Can morality exist without God cont..

[dougangel]

The only kind of "slavery" God condones is indentured servitude for non-POWs and non criminals. He does allow involuntary slavery for those two people. Non-Israelites that lived in Israel were required to be treated the same as Israelites. See Exodus 22:21-24.

No that's not correct. This is taken from wiki.
The Hebrew Bible contains two sets of rules governing slaves: one set for Hebrew slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and a second set for Canaanite slaves (Lev 25:45-46).[1][21] The main source of non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war.[18] Hebrew slaves, in contrast to non-Hebrew slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to an Israelite owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.[16] According to the Hebrew Bible, non-Hebrew slaves were drawn primarily from the neighboring Canaanite nations,[22] and religious justification was provided for the enslavement of these neighbors: the rules governing Canaanites was based on a curse aimed at Canaan, a son of Ham,[23] but in later eras the Canaanite slavery laws were stretched to apply to all non-Hebrew slaves.[24]

The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children,[25] whereas Hebrew slaves were treated as servants, and were released after seven years of service or the occurrence of a jubilee year.[26][27] One scholar suggests that the distinction was due to the fact that non-Hebrew slaves were subject to the curse of Canaan, whereas God did not want Jews to be slaves because he freed them from Egyptian enslavement.

Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That is not my description. It came from Britannica.com.

Which is irrelevant. The time period your post refers to is centuries later than the relevant time period.

 

[Dave Ellis]

One of the major European legal systems, Roman law being the other, English law has spread to many other countries, including former English colonies such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

English law has an evolving history dating from the local customs of the Anglo-Saxons, traces of which survived until 1925. After the Norman Conquest they grew up, side by side with the Saxon shire courts, the feudal courts of the barons and the ecclesiastical (church) courts. From the king’s council developed the royal courts, presided over by professional judges, which gradually absorbed the jurisdictions (legal powers) of the baronial and ecclesiastical courts. By 1250 the royal judges had amalgamated the various local customs into the system of common law – that is, law common to the whole country. A second system known as equity developed in the Court of Chancery, in which the Lord Chancellor considered petitions.

In the 17th and 18th centuries common law absorbed the Law Merchant, the international code of mercantile customs. During the 19th century virtually the whole of English law was reformed by legislation; for example, the number of capital offences was greatly reduced.

Judicial Precedents
A unique feature of English law is the doctrine of judicial precedents, whereby the reported decisions of the courts form a binding source of law for future decisions. A judge is bound by decisions of courts of superior jurisdiction but not necessarily by those of inferior courts.

The law changes. It has evolved and is interpreted differently and some things are relevant today and some laws aren't. Just like the bible. ( you don't seem to be able to get your head round that)
Because of the unique judicial precedents this helps the law stay modern with new technologies with precedents.

Saxon shire courts, the feudal courts of the barons and the ecclesiastical (church) courts. All these courts influenced law to become common law later in history. Traces of Saxon law was dissolved by 1925 acts.

There was a period of history when holy Roman law influenced english law. That's why a lot of the terms in law are in latin.

Influenced, perhaps. However that's like saying laws that are passed in modern day Germany may have some influence on lawmakers in the UK.

However, Holy Roman Law certainly did not serve as the basis for English law. That's what was claimed in the post, and is just flat out wrong.

 

[dougangel]

Influenced, perhaps. However that's like saying laws that are passed in modern day Germany may have some influence on lawmakers in the UK.

However, Holy Roman Law certainly did not serve as the basis for English law. That's what was claimed in the post, and is just flat out wrong.

As with most of your comments in this post that's highly debatable.
Why are is there so much Latin in English law ?

-Our legal framework is inherited from English Common Law, which I imagine has its roots in Continental European Law at some point. As Latin was the 'lingua franca' of Europe for 1000-some-odd years our current use of Latin legal terms and concepts were most likely passed down through states that succeeded the Roman Empire. The influence of the Church on Latin's prevalence in Europe also cannot be underestimated.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Which is irrelevant. The time period your post refers to is centuries later than the relevant time period.

Well...with all due respect, when it comes to the origin of English common law, I think Britannica.com is a more reliable source than you.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If you're making incorrect claims, I'll correct you on them. There's a big difference between 3,000BC and a couple hundred years BC.

Likewise, modern scholarship, including Christian and Jewish scholars don't generally believe Abraham and Moses were real people.

Evidence of the existence of Moses and the Exodus.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

A) There was no Moses
B) Even if there was, he does not speak for all citizens. Are you bound to agree with everything that Barack Obama or George Bush proclaim on your behalf?

Evidence of the existence of Moses.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Here's the wikipedia article, references are cited within. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

And here is a link that shows that the Wikipedia is wrong.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evidence of the existence of Moses.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

arkdiscovery.com? Yeah, that's a respectable source.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No that's not correct. This is taken from wiki.
The Hebrew Bible contains two sets of rules governing slaves: one set for Hebrew slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and a second set for Canaanite slaves (Lev 25:45-46).[1][21] The main source of non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war.[18] Hebrew slaves, in contrast to non-Hebrew slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to an Israelite owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.[16] According to the Hebrew Bible, non-Hebrew slaves were drawn primarily from the neighboring Canaanite nations,[22] and religious justification was provided for the enslavement of these neighbors: the rules governing Canaanites was based on a curse aimed at Canaan, a son of Ham,[23] but in later eras the Canaanite slavery laws were stretched to apply to all non-Hebrew slaves.[24]

The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children,[25] whereas Hebrew slaves were treated as servants, and were released after seven years of service or the occurrence of a jubilee year.[26][27] One scholar suggests that the distinction was due to the fact that non-Hebrew slaves were subject to the curse of Canaan, whereas God did not want Jews to be slaves because he freed them from Egyptian enslavement.

Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Deleted: response was to the wrong person.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

arkdiscovery.com? Yeah, that's a respectable source.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yeah? And apparently Britannica.com is not a respectable source according to some individuals here on this thread.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yeah? And apparently Britannica.com is not a respectable source according to some individuals here on this thread.

One has nothing to do with the other. These must be judged individually.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dcalling]

I know what you posted, and my response was by using that as your standard, you are ignoring huge parts of what the bible says. Hence, you are deflecting.

Wondering which part is I deflecting. It is clear that just because God says you can do something, it is not a endorsement on it. God allowed divorces in OT, but Jesus is clear that we should not divorce, that is not what is designed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well...with all due respect, when it comes to the origin of English common law, I think Britannica.com is a more reliable source than you.

You're misusing the information. You're essentially doing the same thing as looking up correct information about the Napoleonic Wars, then saying those things influenced the 100 years war, which happened centuries beforehand

 

[Dave Ellis]

Evidence of the existence of Moses and the Exodus.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

That's not evidence

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yeah? And apparently Britannica.com is not a respectable source according to some individuals here on this thread.

I'm not arguing the information presented was accurate, however it's not relevant to the topic at hand. It's a red herring.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That's not evidence

Why not? Because it doesn't fit with your beliefs? How objective of you.[emoji4]

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You're misusing the information. You're essentially doing the same thing as looking up correct information about the Napoleonic Wars, then saying those things influenced the 100 years war, which happened centuries beforehand

You claimed that english common law originated from the Romans. I provide an article from Britannica.com that specifically says English common law originated as a result of the Norman Conquest and was adopted from Germanic Northern Europe in the mid 11th century. Last I checked, the Roman empire was long gone in the 11th century. But the Holy Roman Empire existed and it just so happens to consist Germanic European countries. You are wrong. Anyone who can read the Britannia article can see that. So show a little humility and swallow your pride and admit it.


Here's and idea. How about you back up your comments with some references. Show me your source that says English common law originated from the Romans. [emoji4]

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm not arguing the information presented was accurate, however it's not relevant to the topic at hand. It's a red herring.

Did you not claim that english common law originated from the Romans? How is providing information that proves yourself wrong a "red herring"?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why not? Because it doesn't fit with your beliefs? How objective of you.[emoji4]

No, because the site is clearly not an objective source, and it also does not line up with the actual scholarly evidence on the issue.