Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publication?

[Trent Roman]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Pf2144:
You make a good point. The Bible is written in such a way that there a lot of different, sometimes contradictory, ideas that people can take away from it. When you put together a collection of books by different authors (Albeit ones Christians believe to be inspired by God to write truth) written in different times who have different pieces of knowledge and then add to that the fact that our culture is thousands of years removed from Biblical times and that we reading translations instead of the original texts (for the most part), and it's no surprise to me that this is the case. People often take away from the Bible whatever it is that they come into it looking for. And that's why you have so many different denominations and points of view. It doesn't mean that the Bible *is* contradictary, necessarily, just that it's not hard to get different impressions from the next reader given the way it was compiled and handed down.

It has always been my opinion that all the "holy texts" of major religious movements - whether the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, etc. - contain significant "wiggle room". Indeed, I believe that is one of the key factors behind the success of those faiths. A dogma which is too rigidly laid out runs the risk of becoming obsolete by social development and scientific discoveries, embraced only by a minority of individuals. On the other hand, belief systems which have a certain degree of "vagueness" to them are more flexible, more capable of being adapted to fit current social mores. Would Christianity be the biggest religion in the world right now if it wasn't possible for the most hateful of troglodytes and the most high-minded of liberals to both find in its teaching justifications for their beliefs, and derive comfort from the fact that their views are the "correct", divinely-sanctioned ones? I do not think so.

I think legalism is in that category. Jesus quite extensively argues with the legalistic interpretations of the religious authorities of the time, who are always trying to trap him into admitteding to violating their laws. There was a time he was accused of violating the Sabath, for example, because he helped someone on that day and he told them that the Sabath was for man and not for God, for example.

You think so, and it's certainly your perogative to do so (and quite honestly, I'd concur with you in that respect), but I can see how his diatribes against legalistic interpretations could very well be interpreted as directed against the pharises and the other authorities of the time specifically rather than legalistic interpretations in general, and from that it's just a step and a bounce to creating a new legalism centered around Jesus rather than the old Jewish laws he spoke out against.

Going back to Leviticus for anything is reaching, simply because Leviticus was the main book devoted to the old Jewish law, which Paul says we aren't bound by in the New Testament. One of the main ideas behind Christianity is that the new covenant supercedes the old. I don't know a single Christian who doesn't accept Paul's proclaimation that the old Jewish law doesn't apply anymore in the post-resurrection era.

I know many. Gnostic Christianity and Jewish Christianity leap to mind particularly, but there are countless "heresies" in the development of the faith that operate around the basis of the testaments (both canonical and apocryphal) and reject the teachings of the Church Fathers (though not all - in fact, not most - advocated a return to Jewish law).

If such Christians are out there, then they'd have to follow kosher and ritual purity laws, etc., in order to be consistant. Now, if they want to do that, that's certainly their perogative and I wouldn't take issue with them claiming their religion prohibits a wide variety of things. But if they're going to accept what Paul says in the Bible, then they can't say "The old Jewish law in Leviticus doesn't apply, *except* where it reinforces my preconceived notions that homosexuality is wrong" and so forth. That doesn't make logical sense. Someone is either free from the law (Though permitted to still follow it voluntarily if they so desire) or still bound by it, if they believe the Bible to be completely accurate on spiritual matters.

I agree that such selectiveness is illogical. But as I said before, I've never been of the opinion that logic has much to do with affairs of faith.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[CharmCityCrab]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Trent_Roman:
It has always been my opinion that all the "holy texts" of major religious movements - whether the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, etc. - contain significant "wiggle room". Indeed, I believe that is one of the key factors behind the success of those faiths. A dogma which is too rigidly laid out runs the risk of becoming obsolete by social development and scientific discoveries, embraced only by a minority of individuals. On the other hand, belief systems which have a certain degree of "vagueness" to them are more flexible, more capable of being adapted to fit current social mores. Would Christianity be the biggest religion in the world right now if it wasn't possible for the most hateful of troglodytes and the most high-minded of liberals to both find in its teaching justifications for their beliefs, and derive comfort from the fact that their views are the "correct", divinely-sanctioned ones? I do not think so.

I agree with that, for the most part. I don't think such a practice is really that inconsistant with a religion being true, though. If you're God and you wanted a religion that would stand the test of time but would get your core message through to a wide number of people, wouldn't you do exactly the same thing? Like many religious-related matters, it's something that can be looked at either as a clever plan on God's part or just happenstance.

You think so, and it's certainly your perogative to do so (and quite honestly, I'd concur with you in that respect), but I can see how his diatribes against legalistic interpretations could very well be interpreted as directed against the pharises and the other authorities of the time specifically rather than legalistic interpretations in general, and from that it's just a step and a bounce to creating a new legalism centered around Jesus rather than the old Jewish laws he spoke out against.

It is the same folks who insist that every bit of the Bible is an eternal message to Christians until the end of time who attempt to say that Jesus is being specific to his time in his arguments against legalism, though. It's logically inconsistant. Arguing that he meant to specifically argue against only the Jewish legalism of circa 30AD specifically is an implicit rejection of the notion that the Bible is consistantly and in every instance meant to convey an eternal message.

Ironically, it is the more moderate or progressive religious folks like myself who tend to believe some passages in the bible are more culturally specific, or specific to a time in history -- like where Paul mentions homosexuality in the epistles (The historical and culture context is such that it is fairly likely that he considered everyone born straight and was writing in response to people asking whether homosexual rituals involving two straight people in pagan-like rituals were right, which is what he didn't like... not intending comment on people who are born homosexual engaging in monogamous relationships, which was a concept that he simply had no way of even being aware of.). It's just that in the case of Jesus' talk about legalism, it was reiterated over and over again and sometimes in such general terms that, at least to me, it's fairly clear that it was meant to indicate a general dislike of legalism, not just a dislike of Jewish legalism. Also, if one believes Jesus is God, then he exits outside of time and is going to take a more long-range perspective. Paul, on the other hand, though inspired to write spirtual messages because of a close connection with God, was not God, and was inherently limited by virtue of being a man of his time only.

but there are countless "heresies" in the development of the faith that operate around the basis of the testaments (both canonical and apocryphal) and reject the teachings of the Church Fathers (though not all - in fact, not most - advocated a return to Jewish law).

If the Church of Christ folks admitted they were taking their own approach to things, I'd have less problems with it as a denomination. My issue is mainly that they're claiming they follow the Bible exactly and really make a strong issue of that -- yet they seem to ignore large tracts of it. Then they claim they're the only real Christians, which is border-line offensive.

Side note: The "Church of Christ" is different from the "United Church of Christ". Actually, they're about as different as denominations come, the former being very conservative and the latter being very progressive. I wanted to make sure I clarified in case anyone is getting the two confused.

I agree that such selectiveness is illogical. But as I said before, I've never been of the opinion that logic has much to do with affairs of faith.

I agree that logic alone ultimately isn't going to bring many people to faith. Faith by it's nature is something seperate from logic. If something could be logically proven, it wouldn't be a matter of faith anymore. On the other hand, I believe that God gave us brains for a reason and that we're meant to apply logic to a certain extent, even when it comes to religion or reading the bible, after taking that initial leap of faith (Or to provide a stepping-stone to it).

John

 

[Trent Roman]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Posted by Pf2144:
I agree with that, for the most part. I don't think such a practice is really that inconsistant with a religion being true, though. If you're God and you wanted a religion that would stand the test of time but would get your core message through to a wide number of people, wouldn't you do exactly the same thing?

No. If I were god and wanted my religion to thrive, I would send my prophets down at regular intervals to reinforce the message (and demonstrate my divine existence with miracles), instead of sending one and then completely retreating from human affairs for the next couple of millenia.

Like many religious-related matters, it's something that can be looked at either as a clever plan on God's part or just happenstance.

I don't see it as either. From my perspective (freethinker, social scientist), these faiths survive in part because of that flexibility, while more rigid or less accessible faiths die out, or never achieve numbers of any great importance. The pattern is neither divinely-influenced nor coincidence, but rather a result of causality.

It is the same folks who insist that every bit of the Bible is an eternal message to Christians until the end of time who attempt to say that Jesus is being specific to his time in his arguments against legalism, though. It's logically inconsistant.

So is conception of omnipotence, from my standpoint. Faith defies contradictions, leads people to believe what they wouldn't otherwise rationally accept. It wouldn't be faith otherwise. How one arrives to those beliefs is secondary or irrelevant, because faith seems to superceed objective knowledge.

It's just that in the case of Jesus' talk about legalism, it was reiterated over and over again and sometimes in such general terms that, at least to me, it's fairly clear that it was meant to indicate a general dislike of legalism, not just a dislike of Jewish legalism. Also, if one believes Jesus is God, then he exits outside of time and is going to take a more long-range perspective.

But like I said, that's your belief, your interpretation. I've read the same book you have, and while I'm inclined to think as you do that the anti-legalistic arguments were meant to be general, I don't see how it must be the case that any reasonable reader would come away with that impression. And, of course, there are plenty who are not reasonable, in the sense of being irrational, or perhaps rather arational. But since faith is about belief and not about reason, the mindset of the viewer makes no difference.

If the Church of Christ folks admitted they were taking their own approach to things, I'd have less problems with it as a denomination. My issue is mainly that they're claiming they follow the Bible exactly and really make a strong issue of that -- yet they seem to ignore large tracts of it. Then they claim they're the only real Christians, which is border-line offensive.

Conversely, I'm sure members of the Church of Christ find it border-line offensive to see those who, in their eyes, are heathens and pagans, are claiming to be Christian. From their perspective, not only are these other groups appropriating their faith for something that clearly isn't, but they are also endangering the eternal souls of themselves and others through these brands of imitation-Christianity that do not lead to salvation. It's been my experience that any statement of a religious nature is bound to piss somebody off.

I agree that logic alone ultimately isn't going to bring many people to faith. Faith by it's nature is something seperate from logic. If something could be logically proven, it wouldn't be a matter of faith anymore. On the other hand, I believe that God gave us brains for a reason and that we're meant to apply logic to a certain extent, even when it comes to religion or reading the bible, after taking that initial leap of faith (Or to provide a stepping stone).

It's quite possible CoC members would agree with you - where you differ is only in the size of that leap, the extent of material in which one should trust in faith rather than logic. To them, you begin to apply logic too early - to you, they apply it too late.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[kv1at3485]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Aren't we getting a "bit" off topic here? If this is so, I'd think it'd be wise to close this thread now before it gets out of hand.

 

[SlaveOfSeven]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

Threads frequently go off topic here, but it's not the busiest of fora, so I think we can accommodate a little off topicness, particularly as the original question was answered.

 

[Starlock]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

I'm surprised that a thread in TNZ wasn't started yet.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why Did Star Trek:The Magazine Cease Publicati

For a while it looked like we had "Dueling Daytons" going here.

 

[FalTorPan]

Posted by Dayton3:
Star Trek:The Magazine... had all sorts of interesting features as compared to the "see no evil, hear no evil" Star Trek:Communicator.

And Star Trek Communicator's supposedly "see no evil, hear no evil" take to the franchise differs from Star Trek: The Magazine how?

Posted by Dayton3:
I've hated the Communicator from the first gushing "Trek is great, you are great, Paramount is just great" so called INTERVIEW that they conducted with Rick Berman.

Don't worry. I'm sure that a magazine that plainly states for all (including you) to see that it's a Paramount-authorized publication will one day contain a bashing "Trek is crap, you are crap, Paramount is just great" so-called interview with Rick Berman.

Posted by Dayton3:
Dan Madsen should be ashamed of the magazine rather than continuing to contribute to it.

Why?

Posted by Dayton3:
And I'm convinced that they censor the letters and make an effort to screen out letters highly critical of Star Trek (though one of mine made it in there).

Of course. Why would you expect otherwise?