TLALOC - pagan Aztec God


#1

One of the pagan dieties of the ancient Aztec religion known to drown children for his appeasement, Tlaloc (“he who urinates”) can also be interpreted as a pagan God of pedophiles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaloc

home.freeuk.net/elloughton13/tlaloc.htm

pantheon.org/articles/t/tlaloc.html

The pagan Aztec God Tlaloc was also evil for causing confusion in the minds of the Aztecs by his constant use of cant and sophistry in the discourse of men. “He who urinates” Tlaloc was constantly confusing digressions for correlations and used prolix to confound debate on serious issues which, along with child sacrifice and the cause of arthritis,dropsy, and heterophobia, made Tlaloc the most despised of the Aztec Gods.


#2

Wow.

Obsess much?


#3

Just goes to show how blood thirsty all the Pagan god’s were it nice to have a kind loving God like Yahweh to worship and adore :love: not one of these losers


#4

[quote=Tlaloc]Wow.

Obsess much?
[/quote]

I told you Catholics didn’t appreciate demon names.You have been forewarned.Why you don’t change your call name is beyond me.Our Lady interceded on behalf on the aztechs to get them away from that mess.We just don’t like that and it seems like a slap in the face to us personally(as well as an affront to God).Why won’t you show some respect for us and change your call name?God Bless


#5

[quote=starrs0]Just goes to show how blood thirsty all the Pagan god’s were it nice to have a kind loving God like Yahweh to worship and adore :love: not one of these losers
[/quote]

It also makes me appreciate the New Testament all the more! :thumbsup:


#6

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]I told you Catholics didn’t appreciate demon names.You have been forewarned.Why you don’t change your call name is beyond me.

[/quote]

I did explain it once, well maybe that was to Lisa N. I’m sorry I do get the two of you mixed up on occasion. Here’s why I don’t change it:

  1. I’ve always used this name.
  2. It wasn’t chosen to offend anyone.
  3. the kinds of people to get offended by a screen name will find something to get offended by if I change it.

I learned a long time ago that there are always some people you can’t please. Rather than try it’s better to ignore them.

[size=3]Our Lady interceded on behalf on the aztechs to get them away from that mess.
[/size]

Yeah if she could have done it without the conquistadors killing everyone it might have been better received. But, you know, live and learn.

[size=3]We just don’t like that and it seems like a slap in the face to us personally(as well as an affront to God).Why won’t you show some respect for us and change your call name?God Bless
[/size]
If I change it then someone will complain about the sigs being an affront to God (Irony is dead afterall). If I change that then they’ll complain that my views are an affront to God. People like that are never satisfied so long as they have to deal with anything that may just challenge them a little. The problem is that without those challenges we stagnate and vegetate. I have no interest pandering to that mentality.

A very small minority of posters have indicated they dislike the name. At least one approved. The vast majority seem to be blissfully apathetic to what collection of alphanumeric characters sits at the top of my posts.

Isn’t there anything more important in your life than this topic? Couldn’t this time and energy be better spent?


#7

I did explain it once, well maybe that was to Lisa N. I’m sorry I do get the two of you mixed up on occasion. Here’s why I don’t change it:

  1. I’ve always used this name.
  2. It wasn’t chosen to offend anyone.
  3. the kinds of people to get offended by a screen name will find something to get offended by if I change it.

I learned a long time ago that there are always some people you can’t please. Rather than try it’s better to ignore them.

Yeah if she could have done it without the conquistadors killing everyone it might have been better received. But, you know, live and learn.

If I change it then someone will complain about the sigs being an affront to God (Irony is dead afterall). If I change that then they’ll complain that my views are an affront to God. People like that are never satisfied so long as they have to deal with anything that may just challenge them a little. The problem is that without those challenges we stagnate and vegetate. I have no interest pandering to that mentality.

A very small minority of posters have indicated they dislike the name. At least one approved. The vast majority seem to be blissfully apathetic to what collection of alphanumeric characters sits at the top of my posts.

Isn’t there anything more important in your life than this topic? Couldn’t this time and energy be better spent?The name is not respectful! Our lady of Guadelupe has a miraculous picture that science can’t explain it is still in existance.Your views are quite offensive,but nobody here will take it as bad as a demon name.Furthermore, you need to stop,cease and desist blaming Our Lady for human behavior.God Bless


#8

Yeah if she could have done it without the conquistadors killing everyone it might have been better received. But, you know, live and learn.

Yes, yes, bad Conquistadors, never mind that at the dedication of the Temple of the Sun, the Aztecs sacrificed so many of their fellow citizens and others obtained in the “Flowery Wars” that the temple was completely covered in blood and the blood ran into the streets. This is by their own accounting. There have been a lots of instances in history when cruelty has be inflicted and cruelty suffered. At least the light of the Gospel was brought to these shores. Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe, La Reina de los Americas! I don’t and won’t suppose you have any sinister reason for choosing your name until you inform me otherwise.


#9

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]The name is not respectful! Our lady of Guadelupe has a miraculous picture that science can’t explain it is still in existance.Your views are quite offensive,but nobody here will take it as bad as a demon name.Furthermore, you need to stop,cease and desist blaming Our Lady for human behavior.God Bless
[/quote]

As soon as you stop giving her credit for that same behavior. See you can’t take the credit without the blame.


#10

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Yes, yes, bad Conquistadors, never mind that at the dedication of the Temple of the Sun, the Aztecs sacrificed so many of their fellow citizens and others obtained in the “Flowery Wars” that the temple was completely covered in blood and the blood ran into the streets. This is by their own accounting.
[/quote]

Oh yes. 100,000 sacrifices in one ceremony by historical accounts, truly mindboggling in scope for a pre industrial society. However you also left out that the sacrifices were often willing.


#11

[quote=Tlaloc]Oh yes. 100,000 sacrifices in one ceremony by historical accounts, truly mindboggling in scope for a pre industrial society. However you also left out that the sacrifices were often willing.
[/quote]

Oh really? And is that why the children (and adults) cried their eyes out before they were drowned to the pagan God TLALOC, he who urinated from his mouth? Exactly how willing were they Tlaloc?


#12

The man who “works” in the department of “ethnic studies” at the Univ. of Colorado, Ward Churchill and this poster, Tlaloc, would more than likely have a lot in common. They want to talk & write but they don’t ever say anything.


#13

[quote=Kevin Walker]And is that why the children (and adults) cried their eyes out before they were drowned…Exactly how willing were they
[/quote]

This is a weak argument. Sorrow and emotionality does not preclude willingness. We often see willing participants cry when they leave for another job, graduate or move to a new school, go off to war, get married, etc.

Not that sacrificing thousands of people isn’t an abomination, but I’m just sayin…


#14

[quote=Tlaloc]Oh yes. 100,000 sacrifices in one ceremony by historical accounts, truly mindboggling in scope for a pre industrial society. However you also left out that the sacrifices were often willing.
[/quote]

[willing]So are most the victims of molestation…through lies and coercion…

It seems to me that this “Tlaloc” demon, is a pretty horrible guy. Well why not have a screen name like “JefferyDahmer” or “TedBundy”…

Evil as they[Dahmner,Bundy] were, they weren’t evil as the Idea behind “Tlaloc”. Why would anyone want to be associated with or celabrate such Ideals?

Just curious…

[don’t even go there with “thegarg”, gargoyles have a far more tamer histroy/legend as rainspouts, mixtures of animals, and protectors from evil…;)]


#15

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]I told you Catholics didn’t appreciate demon names.You have been forewarned.Why you don’t change your call name is beyond me.Our Lady interceded on behalf on the aztechs to get them away from that mess.We just don’t like that and it seems like a slap in the face to us personally(as well as an affront to God).Why won’t you show some respect for us and change your call name?God Bless

[/quote]

This was a pagan god, no? Does pagan god = demon? I’m just curious. If you are a Christian and don’t believe in the Aztec gods, then why concern yourself with it. I don’t believe in Amon-Ra. If I don’t believe in him, how could I be afraid of him if he doesn’t exist? As far as I know, Christianity has always denied any other gods. :hmmm:

We are judging his intentions, are we not? And even if he did name himself that on purpose, why concern yourself with it? If he has posted horrible things he would’ve been banned a long time ago. Fact is, he hasn’t. He has expressed his ideas without anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Peace…


#16

[quote=Kevin Walker]One of the pagan dieties of the ancient Aztec religion known to drown children for his appeasement, Tlaloc (“he who urinates”) can also be interpreted as a pagan God of pedophiles.

[/quote]

According to one of the links you cite below, he was pre-Aztec. And, the description (he who urinates) in not to be found either. Neither could I find any reference to pedophiles. I attempted to access the wikipedia link, but could not. I wouldn’t trust wikipedia anyway, as it allows anyone to write an article for them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaloc

home.freeuk.net/elloughton13/tlaloc.htm

pantheon.org/articles/t/tlaloc.html

The pagan Aztec God Tlaloc was also evil for causing confusion in the minds of the Aztecs by his constant use of cant and sophistry in the discourse of men. “He who urinates” Tlaloc was constantly confusing digressions for correlations and used prolix to confound debate on serious issues which, along with child sacrifice and the cause of arthritis,dropsy, and heterophobia, made Tlaloc the most despised of the Aztec Gods.

Where you got this information, I don’t know. It’s not to be found on the sites you show here. But, I would like to see any websites that speak of it. Neither of the bottom two links you cite speak of the things you are claiming. There needs to be sources for your claims.

What the sites do speak of is that fact that Tlaloc was a “rain god”. He was thought to cause floods or drought - plenty or ruin. The description given for his name is “one who sprouts”. And, given the fact that he was a rain god and had a companion which was the god of lakes, it’s not a far-fetched idea that people would sacrifice by drowning.

If in the pre-Aztec mind, Tlaloc could be appeased and bring about fruitful crops, then to offer children to him by submerging them in water to become one with him is not an insane thing. I’m not saying I agree with the practice, but you can understand the rationale.

It seems to me that this thread was not a sincere one, but one intent on defamation and a personal attack on Tlaloc. I say that based on the lack of evidence for your claims and clear bias in your presentation. However, I will assume good intentions.

Peace…


#17

I read this post and am amused, but mostly puzzled.

Ahimsaman made a good point about not being threatened by the name of a pagan god that doesn’t exist. I have a great interest in mythology and I looked at Tlaloc’s name and pictured nothing more than a comic-book character.

I think we have to be honest with ourselves. The very great majority of people out there don’t even know about the pantheon of meso-American deities. Ignorance is bliss sometimes. I really don’t think our Tlaloc here would sacrifice children.

God bless,
Greg


#18

[quote=GAssisi]I read this post and am amused, but mostly puzzled.

Ahimsaman made a good point about not being threatened by the name of a pagan god that doesn’t exist. I have a great interest in mythology and I looked at Tlaloc’s name and pictured nothing more than a comic-book character.

I think we have to be honest with ourselves. The very great majority of people out there don’t even know about the pantheon of meso-American deities. Ignorance is bliss sometimes. I really don’t think our Tlaloc here would sacrifice children.

God bless,
Greg
[/quote]


Greg, up unitl now your posts have been mostly Catholic and welcome on this Catholic site, but IMO you are slipping off the straight and narrow. I think most of the detractors of Tlaloc have been aware of his multiple posts on other threads in favor of Abortion and promoting anti-Catholic thought. They remember. Isn’t the theme of this thread -Why choose the name of an evil Aztec God ? The name is thrown up on our screens and is revolting. It also has a tinge of someone hiding behind a Pagan name to subvert some of the treads. It is sick, is not normal and it is certainly alright to say so! You seem want to “go easy” with the Pagan.


#19

i think maybe some of the individuals posting here should take a step back and reconsider either or both of what they’re actually posting, and why they think posting it is a good idea.

look, who cares what his call-name is, really? does the call-name make the man (or the woman)? perhaps it will come to light one day that there was a mithritic death-cult whose primary deity was a demon called “john doran”, and what then? and what about the NHL player whose last name is “satan”? and what if your name happens to be “ted bundy”? what exactly does that allow anyone reasonably to conclude about the individual(s) so named?

and even if you knew that he chose “tlaloc” because he worships that particular deity/demon, what then? do you think this thread is somehow helpful, perhaps in some kind of…what? remedial way? are you going to cause him to see the error of his ways by thus addressing him?

maybe you want to alert others to the the inherent danger of his posts, or something. but how does that work? by his fruits shall ye know him - i seem to remember that somewhere: if he actually says something with which you reasonably disagree, THEN take him up on it and explain your disagreement. if he becomes belligerent and antagonistic, then trust that the moderators will take action. (incidentally, in my admittedly limited experience on this board, tlaloc makes what strike me as very reasonable posts, even if i don’t agree with every aspect of all of them).

otherwise, i sincerely believe it’s none of our business what call-name he uses. none. at all.

and, quite frankly, i find this thread dismaying.


#20

Greg, up unitl now your posts have been mostly Catholic and welcome on this Catholic site, but IMO you are slipping off the straight and narrow.

i wonder what jesus’ opinion would be.

I think most of the detractors of Tlaloc have been aware of his multiple posts on other threads in favor of Abortion and promoting anti-Catholic thought. They remember.

fair enough. there are a lot of people around here that hold opinions contrary to catholic teaching, and when they express those opinions, THEN those opinions are addressed. and if those people behave inappropriately, they are disciplined by the moderators.

what, exactly, is praiseworthy about this thread? what behaviour of jesus do we believe ourselves to be emulating when we thus pass judgment on a person none of us know just because he uses an internet name we don’t like?

Isn’t the theme of this thread -Why choose the name of an evil Aztec God ?

i don’t know. and neither do you.

i use the name “glaurung” on other forums. that’s the name of one of the first evil dragons created by morgoth bauglir in “lord of the rings”. i use it because i like dragons and because i like the ***sound ***of it. the fact that it names a fictional creature of evil strikes me as less then irrelevant.

The name is thrown up on our screens and is revolting.

to you, perhaps. but not to me. it’s just a call-name. to be sure, i find pedophilia and human sacrifice and stuff revolting, but using the name “tlaloc” has as much to do with that as being named “jeffrey” has to do with cannibalism and murder.

if you can’t get over it, isn’t that ***your ***problem?

It also has a tinge of someone hiding behind a Pagan name to subvert some of the treads.

if he makes subversive posts, address those posts and point out the subversion. it’s absurd to suggest that just having the name “tlaloc” will, in and of itself, subvert anyone’s belief. at least anyone with a normal psychological constitution.

It is sick, is not normal and it is certainly alright to say so!

just like the pharisees told jesus he was sick for dining with tax collectors and prostitutes.

You seem want to “go easy” with the Pagan.

who’s the pagan?

but if by “go easy” you mean smething like “be reasonable”, or “be charitable”, then i want to “go easy” with him, too.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.