Christian Fandom meeting at Dragoncon/NASFiC 1995
Marty Helgesen
Carol") says:
>ROB HANSEN HERE:
>
>> CHRISTIANS??? At DRAGONCON?????
>>
>> How the hell did this happen? Doesn't fandom have ANY standards
>> as to what sort of person they'll admit?
>>
>> Next thing you know, we'll have a bunch of Right-wing Republicans
>> running around in bussiness suits... what's this world(con/NASFiC)
>> coming to???
>I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually does make
>me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times when cons were a
>space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
>Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that Christianity, various stripes
>of New Age-ism, and other constructs of the superstitious should be given
>equal respect even though to many of us they're self-evidently hogwash.
>Sigh.
There have always been a lot of Christians in fandom, more than fans,
including Christian fans, realized. The first meeting of Christian
Fandom, at Chicon in 1982, attracted over 80 people, each of whom
expected to find only 5 or 6. It was fun watching the faces of late
arrivals who walked in expecting a handful of people and saw a room-
ful of people. Some Christian fans, such as Ron Ellik, have been
very prominent in fandom. And, of course, there have been a number
of Christian pros.
I hope the person who posting it was being ironic, but I have seen
similar statements alleging an incompatibility of Christianity and
fandom that were made seriously.
There are a lot of neo-pagans in fandom, but I haven't seen the
sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"Crossbows don't kill people. Quarrels kill people."
Arthur Hlavaty
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>ROB HANSEN HERE:
>
>I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually does make
>me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times when cons were a
>space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
>Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that Christianity, various stripes
>of New Age-ism, and other constructs of the superstitious should be given
>equal respect even though to many of us they're self-evidently hogwash.
>Sigh.
>
who do not consider scientific method the only way to find truth are
accepted in fandom.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
P Nielsen Hayden
Rob Hansen refers to:
>...earlier times when cons were a
>space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
I think you're indulging in a touch of pejorism here. Many of the old-time
fans you admire were believers of one stripe or another; as for rationalism
being a "given," it seems to me that waves of fannish interest in psi,
Lemurians, Dianetics, etc., are not exactly a new thing.
If anything, the existence of groups like "Christian Fandom" tells us that
in the SF world being a practicing Christian is no longer, as Chip Delany
would say, the "unmarked state."
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.interport.net/~pnh : http://www.tor.com
Avedon Carol
> CHRISTIANS??? At DRAGONCON?????
>
> How the hell did this happen? Doesn't fandom have ANY standards
> as to what sort of person they'll admit?
>
> Next thing you know, we'll have a bunch of Right-wing Republicans
> running around in bussiness suits... what's this world(con/NASFiC)
> coming to???
I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually does make
me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times when cons were a
space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that Christianity, various stripes
of New Age-ism, and other constructs of the superstitious should be given
equal respect even though to many of us they're self-evidently hogwash.
Sigh.
-Rob
Gary Farber
: ROB HANSEN HERE:
: I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually does make
: me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times when cons were a
: space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
: Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that Christianity, various stripes
: of New Age-ism, and other constructs of the superstitious should be given
: equal respect even though to many of us they're self-evidently hogwash.
: Sigh.
This seems self-evident, but I believe, ideally, in treating people with
equal respect regardless of what I think of their beliefs. If I was
disrespectful to everyone who had an opinion I think is hogwash, I would
be insulting everyone I know more than I already do.
Do you tell all of your pagan, Christian, or otherwise religious friends
how bloody stupid they are? I don't _think_ you do.
--
-- Gary Farber Brooklyn, New York City
gfa...@panix.com I is another, and I am that other. -- Rimbaud
Joseph W. Casey
> In article <3va50b$1...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
>>Avedon Carol (ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
>>: ROB HANSEN HERE:
>>
>>: I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually does make
>>: me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times when cons were a
>>: space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
>>: Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that Christianity, various stripes
>>: of New Age-ism, and other constructs of the superstitious should be given
>>: equal respect even though to many of us they're self-evidently hogwash.
>>: Sigh.
>>
>>This seems self-evident, but I believe, ideally, in treating people with
>>equal respect regardless of what I think of their beliefs. If I was
>>disrespectful to everyone who had an opinion I think is hogwash, I would
>>be insulting everyone I know more than I already do.
>>
>>Do you tell all of your pagan, Christian, or otherwise religious friends
>>how bloody stupid they are? I don't _think_ you do.
>>
>
> religious practices and did indeed tell me how bloody stupid I
> was for believing in superstitious nonsense.
>
I got just two words from people like that, and they ain't Happy Birthday
JWC
--
Major Makin vestai-Cheghjihtah-Kasara
may'ghom la', may' tengchaH Morath
ra'wI', Assault Squadron, Central Quadrant
Steel Fist Fleet KAG/KANADA
Janice Gelb
>Avedon Carol (ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
>: ROB HANSEN HERE:
>
>: I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually does make
>: me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times when cons were a
>: space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
>: Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that Christianity, various stripes
>: of New Age-ism, and other constructs of the superstitious should be given
>: equal respect even though to many of us they're self-evidently hogwash.
>: Sigh.
>
>This seems self-evident, but I believe, ideally, in treating people with
>equal respect regardless of what I think of their beliefs. If I was
>disrespectful to everyone who had an opinion I think is hogwash, I would
>be insulting everyone I know more than I already do.
>
>Do you tell all of your pagan, Christian, or otherwise religious friends
>how bloody stupid they are? I don't _think_ you do.
>
Wish I had a dime for every time someone at a con heard about my
religious practices and did indeed tell me how bloody stupid I
was for believing in superstitious nonsense.
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
"Usenet is like Tetris for people who still remember how to read"
********************************************************************************
Ulrika
>ROB HANSEN HERE:
>I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually does >make
>me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times when cons were a
>space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
>Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that Christianity, various >stripes
>of New Age-ism, and other constructs of the superstitious should be >given
>equal respect even though to many of us they're self-evidently hogwash.
>Sigh.
I know I shouldn't touch this. I know I shouldn't touch this. I know I
shouldn't touch this.
How about if I skip the debate and just say,
So, Gary...does *this* constitute an adequate example of what I mean when
I juxtapose *reactionary* and *fandom*?
Ulrika
>Faith indeed. I'm not a Christian or a New Ager, but I'm glad that those
>who do not consider scientific method the only way to find truth are
>accepted in fandom.
Hahahahaha! <*hoot*> <*chortle*> <*snort*>
Bless you, Arthur, I needed that. Mot juste indeed.
To be fair, perhaps Rob has never heard of David Hume. He was, after
all, a Scotsman...
--Ulrika
P Nielsen Hayden
>On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, Marty Helgesen wrote:
>> There are a lot of neo-pagans in fandom, but I haven't seen the
>> sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
>Christians are a majority in the U.S. They are, therefore, potentially
>dangerous, this being a democracy. There is some evidence that they are
>in fact actually dangerous.
Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed are dangerous individuals who, unless checked,
will do toxic things to the way we can live our lives. Ross Pavlac and
Marty Helgesen are well-known SF fans. I like to think I can tell the
difference.
I'm also quite certain that Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed would be very happy
to see us spending energy baiting "Christians in fandom" rather than working
against their agendas.
Gary Farber
: >> There are a lot of neo-pagans in fandom, but I haven't seen the
: >> sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
: >Christians are a majority in the U.S. They are, therefore, potentially
: >dangerous, this being a democracy. There is some evidence that they are
: >in fact actually dangerous.
: Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed are dangerous individuals who, unless checked,
: will do toxic things to the way we can live our lives. Ross Pavlac and
: Marty Helgesen are well-known SF fans. I like to think I can tell the
: difference.
: I'm also quite certain that Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed would be very happy
: to see us spending energy baiting "Christians in fandom" rather than working
: against their agendas.
Every word that Patrick said, and also:
Men have the majority of power in the U.S. They are, therefore, potentially
dangerous, this being a democracy. There is some evidence that they are
in fact actually dangerous.
I speak as someone whose relatives and ancestors were slaughtered by
Christians. I have nothing kind to say for the Inquisition. But anyone
who reduces Christianity to that is a fool.
Picking out as targets sf fans who desire to discuss their religious
beliefs has a name: we call it "bigotry."
Richard Newsome
>
>There are a lot of neo-pagans in fandom, but I haven't seen the
>sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
I've heard a few fans sneer at neo-pagans, but not to their faces --
they tend to carry sharp objects, and they don't worship a guy
called the Prince of Peace.
Seriously, Marty, you think people *don't* snigger at a bunch of
pot-bellied accountants prancing naked under the full moon?
Chris Croughton
MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU "Marty Helgesen" writes:
>There have always been a lot of Christians in fandom, more than fans,
>including Christian fans, realized. The first meeting of Christian
>Fandom, at Chicon in 1982, attracted over 80 people, each of whom
>expected to find only 5 or 6. It was fun watching the faces of late
>arrivals who walked in expecting a handful of people and saw a room-
>ful of people. Some Christian fans, such as Ron Ellik, have been
>very prominent in fandom. And, of course, there have been a number
>of Christian pros.
I have no objection to Christians in fandom (I'd better not, otherwise
I'd eliminate myself!), but I do have a problem with "Christian Fandom"
as a label. It is the same problem that I have with "Gay Fandom",
"Pagan Fandom", and any other "FitB Fandom", that it is by definition
divisive. I wouldn't feel comfortable about going to a "Gay Fandom"
meeting, because I'm not gay (although several close friends are); I
wouldn't be comfortable going to a "Jewish Fandom" meeting, because I'm
not Jewish; etc.
I try to think by the fannish ideal of treating people as individuals; I
don't care what a person's religious or sexual beliefs or practices are
(no, that's not true - I do care, as if they are similar to my own then
we have something in common, whereas if they are different we have
something interesting to discuss; what is closer is that I don't _judge_
a person based on those things), they are equally deserving of my
respect (or censure) based on what they do or fail to do. Admittedly, I
fail in that sometimes, but I dislike the idea of an inclusive or
exclusive group based on that sort of thing.
>I hope the person who posting it was being ironic, but I have seen
>similar statements alleging an incompatibility of Christianity and
>fandom that were made seriously.
I have seen the same sort of thing - I remember one fan holding forth
about how Christians were responsible for everything wrong with the
world. It was pointed out to him that he was drinking with two
Christians at that time - his response was "You're not real Christians,
you're nice people"; the sad part was that he was serious...
>There are a lot of neo-pagans in fandom, but I haven't seen the
>sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
There is some (largely based on the 'neo' part, from what I've seen, and
ridiculing the belief that their worship was an old thing), but not
nearly so much. Of course, it's always easier to rebel against the
'established' religion...
>"Crossbows don't kill people. Quarrels kill people."
Tagline snitched!
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Will Linden
>I speak as someone whose relatives and ancestors were slaughtered by
>Christians. I have nothing kind to say for the Inquisition. But anyone
>who reduces Christianity to that is a fool.
other half. Some of my ancestors probably killed some relatives of others
of my ancestors. (Hell, that is probably true of EVERYBODY if you insist
on going as far back as some people do.) If I worried about "what THEY
did to my ancestors", I would have to spend my time figuring out how to
retaliate against myself.
Not directed at Gary, I just have had too many encounters with "What
about the Inquisition!!!!!"
Gary Farber
I would prefer to identify it as "one fan's opinion" rather then see Rob
forced to don the garb of representing "all of traditional" fandom. I
think he'd find the outfit a bit weighty and smothering.
I don't think Rob, admirable as I generally find him, yet constitutes a
"fandom," on his own. (Yeah, I still remember that newspaper article;
anyone else?)
As has been implied, I could start a very long list of old-time fan
pagans, and believers in every possible belief, including Herbie. It's
not as if we had a Revolution where suddenly freedom was granted to the
fan peasants to believe what they wish only as of 1980, you know.
It does give me a further clue as to your point, I admit, and it isn't
blunted. *Tap, tap*.
Ulrika
*sigh* See what hasty reading does to you? Arthur's comment is much
funnier, I *swear*, if you accidentally elide the 'not', like I did when I
read it...
So, awright, I never said I *wasn't* an idiot...<slopes off, head hung in
dejection>
--
"Read your e-mail! There are children offline in India!"
If it ain't quoted, I wrote it, it's *my* fault
Ulrika O'Brien ulr...@aol.com
Paul Ciszek
>There have always been a lot of Christians in fandom, more than fans,
>including Christian fans, realized. The first meeting of Christian
>Fandom, at Chicon in 1982, attracted over 80 people, each of whom
>expected to find only 5 or 6. It was fun watching the faces of late
>arrivals who walked in expecting a handful of people and saw a room-
>ful of people. Some Christian fans, such as Ron Ellik, have been
>very prominent in fandom. And, of course, there have been a number
>of Christian pros.
I would be interested in a list. The only two I can think of off the
top of my head are Zenna Henderson and (of course) C.S. Lewis and
J.R.R. Tolkien. Poul Anderson makes numerous _references_, but I
don't know what his personal beliefs are. Oh, I think someone mentioned
Madelein L'Engle, any confirmation?
>I hope the person who posting it was being ironic, but I have seen
>similar statements alleging an incompatibility of Christianity and
>fandom that were made seriously.
There Ought To Be A Law that anyone who claims that Christianity and
Fandom are incompatible must renounce Tolkien and shun all those who
admire him.
>There are a lot of neo-pagans in fandom, but I haven't seen the
>sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
I find that Neo-Pagan fans don't average as well on the Tolerance-O-Meter
as Christian fans. (Not to mention the Tolerability-O-Meter as well.)
Mind you, I'm talking about that subset which are FANS; here in Colorado
we have a RenFest run by NON-fannish born-again Christians and it is
just too dreadful to describe.
Paul Ciszek "Evolution is a theory that accounts
for variety, not superiority."
pci...@nyx.cs.du.edu -- Joan Pontius
Paul Ciszek
>To be fair, perhaps Rob has never heard of David Hume. He was, after
>all, a Scotsman...
Is that why he could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel?
P Nielsen Hayden
>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>>And, of course, there have been a number
>>of Christian pros.
>I would be interested in a list. The only two I can think of off the
>top of my head are Zenna Henderson and (of course) C.S. Lewis and
>J.R.R. Tolkien.
One that comes immediately to mind is Gene Wolfe.
Paul Ciszek
>Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed are dangerous individuals who, unless checked,
>will do toxic things to the way we can live our lives. Ross Pavlac and
>Marty Helgesen are well-known SF fans. I like to think I can tell the
>difference.
>I'm also quite certain that Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed would be very happy
>to see us spending energy baiting "Christians in fandom" rather than working
>against their agendas.
I would like to make a plug here for an idea that has been turning around
in my brain. A Christian friend of mine was describing how a friend of
hers was outraged by something Pat Robertson had done, but was avoiding
the subject because she just assumed that all Christians agreed with him.
She was shocked to discover that there are Christians who think he is a jerk!
I believe that this ignorance is entirely too common, especially in fandom.
People need to know that the religious right does NOT have the support of all
or even most Christians. The religious right needs to know it.
Most especially, new or potential Christian converts need to know it.
You who suffer the religious right in silence do Christianity a disservice.
OK, sermon over.
Paul Ciszek "When the press is free and every man
able to read, all is safe."
pci...@nyx.cs.du.edu --Thomas Jefferson
Joseph W. Casey
>>sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
>
> they tend to carry sharp objects, and they don't worship a guy
> called the Prince of Peace.
Most of us don't worship the prince of anything. You seem to be confusing
neo-pagans, the majority of the ones I have met are Wiccans, with
Satanists. There is a vast difference between the two.
> Seriously, Marty, you think people *don't* snigger at a bunch of
> pot-bellied accountants prancing naked under the full moon?
Why anyone would insist upon sniggering at a person freely practicing
their chosen religion would be a mystery to me. Perhaps it would simply
show the lack of maturity of the person sniggering.
BTW; I have never danced naked under the full moon, I don't belong to a coven.
Joseph W. Casey
Ulrika
pci...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>>very prominent in fandom. And, of course, there have been a number
>>of Christian pros.
>
>I would be interested in a list. The only two I can think of off the
>top of my head are Zenna Henderson and (of course) C.S. Lewis and
>J.R.R. Tolkien. Poul Anderson makes numerous _references_, but I
>don't know what his personal beliefs are. Oh, I think someone mentioned
>Madelein L'Engle, any confirmation?
Well, I don't know Ms. L'Engle personally, nor have I ever read any
explicit declaration of her Christianity, but, there is certainly a strong
thread of Christianity in many of her books (_Ring of Endless Light_ and
_The Young Unicorns_ come to mind.) It's not so much a matter of
explicitly religious content so much as a tendency to have very positive
characters who have taken religious orders, and generalized warm fuzzies
about a loving higher power -- you can find that even in the Meg &
Charles Wallace books. Her books may be found in Christian book stores,
also, and I seem to recall at least one time travel book of hers in which
the kids end up in the time of Noah (and his grandfather, Methuseleh) just
before the flood...
Other writers who tickle the back of my brain as likely Christians include
Blish and Kurz. But those are just faint stirrings of memory. Oh, and
Scott Card of course, though there are Christians who quibble about
whether the LDS church is really Christian...
Ulrika
One of the most-likely-to-be accurate lines in the whole of the "Bruce's
Song," I suspect. David Hume reminds me a bit of a near contemporary, Ben
Franklin. Expansive personality, loved food and drink, did life in full
measures, that sort of thing.
He also came up with the so-called Problem of Induction, which is a doozy
and arguably puts science on not much better footing than religion in
terms of rational justifiability.
Daniel S Goodman
Paul Ciszek <pci...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>
>I would be interested in a list. The only two I can think of off the
>top of my head are Zenna Henderson and (of course) C.S. Lewis and
>J.R.R. Tolkien. Poul Anderson makes numerous _references_, but I
>don't know what his personal beliefs are. Oh, I think someone mentioned
>Madelein L'Engle, any confirmation?
Depends how Christian someone should be, to be on the list. Sandra
Miesel is a practicing Christian, for example. Jerry Pournelle is
nominally Christian, I believe; but I don't think it makes much
difference in his life.
Dan Goodman d...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Ulrika
>Richard Newsome (new...@panix.com) writes:
>> I've heard a few fans sneer at neo-pagans, but not to their faces --
>> they tend to carry sharp objects, and they don't worship a guy
>> called the Prince of Peace.
>
>Most of us don't worship the prince of anything. You seem to be confusing
>neo-pagans, the majority of the ones I have met are Wiccans, with
>Satanists. There is a vast difference between the two.
No, Joe, I think you just missed the point. Christians *do* worship
somebody -- one guy, three manifestations -- and "Prince of Peace" is, I
do believe, one of many swell nicknames given to one of the three
manifestations. Nothing was said about the practices of neo-pagans (other
than being likely to have an athame about their persons) *at all*.
Steve Brinich
>dangerous, this being a democracy. There is some evidence that they are
>in fact actually dangerous.
Sloppy usage of broad terms like "Christians" blurs the distinction between
the Ralph Reed neofascists who need to be checked by the four boxes
(soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge -- use in that order) and decent people
of faith.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@digex.net><GEnie:S.BRINICH> *****===== I love
Finger PGP5874D26D/89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E *****===== the Republic
========== I fear
Failure Is Not An Option. ========== the Empire
Avedon Carol
> I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually
> does make me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times
> when cons were a space where rationalism and faith in scientific
> endeavour were a given. Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that
> Christianity, various stripes of New Age-ism, and other constructs
> of the superstitious should be given equal respect even though to
> many of us they're self-evidently hogwash. Sigh.
>
> -Rob
Yeah, but _psychologists_ consider themselves scientists, too.
Pat McMurray
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have seen the same sort of thing - I remember one fan holding forth
>about how Christians were responsible for everything wrong with the
>world. It was pointed out to him that he was drinking with two
>Christians at that time - his response was "You're not real Christians,
>you're nice people"; the sad part was that he was serious...
Uhh, is this me you're talking about? ISTR a conversation of the sort, but
I wasn't serious. I'm an agnostic Catholic taught by Jesuits, so I take
religion and Christianity very seriously, even though I don't believe in
it.
It is of course true that religion is frequently used as an excuse or a
cover for all sorts of evil, but this does not make religion responsible
for the evil thus carried out. For example Orthodox Christians are fighting
Muslims in Bosnia, but this does not make either Orthodox Christianity or
Islam responsible for what's happening in Bosnia. In fact, I would expect
and hope, that really religous people of both faiths are trying not to be
evil in their own actions.
Also, I have had some evil deeds carried out against me by "Christians" and
"Religous" people of various sorts, which occasionally will show in what I
say and do, but I am well aware of the distinction between hating the
sinner and hating the sin.
Pat McMurray
Joseph W. Casey
>
> A curious statistical result from English fandom, which this thread
> has reminded me of: in every discussion on religion that I've been
> involved in at fannish gatherings, it has turned out that a large
> fraction of the participants were brought up as Roman Catholics,
> though most (like me) would certainly no longer describe themselves
> as such. Comments? Explanations? The best justification I can
> come up with is that there's something odd about the British Catholic
> education system that causes it to churn out protofans, but what?
I have what I consider to be an interesting perspective on christianity. I
am an Irish halfbreed (Half Prod/Half MIC). I used ,as a child, to get up
Sunday Morning, put on a three piece suit and go to Mass with father (two
and a bloody half hours long) I would then come home change into a blazer
and slacks and attend Bible Studies at Mother's church (another wasted two
hours plus what ever time mother spent chatting with the Minister and the
rest of the locals).
Bluntly, I spent the morning being taught that Mother was damned to hell
for not being Catholic and the afternoon being taught that father was
damnedto hell for not being Protestant. After to many years of this, and
being forced by both sides to chose a religion, I made the obvious choise,
I'm a Wiccan. Several members of both sides of the family have not spoken
to me since.
Joseph W. Casey
> am...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Joseph W. Casey) wrote:
>>Richard Newsome (new...@panix.com) writes:
>>> I've heard a few fans sneer at neo-pagans, but not to their faces --
>>> they tend to carry sharp objects, and they don't worship a guy
>>> called the Prince of Peace.
>>
>>Most of us don't worship the prince of anything. You seem to be confusing
>>neo-pagans, the majority of the ones I have met are Wiccans, with
>>Satanists. There is a vast difference between the two.
>
>
> No, Joe, I think you just missed the point. Christians *do* worship
> somebody -- one guy, three manifestations -- and "Prince of Peace" is, I
> do believe, one of many swell nicknames given to one of the three
> manifestations. Nothing was said about the practices of neo-pagans (other
> than being likely to have an athame about their persons) *at all*.
You could be right. It could just be taht I have heard to much of the
Fundies "anyone who doesn't worship the Prince of Peace worships the
Prince of Darkness" crap.
You know, after a while the taste of shoe leather can grow on you
Evelyn C. Leeper
> I'd eliminate myself!), but I do have a problem with "Christian Fandom"
> as a label. It is the same problem that I have with "Gay Fandom",
> "Pagan Fandom", and any other "FitB Fandom", that it is by definition
> divisive. I wouldn't feel comfortable about going to a "Gay Fandom"
> meeting, because I'm not gay (although several close friends are); I
> wouldn't be comfortable going to a "Jewish Fandom" meeting, because I'm
> not Jewish; etc.
>
> I try to think by the fannish ideal of treating people as individuals; I
> don't care what a person's religious or sexual beliefs or practices are
> (no, that's not true - I do care, as if they are similar to my own then
> we have something in common, whereas if they are different we have
> something interesting to discuss; what is closer is that I don't _judge_
> a person based on those things), they are equally deserving of my
> respect (or censure) based on what they do or fail to do. Admittedly, I
> fail in that sometimes, but I dislike the idea of an inclusive or
> exclusive group based on that sort of thing.
I think there are at least two aspects of "X Fandom" which merit
consideration:
1) Many religions promote the idea of group worship on a
regular basis, or have dietary restrictions, or have other
requirements. For fans at conventions in strange cities
(and some are strange indeed!), this is not always easy.
One of the functions of "Jewish Fandom" (if there is such
a formal group--I suspect it's more like an informal
conglomeration) is to help Jewish fans find each other to
create a minyan (ten people required for a service), to
find kosher food, to find a synagogue, etc. I would assume
"Muslim Fandom" would function similarly, and so on. Even
some non-religious fandom groups might do this (for example,
"Vegetarian Fandom").
2) There is science fiction and fantasy written based on
various religions (or other aspects), and if one is
interested in that fiction, "X Fandom" is a way to find it.
I subscribe to "Jews in Space" in large part for this latter
reason.
As far as the first goes, no, I wouldn't attend a "Christian Fandom"
meeting, any more than I would attend a Christian worship service at a
church near a convention. But if Christian fans want to meet for
religious purposes, I think it's unreasonable to say they shouldn't be
so exclusive.
As far as the second, that's what newsletters are for, and I don't
think most organizations require a statement of doctrinal faith before
letting one subscribe.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"If there were a verb meaning "to believe falsely," it would
not have any significant first person, present indicative."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Dr Gafia
curious with regard to how practicing Christian fans (of various
denominations) may feel about and react to the explicit bits of religion
in the television program QUANTUM LEAP.
I see nothing in it to dismay Christians, as the God and Devil explicitly
identified would seem to be the Christian God and Devil--but then, it's
been so long since I've "been" a Christian that I wonder if I might be
overlooking something. And I AM
curious about it.
Comments?
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Gary Farber
: >One that comes immediately to mind is Gene Wolfe.
: Lionel Fanthorpe.
Two names we do not see linked often enough. I think they should be
offered a collobarative deal, immediately. Hard/soft, one third on
signing, one third on delivery, one third on moaning.
Major advertising and promotion. $100,000 budget. Doubtless the
sell-through will be. . . Impressive.
Arthur Hlavaty
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>Richard McAllister (r...@urth.eng.sun.com) wrote:
>
>: >One that comes immediately to mind is Gene Wolfe.
>
>: Lionel Fanthorpe.
>
>Two names we do not see linked often enough. I think they should be
>offered a collobarative deal, immediately. Hard/soft, one third on
>signing, one third on delivery, one third on moaning.
>
>Major advertising and promotion. $100,000 budget. Doubtless the
>sell-through will be. . . Impressive.
They repeat everything three times, and you still don't understand it.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
Richard McAllister
>>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>
>>>And, of course, there have been a number
>>>of Christian pros.
>
>>I would be interested in a list. The only two I can think of off the
>>top of my head are Zenna Henderson and (of course) C.S. Lewis and
>>J.R.R. Tolkien.
>
>One that comes immediately to mind is Gene Wolfe.
Lionel Fanthorpe.
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
Ulrika
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have no objection to Christians in fandom (I'd better not, otherwise
>I'd eliminate myself!), but I do have a problem with "Christian Fandom"
>as a label. It is the same problem that I have with "Gay Fandom",
>"Pagan Fandom", and any other "FitB Fandom", that it is by definition
>divisive. I wouldn't feel comfortable about going to a "Gay Fandom"
>meeting, because I'm not gay (although several close friends are); I
>wouldn't be comfortable going to a "Jewish Fandom" meeting, because I'm
>not Jewish; etc.
Well, some groups *are* set up to be exclusionary, but I think most of the
exclusion is self-selecting by people who exclude themselves, at least
when it comes to fannish groups. While being, myself, about as hopelessly
stark raving refrigerator white as they come, I was a member of the Asian
American club in school. All my friends were there anyway, not all of
them Asian. Useful thing, too; I doubt I would have gotten my exposure to
eating Chinese food the right way (off the top of the rice bowl held up
close), Bruce Lee movies, or Pai Gao without it. Nobody tried to tell me I
didn't belong. I would honestly expect fannish groups to behave
similarly. Especially in the case of Christian fans, I suspect they band
together more for support and comfort than to leave anyone out. At least
anyone who's not out to bait bear.
>I try to think by the fannish ideal of treating people as individuals; I
>don't care what a person's religious or sexual beliefs or practices are
>(no, that's not true - I do care, as if they are similar to my own then
>we have something in common, whereas if they are different we have
>something interesting to discuss; what is closer is that I don't _judge_
>a person based on those things), they are equally deserving of my
>respect (or censure) based on what they do or fail to do. Admittedly, I
>fail in that sometimes, but I dislike the idea of an inclusive or
>exclusive group based on that sort of thing.
Yes, but how are Christian fans really different from Regency fans, or the
fans who organize hearts tournaments at conventions? All three interests
are at best marginally relevant to fandom, and if they groups don't
actively exclude you, but merely offer something you're not interested in,
where's the harm? I could be wrong, but I think you're chasing shadows.
Avedon Carol
Marty Hegelsen writes:
> ere have always been a lot of Christians in fandom, more than fans,
> including Christian fans, realized. The first meeting of Christian
> Fandom, at Chicon in 1982, attracted over 80 people, each of whom
> expected to find only 5 or 6. It was fun watching the faces of late
> arrivals who walked in expecting a handful of people and saw a room-
> ful of people. Some Christian fans, such as Ron Ellik, have been
> very prominent in fandom. And, of course, there have been a number
> of Christian pros.
>
That there have always been religious believers in fandom is
indisputable, Marty, though just how many there may have been at any
given time is open to debate. Something that may interest you in this
context is the following from the section on atheism in the 1959
FANTHOLOGY II:
"Muchly debated in the letter columns of Eofandom, it arose in the
fanzine world with Wollheim's last Phataflexion column, which, discussing
Science Fiction and Religion, remarked that the majority of the ISA
members he knew were atheists. Shroyer added comment on the observed
correlation between atheism and the liking for SF. Argument on the main
question, such as there was, was hot, but no changes of opinion are known
to have resulted, and the Michelists showed a disposition to relinquish
the point to gain support for their faction. In the Second Transition the
IPO found the proportion of 9:14 against church adherence, with several
of the churchgoers indicating they didn't really believe in it. How many
of the nays are honest-to-Roscoe atheists, and how many agnostics,
pantheists, and other exotic credists, cannot be accurately determined.
At any rate, it is pretty well-established that fans generally hold to a
mechanistic philosophy whicxh precludes the existence of a personalised
god like the gaseous vertebrate of Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology."
Which is one view, at least, of this matter as it was seen back in the
'50s. Make of it what you will.
-Rob.
Avedon Carol
Patrick Nielsen Hayden responds to me:
> think you're indulging in a touch of pejorism here. Many of the
> old-time
> fans you admire were believers of one stripe or another;
Nobody's perfect.
> as for
> rationalism
> being a "given," it seems to me that waves of fannish interest in
> psi,
> Lemurians, Dianetics, etc., are not exactly a new thing.
More nonsense, I agree, and I take the point that to some degree this
sort of stuff has always been with us, but were fans back then expected
to be tolerant and respectful towards it? Dianetics, of course,
transformed into the religion of Scientology, something no fan with any
knowledge of its genesis and of creator L.Ron Hubbard could ever take at
all seriously. No, give my something saner and more credible, like the
Cosmic Circle, any day. As D West once put it: "Claude Degler. Now there
was a guy with _vision_!"
-Rob
ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk
David E Romm
> If anything, the existence of groups like "Christian Fandom" tells us that
> in the SF world being a practicing Christian is no longer, as Chip Delany
> would say, the "unmarked state."
Good point. Christianity is no longer the default value set in fandom; a
good thing imrho. Though I suspect that the group is more along the lines
of Christianity IN Science Fiction Fandom. And so I quote Arthur Hlavaty
without comment:
> Faith indeed. I'm not a Christian or a New Ager, but I'm glad that those
> who do not consider scientific method the only way to find truth are
> accepted in fandom.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
New! Improved! Now with sound files!
P Nielsen Hayden
>ROB HANSEN HERE:
>[...] I take the point that to some degree this
>sort of stuff has always been with us, but were fans back then expected
>to be tolerant and respectful towards it?
Well, perish forbid anyone should feel pressured to be tolerant. Certainly
excessive tolerance is a major problem in today's world, and something we
all need to be on guard against.
David E Romm
>
> Wish I had a dime for every time someone at a con heard about my
> religious practices and did indeed tell me how bloody stupid I
> was for believing in superstitious nonsense.
Now there's a way to Make Money Fast! Everytime someone tells you that,
demand a dime!
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx
David E Romm
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
> There are a lot of neo-pagans in fandom, but I haven't seen the
> sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
I have. Mostly from Christians.
It cuts both ways, Marty. Perhaps your filters only pick up the sneers
against Christians. Not being either Christian or pagan, I hear them all.
One of my favorite buttons to wear at cons is, "Death to all fanatics!"
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"O Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet."
-- St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430)
Dr Gafia
<ulr...@aol.com> writes:
>Yes, but how are Christian fans really different from Regency fans, or
the
>fans who organize hearts tournaments at conventions? All three interests
>are at best marginally relevant to fandom, and if they groups don't
>actively exclude you, but merely offer something you're not interested
in,
>where's the harm? I could be wrong, but I think you're chasing shadows.
What you said.
--rich brown O'Brien
Steve Brewster
: I have what I consider to be an interesting perspective on christianity. I
: am an Irish halfbreed (Half Prod/Half MIC). I used ,as a child, to get up
: Sunday Morning, put on a three piece suit and go to Mass with father (two
: and a bloody half hours long) I would then come home change into a blazer
: and slacks and attend Bible Studies at Mother's church (another wasted two
: hours plus what ever time mother spent chatting with the Minister and the
: rest of the locals).
: Bluntly, I spent the morning being taught that Mother was damned to hell
: for not being Catholic and the afternoon being taught that father was
: damnedto hell for not being Protestant. After to many years of this, and
: being forced by both sides to chose a religion, I made the obvious choise,
: I'm a Wiccan. Several members of both sides of the family have not spoken
: to me since.
I presume your parents didn't marry in a Catholic church: my mother
was Catholic and my father was a mix of Methodist / Anglican / Christian
Science influences, and in order to marry in a Catholic church my
father had to be baptised as a Catholic (add another religion to the
list, no problem) and promise to bring any offspring up as Catholic and
nothing else.
I read in the paper the other day that the RC Church hasn't officially
believed in Hell for several decades: if this implausible story is
true, news certainly hadn't filtered through to St. Brigid's RC
Middle School circa 1985... our headmistress (a nun of course) was of
the One Unconfessed Mortal Sin Will Keep You Out of Heaven persuasion.
--
Steve.B...@Bristol.ac.uk ! Room 4.9, Department of Mathematics,
-------------------------------! University of Bristol,
http://zeus.bris.ac.uk/~masjb ! City and County of Bristol, United Kingdom,
(under construction, sort of) ! BS8 1TW. Tel: 0117 928 7990.
Ruth Saunders
> It is of course true that religion is frequently used as an excuse
> or a
> cover for all sorts of evil, but this does not make religion
> responsible
> for the evil thus carried out.
Not wishing to change the subject too much and not wishing to start a
thread on the subject, but I spent several hours over the last couple of
days trying to make this very point, but with one major difference.
Substitute the word 'pornography' for the word 'religion'.
Ruth Olivia Saunders
Marty Helgesen
says:
<SNIP>
>I presume your parents didn't marry in a Catholic church: my mother
>was Catholic and my father was a mix of Methodist / Anglican / Christian
>Science influences, and in order to marry in a Catholic church my
>father had to be baptised as a Catholic (add another religion to the
>list, no problem) and promise to bring any offspring up as Catholic and
>nothing else.
can marry in the Catholic Church, and the non-Catholic is not required to
convert to Catholicism. In fact, to become a Catholic just for the purpose
of marrying in the Church would be wrong. The only legitimate reason for
becoming a Catholic is a belief that the Catholic Church is true.
My father was a non-practicing Lutheran, but he married my mother in the
Catholic Church. In fact, one of her brothers, who was a priest, performed
the ceremony. This was in 1936.
At that time, so far as I know, both parties had to sign promises. I'm
not sure about all the details, but basically the Catholic had to promise
to raise the the children as Catholics, the non-Catholic had to promise not
to interfere with the Catholic party's practice of Catholicism or with
raising the children as Catholics, and that sort of thing. I am pretty
sure that some of the details have been relaxed in recent years, for example
there are no longer signed, written promises, but that does not affect the
main point.
>I read in the paper the other day that the RC Church hasn't officially
>believed in Hell for several decades: if this implausible story is
>true, news certainly hadn't filtered through to St. Brigid's RC
>Middle School circa 1985... our headmistress (a nun of course) was of
>the One Unconfessed Mortal Sin Will Keep You Out of Heaven persuasion.
>
The Catholic Church still believes in Hell because Jesus taught that
it exists. The Catholic Church also believes that one unforgiven mortal
sin will keep you out of Heaven. Some theologians question how likely it
is that someone who has been living in the state of grace will commit one
mortal sin and then die without repenting and being forgiven, but if it
does happen the person will go to Hell. A mortal sin is called mortal
because it kills the life of grace in the soul, without which it is
impossible to live in Heaven. The only alternative to Heaven is Hell, so
those who have made themselves unable to live in Heaven must live in Hell.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"Crossbows don't kill people. Quarrels kill people."
'Jherek' W. Swanger
On 30 Jul 1995, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> Oh, I think someone mentioned
> Madelein L'Engle, any confirmation?
She was the main speaker at a Christian Writers Conference held in
Seattle this summer.
kirsti
(not jherek)
Aaron Boyden
> Sorry to bother you, Aaron, but I just wondered where did the quote in your
> sig come from?
Nietzsche, from _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_. One of my favorite books, even
though it isn't science fiction. But then, I'm a philosopher when I'm not
being a fan. I think the quote (especially with its context) is a good
answer to a Jamesian _Will to Believe_ sort of religion; atheism has its
spiritual benefits as well.
---
Aaron Boyden
650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
"If there were gods, how could I endure it, not to be a god? Hence, there are
no gods."
Thomas Farrell
: Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >I have no objection to Christians in fandom (I'd better not, otherwise
: >I'd eliminate myself!), but I do have a problem with "Christian Fandom"
: >as a label. It is the same problem that I have with "Gay Fandom",
: Well, some groups *are* set up to be exclusionary, but I think most of the
: when it comes to fannish groups.
Yes, I think that's very much the case. As a member of the Boston area
Gaylaxians, a gay science fiction fan group, I know that the group
really has no problem whatsoever with having straight people around...
in fact, we have (I'm sure of at least one but I believe we do in fact
have several) straight group members, and they are welcomed, and it's
completely not an issue. Also, the material we are fans of seems to be
practically identical to what everyone else in the SF fan community are
fans of. So, in reality, such a group is really just a method of
bringing similar people with similar interests together, and really no
consideration is given to trying to exclude anyone.
Tom
--
Check out Harvey and I at
http://lynx.dac.neu.edu:8000/~tfarrell
Or Harvey's very own home page at
http://lynx.dac.neu.edu:8000/~tfarrell/harvey.html
Ulrika
>ROB HANSEN HERE:
>Which is one view, at least, of this matter as it was seen back in the
>'50s. Make of it what you will.
Okeedoke. How about a hat? A brooch? Maybe a teradactyl?
--
"If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
Ulrika O'Brien, intractable colloid ulr...@aol.com
Ulrika
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>One of my favorite buttons to wear at cons is, "Death to all fanatics!"
"I know there are people who do not love their fellow man...and I *HATE*
people like that."
Lenore Jean Jones
>>>of Christian pros.
>
>>top of my head are Zenna Henderson and (of course) C.S. Lewis and
>>J.R.R. Tolkien.
>
>One that comes immediately to mind is Gene Wolfe.
>
adventures in church choir, and she's written a story using Joseph and
a pregnant Mary (in Asimov's about 18 months back - highly
recommended).
Dr Gafia
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>The only alternative to Heaven is Hell, so
>those who have made themselves unable
>to live in Heaven must live in Hell.
Now, see, there's something I've always admired about Catholicism
--that they had "Purgatory" for Good People Who Didn't Quite
Make It--and here you tell me they don't have it after all.
...or is it that the people in Purgatory are working off other,
non-"mortal" sins?
--rich brown
Steve Brewster
: In article <DCoKA...@uns.bris.ac.uk>, ma...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Steve Brewster)
: says:
: <SNIP>
: >I presume your parents didn't marry in a Catholic church: my mother
: >was Catholic and my father was a mix of Methodist / Anglican / Christian
: >Science influences, and in order to marry in a Catholic church my
: >father had to be baptised as a Catholic (add another religion to the
: >list, no problem) and promise to bring any offspring up as Catholic and
: >nothing else.
:
: There is some misunderstanding somewhere. A Catholic and a non-Catholic
: can marry in the Catholic Church, and the non-Catholic is not required to
: convert to Catholicism. In fact, to become a Catholic just for the purpose
: of marrying in the Church would be wrong. The only legitimate reason for
: becoming a Catholic is a belief that the Catholic Church is true.
I stand corrected then: I've been living under a misapprehension...
: What you read in the paper is nonsense -- so what else is new?
: The Catholic Church still believes in Hell because Jesus taught that
: it exists. The Catholic Church also believes that one unforgiven mortal
: sin will keep you out of Heaven. Some theologians question how likely it
: is that someone who has been living in the state of grace will commit one
: mortal sin and then die without repenting and being forgiven, but if it
: does happen the person will go to Hell. A mortal sin is called mortal
: because it kills the life of grace in the soul, without which it is
: impossible to live in Heaven. The only alternative to Heaven is Hell, so
: those who have made themselves unable to live in Heaven must live in Hell.
What about purgatory?
Steve.
Marty Helgesen
>
>In article <95214.14...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>, Marty Helgesen
><MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>
>>those who have made themselves unable
>>to live in Heaven must live in Hell.
>
>--that they had "Purgatory" for Good People Who Didn't Quite
>Make It--and here you tell me they don't have it after all.
>
>non-"mortal" sins?
Purgatory still exists but it's not for Good People Who Didn't Quite
Make It. It is a state of final purification -- whence the name --
after death before someone is admitted to Heaven. It is a temporary
state for those who are going to Heaven, not a third option.
I could write a fuller explanation but that would seem to be too far
outside the scope of this newsgroup. Of course, if people insist on
discussing Catholic theology here I will let myself be drawn into the
discussion. As those who have been in apas with me, or have seen my
locs to zines like KIPPLE and FOSFAX, know, that is like Br'er Rabbit
saying he will let himself be thrown into the briar patch.
Steve Brewster
:
: Purgatory still exists but it's not for Good People Who Didn't Quite
: Make It. It is a state of final purification -- whence the name --
: after death before someone is admitted to Heaven. It is a temporary
: state for those who are going to Heaven, not a third option.
Okay. So what about Limbo then?
Bernard Peek
ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Avedon Carol" writes:
> Regarding this Catholic/Protestant lunacy, I remember Walt Willis once
> writing about the glory days of Irish Fandom in the 1950s and early
> 1960sand mentioning that, tho' both Catholics and Protestants were
> represented in the group the religious/political situation that grew out
> of that divide in Northern Ireland was just never discussed. Not even by
> them, not even back then. It was an unspoken thing, but they knew it had
> the potential to split the group. Willis and Bob Shaw are Protestants,
> and James White is Catholic, but these are as much tribal labels as
> indicators of faith (from various things Walt has written down the years
> I'm fairly certain he's a non-believer).
>
The labels are quite obviously at least as much tribal as religious.
There has been so little interbreeding between the protestants and
catholics that in Scotland (and I believe in Ireland) it's possible
for the locals to identify protestants and catholics by looking at
their faces. This makes it particularly difficult for children of
mixed parentage.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
(In search of Cognoscenti.)
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
John Bark
I believe Gene Wolfe is a practising Catholic, which provides all sorts
of interpretations for his work (which you would never get him to admit).
He is a big fan of G.K. Chesterton (another Catholic and SF-ish author)
John Bark
Nope, at the very least an agnostic - see the intro to 'A Case of
Conscience' - more likely an atheist.
Ulrika O'Brien
Borrowing a page from rich brown, I begin to hear the strains of the
Irish Rovers' tune whose refrain includes the line "My mother she was
Orange and my father he was green." Basically about a dirty great row
among the in-laws whenever the family got together.
--
Polytheist - One who believes God is a parrot.
****Ulrika O'Brien*** ulr...@aol.com
Richard Newsome
>
>: >One that comes immediately to mind is Gene Wolfe.
R.A. Lafferty.
(And what was the deal with Randall Garrett, anyway?)
Avedon Carol
Ulrika writes:
> No, Joe, I think you just missed the point. Christians *do*
> worship somebody -- one guy, three manifestations
Which reminds me.... As Avedon pointed out to me a while back, there's an
actor who, in different TV series, has played a father, son, and holy
spirit: Michael Landon.
-Rob
ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Avedon Carol
I wrote:
> Something that may interest you in this
> context is the following from the section on atheism in the 1959
> FANTHOLOGY II:
...which, as Gary Farber points out, should've been FANCYCLOPEDIA II. I
blame this damned, infernal heat... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Avedon Carol
Joseph Casey writes:
Ah yes, being _forced_ to choose a religion. There's something almost
obscene about that element of compulsion in this context. I, too, have a
Catholic father and Protestant mother, and when my father told his
parents he was marrying a non-Protestant brought the priest around to try
to talk him out of it. And when my parents did marry, and my mother made
it clear she had no intention of allowing her children to be raised in
The Faith (nor, to her credit, to allow Protestantism to be force-fed to
us either) it led to a family split and I was about eight years old
before I learned I even _had_ paternal grandparents. So far as I can see,
all their hard-nosed attitude got them was to miss out on the joys of
their grandchildren's early years. But then, that's their fault for being
such assholes. And, incidentally, lest someone decide to apply pop
psychology to the above and start bonging on about 'unresolved anger' and
the like, I should point out that I got on just fine with my grandparents
up until their deaths and my feelings towards them about this whole
affair was, and remains, one of bewilderment...bewilderment that they
would allow such a thing to happen over something that is, in my
worldview, so utterly meaningless and absurd.
Regarding this Catholic/Protestant lunacy, I remember Walt Willis once
writing about the glory days of Irish Fandom in the 1950s and early
1960sand mentioning that, tho' both Catholics and Protestants were
represented in the group the religious/political situation that grew out
of that divide in Northern Ireland was just never discussed. Not even by
them, not even back then. It was an unspoken thing, but they knew it had
the potential to split the group. Willis and Bob Shaw are Protestants,
and James White is Catholic, but these are as much tribal labels as
indicators of faith (from various things Walt has written down the years
I'm fairly certain he's a non-believer).
-Rob
ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Gary Farber
: > Blish
: Nope, at the very least an agnostic - see the intro to 'A Case of
: Conscience' - more likely an atheist.
Ah, but what is he _now_?
--
-- Gary Farber Brooklyn, New York City
gfa...@panix.com I is another, and I am that other. -- Rimbaud
Gary Farber
: Borrowing a page from rich brown, I begin to hear the strains of the
: Irish Rovers' tune whose refrain includes the line "My mother she was
: Orange and my father he was green." Basically about a dirty great row
: among the in-laws whenever the family got together.
Yeah, but I trust that your in-laws don't have Semtex and machine
pistols. (Course, you're in LA, so maybe not.)
Let us hope for a continuation of more good news from our friends Over
There.
Ulrika
>Also Orson Scott Card. I've also heard Connie Willis talk about her
>adventures in church choir, and she's written a story using Joseph and
>a pregnant Mary (in Asimov's about 18 months back - highly
>recommended).
Seems to me that quite a few of Connie Willis' stories revolve around
churches and clerics in one way or another. "Fire Watch," the story, and
at least two others in the collection by the same name.
Ulrika
>What you said.
>
>--rich brown O'Brien
^^^^^^^
Ha, *HA*! Caught you, Mildred!
Marty Helgesen
says:
>
>Marty Helgesen (MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU) wrote:
>:
>: Purgatory still exists but it's not for Good People Who Didn't Quite
>: Make It. It is a state of final purification -- whence the name --
>: after death before someone is admitted to Heaven. It is a temporary
>: state for those who are going to Heaven, not a third option.
>:
>
>Okay. So what about Limbo then?
that Baptism is necessary for salvation with the statement that God
desires the salvation of all. An unbaptized adult can receive what
is known as "Baptism of Desire". If he loves God and tries to serve
and obey Him, but is not baptized because he does not know that God
wants him to be baptized, he is not responsible for not being bap-
tized. If he knew that God wants him to be baptized he would be
baptized. God, who alone can read the soul, can know this and can
give him the grace he would have received from Baptism. (Back around
A.D. 150 St. Justin Martyr wrote of the ancient Greek pagans being
saved in this way. An example of this in a fantasy novel is Emeth,
the virtuous Calormene in C. S. Lewis's _The Last Battle_.) However,
it seems that a baby who is too young to make a decision for Christ
cannot receive a Baptism of Desire. Therefore, theologians argued
that God would send unbaptized babies who died to a state known as
Limbo where they enjoy natural happiness but not the supernatural
happiness of Heaven. Limbo was a widely held theological opinion,
but never an official teaching of the Catholic Church. The new
_Catechism of the Catholic Church_ does not mention it. It just says
that children who die without Baptism must be entrusted to the mercy
of God (1261).
I didn't mention Limbo in my previous posting because the context
implied that we were talking about adults, for whom the only alterna-
tives are Heaven and Hell.
Clifford R. Wind
>>Okay. So what about Limbo then?
>
>Theologians developed the concept of Limbo to reconcile the statement
>that Baptism is necessary for salvation with the statement that God
>desires the salvation of all.
[A relatively clear exposition of tortured theologic reasoning is hereby
snipped.]
>
>I didn't mention Limbo in my previous posting because the context
>implied that we were talking about adults, for whom the only alterna-
>tives are Heaven and Hell.
>
>-------
>Marty Helgesen
The closest I came to Christian was Christian Reformed. Read Dutch Reformed
if you want cultural descent, Calvinist if you want theological. And that, so
it seemed to me was much clearer. You were Elect or you weren't. Period. No
matter your "desire", reasoning ability, history, or age. You were among the
saved known to God from before time, or you weren't. Not very palatable
perhaps, but given certain axioms (Total Depravity, the Fall from Grace, free
will in bondage to Satan, etc. [I'm not certain what the Euclidean minimum
would be]) quite logical. But since I see no, um, reason to accept those
givens, the whole problem is someone else's, not mine.
Clifford R. Wind
David E Romm
("Avedon Carol") wrote:
> ROB HANSEN HERE:
>
>[...] the following from the section on atheism in the 1959
> FANTHOLOGY II:
>
[snip]"
> At any rate, it is pretty well-established that fans generally hold to a
> mechanistic philosophy whicxh precludes the existence of a personalised
> god like the gaseous vertebrate of Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology."
I'd go along with that. I believe in God, but not an anthropomorphic god.
"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But
the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an
underachiever."
-- Woody Allen
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
New! Improved! Now with sound files!
Pam Wells
MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU "Marty Helgesen" writes:
> In article <DCoKA...@uns.bris.ac.uk>, ma...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Steve Brewster)
> says:
> <SNIP>
> >I presume your parents didn't marry in a Catholic church: my mother
> >was Catholic and my father was a mix of Methodist / Anglican / Christian
> >Science influences, and in order to marry in a Catholic church my
> >father had to be baptised as a Catholic (add another religion to the
> >list, no problem) and promise to bring any offspring up as Catholic and
> >nothing else.
>
> There is some misunderstanding somewhere. A Catholic and a non-Catholic
> can marry in the Catholic Church, and the non-Catholic is not required to
> convert to Catholicism. In fact, to become a Catholic just for the purpose
> of marrying in the Church would be wrong. The only legitimate reason for
> becoming a Catholic is a belief that the Catholic Church is true.
>
> My father was a non-practicing Lutheran, but he married my mother in the
> Catholic Church. In fact, one of her brothers, who was a priest, performed
> the ceremony. This was in 1936.
>
> At that time, so far as I know, both parties had to sign promises. I'm
> not sure about all the details, but basically the Catholic had to promise
> to raise the the children as Catholics, the non-Catholic had to promise not
> to interfere with the Catholic party's practice of Catholicism or with
> raising the children as Catholics, and that sort of thing. I am pretty
> sure that some of the details have been relaxed in recent years, for example
> there are no longer signed, written promises, but that does not affect the
> main point.
Someone I was going to marry once was raised a Catholic, and I was raised
a Protestant (Methodist). We would have married in my church (it being
'traditional' to marry in the woman's church). We're both pretty much
lapsed, but it would have upset one of our families, whichever way it had
turned out.
His father was Protestant and his mother Catholic, and they had married in
his mother's church. But, even though they had agreed to raise their
children as Catholics, they were not allowed to be married at the altar,
but had to stand further down the aisle. His mother, a devoted Catholic,
was very upset by this discrimination. Any idea why this might have been
required?
--
Pam Wells
David Langford
John Bark said:
> > Blish
>
> Nope, at the very least an agnostic - see the intro to 'A Case of
> Conscience' - more likely an atheist.
"Blish is a professed agnostic", according to William Atheling Jr in =The
Issue At Hand=. And Atheling ought to know....
---------
David Langford
ans...@cix.compulink.co.uk
David E Romm
Ciszek) wrote:
> I would like to make a plug here for an idea that has been turning around
> in my brain. A Christian friend of mine was describing how a friend of
> hers was outraged by something Pat Robertson had done, but was avoiding
> the subject because she just assumed that all Christians agreed with him.
> She was shocked to discover that there are Christians who think he is a jerk!
> I believe that this ignorance is entirely too common, especially in fandom.
> People need to know that the religious right does NOT have the support of all
> or even most Christians. The religious right needs to know it.
> Most especially, new or potential Christian converts need to know it.
> You who suffer the religious right in silence do Christianity a disservice.
You're probably right, but... I'll believe it when I see it.
Gary Farber
: Ulrka wrote:
: > Other writers who tickle the back of my brain as likely Christians
: > include Blish and Kurz. But those are just faint stirrings of
: > memory. Oh, and Scott Card of course, though there are Christians
: > who quibble about whether the LDS church is really Christian...
: I seem to recall Teresa saying the Mormans thought of themselves as
: "amplified Jews".
Correct attribution. I've always been impressed by how many many groups
have looked for ways to pick up the acoustic heritage and claim it for
themselves.
I like the original jazz and rock 'n roll versions.
Gary Farber
: John Bark said:
: > > Blish
: >
: > Nope, at the very least an agnostic - see the intro to 'A Case of
: > Conscience' - more likely an atheist.
: "Blish is a professed agnostic", according to William Atheling Jr in =The
: Issue At Hand=. And Atheling ought to know....
Oh, you can never trust these arrogant critics.
Dr Gafia
writes:
>John Bark (jb...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
>: > Blish
>
>: Nope, at the very least an agnostic - see the intro to 'A Case of
>: Conscience' - more likely an atheist.
>
>Ah, but what is he _now_?
A lapsed atheist?
--rich brown
Arthur Hlavaty
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>Ulrka wrote:
>
>> Other writers who tickle the back of my brain as likely Christians
>> include Blish and Kurz. But those are just faint stirrings of
>> memory. Oh, and Scott Card of course, though there are Christians
>> who quibble about whether the LDS church is really Christian...
>>
>
>I seem to recall Teresa saying the Mormans thought of themselves as
>"amplified Jews".
>
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
Chris Croughton
p...@cooky.demon.co.uk "Pat McMurray" writes:
>In article <807027...@keris.demon.co.uk>,
>Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I have seen the same sort of thing - I remember one fan holding forth
>>about how Christians were responsible for everything wrong with the
>>world. It was pointed out to him that he was drinking with two
>>Christians at that time - his response was "You're not real Christians,
>>you're nice people"; the sad part was that he was serious...
>
>Uhh, is this me you're talking about? ISTR a conversation of the sort, but
>I wasn't serious. I'm an agnostic Catholic taught by Jesuits, so I take
>religion and Christianity very seriously, even though I don't believe in
>it.
No, not at all! The person I was referring to is not on the net, and is
known in East London fandom as being a total bigot about Christianity.
He maintains that Christianity is the cause of everything wrong with the
world. (I only know his first name, and it's common enough that I don't
want to tar a load of people with the same brush.)
Unfortunately, he can be set off on one of his rants by almost anything,
and once started he's almost impossible to stop...
>It is of course true that religion is frequently used as an excuse or a
>cover for all sorts of evil, but this does not make religion responsible
>for the evil thus carried out. For example Orthodox Christians are fighting
>Muslims in Bosnia, but this does not make either Orthodox Christianity or
>Islam responsible for what's happening in Bosnia. In fact, I would expect
>and hope, that really religous people of both faiths are trying not to be
>evil in their own actions.
My feeling as well...
>Also, I have had some evil deeds carried out against me by "Christians" and
>"Religous" people of various sorts, which occasionally will show in what I
>say and do, but I am well aware of the distinction between hating the
>sinner and hating the sin.
Exactly, and thank you. That describes the difference between you and
the person I mentioned - he hates the 'sinner' as well...
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Chris Croughton
evelyn...@att.com "Evelyn C. Leeper" writes:
>I think there are at least two aspects of "X Fandom" which merit
>consideration:
>
> 1) Many religions promote the idea of group worship on a
> regular basis, or have dietary restrictions, or have other
> requirements. For fans at conventions in strange cities
> (and some are strange indeed!), this is not always easy.
> One of the functions of "Jewish Fandom" (if there is such
> a formal group--I suspect it's more like an informal
> conglomeration) is to help Jewish fans find each other to
> create a minyan (ten people required for a service), to
> find kosher food, to find a synagogue, etc. I would assume
> "Muslim Fandom" would function similarly, and so on. Even
> some non-religious fandom groups might do this (for example,
> "Vegetarian Fandom").
>
> 2) There is science fiction and fantasy written based on
> various religions (or other aspects), and if one is
> interested in that fiction, "X Fandom" is a way to find it.
> I subscribe to "Jews in Space" in large part for this latter
> reason.
>
>As far as the first goes, no, I wouldn't attend a "Christian Fandom"
>meeting, any more than I would attend a Christian worship service at a
>church near a convention. But if Christian fans want to meet for
>religious purposes, I think it's unreasonable to say they shouldn't be
>so exclusive.
To clarify: I wasn't accusing Christan Fandom of _being_ exclusive, I
was saying that the naming of such subgroups implies exclusion (we're
back to the semantic issue again - the name attracts or discourages
people irrespective of the actual function).
>As far as the second, that's what newsletters are for, and I don't
>think most organizations require a statement of doctrinal faith before
>letting one subscribe.
I think the first is better served by newsletters as well - for
instance, I would also be interested in "Jews in Space" (or Muslims, or
Zoroastrians, or whatever), even though I'm not Jewish and know less
than I'd like about the culture and religion. If there was a party or
panel on "Jewish Fandom", however, I'd be put off by the name...
Chris Croughton
Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk "Pam Wells" writes:
>Hold on, though, I'm not 'that nice Pam Wells' any more, so maybe Steve's
>right and they really _are_ sins. Sins fit for a Bitch Demon to perform
>(which sounds like a pretty good justification to me...).
I'm reminded of when I worked for Plessey (the electronics company,
before they were bought out). They used to send round System
Information Notices (generally called SINs) about things like compiler
and operating system bugs. One of the fields on the memos confused me,
though - it said "SINs cancelled", and I thought only the Pope had that
authority...
P Nielsen Hayden
>Avedon Carol (ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
>: I seem to recall Teresa saying the Mormans thought of themselves as
>: "amplified Jews".
>Correct attribution. I've always been impressed by how many many groups
>have looked for ways to pick up the acoustic heritage and claim it for
>themselves.
>I like the original jazz and rock 'n roll versions.
This would make the Shakers the Extended Dance Remix, yes?
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.interport.net/~pnh : http://www.tor.com
Avedon Carol
> a thread on the subject, but I spent several hours over the last
> couple of days trying to make this very point, but with one major
> difference. Substitute the word 'pornography' for the word
> 'religion.
I think you just went too far.
Avedon Carol
> Other writers who tickle the back of my brain as likely Christians
> include Blish and Kurz. But those are just faint stirrings of
> memory. Oh, and Scott Card of course, though there are Christians
> who quibble about whether the LDS church is really Christian...
>
I seem to recall Teresa saying the Mormans thought of themselves as
"amplified Jews".
Avedon Carol
> > There are a lot of neo-pagans in fandom, but I haven't seen the
> > sneers against them that I've seen against Christians.
>
> I have. Mostly from Christians.
>
> It cuts both ways, Marty. Perhaps your filters only pick up the
> sneers against Christians. Not being either Christian or pagan, I
> hear them all.
Kinda reminds me of the way FOSFAX - er Tim & Joseph - not to mention the
rest of the neo-conservative hoard, seem to think that misstatements,
leaping to false accusations, calling people names, general rudeness and
ad hominem attacks, as well as out-of-order actions by government agents,
are all _liberal_ tactics that have never been used at any time by, say,
Republicans, or "conservatives", and certainly not against liberals.
> One of my favorite buttons to wear at cons is, "Death to all
> fanatics!"
"I think that's taking extremism too far." - Mike Glicksohn
AC
Gary Farber
: >: I seem to recall Teresa saying the Mormans thought of themselves as
: >: "amplified Jews".
: >Correct attribution. I've always been impressed by how many many groups
: >have looked for ways to pick up the acoustic heritage and claim it for
: >themselves.
: >I like the original jazz and rock 'n roll versions.
: This would make the Shakers the Extended Dance Remix, yes?
Not for much longer, no?
Marty Helgesen
<Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> says:
<SNIP>
>Someone I was going to marry once was raised a Catholic, and I was raised
>a Protestant (Methodist). We would have married in my church (it being
>'traditional' to marry in the woman's church). We're both pretty much
>lapsed, but it would have upset one of our families, whichever way it had
>turned out.
>
>His father was Protestant and his mother Catholic, and they had married in
>his mother's church. But, even though they had agreed to raise their
>children as Catholics, they were not allowed to be married at the altar,
>but had to stand further down the aisle. His mother, a devoted Catholic,
>was very upset by this discrimination. Any idea why this might have been
>required?
Catholics, both non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians, but
encourages Catholics to marry other Catholics. Regardless of prom-
ises, etc., such marriages can be a danger to the faith of the Catho-
lic party and to the faith of the children. Many other religious
groups discourage religiously mixed marriages for similar reasons.
At one time it was a common practice in the Catholic Church to re-
quire that such marriages be celebrated somewhere other than at the
altar as a means of trying to discourage them. So far as I know that
practice has been abandoned as a bad idea. I think, without looking
it up, that such policies are under the control of the local bishop
so I can't say definitely that it has been abandoned everywhere, but
I would be at least mildly surprised to learn that any dioceses still
follow it.
Avedon Carol
> The Catholic Church still believes in Hell because Jesus taught that
> it exists.
Gee, and here I had the impression that Jesus taught that if you believe
in him you get saved and ever-lasting life, and if you don't you
"perish". Somehow ever-lasting life in hell did not seem consistent with
this contract, unless you assume you have to believe in him _and_ commit
an unrepented sin. So athiests, I guess, have nothing to worry about.
Avedon
(Atomically cured!)
Ulrika O'Brien
>To clarify: I wasn't accusing Christan Fandom of _being_ exclusive, I
>was saying that the naming of such subgroups implies exclusion (we're
>back to the semantic issue again - the name attracts or discourages
>people irrespective of the actual function).
A name which attracts or discourages people to find out what is under it
does *not* imply exclusion. What it does do, by your own words, is cause
self selection. Since there are usually more fans at any given convention
than can be crammed into any single function space, and not all of them
share the same interests anyway, self-selection is a good thing. What do
you want Christian Fandom to call itself? How about Christian Fandom But
Everybody Who Wants to Can Show Up Meeting? Ghu knows the typesetters for
the pocket program will love you for that.
--
"Read your e-mail! There are children offline in India!"
If it ain't quoted, I wrote it, it's *my* fault
Ulrika O'Brien ulr...@aol.com
Marty Helgesen
soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul
in hell." (Matthew 10:28). To "perish" in this context is not to
cease to exist but to go to Hell. Atheists have quite a bit to worry
about.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
<ulr...@aol.com> wrote as follows:
>
> Other writers who tickle the back of my brain as likely Christians include
> Blish and Kurz. But those are just faint stirrings of memory. Oh, and
> Scott Card of course, though there are Christians who quibble about
> whether the LDS church is really Christian...
Actually, I don't believe Blish was religious. I read at one point,
though the reference escapes me, that he had written A Case of
Conscience, Black Easter and Day After Judgment as intellectual puzzles.
We might wish to consider Walter M. Miller. And Theodore Sturgeon.
Certainly Ray Bradbury. You might want to consider, in the very minor
pantheon, me.
I have taken the liberty of cross-posting this to rec.arts.sf.written,
for we are more than likely to get an answer from The Wandering Jew by
doing so.
-- LJM
Steve Brewster
:
: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
: soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul
: in hell." (Matthew 10:28). To "perish" in this context is not to
: cease to exist but to go to Hell. Atheists have quite a bit to worry
: about.
Hmm. Anyone know where I can buy factor-googleplex sun cream?
One thing that religious education teachers in Catholic schools are
realising belatedly (like, 2000 years belatedly) is that the 'atheists
burn in hell' doctrine drives waverers away from the Church rather than
towards it. Any child with sufficient nous to notice that the biblical
God displays the moral fibre of a spoiled six-year-old will be
unimpressed by such threats, which only go to support the
observation. To equate atheism with wrongdoing is to mix up two
uses of the word 'wrong' - moral wrongness, and intellectual wrongness.
If I don't believe in God, and God exists, then I've been intellectually
wrong, but I can't see where I've been morally wrong. Saying that God
_defines_ disbelief in him as morally wrong isn't much of an answer.
Actually I always thought there was a hell (fnarr fnarr) of a lot of
gay-bondage symbolism in the Catholic whips-chains-and-branding-irons
Hell, but that's another thing.
--
Steve.B...@Bristol.ac.uk ! Room 4.9, Department of Mathematics,
-------------------------------! University of Bristol,
http://zeus.bris.ac.uk/~masjb ! City and County of Bristol, United Kingdom,
(under construction, sort of) ! BS8 1TW. Tel: 0117 928 7990.
Janice Gelb
>Ulrka wrote:
>
>> Other writers who tickle the back of my brain as likely Christians
>> include Blish and Kurz. But those are just faint stirrings of
>> memory. Oh, and Scott Card of course, though there are Christians
>> who quibble about whether the LDS church is really Christian...
>>
>
>"amplified Jews".
>
They must have an awfully weird understanding of the theology of
"unplugged" Jews then...
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
"Usenet is like Tetris for people who still remember how to read"
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb
>In article <3vb2f1$l...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, jan...@Eng.Sun.COM (Janice
>Gelb) wrote as follows:
>>
>> Wish I had a dime for every time someone at a con heard about my
>> religious practices and did indeed tell me how bloody stupid I
>> was for believing in superstitious nonsense.
>
>Tell you what, Janice, let's pool our dimes -- and maybe we can buy a
>room or two at cons so that we won't have to worry about being comped by
>the con committee...
>
Wish I could: unfortunately, most of the time people make this type of
comment on the Sabbath when I can't collect or spend money :->
David E Romm
("Avedon Carol") wrote:
> ROB HANSEN HERE:
>
> Ulrika writes:
>
> > No, Joe, I think you just missed the point. Christians *do*
> > worship somebody -- one guy, three manifestations
>
> Which reminds me.... As Avedon pointed out to me a while back, there's an
> actor who, in different TV series, has played a father, son, and holy
> spirit: Michael Landon.
And, like the originals, he was Jewish...
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"When will I learn? The answer to life's problems aren't at the bottom of a bottle... they're on tv!" -- Homer Simpson
Andy Trembley
witnesses):
>Also Orson Scott Card. I've also heard Connie Willis talk about her
aah... Orson Scott Card is a Mormon (which many "C"hristians will
vehemently differentiate from their brand of christianity).
Andy Trembley hitchhiker on the road *from* Dharmapalooza
Computing Techniques, Inc. On assignment at Allen-Bradley
attr...@mkelan5.remnet.ab.com TwinkCode forthcoming...
Loren Joseph MacGregor
("Avedon Carol") wrote as follows:
>
> ROB HANSEN HERE:
> I know the person posting this was being ironic but it actually does make
> me shake my head and sigh wistfully for earlier times when cons were a
> space where rationalism and faith in scientific endeavour were a given.
> Now we're supposed to smilingly accept that Christianity, various stripes
> of New Age-ism, and other constructs of the superstitious should be given
> equal respect even though to many of us they're self-evidently hogwash.
> Sigh.
Dear Rob, honey sweetie sugar lambikins:
In the off-chance that you WEREN'T being ironic, may I take this
opportunity to thank you for your open-mindedness in blasting my faith,
and for your suggestion that, because I do profess to be a Catholic, I
am by extension a dull, unthinking clod. Funny, I have never felt that
to be a Christian (or a Jew, or a Buddhist, or even a new-age
spiritualist) was necessarily incompatible with "rationalism and faith
in scientific endeavor."
I don't often talk in fannish groups about being Christian. There is no
quicker way to discover the small-mindedness of folks you consider your
friends.
-- LJM
Loren Joseph MacGregor
Gelb) wrote as follows:
>
> Wish I had a dime for every time someone at a con heard about my
> religious practices and did indeed tell me how bloody stupid I
> was for believing in superstitious nonsense.
Tell you what, Janice, let's pool our dimes -- and maybe we can buy a
room or two at cons so that we won't have to worry about being comped by
the con committee...
-- LJM
Ulrika
>In article <405gig$c...@amazing.cinenet.net>, Loren Joseph MacGregor
>>room or two at cons so that we won't have to worry about being comped >>by the con committee...
>
>comment on the Sabbath when I can't collect or spend money :->
It's at times like that that you need a large, threatening, and
well-trained Shabbas goy. Don't know if Loren qualifies as large or
threatening, but he is a goy...
--
Polytheist - One who believes God is a parrot.
****Ulrika O'Brien*** ulr...@aol.com
Nancy Lebovitz
Richard Newsome <new...@panix.com> wrote:
>Richard McAllister (r...@urth.eng.sun.com) wrote:
>>
>>: >One that comes immediately to mind is Gene Wolfe.
>
>R.A. Lafferty.
>
>(And what was the deal with Randall Garrett, anyway?)
>
He may be a bit of an embarrassment, but there's Roger Elwood.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
NEW EDITION of the calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
>
>