The Gods--All of them! (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 28, 2010, 05:33 (5110 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I've recently been reading a translation of the Illiad; and what a profound difference it is, contrasting with the morality of the New Testament... A man loves his enemy as his equal... there is no call to God to destroy one's adversaries... in fact, the Gods often interject where it is unnecessary!
> > 
> 
> You mean it(the Illiad) is different than the 'turn the other cheek' and 'love thy neighbor as thy self' philosophy of the NT? 
> -...I'm not aware of another version!!! Truly, no account of Gods is as breathtaking or energetic!!!-> > It was once possible for a man to strive for Olympus! In fact, Alexander the Great was just such a man, driven by love of his mother to be the son of Zeus. Contrast this son of God; to Heracles; and then to Christ. Which is more noble--and why? (This is a deep question I pose to you... I find satisfaction in all!)
> > 
> 
> It still is possible for a man to strive for Olympus, it is simply that no one can really be bothered to anymore. You can not lay the blame for an individual's weakness at the feet of someone/thing and claim to respect the philosophy of the Illiad in the same breath. It is contradictory. 
> -Our society admires meekness first; strength second. Outside of business, I fail to see where my statement fails to hold!-> In my opinion, though they all are noble in various ways, I think I find the story of Christ to be the noblest. Alexander was convinced that he was something he was not and led his armies to conquer the known world. While I recognize that as a grand accomplishment, and(strangely) a necessary evil that(possibly)lead to a better era for mankind, I believe that his motivations were selfish aggrandizement, power, and riches and that lessens him in my eyes. Heracles had phenomenal strength, and was able to perform fantastic feats. He also murdered his tutor, succumbed to madness and killed his children, impregnated countless women, and had countless more male lovers, all of which speaks to me of a lack of self control. In Christ however, I see a teacher, a faithful friend, who is not immune to rage when something he holds dear is abused (the temple scene where he thrashes the money lenders), generous but not stupid about it, not obsessed with wealth, power, and loose living. One area I disagree with you though is that his sacrifice represented weakness. I think it showed a great depth of personal courage.
> -It did, but our society seems entrenched in a cycle of "democracy of thought" to the point where suggesting that one child is superior to another is anathema... truly, some children are destined for greatness, while others will rot in history. -> 
> > 
> > But the genealogy is this: When God was clearly representative of psychological states... how does God become an explanation for the universe? When we go back to Genesis, only 2 of 50 chapters is devoted to creation; clearly, this was NOT the overarching goal of the book. God was NOT the center of the world in THAT way. God was something deeper... more... delicatesse!
> 
>.... The creation process is almost incidental to the overall story, which is why it was given so little attention. Like most things, we tend to obsess on the incidental bits and ignore the big friggin' signs that say this bit is important. (For example We have been obsessing over Christ's birth since the church was formed, yet the bible never gives his birth date, year, sign, or any other indication that it was supposed to be a 'special' event worth spending your annual income on gifts over :P)
> -A good piece of writing--not sure how it answers my question, but I acknowledge what you say with nods! The only exception I have here is this: The Bible does NOT exist as a single, contiguous work with a true beginning and end; each book is itself sacrosanct, and there is no overarching narrative that binds each chapter. In fact, I find no mention of Christ in Genesis, in either my NRSV or Jewish Bible study editions; you must admit here, the hand of Paul in his reinterpretation of Jewish history to suit his own ends... Early Christians notoriously Cherry-picked lesser prophets for proof of Christ. -> > 
> > I leave you with this question: Why do we only value our weak gods?
> 
> We don't only value weak gods. We have just learned that strength is not measured by the fleshy mass of a mans arm, nor by the keen edges of his sword and spear, but by force of his character and resolve, and the strength of his love. Heracles wasn't strong because of his muscles, and Jesus wasn't weak because of his lack of them. If that were the case, why did Heracles have to keep falling back on his wits to save him?-You move to the morals rather than the intent; clever from a holistic view, but I'm more concerned with intent!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"