ISIS militants attack and take over Iraqi northern city of Mosul

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

WE know that ISIS uses fear as a force multiplier to control populations.

We know about the mass executions, and burning people alive, because ISIS produces high quality videos.

We know that ISIS promotes sex slavery, because of the girls that have escaped, and also because its one of their recruiting pillars. Come here and we'll give you the wife of your choosing.

We know that the treatment of woman under ISIS even the ones that willingly join isn't exactly Emily Post.

ISIS is the purest example of concentrated human evil, they are equivalent to the Nazi death sqauds and SS camp operators.

And they're doing this on purpose to create mass outrage because they want the apocalyptic battle with the West on the field on their choosing.

Its a very smart two fold strategy

1) use torture, executions, sanctioned murder, sex slavery, pedophilia and anything else to attract the worst humans that you can get to use as cannon fodder front line troops.

2) use torture, executions, sanctioned mass murder, sex slavery, pedophilia and anything else to raise the rage of the civilized world, so they have no choice but to put troops in theatre, have your apocalyptic battle, every one in ISIS ends up in Paradise.

The solution. Blockade the area, cut off all electricity and internet access and news access, arm the crap out of the two sides and let them slaughter each other. If someone wants to fly there to fight, let them go, but put them on a universal no travel order so they can't leave.

I would arm the Kurds to the hilt as well, everything, tanks, planes missiles, if we had any sense we would turn the Kurds into the single most powerful group in the region able to defend themselves against anyone including Iran and Saudi

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I would arm the Kurds to the hilt as well, everything, tanks, planes missiles, if we had any sense we would turn the Kurds into the single most powerful group in the region able to defend themselves against anyone including Iran and Saudi

I wonder how many citizens are left? If we could get them all out bring in the Nukes. That will take care of those rats quick.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

I wonder how many citizens are left? If we could get them all out bring in the Nukes. That will take care of those rats quick.

Coachroaches can survive an atomic blast, so would ISIS.

Even if you went through and exterminated, and there was one person left to rebuild it with a lap top and a rifle it would eventually rise again.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I should know better than to read Sun comments, but I can't believe some people blame Obama for ISIS in Iraq as if he had anything to do with toppling the previous regime. Those ISIS types were always around, but were suppressed by Saddam Hussein's relatively secular iron fist. It wasn't ideal, but many people warned Bush and Cheney what would happen, and they didn't listen.

The invasion and failure to build anything is on the previous administration and the Iraqis they put in power after the fact.

This one was my favourite:

maybe Obama and the UN can send them a sympathy card as that is about all they seem capable of doing and blaming climate change,I hardly think so ,It's more like the international community lack balls and determination,if these were their children and families being murdered and abused ISIS would now be history.

And that pile of illiterate dribble seriously got the most upvotes in the comments section. Never change, Sun readers, never change.

[Textcritic]

So, as usual, I am 10 days late to this discussion, and now run the risk of derailing the current trajectory, which is something that I hate doing. Nevertheless, I did want to get my bits in about CHL's and Street Pharmacist's exchange concerning literalism in Christianity.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is obviously wrong. Absolutely no sect of Christianity thinks the New Testament is the literal word of God. Christianity's basic tenet is that God came to Man through his son. Consequently, the Gospels may relate some of the teachings of Jesus, but they are written by men, and as a result the occasional contradictions among the gospels are somewhat explicable.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're wrong on two fronts. In the New Testament, it explains that the words written are God's breath:
"and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in …"

A couple of things:

First, CHL is too confidently dismissive of the notion that there are some Christian sects who endorse a literal interpretation of the whole Bible—including the New Testament. They are out there, and in many pockets within North America, extreme biblical literalists are actually the majority. He is basically correct about the central tenet of Christianity in the presented of Jesus, but does not seem to understand this within a much more complicated religious and cultural context. Christianity was originally a Jewish sect and as such found legitimation almost exclusively within their commitment to Jewish scriptures as THE written divine revelation. (Of course, what that means is another matter, and not a very simple one).

The idea that the New Testament writings were written by men is not an entirely benign concept. Constructed into it is the mystical status that was quite commonly attached to the practice of writing in antiquity (eg. the Sotah ritual in Num 5:13–31; also Egyptian execretion texts Mari A.2233 = ARM X, 9; also, PGM XIII—the Egyptian word for "script" or "writing" is literally mdw ntr: "words of the gods"), as well as the loaded concept of written revelation from God that was inherited from Judaism. This idea clearly extended far beyond merely viewing scripture as mere human productions. For example, the Jewish book of Jubilees (c. 200–150 B.C.E.) purports to have been recorded by Moses by dictation from an Angel who read from tablets that reside in heaven (Jub. superscription). The Temple Scroll is a rewritten version of the OT book of Deuteronomy with portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers dovetailed in. Its author clearly believed that his source material was a direct, spoken revelation by God, since he attributed the entire thing to him in first person dialogue.

Second, Street Pharamcist is wrong in his chosen translation and subsequent interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16, that "all scripture is breathed out by God" (πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος). The critical word here is θεόπνευστος, which literally read is "breathed out by God," or "God breathed," but because this is such an infrequently used compound word, there is still an ongoing debate about what it precisely means. While we cannot be sure what it was that the writer of 2 Timothy meant to communicate with it, I would venture to suggest that he almost certainly did not mean to suggest that "scripture" was actually "God's breath." Where it does appear in other Greek literature from around the same time period (cf. eg. Ps.-Phoc.129; Plu.2.904f; Vett.Val.330.19), context dictates that the word means something more like "inspire" in the sense that God has imparted truths or significant ideas which were then written down. Another problem with the text in question is what to do with the subject, "all scripture," (or "every scripture"?). I would maintain that the writer does not have a clear set of texts in view, and is thus providing license for interpretation of a whole range of unspecified cherished literature.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

accepting that the Old Testament is literally the worst religious text of any major religion ever, why is it that Jews and Christians don't follow these rules? Why can they touch the skin of a dead pig and eat shellfish? Because either intentionally or by happenstance, their religious texts contain enough tools to allow their adherents to, with some sense of consistency and intellectual honesty, discard the archaic teachings of that book. The holy texts of Islam seem to provide fewer tools of this sort (again I'm not a religious scholar so this is just my layperson's sense upon reading it) - for example, if the Qur'an is the literal word of God, and it says that Allah has cursed the Jews, and you should slay apostates wherever you find them, it becomes pretty tough for the scholar of Islam to say "no, we shouldn't follow those prescriptions".

I would say that CHL is correct here in how he has qualitatively distinguished the Muslim doctrine of literalism from the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration. One important point to note here is that within Islam it is only the Arabic text of the Quran that is the precise, divine word of God. Within Christendom, it is the meaning of the words themselves, and thus whatever they say in the translator's rendering, or in the interpreter's mind. This may seem like a fine distinction, but it does make a big difference in how Muslims and Christians (and also Jews) view and understand their scriptures.

[T@T]

The idea that the New Testament writings were written by men is not an entirely benign concept.

Who the hell else could have wrote it?. Jesus F'n Christ

Here's a concept, nothing personal but all you so called biblical scholars should just expose the BS that is religion...period, and maybe just maybe this planet will have a chance for my children's... children's.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by T@T

Who the hell else could have wrote it?. Jesus F'n Christ :roll eyes:

Leave it to T@T to completely fail to grasp what is going on here. What the hell are you talking about? The point I was making has absolutely NOTHING to do with who actually did or did not write the NT documents. What is important to the interpretation of the NT here is twofold: 1) who the interpreter thinks wrote the text, and 2) the significance of the act of writing itself. In other words, even though Christians believe that the Apostle Paul—a perfectly ordinary man—wrote several letters now contained in the NT, this does not mean that there are also not many who equate his activity with a form of divine dictation. This is still true today, but perhaps was even more pronounced in antiquity when the act of writing was believed by many people to be a sort of "supernatural" ability.

Originally Posted by T@T

Here's a concept, nothing personal but all you so called biblical scholars should just expose the BS that is religion...period, and maybe just maybe this planet will have a chance for my children's... children's.

Yeah, why would I take any of that personally?

I'm not even sure about what it is that you want here. What is "the BS that is religion," and how might we biblical scholars expose it?...

As usual, I suspect your response is bred from a total ignorance about the current study of religion that takes place in the academy in the modern world. Maybe educate yourself a bit about what it is that religious scholars do before spouting off about what you think they should be doing.

[Vulcan]

I commend Textcritic for having the patience to respond to T@T. His anger is too much for me.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I commend Textcritic for having the patience to respond to T@T. His anger is too much for me.

Change his user title to "Not Job"???

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Leave it to T@T to completely fail to grasp what is going on here.

Actually leave it to Textcritic to spew his BS to have people believe what he and his type writes is actually important, sorry pal but if it walks like a duck ..it's probably a duck.

If a person in the 21st century wants to believe in BS they are still a duck, If a person wants to report BS from the past they are still a duck... I think your a duck Text!

What you think is important doesn't make it fact, biblical BS is still BS no matter how it's spun..... Quack!

[Knut]

You are the Vegan Crossfitter type of Athiest. Annoying and lets everyone know.

There are many Agnostic and Atheist posters on this website that really appreciate the information Textcritic provides. I for one read every one of his posts.

[nik-]

I'm agnostic and I like Textcritic's posts too.

I find evangelical athiests just as annoying as the super religious. No one is impressed that you don't believe in god anymore, it's not something special or edgy.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Hesla

There are many Agnostic and Atheist posters on this website that really appreciate the information Textcritic provides. I for one read every one of his posts.

I'm not one of them(maybe the only one)..but enjoy!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by T@T

Actually leave it to Textcritic to spew his BS to have people believe what he and his type writes is actually important, sorry pal but if it walks like a duck ..it's probably a duck.

Important? No. Interesting? Hopefully. Does anyone here really think that the stuff they post on a public internet message board is important? I sincerely hope not. It's a message board, for god's sake! How narcissistic do you have to be to think that anything posted here actually means something in the grand scheme of things?

Originally Posted by T@T

If a person in the 21st century wants to believe in BS they are still a duck, If a person wants to report BS from the past they are still a duck... I think your a duck Text!

And I think you are ignorant. I don't say that casually. I really think you might be the most insufferably obtuse, ignorant person with whom I have ever conversed, and I'm an evangelical. Think about that for a minute: Think about how many wilfully blind and benighted apocalypticists and true believers that I have encountered—even suffered relationships with—in my upbringing and my work place. You are worse than all of them.

I'm continuously astonished about why anyone would be so enthusiastic about their lack of knowledge about history. I love learning about everything, and I am completely flummoxed in the face of someone who not only is not interested to learn, but unabashedly and scornfully wields his own ignorance in the face of everyone like a badge of honour.

"Look at me! I'm an idiot with my fingers in my ears and my head in the sand!"

Originally Posted by T@T

What you think is important doesn't make it fact, biblical BS is still BS no matter how it's spun..... Quack!

Do I ever "spin"? I suppose all of us do, but I don't think my own readings on these topics are altogether especially unreasonable or inaccurate. But again, I am perplexed about why you hate history so much. Most critically trained biblical scholars—like critically trained cultural and religious historians generally—are doing their best to distinguish the facts from the BS in the religious texts that they read, and the archaeological finds that they uncover. Most of us are interested primarily in understanding things that are frequently difficult to understand across such a wide social and historical chasm.

As a case in point, I can simply illustrate from the above post that you find so aggravating:
Is it BS that the act of writing is a form of superstitious magic? Yes.
Is it BS that huge numbers of people in antiquity believed that the act of writing was a form of superstitious magic? No.

That information in hand helps us to understand.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by T@T

Actually leave it to Textcritic to spew his BS to have people believe what he and his type writes is actually important, sorry pal but if it walks like a duck ..it's probably a duck.

Personally, I found textcritic's post (and have found others of his posts) completely fair, intellectually honest and also very enlightening. He has obviously spent more time thinking about this stuff than I have and is therefore an excellent resource on this topic, and is also ostensibly aware of his own biases to the extent they exist.

Again, saying any literary criticism is "important" may be pushing it a bit when thought about in a broader perspective, but it's culturally important and in this case historically important, and in the case of Islam particularly right now, politically extremely important. The point is still that all it needs to be is interesting (and it is) but I also disagree with both you and him in that I do think you are minimizing the importance of this topic at the moment.

This is one of those instances where you're substantively on the right side of an argument (in the sense that it's hard to lose an argument as a secularist against religion), but manage to lose anyway.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm continuously astonished about why anyone would be so enthusiastic about their lack of knowledge about history.




Do I ever "spin"? I suppose all of us do, but I don't think my own readings on these topics are altogether especially unreasonable or inaccurate. But again, I am perplexed about why you hate history so much..

Twice in one bloated response you bring up history. I actually love history.

World wars, inventions, politics..etc are history, the bible is not history unless you put it with all the other fairy tales and call fiction books history. The only part of history the bible should be known for is the countless deaths it caused over the years.

[Vulcan]

Even if you completely discount the Bible as history, which in a lot of cases I'd agree and you of course discount it and all such books as religious nonsense, there is still a place to look at the Bible as a cultural resource. Like it or not a lot of our laws and societal norms come from the Bible and other religious texts. What I found interesting in school was to know what Shakespeare was talking about often required knowledge of the Bible. It's part of our lives whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by T@T

Twice in one bloated response you bring up history. I actually love history.

World wars, inventions, politics..etc are history, the bible is not history unless you put it with all the other fairy tales and call fiction books history. The only part of history the bible should be known for is the countless deaths it caused over the years.

WRONG. History is the re-presentation of past events according to the collective memory of a given community, institution or society. In accordance with that definition history includes but also extends much further beyond isolated events like wars and "interventions," and beyond targeted systemic activities like those that constitute politics. Because religion is a human phenomenon, and because religion and religious texts have had such a profound and wide-ranging impact on social development, whether you like it or not, ALL religious texts, are a part of historical discourse, and many of them—like the Bible—are indispensable resources.

The importance of religious texts is even more pronounced the further back you wish to engage with history, necessarily because the divisions in the fabric of society between "religion," "culture," and "politics" are nearly impossible to see. Within Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman society, "political literature" is ALWAYS ensconced in religion. And for certain cultures, this is still the case even today. You yourself acknowledged that the current discussion in this thread concerns a religiously motivated conflict that is wrought on by a group who does NOT readily draw sharp distinctions between "religion" and politics. How can we hope to understand what is going on in the Middle East right now without engaging with their own set of ideals and beliefs, which are virulently religious?

So then, what of the Bible? Yes, it is inflated by myths and fictions, but this is in part because most of this literature pre-dates anything that even closely resembles modern historical method. It is still one of the most important historical documents pertaining to the emergence of Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Roman societies. It would certainly be great to have better resources, but we don't. It's what we have to work with.

[Wastedyouth]

Wasn't there a religion thread where this re-hashed argument could go into?

[Wastedyouth]

Nm. This was dumb.