Views of God Across Culture

Views of God Across Culture

Literature has always been a way through which men have expressed their world views. One theme over time has consistently been man’s views of God. Throughout Greco, Roman, and Augistinian literature it is evident that there are nearly countless views of God. These views differ significantly in their beliefs of God’s power, His nature, and His love for His children. The views of Greeks, Romans, and Augistinians are especially made clear in their respective works of The Iliad, The Aeneid, and Dante’s Paradise and Inferno. Despite the many differences between the views of God, there are also similarities. Some concepts regarding God even have similarities in modern religion, including the views of God found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The Greek view of the gods is nearly identical to the Roman view, though Greek mythological origins are much older than those of the Romans. One distinctly Greek view of God is that the gods work on the basis of favors, that there is a give-and-take attitude toward blessings from the gods. There are many examples of mortals providing the gods with a favor, and asking for a favor in return. (Homer 1.36-42 (Chryses asking the gods if they will favor his side in the war if he builds a temple) and 6.86-95 (Helenos believing that if the women of Troy make sacrifices, they will be saved by the gods)). This relationship between the gods and mortals is uniquely emphasized in Greek literature.

Like with Dante’s views of God, discussed further below, Greeks believe gods are capable of speaking face-to-face with mortals. Athene, goddess of wisdom, appears to Achilleus, a mortal, in Book 1 of The Iliad. God also speaks face-to face with Dante. Additionally, the Greek believed the will of gods could be at odds with man’s. This is clarified when Athene says to Diomedes that she has “taken away the mist from your eyes, that before now/was there, so that you may well recognize the god and the mortal./Therefore, now, if a god making trial of you comes hither/do you not do battle head on with the gods immortal,/not with the rest; but only if Aphrodite, Zeus' daughter,/comes to the fighting, her at least you may stab with the sharp bronze.” (5.127-132). Along with showing the odds between gods and mortals, this quotation also displays a very important concept in Greek and Roman views- that gods can be divided on issues. Diomedes did not have issues with all of the gods, just Aphrodite. This shows that the Greek do not view the gods as all having the same purpose and intentions.

The Aeneid displays of the Roman views of God in a way comparable to the Greek’s The Iliad. The epic displays the many similarities and some differences between the Greek and Roman views of God. Because of the many similarities between Greek and Roman mythology, and the fact that Roman mythology came long after that of the Greeks, it seems as if Roman mythology evolved from Greek mythology. As such, many of the views of gods transferred with the religion. Roman and Greek gods are incredibly similar even though the gods operate under different names. For example, it is well established that Zeus in Greek mythology is the same god named Jupiter in Roman mythology. (Daly). For example, there is Greek Poseidon and Roman Neptune, Greek Athena and Roman Minerva, Greek Hades and Roman Pluto, Greek Ares and Roman Mars, and numerous others. (Daly). Because these gods are essentially the same, there are many similarities easily drawn between Greek and Roman views of God.

Roman gods, like Greek, can be divided and fight with one another. However, The Aeneid clarifies that, “When gods are contrary/They stand by no one.” (2.532-533). This quotation not only displays that gods have divided loyalty, like the Greek believe, but that gods may choose to help no one, showing that gods may be disinterested and not intervene. Later in the epic Aeneas states, “Don't you feel/A force now more than mortal is against you/And heaven's will has changed? We'll bow to that!" (5.602-605).” Again, this displays that gods take sides but further, shows that the Romans view the gods’ will as supreme. When the gods are either for or against an action, their desires will ultimately prevail due to their power. This quotation suggests that it is best for one to align their will with the will of the gods.

Gods are viewed by Greeks and Romans with human follies. For example, The Aeneid states that, “He dared the gods to rival him. Then Triton,/Envious, if this can be believed,/Caught him and put him under in the surf/Amid the rocks off shore. (6.248-251)” This is also similar to the Greek view of gods, displayed in The Iliad when Poseidon’s own fragility of his ego is threatened. (Iliad 7.446-453). Ego and envy are human follies deemed possessed by the gods.

This is much different from Dante’s views of a perfect, loving God. Dante’s first real step in his journey to knowing God is when Beatrice guides Dante through the celestial spheres of Heaven. Dante and Beatrice travel through the nine spheres which lead up to the Empyrean, where God dwells. This is the tenth and final layer of the celestial realm, showing that God lives in the absolute highest state. The spheres of Heaven consist of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and more. Many names of Roman gods line up directly with the name of these spheres. While the names of the spheres themselves are not godly, Dante views these cosmic names as Heavenly. The Romans also view these names as godly, as they are the names of their gods.

Dante describes God when Dante and Beatrice reach The Empyrean. When he sees God, Dante writes, “such was the living light encircling me,/leaving me so enveloped by its veil/of radiance that I could see nothing./The Love that calms this heaven always welcomes/into Itself with such a salutation,/to make the candle ready for its flame.” (Paradise). Dante has seen a giant rose, which is a symbol of divine love, where those loved by God are living. Dante views God as a loving and soon, in Cantos XXXII and XXXIII has the opportunity to speak with God face-to-face. God is viewed as an accessible Being who wants to speak with Dante.

Perhaps one stark difference between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints views of God and gods in Greek views are that there is not just one God nor one Godhead. Rather, the gods take contrasting views and operate with different purposes. This is evident when the gods take sides in The Iliad. While members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe that God does indeed take sides in war and in disputes, they believe that God is not divided, but is always with the righteous. (Alma 58:11). As mentioned above, the Greek gods in fight with each other. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that God and the other members of the Godhead are never at odds. Rather all members of this Godhead look to promote the same goals. (“Godhead”). Some similarity may be seen, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe that there was a war between God and His Children and other Heavenly beings in a premortal existence and that prior to the beginning of the world. This division is somewhat similar to divisions among Greek gods. Still though, members of this Chrisitan denomination there is one Godhead with one purpose and unity, meaning the Greek view of God clearly differs most from the views of The Church of Jesus Christ.

Roman views of God are different from the views of The Church of Jesus Christ in similar ways to the Greek views, but are somewhat closer. The one major similarity between the Greek and Roman views and the views of The Church of Jesus Christ is that the gods have physical bodies. This perfectly aligns with this Christian denomination’s view of God, as God is understood by members to have a body of flesh and bones (“Godhead”). Additionally, The Church of Jesus Christ does emphasize the importance of aligning one’s views with God’s, much like the Romans, rather than hoping to change God’s will through a bargained exchange like the Greeks. However, the Roman view of God much closer to the Greek’s view rather than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’.

St. Augustine/Dante views of God and the views of God found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are much more similar. One of the most famous lines in Dante’s Inferno reads, “Midway on our life’s journey, I found myself/In dark woods, the right road lost.” (Inferno). Dante’s life’s journey is a metaphor for the journey to find God and come to him in the next life. The “dark woods” symbolizes the time he has lived without God, making God the light. This is not an uncommon metaphor within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In John 8:12 Christ speaks saying, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12). While members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not view Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as the same Being, they do view Them as members of the same Godhead, who have the same purpose (“Godhead”). Because of this, there is a clear similarity between the light of God as viewed by Dante, and the light found as men come unto Christ, as viewed by the Church of Jesus Christ.

The Church of Jesus Christ came back to the Earth when God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove. Smith writes of the account that Their “brightness and glory def[ied] all description” (Joseph Smith History). Similarly, Dante describes the light around God as “deep and bright/essence of that exalted Light,” Additionally, before Dante can see God, he is enveloped in light, which gives him the ability to see God. This is very similar to the views of God from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Doctrine and Covenants).

There are still differences between Dante and Members of The Church of Jesus Christ’s views. Members believe that God has flesh and bones, separate and distinct from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Each are viewed as separate beings in this Christian religion, but Dante, while he speaks to God, is not speaking to a being with flesh and bone, nor is he speaking solely to God. Rather, he is speaking to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit who are three entities occupying the same circular space. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not view these Beings as intertwined, and they view the Father and Son as having bodies, rather than being ring-like entities. However, despite this major difference, it is still evident that Dante’s views line up with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints better than the Greek or Roman views.

While Greco and Roman views of god are quite similar, they still differ from one another. Even more so, both of these diverge from Augistinian views. The differences between Augistinian and Greco/Roman are as stark as monotheism and polytheism, but there are other critical differences as well. It is because of these critical differences, however, that Augistinian views are most compatible with the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Works Cited

The Book of Mormon. Alma 58: 11

Daly, Kathleen N. Greek and Roman Mythology: A to Z. Third Ed. Chelsea House Publishers. New York, NY 2009.

Dante. “Canto I.” Inferno.

Dante. “Canto XXXIII.” Paradise.

Doctrine and Covenants. 67:10-12

“Godhead” Bible Dictionary.

Homer. Robert Fagles and Bernard Knox. The Iliad., 1998. Print.

Joseph Smith History. 1:17

King James Version. The Bible. John 8:12.

Virgil. Robert Fitzgerald. The Aeneid. New York: Random House, 1983. Print.

Xenia

The question of how we treat strangers is understood as a moral question. As children, we are told that it is our obligation to be kind to those who are new at school, in Christianity, we are taught about serving strangers like the Good Samaritan. This question of how we treat strangers has ancient roots in Greek history as well as some of the world’s largest and oldest religions. Morally, the concept of xenia in ancient Greece aligns with the Judeo-Christian morals expressed in Matthew 25:35-46 and the hymn “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief.” Although there are some differences between xenia and the Judeo-Christian morals, they are fundamentally similar.

The way in which xenia and Judeo-Christian morals differ is in the extent to which the person is obligated. Judeo-Christianity obligation of hospitality comes from the desire to serve God; an obligation demonstrated with the Lord’s words, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [service] unto one of the least of these [strangers,] my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Matthew 25:40. Judeo-Christianity believes that as we serve one another, we are serving God. As such, service to strangers is an obligation from our love of God and desire to serve Him.

In the hymn of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,” an individual finds them self constrained to help another. We know that the person who the narrator was serving was a stranger as they narrate, “I had not pow'r to ask his name, Whereto he went, or whence he came.” Although a stranger, the narrator goes on to serve by feeding him, giving him drink, clothing him, giving him rest, healing and refreshing him, and comforting him in prison. These services align directly with those mentioned in verses 35-40 of Matthew 25 and like at the end of these verses, the narrator discovers at the end of the hymn that they were serving the Savior and sings; “Then in a moment to my view/ The stranger started from disguise./ The tokens in his hands I knew;/ The Savior stood before mine eyes./ He spake, and my poor name he named,/ "Of me thou hast not been ashamed./ These deeds shall thy memorial be;/ Fear not, thou didst them unto me.” The narrator did good by serving the Savior and taking Him in, even though He was thought only to be a stranger. This is the Judeo-Christian moral constraint, to serve others in order to serve God. It is not an active responsibility for which one will be condemned if not followed, but it is seen as something good to do. There is no law or custom that requires it, but if one wishes to serve God, they can seek out serving others.

Although service to strangers is incredibly important to Judeo-Christians, it does not reach the level of moral responsibility of xenia. Xenia, was a binding moral duty. Xenia is a tradition-created quasi-law that requires offering protection and hospitality to strangers. (Princeton- Two Basic Greek Terms http://www.princeton.edu/~aford/terms.html). Ancient Grecians were not only required to be kind to strangers, but to give them food and shelter in the server’s home. Guests were sacred and need be protected. 

Telemachos in Book One of the Odyssey perfectly demonstrated xenia as through his actions toward Athene “[He said to her,] 'Welcome, stranger. You shall be entertained as a guest among us. Afterward, when you have tasted dinner, you shall tell us what your need is.'… [A]nd he led her and seated her in a chair, with a cloth to sit on, the chair splendid and elaborate. For her feet there was a footstool. For himself, he drew a painted bench next her, apart from the others, the suitors, for fear the guest, made uneasy by the uproar, might lose his appetite there among overbearing people...” (1.118-124, 130-134). Telemachos gave up all comfort for Athene. This is considerably different from the Judeo-Christian view. The extent of obligation of Judeo-Christians is not strict, one is only meant to help another however the server deems best. This is a stark contrast to xenia’s demand that all protection and comfort be given to strangers who are taken in as house guests. Where Judeo-Christianity views hospitality toward strangers as morally right, xenia makes this generosity morally compelling. 

Fundamentally, however, xenia and Judeo-Christian religious obligations are the same. The level of obligation to strangers differs, but both are rooted in the same idea of kindness. Although religiously-based, Matthew 25 indicates that people were being kind long before they knew that they were serving God by serving their fellow men. Xenia too has similar roots. Long before there was some level of obligation, Zeus, also known as Zeus Xenios, had the roll of protector of guests. This predates the obligation of man to be kind to guests. In both instances, before a mandate connected to religion or to quasi-law customs, people (such as Zeus or those hearing Christ in Matthew 25) were performing a kindness to strangers. Therefore, although now rooted in either tradition or religion, both concepts started with the seed of kindness. One seed grew into tradition and custom, while another grew into a religious obligation. Morally, both see serving strangers and loving them as the right thing to do. The level of service and obligation is the only true difference, and even then, both are capable of reaching the same level. 

Whether through a strict duty such as xenia, a religious/moral obligation like in Judeo-Christianity, or otherwise, the treatment of strangers is a mark of a civilized society. The question of the nature of man has stumped philosophers and psychologists for centuries. Are humans naturally good, evil, or neutral? Hobbes and Rousseau presented opposing views of humanity; Hobbes believed that men are naturally bad and that our brutish and short lives were improved by the laws of society (Leviathan) while Rousseau believed that men were naturally good and that society turns us evil. (The Social Contract). Locke presented a third, more neutral view that men are blank slates, or tabula rasa, and are neither good nor evil. (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding).

These concepts play into answering how hospitality is a mark of civilization. Under Hobbes’ concept of the nature of man, hospitality toward strangers is clearly a mark of civilization because, if humanity is generally brutish without civilized society, this would mean that there is no generosity without societal obligation. Under Locke’s theory, men are neither good nor evil, meaning that without civilization, some people may be generous to strangers, while others would treat them ambivalently and neither treatment would be considered good or bad. However, with the moral obligations presented by society such as xenia or Judeo-Christian religious views, all men are at least somewhat constrained to help. Therefore, this would indicate that in a place where everyone is required to help strangers, there is civilization.

Arguing for treatment of strangers as a mark of civilization under Rousseau’s view of the nature of man is a little trickier, but is still easily understood. Rousseau believes that men are inherently good and that society turns men bad. This would mean that if kindness toward strangers is inherently good, there would be no mark of society if all men are treating strangers well. However, we see in Iliad that this is not the case. In Iliad, Paris was a guest of Menelaus but took advantage of societal customs such as xenia to trick his enemies into hosting him and harmed Menelaus’s family. This was not an uncommon occurrence in ancient Greece. Assuming that being kind to a host is inherently good, the strangers are deviating from their natural state of man and are turned evil through taking advantage of a societal custom. This follows Rousseau’s theory that civilization and society turn men evil. Therefore, even under Rousseau it is clear that doing good for strangers is a mark of civilization.

The question of what is the appropriate treatment of strangers is a moral one. The answer to this question can be answered in a large range from there is no duty owed, to there is a religious obligation, or a nearly-legal customary expectation. No matter how this question is answered, however, it is a mark of civilization as the treatment of strangers demonstrates a deviation from the natural man as defined by philosophers.

Epithets

The Many Named Man

Many of us have heard about the story of a dad who blessed their child with a different name than the one they were born with however I am the one who has lived it. My Dad wanted to name me TD, however my mom wanted there to be more options for me. My Dad got as close as he could by naming me after her father, Thomas Daniel. Then, when it came time for my blessing in church, he used TD as my name. Since then I have gained nicknames like they are going out of style. They range from Corn Dog to Tong Dong with a lot of variation in between 

Grill Master

I am the only person on the earth with a masters in Traeger Grilling from BYU. One of my favorite pastimes and hobbies is Smoking meats. In fact, as I write this there are 6 racks of ribs on the grill on their 4th hour of being smoked. When I was younger My dad traveled a lot for business and learned a few tricks over the years. Eventually he grabbed his own smoker and we started to become known for making the best BBQ around with my first paycheck back from the mission I bought my own and have changed the face of ward potlucks in all of the wards I've jumped between since then. 

Techno Wiz Kid

Some of the earliest memories I have are of spending time with my Dad in his office late at night as he played video games with his brothers.  Since then I have grown-up all-around technology and even gone as far as paying for my mission, my first Car, and even all of college through video games. One of my life mottos is that you can never have to many battery banks and with the amount of tech I carry around with me it’s understandable.

Book Binger

I have a strong passion for reading. I read books like I used to eat candy Halloween night. Reading a good book is one of my favorite ways to pass the time. I have a habit of pulling the favorite book out of someone who I know is a reader and adding it to my queue. There is so much to be found in books and I love diving into them for entertainment or even advice.

(This is a screen shot from my Audible 

account and accounts for less than half of the books I consume)