Hello!! This blog is intended for religious discussions and sort of cataloguing various resources for my study. Currently i worship Aphrodite and Dionysus. Im a minor living with strict conservative Christian parents and not a lot of materials so my worship at the moment is limited but dedicated
i love learning about animals ive literally never seen or heard of before. what amazing diversity of life on this planet earth. what the hell is a japanese serow
Pssst! You know you can use the Greek names of the Greek gods, right? I'm not talking about ancient Greek. I'm talking about contemporary, spoken Greek. You know the names still exist in Greek. Right....?
Not only the ancient names for figures and terms have remained exactly the same for the most part, but also they're not worse, disrespectful, or "less formal". They are literally the Greek names of the gods/heroes/creatures/terminology today.
You don't have to address these figures the way our people did more than two thousand years ago. Millions of living Greeks today still speak the names of the Greek gods. In the Greek language.
I understand that the versions you use can depend on the resources available to you. And it's fine if you only know the ancient ones, or you only want to use those. But I'd like to make you aware that you don't have to be stuck in 300 BCE linguistically.
Not even the Greek language itself is stuck in 300 BCE! In fact, by 299 BCE, our language had already slightly changed from the year prior, and it continues to do so every year for... well, for a few thousand years at this point.
Ancient names make sense when one uses them in academic contexts, in the study of ancient Greek society and religion. But this religion and culture don't exist in a vacuum inside your history books. This linguistic stagnation in everyday life, though, is part of the centuries-long Western European / American obsession with seeing the Greek culture and language like something divorced from the real world.
There's no particular justification that demands you use the ancient versions in modern informal settings. On the contrary, why not address the Greek gods in the current form of the Greek language?
So if you want to use contemporary Greek, go wild. Use -ες ending instead of -αι. Go full iotacism. Use Έριδα not Έρις, Μοίρες not Μοίραι, Χάρη not Χάρις, Κάθαρση not Κάθαρσις. The differences are minuscule. And - let's be honest - you were not using ancient and modern Greek grammar (like the Greek cases, which depend on the sentence meaning) properly anyway.
the mythic literalism debate really obfuscates the need for historiography imo. I don't believe that x or y god is a rapist or a murderer in any real sense, but individual opinion should not be the main focus here. what's undeniable is that these mythologies, cultural norms, and cultic practices were developed within a highly misogynistic, ableist, and stratified society, and it's irresponsible to overlook or attempt to 'soften' that fact when retelling or reimagining these stories.
someone else's belief or non-belief in the myths doesn't necessarily matter to me; there's bound to be a range of positions today as there was in the ancient world. but what does matter is whether someone is carrying forward harmful practices or ideas because they've simply rewritten a surface-level 'nice' version of the myths in their head, rather than engaging more deeply with the source culture and seeking to understand their meanings in context.
we can and should worship the gods without needing to ignore, absolve, or justify the cruel, oppressive parts of their myths and cultures. instead we need to ask questions like, what do these things tell us about the function of religion, or gender roles, or property rights at the time, in this place? what might this suggest about the god’s worshippers, their role in public worship or household rituals, or their relationship to civil governance, public unrest, marginalized groups, imperial expansion, etc.?
these types of questions can help you to build a theological foundation and create a practice in line with your personal convictions, grounded in historical context, but able to identity and deconstruct the objectionable parts when you see them. the myths are documents, first and foremost, and that's how we need to treat them. anyone who says that it's hubristic or 'offensive' to take this approach does not have your best interests in mind.
Yes the Gods are loving, but they are also mighty. They are flawed, but they’re also giving and kind. They don’t need to be one or the other. All of their countless opposing facets can coexist at once.
Friendly reminder that spirituality isn't a replacement for science, technology, and modern medicine but something that coexist with it in beautiful ways.
The reason why modern hellenic polytheists do this, I believe, is that so many of them find it hard to shake Christianity's influence. The Christian conception of God is distant, un-sexual, divorced from all human characteristics, since with human characteristics comes flaws.
However, the gods of the Greek Pantheon are not like this. They are close-by, they have human characteristics, flaws and all, they are sexual beings.
When people first start off in this religion, they assume that the Christian conception of God is the only "right" way in which one can conceive of a god – sure, they don't believe in the Christian god, but they assume that His characteristics are going to be found in all other gods.
We must bear in mind that part of what sets different religions apart is entirely different ideas of who or what a god can be. And when you change religions, it is going to have to be accompanied with a shifting of your perspective in some way.
I would like to push back on this a little bit because, yes, there is an issue with latent Christianity and limited research in Helpol (and Rompol) spaces, but also not every difference in opinion is due to a "Christian" mindset or a lack of education.
Obviously, even in ancient times, there were different opinions, so I'm not saying one approach is better than another, but it is a fact that Neoplatonism emerged within the context of Hellenic and later Roman polytheism. Neoplatonism is a philosophy that views the Gods as more distant, un-sexual and the like. And it is Neoplatonism that influenced Christianity, not the other way around.
I'm not saying that everyone has to agree with Neoplatonism, far from it, I have my own issues with it. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that different theologies and philosophies existed even in ancient times. So I think it would be incorrect to say that there is no space for diverging views on the Gods within Hellenic and Roman Polytheism.
I think that's actually the thing that separates us from Christianity the most - we don't have an orthodoxy, we can believe different things and still worship the same Gods together.
Interesting conversation! Wanted to add that people's ideas about the correct degree to which we should anthropomorphize deities appears to factor in as well.
As already mentioned, Neoplatonism presents the gods as less human, more nebulous spiritual energies. It de-emphasizes deities' human-like qualities and encourages less anthropomorphism.
Whereas imagining what Aphrodite's butt looks like... requires us to anthropomorphize her a lot more than if we saw her through a Neoplatonic lens.
Obviously both of those views existed in ancient times, which provides historical precedence for both approaches today.
It's reasonable to anthropomorphize the gods very little and see them as mostly energies, possessing very few to no human traits, as Neoplatonists did.
It's also fine to anthropomorphize deities to the degree where we see them as very human-like, as some other ancient people did.
And, I think, it's okay to have a more nuanced view somewhere between those ends of the anthropomorphism spectrum.