Ten things Christians and Atheists can and must agree on

I don't think that's necessarily the case either. If fear of getting caught were the only thing stopping most of us from stealing the police would be overwhelmed. For the most part we obey these rules because we consent to them - it's a social contract. But my point was the one you've alluded to yourself - these rules are common sense laws utilised by all functional societies.

 

I said it was the foundation. Not the only thing. And the Bible does advocate quite a bit of stoning in places.

 

Well yeah but what I mean is that the only Biblical rules in force in English law are those that are common to all societies so I don't think it's entirely accurate to describe the Bible as the "foundation", though it no doubt influenced things. English common law has its roots in Anglo Saxon tribal law, and these guys weren't Christian when they arrived on these shores.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_law

Anglo Saxon law apparently didn't exist in written form until after the Christians arrived in Britain.

 

That doesn't mean they didn't have law. Do you think murder and theft are only considered wrong because of the Bible?

 

They didn't have a written law. Which means the law was whatever the big high head yin in charge said it was. Which means there was no law as we know it today.

 

Laws were a matter of custom but they were laws nonetheless. The Celts were the same. You have to bear in mind that the Anglo-Saxons were not a unified nation when they first arrived - just a collection of rival tribes, many of whom probably couldn't read anyway - so they wouldn't have seen the point in writing it all down. And even then, modern English law owes far, far more to the enlightenment than it does to the Bible.

It's also worth noting that English law, throughout its history, has NEVER been codified into one document, as one would expect if it were truly based on the Bible as some kind of grand design. European countries did devise codes, but they based their civil codes on Roman law, which also predates Christianity.

If people want to live together they develop rules of conduct that generally prohibit murder and theft - it's just common sense.

 

A friend of mine who does Philosophy of law was pretty adamant that English Law was based on Roman law which was in turn based on Greek Law.
^^
Forgive me if I am mistaken. I trust the guy who told me it BUT I did recieved this information while we were both standing in a hallway drunk, while waiting to use the bathroom.

---
However, no set WRITTEN law does not mean that the place was lawless, a bit of digging into the pagan tribes in Scotland for instance shows that although there was no unified "church", religion or even written code to abide by, pagan societies were surprisingly civilised and sophisticated.

It wasn't neccesarily a culture or time of "Me big man with stick, me rule tribe" as comics books may have accidently portrayed it.

 

By the time Constantinople was the centre of all Christendom a good few centuries had passed by and Islam had be birthed. Which is a long way off the original Christianity. But yes the Eastern Orthodox Church is right up their with the Roman Catholic Church in it's claim to originality or whatever.

"I don't understand what you're saying, but I don't think it matters."

I likely doesn't. You said each of the major branches of the Christian faith had legitamacy because they all recognised each other. I'm saying they didn't recognise each others authority. They tried to usurp (I think that's the right word) each other.

"Awww, I love you too, ol' buddy! "
That's the second time you've done that recently and it scares me :saz:

 

I thought all fundies were American?

 

As I understand it, Roman lawyers were all about codes and natural law, whereas English law has never been codified and it's a positivist system (i.e. the only law that matters to a court is that which has been set out as law, not a load of airy-fairy philosophical principles). I'm aware of some Roman doctrines in English law but they're rare AFAIK. As such I really wouldn't have thought Roman law was such a big influence. Your friend probably knows his stuff though so if you want to get him to explain why I'm wrong feel free.

 

And yet disputes in Scotland where routinely solved by taking a blade and killing or maiming someone. Which is still often the case even though it's illegal.

Scotland and England are not the same countries. The formation of their laws followed slightly different paths and their legal systems are still separate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law

 

Violence in Scotland nowadays has nothing to do with disputes, that's the problem.

We are essentially annexed by England, and alot of modern law in Scotland is influenced by English Law.

And tribal societies in scotland were very peaceful, when you need all the young men for the harvest, for hunting and building etc it does not make sense to have them kill one another.

I suggest you do some reading on how these tribes (and later, the clans) actually operated.

Scotlands history has been dominated with notions of hostile propensities to violence, this is a falsehood and un-fair stereotype which does not reflect her people, Culture or History.

Yes, it's entertaining to play to the stereotype of the violent alcoholic scot who's number one thought is how much he hates the English.

But, it's sad when outsiders, usually Americans (as much as I love them) take this as a representation of our history and people.

 

I think giacomo's point was that Scotland is another example of a society that used law even though said law was not written down. Settling disputes by combat doesn't invalidate the principle (at least if you take the view that Christianity is the basis for English law) as the Normans (who were Christian) brought this practice to England with them.

These societies would obviously have fallen foul of the high standards we expect from legal systems today but there was certainly a legal system in place. It wasn't anarchy and it wasn't rule by fiat. And again, if we look at the rest of Europe whose laws are Roman in origin we see a sophisticated system of law that predates Christianity - they even had laws on marine insurance!

 

This is what I mean about why I don't think law or even morality comes from religion. We follow rules because it makes sense to do so when we're living together. Religion merely provides a rationalisation.

 

Wasn't it this council that said that because Rome was older and the original royal city, that the roman church still held primacy as first among equals?

Again I thought that up until The Great Schism that the Church in Rome was considered to be the First Among Equals. Rome didn't have any real power over the others as this title seems to be more ceremonial than anything else, but was the reason why it was the preferred court in disputes, (probably what you meant by political clout?).

 

Violence in Scotland is very much the fallout of disputes between different factions. The difference in the modern day is, those factions tend to be, but are not always criminal gangs and families. A lot of the violence in Scotland still has it's roots in blood feuds which are often fuelled by alcohol and drugs.

Scotland was never annexed by England. Please read a history book instead of simply regurgitating the common popular belief!

Scotland and England were united because a Scottish king inherited the throne of England and tried to rule England and Scotland as a single nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

Yes and all the young men of all the nations who had an interest in fighting to take over Scotland never had to do any harvesting. The Gaels for example. Well they were just blood thirsty marauders weren't they.

Tribal societies might well have been over all peaceful. That doesn't mean there weren't disputes and feuds. And it doesn't means those disputes and feuds weren't solved with violence.

LMAO! Which ones? The Gaels, Picts, Scots, Vikings? The English? The Romans? How far back and how far south, east, west or north do you want to look? I mean if we're looking at the Gaels then we could investigate as far west as Northern Ireland.

Well I'm not American thankfully. There is only one reason in the whole of existence I would even want to be American. I'm Scottish.

Sadly there is actually a lot of truth to the stereo type of the drunken Scotsman who hates the English. And it's a stereo type that's encouraged by popular media and popular history.

Scotland's history is dominated by violence. Mostly centred around the expansion of kingdoms. Scotland is a mongrel nation composed of the descendants of the Gaels, Picts, Scots, Vikings and English. Nearly every Scottish king who has ever lived has had to fight to keep his throne and his kingdom.

But all of that is a bit off topic.