Picard's atheism?

[Nerys Ghemor]

Of course there are minor "typos" in the Bible...I doubt I could transcribe something of that length without a single typo.

By the way, on that one Genesis quote...it always happens that I get the imagery of the formation of Earth's atmosphere. Is that necessarily what was intended? Not sure. But that's what crosses my mind.

As I've said, though, there are definitely some "chronological order" issues involved with the book of Genesis, but that doesn't stop me from believing God was indeed the driving force of the Creation--the very same one that we see by science.

With this and a lot of other things, I think God simply spoke as He needed to in order to get the point across to people who had only a very rudimentary understanding of the world they lived in, scientifically speaking. Even the chronological-order problems make sense in that light. If you don't have the conception of your world in the void of space, of the expanding universe, and so on, it makes sense to explain the creation of the planet Earth before explaining about the stars, and so on. That's just one example.

I don't think the intention ever WAS for the Bible to be scientifically accurate--more to convey the majesty, wonder, and above all, the purpose of Creation.

I'd like to show you a couple really neat quotes by St. Augustine that sums up how I feel about the supposed "science vs. faith" conflict (which is a total non-issue in my mind, but here it is). Both statements were specifically aimed at the Creation account in Genesis:

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.

Very sensible approach there. Augustine even applied this to his own "day = 1000 years" stance, warning that getting too attached to that particular notion was not a good idea lest he be proven wrong (as of course he was). And this too--though bear in mind that the educational standard of the day was the Christian education (so that's why he begins his remarks as he does):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?

Sheds a different light on Christian thought, doesn't it?

BTW, you may be interested in reading The Language of God by Dr. Francis S. Collins. He was the head of the Human Genome Project, a Christian, and a mainstream scientist. He sees no conflict in this, and does a very good job of addressing this false dichotomy without degrading either his belief or his scientific integrity. Do check it out--it's a pretty neat read.

 

[TheGodBen]

With this and a lot of other things, I think God simply spoke as He needed to in order to get the point across to people who had only a very rudimentary understanding of the world they lived in, scientifically speaking. Even the chronological-order problems make sense in that light. If you don't have the conception of your world in the void of space, of the expanding universe, and so on, it makes sense to explain the creation of the planet Earth before explaining about the stars, and so on. That's just one example.

I don't think the intention ever WAS for the Bible to be scientifically accurate--more to convey the majesty, wonder, and above all, the purpose of Creation.

I would find it difficult to agree with you more. And I completely agree that science and faith are perfectly compatible.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I think God simply spoke as He needed to in order to get the point across to people who had only a very rudimentary understanding of the world they lived in, scientifically speaking.

Would God not anticipate people developing a higher understanding? Why not make a Bible to cater to this eventuality? Surely a perfect God could do such a thing. Or maybe he could "speak" again to clarify a bit.

I don't think a lot of the errors in the Bible are simply "typos", and that speaks for its errancy.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Again and again, both Kirk and Picard show through their actions and words that they WILL NOT worship something as a God just because it is more powerful than them and it tells them they should.

That kind of ends the argument doesn't it? Because that is what most gods including the Christian god are if you believe in them. Extremely powerful entitys ordering you to worship them, or suffer a horrible punishment. It doesn't matter if you are a good or bad person. All they care about is that you worship them, nothing else.

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Demanding worship and obedience just because you have the power to do so is wrong. That is the stuff of petty tyrants and dictators, with the manners of a spoiled child...just like most gods. Kirk and Picard obviously agree.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I think God simply spoke as He needed to in order to get the point across to people who had only a very rudimentary understanding of the world they lived in, scientifically speaking.

Would God not anticipate people developing a higher understanding? Why not make a Bible to cater to this eventuality?

Before I reply to that part, I'd like to make sure I understand exactly what "solution" it is you have in mind. Are you suggesting putting science-textbook material into the Bible? Or something else?

Surely a perfect God could do such a thing. Or maybe he could "speak" again to clarify a bit.

Personally--and this is just my opinion--I don't think such clarification should ever have been required given that until very recently (historically speaking) there was never any need to regard science and faith as enemies or contradictory (for reasons already outlined above).

However, with regard to the idea of God's issuing another revelation, I have many thoughts on that subject. I do not expect you to agree, but these are part of why I don't think that has happened.

You are quite right in that an omnipotent God such as I believe in would have it within His power to do any number of things, with that included. However, it is my belief that He chooses to abide by certain rules, the first and foremost being respect of free will. (And to use a Trekkish illustration, Borg assimilation and the attendant deprivation of free will ranks higher than someone dying, on the moral outrage scale. There are, of course, other moral and ethical concerns that come with such a declaration, but I don't have the time to get into them with the depth that would be required to really do it justice.)

Three things stem from this, as a result. First, I believe that such direct communications are kept sparing because the more we learn and figure out by our own God-given common sense and reason, the better for our growth. Second, any form of communication so direct that it outright overrides the freedom of choice would not occur even though it would be possible for God to do so. Third, any communication that IS undertaken will be in such a form that we will have a choice as to whether or not we will regard it as such, or dismiss it AND such communication will only be undertaken with someone who is at least on some level willing to receive it. It will not be forced on someone who is entirely closed to it. All of this accumulates to make any form of clear communication fairly rare--and even rarer the sort that sparks a massive religious upheaval, especially the further we progress into modern times.

In this particular case, I feel that it is not outside the power of our own common sense to reason out what is happening, and that we are being allowed to do so without interference. It certainly would be possible, on the theoretical level, for God to use His power to direct things otherwise, but in this case I think perhaps such intervention is deemed unnecessary.

(Please note...I am not a deist; I do believe that God intervenes in ways both small and large with the course of history. I just think that we are also and most often given the opportunity to solve things under our own power by drawing from our own God-given strengths and conscience.)

I don't think a lot of the errors in the Bible are simply "typos", and that speaks for its errancy.

From a purely technical standpoint, I can see where anything that is not strictly scientific might be regarded as an error. However, if we conflate imagery with scientific treatise, I think we are committing an error of interpretation much the same as if we interpreted a metaphor like "all the world's a stage" to mean that we literally live our lives on an actual theatrical stage.

That kind of ends the argument doesn't it? Because that is what most gods including the Christian god are if you believe in them. Extremely powerful entitys ordering you to worship them, or suffer a horrible punishment. It doesn't matter if you are a good or bad person. All they care about is that you worship them, nothing else.

I cannot agree here...in my own belief, it's not a matter of right ritual and right doctrine but of relationship. And such can only be given freely, on both ends, never forced. It is my belief that in genuinely desiring and working on a relationship with God, from this should also arise a desire to improve one's ways...not because of some threat of punishment, but because it is inherently good and right to do so.

At least in my own upbringing, the threat of hell has never been a major focus and it was a shock when I encountered those to whom it was. It was much more about doing what is right for its own sake. And you are right in a certain respect...acting for no reason other than fear doesn't do anyone any good. But that's not what it's all about in my experience. What it should be about is a feedback loop of sorts, of kindness and love (agape, to use a Greek term that fits much better than the English word, which carries far too many concepts to really explain well) multiplying on themselves and being given to others in turn.

As to punishment...many of the bad things that happen to us, I believe, are more the result of our misusing our own free will, than anything else, just like how in the laws of physics, our actions will get an equal and opposite reaction. If we are rude to someone, it should be no surprise that our actions will breed resentment and possibly retaliation. And it is incumbent upon the believer to take actions in one's own conduct to stop that cycle in its tracks.

Do I believe there is a such thing as eternal punishment? I believe so--but that said, I just have this feeling that God will go to great lengths to redeem someone such that it is not necessary. Some of what I think on this matter is quite controversial among some (and again would take a whole other thread to explain in detail enough to do it justice). But suffice it to say that the risk of such punishment is not a major consideration at all when it comes to my faith and belief.

 

[Deckerd]

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Demanding worship and obedience just because you have the power to do so is wrong. That is the stuff of petty tyrants and dictators, with the manners of a spoiled child...just like most gods. Kirk and Picard obviously agree.

Just like most of what gods? The ones men made up?

If there is something overseeing the universe you can bet it doesn't give a toss about individual species which wax and wane over the life of one galaxy, let alone millions.

 

[RyanKCR]

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Demanding worship and obedience just because you have the power to do so is wrong. That is the stuff of petty tyrants and dictators, with the manners of a spoiled child...just like most gods. Kirk and Picard obviously agree.

Just like most of what gods? The ones men made up?

If there is something overseeing the universe you can bet it doesn't give a toss about individual species which wax and wane over the life of one galaxy, let alone millions.

Unless it created them.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Demanding worship and obedience just because you have the power to do so is wrong. That is the stuff of petty tyrants and dictators, with the manners of a spoiled child...just like most gods. Kirk and Picard obviously agree.

Just like most of what gods? The ones men made up?

If there is something overseeing the universe you can bet it doesn't give a toss about individual species which wax and wane over the life of one galaxy, let alone millions.

I'm not an expert on world religion, I'm sure there are few fictional gods out there that are more well mannered that I'm not aware of.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Before I reply to that part, I'd like to make sure I understand exactly what "solution" it is you have in mind. Are you suggesting putting science-textbook material into the Bible? Or something else?

No. What I mean is that if God did deliver a message dumbed down for a particular group of people, why not at least make it a little more appealing to later generations? Why isn't it more timeless? It would be possible to speak in metaphor that people thousands of years ago could understand yet not have things backwards. There really is no need for the metaphors like Adam and Eve.

Personally--and this is just my opinion--I don't think such clarification should ever have been required given that until very recently (historically speaking) there was never any need to regard science and faith as enemies or contradictory (for reasons already outlined above).

I don't know, if he spoke for the age, he should speak to our age. And not just on the issues of science, but morality, common sense, etc. The Bible is by no means an all-encompassing solution for lots of life's dilemmas.

You are quite right in that an omnipotent God such as I believe in would have it within His power to do any number of things, with that included. However, it is my belief that He chooses to abide by certain rules, the first and foremost being respect of free will.

Are you sure you're not a deist? God interfered many times in the history of the Bible, so why now must he be so quiet? I don't think sending Christ was enough.

Also, free will is kind of a ridiculous concept when it involves an omnipotent creator.

Three things stem from this, as a result. First, I believe that such direct communications are kept sparing because the more we learn and figure out by our own God-given common sense and reason, the better for our growth.

Totally agreed. I don't think God should ever have to reveal certain pieces of the puzzle. Or to be more direct, he doesn't need to give us the theories to create, say, warp drive. There is something to be said for mystery. This idea and a scientifically accurate Bible aren't mutually exclusive.

Second, any form of communication so direct that it outright overrides the freedom of choice would not occur even though it would be possible for God to do so.

Why not? It has been possible before.

Third, any communication that IS undertaken will be in such a form that we will have a choice as to whether or not we will regard it as such, or dismiss it AND such communication will only be undertaken with someone who is at least on some level willing to receive it.

Of course, but when you consider what's at stake for disbelief, you'd think a little clarity might be welcome.

From a purely technical standpoint, I can see where anything that is not strictly scientific might be regarded as an error. However, if we conflate imagery with scientific treatise, I think we are committing an error of interpretation much the same as if we interpreted a metaphor like "all the world's a stage" to mean that we literally live our lives on an actual theatrical stage.

Right on. There comes a point though that what is and isn't literal becomes a little more confusing. Genesis genealogies? These serve no moral and certainly are not metaphor, yet appear in the midst of some of the stories which would have to be taken as metaphor. Where is that line drawn? Solely by interpretation? This is what's so screwed up about religions that worship a book so much because there will always be different interpretations, and they usually only serve to create conflict.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

read my sig

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Before I reply to that part, I'd like to make sure I understand exactly what "solution" it is you have in mind. Are you suggesting putting science-textbook material into the Bible? Or something else?

No. What I mean is that if God did deliver a message dumbed down for a particular group of people, why not at least make it a little more appealing to later generations? Why isn't it more timeless? It would be possible to speak in metaphor that people thousands of years ago could understand yet not have things backwards. There really is no need for the metaphors like Adam and Eve.

The whole Adam and Eve thing isn't bothersome to me. It makes sense to me that there would be a first pair to be given human self-awareness and awareness of God, and that they would be the first to have the ability to decide whether to follow good or evil. Whether it was the act of eating an apple or something else, I am not particularly bothered. The general concept holds.

At least to me, there is no need to get bent out of shape over the exact details--heck, even the chronological order issues--as long as the general point is getting across. As I was trying to illustrate earlier in the thread with the St. Augustine quotes, this opposition between literalism and science is a very new thing, historically speaking, and a conflict I find completely unnecessary. I think that if people weren't generating a conflict where there was one, then there wouldn't be even the slightest need for revision. I know I found none--and I came to the conclusion about what a non-issue it was when I was six years old. (Yeah, I read some pretty advanced stuff at that age! I still remember my old evolution book somewhere...it's outdated now, but I KNOW I still have it, seeing as I'm pretty sentimental about it.)

Personally--and this is just my opinion--I don't think such clarification should ever have been required given that until very recently (historically speaking) there was never any need to regard science and faith as enemies or contradictory (for reasons already outlined above).

I don't know, if he spoke for the age, he should speak to our age. And not just on the issues of science, but morality, common sense, etc. The Bible is by no means an all-encompassing solution for lots of life's dilemmas.

I think the Bible does offer perfectly good moral guidelines and common sense to approaching modern-day situations. If you take the general principles--most especially the idea of loving one's neighbor as you love yourself, and you are mindful of that through all your decisions and interactions, that's going to go a LONG way. And that's just one thing.

Yes, I do think we have to stop and think about HOW to justly apply it, but for a Christian that's one area where prayer can help, as well as yes...using common sense.

Just because the Bible doesn't have stuff about...oh, say, global warming and nuclear proliferation, for example...doesn't mean we can't use its principles to inform our decisions on those issues.

Are you sure you're not a deist? God interfered many times in the history of the Bible, so why now must he be so quiet? I don't think sending Christ was enough.

I'm not a deist--like I said, I do believe God has definitely intervened in our history and does continue to do so. I believe, however, that there has been a growing resistance on our part to any such interference--at least on a blatant, recognizable level. As I said before, if we aren't open to it, I don't believe it will be forced upon us.

I will say, however...though this is certainly not an experience I can transfer to you in any truly meaningful way...that I have had certain experiences that WERE quite profound, to say the least--things I could perhaps call "visions," for lack of a better word. I do not, however, believe such things would be forced upon someone who was unwilling (and thus risks being severely harmed by it if it were forced). Even without these things I would have had faith just as I did before, but those experiences did provide very strong evidence to me that He continues to act in this world.

Also, free will is kind of a ridiculous concept when it involves an omnipotent creator.

I don't see why. Possessing and applying a power are two entirely separate things. God may have all possibilities, but He does not have to choose to use all of them (such as overriding our minds).

Why not? It has been possible before.

I have never heard of any instance where God acted in such a way that the person on the receiving end had NO free will to decide if they would accept His communication as coming from a divine source or not. In the Bible we see instances where He seems to have made a very, very compelling case, but even for those cases I can point others where a case was made at that same level and the receiver still chose against it.

Third, any communication that IS undertaken will be in such a form that we will have a choice as to whether or not we will regard it as such, or dismiss it AND such communication will only be undertaken with someone who is at least on some level willing to receive it.

Of course, but when you consider what's at stake for disbelief, you'd think a little clarity might be welcome.

Yet the overriding of free will (at least as I suspect it) represents an even greater tragedy.

But, as I've said before, my views on salvation are likely more than a little controversial. I can give you kind of an idea by quoting something C.S. Lewis said:

Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which he works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work.

So basically...I believe that Christianity is the surest path. But I also think that if I get cocky and I act as though I can say with certainty that this person will be saved and this person will not...I may find myself eating my words.

From a purely technical standpoint, I can see where anything that is not strictly scientific might be regarded as an error. However, if we conflate imagery with scientific treatise, I think we are committing an error of interpretation much the same as if we interpreted a metaphor like "all the world's a stage" to mean that we literally live our lives on an actual theatrical stage.

Right on. There comes a point though that what is and isn't literal becomes a little more confusing. Genesis genealogies? These serve no moral and certainly are not metaphor, yet appear in the midst of some of the stories which would have to be taken as metaphor. Where is that line drawn? Solely by interpretation? This is what's so screwed up about religions that worship a book so much because there will always be different interpretations, and they usually only serve to create conflict.

I have found the MOST important thing to ask oneself about any Biblical account is to first consider what the general principle is. WHY is that account included? (And usually, one overlooks the forest for the trees only at one's detriment. You can notice the trees, but obsessing over them...not good.)

 

[Deckerd]

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Demanding worship and obedience just because you have the power to do so is wrong. That is the stuff of petty tyrants and dictators, with the manners of a spoiled child...just like most gods. Kirk and Picard obviously agree.

Just like most of what gods? The ones men made up?

If there is something overseeing the universe you can bet it doesn't give a toss about individual species which wax and wane over the life of one galaxy, let alone millions.

Unless it created them.

You can't have it both ways. Either there is an all powerful entity, in which case we are too insignificant to bother about, or it's all made up.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Where in the definition of "omnipotent" do we get the idea that said being is unable to care for other beings--even those so much tinier in relative power? If said being is indeed omnipotent, then by definition such would be a possible use of power.

Just because we, for instance, can't care about every ant or bacteria on the planet doesn't mean that a being with infinitely greater capacity than us couldn't. Considerations of scale that would be part of our nature are not so for an omnipotent and omniscient being; by placing said restrictions upon Him, you're putting human (finite) characteristics on a being you have already defined as omnipotent.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The whole Adam and Eve thing isn't bothersome to me. It makes sense to me that there would be a first pair to be given human self-awareness and awareness of God, and that they would be the first to have the ability to decide whether to follow good or evil. Whether it was the act of eating an apple or something else, I am not particularly bothered. The general concept holds.

Not that I really wanted to discuss Adam and Eve in particular so much why the Bible isn't timeless, but to me it doesn't make sense that a pair would be given self awareness. At least, not in the context that the Bible presents it. Were other humans given this? Were there others in Eden? Did this lead to massive inbreeding (if not, Noah's story definitely would have)? Why doesn't it make more sense that self-awareness just developed over time and that things gradually evolved? How does something that amounts to a fairytale, and also was preceded by many other similar stories, have any kind of correlation to science? It doesn't, and trying to fit the two together just doesn't have any point. I realize the details aren't important to you, but in a book where there are several other detailed accounts about things that are fairly meaningless, you have to wonder why something as important as this is just glossed over.

I think the Bible does offer perfectly good moral guidelines and common sense to approaching modern-day situations.

But not in so clear of terms. You would think a perfect book would be immediately accessible and easy to understand, yet there isn't a clear cut answer on a simple issue like abortion. Never mind that there aren't answers to problems that technology has presented and will present even more in the future.

Just because the Bible doesn't have stuff about...oh, say, global warming and nuclear proliferation, for example...doesn't mean we can't use its principles to inform our decisions on those issues.

It shouldn't have to say anything about global warming, but on issues like cloning, genetic enhancement, or even the creation of AI smarter than humans, the matter is a lot less clear. You can try and pull and stretch the Bible by interpretation until it fits with what you personally believe, but that's just not the same.

I don't see why. Possessing and applying a power are two entirely separate things. God may have all possibilities, but He does not have to choose to use all of them (such as overriding our minds).

It's basic logic. If God is omniscient, then he knows where everyone will end up in the future. While we might have the illusion of free will, he knows exactly what we will choose. If he knows that we will choose to reject him, that isn't exactly fair.

I understand that you say he could choose not to use his omniscience, but that makes him willfully abandoning the position of an all powerful being. This gets into those hypothetical questions like if God can create a boulder that even he couldn't push, etc. I think such questions are usually too anthropomorphized though.

So basically...I believe that Christianity is the surest path.

Just curious, but have you tried any other paths? Even Christianity itself is pretty fragmented in terms of beliefs.

I have found the MOST important thing to ask oneself about any Biblical account is to first consider what the general principle is. WHY is that account included? (And usually, one overlooks the forest for the trees only at one's detriment. You can notice the trees, but obsessing over them...not good.)

I totally agree with this. Often this is how I've looked at religious texts, but in doing so with the Bible, I've found too many stories that where I see the general principle, I don't agree with it for lots of reasons. This is beyond the science part... there are just things I don't find acceptable.

 

[RyanKCR]

Just like most of what gods? The ones men made up?

If there is something overseeing the universe you can bet it doesn't give a toss about individual species which wax and wane over the life of one galaxy, let alone millions.

Unless it created them.

You can't have it both ways. Either there is an all powerful entity, in which case we are too insignificant to bother about, or it's all made up.

That doesn't follow. God created us to have a relationship with us, so why would He not care if caring was the point of creating?

 

[Lightinspire]

Since some of us agree that God exists, doesn't seem to reason that if He is so great that our little finite human minds cannot think as He does or reason like He does? Thus the word "faith" comes into play. We must have faith and we will be rewarded for such..which is not why I'm a Christian...I'm a Christian because of what God's Son did for me but each one has their own reasons.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

The whole Adam and Eve thing isn't bothersome to me. It makes sense to me that there would be a first pair to be given human self-awareness and awareness of God, and that they would be the first to have the ability to decide whether to follow good or evil. Whether it was the act of eating an apple or something else, I am not particularly bothered. The general concept holds.

Not that I really wanted to discuss Adam and Eve in particular so much why the Bible isn't timeless, but to me it doesn't make sense that a pair would be given self awareness. At least, not in the context that the Bible presents it. Were other humans given this? Were there others in Eden? Did this lead to massive inbreeding (if not, Noah's story definitely would have)? Why doesn't it make more sense that self-awareness just developed over time and that things gradually evolved? How does something that amounts to a fairytale, and also was preceded by many other similar stories, have any kind of correlation to science? It doesn't, and trying to fit the two together just doesn't have any point. I realize the details aren't important to you, but in a book where there are several other detailed accounts about things that are fairly meaningless, you have to wonder why something as important as this is just glossed over.

I would expect (at least personally) that following the "awakening" (sorry, rough term, but it works) of Adam and Eve, that others did follow suit. Perhaps the first two to have said epiphany played a role in teaching it to others...it would certainly make sense.

It seems from my own reading that the more detailed accounts seem to occur more as the writers begin relaying accounts from their own times rather than recounting the past. (For example of contemporary-era court records, check out the books of Chronicles and Kings. Some parts, due to being court records, are dry to say the least--but it illustrates what I mean.) By the time you get into the New Testament (as well as more recent parts of the Old Testament), you're into the ancient world's equivalent of journalism.

The further back, however, the more abstracted things get, or if you're in something that is explicitly a psalm or prophecy, that is not at ALL intended to provide a literal account of events.

I think the Bible does offer perfectly good moral guidelines and common sense to approaching modern-day situations.

But not in so clear of terms. You would think a perfect book would be immediately accessible and easy to understand, yet there isn't a clear cut answer on a simple issue like abortion. Never mind that there aren't answers to problems that technology has presented and will present even more in the future.



It shouldn't have to say anything about global warming, but on issues like cloning, genetic enhancement, or even the creation of AI smarter than humans, the matter is a lot less clear. You can try and pull and stretch the Bible by interpretation until it fits with what you personally believe, but that's just not the same.

It's basic logic. If God is omniscient, then he knows where everyone will end up in the future. While we might have the illusion of free will, he knows exactly what we will choose. If he knows that we will choose to reject him, that isn't exactly fair.

I understand that you say he could choose not to use his omniscience, but that makes him willfully abandoning the position of an all powerful being. This gets into those hypothetical questions like if God can create a boulder that even he couldn't push, etc. I think such questions are usually too anthropomorphized though.

But if (as I believe) God also knows that we will be redeemed, that's not a problem.

Now, you may find it interesting to consider this: that a Christian believes God DID in fact lay down His omnipotence and omniscience through the life of Christ (with the Crucifixion being the ultimate in that regard). There's a Greek term used to explain this concept--kenosis. Just to feed your curiosity, here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject...

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

I hope you find that interesting.

So basically...I believe that Christianity is the surest path.

Just curious, but have you tried any other paths? Even Christianity itself is pretty fragmented in terms of beliefs.

Yes, I gave a great deal of consideration to other faiths, as well as to the idea of nonbelief, but came back in the end to Christianity. As it is, my belief is not a perfect fit to any denomination, though I do attend the Methodist church (I find the people of my church to be a pretty tolerant set when it comes to diversity of opinion ).

 

[Ryan8bit]

Now, you may find it interesting to consider this: that a Christian believes God DID in fact lay down His omnipotence and omniscience through the life of Christ (with the Crucifixion being the ultimate in that regard). There's a Greek term used to explain this concept--kenosis. Just to feed your curiosity, here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject...

It would be different if that were permanent, but it wasn't. Also, sending Christ didn't get rid of God as we know it, so it really wasn't that much of a sacrifice or cessation of power. God would have to renounce his omniscience as it relates to his atemporal nature for as long as humans exist. From our perception, he would not be perfect.

 

[ria 75]

I always saw McCoy as a card carrying atheist.

I don't believe in a Supreme Being but I'd still say "Oh my God!" and the like as a figure of speech. But I can't imagine an agnostic or atheist ever saying "Sweet Jesus!" like McCoy did in TUC.

^ Well this is purely anecdotal, but I go back and forth between being an atheist and agnostic and I say stuff like that all of the time

I see your point though.

Yes, what are we atheist/agnostics supposed to say? I can't get around expressions like "thank god" or "god knows" and "oh my god" and various degrees all the way to things like "holy mother of god" on big occasions.

In speech and in tradition, religion is part of our culture even if we are not religious personally. The same thing probably happens with Trek characters, making it confusing.
I agree most are probably agnostic, anyway.
And it's easier to spot fully religious Star Trek characters than atheists.
But for an example, one definite atheist would be Dr Bashir, I think.

One character I wonder about is Jadzia Dax. She goes to the Bajoran temple to pray for a child although she's probably not religious on a regular basis. A lot of agnostics make those kinds of exceptions, even proclaimed atheists sometimes.
In her case, she may have had past hosts who were religious and others who were not - whatever religion(s) Trills have or pick up off world, besides worshipping symbionts.
Being a joined Trill must give you an open mind and an educated, practical, often scientific background, and I think that reflects the general Star Trek attitude towards religion.

 

[Dieks]

I find your discussions...fascinating!