In Gilgamesh, the event that led to the flood was simply the gods were annoyed of the people due to their noise. This shows how little the gods cared about the people. Also, this is more of a selfish act than an act of kindness. In Genesis, the reason for god replenishing the earth with a flood was because the people were immoral. This exposes that god was more worried about his people than the Sumerian gods.
The Gods decide to destroy mankind because they are making too much noise. It seems that the gods didn't think over their decision wisely. These gods should be wiser in their decisions. They have the power to block out the sound? Right?
At times, it proves to be hard for mortals to remain in the favor of the gods, even if they may be in good favor with one or more gods, there may be another god that is not so favorable. Hence, the gods do not always agree with one another and there may be conflicting priorities present. When a mortal has angered the gods, the outcome is often disastrous. As much as humans are in charge of their own destinies, so too important are
When people consider gods they automatically think of almighty, honorable, and immortal beings. They are usually associated with confident and self-assured figures in religion, but in reality they have their own doubts. Homer’s The Odyssey shows an example of doubtful gods and goddesses that make themselves feel better by seeing the destruction of others. Because of the gods wrath, people have horrible lives. Yet even if they have unbelievably amazing powers and immortality, the gods have self-esteem issues.
He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization. But he also states that Euthyphro’s definition has flaws because the gods would disagree on what is considered pleasing. Socrates’ case is that the gods are very irrational when it comes to arguments and disagreements. Normal rational people would find answers and come to a settlement on the correct answer, but when it comes to the gods any slight disagreement causes them to become enemies and angry towards each other. Socrates goes on to
First, it is better to suffer injustice than to do unjustly. Second, rejecting the sentence of the court would be wrong because it hurt Athens. Thirdly, the soul is immortal and therefore Socrates would be hurt more by acting unjustly then by his body dying.
If there were natural disasters like floods, famines or storms it was assumed that the gods were unhappy with Rome and were punishing them. Why were they unhappy? As the Christians would not worship them! Obviously, not believing in the gods of Rome and their power, the Christians found this humorous and even many non-Christian Romans did not believe that the Christians were responsible for these disasters. In most cases, it was a weak emperor (the head of Roman society) looking to pass the blame of a disaster onto someone
while the just are alive they seem to be the once who suffer. The Gods have plan for them, because the unjust can never fully triumph. Since the Gods know everything they would not leave the just man unrewarded. One might wonder why somebody would choose to live an unjust life? Socrates believed that it was ignorance that led the unjust.
With the Balance of Power destabilising, which, according to Thucydides, is the only means to achieve peace, the growth of power in Athens caused the Spartans to feel more and more insecure and thus they started to prepare to defend themselves. This very much reflects the realist point of view, as it argues that without a Balance of Power there can be no peace and it also shows how easily the balance can be dis-rupted so that it causes a war. Thucydides that war may be justified on grounds of pursuit of the national interest and in order to achieve peace at last. However, there are differences as to what is a ‘legitimate’ national interest. Where for political realism everything that is in the interest of the state and can be achieved by
Socrates continued his point in saying that “an action or a man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious” (Euthyphro, 7a). However, Socrates also points out that gods, just like people, can have their differences and disagreements about anything. Therefore, there could be no unification in what is right and wrong, good and bad, or pious and impious. Again, we see Socrates’ doubt in having more than one god. If the gods can have their disputes about piety and impiety, then how would we ever know what exactly is the right course of action?