Religion & DS9

[Ian Keldon]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

It's not a religion if you can measure your God scientifically, so there never was a religious undertone in DS9.

That's begging the question.

The Bajorans believed in the Prophets even before they knew about "wormhole aliens", or even wormholes themselves. So the "Prophets" remain religious figures even after the Federation comes along.

A Bajoran would likely respond to you that "your science simply proves conclusively that our Gods actually do exist".

[Ian Keldon]

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

I really don't consider "In the Hands of the Prophets" to be much better than "Who Watches the Watchers," except for the fact that we did get two statements of tolerance that we never would've seen in TNG: Sisko's reprimand to his son for dismissing the Bajorans, and Bareil's brief mention of the fact that some Bajorans are perfectly okay with science and do not find it threatening at all to their faith.

That, at least, does raise DS9's controversial episode above TNG's.

Yes.

Ultimately, DS9 showed us a better example of IDIC than the secular moralizing of TNG.

[Ian Keldon]

sonak wrote:

---

right, but there's no actual proof of any of it. DS9 has disappearing Dominion ships on its logs, as well as the fight between Prophet Kira and pah-wraith Jake. There are living witnesses and recordings of events involving the prophets.

And two thousand years in the future of those events, some will probably come along and say (just as they do today) that all the recordings of their deeds and interventions were made up stories, and there would be no living witnesses to contradict them.

Again, just as they do with the Bible today.

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Yeah, but there's no proof.

The Bajoran's have the tears of the prophets, which are obviously real and obviously have the abilities of giving you visions or making you travel through time. Their "religion" is very much grounded in reality. They KNOW their gods exists, instead of simply believing it.

The Bajorans in that universe are very lucky to have actually kept possession their Noah's Ark, their Ark of the Covenant in an unbroken chain of custody.

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

And according to Star Trek, Apollo was a real dude.

Hey!



Maybe they took their jobs seriously in Star Trek. Good record keepers don't just keep track of their own canon.

[sonak]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

And two thousand years in the future of those events, some will probably come along and say (just as they do today) that all the recordings of their deeds and interventions were made up stories, and there would be no living witnesses to contradict them.

Again, just as they do with the Bible today.

The Bajorans in that universe are very lucky to have actually kept possession their Noah's Ark, their Ark of the Covenant in an unbroken chain of custody.

again, no. We have recorded knowledge of actual events that happened in the past but have no living witnesses. The existence of the American Civil War is not a matter of "faith." The problem with the historicity of much of the Bible is that the events either took place far enough in the past that records of events were unreliable, or that there's no evidence of them at all. Those issues don't apply to the Star Trek universe.

[Ian Keldon]

sonak wrote:

---

again, no. We have recorded knowledge of actual events that happened in the past but have no living witnesses. The existence of the American Civil War is not a matter of "faith." The problem with the historicity of much of the Bible is that the events either took place far enough in the past that records of events were unreliable, or that there's no evidence of them at all. Those issues don't apply to the Star Trek universe.

Don't they? In 2000 years, how far would the computer technology have progressed? We have problems today retrieving data on media less than 30 years old, due to programming changes, deterioration of media, etc.

And just who determined that the Biblical record was "unreliable". Care to pony up some proof that it is? Jesus and His teachings in particular were even admitted to by those arguably his ENEMIES, such as Josephus the historian.

We have better provenance for the books of the Bible than we do the books of Caesar. No one doubts Caesar's writings are authentic though, because they are secular.

Clear-minded, objective thinking can only conclude that the Bible is an authentic historical record as testified to by it's authors.

The authors of the New Testament even used YOUR argument: "Don't believe us? Ask around. There are living people who saw all this happen." That they are dead now doesn't make their statements any less credible.

And you really torpedo yourself by bringing up the Civil War. Why was it fought? Slavery or States Rights? Was it legally justified? What did the fighting man on the field think about the war (both sides)? What did the people back home think about the war (both sides)?

Those issues are already shrouded in the "mists of history", and even after exhaustive searching of the historical record are in contention. Much of that record is routinely ignored/suppressed in favor of the Union point of view.

You have to look WAY outside the "approved" texts to answer those questions with any factuality.

So it's easy to see the Trek universe even a few hundred years in the future looking back on that era and asking "what 'really' happened?"

[CorporalCaptain]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Clear-minded, objective thinking can only conclude that the Bible is an authentic historical record as testified to by it's authors.

This is absolutely incorrect.

[sonak]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Don't they? In 2000 years, how far would the computer technology have progressed? We have problems today retrieving data on media less than 30 years old, due to programming changes, deterioration of media, etc.

And just who determined that the Biblical record was "unreliable". Care to pony up some proof that it is? Jesus and His teachings in particular were even admitted to by those arguably his ENEMIES, such as Josephus the historian.

We have better provenance for the books of the Bible than we do the books of Caesar. No one doubts Caesar's writings are authentic though, because they are secular.

Clear-minded, objective thinking can only conclude that the Bible is an authentic historical record as testified to by it's authors.

The authors of the New Testament even used YOUR argument: "Don't believe us? Ask around. There are living people who saw all this happen." That they are dead now doesn't make their statements any less credible.

And you really torpedo yourself by bringing up the Civil War. Why was it fought? Slavery or States Rights? Was it legally justified? What did the fighting man on the field think about the war (both sides)? What did the people back home think about the war (both sides)?

Those issues are already shrouded in the "mists of history", and even after exhaustive searching of the historical record are in contention. Much of that record is routinely ignored/suppressed in favor of the Union point of view.

You have to look WAY outside the "approved" texts to answer those questions with any factuality.

So it's easy to see the Trek universe even a few hundred years in the future looking back on that era and asking "what 'really' happened?"

er, I don't mean to offend you or turn this into a religious debate, but you are misinformed on a few things. First off, putting the NT aside, let's turn to the OT. Archaeologists have found no evidence corroborating the Biblical story of the Exodus. Not to mention the glaring scientific inaccuracy of the Creation account of Genesis. As for the NT, The Gospels were not written anytime near when Jesus was supposedly doing his thing. The first one chronologically, Mark, was written almost FORTY years later. And the supposed "outside" sources you refer to are all basically getting their info about Jesus after the movement had already started, none were giving contemporary eyewitness accounts.

On the American Civil War, you are conflating two different issues. Debates about causes of events are not debates about whether the events take place. And there ARE soldiers' diaries, journals, and letters from those who fought in the ACW, I don't know where you get the idea that there aren't.



And we are getting away from Trek-related stuff, so to make this an appropriate post.... Ezri Dax is incredibly hot.

[datagal]

One of my favorite DS9 episodes is The Reckoning. For me, it was about faith. It also show how much Kai Winn hated Sisko not just because he was the Emissary chosen by prophets and an outsider (human, not Bajorian) but for he had more faith in the Prophets than she did. Sisko was willing to sacrifice his own son in battle of Good and Evil (with Kira) in order to fulfill the Prophets' Reckoning. But Kai Winn stopped it.

Kai Winn reminds me of the Pharisees in the New Testament.

I never thought too much about until watched it again a few years back.

And never say that Christians don't like Star Trek. I remembered several years ago when my Pastor was preaching at another church. I was serving as one of church nurse (helper). IIRC, I was in the host Pastor's office and I was VHS tapes of DS9 episodes and ask him if he was a Star Trek fan and he said that he was. I was very impressed.

[Xhiandra]

Alienesse wrote:

---

I've recently finished my second viewing of DS9 and it was as great as I remembered it. There are many aspects which set DS9 apart from its sister Trek series, and one of the more poignant differences is the strong presence of religion as a theme. I'm sure this has been discussed before, and if I'm resurrecting a topic everyone is bored with, I apologize, but, upon a quick forum search, I was not able to find a dedicated thread.

I was wondering what brought on the shift from a religiously neutral franchise in TOS and TNG, with some even anti-religious overtones in TNG, to DS9's generous treatment of spirituality and faith. Seeing as this is a science-fiction show, I found it unusual to have a captain that is regarded as a religious icon and a first officer that is not in the least shy about proclaiming her faith in a divine power. I loved what the show did with this theme. I salute having both sides - science and religion - represented and even brought together in Sisko's transformation from reluctance to acceptance of his role as Emissary of the Prophets, but I wonder why. Any thoughts?

Simple: because someone influential on the production side of things is quite religious. So, we get a very preachy, manichean Star Trek show that completely contradicts the humanist vision depicted in TOS&TNG.
You just learn to ignore the horrible religion-heavy episodes ("The Reckoning" had unintentional comical value, though) and focus on the humoristic ("The House of Quark", "The Magnificent Ferengi",...), action-oriented ("Sacrifice of Angels",...) or poetic/dramatic ("The Visitor", Far Beyond the Stars",...) ones.

someone who has to be american wrote:

---

We have better provenance for the books of the Bible than we do the books of Caesar. No one doubts Caesar's writings are authentic though, because they are secular.

Clear-minded, objective thinking can only conclude that the Bible is an authentic historical record as testified to by it's authors.

You seem more versed in conspiracy theories than History. We have plenty of direct evidence of Caius Iulius' existence and of the authenticity of his writings, we have very little to none of the bible's claims*.
No offence, but it's extreme indoctrination such as this that makes me glad of being born on this side of the Atlantic.

*Note: I'm not saying those claims are false, they could be true even without evidence of their historicity.

same individual wrote:

---

The authors of the New Testament even used YOUR argument: "Don't believe us? Ask around. There are living people who saw all this happen." That they are dead now doesn't make their statements any less credible.

Given that those authors are writing a century or more after the alleged facts, they couldn't have very well done so.

[teacake]

Xhiandra wrote:

---

Simple: because someone influential on the production side of things is quite religious. So, we get a very preachy, manichean Star Trek show that completely contradicts the humanist vision depicted in TOS&TNG.
You just learn to ignore the horrible religion-heavy episodes ("The Reckoning" had unintentional comical value, though)

The Reckoning is a beautiful episode that teaches us that Force Lightening comes in two different colours.

[beamMe]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Jesus and His teachings in particular were even admitted to by those arguably his ENEMIES, such as Josephus the historian.

We have better provenance for the books of the Bible than we do the books of Caesar. No one doubts Caesar's writings are authentic though, because they are secular.

Clear-minded, objective thinking can only conclude that the Bible is an authentic historical record as testified to by it's authors.

Nothing you wrote here has any basis in fact and reality.

[Nightdiamond]

Classic Sci Fi Trope; the evil side always has red eyes or glow, the good side is usually represented by blue or whitish energy.

That's why the whole thing got awkward at the end. Trek has always tried to avoid too much religious symbolism, but DS9 jumped right into it.

I always found episodes with the Prophets fascinating, but the last few episodes were too much.

The Pah Wraiths started off as simply enemies of the Prophets, but then morphed into super evil beings that wanted to set the Galaxy on fire or something.

The showdown between the two "chosen ones" was too comic book like for me, I'd rather they did it another way.

[Kestrel]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

The Bajoran's have the tears of the prophets, which are obviously real and obviously have the abilities of giving you visions or making you travel through time. Their "religion" is very much grounded in reality. They KNOW their gods exists, instead of simply believing it.

Glowing space rocks that give you hallucinogenic experiences which happen to fall in line with your cultural expectations? Clearly evidence of non-linear wormhole-dwelling aliens.

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

I think that's a fine analogy, actually. The writers seemed aware of it, too. For example, in Accession the "orb shadow" sounds very much like an hallucinogen flashback.

However, the references in DS9 to faith generally sound very much like they are intended to be taken as metaphors for Christian faith.

Well, to be fair it's not as though people haven't used mind-altering substances to have a Christian faith-experience before.

Xhiandra wrote:

---

Simple: because someone influential on the production side of things is quite religious. So, we get a very preachy, manichean Star Trek show that completely contradicts the humanist vision depicted in TOS&TNG.

That's pretty unfair since most of DS9 wasn't manichean at all. And the humanist vision was never said to apply outside the Federation - it's just that DS9 spent a lot more time delving into non-Federation cultures and didn't simply dismiss Bajoran religion as foolish childlike savagery.

Xhiandra wrote:

---

Given that those authors are writing a century or more after the alleged facts, they couldn't have very well done so.

Sorry, but you're just wrong there. General consensus is that several of Paul's letters were written between CE 51 and 58, and even Revelation before CE 100. At the very least, the Marcion canon (c. 130-140) included a large number of the Pauline epistles as authoritative.

[CorporalCaptain]

Kestrel wrote:

---

Well, to be fair it's not as though people haven't used mind-altering substances to have a Christian faith-experience before.

True. Point taken. I bet there are quite a few people who have dropped acid and found Jesus.

It's just that psychedelic mushrooms aren't served with the bread and wine, at least at most Eucharists.