Mesopotamian short story with an astrotheistic message

Any religious people please do not be offended, this is just my story and opinion

I don't want to get hammered by religious folk because I'm somewhat spiritual myself

The following is a short story I wrote with my take on celestial embodiment and worshipping

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mp51107d7a.jpg[/atsimg]


________________________________________________________________________________________


I have a short story here that will show why astrotheism fills in “SOME” of the gaps. Enjoy..

(DISCLAIMER TO ALL; I’M NOT RELIGIOUS BUT I AM SPIRITUAL SOMEWHAT, THIS IS A MOCK STORY BUT GETS MY POINT ACROSS. THIS IS A SHORT STORY & TOOK ME A WHILE BUT ITS A GOOD ONE I THINK)

[Back in ancient times, predating Christendom, lets say Sumer, Akkad and Babylon times before all of the books, before all of our comforts and before absolutely all technology that surrounds us as it does today…There were people, there were animals, there were cities. Not as we have today but in some ways more meaningful in that things we’re heavily reliant and existed according to the environment these people lived.

Here, you’re a child and you’ve always noticed that really bright part of the sky that feels like a fire but you can’t touch it or look at it too long without it hurting your eyes.

Your parents have a name for this blinding light, that you can never look at for too long but its always there, for a while anyway. And it is not named the “Sun”, your parents called it Shamash.

You never ask why it is called Shamash, everyone around you calls it the same name with a level of reverence and respect.

On this day you noticed Shamash, you felt empowered and strong. People never questioned its name and it would not be called anything else, “Its Shamash!”. The sky light or sky fire was an insult to those around you if you questioned why Shamash was called Shamash.
So you as well call it Shamash.

Also on this day, you felt extremely good you “know” something so grand and powerful you can’t touch, and you cant see completely. You can feel its heat but its very hot and you must take shelter.
Shamash is indeed very powerful, “why did I question his name?” It is undoubtedly Shamash.

The heat goes away but so does some of the light and you go outside and see Shamash is getting lower and lower, with less light and encroaching dark. You are a bit frightened because the people around you start hurriedly finishing certain tasks and you hear people yelling and see them in a bit of a controlled panic.

You can look at Shamash now because he’s only just over the land in the distance, another world away but you can see a part of him.

You ask your parents with shock ‘what has happened to Shamash?’
They remark that he is making way for Nannar-Sin , after finishing their tasks and settling inside your house, you are puzzled and upset. “What happened to Shamash?” You ask with concern.

They tell you not to worry because Nannar-Sin must also make way for Shamash, just as Shamash made way for of Nannar-Sin. They are constantly arguing about who gets to be up the longest.

This is how it is but do not worry because Shamash will be back soon to protect us from of Nannar-Sin and his creatures of the dark.

Shamash is so powerful but he is now gone, you haven’t been outside yet to see Nannar-Sin because you were hurried inside. The dark brings Nannar-Sins creatures, creatures of the night and you are not their friend.

Just as the animal your father killed today was not his friend, you are also told this is the way things are and you don’t doubt the creatures want to do to you what your father did to the animal today. The dark, the sounds and hundreds of smaller Nannar-sins up in the sky make you fearful and overwhelmed. Especially by the dark and the sounds of animals you have not heard yet when Shamash is out above.

They also warn you not to be enchanted and fall for Nannar-Sins tricks. You will look at him in awe and then you will be attacked by one of Nannar-Sins creatures, many have died this way by Nannar-Sins trickery.

Your parents know this and so do your other “relatives”. This is why there was a hasty need to finish the days chores and get into the protection of the cities shelter surrounded by fire.

They explain to you that it is safer to be outside when Shamash is there also, Shamash will protect you. Until he makes way, loses a fight and Nannar-Sin is the all powerful in the sky. Nannar-Sin does not wish to protect you because he is too busy protecting his children in the sky (stars) and also his creatures of the dark. He is too busy for you, but Shamash will be back and he will protect you from Nannar-Sins creatures. Nannar-Sin seems very strong, stronger than the strongest warrior in the city, and maybe of all cities.

Your parents tell you not to go outside without them when Nannar-Sin is outside. The dangers are everywhere, you can hear animals and all sorts of sounds you could not when Shamash was in the sky. You peer outside and like you and your parents, everyone is inside and fires are lit to give everybody light.

You peer outside and cannot see the place in the distance where you last saw Shamash but just enough to see Nannar-Sin and it is incredible. You could not look at Shamash for very long but you can look at Nannar-Sin as long as you wanted.

There is Nannar-Sin, but what are these enormous amounts of other smaller Nannar-Sin’s all throughout the sky? Are they his children? You think to yourself.

You cannot rest this night when Nannar-Sin won and a while later when you cant keep yourself on guard any longer you notice that distinct light that can only be from Shamash.

You run outside and see Shamash rising up again but not from the same place, its not where he fell down yesterday but Shamash is back you don’t care where he fell yesterday and where he got up today, he’s back and the warmth against your skin, the whole village visible and all of Nannar-Sin’s creatures have run of in fear of Shamash.

You know not to fear him though because he protects you from Nannar-Sin, and Nannar-Sin does not want to protect me. You have no doubts who you prefer, it is Shamash.

Everybody is out going about their business like nothing was ever wrong, they are not as amazed as you, it seems like everything is all is as it was yesterday. Almost like they were certain Shamash would return but how could they know?

Shamash keeps making way for Nannar-Sin, and Nannar-Sin keeps making way for Shamash. This continues for years and you get used to Shamash, but you wonder what would happen if I watched Nannar-Sin until Shamash comes back and wins.

You could look at Nannar-Sin all night long in amazement and one night in particular are just awestruck no matter what anybody told you and all the warnings. Its simply incredible. Without even noticing where you are you hear hasty steps not of a human but of one of Nannar-Sins creatures and you begin to run back home after not even realizing you’ve wandered a fair distance away from home.

This animal, snarling and running at you does not stop and you just know it wants to do to you what your father said he will teach you to do one day to all the animals you saw him do it to. Kill. You don’t know how you know but you can feel it and you don’t stop to see if its true, you run out of fear for your life.

continued....

You scream for your father running towards your home and he comes out with his “killstick” (why not) and kills this creature of Nannar-Sin.
You are afraid but relieved you were not killed because every year at least a few people are attacked and killed by Nannar-Sins creatures. And his presence makes us fearful.

Shamash would never do this, because he really does want to protect us otherwise why would he come back?

You don’t know why Shamash doesn’t just stay there all the time. Nannar-Sin gives people fear, nobody likes him or his creatures and more people die when Nannar-Sin is out. People die in Shamash’s presence but not as many and not as violently. Its almost as if Nannar-Sin wants it to happen.

You do not like Nannar-Sin at all but you were told that this is the way things are so we must deal with it, and maybe get better Killsticks and build bigger fires. To defeat Nannar-Sin’s creatures who only come out in the dark.

As you get a bit older, when you look at Nannar-Sin (all the young people still do but you never lost curiosity) you start to notice a very bright child of Nannar-Sin, who seems much brighter than the rest. Your father tells you to see the city wiseman and he tells you that this is Ishtar.

He also you tells you that Shamash (Sun), Nannar-Sin (Moon) and Ishtar (Venus) are the three forces that control everything you see around you and everything you don’t, and that Nannar-Sin is the most powerful.

He amazes you by saying Nannar-Sin’s parents were named Enlil and Ninlil. And that Shamash to your shock is the descendent of Nannar-Sin.

He says to you…..

“Nannar-Sin is the Father of the Gods, if you travel to Ur you will find his house of great light. But you must never go, for the High Priestess Enheduanna daughter of King Sargon of Akkad will seduce you with her spells and hymns. At this dark place they do Nannar-Sins bidding, and what can you tell me of Nannar-Sin young one”

The cult of Nannar-Sin becomes religious dogma and spreads its influence to the conquered and the believers and similar such stories are told across the seas.
You tell your children and like chinese-whispers, names and places change ever so slightly in a short period of time.
Across the sea of time, it is unrecognizable and has had many names. It is no longer a cult followed by a few, in fact it is worshipped by millions under these many different names.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bv511080eb.jpg[/atsimg]

-The End

i'm gonna comment on this as i read it. my first comment is on the subject of shamash.

shamash is not a god name yet, much less the name for the sun, in ancient sumer.
so even though you call it mesopotamian and attribute to it, sumerian, akkadian, etc,
it's disconnected from sumer by virtue of being inapplicable to the original information.
to solve this dilemma, if you are going to be consistent in your attempt to depict sun god
worship in ancient mesopotamia, and include sumer into your deliberations, you must find
the name the sumerians gave to the sun.

get ready, set, go.

reply to post by yoursteppingonmytoes


I like it. It's a very good metaphor for religion in general. Star and flag.

I like the way you present the day, the sun, making room for the night. There are however, as many dangerous creature, etc. during the day as there are at night, but the darkness does make things "scarier."

I'll be following this thread to see where it goes. There's a lot of things to discuss, like, Who really is the father of the Gods? And the feminine "dream state."

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by yoursteppingonmytoes

 

I like it. It's a very good metaphor for religion in general. Star and flag.

I like the way you present the day, the sun, making room for the night. There are however, as many dangerous creature, etc. during the day as there are at night, but the darkness does make things "scarier."

I'll be following this thread to see where it goes. There's a lot of things to discuss, like, Who really is the father of the Gods? And the feminine "dream state."

it's not a good metaphor if some of the bigger, original pieces, are missing. notice any absence in the data?

p.s. it's not UTU either.

reply to post by undo


Of course undo, comments are welcome by all means

Many gods have what sounds like the same role. Usually, these are all the same deity, just different epithets of the one deity. For instance, earth goddesses Ki, Ninhursaga, Ninki, are all the same goddesses just different aspects.

Several deities from Sumerian and Babylonian pantheons are interchangeable. The Babylonians adopted most of the Sumerian pantheon when they invaded and took over Sumeria. The names are epithets, so it doesn't really matter.

Ishtar: Babylonian, goddess of passion, war, prostitution, the Babylonian version of Inanna

Nanna-Seun, Sumerian, god of the moon. Technically, “nanna” refers to the full moon. Seun, sometimes spelled Sin, pronounced “seen,” refers to the new moon. Father to Utu (Shamash) and Inanna

Shamash, Babylonian, god of the sun. Babylonian version of the Sumerian Utu. Interestingly the Ugaritic sun is named Shapash, a female deity.


So really, they overlap and get inherited and changed around like musical chairs. Neither of us were there so we'll have to settle for you knew what I meant anyways

that's a very specific set of data you have there and it leaves out two of the big three sumerian deities. it also insinuates or outright claims that akkadian data=sumerian data. while this is occassionally true, unfortunately, it is not consistently true. for example, the concept of anshar being the father of enlil (i know you didn't mention this) was not sumerian but akkadian. i'm being a stickler about this and i'll tell you why:

many critical papers, theoretical works and archaeological texts, written on the subject of ancient mesopotamia, particularly ones who set out to show evidence of sun god, moon god, worship, were written before the discovery of ancient sumer, which was found about 100 years ago, buried under 8 toot of flood silt from the black sea flood. were you aware of this?

reply to post by windword


Thanks windword

I know its crude and somewhat childish but that's what I was trying to do. Hard considering I'm 27 hahah.

I'm not trying to bash religious beliefs either, just presenting a possibility that's not completely impossible. I think a lot of confusion has come from metaphors and actual stories of places and people.

Personally I think embodiment, nature worship and that go hand in hand with some stories of deities, and done so well it's hard to discern the meaning of the story.

Spirituality is a hard subject to approach with a rational mindset no matter how open minded
But science can't explain all of life's mysteries like gravity and how it's just right for our moon to be where it is.

I'll meet everyone halfway with a sprinkle of science and a dash of spirituality. Maybe another example of duality that humans will eventually come to accept and acknowledge

I don't understand how "some" Christians interpret Biblical stories as literal meanings and accounts like a chap I used to work with which is why I said Christians. Not picking on them, just from my experience

What are personal opinions on science and spirituality windword?

it's extremely important to realize the demarcation line between ancient sumer and akkad. and i do mean, extremely. early akkad is not too shabby, but by the time you get to late akkad and babylon, the information is a huge mess and you have to pick thru it with a fine tooth comb. this problem due, almost exclusively, to the historical narrative of the enuma elish. what a mess!

reply to post by undo


It's a simplistic story from a child's point of view. There doesn't need to be a trinity or a representation of every archetypical hero, dying god or resurrected savior in every interpretation of mythology.

The sun god automatically gives birth to the moon, and the even lesser but very beautiful Venus lends wonder.

p.s. it's not UTU either.

What is UTU?

reply to post by yoursteppingonmytoes


I think that humanity has, for all intents and purposes, outgrown the Old Testament version of God. I like the teachings of Buddha, Lao Tzu, some of Jesus, and others, and think that we have much to learn from these philosophies.

As a "space faring" species, we have grown past the duality of day and night, light and dark, and believing that the sun is the body of GOD. He have the Milky Way and all her brothers and sisters out there.

So, who is God anymore? Not some guy who sat and ate cakes and BBQ with Abraham, or played a game with Satan using Job's life, or sent his "son" to die a bloody human sacrifice at the hands of an angry mob, "for our sin."

God also isn't some "pillar of fire" riding wrathful guy, or a hammer banging lightening bolt throwing guy either. I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in personal relationships with nature and the natural plane that we live our day to day lives in.

reply to post by windword

What is UTU?

akkadian sun god.
i see you didn't notice in the op's story that the moon gave birth to the sun, not the other way around? how does this difference apply to religious traditions of today?

here's an example of why all this stuff is necessary for people to understand:

does anyone in this thread know what the sumerian "abzu" was ?

reply to post by undo



Nothing was missing from my story I wasn't writing an archaeological paper but all of the information on ancient Mesopotamia do come down to the person's grasp of cuneiform whom are studying such texts.
Seeing as the people who wrote it are long gone I doubt the information will ever be re translated perfectly. I wasn't trying to be factual but all of the names I used have been linked with the sun, moon and venus.


so you're a stickler why undo?
Because something was found that says these "things" are actual entities in another text? I don't follow.

What exactly was found? No I did not know that but unless you can read cuneiform you're simply relying on someone elses information anyway right?

What are your thoughts on Zacharia Sitchins interpretations of the Enuma Elish because my story is waaaayyy more boring and plain compared to his theories which as I said differ depending on the interpreter.
Sitchin could be dead wrong or he may be right, these things aren't black and white.

In saying that though, one discovery can change an entire paradigm so I'm interested in what you're talking about indeed

Sorry you didn't like my story

Enzu/Nannars (the Moon) wife was Ningal ("Great Lady"), who bore him Utu/Shamash ("Sun") and Inanna/Ishtar (the goddess of the planet Venus). The tendency to centralize the powers of the universe leads to the establishment of the doctrine of a triad consisting of Sin/Nanna and his children.

So the moon is said to have given birth to the Sun. As I said, the moon is alluded to as being more powerful undo. Utu/Shamash was not the parent of Nannar. From my readings

this is such a huge topic, where to start where to start.

hmm, the best approach i guess, would be to suggest that it's nigh on impossible to know what the truth is about ancient texts like torah (first five books of the old testament) vs. sumerian/akkadian/babylonian texts, unless you account for as much of the data as you can. so i did this. originally, i set off to prove sitchin wrong. there were several places where i did that to my own satisfaction but even larger areas, where i realized, begrudgingly, that he was right. once i accepted his accuracy in those areas, i was able to break this entire thing wide open.

let's take for example, the opening chapters of genesis, particularly the creation of the heavens and the earth. the text there says "in the beginning, the elohim (plural word for gods, angels, the dearly departed) created the heavens and the earth." the very next verse happens an indeterminate amount of time later. we aren't really seeing the earth being created in those verses, but rather the frozen surface of the water, drawing down to reveal dry land that was already there (it's the end of the ice age). this is an important point because it stipulates what happens prior to the human dispensation. 2 things for certain: there were already gods and angels interacting with the planet before humans were created. and angels were also created beings, so the likelihood that angels were on earth before humans, sounds like a possibility. therefore references to them having a war in the heavens, doesn't sound impossible either. etc etc as a result, there are many places i agree with sitchin on, but i totally disagree with his interpretation of enuma elish, for the very reason that it messed up sumerian information, which unfortunatey, was already buried under flood silt at the time of its writing.

i'll stop there, for now, to see what, if any, specific data you would like to know about the subject as regards my take on sitchin's view. but be aware that the enuma elish is what introduces the worship of planetary bodies and makes a huge mess of sumerian information such as turning the sumerian abzu into a deity. enuma elish is infamous for deifying inanimate objects

reply to post by undo


Yeah its huge and can keep going, I think it could be a combination of both deities and and celestial objects in some cases. For instance there is no reason why an actual entity resides within the Sun or Moon. Earth itself has the whole Gaia spirit in some stories.

Its perfectly plausible that a spirit, entity or god "lives" in them and also that lesser beings or spirits or entities can mimic greater ones. Science and a great many people would call that crazy but its perfectly possible.

Also possible is that these are extraterrestrials with amazing abilities and can create "awe and spectacle" upon beings who aren't familiar with their true nature, that they are simply another entity that has evolved way beyond human comprehension.

Sitchin is criticized for his translating of Hebrew texts if this chap is to be believed. But he also disagrees with your take on "Elohim"

Mr. Sitchin's comments in this regard show either a refusal to consider the Hebrew grammar of this passage, or outright ignorance of that grammar (i.e., he just never looked). "Elohim" does NOT always mean "gods" (plural); the meaning of the term is to be determined by grammatical and contextual clues. GRAMMAR is IMPORTANT!

Grammar is to language what your graphical internet browser is to the websites on the internet - it is the organizing vehicle that gives meaning to the data -bits of information; without it you'd have to create your own method of obtaining and understanding that information - it would be totally SELF STYLED. Grammar dictates the formation of words, the relationship of words to each other, and the meaning of those words with respect to that arrangement. Without attention to the rules of grammar that have governed the languages of ancient texts, you can make the texts say ANYTHING; grammar is a control against total subjectivity.

Sitchin ignores grammar in his work on elohim in this passage (and others). The PDF files below illustrate (from the Hebrew) that "elohim" often refers to a "god" or "God" (proper name). Besides this evidence from the Hebrew Bible, I have also posted examples from ancient Mesopotamian texts (Akkadian) and the famous El-Amarna texts (also Akkadian) where the plural word for "gods" ('ilanu) refers to a single person or god - just as in the case of Hebrew elohim.

Why is Sitchin (and others) unaware of this material? Someone trained in the ancient languages would know about this - and if he knows it, why doesn't he tell his readers!?

Elohim does not as mean Gods (plural)
Mike Heisers CV


According to this chap undo, who seems like he has a lot of credentials, what you said is not so simple and depends upon the context. BUT, I'm no expert I'm simply pointing out to you as I have before that interpretations differ from person to person. I can't say I know more than this guy but you are sounding like you think you know more than you do. Not saying you're wrong, or this guy is either but you both have said completely opposite things.

Intelligence; Not because you think you know everything without questioning, but that you question everything you think you know.

right i like dr. heiser's data and have interviewed him, myself, on my own radio program a few years ago. i've also asked him questions on the subject of the etymology of words like bel, ba'al, enlil, and etc. and mostly agree with him on the subject of elohim. where we differ is his insistence that elohim is ever a singular. even when one particular elohim is talking, it's always as part of a group of elohim, so either way, it's a plural. what i think he's trying to say, and where i have the most confusion on the topic, is that it's the godhead trinity, which is also a plural. not only that, he later stipulates that there are 2 major figures involved in the texts, both of which are god, which he says are identified as father and son and are yet separate identities. i do believe i have discovered the answer for this confusion,observe:

enki is said to rescue humans from enlil's flood.
enlil is the one that condemns the earth with a flood.
enlil is the one noah sacrifices to after the flood to show his willingness to be obedient and therefore alleivate enlil's concerns of having humans on his planet (he was lord of the command, the head cheese of the planet at the time)
enki is said to have created humans.
enlil is the one that doesn't like humans and complains about them all the time to anu (heavenly father figure of sumer, known originally as AN) and tries to enact laws for them to follow which they fail at miserably.
enki is the one that confuses the language at babel.
etc

this goes on and on. so rather than say there's one god in the guise of jehovah, i'm more inclined to agree with heiser, that there is 2, and that they were both known by the name jehovah or yahweh in torah, so when jesus shows up and says he's god, he's not saying he's enlil, he's saying he's enki. anu, on the other hand, is heavenly father,

reply to post by undo


Interesting take indeed. I thought "God" as a singular was referred to as "El" which is why I thought what you said made sense, in that "Elohim" is a plural but I'm not going to sit here and argue with either of you because cuneiform, Hebrew and Aramaic are all things I'm not familiar with.

I'd merely be spouting what others have said but I concede you seem to know more than most (and me) and have done your research which is great. Everyone should seek their own answers.

Do you think we will ever get to to the bottom of such things in our lifetime? Doubtful right, because they've been mysteries for centuries and the jury is always out on these things IMO.


Couple of follow up questions for you undo, you seem to have your head screwed on

Can you give me a link which says that Utu/Shamash yielded or was "parent or elder" of Nannar?
When I first read some of these myths I found it odd that the moon was the "parent or elder" to the Sun but for some reason Mesopotamian's held the Moon in very high regard, possibly more than the Sun.

Do you think Utu/Nannar/Ishtar are part of this trinity and are a 3 separate deities but also cannot exist without each other? If not can you give me your take on the trinity?

The Torah worships "Yahweh" as "God" and so does modern day Judaism right? Judging from some of the stories of Yahweh's actions I don't think its the God but a deity who may act on "the Gods" behalf in a wrathful sense and is a servant, divine creature so to speak. Your thoughts on Yahweh?

I've read "Baal" can mean "Lord" or something like that but also that it is actually who the Jews have labelled as Satan or Lucifer I can't remember but what do you take on Baal and its relationship to these other Gods, or the trinity?

Legit questions mate not being cheeky or anything, seems like you may have some good thoughts on these things and I'm interested to see them

Cheers!

well let me address the questions first with an overview of the word EN.LIL

i authored a thread on the subject after reading a website that claimed that enlil was a pagan god and that al'lah was named after him and was therefore, also a pagan god. i was really frustrated with the etymology. the guy on the website proved that al'lah was indeed named after enlil, but, and here's the rub, he assumed the word EL, was never part of the etymology of enlil. it turned out he was wrong.

so in his efforts to prove al'lah was enlil, and a pagan god, he also proved EL was enlil and by proxy, also a pagan god, just based on the evidence i was accumulating. at this point i panicked and started looking for a description of what the word "pagan" actually meant and traced it to the concept of the belief in many gods lol as heiser has shown even the word elohim is plural for gods (meaning more than one. so were we suppose to just ignore that??? that was a frustrating realization let me tell you.).

anyway, here's why enlil is el.

EN=LORD
LIL=OF THE AIR, SKY

the word LIL became the generic word for god in mesopotamia. like sometimes you have LORD GOD and sometimes you just have GOD. well turns out that BA'AL is a derivative of LIL, too. and so is BEL. in fact, BEL = BA'AL. how is that possible if ba'al was a fake god that didn't exist? easy, the word god can be applied to anything, doesn't mean it's true. that was the problem with enuma elish, which took enki's abzu and made it into a deity, and planets, as well. in fact, i found evidence of the deification of enki's e.abzu temple, in the guise of the egyptian RA. (ask me later about this if you're interested).

also,the word for babEL, was earlier, babIL or babILU.

why is that important? the etymology of EN.LIL!
EN.LIL
LIL
IL (ILU IS PLURAL)
EL
AL

My belief is the word al'lah is indeed the word for the god enlil, who is the god of the moon, who enacted laws on humanity that became associated with "sin" (there's more involved here but that goes to the whole reproductive cycle and how reproduction was considered a sin by enlil, because he didn't like humans much less millions of humans. you can see his voice in the fall of man passages in genesis, asking for humans to be nerfed with short life spans. he was big time into protecting the environment and resources of earth, and in fact, you can see him get pissed at gilgamesh in the epic of gilgamesh, for cutting down an entire cedar forest to build his city, which enlil said would never grow back).

here's the etymology from that guy's website, for enlil=allah.


this is what dr. heiser had to say about how bel is ba'al

Bel is Baal because (1) Baal was rendered into Greek as Bel (the "e" being the long "e" - the "eta" in Greek - as opposed to the short "e" the epsilon); and (2) When the Greek spelling was transliterated into English (when various texts from the ancient world got translated), the transliteration was "Bel" since English transliteration doesn't distinguish between the short and long "e" of Greek. A scholar would use diacritical marks to distinguish them, but translations of these texts were meant for the wider English reading audience, who could care less about such precision (and it was easier to typeset too).