Christian faith in TrekLit?

[bfollowell]

WOW!

I just asked a simple question. Were there any references to the Christian faith in TrekLit. Not references to biblical stories as legends or mythology but references to actual people or communities of the Christian faith. Though there weren't many, there were certainly more than I'd thought.

When I asked that original simple question, I had no idea it would spark such a long and interesting discussion.

I guess we just never know where our words may lead...

- Byron

 

[Tropical_Night]

Theres one advantage of it, they could go back in time in disguise and see which, if any, of the various religious dogmas were true.

 

[bfollowell]

i Know, I'm just pleading with them not to. It's bad enough we had to put up with so much crap from the Bajorans, if I want fairy tales theres other contexts to read them in.

I really don't think you meant it that way but I am highly offended by your remarks. While I wasn't asking the writers to start putting Christian faith into their works, that doesn't mean I or a huge percentage of the population feel these beliefs are fairy tales. Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean you're right or that it isn't real. It merely means you don't believe it. Calling others' beliefs fairy tales isn't really conducive to anything more than anger, hurt feelings and causing arguments and I don't think that's what most of us are here for. Please keep that in mind and try to put a little more thought into your posts next time before clicking submit.

Thanks.

- Byron

 

[David cgc]

I don't know why people aren't skeptical of whether Homer wrote the Iliad, or whether the Dialogues attributed to Plato came from him. Or that Ceasar wrote The Conquest of Gaul. Why not be consistent and doubt everything?

Edit: Why not doubt everything old, that is.

People are skeptical. Ever read an article on who wrote Shakespeare's plays? It comes up rather less often because no one is attempting to dictate public policy based on the inerrancy and complete literal truth of the Iliad. Likewise, no one would argue that all those books are worthless as literary or philosophical works unless every word of them actually happened, as in that Lewis quote mentioned a while back.

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. Christian ideals should be able to stand on their own merits, rather than only applying because of who or what espoused them. If that were the case, it makes faith, hope, and love the cosmic equivalent of going shopping with your wife so she'll put out, a means to an end to be cynically exploited, rather than worthy acts in and of themselves.

 

[Tropical_Night]

i Know, I'm just pleading with them not to. It's bad enough we had to put up with so much crap from the Bajorans, if I want fairy tales theres other contexts to read them in.

I really don't think you meant it that way but I am highly offended by your remarks. While I wasn't asking the writers to start putting Christian faith into their works, that doesn't mean I or a huge percentage of the population feel these beliefs are fairy tales. Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean you're right or that it isn't real. It merely means you don't believe it. Calling others' beliefs fairy tales isn't really conducive to anything more than anger, hurt feelings and causing arguments and I don't think that's what most of us are here for. Please keep that in mind and try to put a little more thought into your posts next time before clicking submit.

Thanks.

- Byron

Byron, I would never go out of my way to be intentionally hurtful or insulting to someone, but I am as entitled to come to a judgment about the likelihood of various religious dogmas as you are, and were entitled to come to different conclusions.

I've never bought into this idea that religion should be more worthy of extra sensitivity than any other theory or beleif, and if people believe it as confidently as they claim to, no randomers comments should be able to rock them to the core.
I think it should be treated as skeptically as political ideologies and scientific theories are, in fact way more so, considering its attempting to explain things as fundamental as the origins of the universe and the purpose of life etc. You may find the description of something you beleive firmly and hold dear as fairy tales offensive, but to me I can't find any other way to describe what I see as ridiculous assertions.

Far more offensive than words, those beleifs are often used as justifications for actual real life damage done to me and those like me by punative laws and discrimination, so while my description of fairy tales may be offensive to you, others use your beleifs as justification to do far greater than emotional damage to me and many like me.

However, I did go off topic a little, and nobody should be jumped on for asking a simple legitimate question, and for that I apologize. We should all be free to have a discussion without someone jumping down our necks and insinuating our question is somehow illegitimate, and you asked a perfectly legitimate question, its just that some of us who are victims of religion or people who use it for bad purposes are often a little oversensitive to the topic and can go off on tangents.

On topic, I find it hard to beleive that the kneeling at the foot of a replica of instrument of torture and practicing ritualistic cannibalism while mumbling incantations to invisible creatures is going to be taken seriously 400 years from now any more than we today take worshiping the sun god RA seriously. Thats just my opinion. I also fear the series delving too much into this because I think we got an overdose of faith issues in DS9 and they kept hammering away at it in the novels after. Faith may be comforting to you but blind beleif without evidence and making major decisions based on that beleif is genuinely terrifying to me and has had horrific consequences for our world throughout history, and I'd hope any portrayal of a better future would show us having grown beyond that.

I think apart from the TNG ep First Contact and the DS9 Bajorans they've stayed away from religion in the show, I heard a vague refrence to a Hindu festival but thats it.

I've not noticed anything in the books either. I woudn't mind them referring to characters specific religious beleifs, but like i said I'd find it lacking in credibility that 24th century humans still beleived such things. My only fear was them going too much into it, and overdosing on it like they did with the prophets in ds9.

 

[T'Girl]

if I want fairy tales

Isn't that kind of what Star Trek in general is?

 

[bfollowell]

Byron, I would never go out of my way to be intentionally hurtful or insulting to someone, but I am as entitled to come to a judgment about the likelihood of various religious dogmas as you are, and were entitled to come to different conclusions.

Tropical_Night,

I could go off on the same tangents. People that espouse the same beliefs or disbeliefs, depending on how you look at it, as you always state that it is your right to do such and such. I certainly agree with that sentiment. We all have many rights to do many things. That isn't nearly the same as meaning we should do those things.

I am certainly within my rights to start saying all sorts of derogatory things about followers of the faith of evolution, which has just as much lack of evidence as any other faith based belief system, but I choose not to. Of course, just because I choose not to, doesn't mean you have to follow my example. I merely suggest that it is the respectful thing to do.

As in everything, you are within your rights to continue to think, say, feel and believe what you wish. I would never intentionally infringe on your rights to say whatever you wish, regardless of whether or not I feel that you should. My reply was a simple request and you are free to ignore it and be as offensive to others as you wish.

Oh, and for the record, nothing you could ever say could shake my beliefs to any degree, let alone to the core. There's a huge difference between being offended and being shaken.

Here's to agreeing to disagree.

- Byron

 

[Stoek]

And some of the vitriol and defensiveness in this thread is a perfect example of why many of us flocked to Trek because we also hope that there will come a day when people will have grown beyond religion as it is currently all to often practiced.

 

[Thestral]

The other problem with Biblical literalism is that it's projecting a modern mentality onto an ancient culture. Back then, the concept of accurate reporting of news or history wasn't part of the culture, at least not where religious or political writing was concerned. Writing and storytelling were intended for polemical and allegorical purposes. It wasn't about documenting the facts, it was about getting across messages through metaphor and symbolism. Stories of people's actions and words were freely invented in order to convey the intended philosophical, moral, or political message. These weren't news reports, they were parables.

Case in point: the famous tale of King Solomon and the two women arguing over a baby, with Solomon ordering the baby cut in half and the real mother revealing herself by being willing to lose her child rather than see it killed. It's been held up as an example of Solomon's great wisdom, but that's total rubbish. The tale is actually a threat issued in allegorical form. Solomon was the illegitimate heir to the throne, and he was ready to start a war to conquer the kingdom. In the allegory, the baby was the kingdom, the fake mother was Solomon, and the real mother was the legitimate king. The message was, "I, as the illegitimate heir, am willing to tear the kingdom in half with a war, so if you, the legitimate heir, really love your kingdom, you should surrender it to me in order to save it."

So it wasn't about reporting something the way it happened. That wasn't the priority of the people who wrote down religious and political documents back then. They didn't hesitate to use fictional and allegorical accounts to convey some deeper message.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but that's a totally new interpretation of that story to me. May I ask where you read it?

And some of the vitriol and defensiveness in this thread is a perfect example of why many of us flocked to Trek because we also hope that there will come a day when people will have grown beyond religion as it is currently all to often practiced.

Take care now - not all of the vitriol has come from the religious...

 

[Christopher]

I don't know why people aren't skeptical of whether Homer wrote the Iliad...

Man, you could've hardly picked a worse example. We don't know if "Homer" even existed. There's nothing but skepticism about the authorship of the Homeric epics and hymns, because there's no documentation to support the historicity of an individual called Homer. Even in Ancient Greece itself, there was no consensus on when Homer supposedly lived. It's been a subject of scholarly debate for literally thousands of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_question

If anything, people are far quicker to question the historical reality of someone like Homer than they are of someone like Jesus or Muhammad or the Buddha, even though the historical evidence for those men's existence (at least as they are depicted in religious tradition) is sketchy if you actually look into it.

or whether the Dialogues attributed to Plato came from him.

Ahem... "Thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have traditionally been ascribed to Plato, though modern scholarship doubts the authenticity of at least some of these."

Or that Ceasar wrote The Conquest of Gaul.

That attribution was made by Caesar's biographer Suetonius. Suetonius acknowledges that some of Caesar's other commentaries were written by or with others, but that Commentarii de Bello Gallico (aside from book 8) was all Caesar's.

Why not be consistent and doubt everything?

That's exactly what literary and historical scholars do. Heck, how do you expect them to justify their paychecks if they don't analyze and question everything? Nothing is taken for granted. If a work is attributed to a certain author, it will only be stated that the authorship is attributed, not factual, unless there's solid supporting evidence to prove it. That's basic for scholarship, science, journalism, any discipline devoted to seeking truth: you don't accept a single source as authoritative without corroboration by an independent source. Caesar's authorship of the Commentarii is corroborated by Suetonius, and probably by some other contemporary sources; Rome had a lot of scholars, and Caesar was a major, well-documented figure. But there is less surviving documentation to corroborate Plato's authorship of his dialogues, and no documentation whatsoever to support the existence of a person named Homer who single-handedly wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey.

By the same token, there's little extra-Biblical documentation to corroborate anything from the Gospels. Even the existence of Jesus at the time he reputedly lived would be in question if not for a passing reference by Tacitus to a local spiritual leader by that name. But very little else in the Gospels has any external, independent source to corroborate it, and thus no responsible historian would accept it as unquestionable fact.

Likewise, no one would argue that all those books are worthless as literary or philosophical works unless every word of them actually happened, as in that Lewis quote mentioned a while back.

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.

(Here's an analysis of Lewis's argument: http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/jesustrilemma.htm )


To Kestrel: As for the interpretation of the Solomon tale, I got it from Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, which may not sound very reputable but is actually an excellent, well-researched resource. I'm not sure which specific one of the sources in Gonick's bibliography is the basis of that particular explanation, though.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I don't know why people aren't skeptical of whether Homer wrote the Iliad, or whether the Dialogues attributed to Plato came from him. Or that Ceasar wrote The Conquest of Gaul. Why not be consistent and doubt everything?

Edit: Why not doubt everything old, that is.

It gets even better when you consider that the earliest manuscript of The Iliad we have is dated at a MUCH longer time after Homer than the second-century manuscripts after the time of Christ.

And, as for the claims about "most scholars" and "modern scholars"...it's worth noting that such scholars tend to possess certain presuppositions, of anti-supernaturalism among others.

Also...it is fallacious, in a "bandwagon" manner, to assume that the majority opinion is inherently correct. Literary analysis, like any science, is constantly revising of itself--in its methods, as well as its conclusions. Just as the general consensus centuries ago had been that the world was flat...so general consensus does not truth make in literary analysis, either.

It is worth noting that C.S. Lewis had at one time been a commited atheist...and literary critic and analyst, as well.

It is also worth noting that of the 12 original apostles, 11 were put to death by the Roman government, and one--John--was sent into exile after being tortured.

For all the talk about allegory and revisionism--who would be willing to die by the manners of execution used by Rome...if their claims about Christ--which were precisely what pissed off the Emperor--were false? All they had to do was renounce those claims...and they's have been allowed to go on with they're lives. And yet they didn't.

On another note...Chris, you claimed that the Solomon story was allegorical. I would like to know who proposed that theory, and a possible link to his/her/their reasoning.

I don't know why people aren't skeptical of whether Homer wrote the Iliad, or whether the Dialogues attributed to Plato came from him. Or that Ceasar wrote The Conquest of Gaul. Why not be consistent and doubt everything?

Edit: Why not doubt everything old, that is.

People are skeptical. Ever read an article on who wrote Shakespeare's plays? It comes up rather less often because no one is attempting to dictate public policy based on the inerrancy and complete literal truth of the Iliad. Likewise, no one would argue that all those books are worthless as literary or philosophical works unless every word of them actually happened, as in that Lewis quote mentioned a while back.

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. Christian ideals should be able to stand on their own merits, rather than only applying because of who or what espoused them. If that were the case, it makes faith, hope, and love the cosmic equivalent of going shopping with your wife so she'll put out, a means to an end to be cynically exploited, rather than worthy acts in and of themselves.

Christian ideals, in fact, actually disprove the alternatives Lewis proposed (that Jesus was nutso, or that he was evil). Neither a nutcase nor a monsterous deciever could ever have constructed so beautifully one of the most influential and time-tested moral codes in history.

There are two choices we face, if we accept 1) that Jesus did make the claims the New Testament records him as having made*, and 2) that those claims were not true.

Either he knew his claims were false, or he did not.

If he knew those claims were false, than he would be a lying con artist--therefore, a hypocrite (he constantly emphasized honesty and a clean conscience); and a monster (convincing people to put their trust in him as the Way, Truth, and Life); and, in the end, a total idiot (it was these claims which led to his execution).

If he did not know the claims were false...than there was something wrong with his head--and therefore, he was not a credible source for any kind of teaching, moral or otherwise.


*(As far as "the majority of 'modern' scholars" seem to be concerned, that's a big "if". But again--majority vote does not truth make. If it did...Star Trek was not a television series worth watching, because the ratings were so low.)

 

[Thestral]

To Kestrel: As for the interpretation of the Solomon tale, I got it from Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, which may not sound very reputable but is actually an excellent, well-researched resource. I'm not sure which specific one of the sources in Gonick's bibliography is the basis of that particular explanation, though.

Intriguing... thanks!

It is worth noting that C.S. Lewis had at one time been a commited atheist...and literary critic and analyst, as well.

It's not as though he stopped after his conversion... he was after all a long-time professor at Oxford and would have done a lot of literary criticism and analysis.

It is also worth noting that of the 12 original apostles, 11 were put to death by the Roman government, and one--John--was sent into exile after being tortured.

Umm... no. Within the biblical account, definitely not Judas Iscariot, for one.

 

[Christopher]

It is also worth noting that of the 12 original apostles, 11 were put to death by the Roman government, and one--John--was sent into exile after being tortured.

Umm... no. Within the biblical account, definitely not Judas Iscariot, for one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)#Death_of_the_Twelve_Apostles

Christian tradition has generally passed down that all but one were martyred, with John surviving into old age. Only the death of James, son of Zebedee is described in the New Testament, and the details of the other deaths are the subject of pious legends of varying authenticity. In some cases there is near unanimity in the tradition, and in other cases, there are widely varying and inconsistent accounts.

So like many things widely believed by Christians, this is traditional lore rather than something actually stated in the Bible -- let alone independently corroborated.

 

[Thestral]

Yeah, I knew in general terms about the traditional lore, but Rush specifically said that the non-John 11 were killed by the Roman government, which doesn't jibe with the Biblical account (Judas, unless we're talking Matthias instead), nor even apparently with the traditional lore (the Roman government wasn't in India where Thomas is said to have died). Thanks for the link!

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I concede the point about Thomas.

Actually, the book of Acts establishes that James was executed by Herod Antipas. John has Jesus predict Peter's manner of death. II Timothy has Paul writing what is basically a farewell address, as he's about to be executed by Nero. (I know--Paul wasn't one of the originals.)

It wasn't just "traditional lore"--unless, of course, you count the Bible as such.

Nonetheless...it is, indeed, a well-established historical fact that Nero had ordered the arrests and executions of countless Christians. If the Gospels were fabrications...than it means the authors were more than just frauds--they were accessories to a deception which directly led to mass murder.

(Here's another question: if the Gospels were fabrications...surely the truth would be played up for all it was worth by the Roman government, and the other enemies of Christianity at the time? All they needed to have done, for example, was provide the body of Jesus--after all, the Gospels all state in no uncertain terms that the tomb was empty. Matthew in particular records an admittedly pathetic excuse of the authorities that the disciples had somehow...snuck past the guards of the tomb and stolen the body--as if they would have been capable of doing so.)

It is worth noting that C.S. Lewis had at one time been a commited atheist...and literary critic and analyst, as well.

It's not as though he stopped after his conversion... he was after all a long-time professor at Oxford and would have done a lot of literary criticism and analysis.

Natually. Nonetheless, in his atheistic days, his literary criticism apparently did not confirm any doubts as to the validity of the Bible.

It is also worth noting that of the 12 original apostles, 11 were put to death by the Roman government, and one--John--was sent into exile after being tortured.

Umm... no. Within the biblical account, definitely not Judas Iscariot, for one.

Touche`.

Now...returning for a bit to historical accuracy--it's been said earlier in the thread that ancient documents shouldn't be accepted as fully as more "modern" historical works--that concern for historical accuracy was not as big of an issue as it is today.

Does this mean we should argue that Josephus's Jewish Wars and Tacticus's Annals of Imperial Rome should be held as historically unrelieable? Moving away from history for a moment--and into philosophical works which have been central influences in Western culture...should we now doubt the historical validity of Aristotle's works?

Tell me...what is the reasoning behind accepting these historical and influential works as 1) authentic historical records, and/or 2) the actual words of the authors--without any real question--and yet expressing doubts as to the historical authenticity of the Bible?

Have there been historical records from the same period which have contradicted it? (Sci has referred to MLK, and alleged misconceptions about him. It is worth noting that "true" histories and biographies of him do exist--and will continue to exist, to counter the misconceptions so long as they persevere.)

Has there been archaeological evidence which invalidates it? (Famous archaeologist Sir William Ramsey praised Luke as "a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians." Interestingly enough...like C.S. Lewis, Sir William started out as decidedly non-Christian. He'd set out to refute Luke....)

Also...if ancient documents are to be taken with a grain of salt...where do our modern historians get their information from?

 

[iguana_tonante]

I don't know why people aren't skeptical of whether Homer wrote the Iliad...

Man, you could've hardly picked a worse example.

Or a better one, from my point of view.

 

[Thestral]

Actually, the book of Acts establishes that James was executed by Herod Antipas. John has Jesus predict Peter's manner of death. II Timothy has Paul writing what is basically a farewell address, as he's about to be executed by Nero. (I know--Paul wasn't one of the originals.)

It wasn't just "traditional lore"--unless, of course, you count the Bible as such.

Aside from James and Judas, scripture is silent as to the deaths of any of the 12 or Paul - the II Timothy farewell address doesn't actually contain a reference to his death. If you're going to stick to what's in the Bible, you have to admit this point.

Also, the Timothys are widely considered now to not be authentically Pauline.

Moving away from history for a moment--and into philosophical works which have been central influences in Western culture...should we now doubt the historical validity of Aristotle's works?

Unlike historical or scientific claims, philosophical claims don't need to be backed up by such independent verification. I wouldn't choose to do it, but it's entirely possible to take the basic teachings of Jesus (or Plato, or Siddhartha, etc.) as Gospel without assigning any validity to their historical setting.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Has there been archaeological evidence which invalidates it? [...]

Also...if ancient documents are to be taken with a grain of salt...where do our modern historians get their information from?

Modern historians compare various sources documenting the same events and try to extract common elements: another source of information is hard evidence, like trial notes, accounting records, that sort of thing. Historians today, owing to scientific influence, strive for objectivity far more than our (speaking as someone who holds a B.A. in history) ancient counterparts.

The burden of proof lays upon the person who makes a claim. I don't have to disprove a thing in the bible. They must be proven to be believed. There are many claims made in the gospels that there's no way of proving objectively. If Jesus was prosecuted by the Sanhedrin or Rome, there might be some official record of that -- but calming the seas? Turning water into wine? Only way you can believe that is by seeing it for yourself, or by wanting to believe it enough that you lower your standards of validation. No Christian would ever believe Muhammed flew to Heaven on a horse and returned, or that Buddha could heal the sick, but people told those stories about them as well. A Muslim would believe the horse story easily, and an eastern Buddhist the story about Buddha-the-healer.

 

[kv1at3485]

^ That's historiography, right? Basically asking who wrote it, and what their motivation and perspective was on the subject, and in so doing figuring out what isn't being said, and what too much is being said on.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Actually, the book of Acts establishes that James was executed by Herod Antipas. John has Jesus predict Peter's manner of death. II Timothy has Paul writing what is basically a farewell address, as he's about to be executed by Nero. (I know--Paul wasn't one of the originals.)

It wasn't just "traditional lore"--unless, of course, you count the Bible as such.

Aside from James and Judas, scripture is silent as to the deaths of any of the 12 or Paul - the II Timothy farewell address doesn't actually contain a reference to his death. If you're going to stick to what's in the Bible, you have to admit this point.

Also, the Timothys are widely considered now to not be authentically Pauline.

Oh?

Moving away from history for a moment--and into philosophical works which have been central influences in Western culture...should we now doubt the historical validity of Aristotle's works?

Unlike historical or scientific claims, philosophical claims don't need to be backed up by such independent verification. I wouldn't choose to do it, but it's entirely possible to take the basic teachings of Jesus (or Plato, or Siddhartha, etc.) as Gospel without assigning any validity to their historical setting.

Again, if the Gospels are fraudulent, historically, than those Christians persecuted under Nero and his sucessors died, to put it bluntly, for a lie. The Christian moral teachings were not the problem, remember--the problem for Rome was that the Christians were proclaiming that Jesus was a King higher than Caeser. And Nero basically thought he was a god--and let his citizens know it.