← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · TexasAnarch

Sin, Sodomy, Politics and The Law

Thread ID: 15805 | Posts: 1 | Started: 2004-11-27

Wayback Archive

TexasAnarch [OP]

2004-11-27 19:55 | User Profile

SIN, SODOMY, POLITICS AND THE LAW

From “Living In Truth”, Charles N. Pope [url]http://www.domainofman.com/book/chap-4.html[/url]

[B]Ham’s sin on Noah[/B]

Ea/Enki did not accept the decision of Enlil to rid the "world" of all men. He secretly crowned a new "co-regent," one in whom he found no sin. Noah was evidently more of a lover than a fighter. Enki must have hoped that this compassionate, wine-bibbing seaman would replenish the earth with a happy, peace-loving race. After the Flood, Noah put away his sail and was ready to settle down. However, Noah's "youngest son" intended to subdue the earth even as the gods had done before him. To Ham, the complacency of Noah was the greater disgrace. Boarding the king ship, Noah made a slip. Warm-hearted tiller harbored a killer. Noah had new wine alone on his mind. Ham lusted for fruit of another kind.

[B]A Curse With a Cause is Retracted[/B] Ham repaid his praying father by preying on him. No sooner had big brother Thoth departed, we are told that Ham sodomized Noah and then boasted about it to Shem and Japheth. This heinous act of Ham toward his father indicates that he may not have been a true son of Noah. If he had been, then the seed of Noah would have already resided in Ham. The name Ham suggests that he was of the line or at least of the nature of the god Har (Horus/Heracles). In a primitive ritual, Ham determined to put his seed in Noah, and thereby usurp his station as "father." In the Legend of Adapa, the Flood hero (Noah) justly curses the south wind of the Deluge. Strangely, despite being violated again after the Flood in an equally degrading fashion, Biblical Noah does not curse his southerly son Ham directly, nor all of his descendants.

[B]BIBLICAL NIMROD CONNECTED WITH SUMERIAN GODS/KINGSHIP.[/B]

In the Torah, the knowledge that Nimrod had been a king of any kind is suppressed. The best the author is willing to say is that Nimrod was a "mighty hunter." The Hebrew word for mighty is gibbowr, which is an obvious allusion to "Geb, the heir."ag The text implies that Nimrod was the rightful successor of both Cush and of Shem, but that he had assumed a wrongful office. The gods had blessed the hunting of animals, but not the killing of men. Gibbowr is also a synonym of Nephilim ("giants") and is translated as "giant" in Numbers 13:33 and Job 16:14. This appellation connects Nimrod to the "mighty (gibbowr) men of old" spoken of in Genesis 6:4. These were the god-kings and tyrants from before the Flood, which we are told also endured afterward. Nimrod is likened to his predatory forbears, not only in greatness but also in greediness.

The Nephilim were a mixed race, and Nimrod was of mixed lineage. Hebrew words related to gibbowr ("mighty") are gebuwlah and gabal, which denote "territory" and "twisting." The Hebrew word for "hunter" is derived from tsuwd, "to lie alongside." The two fathers of Nimrod lay alongside Ishtar. This "twisting together" of Cush with Shem and his "barren" wife resulted in the birth of Nimrod and the founding of the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Because of continued infertility due to incest, this form of cooperation became an integral part of the reproductive model for future generations of royalty. The Egyptian New Kingdom was established through an identical covenant between two rival princes (see Chapters 9-12).

Nimrod was the great father of the Semitic peoples and their kings. He could not be cursed, nor could Cush or Ham. Nimrod had cleared the way for the earth to be replenished by the descendants of Noah. In this sense, he fulfilled the "divine mandate" of Shamash/Thoth. However, by assuming the titles of king and pharaoh, he also prepared the way for those same descendants to be brutally oppressed. Possibly, the mandate itself was misguided or had been misconstrued. Ea-Enki had found in Noah the qualities of a concerned neighbor. But, filling the earth with passive people was going to require considerable aggression.

[B]BOOK OF ENOCH [/B]

Enoch was the grandfather of Noah. The Book of Enoch chapter 68:1 "And after that my grandfather Enoch gave me all the secrets in the book and in the parables which had been given to him, and he put them together for me in the words of the book of the parables."

The Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It was considered scripture by many early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation. At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there came to be a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's rumors began to spread that somewhere a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this

There are scholars who believe the Book of Enoch was published before the Christian era by some great unknown of Semetic race, who believing himself to be inspired in a post-prophetic age, borrowed the name of an antediluvian patriarch to authenticate his own enthusiastic forcast of the coming Messiah. The Book of Enoch is divided into five basic parts, but it is the The Book of Parables (37-71) which gives scholars the most trouble for it is primarily concerned with a figure called "the messiah"; "the righteous one"; "the chosen one" and "the son of man." The Book of Enoch Chapter 46:1-2 [1] There I beheld the Ancient of days whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of a man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was; and why he accompanied the Ancient of days. [2] He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwealt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness."

[B]Enoch 2[/B]

Chapter 10, X 1 And those two men led me up on to the Northern side, and showed me there a very terrible place, and (there were) all manner of tortures in that place: cruel darkness and unillumined gloom, and there is no light there, but murky fire constantly flaming aloft, and (there is) a fiery river coming forth, and that whole place is everywhere fire, and everywhere (there is) frost and ice, thirst and shivering, while the bonds are very cruel, and the angels (spirits) fearful and merciless, bearing angry weapons, merciless torture, and I said: 2 Woe, woe, how very terrible is this place. 3 And those men said to me: This place, O Enoch, is prepared for those who dishonour God, who on earth practice sin against nature, which is child-corruption after the sodomitic fashion, magic-making, enchantments and devilish witchcrafts, and who boast of their wicked deeds, stealing, lies, calumnies, envy, rancour, fornication, murder, and who, accursed, steal the souls of men….

[B]**[/B] [B]Comments[/B] These passages point to the sin of sodomy, as by Ham on father Noah, associated with Sumerian texts by name to Biblical Nimrod, and the acts of heaven-descended beings (Nefilim) on earth, for which a place of torment is especially prepared for those who do it to children.

Though Enoch2 is dated relatively late (circ 200B.C.), with “Sodom” of the later Genesis story clearly retro-dated as name of what the nefilim did before the deluge. .  However, it could have been based on older fragments contemporary with Moses’ Pentateuch, and the Sumerian texts elaborate and deal with the generally recognized historical deluge. (1100 B.C.?)

The absolute prohibition of Levititus 18.22, therefore (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination.”), whatever standing YHWH/ELOHIM had among the olden gods, there was this context for interpreting at least this one thing “sin” communicated.  It is associated with the corruption of sexuality by non-human, but biologically flesh-oriented super-beings of some sort.

This indicates, to me, that the problem of coming to terms with anal intercourse, focused on son/father and demon-father/son relationships, had occupied much, much psychic energy, forming a period of overall psychosexual development on the way to assumption of an advanced, genital plane.  It seems significant that the New Testament does not mention it, as if the matter had been put away.  The Bible as a whole seens to have shrunk the matter almost entirely out of sight, except for a few verses.  The recognition of Jesus as Christ by Christians, if the regime was in fact already buried below the level of active “temptation”, would actually bring the notion of “sin” up to that higher level.  More delicate, less concerned with anal things in general, one might suppose. However, it would exist in historical memory, and, no longer being singled out, would continue its exert its dynamic effect beneath the level of consciousness.

If this reconstruction stands up, it sheds considerable light on the psychodynamics of America’s current historical situation.

1. Those opposing public acceptance of “gay marriage” are responding to the oldest religious historical memories when God’s people categorically rejected it, even if your “God” is antediluvial. They need not be “latents”, suffer from repressed sexuality, or even prejudiced. (Phil Burress, Republican who was instrumental in getting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot in Ohio in ’04 claims “I don’t have aq homophobic bone in my body.” –“Flush With Victory, Grass-Roots Crusader Against Same-Sex Marriage Thinks Big” NY Times ll.26.A28))

2. Considering the content of Jesus “message” was, generally speaking, love for fellow man, it must be supposed this would have served to mitigate hatreds of all sorts, including that for residual sons of Nimrod However, the New Testament’s silence on just about everything sexual, in detail (Paul’s injunctions against fleshiness notwithstanding) shows the matter has either receeded far into the background, or is too coomon to comment. The latter seems unlikely. Everywhere it goes on openly it seems to arouse instinctual conflict. People who “stay straight”, if it comes to resisting life ouside that stream, who reproduce the species, tribe, faith of their Father’s, are the children of God. How could it be any other way?

3.. One critical metaphysical difference the Advent of Christ would make, however, would concern the definition of “sin”. “Christ” would not be something gained by the psychological act of accepting an abused alter-ego substitute, tacitly equating “sin” with not accepting abuse (sadistic anal male homosexual rape inflicted on children. That would be “sin” for the non-Biblicals (Caananities, Sodomites, etc.). Those for whom Jesus suffered and died would have included this form of human being, of course, probably much more widely represented as a class than most suspect. But what “sin” meant for Christians was something you could confess, renounce, be baptised for and cleansed of, restored to a wholeness of psychic being that it corrupted – innaugurating a higher plane of existence, otherwise unattainable except through those excplicit steps. You add the content, and know one besides yourself knows whether it is faked, hedged, or politicized. Call this “sin 2” (as opposed to “sin 1”, sodomy), “killing Jesus for gain”. Its like cheating at solitaire, whoever does it is contradicting themselves in a certain way.. That is a kind of shamelessness. And, in fact, for those whose religious sense embraces modesty as a virtye, it would define what shameless was.

This would explain why laws would be passed against sodomy by people of deep, instinctive religious character, such as founders of the Republic of Texas. I, personally, would not defend these laws, today, if “gays” would abandon all attempts to call public attention to themselves. It makes war, not love.