Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Knight Templar, Oct 7, 2012.
On a tv show they ought to.
I would love to see how the universal translator handles a Pentecostal speaking in tongues.
it comes out in Klingon...
You've got me rolling in the question, and the answer!
On a halfway serious note: one of the Chaplains who works for me is, herself, Pentecostal. I believe she would state that the interpretation was invalid.
It was just as "civil" as one with an agenda making sweeping, insulting generalizations such as Longinus posting:
Funny how you missed that in your defense of any statement about atheist behavior.
But if you were not so woefully one-sided, you would picked up on another of Longinus' insulting, loose-minded posts:
No...you missed that too while playing armchair defender. Not only was the above quote revealing a glaring ignorance of historical record, but lowering said record to that of genuine myth only proves agenda leads his every thought--the very reason he tried to re-script a stated religious belief/practice even in the fictional Star Trek III.
Let's see if you will attempt to spin the quotes as being something other than part of his long list of hostile posts regarding religion.
This should be good.
Um, why is saying that isulting?
That is exactly what believing that prayer can affect physical world is. (It is different thing to pray for courage, patience, peace of mind, etc, things that only affect the mental state of person praying.)
Again, why is this insulting? Religions will have cultural effects long after they're finished as actual religions. This should be obvious to everyone, especially at the time of Christmas. It was an old pagan holiday, coöpted by Christianity, and now it is completely non-religious holiday in many places.
You seem to have an odd idea that Christianity is somehow different than those old religions that are now gone? That those were myths and Christianity is true. Isn't that kinda insulting to all those thousands of people of the past that prayed Zeus and Apollo with equal piety and conviction than you pray to your god? Isn't it insulting to (admittedly very few) neo-pagans that pray to those ancient gods today?
You are not in a position to isolate the effects of prayer to being something only affecting state of mind, as you have no grounds to form a judgement--and you reject the efficacy/reality of the opposite, so you are truly operating from a position of ignorance.
From the post above, it is clear your are so driven by a hatred of Christianity, that you ignore any historical records (or i'm suspecting do not know beyond what certain atheist "heroes" spun/groped around) which exist apart from scripture--a far different situation than the pagans you refer to. Your every post in this thread has been a study in hostility--even to the extent of trying to rewrite a plain-as-day series of statements/actions in the STIII script in a failed stab at reducing a clearly religious belief/action/result to something scientific--not even remotely suggested by the script or released film.
When you go that far, you are making it rather easy for others to spot your agenda, so it should come as no surprise when you are called out regarding your bitter stand.
No I'm not. This matter has been studied, if you don't agree with the conclusions, that is hardly my problem.
Furthermore, am I also operating from position of ignorance if I claim that broken mirrors do not actually cause seven years of misfortune?
And did you even read the dictionary entry for 'superstition'? It describes exactly a prayer affecting the world. Which part of it do you not agree with?
Now, one could argue that having superstitions is not such a bad thing, and could even be beneficial in certain conditions, but that is another matter.
Some of the biblical stories are based on historical events, some are not. So what? That hardly matters when judging the veracity of the supernatural elements. Jesus probably existed (albeit, the evidence is rather slim outside the Bible), that no way means he actually was a god. Egyptian Pharaohs were believed to be gods, I don't thing they were either.
But this is indeed as Xhiandra said: certain religious people take an offence when other people do not recognise the special status of their beliefs. Your stance is rather arrogant, not only towards atheists, but to people of other faiths as well.
If you are so insulted by me calling your religion a myth, why should not pagans be equally offended by you deeming theirs a myth?
I remember it was you who started to make up conjectures about transferring of the Katra not actually being transferring of the Katra or something like that...
In any case, what is going on in that film is vague, and I am sure that as human beings we view it though own our paradigms, interpreting it differently. To me it seemed to be perfectly natural continuation of whole Vulcan telepathy/mind meld business, and I've never seen that as any way 'magical' either.
You are mistaken. I am not hostile, nor bitter. It is you who sees grave insults in an ordinary conversation.
I haven't read this thread, but the answer is this: GR was an atheist. He thought that "evolved humans" would have no need for religion. That's the long and the short of it.
The fact that there is a chapel on the Enterprise is easily explained away and I'm sure it has been discussed to death in this thread and elsewhere.
It would be more accurate to say that GR was atheist toward the end of his life, the last several years.
That it is an actual chapel would likely be the most straight forward explanation.
Yes, there was one. Hard to prove that Roddenberry didn't agree with it, unless someone has an actual record about his opinion on it.
Although it is very easily to imagine, that a TV show, a 60s sci-fi program of all things, has a very hard time generating ratings.
They try to appeal to a mostly christian audience, I think this much is undisputed.
So a TV Exec at the time reads the draft, reads the wedding scene in Balance of Terror and schedules the stage prop guys to produce a starship chapel, because it doesn't even occur to him that it might be a future without organized religion.
Seriously, a christian TV Exec who wants to sell his show to a 90% christian audience (presumably) would NOT imagine it any other way.
The second an atheist Roddenberry found out about it, he might protest, but a schedule to build the set has already been issued and the Exec would put the idea of no christianity in the future down anyway, cause he doesn't want to risk losing what scarce viewers they have.
Entirely speculated on my part, but given what I know about the time and circumstances very likely.
Regarding the effectiveness of prayers.
Please go and take a look at www.whydoesntgodhealamputees.com.
Excellent prayer study and statistical evidence.
The gist of it is, apparently prayers only ever appear to have any effect at all, when the circumstances are ambiguous enough to allow a statistical glitch which then get's called a miracle.
For example 500 cancer patients praying to be cured. then a few of them indeed get healthy again. of course obviously God did it, never mind the scientifically sound methods of chemo, whatever other cancer treatments modern medicine has come up by now or even your own immune system fighting the cancer of and it going into remission.
As soon as any ambiguity is gone, like an amputee praying to jesus/god/allah/flyingspagetthimonster to restore his lost limb, the net result is always zero.
Apparently god hates amputees, because he never heals them.
Of course, I now fully expect any of the following rationalizations to debate this:
Healing amputees violates god's mysterious plan (even though cancer healing is allowed).
God needs to be hidden, healing an amputee would be to obvious a miracle (tell that to Jesus running around healing all sorts of people and resurrecting Lazarus from the dead).
God needs amputees to teach us all some obscure valueable lesson (why amputees and what are we supposed to learn from it if the message remains hidden).
It was the amputee's own choice to go into war and get his leg blown off. free will issue (tell that to an innocent kid after playing on a landmine field).
You are not allowed to test God with such an unreasonable prayer (then what are all the other prayers?)
Seriously, read the website and think 2 seconds about the whole issue... humor me, if you actually think prayers are anything other than useless superstition.
You cannot "study" generations' worth of prayer and its effects on millions. Sorry, but investing your atheist hope in bankrupt "studies" will not move you anywhere near truth, or a greater understanding of history's accounts, when the "studies" are anything other than comprehensive--possible to reach a (likely pre-concieved) conclusion.
Slim to one who has not studied the historical record--or is deliberately holding on to a fiction as a means of keeping his platform alive.
Arrogance--if not raging hatred is the only reason you are in this thread--the irony of the post above, is that you do not attack Judaism, Islam, or any other major faith--but center--on Christianity, as your ill resentment for it is obvious. Again, the agenda is clear.
...enter the lies. Unlike you, I presented the film's facts--not attempt to spin it into some scientific process never implied, intended or seen in the film. How are you not getting why it is so easy to call you on this?
Nonsense. Dialogue is not vague. It was scripted to tell both Kirk and the audience a specific about a religious belief and practice. That is basic storytelling--so no one is left grasping for meaning, or filling in blanks (left by other films suffering from a poor story). This was the case with the STIII script, and since its 1984 release, next to no one ever questioned what Sarek said, or how the Katra was restored to Spock.
It is only through your frustration/hatred of religion that you tried to rewrite the plot by suggesting a scientific element nowhere to be found in the script, and rejecting the reason why no scientifc element was applied to the katra plot.
Your hatred and bitter posts run through this thread, and have been cited. At this point, your denial is about as believable as the axe murderer standing in a basement full of dismembered bodies, covered in blood, holding the weapon in one hand, a head in the other and after being discovered, shrugs his shoulders and utters, "huh? I don't know where these fresh victims came from. This stuff was here when I moved in 15 years ago."
Yes, studying the reality will not get us any closer to the truth... Right. This is exactly what is wrong with the religious mindset.
You really should take a look at the website Timelord Victorious posted a link to. It has the prayer thing pretty well covered.
I have on another message board argued for existence of historical Jesus. I know the evidence and it is not terribly strong. Most of it outside the Bible merely refers to what Christians say, and is written centuries or decades acter he alledgedly lived. I still find it more likely that he existed than not, though. Seems like the easiest explanation.
Christianity is most widespread western religion by far. It is a natural reference point. And no, I have no particular animosity towards it. In fact, of the three religions mentioned I certainly like it most on the personal level, although I find the supernatural elements of each equally unlikely.
Where is the line? Are Vulcan mind melds non-scientific to you? Betazoid telepathy? I am afraid I do not understand your line of thinking. To me these are alien species that have senses and abilities that humans do not posses, but they're not more 'magical' than human ability of sight would be to a species entirely completely lacking sense of vision. And yes, I agree that Katras appear mystical, but they're still things that must be stored physically. It is a backup of the person's mind, not a soul in Christian sense. It cannot exist independently.
Ah okay. Glad that this was cleared. I really must polish my polite conversation skills and start calling people who disagree with me 'liars' and start comparing them to axe murderers to appear less bitter and hateful...
The decision for the wedding to be set in a chapel was by Paul Schneider, the man who wrote the script. To show Angela Martine genuflecting prior to the ceremony was either in the script, or a decision by Vincent McEveety, the episode's director.
It's difficult seeing it happen the way you laid it out. Again the script writer put a chapel scene in the script, the art department recieved their copy of the script and redressed the briefing room to be the ship's chapel. Removed the big table, brought in benches, built a small platform and podium. Matt Jefferies (art department director) would have designed the multiple religious symbols on the alter, and the layout of the chapel itself.
All of this would have been directly approved by Gene Roddenberry. There not a chance in hell that he was "out of loop" at any point.
As I said, it was speculation on my part, since I have no idea how the production procedures actually are.
Though that has nothing to do with my hypothesis, that real world considerations not to alienate a mostly christian audience was in play here.
I guess the only way to make reasonably sure why things turned out as they did, is to ask someone who was involved in the decision process.
Is there anybody still alive and capable of answering such a question?
What was most likely in play here was a realistic depiction of a wedding.
If the main purpose was tie into the religion of the largest group of Christian viewers, why was the bride not written to be Protestant, as opposed to Catholic?
What was shown on screen was a pretty average wedding ceremony. There was some prayer, the official mention faith, and the making of a pledge. Usually the fact that the ceremony is legal is briefly spoken of. There were candles and flowers. And the bride looked lovely.
I think Herb Solow is still alive, not sure though.
Ok, first of all, if Longinus is indeed on trial here, he'll have to look elsewhere for a defender, as I am no trained barrister.
Now, as to the quotes:
Quote 1: Well, he wouldn't be a very good atheist if he believed in prayer...
Y'see, one of the corrolaries of disbelieving in an higher power is disbelieving in asking said higher power for intercession.
If you take "being an atheist (and voicing it)" to be an insult, I'm afraid the intolerance ball is in your camp.
Quote 2: What? I don't think anyone still believes* in the classical pantheon and indeed we can recognise them for what they used to symbolise.
I fail to see a nefarious agenda in stating both those facts.
Ok, the first one relies on an assumption, but it's a pretty safe one.
At any rate, I'm not parsing Longinus' posts looking to be offended by such or such statement (why would I?), so maybe I did miss some genuinely abhorrent claims.
*Complete aside: it's arguable that many Romans (at least in the highly educated circles) didn't believe in them either; that they thought of mythology as allegories rather than literal account of godly beings.
Hopefully organized religion has gone the way of the dodo by the 23rd/24th century. We're supposed to evolve, right? Not stay stuck in the dark ages.
There are communities of neo-pagan revivalists in Greece today, tens of thousands of people at least. Sometimes tied to ultra-nationalist Greek political groups.
Hopefully, in the future we won't be seeing suppression of personal choice, whether you believe in God (or gods), or believe God doesn't exist. You will have the freedom to follow your beliefs.
Nah, I like my way better.
Separate names with a comma.