Feeding the Children to Moloch

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To be fair, I think it's just as inaccurate to portray "pagans" as loving and harmless people as it is to portray them as evil and malicious sinners. They were still humans, meaning they had the same flaws as other humans. They still waged war, still killed, still had greed, still committed infanticide, still stole, still cheated, still discriminated & oppressed, etc.

It helps to remember that from many Christian perspectives, every belief system that wasn't Christian was "pagan". That means that every single aspect of their cultures, good or bad, was considered a "pagan" attribute. Genghis Khan/Chingiss Khagan would be considered a "pagan" and his deities surely weren't loving types if they condoned his armies' actions. And there are non-Christian religions throughout time who've had "war deities/war gods" who were literally prayed to and sometimes sacrificed to in order to give their warriors more strength for bloodshed.

The point I'm making is that it's not true to say "Pagan gods only became "evil" when Christians said as much." Those "pagan" deities were both loved and hated by different groups in their own time periods even prior to Christianity's arrival. Religious bigotry existed long before Christianity. The fact that Europe and East Asia were at war within themselves long before Christianity showed up is proof enough that "pagans" were just as hostile and corrupt as non-pagans. "Pagan" civilizations raided, sacked, raped, pillaged, and exterminated other "pagan" civilizations all the time; recorded history is literally filled with this.

You could be killed for offending deities in some cultures. And sometimes the royals themselves were the deities, meaning that any of their corruption was directly caused by or seen as being supported by their deities of the time. I'd imagine that the poor and oppressed people in one of these cultures would have disdain for the "evil" deities that demanded constant allegiance and tributes from them. If you were in a region that was plundered by the ancient Greeks or Vikings, you don't think people there would grow to hate those Greeks/Vikings, their cultures, and their beliefs?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ok. That's a fair point. Humans are humans and we LOVE to wage war. It's probably humanity's best skill. I guess my point was more reflecting that Christianity totally dominated all the other pagan cultures. Though the reasons weren't entirely religious in purpose. They were more intended to unite the Roman Empire under a singular religion so as to make governing easier.

originally posted by: cooperton
Which would be analogous to God, the life-giving force of all matters. Mammon/Moloch would be to ignore these natural forces inside of us, and to go your own way

Really? I thought god was supposed to be intelligent?

Yet it keeps the living world in order and flourishing with its life-giving sustenance so it seems to be doing a great job.

Yeah so? Worshiping it or not worshiping it doesn't change this dynamic.

Breathe is derived from the word 'spirit' in Latin. This is why the sign of the cross points to the lungs when saying "Holy Spirit". Considering 'worship' can effectively mean acknowledgement of worth, it seems to fit perfect that we should appreciate every breathe we take... rather than spit in the face of That which gave you it. The anxious breath of mammon is easily curable, but the black lung of moloch leaves an enduring stain.

Appreciating your life is FAR different than recognizing the air you breathe as a deity.

a reply to: Sigrun
Interesting thread Kantzveldt, but Thor wasn't associated with the military. He was a god of protection so more generic. Odin had the cult of warriors, his number 9 being the archetype of immortality and thus relevant to warriors. Berserkers, Ulfhednar, and Einherjar dedicated to him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Pagan gods only became "evil" when Christians said as much. Until then they were happily celebrated by many, but because Christianity's god is selfish and petty Christians had to label it evil and persecute any believers. And today this god is now known as a demon.

Not true at all. Molech was a bad god from long before the word Christianity was even known. Don't know why you bash Christianity when it was the Hebrews of the OT that bashed Molech centuries before the mean ole Christians were even thought of.

a reply to: Seede

Ancient xenophobia. That's all it is.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ok. That's a fair point. Humans are humans and we LOVE to wage war. It's probably humanity's best skill.

Yep. Humans have always come up with creative new reasons to attack each other. Even if every named religion of today disappeared over night, people would just create other beliefs that justify their aggression towards others.

I guess my point was more reflecting that Christianity totally dominated all the other pagan cultures. Though the reasons weren't entirely religious in purpose. They were more intended to unite the Roman Empire under a singular religion so as to make governing easier.

You seem to be equating "pagan" with "European minority religions and cultures", even though it actually referred to everyone around the world who wasn't a Christian. That's probably why I'm taking up for Christianity on this issue.

But if we're strictly speaking about Europe, the you're right that Christian denominations in Europe (particularly the Catholics) targeted and attacked "pagan" groups. The Northern Crusades is a good example that often gets ignored. The Catholics even targeted and attacked other nonconforming Christian denominations (like the Cathar Crusade & then later, the wars against the Protestants).

However, European "pagans" originally dominated and attacked both the Israelites and the Christians. This includes the campaigns by the pagan Romans that conquered & assimilated Judea, Samaria, and Idumea and annihilated the 2nd Jewish Temple. And European pagans murdered several of the original Christian Apostles and many of their followers. And the pagan Romans' persecution and executions of the early Christians is another example (though some of that was because the early Christians generally refused to pay tributes and treat the Roman leaders as supreme beings).

It also helps to remember that all of the Abrahamic religions are originally religions from Western Asian and Northeast Africa. Virtually everything that happened in the Old Testament/Old Covenant happened in West Asia and North Africa. And virtually everything that happened in Christ's lifetime that was in the Bible happened in West Asia and North Africa, too. And out of his 12 Apostles, 9 did all or most of their preaching in West Asia and North Africa.

I'm pointing this out because when people say that Christians did A, B, and C to European "pagan" minority groups, it's also branding all of the other Christian sects and denominations that had nothing to do with Europe at the time. Ethiopia/Axum adopted Christianity as its official religion before the Romans did...

Ok, I'm rambling now lol. Got caught up in the moment and the fingers kept typing. I just wanted to point out that most Christian denominations at the time (globally) had nothing to do with the Catholics' actions, so it's not fair to blame them, too.

a reply to: Ridhya

No they made similar distinction has had been the case in Mesopotamia with Nergal and Ninurta, Thor was the overall head of the peoples army whereas Odin was the head of the elite warrior caste and viking raider groups, war as the means to transcendence and immortality, in bronze age Indo-European culture the storm God was always the head of the army.

Thor was the most beloved of the bondi class, loved by farmers in particular for his role in fertility and loved by all for his role in protecting the community from a variety of threats When bondi entered into agreements to become warriors, they were most often doing so in defense of their homes

Thorsday


a reply to: enlightenedservant

How much influence do you think the cult of Santas of Tarsus had on Saul of Tarsus...?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Here's the thing. I don't consider Jesus' ministry and the Christian religion that spawned from it the same religions or beliefs. This is especially true with today's Christianity. Well at least in the States, I can't speak for outside the US as I haven't seen how it functions there. Though I will say that the RCC's hiding of pedophile priests really turned me off to that sect of the religion.

Also, don't forget that persecution of pagan beliefs from Europeans extended to the Americas too. Cortez comes to mind. Though I'll give you the "equating "pagan" with "European minority religions and cultures"" part. It's tough for me as the US' history classes are very Eurocentric (and is one of my chief problems with them) and it is hard to break that conditioning.

a reply to: Sigrun
Molech/Moloch was one of the watchers from Mt. Hermon in the days of Jared [Yered]. About 469 years after Adam or 3301 BCE ---
Dr. Stephen Pidgeon in his Eth Cepher gives a great understanding of this watcher who is indeed one of the gods of Abraham's era.
Quote
Who Is Molek ------------
Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:00 AM

We have often talked about the worship of Molek. For instance: Vayiqra (Leviticus) 18:21 And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molek, neither shall you profane את eth-the name of your ELOHIYM: I am YAHUAH.

When we take a look at the concordance we find that the definition of Molek (מֶלךְ) is “the chief deity of the Ammonites” (Strong’s H4432). Of course, this is not the root. Malak (מַלךְ) is the root. A careful examination shows that both words are spelled mem, lamed, kaf sofit – in both instances. Malak means to reign; or, inceptively, to ascend the throne. Compare with melek (מֶלךְ) (Strong's H4428), meaning king. We can see here, how we might find that the word Molek would mean king, or royalty of the Ammonites. However, we get that extra leap from king to deity somehow, in the contexts where this word appears.

Vayiqra (Leviticus) 20:2-5
Again, you shall say to the children of Yashar’el: Whoever he be of the children of Yashar’el, or of the strangers that sojourn in Yashar’el, that gives any of his seed to Molek; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set את eth-my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people; because he has given of his seed to Molek, to defile את eth-my sanctuary, and to profane את eth-my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do any way hide את eth-their eyes from the man, when he gives of his seed to Molek, and not kill him: 5 Then I will set את eth-my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and את eth all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molek, from among their people.

Melekiym Ri’shon (1 Kings) 11:7
Then did Shalomah build a high place for Kemosh, the abomination of Mo’av, in the hill that is before Yerushalayim, and for Molek, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

Here, in this passage, we see a further exposition of this name Molek, now calling him the abomination of the children of Ammon. None of these describe Molek as a deity, so one might wonder how the Strong’s interpreters reached the conclusion that Molek was a deity.

Melekiym Sheniy (2 Kings) 23:10
And he defiled את eth-Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make את eth-his son or את eth-his daughter to pass through the fire to Molek.

Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 32:35
And they built את eth-the high places of Ba`al, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause את eth-their sons and את eth-their daughters to pass through the fire to Molek; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause את eth-Yahudah to sin.

Before we abandon this inquiry, let us also consider another deity here:

Malkam or Milcom (ַמְלָכם) (Strong’s H4445), which the concordance tells us is “the national idol of the Ammonites;” its root being either melek, (ֶמֶלךְ) (H4428), meaning king, or Molek (ֹמֶלךְ), an Ammonite deity. Malkam is called the abomination of the Ammonites in Melekiym Ri’shon (1 Kings) 11:5; the elohiym of the children of Ammon in Melekiym Ri’shon (1 Kings) 11:33; and the abomination of the children of Ammon in Melekiym Sheniy (2 Kings) 23:13.

Tsephanyahu (Zephaniah) 1:4-5
I will also stretch out my hand upon Yahudah, and upon all the inhabitants of Yerushalayim; and I will cut off את eth-the remnant of Ba`al from this place, and את eth-the name of the Kemariym with the priests; 5 And them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by YAHUAH, and that swear by Malkam;

We have another word here, which is worthy of consideration, and that is the word malak (מְלָאךְ) (Strong's H4397). This word is generally interpreted as a messenger of YAH, an angel (but also, a prophet, priest, or teacher). We note here the same spelling, with one exception: that is, we have mem, lamed, and kaph sofit, but there is the inclusion of aleph (א) within, giving it a divine signature. Now, let us suppose you would like to make reference to these same angels who had lost their divine appointment, the divine signature. Would you not spell it without the aleph?

Consider also the term for watcher found in Daniy’el, which is iyr (עיר) (Strong's H5894), generally interpreted as a watcher, i.e. an angel (as guardian). The Watchers, described in the Cepher Chanok would then be iyriym (עירים), but then again each such watcher may be described also as an angel (malak) (מְלָאךְ), or in the plural malakiym (מְלאָכְים). However, if they were fallen watchers, whose divine signature had been removed, would they not be malak (ֹמֶלךְ) and in the plural malakiym (מְלָכם)?

What therefore is the warning given in Yirmeyahu 32, concerning passing through the fire to Molek? Let’s examine a couple of key words more closely. The word used for pass through is this word ‛âbar (עַבר) (H5674), although the complete presentment is (להעביר) which is l’h’abiyr (עבוּר) H5668), which is the passive participle of H5674; and is generally interpreted to mean crossed, i.e. (abstractly) transit; used only adverbially, on account of . . ., in order that . . ., because of . . ., and so on. When reviewing the passage in Ivriyt (Hebrew) we discover that the word fire does not appear, and that the passive participle abiyr (rather than abar) appears with the prefix to and the prefix the. The passage is then better stated thusly:

Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 32:35
And they built את eth-the high places of Ba`al, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to transit את eth-their sons and את eth-their daughters to Molek; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause את eth-Yahudah to sin.

Notwithstanding the use of the passive participle, let’s consider the root word ‛âbar (עַבר) (H5674) for a more complete understanding of that which is being discussed. Abar means to cross over; used very widely of any transition (literally or figuratively; transitively, intransitively, intensively or causatively); specifically, to cover (in copulation): to alienate, alter, to bring (over, through), to carry over, to overcome, to conduct (over), to convey over, to translate, or to turn away. Now, using these interpretations, we discover that Molek, may in fact be a malak – an angel or watcher, but without a divine signature, i.e., a fallen watcher. Malkam, or Malkam may not be a proper name, but rather, the plural of Molek/Malak, that is, Malakiym, i.e., fallen watchers.

Tsephanyahu (Zephaniah) 1:5 And them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by YAHUAH, and that swear by Malakiym! (i.e., fallen watchers!). Molek; Malak; Melek; they are all spelled the same. Yet in this instance, we may have a toxic blend to give us the king (melek) of the watcher (malak) who fell (molek).

What is, then, transiting your children to Molek? Is it not giving your children to the ways of the fallen one? And what are his ways?
Unquote

originally posted by: Sigrun
En-uru-gal, or Nergal for short, Lord of the Great City

It might be imagined that this involves the activities of some strange cult but in reality it is the basis for the entire military industrial complex, that it could be considered that everyone who sends their children into the mines and foundries, the military and heavy industry in general are feeding their children to Moloch, even that through this some are hardened and transformed, but that more often than not the result is death.

S+F
In a way, everyone on this planet is a sacrifice for the war machine that started during the European Industrial Revolution.

Now the military technology + some help from the daemons in Roswell via reverse engineering, this whole planet is going to soon be a war-zone against the Second Coming of Christ Messiah.

If it was not for Jesus rising from the dead, we would all be in another pagan religion right now and the industrial revolution would never have been necessary.

One only has to look at the subjects that each fallen watcher deals with and its easy to see which humans were influenced.
Azazel: He taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates. Now we have lasers, guns, body armour. Who says ideas are not simply 'suggestions' from the ether ?

On a joke side Nergal (Nurgle) appears in Warhammer 40k. It is a nasty entity that invokes plagues (industrial pollution :]).

a reply to: Seede

It's generally considered those are references to a Deity derivative of Melqart;

The Hebrew letters מלך (mlk) usually stand for melek 'king' (Proto-Northwest Semitic malku) but when vocalized as mōlek in Masoretic Hebrew text, they have been traditionally understood as a proper name Μολοχ (molokh) (Proto-Northwest Semitic Mulku)

It has also been suggested that the Ba‘al of Tyre, Melqart "king of the city" (who was probably the Ba‘al whose worship was furthered by Ahab and his house) was this supposed god Moloch and that Melqart/Moloch was also Milcom the god of the Ammonites and identical to other gods whose names contain mlk.

But with regards to the watchers association, one finds in Anatolian tradition the association of the seven stars of the Heptad with the Celestial aspect of the casting God, the seven dark Gods of destruction led by Iyarri/Erra of Ursa Major, those would equate with the Malakiym tradition, Iyarri relates to the Semitic root iyr and archery, they were the hunting party of the Heavens.

Heptad in Anatolia


a reply to: Rapha

We began the industrial revolution though at least 6,500 years ago really in terms of mining and metallurgy and i don't think that's the problem as such, in fact it's what Europeans do best, the issue is that in conjunction with commercial exploitation and mass production and consumerism, which arguably began at Tyre in the context of the cult of Melqart as the Phoenicians were essentially traders looking for ore resources to produce trade goods in their workshops, this is why we always blame Moloch.

a reply to: Seede

Well said. So my best guess would be that ascending your child to moloch would essentially be an attempt at transhumanism, ascension without God's consent, or as Jesus eloquently puts it:

"...whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber"

Such attempts to enter the heavens without consent persisted since the beginning with Cain and his first recorded attempt of transhumanism at Babel: "...let us build for ourselves a city and tower, and its head in the heavens, and make for ourselves a name"

a reply to: Sigrun

Wake up Kuiama, I got somethin to tell you,
It´s just that I mean, well that is to say,
That I´m trying to explain but I´ll start again for you,
I must be true.

Kuia in this country, they got rules with no reason,
They teach you to kill and they send you away
With your gun in your hand you pick up your pay,
So cool, that no mercy tool.

Kuia please believe me, I just couldn´t help myself,
I wanted to run but they gave me a gun
And they told me the duty I owed to my fatherland,
I made my stand.

Many false starts deleted. This isn't an easy topic to respond to.

In my country there are people who call themselves patriots who "love" the Constitution yet see the government set up by it as their enemy. It's like:

Fetish

With gun in hand
I am free.
I can stop
all tyranny.

The white male militias fought off the Indian attacks and took a whole country from sea to sea. No more territory left to seize. Now Americans look at each other suspiciously wondering which of their neighbors poses the greatest threat to "freedom".

So guns all over, the required idol. If children die, oh well, freedom isn't free. It takes sacrifice.

a reply to: pthena

Legal and constitutional codes developed through Merchant practise, if you live according to them no prizes for guessing who comes out on top, also the idea that one enters into a contractual arrangement with God as a sort of life insurance policy is of the same origin, life as a series of social/financial/legal contracts always subject to revision by the providers, formerly there were simply the Oath Gods and the dark Gods of the Underworld that claimed those who broke such.

The basis of Moloch and the practise of offering sacrifice also relates to contractual arrangement, most human sacrifice even today is with regards to hoped for success in business ventures, the more one wanted something the greater sacrifice one was expected to make in terms of reciprocity, the highest price was generally considered the offering of ones own children in order to enter into such covenant, the issue here is the mindset of individuals according to their nature that would never give anything freely, contrary to the genuine principle of Life.