• 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!

The Reality of Star Trek

Or, there's the variation on the Golden Rule: Do one unto others, before they do one unto you.
 
The Christian message is "treat others as you would like to be treated": the idea of people having different wants or needs is out of question. Your values are everybody's values, and if people don't follow them, then they are actively rejecting your values, instead of simply following their own. Your religion is the solid centre of the universe, and everybody moves in relation to it: towards, against, or around it. You want to be a good Christian, so everybody must want to be a good Christian. I mean, who wouldn't want that, right? Wrong.

The humanist message, on the other hand, is: treat others as they want to be treated. Take an interest in people. Allow for differences. Be kind, but don't be overbearing. Treat them with respect. Don't ever think you know what people want or need. Or, more succinctly, "don't be a douche".

I'm sorry, but you're making a distinction without a difference in the way 99.9% of people understand and mean that quote. "Treat others as you would like to be treated" can be just as succinctly summed up as "don't be a douche" (or in the immortal words of the Prophets Bill and Ted - "Be awesome to each other").

As you say, you can't know from the outset what people want or need - but you can know that you wouldn't want them to be a dick to you, so you show them kindness and respect and allow the differences you would hope they allow for you. It ties right in with "love your neighbor as yourself." (The real problem is that both assume people care for themselves - it doesn't have much directly to offer the disconsolate, the depressed, and the self-loathing.)

some of that essential content from the bible:

Is this really gonna turn into some sort of proof-texting thing? You realize that the abolition movement in the US had massive religious support, just as the pro-slavery position did?
 
yes i do realize, it was just because someone upthread seems to believe that biblical prophesies are reality so i thought ''what would richard dawkins do?'' and decided it would be good to point out something reprehensible from the bible.
 
The Christian message is "treat others as you would like to be treated": the idea of people having different wants or needs is out of question. (...)

The humanist message, on the other hand, is: treat others as they want to be treated.
I'm sorry, but you're making a distinction without a difference in the way 99.9% of people understand and mean that quote.
Well, being pedant in religious discussions is kinda my shtick. :lol:

What I wanted was to stress the point that the "Christian message" is one of moral absolutes. The humanist message is one of ethical relativism. (Which is not necessarily one of amorality or ethical nihilism, but I know you know that.)
 
So what I hear you saying is, you'd fit right in with the fundygelicals in religious discussion? :devil: runs

For me, I'm willing to accept "Don't be a douche" as an absolute moral principal - even if I screw up, of course. ;) I think if everybody had that as their only absolute, we'd do okay.
 
I used to get Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some Spanish-speaking missionaries come by and try to save my soul. Since I'm a preacher's kid, and know what I believe, I used to banter with them and listen to the pitch. Then I'd tell them they're wasting their time on me. Eventually word must have gotten around, because I was never bothered again on their trips through the apartment complex.
 
^^ Probably your raw sexual magnetism making them question things too much. :shifty:
Undoubtedly that's it. Though only the panhandlers pay attention to me when I'm hobbling up the street. Never any foxy babes. Come to think of it, I've never seen a foxy babe in this neighborhood in the last seven years.

Though a couple of months ago, I was waiting for the light to change to walk across the street and some old weirdo came up to me. He started talking about the cane I walk with (which is metal). He started telling me I needed to use baby oil on the cane, and started rubbing his hand across my back. :wtf:
Fortunately the light changed, so I could say "Gotta go" rather than knock his block off.
 
Gene Roddenberry (who also didn't understand the symbolic meaning of Eucharist and assumed this to be a cannibalistic ritual).
I guess you never heard of sarcasm.

How, I'm practicing it all the time when I meet people I feel to be deliberately mean. :rolleyes:

But the one thing I don't have to guess is that it's obvious you did not know the context of that statement and were just trying to be - sarcastic :confused:

"It was Communion time where you eat this wafer and you are eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood. My first impression was "Jesus Christ! This is a bunch of cannibals they've put me down among!" For some time I puzzled over this and puzzled over why they were saying these things, because the connection between what they were saying and reality was very tenuous. How the hell did Jesus become something to be eaten?"

Star Trek Creator by David Alexander (introduction by Majel Barrett Roddenberry), page 37

Gene Roddenbery continues how this was the crucial point in his life that made it "clear" to him "that religion was largely nonsense."

Obviously symbolism was a concept completely alien to him, therefore I find this kind of hilarious misinterpretation rather sad.

Bob
 
Wow.... I do consider myself something of a cynic and pragmatist... but that's probably why Trek appeals to me. There's a hope for a better future.
 
Gene Roddenbery continues how this was the crucial point in his life that made it "clear" to him "that religion was largely nonsense."

Obviously symbolism was a concept completely alien to him, therefore I find this kind of hilarious misinterpretation rather sad.
I think it more likely that he thoroughly understood the concept of transubstantiation.
 
You're ignoring that Star Trek, particularly in its later forms, tells us that a Third World War (which nearly destroyed humanity), and first contact with aliens caused the people of Earth to re-evaluate their goals and they joined together to improve themselves and society.

If the first two world wars didn't do it, what makes you think a third one would? Is it the old saying, "Three time's the charm"? Then I can understand where you are coming from as far as how Star Trek Universe comes into being, but again, reality does paint a different picture.

WWI and WWII did not affect every country in the same way nor equally. For example, in the USA...there was no combat here. Sure the people served in Europe and Asia and elsewhere. But, there was no actual damage done EVERYWHERE on the planet. If THAT were to happen...and the devastation literally covered the entire planet...we'd probably HAVE to ban together to help fix it.

For example...I live right next to NYC, therefore what happened on 9/11 was a bigger deal for me and the people who live in the vicinity. Did it affect the whole country? Yes, but not as much as it affected the people who were IN the building, like my cousin...or me who could look out my window and literally SEE it.

If the Star Trek's version of WWIII is actually devastation to EVERYONE and not just a cluster of people, yeah I think it could change how people think.

And contact with aliens? We would finally realize how freakin' small we are compared to the rest of the universe.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top