In the beginning

[Michele]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I think this is a useless digression.

Probably.

For roleplaying purposes, omnipotence has no value.

I'd say it's invaluable.

And yeah, Blindness is the same as never opening your eyes for any reason whatsoever. If the option doesn't exist to break a vow, it's not a Vow. It's something else. Which is why Can't Wear Armor is the same thing as Won't Wear Armor Under Any Circumstances No Take Backs

Which is not what I wrote. I think I defined the Vow as "in given circumstances".

Which enables me to segue back to the real subject. Unless you have players actually playing your gods the distinction between "Aren't creating new worlds" and "Are creating new worlds, but the players will never get a chance to see them" is meaningless. For the purposes of the game the two options play out exactly the same.

Well, point taken. _My_ point, looking at it from the RPG POV, is that for a character, it is one thing to be able to say:

"we know no Gods exist, or if they exist, we know they won't ever interfere down here under-any-circumstances-no-take-backs"

Or

"we think the Gods are under certain self-imposed restrictions to their interventions, so that their actual interventions are so rare that they might even not exist - but we also know that people claim miracles happen from time to time".

There is a difference, expecially if one ponders the alternative while he is facing a short-tempered holy man who says: "move another step and the Gods will smite you with a lightning bolt".

At this point, I'd suggest having a look at the preview of GURPS Powers: Divine Favor.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Michele

Which is not what I wrote. I think I defined the Vow as "in given circumstances".

Blindness with a Mitigator.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Michele

As to nothing being impossible for God, I'll respectfully suggest that Christians have that on pretty good authority, no matter the language you choose, see Matthew 19:26 or Luke 1:37. The Jews have Genesis 18:14 or Jeremiah 32:27.

Matthew 19:26 KJV: "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." However, this is in the midst of a discussion about how hard it is for the rich to enter Heaven. "All things" isn't particularly expanded from the scope that a 1st century Jew might have; compare to "all the world" in re Luke 2:1.

Luke 1:37 KJV:"For with God nothing shall be impossible." This is Gabriel's assurance that the improbabe births he has just heralded to Mary (her barren old lady cousin starting her third trimester, Mary herself to conceive a boy despite being a virgin) will come to pass, but the Greek usage connotes words rather than deeds, and "God's promises are always kept" is a more apt if somewhat less grand translation.


Genesis 18:!4 is a similar assurance about Sarai's pregnancy, though in one verse the Elohim say, "How is this hard for G-d?" This is immediately before G-d goes to make a personal inspection of Sodom and Gomorrah in 18:21 "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." This seems inconsistent that an omni* being has to make a personal inspection; the various commentaries bundled with the texts these days hold that this is an inspirational, or example-setting passage for judges among men and expressed in man's language. If so, it seems inconsistent to treat other passages meant for man's consumption as other than figurative as well.

Jeremiah 32:27 is another reassurance that a hard-to-believe though not physicaly impossible prophecy will come to pass. NIV: "I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?" Yes, Jeremiah should go ahead and buy the plot right before the city is conquered because it will be temporary, and there will return their children for a new covenant: "And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." More, heavily figurative lanaguge.

[Michele]

Dear Jeff, I'd be happy to reply and my reply would also be quite long and boring. But I reckon that with your last post, we have reached the point where the roleplaying contents disappeared altogether. We might try continuing this in General Chatter, but even there it's the kind of topic that can quickly get hot and... closed.
So let's exercise some restraint. I'll just advise you to raise the issue with a theologian, if he's worth his salt it will be a rewarding conversation. My apologies if you find this response disappointing.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Michele

So let's exercise some restraint. I'll just advise you to raise the issue with a theologian, if he's worth his salt it will be a rewarding conversation. My apologies if you find this response disappointing.

I'm not disappointed at all, and I hope you won't be either to hear I've already done that: I had the wonderful opportunity of spending a year of long hours working beside an ordained minister in a computer shop, and before that I spent three years in an office with a lay minister. Church of Christ and Baptist respectively.

I'll just do the omniless approach first, while the others work out if doing the other way is hurting bad fun or not.