On the Greeks and their gods

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Eternal, as I understand it, is a thing that has no beginning and no end (i.e. God).

An immortal thing has a beginning but no end (i.e. An angel or a human soul).

I’m speaking from the viewpoint of “from the way the ordinary person defines things.”

Merriam Webster defines “eternal” as being of “infinite duration at all times.”

One of the secondary defintions is “being at all times,” so I think that is what you are referring to. As in GOD, as you said.

I’m simply referencing how some ordinary people reference this.

I would say the Olympians are “deathless,” then, but the Norse Gods have “mortal” qualities. Maybe that would be a better categorization.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree with this. The thought of Plato and Aristotle was not consistent with an anthropomorphic view of “the gods”, but strongly suggested an “ultimate cause” beyond the purely natural. It is instructive that one of the accusations against Socrates was that he undermined faith in the gods. What he really did was posit attributes of ultimate causes in such a way as to be inconsistent with a primitive “groundling” understanding of the gods, which most sophisticated people at the time probably didn’t believe anyway. Basically, the charge was “trumped up”.*

 

[Betterave]

Christ utterly defeated sin and death by simply dying for the sins of humanity. I see this act just as simple as a thought.

Let’s just say that I am ‘surprised’ (to put it mildly) that anyone would take this view.

Had he not truly became man, he could not have paid (on our behalf) the wages of our sins, which is death.

Nonetheless, he could have conquered sin and death some other way.

God allows others to participate in his plan of salvation (Mary, the Archangel Michael, etc.). This is not the same thing as saying that he was relying on the help of others. Reliance indicates necessity.

Reliance need not indicate necessity in any strict sense.

May I ask what exactly is the point of your post in the context of this thread? Are you saying that the description of the power of Zeus from mythology matches the omnipotence ascribed to God in Judeo-Christianity? My position was that Zeus is described in mythology as unable to defeat Cronus by his own power, and out of necessity had to enlist the assistance of monsters and other gods (all of whom actually pre-existed Zeus). Therefore, mythology does not give Zeus a true attribute of omnipotence. But in terms of Christian theology, whom did God actually rely upon in order to defeat sin and death? No one.

My point is that our God is a God of narrative, of history, not simply of abstract philosophical principles such as power. He *chooses *to actually rely on us in the battle against sin and death. Think of Mother Theresa or any of the saints.

Furthermore, Zeus fought Cronus to prevent the titan from imprisoning him. In other words, the power of Cronus was a direct threat to Zeus, and Zeus fought to defend himself. God was never threatened by Satan (Satan rebelled against God, but had no chance of actually overthrowing God’s power), nor was God ever threatened by sin or death. God became man to defend and save us, not himself. Therefore, I don’t think the the battle between Zeus and Cronus is really a good comparison with the battle between God and Satan/sin/death.

It is of course not a perfect match/analogy. That would be an unreasonable expectation. Nonetheless it contains elements that are true to the Christian view of God that would seem laughable to the “sophistication” of “the concepts of divinity taught by such people as Plato and Aristotle, which had little, if nothing, to do with Greek mythology.”

 

[EricFilmer]

Let’s just say that I am ‘surprised’ (to put it mildly) that anyone would take this view.

Then perhaps I should elaborate on my statement further. The specific reason why Jesus took on our flesh was to die for our sins. The only reason that any of us gets into heaven is because he did, indeed, die for our sins. God dealt with all the sins of humanity, past, present and future, and allows mere mortals to participate in his divine life because of the exact moment that Jesus’ heart stopped beating on the cross. To me, that represents simplicity. Of course, “simple” is relative, so if you disagree with me then that is fine, but what is being discussed here omnipotence. My stance is that Zeus does not match the Judeo-Christian understanding of omnipotence, but God does. If you think my illustration (of the battle between Zeus & Cronus) did not do a good job of demonstrating that, then that is one thing. But if you personally think that Greek mythology describes Zeus as actually being omnipotent based on the Judeo-Christian understanding of the term then I will ask you to demonstrate that with examples.

Nonetheless, he could have conquered sin and death some other way.

If God acts true to his own nature, doing what is fitting for both mercy and justice, then I believe that there was no other way. But that is a whole different topic. If you would like to start a new thread on that I will be happy to participate. Or if anyone cares to know my thoughts on this without the need of starting a new thread, they were outlined in this thread, starting with Post #17:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=468899 That thread is a bit dated, so if anyone wants to comment on it, it would probably be best to start a new discussion.

Reliance need not indicate necessity in any strict sense.

Regardless of any variation of the definition, the notion of reliance indicating necessity was exactly the way I used it. That meaning was at least strongly implied when I first used it and I have sense clarified it. So now, just for the record, I’ll reword it to avoid any confusion. Zeus is described as needing allies in order to defeat Cronus, and the reason he needed them is because he lacked the power to defeat Cronus alone. If Zeus lacks the power to do a task, but that same task can be accomplished if his power is combined with the powers of other gods, then Zeus is not om(name removed by moderator)otent. God does not need allies to defeat anyone or anything. Even if God sometimes chooses to use allies, he does not do so out of necessity.

My point is that our God is a God of narrative, of history, not simply of abstract philosophical principles such as power. He *chooses *to actually rely on us in the battle against sin and death. Think of Mother Theresa or any of the saints.

If by your statement “He chooses to actually rely on us” is another way of saying that God deems it very fitting to allow us to participate in his plan of salvation for us, with the success or failure of our personal salvation resting on our choices, then I agree with that. I likewise believe that due to human freedom, God must allow us to participate in it at some level. “Must”, of course, also indicates necessity. But all this is getting far away from the topic of this post. As I mentioned before, God was not defending himself against Satan/sin/death because he cannot be directly threatened by them. Whatever allies God allows in the battle against Satan/sin/death has no bearing on his omnipotence, and omnipotence is the topic at hand.

And out of curiosity, based on your above quote, do you feel that the “reliance” of God upon Mother Theresa and the saints is the same kind of reliance that Zeus demonstrated in using other gods and the Cyclopes to defeat Cronus?

It is of course not a perfect match/analogy. That would be an unreasonable expectation. Nonetheless it contains elements that are true to the Christian view of God that would seem laughable to the “sophistication” of “the concepts of divinity taught by such people as Plato and Aristotle, which had little, if nothing, to do with Greek mythology.”

Sure they would deem such elements laughable. St. Paul admitted as much. Ancient Greek thoughts on the concept of divinity, whether those thoughts come from the traditional mythological mindset or the later pagan Greek philosophical mindset, are notably different from those expressed in Judeo-Christianity. But I am still missing your point behind all this. Are you saying that the ancient Greeks had a reasonable excuse for worshipping their gods because they were comfortable that their gods matched their own views concerning divinity (even if those concepts of divinity do not match ours)? Well, obviously this was the case for them, or they never would have worshipped them to begin with. As far as they were concerned, their gods were just the sort of beings that gods ought to be. But the nature of my posts is not to discuss why the ancient Greeks worshiped their god but rather to explain why I do not.

The OP’s whole topic of this thread is: can (or do) the gods from Greek mythology actually exist and, if so, should they be worshipped? My stance throughout this discussion is that if such beings exist they are not truly divine according to the Judeo-Christian understanding of the term. I used Zeus as an example of where his attributes fall short of the Judeo-Christian understanding of divinity, and therefore he does not get my worship. And if Zeus, the mythological king of the gods, falls short, then the rest of the Greek pantheon can be presumed to fall short as well.

 

[Betterave]

Then perhaps I should elaborate on my statement further. The specific reason why Jesus took on our flesh was to die for our sins. The only reason that any of us gets into heaven is because he did, indeed, die for our sins. God dealt with all the sins of humanity, past, present and future, and allows mere mortals to participate in his divine life because of the exact moment that Jesus’ heart stopped beating on the cross. To me, that represents simplicity.

It seems to me that in itself that’s strained (how do you define ‘simplicity’?)… but when you claim “just as simple as a thought”… snap

Of course, “simple” is relative, so if you disagree with me then that is fine, but what is being discussed here omnipotence. My stance is that Zeus does not match the Judeo-Christian understanding of omnipotence, but God does. If you think my illustration (of the battle between Zeus & Cronus) did not do a good job of demonstrating that, then that is one thing. But if you personally think that Greek mythology describes Zeus as actually being omnipotent based on the Judeo-Christian understanding of the term then I will ask you to demonstrate that with examples.

I certainly hope I haven’t claimed that Zeus simply matches the the J-C understanding of omnipotence! My point has been that the Christian God chooses to empty himself (kenosis) at a specific point in history, so that God Himself can be genuinely embattled and can genuinely be made to suffer, omnipotence notwithstanding.

If God acts true to his own nature, doing what is fitting for both mercy and justice, then I believe that there was no other way. But that is a whole different topic. If you would like to start a new thread on that I will be happy to participate. Or if anyone cares to know my thoughts on this without the need of starting a new thread, they were outlined in this thread, starting with Post #17:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=468899 That thread is a bit dated, so if anyone wants to comment on it, it would probably be best to start a new discussion.

I would have a few things to criticize there. If you’re interested, I’ll let you start the thread.

Regardless of any variation of the definition, the notion of reliance indicating necessity was exactly the way I used it. That meaning was at least strongly implied when I first used it and I have sense clarified it. So now, just for the record, I’ll reword it to avoid any confusion. Zeus is described as needing allies in order to defeat Cronus, and the reason he needed them is because he lacked the power to defeat Cronus alone. If Zeus lacks the power to do a task, but that same task can be accomplished if his power is combined with the powers of other gods, then Zeus is not om(name removed by moderator)otent. God does not need allies to defeat anyone or anything. Even if God sometimes chooses to use allies, he does not do so out of necessity.

Obviously God does not need to need us. Nonetheless, within the order of creation and the economy of salvation as we believe God to have ordained them, He does need us. Within this order he appeals to us out of necessity (the necessity proper to the created order), although he never ceases to transcend this order. It is interesting to note that even the angels do battle, even there God does not simply assume the role of efficient cause. Are you familiar with the fallacy secundum quid et simpliciter? Check out ch. 13 of St. Thomas’ De fallacia. I think you need to remember that we do not just speak of necessity simpliciter; we usually refer to necessity secundum quid.

If by your statement “He chooses to actually rely on us” is another way of saying that God deems it very fitting to allow us to participate in his plan of salvation for us, with the success or failure of our personal salvation resting on our choices, then I agree with that. I likewise believe that due to human freedom, God must allow us to participate in it at some level. “Must”, of course, also indicates necessity. But all this is getting far away from the topic of this post. As I mentioned before, God was not defending himself against Satan/sin/death because he cannot be directly threatened by them. Whatever allies God allows in the battle against Satan/sin/death has no bearing on his omnipotence, and omnipotence is the topic at hand.

I guess I understand the topic at hand more broadly: I take the topic at hand to be about the foreshadowing/parallels in Greek mythology and philosophy to Christian concepts of God.

And out of curiosity, based on your above quote, do you feel that the “reliance” of God upon Mother Theresa and the saints is the same kind of reliance that Zeus demonstrated in using other gods and the Cyclopes to defeat Cronus?

No, I’m not familiar enough with the story (and various versions of the story) to want to insist on that specific of a parallel. But it seems that Cronus, who envied the power of his father Uranus, is a fair candidate to represent Satan, and that Zeus is a natural parallel to represent Jesus. The point, however, is certainly not to insist on some kind of close point by point parallel, but to evoke the general nature of certain aspects of God and his exercise of power.

 

[Betterave]

Sure they would deem such elements laughable. St. Paul admitted as much. Ancient Greek thoughts on the concept of divinity, whether those thoughts come from the traditional mythological mindset or the later pagan Greek philosophical mindset, are notably different from those expressed in Judeo-Christianity. But I am still missing your point behind all this. Are you saying that the ancient Greeks had a reasonable excuse for worshipping their gods because they were comfortable that their gods matched their own views concerning divinity (even if those concepts of divinity do not match ours)? Well, obviously this was the case for them, or they never would have worshipped them to begin with. As far as they were concerned, their gods were just the sort of beings that gods ought to be. But the nature of my posts is not to discuss why the ancient Greeks worshiped their god but rather to explain why I do not.

The OP’s whole topic of this thread is: can (or do) the gods from Greek mythology actually exist and, if so, should they be worshipped? My stance throughout this discussion is that if such beings exist they are not truly divine according to the Judeo-Christian understanding of the term. I used Zeus as an example of where his attributes fall short of the Judeo-Christian understanding of divinity, and therefore he does not get my worship. And if Zeus, the mythological king of the gods, falls short, then the rest of the Greek pantheon can be presumed to fall short as well.

It has been pointed out (by Ridgerunner) that the Greek understanding of the Gods is a complex question and that there is often good reason to see the stories about the Gods as (having been understood as) allegorical. I have simply defended a particular allegorical use of these stories where you had claimed that such a use is not possible.

 

[EricFilmer]

It seems to me that in itself that’s strained (how do you define ‘simplicity’?)… but when you claim “just as simple as a thought”… snap

Yeah…ok…“snap” - thanks for the insightful clarification.

I certainly hope I haven’t claimed that Zeus simply matches the the J-C understanding of omnipotence! My point has been that the Christian God chooses to empty himself (kenosis) at a specific point in history, so that God Himself can be genuinely embattled and can genuinely be made to suffer, omnipotence notwithstanding.

Ok, God uses kenosis which, to an observer, may seem as a decline in his omnipotence (along the lines of what St. Paul describes as Jesus “emptying himself” to take on “the form of a slave”). I have no disagreement with what you have presented in this regard. But does mythology describe Zeus as doing this? If so, then cite examples and make a case for it. If not, then why is this even relevant to the topic of this thread?

I would have a few things to criticize there. If you’re interested, I’ll let you start the thread.

Seeing as I have already addressed this in great detail in a past thread (and I have provided the link for it in my last post) I see no reason to start a new discussion. Rather, if anyone is interested in my thoughts on this subject, let them read that link. If you or anyone else wants to ask me a specific question, or refute my position, then by all means start a new discussion which delves deeper into it, and I will be happy to participate.

Obviously God does not need to need us. Nonetheless, within the order of creation and the economy of salvation as we believe God to have ordained them, He does need us. Within this order he appeals to us out of necessity (the necessity proper to the created order), although he never ceases to transcend this order. It is interesting to note that even the angels do battle, even there God does not simply assume the role of efficient cause. Are you familiar with the fallacy secundum quid et simpliciter? Check out ch. 13 of St. Thomas’ De fallacia. I think you need to remember that we do not just speak of necessity simpliciter; we usually refer to necessity secundum quid.

I think we both agree that the fact that God is omnipotent does not contradict the notion that he works in ways demonstrating a kind of “need” for us. The question at hand is whether or not Greek mythology treats Zeus as omnipotent, and then explains his dependency upon other gods as some sort of kenosis. As far as I can see, it does not. Therefore, even if we say that God “needs” us, and that Zeus “needed” other gods, the meaning behind these uses of “need” is different. If Zeus “needs” others in a way different than the way God “needs” others then the ways of Zeus are different than the ways of God, which has been my consistent point. In order for Zeus to be considered divine according to the Judeo-Christian God, he has to match God, not be different.

(continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(continued from my last post)

I guess I understand the topic at hand more broadly: I take the topic at hand to be about the foreshadowing/parallels in Greek mythology and philosophy to Christian concepts of God.

Once again, the topic at hand (according to the OP) is whether or not the gods of Greek mythology exist, and, if so, should they be worshipped. I have been addressing the second part. Comparisons between the foreshadowings/parallels of Greek mythology with the Christian concepts of God are interesting, but to stay on topic I would need to see an elaboration on how the description of a Greek mythological god meets the requirements of the Christian concept of divinity. After all, that would be the criteria for me, as a Christian, to worship someone.

No, I’m not familiar enough with the story (and various versions of the story) to want to insist on that specific of a parallel. But it seems that Cronus, who envied the power of his father Uranus, is a fair candidate to represent Satan, and that Zeus is a natural parallel to represent Jesus. The point, however, is certainly not to insist on some kind of close point by point parallel, but to evoke the general nature of certain aspects of God and his exercise of power.

I do not expect a “point by point parallel”, but rather at least some sort of concrete elaboration if what you are submitting is to be considered a refutation of my point. Once again, just to prevent any confusion, my point throughout this discussion is as follows:

The Christian concept of divinity includes these attributes:

1. To be eternal according to the Christian understanding of that term (i.e., uncreated, always having existed, and always will exist).
2. To be omnipotent according to the Christian understanding of that term. In other words, to be able to do whatever is possible for God to do, and to have absolute power over everything in creation.

I have shown how the descriptions of Zeus show that he is neither eternal nor omnipotent (according to the Christian understanding of the terms). Therefore, even though mythology calls Zeus a “god”, he does not meet the criteria of divinity according to Christian understanding. Because I am a Christian, I only worship a person who meets this criteria, and therefore I do not worship Zeus.

Therefore, if you or anyone else wants to truly debate my position, then there is a formula for that:

1. Zeus could be considered eternal, according to the Christian understanding of the term, because (fill in the blank).
2. Zeus could be considered omnipotent, according to the Christian understanding of the term, because (fill in the blank).

I ask, for the sake of staying on topic, that anyone who wants to discuss or refute my reasoning, stick to what is actually my position, as I just highlighted in purple.

It has been pointed out (by Ridgerunner) that the Greek understanding of the Gods is a complex question and that there is often good reason to see the stories about the Gods as (having been understood as) allegorical. I have simply defended a particular allegorical use of these stories where you had claimed that such a use is not possible.

I never said that such a use is not possible. I simply pointed out that the Iliad era of Greek thought concerning divinity is neither traditional Greek mythology nor what would eventually develop in pagan Greek philosophy. Because OP used the term “Greek polytheism”, I made my comments presuming that what is being discussed is mythology according to the traditional legends, as depicted in such sources as Bulfinch’s Mythology. The movement from traditional mythology into the realm of allegory and, later, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle is, after all, a movement away from polytheism into what more closely resembles monotheism. OP has not commented on this one way or another, and therefore I have stuck with traditional mythology as the basis of my comments. So if Iliad era Greek thought is one point in the timeline of movement from tradition into philosophy, I questioned why it should be the ground point in discussing either one.

But fine, if you or anyone else wants to discuss Zeus as an allegory then I will be happy to participate. Now to keep this on topic, plugging this concept into OP’s initial questions (from Posts 1 & 3) we get the following:

1. Does an allegorical Zeus exist?
2. If an allegorical Zeus exists, should he be worshipped?

I’ll let you or someone else take it from there.

 

[Betterave]

Yeah…ok…“snap” - thanks for the insightful clarification.

So you don’t see my point?

Ok, God uses kenosis which, to an observer, may seem as a decline in his omnipotence (along the lines of what St. Paul describes as Jesus “emptying himself” to take on “the form of a slave”). I have no disagreement with what you have presented in this regard. But does mythology describe Zeus as doing this? If so, then cite examples and make a case for it. If not, then why is this even relevant to the topic of this thread?

No, I don’t know of any Zeus-kenosis. It is relevant nonetheless because we are treating of God’s actions, real actions, real exercise of power. This kenosis-thing is a very deep, very central Christian mystery. If you want to talk about Greek mythology as pedagogical towards Christianity, you obviously have to place it in an appropriate historical context, i.e., not on par with the fullness of revelation in the NT. And if there is a connection, it should be informed by a reflection something like this: we are made for God and there are elements of genuine striving towards the truth in all expressions of religion, no matter how imperfect. Now let’s try to see them…

Seeing as I have already addressed this in great detail in a past thread (and I have provided the link for it in my last post) I see no reason to start a new discussion. Rather, if anyone is interested in my thoughts on this subject, let them read that link. If you or anyone else wants to ask me a specific question, or refute my position, then by all means start a new discussion which delves deeper into it, and I will be happy to participate.

Okay. I’ll let you know.

I think we both agree that the fact that God is omnipotent does not contradict the notion that he works in ways demonstrating a kind of “need” for us. The question at hand is whether or not Greek mythology treats Zeus as omnipotent, and then explains his dependency upon other gods as some sort of kenosis. As far as I can see, it does not. Therefore, even if we say that God “needs” us, and that Zeus “needed” other gods, the meaning behind these uses of “need” is different. If Zeus “needs” others in a way different than the way God “needs” others then the ways of Zeus are different than the ways of God, which has been my consistent point. In order for Zeus to be considered divine according to the Judeo-Christian God, he has to match God, not be different.

(continued in my next post)

I’ve never disputed that the ways of Zeus and God are different. I’ve only disputed that they are wholly different.

 

[Betterave]

(continued from my last post)

Once again, the topic at hand (according to the OP) is whether or not the gods of Greek mythology exist, and, if so, should they be worshipped. I have been addressing the second part. Comparisons between the foreshadowings/parallels of Greek mythology with the Christian concepts of God are interesting, but to stay on topic I would need to see an elaboration on how the description of a Greek mythological god meets the requirements of the Christian concept of divinity. After all, that would be the criteria for me, as a Christian, to worship someone.

Pointing out how the Christian God is similar to Greek gods, as I have done, does precisely what you ask for here…

I do not expect a “point by point parallel”, but rather at least some sort of concrete elaboration if what you are submitting is to be considered a refutation of my point. Once again, just to prevent any confusion, my point throughout this discussion is as follows:

The Christian concept of divinity includes these attributes:

1. To be eternal according to the Christian understanding of that term (i.e., uncreated, always having existed, and always will exist).

1. To be omnipotent according to the Christian understanding of that term. In other words, to be able to do whatever is possible for God to do, and to have absolute power over everything in creation.

I have shown how the descriptions of Zeus show that he is neither eternal nor omnipotent (according to the Christian understanding of the terms). Therefore, even though mythology calls Zeus a “god”, he does not meet the criteria of divinity according to Christian understanding. Because I am a Christian, I only worship a person who meets this criteria, and therefore I do not worship Zeus.

Therefore, if you or anyone else wants to truly debate my position, then there is a formula for that:

1. Zeus could be considered eternal, according to the Christian understanding of the term, because (fill in the blank).
2. Zeus could be considered omnipotent, according to the Christian understanding of the term, because (fill in the blank).

I ask, for the sake of staying on topic, that anyone who wants to discuss or refute my reasoning, stick to what is actually my position, as I just highlighted in purple.

My discussion has obviously been relevant to (2): Zeus could be considered omnipotent, according to the Christian understanding of the term, because his apparently non-omnipotent actions can be interpreted as foreshadowing something like a Christian economy of salvation, where God is all-powerful, but doesn’t keep all the power for himself, but indeed empties himself, etc.

I never said that such a use is not possible.

Without getting into too many fine distinctions, it seems like you did suggest that:

Divinity also includes the attribute of omnipotence (“all powerful”). Is Zeus described as being powerful? Absolutely. But is he “all powerful”? No, because he needed the assistance of his siblings, as well as the Cyclopes he freed from Tartarus, in order to defeat Cronus in battle. A truly omnipotent being could have utterly defeated Cronus with a simple thought, rather than wage a protracted battle relying on the help of allies.

If you want to claim that this comment is tied to a particular traditional reading of Greek mythology that is somehow quite separable from later allegorical readings, I don’t know what you’re referring to and will just say, fine, maybe. Bulfinch largely (?) translates Ovid, so this is way post Greek enlightenment, 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.

 

[EricFilmer]

So you don’t see my point?

Not really.

No, I don’t know of any Zeus-kenosis. It is relevant nonetheless because we are treating of God’s actions, real actions, real exercise of power. This kenosis-thing is a very deep, very central Christian mystery. If you want to talk about Greek mythology as pedagogical towards Christianity, you obviously have to place it in an appropriate historical context, i.e., not on par with the fullness of revelation in the NT. And if there is a connection, it should be informed by a reflection something like this: we are made for God and there are elements of genuine striving towards the truth in all expressions of religion, no matter how imperfect. Now let’s try to see them…

I do not doubt that ancient people, having a natural yearning for God but not having the benefit of revelation, developed mythology which displayed an imperfect understanding of the nature of divinity. Along these lines, because of the gift of reason and intellect, ancient mythology can still contain certain truthful ideas about divinity. Therefore, someone could make the argument that in worshipping Zeus an ancient Greek was, in a roundabout way, worshipping God. But even if that is true, it does not seem to be an option for a modern day Christian. In other words, just because Zeus shares some similarities with God does not mean that I should specifically worship Zeus. Keep in mind, the whole nature of my posts in this thread were in answer to OP’s question as to whether or not I should worship Zeus.

I’ve never disputed that the ways of Zeus and God are different. I’ve only disputed that they are wholly different.

First of all, I never said that they are “wholly” different. I said that descriptions of Zeus fall short of the definition of divinity according to the Judeo-Christian understanding of the term.

Pointing out how the Christian God is similar to Greek gods, as I have done, does precisely what you ask for here…

Unless the similarities are enough to make the argument that I should worship Zeus, you have not addressed what I asked for here. The question of this thread is not, “Are Greek gods similar to the Christian God?” but rather “Should I worship the Greek gods?” You seem to be intentionally ignoring that aspect of the discussion. May I ask what is the reason for this is?

As you stated above, “And if there is a connection, it should be informed by a reflection something like this: we are made for God and there are elements of genuine striving towards the truth in all expressions of religion, no matter how imperfect. Now let’s try to see them…” Ok, fine, I see them. And having seen them, now what? How do I apply this knowledge to the OP’s question about whether or not I should worship Zeus?

My discussion has obviously been relevant to (2): Zeus could be considered omnipotent, according to the Christian understanding of the term, because his apparently non-omnipotent actions can be interpreted as foreshadowing something like a Christian economy of salvation, where God is all-powerful, but doesn’t keep all the power for himself, but indeed empties himself, etc.

And yet you also previously stated, “No, I don’t know of any Zeus-kenosis.” So here you are imagining a Zeus that is not actually described in mythology. Plus, are you saying that I should worship Zeus because the legends could be interpreted to suggest that he might be omnipotent? Once again I have to ask you to apply your statements to the topic at hand.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued from my last post)

Without getting into too many fine distinctions, it seems like you did suggest that:

Even if we get into fine distinctions, I never stated that the comparisons between Zeus and God were “not possible”, and I will remind you of what I actually wrote in Post #15, and I will add an underline for emphasis:
“But I am not making a hard-line stance in this regard, and am willing to continue considering examples of comparisons between Greek mythology and Judeo-Christian theology. I do not claim to be an expert on Greek mythology and admit that I may be missing something.”

Therefore, how can you say that I suggested otherwise? You posted my quote about the battle between Zeus and Cronus as evidence of this. That’s quite a big leap for interpreting that quote to mean that I am saying that comparisons (concerning the concept of omnipotence) between Zeus and God are “not possible.” I simply gave an example in which a legend shows Zeus falling short of the Christianity understanding of omnipotence. This hardly suggests that it is “not possible” for someone to find a legend of Zeus demonstrating a better example of omnipotence.

If you want to claim that this comment is tied to a particular traditional reading of Greek mythology that is somehow quite separable from later allegorical readings, I don’t know what you’re referring to and will just say, fine, maybe.

What do you mean you don’t know what I was referring to? I was referring to you. Ridgerunner made the point, in so many words, that there is a distinction in sophistication between a traditional reading of mythology and a multilayered understanding that arose around the time of the Iliad. You interpreted Ridgerunner’s comments about a multilayered understanding to be a more allegorical view, and said:

It has been pointed out (by Ridgerunner) that the Greek understanding of the Gods is a complex question and that there is often good reason to see the stories about the Gods as (having been understood as) allegorical. I have simply defended a particular allegorical use of these stories where you had claimed that such a use is not possible.

So you and Ridgerunner are the ones who brought up the idea that there is a difference between a traditional view and an allegorical view (although I believe that there is such a distinction, I’m just saying that it was not me who brought it up). Nevertheless, I stated that I am quite happy to discuss Zeus as an allegory, as I wrote in Post #28: “But fine, if you or anyone else wants to discuss Zeus as an allegory then I will be happy to participate.”

Bulfinch largely (?) translates Ovid, so this is way post Greek enlightenment, 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.

Betterave, you seem to consistently see my posts as me presenting some sort of dogmatic attitude that I am not actually making. As I have already pointed out, I said that I was taking no hard-line stance on Ridgerunner’s comments, but you said that I claimed that his comparisons were “not possible.” You claimed that I said that Zeus and God were “wholly different”, and yet I never made such a claim. And now you claim that I said that Bulfinch is “a particularly salient point of departure” for me. When did I ever make, or even imply, such a thing? I simply mentioned him as my own source material. Other people can discuss Zeus with whatever material they want. The only relevance Bulfinch has for me is that I read his collection as a youth (along with others). It can also easily be accessed online. Reading Bulfinch is simply a way (but not the way) of reading an English translation of the stories of the Greek pantheon in keeping with one of the popular ways they were traditionally told. If I am to describe Zeus, I need source material to base my description on, and I chose Bulfinch to start with. I may use other authors, and, of course, others on this thread can use whatever material they want.

Let me also point out that throughout what is becoming a lengthy discussion between us, you have simply been making comparisons between Zeus and God without actually applying your deductions to the actual topic at hand. As I have repeatedly pointed out, all my posts address the OP’s question as to whether or not I ought to worship Zeus. Therefore…

If you think that the similarities between Zeus and God are enough to justify a modern day Catholic to worship Zeus then come out and say so.

If you think they share some similarities but not enough for a modern day Catholic to justifiably worship Zeus, then what is the point of this discussion?

If you think that in a roundabout way worshipping Zeus is the same thing as worshipping God, and that the ancient Greeks and modern Catholics are basically worshipping the same being, then, once again, what is the point of this discussion?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The idea of worshipping Zeus today is absurd, because there’s “nobody home”.

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

On the other hand, he is simply an abstraction that was not believed in in a literal sense even when his worship was state-mandated. Philosophers simply applied his name to concepts in order to stay out of trouble with the state.

As an aside, I found the “Zeus worship” segments in Tom Wolfe’s “Man in Full” to be hilarious; a very clever and ironic description of how “lost” people can get in our modern, horribly catechized and profoundly ignorant society.

 

[Betterave]

Not really.

Oh well!

I do not doubt that ancient people, having a natural yearning for God but not having the benefit of revelation, developed mythology which displayed an imperfect understanding of the nature of divinity. Along these lines, because of the gift of reason and intellect, ancient mythology can still contain certain truthful ideas about divinity. Therefore, someone could make the argument that in worshipping Zeus an ancient Greek was, in a roundabout way, worshipping God. But even if that is true, it does not seem to be an option for a modern day Christian. In other words, just because Zeus shares some similarities with God does not mean that I should specifically worship Zeus. Keep in mind, the whole nature of my posts in this thread were in answer to OP’s question as to whether or not I should worship Zeus.

Yeah obviously. But the OP-question and your comments here presume a specific understanding of what it meant for ancients to “specifically worship Zeus,” an understanding which is not, generally speaking, accurate. This discussion has been intended to emphasize this point.

First of all, I never said that they are “wholly” different. I said that descriptions of Zeus fall short of the definition of divinity according to the Judeo-Christian understanding of the term.

Obviously you never said that, but you’re missing the specific point I made (you’re missing the fact that I made a specific point).

Unless the similarities are enough to make the argument that I should worship Zeus, you have not addressed what I asked for here. The question of this thread is not, “Are Greek gods similar to the Christian God?” but rather “Should I worship the Greek gods?” You seem to be intentionally ignoring that aspect of the discussion. May I ask what is the reason for this is?

No, you seem to be ignoring the fact that “Should I worship the Greek gods?” is a question that presupposes an answer to the question “What does it mean to worship the Greek gods?”

As you stated above, “And if there is a connection, it should be informed by a reflection something like this: we are made for God and there are elements of genuine striving towards the truth in all expressions of religion, no matter how imperfect. Now let’s try to see them…” Ok, fine, I see them. And having seen them, now what? How do I apply this knowledge to the OP’s question about whether or not I should worship Zeus?

Hopefully you understand now.

And yet you also previously stated, “No, I don’t know of any Zeus-kenosis.” So here you are imagining a Zeus that is not actually described in mythology. Plus, are you saying that I should worship Zeus because the legends could be interpreted to suggest that he might be omnipotent? Once again I have to ask you to apply your statements to the topic at hand.

No; you presuppose here: IF {Z is not apprehended as strictly omnipotent being} THEN {no worship of Z is justified}. But this conditional only holds if you do apprehend a being that is strictly omnipotent. Not everybody does, obviously. God didn’t create us all to be philosophers; He did create us all to worship him.

 

[Betterave]

Even if we get into fine distinctions, I never stated that the comparisons between Zeus and God were “not possible”, and I will remind you of what I actually wrote in Post #15, and I will add an underline for emphasis:
“But I am not making a hard-line stance in this regard, and am willing to continue considering examples of comparisons between Greek mythology and Judeo-Christian theology. I do not claim to be an expert on Greek mythology and admit that I may be missing something.”

Therefore, how can you say that I suggested otherwise? You posted my quote about the battle between Zeus and Cronus as evidence of this. That’s quite a big leap for interpreting that quote to mean that I am saying that comparisons (concerning the concept of omnipotence) between Zeus and God are “not possible.” I simply gave an example in which a legend shows Zeus falling short of the Christianity understanding of omnipotence. This hardly suggests that it is “not possible” for someone to find a legend of Zeus demonstrating a better example of omnipotence.

You seem to be completely ignoring the specificity of what I wrote: “I have simply defended a **particular **allegorical use of these stories where you had claimed that such a use is not possible.”

What do you mean you don’t know what I was referring to? I was referring to you. Ridgerunner made the point, in so many words, that there is a distinction in sophistication between a traditional reading of mythology and a multilayered understanding that arose around the time of the Iliad. You interpreted Ridgerunner’s comments about a multilayered understanding to be a more allegorical view, and said:

It has been pointed out (by Ridgerunner) that the Greek understanding of the Gods is a complex question and that there is often good reason to see the stories about the Gods as (having been understood as) allegorical. I have simply defended a particular allegorical use of these stories where you had claimed that such a use is not possible.

So you and Ridgerunner are the ones who brought up the idea that there is a difference between a traditional view and an allegorical view (although I believe that there is such a distinction, I’m just saying that it was not me who brought it up). Nevertheless, I stated that I am quite happy to discuss Zeus as an allegory, as I wrote in Post #28: “But fine, if you or anyone else wants to discuss Zeus as an allegory then I will be happy to participate.”

Let’s just say I don’t understand why you are calling ‘traditional’ an account that arose seven or eight centuries after the allegorical Homeric tradition.

Betterave, you seem to consistently see my posts as me presenting some sort of dogmatic attitude that I am not actually making. As I have already pointed out, I said that I was taking no hard-line stance on Ridgerunner’s comments, but you said that I claimed that his comparisons were “not possible.” You claimed that I said that Zeus and God were “wholly different”, and yet I never made such a claim.

I refer you to the record on this.

And now you claim that I said that Bulfinch is “a particularly salient point of departure” for me. When did I ever make, or even imply, such a thing? I simply mentioned him as my own source material. Other people can discuss Zeus with whatever material they want. The only relevance Bulfinch has for me is that I read his collection as a youth (along with others). It can also easily be accessed online. Reading Bulfinch is simply a way (but not the way) of reading an English translation of the stories of the Greek pantheon in keeping with one of the popular ways they were traditionally told. If I am to describe Zeus, I need source material to base my description on, and I chose Bulfinch to start with. I may use other authors, and, of course, others on this thread can use whatever material they want.

First you reject my characterization, then you justify it. I’m not interested in your quibbles here.

Let me also point out that throughout what is becoming a lengthy discussion between us, you have simply been making comparisons between Zeus and God without actually applying your deductions to the actual topic at hand. As I have repeatedly pointed out, all my posts address the OP’s question as to whether or not I ought to worship Zeus. Therefore…

If you think that the similarities between Zeus and God are enough to justify a modern day Catholic to worship Zeus then come out and say so.

If you think they share some similarities but not enough for a modern day Catholic to justifiably worship Zeus, then what is the point of this discussion?

If you think that in a roundabout way worshipping Zeus is the same thing as worshipping God, and that the ancient Greeks and modern Catholics are basically worshipping the same being, then, once again, what is the point of this discussion?

Hopefully you understand the application of my comments by now. Peace.

 

[EricFilmer]

But the OP-question and your comments here presume a specific understanding of what it meant for ancients to “specifically worship Zeus,” an understanding which is not, generally speaking, accurate. This discussion has been intended to emphasize this point.

But in the context of the discussion at hand, what does it matter how the ancient Greeks worshipped Zeus? OP asked if I, as a modern day Catholic, should worship him. Therefore, if I am going to decide whether or not to worship someone, it would be based on my understanding of what the action of worship entails. How this matches with the ancients’ notion is not really relevant.

And once again I will apply your statement to the topic at hand. Are you suggesting that it is ok for a modern day Christian to worship Zeus as long as they “worship” according to the manner of the ancient Greeks?

No, you seem to be ignoring the fact that “Should I worship the Greek gods?” is a question that presupposes an answer to the question “What does it mean to worship the Greek gods?”

If the OP asked, “Should we worship the Greek gods in the manner that the ancient Greeks did?” then, yes, one cannot answer that question without doing so in the context of ancient Greek religious thought and practices. But that is not how the OP asked the question. The context was whether or not I should worship the Greek gods. Once again, the context is, therefore, my understanding of what worship means, not the ancient Greeks.

Hopefully you understand now.

When did I ever indicate that I did not understand this? The idea of other religions embracing true notions of divine nature is not new, and it is clearly taught in the Catechism. I never said anything to indicate that I was previously mistaken about this but now I understand. And you did not answer my question: “How do I apply this knowledge to the OP’s question about whether or not I should worship Zeus?”

No; you presuppose here: IF {Z is not apprehended as strictly omnipotent being} THEN {no worship of Z is justified}. But this conditional only holds if you do apprehend a being that is strictly omnipotent. Not everybody does, obviously. God didn’t create us all to be philosophers; He did create us all to worship him.

Come on Betterave! Once more I will ask you to stick to what I actually said. In Post #24, I stated:
“Are you saying that the ancient Greeks had a reasonable excuse for worshipping their gods because they were comfortable that their gods matched their own views concerning divinity (even if those concepts of divinity do not match ours)? Well, obviously this was the case for them, or they never would have worshipped them to begin with. As far as they were concerned, their gods were just the sort of beings that gods ought to be. But the nature of my posts is not to discuss why the ancient Greeks worshiped their god but rather to explain why I do not.”

Therefore I did not presuppose that “no worship of Z is justified.” What I have stated all along is that any proposed worship of Zeus by me is not justified.

 

[EricFilmer]

You seem to be completely ignoring the specificity of what I wrote: “I have simply defended a **particular **allegorical use of these stories where you had claimed that such a use is not possible.”

I’m sorry, but I fail to see what I was ignoring. Yes, you have been presenting material in defense of an allegorical use of mythological stories. I believe that there is a valid allegorical interpretation of them. I just object to the claim that I ever said that such comparisons between mythology with an allegorical understanding and the Christian God are “not possible.”

Let’s just say I don’t understand why you are calling ‘traditional’ an account that arose seven or eight centuries after the allegorical Homeric tradition.

I’m not aware that the stories translated by Bulfinch are more recent than Homer. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. Like I said awhile ago - I am no expert on the subject. If Bulfinch is based on ancient oral traditions then it would be difficult to say just how old they are. The same can be said of other sources. But, like I said, I am not insisting on Bulfinch as the standard by which to discuss mythology.

I refer you to the record on this.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you mean by this. If you are saying that I am contradicting myself then please back this up with my quotes.

First you reject my characterization, then you justify it.

Meaning your characterization of an allegorical interpretation of mythology? I never rejected it. Once again, here is what I actually said concerning that very topic:

Post #15: “But I am not making a hard-line stance in this regard, and am willing to continue considering examples of comparisons between Greek mythology and Judeo-Christian theology. I do not claim to be an expert on Greek mythology and admit that I may be missing something.”

Post #28: “But fine, if you or anyone else wants to discuss Zeus as an allegory then I will be happy to participate.”

Post #32: “So you and Ridgerunner are the ones who brought up the idea that there is a difference between a traditional view and an allegorical view (although I believe that there is such a distinction, I’m just saying that it was not me who brought it up). Nevertheless, I stated that I am quite happy to discuss Zeus as an allegory”

I have not rejected your characterizations, nor I do not have an issue with them. I’ve simply asked you to apply them to the topic at hand. Do your characteristics present an understanding of the Greek gods that would justify a modern day Catholic to worship them? That is the nature of the discussion. That is what OP asked in Post #3. I have now asked you this question in past posts, one way or another, about five or so times, and you have not responded.

I’m not interested in your quibbles here.

You have misrepresented or misinterpreted my statements a number of times and I have demonstrated this with actual quotes. You attributed statements to me that I never made, and I posted quotes to show what I actually said. So how is this “quibbling?” If someone did that to you, would you feel that you were “quibbling” in wanting to set the record straight?

Hopefully you understand the application of my comments by now. Peace.

Unfortunately, I am still lacking in true enlightenment. If your posts were simply to defend that mythology can be interpreted as allegory then you need not have bothered, seeing as I never rejected that idea. But in any event, I would have an *even better *understanding of the application of your comments if you are the one to actually do the applying. In other words, please address the items that I posed in Post #32, which I will restate below:

If you think that the similarities between Zeus and God are enough to justify a modern day Catholic to worship Zeus then come out and say so.

If you think they share some similarities but not enough for a modern day Catholic to justifiably worship Zeus, then what is the point of this discussion?

If you think that in a roundabout way worshipping Zeus is the same thing as worshipping God, and that the ancient Greeks and modern Catholics are basically worshipping the same being, then, once again, what is the point of this discussion?

 

[Betterave]

I’m not interested in answering all these absurd construals of what I might have been trying to say. My general answer to your last two posts is: I wasn’t trying to say anything absurd, as you questions would suggest; I have been criticizing a very specific point that you made about the defectiveness of the allegorical interpretation of omnipotence as applied to Zeus. You keep trying to generalize that and put an absurd spin on what I have said. I have explained that your quibbles are based on miscontruing the scope of my criticism, but you ignore that. I’m just not interested in pursuing this conversation further. (Of course, if you have a specific point you really want an answer on, go ahead and say.) Peace.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’m not interested in answering all these absurd construals of what I might have been trying to say.

And yet you have left me the burden of trying to figure out what you might have been trying to say. 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. 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. 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.

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.

My general answer to your last two posts is: I wasn’t trying to say anything absurd, as you questions would suggest;

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! 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?

I have been criticizing a very specific point that you made about the defectiveness of the allegorical interpretation of omnipotence as applied to Zeus.

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?

You keep trying to generalize that and put an absurd spin on what I have said.

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.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

I have explained that your quibbles are based on miscontruing the scope of my criticism, but you ignore that.

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.

I’m just not interested in pursuing this conversation further. (Of course, if you have a specific point you really want an answer on, go ahead and say.) Peace.

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. Nevertheless, it is not my intention for it to be so. 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.
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.
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. 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? 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. And then you simply acted as if they did, somehow, apply, but for some reason no one should expect you to show how. 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).
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.

And yes, by all means, Peace!