Kahless

[Mage]

Kahless is supposed to be a representation of Jesus.

Uhm, no he is not. Just because he is the Klingon Messiah, doesn't mean the writers intended him to be a comparison/representation of Jesus. That's just seeing things where they don't exist.

I'm a Christian myself, but I am very gratefull that Trek never touched upon any Earth religions in any way. Atleast, not to deeply. It will always bring to much trouble with it, people will start to claim Trek favors one religion over the other, no matter how you bring it. Because, like the OP, people will see things where they aren't.

 

[Lord Manitou]

Kahless is suppose to be a representation of a modern day Klingon to his people. This didn't work with the franchise. So much of their society and belief is bonded with tradition.

 

[Doug Otte]

Probably because it directly involves the TNG episode "Kahless."

That's where I got confused. There is no episode entitled "Kahless." I realize now we're referring to the episode about Kahless entitled "Rightful Heir."

Doug

 

[SonicRanger]

Probably because it directly involves the TNG episode "Kahless."

That's where I got confused. There is no episode entitled "Kahless." I realize now we're referring to the episode about Kahless entitled "Rightful Heir."

Doug

Dammit, I was thinking of the Michael Jan Friedman novel called "Kahless."

 

[jg73340]

I think the OP has given up due to the weight of our irrefutable logic.

What logic?

 

[jg73340]

I'm also a Christian (for what that's worth). To me, Kahless is the KLINGON analogue of Jesus, not the direct comparison.

Analogue/Comparison - what's the difference?

He represents to the Klingons what Jesus represents to us, but they are not even close to being the same.

Ya, that's was my original point. They're so different the analogue/comparison is stupid.

 

[jg73340]

You also have to remember that the TOS depiction of Kahless was what the Excalibians interpreted from Kirk's impression of who and what Kahless was. It's reasonable to assume that Kirk may not have had the most flattering image of Kahless in his mind.

Okay, this is actually a good point. I remember Spock saying that at the end.

 

[jg73340]

I disagree. I don't see the episode (Which is not their best, really) as being an attempt to depict Jesus. I see it, as per the usual, an attempt to make a general metaphor about messiahs within faith based lore, of which Kahless is one, & that is pretty much the only way that his depiction can be related to Jesus, who was one

I will point out however, that the story itself, specifically the cloning of Kahless from DNA remnants on his sword, does draw on some of the conjecture of the times (the 80's) About Jesus & if in deed the Shroud of Turin belonged to him, & could retain his DNA

That really is the only similarity to the episode & anything to do with Jesus, imo, besides the episode being about faith/religion in general

There is other evidence in DS9. For example, in one episode (I can't remember the exact episode - it was near the end) Worf is encouraging Martok to take control of the Klingon Empire from Galron. Martok says that he is just a lowly Klingon from the "Keckle (spelling?) Provinces". And then Worf says, "Kahless himself was not high born!" and then Martok says "Kahless was divine!"

The comparison is to Jesus in my opinion.

 

[SonicRanger]

There is other evidence in DS9. For example, in one episode (I can't remember the exact episode - it was near the end) Worf is encouraging Martok to take control of the Klingon Empire from Galron. Martok says that he is just a lowly Klingon from the "Keckle (spelling?) Provinces". And then Worf says, "Kahless himself was not high born!" and then Martok says "Kahless was divine!"

The comparison is to Jesus in my opinion.

Clearly it is a comparison to Muhammad... or Buddha.

And since you claim to have read the Christian Bible, you should know that Luke and Matthew trace the lineage of Jesus back to King David, suggesting some sort of noble heritage.

 

[jg73340]

It's a literary device. The writers wanted to create a messianic character for the Klingon people. They were not making any allusions to Christ the person. If anything, they were purposefully making Kahless the antithesis of Christ for contrast.
The heart of the episode is a "What if". What if DNA could be lifted from the Shroud of Turin, let's say. What if a clone could be created. What kind of implications of such an event would happen to our society? It's a much bigger and more general topic that writers were attempting to tackle than the rather simplistic notion of Kahless being Christ.
Edit to add: Mojochi, we reach!

I agree with the second paragraph. The theme of the episode was “what would happen if we brought a religious figure back using Jurassic Park techniques”. But I still say the writers (indirectly/symbolically) chose Jesus.

By the way, DS9 was more charitable to religion than most of the other Treks. I felt TNG was not in my opinion. I mean, in "Hide and Q", Q shows up dressed as a monk and says, "Let us pray, for understanding." and Picard says, "Let us do no such damn thing!" It's not Picard's reply that annoyed me, it was Q's mocking depiction of the monk. But that having been said, it was the very idea of "praying to a god" that annoyed Picard.

There is another TNG episode called "Who Watches the Watchers" where a Vulcan-like race called the Mintakens discover they are being observed by humans (Starfleet). The situation gets messy, because the Mintakens start developing a religion after one of them sees Picard and mistakes him for God

Sorry, but starting a religion is not that easy. Religious people are not that stupid. Jesus had to die a pretty grueling death before people started believing in him. Moses had to free the Hebrews from Egypt (at least according to myth). Mohammed used overwhelming military force.

Anyway, in the episode, one of the scientists researching the Mintakens says, "We've messed up their society. They’re going to start believing in God. Maybe we should set some rules for them." Picard answers, "We will do no such damn thing. I will not create a set of commandments for them!" This is an obvious reference to the Ten Commandments. Picard's dislike for religion is obvious in this episode.

There was earlier TNG episode called "Justice" which was even more stupid in its depiction of religion. It's that episode where Wesley gets the death penalty for accidentally stepping on someone's lawn while it was being watered. (WTF )What kind of nut-case religious scenario is that?

But I suppose the scenario is not the worst thing. There are religious fanatics who will kill women for not dressing properly or having an abortion. What annoyed me, again, about this episode was that the religious believers were depicted as total naive idiots. Honestly, go back and watch this episode. It’s just sad.

 

[jg73340]

Clearly it is a comparison to Muhammad... or Buddha.

Buddha was born a rich Indian Price. Muhammad - I'm not sure; I thought he also came from a rich family also.

And since you claim to have read the Christian Bible, you should know that Luke and Matthew trace the lineage of Jesus back to King David, suggesting some sort of noble heritage.

He was born in a bloody stable.

 

[SonicRanger]

Clearly it is a comparison to Muhammad... or Buddha.

Buddha was born a rich Indian Price. Muhammad - I'm not sure; I thought he also came from a rich family also.

Muhammad was an orphan and shepherd, and Buddha was the son of a clan leader, not a king or emperor. But the point, though, is that the story of someone meager rising to be or do something great is hardly unique to Jesus.

Back when "Rightful Heir" first aired, Kahless reminded me much more of King Arthur, the once and future king who would return when his people needed him most. And in several versions of the legends, Arthur is an illegitimate child or not even the son of Uther Pendragon at all.

And since you claim to have read the Christian Bible, you should know that Luke and Matthew trace the lineage of Jesus back to King David, suggesting some sort of noble heritage.

He was born in a bloody stable.

Only because they were on vacation and didn't have a hotel reservation

 

[Mage]

Clearly it is a comparison to Muhammad... or Buddha.

Buddha was born a rich Indian Price. Muhammad - I'm not sure; I thought he also came from a rich family also.

And since you claim to have read the Christian Bible, you should know that Luke and Matthew trace the lineage of Jesus back to King David, suggesting some sort of noble heritage.

He was born in a bloody stable.

But still desended from King David. Say that the next Queen of England is pregnant, and she's en route to a hospital but due to her care braking down, she is forced to deliver at a farm next to the road.
You seriously think that just because this new child was born in a stable, makes him less of desendent of royalty? Blood is blood, and it's still royal blood, no matter what location he was born in.

 

[Deckerd]

Clearly it is a comparison to Muhammad... or Buddha.

Buddha was born a rich Indian Price. Muhammad - I'm not sure; I thought he also came from a rich family also.

And since you claim to have read the Christian Bible, you should know that Luke and Matthew trace the lineage of Jesus back to King David, suggesting some sort of noble heritage.

He was born in a bloody stable.

You should know that the location of birth means nothing; it's the parentage which is important. Also you need to learn how to multiquote.

 

[KHAAAN]

FWIW, I believe the Duke of Wellington said something about being born in a stable not making somebody a horse (he was in denial about being Irish, mind you).

Just to chime in with what others have said, Kahless is to the Klingons the exemplar of what they should aspire to be. Not only a mighty warrior, but a paragon of honour and decency (although Klingon ideas of decency might be a bit different to our own). So, yeah, he's a Messiah of sorts - I like the comparison made above to King Arthur, because I think there's definitely an element of that too. But to say that he's a straight like-for-like substitute for Jesus or that he should therefore embody Christian virtues rather than the ones of the society that he supposedly founded is slightly missing the point. I don't think the TNG story, or indeed any of the stories that touch on Klingon beliefs and mores, are specifically "about" Christianity as much as they're about faith and messiah-figures in general and the difference between the people who found such traditions and the way they're viewed by their followers centuries or millennia later.

I think one of the things that really interests me about those stories is the way that many of the Klingons themselves often fail to live up to their ideals, but the ones like Worf still strive to be "better" than they are (again, Klingon ideas of "better" might not chime with our own). By contrast, the TOS-era Klingons seem to be going through a comparatively secular phase in their history, with little mention of the traditions (yes, yes, I know the real-life reason for that is that the "traditions" hadn't been invented yet! ), and indeed at times little attempt to be honourable in their conduct. I often think that the short hair and beards (when they even had beards - but let's not get into the subject of knobbly heads or ENT's "fix" for that...) might be another indication that whoever was running the Klingon empire in the 2260s had in some way rejected the old ways. Obviously things had changed a decade or so later when TMP is set...

Given that, I wonder if the depiction of Kahless in the TOS episode, as seen through Kirk's eyes, isn't derived from the way he was depicted in contemporary Klingon propaganda, as a cosmetically modern, secular historical hero rather than as a mystical saviour? In that case, somebody like Kirk would probably view him the same way a Cold War US military officer would view Karl Marx or Lenin. No wonder he thought of him as a villainous figure.

 

[iguana_tonante]

But to say that he's a straight like-for-like substitute for Jesus or that he should therefore embody Christian virtues rather than the ones of the society that he supposedly founded is slightly missing the point.

"Slightly"?

Given that, I wonder if the depiction of Kahless in the TOS episode, as seen through Kirk's eyes, isn't derived from the way he was depicted in contemporary Klingon propaganda, as a cosmetically modern, secular historical hero rather than as a mystical saviour?

Good point.

 

[Kegg]

Back when "Rightful Heir" first aired, Kahless reminded me much more of King Arthur, the once and future king who would return when his people needed him most.

Indeed. King Arthur's a lot closer to Kahless then Jesus, actually.

Besides the belief that Kahless will return - and, legend goes, on another planet - he's unrelated to anything supernatural. He is not a god, he does not become a god, he is unrelated to the creation of the universe or any ordering principles behind the universe. The Klingon Gods are dead and Kahless is basically a warrior hero with a cycle of stories about his brave deeds. That whole rot about a warrior cycle could be Beowulf or Cuchulainn, but the belief in his return is King Arthur.

He's also a national figure. He was the political leader of the Klingon people, an Emperor, and will be so again - hence King Arthur.

Insofar as we're going to relate the story to Christianity, the monks of Borath are as close as it gets - a monastic community which reveres the teaching of this figure and has complete records of his stories.

 

[jg73340]

Now, because I am a Christian, one thing that has annoyed me about Trek in general is its unfair (and often inaccurate) depiction of God and/or religion.

What is an "inaccurate depiction of God"? And your religious beliefs no doubt shape what you consider a proper depiction of religion. Others might differ in those views.

Forgive me, what I am complaining about mostly is its depiction of religious people and Jesus Christ. Thank-You for forcing me to clarifying that painfully obvious point.

Kahless is supposed to be a representation of Jesus. There are some who might dispute that, but to me it was obvious.

This has more to do with your own religious beliefs than the episode itself.

Yes, everything is colored by my perspective. An age-old argument-stopper used by people who have nothing to say.

What is even more annoying is that Kahless, in the TNG episode I am talking about, says a bunch of really dumb parables with dumb messages. Again, the writers were trying to compare Kahless to Jesus. But the parables Kahless says are so stupid that the comparison is just annoying to anyone who’s read the Bible and knows what Jesus actually said.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed."

You're confusing the length of an explanation with its complexity and insight. The atom has a simple structure, but it is one of the most mysterious things in the universe.Can you explain this line from Jesus? No, you can't. Great theologians and logicians (men who were way smarter than you and me) have been studying this statement for centuries. It's meaning is complex, and its topic (heaven) is complex as well.

Here was Kahless's parable:

"Long ago, a storm was heading toward the city of Quin'lat. The people sought protection within the walls, all except one man who remained outside. I went to him and asked what he was doing. "I am not afraid," he said. "I will not hide my face behind stone and mortar. I will stand before the wind and make it respect me." I honored his choice and went inside. The next day, the storm came; and the man was killed. The wind does not respect a fool. Do not stand before the wind, Gowron."

No shit Kahless. Don't go into a battle you can't win. Wow.

Now here is the most annoying thing:
In the OS, Kahless is described as the Klingon who "set the pattern for his planet’s history of violence and tyranny." (The Savage Curtain - Season 3). Not a very flattering description. In that OS episode, Kahless is clearly shown as an evil villain. The writers of the TNG episode must have known this because that is where they got the name from. If that's the case, why did the TNG people use Kahless to represent Jesus?

Imagine how the Klingons view a human religious figure in whose name the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and countless other violent acts have been carried out.

I swear atheists are like wind-up dolls. You pull the string and all you hear every time is “Crusades, Inquisition..”. Man…don’t you people have anything else to say? If that’s all you can say about Christianity for the last 2000 years I say we are doing pretty good.

Jesus was not a violent man and did not advocate any of these things. The description is much more accurate of Mohammed (and Islam), who used military force to spread the faith.

I can point to many atheists from history like Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, who murdered thousands of people. However, these examples are not representative of atheists in general, or atheist philosophy. They are also not representative of the persons who founded atheist philosophy.

In any religion or ideology, there will people who will claim to be part of the ideology but fail to live up to its ideals. Margaret Sanger was a famous radical feminist who fought hard for women's rights, but she was also a terrible racist. She recommended putting more abortion clinics in black neighborhoods so that fewer black babies would be born. Does she represent all of feminism? No.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, it's nice that this has turned from a semi-humorous commentary about a fictional character to an escalating full-on rant against atheism and atheists (in response to some pretty tame comments, too, considering the purposefully antagonizing way the topic was presented).

I guess this was the plan all along. Good job, sir. Good job.

 

[SonicRanger]

Now, because I am a Christian, one thing that has annoyed me about Trek in general is its unfair (and often inaccurate) depiction of God and/or religion.

What is an "inaccurate depiction of God"? And your religious beliefs no doubt shape what you consider a proper depiction of religion. Others might differ in those views.

Forgive me, what I am complaining about mostly is its depiction of religious people and Jesus Christ. Thank-You for forcing me to clarifying that painfully obvious point.

You are complaining that Kahless is an inaccurate depiction of Jesus, whom most Christians hold to be a manifestation of God. Therefore, I really seems like you are complaining about inaccurate depiction of God. Don't backpedal if that is your actual complaint.

Kahless is supposed to be a representation of Jesus. There are some who might dispute that, but to me it was obvious.

This has more to do with your own religious beliefs than the episode itself.

Yes, everything is colored by my perspective. An age-old argument-stopper used by people who have nothing to say.

First, reading The Catcher in the Rye led Mark David Chapman to plan to kill Lennon... but that doesn't mean such an interpretation was J.D. Salinger's intent. So you can interpret the episode however you see fit, but you may still be reading something into it that the writers never intended -- and that we may call you out on.

Second, I have no more or less to say than you. My guess is that you haven't won many debates with that line.

What is even more annoying is that Kahless, in the TNG episode I am talking about, says a bunch of really dumb parables with dumb messages. Again, the writers were trying to compare Kahless to Jesus. But the parables Kahless says are so stupid that the comparison is just annoying to anyone who’s read the Bible and knows what Jesus actually said.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed."

You're confusing the length of an explanation with its complexity and insight. The atom has a simple structure, but it is one of the most mysterious things in the universe.Can you explain this line from Jesus? No, you can't. Great theologians and logicians (men who were way smarter than you and me) have been studying this statement for centuries. It's meaning is complex, and its topic (heaven) is complex as well.

Here was Kahless's parable:

"Long ago, a storm was heading toward the city of Quin'lat. The people sought protection within the walls, all except one man who remained outside. I went to him and asked what he was doing. "I am not afraid," he said. "I will not hide my face behind stone and mortar. I will stand before the wind and make it respect me." I honored his choice and went inside. The next day, the storm came; and the man was killed. The wind does not respect a fool. Do not stand before the wind, Gowron."

No shit Kahless. Don't go into a battle you can't win. Wow.

Stupid is subjective. Comparing God's kingdom to a mustard seed may be considered stupid by people.

Actually, Kahless's parable there is akin to the parable of not building your house on sand.

Now here is the most annoying thing:
In the OS, Kahless is described as the Klingon who "set the pattern for his planet’s history of violence and tyranny." (The Savage Curtain - Season 3). Not a very flattering description. In that OS episode, Kahless is clearly shown as an evil villain. The writers of the TNG episode must have known this because that is where they got the name from. If that's the case, why did the TNG people use Kahless to represent Jesus?

Imagine how the Klingons view a human religious figure in whose name the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and countless other violent acts have been carried out.

I swear atheists are like wind-up dolls. You pull the string and all you hear every time is “Crusades, Inquisition..”. Man…don’t you people have anything else to say? If that’s all you can say about Christianity for the last 2000 years I say we are doing pretty good.

Jesus was not a violent man and did not advocate any of these things. The description is much more accurate of Mohammed (and Islam), who used military force to spread the faith...

Interesting you (wrongly) assume that I identify as an atheist when I suggested that you imagine how Klingons would see Jesus and human history. You have a problem imagining others' points of view, don't you?

I didn't say Jesus advocated violence, just that the Klingons might have other views when Crusaders used battle cries like "Heaven at last! and "God wills it!" with crosses on their flags. Bad things have been done in his name, not by following his teachings. Thank you for forcing me to clarifying that painfully obvious point.

But while he may not have been violent, Jesus was certainly a rebel against the occupying force in his homeland, and the Romans were concerned that he would incite a revolt.