Woman tells newspaper Roy Moore groped her when she was 14; other women make similar claims

Statute of Limitations. Too old to be talking about.

 

I perused and found some initial red flags.

Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, and the founder of the first government organized outside of the family institution, ordained by God from the beginning. Nimrod made other families tributary to himself, and established a kingdom of which he was the head. The declaration, "Let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth," (Gen.xi:4), shows the animus and the spirit of the movement, and that it was intended to resist the purpose of God to govern them and to distribute them over the face of the earth, and to maintain themselves in a government of their own organizing. The effort to unite themselves more closely that God's rule united them, resulted in the confusion of their language and their division and dispersion. The design and purpose of this beginning of human government on earth was to oppose, counteract, and displace the government of God on earth.​

First, we don't know for certain if Nimrod founded Babel. Even if he did, the sin at Babel was not forming a civil government, but failure to disperse over the earth. In fact that text says nothing about government in that verse.

What concerned God at that time was the global community they were forming. He wanted the nations separate to slow their advancement "for their sake." Thus, God created nations at that time, separating them by language.

Thus the origin of the nations is God Himself. He busted up the first globalist push, and man has been trying to reestablish Babel ever since. Most efforts have come through imperialism (Nimrod the first on record) but lately it's come through politics.

Paul confirms God as the origin of the nations, and he outlines man's responsibility to participate. " Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."

BTW, off topic, but this would be a great thread in an appropriate forum.

 

It will be a spirited debate. I'm down...

 

Amen! So do I. Although I test everything according to God's Word. There are plenty of godless sermons and commentaries out there, we must beware and test everything. Blessings!

 

What about Jesus' position? Politics is not complicated for a Christian if they simply follow Jesus' standard on the issues.He covered them all. Abortion, taxes, the poor, the innocent, wars and rumors of wars, stealing, equality, marriage, same sex unions...

 

Then Cruz is wrong, as well.

Like I have already said, The allegations of only 1 person rise to the level of criminal prosecution. Regardless of the statute of limitations.

 

I'll trust Cruz's legal mind over yours. And no that's not was you said, initially. I quoted what you said, initially. And you never stated anything about statute of limitations, you said Roy Moore was not accused of doing anything illegal. Grabbing a 16 year old by the neck is definitely illegal. Pushing her out of the car is illegal. Sex with a 14 year old is definitely illegal. And something tells me you wouldn't want Roy Moore babysitting your daughters.

 

Like I said , you didn't read everything and now you look even more foolish. You had more than one chance to get it right.

In addition to that , what you quoted was 100% correct. You either read it wrong or made assumptions you had no right to make.

I'm not going to draw you a picture, although it seems you may need one. Once again, go back and read the thread.

 

And you're defending very perverted allegations. You're not merely defending a mans innocents, but actually justifying the legality of the acts themselves. I stand by my initial reaction, sick.

I gave you a chance to correct the record but stood by your very inappropriate comment. Moore was accused of doing several illegal acts. Cruz is right, you are still wrong.

 

That's a false statement

Show us where , in this statement:

"You do not have the testimony of 5 "witnessess" that he did anything illegal."

1. That I defended Moore.
2. Anything inaccurate about the statement.

It's put up or shut up time.

I expect you to do neither.

Man, when you go off the deep end, there is just no pulling you back to reality.

 

Yes, we do have testimony from those 5 witness that he did something illegal. We have at least 3 allegations from 2 of those witnesses of illegal behavior.

Bluff called.

 

You have "called" nothing.

You have actually confirmed that my statement,
"You do not have the testimony of 5 "witnessess" that he did anything illegal"
was accurate.

You have not shown where I supported the illegal activities of Moore.

As expected, you couldn't put up and you won't shut up.

Keep digging.

 

We have testimony from those 5 witness that he did something illegal. We have at least 3 allegations from 2 of those witnesses of illegal behavior. I'm speaking of the allegations themselves, not to the truth of them.

Your challenge has been answered. Ball is in your court. Are you man enough to admit you were wrong?

 

No, you don't. You have exactly 1 person, not 5, under the age of 16 that alledged illegal sexual contact. There was nothing illegal alledged by any of the others. Period.

But you're not worth wasting any more time on. Keep digging.

 

You said no accusation of illegal acts from the 5. Wrong, wrong, wrong! You have at least 3 illegal accusations from at least 2 of the girls. (amazingly you're defending hands around the neck of a 16 year old as legal. sick.)

Your bluff has been called. I can do this all day (albeit with some breaks, in between). I don't know if Moore is guilty, but I'm not confused about the morality nor legality of the acts themselves.

 

That is a false statement.

 

According to Jesus' direction on killing a baby, I would have to disqualify both of these and possibly do a write in.

 

I agree fully.