Mark 12:17 16So they brought it, and He asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they answered. 17Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they marveled at Him. My question is, is citizenship or, legal personality property of gods or property of Caesar ? Every legal document has the seal of the state it was issued in including legal personality documents ...I also remember when birth certificates has printed on them “Not To Be Used For Personal Identification Purposes” Seems like legal personality is more a presumption due to certain actions sealed at birth and executed at the age of election
I have a question that is not at all designed to spark a religious debate, in fact I will not even debate on religion vs naturalism. However I have a question based on both, the implications of both and the validity of them. Now I think it is safe to say that religion specifically Christianity can justify their belief in law, order and justice so there is no real need to go into that. However, remove God, God does not exist, we are just animals. Animals take what they want when they want. Therefore on what grounds does the atheist claim rape, murder and pedophilia is wrong? If according to the atheist humans are mere animals, regardless of advancement in intelligence on what basis does the atheist say that kidnapping is wrong? Because the mother mourns the loss? Animals in the wild such as birds, elephants, cats etc have all been observed to mourn loss of their offspring. What makes human sense of loss more important than that of a bird, elephant or cat? The bird doesn't want it's offspring taken by the weasel, but the weasel doesn't care. A human mother doesn't want her children taken by a pedophile bu the pedophile doesn't care. In the wild the weasel isn't hauled off to prison, but humans who are just animals according to atheists are. on what grounds can this be justified by the atheist? This is an honest question of philosophy and I am absolutely serious it is not designed to start a debate on evolution vs creationism. I just want to hear the justification for laws that are applied to humans which are just animals like any other animal according to the atheist.
If the contemporary scholarly consensus is that all humans are equal thus law is justified, why is the prevalent view worldwide that some humans are inferior to others 2000 years after this philosophy was recognized. It feels like the consensus of equality is only philosophical. We constantly hear the word equality preached, and justice for all. Then we watch 2 men commit the exact same crime, one is wealthy the other is poor. The wealthy man hires an attorney and gets almost no time or in some cases no time at all, the poor man gets 5 years in prison. Take for example the male school teacher vs the female school teacher, they both molest a student, the male gets 5 years in prison the woman gets 6 months probation. Modern day equality really sounds more like the survival of the fittest mantra preached by champions of evolution. This causes me to ask a couple questions. If the justification of law is that all humans are created equal, but is not the attitude prevalent in modern society one could argue that all men are not in fact equal and therefor justification of law is nonexistent at least on the merit of all people are equal. Law could be justified by other means I suppose. However as an atheist, the existing law today does in fact reflect a more survival of the fittest attitude. Which at it's core really means, law exists to protect the wealthy from the poor. Translated to the animal kingdom, the squirrel who has many nuts makes a law so the squirrel with few nuts can not steal from his stash of many nuts. No law like this exists in nature, but has been constructed by humans. The reality is to whose benefit? Everyone's? Or the wealthy?
You have hit the 🎯, in the context of USA this is really true, American Revolution was organised by the by wealthy plantation owners, lawyers and merchants, because mother country was 'taxing' them heavily, Gerrymandering in US elections is also to help incumbents to remain in power as long as they could, Abolition of S!avery only began to happen when it was not conducive for the economy, Civil Rights was only enforced/granted under Cold War pressure, African-Americans were still not given enough support to build their society by declaring affirmative action on grounds of reverse racism to maintain White americans' status quo in economy
Law only pertain to roman citizens. Others didn't. They were not protected under the law reprsentives. The u.s. should copy roman law regarding non citizens.
Dear My Lawyer, H.N. Year, in case you right now can't call me, Chile, I'm just happy w. Your Relev. Reception of my good msg. that there are many, who can 'testify(!)' to being false about, what good news truly deserves & IS, so I can find out etc., all my best N. Year regards, up there, 'J.A.,' Stgo., The Danish Law, My Semi-ac. Wendy & for inst. certain speculations on This Jehovanu's 'Famous' Palace That seems to be no big case, (perfection), of mine.
My favorite college course at the university of Michigan. by far. professor Bruce Frier. Oh I loved that course.
YAr mam
Upian was a phonican and introduced commercial law into roman law.
Actually, it was Celsius who said that law is the art of good and fair, not Ulpian (in Latin it sounds like that: Jus est ars boni et aecqui)
WRONG!
CELSIUS = 5/9 x (F - 32)
IDIOT
This guy looks like that one actor
Thanks for this i learn how romans govern their govenrment.
Your eyes are very pretty. Please stop pacing.
Good discussion of rights.
IN OTHER WORDS: "YOU GETTA WHAT YOU GOT COMING TO YOU"
English never could keep up to the vigors of roman law
Mark 12:17 16So they brought it, and He asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they answered. 17Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they marveled at Him.
My question is, is citizenship or, legal personality property of gods or property of Caesar ?
Every legal document has the seal of the state it was issued in including legal personality documents ...I also remember when birth certificates has printed on them “Not To Be Used For Personal Identification Purposes”
Seems like legal personality is more a presumption due to certain actions sealed at birth and executed at the age of election
📝
I have a question that is not at all designed to spark a religious debate, in fact I will not even debate on religion vs naturalism. However I have a question based on both, the implications of both and the validity of them. Now I think it is safe to say that religion specifically Christianity can justify their belief in law, order and justice so there is no real need to go into that. However, remove God, God does not exist, we are just animals. Animals take what they want when they want. Therefore on what grounds does the atheist claim rape, murder and pedophilia is wrong? If according to the atheist humans are mere animals, regardless of advancement in intelligence on what basis does the atheist say that kidnapping is wrong? Because the mother mourns the loss? Animals in the wild such as birds, elephants, cats etc have all been observed to mourn loss of their offspring. What makes human sense of loss more important than that of a bird, elephant or cat? The bird doesn't want it's offspring taken by the weasel, but the weasel doesn't care. A human mother doesn't want her children taken by a pedophile bu the pedophile doesn't care. In the wild the weasel isn't hauled off to prison, but humans who are just animals according to atheists are. on what grounds can this be justified by the atheist? This is an honest question of philosophy and I am absolutely serious it is not designed to start a debate on evolution vs creationism. I just want to hear the justification for laws that are applied to humans which are just animals like any other animal according to the atheist.
There is a reason you've never received an answer to this in the past five years.
@@Rosie-uf5oxExactly, you are right. They have no answer
Since they are not here for the past 8 years to answer the question, I will for you, there is no justification.
#freeAssangeNow Pope Francis - Mercy
Most emperors came from provinces
If the contemporary scholarly consensus is that all humans are equal thus law is justified, why is the prevalent view worldwide that some humans are inferior to others 2000 years after this philosophy was recognized. It feels like the consensus of equality is only philosophical. We constantly hear the word equality preached, and justice for all. Then we watch 2 men commit the exact same crime, one is wealthy the other is poor. The wealthy man hires an attorney and gets almost no time or in some cases no time at all, the poor man gets 5 years in prison. Take for example the male school teacher vs the female school teacher, they both molest a student, the male gets 5 years in prison the woman gets 6 months probation. Modern day equality really sounds more like the survival of the fittest mantra preached by champions of evolution. This causes me to ask a couple questions. If the justification of law is that all humans are created equal, but is not the attitude prevalent in modern society one could argue that all men are not in fact equal and therefor justification of law is nonexistent at least on the merit of all people are equal. Law could be justified by other means I suppose. However as an atheist, the existing law today does in fact reflect a more survival of the fittest attitude. Which at it's core really means, law exists to protect the wealthy from the poor. Translated to the animal kingdom, the squirrel who has many nuts makes a law so the squirrel with few nuts can not steal from his stash of many nuts. No law like this exists in nature, but has been constructed by humans. The reality is to whose benefit? Everyone's? Or the wealthy?
I appreciate any feedback, but please try to not be too unkind, I am just a 37 year old carpenter with no real college education.
You have hit the 🎯, in the context of USA this is really true, American Revolution was organised by the by wealthy plantation owners, lawyers and merchants, because mother country was 'taxing' them heavily, Gerrymandering in US elections is also to help incumbents to remain in power as long as they could, Abolition of S!avery only began to happen when it was not conducive for the economy, Civil Rights was only enforced/granted under Cold War pressure, African-Americans were still not given enough support to build their society by declaring affirmative action on grounds of reverse racism to maintain White americans' status quo in economy
We americans have no rights.
We have a two tier system.
One for one group meaning common citizen.
Then there are rights for the politicans and rich.
Law only pertain to roman citizens.
Others didn't. They were not protected under the law reprsentives.
The u.s. should copy roman law regarding non citizens.
Dear My Lawyer, H.N. Year, in case you right now can't call me, Chile, I'm just happy w. Your Relev. Reception of my good msg. that there are many, who can 'testify(!)' to being false about, what good news truly deserves & IS, so I can find out etc., all my best N. Year regards, up there, 'J.A.,' Stgo., The Danish Law, My Semi-ac. Wendy & for inst. certain speculations on This Jehovanu's 'Famous' Palace That seems to be no big case, (perfection), of mine.
Those rights exist but are poorly enforced given minorities privilege over the majority
Roman law did not have rights, to really simplify they had a system based on actions (actio).