Religion: Roddenberry was right!!

[Ryan8bit]

^ See, I don't think God does the punishing - I think we do that all our very own selves.

Perhaps, but I wasn't referring to any of us, rather of the people depicted in Bible stories.

And the thing to remember about the Bible is not everyone interprets it literally.

God dishing out punishment really doesn't have much to do with a literal interpretation, and it's a very common theme in the Bible. Even if you don't think the flood is a literal account, what is the meaning behind the story depicting him as punishing the evil? Why does this theme occur so often?

It could be that Roddenberry had real knowledge of religion, but I must say that quote doesn't sound like it.

I find it hard to make a good judgment on that. There's nothing about his statement that implies a lack of knowledge, nor does it even imply a specific religion (although it was almost certainly Christianity given its popularity). To me, the quote seems more like a stab at the concept of God with a couple loaded words. And it's very brief. To sum up all of his knowledge on the subject based upon that would be pretty foolish.

 

[Ryan8bit]

all Roddenberry could do was make a snide, childish remark.

I guess that depends on how you define childish. Or snide for that matter. It's pretty obvious he wasn't going to sum up the whole issue in one sentence.

What I don't get is when people post such an obvious straw man as though it added anything of value to the debate.

Wait, what exactly was the straw man being used here?

 

[JustKate]

^ See, I don't think God does the punishing - I think we do that all our very own selves.

Perhaps, but I wasn't referring to any of us, rather of the people depicted in Bible stories.

I don't know what you mean here. If the people in the Bible represent actual historical people (and some of them do), then the same holds for them as holds for people here and now. According to my theology, humans punish themselves. And perhaps I should clarify that I'm talking about the final punishment here - damnation. God doesn't cast anybody into the utter darkness (or whatever Hell turns out to be). People chose to go there, and no, I'm not going to say how because, thank God (and I mean that sincerely), it is not my place to judge. I don't think lesser punishments come from God, either - they are a function of that whole, messy creatures with freewill thing.

If you're talking about people in the Bible stories who represent some archtype rather than an actual person, well, again, all we know for sure is that whoever eventually wrote down the story interpreted it as best as he could. So we're still back to interpretation.

I have a feeling that I have misunderstood you here. If so, my apologies.

God dishing out punishment really doesn't have much to do with a literal interpretation, and it's a very common theme in the Bible. Even if you don't think the flood is a literal account, what is the meaning behind the story depicting him as punishing the evil? Why does this theme occur so often?

Well, it does, actually, but I talked about that above, so let's move on to something else. There are a number of reasons, and I expect which one applies depends on the particular story you're thinking of. In some cases, particularly the Old Testament, I honestly think that what we've got is wishful thinking. Your enemies are evil, so they're smited but good. That's a very comforting thought.

Or it could be someone's attempt to explain something inexplicable - how in the heck DID the Israelites manage to escape slavery in Egypt? (Assuming they did.) So some could be a theologian/historian's attempt to explain history.

Do I think the enemies of Israel were smited? I don't know. But whether that's literally true or not, I believe the underlying message, which is that God loved them (and us) and wanted them (and us) to find that promised land and prosper. So maybe all that smiting, unattractive though it sounds to us moderns, is somebody's/somebodies' attempt to explain just that.

I think of it as being kind of like when a parent says to a child, "Daddy will always be here to protect you." The plain fact is, Daddy won't - eventually the child will grow up and Daddy will cease to be. Did the father lie? No, not really, and the reason is that the underlying message, the real message, is "Daddy will always love you. You will always be surrounded by Daddy's love." And that is true. Daddy will. We adult mortals aren't a lot more sophisticated than that little kid looking for reassurance, though we'd like to think that we are.

The main problem - and this goes throughout the Bible - is that you've got mere mortals attempting to explain and interpret the actions and intention of the Creator of the Universe and Everything In It, the Sustainer and the Redeemer. How do you even begin? The way it seems to happen a lot is with stories...first the stories in the OT, and then Jesus' parables. Little stories to try to explain something...huge.

I find it hard to make a good judgment on that. There's nothing about his statement that implies a lack of knowledge, nor does it even imply a specific religion (although it was almost certainly Christianity given its popularity). To me, the quote seems more like a stab at the concept of God with a couple loaded words. And it's very brief. To sum up all of his knowledge on the subject based upon that would be pretty foolish.

Oh, I agree - hence all that hedging language I used in my original post. It sounds flip and shallow, but we don't know the context, we don't know the circumstances, we don't know...much of anything, really. Then again, maybe he didn't either.

Enough metaphysics for tonight, I think...

 

[Ryan8bit]

I don't know what you mean here. If the people in the Bible represent actual historical people (and some of them do), then the same holds for them as holds for people here and now. According to my theology, humans punish themselves. And perhaps I should clarify that I'm talking about the final punishment here - damnation. God doesn't cast anybody into the utter darkness (or whatever Hell turns out to be). People chose to go there, and no, I'm not going to say how because, thank God (and I mean that sincerely), it is not my place to judge. I don't think lesser punishments come from God, either - they are a function of that whole, messy creatures with freewill thing.

For a little clarification, I meant there is no direct punishment handed to us (as in humans in 2009) in our lifetimes by God like there was in the Bible.

Also, about free will, that goes back to my earlier post. If God is omniscient, he knows everything that will happen to you in your lifetime. He knows when your first steps will be, what kind of person you grow up to be, what you will wear tomorrow, and when you will die. He knows if you will be good in life and if you will go to Heaven or Hell before you even exist. Knowing all of that and seeing it before conception makes it seem a lot less like free will. If free will is a true gift, there probably shouldn't be such strings attached.

Using the story of Adam and Eve (regardless of if it's meant to be taken as literal or not), God should have known that Eve would have chosen the apple. He created her and Adam knowing that they would disobey him. And then he punished them for it. The same general idea applies to all people.

Also, I don't think people directly choose hell because it is too intangible to be chosen or not. People may choose how to live their lives, but at some point the criteria for the afterlife becomes far too abstract to know for certain just what you're choosing. Regardless of your personal refusal to judge people, many do, and I can't really blame them given the way the Bible is presented.

Do I think the enemies of Israel were smited? I don't know. But whether that's literally true or not, I believe the underlying message, which is that God loved them (and us) and wanted them (and us) to find that promised land and prosper. So maybe all that smiting, unattractive though it sounds to us moderns, is somebody's/somebodies' attempt to explain just that.

I think some people have a tendency to look at things in more than one way, especially in non-absolute texts. While it's nice to see love for the Israelites, it's hard to ignore the hatred for those whom they conquered, murdered, and raped. It's hard to see past such cruel stories to try and find a moral, even if they are metaphor. Surely something written and inspired by God wouldn't even hint at such a terrible story. Good writing could easily imply God loving his children without the need for the brutality.

We adult mortals aren't a lot more sophisticated than that little kid looking for reassurance, though we'd like to think that we are.

And I think that lack of sophistication causes us to project our need for reassurance into a god figure. So many attributes of the Christian God are more like a human father than anything. I realize that could help some people of that era relate easier, but times change and the book stays mostly the same. Why wasn't divine inspiration a little more timeless?

The main problem - and this goes throughout the Bible - is that you've got mere mortals attempting to explain and interpret the actions and intention of the Creator of the Universe and Everything In It, the Sustainer and the Redeemer. How do you even begin?

Well, if one was in contact with the creator, they should probably have a unique insight into the matter. If God wished his actions known and to be written in a book, you would think that he could get that job done. If God wanted it written and a human got it wrong, well, that seems somewhat negligent on God's part.

 

[3D Master]

^ See, I don't think God does the punishing - I think we do that all our very own selves.

We send ourselves to hell?

^^^That is exactly what I meant, JustKate. It's an extremely complex theological debate, and all Roddenberry could do was make a snide, childish remark. I don't want to be too harsh on the guy. As you said, maybe he was familiar enough with theology to know how flippant he was being, or maybe he was just in a mood. What I don't get is when people post such an obvious straw man as though it added anything of value to the debate.

There's nothing snide or childish about it, it's the cold hard truth.

 

[Capt. Vulcan]

It makes me sad that seemingly decent people could be so bigoted towards people who hold differing beliefs than they do. Supposedly well meaning enlightened people painting massive swaths of the population with the widest brush possible without the slightest indication that there's a willingness to understand, often doing so in derisive condescending fashion. They just know they're right, the others are wrong. I suppose it's inevitable that people will eventually come to a point where they just decide they're right, and that they're so right they can start treating people that don't agree with them like assholes. It's never going to end.

 

[JustKate]

For a little clarification, I meant there is no direct punishment handed to us (as in humans in 2009) in our lifetimes by God like there was in the Bible.

Oh, I see. Well, I don't know, of course, but I don't think it was handed out all that freely back then, either, and perhaps not at all. But that's just a guess on my part.

Also, about free will, that goes back to my earlier post. If God is omniscient, he knows everything that will happen to you in your lifetime. He knows when your first steps will be, what kind of person you grow up to be, what you will wear tomorrow, and when you will die. He knows if you will be good in life and if you will go to Heaven or Hell before you even exist. Knowing all of that and seeing it before conception makes it seem a lot less like free will. If free will is a true gift, there probably shouldn't be such strings attached.

God knows all things - that doesn't mean He controls all things. The thing you have to remember is that if there is a God and He is a non-temporal being, for Him, there is no "before you even exist," there is no "going to be." It all...is.

Since I am, like the rest of us here (as far as I know ), most definitely a temporal being who experiences linear time, I can't really understand it fully, but the way I think of it is, for God, it's kind of like everything is now. C.S. Lewis described it (I'm going to have to paraphrase him because I don't have my source books handy) as "His unbounded now." Just because God sees it happening as it happens, because all things are happening for Him, that doesn't mean He controls it.

It's a really difficult thing to get your head around - or at least to get my head around - because for humans time is the ultimate reality. But that doesn't mean it is for everything in the universe, and it definitely doesn't mean it is for God.

Also, I don't think people directly choose hell because it is too intangible to be chosen or not. People may choose how to live their lives, but at some point the criteria for the afterlife becomes far too abstract to know for certain just what you're choosing. Regardless of your personal refusal to judge people, many do, and I can't really blame them given the way the Bible is presented.

We send ourselves to hell?

Short answer: Yep. Slightly longer answer: To understand this concept (I'm not saying "accept"; I'm saying "understand"), you need to get past this idea of Hell being a lake of fire or Dante's rings or any of those other lurid imaginings that we all have in our heads. What Hell looks like and feels like, I have no idea, and I don't plan to find out, but what it is is separation from God - from life.

To choose Hell, all any of us has to do is have something that is so precious to us (our pride maybe? the unability to admit that we need help? whatever. I for one have a problem with thinking that I'm just so damn smart) that we refuse to give it up even if offered Heaven in exchange.

We don't literally say, "I'd rather spend eternity being punished." But what we do say is, "No. I won't give that up. No. I won't admit that I'm not so damn smart, I won't I won't I won't."

I think some people have a tendency to look at things in more than one way, especially in non-absolute texts. While it's nice to see love for the Israelites, it's hard to ignore the hatred for those whom they conquered, murdered, and raped. It's hard to see past such cruel stories to try and find a moral, even if they are metaphor. Surely something written and inspired by God wouldn't even hint at such a terrible story. Good writing could easily imply God loving his children without the need for the brutality..

But Ryan...God didn't do the writing, and what exactly do we mean by "inspired? I don't think so, anyway, and I'm pretty sure you don't think so either. Humans did, and in the case of the Old Testament, they did the writing thousands of years ago and before that they carried the texts in their heads for...I don't remember how long, but a really long time. Genesis, for example, still contains tiny remants of the paganism that preceded Judaism as the religion of the Israelites. You are imagining a much more direct participation of the deity in the process than I am, and I think you are even with the word "inspired."

For me, and again I'm not saying I'm right, the scriptures...evolve - just as religion evolved. Humans started out hoping for gods who would give them rains when they needed them and smite their enemies and so on, but as humans grew and developed they started wanting more. Such as unlimited love.

Non-believers are free to interpret this as "The whole thing is made up," but for a believer like me, it's really clear that while God hasn't changed, people have, and as they've changed they've become more ready for other stuff that God offers - that God has always offered only most of us were too limited to understand it - besides rain and the smiting of enemies. And so they became more ready to hear God's message about those other things - "Love thy neighbor," for example, and "Do unto others," and "Judge not." And the result is the New Testament.

That's why to me it makes perfect sense that the Bible starts out with this smiting God of the Old Testament, then you get Jesus, then you get the Holy Spirit. As we grew - and I hope to God we really have - our understanding increased and so God showed us something that's way better than smiting, and for that matter, far more useful, eternity-wise.

So to reference the OP, if I'm right about God and/or humanity, the message will continue to evolve, and by the 24th century, some of what I currently hold dear will probably be considered harsh and cruel, just as the desires of the Israelites sound harsh and cruel to me now.

There's nothing snide or childish about it, it's the cold hard truth.

No, it's not "cold hard truth." It's Roddenberry's opinion, but that doesn't make it "truth," any more than you saying something or I saying something or even CS Lewis saying something makes it "cold, hard truth." It's just an opinion, nothing more.

I'm sorry, Ryan, but I'm going to have to leave your other points for somebody else to answer - I'm juggling a couple of relentless deadlines today and I'm not going to be able to hang around here much, and I'll be AFK most of the rest of the week, hopefully looking at something besides a computer screen. Have fun, guys and gals, and be good.

 

[3D Master]

God knows all things - that doesn't mean He controls all things. The thing you have to remember is that if there is a God and He is a non-temporal being, for Him, there is no "before you even exist," there is no "going to be." It all...is.

Of course he controls all things. He created the universe, he knows everything, when he created the universe, he could have chosen to create a different universe that has things unfold entirely different. Since back then he chose to create THIS universe, he thus controlled and controls everything in it.

Or he genuinely can't control anything, and then he's not a god at all. He's the weakest most powerless being in existence, trapped, cursed to relive all that has already existed, will exist and does exist, over and over again, in picture clarity; all the pain and all the suffering, everything, and there's nothing he an do about it. After all; everything he could think off to change anything, he already saw happening a thousand times over, and how, or why it failed, created the very universe he set out to change.

He's probably nothing but broken mind by now, detached from all reality, a vegetable, the only defense left to being forced to experience all pain and all suffering everywhere at once, as if he's the being it's happening to itself; and in every time frame.

That's what true omniscience means.

Of course, it also means he didn't create the universe, or was forced into doing it with something or someone controlling his actions; in which case: why call him god?

Short answer: Yep. Slightly longer answer: To understand this concept (I'm not saying "accept"; I'm saying "understand"), you need to get past this idea of Hell being a lake of fire or Dante's rings or any of those other lurid imaginings that we all have in our heads. What Hell looks like and feels like, I have no idea, and I don't plan to find out, but what it is is separation from God - from life.

And yet, no religion has ever told everyone that hell is not everlasting torture. That god does not commit everlasting torture on someone he doesn't like for whatever trivial reason, is just your idea of rationalizing your idea that god must be good versus him torturing people for all eternity.

You personally have decided that religion got it wrong, so you rewrote it in your head.

Or in other words; you're no longer a follower of any religion, you follow your personal idea of spirituality.

There's nothing snide or childish about it, it's the cold hard truth.

No, it's not "cold hard truth." It's Roddenberry's opinion, but that doesn't make it "truth," any more than you saying something or I saying something or even CS Lewis saying something makes it "cold, hard truth." It's just an opinion, nothing more.

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes”
- Gene Roddenberry.

It IS the cold-hard truth. How can you claim that "questioning the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes" is not the cold hard truth? Anyone who doesn't question that story logic isn't right in the head. You've already questioned that story logic, found it wanting, thrown the story logic out the window, and created yourself a personal brand new story logic.

 

[JustKate]

No, 3D - you have personally decided that there is no God, and so you're trying to pretend that you know what's going on in my head. Well, you don't. I have not questioned your sincerity or your reasoning powers, and I'd like you to provide the same courtesy to me and to other people you disagree with on this issue. I don't think that should be too much to ask.

Oh, and I think separation from God is "everlasting torture."

See you, everybody - I might check in later today but meantime, my deadlines loom.

 

[Ryan8bit]

God knows all things - that doesn't mean He controls all things.

That doesn't make the point moot that he knows all of our fate in advance.

The thing you have to remember is that if there is a God and He is a non-temporal being, for Him, there is no "before you even exist," there is no "going to be." It all...is.

But certainly according to the Bible he has been able to relate to us at single points in time. Jesus himself was not atemporal, yet he shared in God's ability to forecast the future. So just because he might be outside of time doesn't change the implication that he knows how our lives work. Even if I could concede to that point, it only really helped illustrate my previous point in that he still knows everything about one's life. If it's not "before you even exist" it's "you always have been on a course to [insert afterlife location here]."

you need to get past this idea of Hell being a lake of fire

Even though Dante loosely interpreted Hell, the Bible still lists it as a "fiery furnace" in Matthew. It's told to be eternal, torturous, and irreversible. If it were simply separation from God it wouldn't be any different than Earth. But it is. It isn't just some neutral place that people choose to go, it is eternal punishment that one cannot escape.

To choose Hell, all any of us has to do is have something that is so precious to us (our pride maybe? the unability to admit that we need help? whatever. I for one have a problem with thinking that I'm just so damn smart) that we refuse to give it up even if offered Heaven in exchange.

I think if Heaven and Hell were really that concrete, most people wouldn't refuse to obey, but it's not concrete. Descriptions of both aren't very logical or sensible.

But Ryan...God didn't do the writing

Yeah, I know. The way I worded that was bad (I blame being tired). Nevertheless, most people believe the Bible to be the word of God. Some Christians even believe that God wouldn't allow there to be error or misrepresentation in the Bible despite that it does exist. By "inspired" I mean that the writers were in communication with or that God was motivating them in some way. If it's not the case, then the Bible is simply just a book written by men, which is prone to the flaws and failings of man, meaning it should not be upheld or sanctified.

And so they became more ready to hear God's message about those other things - "Love thy neighbor," for example, and "Do unto others," and "Judge not." And the result is the New Testament.

Actually, love thy neighbor and the Golden Rule stem from the Old Testament. Those phrases, as somewhat flawed as they may be, are right alongside homosexuals deserving to be put to death.

 

[3D Master]

No, 3D - you have personally decided that there is no God, and so you're trying to pretend that you know what's going on in my head. Well, you don't. I have not questioned your sincerity or your reasoning powers, and I'd like you to provide the same courtesy to me and to other people you disagree with on this issue. I don't think that should be too much to ask.

Oh, and I think separation from God is "everlasting torture."

See you, everybody - I might check in later today but meantime, my deadlines loom.

You just said, that you disagree with god punishing humans, and that we punish ourselves. That's having taking the story logic of punishing god, questioned it, found it wanting and then you've thrown it out the window, whether you like it or not, you did it.

Or are you now saying, that you've been lying about "people punishing themselves" and it's god doing it after all?

 

[kissthestar]

If you believe that all of reality is a web, with each strand ultimately and in some way joined to every other strand, then there is no separation from Goddess.

 

[Sci]

No, 3D - you have personally decided that there is no God, and so you're trying to pretend that you know what's going on in my head. Well, you don't. I have not questioned your sincerity or your reasoning powers, and I'd like you to provide the same courtesy to me and to other people you disagree with on this issue.

Good luck with that!

I have some very definite opinions about the existence of God. I don't think he's real, and I think that belief in God is funded in certain fundamental psychological drives that predispose people to be willing to believe in a divine being. I think that most faith systems, if they are not irrational, then are, at the very least, non-rational, and that's simply not something I can subscribe to.

But, by the same token, I always try to keep in mind that I could be wrong. I always try to remember that other people might have very different experiences than I do and that their perceptions of the world may well turn out to be more accurate than mine. I try to remember that while there are closed-minded bigots, there are also believers in this world who are smarter, and kinder, than me, whose their faith motivates them to try to make this world a better, more tolerant and accepting place for everyone, whose beliefs motivate them to constantly try to learn from others and grow from difference.

And I try to remember that believers no more like having their thought processes and beliefs attacked than atheists do. Believers feel just as personally attacked by someone being snide or rude or disrespectful of their beliefs as any atheist does when bigoted Christians attack their lack of belief. And while I have been the target of bigoted Christians and bigoted believers, I refuse to target them back.

Reasonable people can disagree on the issue of the existence of God without questioning one-another's decency, sincerity, trustworthiness, and worthiness of respectful. For me, as long as you recognize and respect my right to believe differently than you -- and don't treat me poorly because of it -- then I'll happily return the favor. That is the common faith that people in this world need more than any other -- faith in liberal democracy's guarantee of personal freedom, including freedom of religion.

 

[USS Triumphant]

If you believe that all of reality is a web, with each strand ultimately and in some way joined to every other strand, then there is no separation from Goddess.

Indeed. And since the overmind of God(dess) is batshit crazy (or completely ineffable to us, which may as well be the same thing for our purposes) then there's no point in worshipping anything. Personally, I like to say "howdy" to Her from time to time, and have a hotdog on the occasional Friday, but worship is right out.

 

[JustKate]

Good luck with that!

Yeah. I am quite the optimist.

Reasonable people can disagree on the issue of the existence of God without questioning one-another's decency, sincerity, trustworthiness, and worthiness of respectful. For me, as long as you recognize and respect my right to believe differently than you -- and don't treat me poorly because of it -- then I'll happily return the favor. That is the common faith that people in this world need more than any other -- faith in liberal democracy's guarantee of personal freedom, including freedom of religion.

As usual, Sci, you put it beautifully. When I saw 3D's post, my first thought was, "He's calling me what?" and my instinct was to fire off something smartassish and un-Christian, then my second thought was, "I don't time to fuss with this stuff today." And my third thought was, "Let it go, let it go...somebody, perhaps even Sci, will come along and say something rational." So thanks very much for meeting and exceeding my expectations. You're pleasure to "talk" to.

Deadline, Kate, deadline...

 

[3D Master]

Good luck with that!

Yeah. I am quite the optimist.

Reasonable people can disagree on the issue of the existence of God without questioning one-another's decency, sincerity, trustworthiness, and worthiness of respectful. For me, as long as you recognize and respect my right to believe differently than you -- and don't treat me poorly because of it -- then I'll happily return the favor. That is the common faith that people in this world need more than any other -- faith in liberal democracy's guarantee of personal freedom, including freedom of religion.

As usual, Sci, you put it beautifully. When I saw 3D's post, my first thought was, "He's calling me what?" and my instinct was to fire off something smartassish and un-Christian, then my second thought was, "I don't time to fuss with this stuff today." And my third thought was, "Let it go, let it go...somebody, perhaps even Sci, will come along and say something rational." So thanks very much for meeting and exceeding my expectations. You're pleasure to "talk" to.

Deadline, Kate, deadline...

Exactly where did I call you anything?

 

[JustKate]

You asked me of I was "lying," 3D. Nice.

 

[3D Master]

You asked me of I was "lying," 3D. Nice.

You questioned the story logic of a punishing god, and changed it to people punishing themselves, didn't you?

 

[kissthestar]

If you believe that all of reality is a web, with each strand ultimately and in some way joined to every other strand, then there is no separation from Goddess.

Indeed. And since the overmind of God(dess) is batshit crazy (or completely ineffable to us, which may as well be the same thing for our purposes) then there's no point in worshipping anything. Personally, I like to say "howdy" to Her from time to time, and have a hotdog on the occasional Friday, but worship is right out.

How do you define worship? Actually, I am curious to see responses from everyone here on that?

 

[Sci]

Good luck with that!

Yeah. I am quite the optimist.

Reasonable people can disagree on the issue of the existence of God without questioning one-another's decency, sincerity, trustworthiness, and worthiness of respectful. For me, as long as you recognize and respect my right to believe differently than you -- and don't treat me poorly because of it -- then I'll happily return the favor. That is the common faith that people in this world need more than any other -- faith in liberal democracy's guarantee of personal freedom, including freedom of religion.

As usual, Sci, you put it beautifully. When I saw 3D's post, my first thought was, "He's calling me what?" and my instinct was to fire off something smartassish and un-Christian, then my second thought was, "I don't time to fuss with this stuff today." And my third thought was, "Let it go, let it go...somebody, perhaps even Sci, will come along and say something rational." So thanks very much for meeting and exceeding my expectations. You're pleasure to "talk" to.

Deadline, Kate, deadline...

Thanks very much.