Religion: Roddenberry was right!!

[Nerys Ghemor]

OT, this is most likely where Roddenberry was coming from when speaking about a non-religious future. As others have posted, people will have the various religious beliefs in the future but hopefully they will have moved past the need to cram those beliefs down the throats of "non-believers". This may be the result of the aftermath of the Third World War that is coming in 42 years. So plan ahead.

My personal theory about WWIII is this: that it was indeed a holy war, but that afterwards the backlash against believers was so severe that many were killed and others were exiled. In other words...exactly that hellish scenario TGT outlined. (The difference is I DO NOT support any such scenario in this or any other universe.)

It will have turned out that human nature is the problem. But after the creation of the "utopia"...that nasty little footnote in history kind of dropped from the public consciousness.

 

[JustKate]

Hmm, I got out of this thread when people started implying that anybody who disagreed with them have some sort of flaw in their reasoning - because goodness knows it's not possible for someone to be just as intelligent and thoughtful and yet come to a different conclusion - but I thought I would check in and see how things were going. (This is not in reference to anything Nerys wrote, by the way - we posted simultaneously.) And I see I did right. Back to other threads for me!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

My personal theory about WWIII is this: that it was indeed a holy war, but that afterwards the backlash against believers was so severe that many were killed and others were exiled.

Or maybe it was a war against believers from the get-go. Remember...in the original version of ST:FC, the Eastern Coalition was supposed to be

Spoiler: FC

China

. And from "Encounter at Farpoint" it seems obvious that's the nucleus around which the ECON was formed.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Hmm, I got out of this thread when people started implying that anybody who disagreed with them have some sort of flaw in their reasoning - because goodness knows it's not possible for someone to be just as intelligent and thoughtful and yet come to a different conclusion - but I thought I would check in and see how things were going. (This is not in reference to anything Nerys wrote, by the way - we posted simultaneously.) And I see I did right. Back to other threads for me!

I guess I don't see it that way. I see it as an intelligent debate. Like the best debates, it probes into things that are normally tough to talk about. Certainly there is more to Trek than whether or not time travel will ruin the new film, or constantly trying to figure out who the best captain was. By that logic, there's more to life than what's considered "safe."

 

[uniderth]

Funny thing is that I agree with you there, but my point is that it all debunks your original point and makes it moot. If a person has no faults, then by design they can't make mistakes. so your original point doesn't make sense, unless, of course, your looking for a loophole in your own logic.

Interesting. But of course the fault would only exist once the mistake was made. So if a person has no faults that means that they have not made any mistakes in the past. So for a person to be created without fault all that is required is that that person has not made any mistakes prior to their own creation.

So if God originally created humanity in a state of perfection then that person would have not faults. But if humanity then made a mistake a fault would come. So the fault would be the result of our own actions and not that of the creator. The fact a person has the ability to make mistakes is not a fault. The fault only comes at the choice of the individual.

Another example would be a persons ability to kill someone. Logically a person cannot be guilty of killing someone until they have actually killed someone. Their inherent ability to kill another person doesn't automatically mean they have done it.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'm trying to work my way through your logic. Again it just feels like you are looking through a loophole in your own original argument.

What I find sort of ironic is that if people were created without faults, I would contend that they were gods.. right? I mean, God (with a capital G) is defined by being all-powerful and not having faults. So therefore his creations (by your logic) are also just like him, and therefore they are still Gods (yes still a capital G).

I think in my high school days I really wanted to know what motivated God, as opposed to whether or not he existed. What are his motivations for wiping out civilizations? Why does he need followers? Those questions bugged me as a kid. It seems that he too has thus made choices that are faulty. So, by extension, humans started as Gods, and are now people, but so has God himself. He has become petty, if you see what I mean

 

[Dayton3]

Jews have been around for some 4,000 years.

Christians for 2,000.

Muslims for 1,400.

Each of these will most certainly survive another 300 years or more.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Jews have been around for some 4,000 years.

Christians for 2,000.

Muslims for 1,400.

Each of these will most certainly survive another 300 years or more.

That may be true, but it's not really a good thing.

 

[JustKate]

I guess I don't see it that way. I see it as an intelligent debate. Like the best debates, it probes into things that are normally tough to talk about. Certainly there is more to Trek than whether or not time travel will ruin the new film, or constantly trying to figure out who the best captain was. By that logic, there's more to life than what's considered "safe."

Tuln, I don't mean any disrespect here. Really. To you, it's an intelligent debate. To me, it's same-old, same-old. I've been through dozens of online conversations almost exactly like this one (only I will say this one has been, on the whole, more articulate than most of the others), and the same things are said over and over again.

It's not that I don't think these are ideas that shouldn't be debated, and it's not even uncomfortable for me. It's just, you know, "Oh, dear, he's saying that again. Guess I'll just have to say this again, unless somebody else says it first." And then, "Ah, I saw this coming, he's going to talk about Tweedledee, so one of us on the other side is going to have to say Tweedledum." And then, "Man, she brought up this again - it's been addressed at least three times. Why can't people at least skim the thread before responding to it?" You go through a few more of these and you'll start to recognize the arguments too. Maybe you'll maintain your enthusiasm, but maybe you'll get tired of writing the same things time and time again as I have.

People have been debating this exact same thing (sans the Trek references, of course) for centuries. I won't say that it's impossible to come up with something new, but it is extraordinarily unlikely.

There is one thing that is uncomfortable for me. Actually "uncomfortable" isn't the right word. What it is is infuriating, and both sides do it. What I'm talking about is the assumption, sometimes unspoken but usually actually overtly stated, that if X disagrees with me about this, it's because X (1) hasn't thought about it enough; (2) is merely parroting what he was taught; (3) isn't nearly as bright as I am; (4) is behind the times whereas I am at the forefront of modern thought; (5) hasn't read the right books/heard the right speakers/studied the proper things; (6) just isn't as adult as I am - he can't accept reality; (7) hasn't evolved enough to understand this thing that is so clear to me; and so on. Whatever words are used, the implication is the same, and it is that X's thoughts are just inferior for this reason or that one.

That makes me angry. And it happens every single time in these conversations. It's happened in this thread, too - I won't point the finger at anybody because it's been done by more than one person, and I don't want to single just one offender out, and anyway it really doesn't matter.

Just because X has come to a different decision than Y, that doesn't mean X hasn't put just as much thought and effort and care into making his decision as Y did in making his. That's the basis on which all of these discussions need to proceed, and they never do. Not in my experience, which is pretty extensive. Certainly it hasn't happened this time.

That is what ought to be meant by "respecting the opinions of others." It isn't just letting them talk while you (I'm using the generic "you" here - I don't mean you in particular) come up with counter arguments. It's respecting the person who holds those opinions - and that means giving him the courtesy of assuming that he has not only a right to hold a different opinion, but that he has taken the same care and diligence and put the same amount of thought and effort into developing that opinion that you did.

That's hard to do. It's so easy - so easy - to think, "I'm right, and the reason I'm right is because I think so much more clearly than the people arguing with me." That is patronizing, and there are few things more annoying in this world.

So you enjoy. I'll wander in from time to time - you never know, I might see something new.

 

[uniderth]

I'm trying to work my way through your logic. Again it just feels like you are looking through a loophole in your own original argument.

I think we may be having a miscommunication somewhere.

What I find sort of ironic is that if people were created without faults, I would contend that they were gods.. right? I mean, God (with a capital G) is defined by being all-powerful and not having faults. So therefore his creations (by your logic) are also just like him, and therefore they are still Gods (yes still a capital G).

I would say that a person without faults would be "god-like" Since, according to my beliefs, there are many attributes that God has. Being without fault is only one of those attributes. Other attributes according to my beliefs are: Perfect immortal physical pody, All-knowing, perfect in action(without faults future, past, and present), perfectly just, and perfectly loving, the power to do anything He desires.

If a person has all of those attributes then I would consider them a god. I disagree with your using a captial G when refering to any other god than "God the Father." This is simply for clarification because when I use the word God it is refering to the distinct individual that is God the Father. Of course this is all about my own use of the term. When I read that statement that, "I would contend that they were gods.. right? I mean, God (with a capital G) is defined by being all-powerful and not having faults." I read it that your are saying that these people would be the same person as God the Father. But since I believe God the Father is a distinct individual it would be impossible for anyone else to be the same person he is. It would be just as impossible for anyone else to become me. But anyway I digress.

So if a Person was created with say, a perfect immortal physical body, without having any prior faults, but they lack the other attributes they would not be a god. They would be god-like.

I think in my high school days I really wanted to know what motivated God, as opposed to whether or not he existed. What are his motivations for wiping out civilizations? Why does he need followers? Those questions bugged me as a kid. It seems that he too has thus made choices that are faulty.

Interesting questions. As far as wiping out civilizations I don't think there is anyone answer. I think it depends on the situation. In the Bible it mentions civlizations being killed as a way to clear the land for the Children of Isreal. Other situations could be attributed simply to the imperfect world that we live in. Volcanos explode, people die, it's part of how our imperfect world works.

According to my beliefs God doesn't need followers. God gives us paths(or religions if you wish) as a way for us to become more perfect. It's not that He needed His ego stroked but that He loves us and wants us to enjoy the blessings of perfection.

So, by extension, humans started as Gods, and are now people, but so has God himself. He has become petty, if you see what I mean

I understand the first part but the part about God becomeing people and petty I don't understand.

This is my personal beliefs on the subject. Please note to anyone reading that while I am LDS my opinon does not represent official church doctrines. This is a combination of Church doctrine and my own theories.

I'm going to dispense withe the "I believe" statements so just pretend they are there.


We lived with God before this world was created. We lived with spiritual bodies. Eventually we reached a point where we could no longer progress in our current state. God's plan is that we woudl come to the Earth, gain physical bodies and through our action prove that we are capable of controlling the passions and desires of a physical body. If we are able to control our physical bodies we will be able to become perfect just as God is.

There are a few problems however if God forms physical bodies they would be unable to properly experience those things needed to test us. But if God formed imperfect physical bodies for us He would be an unjust God. This is because He would be causing punishment to come upon us for actions we have not comitted.

The solution is to create people with perfect bodies and allow them to choose to become imperfect. This imperfection came when Adma and Eve ate the fruit. This caused a chemical change in their bodies that made them imperfect.

So through our actions and choices we put ourselves in a condition that will allow us to progress further or not. If we live in harmony with the commandments God has given, then we will be in a state where we can return to the perfect realm that God lives in. After returning to God's presence we continue to progress until we too become perfect and have all the attributes God has.

Well that's a pretty simplified version of it.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Well we all have freewill (at least that's what I believe ) so it's up to you. I am glad you'll still be lurking. I am hopeful that mere familiarity with the same old arguments won't deter you from analysing the true meaning of the words contained therein. It's always painful to consider a new perspective that is different from one's comfort zone.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Let's ask him, shall we? Mr. God Thing, was your tongue by any chance in your cheek when you expressed your support for the genocide of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim peoples?

You will notice that I (rather generously) made a point to specify the "more pathological followers" when I argued for physical extermination and/or interstellar expulsion. OTOH, I tend not to be overly judgmental when it comes to individual perversions as long as their practitioners at least make an effort to remain discreet.

TGT

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

What about birth defects for people who had no control over how they were born?

I don't know. that's just one of a string of questions I could come up with.

I mean this with all respect, uniderth, but there's almost too much to what you're saying. If there is god out there, than we humans really haven't any hope of comprehending him or his motives or what he's like or whow we came to be in relation to him, but you seem to have covereeed most of these questions already. How does anytone know for certain.

Again the scariest part of any religion is the certitude. As i quoted earlier, doubt is the attitude that mankind should have. Doubt is humble indeed. It allows people to think and grow on their own merits without being measured against that which is inherently incomprehensible (god).

I always thought that religion was at its most effective whan its NOT defining god or the afterlife or any of that stuff, but when it is providing a moral compass that can be taught. Apparently now it's become seriosuly distorted.

 

[perigee]

Since no one answered my earlier question, I'll answer it myself. A "Katra" is a Vulcan's Immortal soul. Apparently, they can pass it around, like measles. McCoy carried Spock's around for a while. Archer did too, but maybe not so many people heard about that one.

Not debatable. Canon.

So - if "Roddenberry was right!!!," then people have immortal, non-biological, metaphysical souls. Any argument on this front is spurious, and is simply flimsy cover for a religious argument.

 

[Praetor]

Your logic appears flawless, perigee, except while IIRC I imagine GR had to sign off on the existence of the katra, he did not actually create the concept.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Your logic appears flawless, perigee, except while IIRC I imagine GR had to sign off on the existence of the katra, he did not actually create the concept.

Gene Roddenberry had absolutely no creative control or involvement in the Post-TMP films beyond the right to send Harve Bennett memos which were invariably ignored.

TGT

 

[Praetor]

Your logic appears flawless, perigee, except while IIRC I imagine GR had to sign off on the existence of the katra, he did not actually create the concept.

Gene Roddenberry had absolutely no creative control or involvement in the Post-TMP films beyond the right to send Harve Bennett memos which were invariably ignored.

TGT

I should have known that. I know I've seen you type it before.

Thanks!

 

[uniderth]

What about birth defects for people who had no control over how they were born?

I'm assuming this question was directed at me. Birth defects are part of the imperfect natural condition that we all live in. I believe that eventually we will all have perfect imortal bodies.

I don't know. that's just one of a string of questions I could come up with.

I have no problem answering questions. Of course I can only answer based on my own beliefs. And I am of course an imperfect mortal so I'm probably wrong with a lot of things.

I mean this with all respect, uniderth, but there's almost too much to what you're saying. If there is god out there, than we humans really haven't any hope of comprehending him or his motives or what he's like or whow we came to be in relation to him, but you seem to have covereeed most of these questions already.

We I think that it is impossible to know every single detail about God and the nature of things in this lifetime. But I do think that things can be simplified enough that even a young child can understand.

How does anyone know for certain.

To quite I, Robot.

That, my friend, is the right question.

Again the scariest part of any religion is the certitude. As i quoted earlier, doubt is the attitude that mankind should have. Doubt is humble indeed. It allows people to think and grow on their own merits without being measured against that which is inherently incomprehensible (god).

I agree. I doubt there is anything in this life that we can understand 100%. We can sometimes get a good idea. But to say one is absolutely sure of the complete picture of something then they have closed their mind to learning. But there are things like, "I know I'm standing here typing." Unless this is actually a dream, then I'm not really doing that. But other than that it's probably true.

I agree that doubt is humble. Doubt lets us learn more and become more than we are through that learning.

I always thought that religion was at its most effective whan its NOT defining god or the afterlife or any of that stuff, but when it is providing a moral compass that can be taught. Apparently now it's become seriosuly distorted.

I partially agree. I agree that religion should teach a "moral compass." But I disagree in that I believe an understanding of God, who He is and His relationship to us is a vital part of that "moral compass." If I don't know my relationship to God then I cannot understand why I am here on the Earth, what my purpose is here, and what I should be doing here.

 

[uniderth]

Or do Katras only exist in Vulcans?
What does IIRC mean anyway?

 

[GodThingFormerly]

What does IIRC mean anyway?

Netspeak for "If I Recall Correctly".

TGT