Gods behaving (badly)

I stared writing this post several months ago, but only now have gotten around to publishing it. Spurred on by the current discussion among some Pagan/Polytheist bloggers relating to the moral character of the gods, it seemed like a good time to put it out there.

Calling them "ethical dilemmas" may be a bit of a stretch, a euphemism on my part. No, perhaps they would more properly be labeled as moral failings. Far be it from me to judge the gods, but if the applicability of ethics is upon a cosmic scale, and the deities are supposed to be held to the same (or similar) standards, then whey they fail, what are we to do? What do we take away from a given moral lapse in a story? It is well understood that the gods are not infallible, but when they are deliberately duplicitous or dodgy in their behaviour, the questioning of the correctness of their actions remains.

I have a few arguments about this, but lets look at an example first. The event which always springs to my mind when I ponder these sorts of dilemmas, is the conception of Angus Og. Angus' mother, Boann, is married to Nechtan, but is desired by An Dagda. An Dagda convinces Nechtan to go off on some task, so he can have a tryst with Boann. In order to hide their deceit and the fact that An Dagda has made Nechtan a cuckold, An Dagda freezes the sun in the sky for nine months, allowing Aengus Og to be conceived, gestate and born in a single day. This is the origin of his epithet "Og" or "the young". In any case, the story is aware that what An Dagda is doing is morally questionable, and certainly that his actions are deceitful. In one version, Aengus tricks An Dagda into giving up his home, but in another it is Eclmar (in that same version, the husband of Boann in place of Nechtan) who is tricked out of his home, with the aid of An Dagda too boot!

One of the first things to consider, upon examining the story, is what its purpose or intent is. There is a tendency to try and understand everything from an immovable ethical standpoint, and this is not unreasonable. Ethics ought to be constant and applicable in any given situation, otherwise they're simply platitudes of convenience and have no real value. On the other hand, it also needs to be understood that not every tale or story is a morality play, and that the point of a story is not always tied to the morality of the characters within it.

One figure of generalized disdain who found in Irish myth (though by no means bound to this regional context) is the cuckold; the husband whose wife (or mistress/concubine) is unfaithful to him. As monogamy has been culturally engrained in our collective consciousness and understanding of social patterns, we moderns may often times feel that the cuckold is a figure not to be mocked but to be pitied; after all he is the wronged party in these sorts of affairs. In a fascinating twist, however, the cuckold in these narratives (the story I shared above, and numerous others) is not to be pitied but mocked, derided and insulted. The precedent established, albeit in a decisively Christianized context, was an episode which occurred during the LGE, where Partholón's wife, Delgnat has a tryst with one of their servants while Partholón is away. Discovering his wife's unfaithfulness, he kills the servant and Delgnat's dog, but is chided by her because it was his fault for leaving her alone. The mythic literature is replete with over and under tones of misogyny, and this argument is essential in later tales where the cuckold is held as responsible for the tryst; if he were a better man, his wife (who like all women are inherently untrustworthy) would not seek out others, or so the logic goes. Rarely is the male agent who participates in the tryst held to be in the wrong.

Now, turning back to an earlier point I had made, it is incumbent upon is to consider what the purpose of a given story is. The tale of the conception of Angus Og is not a treatise on the sanctity of monogamous marriages, rather it is an expositional narrative explaining why Angus became known as the Mac Og. There are other aspects to consider as well: the narrative definitely succeeds in exemplifying the sexual prowess and appetite of An Dagda, especially when it comes to tueletary goddeses. It also showcases his magical power, being able to suspend the very movement of the sun for nine months, to mention nothing of his cunning. Eochaid Ollathair did not earn the epithet of "The Good God" because of his moral virtue, but because of his might and proficiency in all that he did.

 

Another example, and one which many GRP’s take to heart as having a significant impact on their perception of this god, is the leech Dian Cecht. Of all the gods from the mythic texts, few illicit such vitriol and disdain from such a significant part of the GRP community. This relates to the mythic narrative where Dian Cecht features prominently, CMT2. Nuada having recently lost his hand to the Fir Bolg Sreng, has Dian Cecht make him a replacement, composed of silver. Dian Cecht’s son Miach, however, believed that he could do one better than his father, and literally grew Nuada a new hand. The fury and violence Dian Cecht rained down upon his son for having the audacity to surpass his father eventually resulted in Miach’s death. Airmed, Miach’s sister, buried her brother and from his grave grew all of the plants which were to be used to heal. Dian Cecht, still having not been satisfied with his punishment, mixed up the plants so that their healing properties were confused.

Many GRP’s utterly reject any sort of veneration of Dian Cecht, and refuse to give him the slightest obeisance. They see in his story not the slight of the young against the old, or the origin of healing herbs, but an abusive father exacting his murderous revenge upon his unfortunate son. Some have through UPG also felt terribly negative energies and emotions when they have encountered this god. Now it bears mentioning that within the narrative itself, no punishment is sought out for or exacted upon Dian Cecht by any of the other gods; no one except Airmed sheds any tears for her murdered brother, not even the god who benefited the most from his efforts, Nuada. Give that the killing of one’s own family was one of the more serious crimes, according to Brehon law, it is curious that the narrative remains morally ambivalent in this case. Of course Dian Cecht then goes on to aid the gods in their struggle against the Fomorians, and his influence is strong enough that a medieval tract is attributed to him. So here we are faced with a story which, within its own context is morally neutral, yet to modern sensibilities is abhorrent (at least to some).

The final example I wish to examine is the main drive behind the Oidheadh Chloinne Tuireann (The fate of the Sons of Tuireann), the revenge of Lugh. I won't go into too much detail, but Lugh's father, Cian and his two brothers were having a dispute with the three sons of Turieann: Brian, Iuchar and Iucharba. Cian is murdered by the three brothers and his death is covered up, but eventually Lugh learns the truth and wishes to have the three put to death. He deliberates and debates with the other gods, eventually agreeing to absolve the brothers if they can recover a number of simple objects; the brothers agree. It is only then that Lugh reveals that the objects are all legendary items obtained only through great hardship and peril. Lugh fully expected the task to claim the three Brothers lives, but feigned to offer them some assistance under the guise of preparing for the coming battle with the Fomorians. None the less, the Brothers keep their vow and set off to fetch the items. What follows is a very entertaining series of adventures, and the Brothers obtain all that they seek. Lugh, his plans for revenge being stymied by the skill of the Brothers, makes them forget  a few of the items they had not yet obtained, so that they return with several items which would have later on helped them. Upon remembering that they had yet to obtain a few things, but realizing that without their previous spoils could only do so at the cost of their lives, do so none the less (fyi, the final "thing" there were to obtain, " to give three shouts upon a hilltop" ;D ). Rather reminiscent of the later tale of Diarmuid and Grianne, Lugh has the power to heal the three Brothers, but refuses to do so, and achieves his vengeance. Their father, Tuireann, dies of a broken heart at the loss of his sons.

 

The question which remains when all is said and done asks whether Lugh was just, or whether he subverted true justice for the sake of petty revenge? To start with, the tale is considered a "tragedy", one of the "Three Great Sorrows of Storytelling", counted along with the Clann Lir (the children of Lir) and Longes mac n-Uislenn (the exile of the sons of Uisliu). It is a tragedy because we come to like and root for the hard pressed Brian, Iuchar and Iucharba, despite their original transgression, and realize that they are doomed by a more cunning and powerful foe, Lugh. If the tasks they are given are supposed to have any sot of redemptive or secondary quality to them (like obtaining powerful items to aid in the struggle against the Fomorians), it is wholly undermined by Lugh's desire for revenge. If on the other hand, the point of the story is to show just how powerful a ruler (and by proxy deity) Lugh is, and that his devotion to his kin surpasses all other concerns, then message received loud and clear. Cian in his final moments foretells that his killers ..."will pay a price heavier than any which came before, and any which would come after." So in this instance there is the voice of the victim to consider as well, and it should also be noted that the three Brother's never really recant their crimes, never show any sign of remorse or wrong doing; only when they realize that it is their own lives which are on the line, do they become forlorn. On the other hand, Lugh as the administer of justice, through the personage of the king, has a duty to meet out just punishment. Clearly Lugh seeks to subvert the terms of the fine he places upon the three Brothers, and so for this perhaps he is acting duplicitously.

So there you have it, three stories which feature gods acting in arguably less than ethical or honourable ways. What then do we, as devout and pious polytheists take from all of this?

For starters, we need to understand that while these stories may have pedigree stretching back into the pre-Christian past, they are not whole cloth transliterations of pre-Christian myths. They are at best recreations; euhemerized and embellished for the audience they were scripted for, with a particular purpose in mind. Such is the difficulty with adhering to a literal interpretation of the mythic texts, such as they are. The figures reflected in the tales are just that, literary reflections of deities and other mythic figures; this is why I have, and will continue to argue that the corpus of mythic texts are not sacred texts. They are the best, most reliable source we have for trying to understand pre-Christian cosmology and mythology, but they are not in and of themselves those myths.

Secondly, we need to try and understand the myths from within their own cultural and chronological context. As such, we need to try our best to understand the perspective of the author/ audience they were made for. Only then can we appreciate the subtleties and nuances contained within the narratives, and best grasp what meaning they seek to impart upon our wider experience.

Thirdly, we need to acknowledge that while we can understand their original context, we are not (nor can we be) restricted to a medieval mindset when it comes to our own, modern, concerns. Myths do tell of specific events and these events have meaning within their own time periods, but this does not mean that they can not have other meanings to us in the present day. It is a very fine line to walk, and we must proceed cautiously lest we fall into the pit of universalism or decontextualization; I understand that in the context of the second story, Dian Cecht is never reprimanded or reproached for his infanticide, but I can still feel terrible that it happened. Understanding something in its original context, does not mean that we have to accept that such a context is still valid.

Finally we ought to take a step back and consider the theological implications and how our understanding of the gods and of our devotion to them relates to our own experiences, and further how this meshes with the stories written about them. Here we move away from literary criticism and dive deep into theology and worldview. Our gods are not infallible, and for many who come from religions which teach that their deities are, this can be a difficult reality to adjust to. Yet adjust to it we must; for the gods are not paragons of virtue, at least not all of the time. The gods do have emotions, can be duplicitous, are given to capriciousness and perhaps even cruelty. Their goals can and may often times be at odds with our own, and bad, terrible things can happen as a result. Yet we continue to be devout, to leave our offerings and make our sacrifices to them; to pray to them and seek their benedictions and favours, their guidance and strength. Do we do so out of fear, of either angering them or seeking out their curses?

Of course not.

The gods may be flawed, but they are far less so than we. We are beings of a social nature, and so to place ourselves within a hermitage for fear of what may come through our bonds, is to deny our very nature. So while their existence is no guarantee of cohesion or safety, social strictures and systems exist to facilitate these interactions. Never forget that while their morality may differ from ours, as those whose sight is long must, the gods are beholden to the same structures which govern the cosmos; even if they are themselves the craftsmen who established, and the stewards who maintain them. Fír is a concept that applies to we mortals, but so to does it apply to the gods; for they are immanent and a part of this world, not apart and withdrawn from it. I have mentioned it before, but the gods do not need our worship or our patronage; they were here before us, they will be here long after our bones have withered. Yet they seek us out as often as we seek them, because they want our devotion, they want to help us, to help us succeeded because they benefit from our mutual achievement. If nothing else, remember always that we are better for having the gods, but so too are they better for having us.

We are not gods, we are human beings. We are not their equal in any capacity, for they are necessarily superlative. Yet they do not seek out our subservience, they do not seek to enslave us nor to oppress us. Certainly for a time we were mutually antagonistic towards one another, but this stymied each community to the detriment of both. Our ancestors had the good sense, and the gods had the compassion to realize that cooperation was better than animosity.

Can the gods be deceitful?
Can they take away as readily as they give?
Can they place their own needs above our own?

The answer is yes, but just because they can, does not mean they will. A question was asked by a blogger if it was wise to trust the gods; unabashedly, unequivocally, I say yes.

I say yes, because trust is something which is earned, and the gods have certainly done that.
I say yes, because trust is the foundation upon which relationships are built.
I say yes, because trust is based upon sound judgement.

I believe that I have developed the faculties and the knowledge to properly entreat with the gods, to understand what would offend them, and to honour them as much in accord with our ancient forbearers as possible. To uphold the oaths I have sworn and to ensure that I make such oaths only with gods who will honour those oaths. I can only speak to my own experiences an with the gods I worship, and so this limits my above arguments to Gaelic deities. Folks coming from other cultural perspectives, YMMV.

Thoughts?

-Gorm

 

So (explitive) Pious

Some recent Troll activity on my blog has got me to thinking, so thank you anonymous Troll, you've actually helped me to generate content. One term which came up, time and time again in this childish tantrum that was supposed to come off as "comments", was piousness; specifically my own. It was used in an effort to deride, and I find this rather confusing: when did piety make the transition from virtue to vice?

The context tended towards the adjective "fucking" with the coordinating conjunction "so". I believe the fault may lie with the Troll, who just tacked on pious as some abutment to the real insult, sanctimony. Generally for piety to be insulting or used to damage ones honour, it requires a proper noun to imply a more problematic state: "pious fraud" or "pious hypocrite". Both of those phrases are certainly equivalent to the state of sanctimony, so using them together is rather redundant. Certainly this followed, as the word sanctimonious did pop up in one or two of the diatribes, but again it beguiles one as to why piety would itself be considered problematic?

 

Pious (from the Latin pīus, derived from the pIE-*pey) is the quality of piety [reverence or devotion to something (generally a deity)] one has. It has been a hallmark of the character of an individual or group as it relates to being in good standing with the gods (or later God), and so has generally been an uncontested virtue, as far as virtues go. Pietas, (i.e. piety) in the Roman world was often contrasted with superstitio (the root of the English "superstition", but different in meaning) which was a slavish devotion borne out of fear of the gods anger. The former is virtuous because it encourages behaviours which foster the proper relationship one ought to have with the gods; whereas the later is a vice because while it too engenders devotion, it is a devotion rooted in a dysfunctional relationship with the gods. How then have we gotten to a point where piety is something which is in itself problematic?

 

Well, by arriving at a cultural view where everything and everyone are inherently corrupt or flawed to some degree, and so thus rendering piety as sanctimony. This is interesting, because the two terms are related, and so this is a visible descent within the context of language. There was a period when sanctimonious (from the Latin sanctimonia, holy/sacred action) was cognate with pious; at some point, however, the term became synonymous with false piety. The idea that an individual or group was putting on airs to appear pious, but that their actions were not at all reflective of such a state of being. Perhaps this new found disdain for piety itself is simply a continuation of this descent. Though, and this is where things start to branch off, piety is not the only term which (may) be one so loaded with cultural baggage that for many coming from minority theological positions, that it isn't worth "saving".

 

This touches on a much wider theological discussion (one which is to some degree or another ongoing among polytheistic and Pagan bloggers), but a conclusion which many seem to reach is this: having these discussions is, while not difficult, complicated by the predominant theological framework our language (in this case English, but it could be extended to any Western one, Gaelic [broadly] being no exception) and culture are beholden to monotheism and especially Christianity. Piety, Worship, Prayer, Theology, Holy, and so forth, are all terms that in popular parlance are loaded with preconceptions rooted in Christian tradition.

 

Herein our troubles begin, because this cultural view is pervasive and dominant, and even those smug Atheists (not all Atheists. NOT ALL ATHEISTS. Just the smug ones (like the troll I mentioned above) who find it necessary to belittle theism and theists of any and all stripes) find themselves couching terms and arguing from presuppositions. To the extent that being held to be pious from such a perspective is but a breath away from being labeled "holier-than-thou". The phrase betrays a theological (and widely cultural) perspective that makes many assumptions, and holds them to be more true than not. The expression refers to an attitude or belief (as reflected in thought and deed) that one holds oneself as being morally superior to another; this sentiment is almost always attached to feigning said morality. This sentiment has descended to a state where morality can not be measurable and so necessarily, to hold that oneself as being more moral than someone else, is being sanctimonious. Except this argument is bunk, hokum and falderal; logically there are people who are demonstrably more moral than others. This stance on behaviour and superiority/failing ties back to a much earlier post I wrote about why the faculty of judgement is good, and that such a perspective can trace its origins to Christian theology. What follows is a bit of a digression, but is nonetheless pertinent to the topic at hand, so please bear with me.

 

In the past (recently no less) I would have made an argument about Christians holding people to be worthless, because of sin, and in that state of worthlessness, all are equal and none have the right (or ability) to judge anyone else. In fact this issue sort of came to a head in a discussion I was involved in relating to the use of the term "worship" (which I will touch on below). Someone called me out on my statement (being seen as just another "attack" on Christianity). Having myself to have taken a step back, because it occurred to me during the discussion that I had grossly generalized a much more complex state of affairs. Christianity may be monolithic, but the religions(et. denominations) that make up the whole of Christendom are hardly unified. Protestantism itself seems to be as highly fractious as Paganism (and some may argue that this fractiousness among Paganism is in fact a holdover from this religious perspective, but perhaps more on this some other time). With this in mind, the understanding of concepts like "sin" and "atonement" vary wildly among Christians, and so trying to form a cohesive pronouncement on the entire group is fraught with peril. I think my perspective has been greatly coloured by my time spent on interfaith web forums, where the natural state of affairs is that Evangelicals tend to dominate the Christian communities, and given their influence (or visibility) in media, this can most definitely create theological tunnel vision, where this is Christianity. So when asked to provide an example of a religion where people were undervalued (or held to be worthless) my immediate response was 'Christianity".

This needed to be qualified, and my visceral reaction was grossly unqualified. It appears at first blush to be more accurate, a core belief even, than not so. Given the idea of human agency having little actual impact in a good number of Protestant religions (particularly those who accept "free grace" theology), when it comes to positive moral action, even to the extent of being able to accept Christianity (or specifically their salvic figure) without some divine mandate, it stands to reason that humans as fallen, generally miserable creatures, are not presented, nor held with much esteem. It is easy to then turn and say, "Well if people are held to be intrinsically terrible, it stands to reason that they haven't got much worth. This is why the idea of 'Grace' is so appealing, because even though humanity is not worthy enough to be saved, the Christian god is merciful enough to give it none the less." This was my general stance towards Christianity in general then, and to be fair I think many among us would reasonably reach this conclusion if this was the message that the Christians we knew personally, discussed religion with regularly, or were exposed to via multi media constantly were presenting to us. Then again, simply because one perspective is the most noticeable, it is by no means the largest, let alone only one available.

 

The truth of the matter is that "Free Grace" is something which is a core doctrine of only some Protestant churches, not all, and this does not then account for Catholicism nor the Orthodox church. The idea of personal atonement, penance and restitution through the actions of both the laity and the clergy, as well as the acknowledgement that humans have moral agency, stands in stark contrast with the assertion I made in the context of the conversation I mentioned above. Religions are no so simple, and theology and doctrine are complex enough to stymie easy answers and gross generalizations.

 

Having said all of that, there is no doubt in my mind that the attitudes among many folks presently with regards to attitudes like "don't judge me", "being holier-than-thou" and "so (expletive) pious" can trace their origins to some of the cultural baggage of Christian theology/doctrines like sin, guilt and religious hypocrites. The gospel authors have seen to it that the Pharisees have been one of the most maligned historic figures, well ever. The term itself is synonymous with sanctimony, but the cultural impact of the idea extended far beyond the first century CE. As my troll illustrates and as a generalized sentiment I have experienced time and time again, there is a deep mistrust of people who are seen to be "too moral", almost to the extent of it manifesting as misanthropic glee. A holdover from anti-clericalism perhaps, or a natural result stemming from a never ending cycle of clerical betrayal. In such a context, it is fairly understandable; a sacred trust which is continually betrayed is hardly any sort of trust and certainly not sacred. Reverence and deference to moral authorities have been superseded by a deep seated cynicism to the extent that for many anyone who appears to be moral for the sake of morality (or devout for the sake of the gods) is automatically red flagged. Even if that person is not in a position of authority, the general sentiment remains. It is a very regrettable state of affairs.

 

It is regrettable because the simple state of virtuous living can be looked at askance and made to seem wrong. It is my opinion that this position is based largely on an individuals insecurities being projected onto those they deem as making them feel insecure in the first place. People are also often fully justified in their cynicism, and it is remarkably easy to just abandon standards and expectations (either of oneself or others) and just "get on with it".

 

And yet ease is not necessarily the most effective measure of quality. I think that striving for a better state of affairs, again personally or collectively, is a worthy endeavour and living a virtuous life is an important part of that endeavour. Human flourishing will always be worth the effort one invests to attain it, and for me (and others like me) piety is one of the virtues which encompasses a good life. I am unabashed in my devotion to the dé ochus andé, and I would think that such a position is patently obvious to anyone who reads this blog. Having and fostering standards of ethical behaviour is not, and will never be problematic. I suppose that, given everything I've said that I am, in fact, so (expletive) pious.

Polytheism.net

I know that prior to my recent investigation, I had actually found my way to "polytheism.net", and was both unsurprised, and underwhelmed by its contents. It was not until a few days ago, however, that I found my way back and actually began going through a good chunk of the content provided by the site. As it turns out this site has managed to inspire me, because it is probably one of the more duplitious sites out there. It provides just enough actual information, that anyone not familair with either the historic/modern cultures discussed or with polytheism in general, would actually mistake it as a legitimate source of information. It isn't, of course, being what amounts to a thinly veiled, web based Christian tract. The "articles" are loaded with imbeded links to webpages produced by the same company, all under the auspices of "All About Philosophy", which in turn is owned and maintained by "AllaboutGod.com", of "All About God Ministries".

There are many "tells" on the front page which betray its true nature, but a lot of folks wouldn't be aware of these and so the insidious nature of the site, and the misinformation it provides, is all the more troubling. So why bother talking about it at all? Two reasons:

1. The first is that I think pointing out just how dishonest the information is, merits some commentary, if for no other reason than to provide some content fellow polytheists may get a chukle out of, or shake their heads at.

2. The second, and probably more useful, is that the site is replete with just about every agument that has been made against polytheism, from archaic to obscufitating, to down right lying. I think that while the information is bogus and with a juvenile analysis, it does represent a given world view: that of a certain type of monotheist's understanding of polytheism, and if nothing else provides clear points of argument, to which rebuttals ought to be made.

The front page consists of a basic explanation of what polytheism is, drops some of the polytheisic cultures which everyone would be familiar with, mentions how primitive it is, how it is in stark contrast to the Abrahamic monotheisms and how most modern polytheists are either those "exotic" others from the "east" or new agers. My guess would be that pagans and reconstructionists would be lumped in with the new age in such an aproximation. As I mentioned the information is innocous enough, but it is towards the bottom of the page that the tone shifts from condescendingly curious to two central commentaries which show the lacking elements of polytheism (or to be fair, any non-absolutist, monotheistic worldview).

• The lack in a supreme, all powerful deity, who is the embodiment of morality, necessarily makes these religions/cultures 'moral relativists'.
• Ultimately, these people are unhappy because they, necessarily, lack the direction and purpose presented by the monothesitic god. 

The bottom of the last paragraph spells it out, "Monotheistic faiths such as Christianity teach that absolute truth is reality, mankind is on earth for a purpose, and eternal salvation is possible for those seeking a reconciled relationship with the one true God." This of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with monotheism at all, but consdiering the authors, is typical. So, lets "Explore More Now!!!"

This link, unfortunately for the purposes of this post, redirects to a page comparing the "meaning of life" between those who think "this life is all their is", and those who "know there is more". I'll not go into great detail here, but one of the "points" raised on this page reveals the highly immoral nature of the very world view they espouse as being "moral." The argument boils down to the need for an ultimate reward to provide meaning to any aspect of human culture or history, because without this reward, everything is meaningless. It really doesn't provide anymore detail than that, and is a perfect example of circular logic. The real life example they posit is that without an ultimate reward, there is no difference between living a life like "Billy Graham" or living a life like "Osama Bin Laden". I'll just play along with their simplistic good/evil bifurcation; they completely fail to see that living a life of morality for the sake of morality is a worthwhile endevour. Are they so morally callous to just ignore the suffering, however temporal, that an "evil" person inflicts, or the joy that a "good" person provides? For people who are making judgements from a position of "absolute" morality, they lack even the basic ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong".

Which brings me back to the first assertion about polytheism listed above; that polytheists are "moral relativists", and this ultimately means that here is no morality at all. Proving this assertion is again the work of another website (well two actually, one on "cultural-relavitism" and the other on "moral relavitism". Neither of which have anything at all do (directly) with polytheism. Ultimately, however, this is one of the most important arguments for the monotheistic outlook, especially when it comes to issuse of ethics and morality. It is also a canard. The entire argument hinges on the belief that monotheism provides a single source of morality, and that without this all other methods of determing "right" from "wrong" are incorrect, or impossible.It also relies on the assertion that the source for understanding morality, their holy book, is infalliable. Anyone who isn't blinded by their unwavering, unfalsifiable faith is such baseless assertions, can readily see the problem with relying on such a source as THE source of ethics. Considering that such individuals are unable to see the intrinsic value in living a good life vs. living a life of vice, you'll forgive my skepticism of their ability to make sound moral choices.

In normative ethics, the kind of ethical model espoused by these people, is a sort of bigoted deontological ethical system; something is moral because it has been established by some authority (in this case a very crude "divine command theory"), and so what is moral amounts to adhering to these rules. Funnily enough, the same site redirects to an article on deontological ethics and tries its best to show how flawed even their own approach is! What is so twisted with this particualr view, however, is the assertion that it is actually impossible to do so. Morality is actually impossible without the direct intervention of the "supreme law giver", which in turn establishes a need for such intervention made possible through the religion being promoted. This assertion is of course, non-sense, as not only do other ethical systems exist, but even a simple application of my personal preference, virtue ethics, shows both that moral agency is possible without divine intervention, and that the idea of "moral relavitism" being the only option outside of absolutist bifurcation, is simply wrong.

One of the foundationa principles of vitrue ethics is the idea of the "golden mean". The "golden mean" is what qualifies as a virtue, and exists between deficeny of the virtue, and excess of the virtue. For example, "bravery" is considered a virtue, where as deficeny of "bravery" is "cowardice" and excess is "foolhardiness". The deficency results in the inability to act at all, and the excess in reckless acts. Bravery, then, is held to be a virtue because it allows one to act in a given situation while preventing one from reacting in an unthinking manner. A tad simplistic, but serviciable to the point where it becomes fairly easy to establish an objective basis that is not based on "cultural relativity" or "moral relavitism". Of course, there is a considerable difference between an objective basis and an absolutist one; in the former, context is taken into account whereas in the latter it necessarily needs to be true in every context. In essence it can be shown that the virtue is a virtue objectively, and not simply based on culture/relativism, while understanding that the context of the situation can impact the applicability. In such a case then, it is simple to see why the life of the "good Billy Graham" is superior to the life of the "evil Osama Bin Laden", without the need to posit a scheme of reward/punishment to give it significance.

There is a side bar on the main page which has a number of links which redirect to related subject matter and so I will next turn my attention to them. The top link is titled "Gods and Goddesses" and redirects to a series of pages which discuss (in chronological order) Egyptian, Greek and Roman polyteism. Again terribly simplistic, but there is a recurring theme throughout all of the pages: the nature of the (ancient) gods and goddesses, and their worship, was arbitrary and ever changing. The assertion that the various gods of polytheism were "created by man", is present in every summary and so posits that none of these deities have actual existence external to the myths of the specific cultures. What the mileage of these myths do reflect, is a sincere desire of all human cultures to explore and understand their origins and purpose, but the instability of such belief systems ultimately leaves no certainty, and ultmately no real answers at all. When the author moves on to discussing Greek deities, who were also fictional, emotional (... such as jealousy or wrath?) and interfered in human afairs (... like destroying all but a handful of life?). The next culture was that of the Romans, split into earlier and later developments. A brief mention of the genius/luna and household deities, with the inclusion of how silly having a deity for an absurd amount of specificity is. The later development comments on the inclusion of broader mythology and the syncretic tendencies of Rome to adopt deities from other cultures, again playing on the transience of such worship.

The second page concludes with the same "Explore More Now" link which redirects to the same "meaning of life" page discussed above. Except where the eariler page then provides some related content to the link, these pages do not merit any further discussion. The argument is actually very tacit in these examples; a belief in polytheistic deities is from a bygone era, where people did not know any better, but reflect or anticipate the desire for the "absolute truth" presented by this particular monotheism. Such assertions, however tacit, ultimately betray a sincere lack of understanding of the development of their own mythology, and of course the bias inherent in rejecting out of hand all mythologies (and deities) except ones own, because they believe the assertios their holy book/religion provide. Special pleading at its finest, but again very typical. Relating back to the second overall theme of the web page, this discontent or aimlessness which is present in those who do not belong to this particular monotheism, is symptomatic of the void which must exist in those outside this particular world view. Those outside must be unhappy, because if they were happy, content and fulfilled, then this would mean that such things were not the exclusive purview of their religion and the deity they represent, and so their claims of exclusivity would fall flat. No mention is made, of course, of modern polytheists, because we are not even an afterthought.

All in all the page doesn't present any information which is not readily available, and in better quality, through even a quick goolgle search or glancing at a wikipedia article. The information which is provided is not done in an objective fashion, and instead is presented in a very condescending tone. What then is the purpose of this web site; well to steer those rare people who may be genuine "spiritual seekers", maybe who've heard of this so called polytheism and are curious, back to the "winning team". How? Through misinformation and deception, two tried and true methods in the arsenal of this particular monotheism. How much of an impact would this site have on individals looking for information? Well its the second site listed in a google search of "polytheism", being nudged out of the top spot by he wiki article on polytheism. So while anyone who is already cognizant of polytheism as a legitimate way of understanding deity wouldn't waste their time after the first paragraph, those who are not aware, but may be contemplating or exploring other theistic perspctives are vulnerable to such tactics.

There is still a lingerng question though, why go through all this trouble; why all the effort and deception to discredit an apparently "defunct" religious perspective? I would suggest that the very existence of this website and its associated content pages, proves not only that polytheism is being seen as a contemporary religious view by the authors, but that it is actually providing a competing perspective popular enough to merit such a response. So that while the website is indeed a testament to strawman polytheism, that it exists means that perhaps we do, infact, merit not only an afterthought, but serious contemplation.

-Gorm.