Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quid est Veritas?" data-source="post: 71569247" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>The Hittites seem to have adopted mostly Hurrian gods, or at least their nomenclature.</p><p>It is however wrong to think Indo-Europeans didn't 'look' upon their gods. We see myths of Apollo and Marsyas or Aphrodite and Paris that firmly show this. On the opposite end, we see Semele and perhaps Psyche. Determining the relative 'ancientness' of myths is very difficult, as Hesiod and so forth are our first sources for them, and are first written down largely contemporaneously with the Iliad. So we really can't make that argument.</p><p>Polytheism tends to be non-dogmatic, so diverse and often contradictory myths occur, so the idea that people necessarily couldn't look upon their gods is quite wrong. It can be argued that the gods limit their brilliance for the mortals perhaps? This is what I would argue with Semele's myth.</p><p></p><p>The Norse did make statues. The Sagas are full of them and on Christianisation, they were destroyed and the sacred groves cut down. There is a famous story of Charlemagne cutting down the Irmensul pillar or King Olaf cleansing his realm of idols on conversion. At Birka there was supposedly a large circle of statues of the gods, roughly hewn from wood and stone.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, associating bright with the gods is not just Indo-European. The Cuneiform sign for An, also used as a determinitive for 'god', looks sort of like an asterisk, and likely means 'bright' or 'shining' originally, perhaps referencing a star. Again though, that is a conjectural reconstruction as we do not have a comparative language for Sumerian, being a language isolate.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have been upfront that it is suppositional, which is why it is not really seen as a formal part of the historic narrative.</p><p></p><p></p><p>On occasion for specific topics. I am a strong believer in reading original sources instead of other people talking about them. Don't tell me that Livy said this, I'd rather read what Livy himself said and then read your commentary.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 71569247, member: 385144"] The Hittites seem to have adopted mostly Hurrian gods, or at least their nomenclature. It is however wrong to think Indo-Europeans didn't 'look' upon their gods. We see myths of Apollo and Marsyas or Aphrodite and Paris that firmly show this. On the opposite end, we see Semele and perhaps Psyche. Determining the relative 'ancientness' of myths is very difficult, as Hesiod and so forth are our first sources for them, and are first written down largely contemporaneously with the Iliad. So we really can't make that argument. Polytheism tends to be non-dogmatic, so diverse and often contradictory myths occur, so the idea that people necessarily couldn't look upon their gods is quite wrong. It can be argued that the gods limit their brilliance for the mortals perhaps? This is what I would argue with Semele's myth. The Norse did make statues. The Sagas are full of them and on Christianisation, they were destroyed and the sacred groves cut down. There is a famous story of Charlemagne cutting down the Irmensul pillar or King Olaf cleansing his realm of idols on conversion. At Birka there was supposedly a large circle of statues of the gods, roughly hewn from wood and stone. Anyway, associating bright with the gods is not just Indo-European. The Cuneiform sign for An, also used as a determinitive for 'god', looks sort of like an asterisk, and likely means 'bright' or 'shining' originally, perhaps referencing a star. Again though, that is a conjectural reconstruction as we do not have a comparative language for Sumerian, being a language isolate. I have been upfront that it is suppositional, which is why it is not really seen as a formal part of the historic narrative. On occasion for specific topics. I am a strong believer in reading original sources instead of other people talking about them. Don't tell me that Livy said this, I'd rather read what Livy himself said and then read your commentary. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
Top
Bottom