← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Scout
Thread ID: 16381 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2005-01-21
2005-01-21 22:46 | User Profile
Many say that Moses took his law from the Code of Hammurabi. Have any of you studied Hammurabi's Code? Does it match up to the Law of God via Moses? How does one defend God's Law as being original?
2005-01-22 00:34 | User Profile
The one that you call "God" dosen't care about Moses, Abram, John Wyne, Maryling Monroe, Ponce or the Laws.
People write a lot to explain "God" and all that "God" needs is for you to believe in him, this is a inter reaction between you and him on a one on one basis.
"God" dosen't care about religion or holy books or churches for he knows that all that was made for man by man and that he is only the excuse and not the reason.
Where you call it "God" I call it "The Force" but a rose is a rose no matter what name you give it.
I was intern in a chatolic school for five years and all that they do is to brainwash you into their religion with their Holy Mary and repetition of their beads and prayers.
With The Force either you got it or you don't.
2005-01-22 01:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]Many say that Moses took his law from the Code of Hammurabi. Have any of you studied Hammurabi's Code? Does it match up to the Law of God via Moses? How does one defend God's Law as being original?[/QUOTE] There is no need to defend the Ten Commandments as being original. Christians have traditionally believed that God's law is written, to some extent, on every human heart, which is why the broad outlines of morality vary so little among human cultures.
2005-01-22 02:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]There is no need to defend the Ten Commandments as being original. Christians have traditionally believed that God's law is written, to some extent, on every human heart, which is why the broad outlines of morality vary so little among human cultures.[/QUOTE] I agree that God is the originator of the Law. I feel that it was given to Adam and through him passed down to all. Then Noah continued teaching the Law and then God gave Moses the Law to be written and recorded for all of history. But it would be nice to be able to show atheists, and those who hold Hammurabi as the great law giver, the truth of the matter with some kind of physical evidence. Maybe one day they archaeologists will find something. :)
2005-01-22 04:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Scout]Many say that Moses took his law from the Code of Hammurabi. Have any of you studied Hammurabi's Code? Does it match up to the Law of God via Moses? How does one defend God's Law as being original?[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, they both make murder illegal. But, neither of them bans making copies of your DVDs. In that respect, I guess the do match up. Otherwise, they don't match up.
2005-01-22 04:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Hmmm, they both make murder illegal. But, neither of them bans making copies of your DVDs.[/QUOTE] That just shows that we didn't have the fullness of God's law until modern times. :wink:
2005-01-22 04:53 | User Profile
It's interesting to note that if you compare the code of Hammurabi with the laws set out by Charlemagne for the Holy Roman Empire, they seem strikingly similar. It is even more interesting when you consider that Charlemagne (AKA Charles The Great) and Hammurabi were separated by about twenty five hundred years.
2005-01-22 05:39 | User Profile
Quantrill,
You are most right. [QUOTE]There is no need to defend the Ten Commandments as being original. Christians have traditionally believed that God's law is written, to some extent, on every human heart, which is why the broad outlines of morality vary so little among human cultures.[/QUOTE]
2005-01-22 08:02 | User Profile
All social animals have their own moral instincts. Even packs of wild dogs, lions, elephants, lower primates, etc., display what can be considered "moral" behavior with respect to their in-group interactions. Here's an example:
Members of prides can count on family help if they are wounded. One young lioness, wounded in one leg and unable to hunt for nearly nine months, lived on meat brought to her by other members of the pride. (Source: [url]http://www.hlla.com/reference/anafr-lions.html[/url])
If social animals had no "moral sense," then of course the above lions would have simply discarded the wounded lioness as a burden. But lions instinctively share their kills as long as there is enough food to go around. More often than not, this arrangement leads to greater survivability.
In human beings, of course, the moral instincts are much more complex, but they're there for basically the same reason. Without them, ancient human (or proto-human) tribes would not have been able to cooperate as effectively, which naturally would have limited their chances of survival when confronted with the elements, hostile tribes, etc.
2005-01-22 10:43 | User Profile
[I][B] - "If social animals had no "moral sense," then of course the above lions would have simply discarded the wounded lioness as a burden." [/B] [/I]
Mark the word [I]young[/I] lioness - would they done the same thing to an old and probably soon-to-be-useless member of the flock?
Besides, since it is females that are responsible for keeping the flock breeding, restoring this lioness to its health would have made sense Darwinistically.
Petr
2005-01-22 10:46 | User Profile
Besides, I understand that similarities betwen Hammurabi and Moses are after all quite superficial, by no means necessitating borrowing to one way or another.
Here you can read Hammurabi's code online:
[url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html[/url]
Petr