Why did the greeks portray the king of the gods as an infidel and a rapist?

you are fucking boring

a dude literally killed 1200 men with the jaw of a donkey

Because there is no right or wrong, only power.

Yeah yeah, he meant Jesus of course.
The ancients knew their gods to be more like every other human. It did explain to their way of thinking why life was so cruel and random.
Only idiots would try to claim god was loving.

Okay, hold up.

Your reading holds water only if a sheep sacrifice and a crop sacrifice are equal.

They are not, per the terms of the narrarive, for the following reasons:

°Adam and eve were each given a bloody fleece to wear by God himself, before getting permab&. This is the precedence, holy example; Abel follows, Cain doesnt.

°The ground is cursed by Adam's goof. "Thorns and thistles it will bring forth" . Cain giving a crop sacrifice is giving out of a cursed source.

Also, God tells cain 2 things:
°sacrifice well (ie follow your brother) and it will be accepted.

°beware, sin crouches at your door. Ie, you are about to goof seriously bad.

God is not out to fuck with Cain. Get this bias out of your math. Cain gets a holy precedent, an immediate approved example, and a warning to help him make a decision. He decided to be an asshole instead.

Also, after cain was warned, he could have just traded crops with abel for a couple of sheep to sacrifice.

If a government wants its taxes in cash money, theres no point gettig angry when it refuses to accept a *superior value in carpets.

So noted.

Also, crop might be a type of the treeofknowledgegoodevil; not sure God can endorse that, since it is now a symbol of Adam's disobedience.

that's herakles, not zeus

Dafuq you mean by infidel?

Did Zeus break any off his own rules? Hospitality and shit?

Asshole behaviour is permitted for the great against the little, for the olde Greeks. Zeus could be the biggest asshole; he was cornfather.

There's also the monologue in Job where God say "Bitch I made the funcking mountains, you think you can file a complaint against to me lol".

I think OP meant unfaithful to his wife. He might be a native speaker of a language were the two word are the same.

Zeus is the god for kings and men, Christ is for slaves and the scum of the earth.

Attached: Christ vs Zeus.jpg (2500x1250, 446K)

Ok, will address.

>Infidel
Hey OP, do you mean adulterer? Sexing outside of marriage?

kek

Love the "never turned anyone into an animal" bit.

That line will only be pompous if it came from a fellow mortal.

If an IRL OG God said it, it makes every sense.

Say a toddler, 3 years old, starts criticising Frederic the Great, or Ceasar at the height of empire. What do you think these guys would say?

#ignore is most likely; "shut up bitchlet nigger you can't even BEGIN" comes up second. Now crank up that power difference to Very God of Very God VS Some Scrub On Earth, and YJWJ's response isnt unexpected.

First of all you type like a massive faggot. Second of all, what I said was the mainstream interpretation; nobody worth their salt debates this. Cain never received instruction on how to sacrifice correctly. He did nothing wrong, but God admonishes him about sin.
Stop typing like that please. You're proving that user's point. The Abrahamic God isn't all kind and loving. He's an unpredictable tyrant.

No. It's pompous and assholeish no matter who's saying it.

>Type like massive faggot
Sorry.
>There were no hard rules given regarding sacrifice
No hard rules that we know of, sure. BUT, Cain and Abel both showed up at the same place same time for the same thing: to present an offering. This suggests that there was a protocol, even if vague.

Maybe Cain didnt know the rules/ there were no rules. But God gave a correction:
Do this, not that. This makes God not a (obvious) asshole.

>Appeal to mainstream understanding to pass judgment
What mainstream? Populist secular mainstream? Or Christian mainstream?

Okay, so God is in your view assholeish.

Would you say God didnt have a point? At the very least, "know your place, Man." ?

If there's one thing Yea Forums has proved, it is that assholes tell the truth (as they see it) more vehemently and completely than is normally done.

Is there a reason why you expect God to be nice and polite?

I am an absolutely ginormous faggot and I did nothing wrong.

>God is unpredictable
Religious scholarship, priestly function, ritual festivals, etc, are all premised on God being quite predictable. You think God is unpredictable; that might just be you.

>God is tyrant
You're on Yea Forums; familiar with the idea of the benevolent dictator?
The root meaning of tyrant just means overlord, not evil overlord; the modern idea of hitler-tyrant is morally charged, carrying excess baggage, like the word "gentleman". I am not of a mind to accept it.

But let us say you mean
>God is an evil bastard king
What are you driving at exactly? He is not real, or not worth serving, or deserves rvolt, or what?

First you have to define what you think predictable is. I'm aware of the etymology of tyrant and I think he is one. I'm not saying he's not worth serving and I'm not saying he deserves revolt. I think he should be feared, like all the ancients did.

Having nothing resembling a universally agreed account of the gods except the Iliad and Hesiod (which many writer are far from approving of,) I'm a sceptic about referring to "The Greeks" in capitals. But the fact that there are myths about Zeus cheating on his wife or abducting people (Danae is the only case of rape in the modern sense) doesn't make it the official portrayal of Zeus by the Greeks, or even imply that most Greeks believed them. Ancient Greek authors have a very complex relationship towards mythology, tending (imo) to deny it, on historical (from Hecataeus on) or religio-philosophical (Xenophanes, Plato) grounds. Poets (the backbone of Greek education) are caught brazenly changing myths for their purposes: the Medea myth as we have it stems either from a tragedian called Neophron or from Euripides himself; before these two, the part about Medea killing her children wasn't in there at all!
There's an interesting study that addresses this from a less literary, more anthropological standpoint: Paul Vernant's 'Did The Greeks Belive in Their Myths?' He has a penchant for confusing us (he's french), so he insists that we change our perspective: "What constitutes 'belief' in different eras? Myth was considered to hold certain truths in it, and so has a claim for belief; but does that imply accepting them as entirely true? Was that even a part of the program? Would that be the only way myths could be 'believed'?"
Lay religion and all classical authors saw Zeus as just and benevolent, not the criminal figure later portrayed by Christians. This is proved, I think, by a scholar called Hugh Lloyd-Jones in a book called 'The Justice of Zeus', which I highly recommended. Much of our conceptions of Hellenic religion are still highly influenced by the mindset revealed by Augustine in The City of God - that Polytheism is immoral and irrational ipso facto that it is Polytheism.

Okay, i'll go first.

Predictable:
-break the (current) rules, get a bad response from God
-obey the (current) rules, get a good response.
-twist the rules to commit fuckery, get btfo b&

The particulars of the response are iffy to predict, but broadly can be called Good Ending and Bad Ending.

On this count, predictable.

Now you, please. What is "unpredictable."

Zeus is :
-Patricide
-Endorses the kidnap of persephone by Hades
-Repeat cheat on wife with various and boipussi
-Does not pass judgment on eternal asshole Ares for various; and Posidon for desecrating Athena's temple with Medusa

There are accounts of justice, not denying; the lapses happen just as often.

Looked up Lloyd Jones.

Found a book review

jstor.org/stable/3296453?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

"Unconvincing" posit that Zeus is actively involved in justice. Also, "artistic purposes" is used as a sop when Zeus' failures of justice cannot be explained.

There were mystery religions and ritual frenzies on record, eg women tearing a man apart who violated the rule of a female-only mystery.

They need not be able to explain the myth or account for anything in it to believe it completely.

No, that's not accurate. Greeks and Romans did have strong ideas of right and wrong, they were just different than the ideas about those things that arose with Christianity. For example Greeks considered cowardice, mistreatment of guests, patricide etc as wrong. Zeus was meant to have killed his father, but killing ones father wasn't considered okay in ancient Greece at all.

Is Zeus the ultimate mythological Chad?

The Greeks had a weirdly mechanistic view of the universe, read Hesiod. Zeus isn't the creator god, or the god who was kindest to man. He was the god of being in charge based on the guys who were usually in charge at the very beginning of the Iron Age, because that made sense if you think gods are just more powerful mortals. As above so below. The Greeks only really became concerned with morality justice and ethics around the time of Solon, and by then the religion had already been mostly crystallized.

There are Indo European influences in Abrahamic religion and the Greeks

Yes, he absolutely is.
He smacks his bitch down to Earth when she attempts to give him lip and cucks her repeatedly to bang as much as he wants.

>literally
>a biblical story
mmmh user....

>Yea Forums
>the truth
how new?

Read the City of God .
Also saying "the Greeks" is misleading. Monotheistic beliefs existed and were held by a sizable number of intellectuals.

Not the objective truth, read the post again. i qualified it with ellipses "truth (as they see it)" and modifying clauses "more completely than is normally done".

Trolling baits aside, i can count on anons to say what they really think and how they really feel without filters more than i can those outside of chan.

Because greek goods have flaws, they were not conceived as all mighty or what ever.

Also I hope you don't think your pic is related. If yes just kill yourself.

Had the statue been made in 2018, the penis would have been grotesque and enlarged, and possibly bent.

Men, have their own "roasty", and that is the "shower", ie, a penis that no longer is able to contract fully. The pop-sci explanation is that it just a matter of individual variation but this is ignorant, simplistic, and not rooted in medicine. Rather, the phenomenon of the shower is a pathological entity, which develops from sexual excesses, irritating the cavernous nerves, inducing aberrant ischiocavernosus hypertrophy, atrophying some pelvic floor muscles later on, and incurring the development of scar tissue in the penis (latter being the most widespread hypothesis behind the patogenesis of peyronie's disease). The end result is an inability to fully contract, the "shower". This is a cause for concern, as the now cumbersome organ is much more prone to injury, whether impact or prolonged exposure to very cold weather, and it gives rise to spurious and undesirable arousal from something as simple as clothe friction, and also undermines inhibitory control as the partly erect state, is more responsive to visual stimuli such as that of an attractive woman; and even unaroused, it being partly erect, plausibly gives rise to purely autonomic processes likely increasing activity within the vesicle in expectancy of future release. The arousal, if prolonged or too frequent, leads to what in the past was termed spermatorrhea, which we now know is the seepage of cowper's fluid. The size makes exercise less comfortable and pants fit less well.

Anatomically, the penis is able to contract to 1/8th of its fully erect size, and the resting state should be slightly around that, especially when at slightly below room temperature. The pernicious habit of masturbation is so prevalent in this day and age, that people do it daily if not more frequently, that they wrongly assume their 'shower' was always like this. I can assure you, it wasn't. To offer my own anecdote, I used to have a "grower", until my pornography habit escalated in my early 20s, which rendered it to this sad "shower" state . Abstinence, cold showers, and exercise has helped reverse the damage considerably, along with vitamin E and acetyl-l-carnitine supplementation. I shudder to think that had Peyronie's disease not been as expounded in detail by urology, there would have been moronic BuzzFeed-tier articles today asking "Are you a Bender or a Straight-er".
This is a problem is so widespread that the only people I've encountered in medicine even who are aware this is a problem are older urologists. Its so prevalent that most people look at the statue and say "lol why does he have a small dick", ignorant of the penis's capacity to inflate eightfold that size, and that it is they who are diseased.

Attached: 1551135643802.jpg (975x1705, 469K)

This. Truly batrachian.

You have my fedora.

Regarding my previous post:

Good points, but these - except for the Titanomachy - are mainly known to us as myths, and it's their universal acceptance that I'm inclined to doubt. There are some core myths that everyone seems to believe (e.g. Titanomachy, Herculean Labours, Lapiths & Centaurs,) but others are shrouded in doubt. Only the Titanomachy seems to have some official traction, thanks to Hesiod (Cronus isn't actually killed but rather imprisoned in Tartarus, or under mt. Aetna in other versions, clearing Zeus from the blame of parricide - which was very serious in antiquity.) I'm not saying it's an easy way out of the divine immorality thesis: different myths were clearly known and discussed frequently, and are further represented on vases, friezes and so forth; but some myths were clearly not taken very seriously, and shouldn't have had. Considering rape, say: mythographers must have also had a structural reason for inculcating it in different versions of myths for genealogical reasons. Genealogy would also serve the needs of nobles Greek families, who claimed descent from different gods and heroes: marriage with a god being impossible, their ancestor must have been seduced or raped. This is where things get political, and the average Greek viewer extremely critical.

Lloyd-Jones is a renowned scholar, though I should've added that his thesis was and remains provocative.

Mostly ritualized to abandon by the Classical period: three old housewives carrying a thiasus to a mountain and coming back by dinner or something... We have no contemporary testament of Maenads roaming around Thrace tearing people to pieces. Mysteries actually seem to have been surprisingly mundane in antiquity - nothing like the depraved orgies of later pop culture.
On point 2 I disagree: credere quia absurdum is the provenance of very select minority. Most of us need to rely on some sign, be it ever so traditional or heuristic.

Because that is what men do when there are none above them. You can argue the point, but if you give a man ultimate power, he's going to do what he was going to do with regular power, but with less restraint.

You hit the nail on the head (an idiom to keep at bay...) The ancients generally considered smaller penises to be more handsome and virile, as you can tell from Aristophanes:

if you carry out these things I mention,
if you concentrate your mind on them,
you’ll always have a gleaming chest, bright skin,
broad shoulders, tiny tongue, strong buttocks,
and a little prick. But if you take up
what’s in fashion nowadays, you’ll have,
for starters, feeble shoulders, a pale skin,
a narrow chest, huge tongue, a tiny bum,
and a large skill in framing "long decrees" [Clouds 1007-1018]

>Cronus was buried not butchered
Accepted.

>Various affairs is to estab ruling legitimacy without going against the norm of monogamy
Accepted.

>Lloyd Jones
Yeah, doesnt seem like a very strong case. Trust

greek mythology was about the triumph of humanity. gods were portrayed with flaws to give the impression that they're not much different from us, and therefore we are like gods for all intents and purposes.
compare this with Abrahamic religion in which everything is designed to create a subservient population worshipping an otherworldly incomprehensible entity of infinite power.

problem?

>the epicurean trilemma

Not even true, shit meme.

based and redpilled