All-powerful Immortal Being Wars

[Jewel101]

what do you think they'd be like?

[Kasey Mackenzie]

Er, maybe if you were a bit more specific I'd be better able to answer the question...Are you talking about the sort of thing that went on between the Titans and the Greek gods before the Greek gods imprisoned the Titans?

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

i think they'd be quite violent but also very playful. afterall, they are immortal

[Thekherham]

Are we talking about wars between immortals? I think a war like that would go on forever and ever, because no one would get killed.
After a while it would probably get pretty boring, and they'd go on to something else.

[Richard]

Oh, I imagine a lot of things would die. Just not the Immortals. On the plus side, they probably wouldn't notice.

[Zolah]

Well, considering that in the only war of immortal all-powerful beings that I can think of (Titans versus Olympian Gods) Cronos ended up being castrated by his own son, I'd say that a war like that would be vile and bloody and terrible and ultimately pointless. So just like a normal war, really.

[Richard]

You're forgetting Ragnarok, which is pretty comprehensively detailed as being a very bad time for all concerned (when it finally happens)

[dragonjax]

I'm assuming you don't mean in the HIGHLANDER sense...

[mdin]

I just finished reading American Gods by Neil Gaiman, there's a big of warfare amongst gods in that. It's probably not the stuff you're looking for, though.

[loquax]

Milton's Paradise Lost deals with the war in heaven between the angels and the rebels. They basically chuck mountains at each other.

[scfirenice]

Nothing is Immortal. There is something out there that can take down everyone. Even if it is lack of belief.

[TeddyG]

Milton's Paradise Lost deals with the war in heaven between the angels and the rebels. They basically chuck mountains at each other.

mmm...well I have to say that is one of the most unique descriptions I have ever read about Paradise Lost. However, Paradise Lost is the story of fallen angels and man.

In a war between "Immortals" and the "s" I think is critical, there is usually a hierarchy established, such as in Greek & Roman Mythology or the Persian Zarasthura.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism will not entertain a theory of Immortals, but rather of God. The rest are angels - But there is a heirarchy to angels as well. Good & Evil We call the Evil angels - devils, their chief being Satan, who was the original fallen angel one of the brothers of the original five ministering angels.

Whatever the case, in all depictions since their is a heirarchy there is always the ability for those of a "higher" plane to kill, destory and maim those who are lesser than them.

God, whatever he is called in whatever system, is the ONLY true Immortal. Not even the highest of angels in these systems are immune from God's ability to destory them.

Thus if you are dealing with "Immortals" in the classic sense, meaning they come from the Greek and Roman tradition, you will certainly find that Zeus for instance can deal "mortal" blows to other Gods when the fancy hits him.

(Of course Xena, my favorite hottie on TV, can handle them all!!!!!)

Anyway your own system should contain "rules" on how the immortals deal and do battle with one another. Since it is your system it is your rules.

this is actually a problem I have grappled with in a fantasy work of mine on the angel and devil area, however, a real close look at the many mythological (and often conflicting) legends, will show you that the "Immortals" did indeed have the power to maim, hurt, curse, and even at times kill one another.

It is your system and thus your rules can apply. But make sure the rules are consistent and follow a logical order. That is one thing I would strongly advise.

Teddy

[loquax]

Can God make a burrito so hot even he can't eat it?

[TeddyG]

Can God make a burrito so hot even he can't eat it?

The old classic philosophical argument can God make something so heavy he cant pick it up? which totally begs the real problem. If you wish to discuss God and Godly attributes then you must begin with the premise that you are discussing them from a finite perspective, whereas you apply infinity to God.

One cannot apply the rules of nature and gravity to God, if one believes God created these rules of nature to begin with. To apply those rules is a fallicious error in logic.

Thus the question has no merit, as heavy and and eat etc. have no application when dealing with God.

(This is not about a belief system, just about the nature of the application of the philosophy of logic and logic itself in dealing with something beyond logic.)

Teddy

[loquax]

That's the main problem I have with God. When people say things like that, it's hard for me to imagine a being I can interact with on a personal level.

A logical God, by which I mean an infinite, omiscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous, eternal being, is perfectly fine for me to imagine. But when you give this God a voice, and let it communicate with man.... well... funnily enough, that's the bit I find hard to believe.

[TeddyG]

That's the main problem I have with God. When people say things like that, it's hard for me to imagine a being I can interact with on a personal level.

A logical God, by which I mean an infinite, omiscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous, eternal being, is perfectly fine for me to imagine. But when you give this God a voice, and let it communicate with man.... well... funnily enough, that's the bit I find hard to believe.

We may define God as "omiscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous, eternal" but that is certainly not logical.

And one may posit the argument I would think, that what gives God the attributes of mericful and loving is the very fact that God can find a voice to communicate with the finite creations of this universe.

But this is a theological/philsophical debate and belies the original question as to how to create a system where the Immortals can war with one another. And this question is much easier to deal with!!!!!!!!

Teddy

[loquax]

Well, in paradise lost, the war between the angels is more of a standing representation of rebellion than a real fight. I've read essays that focus on the purpose of them wearing armour and using swords when they in fact only ever hinder their natural power (the armour hurts them more when it is crushed, for instance) At one point, Satan's minions devise the creation of cannons, or "devilish engines". Again, this is futile. They do not serve to kill, but rather to injure to a greater extent. And I think Satan does ponder the use in fighting a God that cannot be beaten (correct me if I'm wrong).

The Illiad depicts a much more substantial war. The Gods actually come down onto the battlefield and fight alongside the humans. I personally compare this to when Superman fought the Russians. He helped out the good guys, but by no means was he immortal. And in this way, I think that the Greek Gods were very much old versions of our modern day superheroes and villains rather than actual Gods. And of course, I would personally find this much more entertaining.

[Richard]

In Illiad, the gods come down and fight for fun - a couple get a slightly bloody nose (I vaguely remember Aphrodite sobbing to her mother, but it may have been another goddess), but there's no way the humans are ever going to get to kill them. When they really want to fight, they do so by pushing their favoured mortals down interesting paths.

[TeddyG]

And I think Satan does ponder the use in fighting a God that cannot be beaten (correct me if I'm wrong).


Satan, his whole purpose, his whole being, in the Monothestiac religious philosophy, is bent upon usurping power from God. That is how he is portrayed usually to the "masses". Interestingly enough, in both Judaism and Christianity Satan serves a real purpose, as he pits the forces of good against evil, forcing the continuing emergence of the "divine".

However, in his dual role, Satan is also a Fallen Angel himself. He is not God, knows he is NOT God, yet insists on trying to convince others that God is not really God.

Now before I get off into a real LONG tangent here, which will take hours and days and years, Satan does ponder, and will always ponder fighting God.
Satan will always loose that war, yet the eternal question remains:

why does God suffer Satan and his evil ways to begin with?

As to the nature of the Immortal War....well again the heirarchy is critical. The rules of the fantasy are critical. And remember there are always great beasts, animals etc. which can beat the devils or Immortals.

(the Balrog in LOTR from the depths of the Earth before Middle Earth.)

Just create the fantasy and stick to the rules you created

Teddy

[loquax]

Achilleus was half a God, and we all know what happened to him.

I think to say they fought for fun is a bit of an understatement. As you say, they settle their differences by battling their worshippers. But I think the divine intervention (in the purest sense of the term!) is actually the Gods slipping out of playful mode and into "this is serious business, I'm going to cheat and kill all of your worshippers with a plague because you ticked me off" mode.

[Jamesaritchie]

Can God make a burrito so hot even he can't eat it?

Believe it or not, there's a serious theological answer to questions such as these. The answer is "Yes, He could make a burrito so hot even He couldn't eat it, and then He could eat it." It's only people who have to have it one way or the other. The definition of "God" means you get to have it both ways.

[loquax]

I am aware of the actual problem, I just used Homer Simpson's rephrasing because I thought it was funnier http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Anyway, I had thought concerning the definition of omnipotence. If you are able to do something, yet you never would, does that still grant you omnipotence? Or are you curbed by your own moral values? I assume that God's morality is absolute, meaning that he would never break his own will. Does this, in some way, lessen his abilities?

It's a strange problem. Of course, you can always say "I have the power to kill another man". But if you had a conscience that would NEVER let you do such a thing, do you still have that potential?

I suppose it all comes down to my inability to imagine an infinte God without also imagining Him possessing an infinite Morality (I'm talking the duality of good and evil within a single entity).

[TeddyG]

I am aware of the actual problem, I just used Homer Simpson's rephrasing because I thought it was funnier http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Anyway, I had thought concerning the definition of omnipotence. If you are able to do something, yet you never would, does that still grant you omnipotence? Or are you curbed by your own moral values? I assume that God's morality is absolute, meaning that he would never break his own will. Does this, in some way, lessen his abilities?

It's a strange problem. Of course, you can always say "I have the power to kill another man". But if you had a conscience that would NEVER let you do such a thing, do you still have that potential?

I suppose it all comes down to my inability to imagine an infinte God without also imagining Him possessing an infinite Morality (I'm talking the duality of good and evil within a single entity).

Ben:

If you will allow some ramblings here, which I am oft accused of, then please read on. If not, skip this and put it in the garbage bin.

Additionally, please understand I am talking from a Monotheistic perspective, and I am Jewish. However, since I did once teach for many years comparative religion, I think most of what I say here can be held to be somewhat true both in Judaism and Christianity and in Islam as well. I cannot represent any other religion or mode of belief in an intelligent manner.

First we must give credit where credit is due. And that is to Homer. Sometimes he is so right just so perfectly right about life and its crazy situation that no one can argue. so I certainly agree with you there.

You however brought up two major philosophical and theological debates within your post. (Probably a great deal more, but trying to center around the more "distinct" and "overt" ones.)

1. definitions - language - and the limitations thereof.


Anyway, I had thought concerning the definition of omnipotence. If you are able to do something, yet you never would, does that still grant you omnipotence? Or are you curbed by your own moral values? I assume that God's morality is absolute, meaning that he would never break his own will. Does this, in some way, lessen his abilities?


There is a Talmudic dictum which states "that the Torah (Bible in Hebrew) spoke in the language of man." This means that when one described God as being say "gracious" or "kind" or "understanding" the language used is to place these "qualities" in a context that finite humanity can understand it. The premise being, that a "valid and real" explaination is beyond the basic limitations of our understanding and our finite world.

The term "Omnipotence", or "Eternal" or the like are all terms which imply something beyond our ability to truly grasp. One cannot apply, I think, apply our own moral system when speaking of God. So thus I think yes, we are curbed by our own "moral values". We are never expected to BE God, just to emulate being "good". If one is speaking of God and thus by definition one speaks of belief, there are many verses in the OT and the prophets and the NT that speak of God's ways. Almost all are based upon the dictum "but My ways are not your ways" ("My" in this case being God talking). Especially when we apply the terms of justice and judgement. "I will pity whom I will pity, I will show graciousness to whom I will show graciousness" God says to Moses when he asks for a definition of Justice and Judgment. Obviously that is not an explaination Moses was looking for. But it is all he got. Period. The finite and the infinite worlds cannot hope to cross the barrier. In religious terminology it is called "acceptance". Others who do not believe call it whatever they wish. It still remains true that we as humans, have never been able to cleary know and understand the machinations of divine justice. (If one believes in such a system at all.)

Thus, it seems clear, at least both in Jewish and Christian Theology, that the Monotheistic God, is one that is beyond our comprehension. Therefore applying attributes and our definition of these attributes...can only lead to a certain understanding. But the logic of applying our definitions of say "justice" etc. is all skewed, simply because we are applying a finite definition to an infinite world.

2. Good & Evil
I suppose it all comes down to my inability to imagine an infinte God without also imagining Him possessing an infinite Morality (I'm talking the duality of good and evil within a single entity)

Wow...the amount that has been written on that 3 line paragraph above would overwhelm anyone. However, I wish to just drill down as it were on the statement of duality of Good & Evil, because possibly it does represent and show the nature of the difficulty of what we are dealing with.

The basic question here is the enigma if there is "absolute good and absolute evil". To my mind I think there is. I think that absolute evil does exist on this earth. But that absolute Evil is of man's creation, not of God's creation.

Going to try and explain, and if I bore you to tears just never talk to me again here.

If you will allow me to take the Holocaust in WWII. For me that is absolute evil. Hitler was the repersentation of absolute Evil on this earth. The question though is twofold:
1. Why did God allow such (and why does he throughout History) allow absolute evil to exist?
2. More importantly, why do we, why does humanity allow absolute evil to exist and take root?

Now we can blame it all on God of course. It is an easy and I think somewhat logical thing to do. Indeed, I think it is quite legitimate. However, that does not take the onus off of Mankind. Why do we allow such evil to be propagated within our midst? And that I think is the central question. It is easy to blame God, it is oh-so-much-more difficult to face it ourselves.

If you will allow a further word here.

There is another Talmudic Statement (actually from the Mishnah) which says:
"Just like one makes a blessing over the good one must also make a blessing when bad things happen as well."
The basic lesson here is clear. All things emenate from God. All comes from the Divine and the Infinite. Okay that is basic, but there is a deeper more difficult lesson in these words, something that the Kaballah (Jewish mysticsm) grapples with all the time.
The fact that everything emenates from God, both Good and Evil, and there are only these oppisates of good and evil in our finite world - because God is the essence of Pure Good, thus Evil emenates from God. But in the INFINITE world - Evil is actually coming from the source of all Good and thus it is actually Good as well.

Before you jump think on that for awhile. It is not an easy concept to grasp. All actions on this world, all events emenate from source of pure good. Thus they all must be good. Thus you must make a blessing recognizing God when evil takes place just as when a good thing happens, for you recognize it all emenates from the source of Good.

I know I have already said a mouthful.
But one more Talmudic Dictum before my fingers take a rest.
The Talmud says, "The evil inclination, the angel of death and Satan are one of the same thing"
There are many interpertations of this statement. However, to many it is clear that the Talmud is making clear that the source of evil emenates from God himself. These are just terms that we use to define certain events within the finite sphere.

I said too much I know, but it is a subject I have dealt with for years and years. And if you want further confusion, read the book of Job in the OT. That will knock your socks off.

Teddy

[Richard]

Achilleus was half a God, and we all know what happened to him.

No, he wasn't. His mother was only a nymph, Thetis, and his father a mortal, the king Peleus. He had some divine blood, but little to write home about by the mythological standards of the day.

[loquax]

Teddy, your knowledge is most welcome.

One of the main problems I have about the Bible's origin of sin is that it implies that eden was free from sin until man unleashed it. And this is true. But the confusion comes when one takes sin and evil to be one and the same thing, when they are clearly are not. Sin is the work of man. Evil is something much more.

For instance, I view the recent tsunami as a work of evil. The suffering it caused was easily on par to the suffering man can cause. Of course, to apply evil to nature is a very strange thing to do. But there is very little difference when viewing the ultimate outcome between natural disasters and, say, the work of war.

Then again, I think that evil is a very subjective thing. One could say that to save someone's life is just as evil as to take another's. Modern medicine has provided such an imbalance in nature that I believe it's causing far more damage than we realise. People with genetic diseases are able to have children, when nature, and some might say God, had already chosen that they were not to. But man intervened. If I were a tree, I would call that evil, and I would challenge anyone to say otherwise.

This is why I can imagine a God with absolute morality. I find it hard to believe that man can create such an awesome force as "evil".

Richard - okay, he was the son of a water nymph. But I'm pretty sure actual Greek Gods killed other Greek Gods at some point. Their immortality is nothing in comparison to that which is applied to the monotheistic Gods.

[Richard]

Richard - okay, he was the son of a water nymph. But I'm pretty sure actual Greek Gods killed other Greek Gods at some point.

Not that I remember. They did horrible things to each other on a fairly regular basis, and could be injured or otherwise inconvenienced (for instance, drinking the water of the Styx would render them mute for about a year or so, and Hera wasn't above setting Night on her husband to knock him out when there were things she didn't want him to see). The lesser divine creatures could certainly face horrible fates (Polyphemus the Cyclops, for instance was Poseidon's son, and it didn't save him from Odysseus), but the actual Olympians were pretty much untouchable.

[loquax]

Zeus killed his own father. And the God of medicine, for raising the dead. I think.

[Richard]

Good point, although neither were actually gods under the Greek system - Asclepius was born to Apollo and the princess Coronis (I think - it's been a while), and thus just a demi-god, while Cronus was a Titan. In addition, my recollection of the story is that Apollo was livid with Zeus for killing Asclepius and took it out on on some of Zeus' servants, for which he risked being consigned to Tartarus, rather than struck down himself. The Olympians just weren't that big on killing each other. Being horrible to each other, yes, and by goodness, few could hold a grudge like the Olympians, but actual murder just wasn't an option amongst the main family.

(Although if you want a particularly brutal example of God vs. God, look up Ereshkigal and what she did to Inanna in Babylonian myth)

[TeddyG]

One of the main problems I have about the Bible's origin of sin is that it implies that eden was free from sin until man unleashed it. And this is true. But the confusion comes when one takes sin and evil to be one and the same thing, when they are clearly are not. Sin is the work of man. Evil is something much more.

For instance, I view the recent tsunami as a work of evil. The suffering it caused was easily on par to the suffering man can cause. Of course, to apply evil to nature is a very strange thing to do. But there is very little difference when viewing the ultimate outcome between natural disasters and, say, the work of war.

Then again, I think that evil is a very subjective thing. One could say that to save someone's life is just as evil as to take another's. Modern medicine has provided such an imbalance in nature that I believe it's causing far more damage than we realise. People with genetic diseases are able to have children, when nature, and some might say God, had already chosen that they were not to. But man intervened. If I were a tree, I would call that evil, and I would challenge anyone to say otherwise.

This is why I can imagine a God with absolute morality. I find it hard to believe that man can create such an awesome force as "evil".


Ben:
The example of the "natural disaster" is excellent. And just the thing that is needed to make the thought process work overtime. Let us leave "sin" at this point out of it, as there is a very very different process in the way the Monotheistic Religions look at and categorize sin. And I have no desire to enter into it as it is way beyond the scope of this discussion.

Evil on the other hand, is what we were discussing. Thus you correctly categorized two sides, or two aspects, or two faces to evil. One is the evil of mankind - the other is something man has no control over - the natural disaster as it were - the "divine" side.

Let me make this question incredibly more complicated and possibly very argumentative. Without an answer.

Let me ask this.
If a father and mother have a child who is, heaven forbid, killed by a drunk driver, one can blame the driver and one can blame God for allowing it to happen. One can blame both. Is God evil? Is the drunk driver evil?

Or if a person is murdered during war because of "ethnic cleansing" (what a term!) is that the evil of those who are doing war against humanity, or that of a God who allows it to happen?

And now let us think upon the Natural disaster. If one believes that God is all good, then one also believes that all acts in this world even disasterous ones, emenate from the source of Good. Thus even though an airplane crashing or an earthquake will be evil and horrendous in our eyes as humans, the one who believes that there is a God who is the source of all Good, will also believe that there is an "eternal" purpose to what happened. And yet it is a horrible, senseless act of nature in our eyes. Do we blame God? Do we blame nature? Do we blame ourselves for not spending the money to put up a levee that can withstand a Cat 5 Hurricane? Do we blame the govt. for not spending the money? Do we blame the city founders for settling in a basin that is dangerous and known to be dangerous?

Who do we look at when we say "This Is Evil?" How do we determine on whose shoulders the blame should lie? Indeed, how do we determine what is a "pure" act of evil? Most importantly, are we in the position to determine it?

Questions my dear sir. Questions whose answers allude us.
I once heard from a great teacher, whom I had the honor to study under, "It is not the answers we truly need to find, but how to ask the right questions."

Teddy

[fallenangelwriter]

if i understand correctly, morality as we normally think of it doesn't apply to God, because it stems from how god drecreed we, as humans, should behave. God just is- there's nothing to which God is accountable, no standard by which to judge God.

[Rabe]

Thus the question has no merit, as heavy and and eat etc. have no application when dealing with God.

(This is not about a belief system, just about the nature of the application of the philosophy of logic and logic itself in dealing with something beyond logic.)

Teddy

I respectfully disagree here.

Not with the outcome or the question of whether or not some divine being created the rules of nature and physics, but of the futility of the question. The question itself does not ponder the philosophy of logic, but rather the ineffability of the Judeo/Christian deity.

Herein is the argument, if God is ineffable, then there is nothing he can do that is wrong, which means that he cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it nor can he create a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it (though, the definition of 'hot' does seem to remain in doubt, does it refer to the spiciness or the temperature of the burrito - which then does evolve into an inaccurate argument as the answer to both would have to be "no" based on the properties of either the spice, or the ingredients to be heated to such an extreme).

However, the argument provides that god is not infinite, ineffable nor omnipotent if he cannot create a rock that is so heavy he cannot lift it. However, if god is so omnipotent that he can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, then god is not omnipotent at all for there would be a limit to his power. The argument is meant to to do several things:

One, create a sense of ponderance. This is more a 'Zen' type of argument (along the lines of 'what is the sound of one hand clapping') and one used by others as a cheap method to try to 'prove' the non-existance of god.

However, as a philosophical device, it's not fallacious at all and rather useful. Nor does it rely on presuming that some omnipotent deity create rules of nature/physics that do not apply to itself. It merely relies on the philosophical learning of those that seek the answer.

Rabe...
...who has once 'busted' said argument by saying that God did indeed create the rock, then quickly created the earthmoving equipment that *did* move it...thereby proving both god's lack of omnipotence and his omnipotence...

[TeddyG]

Hey POV's are what it is all about...disagree away...would be no fun if everyone agreed ..

Oy Vey...
How can you possibly use your own system of logic to define that which is beyond your realm? (if you believe in God which the Judeo/Christian system does).

Sorry the question is just a word game for those who would accept that God is the creator of the Universe to begin with.

Perhaps it is a "zen" thing, I have no clue. I do know that the logic or illogic of the question, implies that we are applying our own system of limitations to God. That is a fallacious error in logic and circular reasoning.

All I am saying is that such a question for those who believe in all encompassing being, omnipotent etc. is moot. Makes no sense. Cannot be applied. Language does have its limitations.

Not saying if it is right or wrong.

Teddy

[TeddyG]

if i understand correctly, morality as we normally think of it doesn't apply to God, because it stems from how god drecreed we, as humans, should behave. God just is- there's nothing to which God is accountable, no standard by which to judge God.

If you believe God set up a moral system for Mankind and God is omnipotent and created the Universe...then I would have to agree with that.

If you are the creation how do you judge the Creator?
A reiligious person might posit that if God is the Supreme Being, it is not your place to judge him nor can you. (Though again a religious person may say, it is your duty to judge and question God.)

It would be very difficult if well nigh impossible to concieve of a system where you have a God which then you go ahead and judge by your own moral standard. That makes God into Man. Puts God on your level. Then God is not really God is He? (Though you may judge God by saying, according to the rules you laid down for us, you have broken them!)

God has no moral standard actually I would think. For moral is but a system we follow. God would be the archtype morality. God, to a religious person gives humans a set of rules to live by. But those rules are for humanity. God is complete within God. He needs no rules, as "God is the place of the world .. but the world is not the place of God". (or is that idea getting too complicated for this discussion? dont know how deep you want to go.)

(Again, I am only trying to define this from a perspective of one who believes in God in a philosphical tone. this is not a religious discussion. Those I will NOT get into. They never tend to end well in my experience.)

Teddy

[Pthom]

As interesting as this discussion is, it has become more than the limitations of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Forum. There is a religious forum in AW: Religious and Spiritual Writing (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61). Let's try keeping the discussion here in SF/F secular, okay?

Thanks.

[TeddyG]

As interesting as this discussion is, it has become more than the limitations of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Forum. There is a religious forum in AW: Religious and Spiritual Writing (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61). Let's try keeping the discussion here in SF/F secular, okay?

Thanks.

Pthom IS 100% RIGHT.
I also came here for Fantasy. We digressed.
Lets get back on track!

Teddy