NationStates

Middle C wrote:

Czechostan wrote:Any reason you believe in the Olympic pantheon and not another polytheistic religion such as Norse mythology or Hinduism, OP?

I believe most polytheist religions worship the same gods, just with different names and representations. The ancient Greeks also believed this. There are many ways to honor the gods, but it is more respectable to do so aesthetically and in a time-honored fashion; to this end, I opt for the Greek method of worship.

Are you aware that the Greeks had more than 12 gods?
What about the fact that the Olympic pantheon wasn't always consistent?
And why 12? Just 'cause of a Greek myth about how the gods govern themselves? The Norse and Hindi had no such ideas.

Middle C wrote:

Tagmatium wrote:Personally, I find gods in general very implausible. Random chance seems much more likely to me.

I'm a determinist, myself, and I think even the gods are subject to determinism.

Dinake wrote:1. Think of it like an asymptote: you can't understand Him, but you can get pretty close. Not that we have, necessarily, but that it's not wrong to try.

2. You just said that apathy was the opposite of love. But I digress; evil is the absence of God, so also the absence of love. From a monotheist perspective, therefore, apathy absolutely is evil.

4. According to your worldview, yes. Strife is more of a byproduct in the Christian worldview, or even a punishment, depending on the denomination. Of course we're going to think different answers make more sense; we have fundamentally different worldviews. There isn't any problem with that; it just means we're going to arrive at different conclusions about things which fundamentally can't be proven either way.

1. That applies to all of reality, that's the nature of noumena. However, God is treated as something much less comprehensible than conventional reality.

2. I said apathy was the absence of love, not the opposite. Now a rock is apathetic, indifferent: is a rock evil?

A rock has no capacity to take action so it cannot be considered apathetic so much as inanimate.

Middle C wrote:

Tagmatium wrote:Personally, I find gods in general very implausible. Random chance seems much more likely to me.

I'm a determinist, myself, and I think even the gods are subject to determinism.

Dinake wrote:1. Think of it like an asymptote: you can't understand Him, but you can get pretty close. Not that we have, necessarily, but that it's not wrong to try.

2. You just said that apathy was the opposite of love. But I digress; evil is the absence of God, so also the absence of love. From a monotheist perspective, therefore, apathy absolutely is evil.

4. According to your worldview, yes. Strife is more of a byproduct in the Christian worldview, or even a punishment, depending on the denomination. Of course we're going to think different answers make more sense; we have fundamentally different worldviews. There isn't any problem with that; it just means we're going to arrive at different conclusions about things which fundamentally can't be proven either way.

1. That applies to all of reality, that's the nature of noumena. However, God is treated as something much less comprehensible than conventional reality.

2. I said apathy was the absence of love, not the opposite. Now a rock is apathetic, indifferent: is a rock evil?

1. OK..? God is present in all reality.
2. A rock isn't apathetic. God is present in everything. So, no.

Conscentia wrote:

Middle C wrote:I believe most polytheist religions worship the same gods, just with different names and representations. The ancient Greeks also believed this. There are many ways to honor the gods, but it is more respectable to do so aesthetically and in a time-honored fashion; to this end, I opt for the Greek method of worship.

Are you aware that the Greeks had more than 12 gods?
What about the fact that the Olympic pantheon wasn't always consistent?
And why 12? Just 'cause of a Greek myth about how the gods govern themselves? The Norse and Hindi had no such ideas.

Ah yes my fellow pedantrophile in action, but does anyone really care for the minor deities?

Benuty wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Are you aware that the Greeks had more than 12 gods?
What about the fact that the Olympic pantheon wasn't always consistent?
And why 12? Just 'cause of a Greek myth about how the gods govern themselves? The Norse and Hindi had no such ideas.

Ah yes my fellow pedantrophile in action, but does anyone really care for the minor deities?

Chronos is not a minor deity.

Benuty wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Are you aware that the Greeks had more than 12 gods?
What about the fact that the Olympic pantheon wasn't always consistent?
And why 12? Just 'cause of a Greek myth about how the gods govern themselves? The Norse and Hindi had no such ideas.

Ah yes my fellow pedantrophile in action, but does anyone really care for the minor deities?

Some were fairly significant, such as Helios, Seleme and Eos. Or the Muses.

Conscentia wrote:

Benuty wrote:Ah yes my fellow pedantrophile in action, but does anyone really care for the minor deities?

Chronos is not a minor deity.

I can see you didn't type that with a straight face you know.

Besides, I never said Chronos was a minor deity.

Tagmatium wrote:

Middle C wrote:Polytheism is more plausible, I think, it actually provides an answer. Why does God work as cross purpose? "You can't understand" is a less substantial answer than "multiple gods". As Heraclitus said, strife is required for everything, I do not think One God with One Purpose is sensible to explain a strife-based causation-system of reality.

Personally, I find gods in general very implausible. Random chance seems much more likely to me.

Ongoing processes such as life and the universe can be properly explained without God or gods suddenly manifesting itself/themselves to give everyone milk and cookies for figuring it out. Or unleashing terrible divine wrath, if you prefer a more sadist theology.

Benuty wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Chronos is not a minor deity.

I can see you didn't type that with a straight face you know.

Besides, I never said Chronos was a minor deity.

Who told you that I have a face?

You very clearly implied that all non-Olympians were minor deities. Chronos was not an Olympian.

Benuty wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Chronos is not a minor deity.

I can see you didn't type that with a straight face you know.

Besides, I never said Chronos was a minor deity.

You implied it. The twelve Olympians are generally considered to be the major deities and you were responding to a post which referenced twelve deities.

Charellia wrote:

Benuty wrote:Ah yes my fellow pedantrophile in action, but does anyone really care for the minor deities?

Some were fairly significant, such as Helios, Seleme and Eos. Or the Muses.

I'd hardly call the Titans "minor".

Given the muses were the embodied aspects of the arts, and philosophies that makes them rather important :/.

Conscentia wrote:

Benuty wrote:I can see you didn't type that with a straight face you know.

Besides, I never said Chronos was a minor deity.

Who told you that I have a face?

You very clearly implied that all non-Olympians were minor deities. Chronos was not an Olympian.

Asherah did.

Considering I was stereotyping the movement for the fact that they often appear to be a "sanitized" version of the past.

Benuty wrote:

Charellia wrote:Some were fairly significant, such as Helios, Seleme and Eos. Or the Muses.

I'd hardly call the Titans "minor".

Given the muses were the embodied aspects of the arts, and philosophies that makes them rather important :/.

So how are you defining which gods are minor and which are not?

Middle C wrote:For those of you who are not aware, Dodekatheism, or Hellenimos, is the faith built around worship of the Olympian gods, which I am an adherent of us. It's not to common, so I don't expect much here, but I was wondering what your opinion of it is?

As long as it's voluntary and doesn't involve the violation of human rights, I don't really care all that much. As a faith I'm not too interested in it.

Middle C wrote:I consider polytheism in general to be more reasonable than monotheism on numerous grounds, such as the problem of evil: although I consider all the gods to be beyond good and evil, some are destructive, such as Ares, and some are caregiving, such as Demeter.

What is 'beyond good' or 'beyond evil'? You're making no sense.

Middle C wrote:I also believe that the creation of the universe through chaos (not chaos in the English usage, but in the Greek) is more reasonable than most ideas of creation. Think of it like this: light is colorless unless it is broken up, and chaos is likewise nothing. Chaos is infinite, everything canceling everything else out, until it is broken into cosmos.

What are you referring to as 'chaos'? Entropy? Disorder? Define your terms, please. This is all gibberish.

Middle C wrote:Now, there's a significant amount of confusion in regard to our myths, which some who are not in the know think we take literally. It's true we affirm the existence of the gods, but not in an anthropomorphic sense. Our myths were never considered the Word of God or whatever, and it was never considered blasphemy to doubt them, write different versions, or discard them altogether. They aren't a guide to theology anymore than Aesop's fables are a guide to zoology.

Oh, another religion tolerant towards skeptics and nonbelievers. That's a refreshing change from the usual "U IZ GUN GO 2 HELLLLLL"-bs.

Middle C wrote:In regard to sacrifice, what it actually amounted to for the ancient Greeks was burning the inedible portions of an animal slaughtered for food. Sacrifice is symbolic sharing of one's food with the gods.

Don't got a problem with that.

Middle C wrote:1. If the monotheistic God is infinite, then he'd be infinitely conflicting, yes? doesn't chaos make more sense as a creating force than a singular God?

Does not follow.

Middle C wrote:2. A lot of monotheists say that evil is simply the absence of God, and that God is love. But that doesn't make sense: the absence of love is apathy, not evil or hate. And to say that God is purely love and anything not love is not God and a result of free will, is as silly as saying God is hate and love is purely do to free will. Why not a god of love and a god of hate?

To say that there even is a god to begin with is an unsubstantiated claim. Damn, that word's hard to write.

Middle C wrote:3. A lot of people will contend that because Hellenismos is a "dead" religion, it is no longer a legitimate faith. Now this is absolutely ridiculous. Christians, let me ask you: if Christianity stopped as a religion for thousand years, and then was revived, would you suggest that it is not a legitimate Christianity? That it would not count? Of course not, because your faith is grounded in belief in the God you worship, and your God doesn't disappear just because your faith does.

'A lot', you say again. 'A lot'. Do they? Do they really?

Middle C wrote:4. A lot of people say that God wants them to do different things, some things completely opposite. Can this not be chalked up to different gods wanting different things? When god commands violence, that is probably Ares, for instance. When a god inspires artistic creation, that is probably Apollo or the Muses.

Or one god having a multi-/polypolar disorder or something. That's right, not just bi- or tripolar.

/not a theist

No more or less ridiculous than worshipping the Abrahamic God. Though I wonder how you feel worshipping Zeus, a notorious rapist deity.

Benuty wrote:Considering I was stereotyping the movement for the fact that they often appear to be a "sanitized" version of the past.

What?

Middle C wrote:Our myths were never considered the Word of God or whatever, and it was never considered blasphemy to doubt them, write different versions, or discard them altogether.

Socrates would get a kick out of that particular claim.

Empire of Narnia wrote:You have probably just been playing too much Age of Mythology.

You're not allowed to criticize anyone else's stupid beliefs.

Conscentia wrote:

Middle C wrote:I believe most polytheist religions worship the same gods, just with different names and representations. The ancient Greeks also believed this. There are many ways to honor the gods, but it is more respectable to do so aesthetically and in a time-honored fashion; to this end, I opt for the Greek method of worship.

Are you aware that the Greeks had more than 12 gods?

Yes, of course. They had hundreds.

What about the fact that the Olympic pantheon wasn't always consistent?

It's not really important. There are many many gods, the ones you see as the main twelve is just a matter of custom.

And why 12?

Customary significance for the number.

Just 'cause of a Greek myth about how the gods govern themselves? The Norse and Hindi had no such ideas.

Those are just myths, they're only important as far as custom and showing an sincere way of honor the gods goes. Plenty of people have different traditions, the Greek traditions and stories aren't holier.

Middle C wrote:[...]

If you believe in the existence of the other gods, then it's not dodecatheism.

Dinake wrote:

Middle C wrote:I'm a determinist, myself, and I think even the gods are subject to determinism.



1. That applies to all of reality, that's the nature of noumena. However, God is treated as something much less comprehensible than conventional reality.

2. I said apathy was the absence of love, not the opposite. Now a rock is apathetic, indifferent: is a rock evil?

1. OK..? God is present in all reality.
2. A rock isn't apathetic. God is present in everything. So, no.

1. Then there is no such thing as an element of reality that is "absence" of God. Are you a pantheist?

2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apathetic

Benuty wrote:Ah yes my fellow pedantrophile in action, but does anyone really care for the minor deities?

There many deities who are barely mentioned in the myths who play a significant part in home worship (as opposed to public worship).

Conscentia wrote:Chronos is not a minor deity.

Kronia is the probably the most significant Dodekatheist holldiay.

Skinia wrote:What is 'beyond good' or 'beyond evil'? You're making no sense.

A child's morality, innocent of good and evil. As Nietzsche said, for instance, "What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil."

What are you referring to as 'chaos'? Entropy? Disorder? Define your terms, please. This is all gibberish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_%28cosmogony%29

The Lotophagi wrote:Socrates would get a kick out of that particular claim.

Socrates was never convicted for any specific instance of blasphemy (you'll notice in his trial an exact instance is never cited), certainly not on grounds of denying a myth. The charge against him, "blasphemy", was intentionally nebulous, and the matter was probably a political one: at the time, Athens was using "spreading democracy" to justify its imperialism, and it was locked in a tight war with Sparta on supposedly ideological grounds. Socrates, and outspoken anti-democrat, was in Athens what an outspoken communist was in the U.S. during the Cold War.

I should also point out that saying the myths were bullshit in ancient Greece wasn't the same thing as saying the gods are bullshit. In fact, the most common charge against the myths was that they were irreverent.

Conscentia wrote:

Middle C wrote:[...]

If you believe in the existence of the other gods, then it's not dodecatheism.

Well, yes it is.
http://www.elaion.org/dodekatheism.htm
Dodekatheism is simply an imperfect term used for Hellenismos by those who aren't Greek and feel a bit weird about describing their faith as "Hellenismos". But no dodekatheist thinks there are only twelve gods.

Middle C wrote:

Conscentia wrote:If you believe in the existence of the other gods, then it's not dodecatheism.

Well, yes it is.
http://www.elaion.org/dodekatheism.htm
Dodekatheism is simply an imperfect term used for Hellenismos by those who aren't Greek and feel a bit weird about describing their faith as "Hellenismos". But no dodekatheist thinks there are only twelve gods.

They shouldn't use a term that doesn't actually describe what they believe.

Conscentia wrote:

Middle C wrote:Well, yes it is.
http://www.elaion.org/dodekatheism.htm
Dodekatheism is simply an imperfect term used for Hellenismos by those who aren't Greek and feel a bit weird about describing their faith as "Hellenismos". But no dodekatheist thinks there are only twelve gods.

They shouldn't use a term that doesn't actually describe what they believe.

The term has been in use for quite some time in Greece to describe the religion. You are perhaps privileging academic use of terms over their literal meaning (and dodekatheism does not inherently imply there are only twelve gods)--which would make sense, if the term were not coined by native speakers of Greek, but since it is, its use is reasonable. The Dodekatheon is a Greek term used for the Olympians, so it's not different than saying "Olympianism".

Great work, creating another pointless religion.