Religious vs Secular Laws

@cicerone imposter,

Stealing was prohibited by the God Marduk who handed down His law to Hammurabi in 1792 B.C. That was a religious law in a very religious society.

Can you find any earlier secular law that prohibits or penalizing stealing?

I am also not at all sure that every society has a prohibition on stealing. A society that does not recognize ownership of objects by individuals wouldn't have any need for such a concept.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Where is your proof that religious laws preceded secular laws?

"Stealing is wrong" is something a parent teaches the average wayward child.

...long before a priest proclaims "God forbids stealing".

Do you really think prehistoric people had to go to the priest to know that stealing was wrong?

Even a dog shows remorse when caught in the act of stealing. Do dogs have priests and invisible gods that tell them not to steal because it is against God's religious law?

Do you think a dog's conscience is usually sufficient considering they seem quite godless. Dogs don't pray several times a day in the name of Jehovah, Allah or Jesus. They don't go to church and they don't know how to read the law tablets of Moses. They cannot understand Jesus' blood... It seems dogs can't comprehend God at all..

But a dog can know that stealing is wrong. Thou shalt not steal.

All that is required to follow these "secular" laws is common empathy, not the fear of God.

3 Replies

@TheCobbler,

Some things precede religious teachings: this is one of them. Do not steal.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Thanks for that CI Smile

0 Replies

@TheCobbler,

Quote:

Where is your proof that religious laws preceded secular laws?

I showed you that the earliest laws were religious laws (Hannurabi et. al.) and I gave you the challenge to show me any secular laws from that time period. You failed to do that. We know that Prehistoric people had priests that controlled the moral life of early communities.

I also question whether stealing was morally wrong in every prehistoric culture. In a culture that doesn't recognize personal property... the concept of "stealing" doesn't make any sense.

Your sense of morality was developed in a specific cultural context. You were taught modern Western ideas about right and wrong from your American parents (assuming you were American or fill in any modern Western country), your American teachers and your American peers.

It is a mistake to think that American cultural values would make any sense in other cultures... particularly ones from that far back in history.

0 Replies

When you speak about laws ... you must refer to something, preferably sources.
Of course we can guess that any old scoiety had had some kind of law, but one of the first known is e.g. the Codex Hammurabi, actually one of the first forms of law. (The Code of Ur-Nammu, but we don't know as much of as we do from the nearly completely known Codex Hammurabi.)

I could call it religious or secular - it was a pragmatic view how to handle justice in and especially between the three classes: property owners, freed men and slaves - but such a distinction wasn't known in those days.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Ulpian, for instance, wrote about 200 BC that those who studied law are known as "priests of justice" (Ulp. D. 1,1,1) - relgion and law were from the earliest beginnings of Roman Law two different things. (And if I remember correctly, they same can be said about Greek law.)

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Hammurabi wrote:

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki,
and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who
decreed the fate of the land, assigned to
Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of
righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made
him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his
illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded
an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are
laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu
and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted
prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of
righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the
evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak;
so that I should rule over the black-headed people like
Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the wellbeing
of mankind.

There is no question.... the Codex of Hammurabi is a religious law.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The 'Code of Hammurabi' contains no laws having to do with religion.

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

Quote:

But a dog can know that stealing is wrong. Thou shalt not steal.

Where on earth did you get this idea? My dog would steal from my cat's food bowl without the slightest bit of guilt.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Did you read the source?

The Code of Hammurabi says itself that it comes from a God. You can't get more religious than that.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Did you read the source?

Not in the original version, I must admit.
I had to read it since it's a basic in law history. (I heart law history when studying law.)
Additionally, it was part of 'ancient history', when I studied history.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

There are plenty of translations (this one for example - http://www.constitution.org/ime/hammurabi.htm ). This law clearly bases its authority on Anu and Bel, the two main deities of the time.

This is a religious law from a religious society.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is a religious law from a religious society.

You seem to have more knowledge than I have - I've only read in the German translation - and as said, I just took university courses, I'm no expert.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I claim no expertise. I just read the source.

If you want to use your University education to explain why the appeal to Gods in the primary source material isn't relevant, I am all ears.

This is more of what it says (this is the primary source material translated to English). Please tell me why you claim that this isn't a religious text.

Quote:

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase, enriching Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made; who enriched Ur; the humble, the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the white king, heard of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of Sippara ...

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If you want to use your University education to explain why the appeal to Gods in the primary source material isn't relevant, I am all ears.

I don't have to use my university education - simple scholl education is good enough: any pretext of a law, when given by a ruler, had had references why he was allowed to do so. For instance,until 1918, any law in Germany started with. "We Wilhelm II, by God's grace emeror of Germany, King of Prussia etc etc declare this law valid" (Or similar)

Besides the legal content, the Law Code of Hammurabi is also an exceptional source of information about the society, religion, economy, and history of this period, no doubts about it (and that's, what I've had to look to get my exam in "ancient and old history" [similar to a minor in the US-system]).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Then you have a problem. How do you distinguish between a religious law and a secular law? Under your definition... wouldn't everything be a secular law?

Was the Law of Moses a religious law?

The Monarchs in Europe claimed their authority from God. They were religious leaders. I would think that anything considered a "secular" law would have to gain its authority from something other than Deities. Once you start having legislatures, you can claim that the laws are secular...

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Religious law is a joke, secular law is serious.

Example:

Religious law = "Thou shalt have no other gods before me or I will send you to hell for I am the jealous one and only true god!".
(while every religion makes the same exact claim of their deity, my god is bigger than your god syndrome.)

Secular law = Thou shalt not lie

We know that religious law is prone to hyperbole and superlatives, religious law is amalgamous to mind control and terror through theistic intimidation.

Religious law is a parasite that feeds off of secular law.

3 Replies

@TheCobbler,

It's easy for some of us to see the illogical precepts of god's law. But I find that in my siblings who are christians.
There's nothing we can do to change their beliefs.
The last time I saw my sister in Hawaii, she almost cried, while saying a belief in god guarantees life in heaven - and it's "free," because she knows I'm an atheist.

0 Replies

@TheCobbler,

Ok Cobbler... if you think this is so easy. What about...

I am the Lord your God, therefore thou shalt not lie.

(By the way... lying isn't against the law, nor should it be in my opinion).

0 Replies

Religious vs Secular Laws

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know