A Most Unsettling Trend: Christians Rejoicing in ISIS

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

fundies deserve death. they believe in control not salvation. never believe a fundamentalist. rebuke and reject their beliefs and teaching at every turn. you won't be better off accepting them or worse off for ignoring them.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xtrozero

Were you sleeping during the "Shock and Awe" of the "Liberation" of the Iraqi people, that God told George Bush to do?

I was "Shocking and Aweing" where were you. Old George was pissed off that Saddam tried to off his father...not much religion involved.

Well, that's not what he says, nor how history will remember it.

Again: George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

originally posted by: undo

oddly enough, there's evidence in revelation that is only understandable if you read sumerian texts.

Which information from Revelations are you corroborating with Sumerian text and precisely which Sumerian Text are you referring to?

since sumer was buried under 8 ft of flood silt from the black sea flood

Do you have a citation for that? It seems somewhat contrary to what I know about Sumeria and the geological events that created the Black Sea as we know it today. There certainly are several layers of flood related silt throughout the main centers of what is today referred to as Sumeria but all are from the Tigris and Euphrates and given the geological barriers as well as the chronological issues I'm just not seeing the likelihood of this being an accurate statement.

The Black Sea is rather well constrained by the Pontic Mountains along the South and the Caucuses to its East creating a pretty impressive barrier to Sumeria. The Euphrates source is the Murat river in Turkey IIRC and that also doesn't end up near the Black Sea so I'm not seeing how any massive flood deluge would travel the hundreds of miles from Northern Turkey into Central and Southern present day Iraq, especially one that would leave 8 ft of silt. The damage to the entire region would be beyond catastrophic and present itself geologically in more than a deep silt bed.

the texts were not available for something like 5000 years.

Continued and expanded upon from the thought I began above-

Lets get a bit into the chronology here. Sumerian Cuneiform as a protolanguage didn't exist until the late 4th millennium. for hundreds of years it did undergo many alterations but was still essentially used for financial records, tax purposes, bills of sale and one of the most important that still holds up today...the writing of laws as larger areas fell under control of people like Hammurabi and the need arose for systematic laws that would apply to everyone living under his rule. The style of writing didn't go beyond record keeping though until I believe the mid 3rd millennium, around 25-2600 BPE. The Epic of Gilgamesh for example,wasn't written down until ~2100 BPE. Between the committing of Gilgamesh to baked clay and the excellent work of people like Kramer in the early 20th century who busted balls translating as many Sumerian texts as any human possibly could is only about 4000 years. Add in the fact that the most recent geological data for the Black Sea taking its present form pushing the date back to the mid 8thMillennium BPE which is roughly 2000 years earlier than initial estimates of ~ 5400 BPE so I hope you can understand my confusion as to when precisely you personally believe all of this actually occurred. Both the geography and the time frame simply fail to work together to corroborate your thesis, unless I'm missing something or misunderstood your implication... if that is the case, I'm always eager and happy to be wrong if it means I'm learning something new so please, correct away!

a reply to: peter vlar

not just revelation but also genesis


The lord of the abyss, the king Enki,
Enki the Lord who decrees the fates,
Built his house of silver and lapis lazuli;
Its silver and lapis lazuli, like sparkling light,
The father fashioned fittingly in the abyss.

(...)

"Then Enki raises the city of Eridu from the abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain. "

Source: Kramer, Samuel Noah (1988) Sumerian Mythology, University of Pennsylvania Press, West Port, Connecticut.

---

that passage is the same thing as this



and this

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

so there you have the ruach of elohim moving upon the face of the deep, which is synonymous with enki raising the e.abzu up from the abyss (the deep is the abyss) and " floating it over the water like a lofty mountain" or atum rising from the chaotic waters of the abyss, which is the same thing as the earth being without form (chaos) and void with darkness on the deep (abyss).

these are all the same story. i already described my theory on the connection between sumerian abzu and revelation 9's abyss. just look back a few posts and you'll find it.

a reply to: windword

Were you sleeping during the "Shock and Awe" of the "Liberation" of the Iraqi people, that God told George Bush to do?

This is tangential, not to your post, but to the thread. Sam said this in regards to Bush and of course Christians who claim to be in communion with god.

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.”
― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

originally posted by: windword
Again: George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

I can tell you that American troops had a bigger association with the movie Team America than the bible. There is a big difference between "end the tyranny in Iraq" compared to end Islam, or destroy the Jews, or as we see right now destroy everything and anyone in the most grotesque way that is not of a certain religious sect...

a reply to: Xtrozero
There is a monumental difference between troops and the leaders when you take into account the chain of command.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.”
― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Was he talking to his hairdryer? We all have motivators based on some kind of morals, right? You have morals as an atheist right? Where you born with them or taught? There is something in your life that has helped you differentiate between right and wrong. I don't care if it is the bible or Kant they are fundamental morals.

Saddam and his sons were evil SOBs, end of story there. The question is whether Iraq is better off or not without some evil SOB in total control.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Was he talking to his hairdryer?

I never insinuated he did...

Sam's quote suggests it wouldn't really matter either way.

Yes we all have morals. We can all be moral good people. Religious or not.

Windword's point was that at the very least Bush's motivation was connected to his religion. Evidence points to that.

Your points about Iraq, or the world, being better off without Saddam is even more tangential than my quote.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
There is a monumental difference between troops and the leaders when you take into account the chain of command.

Really? And you are an expert in that? I have about 30 plus years in that realm, so I kind of disagree... Removing Saddam was not a bad thing, The end result as to whether the Iraq people can handle liberty or not is a question that so far is suggesting they can not. The bottom line was that we did not attack Iraq because we were Christians looking to kill some Muslims. The truth of it all is once Saddam was removed it allowed the Muslims to kill each other and boy did they at about 100 to 1 ratio to anything we did. Our war lasted about a month and then we spent a decade trying to remove ourselves from that hell hole of a country.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Windword's point was that at the very least Bush's motivation was connected to his religion. Evidence points to that.

So what you are suggesting, or Windword is suggesting is if Bush though his religious convictions saw Saddam as an evil of the Iraqi people that made it a holy war no matter what.... Boy that is some real simple mined thinking there...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Really? And you are an expert in that? I have about 30 plus years in that realm, so I kind of disagree... Removing Saddam was not a bad thing

Wow. Quite the non-sequitur there. The removal of Saddam has nothing to do with my point about the chain of command and how it relates to what Windword said.

Also nice appeal to authority.

The bottom line was that we did not attack Iraq because we were Christians looking to kill some Muslims.

Yet evidence shows the military commander claimed to be in direct communion with god and going there with troops was a mission from god. It was ultimately a co-factor.

made it a holy war no matter what

My actual words were "connected" not "no matter what"

Thats just silly. I would've thought that if the actions/atrocities of any person or group could incite the big boss to hit the big red button, it would've been Hitler and his Nazi's! There have been millions of unthinkable crimes perpetrated over the years, why would this one be the armeggeddon trigger??
I believe in God, but I don't think anything we do can speed up or slow down its plans... Whatever they might be... Anyway who in their right mind wants armeggeddon, with its fires of wrath and doom?? Even if you as a "Christian" make the grade and get beamed up, it still means suffering for billions of others!! That's cold.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Wow. Quite the non-sequitur there. The removal of Saddam has nothing to do with my point about the chain of command and how it relates to what Windword said.

You missed my point in whether it is the bible or Kant we all have moral influences. I bow to your logic that the vast majority of the planet has their morals set by religion, but that doesn't make it a holy war, does it?

My actual words were "connected" not "no matter what"

It seems you suggest that all actions are connect to religion if the person has faith of some kind. There is no point in that though....

One thing that kind of drives me crazy is most Atheist like to use a rather broad brush to suggest all actions are religious based just because a person is religious. The truth is very little is religious based even when religion is used as the motivator, but in Iraq and Afghan war there wasn't even a religious motivator involved. Now if you want to suggest revenge, political positioning, greed, America's war industry etc...I can go with that.

If you want to see pure religious motivators look at isis....Look at The Middle East wanting to wipe Israel off the map to get their most sacred artifacts back in their hands, and wipe out an old religious enemy in the process.



Edit to add...

There is a monumental difference between troops and the leaders when you take into account the chain of command.

You are the one to make this statement and I asked your experience in making such a claim. Based on my experience I disagreed... This is not a suggestion or an implied belief, this is a statement of fact by you. So for you to suggest that I fall into a "appeal to authority" fallacy, I'm trying to determine if you have any background in making this statement, or you just pull it out of your butt to try and make a point.... .

a reply to: Xtrozero

You missed my point in whether it is the bible or Kant we all have moral influences.

I did not. I addressed that. Read my posts again. I fully acknowledge our plethora of moral influences. That awareness does not in any way negate that religion was a co-factor in Bush's motive. It is historical. He said it. Not me, not Windword, and not you. Bush did. Quite clear. I find it funny how the religious are totally fine when their brethren claim actions in the name of god when they agree with it, and dismiss it when they do not!

but that doesn't make it a holy war, does it?

I clearly said religion was a co-factor. If you don't know what that means then that's on you and not me.

It seems you suggest that all actions are connect to religion

Seems that way to you but that's because you're not actually digesting the actual words I am using, but instead reacting emotionally.

One thing that kind of drives me crazy is most Atheist like to use a rather broad brush to suggest all actions are religious based

I hope you see the irony there. You just painted atheists with a broad brush by suggesting most think that! lol

I truly feel I was clear in that I was personally suggesting it was a co-factor. Meaning to say that there are a multitude of other factors that are not religiously affiliated.

You are the one to make this statement and I asked your experience in making such a claim. Based on my experience I disagreed.

Alright fair enough. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with though. That there is a chain of command?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Alright fair enough. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with though. That there is a chain of command?

What I took from your post is the chain of command, in this case the Commander in Chief, made it a holy war.

Your suggestion to "co-factor" I have no clue where you are going with that at all... I did say that it is reasonable to suggest that religion is a co-factor with anyone with faith since that is basically where their morals are based on... but once again not sure your point.

I could say that Harvard is a co-factor with anyone that went to Harvard too and be about as correct are you are, but once again it really doesn't get to any point in the matter.

BTW I'm not religious...

a reply to: Xtrozero

My point should have been clear. I was not suggesting it was a 'holy war', but for you to suggest religion isn't a co-factor in the military commander's decision is disingenuous to history.

BTW I'm not religious...

If I alluded to that then I am sorry for being presumptuous.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Saddam and his sons were evil SOBs, end of story there.

No, it isn't the end of the story. There are lots of evil SOB's, and IMO GWB was one of them - most of his cabinet were evil SOB's too.

Why only pick on the Iraqi SOB?

Of course if you have a religious faith in GWB then I accept that is a complete answer to my question.

The question is whether Iraq is better off or not without some evil SOB in total control.

Wrong again - there are still evil SOB's in control over there.

The question is really whether your SOB had any right - moral, legal or otherwise - to off their SOB.

Another question might be did it do anyone except Halliburton/Xe any actual good?

Your question is completely pointless.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Windword's point was that at the very least Bush's motivation was connected to his religion. Evidence points to that.

So what you are suggesting, or Windword is suggesting is if Bush though his religious convictions saw Saddam as an evil of the Iraqi people that made it a holy war no matter what.... Boy that is some real simple mined thinking there...

Bush flat-out called it a crusade.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

I find it reprehensible in letting things get progressively worse because you think some divine savior will save you. Meanwhile, your inactions contribute to society's overall degregation. If Armageddon wishers focused their energy towards IMPROVING the planet instead of looking for signs of prophecy, things maybe could get better. The bible already says that no one, not even angels, will know when the end times are, so what's the point of wasting energy looking?

Oh, please!

Just living a good life is sufficient to work toward a better world. If enough of us did it, then the world would be a better place.

No it isn't. Living a good life allows you to be ignorant of any wrong doings your actions may be causing to someone. Do you worry about the people who are suffering to bring you your wedding ring? How about the people trying to drink the water of a reservoir that a company that you buy products from dumps their waste into? Does your good life help kids in China working in sweat shops get better working conditions or make it so they don't have to work at all? The "good life" myth allows you to be complicit in all of these things without knowing about them.

Making a better world requires ACTION. Nothing gets done if you leave it up to the other guy.

If you think the world is getting worse, then there must be too many people who figure it's not worth the better of living a good life. Isn't that what you athiests say - I'm a good person? Well if you are all as good as you claim, the you would be working toward a better world too, like most of us are, and we would be seeing results, surely.

I don't think the world is getting worse. I think the world is the same as its ever been. Humans act the same as they ever have. I think that society has come a long way and is MUCH more tolerant than before, but that takes away from cultures that existed prior to European dominance of the world. Social tolerance isn't a new thing either, humans have to work to maintain it though.

As a parent, I have a vested interest in leaving things better than I found them. What about you?

Then why do you care about the end times? Your own bible says that you won't know when it happens, therefore you should be able to dismiss any signs as invalid until you actually SEE Jesus standing before you. Instead you can take that energy and try to actually put your money were your mouth and TRULY make the world better than you found it.