> T: =A0Hi Darwi. =A0For the purposes of the discussion thread below my
defi=
nition
> is broader. =A0A "god" would be any being considered to be a god by a
larg=
e
> segment of the population. =A0After all, people have different ideas
about=
> gods, so it's difficult to have an "objective" definition.
>
Yep. That's true. That's one of those points where only 'mine' opinion
is 'the right one'. That's how we ended up with all those religious
wars.
That's why I quoted the wikipedia definition. Since that's open source
I can assume that majority of the human population is in agreement
with that definition.
> In polytheism you have a bit 'lesser' gods, which
> abilities are limited, and duties are limited. If you apply that
> definition than you can declare some character gods, in the same way
> ancient Roman emperors were declaring themselves gods. So in the
> polytheistic sense Paul can be a god.
>
> T: =A0Okay we're in agreement here.
Ah. In that case, a god is just a term used to illustrate certain
human behavior.
>
> My opinion is that F. Herbert did not wished to include the
> monotheistic God (the God) in his writing simply because one can not
> have interesting and tense story with =A0omniscient, omnipotent,
> omnipresent, omnibenevolent main character.
> with such character as sup****ting character you can have a story
(remember=
Q
> from Star Trek),
> but not as main character. Unless you limit him/her in some way.
>
> T: =A0Sure FH didn't want a Q type character in the Chronicles, but
"god" =
is
> mentioned throughout his saga. =A0Remember the "god of machine logic,"
"th=
e
> language of god," and "god will lead you to a place to die."
Yep. Those are mentioned. And it was illustrated how those terms can
be used to manipulate the population. Majority of the humans has wired
in their brain to consider term GOD to signify something better than
themselves, something on what they can not have any influence. So
isn't so tempting to say: "We have to go to the neighborhood village
and destroy it, because that's the God wish!"
>
> But
> if you do limit the God than it is not the God anymore. So F. Herbert
> did gave different views about the God and the religion in his
> stories, because he was describing the human nature. I clearly
> remember that Chani never thought that Paul was the God nor a god
> (polytheistic one). She knew he has some strange qualities, but for
> her he never was a or the god. Same was with Leto II, not a single
> Bene Gesserit reverent mother considered him a god and definitely not
> the God. On the other hand, Fish Speakers did. But their opinion did
> not made him the God.
>
> T: =A0Perhaps it did. =A0It depends on your definition. =A0For example,
Je=
an Luc
> Picard didn't consider Q a god, but Q claimed to be the god Prometheus
in
> one story (IQ). =A0In that case the Greeks presumably considered Q a
god.
Prometheus is not a god, he's a Titan. Just small correction.
But I see your point. It is basically im****tant that in certain people
he did provoke religious feelings.
Those feelings were part of the story in the first place.
>
> It just made interesting point of how people can
> be forced to believe strangest things. After all, even today you have
> people which believe that computer or Elvis is god. But every one of
> them, including a computer or Elvis can be declared gods in
> polytheistic sense.
>
> T: =A0It's ironic that FH included so many lesser gods in his Dune
Chronic=
les.
> I don't think he was implying, "look at all those dopey people believing
i=
n
> that stuff." =A0I think he believed that religious thinking was part of
be=
ing
> human.
What FH thought, we can not know.
But I agree that religion is part of being human. For me, FH shows in
his work how that part can be easily be used for the manipulations.
|
