Have you ever met a person who thought sci fi was too violent or even a tool of Satan?

[theenglish]

I said as much in our conversation, but the problem the other guy had was with the "a new copy with your memories intact" part. Our talk was nearly twenty years ago, so I can't recall the specifics, but I think he equated memories with a soul and that was where he let me know we were treading upon a dangerous subject, sci-fi or not.

I understood what you said. Sorry if I sounded like I was being contradictory--wasn't the intention. I think it was the old book The Physics of Star Trek that dealt with the religious implications of the transporter--but I could be wrong. It sounds like your friend must have problems with a lot of literature -- not just science fiction. It seems that either he believed that if a fiction writer creates characters or concepts that goes against his version of the laws of God then the writer is being heretical? Or the guy believed that it was impossible to write scenarios that went against the laws of God because God wouldn't allow that?

 

[fireproof78]

It seems that either he believed that if a fiction writer creates characters or concepts that goes against his version of the laws of God then the writer is being heretical? Or the guy believed that it was impossible to write scenarios that went against the laws of God because God wouldn't allow that?

I use to have similar beliefs. Reading Tolkien's letters helped that.

 

[JD]

Gotta disagree there. Yes, some people have seriously deep phobias. And yes, snake phobias aren't exactly uncommon - but the same is true of a million other things, too. You can't just demand no one ever wear a shirt (or have anything else) with a cartoon snake (or spider, or monster, or skeleton, ghost, shark, gun, knife, clown, full moon, etc, etc) anywhere in public.

Maybe if the shirt was super-graphic like something out of a horror movie, or if there was a specific person they *knew* was on the plane who absolutely couldn't handle it, then one could make a reasonable argument for it. Otherwise, no. You don't tell people they can't board a flight just because they're wearing a completely innocuous t-shirt that in all likelihood probably won't even be noticed by anyone.

Oh, I thought it said it was because it did bother someone. It was just because it might? That is going overboard then.

 

[Greg Cox]

And the bondage?

That may have flown over their heads.

Oh, I just remembered an incident from roughly thirty years ago. There was this one nut who sent something like 27 angry letters to Tor because (gasp!) the characters in a fantasy series, set in a fictional realm, believed in "false gods" instead of Jesus.

Never mind that the books were set in an imaginary world with its own history and religions . . .

 

[ichab]

Had a friend who thought I was weird for liking Star Trek. He was a hardcore wrestling fan. I'll leave you to ponder the irony of that situation.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I understood what you said. Sorry if I sounded like I was being contradictory--wasn't the intention. I think it was the old book The Physics of Star Trek that dealt with the religious implications of the transporter--but I could be wrong. It sounds like your friend must have problems with a lot of literature -- not just science fiction. It seems that either he believed that if a fiction writer creates characters or concepts that goes against his version of the laws of God then the writer is being heretical? Or the guy believed that it was impossible to write scenarios that went against the laws of God because God wouldn't allow that?

I think it was a bit of both, IIRC. It didn't seem to matter if it was a work of fiction or fantasy--rematerialization of living things, memory or soul duplication--I think he considered them blasphemous. The thing I remember the most was the very serious look he gave me, as if he was ready to defend his position (or faith) to the death. An argument over an imaginary device wasn't worth it, IMO.

 

[Kor]

That is an interesting take but it is essentially what the transporters do. They dematerialize something then send the data to he rematerialized somewhere else. By our standards they kill you and then create a new copy of you with your memories intact in another location.

I vaguely recall this question being raised within Trek itself at some point, but I can't remember if it was in an episode or in a non-"cannnon" novel. I'm sure philosophers within the Trek universe have addressed the matter ad nauseum.

We have actually seen transportation from within, making it look like the consciousness itself experiences the whole process from start to finish.

Kor

 

[Turtletrekker]

I would've asked why resurrection was unacceptable in one fictional construct (Star Trek) yet totally fine in another (Christianity), but then I like riling up religious nuts.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I vaguely recall this question being raised within Trek itself at some point, but I can't remember if it was in an episode or in a non-"cannnon" novel. I'm sure philosophers within the Trek universe have addressed the matter ad nauseum.

Kor

I seem to recall it being brought up in "Federation" by Garfield and Judith Reeves-Stevens.

 

[Skipper]

Outside the United States, most people who used the phrase "tool of Satan" in such a context would be in some kind of mental institution.

Even here (Italy) when the clergy use the word "Satan" they do it allegorically, ie to indicate the evil in the world, not an actual guy who spends his time to invent things as rock or fantasy RPGs.

And really, millions of people works in the SciFi field (if you count movies, books, comics, videogames etc and if you consider that superheroes are a SciFi subgenre): shouldn't Satan use his incredible powers to force these people to do, I don't know, evil things, instead of creating stories of spaceships zigzagging through the stars or guys with capes fighting super villains?

 

[Christopher]

Oh, I just remembered an incident from roughly thirty years ago. There was this one nut who sent something like 27 angry letters to Tor because (gasp!) the characters in a fantasy series, set in a fictional realm, believed in "false gods" instead of Jesus.

Never mind that the books were set in an imaginary world with its own history and religions . . .

I once read about a study suggesting that strongly religious people have difficulty understanding the difference between fact and fiction. Although I suspect that may be a function of upbringing rather than innate ability; if you've grown up in an environment where the only book you got to read was the Bible, and it was taught to you as absolute fact, you might simply be unfamiliar with the concept that a written work can be intended as entertainment rather than proselytization.

I vaguely recall this question being raised within Trek itself at some point, but I can't remember if it was in an episode or in a non-"cannnon" novel. I'm sure philosophers within the Trek universe have addressed the matter ad nauseum.

The first book to raise the question of whether transporters kill people was James Blish's Spock Must Die! way back in 1970, only the second original Trek novel ever written.

Anyway, here's my physics-based argument for why transporters don't kill and clone you: https://christopherlbennett.wordpre...quantum-teleportation-and-continuity-of-self/

And really, millions of people works in the SciFi field (if you count movies, books, comics, videogames etc and if you consider that superheroes are a SciFi subgenre): shouldn't Satan use his incredible powers to force these people to do, I don't know, evil things, instead of creating stories of spaceships zigzagging through the stars or guys with capes fighting super villains?

In the minds of religious extremists, those are evil things, because they turn people's minds away from acceptable doctrine and devotion to God. People with those beliefs are less concerned about tangible actions in life and more about the disposition of the soul afterward. For them, it's all about earning the prize of getting into Heaven, and they think there's only one legitimate way of doing that, the one written in the Bible (or at least the one they think is written there, since they often seem to have a very poor understanding of what it actually says). So they think that anything that diverts people's minds away from that one narrowly defined way of thinking will keep their souls from getting into Heaven and is therefore evil.

 

[Crazyewok]

Whenever I see people objecting to any kind of sex or violence in TV, I want to lock them in a room and force them to watch a whole collection of episodes of Game of Thrones, just to watch them lose their minds.
If people don't like something, then they can just not watch it, I don't think they should be allowed to determine what I can or can't watch.

Long as it's not the last season as that would probably be to cruel.

 

[Redfern]

I vaguely recall this question being raised within Trek itself at some point, but I can't remember if it was in an episode or in a non-"canon" novel.

It was the basis for "Spock Must Die!" by James Blish, arguably the first original (adult) Star Trek novel. I add the qualifier "adult" because somebody would otherwise point out there was a book published earlier, but it was geared towards younger readers. (When he planned to move out of state, a friend gave me his first edition of that novel.)

 

[Qonundrum]

I knew a guy about 25 years ago who felt it was all the work of Satan. Of course, he didn't realize that despite one route being longer in terms of miles, the faster speed limit and lack of traffic lights resulted in getting to a destination faster. But who would let a fictional TV show dictate what's right or wrong when it's not even real, using real things only as loosely as possible to expand the size of the audience?

 

[Qonundrum]

I used to work in a toy shop that refused to sell HP merch for the same reason.

On the plus side, we got every Sunday off.

It is. All that plastic for the pandering merch isn't created by magic. But Satan will be shoehorned in, if he hasn't been already.

 

[Jayson1]

Are there really there so terrified of snakes they can't even handle a picture of one on a shirt?

Snakes are the devils animal. Along with cats,goats and Democrats.


Jason

 

[AllisonR]

I am related to missionaries. The newest edition to the family just wrote a whole book about how God will accept gay people, as long as they never, ever, ever have sex. However he is only 22 or so and newly married, and I hope as he matures he might one day look back on this and be embarrassed about the hurtful things he has written about people, in the name of his God.

In general I don't like to upset people over religious beliefs, because they are so right of me, and to them I am so left of them, that there is no common ground. We are too far apart to ever agree on anything. However once I was joking around with my son at a family event about how the earth is obviously only 4000 years old! We were laughing. Well my relatives got very upset and insulted and said that it was my BELIEF that the world was older, and their BELIEF that it wasn't. I was choosing to have a BELIEF in science, while they chose to have a BELIEF in Jesus. It is the same thing. Ok. I dropped it. I'd love to kidnap their grandkids for a day though, and just take them to Moesgaard (a Danish museum dedicated to archaeology and ethnography), or the Aarhus Museum of Natural History. Never going to happen though.

 

[Shawnster]

My relative's phobia does not run that far.
Not doubting this report, though.

I met a man once whose wife's snake phobia was so strong he had to screen everything in advance to make sure there were no pictures or illustrations of snakes, including religious publications. Her phobia was that strong.

 

[Skipper]

From the Wikipedia (Just to show that even the Catholic Church usually is more tolerant than these nutjobs)


Beginning in 2001, Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, has occasionally written on the Harry Potter series in his regular column in The Sunday Telegraph. In his columns, he praised the books for displaying values that are "deeply compatible with Christianity."[38] In his book Be Not Afraid, Pell praised the books as having a "good dose of moral truth" and for being "a good yarn."[39]

In 2003, Peter Fleetwood, a priest incardinated in the Archdiocese of Liverpool at the time serving as an official of the Pontifical Council for Culture,[40] made comments supportive of the novels during a press conference announcing the release of Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life—A Christian reflection on the "New Age". In response to a question asking if the magic presented in the Harry Potter series should be considered in the same light as some New Age practices warned against in the document, Fleetwood stated, "If I have understood well the intentions of Harry Potter's author, they help children to see the difference between good and evil. And she is very clear on this." He added that Rowling is "Christian by conviction, is Christian in her mode of living, even in her way of writing."[41]

 

[fireproof78]

I have no problems with differing points of view, even regards my religious beliefs.

I don't have to agree to find common ground as human beings.