I do see where you're coming from. Now consider this: every nation or culture construes experience in a way that makes sense out of them - it's called "codified experience". When cultures overlap or intermingle, they borrow some of these codes from each other, and connect them in different ways to their own experiences. As long as they still make sense, they are applied, borrowed or adapted. In the end, the test of the validity of these codes is how they endure. Would stronger, more established cultures overwhelm weaker more recent beliefs? Would the powerful city states - the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Romans - squash or assimilate the belief in other gods than their own? Would a code that was valid in one set of cirmcumstances still be valid and supportable in unfavourable (or most likely, more favourable) circumstances?Originally posted by Michael
Another way of looking at it is that the Sumerians worshiped some made up stuff which eventually influenced other peoples beliefs - who then took some of the Sumerians made up stuff and ADDED it to their made up stuff.
This is the truth of it.
Just stop and think about it for a moment.
Which one of these is not like the other .. which one of these doesn’t belong .. ..
1) The Inca's make up some stuff and poof some of it ends up in the Aztec religion.
2) The Hindi make up some stuff and poof some of it ends up in the Buddhist religion.
3) Sumerians make up and poof some of it ends up in the Torah.
4) The Persians make up some stuff (see Mithra) and poof some of it ends up Bible NT.
5) Christians make up some stuff and poof some of it ends up in the Qu’ran.
ALL of the above make sense.
6) The Aboriginal Australians make up some stuff and poof some of it ends up in the Bible.
Hmmmm . . . . can you see where I’m coming from?
We can learn a lot from what is unique to every culture's codes. The similarities actually aid us to see what has been changed, added or interpreted differently. And if we are not careful, our own interpretations of those codified experienes are sometimes "edited" unconsciously. If we do not consciously keep in mind what the mind-set of the culture was, we could automatically reject certain aspects that don't make sense to us - like ConsequentAtheist did with the case of demon-possession. We have to find out what were valid ways of codifying experience in their context.
Where the Bible is useful is that it is constantly conscious of one particular God - the God they came to know from many sources. He was at that time, of course, nothing more than just another god - the "God of the Israelites". You'll therfore see many accoutns where God "proved Himself", and establish His superiority. But whether from myth or fact, we consistently get the interpretation out of a real, valid (who are we to say it was invalid?) relationship with this God. And what makes the Biblical histories so unique, is that this relationship was confirmed and reinstated at regular intervals. Their religion was "resurrected" quite a few times in its history, but never to a more acceptable, more human God - it was to a stricter, less tolerant, less amused God, but the same God nontheless. As far as the search for God went, they seem to have hit solid rock at various places. The uniqueness of the nomadic Hebrews' God was that He persisted, and not only that, His people gained an identity closely associated with Him.
The people were conforming to the original revelation of their God, not the other way around as would be expected. The relationship became so ingrained that even today people have difficulty distinguishing Jewish culture from Jewish religion (even though it hasn't been the same thing since the destruction of the second temple).
From the New Testament perspective, the religion began to "overcompensate" - the laws became more important than the reason for the laws. The religious way of life became what it is still viewed as today: an excuse to do what you wanted, in stead of what God wanted.
Last edited: