• 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!

Roddenberry and the Biblical Allusions in TOS.

As for the teaching of the Bible in schools, when I was in high school in the 90's in rural Washington State, I can relate three relevant stories:

1) An advanced English class where the textbook had a section on the creation account of Genesis, chapters 1 - 3. It taught it from a scholarly perspective, pointing out that it was two different stories stitched together, first a grand perspective about the six days in which the various creations happened, ending in the creation of people, followed by a second story that starts with the creation of just Adam, then the plants and animals of the Garden of Eden and ending with the creation of Eve from Adam's rib. As a young Christian myself at the time, my report was full of apologetics explaining that the textbook was wrong (which I now disagree with; the textbook was right after all). The teacher, herself a Hindu actually, was respectful about my opinion and didn't press the matter.

2) A freshman History class, in which the textbook mentioned briefly the life and ministry of Jesus and that the crucifixion led to the advent of Christianity. After which my teacher went into a whole sermon about the importance of Jesus and how the resurrection of Christ was the best attested fact of the history of the Roman period. He was very much in the wrong, not only with his facts but in his presentation of those facts in a public, non-religious school.

3) A biology class, where the teacher seemed to find evolution distasteful, but dutifully taught the textbook even though she had an issue. I recall, again as a young Christian at the time, I had a problem with evolution myself and wasn't really paying attention in class. It was probably 15 years later that I really learned why Evolution is actually so robustly supported.

It's hard to tech the Bible as literature in a public school format because so many students are raised with such strong biases on the issue that however the subject is taught, someone will decry it as preaching.

--Alex
All three examples would have made me intensely uncomfortable at best. And that's assuming I was still high school age.

My own Grade 12 English class included a unit on debates. My partner and I were assigned to argue in the affirmative that history should not be taught in schools. I told the teacher I wanted something else to debate because I thought that was a stupid thing to argue. She refused and said a good debater can argue anything.

Well, it came back to bite her in the end. My partner and I managed to sway enough votes to our side that we won. And that's with the teacher, during the Q&A, chiming in with her opinion (not appropriate; the teacher is supposed to stay out of airing her own opinions in these situations). I guess she was upset that we were doing better than she'd expected, and some of what we said probably hit a bit too close. She got very defensive about the use of bibles in schools since the Jerusalem Bible was something she used as a textbook for us. She said, "What about the Bible? That's history." I told her that there were many people who don't believe that, and she didn't like to hear that.

I have always wondered if that was the reason why she later assigned me to be a judge in the creation vs. evolution debate. The evolution side did a poor job of presenting their argument, so I had to give the win to the creation side, if I was to be impartial about it.

How I'd feel about these three scenarios after high school? Livid. But then I had the wonderful experience (sarcasm on) of being ordered to participate in morning prayers in a PUBLIC school when I was a student teacher. Then later when I took a sociology course taught by one of Orson Scott Card's relatives, we had a class exercise in which we had to rank several dozen things as to how relevant they were to our daily lives.

My score for religion was so low, it was well into the negatives. That disturbed Dr. Brigham Young Card so much that he called me into his office, told me he was concerned about it, and offered to lend me a stack of books about Mormonism. His idea was that I'd take them home, read them, and come back with questions that he would answer.

I told him I had a full load of classes, and couldn't take on any extra reading. That was the diplomatic answer, rather than what I really wanted to say. He accepted that, and later on told me about his familial connection to Orson Scott Card and suggested I do my term paper on science fiction.

By coincidence OSC was the GoH at the upcoming Thanksgiving weekend SF convention in Calgary. So I met him, was unimpressed, and basically wrote that term paper off the top of my head.

When I told a couple of friends about the attempt at proselytization, they were appalled and urged me to report him. I told them that it could be problematic, since there were no witnesses. I told them I intended to let it go unless he started marking me down for petty or trivial things. It's good that he never again raised the issue of wanting me to read those books, and the rest of the year went along fine. But it still bothers me that he even tried in the first place. RDC is/was a public educational institution (it's a polytechnic now, not a college). You do NOT proselytize there, for any reason.
 
I actually d
I'm not sure of the references from "Arena" either. And I've never heard of a book of Noah. Though, while it didn't make the final cut for either the Catholic or Protestant bibles, there was a book of Enoch (roughly from the same time the book of Daniel was written) that was very influential on the thinking and writings of the early Christians that did end up in the New Testament.

As for the teaching of the Bible in schools, when I was in high school in the 90's in rural Washington State, I can relate three relevant stories:

1) An advanced English class where the textbook had a section on the creation account of Genesis, chapters 1 - 3. It taught it from a scholarly perspective, pointing out that it was two different stories stitched together, first a grand perspective about the six days in which the various creations happened, ending in the creation of people, followed by a second story that starts with the creation of just Adam, then the plants and animals of the Garden of Eden and ending with the creation of Eve from Adam's rib. As a young Christian myself at the time, my report was full of apologetics explaining that the textbook was wrong (which I now disagree with; the textbook was right after all). The teacher, herself a Hindu actually, was respectful about my opinion and didn't press the matter.

2) A freshman History class, in which the textbook mentioned briefly the life and ministry of Jesus and that the crucifixion led to the advent of Christianity. After which my teacher went into a whole sermon about the importance of Jesus and how the resurrection of Christ was the best attested fact of the history of the Roman period. He was very much in the wrong, not only with his facts but in his presentation of those facts in a public, non-religious school.

3) A biology class, where the teacher seemed to find evolution distasteful, but dutifully taught the textbook even though she had an issue. I recall, again as a young Christian at the time, I had a problem with evolution myself and wasn't really paying attention in class. It was probably 15 years later that I really learned why Evolution is actually so robustly supported.

It's hard to tech the Bible as literature in a public school format because so many students are raised with such strong biases on the issue that however the subject is taught, someone will decry it as preaching.

--Alex
I actually don’t think that religion should be taught in schools, tbh. History of religions is fine, but even then, bias could enter textbooks. I think, though, that it would be interesting and informative for students to have the opportunity to talk about what they believe and why. Everyone who claims a belief system should be able to discuss/defend it, and I think it could address a lot of the ignorance that exists.
 
Last edited:
I actually d

I actually don’t think that religion should be taught in schools, tbh. History of religions is fine, but even then, bias could enter textbooks. I think, though, that it would be interesting and informative for students to have the opportunity to talk about what they believe and why. Everyone who claims a belief system should be able to discuss/defend it, and I think it could address a lot of the ignorance that exists.
So where would these hypothetical conversations happen, if not in a classroom? Are you suggesting a club or society?
 
So where would these hypothetical conversations happen, if not in a classroom? Are you suggesting a club or society?

No, I mean that class time could be given to each student who was so inclined to give a synopsis of their particular belief system. Other students could ask questions afterwards.
 
Neither the book of Noah nor Enoch are in the Bible.
I don't believe Book of Noah exists in any readable form, just fragments that some believe are part of it. The Book of Enoch's canonicity is more debatable (Discovery canon debates have nothing on that one), but it is quoted within the New Testament
 
I don't believe Book of Noah exists in any readable form, just fragments that some believe are part of it. The Book of Enoch's canonicity is more debatable (Discovery canon debates have nothing on that one), but it is quoted within the New Testament

What is the quote?
 
It's actually a fairly short epistle. Jude references the Watchers, which Enoch discusses at length. The book of Enoch would also have informed much apocalyptic literature of the Hebrew writers.

Oh, I know it’s short. I have read it multiple times.
 
If Gene was not actually an atheist, then explain "The God Thing".
I read an allegedly genuine ‘The God Thing’ script decades ago, but no one believes me... I guess that it was likely fan fiction based on TMP rather than being an early draft or inspiration for the slow burner that we ended up with. It did read a bit like an early draft of The Motion Picture crossed with the movie Event Horizon, but before the Event Horizon movie was ever made or even thought of. :shrug:

Another Star Trek story based on ancient texts is Darmok. But this is obviously not biblical… it’s kind of Upanishadishicishy? :D
 
Yeah, Star Trek hasn’t been mentioned in a little bit.

From. The Empath

LINKE [on monitor]: I don't think I can stand another week in this godforsaken place.
OZABA [on monitor]: In his hand are the deep places of the earth. Psalm ninety five, verse four. Looks like he was listening.
(A piercing noise makes them cover their ears, then Ozaba vanishes.)
LINKE [on monitor]: Who's out there?
(He vanishes too.)

This doesn't necessarily mean Ozaba believed in God. Even atheists might refer to Mother Nature or, hyperbolically Thor or Poseidon during a storm.
 
If Gene actually was an athiest, explain his Have Gun, Will Travel episode "The Hanging Cross."

I found a recap of the episode: https://www.tvmaze.com/recaps/3654/have-gun-will-travel-the-hanging-cross-recap

It's a Christmas episode whose message is about choosing peace over violence, which certainly isn't something you need to be religious to believe in. It also seems like a bit of a riff on A Christmas Carol, a fairly routine formula of a protagonist teaching an antagonistic character the true meaning of Christmas and making their heart grow three sizes and whatnot. So it strikes me as a case of a young TV writer working to an established formula, nothing more.

Anyway, it's a mistake to assume that writers only tell stories about things they personally believe in. Stan Lee & Jack Kirby wrote a bunch of stories about Thor and other Norse gods, but they were Jewish. Chris Carter created The X-Files, but he's a skeptic about UFOs and psychic powers. And I very much doubt the writers of Lucifer were Satanists. They didn't write those stories to proselytize their personal beliefs; they wrote them because they thought they could get good stories out of those concepts.

Besides, an atheist working in 1960s television couldn't reveal their atheism and hope to keep their career, any more than a gay writer could've revealed their sexual orientation. In that climate, you had to conform to be accepted. So you went along with the default Christian tropes and attitudes of the expected audience (including the executives who kept you employed) even if you didn't share their beliefs yourself.

Also, one can admire the pacifist teachings of Jesus Christ without believing he was divine, and thus can use Christ or Christmas as a metaphor for the values of peace and love.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top