Myth: The Spiritual Dominator

'Sure enough, this debate is not that simple.'

Iapetus looked clear and was only surprised for a moment, but then he got used to it.

It didn't seem like Zeus's main purpose was to change the topic of the debate. It was just a convenience at best. He must have other ideas, and Zephyrus' arrival proved this.

But these are all internal affairs of Olympus... Doing three things at once, Iapetus could not help but ask:

"I saw someone waiting above the venue, but what does this have to do with me?"

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

Although Iapetus, through Andrea's mouth, said many things that were inconsistent with the harmony and values ​​of the God Court, as a first-generation Titan, he should not let the King of Gods bring him to justice just because of a debate in the human world.

After all, he was only standing up for his son, and no matter how you looked at it, Zeferos didn't come for him.

"It doesn't seem to matter, if we talk about it according to common sense. But 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, nor did he know that many goddesses were best at venting their anger, he thought about it and nodded in agreement.

Iapetus felt like he had fallen into a trap. He had just come to watch a debate, but how did he end up meeting Gaia?

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

It was just a debate among the human beings, and he didn't take it seriously at first, but why did the King of Gods intervene? It was obvious that something else was going to happen later.

But no matter what, the debate is not over yet, so the God of Speech, in line with the principle of starting well and ending well, will focus on his hobby first.

It must be said that this human prince named Odysseus is quite capable. If he had not been affected by some other things, he might have performed even better.

······

Outside the arena 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 battle over the fairness of the destruction of the Bronze Age had lasted for several water clock hours.

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

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

During the debate, the focus of both sides changed several times. When Odysseus used "God created all spirits" to counter "human justice", Andrea decisively pointed out the loophole of the other party.

First of all, do the gods admit that "whoever creates living things has ownership of them"? Obviously not. After all, bronze humans were created by Prometheus. If this is the case, then bronze humans undoubtedly belong to the gods of foresight rather than Olympus.

Furthermore, if the gods believe that "giving orders" is also considered participating in creation, then 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 world-destroying flood killed not only humans, but also other lives created by the ancient gods. Then the gods' arbitrarily killing the property of other gods should not be considered fair.

On the other hand, if "giving instructions" is also considered as participating in creation, then the current generation of humans is still created by God. After all, according to legend, Deucalion and Pyrrha, who survived the flood, created a new generation of humans under the guidance of God. So if God's destruction of the Bronze Age is fair, then if God destroys the current era, it can also be called fair.

Andrea's words were sharp, but as his opponent, Odysseus naturally responded. A debate is not about right or wrong but a war of words. So he also refuted Andrea's points one by one.

First of all, the gods destroyed the Bronze Age because of the deception of Prometheus and the Bronze Age sacrifices. This is not without reason or cause. In today's era, there are no such gods who are guilty of crimes, and there will not be a situation where all kings and nobles rebel against the gods together. Therefore, the destruction of the fourth generation of humans by gods is a false proposition.

Moreover, he had heard that the heaven and the earth had no will of their own, but they could give revelations through fate and let gods and humans walk on the right path; nature would not teach knowledge to living beings, but humans could learn the principles of advancing civilization by observing the changes of all things and the movement of stars.

From this we can see that revelation does not necessarily contain subjective will, and the truths 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 have a direct relationship with the gods, so Andrea's accusation is naturally untenable.

As for the death and injury of other life forms in the Bronze Age, humans certainly don't know whether the gods who created other life forms agree to destroy the world, but they also don't know whether they resist, right? Moreover, it is said that in the distant Silver Moon 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 and killed the creations of those who agreed, while leaving the creatures favored by those who disagreed?

After completing this round of defense, Odysseus naturally could not 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 justice of the God's court" to "why to question the justice of the God's court".

He said that Andrea thought the actions of the Bronze Age God Court were 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 God also destroyed the fourth generation of humans, would you still think it was fair?

Odysseus believes that such words may have been influenced by subjective emotions. Does this prove that Andrea's desire to prove the injustice of the gods is actually because she is worried that the gods will continue to destroy mankind, and her accusation against the gods is just out of "sympathy for one's own kind"?

This is unnecessary, because the Gods are just, and they destroyed the Bronze Age for a reason, and during this era, the churches of the gods were deeply involved in every aspect of human life. Humans cannot understand the "justice of God", so the gods personally tell humans what their "justice" is through the church.

Today, the morality and culture of mankind are all influenced by the gods; among today's human rulers, few are rebellious and arrogant and blaspheme the gods. Therefore, the disasters of the Bronze Age are destined not to occur in this era.

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

On the other hand, if the Gods are not fair and everything I said is wrong, then wouldn't the fourth generation of humans be in constant danger and could be destroyed at any time? Under this psychological effect, even if it is for escape, many people will subconsciously believe in the fairness of the gods.

It must be said that in this classical era, it is rare to find someone who can create such a psychological trap. 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 would not admit it, but she would not argue with the other party on this issue. 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 issue, she would have fallen into a trap.

So the topic changed, and 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 equates 'the justice of the Divine Court' with the 'safety of the fourth generation of humans', trying to lead the audience to believe that 'if the Divine Court is just, we are safe' and 'if the Divine Court is unjust, we are in danger', and then make them believe that the Divine Court has always been just under the influence of the escape mentality. 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 hard to say whether they can succeed. However, such remarks not only conflict with the impression of "the gods are powerful" in most people's minds, but also tend to break the opponent's offensive rather than establish their own advantages while breaking.

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, which in turn influenced human thought and culture. This is indeed true, but it not only fails to prove the consistency of God's justice, but is a good counterexample.

The Church of the God-King and God-Queen teaches about marriage for humans, which shows what a 'fair marriage' looks like in the eyes of the gods, but the God-King and God-Queen, who set this standard, do not abide by the standards they set themselves.

On the platform, Andrea listed one by one the acts of the God King's betrayal of marriage, and also listed how Hera, as the guardian of marriage, not only did she not point her sword at the God King, but instead she wantonly harmed the women violated by Zeus.

God himself invented the institution of marriage, but on the one hand, he taught humans to abide by it, and on the other hand, he did whatever he wanted. Doesn't this just prove the difference between God and humans?

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

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

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

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

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

There is no need to determine the winner in a debate. Unless the difference in level between the two parties is too great, it is unlikely that one party will be speechless. More often than not, one party will be busy defending and fall into a disadvantageous position in the confrontation.

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

"Now, please give your final speech. After that, the 183,000 audience members will make their choice. They will act as judges and decide the champion of this debate."

The old man who had disappeared for a long time came back to the platform. Looking at his tired face, he probably didn't understand how the question was changed.

But even at this point, he still smiled in front of the audience and contestants.

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