well, I think, surprisingly, this thread has, overall, been probing and full of interesting thoughts. Sure it's not completely free of shallow and crass comments, but can you expect it to be?
Religion: Roddenberry was right!!
- Thread starter wahwahkits
- Start date
- Status
^ It hasn't been that bad - I've seen worse. But it's funny how the shallow and crass stuff seems to just leap out at you. 
Actually, this is how seems to have gone, from my admittedly incomplete perspective - here's kind of an outline:
Substantive comment 1
Substantive comment 2
Substantive comment 3
Silly shallow comment which then derails the substantive comments for a while until people settle down
Still settling
Still settling
Substantive comment 4
Substantive comment 5
Insult 1, which then derails the substantive comments for a while until people settle down
Insult 2
Insult 3
Substantive comment 6
Substantive comment 7
Comment about how we really shouldn't talk about this stuff on the Trek BBS
Comment about how we really should talk about it
Silly shallow comment
...and so on.
It's not exact, of course - I mean, I haven't gone back and charted actual sections of the thread, but I think it's a reasonably fair paraphrase. So, not too bad. There is a fair amount of actual wheat mixed in with the chaff.
Honestly, I think the fact that it is phrased as a Trek question has helped because it's helped to keep the discussion more focused than it would have been otherwise.
Actually, this is how seems to have gone, from my admittedly incomplete perspective - here's kind of an outline:
Substantive comment 1
Substantive comment 2
Substantive comment 3
Silly shallow comment which then derails the substantive comments for a while until people settle down
Still settling
Still settling
Substantive comment 4
Substantive comment 5
Insult 1, which then derails the substantive comments for a while until people settle down
Insult 2
Insult 3
Substantive comment 6
Substantive comment 7
Comment about how we really shouldn't talk about this stuff on the Trek BBS
Comment about how we really should talk about it
Silly shallow comment
...and so on.
It's not exact, of course - I mean, I haven't gone back and charted actual sections of the thread, but I think it's a reasonably fair paraphrase. So, not too bad. There is a fair amount of actual wheat mixed in with the chaff.
Honestly, I think the fact that it is phrased as a Trek question has helped because it's helped to keep the discussion more focused than it would have been otherwise.
Last edited:
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Hi Guys! I read the thread title and just jumped here to the end to see if you've all solved anything in any way.
Yes we all agree now that Rodenberry was right and that religion is a load of old bollocks! 
Yes we all agree now that Rodenberry was right and that religion is a load of old bollocks!
-100 on accuracy. Sorry.
Yes we all agree now that Rodenberry was right and that religion is a load of old bollocks!
No, we all agree that Roddenberry's vision of world peace, human unity, and liberal democracy will never be achieved until people treat one-another with respect and dignity, even if they think that the beliefs people have are irrational.
A Christian may believe that Atheism is irrational, and vice versa, but so long as they behave towards one-another with respect and dignity, you're more likely to see a better world than one where people continue to re-enact "My god's dick is bigger than your god's dick!" moments from throughout history such as you just did -- and, yes, your behavior was just the same, merely substituting your belief in Atheism for another beleif system. But either way, you've taken YOUR belief and used it to denigrate others'.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
What? When has a Trek episode or film created and produced by Gene Roddenberry ever mentioned any form of "democracy" existing on 23rd/24th century Earth? Indeed, his "Bibles" for TOS and Phase II specifically instruct prospective writers to keep such "troublesome" political and economic details as vague as possible.
TGT
Sorry for doing this to you all, but whenever the subject of religion came up on any sci-fi series, the best at handling it was B-5! When it come to religion on Star Trek, you'd think the Federation was Athiestic!
James
James
Kirk calls the Federation a democratic body in "Errand of Mercy."
Yes we all agree now that Rodenberry was right and that religion is a load of old bollocks!
No, we all agree that Roddenberry's vision of world peace, human unity, and liberal democracy will never be achieved until people treat one-another with respect and dignity, even if they think that the beliefs people have are irrational.
A Christian may believe that Atheism is irrational, and vice versa, but so long as they behave towards one-another with respect and dignity, you're more likely to see a better world than one where people continue to re-enact "My god's dick is bigger than your god's dick!" moments from throughout history such as you just did -- and, yes, your behavior was just the same, merely substituting your belief in Atheism for another beleif system. But either way, you've taken YOUR belief and used it to denigrate others'.
QFT.
What a deep and subtle mind Gene Roddenberry had. What makes this quote so devastating is that we know full well that when it comes to Christian theology, Roddenberry really knew his shit.
I hate to ask this...I know how "QFT" is used, but what does it stand for??
"quoted for truth"
Used if you absolutely agree with what someone else typed word-for-word
Used if you absolutely agree with what someone else typed word-for-word
Heh...that's a lot better than what I was afraid it stood for! (For some reason, I thought "F" was likely to be the F-bomb! )
)You have to agree that Roddenberry's quote does make some sense, even if it is just a crass, little blurb. If God gives free will, then he knows that people will be prone to reject him. Yet directly punishing someone for that rejection isn't really free will anymore.
Furthermore, typical descriptions of God list him as omniscient and possibly atemporal, meaning that he knows everything, and he knows everything that will happen. This includes knowing which people would do what. The impression one might get from the Bible is that God didn't know certain people would sin or else punishing them for it would seem unusually cruel. But then that sheds doubt on him truly being omniscient if he did not have any knowledge of it.
Furthermore, typical descriptions of God list him as omniscient and possibly atemporal, meaning that he knows everything, and he knows everything that will happen. This includes knowing which people would do what. The impression one might get from the Bible is that God didn't know certain people would sin or else punishing them for it would seem unusually cruel. But then that sheds doubt on him truly being omniscient if he did not have any knowledge of it.
^ See, I don't think God does the punishing - I think we do that all our very own selves. And the thing to remember about the Bible is not everyone interprets it literally. So I don't personally think God necessarily punished humankind by, for example, sending a flood. I don't know, of course, not being in tune with the Infinite, but that is at least a possiblity. That's how the writer/s of Genesis interpreted the event being reported, but that doesn't mean it was interpreted correctly.
It could be that's what Strider meant by his comment, too. Interpreting a philosphy or religion that you don't share and either haven't studied at all or quit studying when your parents stopped making you go to Sunday school...it's pretty hard. You're almost bound to make significant errors and omissions. It could be that Roddenberry had real knowledge of religion, but I must say that quote doesn't sound like it. Or maybe it makes more sense in context. Or maybe GR was just in a flippant mood when he said it.
It could be that's what Strider meant by his comment, too. Interpreting a philosphy or religion that you don't share and either haven't studied at all or quit studying when your parents stopped making you go to Sunday school...it's pretty hard. You're almost bound to make significant errors and omissions. It could be that Roddenberry had real knowledge of religion, but I must say that quote doesn't sound like it. Or maybe it makes more sense in context. Or maybe GR was just in a flippant mood when he said it.
^^^That is exactly what I meant, JustKate. It's an extremely complex theological debate, and all Roddenberry could do was make a snide, childish remark. I don't want to be too harsh on the guy. As you said, maybe he was familiar enough with theology to know how flippant he was being, or maybe he was just in a mood. What I don't get is when people post such an obvious straw man as though it added anything of value to the debate.
^ Too be fair, it is (sort of) a Trek thread. Sort of. So if someone wants to argue that GR is right or wrong, somebody has to talk about what the guy actually said. I hope (and pray ) that nobody's actually using him as a spiritual mentor, and I doubt very much that they are.
It doesn't have any bearing at all on the validity of religion, of course, but if you happen to agree, I can see that it would be tempting ammunition. I don't, so it naturally doesn't tempt me.
) that nobody's actually using him as a spiritual mentor, and I doubt very much that they are. It doesn't have any bearing at all on the validity of religion, of course, but if you happen to agree, I can see that it would be tempting ammunition. I don't, so it naturally doesn't tempt me.
- Status