Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Roy]

Murkier and murkier.

[carpedm9587]

Murkier and murkier.

In general, I don't have a problem with the idea of trying to expose people who say one thing behind the scenes, and another to the public. I read this article this morning, and it reflects well on the Post that their process was substantiated. Of course, the fact that the Post is reporting something that makes itself look good raises questions about impartiality.

I have tried, in the past, to find places where Project Veritas has targetted people and groups on the right to expose them. I have not been able to find any. If it is the case that Project Veritas only targets the left, then I would suggest their partisan nature beliefs their name. If they only target the left, they are not interested in truth generally, they are interested in exposing deception that will take down their ideological counterparts and protect (or at least not exppose) their ideological allies.

Truth is truth - it isn't partisan.

(if anyone DOES have an example of Project Varitas going after the right equally to the left, I would like to see it, please).

[Darth Executor]

The Bible and the Koran both have a history of being made to say whatever people want them to say.

So is Darwin. Arguably, Darwin gives more license for slaughter than the Bible, and even the Koran.

And just as the Koran is read by some as a command to subdue and convert non Muslim nations so has the Bible.

That's how it's read by all. The muslims who deny this lie outright. You'd know that if you actually knew anything about Islam, but given that you're grossly ignorant about the Bible, which is relevant to your own culture, the odds that you know anything about the religious texts of another culture are practically 0.

E.g. Pope Nicolas V instructed European Christian nations to "invade, capture, vanquish" and "subdue" indigenous peoples and "subjugate" them.

And if Pope Nicolas V was the founder of Christianity maybe you'd have an appropriate analogy.

The Christian Church endorsed slavery, racism & subordination of women...and justified it all with biblical texts.

Seem to be getting way off topic.

[Sparko]

The Christian bible is full of equally violent passages:

Kill Followers of Other Religions: 1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

They are not interpreted calls to violent action by most Christians today just as the more violent passages in the Koran are not interpreted this way by moderate Muslims.

That is pretty much what God told the Jews to do. Maybe you should go on the offense against Jews and denounce them as a hate group? You could call yourself a Neo-Atheists Against Zionist Infidels, or NAZI for short. I bet it would be really popular and you could get lots of followers.

[seer]

(if anyone DOES have an example of Project Varitas going after the right equally to the left, I would like to see it, please).

That is the job of the main stream media...

[carpedm9587]

That is the job of the main stream media...

[JimL]

That is pretty much what God told the Jews to do. Maybe you should go on the offense against Jews and denounce them as a hate group? You could call yourself a Neo-Atheists Against Zionist Infidels, or NAZI for short. I bet it would be really popular and you could get lots of followers.

Same god according to christians, Sparko.

[Sparko]

Same god according to christians, Sparko.

Yeah but he gave Christians different rules to follow. The stuff about going around killing pagans was specific to the Hebrews. His intention was to keep them pure and not be corrupted by the false religions around them. Of course they disobeyed anyway. But with Christianity, the goal is to spread out and convert the other people to our religion, not to stay separate from them. And to do it nonviolently.

So if you have a problem with God telling the Jews to kill the infidels (pagans) then take it up with them, you racist nazi.

[Mountain Man]

Murkier and murkier.

Curious how they didn't seem to be nearly as diligent when investigating Corfman's claims which have a number of their own inconsistencies, such as the fact that everything she claimed had to have transpired over a mere 12-day period (including the day she supposedly met Moore), or claiming she had behavioral problems after her experience when court records show that her behavioral problems were the whole reason she was in court that day in the first place, and that in the months that followed, court records say that her behavior "improved greatly". Or the little matter that it was impossible for Moore to have called her on the phone in her bedroom for the simple reason that she didn't have a phone in her bedroom.

But never mind all that. Let's watch WaPo pat itself on the back for rooting out a sloppy undercover operation.

[JimL]

Yeah but he gave Christians different rules to follow. The stuff about going around killing pagans was specific to the Hebrews. His intention was to keep them pure and not be corrupted by the false religions around them. Of course they disobeyed anyway. But with Christianity, the goal is to spread out and convert the other people to our religion, not to stay separate from them. And to do it nonviolently.

No, he gave earlier Jews different rules than he gave latter Jews. What happened, did god screw up the first time, or did the new Christians just realize how ungodly the god of the OT was?

So if you have a problem with God telling the Jews to kill the infidels (pagans) then take it up with them, you racist nazi.

I think you meant to say, "take it up with god, and I would, but he doesn't exist, so....

[Sparko]

No, he gave earlier Jews different rules than he gave latter Jews. What happened, did god screw up the first time, or did the new Christians just realize how ungodly the god of the OT was?

I think you meant to say, "take it up with god, and I would, but he doesn't exist, so....

I told you what happened. Read the bible. It is all laid out there pretty clearly, Mr. Hitler.

[One Bad Pig]

You want me to demonstrate it was 'most' rather than 'some' of Christendom that applauded the retaking of Jerusalem?

As a bare minimum, yes - though your assertions go rather beyond that.

Tricky.

Well, yes. It's not as if we have an abundance of information on how the hoi polloi thought.

There's an article here that discusses various reasons why the populace supported the crusades, including familial expectation, release from peasantry, duty to nobility (enforced or otherwise), material gain, religious fervour and church-sanctified channelling of violence. Will this do?

It's helpful, at any rate:

Source: article

Indeed, given that the notion of a Crusade went against core Christian values, one must appreciate that other motivations were at play in the psychology of crusaders, aside from religious belief, when attempting to qualify the Crusade as a legitimate and worthwhile expedition.

© Copyright Original Source

A significant impetus for the Pope's proclaiming of the Crusade seems to have been an attempt to channel inherent societal violence towards others rather than each other.

[JimL]

I told you what happened. Read the bible. It is all laid out there pretty clearly, Mr. Hitler.

Already read it Sparko, I know all about the evil portrayal of YAHWEY the war god of the Israelites. Jews at the time of Jesus recognized that evil and decided to change gods.

[Sparko]

Already read it Sparko, I know all about the evil portrayal of YAHWEY the war god of the Israelites.

You apparently need to read it again. I think you have it confused with the Lord of the Rings.

[Terraceth]

The Bible and the Koran both have a history of being made to say whatever people want them to say. And just as the Koran is read by some as a command to subdue and convert non Muslim nations so has the Bible. E.g. Pope Nicolas V instructed European Christian nations to "invade, capture, vanquish" and "subdue" indigenous peoples and "subjugate" them.

Ignoring the fact that, as was pointed out previously, Pope Nicholas V was not the founder of Christianity and Mohammed was the founder of Islam, that is not what actually happened. He did not instruct anyone to do so; the rulers of Portual and Spain wanted support for attacking the Ottoman Empire and thus Pope Nicholas V gave them permission. He didn't instruct them to do it, he allowed them to. That's in the explicit text of the thing, granting "full and free permission."

Even if someone wants to claim that's semantics, the whole context was that the Ottoman Empire was a danger (indeed, it took over Constantinople later that year) and this was an authorization of attacks on an enemy nation that was an active threat. It wasn't about being imperialistic, unless the countries that attacked Germany during World War II were being imperialistic. Unfortunately, the vague language of parts of the proclamation caused some to later interpret it more broadly than it was likely intended.

You want me to demonstrate it was 'most' rather than 'some' of Christendom that applauded the retaking of Jerusalem?

Tricky.

There's an article here that discusses various reasons why the populace supported the crusades, including familial expectation, release from peasantry, duty to nobility (enforced or otherwise), material gain, religious fervour and church-sanctified channelling of violence. Will this do?

This is a statement of support of the idea of the crusades, but not necessarily some of the things done in it. It is worth remembering that, for as terrible as some actions during the crusades were, the general purpose was to try to repel Muslim attackers and to potentially take back lands that had been conquered by them; the cause itself was not unreasonable. How well known to the general public were the less savory aspects of the crusades?