Posts
The title sounds heavy, and it is. I was going to do my third video
about this topic and still may. But right now my new thoughts have to be
committed to paper because these thoughts have been running around in
my mind for a while and they make noise. I wish I had more time to write
this, or I could get BH to make it funny, because it could be funny,
but coming from this dry philosopher, it won't be.
Imagine you are on a construction site.
You are on the third floor and watching an argument between the carpenter and the plumber. The plumber had just went downstairs from the second floor to cut a pipe for this apartment on the third floor (slightly out of breath) and meets the carpenter putting the final touches on the kitchen counter. He goes to stick his pipe in and finds it 2 inches too short from the wall. He looks over at the carpenter to explain that his counter was off 2 inches. The carpenter picks up his measuring tape and checks the distance between the counter and water heater and says his distance is right on. So the process repeats all the way up and down the building with tradesmen arguing. The arguments intensify.
Numerous court cases are filed for time and money lost. Who is going to win and who is going to lose? With the state of politics in our present situation, I would have to say that whoever is best "connected", or of the superior race would win.
In this particular scenario, there would be no other yardstick from which to rule. There is nothing solid that the judge can go to to make a truly objective determination.
The court will rely on numerous judgements and statements made by the tradespeople, all subjective in nature because the measurements were taken from where the guys thought they should be taken.
So what actually solves this problem? If the building had a cornerstone, the correctness or incorrectness of all measurements could be taken. Everyone's errors could be measured from the cornerstone and all responsibility would be laid bare. The judge would be unburdened from making a subjective judgement . The cornerstone makes the judges life easy and makes the tradesmen's life fair.
The law is in a sense is similar to a building, each code depends to a certain extent on each and every other code. It can be the subject of much subjective interpretation.
One could argue a case in self defence where someone blew a guys head off at 100 yards with a .303 while the guy was carrying a knife and walking in the opposite direction. These kinds of questions are what juries are for and I have to clarify that this is not what I'm talking about.
This is certainly a problem within the law but it's not really an every day kind of problem.
Just the number of codes and regulations creates problems and attorneys go in and argue their interpretations of this and that act or statute. There is probate as well. They become like the tradespeople, each arguing from a perspective.
Jurisprudence became a science in Rome and it is the first thing called a "science" and it came about with jurists looking for a cornerstone.
Socrates essentially asks what this cornerstone could be in Plato's Republic and finds the Golden Rule. The Romans refined jurisprudence with the all seeing God Jupiter and this same essential law is codified in the New Testament (single commandment: "do unto others as you would have done to yourself), along with rational guidelines for its preservation (Tree of Knowledge, Water and Wine..). This is Christianity.
Christianity is the common law and forms the underlying structure of both governments and courts, whether they choose to admit that or not. Common law is Christianity and it is completely rational. Christianity brings rationalism into religion and codifies and preserves it.
Not many Christians understand this or even the basic doctrines and lessons of the Bible.
In the story above, without a connection to a jurist cornerstone, the judge is burdened with making a subjective judgement or reading and interpreting thousands of lines of code and then making a subjective judgement. With a cornerstone in place, the judge may find one side clearly in error, in which case, in fact, he has no choice. The judgement is independent of the judge.
So there is a fundamental difference between a system of laws that has a cornerstone and one that does not. Christianity has the cornerstone, no other system has this cornerstone. Judaism depends on its Rabbi's, Islam has the Imam's and Atheists have their scientists. The Monkey religion has its faith in its rulers. These are all known as statutory religions. They exist for the will of their rulers and have no universal principle.
With better laws, comes better productivity and that is how the West became powerful, not genetic superiority. The idea of genetic superiority explaining this is a result of an empirical determination of cause. The rational explanation of cause has the advantage in that it is universal.
The Bible tells us not to be concerned with geneologies. Going back just 64 generations, each of us has 2^64 grandparents. I hope the ones on my branch decided not to "keep it in the family".
It is the destruction of this beautiful Common Law itself that will result in the destruction of the West.
Imagine you are on a construction site.
You are on the third floor and watching an argument between the carpenter and the plumber. The plumber had just went downstairs from the second floor to cut a pipe for this apartment on the third floor (slightly out of breath) and meets the carpenter putting the final touches on the kitchen counter. He goes to stick his pipe in and finds it 2 inches too short from the wall. He looks over at the carpenter to explain that his counter was off 2 inches. The carpenter picks up his measuring tape and checks the distance between the counter and water heater and says his distance is right on. So the process repeats all the way up and down the building with tradesmen arguing. The arguments intensify.
Numerous court cases are filed for time and money lost. Who is going to win and who is going to lose? With the state of politics in our present situation, I would have to say that whoever is best "connected", or of the superior race would win.
In this particular scenario, there would be no other yardstick from which to rule. There is nothing solid that the judge can go to to make a truly objective determination.
The court will rely on numerous judgements and statements made by the tradespeople, all subjective in nature because the measurements were taken from where the guys thought they should be taken.
So what actually solves this problem? If the building had a cornerstone, the correctness or incorrectness of all measurements could be taken. Everyone's errors could be measured from the cornerstone and all responsibility would be laid bare. The judge would be unburdened from making a subjective judgement . The cornerstone makes the judges life easy and makes the tradesmen's life fair.
The law is in a sense is similar to a building, each code depends to a certain extent on each and every other code. It can be the subject of much subjective interpretation.
One could argue a case in self defence where someone blew a guys head off at 100 yards with a .303 while the guy was carrying a knife and walking in the opposite direction. These kinds of questions are what juries are for and I have to clarify that this is not what I'm talking about.
This is certainly a problem within the law but it's not really an every day kind of problem.
Just the number of codes and regulations creates problems and attorneys go in and argue their interpretations of this and that act or statute. There is probate as well. They become like the tradespeople, each arguing from a perspective.
Jurisprudence became a science in Rome and it is the first thing called a "science" and it came about with jurists looking for a cornerstone.
Socrates essentially asks what this cornerstone could be in Plato's Republic and finds the Golden Rule. The Romans refined jurisprudence with the all seeing God Jupiter and this same essential law is codified in the New Testament (single commandment: "do unto others as you would have done to yourself), along with rational guidelines for its preservation (Tree of Knowledge, Water and Wine..). This is Christianity.
Christianity is the common law and forms the underlying structure of both governments and courts, whether they choose to admit that or not. Common law is Christianity and it is completely rational. Christianity brings rationalism into religion and codifies and preserves it.
Not many Christians understand this or even the basic doctrines and lessons of the Bible.
In the story above, without a connection to a jurist cornerstone, the judge is burdened with making a subjective judgement or reading and interpreting thousands of lines of code and then making a subjective judgement. With a cornerstone in place, the judge may find one side clearly in error, in which case, in fact, he has no choice. The judgement is independent of the judge.
So there is a fundamental difference between a system of laws that has a cornerstone and one that does not. Christianity has the cornerstone, no other system has this cornerstone. Judaism depends on its Rabbi's, Islam has the Imam's and Atheists have their scientists. The Monkey religion has its faith in its rulers. These are all known as statutory religions. They exist for the will of their rulers and have no universal principle.
With better laws, comes better productivity and that is how the West became powerful, not genetic superiority. The idea of genetic superiority explaining this is a result of an empirical determination of cause. The rational explanation of cause has the advantage in that it is universal.
The Bible tells us not to be concerned with geneologies. Going back just 64 generations, each of us has 2^64 grandparents. I hope the ones on my branch decided not to "keep it in the family".
It is the destruction of this beautiful Common Law itself that will result in the destruction of the West.
