1. John: "Baal was never a 'God of the Underworld'"
John:
>Glen, next you will be stating because Zeus confined the Titans to
>Tartarus he was god of the underword, or becuase he fought and slew
>Typhon, who lived under the sea he was god of the underword.
No. Baal has characteristics associating him with all four qualities:
FLING/MARRIAGE WITH VENUS, ASSOCIATED WITH WAR, SPENDS MOST OF HIS TIME IN
UNDERWORLD DOING STUFF and ASSOCIATED WITH FIRE. These characteristics
aren't as readily seen in Zeus. How does he relate amorously with VENUS, for
instance. If there is such an amorous connection between Zeus and VENUS,
then it is a vague, secondary or a passing mention.
>Baal was not asserting his control of the underword in his struggles >with
>Yam and Mot - instead he was asserting his primacy as head of the
>Pantheon, in the same way that Zeus asserted himself as Chief God of
>the Olympians (also ruling from a mountain).
It can be validly seen both ways although Baal's qualities lean the
interpretation in my favour.
>These "ancient" connections go back to the post Mycenaean age, when
>late bronze age Ugarit and Iron-Age Phoenician conceptions of a
>tripartite world (the heavens = weather God Baal, the oceans = water
>God Yam, and the underworld = God of the Dead, Mot), came to
>influence Hesiodic theogony of Zeus, Poseidon and Hades.
Then... how does El fit into this picture if Baal is the only sky god?
>Good site Glen. One that clearly derives Apollo from Ugaritic (i.e.
>late Bronze Age) "Reseph". It is interesting that Appollo is not
>found in Mycenaean names,
I'm not particularly interested in Apollo. The IE's have the Sun Maiden as
far as I'm concerned so Apollo obviously isn't exactly relatable. Thanx for
proving my point. However, I hope you don't believe that there was simply no
sun deity in Mycenaean times, that would be absurd.
3. Cosmology originates with the Sumerians.
>Glen try reading Samuel Noah Kramer's "History Begins in Sumer", or
>his work on "The Sumerians" before you start shooting of "expletive
>deleated's" all over the list.
What you present is nothing serious on this topic. You seem confused between
Sumerians and ProtoEuphrateans so I'll let you figure it out with yourself
first before discussing this further.
>Glen, how many times do I have to keep saying, in Canaanite belief
>Baal was God of All Domains, just like Zeus was. But this does not
>make him the Underworld God, or even a Underworld God (Just as Zeus
>was not God of the Underworld).
The problem is that there were TWO sky gods, El and Baal. It's easy to say
that Baal was god of all domains but while there were cults of El and cults
of Baal, there were also mythologies where El and Baal coexisted together
like in SumeroAkkadian myth (Anu and Enlil).
I asked John after asserting that the Goddess religion must have been
henotheistic instead of monotheistic as if this made a severe difference:
>What should we be looking for as a characteristic of "monotheism"
>then?
John:
>Mono = One
>Theos = God
>
>Hope this helps.
Exactly. One god. This is my whole point. The European Goddess is ONE deity
who happens to have _many_ aspects - hence, it _is_ a MONOtheism. How can
you not understand this?
Of course, this concept certainly differs somewhat from typical North
American concepts of monotheism that bubble and boil with Christian beliefs
of a single God that is nontransforming, static in form. The typical
Christian view is to convert as many as one can in the undying conviction
that their beliefs can only be the only remaining and 100% correct belief.
Don't get me started on "Born-Agains". The distinction between monotheism
and henotheism when speaking about a Goddess religion like the one I
describe, however, is a hazy and trivial one.
Europeans may have only believed in their Goddess and believed that She was
the single and only deity even though other religions may have co-existed
with Her. There doesn't necessarily have to be a desire to convert people as
is the Christian way because, due to Her transforming nature, even if
believers were convinced that the Goddess was the absolute _only_ One, they
would merely see other worshipped gods as another representation of the
Goddess and treat them as Her.
This very phenomenon is what Marija G. refers to when she mentions the
underlying Goddess aspects of IE goddesses. The valid reason why IE
goddesses would be infused with the Goddess is precisely due to the
transforming nature of this deity where She can be viewed as almost ANY
foreign god (especially goddess), including those of a SemitoEuropoid
belief, regardless of whether we can classify this as henotheistic or
monotheistic. (Like big deal! It doesn't matter!)
John:
>As Zaehner shows, it was Zarathushtra who developed the first
>monotheism, [...]
Glen:
>An emotional plea and an unverifiable assumption, typical of your
>input thus far.
John:
>Glen, read Zaehner.
Zaehner is irrelevant. Your initial assertion is completely unverifyable
whether with or without Zaehner's input and therefore doesn't constitute a
proof of anything whatsoever. You're illogical and furthermore, the
distinction here is trivial and fruitlessly argumentative.
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com