Something i thought of through the other thread on a Demiurge currently running in the forum.

In ancient Greek theogonic myths, it is extremely dangerous to try to go near any of the gods, even the lesser ones. Those who tried seldom lived to tell the story, and often were met with the most abominable ends one could imagine.

However the religion seemed to function, as a projection of human traits onto gods, and on the other hand a reminder that "those who are bigger cut through the spider's web", ie that laws of ethics do not have any meaning when one is talking about a highly superior being.

This ancient Greek ethos finds its way and outlet not only in myths, and in historiological comments such as that about the spider's web (originally it was meant as a paradigm of how the oligarchs cut through the laws, whereas the weak people get caught in them) but also history itself. I am reminded here of the Melian dialogues, where the Melians plead to Athens about justice, and what is fair, but the Athenians reply that only among equals there exists the notion of fairness in a struggle.

Today this ethos may seem too cruel. However other writers (such as Nietzsche) have even claimed that it was a more human, and thus viable, ethos, and what replaced it was the decadent ethics of christianity, which are argued to be un-natural by comparisson.

Anyway after this preface you are free to vote, and hopefully discuss what you think of the topic presented thus far.

Aren't all gods/deities dangerous in some way? Gods are divine entities with supernatural powers and abilities, anyone and anything with such properties should be considered as (potentially) dangerous.

Depends on whether the correct term to negate evil is meekness. A meek god, all-good, might be seen as a more obvious candidate for christian ehtics itself, than the current supposed christian god (?).

Generally in the christian religion there exists a lot of violence as well. And not only in the old testament. I recall how in the acts of the apostles two people just die because they lied to an apostle.

No, that's why I'm no longer Christian. (That was a joke).

Depends on whether the correct term to negate evil is meekness. A meek god, all-good, might be seen as a more obvious candidate for christian ehtics itself, than the current supposed christian god (?).

Generally in the christian religion there exists a lot of violence as well. And not only in the old testament. I recall how in the acts of the apostles two people just die because they lied to an apostle.

If the deity we're talking about is meek and all-good, then there would be no reason to worship it, because that meek and all-good god couldn't do anything bad (for example condemning to hell) to us. There would be no negative consequences to not worshiping it. The only gods worth worshiping are dangerous gods, unless the meek god would give some kind of a benefit to the people who worship it. Though denying those benefits from some people could be seen as an "evil" move, in that case the meek god would make either all benefit or none would benefit from worshiping.

I often wonder if it is not too much of us humans to think our thoughts and actions have to have some meaning to a superior being. Surely given enough incentive we can come up with theories 'explaining' the several open holes in each theology. But i think that maybe things are simpler, in that there is no eternal punishment (if there is anything eternal that is). Why organize the cosmos in a way that befits someting conscious of being ephemeral, when you are an eternal god?

What good is a goddess if she isn't dangerous? :crazyeye:

I often wonder if it is not too much of us humans to think our thoughts and actions have to have some meaning to a superior being. Surely given enough incentive we can come up with theories 'explaining' the several open holes in each theology. But i think that maybe things are simpler, in that there is no eternal punishment (if there is anything eternal that is). Why organize the cosmos in a way that befits someting conscious of being ephemeral, when you are an eternal god?

If our thoughts and actions have no meaning to a superior being, there is no reason to worship any kind of a deity. Every religion is completely dependant on the thought that our actions and thoughts are meaningful to a deity / deities.

Hm, maybe though (it is not more irrational imo than other beliefs) it could be thought that man's existence is pre-determined. I am sure there have been theologies supporting this view in the past. Maybe- as a poster of these forums once supported in an OP, with or without believing it- the only thing variable is what you believe in, and that results in a continuation of your life in the way that belief is shaping. At least this would have been a religion which would be a lot more happy and positive in my view :)

I understand that coming from a Biblical point of view, that worship is not a choice, would nullify the question.

It is not logical to worship a dangerous god. You may fear it, you may worship it if it demands you to, but even then, you have a choice.

From all examples in the Bible though, worship is not an option. It is something that one cannot stop themself from doing. That might logically infer that the worshipped is dangerous, but it negates a choice. The point in the Bible that is stressed is do not worship any other god. Do not even worship "the devil" for even the devil will one day be forced to worship God. As far as the Bible goes, the devil is the only entity that has a choice in the matter.

Greek Gods are boring. Child sacrifice is where it's at. Baʿal Hammon4lyfe.

Milk-Qart was cooler.

Milk-Qart = Milk Cart/Quart. :(

Aslan is not a tame lion.

What do you mean by "worship" exactly?

I am against the idea of worshipping anyone or anything, in the sense that I won't say "You are amazing", drop to my knees, and proclaim that I'm not worthy.

In that sense I will not worship anyone, but if you mean something else by the word, then I might.

If our thoughts and actions have no meaning to a superior being, there is no reason to worship any kind of a deity. Every religion is completely dependant on the thought that our actions and thoughts are meaningful to a deity / deities.
Yep, and just like little kids eventually grow up and realize It's Not All About Them, so too must humans grow up and realize It's Not All About Us. Our planet as an integrated natural object/ecosystem does not care about us. I sometimes refer to "Mother Nature", but the truth is that Nature does not care about us. Nature is neither good nor evil in and of itself. It simply is.

Man creates deities in his own image, because the Universe as a whole just can't be bothered doing it the other way around.

The danger lies in man's continued insistence on lying to himself about this, just to keep trying to make it All About Him (us).

Seems to me that falls someplace under the sin of pride... :hmm:

I worship the ....

it cost me, time, money, attention and my life revolve around it...

If our thoughts and actions have no meaning to a superior being, there is no reason to worship any kind of a deity. Every religion is completely dependant on the thought that our actions and thoughts are meaningful to a deity / deities.


There's no shortage of religious traditions premised on aloof deities which don't care a whit for what man does.

There's no shortage of religious traditions premised on aloof deities which don't care a whit for what man does.

The only gods worth worshiping are dangerous gods, unless the meek god would give some kind of a benefit to the people who worship it.

The gods who don't care about what man does fall in the "meek god" category as opposed to a dangerous god. And I assume that most of those traditions exist within polytheistic religions? They're not completely comparable to monotheistic religions, although the differences between polytheistic and monotheistic religions are sometimes quite small.

Has to be said that many gods in religions such as the ancient Greek one only were capriciously involved in humanity, and sometimes they are extremely careless when acting with humans, the latter often being used up.

I think that the ancient Greek Gods are a lot more like what a group of efficiently superior beings would be, not really caring out of kindness for mankind, but wanting to be objects of worship none the less. Again they portrary some very human traits, and thus the religion can be said to be more accessible to humans, at least on one level.

@Warpus: by worship i do not really mean anything that has to be pronounced; merely having a deity whose name you know and recall, be in some sort hailed in your life. The jewish god once was asked his name, and gave the reply "Εγώ ειμί ο Ων" (i am he who is/ i am he who exists). Again this can be said to be quite intimidating on some grounds, since some theologists even argued that this meant that all other beings effectively do not exist ;)

Has to be said that many gods in religions such as the ancient Greek one only capriciously involved in humanity, and sometimes they are extremely careless when acting with humans, the latter often being used up.

I think that the ancient Greek Gods are a lot more like what a group of efficiently superior beings would be, not really caring out of kindness for mankind, but wanting to be objects of worship none the less. Again they portrary some very human traits, and thus the religion can be said to be more accessible to humans, at least on one level.

I studied classical Greek and Roman history in college, and Greek mythology was part of it, as the instructor said the myths were a way to pass along an oral history of real events that had happened, and like all oral histories, they got gradually altered due to mistakes or political propaganda.

And then I watched Xena: Warrior Princess and despaired of that generation of viewers ever considering the subject in any greater depth than Alexandra Tidings' (Aphrodite) pink bikini underwear/negligee costume. :crazyeye:

I think this is true to some extent, for example it is (at least somewhat) possible that the great flood existent in Greek mythology as well as in other ancient mythologies, did occur to some degree in a distant past.
Other myths would seem to be less literal though, and more about allegory. Generally one can project whatever one wants in this subject, but possibly the myths are not homogenous in that way, some have one type of meaning, and others different ones...

The majority of the human population worships a dangerous God so the question is kind of moot.

It was part of my intention, or rather it was inevitable that this would be noted as well ;)

It is just that many people appear to think that their god is not dangerous, since they strive not to be destroyed by him.

I studied classical Greek and Roman history in college, and Greek mythology was part of it, as the instructor said the myths were a way to pass along an oral history of real events that had happened, and like all oral histories, they got gradually altered due to mistakes or political propaganda.
Those theories haven't been in vogue for a very long time. How old are you exactly?

I studied classical Greek and Roman history in college, and Greek mythology was part of it, as the instructor said the myths were a way to pass along an oral history of real events that had happened, and like all oral histories, they got gradually altered due to mistakes or political propaganda.


The old understanding that a Chinese Whispersesque effect twisted some sort of original seed tradition based on historical events is nonsense. The chief problem with that idea is that it presupposes that that accuracy in recording is important. It isn't. The chief function of oral transfer is to relay useful information. Obscure historical events are not in the least bit useful, and if employed at all are used simply as rhetorical tools. X did Y, therefore we should Y. That telling of events can be made up on the spot, so long as it has the desired effect.

And the evidence supports just that happening. I believe it was Halsall who tells a story about a friend excavating Roman ruins in Libya. He gets approached one day by Bedouins who in all seriousness tell him they were born and/or raised in the house while sketching out a narrative about it. His friend replies: these are old houses and not misisng a beat they plead geographic ignorance and claim, again in all seriouness, that their grandfathers/great grandfathers were born there. Again, total nonsense. But the point is this: oral tradition, with all the proper forms, was employed to the serve of the people at that time. There was also not a shred of truth in the claim.

Those theories haven't been in vogue for a very long time. How old are you exactly?
I'm a doddering 48-year-old. I turn 49 next month, and would appreciate a birthday thread in the relevant forum, please and thanks.

They arguably weren't in vogue when you were going to University either. Luce, the doyen of that kind of stuff, died in 1979 and he'd stop working in 1966, I believe.

Maybe her professor was out of the mainstream, or he was describing a minority theory and that sticks out in her memory.

we may be lucky that we have not attracted God's attention.

Yog Shothoth comes to mind

we may be lucky that we have not attracted God's attention.

Yog Shothoth comes to mind

The impression I have of Yog-Sothoth is that, being the deity of space and time, he already is everything, everywhere, and always. Therefore, we are all Yog-Sothoth, always will be, and always have been.

Maybe her professor was out of the mainstream, or he was describing a minority theory and that sticks out in her memory.


Yeah, it happens.

Sure, I would worship a dangerous god, which just says that I can be coerced. But you don't need to be a god; carrying a gun could be sufficient to make me kowtow.

Would you worship a dangerous god?

Under what conditions?

I would still like the word "worship" cleared up and defined

@Warpus: by worship i do not really mean anything that has to be pronounced; merely having a deity whose name you know and recall, be in some sort hailed in your life. The jewish god once was asked his name, and gave the reply "Εγώ ειμί ο Ων" (i am he who is/ i am he who exists). Again this can be said to be quite intimidating on some grounds, since some theologists even argued that this meant that all other beings effectively do not exist ;)

What Kyriakos said

Worshippers are more dangerous than the worshipped.

@Warpus: by worship i do not really mean anything that has to be pronounced; merely having a deity whose name you know and recall, be in some sort hailed in your life. The jewish god once was asked his name, and gave the reply "Εγώ ειμί ο Ων" (i am he who is/ i am he who exists). Again this can be said to be quite intimidating on some grounds, since some theologists even argued that this meant that all other beings effectively do not exist

Sorry, didn't see that :p

I'm quite not sure what you're saying though. You seem to make 2 points:

- a deity who's name you know and recall (there are hundreds in my case right now)
- this part I am unclear about - a diety I hail? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

For example in the Dodecatheon one could imagine a regular worshipper providing sacrifice at some logical interval to the godess Hestia, which was protector of the house, and also iirc family life. So as to provide a sacrifice one had to believe in some degree that the god whose name he evoked would help.
Although the phenomenon of belief is more complicated, since, for example, i sometimes form the figure of the cross with my hands, without really being a believer in Jesus Christ. I do it because i have associated it with making a wish, no matter if consciously it is seen as potent or not. The ethos (custom) plays a role in how one acts sometimes.

So to put it in less words: by hail i mean to acclaim, which in turn has to incorporate some degree of belief, be it mechanical or conscious.

But okay, say I believe that the Christian God exists, believe in his power, am afraid of his wrath, etc. but don't actively participate in any rituals.

What would you call that? Worship or not? Where do you draw the line?

I'm not saying anyone is perfect or not. You should be aware of con-artists who try to pass off a religion based on their personal opinion and not concrete details.

But the point is to think for yourself on that matter.

But okay, say I believe that the Christian God exists, believe in his power, am afraid of his wrath, etc. but don't actively participate in any rituals.

What would you call that? Worship or not? Where do you draw the line?

I think there are many believers in christianity who never go to church or take part in holy communion. There is a nice short story by Leo Tolstoy, titled "The three old men". In it a bishop travels to some island in the white sea, to spread the christian word there to its rumoured as pagan inhabitants (this is the secondary plot, i may recall it a bit altered).
There he meets three old men, who are worshiping (the christian?) god, at least that is what they claim, but they readily admit they have no bible. The bishop is willing to teach them.

In the end of the story the ship with the bishop is distancing itself again from the island, but they observe somethign approaching them in great speed.
It is the three old men, who walk on water.
They came to ask again for the teaching, for they had forgotten it.
The bishop realizes that their own prayer reaches god already, and tells them that.

So i think that anyone can be argued to be free to hail a god in his own way. Personally i have my own ideas as to what can be termed a god, i am sure the ancient mariners had their ideas about it which definately involved the sea, and in my case it has to do with thought and symbol. But i am still an agnostic, just sympathetic to theism :)

I think there are many believers in christianity who never go to church or take part in holy communion.

Yeah, but my question revolves around the idea that there are people who believe that the Christian God exists (i.e. they believe in him) who aren't Christian.

In the case of the dangerous god - do you have to be a member of the cult/religion that worships this being in order to be a worshipper? Or does simply believing that this entity exists count as "worship"? Or would it be something in between? Where exactly do you draw the line?

I guess I'm looking for a very specific answer :)

I don't think it counts. Worship is a pretty specific action.

Depends on what deity we are talking about i guess. The line is blurred when the topic is a well-known religion that still survives (like christianity) since most people are christened if they want to follow it later on.
But what if someone was worshiping in the present some of the destructive indian or ancient egyptian gods? Or even a Titan? I think that the latter of this progression of particularity would almost amount to worshiping a personal god. I have once mentioned before, probably in a similar debate, a known case of schizophrenia where the patient was in a state where his life (libidinal) forces got projected in front of him in the form of a hallucination of rays. He was naming them "divine rays" and probably was so involved in examining them that you might even say this amounted to worship.
Again some degree of acclaiming the deity is needed. I just do not think you need to have a set, organized religion, be a part of it, and do something particular and canonized like taking part in holy communion to be termed a "worshipper". Maybe it is like atheism, there being weak and strong atheists likewise, depending on their view, and here their supposed actions :)

The distinction matters to me because I know that I wouldn't worship anything or anyone, in the stronger sense of the word.. (unless I was forced to do it somehow I guess)

But if all we're talking is a respect and/or acceptance and maybe some minimal participation in a ritual or two.. the way I might treat a leader of a nation..? Then that changes a lot.

It might seem like a silly distinction to make, but I had to make it in order to answer the question: If the word "belief" changes depending on the god or religion, then the question might be better framed as a series of "Would you worship dangerous god A?" "Would you worship dangerous god B?" etc. type questions. Otherwise I am forced to inquire about your definition of "worship", because I don't have a specific god in mind when I read the question, so I can't possibly have a corresponding definition of worship.

But to answer your question anyway and not be a jerk, I am going to have to say that I probably would. I mean, if the god is such a jerk, he'll probably kick my arse if I don't worship him, right? So maybe I'll have to.. Then again maybe worshipping him will put me in crappy situations (see Job) and make my life worse instead of making it better, so.. yeah sorry man I am going to have to be a jerk and say that I can't answer your question

If we use Job as a litmus test on a "dangerous" god, that would fail. Even though Job was miserable for a short period of time, his end was better than his beginning. Those who think that life is easy and that good things do not take work, must have a different reality than most humans.

If God were a jerk, seems to me he would constantly be demanding worship, instead of letting men choose their own way, even if what men chose would ultimately destroy himself. It is a loose loose event. God is a jerk because he lets man have their own way, or he is a jerk because he forces men to obey him. When it comes to the human experience, God could never win.

If we use Job as a litmus test on a "dangerous" god, that would fail. Even though Job was miserable for a short period of time, his end was better than his beginning. Those who think that life is easy and that good things do not take work, must have a different reality than most humans.

If God were a jerk, seems to me he would constantly be demanding worship, instead of letting men choose their own way, even if what men chose would ultimately destroy himself. It is a loose loose event. God is a jerk because he lets man have their own way, or he is a jerk because he forces men to obey him. When it comes to the human experience, God could never win.

While Job's end was better than his beginning, the lives of his sons who were killed off arguably count for something too. They were not ressurected afterall :)

While Job's end was better than his beginning, the lives of his sons who were killed off arguably count for something too. They were not ressurected afterall :)

Are you saying that to be with God, is worse than the miserable life below? I also believe that a cursed earth is not the perfect condition that humans were created for. God could also be considered evil for making us live in this existence called earth. He could end it at any time, and bring back perfection.

Are you saying that to be with God, is worse than the miserable life below? I also believe that a cursed earth is not the perfect condition that humans were created for. God could also be considered evil for making us live in this existence called earth. He could end it at any time, and bring back perfection.

I was anticipating exactly this answer. My point is that it seems a bit cruel to give life to a being, merely so that you can take it away so as to test another. What about one of his sons? Why is not one of Job's sons the protagonist of the story? And besides: Job's tale becomes irrational if you claim that earthly misery is just fine. Job himself could not take it in the end and despite his great patience, he gave into doubt.
The thing is that you cannot claim on the one hand that it was positive that Job did not die, or did not suffer for all his earthly life, and on the other that it was a gift to make his sons perish. If they were humans and not mere puppets on a tale then you can be sure they had their own dreams of a life on earth, and those dreams got smashed by the god of Job.

I was anticipating exactly this answer. My point is that it seems a bit cruel to give life to a being, merely so that you can take it away so as to test another. What about one of his sons? Why is not one of Job's sons the protagonist of the story? And besides: Job's tale becomes irrational if you claim that earthly misery is just fine. Job himself could not take it in the end and despite his great patience, he gave into doubt.
The thing is that you cannot claim on the one hand that it was positive that Job did not die, or did not suffer for all his earthly life, and on the other that it was a gift to make his sons perish. If they were humans and not mere puppets on a tale then you can be sure they had their own dreams of a life on earth, and those dreams got smashed by the god of Job.

I may have been thinking that Satan is the protagonist of the story and all the humans were just mere bystanders. I would never say that earthly misery is fine, even if it produces good. The length of a human's life will always be under contention. There is no justification if one lived a thousand years or does not make it out of the womb. I suppose some take comfort in the fact that God knows the end from the beginning. Time spans are not consistent enough to say living is any better than not living. In fact most would prefer a short span of a wonderful life as opposed to a long one of intense misery. You are just fine in saying that cutting the life of Job's children short should never be justified in moral standard's. Are we not able to say that Job's God was also the God of his children? He is also the God of the created being Satan, who seems to have a little higher position than man. At least satan can see God in all his glory and still resist worship. It seems that humans are unable to resist worship when it comes to viewing God face to face. Of course, I am just going by what I have read, and the ability of my mind to reason things out.

I mean if I was raised my whole life and not exposed to outside information to believe and worship some sort of god that regularly commits genocide as sport, I'd probably worship it just do to it being what I've always done anyway.

If we use Job as a litmus test on a "dangerous" god, that would fail. Even though Job was miserable for a short period of time, his end was better than his beginning. Those who think that life is easy and that good things do not take work, must have a different reality than most humans.

Didn't God kill Job's entire family? That sounds pretty dangerous to me

Name one other person who was improved by an act that included his entire family being murdered

Didn't God kill Job's entire family? That sounds pretty dangerous to me

Name one other person who was improved by an act that included his entire family being murdered

God did not kill any one. He just let satan do it. Now giving license can be considered doing it, or it just could be he stopped guaranteeing their survival. It was just half of his family. He did have 7 more sons and 3 more daughters.

If life being cut short is murder, then God kills people all the time. And I have heard of stories of people loosing all their loved one's and still not cursing God. I do not think that Job was an improved person for what he went through. He just stayed faithful, even though bad things happened to him.

I worship myself, so yes.

How come no one remembers my threads?

-A decisive action with a diety is never prompt.

-You are expected to believe what the author tells you.

-Satisfying a fanbase.

God did not kill any one. He just let satan do it. Now giving license can be considered doing it, or it just could be he stopped guaranteeing their survival. It was just half of his family. He did have 7 more sons and 3 more daughters.


Still sounds dangerous to me

Well satisfying the fanbase is dubious as an argument here for a couple of reasons:

-Who would want to be Job? I mean if this was meant as reality, and not parable. In drama the audience gets a catharsis due to the sucking in of all misery and negative emotion (such as fear or repulsion) by the tragedy's protagonist. When Oedipus or Glaucester take their own eyes out, the audience is (probably) expected to feel a mixed sentiment. Dread due to the nature of the act. But also joy, because they are not in such a horrible position. In a theological piece you are not really expected to see things that way though.

-"Abraham was a great believer, but who would want to have him as a father?" as the quote goes. Again, in the story of Abraham and Isaac, you get a sort of watered down version of Job. Isaac does not die, and god is revealed to have been only testing Abraham. Again not a good example to take literally and i am sure almost all believers whould rather stop believing than killing their own son.