Can morality exist without God cont..

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Read this thread. Not only I, but Eudaimonist also provided evidence.

Furthermore, I also explained why your article does not apply.



And why exactly would the Normans bring German law, when they themselves were not German, nor were they descended from Germans?

To simplify, my original post dealt with Roman law.

You responded with "You mean Holy Roman Law". My answer was no, because a unified and codified Holy Roman legal system was not established for half a millennium after the Norman conquest.

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I don't know if the Normans brought about the Germanic legal system of common law. However, the article from Britannica.com clearly states that the Germanic legal system of common law was adopted as a result of the Norman Conquest. The article also stated that this common law legal system was adopted from Germanic Northern Europe in the mid 11th century. At that time, the Holy Roman Empire was in control of most of Europe, including the Germanic Northern Europe and the Roman Empire was destroyed centuries prior by barbarian invaders. The article from Britannica.com says nothing about ancient Rome having any influence in the origin of common law.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The point was that although Jefferson's beliefs were not orthodox, he undoubtedly regarded himself as a Christian who adopted John Locke's principles of Divine Natural Law and applied it to the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the United States of America.

His version of Christianity was nothing resembling any form of Christianity anyone else would regard as "Christian".

He regarded Jesus as a philosopher. He regarded Jesus the same as someone else may regard Plato, Socrates, David Hume or Nietzsche. He rejected the idea that Jesus was the messiah or saviour, rejected the trinity, rejected all miracle and supernatural claims, rejected the idea he was ressurected, and virtually all other key doctrines of Christianity.

Basically, he thought Jesus was a regular human with some good ideas. He was a Christian in the same sense that someone else may be a Platonist.

His religious beliefs are more properly described as deist. As is the case with a number of other founders.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

His version of Christianity was nothing resembling any form of Christianity anyone else would regard as "Christian".

He regarded Jesus as a philosopher. He regarded Jesus the same as someone else may regard Plato, Socrates, David Hume or Nietzsche. He rejected the idea that Jesus was the messiah or saviour, rejected the trinity, rejected all miracle and supernatural claims, rejected the idea he was ressurected, and virtually all other key doctrines of Christianity.

Basically, he thought Jesus was a regular human with some good ideas. He was a Christian in the same sense that someone else may be a Platonist.

His religious beliefs are more properly described as deist. As is the case with a number of other founders.

Regardless, he still used Christian principles and beliefs as the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the United States of America.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I don't know if the Normans brought about the Germanic legal system of common law. However, the article from Britannica.com clearly states that the Germanic legal system of common law was adopted as a result of the Norman Conquest. The article also stated that this common law legal system was adopted from Germanic Northern Europe in the mid 11th century. At that time, the Holy Roman Empire was in control of most of Europe, including the Germanic Northern Europe and the Roman Empire was destroyed centuries prior by barbarian invaders. The article from Britannica.com says nothing about ancient Rome having any influence in the origin of common law.

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I don't know if the Normans brought about the Germanic legal system of common law. However, the article from Britannica.com clearly states that the Germanic legal system of common law was adopted as a result of the Norman Conquest. The article also stated that this common law legal system was adopted from Germanic Northern Europe in the mid 11th century. At that time, the Holy Roman Empire was in control of most of Europe, including the Germanic Northern Europe and the Roman Empire was destroyed centuries prior by barbarian invaders. The article from Britannica.com says nothing about ancient Rome having any influence in the origin of common law.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1673&context=flr

 

[Dave Ellis]

Regardless, he still used Christian principles and beliefs as the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the United States of America.

Such as?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Such as?

Divine Natural Law!

"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."
Thomas Jefferson

It is rather difficult to determine whether or not you truly do not comprehend or if you are just trolling for your amusement.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1673&context=flr

Lol...did you even read this reference? It was a rather interesting and informative read. I did read the entire article. Ironically, it proved that your claim in post #213 is false and my explanation that the "legal structure" was emulated from Rome and my claim about the Norman influences on English Law is correct. It actually said that the Roman influence on English law is second only to Christian influences!!!

"The foregoing opinion as to the historical and continuing contribution
of Roman law is shared by many scholars who declare that the contribution of Roman law to world culture is second only to the advent of Christianity." "In the opinion of Buckland, one of the greatest Romanists of our time, next to Christianity, it 'was the greatest factor in the creation of modem civilization, and it is the greatest intellectual legacy of Rome.' ,
"Indeed it was the Roman Empire," states Bryce, "and the Church taken together which first created the idea of a law common to allsubjects and (later) to all Christians, a law embodying rights enforceable in the courts of every civilized country."


So much for your claim that ancient israelites had no influence on English law.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Divine Natural Law!

"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."
Thomas Jefferson

It is rather difficult to determine whether or not you truly do not comprehend or if you are just trolling for your amusement.

That quote has nothing to do with US Law, and secondly, Jefferson was a deist. He didn't believe in the biblical god. Therefore you can't claim an Isrealite link even if this quote had anything to do with a legal system

 

[Dave Ellis]

Lol...did you even read this reference? It was a rather interesting and informative read. I did read the entire article. Ironically, it proved that your claim in post #213 is false and my explanation that the "legal structure" was emulated from Rome and my claim about the Norman influences on English Law is correct. It actually said that the Roman influence on English law is second only to Christian influences!!!

"The foregoing opinion as to the historical and continuing contribution
of Roman law is shared by many scholars who declare that the contribution of Roman law to world culture is second only to the advent of Christianity." "In the opinion of Buckland, one of the greatest Romanists of our time, next to Christianity, it 'was the greatest factor in the creation of modem civilization, and it is the greatest intellectual legacy of Rome.' ,
"Indeed it was the Roman Empire," states Bryce, "and the Church taken together which first created the idea of a law common to allsubjects and (later) to all Christians, a law embodying rights enforceable in the courts of every civilized country."


So much for your claim that ancient israelites had no influence on English law.

Wow man... if that's what you got out of that entire article, I really don't know what to say, except you're a pro at cherry picking things you like to read and ignoring the rest.

Secondly, no, that's not what you said. You denied that Rome had any influence on British Law. When I brought up their influence, you said it was the Holy Roman Empire. This whole tedious exchange has been my attempt to show that yes, the Romans had a significant impact on English law, which you consistently denied.

I'm done man, debating you is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Every time I make a point, you evade and move on to something else. I'm finished wasting my time.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Is this not your claim?

Nobody copied the ancient Isrealite law system. Our culture is based off English Common law, which descended from the Romans, which did not come from the Isrealites at all

Do you not realize that with one quote from the source you provided. I proved that everything I highlighted was wrong?

Secondly, no, that's not what you said. You denied that Rome had any influence on British Law. When I brought up their influence, you said it was the Holy Roman Empire. This whole tedious exchange has been my attempt to show that yes, the Romans had a significant impact on English law, which you consistently denied.

And this "whole tedious exchange" has been my attempt to show that yes, the US and English legal systems had Christian (ancient Israelite) influence.
Did you not read my post where I said that England, the United States, and many other nations who identify themselves as a republic emulated the Roman Republic structure which included it's legal structure? My claim that English common law originated from Germanic Northern Europe as a result of the Norman Conquest did not come out of thin air. It directly came from Britannica.com and ironically your source confirmed it! Your source merely stated that the legal system and structure as a whole was borrowed from the Roman example. It even went on to talk about how most of the laws themselves actually originated from cannon law from the church.

I'm done man, debating you is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Every time I make a point, you evade and move on to something else. I'm finished wasting my time.

The same can be said for you. Because you gave up, does that mean I won the argument? That seems to be the deciding factor that atheists use when a Christian decides to "dust the dirt of their sandals"?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Is this not your claim?



Do you not realize that with one quote from the source you provided. I proved that everything I highlighted was wrong?





And this "whole tedious exchange" has been my attempt to show that yes, the US and English legal systems had Christian (ancient Israelite) influence.
Did you not read my post where I said that England, the United States, and many other nations who identify themselves as a republic emulated the Roman Republic structure which included it's legal structure? My claim that English common law originated from Germanic Northern Europe as a result of the Norman Conquest did not come out of thin air. It directly came from Britannica.com and ironically your source confirmed it! Your source merely stated that the legal system and structure as a whole was borrowed from the Roman example. It even went on to talk about how most of the laws themselves actually originated from cannon law from the church.



The same can be said for you. Because you gave up, does that mean I won the argument? That seems to be the deciding factor that atheists use when a Christian decides to "dust the dirt of their sandals"?

The distinction which you are missing is that:

A) Roman law predates Isrealite law.
B) The roman influence on English law does not come from the Israelite system. You are basically taking "Isrealite law had some religious influence on the Roman Legal system late in the empire, therefore everything descends from Isrealite law". What you're ignoring is that the key parts of law, which we still retain today (Due process, etc) existed in Roman Law long before they ever encountered the Jews.

Christianity (and it's Jewish basis) only held real power within the western empire for less than it's last century of existence. Christianity was established as the official religion in 380CE, and the fall of the Western Empire was 476CE In the intervening years, the empire was in the process of collapsing. Roman legal customs were well established by that point, the only differences would deal with theology.

Did Jewish and Christian law influence the laws in medieval europe, including England? Certainly, blasphemy laws, inquisitions, things of that nature certianly descended from Christian influence. The actual legal process started from the Romans (and certainly was subject to other influences as well over the last 1500 years).

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The distinction which you are missing is that:

A) Roman law predates Isrealite law.
B) The roman influence on English law does not come from the Israelite system. You are basically taking "Isrealite law had some religious influence on the Roman Legal system late in the empire, therefore everything descends from Isrealite law". What you're ignoring is that the key parts of law, which we still retain today (Due process, etc) existed in Roman Law long before they ever encountered the Jews.

Christianity (and it's Jewish basis) only held real power within the western empire for less than it's last century of existence. Christianity was established as the official religion in 380CE, and the fall of the Western Empire was 476CE In the intervening years, the empire was in the process of collapsing. Roman legal customs were well established by that point, the only differences would deal with theology.

Did Jewish and Christian law influence the laws in medieval europe, including England? Certainly, blasphemy laws, inquisitions, things of that nature certianly descended from Christian influence. The actual legal process started from the Romans (and certainly was subject to other influences as well over the last 1500 years).

Still trying to "nail jello to the wall" are we?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How Jewish law influenced western law:

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-righ...the-hebrews-and-the-foundation-of-western-law

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsamerica/

http://britam.org/eidelberg.html

 

[Dave Ellis]

Still trying to "nail jello to the wall" are we?

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If it is allowed in certain specific cases by the Moral lawgiver of the universe then it plainly is moral.

de: Why?

Just as a good father/creator knows what is best for His children/creation, so does God. Also just as the manufacturer of a car or smartphone knows the best way to take care of what they have manufactured.

↑

ed: I am referring to most of their ideas that were incorporated into the DOI and the Constitution.

de: And many ideas weren't. Some ideas were better than others, and some bad ideas made it into the founding documents and laws of the country. Either way, my point stands that they weren't infallible.

Straw man, I never claimed they were.

ed: Restitution, ie paying back money to the victims stolen by thieves by working, HAS worked.

de: Citation needed

http://americanvision.org/2480/the-biblical-doctrine-of-restitution/

ed: Jeremiah 22:13 among other places.

de: I'm not sure how this backs up your point... the bible verse basically criticises people who cheat or fail to pay for services rendered. By definition, indentured servants are people you don't pay for services rendered.

My point was that if a wealthier person during the economic stress of a temporary economic downturn needs laborers it is cheaper to hire indentured servants rather than fully free workers because commands such as the one above to pay them a living wage require greater expense.

↑

ed: Yes, that is all you have, an objectively irrational emotional response.

de: It's not irrational, nor emotional. It's an accurate portrayal of your position. The fact you don't like to hear it put into plain language isn't my problem, however that is ultimately what you are arguing.

Yes your view is. It is based on your objectively irrational sentimentality for your own species, when atheistic evolution has "proven" that no species has any more value than another. If there is no God then humans have no objective value.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just as a good father/creator knows what is best for His children/creation, so does God. Also just as the manufacturer of a car or smartphone knows the best way to take care of what they have manufactured.

Just as human philosophers can figure out what is best for human beings in a godless universe on their own.

If there is no God then humans have no objective value.

On the contrary, see above. If ethics/morality is like a user's manual for oneself, then human beings can figure out what is best for them and recognize their objective value.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Just as a good father/creator knows what is best for His children/creation, so does God. Also just as the manufacturer of a car or smartphone knows the best way to take care of what they have manufactured.

Not necessarily. Manufacturers have defects and recalls all the time, the flaws are often discovered by users, not the designers.

Straw man, I never claimed they were.

That doesn't make it a strawman. I didn't strawman your point.

I was showing your argument was ultimately irrelevant.

http://americanvision.org/2480/the-biblical-doctrine-of-restitution/

I don't see how that article is relevant... You made a claim biblical restitution has worked, and that article doesn't really spell out a situation where anyone has actually been rehabilitated via that method.

My point was that if a wealthier person during the economic stress of a temporary economic downturn needs laborers it is cheaper to hire indentured servants rather than fully free workers because commands such as the one above to pay them a living wage require greater expense.

But no, it doesn't. You are under no obligation to pay a living wage to employees in ancient times... and frankly, even in modern day america many workers are not paid a living wage for their job. If you have an indentured servant, you are legally responsible for keeping that person well fed and clothed. It's essentially the same as having a child you're responsible for when it comes to the necessities of life. If anything, it's going to be equal expense, to more expensive in order to have an indentured servant.

Yes your view is. It is based on your objectively irrational sentimentality for your own species, when atheistic evolution has "proven" that no species has any more value than another. If there is no God then humans have no objective value.

Sentimentality for my own species is not irrational. There's very good reason to feel sentiment and empathy for my own species... self interest. Does any species have any more objective value than any other? No. However, objective value is next to meaningless when it comes to this question. Value is almost always subjectively based.

As for god, the existence or non existence of a god is completely irrelevant as to the question of humans having objective value. It's a non sequitur.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Just as human philosophers can figure out what is best for human beings in a godless universe on their own.



On the contrary, see above. If ethics/morality is like a user's manual for oneself, then human beings can figure out what is best for them and recognize their objective value.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, because humans no matter how intelligent can't see things from the perspective of ultimate reality without help from God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, because humans no matter how intelligent can't see things from the perspective of ultimate reality without help from God.

Perhaps, but we don't need to see things from such a perspective just to deal with ethics.

You seem to see human beings as helpless, and that's just not warranted. I can see how it would be convenient to push dogmas, though. "You're stupid, so believe what I believe."


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, because humans no matter how intelligent can't see things from the perspective of ultimate reality without help from God.

If we aren't all that intelligent, and are incapable of perceiving ultimate reality.... then why are you so confident in your belief that there is a god? What makes you think your opinions in that regard are definitively true, when you believe your cognition is impaired?