The Yezidi Kurds worship Malek. This god is known as Moloch in the bible.
In Hebrew Molech means king.
Moloch's worship among the Jews was apparently the sacrifice of children. The description of that sacrifice was "to pass through the fire", a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death.
The centre of atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably "place of abomination"), in the valley of Geennom.
From III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected "a temple" for Moloch "on the hill over against Jerusalem", and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel.
According to Deut., xii, 29-31; xviii, 9-14, the passing of children through fire was of Canaanite origin [cf. IV (II) Kings, xvi, 3].
A preacher from the First Baptist Church in Tallapoosa, Georgia visited the Kurds. He was there to ‘save souls’. He believed he had saved souls and brought a village to Christ even though the Yezidi clearly told him that their worship of this god is to ensure them a place he is redeemed not them.
The preacher returned home bringing the work of Satan with him.
The offerings by fire, the identity of Moloch with Baal clearly show this to be a foreign civilization. By mixing with it US morals are eroded.
Bush and Rumsfeld have, instead of stemming the tide of evil, removed the final restraints and set it free into the world.

Im sorry was there a point to this?

????????????????????

Originally posted by cranston36
Moloch's worship among the Jews was apparently the sacrifice of children.

Just as the worship of the god of the Bible, Jehovah, entailed the sacrifice of children.

Sacrificing children because of superstitious belief in a god ---no matter WHICH god-- is despicable and anti-human.

I suppose you're pro-life, then, because the sacrificing of children merely for convenience is also despicable and anti-human.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I suppose you're pro-life, then, because the sacrificing of children merely for convenience is also despicable and anti-human.
I do wish you would stop calling a fetus a child. There is a difference.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I do wish you would stop calling a fetus a child. There is a difference.

The only difference is location and maturity level.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The only difference is location and maturity level.
So we agree that they're different, then. In that case, use the proper word. Using "child" is an attempt to appeal to emotions which I find a bit intellectually dishonest.

Either way, I'm on the fence on the whole abortion thing. Can't call me pro-life, but can't call me pro-choice either. I'm neutral!

"Child" is the proper word. A 1 year old and a 5 year old have different maturity levels as well, but they are still children.

Using the word "fetus" to designate a child who still lives in her mother's womb is an intellectually dishonest attempt to fool the gullible into thinking abortionists are killing something less than human.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
"Child" is the proper word.
child
n. pl. chil·dren
1. A person between birth and puberty.

Abortion is pretty fucked up, but people have been having them WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY longer than Roe vs. Wade. The Pro Choice movement didn't invent them.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
child
n. pl. chil·dren
1. A person between birth and puberty.

Now there's some real intellectual dishonesty.

Entry 2a defines "child" as : "An unborn infant; a fetus". You conveniently forgot to include that in your cut and paste job.


:rolleyes:

Oooo GO girl!!! *if you are a girl...*

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
"Child" is the proper word. A 1 year old and a 5 year old have different maturity levels as well, but they are still children.

Using the word "fetus" to designate a child who still lives in her mother's womb is an intellectually dishonest attempt to fool the gullible into thinking abortionists are killing something less than human.

If you only knew how silly you sound when you use emotion to try and twist the truth.

The term ZYGOTE is used for a human offspring that has not developed protrusions from the initial group of cells. Once protusions develop the ZYGOTE is called a FETUS. (uusually around 16 weeks) The term fetus is used to decribe the offspring through it's growth of arms, legs, brain, lungs, etc. untill it is born. The word FETUS refers to an offspring that has not developed enough to live on it's own. That includes without medical help. Once the offspring is able to live on it's own it is called a baby. While it is learning to walk it is called a toddler. After which it is refered to as a child.

From Miriam Webster:

ZYGOTE - a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell

FETUS - an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

BABY - an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group

CHILD - a young person especially between infancy and youth

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Now there's some real intellectual dishonesty.

Entry 2a defines "child" as : "An unborn infant; a fetus". You conveniently forgot to include that in your cut and paste job.


:rolleyes:
Okay. Honestly, I didn't pay any attention to any definition beyond the first one. Thought I had you, I suppose. My apologies, you got me here.

Still, fetus is the more accurate and specific term. Why can't you use it?

I have to say that when either side reduces the abortion argument to semantics, they completely missing the point.

Originally posted by revenG_DeSire
Oooo GO girl!!! *if you are a girl...*
I guess this means an avatar change is in order. ;)

Originally posted by Echo2
If you only knew how silly you sound when you use emotion to try and twist the truth.
If you only knew how silly you sound when falsely accusing me of using "emotion to try and twist the truth" when all I did was post a dictionary definition.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Still, fetus is the more accurate and specific term. Why can't you use it?Because this thread was about sacrificing children, and, according to Houghton-Mifflin, the term "child" may be appropriately used to refer to a fetus.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I suppose you're pro-life, then, because the sacrificing of children merely for convenience is also despicable and anti-human.

The original thread initiated a discussion about *sacrifice*, using the term *sacrifice* specifically in the context of the religious meaning of the word.

Given that, your *people who have abortions are sacrificing children* quip is a bit out of place.

But then, when trying to deflect the argument away from talking about how your Biblegod ordered human beings --not unborn humans, but living breathing, fully functioning human beings-- to be sacrificed, I guess a bit of emergency misdirection is the order of the day.

Perhaps you could give an example of when my Biblegod ordered human beings to be sacrificed. Then we could discuss that.

Your general assertion that it was the case, without any specifics lead me to believe that it was just another unsupported statement much like most of what you post.

God ordered Abraham to offer up his son as a sacrifice.

Also, it seems like there is something in there about Biblegod requiring his own son to die as a sacrifice.

The entire religion is based on the barbaric practice of blood sacrifice.

But, like every religionist I have ever known, you will now no doubt begin to cloud that fact with obfuscation and denial.

Originally posted by Freethinker
God ordered Abraham to offer up his son as a sacrifice.

Also, it seems like there is something in there about Biblegod requiring his own son to die as a sacrifice.

The entire religion is based on the barbaric practice of blood sacrifice.

But, like every religionist I have ever known, you will now no doubt begin to cloud that fact with obfuscation and denial.

Oh, Freethinker! You're really cracking me up this time. When I asked you to provide an example I thought surely, surely you could do better than the Abraham/Isaac example. Just for drill, let's mention the ultimate outcome of that event: God did not require Isaac to be sacrificed and he wasn't. So, that does nothing to prove your point.

Oh, and you get better. You offer Jesus as an example. Jesus, you will recall, did allow himself to be murdered as a sacrifice for our sins. He was 33 years old, and did so voluntarily, which is a far cry from your contention:

"Just as the worship of the god of the Bible, Jehovah, entailed the sacrifice of children."

You're 0 for 2 Freethinker. I'm a little disappointed.

Aborstion is not murder, As far as i am concerned a fetus is not a child till it is born. If you want to get silly by saying it just a less mature child then By what you are saying simply wearing a condom is murdering a child becuase again it is simply different stage of the process of making a child. The same as taking the pill.

Answer me this question uncool duck. If You mother or sister was raped and the rapist got her pregnant would you expect them to keep the child??

Originally posted by English_Pride
Aborstion is not murder, As far as i am concerned a fetus is not a child till it is born. If you want to get silly by saying it just a less mature child then By what you are saying simply wearing a condom is murdering a child becuase again it is simply different stage of the process of making a child. The same as taking the pill.

Answer me this question uncool duck. If You mother or sister was raped and the rapist got her pregnant would you expect them to keep the child??


wow...far stretch... to compare prevention of pregnancy to abortion and then next compare abortion to giving one's child up for adoption is quite the stretch.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
wow...far stretch... to compare prevention of pregnancy to abortion and then next compare abortion to giving one's child up for adoption is quite the stretch.

No what i meant was if his mum or sister did get pregnant would he expect them to keep the child or terminate the pregnancy!

Sorry for the misunderstanding!!

I suppose you also condeming these 'children' to hell since they have not yet had an opportunity to embrace Jesus etc etc.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Oh, Freethinker! You're really cracking me up this time. When I asked you to provide an example I thought surely, surely you could do better than the Abraham/Isaac example.

A person who goes thru such mental contortions as you to deny the ugly truth of the fantasy they are smitten with is no doubt easily "cracked up".

The fact remains---your god, in the fairy tale we're discussing, DID order a child to be sacrificed.

Freethinker wrote--"Just as the worship of the god of the Bible, Jehovah, entailed the sacrifice of children."

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
You're 0 for 2 Freethinker. I'm a little disappointed.


I gave you two. You cannot refute either.

You will convince yourself --thru some bizarre mental gymnastics-- that black is white to avoid confronting the ugliness at the heart of your superstition.

I guess next you'll convince yourself that God did not require a blood sacrifice to avert the deaths of the first born children in Egypt.

Any rational human being reading THAT tale would be forced to admit it involves the sacrifice of children. But I'm betting that you'll come up with some way to obfuscate or deny it.......in your mind, at least.

Originally posted by Freethinker
A person who goes thru such mental contortions as you to deny the ugly truth of the fantasy they are smitten with is no doubt easily "cracked up".
Bwaaahahaha!!! I bet you're a fixin' to bedazzle me with some o' that freeeeeeee thankin'!!!!!

The fact remains---your god, in the fairy tale we're discussing, DID order a child to be sacrificed. Then give me an example of that "fact".

Freethinker wrote--"Just as the worship of the god of the Bible, Jehovah, entailed the sacrifice of children."
Yep, you sure did. At least you've got something right for a change.

I gave you two. You cannot refute either. Sorry, I missed that. All I saw you say was Abraham and Jesus. Neither of those are examples of the "fact" you mentioned earlier. I explained it very simply to you. Are you still having trouble understanding?

You will convince yourself --thru some bizarre mental gymnastics-- that black is white to avoid confronting the ugliness at the heart of your superstition. Thanks for that psychoanalysis, Dr. Phil.

I guess next you'll convince yourself that God did not require a blood sacrifice to avert the deaths of the first born children in Egypt. Nope. He required them to sacrifice a lamb.

Any rational human being reading THAT tale would be forced to admit it involves the sacrifice of children. But I'm betting that you'll come up with some way to obfuscate or deny it.......in your mind, at least. Okay, why don't you explain it to me how the sacrfice of a lamb (you do understand that a lamb is different from a human child. Don't you?) translates to sacrificing a child.
__________________________________________________ __
Okay English Pride. Go back and look at my original post. It said, "the sacrificing of children merely for convenience is also despicable and anti-human."
The operative phrase here is "merely for convenience". Perhaps later we can get into this in more detail later, but I would not classify rape as being in the category of "merely for convenience."
__________________________________________________ __
Originally posted by Lokideviluk
I suppose you also condeming these 'children' to hell since they have not yet had an opportunity to embrace Jesus etc etc.I'm not sure what your point here is, or even if it was addressed to me, but my short answer would be "no."

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Okay English Pride. Go back and look at my original post. It said, "the sacrificing of children merely for convenience is also despicable and anti-human."
The operative phrase here is "merely for convenience". Perhaps later we can get into this in more detail later, but I would not classify rape as being in the category of "merely for convenience."


But i fail to see where the difference would be in gods eyes or yours, By what you are saying killing a child is killing a child weather it's father is a wanker or not!!!

Originally posted by English_Pride
But i fail to see where the difference would be in gods eyes or yours, By what you are saying killing a child is killing a child weather it's father is a wanker or not!!!

First of all, I can't address the difference in God's eyes. I am not God. I don't speak for God, and I know very little about him, so I cannot help you there.

As for me, I see human life on a continuum. We both agree that after birth, a baby is a full human. As we move backward in the child's development, that position becomes more and more tenuous.

I'd like to see the debate start at the end of the first trimester. I see no reason, other than to save the life of a mother, for an abortion past that point. Certainly by then you should know if the father is a wanker or not.

I must admit that I'm still squeamish about abortion even at this point, but I can accept it, however begrudgingly in these cases, and the earlier the better.

I admit that when I made the original comment you were questioning, I was thinking more along the lines of 6 month old fetuses, fully developed, able to live outside the mother's womb. Thousands of these are aborted, for purely elective purposes, in the U.S. each year. These are what I liken to the child sacrifices mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

Interesting thing about a human sacrifice.
It seems of approval mostly by those that are sacrificing the "other guy."

Originally posted by English_Pride
No what i meant was if his mum or sister did get pregnant would he expect them to keep the child or terminate the pregnancy!

Sorry for the misunderstanding!!

okay, got ya now....