Greek religion as it is currently understood probably resulted from the mingling of religious beliefs and practices between the incoming Greek-speaking peoples who arrived from the north during the 2nd millennium bce and the indigenous inhabitants whom they called Pelasgi. But there was also a Cretan sky god, whose birth and death were celebrated in rituals and myths quite different from those of the incomers. The incomers applied the name of Zeus to his Cretan counterpart. In addition, there was a tendency, fostered but not necessarily originated by Homer and Hesiodfor major Greek deities to be given a home on Mount Olympus.
The creation of the world. There is only one good definition of God: Placing omnipotence first, even before divine goodness and wisdom, is the preference not only of Christianity but also Judaism and Islam.
In his book Kingship of God Martin Buber argues that Yahweh is different from the other middle eastern gods in that he demanded control in all areas of human life, not just the religious.
The epigraph from Whitehead suggests that our views of the divine nature are a reflection of our social and political systems.
This view, I maintain, is an unsuccessful synthesis of power monopoly and power sharing.
I contend that process and feminist theologians are correct in their exclusive commitment to the power sharing model. I conclude that these two philosophers have not demonstrated a way in which God can share power and yet retain the control that tradition demands.
Section E contains a discussion of divine power and evil. William of Ockham, Martin Luther, John Calvin, neoorthox theologians, and contemporary evangelical Carl Henry believe that this is the correct view of divine power.
But let Luther speak for them all: I do not mean the potentiality by which he could do many things which he does not, but the active power by which he potently works all in all.
In the current literature, this God is described as having the power, if he chooses to use it, to bring about any logically possible state of affairs. Evangelical Carl Henry believes that DP2 too speculative, too philosophical, and too humanistic. Henry contends that the biblical God does not act through secondary causes but, for example, sends down hail directly from heavenand he does not appear to share power with any creature.
Furthermore, God cannot share or delegate power because, Henry uses Barth approvingly, God is the only subject of power. Henry also praises Barth for returning divine omnipotence to its proper, preeminent place in Christian dogmatics.
Henry also rejects the assumption of DP2 that God is limited by the laws of logic. Henry would have no sympathy at all for the position advanced by the process theologians and accepted by feminists, who insist that genuine freedom requires complete immunity from divine control.
This view is abbreviated DP3. Mackie has described a crucial aspect of this position: The process theists believe that the only way to solve the problem of evil is to assume that human wills and nature as a whole have their own autonomy. This view entails a complete dismantling of traditional Christian doctrine, including: Process theists believe that both DP1 and DP2 are simply projections of the absolute power once invested in, but no longer given to, patriarchs and kings.
The three types of divine power can be expressed nicely by an analogy with driving a car. This analogy does not come out very well for DP1. We are all going through the motions of heading in our own directions, but God obviously is still in complete and direct charge of our destination.
In DP2 the vehicle is a driver training car equipped with dual controls. I am at my wheel and God is letting me drive, but he can intervene and take control of the car at any time. God is in the trunk and her5 suggestions are barely audible.
I will attempt to defend the process God against this charge. A Critique of DP2 If we are committed to the freedom of the will and the concept of individual moral responsibility, I believe we must reject divine omnicausalism outright.The topic of divine kingship should be viewed in a broader context of the use of religion to legitimize power in ancient states.
The Achaemenid empire offers a new perspective for this line of research as there is a rich historical and iconographic documentation (for . In religion, divinity or godhead is the state of things that are believed to come from a supernatural power or deity, such as a god, supreme being, creator deity, or .
Greek religion was not based on a written creed or body of dogma.
Nevertheless, certain sacred writings survive in the form of hymns, oracles, inscriptions, and instructions to the dead. Nevertheless, certain sacred writings survive in the form of hymns, oracles, inscriptions, and instructions to the dead. Divine Power in Greek Religion Most religions have some sort of a divine being or beings.
Some religions focus on one god or higher power while others have multiple gods. The nature and Power of the Divine Holy Spirit in all of its forms and Manifestations. If you bring forth that which is inside you, That Holy Spirit which is inside you will save you Holy Spirit - The Inner Divine Power.
The Gnostics understood the serpent to represent the spinal cord. In ancient Greek and, later Roman mythology, we. In the ancient Greek religion, daimon designates not a specific class of divine beings, but a peculiar mode of activity: it is an occult power that drives humans forward or acts against them.
Since daimon is the veiled countenance of .