(01-15-2025, 02:12 PM)Freeborn Wrote: Please elaborate, like what and why?
There's quite a long story to go along with my stance, and I have to admit there's a good chunk of video that I have to watch still once I'm not at my office, but I've spent... you could say an alarming amount of time researching religion, the different testaments, and specifically Baal and Moloch. I'm going into a bit of a diatribe, as this is a very quick Cliff's Notes version of months of research both by book, internet, scripture, and spiritual (to let it remain vague for now). I'm actually going to start a thread on this at some point... That or write a book, I'm not sure which yet.
One reoccurring theme that pops up is a confusion among experts on who was who, in relation to these two deities. Many seem to conflate the two with the primary description of Moloch. Primarily referencing the second video of the "Cults of Baal and Moloch", history, in my research, paints a very different story. The two deities were 2 sides of a coin, essentially. There were far from the same entity, and were often at ends with each other.
Moloch was, as described, a deity rich with Human sacrifice and geared towards power and conquering, resembling a minotaur, basically - human body with the head of a bull. Baal, on the other hand, was geared towards strength, fertility, and protection, with an appearance entirely human (at the time, in that "iteration") with a horned helmet. See the similarity - very easy to mix the two together.
Both deities essentially represented the two sides of the human choice and heart - faith vs force, fire vs thunder and storms, defense vs offense, life and fertility vs destruction and death, and lastly - types of sacrifice. Where historically Baal "requested" sacrifice of objects and possessions for fertility, crops, and protection, Moloch "required" sacrifice of life and blood for strength, power, and wealth. I can go a little off topic and say that while Baal worship didn't require human sacrifice, it isn't to say that it wasn't done by people regardless. With that said, however, Baal was more neutral, whereas Moloch thrived within intent.
While Moloch has stayed fairly consistent in his iteration and appearance, Baal has changed throughout the years with Baal being the 2nd iteration, transforming through myth and society to the Ala demons of Bulgarian lore (if I'm remembering correctly without looking at my notes) before the current iteration of Bael, or Beezlebub (yeah, THAT one).
Current descriptions of Baal have been demonized (pun intended) by the church over the course of many, many years to the evil entity he's viewed in today, thus taking on a similar mantle if not outright being combined with Moloch.
The point I'm trying to get across before I go into a small novelette of the why's and how's, is that history's conflation of the two, mainly due to and as well as the church's, whenever you see any sort of media or even the vast majority of people talking about the 'evil' Baal - they are really talking of Moloch. The Bull headed entity that had thousands of children sacrificed to him - one city literally raised children for the sole purpose of sacrifice so that the wealthy could spare their own. The one who was sought out for wealth, power, and intimidation. Basically, if there was a "devil", it would be Moloch. Baal, interestingly enough, would be the entity to warn you of him and help you against him.
If those arches were originally designed to honor Baal, their significance wouldn't be anything to bat an eye at. I think a more interesting question should be asked as to why the World Government Summit would have something like that... Are they twisting the meaning? Do the arches make a nod towards Moloch (as in, were they originally designed with Moloch in mind as opposed to Baal?) I think that the latter is the case.
![[Image: Ns81Ug9l.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/Ns81Ug9l.jpeg)
