SLAVERY, SHELLFISH, STONING AND SWORDS;
A REPLY TO BARACK OBAMA
What do slavery, shellfish, stoning and swords have in common? Barack Obama mentioned most of
them in a disrespectful reference to the Holy Bible. (Swords he didn't actually mention, but he did
mention the Defense Department, and that's close, and swords are mentioned in the Bible passages I
quote in reply to his comments.)

Here is exactly what he said as he explained why this country should not base its public policy on the
Bible. "What passage of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which
suggests that slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination, or we could go with
Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith, or should we just stick to
the Sermon On The Mount, a passage which is so radical that it is doubtful that our Defense Department
could survive its application." (Several people have put this on the Internet, search You Tube Obama
Bible and select a video about Obama mocking the Bible.)

Does the Bible say that slavery is OK? Actually, it doesn't. The word slavery does not occur in the KJV
Bible. The word slave occurs only once, in a rhetorical question, "Is Israel a servant? is he a homeborn
slave? why is he spoiled?" (Jer. 2:14). The word slaves occurs only once as well, when the great city
Babylon, a symbol of the New World Order, is accused of having dealt in slaves. (See Rev. 18:10-13).
Obviously, this is not what Obama is referencing.

He is instead referring to bond servants. "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have,
shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their
families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be
your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another
with rigour." (Lev. 25:44-46).  

The distinction between slavery and bond service is important, because Christ did away with bond
service. Here is the Apostle Paul speaking for Christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28).

How did Christ do away with bond service? He stood up in the synagogue in Nazareth on the Sabbath
and read these words from the Book of Isaiah.

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He
hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4:
18,19). After Christ sat down, he continued; "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." (Luke 4:21).

Another translation of the passage from Isaiah that Christ read helps clarify what Christ meant.

"The spirit of the Lord God is upon Me; because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto
the meek; He hath sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the
opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord..." (Is. 61:1,2).

There are captives that are in prison, they will be freed, Christ came "to preach deliverance to the
captives," in other words, "the opening of the prison to them that are bound." There are captives who
are in bondage and beaten for disobedience, these are slaves. Christ came "to set at liberty them that
are bruised, in other words, "to proclaim liberty to the captives," to free the slaves.

In summation, the Old Testament may indicate that bond service is acceptable, but the words of Christ
have done away with bondage or slavery.

While showing disrespect for the Bible, Obama has raised up the Koran, repeatedly calling Muhammad's
book the "Holy" Koran. How does the Koran speak of slavery? In reading the Koran, I could find no
passage that indicated that slavery was wrong, and I found several that indicated that it was acceptable.
Here is a sample.

"And those who pronounce thihar (banning of sexual contact, but continuing room and board) from their
wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said - then [there must be] the freeing of a slave before
they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you
do." Surat Al-Mujadila, Verse 3 (58:3).

Before leaving the subject of the Koran and slavery, I would like to call attention to the law as it affects
wives. Wives may not divorce their husbands, their husbands have authority over them.

"Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah
has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right
to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is
expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in
responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 228 (2:228).

In a divorce, husbands keep the children.

"O Prophet, when you [Muslims] divorce women, divorce them for [the commencement of] their waiting
period and keep count of the waiting period, and fear Allah, your Lord. Do not turn them out of their
[husbands'] houses, nor should they [themselves] leave [during that period] unless they are committing
a clear immorality. Lodge them [in a section] of where you dwell out of your means and do not harm them
in order to oppress them. And if they should be pregnant, then spend on them until they give birth. And
if they breastfeed for you, then give them their payment and confer among yourselves in the acceptable
way; but if you are in discord, then there may breastfeed for the father another woman." Surat At-Talaq,
Verse 1 and 6 (65:1,6).

Disobedient wives can be beaten.

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend
[for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the
husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear
arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But
if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them." Surat An-Nisa, Verse 34 (4:34).

A modern definition of a slave is a person who is forced to produce what they do not own, without pay
except maintenance, under threat of violence, and unable to walk away... Since there are still slaves
doing hard labor in some Muslim countries, and Muslim wives also fit the definition of slaves, it seems
to me that the Koran has authorized the enslavement of perhaps a third of the Islamic world.

Does the Bible call the eating of shellfish an abomination? Actually, yes it does.

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the
seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the
rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an
abomination unto you: they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye
shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be
an abomination unto you
." (Lev. 11:9-12).  

Why is shellfish an abomination? Lying open on the bottom of the ocean, all kinds of waste and bacterial
contaminants lodge in shellfish. In biblical times, as now, it was frequently eaten raw. Shellfish,
particularly raw oysters, kills Americans every year, even though we have doctors and hospitals. In the
days of the Bible, when there was no medical care, eating shellfish was even more dangerous, so God
forbade His people to eat it.

Does the Book of Deuteronomy really advocate "stoning your child if he strays from the faith?" There is
a Bible passage that says something similar,
BUT this is a gross misrepresentation of its content. Here is
the scripture.

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of
his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father
and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his
place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not
obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones,
that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deut. 21:18-
21).

Note that both the father
and the mother have to denounce their son as a drunkard, a glutton and a
rebel in order to have him stoned. This probably was used as a threat by distraught parents fairly
frequently, but I suspect that no parents lead their child to his death.

The Bible is full of stories of human interest, many involving legal actions, for example, the harlotry trial
of Tamar (Gen. 38:6-26), or Boaz claiming the kinsman's right to marry Ruth (Ruth 4). The scandal of
parents having their son ritually killed would have been recorded. As the scripture itself says, "all Israel
shall hear, and fear."

For this reply, it is enough to show that Christ did away with stoning.

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her
in the midst, they say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in
the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting Him,
that they might have to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote (a description of
their sins) on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted
up Himself, and said unto them, he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And
again He stooped down, and wrote (about their sins) on the ground. And they which heard it, being
convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:
and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and
saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man
condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and
sin no more. (John 8:4-11).

With the words, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," and "Neither do I
condemn thee: go, and sin no more," Christ changed the dispensation for sin where there is no victim.
Where there had been stoning and death for immorality under the Mosaic Law, the loss of physical life;
Christ gave us forgiveness, but loss of immortal life for continued sin. He taught the same message
when He said, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned:
forgive, and ye shall be forgiven..." (Luke 6:37).

Is there a passage in "the Sermon On The Mount... which is so radical that it is doubtful that our Defense
Department could survive its application
?" Well, yes and no. If the passage was meant to guide our
interactions with all mankind, no matter that they were trying to kill us, yes it would do away with the
Defense Department. Did Christ mean it that way? No, He did not! Here is the passage.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That
ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever
shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would
borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to
them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the
children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good,
and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have
ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than
others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven
is perfect." (Matt. 5:38-48).

Christ spoke these words to a great crowd of believers. "And there followed him great multitudes of
people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond
Jordan." (Matt. 4:25). So the first thing I would say about this passage is that it is intended as a guide to
Christians in their dealings with one another, be meek, be forgiving. It is not intended to guide
Christians when under foreign attack.

Note also that Christ set limits on meekness and forgiveness by what He did not say. He spoke of "an
eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," but this is only a part of the Mosaic Law regarding death or
injuries from a conflict. The whole law about the results of brawling follows:

"And if any mischief (injuries) follow (the brawl), then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Ex. 21:23-
25).

From the list of injuries, Christ has picked two that could be the result of a simple fist fight. He has
exempted loss of life, dismemberment, and other injuries which would arise from the use of weapons. In
short, Christ has left the door open to seeking redress under the Mosaic Law for dire injuries arising
from either armed or unarmed fights, and painful injuries, if one of the combatants uses a weapon.

By His actions, Christ also showed that He approved of self and community defense. He prepared to be
taken by the scribes and the Pharisees by insuring that He and His disciples would not be murdered
outright.

"And He (Christ) said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any
thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you,
that this that is written must yet be accomplished in Me, And He was reckoned among the transgressors:
for the things concerning Me have an end.
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He
said unto them, It is enough." (Luke 22:35-38). Note that the disciples already had two swords.

As Christ expected, the mob that came to seize Him was heavily armed.

"And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords
and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. And, behold, one of them which were with
Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote
off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the
sword shall perish with the sword. In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as
against a thief with swords and staves for to take Me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye
laid no hold on Me. And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where
the scribes and the elders were assembled." (Matt. 26:47,51,52,55,57).

In all of his references to the Bible, Obama was only correct once, the Bible says shellfish are
abominable, raw oysters can kill you. The rest of his comments were misleading and disrespectful.

Obama was a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's congregation for 20 years. The connection does not
speak well for Jeremiah Wright. If he was teaching basic Christianity, Barack Obama was not listening.
And in 20 years of attending Rev. Wright's church, Obama never learned to respect the Holy Bible.

But perhaps Obama's disrespect of the Bible is not Rev. Wright's fault. Perhaps, Obama was never a
believer. There is reason in Obama's public statements to believe that Obama is a closet Muslim, and I
do. (See No. 107, "The Koran And The Antichrist" on this website.)

Obama has also written disrespectfully of the American Constitution. Tearing down the icons and
religion of a society is part of the Marxist agenda. Marxist Antonio Gramsci believed that: "The main task
of the workers in modern times was to liberate themselves spiritually from the culture of the
bourgeoisie and the Church and to establish their own cultural values in such a way as to attract the
oppressed and intellectual strata to themselves.” (Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: The
Founders, The Golden Age, The Breakdown, translated by P. S. Falla, New York, W. W. Norton & Co.,
2005, p. 981).

In this country, the "culture of the bourgeoisie and the Church" is a belief in the American Constitution
and the Holy Bible, "One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." You can see on news videos
that Obama disrespects the Holy Bible. In this reply to his disrespect, you have seen that he also
misrepresents God's Word. On this website, No. 12, "God Help Us, The Man Is A Marxist" shows Obama's
disrespect for the American Constitution. I would have to say, I believe the man is a Marxist as well as a
closet Muslim.

The Marxist agenda has never benefited the poor. Instead, it benefits the powerful and makes them
rich. It tends to shrink the middle class, which is what is happening in America now. The Muslim agenda
has resulted in societies that are violent and oppressive to the poor and to women.

America should remember its foundation, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men..." (Declaration Of Independence, 1776, Thomas Jefferson).

I recommend that we hang on to the Bible and the Constitution and vote the Marxists and Muslim
sympathizers out of office as soon as possible.

Amo Paul Bishop Roden
Obama swearing on the Holy Bible to uphold the Constitution.