POST SCRIPTS

Evil is relative to the moral, ethical and religious doctrines in play within the given society.

The weakening of the role of Judeo/Christian values in American society makes it entirely possible that slavery could return to America, albeit not in the form that we saw previously, but it is relevant to the question of "health care reform" currently rolling its way through Congress.

Have you ever wondered why of all the public services the communist countries (e.g. Cuba) always boast of their free health care for all? The brain-dead dummies in the media are always touting the Cuban system over ours because of its health care system even though by all measures the Cuban system is backward and crude.

But the reason the communists give free health care is important too. Just as a farmer gives free health care to his animals so they can serve him so the ruling elite in the socialist countries give free health care to the workers so they can serve the state.

Slaves in the antebellum South had free health care. They had free health care because it was in the economic interest of their masters to keep them healthy enough to work. This is the logic that drives Obama and the left.

So join the chorus in the press and bleat like a sheeple. The massuh is gunna give us all free health care. And all we have to do is surrender our freedom and be willing to live like a slave.

This is an interesting topic but as Sunday sermon it is not very uplifting or comforting. Some topics I would like to see discussed some time would be things like courage in the face of great adversity, healing of a damaged spirit, Godly reasons to love each other, recovery from a great loss through Jesus, Christian compassion for others, why Christians and others should support charity, how God can help us draw on our inner strengths and why honesty is so important to God and ourselves. I could name more, but this is a start.

The N.T. advocates slaves obtaining freedom if possible, (1Cor. 7:21; Philemon 1) and the whole ethos of the N.T. requires not simply just pay and equal treatment of slaves, (Col. 4:1) but moreover, treating them as you would have yourself treated. (Mt. 22:39; Lk. 6:31) Some may argue that the full abolition of slavery is more conducive to the application of the whole ethos of the N.T. than even a greatly ameliorated form of servitude, yet in marriage and in the military a form of slavery may be said to exist, even only for a limited time in the latter, and great requirements of love made in the former.

The question is, would not even the O.T. economic system in which citizen debtors sold themselves or were sold into slavery for 6 years, with severance pay, be better off than welfare? At least you would, or should, feel that you were earning your keep, rather than being treated like a victim who is unable to make it, and which often leads to depression and drugs, and which form of slavery the western liberal establishment largely serves to foster, and gets elected by.

But only Jesus can set man free from ownership of the cruel task master, the devil.

"To say that the very concept of slavery is wrong is to say that God's salvation is an evil practice. That is because the concept of total submission and slavery is at the very heart of Christ's gospel; in order to be saved you have to be a slave to Christ. God is the one who chose us, he is the one who saved us, and He is the one who paid the price to buy us with the very blood of His Son, Jesus."

But being a slave to Christ is obviously not the same thing as being a slave to another human being. God is our creator, and superior to us in every way. How can you compare being a slave to the Divine Ruler to being a slave to a lowly human being?

Doesn't God even say somewhere that one cannot serve two masters?

"If slavery is wrong, wives should not submit to their husbands, children should not obey parents,"

Well, it depends on what you mean by "submit" and "obey." If you mean total, unquestioning obedience no matter what--in other words, being a slave--then no, wives and children should not do that, and there is nothing in the Bible to my knowledge that says they should. If you mean showing respect, love, and loyalty, well, that has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. I love my family, and I try to do my best by them, but I am not their slave. Slavery takes free will completely away. You can't choose to be a slave, because if you can, you can choose not to be one--the fact that you can choose to walk away means you are not a slave.

That is, if you're defining slavery the same way I do. Your argument would work better if you defined your terms more clearly.

"During the time when Christianity was born, 85% of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. It is my opinion that had any of the authors of the New Testament epistles directly attacked slavery, then there would have been revolts against the institution of slavery. The result of which would be similar to what happened to the 120,000 slaves that revolted with Spartacus in 73-71 BC. The Roman general Crassus crucified 6000 of the survivors along the Appian Way to teach future slaves what Rome would do to them of they revolted. Instead of spreading the gospel the message of Christ would have been hopelessly confused with that of social reform. Instead of a violent revolt, Christianity worked to undermine the evils of slavery by changing the hearts of slaves and masters."

See, now you're making sense. This is a valid reason why God would not mention that slavery was evil. The God of the Old Testament was nothing if not pragmatic. The Bible was written for a specific time period. Since God never says slavery is good, to my knowledge, the fact that He never says it's evil was most likely because He chose to keep silent on the issue, not because it undermines His Word, because it doesn't at all.

Of course, there's also the possibility that the Bible was just written by some tribesmen in the Middle East 2000 years ago, and thus not the best source for our current morality, but I suppose you're not going to be very receptive to that possibility.

Interesting sermon, though, even if I think the premises are flawed. It at least gives us a lot to think about.

DANIEL...great point:

"...the O.T. economic system in which citizen debtors sold themselves or were sold into slavery for 6 years, with severance pay, be better off than welfare? At least you would, or should, feel that you were earning your keep, rather than being treated like a victim who is unable to make it, and which often leads to depression and drugs, and which form of slavery the western liberal establishment largely serves to foster, and gets elected by.

I would only add that it has also lead to the break up of the family.

The depressed state of the welfare population is very sad. the system has proved to be much more dehumanizing than sticks and stones racial slurs or a few random cases of discrimination could ever impose.

Thank you Daniel!

Hi OV, good topic and very well written! Great job!

This is Jack speaking...going way out on a small, creaky limb now, but I tend to subscribe to the notion that some of the Bible authors did endorse slavery, but God didn't have any part of it!

Why? Well, I just can't buy that the Supreme Creator of all eternity would be so small as to give instructions on how to treat slaves or sell slaves or sell your daughters for sex. I can see those ancient people doing that, but I can't see God doing that! That's just my opinion of course.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

These are NOT the kind of things I would imagine an all loving, all knowing, all seeing and all powerful being that created the universe and all that exists would be talking about.

So, I could never hold God responsible for slavery or for evil because I don't think He had anything to do with those passages in the Bible. I don't think the Bible is any way an evil book either, it's just an expression of many things, many thoughts, some perhaps devinely inspired, some not.

Hope I didn't offend anyone with my, er, ah, liberal interpretation of the good book, it was sure not meant too offend!

Jack, I agree completely. I have faith in a good and moral God, but I do not have faith in humans to always transcribe his Word correctly.

Jack speaking again... Thank you K. I've been reading your posts for quite awhile and we (this will probably scare you) do seem to agree on many things! You are a very rational, logical person.

I wish you would write a feature article for us some time on a subject of your choosing. I know it would be great and generate a lot of interest.

K, there is a book that I want to bring to your attention that you may really enjoy. It's called, "Who Wrote the Bible?" This is a great study into the reasons some passages appear to contradict each other or the many duplets written slightly differently and it goes a long way to explain the politics of the day. I thought it was incredibly interesting. Its in paperback.

Sorry Jack, but the book you cite, “Who Wrote the Bible” by Richard E. Friedman, is bad theology at best and down right heretical at worse.

The author of this book is a typical product of nineteenth century theological liberal thinking. He is a typical liberal that the MSM loves to quote, who has been brought up on the "Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis". Not a single conservative theological scholar is mentioned in the entire book, and he seems to be totally unaware that any educated thinker could disagree with the liberal establishment. On page 28 he declares:

“At present, however, there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses — or by anyone person.”

Then he adds this condescending footnote:

There are many persons who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology, and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet, discuss, and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through scholarly journals, conferences, etc. (p. 261).

Mr. Friedman has the nerve to suggest that anyone who does not adhere to the his misguided “Documentary Hypothesis” has not been properly trained on how to read the ancient Scriptures and thus does not deserve to be regarded as a scholar at all.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are more Old Testament specialists who have been extensibley trained in schools like Harvard, Princeton and the Chicago University, than Mr. Friedman had to purposely avoid them while doing research or he would bump into them. These thousands of world renown scholars have received doctorates and have become skilled in all of the relevant languages and archeological discoveries. I am talking about the most highly educated and respected scholars in the field of Christian and Jewish theology. Not only do these men attend and participate in all the leading scholastic theological conventions that take place around the world, but they also have authored texts that are studied by college and seminary students all over the world. There is no one more trained as to whom the ancient manuscripts were authored by.

Further more, the whole structure of the “Documentary Hypothesis” that the author bases his book upon has been proven time and time again to be no more than circular reasoning on the basis of unproved and an unprovable hypotheses. Instead of being a book that could give a person and unbiased opinion, it seems to me that Mr. Friedman's book is no more than an exercise based upon a biased opinion that shuns any serious consideration of those who know more about the Scriptures than him.

If Mr. Friedman had first attempted to test the incredulous “Documentary Hypothesis” his book is based upon, he might well have been driven to abandon his desire to write his book altogether. If I were asked to do a review of Mr. Friedman's book, I would find it highly impossible to defend his extreme hypothesis in the light of the internal evidence we have of the text itself and the known facts of history.

Anyone who wishes to do an honestly objective and truly scientific study of the evidence, can only lead to the conclusion that Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles were absolutely correct in teaching that Moses was the genuine author of Pentateuch.(first 5 books of the Bible). Besides the historical documentation we have of such writers as Josephus and others, we also have the very letters from Matthew 19:8, Mark 12;26, John 5:46-47 & 7:19, and Luke in Acts 3:22 that more than disprove Mr. Friedman's conclusions.

Sorry Jack, but the book you suggest for K to read, does not deserve to be considered as equal to anything that well known scholars around the world have produced and published about the ancient manuscripts used by Christians and Jews around the world.

Timmothy Campbell wrote this review about the book "Who Wrote the Bible", "I had read several books that purported to explain the origins of the Old Testament, but they tended to make assertions without explanations. Perhaps they were too advanced for me. This book, however, explains in great detail how it arrives at its conclusions.

It is great fun to read parts of the book and ask yourself: Whodunit? For example, there's one place where you are compelled to predict who wrote about the Golden Calf incident. I picked J, but the author picked E. After he explained his decision, I had to admit that he was probably right and I was probably wrong. Not so good for my ego, but an enjoyable puzzle nonetheless.

The author is careful not to overstate his case. In situations where he lacks sufficient evidence, he points this out. This level of caution makes the whole work much more credible.

I greatly enjoyed the way he explained how the political reality of the ancient Near East created pressures to write (or compile) a particular KIND of book. Prior to this, I knew that many Bible stories contained contradictions, but I didn't know why.

What is interesting about this -- though this may be lost on literalists -- is that the analysis of the Bible in no way diminishes it. Indeed, by explaining the reasons for the contradictions (rather than simply explaining-away), this book greatly increases my respect for the Bible.

I think everybody who claims to know the Bible should read this book. It's all very well to memorize chapter and verse, but if you don't know of the Bible's origins, you can hardly claim to understand all its implications."

Thanks, Jack! I would be honored to write something for Post Scripts, if the rest of the staff would be interested. And OneVike, I will take your thoughts on Jack's book recommendation into consideration if I do choose to read the book. Also, OV, I would like to hear your thoughts on my earlier comments.

The website, The Straight Dope, offers these reference books on who actually wrote the Bible:

Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, 1987

Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson, 1986

The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter, 1981

The Religion of Israel, by Yehezkel Kaufmann (trans: Moshe Greenberg), 1948

Surpassing Wonder, by Donald H. Akenson, 1998

K

I will answer your questions tonight as I have more time to do you justice. I must admit that Sundays are extremely busy for me, and what extra Time I do have I divide it between here and a few other blogs where I discuss and debate theology with people, who quite frankly leave me scratching my head and burying my nose in the many theological doctrine books I own. As I said i will have an answer for you by tonight some time.

Right now I wanted to answer the person who left comment that directs everyone to the site called "Straight Dope". It seems this is a site that considers itself the know all of everything you ever wanted to know.

While I do not question their ability to answer 80% of the questions they are asked, I do question their so called authority when it comes to Religious matters.

First off they refer to Jesus as the sun, not the Son in a few of their answers. They are under the impression that because Christ is referred to as the light in Scriptures, it means a physical light, so obviously he is a "SUN. Now I do read where they answered other questions that wanted to know of Christs Deity, and they correctly said Christians consider Him the Son of God. My problem is that if they knew anything about Christology they would never make the mistake of using the word sun for the Son of God in any of their answers.

As for the books this site refers the readers to glean the truths of Christianity from, I can only say hogwash! I am always amazed how those who claim to follow liberal social and economic policies in the secular world are also always touting liberal theological books for people to find God's truths from. The very writers of these books deny many of the very essentials of Christian Doctrine. A few of the books this site recommends, claim that Mary was not a virgin, Jesus was not the Son of God, and that heretical books like the Gospel of Judas, holds as much weight as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

I just want to caution anyone who may decide to take up this sites recommendation of reading these books to be ware, because many of the things these authors teach are in opposition to 99% of the respected Theological scholars of today. Remember, when you poison a mouse you do not give it pure poison, the mouse will not eat it. What you do is feed the mouse 99% good food mixed with 1% poison to fool the mouse into eating the poison and thus killing it without the mouse realizing what happened.

One more thing I feel the need to say. Hitler, Stalin, and others tyrants like them may have killed millions of innocent humans, but they could only kill the body not the soul. However, those who lead people down a path of false doctrine, chance the probability of damning the very soul of a person to eternal hell. Men like Joseph Smith, Muhammad, and other false prophets will be held to a much worse condemnation on judgment day then even Hitler, Stalin and others, because these men have sentenced the very soul of hundreds of millions of people to hell for eternity.

The Lords brother James wrote;

"My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

I pray for God's guidance everytime I teach, especially when I teach upon the essentials that can lead one a stray. Be cautious, very cautious.

One Vike,

"It is my position that the bible does not condemn slavery because our human positions in life is not what the gospel is concerned with."

I agree completely. So why do you care who is on welfare?

And if God does not condemn slavery, how can you suggest he supports capitalism?

Just looking for a little consistency here.

Respectfully,

Mark

Doesn't God even say somewhere that one cannot serve two masters?

Yes he does in Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13, but He is speaking of whom or what you serve with your heart through your hands. In the case of the rich young ruler whom Jesus was speaking about, the man served his money above God. A person working as a slave to another man is in reality no different than the man who served an employer. They may be loyal to their master but they do not worship their master as the rich young ruler worshiped his wealth so much so that he could not give it up to follow Christ. For some that could be television, work, a car, or cigarettes, either way Christ says where your treasure is, so too is your heart, and that is what He says about not being able to serve two masters. Even a slave who is owned by a benevolent master as Ben Hur was, does not worship his slave master.

As for my comparison of marriage and slavery, that goes both ways. A man is a slave to his wife just as a wife is a slave to her husband. Where is the free will of a man or a woman who are married? A man has a right to lay with his wife, just as a wife has a right to be with her husband, neither should ever hold back accept for extenuating circumstances, and I will not list them because you know very well what I elude to. Regardless of how things ere in a marriage, other than adultery, there is no room for a divorce. Jesus pointed out that Moses allowed divorce only because of the hardness of men's hearts, but it was not so from God.

Then there is the children, whom the parents have complete dictatorial control over, even to the point of forced labor. You speak of free will, but in families there is to be no free will, it must be a shared will. Tell me where is the child's free will if the parent says, go to bed, go to school, clean your room, mow the grass, wash those dishes? There is no arguing from the child's vantage point, the parent owns them until they are adults or emancipated by the state. There is no free will

Now, there are men and woman who treat eachother or their children evil, just as there has always been evil slave owners. However it does not make the institution of marriage, parenthood, or slavery evil, just the individual who is practicing it is evil.

Now for Marks comments

I agree completely. So why do you care who is on welfare?
To start with, that is actually a two part question, because we have welfare on the part of the receiver and on the part of the giver.

First the receiver.
When speaking of a person collecting welfare, we are talking about an individual who is receiving something for nothing. In Leviticus 19:10 God gave Moses a provisional law that showed compassion for the poor and the foreigner. This provision was in the form of gleaning. Gleaning was the act of collecting anything the farmer failed to harvest from his field. God specifically said that a farmer could only go through his fields one time and that he could not harvest anything on the edges of his fields. It was to be left for the poor. Now the poor had to actually go to the field and work on collecting the grains he needed. So unlike welfare, there was no free ride without work.

Now as for the second part of welfare, which is the giver. In modern societies we take from those who produce and give to those who do not and will not produce. This is a form of theft by government, even in Biblical Israel it was frowned upon by God. In Leviticus 19:15 God told the Israelites that they shall not be partial in their dealings with the rich or the poor. Welfare is partial to the poor.

As you can plainly see, the practice of welfare not only allows for a person to be lazy by not working for his room and board, but it also shows partiality to the poor over the man who works hard and has more to show for it. So there is no comparison between welfare and slavery.

Then you ask;

And if God does not condemn slavery, how can you suggest he supports capitalism?

Easy, the way slavery works is through capitalism. There was slavery of individuals who were captured in war, but in that instance slavery was used to keep the vanquished from rising up and fighting in the future, so you could say it was a form of peace. Now slavery as it is practiced by individuals is capitalism. You have a man with wealth who buys another man and expects that man to work for him. In the process the wealthy man will sell the goods for a profit, that is capitalism. Now modern day slavery is actually closer to Socialism, Fascism, or even Communism. That is another topic all together that would take probably another four paragraphs to convey my point.

Father in Heaven;
Please show mercy on the evil men who would use what they claim to be your words as justification for the sins they visit upon their fellow man.
I had thought this practice was stopped in these modern times, but witness dear Lord, the blasphemies emanating from this site and show mercy to them as well.
In Jesus' name I pray.
Amen

This from a man who supports the idea that God is fine with homosexuality, and that He also would condone them getting married. Now, I do not know where you stand on abortion, but I would bet you say you would never have your child aborted, but it is wrong for you to stop others from making that choice. Right? Quentin, I do not know which god you pray to, but do me a favor, DON'T pray to it for me.

I say that because, you and me sir do NOT have the same Jesus in mind when we speak and pray. You have a god that changes with men's desires, my God is the same yesterday, today and forever. See men change, not GOD, and try as you may you will never convince Him that your immoral way of thinking is righteous!

I have given you and everyone else the proof of what the Scriptures say, you feel what you think God believes, I know what God thinks because it is in His words. Any time you wish to challenge me on anything in the Scriptures feel free and I will not back down from prooving you wrong.

God most definitively does not support homosexuality, which in our time is a product of the bloody sexual revolution (49 mil abortions; half a mil dead by AIDS). Nor is the often used slavery polemic valid in this issue. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html#Leviticus

But God provided redemption for all types of sinners, and thus some of the early Christians were former homosexuals.

(1 Cor 6:9-11) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, {10} Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. {11} And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

To God be the glory!

"A person working as a slave to another man is in reality no different than the man who served an employer."

You honestly think...really? Just, really? Do you not know what a slave is?

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to define your terms, otherwise this debate is pointless.

"As for my comparison of marriage and slavery, that goes both ways. A man is a slave to his wife just as a wife is a slave to her husband. Where is the free will of a man or a woman who are married? A man has a right to lay with his wife, just as a wife has a right to be with her husband, neither should ever hold back accept for extenuating circumstances, and I will not list them because you know very well what I elude to."

This is just laughable. Married people are not slaves to each other. They do have certain rights and obligations (which, by the way, does not include sex whenever one of them wants it, no excuses allowed), but they do not have to do every single thing they are told by their spouse. Married couples argue all the time. They also compromise and work together to make egalitarian decisions. There is no room for any of this in slavery. You cannot be both a slave and a master to someone--it doesn't make sense. Eventually you are going to have a difference of opinion, and if you act on a choice that your spouse disagrees with--which every married person does and should do at least once in their lives--then you are not a slave. The fact that you even have the option to do so means you are not a slave.

"Regardless of how things ere in a marriage, other than adultery, there is no room for a divorce. Jesus pointed out that Moses allowed divorce only because of the hardness of men's hearts, but it was not so from God."

What about abuse, physical or emotional? You don't think that is a good reason for divorce? How is abuse better than adultery? I would say that it's even worse. And I know for a fact that a just and righteous God would not want a person to stay with a spouse that is hitting them, no matter what the Bible says.

"Then there is the children, whom the parents have complete dictatorial control over, even to the point of forced labor. You speak of free will, but in families there is to be no free will, it must be a shared will. Tell me where is the child's free will if the parent says, go to bed, go to school, clean your room, mow the grass, wash those dishes? There is no arguing from the child's vantage point, the parent owns them until they are adults or emancipated by the state. There is no free will."

But the difference is that parents, at least the good ones, control their children in order for the child's own good. Talk all you want about "good" slavemasters, I have never heard of a slavemaster who was more concerned with the well-being of his slave than that of himself.

There is also the difference that children need to be taken care of and raised, while adult slaves do not have that same need. They can be set free and allowed to live independent, self-sufficient lives.

I am sure there are many, many more differences between the institutions of family and slavery, but I don't think I could articulate them all. All I can say is that if you honestly see your family as a master-slave relationship, then I truly feel sorry for you, and I hope God can lead you to a more healthy, egalitarian view of your relationship to those you love.

"Now, I do not know where you stand on abortion, but I would bet you say you would never have your child aborted, but it is wrong for you to stop others from making that choice. Right?"

Where in the Bible does it say anything differently? I have asked many people if they can find me any scripture that deals explicitly with abortion, and I have gotten zero results.

"I know what God thinks"

How utterly arrogant.

God gave us the ability to reason and to feel. I believe we can find God in those abilities better than in any old book.

K

All you that you object to, I have covered answered sufficiently. However I will add one more fact about slavery for you. No where in the Bible does God even insinuate that slavery is evil, just the practices of those who mistreat others. You cannot even find Scripture that even comes close to calling slavery in its self evil.

Now as for abortion, both the Old and New Testaments are replete with warnings against the slaughtering of children:

"There are six things that Yahweh hates, seven that he abhors: a haughty look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood..."Proverbs 6:16-17

The most commonly recognized form of the "shedding of innocent blood" was child sacrifice. There are many references to child sacrifice in the Bible, almost all of which are tied to a "god" called Molech. This practice of passing a child through the fire was so evil & detestable that God listed it with homosexuality & bestiality as things not top do. Of all three He said “Thou Shall Not!”

And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. Leviticus 18:21-23

The name Molech (some variations of the spelling use Moloch) along with it's Greek equivalent, Milcom is mentioned several times in the Old Testament. From the many times it appears in the Scriptures, you can see that worshiping the god Molech was fairly widespread in the ancient world. The Canaanites and Ammonites regularly sacrificed their children to Molech by "passing them through fire," i.e., burning them to death. There were two variations of the way the child was sacrificed. However in both cases the statue of Molech was made of metal, usually bronze, and molded into the shape of a bull or a man with a bull's head and placed in a fire pit that had a fire started.

In one way they would wait until the metal arms of Molech were glowing red hot, and then the child was place upon them causing the it to be seared to death almost instantaneously. The second way was to place the infants or toddlers in the outstretched arms of the idol. After the metal sides of the idol were hot and the arms were lifted mechanically, causing the child to slide through an opening in the idol's mouth or chest. The child was trapped in the belly of the idol and was slowly scorched to death, or baked alive. The parents, along with the rest of the celebrants of this mad ritual, danced and cavorted to loud music, which was played to drown out the screams of the children.

This is how they aborted their children, they just had to wait for it to be born, something Obama thinks is Ok by the way. In the ancient rite, the child was sacrificed in the hopes that Molech would bless the family with a good harvest, victory in battle, or financial gain. In the modern "rite" of abortion, women sacrifice their children for their careers, social acceptability, or selfish personal needs. God makes it perfectly clear what He thinks of the practice of worshiping the pagan god Molech, which is today's practice of abortion.

"Anyone, be he Israelite or alien resident in Israel, who gives any of his children to Molech, will be put to death. The people of the country must stone him...if the people of the country choose to close their eyes to the man's action...I shall outlaw them from their people, both him and all those after him who prostitute themselves by following Molech." Leviticus 20:2-5

Now if you really think God would condone abortion you are sadly mistaken K. The only difference between feeding their babies to Molech and sucking them from the womb is 2500 years of scientific advancement, if you want to call abortion an advance in human knowledge.

Now like the Old Testament, the New Testament speaks against abortion also, because in the second chapter of Matthew, the author quotes the prophet Jeremiah to relate the massacre of innocents ordered by Herod:

"A voice is heard in Ramah lamenting and weeping bitterly: It is Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted because they are no more." Jeremiah 31:15

It seems clear to me that Jeremiah's prophecy can be applied not only to the Herod's attempt to crush the infant Jesus, but also to the consequences of abortion through post-abortion stress syndrome. There is nothing more pitiable in God's creation than a woman who realizes, too late, that she has just killed the living, breathing child in her womb.

There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ condemns abortion. In the New Testament, Jesus tells us that God's love for His children is so great that He will pour out His wrath on those who deliberately abuse them. Matthew 18:16, Mark 9:42, & Luke 2:17 Through these admonitions, and through Christ's reaffirmation of Old Testament laws Matthew 5:17, we can conclude that Christ condemns abortion, which is undeniably the worst sort of abuse ever forced upon His beloved children.

Speaking to John in the Revelation, Jesus may be sending the women who "choose" to abort a direct message:

“And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.” Revelation 2:21-23

Now most Christians profess the Holy Bible to be the undisputed Word of God, written by man yet divinely inspired. However there are those who claim to be Christians yet believe it is a woman's right to chose, and not God's. This is pure disobedience to God's word. Unfortunately, it is so widespread that there are entire denominations which support abortion to the point of shoveling the unborn by the tens of thousands into the modern day reincarnation of Molech's arms. This is a far cry from Christ's commandment to love the children. Why have these "followers of Christ," like the ancient Israelites, abandoned their faith and revived the hideous custom of child sacrifice? A cursory examination of Scripture reveals that God is patient with His wayward children, but His patience will not endure forever. In the book of Psalms we can find a clue as to what will eventually befall America should we allow our people to continue feeding our offspring to Molech:

“And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with blood. Thus they were defiled by their own works, And played the harlot by their own deeds. Therefore the wrath of the LORD was kindled against His people, So that He abhorred His own inheritance. And He gave them into the hand of the Gentiles, And those who hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, And they were brought into subjection under their hand. " Psalm 106:38-42

It's my prayer that all humans wake up to the truth before it is too late.