Greek Mythology: The Spiritual Dominator

‘Sure enough, this debate is not that simple. ’

Looking clear, Iapetus was just surprised for a moment, and then he was used to it.

Zeus’s previous change of the topic of the debate did not seem to be the main purpose. It was just a convenience at best. He must have other ideas, and the arrival of Zephyrus proved this.

However, this is all internal affairs of Olympus... Iapetus couldn’t help but ask back:

“I saw that someone was waiting above the venue, but what does this have to do with me?”

Yes, whether from the surface or in fact, the arrival of the God of the West Wind has nothing to do with him.

Although Iapetus said a lot of remarks that were not in line with the harmony and values ​​of the God Court through Andrea, for a first-generation Titan, he should not let the God King punish him because of a debate in the human world.

After all, he was just standing up for his son. No matter how you look at it, Zephyrus didn’t come for him.

"It doesn't seem to matter, if we follow common sense. But the revelation of fate tells me that what is about to happen here is closely related to you - so I suggest that you at least watch the entire process of this conference, what do you think?"

"...Then wait a little longer."

Although the God of Speech did not know the existence of the golden apple, and did not know that many goddesses were most proficient in venting their anger, he thought about it and nodded in agreement.

Iapetus felt like he had fallen into a pit. He was just here to watch a debate, so how did he meet Gaia?

It didn't matter if he met Gaia, he just wanted to hide and not get involved in things, so why did he personally participate in the debate?

He didn't take a debate in the human world seriously, but why did the King of Gods intervene? Obviously, there was something else to happen later?

But anyway, this debate has not ended yet, so the God of Speech, in line with the principle of starting well and ending well, still focused on his hobby first.

It must be said that this human prince named Odysseus is still quite capable. If he hadn't been affected by some other things, he might have performed better.

······

Outside the venue where the contestants were fighting, whether in the depths of the sea or in the audience seats, the conversation between the gods continued.

On the floating platform, the verbal confrontation over the fairness of the destruction of the Bronze Age had lasted for several water clocks.

If it weren't for Apollo's temporary dereliction of duty, it would have been afternoon on earth now.

However, as the clouds gathered, the scorching sun was blocked, and the cool autumn wind took away the heat of the venue.

During the debate, the focus of both sides changed several times. When Odysseus used "God created all spirits" to deal with "human justice", Andrea decisively pointed out the opponent's loophole.

First of all, do the gods recognize that "whoever creates living beings owns them"? Obviously not. After all, bronze humans were created by Prometheus. If so, then bronze humans undoubtedly belong to the gods of foresight rather than Olympus.

Furthermore, if the gods believe that "giving orders" is also considered as participating in creation, so the king of gods ordered Prometheus to create humans, and therefore the bronze humans also belong to the king of gods, then two problems will arise at this time - first, the flood that destroyed the world killed not only humans, but also other lives created by the ancient gods. Then the gods' killing of other gods' belongings should not be considered fair.

On the other hand, if "giving orders" is also considered as participating in creation, then the current generation of humans is still created by the gods. After all, Deucalion and Pyrrha, who survived the flood in the legend, created a new generation of people under the guidance of the gods. So if it is fair for the gods to destroy the Bronze Age, then it can also be called fair if the gods destroy the current era.

Andrea's words are sharp, but as his opponent, Odysseus naturally responds. Debate is not about arguing about right and wrong but a war of words. So he also refuted Andrea's views one by one.

First of all, the gods destroyed the bronze age because of the deception of Prometheus and the sacrifices in the Bronze Age. This is not without reason or reason. In today's era, there are no gods who are guilty of crimes, and there will not be all kings and nobles rebelling against the gods together. Therefore, it is a false proposition that the gods destroyed the fourth generation of human beings.

Moreover, he heard that the heaven and earth have no will of their own, but they can give revelations through fate to let gods and humans walk on the right path; nature will not teach knowledge to living beings, but humans can learn from the changes of all things and the movement of stars to promote the progress of civilization.

From this, it can be seen that revelation does not necessarily contain subjective will, and the truth understood by humans themselves may also be the embodiment of rules. Therefore, although Deucalion and Pyrrha were guided by the gods, the creation of the fourth generation of humans may not be directly related to the gods, so Andrea's accusation is naturally untenable.

As for the death and injury of other lives in the Bronze Age, humans certainly do not know whether the gods who created other lives agree to destroy the world, but they also do not know whether they resist, right? Moreover, it is said that in the distant Silvermoon City, the residents there claim to be the survivors of the Bronze Age - does this prove that the Olympian gods consulted the opinions of other gods, killed the creations of those who agreed, and left the creatures favored by those who disagreed?

After completing this round of defense, Odysseus naturally couldn't give up. Simply breaking the opponent's offensive would only put him at a disadvantage, so he decisively turned from defense to offense, shifting the topic from "the fairness of the God's Court" to "why question the fairness of the God's Court".

He said that Andrea believed that the behavior of the God's Court in the Bronze Age was unfair, and the accusation of injustice in the Bronze Age explained more about the wide range of divine punishment and the large number of deaths. Later, Andrea even questioned him-if the gods also destroyed the fourth generation of humans, would you still think it was fair.

Odysseus believed that such words might have been affected by subjective emotions. Does this prove that the reason why Andrea wanted to prove the injustice of the God's Court was actually because she was worried that the gods would continue to destroy humans, and the accusation of the God's Court was just out of "being hurt by the same kind"?

This is unnecessary, because the God's Court is fair, and it has its reasons for destroying the Bronze Age, and in this era, the churches of the gods have deeply intervened in all aspects of human beings. Humans cannot understand the "justice of God", so God tells humans what his "justice" is through the church.

Today, there is no morality and culture of human beings that is not influenced by the gods; among the rulers of human beings today, there are few who are rebellious and arrogant and blaspheme the gods. Therefore, the disasters of the Bronze Age are destined not to happen in this era.

This statement undoubtedly received a huge response from the audience, because as the debate progressed, many viewers did begin to feel a little scared. And Odysseus' words not only dispelled their doubts, but also gave them a psychological hint-you have to believe that the court of gods is fair. After all, a fair court of gods will naturally not bring disasters at will, then what I said is right, and the fourth generation of humans will not be destroyed.

On the other hand, if the court of gods is not fair, and what I said is wrong, then the fourth generation of humans will not be in danger at all times and may be destroyed at any time? Under this psychological effect, even if it is out of escape, many people will subconsciously believe in the justice of the gods.

It has to be said that in this classical era, people who can create such a psychological trap are rare. This alone is enough to show that Odysseus is ahead of ordinary people. Andrea also saw this, but she was not panicked at all.

The other party questioned whether she was objective as a debater and whether she was affected by emotions. Of course, she could not admit it, but she would not continue to argue with the other party. After all, the influence of emotions is too subjective, and it is difficult to find concrete evidence to prove whether it exists or not. If she really debated with the other party on this, she would fall into a trap.

So the topic changed on the field. Andrea was no longer eager to discuss whether the destruction of the Bronze Age was fair or not, but began to break Odysseus' psychological suggestion.

The other party equated "the fairness of the court of gods" with "the safety of the fourth generation of humans", trying to guide the audience to believe that "if the court of gods is fair, we are safe" and "if the court of gods is unfair, we are in danger", and then make them believe that the court of gods has always been fair under the influence of escapism. There are actually many ways to deal with this.

For example, the simplest one is that the fourth generation of humans is different from the Bronze Age. In the current world environment, if the gods really want to destroy the world, it is probably hard to say whether they can succeed. However, such remarks not only conflict with the impression of "powerful gods" in most people's minds, but also tend to break the opponent's offensive rather than establish their own advantages while breaking it.

So since Odysseus used psychological tricks, Andrea followed suit.

She said that Odysseus believed that the gods told humans what "God's justice" was through the church, and then influenced human thoughts and culture. This does exist, but this not only does not prove the consistency of the gods' justice, but is a good counterexample.

The church of the King of Gods and the Queen of Gods teaches human marriage, which shows what "fair marriage" looks like in the eyes of the gods. However, the King of Gods and the Queen of Heaven, who established this standard, did not abide by the standards they set themselves.

On the platform, Andrea listed the King of Gods' betrayal of marriage one by one, and listed Hera as the guardian of marriage. She not only did not point the sword at the King of Gods, but also harmed the women violated by Zeus.

The gods themselves invented the marriage system, but taught humans to abide by it while doing whatever they wanted. Doesn't this just prove the difference between gods and humans?

If harmonious marriage is indeed the "justice" recognized by the gods, then reality proves that the gods themselves can violate it, so no matter what caused the Bronze Age to perish, there is no guarantee that the gods will not destroy the fourth generation of humans.

If it is true that mortals cannot understand the "justice of the gods", it includes both "observing marriage" and "destroying marriage", then Odysseus's remarks are also falsified, because the "justice" learned by humans from the gods is also wrong. Humans have learned the wrong things, just like Prometheus taught deception, which has become the basis for the gods to punish them?

In the conversation, the psychological suggestion established by Odysseus was easily broken, and even further made the audience doubt the justice of the gods.

Although injustice in marriage does not mean that it is necessarily unfair in other things, people are always willing to believe that the criminal has committed more than one crime.

So in this way, standing on different viewpoints, the debate between the two sides lasted for several water clocks, and in this battle of thoughts and words, the audience on the scene also felt the charm of language.

There is no need to really decide the winner in a debate. Unless the difference in level between the two sides is too great, it is difficult for one side to be speechless. More often, one side can only defend and fall into a disadvantage in the confrontation.

So in the end, as time went by, the debate finally came to an end.

"Now, please ask the contestants to make their final statements. After that, the 183,000 audience members on the scene will make their choices. They will decide the champion of this debate as referees."

The old man who had disappeared for a long time returned to the platform. Seeing his tired face, he probably didn't understand how the topic was changed in the end.

However, at this point, facing the audience and contestants, he still smiled.

"Your wonderful debate will surely go down in history, and this collision of wisdom will also become one of the most dazzling pearls we dedicate to the goddess."