Its a rather different perspective

Comment: A profitable one, perhaps, but only from a financial point of view - promising untold secrets has always been an effective way of separating the naive from their money.

One can't understand human nature merely by studying physiology because we are far too complex to be understood in that way by ourselves. We must, to a large extent, treat ourselves as "black boxes", describing our our own behavior as a species, as viewed externally, rather than attempt the impossible task of completely analyzing the behavior of the complex machines that are our bodies in enough detail to make predictions about our mental states.

Who would be the more complex, should God exist - God or the worshipper? If one can't simulate the operation of the simpler 'machine', what hope would one have of doing so successfully with the one who would be more complex?

Keying into the energies then is as much about personal empowerment as it is about following or subservience to Netjer.

Comment: Note that Leah doesn't say "service", but "subservience", a word which invariably carries a negative connotation, implying that the servant can do that which is expected of him only at a great cost to his own dignity. By doing so, she speaks volumes about her own motivation, and misrepresents her opposition's point of view, all in one bold stroke.

In Kemetic, Graeco-Roman and Norse Traditionalism alike, the gods (or aspects of God) aren't presented as arbitrary rulers, but as those who teach men a better way to live, relating to the worshipper as if they were caring older relatives or village elders.

When the student follows his teacher, is he thus diminished? Is his willingness to listen to his teacher to be taken as a sign of his "subservience" or his good sense? To think as Renee would have us would be to confuse the sin of pride with the virtue of self-respect.

The student who, in his pride, presented with his teacher's views, asserts that his own are of equal worth, will never learn. It is only in accepting the realities of his position that he can grow in knowledge. The child who, in his pride, imagines that he need never obey his parents, will never truly become an adult. Are these failings a sign of self-respect or "empowerment"?

The one who truly respects himself seeks to grow in dignity, not to delude himself in imagining that he possesses a dignity which he lacks. To imagine that there is genuine empowerment to be found through such denial is to be as the opium smoker who, seeing a vision of a palace around him, imagines himself to be a king. His dreams pass, only to be replaced by the harshness of his ever crueler reality, a reality which his dreams have helped him to ignore all too well. So it is with those who embrace arrogance, as if it were strength.

Senebty!
Leah

Let us ponder what Leah has just said, in its enormity. Had she spoken of "service" rather than subservience, that last paragraph would have been ambiguous. One could read it, as we have here, or could consider another possible interpretation. Some will speak of entering into the right frame of mind in order to facilitate the inherently difficult process of communicating with those on another level of existence. By doing so, and being heard by those able to help us in so many ways, the worshipper would empower himself through ethical means, so might say. Du et des.

But this interpretation of Leah's position would make no sense, given her own choice of phrasing. "Subservience" is not the end result of accepting the guidance of those so much wiser than ourselves, should they wish to be genuinely helpful. Should they not, simple communication with them would be far from empowering. If a peasant should gain the attention of his tyrannical king, is he left with more control over his life than he had before, or less? In such a world, one would be wise to lie low in spiritual matters, much as that peasant would do well to avoid politics. On the other hand, notice how highly Leah has spoken of the art of manipulating those around one. Her intent becomes clear (as does the need for our skepticism, should she later explain what she 'really' meant).

If we are follow Leah's suggestion, rather than seeking divine guidance and help in growing into worthier people, we are to seek control over the Divine in order to claim its power for our own, clearly unworthy selves. Unworthy, indeed. Look at how we (as a species) handle the small amount of power that is already in our possession. How far can one wander through an account of our collective history without encountering willful injustice and outright butchery? Certainly, look at how Leah has handled her own decisions. She hasn't even managed to engage in a simple discussion in an ethical fashion, yet she would ask to borrow the power of a god, with all of the difficult ethical issues that would arise out of the use of such power? Far better to hand a flamethrower to a child.

In what sort of religion would such an act be considered moral, anyway? As a Hellenist, when I seek to draw closer to Aphrodite, it is because I wish to know her love more fully, not because I wish to rape her. I would hope that, as Egyptian Traditionalists, the Nisut and her followers would feel the same way about their parents. But how much lesser an outrage would a physical violation be, than what we are asked to contemplate here: the subversion of the free will of another living, conscious entity, a violation right to the core of its being.

This is what all of this talk about metaphysical dissection is about, in this context: a desire to know the inner nature of God well enough to know His vulnerabilities, should he have any. Tolerance is a wonderful thing, within reason, but sometimes even tolerance can be taken too far. When an urging to commit sacrilege is welcomed on a religious board, we have reached just such a moment.

Click here to continue.