There are no polytheists in the West.

[Quintessence]

Ares is not an immature child. But as perhaps the most misunderstood major god of the Greek pantheon, I'm never particularly surprised when people talk **** about him.

Anyone who is actually interested in a farier appraisal of the guy should head over to the Aspis of Ares blog. He pretty well covers why our culture loves to talk **** about him, too. We hate and fear what he represents, and instead of bothering to understand and revere it, we just run away from it. Now that's what I'd call being an immature little child. Well, maybe that's not the right way to put it. It is better to say the lessons Ares has to teach are completely lost on most Americans who live fat, spoiled lives isolated from the harsher aspects of reality.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ares is not an immature child. But as perhaps the most misunderstood major god of the Greek pantheon, I'm never particularly surprised when people talk **** about him.

Anyone who is actually interested in a farier appraisal of the guy should head over to the Aspis of Ares blog. He pretty well covers why our culture loves to talk **** about him, too. We hate and fear what he represents, and instead of bothering to understand and revere it, we just run away from it. Now that's what I'd call being an immature little child. Well, maybe that's not the right way to put it. It is better to say the lessons Ares has to teach are completely lost on most Americans who live fat, spoiled lives isolated from the harsher aspects of reality.

Hardly. It's what I've read about him and his behavior. If there are lessons from what I've described, it's "don't be like this."

I'm taking a brief look at that blog, and I'm not really seeing anything. Could you direct me to the specific articles you are thinking of?

In any case, I much prefer Athena, who is Goddess of War and Wisdom, which tells me her method of warfare would almost certainly be more effective than Ares'.

'Sides, I'm hardly fat. I'm actually quite underweight.

 

[Quintessence]

The article on strength that's currently on the first page?

Also:

Now, let’s bring this back to Ares. Ares in the ancient world was probably the least-loved god of them all. Ares embodied conflict, from the noble to the spiteful. Conflict didn’t sit well with people, and definitely does not today. I’ve heard more than a few people declare that “violence solves nothing”. I can’t help think that this sentiment is not only factually incorrect, but morally dangerous. Imagine for a second if human beings had never discovered or experienced conflict. Not only would we live in a bland, culturally stunted society, but I don’t think we’d ever be entertained. Conflict doesn’t just spice up politics; think of your favorite books, television shows, and even music. The whole sum progress of the human experience is derived by conflict against nature, against ideas, and against each other. Ares can teach us that this is a good thing. Unfortunately, modern Western culture has taught us that conflict is to be avoided. Ares drives home the idea that without conflict, even a little violence, life can not be just, nor can it be fully enjoyed or experienced.

Please don’t take this as a blanket condonement of violence and general ***-hattery. There is a time and place for everything. Even Ares tones it down once in a while (like his daughter’s wedding). You can’t just take things sitting down, either. When a pair of giants trapped ares in a bronze jar just to mess with him, he was rightfully ticked off. Following the rape of his daughter, Ares killed a son of Poseidon as recompense, and was acquitted of wrong-doing by a tribunal fo the Gods. Don’t be a wet noodle- stand up for yourself, because in reality, no one else will, not entirely.

*source*

They're smattered everywhere in the blog. Like I said, for those who are interested. I'm not going to dig around and find all the bits for you. ;P

Athena was quite the ***** too, honestly, along with most of the rest of the Greek pantheon. There's a tendency to water down and oversimplify Pagan pantheons in the modern day, it seems.

 

[painted wolf]

Athena was quite the ***** too, honestly, along with most of the rest of the Greek pantheon. There's a tendency to water down and oversimplify Pagan pantheons in the modern day, it seems.

And that is a totally valid point.

It seems like a lot of neo-pagans want small digestible bits of older gods but not a deeper understanding of them beyond a soundbite or formulaic plug in.
Ares = war
Athena = wisdom

When really both were highly complex characters with merits and flaws in equal abundance. Both were petty and spiteful in their own measures (a common theme among the Greek pantheon).

wa:do

 

[jasonwill2]

I thread hopped most of this since my last post.

I've continually tried the same thing in as many ways possible so that people understand. I've consistently tried to communicate that a god is what what our faith is in, what our hope is in, what our trust is in above all else.

How can one compare something we trust in, like say money, as that could be a god in your definition, to something like Yahweh/Jesus? I don't think that is a fair comparision.

 

[Riverwolf]

The article on strength that's currently on the first page?

Also:


*source*

They're smattered everywhere in the blog. Like I said, for those who are interested. I'm not going to dig around and find all the bits for you. ;P

Athena was quite the ***** too, honestly, along with most of the rest of the Greek pantheon. There's a tendency to water down and oversimplify Pagan pantheons in the modern day, it seems.

What it says seems to conflict with what I've heard of Ares.

I'm not a neopagan by any means, or a Hellenist, yet the Greek Pantheon are the Gods of my Ancestors. I really ought to have more knowledge of them, since there is quite a bit.

I'm aware that Athena Herself could have been quite nasty (such as that beauty contest that started a war... though I've always found it strange that a Virgin Goddess would care about such things), but it should also be remembered that Plato, in his Republic, wanted to get rid of the epics which depicted the Gods in such fashions anyway. This tells me that there was variation even then in how the Gods were viewed.

I'd wager that if the Greek religion hadn't been usurped by Christianity, and developed into a Hellenism as large, developed, and varied as Hinduism in India, the stories of the Gods would be viewed in much of the same light: not as accurate depictions of them as persons, but as stories designed to teach lessons.

In such a light, even Ares might be seen as less of a crybaby, and more like the Germanic/Scandinavian Thor. Surely the Spartans would never see him like that.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I thread hopped most of this since my last post.



How can one compare something we trust in, like say money, as that could be a god in your definition, to something like Yahweh/Jesus? I don't think that is a fair comparision.

Greed is what the love of money looks like when it becomes a god. In this case, people are willing to do anything at all in order to obtain money. They'll walk over whoever they have to in order to have it. They'll reject the commands of God in order to obtain it. Yes, I agree that money pales in comparison to God but that doesn't mean people don't choose the former over the latter.

 

[MoonWater]

Hey king it's been asked of you before and you have yet to even try to answer:

What exactly is the point of this thread? And no I don't count "this thread is about who we put our trust in" as an answer. I'm asking why you felt compelled to make this thread? What do you hope to get out of it or accomplish with it?

 

[MoonWater]

Trust is not a feeling. Trust is demonstrated by action. Do you blindly follow every suggestion your "gods" give you? Are you willing to forsake your own understanding of the events around you and ignore your five and take a leap of faith because your "god" says that the smart bet. Would you as one person be willing to take on an entire army because your "god" told you that victory would be assured, even though you couldn't possibly see how exactly you would be victorious against such odds? If the answer to those questions is "yes" you might actually be trusting your "god" with the kind of trust I'm talking about

As has been said before my gods are not the type to give orders. They give guidance and help me seek wisdom. In fact my gods would slap me silly and call me a foolish **** if I ever sought to follow them or anyone else with that kind of blind devotion. Besides what you are talking about is blind faith which I view as very different from trust.

And you still didn't answer my first question: how does that make them "not gods"?

And some other questions you brought up, why should your kind of trust hold any more value or weight than the trust we place in our gods? Why do you feel our relationship with them is somehow lessened or weaker than yours simply because we don't follow them blindly as you do yours?

And finally who are you to say our gods are not gods simply because we don't view them the same way you do your god or have the same relationship with them as you do with your god?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Hey king it's been asked of you before and you have yet to even try to answer:

What exactly is the point of this thread? And no I don't count "this thread is about who we put our trust in" as an answer. I'm asking why you felt compelled to make this thread? What do you hope to get out of it or accomplish with it?

What's the point of any of these threads on RF?

 

[Polarbear]

What's the point of any of these threads on RF?

Oh come on! You surly must have sought to gain something from this thread. In which direction did you want this thread to go?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As has been said before my gods are not the type to give orders. They give guidance and help me seek wisdom. In fact my gods would slap me silly and call me a foolish **** if I ever sought to follow them or anyone else with that kind of blind devotion. Besides what you are talking about is blind faith which I view as very different from trust.

And you still didn't answer my first question: how does that make them "not gods"?

And some other questions you brought up, why should your kind of trust hold any more value or weight than the trust we place in our gods? Why do you feel our relationship with them is somehow lessened or weaker than yours simply because we don't follow them blindly as you do yours?

And finally who are you to say our gods are not gods simply because we don't view them the same way you do your god or have the same relationship with them as you do with your god?

From what I can see, you've summed up Western "polytheism" perfectly in this post. By all means call them "gods" if it makes you happy.

 

[Polarbear]

From what I can see, you've summed up Western "polytheism" perfectly in this post. By all means call them "gods" if it makes you happy.

And why do you contend that they aren't gods?

 

[Shermana]

From what I can see, you've summed up Western "polytheism" perfectly in this post. By all means call them "gods" if it makes you happy.

Even Paul says "Indeed there are many gods". Some translations add in the word "So-called" to get around this little problem with their usual Theology. But Paul appears to in fact be addressing the Evil one as "The god of this age/world" in 2 Cor 4:4, even the NLT flat out translates it as such, the implication is clear that "the god of this age" is not your friend.

 

[MoonWater]

From what I can see, you've summed up Western "polytheism" perfectly in this post. By all means call them "gods" if it makes you happy.

Hey you started this thread why do you insist on avoiding my questions or the questions anyone else has asked of you?

 

[Polarbear]

Hey you started this thread why do you insist on avoiding my questions or the questions anyone else has asked of you?

I believe Poe's law has been brought up earlier in this thread.

 

[McBell]

From what I can see, you've summed up Western "polytheism" perfectly in this post. By all means call them "gods" if it makes you happy.

Is it your favorite deity that is so weak or is it perhaps you?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As has been said before my gods are not the type to give orders. They give guidance and help me seek wisdom. In fact my gods would slap me silly and call me a foolish **** if I ever sought to follow them or anyone else with that kind of blind devotion. Besides what you are talking about is blind faith which I view as very different from trust.

And you still didn't answer my first question: how does that make them "not gods"?

And some other questions you brought up, why should your kind of trust hold any more value or weight than the trust we place in our gods? Why do you feel our relationship with them is somehow lessened or weaker than yours simply because we don't follow them blindly as you do yours?

And finally who are you to say our gods are not gods simply because we don't view them the same way you do your god or have the same relationship with them as you do with your god?

You want answers? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. Seriously, let's see what I can do. First, in order to answer your question about the legitimacy of your "gods" as well as you relationship you have with them, we have to first acertain what your definition of a "god" is. I'm getting the feeling you haven't really thought this out very deeply. What is a "god" in your book? It appears that being spiritual in nature, that is an entity that exists outside the natural world, is prerequisite. It appears that possessing significantly more age, wisdom and power than you is another prequistite for being deemed worthy of the title "god". Other than that, I don't really see any other clear requirements. I get the impression, you believe your "gods" have limited knowledge about the universe. However, if your "gods" are all knowing, they're certainly not all loving or you would feel confident about putting your blind trust in them. Your "gods" don't appear to be rulers of anything. If they rule over anything or anyone, you certainly don't count yourself among them. They seem to just kind of hang out. You're obviously impressed with such credentials. So call them what you will

 

[Me Myself]

You want answers? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. Seriously, let's see what I can do. First, in order to answer your question about the legitimacy of your "gods" as well as you relationship you have with them, we have to first acertain what your definition of a "god" is. I'm getting the feeling you haven't really thought this out very deeply. What is a "god" in your book? It appears that being spiritual in nature, that is an entity that exists outside the natural world, is prerequisite. It appears that possessing significantly more age, wisdom and power than you is another prequistite for being deemed worthy of the title "god". Other than that, I don't really see any other clear requirements. I get the impression, you believe your "gods" have limited knowledge about the universe. However, if your "gods" are all knowing, they're certainly not all loving or you would feel confident about putting your blind trust in them. Your "gods" don't appear to be rulers of anything. If they rule over anything or anyone, you certainly don't count yourself among them. They seem to just kind of hang out. You're obviously impressed with such credentials. So call them what you will

Well, those are way better credentials than eternal suffering if you don´t worship me guy.

 

[MoonWater]

You want answers? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. Seriously, let's see what I can do. First, in order to answer your question about the legitimacy of your "gods" as well as you relationship you have with them, we have to first acertain what your definition of a "god" is. I'm getting the feeling you haven't really thought this out very deeply. What is a "god" in your book? It appears that being spiritual in nature, that is an entity that exists outside the natural world, is prerequisite. It appears that possessing significantly more age, wisdom and power than you is another prequistite for being deemed worthy of the title "god". Other than that, I don't really see any other clear requirements. I get the impression, you believe your "gods" have limited knowledge about the universe. However, if your "gods" are all knowing, they're certainly not all loving or you would feel confident about putting your blind trust in them. Your "gods" don't appear to be rulers of anything. If they rule over anything or anyone, you're certainly not among them. They seem to just kind of hang out. You're obviously impressed with such credentials. So call them what you will

Does a mentor rule over his student? Why do you feel as though a god must give orders in order for you to consider them a god?

And you don't see any clear "requirements" because I haven't given you any nor do I intend to considering how disrespectful your overall attitude in this thread has been.

You made the claim that there are no polytheists in the west. You make this claim because you feel that the gods we follow are not actual gods because they are not the same as your god and because our relationship with them is different than yours. Yet you have given no reason to support your notion other than "because I say so". If that is all you have then your claim is utterly baseless on top of being false, disrespectful and insulting.

Why should the fact that our gods act differently and serve different functions make them not gods in your eyes? Don't you think there is room enough in the spiritual world for more than one type of god or more than one type of relationship with said god(s)? Why do you feel the need to limit what a god can be?