This mythological thread is wearing thin...

From: Jonas Schiott <jonas.schiott_at_vinga.hum.gu.se>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:35:55 +0000


Michael Hitchens:

>But I really doubt all the Elmali priests were
>illuminated just before everyone switched.

That wasn't really a serious suggestion, you know. :-)

>but there is still the question of why the initiates did not
>have to sacrifice another point of POW

Hmm, didn't think of that. But I guess my basic premise was "Why should Illuminates have all the fun?" - if those Riddlers can bend the rules all on their own, why shouldn't groups of other people be able to do something similar every once in a while (requiring much greater effort, of course)? Another way of looking at it is the old "Rules only represent the status quo, and cannot account for significant changes" argument. Which isn't such a bad way of looking at it.

>Is there an entity, aware of its own separateness from the rest of creation (as
>we humans perceive our separateness), which knows itself as (insert god of
>your
>choice here). Do these divine entities know of and recognise other separate,
>divine entities?

Yes and yes, in theist regions anyway. :-)

>Granted, mortals may not really understand what makes the difference
>between two (or more) aspects of one god and two or more gods, but do the
>gods? Are they capable of this level of discernment?

Yep, and they're probably laughing their heads off about it...

[On the abstract Godplane-Deities equivalence theory]
>It mechanises the gods far too much for my liking.

Well, it's a humanist (in the Gloranthan sense) theory, isn't it? According to them, the gods _are_ mechanisms.

[In reply to Colin]
>If the
>gods are supposedly totally formed of their worshippers then I have severe
>difficulty.

Me too. This reads like another westernized attempt to explain away the gods. :-)

[On integrating the "four ways"]
>Whatever the gods are the humanists don't like them [...] Postulating a core
>>identity for each god is not giving them more
>power than the humanists [...] are prepared to acknowledge.

Sorry, but I think it is - the humanist idea is simply this:

>What Greg Stafford has said about the gods:
>They are no more than the combination of their runes.

According to Martin Crim, anyway. I _assume_ the quote was from a humanist POV, otherwise it's a very strange thing for Greg to say... Anyway, my point is that to humanists, the so-called "gods" are just naive attempts to explain the workings of natural (magical, sure, but around here magic _is_ natural) laws.

>If the god's understanding of
>time is not the best (I'm not convinced it is entirely lacking)

Yeah, that's what _I_ said...

>why should
>heroquesting be able to re-engineer history?

It shouldn't. Anyone who thinks it should is wrong both logically and aesthetically. :-) But in fact nobody actually seems to believe this - they just write as if they did. ;-)


Colin Watson:

>no worshippers = not god (he says, defining his terms as he goes along...)
>Might be a big spirit, or a hero, or a force of nature; but not god.

Just as long as you're aware that this is a _re_-definition. There's lots of reference to gods without cults in published material. And I for one am opposed to making gods 100% dependant on their worshippers (90% seems more like it...). Speaking from a theist point of view, of course.

>All we know of the gods is what the worshippers
>tell us. The Compromise might have been retrospectively invented [...]

Oh no, not another conspiracy theory! :-)

(      Jonas Schiott                                   )
(      Institutionen for Ide- och lardomshistoria      )
(      Goteborgs Universitet                           )


------------------------------

Powered by hypermail