Who is Apollo?

[KarenNC]

Does this mean that they happened at all? The gods even acted that way towards one another. Prometheus is permanently punished for giving man fire.

I don’t know if they physically happened at all, just as I do not know if the stories in the Jewish and Christian scriptures or the events in the ancient sacred stories of physically happened in the way in which they are described. It is the lessons that we can learn from the stories about being fully human and relating to that which is beyond our current understanding that are important, not whether I can go and dig up Esau’s spoon or Prometheus’ shackles.

As to the Gods’ behavior toward each other, the Gods are the Gods and humans are humans, the same standards of behavior do not apply. We are not called to behave as the Gods or to even think we might be Their equals, in fact it is hubris and not a good idea. There is no imitatio dei in Hellenic religion. We are not called to be like the Gods, we are called to remember our place in the scheme of life and be fully human.

Fyi, Prometheus was not permanently punished. He was later rescued by Herakles, who some tales say was sent by Zeus to do so.
theoi.com/Titan/TitanPrometheus.html

We don’t believe in God requiring ‘satisfaction’ for sins, etc.

If God does not demand satisfaction for sins, why was Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Does this mean that they happened at all? The gods even acted that way towards one another. Prometheus is permanently punished for giving man fire.

KarenNC:

I don’t know if they physically happened at all, just as I do not know if the stories in the Jewish and Christian scriptures or the events in the ancient sacred stories of physically happened in the way in which they are described. It is the lessons that we can learn from the stories about being fully human and relating to that which is beyond our current understanding that are important, not whether I can go and dig up Esau’s spoon or Prometheus’ shackles.

This seems a rather weak argument. You believe in something you don’t know what happened, but you’re certain enough to criticise Judeo-Christian beliefs because you’re certain what happened there. In other words no one can peg you down on any of your own mythology but you sure can attack our beliefs.

As to the Gods’ behaviour toward each other, the Gods are the Gods and humans are humans, the same standards of behaviour do not apply. We are not called to behave as the Gods or to even think we might be Their equals, in fact it is hubris and not a good idea. There is no imitatio dei in Hellenic religion. We are not called to be like the Gods, we are called to remember our place in the scheme of life and be fully human.

Fyi, Prometheus was not permanently punished. He was later rescued by Herakles, who some tales say was sent by Zeus to do so.
theoi.com/Titan/TitanPrometheus.html

I stand corrected. This however shows the fickleness of the gods. Zeus had ordained that the punishment take place for 30,000 years, then changed his mind because it gave honour to Herakles (Hercules) for freeing him.

Odd that this time you’re more certain about what happened!

Montalban:

We don’t believe in God requiring ‘satisfaction’ for sins, etc.

KarenNC:

If God does not demand satisfaction for sins, why was Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary?

That is beyond the scope of this discussion. It was sufficient (as far as this topic was concerned) to point out that we Orthodox don’t believe in certain things you presumed I believed in, such as ‘satisfaction’. You are more than welcome to come over to the Eastern Christianity threads.

 

[KarenNC]

This seems a rather weak argument. You believe in something you don’t know what happened, but you’re certain enough to criticise Judeo-Christian beliefs because you’re certain what happened there. In other words no one can peg you down on any of your own mythology but you sure can attack our beliefs.

I am not the one with the vested interest in the literal physicality of the sacred stories of any culture. I am not a literalist about any religion.
I am certain that my religion offers me a more accurate representation of the spiritual reality that I have experienced. That is the extent of my claim.

I have not “attacked” your beliefs, I have simply said that I do not agree with them nor do I believe them to be binding upon me. It is not the same thing.

I stand corrected. This however shows the fickleness of the gods. Zeus had ordained that the punishment take place for 30,000 years, then changed his mind because it gave honour to Herakles (Hercules) for freeing him.

Did you read the page I referenced?
“Men in early times sought fire from the gods, and did not know how to keep it alive. Later Prometheus brought it to earth in a fennel-stalk, and showed men how to keep it covered over with ashes. Because of this, Mercurius [Hermes], at Jove’s [Zeus’] command, bound him with iron spikes to a cliff on Mount Caucasus, and set an eagle to eat out his heart; as much as it devoured in the day, so much grew again at night. **After 30,000 years **Hercules killed this eagle and freed Prometheus.” - Hyginus, Fabulae 144

Odd that this time you’re more certain about what happened!

Being certain about what a particular story says and being certain that they physically occurred are quite different things. I can also say with certainty that the Wizard of Oz was from Kansas. These are sacred stories, not news reports (the myths, not the Wizard of Oz ).

That is beyond the scope of this discussion. It was sufficient (as far as this topic was concerned) to point out that we Orthodox don’t believe in certain things you presumed I believed in, such as ‘satisfaction’. You are more than welcome to come over to the Eastern Christianity threads.

Fair enough.

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

This seems a rather weak argument. You believe in something you don’t know what happened, but you’re certain enough to criticise Judeo-Christian beliefs because you’re certain what happened there. In other words no one can peg you down on any of your own mythology but you sure can attack our beliefs.

I am not the one with the vested interest in the literal physicality of the sacred stories of any culture. I am not a literalist about any religion. I am certain that my religion offers me a more accurate representation of the spiritual reality that I have experienced. That is the extent of my claim.

How can you know this? You’re certainly confused me. You seem to me to be saying you’re happy not really knowing the truth of any religion but you’re sure you know you get the story from your own religious beliefs

I have not “attacked” your beliefs, I have simply said that I do not agree with them nor do I believe them to be binding upon me. It is not the same thing.

I don’t say that they are binding on you. I find it strange that you can question the ‘literalness’ of one faith and be certain about your own, even if you’re not at the same time? I’m confused by how you’ve put this.
"Montalban:

I stand corrected. This however shows the fickleness of the gods. Zeus had ordained that the punishment take place for 30,000 years, then changed his mind because it gave honour to Herakles (Hercules) for freeing him.

Did you read the page I referenced?
“Men in early times sought fire from the gods, and did not know how to keep it alive. Later Prometheus brought it to earth in a fennel-stalk, and showed men how to keep it covered over with ashes. Because of this, Mercurius [Hermes], at Jove’s [Zeus’] command, bound him with iron spikes to a cliff on Mount Caucasus, and set an eagle to eat out his heart; as much as it devoured in the day, so much grew again at night. **After 30,000 years **Hercules killed this eagle and freed Prometheus.” - Hyginus, Fabulae 144

What’s the point in quoting this when you’re unconcerned about whether it’s true or not?
"Montalban:

Odd that this time you’re more certain about what happened!

Being certain about what a particular story says and being certain that they physically occurred are quite different things. I can also say with certainty that the Wizard of Oz was from Kansas. These are sacred stories, not news reports (the myths, not the Wizard of Oz

But at the same time you’re both saying you are and are not sure about the literalness of something.

 

[KarenNC]

**How can you know this? You’re certainly confused me. **

I am no longer suprised at this.

For some reason known only to the Gods, I will try this one more time. My faith is not based in a dependence on the literality of any sacred story. It is based in my actual and real experience of the divine.

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

How can you know this? You’re certainly confused me.

I am no longer suprised at this.

Ouch! How cruel!

For some reason known only to the Gods, I will try this one more time. My faith is not based in a dependence on the literality of any sacred story. It is based in my actual and real experience of the divine.

Yet you accept other gods that you don’t believe in! Have you experienced these other gods that you don’t follow?

How do you know that you’ve experienced Zeus and not Odin?

 

[KarenNC]

Ouch! How cruel!

We have a demonstrated history of talking at crosspurposes. It is a simple statement of fact.

**Yet you accept other gods that you don’t believe in! **

I accept that other Gods with whom I do not have a relationship and whom I do not claim to follow exist based on the evidence that other people have related that they have had spiritual experiences with said Gods that are very different than my experiences with my Gods.

It is not a matter of “believe in” or not “believe in.” Their existence is not dependent upon my belief.

Have you experienced these other gods that you don’t follow?

Only the Christian God and the Jewish God (I have my doubts about whether They are identical, as my experiences differed fairly clearly, as evidently do the experiences of the respective followers of these Gods).

How do you know that you’ve experienced Zeus and not Odin?

How do you know you experience the Christian God and not Zeus?

In all honesty, I don’t think that I can claim to have “experienced” Zeus personally. Hermes, Hera, Hestia, Athena, various spirits of places, yes, some others possibly, but not Zeus directly.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Yet you accept other gods that you don’t believe in!

KarenNC:

I accept that other Gods with whom I do not have a relationship and whom I do not claim to follow exist based on the evidence that other people have related that they have had spiritual experiences with said Gods that are very different than my experiences with my Gods.

Therein is the problem. You might acknowledge Jupiter as the ‘supreme god’, and a Norse pagan accepts Odin. They’re not the same god, because they have different stories behind them.

KarenNC:

It is not a matter of “believe in” or not “believe in.” Their existence is not dependent upon my belief.

But you believe in them all, but only say you’ve experienced one set of gods.

Montalban:

Have you experienced these other gods that you don’t follow?

KarenNC:

Only the Christian God and the Jewish God (I have my doubts about whether They are identical, as my experiences differed fairly clearly, as evidently do the experiences of the respective followers of these Gods).

So you then have more problems because God says he’s the only one. Jupiter says he’s the supreme god. Odin says so too.

Montalban:

How do you know that you’ve experienced Zeus and not Odin?

KarenNC:

How do you know you experience the Christian God and not Zeus?

It’s irrelevant to you whether I have or not. I’m not the one saying “I believe in Jupiter” and “I’ve experienced Jupiter” and “I believe in Odin” and “I have not experienced Odin”. You both accept the existence of a god based on experience, and accept the existence based on lack of experience.

KarenNC:

In all honesty, I don’t think that I can claim to have “experienced” Zeus personally. Hermes, Hera, Hestia, Athena, various spirits of places, yes, some others possibly, but not Zeus directly.

How do you know?

In short you seem to have every argument at once.

You say you’ve experienced (a) God who claims that he’s the only God. And you’ve experienced a god who makes no such claim. You follow one, but not the other. Then you believe in the existence of another ‘supreme god’ who you’ve not yet experienced. Forgive me if this is not crystal clear to me why this is so.

 

[estesbob]

Well he was having an affair with Starbuck but last week he asked his wife for forgiveness. well see how long that lasts! Menawhile he will continue to kick sone cylon rear ebnd!

 

[KarenNC]

Therein is the problem. You might acknowledge Jupiter as the ‘supreme god’, and a Norse pagan accepts Odin. They’re not the same god, because they have different stories behind them.

1. We still haven’t established what you mean by “the supreme god.”
2. No, they aren’t the same God. That’s why it’s called "poly"theism.
3. I don’t worship Jupiter, as you might have noticed if you had read what I have actually written rather than what you think I have written.

But you believe in them all, but only say you’ve experienced one set of gods.

It isn’t a case of “believe in” any more than I “believe in” the postman or librarian. It simply “is.”

So you then have more problems because God says he’s the only one. Jupiter says he’s the supreme god. Odin says so too.

Aha! Now we come to the meat of the matter. No. Please provide evidence that Jupiter or Odin claims to be the sole God of the Universe.

I am a polytheist. This is not a problem for me. This only a problem for a monotheist. That another God or Gods exist(s) is not a threat to the existence of my Gods, because I freely acknowledge that other Gods exist. I am willing to acknowledge that the God of the Christians and the God of the Jews and the God of the Muslims exist (however many of Them that turns out to be), I simply do not believe that He (or any of Them, if they are not indeed the same God) is the only one.

You are trying to make “supreme” mean “only.” I have clearly stated numerous times that I do not believe that any of my Gods are the “only” Gods or, even more, the “only God,” yet you continue to claim that I do. Please re-read my posts to find out what I have actually said.

It’s irrelevant to you whether I have or not.

Okay, I’ll go with that.

** I’m not the one saying “I believe in Jupiter” and “I’ve experienced Jupiter” and “I believe in Odin” and “I have not experienced Odin”. **

Ok. Neither am I.

You both accept the existence of a god based on experience, and accept the existence based on lack of experience.

No. I accept the existence of my Gods based on personal experience. I am also willing to accept that when others claim that they have also had personal experience with a God, that they are as likely as I am to be telling the truth rather than lying. Since those experiences are not only not identical but sometimes vastly different, I reach the conclusion that the explanation that involves the least amount of special pleading is that there are more Gods than one.

You say you’ve experienced (a) God who claims that he’s the only God. And you’ve experienced a god who makes no such claim. You follow one, but not the other. Then you believe in the existence of another ‘supreme god’ who you’ve not yet experienced. Forgive me if this is not crystal clear to me why this is so.

It is the fact that I have had experience with the Christian God, the God of the Jews (during worship services of each of the faiths that follow them) and with the Hellenic Gods that I am a polytheist. These experiences were all distinctly different. I follow the Hellenic Gods because They are the ones that have called to me.

I do not follow the Christian or Jewish God because I have had these experiences, therefore I do not accept claims that either the Christian or Jewish God is the only God out there. Why would I follow a religion in which I did not believe?

You are hung up on the phrase “supreme God” which, btw, is your phrase, not mine. In your usage of that term (now that we’ve finally gotten to what that usage is), no. I do not believe that any God is “the supreme God” ie “the only God.”

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Therein is the problem. You might acknowledge Jupiter as the ‘supreme god’, and a Norse pagan accepts Odin. They’re not the same god, because they have different stories behind them.

KarenNC:

1. We still haven’t established what you mean by “the supreme god.”

Yes, you did. Remember when I mentioned I speak English?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1873754&highlight=english#post1873754
Or does your definition of supreme god change when talking about the same god on different threads? Do we need to re-define it again on this thread? I accept your definition for the purpose of discussion.

KarenNC:

1. No, they aren’t the same God. That’s why it’s called "poly"theism.
2. I don’t worship Jupiter, as you might have noticed if you had read what I have actually written rather than what you think I have written.

I note that you say you have experience of lesser gods within that pantheon. I think you’re arguing with semantics here by saying you don’t worship Jupiter. You follow that pantheon. You believe in Jupiter

Montalban:

But you believe in them all, but only say you’ve experienced one set of gods.

KarenNC:

It isn’t a case of “believe in” any more than I “believe in” the postman or librarian. It simply “is.”

And therefore whether you actually worship Jupiter or not, you believe in Jupiter.

Montalban:

So you then have more problems because God says he’s the only one. Jupiter says he’s the supreme god. Odin says so too.

KarenNC:

Aha! Now we come to the meat of the matter. No. Please provide evidence that Jupiter or Odin claims to be the sole God of the Universe.

Firstly, you defined ‘supreme god’.

In the Greco-Roman pantheon the roles of ‘creator’, ‘supreme god’ etc, are defined. Then in the Norse you’ve got a different ‘creator’, ‘supreme god’, etc. In effect there’s two competing sets of creation myths. There’s several about how the supreme god rules, and what his attributes are, etc.

I am unaware of any ancient Greco-Roman story that allows a person to accept a different ‘supreme god’ apart from Zeus.

It’s further complicated by the fact that the Greco-Romans had different ideas on the nature of heaven, hell and so on. They didn’t (as far as I’m aware) say that if you died you’d go to Valhalla.

KarenNC:

I am a polytheist. This is not a problem for me. This only a problem for a monotheist. That another God or Gods exist(s) is not a threat to the existence of my Gods, because I freely acknowledge that other Gods exist.

It’s not a mere case of them existing. It’s a case of them holding the exact same roles as each other. I could accept in theory that you believe only in the Greco-Roman gods, but you don’t you accept the possibility of other sets of gods.

KarenNC:

I am willing to acknowledge that the God of the Christians and the God of the Jews and the God of the Muslims exist (however many of Them that turns out to be), I simply do not believe that He (or any of Them, if they are not indeed the same God) is the only one.

And, like with the Greco-Roman gods, our God claims to be supreme, and no other gods.

KarenNC:

You are trying to make “supreme” mean “only.” I have clearly stated numerous times that I do not believe that any of my Gods are the “only” Gods or, even more, the “only God,” yet you continue to claim that I do. Please re-read my posts to find out what I have actually said.

I am not saying “ONLY” at all. I accept you believe in Jupiter as ‘supreme god’. But how you accept the possibility of other supreme gods is beyond my understanding.

 

[Montalban]

No. I accept the existence of my Gods based on personal experience. I am also willing to accept that when others claim that they have also had personal experience with a God, that they are as likely as I am to be telling the truth rather than lying. Since those experiences are not only not identical but sometimes vastly different, I reach the conclusion that the explanation that involves the least amount of special pleading is that there are more Gods than one.

And my God claims to be the one and only God. Therefore you accept as valid your Jupiter claiming to be the supreme god of a group of gods, and my God who claims to be the only God.

And this is not a problem for you?

 

[KarenNC]

** Do we need to re-define it again on this thread? I accept your definition for the purpose of discussion.**

Evidently, yes, we do need to re-define, so here goes.

Well, then let’s start by defining terms:

1. Jupiter:
   I am Hellenic, so Jupiter is not the name under which I worship Zeus, so I will assume you mean to ask if I consider Zeus to be “the supreme God” as Zeus stands in the same relationship to the other Hellenic deities that Jupiter does to the Roman ones.

1. the:
   I am presuming here that you mean “the” as in “only.” I am not clear on whether you mean “the supreme God” in my pantheon or “the supreme God” as in the highest or only God, either in existence or worthiness of worship for all of humanity .

1. supreme:
   Merriam Webster definition of “supreme”

1 : highest in rank or authority
2 : highest in degree or quality <supreme endurance in war and in labour – R. W. Emerson>
3 : ULTIMATE, FINAL

Yes, Zeus is the supreme God in my pantheon if we are using the first definition of supreme, as in the highest ranking, but not as in the highest in “quality,” whatever that might mean when applied to a God. This is not surprising as he is identified with the generative force without which nothing else exists or continues to exist.

No, I do not believe that Zeus is the ultimate God, as in rendering irrelevant all other Gods, either in the Hellenic pantheon or any other. I do not believe that He is or should be considered as the only God in existence or worthy of worship.

Let’s work on basic Hellenic theology and define some additional terms. I am a Neopagan Hellenic polytheist. I do not worship Jupiter. Jupiter is a Roman God. I do not worship Jupiter. The Roman and Greek pantheons are not identical. Jupiter and Zeus are not identical. I do not worship Jupiter, and your continued insistence that I do is frankly getting very annoying. Do me the courtesy of accepting that I know which Gods I worship. It makes a difference. I do not worship Jupiter. There was not really a unified “Greco-Roman religion”, any more than there is a unified “Judeo-Christian religion”.

I note that you say you have experience of lesser gods within that pantheon. I think you’re arguing with semantics here by saying you don’t worship Jupiter. You follow that pantheon. You believe in Jupiter

Zeus. Not Jupiter.

Believing in the existence of a God does not automatically lead to worshipping that God. By worship, I mean that I have a relationship with a specific set of Gods. That does not necessarily include or imply that I have a specific relationship with every God in the Hellenic pantheon, nor with every possible God of every possible pantheon. As I have stated, I have had experience of and some relationship with Hermes, Hestia, Athena, and Hera.

I have not had occasion to petition or develop a particular relationship with Zeus that I can remember, any more than I have some of the other Olympians. I acknowledge them and respect them, but have not focused my worship on them to this point. For instance I have poured libations to Poseidon when we have been at the beach, as a thank offering for his hospitality, but that is not the same sort of relationship I have developed with Hermes or Athena.

And therefore whether you actually worship Jupiter or not, you believe in Jupiter.

I acknowledge that Jupiter exists and is a God of the Romans. I acknowledge that Ganesha exists and is a God of the Hindus. I acknowledge that Amaterasu exists and is a God of the Shinto. I acknowledge that the Prime Minister of Australia exists, even though there is a President of the United States and a Prime Minister of Great Britain. I acknowledge that I have a Bradford pear tree in my front yard even though there are also other varieties of trees, both in my yard and in the wider world. I am willing to acknowledge that you exist. To that extent, I “believe” in all of these.

(cont)

 

[KarenNC]

Firstly, you defined ‘supreme god’.

Only because you asked me the question

Do you believe Jupiter is the supreme god?

In order to answer that question, it is necessary that we both understand what the other means by the phrase “the supreme God” else we will continue on a useless hamster wheel of talking at cross purposes and never actually communicate. I have hoped repeatedly that by actually defining terms we might be able to bypass the wheel, though sometimes I feel that is a fruitless hope.

I am also aware of a singing group called Diana Ross and the Supremes. That does not mean that by “supreme God” I believe that my Gods are African-American female backup singers with big hair. Definitions matter.

In the Greco-Roman pantheon the roles of ‘creator’, ‘supreme god’ etc, are defined. Then in the Norse you’ve got a different ‘creator’, ‘supreme god’, etc.

Yes, but I am still waiting for you to provide evidence in any of those three pantheons that Jupiter, Zeus or Odin was defined as “supreme God” in the terms you are using, as the “only God,” either within their own pantheons or in the universe.

** In effect there’s two competing sets of creation myths. There’s several about how the supreme god rules, and what his attributes are, etc.**

Yes. It surprises you that different religions have different sacred stories? Have you read the first two chapters of Genesis? Your own religion has competing creation stories.

You also need to realize that none of these religions (Greek, Roman or Norse) considers their sacred stories to necessarily be literally true or, to the best of my knowledge, the inspired words of the Gods. They definitely do not hold them in the same light that most Christians hold the Bible. They are not sacred texts that define the doctrine or dogma of a religion. They are the record of the experiences of the writers, and of their culture, with the Gods they worshipped.

I am unaware of any ancient Greco-Roman story that allows a person to accept a different ‘supreme god’ apart from Zeus.

There are many stories of people who had a relationship only with a particular God or even with another spirit such as a nymph and did not have a particular worship relationship with Zeus.

It’s further complicated by the fact that the Greco-Romans had different ideas on the nature of heaven, hell and so on. They didn’t (as far as I’m aware) say that if you died you’d go to Valhalla.

Why would they? They were different religions, worshipping different Gods, who were the Gods of their particular people.

It’s not a mere case of them existing. It’s a case of them holding the exact same roles as each other.

Jupiter and Zeus both hold the position of father or king of the Gods of that pantheon.. Do you expect that simply because two countries have a king, prime minister or a president that they then are identical people because there can be only one king, prime minister or president? That both countries will have the same laws, customs, etc, simply because they both have a king, a prime minister or a president?

I have only one father and one mother. That does not mean there is only one father and one mother in the entire world, nor that I don’t “believe” that other people may also have fathers and mothers. In fact, it strengthens my understanding that other people will have individuals that they know as father and mother who are not identical to my father and mother.

I could accept in theory that you believe only in the Greco-Roman gods, but you don’t you accept the possibility of other sets of gods.

Well, it’s generous of you to allow me to believe in my Gods. You might want to extend that to trying to understand that I do not have to do so in the way in which you dictate nor in the way in which you worship or “believe in” your God, especially when I have told you so in great detail many times.

And, like with the Greco-Roman gods, our God claims to be supreme, and no other gods.
???

I am not saying “ONLY” at all. I accept you believe in Jupiter as ‘supreme god’.

That’s kind of you, but I don’t worship Jupiter. He is not a member of my pantheon. I accept that Romans or followers of Roman polytheism will probably describe Jupiter as the leader and most powerful of the Roman pantheon.

** But how you accept the possibility of other supreme gods is beyond my understanding.**

I believe that that is because you are either unwilling or unable to try to look at religion in a way that is not the exact mirror of your own. Monotheism and polytheism are dramatically different worldviews.

 

[KarenNC]

And my God claims to be the one and only God. Therefore you accept as valid your Jupiter claiming to be the supreme god of a group of gods, and my God who claims to be the only God.

And this is not a problem for you?

I said that I acknowledged that your God may well exist. I never said that I considered His claims to be the only God as valid. In fact, I think I have been instead at pains to explain quite clearly that I think exactly the opposite.

 

[Contarini]

Karen,

You would grant, wouldn’t you, that people in the Greco-Roman world tended to identify gods of different pantheons with each other? You may believe that Jupiter and Zeus (and Thor–I forget the name of the god the Romans thought was equivalent among the Celts) are different gods entirely, but people in the ancient world didn’t seem to think this. Or would you argue that the attitude I’m describing was just a form of Roman imperialism and most ancient people didn’t buy it?

Edwin

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

Firstly, you defined ‘supreme god’.

KarenNC:

Only because you asked me the question

Montalban:

Do you believe Jupiter is the supreme god?

I know. You seem confused.

You said

KarenNC:

Aha! Now we come to the meat of the matter. No. Please provide evidence that Jupiter or Odin claims to be the sole God of the Universe.

To which I replied

Montalban:

Firstly, you defined ‘supreme god’.

I never said you said that Odin claims to be the sole god of the universe. I said that you claim to believe in Jupiter as a ‘supreme’ god, and that you respect other ‘supreme’ gods’. The problem is you accept multiple and mutually exclusive claims.

KarenNC:

In order to answer that question, it is necessary that we both understand what the other means by the phrase “the supreme God” else we will continue on a useless hamster wheel of talking at cross purposes and never actually communicate. I have hoped repeatedly that by actually defining terms we might be able to bypass the wheel, though sometimes I feel that is a fruitless hope.

I told you, I accept your definition.

KarenNC:

I am also aware of a singing group called Diana Ross and the Supremes. That does not mean that by “supreme God” I believe that my Gods are African-American female backup singers with big hair. Definitions matter.

Ludicrous examples aside, I’ve stated for several days now that I accept the definition you gave. You defined ‘supreme god’. I accept that definition. You keep asking me to give my definition in order to protract this thread into a tedious event of you avoiding answering the problem I posed to you of how do you accept mutually exclusive gods.

Montalban:

In the Greco-Roman pantheon the roles of ‘creator’, ‘supreme god’ etc, are defined. Then in the Norse you’ve got a different ‘creator’, ‘supreme god’, etc.

KarenNC:

Yes, but I am still waiting for you to provide evidence in any of those three pantheons that Jupiter, Zeus or Odin was defined as “supreme God” in the terms you are using, as the “only God,” either within their own pantheons or in the universe.

I never NEVER NEVER said that Odin is the only god in his pantheon. I said that Odin is, within his pantheon the supreme god. I accept that there are other gods within the belief system of the Norse pagans.

Montalban:

In effect there’s two competing sets of creation myths. There’s several about how the supreme god rules, and what his attributes are, etc.

KarenNC:

Yes. It surprises you that different religions have different sacred stories? Have you read the first two chapters of Genesis? Your own religion has competing creation stories.

Let me try this in painfully simple terms.

Pantheon A: god ‘x’ is the creator god. When you die you go to ‘heaven 1’
Pantheon B: god ‘y’ is the creator god. When you die you go to ‘heaven 2’

Both stories attribute different attributes to their ‘creator god’. Pantheon A might have a creator ‘goddess’. Pantheon B might have a creator partnership of two brothers.

Both concepts of ‘heaven’ differ. ‘Heaven 2’ is a place only warriors go to. ‘Heaven 1’ is a place where honest and pious people go to

Both are therefore in competition because they are making exclusive claims that exclude the other story.

Yet you happily accept the possibility of both.

I said that I acknowledged that your God may well exist. I never said that I considered His claims to be the only God as valid. In fact, I think I have been instead at pains to explain quite clearly that I think exactly the opposite.

He says he’s the only God.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen,
You would grant, wouldn’t you, that people in the Greco-Roman world tended to identify gods of different pantheons with each other? You may believe that Jupiter and Zeus (and Thor–I forget the name of the god the Romans thought was equivalent among the Celts) are different gods entirely, but people in the ancient world didn’t seem to think this. Or would you argue that the attitude I’m describing was just a form of Roman imperialism and most ancient people didn’t buy it?

Edwin

I think that the best answer is “it depends.” Depends on the God, depends on the person, depends on the culture, depends on the time period. It is a fair and very complex question.

There is more evidence for that among the Romans than among the Greeks, though it is not unknown there. Sometimes foreign Gods were absorbed into the general pantheon, sometimes only worshipped by individuals alongside the more usual pantheon as private worship, and sometimes they were seen as a different aspect of the same God.

It is further complicated by the fact that the same God was not necessarily seen as exactly identical in different areas of the same culture. The Athena of Athens was not identical to the Athena of Sparta, for instance. The cultic practices of the two areas for Athena were different, and the cultic practices in other areas also had differences.

Different Gods had different epithets/attributes/roles as well, and one could sometimes see that there was a combination of names of Gods that shared some same attributes or roles. In the case of Sulis Minerva, for instance, I don’t know of any association of Sulis with warriors as Minerva was, though she was associated with crafts as was Minerva. Minerva was associated with commerce, which was Hermes sphere of influence in Greece rather than Athena.

It’s worth remembering, also, as you have noted that there is some difference between ancient practice and modern theology. I think it is not unlikely that the stricter view of the Gods as individuals may show up more starkly in modern theology in Western civilization since we are operating against a backdrop of monotheism rather than polytheism, as the ancients did.

 

[KarenNC]

Montalban, this has become patently absurd

You believe that your God is the only God and that what He says is true.

Fine.

I believe that there are many Gods. I believe that what your God claims about his singularity or what His followers claim He claims about this is incorrect as it does not mesh with my experiences. I know what my experiences with my Gods have been, and I base my religion on that. I believe that everyone ultimately does.

Frankly, it does not matter to me if there are 50 different Gods all claiming that each and every one of them is The One True God ™. It doesn’t matter if God A has 50 followers who say He’s right and they have stories and a book to provie it and God B has 5 million followers who say He’s right and they have stories and a book to prove it. I wouldn’t believe that any of them were accurate or that I was any more obliged to do so than if there were only one claiming such.

It does not matter to me if Group C says their pantheon is the best and has the coolest Gods and Group D makes the same claim, or that Group D says that 15% of their Gods are the same as Group C’s Gods.

It honestly makes absolutely no difference to my life in the end whether you agree with me, understand me or think I am crazy, so I am getting off the hamster wheel now and reclaiming my sanity.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”–
Albert Einstein

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, this has become patently absurd

That’s the problem with paganism as you practice it; claiming to believe in everything at once.

You believe that your God is the only God and that what He says is true.

Fine.

I believe that there are many Gods. I believe that what your God claims about his singularity or what His followers claim He claims about this is incorrect as it does not mesh with my experiences. I know what my experiences with my Gods have been, and I base my religion on that. I believe that everyone ultimately does.

It’s not just that my God claims to be the only God. The Norse have a ‘supreme god’ who’s the king of the gods who’s a different god from the god the Greco-Romans claim is the supreme god and king of the gods.

It’s akin to person “A” claiming to be president of the United States, and person “B” making the same claim. And then you saying “I recognise person “A” to be the president BUT I also recognise person “B”, even if I don’t follow him”.

You keep re-working my objection to one of claiming that there must be only one god. I don’t make this claim at all - although I believe there is only one, what I believe is irrelevant to your beliefs and you believe in the concept of mutually exclusive gods. Even the fact you accept the possibility of my God, even if you reject the claim that he is the supreme god leaves one asking, where does he fit into your pantheon?

Is my God simply one of your gods by another name?

And therein is the problem about experience which you think everyone else follows. This is false. Although I might be wrong about my God, the fact that I believe in one God is more logical than your system of saying you believe in a Greco-Roman pantheon, a Norse pantheon, AND my God too! (even if you have a different concept of my God; or even if my concept of my God is incorrect it still doesn’t detract from the fact you seem to accept my God as a distinc God from your pantheon of gods).

And we’ve not even delved into the notions of a ‘god’ that was created after the universe, and can die, as Greco-Roman gods can. But we’re having so much problem with me saying one thing and you reading this as quite a different argument.

Simply put I find it strange that you can accept multiple PANTHEONS (not just multiple gods within a pantheon, which would make more sense).