Voyager & Christianity/Religion
- Thread starter borg_curious
- Start date
Out of what? I don't remember entering any subforums labelled as "exodus's home". Unless you consider the VOY subforum or this thread (which you didn't even start) your private property?
"Hands of the Prophets"
In the Hands of the Prophets"Hands of the Prophets"
Riiiiight!In the Hands of the Prophets"Hands of the Prophets"
Thanks for the correction.
That you do.I'll take any opportunity I can get to seem more knowledgeable than others.
The phrase "lazy writing" itself is symptomatic. Do you really believe the climax is Harry successfully persuading Tom to change his mind? But if you do, that's not "lazy," it's grossly incompetent. Calling it "lazy" is just appealing to bbs tradition.
Also part of the bbs tradition is the automatic default to the assumption that the Voyager writers were particularly incompetent or dishonest or whatever. Contrary to the groupthink, this opinion has not been justified. The notion that it really is plausible that the Voyager writers just weren't doing what you thought, but something else, doesn't seem to be getting much thought.
You have that backwards. You ignored my point about Wang dominating the scenes. The difference is that I didn't go wtf. Harry is a minor character, so his choice is new. Paris chose to abandon his old, rascally self to save the helpless male ingenue in Caretaker. (Criticizing Non Sequitur for repeating a story would make sense, but character driven dramas love to repeat the life changing character moments. Go figure.)
The thing is, when Paris rejects Harry, it's supposed to be crushing. When Paris fulfills his natural but hidden nobility and charges to Harry's rescue, it's supposed to be thrilling. When Paris dies to save Harry, it is supposed to be tragic but exhilarating. It isn't, in my opinion, because Wang unbalances the scenes. Or perhaps I"m being too positive, and it's McNiell who can't give the scenes their proper weight. The Tom Paris moments are supposed to be the big emotional moments. That makes him the protagonist, not being in the picture. Kim was supposed to be the recipient, just like in Caretaker.
Also part of the bbs tradition is the automatic default to the assumption that the Voyager writers were particularly incompetent or dishonest or whatever. Contrary to the groupthink, this opinion has not been justified. The notion that it really is plausible that the Voyager writers just weren't doing what you thought, but something else, doesn't seem to be getting much thought.
You have that backwards. You ignored my point about Wang dominating the scenes. The difference is that I didn't go wtf. Harry is a minor character, so his choice is new. Paris chose to abandon his old, rascally self to save the helpless male ingenue in Caretaker. (Criticizing Non Sequitur for repeating a story would make sense, but character driven dramas love to repeat the life changing character moments. Go figure.)
The thing is, when Paris rejects Harry, it's supposed to be crushing. When Paris fulfills his natural but hidden nobility and charges to Harry's rescue, it's supposed to be thrilling. When Paris dies to save Harry, it is supposed to be tragic but exhilarating. It isn't, in my opinion, because Wang unbalances the scenes. Or perhaps I"m being too positive, and it's McNiell who can't give the scenes their proper weight. The Tom Paris moments are supposed to be the big emotional moments. That makes him the protagonist, not being in the picture. Kim was supposed to be the recipient, just like in Caretaker.
I forgot.
Sisko's father quotes the Bible at the end of "Far Beyond the Stars". Sisko acknowledges the origin of the passage. So we can assume at least the Sisko family believes in religion.
Isn't there also a quote in Voyager "We're lit up like a Christmas Tree!"? I think it's from "The Swarm"
It's a loose acknowledgement possably of that holiday based upon a religion.
I can quote the bible but that doesn't make me any less of a non-believer.
Your second example is like people calling vacuum cleaners hoovers.
So what?
They're still examples of Christian religion within Trek which is what the OP is asking.
This was the question.
They also asked if their were any "examples" of Christian faith in Trek.
I feel I addressed it by giving examples of Christian beliefs being mentioned in Trek.
I don't see the question as asking if they "believe", only if there is any display pertaining to the faith.
Jadzia on DS9 didn't believe in the Prophets but yet she prayed to them anyway.
Janeway didn't believe in religion in "Scared Ground" but she came to understand faith regardless.
THIS IS INSIDIOUS.
I'm totally with Orwell on this one, the English language and popular idioms are designed to support a love and appreciation of the Christian god... Some of the "god-related" phrases erupting from my mouth often make me want to wash my gob out with soap.
Whether this INFECTION would carry through to the 24th century despite all the pews being burnt for firewood during the decades of atomic winter after WWIII and the notion of Jesus' ressurection becoming nothing but a foot note from a savage era, or the authors of all this sciencefiction are not quite as strictly secular as they want the world they are writing to be, I'm not overly sure.
Yeah, there is.
Although that's a bit of internal inconsistency, since Paris seemed to be unaware of the tradition of Christmas trees when he said, "we're tethered to some kind of large plant," in "Death Wish."
Despite being obsessed with 20th century cinema?
I suspect that Tom's ignorance isn't unfamiliarity with Christmas trees, as much as the context he found it in. He's on the Bridge of a 700,000 metric ton Starship with 15 decks and the ability to cruise at warp 9.975. Staring up at the screen to see yourself attached to a "plant" would be disconerting to say the least. realizing you are an ornament on said plant would have been a leap of logic the 2nd season Voyagers wouldn't yet be able to make.
Well that at least explains his friendship with Harry.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
