direction. I'm hoping that things will be smoothed over when we take the average down the road, but I'm rather sure that our current vector would not please him as they are now.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by richlevy

God either exists or does not.

Random thing I noticed... you used to write it as G-d. Did you have a change of heart about that rule as it applies to digital writing, or did you just forget? Just curious.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"Tom, your union held. It took another three generations and a civil war to free the slaves, but it expanded and developed over pretty much the entire known useable land mass. By 150 years later, through the freedom found by the nature of government you proposed, and the ingenuity of its people, it has become the strongest nation on earth. In fact it helped save England from Prussian takeover by joining on its old foe's side. Now its currency is the most traded, its culture the most copied, its incorporations the most valued, and its military completely without equal."

OK TS, you give him the bad news.

We're starting to act like England.

[lookout123]

absolutely not. we still visit dentists.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Random thing I noticed... you used to write it as G-d. Did you have a change of heart about that rule as it applies to digital writing, or did you just forget? Just curious.

It was a conscious decision. In my mind at least the idea of using G-d is not to 'use the Lord's name in vain'. In Orthodox Judaism, I believe that they limit themselves, in both Hebrew and English, to using G-d or a Hebrew equivalent for everything outside of prayer. In addition, when reciting a prayer for practice or scholarly purposes, they will change the normally recited name of God, which is itself not a direct phonetic translation of the word as it is written. The word used for non-religious purposes is Hashem "the name". The word used in synagogue translates as 'Lord'. The word actually written in text and never used is the "Y" word, thought to be the proper name of God.

IMO, discussing religion and advancing knowledge in general are not light pursuits and so I am moving away from worrying about it being 'vain'.

P.S. I just did a fact check and found this link which gives two of the names discussed above, along with others I had never heard. "Hashem" is not listed, possibly because it is a spoken convention. I also found that I was wrong about the 'Y' word never being used. There is one exception in English, but I am pretty sure I have never heard it used in synagogue.

[jaguar]

Oh dear.

Time for a recap because it's getting lost in the noise and there's come serious cognitive dissonance and cross talking going on.
A very, very long time ago you stated, incorrectly:

The code of Hannuarabi got it's punch from the fact that the king was descended from God.

I've been trying to get that though and you've been dodging the point ever since. The only other point I made, etymology & definition of divination aside, was that the code was not meant to be changed by future kings - it was meant to be a fundamental legal construct beyond their power. I mean this is the thing, I'm well aware the King got his mandate of sorts from the gods but regents and vice regents aren't normally related are they? (we're not talking prince-regents here obviously)

What I don't get, is where you got the idea I was denying the King's authority came from god. It has no bearing on whether the code itself was largely secular, which is what I posted to start this. You seem to have problems with separating the two, maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I obviously feel that the code can be secular in a theocratic governmental structure and that while the code may have been obeyed for religious reasons it was still a largely secular system of laws. Do you disagree? To save hunting around:

Couldn't one say modern law dates back to Hammurabi's Code which was in essence (It's not a subject I've taken but I'm led to beleive) largely secular? Babylon was a theocracy to be sure but the code of laws itself...

Judding by:

and that this code was constructed to see that goodness and greatness of God bestowed on all his people.

I'd say yes. This is the core of the whole thing, I think he was a wise bloke that realized that a separate code of laws was key to stable and just government, you think it was a religious thing.

you chose to view it as only the king's authority, that's your problem.

I did? I said that the king was not descended from the Gods, that's all.

On the issue of my use of divination, my usage of the word was in reference to what Hammurabi felt was his calling. My usage was as such: Example: Oxford English Dictionary: "the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural needs" Example : American Heritage Dictionary: "Something that has been divined"

That is (Oxford at least, not sure about that crappy American dictionary since you didn't post how it defines divined) the same as the Cambridge one. It however makes no sense contextually.
You stated:

and kings are afforded their rule through divination

.
So you think so the kings were afforded their rule though seeking knowledge by supernatural deeds? Rightyo.

Men carrying on man made tradition is fool hearty and ill-advised, but as exhibited by the ruin of Babylon.

Yea, secular liberal democracy is a silly idea, let's go back to a dark-ages theocratic government, that rocked. And you wonder why I think you're a halfwit, it's pompous, ludicrous twaddle like this.

If I tell you that you are never again allowed to put salt on your food and my authority to make that decree comes from God, then of course you will stop using salt because it is God's will. Right?

Well if you believe god will smite you down with a whacking great thunderbolt for doing so, yea. Cultural paradigms and all that anthropological claptrap.

[Undertoad]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I think Mr. Jefferson would be utterly pleased with the outcome AND the direction. I wanted to put a fine point on it by telling the story of what happened in the big picture. And with the lack of any truly negative narrative offered so far I have to assume I was right.

[jaguar]

Wouldn't the old boy be a touch pissed about the federal government gradually grabbing power?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Wouldn't the old boy be a touch pissed about the federal government gradually grabbing power?

Basically, Jefferson coming back to encounter the modern US would have the same net result as Jesus coming back to encounter the modern church. Something along the lines of "The Man in the Iron Mask" comes to mind.