On the Greeks and their gods

[Betterave]

And yet you have left me the burden of trying to figure out what you might have been trying to say. [That burden is inevitable to some extent, sorry!] If my ponderings on your meanings are “absurd” then you could nicely deal with that by flat out telling what the “non-absurd” meanings actually are. [Have done.] You have simply made some vague references about mythology as allegory and how ancient Greeks have a different concept of worship than we do today. [No, please refer again to my actual comments.] Not once did you ever apply any of this to the OP’s question as to whether or not a modern day Catholic should worship the Greek gods. ****** You had opportunity after opportunity to clarify your own position, and yet you never did. [Clarification is a two-way process - break-downs can happen on either end of that process.]

I have never construed your concepts in light of the thread’s topic except to ask, “Is this what you’re trying to say?” or, “What is the point of this line of thinking?” If such questions were “absurd misconstruals” then at least I attempted in some way to apply your material to the topic at hand. That’s more than you ever did with it.

[They were absurd and sometimes “more” is too much.]

Then here’s a novel idea: Why don’t you tell me what you are trying to say? Why do I have to keep fishing for it? The OP asked whether or not we should worship the Greek gods? That’s the question you have not answered! ****** You have made nine posts over a course of five days and have yet to actually directly addressed the topic of the whole thread! [Wrong.] If you had no intention of addressing that question then why are you even participating in this thread to begin with? ****** If all you want to do is pick apart my comments, then why do so with the expectation that this debate not be in the context of the thread’s topic? [Don’t be silly]

In other words, you are criticizing the statements I made to Ridgerunner in Post #15. I said that I did not see why this discussion needs to examine Zeus from an allegorical interpretation rather than a traditional one, seeing that I felt the traditional one was more in keeping with what is generally regarded as Greek mythology (because an allegorical understanding was a movement away from mythology into philosophy). That is hardly denouncing the allegorical interpretation as being “defective”. In that exact same post I also clearly stated that I was “not taking a hard line stance” on the subject. The floor was open for someone to make a case for the allegorical viewpoint. And since then I have said, over and over again, that I was open to discussing the topic in terms of an allegorical understanding of Greek mythology. So, I’m a bit fuzzy here. Exactly what was the problem with what I said that launched what has become this colossal debate? [Refer to post 16, and sequelae. ]

What spin? Oh, you mean when I would try to apply your statements to the actual topic of the thread and ask you if that is what you meant? As I have been saying, I wouldn’t have had to doing any of this “spinning” if you had done the application itself. [Have done.]

(Continued in my next post)

 

[Betterave]

I agree that there has been a lot of “quibbling” and “misconstruing” going on in this thread. Anyone who bothers to read this can look back and judge for themselves who the guilty party is. [Yes, of course - not that there are many people who are likely to care! ]

Believe it or not, Betterave, I bear you no ill will. I do not mind a good debate, and if I did mind then I have no business posting in a philosophy forum. However, I am now going to say something, and it will probably sound fairly critical and maybe even mean-spirited. [Yes, quite possibly!] Nevertheless, it is not my intention for it to be so. [That’s nice - good for you.] Rather I am going to simply give you my honest opinion of what has been going on here:

1. You entered this discussion in Post #16, not in the desire to actually participate in this thread, but rather to pick apart my statement as to why I do not worship Zeus. In Post #16 you were basically stating (in so many words) that the requirements for omnipotence that I set for Zeus were unrealistic because God himself would not meet them. I mean, that’s what your initially post was all about, wasn’t it? It really had nothing to do with my comments to Ridgerunner. [Nope. Obviously I was “picking apart” - not defensive or anything, are you? - a specific claim you made, but the point was that the Christian concept of God is no more strictly assimilable to the God of the Greek philosophers than He is the god of polytheism and that He is nonetheless ‘findable’ in certain elements of both, including in one that you claimed He was not.]
2. Because I expect my statements not to be criticized out of context, I required you to keep our discussion in the context of the OP’s question about whether or not we should worship the Greek gods. [Sure, but please consider the possibility that you’re being way too defensive here.]
3. You were not able to refute my position in the context of the thread’s topic, so in order to try to win the debate you had to attribute statements to me that I never made, so that you could have some material that you would have a better chance of refuting. [No, that’s what you did. ] And therefore, I discovered that I somehow made such statements as the ways of Zeus and God are “wholly different” from each other, that an allegorical interpretation of mythology was “not possible”, that “no worship of Zeus is justified”, and that I was insisting on the use of Bulfinch. ******
4. Obviously, I did not play along with this plan, and insisted that you apply your concepts to the thread’s topic. It is doubtful that your concepts can actually be applied to the topic. After all, if Zeus is an allegory, the next question would be, “Should we worship an allegory?” Doesn’t really seem to work, does it? [LOL! Certainly not like that! That’s what I was talking about with the absurd construals…] But rather admit that your stances have no relevance to the actual topic, you simply refused to apply them to the OP’s question, even though I directly asked you many times to do so. [Wrong.] And then you simply acted as if they did, somehow, apply, but for some reason no one should expect you to show how. [Wrong.] Hence, you said things like, “Hopefully you understand the application of my comments by now” (even though you never actually applied them) and, “I’m not interesting in answering any of these absurd construals” (or answering anything else that deals with the actual topic). [Wrong and wrong again.]
5. And because I am going to keep insisting that any criticism about my posts be about statements I actually made, and that they stay within the topic of this thread, there really is no point in continuing this discussion. ]

Well, it has been a nice joust. [Unfortunately!]

And yes, by all means, Peace!

Peace yo.

 

[EricFilmer]

[Sure, but please consider the possibility that you’re being way too defensive here.]

Oh yes, that is one of my major character flaws. But am I really off base with all my comments? Consider the following:

I stated: “And therefore, I discovered that I somehow made such statements as…” (and here I will break them down more systematically):

1. the ways of Zeus and God are “wholly different” from each other,
2. that an allegorical interpretation of mythology was “not possible”,
3. that “no worship of Zeus is justified”, and
4. that I was insisting on the use of Bulfinch.

To which you responded:

---

Ok, let us take a quick look at your posts to see where I missed the track. I’ll add some underlines.

1. Post #26 (and #35): “I have simply defended a particular allegorical use of these stories where you had claimed that such a use is not possible.”

Ah! Silly me! And here I thought when you said “you had claimed…” you were referring to me.

1. Post #34: “No, you presuppose here: IF {Z is not apprehended as strictly omnipotent being} THEN {no worship of Z is justified}.”

And, once again, when you said “you presuppose” I thought you meant me.

1. Post #29: “I’ve never disputed that the ways of Zeus and God are different. I’ve only disputed that they are wholly different.”

So who was this person claiming Zeus and God to be wholly different that you have disputed with? Seeing as all your posts in this thread are addressed to me, I naturally assumed that I was the one. Crazy, huh?

1. Post #30: “…so I’m not sure what the particular relevance of Bulfinch would be. I haven’t read it, but I’m curious as to what might make that a particularly salient point of departure for you.”

Here’s that tricky word “you”, again. But I guess “you” doesn’t mean me here, either.

As a matter-of-fact, I think I have solved this strange phenomenon.
You were not referring to the actual EricFilmer, but rather an allegorical EricFilmer!

Ok, pardon the sarcasm, but you did, indeed, make those comments. And even though I am often too defensive, if I am attributed with statements that I didn’t make, I obviously have to make some defense as to what I actually said.

 

[Betterave]

Oh yes, that is one of my major character flaws. [LOL! Well it’s commendable that you’re at least aware of it. ] But am I really off base with all my comments? Consider the following:

I stated: “And therefore, I discovered that I somehow made such statements as…” (and here I will break them down more systematically):

1. the ways of Zeus and God are “wholly different” from each other,
2. that an allegorical interpretation of mythology was “not possible”,
3. that “no worship of Zeus is justified”, and
4. that I was insisting on the use of Bulfinch.

To which you responded:

Ok, let us take a quick look at your posts to see where I missed the track. I’ll add some underlines.

1. Post #26 (and #35): “I have simply defended a particular allegorical use of these stories where you had claimed that such a use is not possible.”

Ah! Silly me! And here I thought when you said “you had claimed…” you were referring to me.
’you’ of course, did refer to you, but this statement simply is not equivalent to: “You claimed that the ways of Zeus and God are “wholly different” from each other.” I’ve already explained this to you. Sorry if you can’t see it.]

1. Post #34: “No, you presuppose here: IF {Z is not apprehended as strictly omnipotent being} THEN {no worship of Z is justified}.”

And, once again, when you said “you presuppose” I thought you meant me.
*[Right again! However, in the location cited that does seem to be the implication of your claim, whether you recognize this or not.]

1. Post #29: “I’ve never disputed that the ways of Zeus and God are different. I’ve only disputed that they are wholly different.”

So who was this person claiming Zeus and God to be wholly different that you have disputed with? Seeing as all your posts in this thread are addressed to me, I naturally assumed that I was the one. Crazy, huh?
[But dude, I’ve explained this to you repeatedly: I’ve disputed one point of difference! The fact that “I’ve only disputed that they are wholly different” simply spells out the general principle underlying my approach. I’ve been very clear that it was not an attribution of the contrary claim to you.]

1. Post #30: “…so I’m not sure what the particular relevance of Bulfinch would be. I haven’t read it, but I’m curious as to what might make that a particularly salient point of departure for you.”

Here’s that tricky word “you”, again. But I guess “you” doesn’t mean me here, either.
[No, again, “you” means you, EricFilmer. And again, this claim is not at all equivalent to the claim that you were “insisting on the use of Bulfinch.” Sorry, it’s just not.]

As a matter-of-fact, I think I have solved this strange phenomenon.
You were not referring to the actual EricFilmer, but rather an allegorical EricFilmer!
[Ha ha… but no, not really.]

 

[Nooj]

On one hand, Zeus is a primitive anthopomorphic god, hardly worthy of respect, let alone worship.

Why judge the gods by anthropogenic standards?