quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy

I read the article above, but it shows absolutely no evidence that the Phoenicians worshiped Molech, which I what I had already stated. I know that the Phoenicians practiced child sacrifice, and have never claimed otherwise. I have simply asserted that the god Molech is an invention of the Hebrew which they attributed to the Phoenicians, and no evidence has yet been presented to indicate otherwise.
 
The Bible itself gives examples of human sacrifice offered by the early Hebrew.
 
Thou shalt not delay [to offer] the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, [and] with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me._ Exod 22: 29-30
 
Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, [and] with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
....And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her [according] to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, _ Judges 11: 30 & 39

And he slew all the priests of the high places that [were] there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem. _2Kings 23:20
 
There are more cryptic examples as well, such as the men of Jabeshgilead who were hanged on a hill ( high place ) in 2Sa 21:13. Sorry, but the Hebrew practiced human sacrifice, like it or not.
 
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy

I agree that the Bible is no historical text, but it at least offers some shred of textual evidence that they conducted human sacrifice, which is more evidence than has as yet been presented for the worship of Moloch. From the Hebrew we have the word Mulk, which means human sacrifice, and we also have pseudo-historoigraphical accounts of them engaging in such practice. There does not appear to be any similar evidence in Phoenician writing or artifacts that would suggest that there were ever a god called Molech. All we have to go by is the Bible on this account, and as it seems to have perverted it's own language concerning this, it is highly suspect that it was a projection upon the Phoenicians of earlier Hebrew practices. The Phoenicians were not the first race to be demonized by the Hebrew prophets, so I fail to understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrutalAntipathy

I read the article above, but it shows absolutely no evidence that the Phoenicians worshiped Molech, which I what I had already stated. I know that the Phoenicians practiced child sacrifice, and have never claimed otherwise. I have simply asserted that the god Molech is an invention of the Hebrew which they attributed to the Phoenicians, and no evidence has yet been presented to indicate otherwise.
 
The Bible itself gives examples of human sacrifice offered by the early Hebrew.
 
Thou shalt not delay [to offer] the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, [and] with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me._ Exod 22: 29-30
 
Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, [and] with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
....And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her [according] to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, _ Judges 11: 30 & 39

And he slew all the priests of the high places that [were] there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem. _2Kings 23:20
 
There are more cryptic examples as well, such as the men of Jabeshgilead who were hanged on a hill ( high place ) in 2Sa 21:13. Sorry, but the Hebrew practiced human sacrifice, like it or not.
 
 

Again, the association of the ancient Hebrews with the tophets of Moloch is nothing but pure conjecture. There is no archaeological evidence to support this. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Asserting your conjecture under the pretenses that sources do not contradict it is far from a supportable position.

However, there are Phoenecian tophets with the incriptions MLK. Additionally the regional root MLK consistantly refers to gods and practices associated with them. (Reference the Mesopatamian Malik, the Assyrian Milchom, the Palmyrian Malach Baal, etc.) The very usage of the MLK root as the word for king in Hebrew is believed to have resulted from this god association which predates that ancient Israelites.

Additionally, you show a gross misunderstanding (at best) of Biblical texts. The Exodus 22 you cite for example does not deal with the sacrifice of animals or humans. Were it so, all the first born would have been slain along with all of the oxen and sheep. You're not implying they ritually slaughtered all of their young oxen, are you? The word "give" is actually "nathan" which among other things also means to consecrate or to devote. The closest reference to a sacrifice in those verses is the admonition that the Hebrews should not delay in presenting the plant offerings from their farms.

*meow*

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenixandnika

Weather we agree with what they say or how they say it is their legal right to say it. IF society as a whole is uphald by this then it is up to us to demand our lawmakers locally and perhaps federally to change those laws.

Do I find this site, their actions morally sickening? Yes, however what is morally expectable and legally acceptable at times do not coincide.

Everyone has a right to an opinion and to voice it. IF only the opinions and believes we liked or agreed with where spoken live and this country in my eyes would loose a great deal of its flavor and invite.
 
I would also encourage people to think strongly about revoking someones freedom of speech because the next voice stiffled may be your own. 
 Blessed Be, 
 Phoenix's Nika

 

I am not implying that their rights to free speech should be revoked. I do consider that teaching children to hate like this and making them stand around with signs protesting is a form of child abuse. I also have major issues with their perversion of the bible and its intent. Quite often "churches" like these upon examination will be found to be violating numerous laws pertaining to the seperation of church and state. It pretty much sucks that our AG endlessly harrases adult websites and adult freedoms to their own from of consensual sexuality while never taking to task or at least looking into the laws that churches may be breaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladychatterley
Yeah, Leviticus says homosexuality is an abomination.  And eating shellfish is an abominiation.  Same word, like 6 lines apart.  So I think we should all stone to death everyone who has ever been in a "red lobster." 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin
What exactly do you see as separation of Church and State, because it is not what most people think.  It quite simply means that the State is not to ever meddle in the Church's affairs.  That is ALL it means, regardless of the Court's liberal agenda.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The Law was NEVER intended to imply that the State could not pass Laws with religious implications.  Read your history, in specific the thoughts of Jefferson.  I have.  The State has every right to place "under God" in the pledge, or to allow religious sayings in school, and everything else according to that Amendment.  It is only a zealous liberal aetheist Court with an agenda that was preventing them from doing otherwise.  The USSC was perverted.  I am probably more familiar with that Amendment and critical Court rulings than you are after extensive debates and research about it over the course of a year.

The Amendment was only written to protect the Church, and in specific persecution of the Church.  At that time it was the Baptist assemblies that Jefferson was addressing.  That is it.  Nothing more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladychatterley
Yeah, Leviticus says homosexuality is an abomination.  And eating shellfish is an abomination.  Same word, like 6 lines apart.  So I think we should all stone to death everyone who has ever been in a "red lobster." 

What you have done, quite literally, is to take one small snippet of the Bible out of context and completely ignored everything else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin
Leviticus was the Law given to the Jews to tide them over to Jesus' coming.  That is it.  It was designed to show them that they could not get into heaven any other way than through Jesus himself.  Jesus fulfilled the Law by being crucified, during which the curtain in the temple was torn in two as a symbol that the Jews no longer had to pay a High Priest to intercede with God on their behalf.  Paul tells us that we no longer under the old Law, but are saved by grace.

Paul then goes on to tell us in the New Testament (1 Corinthians is one of two places) that homosexuals will never see the kingdom of Heaven.  He wrote it as an outcry against the Roman emperors that were blatantly homosexual (the greatest majority of them anyways.  Nero, for example, castrated a young boy and married him.  He then divorced him and married another man to become the wife).

Basically what I am saying is that many people here have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, yet speak as though they were the authority on the matter.

quote:

read the article above, but it shows absolutely no evidence that the Phoenicians worshiped Molech, which I what I had already stated. I know that the Phoenicians practiced child sacrifice, and have never claimed otherwise. I have simply asserted that the god Molech is an invention of the Hebrew which they attributed to the Phoenicians, and no evidence has yet been presented to indicate otherwise.
BrutalAntipathy