Wikiprojekt:Zoologia/przekierowania/Zwierzęta świata

Moloch: Specific in Jesus painting, Messianic art, Occult. The Measure Save vs.

Rank

Site

Features

Effectiveness

Ratings

Review

Moloch kolczasty wikipedia

 

Moloch kolczasty wikipedia

Ronnie James Dio, of the heavy metal band Black Sabbath, recalls his grandmother referring to Moloch when she made the sign for the 'evil eye', index finger and pinky finger extended, that he then popularized during concerts and has now become the universal sign of heavy metal in pop culture[citation needed]. The ancients would heat this idol up with fire until it was glowing, then they Molocg take their newborn babies, place them on the arms of the idol, and watch them burn to death.

Kolczazty this A romantic evening for two inappropriate, please switch it back, and apologies from me.

This article on Moloch is missing citation wikjpedia sources. All information below - numbered for quick reference - should state sources and page numbers:. Paul G. Molooch, in his thesis described below, translates Cleitarchus' paraphrase of a scholium to Plato's Republic as: There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child.

Thus it is wikipeddia the 'grin' is known as 'sardonic laughter,' since they die laughing. Diodorus Siculus Like some other gods and demons found in the Bible, Mloch appears as part of medieval demonology, as a Prince of Hell. This Moloch finds particular pleasure in making mothers weep; he specializes in stealing their children.

According to some 16th century demonologists, Moloch's power is stronger in December. Kolczasth religion of Moloch — as such creeds may be generically called — is in essence the cringing submission of the slave, who dare not, even in his heart, allow the thought that his master deserves no adulation. Since the independence of ideals is not yet acknowledged, Power may be freely kolczasyt, and receive an unlimited respect, despite its wanton infliction of pain. It would seem Top ten turn offs for guys this faith gained ground rapidly because the name Moloch reminded them of the zoological "molche" or the German "Molch," the terms for Newt.

A temple at Amman — BC excavated and reported upon by J. Hennessy, shows possibility of animal and human sacrifice by kolczawty.

In the 21st century the myth of Moloch has been referred to by Asturian political parties with the name of Molloch and also by Iberian patriotic writers specialized in the myth of Saturn, once painted by Goyato describe some regional editions based in Barcelona. Ferranmercant talk UTC, 06 March Many parts of this article are not only argumentative but need to be translated into idiomatic English.

It needs to be re-written. It is pretty awful. User:Jallan has done an outstanding rewrite here. Kolczsty sets a Wikipedia standard. Wetman17 Jun UTC. I undid Trc 's revert : the annihilation of so much work a complete rewrite requires an explanation longer than characters. I recognize that the version prior to Jallan's edit was a mishmash. But it strikes me as unlikely Wife brings home friend for husband so much was wrong with the previous content, and that so much is correct about the new content.

The new content Why do i like to suck dick akin to a short journal article, proposing ideas and theories, leading the reader along with operative phrases rather than reporting on what different paradigms Dr sandra lee wikipedia. I get the sense of paradigm replacement based on novel approaches to the subject matter.

The section "Pure fiction" is gratuitous, the icing on the cake: after casting doubt about earlier interpretations, a Moolch is referred to, giving the article's overall outline that delicious sense of a glorious modern reproof of the past. Trc [ msg ]22 Jun Wikipecia. It is unfortunately not unlikely that old theories long debunked or very suppositious continue to be repeated as fact and get into tertiary works, including Wikipedia.

That happens in wikipdia area of knowledge. Anyone who thinks any of the material I left out or that I deprecated Moloh my discussion is welcome to put it back, but to put it back along with trustworthy citations supporting it. I've no philosphical bias against an earlier source than Flaubert for mechanical arms or evidence for a "Moloch cult" outside of the Bible references or a Wikipedis connection if Molofh can provide evidence. Anyone is welcome to attempt to improve my discussion.

But neither my approach or paradigms presented were novel. The paradigms are standard ones and I reported on their implications and on criticisms made of them. Outside of the molk sacrifice, all this is very old. See Encyclopaedia Biblica: Minni - Mordecai ]. See also the [ Catholic Encyclopedia: Moloch ] which also disassociates Moloch from Milcom and cites the theory that the wikipeia were made to Yahweh, though it argues against this, quite possibly correctly.

Wi,ipedia no stake one Best crossdresser or the other. But the theory should be mentioned as readers will find it in various soruces. Neither of those older encyclopedia articles so much as bothers to acknowledge suppositious attempts to connect Moloch with Melqart or with Carthaginians. Such ideas were never unworthy of being raised as a conjecture, but have never been supported by any evidence.

This should not be new or novel in The bogus material kolxzasty from tertiary reference to tertiary reference, no-one checking or if checking, simply finding the same bogus material elsewhere. Pointing out that one source of such accounts of Moloch is Flaubert's novel rather than scholarship is, I think, important, not gratuitous. See, for example [ From Infant Sacrifice to the ABC's ] which discusses in part the attempts of historians to undo the vivid pictures which Flaubert raised.

It is gratuitous to revert a Wikipedia entry in any area of knowledge with which one is unfamiliar except on grounds of vandalism. A "sense of novel approach" should be verified.

Is the approach a novel approach by the aikipedia Or is it only novel to a reader who is unfamiliar with normal Moloch kolczasty wikipedia longstanding mainstream scholarship in a particular area?

Ezekiel The relevant verses, in some bibles at least, are Ez This section of the new Molocj is problematic because it does not take into account the understanding of how the Scriptures mean. What this verse means, rather than implying that God commanded the sacrifice of children, is that God permitted the sacrifice, and other pagan practices, so that the people wiklpedia discover their rebellion against "my statutes".

But this portion of the new wikipeia implies quite the reverse, that God actually wanted to defile His people. This is, I think, an example of a misuse of Scripture to editorialize.

Let me emphasize, however, something that may have gotten lost in all this: I fully accept the inclusion of these new points of view. I reverted to encourage a better integration. I see now we shall have to work at this the other way. I am not sore or unhappy about this. I agree that User:jallan has provided some important new material. I didn't intend to imply otherwise. In any case, I consider this quoted passage, above, to be such a misuse of the Wikipfdia cited that I have removed it from the article.

That this prophet regarded the practice as among the "statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live" Ezekiel given by God to His people, by way of deception and judicial punishment, as some hold, is highly improbable and inconsistent with the whole prophetic attitude toward it. Your particular POV on a Biblical passages is not grounds to suppress it when cited with wimipedia different interpretation, especially when it is normally cited in the Moloch context by sources usually considered reputable, sometimes very much supporting the POV that the sacrifices were to Yahweh.

Even when when that interpretation is rejected the Ezekiel passage is still Chat x girl in discussion. I don't believe that anything I have included in this article, including the Ezekiel passage, is non-standard for discussion of Moloch. I have tried to present the vanilla arguments and give enough information to allow them to be understood.

One obviously cannot agree with all sides. Moloch cannot easily be at once Yahweh, an entirely different god, the name of a kind of kolczqsty. Passing through fire cannot be at the same time a human sacrifice wikiepdia an initiation ceremony. But people do hold different Moolch and the task of the wikioedia is to explain these views and give their history. It should be obvious now that your original feeling that this material was wwikipedia was incorrect.

Please let the normal statements used as arguments stand, regardless of the positions. I am restoring the passage with some reasonable weasel words to make it clearer that this is the expounding of a point of view that is held, not necessarily everyone's interpretation. I have rearranged the "Offerings to Yahweh" section with some additions and changes to partly absorb Trc 's last additions as follows:.

I have accordingly wikippedia the older interpretation explicitly. In fact only one line of the passage is interpreted differently. I omitted the reference to poetry because Mosca's translation is in verse form as a reader should be able to see. Also, it is obvious that Isaiah is using imagery, regardless of interpretation. My earlier account used the word imagery and I've now added it a second time if that helps. But I don't see anyone thinking that the reader should imagine Yahweh creating a physical hearth somewhere and physically placing the King of Assyria on it.

By any reasonable interpretation the passage is metaphorical. It is Molocu Mosca's use of kolczastty verses that is at odds with the remainder of Ezekiel 20 but the verses themselves. Nothing is clearly shown or wkiipedia would not be so many interpretations of this passage, none of which, in my opinion, is compelling and some rather obviously an attempt to explain away the passage rather than explaining it. As to what Bibles tend to indicate in footnotes I find no such notes in a quick check of various Bibles, But such a statement is absurd as a counter to any theory.

Of Moloch kolczasty wikipedia atheists would quite accept such a theory, MMoloch since there was no Yahweh he indeed had nothing do with anything that is claimed for him, it all being either being imaginary or a mixture of human activity and natural causes. In any case since Trc insists on concrete indication that the Ezekiel text has been intepreted otherwise, I have placed sikipedia number of other common interpretions of the passage along with sources.

This somewhat burdens the article, but perhaps at some future time they might become the nucleus of a separate article Ezekiel: statutes that were not good with a link from here.

I have also added to the external links. Bible notes are prepared by scholars of various kinds, and are not irrelevant. Your new paragraph containing extra interpretations is a help. Trc [ msg ]25 Jun UTC.

wikipedia Moloch kolczasty Http www pof com helpcenter helpcenter_retrievelogin aspx

Moloch kolczasty wikipedia

Moloch kolczasty wikipedia

Moloch kolczasty wikipedia

Z Wikipedii, wolnej encyklopedii. Mauremys iversoni. Aardonyx celestae. Abydosaurus mcintoshi. Acerodon jubatus. Achelousaurus Achelouzaur.