Eminem writes:
Fable, if you must know, my main sources of reference regarding Bhaalism is Walter A. Elwell's Encyclopedia of the Bible (Baker Book House, 1989), one of those "obviously prejudicial" texts you mentioned (BTW, that was an unfair anticipatory attack I find surprising coming from you. I found this Encyclopedia remarkably objective).
@Eminem, no offense was intended; but I have yet to find any objective account of Bhaal or the Mesopotamian gods that refers to them in the terms you have described, so I suspected your sources were what they eventually proved to be--drawing in their turn from unstated by clearly predjudical sources. I'd like to know Elwell's specific source documents of his remark that you quoted, for instance:
... Canaanite religion was evidently the most sexually depraved of any in the ancient world (p. 410).
Did he do a survey? How does he measure the relative "sexual depravity" of a given god whose worship was not open to non-believers? And isn't an encyclopedia supposed to state it sources, and avoid drawing conclusions while giving as many facts and leads as possible?
... Deuteronomy 20:17-18 gives the reason why the Isrealites were told to exterminate the Canaanites: "You shall annihilate them as the Lord your God commanded you, so that they may not teach you to imitate all the abominable things they have done for their gods and so cause you to sin against the Lord you God." The most obvious of those abominable things was the worship of images. Reprehensible practices of Canaanite religion included the sacrifice of human adults and children, ritual prostitution, the mutilation of the human body, sorcery and divination, and the practise of beastiality (p. 413).
The bias is so blatant in the above that I can only marvel at how it's passed off as part of an "encyclopedia." There's no extent evidence of "the worship of images;" the problem was that the Jews, like the Muslims, were an anti-iconic people, who considered any representation of God or Gods to be blasphemous--and the argument used against all those who focused their worship through images is the same whether in the mouths of Jews or Muslims, too: those who use images are worshipping idols.
All the evidence points to the fact that these civilizations, like the Babylonian, were certainly sophisticated enough to know the difference between a large, symbol-laden rock and their god.
Bestiality? I have to repeat: what are Elswell's sources? Were there some rabbis hanging around busily taking notes after digging their way through tons of rock into some private temple?
Ritual prostitution is a misunderstanding of social context. Sexual prostitution--the exchange of sexual favors for some material recompense--was not a part of these religions.
Sorcery and divination? Like Moses with his staff-to-serpent, or the Red Sea parting, or the prophets of the Old Testament? Wasn't it Elijah who magically killed the children that laughed at him? It would seem that sorcery and divination are okay when they're performed by the people on one's side, while they're evil and demonic when performed by one's enemies. I have to question this.
Human sacrifice? The charge was laid specifically by you at Bhaal--and there was no human sacrifice to Bhaal. Was this worship performed for some other gods? Definitely. But it's much harder to assess to what point a religion is corrupted by such practices. The Mayans sacrificed enormous numbers of their enemies to their Solar God. Medieval Roman Catholicism offered perfect absolution to those who destroyed the nation and culture of the Albigensians, in modern day Provence, which was (at the time) a separate country. Yet it can be said that medieval Christianity also offered a link with a Greco-Roman past, with a more sophisticated culture, and with rituals that included that priceless jewel, the Eucharist.
I would not go to scholars who are strongly biased to one side of an issue for a non-partisan view. I'm not suggesting you give up your religion. I am recommending that if you want the facts on other religions, try books written by researchers who have no vested interest in the material, and who are not recommended by biblical sources.
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
