13 ms·
New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
- q2w1 4y agoSwearing an oath makes no sense for non-religious people, it's just an empty gesture. You have to believe your God will hold you responsible for keeping the oath in order for it to be useful.
- kube-system 4y agoThere are other motivating reasons why someone might follow a set of rules other than accountability to a religious god.
- user3939382 4y ago[flagged]
- rc_mob 4y ago[flagged]
- unixgoddess 4y agoIt's 2023 and people still believe that swearing on whatever book means anything... humans are so damn depressing.
- wffurr 4y agoRituals can still have meaning even in 2023.
- unixgoddess 4y agoperhaps we should rather focus on meaningful actions, rather than empty showbusiness...
- kaitai 4y agoThis discussion is fascinating, anthropologically speaking. Some observations: * Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly, give your word in a trustworthy manner, etc. If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists are endorsing this false idea here! * An understanding of symbolism and its nuances is also lacking. Perhaps this isn't a surprise, as Enlightenment thinking and literalist Protestant thought have largely erased cultural understanding of symbolism. Thus we have confusion in two ways: many folks swear on the Bible out of convention or lack of critical thought, rather than belief, but will rationalize if pressed, and then folks who are very thoughtful may choose the Bible (looking "normal") or something else (looking "different"). The document chosen, if there is a conscious choice made, symbolizes something about their approach to the ceremony and the position. It is not necessarily a magical choice. (A magical approach takes symbolism a step further and imbues the symbolic object with supernatural power. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a universal approach vis a vis the Bible. Remember that the Christian church and Christian faith and practice existed before the Bible was written, easy to forget in a "sola scriptura" cultural milieu!) * Amusingly, some really Bible-believing folks will not swear, on a Bible or on anything else, due to Matthew 5:34-37. This intellectual consistency is lost of course when we reduce swearing on the Bible to either convention or magic. Human rituals cannot be usefully be interpreted as legal acts or as declarations of intellectual belief in a set of propositions. They are symbols. The intellectual incoherency of commonly swearing on a book that says not to swear alone ought to tip you off. I sympathize, folks! I grew up quite literal-minded and so have had quite a struggle coming to terms with the Protestantism I grew up with. Learning the intellectual history of thought and religion and understanding the ways different cultures engage with the divine/supernatural/morality has been very helpful -- and some of that learning must be experiential. Taking part in physical rituals taps into a very different part of the human experience than reading philosophy.
- leroy-is-here 4y agoHumans are just the total sum of their actions. Actions beget being and so rituals beget a practiced being. Humans practice rituals every day without even thinking about it. Ever sat in your chair and immediately wanted a cold one?
- throwawaycircus 4y agoMany religious books are shit. I think high school kids can write better stories tbh
- drummojg 4y agoPlenty guitarists are far better than Hendrix, but they didn't get there in a vacuum.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- samothrace 4y agoThe last thing humans will realize doesn't revolve around them is god.
- hereme888 4y agoThe whole point of swearing on a Bible is for people who actually respect and fear God as the ultimate judge at the end of their lives. Otherwise they should just swear, but not on a Bible. More importantly, the New Testament portion of the Bible teaches not to swear at all, so the whole practice is misguided.
- throwawaaarrgh 4y agodid audio start playing for anybody else? I thought browsers outlawed that years ago?
- mariodiana 4y agoI think the whole purpose of the ritual is shared solemnity. Laying aside Matthew 5:34-37, using the Bible fits in the context of Western civilization. Likewise, using nothing and merely affirming fits as well. But by its very nature bringing in any book or other item because it has "meaning" to you doesn't fit. It violates shared solemnity by the individualist nature of the act and opens the ritual to trivialization. What's next, someone's Teddy Bear?
- woodruffw 4y agoI'm one among many (a majority?) of people who don't find anything about the NASA director sweating an oath particularly "solemn." You might find that your "shared solemnity" isn't so shared if you asked around. Besides: solemnity isn't particularly bound to an object; the ritual seems more important. It wouldn't detract from your experience to not realize that I had preserved the bible's cover but replaced the pages with a hot-rodding magazine.
- mariodiana 4y agoAn object has the potential to undermine the solemnity of a ritual. As to your hot-rodding example, there is no supernatural power I'm referring to, merely perception.
- jitl 4y agoI don’t want anything to do with the Bible, thanks.
- FrontierPsych 4y agoThat whole "swearing in" is so dumb, in my opinion. What is the point, other than ceremonial, I guess. One can raise their right hand and swear on the bible or swear on "Pale Blue Dot" and still not do what they swore to do. And someone might not swear at all and keep faithful and do what he or she is supposed to do. How does swearing in make a bit of difference? It's nuts. Just hire me and let me get on with the job.
- b1c1jones 4y agoI'd swear on A Canticle for Leibowitz.
- bitcharmer 4y agoIt's high time. There's no place for superstition in science
- Tepix 4y agoAs Sagan put it: "Science as a Candle in the Dark"
- rationalfaith 4y ago[dead]
- mrwnmonm 4y ago"There's no place for superstition in science" The universe is eternal xD
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- WeylandYutani 4y agoHow did that quote go? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". When I was a child the creation myth from the Bible reminded me of aliens.
- neom 4y ago"While many officeholders across the country have placed their hands on books by Dr Suess, the US Constitution, copies of the Quran or other documents, this seems to be the first time someone was sworn in on a book by Sagan." This caught my attention, wondering who got sworn in on a Dr. Suess book?? "A newly elected single mother of two wanted her kids to walk away from her swearing-in with an empowering message. So instead of placing her hand on a Bible to take her oath of office as councilwoman for St. Louis County, Kelli Dunaway chose “Oh, The Places You’ll Go!” by Dr. Seuss." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/21/why-county-councilwoman-was-sworn-into-office-dr-seuss-book/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/21/why-count...
- weinzierl 4y agoIf I can swear on any document I'd prefer an issue of MAD magazine. That would do more justice to the absurdity of the matter.
- vidanay 4y agoRIP Al Jaffee https://apnews.com/article/al-jafee-mad-magazine-cartoonist-dies-f676fbeb190b44c8aa4abcb0daa5d571 https://apnews.com/article/al-jafee-mad-magazine-cartoonist-...
- 908B64B197 4y agoTo me this is one of the greatest things about this country: it's foundation was granted to the people by the people, not some foreign, non-elected embodiment of a divine authority. That someone could just as much be sworn in with a Quran, a Dr. Suess book or the US Constitution itself is just something exceptionally American and profoundly inspiring. E Pluribus Unum.
- throw7 4y agoI think the declaration of independence was the spirit and the constitution was the implementation. Some nuance must be paid here to the divine. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" I think the free exercise clause is the greatest and most important freedom we have.
- NKosmatos 4y agoIMHO having taken an oath on Carl Sagan’s name and book is more important and serious than swearing on any god/spirit/force/deity (from whatever religion).
- compmanager1234 4y agoIt all boils down to the person. Some are honest and keep their promises by default. Some make missteps every now and then, but remain truthful if they really try. And some are just broken beyond repair. I'm Christian and for me, taking an oath on the Bible is the biggest binding I can imagine. I hope Lystrup made her choice as that book is close to her heart and provides her great support to stay true to her oath. I would be disappoined if this were just a marketing move as that would further erode the value of oaths, honesty and ultimately honor.
- bender00 4y agoI agree with you that it all boils down to the person, but only for the swearing on the Bible version. Swearing on Pale Blue Dot is meaningless, that is, she won't lose sleep thinking how she let down Carl Sagan lol.
- midasuni 4y agoI suspect she’ll lose more sleep for feeling she’d let down Sagan than letting down a fictional character. Maybe you’re different, and that’s fine.
- nonethewiser 4y agoWell the oath has always been symbolic and the binding agreement has always just been legal. The symbology of swearing on the Bible seems obvious. You’re making a commitment to God. That means nothing to some people. In which case I’d argue an oath means strictly less than if you have some higher power you feel accountable to. I don’t think anyone thinks - least of all Carl Sagan - that Carl Sagan can hold themselves accountable for broken promises. In this case it’s being used as a demonstration of values which people don’t necessarily see as having any eternal or cosmic weight. Do they believe the nature of not following these values begets some sort of divine justice? The very fact that they are choosing them seems to imply no - others may choose different values and not fulfill those ones. Do they think such oaths should be rejected?
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoSeems to be a positive signal, somebody willing to do his duty with both eyes open, instead of blinding himself and escaping into self-chosen irresponsibility.
- callahad 4y agoWell, it would be uniquely challenging for the director to do his duty or to blind himself, being that she's a woman. And, as mentioned in the article's subtitle and second sentence, the first woman to direct the Goddard Space Flight Center since its founding in 1959.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago? What has gender to with anything in this regard? I grew up in a cult, the fiercest and deepest believers were all woman, often pushing some married hapeless guy around as a "dog on a leash" to bite and bark for them..
- WJW 4y agoI think the point was that a woman cannot blind "him"-self but rather blinds "her"-self. It was a comment on language, not about which gender can be more or less fierce in their beliefs.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoWell, i dont percieve that whole thing that much and just project my own gender upon everything. I assume everyone is just like me and thats the default of the universe. No special treatment for anyone, not even myself.
- callahad 4y agoYes, that was my intent. If we're going to celebrate this choice, then we should also give the Director her due respect. :)
- 4y ago
- gigatexal 4y agoGood. The bible is not the only source of mores and norms to swear on. And a turn towards science would be nice, especially in the increasingly alarmingly anti-science USA.
- esskay 4y agoSwearing on a Sagan book is arguably better. It's based on fact, not an unverifiable and highly unlikely fairytail.
- timbit42 4y ago* fairytale Fairies don't have tails.
- Grustaf 4y agoScience is not a source of mores, it’s about observing facts.
- dspillett 4y agoTo the true believer a religious text is considered as factual as any scientific work, so that isn't really as much of a differentiating factor when you think about it from their PoV.
- Grustaf 4y agoI’m not saying that religious texts are non-factual, I’m saying scientific texts have no moral implications, they ONLY lay out material facts.
- tescocles 4y agoIs there any actual strict requirement that you have to swear over a document of some kind? I'd have thought swearing over the bible is a stand-in for swearing "before God", and that God would ultimately be your reckoner should you break your oath. If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless it's something meaningful like the constitution of your country, as another poster has used as an example, or some other relevant document that is there as physical representation of something abstract? If I, not being religious, were being sworn in as the head of NASA, I'd find it much more poignant to swear over the US constitution, or on nothing at all.
- throwboatyface 4y agoYou don't even have to swear at all, the Constitution allows officials to swear or affirm. This is because some religious groups at the time of the drafting of the constitution were morally opposed to swearing oaths: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_(law)
- ren_engineer 4y ago>If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless? the point is a childish rebellion against traditions the nation was founded on as a social signal to their in-group for validation. Might as well tip a fedora while giving the oath
- Robotbeat 4y agoBut I find it very Protestant and American, in a way, to challenge conventional rituals done for ritual sake regardless of belief. As a protestant myself, give me an atheist pledging the oath over something they believe in (not in a religious sense here, but a personal philosophy sense) over an atheist making a mockery of religion by pledging the oath over something they don't believe in (and may detest).
- klodolph 4y agoPlease try to keep the discussion civil. That comment is not civil. People naturally have different interpretations of the ceremony where you swear an oath. Some people believe that the ceremony is symbolic—there is no actual entity whose wrath they are invoking if they break the oath. It is natural to want to make the ceremony conform somewhat to your actual, personal beliefs, rather than participating inauthentically. That’s all that’s needed here to understand the decision.
- krys1010 4y agoShould be swearing to the us taxpayer.
- commitpizza 4y agoGood. Carl Sagan was a great man and a great inspiration source. Something that is forgotten somewhat today.
- Eumenes 4y agomy entire body cringed up when i read this headline
- boredhedgehog 4y agoSwearing an oath on a book in which the main protagonist counsels against swearing any oaths always seems a bit awkward.
- gaius_baltar 4y ago> Swearing an oath on a book in which the main protagonist counsels against swearing any oaths always seems a bit awkward. Or a pretty good message if you are legally required to swear on a book.
- bxcyt 4y agoSagan believed that announcing our existence to aliens is a great idea, which is kind of a religion that is not grounded in reality. I wonder what this director will come up with.
- Grustaf 4y agoWhat’s the point of this? Presumably the idea of swearing on the Bible is that the person being sworn in believes they are making a promise to God. Hopefully this person does not have that kind of fear of Carl Sagan.
- witx 4y agoThe point is simply not adhering to religious bs if you don't believe in it.
- carlosjobim 4y agoThen don't swear an oath if you think it's bs. Mocking the ceremony just shows she's an unserious person and not fit for the responsibility.
- Grustaf 4y ago[flagged]
- witx 4y agoAnd why does it need to be compared to a religious belief? Why not just swearing on something impactful for him? It doesn't mean he is deifying Sagan. Why his he a clown again?
- Grustaf 4y agoBecause Carl Sagan can’t strike him down with a bolt of lightning or send him to hell, so it’s just an empty gesture. For a religious believer it isn’t. Religious rituals are not just symbolic, they are real. Communion for example is not just a nice symbolic act, it’s as real as taking your medicine, and much more important if you’re Christian.
- dspillett 4y agoPerhaps, given the subject matter of the book, he is making a promise to the people and our future. A much better sentiment than promising to a deity he may not believe in, and essentially what is assumed (I assume) to be happening when a non-Christian (or non-practising Christian) swears on the bible simply because that is required procedure.
- sourcecodeplz 4y agoI don't get it. The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil. This is just silly / virtue signaling.
- varjag 4y agoThe whole swear in procedure is silly and is literal virtue signaling. Should the official be swearing in on the Bible anyway if they don't believe it?
- dncornholio 4y ago> The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil. Many would say, this is silly too. If people need this 'ode' to not do evil, I think something is wrong with them.
- yetihehe 4y agoFor many people today swearing on the bible is just as silly as swearing on any scripture of a dead or newly invented religion is to you. Would swearing on a spaghetti monster be acceptable to you?
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoWhat is silly is that laicism is still not a thing in US government in 2023. Your founding fathers actually wanted a government without religion. Nobody is telling you to not hold your beliefs, just don't impose them on others. > The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil Humans can swear and have morals and ethics without fear of punishment.
- kube-system 4y ago> Your founding fathers actually wanted a government without religion. They wanted a government where the government did not interfere with the religious beliefs of people.
- 4y ago
- ammojamo 4y agoAgain you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. (Matthew 5:33-37)
- courseofaction 4y agohttps://www.openbible.info/topics/thou_shalt_not_kill https://www.openbible.info/topics/thou_shalt_not_kill It is utterly forbidden to kill in the bible. 200 years after Christ, the Roman army was "Christian". Hmm.
- hereme888 4y agoThat's not true. What is forbidden is murder.
- hajile 4y agoHebrew has two words for killing. One implies a guilty mind and the other does not. Ask a Hebrew scholar and they'll tell you that the word used for "murder" doesn't include things like military service or capital punishment. And of course, any other interpretation would be at odds with what actually happens in the rest of the Bible.
- courseofaction 4y agoVery interesting, thank you.
- echelon 4y agoMy brain literally locks up when I read King James-style English. I wonder if AI can discover patterns in language or other signal domains that totally disrupt the modern brain and cause humans to crash. Biblical passages nearly do that to me, so I think that they must exist.
- realjhol 4y ago[[[Fedora Tipping Intensifies]]]
- guilhas 4y agoShe should have done a tiktok dance holding a DVD copy of the Armageddon movie. That would really inspire young people After all Harry died so we could live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Z9MV3nwjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Z9MV3nwjQ
- pedrogpimenta 4y agoHey, everyone! I found the grumpy old guy!
- afroboy 4y agoSo a new religion has begun and Carl Sagan is the new prophet, anyone who goes against it well be burned alive.
- tiborsaas 4y agoSounds cool, assuming we mean space religion. Most likely that means if you go against Sagan it means you are anti-science and getting your science wrong will get you burnt up in the atmosphere.
- public_defender 4y agoI'll be first in line for an old fashioned reentry fire and Venusian brimstone pulpit pounder of a sermon.
- boeingUH60 4y agoI don’t think this is a big deal. Swearing in is pointless anyway…I can swear on a religious book and go do the opposite of what it says. The ultimate source of consequence is the constitution, laws, and regulations. Maybe I’ll swear on the biography of Steve Jobs if I’m appointed.
- greenhearth 4y agoSwearing is not pointless, but serves a ritualistic role. It has been used as a psychological mechanism that shaped societies and history. And it still does so, as evident in this article. Swearing an oath is a contractual ritual and is the basis for all lawgiving in the English language. It was used as a binding contract between kings and their subjects (you can look up the Salisbury Oath for just the tip of the iceberg on this topic.)
- heresie-dabord 4y ago> Maybe I’ll swear on the biography of Steve Jobs if I’m appointed. This is a good test of the meaning of making a solemn promise of service. My reaction to a pledge invoking the career and achievements of Steve Jobs might be to keep my investment in the operation while seeking employment elsewhere. But if you were to make your pledge of service while invoking Ayn Rand, I might not keep my investment in the operation either. ^_^
- Technotroll 4y agoThe ultimate source of consequence is your own conscience, though sadly some people don't have one. But some people who otherwise lack a conscience might still be fearful of God, and so that's why the Bible was seen as a great document to make people swear upon, once upon a time. Though, while the fear of punishment might trump your inclination to do evil, it does not really make you a fundamentally better person. So, while this old ritual might soothe someone's need to feel trust in the person sworn in, it's really not such a great guarantee. The ritual does several things: - It's an attempt at manipulating the person being sworn in to uphold his oath, whether he's actually good or not, or whether he's planning on upholding his oaths or not - It's a way to soothe the population's trust in the person, again a form of manipulation - It's a way for higher officials too soothe their own trust in the person, and perhaps it thus serves as a form of self-delusion - It's a nice ceremony to make people come together to witness some institution of power, though, and as such it is indeed a nice and good tradition, which I think is worthwhile to uphold in one way or another While I have conflicting thoughts about how people are sworn in today, I can understand that the Bible does not hold as much power over most modern human beings as it used to, and especially those who simply aren't Christian at all. So, what should they swear upon? I, for one, would rather make it a book on moral philosophy that you can stand by, which you have read, and that you agree with. With that said, I think if you really meditate on the moral philosophy of Jesus, then I'm sure that even if you're an atheist, you'll still come to the conclusion that it's not so bad after all. He was of course a complicated human being, but I think his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself), and his ideas about how all people are created equal (see the rituals surrounding Maundy Thursday where he washed the feet of his disciples and told them that they should do the same to their underlings as a symbol for how everyone are created equal), as universally good principles that you don't strictly need to be religious to get behind.
- lukego 4y agoI have always held Carl Sagan in high esteem without actually having read his books. I was taken aback to watch some Cosmos with my kids last week though, the Neil deGrasse Tyson edition. It came across as overt quasi-religious indoctrination to me. Makes me wonder if science has become a religion in the US. Tear down the Catholic church, build up the universe as a new drop-in replacement God with infallible science as his doctrine, anoint and celebrate faith-driven martyrs to the cause from history. Yikes. Sounds straight out of The Book of Mormon to me. (Admittedly it was less extreme than the Bill Nye special on Netflix that I tried to watch with them the year before.)
- areoform 4y ago> I have always held Carl Sagan in high esteem without actually having read his books. Here's a tiny excerpt from Pale Blue Dot. This excerpt elevates the book to high art, Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known. — Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994 There is nothing more humbling than to stand on the surface of the moon and blot out the Earth with your thumb. Just another world in the vast cosmos. You cannot study what Dr Sagan did without finding the true humility of the cosmic perspective. We're starstuff on a tiny speck dreaming self-important dreams and — occasionally — pondering the stars.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoAt this point, taking a livecamera werever you go, to be fully transparent, would be way more significant then an oath.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoWhat’s interesting is that many theologians believe swearing to God in public this way actually breaks the third commandment. Interesting quirks of Protestant culture in America.
- Jedd 4y ago> What’s interesting is that many theologians believe swearing to God in public this way actually breaks the third commandment. I'm curious how that may break "Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you." ?
- baryphonic 4y agoThe third commandment of the Ten Commandments. The trouble is, there are two possibilities for this commandment: do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, or remember the sabbath day by keeping it holy. Pretty clear which is meant here, but the numbering of the Ten Commandments is controversial.
- Jedd 4y agoWell, yes, there's obviously some confusion and ambiguity there. Exodus has a couple of sets, but that one I cited is the third one from 34. If you're constrained to the OT then it's tricky, as the NT suggests JC only mentioned 5 or 6 and they were also poorly enumerated and conflicting. Worse, those were of course third- (or more) hand accounts of what JC may have actually claimed. I'm not sure if the whole 'mixed fabric, shellfish are okay, etc' covenants that were undone in the NT included week-long unleavened bread obligations, or how else they may have adjusted the intent around interpreting the several conflicting sets of commandments from the OT. So I can definitely understand why Makenzie chose a Sagan book -- much more clarity, much less ambiguity.
- hajile 4y agoThis claim is easy to answer. The Ten Commandments were written with the finger of God on stone and stored IN the Ark of the Covenant. > Deuteronomy 10:2 KJV > And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. The ceremonial laws were written by Moses on parchment and stored BESIDE the Ark of the Covenant. > Deuteronomy 31:26 KJV > Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. There is a clear distinction between the two. > Mark 12:30-31 KJV > And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. There isn't any question about the two great commandments as they are identical in all the gospels where they are mentioned. There also isn't any question because Jesus was just quoting the first law from Deuteronomy and the second law follows rather strictly as a subset of the first law (love people as much as God loves people). > Deuteronomy 6:5 KJV > And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. This is also enshrined in the Ten Commandments themselves. The first 4 talk about how God wants to be worshipped. The last 6 talk about how God wants us to treat each other. Interestingly, when you compare text size the split seems about even and would indicate the first 4 commandments were on one stone tablet and the other 6 were on the other tablet. Here's where we see Jesus mention 5 of the 6 commandments about people. > Matthew 19:18-19 KJV > He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. He didn't mention coveting OR the commandments about God for a reason. This man was covetous. Because of this, he also wasn't honoring God. Jesus tells the man what he lacks by telling him to sell all his things and thus eliminate his covetous problem to which the man goes away unwilling to part with his riches. This doesn't mean Jesus didn't believe coveting was ok. He calls it out by name in at least two other gospels. > Luke 12:15 KJV > And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. > Mark 7:22 KJV > Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
- foobarbecue 4y agoThis title (and the original article title) makes it sound like she will lead NASA, but actually she's leading Goddard Spaceflight Center, one of the 19 NASA Centers. (NASA leader is called the Administrator, center leader is a Director.) Awesome news though; I love it.