All-powerful Immortal Being Wars

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

loquax said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

loquax said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

loquax said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

loquax said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Burriito

loquax said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

I am aware of the actual problem, I just used Homer Simpson's rephrasing because I thought it was funnier

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).

loquax said:

I am aware of the actual problem, I just used Homer Simpson's rephrasing because I thought it was funnier

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).

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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

loquax said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.