From: João Simões Lopes Filho
Message: 3754
Date: 2000-09-16
----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Gordon <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Religion
>
>
> John Croft:
> >There is a tripartite division of Sumerian Gods and Goddesses.
>
> Duh! Can anyone say "Old European mythology"?
>
> >The Crone, Mother and Maiden aspect was first worked out for >Erishkigal,
> >Ninhursag (Ki), Inanna (which also appears as a tripartite >division of
> >underword, earth and heavens).
>
> We can either go with foolish John and say that Sumerians and Europeans
both
> _independantly_ happened to develop a very unique and characteristic
> triaspectual Goddess religion or...
>
> ...succumb to the obvious: The Sumerians were affected by a bicultural
> mythology created three thousand years previous in the technologically and
> economically red-hot Balkans of that period.
>
> By the way, there was something I left out that is very important to FULLY
> understanding how the Semitoid and European religions ended up reconciling
> their severe differences.
>
> I had said that the Semitoids, and the later Semitish, viewed red as the
> color of blood, fire and the underworld (Need I remind the ancient concept
> of Sheol which contradicts John's claims that this fire actually comes
from
> heaven originally). White was viewed as that of order and the sky, a
concept
> paralleling Steppe beliefs.
>
> In European mythology, there is an opposite relation. Red equals life and
> creation, the color of blood. White is the color of bone, the symbol of
> death and destruction.
>
> What's more, the sex of the deities in both cultures are opposite, not to
> mention the contrast between monotheism and polytheism. How did they get
> along religiously speaking?
>
> The way it was resolved was to "marry off" two of the aspects of the
Goddess
> (Creatrix and Destructrix) to the male Semitoid gods of the two realms, as
> has already been alluded to by Marija herself. Therefore, red was still
seen
> as a symbol of fire, destruction, war and the now _watery_ underworld but
> the European "red" and _creative_ aspect of the Goddess (aka. Inanna,
Venus,
> etc) was married to the Semitoid god of the Underworld, sometimes known by
> his epitaph as "Fire-born" associated early on with the red planet Mars
> (aka. Ares, Baal, etc) due to simple colour association. By contrast, the
> old "white" hag, the Destructrix, married the "white" and _creative_ Sky
> (aka Anu/Enlil, Jupiter, Zeus).
>
> Ever wonder why Hera is jealous and exacts "destructive" punishment to
> anyone that oppose her whims while Zeus goes on wild "(pro)creative" sex
> sprees? Ever wonder why Venus is connected with water, the war god and the
> Underworld even though she's obviously a goddess related with creation?
> Well, you need not worry any longer - gLeNny has solved the entire puzzle
> for you.
>
> John:
> >The Gods show a primary tripartite
> >division between Anu (Sky), Enki (Earth) and Enlil (Air).
>
> But what John doesn't grasp is that SumeroAkkadian myth was already
> developed out of the SemitoEuropoid religions. Sumerians had a
bi-partitive
> system too, between earth and sky from what I can tell.
>
> >In the Sumerian case the divisions are incredibly ancient, and seem
> >to be a division of a previous unitary Goddess.
>
> Gee, you don't say, John... Tell me more :P
>
> John continues his outright dillusion:
> >If this is so, by comparison, Enlil could have been the
> >consort of a still more ancient Goddess Lil (faint memories of this
> >Goddess are found in the Goddess Lilitu = the Hebrew Lilith). She
> >was a fearsom divinity indeed. Inanna called Gilgamesh to drive the
> >demoness Lilitu from the Hulupu tree where she had made her home. [...]
> >The source of this tripartite division is difficult to discern. It
> >may not even be Sumerian and may in fact be proto-Ephratean in
> >origin. [...] Certainly there is evidence of a Maiden-Mother-Crone
tripple
> >goddess underlying Hurrian beliefs, and it may also be found at Catal
> >Huyuk too. But this is only speculating on the thinnest of evidence
> >(I'll leave that up to Glen).
>
> John amazes me. Now, doesn't this Lilith sound alot like the "old hag"
> married to a sky god to the rest of you fine thinking people? What solidly
> proves it, and what John desceptively leaves out, is the fact that this
same
> myth is laced with European animal symbolisms of the Goddess
> (serpent=Destructrix and bird=Creatrix). I could also swear that Inanna is
> in this myth too. She is in reality just a mirror image of the old hag,
> Lilith, pictured as a beautiful young maiden of creation. These are all
> European symbolisms.
>
> When will John finally get it? But John's real intent is not so much to
find
> truth but just to play a fun little game of stubbornness, proposing
> everything contrary to what I say. That is his "tanist" nature, you might
> say. :)
>
> Now he wants to make up a proto-Euphratean origin, and for what further
gain
> above the million-and-one solid connections I've already made??... Arghh!
>
> - gLeN
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com
>
>
>
>