Hellenic Polytheism

[Fuzzy]

Either way, my position still stands, Thor couldn't drink the ocean of beer without my God's permission. Therefore, my God deserves the praise, not Thor. Any problem with this?

To a limited degree, yes, because I do not believe in the supreme or absolute authority of your God. But I'm not going to argue it further. That's not what this forum is for.

Deukal may come back with some other stance entirely, too.

 

[Glorthac]

Yea, but then we go back to the original argument with Deukal, that there has to be a greatest, because whatever contains everything has all the power of everything...

Anyway, this is my argument against polytheism. Then its just a matter of monotheism, and I think the LORD is the true God.

 

[sidhe]

Oh, so its not morality as much as extraordinary acts. Either way, my position still stands, Thor couldn't drink the ocean of beer without my God's permission. Therefore, my God deserves the praise, not Thor. Any problem with this?

I really like these conversations, they help us understand our differences and bring us closer together.

Ooh, can I qabalize this?

If you set up your G-d as the One Overarching Source (Kether), then it isn't necessarily a matter of permission, but that Thor, as an emanation of the One Source (probably, as a warrior-god, Geburah), represents the aspect of Kether that could drink an ocean of beer. However, due to the reflective nature, ultimately your G-d would only be a reflection of the leadership and ruling qualities of Thor. Each thing contains every other thing.

However, there would remain, qabalistically, the nothingness out of which the One came...so, there's still something beyond your G-d.

Qabalistic polytheism ftw...

 

[Fuzzy]

Yea, but then we go back to the original argument with Deukal, that there has to be a greatest, because whatever contains everything has all the power of everything...

That sounds an awful lot like pantheism.

 

[Deukal]

Yea, but then we go back to the original argument with Deukal, that there has to be a greatest, because whatever contains everything has all the power of everything...

Anyway, this is my argument against polytheism. Then its just a matter of monotheism, and I think the LORD is the true God.

And to me, such is the fundamental dissagreement of monotheists and polytheists

 

[Glorthac]

Ooh, can I qabalize this?

If you set up your G-d as the One Overarching Source (Kether), then it isn't necessarily a matter of permission, but that Thor, as an emanation of the One Source (probably, as a warrior-god, Geburah), represents the aspect of Kether that could drink an ocean of beer. However, due to the reflective nature, ultimately your G-d would only be a reflection of the leadership and ruling qualities of Thor. Each thing contains every other thing.

However, there would remain, qabalistically, the nothingness out of which the One came...so, there's still something beyond your G-d.

Qabalistic polytheism ftw...

Excellent teaching, only my G-d (or Source/Kethar as you say) doesn't need His emanation (in this situation, Thor, but not in reality) to do anything (in this situation, drinking the ocean of beer, but not in reality), He can do everything without the emanations.

Therefore, my G-d is not only a reflection of the qualities of His emanations (in this situation, Thor, but not in reality), He is much more than His emanations.

And also, if there was a "nothingness", I wouldn't worship the One, I would worship the "nothingness". Of course, I deny the "nothingness", I think my G-d always has been, He never came from anywhere.

And if you'd like, we can discuss the "each thing containing every other thing", I've discussed this with one of my disciples.

 

[Glorthac]

That sounds an awful lot like pantheism.

I disagree with Pantheism because I believe God is not the universe, He just encompasses it and thus contains its power. This is why we say God is omnipresent. And, of course, He is personal.

Anyway, why don't yall accept my theory over yours?

 

[sidhe]

Excellent teaching, only my G-d (or Source/Kethar as you say) doesn't need His emanation (in this situation, Thor, but not in reality) to do anything (in this situation, drinking the ocean of beer, but not in reality), He can do everything without the emanations.

Therefore, my G-d is not only a reflection of the qualities of His emanations (in this situation, Thor, but not in reality), He is much more than His emanations.

And also, if there was a "nothingness", I wouldn't worship the One, I would worship the "nothingness". Of course, I deny the "nothingness", I think my G-d always has been, He never came from anywhere.

And if you'd like, we can discuss the "each thing containing every other thing", I've discussed this with one of my disciples.

Then you maintain your G-d is the nothingness, which is a reasonable cosmology. As it's all symbolic of ineffable concepts, it doesn't make any difference what name you refer to the nothingness by. However, the second you say "This is the nothing", then you've started categorizing. Simply by working within a trinitarian framework you have categorized deity - G-d is this, that, and the other, separate but complete within themselves. If Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can each be distinct, yet G-d, then denying that G-d can also be Thor, Freyja, Zeus, AShRH, Inanna, Medb, etc. is saying - in essence - that there are things which G-d cannot do. I don't place limits on Her, personally. G-d Herself is capable of whatever She so chooses. Personally, I hold to a primary Quadrinity of archetypal deties, and find most fit within those stylings. Father-Mother-Son-Daughter generally fleshes out the cosmos.

Also, I've been face-deep in spiked eggnog today, so my metaphysics are loose.

 

[Fuzzy]

I disagree with Pantheism because I believe God is not the universe, He just encompasses it and thus contains its power. This is why we say God is omnipresent. And, of course, He is personal.

So you're a panentheist?

Anyway, why don't yall accept my theory over yours?

Personal experience of the divine, both immanent and transcendent.

Why should I accept yours?

And this is all an intellectual exercise, of course. I'm not trying to convince y'all of anything. Just people talking.

 

[Deukal]

So a god is a god if he does something extraordinarily moral? I guess you can define god however you want, but I refuse to worship someone just because he's done something good.

I worship my God because He's the greatest. Because my God is the greatest, even if your gods existed, they wouldn't be able to do their moral deed without His permission, and therefore, my God deserves the honor, not yours.

(And I hope you understand why I'm coming down so hard on yall, I want you to realize where I'm coming from)

Please, understand that in my belief, The Gods control the universe. They do extraordinary things. They arent below the universe you define as the Monotheistic God. They ARE the universe.

And i do not worship my Gods because i feel that what they do is neccessarily "good"

Anyway, why don't yall accept my theory over yours?

Id love to learn more about your theory and begin to understand it, but im not going to convert completely over to it without me seeing proper cause im my view.

 

[sidhe]

I disagree with Pantheism because I believe God is not the universe, He just encompasses it and thus contains its power. This is why we say God is omnipresent. And, of course, He is personal.

Anyway, why don't yall accept my theory over yours?

Because, yours makes numerous a priori assumptions - namely, that the Christian G-d is the ultimate source. I reject your reality, and substitute my own - something is the ultimate source. I call it "Nuit", but "AShRH" also works.

 

[sidhe]

Also, on the personal front - doesn't get much more personal than the "Black Mother" archetype.

People keep on sayin' that Jesus is Lord
He'll take me in the rapture
He'll come with a sword
Preachers on TV say that I'm livin' wrong
But I've tasted the lips of sweet Babalon...

 

[Aesjn]

Oh, so its not morality as much as extraordinary acts. Either way, my position still stands, Thor couldn't drink the ocean of beer without my God's permission. Therefore, my God deserves the praise, not Thor. Any problem with this?

Well, there is the problem that such a statement is not substantiated. You can say all you want "He cannot... unless my god allows so." but it is unsubstantiated so it's sort of entirely meaningless.

 

[Aesjn]

Excellent teaching, only my G-d (or Source/Kethar as you say) doesn't need His emanation (in this situation, Thor, but not in reality) to do anything (in this situation, drinking the ocean of beer, but not in reality), He can do everything without the emanations.

Therefore, my G-d is not only a reflection of the qualities of His emanations (in this situation, Thor, but not in reality), He is much more than His emanations.

And also, if there was a "nothingness", I wouldn't worship the One, I would worship the "nothingness". Of course, I deny the "nothingness", I think my G-d always has been, He never came from anywhere.

And if you'd like, we can discuss the "each thing containing every other thing", I've discussed this with one of my disciples.

Soon as anyone says "one of my disciples", especially if they're a 19 year old Catholic I have to say "Whaaat?"

 

[Aesjn]

Hmmm... if Zeus is the greatest, why do you call the others gods? Because their parents are gods? What makes their parents gods? Because you've been told so?

Because to the people that experienced them they were Godly, and they had no reason to think they were anything else.

 

[Aesjn]

Personally I think Hellenismos or Hellenic paganism or whatever you want to call is definitely interesting and worthy of merit. It was part of a culture which spawned basically our entire western civilization. It was the first culture that we know of that praised reason. It was, really, nothing like what people think of as today. For one thing they did not believe in the myths as literal history, nor did they all even think they were good - in fact many of them criticized mythology as impious and immoral works of poets. So while people today sit around saying how silly it was and how immoral the Greeks were to believe Zeus, the king of the gods, was running around having sex with everything and everyone and cheating on his wife, the reality is the most pious of people didn't believe such things and the people that composed such ideas probably didn't believe in the reality of the gods at all.

 

[sidhe]

Soon as anyone says "one of my disciples", especially if they're a 19 year old Catholic I have to say "Whaaat?"

I noticed that too, just didn't want to say anything.

 

[Glorthac]

Then you maintain your G-d is the nothingness, which is a reasonable cosmology. As it's all symbolic of ineffable concepts, it doesn't make any difference what name you refer to the nothingness by. However, the second you say "This is the nothing", then you've started categorizing. Simply by working within a trinitarian framework you have categorized deity - G-d is this, that, and the other, separate but complete within themselves. If Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can each be distinct, yet G-d, then denying that G-d can also be Thor, Freyja, Zeus, AShRH, Inanna, Medb, etc. is saying - in essence - that there are things which G-d cannot do. I don't place limits on Her, personally. G-d Herself is capable of whatever She so chooses. Personally, I hold to a primary Quadrinity of archetypal deties, and find most fit within those stylings. Father-Mother-Son-Daughter generally fleshes out the cosmos.

Also, I've been face-deep in spiked eggnog today, so my metaphysics are loose.

I guess if you define Thor, Freyja, Zeus, etc. the way we define the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then we're not discussing Hellenic polytheism anymore but Hellenic Polytarian Monotheism. And in that case, I'm cool, I'm only arguing against polytheism.

After all, we believe the 3 persons are consubstantial with the 1 divine nature that is the only G-d, so if the parallel exists, then there are multiple persons (Thor, Freyja, Zeus, etc.) within the 1 divine nature that is the only G-d, and then its no longer polytheism, but Hellenic Polytarian Monotheism.

But if you are supporting Hellenic polytheism, then the parallel is invalid, and my argument continues: "Wouldn't the true G-d be the Being that contains the certain "pieces" each of the g-ds have?"

And thus, my 1 G-d can be the one who contains everything, but the multiple g-ds cannot contain everything, they being contained by their surroundings.

But I don't know, why is it wrong to say "This is the nothing" (although I deny my G-d is "nothing", I don't believe there is a "nothing" from whence the One came from, as you said)?

And I don' think I've denied that G-d can also be Thor, Freyja, Zeus, etc. I've only said there cannot be polytheism due to the greatest is always superior to the parts in which it contains. And this is so because of logic (which we can go over its self-evidence). So surely, G-d can destroy logic, He being omnipotent, but the fact that He didn't shows He supports it for a point, to lead us to truth, which leads us to my main argument again: "Wouldn't the true G-d be the Being that contains the certain "pieces" each of the g-ds have?"

And I'd like to hear about your Quadrinity of archetypal deities thing, it intrigues me.

 

[Glorthac]

So you're a panentheist?

The idea that the universe is the revealed part of God I disagree with. Panentheism is very close.

 

[christian78]

Even God mentions there being other gods.

Which is defined as anything you spend or dedicate wholy to or put before him. Those are your gods. Not other supreme beings.