Greek gods

Return to Olympus

Boarding the number 191 bus to Ponders End, Samuel was somewhat surprised to discover three Greek gods sitting on the back seat. Taking a seat himself towards the front, Samuel was rather cross the gods should be using public transport at all, clearly intended for mortal beings. Now, part of him could accept Poseidon taking a ride, being as he was outside of his watery element but everyone knew Nike had her own chariot. And what the heck was Hermes doing there? As the messenger god, he really should have his own transport. Of course, Samuel didn’t say a word.

After all, questioning gods as to their purposes has been known to result in catastrophe.

@secondson said
After all, questioning gods as to their purposes has been known to result in catastrophe.

I had a conversation recently with a friend who made the observation that believing in more than one God circumnavigated the problem I had with the Christian God being both all-powerful and perfectly loving, and yet allowing evil to exist. (Yes, I do sometimes discuss religion away from RHP). His point was that polytheism allowed the believer to separate divine qualities and in so doing, avoid contradictions in character.

Perhaps the Greeks knew what they were doing?

today i schmoozed with the god of laundry and learned the hazards of too much bleach

never tempt the god of laundry

yer socks are at risk

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I had a conversation recently with a friend who made the observation that believing in more than one God circumnavigated the problem I had with the Christian God being both all-powerful and perfectly loving, and yet allowing evil to exist. (Yes, I do sometimes discuss religion away from RHP). His point was that polytheism allowed the believer to separate divine qualit ...[text shortened]... in so doing, avoid contradictions in character.

Perhaps the Greeks knew what they were doing?

How is it a contradiction in character for an all-powerful and perfectly loving God to allow evil to exist?

It may be paradoxical, but it's not a contradiction. It may be perplexing, but circumstantially reasonable.

Number one, God didn't cause evil. That was another character that did that.

Number two, God knew, before He had made anything, what would happen, and caused the necessary events to occur that will eventually, in time, correct the problem of evil.

Number three, God is infallible and His purposes are inerrant, therefore any apparent contradiction falls exclusively upon the fallible, errant and prone to failure, confused and irrational, finite beings humans are.

Number four, God knows and understands all this, and in spite of ourselves, has made a way out.

Number five, the issue is not open to negotiation. The entire matter is answered and resolved on God's terms.

Number six, Jesus Christ is God's solution to the problem of evil, which will cease to exist, in God's time, and everything will be restored to its original state and purpose.

Number seven, be there. It's not far off.

Number eight, pure unadulterated logic engenders reason. Unanswerable questions causes confusion and mental unrest, which causes doubt, and generates more questions with no answers, but instead causes one to question the veracity and holy character of his maker.

That, is what evil is, and does.

@secondson said
Number eight, pure unadulterated logic engenders reason. Unanswerable questions causes confusion and mental unrest, which causes doubt, and generates more questions with no answers, but instead causes one to question the veracity and holy character of his maker.

Religions like Christianity offer their adherents narratives and doctrines based on their supposedly "revealed" answers to "unanswerable questions". To my non-religionist way of thinking, questioning the veracity and character of God figures is a healthy thing to do for religionists and non-religionists alike.

@fmf said
To my non-religionist way of thinking, questioning the veracity and character of God figures is a healthy thing to do for religionists and non-religionists alike.

And to my "non-religionist" way of thinking the veracity and character of God is beyond question. Questioning God's character and veracity reveals the iniquitous nature of man's fallen state, and makes apparent his propensity for irrational and illogical perspectives.

It is logical and rational to know that God's character and veracity is without question. To imagine that God is anything other than absolute and immutable is testimony of irrational and illogical thought first and foremost, and is clear evidence that one knows not God.

@secondson said
It is logical and rational to know that God's character and veracity is without question. To imagine that God is anything other than absolute and immutable is testimony of irrational and illogical thought first and foremost, and is clear evidence that one knows not God.

Humans have been imagining and worshipping Gods with all manner of characters and attributes presumably since prehistoric times.

For you to assert that only your your belief - in the God figure that you happen to worship - is "rational and logical", that beliefs that deviate from that are "irrational and illogical", and that there is "no question" about all this, pertains only to your certainty about your religious beliefs and your state of mind when interacting with people who don't share them, it doesn't bolster whatever you are claiming about a creator being.

@secondson said
And to my "non-religionist" way of thinking the veracity and character of God is beyond question.

You are not a non-religionist. You are the absolute epitome of a religionist. Your assertions about what is or is not "beyond question" describe how sure you are about the things you have faith in and all the subjective opinions attendant thereto. Your certainty does not reinforce or strengthen the veracity of the assertions you make.

@fmf said
Humans have been imagining and worshipping Gods with all manner of characters and attributes presumably since prehistoric times.

For you to assert that only your your belief - in the God figure that you happen to worship - is "rational and logical", that beliefs that deviate from that are "irrational and illogical", and that there is "no question" about all this, pertains onl ...[text shortened]... ith people who don't share them, it doesn't bolster whatever you are claiming about a creator being.

You missed the point.

Just because you say what you say, it doesn't "bolster" your argument either.

You do not know, by your own admission, whether this god or that god exists one way or another.

So your assertions of denial about the validity of my assertions that my God has those attributes of immutability, infallibility and absolute veracity are nothing more than your opinions, opinions based in uncertainty, caused by the lack of accurate knowledge and spiritual truth.

I base my assertions and beliefs about the nature and character of God on the words written in a book that are inspired of God.

You don't have a rational argument to refute it. Only doubt and excuses.

@secondson said
Number eight, pure unadulterated logic engenders reason. Unanswerable questions causes confusion and mental unrest, which causes doubt, and generates more questions with no answers, but instead causes one to question the veracity and holy character of his maker.

Yikes.

Here's a curve ball for you.

One could use their faith in God to believe He could guide them through the confusion and mental unrest. Those things are not inherently bad. They are a sign of Spiritual growth about to happen, even.

This is exactly what I talked about in my "Belief Wrestling vs. Certitude" thread.

@fmf said
You are not a non-religionist. You are the absolute epitome of a religionist.

You apparently don't understand what a religionist is.

What I am is relative to a relationship with the living God.

A religionist is one that has ritual without substance, rites without purpose and tradition without merit. He has external practice, but no internal reality.

A religionist is one wholly dependent on his own physical efforts and mental rationale to ascertain truth and practice.

A religionist is one that says one thing, but does another, and is so cocksure of his own self that he can't imagine that God is the only one that is omniscient and is the source of all knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

And an extreme-religionist is one that questions the truthfulness of God, and goes so far as to deny the existence of the God of Truth.

@secondson said
So your assertions of denial about the validity of my assertions that my God has those attributes of immutability, infallibility and absolute veracity are nothing more than your opinions, opinions based in uncertainty, caused by the lack of accurate knowledge and spiritual truth.

Well, be that as it may. But regardless of how vehement your certainty about the accuracy and veracity of what you believe, all any of us is us is doing here is sharing our personal opinions.

@bigdoggproblem said
Yikes.

Here's a curve ball for you.

One could use their faith in God to believe He could guide them through the confusion and mental unrest. Those things are not inherently bad. They are a sign of Spiritual growth about to happen, even.

This is exactly what I talked about in my "Belief Wrestling vs. Certitude" thread.

Of course, but you've swerved out of context.

@secondson said
You apparently don't understand what a religionist is.

A religionist is quite simply a person who adheres to a religion.