Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection
From: Don (don_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: Brad Guth: "Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>"
- Previous message: Jan Burse: "Linear Logic Maybe"
- In reply to: RFHall: "Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 23:44:25 -0000
"RFHall" <realistic@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:4205acdc.2958609@supernews.seanet.com...
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:13:45 -0000, "Don" <don@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"RFHall" <realistic@seanet.com> wrote in message
> Hammurabi has been
> chosen to "enlighten" and to "rule over" and "destroy the evil doers".
Yes. Chosen by Marduk to act. Chosen to do Marduk's will.
> Then why do you assume that the codes of Hammurabi had anything to do
> with anything other than Hammurabi's wisdom.. show me your evidence.
> You can't. Only your personal opinion.
It is utterly impossible for me to summarise to you in an email my study
over the last 20 years of ancient semitic civilisations. I can only give you
my opinion. And I am guilty of doing so.
Nevertheless, I take comfort in the fact that others in the same field agree
that such divine callings are actually commands by the gods made to specific
men who then act as the mouthpieces, hands and swords of those gods. One
question you might like to ask yourself is why Hammurabi insists at the
start and again at the end of the Code that he is divinely called to make
the code. Is he not asserting that the Code has divine authority? Rather
than merely human authority? If Hammurabi were such a great and enlightened
king as you suggest, why not just give the order in his own capacity? Pride
would suggest this might be a normal human stance to take. But it is utterly
alien to his purpose and the context.
> Why are you trying to defend this imaginary interpretation?
This interpretation is not imaginary. It has the benefit of being the
mainstream of academic thought on the matter. I do not suggest anywhere that
I have invented or imagined this interpretation. I am merely the mouthpiece
...
Your interpretation, which I call "the phonecall chat analogy" doesn't make
sense of the text or what Hammurabi thought he was doing.
> I have stated the evidence of my position. All you have said that the
> words in my evidence are not what they seem, but actually mean
> something else, and you have the key to "understanding the ancients".
> What's your evidence?
Perhaps you would be good enough to explain the reason why Hammurabi wrote
all that divine stuff at the beginning and end. Perhaps you would explain
the structure of the code. Maybe you will support your view by reference to
other Sumerian texts in the same genre?
We are clearly not going to agree about this and I haven't got the time or
inclination to tutor you through a crash course in ancient civilisations. I
suggest we simply agree to differ and respectively get on with more
constructive activities.
regards
Don
- Next message: Brad Guth: "Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>"
- Previous message: Jan Burse: "Linear Logic Maybe"
- In reply to: RFHall: "Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
