Post by TheFirebrand on Mar 3, 2013 21:48:57 GMT -6
Biblical morals in regards to swearing oaths ...
My allegiance is first to God, then my family, then my fellow man and country. And of course to the cause for freedom. I also do not pledge my allegiance to inanimate objects.
The Bible states not to swear on anything or to swear oaths. Therefore I would live by what the courts present as an option called a "solemn affirmation" I also do not salute or bow or raise my hand, namely because of Adolf Hitler, but also because of Daniel 3 ...
It represents idolatry and worship of objects or man to do so. Think of it like this: A firearm is an inanimate object that serves me. Not the other way around.
This is message I wrote last year ...
Mar 1, 2012 at 4:33pm
Post by TheFirebrand on Mar 1, 2012 at 4:33pm
Upon searching to find out what version of the Bible is used to swear a person in at the witness stand in court or into the any office of leadership, I made the the little discovery that we ought not be doing it in the first place ...
Matthew 5:34-35 States: "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."
James 5:12 States: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."
You might say "we have lots of Christians in our militias who swore oaths" ... All I could respond with without starting an argument is "that's their choice" ...
(Wikipedia)
Beyond this scriptural authority, Quakers place importance on being truthful at all times, so the testimony opposing oaths springs from a view that "taking legal oaths implies a double standard of truthfulness ...Not all Christians understand this reading as forbidding all types of oaths, however. Opposition to oath-taking among some groups of Christian caused many problems for these groups throughout their history. Quakers were frequently imprisoned because of their refusal to swear loyalty oaths. Testifying in court was also difficult; George Fox, Quakers' founder, famously challenged a judge who had asked him to swear, saying that he would do so once the judge could point to any Bible passage where Jesus or His apostles took oaths. (The judge could not, but this did not allow Fox to escape punishment.) Legal reforms from the 18th century onwards mean that everyone in the United Kingdom now has the right to make a solemn affirmation instead of an oath. The United States has permitted affirmations since it was founded; it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Only two US Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (who was a Quaker), have chosen to affirm rather than swear at their inaugurations.
(Wikipedia)
Militias are in place to defend the rights and freedoms of the people. To deny someone a part in that over a thing like this is hypocritical and undermines the purpose of the Constitution. If a militia or survivalist group found some people under duress after the country went into chaos and a few of them had experience with weapon handling or military training I doubt the need for swearing oaths would even be a priority. Even the military has people working with them in the field who are not under the direct command of any soldier. Yet those individuals are dedicated to the same cause or mission. Someone in my position should be treated no differently ...
Two Presidents in our history lived by this Biblical code and were still allowed in office. If you choose to swear oaths there is little more I can say about it, but if I choose to live by this Biblical standard and I'm rejected for it ... then what are you really defending? The rights of the people, or the rights of yourself and those like you?
My allegiance is first to God, then my family, then my fellow man and country. And of course to the cause for freedom. I also do not pledge my allegiance to inanimate objects.
The Bible states not to swear on anything or to swear oaths. Therefore I would live by what the courts present as an option called a "solemn affirmation" I also do not salute or bow or raise my hand, namely because of Adolf Hitler, but also because of Daniel 3 ...
It represents idolatry and worship of objects or man to do so. Think of it like this: A firearm is an inanimate object that serves me. Not the other way around.
This is message I wrote last year ...
Mar 1, 2012 at 4:33pm
Post by TheFirebrand on Mar 1, 2012 at 4:33pm
Upon searching to find out what version of the Bible is used to swear a person in at the witness stand in court or into the any office of leadership, I made the the little discovery that we ought not be doing it in the first place ...
Matthew 5:34-35 States: "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."
James 5:12 States: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."
You might say "we have lots of Christians in our militias who swore oaths" ... All I could respond with without starting an argument is "that's their choice" ...
(Wikipedia)
Beyond this scriptural authority, Quakers place importance on being truthful at all times, so the testimony opposing oaths springs from a view that "taking legal oaths implies a double standard of truthfulness ...Not all Christians understand this reading as forbidding all types of oaths, however. Opposition to oath-taking among some groups of Christian caused many problems for these groups throughout their history. Quakers were frequently imprisoned because of their refusal to swear loyalty oaths. Testifying in court was also difficult; George Fox, Quakers' founder, famously challenged a judge who had asked him to swear, saying that he would do so once the judge could point to any Bible passage where Jesus or His apostles took oaths. (The judge could not, but this did not allow Fox to escape punishment.) Legal reforms from the 18th century onwards mean that everyone in the United Kingdom now has the right to make a solemn affirmation instead of an oath. The United States has permitted affirmations since it was founded; it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Only two US Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (who was a Quaker), have chosen to affirm rather than swear at their inaugurations.
(Wikipedia)
Militias are in place to defend the rights and freedoms of the people. To deny someone a part in that over a thing like this is hypocritical and undermines the purpose of the Constitution. If a militia or survivalist group found some people under duress after the country went into chaos and a few of them had experience with weapon handling or military training I doubt the need for swearing oaths would even be a priority. Even the military has people working with them in the field who are not under the direct command of any soldier. Yet those individuals are dedicated to the same cause or mission. Someone in my position should be treated no differently ...
Two Presidents in our history lived by this Biblical code and were still allowed in office. If you choose to swear oaths there is little more I can say about it, but if I choose to live by this Biblical standard and I'm rejected for it ... then what are you really defending? The rights of the people, or the rights of yourself and those like you?