The traditions of belief in Zeus pre-dates belief in the God of Abraham. According to TSCC, God never changes. So, Zeus is who we should be worshiping. No "Jesus come lately" allowed.

By Mormon logic, worship of any God other than Zeus is heresy.

I actually like the thought of zues because there is a lot of greek in me so im told, i love stories like the iliad with achilles and stuff like that, i was born in the wrong era i think.

Although historical dating is necessarily uncertain (then-already-ancient oral teachings predated writing by significant and unknown periods of time), as someone raised Hindu (Vedanta), I would like to postulate that the concept of Brahma is at least as old as (and possibly older than) than the concept of Zeus as the "first god" of human beings.

Therefore, I say:

"There is but one God and his name is either Zeus, or it is Brahma, depending..." ;)

Damn him! He's turned himself into a bull again and is chasing nymphs around Olympus. Hera's strap-on Boner.

At least Zeus is appropriately randy for mormon sensibilities...

After all, Zeus came down many, many times to have sex with mortal women, producing all sorts of demi-god offspring.

Elohim only did it once, according to Brigham and Joseph and the rest.

:)

Theists can (and arguable should) define the God of their faith using any criteria they see fit, including historical criteria. As such, they can reject Zeus, or any other "God," and the criteria associated with such God, without any logical problem. The fact that the God of their faith happens to be identified as having different attributes than the God of some other faith is logically inconsequential. It is just a dispute about God, that's all.

Suppose a child was drowning at the beach and a bystander stepped in and did a courageous rescue, but then disappeared. The observers could all have descriptions of the hero, with their corresponding beliefs. Moreover, the conjunctive beliefs among the observers might well be inconsistent. Notwithstanding, the belief of any one observer, or any group of observers, if internally consistent, is logically acceptable, notwithstanding any claim by someone else that they are wrong; for example if some other observers had a better visual perspective, or even that some denied that any hero was involved at all. This is just a dispute about the hero.

This bogus argument is a form of another common argument that is just as bogus; i.e. the claim that an atheist just believes in one less God than a theist, suggesting that denying the existence of alternative Gods is somehow on a par with an atheist denying the existence of any God. This argument (I think Dawkins was the first to dream it up) is equally as bad as that of the OP here; maybe worse. Again, any believer in God is free to define the nature of God in accordance with their particular faith. To the extent one description differs from another it is a dispute about God's attributes, not a dispute about existence of God in general. Thus, to point out that a Christian does not believe in Zeus is only to say that for a Christian there is no being that has the attributes assigned by the Greeks to Zeus, and that the "real" God has different attributes. It does not make the Christian an atheist as to Zeus because the term "atheist" by definition is not applicable to each individual God belief, rather it is an attitude about "God" in general.

The very term "atheist" means a denial of *any* supernatural entity identified as "God." To say, "I am an atheist as to Zeus, but a theist as to Jesus," makes no sense. Such a person is not an atheist by definition.

Suppose you ask someone whether they are a dog-owner, and they respond, "Yes, in fact I have a German Shepard. But, you (a non-dog-owner) say, 'you are mostly a non-dog-owner like me because there are so many dogs you do not have, and I, a non-dog-owner, have only one less dog than you. We are not that different. We are mostly non-dog-owners.' Of course, this is ridiculous. Same with the Dawkins argument!

Respectfully, this should be a lesson to be very cautious when adopting and repeating the largely rhetorical anti-religion arguments of the so-called "New atheists."

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suppose a child was drowning at the beach and a
> bystander stepped in and did a courageous rescue,
> but then disappeared. The observers could all
> have descriptions of the hero, with their
> corresponding beliefs.

Interesting but ultimately poor analogy...in the case you mention, an actual "hero" had been observed. So there are questions of fact about the hero, which may or may not be resolved with evidence...but that's not the case with claimed "god" things.



> This bogus argument is a form of another common
> argument that is just as bogus; i.e. the claim
> that an atheist just believes in one less God than
> a theist, suggesting that denying the existence of
> alternative Gods is somehow on a par with an
> atheist denying the existence of any God.

Atheism isn't a denial of anything. There's no active "denial" involved -- it's a lack of belief. Not a denial.

> The very term "atheist" means a denial of *any*
> supernatural entity identified as "God."

No, actually, the prefix "a-" means "without," and the term "theist" means "one with a belief in a god." Making atheist mean one without a belief in a god.
You know, Henry, dictionaries are available...:)

> Suppose you ask someone whether they are a
> dog-owner, and they respond, "Yes, in fact I have
> a German Shepard. But, you (a non-dog-owner) say,
> 'you are mostly a non-dog-owner like me because
> there are so many dogs you do not have, and I, a
> non-dog-owner, have only one less dog than you. We
> are not that different.

Again, an interesting but ultimately not very useful analogy...as dogs can be demonstrated to be real, and "belief" in them isn't at issue :)


> Respectfully, this should be a lesson to be very
> cautious when adopting and repeating the largely
> rhetorical anti-religion arguments of the
> so-called "New atheists."

Respectfully, this should be an invitation to use more apt analogies, and to consult a dictionary when declaring what words mean. :)

Interesting but ultimately poor analogy...in the case you mention, an actual "hero" had been observed. So there are questions of fact about the hero, which may or may not be resolved with evidence...but that's not the case with claimed "god" things.

COMMENT: Your distinction is totally irrelevant to the point. Whether any God exists, and what evidence may exist, is another question entirely. The point, of course, is that you can have consistent beliefs without the logic of such beliefs being undermined because someone else has some other belief. Surely, you can do better than this.
_______________________________________

Atheism isn't a denial of anything. There's no active "denial" involved -- it's a lack of belief. Not a denial.

COMMENT: An unexpressed belief is trivial to any discussion. Atheism, as a point of discussion, is denial of a belief in God.

________________________________________

> The very term "atheist" means a denial of *any*
> supernatural entity identified as "God."

No, actually, the prefix "a-" means "without," and the term "theist" means "one with a belief in a god." Making atheist mean one without a belief in a god.
You know, Henry, dictionaries are available...:)

COMMENT: Oh please. According to my Oxford dictionary, "atheist" means "the theory or belief that God does not exist." A theory implies the expression of a belief, with proffered argument. I will also point out that "atheist" has multiple meanings well beyond your simplistic limitation; which is patently absurd.
___________________________________________

> Suppose you ask someone whether they are a
> dog-owner, and they respond, "Yes, in fact I have
> a German Shepard. But, you (a non-dog-owner) say,
> 'you are mostly a non-dog-owner like me because
> there are so many dogs you do not have, and I, a
> non-dog-owner, have only one less dog than you. We
> are not that different.

Again, an interesting but ultimately not very useful analogy...as dogs can be demonstrated to be real, and "belief" in them isn't at issue :)

COMMENT: The analogy works perfectly. The argument (and analogy) is not about existence, it is about the use of language as it applies to belief expressions.

________________________________________

> Respectfully, this should be a lesson to be very
> cautious when adopting and repeating the largely
> rhetorical anti-religion arguments of the
> so-called "New atheists."

Respectfully, this should be an invitation to use more apt analogies, and to consult a dictionary when declaring what words mean. :)

COMMENT: Respectfully, I'll stick to the original invitation, and suggest that you in particular take that advice. :)

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh please. According to my Oxford dictionary, "atheist"
> means "the theory or belief that God does not exist."

Throw away the 1950's edition, and update:

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." (Oxford English Dictionary, on-line edition, 2017) (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist)

> COMMENT: Respectfully, I'll stick to the original
> invitation, and suggest that you in particular
> take that advice. :)

Since the original was a straw-man, why?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2017 07:06PM by ificouldhietokolob.

By the beard of Zeus! I think you're onto something!

I disagree......I think it is more than time to have a female rule so my vote is for a Goddess such as Asherah, Athena, Aphrodite, or Lilith who was a beautifully dangerous Goddess who refused to subordinate herself to Adam feeling she was his equal.

I like the ancient Greek and Roman gods. They were a colorful lot.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/45/cf/b0/45cfb03ea742032ab8887ff2b5cf507d--jokes-vikings.jpg

Thor-is-my-family-deity-ly yrs,

S

If Thor looks anything like Chris Hemsworth, I'm in! :)

IF'N I GOTTA HAVE ME A GAWD....I'M KINDA LEANIN' TOWARDS EEYORE....

:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djPhqdXu7z0&feature=youtu.be

The real God struck Zeus dead.

That's why he's history.

Zeus is Elohim, just in different robes. In the evolution of the western god, Mormonism is a step backward. The Christian god that is inaccessible and unknowable is far more logical than dick stacks like Zeus and Elohim.

But Zeus and Elohim are far more likely to exist since they are just munchers with more power than they deserve.

This whole subject is all Greek to me!

Look if you're going to start out with "There is but one God . . ."
you can't name a member of a polytheistic pantheon as that
"one God."

My favorite verses from 'the real old time religion':
(there are hundreds)


I hear Valkyries a-comin
In the air their song is comin
They forgot the words! They're hummin!
But they're good enough for me!

To the tune of Handel's "Largo"
We will hymn the gods of Cargo
'Til they slap on an embargo
And that's good enough for me!

We went off to worship Venus
By the Gods! You should have seen us!
Now the Clinic has to screen us...
But that's good enough for me!

Let us raise a toast to Bacchus,
We will raise a royal ruckus,
Then we'll lay us down and f**k us
That's good enough for me!

We will worship Great Cthulhu,
We will worship Great Cthulhu,
And we'll feed him Mr. Sulu
Cause that's good enough for me!

We will sing to Lady Isis
She'll stand by us in a crisis
And She hasn't raised Her prices
And She's good enough for me!

and my absolute favorite:

We will sing a verse for Loki
He's the old Norse god of Chaos
Which is why this verse don't
rhyme or scan or nothin'
But it's good enough for me...

I'll have you know our heavenly father is a perfected man named Cedric or maybe Cyril, or I perhaps hope he might be. He's also a massive polygamist among many other things.Though I think anyone who believes in polygamy has either a screw loose, is under coercion or a bit of both. As an alternative hint - the prophet Brigham said, father Adam is our ... What f***ing nonsense.

If there is a church of Maradona, I guess it doesn't matter who is god, you can worship anything

"Similar to many other religions, the Iglesia Maradoniana also has a set of commandments, including, ‘love football over all things’, ‘defend the colours of Argentina’ and ‘do not proclaim the name of Diego in the name of a single club’. Furthermore, the church has created a chant that is repeated at all ceremonies and worship services (Franklin 2008). The Iglesia Maradoniana meets twice a year, once to celebrate the birth of Maradona on Maradona Christmas, and another for Maradona Easter, the date that the Argentinian team beat England in the 1986 World Cup quarter-finals with the goal from Maradona known as the infamous ‘Hand of God’ (Bilbija 1995, p. 1)"

https://iglesiamaradoniana.wordpress.com

If they didn't call him the right name and the doctrine of the time doesn't check with the doctrine of today, there are two popular explanations:

1. They were in apostasy*
2. Times were different then. God doesn't change, but people do, and He has to do different things if they're not ready for full truth*

*their fault, not God's

Problem solved!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2017 10:59PM by alyssum.