April 2016: The Temple Of Baal Will Be Erected In Times Square In New York City
#1
Via End of the American Dream blog:

Quote:I realize that the headline of this article sounds like it must be false, but it is actually completely true.  The Temple of Baal (also known as the Temple of Bel) was a world famous landmark that was located in Palmyra, Syria.  In August 2015, this temple was destroyed by ISIS, and most of the world recoiled in terror at the loss of a “cultural heritage site”.  In an attempt to “preserve history”, two exact replicas of the 50 foot arch that stood at the entrance to the temple will be erected in April 2016 in Times Square in New York City and in Trafalgar Square in London.  Needless to say, a lot of people are quite disturbed by this.  In ancient times, child sacrifice and bisexual orgies were common practices at the altars of Baal, and now we are putting up a monument of worship to this false god in the heart of our most important city.

When I first came across this story, I could hardly believe it.  But this is not just some Internet rumor.  This was reported by the New York Times

NY Times Wrote:NEXT month, the Temple of Baal will come to Times Square. Reproductions of the 50-foot arch that formed the temple’s entrance are to be installed in New York and in London, a tribute to the 2,000-year-old structure that the Islamic State destroyed last year in the Syrian town of Palmyra. The group’s rampage through Palmyra, a city that reached its peak in the second and third century A.D., enraged the world, spurring scholars and conservationists into action. Numerous nongovernmental organizations are now cataloging and mapping damaged cultural heritage sites in the region.

Of course most non-religious Americans don’t understand who Baal was, nor do they really care.

But the truth is that many of the elements of ancient Baal worship are being mirrored in our society in 2016.  The following is an excerpt from an excellent article by
http://www.wnd.com/2008/12/83960/ Wrote:Matt Barber[/url]…

[quote='Matt Barber']
Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of “mother earth.”

The natural consequences of such behavior – pregnancy and childbirth – and the associated financial burdens of “unplanned parenthood” were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or – with child sacrifice available on demand – could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to “terminate” the unwanted child.

Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar.

So considering the child sacrifice and sexual immorality that we are engaged in today, perhaps it is only natural for us to have a Temple of Baal in Times Square.

In the ancient world, the names Baal and Bel were often interchangeable, and they both trace back to the ancient Babylonian god Marduk.  The following comes from Wikipedia

Wikipedia Wrote:Bel became especially used of the Babylonian god Marduk and when found in Assyrian and neo-Babylonian personal names or mentioned in inscriptions in a Mesopotamian context it can usually be taken as referring to Marduk and no other god. Similarly Belit without some disambiguation mostly refers to Bel Marduk’s spouse Sarpanit. However Marduk’s mother, the Sumerian goddess called Ninhursag, Damkina, Ninmah and other names in Sumerian, was often known as Belit-ili ‘Lady of the Gods’ in Akkadian.

According to research published by Bruce W. Warren and John A. Tvedtnes, Marduk was “a huntergod” that was believed to have been the founder of ancient Babylon according to ancient Babylonian tradition…

Bruce W. Warren and John A. Tvedtnes Wrote:The Akkadian name Marduk derives front the Sumerian MAR.UTU, a huntergod. He is said to have led a revolt of the gods against his parents, after which he was enthroned as king of the gods. In Babylonian tradition, it was he who founded Babylon (Babilu, “gate of the gods”). His temple at Babylon bore the name E.SAGILA, “house that lifts up the head”, and the tower associated with it was called, in Sumerian Etemenanki, “house of the foundation of heaven and earth.” The similarity to the tower of Babel is evident.

If you are familiar with the book of Genesis, this should remind you of Genesis 10:9 where we are told that Nimrod was “a mighty hunter before the Lord”.  And ancient Jewish tradition specifically identifies Nimrod as the one that constructed the Tower of Babel.  In addition to Marduk, other names from the ancient world that are linked with Nimrod include Ninurta, Gilgamesh, Osiris, Dionysus, Apollo, Narmer and Enmerkar.  I know that this can get very confusing.  In the following excerpt, Peter Goodgame helps us to connect some of the dots…

Peter Goodgame Wrote:In Part Eight of this study we examined evidence that Nimrod was known in Egypt as King Narmer, who was later deified as the god Osiris, the Lord of the Underworld. In Part Five we looked at evidence that Nimrod was known to the ancient Sumerians as the great King Enmerkar who attempted to build a huge tower to the gods in the ancient city of Eridu—a city referred to as the original “Babylon” by the historian Berossos.[1] Traditionally the Tower of Babel event has been associated with Nimrod, and Jewish commentaries as well as the Jewish historian Josephus both seem very emphatic on this point. Regarding the Sumerian name Enmer-kar, the suffix “kar” means “hunter,”  and so “Enmer-kar” is in fact “Enmer the Hunter,” just as Nimrod is referred to as the “Mighty Hunter” in Genesis 10. Furthermore, Enmerkar is named on the Sumerian King List as “the one who built Uruk,” just as Nimrod is described in Genesis 10:10 as having a kingdom that began in “Babel (Eridu) and Erech (Uruk)… in the land of Shinar.” After Enmerkar’s death he became honored in Sumerian myth as the semi-divine hero Ninurta, and eventually this cult evolved into the great cult of Marduk, which became the state religion of Babylon after the conquests and religious innovations of Hammurabi.

According to some traditions, the original Freemason was Nimrod.  He created the very first “New World Order” in the post-flood world, and virtually all of the major gods of ancient Babylon, Greece and Rome ultimately trace back to him or traditions surrounding him.

But for many modern occultists, the story of Nimrod is far from done.  A lot of secret societies and occult groups have traditions that tell them that Nimrod/Marduk/Osiris/Apollo/Baal will someday be resurrected and will once again rule the world.

And many Bible scholars believe that the coming Antichrist will either be a resurrected Nimrod or will be associated with him in some way.  For an extensive examination of this view, I would commend to you The Second Coming of the Antichrist by Peter Goodgame and Babylon Rising by Rob Skiba.

With all of the preceding in mind, could it be possible that we are actually erecting a temple for the Antichrist in New York City next month?

If you are not religious, I know that all of this must sound very strange.  But there are occultists that take this stuff deadly seriously, and nothing this large gets space in either Times Square or Trafalgar Square by accident.

There are very powerful people out there that made this happen, and perhaps someone should ask them what their intentions are.

Reply
#2
Wow. This is unreal. The original was destroyed. Be like Elsa and let it go, folks. Not that I support eradicating history, but I don't see any good coming from recreating this thing.
Reply
#3
Hopefully people will stand up and protest and/or pray.
Reply
#4
(03-24-2016, 06:45 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote: Wow. This is unreal. The original was destroyed. Be like Elsa and let it go, folks. Not that I support eradicating history, but I don't see any good coming from recreating this thing.

Without a doubt right on the money.  When looking it up I saw that this is part of UNESCOs idea of celebrating world heritage sites. This is their idea of defiance to ISIS. 

Still though it does seem to be a strange choice all things considered...
Reply
#5
(03-25-2016, 11:44 AM)AugustineNYC Wrote:
(03-24-2016, 06:45 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote: Wow. This is unreal. The original was destroyed. Be like Elsa and let it go, folks. Not that I support eradicating history, but I don't see any good coming from recreating this thing.

Without a doubt right on the money.  When looking it up I saw that this is part of UNESCOs idea of celebrating world heritage sites. This is their idea of defiance to ISIS. 

Still though it does seem to be a strange choice all things considered...

I get the idea of philosophically stickin' it to ISIS, what I don't understand is why rebuild a temple used for human infant blood sacrifice? Why not build a copy of St. Elijah's monastery?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in...-12457610/

Part of me thinks it's a philosophical middle finger to Christianity.
Reply
#6
And yet what defense is there now against these more obviously gross displays?

Vatican II adopted the "American model" for the Church of John Courtney Murray. 

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right.” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1002.

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1003.

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens.  With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1004.

One can't appeal to Americanist "religious liberty" for public Nativity displays and then at the same time prevent Baal worshippers with their displays appealing to the same "religious liberty," if the Catholic religion is treated as just another religion by the state and given equal footing to any other false religion. 

This "religious liberty" for both Truth and Error is being exposed for what it is. 

Reply
#7
(03-25-2016, 07:24 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote:
(03-25-2016, 11:44 AM)AugustineNYC Wrote:
(03-24-2016, 06:45 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote: Wow. This is unreal. The original was destroyed. Be like Elsa and let it go, folks. Not that I support eradicating history, but I don't see any good coming from recreating this thing.

Without a doubt right on the money.  When looking it up I saw that this is part of UNESCOs idea of celebrating world heritage sites. This is their idea of defiance to ISIS. 

Still though it does seem to be a strange choice all things considered...

I get the idea of philosophically stickin' it to ISIS, what I don't understand is why rebuild a temple used for human infant blood sacrifice? Why not build a copy of St. Elijah's monastery?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in...-12457610/

Part of me thinks it's a philosophical middle finger to Christianity.

I believe you might be on to something.
Reply
#8
I bet this will be super tacky.

Reply
#9


edited by San Giuse to remove rant about the Church.  Consider this your final warning
Reply
#10
(03-27-2016, 12:40 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I bet this will be super tacky.

Agreed.  At this point, all that's left is to determine the level of tackiness.  My thoughts are:

1) Velvet black light painting of Jimi Hendrix and Elvis Presley singing a duet hanging in the Louvre

2) Not turning off your cell phone ringer before Mass, then trying to pretend it's not your custom ringtone. (I have a funny story about this one)

3) Answering your cell phone, then talking on it loudly during a funeral while dressed in a leopard print tutu and bunny ears whilst gyrating ala Miley Cyrus. :puke:

Personally, I'm going for #3.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)