Let's set the general scene of what the Hebrews were up against. The Ancient Near East was polytheistic. There were gods aplenty being thrown about. Small tribes tended to follow one god, or sometimes a few more. Those living in more cosmopolitan areas could essentially have their pick of gods, though that depended on who the ruling authority preferred or decreed. We see this in action in Daniel: Nebuchadnezzar actually praised the Hebrew god after the furnace episode, and passed an anti-blasphemy law, punishable by death. Clearly he considered Yahweh powerful, but Nebuchadnezzar merely just added Him to the already-existing Babylonian pantheon of gods.

The category of what a god was, was very broad (even the Hebrews had a general term for supernatural beings). Most of gods amounted to nothing more than mischievous superhumans, living in the supernatural domain, sometimes crossing over into the physical domain in the form of great and powerful. These gods had varying powers and authority over aspects of life and the universe, and were considered caretakers and dispensers of the thing they governed; the sense of the feudal nature of reality was strong not just with the Hebrews, as pagans knew that a person--a god--had to be plied for good fortune.

The Hebrew God was always set against the other pagan gods, but it wasn't so much that pagans believed, or had "head knowledge" that other gods existed. The real issue was the practice of putting one's self under authority of these gods*. Scanning through the Old Testament stories of confrontation between Yahweh and these other deities, there's no indication that the Hebrews on Yahweh's side believed those other gods didn't exist. Again, that wasn't the issue. Henotheism** may be a legitimate meta-belief.

We should notice, too, that those Old Testament figures didn't have reasoned debates over who's god was more real. Instead, there was what amounted to a significant show of force. There were probably many reasons for this, like the intellectual presumptions of the area didn't consider "reason" to be relevant in this case. But not the least of these reasons was the nature of the heart and the mind. The intellect was irrelevant in this matter, so reorienting one's acknowledgements of "the facts" wouldn't change much if their heart's orientation isn't pointed at Yahweh. One would simply find other gods to place in authority. We see this in the modern western world, easily. Our pagan gods are the basic expressions of materialism: money, status, authority, sex, romantic love, science and technology, "living a good life." All of these existed prior to the modern age, certainly, but removing the head belief of the pagan gods, who governed these material aspects, simply shifted the focus to the things themselves.

Correct the heart, and the mind necessarily follows. That's the blueprint laid out for us. Going about our faith with this heart vs. mind relationship reversed means your head is currently winning the war.

* There's a theory I've heard a few times in the past that the pagan gods were actually demons who badly desired God's authority, and the only way they could attain it is through this kind of mass deception. While I don't necessarily believe this, it's a better explanation than some.

** I really mean here "monolatry," but within the context of what happened in the Old Testament, "henotheism" is a better fit for the discussion. Also, as a annotation, we do not support RationalWiki's overall rejection of the supernatural, but oftentimes their articles are excellent exposition.

The other thing we reject from the likes of Rational Wiki is their cynical rejection of the underlying story told by Scripture. There is a vast wealth of garbage scholarship that treats the various books of the Bible as documents that were highly edited rather late in Israeli history to make them conform to a very late theological viewpoint. What's funny is this same brand of scholarship insists on treating the Bible worse than other scriptures from the ANE. These "Bible scholars" act as if the main actors in the Bible were some of the worst pagans, and that Jesus was just a man of His times, not really the Son of God. In college we used to call these folks "neo-orthodox" but their stuff wasn't new and it wasn't orthodox. Their work is still highly influential in Western churches today.

(03-04-2019, 08:12 AM)Ed Hurst Wrote: The other thing we reject from the likes of Rational Wiki is their cynical rejection of the underlying story told by Scripture. There is a vast wealth of garbage scholarship that treats the various books of the Bible as documents that were highly edited rather late in Israeli history to make them conform to a very late theological viewpoint. What's funny is this same brand of scholarship insists on treating the Bible worse than other scriptures from the ANE. These "Bible scholars" act as if the main actors in the Bible were some of the worst pagans, and that Jesus was just a man of His times, not really the Son of God. In college we used to call these folks "neo-orthodox" but their stuff wasn't new and it wasn't orthodox. Their work is still highly influential in Western churches today.

Of course; their assessment, to be fair to them, is in alignment with a rationalist philosophy. It's consistent. That's about as positive as I can get about the situation. There's no way they (or anyone, really) could believe the same things we do without that divine intervention.