Is belief 100%?

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote: The compromise with oaths is affirmation.. the affirmation says 'I am already doing this' and 'I honestly intend to continue doing it', without any possibility of one compromising their own beliefs should they no longer agree with it. As it has been pointed out, nobody is static and so it makes no sense to me to require people to make promises based on 'static' expectation. TOTJO accepts these, as does the law in many countries.

(Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

I understand , as i said if a compromise is possible and an affirmation is already in place as you state there is nothing stopping you from being commited is there ?

I didn't say that there wasn't.

I dont understand your last reply , you did not say there was not what ?

I mean that I didn't say anything about there not being a commitment.

i never said that you or anyone else were not commited , why so personal ? I a was talking in general ?

You put a question mark in your original comment as if you were asking a question, so I presumed you were questioning me! (I wasn't taking it as a personal 'I am not committed', but as you asking if there should still be commitment).

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote:

Amyntas wrote:

Edan wrote: The compromise with oaths is affirmation.. the affirmation says 'I am already doing this' and 'I honestly intend to continue doing it', without any possibility of one compromising their own beliefs should they no longer agree with it. As it has been pointed out, nobody is static and so it makes no sense to me to require people to make promises based on 'static' expectation. TOTJO accepts these, as does the law in many countries.

(Sorry Tellahane, I edited the post you thanked).

I understand , as i said if a compromise is possible and an affirmation is already in place as you state there is nothing stopping you from being commited is there ?

I didn't say that there wasn't.

I dont understand your last reply , you did not say there was not what ?

I mean that I didn't say anything about there not being a commitment.

i never said that you or anyone else were not commited , why so personal ? I a was talking in general ?

You put a question mark in your original comment as if you were asking a question, so I presumed you were questioning me!

Aha , i hereby offcilally declare my question mark was not aimed at anyone specific :lol: but was only meant a question in general

Brick wrote: Smelly Pete

He's actually known as "Stinky Pete"

^{Disclaimer: this person does not exist}

tzb wrote: ^{Disclaimer: this person does not exist}

I thankful for the disclaimer, I was feeling bad about denying [strike]Smelly[/strike] Stinky Pete all those apples :laugh:

He has a stomach acid problem, you're doing him a favour

For me, faith and belief are not the same.

Belief is changeable, and can even be more of a strong hope. In fact, here in the southern US, we use the phrase "I believe so" to answer questions sometimes. "Is there a meeting on Friday?" "I believe so." It means, I'm pretty sure, but not 100% sure.

Faith, on the other hand, is total. To have faith in something is to feel that you *know* the something. But, with enough contrary evidence, this can change too. Humans are a fickle species.

A commitment to another, in oath/vow form, is 100%. Until it isn't. Because, again, we're fickle. Ideally, should an oath giver ever feel the need to break the oath, there is discussion and common understanding first. Sadly, that's all too often not the case.

Tellahane wrote: Edit: Additional question, how do you feel also about committing to oaths?

The oath is an all comprising fundament for me: It should be followed in 'full' and 'total' detail as long as it is taken. If a person renounces an oath, it is never to be followed again.. very simple, oaths should have value and purpose. The process of revoke should take long, with a time to think about it, to avoid sadness of making a quick choice. :blink: Clerical oaths should be partly-revocable instead of totally not able to revoke. (As Ordained 'cannot be revoked' and yet some are able of revoking it?)

Just my personal opinion of course.. :blush:

(edit: with clergy partly-revocable I mean revoking clerical duties, but not able to revoke the secrecy that comes with being ordained)

Aqua wrote: The oath is an all comprising fundament for me: It should be followed in 'full' and 'total' detail as long as it is taken. If a person renounces an oath, it is never to be followed again.. very simple, oaths should have value and purpose. The process of revoke should take long, with a time to think about it, to avoid sadness of making a quick choice.

I agree entirely Aqua, though you've reminded me of another one of my problems with oaths :laugh: . If it can be revoked, whats the point of it in the first place?

Brick wrote:

Aqua wrote: The oath is an all comprising fundament for me: It should be followed in 'full' and 'total' detail as long as it is taken. If a person renounces an oath, it is never to be followed again.. very simple, oaths should have value and purpose. The process of revoke should take long, with a time to think about it, to avoid sadness of making a quick choice.

I agree entirely Aqua, though you've reminded me of another one of my problems with oaths :laugh: . If it can be revoked, whats the point of it in the first place?

I agree entirely Brick. The point of an oath would be a display of unbroken commitment from the beginning, I assume. How can an oath be bound to someone not willingly to follow it, if the statement of unbroken commitment where to be true? An oath that can be taken only ones, and only be revoked/removed ones, sounds like a compromise to me.

If an oath where to be permanent, and someone would no longer follow it, how would you deal with that if the choice and judgement where to be yours to make? If an oath could not be removed it would result in a not so committed oath carrier who cannot remove his oath? Secondly, would it be just to remove an option to revoke, so that the choice is fully on someone else his shoulders?

It occurred to me today that we are all having a great time moralising over Oaths and integrity and what not..


What of oaths made in anger, pain, or desperation?


Is there a "high ground" in standing by decisions made in your bleakest times?