Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Adrift]

I'm not especially fond of modern scholarship, given its heavily skeptical stance (that includes Catholic scholars, as they can hold all sorts of outlandish views while still being considered Catholic).

I've begun to notice you taking this stance more and more often lately. You're of course free to evaluate Biblical and historical scholarship any way you want, but I'm sad to see you take this turn (or maybe it's not so much a turn but an evolution).

I view the possibility that Joseph was previously married with children to be most in accord with the available (NT) evidence. I'm sort of put out that you view me as that rabidly partisan. I didn't convert just because.

I think we need to be open to the evidence, and follow it where it leads, despite our denominational allegiances. For myself, I'd rather not even claim to be a Protestant. I'm a Christian first who just happens to accept orthodox doctrine that aligns with the Protestant approach to scripture.

Unfortunately, Your partisanship is something you've been putting out there to the rest of us for some time now, especially in your attempts to push other views (particularly Protestantism) under the bus whenever you have the opportunity. No one's really said anything about this, but I don't think I'm alone in noticing it. I always took the stance that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and other orthodox Christians shared more in common than not, and that, especially in discussions with unbelievers we should form a sort of united front. I mean, we're obviously not all going to agree on the same doctrine and approaches to scripture, and if we find one view more convincing than another, we should definitely be free to voice that, but (and I hate to say this), I've been noticing...I don't know...what seems to me...a sort of hostility or a hard line approach towards other orthodox views when they don't align with your own. Maybe that's not how you mean to come across, but it's something I've definitely picked up on. I don't think that approach is necessary. I think we can say that our view is the more robust one without making other views seem totally beneath us. I know for my part, even though I generally align with the Protestant approach, I have a lot to learn from Eastern Orthodoxy (and Roman Catholicism).

But maybe I am the only one who has been perceiving things this way. If so, then maybe I'm out of line here. I don't know.

[KingsGambit]

They are hoping to use this rising tide of repulsion against those who sexually harass and assault to go after Trump again^[1]. They can't give Franken a pass and have a shred of credibility left as they pursue Trump. Therefore if tossing Franken under the bus can move them closer to their ultimate goal then so be it. It's like sacrificing a knight in order to secure checkmate or at least get the queen.








1. You should have seen This Week With George Stephanopoulos where it was all about sexual misconduct and Trump, Moore, Trump, Moore, Trump, Franken, Trump, Trump, Moore. Even though the incident involving Franken (widely regarded as having been a major rising star in his party) was the big breaking story, he was regulated to footnote status with his name barely being mentioned (and his party affiliation studiously avoided the few times his name did get brought up).

That strikes me as illogical if so. Trump was not brought down when the story initially broke and the news cycle focused entirely on this story for several days; there's no reason to think a rehashing of the story a second time would bring a different result.

[Cow Poke]

That strikes me as illogical if so. Trump was not brought down when the story initially broke and the news cycle focused entirely on this story for several days; there's no reason to think a rehashing of the story a second time would bring a different result.

Yeah, them what support him will support him still, and them hate him will hate him more. I don't really see any hearts or minds being changed.

[rogue06]

That strikes me as illogical if so. Trump was not brought down when the story initially broke and the news cycle focused entirely on this story for several days; there's no reason to think a rehashing of the story a second time would bring a different result.

Don't know if you noticed but there has been a pronounced shift in the cultural/political winds since Weinstein. It appears that they plan on using it to go after Trump again but this time hoping it does much more damage.

[rogue06]

Yeah, them what support him will support him still, and them hate him will hate him more. I don't really see any hearts or minds being changed.

Among those that love or hate him -- no. But there is a whole lot of ground in between where a significant portion of the population seems to reside. I think they will target that group and hope to move more of them into the hate camp.

[Cow Poke]

Among those that love or hate him -- no. But there is a whole lot of ground in between where a significant portion of the population seems to reside. I think they will target that group and hope to move more of them into the hate camp.

Could be - I'm ready for President Pence!

[One Bad Pig]

I've begun to notice you taking this stance more and more often lately. You're of course free to evaluate Biblical and historical scholarship any way you want, but I'm sad to see you take this turn (or maybe it's not so much a turn but an evolution).

I don't think that all modern scholarship is bad - far from it. I can learn quite a bit from it. I should also perhaps note that I tend to have Modern scholarship in mind when I put out a blanket skepticism; I apologize for implying otherwise. I was going to add more here, but I'm having trouble putting concepts into words.

I think we need to be open to the evidence, and follow it where it leads, despite our denominational allegiances.

Absolutely. How do you think I got where I am?

Unfortunately, Your partisanship is something you've been putting out there to the rest of us for some time now, especially in your attempts to push other views (particularly Protestantism) under the bus whenever you have the opportunity.

Perhaps you're only particularly noticing when I do so. I try not to take every opportunity to push other views under the bus. If I point out something negative about a Protestant point of view, it's due to a problem I've noticed relating to the POV, not to take some sort of cheap shot at Protestantism.

No one's really said anything about this, but I don't think I'm alone in noticing it. I always took the stance that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants, and other orthodox Christians shared more in common than not, and that, especially in discussions with unbelievers we should form a sort of united front.

I especially try not to "slam" Protestants in discussions with unbelievers. I may sometimes fail.

I mean, we're obviously not all going to agree on the same doctrine and approaches to scripture, and if we find one view more convincing than another, we should definitely be free to voice that, but (and I hate to say this), I've been noticing...I don't know...what seems to me...a sort of hostility or a hard line approach towards other orthodox views when they don't align with your own. Maybe that's not how you mean to come across, but it's something I've definitely picked up on. I don't think that approach is necessary. I think we can say that our view is the more robust one without making other views seem totally beneath us.

I freely admit to tending to be terse to the point of being blunt, but I don't intend to make other views seem totally beneath me. I'm not sure what you mean by "orthodox views"; perhaps because I no longer necessarily see the Protestant view as normative, I may no longer see a uniquely Protestant (or even Western) view as 'orthodox.'

But maybe I am the only one who has been perceiving things this way. If so, then maybe I'm out of line here. I don't know.

I don't mind you calling me out. I can always use some introspection. I don't always agree with you, but you're not someone I ever dismiss out of hand; even if I don't agree, you make me slow down and take a second, closer look.

[Mountain Man]

Don't know if you noticed but there has been a pronounced shift in the cultural/political winds since Weinstein. It appears that they plan on using it to go after Trump again but this time hoping it does much more damage.

Could be, but I think the media did all the damage they possibly could the first time around. The problem is that every accusation against our current President fell apart under even the lightest scrutiny, so there was nowhere for the story to go, and I suspect the media knew it.

[rogue06]

Could be, but I think the media did all the damage they possibly could the first time around. The problem is that every accusation against our current President fell apart under even the lightest scrutiny, so there was nowhere for the story to go, and I suspect the media knew it.

I think that they figure that the public considered it but nationally disliked Hillary more and voted accordingly. That does not mean in this changed environment that they won't be willing to revisit the issue now that Hillary has been defeated.

[Teallaura]

I don't think that all modern scholarship is bad - far from it. I can learn quite a bit from it. I should also perhaps note that I tend to have Modern scholarship in mind when I put out a blanket skepticism; I apologize for implying otherwise. I was going to add more here, but I'm having trouble putting concepts into words.

Absolutely. How do you think I got where I am?

Perhaps you're only particularly noticing when I do so. I try not to take every opportunity to push other views under the bus. If I point out something negative about a Protestant point of view, it's due to a problem I've noticed relating to the POV, not to take some sort of cheap shot at Protestantism.

I especially try not to "slam" Protestants in discussions with unbelievers. I may sometimes fail.

I freely admit to tending to be terse to the point of being blunt, but I don't intend to make other views seem totally beneath me. I'm not sure what you mean by "orthodox views"; perhaps because I no longer necessarily see the Protestant view as normative, I may no longer see a uniquely Protestant (or even Western) view as 'orthodox.'

I don't mind you calling me out. I can always use some introspection. I don't always agree with you, but you're not someone I ever dismiss out of hand; even if I don't agree, you make me slow down and take a second, closer look.

I've noticed the same thing - it's not a lot or all the time, but it is something I'd noticed.

[Adrift]

I don't think that all modern scholarship is bad - far from it. I can learn quite a bit from it. I should also perhaps note that I tend to have Modern scholarship in mind when I put out a blanket skepticism; I apologize for implying otherwise. I was going to add more here, but I'm having trouble putting concepts into words.

Absolutely. How do you think I got where I am?

Perhaps you're only particularly noticing when I do so. I try not to take every opportunity to push other views under the bus. If I point out something negative about a Protestant point of view, it's due to a problem I've noticed relating to the POV, not to take some sort of cheap shot at Protestantism.

I especially try not to "slam" Protestants in discussions with unbelievers. I may sometimes fail.

I freely admit to tending to be terse to the point of being blunt, but I don't intend to make other views seem totally beneath me. I'm not sure what you mean by "orthodox views"; perhaps because I no longer necessarily see the Protestant view as normative, I may no longer see a uniquely Protestant (or even Western) view as 'orthodox.'

I don't mind you calling me out. I can always use some introspection. I don't always agree with you, but you're not someone I ever dismiss out of hand; even if I don't agree, you make me slow down and take a second, closer look.

That's fair, and the appreciation is certainly mutual. I'm sorry I brought it up really, but it is something that's been laying on my heart for a bit. I am sorry to hear that you don't find Protestantism orthodox or normative, but maybe that's something we can discuss at another time.

[Juvenal]

But maybe I am the only one who has been perceiving things this way. If so, then maybe I'm out of line here. I don't know.

I like both of you, and think that ...

• OBP advocates for positions that sometimes appear more derivative of Orthodox thought than independently deductive, but I've never seen him take a cheap shot.
  
• Adrift's opposition to contrary positions occasionally devolves into unsuitable attacks on process, but there's generally a core of humility, as above.

I occasionally see polemics that quite possibly aren't there, as in the sidelining of James in gospel accounts, and the tale of Thomas. It's harder to judge when looking in.

In this discussion, I've seen a number of views consistent with the evidence and divine authorship, including, refreshingly, MM's analysis.

Adrift's argument for a younger Joseph is fundamentally statistical, which is useful in analyzing social pressures against an older Joseph, possibly with children, marrying a much younger Mary, but less so in arguing against Joseph's prior marriage itself. Statistics apply to groups, not individuals.


Ironically, I find many of these views are also consistent with the evidence and human authorship, which remains my default position. The main divergence comes from the fact I believe Jesus had a human father, which brings up more difficult issues, such as his possible illegitimacy.

But there's no naturalistic bar to Mary having other children after Jesus, or to Joseph having previously been married.

I'm still interested in knowing what consensus there might be on the references in Mark. Looking again, I see ..

Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ... 6:3

Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me ... 15:40

Mary the mother of Joses ... 15:47

Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me ... 16:1 (immediately following 15:47)

The last three are clearly the same Mary, as they're all in the company of Mary Magdalene and part of a continuing self-contained narrative. Taken together with the first reference, I'd find it hard to argue they're not all references to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

But Adrift's hesitation gives me pause.

[John Reece]

Commentators, many of whom I have had great respect for heretofore, are ASSUMING Roy Moore to be guilty of all the charges alleged against him without ANY evidence that is VERIFIABLE. I get the impression that they really dislike Judge Roy Moore for other reasons, and therefore are letting their personal dislike for the man influence their judgement in this case.

What is happening to Moore is a phenomenon that has been repeated a number of times in the relatively recent history of political elections and nominations. Gloria Allred has been involved in many of the cases that come to mind: for instance, that of Herman Cain. I am also reminded of Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas.

On a positive note, I am especially well impressed with the article by Megan Fox at PJMedia: https://pjmedia.com/parenting/roy-mo...y-wife-mother/, wherein she quite well expresses my perspective. I recommend reading the comments following Megan's article at PJM, which to me are, for the most part, more wise than those of the famous conservatives that are currently disappointing me.

[guacamole]

Commentators, many of whom I have had great respect for heretofore, are ASSUMING Roy Moore to be guilty of all the charges alleged against him without ANY evidence that is VERIFIABLE. I get the impression that they really dislike Judge Roy Moore for other reasons, and therefore are letting their personal dislike for the man influence their judgement in this case.

I think what you might be seeing is wearying cynicism, a break down of the political faith. Whereas once, it seemed that sexual picadillos were the sole province of liberal democrats, like Clinton and the Kennedys, it is now likely that many Republicans--i.e., Moore, Trump, Murphy--once the party that appealed to the "values voter," are just as mired in sexual sin as their political adversaries.

I personally disliked Moore's Dominionist bent--I do not believe that political Christianity serves the Gospel well--but I hoped he was a man of unimpeachable character. Now, it is corroborated by other witnesses that Moore's conduct with minor girls was not above reproach. I mean that in the strictest sense, not in the sense that he was provably guilty of anything other than foolish behavior. That is, he chose to put himself into situations that could be used against him. "Wise as serpents, innocent as lambs." He was definitely not the former, and possibly--likely in my estimation--not the later, either.

What is happening to Moore is a phenomenon that has been repeated a number of times in the relatively recent history of political elections and nominations. Gloria Allred has been involved in many of the cases that come to mind: for instance, that of Herman Cain. I am also reminded of Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas.

The problem is that so many former luminaries have fallen, that we are weary of and no longer surprised by abuses from powerful men, D or R, Christian or not. I expect better from the redeemed, perhaps wrongly.

On a positive note, I am especially well impressed with the article by Megan Fox at PJMedia: https://pjmedia.com/parenting/roy-mo...y-wife-mother/, wherein she quite well expresses my perspective. I recommend reading the comments following Megan's article at PJM, which to me are, for the most part, more wise than those of the famous conservatives that are currently disappointing me.

Once again Mrs Fox you differentiate yourself from the cast of cowardly cucks among the "conservative commentariat" at sites like PJM and Townhall.

First comment. No thank you.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Teallaura]

...

Once again Mrs Fox you differentiate yourself from the cast of cowardly cucks among the "conservative commentariat" at sites like PJM and Townhall.

First comment. No thank you.

fwiw,
guacamole

You oppose the presumption of innocence on that basis?