• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Poll: Do Star Trek fans believe in a Supreme Being?

As a Jew living in the modern world, I believe God is there, though I struggle with the idea, as we are meant to (Israel means one who struggles with God).

His particular form and role is a mystery, best explained in mystical thought, and not in overly simplistic and out-of-context readings of the Torah given by its bashers.

The "new testament," and how it tries to reformat the God of the Torah, I leave others to try to explain. The god in that book makes little sense to me, as do some of his spokesmen. But some very nice people serve him, too. Ultimately, it's about how He manifests compassion in each of us. I think Kirk says something about that in the otherwise execrable Star Trek V.

So, number one.
 
3D Master said:
GreenBlood said:
What would Jesus do?

Nothing, seeing as the guy didn't exist.


He exists/existed for me, you and everyone else, whether you believe it or not.

Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"

Answer: Typically when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with "outside of the Bible." We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels in the second century A.D., 100+ years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
 
just two points.

Sanhedrin 43a: iffy that is was the J-man. The name Yeshu, interpreted by some as an anagram of "yemach shemo vezichro" (May his name and memory be obliterated), is used in reference to a number of people in the Talmud, from various time periods.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Second, the Josephus tesimony is controversial, especially the part saying "he was the Christ." It seems doubtful that Josephus, who was not a Xian, would announce this out of nowhere.

no argument with the rest of it. Other than the assertion that he was a god, of course. :-)
 
Isn't it nice to know we have so many bigots among us? :rolleyes: Pretty good for a show about learning without judging and showing tolerance toward other cultures...
 
Looking back through the thread, I can't tell what you're referring to, Captain X.

I have appreciated the discussion in this thread; there is a lot of disagreement here, some of it deeply held on both sides, but I don't see people being bigoted.
 
Not in response to anyone in particular: when I really think about the sheer amount of pain, misery, anguish and death at every level of life, when I think about parasitism and predation and starvation and disease, when I think about rape and murder and torture, it just seems better to ascribe all of this to the mindless machinery of physics and natural selection rather than to a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being who wants joy for his creatures. Even if science was not overwhelmingly in support of the former, philosophically it just seems kinder.

Those who seek to focus only on the beauty of life strike me as horrifically deficient in their empathetic imagination.
 
None of the above simply because my Universal view of such things falls between a couple of the categories.

In any event, as it was said, we might find out when we die, and until then I'll just stick with the approach...

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet
 
I believe human beings are responsible for coming up with questions 1-2-3 and probably means very little to fabric of the universe(s).

RAMA
 
None of the above.

Raised Jewish but not particularly practicing, been Agnostic for years (and came close to Atheism a few times). I've dabbled in UU'ism, but that doesn't exactly espouse belief in one supreme being.

No chance I'd join any organized religion that condemned homosexuality (or, I hope, anyone else on the basis of the things they cannot change), though when I hear about gay Catholics I wonder whether you can, by definition be a gay Catholic without hating yourself...not to start a TNZ-themed conversation.

I think the poll is lacking for not including polytheistic beliefs.
 
Captain X said:
Isn't it nice to know we have so many bigots among us? :rolleyes: Pretty good for a show about learning without judging and showing tolerance toward other cultures...

We really could do without comments like this, please :)
 
seigezunt said:
just two points.

Sanhedrin 43a: iffy that is was the J-man. The name Yeshu, interpreted by some as an anagram of "yemach shemo vezichro" (May his name and memory be obliterated), is used in reference to a number of people in the Talmud, from various time periods.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Second, the Josephus tesimony is controversial, especially the part saying "he was the Christ." It seems doubtful that Josephus, who was not a Xian, would announce this out of nowhere.

Except Josephus discussion of James is not considered doubtful, and the majority of critics hold the Testamonium Flavinium to be partially authentic and referring to the Jesus of the Bible.

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

Josephus' reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars. The TF contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew would have written; such as "he was the Christ" and "he appeared to them alive again the third day.

The consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory.

Christopher Price, A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum
 
DavidFalkayn said:
cultcross said:
A blend of one with a dash of two - A Supreme Being who is not absent by any means, but is far less interventionist than many appear to think.
To all intents and purposes I am a Christian in that I beleive in the existence & divinity of Jesus Christ. However I do not beleive the Bible (or indeed any scripture written by man) to be the literal 'Word of God', and I have a list of unorthodox beliefs which exclude me from most official denominations.

My personal theology comes pretty close to yours. I'm a firm believer in free will and ascribe to Calvin's concept that Scripture is not so much the literal word of God so much as it is a reflection of God. God wants us to make our own decisions and leaves us to make those decisions--for good or ill.

This is a classic example of reading John Calvin through the eyes of Karl Barth and modern neo-orthodoxy and not on his own merits. The Neo-Orthodox project says this all the time. The truth is Calvin quite certainly believed the Bible to be the "literal" word of God and not merely a reflection of God. That latter view is the view of Karl Barth and his followers who regularly "jones" for support for their new version of Reformed theology in Calvin.

I would point you to Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics Volumes 1 and 2, particularly Volume 2.

This view of yours is, in fact, generated by Karl Barth's notation of a separate discussion of "religion" in the theological prolegomena of the late 17 and early 18th century that goes back to Calvin. The Word of God is the instrument of a divine gift outwardly along with theology and Christian ethics and sujectively as an inward, ingrafted capcacity so taht the subjective is never excluded from consideration. This is a pseudoproblem that owes itself to Barth's antagonism to any notion of a broader revelational foundation for Christianity than the Person of Christ and his own notions of revelation through the word of God as a subjective "Christ event."

In truth, Calvin estalbishes the authority of Scripture partly on divine dictation and partly on the Holy Spirit working through them. He is actually indebted to the later medieval concept of inspiration and the theory of Luther, so he is, in point of fact, the author of the older Protestant view of inspiration that has been passed down to conservative Reformed theologians in this age.
 
dalehoppert said:
3D Master said:
GreenBlood said:
What would Jesus do?

Nothing, seeing as the guy didn't exist.

OK that's just ridiculous. Even if you deny His deity you have to concede the fact that there was once a guy from Nazareth named Yeshua (Jesus) who led quite a movement a couple thousand years ago. The historical record bears that out.

No, the historical record bears that he did not exist. There is not a single piece of evidence of his existence. Every piece of evidence that does exist, points to the fact that he simply never walked the Earth.

Hell, the bible says so. Hebrew 8:4: "If Christ had been alive, he would not have been a priest." A little letter writing back and forth and what should, and shouldn't go into the Jesus myth they're sucking out of their thumb.

Who's that in your avatar? It looks to me like Hawk from the late seasons of the old Buck Rogers TV show.

Setsuna: from the Last Blade game series: http://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters3/setsuna.html
 
Well, it's been a most interesting topic!

I'm an atheist, but I was raised Catholic so I can understand the sentiment behind the faith in a personal and caring God (#1).

However, responses #2 and #3 leave me puzzled.

#2: If you want to put your faith in a personal God (I sentiment I can understand, even if I disagree with it), why make it uncaring and distant? Or by "leaves us alone" you mean that it doesn't interfere with free will? I think that even a caring, loving God would not interfere with our free will, like a parent that let its children make mistakes so they may learn by themselves, so you fall again in #1.

#3: If you believe in some "undiscovered force" that has no intelligence or consciousness, why put it in the equation altogether? It seems to me that such force (ubiquitous and non-sentient) is for all purposes indistinguishable from "normal" physical forces. Could not physics alone be responsible of all creation, without the addition of something else?

I do not mean to criticize your position, just asking for clarification.

Justtoyourleft said:
I actually, I see it the other way around. To believe in God is extremely convenient because there's no proof. Hence you can basically interpret anything so that it fits with what suits you best. And nobody can prove you wrong since there's no factual basis.
In many way I envy people who do believe in a God. It makes many things much easier because it's a means of finding explanations. If you don't believe, you don't have that to fall back on to. You simply have to rely on what's there and the people around you.
I'm here with you. I think that people strive for an explanation (for life, the universe and everything, just to quote Douglas Adams), and the idea of God (or gods) fits very nicely and is very comforting. Plus, resting not on factual basis but on faith alone, you could not be proven wrong either.

Being an atheist, on the contrary, gives you the responsibility to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong. Living in a world like that, without something greater looking over your shoulder, can be very daunting and very depressing at times, but also intensely liberating. To quote one of my favourite show: "In the greater scheme, in the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win. If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. All I want to do is help. I want to help because I don't think people should suffer as they do, because if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world."

People keep saying that atheism is about selfishness and unaccountability. No. For me, it is about freedom and responsibility, it is about seeing the world as it is, not as you want it to be. In a vast, uncaring universe devoid of external meaning, big brothers and final rewards, every person, every single person become a shining beacon of consciousness, shaping the world around him with his very existence. Happy to be living this life, because there is not another one. Taking comfort in his fellow human being, because if we won't help each other, nobody will. Striving to do what is right, not because of some higher reward, but just because he feels it is right: Ars gratia artis, "Art for art's sake". Living to an ethic build on what is best for humanity as a whole, not some denomination that affirm "his way or the highway". Sure, many (most) atheist do not live to this standard, but theist do not live to theirs, either. I do not think that theist are dim-witted or weak-willed, far, far from it, but I do think that they delude themselves because a universe without gods is too hard in their eyes, while all they have to do is looking into themselves to find all the strength they need to live and laugh in the face of the nothingness that surround us.

Woah. This was a the veeery loooong post. Sometimes words take me too far... :o
 
TheLonelySquire said:
3D Master said:
GreenBlood said:
What would Jesus do?

Nothing, seeing as the guy didn't exist.


He exists/existed for me, you and everyone else, whether you believe it or not.

Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"

Answer: Typically when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with "outside of the Bible." We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels in the second century A.D., 100+ years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources.

Wow. The bible and people believing shortly after a guy supposedly living is proves he exists now... I guess the Greek christ-figure Dyonisis was a real guy as well then; which by extension means that Zeus, Ares, and the lot are real too. Great going, you've just proven that every single mythological figure ever was and is a true being... which incidentally proves the bible wrong, because now there are lots of real gods, when the bible says there's only one, and his son and a ghost.

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Which every scholar worth his salt knows is a blatant fabrication by Christians who lived later. In all his other writings, Josephus is going on about all the christ-figures and so-called messiahs of the time as being idiots, lunatics and people who all around made things worse rather than better. For him to suddenly step back from that position when it suddenly comes to another one of those, makes no sense whatsoever. The style of this writing, is also different that the rest and has language constructs of later times than he lived.

In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

In conclusion, there is not a single piece of worthwhile evidence that he ever lived for real.
 
Option 3. Something caused the creation of the universe 13-point-whatever billion years ago (since the Big Bang theory is currently the cosmological model that most closely matches the available evidence), but what it was remains to be discovered. From the moment of creation onwards, random chance fits Occam's Razor better than some invisible Supreme Being willing the whole thing into existence just to bask in our adulation 13 billion years later as an explanation for why we're here.
 
Referring to what iguana_tonante said:

Well said.

Btw., I also had to think of Douglas Adams, actually. He did an interview for an atheist group in the US some years back which, I think, is featured in "Salmon of Doubt". I think many points there are very relevant to this discussion.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top