Oaths

[k_a_nitz]

I'm interested to hear what others think on the topic of oaths.

To me they are binding at a deep level affecting karma and should be taken very seriously. This is why I think the wording of the oath needs to be considered from a very legalistic point of view (and why I walked away from BOTA after seeing how open-ended the oath they were asking of me was - it would of been nicer if they'd been up front about the content of the oath for prospective members).

Also, do people differentiate between oaths, promises, and pledges?

Comments

[boccaderlupo]

Binding, indeed. For my part, there's a good reason for the following advice...

But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

Axé

[k_a_nitz]

Thanks for that text!

[sdi]

There was once a man who needed to be rid of a house, and prayed to God that if he sold his house, he would donate all the proceeds to the poor. It came about that, as he had the house appraised, it was valued much more highly than he anticipated, so he devised a strategem: he would sell the house for a trifle, but with the stipulation that his cat must be sold with the house, and the cat he valued at the full price of the house. The house and the cat were sold, the man donated the house's sale value to the poor, and kept the cat's sale value for himself. Did he fulfill his oath?

(Of course not: abiding by the letter of an oath is insufficient. One must abide by both the letter and the spirit. Woe to he who swears an open-ended oath, for the spirit of it is all-encompassing!)

[k_a_nitz]

Good point! And it also highlights the importance of being clear about your intent in making an oath.

[jprussell]

As a Heathen, oaths are clearly pretty important to me. I think that the "legalistic" way of thinking about oaths is mainly useful for getting the one taking the oath to take it seriously and think it through, for one to avoid the kind of thing in SDI's example of skirting around the clear intent of an oath by following a lesser-thought-through promise. Also, as you imply in your example, overly broad oaths might bind you to something you're not actually willing to do.

As for the differentiation, I'd say "not really much, except in a narrowly technical sense." I'd treat all as giving my word under slightly different circumstances, but given the centrality of keeping my word to my beliefs, I hope I'd treat them the same. Easier said than done, of course, but I've tried to become more mindful of only promising things I feel confident I can deliver on, and I exercise even more care when making an explicitly holy oath, as the symbel boasts I've made on the new year the last few years.

Cheers,
Jeff

[k_a_nitz]

Thanks, I tend to agree giving your word is giving your word regardless of what you call it.