defense of 3rd parties in the Christian tradition

[Matthew Carberry]

But Celts aren't from Ireland, they're from Iberia.   

Celts also detoured North on the trip West, became Gaels.

Still Celts though.

The history of Ancient Europe is the history of  "Go Northwest young barbarian..."

[Tallpine]

The Galatians of New Testament era Asia Minor were reportedly also Celtic.

carebear, I think we would be great friends
Do you ever get down to the lower 48?

[Matthew Carberry]

Not as often as I should.

If I can get some real estate stuff taken care of I should be traveling more.  Right now I'm tied to an investment property.

[RevDisk]

What's the point of posting in a language that nobody understands?  First Rabbi, now Tallpine.

Urtala pak.  Submow neets u.  Wata-wooey?

Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant.

Language very much differents between cultures and ethnic groups.  Often, you cannot truly study history (and often classic literature) without some knowledge of their language.  Not saying you have to be a master at a specific language, but a working knowledge helps.  Language often defines how a culture "thinks". 

One interesting application I came across was the book Dune.  I read it when I was a kid.  Reread it more recently with a bit more understanding of Arabic.  Very big difference, and it opened a whole new aspect I previously was unaware of.

As to why post in a language few (not "nobody", some of us are multilingual) understand, Unitam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant.

[Tallpine]

Well, there's always a chance that somebody understands a bit (or more) of Gàidhlig

And what about Molon Labe ?  How many APS/THR members understand Greek?
(maybe a few divinity students...?)

Then there was Gus McRae of Lonesome Dove - he just wanted a chance to shoot at an educated man 

Learning a foreign language (especially a difficult one) broadens your mind and understanding.  Too bad I didn't start sooner in life

[Bob F.]

A fed LEO & I were discussing just this last night. He explained his ruled of engagement, then added, but "I know what I'd do morally". Just have to be careful and be sure you know who the real victim is...................

Stay safe.
Bob

[Perd Hapley]

The Galatians of New Testament era Asia Minor were reportedly also Celtic.

And some believe the letter was actually written to Christians in Gaul (France).   


Revdisk,

Thanks a lot for not answering my question.  I wasn't asking why people learned the language.  I was asking why post in that language.  But, on second thought, I guess it would be fun to do so if I could. 

[Hawkmoon]

At risk of derailing a fascinating side-trip into the language of my ancestors, I would interject a pair of random thoughts pertaining to the original theme of this thread:

(1) Translation of the scripture is of utmost importance, and translations (unfortunately) tend to reflect the mores of the time in which they were undertaken. For example, the usual translation of the commandment regarding the taking of human life is, "Thou shalt not kill." (KJV) However, modern scholarship rather strongly suggests that a more accurate translation should be, "Thou shalt not murder." Such a translation, of course, would cut off at the knees those who would quote the commandment as a prohibition against the taking of a human life in defense of self or an innocent third party.

(2) Not all Christians are Roman Catholics, of course, but all Roman Catholics are Christians. So it might be interesting to know what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on this topic (even though I am not a Roman Catholic). Here 'tis:

Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265 of the "Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church" ... "Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the community."

In short, I see no moral prohibitions or restrictions imposed on a Christian by Christian teachings when it comes to the use of lethal force in self defense.

[Perd Hapley]

All Roman Catholics are Christians?  Hmmm.  No. 

[De Selby]

All Roman Catholics are Christians?  Hmmm.  No. 

How do you figure that one?

[Matthew Carberry]

All "Roman Catholics" are members of a Christian church, just like all "Lutherans" are.

But membership in any particular church does not one a Christian make.  That's a personal status.

Different requirements.

[De Selby]

makes sense

[Perd Hapley]

All I meant was that Christianity is a matter of actual faith/belief by the individual, not of church membership.  Of course, there is a sense in which anyone who considers themselves Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc, is at least nominally a Christian. 

[Hawkmoon]

All "Roman Catholics" are members of a Christian church, just like all "Lutherans" are.

But membership in any particular church does not one a Christian make.  That's a personal status.

Different requirements.

A rather technical distinction. I see your point, and I guess it might even be valid for some other Christian denominations, but certainly, irrespective of paper/nominal membership in a parish, the Roman Catholic Church would definitely say that one who is not a Christian (i.e. one who does not accept Jesus as Lord and savior) is not a Roman Catholic. The various Protestant deonominations would pretty much agree on that, as well.

[Matthew Carberry]

Roman Catholicism in particular has had the problem that some of its members, brought up in the church, seem to feel that all you have to do is say the right words at the right time and satisfactorily participate in certain rituals and you are "covered".  Which makes you a "good Catholic" but not a surrendered Christian.  In fact the belief that church ritual has power regardless of the participant's deliberate intent is magic, not faith, and was a contributor to much of the Protestant/Catholic disagreement over the years.

In the past the concept of a personal salvic relationship between the individual parishoner and Christ was often not emphasized by the RC priesthood so some people grew up in the church missing the whole point.  A situation that is less of an issue the more evangelical you get.  For evangelicals, you can't escape the need for a personal relationship, it's the unobscured bread and butter of doctrine, which makes anyone who is just going through the motions more of an active liar and hypocrite.  They can't claim ignorance or poor teaching.

[Stand_watie]

Roman Catholicism in particular has had the problem that some of its members...

Let me start by saying I'm an evangelical protestant - that out of the way, I'll offer my opinion that, while I have large doctrinal disputes with the RC church, I've read the Catholic "confirmation" rite, and  would say that that profession is at least a verbal claim of being a Christian in the Pauline Christianity sense of the word (as opposed to the Jeffersonian sense of the word - IE "I'm all for loving your neighbor etc...").

I would say the issue is one that is quite a bit larger than even the Catholic/Protestant divide that you suggest here - millions, if not hundreds of millions of people, perhaps the majority of "Christians" in the world identify themselves as "Christians" speaking more in the sense of a cultural identity than an actual belief system. As a national example I believe (but I may well be many years out of date) that Britain is 'officially' Anglican, and the majority of British if asked "what religion are you?"  might say "Christian", and yet the majority of those people self-identified as such would probably be skeptical regarding the deity or ressurection of Christ.

[Matthew Carberry]

Stand,

I don't disagree.  But as far as pulpit teaching, in my limited but lifelong experience with Mass, goes, there isn't the constant repetition of the idea of a personal relationship that you get in Protestant, especially evangelical, services.  No "altar calls and such. 

Once you are Confirmed you can slide along going to mass and responding by rote and going or not going to Confession and taking Communion without being confronted from the pulpit with the reality of the need for personal surrender.  Now there is a big lay movement that is fighting that omission, my dad is part of such a group, but it has been a historic, and systemic, issue in many diocese stemming from some of the more authoritarian traditions.

[Stand_watie]

Stand,

I don't disagree.  But as far as pulpit teaching, in my limited but lifelong experience with Mass, goes, there isn't the constant repetition of the idea of a personal relationship that you get in Protestant, especially evangelical, services.  No "altar calls and such. 

Once you are Confirmed you can slide along going to mass and responding by rote and going or not going to Confession and taking Communion without being confronted from the pulpit with the reality of the need for personal surrender.  Now there is a big lay movement that is fighting that omission, my dad is part of such a group, but it has been a historic, and systemic, issue in many diocese stemming from some of the more authoritarian traditions.

It sounds like you have more experience with Catholic church than I. My only real knowledge  on that is reading and asking Catholics "what do you believe?" That said, I have slightly more experience with a (having grown up in an area pre-dominated by, gone to a Christian college with, and being related to many) Protestant sect, called (at least in western Michigan) "Christian Reformed", and who are I guess you'd say "Dutch Calvinists" and who are probably no more prone (again from reading and personal conversation, rather than actually attending their worship services) to have ever heard an altar call than someone in a typical Catholic church, yet who profess a personal faith and practice of faith requirement to be considered, in their opinion, a "Christian", the same as my own.

Is your father involved with the evangelical catholic church movement? I think I've actually seen (at least from media portrayals) a movement in my adult lifetime in the Catholic church shifting in that direction, which I find very positive.

[Matthew Carberry]

I would say that a lot of older "mainline" Protestant denominations, like the Presbyterian church I grew up in, can get just as complacent on the roots of the faith and drift into the pattern of "this is how we do our services" as any typical Catholic parish.  The same homilies at the same times of the year, the same chorus singing the same songs, church without a lot of passion in it, comfort food for the soul.  The avoidance of real convicting teaching and continual emphasis that to be Christian is to be palpably different from the world.

It takes either a demanding laity or an active pastoral staff to kickstart that sort of thing.  I'm not saying everyone needs to be holy rollers but "habitual" Christianity isn't really Christianity at all.  You don't have to go door to door or wear your faith on your sleeve in an annoying way, but it's something you live, not do on Sunday for an hour.

The group my dad is involved with isn't evangelical in the sense of moving away from tradition or doctrine into Protestantization, its more reinvigorating tradition and doctrine with new energy.  Delving into the why the Church believes as it believes and what the real meaning of being G-d's church is.  Stepping back to the identity of the church being its members, not its bureaucracy.  There's some real solid pastoral teaching going on now; though, to be fair to some degree there always has been, but the mentality about it has changed over the years as I've watched.

[Stand_watie]

...The group my dad is involved with isn't evangelical in the sense of moving away from tradition or doctrine into Protestantization, its more reinvigorating tradition and doctrine with new energy.  Delving into the why the Church believes as it believes and what the real meaning of being G-d's church is.  Stepping back to the identity of the church being its members, not its bureaucracy.  There's some real solid pastoral teaching going on now; though, to be fair to some degree there always has been, but the mentality about it has changed over the years as I've watched.

As an example, a year or two ago I watched scenes from a catholic get-together on the news where the new pope spoke to a group of teenagers who seemed every bit as on-fire about their Christianity as evangelical protestant "youth rallies" I've seen.

Perhaps this has always been around and I'm just seeing a difference reflected in the media, but when I was a kid, the word "catholic" was almost a synonym for "stodgy" or "ritualized".

[Perd Hapley]

In grade school, a lot of my classmates were Catholic.  The impression I got was that Catholic meant you could do anything you wanted all week long, so long as you confessed and did your penance later.  And that's not due to any bias of mine at the time, I was not especially religious.  It's just the kind of white-trash Catholicism I was exposed to. 


Hey, I'm looking for a theology discussion forum.  Anybody got anything? 
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7168.0