Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[JimL]

Which is nothing more than an assertion which you've failed to support.

It's a nonsensical corollary. Muslims, according to the Koran, may either spread Islam through peace or violence, as the situation warrants. On the other hand, Christians may not do so according to their scriptures.

Jesus and YAHWAY are the same god, the same god to both christians and jews so violence and peace could obviously be used as the situation warrants.

[One Bad Pig]

Jesus and YAHWAY are the same god, the same god to both christians and jews so violence and peace could obviously be used as the situation warrants.

We're not under the same covenant, Jim - and Jews, under the Mosaic covenant, were never directed to proselytize by ANY means, which is the very point at issue here.

[Roy]

And do you have evidence that the crusaders were totally aware of the geopolitical powers at play among different Muslim groups or did they see them as pretty much all the same.

You see them pretty much all the same. They, however, seem to have allied with some groups and not with others.

I see you keep avoiding the issue at hand as always, who was the one invading Christian lands, destroying Christian religious sites, and killing Christians first or are we supposed to ignore 300 years of Islamic aggression that took place before hand?

I'm not avoiding that at all - you are. The Seljuks were the ones invading Christian lands.

And again, do you have any evidence that the crusaders were aware of the geopolitical situation.

If they weren't, which I doubt, that would be their responsibility and no excuse for massacre.

And you are aware of the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre that took place in 1009 and was cited as a reason for the first crusade and the taking of Jerusalem.

Cited as a reason for the first crusade by whom? Reference please.

I'm aware of the destruction, that it occurred nearly a century earlier, that it had been at least partially rebuilt and that the people who destroyed it were not the people who were threatening Byzantium.

How funny, attack’s me for failing to understand history while not being aware of one of the cited reasons for the first crusade to begin with.

As usual you've gone straight from asking a question to criticising the answer without bothering to wait for the answer to be given.

You can argue that they were a separate group all you want, but I doubt they would have been aware of this and had already had a reason to invade and take Jerusalem anyway.

So they invaded the holy land because it was considered holy.

The only difference between my view and your view is that I think the crusaders could distinguish the various Muslim nations, while you think they were as oblivious as you are.

If some-one was attacking and killing your people and those of another country, and invading your land and cities and those of another country, and that other country had just regained control of one of it's invaded cities... what would your response be?

In other words, both sides had valid reasons to go to war... imagine that.

"Both sides"? Not only have you dodged the question, you've also failed to count to three.

[Roy]

Read it quite well, now tell us... what religious founder spread their religion by the sword and what one spread through peaceful means, only with violence hundreds of years later?

Highlighting added for the literacy impaired: "So Muslims are capable of being peaceful despite the warlike nature of their religion, yet Xtians are incapable of being peaceful even though their religion commands it?"

[Sparko]

Highlighting added for the literacy impaired: "So Muslims are capable of being peaceful despite the warlike nature of their religion, yet Xtians are incapable of being peaceful even though their religion commands it?"

I would argue that people who don't follow the doctrines of their claimed religion are not actually members of that religion. They are deluded. Whether muslim or Christian. What would you think of an Atheist who said he believed in God and killed in the name of that God?

[Darth Executor]

For a Christian to go out conquering in Jesus' name means that he is going directly against the teachings of Christ (Matthew 5:9; Luke 6:35; John 14:27; 16:33; Acts 10:36... to name a few).

Not really. Some of those verses don't even talk about peace in the martial sense of the word.

[KingsGambit]

I would argue that people who don't follow the doctrines of their claimed religion are not actually members of that religion. They are deluded. Whether muslim or Christian. What would you think of an Atheist who said he believed in God and killed in the name of that God?

I'd be careful pressing that too far. Otherwise we might have to conclude that Nabeel Qureshi was never really a Muslim because he was raised in a sect that interpreted the Quran less literally, and that would neuter his testimony.

[Mountain Man]

Jesus and YAHWAY are the same god, the same god to both christians and jews so violence and peace could obviously be used as the situation warrants.

Already answered, Jimmy:

You really don't get the fact that God's commands to the nation of Israel were very limited in scope and included a number of checks to prevent the Israelites from acquiring a taste for war, such as limiting the spoils they were allowed to take - in some cases, it was none - and they were never given open-ended permission to declare war whenever they felt like it. The Bible records several instances when Israel tried to go to war without God commanding it and suffering brutal defeat. Basically, God used Israel as his instrument of judgment against select nation groups that defied him. But these commands were ONLY for Israel and ONLY in those specific circumstances. These commands did not apply outside of those circumstances, to later generations of Jews, and certainly not to Christians born thousands of years later under the New Covenant.

In contrast, the Koran teaches that all Muslims are always at war with all non-Muslims and gives open-ended commands to subjugate and murder "infidels" whenever and wherever they're found.

There's simply no parallel here.

[Roy]

I would argue that people who don't follow the doctrines of their claimed religion are not actually members of that religion. They are deluded. Whether muslim or Christian. What would you think of an Atheist who said he believed in God and killed in the name of that God?

But for both Islam and Xtianity there is disagreement regarding what the doctrines are.

[Sparko]

I'd be careful pressing that too far. Otherwise we might have to conclude that Nabeel Qureshi was never really a Muslim because he was raised in a sect that interpreted the Quran less literally, and that would neuter his testimony.

If the shoe fits. I didn't say that the person doesn't think they are following the religion or belong to it. I said they are deluded if they think they are but don't follow what the religion actually teaches. If someone decided that they were Christian but went around wearing sheets and burning black people at the stake do you think they are really Christians? Won't Jesus tell them, "Away from me you evildoers, I never knew you?"

But I think it is slightly different if your religion teaches violence and you refuse to go along with it. That makes the religion evil but not you. Which could be a reason why muslims leave Islam. They don't want to be part of what the Koran actually teaches. They try to sweep it under the rug and ignore the parts they don't like but I bet it wears on their conscience.

[Sparko]

But for both Islam and Xtianity there is disagreement regarding what the doctrines are.

About some of the less clear ones and side issues, sure. But Christianity is pretty clear on the central ones and the ones regarding not murdering, loving and caring for others, treating people like you want to be treated, sharing the gospel with love and respect, and generally not being an evil jerk.

[lilpixieofterror]

You see them pretty much all the same. They, however, seem to have allied with some groups and not with others.I'm not avoiding that at all - you are. The Seljuks were the ones invading Christian lands.If they weren't, which I doubt, that would be their responsibility and no excuse for massacre.Cited as a reason for the first crusade by whom? Reference please.

I never said they were one in the same, but do you have any evidence that the Crusaders were aware of the geopolitical situation? Second they weren’t attacking Christians? So who invaded Egypt and North Africa in the 10th century? Just to name a few things. 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_1009

Or if you don’t like Wikipedia there’s:

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imper...slamchron.html

I'm aware of the destruction, that it occurred nearly a century earlier, that it had been at least partially rebuilt and that the people who destroyed it were not the people who were threatening Byzantium. As usual you've gone straight from asking a question to criticising the answer without bothering to wait for the answer to be given.So they invaded the holy land because it was considered holy.

And who said the crusades happened to just defend the Byzantium Empire? There’s plenty of reasons they happened, you gave an answer and I have critiqued it for leaving out details in your attempts to paint Christians as bad and white washing over the other side. Destroying one of the most holy sites of your enemies religion isn’t the best way to get on their good side.

The only difference between my view and your view is that I think the crusaders could distinguish the various Muslim nations, while you think they were as oblivious as you are.

It’s so cute that you’re trying to claim that I believe they were all the same 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 and there was a good deal of ignorance on the part of the Crusaders, but acting as though they didn’t believe they had good reasons for what they did and that some of these reasons were pretty good is the height of historical ignorance.

"Both sides"? Not only have you dodged the question, you've also failed to count to three.

Translation:”Answer my loaded question in a way I want you too!”

Sorry, but this isn’t an either/or view that you want it to be. Attacking religious pilgrims, destroying important cultural sites, and attacking your neighbors is a pretty good reason for way much like fighting an invader is too. In war, one side is almost never totally innocent and usually blame can exist in both sides.

[lilpixieofterror]

Highlighting added for the literacy impaired: "So Muslims are capable of being peaceful despite the warlike nature of their religion, yet Xtians are incapable of being peaceful even though their religion commands it?"

And the avoidance continues! Why don’t you want to answer the question Roy?

[KingsGambit]

But I think it is slightly different if your religion teaches violence and you refuse to go along with it. That makes the religion evil but not you. Which could be a reason why muslims leave Islam. They don't want to be part of what the Koran actually teaches. They try to sweep it under the rug and ignore the parts they don't like but I bet it wears on their conscience.

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.

[Sparko]

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.

There are some errors that might not lead to someone "not being a Christian" if they don't include core doctrines. Homosexuality is clearly condemned as a sin in the bible, but believing it isn't, I don't know if that would be enough to be considered a heretic, or even struggling with it. We all struggle with sins. But I think actually going around preaching it as good and proper and openly embracing it as a Christian might be stepping over the line into being a reprobate or heretic. I definitely would consider a church that taught it as good to be unorthodox at the very least.