SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Related to the earlier discussion about where ISIS gets its weapons, I wanted to share this great in-depth article from The Atlantic about the motivations of ISIS. Then In order to provide a more nuanced view of ISIS, here is criticism of that Atlantic article from thinkprogress.org.
From the Atlantic:
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.
We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.
The thinkprogress.org criticism by one of the primary sources cited in the Atlantic article:
One of the oft-mentioned criticisms of The Atlantic piece is that it echoed the inaccurate belief that since ISIS’s theology draws upon Islamic texts to justify its horrendous practices, it is an inevitable product of Islam. Haykel didn’t say whether or not he thought Wood’s article says as much, but when ThinkProgress asked him directly whether Islamic texts and theology necessitate the creation of groups like ISIS, he was unequivocal.
“No,” he said. “I think that ISIS is a product of very contingent, contextual, historical factors. There is nothing predetermined in Islam that would lead to ISIS.”
He was similarly unambiguous when responding to the related critique that Muslims who disavow ISIS are somehow deluded or not “real” Muslims.
“I consider people … who have criticized ISIS to be fully within the Islamic tradition, and in no way ‘less Muslim’ than ISIS,” he said. “I mean, that’s absurd.”
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:26PM
Okay, bear with me on this, it seems you need a little schooling yourself. Firstly, you made a rookie mistake - relying on a single translation of the Bible and building a case around the specific nuances of language from it. Note my use of multiple sources of Qu'ran translation? Here's why - in 37 different translations of Exodus 20:13 [biblestudytools.com], the specific word used breaks down like this: Murder = 22 times, Kill = 14 times, Put to death = once. The idea that you can ascertain the true meaning of a phrase written 3600 years ago from one translators opinion is just plain sloppy. While consensus of opinion appears to favour the word murder, your assertion that it's "the proper translation" is... terrible.
But that's not a shock. The standard to which modern western churches actually teach their congregations to study the Bible is appalling. The pattern generally goes something like this: a church adopts a particular version of the Bible. The folks doing the preaching generally haven't had any formal education in the study of theology. They write their sermons and Bible studies learning heavily on interpretations based on wording of the Bible that has both aged since the original translation and had no consensus of accuracy in the first place. The congregation listens to it, assumes the person in the pulpit is authoritative and believes everything they hear. They then read their Bibles themselves in exactly the same way. It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind.
If you yourself are a church-going person, try this - buy a multi-translation study Bible and use it as your reference next time you're listening to the sermon. (I am assuming the church you attend does at least tell you book, chapter and verse when they're quoting from the Bible here) While the sermon is being preached, check any interpretations of specific wordings against all the translations you have available (bookmark the site above, it's handy if you get signal in the pews) and see if you still wholeheartedly support what's being said. Oh, and leave out the condescension in your comments, it makes you look like an idiot when it's obvious to folks better informed than you that you don't know what you're talking about - I'm not saying that's your fault all the time, take it as constructive criticism.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 01 2015, @01:14AM
LOL @ condescension. I'm not the one who cited a faulty translation of the 6th commandment. The rest of your post is not bad advice at all. See, I grew up hearing "thou shalt not kill". Virtually all Christians do grow up with that commandment. And, as with anything, that near "consensus" doesn't make it right - it only means that most people have it wrong.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday May 01 2015, @08:15AM
Haha, you're the one who wanted to split hairs about a single word when it was the optional addendum that was in contention, but hey ;)
And yeah, the intellectual state of the Christian church in the west is hideously depressing. Almost no-one in the popular establishment can even treat their own religious text with the respect it deserves. That's why I don't go anymore - I'm not showing my support for an organisation that broken. At least in the UK we don't get the political vitriol from the pulpit that's virtually expected in middle-class church services in the US.