My apologies for the delay and extra post, dear Zid (again, peace to you!). For some reason, the thread stopped with dear SBC's last post (peace to you!) until I did a test. I've read your post and would like to respond as follows, if I may - thank you!
Geez, Shelby, you REALLY need to learn more about ancient religions!!! Your ignorance is SERIOUSLY showing....! The Sumerians worshipped the PLANET VENUS, even though it WASN'T the "logical thing" that you thought it should be...
Ummmm, I could be wrong (and please, feel free to correct me if I am), but my understanding is that the Sumerians worshipped hundreds of deities, including:
1. An, their primary deity, who was considered "Great Father of the Gods," "the king of the Gods," and, interestingly, "the God of the Sun";
2. Nanna, who was god of the moon... and Aa who was goddess of the moon; and
3. When one looks at the planet Venus (whom the Sumerians worshipped as the goddess "Ishtar") which can be seen early dusk or so with the naked eye), it appears as a star.
Ancient peoples worshipped celestial bodies as well as entities that "controlled" the elements, crops and harvest, seasons, and much, much more. So, I am not sure where my ignorance is showing, exactly (however, I wasn't being literal, but just trying to give a cursory hypothetical).
Let's be really blunt here - since when has religion - any and ALL religion - EVER been LOGICAL!!???!?? Your comment: "The logical thing would be that they considered the sun the GREAT god, the moon a lesser god, and the stars even lesser gods. ..."
I didn't mean that their choice TO consider the sun, moon, and stars as gods was logical, dear Zid. I meant that, irrational though their choice to worship such bodies may have been, that they would choose the sun as the greatest (because it is the biggest, brightest, brings warmth, etc.), the moon a bit lesser (because it lights the night, controls the tide, etc.), and the stars even lesser (which they did, even as to Ishtar)... because they appear smaller... was logical.
That concept of yours is based upon a FEW heathen religions of fairly recent origin that existed rather close in time to the emergence of the dominant mono-theistic religions... Sun-worshipping cultures included the Aztecs - though they had several OTHER major gods, the Mayans - though they ALSO had several other major gods, and the Egyptians - though they TOO had several other major gods...
Ummmmm... I disagree. While it is true that those I mentioned engaged in sun worship, so did the Sumerians and other early peoples.
It ALSO depends on WHEN one looks at the various cultures. If you look at the EARLY period of Egyptian culture, you will find that there were several city-states, and each city-state had its OWN deity - and its OWN RELIGION.
I don't dispute that. I do dispute that "several" city-states totals up to hundreds, even thousands, of city-states... and thus hundreds, even thousands, of religions...
The earlier versions of Egyptian religion worshipped crocodiles, the Nile River, the condor, the sun, the moon, the lion - and lioness - as symbols of the desert, the jackal, the hippopotamus, and on, and on, and on...
Ummmm... yes. That was MY point. The Egyptian RELIGION (notice, singular, not plural)... worshipped crocodiles, the Nile, frogs, dogs, and much more, as you state.
Among the many, many deities that ancient humans considered to be
I never disagreed or disputed that there was many deities, dear Zid. I agreed with you on that.
Another thing you apparently are unaware of, is that each small tribal group had THEIR OWN MAIN TRIBAL GOD/GODDESS - and often a few minor deities, too...
Yes. But my position is that that is the very similar as to today. For example, among Catholics, many have their individual patron saints. Yet, it's still one religion.
I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, dear Zid, and that really is okay with me, truly. I must admit, though, that I am a bit surprised that the fact that I don't sent you into the tizzy it did - even to accuse me of changing my position, "waffling"... or whatever you THOUGHT I did... when I didn't change a thing. I don't agree with you, dear one, still, and think you just misunderstood (and may misunderstand, yet) what I stated. It happens - I write a lot and people don't like to read every word. I get that. But that my disagreeing has touched such a "nerve" with you is... interesting. Must I agree with you? I don't believe so, but if you do, may I ask why?
Until we "speak" again, again I bid you peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
