NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just inspired by Intangelon's ref to Cthulu a sec ago, and something occurred to me.

I am not particularly convinced that any god is a god just because of a vast contrast in faculty, i would be more convinced that only something that creates would be actually capable of being called a god in the truest sense - for case of turning the imagination into reality upon whim, manipulation and manifest through whatever channels necessary (i'm not trying to sound too Nietsche-esque here, obviously every species that procreates is arguably a god along these lines)
but to make things end and alter only are not inherently overarching power qualities that surpass the act of "spontaneous" creation, for basically through a line of entropy we can see that as a variance of inevitability.

Any thoughts on this? (I do have a few other thoughts about it but i'm more interested in hearing everyone elses' first, if interested).

For example, George Bush's goon squad (and any of his screwed up zealots) could bereave me of my life, and he may certainly do it powerfully, and he may even be able to create (or at least rearrange) life somewhat given a very limited capacity, but i could not POSSIBLY equate him with a god.
Further, although he's keen on invoking deific privilege, he has shown absolutely no qualities that can be likened to what i was inferring earlier.

So what do y'all think? And although a lot are likely to flame, if you do it, at least be subtle enough not to piss the mods off. Or witty enough. Preferably both.

I was just inspired by Intangelon's ref to Cthulu a sec ago, and something occurred to me.

I am not particularly convinced that any god is a god just because of a vast contrast in faculty, i would be more convinced that only something that creates would be actually capable of being called a god in the truest sense - for case of turning the imagination into reality upon whim, manipulation and manifest through whatever channels necessary (i'm not trying to sound too Nietsche-esque here, obviously every species that procreates is arguably a god along these lines)
but to make things end and alter only are not inherently overarching power qualities that surpass the act of "spontaneous" creation, for basically through a line of entropy we can see that as a variance of inevitability.

Any thoughts on this? (I do have a few other thoughts about it but i'm more interested in hearing everyone elses' first, if interested).

For example, George Bush's goon squad (and any of his screwed up zealots) could bereave me of my life, and he may certainly do it powerfully, and he may even be able to create (or at least rearrange) life somewhat given a very limited capacity, but i could not POSSIBLY equate him with a god.
Further, although he's keen on invoking deific privilege, he has shown absolutely no qualities that can be likened to what i was inferring earlier.

So what do y'all think? And although a lot are likely to flame, if you do it, at least be subtle enough not to piss the mods off. Or witty enough. Preferably both.
I'd say one has to have the power to change things at a whim, in an instant, with naught but a snap of one's fingers, a la Q. It would probably help if said one was immortal and invincible to anything that could harm one.

I would think God's job description would require a certain ontological primacy; a sort of super-seniority.

Strangely, not all religions posture the "current" reigning God as the first one. In some Mormon Doctrine, God is just one of the Gods, used to be human, and has a daddy god and a mommy god somewhere.

Also, I would think any particular God, in order to really hold the throne, per se, would need to be able to "walk in paradox, unharmed", as they say. It would need to be able to violate its own internal axioms without being unmade or untennable in the process.

Weird thing is, anybody is free to make up any kind of God they want to worship, and people still seem to pick Gods that act like Jackasses in their biographies...

I'd say one has to have the power to change things at a whim, in an instant, with naught but a snap of one's fingers, a la Q. It would probably help if said one was immortal and invincible to anything that could harm one.
There's examples of mortality, obviously, of pantheon, IIRC ... nonetheless, they met certain criteria that stood them above the rest as gods ... redeemers of specific qualities, iconoclastic measure, that kind of thing. I don't necessarily think that a god need be immortal/invincible persay, but the whim idea is good.
Further on the immortality - it would support a capricious reasoning as to why the pantheon cluster was so keen on f*cking with each other so much - except for the tempers. It was like a complete lack of sense or something.
As per the invincibility, i don't think they really believed the others were actually capable of TRULY being invincible, so they would contest each other so much.

EDIT:
Hey, i saw an interesting post right after you told me about the TG, btw.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10936695&postcount=394
;)

I would think God's job description would require a certain ontological primacy; a sort of super-seniority.

Strangely, not all religions posture the "current" reigning God as the first one. In some Mormon Doctrine, God is just one of the Gods, used to be human, and has a daddy god and a mommy god somewhere.

Also, I would think any particular God, in order to really hold the throne, per se, would need to be able to "walk in paradox, unharmed", as they say. It would need to be able to violate its own internal axioms without being unmade or untennable in the process.

Weird thing is, anybody is free to make up any kind of God they want to worship, and people still seem to pick Gods that act like Jackasses in their biographies...
As they, WHO, say? ;)
I read that compliment, ya know!

So in respect to seniority, it's a pecking order thing, or one who has the most experience?
That would call into question what qualifies as experience for any particularly omnipotent (in sense of creation) deity. Just being that way without knowing such wouldn't work in terms of seniority ... perhaps a deliberate classification of ability through experiments ... again like the pantheon, again like perhaps "angels" and "humanity".
More about the Mormons? I'm curious.

BTW, i really respect you folks' opinion on a lot of things. I'm honoured you opted to post here.
n/k
*bows*
It sets a good precedent.

As they, WHO, say? ;)
I read that compliment, ya know!

So in respect to seniority, it's a pecking order thing, or one who has the most experience?
That would call into question what qualifies as experience for any particularly omnipotent (in sense of creation) deity. Just being that way without knowing such wouldn't work in terms of seniority ... perhaps a deliberate classification of ability through experiments ... again like the pantheon, again like perhaps "angels" and "humanity".
More about the Mormons? I'm curious.

I think the muscle behind the "seniority" thing is for the Godthing to be able to say "there is nothing that was not created by me or my creations, so I'm God". Naturally, to claim such originality, the God would have to have all conceivable knowledge and power as a proper subset of its own, and more.

The Mormons...so, evidently, at a funeral, one of the early (relatively speaking) prophets of the Mormon Church decided to give the revelation that "As man is now, God once was".

Eventually, it sort of developed as a matter of doctrine that human beings, by obeying the laws of their creator God, can become Gods themselves and go on to create world for themselves to be Gods over, and the cycle repeats.

I'm not privy to the LDS official revelation on whether there was a first God or where He/She came from, but our God is evidently not the first one. I don't know if he has to hide his porn when the older Gods visit his Heaven, or if they're all equal upon divine maturity, or what.

BTW, i really respect you folks' opinion on a lot of things. I'm honoured you opted to post here.
n/k
*bows*
It sets a good precedent.

I personally wish the All Loving Christ thread hadn't gotten locked, so if that was Kyronea's, that was cool.

Anyway, I like a lot of your threads, Straughn, except when you pretend to be Kievan-Prussia....

You don't need to be able to create planets to be God. Just travel back in time with a can of fuel and a couple of walkie talkies. Voila, one burning bush that claims it's God. (Not unsimilar to another nonburning Bush I could mention, but never mind.)

There is no reason why some powerful, but far from godlike entity couldn't have pulled off the miracles and stuff in the bible. If you could travel back in time 7,000 years with a heap of stuff it would be pretty damn easy to convince people that you were God. How do we know the biblical God is not just a time traveler or some alien with a sick sense of humour?

I personally wish the All Loving Christ thread hadn't gotten locked, so if that was Kyronea's, that was cool.

Anyway, I like a lot of your threads, Straughn, except when you pretend to be Kievan-Prussia....
Believe it or not, i really don't know the guy any more than Drunk Commies Deleted knows JesusSaves. *shrug*

Just a lot of folk think we're puppets of each other. And that Verdigroth and i are also, in some fashion.
Thank you, though. *bows*

I usually get politically preachy or something like that. First thread i ever shot off was about all those churches celebrating Darwin's birthday. If ever a contentious post, i figured that would be it. Nary a whimper, save two posts of people being convinced of apocalypse ("revelation", literally, as in to have revealed). :(

I'm in a rare mood at the moment, i guess.

Believe it or not, i really don't know the guy any more than Drunk Commies Deleted knows JesusSaves. *shrug*


I was kidding. I know you could do a way better puppet than that.

You don't need to be able to create planets to be God. Just travel back in time with a can of fuel and a couple of walkie talkies. Voila, one burning bush that claims it's God. (Not unsimilar to another nonburning Bush I could mention, but never mind.)

There is no reason why some powerful, but far from godlike entity couldn't have pulled off the miracles and stuff in the bible. If you could travel back in time 7,000 years with a heap of stuff it would be pretty damn easy to convince people that you were God. How do we know the biblical God is not just a time traveler or some alien with a sick sense of humour?

(Picture the two coke snorting aliens from the animated film "Heavy Metal")

Okay, so, hee, hee, check this out man...I told 'em...I told 'em "No fucking unless you're married"....hhahahhehheheh...no, shut up, dude, stop, no, that's not all...

Oh, man, I got the munchies...

I think the muscle behind the "seniority" thing is for the Godthing to be able to say "there is nothing that was not created by me or my creations, so I'm God". Naturally, to claim such originality, the God would have to have all conceivable knowledge and power as a proper subset of its own, and more. Do you think it would be without wisdom, or the inevitability of anything other than the immortal? Would other immortality be a competition, like the pantheon implied (forgive if i'm not using the correct usage of the "pantheon" idea, a lot of simultaneous ideas, little typing time.)


The Mormons...so, evidently, at a funeral, one of the early (relatively speaking) prophets of the Mormon Church decided to give the revelation that "As man is now, God once was". Did he mean the dead fella there? ;) That is a curious statement. Hopeful, especially in that setting (to some, monsterous to others ... ;) )

Eventually, it sort of developed as a matter of doctrine that human beings, by obeying the laws of their creator God, can become Gods themselves and go on to create world for themselves to be Gods over, and the cycle repeats.Ah, that explains their living hierarchy mentality as well, through the *natch* elder cycle and further into the "priesthood". Anything like Scientology?

I'm not privy to the LDS official revelation on whether there was a first God or where He/She came from, but our God is evidently not the first one. I don't know if he has to hide his porn when the older Gods visit his Heaven, or if they're all equal upon divine maturity, or what.
I wonder. I wonder if each time god lives through a mistake, it does that whole tabula rasa thing again - which could explain the human hinge factor (flood, "carmaggedon")

I was kidding. I know you could do a way better puppet than that.
Thank you. (sets auto-*bow*)I don't really even know what that poster's about, since we don't argue much anymore. A few locked threads every now & again ...
I don't know what kind of puppet i would make, but i'm under the impression that it would be likely Freudian projection/extroversion, for that whole "ideal strawman" effect. Which would, in turn, almost immediately garner my dislike of wasting such time, and then i'd use a few characters from my book. :)

Do you think it would be without wisdom, or the inevitability of anything other than the immortal? Would other immortality be a competition, like the pantheon implied (forgive if i'm not using the correct usage of the "pantheon" idea, a lot of simultaneous ideas, little typing time.)


The Pantheon thing always struck me as evolving out of seemingly competing forces in nature that were personfied, like seasons or the good/bad aspects of flooding. In an actual model, it seems like if there were multiple, all-knowing Gods that were equally perfect, they'd just merge, sort of like AOL-Time Warner, but less sucky.


Ah, that explains their living hierarchy mentality as well, through the *natch* elder cycle and further into the "priesthood". Anything like Scientology?


In my opinion, yes. As a matter of fact, in Mormon esoteric doctrine, God lives on the planet Kolob.


I wonder. I wonder if each time god lives through a mistake, it does that whole tabula rasa thing again - which could explain the human hinge factor (flood, "carmaggedon")

Yeah, its a compelling idea that God is powerful enough to be Godlike in ability, but still cocks things up once in a while. Makes it much easier to be sympathetic to God...

EDIT:
Hey, i saw an interesting post right after you told me about the TG, btw.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=394
My first puppet troll, and my ONLY puppet troll. Should've known it would get deleted.

As for on topic...I basically agree with you.

Thank you. (sets auto-*bow*)I don't really even know what that poster's about, since we don't argue much anymore. A few locked threads every now & again ...
I don't know what kind of puppet i would make, but i'm under the impression that it would be likely Freudian projection/extroversion, for that whole "ideal strawman" effect. Which would, in turn, almost immediately garner my dislike of wasting such time, and then i'd use a few characters from my book. :)

A book by you or about you?

You don't need to be able to create planets to be God. Just travel back in time with a can of fuel and a couple of walkie talkies. Voila, one burning bush that claims it's God. (Not unsimilar to another nonburning Bush I could mention, but never mind.) Well, the time travel aspect itself would be a godlike *cue KMFDM* capacity, a HUGE one, really, especially if there was opportunity for multiple traversions/intersections/alterations. That's a good idea. One wouldn't necessarily have to be immortal, just extraordinarily industrious, to gain enough experience and knowledge to be particularly useful in the god sense.
Closer to your idea though, perhaps the mentality of projection, much like the poltergeist phenomenon, is what could qualify that? (thinks ST:TOS episode)


There is no reason why some powerful, but far from godlike entity couldn't have pulled off the miracles and stuff in the bible. If you could travel back in time 7,000 years with a heap of stuff it would be pretty damn easy to convince people that you were God. How do we know the biblical God is not just a time traveler or some alien with a sick sense of humour?
Well, that would be an issue of PR, not faculty persay ... I don't dismiss the idea at all, really. I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about it (as anyone who thinks about why time travel would even be important for any reason (thinks Donnie Darko)

BTW, i also want to thank you for joining in the thread, i appreciate your posts as well. Not just here, lots of others. *bows*

My first puppet troll, and my ONLY puppet troll. Should've known it would get deleted.

As for on topic...I basically agree with you.I KNEW IT WAS YOU!!! That was gold!!! :D :D :D

BTW, I'm not gay...

A book by you or about you?
By me.
I've got a cult apparently *shrug* but no books about me. People've told me they would, but there's SOOOO many books out there ...
It's a long, LONG story, having to do with Douglas Adams (as an impetus) and a few other things that have happened to me and a few iconoclastic folk i know. Opportunities in face of a spirit escaping reason, theoretical physics, psych, some fashion of "humour", a few others - a hodgepodge.
Basically every topic i really dig into on this forum is given good time in the book.
Roman a clef, as the saying goes, IIRC. (thinks CSM)

I KNEW IT WAS YOU!!! That was gold!!! :D :D :D

BTW, I'm not gay...
Personally, I think it proved that, in the end, I'm not funny after all.

Straughn: So is it a fictional story, or what? Has it been published yet?

I was just inspired by Intangelon's ref to Cthulu a sec ago, and something occurred to me.

I am not particularly convinced that any god is a god just because of a vast contrast in faculty, i would be more convinced that only something that creates would be actually capable of being called a god in the truest sense - for case of turning the imagination into reality upon whim, manipulation and manifest through whatever channels necessary (i'm not trying to sound too Nietsche-esque here, obviously every species that procreates is arguably a god along these lines)
but to make things end and alter only are not inherently overarching power qualities that surpass the act of "spontaneous" creation, for basically through a line of entropy we can see that as a variance of inevitability.

Any thoughts on this? (I do have a few other thoughts about it but i'm more interested in hearing everyone elses' first, if interested).

For example, George Bush's goon squad (and any of his screwed up zealots) could bereave me of my life, and he may certainly do it powerfully, and he may even be able to create (or at least rearrange) life somewhat given a very limited capacity, but i could not POSSIBLY equate him with a god.
Further, although he's keen on invoking deific privilege, he has shown absolutely no qualities that can be likened to what i was inferring earlier.

So what do y'all think? And although a lot are likely to flame, if you do it, at least be subtle enough not to piss the mods off. Or witty enough. Preferably both.

Not sure if it is an original idea, but to me God is someone who is privy to the underlying mechanisms of the Universe, having written the program or are administering the program right now. As such, God would be able to do cool stuff like cookies or easter eggs that the rest of us have not (or cannot) as yet discovered.

Of course that is my naive inclination towards the view that power begins with knowledge. Any one who can see and harness the underlying program is a God, whether he or she started as a mere mortal or not.

My first puppet troll, and my ONLY puppet troll. Should've known it would get deleted.

As for on topic...I basically agree with you.
Sorry i couldn't get on and tangle - IRL issues and the like.
I think the mods let some get by, but i'm not too sure. I don't think they'd let me say anyway. *shrugs*
I'm glad they respect you enough to just do that. Some people get it a little harder, i think.
As for the topic ... do you mean about creation specifically? I'm trying to answer/convey with posters about every point (possibly my undoing) so if that's what you mean, than cool. :)

Sorry i couldn't get on and tangle - IRL issues and the like.
I think the mods let some get by, but i'm not too sure. I don't think they'd let me say anyway. *shrugs*
I'm glad they respect you enough to just do that. Some people get it a little harder, i think.
As for the topic ... do you mean about creation specifically? I'm trying to answer/convey with posters about every point (possibly my undoing) so if that's what you mean, than cool. :)
S'okay. Would've been nice to have you in the mix, though.

And yes, that is what I meant. You've essentially outlined my entire thought on the subject.

Personally, I think it proved that, in the end, I'm not funny after all.Well don't shoot yourself down. I think you do a pretty good job, m'self. Sometimes the wit needs to be provoked just right (which would be IMNSHO a good enough reason for a puppet, short-lived as it may be)

Straughn: So is it a fictional story, or what? Has it been published yet?Some fiction, some historical, some science, some humour. Not deliberately genre-defying, just most likely to end up as such.
I have 233 pages so far, but i've got a sh*tload of editing to do and a new medium to do it through. *argh*

I KNEW IT WAS YOU!!! That was gold!!! :D :D :D

BTW, I'm not gay...

Dude, you know how I know you're gay? You told Gay Jesus that you guys have a lot in common, but you don't like the same kind of music, cars, or interior decorating themes, so...

S'okay. Would've been nice to have you in the mix, though.

And yes, that is what I meant. You've essentially outlined my entire thought on the subject.
I'm ... I am your puppet now? :eek:

I had a logic class once with this lady named Marge (IIRC), and myself and a few other bastards in there took it upon ourselves to behave as her subconscious chorus - it was a fun challenge of human study ... she was happy to profess eventually that we truly DIDN'T exist after she left the room.

Personally, I think it proved that, in the end, I'm not funny after all.

Straughn: So is it a fictional story, or what? Has it been published yet?

No, dude, no it was great. I even went on the Mod board and said so.

Straughn: Your stuff has to be better than a lot of the hardback toilet paper I see published these days.

Not sure if it is an original idea, but to me God is someone who is privy to the underlying mechanisms of the Universe, having written the program or are administering the program right now. As such, God would be able to do cool stuff like cookies or easter eggs that the rest of us have not (or cannot) as yet discovered.The isolative angle ...?

Indeed, i'm just fine with the idea that each individual perception could be intertwined with the individual relationship to "god" (sorta solipsist with a twist - i forget the term), as some people have consciences that they may or may not be able to explain with simple deductive reasoning (as well a "faith" or "spirit" of instinct, as it were) - in the sense that basically we all have a different purpose and the same god - kinda like the blind men & the elephant thing ... i'm not convinced, but i certainly don't dismiss it.

Of course that is my naive inclination towards the view that power begins with knowledge. Any one who can see and harness the underlying program is a God, whether he or she started as a mere mortal or not.
Perhaps, perhaps ... i'm somewhat partial to the idea of instinct and intellect (for which knowledge subsets) ...
BTW, thank you as well.
I'm really lucky that all of y'all are on here. I dig all you folks' posts. *confirms "auto-*bow*" status*

No, dude, no it was great. I even went on the Mod board and said so. You ROCK!!!!!


Straughn: Your stuff has to be better than a lot of the hardback toilet paper I see published these days.Man, i HOPE so. I'm likely to be my own worst critic ... unless i let Corneliu, Fascist Dominion or EVEN Lunatic Goofballs get a gander at it :p

I gave on fiction reading after The Dark Half from "Bachman" King, since a few of the things he was talking about were a little too close to home. Suffice it to say a bunch of things happened, and i decided i should focus a bit more on scientific endeavour (think Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance), and they were a happy distance from each other until a fateful trip to Seattle outskirts, and upon Punjab the Sane's advice, i picked up Adams' book. Then all of them. Then it clicked, and i started the 5-hour scribbling jags and supportive research. Not much sleep. Et cetera.
I try to steer away from MOST fiction these days for fear of having a few ideas trounced/correlated.

Thank you for the compliment though. :)

The isolative angle ...?

Indeed, i'm just fine with the idea that each individual perception could be intertwined with the individual relationship to "god" (sorta solipsist with a twist - i forget the term), as some people have consciences that they may or may not be able to explain with simple deductive reasoning (as well a "faith" or "spirit" of instinct, as it were) - in the sense that basically we all have a different purpose and the same god - kinda like the blind men & the elephant thing ... i'm not convinced, but i certainly don't dismiss it.


Perhaps, perhaps ... i'm somewhat partial to the idea of instinct and intellect (for which knowledge subsets) ...
BTW, thank you as well.
I'm really lucky that all of y'all are on here. I dig all you folks' posts. *confirms "auto-*bow*" status*

Wow Straughn you are really nice today... :confused: *bows awkwardly*

I am really attracted to the idea of God as a supergeek fiddling switches and watching reruns of Beauty and the Geek. Anthropomorphic, but it warms me heart. And looking at the proliferation madness in Porn and Chocolate (though not so Interstellar Travel, where thou art?) I take comfort in Her glory.

Wow Straughn you are really nice today... :confused: *bows awkwardly*
I'm serious, though. I feel pretty blessed that people whose posts i truly appreciate are interested enough in this thread to give it a whirl.
Usually i'm an arsehole going on about how screwed up some thing or another thing is, but the Cthulu thing struck me funny (it was a good post, but i'll just give homage and not repost w/out permission) - funny in the http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/13.gif
kinda way.

I am really attracted to the idea of God as a supergeek fiddling switches and watching reruns of Beauty and the Geek. Anthropomorphic, but it warms me heart. And looking at the proliferation madness in Porn and Chocolate (though not so Interstellar Travel, where thou art?) I take comfort in Her glory.Ah - i've never seen it.

BTW, i also want to thank you for joining in the thread, i appreciate your posts as well. Not just here, lots of others. *bows*

Wow, thanks. I'd bow back, but keyboard face is not a good look for me.

Wow, thanks. I'd bow back, but keyboard face is not a good look for me.
After having woke up several late mornings m'self with "keyboard face", i can say i wouldn't judge you harshly.
;)

Wow. this thread creeps me out a little and that is going some on this forum.

Please quit being nice now.

Anyway back to God and the poseurs to the throne.


Whenever Im fashioning God in my imagination for shits and giggles I find comfort in deciding that God and creation are one in the same. He is what he created blah blah blah. I see no profit in deciding that the two are seperate. It's alot less devisive when God is creation rather than seperate from it. Less finger pointing and blame etc. Far fewer untidy loose ends Im God you are God the Ficus plant in the corner is god Andromeda galaxy is God, all the time travelers and poseur gods are God superstring theorists are all God. I could go on but you get the picture.


God is just too much trouble to imagine most other ways

Wow. this thread creeps me out a little and that is going some on this forum. How so? Do you mean its success? Or the lack of flaming/locking?

Please quit being nice now.Have i been otherwise to you? I don't remember if i had or not. If i was, it was probably a matter of the thread nature - post/response nature.

Anyway back to God and the poseurs to the throne.


Whenever Im fashioning God in my imagination for shits and giggles I find comfort in deciding that God and creation are one in the same. He is what he created blah blah blah. I see no profit in deciding that the two are seperate. It's alot less devisive when God is creation rather than seperate from it. Less finger pointing and blame etc. Far fewer untidy loose ends Im God you are God the Ficus plant in the corner is god Andromeda galaxy is God, all the time travelers and poseur gods are God superstring theorists are all God. I could go on but you get the picture.


God is just too much trouble to imagine most other waysI have entertained that thought for some time - which is why my absolute refusal to accept the OT god as being anything other than whatever horribly heretical things i've posted before about it. I find a large part of myself agreeing with you, which is a big part of what the OP is about. As you say for poseurs on the throne, indeed, the OT and many other popular gods merit absolutely no worship or love from me, as their substance is critically lacking and w/out honour, IMO.

God is just a figure of speach.

God is just a figure of speach.
Perhaps ...

John the Revelator: And now it's time for Novel Writing, which today come from the west country on Dorset.
Abram: Hello, and welcome to Dorchester, where a very good crowd has turned out to watch local boy "God" write his new novel "The Book of Enoch", on this very pleasant July morning. This will be his eleventh novel and the fifth of the very popular Wessex novels, and here he comes! Here comes "God", walking out towards his desk. He looks confident, he looks relaxed, very much the man in form, as he acknowledges this very good natured bank holliday crowd. And the crowd goes quiet now, as "God" settles himself down at the desk, body straight, shoulders relaxed, pen held lightly but firmly in the right hand. He dips the pen...in the ink, and he's off! It's the first word, but it's not a word - oh, no! - it's a doodle. Way up on the top of the lefthand margin is a piece of meaningless scribble - and he's signed his name underneath it! Oh dear, what a disapointing start. But his off again - and here he goes - the first word of "God"'s new novel, at ten thirtyfive on this very lovely morning, it's three letters, it's the definite article, and it's "The". Matthew.
Matthew: Well, this is true to form, no surprises there. He started five of his eleven novels to date with the definite article. We had two of them with "It", there's been one "But", two "At"s, one "On" and a "Dolores", but that of course was never published.
Abram: I'm sorry to interrupt you there, Matthew, but he's crossed it out. "God", here on the first day of his new novel, has crossed out the only word he has written so far, and he's gazing off into space. Oh, ohh, there he signed his name again.
Matthew: It looks like "Jubilee" all over again.
Abram: But he's...no, he's down again and writting, Matthew, he's written "B" again, he's crossed it out again, and he has written "A" - and there is a second word coming up straight away, and it's "Sat" - "A Sat" - doesn't make sense - "A Satur" - "A Saturday" - it's "A Saturday", and the crowd are loving it, they are really enjoying this novel. And it's "afternoon", it's "Saturday afternoon", a comfortable beginning, and he's straight on to the next word - it's "in" - "A Saturday afternoon in" - "in" - "in" "in Nov" - "November" - November is spelled wrong, he's left out the second "E", but he's not going back, it looks like he's going for the sentence, and it's the first verb coming up - it's the first verb of the novel, and it's "was", and the crowd are going wild! "A Saturday afternoon in November was", and a long word here - "appro" - "appro" - is it a "approving"? - no, it's "approaching" - "approaching" - "A Saturday afternoon in November was approaching" - and he's done the definite article "but" again. And he's writing fluently, easily with flurring strokes of the pen, as he comes up to the middle of this first sentence. And with this eleventh novel well underway, and the prospects of a good days writing ahead, back to the studio.

Argh, this is the coolest thread i've ever run. I gots IRL issues.
TG me if it strikes your fancy.
Nightie, folks.

... yeah...

Anyway, if by Creation you mean the conscious or subconscious reordering of matter and energy, then yes; I agree with the sentiment. If, however, you mean an explicit, spontaneous calling into existence matter or energy that was not previously there and adds to the overall physical content of reality, then no; I must disagree.

Creation of being from nothingness is not a requirement for deity; the ability to manipulate is sufficient.

... yeah...

Anyway, if by Creation you mean the conscious or subconscious reordering of matter and energy, then yes; I agree with the sentiment. If, however, you mean an explicit, spontaneous calling into existence matter or energy that was not previously there and adds to the overall physical content of reality, then no; I must disagree.By strict physical law? Conservation of energy being the issue, or allowing for zero-point interpretation?

Creation of being from nothingness is not a requirement for deity; the ability to manipulate is sufficient.What about the Trinity project then?
Millenium had a sobering angle on that, btw.

By strict physical law? Conservation of energy being the issue, or allowing for zero-point interpretation?
The universe has a finite total energy. Matter may pop in and out of existence as a function of sheer probability, but it does not create or remove energy from the system as a whole in doing so. They are not created from nothing whenever they are formed. "Creation from nothing" implies such a violation; that the thing is literally just brought into existence in direct contravention of the laws of conservation and that changes the total energy of the universe as a whole.

A God does not need to violate physical laws and thus "Create" in order to "form". Divine entities can theoretically become so through skillful manipulations and sufficient practical knowledge.

And I haven't a clue what you mean by Trinity Project.

The universe has a finite total energy. Matter may pop in and out of existence as a function of sheer probability, but it does not create or remove energy from the system as a whole in doing so. They are not created from nothing whenever they are formed. "Creation from nothing" implies such a violation; that the thing is literally just brought into existence in direct contravention of the laws of conservation and that changes the total energy of the universe as a whole.

A God does not need to violate physical laws and thus "Create" in order to "form". Divine entities can theoretically become so through skillful manipulations and sufficient practical knowledge.

And I haven't a clue what you mean by Trinity Project.
Hmmm - curious what you profess to quantum fluctuation while simultaneously NOT knowing what the Trinity Project was. :(

Thanks for clarifying, though.
I would also invite you to qualify the models for the defining edge of the universe.
As they are, they are models, and extrapolation from observed behaviour.
And until the hierarchy problem is resolved (looking forward to LHC '07, WooT!) i don't think you can speak in absolutes of universal parameters.
It really isn't finished yet, and even as much as it interests me, i must still adhere to the principle that proof positive is better than a limited sampling-guess.

Another thought occurred to me along those lines .... ^ ....

as will and directive alter the effective probability at any one state, perhaps another degree of a conscious measure of (a) god wouldn't be its personality issues (as humans seem so fond of making EVERYTHING into an ego issue) so much as a matter of how many manifest options of likelihood it allots - successes from attempts. What might appear to be random fluctuations might be corollary to some of the least conscious efforts (perhaps even distractions of issues) to that god. As probability decides, the issue may or may not carry more weight - either as a distraction to a bigger issue or FROM a bigger issue ...

Even yet, the opposite, as perhaps a relatively simple directive of attempting to stay just barely ahead of the inevitable end of all things it created - i believe the saying went as follows ....

God:What's a black hole?"

Bob:"The house arrest of the four dimensions?"

God:"No. My empty grave."
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classictales/RealStory.html

*Tip of the Hat to ... well, you know who you are.*

Further even - perhaps in order for a god to continue to exist in such an ordered arrangement of things, and still be creative, perhaps it needs to adjust itself to ever-more abstract methods of permeation.

That's about as far as i'll go without revealing any more of my book issues. (Saint Curie ;) )

By me.
I've got a cult apparently *shrug* but no books about me. People've told me they would, but there's SOOOO many books out there ...
It's a long, LONG story, having to do with Douglas Adams (as an impetus) and a few other things that have happened to me and a few iconoclastic folk i know. Opportunities in face of a spirit escaping reason, theoretical physics, psych, some fashion of "humour", a few others - a hodgepodge.
Basically every topic i really dig into on this forum is given good time in the book.
Roman a clef, as the saying goes, IIRC. (thinks CSM)
Straughn, what the hell's wrong with you, dude? If you have a cult then you have worshippers. Get it? Not yet? Straughn...you are a god...

No, really. Run with me on this. I'm a polytheist; I know about gods. They're a dime a dozen. Anybody can be one. It's easy. Alright, maybe not easy, but do-able. See, gods are exemplars of whatever it is they are in charge of. In other words, they are like perfect examples of the great Whatever, personified or manifested, or you know, whatever. The god of lightning is the soul, face and body of lightning. Same for the gods of wheat fields and volcanoes and television ratings and cell phones and infinite space and rain and medicine and war and lawyers and dogs and...etc. And yeah, quite frankly, his worshippers riding around on their high horses notwithstanding, yeah, the creator god of the universe too.

All you have to do is be the best Straughn you possibly can be. The Straughnliest Straughn of them all. Just be that. And some day, when somebody thinks, "gosh, what would Straughn do?", they might sit and meditate about what you would do, and get a vision or something, and light incense in thanks to you, and bingo! You are officially a god. Straughn, Lord of Straughniness. You actually don't have to worry about what you're the god of. Your worshippers will make something up.

Just like Chairman Mao. Mao is a god now, did you know that? He's popular among taxi-drivers in Beijing. They hang pictures of him in their cabs for luck. You can merchandise yourself if you're a god.

Alright, you might have to die first, but you're going to do that some day anyway, so, you know, just make a note about it.


PS: But don't expect me to worship you. I'm not your bitch, bitch. ;)

Straughn, what the hell's wrong with you, dude?Those specific kind of questions never seem to get answered to the askers' satisfaction - most often there isn't enough time in the day. ;)
If you have a cult then you have worshippers. Get it? Not yet? Straughn...you are a god...

No, really. Run with me on this. I'm a polytheist; I know about gods. They're a dime a dozen. Anybody can be one. It's easy. Alright, maybe not easy, but do-able. See, gods are exemplars of whatever it is they are in charge of. In other words, they are like perfect examples of the great Whatever, personified or manifested, or you know, whatever. The god of lightning is the soul, face and body of lightning. Same for the gods of wheat fields and volcanoes and television ratings and cell phones and infinite space and rain and medicine and war and lawyers and dogs and...etc. And yeah, quite frankly, his worshippers riding around on their high horses notwithstanding, yeah, the creator god of the universe too.
Yeah, i think i had that idea 'round post #4 ...:
There's examples of mortality, obviously, of pantheon, IIRC ... nonetheless, they met certain criteria that stood them above the rest as gods ... redeemers of specific qualities, iconoclastic measure, that kind of thing. I don't necessarily think that a god need be immortal/invincible persay, but the whim idea is good.

All you have to do is be the best Straughn you possibly can be. The Straughnliest Straughn of them all. Just be that. And some day, when somebody thinks, "gosh, what would Straughn do?", they might sit and meditate about what you would do, and get a vision or something, and light incense in thanks to you, and bingo! You are officially a god. Straughn, Lord of Straughniness. You actually don't have to worry about what you're the god of. Your worshippers will make something up.Does this passage directly correlate with the first onein this post? Does someone have a shrine/incense altar/sacrificial ceremony for me? ;)
If so, it's gotta go on Sarkhaan and i's new thread.

Just like Chairman Mao. Mao is a god now, did you know that? He's popular among taxi-drivers in Beijing. They hang pictures of him in their cabs for luck. You can merchandise yourself if you're a god.

Alright, you might have to die first, but you're going to do that some day anyway, so, you know, just make a note about it.Perhaps that would be a result of the publishing of the book - for which i might also note that i have a family member on the east coast whom i would consider my manscript to be forwarded to 1st.


PS: But don't expect me to worship you. I'm not your bitch, bitch. ;)
I think that whole worship thing would impede our MAS treaty. :) Perhaps.
But don't throw out the incense yet ... ? ;)
*bows*

Those specific kind of questions never seem to get answered to the askers' satisfaction - most often there isn't enough time in the day. ;)
Tell me about it, brother. The list of what the hell's wrong with me gets longer every month, it seems.

Yeah, i think i had that idea 'round post #4 ...:
Oh, did you? Must have missed it in the blizzard of people amazed at how unbitchy you were being. I would be insulted by them, if I were you. You're a perfectly nice guy, for a god. ;)

Originally Posted by SJS circa p4
There's examples of mortality, obviously, of pantheon, IIRC ... nonetheless, they met certain criteria that stood them above the rest as gods ... redeemers of specific qualities, iconoclastic measure, that kind of thing. I don't necessarily think that a god need be immortal/invincible persay, but the whim idea is good.
Oh, yeah, look at that. There it is.

Does this passage directly correlate with the first onein this post? Does someone have a shrine/incense altar/sacrificial ceremony for me? ;)
If so, it's gotta go on Sarkhaan and i's new thread.
And if things go properly, it will be all down hill from there.

Here's how it works for Mao (god of irony):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,467840,00.html

Perhaps that would be a result of the publishing of the book - for which i might also note that i have a family member on the east coast whom i would consider my manscript to be forwarded to 1st.
Keychain fobs. Mao has keychain fobs. They're very popular, I hear.

I think that whole worship thing would impede our MAS treaty. :) Perhaps.
But don't throw out the incense yet ... ? ;)
*bows*
Namaste. ;)

Tell me about it, brother. The list of what the hell's wrong with me gets longer every month, it seems.
This forum is *great* therapy. ;) I get out my compulsive smilie issues pretty well here, i think. Also, i think there's an inverse relationship to my IRL.


Oh, did you? Must have missed it in the blizzard of people amazed at how unbitchy you were being.One of my few personal standards i attempt to uphold is if someone is worth spending the time to share their opinion w/me, when i ask for it, on such an abstract issue as this kinda is, it behooves me to show some respect. What the cool part is is that i had so many extremely cool people respond, especially with the kind of thought i was asking for. :)
Also, i don't remember being bitchy to/at any of these folks, although it's a given that i'm either/and irreverent on most threads.
I would be insulted by them, if I were you. You're a perfectly nice guy, for a god. ;)Argh, another standard to live down! *wrings clammy hands*
Actually, i'd never make it. Nice gods finish last. ;)
And if things go properly, it will be all down hill from there.
I think he and i agree that there is GREAT, GREAT potential with that thread. He's just gotta be on at the same time as i!


Here's how it works for Mao (god of irony):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,467840,00.html


Keychain fobs. Mao has keychain fobs. They're very popular, I hear.I heard about the buttons but not keychains. WhTF?


Namaste. ;)*bows*
Salumtic. :)

<snip>

All you have to do is be the best Straughn you possibly can be. The Straughnliest Straughn of them all. Just be that. And some day, when somebody thinks, "gosh, what would Straughn do?", they might sit and meditate about what you would do, and get a vision or something, and light incense in thanks to you, and bingo! You are officially a god. Straughn, Lord of Straughniness. <sni>

Straughn is not actually straughny at all. Not sure what you would call him but not straughny.

Straughn is not actually straughny at all. Not sure what you would call him but not straughny.
Straughniness ~ truthiness.

This forum is *great* therapy. ;) I get out my compulsive smilie issues pretty well here, i think. Also, i think there's an inverse relationship to my IRL.


One of my few personal standards i attempt to uphold is if someone is worth spending the time to share their opinion w/me, when i ask for it, on such an abstract issue as this kinda is, it behooves me to show some respect. What the cool part is is that i had so many extremely cool people respond, especially with the kind of thought i was asking for. :)
Also, i don't remember being bitchy to/at any of these folks, although it's a given that i'm either/and irreverent on most threads.
Sometimes "bitchy" can be taken as a compliment. Perhaps they were describing your skillful techniques at taking down people who need to go down a peg or two.

Argh, another standard to live down! *wrings clammy hands*
Where do you get clammy hands? They never have them in stock by me.

Actually, i'd never make it. Nice gods finish last. ;)
I think he and i agree that there is GREAT, GREAT potential with that thread. He's just gotta be on at the same time as i!
Which thread is it? I haven't seen anything with Sarkhaan's name on it.

I heard about the buttons but not keychains. WhTF?
Keychains and buttons are just the tip of the iceberg. You got your posters, post cards, portrait icons on paper and silk (printed and woven), rearview mirror charms, copies of Mao's calligraphy printed on just about every kind of desk accessory, wall hanging, and baseball cap you can think of, plus a pilgrimage tour complete with shops and hotels along the way at every place where Mao is believed to have performed a miracle (that's right, I said miracle). You can travel the tour, meditate on the Beloved Leader, get your chillblains magically healed by osmosis or something, pick up some mystical souvenirs and get a lunch and place to stay, all conveniently to hand. Just like the Catholic church does with their pilgrimages.

Of course the Cathollcs are still WAY ahead of those (not quite) godless commies. The Catholics have Winking Jesus portraits on velvet. I do not believe there are any winking Maos on velvet. Yet.

Perhaps we could have a Winking Straughn on velvet. It could come with signed editions of your book.

*bows*
Salumtic. :)
;)

EDIT: Of course, I'm kidding around, but at the same time, kind of not. After all, if Mao can be a god, who can't these days? Plus it's funny. But then, I'm a surrealist and a bad person. Plus I'm an iconoclast. If you became a god, I'd just turn on you sooner or later.

Sometimes "bitchy" can be taken as a compliment. Perhaps they were describing your skillful techniques at taking down people who need to go down a peg or two.Thank you. *bows*
To be fair, i usually start it - only recently i got the attention of someone who wanted to start it with me, curiously enough - Yarvolk.

Where do you get clammy hands? They never have them in stock by me.Ah - see Ferris Bueller's Day Off :D


Which thread is it? I haven't seen anything with Sarkhaan's name on it.Yeah, me either. He's running finals as an english major, and i suspect there's some hard-core partying as well.
At some point we're running a joint thread here in the near future with a couple new ideas in it. He said the 5th, but i don't really think we're gonna make it.


Keychains and buttons are just the tip of the iceberg. You got your posters, post cards, portrait icons on paper and silk (printed and woven), rearview mirror charms, copies of Mao's calligraphy printed on just about every kind of desk accessory, wall hanging, and baseball cap you can think of, plus a pilgrimage tour complete with shops and hotels along the way at every place where Mao is believed to have performed a miracle (that's right, I said miracle). You can travel the tour, meditate on the Beloved Leader, get your chillblains magically healed by osmosis or something, pick up some mystical souvenirs and get a lunch and place to stay, all conveniently to hand. Just like the Catholic church does with their pilgrimages.
*Genuflect!*
*Genuflect!*
*Genuflect!*
;)


Of course the Cathollcs are still WAY ahead of those (not quite) godless commies. The Catholics have Winking Jesus portraits on velvet. I do not believe there are any winking Maos on velvet. Yet.It might appear they'll be too busy with the DaVinci Code boycott/legal action :rolleyes:

Perhaps we could have a Winking Straughn on velvet. It could come with signed editions of your book.I have a camera that can render 3d image pictures out of a 36 roll - 12 photos in optimal light. I have a good one of my cat and another of my wolf hybrid on a beach. I suppose i could do a few images hither & tither - and/or i could procure one of those laser-imaging systems to make it appear as though i wink (and it won't look like something poked my eye or i'm about to sneeze).


;)

EDIT: Of course, I'm kidding around, but at the same time, kind of not. After all, if Mao can be a god, who can't these days? Plus it's funny. But then, I'm a surrealist and a bad person. Plus I'm an iconoclast. If you became a god, I'd just turn on you sooner or later.Damned well better turn on me! :D

Mmm.. What about a StraughnJohnSilver's cigarette brand? Silk cut Virginia tobacco with a drop of rum, handrolled on the thighs of sexy Caribbean Pirates.

I'd smoke those (and why the hell isn't there a smoking smiley?).

By the way, I discovered a few years ago that Mao wortship isn't limited to China. I still remember the absolute shock-horror of discovering a "Long live Massmurderer (or possibly chairman, I'm not sure) Mao's Culture Revolution" while I was walking innocently down a street in inner London. Uhm, and on that note, I have a (perhaps silly) question; if one believes Mao is a deity, does that make one a Daoist?

Mmm.. What about a StraughnJohnSilver's cigarette brand? Silk cut Virginia tobacco with a drop of rum, handrolled on the thighs of sexy Caribbean Pirates.Got me so far!

I'd smoke those (and why the hell isn't there a smoking smiley?).
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/439.gif
By the way, I discovered a few years ago that Mao wortship isn't limited to China. I still remember the absolute shock-horror of discovering a "Long live Massmurderer (or possibly chairman, I'm not sure) Mao's Culture Revolution" while I was walking innocently down a street in inner London. Uhm, and on that note, I have a (perhaps silly) question; if one believes Mao is a deity, does that make one a Daoist?
Hahaha! :D

How so? Do you mean its success? Or the lack of flaming/locking?.

The lack of flaming/locking is closer but not really it. The active compliments are what scare me a little. And Im fearless



Have i been otherwise to you? I don't remember if i had or not. If i was, it was probably a matter of the thread nature - post/response nature.
.

No no, I dont believe we've crossed swords. Im just put off by atypical niceness. Too sensitive I suppose.

Yeah, me either. He's running finals as an english major, and i suspect there's some hard-core partying as well.
At some point we're running a joint thread here in the near future with a couple new ideas in it. He said the 5th, but i don't really think we're gonna make it.
I'll keep my eyes peeled.


It might appear they'll be too busy with the DaVinci Code boycott/legal action :rolleyes:
Or too busy making money off DaVinci Code tourism.

I have a camera that can render 3d image pictures out of a 36 roll - 12 photos in optimal light. I have a good one of my cat and another of my wolf hybrid on a beach. I suppose i could do a few images hither & tither - and/or i could procure one of those laser-imaging systems to make it appear as though i wink (and it won't look like something poked my eye or i'm about to sneeze).
Too cool.

Damned well better turn on me! :D
I got your back, baby. *fingers hidden dagger* :)

Mmm.. What about a StraughnJohnSilver's cigarette brand? Silk cut Virginia tobacco with a drop of rum, handrolled on the thighs of sexy Caribbean Pirates.
*long inhale...hold...long exhale* Aaahhhh... Smoooothe.... :cool:

The lack of flaming/locking is closer but not really it. The active compliments are what scare me a little. And Im fearless
Well, i imagine it's up to y'all to determine whether i'm being placative or sincere. I think you have a good point - often i'm reflexively nasty, but i actually wanted to see what people thought of the idea, and for some reason it was all making sense to me at the time. It's not really fair to attack people in that mindset. Besides, i actually do like everyone who responded.

No no, I dont believe we've crossed swords. Im just put off by atypical niceness. Too sensitive I suppose.This place can certainly get you there w/in a couple of posts.
Ah, take heart - any number of other threads have plenty of participatory vitriol. I might frequent a few m'self.
:)

I'll keep my eyes peeled.
One of the first Sarkhaan-tracking morsels is a thread hijack. *nods emphatically*

Or too busy making money off DaVinci Code tourism.Za-ZING! :D


Too cool.Not as common as one might think!
Well, i think the camera was $120 or so, a while ago. The 80's, even. Got it from Edmund Scientific or Johnson-Smith catalogues.

I got your back, baby. *fingers hidden dagger* :)Hmmm ... echoes of Colbert, there ... ;)
See, another function of a god in the older sense would be learning how to take subterfuge - for example, to get over poison - ibocaine perhaps, as Dred Pirate Roberts did - one would have to give themselves doses and exposure over time. I've done the same with stabbings. Granted, a few of them were extroverted, but i have come to an agreeable balance. :)

See, another function of a god in the older sense would be learning how to take subterfuge - for example, to get over poison - ibocaine perhaps, as Dred Pirate Roberts did - one would have to give themselves doses and exposure over time. I've done the same with stabbings. Granted, a few of them were extroverted, but i have come to an agreeable balance. :)

Iocaine, I believe....

(And, it wasn't really 'Dread Pirate Roberts'... it was Westley. Roberts had been retired in Patagonia for a decade and a half at that point...)

hmmmm

i dont understand this thread (big surprise)

now im wondering what the difference is between a god and a superhero?

wouldnt athena and apollo be considered superheros today? sure you were supposed to sacrifice to them but is that the definintion of a god? someone you have to give stuff to symbolically in order to get them on your side?

and if you DO have to perform some kind of ritual to get them on my side, doesnt that keep straughn off the list? (cigars dont count)

superman certainly had the kind of powers that the old european gods had. (especially if you go by the movies) he doesnt require any kind of burnt offerings though....

then there is the part where no one believes in superman....

i knew there was a reason i stayed out of this thread.

Iocaine, I believe....
Could be. Believe it or not, since the last time i watched it, the only refe's i've heard is The Montoya Principle ;) and ROUSes.
Probably is "iocaine". Ibocaine is reportedly an anti-addiction drug.

(And, it wasn't really 'Dread Pirate Roberts'... it was Westley. Roberts had been retired in Patagonia for a decade and a half at that point...)I remember that, i just couldn't remember the "Westley" part. Too many images of ST:TNG Season 1 ;)

hmmmm

i dont understand this thread (big surprise)

now im wondering what the difference is between a god and a superhero? The only issue of ability that i thought i was addressing was the true ability for creation as differing from any other ability. Superheroes, still, aren't as such (at least the ones i've heard of).

wouldnt athena and apollo be considered superheros today? sure you were supposed to sacrifice to them but is that the definintion of a god? someone you have to give stuff to symbolically in order to get them on your side? Well, currying favour is large in, forgive my blessed ignorance, just about ALL of the major religions in the world. I don't think that they'd be superheroes, though, because they didn't start from a beginning that lent them some credibility to human condition, nor did they do anything other than meddle with human affairs and maintain a certain duplicitious aristocratic nature. As "hero" goes, there's a couple basic runs on the net ...:

(classical mythology) a being of great strength and courage celebrated for bold exploits; often the offspring of a mortal and a god
(Greek mythology) priestess of Aphrodite who killed herself when her lover Leander drowned while trying to swim the Hellespont to see her
In many myths and folk tales, a hero is a man or woman (the latter often called a heroine), traditionally the protagonist of a story, legend or saga, who commonly possesses abilities or character far greater than that of a typical person, which enable him or her to perform some truly extraordinary, beneficial deed (a "heroic deed") for which he or she is famous. These powers are sometimes not only of the body but also of the mind. Heroes are typically opposed by villains.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero
-
I suspect adding the prefix "super-" results thusly:

Phenomenon in American comic culture - strangely popular mutants and freaks, usually wearing thights and some highly uncomfortable costumes. Occupation - saving the world and (pseudo)destroiyng other similar creatures.
www.utv.ee/~ivar/comics/dictionary.html

A superhero is a fictional character who is noted for feats of courage and nobility and who usually has a colorful name and costume and abilities beyond those of normal human beings. Since the definitive superhero, Superman, debuted in 1938, the stories of superheroes - ranging from brief episodic adventures to continuing years-long sagas - have become an entire genre of fiction, one that has dominated American comic books and crossed over into other media.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhero
--

and if you DO have to perform some kind of ritual to get them on my side, doesnt that keep straughn off the list? (cigars dont count)Keeping me off the list? Ah, it's not so hard. My criteria are fairly obvious. See my other posts ... ;)

superman certainly had the kind of powers that the old european gods had. (especially if you go by the movies) he doesnt require any kind of burnt offerings though....I suppose you have a point, somewhat - nonetheless he has no more power over creation than any mortal does.

then there is the part where no one believes in superman....Well, he believes in you! :p
Seriously - the new X-Men movie had it's prior director stolen to do the new Superman.
BTW, do you know the name of Nicolas Cage's newborn? :D

i knew there was a reason i stayed out of this thread.What? What am i responding to then? ;)