Voyager & Christianity/Religion

[stj]

^^^Withholding the protagonist is an unusual writing choice, but Voyager had a lot of variety. Alternate Tom, who is to be identified with regular Tom, is the one who makes a choice to engage in action. And it was Alt Tom who made the big climactic choice to make the last heroic act of self-sacrifice. Tom was the hero. That suffering hero fantasy is kind of boring actually, but Paris fans speak of how the episode perked up for them when their guy shows up. The character who makes the climactic choice is the protagonist.

Viewers sometimes wonder why Harry so unhesitatingly determines to return to Voyager. But the story is not interested in why Harry does this, because it is not about Harry. If it were it would explore his choice. And make his return rather more due to his own heroic efforts than it is.
This story is about what Alt Tom is like and whether he chooses to help Harry. Since the Kim character was, as the Chinese guy, relatively unformed, this episode henceforward determined his character as relentlessly dutiful and very bright (the Cochran Medal and so on.)

PS Alter Ego starts off seeming to be about Harry too. But Tim Russ could hold his own, plus Kim was off from about halfway in till the denouement, so no one gets confused as to "whose" episode that is.

 

[Harvey]

I thought Harry Kim was supposed to be the Korean guy, but in the end I suppose he's so unformed that he's really just the Asian guy. And it turns out he's from South Carolina anyway, so really he's just another American in the awfully Western Federation. But that's a broader critique to be made elsewhere.

Harry's quick decision to return to the Delta Quadrant strikes me as lazy writing rather than a deliberate attempt to make the episode about Alternate Tom Paris. Harry does justify his decision: he states that it would be unfair for him to have the life that he wants if it means giving Tom Paris and Danny Byrd (the poor schmuck who takes Harry's place on Voyager) a crooked cue in this universe. But he doesn't seem to spend any time at all agonizing over the decision, which is a tad unbelievable, since he's handed everything that he wants from life in this alternate universe.

(Alternate) Tom Paris being the protagonist seems to hinge on his final decision of self-sacrifice. The fact that he is withheld as a character does not eliminate him as protagonist--such a move, after all, works perfectly well in Psycho. But even though Tom makes the ultimate sacrifice, he never becomes the central character. That's still Harry Kim, from beginning to end. The episode never cuts away from Kim's perspective--he's the center of every scene. Thus, the ending isn't about whether Tom chooses to help Harry, but whether Harry has convinced Tom (and, to a lesser degree, Libby) to help him.

As for Alter Ego, even Memory Alpha can't remind me of anything more than a passing remembrance of the episode. So I can't comment.

 

[DevilEyes]

Through a story about... a woman who came back from the dead, and an entire species based on people coming back from the dead?

When Ballard asks why she was sent on the mission that ended with her death, she doesn't stay for the reply. Although dead soldiers by their silence ask us why they died, there is no answering them, for they are dead. The scene is otherwise inexplicable.

Why else does Ballard refuse to stay, except that there is no coming back from the dead? At best, there is a chance to say goodbye before going into the darkness (dramatized by the Kim subplot.) Ballard has to go, because as the episode says, there is no coming back from the dead. Only if she stayed would the episode say differently.

Except for the fact that she is, you know, walking and talking and living. So... what is it? Afterlife?

You're still saying that an episode about people being revived and living after they have died is trying to say that there is no life after death?

And you really don't see a problem with that?

As for a species that reproduces by reviving the dead of other species? However could such a thing possibly exist? In the early days of their civilization, how could they revive the dead? How could they reproduce enough to survive at all? Plainly, this is just gibberish designed to turn an impossible premise into science fiction, i.e., something fantastic but somehow still a natural part of our world.

So, you're saying that the the premise of the episode is absurd?

If you didn't understand the episode, you shouldn't post at all, much less be rude.

Oh, so you understood the episode... the same episode which you find absurd?

So, are you saying that the point of the episode is to be absurd? Or what?

If you didn't understand the episode, you shouldn't post at all, much less be rude.

Then why are you doing it?

 

[stj]

Ballard is dead at the end of the episode, and not coming back. There's some Koballi female but she's just been born. She's not Ballard. Ballard doesn't get an after life. Ballard is gone. So, yeah, this episode does say you don't get to come back from the dead.

The premise is absurd if taken literally, which is why I don't take it literally. You seem to, although you nay just want to be quarrelsome. Viewing this episode as some sort of serious exploration of the scifi idea of coming back from the dead (or a species reproducing from the floating in space dead of other species,) strikes me as really obtuse.

As for Non Sequitur, the way the episode ignores Harry angst over returning to Voyager vs. the life of Riley really seems to me a strikingly powerful piece of evidence the story isn't about Kim. As does a friendly alien telling him how to get back. As for lazy writing, yes, I suppose you could ignore the possibility the story is about Paris. Then by that assumption, Harry's decision to return and the ease with which he does it would be "lazy." And having the so-called climax being whether Harry is persuasive enough means the crisis is resolved by someone else. Truly "lazy" writing indeed! Really I think this is a case of not seeing what's actually on screen and repeating lazy criticisms that are just bbs groupthink.

 

[DevilEyes]

Ballard is dead at the end of the episode, and not coming back. There's some Koballi female but she's just been born. She's not Ballard. Ballard doesn't get an after life. Ballard is gone. So, yeah, this episode does say you don't get to come back from the dead.

The premise is absurd if taken literally, which is why I don't take it literally. You seem to, although you nay just want to be quarrelsome. Viewing this episode as some sort of serious exploration of the scifi idea of coming back from the dead (or a species reproducing from the floating in space dead of other species,) strikes me as really obtuse.

Seeing this episode as some sort of anti-religious statement about the existence of afterlife strikes me as really obtuse. The only way one could see it this way is if one really wants to see it that way and is clutching at straws. And if that's what the writers actually intended... then they are really obtuse, because it doesn't make any sense.

For starters, the statement that "there is some Koballi female, but she is not Ballard" is not supported by anything in the episode. She originated from revived Ballard, she acts like Ballard, she has memories of being Ballard and living her life, everyone who knew her believes that this is Ballard. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Unless we know better than the characters on the show, because we saw the real Ballard in so many previous episodes and we figured that there were too many differences for her to be the same person... Oh wait! We had never actually seen her before.

Furthermore, saying that her inability to come back to her old life as Ballard is some kind of statement against the existence of afterlife is a non sequitur. Among all sorts of beliefs about afterlife from various Earth cultures, I cannot think of one that postulates that afterlife consists of the individual coming back to the living and continuing to live exactly the same life they had before they died. Most, of not all, of the beliefs involve the individual either having an afterlife in another place, away from the living (even the Egyptians, whose concept of afterlife was pretty much the same as the life that the individuals lead before death, built tombs for them, rather than expecting them to pop up back and continue their life among the living), and/or in a different form, or in another realm of existence. So, if the idea of the episode was to negate the idea of afterlife, it's a very strange execution, as it seems rather to support the opposite.

If one actually wanted to write and shoot an episode that spoke against the idea of life after death... well, here's a thought: it should not feature people continuing their existence after death.

 

[Harvey]

Really I think this is a case of not seeing what's actually on screen and repeating lazy criticisms that are just bbs groupthink.

BBS groupthink? The two of us are having a tangential debate in which no other posters seem to be participating in. And you accuse me of lazy criticisms?

You claim that Harry can't be the central character because his decision to return to his own universe is made with such ease. You then conclude that Tom must be the central character. How, then, is Tom's decision to help Harry any different? It's made entirely off screen.

You also ignored my earlier criticisms about the range of narration in the episode. From beginning to end, it is restricted almost exclusively to what Harry experiences. There are two exceptions: the brief shot after Harry has left Chez Sandrine's, which keys the audience onto the fact that Cosimo is keeping tabs on Harry, and the technobabble-filled coda on the bridge of the USS Voyager. Neither instance shifts the range of narration to the Alternate version of Tom Paris, who, by the way, doesn't appear until 21 minutes have elapsed and afterwards, only intermittently. Tom, not unlike Libby and Cosimo, has a supplementary role in service of the protagonist's goals. And that would be Harry Kim, trying to get home to his own timeline.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I think the episode was called second sight? Sisko is stalked by a sexy ghost played by Eureka's Sally Richardson, and commentary from one of the cast qhich I had read, can't recall which one, on the episode was: "Why would anyone think that Sisko was insane? it's the 24th century, space ghosts and time slips and pandimensional crosstime aliens manifest all the time, it's just a sign of the times."

Why didn't Kim try to get Voyager "home" in that new universe from the AQ? I mean it's unlikely he would do bollocks all decent extra help to after being flung back to alien space where he beleived he was fated to beleong, but there on earth we are to think that kim couldn't have started half a dozen "Voyager Projects" up and running to save the day years earlier and perhaps better than Barclay who hardly has the charisma to talk a republican in buying a gun?

Assuming that daniel Byrd hadn't got the crew killed or a lack of paris got them killed.

"Sigh"

Kim was actually afraid of being locked up in the sanitorium on Elba II.

 

[Deckerd]

I recall Uhura saying how ace the SON cult was in TOS: Bread and Circuses, so it's not like they hate Religion.

Although, I do wonder if the surviving Christians in the 24th century use psychedelic VR machines to facilitate their religion by manifestation a technological representation of their soul like Chakotay does with his? Which sounds like a revival of the medieval self flagellation monks used to go about to be closer to their saviour.

I wonder if the Amish are still about?

I mean they're purpose built to survive the fall of the modern world.

Gods.

Think of the distopic recruiting drive they could go on after the fallout settles from WWIII? "You be like us or you can continue living in a cave and starving to death."

Although?

After the Eugenics war, and WWIII, you have to wonder exactly what thenafter would pass for the end of days that the callused Christians waiting for salvation after all the revelations would even notice god closing up shop as anything but par for the course.

thenafter?

 

[Guy Gardener]

Write enough fanfiction about timetravel and you have to invent the tenses which explain things properly.

I'm hoping "thenafter" will catch on.

 

[JanewayRulz!]

TORRES: That's an absurd example.
JANEWAY: You want to simulate a near death experience so you can revisit the Barge of Death, and you're telling me what's absurd? Bottom line, B'Elanna. I'm not going to let you risk your life for this.



Hmmm. I don't think we have to worry about bbs group think, as much as group "misconstrue". ;-)

 

[Teiwaz]

In Ds9, the Bajorans refer to the Federation as 'Souless' on a number of occassions, which would give the impression that they certainly see no signs of religion among the starfleet personnel. The whole evolution versus creation was dealt with in that episode (name escapes me for the moment and I can't be bothered pawing through my DVDs looking for it) where Vedek Winn confronts Mrs O'Brien about the teaching about the wormhole without the prophets. By the outcome of the episode, it's obvious which 'side' the writers and producers came down on.

Overall I don't think Star Trek deals with matters of spirituality or metaphysics in any great detail, it you want that in your Sci Fi, probably best to watch Babylon5, or even better, read Frank Herberts Dune, (I'd suggest God Emperor of Dune, that book is SOO deep).

 

[Guy Gardener]

TORRES: That's an absurd example.
JANEWAY: You want to simulate a near death experience so you can revisit the Barge of Death, and you're telling me what's absurd? Bottom line, B'Elanna. I'm not going to let you risk your life for this.



Hmmm. I don't think we have to worry about bbs group think, as much as group "misconstrue". ;-)

Janeway obviously wanted to delete the wife again because of her re-emerging feelings for that lightly balding Paris helmboy kid.

 

[Teiwaz]

Really I think this is a case of not seeing what's actually on screen and repeating lazy criticisms that are just bbs groupthink.

BBS groupthink? The two of us are having a tangential debate in which no other posters seem to be participating in. And you accuse me of lazy criticisms?

You claim that Harry can't be the central character because his decision to return to his own universe is made with such ease. You then conclude that Tom must be the central character. How, then, is Tom's decision to help Harry any different? It's made entirely off screen.

You also ignored my earlier criticisms about the range of narration in the episode. From beginning to end, it is restricted almost exclusively to what Harry experiences. There are two exceptions: the brief shot after Harry has left Chez Sandrine's, which keys the audience onto the fact that Cosimo is keeping tabs on Harry, and the technobabble-filled coda on the bridge of the USS Voyager. Neither instance shifts the range of narration to the Alternate version of Tom Paris, who, by the way, doesn't appear until 21 minutes have elapsed and afterwards, only intermittently. Tom, not unlike Libby and Cosimo, has a supplementary role in service of the protagonist's goals. And that would be Harry Kim, trying to get home to his own timeline.

Talk about Technobabble - I did'nt understand a word of this, perhaps my translater is malfunctioning.

 

[DevilEyes]

In Ds9, the Bajorans refer to the Federation as 'Souless' on a number of occassions, which would give the impression that they certainly see no signs of religion among the starfleet personnel. The whole evolution versus creation was dealt with in that episode (name escapes me for the moment and I can't be bothered pawing through my DVDs looking for it) where Vedek Winn confronts Mrs O'Brien about the teaching about the wormhole without the prophets. By the outcome of the episode, it's obvious which 'side' the writers and producers came down on.

Which 'side' of what? Freedom to teach science in schools vs having religious leaders ban it? Well, duh, of course they were going to support the former alternative - I certainly don't expect Trek writers to be (and it would be very disturbing if they were) advocates of fundamentalist theocracy...

Unless you're referring to a religion vs atheism debate - in which case, you're wrong.

SISKO: Sure. I heard about what happened at school. Did Mrs O'Brien call off classes?
JAKE: No. There was only me and four other kids left, but she still kept the school open. She changed the lesson to teach us about Galileo. Did you know that he was tried by the Inquisition for teaching that the Earth moved around the sun?
SISKO: Tried and convicted. His books were burned.
JAKE: How could anyone be so stupid?
SISKO: It's easy to look back seven centuries and judge what was right and wrong.
JAKE: But the same thing is happening now with all this stuff about the Celestial Temple in the wormhole. It's dumb.
SISKO: No, it's not. You've got to realise something, Jake. For over fifty years, the one thing that allowed the Bajorans to survive the Cardassian occupation was their faith. The Prophets were their only source of hope and courage.
JAKE: But there were no Prophets. They were just some aliens that you found in the wormhole.
SISKO: To those aliens, the future is no more difficult to see than the past. Why shouldn't they be considered Prophets?
JAKE: Are you serious?
SISKO: My point is, it's a matter of interpretation. It may not be what you believe, but that doesn't make it wrong. If you start to think that way, you'll be acting just like Vedek Winn, only from the other side. We can't afford to think that way, Jake. We'd lose everything we've worked for here.

(DS9 In the Hands of the Prophets)

 

[Kai Winn]

i hated this dialogue. what kept the bajorans running was the hope to get rid of the cardassians, their insurgency had this objective, not to reinstate the wormhole aliens.
50 years of doing nothing on the part of the wormhole aliens should have convinced many bajorans that their prophets either don't exist, or don't care.
survival instinct is a build-in property of life.
it's ok to keep the mind open, but not to teach religion in science classes like mrs. o'brien's. mrs. winn can feel free to establish a prayer room aboard the station, and keep mrs. o'brien out there. atheist don't have the habit to lecture their view of the world in churches, anyway.
what's the big deal about the prophets being sort of timeless? time eludes definition. it could well be that time is not a property of the universe, but a human invention.

 

[exodus]

Ballard is dead at the end of the episode, and not coming back. There's some Koballi female but she's just been born. She's not Ballard. Ballard doesn't get an after life. Ballard is gone. So, yeah, this episode does say you don't get to come back from the dead.

The premise is absurd if taken literally, which is why I don't take it literally. You seem to, although you nay just want to be quarrelsome. Viewing this episode as some sort of serious exploration of the scifi idea of coming back from the dead (or a species reproducing from the floating in space dead of other species,) strikes me as really obtuse.

Seeing this episode as some sort of anti-religious statement about the existence of afterlife strikes me as really obtuse. The only way one could see it this way is if one really wants to see it that way and is clutching at straws. And if that's what the writers actually intended... then they are really obtuse, because it doesn't make any sense.

For starters, the statement that "there is some Koballi female, but she is not Ballard" is not supported by anything in the episode. She originated from revived Ballard, she acts like Ballard, she has memories of being Ballard and living her life, everyone who knew her believes that this is Ballard. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Unless we know better than the characters on the show, because we saw the real Ballard in so many previous episodes and we figured that there were too many differences for her to be the same person... Oh wait! We had never actually seen her before.

Furthermore, saying that her inability to come back to her old life as Ballard is some kind of statement against the existence of afterlife is a non sequitur. Among all sorts of beliefs about afterlife from various Earth cultures, I cannot think of one that postulates that afterlife consists of the individual coming back to the living and continuing to live exactly the same life they had before they died. Most, of not all, of the beliefs involve the individual either having an afterlife in another place, away from the living (even the Egyptians, whose concept of afterlife was pretty much the same as the life that the individuals lead before death, built tombs for them, rather than expecting them to pop up back and continue their life among the living), and/or in a different form, or in another realm of existence. So, if the idea of the episode was to negate the idea of afterlife, it's a very strange execution, as it seems rather to support the opposite.

If one actually wanted to write and shoot an episode that spoke against the idea of life after death... well, here's a thought: it should not feature people continuing their existence after death.

It sounds to me like you're missing his point.

What happened is another version of what we know happens to Trills that are joined. As when know, when I Trill is joined w/ a symbiote they must leave the life and connections of the previous host behind. Jadzia isn't Curzon, no matter how many of his memories he retains. Ballard isn't Ballard anymore, no matter how many memories she retains. It's supported by the ep. when the Kabilli come for her at the end and she accepts that the life she had has Ballard is no more and she must accept a new life as Kabilli. Even many ythat believe in re-incarnation don't believe you come back as yourself. Many don't believe you retain all the memories of your past life either.

It's questionable that the story implies no afterlife because if their was, her body would contain no soul. However, she in her new form is alive and well. If there is an afterlife, then what is animating her body. This new being still contains Ballards "soul" because it has her memories yet phyically isn't her anymore. So it can be assumed Ballards essance never crossed over to an afterlife.

So it's not obtuse, it just depends on what your faith or belief in an afterlife is.

 

[DevilEyes]

Ballard is dead at the end of the episode, and not coming back. There's some Koballi female but she's just been born. She's not Ballard. Ballard doesn't get an after life. Ballard is gone. So, yeah, this episode does say you don't get to come back from the dead.

The premise is absurd if taken literally, which is why I don't take it literally. You seem to, although you nay just want to be quarrelsome. Viewing this episode as some sort of serious exploration of the scifi idea of coming back from the dead (or a species reproducing from the floating in space dead of other species,) strikes me as really obtuse.

Seeing this episode as some sort of anti-religious statement about the existence of afterlife strikes me as really obtuse. The only way one could see it this way is if one really wants to see it that way and is clutching at straws. And if that's what the writers actually intended... then they are really obtuse, because it doesn't make any sense.

For starters, the statement that "there is some Koballi female, but she is not Ballard" is not supported by anything in the episode. She originated from revived Ballard, she acts like Ballard, she has memories of being Ballard and living her life, everyone who knew her believes that this is Ballard. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Unless we know better than the characters on the show, because we saw the real Ballard in so many previous episodes and we figured that there were too many differences for her to be the same person... Oh wait! We had never actually seen her before.

Furthermore, saying that her inability to come back to her old life as Ballard is some kind of statement against the existence of afterlife is a non sequitur. Among all sorts of beliefs about afterlife from various Earth cultures, I cannot think of one that postulates that afterlife consists of the individual coming back to the living and continuing to live exactly the same life they had before they died. Most, of not all, of the beliefs involve the individual either having an afterlife in another place, away from the living (even the Egyptians, whose concept of afterlife was pretty much the same as the life that the individuals lead before death, built tombs for them, rather than expecting them to pop up back and continue their life among the living), and/or in a different form, or in another realm of existence. So, if the idea of the episode was to negate the idea of afterlife, it's a very strange execution, as it seems rather to support the opposite.

If one actually wanted to write and shoot an episode that spoke against the idea of life after death... well, here's a thought: it should not feature people continuing their existence after death.

It sounds to me like you're missing his point.

What happened is another version of what we know happens to Trills that are joined. As when know, when I Trill is joined w/ a symbiote they must leave the life and connections of the previous host behind. Jadzia isn't Curzon, no matter how many of his memories he retains. Ballard isn't Ballard anymore, no matter how many memories she retains. It's supported by the ep. when the Kabilli come for her at the end and she accepts that the life she had has Ballard is no more and she must accept a new life as Kabilli. Even many ythat believe in re-incarnation don't believe you come back as yourself. Many don't believe you retain all the memories of your past life either.

It's questionable that the story implies no afterlife because if their was, her body would contain no soul. However, she in her new form is alive and well. If there is an afterlife, then what is animating her body. This new being still contains Ballards "soul" because it has her memories yet phyically isn't her anymore. So it can be assumed Ballards essance never crossed over to an afterlife.

So it's not obtuse, it just depends on what your faith or belief in an afterlife is.

Um, so first you state that she is not Ballard even though she has her memories, on the basis of her not being able to come back to her old life; and then next you state that she contains Ballard's soul?

Make up your mind!

If the reanimated Ballard is not Ballard (which I don't agree with, but that's beside the point), what does that have to do with whatever happened with the real Ballard's soul?

Even many ythat believe in re-incarnation don't believe you come back as yourself. Many don't believe you retain all the memories of your past life either.

And...? Did you miss the part when I noted that there are various different beliefs in the afterlife, but that none of them involve going back among the living the same as you were and to your old life exactly as it was before death? So how does Ballard not being able to do that make any point after the existence or non-existence of afterlife?

Apparently, you are completely missing the point: the episode says nothing about afterlife as any of the Earth religions see it. Any attempt to prove that it somehow suggests that afterlife doesn't exist ends up in a mesh of contradictions, as your and stj's posts show.

On the other hand, it is based on the premise that it's possible to reanimate a corpse and have it retain the person's memories and personality. Make of that what you will - but it's really hard to see how that premise speaks against the possibility of afterlife.

 

[exodus]

Seeing this episode as some sort of anti-religious statement about the existence of afterlife strikes me as really obtuse. The only way one could see it this way is if one really wants to see it that way and is clutching at straws. And if that's what the writers actually intended... then they are really obtuse, because it doesn't make any sense.

For starters, the statement that "there is some Koballi female, but she is not Ballard" is not supported by anything in the episode. She originated from revived Ballard, she acts like Ballard, she has memories of being Ballard and living her life, everyone who knew her believes that this is Ballard. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Unless we know better than the characters on the show, because we saw the real Ballard in so many previous episodes and we figured that there were too many differences for her to be the same person... Oh wait! We had never actually seen her before.

Furthermore, saying that her inability to come back to her old life as Ballard is some kind of statement against the existence of afterlife is a non sequitur. Among all sorts of beliefs about afterlife from various Earth cultures, I cannot think of one that postulates that afterlife consists of the individual coming back to the living and continuing to live exactly the same life they had before they died. Most, of not all, of the beliefs involve the individual either having an afterlife in another place, away from the living (even the Egyptians, whose concept of afterlife was pretty much the same as the life that the individuals lead before death, built tombs for them, rather than expecting them to pop up back and continue their life among the living), and/or in a different form, or in another realm of existence. So, if the idea of the episode was to negate the idea of afterlife, it's a very strange execution, as it seems rather to support the opposite.

If one actually wanted to write and shoot an episode that spoke against the idea of life after death... well, here's a thought: it should not feature people continuing their existence after death.

It sounds to me like you're missing his point.

What happened is another version of what we know happens to Trills that are joined. As when know, when I Trill is joined w/ a symbiote they must leave the life and connections of the previous host behind. Jadzia isn't Curzon, no matter how many of his memories he retains. Ballard isn't Ballard anymore, no matter how many memories she retains. It's supported by the ep. when the Kabilli come for her at the end and she accepts that the life she had has Ballard is no more and she must accept a new life as Kabilli. Even many ythat believe in re-incarnation don't believe you come back as yourself. Many don't believe you retain all the memories of your past life either.

It's questionable that the story implies no afterlife because if their was, her body would contain no soul. However, she in her new form is alive and well. If there is an afterlife, then what is animating her body. This new being still contains Ballards "soul" because it has her memories yet phyically isn't her anymore. So it can be assumed Ballards essance never crossed over to an afterlife.

So it's not obtuse, it just depends on what your faith or belief in an afterlife is.

Um, so first you state that she is not Ballard even though she has her memories, on the basis of her not being able to come back to her old life; and then next you state that she contains Ballard's soul?

Make up your mind!

If the reanimated Ballard is not Ballard (which I don't agree with, but that's beside the point), what does that have to do with whatever happened with the real Ballard's soul?

Even many ythat believe in re-incarnation don't believe you come back as yourself. Many don't believe you retain all the memories of your past life either.

And...? Did you miss the part when I noted that there are various different beliefs in the afterlife, but that none of them involve going back among the living the same as you were and to your old life exactly as it was before death? So how does Ballard not being able to do that make any point after the existence or non-existence of afterlife?

Apparently, you are completely missing the point: the episode says nothing about afterlife as any of the Earth religions see it. Any attempt to prove that it somehow suggests that afterlife doesn't exist ends up in a mesh of contradictions, as your and stj's posts show.

On the other hand, it is based on the premise that it's possible to reanimate a corpse and have it retain the person's memories and personality. Make of that what you will - but it's really hard to see how that premise speaks against the possibility of afterlife.

I'm just going to agree with stj and from your condesending tone that you just wish to be argumentitive for arguments sake. When you close blatently your mind to other points of view, it's not surprising when a lack of understanding follows.

Have a nice day.

 

[TheGodBen]

i hated this dialogue. what kept the bajorans running was the hope to get rid of the cardassians, their insurgency had this objective, not to reinstate the wormhole aliens.
50 years of doing nothing on the part of the wormhole aliens should have convinced many bajorans that their prophets either don't exist, or don't care.

I take it you haven't actually dealt with any religious people in the past then.

Religious faith has been an important aspect of nationalistic struggles for as long as there have been nationalistic struggles. Gandhi used the tenants of his Hindu faith to drive for Indian independence, the Palestinians use their faith as part of their struggle against Israel, and in my country Catholicism survived attempts by the British ruling classes to wipe it out, and when we finally achieved independence we gave undue power power to the Catholic church, with disastrous consequences. Religion is an extremely powerful motivator for some reason, so nationalist and political leaders use it to push their causes all the time.

 

[DevilEyes]

I'm just going to agree with stj and from your condesending tone that you just wish to be argumentitive for arguments sake. When you close blatently your mind to other points of view, it's not surprising when a lack of understanding follows.

Have a nice day.

Condescending tone? Blatantly closing your mind to other points of view? Ah, you mean like this:

If you didn't understand the episode, you shouldn't post at all, much less be rude.

The premise is absurd if taken literally, which is why I don't take it literally. You seem to, although you nay just want to be quarrelsome. Viewing this episode as some sort of serious exploration of the scifi idea of coming back from the dead (or a species reproducing from the floating in space dead of other species,) strikes me as really obtuse.

It sounds to me like you're missing his point.

I'm just going to agree with stj and from your condesending tone that you just wish to be argumentitive for arguments sake. When you close blatently your mind to other points of view, it's not surprising when a lack of understanding follows.

Have a nice day.

I can see your frustration. It must be so irritating when people disagree with you. They must be doing it just to be quarrelsome. There's no way they could, like, actually have a different opinion than you, when you are so obviously right! You're the only ones who understand it all, there's no doubt about that. How can people be so close-minded to not be able to see that you are right?

I'll now leave you both to enjoy in your superior 'understanding', untarnished by those irritating people who cannot see the rightness of your views. Have a nice day, too, and I hope you won't miss having nobody there you could condescend.