Replies

> 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*

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.
Here is what this particular scripture says:

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:33-37)

As we can see, it is a command. Christ is putting forth a moral imperative and one that should be followed. Contextually, it was common for those in Israel to swear by this or that. This trivialized the thing they were swearing by and often was a case of using God's name in vain. Many in history have obeyed this command. Sir Isaac Newton, for example didn't place an oath of office on the teachers at Trinity college. Quakers and Baptists refused to take an oath of allegiance to the king of England - though some would declare their loyalty. Social norm does not soften biblical command. Do I pledge allegiance to the flag? Yes, I do. But only so far as she is under God. I can not ally myself with a nation that would disdain its maker or a government that would overrule the inalienable rights given to us by our creator. Am I a loyal American? You betcha. But I'm a more loyal Christian.

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.
Agreed. Christian's should model Christ's behavior.

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.
Some biblical characters took an oath to God Himself. Paul is one such individual who apparently took a Nazarite vow at one point. Hannah swore to the Lord in the Old Testament. None of these were done frivolously and they paid their oath to the Lord. Such an oath is not what Jesus is speaking of since He is referring to swearing by this or that not to God Himself. Further, God swears by Himself. Thus, in the context of all of Scripture-oaths are allowable to God but the commandment of Christ forbids them elsewhere.

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.
Then you aren't transparent. A lower degree Mason does not know or have exposure to the "secrets" of the higher degree. They are cloaked.

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.
Sorry. You haven't told me much of anything other than to say I'm ignorant and shouldn't be asking questions because I'm a non Mason. I will commend you for the improvement in tone though.

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.
Oh Poppycock! You are asking us to believe that a Supreme Commander of your organization is not a leader? You may disavow what he has to say, but he most certainly was a leader for over 3 decades. Somebody followed him!

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?
Yes, I get it. Pike is a problem for Masons so you want to sweep him under the rug. You can't say he was a liar, because he wasn't. He spoke what was taught at the time. You can't confirm anything he said because that might give away a secret or two. So, you choose not to deal with him. You compare him to Joseph Smith and true Christianity. By that, you must be saying he was heterodox in his Masonic belief - but then again, you aren't exactly saying that. Instead, you just say we're ignorant and expect us to go away. Well, sorry. We won't, but I'll leave you to your choice not to deal with Pike anyway.