Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

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

Relatively statistically, yes. Personally, of course not.

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

The entire country was Muslim at the time? That’s news to me!

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.

What city is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre located in?

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.

Apparently you didn’t read the part where it talks about roomers being that the destruction was ordered by a ‘prince of babylon’ when we know the order actually came form Egypt because the rulers of Babylon were not ruling Jerusalem. Your claim is they knew these were two separate nations that were ruled by two separate nations, yet the very roomers that helped to fuel the religious fever that lead to the crusades was a flat out falsehood. Oops, perhaps you need to keep track of your claims because this seems to lead that your claim that they knew the geopolitical make up is false too.

Nobody I know. I certainly didn't, not least because I've been referring solely to the first crusade, not all of them.

And where did I say otherwise? Wars usually happen for lots of reasons. Religious motivation only seems to be one of the causes.

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.

And I suppose gaining control of more land area wasn’t another reason, right?

[quote]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. 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.[quote]

Muslims have been killing each other since Mohammad died. That’s hardly news and you are aware that Egypt maintained a large Christian presence and there was even one group that helped out during the crusades? Your next claim about treating all Muslims as a single nation is pretty funny since you’re treating all Christians as some single entity even when I’m sure you’re aware that they were not. In the context of religion though it was Christians vs Muslims. Funny how I extend you benefits of the doubt vs just calling you stupid because you’re not aware that the crusaders were a patchwork of nations that did have national goals too.

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.

Actually you demonstrated quite well that you can’t keep up with the conversation and make up things when it suits you. Since you want to play this game, then why are

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.

That’s funny, coming from the same moron that refuses to apply his own standards to himself. So let’s see if you admit to your mistakes:

1. One of my sources proves you wrong when you say they were aware of the geopolitical make up. If that was true, why did this roomer get started and continued that it was a prince of Babylon that ordered the destruction of Christian religious sites?
2. If your logic determines that I was referring to them as a single nation, than I guess you must think all of Europe was a single nation too, right? Of course I know you met religion as did I, but you refuse to extend me the benefit of the doubt that I extend you.
3. Pointing out Muslims killing each other as proof of something is so what when the nations that banded together to fight the crusades hated each other too.

When you have the courage to admit to your own mistakes, we’ll try this again, but we both know that you’ll blame me for everything because you’re not capable of admitting you’re wrong, to me. Till I catch you in more mistakes you refuse to admit to, bye bye.

[Cow Poke]

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.

I was afraid you were gonna pick on bacon!

[Roy]

Actually that is yet another myth concerning the Inquisition. They weren't worried about adherents of other religions.

Wasn't one of the main purposes of the Spanish inquisition to prevent former Jews who converted under duress from returning to practicing their Judaism? If so, the inquisition certainly was concerned with adherents of other religions.

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

That’s funny coming from the same hypocrite that refuses to extend benefits of the doubt while demanding others do the same.

BTW, I stand corrected. Now let’s see if you’ll admit to the issues I found with your previous post.

[JonathanL]

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.

But it doesn't. It forbids eating shellfish for the Jews, but nowhere in the Bible does it ever condemn eating shellfish for someone who isn't under the covenant God made between Himself and the Jewish people.

[Roy]

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).

I doubt that verses about eating sacrificed food or eating bread without washing your hands are applicable here. The closest possible reference is Romans 14, but that is more a contradiction than a reversal. Also, Deuteronomy 14 doesn't refer to shellfish, but to dead animals, and doesn't necessarily apply to Xtians who do after all follow the same deity.

[Mountain Man]

There's a clear distinction in the Bible between moral law and ceremonial law, even in the Old Testament. Ceremonial law was only ever intended for those under the Old Covenant, and God told the Israelites that it would be replaced in the future by a New Covenant. Moral law, on the other hand, is intended for all people for all time.

[One Bad Pig]

I doubt that verses about eating sacrificed food or eating bread without washing your hands are applicable here. The closest possible reference is Romans 14, but that is more a contradiction than a reversal. Also, Deuteronomy 14 doesn't refer to shellfish, but to dead animals, and doesn't necessarily apply to Xtians who do after all follow the same deity.

Deuteronomy 14 does refer to shellfish (v. 10). Note that throughout the passage, none of the meats are classed as inherently unclean; they are unclean for those living under the covenant God established with Moses. Christians are not under the covenant of Moses. Same deity, different contract. Romans 14 is relevant because it emphasizes that.

[Roy]

Context restored:

...The Seljuks were the ones invading Christian lands...

Second they weren’t attacking Christians? So who invaded Egypt and North Africa in the 10th century?

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.

The entire country was Muslim at the time? That’s news to me!

So rather than admit to being wrong, you're trying to pretend that the Fatimids were invading Christian lands/attacking Christians when they invaded Egypt because Egypt had a minority Christian population.

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.

What city is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre located in?

It's in Jerusalem. I've once again got no idea what point you're making, and I suspect you don't either.

That’s funny, coming from the same moron that refuses to apply his own standards to himself. So let’s see if you admit to your mistakes:

1. One of my sources proves you wrong when you say they were aware of the geopolitical make up. If that was true, why did this roomer get started and continued that it was a prince of Babylon that ordered the destruction of Christian religious sites?

I'm capable of differentiating between the crusaders who reached Jerusalem and the pre-crusade Europeans who believed rumours.

2. If your logic determines that I was referring to them as a single nation, than I guess you must think all of Europe was a single nation too, right?

Wrong. I already stated that "there were many different forces involved in the first crusade who were not acting entirely in unison.".

3. Pointing out Muslims killing each other as proof of something is so what when the nations that banded together to fight the crusades hated each other too.

That's gibberish.

These aren't mistakes. Even if there is some germ of error there, they certainly don't match your erroneous use of 10th century Egypt as an example of a Christian land. Time to skip your 60 pages of tantrums.

[Sparko]

You said something clever, Jimmy! And with proper spelling and grammar! (Assuming you know that a boar is a pig, of sorts!)

Anyway, I amen'd it, just because!

He made that joke long ago by accident and I pointed it out to him and laughed. Since then he has used the same tired pun over and over thinking it is so clever. Like a dog begging for snack after you gave him one for sitting once. It's embarrassing for him.

[Cow Poke]

He made that joke long ago by accident and I pointed it out to him and laughed. Since then he has used the same tired pun over and over thinking it is so clever. Like a dog begging for snack after you gave him one for sitting once. It's embarrassing for him.

Well, I've been looking for some opportunity to amen him, and that was it.

[Sparko]

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.

so how much money would people make if these businesses all went broke? Where do you think people's paychecks come from? The Socialist Fairy?

JimL, Where did that money you made that keeps you comfortable come from? Did you work a regular 40+ hour/week job for another company? Did you own a business?

[Sparko]

Well, I've been looking for some opportunity to amen him, and that was it.

He probably needs another pat on the head.

[Cow Poke]

He probably needs another pat on the head.

Unfortunately, he bites the hand that pats his head. The boy is just full of pent up hate.