Morality

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Nope, I'm going to continue to disagree with your comparison of slavery under Romans and modern, western work practices/ethics.

Also I would quite like some one with an ancient knowledge bent to join the thread such as to give those reading some good knowledge about such things as workers, payments etc.

Also, please look up Prof Lyn's book. Is a good read.

Hehehehe. The almighty. Rejecting thoughts. Dogmatic to his beliefs.
Will not accept that "just over" may be 1 cent more than on par.
Will not accept that nuances will change the "on par"
I bet u take this book as factual knowledge... Grow up man

I am slightly puzzled by your reply.

We are both quite able to have our own, differing, veiws on the subject of Roman slaves.

I know my reasons, mundane and I'll informed as they may be, hence my hope for some one of a more scholarly discourse to join and offer their knowledge/insights/perspectives. Hence possibly showing us both why we are worng.

To go about casting aspersions as to my mental state? That's a tad rude, don't you think?

As for Proffessor Lynne Kelly's book?

The work in question is written 'For the layman'. It's a good read. Entertaining as well as educational for the 'Average Joe', such as m'self. Hence, given the subject matter of conveying knowledge with out writting, seemingly of interest to your self given your comment about early societies, writing etc.

[Angrboda]

At work.

Uhm.... no? Roman slaves did not 'Have it better'*.

* I add the caveat that modern society has a HUGE variety of socioeconomic forms and that yes (Under specifics) there are some people who in some terms and cases are, if not worse off, perhapse on par with those slaves of Roman times.

As for language/knowledge transmission?  Please look up Proffessor Lyn Kelly's book "The Memory Code".  Very edifying in showing the different methods some ancient people used to pass on information as well as remember oodles of stuff.

Cmon man, better, on par. Isn't it a bit anal to pick out the tiniest little detail that could be seperated by only a dollar.
A Roman slave from 50BC was paid differnt to the slave from 300AD. I don't remember which one was better off but.
if I get the worse off employee today and the best off Roman slave I think the slave is better off.
The slave also was provided accomodation and food i think. A season pass to the Colossium... Lovely... LoL

Its all moving away from my point which is there was no word for employee back then and most people are slaves to society  today anyway.
So a slave back then seems to almost translate to employee

Treatment

While, legally, the slave was a mere chattle, classed with movable  property, both law and society were forced to take into consideration the  constantly self-asserting humanity of the slave. We thus have the highly  contradictory situation in which on the one hand, the slave was considered  as possessing the qualities of a human being while on the other hand, he was recognized as being void of the same and regarded as a mere "thing."  The slave's status as a chattle, deprived of any human rights, was clearly  and unmistakably emphasized in his relation to a third party. If injured,  maimed, or killed by a third party, his owner was compensated for the loss, not the slave.16 The Biblical legislation mentions only the case of a slave who was killed by a goring ox and provides that the owner shall be compensated for his loss (Ex. 21:32).

In the relation between the slave and his master almost everything depended upon the character of the latter. The slave's fate was in fact in his master's hand. Beatings and maltreatment of slaves seem to have been so common that the great reformer Gudea, ensi of Lagash, prided himself in the fact that during his reign a slave who was guilty of misconduct was not hit on his head by his master, and that a maid who had done a great wrong was not struck on her face by her mistress. 17The Biblical legislation  does not prohibit the maltreatment of a Hebrew slave by his master "for  he is his money." It is only when the slave dies immediately (within three days) as a result of the beating that the master becomes liable to punishment (Ex. 21:20-21). In Ancient Babylonia a runaway slave was put in chains and had the words "A runaway, seize!" incised upon his face.18 The Hammurabi Code decrees the death penalty for those who entice a  slave to flee from his master and also for those who harbor a fugitive slave.  Furthermore, a reward of two shekels is promised to anyone who captures a fugitive slave and brings him back to his master.19

The Old Testament slave legislations (Ex. 21, Dt. 15, Lev. 25) do not mention the case of the fugitive slave although the tendency to run away was prevalent in Palestine as it was in the adjacent countries. When David sent his messengers to procure food from the rich but churlish farmer Nabal, the latter very defiantly inquired: "Who is David and who is the son of Jesse? There be many slaves nowadays that break away every man from his master" (I Sam. 25:10). Fugitive slaves were extradited when they fled into foreign countries (I Kings 2:39 f.). In view of these facts how should the Deuteronomic ordinance (chap. 23:16) "You shall not deliver a slave unto his master who escapes to you from his master" be interpreted ? It is a most extraordinary law for its application in life would have spelled the end of slavery in Palestine. Perhaps this ordinance should be explained from a national-economic point of view. It was most probably drawn up in favor of Hebrew slaves who had fled from foreign countries. If this interpretation be correct, then the Deuteronomic law would have its parallel in paragraphs 280-281 of the Hammurabi Code according to which a native Babylonian slave who had been sold into a foreign country and fled from there was set free by the state. The second half of the Deuteronomic law: "He shall dwell with you, in the place which he shall choose within one of your gates, where he likes it best, you shall not oppress him" suggest that the fugitive slave settled as a client under the protection of a free man.

— Mendelsohn, I. (1946). Slavery in the Ancient Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist, 9(4), 74-88. doi:10.2307/3209170

---

It's worth noting that the Buddha was agnostic about questions regarding the afterlife and gods and such, and so his teachings were in a sense rather secular.  To suggest that this makes the sky god theory fall apart seems to indicate only an unfamiliarity with Buddhism and an innocent attempt to characterize Buddhism as sufficiently similar to the sky daddy religions that the lack of such in Buddhism proves a flaw in the sky daddy theory, rather than a flaw in your analogy between the two.  It's worth noting as well that later Buddhist movements did add sky daddies, miracles, and the supernatural to Buddha's original teachings, so it's not at all clear why this shows a failing of the sky daddy theory.  A largely secular movement was supersized with sky daddies and such.  That seems to endorse whatever you are referring to by the sky daddy theory.

See. Intersting. Id like to ask some questions but I know ur just a troll trying to set me up so why bother trying to intiate a civil disscussion
Its a shame really. Someone seemingly intelligent and logical resorting to such weak tactics. And why?
U just read between the lines with paranoid glasses on.
Did u even consider my thought? Off course not. Stuck in ur one belief.
Buddhasm is one example. There are more. U should know ur Asian. LoL
So as u dissmissed me so i dissmiss u as false.

Feel free to justify your accusations with evidence at any time.

[Agnostico]

Someone is quoting the bible as some kind of justification to something... Theists

We all have the same laws that we adhere to in society?. Those laws are founded on Christian morals. Pass me that bible u have. Hehehehe
We may have differing personal morals but we all have the same societal morals don't we?

Atheism has no written and agreed set of morals. So whose do they use?
All of us have Christian morals.

We are all on the same page in relation to knowledge and morals. Agnostic with Christian values

[The Grand Nudger]

We all have the same laws that we adhere to in society?. Those laws are founded on Christian morals

What gave you that impression?  

We may have differing personal morals but we all have the same societal morals don't we?

Probably not.  

Atheism has no written and agreed set of societal morals. So whose do they use?

Guess that would depend on the individual, right?

All of us have Christian societal morals.

Not even remotely.

We are all on the same page in relation to knowledge and societal morals. Agnostic with Christian values

I think that you're confused about the origins of our laws and societal morals..in addition to what any meaningfully "christian" moral could be, as well as the state of others morals and where they source them from.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm... my society's laws and morals draw from further and deeper roots than just 'Christianity' (Which, could do with some further clarification and expansion, btw.)

Why, some of my country's laws trace their lineage hack to the Viking/Pagan Danes and such.

A strange assertion indeed.

[Agnostico]

We all have the same laws that we adhere to in society?. Those laws are founded on Christian morals

What gave you that impression?  

We may have differing personal morals but we all have the same societal morals don't we?

Probably not.  

Atheism has no written and agreed set of societal morals. So whose do they use?

Guess that would depends on the individual, right?  

All of us have Christian societal morals.

Not even remotely.

We are all on the same page in relation to knowledge and societal morals. Agnostic with Christian values

I think that you're confused about the origins of our laws and societal morals..in addition to what any meaningfully "christian" moral could be, as well as the state of others morals and where they source them from.

Hey hey heyyyy Dawky. Long time no see.
Are u Stillmatic? Illmatic? or Dogmatic?

Or I should began with... "Apppft what nonsense. My view is knowledge and u are beneith me as a chad cell"
Heheheheh. kids

[Angrboda]

We are all on the same page in relation to knowledge and societal morals. Agnostic with Christian values

I think that you're confused about the origins of our laws and societal morals..in addition to what any meaningfully "christian" moral could be, as well as the state of others morals and where they source them from.

Fixt.

[The Grand Nudger]

What gave you that impression?  

Probably not.  

Guess that would depends on the individual, right?  

Not even remotely.

I think that you're confused about the origins of our laws and societal morals..in addition to what any meaningfully "christian" moral could be, as well as the state of others morals and where they source them from.

Hey hey heyyyy Dawky. Long time no see.
Are u Stillmatic? Illmatic? or Dogmatic?

Or I should began with... "Apppft what nonsense. My view is knowledge and u are beneith me as a chad cell"
Heheheheh. kids

You could begin with anything...but where you end up is probably more important.  You asked alot of questions..and just as with the "why was religion created" question..it might benefit you to ask whether you have the right question in the first place.

You asked a raft of questions as to why all laws and societal morals come from christianity..but they don't. Do you see how that might be a problem?

[Agnostico]

When was the last time u guys changed a part of ur theory? Seriously
How many times have u changed ur theory?

[FatAndFaithless]

When was the last time u guys changed a part of ur theory? Seriously

Please clearly state what you think "our" theory is.