Flag priorities....

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

It does seem rather absurd to assume a person will be any more honest or truthful merely because they utter a few words about God.

It's not absurd at all to a person who believes in God but then again those people are all just "thumpers" to you right? Seems to me that you and those sanctimonious politicians you mention have a lot in common.

[Sailor Steve]

I think Vienna's point was a very good one. Is a person going to be more honest because he uses those four words, or any less honest because he doesn't?

On the other hand Jesus himself enjoins us to not take oaths at all.

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Matthew 5:34-37

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think Vienna's point was a very good one. Is a person going to be more honest because he uses those four words, or any less honest because he doesn't?

If the person believes in the God he is swearing to then I'd say yes. At least that is the hope.

On the other hand Jesus himself enjoins us to not take oaths at all.

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Matthew 5:34-37

I guess neither of us were listening to him when we took our oath of enlistment then right?

[vienna]

My word, August, did you violate the explicit words of Christ when you enlisted? How does one atone for such a violation and affront? I'm afraid there may be a rather warm place in store for you...

Let's be honest about those strictures on those forms of oaths; they are fundamentally fungible. Depending on what flavor of religion one subscribes to, there are always various "dispensations" created, not by the actual words of scriptures, by the clergy as a means of avoiding potential conflict with the secular interests or, sometimes, to mitigate lapses in doctrinal logic. The main point s that any secular oath or allegiance is neither damaged nor enhanced by the appending of a religious element. Nor is the veracity or lack thereof of a person affected by a religious element; after all, Nixon swore his Presidential oath on a bible, said "So help me God", and there is little doubt it had no effect at all on his criminal activities in office. The same applies to all the other politicians, public officials, military personnel, and other who have taken 'solemn and sacred' oaths and then defiled those oaths. The religious element is superfluous and serves no purpose other than to help certain religious and/or political interests try to maintain influence when, often, logic and reason fails them in their purposes...


<O>

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think Vienna's point was a very good one. Is a person going to be more honest because he uses those four words, or any less honest because he doesn't?

On the other hand Jesus himself enjoins us to not take oaths at all.

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Matthew 5:34-37

Well that depends on which text you read. In Shem Tov's Hebrew text of the book of Matthew 5:33-37. It was written Jesus said not to swear by anything 'falsely'. Which, unlike the Greek text would not contradict Torah.

Deuteronomy 10:20, "YHWH your God you shall fear, and Him shall you worship, and to him shall you cling, and in His name shall you swear."

Leviticus 19:12 And you shall not swear by my name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am YHWH.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

If the person believes in the God he is swearing to then I'd say yes. At least that is the hope.

I see it the same as with the Pledge. A true patriot may be willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but he doesn't really need it. An imposter will recite it willingly because he wants to look like a true patriot. A true Christian will gladly say "So help me God", but he doesn't really need to. Someone trying to look more honest will recite the words to help his case. How does someone else tell the difference? The words are just words, and like all words can be used for any purpose.

I guess neither of us were listening to him whe we took our oath of enlistment then right?

Putting aside the fact that I wasn't a believer at that time...

I think it would have been a case of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. How badly would I really want to join up? Would a true believer swear fealty to anyone other than his God? There's a lot of soul-searching there for someone who claims that God comes before everything else.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Well that depends on which text you read. In Shem Tov's Hebrew text of the book of Matthew 5:33-37. It was written Jesus said not to swear by anything 'falsely'. Which, unlike the Greek text would not contradict Torah.

None of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Since the book you cite was written in 1385 changes to the Gospel can only be counted as "after the fact" and are altered to meet the beliefs of the translator. That makes them invalid as proof for a discussion of the original text. A better argument might be to question how much of the quotations in the Gospels were said by Jesus at all.

Deuteronomy 10:20, "YHWH your God you shall fear, and Him shall you worship, and to him shall you cling, and in His name shall you swear."

Leviticus 19:12 And you shall not swear by my name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am YHWH.

The problem there is that in the Matthew passages following the Beatitudes Jesus is specifically addressing and contravening those Old Testament quotes, following the fashion of "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

When he says not to swear an oath at all, that is what Christians have to judge their actions by, not by what a later source claims he said or by an Old Testament quote.

[Oberon]

One could argue that the very definition of hell is a warzone.

To recall an old poem:

"And When he gets to heaven, To Saint Peter he will tell; One more Soldier reporting, sir. I've served my time in Hell!"

[Wolferz]

Be in the world not of the world.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I see it the same as with the Pledge. A true patriot may be willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but he doesn't really need it. An imposter will recite it willingly because he wants to look like a true patriot. A true Christian will gladly say "So help me God", but he doesn't really need to. Someone trying to look more honest will recite the words to help his case. How does someone else tell the difference? The words are just words, and like all words can be used for any purpose.

Then why bother with an oath of enlistment or of office at all because that argument applies to any pledge, statement or word of honor regardless of whether you add "so help me God" at the end or not.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

Then why bother with an oath of enlistment or of office at all because that argument applies to any pledge, statement or word of honor regardless of whether you add "so help me God" at the end or not.

Quite right about oaths, in general. Here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-...aths-and-books

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._our_oath.html

All the oaths of office etc., are really not binding and have little or no legal repercussions. An oath in court or before a legislative or administrative inquiry, however, is a codified legal procedure with serious ramifications of charges of perjury. That said, how often have we seen persons stand before a court or Congress, knowingly lie their asses off and not suffer one bit penalty? Think of all the tobacco industry execs who swore they knew nothing about the dangers of smoking all the while their office files were full of data substantiating those very same dangers; think of all the defense contractors, lobbyists, and other who wove tales out of whole cloth and never saw the inside of a court on charges of perjury. Some even boast about their perjury: Oliver North lied to Congress while in full Marine uniform (still a sore point to many of his fellow Marine officers), violating not only the oath he swore before his testimony, but, also, the oath he swore as a Marine. He gleefully boasted about lying and how he had gotten away with it and did so with no remorse much as those others I indicated above perjured themselves and showed no remorse. The problem of the oath being meaningless lies not in the oath in many cases, but in the fact there are no repercussions for violating an oath...

On the subject of oaths and religious underpinnings, there have been many cases of Christian evangelist who have engaged in questionable and illegal activities, sworn they were not guilty, and then were proven they were, in fact, very much guilty. The very public "mea culpa" followed by the pleas for forgiveness have been played out many, many times over the years. And let's not forget the whole priest sex scandals where the highest clergy of the Catholic Church have perjured themselves in criminal investigations, but they, like their evangelist brethren, have tried to shield themselves behind a façade of piety. Perhaps, if there was a little more rendering unto Caesar, there would be less of their shenanigans...


<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

The problem of the oath being meaningless lies not in the oath in many cases, but in the fact there are no repercussions for violating an oath...

One might say that to a believer invoking the name of God when telling a lie has repercussions that go beyond the grave.

On the subject of oaths and religious underpinnings, there have been many cases of Christian evangelist who have engaged in questionable and illegal activities, sworn they were not guilty, and then were proven they were, in fact, very much guilty. The very public "mea culpa" followed by the pleas for forgiveness have been played out many, many times over the years. And let's not forget the whole priest sex scandals where the highest clergy of the Catholic Church have perjured themselves in criminal investigations, but they, like their evangelist brethren, have tried to shield themselves behind a façade of piety. Perhaps, if there was a little more rendering unto Caesar, there would be less of their shenanigans...

I'm sure you can find examples of all sorts of dishonorable behavior if you look hard enough but that's hardly confined to evangelists. They're just fallible humans like the rest of us and even if they don't sometimes live up to the ideals they espouse it doesn't make those ideals any less worth trying to live up to.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

None of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Since the book you cite was written in 1385 changes to the Gospel can only be counted as "after the fact" and are altered to meet the beliefs of the translator. That makes them invalid as proof for a discussion of the original text. A better argument might be to question how much of the quotations in the Gospels were said by Jesus at all.

Umm I dont think thats not true.

Shem Tovs text is unlike the Byzantine Greek texts today, of his day or any other known Greek text. If he had made a fresh translation it would have rendered one of those forms. In regards to theology the Hebrew text never identify Jesus as messiah or divine. Shem Tov's comments scattered throughout the Hebrew text suggest he did not create it.

Stylistically the Hebrew text is saturated with word puns, word connections, and alliterations strongly suggesting Hebrew language originality. There is some evidence that suggests the Greek texts we have today were translated from original Hebrew source. Not the other way around. Jerome, Eusebius, Origen and Epiphanes allude to it in their writings. Papias came right out and said it. "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each (Greeks) interpreted them the best he could"

So I will stand by what I said: It depends which book of Matthew you read as to what Jesus supposedly said. Christians simply tend to go with the Greek texts because they dont have a clue a Hebrew version exists.

The problem there is that in the Matthew passages following the Beatitudes Jesus is specifically addressing and contravening those Old Testament quotes, following the fashion of "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

Honestly I dont think he is contravening any Old Testement texts rather he is supporting them. But thats another topic. and this one has the beginnings of a derailement

One of my sources was from George Howard's (University of Georgia) the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

[Aktungbby]

CCIP: Thanks for some of the informative background here, Steve and Vienna...and Rockstar

Rockstar: Christians simply tend to go with the Greek texts because they don't have a clue a Hebrew version exists.

Indeed! it's all Greek to me!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Then why bother with an oath of enlistment or of office at all because that argument applies to any pledge, statement or word of honor regardless of whether you add "so help me God" at the end or not.

That's a valid question. Why are there oaths and pledges? I believe that an oath, whether it's the oath of enlistment, or oath of office, or the Boy Scout oath, serves mainly to remind the individual of the purpose of the organization he is joining, and what he's there for.

The question we're addressing was whether adding "...so help me God" makes the oath-taker more honest. I don't see how it can.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Shem Tovs text is unlike the Byzantine Greek texts today, of his day or any other known Greek text. If he had made a fresh translation it would have rendered one of those forms. In regards to theology the Hebrew text never identify Jesus as messiah or divine. Shem Tov's comments scattered throughout the Hebrew text suggest he did not create it.

This reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's Bible. Jefferson disallowed the existence of miracles, and cut up the New Testament to reflect that. I can never read his version without asking the question "But how do we know what we can safely remove, add, or change? There is no outside evidence that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the texts, so removing just the miracles is just cherry-picking what you don't like."

There is some evidence that suggests the Greek texts we have today were translated from original Hebrew source. Not the other way around. Jerome, Eusebius, Origen and Epiphanes allude to it in their writings. Papias came right out and said it. "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each (Greeks) interpreted them the best he could"

If that's the case, then nothing in any of the Gospels can be taken as fact. We might as well use the Gospel of Judas.

The point I was trying to make is that modern Christians largely also support their country of origin, and support taking oaths of allegiance without thinking about it. Since the Gospels we have are the ones they put their faith in, I would argue that they are the ones that count.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The question we're addressing was whether adding "...so help me God" makes the oath-taker more honest. I don't see how it can.

See my previous post. To a believer in God, and it's not just Christians we're talking about here, invoking their Deity when making a false statement carries with it the extra repercussion of eternal damnation or at least invites some other negative divine reaction. That ought to have at least some effect on a believer. I do agree however that Atheists and liars probably don't need to be saying anything about God at all when taking an oath.