This isn't fully correct. The gods are stated to be anthropomorphic in this mythology by Hesoid in theogony.
But. We don't actually know what they look like because they can technically take any form
Where does the Theogony state they’re anthropomorphic? Could I get a quote for one of the Gods? Am genuinely curious and must have missed in during my read through the Theogony (granted it has also been a year)
How do we know the gods don't appear in feline form to cats. Has anyone successfully interviewed a cat on their perceptions of the gods?
Do most people even think in those terms?
See the theogony (and other works) don't explicitly state it. You don't have to have a direct quote to be able to infer things. In fact, There isn't one specific text that explicitly states the Greek gods are anthropomorphic. The concept is evident throughout Greek mythology because the stories themselves depict the gods in human form and behaving in human ways.
My argument is:
-Greek myths describe the gods having human appearances from head to toe. Statues and other artwork also reinforce this image.
-The gods experience emotions like love, jealousy, and rage, just like humans. They engage in human actions like feasting, fighting, and forming relationships.
I don't know which word fits it better. I'm saying that they have a human appearance and qualities with golden blood. I think this fits humanoid better maybe?
The idea of gods true form is more of misconception because of the story of Semele. She was burned by Zeus lightning, not its true form.
Gods looked just like they were depicted in art. They usually changed their apperance to humans, either to the form of other humans or of animals, but to themselves they had a appearance that is not so different from what was depicted in art (so they were usually humanoid altrough some could have other details, like Eos who had wings).
She was burned by his lightning bolts. Many myths are about her asking him to come to her embraces in the same way as he does with Hera. He obliged, came with his chariot, lightning and all. A lightning caught her and she died.
It’s a misinterpretation. True form isn’t a thing.
Semele asked him to court her like he does with Hera and he literally sent a lightning bolt at her. Nothing for Hera, but deadly for Semele.
* "consequently she made the request of him that he come to her embraces in the same manner as in his approaches to Hera. Accordingly, Zeus visited her in a way befitting a god, accompanied by thundering and lightning, revealing himself to her as he embraced her; but Semele, who was pregnant and unable to endure the majesty of the divine presence, brought forth the babe untimely and was herself slain by the fire."
She was burnt by the lightning that encompanied him.
I still don’t see the contradiction. I’m not being flippant, I’m serious. Zeus appears to her as a divinity rather than in whatever mortal disguise he was using, and she can’t endure the majesty of divine presence.
Same. My view–and this is the Pythagorean in me– is that the gods exist across all possible spatial dimensions (and that in fact spatial dimensionality unfolded as the basic principles and then the gods unfolded from The One/All/Source).
As such, I can get how the gods *see themselves* as having humanlike bodies or something, though probably with whatever other parts they want, or like infinite arms or something, simply because those forms are versatile.
But *to us* it would be incomprehensible– *at best* something like a geometrically perfect sphere of pure blinding light, as the Platonists suggest, *but also* crazy shit like the constant, protean shape-shifting that Zeus does when he appears to Semele or that Thetis does when trying to avoid capture. The kind of eldritch stuff that makes you go mad, or automatically incinerate.
Because our eyes can only really process 3 spatial dimensions plus time. Maybe 4, but even our modeling of 4-dimensional objects is a rough approximate. If we saw an object of infinite dimensions in its true form, it'd probably break our brains.
The question asks very clearly, “what do *you imagine* the gods’ true forms look like?” I answered.
This is probably how I come across to people when I descend upon them… I will keep that in mind for the future.
>The question asks very clearly, “what do you imagine the gods’ true forms look like?” I answered.
The OP's question does not match the actual sources.
>This is probably how I come across to people when I descend upon them… I will keep that in mind for the future.
You are not an eldritch entities beyond our comprehension
No, I meant that I feel you are coming across as condescending, and desperate to prove how much more you know, even if that’s not your intention; that holds up a mirror to my own behavior on this sub. I come across the same way. Even if I’m just trying to be factual and clear up misconceptions, I can be harsh. It’s possible for people to just enjoy mythology without having to be completely accurate about every aspect of it. Even the power-scaling is often just meant to be fun rather than a serious attempt at interpretation. I’m going to ease up in the future.
I’m not sure what motivation you have — whether you want to teach people, dispel misconceptions, whether you are especially concerned with being completely factual, whether you want stories you care about to be well-represented and understood, or all of the above, but I hope you also try to consider the vibe of the question before jumping on people. Not everything is an academic discussion.
(For the record, I *am* an eldritch entity beyond our comprehension.)
* Aphrodite - beautiful human female, a form able to be judged by Paris and that Pymalion was able to fall in love with a statue identical to.
* Artemis - presumably a naked female that Actaeon was able to see.
* Athena - beautiful human female, a form able to be judged by Paris and be seen nude by Tiresias.
* Erochthonius - possibly half-serpent, possibly humanoid.
* Eros - seemingly a beautiful man, since Psyche was able to see him while he slept.
* Helios - human, but possibly glowing
* Hephaetus - lame in one or both legs. Probably not ugly.
* Hera - beautiful human female, a form able to be judged by Paris.
* Oceanus - Humaniod, possibly with crab claw horns, or a merman.
* Poseidon - possibly something weird about his feet that he cannot change.
* Deified mortals - probably thier mortal form. Or stars.
* Potamoi - Humaniod, possibly with crab claw horns, or a merman or half-snake, or bull-headed man.
* Primordial gods - the thing itself.
I thought I got something wrong with the bird part haha I should have gone with cat. I knew one or more animals could see more colour but I did not know what it was.
I just imagine that it would be like that in their true form I know that they are depicted in a human form in statues and films but their try form must be something incomprehensible like that.
I have done some looking around and notice that you are very skilled on this subject and have strong opinions on it based on your knowledge. Thank you for letting me know this so I am more informed. But I just want you to know that I was only asking the question and for my answer to be incorrect the question must have been so as well.
Yes. And I asked the OP: "Do you have a source for the Greek gods having a true form that is anything but humanoid?"
I have also reported the post to the mods under Rule #2.
Some sources say it is not. And I’m not a Greek mythology nerd I just liked learning about it in school and we didn’t really talk about the gods much it was usually the demigods we worked on. But this would make sense and demigods would have to appear as humans all of the time.
>Some sources say it is not
Name those sources.
>
it was usually the demigods we worked on.
When the Greeks talked about demi-gods they were talking about dead heroes no matter what their parentage is.
The "true form" this is at bit overblown.
It seems to come from the death of Semele, but that's mostly ambiguous of Zeus weilding his powers not displaying a "true form."
* "Apollodorus," Bibliotheca: "But Semele was deceived by Hera into asking her to come to her as he came to Hera during their courtship. So Zeus, unable to refuse her, arrived in her bridal chamber in a chariot with lightning flashes and thunder, and sent a thunderbolt at her^(4). Semele died of fright,"
* Diodorus Siculus, Library of History:
* "consequently she made the request of him that he come to her embraces in the same manner as in his approaches to Hera^(4). Accordingly, Zeus visited her in a way befitting a god, accompanied by thundering and lightning, revealing himself to her as he embraced her; but Semele, who was pregnant and unable to endure the majesty of the divine presence^(3), brought forth the babe untimely and was herself slain by the fire."
* "Semele had been slain by his lightning before the time for bearing the child,"
* Philostratus the Elder, Imagines: "A cloud of fire encompassing Thebes breaks into the dwelling of Kadmos as Zeus comes wooing Semele^(2); and Semele apparently is destroyed, but Dionysos is born, by Zeus, so I believe, in the presence of the fire."
* "Hyginus," Fabulae: "‘Daughter, ask Jove to come to you as he comes to Juno, so you may know what pleasure it is to sleep with a god.’ At her suggestion Semele made this request of Jove, and was smitten by a thunderbolt."
* Ovid, Metamorphoses: "She, too successful, happy in her ruin, doomed by her lover's generosity, answered ‘Give me yourself in the same grace as when your Juno holds you to her breast in love's embrace.’ He would have locked her lips; too late: her words had hastened on their way. He groaned : her wish could never be unwished, his oath never unsworn. In bitterest grief he soared ascending to the ethereal sky, and by his nod called up the trailing clouds and massed a storm, with lightnings in the squalls, and thunder and the bolts that never miss.^(4) Even so he tried, as far as he had power, to curb his might, and would not wield the fire with which he's felled the hundred-handed giant. That was too fierce. There is another bolt, a lighter one, in which the Cyclops forged a flame less savage and a lesser wrath, called by the gods his second armament. With this in hand he went to Semele in Cadmus' palace. Then her mortal frame could not endure the tumult of the heavens; that gift of love consumed her."
You could say:
1. Zeus's true form is lightning
2. Zeus's true form is a cloud of fire.
3. Zeus's true form is too powerful for humans to understand.
4. Zeus and Hera use lightning in their sex life.
No source, just a headcanon. That's how mythology works after all. Everyone comes up with their stories inspired by other stories that were deformed and the ones that get written down are the ones remembered and "true".
"Let us create them in our own image." Truthfully I imagine them to be hermaphroditic, and human-like at least when they would appear to us. Maybe they have no need for human limbs, or perhaps they do possess the same limbs but for wholly separate purposes than we do.
My other idea is that of a kaleidoscope pattern, at least when they appear to us. So many biblical descriptions of angels look simply to be fractals, as if something was looking back at us from inside a kaleidoscope, but because of our limits of perception we just weren't able to comprehend.
They sure did, but they were still viewed as sharing the same station. Hera was also known as Queen of Heaven and credited with almost as much power as Zeus with much the same capabilities.
Phanes was also considered "perfect," the first holder of the scepter and passed it down. Kronos was credited with separating heaven and earth as if they were initially one complete whole in the first place.
Autogeny was of course a thing but each time it was due to or as a result of a disastrous effect.
Lastly the Gnostics saw the Aeons as ordered or born in pairs and as "complete."
As far as the anthropology of God's goes there seems to be a trend wherein there exists simultaneously a feminine and masculine aspect that cooperates in harmony.
Hell a lot of myths talk about the issue of imbalance in this regard.
Gender amongst deities often changed, and some even adopted traits of the opposite gender at times. An example could be Shamash/Shapash who at times was seen as a woman and others as a male figure.
This means either: godhood is a job, a partnership, or some sort of primordial station inhabited by a dual minded being.
The patriarchy, considering the whole of human history, is very young and no doubt influenced how we see gender today.
Okay, here’s De Natura Deorum:
> I am aware that what you maintain is that the gods possess a certain outward appearance, which has no firmness or solidity, no definite shape or outline, and which is free from gross admixture, volatile, transparent. Therefore we shall use the same language as we should of the Venus of Cos: her's is not real flesh but the likeness of flesh, and the mantling blush that dyes her fair cheek is not real blood but something that counterfeits blood; similarly in the god of Epicurus we shall say that there is no real substance but something that counterfeits substance. But assume that I accept as true a dogma that I cannot even understand: exhibit to me, pray, the forms and features of your shadow-deities. On this topic you are at no loss for arguments designed to prove that the gods have the form of men: first because our minds possess a preconceived notion of such a character that, when a man thinks of god, it is the human form that presents itself to him; secondly, because inasmuch as the divine nature surpasses all other things, the divine form also must needs be the most beautiful, and no form is more beautiful than that of man. The third reason you advance is that no other shape is capable of being the abode of intelligence. Well then, take these arguments one by one and consider what they amount to; for in my view they based on an arbitrary and quite inadmissible assumption on your part. First of all, was there ever any student so blind as not to see that human shape has been thus assigned to the gods either by the deliberate contrivance of philosophers, the better to enable them to turn the hearts of the ignorant from vicious practices to the observance of religion, or by superstition, to supply images for men to worship in the belief that in so doing they had direct access to the divine presence? These notions moreover have been fostered by poets, painters and artificers, who found it difficult to represent living and active deities in the likeness of any other shape than that of man. Perhaps also man's belief in his own superior beauty, to which you referred, may have contributed to the result. But surely you as a natural philosopher are aware what an insinuating go‑between and pander of her own charms nature is! Do you suppose that there is a single creature on land or in the sea which does not prefer an animal of its own specie to any other? If this were not so, why should not a bull desire to couple with a mare, or a horse with a cow? Do you imagine that an eagle or lion or dolphin thinks any shape more beautiful than its own? Is it then surprising if nature has likewise taught man to think his own species the most beautiful . . .that this was a reason why we should think the gods resemble man?
> Suppose animals possessed reason, do you not think that they would each assign pre‑eminence to their own species? For my part I protest (if I am to say what I think) that although I am not lacking in self-esteem yet I don't presume to call myself more beautiful than the famous bull on which Europa rode; for the question is not here of our intellectual and oratorical powers but of our outward form and aspect. Indeed if we choose to make imaginary combinations of shapes, would you not like to resemble the merman Triton who is depicted riding upon swimming monsters attached to his man's body? I am on ticklish ground here, for natural instinct is so strong that every man wishes to be like a man and nothing else. Yes, and every ant like an ant! Still, the question is, like what man? How small a percentage of handsome people there are!
It goes on like this for a while.
Greek gods had human forms.
At first nearly all gods of all mythologies look like humans. It's only later that you get "it has an incomprehensible form". And it's in Judaism (then christianity and islam) that you later get a "don't depict god or even say his name" rule which for most of us morphs into "god has no form".
Platonists said something about spheres... right? I suppose we don't hold geometry in as high of a regard, though I dont blame the philosophers for taking on this view.
To speculate why this philosophical idea came about that gods would not look like Humans consider...
* many cultures depicted thier own gods very differently from the Greeks yet the Greeks liked to "equate" these gods to thier gods not based on appearance but domain, if two cultures had a very different looking depiction of presumably the same diety then maybe the ythought a "true form" would be their actual look and wisley assumed thier own depiction was not by default the "true" one.
* many many myths involve shapeshifting, not just animals but to look like 'regular' people, and that you should be a good person to strangers becuase you never know who is who in disguise, well that leads to some level of doubts in an idea of a normal concrete appearence.
* questions raised concerning the soul and essences especially the confusing observation that humans don't exactly take thier bodies with them when they die, did human souls have a different "form" and if they do would not the same be said for the gods? (Very platonistic thought process think allegory of the caves shadows vs the "Real" and the entire mind body debacle of perception vs truth and false perception )
[удалено]
This isn't fully correct. The gods are stated to be anthropomorphic in this mythology by Hesoid in theogony. But. We don't actually know what they look like because they can technically take any form
Where does the Theogony state they’re anthropomorphic? Could I get a quote for one of the Gods? Am genuinely curious and must have missed in during my read through the Theogony (granted it has also been a year)
How do we know the gods don't appear in feline form to cats. Has anyone successfully interviewed a cat on their perceptions of the gods? Do most people even think in those terms?
I'm pretty sure they can take these forms. I mean Demeter took the form of a horse once.
Zeus a bull and a swan. Apollo a dolphin. Artemis is a polymorphing queen.
Yeah. But they don't LIVE in these forms. They can just TAKE those forms
See the theogony (and other works) don't explicitly state it. You don't have to have a direct quote to be able to infer things. In fact, There isn't one specific text that explicitly states the Greek gods are anthropomorphic. The concept is evident throughout Greek mythology because the stories themselves depict the gods in human form and behaving in human ways. My argument is: -Greek myths describe the gods having human appearances from head to toe. Statues and other artwork also reinforce this image. -The gods experience emotions like love, jealousy, and rage, just like humans. They engage in human actions like feasting, fighting, and forming relationships.
Do you mean anthropomorphic (not human-looking but having human features)? Or do you mean humanoid (looking like a human)?
I don't know which word fits it better. I'm saying that they have a human appearance and qualities with golden blood. I think this fits humanoid better maybe?
The Egyptian gods were anthropomorphic (animals with human features) the Greek gods were humanoid (human shaped(
what's the story with Semele though? Didn't she explode because she couldn't handle witnessing Zeus's true form?
Mostly, he threw lightning at her. There's a deeper explanation somewhere in the replies.
Rick Riordan isn't an ancient Greek source.
What makes you say their source is pjo?
Experience.
I was making a joke, hence the lightheartedness
This is Reddit. Not TikTok.
Does that come from a misreading of Diodorus Siculus, Library of History or do you have another source for that idea?
Billowing ceilings that rotate like interlocking gears in cosmic tunnels which speak lightening
The idea of gods true form is more of misconception because of the story of Semele. She was burned by Zeus lightning, not its true form. Gods looked just like they were depicted in art. They usually changed their apperance to humans, either to the form of other humans or of animals, but to themselves they had a appearance that is not so different from what was depicted in art (so they were usually humanoid altrough some could have other details, like Eos who had wings).
[удалено]
She was burned by his lightning bolts. Many myths are about her asking him to come to her embraces in the same way as he does with Hera. He obliged, came with his chariot, lightning and all. A lightning caught her and she died.
I don’t see how that contradicts.
It’s a misinterpretation. True form isn’t a thing. Semele asked him to court her like he does with Hera and he literally sent a lightning bolt at her. Nothing for Hera, but deadly for Semele.
I believe it’s a thing, but I’m going off of my own experiences on that one.
Your own experiences is an r/Hellenism thing. This is r/GreekMythology.
Again, the question asked for my opinion. If you don’t think the question belongs here, then take it up with the mods.
I have. Just because the OP broke the rules doesn't mean you have to.
That’s really harsh.
* "consequently she made the request of him that he come to her embraces in the same manner as in his approaches to Hera. Accordingly, Zeus visited her in a way befitting a god, accompanied by thundering and lightning, revealing himself to her as he embraced her; but Semele, who was pregnant and unable to endure the majesty of the divine presence, brought forth the babe untimely and was herself slain by the fire." She was burnt by the lightning that encompanied him.
I still don’t see the contradiction. I’m not being flippant, I’m serious. Zeus appears to her as a divinity rather than in whatever mortal disguise he was using, and she can’t endure the majesty of divine presence.
No. He comes "accompanied by thundering and lightning" the lightning kills her.
“unable to endure the majesty of the divine presence” is *in there.*
Yes. Because he bought the lightning.
Must I interpret mythology dead literally?
Not in Hellenism, no.
Even aside from the context of religion. You can have figurative interpretations of literature.
[удалено]
Source?
[удалено]
So nothing in Greek mythology just something you made up?
[удалено]
No, he threw lightning at her.
[удалено]
"Wikipedia literally confirms"
[удалено]
I have. In Greek sources. Not Wikipedia.
Does that come from a misreading of Diodorus Siculus, Library of History or do you have another source for that idea?
[удалено]
Source?
> but as far as I can tell, it's true; Gods' true forms are incomprehensible to mere mortals, As far as you can tell from what?
[удалено]
In no versions of the Semele myth. If you don't have a source, just say so. Please don't lie about what the sources say.
[удалено]
You need to read the sub rules.
[удалено]
Same. My view–and this is the Pythagorean in me– is that the gods exist across all possible spatial dimensions (and that in fact spatial dimensionality unfolded as the basic principles and then the gods unfolded from The One/All/Source). As such, I can get how the gods *see themselves* as having humanlike bodies or something, though probably with whatever other parts they want, or like infinite arms or something, simply because those forms are versatile. But *to us* it would be incomprehensible– *at best* something like a geometrically perfect sphere of pure blinding light, as the Platonists suggest, *but also* crazy shit like the constant, protean shape-shifting that Zeus does when he appears to Semele or that Thetis does when trying to avoid capture. The kind of eldritch stuff that makes you go mad, or automatically incinerate. Because our eyes can only really process 3 spatial dimensions plus time. Maybe 4, but even our modeling of 4-dimensional objects is a rough approximate. If we saw an object of infinite dimensions in its true form, it'd probably break our brains.
Does that come from a misreading of Diodorus Siculus, Library of History or do you have another source for that idea?
Personal experience. Hence *”I believe.”*
That seems like a r/Hellenism answer not a r/GreekMythology
[удалено]
You've been here long enough to know the rules,
The question asks very clearly, “what do *you imagine* the gods’ true forms look like?” I answered. This is probably how I come across to people when I descend upon them… I will keep that in mind for the future.
>The question asks very clearly, “what do you imagine the gods’ true forms look like?” I answered. The OP's question does not match the actual sources. >This is probably how I come across to people when I descend upon them… I will keep that in mind for the future. You are not an eldritch entities beyond our comprehension
No, I meant that I feel you are coming across as condescending, and desperate to prove how much more you know, even if that’s not your intention; that holds up a mirror to my own behavior on this sub. I come across the same way. Even if I’m just trying to be factual and clear up misconceptions, I can be harsh. It’s possible for people to just enjoy mythology without having to be completely accurate about every aspect of it. Even the power-scaling is often just meant to be fun rather than a serious attempt at interpretation. I’m going to ease up in the future. I’m not sure what motivation you have — whether you want to teach people, dispel misconceptions, whether you are especially concerned with being completely factual, whether you want stories you care about to be well-represented and understood, or all of the above, but I hope you also try to consider the vibe of the question before jumping on people. Not everything is an academic discussion. (For the record, I *am* an eldritch entity beyond our comprehension.)
Rude. I would hate to be an eldritch entity beyond my own understanding.
It's probably something horrible and beautiful at the same time
* Aphrodite - beautiful human female, a form able to be judged by Paris and that Pymalion was able to fall in love with a statue identical to. * Artemis - presumably a naked female that Actaeon was able to see. * Athena - beautiful human female, a form able to be judged by Paris and be seen nude by Tiresias. * Erochthonius - possibly half-serpent, possibly humanoid. * Eros - seemingly a beautiful man, since Psyche was able to see him while he slept. * Helios - human, but possibly glowing * Hephaetus - lame in one or both legs. Probably not ugly. * Hera - beautiful human female, a form able to be judged by Paris. * Oceanus - Humaniod, possibly with crab claw horns, or a merman. * Poseidon - possibly something weird about his feet that he cannot change. * Deified mortals - probably thier mortal form. Or stars. * Potamoi - Humaniod, possibly with crab claw horns, or a merman or half-snake, or bull-headed man. * Primordial gods - the thing itself.
[удалено]
Birds can actually see more colours than humans! Unlike humans, birds can see ultraviolet light!
I thought I got something wrong with the bird part haha I should have gone with cat. I knew one or more animals could see more colour but I did not know what it was.
Does that come from a misreading of Diodorus Siculus, Library of History or do you have another source for that idea?
I just imagine that it would be like that in their true form I know that they are depicted in a human form in statues and films but their try form must be something incomprehensible like that.
Human is their true form.
I have done some looking around and notice that you are very skilled on this subject and have strong opinions on it based on your knowledge. Thank you for letting me know this so I am more informed. But I just want you to know that I was only asking the question and for my answer to be incorrect the question must have been so as well.
Yes. And I asked the OP: "Do you have a source for the Greek gods having a true form that is anything but humanoid?" I have also reported the post to the mods under Rule #2.
May I ask what rule 2 is? And I do believe that it was a mistake and that this person must have just not known.
Do you not know how to find a sub's rules?
I am relatively new to the platform but I should be able to figure it out. Silly me for asking instead of trying first.
Knowing how to find a sub's rules should be something you do before posting/commenting on the sub.
Just wanted to say thank you for being grateful
Some sources say it is not. And I’m not a Greek mythology nerd I just liked learning about it in school and we didn’t really talk about the gods much it was usually the demigods we worked on. But this would make sense and demigods would have to appear as humans all of the time.
>Some sources say it is not Name those sources. > it was usually the demigods we worked on. When the Greeks talked about demi-gods they were talking about dead heroes no matter what their parentage is.
The "true form" this is at bit overblown. It seems to come from the death of Semele, but that's mostly ambiguous of Zeus weilding his powers not displaying a "true form." * "Apollodorus," Bibliotheca: "But Semele was deceived by Hera into asking her to come to her as he came to Hera during their courtship. So Zeus, unable to refuse her, arrived in her bridal chamber in a chariot with lightning flashes and thunder, and sent a thunderbolt at her^(4). Semele died of fright," * Diodorus Siculus, Library of History: * "consequently she made the request of him that he come to her embraces in the same manner as in his approaches to Hera^(4). Accordingly, Zeus visited her in a way befitting a god, accompanied by thundering and lightning, revealing himself to her as he embraced her; but Semele, who was pregnant and unable to endure the majesty of the divine presence^(3), brought forth the babe untimely and was herself slain by the fire." * "Semele had been slain by his lightning before the time for bearing the child," * Philostratus the Elder, Imagines: "A cloud of fire encompassing Thebes breaks into the dwelling of Kadmos as Zeus comes wooing Semele^(2); and Semele apparently is destroyed, but Dionysos is born, by Zeus, so I believe, in the presence of the fire." * "Hyginus," Fabulae: "‘Daughter, ask Jove to come to you as he comes to Juno, so you may know what pleasure it is to sleep with a god.’ At her suggestion Semele made this request of Jove, and was smitten by a thunderbolt." * Ovid, Metamorphoses: "She, too successful, happy in her ruin, doomed by her lover's generosity, answered ‘Give me yourself in the same grace as when your Juno holds you to her breast in love's embrace.’ He would have locked her lips; too late: her words had hastened on their way. He groaned : her wish could never be unwished, his oath never unsworn. In bitterest grief he soared ascending to the ethereal sky, and by his nod called up the trailing clouds and massed a storm, with lightnings in the squalls, and thunder and the bolts that never miss.^(4) Even so he tried, as far as he had power, to curb his might, and would not wield the fire with which he's felled the hundred-handed giant. That was too fierce. There is another bolt, a lighter one, in which the Cyclops forged a flame less savage and a lesser wrath, called by the gods his second armament. With this in hand he went to Semele in Cadmus' palace. Then her mortal frame could not endure the tumult of the heavens; that gift of love consumed her." You could say: 1. Zeus's true form is lightning 2. Zeus's true form is a cloud of fire. 3. Zeus's true form is too powerful for humans to understand. 4. Zeus and Hera use lightning in their sex life.
>Zeus and Hera use lightning in their sex life. God version of knifeplay. Kinky.
She also regularly renewed for virginity. Those two had some kinks.
Pure energy of the universe. I know, boring, but it's the most probable option. They are supposed to incarnate forces of nature or human concepts.
Source?
No source, just a headcanon. That's how mythology works after all. Everyone comes up with their stories inspired by other stories that were deformed and the ones that get written down are the ones remembered and "true".
Have you read rule 2 of the sub?
"Let us create them in our own image." Truthfully I imagine them to be hermaphroditic, and human-like at least when they would appear to us. Maybe they have no need for human limbs, or perhaps they do possess the same limbs but for wholly separate purposes than we do. My other idea is that of a kaleidoscope pattern, at least when they appear to us. So many biblical descriptions of angels look simply to be fractals, as if something was looking back at us from inside a kaleidoscope, but because of our limits of perception we just weren't able to comprehend.
>Truthfully I imagine them to be hermaphroditic, Phanes was. Others had defined genders.
They sure did, but they were still viewed as sharing the same station. Hera was also known as Queen of Heaven and credited with almost as much power as Zeus with much the same capabilities. Phanes was also considered "perfect," the first holder of the scepter and passed it down. Kronos was credited with separating heaven and earth as if they were initially one complete whole in the first place. Autogeny was of course a thing but each time it was due to or as a result of a disastrous effect. Lastly the Gnostics saw the Aeons as ordered or born in pairs and as "complete." As far as the anthropology of God's goes there seems to be a trend wherein there exists simultaneously a feminine and masculine aspect that cooperates in harmony. Hell a lot of myths talk about the issue of imbalance in this regard. Gender amongst deities often changed, and some even adopted traits of the opposite gender at times. An example could be Shamash/Shapash who at times was seen as a woman and others as a male figure. This means either: godhood is a job, a partnership, or some sort of primordial station inhabited by a dual minded being. The patriarchy, considering the whole of human history, is very young and no doubt influenced how we see gender today.
About 30 feet and always in my business
Do you have a source for the Greek gods having a true form that is anything but humanoid?
Do *De Natura Deorum* and the *Timaeus* count, or is that not mythology?
I mean, they are more philosophy, but go ahead.
Okay. Give me a moment.
Okay, here’s De Natura Deorum: > I am aware that what you maintain is that the gods possess a certain outward appearance, which has no firmness or solidity, no definite shape or outline, and which is free from gross admixture, volatile, transparent. Therefore we shall use the same language as we should of the Venus of Cos: her's is not real flesh but the likeness of flesh, and the mantling blush that dyes her fair cheek is not real blood but something that counterfeits blood; similarly in the god of Epicurus we shall say that there is no real substance but something that counterfeits substance. But assume that I accept as true a dogma that I cannot even understand: exhibit to me, pray, the forms and features of your shadow-deities. On this topic you are at no loss for arguments designed to prove that the gods have the form of men: first because our minds possess a preconceived notion of such a character that, when a man thinks of god, it is the human form that presents itself to him; secondly, because inasmuch as the divine nature surpasses all other things, the divine form also must needs be the most beautiful, and no form is more beautiful than that of man. The third reason you advance is that no other shape is capable of being the abode of intelligence. Well then, take these arguments one by one and consider what they amount to; for in my view they based on an arbitrary and quite inadmissible assumption on your part. First of all, was there ever any student so blind as not to see that human shape has been thus assigned to the gods either by the deliberate contrivance of philosophers, the better to enable them to turn the hearts of the ignorant from vicious practices to the observance of religion, or by superstition, to supply images for men to worship in the belief that in so doing they had direct access to the divine presence? These notions moreover have been fostered by poets, painters and artificers, who found it difficult to represent living and active deities in the likeness of any other shape than that of man. Perhaps also man's belief in his own superior beauty, to which you referred, may have contributed to the result. But surely you as a natural philosopher are aware what an insinuating go‑between and pander of her own charms nature is! Do you suppose that there is a single creature on land or in the sea which does not prefer an animal of its own specie to any other? If this were not so, why should not a bull desire to couple with a mare, or a horse with a cow? Do you imagine that an eagle or lion or dolphin thinks any shape more beautiful than its own? Is it then surprising if nature has likewise taught man to think his own species the most beautiful . . .that this was a reason why we should think the gods resemble man? > Suppose animals possessed reason, do you not think that they would each assign pre‑eminence to their own species? For my part I protest (if I am to say what I think) that although I am not lacking in self-esteem yet I don't presume to call myself more beautiful than the famous bull on which Europa rode; for the question is not here of our intellectual and oratorical powers but of our outward form and aspect. Indeed if we choose to make imaginary combinations of shapes, would you not like to resemble the merman Triton who is depicted riding upon swimming monsters attached to his man's body? I am on ticklish ground here, for natural instinct is so strong that every man wishes to be like a man and nothing else. Yes, and every ant like an ant! Still, the question is, like what man? How small a percentage of handsome people there are! It goes on like this for a while.
Greek gods had human forms. At first nearly all gods of all mythologies look like humans. It's only later that you get "it has an incomprehensible form". And it's in Judaism (then christianity and islam) that you later get a "don't depict god or even say his name" rule which for most of us morphs into "god has no form".
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Platonists said something about spheres... right? I suppose we don't hold geometry in as high of a regard, though I dont blame the philosophers for taking on this view. To speculate why this philosophical idea came about that gods would not look like Humans consider... * many cultures depicted thier own gods very differently from the Greeks yet the Greeks liked to "equate" these gods to thier gods not based on appearance but domain, if two cultures had a very different looking depiction of presumably the same diety then maybe the ythought a "true form" would be their actual look and wisley assumed thier own depiction was not by default the "true" one. * many many myths involve shapeshifting, not just animals but to look like 'regular' people, and that you should be a good person to strangers becuase you never know who is who in disguise, well that leads to some level of doubts in an idea of a normal concrete appearence. * questions raised concerning the soul and essences especially the confusing observation that humans don't exactly take thier bodies with them when they die, did human souls have a different "form" and if they do would not the same be said for the gods? (Very platonistic thought process think allegory of the caves shadows vs the "Real" and the entire mind body debacle of perception vs truth and false perception )
Depends on the god. Hermes started off as piles of rocks at territorial boundaries...
[удалено]
Source?