The Gods--All of them! (Religion)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 05, 2010, 07:21 (5100 days ago) @ xeno6696

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!
> -I think there is a lot of room for it in our society. Great Scientist, great soldiers, but on a smaller level, even the man that simply goes to work every day, and doesn't cave in to the various pressures of society but holds his own moral code achieves an unsung greatness. The fatal flaw in your logic is that you seem to mingle 'strength and greatness of a character' with 'notoriety, popularity, and influence'. These have little to do with each other. In fact, many of the most prominent historical figures never achieved a lot of notoriety in their own time. Particularly those working in more obscure fields such as science, art, mathematics, medicine, etc. I would dare say that Buddha was not as tremendously famous in his own lifetime as he is now. And there is no denying the influence that he has had on civilization around the globe. What about the man who invented steel? Know one even knows his name, but think of what a profound impact he has had on human development. (We do know that it was invented in India and written about in the Vedas. Allegedly, a steel sword was presented to Alexander when he invaded.)-> 
> 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. 
> -
Our society is afraid of inequality, and afraid to admit their own ineptitudes. This is not anything knew, nor is it anything unusual. People have historically always been this way, the have not's are jealous and envious of the Have's and the haves are contemptuous of the Have-not's. (applies equally to money, fame, intelligence, strength etc.) Think of the geek who wishes he was built like a jock to impress women, or the jock who wishes he was smarter when he is failing his classes, the ugly girl who wishes she was pretty, or the pretty girl that wishes she were something else entirely. It is a classic case of the grass is always greener. So, we try to force everyone into the same mold. It is a travesty, I agree, but that is the price of a democratic society. Where everyone is equal, no one is special. But this idea, this fear is not representative of reality. Some people will excel regardless of society, and some will fail no matter how many helping hands they receive.- 
> 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. 
> -If you find no common thread throughout the Bible then I would suggest you reread it. Genesis 3:15 specifically is talking about Christ, Son of Man, (Her Seed) and Satan and his demons (Your(His)seed). Satan bruised Christ's 'heel' by his temporary physical death, and Christ will bruise his 'head' by his permanent destruction outlined in revelation. That is the ultimate overall narrative of the Bible. Everything else is a setup for those events. The forming of the nation of Israel from which Christ was supposed to descend from, to his ministry, to his death and resurrection, to Armageddon(sp?). -> > > 
> > > 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!-Character and resolve are not moral grounds, neither are wits, though I can see where you might think a love of your fellow man might be. Intent is nothing. I have intended to do so many things with my life that I have not accomplished that if I am not allowed to die before they are completed I will be immortal. Resolve in the will to make intent into reality regardless of the obstacles, and Character is what shapes our intent, while our compassion for our fellow man keeps it from being self-serving.