Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Sci]

How influential were those claims on people's opinions on Obama--or your boss?

Well, considering the sheer number of people out there today who think President Obama is a secret Muslim, or who think he wasn't born in the United States, or both, I'd presume that a fair number of those rumors circulating about then-Senator Obama in 2007 (when I had my internship) were fairly influential.

I'm not comfortable telling you what office I interned in, but suffice it to say that it was an influential public figure who could easily have made the news if he had wanted to.

Sci, is this becoming personal?

No, I'm illustrating the point that someone else from that era might look at the early Christians in a completely different light than you do. To them, they might not have looked like reasonable or even admirable people who had been swayed by faith; they may well have looked to the Romans like crazy people not worth the effort (until they'd already reached sufficient numbers that nothing the Romans said could ever change things, especially since the early Christians could just as easily accuse the Romans of lying as the Romans could the Christians of lying).

 

[Infinite Hexamon Nexus]

I don't think the Kai or the Vedek Assembly were supposed to have secular political authority. When Winn made herself the de facto First Minister, it was quite controversial and soon reversed. It's just that the Bajoran faith (Prophetism? They never named it) is so pervasive in the society that the religious authorities have considerable influence on how people live their lives even without formal legal or political authority.

I always had this kind of vague notion in the back of my mind that Bajor was kind of a "Constitutional Theocracy," not like Iran mind you, but more along the lines of the Queen of the United Kingdom. Basically the Bajorans' secular state (in it's modern form) evolved from the religious authorities and that one of the lingering ties of that evolution was that the Kai was still "Head of State" but as in a modern Constitutional Monarchy all governance is done by an elected and secular government. While Star Trek (as it appeared on Television) was never too good at portraying Parliamentary government, "First Minister" as as a title certainly implied a Parliamentary government of some type for Bajor.

If such a structure was in place, it would explain why the Kai (if not necessarily Winn) might have been seen as a suitable temporary First Minister. It might also explain why Winn felt it was appropriate for her to step into that role and might also explain some of the controversy as well. Certainly given what Deep Space Nine showed us of Bajor's government it seems almost certain that there was some institutional overlap that was never explicitly spelled out.

Edit: I typed this out before I had read Tropical Night's post, having just read Christopher's post without seeing whom he was responding to and then responding to him. Seems some of this ground was definitely covered by that post and I wanted to ensure that I acknowledged that. Need to make sure I don't skim so much!

 

[JoeZhang]

Why would the Romans care? First-century Christians were Jews by another name. They were a small splinter group who didn't splinter off proper until Paul advocated for their moving beyond Hebrew legalism. Contrary to their portrayal in the Bible, the Romans are not stock villains who go around killing people for the "lulz".

I'm sorry--but the portrayal in the Bible paints no such picture. In fact, the Gospels have a certain Roman Centurion impress Jesus with his faith--a faith that Jesus notes he hasn't even seen among his own people.

What does it matter what it says in the In-universe fiction of the bible? Smellingcoffee was talking about the actual reality.

 

[ST-One]

There is no outside source or reference to corroborate what's written in the Bible. The whole idea of how this census is supposed to have occurred makes no sense. And, the Roman Emperors couldn't care less how their client kingdoms came up with their tax-money, so long as they did.

Well, now, that's not entirely accurate. There are some outside sources that corroborate some of what's written in the Bible. Not very much of it, but some. The census, for example - there were (or so I've read, but I don't read Latin so I have to take other people's word for this) three empire-wide censuses taken that might be the one mentioned in the New Testament, one each in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D.

These three 'empire-wide' censuses still only counted Roman citizens not the population of the Roman Empire.
Where Mary and Joseph Roman citizens?

 

[ST-One]

The fact that by 64 AD--a mere 30 or so years after Jesus's death--Nero apparently considered Christianity a sufficent threat to warrant a mass persecution.

That's not really true.
He did have Roman (city) Christians executed - not simply because they were Christians; he used them as scapegoats for the burning of the city and to divert the anger of the Romans (who, quite probably, wrongly blamed him for the fire) to a group of people they already didn't have much sympathy for.

 

[David cgc]

Also: Bruce Bawer, a Christian and author of Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, points out that the most common Roman practice for those executed by crucifixion was to keep the bodies displayed and to allow carrion to eat them until there was nothing or almost nothing left. By the time Christianity picked up steam, who's to say the Romans even had a body left with which to disprove belief in the Resurrection?

Assuming that's true (and this is the first time I've heard the name "Bruce Bawer", BTW--I am currently uncertain as to the credibility of his sources)..."most common" does not mean "only".

If you like, you can read the first chapter of that book here.

Also, if anyone has the slightest interest in textual criticism of the Bible, I recommend checking out Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

 

[Rush Limborg]

How influential were those claims on people's opinions on Obama--or your boss?

Well, considering the sheer number of people out there today who think President Obama is a secret Muslim, or who think he wasn't born in the United States, or both, I'd presume that a fair number of those rumors circulating about then-Senator Obama in 2007 (when I had my internship) were fairly influential.

I'm not comfortable telling you what office I interned in, but suffice it to say that it was an influential public figure who could easily have made the news if he had wanted to.

Then offhand, I'd say the office should have refuted those claims...rather than let them spiral out of control.

Sci, is this becoming personal?

No, I'm illustrating the point that someone else from that era might look at the early Christians in a completely different light than you do. To them, they might not have looked like reasonable or even admirable people who had been swayed by faith; they may well have looked to the Romans like crazy people not worth the effort (until they'd already reached sufficient numbers that nothing the Romans said could ever change things, especially since the early Christians could just as easily accuse the Romans of lying as the Romans could the Christians of lying).

All right, I'll accept that.

 

[Rush Limborg]

There is no outside source or reference to corroborate what's written in the Bible. The whole idea of how this census is supposed to have occurred makes no sense. And, the Roman Emperors couldn't care less how their client kingdoms came up with their tax-money, so long as they did.

Well, now, that's not entirely accurate. There are some outside sources that corroborate some of what's written in the Bible. Not very much of it, but some. The census, for example - there were (or so I've read, but I don't read Latin so I have to take other people's word for this) three empire-wide censuses taken that might be the one mentioned in the New Testament, one each in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D.

These three 'empire-wide' censuses still only counted Roman citizens not the population of the Roman Empire.
Where Mary and Joseph Roman citizens?

I'd imagine so.

In Paul's first conversation with the Roman captain who later comes to respect and (sorta) befriend him, they compare citizenship status. The captain noted he'd had to pay a big price for his citizenship, whereas Paul replied that he was born a citizen. And Paul was Jewish, of the Benjamin tribe.

 

[Sci]

How influential were those claims on people's opinions on Obama--or your boss?

Well, considering the sheer number of people out there today who think President Obama is a secret Muslim, or who think he wasn't born in the United States, or both, I'd presume that a fair number of those rumors circulating about then-Senator Obama in 2007 (when I had my internship) were fairly influential.

I'm not comfortable telling you what office I interned in, but suffice it to say that it was an influential public figure who could easily have made the news if he had wanted to.

Then offhand, I'd say the office should have refuted those claims...rather than let them spiral out of control.

The problem with that idea is that political offices get mail, email, and calls from crazy people espousing ridiculous conspiracy theories all the time. You can't waste your time and effort responding to all or most of them; it would be a waste of taxpayer money and a lost effort, since crazy people will by definition be unswayed and since rational people aren't going to have bought into the conspiracy theories in the first place. And that's to say nothing of the time taken away from responding to real concerns.

 

[Thestral]

In Paul's first conversation with the Roman captain who later comes to respect and (sorta) befriend him, they compare citizenship status. The captain noted he'd had to pay a big price for his citizenship, whereas Paul replied that he was born a citizen. And Paul was Jewish, of the Benjamin tribe.

That really tells us nothing though, except that Paul's father was a citizen. It's equally possible Paul's family bought citizenship, or were given it for service to the Empire, or were residents in a city whose inhabitants were granted citizenship.

 

[Destructor]

As a Christian, I find the notion that "love one another as I have loved you" would become a bad idea if it was said by someone who just claimed to be the Son of God instead of actually being the Son of God to be repugnant.

I don't think you're understanding the point of C. S. Lewis's statement. What he was saying was that it doesn't make sense to accept that Jesus was a great moral teacher while simultaneously rejecting that he was the Son of God, because no great moral teacher would claim to be the Son of God unless he actually were the Son of God. He was saying you can't have it both ways -- that either you accept Jesus's goodness and his divinity or you dismiss him as a liar or a madman.

This is, of course, a false dichotomy, because it overlooks the alternative being discussed here: that the historical Jesus did not actually claim to be the Son of God, but that such a claim was only later attributed to him by the authors of the Gospels. But Lewis's argument isn't specifically advocating Biblical literalism, simply assuming it.

First, thank you David for your sentiment. I am not a Christian but was raised one and while I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God I do believe he had a lot of very worthwhile things to say and I think your summary is bang on and I quite agree.

Christopher thank you for explaining what CS Lewis meant. I stand by my statement- if Jesus was a madman that does not invalidate his teachings. If Jesus was the son of God, well, aren't we all?

 

[Destructor]

I've also never understood why it matters to one person, or group what another person or group believes.

It's because often one group of people want to control other groups of people, and organized religion is a tried-and-tested method of doing that. Hence Roddenberry's (and my) antipathy for it.

 

[ST-One]

Also: Bruce Bawer, a Christian and author of Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, points out that the most common Roman practice for those executed by crucifixion was to keep the bodies displayed and to allow carrion to eat them until there was nothing or almost nothing left. By the time Christianity picked up steam, who's to say the Romans even had a body left with which to disprove belief in the Resurrection?

Assuming that's true (and this is the first time I've heard the name "Bruce Bawer", BTW--I am currently uncertain as to the credibility of his sources)..."most common" does not mean "only".

If you like, you can read the first chapter of that book here.

Also, if anyone has the slightest interest in textual criticism of the Bible, I recommend checking out Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

That book is a very good read.

Well, now, that's not entirely accurate. There are some outside sources that corroborate some of what's written in the Bible. Not very much of it, but some. The census, for example - there were (or so I've read, but I don't read Latin so I have to take other people's word for this) three empire-wide censuses taken that might be the one mentioned in the New Testament, one each in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D.

These three 'empire-wide' censuses still only counted Roman citizens not the population of the Roman Empire.
Where Mary and Joseph Roman citizens?

I'd imagine so.

In Paul's first conversation with the Roman captain who later comes to respect and (sorta) befriend him, they compare citizenship status. The captain noted he'd had to pay a big price for his citizenship, whereas Paul replied that he was born a citizen. And Paul was Jewish, of the Benjamin tribe.

Yes... and?
What does his citizenship status has to do with Mary's and Joseph's? The Bible is silent on that topic, isn't it?
So, how can you say 'I'd imagine so'?

 

[Christopher]

Christopher thank you for explaining what CS Lewis meant. I stand by my statement- if Jesus was a madman that does not invalidate his teachings. If Jesus was the son of God, well, aren't we all?

Well, except that Jesus, according to Christian belief, wasn't just the literal Son of God, but actually was God made flesh -- essentially what the Hindus would call an avatar of God. After all, Christianity is a monotheistic faith, so they aren't allowed to worship any being who isn't the God. And Christians worship Jesus as the Lord. So the idea is that he's not a separate entity, but an alternate incarnation of the same deity (part of the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- a doctrine which I gather was created as sort of a Church-mandated compromise between three rival sects of early Christians with differing interpretations of God).

Yes... and?
What does his citizenship status has to do with Mary's and Joseph's? The Bible is silent on that topic, isn't it?
So, how can you say 'I'd imagine so'?

Indeed. If we're talking about Saul/Paul of Tarsus, aka St. Paul, he had no relation to Jesus, Joseph, or Mary. He never even met Jesus, unless you count his vision of Jesus's resurrection (several years after Jesus's death) as "meeting" him.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Christopher thank you for explaining what CS Lewis meant. I stand by my statement- if Jesus was a madman that does not invalidate his teachings. If Jesus was the son of God, well, aren't we all?

Well, except that Jesus, according to Christian belief, wasn't just the literal Son of God, but actually was God made flesh -- essentially what the Hindus would call an avatar of God. After all, Christianity is a monotheistic faith, so they aren't allowed to worship any being who isn't the God. And Christians worship Jesus as the Lord. So the idea is that he's not a separate entity, but an alternate incarnation of the same deity (part of the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- a doctrine which I gather was created as sort of a Church-mandated compromise between three rival sects of early Christians with differing interpretations of God).

And...how was it determined, this theory of rival sects?

Actually, Christians like myself can easily point towards verses in the Old Testament such as when God says, "Let us make man in our image", etc.

Yes... and?
What does his citizenship status has to do with Mary's and Joseph's? The Bible is silent on that topic, isn't it?
So, how can you say 'I'd imagine so'?

Indeed. If we're talking about Saul/Paul of Tarsus, aka St. Paul, he had no relation to Jesus, Joseph, or Mary. He never even met Jesus, unless you count his vision of Jesus's resurrection (several years after Jesus's death) as "meeting" him.

My point, clearly, is that one cannot dismiss the idea that Joseph was a Roman Citizen. I pointed out Paul, in explaining that it is not unheard up for a member of a Jewish tribe to be considered a Roman citizen.


Now...as for the well-worn claim that "if the teachings are sound, it doesn't matter what the teacher was like"--unfortunately, that is simply not the case. C.S. Lewis was not making a "false dichotomy". He was pointing out the importance of ethos in making an argument--in addition to the importance of logos. Namely, the importance of credibility of the messanger in addition to the credibility of a messanger.

Put aside the question of "religion" for a moment, and think about this in terms of the present day.

Would you accept the words of someone you know is indicted in an assylum? Would you shrug it off and say, "Well, it doesn't matter what the person's mental state is--the message is good!"

Or would you accept the words of someone you know is an evil, shameless con artist and hypocrite, with the rationalization, "Well, it doesn't matter what the person's personal integrity and honor is--the message is good!"

 

[Rush Limborg]

It's because often one group of people want to control other groups of people, and organized religion is a tried-and-tested method of doing that. Hence Roddenberry's (and my) antipathy for it.

That is a straw man. That a particular faith believes itself to be true--and that other faith are false--does NOT imply a desire for control. It simply implies confidence in the valitidy of said faith--and confidence in the Law of Non-Contradiction.

I've also never understood why it matters to one person, or group what another person or group believes.

Because, if the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to reality, and that two contradictory ideas cannot both be true, there can only be one conclusion--if a specific faith is held to be true, than a different faith proposing opposing answers to the question answered by the first faith--than both cannot be true. They can both be false...but that only means that there is another philosophy out there which does give the truth.

It matters because truth, by its vey definition, is exclusive. If that is "intolerant" and "supressive", than one might as well accuse Aristotle of being "intolerant" and "suppressive" in formalizing the laws of reason.

 

[ST-One]

My point, clearly, is that one cannot dismiss the idea that Joseph was a Roman Citizen. I pointed out Paul, in explaining that it is not unheard up for a member of a Jewish tribe to be considered a Roman citizen.

Yes, one can very easily dismiss that idea, as there is nothing about it in the Bible and there are no outside sources that ever mentioned these people.
Besides, if Joseph had been Roman then so would have been his son. Which means that he would never have been crucified; Romans were decapitated not crucified.

You can't have one but not the other.

If Yeshua's parent's were Romans, then he wouldn't have been crucified.
Since he (as alleged by the Bible) has been crucified, then he and his parents can't have been Roman; thus they would not have been required to go to Bethlehem to be counted in the (alleged) census (in itself a rather ridiculous idea: to go to a place other than the place of your residence and work to be counted for tax-purposes).

 

[Rush Limborg]

My point, clearly, is that one cannot dismiss the idea that Joseph was a Roman Citizen. I pointed out Paul, in explaining that it is not unheard up for a member of a Jewish tribe to be considered a Roman citizen.

Yes, one can very easily dismiss that idea, as there is nothing about it in the Bible and there are no outside sources that ever mentioned these people.
Besides, if Joseph had been Roman then so would have been his son. Which means that he would never have been crucified; Romans were decapitated not crucified.

You can't have one but not the other.

If Yeshua's parent's were Romans, then he wouldn't have been crucified.

Assuming that is true, I will accept it. However--

Since he (as alleged by the Bible) has been crucified, then he and his parents can't have been Roman; thus they would not have been required to go to Bethlehem to be counted in the (alleged) census (in itself a rather ridiculous idea: to go to a place other than the place of your residence and work to be counted for tax-purposes).

For tax purposes, perhaps. However, as Sir William Ramsay noted, it is quite possible--indeed probable, considering the tensions between Rome and Judea--that Augustus's census was, in the case of Judea, for purposes of knowing how many potential rebels he was dealing with. The Emperor thus used a method which appealed to Jewish pride in tracing one's heritage--as a means of keeping them calm for this period.

 

[JD]

I've also never understood why it matters to one person, or group what another person or group believes.

Because, if the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to reality, and that two contradictory ideas cannot both be true, there can only be one conclusion--if a specific faith is held to be true, than a different faith proposing opposing answers to the question answered by the first faith--than both cannot be true. They can both be false...but that only means that there is another philosophy out there which does give the truth.

It matters because truth, by its vey definition, is exclusive. If that is "intolerant" and "supressive", than one might as well accuse Aristotle of being "intolerant" and "suppressive" in formalizing the laws of reason.

So? I still don't see why it should matter to me if my neighbors are wrong. As long as they're happy, and I'm happy, and not being harmed by their belief I don't understand why it matters. I know lots of people who are wrong about things, and once I realize I can't change their mind I'm more than willing to leave them to their wrongness. I don't see the need to try to force them to change their minds. I'm don't need everyone to believe the same thing I do in order for me to be happy. Oh, and just so everyone knows, I'm not targeting this at Christianity in particular, I'm just talking about groups who have tried to force their beliefs on others in general.

 

[ST-One]

My point, clearly, is that one cannot dismiss the idea that Joseph was a Roman Citizen. I pointed out Paul, in explaining that it is not unheard up for a member of a Jewish tribe to be considered a Roman citizen.

Yes, one can very easily dismiss that idea, as there is nothing about it in the Bible and there are no outside sources that ever mentioned these people.
Besides, if Joseph had been Roman then so would have been his son. Which means that he would never have been crucified; Romans were decapitated not crucified.

You can't have one but not the other.

If Yeshua's parent's were Romans, then he wouldn't have been crucified.

Assuming that is true, I will accept it. However--

Since he (as alleged by the Bible) has been crucified, then he and his parents can't have been Roman; thus they would not have been required to go to Bethlehem to be counted in the (alleged) census (in itself a rather ridiculous idea: to go to a place other than the place of your residence and work to be counted for tax-purposes).

For tax purposes, perhaps. However, as Sir William Ramsay noted, it is quite possible--indeed probable, considering the tensions between Rome and Judea--that Augustus's census was, in the case of Judea, for purposes of knowing how many potential rebels he was dealing with. The Emperor thus used a method which appealed to Jewish pride in tracing one's heritage--as a means of keeping them calm for this period.

Really, how could this have calmed them? That census (if it happened at all - or was one of the three known - would only have counted Romans anyway) disrupted everyone's daily life in a major way (if we accept the ridiculous idea of everyone - every man, that is - returning to his ancestral home).

Besides, any dealings with 'rebels' would have fallen under the responsibilities of Herod.