-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is common law based Christianity?
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
if anything common law is based on the code of Hamurabi.... the oldest set of written laws in history.
wa:do
wa:do
dolly
Member
The common law of the United States, or do you mean something different? :blink: Please clarify; I'm a bit confused. 
If you do mean the US, then no it isn't based on Christianity. The Treaty of Tripoli, in Article 11, states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
(bold is mine)
If you do mean the US, then no it isn't based on Christianity. The Treaty of Tripoli, in Article 11, states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
(bold is mine)
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Common Law/Tort Law/Precedent is non-legislative law. Law that hasn't been passed by government ,but rather through precedents set by decisions passed in civil court action. Whilst the illustrated example of the case that established products liability (Donoghue -v- Stevenson, 1933) was 'Love thy neighbour' becomes in the law 'You must not injure your neighbour', the fact that this was Christian religious doctrine was largely due to the prevailing religion of the place in which the events took place.
Precedents have also been set whereby it is fair to argue that a man has a right to rape his wife if she refuses to grant sexual favours of her own accord...I can't imagine there's a religion out there that would want to lay claim to that one.
Precedents have also been set whereby it is fair to argue that a man has a right to rape his wife if she refuses to grant sexual favours of her own accord...I can't imagine there's a religion out there that would want to lay claim to that one.
dolly
Member
lady_lazarus said:
But that is not solely Christian doctrine, every religion or lack thereof states that you shouldn't harm another person (though some permit in certain situations). "do not harm your neighbor" is basic human instinct, similar to "do not harm children." Such rulings are generally based on the basic morality that most humans possess, not Christianity. There are some - the more specific ones which have no real logic to them unless you look at it through a religious view (banning sodomy, etc) - but most aren't.
true blood
Active Member
lady_lazarus said:
The Law of Moses was given to the Israel Nation some 15 centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. It was only given to Israel. It was never designed to be a permanent legal system. There are numerous New Testament passages which affirm its termination. You are in error by thinking it has anything to do with being Christian. Love thy neighbor as thy self was also terminated because it's conditional and only existed from Christ's birth unto his ascension. Today's principle, since the day of Pentacost, is to love all people just like Jesus Christ loved the world.
true blood said:
Mt. 4:4 (paraphrased) Man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
The item nailed to the cross, was your and my record of sin, 'the handwriting of ordinances that were against us.' A perfect law(Torah) a holy, just and good law(Torah) was never against us!
Doesn't your Bible say, Both God and Jesus are unchanging?
Get out of "Replacement Theology" it is hazardous to your place in the Kingdom!
true blood
Active Member
Ronald said:
Before the Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven he made the declaration given in John 16:12-15: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew unto you."
So when, where, and how was this promise fulfilled? Christ's words "he will guide...he shall speak...he will show" are definite. Therefore only one place to look for the answer is the epistles which are addressed to the Church of the Body. In the 7 epistles we have the perfect truth into which the Spirit was to guide and lead, they contain all the truth Christ could not speak while on earth for the time had not come for this revelation. They contain "the things to come..." Seriously, different parts of the Bible are addressed to different groups of people. You cannot group the Church epistles with other sections of the Bible. The epistles were addressed directly to the Church: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. So why do you accept the four gospels especially the Sermon on the Mount, the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the ten commandments as being basic doctrines of Christianity INSTEAD of the knowledge revealed in those epistles?
During the period of the Gospels, Jesus Christ was sent to initiate the called out of Israel. Romans 15:8, Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision. Jesus Christ kept and fulfilled every law given to Israel. Not only did Jesus Christ come only to Israel, but when he sent out the 12 apostles, according to Matthew 10, he sent them ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When the 70 in Luke 10 were commisioned they were sent to Israel only. Jesus's entire ministry was to Israel, the circumcision. It was his message calling out followers from Israel. This was the period of time that Jesus called out his bride. This "church as the bride" in the gospels had the bridegroom, Christ, composed of two. Our time period is the Church as the Body, not composed of two, like the bride and bridegroom but as one new man, one body, with Christ as the head. In other words, this is hard to explain, instead of a living Jesus Christ in one place at one time, Jesus Christ is living in every born-again believer and each is capable of doing the work that Chirst did. While Jesus was personally persent on earth he could be at only one place at one time but now, Christ is present wherever there is a born-again believer and the members of the Body of Christ are those who have been born again by confessing not their sins but the savior from sin, the Lord Jesus Christ, and believing in their hearts that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. The great salvation is in the savior, in whom the members of the Body were circumcized when he was circumcized; baptized when he was baptized; FULFILLED ALL THE LAW WHEN HE FULFILLED IT and said "IT is finished";; died when he died; were buried when he was buried; rose again when he rose; ascended when he ascended; and are "seated in the heavenlies", "complete in him" "never more to come into condemnation; have escaped the "wrath of God" have "passed from death unto life" and are looking forward to that day when the earthly part of that Body will be "received up into glory".
Pah
Uber all member
lady_lazarus said:
Law is never created in a court. Legislated law is judged against a standard and rejected in whole or in part and sent back to the legislature to remedy the failure to reach the standard.
I am nor sure, and you can correct me, but does not common law indicate liberty in the right to hold property. Does it not also contain criminal offenses and punishement?
It would seem logical to recognize one(or two) right(s), (the right of property and/or the right of contract, and extend that to other rights.
I searched FindLaw for Supreme Court cases with both of the names you referenced and found none, i.e. Stevenson was not a participant with Donoghue and vice versa. Could this have been an Appeals Court case?
Could you cite those cases?
-pah-
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
pah said:
This wasn't an American case, but rather a Scottish case, http://www.fact-index.com/d/do/donoghue_v__stevenson.html.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
true blood said:
I was quoting the legal argument on which that particular precedent was based...and 'Love thy Neighbour as thyself' was cited by the plaintiff's representation in his argument that the ginger beer manufacturer owed his client a duty of care. I was cited as a Biblical commandment by said legal counsel, who I assume that due to the prevailing religion at that time in his country of residence was likely to be Christian. Had he lived in a country with a differently prevalent religion, he would probably have used the same argument but attributed it to whatever the local Holy Book happened to be.
Same German, different hat.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Could you cite those cases?
Ok, done some deeper research into this one, so here goes. Starts with British Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, who stated (in relation to wives as property which has been quite a long standing common law principle, despite the fact that we've come a long way since then) :
"...the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract." (History of The Pleas of The Crown, 1736)
The prevailing precedent (until relatively recent legislation overturned the common law) was that just as a person can not be guilty of willful damage to their own property, so to a man can not be guilty of violating his own woman.
The particular case I was thinking of was R v Johns (1992) in which a South Australian Supreme Court Justice instructed the jury in a rape case involving a husbands assualt on his wife:
"There is of course, nothing wrong with a husband, faced with his wife's initial refusal to engage in intercourse, in attempting, in an acceptable way, to persaude her to change her mind, and that it may involve a measure of rougher than usual handling.It may be that handling and persuasion will persaude the wife to agree. Sometimes it is a fine line between not agreeing, and then changing of the mind and consenting..."
Bearing in mind the wife pressed charges in the first place, it should be quite obvious she didn't consent, however common law allowed that she had a contractual obligation to fulfil and the husband could 'handle and persuade her' into fulfilling that obligation.
Pretty sad state of affairs when you think about it.
Ok, done some deeper research into this one, so here goes. Starts with British Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, who stated (in relation to wives as property which has been quite a long standing common law principle, despite the fact that we've come a long way since then) :
"...the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract." (History of The Pleas of The Crown, 1736)
The prevailing precedent (until relatively recent legislation overturned the common law) was that just as a person can not be guilty of willful damage to their own property, so to a man can not be guilty of violating his own woman.
The particular case I was thinking of was R v Johns (1992) in which a South Australian Supreme Court Justice instructed the jury in a rape case involving a husbands assualt on his wife:
"There is of course, nothing wrong with a husband, faced with his wife's initial refusal to engage in intercourse, in attempting, in an acceptable way, to persaude her to change her mind, and that it may involve a measure of rougher than usual handling.It may be that handling and persuasion will persaude the wife to agree. Sometimes it is a fine line between not agreeing, and then changing of the mind and consenting..."
Bearing in mind the wife pressed charges in the first place, it should be quite obvious she didn't consent, however common law allowed that she had a contractual obligation to fulfil and the husband could 'handle and persuade her' into fulfilling that obligation.
Pretty sad state of affairs when you think about it.