It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by kshaund
oh say it's time-related, please!
you'll make my day!
i gots a hunch, ya know....
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by kshaund
no. the net is a trap yes? an electromagnetic time trap. flesh (third dimensional stuff) is time-constranied...err, the dna of everything 3d is on a timer, self-destruct code built-in. Enki, god of the fates. fate is a time function.
Originally posted by kshaund
My guess is its the electromagnet field(s) that are the net - I think they keep us sealed in and off besides mind warping us...
Originally posted by undo
no. the net is a trap yes? an electromagnetic time trap. flesh (third dimensional stuff) is time-constranied...err, the dna of everything 3d is on a timer, self-destruct code built-in. Enki, god of the fates. fate is a time function.
The central concept is the Theory of Forms. The only true being is founded upon the forms, the eternal, unchangeable, perfect types, of which particular objects of sense are imperfect copies. The multitude of objects of sense, being involved in perpetual change, are thereby deprived of all genuine existence. The number of the forms is defined by the number of universal concepts which can be derived from the particular objects of sense.
At the pinnacle of the divine hierarchy and at the origin of things, the Mithraic theology, the heir of that of the Zervanitic Magi, placed boundless Time. Sometimes they would call it Αἰών or Sæculum, Κρόνος or Saturnus; but these appellations were conventional and contingent, for he was considered ineffable, bereft alike of name, sex, and passions. In imitation of his Oriental prototype, he was represented in the likeness of a human monster with the head of a lion and his body enveloped by a serpent. The multiplicity of attributes with which his statues are loaded is in keeping with the kaleidoscopic nature of his character. He bears the scepter and the bolts of divine sovereignty and holds in each hand a key as the monarch of the heavens whose portals he opens. His wings are symbolic of the rapidity of his flight. The reptile whose sinuous folds enwrap him, typifies the tortuous course of the Sun on the ecliptic; the signs of the zodiac engraved on his body and the emblems of the seasons that accompany them, are meant to represent the celestial and terrestrial phenomena that signalize the eternal flight of the years. He creates and destroys all things; he is the Lord and master of the four elements that compose the universe, he virtually unites in his person the power of all the gods, whom he alone has begotten. Sometimes he is identified with Destiny, at others with the primitive light or the primitive fire; while both conceptions rendered it possible for him to be compared with the Supreme Cause of the Stoics,--the heat which pervades all things, which has shaped all things, and which under another aspect was Fatality (Εἱμαρμένη).
At this time, Anubis was the most important god of the Dead but he was replaced during the Middle Kingdom by Osiris.[4]
Originally posted by undo
ah yes, gnosticism.
well, the issue i have with "chaos" as a first state of being is, i believe that word is intimately connected with the gate and has nothing to do with the "formation of the universe" concept. the opening passages of genesis reference the planet in a chaotic state because it had just undergone an ice age following an intersolar, possibly even galactic, war. i'm not convinced that the universe had a beginning in the sense of // wasn't here and then pow // big bang. i know that's one area where some theologians and scientists agree but i'm not so sure.
Raphael Patai cites Hermann Gunkel’s explanation in Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (1895) that Tiamat is an early cognate of the biblical Hebrew words, T’hom and Tohu. The important premise is thus that the creatures alternately known as Tiamat, Leviathan, Rachab, and Behemoth are mythic incarnations and equivalents of important aspects of the cosmos, central to the worldview of our ancestors (and which is now almost entirely forgotten…) — the Lower Waters and the Upper Waters. (By the end of the d’var we hope that the relationship between the two will seem clear and obvious. And the ramifications for understanding apocryphal events such as the flood and cosmic reconciliations such as the Age of the Messiah, will be made clearer (from a mythic perspective).
“Depth”, Tohu, is referred to as Tehom — the abyss, its destiny within a few verses is to become the Lower Waters. Expanse is called, Bohu becomes the Upper Waters. Alternately, depending on the midrash or the myth, the two, Tohu and Bohu were allies or lovers. Whichever, the important lesson, the iqar, is that Tohu and Bohu were so closely linked that creation was impossible unless they could be divided.
Tehom, in midrash is described as the sweet Underground Waters, the Lower Waters forbidden to rise and unite again with the Upper Waters. In Sumerian myth, Enki/Ea, god of Wisdom, emerges out of the sweet water abyss, called the Abzu. (The “begetter” ur-god in the sumerian pantheon, is Apsu the beloved of Tiamat. Apsu is killed by Ea.) Graves and Pattai, speculate that for doctrinal reasons, these details are washed over in B’resihit and the abstract concepts of Tehom, Tohu and Bohu, stand in for what in these other myths are cosmogonic battles of creation.
“[According to Pythagoras] when the Soul descends from the Boundary where the Zodiac and Galaxy [or Milky Way] meet, from a spherical form, which is the only divine one, it is elongated into a conical one by its downward tendency.
...
“The soul, therefore, having by means of this first weight [of matter] fallen down from the Zodiac and Galaxy into the series of spheres that lie below them, in continuing its descent through them, is not only enwrapped in the envelope of a luminous body, 2 but also develops the separate motions which it is to exercise.
“In the sphere of Saturn [it develops] the powers of reasoning and theorizing 3—which [the Greeks] call τὸ λογιστικὸν and τὸ θεωρητικόν; in that of Jupiter, the power of putting into practice—which they call τὸ πρακτικόν; in that of Mars, the power of ardent vehemence—which they call τὸ θυμικόν; in that of the Sun, the nature of sensing and imagining—which they call τὸ αἰσθητικὸν and τὸ φανταστικόν; in that of Venus, the motion of desire—which they call τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν, in the sphere of Mercury, the power of giving expression to and interpretation of feelings—which they call τὸ ἑρμη νευτικόν; on its entrance into the sphere of the Moon it brings into activity τὸ φυτικόν—that is, the nature of making bodies grow and of moving them.
Originally posted by undo
one of my wacky theories is that enki didn't vacate earth permanently, but had various physical bodies cloned for him to interface with the physical universe. my theory was the first clue is when the serpent is deprived of his legs, which i took to mean he was removed from that cloned body.. then later, he shows up again, in gilgamesh when the enkidu clone fails. he also surfaces as enmerkar, who is narmer, nimrod and osiris (gilgamesh may be the same guy, just having his story retold at a later date or incorporated some of the data pertaining to enmerkar into his own story).
The introduction of Ukhat, however, as an aid to carry out the designs of Gilgamesh is devoid of religious significance, and one is inclined to regard the Eabani episode, or at least certain portions of it, as having had at one time an existence quite independent of Gilgamesh's adventures. The description of Eabani is, as we have seen, based upon mythological ideas. The creation of Eabani recalls the Biblical tradition of the formation of the first man, and Ukhat appears to be the Babylonian equivalent to the Biblical Eve, who through her charms entices Eabani away from the gazelles and cattle,[879] and brings him to Uruk, the symbol of civilized existence.
It is significant that in the Biblical narrative, the sexual instinct and the beginnings of culture as symbolized by the tree[Pg 477] of knowledge are closely associated. According to rabbinical traditions, the serpent is the symbol of the sexual passion.[880]
Eve obtains control of Adam with the aid of this passion. In the episode of Eabani, Ukhat, and the hunter—who, be it noted, plays the part of the tempter—we seem to have an ancient legend forming part of some tradition regarding the beginnings of man's history, and which has been brought into connection with the Gilgamesh epic,—when and how, it is impossible, of course, to say.
Footnote: It is to be noted that in the Yahwistic narrative, Adam is in close communication with the animals about him (Gen. ii. 20). It is tempting also to connect the Hebrew form of Eve, Khauwâ (or Khauwat) in some way with Ukhat, not etymologically of course, but as suggestive of a dependence of one upon the other,—the Hebrew upon the Babylonian term. Professor Stade (Zeits. f. Alttest. Wiss., 1897, p. 210) commenting upon Gen. ii. 20, points out that Yahwe's motive for asking Adam to name the animals was the hope that he would find a 'helpmate' among them. In the light of the Babylonian story of Eabani living with animals, Stade's suggestion receives a striking illustration.
As punishment to Man, Zeus created Pandora, the first woman, for Epimetheus, knowing that he would fall in love with her despite the warnings of his brother, the embodiment of foresight, who told him never to accept a gift from the Olympian gods, with whom the primordial Titans, sprung from Mother Earth, were ever at odds.
I have to agree with reconpilot on this. It really doesn't matter if they are separate entities, they have the same blood, the same DNA. I dont mean to be "Raciest", but the chances are, they both will have the same orientation concerning, what they perceive to be, creations that belong to them, that being us. They will never view us as equals, or worthy of the truth.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Eleleth
reconpilot and i have had many discussions but he was very angry with me for defending "enlil." he said enlil and enki are the same guy, though, so i was in essence (as far as he was concerned) defending a god capable of being as evil, cunning and deceitful as satan and as destructive, short-tempered and judgmental as jehovah, who, according to him, are the same guy. and when i say he was mad, i mean HE WAS MAD. and this all happened in one of my threads, so i started avoiding him in effect to keep from having another lengthy session of him condemning me for not agreeing with him on the topic