|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 08, 2017 06:46 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
The fact is a Christian should never need to be in a court of LAW.
You mean, a Christian should always turn a blind eye and never give testament? I guess, you should think about that one aain.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 08:06 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 20:10, 08 Feb 2017.
|
JollyJoker said:
markkur said:
The fact is a Christian should never need to be in a court of LAW.
You mean, a Christian should always turn a blind eye and never give testament? I guess, you should think about that one aain.
JJ, my cantankerous friend. Meant sincerely.
I know you cannot agree with anything it seems I explain about Christianity. The only "again" (you mentioned)is to "again" point to Lizard's very important question.
His point was about the "validity" (or forced ritual) of Oath's in court. Correct? Isn't that what he asked?
You are not a Christian, so why would you sift my answer? I'm NOT suggesting you shouldn't, you should, but would it not be a wee bit better to debate my answer versus pronounce a judgment? And Considering you do have a sound critical mind, <imvho> you did not use it well in your quick response.
I do not mean to sound condescending my friend...not in the least.
Here's the meat of the subject, not necessarily for you, but for a truly practicing Christian.
To avoid any and all perceived guilt, I will target "my learning and practice"; further, if you will allow me the freedom...my years of maturity inside the Faith. Meaning longevity and not my own Minds-Merit.
What follows is not my Mandate nor brainchild at all but Christ's alone. He made the rules and I follow his teaching.
If a Christian is supposed to be "TRUE to their words, (daily testimony) is it not perfectly reasonable that vows in a court of law would be not be "elevated in value" and treated say, "more sacred or dependable" before a formal court? Truth is Truth; and for me, "levels of Truth", i.e. White-lies always a "created' dance with the Devil" that has had nothing to do with Christ.
If I treasure, as I do, factual honesty within myself and see it as imperative in all of my daily-relationships...need I create a "supposed new form" in answering questions honestly in the public square? Of course not. I am a person that lives by complete honestly or I am not. To divide Truth is by default...to lie or subtly deceive another mind or minds.
Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" right? JJ, you know that is the power of STATE. I believe you do.
Is not a Court & Legal-system a necessary part of STATE today? Of course it is and if a Christian has "tried to avoid" the need for a judgment made by Earthly power but the dispute still carries the Christian inside a court? What then? I was not implying I would "turn a blind eye" nor "make myself mute". I would simply answer the questions of the court in session, exactly as I would have outside the State-court, had I been able to avoid the necessity of being sworn in by a system that included an "Unnecessary Oath" embedded in "an un-believers system" that was ill conceived that my Oath was made more Holy because I now stood before the STATE.
What evidence do we have for the importance of such an idea? Look no further than today's American Politicians when standing before judge and jury.
The N.T. is sacred wisdom to me and I want it taken out of the Judicial everywhere because it has been made a meaningless "door-mat" that can only present the illusion; "that a swearer's Testimony will honor Truth." Yeah right...this was/is just like many other "shallow and ineffectual" efforts by Power of the STATE, which also included a STATE-Church, to magically imply that testimony, empowered by a repeated set of words would become...sworn truth.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 08:25 PM |
|
|
But that's not the question, is it? Lizard doesn't ask if it's necessary or not to take an oath, he asks if it's forbidden or not. So, if the state asks you to take an oath and if it is indeed forbidden, there's a conflict even if you are taking an oath just as a witness, not the accused.
The quotes seem very out of context indeed, though. I don't remember the Bible indicating that taking an oath is categorically forbidden under any circumstance.
|
|
LizardWarrior
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 08:41 PM |
|
|
I don't think those are taken out of the context.
Here's how Matthew 5 begins:
Quote:
Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them.
Matthew 5;32 which is the psalm before the quotes I previously gave, Jesus talks about divorce, while in 5;38, the next after the oath segment is the well-known "turn the other cheek". In Matthew 5, Jesus rejects a lot of ideas from the old testament.
Matthew 5;38 continues in the same way:
Quote:
Matthew 5;38 - You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’
Matthew 5;39 - But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also
____________
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 08:43 PM |
|
|
People have totally bought into the idea that Christ's god and father is the same god as the Abrahamic god.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 08:49 PM |
|
Edited by AlHazin at 20:50, 08 Feb 2017.
|
Isn't it He the same?
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 09:01 PM |
|
|
tSar-Ivor said:
People have totally bought into the idea that Christ's god and father is the same god as the Abrahamic god.
HERESY!
What are you, a Cathar?!
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 09:02 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
JollyJoker said:
markkur said:
The fact is a Christian should never need to be in a court of LAW.
You mean, a Christian should always turn a blind eye and never give testament? I guess, you should think about that one aain.
JJ, my cantankerous friend. Meant sincerely.
I know you cannot agree with anything it seems I explain about Christianity. The only "again" (you mentioned)is to "again" point to Lizard's very important question.
His point was about the "validity" (or forced ritual) of Oath's in court. Correct? Isn't that what he asked?
You are not a Christian, so why would you sift my answer? I'm NOT suggesting you shouldn't, you should, but would it not be a wee bit better to debate my answer versus pronounce a judgment? And Considering you do have a sound critical mind, <imvho> you did not use it well in your quick response.
If a Christian witnesses to a crime an incident the law goes to court over, wouldn't they need to be in said court of law to testify?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 09:13 PM |
|
|
@Liz
When I read Matthew 5 as a whole, rather than forbidding taking any oath under any circumstance, it's more like he's revisioning certain practices from the Old Testament and as you said it yourself, he is objecting to those specific practices and teachings. So when he says not to take an oath in 34, it is about a specific oath (the one in 33) and a specific tradition. His main point doesn't seem like to forbid oaths or even that oath in particular but rather object to superficial ritual and focus on intention instead, the 20's are all about that. At least, it can be easily interpreted that way.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 10:00 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
tSar-Ivor said:
People have totally bought into the idea that Christ's god and father is the same god as the Abrahamic god.
HERESY!
What are you, a Cathar?!
Not quite, I don't denounce the god of the old testament, but at the same time I don't ignore his subordinance to the one true god (I believe in the worship of lesser deities, and I actually encourage it since your worldly desires bear more fruit from their worship, but that may not necessarily benefit your spiritual development, still I'm in it for the adventure rather than to go to heaven).
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 10:32 PM |
|
Edited by Baronus at 22:33, 08 Feb 2017.
|
Abraham saw God in Three Persons! As Rublev painted. Its the same God. God we write big letter because its PERSON! Like me and you name is written big letters. Only if you tell about eg. greeks ,,gods" its small letter because its no one person.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 11:17 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
If a Christian witnesses to a crime an incident the law goes to court over, wouldn't they need to be in said court of law to testify?
Hmm. How could you not read and see my answer would be YES?
What a Christian is commanded within personal life is no free-pass in the reality of life, regarding living and participating in the world of Caesar and not of Christ's. "Be in the world but not of the world". There is no conflict there JJ.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 08, 2017 11:22 PM |
|
|
artu said:
But that's not the question, is it? Lizard doesn't ask if it's necessary or not to take an oath, he asks if it's forbidden or not. So, if the state asks you to take an oath and if it is indeed forbidden, there's a conflict even if you are taking an oath just as a witness, not the accused.
When "necessary and forbidden" are merged into a single picture? I answered the question.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2017 08:43 AM |
|
|
markkur said:
JollyJoker said:
If a Christian witnesses to a crime an incident the law goes to court over, wouldn't they need to be in said court of law to testify?
Hmm. How could you not read and see my answer would be YES?
What a Christian is commanded within personal life is no free-pass in the reality of life, regarding living and participating in the world of Caesar and not of Christ's. "Be in the world but not of the world". There is no conflict there JJ.
But you said: "The fact is a Christian should never need to be in a court of LAW."
There seems to be a contradiction.
Also - there must be a court. One or more judges, and people who speak for the sides.
|
|
frostysh
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
|
|
posted February 09, 2017 07:22 PM |
|
Edited by frostysh at 19:25, 09 Feb 2017.
|
well, I am basically agreed with mr artu about the "spiritual experience", and especially about WEB of social stuff, and "golden rules" (I think this 2,17 number or whatever) of mr yogi, well I hope this will not ruin "placebo-effects"  or something, also I think that my posts saying basically the same, but with much less amount of words that I cannot understands  .
Baronus -
I think the mythology of mr Tolkien sux. But some films that is created with it was fun to me, at least in some cases and some moments.
About other stuff - I just don't give a darn - there is another kind of nonsense, IMHO.
____________
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted February 09, 2017 07:26 PM |
|
|
frostych said:
I think the mythology of mr Tolkien sux.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 09, 2017 07:44 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
But you said: "The fact is a Christian should never need to be in a court of LAW."
There seems to be a contradiction.
Also - there must be a court. One or more judges, and people who speak for the sides.
Man...you gotta be trollin' me.
Look JJ, one last time. What I said is absolutely the ethical-goal behind a practicing Christian's moral-code but it is NOT the law of secular society. That's the contradiction that you are making. Both realities exist side by side. Again, "In the world but not of the World" If I must legally comply in regard to any non-believers actions and it is impossible to settle "out of court"...well...then I must go where I do not desire.
Think about what we are talking about here. It is NOT secular law, it is Christian teaching.
Just because I live a life where I would right any wrong OF MINE, provided it was possible, to avoid the playground of GREED and today's LAW-PROFESSION, which I think "should" be made unnecessary in most cases, if the world were not so damned legalistic, does not mean I cannot be forced into the very evil I want to avoid.
Someone could accidently injure me or I them but that doesn't mean "my adopted code of ethics" would be enforced for someone else. You already know, it all depends on a settlement of that event. I have forgiven people and companies from what I could have taken to court and gained GAIN. However, if somehow, I am made the offender, without recourse? Then I am completely under Caesar's edict. I've never said otherwise.
|
|
LizardWarrior
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted February 09, 2017 07:44 PM |
|
|
artu said:
When I read Matthew 5 as a whole, rather than forbidding taking any oath under any circumstance, it's more like he's revisioning certain practices from the Old Testament and as you said it yourself, he is objecting to those specific practices and teachings. So when he says not to take an oath in 34, it is about a specific oath (the one in 33) and a specific tradition. His main point doesn't seem like to forbid oaths or even that oath in particular but rather object to superficial ritual and focus on intention instead, the 20's are all about that. At least, it can be easily interpreted that way.
I doubt He's talking about a specific oath, but rather oaths in general, yes, Jesus is also speaking about that "begin" with "I swear by God" (and other religious variations), but I believe that's because those are generalizations of oaths. Don't make a swear on earth, in my opinion, means don't make an oath on something rather earthly, mortal. The part about swearing on Heavens, refers to not making an oath before God.
(Matthew 5:33) said:
Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.
(Matthew 5:34) said:
But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
(Matthew 5:37) said:
But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.,
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 09, 2017 08:04 PM |
|
|
Contextually, it seems pretty target-specific to me. I mean, imagine one of the listeners raised his hand during that conversation and said, "I am a soldier, Jesus, we take an oath not to desert our post, is that evil as well?" Would he reply, "yes, all oaths are evil simply because they are oaths, don't do that, it's an unforgivable sin." That's not the main theme I see in that story. As I said, I think the core objective is to emphasize that formal obligations are superficial and beside the point, one should focus on what goes through his heart and try to improve on that. So, among the many interpretations here, this is the one I find most accurate as someone who did a lot of text analysis back in the day:
There is no reason to consider that solemn oaths in a court of justice, or on other proper occasions, are wrong, provided they are taken with due reverence. But all oaths taken without necessity, or in common conversation, must be sinful, as well as all those expressions which are appeals to God, though persons think thereby to evade the guilt of swearing. The worse men are, the less they are bound by oaths; the better they are, the less there is need for them. Our Lord does not enjoin the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, but such a constant regard to truth as would render oaths unnecessary.
|
|
LizardWarrior
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted February 09, 2017 08:09 PM |
|
|
What I'm trying to say is that oaths (from a Christian point of view) hold no value, so for example, from a theological point, swearing on the bible has no "effect", it won't enforce a contract between you and God.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
