Mythology Thread

>lul random xD

Gaia, Zeus and Hades are actually based

You forgot Satan. Christianity isn't really monotheistic.

Prometheus was a wily trickster and look where it got him/men

Satan can hardly be called a lesser god distinct from capital G God, Satan is whoever stands in opposition to Christian doctrine.

But polytheistic religions also have their capital "G" god, and it's usually the typical "Heavenly Father" figure - Zeus, Odin, Jupiter etc. All the other gods are lesser deities, much like the accessory figures of Christianity (archangels, saints, the Madonna etc.)

Christianity is essentially a hyper-patriarchal and authoritarian evolution of polytheism. All the familiar archetypes are there, but the Heavenly Father is exalted to obscene, omnipotent proportions, while the Earth Mother is diminished to something effete and demi-human (a literal virgin.)

YHWH lost the war in heaven. Lucifer stands in heaven. Why do you think existence hurts so much? We're ruled over by a capricious trickster.

That's funny as hell though.

He wasn't raped, he did it as a distraction

>Twas merely an act!

Because they make you laugh

I'm guessing your intro to philosophy class is going well?

>merely pretending

>wanting some giant to own the sun and the moon

Not even remotely. In a polytheistic religion, multiple beings each hold exclusive domain over certain classes of being. While there may be one being more powerful than any other, or one that created the rest, Zeus has no dominion over the oceans or earthquakes. Poseidon is an entirely different being with his own characteristics and temperament who makes his own decisions. In Christianity and Judaism and Islam, there is one being with total control over all domains of existence. No angel or demon can contravene the will of God. Not as in "will be punished for it", but is literally incapable of doing anything God does not allow. Not only is God undefiable, he is the only being with any actual power. All other beings only have that power which God allows to them. That theological metaphysics is vastly different from any proposed by polytheistic religion.

>In Christianity and Judaism and Islam, there is one being with total control over all domains of existence.
Hence my reference to the hyper-patriarchal and authoritarian nature of Abrahamic religion. The Heavenly Father archetype is elevated to the status of omnipotence. And yet there are still lesser figures who are reverenced, each with their own departments and magic tricks, in the manner of lesser gods and demi-gods. In a truly monotheistic religion the only object of reverence would be the One God.

>Not as in "will be punished for it", but is literally incapable of doing anything God does not allow.
So how come the Bible is replete with examples of people being punished for contravening God's will, starting with Adam and Eve ... ?

No. You are reading what you want to read, and not what is presented to you. There are no demigods in Christianity. God is the only object of reverence. Saints are respected for the Grace God gave them. Everything is understood to come from God. Your will has domain only over itself. You can set your will against God only because he allows it, and in doing so, you have power over nothing but your will.

The reason the old testament is full of "punish" is because it is the simplest and most convenient way to explain a very complicated metaphysical problem. The long version is written there two, but most people don't give the book the attention it needs. Adam and Eve are told that if they eat from the fruit of the tree, they will surely die, but they are allowed (physically) to eat from the tree? God does not want for them necessarily to eat from the tree, but if he did not want them to have the option of choosing to eat it, it never would have existed. There are no epiphenomena in the Christian metaphysics. By eating from the tree, Adam and Eve are not punished in the sense people normally mean. It is not the same as sending someone to jail, or spanking a child. Rather you could say that when you drop a ball, it is punished via gravity to no longer be in your hand. Adam and Eve experience death because they set their wills against God's. This, of course, was only possible because God made it so. This means that despite their wills, Adam and Eve do not alter or deviate from God's path, which encompasses all things by necessity. There will is set against him, and so they cannot experience the completeness of his love, because God has allowed people the choice to deny themselves his presence. It is this cosmic choice which gives our lives meaning, and fulfills God's total love. If loving God was not a choice, if it could not be denied in full, then it could not be true love. Because God is everything, there could be nothing greater than to love and experience him as much as is possible. By getting to choose, we become truly conscience of his graciousness. This pattern of self-reflection resounds through all eternity, and is epitomized in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

You want to make demands of Christian metaphysics, but do not bother to spend the time to realize all your demands have already been met, to an extent you never could imagine. You say the only object of reverence would be the One God, and don't realize that in Christianity God is the only true being at all.

Oh boy, gotta love those True Believers.

If you don't even recognise your god as the projection of an archetype (and far from an original one) then there's no talking to you.

I wish we knew more about norse & germanic paganism, I find it fascinating but almost all of the stories we have were recorded after they had been christian for a few centuries..

And where do archetypes come from?
By the fact of any existence, there must be an architecture to the universe. If we can know certain requirements of existence, then we can immediately cross out any explanation that contradicts those requirements. When one explanation continues to not only meet the requirement, but further explain other mysteries, it deserves closer attention. You make the fatal mistake of believe the present is inherently more advanced than the past, and that you, by living now, are superior to all your ancestors. The older you get, the more you will come to realize the tragedy of your choice.

Take Native American beliefs, now imagine them as white people in the forest.

It was a prank, bro

If you don't like Anansi then you didn't read his fun stories, like when he sella his grandmother's corpse for beer and makes the tiger kill his own granny, too.

>And where do archetypes come from?
The human psyche. They are the avatars of instinct and evolutionary imperatives. Guessing you haven't read Jung.

>When one explanation continues to not only meet the requirement, but further explain other mysteries, it deserves closer attention.
Except there isn't just one: there are many religions on offer, each as rational or irrational as the next, with no necessary compulsion to choose one over another. The only valid standpoint is founded on a study of comparative religion. Guessing you haven't read Frazer.

>You make the fatal mistake of believe the present is inherently more advanced than the past, and that you, by living now, are superior to all your ancestors.
I make no claim to superior intelligence. But I do have seven thousand years of recorded learning to fall back on, much of it a few clicks away, and none of my ancestors had that. Thankfully, access to information is no longer controlled by religious bureaucracies; as a result, human knowledge has advanced at an unprecedented rate.

>The older you get, the more you will come to realize the tragedy of your choice.
Kek. Well it had better happen soon, dad, cause I ain't no spring chicken anymore.

Bro Jung creates his own archtypes, to argue other types.

Lol

In English, please.

Jung creates his own metaphysical contraptions to persuade his fellow individuals to buy into his own formulatic schematics.

Jung's theories are founded on decades of psychoanalytic practice. They are at least based on empirical observations rather than unfounded, axiomatic articles of faith.

>squirming this hard
Holy fuck, why not just admit that religion is irrational and a matter of personal choice. It can't be explained or justified by reason, and trying to do so is just embarrassing.

Psychoanalytic is just another pretense to fall into user, your complete priori is irrevelant to the greater topic.