Dodekatheism, or Hellenismos

[Fortschritte]

I don't see any reason in the idea, nor do I see any logical reason to follow the idea. But, I respect one's decision to follow Hellenismos if they wish. To each their own, and live and let live, I suppose.

[Middle C]

Great work, creating another pointless religion.

Thank you for your valuable input, O Enlightened One.

[Conscentia]

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".

The use fails to describe the religion, and only describes a part of it.

It'd be like referring to Catholicism as "Monotheism".

[Fortschritte]

Great work, creating another pointless religion.

Thank you for your valuable input, O Enlightened One.

I could've sworn that I've seen militant "new atheists" use the same quote in a very smug, hypocritical fashion.

[GraySoap]

Great work, creating another pointless religion.

Thank you for your valuable input, O Enlightened One.

No, old religions with a well documented continuity are not pointless. The religion you have created erroneously claims to continue the ancient religion. Many of the rites and cults were totally secretive, and those that weren't secretive were fairly decimated by the spread of Christianity in the Hellenic world. I wish you luck with recalling all the arts of hepatomancy.

Stop being a hipster and choose a normal religion or lack thereof.

[Untaroicht]

I believe an Orthodox Priest in Athens said it best:

"They are a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past."

[Middle C]

The use fails to describe the religion, and only describes a part of it.

It's not a description of the religion, it's a term for it. Dodekatheism does not in this context mean "any faith worshiping twelve gods", it means faith in the Dodekatheon.

It'd be like referring to Catholicism as "Monotheism"

That would be the appropriate term, yes, at least until "henotheism" was coined to describe believing in one omnipotent creator god and many lessor, not-so-omnipotent gods.

[Middle C]

No, old religions with a well documented continuity are not pointless. The religion you have created erroneously claims to continue the ancient religion. Many of the rites and cults were totally secretive, and those that weren't secretive were fairly decimated by the spread of Christianity in the Hellenic world. I wish you luck with recalling all the arts of hepatomancy.

Many sects of early Christianity are completely lost to us today.

Stop being a hipster and choose a normal religion or lack thereof.

Faith isn't chosen in a catalogue.

[Lavan Tiri]

Blasphemy. Only the Great Old Ones and Lord Azathoth are gods, mortal!


Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[The Lotophagi]

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.

Socrates:And when you accuse me of corrupting and deteriorating the youth, do you allege that I corrupt them intentionally or unintentionally?

Meletus:Intentionally, I say.

Socrates:But you have just admitted that the good do their neighbours good, and the evil do them evil. Now, is that a truth which your superior wisdom has recognized thus early in life, and am I, at my age, in such darkness and ignorance as not to know that if a man with whom I have to live is corrupted by me, I am very likely to be harmed by him; and yet I corrupt him, and intentionally, too—so you say, although neither I nor any other human being is ever likely to be convinced by you. But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally; and on either view of the case you lie. If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences: you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised, I should have left off doing what I only did unintentionally—no doubt I should; but you would have nothing to say to me and refused to teach me. And now you bring me up in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment.

It will be very clear to you, Athenians, as I was saying, that Meletus has no care at all, great or small, about the matter. But still I should like to know, Meletus, in what I am affirmed to corrupt the young. I suppose you mean, as I infer from your indictment, that I teach them not to acknowledge the gods which the state acknowledges, but some other new divinities or spiritual agencies in their stead. These are the lessons by which I corrupt the youth, as you say.

Meletus:Yes, that I say emphatically.

Socrates:Then, by the gods, Meletus, of whom we are speaking, tell me and the court, in somewhat plainer terms, what you mean! for I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach other men to acknowledge some gods, and therefore that I do believe in gods, and am not an entire atheist—this you do not lay to my charge,—but only you say that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes—the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?


Meletus:I mean the latter—that you are a complete atheist.

Socrates:What an extraordinary statement! Why do you think so, Meletus? Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the sun or moon, like other men?

Meletus:I assure you, judges, that he does not: for he says that the sun is stone, and the moon earth.

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.

This is a supposition based entirely upon the fact that Plato's Apology makes Meletus seem like a zealot. Equally, it could be that Meletus was merely encouraged to bring forward his charges (as enumerated above) by those political opponents as a means of getting rid of Socrates.

Either way, he was still tried and executed on grounds of impiety towards the gods.

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.

Part of the reason why the charges were laid before Socrates in the first place was irreverence towards the gods and the stories told about them.

SOCRATES:May not this be the reason, Euthyphro, why I am charged with impiety—that I cannot away with these stories about the gods? and therefore I suppose that people think me wrong. But, as you who are well informed about them approve of them, I cannot do better than assent to your superior wisdom. What else can I say, confessing as I do, that I know nothing about them? Tell me, for the love of Zeus, whether you really believe that they are true.

EUTHYPHRO:Yes, Socrates; and things more wonderful still, of which the world is in ignorance.

SOCRATES:And do you really believe that the gods fought with one another, and had dire quarrels, battles, and the like, as the poets say, and as you may see represented in the works of great artists? The temples are full of them; and notably the robe of Athene, which is carried up to the Acropolis at the great Panathenaea, is embroidered with them. Are all these tales of the gods true, Euthyphro?
Yes, and things more amazing still.

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates; and, as I was saying, I can tell you, if you would like to hear them, many other things about the gods which would quite amaze you.

SOCRATES: I dare say; and you shall tell me them at some other time when I have leisure. But just at present I would rather hear from you a more precise answer, which you have not as yet given, my friend, to the question, What is ‘piety’? When asked, you only replied, Doing as you do, charging your father with murder.

[GraySoap]

Many sects of early Christianity are completely lost to us today.

Surely, but thankfully very few people run around preaching those esoteric versions of Christianity.

Faith isn't chosen in a catalogue.

I suspect I misread your first post. You didn't read about other religions and then decide on Hellenism?

[Conscentia]

The use fails to describe the religion, and only describes a part of it.

It's not a description of the religion, it's a term for it. Dodekatheism does not in this context mean "any faith worshiping twelve gods", it means faith in the Dodekatheon.

Terms describe. It's what terms are for.
That term fails to describe the religion - it just describes part of it.

It'd be like referring to Catholicism as "Monotheism"

That would be the appropriate term, yes, at least until "henotheism" was coined to describe believing in one omnipotent creator god and many lessor, not-so-omnipotent gods.

"Monotheism" is not an appropriate term for describing Catholicism. It only describes a single aspect of it.
And Catholics aren't henotheists.

[Middle C]

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.

Socrates:And when you accuse me of corrupting and deteriorating the youth, do you allege that I corrupt them intentionally or unintentionally?

Meletus:Intentionally, I say.

Socrates:But you have just admitted that the good do their neighbours good, and the evil do them evil. Now, is that a truth which your superior wisdom has recognized thus early in life, and am I, at my age, in such darkness and ignorance as not to know that if a man with whom I have to live is corrupted by me, I am very likely to be harmed by him; and yet I corrupt him, and intentionally, too—so you say, although neither I nor any other human being is ever likely to be convinced by you. But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally; and on either view of the case you lie. If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences: you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised, I should have left off doing what I only did unintentionally—no doubt I should; but you would have nothing to say to me and refused to teach me. And now you bring me up in this court, which is a place not of instruction, but of punishment.

It will be very clear to you, Athenians, as I was saying, that Meletus has no care at all, great or small, about the matter. But still I should like to know, Meletus, in what I am affirmed to corrupt the young. I suppose you mean, as I infer from your indictment, that I teach them not to acknowledge the gods which the state acknowledges, but some other new divinities or spiritual agencies in their stead. These are the lessons by which I corrupt the youth, as you say.

Meletus:Yes, that I say emphatically.

Socrates:Then, by the gods, Meletus, of whom we are speaking, tell me and the court, in somewhat plainer terms, what you mean! for I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach other men to acknowledge some gods, and therefore that I do believe in gods, and am not an entire atheist—this you do not lay to my charge,—but only you say that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes—the charge is that they are different gods. Or, do you mean that I am an atheist simply, and a teacher of atheism?


Meletus:I mean the latter—that you are a complete atheist.

What an extraordinary statement! Why do you think so, Meletus? Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the sun or moon, like other men?

Meletus:I assure you, judges, that he does not: for he says that the sun is stone, and the moon earth.

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.

This is a supposition based entirely upon the fact that Plato's Apology makes Meletus seem like a zealot. Equally, it could be that Meletus was merely encouraged to bring forward his charges (as enumerated above)

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.

Part of the reason why the charges were laid before Socrates in the first place was irreverence towards the gods and the stories told about them.

SOCRATES:May not this be the reason, Euthyphro, why I am charged with impiety—that I cannot away with these stories about the gods? and therefore I suppose that people think me wrong. But, as you who are well informed about them approve of them, I cannot do better than assent to your superior wisdom. What else can I say, confessing as I do, that I know nothing about them? Tell me, for the love of Zeus, whether you really believe that they are true.

EUTHYPHRO:Yes, Socrates; and things more wonderful still, of which the world is in ignorance.

SOCRATES:And do you really believe that the gods fought with one another, and had dire quarrels, battles, and the like, as the poets say, and as you may see represented in the works of great artists? The temples are full of them; and notably the robe of Athene, which is carried up to the Acropolis at the great Panathenaea, is embroidered with them. Are all these tales of the gods true, Euthyphro?
Yes, and things more amazing still.

EUTHYPHRO: Yes, Socrates; and, as I was saying, I can tell you, if you would like to hear them, many other things about the gods which would quite amaze you.

SOCRATES: I dare say; and you shall tell me them at some other time when I have leisure. But just at present I would rather hear from you a more precise answer, which you have not as yet given, my friend, to the question, What is ‘piety’? When asked, you only replied, Doing as you do, charging your father with murder.

But if you'll care to notice, there were plenty of incidents of alteration and disbelief. Pindar rewrites the myth of Tantalos because he considers it blasphemous, the poets freely alter as they will, a single playwrite will often write contradictory accounts of events in different plays. In Homer, Poseidon is against Troy, in Euripides Poseidon loves Troy. In Herakles, by Euripides. Theseus asserts the gods are imperfect because they are in the myths, whereas Herakles says the myths lie. In Plato's Republic, Socrates (probably just Plato's puppet) says the poets blasphemy.

Ah, and, the mythology is not mentioned in Xenophon's account of the trial.

Finally, as you probably already know, Plato demolished the prosecution's case, yet jury of over a thousand found him guilty, lending further credence to the political note of the case.

[Middle C]

Terms describe. It's what terms are for.
That term fails to describe the religion - it just describes part of it.

Terms actually don't describe, not extensively, most of the time. "Oedipus Complex", for instance, does not well describe either Oedipus or the complex. "Democracy" does not fully describe the U.S. system, which functions largely upon representatives. "Boustrophedon" does not fully describe its writing, since it doesn't even have "writing" in the word. "Baptist" does no fully describe that sect of Christianity. "Bisexual" does not properly describe pansexuals, but "pansexual" is technically overly-inclusive.

[Middle C]

Many sects of early Christianity are completely lost to us today.

Surely, but thankfully very few people run around preaching those esoteric versions of Christianity.

Faith isn't chosen in a catalogue.

I suspect I misread your first post. You didn't read about other religions and then decide on Hellenism?

I'm pretty damn well read, but I didn't "pick" Hellenismos, no, I was drawn to it. You don't choose faith, faith chooses you.

[Conscentia]

Terms describe. It's what terms are for.
That term fails to describe the religion - it just describes part of it.

Terms actually don't describe, not extensively, most of the time. "Oedipus Complex", for instance, does not well describe either Oedipus or the complex. "Democracy" does not fully describe the U.S. system, which functions largely upon representatives. "Boustrophedon" does not fully describe its writing, since it doesn't even have "writing" in the word. "Baptist" does no fully describe that sect of Christianity. "Bisexual" does not properly describe pansexuals, but "pansexual" is technically overly-inclusive.

The definitions describe. I wasn't at all saying that all words are autological.

[GraySoap]

I'm pretty damn well read, but I didn't "pick" Hellenismos, no, I was drawn to it. You don't choose faith, faith chooses you.

I see. So, uh, what advantages are there to belief in this pantheon?

[Middle C]

Terms actually don't describe, not extensively, most of the time. "Oedipus Complex", for instance, does not well describe either Oedipus or the complex. "Democracy" does not fully describe the U.S. system, which functions largely upon representatives. "Boustrophedon" does not fully describe its writing, since it doesn't even have "writing" in the word. "Baptist" does no fully describe that sect of Christianity. "Bisexual" does not properly describe pansexuals, but "pansexual" is technically overly-inclusive.

The definitions describe. I wasn't at all saying that all words are autological.

You were suggesting the description ought to be complete, here you are objecting because the definition is not a complete description. Dodekatheism means worship of the Dodekatheon, not in the sense of any random belief in twelve gods.

I'm pretty damn well read, but I didn't "pick" Hellenismos, no, I was drawn to it. You don't choose faith, faith chooses you.

I see. So, uh, what advantages are there to belief in this pantheon?

I'm a bit confused by this. I believe in the gods because I think they exist, not because I have an advantage for believing.

What do the gods do for me? I pray for happiness and for guidance and for inspiration, and they supply it. But that's not because I believe in them, that's because I pray to them and offer oblations.

[GraySoap]

What do the gods do for me? I pray for happiness and for guidance and for inspiration, and they supply it. But that's not because I believe in them, that's because I pray to them and offer oblations.

Do you receive more if you offer more?

[Middle C]

What do the gods do for me? I pray for happiness and for guidance and for inspiration, and they supply it. But that's not because I believe in them, that's because I pray to them and offer oblations.

Do you receive more if you offer more?

I don't know, that probably depends on the god and the relative size. Offering to the gods are token gifts, they can't do anything with them, but it is respectful. Gods are our superiors, does giving a superior greater gifts (even though they are so far beyond you in wealth that the gifts are worthless to them in any material sense) bring greater favor? Depends on a number of factors.

[The Lotophagi]

But if you'll care to notice, there were plenty of incidents of alteration and disbelief. Pindar rewrites the myth of Tantalos because he considers it blasphemous,

Which clearly show that the Greeks cared enough about impiety and blaspheming the gods that they'd bowdlerize their own mythology. Why is it so ridiculous that they'd therefore execute someone who delighted in offending people as much as Socrates?

the poets freely alter as they will, a single playwrite will often write contradictory accounts of events in different plays. In Homer, Poseidon is against Troy, in Euripides Poseidon loves Troy. In Herakles, by Euripides. Theseus asserts the gods are imperfect because they are in the myths, whereas Herakles says the myths lie. In Plato's Republic, Socrates (probably just Plato's puppet) says the poets blasphemy.

Greek myths were oral traditions, and oral traditions can often vary. Different playwrights writing in different periods captured different aspects of those broader traditions, and modified them for their own purposes. Besides which, modifying the particulars of a myth is not the same thing as being impious in the eyes of the Greeks - they weren't textual literalists, after all. That's a specifically Abrahamic phenomena.

Ah, and, the mythology is not mentioned in Xenophon's account of the trial.

Account of just a part of the trial. And considering that the majority of Xenophon's account is a rebuttal by Socrates and not the charges laid against him by Meletus, that's not terribly surprising.

Finally, as you probably already know, Plato demolished the prosecution's case, yet jury of over a thousand found him guilty, lending further credence to the political note of the case.

Or it was that we have a historically-biased viewpoint towards Socrates and ancient Greek society and that we're ignoring the potential that people were genuinely offended by his viewpoints. As noted, he did delight in offending people.

[Middle C]

Which clearly show that the Greeks cared enough about impiety and blaspheming the gods that they'd bowdlerize their own mythology. Why is it so ridiculous that they'd therefore execute someone who delighted in offending people as much as Socrates?

It's not ridiculous, but I don't recall Socrates ever shitting on religion in any of the dialogues, whatever else he shat on.

Greek myths were oral traditions, and oral traditions can often vary. Different playwrights writing in different periods captured different aspects of those broader traditions, and modified them for their own purposes. Besides which, modifying the particulars of a myth is not the same thing as being impious in the eyes of the Greeks - they weren't textual literalists, after all. That's a specifically Abrahamic phenomena.

Yes, that's really all I've been saying. Socrates was executed (although mostly his own doing, he could have easily gotten exile, and even when he opted for death, he had to do it by is own hand, or else the polis would be impure for having his blood on their hands) for blasphemy, but I assert that that doesn't indicate the denying the myths was considered blasphemous to the Greeks, and it looks like that much we can agree on. I further hypothesize that his trial was just an impromptu exile, and they used nebulous trumped-up charges as an excuse; my case here is less strong, although I personally believe it.

[Dinake]

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

1. No. As my sig says, I am Catholic. I believe in the five proofs(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae) and as thus believe that God holds the entire universe in existence. Thus, nothing can exist without God having some presence in it. Yes, even evil. Like I said, we're not supposed to be able to understand it.
2. Apathetic usually refers to an entity that can feel care, but chooses not to- notice how all the example sentences referred to that. Besides, evil generally presupposes the capacity to choose to do good and the willing choice to do otherwise. So rocks can't be evil, even if they are apathetic.

[Middle C]

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

1. No. As my sig says, I am Catholic. I believe in the five proofs(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae) and as thus believe that God holds the entire universe in existence. Thus, nothing can exist without God having some presence in it. Yes, even evil. Like I said, we're not supposed to be able to understand it.
2. Apathetic usually refers to an entity that can feel care, but chooses not to- notice how all the example sentences referred to that. Besides, evil generally presupposes the capacity to choose to do good and the willing choice to do otherwise. So rocks can't be evil, even if they are apathetic.

Do you have any basis for attributing more agency to humans than to rocks or fires? Certainly humans have consciousness, but (as a determinist) I don't think we have any more agency. Old Greek thought about this is reflected in their language. "Kakos", for instance, is the Greek word for evil (and is used in the New Testament). This word could be applied to a sea or a fire. The word could also be used to mean ugly or poor. This is because "evil" is a quality, not a decision.

[The Lotophagi]

It's not ridiculous, but I don't recall Socrates ever shitting on religion in any of the dialogues, whatever else he shat on.

The Euthyphro dialogue spends quite a bit of time dismantling the idea of piety as the Greeks understood it.

Yes, that's really all I've been saying. Socrates was executed (although mostly his own doing, he could have easily gotten exile, and even when he opted for death, he had to do it by is own hand, or else the polis would be impure for having his blood on their hands) for blasphemy, but I assert that that doesn't indicate the denying the myths was considered blasphemous to the Greeks, and it looks like that much we can agree on.

... Err, did you not read the passages I quoted? Meletus is quoted, (through the voice of Plato, admittedly) as specifically saying that the charges were of publicly denying the existence of the gods, and of encouraging his students to do likewise (hence the 'corrupting the youth' charge). Xenophon's version corroborates that;

And yet in spite of all, Meletus, you will have it that by such habits I corrupt the young. We know, I fancy, what such corrupting influences are; and perhaps you will tell us if you know of any one who, under my influence, has been changed from a religious into an irreligious man; who, from being sober-minded, has become prodigal; from being a moderate drinker has become a wine-bibber and a drunkard; from being a lover of healthy honest toil has become effeminate, or under the thrall of some other wicked pleasure."

I further hypothesize that his trial was just an impromptu exile, and they used nebulous trumped-up charges as an excuse; my case here is less strong, although I personally believe it.

Again, this has a lot more to do with our own ingrained biases towards the Greeks than anything else. We've had the idea of the Greeks as rational people and almost modern in their religious sensibilities drummed into us since before Gibbon even drew breath. We're a lot more inclined towards assuming that there was a political conspiracy against Socrates than just the plain fact that it might have been the results of Socrates' own irreverent and joyful pursuit of overturning customs, including the Greeks' own sensitive religious beliefs.