> It is enough for me that He said it and as Sovereign God I know He does nothing without a purpose. It isn’t for me to question His purpose, just obey it.
That’s a cop-out: Proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.”
So let’s search out this particular matter, then: I am going to suggest that Christ did not issue a “commandment” here, but rather a divine ideal, when it came to swearing oaths.
Ideally, the Servant of Christ’s behaviors and deportment should be so circumspect, his conduct so honest and honorable, and his ways so upright and reliable that there should be no need for elaborate oaths in order for his word to be acceptable by all. Thus, when he says “yes” it means “yes”, and when he says “no”, it means “no”. No further assurances are needed.
If that is so, then it entirely explains that particular passage, and also does not contravene the common practise of taking oaths, as did Ruth, David, Solomon and many others.
And as must most people in this world even today, as they have yet to perform to the Divine Ideal. It is the job of the Christian to aspire to that ideal and become known as a man of his word.
In which case, this is no different to Freemasonry. After we have sworn our Oaths in each of the Degrees, we no longer require oaths from each other when giving our assurances: the word of a Freemason is generally sufficient.
> A dictionary might be helpful here. If you are hiding things, you aren’t transparent.
Transparency does not necessitate full disclosure. And anyway, you do not have the right to Transparency, nor the right to know. If you did, it would be in your Constitution. It isn’t, so you don’t. Simple as that.
That said, I think that any fair reading of our discourse would reveal that I have bent over backwards to be forthright with you, and to give you sensible answers and responses. In so doing I have gone the extra mile: most people would not have bothered.
> For the purposes of the discussion, it would be helpful if you would try to refute it because thus far you’ve just said “you’re wrong, because I said so, and since you’re not a Mason then you shouldn’t even be looking into this stuff and you’re an idiot for using our leaders to point stuff out to us.”
Except, of course, that Pike is not one of our “leaders” and is, as I keep saying, just another Freemason with just another set of opinions — to which he is entitled. I have no need nor no intention of refuting what he has written. I’m not going to argue his case, for or against: I have no horse in his race, no stake in his game. To me his view is interesting but not relevant. It is thus pointless for me to try to refute what he has written. Don’t you get it yet?
> Not much of an argument if you ask me (which I know you didn’t). Beyond this, I could quote authorities but since you don’t recognize them I’m wasting my time. Guess we will leave it there.
That’s right — not much of an argument. I have no intention of arguing from Pike. He is not an “authority” for me to argue from. It would make as much sense for me to do so as it would for you to argue your case from Joseph Smith. Do you get it yet?
Hope so, because if not then you have wasted alot of my time.
*DieHard*