ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

So JC was a rather nice chap and had some profound things to say, but also happened to be a hallucinating looney who claimed the powers of a hydrophobe and fed more tuna sandwiches to people than Gregs or Subway. Does that make him God on earth though? The creator of the universe and all life?

Why should the Bible be held in awe when there's so many other texts of equal value? You could read Socrates or Epicurus or even Lord of the Rings and find lots of poetic terminology to live life by - all that glitters is not gold etc.

I don't see why anyone should be restricted by merely one religious book, take the best of the Bible by all means, but there's no reason to make it the only thing to live for. The good parts of the other religions or non religious books might be equally apparent. Anyone who goes one step further and starts to worship said text as something divine must have missed out on a great deal of literature.

This also misses out on the larger problem too, there's plenty of people who take the Bible as the gospel truth. It's quite remarkable how far they'll go to believe it. I'm having a discussion with one guy on another forum, he's an army trained engineer and really believes in the Bible, the 'Good Lord' and even Adam and Eve and the power of prayer. This is delusion on a grand scale and its effects on humanity are dangerous.

You only have to look at the absurd notions of mainstream religion to see the problem - kiddy fiddling Bishops being let off the hook, flagellation through city streets and people bleeding everywhere (is that meant to be normal behaviour?) circumcision, genital mutilation, the outrageous guilt concept of sin for simply enjoying sex. Prejudice against homosexuals, forced marriage, sectarian violence, the list is endless.

Mankind does not need this manipulative twaddle in the 21stC, people should be allowed to think for themselves and pursue their own happiness without reference to what a 2000 year old book says. The CofE take a very liberal view but go to the states or some parts of Europe and the evidence for how much religion interferes with people's lives is remarkable.

J.C. would be disappointed, if he weren't too busy being raised from the dead and flying around in the clouds.

Spot on DC...

But they can't see the reality of religion from the cage within...

Nor in these threads do they understand that their watered down poison is still poison.

Unending antecedent propositional fallacies, ad hominems, flaming, trolling ... Mature debate on the issues by the mature is but a distant prospect. Promoting ignorance, celebrating being poorly read, denying serious enquiry is the disease of this generation who struggle to hold a conversation or put a constructive sentence together and maintain a thread of calm argumentation. The stuff of teenage years.

Originally Posted by Taffd

Well seeing as I don't have access to the original text, I'll concede that you may be correct. Which unfortunately means that millions of us have been peddled lies as fact, by priests who should have known better.

And seeing as you do have access to the info, when exactly did the mistranslations occur? Who spotted that they were mistranslations, and when?

That's a great question (always a good response when one doesn't perhaps know the answer ) and I will have a go at answering it and will, in doing so, perhaps answer the comment about the generations who taught 'kill' too!

So, on point the first - the actual Hebrew (Exodus 20:13) has it as ס trə·ṣāḥ. lō (0לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃) which translates as:
'You shall not murder"
Interestingly (well it is for me) there is the additional understanding of the word 'trə·ṣāḥ' which means that 'murder', which is the unlawful or felonious act of taking a life, might also extend to cover causing life to be taken through negligence or carelessness.

So the original texts are clear that this is murder that we are speaking of (i.e. felonious taking) rather than killing (i.e capital punishment, death of a combatant in war, etc.)

The problems arise when we try to translate the original texts into a different language. For instance the first translation of the Old Testament was due to Ptolemy Philadelphus who took seventy scholars of their time and translated what we call the Septuagint (seventy) which we shorten to LXX. This is the original into koine (common tongue) Greek.

In this we find:

ου φονεύσεις which is 'you shall not' and 'murder' - the LXX was a most accurate translation because it had knowledge ot the original and used the Hellenistic koine as an everyday language so the familiarity worked well.

The potential for trouble comes when we hit the 400 year old King James (KJV) Bible. Here we have less access to the modern linguistics that we have these days and whilst it has a myriad number of fantastic poetic elements (language of Shakespeare and all that stuff) it does have its limitations.

The KJV has Ex 20:13 as, "Thou shalt not kill." and this, being the principal Bible in the hands of so many for so long led many of the clerics (and the people who read what was as far as they knew correct) into this 'translation error'. They weren't being dodgy, they just didn't have the skills to differentiate, after all both relate to the taking of a life, and so in came one (of many) differences from the original.

The version you read 9and there are many) can shape the way that you understand stuff and this is why I (and many others) will use more than a few when studying or preparing sermons and stuff. I often find myself turning back to the Greek to check (don't do the Hebrew that much as I struggled with it ). Here's a list of a few versions of the Bible and their translation of the passage:

New International Version (©1984) "You shall not murder."
New Living Translation (©2007) "You must not murder."
English Standard Version (©2001) “You shall not murder."
New American Standard Bible (©1995) "You shall not murder."
King James Bible "Thou shalt not kill.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "Never murder."
King James 2000 Bible (©2003) "You shall not kill."
American Standard Version "Thou shalt not kill."

And that's just a snippet. Generally the more recent translators have all looked to original material and used 'murder' - something to be aware of as it makes a big difference as generations before us have found in their learning of it.

Sorry if this is a bit too long but I wanted to try and answer as fully and accurately as this limited vicar brain can handle.

Thanks for the question - hope this does it justice

pax

Originally Posted by Taffd

And on the subject of killing -

Right and wrong are always matters of individual opinion. They do not always, or necessarily, equate to legal and illegal.

Only the translation/mistranslation found in the ten commandments has ever been explicit - Thou shall not kill.

All other interpretations effectively say - Killing is acceptable when deemed to be so by those in authority over you.

The whole point of the moral codes as found within the Bible are that they define what is right and wrong and in doing so remove the potential for bias or self-serving laws. The problem with today's increasing secular world is that we are finding moral absolutes and lines that have been drawn, fading and being changed to 'ends justifying means' and the knotty issue of 'natural justice' (something that did for a certain serious crime's squad a few years back).

The Judeo-Christian concept of 'just war' says that killing is acceptable (but not desirable) when the need arises but our recent history (600 years or so) shows how rulers (king or politician) will start a war and the soldiers pay for it with their lives and that that war in which they died may well not have been just.

We live in a world where we are people under authority. We have a chain of command and we obey unless LOAC or the RoE or the various conventions are being breached by it. We never take life cheaply and the ideal conflict is that where peace is won without a shot being fired.

Answering the point made after the above quote (about the intention or meaning desired by the writer) it is explicit that the original word related to the 'wrong' taking of life through definite act or constructive means such as negligence or folly. The bottom line is that we are called upon to keep life as something to be respected and sustained and it isa only to be taken in the most pressing of circumstances (i.e. just war, capital punishment, etc.) - which moves us nicely towards the Bomber Command question . . . .

HTH

Originally Posted by Taffd

Can I take it from this that you condemn Churchill and Bomber Command, in WW2, as murderers?

I have to say that I feel we treated the members of Bomber Command most sorely. The 55,000 men who lost their lives during the war were engaged in acts which in today's warfare would be considered to be disproportionate but in the time that we are speaking of this was regarded as fair game by both sides. What we have done with Bomber Command is apply today's attitudes to a different time and I was pleased to see the Bomber Command memorial erected and would like to have seen those who were part of Bomber Commanded awarded the medal they rightfully deserved.

Where the blanket bombing of major cities was done to affect the morale of the inhabitants we can see an act that was clearly wrong (regardless of time) but where the bombing of the industrial heartlands of germany was aimed as stopping supply and manufacturing links, this was strategically right. But care should have been taken to minimise civillian casualties and maintain some sense of proportionality and so you present me with a bit of a cleft stick in that not all of it was bad (much like the Curate's egg!).

Regarding Harris and some of his writings I think he crossed the line between strategic and criminal and yet, as ever, the difference between a war hero and war criminal is the side they are on!

As for Churchill, there is much in print to condemn the man. I sat in a lecture at a military convention where a learned chap spoke of how Churchill knew of the camps and other things but wasn't minded to deal with them - territory and others things taking first place. The chap spoke of how Churchill appeared to be fairly unconcerned at the camps and the fate of the Jews and I was stunned at the anti- semitic attitudes portrayed.

War is a time when moral codes and right acts are put to the back of the shelf and this is why we have voices such as ours (padres) in the forces for there are times when we need to raise Bible, Theology (Aquinus) and reason as a consideration.
Just war (Bellum iustum) is a great concept in peace and a poor reality in times of conflict and this is why padres are. It's not just funerals, repats, communion, 'Dear John's' and 'tea and sympathy' (which we do do well) - we are there for the moral component.

So Bomber Command - Murderers - probably not (but I'm sure I can find isolated incidents which might change that view).

Moving up the chain and looking at Bomber Harris - the jury is out but I find some instances of the man's thinking display a lack of proportionality under today's scale and would find I disagree with his actions and say that he caused life to be taken wrongly and cheaply. Mind you we didn't find the chap in charge of UK blanket bombing guilty either did we? Always another side and this is right and also difficult.

Churchill presents a more difficult case as some of the lives he caused (by design or deliberate inactivity) to be lost would certain raise questions and, would in my mind, even put him in the dock. 'Difficult times beget difficult decisions' springs to mind here - but when they are wrong we need to say so and so I would more than likely see Him (and Harris) answering some interesting questions in a dock somewhere.

The problem with 'yes/no' questions is that it excludes the maybe and thus demands more expertise and supporting material that I have to hand - so not a fudge but an honest attempt (you should see my Baha Mousa lecture - always causes a stir).

Hope this is of some help

Now - got to go busy day at the NMA yesterday and today has soldiers leaving and padre's hours to be delivers (and new MATTS material to be finished off)

Thanks for the engagement - challenging and valuable (always good to test a padre)

Moral codes, when written in the bible or anywhere else, are what 'authority' has decreed as right or wrong. Killing then, becomes justified when the authority deems it so. 'Felonious', is when authority deems it not so. However, different individuals have their own moral codes, and what they see as justification, is not necessarily the same as what authority sees as justification.

My moral code for example, finds the mutilation of children obscene. Some societies/religions view it as holy. Their 'authority' deems it not only acceptable but declares it mandatory.

Some authorities deem it justifiable to target civilians in war. Many individuals, do not.

So I'm prepared to admit that I was mistaken as to the transltaion of the commandment. What at first appeared to be an unequivocal statement becomes in effect, 'Only kill when we say it's ok'.

Anyhow, we have the situation where, for up to 400 years, whether knowingly or unknowingly, christians have been wrongly taught. In at least one instance, they have been taught to believe something other that what was intended. Having believed it, they must all have been wrong.

How many more examples will you give us of where people have been taught to believe that which is wrong?

Originally Posted by Padre

I have to say that I feel we treated the members of Bomber Command most sorely. The 55,000 men who lost their lives during the war were engaged in acts which in today's warfare would be considered to be disproportionate but in the time that we are speaking of this was regarded as fair game by both sides. What we have done with Bomber Command is apply today's attitudes to a different time and I was pleased to see the Bomber Command memorial erected and would like to have seen those who were part of Bomber Commanded awarded the medal they rightfully deserved.

Where the blanket bombing of major cities was done to affect the morale of the inhabitants we can see an act that was clearly wrong (regardless of time) but where the bombing of the industrial heartlands of germany was aimed as stopping supply and manufacturing links, this was strategically right. But care should have been taken to minimise civillian casualties and maintain some sense of proportionality and so you present me with a bit of a cleft stick in that not all of it was bad (much like the Curate's egg!).

Regarding Harris and some of his writings I think he crossed the line between strategic and criminal and yet, as ever, the difference between a war hero and war criminal is the side they are on!

As for Churchill, there is much in print to condemn the man. I sat in a lecture at a military convention where a learned chap spoke of how Churchill knew of the camps and other things but wasn't minded to deal with them - territory and others things taking first place. The chap spoke of how Churchill appeared to be fairly unconcerned at the camps and the fate of the Jews and I was stunned at the anti- semitic attitudes portrayed.

War is a time when moral codes and right acts are put to the back of the shelf and this is why we have voices such as ours (padres) in the forces for there are times when we need to raise Bible, Theology (Aquinus) and reason as a consideration.
Just war (Bellum iustum) is a great concept in peace and a poor reality in times of conflict and this is why padres are. It's not just funerals, repats, communion, 'Dear John's' and 'tea and sympathy' (which we do do well) - we are there for the moral component.

So Bomber Command - Murderers - probably not (but I'm sure I can find isolated incidents which might change that view).

Moving up the chain and looking at Bomber Harris - the jury is out but I find some instances of the man's thinking display a lack of proportionality under today's scale and would find I disagree with his actions and say that he caused life to be taken wrongly and cheaply. Mind you we didn't find the chap in charge of UK blanket bombing guilty either did we? Always another side and this is right and also difficult.

Churchill presents a more difficult case as some of the lives he caused (by design or deliberate inactivity) to be lost would certain raise questions and, would in my mind, even put him in the dock. 'Difficult times beget difficult decisions' springs to mind here - but when they are wrong we need to say so and so I would more than likely see Him (and Harris) answering some interesting questions in a dock somewhere.

The problem with 'yes/no' questions is that it excludes the maybe and thus demands more expertise and supporting material that I have to hand - so not a fudge but an honest attempt (you should see my Baha Mousa lecture - always causes a stir).

Hope this is of some help

Now - got to go busy day at the NMA yesterday and today has soldiers leaving and padre's hours to be delivers (and new MATTS material to be finished off)

Thanks for the engagement - challenging and valuable (always good to test a padre)

Poor.

Maybe, possibly, perhaps. Living in different times/different standards, hard decisions.

Where's the principle? Where's the moral element? Killing is either wrong, in all cases, or it can be justified. In order to make it legal, the authority decides what is justified and in what circumstances.

Originally Posted by Taffd

Poor.

Maybe, possibly, perhaps. Living in different times/different standards, hard decisions.

Where's the principle? Where's the moral element? Killing is either wrong, in all cases, or it can be justified. In order to make it legal, the authority decides what is justified and in what circumstances.

This, again, comes down to personal interpretation - hence conscientious objectors. The authorities can decide a national stance, but (at least in the UK) you can choose whether you agree.