Exactly. People are upset because they didn’t say thank you? Of course, if they don’t maintain niceties, then clearly they’re only one step away from terrorists themselves, those peace-loving bastards!
I agree strict pacifism is a foolish idealogy. To condemn these people who are doing the best they can (in their eyes), and risking their lives in order to do so, because they didn’t say *thank you * in their statement (because we don’t know what they might have said to the actual troops when rescued) is equally foolish.
Right – like I said, it says that in some places, and the Lord blah blah in others. I’ve never known what to make of it. So I don’t bother myself with it, most of the time.
Tom Fox went to our meeting (Langley). He was a good, principled man. He went over there in good faith and did good work, as have many Friends before him. That the people who killed him did not recognize this tells me that they don’t care at all about religion, other than to use it as an excuse for their militant hatred. Duh, I know. It’s a pity, but I don’t think people should go over there to try to help anymore, for it appears to be lost on those animals. They’re too stupid to know a good man when they meet him, they’re too stupid to help themselves. Let them rot.
Of course it is true that the actions of our military members ought not be made conditional upon the thanks they get afterward. Nobody is suggesting that, so I suspect that you’re building a bit of a strawman here.
All that has been said is that not acknowleging and thanking the soldiers that rescued you isn’t terribly nice. The group in question apparantly agrees, since they did come out with some thanks afterward.
The more info is that British troops were also involved? Ok. That doesn’t change my position.
Yes, of course, because all Iraqis are obviously the same! Why didn’t I see this before! Well, if we’re judging an entire group by the actions of a few of their members, I condemn the U.S. troops for all being murdering, raping bastards, who torture their way through Iraq for fun. Or, you know, I don’t, because I recognise that that only happens in a minority of cases, and that you’re an idiot.
This thread is very revealing. How dare those Christians love their enemies and try to work for peace? Christianity isn’t about peace and love, it’s about hating fags and killing Arabs. Thanks for confirming my suspicions, people.
Keep in mind that Quakers have a religiously-based objection to the military. It doesn’t surprise me that it’d take them a bit of time to wrap their heads around the idea that they owed gratitude to the military. If a John Bircher got saved from a mugging by a prominent Communist, there might be a similar delay.
I think that’s unlikely. The introduction of errors when translating a bible is almost always deliberate. Given that, you have to look at it from a standpoint of which version comes out making the Lord look worse. Errors which make God (or Jesus) come off looking worse just aren’t likely to happen. Its far more logical to believe that deliberate mistranslations are made to enhance the attributes of the deity. There’s an excellent article on the deliberate distortions made in the various biblical translations by Hector Avalos in the current issue of Free Inquiry. That particular article isn’t, however, available on line yet.
If the NRSV has a bad translation of Pharoah’s intentions, as you seem to be claiming, it is notable that versions as widely different as the KJV and the New Living Translation (which is very widely claimed to contain many inaccurate dan flattering errors) say significantly equivalent things about God making Pharoah so stubborn. As do many others. I think it therefore, fairly reasonble to believe God was responsible. You can directly compare many editions/translations/versions of the bible here: www.biblegateway.com
First of all, the objection to war by Quakers is a bit more complex than absolute pacifism in most cases. I believe it is dependent on the personal beliefs of the person involved. It is a fact that many Quakers have served honorably in the armed forces, including Richard Nixon and Marine Major General and Medal of Honor awardee Smedley Butler.
Describing Quakers as across-the-board pacifists dismisses the considerable effort most Quakers devote toward devoloping their own moral code and their beliefs about what constitutes a just society.
Secondly, even absolute pacifism would not deny that soldiers often do good works, like in this case. It would simply say that those good works do not justify the military or a war. Most pacifists would have come to terms with this in their examination of their beliefs, and so should be expected to show gratitude where it is due, even when it is due to a soldier.
Again, a moot point here, as they did show their gratitude. I’m simply saying wondering why they didn’t at the outset wasn’t out of line.
That’s not true. Exodus 7:3 definitely renders “I” (God) as the subject of the verb (“I will harden” is all one word) both in the Hebrew and in the Greek LXX. There is no “against the lord” contained in the verse at all. “I” is doing the hardening and “I” is the lord.
Here’s a breakdown of the Hebrew and below that you can see the Greek rendering which contains the construction Ego skleruno (“I make hard”).
Here is Young’s Literal Translation:
And I harden the heart of Pharaoh, and have multiplied My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.
And what evidence do we have that they didn’t? The initial press release? That’s NOT the “outset”. I strongly suspect that the actual hostages did thank the actual soldiers who rescued them, in person, at the scene. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Don’t be dense. What was being pitted, and what people were wondering about, was the initial response from the organization. And that organization chose to issue an addendum to it after realizing the public response.
Bullshit. An idiot and an asshole might preach such a thing. A pacifist would not. A strict pacifist might place his or herself in between the flogger and the victim, or perhaps attempt to physically restrain the abuser. A less-strict pacifist may believe that force is justified in particular cases of personal defense, and may use it if necessary (though the latter two options should be tried first). That quote and arguments like it are vicious and false straw man arguments. Disagree with pacifism if you like, but do it honestly.