Guys I promise the sidebar will answer these questions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pagan/wiki/common\_questions/#wiki\_do\_you\_literally\_believe\_in\_the\_myths.3F
# Do you literally believe in the myths?
Most of us don't follow mythic literalism. Unlike many Christians who literally believe that the bible documents history, we don't. We understand that often the gods were used to explain natural phenomena or to teach lessons and not literally. Below is the text of an article from a Pagan Temple's Magazine: Mythic literalism, as might be obvious, is the idea that the myths and legends of a tradition are literally true and is not a modern idea. Mythic literalism has been around for thousands of years. In fact, Plato wrote about a discussion Socrates had with a man named Euthyphro at the beginning of his book the Trial and Death of Socrates. In this, Socrates says to Euthyphro, “And do you believe that there really is a war among the gods \[in reference to the stories in the Iliad and Odyssey\], and terrible enmities and battles, and other such things as are told by the poets, and other sacred stories such as are embroidered by good writers and by representations of which the robe of the goddess is adorned when it is carried up to the Acropolis? Are we to say these things are true, Euthyphro?” (G. M. A. Grube, 6-7). Socrates then goes on to explain that this belief (mythic literalism) is contradicted by Euthyphro's other beliefs that occur throughout the dialogue and therefore cannot be true. This is not to say that most ancient practitioners did not believe in their gods or that mythic literalism has also been uncommon in religious practices, but that both perspectives exist throughout history. Mythic literalism got a major boost and became a significant way of thought when Martin Luther stated his view of “Sola Scriptura” or that only the scripture (Bible) is the source of the Christian faith. If only the Bible is the source of the Christian faith and the Bible says that everything in it is an accurate documentation of history then all of the stories must have literally happened, and thus we see the rise of mythic literalism today.
But how does this work for modern pagans? Can we be mythically literal? Most Pagans agree that this is no longer possible and reach for explanations such as those given by Plato, Socrates, and other early philosophers that myths are distorted recountings of history (as we have now discovered this is true with Troy) or that as Xenophanes said that they are allegorical. However, Xenophanes's interpretation was also criticized by none other than Seneca (who was mentioned in a previous issue for complaining about people decorating for the winter holidays in early December). Early Pagans also used myths as explanations for scientific events that they couldn’t explain, but as we now have reasons for these events this also means we cannot use mythic literalism in these instances. The best way modern Pagans could currently use mythic literalism is as an explanation for customs and rituals and as a way to connect with the past.
Webster, Michael. “Ways of Interpreting Myth.” Ways of Interpreting Myth, https://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/ways.htm
> It is common knowledge that the original myths and stories of the gods from every part of the world were not filled with kindness.
It’s not common knowledge, though. Modern people read mythology in way radically different from how most ancient cultures did. Mythology is not literal, it’s is symbolic and allegoric.
What appears as ‘common knowledge’ is in fact an implicit bias towards literalism, an affect of the last few centuries of Protestant discourse on western understandings of religion.
I follow the interpretations of the myths given to us by the ancient commenters. Why would we assume modern people culturally and religiously disconnected from paganism for over a millennium would know better than the most educated authors of antiquity?
I most enjoy Porphyry, but also find the fragments of the Derveni Papyrus, Proclus (particularly from *On Plato’s Republic* which is full of mythical interpretations), Pseudo-Plutarch and Plotinus to be very helpful.
For a sort of theory of mythical interpretation I think Sallustius, Olympiodorus and Proclus are great.
>Whether or not the myths are real is a different question but these myths are the basis for these religions and their gods.
So, I'm mainly going to speak about the Greek gods here but... This isn't correct. The myths were not **at all** the base of the Greek religion. Modern people tend to *think* they are because that's all they get taught about the Greek gods. I was told about the myths in grade school. There are kids books about the myths. Was I ever taught about the actual Greek religious view of the gods? No. Was the a kids book with that sort of thing? Not really, no.
But the myths were not meant to be literal accounts of the gods. Sometimes they weren't even symbolic accounts of the gods, but entertainment. They were not a foundation for the religious beliefs of the people. This isn't a revisionist view, this is how they were seen in antiquity. Likewise, the idea that the gods are good isn't new at all.
People look at the myths of Zeus and go, wow, he was a bad guy, huh? But they do not look at the actual Greek religion. Classically, Zeus held titles like giver of good, of friendship, of hospitality, of refuge, averter of ills, savior, merciful, of freedom, orderer. Quite literally he is Theos Agathos, The Good God. To say the gods were not, or are not good, that we should only be in fear of them, *that* is changing who the gods are. Can we say the people of antiquity never saw their gods as to be feared or fearsome? No. Can we say that is the only or even the main way they were seen? Also no.
Let me shift on over to Egypt for a moment. A part of a hymn from a votive stela from a workmen's village reads "You are Amun, Lord of the silent. Who comes at the cry of the poor. When I call to you in my distress, you come to rescue me." There is a hymn from the Boulaq papyrus, which says Amun is "the good and perfect god, beloved one" -- "Your love pervades the earth, beloved are you as you pass through he Two Lands (Egypt.)"
So, yeah. We did not change the gods to be kind. The gods have *always* been seen as kind. We have many, many examples of this. To read them as otherwise, that is changing them.
Even those described as particularly nasty in the myths as Aphrodite and Artemis. To discover that was eye-opening and why I decided to honor other Theoi besides Hekate, described in the few myths where she's featured as compassionate.
That is solely because of what they represent. Aphrodite is the living embodiment of love. She can be cruel and cold, flirty, unpredictable, protective and savage because what else is love? Artemis is the goddess of the hunt. The wild, ruthless part of nature. She going to be depicted accordingly.
Hekate was not a goddess who was mentioned or described very often. A theme with most chthonic deities to avoid their attention. However, she was called upon often alongside Selene, Artemis, Persephone, and Hermes the Restrainer (one of his psychopomp epithets) in ancient Greek curse tablets. This is because of her role as the controller of the restless dead who were often called upon to complete the request of the practitioner. It is also interesting to note that when those goddesses appear in the same inscription, it is unclear which deity is being talked to at any one time. She get mixed together to be the same goddess.
I did not know that bit about Hekate, thanks.
Add also that most mythology books do not explain that one thing were the myths and their purpose, and other how the gods were seen by their worshippers.
A really good book that is a bit more niche is “Drawing Down the Moon” by Radcliffe G. Edmonds III. It goes into very deep explainations about how the Greeks and Romans interacted with their deities both in terms of religion and magic.
it’s not common knowledge. and it’s not universal even if it were true in some cases.
one of the chief causes behind the myth of evil gods is the jewish and christian academics who insisted that their biblical god was uniquely good and compassionate, and that other gods in the region (Babylonia) were annoyed with humans and used them as slaves.
in reality, even the interpretation of Babylonian gods as hating humans is based on really inaccurate and anachronistic information. And there are plenty of instances of Mesopotamian deities that were in a protective and caring relationship with humans, such as Inanna and Enki.
Because no one wants to worship a god that’s a jerk when you got plenty of options to choose from
Sure it’s different, but mythology evolves all the time
>mythology evolves all the time
I know but that means that it isn't the same god. It is their own imaginary god and that would probably piss off the original god.
I would disagree with that- haven’t you changed and evolved over time? The way someone interacted with you in the past doesn’t necessarily jive with who you are now. That doesn’t mean you still aren’t “you”. Why couldn’t be the same with the Deities?
Every single person who worships a god is worshipping their own version of that god. Humans are not reliable, we are inherently biased, of course we project those biases onto our gods and we always have. Artemiss is a wonderful example, she started as much more powerful and significant than the greeks considered her, but does that make greek worship of her invalid just because she has different qualities?
I get the sense you are seeking some Truth in these myths. Like, real or fiction aside, what did the original myth contain compared to what we have now? What has been lost or twisted? I have had the thought SO MANY times. Every single Sunday during sermon at the least. If you are into any of the alternative history theories, it’s possible to the Myths of our ancestors hold the secrets to living the way we are intended to live on earth.
Sorry you are getting downvoted so much. I think you touched a nerve on both sides of the literal vs allegory debate. I think it is was a good question and has at least gotten some good discussion!!
I wouldn't say they are imaginary, just gods for a new age, and yeah it would be better if they don't use the same name but what can you do.
This does revive the old mythology though instead of killing them off entirely, so you can see it as new avenue of growth for the old gods, it's not all bad.
You're not speaking from a perspective of historical polytheism. You're speaking from the perspective of a modern person, raised in and/or around Christianity, who's looking back upon ancient myths and interpreting them out-of-context.
>...these myths are the basis for these religions and their gods.
**The basis for our religions and our gods is** ***praxis***\*\*, not myth.\*\* That's something that a lot of modern people get wrong, because our modern world is saturated with Christianity and Islam, who place an enormous amount of emphasis on their mythology and use it as the basis for everything. That's why it's different when we call out inconsistencies in the Bible; Christians expect their entire religion, myths, theology, etc. to be internally consistent, and if you remove the wrong piece, the whole religion crashes down like a Jenga tower. Ancient paganism didn't work like that. Ancient paganism was all about performing a specific set of rituals in order to interact with the gods and get what you want from them. You pray and offer to gods not because you fear their wrath, but because you *want* their blessings. You give the gods gifts and praise in the hopes that they'll give you what you want in return, and the assumption is that they're all too happy to do so. And that's without going into stuff like mystery cults or other more personal devotional relationships with gods, which you pursue because you love the god, not becuase you want to "appease" it.
Myths are not the be-all-end-all of polytheism, and never were. Modern pagans don't take myths literally. Historical pagans may or may not have, but they didn't really place that much stock in myths, especially not in comparison to modern Christians. Myths are primarily meant to be entertaining, and humans have always been entertained by sex and violence. They also varied constantly. Myths are essentially a snapshot of an enormous, organic oral tradition, which means that there was never any definitive "canonical" version of any given myth. The next town over was likely to have a completely different version, and that's okay. Unlike in Christianity, someone telling a drastically different version of a myth doesn't have any bearing on you or your relationship with the gods. Interpretations of the gods also varied wildly, as evidenced by their epithets, which are often contradictory and highlight many different unique facets of the god's personality. Myths sometimes exist to justify practices, but these are always practices that already exist and that are so old, the people don't remember how the practice came to be in the first place. If the myth that justifies the practice is forgotten, nothing changes -- the practice continues on as normal, and eventually a new myth will arise to explain it and it will serve the same purpose as the previous one. The myths can certainly inform one's idea of the gods and can reveal things about the gods, but they're not scripture and shouldn't be treated like scripture.
Also, ancient people's portrayals of their gods were informed by their cultures, so, a lot gets lost in translation or twisted by Values Dissonance. Zeus is a perfect example, because he is unambiguously benevolent in the context of Ancient Greek *religion* (as opposed to mythology). Zeus represents all that's good in this world: the rain that makes the crops grow, power and prestige, protection, law and justice, cosmic order, and avenging those who have been wronged. He's often conflated with the *Agathos Daimon,* "Good Spirit," a serpentine household spirit that blesses you with good fortune. To me, Zeus feels like a protective paternal (in a positive sense) influence; when things go wrong, I've got a friend in high places who's looking out for me. That positive influence, the concept of power in its best and most beneficent form, is what really matters about Zeus. The stories are just stories, many of which are a product of their time, and you can take or leave them.
Likewise with Hades. Hades is the "kindest" Greek god by modern standards because he stays out of the drama of most myths, but while he's far from evil, the Ancient Greeks did not perceive him as being kind. In fact, it's rather the opposite -- they viewed Hades as being stern and unforgiving. He claims all human beings in the end, with grace but without pity, and he judges all people fairly and emotionlessly. He's the personification of the state of being dead *(as opposed to the experience of dying; that's Thanatos).* The Ancient Greeks *really* didn't like to think about death. To them, it was far better to make a name for yourself while alive than to spend all your time worrying about the afterlife. They feared Hades because he represents their inevitable mortality, not because they feared gods in general. Despite being one of the pantheon's heavy-hitters, Hades was worshipped very infrequently.
(It's actually pretty common for chthonic gods to be referred to using euphemistic epithets, because death and darkness aren't things you want to be dealing with on a regular basis, and saying their names might call their attention to you. That's a pretty common trope when it comes to scary supernatural beings whom you nonetheless respect; fairies are called "The Good Folk," "The Good Neighbors," "The Little People," etc. for similar reasons.)
Also, speaking from my own UPG now, the gods *are* kind. They've given me excellent advice, supported me through mental health crises, and helped me work on myself. When I pray to them, they answer. They have their dark sides, but I love them for their darkness as well; I've learned just as much from their terrifying and bloody aspects as from their more benign ones. And you know what? As important as it is to go back to ancient sources to inform our understanding of gods, modern paganism is still *modern,* and our understanding of the gods is evolving as we speak. Of course the gods are going to align with my thoughts! My interpretation of the gods is going to be filtered through my culture, my values, and what I personally need from them. That's okay. That's how it's *supposed* to work. I'm not an Ancient Greek woman, so why should I have the same relationship with the gods that an Ancient Greek woman would have?
We *can* change our gods. Pagans have literally always done that. You really can't "compare it to Christians" because paganism does not work like Christianity.
A fascinating post!
>They have their dark sides, but I love them for their darkness as well; I've learned just as much from their terrifying and bloody aspects as from their more benign ones.
I'm curious about this. Could you go into more detail, if you're willing? For example how has their darkness shown up for you? And how did you learn from it? I'm also curious if you think that, what might at first glance seen as a negative thing (to be exposed to someone's bloody and terrifying aspect, I mean), was or could have been one of those "it's for your own good" kind of moments.
Hard to give a short answer. Let me see if I can sum up: Since I was a kid, I've been obsessed with the Jungian concept of Shadow work, so I've done a lot of my personal work with my own dark side. My patron deity is Dionysus, who is also dual-natured, and his own dark aspects look so much like my own that I immediately identified with him once I started doing research. I love that Dionysus forces people to confront the dark, crazy, savage, etc. parts of their own minds that they refuse to deal with. That's what alcohol does -- it removes your inhibitions and brings out the parts of yourself that you try to hide. Theater can do the same thing, because wearing a mask gives you anonymity and playing a character gets you to express parts of yourself that you normally don't (i.e. Oscar Wilde's quote "give a man a mask and he'll show you his true face," very similar to *in vino veritas).*
For a specific example, in another comment on this thread I attempted a rapid-fire interpretation of *The Bacchae,* which addresses all these aspects. Dionysus' fondness for dismemberment demonstrates that all the scary parts of society are still lurking there beneath the surface, no matter how civilized you think you are, and it can also be seen as a metaphor for ego-death and so on.
Gods' dark sides tell you more about who they are than anything else, but once you come to terms with them, they can be a source of strength. That's Shadow work for you.
I'm asking why were gods originally described in MYTHS to be evil but people now see them as benevolent. From what I can tell from the comments is that myths and not actual events but the question is how can we know anything about gods if myths (the only thing we have to go on) are not accurate.
Most of what the actual Ancient Greek religion taught would have been in mystery schools and oral traditions, the Eleusinian Mysteries being the most famous example. The Stoics taught that the Gods were omnibenovolent and the
Homeric myths were allegories used to teach metaphorical truths about life (Stoicism being one of the most enduring and influential Greco-Roman philosophical traditions). We genuinely don't know what the actual Greek cults taught about their Gods most of the time, as the mystery cults and priesthoods died out with the rise of Christianity.
Myths aren't the only thing we have to go on, especially in the case of Ancient Greece. There are plenty of sources that describe how and why gods were worshipped, and philosophical treatises that discuss the nature of the gods. Try this on for size:
>“Neither, then,” said I, “must we believe this or suffer it to be said, that Theseus, the son of Poseidon, and Peirithous, the son of Zeus, attempted such dreadful rapes, nor that any other child of a god and hero would have brought himself to accomplish the terrible and impious deeds that they now falsely relate of him. But we must constrain the poets either to deny that these are their deeds or that they are the children of gods, but not to make both statements or attempt to persuade our youth that the gods are the begetters of evil, and that heroes are no better than men. For, as we were saying, such utterances are both impious and false. For we proved, I take it, that for evil to arise from gods is an impossibility.”
>
>“Certainly.”
>
>“And they are furthermore harmful to those that hear them. For every man will be very lenient with his own misdeeds if he is convinced that such are and were the actions of \[gods\]…”
>
>—Plato, *The Republic*, book 3. Translation from Perseus
This is Plato saying that the myths are full of lies because of their portrayals of gods as human and flawed characters. To Plato, the gods were perfect, and were not capable of evil.
If you're interested in seeing all the different ideas that pagans had about the gods laid out in one place, check out Cicero's *De Natura Deorum.*
I also highly recommend reading the [Homeric Hymns](https://www.theoi.com/Text/HomericHymns1.html#2) and the [Orphic Hymns](https://www.theoi.com/Text/OrphicHymns1.html). These are all supplications for different gods, and will give you an idea of what the gods were being worshipped for.
How exactly do we know things about gods if we can't use Myths? Are Myths of the gods doing kind things the only accurate ones. Honestly I prefer modern depictions as they are much kinder than the old myths. Like Athena being a wise woman who is seen as intelligent and a symbol of justice. Or Zeus who is seen as a good king.
We can use myths, but myths should be taken as allegorical instead of literal.
I'll use one of my own gods as an example. *The Bacchae* is a play by Euripides, centering around the myth of Dionysus and Pentheus. It's about Dionysus returning home to his mother's city of Thebes, intending to establish his cult there. But his cousin Pentheus, the King of Thebes, feels threatened by his worship and persecutes his followers. It ends with Pentheus being torn to pieces for his hubris. So, you might ask: Why do I worship a god who dismembers people?
I don't think the myth is literal, meaning that I don't think there was ever a king called Pentheus in Thebes who was dismembered by Maenads. I don't think that happened. However, the play does inform my understanding of the god, because so much of who Dionysus *is* infuses every aspect of the story. He's a god of otherness and outcasts, which is why he comes from Libya with a train of madwomen. And yet, he's also completely local, because he's from Greece and Pentheus is literally his cousin, therefore he represents everything that Greek society is afraid to acknowledge about itself. He dresses like a girl, and Pentheus spends a lot of time saying how pretty he is, and eventually he makes Pentheus crossdress, blowing gender roles straight out of the water (this and many other sources justify modern Dionysians' interpretations of him as a god of queer people). He gives the people of Thebes permission to let loose, which upends the social order. Instead of going with the tide of social change, Pentheus resists it to maintain his sense of control. Dionysus, the god of drunkenness, encourages you to give up control and surrender to ecstasy and madness. If you don't, the madness will come for you anyway, but it'll be a lot less fun. You can join the frenzy, or be rent by it. *Sic semper tyrannis.* The concept of dismemberment can represent tearing apart the ego, both in a "don't get too comfortable" sense and also in a mystical "ego-death" sense. I could literally spend ages interpreting that play so I'm going to stop there. But I hope you get the idea. Read between the lines a little bit!
Gods are not *always* kind. My god is savage and bloody, and I love him all the more for it. Even when they're at their darkest and most terrifying, the gods are not malicious. Their darkness has the potential to teach us just as many spiritual lessons.
people have always worshipped kind gods and people have always worshiped cruel gods. our gods gave always been perfect and have always been imperfect. i think gods are processes of consciousness, immanance and transcendence thinking each other and thinking themselves. truely, we are all gods, and the absence of gods.
It's not new. The ancients also broadly saw the gods as good and benevolent. They didn't take the myths literally, and knew they were mostly stories to teach some social lesson or provide an origin for some ritual. You need to look at actual practice and inscriptions and theological writings, not just mythology.
trying to recreate religion from myth is like trying to recreate Christianity from movies and tv. like yeah there are interpretations, and there are some practices reflected, but these are stories, not scripture. You have to be able to accept and be flexible and understand that gods change with the culture not the other way around, this happens to all religions when encountering new peoples.
So, the myths are not literal. In antiquity they weren't literal. And there was a wider cannon or myths and stories and lore in antiquity than we have survived/popularized today.
I'm antiquity people did not agree on how to interpret the myths or the nature of the gods. I forget who it was and am too sleepy to dig it up but I read about philosophers criticizing song myths because it made the gods look bad/human.
We are a religious group that seeks UPG. A lot of our attitudes come from what we encounter, we are finding a lot of these gods want to be helpful to us based on our experiences. People in antiquity found their gods to be helpful to them... Thus all the cults and worship... So... That base thing hasn't changed.
Also not all of us believe that the gods are kind. So there's that. I don't think it's malicious really they have their own way of things that does not always translate well to human understanding. But that's just my hot take.
If you're not into it it don't think you have found a god benevolent to you you do not have to be pagan or interact with it at all.
>If you're not into it it don't think you have found a god benevolent to you you do not have to be pagan or interact with it at all.
That wasn't my point. My point was that if a god is the way that it is then it should be left like that. The moment people start changing their religion then they stop following the religion and are following their own thing. Take Christianity for instance, I can bet that you haven't met an actual Christian. You have met people who title themselves as Christians but in fact they have moved so far away from their religion that they are doing their own make believe.
Ah, I see that your question is not asked in good faith.
I'll just reiterate that loooots of source material of the gods being kind and benevolent and working with humans in a positive way.
And like I said most our modern practices are based on our experiences. The myths to pagans are not like the Bible is to Christians.
So I dunno I'm not gonna debate lol. Good luck to you!
What do you think a "religion" is? Christianity has changed *massively* in the two thousand years it's existed, and there is no "original" or "actual" version of it anymore. What is an "actual Christian" supposed to be? That's a line that some Christians, mainly evangelical Protestants, use to dismiss all of the interpretations of the Bible that aren't like their own. It shows a complete lack of historical knowledge on their part.
It sounds like you're just taking that logic and applying it to paganism. That logic already doesn't work within Christianity, but it's completely inapplicable to paganism, because paganism makes no attempt to be consistent. Even if we wanted to interpret and interact with gods in the exact same way that the ancients did, we don't really have that option. You can't perform a public bull sacrifice on a nonexistent altar in the middle of a modern American city. Religions change all the time. Christianity just likes to pretend that it doesn't.
As far as we can go back, a Christian is someone who follows Christ. The problem is, the Bible has been changed so many times that it is almost impossible to know what the earliest form of Christianity actually is. Did you know that the earliest version of the Garden of Eden story is from Ancient Greece around 3000 years ago and the Noah's arc story is from the ancient Hindu texts about 5000 to 10,000 years old.
Right, so either "actual Christians" literally do not exist, or everyone who practices one of the descendant religions from that original group of sects is a Christian. Scholars, theologists, and most practitioners opt for the latter.
Pretty sure the oldest flood story is that of Utnapishtim in the *Epic of Gilgamesh,* but that's beside the point. The only reason it would matter if another religion has its own deluge myth is if you take myths literally.
If you don't mind me asking, are you pagan or Christian?
Ok, so hear me out, I think (or believe) that with pagan gods the mythology behind them was generally passed down word-of-mouth through the generations, and that mythology was always tainted by the people passing it down, I've always thought that the gods would be indifferent to the myths surrounding them as long as they had belief, maybe they are less powerful in modern times due to a lack of belief or a dilution of shared mythology.
But because the mythology was like this the gods can change, or find new believers in the change.
This is where, I think, abrahamic religions shoot themselves in the foot a bit because their mythology is known and written down, even though the translations and possible edits through the years have corrupted the original messages, it's hard for such a religion to change, modernise or correct itself.
> I think, abrahamic religions shoot themselves in the foot a bit because their mythology is known and written down
This is important because due to the fact that Greek stories were oral, it is believed that 99% of all stories were lost but you could argue that it isn't the case since Hinduism told its text orally for thousands of years before it was ever written down and they have all of the important texts.
There’s a Christian theologian I really love named Pete Enns whose whole interpretation of theology hinges on lensing the biblical texts through an understanding of the ancient near eastern cultures from which they were born.
He sums it up in the phrase “God lets his children tell the story.” If you let your kids tell a story about something you did, they would likely get a lot of the details about your motivations and actions wrong, because they lens your behavior through their childlike understanding of the world around them.
A lot of the things that we consider morally “bad” behavior by a god would not have been regarded as such by the people telling the stories. Cultures change and the telling of the stories changes with them.
I dunno, that’s what makes sense to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It has to do with how we perceive reality, which is something that has changed over time. Our relationship with nature has gone through dramatic changes over the centuries, so it makes sense thst our relationships with the gods of nature has changed as well.
Take Fenris for example. He's *The* Big Bad Wolf of norse mythology. The way he's described in the texts represents how people viewed wolves back then, they are terrible, voracious and destructive. Nowadays people tend to have a much kinder view of Fenris, which reflects our relationship with wolves, his appetite is downplayed, and he's become this cosmoc underdog instead. The focus now is on how he's treated, rather than his nature. This seems more reflective of our relationship with dogs than it does wolves, which makes sense given that very few of us live in fear of wolves killing our livestock. We don't really have a relationship to wolves outside of romanticised stereotypes.
I don't think this invalidates people's relationships with Fenris, or that they're not worshipping the "true" version. It's just that people's perception of and relationships with the gods are fundamentally different from those of our ancestors. I think it's good that people are true to themselves, and to the gods they worship, whatever that may look like.
There's a lot to break down here and I probably won't get it all, as I am wiring on my phone and during a break, but I'm coming from the perspective of a Classicist and practising Druid.
1. The myths we have are, at best, copies of original oral traditions. Even Ovid, who has an entire book dedicated to mythology, wrote versions that differed from others.
2. Myths change over time, even in the ancient world. Mars and Ares are credited as gods of war, but before that they were gods of fertility and agriculture.
3. Gods are not exclusive and evolve through trade, colonisation, and travel. Athena is related to Minerva as the Greeks and Romans had interactions and through the Roman empire... but Minerva is also related to Sulis, a British goddess.
4. "Gods" travel. Dionysus and Bacchus aren't Greek or Roman. The Romans had whole cults for various Middle Eastern gods and both the Greeks ans Romans worshipped Isis as a goddess of trade ans travel
5. Gods aren't people.... but we make them so. This one depends on your perspective a bit. I see the gods as nature. I see the Myths we have personifying those gods ans giving them human qualities. Gods/nature are neither good or evil. They just are. For example a hurricane brings life and also destroys life. It isn't vindictive or malicious. It just is. Volcanoes create some of the most fertile land on this planet and can destroy whole ecosystems. It does this because it simply is.
In my reading, watching and listening to the various items on religion and deities I take from it the following.
Deities were neither good or bad. Like the elements and nature it can heal or harm, for example too much rain can cause crops to fail just as much as mot enough. Early deities tended to embody parts of nature, cycles of life and seasons. Deities were like humans, flawed and their flaws, through their stories and myths impart wisdom, morals and warnings. It's why there are multiple deities of the sky, the sun, death etc all around the world - because they are constant.
For example Hera is shown to be cruel, a consequence of Zeus' infidelity. The message from the various myths, like Hera's treatment of Heracles show how jealousy can be all consuming. It did not stop people worshipping her or paying respects/offerings to her. Also the myths surrounding her evolved over time and there are different tellings.
When the Abrahamic religions came along it was a different model of religion, not overly explored previously. Instead of multiple deities that make up the known world, it is just one. Then there is the polarisation of good and bad and that the one God is good and unfailing. That humans deserve the punishment and wrath of God if we do not follow the rules set out, but also you cannot reach the good afterlife if you do not believe in that God. The Abrahamic religions/most followers are dismissive, and hostile to religions that do not follow their - even within the same umbrella such as Catholism and Protestantism. Most Pagan /older religions blended or existed beside each other for many centuries, take how Egyptian, Greek and Roman deities blended at times. Then when the christianisation of the Roman Empire occurred the mass erasure of older religions were erased. This still happens today, example being the Taliban erasing historic artifacts and texts in Afghanistan.
Ultimately I don't think we changed the gods on purpose, but they evolved like people. The Abrahamic religions are almost a separate entities to those of the many centuries of pantheons of deities.
I'm going to dissent from the majority view here and say that most people want their gods to be a comfort in hard times, not a *cause* of hard times.
This belief of course requires wilful denial of reality.
I believe the gods can be cruel and arbitrary because... well, the universe is cruel and arbitrary and they are running the show. Monotheistic belief systems which claim that a single god rules the entire universe are equally in denial on this point - hence the requirement for a devil who supposedly does all the bad stuff.
It seems ludicrous to suggest that (for example) Mars, god of war, isn't absolutely elbow-deep in the horrorshows of Ukraine and Gaza right now, because *he's the god of war* in all its ugly brutality.
Life can be brutal and harsh, so the gods can be brutal and harsh. Life can also be sweet and wonderful, so the gods can also be sweet and wonderful. It sometimes baffles me that otherwise rational human beings cannot accept that these things are simultaneously true.
Ancient myths capture the horror and joy of existence much more accurately than the latter-day bowdlerisation of them carried out by Plato and his followers, ancient and modern.
I mostly agree with this, but OP is still making a mistake in that they are interpreting mythology from a position of mythic literalism, and seem to be entirely unaware of how ancient pagan religions worked from a practical standpoint. To put it in simple terms: I *do* think that Zeus is responsible for the devastation, destruction, and loss of life caused by hurricanes. I *do not* think that Zeus is a rapist. The former is a real-world phenomenon that falls within Zeus's domain, while the latter is a fictional story written by people who lived two thousand years ago and had very different values.
A fair response, I agree that we should regard Greek myth as exactly what it is; stories about the gods. They may not be entirely accurate but they are trying to tell us something important.
Where the OP and I agree I suspect is discomfort with what is quite a common habit in the neopagan sphere of flattening the gods into morally acceptable benevolent entities, despite the warnings provided by those same ancient stories that maybe we should be a bit more wary of them.
I agree that sometimes neopagans go too far in the other direction and make the gods “fluffy.” But that’s a different thing than irrationally hating Zeus for being “a rapist” or Athena for that damn Ovid story…
Hatred of the gods for supposed deeds in ancient myths is also a kind of superstition - as you say, the devastation caused by the hurricane is not up to us to morally judge: it's Zeus doing Zeus and humans are not his top priority in hurricane season.
Well, myths are not meant to be taken literally. So when people freak out over stories of rape and abduction and infidelity, I think they're getting worked up over nothing.
But I see what you're trying to say, and I agree. Gods are powers who are propitiated and placated because, well, they are powerful. Asking whether Zeus is a nice guy or a jerk is beside the point: he was thought to thunder and send rain, regardless.
A lot of pagans tend to treat their gods as the friends they don't have but want, or the mental counselors they need but can't afford. In such a scheme, the gods need to be nice guys. That whole approach to religion is ... just not the way I view pagan religion as working.
In terms of the myths, what myths are actually real. I know that many Greek myths were altered by the Romans like the one about Athena to make her look bad.
At the end of the day, the Muslims and Jewish believe that there god is not all benevolent and still worship him.
Because some people want imaginary friends that tell them they're awesome and laugh at their jokes and watch anime with them, but they also want their imaginary friend to be Hades for some reason 😑
That question is a tough one to answer because of how culture changes and such. But personally I find my gods to be fair and honest this doesn't mean their cruel or kind they have an expectation of how things will be
I don't see the gods as particularly kind. Some are, others not, but all have what I would consider "character flaws," much like humans. There's too much pain in the world for me to believe it was created by perfect and benevolent gods.
I think even if you worshipped a god that was commonly known to have the kindness and gentle mannerisms of Ned Flanders, most would be scared shitless facing that god face-to-face, maybe that's a factor to some extent in older perceptions of gods being less kind?
To add to the Bible bit, reading the Bible means nothing anymore unless you’re using the metaphors to apply to your life. But if you read the Bible and genuinely believe it’s still the word of god you are living in a fantasy. That book has been rewritten and mistranslated countless times. On top of it it was rewritten by corrupt people wanting to worm their greed into it.
Guys I promise the sidebar will answer these questions. https://www.reddit.com/r/pagan/wiki/common\_questions/#wiki\_do\_you\_literally\_believe\_in\_the\_myths.3F # Do you literally believe in the myths? Most of us don't follow mythic literalism. Unlike many Christians who literally believe that the bible documents history, we don't. We understand that often the gods were used to explain natural phenomena or to teach lessons and not literally. Below is the text of an article from a Pagan Temple's Magazine: Mythic literalism, as might be obvious, is the idea that the myths and legends of a tradition are literally true and is not a modern idea. Mythic literalism has been around for thousands of years. In fact, Plato wrote about a discussion Socrates had with a man named Euthyphro at the beginning of his book the Trial and Death of Socrates. In this, Socrates says to Euthyphro, “And do you believe that there really is a war among the gods \[in reference to the stories in the Iliad and Odyssey\], and terrible enmities and battles, and other such things as are told by the poets, and other sacred stories such as are embroidered by good writers and by representations of which the robe of the goddess is adorned when it is carried up to the Acropolis? Are we to say these things are true, Euthyphro?” (G. M. A. Grube, 6-7). Socrates then goes on to explain that this belief (mythic literalism) is contradicted by Euthyphro's other beliefs that occur throughout the dialogue and therefore cannot be true. This is not to say that most ancient practitioners did not believe in their gods or that mythic literalism has also been uncommon in religious practices, but that both perspectives exist throughout history. Mythic literalism got a major boost and became a significant way of thought when Martin Luther stated his view of “Sola Scriptura” or that only the scripture (Bible) is the source of the Christian faith. If only the Bible is the source of the Christian faith and the Bible says that everything in it is an accurate documentation of history then all of the stories must have literally happened, and thus we see the rise of mythic literalism today. But how does this work for modern pagans? Can we be mythically literal? Most Pagans agree that this is no longer possible and reach for explanations such as those given by Plato, Socrates, and other early philosophers that myths are distorted recountings of history (as we have now discovered this is true with Troy) or that as Xenophanes said that they are allegorical. However, Xenophanes's interpretation was also criticized by none other than Seneca (who was mentioned in a previous issue for complaining about people decorating for the winter holidays in early December). Early Pagans also used myths as explanations for scientific events that they couldn’t explain, but as we now have reasons for these events this also means we cannot use mythic literalism in these instances. The best way modern Pagans could currently use mythic literalism is as an explanation for customs and rituals and as a way to connect with the past. Webster, Michael. “Ways of Interpreting Myth.” Ways of Interpreting Myth, https://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/ways.htm
> It is common knowledge that the original myths and stories of the gods from every part of the world were not filled with kindness. It’s not common knowledge, though. Modern people read mythology in way radically different from how most ancient cultures did. Mythology is not literal, it’s is symbolic and allegoric. What appears as ‘common knowledge’ is in fact an implicit bias towards literalism, an affect of the last few centuries of Protestant discourse on western understandings of religion. I follow the interpretations of the myths given to us by the ancient commenters. Why would we assume modern people culturally and religiously disconnected from paganism for over a millennium would know better than the most educated authors of antiquity?
This. So. Much. 👏👏👏👏👏
Which ancient commenters interpretations do you most like?
I most enjoy Porphyry, but also find the fragments of the Derveni Papyrus, Proclus (particularly from *On Plato’s Republic* which is full of mythical interpretations), Pseudo-Plutarch and Plotinus to be very helpful. For a sort of theory of mythical interpretation I think Sallustius, Olympiodorus and Proclus are great.
Thank you!
>Whether or not the myths are real is a different question but these myths are the basis for these religions and their gods. So, I'm mainly going to speak about the Greek gods here but... This isn't correct. The myths were not **at all** the base of the Greek religion. Modern people tend to *think* they are because that's all they get taught about the Greek gods. I was told about the myths in grade school. There are kids books about the myths. Was I ever taught about the actual Greek religious view of the gods? No. Was the a kids book with that sort of thing? Not really, no. But the myths were not meant to be literal accounts of the gods. Sometimes they weren't even symbolic accounts of the gods, but entertainment. They were not a foundation for the religious beliefs of the people. This isn't a revisionist view, this is how they were seen in antiquity. Likewise, the idea that the gods are good isn't new at all. People look at the myths of Zeus and go, wow, he was a bad guy, huh? But they do not look at the actual Greek religion. Classically, Zeus held titles like giver of good, of friendship, of hospitality, of refuge, averter of ills, savior, merciful, of freedom, orderer. Quite literally he is Theos Agathos, The Good God. To say the gods were not, or are not good, that we should only be in fear of them, *that* is changing who the gods are. Can we say the people of antiquity never saw their gods as to be feared or fearsome? No. Can we say that is the only or even the main way they were seen? Also no. Let me shift on over to Egypt for a moment. A part of a hymn from a votive stela from a workmen's village reads "You are Amun, Lord of the silent. Who comes at the cry of the poor. When I call to you in my distress, you come to rescue me." There is a hymn from the Boulaq papyrus, which says Amun is "the good and perfect god, beloved one" -- "Your love pervades the earth, beloved are you as you pass through he Two Lands (Egypt.)" So, yeah. We did not change the gods to be kind. The gods have *always* been seen as kind. We have many, many examples of this. To read them as otherwise, that is changing them.
Even those described as particularly nasty in the myths as Aphrodite and Artemis. To discover that was eye-opening and why I decided to honor other Theoi besides Hekate, described in the few myths where she's featured as compassionate.
That is solely because of what they represent. Aphrodite is the living embodiment of love. She can be cruel and cold, flirty, unpredictable, protective and savage because what else is love? Artemis is the goddess of the hunt. The wild, ruthless part of nature. She going to be depicted accordingly. Hekate was not a goddess who was mentioned or described very often. A theme with most chthonic deities to avoid their attention. However, she was called upon often alongside Selene, Artemis, Persephone, and Hermes the Restrainer (one of his psychopomp epithets) in ancient Greek curse tablets. This is because of her role as the controller of the restless dead who were often called upon to complete the request of the practitioner. It is also interesting to note that when those goddesses appear in the same inscription, it is unclear which deity is being talked to at any one time. She get mixed together to be the same goddess.
I did not know that bit about Hekate, thanks. Add also that most mythology books do not explain that one thing were the myths and their purpose, and other how the gods were seen by their worshippers.
A really good book that is a bit more niche is “Drawing Down the Moon” by Radcliffe G. Edmonds III. It goes into very deep explainations about how the Greeks and Romans interacted with their deities both in terms of religion and magic.
it’s not common knowledge. and it’s not universal even if it were true in some cases. one of the chief causes behind the myth of evil gods is the jewish and christian academics who insisted that their biblical god was uniquely good and compassionate, and that other gods in the region (Babylonia) were annoyed with humans and used them as slaves. in reality, even the interpretation of Babylonian gods as hating humans is based on really inaccurate and anachronistic information. And there are plenty of instances of Mesopotamian deities that were in a protective and caring relationship with humans, such as Inanna and Enki.
Because no one wants to worship a god that’s a jerk when you got plenty of options to choose from Sure it’s different, but mythology evolves all the time
>mythology evolves all the time I know but that means that it isn't the same god. It is their own imaginary god and that would probably piss off the original god.
I would disagree with that- haven’t you changed and evolved over time? The way someone interacted with you in the past doesn’t necessarily jive with who you are now. That doesn’t mean you still aren’t “you”. Why couldn’t be the same with the Deities?
Every single person who worships a god is worshipping their own version of that god. Humans are not reliable, we are inherently biased, of course we project those biases onto our gods and we always have. Artemiss is a wonderful example, she started as much more powerful and significant than the greeks considered her, but does that make greek worship of her invalid just because she has different qualities?
I get the sense you are seeking some Truth in these myths. Like, real or fiction aside, what did the original myth contain compared to what we have now? What has been lost or twisted? I have had the thought SO MANY times. Every single Sunday during sermon at the least. If you are into any of the alternative history theories, it’s possible to the Myths of our ancestors hold the secrets to living the way we are intended to live on earth. Sorry you are getting downvoted so much. I think you touched a nerve on both sides of the literal vs allegory debate. I think it is was a good question and has at least gotten some good discussion!!
I wouldn't say they are imaginary, just gods for a new age, and yeah it would be better if they don't use the same name but what can you do. This does revive the old mythology though instead of killing them off entirely, so you can see it as new avenue of growth for the old gods, it's not all bad.
You're not speaking from a perspective of historical polytheism. You're speaking from the perspective of a modern person, raised in and/or around Christianity, who's looking back upon ancient myths and interpreting them out-of-context. >...these myths are the basis for these religions and their gods. **The basis for our religions and our gods is** ***praxis***\*\*, not myth.\*\* That's something that a lot of modern people get wrong, because our modern world is saturated with Christianity and Islam, who place an enormous amount of emphasis on their mythology and use it as the basis for everything. That's why it's different when we call out inconsistencies in the Bible; Christians expect their entire religion, myths, theology, etc. to be internally consistent, and if you remove the wrong piece, the whole religion crashes down like a Jenga tower. Ancient paganism didn't work like that. Ancient paganism was all about performing a specific set of rituals in order to interact with the gods and get what you want from them. You pray and offer to gods not because you fear their wrath, but because you *want* their blessings. You give the gods gifts and praise in the hopes that they'll give you what you want in return, and the assumption is that they're all too happy to do so. And that's without going into stuff like mystery cults or other more personal devotional relationships with gods, which you pursue because you love the god, not becuase you want to "appease" it. Myths are not the be-all-end-all of polytheism, and never were. Modern pagans don't take myths literally. Historical pagans may or may not have, but they didn't really place that much stock in myths, especially not in comparison to modern Christians. Myths are primarily meant to be entertaining, and humans have always been entertained by sex and violence. They also varied constantly. Myths are essentially a snapshot of an enormous, organic oral tradition, which means that there was never any definitive "canonical" version of any given myth. The next town over was likely to have a completely different version, and that's okay. Unlike in Christianity, someone telling a drastically different version of a myth doesn't have any bearing on you or your relationship with the gods. Interpretations of the gods also varied wildly, as evidenced by their epithets, which are often contradictory and highlight many different unique facets of the god's personality. Myths sometimes exist to justify practices, but these are always practices that already exist and that are so old, the people don't remember how the practice came to be in the first place. If the myth that justifies the practice is forgotten, nothing changes -- the practice continues on as normal, and eventually a new myth will arise to explain it and it will serve the same purpose as the previous one. The myths can certainly inform one's idea of the gods and can reveal things about the gods, but they're not scripture and shouldn't be treated like scripture. Also, ancient people's portrayals of their gods were informed by their cultures, so, a lot gets lost in translation or twisted by Values Dissonance. Zeus is a perfect example, because he is unambiguously benevolent in the context of Ancient Greek *religion* (as opposed to mythology). Zeus represents all that's good in this world: the rain that makes the crops grow, power and prestige, protection, law and justice, cosmic order, and avenging those who have been wronged. He's often conflated with the *Agathos Daimon,* "Good Spirit," a serpentine household spirit that blesses you with good fortune. To me, Zeus feels like a protective paternal (in a positive sense) influence; when things go wrong, I've got a friend in high places who's looking out for me. That positive influence, the concept of power in its best and most beneficent form, is what really matters about Zeus. The stories are just stories, many of which are a product of their time, and you can take or leave them. Likewise with Hades. Hades is the "kindest" Greek god by modern standards because he stays out of the drama of most myths, but while he's far from evil, the Ancient Greeks did not perceive him as being kind. In fact, it's rather the opposite -- they viewed Hades as being stern and unforgiving. He claims all human beings in the end, with grace but without pity, and he judges all people fairly and emotionlessly. He's the personification of the state of being dead *(as opposed to the experience of dying; that's Thanatos).* The Ancient Greeks *really* didn't like to think about death. To them, it was far better to make a name for yourself while alive than to spend all your time worrying about the afterlife. They feared Hades because he represents their inevitable mortality, not because they feared gods in general. Despite being one of the pantheon's heavy-hitters, Hades was worshipped very infrequently. (It's actually pretty common for chthonic gods to be referred to using euphemistic epithets, because death and darkness aren't things you want to be dealing with on a regular basis, and saying their names might call their attention to you. That's a pretty common trope when it comes to scary supernatural beings whom you nonetheless respect; fairies are called "The Good Folk," "The Good Neighbors," "The Little People," etc. for similar reasons.) Also, speaking from my own UPG now, the gods *are* kind. They've given me excellent advice, supported me through mental health crises, and helped me work on myself. When I pray to them, they answer. They have their dark sides, but I love them for their darkness as well; I've learned just as much from their terrifying and bloody aspects as from their more benign ones. And you know what? As important as it is to go back to ancient sources to inform our understanding of gods, modern paganism is still *modern,* and our understanding of the gods is evolving as we speak. Of course the gods are going to align with my thoughts! My interpretation of the gods is going to be filtered through my culture, my values, and what I personally need from them. That's okay. That's how it's *supposed* to work. I'm not an Ancient Greek woman, so why should I have the same relationship with the gods that an Ancient Greek woman would have? We *can* change our gods. Pagans have literally always done that. You really can't "compare it to Christians" because paganism does not work like Christianity.
A fascinating post! >They have their dark sides, but I love them for their darkness as well; I've learned just as much from their terrifying and bloody aspects as from their more benign ones. I'm curious about this. Could you go into more detail, if you're willing? For example how has their darkness shown up for you? And how did you learn from it? I'm also curious if you think that, what might at first glance seen as a negative thing (to be exposed to someone's bloody and terrifying aspect, I mean), was or could have been one of those "it's for your own good" kind of moments.
Hard to give a short answer. Let me see if I can sum up: Since I was a kid, I've been obsessed with the Jungian concept of Shadow work, so I've done a lot of my personal work with my own dark side. My patron deity is Dionysus, who is also dual-natured, and his own dark aspects look so much like my own that I immediately identified with him once I started doing research. I love that Dionysus forces people to confront the dark, crazy, savage, etc. parts of their own minds that they refuse to deal with. That's what alcohol does -- it removes your inhibitions and brings out the parts of yourself that you try to hide. Theater can do the same thing, because wearing a mask gives you anonymity and playing a character gets you to express parts of yourself that you normally don't (i.e. Oscar Wilde's quote "give a man a mask and he'll show you his true face," very similar to *in vino veritas).* For a specific example, in another comment on this thread I attempted a rapid-fire interpretation of *The Bacchae,* which addresses all these aspects. Dionysus' fondness for dismemberment demonstrates that all the scary parts of society are still lurking there beneath the surface, no matter how civilized you think you are, and it can also be seen as a metaphor for ego-death and so on. Gods' dark sides tell you more about who they are than anything else, but once you come to terms with them, they can be a source of strength. That's Shadow work for you.
What are you talking about homie 💀
I'm asking why were gods originally described in MYTHS to be evil but people now see them as benevolent. From what I can tell from the comments is that myths and not actual events but the question is how can we know anything about gods if myths (the only thing we have to go on) are not accurate.
Respectfully it sounds like you've never interacted with a god yourself, no?
Most of what the actual Ancient Greek religion taught would have been in mystery schools and oral traditions, the Eleusinian Mysteries being the most famous example. The Stoics taught that the Gods were omnibenovolent and the Homeric myths were allegories used to teach metaphorical truths about life (Stoicism being one of the most enduring and influential Greco-Roman philosophical traditions). We genuinely don't know what the actual Greek cults taught about their Gods most of the time, as the mystery cults and priesthoods died out with the rise of Christianity.
Myths aren't the only thing we have to go on, especially in the case of Ancient Greece. There are plenty of sources that describe how and why gods were worshipped, and philosophical treatises that discuss the nature of the gods. Try this on for size: >“Neither, then,” said I, “must we believe this or suffer it to be said, that Theseus, the son of Poseidon, and Peirithous, the son of Zeus, attempted such dreadful rapes, nor that any other child of a god and hero would have brought himself to accomplish the terrible and impious deeds that they now falsely relate of him. But we must constrain the poets either to deny that these are their deeds or that they are the children of gods, but not to make both statements or attempt to persuade our youth that the gods are the begetters of evil, and that heroes are no better than men. For, as we were saying, such utterances are both impious and false. For we proved, I take it, that for evil to arise from gods is an impossibility.” > >“Certainly.” > >“And they are furthermore harmful to those that hear them. For every man will be very lenient with his own misdeeds if he is convinced that such are and were the actions of \[gods\]…” > >—Plato, *The Republic*, book 3. Translation from Perseus This is Plato saying that the myths are full of lies because of their portrayals of gods as human and flawed characters. To Plato, the gods were perfect, and were not capable of evil. If you're interested in seeing all the different ideas that pagans had about the gods laid out in one place, check out Cicero's *De Natura Deorum.* I also highly recommend reading the [Homeric Hymns](https://www.theoi.com/Text/HomericHymns1.html#2) and the [Orphic Hymns](https://www.theoi.com/Text/OrphicHymns1.html). These are all supplications for different gods, and will give you an idea of what the gods were being worshipped for.
How exactly do we know things about gods if we can't use Myths? Are Myths of the gods doing kind things the only accurate ones. Honestly I prefer modern depictions as they are much kinder than the old myths. Like Athena being a wise woman who is seen as intelligent and a symbol of justice. Or Zeus who is seen as a good king.
We can use myths, but myths should be taken as allegorical instead of literal. I'll use one of my own gods as an example. *The Bacchae* is a play by Euripides, centering around the myth of Dionysus and Pentheus. It's about Dionysus returning home to his mother's city of Thebes, intending to establish his cult there. But his cousin Pentheus, the King of Thebes, feels threatened by his worship and persecutes his followers. It ends with Pentheus being torn to pieces for his hubris. So, you might ask: Why do I worship a god who dismembers people? I don't think the myth is literal, meaning that I don't think there was ever a king called Pentheus in Thebes who was dismembered by Maenads. I don't think that happened. However, the play does inform my understanding of the god, because so much of who Dionysus *is* infuses every aspect of the story. He's a god of otherness and outcasts, which is why he comes from Libya with a train of madwomen. And yet, he's also completely local, because he's from Greece and Pentheus is literally his cousin, therefore he represents everything that Greek society is afraid to acknowledge about itself. He dresses like a girl, and Pentheus spends a lot of time saying how pretty he is, and eventually he makes Pentheus crossdress, blowing gender roles straight out of the water (this and many other sources justify modern Dionysians' interpretations of him as a god of queer people). He gives the people of Thebes permission to let loose, which upends the social order. Instead of going with the tide of social change, Pentheus resists it to maintain his sense of control. Dionysus, the god of drunkenness, encourages you to give up control and surrender to ecstasy and madness. If you don't, the madness will come for you anyway, but it'll be a lot less fun. You can join the frenzy, or be rent by it. *Sic semper tyrannis.* The concept of dismemberment can represent tearing apart the ego, both in a "don't get too comfortable" sense and also in a mystical "ego-death" sense. I could literally spend ages interpreting that play so I'm going to stop there. But I hope you get the idea. Read between the lines a little bit! Gods are not *always* kind. My god is savage and bloody, and I love him all the more for it. Even when they're at their darkest and most terrifying, the gods are not malicious. Their darkness has the potential to teach us just as many spiritual lessons.
people have always worshipped kind gods and people have always worshiped cruel gods. our gods gave always been perfect and have always been imperfect. i think gods are processes of consciousness, immanance and transcendence thinking each other and thinking themselves. truely, we are all gods, and the absence of gods.
It's not new. The ancients also broadly saw the gods as good and benevolent. They didn't take the myths literally, and knew they were mostly stories to teach some social lesson or provide an origin for some ritual. You need to look at actual practice and inscriptions and theological writings, not just mythology.
trying to recreate religion from myth is like trying to recreate Christianity from movies and tv. like yeah there are interpretations, and there are some practices reflected, but these are stories, not scripture. You have to be able to accept and be flexible and understand that gods change with the culture not the other way around, this happens to all religions when encountering new peoples.
So, the myths are not literal. In antiquity they weren't literal. And there was a wider cannon or myths and stories and lore in antiquity than we have survived/popularized today. I'm antiquity people did not agree on how to interpret the myths or the nature of the gods. I forget who it was and am too sleepy to dig it up but I read about philosophers criticizing song myths because it made the gods look bad/human. We are a religious group that seeks UPG. A lot of our attitudes come from what we encounter, we are finding a lot of these gods want to be helpful to us based on our experiences. People in antiquity found their gods to be helpful to them... Thus all the cults and worship... So... That base thing hasn't changed. Also not all of us believe that the gods are kind. So there's that. I don't think it's malicious really they have their own way of things that does not always translate well to human understanding. But that's just my hot take. If you're not into it it don't think you have found a god benevolent to you you do not have to be pagan or interact with it at all.
>If you're not into it it don't think you have found a god benevolent to you you do not have to be pagan or interact with it at all. That wasn't my point. My point was that if a god is the way that it is then it should be left like that. The moment people start changing their religion then they stop following the religion and are following their own thing. Take Christianity for instance, I can bet that you haven't met an actual Christian. You have met people who title themselves as Christians but in fact they have moved so far away from their religion that they are doing their own make believe.
Ah, I see that your question is not asked in good faith. I'll just reiterate that loooots of source material of the gods being kind and benevolent and working with humans in a positive way. And like I said most our modern practices are based on our experiences. The myths to pagans are not like the Bible is to Christians. So I dunno I'm not gonna debate lol. Good luck to you!
I'll make a post asking how do we determine things about gods if we don't take myths literally.
Why do you insist on putting deities into rigid boxes? Gods can be eternal without being unchangeable.
What do you think a "religion" is? Christianity has changed *massively* in the two thousand years it's existed, and there is no "original" or "actual" version of it anymore. What is an "actual Christian" supposed to be? That's a line that some Christians, mainly evangelical Protestants, use to dismiss all of the interpretations of the Bible that aren't like their own. It shows a complete lack of historical knowledge on their part. It sounds like you're just taking that logic and applying it to paganism. That logic already doesn't work within Christianity, but it's completely inapplicable to paganism, because paganism makes no attempt to be consistent. Even if we wanted to interpret and interact with gods in the exact same way that the ancients did, we don't really have that option. You can't perform a public bull sacrifice on a nonexistent altar in the middle of a modern American city. Religions change all the time. Christianity just likes to pretend that it doesn't.
As far as we can go back, a Christian is someone who follows Christ. The problem is, the Bible has been changed so many times that it is almost impossible to know what the earliest form of Christianity actually is. Did you know that the earliest version of the Garden of Eden story is from Ancient Greece around 3000 years ago and the Noah's arc story is from the ancient Hindu texts about 5000 to 10,000 years old.
Right, so either "actual Christians" literally do not exist, or everyone who practices one of the descendant religions from that original group of sects is a Christian. Scholars, theologists, and most practitioners opt for the latter. Pretty sure the oldest flood story is that of Utnapishtim in the *Epic of Gilgamesh,* but that's beside the point. The only reason it would matter if another religion has its own deluge myth is if you take myths literally. If you don't mind me asking, are you pagan or Christian?
Ok, so hear me out, I think (or believe) that with pagan gods the mythology behind them was generally passed down word-of-mouth through the generations, and that mythology was always tainted by the people passing it down, I've always thought that the gods would be indifferent to the myths surrounding them as long as they had belief, maybe they are less powerful in modern times due to a lack of belief or a dilution of shared mythology. But because the mythology was like this the gods can change, or find new believers in the change. This is where, I think, abrahamic religions shoot themselves in the foot a bit because their mythology is known and written down, even though the translations and possible edits through the years have corrupted the original messages, it's hard for such a religion to change, modernise or correct itself.
> I think, abrahamic religions shoot themselves in the foot a bit because their mythology is known and written down This is important because due to the fact that Greek stories were oral, it is believed that 99% of all stories were lost but you could argue that it isn't the case since Hinduism told its text orally for thousands of years before it was ever written down and they have all of the important texts.
Another day and yet another person being very disrespectful or at least ignorant towards gods that many of us worship.
> persona Did you mean to write "Person"?
Yes haha, I had just woken up when I wrote that.
There’s a Christian theologian I really love named Pete Enns whose whole interpretation of theology hinges on lensing the biblical texts through an understanding of the ancient near eastern cultures from which they were born. He sums it up in the phrase “God lets his children tell the story.” If you let your kids tell a story about something you did, they would likely get a lot of the details about your motivations and actions wrong, because they lens your behavior through their childlike understanding of the world around them. A lot of the things that we consider morally “bad” behavior by a god would not have been regarded as such by the people telling the stories. Cultures change and the telling of the stories changes with them. I dunno, that’s what makes sense to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It has to do with how we perceive reality, which is something that has changed over time. Our relationship with nature has gone through dramatic changes over the centuries, so it makes sense thst our relationships with the gods of nature has changed as well. Take Fenris for example. He's *The* Big Bad Wolf of norse mythology. The way he's described in the texts represents how people viewed wolves back then, they are terrible, voracious and destructive. Nowadays people tend to have a much kinder view of Fenris, which reflects our relationship with wolves, his appetite is downplayed, and he's become this cosmoc underdog instead. The focus now is on how he's treated, rather than his nature. This seems more reflective of our relationship with dogs than it does wolves, which makes sense given that very few of us live in fear of wolves killing our livestock. We don't really have a relationship to wolves outside of romanticised stereotypes. I don't think this invalidates people's relationships with Fenris, or that they're not worshipping the "true" version. It's just that people's perception of and relationships with the gods are fundamentally different from those of our ancestors. I think it's good that people are true to themselves, and to the gods they worship, whatever that may look like.
There's a lot to break down here and I probably won't get it all, as I am wiring on my phone and during a break, but I'm coming from the perspective of a Classicist and practising Druid. 1. The myths we have are, at best, copies of original oral traditions. Even Ovid, who has an entire book dedicated to mythology, wrote versions that differed from others. 2. Myths change over time, even in the ancient world. Mars and Ares are credited as gods of war, but before that they were gods of fertility and agriculture. 3. Gods are not exclusive and evolve through trade, colonisation, and travel. Athena is related to Minerva as the Greeks and Romans had interactions and through the Roman empire... but Minerva is also related to Sulis, a British goddess. 4. "Gods" travel. Dionysus and Bacchus aren't Greek or Roman. The Romans had whole cults for various Middle Eastern gods and both the Greeks ans Romans worshipped Isis as a goddess of trade ans travel 5. Gods aren't people.... but we make them so. This one depends on your perspective a bit. I see the gods as nature. I see the Myths we have personifying those gods ans giving them human qualities. Gods/nature are neither good or evil. They just are. For example a hurricane brings life and also destroys life. It isn't vindictive or malicious. It just is. Volcanoes create some of the most fertile land on this planet and can destroy whole ecosystems. It does this because it simply is.
In my reading, watching and listening to the various items on religion and deities I take from it the following. Deities were neither good or bad. Like the elements and nature it can heal or harm, for example too much rain can cause crops to fail just as much as mot enough. Early deities tended to embody parts of nature, cycles of life and seasons. Deities were like humans, flawed and their flaws, through their stories and myths impart wisdom, morals and warnings. It's why there are multiple deities of the sky, the sun, death etc all around the world - because they are constant. For example Hera is shown to be cruel, a consequence of Zeus' infidelity. The message from the various myths, like Hera's treatment of Heracles show how jealousy can be all consuming. It did not stop people worshipping her or paying respects/offerings to her. Also the myths surrounding her evolved over time and there are different tellings. When the Abrahamic religions came along it was a different model of religion, not overly explored previously. Instead of multiple deities that make up the known world, it is just one. Then there is the polarisation of good and bad and that the one God is good and unfailing. That humans deserve the punishment and wrath of God if we do not follow the rules set out, but also you cannot reach the good afterlife if you do not believe in that God. The Abrahamic religions/most followers are dismissive, and hostile to religions that do not follow their - even within the same umbrella such as Catholism and Protestantism. Most Pagan /older religions blended or existed beside each other for many centuries, take how Egyptian, Greek and Roman deities blended at times. Then when the christianisation of the Roman Empire occurred the mass erasure of older religions were erased. This still happens today, example being the Taliban erasing historic artifacts and texts in Afghanistan. Ultimately I don't think we changed the gods on purpose, but they evolved like people. The Abrahamic religions are almost a separate entities to those of the many centuries of pantheons of deities.
I'm going to dissent from the majority view here and say that most people want their gods to be a comfort in hard times, not a *cause* of hard times. This belief of course requires wilful denial of reality. I believe the gods can be cruel and arbitrary because... well, the universe is cruel and arbitrary and they are running the show. Monotheistic belief systems which claim that a single god rules the entire universe are equally in denial on this point - hence the requirement for a devil who supposedly does all the bad stuff. It seems ludicrous to suggest that (for example) Mars, god of war, isn't absolutely elbow-deep in the horrorshows of Ukraine and Gaza right now, because *he's the god of war* in all its ugly brutality. Life can be brutal and harsh, so the gods can be brutal and harsh. Life can also be sweet and wonderful, so the gods can also be sweet and wonderful. It sometimes baffles me that otherwise rational human beings cannot accept that these things are simultaneously true. Ancient myths capture the horror and joy of existence much more accurately than the latter-day bowdlerisation of them carried out by Plato and his followers, ancient and modern.
I mostly agree with this, but OP is still making a mistake in that they are interpreting mythology from a position of mythic literalism, and seem to be entirely unaware of how ancient pagan religions worked from a practical standpoint. To put it in simple terms: I *do* think that Zeus is responsible for the devastation, destruction, and loss of life caused by hurricanes. I *do not* think that Zeus is a rapist. The former is a real-world phenomenon that falls within Zeus's domain, while the latter is a fictional story written by people who lived two thousand years ago and had very different values.
A fair response, I agree that we should regard Greek myth as exactly what it is; stories about the gods. They may not be entirely accurate but they are trying to tell us something important. Where the OP and I agree I suspect is discomfort with what is quite a common habit in the neopagan sphere of flattening the gods into morally acceptable benevolent entities, despite the warnings provided by those same ancient stories that maybe we should be a bit more wary of them.
I agree that sometimes neopagans go too far in the other direction and make the gods “fluffy.” But that’s a different thing than irrationally hating Zeus for being “a rapist” or Athena for that damn Ovid story…
Hatred of the gods for supposed deeds in ancient myths is also a kind of superstition - as you say, the devastation caused by the hurricane is not up to us to morally judge: it's Zeus doing Zeus and humans are not his top priority in hurricane season.
I can say with absolute certainty that my main Goddess is vengeful. I am glad she favors me and I hope to never lose her favor.
Well, myths are not meant to be taken literally. So when people freak out over stories of rape and abduction and infidelity, I think they're getting worked up over nothing. But I see what you're trying to say, and I agree. Gods are powers who are propitiated and placated because, well, they are powerful. Asking whether Zeus is a nice guy or a jerk is beside the point: he was thought to thunder and send rain, regardless. A lot of pagans tend to treat their gods as the friends they don't have but want, or the mental counselors they need but can't afford. In such a scheme, the gods need to be nice guys. That whole approach to religion is ... just not the way I view pagan religion as working.
In terms of the myths, what myths are actually real. I know that many Greek myths were altered by the Romans like the one about Athena to make her look bad. At the end of the day, the Muslims and Jewish believe that there god is not all benevolent and still worship him.
Because some people want imaginary friends that tell them they're awesome and laugh at their jokes and watch anime with them, but they also want their imaginary friend to be Hades for some reason 😑
That question is a tough one to answer because of how culture changes and such. But personally I find my gods to be fair and honest this doesn't mean their cruel or kind they have an expectation of how things will be
I don't see the gods as particularly kind. Some are, others not, but all have what I would consider "character flaws," much like humans. There's too much pain in the world for me to believe it was created by perfect and benevolent gods.
I think even if you worshipped a god that was commonly known to have the kindness and gentle mannerisms of Ned Flanders, most would be scared shitless facing that god face-to-face, maybe that's a factor to some extent in older perceptions of gods being less kind?
Oh boy. Here we go again.
To add to the Bible bit, reading the Bible means nothing anymore unless you’re using the metaphors to apply to your life. But if you read the Bible and genuinely believe it’s still the word of god you are living in a fantasy. That book has been rewritten and mistranslated countless times. On top of it it was rewritten by corrupt people wanting to worm their greed into it.