228: Jamie's analysis

[Black Mantha]

I'm a bit curious about those two rules: Don't swear oaths and don't pray in public. I've never heard of them (of course, the only time I ever opened a bible, I skipped ahead to see how it would end.) I was hoping that the commentary would go deeper into it. The commentary we have is more interesting, but I'm still curious. While writing this post I found two passages which forbid oaths, but does anyone know where the other one came from? And did anyone know about these before this comic?

When I heard it I had to think about people swearing on the bible in court. So this is actually blasphemy? I've been reading up (well, a couple of minutes on wikipedia), and it seems the Quakers do follow the rule on not swearing oaths. Always have, it was the reason the UK passed a law allowing people to "affirm" instead of swearing. That was in 1695, so when was this rule abandoned?

Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned. (link)

34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (link)

[doctor100]

So this is actually blasphemy?

yes.

a law allowing people to "affirm" instead of swearing. That was in 1695, so when was this rule abandoned?

this is still common practice.

anyone know where the other one came from?

He's reading Matthew, which is the only book I know of that mentions this. He's referring to Mat 6:5-7, which is:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

.
To my mind it is not exactly a prohibition to pray in public, but rather one for striving to be seen as righteous for your public holy actions (this interpretation is supported by many other scriptures, the other interpretation taken by the comic is not supported by any other scripture to my knowledge).

[Jen]

As a theology grad student currently procrastinating on her final papers, I found today's commentary really interesting, particularly the bit on Medieval theology. (I <3 Aquinas, guys.) Can anyone point me to a text on Jesus' feeling no pain on the cross? I can totally see the scholastics making such an argument, though without some careful distinctions, it could also be heresy (I'm thinking Docetism?). If we're talking scholasticism, I've no doubt Distinctions Were Made, I'm just curious to see them in their natural habitat.

[Black Mantha]

a law allowing people to "affirm" instead of swearing. That was in 1695, so when was this rule abandoned?

this is still common practice.

Actually, I meant the rule about not swearing.

[Tailsteak]

I went in for jury duty a few months back (didn't get called to serve), and I saw them swearing people in, everyone got the choice to swear or affirm.

There was one dude who said his religion prevented him from serving on a jury at all, and who said his religion was just "Christianity". Judge let that one go.

[Packbat]

I went in for jury duty a few months back (didn't get called to serve), and I saw them swearing people in, everyone got the choice to swear or affirm.

There was one dude who said his religion prevented him from serving on a jury at all, and who said his religion was just "Christianity". Judge let that one go.

What, like "judge not, lest ye be judged"?

[Tailsteak]

What, like "judge not, lest ye be judged"?

Presumably.

[Globus]

Such jury members should be invaluable to the defense... Though I don't know how exactly this works. The jury is voting whether guilty or not, right?

[MysticWav]

Meh. A lot of people seem to have this weird blindspot when it comes to religion. The second they start reading a religious text all of their reading comprehension skills fall off the chart.

For example, let's take a standard M.A.D.D. (or random *.A.D.D.) message. "Don't Drink And Drive." As sane relatively intelligent beings we all are able to get that they are saying you shouldn't operate a dangerous fast/heavy vehicle while your blood alcohol level is elevated to the point that it impairs reflexes and judgement to an unsafe level. The very second this becomes a religious text you all sorts of weird cooky interpretations. Everything running the range from the correct interpretation, to it's be as intoxicated as you want while operation a car as long as you don't consume the alcohol while in the car, to you should never consume a liquid of any kind (even non-alcoholic) operating a car, to you can only choose liquids or cars in your life but not both, to no liquids or cars ever!

As dco100 said in his post, it's not about prayer in public per se. It's just a colorful invective against praying for the sake of social status or really anything except praying iteslf. For the oaths passages quoted, it's justs stating that the act of swearing an oath is frankly silly. To treat it as if it means anything is to behave as if it's ok deceive when not swearing. Don't lie or deceive. Let your yes mean yes and let your no mean no. People aren't just "ignoring" things. They're just interpreting them in context. You know, like sane people do with statements like "Don't drink and drive." every day.

[snowyowl]

Meh. A lot of people seem to have this weird blindspot when it comes to religion. The second they start reading a religious text all of their reading comprehension skills fall off the chart.

There are two reasons for that:

• The Bible is 2000 years old and the sociocultural context it was written in no longer exists, so understanding what the author actually meant is an exercise in literary history at the very least.
• The Bible is (among other things) a book of laws and breaking those laws sends you to Hell forever. Have you seen what our modern laws look like? Definitions and sub-clauses all over the place to leave no room for error in the interpretation of the law. And it's still not enough - new technologies and cultural norms mean that we need to debate whether spyware is a type of wiretapping. Imagine how it is when the laws haven't been updated since the New Testament, and the stakes are an eternity of bliss or torture.