Perchance

Hi Ojuice5001,

Oh, were you talking about America specifically? I thought you meant the world or humanity as a whole.

It's hard to know what percentage of atheists are content (after all, the ones here at the SecWeb are only a small sampling), or even what percentage of Americans are atheists. That much-cited survey that places non-religious Americans at 14% is sometimes said to actually include atheists as only 1%. And many people may be atheists by strict definition, but not think of themselves that way. Or they may have grown up totally ignoring the gods (as I did). And so on.

Now it sounds like I'm arguing against myself . But, while I do think that the growth of the non-religious is cause for optimism, I don't think atheism will take over the world anytime soon.

-Perchance.

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

Hey! That's the Wiccan Rede! You pagan!

</strong>

Oh, that's a bit like asking an artist why he or she needs art. The artist sees this as a natural need which any human needs the same, and the non-artist can't comprehend what is it in painting or composing music &c that is so attractive as to consume the greater part of one's life.

Religion is one of the things that define who I am. Much like someone is attracted to music because it enables him to say, "I'm a musician", my religion enables me to say, "I'm a nature worshipper". It has to do with some inferiority complex I feel towards various theists and other worshippers: I don't like having to say "I don't worship anything" or "I don't believe in anything". The ability to have a religion, talk about it and parade it before everyone else in pride is something I definitely need. It gives me a focal point in life.

Natura est Dea et felicitas mea

sighhswolf

Nerv111,
After reading your post above, I thought you may find the following information interesting.
When looking for some information about what happened to the ancient Hebrews that initiated the change from polytheism to monotheism, I read the following work From a lecture presented by
Sir Laurence Gardner, Kt St Gm., KCD, KT St A.
at the 1998 NEXUS Conference held in Sydney, 25&endash;26 July
Transcript © Sir Laurence Gardner
Sir Gardner is a geneologist who has been responsible for tracing the Royal Bloodlines of
many European kings, and
The British royal family.
There are those who say that Gardner is/was a hack, but his work is interesting to read.

"Studying the substance of the Old Testament prior to its corruption, one fact which becomes increasingly clear is that in English-language Bibles the definition 'Lord' is used in a general context, but in earlier texts a positive distinction is drawn between 'Jehovah' and 'the Lord'.

It has often been wondered why the biblical God of the Hebrews led them through trials and tribulations, floods and disasters, when (from time to time) he appears to have performed with a quite contrary and merciful personality. The answer is that, although now seemingly embraced as 'the One God' by the Jewish and Christian churches, there was originally a distinct difference between the figures of Jehovah and the Lord. They were, in fact, quite separate deities. The god referred to as 'Jehovah' was traditionally a storm god, a god of wrath and vengeance, whereas the god referred to as 'the Lord' was a god of fertility and wisdom.

So, what was the name given to the Lord in the early writings? It was, quite simply, the prevailing Hebrew word for 'Lord', and the word was 'Adon'. As for the apparent personal name of Jehovah, this was not used in the early days, and even the Bible tells that the God of Abraham was called 'El Shaddai', which means 'Lofty Mountain'.

The apparent name 'Jehovah' came from the original Hebrew stem YHWH, which meant 'I am that I am' - said to be a statement made by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, hundreds of years after the time of Abraham. 'Jehovah' was therefore not a name at all, and early texts refer simply to 'El Shaddai' and to his opposing counterpart, 'Adon'.

To the Canaanites, these gods were respectively called 'El Elyon' and 'Baal' - which meant precisely the same things ('Lofty Mountain' and 'Lord').

In our modern Bibles, the definitions 'God' and 'Lord' are used and intermixed throughout, as if they were one and the same character, but originally they were not. One was a vengeful god (a people-hater), and the other was a social god (a people-supporter), and they each had wives, sons and daughters.

The old writings tell us that throughout the patriarchal era the Israelites endeavoured to support Adon, the Lord, but at every turn El Shaddai (the storm god, Jehovah) retaliated with floods, tempests, famines and destruction. Even at the very last (around 600 BC), the Bible explains that Jerusalem was overthrown at Jehovah's bidding and tens of thousands of Jews were taken into Babylonian captivity simply because their King (a descendant of King David) had erected altars in veneration of Baal, the Adon.

It was during the course of this captivity that the Israelites weakened and finally conceded. They decided to succumb to the 'God of Wrath', and developed a new religion out of sheer fear of his retribution. It was at this time that the name of Jehovah first appeared - and this was only 500 years before the time of Jesus.

Subsequently, the Christian Church took Jehovah on board as well, calling him simply 'God' - and all the hitherto social concepts of the Adon were totally discarded. The two religions were henceforth both faiths of fear. Even today, their followers are classified as 'God-fearing'.

So, where does that leave us? It leaves us knowing that within an overall pantheon of gods and goddesses (many of whom are actually named in the Bible), there were two predominant and opposing gods. In different cultures they have been known as 'El Elyon' and 'Baal'; 'El Shaddai' and 'Adon'; 'Arhiman' and 'Mazda'; 'Jehovah' and 'Lord'; 'God' and 'Father'. But these styles are all titular; they are not personal names.

So who precisely were they? To find the answer we have to look no further than where these gods were actually operative, and the old Canaanite texts (discovered in Syria in the 1920s) tell us that their courts were in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian Eden delta of the Persian Gulf.

But what did the ancient Sumerians call these two gods? What were their personal names? We can trace the Sumerian written records back to about 3700 BC, and they tell us that the gods in question were brothers. In Sumer, the storm god who eventually became known as Jehovah was called 'Enlil' or 'Ilu-kur-gal' (meaning 'Ruler of the Mountain'), and his brother, who became Adon, the Lord, was called 'Enki'. This name is really important to our story because 'Enki' means 'Archetype'.

The texts inform us that it was Enlil who brought the Flood; it was Enlil who destroyed Ur and Babylon, and it was Enlil who constantly opposed the education and enlightenment of humankind. Indeed, the early Syrian texts tell us that it was Enlil who obliterated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah on the Dead Sea - not because they were dens of wickedness, as we are taught, but because they were great centres of wisdom and learning.

It was Enki, on the other hand, who, despite the wrath of his brother, granted the Sumerians access to the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. It was Enki who set up the escape strategy during the Flood, and it was Enki who passed over the time-honoured Tables of Destiny - the tables of scientific law which became the bedrock of the early mystery schools in Egypt.

Many books talk about the hermetic school of Tuthmosis III of Egypt, who reigned about 1450 BC. But it is not generally known that the school he originally inherited was the Royal Court of the Dragon. This had been founded by the priests of Mendes in about 2200 BC and was subsequently ratified by the 12th dynasty Queen Sobeknefru.

This sovereign and priestly Order passed from Egypt to the Kings of Jerusalem; to the Black Sea Princes of Scythia and into the Balkans - notably to the Royal House of Hungary, whose King Sigismund reconstituted the Court just 600 years ago. Today it exists as the Imperial and Royal Court of the Dragon Sovereignty, and after some 4,000 years it is the oldest sovereign Court in the world.

But what were the earliest aims and ambitions of the Order back in Pharaonic times? They were to perpetuate and advance the alchemical strength of the Royal Bloodline from Lord Enki, the Archetype.

The kings of the early succession (who reigned in Sumer and Egypt before becoming Kings of Israel) were anointed upon coronation with the fat of the Dragon (the sacred crocodile). This noble beast was referred to in Egypt as the Messeh (from which derived the Hebrew verb 'to anoint'), and the kings of this dynastic succession were always referred to as 'Dragons', or 'Messiahs' (meaning 'Anointed Ones').

In times of battle, when the armies of different kingdoms were conjoined, an overall leader was chosen and he was called the 'Great Dragon' (the 'King of Kings') - or, as we better know the name in its old Celtic form, the 'Pendragon'.

One of the interesting items from the archives of the Dragon Court is the origin of the word 'kingship'. It derives from the very earliest of Sumerian culture, wherein 'kingship' was identical with 'kinship' - and 'kin' means 'blood relative'. In its original form, 'kinship' was 'kainship'. And the first King of the Messianic Dragon succession was the biblical Cain (Kain), head of the Sumerian House of Kish.

On recognising this, one can immediately see the first anomaly in the traditional Genesis story, for the historical line to David and Jesus was not from Adam and Eve's son Seth at all. It was from Eve's son Cain, whose recorded successors (although given little space in the Old Testament) were the first great Kings (or Kains) of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Two more important features then come to light when reading the Bible again with this knowledge in mind. We all tend to think of Cain as being the first son of Adam and Eve, but he was not. Even the Book of Genesis tells us that he was not, and it confirms how Eve told Adam that Cain's father was the Lord. Who was 'the Lord'? The Lord was Adon, and Adon was Enki. Even outside the Bible, the writings of the Hebrew Talmud and Midrash make it quite plain that Cain was not the son of Adam.

This is just a very small portion of his work, and even if the man is "way out" from the mainstream, his work is very interesting and fun to read.
The body of his work deals with the Grail legend
and his personal search and tracing of the Bloodline of the Holy Grail.


Wolf

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: sighhswolf ]</p>

Perchance

All right; I suppose I hadn't realized you thought of it on that level. On that level, I can certainly comprehend. I write, and I have a hard time understanding sometimes how some people get through their days without doing it .

From various other points you'd made, I thought you regarded religion more as a sort of "life philosophy" (and maybe you do, and I'm reading too much into this statement ). That's the part I don't "get:" why anyone feels the need for any kind of theistic life philosophy. Maybe it has to be established while the person in question is young, and since it was never established for me, that's why I don't understand.

Hmmm. Even though I'm a (heavily atheistic) agnostic, I don't feel as though I say "I don't believe in anything."

After all, you can complete statements like "I believe in ______" with not only "God" or "Jesus" or "Goddess," but also "equal rights for everyone," or "ultimate freedom," or "criminals paying the penalty for their actions." Religious belief is just a part of belief structures, just as religion is a part of life and not the whole of it. It's not necessary for everyone to engage with it or make it a part of his or her life, any more than every person creates art or is interested in sports or has a family.

Of course, I've met some people for whom religion is the most important thing in their lives- and if you think you need it, then you probably do. But I don't think that atheism is necessarily negative, any more than religion is necessarily a waste of time. And I don't think that all atheists say, "I don't believe in anything."

Been a while since Latin class, but...

Nature is my Goddess and my happiness?

-Perchance.

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

Yes. That's exactly what it means.

Sol lucet omnibus.
The sun shines for all.