Endtimer:


The above is hardly representative of theistic consensus. You still think God just decides arbitrarily to do X or Y. It isn't God's definition of right and wrong; those are just words created to describe God's characteristics and their antithesis respectively. Also your argument's appeal is essentially ethical (ironic for someone trying to establish moral subjectivity). You must be aware that what the bacteria in the toilet feel has no bearing on moral objectivity. Therefore, you are trying to make us feel sorry for them rather than address the philosophical underpinnings of the moral argument.

The last sentence makes sense. As someone must have already pointed out to you, the answer is: you don't. You have free will to do as you wish, however, you may find that lifelong marriage will fulfill you and that homosexuality will give you diseases; this isn't a form of the prosperity gospel (check out my post on antinomianism for more on that) but it is true in several instances. The reason for this is that:

- You are made in God's image and your nature and mine are corrupted versions of His own. Living like He does therefore strangely provides otherworldly fulfillment.

- God is not only omnibenevolent but omniscient. His knowledge of everything means that we have good reason to trust and emulate Him.

- This is what you want to hear, so I'll be direct: failure to live like God will result in damnation. This and the two above are some reasons to live like God.

This is from the top of my-tired-head so I expect to do a lot of qualifying and explaining when I get back.

the consensus in Neuro-science in 2022 is that humans may have a very tiny degree of "free-will" but *way* into the 90 percentile , human behavior is restricted to learned memories laid down by experience , and learned behaviors . The definition of "Free Will" (as expressed in Moral Theology) is debunked.... References on request

The equivocation fallacy.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resource...ation.html

It's what Dtruthspeaker-The-Dullard is doing with the term "slave".

LOL

Dtruthspeaker:

And of course you do not know that Murder/attempted murder, manslaughter, assault and battery all came from the Bible.

Nope .
You really are an ignorant little troll.

"One of the oldest-known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, 'If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.' " That society existed at least 1500 years before the Hebrews had an organized society in Israel. So again, ... just like Roman law , you're totally wrong.

there were organized human social groups far earlier than that . You (as you proved in your Roman law bullshit) just don't know anything about human history.

You need to be put on ignore by everyone here .
You have nothing to offer anyone here, except you are a good reminder of how totally ignorant someone can actually be.

Dtruthspeaker:


And these people have said that you are talking rubbish.

https://www.nairaland.com/5550016/should-drop-bank-job-federal/1#84402668

Some people complain about anything and everything. Those people have said that you are talking rubbish.

LMAO

Dtruthspeaker:


What a most wicked and evil and incorrect statement.

No liver on God has done any wicked thing to any one here only you and your kind have.

Which is even proven by the fact that if you tell people that you are an atheists, they will immediately avoid and keep away from you as if you are a suicide bomber.

So, it is you and your fellow evil atheists who are a harmful to the world exactly as madam beater who has confessed her desire of acquiring slaves and beating them up for pleasure.

Obviously, you have no one around you to torture so you have just come here to pour your frustrations and depression and sorrow upon poor believers.

We haven't failed to notice that you're worn out on the debate... and have resorted to preaching.
Your hemeneutic of hate is not how Jesus won converts . Guess you'll have to learn a trade, and give up apologizing for religions
God has livers on him ? Wow. Ya learn something every day.

Dtruthspeaker:


If you behave as an idiot then I have the right to tell you that you are an idiot!

Thank you again .
John 13:35 "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
You're such a Christian . Show me where your Jesus called people "idiots'.
Hypocritical ass-hole.

Dtruthspeaker:


Finally. And The Law is against crimes and condemns it

Your point is what ? Thank you Mr. Obvious. LOL
the law is against certain* things which are considered crimes, and in some instances the laws are repealed.

Dtruthspeaker:


Do you not see that your answer is opposing?

You say "no"

And yet you say "they agreed" which means yes

I think you have run out of your reasonabilty quota of the day. Let the person I asked the question come and answer.

Thanks for admitting I am reasonable
when you learn English , you will get that the "no" was toward you and your incorrect analysis.
They did agree , but you can't read English correctly.

Ask Jesus why he's depending a clown like you to defend him , and not an educated reasonable human.

You're not literate in English.

Dtruthspeaker:


And when an employer deprives an employee his salary and rather raises up guards to prevent the employee from freely leaving, has slavery not commenced, evil one?



And miss Satan, the Bible said "and if a man best"

It did not say "beat a servant" but of course evils like you see it this way after all it is you devils who do it.

Then it's a crime, but it's not slavery. The employee can walk out any time he/she wants.

Dtruthspeaker:


Rubbish. I was not making a case on the Romans being first but I understand, you are trying to console yourself.

And you're a liar.
You absolutely did say that , and it's there for all to see.
If you had any integrity, grace or honesty, you would admit your error.

Dtruthspeaker:


Sorry sir, when a bank or company you work for says you should come in to work at 7:30 and you cannot leave earlier than 4 without their permission, have they not possessed you during those hours?

Are you not their slave for those hours?

Are you free during those hours?



Slavery is not backed by Law for every person has his inherent natural rights. And a right to obtain work is not a right to submit to slavery.

It is wicked people who turn employees (servants) to slave, which is why where you find slavery you must find oppression because the slave must be held in by duress.

And where you find duress, you find would find The Law is breached.

Which is why in the bank an employee always has the option of resigning if he finds his working condition oppressive.

You said it yourself . Slaves cannot resign . those who are possessed cannot leave. An employee can leave.
Your point is what ?

Sorry sir, when a bank or company you work for says you should come in to work at 7:30 and you cannot leave earlier than 4 without their permission, have they not possessed you during those hours?

No dumbo.
You agreed to "work" for those hours when YOU agreed to work there.
Your analogy is false .

Dtruthspeaker:


Says idiots who never knew the difference between legal and law and that legal is not Law.

You need to look up the word "legal", and learn how to use it correctly in English.

Thank you for the Christian response. So Christ-like . Jesus must really love you, speaking that way to his children,
and you claiming to be a steadfast Christian . Such a saint you are.

LMAO

Dtruthspeaker:


Immaterial! As long as you are raising the issue from a publicly known document generally called the Bible which has both the good and bad one.

Please tell us more about the bad Bible. LOL

Dtruthspeaker:

And yet you willingly offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to slave for NNPC, Chevron, Davido's house etc, never thinking for a microsecond that this was immoral.

Do you see now that your morality button does not work?

what you say is 110 % false.
There are labor standards in the developed world .. and no one who works is possessed by anyone.
When you grow up and can travel, you'll find first-world countries, (who need no gods) do not allow employers to own their employees.

Oh. So now, you're saying you expect them to *have* morality, even though you know they have no gods ?
They have "natural law" according to you, and any normal human works to feed their family.
I think you are on drugs. What are you smoking ?

Nice try at exaggeration and hyperbole. Your desperation is showing.

Dtruthspeaker:


Simple!

If The Law was applied to you, would you call it good!

Eg The Law on Contracts says all agreements must be upheld (pacta sunt servanda), so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

Snort.
He thinks if he says it in Latin, then he's all special.
LMAO.

Dtruthspeaker:


Because, since God is Good, then that is His interpretation!



That is why I love Christ's Answer. If you think it is good to be oppressed, then oppress.

But know this, when thou art oppressed, ye have no right to remedy, for thou didst agree to the law of oppression.

LOL

i love it when the Jesus freaks give up on debate and just start their preaching bullshit.

Dtruthspeaker:


As long as they have dates, it proves my case that men created legal.

And I simply stood on the Roman line because they are oldest in today's present legal world. The others are lost and become stories.

Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.
"Men created laws".
No shit Sherlock. LMAO

The dates also prove you were WRONG about Roman laws being first.
LMAO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Dtruthspeaker:


The Jews did not speak Greek.



fallacy ad hominem and Change of Post! Off point.



Correction
Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;.



Colossians 3:22 reads
Servants, obey in all things your masters accord...



1 Peter 2:18 reads
Servants, be subject to your masters



And you came to say that there was another place with another older date, thus proving my point that on a certain day men woke up and created legal.



Denying your own words now that you have run out ground, eh? See you below



Gotcha!



Change of Post/ Off point.



The Romans do not speak English language as their major language but I understand, this is you confessing that you know nothing on law, as I impliedly told you in the beginning.

LMAO.
Total bullshit.
Everyone know *some" Jews did not speak greek, however, unfortunately for you, Hellenization of the Levant was in process, and in fact they did speak Greek.

"Created legal" means nothing in English. Can't you get a grammar checker ?
I'm confessing nothing.
Lying for Jebus is still lying.
Lying is against your "natural law".
Are you always this evil ?

I PROVED that what you said about Roman law was false. Get over it.
Whether they spoke English is irrelevant. Are you always this bad at debate ? Historians know when law codes were established. You were 100 % incorrect.
What ? Your Jebus has not granted you the humility and grace to admit when you're wrong ?
What a fucking hypocrite. As always ... and you are simply the latest in a VERY long line, you people are fake hypocrites.
Praise Jesus I actually don't have to deal with anyone as fake and evil as you are.
Crawl back into you hole.
LMAO. You are dismissed. Buh Bye.

Dtruthspeaker:


Having denied that God did not command the doing of slavery, therefore the reasonable question is the good (moral) He was doing?

Wrong.
If he even "permitted it" (and being an almighty god), the reasonable question is, what the Bleep is wrong with Him ?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus


BTW, your English is very poor.
You don't know how to use a grammar checker ?
(And someone here said you are a lawyer )

Endtimer:


First, this is called a loaded question. Like, have you stopped beating your wife? It is quite obviously a setup, but it touches on the point of what we are talking about. The reason you are concerned with what I'd do is that you believe that killing someone is objectively wrong. As a true Nigerian, I'll redirect the question to gain a more thorough understanding of your meta ethics. Why is robbing people wrong (for example)? I've told you that it is wrong theistically because it isn't imitative of God's nature. Anticipating the obvious atheist response, I should point out that this is a singular example of a larger position, stated thusly: good is a term used to describe God's nature. I've asked two questions now:

- Why is robbing people wrong?
-What is "good" itself?



This is an extremely important point but your response isn't a counterpoint to something I said. I didn't say we decide what harm is. I said we cannot decide that something is bad because it causes harm. That would be an arbitrary definition of bad. We might as well define bad as anything that makes people happy. I define bad as a term used to describe a set of values antithetical to God's nature. How do you define bad?



I agree. But our belief in these principles must be justified. The first principles you appealed to are without basis atheistically: you cannot appeal to harm as bad without telling us what makes harm bad. You have to give reasons why something is bad.



Alright then, tell me what intrinsic fact of rape, murder, theft or any other crimes that make them bad. It is not illogical to assert that actions have moral contingence on things beyond them. That is, in fact, the conventional view rather than yours. It is also simpler and more tenable than yours. Your meta ethics seems to introduce unnecessary complexity to explain away simple things; in the same manner that one could to explain that the sun orbits the earth. In the end you are left with no basis for moral belief and a dangerous arbitrariness.

Presupposing God's existence we have reason to continue believing all we do. In the absence of that, we do not. A foolish person might ignore that I just said presupposing and ask me to prove that God exists. To be clear, what I am saying is if God exists we have reason to hold first principles for morality. If He doesn't we do not. You believe He doesn't so you will have to provide a basis for morality as I have.



I am a moral objectivist so you this doesn't apply to me.



Obviously because you are equating the agents and I am not. Think of it like class struggle. You assume discrimination on the grounds that both classes are functionally equal but a disparity in result persists. I point out that differences in the classes manifest differences in result. The morals agents in the first part of the sentence are you and I; functional equals. You can't tell a bomber he is wrong because you say so. You aren't the boss of him and you lack moral authority. The moral agent in the second part of the sentence is the tradition concept of God: omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and the creator of all. There is a difference between the agents and an obvious difference between the results.



Objectivism is saying that x is always bad. Relativism is saying that the morality of x depends on the context. Subjectivism is saying that morals depend on personal taste.



This, I believe is the whole point of your post (although I couldn't resist rebutting it entirely, which I'll refrain from in future). What you have is a false dichotomy where information about something is only true when we derive that information intrinsically; failing that it is false. This is an absurd position because we deal with contingence and relativity everyday. Attributes like being tall or fat depend on the heights and weights of others in a similar class (like the species for example). There is nothing intrinsic in 6ft that makes it tall; likewise there is nothing intrinsic in rape that makes it bad. Its morality is contingent on God. Since you don't believe in God, you will have to explain why rape is truly bad without appealing to baseless first principles.

Hello again .
Still waiting for your premises and logical argument for why morality is unwarranted without the gods .
What ? You don't actually have any ?

I see you also would hold , that if someone held you down and shit in your mouth, without a god, it's not bad.
What a fucking (angry antisocial) m.oron.
Have you always been a sociopath ?

Dtruthspeaker:

No matter how good an argument is people never change. So to a thief, all I would tell him is that, it ends in death either by prison stabbings or by mobbing or by shooting.

Goodness !
And here I thought you people believed in redemption and salvation.

LOL

Endtimer:


Actually I can rule them out if they are obviously irrational and untenable, but first you’d have to state your position and defend it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander .
You have yet to state your premises (both explicit and assumed) for your "unassailable" logic claiming that morals without the gods are unwarranted .
You have yet to justify which logic you're using and how you know it applies to the given situation.
Before you keep telling others what they must do, troll, get busy and get your own business done .

Oh, and BTW, "appeal to authority" is not a fallacy *if* the experts invoked are actually experts in their field.
It's a fallacy when an authority in ANOTHER field is invoked in a question which they are not actually an expert.
Go take a class in Logic sometime . You can legitimately appeal to an authority. Do you ask your dentist to advise you on your lumbago and weight problems ?

Dtruthspeaker:

Off Point. The issue is not that whether the Romans participated in slavery.

see you are unable to keep to your own point.
The issue is very much whether the Romans participated in slavery as YOU CLAIMED in your off-point bullshit about the Romans that :

"Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives . They mentioned once "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit", which means the right that nature gave to all living things".

You were proven wrong .

We already know that people are not good and will disobey a good Law.

What "good law" are you talking about ? totally unsubstantiated, off-point, and yet another diversion . YOU made the claim:

"Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives. They mentioned once "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit", which means the right that nature gave to all living things."

The fact is the society permitted slavery, and your (unreferenced/identified) quote is obviously false.
You are seriously embarrassing yourself here .... this is a new low for Christian apologetics

Here's a little education for you : https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery...-societies
Slavery was widespread in Greece, Rome and many other SOCIETIES. Your attempt to make it about "individuals" "breaking a good law" ... is total nonsense.
The point is the societies in general accepted slavery, and when you learn about it, the slave population was HUGE, and thus Paul and the others telling them to obey
was very much in context of there being such huge numbers and many likely to be members of their congregations. You really don't get this do you ?
Oh well . I guess everyone starts as a newbie.
In general, even fundy Christians accept the translation as "slave".
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages...-testament
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studie...-nt-world/
"While this might shock Christian readers, the NT authors do claim that slaves should be submissive. For instance, Paul writes, “Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth” (Col. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9; Eph. 6:5). Likewise, Peter writes, “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable” (1 Pet. 2:18). How should believers understand these passages, and why do the NT authors seem to be passive in regards to slavery?"
https://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/...d-slavery/
You really should try actually reading your Bible some time. You missed the Philemon business with Paul who sends a "slave" back to his master.
https://bibletalk.tv/slavery-and-the-early-church

since you can barely write a sentence in English , I'll assume you actually know no Greek or Latin.

Dtruthspeaker:


Correction
Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

unfortunately for you , the Greek word "δοῦλοι" is here and most other places in the New Testament translated as "slave" or at least "bondservant" .
After you get a real education, you might have some credibility . You have none now . since you are mostly ignorant of Biblical things, you don't know that there are three times the word is translated as "slave", and there have been long fierce debates about whether the NT (known to all real scholars) endorses slavery. When you get beyond your first semester , you may learn about this long historic debate :

"Ephesians 6:5 reads,
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
Colossians 3:22 reads,
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”
1 Peter 2:18 reads,
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

You forget it is not an old age debate but you called on me to show how far back men started creating legal. And I said legal then was based on Natural Laws and Natural Rights and not dependent on the wishes and desires of men who could kill and destroy other men and the society now called politicians and cabals.

I forgot nothing . Too bad you forgot that YOU MADE IT AN OLD age debate by making the claim that the first laws were made in Roman law.
YOU said :

And Roman legal is the oldest of all man made laws and all other places copied from them.[b]

I called on you to do no such thing . You're lying . It's "the Roman legal system" not "Roman legal", (when you take English and learn to write correctly).
what you ignorantly and falsely claimed was proven to be totally wrong , as was your rubbish about the Twelve Tablets.....
your false claim also exposed the fact you basically don't even know the first thing about human history .

Which is why we see every expression of Natural Law and Natural Right eg.

this is not a sentence in the English language . It means nothing, and is not referenced.
You're not really going to make it even out of college, if you can't even write an English sentence.

[b]Damnum non facit qui iur suo uttitur - Harms no one, he who exercises his lawful rights.

See above. It means nothing , and is out of context.

Culpa ubi non est, nec poena esse debet- Where there is no guilt, there is no punishment.

Pointless drivel . See above

And the famous
Volenti non fit injuria- Acting voluntarily, no harm was done.

And what is the point ? You can copy-paste Latin ?
This is your first debate isn't it ?

chryssanthe:

The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known law code surviving today. It is from Mesopotamia and is written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100–2050 BCE.

There is a picture of the actual tablet on the wiki I linked
But, as I am in a funny mood, let's grant you are right: ur nammu never existed. Roman law is still, by far, not the oldest law we have, and it is not the only law our societies are following today, not even Christian societies.

...and even if it weren't, the Code of Hammurabi is also FAR FAR older than what he cited.
Mistakenly , Hammurabi used to be said to be earliest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

The seminary at Bob Jones University, (BJU), teaches us that we cannot know God .
https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/...wable-god/
Furthermore , Paul tells us in Romans 3:10–11 that we do not even seek God. this means that even if we were aware of God’s existence , his love and his beauty and his glory, we would still flee in the opposite direction, for our hearts are utterly sinful . we cannot know God, we do not want God, and we do not seek God.

The fact is, every human LEARNS what they know from countless childhood (and adult) prompts and interactions.
People saying they know something from a god , is just human delusion and self-talk.
Psychology knows how humans learn , and at no point in the science of human learning do any of the gods enter in.

I learned my morality from his god also.
The Bible tells me I can stone my disobedient children to death .. .
countless times throughout history, believers *said* they learned their morality from their gods , AND FELT GOOD about torturing others, murdering those who do not believe as they do, etc etc.

Ephesians 6:5
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Dtruthspeaker:

But since you want to be spoon fed here is the Google reference

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables

.. now look up on Google "The Law of Hammurabi" and come back and tell me what the two dates are.
One is FAR FAR earlier than the other .
Hint : It's not the Twelve Tables.
Being perversely ignorant has no cure.

From your link "There is no scholarly agreement about the exact historical account of the creation and promulgation of the laws of the Twelve Tables. Ancient writers' stories about the Twelve Tables were recorded a couple of centuries later, in the second and first centuries BC. The first known publications of the text of the Twelve Tables were prepared by the first Roman jurists. Sextus Aelius Paetus Catus (consul in 198 BC) in his work on jurisprudence called Tripertita included a version of the laws of the Twelve Tables, his commentary on them and the legal formulas (legis actiones) to use them in trials. Lucius Acilius Sapiens was another early interpreter of the Twelve Tables in the middle of the second century BC. Meanwhile Roman historians Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus provided the most detailed accounts of the creation of the laws. In addition, different versions of the story are known from the works of Diodorus Siculus and Sextus Pomponius."

The 1st century BC Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus indicates that the Roman institution of slavery began with the legendary founder Romulus, giving Roman fathers the right to sell their own children into slavery, and kept growing with the expansion of the Roman state. Slave ownership was most widespread throughout the Roman citizenry from the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) to the 4th century AD. The Greek geographer Strabo (1st century AD) records how an enormous slave trade resulted from the collapse of the Seleucid Empire (100–63 BC).

Dtruthspeaker:
"Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives . They mentioned once "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit", which means the right that nature gave to all living things.

As we see "Natural law" did them a lot of good.
As the Roman would say "Nugae, ineptiae, gerrae"

Dtruthspeaker:


See, you could not name a few places were stealing was a Law in force were In fact if you are not a thief, they would punish you, but if you were a thief, they honoured you.



I did not ask whether many cultures made laws.



I did not ask if they had their own cultures.



In other words, you refuse to answer the questions since you see it implicates you, so you decided to commit the fallacy of Changing Post and Switching the burden of Proof.



Change of Post/Off point. I did not say humans did not exist more than 10, 000yrs.



Change of Post Didn't ask you whether human legal system evolved.



All I said is right in your Google. So Google them.

But since you want to be spoon fed here is the Google reference

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ius_naturale&ved=2ahUKEwiAmrqHs8L6AhUdQ_EDHYpGAx0QmhN6BAgIEAI&usg=AOvVaw2pJ2v_sAJTVScEMa6I2wkV

"Romans gave to Natural law a great importance in their daily lives . They mentioned once "ius naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit", which means the right that nature gave to all living things.[citation needed]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law&ved=2ahUKEwjPmtKd5cH6AhVRg_0HHZCvDOYQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3pTie3dFe1salTe6jKt4K-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_criminal_law

And besides this request for reference, you said nothing in counter. ALL YOUR RESPONSES ARE OFF POINT, A DEPARTURE FROM ISSUE, A DODGING OF POINT AND FALLACY AD HOMINEM. ALL BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND VALID COUNTER

Nice try at diversion. Every single thing you said is false , and I proved it to be false. You just can't handle the truth.
Everything I said was in counter . "The fact you don't know something" (and you don't, your twelve tables is WRONG) "does not mean others don't" .... sound familiar ?
YOU get to provide references and support, (which I do consistently, and which you are unable to even try to refute), BEFORE you ask for it.
Your questions were ALL answered in the links I gave you.... Every one.
You are simply WRONG about almost everything .
You are so uneducated that you can't even see the answers to what you asked right in front of you.

449 BC is FAR FAR later than the Code of Hammurabi. You do know what "BC" means, right ?

Dtruthspeaker:


More commonly known as the Summerian Code. Except for the hearsay claim nothing else is truly and directly known about it, especially with its extinction. So it is an unreliable source of law.

So I think it fit to stick to real-eye-able places, who still exist today as it was in the past.

"The Code of Ur-Nammu itself has been fragmented and eroded by the elements and time. What remains is a tablet divided into eight columns, which in turn are divided into about forty-five small lines. Only some of the lines are fully legible. A portion of the tablet also includes a prologue with many weathered segments and is only partially comprehensible but references the gods An and Enlil turning over the Kingship of the city Ur to the god Nanna. Nanna then backs the Kingship of Ur-Nammu, who was born of Ninsun.

Other legible lines include practices for matters of both criminal and civil. For example, it references certain capital offenses, such as robbery, murder, and adultery. Misdemeanors are also listed, and the law code describes penalties for such crimes to be paid in silver. There are a total of fifty-seven laws, with only about thirty of them having their crimes and consequences both being legible. Some of the legible laws with their consequences include, but are not limited to, the following:

If a man commits murder - the penalty is death.
If a man commits kidnapping - the penalty is imprisonment and a fine of fifteen shekels of silver.
If a man sleeps with the virgin wife of another man - the penalty is death.
If a man rapes the virgin female slave of another man - the penalty is a fine of five shekels of silver.
If a man cuts off another man's foot - the penalty is ten shekels.

... that's not "hear-say"

"The Code of Ur-Nammu was found in Nippur, Mesopotamia, or modern-day Iraq. This first copy of the Code of Ur-Nammu resides in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. When Professor F. R. Kraus was the curator at the museum, he noticed that the peculiar tablet was in two pieces and joined them together.

Samuel Kramer helped translate the Code of Ur-Nammu tablet in approximately seven days in 1952 CE. Later, archaeologists found more copies of the tablet at Ur, which were translated and helped fill in some gaps for the first weathered tablet. Only about 40 of the 57 laws have been somewhat decipherable. Still, some of these forty are partially fragmented, leaving about 29 completely legible."

Dtruthspeaker:


That is not True!

You are confusing customary law with Natural Law.

Natural Law is the same everywhere exactly as there isn't any culture where stealing and adultery is not frowned upon.

I'm confusing nothing . There are countless societies in the world, and in world history where stealing from others IS the way they lived, and no one "frowned" on it. Your problem is you are simply ignorant of world cultures and history. . even the PATRIARCHS in the Bible, whom your god rewarded, practiced what is TODAY considered adultery. Again, your problem is your ignorance . You're even ignorant of the Bible.

If [b]men made laws is the question not then "Did they not have Law before they made their law?

Many cultures made the laws to permit child sacrifice . you just simply wrong and ignorant.

Where they not under Law which they obeyed and were obeying before they made their own version?

meaningless drivel. They ALWAYS had their own cultures, which evolved. Your ignorance is astounding.

When the man or people who manufactured their law, was born did they bring the law with them?

Oh . all assertions and no evidence. No references. We're supposed to take the word of someone who doesn't know the proper use of "where" and "were" ?

You need to get a BASCIC education . Take Anthropology 101, and you will lean how cultures and law evolved.
You HAVE NO EVIDENCE ANY LAW EXISTED until it evolved, in different ways in different places, AND you have nothing to show us that some sort of per-existing law code existed BEFORE humans formed their law codes.

Secondly, All the laws men make have a time when they made them which the records showed started only around the 12th century Eg The Law of the 12 Tables (Year 449BC)

Human societies have existed for more than 10,000 years, maybe FAR older than that.
No "group" of humans can live together without customs, (and if you say the). You have no evidence AT ALL that there was some sort of universal code ALL societies lived by.

British Treason Act (Year 1351)

Nope , LOL

Suppression Act Year (1414).

Nope, LOL

And Roman legal is the oldest of all man made laws and all other places copied from them.

Nope, LOL

Human legal system evolved very differently in different cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an...egal_codes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
https://www.worldhistory.org/Egyptian_Law/

Meanwhile, at that time Roman Law was based on 'Natural Law"[/b] which Cicero and other Natural Law,ers influenced and formulated.

Prove it.
You're not very good at this. Is this your first debate ?
No more unsupported assertions (claims) from you without evidence.
You are dismissed unless you support what you claim with evidence or support . Do you even know what that means ?

Dtruthspeaker:
This is a Change of Post! The issue you raised was that Moral Law Changes which I showed you that it is people who change and not The Law.

You really need to get back to Sunday School and pay attention this time.
The entire premise of your religion is that the law changed, and that EVERYTHING changed when your religion started.
How is it you are unaware of what your religion teaches ?

The ENTIRE set of your religion's "laws" changed.
St Paul tried to teach you that the law changed. The New Covenant .

2 Corinthians 3: 7-11 : "Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

"This new covenant brings a new and complete forgiveness of sins through a better sacrifice (Heb. 7:27; 9:26). In other words , God's new covenant is God's perfect and complete answer to our age-old problem of sin." you should learn about what your cult claims about moral changes.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q...-abolished.

the Old Testament had about 612 things (sorry it's 613)
"There are 613 mitzvot in the Torah and they guide Jews on how to live a good life. Jews believe that God gave the mitzvot to Moses and that they formed part of the covenant at Mount Sinai ."
your god required of the Chosen People. SIX HUNDRED and THIRTEEN .
They all changed. I bet you don't even know 20 of them . I bet Jews don't even know 20 of them.


(LOL)