Caving for infidels

[cap n chris]

While requiring all Members to make the Promise which includes 'Duty to God' or ?Love God'

This is counter-Christian. If you are following the teachings of JC you must not do this and if you're not a Christian you wouldn't want to anyway. Therefore the requirement to do it is risible on both counts. It should be shelved. With extreme prejudice.

You've lost me there I'm afraid.

OK. ....

Scripture records that Jesus Christ taught that no-one should swear an oath or make a vow (Matt 5:34). Therefore anyone who does so is acting contrary to the teachings of Jesus and is not following the path of Christianity.

It is quite amazing/surprising to ponder this, especially since denominational religion/hierarchical power structures seem to have a major fixation with oaths - oaths of allegiance, duty, wedding ceremonies, ordination in the priesthood etc. etc.

Hence a good Christian (not a Church-goer, please note - there is a major distinction between the two!) would not be able to join the Scouts since it is clear from what has been written above that making a promise to love God is a prerequisite for joining and to make such a promise (effectively under duress) would be to turn your back on the wisdom and guidance of your Saviour! As the pond-hoppers would say, "Go figure".

 

[mikem]

OK. ....

Scripture records (Matt 5:34) that Jesus Christ taught that no-one should swear an oath or make a vow. Therefore anyone who does so is acting contrary to the teachings of Jesus and is not following the path of Christianity.

Hence a good Christian (not a Church-goer, please note - there is a major distinction between the two!) would not be able to join the Scouts since it is clear from what has been written above that making a promise to love God is a prerequisite for joining.

Hmm, actually the translations record that you should not make oaths to objects...

Mike

 

[Rhys]

Scripture records ... blah

The bible says a lot of stuff, much of it conflicting! Relying on one verse is not enough to sustain an argument.

;-)

Rhys

 

[cap n chris]

Scripture records ... blah

The bible says a lot of stuff, much of it conflicting! Relying on one verse is not enough to sustain an argument.

;-)

Rhys

The Bible is in two parts - the first is Jewish, the second is Christian. The quote is from Christianity. The two parts do indeed have many conflicting quotations. If you're a Jew you'll be quoting the first part; if you're a Christian, the second.

I think an argument relying on one verse could be sustained for quite a long time, actually, Rhys. ;-)

 

[cap n chris]

Hmm, actually the translations record that you should not make oaths to objects...

Mike

Where?

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-34.htm

Seems unequivocal to me.

 

[mikem]

The throne of God - Heaven is his throne, Matthew 5:34. It is so called as being the place where he sits in glory. Jesus says, here, that all who swear at all do, in fact, swear by God, or the oath is good for nothing. To swear by an altar, a gift, or a temple is of no force unless it be meant to appeal to God himself. The essential thing in an oath is calling God to witness our sincerity. If a real oath is taken, therefore, God is appealed to. If not it is foolish and wicked to swear by anything else.

Mike

Matthew 5:33

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.'

 

[cap n chris]

Seems unequivocal to me. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

New International Version
Do not swear at all

New Living Translation
Do not make any vows!

English Standard Version
Do not take an oath at all

New American Standard Bible
Make no oath at all

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Swear not at all

International Standard Version
But I tell you not to swear at all

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Do not swear at all

GOD'S WORD? Translation
Don't swear an oath at all

King James 2000 Bible
Swear not at all

American King James Version
Swear not at all

American Standard Version
Swear not at all

Douay-Rheims Bible
But I say to you not to swear at all

Darby Bible Translation
Do not swear at all

English Revised Version
but I say unto you, Swear not at all

Webster's Bible Translation
But I say to you, Swear not at all

Weymouth New Testament
But I tell you not to swear at all

World English Bible
But I tell you, don't swear at all

Young's Literal Translation
But I -- I say to you, not to swear at all

 

[cap n chris]

Let's test the sustainability argument, Mike. 

 

[mikem]

Mebbe you should translate it yourself from the original scripture, otherwise why would the previous line state:

"keep the oaths you have made to the Lord".

Mike

 

[Brains]

The legal courts of the land do not require a religeous oath, and would prefer an atheists affirmation to be an honest witness, rather than start out by effectively telling a lie swearing to something that you do not believe in...

 

[droid]

I've blundered into the JoHo's site

 

[cap n chris]

Mebbe you should translate it yourself from the original scripture, otherwise why would the previous line state:

"keep the oaths you have made to the Lord".

Mike

Can't be bothered to do that - it's already been done anyway so there's no need to duplicate the effort.

In answer to your question, though: it's pretty reasonable for JC to pop up like a magic genie and say "Don't make oaths, but if you've already done so to the Lord on previous occasions you should jolly well stick to them; just don't make any more". Such an interpretation would make both the sentence you've selected and the magic genie's subsequent exhortation not to do any more fit nicely together - no contradiction, no argument etc..

Watchtower, anyone?

 

[graham]

The bible says a lot of stuff, much of it conflicting!

Does, doesn't it. So I ask its proponents which bits they accept as historical truths and which bits are metaphorical and sometimes they can tell me, but when I ask them how they tell the difference, they do seem to get a bit bogged down.

 

[mikem]

Can't be bothered to do that - it's already been done anyway so there's no need to duplicate the effort.

But it was god-botherers who translated it, so who knows which way it was actually meant to read...

Mike

 

[cap n chris]

I tend to follow the advice "Say no when you mean no; say yes when you mean yes". That's usually the best approach.

 

[Rhys]

I think an argument relying on one verse could be sustained for quite a long time, actually, Rhys. ;-)

Can you keep it going until Christmas?

Ooops. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I should have said 25th December.

;-)

Rhys

 

[steviet_scg]

I think an argument relying on one verse could be sustained for quite a long time, actually, Rhys. ;-)

Can you keep it going until Christmas?

Ooops. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I should have said 25th December.

;-)

Rhys

I'm sure we can keep it going until the Winter Solstice!

 

[cap n chris]

Winterval, surely?

 

[Fulk]

rhys:

The bible says a lot of stuff, much of it conflicting!

As exemplified perfectly by Henry VIII, who used one passage from the bad book to 'prove' that it was perfectly OK for him to marry his brother's widow and then, when he'd got fed up with her and wanted to 'put her aside' in favour of his latest doxy, used another passage to 'prove' that he didn't ought to have done any such thing, and that his first wife's inability to produce a male heir was 'proof' of God's anger at his presumption.

Ah well, if you believe that sort of crap, you'll believe anything.

 

[droid]

Ah well, if you believe that sort of crap, you'll believe anything.

Tends to be my opinion, too