We the Anunnaki ~ 10/24/14 ~ Emily Cragg, Janet Kira & Dr. Sasha Lessin

Queen Pope Nazi imagesJoin us on our next show which promises to be one of the most super controversial episodes ever of “We the Anunnaki” with Janet Kira Lessin & Dr. Sasha Lessin with guests Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg and Robert Evans, Jr. as they discuss the politics and policies of the Anunnaki on Friday, October 24, 2014 on www.blogtalkradio.com/aquarianradio from 3 to 5 PM HST (Hawaii), 6 to 8 PM Pacific time.

Check Out Education Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Aquarian Radio on BlogTalkRadio

On this episode we tackle the touchy subject of human sexuality, which is always controversial, but go way beyond that to address one of the leading problems on this planet: pedophilia.  Pedophiles run rampant, apparently run the world and have been around since the dawn of time (as long as prostitution, so it seems). What exactly is the age of consent?  In fact, what is consent regardless of age?  Where  in the world is pedophilia legal or illegal?  Is pedophilia right or wrong?

We discuss kiddie-porn, sex slavery, rape, incest and many other aspects of sexuality going back to the origins, to our forefathers the Anunnaki, where we analyze what we know of Anunnaki sexuality and the attitudes and mores that come to us from the ancients and influence our religions, morals and laws to this day.

We will also discuss the history of the Enki and Enlil line and their various beliefs on rulership, kingship, guidance and governance.

See http://enkispeaks.com/2012/10/23/jesus-biological-descendant-of-et-enki-thru-cain-to-king-david/

What is the history of the Enki Line versus the Enlil Line?

Note:  The following represents Emily’s position and beliefs and are not necessarily the opinions of Janet Kira Lessin & Dr. Sasha Lessin.  We will discuss these and many other things on this next exciting episode of “We the Anunnaki.”

Enlil's Line told the Truth; Enki's line held secrets and controlled History.Enlil’s Line told the Truth; Enki’s line held secrets and controlled History.

Teachings that effect Causes-and-Effects are Holy.  Let’s think about how we DEFINE our Concepts.

Let’s no longer divide ourselves by mere beliefs without reflecting on EFFECTS OF BELIEFS. Divisions is one UNHOLY effect of mere beliefs. The Nature of God is simply a belief, one that never ought to affect human behavior. And there are others.

Sabbath rest is important–but no matter WHICH day.

Gender: Form follows function and function follows form. Parenting is a function; but creating a genetic Dynasty is a Role in creating Sacred Forms. We have to know the differences: “Papa’s” instill principles, “Mama’s” teach lifestyle habits, however it occurs in gender.

Serving Others (as opposed to Self Only) is the primary ROLE-MODELING of Leadership. If Leaders serve themselves for money, they are not Leading anywhere but to Greed.

Educating is not the same as Training. Education comes by self-discovery (Journaling), reading aloud for comprehension and arithmetic problem-solving (without a calculator). Dog-training is rehearsing Rules and Roles. That’s for animals, not children. Children must learn by self-discovery, reading comprehension and problem-solving, to think for themselves and not just get TOLD.

Church was never intended to be a hierarchy, if you have read the Jesusonian MODEL. It’s a variegated SALAD OF GIFTS. If your Church has a clergy-laity distinction, they already believe you’re stupid.

Meta-Physics is the discipline that leads our understanding of Godhead and Cosmic relationships between Divinities (in other Dimensions) and Humanity. If the church isn’t teaching Physics, Genetics and Cosmology, they’re educating no one to the characteristics of God the Scientist.

Professions have HATS to display their wisdom; so let Teachers abide with their roles by accepting an appropriate head-covering. Every single planet does likewise: the head-covering describes one’s function, role and status.

God is the Primary Cause; however, Humanity comprise secondary and tertiary Causes so we have to keep in touch, in order to progress and not revert to Barbarism, Lawlessness, Harm, Infamy and Deceit.

Remember, Earth is Physical where Causes and Effects obtain; but Heaven is ONLY SUBJECTIVE, wherein Spirits can manifest at will. There are NO COMMON METHODS between Physical Cause-Effects and Subjective Manifest-Destiny. None! You can’t make 3rd Dimension into a 6th Dimension REALITY anymore than you can turn a Zoo into a Congress.

Physical effects take much longer to carry out than thinking; and this is why God spends more time with Physical Humanity husbanding outcomes than He spends with Subjective Spirits in their purely Mindal Games.

Fascism, Socialism and Communism are purely mindal visualizations that do not work out well in physicality because Humans have different physical and social needs. Diversity rules; whereas, in Heaven, visualization rules. Ideas tried out THAT FAIL must be left behind, if Mankind is to progress and not regress.

God Calls to US: “Come To Peace”

************************************

Emily Windsor Cragg 02f39NIGHTSKYsmEmily Windsor Cragg 03f39AGEMSGSsm Emily Windsor Cragg 04f39AGERocksm Emily Windsor Cragg 05f39AGEgiantsm Emily Windsor Cragg 14f39AnuHistsm Emily Winsor Cragg AnnunakiDogmaDown2Us

 

************************************************************

Stolen from Isis (Ninmah): A Crown (Queen Elizabeth II)

Stolen from Isis (Ninmah): A Crown (Queen Elizabeth II)

QUEEN ISIS* She is the Head of 52 countries* and *SHE* just declared.. Britain will “NOT” charge pedophiles that possess child abuse images.  because..”Theres too many”.  and this is why she and her Pedofile ring members must be PERMANENTLY INCARCERATED .Psychiatric evaluation and strict observation. and ALL OF HER CORRUPT FRAUDLENT ILLEGAL CRIMINAL GOVERNMENTS SHUT DOWN.They are Pedofiles running a global pedofile ring.they are psychotic and they protect each other.they’re ideology is warped.they are sick and twisted. AND THEY ARE a Danger and a threat to society and ALL children ALL over the world.

PEDOFILES PROTECTING PEDOFILES

20 October 2014 Last updated at 17:12 ET

Paedophiles who download child abuse images ‘won’t be charged’

[link to www.bbc.com]

The head of the UK’s National Crime Agency , Keith Bristow
“Britain will not charge pedophiles that possess child abuse images because of the “high volume”<?? of people engaging in such activities.”

Queen-Prince-Philip-Pope-pedophileUK online pedophiles too many to prosecute: NCA
[link to www.presstv.ir]

our taxes are funding pedofile rings by paying taxes we are funding a criminal organization that molest, torture, rape, kill and distribute children.

AND THESE PEOPLE ARE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENTS????  WE WILL NEVER BE SAFE WITH THESE PEOPLE IN CHARGE.  CHILDREN WILL NEVER BE SAFE.  WE WILL NEVER SEE PEACE OR FREEDOM EVER.  NOT WITH THESE Psychopaths IN CHARGE.  THEY MUST BE REMOVED

Anger-at-Pedophile-ScandalMargaret Cantwell I think we judge ourselves. But first, we need to be awakened spiritually, after which there is no need to return to this cesspit of a world. The reps want to make sure we hate ourselves, and want to label us as sinners, so that after death, they can assume a mask and, while pretending to be for our good, push us to reincarnate to “work out our karma”. If there is such a thing as karma, I firmly believe it can, and should be worked out on the other side, where we can spiritually help.
    • Maureen Cragg Karma cannot be worked out on the other side because there IS NO CAUSES-AND-EFFECTS RELATIONSHIPS to work from. One can only generalize and make Rules when one can see the outcome of the Rules; and in the Subjective (in “Heaven” if you will) souls simSee More
    • Margaret Cantwell What I meant was that the reptilians invented the concept of Karma, for the reason that they wanted as many souls as possible to reincarnate, so that they could feed off our fears, conflicts, deaths, sex, rape, etc. That is food for the reps. People have free will, and do not NEED to reincarnate. If a soul is genuinely repentant, then there should not be a need to come back to a place where the reps dominate and control, that would be the same as coming back to hell … which this world IS!
    • Arrested for high treason0Margaret Cantwell A very wise spiritual teacher, once said that the Earth is the darkest planet. But our vision is so clouded, that we think we are the “tops”, we think we are so intelligent and learned. But, there are civilisations far more advanced than earthlings, with far higher ethics, they look on humans/earthlings as unevolved.
    • Beatrice A. MacGuire Karma and all that, exists in that manner, only INSIDE the box of the problem. Only for a moment..step outside the box. Think in terms of the WIN=WIN, the Me AAAND YOU equation athat was the intended operational code of this botched ‘model of diversity’ venture, and would have been able to give EACH sovereign user of the system, its wishes simultaneously.
      Perfection is the bottom line when we launch these joints.
      Problem was, there was a catastrophic event of fission at launching point and the INCLUSIVE central symbol of the INTENDED and PERFECT operational code — it’s me AAAAND you — perfect for all… got catastrophically flip-flopped to the DIVISE SYMBO Or — it’s ME ORRRR YOU.
      And ever since then, us sovereign users have had to CANNIBALIZE one another in the dense physical because of a blooming TYPO!
      All this is very easily reprogrammable on a micro vaccination level — that THAT is why we are here.
      The problem is not on a level of the users at all.
      The goof was purely logistical.
      A self polarized positive=negative GRID!

From http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/549/pedophilia-in-ancient-greek-and-roman-culture

daypope[Disclaimer: I hate to sound unprofessional, but I do not wish to appear to be condoning paedophilia: I find the idea revolting. Nevertheless we must be able to talk about history in a scientific, distanced manner.]

[Edited:] The answer to your question depends on your definition. In ancient Athens and Rome, the modern concept of paedophilia did not exist as such, so the question would be meaningless to an Athenian if you asked him. If by paedophilia you mean the modern psychiatric definition, which pertains to sex with pre-pubescent children, that was considered abnormal and probably as rare as now.

If you use the popular modern definition, which includes all children that cannot be considered adults, so up to 16 or 18 years old, that was not uncommon in Greece and Rome. Flirtation and sex between a bearded man and an unbearded, pubescent boy was acceptable or even common, but only in certain contexts, in certain circles, in certain cities, at certain times. This answer is about sex between grown men and pubescent children. [End of edit.]

In Antiquity, unmarried sex usually did not impact a man or a boy’s reputation; but girls were supposed to remain virgins until marriage. So attitudes towards sex were tied to marriage for girls. The discrepancy was probably connected with the common situation of a younger girl marrying a (somewhat or much) older man. Another relevant factor was the fact that men can procreate at a late age, while women have a fairly limited timeframe.

Moses Earthly Representatives imagesPubescent girls could be married off to adult men, which is still common practice in many parts of the world. Until ca. 1800, a very common minimum age of marriage in Europe was 12 years old. Only after 1800 was this gradually raised in the West. This probably reflected social attitudes. The modern Western boundary of 16 or 18 years (which means after puberty) for marriage is relatively new; while I believe the average age of marriage has been increasing for centuries, 16–18 probably only became universal in the West somewhere during the 20th century.

That doesn’t mean girls were mostly married off during puberty in the Middle Ages and Antiquity; but it does mean that marriage was often legally possible at 12. One can imagine that consummation was often (though not always) to happen soon after. Sometimes sons and daughters who were supposed to forge an important alliance were even married at 9 or younger; but then marriage was often only allowed to be consummated later.

A famous example of this widespread (perhaps nearly universal) practice was Mohammed. From Wikipedia:

Traditional sources dictate that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, but the marriage was not consummated until she was nine or ten years old. While the majority of traditional sources indicate Aisha was 9 (and therefore a virgin) at the time of marriage, a small number of more recent writers have variously estimated her age at 15 to 24.
Even if the traditional story is not true, this shows that the consummation of a marriage at 9 years old, which was perhaps rare and would seem inconceivable in modern society, was at least not absurd then. Nor was it in Rome or Greece.

********************************************************************************

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Pope enhanced-buzz-21347-1271074488-363Age of Consent

The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is thus the minimum age of a person with whom another person is legally permitted to engage in sexual activity. The distinguishing aspect of the age of consent laws is that the person below the minimum age is regarded as the victim, and their sex partner as the offender.

The term age of consent rarely actually appears in legal statutes;[1] it has sometimes been used with other meanings, such as the age at which a person becomes competent to consent to marriage,[2] but the meaning given above is the one now generally understood. It should not be confused with the age of majority, age of criminal responsibility, the voting age, the drinking age, driving age, etc.

Age of consent laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,[1] though most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 14 to 18. The laws may also vary by the type of sexual act, the gender of the actors, or other restrictions such as abuse of a position of trust. Some jurisdictions may also make allowances for minors engaged in sexual acts with each other, rather than a single age. Charges resulting from a breach of these laws may range from a misdemeanor such as corruption of a minor, to what is popularly called statutory rape(which is considered equivalent to rape, both in severity and sentencing).

There are many “gray areas” in this area of law, some regarding unspecific and untried legislation, others brought about by debates regarding changing societal attitudes, and others due to conflicts between federal and state laws. These factors all make age of consent an often confusing subject, and a topic of highly charged debates.[1]

******************************************************************************************

Age of Consent From http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html

Traditionally the age at which individuals could come together in a sexual union was something either for the family to decide or a matter of tribal custom. Probably in most cases this coincided with the onset of MENARCHE in girls and the appearance of pubic hair in boys, that is, between twelve and fourteen, but the boundaries remained fluid. In much of classical Greece this was true of both same- and opposite-sex relationships. In Republican Rome, marriage and the age of consent were initially private matters between the families involved. Not until the time of Augustus in the first century C.E. did the state begin to intervene. Marriage then legally became a two-step process, a betrothal which involved an enforceable agreement between the heads of two households, and then marriage itself. Women who were not yet of age could be betrothed with the consent of their fathers, but the woman herself had to consent to marriage.

The Roman tradition influenced peoples and cultures with whom it had come in contact. In the Islamic tradition following Muhammad, betrothal could take place earlier than PUBERTY, perhaps as early as seven, but the marriage was not supposed to be consummated until the girl menstruated and was of age. In medieval Europe, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was “meaningful” if the children were older than seven. Some authorities said consent could take place earlier. Such a marriage would be permanent as long as neither party sought annulment before reaching puberty (12 for girls and 14 for boys) or if they had already consummated the marriage. Even if the husband had technically raped his wife before she reached puberty, the marriage was regarded as consummated. It was this policy which was carried over into English common law, and although consent was necessary, force and influence or persuasion seemed to have been permissible elements. Similarly Gratian’s ideas about age became part of European civil law.

The age of consent in both English and continental law seemed to be particularly elastic when property was involved or family alliances were at stake. For example in 1564, a three year old named John was married to a two year old named Jane in the Bishop’s Court in Chester, England. Though Shakespeare set his Romeo and Juliet in Verona, the fact that Juliet was thirteen probably reflects the reality in England. Her mother, who was twenty-six, calls her almost an old maid.

The American colonies followed the English tradition but the law could at best be called a guide. For example in Virginia in 1689, Mary Hathaway was only nine when she was married to William Williams. We know of her case only because two years later she sued for divorce, and was released from the covenant she had made because the marriage had not been consummated. Interestingly, historian Holly Brewer, who discovered the case, speculated that if William had raped Mary, she probably would not have been given the divorce. The only reliable data on age at marriage in England in the early modern period comes from Inquisitions Post Mortem which involved only those who died and left property. It appears that the more complete the records, the more likely it is to discover young marriages. Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at age younger than seven, in spite of what Gratian had said, and there are recorded marriages of two and three year olds. The seventeenth-century lawyer Henry Swinburne distinguished between the marriages of those under seven and those between seven and puberty. He wrote that those under seven who had said their vows had to ratify it afterwards by giving kisses and embraces, by lying together, by exchanging gifts or tokens, or by calling each other husband or wife. A contemporary, Philip Stubbes, wrote that in sixteenth-century East Anglia, infants still in swaddling clothes were married. The most influential legal text of the seventeenth century in England, that of Sir Edward Coke, made it clear that the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old.

The age of consent was more variable than a summary of the law seems to imply. Peter Laslett, for example, used available statistics to argue marriage and child bearing in the late teens was not common in England and marriage at twelve was virtually unknown. The problem is that his statistics might well be skewed because in England only a small portion of marriages were registered, and even on these registrations it is difficult to tell if they recorded first or second or later marriages. A second marriage by a man in his late fifties or a woman in her early thirties skews the data. Not all marriage records even bother to record the participants’ ages. Unrecorded are marriages without parental consent and private weddings and the quality of data varies from region to region. For example in the parish of Middlesex County, Virginia, there is a record of fourteen-year-old Sarah Halfhide marrying twenty-one-year-old Richard Perrot. Only in the last sentence of the register does it indicate that she was a widow. Did the compiler read that far? We simply do not know what her age at first marriage was, or even if it had been consummated. Of the ninety-eight girls on the ten-year register, three probably married at age eight, one at twelve, one at thirteen, and two at fourteen. Historians in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have sometimes been reluctant to accept data regarding young ages of marriage, holding instead that the recorded age was a misreading by a later copier of the records. Natalie Davis, whose book The Return of Martin Guerre became a movie, made her heroine, Bertrande, much older than the nine-to ten-year old girl she was when she married her missing husband.

In the nineteenth century France issued the Napoleonic Code and many other countries, following France’s example, began revising their laws. The Napoleonic Code, however, had not changed the age of consent, which remained at thirteen. When historian Magnus Hirschfeld surveyed the age of consent of some fifty countries (mostly in Europe and the Americas) at the beginning of the twentieth century, the age of consent was twelve in fifteen countries, thirteen in seven, fourteen in five, fifteen in four, and sixteen in five. In the remaining countries it remained unclear. In England and the United States, feminist agitation in the late nineteenth century called attention to the young age of consent and called for changes in the law. By the 1920s the age of consent, a state issue in the United States, was raised in every state and ranged from fourteen to eighteen, with most states settling on sixteen or eighteen.

In the last part of the twentieth century the U.S. public once again took note of age of consent issues. Although sometimes it is not possible to identify a single age of consent since the statutory age varies with the age of the defendant and with the particular sexual activity, in the United States as of 2000 the age at which a person may engage in any sexual conduct permitted to adults within a particular state ranges between fourteen to eighteen. In the vast majority of states the age is either fifteen or sixteen. Most states set the minimum age for marriage without parental approval at eighteen, and there are elaborate provisions governing which parent must give consent and who qualifies as a custodial parent or guardian when marriage under eighteen takes place. There are occasional contradictions since some states will allow a minor to marry with parental permission at an age when the minor cannot engage in legal sexual activity, while others allow a minor to engage in sexual activity years before he or she can marry without parental approval.

************************************************

Pedophilia from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger. As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1][2][3][4] A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age; adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]

Pedophilia has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines it as a “disorder of adult personality and behaviour” in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[5] It is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.[1]

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often used to mean any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse.[3][6][7][8] For example, The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary states, “Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.”[9] This common use sometimes conflates the sexual interest in and sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors.[10][11]Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder,[6][12][13] many child sexual abuse offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia and these standards pertain to prepubescents.[10][14][15]

Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. Although mostly documented in men, there are also women who exhibit the disorder,[16][17] and researchers assume available estimates underrepresent the true number of female pedophiles.[4] No cure for pedophilia has been developed, but there are therapies that can reduce the incidence of a person committing child sexual abuse.[6][18] In the United States, following Kansas v. Hendricks, sex offenders who are diagnosed with certain mental disorders, particularly pedophilia, can be subject to indefinite civil commitment,[19] under various state laws (generically called SVP laws[20][21][22]) and the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.[23] At present, the exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established.[24] Research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies. In the contexts of forensic psychology and law enforcement, a variety of typologies have been suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations.[11]

***********************************************************************************

 

Enki and Enlil from http://www.halexandria.org/dward184.htm

According to the ancient Sumerian texts, the Sumerian god, Anu, the “supreme Lord of the Sky”, the currently reigning titular head of the Sumerian Family Tree, had two sons. They were Enki (Ea), Lord of the Earth and Waters (whose mother was Antu), and Enlil (Ilu), Lord of the Air and Lord of the Command (whose mother was Ki).  These two half-brothers — surprise, surprise — did not get along.

For Updates and more thoughts, visit the Halexandria Forums 

Critical to their rivalry — particularly from Earth’s viewpoint — was the fact that Enki had been the first of the Anunnaki to hazard a trip to Earth to begin a mining operation for gold.  When this effort did not apparently produce gold in sufficient quantities, Enlil was brought in, given command, and armed with a new plan (an early version of the New Deal).  The revised program was to mine gold from deep mines in the Earth.

According to Sumerian texts (as detailed in Genesis of the Grail Kings [1]), during a visit by their father, Anu (the archetypal absentee landlord), the Anunnaki made a decision:

“The gods had clasped their hands together,

Had cast lots and had divided.

Anu then went up to heaven.

To Enlil the Earth was made subject.

The seas, enclosed as with a loop,

They had given to Enki, the Prince of Earth.”

Sounds fair.  However.  As Laurence Gardner points out:  “Enki was not happy about his brother’s promotion because, although Enlil was the elder of the two, his mother (Ki) was Anu’s junior sister, whereas Enki’s mother (Antu) was the senior sister.  True kingship, claimed Enki, progressed as a matrilineal institution through the female line, and by this right of descent Enki maintained that he was the first born of the royal succession.”

“I am the great brother of the gods.

I am he who has been born as the first son of the divine Anu.”

If there is a philosophy of Enki, it manifests and explains itself in early Mesopotamian and Egyptian thought, where the true creator of the universe was manifest within nature, and that nature enveloped both the Anunnaki, and the humans.  Nature, as the Great Mother, was still supreme, despite any patriarchal scheme to the contrary.  Admittedly, Enki’s claim of his birthright, the one being based on a matrilineal succession — essentially the mitochondria DNA link, which is wholly passed through the female line — was in Enki’s best interests.  But Enki was also the maternalgrandfather who came to the aid of Inanna when things went badly during her Descent into the Underworld.

With the arrival of Enlil, however, who in his best interests must demean the matriarchal line of succession, and thus nature itself — everything changed.  The Great Mother was dethroned and replaced by a supreme male (as opposed to a male consort for the Queen).  The idea of cooperation — as exemplified by the council of Anunnaki making cooperative decisions — was quickly replaced by competition, and harmony was forsaken in favor of subservience.  The supreme god became abstract, and any physical connection with human or nature was lost — and thus the link between nature and human also destroyed.  When Enlil hit town, there was a whole new deal put into effect.

According to Laurence Gardner [1], “The dominant tenet of the new thought was based wholly on the utmost fear of Enlil, who was known to have instigated the great Flood [or else acquiesced in not warning the humans, or making any attempt to save them], and to have facilitated the invasion and destruction of civilized Sumer.  Here was a deity who spared no mercy for those who did not comply with his dictatorial authority.

“Abraham had experienced the vengeful Enlil first hand at the fall of Ur, and he was not about to take any chances with his own survival.  He was even prepared to sacrifice the life of his young son, Isaac, to appease the implacable God (Genesis 32:9).”  “The oriental scholar Henri Frankfort summarized the situation by making the point that… ‘Those who served Jehovah must forego the richness, the fulfillment, and the consolation of a life which moves in tune with the great rhythms of the earth and sky.”

Bramley [3] has noted that, “We therefore find Ea [Enki] as the reputed culprit who tried to teach early man (Adam) the way to spiritual freedom.  This suggests that Ea intended his creation, Homo sapiens, to be suited for Earth labor, but at some point he changed his mind about using spiritual enslavement as a means.”

From a Biblical perspective, it was Enki who (with the critical assistance of his half-sister, Ninki, aka Nin-khursag) created Adam and Eve.  It was Enlil, on the other hand, who created “Edin”.  Enki was the serpent in the garden, who urged Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (which was infinitely beneficial to their spiritual growth).  It was Enlil, who drove them out of Edin, while Enki was there to clothe them.  It is worth noting that Zecharia Sitchin [2] claims that the biblical word for “snake” is nahash, which comes from the root word NHSH, and which means “to decipher, to find out.”  In other words, Enki, the God of Wisdom.

In the time of Noah, it was Enlil who either created the Great Deluge/Flood as a means of wiping out mankind (because they supposedly made too much noise), or else refused to warn the humans or do anything to save them or help them to save themselves.  Enki, on the other hand, apparently against orders of the Anunnaki (who Enlil now controlled), provided the boat plans for Noah to build his Ark, and thus save him, his family (and likely a fair number of helpful artisans and their families).  Enki included as well the seed of other living things (a “natural” kind of thing to do).

In the Sumerian texts, we have the stories of Enki and Enlil, and for the most part there is portions devoted to each.  But in Genesis, Enlil seemingly reigns supreme.  Enlil knew early on, that a pound of good Public Relations effort is worth a ton of truth.

Abraham and his descendants served Enlil, and followed his precepts.  The Egyptians, on the other hand, were Enki’s protégés, and based on food management practices during the devastating droughts around the time of Jacob and Joseph, were doing a lot better than Enlil’s followers.  Obviously Noah backed the right horse in that Enki shared boat plans with the righteous fellow — whom Enlil later claimed as his own.

But at one point, circa 2000 B.C.E., all hell broke loose.  In an all out war of Enki’s humans against Enlil’s humans — complete with all manner of diplomatic subterfuge in the mix — Sodom and Gomorrah took the brunt of the action and were destroyed.  By nuclear weaponry!  They were A-bombed.  The decision for this, however, was not, as you might have expected, due to Enlil’s instigation.  Instead, it was due to the actions of his sons, Ninurta and Ningal.  The (radioactive) fallout of their actions then resulted in the final destruction of the Sumerian civilization (circa 2000 B.C.E.).  Curiously, this event in the Annals of Earth turned out to be something of a Waterloo for Enlil.  Not that the guy (dba “God”) fled the scene, but thereafter, the idea of unilateral actions was a bit more constrained.  Enlil was no longer the undisputed Lord of the Command among his peers.

Which might be just as well.  As Laurence Gardner [1] phrased it:  “This muddled and unparalleled concept of Jehovah being right when he was wrong, honest when he was dishonest, was born out of an inherent fear of his vengeful power and unbounded wrath.  Whether as Jehovah (in Genesis) or as Enlil (in Mesopotamian record) it was he who had instigated the Semitic invasions which led to the ‘confusion of tongues’ and the fall of Sumer.  It was he who had brought about the devastating Flood, and it was he who had leveled the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah — not because of their wickedness, as related in Genesis (18-19), but because of the wisdom and insight of their inhabitants, as depicted in the Coptic Paraphrase of Shem.  It was Jehovah who had removed the Israelites from their homeland and sending them into seventy years of captivity by King Nebuchadnezzar II and his five Babylonian successors down to King Belshazzer (545-539 BC).”

This latter event is critical as another turning point in the Enki and Enlil warfare, as it reflects a time, circa 600 B.C.E., when Enlil was stepping back from the overt control of Earth.  (A fact which does not necessarily imply stepping back from covert control!)

Zecharia Sitchin [2] has taken a different, decidedly pro-Jehovah, pro-Enlil approach in his writings.  While admitting to the complicity of Enlil’s sons in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Sitchin tends to blame the female (i.e. Inanna) for seducing King Shulgi of Ur (and thus destroying a once thriving civilization).  Sitchin also charges Enki’s son, Marduk, who became the Babylonian god, with being perhaps the prime culprit of all the bad news that was extant in what Sitchin refers to as “The Fateful Century” (2123 – 2023).  At one point in his book, The Wars of God and Men, Sitchin writes: “There was great jubilation in the land when the great temple was rededicated to Enlil and Ninlil [Enlil’s wife], in the year 1953 B.C.E.; it was only then that the cities of Sumer and Akkad were officially declared habitable again.”

And just guess who was responsible for their being uninhabitable in the first place!?

To appreciate the continuing sage of Enki versus Enlil, it is instructive to note their place in the Sumerian Family Tree, aka the “Grand Assembly of the Anunnaki”.

Marduk (who would become the god of the Babylonians) was Enki’s first born, and that of Enki’s wife, the goddess Damkina.  Enki’s other wife was his half-sister, Nin-khursag (meaning “Mountain Queen”), the Lady of Life, also known as Nin-mah, the Great Lady.

Enlil was also espoused to Nin-khursag and their son was Ninurta (Ningirsu), the Mighty Hunter.  By another wife, Ninlil (Sud), Enlil had a second son, Nanna (Suen), known as the Bright One. Nanna and his wife, Ningal, were the parents of Inanna (who was called Ishtar by the Babylonians), and who married the Shepherd King Dumu-zi (the latter given in the Semitic Old Testament book of Ezekiel 8:14 as Tammuz).

Another son of Enlil and Ninlil was Nergal (Meslamtaea), King of the Underworld.  He married Eresh-kigal, the Queen of the Netherworld, the daughter of Nanna and Ningal (i.e. Inanna’s sister), and the mother of Lilith (who became handmaiden to Inanna, her maternal aunt).  Lilith is also notorious as the first wife of Adam, but it was Lilith who rejected him (and thus incurred the wrath of every reject-worthy male on the planet).

By some accounts, Inanna was also the granddaughter of Enki (as well as Enlil).  This strange situation was critical in Inanna’s classic tale of her Descent into the Underworld.  (I.e. Enlil turned a blind eye, while Enki saved Inanna’s lovely little fanny.)  Even more crucial to the plot was  the fact that Inanna was also a favorite of the supreme Anu.  Thus she was never, never at a loss as to what she thought she could do and get away with.  Her story has been well told two books by Susan Ferguson: Inanna Returns and Inanna, Hyperluminal.  (Ms. Ferguson does include Enki’s son, Marduk, as the bad guy, but on the other hand, keeps Enki as a favorite.  She can do that.  It’s her books.)

Speaking of Marduk, not only was he the arch-enemy of Inanna (thus explaining Susan’s plotting), but Marduk thoroughly angered just about everyone about him.  Even his father, Enki, must have wondered where he went wrong in raising his first son — a question not uncommon to any father.  At the same time, it must be admitted, Marduk was without question a serious pain in the rear (and elsewhere) for Enlil, and thus Enki might have had moments of genuine pride.

Just as Enki may have been given temporary, overt control over the Earth during the Age of Pisces, Marduk, who was identified with the planet Mars, and thus the astrological sign of Aries, had assumed he would be in charge during the Age of Aries.  Depending on the time allotted to each sign — whether it is 1/12th, or more likely the actual time spent in the sign — Marduk’s Age of Aries likely ran from roughly 2,000 B.C.E. to about 600 B.C.E.  This was his time, therefore, and The Wars of Gods and Men told by Sitchin was in large part Marduk’s attempts to wrest control from Enlil, and the Anunnaki who supported the latter.  The fact that it became a very messy war was not necessarily Marduk’s fault.

For the fact remains that, circa 1950 B.C.E., after Enlil’s son, Ninurta, had failed to rally the Anunnaki troops on his own behalf — and thoroughly bombed on his venture to Sodom and Gomorrah — Marduk finally got his chance.

“Lord Anu, lord of the gods who from Heaven came to Earth,

and Enlil, lord of Heaven and Earth

who determines the destinies of the land,

Determined for Marduk, the firstborn of Enki,

the Enlil-functions over all mankind;

Made him great among the gods who watch and see,

Called Babylon by name to be exalted, made it supreme in the world;

And established for Marduk, in its midst, an everlasting kingship.”

Marduk, from Babylon, ultimately took vengeance on the Enlil supporters known as the Hebrews, who had opposed Marduk’s reign, and they thereafter spent seventy years in captivity.  During this time, Enlil never raised a hand to assist them.  In Enlil’s view, they were quite expendable.  Obviously, someone — unlike their ancestral patriarch, Noah, had failed to back the right horse.

For sometime (i.e. the Age of Aries), Marduk took over Enlil’s subjugation of the humans — politics of the slavery kind made strange bedfellows.  But the Age of Aries (unlike the Age of Pisces) was mercifully short.  And it had the decided advantage of prepping the Anunnaki for Enki’s take over about 600 B.C.E., when the Age of Pisces began.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: