In light of the latest UK bombing, how many of you progressives
- Thread starter Snow Sled Baby
- Start date
OK, so you do accept the Law of Moses, which says "Thou shall not kill"?
I could have sworn you had pretty much rejected all of that as a "myth"?
I'll never understand the mind of a liberal. Germany started WWII in an attempt to take over the world. Japan stated the Pacific War with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. responded. And because we bombed cities in the process of defending ourselves and winning the war (which saved lives), he equates that with Islamic terrorism. WOW.
The Bible is the only place where a man can know it's wrong to kill?OK, so you do accept the Law of Moses, which says "Thou shall not kill"?
I could have sworn you had pretty much rejected all of that as a "myth"?
I guess you could say he did the same as Truman. In an interview with BBC back in 1996 (may be off on date), he declared war on America, and stated "there will be attacks on American soil".
Do I understand you to be in support then of overturning the "law" ie: Roe v Wade that essentially allows infanticide?
You are Pro-Life now?
LMAO. Yeah, that is the same as dropping leaflets days before an attack. Again, I will never understand the thinking of a liberal.
That is where it is initially codified as immoral and wrong boom. Do you have another source that pre dates that specific forbidden instruction from Almighty God?
Who said it was wrong before he told Moses it was?
Again, simple-minded fool. I "equated" my WWII atomic bomb usage to your claim of "targeting innocent civilians". NEVER ONCE did I compare it to terrorist activities....YOU did.
You've been trying to equate radical jihadic terror to other forms (e.g. the IRA, Truman, etc.) in an attempt to say we all do it.
No, we don't all do it and not all violence is the same. You even claimed OBL gave us a warming like the one Truman gave to the Japanese. Absurd.
Simple-Minded fool.........that's what you are. NEVER did I equate anything........NEVER did I do anything other than give you an answer to your question about a "warning" from UBL.
You are attempting to do what you hate.....biased media slanting.
It was considered a crime in Sumerian code, by the Aztecs, by the Mayan, and I think it's quite clear that the understanding of murder as a wrong act.....is internal recognition of the laws of nature.
Their inability to accept "absolutes" especially in terms of objective morality spelled out by the author of our morals leads them to wander to extreme positions to justify their fundamental acceptance of moral relativism.
They will argue absurd positions as demonstrated in this thread in order to avoid admitting to the authority of the source of our ultimate moral law and order giver....
They will in fact argue strenuously for almost any other moral construct except the one from the original law giver of morality! This inevitably leads them into arguing absurd and even contradictory morality based on their constantly shifting situational ethics and refusal to accept objective morality codified by the Supreme Law giver.
Last edited:
Boomer if you read that article I linked you to the other day and messaged you on, I think it was pretty clear all of those civilizations operated well after the Law of Moses was delivered at Mt Sinai. That was our original discussion regarding Marriage. The ancient Sumerians had no law against murder prior to God's instruction to Moses following Exodus, and their disregard of it is a major reason why there was such blatant disregard for Life prior to the 10 Commandments.
Last edited:
In your own words and all in an attempt to equate what others have done, including the U.S. in WWII to radical Islamic terrorists.
A death is a death is one of my personal favorites. So 3,000 dying on 9/11 or tens of thousands killed in Iraq and Syria is the same as the IRA?
I've never disputed that term. Just the same as the Radical Catholic IRA back a few decades ago. All religions have them.....
You are funny. A death is a death. The amount just makes it more news worthy. But, yes, the IRA has killed innocent children in their attacks in the past. Do your own research.....won't take long. But I guess a couple of dead kids aren't as important.
And please stop the "innocent people" as part of your defense. We dropped two atomic bombs on civilian locations in Japan......along with numerous other attacks that have killed "innocent people".
Radical Islamic terrorists........ALL terrorists......ALL murderers........should die a slow, painful death. That's my stance.
Did Truman warn the Japanese? Sure. What was the warning? Well, it wasn't a "Japan, we are going to drop two destructive bombs". It was "stop the war, or these following cities will be bombed". Nobody knew it would be atomic bombs, incinerating thousands instantly (how many of those were Japanese military, or government officials???).
I thought it was spot on to your defense of "innocent deaths". Why didn't Truman target Tokyo? The Emperor? Military facilities? Why over 100,000 civilians?
And, how long had we fire bombed Tokyo previously? Along with other cities? In their minds, nothing was any different than what they had been living through for a while. Japanese citizen: "America dropping more bombs.....ahh.....been there done that".
I guess you could say he did the same as Truman. In an interview with BBC back in 1996 (may be off on date), he declared war on America, and stated "there will be attacks on American soil".
Boomer go back and check your historical chronology on which civilizations existed prior to the Law of Moses? Maybe then you can logically make this argument but without a law against murder, what was the crime?
These links reveal some Religious order subsequent to Mosaic Law, however God's instructions to Moses was well before any of them developed their own belief systems.
http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-642/Law-and-Justice-in-the-Mayan-
and-Aztec-Empires-2600-BC-1500-AD.aspx
http://thoughtlabyrinth.org/category/ancient-religion/
Last edited:
It won't be ended in my lifetime, no matter how many presidents come and go, but the current administration is taking a far more aggressive stance against it than the previous one did, and not apologetically I might add[jumpingsmile]
Really? The Aztecs and Mayans constructed their moral codes from the word of Moses did they?
I'm not certain what the big deal is about which law preceded which. God imposes a basic morality in us, no matter if we're His children or not. God gave us His law in His time, and gave us the meaning of salvation in His time. It matters not if someone else gave a moral code prior to the law.
Apparently it matters to him. He's saying we didn't need the Law from Moses to decide our own morality. He's got a point to a point.
We do have a history of ignoring Godly authority and making up our own rules so I can't really debate him on that. However we tussle over where the morality found in our Laws is sourced?
He's of the opinion it is a natural occurrence common to people using common sense and the "laws of nature".
Since I argue Almighty God is over the "Laws of Nature" and in fact defines them, there is no Law that supersedes (replaces) his ultimate authority.
We just argue back and fourth over which came first?
The Laws of Man and his own self described morality, or the Laws of Almighty God...the original Law giver from which all morals came?
Last edited:
No, of course not. However Mosaic Law had been already handed down before they chose to reject it in favor of their own.
You also have Hammurabi code...........
Why do people have to link you? It doesn't take much effort to type in to Google yourself....
But my point was that laws against murder are derivative of law of nature, and not needed to be decreed by a deity in scripture in order for us to recognize it's wrong.
It matters to me because I think there is a natural sense of goodness independent of righteousness
Last edited:
That's not been my understanding. If we didn't have a sense of right/wrong, God's law wouldn't make sense to us, therefore we'd never come to salvation.
I know boomer, we agree Men have their own morality & you've established that fact and I don't disagree with you. We simply disagree over which came first?
Men have historically rejected God's Law, and it amazes me how they blame him for their refusal to follow his Laws in favor of their own while insisting either he or his Laws are irrelevant?
How do you blame someone for allowing screw ups he's specifically forbidden especially if he doesn't even exist?
Well yes I could, but I figured if you researched this stuff before you blurt it out there you'd see yourself it's wrong (which this is)
I can link you if you'd like...but you're wrong.
I'm sorry, boomer you Sir are simply misinformed.
(from Wikipedia Google search)
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 BC.(the article I linked you to yesterday showed Sumaria came into existence after Exodus boom)
here:
http://www.creationstudies.org/articles/who-is-god/341-ancient-sumerian
That time table, is preceded by thousands of years of Mosaic Law boomer!
(from Wikipedia)
The "Law of Moses" in ancient Israel was different from other legal codes in the ancient Near East because transgressions were seen as offenses against God rather than solely as offenses against society (civil law).[5] This contrasts with the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BCE), and the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BCE, of which almost half concerns contract law). However the influence of the ancient Near Eastern legal tradition on the Law of ancient Israel is recognized and well documented'[end]
Both chronological explanations come from Wikipedia boom, but history would remind you Exodus was well before the Law you cited as antecedent to Mosaic Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Chronology
you have here in all honesty MounatineerWV a greater argument for this, however as was previously pointed out the Mesopotamian influence which animated this law was indeed post Exodus.
However, Mosaic Law had not reached these people and they did indeed develop their own sense of morality without it.
some comparisons and contrasts:
http://evangelcs.org/news/2012/the-code-of-hammurabi-vs-the-law-of-moses/
https://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-Hammurabi-code.html
Excerpts (so you know I read it all)
"There is a dramatic difference in perspective between Hammurabi and Moses. One’s focus is horizontal, while the other’s is vertical. Archaeologist Alfred Hoerth, author of Archaeology and the Old Testament, says, “The Old Testament law code is religiously oriented, while others are civil. The Mesopotamians believed the god Shamash gave Hammurabi his law code so people could get along with one another. In the Bible, the law code was given primarily so people could get along with God".
(more)
"The theory that Moses’ Law is simply a rewording of Hammurabi’s has largely been abandoned today, due to the fact that similar law codes, even older than Hammurabi’s, have been found in various other places. These would include the Cuneiform laws, written as early as 2350 B.C.; the Code of Urukagina, 2380 B.C.; the Code of Ur-Nammu, 2050 B.C.; and others."
Last edited:
I had a typo in my post, so maybe we misunderstood each other.....but that's what I'm saying actually. This was all in response to Mountaineer saying something along the lines of murder was wrong no matter the situation, and ATL jumped on it as if though because Mountaineer doesn't subscribe to Mosaic Law through the Christian religion, he then wouldn't or shouldn't think that murder is wrong by any moral standards. I took issue with the notion that without the Bible to describe murder as an act that is wrong, we wouldn't have an understanding of that anyway. I referenced societies and codes of law in the past that outlawed murder without taking that morality from the words of Moses. ATL believes that all morality is derived from the word of God (from the Hebrew word of God). I disagree, and moreover I believe that a moral code exists within most of us without it being subject to a ultimate righteousness of spiritual existence and truth. I believe that morality comes from our connection to others and to an internal connection to natural laws.
But I have no problem with the moral code derived from the Bible, as long as it isn't thrust upon others that seek a more internal dialogue with spirituality, truth, morality, and righteousness.
The code of Ur-Nammu predates the code of Hammurabi by 3 centuries. Your faith in the historical placement of Exodus is interesting. What's known is that the code of Ur-Nammu was dated, and the dating for Exodus is not as definitive.
Also, as other societies that had no connection to Mosaic Law established that murder was considered a crime to be punished. Your whole "without Moses, man wouldn't know that murder was morally wrong" argument is Crap. Total crap.
Truth is: man has struggled with spirituality, truth, morality, and righteousness since the beginning of analysis. We will continue to struggle with it.....Mosaic law might help you stay on a track of morality, but it's not critical to anyone who has enough soul, heart, and mind to look beyond themselves.
At least he seems to be trying. President Obama seemed preoccupied with apologizing for America's success and funding our enemies.
No it's not boomer. True we all have a sense of morality and I've stated we often subsitute that for God's original orders of it. It is also true many of those ancient societies did indeed develop their morals without the specific instruction of Mosaic law. But the original morality did indeed come from God's orders at Sinai.
The Hebrew Law indeed preceded those others even if they didn't consult it directly to form their own sense of right and wrong. That article I linked you to made that clear, the debate is over how each language developed and when?
However that article also pointed out the Bible's chronological sequencing is the only historically reliable accurate accounting, as those other languages could not have even existed prior to God confusing Man's ability to communicate under one common form of spoken language prior to Babel.
We disagree simply over who the ultimate moral law giver is, not that Man has throughout history refused to follow his orders and decided instead to create his own. The irony is most of Man's attempts at establishing his own morality end in failure.
Last edited: