Middle-Easterners in "Discovery"
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
Pascal's wager.
Just remember to believe all in gods people have ever believed in the past or will in the future (unless they are the sort of gods which get angry if you believe in other gods) and follow practices and taboos of all religions that have ever existed or will exist, just in case.
Also, if there would be a god which puts people in eternal damnation for not believing in him, that god would be a colossal dick.
Last edited:
Data's day , Andorians marry in groups of four
Even if they only have two gendars it still might give a 21st century Pope a 'clutch de rosary' moment
I remember him saying exactly the opposite some time ago. That they should be respected.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...anssexuals-and-gay-people-should-be-embraced/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ays-christians-should-apologise-to-gay-people
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html
I mean those articles make it clear that he is not a passionate advocate for LGBT rights and especially not for gay marriage, but he seems relative ok with LGBT people compared to a lot of former popes. Did he change his mind? What have I missed?
yeah, I was thinking about Genders, whoops.
I was refering to his more recent remark about the acceptance of trans people being terrible.
That's more trouble than I'm really willing to go to, honestly. Any choice you make has some risk involved. It's far easier to go all in on one set of beliefs than to attempt to cover all possible bases.
Hard to argue with that. It's basically what caused McCoy to doubt the "god" of Sha Ka Ree. "I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure." We're told that God works in mysterious ways, but that's a tough one.
A couple of times in some of the books it is slightly implied that religions and personal beliefs still exist but most of the religions have grown past the more doctrine-d versions of today and just sort of keep the philosophy of things like Islam and Christianity. It's not a perfect answer to what these kind of belief systems look like in the future, but it would be nice to think that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. all continued with their beliefs but leave behind the hate and condemnation that today's radicals practice and just kind of leave everyone else alone to do their own thing. I think its the idea of the secular world influencing the major religions and finding an in-between where they are less rules and un-questioned facts that must be adhered to, and more a framework of how one should live their life and treat others; keeping the good parts of these systems.
Last edited:
If you mean this remark a few days ago (EDIT: from a year ago), that was about some schools teaching the idea to young children that genders are to be chosen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/...ks-disappoint-gay-and-transgender-groups.html
I don't think (at least not as part of those remarks) that he specifically referred to the acceptance of trans people as being terrible. Unless you are talking about some other remarks.
EDIT: Oops -- that story is from a year ago, not just a few days ago.
EDIT AGAIN: Actually, I found a story about it published in the Star Observer (and Australian LGTB newspaper) just today. However, that story refers back to the Pope's remarks in the above NY Times article from a year ago -- not to anything new that he said recently.
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news...s/pope-calls-trans-acceptance-terrible/160787
But if you read the original NY Times article, it still does not state anywhere that the Pope called the acceptance "terrible". He did call the idea of teaching school children that they can chose their own identities "terrible".
From the NYT article:
"In his remarks, the pope said the idea of choosing gender was being taught with schoolbooks supplied by influential donors and countries. He did not identify which. “This is terrible,” he said, according to the transcript."
If this is to what the starobserver.com.au article is referring, then it is playing a little loose with context.
Last edited:
Found articles about it now with your additional information. Really idiotic from him. He is definitely not the most progressive guy ever, but as backwards as he still is in many ways, he is a little improvement over his predecessors. The catholic church is not prone to changing anything fast, but I think it is happening step by tiny step. The world changed so much in just the last 100 years and for sure will change a lot in the next 100, too. I think the church will be forced to change alongside it after a while. I don't think it will take 800 years, but likely none of us will live long enough to see a really progressive pope.
The dick God may smite you for turning the second dealt "Fizbin" card up on Tuesdays, alternate Tuesdays or otherwise.
While I don't think that theism / beliefs in something grand and magical are going anywhere, traditional religions, such as Catholicism, are on their way out, slowly, but surely. Based on my personal experiences there's a massive exodus from the catholic church, at least in America, that it's probably going to be borderline irrelevant in the future in the West.
Nothing in the shows indicates that. Seems like India would've been wiped out considering everyone turned on Khan.
FWIW, I don't recall the major gripe with Saldana's casting being her nationality. From what I remember, the major gripe was that she didn't look like a person whose ancestors were from a central African country, as Nichelle Nichols did. Saldana actually looked more like she could have been from a northern African country, Ethiopia or Egypt maybe.
Personally if there's a God who would send me to hell just for not believing in him, that's not a god I'm interested in worshipping and I'd rather go to hell.
Khan was British. Or Mexican.
Similar threads
