The nature of gods? Request opinions or information please?
Peter Petroff
Hi all,
this is going to sound like one hell of an odd question and I'm sorry
about the cross-posting, but I thought it was relevant.
My knowledge of "gods" ("God" or your personal deity notwithstanding)
is not too incredible. I'm not a philosopher or a member of any
organised religion, but a lot of little questions kept popping up in my
head; for example:
* In Australia on the "Ten" television network, they have a "Superhero
Saturday", where they show "Hercules" and "Xena" back-to-back. Being as
anal as I am, my first response was "no, Hercules is a demi-god and Xena
is a hero" (in the same way that "Batman" is not a super-hero, he has no
superpowers).
* Cthulhu is regarded as one of the "Elder Gods", no? (my Lovecraft is
VERY weak, I'd appreciate information)
* In various mythical/legendary or fantasy literatures and games, we the
audience are presented with "gods" - incredibly powerful, immortal
beings whose responsibility or abilities are focussed around one
particular sphere
* (again dipping into DC comics) the title written by John Byrne "Jack
Kirby's Fourth World" tells the story of a race of "New Gods" directly
descended (so to speak) from original TITANS... a "shadow" of their
power is supposed to be that which was responsible for the creation of
the Norse or the Greek (alright, Greco-Roman) gods (yet if you read that
title, most of the "New Gods" don't display characteristics typically
associated with what many people have come to expect of "god figures".
"Superman" was as powerful as many of these "New Gods", but Superman is
a SUPERHERO (well, DUH! :-), not a god.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, this is the question...
What makes a god a god?
What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
pantheon?
Not meaning "God" or your personal deity, I mean no insult or anything,
I'm just genuinely curious as to the general world's opinion. Partly, I
want to get this straight in my own head. Partly (and all the
rec.games.frpers will know what I'm on about) I'm hoping to design a
cosmos for a campaign also...
If anybody would care to mail me at mailto:pet...@ucaqld.com.au with
clearly presented opinions or facts, I would GREATLY appreciate it...
Peter P.
http://busch.ucaqld.com.au/~peterp
mailto:pet...@ucaqld.com.au
JFZeigler
<pet...@ucaqld.com.au> writes:
> What makes a god a god?
> What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
> What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
>between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
> What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
>pantheon?
Well, I can see you're going to get a lot of rude answers, but
I'll try and be serious, if brief.
What makes a god a god? For the purposes of a FRP campaign,
we can probably define a "god" as "a supernatural creature
which has greater power than any other creature in the setting,
at least in a narrow sphere of influence."
A "demigod" might be considered a divine being who serves
a "god." He is powerful, but he is not the most powerful thing
around in any sphere.
What seperates a "god" from a "Titan" or a "superhero"? Mostly
genre. A "Titan" was originally a class of god in Greek myth,
representing an older divine order that had been superceded
by the Olympian gods. As you're aware, of course, the word
has been diluted by modern usage. A "superhero" is a being
from modern rather thn ancient mythology. A superhero
may have superhuman abilities but the justification for those
is usually pseudo-scientific rather than religious. Superheroes
aren't worshipped (although they may be celebrities :-).
In Christian doctrine, there is only one God. Angels and demons
may be divine creatures but they are not infinitely powerful.
Smoething like Satan might qualify as an "evil god" in a FRP
campaign where no deity is all-powerful, but he lacks certain
abilities possessed by God. For example, it's considered
heretical to believe that Satan can create anything of his own.
He can only corrupt and distort things already created by God.
Creatures with the abilities of angels might be considered "gods"
in an FRP campaign where there is no more powerful entity.
Consider that "angel" comes from the Greek for "messenger."
Angels are the servants of God, rather as an FRP god might
have "demigods" who serve him.
----------
Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, amateur historian, science fiction fan,
freelance writer, occasional scribbler of bad poetry
JFZe...@aol.com
"Never speak for others. You can get in enough trouble speaking for yourself."
Scott R.C. Smith
On Sat, 16 May 1998 21:16:20 +1000, Peter Petroff
<pet...@ucaqld.com.au> wrote:
>Hi all,
>* In Australia on the "Ten" television network, they have a "Superhero
>Saturday", where they show "Hercules" and "Xena" back-to-back. Being as
>anal as I am, my first response was "no, Hercules is a demi-god and Xena
>is a hero" (in the same way that "Batman" is not a super-hero, he has no
>superpowers).
Two quick (non-flame) points: Batman is a superhero because of the
risks he tales and feats he can accomplish, as well as the motif. Doc
Savage is a normal hero, Batman and the Shadow are superheroes.
Gods and demi-gods also qualify as superheroes, due to the mythi
thematic structure of their exploits. I asserted such for my thesis
in my degree in Comparative Mythology.
And: SPOILER WARNING
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Xena was revealed to be the daughter of Ares, making her a Demi-god as
well.
-S-
Scott R.C. Smith
srcs...@frontiernet.net
Website: Starburst Headquarters
(http://www.frontiernet.net/~srcsmith)
Member of the Hall Of Justice Webring
The Bazzalisk
A god has infinite power within a certain sphere.
A Demigod has semi-infinite power within a certain sphere
Judaeo-christian angles are merely week demigods which serve a greater power
A powerfull daemon would probably be a demigod (depends on how powerfull<g>)
"Satan" of the judaeo-christian/Islamic religions is seen to be an adversery,
pure and simple, if he was a seperate power with independant worshipers then he
would almost certainly be a god or demigod, but instead he is simply an enemy
for the religions' main god.
THESE ARE THE VIEWS OF A SELF PROCLAIMED ATHEIST.
The Bazzalisk /
<//>
Sidhain
Think of mythology as early pre paper comic books. gods from mythological
persepctive are what we call super beings, I won't use he term hero because
most gods were not heros. We carry on the idea of mythology because of
influence of school, perents, television etc, and in my opinion an innate
need for fantasy elements. 3000 Years ago it was mythological stories, now
we have other means too include these elements. Games, Novels and
Television. I believe we have an innate need for such ideas, in fact that
need in one of my worlds is te cause for superheros. Mans need for
soemthing greater than himself to protect him has actually created the
reality paradigms which allow these things to exist. Now Superman is a
'god' he was envisionef if I am correct as originally being like a modern
version of the ancient gods, (the few heroic ones Marduk? (I cannot
remember my babylonion mythos) Gilgamesh and Hercules -yes the latter are
demi gods....in mythology but no less worshipped in there era than the
'real' gods...
The nature of gods could be debated ad infinitim were the legends spawned
by 'gods' for the bible says "PLace no other gods or idols before me for I
am a jealous God" or were they something else, aliens? Men who did great
things? Atlanteans? Superhumans form another era?
All things considered I don't buy the idea that all Gods were created to
explain some aspect of nature, the Greeks philosphy and science did that
for them (mostly) but they still believed in gods.
The nature of mythology is do drive farther the spirit of man, for man is
the master of the earth, but not the master of the cosmos.
Lee Gold
Peter Petroff wrote:
> What makes a god a god?
I like the definition that Brust has his Dragaerans give: A god is a
powerfulspiritual being who cannot be controlled by mortals. A demon can be
controlled. But of course RPG gods are somewhat controllable by various
spells like Commune.
So instead I'll go with: A god is worshipped by his or her followers.
People propitiate demons or make bargains with them or other things
but they don't worship them. Many RPGs provide for gods to disappear
or lose power or turn into demons if people stop worshipping them.
> What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
A demigod's parents were mixed: one god, one mortal.A titan in Greek mythology is
of a race of gods that were conquered by
the current ruling pantheon of gods.
A superhero is a mortal who has abilities that even above-average people don't.
> What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
> between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
The Christian Satan is an angel who rebelled against God.The Jewish Satan is the DA
at the Heavenly Court.
Both are akin to the evil god of Zoroastrianism, who was supposedly
worshipped by evil people.
> What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
> pantheon?
I think you mean an Abrahamic or monotheistic angel. Moslem angels behavejust like
those of Judaism and Christianity. The word for angel in Hebrew and
Greek and Latin means "messenger." An Abrahamic angel is a messenger of
the One True God. A full answer to this would be a very long essay, which
I'm not going to write here.
--Lee Gold
editor, ALARUMS AND EXCURSIONS
the snailmailed RPG APA
Alan D Kohler
On Sat, 16 May 1998 12:28:30 -0700, Lee Gold <lee...@mediaone.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Peter Petroff wrote:
>
>> What makes a god a god?
>
>I like the definition that Brust has his Dragaerans give: A god is a
>powerfulspiritual being who cannot be controlled by mortals. A demon can be
>controlled.
Ahhh, but Verra is the "Demon Goddess." And by the books, she is
clearly pictured as a goddess. So how do you explain that?
As Brust explains in some of his books and interviews, Vlad doesn't
always know what he's talking about, and it shows in the books.
>But of course RPG gods are somewhat controllable by various
>spells like Commune.
I'm sorry, commune != control.
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
New on my RPG Pages(3/6/98):
SAGE free net SFRPG system!
General: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
SF: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/SFRPG.html
Matthew M. Colville
In article <355D7584...@ucaqld.com.au>, Peter Petroff
<pet...@ucaqld.com.au> wrote:
> What makes a god a god?
Very strictly speaking, a god is a god if enough people believe it to be so.
I don't mean this in the Terry Pratchett, Mark Rein-Splotch-Hagen sense
that if everyone believed I was god, I'd be able to create cd players, I
mean in the same sense that a word means what the most people who use it
the same way think it means. Usage establishes definition. If everyone in
the world started using 'potato' as a synonym for 'radish,' and stopped
using 'potato' to mean what you and I think it means, the dictionaries
would all have to change.
As it stands, when most people I talk to speak of 'god,' they have a
certain idea in mind which generally corresponds to an dictionary entry on
the subject. If all those people thought of something *else* when they
thought of God, god would be something else.
> What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
How people think of it. Many of the greek gods were, to our modern way
of thinking, superheros. They weren't gods in the sense of 'ephemeral,
omniscient, omnipotent, prime movers.' They were humanoid, with a gender,
emotions, desires, and the ability to maipulate their environment and
themselves (i.e. change shape and gender) in ways we can't. And lest
someone says "Ah, but we ourselves are becoming gods. . .we can change our
gender, etc.." it's important to note that the gods did these things as
acts of sheer will. There was no mechanism, no engine, driving their
abilities. It was just something gods could do. If you asked a greek
philosopher, "how do the gods change gender?" you would get mystified
looks, not because they didn't understand the question, they wouldn't have
understood why "its something gods can do" wasn't sufficient. We think in
mechanical terms, they didn't.
So, they called 'em gods, we call them superheros and our graphic
fiction reflects this, hence Thor, Hercules, etc. . .
> What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
> between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
See the above. It's often very productive to think of Satan as an evil
god. He's the god in charge of making the world more evil, God is the god
in charge of making the world more good. Once you start getting into
specific religious interpretations of these ideas, the terms break down.
But it's your campaign, you don't have to let things break down. You can
make one entity the nearly omnipotent being in charge of making the world
evil, and give him an opposite, Call them Gods.
> What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
> pantheon?
Who they work for, and their job descriptions.
Seriously. I see your point and you're right, many standard
interpretations of christian angels presume they have powers that would
make them gods in other pantheons. It's just a question of the history of
your religion.
Bi-lal Kaifa
Matthew M. Colville
In article <01bd80f8$dc4695a0$0554fad0@sidhain>, "Sidhain"
<sid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Think of mythology as early pre paper comic books.
Ah, I don't think this would be particularly productive. In fact, if
our goal was understanding mythology, it would likely be counterproductive.
Mythology was not merely a storytelling medium, or a way of explaining
the world around you (it *certainly* wasn't that.) It was a way of
learning about what it meant to be a human being, and part of society.
As an example, we'll use Apollo and the sun. The Greeks didn't believe
that the sun was *actually* pulled through the sky by apollo in his
chariot. They could look up and see apollo not there. But by taking the
sun and what it means in our lives, anthropormoposhing it into Apollo, a
person who embodies those meanings, we develop a vocabulary for discussing
our own lives and experiences.
The thing the most analogous to mythology is probably psychology and
sociology.
If I want to learn how different people, different cultures, ages and
genders operate and interact, I'm not going to gain a whole hell of a lot
from reading comic books. Wheras I *can* learn a phenomenal amount from
psychology and sociology.
Bi-lal Kaifa
Bruce L. Grubb
In article <355DE8DE...@mediaone.net>, Lee Gold
<lee...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Peter Petroff wrote:
>
>> What makes a god a god?
>
>I like the definition that Brust has his Dragaerans give: A god is a
>powerfulspiritual being who cannot be controlled by mortals. A demon can be
>controlled. But of course RPG gods are somewhat controllable by various
>spells like Commune.
>
>So instead I'll go with: A god is worshipped by his or her followers.
>People propitiate demons or make bargains with them or other things
>but they don't worship them. Many RPGs provide for gods to disappear
>or lose power or turn into demons if people stop worshipping them.
Dragon #92 and #101 went ever further with this idea. The power a diety
has in the mortal realm is directly dependent on the number of worshipers
and the level of their belief. Some goe for general belief rather than
devout worship which means they must have many more believers to make up
the difference.
Sea Wasp
Peter Petroff wrote:
> * In Australia on the "Ten" television network, they have a "Superhero
> Saturday", where they show "Hercules" and "Xena" back-to-back. Being as
> anal as I am, my first response was "no, Hercules is a demi-god and Xena
> is a hero" (in the same way that "Batman" is not a super-hero, he has no
> superpowers).
Actually, Xena IS superhuman. She's half-god herself (Ares' daughter,
though it took a hell of a lot to get that fact out into the open), and
has a number of superhuman abilities. As far as superhero, there's a
number of definitions. See below.
> Anyway, to cut a long story short, this is the question...
>
> What makes a god a god?
In my universe, there's a lot of different types of gods. Basically a
God in my universe is a being who is worshipped AS a god, and who has
powers which are both strong enough and flexible enough to perform a
number of feats that are impressive enough to reinforce their claim to
the title. An ordinary mage won't qualify, even if he could get someone
to worship him, because the abilities of mages are well-known and
unless he could pull off stunts that are generally OUTSIDE of the range
of magicians, he's not going to fool any but the gullible.
> What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
Let's tackle the last one first. "Superhero" can mean a number of
different things. Literally it just means a hero who is somehow "super"
-- possessed of powers far beyond those of the man on the street, or,
possibly, having a determination or skill that places them on a higher
level than any ordinary man. Under this definition you can place all
the comic-book "superheroes", from Batman and Captain America to
Superman and Thor. The race, origin, or other categories that the
character is/fits in is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that Thor is also
a god, he's still a superhero because he fights, as a hero in the
mortal world, using powers of superhuman might. Captain America is a
superhero because, while any INDIVIDUAL measure of his ability is
"merely" at the top of the human range, the OVERALL measure is
superhuman; no human being ever born was maximum in EVERYTHING. Batman
is a superhero because he uses his mind to make him the equal of beings
far superior to himself. He goes beyond mortal limitations, even though
mortal himself.
The Titans in real myth were merely the first gods. Zeus was in fact
the son of the Titan Chronos.
A demi-god in general parlance is a being who is part god, either
through ancestry or through being endowed with some deific power.
He/she has some of the powers and abilities of the gods, but not all of
them.
> What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
> between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
Depends on your definition of God. In the Judeo-Christian definition
used by many today, the term "God" is used to refer only to a being who
is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and usually omnibenevolent --
in other words, There Can Be Only One.
Earlier parts of the Bible imply that there ARE other gods besides
JVWH -- the biblical Lord simply says you won't worship them, or else,
and eventually casts them into hell. They are then redefined as
demons/devils/etc. The difference in many ways is a matter of
definition. If you define deities in a Grecian sense or Norse sense,
then Satan and demons are evil Gods. If you define Deity to be a single
infinitely powerful Creator, then obviously there's only one, CAN only
be one, and all other things are not gods.
> What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
> pantheon?
Definitions, again. If you assume that "I AM" is precisely what He
claims to be, then He is the one true God and there ARE no Gods of
other pantheons, just pathetic wannabees. A high Angel of the Lord
could, presumably, kick the living crap out of most if not all such
upstarts, since they'd be, at best, fallen angels of the lower orders
(the higher orders are, of course, Satan and his best friends below).
If you take the position that JVWH/"I AM"/God is not completely
all-powerful (perhaps a stronger Deity, but not the ONLY one) then
probably an Angel of JVWH would be equal to most deities of other
pantheons, or even much weaker if His claims were actually a great deal
of hot air and He was really not much stronger than Zeus or Odin.
For deities of roughly Norse/Greek stature, I recommend looking at The
Primal Order, by Wizards of the Coast; you can still find copies for
sale if you look around. It's an excellent treatment of deities for
RPGs, AND it's designed to be used in ANY RPG.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Gary Johnson
Peter Petroff (pet...@ucaqld.com.au) wrote:
: Hi all,
: this is going to sound like one hell of an odd question and I'm sorry
: about the cross-posting, but I thought it was relevant.
:
: My knowledge of "gods" ("God" or your personal deity notwithstanding)
: is not too incredible. I'm not a philosopher or a member of any
: organised religion, but a lot of little questions kept popping up in my
: head; for example:
: * In Australia on the "Ten" television network, they have a "Superhero
: Saturday", where they show "Hercules" and "Xena" back-to-back. Being as
: anal as I am, my first response was "no, Hercules is a demi-god and Xena
: is a hero" (in the same way that "Batman" is not a super-hero, he has no
: superpowers).
Superhuman powers aren't the most important point when it comes to
defining a superhero, though it's a big part of it: there's also their
willingness to help others, resist injustice and evil, wear a distinctive
set of clothes that doesn't change from week to week, and that they exist
in a universe where lots of other people do the same thing. Kevin
Sorbo's Hercules has a lot in common with the Superman legend: an
outsider gifted with tremendous power which he uses only for good, to
protect the weak and to inspire them by his example to be the best they
can make themselves be. I have no problem describing him as a superhero,
especially when you consider how unashamably modern and liberal his
world-view is.
Xena is also a superhero. Though she doesn't have Hercules' physical
power, she is still exceptionally skilled at fighting, strives for
justice, opposes evil (including beings with superhuman power like Ares),
wears a distinctive uniform, has unique weapons and attacks (e.g. the
chakram and her pressure-point manoeuvre), and can do those amazing jumps
like any good Hong Kong movie martial artist. Oh, and both Herc and Xena
have trusty and loyal sidekicks (people, not martial attacks).
: * Cthulhu is regarded as one of the "Elder Gods", no? (my Lovecraft is
: VERY weak, I'd appreciate information)
It depends on which version of Lovecraft's mythology you use. Cthulhu is
one of the Great Old Ones: he is more of an extraterrestrial than a
cosmic entity. The Outer Gods are the truly powerful beings: Azathoth,
Yog-Sothoth, Nyarlathotep, and Shub-Niggurath come to mind. "The Elder
Gods" is sometimes used to describe Nodens and other beings opposed to the
Outer Gods.
I really should send some of my books to you via David, shouldn't I? :-)
: * In various mythical/legendary or fantasy literatures and games, we the
: audience are presented with "gods" - incredibly powerful, immortal
: beings whose responsibility or abilities are focussed around one
: particular sphere
Often oddly defined and conceptually very modern spheres, at that.
: * (again dipping into DC comics) the title written by John Byrne "Jack
: Kirby's Fourth World" tells the story of a race of "New Gods" directly
: descended (so to speak) from original TITANS... a "shadow" of their
: power is supposed to be that which was responsible for the creation of
: the Norse or the Greek (alright, Greco-Roman) gods (yet if you read that
: title, most of the "New Gods" don't display characteristics typically
: associated with what many people have come to expect of "god figures".
: "Superman" was as powerful as many of these "New Gods", but Superman is
: a SUPERHERO (well, DUH! :-), not a god.
To cite Richard Reynold's seventh rule of superhero comics: "The stories
are mythical and use science and magic indiscriminately to create a sense
of wonder."
: Anyway, to cut a long story short, this is the question...
:
: What makes a god a god?
Tremendous power and the desire to be identified as one.
: What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
How they identify themselves. Marvel's Thor, for instance, is both a god
and a super-hero.
Bu the way, the Titans are gods as well: they're a different group to the
Olympians, just as the Aesir and Vanir are two divine races, and the
Giants and Elves have sorcerors and warriors as mighty as the Norse gods.
: What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
: between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
Depends on what the difference between a demon and an evil god *is*.
Often, a demon can be controlled by magic spells, whereas a god cannot.
Thus, the difference is one of autonomy and power. Also, it depends on
whether there is one God, or more than one god (i.e. entities roughly
equal in power and cosmic importance). Satan can't be God in a
monotheistic game world where the deity is defined as being good--Satan
could claim to be God, or a god, but that doesn't make him God. In a
Manichean world, were the Good God and the Evil God are locked in eternal
struggle for control over the universe, two peers battling for the souls
and support of mortals, Satan could (indeed, would) be a God.
: What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
: pantheon?
The conceptual world the angel appears in. If Judaeo-Christian theology
is correct, any god other than God is just a demon, a fallen angel, in
disguise. An angel will be mightier than a demon because God is
omnipotent, omniscient and omni-present, and nothing can stand against an
Agent of the Lord. If theology is kind of right but not really, as in
various Vertigo comics, things get murkier.
: Not meaning "God" or your personal deity, I mean no insult or anything,
: I'm just genuinely curious as to the general world's opinion. Partly, I
: want to get this straight in my own head. Partly (and all the
: rec.games.frpers will know what I'm on about) I'm hoping to design a
: cosmos for a campaign also...
Then we should probably get together for a chat sometime, seeing how we
live in the same city and all ... ;-)
: If anybody would care to mail me at mailto:pet...@ucaqld.com.au with
Belldandy
>
>> Anyway, to cut a long story short, this is the question...
>>
>> What makes a god a god?
>
force or philosophical concept. Hence, Apollo: God of the Sun. Poseidon: God
of the Sea. Athena: Goddess of Wisdom.
(To which we might now add: Diana, Goddess of Truth.)
Marvel has done a splendid job of expanding on this concept with its
"pantheon" of "cosmically powerful" beings: Galactus, Tester of
Civilizations; Uatu the Watcher, Witness to Creation; the Living Tribunal,
and so on.
Generally, the closer a god embodies its aspect, the more powerful and
more remote the being is. Nabu, a Lord of Order, is colder and less human
than Kent and Inza Nelson. By comparison, the demi-god Hercules (Marvel's,
DC's or Mage's "Kirby Hero") is basically just a really strong guy who likes
to party.
An interesting variation on this is Gaiman's version of Death, who is
easily the most human of the Endless. But note that "D" is not herself a
death-dealer; contrast her to the Spectre, who appears less human as he
dishes out God's Vengence.
David
All right then, what is the difference between Gaiman's Endless, and a
god. The Endless seemed at times more powerful than gods like Thor or
Loki, or the lords of Order and Chaos in the Sandman series. Aside from
that....
Uxi10801
I'd agree to look at the Primal Order. In its RPG conversion section
(particularly the Ars Magica one) it talks about what the other gods might be
to the God of Abraham. The "deities" are said to be a matter of some debate.
Some of the most popular theories are :
1) They are servents of Hell, trying to tempt mankind. The Church in Ars
Magica takes this stance.
2) "Deities" are at best very powerful faeries or nature spirits.
3) They possess some Divine spark and are part of God's plan for the universe.
4) They are tolerated by God to keep the faithful on their toes and provide
competition for the word of the Church.
5) The "deities" are part of the residue of God left in the universe when He
withdrew part of himself to create the void.
Naturally, some of these work together...
I would also venture to say that the "deities" might simply be the same as
mortals, just more powerful. Thus some believe (and maybe even worship God)
and some oppose him. Others may find it easy to disbelieve or ignore Him ...
Atheist or agnostic "deities" ; ) [general disclaimer: i'm not making claims on
the beliefs, or lack thereof, of either atheists or agnostics] Of course, if
they acknowledge God a fable (Arabic?) comes to mind. If they were really
good, they'd soar off to try and be w/ God. Only the bad ones would be left.
Actually, i think it is arabic, but it was referring to genies, i think.
Enough babbling from me. : )
Uxi
mcbi...@fs1.ma.umist.ac.uk
David wrote:
The Endless are anthropomorphic personifications of what Gaiman
considers fundamental principles of reality. Gods in his view are merely
the result of Human belief, and so Dream et al outclass deities in the
same way the World Heavyweight champion outclasses the local amateur
boxer. How this fits in with Gaiman's view of the Fates/Triple Goddess
is another matter, since she/they seem to have powers that the Endless
don't understand.
ed
The noble Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> spake on the day of Sat, 16 May
1998 23:35:51 -0400:
>Peter Petroff wrote:
>
>> * In Australia on the "Ten" television network, they have a "Superhero
>> Saturday", where they show "Hercules" and "Xena" back-to-back. Being as
>> anal as I am, my first response was "no, Hercules is a demi-god and Xena
>> is a hero" (in the same way that "Batman" is not a super-hero, he has no
>> superpowers).
>
> Actually, Xena IS superhuman. She's half-god herself (Ares' daughter,
>though it took a hell of a lot to get that fact out into the open), and
>has a number of superhuman abilities. As far as superhero, there's a
>number of definitions. See below.
Whilst Xena is a Superhuman in the original, Neitzsche sense, she is NOT
Are's daughter. That was just a seed of doubt sown by Xena to confuse
the Furies, who would otherwise have sent Xena mad for not avenging her
father's death.
It was what a court would call "a reasonable doubt" situation.
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk _//// http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/
o_/o /// For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGS,
<*> __\ ///__ Conspiring Rodents and other stuff!
Ron Charlotte
On 17 May 1998 01:47:39 EDT, David <dwal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>All right then, what is the difference between Gaiman's Endless, and a
>god. The Endless seemed at times more powerful than gods like Thor or
>Loki, or the lords of Order and Chaos in the Sandman series. Aside from
>that....
They seem to be the incarnations of certain primordial concepts, and
their basic existance is independent of human culture (although
influenced by it). The gods on the other hand seem to have a degree
of dependance on the need for human belief/worship.
I use this concept in fantasy gaming. The gods of my mileau wax and
wane in power according to how many believe in them (not necessarily
venerate, just believe in their existance). One empire in my worlds
back story nearly eradicated a diety by systematically destroying all
signs of it's cult. Only a tiny handful of "heretics" kept the god on
"life support" , so to speak.
--
Ron Charlotte -- Gainesville, FL
bro...@buffalostate.edu
[snippage deleted]
What are the gods, you ask at length?
Raw, impersonal, planetary power poured (read focused) into an astral cup that
is created from human imaginings.
- Peggy -
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Michael Cule
> All right then, what is the difference between Gaiman's Endless, and a
> god. The Endless seemed at times more powerful than gods like Thor or
> Loki, or the lords of Order and Chaos in the Sandman series. Aside from
> that....
I think that the difference as Gaiman saw it was that gods were dependent,
ultimately, on worshippers and lost power as their worshippers went. Remember
whatshisname became the god of transport, when his old niche ran out and Bast
the Egyptian cat god living off the last dregs of her old power....
But the Endless were embodiments not of mortal beliefs and needs but of the
Universe's needs.
--
Michael Cule
Actor And Genius
AKA Theophilus Prince Archbishop Of The Far Isles Medieval Society
Arms Purpure An Open Book Proper: On the Dexter Page an Alpha Or
On the Sinister an Omega Or. Motto Nulla Spes Sit in Resistendo
(Resistance is Useless). Ask me about the Far Isles:
Better Living through Pan-Medieval Anachronisms.
Richard F Hall
In article <355D7584...@ucaqld.com.au> Peter Petroff <pet...@ucaqld.com.au> writes:
>From: Peter Petroff <pet...@ucaqld.com.au>
>Subject: The nature of gods? Request opinions or information please?
>Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 21:16:20 +1000
>Hi all,
> this is going to sound like one hell of an odd question and I'm sorry
>about the cross-posting, but I thought it was relevant.
> My knowledge of "gods" ("God" or your personal deity notwithstanding)
>is not too incredible. I'm not a philosopher or a member of any
>organised religion, but a lot of little questions kept popping up in my
>head; for example:
>* In Australia on the "Ten" television network, they have a "Superhero
>Saturday", where they show "Hercules" and "Xena" back-to-back. Being as
>anal as I am, my first response was "no, Hercules is a demi-god and Xena
>is a hero" (in the same way that "Batman" is not a super-hero, he has no
>superpowers).
The Great Magician
Early on, all was magic. God was the greatest magician above the
firmament who would intervene either to punish or rescue a wayward
society. At one extreme it was believed God manipulated all worldly
interactions without regard to the laws of conservation of mass, energy,
momentum, and the laws of entropy and gravity. As we grew to
understand Nature we came to realize that some things were mechanical
and did not need a magic spirit to make them function. This became more
and more true as we ascribed less and less to magical spirits. At the
other extreme we have a God who is not magic and whimsical, but who
clearly reveals his laws for us to study and to abide by them, and of that
we may be sure. It is our conceit that leads us to believe that if we ignore
God's laws and get into trouble, that we may whine and flatter and get
God to forgive us.
If we are free of such conceit, and have the humility to study, work
hard, and honestly, take responsibility for our own mistakes, and promote
a truthful education for all who can learn, then we will prevail over our
social problems. Man has accepted God's laws for his physical environment,
and has done very well technologically. He has yet to fully accept God's
laws for himself. Man acts like a spoiled child of God.
What man has really accepted for himself is still mythical. He has
dreamed up the "rights of man" that have practically no regard for all
the true evolutionary factors. It is little wonder that man has been unable
to do much for himself with respect to his social problems. It seems that
what he has done is to compound and magnify his worst qualities to the
extent that he now verges on the precipice of self-extinction. For himself
man has usurped God's laws and prescribed magic. Man has declared
himself divine. It is little wonder that man has repeatedly failed in solving
his most prevalent problems such as: ignorance, poverty, crime, and
especially war.
Ralph A Hall, M.D.
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
reconciliation of science and rleigion
Dear Pete:
I guess your confusion of the concept of "God" and cartoon heros is certainly
a true reflection of the T.V. generation that you apparently represent (with
all due respect). It might be your burden to recognize this and be the writer
of your generations's confusion in this regard. Concepts may change.. but
human needs and misunderstandings don't.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
the understanding of God and cartoons.
-ZZ
> What makes a god a god?
A god is a god to any who believe that the god is a god.
-ZZ
sim...@msi-uk.com
> Saturday", where they show "Hercules" and "Xena" back-to-back. Being as
> anal as I am, my first response was "no, Hercules is a demi-god and Xena
> is a hero" (in the same way that "Batman" is not a super-hero, he has no
> superpowers).
It depends on what context you're using. It's not as though these terms are
defined in The Oxford English Dictionary, except perhaps as terms used in a
form of fiction.
> * Cthulhu is regarded as one of the "Elder Gods", no? (my Lovecraft is
> VERY weak, I'd appreciate information)
Again, only in the context of Lovecraft's fiction. Lovecraft was I believe an
atheist, though I think his views changed in later life.
> * In various mythical/legendary or fantasy literatures and games, we the
> audience are presented with "gods" - incredibly powerful, immortal
> beings whose responsibility or abilities are focussed around one
> particular sphere
Such portrayal hardly qualifies as legitimate religious material, however.
> * (again dipping into DC comics) the title written by John Byrne "Jack
> Kirby's Fourth World" tells the story of a race of "New Gods" directly
> descended (so to speak) from original TITANS... a "shadow" of their
> power is supposed to be that which was responsible for the creation of
> the Norse or the Greek (alright, Greco-Roman) gods (yet if you read that
> title, most of the "New Gods" don't display characteristics typically
> associated with what many people have come to expect of "god figures".
> "Superman" was as powerful as many of these "New Gods", but Superman is
> a SUPERHERO (well, DUH! :-), not a god.
Though some gods can apparently be superheroes - c.f. Thor, for example.
> Anyway, to cut a long story short, this is the question...
>
> What makes a god a god?
Are you talking about pulp comics, flims, etc or genuine theology, which you
haven't actualy mentioned at all yet?
Assuming you mean in terms of genuine religion, there are as many answers as
there are religions. The best source I can recommend is Karen Armstrong's "The
History of God", which is an excelent summary of middle eastern monotheism,
from Judaism, through christianity and Islam. She attempts to explain how
people's conception of god evolved and has been conveptualised by prophets and
philosophers through the ages.
If you want an (if not THE) oustanding example of this implemented in fiction,
check out the Glorantha web site at www.glorantha.com
Simon Hibbs
Dr. Faust
>Hi all,
> this is going to sound like one hell of an odd question and I'm sorry
>about the cross-posting, but I thought it was relevant.
>
> My knowledge of "gods" ("God" or your personal deity notwithstanding)
>is not too incredible. I'm not a philosopher or a member of any
>organised religion, but a lot of little questions kept popping up in my
>head; for example:
>
>* In Australia on the "Ten" television network, they have a "Superhero
>Saturday", where they show "Hercules" and "Xena" back-to-back. Being as
>anal as I am, my first response was "no, Hercules is a demi-god and Xena
>is a hero" (in the same way that "Batman" is not a super-hero, he has no
>superpowers).
>
>* Cthulhu is regarded as one of the "Elder Gods", no? (my Lovecraft is
>VERY weak, I'd appreciate information)
>
No he's one of the bad guys, a Ancient God. Elder Gods are
essentially the Nephilim (The Watchers).
>* In various mythical/legendary or fantasy literatures and games, we the
>audience are presented with "gods" - incredibly powerful, immortal
>beings whose responsibility or abilities are focussed around one
>particular sphere
>
>* (again dipping into DC comics) the title written by John Byrne "Jack
>Kirby's Fourth World" tells the story of a race of "New Gods" directly
>descended (so to speak) from original TITANS... a "shadow" of their
>power is supposed to be that which was responsible for the creation of
>the Norse or the Greek (alright, Greco-Roman) gods (yet if you read that
>title, most of the "New Gods" don't display characteristics typically
>associated with what many people have come to expect of "god figures".
>"Superman" was as powerful as many of these "New Gods", but Superman is
>a SUPERHERO (well, DUH! :-), not a god.
>
> Anyway, to cut a long story short, this is the question...
>
> What makes a god a god?
> What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
> What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
>between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
> What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
>pantheon?
What makes a god a god... Probally a God as control over almost all
aspects of the World (shrug). A Demi-God is a more human like God.
Satan's a God in the Christian religion but in the Jewish hes not.
Angel's are Saint's in the Christian Religion and are MESSENGERS.
>
> Not meaning "God" or your personal deity, I mean no insult or anything,
>I'm just genuinely curious as to the general world's opinion. Partly, I
>want to get this straight in my own head. Partly (and all the
>rec.games.frpers will know what I'm on about) I'm hoping to design a
>cosmos for a campaign also...
>
David R. Klassen
Dr. Faust wrote:
> Satan's a God in the Christian religion but in the Jewish hes not.
> Angel's are Saint's in the Christian Religion and are MESSENGERS.
god, in *any* christian faith. He is a fallen angel. Angels and saints
are be no means even similar. Saints are the manifestations of human souls
in the afterlife - those in heaven at least. Angels are a totally different
being. Modern fiction is mostly to blame for this confusion however - how
many movies have we seen people who die having to work a bit to "become an
angel"?
--
David R. Klassen
Department of Astronomy
Center for Radiophysics and Space Research
404 Space Sciences Building
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14853
phone: 607-255-6910
fax: 607-255-9002
http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/staff/klassen/klassen.html
kla...@marswatch.tn.cornell.edu
Thomas R Scudder
Michael Cule (mi...@room3b.demon.co.uk) asieoniezi:
: I think that the difference as Gaiman saw it was that gods were dependent,
: whatshisname became the god of transport, when his old niche ran out and Bast
: the Egyptian cat god living off the last dregs of her old power....
Does anyone else out there loathe, despise, hate, detest the "Gods get
WorshipPoints(tm) from their Truly Devout Worshippers(tm) and redeem them
for valuable DeityPoints(tm)" schema? It seems to me to be about the
lamest/blandest/dullest possible organizing principle for divinities
that I can imagine. The only remotely acceptable take on this I've
seen was GOD STALK, which had the virtue of turning the system on its
head in a particularly amusing fashion.
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
Squeezing flinthead trout "I contradict myself? Very well,
in their massive jaws, sparks fly: I contra- hey, wait. No I don't!"
Bears discover fire.
Bruce Baugh
>Does anyone else out there loathe, despise, hate, detest the "Gods get
>WorshipPoints(tm) from their Truly Devout Worshippers(tm) and redeem them
>for valuable DeityPoints(tm)" schema? It seems to me to be about the
I like the idea myself, but I don't think it's the only good idea out
there; what bothers me is the extent to which it seems to have become
the default. It's very much a modern idea, predicated on the
not-fundamental nature of gods. That's cool for modern stories, but for
myth and folklore it's usually better to assume that the gods _are_
fundamental and proceed from there.
--
http://brucebaugh.home.mindspring.com/
Rolegaming, writing tools, miscellany
"Pain is an interesting and off-putting thing. Few if any things
in life concentrate our attention so completely, and few things
are more boring to listen to or read about."
- Dan Simmons,THE RISE OF ENDYMION
Chris Baile
But in D & D, demons and devils are immortal beings with alot of
power, and the very powerful ones are, for all intent and purpose,
demi-gods. Angels are essentially the opposite of demons and devils,
so therefore the ultra-powerful ones could be demi-gods. And like in
Greek/Roman mythology, there are demi-gods that fulfill the wishes or
perform tasks for the greater gods... i.e. Mercury is the messenger of
the gods, another was the blacksmith of the gods. Likewise, the
Christian version of an angel or demon could be a "lackey" for the
more powerful of their kind. Saints in the afterlife could be
considered more powerful angels than others, who were simply "good
enough" to get into heaven.
For more information on the various gods, see if you can get your
mitts on the old D & D Dieties and Demigods... they have write-ups for
numerous gods and their minions from several different pantheons. Also
consult the first edition D & D Monster Manuals for the different
devils and demons, as well as creatures like Devas (ultra-powerful
angelic creatures, used by usually good-aligned gods as messengers or
enforcers).
------
"I'd like to clear this up before we bring out Carrot
Top. I'm not `down' with Carrot Top. I don't `have his
back', and under no circumstances will I `Give him
his props.'"
- Craig Kilborn, The Daily Show
"What is fun? Why is it colored pink? And where does
it go when Jesse Helms comes around?"
- Author unknown
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously
considered as a means of communication.The device is inherently of no
value to us." --Western Union internal memo, 1876.
Mike Estell
>> What makes a god a god?
>
"I wrenched DOG backwards to find GOD: now GOD barks."
- Aleister Crowley
yours,
Mike
Bryant Berggren (Vox Ludator)
On Mon, 18 May 1998 19:58:21 GMT, tom...@umich.edu (Thomas R Scudder)
wrote:
>Does anyone else out there loathe, despise, hate, detest the "Gods get
>WorshipPoints(tm) from their Truly Devout Worshippers(tm) and redeem them
>for valuable DeityPoints(tm)" schema? It seems to me to be about the
>lamest/blandest/dullest possible organizing principle for divinities
>that I can imagine. The only remotely acceptable take on this I've
>seen was GOD STALK, which had the virtue of turning the system on its
>head in a particularly amusing fashion.
... which was?
--
Sea Wasp
Thomas R Scudder wrote:
>
> Michael Cule (mi...@room3b.demon.co.uk) asieoniezi:
> : I think that the difference as Gaiman saw it was that gods were dependent,
> : ultimately, on worshippers and lost power as their worshippers went. Remember
> : whatshisname became the god of transport, when his old niche ran out and Bast
> : the Egyptian cat god living off the last dregs of her old power....
>
> WorshipPoints(tm) from their Truly Devout Worshippers(tm) and redeem them
> for valuable DeityPoints(tm)" schema?
On the contrary; it's the only reasonable explanation for why most
gods give a crap about what mortal mayflies think about them. Oh, a god
like Marvel's Thor, who works away at being a goody-twoshoes hero,
that's one thing, but evil or amoral deities? They don't. Why would
they have temples? Why would they bother to channel anything to some
mortal, rather than doing the job themselves, or at the least doing it
through some select few agents? Since this ISN'T the way most deities
do things -- most of them seem to want and actively have their priests
solicit more worshippers -- one must assume they get SOMETHING out of
the deal. You could make it something immaterial but still important,
of course; a chess game between gods, so to speak, with the worshippers
representing gains and losses (maybe GO would be a better analogy;
you're conquering spiritual territory). But the "worshippers' belief =
power" analogy was one I thought of 25 years ago, before I even played
any official RPG, and it's still the only one that explains a lot of
things well.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Sea Wasp
Glenn E. Meyer wrote:
>
> Most comic book gods are really just aliens or mutated humans or
> psi powered constructs that become sentient.
>
> The New Gods certainly are just aliens.
>
> The Asgardians have had their butt kicked several times by
> space dudes (Galactus, Celestials, various space farers) who
> are clearly technological. Not too god-like.
>
> Interesting Cthulhu was probably an alien also. I can't recall
> the story's name with the cone shaped early race on earth that
> seized other personalties into their time. They clearly kicked
> Cthulhuoid butt with electrical weapons.
>
> Last, in a Frank Belknap Long story - they nuked old Cthulhu who
> just boogied back into the sea. Of course, he will be back but
> the true supernatural shouldn't have been affected.
Depends on your point of view. In mine, even pure magic or pure
psionic beings will still be able to be dealt with by sufficiently
advanced technology. A thermonuclear device is playing with the
fundamental forces of reality, and you could certainly justify it at
least temporarily disrupting just about anything. I don't see Thor or
Odin ignoring 50 megatons dropped on their heads. Surviving, yes;
there's only a limited number of ways to kill them, and while there are
probably technological methods that would work, they'd have to be
extremely advanced and very, very specific, not just a random Big Boom.
Nonetheless, a thermonuclear device isn't something a deity of most
sorts would want dropped in their throne room.
Higher tech is even more problematic, of course. I'd put Marc DuQuesne
or Richard Seaton up against just about ANY deity and bet on the humans
to win.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Sea Wasp
Brett Evill wrote:
>
> In article <3560E8...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>
> > Higher tech is even more problematic, of course. I'd put Marc DuQuesne
> >or Richard Seaton up against just about ANY deity and bet on the humans
> >to win.
>
> done so. 'You might like 'Creature os Light and Darkness' too.
I've read everything by Zelazny, barring possibly some of his short
stories.
I find the first Amber series to be the best of them, though. Lord of
Light just didn't work for me, somehow. Okay, but not great. I have
absolutely no desire to re-read it, while I re-read Amber every year or
two.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Joe Jefferson
ROFL! Sorry, but I'd hardly condsider D&D a valid source on the nature
of deities. If you want to consider Satan a god you might want to make
sure there are no Christians, Jews, or Moslems in your gaming group, as
one of the basic principles of all three religions is that there is only
*One* God. Although Satan is conceived of differently in these three
religions, they all agree that he is *not* a god. For evil deities you
would be far better off drawing from a different religious/mythological
source.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated May 8th, 1998.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Jimmy Kerl
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> On the contrary; it's the only reasonable explanation for why most
> gods give a crap about what mortal mayflies think about them. Oh, a god
> like Marvel's Thor, who works away at being a goody-twoshoes hero,
> that's one thing, but evil or amoral deities? They don't. Why would
> they have temples? Why would they bother to channel anything to some
> mortal, rather than doing the job themselves, or at the least doing it
> through some select few agents? Since this ISN'T the way most deities
> do things -- most of them seem to want and actively have their priests
> solicit more worshippers -- one must assume they get SOMETHING out of
> the deal.
Perhaps by rewarding there folowers they provide an incentive to follow them
and thus gain more followers which = more power? furthermore in doing
so they want to make folowers that copy their own personality as
much as possible?
Disclaimer: im speaking of fictional dnd game 'gods' not anything related to
real world religion.
Jimmy
Frank Sronce
Oh, why not...
>> What makes a god a god?
Depends on the system. In some cosmologies, a god is an unkillable
alien being completely bereft of needs, but not necessarily of desires. In
others, a god is a being that draws power from being worshipped. And, in
some, a god is a demon who made it- really no different from any other
potent spirit except that he has a cult.
>> What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
Generally "omniscience". The ability to see the future, the past, to
look at a person and see their soul, etc. A god's physical body is his
least powerful part. For all of the above, their body is usually their most
powerful part.
>> What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
>>between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
If you use the gods as beings that need worship, then Satan is an "evil
god" only if he truly draws power from evil. In some people's view, Satan
and God are near equals, with God drawing power from the good in man, and
Satan from the evil.
Generally, a true god could not be hunted down and killed, no matter how
potent or magical the weapons you are using. They exist either because they
must, or because people want them to.
>> What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
>>pantheon?
Um, an Angel is generally a lesser figure- a messenger. They don't
possess the same awesome abilities, and they aren't dependent upon belief-
or if they are, it's on a much smaller scale (like an angel who could only
affect believers).
>> Not meaning "God" or your personal deity, I mean no insult or anything,
>>I'm just genuinely curious as to the general world's opinion. Partly, I
>>want to get this straight in my own head. Partly (and all the
>>rec.games.frpers will know what I'm on about) I'm hoping to design a
>>cosmos for a campaign also...
>>
>> If anybody would care to mail me at mailto:pet...@ucaqld.com.au with
>>clearly presented opinions or facts, I would GREATLY appreciate it...
>>
>>Peter P.
Now, in the Cthulhu Mythos, you have some really potent Gods. Capital
G, and all that. Azathoth, Yog-Sothoth, and the other really potent deities
predated the big bang and the creation of all the physical realities. They
will continue to exist after it's all gone, and will still be around when it
comes back again. The "horror" end of it generally lies in the fact that
they aren't really evil- they couldn't care less about humanity. Most of
them are quite mindless by our standards- if they think and are aware, then
they notice things on the scale of galaxies, not little things like us. We
aren't nearly important enough to even be mildly concerned by. Only the
least of them spends any time trying to mess around with humans, and then
mostly because he's sadistic enough to enjoy toying with a race that can
feel fear and pain.
Kiz
Erik Ward
<snipped>
A good example for AD&D gods can be found in JRR Tolkien's Middle-earth. _The
Silmarillion_ has the creation story for Middle-Earth, including the various
classification which, amazingly enough, match up well with the AD&D concepts
of Greater, Lesser, and Demi-gods and goddesses.
In Middle-Earth, you have the greatest deity (Eru) who created everything,
including the other gods. IIRC, there are some number (6 or 7, I think)
greater and an equal number of lesser deities (each paired up). Then there
are the Istari (The Wizards) who were demi-gods -- Olorin (Mithrandir/Gandalf)
is one. These were beings whose abilities far exceeded that of mortal men
(not even the elves can return from Death, like Gandalf did.)
The main forces for evil (Melkor and Sauron) were, IIRC, a greater and lesser
deity respectively. Thus Gandalf (a demi-god) was no match directly for
Sauron (a lesser god); although both could be defeated/destroyed, in the
manner of the Greek and Norse gods.
the Nightshade,
Erik Ward
Glenn E. Meyer
Most comic book gods are really just aliens or mutated humans or
psi powered constructs that become sentient.
The New Gods certainly are just aliens.
The Asgardians have had their butt kicked several times by
space dudes (Galactus, Celestials, various space farers) who
are clearly technological. Not too god-like.
Interesting Cthulhu was probably an alien also. I can't recall
the story's name with the cone shaped early race on earth that
seized other personalties into their time. They clearly kicked
Cthulhuoid butt with electrical weapons.
Last, in a Frank Belknap Long story - they nuked old Cthulhu who
just boogied back into the sea. Of course, he will be back but
the true supernatural shouldn't have been affected.
bye
Brett Evill
> Higher tech is even more problematic, of course. I'd put Marc DuQuesne
>or Richard Seaton up against just about ANY deity and bet on the humans
>to win.
You want to read 'Lord of Light' by Roger Zelazny, if you have not already
done so. 'You might like 'Creature os Light and Darkness' too.
--
Brett Evill
To reply by e-mail, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
Uxi10801
Maybe the evil deities are prohibited by a "non interferance" agreement of some
kind. I once did an Immortals campaign for D&D where they "adventured " in the
primal multiverse forming it and creating their races and such. One of the
first things they did when the discovered the Prime Material plane was to have
an agreement of the Prime being a "non direct interference zone." In short, no
deity could go in person, nor drop mountains on people, blast em, etc etc.
They could make avatars, empower worshipers (any worshipper really). It was
enforced by the Immortals themselves (every one of them [excepting some of the
NPCs I had out there) saw that their newly created races could be easily
stamped out by the others. In fact, 3 races were created by Immortals working
in concert.
I modified the standard Immortal rules heavily (and adopted alot of the Primal
Order when that came around), but used a "Deity point" system of sorts.
Deities didn't require worshippers to survive, but the faith gave extra power
to them (I created a fantaticism scale of the points). It was an interesting
campaign, but was naturally more strategy oriented...
towo...@concentric.net
In rec.games.frp.dnd Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> Higher tech is even more problematic, of course. I'd put Marc DuQuesne
>or Richard Seaton up against just about ANY deity and bet on the humans
>to win.
Depends. With or without the Brains? Since bptj of them (apparently)
need mechanical assistance to use their most potent forces. I'm inclined
to add the new Omans to that list...
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Gregory Bernath
>But the "worshippers' belief =
>power" analogy was one I thought of 25 years ago, before I even played
>any official RPG, and it's still the only one that explains a lot of
>things well.
I prefer a slightly modified version of this. A god's being and power is
independent of worship. However, the power he can return to the prime
material, such as granting spells and forming avatars, does depend on
worship. Worship is effectively what links the god to that prime.
So, you can have demi-gods wielding more influence on the prime than
greater gods. But back on the outer planes, it might be a different
situation. And then there are those "forgotten" gods, not dead, just
waiting for some worshippers ...
--
Greg Bernath gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
Sea Wasp
Erik Ward wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> A good example for AD&D gods can be found in JRR Tolkien's Middle-earth. _The
> Silmarillion_ has the creation story for Middle-Earth, including the various
> classification which, amazingly enough, match up well with the AD&D concepts
> of Greater, Lesser, and Demi-gods and goddesses.
It's better to match them up with the Angels of Christian mythology,
since that's what they were based on.
>
> In Middle-Earth, you have the greatest deity (Eru) who created everything,
> including the other gods. IIRC, there are some number (6 or 7, I think)
> greater and an equal number of lesser deities (each paired up). Then there
> are the Istari (The Wizards) who were demi-gods -- Olorin (Mithrandir/Gandalf)
> is one. These were beings whose abilities far exceeded that of mortal men
> (not even the elves can return from Death, like Gandalf did.)
Actually, anyone can return from death if Mandos says it's okay.
Mandos rarely does, though.
They didn't call themselves gods, though (well, Melkor and Sauron
might have). The terms were the Valar (the Archangel equivalents), and
the Maiar (the lesser angels.)
Sauron and Gandalf were Maia. Sauron was somewhat stronger, being
handpicked for sheer power by Melkor/Morgoth. Gandalf was not generally
permitted to USE his full power. If Sauron had come out and the two had
duked it out, Sauron would probably have won, but it would be quite
possible that Gandalf could have pulled off an upset. The problem, of
course, was that unless Gandalf could destroy the Ring, any defeat of
Sauron would be temporary, and that's no good at all. (Of course,
Sauron wasn't dumb enough to come out and take people on that way,
either).
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
John
-ZZ wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 1998 21:16:20 +1000, Peter Petroff
> <pet...@ucaqld.com.au> wrote:
>
> > What makes a god a god?
>
> A god is a god to any who believe that the god is a god.
Yeah, some people call me "God" and I have no idea what their talking
about.
Jonathan Rowe
In article <xp081.2150$0A3.10...@news.itd.umich.edu>, Thomas R
Scudder <tom...@umich.edu> writes
>Does anyone else out there loathe, despise, hate, detest the "Gods get
>WorshipPoints(tm) from their Truly Devout Worshippers(tm) and redeem them
>lamest/blandest/dullest possible organizing principle for divinities
>that I can imagine.
Me too. It might be an acceptable concept for a GM engaged in
worldbuilding, but it's fatal as an in-character metaphysic for a
fantasy world, since it ends up making the gods dependent on their
worshippers, rather than vice versa, thus destroying in one swoop the
sole spiritual plausibility of worship: that the gods are awesome,
numinous beings towards whom the response of worship is simply the
correct one (as well as being, for example, the most prudent).
There may have been real-world religions where the gods were not viewed
as inherently worthy of worship (a trace of this hangs about the Norse
Aesir and the later Classical myths - but perhaps in both cases the
later mythmakers were hostile monks or philosophers), but not many and,
in any event, it's hard not to tell if we're not projecting our own
secularism onto past ages. Whatever your Norseman might have felt about
Odin and the inevitable Doom of the Gods and their dependency on human
and elvish allies against the unstoppable giants, I'm sure the Temple at
Uppsala was a pretty mind-blowing place and if he ran across a gaunt
one-eyed stranger at a crossroads one night he'd be on his knees - and
not just out of the prudential fear of what Odin might _do_ to him.
When I have gods in a FRPG, I want them to be _awesome_. Players should
understand why they get worshipped, should feel a compulsion to worship
them too.
--
Jon Rowe
Valkyrie Magazine
"Mundus Nihil Pulcherrimum"
Jonathan Rowe
> On the contrary; it's the only reasonable explanation for why most
>gods give a crap about what mortal mayflies think about them. Oh, a god
>like Marvel's Thor, who works away at being a goody-twoshoes hero,
>that's one thing, but evil or amoral deities? They don't. Why would
>they have temples? Why would they bother to channel anything to some
>mortal, rather than doing the job themselves, or at the least doing it
>through some select few agents? Since this ISN'T the way most deities
>do things -- most of them seem to want and actively have their priests
>solicit more worshippers -- one must assume they get SOMETHING out of
>representing gains and losses (maybe GO would be a better analogy;
>any official RPG, and it's still the only one that explains a lot of
>things well.
Hmmm. I don't know if there's a word like "anthropomorphism" which
specifically applies to project human qualities and perspectives onto
deities.
In most pagan religions, you don't get the impression that the gods
actually have temple-building on their agenda. Building temples, making
sacrifices, performing rituals: these are things that mortals do to
attract divine attention, a sort of spiritual beacon that says "Notice
us!". There are exceptions: the Egyptians thought that the
construction of temples/tombs was in accordance with the rule of Ma'at
and thus something which pleased the gods in its own right;
Mesoamerican polytheism seemed to posit a human function as "food" for
blood-hungry gods (though that might be a Christian misinterpretation of
what was really going on).
Prosletysing isn't a trait common to pagan religion; and indeed most
pagan cultures worshipped all gods pretty indiscriminately. The
Abrahamic faiths have an evangelising tradition, but then they're
claiming that all the other gods don't really exist: something real-
world or FRPG polytheists don't have on their minds.
Lance
Jonathan Rowe wrote:
> Me too. It might be an acceptable concept for a GM engaged in
> worldbuilding, but it's fatal as an in-character metaphysic for a
> fantasy world, since it ends up making the gods dependent on their
> worshippers, rather than vice versa, thus destroying in one swoop the
> sole spiritual plausibility of worship: that the gods are awesome,
> numinous beings towards whom the response of worship is simply the
> correct one (as well as being, for example, the most prudent).
>
It might be prudent, but it requires an antiheroic breaking of the
will.Personally, I am an agnostic atheist: I would like to believe there are
no gods, but I can't be sure. WHat I can be sure of is that I will not
worship any god in my heart. Prudence, fear, even, may require
paying lip service, shows of obesiance. And there may even be
gods worthy of respect. Most, I would say, by any depiction I have
seen, are not. Worship? Not for me, and for few of my characters.
Respect, fear, awe, amazement, bemusement, fascination... There are
many ways my characters have been affected by manifest deities in
games, but it is rare that I stretch so far as to play a character that
worships one!
> There may have been real-world religions where the gods were not viewed
> as inherently worthy of worship (a trace of this hangs about the Norse
> Aesir and the later Classical myths - but perhaps in both cases the
> later mythmakers were hostile monks or philosophers), but not many and,
> in any event, it's hard not to tell if we're not projecting our own
> secularism onto past ages. Whatever your Norseman might have felt about
> Odin and the inevitable Doom of the Gods and their dependency on human
> and elvish allies against the unstoppable giants, I'm sure the Temple at
> Uppsala was a pretty mind-blowing place and if he ran across a gaunt
> one-eyed stranger at a crossroads one night he'd be on his knees - and
> not just out of the prudential fear of what Odin might _do_ to him.
>
> When I have gods in a FRPG, I want them to be _awesome_. Players should
> understand why they get worshipped, should feel a compulsion to worship
> them too.
>
--
Lance Berg
http://empyre.net
Lance
Jonathan Rowe wrote:
> Prosletysing isn't a trait common to pagan religion; and indeed most
> pagan cultures worshipped all gods pretty indiscriminately. The
> Abrahamic faiths have an evangelising tradition, but then they're
> claiming that all the other gods don't really exist: something real-
> world or FRPG polytheists don't have on their minds.
DO they really? "you shall have no other gods before me" alternately
implies that other gods do exist, but that YHVH demands to be
worshipped first, or perhaps only, but does not deny their existance.
Claims that there are no other gods seem to be a contradictory
interpretation...
Now if this commandment actually mangaed to cut the worship level of
other gods down far enough that they ceased to exist, then latter claims
that Jehovah is the only God would be justified, if you added "any more..."
Of course, this would be belied by the obvious fact that there are more
worshippers of the hindi gods now, for example, then there were humans
on the planet in the year 1AD...
Dan Bongard
Peter Petroff (pet...@ucaqld.com.au) wrote:
: What makes a god a god?
In my current AD&D campaign, gods are manifestations of belief,
over time, in the rightness and morality of and idea or set of ideas.
They grant power to some of their worshippers almost accidentally;
these people, the true believers, are the clerics.
In most cases, gods are representations of people who had, in
life, been worshipped or feared by large numbers of people. The
people themselves die, but the idea of them lives on and gains
strength, becoming a god (in our world, people like Gandhi,
Martin Luther King, JFK, and the like -- cult of personality
types -- would be represented as gods). These gods have personalities
that reflect the personalities their worshippers perceive; of
course it goes without saying that the feedback of this process
tends to strengthen personality traits and, in many cases, push
them to extremes. Example: in life, Jareden was a famous
military figure and leader who saved millions of people from
enslavement and led them to freedom in their own land. Now, Jareden
was probably a flawed person in life, but the people didn't see
him that way; they saw a kind, noble, and virtuous figure who
sought out justice for the oppressed. Over time (after Jareden
is long dead) the idea of this virtuous and just figure becomes
a god, and begins granting power (passively) to his true believers.
People who fervently believe in Jareden's nature begin to be able to
perform miracles, aiding the "just" in battle or healing the weak
and sickly. This leads more people to believe in the power of
this "just and virtuous Jareden", which in turn causes a
strengthening of his/its power, and a strengthening of his/its
personality. The cycle repeats; there are more miracles and
more believers, which encourages more people to believe, etc,
which strengthens "Jareden"'s personality and power, etc. Over
time you wind up with a god that probably bears little to no
resemblance to the person who inspired its "birth".
This can, of course, work both ways -- widespread hatred for a
person and/or belief in their evil nature can also spawn a
god. This can lead to interesting situations, as a person
love in one country may be villified in another. In some
cases (where the person is considered "representative" of a
culture in many people's eyes -- Khomeni is a RL example) a
single god is created; one with multiple natures depending on
who it is dealing with. In other cases multiple gods may be
spawned by the same person. In still other cases (such as Animism)
the "god" is a less anthropomorphic being; the "side-effects"
of miracles and strengthening of personality remain the same,
however.
-- Dan
Stacy Stroud
Glenn E. Meyer wrote:
>
> Most comic book gods are really just aliens or mutated humans or
> psi powered constructs that become sentient.
>
> The New Gods certainly are just aliens.
Probably not, in the original Kirby conception.
True, they live on other planets and employ vastly advanced science
rather than magic, but the forces of New Genesis and Apokolips are in
some sense supposed to represent the cosmic forces of Good and Evil.
They are the direct replacements of the "old" gods, particularly the
Asgardians. (Kirby wrote Thor for Marvel before moving to DC to start
New Gods. Had he stayed at Marvel, he probably would have made it clear
that the New Gods are the post-Ragnarok generation of deities.)
> The Asgardians have had their butt kicked several times by
> space dudes (Galactus, Celestials, various space farers) who
> are clearly technological. Not too god-like.
On the other hand, the Asgardians of mythology (the actual gods that
have been worshipped by humans) were destined to get their butts kicked
by an army of giants.
And while Galactus and the Celestials may be tech-based and spacefaring,
they are also cosmic beings. They, too, were Jack Kirby's work. He
liked massive high-tech machinery.
> Interesting Cthulhu was probably an alien also. I can't recall
> the story's name with the cone shaped early race on earth that
> seized other personalties into their time. They clearly kicked
> Cthulhuoid butt with electrical weapons.
Cthulhu is an alien. His home planet is called Xoth in some sources.
Note however that Great Cthulhu (the high priest of his people, and the
one everyone's so scared of) is most likely a lot more potent than the
average native of Xoth. Others of Chthulhu's race are imprisoned with
him, as I understand it.
Also, there are vastly more powerful things that even Cthulhu worships.
They are pretty much unstoppable by any physical force, including the
implosion of the entire universe.
>
> Last, in a Frank Belknap Long story - they nuked old Cthulhu who
> just boogied back into the sea. Of course, he will be back but
> the true supernatural shouldn't have been affected.
I dunno. As someone noted, nuclear weapons work at the most basic level
of reality yet discovered. All the gods so far mentioned are
sufficiently physical in their makeup that they might at least be
staggered by such a blast.
> bye
Stacy Stroud
sst...@uky.campus.mci.net
Sidhain
Actually Cthulhu is a native of Earth in the Lovecraft works, older than
man..
and it someone thinking of the Fungi of Mi Go?
Sidhain
: > On the contrary; it's the only reasonable explanation for why
most
: >gods give a crap about what mortal mayflies think about them. Oh, a god
: >like Marvel's Thor, who works away at being a goody-twoshoes hero,
: >that's one thing, but evil or amoral deities? They don't. Why would
: >they have temples? Why would they bother to channel anything to some
: >mortal, rather than doing the job themselves, or at the least doing it
: >through some select few agents? Since this ISN'T the way most deities
: >do things -- most of them seem to want and actively have their priests
: >solicit more worshippers -- one must assume they get SOMETHING out of
: >the deal. You could make it something immaterial but still important,
: >of course; a chess game between gods, so to speak, with the worshippers
: >representing gains and losses (maybe GO would be a better analogy;
: >you're conquering spiritual territory). But the "worshippers' belief =
: >power" analogy was one I thought of 25 years ago, before I even played
: >any official RPG, and it's still the only one that explains a lot of
: >things well.
Actually in referance to this it might be why evil god influenc wether than
interact themselves is due to the fact that if they interefere directly so
too might the good gods and the good gods having worhippers can do more not
by power but becasue they have millions of somewhat insignificant beings
running around helping them out. And depending on the universes nature
Good and Evil might just want to Duke it out hth as it were but aren;t
allowed because they would ultimately lose what they are fighting for....ie
it is assuming the want to rule first the world then the universe if you
destroy the world you cannot very well rule it...
ed
The noble erik...@bogus.lexmark.com (Erik Ward) spake on the day of 18
May 98 12:34:05 GMT:
><snipped>
>
>The main forces for evil (Melkor and Sauron) were, IIRC, a greater and lesser
>deity respectively. Thus Gandalf (a demi-god) was no match directly for
>Sauron (a lesser god);
Actually Sauron and Gandalf were both of the same Rank, being Maiar.
Melkor as a Valar WAS greater.
In fact the Balrogs, Saruman, Radagast and the unnamed Blue Wizards are
all Maiar
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk _//// http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/
o_/o /// For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGS,
<*> __\ ///__ Conspiring Rodents and other stuff!
Jon Browne
In article <7q$jDEAwd...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
<valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hmmm. I don't know if there's a word like "anthropomorphism" which
>specifically applies to project human qualities and perspectives onto
>deities.
there is. it's "anthropomorphism." as in "anthropomorphic deism"
--
Jon
Richard Aronson
John wrote:
>
> Yeah, some people call me "God" and I have no idea what their talking
> about.
If they're calling you "God" for your spelling, then they have the deity
they deserve ;-)
Richard Aronson
aka Dinky
PJS
On 19/05/98 04:02, in message <356166...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp
<sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> Erik Ward wrote:
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > A good example for AD&D gods can be found in JRR Tolkien's Middle-earth.
> _The
> > Silmarillion_ has the creation story for Middle-Earth, including the various
> > classification which, amazingly enough, match up well with the AD&D concepts
> > of Greater, Lesser, and Demi-gods and goddesses.
>
> It's better to match them up with the Angels of Christian mythology,
> since that's what they were based on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naah. Anyway: that's an assumption - did Tolkien actually say he based the
Valar on Christian Angels? They're much more like gods, as you are about to
unwittingly argue, below...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > In Middle-Earth, you have the greatest deity (Eru) who created everything,
> > including the other gods. IIRC, there are some number (6 or 7, I think)
> > greater and an equal number of lesser deities (each paired up). Then there
> > are the Istari (The Wizards) who were demi-gods -- Olorin
> (Mithrandir/Gandalf)
> > is one. These were beings whose abilities far exceeded that of mortal men
> > (not even the elves can return from Death, like Gandalf did.)
>
> Actually, anyone can return from death if Mandos says it's okay.
> Mandos rarely does, though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, Mandos is a god and not an angel. Angels only carry out God's orders,
hence their name is from the Greek Aggelos, meaning a messenger. In
Christian/Islamic myth the Archangel Azrael doesn't have the authority to
decide who dies and who can be brought back to life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> They didn't call themselves gods, though (well, Melkor and Sauron
> might have). The terms were the Valar (the Archangel equivalents), and
> the Maiar (the lesser angels.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be more helpful to draw analogies with Algonquian and other North
American myths than with Christian ones, but it's even less likely they were a
direct influence on Tolkien.
PJS
On 19/05/98 08:29, in message <y6kh3CAd...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>,
Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <xp081.2150$0A3.10...@news.itd.umich.edu>, Thomas R
> Scudder <tom...@umich.edu> writes
> >Does anyone else out there loathe, despise, hate, detest the "Gods get
> >WorshipPoints(tm) from their Truly Devout Worshippers(tm) and redeem them
> >for valuable DeityPoints(tm)" schema? It seems to me to be about the
> >lamest/blandest/dullest possible organizing principle for divinities
> >that I can imagine.
>
> Me too. It might be an acceptable concept for a GM engaged in
> worldbuilding, but it's fatal as an in-character metaphysic for a
> fantasy world, since it ends up making the gods dependent on their
> worshippers, rather than vice versa, thus destroying in one swoop the
> sole spiritual plausibility of worship: that the gods are awesome,
> numinous beings towards whom the response of worship is simply the
> correct one (as well as being, for example, the most prudent).
>
> There may have been real-world religions where the gods were not viewed
> as inherently worthy of worship (a trace of this hangs about the Norse
> Aesir and the later Classical myths - but perhaps in both cases the
> later mythmakers were hostile monks or philosophers),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phrase "do ut des" I understand was used about Roman religion. You make
sacrifices to obtain the aid of supernatural agencies. That's it. Worship in
the modern sense doesn't enter into it.
PJS
On 19/05/98 08:38, in message <7q$jDEAwd...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>,
Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Hmmm. I don't know if there's a word like "anthropomorphism" which
> specifically applies to project human qualities and perspectives onto
> deities.
>
> In most pagan religions, you don't get the impression that the gods
> actually have temple-building on their agenda. Building temples, making
> sacrifices, performing rituals: these are things that mortals do to
> attract divine attention, a sort of spiritual beacon that says "Notice
> us!".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> There are exceptions: the Egyptians thought that the
> construction of temples/tombs was in accordance with the rule of Ma'at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no glottal stop in Egyptian, just to nitpick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> and thus something which pleased the gods in its own right;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But doesn't that just make it another, more lasting and noticeable sort of the
same essential action? MAAT implies truthfulness and righteous action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mesoamerican polytheism seemed to posit a human function as "food" for
> blood-hungry gods (though that might be a Christian misinterpretation of
> what was really going on).
>
> Prosletysing isn't a trait common to pagan religion; and indeed most
> pagan cultures worshipped all gods pretty indiscriminately. The
> Abrahamic faiths have an evangelising tradition, but then they're
> claiming that all the other gods don't really exist: something real-
> world or FRPG polytheists don't have on their minds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are now, but this wasn't the case in early Judaism: how could God have
been jealous of what didn't exist? (This fits the "Everything God" category of
AD&D's Complete Priest. Roughly.) Anyway, they weren't evangelists either.
Juergen Hubert
Sidhain wrote:
>
> Actually Cthulhu is a native of Earth in the Lovecraft works, older than
> man..
Not true. There's at least one HPL story (I believe it was "Mountains of
Madness"), that states that he and his spawn came to Earth from
somewhere else. Granted, that was IIRC more than a billion years ago, so
he might qualify for naturalization...
-- Juergen Hubert
ed
The noble P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk (PJS) spake on the day of Wed, 20 May
98 08:50:17 GMT:
>On 19/05/98 04:02, in message <356166...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp
><sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>> Erik Ward wrote:
>> >
>> > <snipped>
>> >
>> > A good example for AD&D gods can be found in JRR Tolkien's Middle-earth.
>> _The
>> > Silmarillion_ has the creation story for Middle-Earth, including the various
>> > classification which, amazingly enough, match up well with the AD&D concepts
>> > of Greater, Lesser, and Demi-gods and goddesses.
>>
>> It's better to match them up with the Angels of Christian mythology,
>> since that's what they were based on.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Naah. Anyway: that's an assumption - did Tolkien actually say he based the
>Valar on Christian Angels? They're much more like gods, as you are about to
>unwittingly argue, below...
Tolkien was a fervent Catholic and Middle Earth reflects this.
Just as the Christian Hierarchy admits to various levels of angels,
Seraphim, Cherubim etc, all under God so the Mythology of Middle-Eart
has ONE god, Ea Illuvatar and ranks of Spirits, the two uppermost being
Valar and Maiar.
remember, that (IIRC) Aule tried to create a new race, the Dwarves, but
could not, he didn't have the power, it took the intervention of Ea to
give them life
Sea Wasp
PJS wrote:
>
> On 19/05/98 04:02, in message <356166...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp
> <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> > Erik Ward wrote:
> > >
> > > <snipped>
> > >
> > > A good example for AD&D gods can be found in JRR Tolkien's Middle-earth.
> > _The
> > > Silmarillion_ has the creation story for Middle-Earth, including the various
> > > classification which, amazingly enough, match up well with the AD&D concepts
> > > of Greater, Lesser, and Demi-gods and goddesses.
> >
> > It's better to match them up with the Angels of Christian mythology,
> > since that's what they were based on.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Naah. Anyway: that's an assumption - did Tolkien actually say he based the
> Valar on Christian Angels?
Yes. He used other sources as well, but the basic creation story is
just a reworking of Genesis. Tolkien was trying to create a mythology
for England, and as a devout Christian wasn't going to use material
that he didn't find acceptable in one sense or another for the creation
myth.
> > Actually, anyone can return from death if Mandos says it's okay.
> > Mandos rarely does, though.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thus, Mandos is a god and not an angel. Angels only carry out God's orders,
And in this case God (Eru) had given them the orders to care for their
creation (Arda) and Mandos was given dominion over the souls of the
dead -- their care and, if necessary, return. Nothing here invalidates
his being an angel; he was doing his job.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Mikel Midnight
> I dunno. As someone noted, nuclear weapons work at the most basic level
> of reality yet discovered. All the gods so far mentioned are
> sufficiently physical in their makeup that they might at least be
> staggered by such a blast.
Well yes, but if we're talking fiction here ...
the Silver Age Superman once flew around quite comfortably in the fury of
the Big Bang (yes, it annoyed me too when I read it, but it's there in
print). He also eats nuclear bombs for breakfast. And he's not even a god
...
It's a recurring (and tiresome) joke in Matt Howarth's cartoons to have
someone declare that something is physically impossible (like breaking out
of a time loop) and then to have Ron Post do it with ease.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
__________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
David R. Klassen
PJS wrote:
> Thus, Mandos is a god and not an angel. Angels only carry out God's orders,
> Christian/Islamic myth the Archangel Azrael doesn't have the authority to
> decide who dies and who can be brought back to life.
only keeps the spirits of the elves who die in his halls. Since elves are
bound to creation (Ea) until the end. When men die they are blessed with the
Gift of Eru and their souls leave the Circles of Ea and join him immediately.
Thus, no humans can return, only elves. So Mandos is an "archangel" who is
only a watcher of the dead elves so they don't go back out into the world.
> It might be more helpful to draw analogies with Algonquian and other North
> American myths than with Christian ones, but it's even less likely they were a
> direct influence on Tolkien.
I think it's pretty clear from his writings and letters that his creation "myth"
and cosmology are based on his Catholic beliefs - one God, but with some of the
Angels able to mess around with the world.
--
David R. Klassen
Department of Astronomy
Center for Radiophysics and Space Research
404 Space Sciences Building
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14853
phone: 607-255-6910
fax: 607-255-9002
http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/staff/klassen/klassen.html
kla...@marswatch.tn.cornell.edu
Sgarre
Mikel Midnight wrote:
>
> It's a recurring (and tiresome) joke in Matt Howarth's cartoons to have
> someone declare that something is physically impossible (like breaking out
> of a time loop) and then to have Ron Post do it with ease.
>
Hey, if he can hide a gun in his nose, I don't doubt his ability to do
anything! That's Ron's purpose in the book: to be unstoppable. I still
find it humorous every time its done!
Jonathan Rowe
In article <3561B463...@success.net>, Lance <emp...@success.net>
writes
>
>
>Jonathan Rowe wrote:
>
>> Prosletysing isn't a trait common to pagan religion; and indeed most
>> pagan cultures worshipped all gods pretty indiscriminately. The
>> Abrahamic faiths have an evangelising tradition, but then they're
>> claiming that all the other gods don't really exist: something real-
>> world or FRPG polytheists don't have on their minds.
>
>implies that other gods do exist, but that YHVH demands to be
>worshipped first, or perhaps only, but does not deny their existance.
>Claims that there are no other gods seem to be a contradictory
>interpretation...
>
Exodus is a human document, not a divine one and the line you quote from
the Decalogue tells us an awful lot about the shaky nature of ancient
Hebrew monotheism. The early Hebrews certainly worshipped a variety of
Semitic gods (hints survive in references to the Elohim in Genesis and
the Heavenly Court in Job) but a particular mountain-dwelling storm god
(apparently known as "El") was predominant.
Post-Moseic Judaism restricted worship to this one god, now known by by
the tetragrammatron YHWH, but for a long time the Hebrews didn't seem to
believe that he was the _only_ god, just that he was _their_ god, the
one they'd made a covenant with, that they were his people.
Jewish theology developed in the Two Kingdoms period to the confident
understanding that YHWH was not just "a" god, but "the" God, that the
other gods had never existed or had been mere evil spirits masquerading
as gods. In a way, what happened was that religious thinking moved to a
new plane: the Jews came to understand that God was purely spirit,
ineffable, impassible, omnipotent etc etc and that none of the old pagan
gods had ever been anything remotely like that. As someone once said,
the plural of "God" is not "gods": there is no plural for "God".
It's difficult to assess how much monotheistic understanding is present
in texts like the Pentateuch because we have no alternative sources for
the state of Judaic religion at the time they describe and we can't tell
how much the texts may have been redacted and revised since then (as is
certainly the case with the opening chapters of Genesis). My take is
that someone like Moses was fairly clearly a towering spiritual genius,
but the majority of the Israelites at the time of Exodus would have been
virtual pagans worshipping Semitic and Egyptian gods indiscriminately.
The commandment in Exodus 20:3 makes a lot of sense in this context, and
for centuries afterwards when the Jews found themselves surrounded by
the tempting paganism of their Semitic neighbours. Modern commentators
give the text a wider interpretation, pointing out how careers, money,
hobbies or drugs could become a "god". I think it's the strength of the
Decalogue that it remains relevent to changing societies.
Blah blah. Sorry, got all involved and had to write something.
Jonathan Rowe
In article <N.052098.015314.00@winwaed>, PJS <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
writes
>The phrase "do ut des" I understand was used about Roman religion. You make
>sacrifices to obtain the aid of supernatural agencies. That's it. Worship in
>the modern sense doesn't enter into it.
I don't think that's entirely true. Certainly the Romans were a very
pragmatic bunch, but in the later period they'd been heavily infected
(at least among the educated classes) by Stoic philosophies. They were
big on superstition, household shrines, family genii, etc, but from an
arrangement of, as you said, soliciting supernatural aid. But on the
other hand, I don't think "worship in the modern sense" was absent from
(say) the Feast of Lupercal or any of the other popular festivals. And
what about the Mystery Religions? OK, conventional Classical polytheism
was pretty moribund, but Classical paganism was still vital and
continued to be well into the Christian period.
Jo Hart
PJS wrote:
>
> > Prosletysing isn't a trait common to pagan religion; and indeed most
> > pagan cultures worshipped all gods pretty indiscriminately. The
> > Abrahamic faiths have an evangelising tradition
> They are now, but this wasn't the case in early Judaism:
It isn't the case in modern day Judaism either. Prospective converts are
traditionally disuaded three times before being allowed to go through
with it.
jo
Lee
I'll give it a crack... Keep in mind, I am no philosopher, and hardly religious.
Peter Petroff wrote:
> <snip>
> What makes a god a god?
>
In the AD&D medium, a god is considered an immortal being - meaning the only way to
truly destroy them is to do it on their own plane. Otherwise, you destroy only
their material form.
> What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
>
It's my understanding that Demi-gods are mortals who have earned favor with one god
or another and been granted advanced powers.
> What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
> between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
>
a powerful demon could be considered a god, but (at least in AD&D) the powerful
demon can be destroyed anywhere. Your confusion seems to be based on trying to make
the real world and the world of 'superheroes' or dungeons and dragons run on the
same track. They are fantasy. But, yes, I'd say Satan would be an evil god in a
role-playing, comic book way..
> What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
> pantheon?
>
Angels are messengers of God, and without Him are powerless. I imagine every god of
every pantheon has some sort of 'angel' to do it's dirtywork..
> Not meaning "God" or your personal deity, I mean no insult or anything,
> I'm just genuinely curious as to the general world's opinion. Partly, I
> want to get this straight in my own head. Partly (and all the
> rec.games.frpers will know what I'm on about) I'm hoping to design a
> cosmos for a campaign also...
>
> If anybody would care to mail me at mailto:pet...@ucaqld.com.au with
> clearly presented opinions or facts, I would GREATLY appreciate it...
>
> Peter P.
> http://busch.ucaqld.com.au/~peterp
> mailto:pet...@ucaqld.com.au
--
No matter where ya go, there ya are. - Buckaroo Banzai
http://eol.grolen.com/sthrncmf <--cheap plug
Sea Wasp
David R. Klassen wrote:
>
> PJS wrote:
> > Thus, Mandos is a god and not an angel. Angels only carry out God's orders,
> > hence their name is from the Greek Aggelos, meaning a messenger. In
> > Christian/Islamic myth the Archangel Azrael doesn't have the authority to
> > decide who dies and who can be brought back to life.
> Actually, not *anyone* can return from the dead by the word of Mandos. Mandos
> only keeps the spirits of the elves who die in his halls. Since elves are
> bound to creation (Ea) until the end. When men die they are blessed with the
> Gift of Eru and their souls leave the Circles of Ea and join him immediately.
> Thus, no humans can return, only elves.
According to the Silmarillion, this is not necessarily the case. What
IS stated is that the spirits of the Elves dwell in a place which is
NOT the same place that the spirits of Men go. It is not stated,
however, whether Men have a SEPARATE part of Mandos' halls, or whether
they go straight to Eru.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Ero...@aol.com
In article <3562DF...@wizvax.net>,
sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>
> PJS wrote:
> >
> > On 19/05/98 04:02, in message <356166...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp
> > <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Actually, anyone can return from death if Mandos says it's okay.
> > > Mandos rarely does, though.
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Thus, Mandos is a god and not an angel. Angels only carry out God's
orders,
>
> And in this case God (Eru) had given them the orders to care for their
> creation (Arda) and Mandos was given dominion over the souls of the
> dead -- their care and, if necessary, return. Nothing here invalidates
> his being an angel; he was doing his job.
It would be more accurate to say that any *Elf* could return from death if
Mandos says it's OK. But mortal Men are different: Mandos had to get special
permission from Eru to let Beren return from death.
Of course this all supports your larger point that Mandos is an angel
operating under orders from God (Eru).
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com (mail drop)
Er...@ix.netcom.com (surfboard)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Michele Ellington
Frank Sronce (fsr...@myriad.net) wrote:
> >> What separates a god from a demi-god, or a Titan or a "Super-hero"?
In my cosmology, a god has worshippers. A demi-god has god-like
powers but few or no worshippers. A Titan is a specific group
of beings, like Olympians, so doesn't really belong on the
heirarchy. But I would identify Titans as demi-gods--my vague
recollection says they were not worshipped. Taking "superhero"
as a power level (rather than a job description, which it also
is), a superhero is an otherwise regular person with great powers,
who is not worshipped and has a more limited power set than a
demi-god. The line between superhero and demi-god is pretty vague.
Which is Hercules, for example? I would use bloodlines and character
background to make the judgement call, which would make the son of
Zeus a demigod. What about the Silver Surfer? Tough one, I'd
again go with demi-god, because ties to the power cosmic sounds
like drawing directly out of the "god-pool". Captain Metropolis
from the Watchmen (I think that was his name) has some really major
powers, I'd bet on him against the Surfer. But I'd still call him
a superbeing rather than a god, because his origin was a lab accident,
as I recall. Phoenix? A demi-god possessing a mortal's body.
> Generally "omniscience". The ability to see the future, the past, to
> look at a person and see their soul, etc. A god's physical body is his
> least powerful part. For all of the above, their body is usually their most
> powerful part.
I don't go with the "omniscience" thing, because that is a pretty
modern perspective on a god. The old gods were not viewed in this
way, they were more like extremely powerful humans, or
anthropomorphized elements of nature. For example, I don't think
Pele (sp?) the Hawaiian volcano goddess, was thought of as
being omnicient, able to see your soul, that sort of thing. Or
Thor. Or Artemis.
> >> What separates a powerful demon from an "Evil God"? Or the difference
> >>between (e.g.) Satan and an evil god, Satan's not a "god", yes?
Certainly Satan is a god, by just about any definition you want
to apply. He is simply the dark, or "evil" side of the coin.
Modern religion is much more prone to a black and white view
of morality and religion, so we have split our pantheons so
far that the members seem wholly unrelated.
I would use the same heirarchy of power definitions regardless
of whether the character is "good", "evil" or a mixture of both.
Satan is a god, because he is worshipped and seen as being on
a similar power level with the dominant force of "good". Demons
and angels are demi-gods. Their origins are mystical/religious
in nature, they have superhuman powers, but are not generally
worshipped individually.
> >> What separates (e.g.) a Judaeo-Christian angel from a god of any other
> >>pantheon?
> Um, an Angel is generally a lesser figure- a messenger. They don't
> possess the same awesome abilities, and they aren't dependent upon belief-
> or if they are, it's on a much smaller scale (like an angel who could only
> affect believers).
I agree here. In fact, I often make my gods very dependent on the
belief of their followers. It's a common theme in our games. One
of my player characters is a forgotten god, his failing powers have left
him with power levels similar to that of your average superhero.
Another GM ran a Fantasy Heroes campaign in which the villain was
attempting to unseat the primary goddess of the elves and take her
place in the pantheon of gods. To that end, he was waging a war
of extinction against the elves, to break her base of power.
> >> Not meaning "God" or your personal deity, I mean no insult or anything,
> >>I'm just genuinely curious as to the general world's opinion. Partly, I
> >>want to get this straight in my own head. Partly (and all the
> >>rec.games.frpers will know what I'm on about) I'm hoping to design a
> >>cosmos for a campaign also...
> >>
> >> If anybody would care to mail me at mailto:pet...@ucaqld.com.au with
> >>clearly presented opinions or facts, I would GREATLY appreciate it...
> >>
> >>Peter P.
I like the Norse mythos myself. What a bunch of baudy revellers and
enthusiastic fighters. I would like to work up the energy to run
a Viking campaign with much involvement of the Norse pantheon.
Hawaiian mythology also has some really fascinating stuff. I don't
know too much about it, but it seems that our (rather simple minded,
IMO) black and white views of good and evil are not at all similar
to the complex and frightening island gods. Read Dan Simmons'
Fires of Eden for a sampler.
Kelly
Joe Jefferson wrote in message <35607C...@primenet.com>...
>Chris Baile wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 18 May 1998 14:23:49 -0400, "David R. Klassen"
>> <kla...@marswatch.tn.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Dr. Faust wrote:
>> >> Satan's a God in the Christian religion but in the Jewish hes not.
>> >> Angel's are Saint's in the Christian Religion and are MESSENGERS.
>> >Whoa! A couple *big* misconceptions here! Satan is neither a God, nor
a
>> >god, in *any* christian faith. He is a fallen angel. Angels and saints
>> >are be no means even similar. Saints are the manifestations of human
souls
>> >in the afterlife - those in heaven at least. Angels are a totally
different
>> >being. Modern fiction is mostly to blame for this confusion however -
how
>> >many movies have we seen people who die having to work a bit to "become
an
>> >angel"?
>> >
>> >--
>> >David R. Klassen
>> > Department of Astronomy
>> > Center for Radiophysics and Space Research
>> > 404 Space Sciences Building
>> > Cornell University
>> > Ithaca NY 14853
>> > phone: 607-255-6910
>> > fax: 607-255-9002
>> >http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/staff/klassen/klassen.html
>> >kla...@marswatch.tn.cornell.edu
>>
>> But in D & D, demons and devils are immortal beings with alot of
>> power, and the very powerful ones are, for all intent and purpose,
>> demi-gods. Angels are essentially the opposite of demons and devils,
>> so therefore the ultra-powerful ones could be demi-gods. And like in
>> Greek/Roman mythology, there are demi-gods that fulfill the wishes or
>> perform tasks for the greater gods... i.e. Mercury is the messenger of
>> the gods, another was the blacksmith of the gods. Likewise, the
>> Christian version of an angel or demon could be a "lackey" for the
>> more powerful of their kind. Saints in the afterlife could be
>> considered more powerful angels than others, who were simply "good
>> enough" to get into heaven.
>>
>> For more information on the various gods, see if you can get your
>> mitts on the old D & D Dieties and Demigods... they have write-ups for
>> numerous gods and their minions from several different pantheons. Also
>> consult the first edition D & D Monster Manuals for the different
>> devils and demons, as well as creatures like Devas (ultra-powerful
>> angelic creatures, used by usually good-aligned gods as messengers or
>> enforcers).
>>
>> ------
>> "I'd like to clear this up before we bring out Carrot
>> Top. I'm not `down' with Carrot Top. I don't `have his
>> back', and under no circumstances will I `Give him
>> his props.'"
>> - Craig Kilborn, The Daily Show
>>
>> "What is fun? Why is it colored pink? And where does
>> it go when Jesse Helms comes around?"
>> - Author unknown
>>
>> "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously
>> considered as a means of communication.The device is inherently of no
>> value to us." --Western Union internal memo, 1876.
>
>
>ROFL! Sorry, but I'd hardly condsider D&D a valid source on the nature
>of deities. If you want to consider Satan a god you might want to make
>sure there are no Christians, Jews, or Moslems in your gaming group, as
>one of the basic principles of all three religions is that there is only
>*One* God. Although Satan is conceived of differently in these three
>religions, they all agree that he is *not* a god. For evil deities you
>would be far better off drawing from a different religious/mythological
>source.
>
>--
>
>Joe of Castle Jefferson
>http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
>Site updated May 8th, 1998.
>
>"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
>poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
>hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
While Christianity likes to claim it is monotheistic (has only one god), it
really has at least two: God, and His son, Jesus Christ. However much modern
theologians claim they are merely aspects of the same being, the original
Christian conception was very likely that of two divine beings, one the
Father, and one the Son. This polytheism was probably one of the reasons
Christianity became a major world force where Judaism failed to do: it was
more familiar to the pagan polytheists around it.
Kelly
Erik Ward wrote in message <35602...@usenet.lexmark.com>...
><snipped>
>
>A good example for AD&D gods can be found in JRR Tolkien's Middle-earth.
_The
>Silmarillion_ has the creation story for Middle-Earth, including the
various
>classification which, amazingly enough, match up well with the AD&D
concepts
>of Greater, Lesser, and Demi-gods and goddesses.
>
>In Middle-Earth, you have the greatest deity (Eru) who created everything,
>including the other gods. IIRC, there are some number (6 or 7, I think)
>greater and an equal number of lesser deities (each paired up). Then there
>are the Istari (The Wizards) who were demi-gods -- Olorin
(Mithrandir/Gandalf)
>is one. These were beings whose abilities far exceeded that of mortal men
>(not even the elves can return from Death, like Gandalf did.)
>
>The main forces for evil (Melkor and Sauron) were, IIRC, a greater and
lesser
>deity respectively. Thus Gandalf (a demi-god) was no match directly for
>Sauron (a lesser god); although both could be defeated/destroyed, in the
>manner of the Greek and Norse gods.
>
>the Nightshade,
>Erik Ward
>
Wrong on one point, I'm afraid. The elves could return from the Halls of
Mandos, which was a sort of afterlife. In the Silmarilion, it says Finrod
Felagund, who died, was now living in Valimar with his father Finarfin,
because he was so brave before he died.
andrew (MELBOURNE)
Kelly (ckh...@sk.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: While Christianity likes to claim it is monotheistic (has only one god), it
: really has at least two: God, and His son, Jesus Christ. However much modern
: theologians claim they are merely aspects of the same being, the original
: Christian conception was very likely that of two divine beings, one the
: Father, and one the Son. This polytheism was probably one of the reasons
: Christianity became a major world force where Judaism failed to do: it was
: more familiar to the pagan polytheists around it.
Monotheism was a trend when Christianity came to prominence through
Constantine in the Roman Empire. It was its similarity to other
religions, like Zoastraianism (sp) and the worship of Mithras and Sol
Invictus, that was most responsible for its spread. (Constantine
actually played up the similarity between the religions.)
--
Andrew Melbourne, melb...@sas.upenn.edu, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~melbourn
-->>THEY DON'T HAVE SPORKS IN LONDON, BUT THEY *DO* HAVE KNORKS!<<--
"I just looked at your page, and you're just another guy. I'd never
remember that face if I met you. Go get your face hideously scarred or
something, bud." -- Jim Smith, rac'er, Tastee Fruit Pie spokesman
Kelly
Tom Schuler
Kelly wrote in message <6k4hbq$2l...@dragon.sk.sympatico.ca>...
>
>While Christianity likes to claim it is monotheistic (has only one god), it
>really has at least two: God, and His son, Jesus Christ.
You're oversimplifying. Some christian religions assert that Jesus is God, but
not all of them. And what about the Holy Ghost? The catholics consider God to
be a trinity. And that all three are in fact one. This sort of logical
contradiction is a favorite among mystics of various cuts and stripes.
>However much modern
>theologians claim they are merely aspects of the same being, the original
>Christian conception was very likely that of two divine beings, one the
>Father, and one the Son. This polytheism was probably one of the reasons
>Christianity became a major world force where Judaism failed to do: it was
>more familiar to the pagan polytheists around it.
I think it was due to the fact that the most powerful empire in the world at
the time embraced it as the state religion. Conversion at sword point has
worked for both christianity under the Romans and islam under the Ottomans.
Jonathan Rowe
In article <dJq91.1040$3q6.7...@news.teleport.com>, Tom Schuler
<d...@teleport.com> writes
>
>Kelly wrote in message <6k4hbq$2l...@dragon.sk.sympatico.ca>...
>>
>>While Christianity likes to claim it is monotheistic (has only one god), it
>>really has at least two: God, and His son, Jesus Christ.
>
>You're oversimplifying. Some christian religions assert that Jesus is God, but
>not all of them. And what about the Holy Ghost? The catholics consider God to
>be a trinity. And that all three are in fact one. This sort of logical
>contradiction is a favorite among mystics of various cuts and stripes.
>
Hmpf. For 2000 years the Christian tradition (as witnessed in the
Creeds and the Catholic and Orthodox theologians) have asserted that God
is one Being in whom three Persons exist and that in Jesus a human
nature was taken up into the eternal life of the Son. Ba-boom. Finit.
A few pre-Reformation heretics or post-Reformation schismatics have
defined things differently, but you're talking about fringe outfits when
you're citing "Christians who don't believe Jesus was God" or
"Christians who don't believe in the Trinity". I think it's slightly
misleading to refer to Trinitarian doctrine as a "logical
contradiction". When you're trying to articulate modes of existence
outside of time and place, inevitably you'll formulate things in terms
which could not possibly be applied meaningfully to mundane situations.
This doesn't mean that theologians or quantum physicists shouldn't try,
however.
>>However much modern
>>theologians claim they are merely aspects of the same being, the original
>>Christian conception was very likely that of two divine beings, one the
>>Father, and one the Son. This polytheism was probably one of the reasons
>>Christianity became a major world force where Judaism failed to do: it was
>>more familiar to the pagan polytheists around it.
This is almost certainly not the case. The only evidence we have of
"the original Christian conception" is some of the Pauline Epistles and
he is quite clear about monotheism. In any event, monotheism was the
"spirit of the age", with everyone signing up as metuentes (Judaising
pagans), Stoics, Neo-Platonists, Mithraists, etc. If anything "sold"
Christianity to the masses, it was the combination of Judaic monotheism
with Hellenic mysticism. Dualism was never on the agenda.
>
>I think it was due to the fact that the most powerful empire in the world at
>the time embraced it as the state religion. Conversion at sword point has
>worked for both christianity under the Romans and islam under the Ottomans.
>
>
That came later, and Christianity exploded onto the world stage not with
imperial backing but under state persecution. When Constantine finally
adopted Christianity as the state religion, he didn't ban paganism. But
obviously, Christianity became the religion to adopt if you wanted to
get on, move in court circles, meet the right people, etc. The Roman
Empire didn't convert anyone at swordpoint, as far as I'm aware. Nor,
in its early stages, did Islam: conquered territories were left to
practice their own religions, but tempting tax-breaks persuaded lots of
people to switch to Islam. There have been plenty of unscrupulous or
downright atrocious goings-on in the history of all the major world
religions, but this "Big Religions Which Convert At Swordpoint" myth can
be overdone at times.
Alex Kashko
On Fri, 22 May 1998 12:55:21 -0600, "Kelly" <ckh...@sk.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>While Christianity likes to claim it is monotheistic (has only one god), it
>theologians claim they are merely aspects of the same being, the original
>Christian conception was very likely that of two divine beings, one the
>Father, and one the Son. This polytheism was probably one of the reasons
>Christianity became a major world force where Judaism failed to do: it was
>more familiar to the pagan polytheists around it.
I wonder then how the concept of the holy sporit would fit
into the idea that there were originally three gods in Christianity.
Gary
Fred Jyrome
You're a shmuck
ajlja
Gary Johnson wrote:
>
> (Dennes) (octi...@spamcontrol.geocities.com) wrote:
> :
> : so if jesus is god, then satan is god, because jesus is satan.
> : you can't have it both ways saying satan is not a god but jesus is.
> : jesus and satan are merely the modern version of the mythological
> : twins horus and set, the reason they're twins is that they
> : complement each other and make a united deity. satan was merely
> : the main competitor while jehovah was the main god so in the hebrew
> : writings they obviously are gonna try to put him down and say he's
> : not a god, but other records have surfaced which clarify the matter.
>
> This seems an odd argument to me; what other records are you talking
> about? Satan ("The Adversary") is not God's equal in Job; he isn't God
> the Father or Jesus' equal in the Gospels. It's only in somewhat dodgy
> and rather late books like the Revelation that an evil entity battles the
> armies of the Lord of Hosts, and let's not forget which side wins that
> one. The principal competitor for the hearts and souls of the ancient
> Hebrews were pre-existing Canaanite deities like Baal and Asherah, not an
> entity that doesn't appear in the Bible until the books written when the
> uniqueness of God has become an accepted part of the intellectual and
> religious landscape of the Jews.
>
> Yours,
>
> Gary Johnson
and yet gary, in Hebrew the word for messiah (mashiach) not only has
the same root as the word
serpent (nachash) but both total 358. adam means earth and is made from
the earth in the bible.
Yet it is always good that triumphs over evil in the bible because
becuse this is the ideal in man.
I like to think that If jesus is the soul in man (imagination) then the
devil is the
sensual in man, his misguided vision of material existence, and all of
his natural impulses. (not to make these evil as is done often in the
bible) I think we can be a composite of both.
the devil and jesus certainly seem like polar opposites, though both are
rebls who are cast out and cursed upon. they are perhaps our way of
giving purpose to the good and evil that is this life. of man's
imprisionment to the laws of duality.
In the garden of eden there was no knowledge of good or evil, I like to
think this the goal of man according to the bible, to attempt to
transcend our linear landscape by realizing g&e to be states and not
eternal realities like our souls. selfcultivation, overcoming oneself,
mastering your environment and realizing his direct connectedness and
debt to everything everything.
life goes on whether we live or die
i have yet to imagine whether we are the most gifted or cursed
of god's creatures...
"the christian resolve to find the world evil and ugly has made the
world evil and ugly" -- nietzsche
Joe Jefferson
Hunh? Have you ever *read* the Bible? What you wrote seems to be about
180 degrees away from what it actually says. You're certainly free to
develop your own philosophy of good and evil, but why claim that it's
based on the Bible when it clearly isn't?
Richard F Hall
>Peter Petroff wrote:
>> What makes a god a god?
Proving negative propositions and atheism
This post is from sci.philosophy.meta
It seems to me that in this thread of debate we have spent
more time with "proving negative propositions" than with
atheism. In order to have a negative proposition as an atheist,
it would be more clear if we could define God. Although it has
been argued that this is not necessary: if something doesn’t
exist, how can one define it, it would still be nice if it were
possible. In this effort, I would like to promote a historical
perspective.
As we look at the history of understanding we can find
that as far back as three thousand years ago rational people
tried to test the repeatability and reliability of religious ceremony.
In their minds, proper results followed properly performed rituals.
If the desired results did not follow a given ritual, the belief
was that the ritual was not done correctly. We see instances
where the rituals are described in great detail; down to the type
of cloth the priests wore. Their belief was that God was in
direct control of man's destiny. They did not understand that
God's control worked through the laws of conservation,
entropy, and gravity.
They believed that God would protect good people who
went through the proper ceremonies of allegiance to him.
The early people understood that there were times when
things went well with them and they tried to record the
situation accurately. When things went wrong, they believed
that it was because they had sinned against God. They
went back and examined their memories and records, and
tried to compare what was happening during good times
and bad times. Sometimes the differences eluded them,
therefore, they concluded that they were in some way
sinners unbeknownst to themselves. Another possibility
that occurred to them was that something in their ceremony
was not done properly and that undermined God's confidence
in their discipline and allegiance, therefore, they were being
punished and trained. They tried to do their rites exactly
alike each time, being critical of mistakes and omissions.
If the ancient writers would be asked if they believed in magic
in the sense that they were ignoring the laws of Nature, they
would have denied it. They thought their expectations were
justified in reality. They never heard of the laws of conservation,
entropy, and gravity, and to them events occurred according
to God's will. It may be pointed out here that God's will is
now understood to work through the laws of Nature. In other
words God's will and the laws of Nature are equated.
Beginning of dialectic materialism
All such things were recorded, studied, and thought about.
Progress was made, enlightenment spread, and they were
proud of it. As we now understand, the consistency was
never perfect, no matter what they did. When all seemed to
fail, some few people were discouraged enough to try to
go it alone, denying that there was a God. In the old days,
when everyone believed in many Gods, the doubters who
believed in none were polyatheists. When people had
thought more about it and believed in only one God, the
doubters were simply called atheists. Their thoughts were
of dialectic materialism, but they still did not know
about the laws of Nature, and their conclusions were as
magic as ever, maybe, even more so.
In the final analysis, the scientist is still a philosopher. To
put it in the words of T.D.Jakes (who happens to be a theist)
“you don’t know your wife.. you don’t know your neighbor..
There are many, many things that are a mystery to you..
what makes you think you know God?” In other words,
There are still boundaries of the unknown. The purpose
of Realistic Idealism is to suggest a philosophy that will
not cripple our efforts to use science and philosophy
to our best advantage.
Gary Johnson
Kelly (ckh...@sk.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: While Christianity likes to claim it is monotheistic (has only one god),
: it really has at least two: God, and His son, Jesus Christ. However much
: modern theologians claim they are merely aspects of the same being, the
: original Christian conception was very likely that of two divine beings,
: one the Father, and one the Son.
"Original"? For what it's worth, the trinitarian formulations (early
fourth century onwards) don't try to merge the Father and the Son into one
entity, but assert (i) that there is one God and (ii) that the substance
(ousia) of God is expressed through three images (hypostasis), or persons.
The various early heresies emphasise either the unity or the diversity of
God more than the other, but what has become orthodox Christianity
avoids adopting either position (making it more inclusive, in a
sense).
It's worth noting that the Patripassians of the second century argued that
the Father and the Son were the same being, i.e. God, and that the
differences between the two modes of God were insignificant. I've always
had the impression that the earlier heresies deny the diversity of God by
ignoring the humanity of Jesus, and that the heresies that create
distinctions between the Trinity come to prominence from the third century
onwards.
: This polytheism was probably one of the reasons Christianity became a
: major world force where Judaism failed to do: it was more familiar to
: the pagan polytheists around it.
But the Christians were always noted as a cult that refused to acknowledge
any God other than their own--a distinctly Jewish thing in the ancient
world. The Jews weren't persecuted for this obstinancy because their
religious beliefs were ancient, and the Romans respected old practices;
the Christians were persecuted because they were identified as a cult
practicing new ways of thinking, and the Romans distrusted new things just
as much as they revered old things.
Also, the appeal of Christianity lay in the salvific rewards for belief in
the divinity. This put Christianity in the same category as other
"mystery religions" of the Roman Principate, most of which revolved around
the worship of a single deity. It's not as if Christianity had to be
internally polytheistic to fit into the religious landscape of the
Mediterranean world.
Yours,
Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson
Fitz
Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A well-considered and readable analysis of early Hebrew
>religious practise... snipped due to lavk of space
That, my friend, was far too balanced and informative for Usenet. If
you're not careful, you'll find your posting privileges revoked until
you can play nasty like all the other kiddies.
=========================================================
And remember, kiddies, never procrastinate today when you
can procrastinate tomorrow.
=========================================================
Fitz of Fitz Hall
'81 Virago 750
xf...@xsynapse.net.nz
http://www.synapse.net.nz/fitz
<<To reply via e-mail, remove any "x" you see in my address>>
aleph
Gary <g...@lineone.net> wrote in article
<01bd86a4$3879b220$fce3abc3@gary>...
Keep your schizotypal ass in alt.magick, Croweley-wanna-be.
Richard F Hall
REAL MAGIC
Everything can be explained by magic, if nothing else. Magic is every-
thing we don’t know. Magic dispels the things we find depressing.
Magic is a lottery. Everyone awaits the showering of wonderful gifts
from a magical somewhere unknown. We are never sure when the
next partial payment is coming, but we all continue to wish. Magic
frees us from the limitations of our own space and time. There is good
magic, and there is bad magic. Magic astounds us when we see it!
Yet, sometimes we expect it. What ever should we do without magic?
Magic explains everything! Or so it seems. Surely, isn’t television magic?
Moving pictures magically appear from thin air. And the automobile?
Is there a person alive who knows enough or has all the tools to actually
make an automobile? The rubber tires, the plastic dashboard, the safety-
glass windows, the engine? How about the child who boards a jetliner
and exclaims, “This won’t fly, Its too big!” Magic has always existed.
Television, automobiles, and airplanes are new; yet, we have looked to
fortune tellers, witch doctors, leprechauns, and gods for magic as far
back as people can remember. Perhaps we knew magic even further
back than that. Magic like we have never known since. Magic that
keeps us waiting for its return.
This story begins in another place, far from earth. This place is not
known to us, for we see nothing when we look at it. This place is as
real as magic will allow. This story has no beginning or end. It’s
part of a process. Some will reason one thing or another, but they
are all guessing. The chicken and the egg have always been together.
The real question is not “which came first”, but, “When did the egg
end up outside the chicken?” Only some things are known by some,
and other things are known by others. One thing that we do know is
that the people in this story are real, as unique and different, or the
same, as any others. This story begins, not at the beginning, but at a
point, in this place far away.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
Philosophy for the 21st Century
sci.philosophy.meta
Shane
On Sat, 23 May 1998 23:43:13 GMT, "Gary " <g...@lineone.net> wrote:
>If you want to discuss real magick principles then Email me on
>g...@online.net
This is the sort of mentally unstable person that gives RPGs a bad
name.
Dude, its just "make believe."
And stay away from your dad's gun collection and the neighborhood
kids.
Dave Brohman
Gary (g...@lineone.net) wrote:
> If you want to discuss real magick principles then Email me on
> g...@online.net
No. Get lost punk.
Tom Schuler
In article <35674E...@primenet.com>, Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>Hunh? Have you ever *read* the Bible?
Have you ever read the list of newsgroups this thread is posted to? The only
appropriate one is sci.philosophy.meta.
If you guys want to thump bibles at each other, take it out of the other
newsgroups. Failure to cooperate will result in me calling you names and
stuff.
Gregory D. Teed
Gary (g...@lineone.net) wrote:
: If you want to discuss real magick principles then Email me on
: g...@online.net
Play fantasy; don't live it, ok?
- dglas (The Rational Fringe)
Sea Wasp
Kenneth Scott wrote:
>
> I would just like to point out: Discussing Religions (except ancient
> cultures/ mythologies) can be a very....um... dangerous thing to do. I've
> seen it erupt into flames, threats and downright nastiness on other NG's. I
> just wanted to warn everyone :) I'm sure most of you know this already.
> How 'bout we keep the discussion to ancient/dead mythologies/ pantheons and
> games supplements instead of current ones?
Because (1) there are game supplements that assume some of the nondead
mythologies, and (2) if a person can't deal with the fact that other
people don't believe as they do, they need to get a grip. I see all
religions as either equally valid or equally fantasy, depending on how
one views it. Certainly I see nothing to make me view Christianity any
differently than the religion of my forefathers (Odin, Thor, Balder,
etc) or those of Ancient Greece. I will therefore discuss them, in game
context, in precisely the same way.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;;
_Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at http://www.hyperbooks.com
Kenneth Scott
I would just like to point out: Discussing Religions (except ancient
cultures/ mythologies) can be a very....um... dangerous thing to do. I've
seen it erupt into flames, threats and downright nastiness on other NG's. I
just wanted to warn everyone :) I'm sure most of you know this already.
How 'bout we keep the discussion to ancient/dead mythologies/ pantheons and
games supplements instead of current ones?
It would be a sad state of affairs if people started flaming each other over
something as personal as religious belief.
On rec.games.miniatures.warhammer, a few months ago, it got very ugly with
athiest, christian, pagan, moslem, satanists etc. ripping each other apart
about the whole thing.
Just trying to head this of at the pass :-)
ON TOPIC: Rifts: Pantheons of the Megaverse had some interesting writeups
for various pantheons/ personalities. Also, GURPS Religion is a good
gamer's source of information for learning about and making up religious
characters/cults/organizations/histories etc. I highly recommend it!
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
- Nietzsche
Remove the NoSpam from my address to reply...
unless of course, you are a spammer :)
mad...@trip.net
In article <realistic.1...@seanet.com>,
real...@seanet.com (Richard F Hall) wrote:
>
> REAL MAGIC
>
> Everything can be explained by magic, if nothing else.
I tried this line on my car insurance company. Didn't work.
Magic is every-
> thing we don’t know. Magic dispels the things we find depressing.
Like the Spice Girls? President Clinton? Lite Beer? ;)
> Magic is a lottery.
Meaning everyone throws their money into it with no hope of gain? Yep.
Everyone awaits the showering of wonderful gifts
> from a magical somewhere unknown.
Ahhh, Crowley's "Magicikal Pinata Theory" yes, I know it well.
Magic
> frees us from the limitations of our own space and time. There is good
> magic, and there is bad magic.
Bad magic! BAAAAAD magic! <rowf! whine, whine...>
> Magic astounds us when we see it!
Magick makes us blow Pepsi from our mundane, unenlightened nostrils.
> Yet, sometimes we expect it. What ever should we do without magic?
Learn to play a REAL game? ;D
> Magic explains everything! Or so it seems. Surely, isn’t television magic?
I thought it was the little elves that live inside.
> Moving pictures magically appear from thin air. And the automobile?
> Is there a person alive who knows enough or has all the tools to actually
> make an automobile? The rubber tires, the plastic dashboard, the safety-
> glass windows, the engine?
The Playboy Bunny air freshener? The Fuzzy Dice? Surely this is the highest
order of sorcery!
How about the child who boards a jetliner
> and exclaims, “This won’t fly, Its too big!” Magic has always existed.
They *don't* fly. It's part of the same conspiracy that faked the Apollo Moon
Landing, the Holocaust, and President Reagan.
> Television, automobiles, and airplanes are new; yet, we have looked to
> fortune tellers, witch doctors, leprechauns, and gods for magic as far
> back as people can remember.
Or at least the '60s. 'This some goooood shiiiit.'
Perhaps we knew magic even further
> back than that. Magic like we have never known since. Magic that
> keeps us waiting for its return.
Keeps your whites whiter, and your colors brighter!
> This story begins in another place, far from earth. This place is not
> known to us, for we see nothing when we look at it.
Much like local government.
This place is as
> real as magic will allow. This story has no beginning or end. It’s
> part of a process.
Much like "Twin Peaks."
Some will reason one thing or another, but they
> are all guessing. The chicken and the egg have always been together.
> The real question is not “which came first”, but, “When did the egg
> end up outside the chicken?”
When the farmer had enough of the chicken's crap.
Only some things are known by some,
> and other things are known by others.
Yeah, that's what my guidance couselor told me. I majored in Journalism.
Whatta schmuck.
One thing that we do know is
> that the people in this story are real, as unique and different, or the
> same, as any others.
Their names have been changed to protect the innocent.
This story begins, not at the beginning, but at a
> point, in this place far away.
So what does Quentin Tarantino have to do with this?
Jay Knioum, Bored to Tears
The Mad Afro
Mike Markovich
In article <01bd86a4$3879b220$fce3abc3@gary>, "Gary " <g...@lineone.net> wrote:
>If you want to discuss real magick principles then Email me on
>g...@online.net
magic is, in the classical d&d world, literally technology.
the original 1970s campaign featured magic items that were all taken right
out of star trek, such as the <tricorder,> or modern reality [a swamp
hovercraft].
this has been one of the more popular themes of d&d ever since.
--
please email reply.
mark...@io.com P.O.B. 49901 Austin TX 78765
Alan D Kohler
On Mon, 25 May 1998 00:00:05 -0700,
<dftflngr@DON'TSENDTHISINFO.crl.com> (octinomos) wrote:
>@ : so if jesus is god, then satan is god, because jesus is satan.
>@ : you can't have it both ways saying satan is not a god but jesus is.
>@ : jesus and satan are merely the modern version of the mythological
>@ : twins horus and set, the reason they're twins is that they
>@ : complement each other and make a united deity.
Excuse me for stepping in where I may be missing the context, but I
was always under the imprssion that the parallel and equal concept in
modern monotheism came from persian mythology originally; in religions
prior to Zoraostranism (sp?), there was never an implied equality or
balance between "good" and "evil" divine mythical figures.
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
New on my RPG Pages(3/6/98):
SAGE free net SFRPG system!
General: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
SF: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/SFRPG.html
Jonathan Rowe
I would just like to point out: Discussing Religions (except ancient
cultures/ mythologies) can be a very....um... dangerous thing to do.
I've seen it erupt into flames, threats and downright nastiness on other
NG's. I just wanted to warn everyone :) I'm sure most of you know
this already.
How 'bout we keep the discussion to ancient/dead mythologies/ pantheons
and games supplements instead of current ones?
In article <-25059800...@a138019.san1.as.crl.com>, dftflngr@DON'TSE
NDTHISINFO.crl.com replies
>How about i just killfile you and don't have to deal with this bullshit...
>
>FUCK YOU TELLING ME WHAT TO FUCKING WRITE OR NOT WRITE ASS WIPE BITCH!
Wow. I bet Kenneth didn't expect a reply like _that_ when he posted his
modest little plea for a more limited and less inflammatory discussion.
Never a dull moment on alt.chip.on.shoulder
Joe Jefferson
(octinomos) wrote:
>
> @ Hunh? Have you ever *read* the Bible? What you wrote seems to be about
> @ 180 degrees away from what it actually says. You're certainly free to
> @ develop your own philosophy of good and evil, but why claim that it's
> @ based on the Bible when it clearly isn't?
>
> OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE.
>
> IF IT HAD BEEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOUR POST.
>
> SAY HELLO TO MY KILLFILE, IDIOT.
Whatever.
Gary Johnson
First (Dennes) (octi...@spamcontrol.geocities.com) wrote some stuff
I've now snipped.
Then, I wrote some stuff that I've snipped as well.
And finally, ajlja (ki...@concentric.net) wrote:
: and yet gary, in Hebrew the word for messiah (mashiach) not only has
: the same root as the word
: serpent (nachash) but both total 358. adam means earth and is made from
: the earth in the bible.
Uh, what's your point here? I don't recall saying that symbolism and
patterns aren't present in the Bible.
: Yet it is always good that triumphs over evil in the bible because
: becuse this is the ideal in man.
I wouldn't say always: look at Ecclesiastes, say, or what happens in the
book of Job. There's a lot of fatalistic pessimism in the Old Testament.
[snip of some personal interpretation]
This is interesting, but I'm not using the Bible as inspiration for my
understanding of the world. Rather, I was responding to an ahistorical
set of statements about the texts which make up the Bible. Looking at the
Bible with a different world-view to that of the people who wrote it is
fine by me, but the historian in me feels compelled to point this out. :-)
Yours,
Gary Johnson