Star Trek and Religion

[EliyahuQeoni]

Judaism was also not tolerated very well. Look at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the seige of Masada in 73 CE.

Judaism was seen as a legal religion in the Roman Empire, despite the friction it caused at time. The destruction of Jerusalem and siege of Masada were not the result of Roman religious intolerance, but rather the result of a Judean revolt. Some of the things that precipitated the revolt were religiously charged (ie, Rome taking over the High Priesthood of the Jerusalem Temple, Caligula declaring himself a living god and demanding his statue be placed in the Temple), but the seeds of a revolt had been planted when Judea went from being a client kingdom of Rome to a Roman Province and the Judeans lost the last of their independence. The religious issues merely set it all off.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Judaism was also not tolerated very well. Look at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the seige of Masada in 73 CE.

Judaism was seen as a legal religion in the Roman Empire, despite the friction it caused at time. The destruction of Jerusalem and siege of Masada were not the result of Roman religious intolerance, but rather the result of a Judean revolt. Some of the things that precipitated the revolt were religiously charged (ie, Rome taking over the High Priesthood of the Jerusalem Temple, Caligula declaring himself a living god and demanding his statue be placed in the Temple), but the seeds of a revolt had been planted when Judea went from being a client kingdom of Rome to a Roman Province and the Judeans lost the last of their independence. The religious issues merely set it all off.

I think to much religion, earth connected religion, is a tight rope that is hard to walk. I think BSG is getting bogged down in the mumbo-jumbo religous stuff on that show. I know it was always 'there' with the old BSG, but I had hoped this show would stay more in the 'realistic' area. This metaphysical stuff can be too much...BAB-5 was great at it though, IMO

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Dr_Daystrom]

Judaism was also not tolerated very well. Look at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the seige of Masada in 73 CE.

Judaism was seen as a legal religion in the Roman Empire, despite the friction it caused at time. The destruction of Jerusalem and siege of Masada were not the result of Roman religious intolerance, but rather the result of a Judean revolt. Some of the things that precipitated the revolt were religiously charged (ie, Rome taking over the High Priesthood of the Jerusalem Temple, Caligula declaring himself a living god and demanding his statue be placed in the Temple), but the seeds of a revolt had been planted when Judea went from being a client kingdom of Rome to a Roman Province and the Judeans lost the last of their independence. The religious issues merely set it all off.

I believe it was all about religion. The ancient Jews were a Theocracy. They were God's chosen people. The promised land belonged to them. Rome stood in the place of their worship, their birthright. Of course, from a Christian point of view, God had abandoned the Jews as his chosen people and was now calling Gentiles. In either case, worship and defense of the state was not an option. Adherence to religious beliefs was the motivating factor for Jew and Christian alike.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I believe it was all about religion. The ancient Jews were a Theocracy. They were God's chosen people. The promised land belonged to them. Rome stood in the place of their worship, their birthright. Of course, from a Christian point of view, God had abandoned the Jews as his chosen people and was now calling Gentiles. In either case, worship and defense of the state was not an option. Adherence to religious beliefs was the motivating factor for Jew and Christian alike.

You are free to believe what you wish, but I don't agree. Religion was a factor, and even a 'last straw,' but it wasn't the sole cause. And honestly it rarely is. Most conflicts between cultures/countries are purely political and religion gets pulled in after the fact as a justification, and usually ends up taking the brunt of the blame. The Jews had been under foreign rule for several hundred years, with a brief bout of independence under the Maccabees, which didn't last long before they were again a client kingdom. The difference was that as a client Kingdom, under Rome and its predecessors, the Judeans had a certain amount of independence and that was all but lost when they were made into a province. The major issue was political independence. Religion was a factor, but far from the only one. The Maccabean rebellion against Antiochus was set off by religious persecution, but the persecution was set in place for political not theological reasons. He felt that the only way to bring the Jews under control was to eliminate their religious culture, which he saw as the glue holding them together and apart from the Hellenistic culture around them. Theologically the Hellenites had no real issue with Judaism, but he used religion as a weapon because it suited him. And--to bring this back to my original point--this was incredibly unusual in the ancient world. In fact, it is seen as the first case of religious oppression ever. By and large the polytheistic religions of the ancient world (and the polytheisms of the modern world) are very tolerant of other faiths. There are, of course, exceptions, but there are few and far between. Monotheisms--Judaism included at times--on the other hand are historically very intolerant of other faiths. And it shouldn't be a surprise. When you believe in only "One True God," then its nigh on impossible to accept other peoples' gods as "real." Accepting other monotheisms as being valid is less of a chore if one applies syncritism, but even there there can be problems.

It is only in relatively recent times that religious tolerance has become widespread among monotheistic religions, and even now it isn't as widespread as one would like.

 

[Dr_Daystrom]

I believe it was all about religion. The ancient Jews were a Theocracy. They were God's chosen people. The promised land belonged to them. Rome stood in the place of their worship, their birthright. Of course, from a Christian point of view, God had abandoned the Jews as his chosen people and was now calling Gentiles. In either case, worship and defense of the state was not an option. Adherence to religious beliefs was the motivating factor for Jew and Christian alike.

You are free to believe what you wish, but I don't agree. Religion was a factor, and even a 'last straw,' but it wasn't the sole cause. And honestly it rarely is. Most conflicts between cultures/countries are purely political and religion gets pulled in after the fact as a justification, and usually ends up taking the brunt of the blame. The Jews had been under foreign rule for several hundred years, with a brief bout of independence under the Maccabees, which didn't last long before they were again a client kingdom. The difference was that as a client Kingdom, under Rome and its predecessors, the Judeans had a certain amount of independence and that was all but lost when they were made into a province. The major issue was political independence. Religion was a factor, but far from the only one. The Maccabean rebellion against Antiochus was set off by religious persecution, but the persecution was set in place for political not theological reasons. He felt that the only way to bring the Jews under control was to eliminate their religious culture, which he saw as the glue holding them together and apart from the Hellenistic culture around them. Theologically the Hellenites had no real issue with Judaism, but he used religion as a weapon because it suited him. And--to bring this back to my original point--this was incredibly unusual in the ancient world. In fact, it is seen as the first case of religious oppression ever. By and large the polytheistic religions of the ancient world (and the polytheisms of the modern world) are very tolerant of other faiths. There are, of course, exceptions, but there are few and far between. Monotheisms--Judaism included at times--on the other hand are historically very intolerant of other faiths. And it shouldn't be a surprise. When you believe in only "One True God," then its nigh on impossible to accept other peoples' gods as "real." Accepting other monotheisms as being valid is less of a chore if one applies syncritism, but even there there can be problems.

It is only in relatively recent times that religious tolerance has become widespread among monotheistic religions, and even now it isn't as widespread as one would like.

You seem to think that it was primarily socio-political issues that got the Jews and Romans off to a bad start, but I still contend it was mostly religious. Yes, there were other factors. There were even Roman rulers that they got along with, like Herod. But most others, like Pontius Pilate, always found ways to aggrevate them (with the notible exception of bowing to their demands and killing Jesus). In the end the Jews would not accept Roman rule over Gods and their own (by the Pharisee's, which was a problem). They felt they would be protected by God, as they were during and after the Exodus from Egypt. In fact, they were waiting for the Messiah to be their king. These were beliefs based on religion.

As for the Romans being tolerant of other religions, that certainly wasn't the case with the Christians. They were brutally persecuted. It wasn't until Constantine recognized that Christianity could be used as a uniting force (but he never actually became a Christian like many believe) that the persecution ended.

But yes, there were some ancient polytheistic religions that were tolerant. The Medes under Cyrus, after sacking Babylon and taking control of the Jews who had been captive since the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, allowed them to practice their own religion freely.

Experience tells me that we will have to agree to disagree. Nice debate though, very stimulating.

 

[JM1776]

It wasn't until Constantine recognized that Christianity could be used as a uniting force (but he never actually became a Christian like many believe) that the persecution ended.

According to Eusebius in the Life of Constantine, the latter was baptized on his deathbed, which according to long tradition fully constitutes becoming a Christian.

If you meant, though, that he did not live any significant portion of his life that way, you're time on target.

Back on topic.

It's interesting to note that the homage given the Son of God in "Bread and Circuses" can be interpreted as a fairly subtle sap of Christianity, in that it posits there was nothing unique about the Incarnation. Discerning Christians would hold an appearance of Jesus on Magna Roma unnecessary, as the Omniversal God-King need be made flesh only once to ensure cosmic redemption.

 

[Deckerd]

According to Eusebius in the Life of Constantine, the latter was baptized on his deathbed, which according to long tradition fully constitutes becoming a Christian.

In that case, one wonders why anyone bothers until they're on the way out.

 

[Dr_Daystrom]

It wasn't until Constantine recognized that Christianity could be used as a uniting force (but he never actually became a Christian like many believe) that the persecution ended.

According to Eusebius in the Life of Constantine, the latter was baptized on his deathbed, which according to long tradition fully constitutes becoming a Christian.

If you meant, though, that he did not live any significant portion of his life that way, you're time on target.

Back on topic.

It's interesting to note that the homage given the Son of God in "Bread and Circuses" can be interpreted as a fairly subtle sap of Christianity, in that it posits there was nothing unique about the Incarnation. Discerning Christians would hold an appearance of Jesus on Magna Roma unnecessary, as the Omniversal God-King need be made flesh only once to ensure cosmic redemption.

The encyclopedia Hidria states “Constantine never became a Christian. Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, Constantine had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus"

If there was a deathbed conversion, he was probably just hedging his bet.

BTW, lovely avatar.

 

[JM1776]

In that case, one wonders why anyone bothers until they're on the way out.

A valid point.

As with other sacraments, the sincerity of the recipient is of importance. The idea that you can go out and "party" (a euphemism, obviously) on Friday night, go to confession on Saturday afternoon, receive absolution, and start the cycle again the next week, time and again, is a perversion of its intent.

One could definitely argue that Constantine's attempt to drive into the afterlife having just gotten his car washed and waxed was, in Bulldog's words, "total BS."

I can't confirm his state of mind, though; I can only speculate.

Or, as I like to say, "God knows whether you're full of it."

The encyclopedia Hidria states “Constantine never became a Christian. Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote his biography, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. This doesn’t hold water, as the day before, Constantine had made a sacrifice to Zeus because he also had the title Pontifex Maximus."

Actually, it holds all the water necessary, because the Romans were notoriously syncretistic.

Eusebius is a more primary source, and is thus inherently more reliable (unless conclusively proven false) than the secondary speculations of the Encyclopedia Hidria, which relies for its conclusions on a perhaps and even likely specious interpretation of Constantine's actions.

In addition, there's little doubt that Constantine's pathology was such that he believed himself, as Roman Emperor, treating with God on a more equal footing than other men. He didn't have a self-esteem problem, after all ... and perhaps thought that God, as the Heavenly Emperor, would understand and accept the actions of the Earthly Emperor.

Speculation? Unquestionably ... but certainly reasonable.

If there was a deathbed conversion, he was probably just hedging his bet.

Oh, that's definitely true, unless we both badly miss our guess.

Perhaps Constantine felt, with reasonable justification, that he couldn't be a Christian and act properly as emperor. He probably believed that baptism would wash away a lifetime of sins, and thus held off on having the ritual performed until the last days/hours/minutes of his life—which is not exactly in the generally acknowledged spirit of a deathbed conversion.

If you're questioning his sincerity, well ... you've got good reason.

BTW, lovely avatar.

I and my Orion Salome thank you.

 

[INACTIVESamusAranX]

not to mention Roman slaughter of Christians because they dared to practice their faith... yeah that's much more enlightened.

Historically polytheistic religions have always been more tolerant of other religions than monotheistic ones. Mostly because if you believe in many gods a few more isn't a hassle. The two things Rome had against Christianity was that it denied the existence of the Roman Pantheon and it was seen as an upstart religion. Judaism in general was treated better under Roman rule because they respected its antiquity and tradition, despite its denial of the Roman Pantheon, which still caused a lot of friction. In the end the biggest problems Rome had with the Jews were political in nature.

Which isn't saying that the persecution of Christians was justified by any means, but it wasn't the norm for Rome or other polytheists.

Rome's problem with the upstart Christians (known as The Way back then) was that they would not worship the Emperor or engage in military service. Judaism was also not tolerated very well. Look at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the seige of Masada in 73 CE.

The man speak the truth here.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

You seem to think that it was primarily socio-political issues that got the Jews and Romans off to a bad start, but I still contend it was mostly religious. Yes, there were other factors. There were even Roman rulers that they got along with, like Herod.

Herod wasn't a Roman ruler, he was the King of Judea (I assume you mean Herod the Great, there were several of them), which was a client state under Rome, but he wasn't Roman.

But most others, like Pontius Pilate, always found ways to aggrevate them

Do you have other examples besides Pilate, who--if I remember correctly--was an exceptional case. Besides, is there any proof that his aggravation of the population was religiously motivated? Sure, he used religion to needle the Judeans, but was his motivation religious intolerance, or was he just an asshole?

(with the notible exception of bowing to their demands and killing Jesus).

I hesitate to even comment on this, but if the Judeans had wanted to kill Jesus they were quite capable of doing so on their own. If they'd found him guilty of blasphemy he'd have been stoned to death. Since he was crucified--a Roman form of execution--it is very likely that he was tried and convicted by the Roman authority in Judea, probably because he was seen as a political threat, especially if he was claiming to be the messiah, who in Jewish expectations is to be a human soldier/king who will return the Jews to their land. And that would be a direct threat to the sovereignty of Rome in Judea. But, tying this in with the rest of the discussion, that wouldn't make it religious persecution on the part of the Romans, since they would put down anyone who was a threat to their sovereignty wether they did so under a religious pretense or not.

In the end the Jews would not accept Roman rule over Gods and their own (by the Pharisee's, which was a problem). They felt they would be protected by God, as they were during and after the Exodus from Egypt. In fact, they were waiting for the Messiah to be their king. These were beliefs based on religion.

And if any of that were true then why didn't they revolt under Babylonian Rule? Assyrian Rule? Most Jews lived quite happily under Hellenistic rule as well. The Maccabean revolt was in direct response to a very exceptional, at the time, persecution. If it were purely religious in nature, why weren't they constantly revolting under these other foreign rulers?

As for the Romans being tolerant of other religions, that certainly wasn't the case with the Christians.

Which, as I've pointed out above, was an exceptional case and doesn't represent Rome's normal policy toward other religions.

But yes, there were some ancient polytheistic religions that were tolerant.

The only part of that sentence I disagree with is "some." By and large all polytheistic religions have historically been very religiously tolerant.

Experience tells me that we will have to agree to disagree. Nice debate though, very stimulating.

That may well be. But thank you, I've found it stimulating myself

 

[INACTIVESamusAranX]

And if any of that were true then why didn't they revolt under Babylonian Rule? Assyrian Rule? Most Jews lived quite happily under Hellenistic rule as well. The Maccabean revolt was in direct response to a very exceptional, at the time, persecution. If it were purely religious in nature, why weren't they constantly revolting under these other foreign rulers?

They were literally held captive in Babylon; any smart one of them would've realized a revolt would have gotten them all killed, and ended any chances of ending their exile. To also note, many finally had slackened up and realized that God had promised them they'd be freed. Which they eventually were, by Cyrus.

I'm not saying all of them had faith, but most of them probably knew discretion was the better part of valor.

The reason the Jews lived happily under Hellenistic rule was because as far as I know, the Greeks didn't interfere much with the Jewish customs and worship; I think a few did here or there, but nowhere's on the scale the Romans did.

 

[Dr_Daystrom]

You seem to think that it was primarily socio-political issues that got the Jews and Romans off to a bad start, but I still contend it was mostly religious. Yes, there were other factors. There were even Roman rulers that they got along with, like Herod.

Herod wasn't a Roman ruler, he was the King of Judea (I assume you mean Herod the Great, there were several of them), which was a client state under Rome, but he wasn't Roman.

But most others, like Pontius Pilate, always found ways to aggrevate them

Do you have other examples besides Pilate, who--if I remember correctly--was an exceptional case. Besides, is there any proof that his aggravation of the population was religiously motivated? Sure, he used religion to needle the Judeans, but was his motivation religious intolerance, or was he just an asshole?


I hesitate to even comment on this, but if the Judeans had wanted to kill Jesus they were quite capable of doing so on their own. If they'd found him guilty of blasphemy he'd have been stoned to death. Since he was crucified--a Roman form of execution--it is very likely that he was tried and convicted by the Roman authority in Judea, probably because he was seen as a political threat, especially if he was claiming to be the messiah, who in Jewish expectations is to be a human soldier/king who will return the Jews to their land. And that would be a direct threat to the sovereignty of Rome in Judea. But, tying this in with the rest of the discussion, that wouldn't make it religious persecution on the part of the Romans, since they would put down anyone who was a threat to their sovereignty wether they did so under a religious pretense or not.



And if any of that were true then why didn't they revolt under Babylonian Rule? Assyrian Rule? Most Jews lived quite happily under Hellenistic rule as well. The Maccabean revolt was in direct response to a very exceptional, at the time, persecution. If it were purely religious in nature, why weren't they constantly revolting under these other foreign rulers?



Which, as I've pointed out above, was an exceptional case and doesn't represent Rome's normal policy toward other religions.

But yes, there were some ancient polytheistic religions that were tolerant.

The only part of that sentence I disagree with is "some." By and large all polytheistic religions have historically been very religiously tolerant.

Experience tells me that we will have to agree to disagree. Nice debate though, very stimulating.

That may well be. But thank you, I've found it stimulating myself

Yes, I neglected to say which Herod I was speaking about. Herod the Great was a Idumean, made king of Judea by the Roman senate.

According to Josephus, Pilate made a bad start of his relations with the Jews by sending Roman soldiers bearing standards with images of the emperor on them into Jerusalem. Later he used money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct. When the Jews protested, Pilate sent disguised soldiers to mix in with the crowd and, at a signal, attacked them.

Matthew 27: "Now from festival to festival it was the custom of the governor to release a prisoner to the crowd, the one they wanted. Just at that time they were holding a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Hence when they were gathered together Pilate said to them: “Which one do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus the so-called Christ... But the chief priests and the older men persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas, but to have Jesus destroyed."

Hezekiah did rebel against the Assyrians and as a result Sennacherib swept through Judah conquering some 46 cities. Also, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah both rebelled against Babylon resulting in Nebuchadnezzar laying siege to Jerusalem and destroying it.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

They were literally held captive in Babylon;

Actually, only a very small portion of the population, the ruling class, was exiled to Babylon. The majority of the population remained in Judah.

any smart one of them would've realized a revolt would have gotten them all killed, and ended any chances of ending their exile.

Except only a small portion were in exile during Babylonian Rule. And, under Cyrus, when those were allowed to return, not all of them did. And after the exiles did return, there still was no revolt despite them still being under foreign rule.

And the situation wasn't much different under Rome. The revolt caused massive casualties on the part of the Jews and resulted in the total destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of all Jews from Judea. And there were many who argued against the revolt for just that reason.

The reason the Jews lived happily under Hellenistic rule was because as far as I know, the Greeks didn't interfere much with the Jewish customs and worship; I think a few did here or there, but nowhere's on the scale the Romans did.

Actually, Antiouchus IV's persecution of the Jews was far worse than anything Rome did and did result in a revolt under the Maccabees. But, as I said, such persecution was an anomaly in the ancient world. Rome actually recognized Judaism as a valid religion, something they never did for Christianity. So, while there was some religious friction between Rome and Judea, the Romans were actually relatively tolerant of Judaism. The eventual revolt was primarily over issues of sovereignty and religion was used as justification by the Judeans and a tool of control by the Romans.

 

[INACTIVESamusAranX]

Actually, only a very small portion of the population, the ruling class, was exiled to Babylon. The majority of the population remained in Judah.

Really? I don't mean to be flippant, but I guess Jeremiah got things wrong didn't he? Yeah, some Jews were left behind, but they eventually murdered Gedeliah, the leader appointed by Babylon. I also know some Jews, including Jeremiah went to Egypt.

From my understanding and belief, those who weren't killed in the inital devastation, the vast majority were taken to Babylon. After all, it was made clear by way of prophecy that Jerusalem was to remain desolate for the duration of the exile.

Except only a small portion were in exile during Babylonian Rule. And, under Cyrus, when those were allowed to return, not all of them did. And after the exiles did return, there still was no revolt despite them still being under foreign rule.

Again, I don't accept that notion. Sorry.

That some did not return is absolutely true; Daniel stayed behind. We also know some Jews eventually lived in Shushan.

Yes, they didn't revolt because Cyrus had gave them alot off leeway to rebuild the Temple and Jerusalem. Unfortunately they needed some exhortation to get the job done, and even when the political powers above them tried to stop things, God made sure the Jews were delivered (account of Esther).

But I agree, the Jews didn't revolt because they had their freedom back.

Actually, Antiouchus IV's persecution of the Jews was far worse than anything Rome did and did result in a revolt under the Maccabees. But, as I said, such persecution was an anomaly in the ancient world. Rome actually recognized Judaism as a valid religion, something they never did for Christianity. So, while there was some religious friction between Rome and Judea, the Romans were actually relatively tolerant of Judaism. The eventual revolt was primarily over issues of sovereignty and religion was used as justification by the Judeans and a tool of control by the Romans.

I remember reading about Antiouchus IV, barely though; didn't he try and force the Temple to be dedicated to a Greek god?

Definitely, the final revolt was over politics more than anything else.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

I probably should not venture into this, but the long term trends are toweard less beleif in a deity, espechally as science advances, this is happening at an extremely slow pace, but you could easily surmise that by the 24th century it would be pretty much non existant.

I thought DS9 put an intresting angle on religion, that it turned out a planets gods were actually non-corporial aliens, who, despite the devoition of the Bajoran people, really didn't give a crap about them, and had to be talked by Sisko into protecting them from the Dominion.

I think someone said that without the occupation they would have been a much weaker and less developed society, so I suppose you can argue a "god works in mysterious ways" way, but that doens't fly with me.