Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Sacrificing to Molech...

* I will be deleting any comments to this post from now on. If you would like to give your opinions about this topic on your own blog, that would be a more appropriate place. This is my blog, and I think that comments on this post are becoming more off topic and unhelpful, and I don't have time to respond to them now, as I am in the middle of a move.*

"The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same." You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."- Deuteronomy 12:29-31

For the last week or so, I've noticed a theme in the things I've been learning in my Bible study. Specifically, the sacrifice of infants to Molech has come up twice in a week. Now, I don't know about you, but that isn't something that comes up often in my Bible study.

In our video lesson this week in Sunday school, the practice of Baal infant sacrifice was explained and dwelt upon. In the Canaanite fertility ritual, Baal died each year in the winter, and in order to get him to return to life in the spring and bless the crops, his worshippers thought they had to mimic his sexual behavior with Asherah. This would encourage him to come back, mate with Asherah, and give them good crops. It was all about doing/sacrificing whatever they thought they had to to get what they needed for the year. Sometimes, the sexual and animal sacrifice wouldn't be enough. They would give their infants to the flames as well.

And I thought about what it means when a culture sacrifices its infants in order to get something it thinks is more important... whatever that is. For the Canaanites, it was a good grain crop. For us, it might be an easier single life or not having to worry about a child placed for adoption.

I've heard a lot said about how evangelicals have "social issue" fatigue. They're tired of dealing with and talking about abortion over and over again. Some among the younger generation think that they should be voting on other important things, like the environment, or the economy. They think, "Well, I don't see that Roe will be overturned in my lifetime. I don't think anything I do will do any good, so I'm moving on to issues I think I can do something about."

When I read what God thinks of cultures that practice infant sacrifice, I am sobered about this mindset once again. There is never a time when it is ok to get tired of taking a stand for innocent human life. And there is never a good time to cast a vote for someone who says that he or she believes that children can be sacrificed for the sake of expediency.

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion senator in the U.S. Senate. He has taken stands that most other Democrats have not. He wouldn't even support a measure that was identical to one passed by an overwhelming Senate majority that would provide medical care to an aborted baby born alive. He said it would place an undue burden on the mother to make the decision about abortion all over again. This is a living, breathing, human child we're talking about, and he wouldn't act to save it. Go to http://www.bornalivetruth.org/ for more information on that.

We have never seen a major presidential candidate before that was so strongly pro-abortion. And it scares me. I do not want to be a member of a majority culture that says that wrong is right. And I'm afraid that people who do not believe in abortion might vote for this man because they're tired of Republicans and looking for a change.

So I'm putting this out there because God seems to be bringing it to my attention this week, and I don't want to let the moment pass me by. Please, until every child has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't get distracted by the other issues. They're important, but none trumps this...

18 comments:

Shannon said...

Excellently written, Ellen. I may very well refer a few people to this post. I hadn't parallelled abortion to the sacrifices to Molech before, but I think you're exactly right.

Rachel said...

I agree! It is scary to think that Obama might actually become our next president! It is very sobering. I pray that people will see the truth, especially the Christians who seem to be voting that way.
Thanks Ellen!!!

katie said...

Thanks for the reminder. I admit that this issue has fallen off the top of my priority list simply because it doesn't seem like something that is able to be changed anyway.
But as I was reading this I started thinking of the Clinton era and how hard he fought for partial-birth abortions ... something that Obama, no doubt, will try to do as well.

Momma B. said...

This has been on the forefront of my mind in regards to this election as well. THank You for getting the word out there.

Shannon said...

Ellen, would you mind if I linked your blog in a post on mine? I'd like to run with this topic a little myself...

Further Up & Further In said...

Yet, there is this: Many republicans are dubious of McCain's intents to maintain his pursuit of pro-life causes. He has shown ambiguity and a tendency to change his stance on other issues. If you have good reason to believe that neither McCain nor Obama would do anything to support the rights of infants to live, then it would be time to look at the other issues. For instance, the preservation of the 2nd ammendment....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&feature=related

...not to mention the abolishment of the Patriot Act (a hugely unlikely event in the election of another Republican candidate) and the downsizing of "Homeland Security"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHqpuVetLeo

Perhaps Obama's "pro-abortion" moves in the past have been more in his efforts to preserve civil liberties and remove government from the Doctor's Office than to promote the slaughter of infants. He said point blank that he opposes any form of late-term abortion, personally.

If neither McCain nor Obama will support the cause of the Unborn or uphold the standards of the Constitution, perhaps people should consider keeping their votes from either of them and either not voting ("No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier." and also ""My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight") or finding a third party member that might do a better job. Check out campaignforliberty.com

Ellen said...

In response to Further Up, McCain has been consistently pro-life in the past. Obama has been consistently pro-death. McCain certainly won't attept to protect innocent life perfectly, but Obama will certainly attempt to make their deaths more sure and certain. I really don't care what his motives are... death is the result. He is unashamedly pro-abortion, and Democrats know it. I really don't think that fact is up for grabs. Look at his voting record. As I've mentioned before, thinking that other issues (like homeland security) are more important that this one is something that many young Christians are contemplating these days. I think that is a grievous mistake. And as for third party candidates, in our government system, third party candidates are highly unlikely to win. That's just the way it is, unfortunately, and in this election, its a certainty. God has placed me in a country where I am expected to vote. I will vote, however imperfect it is, for the best chance at more lives being spared.

Chris and Jennifer said...

In order to even suggest that Obama and McCain are similar in their beliefs on Abortion, one must not have watched a single debate, looked at NARAL or Pro-life sites which detail their voting record, ignored Obama's State voting record as a state senator and must deny that Obama has promised to sign a comprehensive abortion rights bill within the first 100 days. Shame on you for supporting Obama while claiming to support the rights of the unborn. I would give up many many constitutional rights if it meant saving one life. Its not really a close call, unless you are very confused and ill-informed. Yes, I am being harsh, but time for walking on eggshells is past and time is of the essence. If nothing else, vote for the person that doesn't promise to expand abortion rights.

Thank you Ellen for posting what is surprisingly not well known. How is this even possible that people do not understand this? Obama will be the most liberal president that we have ever seen. There will be an expansion of socialistic policies. That said, I am not afraid because he has not defeated the Lord and it is in Him that I trust. Do not be afraid that Obama will win (he will), rather start fighting for the unborn. Maybe this will wake up conservatives from their apathy.

Rachel said...

Thanks to Ellen and Chris for your last two comments. I wholeheartedly agree with you. You're right Chris, that time is of the essence. The only thing we can do now is pray that God's will will be done in this election. Thank you Ellen for reminding us of this most important issue. Love you!

Ben said...

I would argue that the general loss of civil liberties will hasten, not retard, the cause of abortion by degrading the understanding of what Freedom is and from Whom it came and by what means it continues to exist.

I would love for anyone to explain to me how this issue, the murder of our children, means more than the loss of our other liberties...the loss which has allowed a foreign policy that has killed thousands of other nation's civilians (and are their children less precious than our own?). (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx). Rewind a few years and pick another, if you want more death statistics. "Many many constitutional rights", Chris? I just picked one conflict, and one area (our foreign policy) to sample. We could go on as the day is long...

No one is arguing the heinousness of abortion, but perhaps there are other issues to consider and other ramifications to predict. In the mean time, a little less willful close-mindedness and a little more respect towards my wife would be appreciated. Please, reread her post and see that she was not endorsing either candidate (I know that her personal beliefs are not such), but was merely trying to introduce the ideas that she holds: we should vote on more than one issue, that our civil liberties are at stake, and that perhaps "voting your conscience" may mean voting for someone who may not win (in the same way that "acting your conscience" may not always benefit you in this world --or make you a "winner"). I'm not decided on those ideas, and one that I'd love a friendly, intellectual, finger-pointing-free debate. Sorry to hijack your post; please feel free to email me if you'd rather talk privately.

I maintain that giving up your constitutional rights is how lives are lost, not saved. I'd love to see how either candidate will bring about any restoration of our constitutional RIGHTS, when they have both promised MORE GOVERNMENT.

Ellen said...

Thanks for weighing in, Ben. I want this to be a civil discussion, even if we disagree. I'd like to address your point that the loss of constitutional rights leads to war and the loss of civilian life. I'm not really sure how those two connect. Countries have always been at war with each other, and civilian casualties are a tragic result. But I don't think any of our national leaders would stand up and say that the loss of innocent civilian life is a good thing that they would like to promote. In fact, they are working to try to minimize it, despite the attempts by some evil men to put children around them in an attempt to save their own sorry hides.

I think what it comes down to is an attitude of disrespect toward innocent life. Everyone would have a problem with it if a politician said things like this: "I think that taking the lives of Iraqi children should be safe and legal. If an Iraqi child is causing an inconvenience or hardship in your life, you should have the legal right to kill it. There will no consequences to you. I would like to provide you with federal money to do this. And I would like to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as my first act as president to make it easier for you to do, and to require even those that don't agree with the killing to assist you with it." Well, this is what Obama is saying about the lives of American children. I will not vote for any politician who stands up and says that the killing of children is a good thing that he will support and try to make easier to obtain. That is the difference, and I think that it is a significant one.

Chris and Jennifer said...

I don't want to derail Ellen's blog, so I'll be very concise and promise that it will be my last post on this topic.

1. Of course, Ben, I respect your wife, I've known her most of my life. I don't, however, respect the argument that McCain and Obama are similar in their abortion stances. I don't apologize for not respecting that argument which I still believe is ill-informed.

2. McCain has a strong record on defending the constitution. Worries that he will erode our constitutional rights are being rather paranoid. It sounds like a talking point of Ron Paul. Is McCain perfect? Of course not. But he's far and away better than the socialist Obama. They are not similar people with similar beliefs. Any argument to that effect is simply absurd.

And ditto Ellen on that last post.

Ben said...

Thanks, Ellen. I know that wars do happen all over the world, but we have a foreign policy that promotes them. Our active involvement in other nation's affairs quite often prolongs conflicts and increases civilian deaths --as can be observed (again, just in the Iraq war) by other regions' fighters flooding into Iraq once we arrived. So, in a sense, the Federal Gov. is saying exactly that: here's money, go and fight a war (which will cause the deaths of civilians --it's unavoidable). My own belief expands your statement, "I will not vote for any politician who stands up and says that the killing of children is a good thing that he will support and try to make easier to obtain.", to "I will not vote for any politician who stands up and says that needless killing is a good thing that he will support and try to make easier to obtain." But please don't think me a supporter of abortion. I simply think there are other issues that we should consider, along WITH abortion, when we vote. What do you think?

Chris, I'm not asking you to respect an argument that you don't agree with. I'm also aware, being that I'm married to my wife, that you and she have known each other for a long time. Neither of these elements come into play when you heap shame upon my wife (and not her argument): "Shame on you for supporting Obama while claiming to support the rights of the unborn." That is disrespectful in any culture.

Furthermore, I ask, again, that you reread her post. I'm pretty sure if you look at the quantifiers ("if....is true", "many believe", "perhaps"), you will see that she was not making an argument for either side, but simply trying to introduce new lines of thought.

You say, "McCain has a strong record on defending the constitution. Worries that he will erode our constitutional rights are being rather paranoid." Please visit (http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm) or (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/) if you'd like to see how he stands on our constitutional rights (specifically Homeland Security, Warrantless Wiretapping, etc). Black and white. Quite frankly, I don't care who's talking point it is. If the speaker is right (according to my opinion), I'll agree with him.

Ellen said...

Actually, Ben, I don't think we agree at all on this. I think there is a very big difference between a politician starting a war that they know will have civilian casualties that they will hate and deplore and a politician standing up and applauding, approving of, and promoting innocent slaughter because he thinks its a good thing for our country to have the ability to slaughter its children. One is an unfortunate bi-product of an unfortunate situation that no one likes. The other is specific, targeted murder of small children being encouraged. I don't think there's any comparison there. And if you and Chris would like to take your specific disagreements over to Chris' blog, that would be great. =)

Ben said...

So be it. But politicians also appluad the uneccessary wars that they start. But thanks for your time, and sorry for hijacking.

Further Up & Further In said...

Ok, this is my final comment. I plan on bringing up some of this same stuff on my blog in a bit, so bear with me in my closing statement here.

Firstly, Ellen, thanks for keeping things on an intellectual level. It is a tough thing to talk about, and even tougher knowing that we have the same Lord, and are called to be one in Christ. I hope that everyone reading this blog maintains that precious truth while considering these issues.

Secondly, I am here as a Novice at politics and government, never having voted before, and I am very, very interested in finding out what is going on, and most importantly, what the Constitution says is law. I have been googling my head off in the last months trying to find out what has been going on in government over the last 20 years, what the issues are, and what the next step is in our country's future.

And, just for the record, I am not pro-Obama, nor am I pro-McCain. I thoroughly admire everything I've heard Ron Paul say, however, yet I consider myself either a non-voter for religious reasons or a third-party voter. Amongst all of those, I am completely undecided as to which candidate I will choose this fall, or whether I will just not vote. This indecision is based upon my lack of knowledge/information on many topics. I just plain don't have it figured out yet. That being said, I welcome any and all research, opinion, and information that anyone is willing to dish out....minus personal barbs.

Now, I just want to get one final thing straight. Ellen, you have determined that abortion is the only issue that is worth considering in this election (you said, "until every child has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't get distracted by the other issues."), and that it is worth sacrificing anything else that comes along with a McCain Administration, including, but not limited to bigger government, a more and more aggressive foreign policy (more wars), and a tighter and more aggressive internal security force (check out McCain's plan for Homeland Security http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/5e71b41a-d879-474c-908c-a501b675ad0e.htm ) for the sake of allowing McCain the chance to act on his promises to fight for the rights of the unborn to live in various ways.

Am I right about that?

So, assuming I am right, I have two points to make about your stance.

1. I am opposed to electing a president based on one issue alone. It is unwise to put all the eggs in one basket. Should McCain fail (because of the democratic majority in Congress OR his own capitulation to lobbyists and pressure from Washington--this has happened with him before, check his records) to make any significant changes to the abortion status in this country, you are left with his other policies, which, up to this point, you have brushed aside as being trumped by abortion, and, "a grievous mistake" to consider.

2. Your Issue of Choice (abortion) is one that affects the paegan culture in this nation. The Church (the Body of Christ) does not suffer because it is legal for the World (biblically-speaking) to slaughter their children. America is not the Church. However, the Church WILL be affected by the abolishment of Freedom of Speech and other civil liberties. Do you forget what it was like to be afraid of being reported to CPS because you were homeschooled?

I would argue the importance of those Trumped Policies thusly: While your children may never feel the effects of abortion upon their families, being that your faith and your husband's will be passed onto them (Lord willing), the laws which come into effect under the name of Homeland Security and Abolishing Terrorism WILL directly affect their lifestyles. Making abortion illegal does not change ungodly Americans' hearts on the issue.


What do you think?

Ellen said...

Hmmm, ok, hoping this is the last comment on this post and we can move on. Just to be clear, I don't think abortion is the only issue of importance in an election. There are many things that concern me about a McCain administration. Would I be thrilled if I had a better choice? Absolutely. But... due to the two party system that I currently find myself living under, I have two choices. Only one of them does not say that murder is permissible. Therefore, I choose that choice. If both candidates said that murder of innocent children was permissible, I would choose neither. I can't choose perfection, or even close to it. I can only choose the best of two far less than perfect options.

Regardless of which candidate wins, I am absolutely sure that there will be things that they do that I'm not going to like or will negatively impact me. (I don't really think homeschooling will be one of them.) But I'm not going to refuse to cast a ballot for life because of that. And if I voted for Obama, I know I would be casting a vote for a culture of death. I may not be able to do much, but I'm going to do what little I can do in that way, as imperfect as it is.

I'm actually getting frustrated with this because I feel like we are coming from different worldviews, and our worldviews are simply talking past each other. I have mine, and you have yours. And I'm not sure that talking more is going to change anything. Please, lets just move on.

Myers Carpenter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.