Post by: Stand_watie on April 18, 2007, 09:44:53 PM
Many (perhaps even a majority if you consider the broadest definition of the term worldwide) Christians have at least semi-pacifist (and some outright pacifist) beliefs regarding defense of others.
Twice in the past month I've seen a Leviticus (19:16) reference that appears to have a largely different connotation than I have taken from it as read in English. Both citations from Jewish authors.
Interesting to me that I've missed it right along, because I suspect I'd have gotten the different interpetation if I'd dug around enough, even from English translation/commentators. I've never seen it cited as a moral point (by gun rights community) for defense of third parties.
From a book I was reading recently
"don't stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed"
From an opinion article by Rabbi Asher Meir
"Don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow"
contrasted to
NIV
"..Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life.."
KJV
"..neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.."
Post by: tyme on April 19, 2007, 01:49:32 AM
George Bush is a monkey.
Is that sarcasm or an attempt at some literal truth? Even if you read a work in its original language, with a good understanding of the original language, you cannot focus on individual statements and hope to derive truth from them.
Did someone put something in the water? The SCOTUS rules against partial birth abortion, and here we are in a thread about religion, and I'm not being prickly!
Post by: The Rabbi on April 19, 2007, 02:28:26 AM
Let me start by saying that I don't consider Levitical commandments binding upon Christians, except as they are repeated (and many are) in the Christian "New Testament". That said, I think Levitical commands are Christian in tradition, and instructive in Christian debate - for example if a claim were made that working on the sabbath is a general religious requirement of mankind by the creator, Leviticus would be a "fair use" to counter the point.
First off, picking and choosing which commandments are binding and which aren't yields some interesting results.
Second, there is no claim that there is a general injunction to refrain from working on the Sabbath. Indeed, we find the opposite in Genesis.
[quote author=Stand_watie link=topic=6787.msg108072#msg108072 date=1176965093
Many (perhaps even a majority if you consider the broadest definition of the term worldwide) Christians have at least semi-pacifist (and some outright pacifist) beliefs regarding defense of others.
Twice in the past month I've seen a Leviticus (19:16) reference that appears to have a largely different connotation than I have taken from it as read in English. Both citations from Jewish authors.
Interesting to me that I've missed it right along, because I suspect I'd have gotten the different interpetation if I'd dug around enough, even from English translation/commentators. I've never seen it cited as a moral point (by gun rights community) for defense of third parties.
From a book I was reading recently
"don't stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed"
From an opinion article by Rabbi Asher Meir
"Don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow"
contrasted to
NIV
"..Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life.."
KJV
"..neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.."
[/quote]
The Hebrew reads "al tamod al dam re'echa" ("Dont stand on the blood of your fellow man") and the first translation you gave is the closest and incorporates the Masora understanding of the verse.
Post by: Firethorn on April 19, 2007, 04:26:52 AM
Despite people who seem to think that the KJV is the 'true' translation, I fully understand that it's a translation, like any other versions I read; seeing as how I don't read Latin or Hebrew. And even if I DID read those, I'd be reading in a language different from those that wrote and read it originaly.
Being agnostic, I don't explicitly follow the bible, or any other religious text. They can be a good founding, but are subject to twisting and rules-lawyering.
I'll defend others to the best of my ability. I shalt not stand by while my neighbor's blood is shed.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 19, 2007, 04:52:43 AM
Quote
the first translation you gave is the closest and incorporates the Masora understanding of the verse.
Meaning this one?
Quote
"don't stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed"
Post by: The Rabbi on April 19, 2007, 05:08:45 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on April 19, 2007, 09:39:13 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 19, 2007, 09:47:11 AM
I thought all or most of the New Testament was in forms of Greek, not Latin.
Correct. None of the New Testament autographs were in Latin. Mr. Picky.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 19, 2007, 11:58:14 AM
Are you trying to find grounding in the Old and New Testaments for your instinctual moral standards, or are you trying to construct a set of morals based on what's literally contained in those works?...
Neither. I'm referencing past/current religious debate within Christian (and other) community.
Quote
First off, picking and choosing which commandments are binding and which aren't yields some interesting results.
Second, there is no claim that there is a general injunction to refrain from working on the Sabbath. Indeed, we find the opposite in Genesis
Second, there is no claim that there is a general injunction to refrain from working on the Sabbath. Indeed, we find the opposite in Genesis
A) There's no denying that.
B) I didn't think that there was.
Post by: De Selby on April 19, 2007, 02:18:38 PM
Defending third parties in whose fate you don't have a financial stake, however, reduces the risk that you'll have ulterior motives. You're also much more likely to be able to love the enemy in that situation, since it won't be personal between you and him.
I think the biblical foundation for the argument was "love thy enemy". It ends up meaning that you can't fight an enemy for your own good; you have to fight him for his own good.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 19, 2007, 02:33:46 PM
Quote
I remember reading words by St. Augustine to the effect that defending a third party is actually significantly better, morally speaking, than self-defense.
Well, yeah. Quote
I think the biblical foundation for the argument was "love thy enemy". It ends up meaning that you can't fight an enemy for your own good; you have to fight him for his own good.
More or less agree. In the same way, criminals need justice to be done to them just as much as society needs to see justice done. Even if the punishment is death, it is for the criminal's good to be punished. Sorta like junior needs to be spanked for his own good.
Post by: Firethorn on April 19, 2007, 03:59:36 PM
I thought all or most of the New Testament was in forms of Greek, not Latin.
Correct. None of the New Testament autographs were in Latin. Mr. Picky.
Opps.... Boy my face is red.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 19, 2007, 04:41:47 PM
I thought all or most of the New Testament was in forms of Greek, not Latin.
Correct. None of the New Testament autographs were in Latin. Mr. Picky.
Opps.... Boy my face is red.
Not a surprising mistake. From around 600 until around 1520 (Wycliffe and Luther) Latin was THE translation in Roman Christendom by church dictat. And translation discussions like we are having here were officially discouraged.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 20, 2007, 10:02:23 AM
I was trying to think of what languages were used in the Old Testament also. I know of Aramaic(sp) and/or Hebrew. I think Chaldean was in there as well, maybe others. I am also not sure that applies to the Torah or not.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 20, 2007, 10:06:31 AM
Post by: Art Eatman on April 20, 2007, 11:10:20 AM
That ain't gonna happen around me. End of hunt.
Art
Post by: Firethorn on April 20, 2007, 02:06:59 PM
Not a surprising mistake. From around 600 until around 1520 (Wycliffe and Luther) Latin was THE translation in Roman Christendom by church dictat. And translation discussions like we are having here were officially discouraged.
Yeah, I remembered all the priests learning latin in order to read the bible, and that the Romans made themselves a pain in the butt during that period, so I figured it was the original language for the NT. For the old testement I knew it was in Hebrew, but now I learn that it was partially in Aramaic?
*shakes head*
And I remember the *shalt not kill*/*shalt not commit murder* translation debate...
Post by: Eleven Mike on April 20, 2007, 02:15:36 PM
Quote
but now I learn that it was partially in Aramaic?
Very partially. Aramaic was (or at some point became) the lingua franca of the region. Aram is modern-day Syria, BTW. IIRC, the Jews began speaking Aramaic (rather than Hebrew) during their captivity in...Babylon? Assyria?
Post by: The Rabbi on April 20, 2007, 02:19:34 PM
Post by: Eleven Mike on April 20, 2007, 08:00:15 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on April 21, 2007, 04:58:40 PM
Might you explain what you mean by attested? I'm not familiar with that term in that context.
Sorry, the jargon-filled ex-grad student coming out in me.Attested means that there is evidence for something. So Aramaic is attested in the Pentateuch in the passage where Lavan catches up to Yaakov and they declare a truce and make an agreement. The verse says they did this on a hill and Lavan called it "Sahadusa" but Yaakov called it Galed. Sahadusa means "hill of testimony" in Aramaic (Sahad means something like witness, compare to Arabic shaheed). Galed would mean the same in Hebrew.
Post by: Tallpine on April 22, 2007, 06:52:30 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 22, 2007, 09:28:05 AM
There you have it - a biblical argument for bilingualism
But only for the Jews. Christians can remain monolingual under the New Covenant.
Post by: Eleven Mike on April 23, 2007, 06:07:29 AM
There you have it - a biblical argument for bilingualism
Oh, so you're Pentacostal.
Post by: Tallpine on April 23, 2007, 07:50:24 AM
Quote
Oh, so you're Pentacostal.
Chan eil. Tha mi Paganach
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 23, 2007, 07:54:14 AM
...and no defending this guy.
Post by: Tallpine on April 23, 2007, 12:54:50 PM
Cha bhi sibh gam faighinn gun strìth!
Post by: The Rabbi on April 23, 2007, 12:57:33 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 23, 2007, 01:35:24 PM
Incredible ... I post something in an archaic, almost extinct minority language, and carebear understands
Cha bhi sibh gam faighinn gun strìth!
Cha bhi sibh gam faighinn gun strìth!
Me mother tongue afore the Sassanach drove me people off their land.
Don't understand a word of it, I can just pick it out of a lineup.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 23, 2007, 02:10:49 PM
Urtala pak. Submow neets u. Wata-wooey?
Post by: The Rabbi on April 23, 2007, 03:37:59 PM
Urtala pak. Submow neets u. Wata-wooey?
Trans: Who wants the rest of this sheep's brain? I'm full.
Post by: Tallpine on April 24, 2007, 05:54:41 AM
Quote
What's the point of posting in a language that nobody understands?
Thuig carebear (beagan, co-dhiu)
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 24, 2007, 06:51:46 AM
Uh-oh, I'm going charismatic again.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 24, 2007, 07:18:56 AM
Quote
What's the point of posting in a language that nobody understands?
Thuig carebear (beagan, co-dhiu) Trans: "Carebear, your sister smells like yak dung."
Post by: Tallpine on April 24, 2007, 02:53:39 PM
I don't even know the Gaidhlig word for "yak" - I doubt that it's even in my dictionary.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 24, 2007, 04:57:44 PM
Post by: Tallpine on April 24, 2007, 06:19:04 PM
Besides, I believe in defending 3rd parties who get attacked by the IGA (Irish Grammatical Army).
Anyway Irish and Scots grammar is somewhat different. In Gaidhlig you form past tense with many verbs with lenition (adding an "h" right after the beginning consonant, as in tuig >>> thuig, which changes the pronounciation too). Though most verbs don't have a present tense to begin with, so you have to say something to the effect of "I am swimming/walking/thinking/wanting/whatever..."
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 24, 2007, 06:22:09 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 24, 2007, 09:36:40 PM
The Scots-Irish made this country what it is today.
Addicted to alcohol and prone to violence.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 25, 2007, 02:49:50 AM
You lot of drunken barbarians. The Normans should have wiped you all out. Post by: Tallpine on April 25, 2007, 06:42:21 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 25, 2007, 07:53:01 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on April 25, 2007, 08:40:12 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Irish Saved Civilization. The Scots Made the Modern World - or whatever. You lot of drunken barbarians. The Normans should have wiped you all out.
You lot of drunken barbarians. The Normans should have wiped you all out. I'd never heard of the scots-irish being particularly (that is, over and above the English and western european standard) reknowned for drunkenness. Is that a stereotype I missed?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 25, 2007, 08:57:56 PM
I'd never heard of the scots-irish being particularly (that is, over and above the English and western european standard) reknowned for drunkenness. Is that a stereotype I missed?
Apparently.
Do you know why G-d created whiskey?
To keep the Irish from taking over the earth.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 25, 2007, 09:37:59 PM
I love that question. Over a basket of delicious Freedom Fries, with non-Heinz ketchup.
Oh, what a great patriot am I.
Post by: Tallpine on April 26, 2007, 02:32:26 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on April 26, 2007, 04:04:14 PM
I'd never heard of the scots-irish being particularly (that is, over and above the English and western european standard) reknowned for drunkenness. Is that a stereotype I missed?
Apparently.
Do you know why G-d created whiskey?
To keep the Irish from taking over the earth.
I knew all about the Irish stereotype, but "Irish" and "Scots-Irish" are two different groups.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 26, 2007, 04:22:40 PM
It started with the Irish Celts, who are from Ireland.
Some of those Irish Celts colonized Scotland in the first millenium (the Roman name for Ireland was Scotia) and grew distinct in culture.
Some of them became the Scots-Irish, who were primarily Presbyterian Scot peasants, who were forced to move back to Ulster (Ireland) in the 17th and 18th Century to "Britishize it" but were still being oppressed by Sassanach tyranny and thus continued East, emigrating to North America.
Nobody made a distinction between Scots-Irish and "Irish" until the potato famine occured in the 1840's and the Catholic Irish joined the flood of emigrants. They were different in culture and regarded themselves as the "true" Irish where many Scots-Irish viewed them as Papist latecomers.
But anthropologists will tell you the predilictions for moodiness, drunkeness, violence and poetry is uniform across both groups.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 26, 2007, 06:04:43 PM
...
But anthropologists will tell you the predilictions for moodiness, drunkeness, violence and poetry is uniform across both groups.
But anthropologists will tell you the predilictions for moodiness, drunkeness, violence and poetry is uniform across both groups.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 26, 2007, 06:25:40 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 26, 2007, 06:47:32 PM
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..."
Post by: Tallpine on April 27, 2007, 06:54:04 AM
carebear, I think we would be great friends
Do you ever get down to the lower 48?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 27, 2007, 08:21:56 AM
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.
Post by: RevDisk on April 28, 2007, 11:50:33 AM
What's the point of posting in a language that nobody understands? First Rabbi, now Tallpine.
Urtala pak. Submow neets u. Wata-wooey?
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.
Post by: Tallpine on April 28, 2007, 06:07:44 PM
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
Post by: Bob F. on April 29, 2007, 05:28:31 PM
Stay safe.
Bob
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 14, 2007, 08:09:22 AM
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.
Post by: Hawkmoon on May 16, 2007, 04:33:50 PM
(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:
Quote
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 16, 2007, 05:05:36 PM
Post by: De Selby on May 16, 2007, 05:21:03 PM
All Roman Catholics are Christians? Hmmm. No.
How do you figure that one?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 16, 2007, 05:27:54 PM
But membership in any particular church does not one a Christian make. That's a personal status.
Different requirements.
Post by: De Selby on May 16, 2007, 10:43:17 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 17, 2007, 03:40:30 AM
Post by: Hawkmoon on May 19, 2007, 04:43:56 PM
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.
But membership in any particular church does not one a Christian make. That's a personal status.
Different requirements.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 19, 2007, 07:56:45 PM
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.
Post by: Stand_watie on May 19, 2007, 08:48:05 PM
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.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 19, 2007, 08:55:39 PM
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.
Post by: Stand_watie on May 19, 2007, 09:22:39 PM
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.
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.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 19, 2007, 10:13:00 PM
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.
Post by: Stand_watie on May 20, 2007, 04:28:30 PM
...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".
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 20, 2007, 06:24:46 PM
Hey, I'm looking for a theology discussion forum. Anybody got anything?
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7168.0