171–180 of 340 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guess what, this conundrum did come up in 2000 years of Catholic teaching: https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-are-oaths-allowed
This is like, “well, there are other passages that conflict with that, so maybe just do it when it’s appropriate”
when we want you to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you were to go against your duty as the head of NASA, Carl Sagan isn't going to rise from the grave and smite you for your transgression. It's like swearing something 'on your mother's grave'. That's not something done because zombie mothers will rise up to enforce anything. It's supposed to signify that you hold great reverence for your mother and that your conviction is as strong as that respect. Swearing on t…
> That's not something done because zombie mothers will rise up to enforce anything. This was done in cultures where people really believed their deceased ancestors were watching them and judging their every move, and that in the future they’d either see their ancestors in paradise, or they wouldn’t. We just kept doing it long after those beliefs became uncool, like a lot of other vestiges of our religious past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And apparently the new NASA director is not a Christian, so what that group believes is not so relevant to this discussion.
I don’t think you’re following the argument, which is that swearing an oath over something like Sagans book doesn’t mean as much because the person making the oath doesn’t believe Sagan will hold them accountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This oath vs affirmation distinction is made clear in the UK for sure. For example when I became a British citizen I was given the option of swearing allegiance to the queen or making a "solemn affirmation" of the same. The only difference being a slight difference of wording. Weirdly I still remember the wording even though it was more than 30 years ago and I only heard it once just before I said it. > I, Sean Hunte…
I became a British citizen too, and had to say the same thing. I honestly can't remember now if I swore or affirmed –I was just mumbling words because I wanted a piece of paper, which would enable me to acquire other pieces of paper, which would have allowed me to do things I never got around to actually doing. Indeed, maybe somewhat unusually, despite going to the effort of becoming a British citizen, I've never act…
That sounds funny. Doesn't this give you more disadvantages than advantages? I'm surprised it's even possible; in other countries you have to have lived there for around 7 years or so until you get citizenship.
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what y…
This is why I'm perpetually confused by the official swearing of oaths by practicing Christians. There aren't a lot of new rules in the New Testament, but this is one of them. Am I misinterpreting the passage?
That's how it's spread all over the globe at rapid pace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It all boils down to the person. Some are honest and keep their promises by default. Some make missteps every now and then, but remain truthful if they really try. And some are just broken beyond repair. I'm Christian and for me, taking an oath on the Bible is the biggest binding I can imagine. I hope Lystrup made her choice as that book is close to her heart and provides her great support to stay true to her oath. I…
Well the oath has always been symbolic and the binding agreement has always just been legal. The symbology of swearing on the Bible seems obvious. You’re making a commitment to God. That means nothing to some people. In which case I’d argue an oath means strictly less than if you have some higher power you feel accountable to. I don’t think anyone thinks - least of all Carl Sagan - that Carl Sagan can hold themselves…
So for example like oath of fealty vs vow of poverty. The difference is inherently religious and kind of subtle and not explicit in most contexts, plus vows aren't very common anymore. But if you read for example a christian marriage vow next to an oath of office you can clearly see the different intent.
And again the meanings are usually the same in general modern use and the religious rite aspect is probably not very important to many people. But when talking about a specific formal oath or vow you can definitely tell that it's two separate rites.
* Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly, give your word in a trustworthy manner, etc. If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists are endorsing this false idea here!
* An understanding of symbolism and its nuances is also lacking. Perhaps this isn't a surprise, as Enlightenment thinking and literalist Protestant thought have largely erased cultural understanding of symbolism. Thus we have confusion in two ways: many folks swear on the Bible out of convention or lack of critical thought, rather than belief, but will rationalize if pressed, and then folks who are very thoughtful may choose the Bible (looking "normal") or something else (looking "different"). The document chosen, if there is a conscious choice made, symbolizes something about their approach to the ceremony and the position. It is not necessarily a magical choice. (A magical approach takes symbolism a step further and imbues the symbolic object with supernatural power. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a universal approach vis a vis the Bible. Remember that the Christian church and Christian faith and practice existed before the Bible was written, easy to forget in a "sola scriptura" cultural milieu!)
* Amusingly, some really Bible-believing folks will not swear, on a Bible or on anything else, due to Matthew 5:34-37. This intellectual consistency is lost of course when we reduce swearing on the Bible to either convention or magic.
Human rituals cannot be usefully be interpreted as legal acts or as declarations of intellectual belief in a set of propositions. They are symbols. The intellectual incoherency of commonly swearing on a book that says not to swear alone ought to tip you off. I sympathize, folks! I grew up quite literal-minded and so have had quite a struggle coming to terms with the Protestantism I grew up with. Learning the intellectual history of thought and religion and understanding the ways different cultures engage with the divine/supernatural/morality has been very helpful -- and some of that learning must be experiential. Taking part in physical rituals taps into a very different part of the human experience than reading philosophy.
Is there any actual strict requirement that you have to swear over a document of some kind? I'd have thought swearing over the bible is a stand-in for swearing "before God", and that God would ultimately be your reckoner should you break your oath. If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless it's something meaningful like the constitution of your country, as another…
As someone who does believe in God, it seems odd to get someone to swear on a book that tells you not to swear an oath at all. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_5#Verse_12
I also read a 20th century book which made the interpretation that "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" of the Ten Commandments is an instruction not to swear oaths on the Bible, since everyone is fallible and so can't guarantee them anyway. I can't remember off-hand which book it was though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
God is not going to smite you for oath-breaking either though. What matters is that you keep your promise to (in this case) society, not whether you swear it on any book in particular. If the law requires the promise to be sworn over a book because the lawmakers at the time were religionists, you might as well choose a book you think represents your values.
Well no, God apparently hasn't done that since the Old Testament, but some Christians certainly do believe that breaking an oath you swore on the Bible will have certain repercussions for you in the afterlife...
> Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King...
Implying that even in a religious context, one might swear on "one's mother's grave"in the metaphorical sense. So then I think there must be a natural and historical reverence to oaths in general, which sends my mind down more Neil Gaiman-ish paths. I would bet that the significance of an Oath is older than every extant religion.