|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 24, 2005 19:42:57 GMT -4
Well, like most of Jesus' statements regarding the Jewish Law, this one has some "history". To "forswear" means, of course, to swear falsely. In this case, if one had sworn by God to do something, he was bound to do it. If, however, one had sworn by his head or by Jerusalem, or by some other stupid thing, he was "less" bound to do it than if he had sworn by God or by heaven or by the temple. This gradation of oath-taking had the effect of sanctioning officially various degrees of dishonesty, leading to all manner of confusion and treachery.
Jesus says that the truly and absolutely honest person has no need to embellish his word with formulaic oaths. Either say that you're going to do it and then do it, or don't say that you're going to and then don't. Be scrupulously honest either way. A true Christian has no need to swear an oath because it is inconceivable that he would lie.
The end result is the same regarding Bart Sibrel, of course. But there's always those interesting little tidbits that provide some depth of understanding for why Jesus taught some of the things he did. It is un-Christian to require someone to swear an oath on the Bible (or even a stack of them) or by God or by anything else. Jesus is undoubtedly teaching against the concept of oath-taking because it leads inherently to misuse.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Aug 25, 2005 0:34:46 GMT -4
I wonder where the idea of swearing on a "holy book" came from?
What do you do if you have to appear in court and do not want to violate Matthew 5:33-37 :\
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 25, 2005 5:06:01 GMT -4
In this country (UK), atheists are allowed to give an "affirmation" that they will tell the truth rather than take the meaningless action of swearing on a bible.
Presumably, christians who felt sufficiently strongly on the matter could request to make an affirmation rather than an oath on religious grounds and expect to have it granted.
I'd imagine the same would apply in other countries, particularly where the constitution mandates the separation of church and state.
|
|
|
Post by Martina W. on Aug 25, 2005 6:13:13 GMT -4
I'd imagine the same would apply in other countries, particularly where the constitution mandates the separation of church and state. In Germany the religious part may be omitted in civil action. In criminal proceedings it is replaced by the judge saying: "Sie bekräftigen im Bewusstsein Ihrer Verantwortung vor Gericht, dass Sie nach bestem Wissen die reine Wahrheit gesagt und nichts verschwiegen haben" (you do confirm in awareness of your responsibility before the court that you told the whole truth to the best of your knowledge and did not conceal anything) and the witness answering with a simple "Ja."
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 25, 2005 9:22:01 GMT -4
Oh FFS!
If someone believes in religion, then they take what they swear seriously.
If they don't, then they'll say whatever they please.
The fact that Sibrel uses the bible as a 'measure of truth' just demonstrates what market he is aiming his sales towards.
If the astronuats swear on the bible, he calls them liars.
If they don't, he highlights that fact and says it's evidence of deception.
It's a no-win situation because Sibrel has already made up his mind and will not accept anything that contradicts it.
Prove that you are different by keeping an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 25, 2005 9:24:57 GMT -4
I'm sure there are probably still some rural jurisdictions that have left in the religious overtones of the legal oath, but in every U.S. court I have attended the wording of the oath is something like this: "Do you swear that the evidence you are about to give in the matter before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" The "so help you God" clause and the BIble no longer feature. Anyone who objects to the word "swear" is invited to "affirm".
My personal belief as a Christian is that this falls under the "render unto Caesar" clause. The oath is required of all and is administered equally without regard to the beliefs of the subject. The function of the oath is solely to remind the taker that he is entering a context where the rules of perjury apply, and that there are secular penalties for false statements. The law requires me to acknowledge and be aware of that condition, regardless of whether my beliefs also impose additional religious penalty for lying.
|
|