The Human Mind: Easy-Bake Oven of Deities

Xenophanes raises several important (and, to the modern reader, what may seem like obvious) issues regarding Greek religion. His argument can ultimately be boiled down to human beings projecting their own nature upon the divine. Consider, for instance, Clement's quote about horses, oxen and lions (oh my!). The argument is made that, if these animals had the capacity to create works of art, the figures they'd draw would be "gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and each [of these animals] would render the bodies [of their gods] to be of the same frame that each of them have (Curd 34)"

If I were a horse, this is totally the way I'd imagine my almighty deity.

Taken one way, humans are only doing what any creature with the capacity to imagine deities would do: making their gods in their own image. It's not evidence taken only from the Greeks, either; the Ethiopians and the Thracians are cited as imagining their deities in exactly the same manner (Curd 34). What easier way to make a religion than to create gods that are glorified (and shinier) versions of human beings? And, of course, this form of religion comes absolutely problem free, right? Enter the next part of Xenophanes argument: human iniquities, including "all deeds which among men are matters of reproach and blame: thieving, adultery, and deceiving one another (Curd 34)." In making the gods in their own image (in specific reference to the Greeks), they also endowed the gods with all manner of human flaws. It seems difficult to me to put my faith in a pantheon who is equally as susceptible to temptation as I am.

Though they fail at setting an acceptable moral precedent,  at least Ares and Aphrodite's behavior has the makings of an interesting dollar-store romance novel.  

Xenophanes appears to feel the same way, except he adds in that instead there exists a single supreme god "not at all like mortals in form or thought" who remains unchanging and controls the universe by the power of thought (Curd 31, 35). Further, this kind of god could be far-removed from humanity (as opposed to constantly interfering like the traditional Greek pantheon), and could be eternal. This brings up another complaint that Xenophanes had with the set-up of Greek religion; the gods were all born, which means that there is a point in time in which the gods did not exist and consequently couldn't have control of the universe. In Xenophanes eyes, this was equally as impious as suggesting that the gods could die (Curd 36). All in all, the traditional Greek pantheon leaves a lot to be desired, from their inability to consistently set a good example for their human followers to their finite existence leaving open a lot of questions about who was running the universe before they came along.