Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Star Trek Books] Response

Expand Messages
  • Jackie Bundy
    In the SCE novels the Jewish faith is still being observed.  The Captains wife is a rabbi if I remember correctly. Jackie ________________________________
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      In the SCE novels the Jewish faith is still being observed.  The Captains wife is a rabbi if I remember correctly.

      Jackie




      ________________________________
      From: Father Robert Lyons <fatherroblyons@...>
      To: startrekbooks@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, March 31, 2010 9:57:55 AM
      Subject: Re: [Star Trek Books] Response

       
      On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Parker Gabriel <parker_gabriel@ juno.com>wrote:

      > "Begging the padre's pardon, but didn't all other hands, including and
      > especially the Commanding Officer, consider Phlox something of an
      > infidel--assuming anything about that series can even be trusted not to be a
      > distortion of pre-Federation history at all?"
      >
      I suppose the other option is that it was a Holodeck fantasy of Riker's,
      which would then make me think that at least Riker believes the Papacy still
      exists in the 24th Century.

      Actually, by the 24th century (or even the 22nd!), I'd like to think that
      the more liturgical Christians will reunite into one Church, the more
      evangelicals into one, and the significant division of Christendom could be
      diminished. Perhaps Picard could negotiate it, and Kirk could threaten to
      blow up the Vatican Supercomputer if this does not take place?

      Rob+

      >
      > .
      >
      >
      >

      --
      Father Robert Lyons
      Bargersville, IN
      www.stellarcross. org
      www.resynod. org
      www.primitivecathol ic.org
      * * *
      "Too many people try to conform the Christian message to themselves instead
      of embracing the Christian message and letting it conform them to Christ."

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Andrew Brown
      Damn. From your words I infer that you have a real hate-on for secularists. I cannot see how a groom getting killed on his wedding day is a any kind of
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 1 9:57 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Damn. From your words I infer that you have a real hate-on for secularists.
        I cannot see how a groom getting killed on his wedding day is a any kind of
        practical joke or punchline for anyone, least of all the bride, never mind
        the whole crew.

        And your "clear sign" only indicates to me most clearly that your viewpoint
        is most assuredly skewed by your own experiences.

        Because I sure as hell don't see what you're seeing.

        Andy

        On 31 March 2010 12:11, Parker Gabriel <parker_gabriel@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > The chapel on the Enterprise I, as seen in "Balance Of Terror," was
        > supposed to be a non-denominational chapel, since there were non-Terrestrial
        > Enterprise personnel who did adhere to religions. And at that, that chapel
        > was ultimately nothing more than a transparent set-up for the laughless
        > punchline of a very unfunny practical joke on all hands: A marriage was
        > almost performed inside that chapel, over which marriage Kirk would have
        > officiated, but the bridegroom died in combat without the ceremony being
        > completed--a clear sign that the bride and groom were both being punished to
        > the maximum extent for attempting to elevate either of their own interests
        > above the uncontestable supremacy of the Enterprise.
        >
        > McCoy's demand that Spock speak to those gathered in that chapel to
        > commemorate the "loss" of Kirk was in "The Tholian Web" and, unfortunately,
        > Spock botched his statement.
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Andrew Brown
        Phlox was regarded as an infidel by the whole crew? This is so patently and blatantly untrue that I cannot respond to it in any specific way, as in with
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 1 10:10 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Phlox was regarded as an "infidel" by the whole crew?

          This is so patently and blatantly untrue that I cannot respond to it in any
          specific way, as in with episodic references.. But I can still answer you,
          Parker.

          Begging the padre's pardon, but didn't all other hands, including and
          > especially the Commanding Officer, consider Phlox something of an
          > infidel...?
          >

          No.

          Have you even *watched* this show? How about you cite your source data for
          making such a bizarre statement. And clarify what you mean by "infidel"
          while you're at it.

          Andy

          On 31 March 2010 12:39, Parker Gabriel <parker_gabriel@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > The Reverened Father Robert Lyons claimed, "We do know that the Catholic
          > Church was alive and well at the time of 'Broken Bow,' the 'Enterprise'
          > pilot. Phlox states that he went to Mass at St. Peter's."
          >
          > Begging the padre's pardon, but didn't all other hands, including and
          > especially the Commanding Officer, consider Phlox something of an
          > infidel--assuming anything about that series can even be trusted not to be a
          > distortion of pre-Federation history at all?
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Parker Gabriel
          Andrew Brown: You referred to my question about whether the crew considered Phlox something of an infidel, which you answered in the negative. And
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 2 11:53 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Andrew Brown:

            You referred to my question about whether the crew considered Phlox something of an infidel, which you answered in the negative.

            And unfortunately, I WAS out of line, for I never even watched the program, and was only speculating with the statement you called "bizarre." By "infidel," I meant that he did not hold to anything his shipmates held, and that his attitudes were not popular ones as a result.

            But the main point of what I had originally written was that I could trust nothing about the program not to be a distortion of pre-Federation history.

            My rationale had to do with nominal head cast member Scott Bakula having previously become prominent for "Quantum Leap," whose main character was specifically described as having had the mission of altering history--and from what I have read on that subject, traditionally few writers of time-travel fiction have supported such ideas, preferring instead to make the past either resistant to change or so vulnerable to change that so changing it constitutes a crime. That specific detail alone left me with no confidence that anything else about the program could be trusted.

            The others in the group:

            My apologies for having offended all of you; I was completely out of line with my statement.
          • Parker Gabriel
            Andrew, I don t have what you called a real hate-on for secularists. In my message, I referred to a groom getting killed on his wedding day as an UNFUNNY
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 2 12:52 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Andrew, I don't have what you called "a real hate-on for secularists."
              In my message, I referred to a groom getting killed on his wedding day
              as an UNFUNNY practical joke, and I said that it had a LAUGHLESS
              punchline. Those indicated, or should have indicated, that if the
              situation was a joke on them, then it was an extremely cruel and
              absolutely tasteless one. Did you even read any signs of me smiling when
              I wrote that original message? There should not have been any; I found
              the experience a horror and a tragedy!

              What I called a clear sign stems at least in part from having been the
              legal ward of a former Navy bluejacket when I was younger. He
              maintained, from his years as a bluejacket, a copy of The Bluejackets'
              Manual, 1946. In Part I: Introduction To The Navy, in Chapter 2, on
              Naval Discipline, under "Violations Of Orders And Regulations," that
              manual deals with "Fighting and disturbances." It there says, and this I
              quote directly: "No matter what differences a Navy man may have with
              another member of the service, he must remember that the respect due the
              service is more important than the argument at hand. To forget this rule
              will involve the man in serious difficulties." I simply took that
              particular tenet to the extent of the Enterprise, and equated the
              Enterprise with the entire Universe.

              For the same reason, I also do not believe the "axiom" quoted in the
              second, third, and fourth motion pictures, "The needs of the many
              outweigh the needs of the few...or the one." Nor do I believe its
              inverse, cited in the third and fourth motion pictures, "The needs of
              the one outweigh the needs of the many...or the few." For both supposed
              axioms assume differences between the many, the few, the one, and the
              all--differences that I am convinced do not actually exist. Instead, I
              equate the many, the few, the one, AND the all with the Enterprise. Not
              the various ships that have borne that name, mind you; I use the word
              "Enterprise" in this context as a synonym for "Venture," "Adventure,"
              "Undertaking," "Pursuit," "Quest," "Journey," and/or the like--indeed,
              for "Existence" and indeed the Universe itself. Given that vast a scope
              and, at the same time, defined as consisting of everything that lives
              and/or exists, the Enterprise takes on such great resistance to harm
              from any of us that it actually becomes invincible--meaning that
              nothing, and nobody, can defy it...and still win, in the same way, in
              the same way Jean-Luc Picard pointed out to Data, in "Peak Performance,"
              "It is possible to make no mistakes...and still lose."

              The Enterprise punishes those who defy it to the maximum extent; it may
              not do so immediately, but it always eventually does do so. I may very
              well be out of turn for saying this, but I ended up drawing the
              (possibly mistaken!) conclusion that in "Balance Of Terror," the
              decedent Robert Tomlinson and the almost-wife Angela Martine were
              attempting to elevate either of their own interests above what I had by
              then come to see as the uncontestable supremacy of the Enterprise. That
              was, to me, a most serious offense, and it was for it that I said they
              were being punished--Tomlinson by being killed, Martine by being
              rendered next to unmarriageable.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Andrew Brown
              Don t get me wrong, Parker. I am not offended; more incredulous , and perhaps annoyed . I m just disputing your use of language (as in, choice of words) and
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 2 4:33 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Don't get me wrong, Parker. I am not offended; more "incredulous", and
                perhaps "annoyed". I'm just disputing your use of language (as in, choice of
                words) and assumptions. So many people spout off assumptions on so many
                topics without bothering to learn anything first hand-about that topic.

                And personally, I think "infidel" is an incredibly pejorative term which
                will be obsolete in the Trek universe.

                Andy

                On 2 April 2010 14:53, Parker Gabriel <parker_gabriel@...> wrote:

                >
                >
                > Andrew Brown:
                >
                > You referred to my question about whether the crew considered Phlox
                > something of an infidel, which you answered in the negative.
                >
                > And unfortunately, I WAS out of line, for I never even watched the program,
                > and was only speculating with the statement you called "bizarre." By
                > "infidel," I meant that he did not hold to anything his shipmates held, and
                > that his attitudes were not popular ones as a result.
                >
                > But the main point of what I had originally written was that I could trust
                > nothing about the program not to be a distortion of pre-Federation history.
                >
                > My rationale had to do with nominal head cast member Scott Bakula having
                > previously become prominent for "Quantum Leap," whose main character was
                > specifically described as having had the mission of altering history--and
                > from what I have read on that subject, traditionally few writers of
                > time-travel fiction have supported such ideas, preferring instead to make
                > the past either resistant to change or so vulnerable to change that so
                > changing it constitutes a crime. That specific detail alone left me with no
                > confidence that anything else about the program could be trusted.
                >
                > The others in the group:
                >
                > My apologies for having offended all of you; I was completely out of line
                > with my statement.
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • bj
                From: Andrew Brown Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 7:33 PM To: Subject: Re: [Star Trek Books]
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 2 6:28 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: "Andrew Brown" <scottish.andy76@...>
                  Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 7:33 PM
                  To: <startrekbooks@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: Re: [Star Trek Books] Response

                  > And personally, I think "infidel" is an incredibly pejorative term which
                  > will be obsolete in the Trek universe.
                  >

                  I think there will always be people who use pejorative terms.

                  What's more, words change meaning even within a few decades and go from
                  being the accepted term for something to being an insult. Other words take
                  on entirely different meanings as they are adopted by one group or another.
                  Who knows what "infidel" will actually mean & connote in a couple of hundred
                  years!
                  bj
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.