truth on hold Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Lol does this ever end? Trying to install it on government property as a "historical document". A "historical document" that alleges to be "god's laws" and which has never even been found. BLOOMFIELD, N.M. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a New Mexico city must remove a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the lawn in front of Bloomfield City Hall. Bloomfield Mayor Scott Eckstein said he was surprised the judge would rule against "a historical document." "The intent from the beginning was that the lawn was going to be used for historical purposes, and that's what the council voted on," Eckstein told the Daily Times https://sg.yahoo.com/news/judge-rules-ten-commandments-monument-must-141940443.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Lol does this ever end? Trying to install it on government property as a "historical document". A "historical document" that alleges to be "god's laws" and which has never even been found. BLOOMFIELD, N.M. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a New Mexico city must remove a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the lawn in front of Bloomfield City Hall. Bloomfield Mayor Scott Eckstein said he was surprised the judge would rule against "a historical document." "The intent from the beginning was that the lawn was going to be used for historical purposes, and that's what the council voted on," Eckstein told the Daily Times https://sg.yahoo.com...-141940443.html It is a historical document. It's one of the first written legal codes. The only one I can think of that's older is the Code of Hammurabi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 It is a historical document. It's one of the first written legal codes. The only one I can think of that's older is the Code of Hammurabi. You're like a walking 8th grade history textbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 You're like a walking 8th grade history textbook. Yeah...that basically is 8th grade history. One wonders how many years until JtSP gets to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Yeah...that basically is 8th grade history. One wonders how many years until JtSP gets to it. No more than twelve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) It is a historical document. It's one of the first written legal codes. The only one I can think of that's older is the Code of Hammurabi. Lol not even close. Code of Hammurabi truly was a legal code covering nearly 300 specific offenses, including the resultant punishment for each, with a presumption of innocence. It was drafted by man. Unlike 10 commandant's, the word of God, 4 of which relate to man's relationship to God, and none of them describing a legal process or punishment. Edited August 9, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 References to those silly 10 Commandments should be replaced with quotes from the Audacity of Hope and An Inconvenient Truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) Lol not even close. Code of Hammurabi truly was a legal code covering nearly 300 specific offenses, including the resultant punishment for each, with a presumption of innocence. It was drafted by man. Unlike 10 commandant's, the word of God, 4 of which relate to man's relationship to God, and none of them describing a legal process or punishment. This just in, lack of specificity makes rules invalid. Or not rules. Or something. What're you saying here again, Joe? Because "thou shall not kill," isn't "thou shall not kill premeditatively; thou killing in an accident is manslaughter, thou killing in self defense is okay," it's not a law? Maybe the Ten Commandments didn't have "you shall pay the victim in livestock if you break this," for a good reason? Oh and, are the Dead Sea Scrolls not historical documents? I mean, they transcribed the Old Testament aka the word of God. Toss them out, no historical relevance there, huh Joe? Let me know if I went too fast for ya. Edited August 9, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Lol not even close. Code of Hammurabi truly was a legal code covering nearly 300 specific offenses, including the resultant punishment for each, with a presumption of innocence. It was drafted by man. Unlike 10 commandant's, the word of God, 4 of which relate to man's relationship to God, and none of them describing a legal process or punishment. Mosaic Law was truly a legal code, as well, much more extensive than the Code of Hammurabi, of which the Ten Commandments were only a small part. Learn something about a subject before you spout off about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Mosaic Law was truly a legal code, as well, much more extensive than the Code of Hammurabi, of which the Ten Commandments were only a small part. Learn something about a subject before you spout off about it. If you want to say they inspired something else, you can and that's debatable. What's not debabatle in a secular country is the inappropriateness of greeting visitors to government property with "god's" rules, especially when 40% of them relate to man's worship of "god". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 If you want to say they inspired something else, you can and that's debatable. What's not debabatle in a secular country is the inappropriateness of greeting visitors to government property with "god's" rules, especially when 40% of them relate to man's worship of "god". It's a historical code of laws. You're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) It's a historical code of laws. You're wrong. Then why called "Commandments"? Laws are man made, discussed, debated and voted on. With procedures to determine guilt or innonence, and attachment of penalties. And in a secular country have nothing to do with god. Edited August 9, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 It's a historical code of laws. You're wrong. They're a historical code of religious laws. It's clearly unconstitutional unless you want to put up a Sharia law plaque and the Flying Spaghetti monster's creed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 They're a historical code of religious laws. It's clearly unconstitutional unless you want to put up a Sharia law plaque and the Flying Spaghetti monster's creed. You know how you can pinpoint a moron? When they say "Flying Spaghetti Monster." Then why called "Commandments"? Laws are man made, discussed, debated and voted on. With procedures to determine guilt or innonence, and attachment of penalties. And in a secular country have nothing to do with god. Interesting definition of laws. Did you make that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 They're a historical code of religious laws. It's clearly unconstitutional unless you want to put up a Sharia law plaque and the Flying Spaghetti monster's creed. Mosaic law is laws of the Jewish nations, religious and secular, and foundational to almost all Western law up to the present (and foundational to Sharia code, for that matter). That's why Moses is prominently displayed on the Supreme Court facade, between Solon and Confucius (the former likely, and the latter certainly a religious figure). The Creed of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in all His Noodly Glory, is not historical in any sense. Using satire as a reducto ad absurdum argument is itself absurd. If you want to say they inspired something else, you can and that's debatable. What's not debabatle in a secular country is the inappropriateness of greeting visitors to government property with "god's" rules, especially when 40% of them relate to man's worship of "god". Fine: they inspired Western legal codes from roughly the late Roman era onward. So how many of our laws are wrong for being founded on Judeo-Christian legal codes? They didn't inspire Jewish law...Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus were written at roughly the same time. Unless you're going to be a big enough dumbass to argue that the King James Bible has the Old Testament in strict chronological order and Moses literally received the Ten Commandments from God as engraved tablets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 Mosaic law is laws of the Jewish nations, religious and secular, and foundational to almost all Western law up to the present (and foundational to Sharia code, for that matter). That's why Moses is prominently displayed on the Supreme Court facade, between Solon and Confucius (the former likely, and the latter certainly a religious figure). The Creed of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in all His Noodly Glory, is not historical in any sense. Using satire as a reducto ad absurdum argument is itself absurd. Solon was a statesman, Confuciounism is a philosophy not a religion (no deity's involved). Moses should get the hell out of there, just another example of trying to stick religious figures on government spaces to establish precedent, just like 10 commandments at city Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 as Tom pointed out Moses, and the Ten Commandments in front of the Supreme Court Building ... Gee, I wish I had the complete assurance as to know which statues should stay and which should leave............lol . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 (edited) as Tom pointed out Moses, and the Ten Commandments in front of the Supreme Court Building ... Gee, I wish I had the complete assurance as to know which statues should stay and which should leave............lol . What's the sentence in America for violating any of the first four commandments? 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Edited August 10, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Solon was a statesman, Confuciounism is a philosophy not a religion (no deity's involved). Moses should get the hell out of there, just another example of trying to stick religious figures on government spaces to establish precedent, just like 10 commandments at city Hall Confucius' philosophy was based in Eastern religion. There's no evidence whatsoever as to what Solon based his legal philosophies on...but given the nature of pre-Classical Greece, it's a very good bet that he intermingled religious and political thought (like everyone did in pre-Classical Greece). And for the record: the Code of Hammurabi was considered divinely derived, as well. The very idea of the division of secular and religious law isn't even formed in Western thought until Aristotle, and isn't practiced until much, much later. This is normally where I'd tell you again to learn something about the subject before discussing it...but clearly, learning anything is beyond your capabilities. You are a massively ignorant little putz. What's the sentence in America for violating any of the first four commandments? 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. It's not a presentation of American legal code, it's a presentation of the history of legalism, as a gesture of respect to the historical foundation of the American legal code. What part of "historical" is such an alien concept to you? Does the mere existence of the Lincoln Memorial mean he's still President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts