Hera: the Ultimate Hercules Derangement Syndrome (Part 5)

So far, I hope to have established that Ancient Greeks tried a path to integrate the peoples they had conquered by matching their head god with Zeus, the Ancient Greek’s head god, which worked rather well for the larger integration, but created the problem of all the ‘goddess queens’ that were now left over…

These became, in the mythology, human women Zeus had affairs with.

The conquered men had only to blame their head god (who became fused with Zeus) for being capricious, but, whom did the conquered women have?

One of their own – a human woman from their tribe – was so awesome as to cause Zeus, the to dog god, to fall in love with her, carry her off, do all kinds of dangerous things for the love of this woman – one of their own.

In comes Hera.

She is the Goddess of ‘family’ – yet she is always being cheated on by her husband, Zeus. And with human women – to add insult to the injury!

Hera is the Goddess of protecting the nuclear family – and she cannot do it with her own family!

This rather turns Hera nasty: she cannot control her husband, the king of Gods, from cheating on her, but she still is a goddess and has the powers that come along with it. Hera, not able to punish her husband, takes her anger out on his human lovers and their children.

And she does it in very, very mean ways. There are books written just about the ways Hera punished the women Zeus romanced (whether they were willing or not).

But…let us remember: Hera threw away her son (Hephaestus/Vulcan) to what she thought would be his death simply because he was born deformed. She may be the goddess of the hearth, family and childbirth, but she did throw away her baby for having been born deformed.

So, how did she treat the children of her husband, Zeus, and human women?

Not nicely.

When there arose a particularly awesome specimen of humanity, the son of Zeus and a human woman, Hera was not happy. Like, a lot ‘not happy’.

And, she made Hercules suffer, every chance she got.

There was nothing anyone could say to her to convince her that Hercules was actually a good guy, who did good things to help people.

Yes, he had been given a bunch of tasks to do, and he did them well and cleverly, but, outside of that, he is said to have helped folks who needed help, lending his muscle power as well as his intelligence, where and when needed.

Perhaps we can argue about his worth – but, the one not willing to engage in such an argument was Hera.

For her, Hercules was a symbol of her husband’s infidelity. He had to be destroyed.

The more famous Hercules got, the more necessary it was for Hera to absolutely destroy him.

And she did – in the most devious way possible.

Hercules had a wife and two children. He loved them and protected them.

Hera knew this.

And, she had her goddess powers.

She used these powers.

When Hercules came home one day, he saw a big monster and two little monsters attacking his home – and, loving his family, he slew them to protect his wife and children.

Except that, these were not monsters, they were his wife and children. Hera’s magic made him see them as monsters. So, he slew them.

Hera’s magic made Hercules kill his own family. His wife and children…

It destroyed Hercules.

This is a sad end to an epic story – but it is really important in our times.

Hera suffered from ‘Hercules derangement syndrome’ because she had been wronged. Her role as the protector goddess of the family was challenged by her husband’s infidelity and his bastard child’s excellence.

There was no way to talk Hera down from her vengeance.

Her very being as the queen of the gods, as the patroness of the family, was completely uprooted by the very existence of Hercules. Her very essence, her reason for being, is undermined by the very existence of Hercules.

These are high stakes, for a goddess, a top goddess.

Somehow, I do not think that chatting with her about the good things Hercules did would change her mind. Rather, I think the person doing the chatting would end up in a bit of smoke…

Hera: Hercules derangement syndrome part 3

Hera (Romanized as Juno).

She is the long suffering wife (and sister – this is the Egyptian influence on Greek mythology, where the Pharaoh married his sister to ‘keep the bloodlines pure’) who is the goddess of marriage, hearth (family home) and protector of women (especially during childbirth).

When Ancient Greeks conquered a people, they integrated their main god into Zeus, claiming they were really one and the same and making the cultural/social integration of the conquered peoples that much more possible. 

‘Integrating’ the ‘queen consort’ was much more difficult.  

The way that Ancient Greeks integrated their ‘head god’ Zeus into being just another interpretation of the conquered peoples’ ‘head god’ in order to harmonize the conquered people’s mythology with the Greek one – well, it dealt a rather raw deal to the ‘head queen’ of the conquered people’s pantheon:  the ‘head god’, Zeus, had a queen (Hera), so, who or what was this other queen goddess of the conquered peoples’ pantheon?

She became Zeus’s mistress.

They all did… and Hera ‘had to’ deal with it, within the constrains of the Ancient Greek Mythology – which she did, in epic Hera way, as has been recorded in myth of how she had treated Hercules.

Hera: Hercules Derangement Syndrome Background Part 2

When the Ancient Greeks would conquer another peoples, they would claim that their main God, the head of their pantheon, is just another manifestation of the Greek head god, Zeus (Romanized as Jupiter), so, there really is not that much of a difference between them.  They all worship the same capricious head god – this time, this side won, but if Zeus (by any other name) wanted, the other side would have won.  

No shame in defeat – God’s did it.  A way to ‘save face’…

We may not appreciate this now in our time, but, that is an extremely important aspect of integrating the defeated peoples’ culture into the winning one in a positive, constructive manner.

It seems that the Ancient Greeks understood (knowingly or not) that destroying a conquered culture’s ‘origin myth’ is devastating, for – what we now know – is a few generations.

So, whether by instinct, knowledge or wisdom, the Ancient Greeks avoided that.  

Instead of denigrating the defeated peoples’ mythology, they went out of their way to graft it on to their own mythology, thereby giving the conquered peoples’ a channel to integrate into the Greek culture.  This benefited both:  new blood, new ideas – but within the same overarching cultural framework that is necessary to hold a society together.

Which makes ‘integrating’ the various ‘goddess queens’ that much more difficult…(coming next)

Hera and the HDS: Hercules Derangement Syndrome – Laying the Background Part 1

Ancient Greeks did not see Gods in the same way most modern religions conceive of them: perfect and all knowing and all powerful and (sometimes) all benevolent. Rather, they saw them as larger-than-life figures who may have had special powers, but they also each possessed very human qualities and very human failings.

Ancient Greek Gods are all manifestations of human archetypes, iconic illustrations of human nature. Perhaps the very essence of human nature.

Aphrodite (Romanized as Venus) is the goddess of beauty, love and, frankly, frivolity and vanity. She is married to Hephaestus (Romanized as Vulcan) who is the ugly and deformed god of smithing, metalwork, craftsmanship and fire. He is known to make the most beautiful jewelry (as well as very useful tools) which Aphrodite loves, rather loving him, so she is constantly unfaithful to him.

In modern terms, Aphrodite would be the cheating trophy wife and Hephaestus would be the physically inferior uber-rich man who overlooks his wife’s infidelity, because he knows she will always return to him and that is enough.  

We all know modern day couples like that!

Aside:  Aphrodite’s most common lover is said to be Aries (Romanized as Mars), the God of War, the ultimate warrior.  This is an ancient encapsulation of the archetype of ‘the prostitute and the soldier’:  Hers is the personification of femininity without a goal beyond sexuality, his is the personification of brutal masculinity without a goal beyond obeying orders of your superior commanders.

And, yes, most of us have also known couples like that.

Let’s consider Athena (Romanized as Minerva) who is the goddess of wisdom, war and crafts.  Wisdom and wars – that makes sense:  she is the personification of the wisdom when to enter into a war.  She is not the goddess of combat, the way Aries is:  she is the one whose wisdom directs whether Aries ought to be unleashed or not.  

Yet, Athena’s wisdom was shadowed by her jealousy when her mastery of crafts had been questioned.  A young woman named Arachne said she could weave better that Athena, so, Athena showed up for the challenge with her weaving loom and when it looked like Arachne was going to win, Athena – in a fit of jealousy – turned Arachne into a spider who can only weave webs.

Aside:  I think it is ironic that I paid for a big part of my University education by designing one-of-a-knit-ware (at really, really high prices) – and I am rather very arachnophobic – or is it really ‘Arachne-phobia’? 

Monotheism vs Monolatry

This is a bit of a technical – is that the right term? – musing.

Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God.

Monolatry is the worship of only one God to the exclusion of all the others.

It is my proposition that Abrahamic religions are all a form of Monolatry and not at all Monotheism.

Abrahamic religions typically include Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There may be other off-shoots, but these three are the big ones – three of the main world religions.

So, let’s start at the beginning:

Jews made a pact with a specific God, Jehova: they will worship him exclusively and he will make them prosperous.

That is actually in the Ten Commandments: Thou shall have no other Gods before me.

OK – that clearly defines that the primary loyalty is to this particular God, but does not in any way state that this is the only God, nor does it prohibit a secondary worship of any other God(s).

In other words, it is a statement of loyalty. It is in no way a declaration of monotheism.

Islam is a bit stickier, but, please, do bear with me.

Laat and her sisters were, at one point, declared by Mohammed to be the daughters of Allah – Satanic verses and all that. So, some people argue that these verses may not have been dictated to Mohammed by Satan because he did not originally recognize any difference between these verses and the verses dictated to him by the Angel messenger of Allah.

Very controversial, so, let’s set it aside.

It has been decades since I have studied this and the easily accessible links are, well, burried too deep. But, there is a point in The Sunnah where Mohammed is said to have said that ‘Christians and Jews worship the same God – WE worship the other one’.

That is why they differentiate themselves, having a beard without a mustache, men sitting down to pee and a host of other ways to differentiate Muslims from Christians and Jews.

And this states that Islam (even if we omit the daughters of Allah) is not Monotheism but, at least, Duotheism.

Of course, I do acknowledge that there may, indeed , be monotheistic religions.

Sikhism comes to mind – but, Sikhism is an artificial religion.

It arose as Muslim armies were invading Hindu India. The king who ruled the kingdom which turned out to be a buffer-state between the Islamic invasion and the Hindu kingdoms. Having learned that Muslims would not kill monotheists, he took drastic action: he went on a hunger strike.

At the time, it was the custom of Hindu men in this kingdom to wear a ‘string’, a thin sashe, over one shoulder (think Miss Universe sashe type thing, but thinner). This king sat on one platform of a balance scale, fasting, until men of his kingdom placed their sashes on the other platform of the scale to signal they had rejected Hinduism and accepted monotheistic Sikhism…he sat there, fasting, until the weight of the sashes balanced his own.

Then, they could oppose the Muslim invaders as Monotheists and earn better terms: this was a political move, a loyalty test, and in no way a religious monotheistic belief system.

Source: I went to my local Gurdwara and let the elders teach me the history of their faith.

In conclusion: all Abrahamic faiths are all forms of monolatry, NOT monotheism. Sikhism is a political ideology in its inception, not a religious one.

I do not know of any religions that seek the nomicker ‘monotheistic’ whose doctrine actually supports this claim. If you know of some, please, do let me know and I will research it and repot back to you.

Please, do let me know your thoughts!

Why do we think God is ‘omnipotent’, ‘omniscient’?

OK, I am going on in a bit of a theological manner, but, I have had a few existential moments lately, so, perhaps that is why. For example, just a few hours ago, I was in a car accident – not hurt, just shaken a bit. A fender-bender.

The previous fender-bender I was in happened when I was taking my puppy in for cancer surgery and a philosophy student on her way to an exam lost control of her car in the snow…yes, a philosophy student.

Today’s fender-bender was minor, but the lady who backed into me in the parking lot did not understand why her car would no longer move backwards – she was so unaware that she had hit my car that she kept trying to back up into it, even as I was standing by her window and waving my arms to try to get her attention.

This sent me musing in so many directions…why do we do what we do, just how limited are we in both our observations and reasoning and why do we project so many of our fears into religions?

Because at the very root of it all, religions are about projecting fears and having them collectively assuaged. They cannot all be true – they are mutually exclusive, so…

Which makes me wonder: why do some religions – at least the most popular ones these days – have omniscient, omnipotent deities?

Yes, one per religion, that is rather definitional – cannot have two omnipotent beings, that would be a contradiction.

But, how did we arrive at this?

Ancient religions regarded Gods as sort of immortal humans with a few extra powers tossed in for good measure, but none of them were considered all powerful, all knowing…and certainly not all good.

Even the Abrahamic faiths are rooted in a view of God that is very much more limited and less unique than what most current Abrahamic worshippers I have spoken to about this are convinced of.

‘God’ did not know that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. He had to question them to find out. He was shocked that they were hiding from him because they were ashamed of their nakedness…

Then, he rushed off to tell ‘the others’.

That is not ‘omniscient’ – or he would have known, without questioning Adam and Eve.

Then we come to ‘omnipotent’ – that directly contradicts the whole ‘free will’ idea for humans.

This one is a little more complex, so, please, bear with me.

God gives humans free will – to do as they wish, even if it means disobeying him.

But, he is also all-powerful, with the ability to control everything, yet he choses not to control the thought processes of humans.

This is a contradiction: if God wanted perfect slaves (of the mind), he could have created humans to both have freedom of thought and only think in patterns that do not cause him to condemn some of the most eternal suffering.

It is impossible to fully and willingly grant freedom of thought, then punish people with eternal suffering for exercising it – unless you are actually setting people up to fail so you can have an excuse to torture them.

So, why did we ever arrive at a point where we think God(s) are omnipotent?

Certainly not from The Bible – pick the one you prefer, from the Catholic to the Gnostic to the Old Testament: nothing in these religious texts suggests an onmiscient and omnipotent God: so, why do so many people believe that?

Happy ‘Draw Mohammed Day’!

From 2 years ago today:

 

A Most Excellent Post – Censored from reddit

Yes, this site has been dormant for way too long.

This is because I have been very busy with working to achieve the goals promoted by this site from its inception through alternate means.  And, I have been doing some serious ‘growing up’ in the process.  But more on that later…

Today, I came across a post on reddit that I found most illuminating.  However, between when I first clicked on it and the time I was ready to comment on it, it had been censored.

Deleted.

Disappeared.

Gone down the ‘memory hole’…

Whatever the metaphor, it was made gone – as if the book-burners had had their way with it.

And so, my friends, with the permission of the author (a redditor by the name of ‘istillgetreallybored’), I bring you the banished, censored and book-burned post:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (this reee is dedicated in part to the cucked pedes who think they are alpha just because they voted for Trump)

They have to go back. Trump has reduced ISIS from 35k to 1k and the migrant crisis was a fraud to instigate a replacement program to further economic marxism as a means to controlling humans. We should have been helping (not causing the crisis would have been best) them in their country of origin which would have resulted in 100 fold cost savings and prevented this assimilation issue.

Islam does not recognize borders. Wake up.

For those who don’t have freeee speech.

The heart-war —- and that is the lowest form of the war. And it is that the Muslim should believe in his heart that the infidels are enemies to him and to his religion, and that he should desire their disappearance and the destruction of their power. And no Muslim can be imagined who is not under obligation to this degree of the war. Verily all the people of the Faith are under obligation to this amount without any question whatever, in whatever place they may be and in whatsoever condition they may be found. And that those concerning whom the exception made in the verse presented in the saying of the Most High holds good (You should abstain from them completely) to these it is permitted that they should be satisfied with this degree of the heart-war.3

What do Canadian Islamic leaders, texts and schools say about LGBT?

Discussion with Dr Bill Warner on NYC jihad attack