Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Tassman]

No denying it was brutal, but none of this contradicts that the Inquisition was concerned with those that they regarded as Christian heretics not adherents of other religions.

That was its ostensible reason...in practice it did whatever was necessary to consolidate the power of the state. But my main point was against your argument that Islam is inherently a violent religion. Its 900 years of enlightened rule in Spain contradicts that as does the whole golden age of Islam from the seventh to thirteenth centuries.

Funny how the places where Indonesian Islamic violence takes place happens to be in the few areas with sizable populations of other religions. Bali which as you noted has a primarily Hindu population and the Maluku Islands (Moluccas or "Spice Islands") where a concerted effort took place to drive Christians out. It's almost like the Muslims in Indonesia aren't very tolerant of people who aren't Muslim.

Hand Maiden's Tale is the result of you getting your information from conspiracy theory wacky woo peddlers like www.politicalresearch.org

ahem, Roy Moore, himself has been a rallying figure for dominionists of all stripes for the better part of two decades.

[One Bad Pig]

Muslim societies usually are, as long as the dhimmis pay their taxes and keep their heads down. On the other hand, when the society gets stressed, or the Muslims get jealous of their more affluent (in spite of the extra taxes) dhimmi neighbors, you'll get things like the Armenian genocide, alongside which the Inquisition pales to insignificance.

[Sparko]

Yeah, most are probably normal, good, though naive people, who are easily conned, but there is a certain percentage of his supporters that, like Trump himself, are just deplorable human beings. You see thats what they do, they rile you all up about side issues, (you notice you don't hear about the bathroom issue anymore) while they screw you over on economic issues. Did you notice that Trump is said to be going to personally be a Billion dollars richer with the new republican tax bill, while he's out there telling all the sheep that he and all his wealthy friends are going to lose bigly. Lol.

When will you libs learn that businesses making more profits means more jobs and money for you and me who have to work at those companies? Where do you think the money that we earn in our paychecks comes from? The government? (well maybe for you). It comes from the money earned by businesses. Here in America, we want businesses to make more money. It is called capitalism and it is what keeps you able to live in relative luxury compared to places like Cuba, Russia and Africa.

[Sparko]

If you can't see what a crook Trump is, and you obviously can't, then your credibility concerning Clintons character is not worthy of anyones consideration.


Nope, I didn't hear it from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones or any of those paid liars Lilpix. And unless you yourself are rich, then you aren't going to keep any more of your money worth talking about Lilpix, this tax bill is structured for the rich, not the middle class or the poor.

Yeah but you told us that you are independently wealthy so you are one of those rich people that will benefit from this, right?

[JimL]

Yeah but you told us that you are independently wealthy so you are one of those rich people that will benefit from this, right?

When I say I'm independently wealthy I don't mean to say that I am rich, what I mean to say is that I have made enough in my lifetime to get by in my retirement. Thats all. No, I am not wealthy enough to benefit from Republican tax cuts for the wealthy, nor would I want to knowing that it's going to come out of the pockets of the poor and the middle class in the form of paying more in taxes, losing their health Ins., and raising the debt, leaving less money for infrastructure, education etc etc.
And how many times does it have to be proven to you that trickle down economics doesn't work before you finally get it. How many times are you going to fall for the republican cliche that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Companies don't hire more people or pay higher wages simply because they make more in profits.

[Cow Poke]

...knowing that it's going to come out of the pockets of the poor and the middle class...

Back this up, please.

[Roy]

The Fatimids invaded Egypt in 969 and conquered it with an army led by Jahwar. But since Egypt had been Islamic for more than 300 years by that time, they weren't attacking Christians.

As for who says the destruction of The Church of the Holy Sepulchre as a reason? A few do actually like:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dest...Sepulchre_1009http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imper...slamchron.html

Your first source claims that Urban preached about the destruction of Christian holy sites at Clermont, but does not indicate that he specifically mentioned the Holy Sepulchre, and other articles from that source indicate that it's possible Urban did not mention Jerusalem at all.

Your second source lists both the destruction of the sepulchre and the first crusade, but makes no connection between then at all. You might as well have cited Winnie-the-Pooh.

And who said the crusades happened to just defend the Byzantium Empire?

Nobody I know. I certainly didn't, not least because I've been referring solely to the first crusade, not all of them.You actually critiqued it for not mentioning that the Muslims were being motivated by religion - while conveniently forgetting that the extension of the first crusade to Jerusalem was only motivated by religion. As for 'whitewashing', you've forgotten in your zeal that I described the Seljuks as attacking both Christian Anatolia and their fellow Muslims in Jerusalem.You've been lumping the Seljuks and Fatimids together as "the other side" in every post you've made. You haven't even attempted to distinguish between them. Your objection rings very hollow indeed when you continue in this very post to refer to them as a single side.

... while you make claims that appear to be untrue. From the timeline I cited:

1009: Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed. In Europe a rumor develops that a "Prince of Babylon" had ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher at the instigation of the Jews. Attacks on Jewish communities in cities like Rouen, Orelans, and Mainz ensue and this rumor helps lay the basis for massacres of Jewish communities by Crusaders marching to the Holy Land.
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imper...slamchron.html

It appears they were not aware of the geopolitical situation

Or that they (like you) held all members of any religion as being responsible for the acts of any of them.No, the height of historical ignorance is not knowing that Egypt was Islamic during the 10th century.You didn't answer it at all. You evaded, and you continue to evade.

In summary, all you've done is misrepresented sources, burnt straw men, displayed an inability to distinguish different Islamic nations and demonstrated your ignorance and hypocrisy.

If you summon up the courage to admit that 10th century Egypt was not Christian, I might continue this conversation. But since it took you nearly 60 pages of posts to admit the equally clear error that post-war Germany didn't suffer from hyperinflation, I doubt I'll need to.

[Mountain Man]

Of course tax cuts are predominantly going to benefit the wealthy. They're the ones that pay the majority of the taxes!

[Roy]

I have answered it. Islam has a warlike nature while Xtianity is peaceful at heart. That answer is not only inherent in the post you were responding to (but don't seem to have understood) but it's the main thrust of it. Not that your questioning needs answering anyway since it's trivial and known to everyone here, and you're only purpose for asking it seems to be because you have some misplaced idea that I'm somehow misrepresenting history.

I have no idea what 'gotcha' point you think you are going to make, but I'm certain it's a blunt one based on your own stupidity and not related to anything I've written.

I do know, as does everyone involved in this thread, that it's a blatant double-standard for you to repeatedly insist I answer your pointless questions while simultaneously evading mine. So unless you stop messing around and get to the point there's no reason to treat you as anything other than a hypocritical imbecile.

[Roy]

That's a good distinction. I see a parallel with some people today who claim to be Christians and recognize that the Bible condemns homosexuality but say they think the Bible is simply wrong.

It is a good distinction. I see a parallel with some people today who claim to be Christians and recognize that the Bible condemns eating shellfish but think that part of the Bible can be ignored.

[Roy]

OK - this one caught my eye. I've been watching people on BOTH sides of the political divide play this game for months or years now. The left pulls out small incidents to "prove" we need gun control;

Do you really think 50 people being murdered is a small incident?

[rogue06]

That was its ostensible reason...in practice it did whatever was necessary to consolidate the power of the state.

You seem really confused about what the Inquisition was about. While they worked with the secular governments they were hardly interested in consolidating their power. They were quite aware that government's come and go and a friendly country today could be an enemy tomorrow, so they focused on what they saw as the only constant, permanent force -- the church (which for them was the RCC). That is why they were concerned with those who they deemed to be heretics (because they were the enemies of the church).

But my main point was against your argument that Islam is inherently a violent religion. Its 900 years of enlightened rule in Spain contradicts that as does the whole golden age of Islam from the seventh to thirteenth centuries.

While we tend to heavily romanticize this period, history reveals a different view. First, the often remarked upon Golden Age didn't cover all of the Iberian Peninsula but rather Andalusia and even there things were not as we are often told.

Jews and Christians were generally tolerated, but only as long as they acknowledged that they were second class citizens, paid a heavy tax, followed special dress codes and didn't start accumulating any real wealth or power. When they did there were massacres like the one in Granada in 1066 in response to a Jew being named as vizer to the king^[1][2]The problem is that the extremists are often high ranking representatives of the government such as when the Indonesian government started importing Muslims into the Maluku Islands in order to make the area more Muslim and when that didn't work as well as planned, the military and police started arming and equipping Muslim militias with the goal of forcibly expelling the Christians there.

ahem, Roy Moore, himself has been a rallying figure for dominionists of all stripes for the better part of two decades.

The problem is that you are seeking to herd all conservative Christians into the dominionist camp regardless of their belief. They represent a tiny fraction on the fringe that they are more of an imaginary leftist boogeyman used to frighten the gullible than any real movement.

As Lisa Miller, a self-described progressive, who was senior editor of Newsweek and a religion columnist for the Washington Post, says in her article "'Dominionism' beliefs among conservative Christians overblown," "'dominionism' is the paranoid mot du jour" of the left. Even "left-wing activist specializing in the study of extreme right-wing movements in the United States," Chip Berlet, who is a big time disseminator of the idea of Christian dominionism agrees that many on the left have "stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point."

And just a bit on Ted Cruz and his supposed dominionism in Christianity Today.









1.2. A period when the Islamic government was forcibly closing many Christian monasteries and convents as well as rounding up and imprisoning Christian leaders.

[Adrift]

It is a good distinction. I see a parallel with some people today who claim to be Christians and recognize that the Bible condemns eating shellfish but think that part of the Bible can be ignored.

It's not ignored at all. Christians affirm what the Bible specifically says about it in Romans 14, 1 Cor 8, Matthew 15, Mark 7, and Acts 10. Furthermore, dietary laws were never intended for Gentiles, even in the Old Testament (as seen in Deuteronomy 14:21).

[Roy]

There is no need - common sense tells you that if you don't want a particular candidate, your only option is to vote for the other, or not vote at all. Voting "for" the opposing candidate gives you a greater probability that your unwanted candidate won't win.

This is why the US will remain a two-party nation, and why the candidates will continue to deteriorate.

Common sense tells you that if you don't want a particular candidate, your only option is to vote for another, or not vote at all. Voting "for" an opposing candidate gives you a greater probability that your unwanted candidate won't win.

I wonder who won out of Trump, Clinton, not-Trump and not-Clinton?

[Cow Poke]

This is why the US will remain a two-party nation, and why the candidates will continue to deteriorate.

Until something else happens.

Common sense tells you that if you don't want a particular candidate, your only option is to vote for another, or not vote at all. Voting "for" an opposing candidate gives you a greater probability that your unwanted candidate won't win.

True, but in order to be interested, you really need to believe that "other" candidate will do harm. At the time, SCOTUS was a great concern, and I knew where she stood on that.

I wonder who won out of Trump, Clinton, not-Trump and not-Clinton?

That would be interesting to see. Of course, that would require that people be honest - not just about for whom they voted - but why.