I do not think that Enki is Satan (theory).

You are free to say anything you want, everyone is, and then we just exchange information and everyone can have their conclusion. That's all good, and with extra information, things always are better.

Hp. Zevios Metathronos wrote:View source

This other dumb stuff that animals wrote that "Enki and Enlil were at war because bad daddy Anu", is another oversimplified jockery by people who literalize the myths. These are the same people that say that Zeus turned into a bull or something.

The above is not a spiritual way to look into things, it's taking certain myths literally while those who wrote them even explained they are mythological symbolism.

With all due respect, I did not rely on any of these stories, most which are come from the Akkadian period or later I researched Sumerian texts, An is the Sumerian word for Sky, he represented boundless power, the power beyond the world as the Sumerians understood it, I am not basing this off some story, but off the MUL.APIN texts, An was granted the largest domain in the sky, beyond Enki or Enlil.

The term for the Sumerian Pantheon was Anunnaki meaning "offspring of An" is the same not true of Satan that all the Gods are one way or another his children either by blood or guidance?

For instance Enlil was literally called the "supreme lord of the univerise" by Sumerian Hyms, he was the "Father" and the "King" and a being of utmost judgement "Enlil who sits broadly on the white dais, on the lofty dais, who perfects the decrees of power, lordship, and princeship," there is no doubt that Enlil is Zeus none, this prayer is very similar in fact to the wording of the Grand Ritual

However, An was described as the origin from which all authority derives, he was held in the highest position of the Sumerian Pantheon he was the one that maintained Cosmic Order, he was considered more distant to us than Enlil yet his authority was the authority from which all other Gods derived, which God could possibly fit that description if not our Lord Satan?

I will accept going forward that Satan is in fact Enki but it does seem more of an Akkadian interpretation of the Sumerian Pantheon.

WoadWarrior wrote:View source

With all due respect, I did not rely on any of these stories, most which are come from the Akkadian period or later I researched Sumerian texts, An is the Sumerian word for Sky, he represented boundless power, the power beyond the world as the Sumerians understood it, I am not basing this off some story, but off the MUL.APIN texts, An was granted the largest domain in the sky, beyond Enki or Enlil.

The term for the Sumerian Pantheon was Anunnaki meaning "offspring of An" is the same not true of Satan that all the Gods are one way or another his children either by blood or guidance?

My replies are in general, not personal.

WoadWarrior wrote:View source

Where is this coming from?! Where did I say this?! Common sense would also ask that you quote me where exactly I said this or even implied this.

What part of my theory relied on allegories? If An is not Satan then who is An? What does An have to do with to do with the story of Persephone? Why bring this up?

Also in your comment earlier you claimed Hades is the son of Satan and that Baal is not Hades, yet as HPZM has mentioned twice now, Baal is Hades and Posiedon and Zeus 3 in 1.

Literally none of my theory was based on the allegorical stories instead it was based upon what the Sumerians believed to be the rulerships of these deities, An is the God of Gods the great Father, whom gave rule of this world to Enlil e.g Zeus...Exactly the same way Satan did Baal, this is a coincidence? Fine whatever I am wrong, but dont make an argument that I misunderstood something by making up something I havent said, if An is not Satan its hardly common sense for me not to know this when his rulership's are nearly identical.

Zeus and Thor hardly have the same mythos surrounding them, because its not the stories that are important its the rulerships and thats what I investigated.

I never said you said this, relax I was just saying about this myth as well , it had nothing to do with you, chill man

WoadWarrior wrote:View source

If your going to accuse me of something, do it directly, you want to know where this information comes from?
Gee if only there was some mechanism or method known as reading through which you could somehow, through some method read my post or indeed AFODO's reply with the source of this information, but clearly this is beyond you, so let me put it plainly.

https://ancient-forums.com/threads/why-is-zeus-above-poseidon.93291/post-1091049Full site ↗

"I will explain all of this in Satanic Cosmology. But the situation is, that Zeus is actually Poseidon and Hades [3 in 1] and that these are three sub-divisions of the same power that is referred to as Zeus."

Why I had to copy and paste AFODO's reply is beyond me, perhaps he wrote it in some unknown language that only I and everyone else here could read, but you somehow could not.

I get it reading is hard, its really hard, you would have to pay some slight level of attention in order to do it, it could take moments maybe even seconds out of your day to do so, much better to ask where the information is coming from and accusing me of subversion instead of simply reading and finding out for yourself.

"Weird ass topics" your right every post on these forums should be the same utter dredge "wahh I cant get pussy! wahh I dont want to take a shower! wahh women evil! wahh am I a God yet?" May the Gods forgive me for trying to bring in some theological discussion, with the literal pretext of me saying that its just a theory and that none of the information comes from the Gods directly, apparently this is not enough to highlight this post was just meant to encourage discussion and deeper thought on the Gods, clearly nobody here can write anything that has not already been written down on these forums, fantastic sounds like a place of spiritual learning and development and totally not like a typical christian deathcult.

Want to accuse me of something? do it openly anything less is cowardice.

Sure when I make such topics to spark discussion its subversion, couldn't possibly be your just ignorant?

And before you get uppity about the nature of my reply, remember this, you could have just asked for my sources politely or as I mentioned read the topic, or indeed read HPZM's writings so that you were up to date, none of these things are difficult, instead of sneakily implying I am spreading subversion, indeed if I am right on this, then it is my duty to shed light on the Gods no less than its HPZM's the only difference is he can speak with authority and I can at best start a discussion so thats what I did, with every clarification that I am not an authority that I could write down, yet somehow that was not enough.

Explain to me in detail why Satan the Divine Authority is not An the Divine Authority? Why Zeus Father of Divinity is not An Father of Divinity? Why Satan who rules an empire extending beyond Earth is not An who oversaw matters beyond Earth? Why Zeus Father of Astarte is not An Father of Inanna? What exact part of my post did you have a problem with beyond accusing me of subversion? Why would Enki be Satan when Poseidon is not, seeing as how your so wise and learned compared to ignorant newby, uneducated me, perhaps you could do as Padme did and actually counter my points?

Do you even know anything about Sumerian Mythos? Akkadian? Anything at all?

Notice how me and Padme had a good back and forth with no disrespect despite clearly disagreeing with me, we both came away with something to think about and more to learn.

I should have posted my sources for HPZM's writing's but honestly I just assumed everyone here had the sense to keep up to date with what our High Priest had to say, clearly I was wrong and people had much better things to do like wank and play vidya games, then when I saw AFODO did that for me I felt even less need as I assumed people here could read, I have learned much that those two expectations incorrect, noted.

Heres my next post, much more in line with what you want:

ME HORNY HOW DO ME MAKE SEX RITUAL MAKE WIFE VIRGIN SEXY TIME??!!?:!?!?

The Ancients would be proud.

Do we want these forums to be a place of discussion of our Gods and exploration of theology or do we just want to be a lifestyle advice forum? Was this post really truly that out of line with the culture here? And yes discussions mean that sometimes someone is wrong, I am happy to be corrected by the clergy because the more we discuss these topics the closer to we get to our Gods, being wrong and being ignorant are two separate things, and only one of them is a choice, I am happy to be wrong but I refuse to be ignorant.

No, it seems. If you do not fit the above category I referred then it is NOT about you then. You rather should not even have reacted then if you are not a subverter or anything.
If it is better to you then I am saying sorry now for not giving a more exact reply, maybe it could be misunderstood really. And yes, you are right, I did not have time to check AFODO's reply unfortunately. Also I could not follow the other or newer replies here. Sorry.

But to me your topic/post is still sort of weird, as it is already known that Satan is Enki. An or Anu is not an actual being, at least earlier this was said.
When I have time I try to find that older sermon then, where the conception of Anu was explained...

"...couldn't possibly be your just ignorant?"
What does it mean? You rather wanted to write "you're"?
No, I do not think I am ignorant.

I was talking generally anyways. About weird and other "interesting" posts lately...many posts/topics come up very similarly, looking like innocent discussions, sometimes just questions, but sometimes subverting-like theories or ideas are being pushed slightly in these topics. Of course there are exceptions.
So I was not and am not exactly saying that your topic must be a subversion here, as I said I found it weird and started to talk about the things I see recently here.

Also, of course you can believe what you would like.

Interesting fact that the Hungarian word Anya, our word for "Mother" (or Anyu) must have to do something with the Sumerian word Anu.
Actually Hungarian language too is directly originating from ancient Sumeria.

Δυσδαιμόνα Διαμαντής wrote:View source

No, it seems. If you do not fit the above category I referred then it is NOT about you then. You rather should not even have reacted then if you are not a subverter or anything.
If it is better to you then I am saying sorry now for not giving a more exact reply, maybe it could be misunderstood really. And yes, you are right, I did not have time to check AFODO's reply unfortunately. Also I could not follow the other or newer replies here. Sorry.

But to me your topic/post is still sort of weird, as it is already known that Satan is Enki. An or Anu is not an actual being, at least earlier this was said.
When I have time I try to find that older sermon then, where the conception of Anu was explained...

"...couldn't possibly be your just ignorant?"
What does it mean? You rather wanted to write "you're"?
No, I do not think I am ignorant.

I was talking generally anyways. About weird and other "interesting" posts lately...many posts/topics come up very similarly, looking like innocent discussions, sometimes just questions, but sometimes subverting-like theories or ideas are being pushed slightly in these topics. Of course there are exceptions.
So I was not and am not exactly saying that your topic must be a subversion here, as I said I found it weird and started to talk about the things I see recently here.

Also, of course you can believe what you would like.

Thank you, I apologies too, I fly off the handle way too easily and its not the first time in the forums I have done so, I need to work on keeping my temper in check and not getting so easily offended by people disagreeing with me/ criticism. And looking back I should have provided the sources for what I was saying ion my initial comment its kind of unreasonable for me to expect a person to read other comments to know what my post is even about, especially as the information is very new.

Δυσδαιμόνα Διαμαντής wrote:View source

You rather should not even have reacted then if you are not a subverter or anything.

Innocent people react to baseless accusations like that. Guilty people deny and make up stories. So their approach was just about right.

Henu the Great wrote:View source

Innocent people react to baseless accusations like that. Guilty people deny and make up stories. So their approach was just about right.

Very true, this is a technique used in interrogation.
When faced with very serious accusations, the natural reaction of someone innocent is disgust.
Imagine you were in a perfectly normal conversation, and out of the blue you are asked if you have ever had sex with a child. Someone who is innocent will instantly jump at the question, with disgust, and be confused about why you'd even ask that. Someone guilty would, relatively calmly, explain why they are innocent. No instant gut reaction means that the subject matter doesn't surprise you, and that you were prepared to answer a question like that.

Egon wrote:

I suppose for example Ganimedes myth by Theognis, which according to this historian, Plato condemned for depicting Zeus as an homosexual pederast only for the sake of justifying Theognis' own sexuality and nothing else (you can turn the subtitles on, timestamp 22:37):

▶Watch on YouTubeExternal media opens in its original service

I can't find the relation between the Ganimedes myth and the poet Theognis by looking up online, weirdly enough.

Demonic Tech wrote:View source

I can't find the relation between the Ganimedes myth and the poet Theognis by looking up online, weirdly enough.

https://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Ganymedes.htmlExternal ↗
Theognis, Fragment 1. 1345 (trans. Gerber, Vol. Greek Elegiac) (Greek elegy C6th B.C.) :
"There is some pleasure in loving a youth, since once in fact even [Zeus] the son of Kronos (Cronus), king of the immortals, fell in love with Ganymedes (Ganymede), seized him, carried him off to Olympos (Olympus), and made him divine, keeping the lovely bloom of boyhood."

Plato, Laws 636c (trans. Bury) (Greek philosopher C4th B.C.) :
"One certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. And we all accuse the Kretans (Cretans) of concocting the story about Ganymedes (Ganymede). Because it was the belief that they derived their laws from Zeus, they added on this story about Zeus in order that they might be following his example in enjoying this pleasure as well."

Egon wrote:View source

https://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Ganymedes.htmlExternal ↗
Theognis, Fragment 1. 1345 (trans. Gerber, Vol. Greek Elegiac) (Greek elegy C6th B.C.) :
"There is some pleasure in loving a youth, since once in fact even [Zeus] the son of Kronos (Cronus), king of the immortals, fell in love with Ganymedes (Ganymede), seized him, carried him off to Olympos (Olympus), and made him divine, keeping the lovely bloom of boyhood."

Plato, Laws 636c (trans. Bury) (Greek philosopher C4th B.C.) :
"One certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. And we all accuse the Kretans (Cretans) of concocting the story about Ganymedes (Ganymede). Because it was the belief that they derived their laws from Zeus, they added on this story about Zeus in order that they might be following his example in enjoying this pleasure as well."

Oh yeah I don't know how I missed it, I even went at the same link you posted here.
Thank you.

I'm not understanding though, are you saying Theognis wrote this myth? It doesn't seem like so, it seems he was one of many talking of it.
Another thing, is it me or are most of the opinions translated there positive to the myth and only Plato is being critical of it?

Demonic Tech wrote:View source

Oh yeah I don't know how I missed it, I even went at the same link you posted here.
Thank you.

I'm not understanding though, are you saying Theognis wrote this myth? It doesn't seem like so, it seems he was one of many talking of it.
Another thing, is it me or are most of the opinions translated there positive to the myth and only Plato is being critical of it?

From what I understood many authors would take existing myths and expand upon it or create whole new stories, for example the Greek theater they'd take an existing myth in the Odyssey or Iliad and expand on a subject or create a new story/narrative - for better or for worse like some fan fiction, inventing their own version of why that myth was how it was.

Egon wrote:View source

From what I understood many authors would take existing myths and expand upon it or create whole new stories, for example the Greek theater they'd take an existing myth in the Odyssey or Iliad and expand on a subject or create a new story/narrative - for better or for worse like some fan fiction, inventing their own version of why that myth was how it was.

Makes sense.