Skip to main content

The gods of Theogony vs. The God of Genesis-Rachael Gregson

 


While reading the Theogony, I noted how some parts of it do seem very similar to the Book of Genesis. Both pieces of work entertain the idea of some being(s) creating the world out of nothing, as well as this/these certain being(s) craving a relationship with His/their creation, and the story of Jupiter destroying mankind with water was very reminiscent of Noah and the Ark. However, all similarities between the two stop there because the gods in the Theogony are very, very different from the God of Abraham and Jacob. 

Genesis Chapter 1, it is written that God Almighty created everything in the universe, and that therefore we as creation are dependent on our Creator. It is also clearly stated that man specifically was set apart from the rest to be made in God's image; with this gift, He allows us dominion over all of creation. Nothing is out of order, unless God ordains it to be for His purpose and plan. 

On the other hand, in Theogony, we see that the world's origin was utter chaos and still continues to operate in utter chaos. Unlike God, the celestial beings in the Theogony are just as flawed, if not even more flawed, than the humans they watch over. Not only this, but we never actually see the creation of man in the Theogony. The downfall of man is seriously jaded compared to the story we know from Adam and Eve too. Humans receive punishments from divinities rather than the sin they choose to delve in like in Genesis. "An eye for an eye" was a common thing in the Theogony that was followed, gods included, while God was merciful enough to give Adam and Eve another chance at life despite kicking them out of Eden (He originally said that whoever ate the fruit was to die). Adam and Eve did still die, but God allowed them a beautiful life of raising children and growing old together in between.

I commented on posts by Logan Turner and Haley Riddle.

Comments

  1. It is unclear based on Theogony the reason behind the creation of man. I know from outside sources that Prometheus and Epimetheus were tasked with it, but based on the characteristics shown in these works, humankind was created out of pure selfishness so that the gods had someone to worship them. I could be wrong, but that is what it feels like to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it very interesting your view on Adam and Eve's death. I have always been taught that death is only separation from God. Adam and Eve did die by that definition almost immediately. we are told as Christians that we gain everlasting life through Jesus alone and were dead prior to our saving. I think it depends on your definition of death on whether or not they did die initially. I know this is relatively deep philosophical ideas but it is something I ponder about much of. I think if we say Adam and Eve didn't die that poses the question of whether or not God keeps his word. That is beyond terrifying. I purpose that we are so skewed by the worlds idea of what death is that is hard for us to truly understand that passage. In my humble opinion death is simply unreachable separation. That definition satisfies both the current worldly view of death and holds God in his perfection of keeping his word. When a relative dies they are simply in an unreachable state to you and when we are dead before Jesus we are in an unreachable state to God because sinLESSness can not dwell with SinFULness.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’ve always understood that Prometheus was in charge of creating mankind and Epimetheus was in charge of creating beasts. They were both given things to create with by Zeus or at least that’s what I’ve read. I do agree though that the Greek/Roman gods are very different from our God. Our God is merciful and gracious, but He’s also just. The Greek/Roman gods aren’t necessarily always like that.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lovers of Wisdom, Not Power—Lily Caswell

In Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, Socrates talks about the possibility of having a well-governed city. However, he also talks about how that particular form of government is impossible to have. A well-governed city becomes a possibility only if you can discover a better way of life for your future rulers than holding office.” (Plato, p 215) Maybe his version of a better life was for those in office to not be lovers of power, since it would then become a fight among rival lovers. Socrates gets to the point that the only rulers who don’t love power are true philosophers. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom and knowledge and not power, ergo they are the perfect rulers. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely, so I’m thinking that maybe the trick to being a good ruler is for you to be a philosophical person who loves wisdom and not power. I commented on Jamie’s and Isabelle’s posts.

How to Make a Clone - Clabo

I found books three and four to be very cringy. I mean, to me the idea of structurally producing good soldiers/guardians through heavy censorship is somewhat inhumane. I feel as if human beings should be allowed to experience every bit of knowledge they can at some point in their lives. To me, it seems as if the guardians are being guarded against information throughout their entire lives so they can solely fulfill the duties they were birthed into.  However, the influence and importance Plato places on poetry and music do make me wonder what it would be like if we had the same values as our military today. What if the United States military invested in the souls of its soldiers and placed within them emotional and intellectual values outside of what they have learned previously. Perhaps the military instills values and principles within soldiers to fulfill the same purpose as the guardians would in Plato's Republic and that is to only be that which the government wants you to be....

Dystopian Origins Uncovered ////// Isabelle Ferguson

  I think that ideas eventually run out of originality and circle back to the original idea. During this week's reading, many of Socrates’ suggestions for a place of perfection reminded me of some novels I’ve read depicting dystopian worlds. Disclaimer: There are spoilers ahead. You have been warned.        To begin, in  The  Giver  by Lois Lowry censorship is a major theme. The novel is centered around a boy who is receiving memories withheld from the population! The government in The Giver is especially careful to censor the memories that may cause strife, anger, fear, sadness, etc. In the adults, this society is cemented. So, the government is especially strict with the youth. Socrates talks about verses to “obliterate” to prevent the descriptions from doing “harm to our future warriors” for the better half of Book III (Plato, page 44). The warriors he speaks of are the youth. He goes on to list the multitude of verses that should be done ...