I didn’t take the “fan fiction” as a dig at the Bible - I took it as a dig (if one ) at the amount of material at the avg bible bookstore - which is why I said the respondent could have phrased it better.
IOW, I think we’re in agreement overall - I think the Mods could have called for him to clarify “fan fiction” and then had an instruction to keep any discussion of “God” to the “clearly fictional” portrayals.
Most have no issue seperating fact/fiction in those cases - and yes - he would.
Likewise, you could claim that Abraham Lincoln is a fictional character if you consider his portrayal in Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter or Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.
Don’t forget he was in Star Trek, etc -
So, if Abe’s or Napolean’s portrayals reach a mass to call them “popular fictional chars” - does that change, at all, the factual person or history?
Had someone listed Lincoln - or JFK - or others in that thread - would they have been mod’d on it?
Or should the OP been more clear and stated “ONLY FICTIONAL with no ties to persons or dieties, living or dead, are to be discussed here”
(Harry Potter in, Abraham Lincoln VH out)
I was actually referring directly to Christian fan fiction(of which there are tons online), so that it might be counted against the large amount of Holmesian fan fiction, since the topic of the thread was which character had the most mentions.
edited to add: And, yes-perhaps just asking me to clarify my post would have settled this a lot sooner.
I think you’re missing the point. The remark was modded because it had potential for a hijack on religious issues, not because of its accuracy or not. Unless you believe Lincoln to be a deity, the comparison hardly applies.
I got that point - quite clearly - but preventing discussion of ‘God’ in fiction seems heavy handed and against the spirit of the board. The instructions could have easily have been "keep the discussion to the “clearly ficitonal bits about God, not the religous aspect of it”.
There are those that feel just as strongly when “alternate fiction” is created based on historical figures - so the comparison is apt.
You’re correct.I don’t wish to acknowledge that there are any places on the SDMB where logical and rational opinions that are relevant to the subject being discussed, are not welcome.
That is too sad.
IMHO, “God is fictional” is a different sort of statement from “God is a fictional character.” The latter claim may be appropriate in a Café Society thread, but the former is not.
It is uncontroversially true that God has appeared as a character in works of fiction. So by that standard, at least, God could be counted as a fictional character (as could Abraham Lincoln). Although even there, I wonder if it’s strictly accurate to refer to God as a fictional character, as opposed to the different “versions” of God being considered different characters. I recall a Café Society thread (which I can’t find right now) asking for people’s favorite fictional Deaths (e.g. Death in Pratchett’s Discworld novels, Death in Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey, etc.). Is Death a fictional character, or are all those Deaths individual characters?
exactly - God AS vs God IS.
As to Death - same thing - there is clearly a fictional char called death, with many different characterizations.
Just because you don’t believe in Jesus or God or whatever doesn’t mean you have to bring it up in every thread. You are not proving or making any point.
The mod note was spot on.
I wasn’t aware of that thread; thanks. It looks interesting; I’ll check it out.
Are you denying that there have been fictional charectorizations of both Jesus and God in popular culture?
Or is “Buddy Jesus” real as well?
In such good faith (no pun intended) cases you could say something like “God, as portrayed by George Burns”.
But that’s obviously not what trolls intend when they they post “God” in such topics.
Except that the thread in question specified, “Counting the numbers of different media where the character may have appeared, and the number of individual actors that may have portrayed him/her…”
And I could have beaten Sherlock Holmes easily.
Accusations of trolling should not be made outside the Pit, and the decision is to be made by Moderators. Please, no more of this.
On the broader question: The question of whether God is fictional has been, and can be, discussed. There is, in fact, a current discussion thread (in GD) about whether the Bible is the word of God or is fiction. So, please, refrain from any high-horsing about how we’re not allowing discussion about the nature (fictional or real) of God.
But it’s NOT appropriate in that thread. That was a listing thread about popularity (measured by number of appearances), not a theological thread about the meaning of God, nor a definitional thread about the meaning of “fiction.” The intrusion of God or Jesus as candidates could be viewed as trolling, or as thread-shitting, or witnessing (atheistic witnessing) orsimply as honest efforts to discuss the topic. That’s why twickster just issued a “let’s not go there” statement rather than Warnings. It was clearly going to lead to a hijack of major proportions.
The only principle here that applies to other threads is the long-standing one that we like threads to (mostly) stay on topic and not be hijacked into foreign territory.
Good point.
I also apologize if anything thinks this was directed at them, personally- rather than the practice as a whole.
No, I am not.
Again, there are ways in which this could have been part of the discussion.
For instance:
“Jesus has appeared in many films, including D W Griffith’s INTOLERANCE (1916) right up to Mel Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004) and including musicals like JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR (1973)…”
“God has been played by George Burns, and voiced by Burt Lancaster (in 1974’s MOSES THE LAWGIVER), I don’t know who voiced God in the DeMille films or…”
There were ways in which this could have been part of the discussion. But the fact of a simple injection “God” or “Jesus is a candidate” in the actual thread required things be kept away from theological debate.
There are plenty of discussion contexts where expression of logical and rational opinions will just be threadshitting - for example, in a thread titled “Could Superman beat The Wolverine?”, nobody is hoping someone will drop in point out that the contest would be impossible because neither character is real.