Dodekatheism, or Hellenismos

[Dinake]

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.

And that's a fundamental disagreement we have. I'm not a determinist- I believe that God gave us free will, and that that is why we are "in his image".
But I digress. I'd always thought that kakos meant more along the lines of bad(as in "Not well/pleasing") as opposed to the moral meaning, but admittedly I'm not terribly familiar with the philosophy of ancient paganism.

[Middle C]

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

Ah, yes, that's true, but not in an atheistic way, and there was nothing blasphemous about calling the gods imperfect.

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.

The Greeks were not a unified people in this respect. Some were extra superstitious, like the Spartans, some were more rational. But since there were outspoken atheist philosophers in Greece, I find it hard to believe that Socrates was killed purely for towing the line, especially since a lot of Greek drama was pretty rude to the gods.

[Middle C]

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.

And that's a fundamental disagreement we have. I'm not a determinist- I believe that God gave us free will, and that that is why we are "in his image".
But I digress. I'd always thought that kakos meant more along the lines of bad(as in "Not well/pleasing") as opposed to the moral meaning, but admittedly I'm not terribly familiar with the philosophy of ancient paganism.

Your god doesn't even have free will (neither do mine). You were suggesting that evil is a choice more than quality. So let us say Mary-Ann is evil: you say it is not because Mary-Ann is by definition evil, but because she performs evil deeds of her own choice. Yet would not agree that "good" is part of the very definition of your god? If he were evil, he would not be god. Therefore you see his goodness as an innate quality.

I'm currently studying ancient Greek (Homeric, to be exact), and their conception of morality is extremely different from ours. If you'd like a brief book that goes over morality in their language as compared to ours, and what "evil" meant to the Greeks, try Nietzsche's A Genealogy of Morals.

[Dinake]

And that's a fundamental disagreement we have. I'm not a determinist- I believe that God gave us free will, and that that is why we are "in his image".
But I digress. I'd always thought that kakos meant more along the lines of bad(as in "Not well/pleasing") as opposed to the moral meaning, but admittedly I'm not terribly familiar with the philosophy of ancient paganism.

Your god doesn't even have free will (neither do mine). You were suggesting that evil is a choice more than quality. So let us say Mary-Ann is evil: you say it is not because Mary-Ann is by definition evil, but because she performs evil deeds of her own choice. Yet would not agree that "good" is part of the very definition of your god? If he were evil, he would not be god. Therefore you see his goodness as an innate quality.

I'm currently studying ancient Greek (Homeric, to be exact), and their conception of morality is extremely different from ours. If you'd like a brief book that goes over morality in their language as compared to ours, and what "evil" meant to the Greeks, try Nietzsche's A Genealogy of Morals.

My Greek is (mostly; there's some Attic)Koine, which is technically mutually intelligible with Homeric. Nichomachean ethics is on my reading list. No, perfection is part of the definition of God. They're different concepts from a Catholic viewpoint. Good(moral) is whatever lines up with God's will, evil is a willful rejection of His will, and perfection is being like God. God could choose evil if He wanted to; the fact that He's perfect means He doesn't want to. So, in essence, my concept of imperfect is your concept of evil.

[The Lotophagi]

Ah, yes, that's true, but not in an atheistic way, and there was nothing blasphemous about calling the gods imperfect.

The way Socrates did it? You could definitely call that blasphemy, if you were sufficiently religiously-inclined.

The Greeks were not a unified people in this respect. Some were extra superstitious, like the Spartans, some were more rational. But since there were outspoken atheist philosophers in Greece,

Diagoras of Melos was one such atheist philosopher. He was charged with impiety and atheism by the authorities in Athens and forced to flee the city. Theodorus of Cyrene was banished from his own city possibly on similar charges. Euhemerus, who was not an atheist but put forward the theory that the gods were not actually divine, but were historical kings or heroes that people believed became divine, was called evil by no less a source than Plutarch. Atheism wasn't popular in ancient Greece, nor was it particularly well-tolerated.

I find it hard to believe that Socrates was killed purely for towing the line, especially since a lot of Greek drama was pretty rude to the gods.

Greek drama didn't really spend much time being actively impious. Drama began as a series of ritualized performances in a religious festival devoted to Dionysus, after all. It wasn't good for ones' health and future success to offend the people who were putting on the plays. Plus Aristophanes, the most famous of Greek social critics, was no fan of Socrates or philosophy in general. His caricature of him in The Clouds probably contributed to Socrates' trial and execution.

[Middle C]

Your god doesn't even have free will (neither do mine). You were suggesting that evil is a choice more than quality. So let us say Mary-Ann is evil: you say it is not because Mary-Ann is by definition evil, but because she performs evil deeds of her own choice. Yet would not agree that "good" is part of the very definition of your god? If he were evil, he would not be god. Therefore you see his goodness as an innate quality.

I'm currently studying ancient Greek (Homeric, to be exact), and their conception of morality is extremely different from ours. If you'd like a brief book that goes over morality in their language as compared to ours, and what "evil" meant to the Greeks, try Nietzsche's A Genealogy of Morals.

My Greek is (mostly; there's some Attic)Koine, which is technically mutually intelligible with Homeric. Nichomachean ethics is on my reading list. No, perfection is part of the definition of God. They're different concepts from a Catholic viewpoint. Good(moral) is whatever lines up with God's will, evil is a willful rejection of His will, and perfection is being like God. God could choose evil if He wanted to; the fact that He's perfect means He doesn't want to. So, in essence, my concept of imperfect is your concept of evil.

Then you ascribe perfection as innate quality of God, yes? God would not be God if he were not perfect, yes?

[Dinake]

My Greek is (mostly; there's some Attic)Koine, which is technically mutually intelligible with Homeric. Nichomachean ethics is on my reading list. No, perfection is part of the definition of God. They're different concepts from a Catholic viewpoint. Good(moral) is whatever lines up with God's will, evil is a willful rejection of His will, and perfection is being like God. God could choose evil if He wanted to; the fact that He's perfect means He doesn't want to. So, in essence, my concept of imperfect is your concept of evil.

Then you ascribe perfection as innate quality of God, yes? God would not be God if he were not perfect, yes?

As far as I know, yes, but I'm really not able to speculate this far because of how perfection is defined.

[Dallas Unit 9]

There is way too much here for me to address all at once, but let me try to make a few points and point out some directions you might want to investigate.

1. You may find it interesting to trace the development of Greek philosophy up through the time of Aristotle. The early Greeks (apart from the Pythagoreans) embraced hylozoism and a sort of corporeal monism as a first principle, which Parmenides showed to be fundamentally flawed. This is the philosophical framework rejected by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - though they were dealing primarily with Sophist conclusions. Within this framework, the gods were accepted as a societal stabilizer, a common focal point of worship for those in any particular city, but who might differ from time to time and place to place, rather than as absolute standard givers.

2. The Greek gods, as they are known to us, are not transcendent. They are merely sort of supermen, who live on a mountain and have certain powers, yet are limited in their abilities. You don't have a way to address the problem of evil, as the gods themselves commit morally questionable acts. You don't have a decent first principle, unless you count "Chaos," which you have yet to describe. Do you mean it in the Heraclitian sense of constant flux? Or something else? In any case, you need a first cause for an ordering within the Chaos, and the Greek gods are an insufficient first cause.

3. Try doing a little research and figuring out why most Greek philosophers dismissed the Greek gods. It wasn't because they decided not to believe, but because they deemed them rationally inconsistent and self-refuting. It's an interesting history.

[Middle C]

The way Socrates did it? You could definitely call that blasphemy, if you were sufficiently religiously-inclined.

You could call the myths blasphemous if you were sufficiently religiously inclined, which Plato was. What Socrates said did not violate any of the Delphic Maxims.

Diagoras of Melos was one such atheist philosopher. He was charged with impiety and atheism by the authorities in Athens and forced to flee the city. Theodorus of Cyrene was banished from his own city possibly on similar charges. Euhemerus, who was not an atheist but put forward the theory that the gods were not actually divine, but were historical kings or heroes that people believed became divine, was called evil by no less a source than Plutarch. Atheism wasn't popular in ancient Greece, nor was it particularly well-tolerated.

As one's function in capacity of a citizen, yes. The local religion is what defined political allegiance, and only citizens could partake of it, it functioned as the pledge of allegiance. But for non-citizens, was there really concern over religion scoffing?

Greek drama didn't really spend much time being actively impious. Drama began as a series of ritualized performances in a religious festival devoted to Dionysus, after all. It wasn't good for ones' health and future success to offend the people who were putting on the plays. Plus Aristophanes, the most famous of Greek social critics, was no fan of Socrates or philosophy in general. His caricature of him in The Clouds probably contributed to Socrates' trial and execution.

I know where Greek drama originated, it still often portrayed the gods terribly. And Aristophanes portrayed Herakles (a god) as a moron in The Birds.

[Napkiraly]

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."

Because the Abrahamic religions definitely don't have degenerate parts to them. And I am honestly finding it hilarious that one religion from Classical Antiquity is saying another religion based off of one from Classical Antiquity is full of dark delusions from the past.

[Middle C]

Then you ascribe perfection as innate quality of God, yes? God would not be God if he were not perfect, yes?

As far as I know, yes, but I'm really not able to speculate this far because of how perfection is defined.

Then God has no choice but to be perfect, because that is his innate quality.

[Highever]

You have probably just been playing too much Age of Mythology.

I fail to see how this faith is any more unreasonable than all the others.

[Middle C]

There is way too much here for me to address all at once, but let me try to make a few points and point out some directions you might want to investigate.

1. You may find it interesting to trace the development of Greek philosophy up through the time of Aristotle. The early Greeks (apart from the Pythagoreans) embraced hylozoism and a sort of corporeal monism as a first principle, which Parmenides showed to be fundamentally flawed. This is the philosophical framework rejected by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - though they were dealing primarily with Sophist conclusions. Within this framework, the gods were accepted as a societal stabilizer, a common focal point of worship for those in any particular city, but who might differ from time to time and place to place, rather than as absolute standard givers.

2. The Greek gods, as they are known to us, are not transcendent. They are merely sort of supermen, who live on a mountain and have certain powers, yet are limited in their abilities. You don't have a way to address the problem of evil, as the gods themselves commit morally questionable acts. You don't have a decent first principle, unless you count "Chaos," which you have yet to describe. Do you mean it in the Heraclitian sense of constant flux? Or something else? In any case, you need a first cause for an ordering within the Chaos, and the Greek gods are an insufficient first cause.

3. Try doing a little research and figuring out why most Greek philosophers dismissed the Greek gods. It wasn't because they decided not to believe, but because they deemed them rationally inconsistent and self-refuting. It's an interesting history.

1. Parmenides showed monism is flawed? I don't recall that. He made a strong distinction between noumena and phenomena (obviously not those terms), but so did Hegel, and he was a monist.

2. You're overemphasizing the myths as literal. The gods are not perfect or omnipotent, they are immortal. But they don't literally live on a mountain. "Olympus" in comes from Greek for "shining" or "sky", the the mountains were probably named after the heavenly realm, rather than being originally assumed to be the abode of the gods. By Chaos, I mean the Heralcitian sense, but I expand upon it: infinite and total strife means nil, everything cancels everything out. Only when strife is diced up to be disproportionate can you have cosmos.

3. The Greek philosophers didn't really dismiss the Greek gods. Some did, not the majority. Pythagoras, for instance, clearly didn't, and he was a tremendous influence on Plato's theology.

[The Lotophagi]

You could call the myths blasphemous if you were sufficiently religiously inclined, which Plato was. What Socrates said did not violate any of the Delphic Maxims.

Again, the ancient Greeks didn't derive their religious laws from texts like the utterances of the Delphic oracle. They weren't textual literalists.

As one's function in capacity of a citizen, yes. The local religion is what defined political allegiance, and only citizens could partake of it, it functioned as the pledge of allegiance. But for non-citizens, was there really concern over religion scoffing?

Non-citizens? They really didn't get much in the way of rights in Greek poleis.

I know where Greek drama originated, it still often portrayed the gods terribly.

That's because the gods were not airy and happy figures, nor were they perfect beings. Particularly Dionysus, the god from whom drama originated. That was the whole point of drama-as-ritual, after all. Aristotle wrote of tragedy as being a process of touching the ecstatic and the terrible, and of the emotional catharsis that brings.

And Aristophanes portrayed Herakles (a god) as a moron in The Birds.

Heracles is a bit of a unique case, which is probably why Aristophanes chose to portray him specifically as the buffoon in his comedy. The Greeks themselves were completely aware that Heracles was once a human being solely. The Odyssey makes that very clear when it portrays him as a shade in the underworld. His divinity was always something that was lightly papered over. If there was any target for Euripides to make fun of amongst the gods, it was him.

[Middle C]

Again, the ancient Greeks didn't derive their religious laws from texts like the utterances of the Delphic oracle. They weren't textual literalists.

Athens didn't have codified religious laws afaik. Much of the legal system was based on the whims of that particular jury.

As one's function in capacity of a citizen, yes. The local religion is what defined political allegiance, and only citizens could partake of it, it functioned as the pledge of allegiance. But for non-citizens, was there really concern over religion scoffing?

Depends on the polis, but there certainly didn't have no rights whatsoever. In Hecuba, it is said murder is murder, regardless if it's a free man or a slave. And non-citizens freemen were above slaves.

But the point is that non-citizens couldn't even join in the religious observances, and so such observances functioned as a political communion than anything else.

That's because the gods were not airy and happy figures, nor were they perfect beings. Particularly Dionysus, the god from whom drama originated. That was the whole point of drama-as-ritual, after all. Aristotle wrote of tragedy as being a process of touching the ecstatic and the terrible, and of the emotional catharsis that brings.

Yes, but I mean, characters blasphemy the gods regularly in drama and it's not often portrayed as bringing any sort particular wrath upon them. Herakles' "father" (Amphitryon), for instance, insults the living hell out of Zeus (including denouncing Zeus for sleeping with his wife), but he isn't punished for that within the drama. When the tragedy does strike, with Herakles killing his children, it's sent by Hera and has nothing to do with Amphitryon calling Zeus a sack of shit.

Heracles is a bit of a unique case, which is probably why Aristophanes chose to portray him specifically as the buffoon in his comedy. The Greeks themselves were completely aware that Heracles was once a human being solely. The Odyssey makes that very clear when it portrays him as a shade in the underworld. His divinity was always something that was lightly papered over. If there was any target for Euripides to make fun of amongst the gods, it was him.

Herakles was never solely a human being, he was half and half, his struggle with that is central to his myth.

Regardless of all that, I'm sure you'll agree that the Iliad is quite irreverent toward the gods. It portrays Zeus almost comically inept in his romancing, when he lists all his affairs to a notoriously jealous Hera in order to compliment her beauty. Artemis and Aphrodite are portrayed rater poorly, and Ares, geeze. The Homeric Hymns didn't even include Ares until the Roman empire, when he was rehabilitated, this in spite of forgetting to include the honor of a god being a theme of danger in the myths.

[The Lotophagi]

Athens didn't have codified religious laws afaik. Much of the legal system was based on the whims of that particular jury.

There were plenty of laws in democratic Athens, and several codified constitutions. The Solonian constitution, for example, covered a large swathe of moral and religious territory.

Depends on the polis, but there certainly didn't have no rights whatsoever. In Hecuba, it is said murder is murder, regardless if it's a free man or a slave. And non-citizens freemen were above slaves.

Regardless, I really rather doubt a foreigner would be given much leeway if they mocked the religious observances of their host polis.

But the point is that non-citizens couldn't even join in the religious observances, and so such observances functioned as a political communion than anything else.

And Socrates repeatedly said throughout his defence as recorded in Plato's dialogues that he participated in all the necessary rites. That wasn't what did him in - that was his impiety towards the gods in general.

Yes, but I mean, characters blasphemy the gods regularly in drama and it's not often portrayed as bringing any sort particular wrath upon them. Herakles' "father" (Amphitryon), for instance, insults the living hell out of Zeus (including denouncing Zeus for sleeping with his wife), but he isn't punished for that within the drama. When the tragedy does strike, with Herakles killing his children, it's sent by Hera and has nothing to do with Amphitryon calling Zeus a sack of shit.

It's a tragedy. Amphitryon isn't a political figure to be admired, he's a man who's about to be burned alive with his daughter-in-law and grandchildren in a sacred altar of Zeus, while his 'son' by way of Zeus is nowhere to be found. His lamenting and raging at his misfortune is something that was meant to be sympathized with as a natural response to impending horrible death, but not repeated.

Herakles was never solely a human being, he was half and half, his struggle with that is central to his myth.

No, but he was never deified until much later in Greek history. That's the important bit.

Regardless of all that, I'm sure you'll agree that the Iliad is quite irreverent toward the gods. It portrays Zeus almost comically inept in his romancing, when he lists all his affairs to a notoriously jealous Hera in order to compliment her beauty. Artemis and Aphrodite are portrayed rater poorly, and Ares, geeze.

And, of course, later Greek writers were squeamish about how it portrayed the gods. It was, again, not really something they could paper over and ignore.

The Homeric Hymns didn't even include Ares until the Roman empire, when he was rehabilitated, this in spite of forgetting to include the honor of a god being a theme of danger in the myths.

Ares likely wasn't a very important god to the Greeks. Not nearly compared to the Romans, anyway.

[Herskerstad]

So let me get down to brass tax

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?

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?

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.

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.

1 - Infinite in what regard? There is a difference between Omniencompasing, Omnipotence and Omnipresence. The Christian God is certainly the second last and a version of the latter, which gives him capabilities of creation. That he creates an environment where mankind has the capability to act on their own desires, more often than not going contrary to the nature of God. The fruits of those developments, as they are not God's own direct actions, fosters natures alien to God in regards to man's immortal soul, and thus, sustains a nature in both the physical and spiritual domain. We know the dominant common denominator of such nature to be that of sin. Holy means being set apart from. God cannot abide evil in his own domain which is why when he promised David a savior, he did not merely mean the a savior which would liberate the land, but a savior which would liberate those who were slaves to their sin.

I would also at this point stress that the devil is not an equitable counter-balance to God as some people might mistake. The devil might be powerful, but there is a significant difference between a greatly powerful being and an almighty one. It will among all those who do not have their sins cleansed by the blood of Christ face punishment, and the ramifications of that will only be felt once the judgement is cast.

2 - I agree that the love analogy is often abused, confusing and overly simplistic. The inspired word itself condemns the love of money as the root of all evil. Adding to that the love of evil and total depravity is present within man. There is plenty of 'love' which God would never accept and see as a tool of evil. The correct application would be that love is the most powerful act. Stronger than faith and hope and all their subsets. That's not to say that faith, hope and love cannot be corrupted by man's sinful nature. If I was to hope my neighbor get cancer, have faith that a new Hitler will arise to dominate the world and love the torment of others, then it would be a ungodly application of such.

3 - I see the gradual 'death' 'corruption' and 'decay' of Christianity as something which is prophesied. In the scriptures themselves they make note of people finding teachers that will feed their itching ears with what they want to hear, which is quite contrary to scripture. The scriptures exist to condemn man rightfully of their wrongdoings, give a guideline for improvement for those God wills to gift faith. An age where the faith itself will find itself persecuted and this will gradually worsen for quite some time. The understanding of what Christianity is has never held a high common standard, but it certainly has great depth in study. However, in an age of both repressive tolerance and mass media. Rights will start to end where emotions begin, but this is just the start. The faith will die due to the ignorance of the practitioners, the propagation of false teachers, restrictions and persecution that will come and the wast majority of Christians who are likely to place their earthly desires above their heavenly, be it by bribes or threats.

In relation to your point however. I see Hellenisimos as dead not because of the lack of adherence towards it today. I see it as dead because it's doctrine will not lead to the repentance and salvation required to separate man from sin, and as thus, leads only to damnation, but i certainly do not judge it based on membership. I see Islam as much the same in it's inevitable conclusion.

4 - Here we get to an issue which both creates issues if one goes at it from a man-centered theology. The 'I want' or 'it feels good' are not theologically applicable situations to attribute to God's will. I find Christians who are very avant-garde in how they define both their theological outlook and God. Generally a good indicator of individuals lacking in either scriptural understanding at best, and people who worship a self-made God at worst. I often find believers which excel at one virtue, and as a result often stands dirt poor with others. No where is this more evident in purity. People who have lived generally pure lives has a deep-rooted pride that condemn those not in their own shoes. So isolated virtues are generally not a great indicator in my book, but I cannot interpret the question the way you'd desire me to do due to it's infringement on God's providence. Which is why my addition is essentially saying that believers have a sore tendency to feel the need for self justification, when on their own desires there would more often be condemnations. Attributing ones own feelings to an ill act as something that makes it justified by God is just adding to such a crime.

But hey, living with fickle believers is just a part of the bitter chalice one has to drink from.

[Middle C]

There were plenty of laws in democratic Athens, and several codified constitutions. The Solonian constitution, for example, covered a large swathe of moral and religious territory.

Yes, the entire point of Solon's reforms was rule by law as opposed to man, and the constitution was very important and I've read Aristotle's piece on it, but in court cases there was no judge to hold people to the law and interpret it. In The Apology, the prosecution changes their case against Socrates from worshiping foreign gods to complete atheism in the middle of the trial without any notice, that's a pretty flexible legal system.

Regardless, I really rather doubt a foreigner would be given much leeway if they mocked the religious observances of their host polis.

That would probably depend on whether it was causal mocking or could be construed as a proclamation of political defiance.

And Socrates repeatedly said throughout his defence as recorded in Plato's dialogues that he participated in all the necessary rites. That wasn't what did him in - that was his impiety towards the gods in general.

Yet nothing he actually said is quoted here, the accusations are very loose and they don't stick. Socrates gets convicted because the jury doesn't like him, but the prosecution can't cite the incident of transgression.

It's a tragedy. Amphitryon isn't a political figure to be admired, he's a man who's about to be burned alive with his daughter-in-law and grandchildren in a sacred altar of Zeus, while his 'son' by way of Zeus is nowhere to be found. His lamenting and raging at his misfortune is something that was meant to be sympathized with as a natural response to impending horrible death, but not repeated.

Then blasphemy is excusable under certain circumstances?

And, of course, later Greek writers were squeamish about how it portrayed the gods. It was, again, not really something they could paper over and ignore.

Which really goes further to support my initial claim that you objected to here
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=324454&p=22873008#p22873008

Ares likely wasn't a very important god to the Greeks. Not nearly compared to the Romans, anyway.

Ares was one of the twelve Olympians, that's as important as you can get.

[The Archregimancy]

I've always been more drawn to trigonal henagotheism myself.

[Baltenstein]

Little more than postmodern escapism. At least they don't blow people up.

[Middle C]

Little more than postmodern escapism. At least they don't blow people up.

Using "postmodern" as an adjective doesn't lend any credibility to your statement.

[The Grey Wolf]

The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods.

Is there evidence of any of these deities existing?

Not any more or less than any other religious figure from ancient times.

You have probably just been playing too much Age of Mythology.

Mister Pot will now introduce himself to Mr. Kettle.

[CTALNH]

As a NSG greek I say its whole lot of bullshit.

But so is EVERY religion.


Epicureanism to the end.

[Boomhaueristan]

Cool, I guess.

[Middle C]

As a NSG greek I say its whole lot of bullshit.

But so is EVERY religion.


Epicureanism to the end.

Epicureanism isn't incompatible with Hellenismos. Epicurus wasn't a pronounced atheist until Christians decided to make up his atheists arguments to blacken his name since they didn't really approve of his philosophy.

Anyway, Max Stirner is far superior to Epicurus if you're going the hedonism route.