Not really.

The argument usually offered is something along the lines of

"The Pagans spoke of the 'gods of Olympus', and in the Bible, it is written that God states "thou shalt have no strange gods before Me." Thus, by your own beliefs, wouldn't you be bringing the wrath of God upon yourself ?".

No, and the flaw in the argument, is that neither of the two statements in that quote is true. "Huh ?", someone will say, "I was just looking into my copy of the Bible, and ...". My response, is to ask "And when was it that you learned to read Old Hebrew?".

It is more than hair-splitting to note that the translation of a work is not the original. "God" (or "god") is an English word, appearing neither in Hebrew nor Greek. When English speaking translators have encountered the common noun applied to the Olympians and the name applied to the Lord of Israel, they use the same word. But it doesn't follow from this that one word is an especially good translation of the other, or that the roles imagined for each were at all similar.

Even Zeus, in the old myths, was never imagined to be the supreme being. That honor was claimed by a shadowy, ill defined character named Moros (Destiny), whose commands even Zeus had to submit to, "like the humblest mortal". (*) Nor were the "gods" of Olympus supposed to have created the world, but were, in fact, part of creation themselves. Further, they did not define morality - there were other beings, equally vaguely defined, who represented those qualities that the Olympians could only seek to measure up to.

Now compare this limited nature to that of the God of Israel, viewed as being the source of all moral truth, the creater of all existence apart from Himself, and the rightful and supreme master of it, in the eyes of His worshippers. Clearly, the two words, the Greek one and the Hebrew one, represent far different things entirely.

So it is, to a Syncretic Pagan. One would not argue that there are two supreme and omnipotent lords of creation - any reasonably alert child has seen the contradiction that this would pose. What if the two lords disagreed and one resisted the other? For one to prevail, the other would have to fail, contradicting his own omnipotence. No, there can only be one supreme being.

A syncretic Pagan will speak of God, as being distinct from the gods. In Christian terms, the latter might be viewed as being more akin to angels, except with far more freedom to act independently, God Himself tending to be a little more remote, and detached from events. If we would view God as "our father" (though that would imply a gender, which God would transcend), then one might view the gods (the Olympians, or the Aesir and Vanir if you're a Norse syncretic Pagan) as being our older brothers and sisters. Of greater dignity, perhaps, and greater influence - ones we should and need to listen to - but still ones who need a little guidance from our common father, themselves, from time to time. Not as powerful, or wise, but far more accessible to us, forming a bridge between us and the barely glimpsed Almighty.

So, in fact, there really is no conflict between Paganism and Christianity, or even Paganism and a non-Orthodox Judaism, because the two religions are about different things altogether. Christianity and Judaism speak to us about the most high, who is barely defined in Hellenic Paganism, aside from some vague reference to having been the son of the Night (a belief that can be discarded without doing great violence to the faith). Paganism speaks to us about the beings who lie in between us and Him in stature - and one might note that the Bible doesn't come with a complete list of angels. Who is to say that there isn't an angel named Kwan Yin, for example? If they don't seem perfect enough to be angels, would angels necessarily be perfect? In standard Christian doctrine, Satan and his retinue are fallen angels, who are further from perfection than almost any human who has ever lived. If one can accept the possibility of such great imperfection, why not accept that of the far lesser imperfections imagined?



One might add, that to a degree, both Judaism, and a number of branches have always had a number of lesser divinities themselves. Yes, really. In Judaism, there are the Beni Elohim, the "sons of God". In Christianity, there are both the angels (as there are in Judaism) and the saints one prays to for intercession, as well as the devils.

The difference is that in Orthodox Judaism, all of these lesser divinities are seen as being in perfect accord with the will of their Lord. With the exclusion of the demons, the same is true in Christianity. So the real theological difference between a demipagan an a "monotheist" might be said to lie in the answer given to the questions "Does the Lord of creation stand back, and allow some freedom of action to those between us and Him, or does He make all of their decisions for them? Can a being other than Him have supernatural power, lingering independently, or is it doled out directly from Him, on a case by case basis, as needed?"

If one chooses the latter answer to each of these questions, and does it without reservation, one is a monotheist. If one chooses the former, to such an extreme that the supreme being is irrelevant, if He even exists, one is purely Pagan, in a way that the Ancient Greeks were not. If one's answers lie somewhere in between, one viewing the supreme being as allowing some, or even a great degree of freedom to the lesser divinities, but not absolute freedom (which would translate into Him not hearing our prayers at all), then one is a demipagan.

Some will say, "Of course the first option is the only sensible one, because God is justice, and how can there be an acceptable alternative to justice?". Yes, but He is also mercy, and is it in the nature of any intelligent being, to live happily as another being's puppet - even that of one of infinite intellect, and absolute justice? Or would a god of pure love hold back a little, and let the worlds beneath Him, live lives of their own, intervening only as necessary?

One might view the first belief, that of total control, as being a reflection of the world views of a series of authoritarian, if not totalitarian societies, rather than that of any absolute conception of justice. Views that hold that freedom is an untidy institution, that just gets in the way of effective government. It is that of the late Roman Empire, which went so far as to dictate to its citizens, which professions they were to enter, and insisted that all governmental decisions, even local ones, come directly from the Emperor himself. I would maintain, that what we are seeing here in this belief, Heaven as it would suit one who believed in the absolute rule of Empire. One might add, a philosophy that drove its own citizens to revolt, and hastened the fall of the unfortunate civilisation that produced it.

The freer view of Demipaganism, is in the spirit of the modern West, which began as a collection of limited monarchies. In each realm, the nobles had subrealms of their own, and it was recognised that the nobles were entitled to some degree of autonomy in the affairs of their own fiefdoms. This ultimately lead in the direction of recognising the right of each individual to have autonomy in his own life, and the understanding that freedom isn't an obstacle in the way of good government, it's a basic human need, and good government is about the attempt to meet such needs. Even when the exercise of that freedom, leads to error and some degree of pain. The just government, may intervene in the affairs of its subjects or citizens, but only with the greatest reluctance.

To reject the first part of that statement is to embrace lawlessness. To reject the second, is to call for the establishment of a dictatorship. Our picture of Heaven, is not modeled in the image of the Empire of a benevolent despot, of the sort hoped for in the Ancient Near east, but, perhaps, is drawn along more Feudal lines, with God as King, and the gods (or angels, or djinn, as you wish) as His nobles. We, in this metaphor, would be their subjects.

It would not be appropriate to call for the equivalent of democracy, in the kingdom of God, because unlike the case with earthly kingdoms, we can rest assured that the best mind, has found its way to the throne. But that our personal need for freedom in our own lives would be respected, as in the more liberal aristocracies of modern times, would be a reflection of nothing more than the compassion of the gods, and God Himself. The demipagan does not feel humiliation at his inadequacy before his gods, but feels honored by their attention, grateful for their help, and will celebrate their presence - as we and they alike would celebrate God Himself.

Let's continue, then, with the discussion about Aphrodite.

(*) New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, p.97