ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 เม.ย. 2024
- Since the dawn of the STD known as NuTrek, many NuTrekkers have poured their scorn on Christian Trekkies, like myself, by saying that Gene Roddenberry was an atheist therefore the entire Star Trek Universe is atheist. Is it though?
Find out!
#NuTrekIsNotStarTrek
#NuTrekIsBigotry
#StarTrekIs4All - บันเทิง
![บุกร้านไอศกรีม VJ วุ้นเส้น !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g549nEhKZdc/mqdefault.jpg)
Episode "Bread and Circuses" stands out as one where "the Son of God" arises at the end.
not true: the Christians in that on that planet believed in the son of God but the "son" and "god" never appeared.
I am a Christian and I do not have any problems with original star trek and I think there can be a Christian message found in some episodes. I am a lover all kinds of scifi.
TOS had some religious moments. TNG outright said that getting rid of belief in the supernatural was an "achievement" ( Who Watches The Watchers) then DS9 sorta had a belief system with The Prophets. Voyager had Chakotay with his traditional beliefs.
I'm apparently the only one who interpreted Picard's statement in that episode (Who Watches the Watchers) to apply specifically to the Mintakan's old religion. I assumed that since the Mintakan's civilization was so primitive, so were their beliefs.
@@atomicninjaduck9200 PICARD: Horrifying. Doctor Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No! We will find some way to undo the damage we've caused. Number One, tell me about this group's leader.
Sounds clear to me Picard was talking about any belief in God, not just a specific religion.
Sisko's dad quoted the Apostle Paul which shocked Ben then his dad said it has it's place.
Well as a Christian and a fan of Star Trek I kind of think that he was talking about a particular religion not necessarily A believe in God you know they have proven that men need belief and that science will never totally get rid of belief in God I mean I know honestly that was kind of the future Roddenberry was going for when he envisioned Star Trek but there's a lot of later episode and iterations of Star Trek where that's not the case cause if you take away faith and belief you take away the meaning and we are definitely not meaningless
beings e@@sureshmukhi2316
The Federation is secular, but respects beliefs. It's a bit schizophrenic. Reflective of the times, in America, no doubt.
Kirk is aware of and they are all seemingly positively inclined toward Christianity in Bread and Circuses. Even ambiguous about whether the son of God was actually the son of God.
Of course, I assume Roddenberry did face some pressure to do an episode like that. This was a pretty secular America in some ways, and compared to its past, yet not at all secular in other ways, compared to today, and a time when non-Christian movie and TV producers made all kinds of Christianity-forward content that nevertheless often tended to demystify rather than support traditional accounts. Consider all the great Biblical epics or half of The Twilight Zone.
In Balance of Terror, as captain, Kirk conducts a secular wedding service and refers neutrally but benevolently to "our many beliefs", even to an almost entirely human crew, apart from Spock. The implication being humans have beliefs but what they are is left to the audience.
That is not nearly as explicit as Babylon 5, which implied that the current range of human beliefs more or less continues in that show's future. But there's not much reason to assume religion ceased, either.*
I'd suggest being fine with that as it is a likely 23rd century given current human society. It's also fairly consistent with some out-of universe realities, namely the fairly secular quality of 60s American society, already.
* Couple of extra notes- one thing that is also interesting about all old Trek from TOS through ENT is that almost all human religious beliefs are given short shrift without being dismissed explicitly.
TOS has that possibly unique nod to Christianity in Bread and Circuses, suggesting at least the possibility of its truth although introducing a problem in terms of human uniqueness.
The show has a bit of fun with and dismisses classical gods that, at the time it aired, no one had worshipped in over 1500 years, so that hardly counts as anti-religion. Might even be pro-Christian when Kirk comments that humans find the one God quite sufficient.
As far as I can remember, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, all go unmentioned. Nor any other faith. So IF we are meant of assume there is no Christianity, then there is none of these things either. THAT point will never be made explicit in any Trek content, since it would raise all kinds of collateral problems.
The only forms of human religion I can remember getting any real cred are generic Native American spiritualities, which are presented as real, at least as real and living belief systems, in TNG and in VOY. If they are around, they are not likely alone.
Other species of course have plenty of religion, including the Vulcans, whose approach to logic is entirely religious/spiritual and their society functionally theocratic. With ethnonationalist, tribal, and priestly characteristics.
The last note is more philosophical. At one point Sisko in DS9 says "Humans don't have souls. We don't believe in them." THAT seemed a decisive dismissal of several major religions, but it's tough to say how accurate his view was meant to be of all humanity. My main objection is his apparent assumption that the existence or nonexistence of the soul is defined by belief or non-belief. I reject the notion that the existence of something is predicated on it being believed in.
Excellent! I watched it in the 60's, and was impressed by how many Biblical references there were. So glad you found so many of them.
Also during the funeral scene in "The Wrath of Khan" Kirk says, "Of all the SOULS I have encountered in my travels, his was the most human."
Still chokes me up! 😢
Just a figure of speech. Outdated. Space shows in space be like... "what in the world" I be like... but your not in or on a world. Yet the writers are. Spartacus scene... woman with healed wounds... man... "you are once again a bueaty" healed woman... "is a vision to be resurrected so" yea see things are just a figure of speech and not actually factual.
If you watch Star Trek The Motion Picture Special Longer Version, you can see that it can be seen as an allegorical retelling of Saul's conversion to Paul from the New Testament.
allegorical
The one line in ST:TMP SLV that bothers me though is Decker's line, "We all create God in our own image." I can see why that was controversial enough to take out of the theatrical (and director's) cut.
I recall the comment made by the Companion in the episode "Metamorphosis" when she said that the ability to create life is reserved to "The Maker of All Things."
I thought I would mention a Gene Roddenberry item that seems to be overlooked most of the time. The 1977 TV pilot film SPECTRE. It's an excellent supernatural-horror adventure, which should have become a series. I believe Samuel A. Peeples co-wrote this. While Christianity isnt directly invoked, its a clear Good vs Evil item, and I certainly recommend it to Trek fans in general.
Great video, thanks! So many more Christian refences throughout the series: Where No Man Has Gone Before "One jealous god," with God many times over in the OT referencing Himself or being referenced as such; Same episode with the biblical dialogue between Mitchell and Dehner at the end; In "Charlie X" the mentions of Thanksgiving; various episode titles and dialogue referencing Paradise, devils; "The Apple," "Journey to Babel," "And the Children Shall Lead," "The Mark of Gideon," "Requiem for Methuselah," "The Way to Eden;" the Bible was clearly shown in the final sequence of "The Omega Glory," and God was referenced as well. I'm sure I missed some, but there were many such references.
It’s a shame. We acknowledge spiritual beliefs in TOS, and in other series- but in the Star Trek Adventures core rulebook it makes comments that most species have moved past these archaic beliefs - not very accepting to spiritual beliefs.
One of the hypocrisies I find with Roddenberry, is that he believed in an all-tolerant, all-inclusive future where race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. was never even considered as an issue at all, let alone a problem. Yet, that same future didn't seem too all-tolerant or all-inclusive to religion. At least not according to him.
Well, just because the Federation is atheist doesn't mean that it forgets history so yes, the odd reference might be made. However, I hardly think that the Magna Carta had anything to do with Christianity. It was all about a king trying not to be lynched by the people.
In no way do these small references made by a one-off character tie Star Trek to any religion.
A thoughtful look at a great series. Thanks for finding the hidden gems!
You're very welcome! It was a pleasure to put together! 😊
In "Who Mournes for Adonais" Kirk says they have no need for gods {plural} and follows with, "we find the one quite adequate?". I suspect that was to please the censors of the day.
This was the best they could do for the 60s, but remember that Roddenberry made ST:TNG as well, and that show was very clear on its position that humanity had grown out of their need for superstition and religion.
As we are even as we speak. In the US, Christianity is losing adherents faster than ever before -- not bcs of atheist "recruitment" or proselytizing, but bcs the hatreds & hypocrisies of our Talibangelists* r making the faith untenable for their own offspring. In 20 yrs, tops, Christians will b a minority in the US. Pity, really -- they did a lot of good in their time: the peace mvmt; anti-nukes (both flavors); civil rights & b4 that, abolition; immigrant resettlement; hospitals & education; the list is endless. But... sadly, so is the list of harms.
*[obligatory NOT ALL Christians caveat HERE] MOST American Christians r decent, sane adults just trying their best to live by His Word. That 17% MAGAt crew, tho...
A primary principle that I see: All of the central heroic characters were willing to lay down their lives to save the lives of their friends.
John 15:13 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
I literally stopped watching Steve Shives about 4 years ago because he flat out told Christians they had no business watching Star Trek and said to get out of his Universe. So I complied. I then discovered The Popcast Guys.
The Vulcan salute is the Hebrew symbol for El Shaddai. Leonard Nimoy introduced it to the show recalling Jewish worship services as a child.
It is the Hebrew letter Shin which looks like a 'W'. Yod Hay Vav Hay is YHWH or the name of God changed to LORD in the KJV. Each letter literally translates to: _Behold the hand, behold the nail_
Well done dude!
Samuel T Cogley is quite probably my favorite Star Trek character.
In fact... in the MMO "Everquest" I named my wizard "Aldrin" after Buzz Aldrin, who watched electricity play along his spacesuit glove...
And I named my magician "Cogley", after the lawyer who magically exonerated Capt Kirk.
Very interesting point. As a Christian who loves TOS, it is an interesting blend of both Judeo-Christian values and socialistic ideals. This is the 1st time I've seen this topic addressed. Well considered.
I figure the rights of the individual championed by Star Trek would include the right to believe in a religion, even if there's only a few. I've got a devout Catholic in one of my Star Trek fanfics, she's an old fashioned but kind + compassionate woman and it seemed to fit her character.
Trek has repeatedly shown that a core belief of the Federation is tolerance of different beliefs as long as they do not inflict harm on others. Deep Space 9 is centered around the Bajorans whose culture is deeply intertwined with their religion. NuTrek also shows similar examples.
Check out "The Trouble with Tribbles." Spock says the tribbles remind him of "the lillies of the field. They neither toil nor spin ... "
I was clear on Roddenberry being an atheist. I noticed these references to religion.
However, all the series are loaded with an alternate explanation to religion. Just like the ancient aliens programs suggest. A lot more of that content than references to religion. Having said that, I still enjoy tos to this day. I have this and TNG playing in the background at home and work often. I’m a Trekkie 🖖
Gene Roddenberry thought with all the races on the Enterprise a non denominational Chappelle would be the best way to go
May i ask why you made this? Outside of Picard season 3 and strange new worlds i haven't watched nu trek. I tried discovery and got mad they used the klingon suits from into darkness. I've been trying to watch star trek in chronological order. So i had just finished enterprise (highly underrated) and went into discovery and waa like enterprise just explained why the klingons looked different and now this and gave up haha
Because many NuTrekkers and even some former Star Trek cast members have said that Christians should have nothing to do with Star Trek.
@@jrc99us Ah I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Kinda par for the course on modern media. It's sad. It's all about equality and acceptance till they don't like you which absolutely hysterical.
@@jrc99us Who cares what some rando NuTrekkers or even some former cast members say? Also, it's hard to believe that any cast members would issue such an edict seriously. I could see some telling the racists, misogynists, and homophobes who've attacked NuTrek and the cast to kick rocks. No one who watched TOS and its repeated stand against bigotry should think he or she has a home in Trek if they hate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. The Enterprise was a micro United Nations of representation. It aired the first interracial kiss. Etc.
@@aarondrake69 Watch the actual NuTrek shows. The first season of Discovery literally has a father give a piece of his soul to his child to save her life. Discovery is filled with religious allegory.
William Shatner has lived long enough that he's made a number of people dislike him rather strongly due to his own atheistic views. Unnecessarily in my opinion. I suppose the size of his ego, and his mouth, both make it impossible for him to simply not stir up passionate feelings about himself. In any case, as he's going on 94, I presume he will find out definitely firsthand soon enough. It should perhaps be pointed out that Leonard Nimoy returned to his Jewish roots late in life, just for the record on religious belief among the cast of TOS. I have noticed that it appears most of TOS cast have no spiritual beliefs which I do not find very surprising really. This is more blatant among TNG and later series in general spirituality, not just Christianity it seems.
Nice example of tolerance referring to others disliking William Shatner. Then focusing on what you imagine is their reasoning. Personally I don't know him. So judge not. Contemplating his demise too had a sour edge as well. Needless to say, with such spiteful attitudes, spiritual life is not for you either?
THE ORIGINAL STAR TREK WAS MORE GODLY THAN ANY POLITICIAN IN OFFICE TODAY. MODERN STAR TREK IS ABOUT THE SAME, HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN !!!!!!!
Modern capitalists worship money and despise Jesus and his teachings. Capitalists and those who support it are idolators destined for the lake of fire, as are christian nationalists and saltine supremacists. Save your soul, embrace liberation theology.
Does Star Trek 5 count? There were a lot of "God" references in that movie too.
Roddenberry absolutely would have imposed his atheist views on Star Trek. He would never have allowed any of these references.
The network knew the show would be seen as insulting and offensive to most Americans and would have failed quickly if they allowed that.
With TNG Roddenberry had free reign. And so did create an atheist Federation, and often did deliberately insult religious belief.
As with the Star Wars prequels, we see that sometimes it's best not to let the producer have unfettered creative control.
Gene Roddenberry, a highly rational man, often identified himself as secular humanist, emphasizing the humanist. The origins of humanism are Christian; to be secular is to have no religious or spiritual foundations. One may be secular and maintain a belief in the existence of unknown or unquantifiable phenomenon. (See: Baruch Spinoza) Christianity is a known phenomenon central to Western Civilization, specifically to its medieval period. By all appearances, the United Federation of Planets is a continuance of the best of Western Civilization. Therefore it is logical to assume that the writers of the original Star Trek series would have written scripts that referred to the major influences of Western Civilization, including Christianity, which very likely survives in some form into the 23rd century. The episode, "Bread and Circuses", reminds us that Christianity was adopted by 4th century Rome, to serve as a form of state-religion by which the rulers could manipulate the illiterate masses, to impress them into servitude at a time when the old order was in decline. I am not so familiar with the spin-off series; I'm an old guy. But it seems that the constant message throughout the many manifestations of Star Trek is that humans will maintain their best human qualities in spite of their friendly or unfriendly encounters with non-human life-forms. The theme of human dignity repeats, even though extraterrestrial humanoids arrived at similar conclusions of dignity by their own philosophy. The point to my lengthy paragraph is that the solutions to our current and future problems will neither be solved by faith nor the absents of faith, (religion nor atheism). Science seeks natural solutions supported by evidence; religion does not. The solution is logical: Rationality serves humanity more than mysticism. And yet, there will always be mysteries to be solved.
So viele Serien die nicht christlich sind. Einige sind es.
Ich bin jedoch frei, als Christ Science Fiktion wie Star Trek zu genießen. Nummer 1 bleibt Jesus.
It's not that Gene Rodenberry was an atheist, he was strictly a humanist. He believed that all men and women could achieve anything when their minds were focused on any task they set out to do. That humankind could, as they say, "Reach out to the stars and beyond."
He recognized the importance of one's faith in a higher power, even it wasn't God focused. It's what gives all people the ability to be more than they are on their own. Gene's vision included all races, and by today's standards, it also applies to all genders. Essentially, he looked at the human presence and saw each person as individual little gods. No one was more than someone else.
Star Trek's entire production run is peppered with the question of asking if God really does exist. The stories were told and presented in ways that did not intrude on anyone's belief, but simply leaves the viewer a thought that the answer lies within each one of us. Only the individual is qualified to make these choices for themselves and not be influenced by outside possibilities.
Nearly all of TOS episodes dealt mainly with the current events of the time, and were presented in a science fiction narrative because of the same problems we have today. You have to be careful about what you say, and the best way to hide the truth is right in plain sight. The overly righteous people (politicians) wouldn't understand it if they watched it, but the common people are much smarter.
Not true. There was an episode that saw Kirk and the away team on a world that emulated ancient Rome. At the end uhura picked up a transmission about a new religion and implied that christ was indeed their Messiah
They didn't have "away teams" in the original series. They had LANDING PARTIES, dammit!
@@scotpenssame thing.
The world of Star Trek, with all it's technology and progress and egalitarianism, can not be achieved except in a very liberal/progressive world that exists without fear of the "other" or the unknown.
Star Trek is a TV show that offers a glimpse of what humanity can achieve if we are of the right mind set. There are other portrayals of our possible future that are much darker than what Star Trek offers.
The Walking Dead is such a show. That program offers a glimpse into what the world would be like in a total collapse. The zombies are there just to make it fun and interesting, but the fear and the brutal fight for survival against men like Neegan, is the truth of that show. Some people in our society still look at that world and see it as attractive to them.
We are being given a choice right now. A very clearly defined choice. People will know in November of 2024 exactly what the choices are that are being offered. There will be no doubt about what, means what. The choice will be made and our future will be set.
As long as there is such a thing in this universe as pain and the unknown, there will always be a fear of the other/unknown. You can't get rid of that. And also I hope you're wrong about that, because any world that's built off of only a liberal/progressive perspective is doomed, simply because it doesn't encompass all human experience. Without which there will always be an "other."
And if I may ask, what gives you, in turn, the exclusive right to say what is the "right" mindset for progress? Evidently only if it's your own view of said progress. So, this sword cuts both ways it seems my friend.
@@starmnsixty1209 "friend" is a bad word to use sarcastically, you just sound passive aggressive.
What I said wasn't opinion, I just didn't outline all the steps because it seemed obvious. But since you didn't actually give a counter-opinion, only challenged me without saying why, I won't bother explaining to deaf ears that already think I'm wrong no matter what I say.
The Federation and Star Trek is completely neutral on the subject of religion. You are free to worship a god, gods, or a rock if you want. I don't see the point of it but whatever floats your boat.
Seethe moar
I see humanism, nothing more.
@@frankmariani1259 "Humanism" the word is racist. How's a Klingon supposed to feel about that? Or an Andorain?
Other than humans these others are just portrayals of aliens. Humanism says that man is the center of all things. I've never heard the word " Christ. " in any Star Trek dialogue . I never expected it to be so.
@@frankmariani1259 Yeah, they did. In the 'Bread & Circuses' episode, the one with the 20th century roman gladiators, Kirk said, " Caesar - and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading... only now."
TOS was like this, but TNG went in a more "atheist direction" while at the same time turning the Q continuum into the old Greco Roman gods. So from TNG on not so much.
The Q were one of many cosmic or extra-dimensional beings with godlike abilities. This basically allowed for gods with the acknowledgment that they were not mysterious but higher forms of life.
The Federation, Klingons, et al all had technology that allowed for matter/energy conversion. That's pretty darn magical. But, explainable if you understand the physics. Similarly, a being that lived in a higher dimension than our third dimension would perceive the world differently and be able to move through it differently since it could not only traverse space but also time.
Of course there are christian motifs on TOS, look when it was made lmao. Gene conceived of a world where religion was gone because he considered it regressive. That being said, the presence of religion in the Star Trek universe is well-attested, but its never really on a religion-always-good or religion-always-bad view.
Trek is Trek.
All of star trek is very spiritual. That is its main attraction. Aspiration to the greater good.
Aspiration to the greater good is not inherently spiritual. As, Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I guess I'm very shallow, but my main attraction to watching Star Trek was always the Enterprise, the technology, and the action.
Star Trek and starfleet acknowledged the existence of God.
We find the One quite adequate says Kirk so it’s one God one Christianity it’s Jehovah God
Star Trek was probably not meant for Christians, just as much as Alcoholics Anonymous was not meant for intellectuals. As much as the latter will be vehemently denied, it's still as true as is the fact that AA is actually just thinly veiled Christianity. Lately, I've taken much amusement in the way that many Christians are now having second thoughts as to their continued support of AA, due to its blatant advocacy of idolatry.
1:38 You'd think a lawyer would know how pronounce library. He says liberry.
🤣🤣🤣
to be fair, thats much easier.
Let's not quibble on accents.
Come on, christians are not idiots, they don't take offense at works of fiction.
If one takes offense at works of fiction, it's not because one is a christian, it's for another reason.
Ironic. You heap scorn on newer Trek, and yet it's more affirming of religion and spirituality than it's ever been (even more so than Deep Space Nine). Is the problem that it respects _all_ religions, and not just one?
Star trek evolved beyond primitive man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary for sin thing and or Quran etc etc .
All people were equal even aliens .
That's the future as in Isaiah 2 and 11 Ezekiel 37 peace for all mankind.
The one line that bugs me is Deanna’s line in “Who Watches the Watchers?” ‘That’s the problem with believing in a god, you don’t know what it wants!’ It’s ham-fisted and ridiculously placed.
That is probably my least favorite ( I could say "most hated") episode of ST. I would say that Star Trek is not particularly defensible by the Christian, but that doesn't mean that it can't be watched for storytelling purposes. We can conclusively say that ST does *not* exist in a universe that is conceivably Christian. It is clearly an alternate universe.
@@Terminus_El_Camino indeed, I've noticed that when ST humanoids are encountering some being of a higher plane, their normal curiosity turns to skepticism and overall resentment. I also don't like how in ST:VOY the showrunners gave Chakotay's spiritual beliefs a wide berth without any of the typical scrutiny that the showrunners would give a Christian belief system.
@@Terminus_El_Camino "Conceivably Christian"? What does that even mean? What sect of Christianity do you reference? Catholism? Jehovah's Witness? Orthodox? Mormonism? Southern Baptist? Methodist? Anglican?
I know many Christians who love Star Trek and its demonstration of Christian principles of love, tolerance, community, rejection of materialism, self-sacrifice, etc.
Good video. Never let other people tell you what you are or allow them to define you. Only you and god know what's inside.
If you watch Star Trek The Motion Picture, especially the SLV, you will find it is a retelling of Saul's Conversion to St. Paul.
What's SLV?
@@sureshmukhi2316 Special Longer Version. It is also known as the ABC cut. Extra footage was added back in when it premired on ABC in 1983.
th-cam.com/video/J390phDjyfs/w-d-xo.html
The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. Although its the smallest of seeds, it grows to the largest tree in the garden and in her branches the birds do make their nests. The birds are not the mustard tree but they do nest in the tree's branches.
The kingdom of God affects the culture but the culture is not necessarily Christians. A Christian is a baptized believer in Christ - the Son of God. To say that a person is a Christian because he reveres the teachings of Jesus would qualify Muslims, some Hindus and even Catholics as "Christians". That's not how this thing works.
"Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John 9.
Abiding in the doctrine of Christ (and that includes the doctrine ABOUT Christ) is what qualifies one as a Christian. That stipulation DISqualifies nearly everyone who claims to be a Christian because strait is the gate and narrow the way that leadeth unto life and FEW there be that even find it.
"Star Trek" is thoroughly jewish, like its lead actors, so it really depends on what type of Christian you consider yourself to be.
the federation, and star drek TOS, was agnostic, not atheist.
the safest course of action.
And at the time, the vast, vast majority of its audience was Christian... so it was nice of them to throw a bone here and there.
I think Babylon 5 dealt with Christianity specifically and religion in general much, much better.
As did Firefly/Serenity.
Given Spock's logic, reasoning, and science, he would have been the Christian on board that ship. Take a look around. All this did not just happen by accident and science shows as much. It takes inteligence, desire, and skill to create anything. Get a garage full of car parts. Come back in a hundred years and you just got bunch of rusty car parts. But put a fanatic car mechanic in there with them, come back in a week and you got a hot rod ready to go. Intelligence, skill, desire.
Psalm 19: 1 The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament displays His handy work.
I suspect that Spock has a much better understanding of evolution than you do. And he would not come to your conclusions.
I have never seen this scene.
Isn't Christianity all about the world ending and all good Christians going to Heaven? Why would Christianity even be a part of the world of Star Trek?
probs not: but the balance is not good for sci fi shows either: There is a god but not the god that the bible contradicts itself over and that religions use against everyone else: Christian faith is well meaning, most of it and most of them, however, they believe several false premises based on a book written thousands of years ago for a different culture in at least three different languages.
It's been translated badly from the originals and the intent and meaning inadvertently and advertently, meaningfully and indirectly changed by culture, language, and not so well meaning heads of the church and well meaning but un-knowing translators.
It was written by men and there are many contradictions. Used to believe in the christian ideas but it's clear it's not God that they usually profess about and confound others with. If something doesn't make sense with itself, if something seems like it is NOT God, it's NOT God.
God made Adam with Even inside him and in his image, therefore God has both male and female aspects. In addition, the Bible doesn't tell all---God had to make other Adams and Eves after the first otherwise we're a race born from incest and we’re still incestors or incesting. Shhh. We’re not.
In addition, there were whole books of the Bible that some Pope decreed as not part of the Bible and took away. In those books, among other things, was the belief of reincarnation. Most Christians before that (and some after that) believed in reincarnation.
Not eating meat on Fridays was because…the fishing industry needed a boost. That had nothing to do with God.
There are also those in the Christian/Catholic faith that are NOT well meaning. Well, I guess. Was it well meaning to try to force Christianity on natives who believed otherwise? I guess it was to save their souls, which was meaningless. Was it Christianity to cause wars against the Mid Easterners who held the “Holy Land” (Christians lost that war BTW)? Was it Christianity to allow the Children’s Crusades, which led to hundreds of children and teenagers being sold into slavery and those that weren’t died?
Some time ago, the Pope felt bad about all the artefacts that the Catholics stole from the Jews after KILLING them (your weapons are what now?) and decided to open up the vaults of the Vatican. He declared that he wanted to give back HALF of what was stolen by murder. How nice of him?
God is not a human being. He does not punish, he does not kill, he does not hate, he does not seek revenge, he does not make anyone suffer, he does not allow anything near a hell to exist or a demonic devil of evil to exist. God loves and his actions follow suit in that. He/she is not like us when we are out of the spirit and let’s face it, most of us are out of the spirit in our actions most of the time. The Bible is wrong on many counts and accounts. Yet at times it is correct. It cannot be the last word on God and spirituality. It was made by well meaning people (Most of them) to keep order in a confusing, murderous world of people gone wild. And it worked…until it was then used to create more strife, more rivals groups, and more division.
There are only two categories of people: those in the spirit and acting as such and the other category of those who are NOT in the spirit and acting as such.
Kirk Cameron and his end of the world movies are science fiction supernatural wrongness in their filthy “I’m right and you’re wrong and will die for it and suffer in hell for eternity” nonsense. Truth is: THEY are wrong and that will NEVER happen that way at all and certainly we are nowhere near an event or events like that. Or Damien the OMEN.
Anyway, NO ONE has to fear death. Betty White has a good perspective BUT even if someone didn't live a full life like she did or made more mistakes than she did, NO ONE has to fear death.
I know it's a very human thing to do but experts say that being born into this world is a more traumatic event than death and leaving this world. I know you said that no one knows for sure what happens to us when we die but that's not accurate. Many do know. For me, personally, it's beyond faith now. I have so much evidence of an after life and of a God (by the way God has male/female aspects of him/herself---I don't fully believe in the Bible as a last word but think about this: God took EVE OUT OF ADAM so Adam was he/she, too before that and if God made US in his image, then He/She is like that, too).
Even people who have made the wrong choices and been "bad" have a chance at redemption, and yes even Hitler. God loves and forgives EVERYONE (she/he does not play favorites). It's hard for us as humans who are not God to understand that.
Now, if there are a small percentage of human beings who are the dark ones (and only by their choice), they have turned their backs on God BUT here and there they have a chance to change their minds (a few that are both dark/light humans DO but most dark ones do not) and if they do not, even they will be brought somehow into God's light (of this I'm a bit unsure as to how).
A loving God would not do some of the things written down about him. These things were written for another time and another place and another culture to keep law and order which in the far past, most did not have, in fact at one point very few individuals had and chaos almost ruled so well meaning men and some women wrote down laws and rules to follow to keep man and woman kind from exterminating themselves.
Some of these may have come from God (of which ones I'm unsure). I am sure about this: God would not allow a devil like we think of as the devil (there IS an angel in charge of the Dark Ones to make sure they do NOT do much damage).
God would not allow eternal damnation and suffering so I'm sorry horror fans there is NO hell. None. There are no demons. Only beliefs can make your own spirit create your own hell and your own demons. NO ONE is going to a fire pit for eternity to suffer forever: God, a loving God (and she/he is) would never allow that or let that exist.
GOD LOVES. NO ONE has to fear death of any kind because death is just a transition. No one is lost, no one is gone, no one vanishes forever. I think even people who don't believe in God and an afterlife deep down know this somewhere inside them. And these things are not just my opinion, my belief, my whatever. These things I have written here ARE FACT.
Of course with free will, your beliefs may vary but I'm sorry about that but even that's okay, you are still, against all human media and human nature, SAFE FOREVER. No one has to worry or fear death ever. And even if you do, when it happens and you transition to the other side, you'll be as perfect as you were when you were created.
Chances are you've been through a life and death before (some have been through it a lot----the church once believed in reincarnation until some pope in Venice decided that he wanted to take holy parts of the "holy" Bible out and censored it.
Don't rely on a billion year old book or books to know what your spirit inside, some of us deep inside, already knows: God is a loving God, God does not judge or punish or allow evil, God does not go against anyone's free will, and God has provided for an afterlife that is nothing like us sitting on clouds doing nothing but sleeping, resting, and playing harps.
Heaven is nothing like we think: it is the most excellent energy, the most wonderful of multiverses and you will have lots to do (that you WANT and LOVE to do) and the energy to do it.
I like the Klingon response on the subject of Gods. "We killed them a Millennia ago, they were more trouble than they were worth."
But they came back, and started STD.
...and look at the Klingon race in the series.. they are iconic of the Atheist people in the world.
@@SennmutAmen, brother.
@@mrstanskaggs1 If you watched TNG, and other sequel series, the Klingons have a version of Hades for the dishonored. I can't recall the name, but it has been used more than once. I seem to recall a quick look at the Klingon version of Lucifer, in "Devil's Due" from TNG, also.
Be sure of what you're talking about people. You won't look as incompetent.
@@mrstanskaggs1 Klingons aren't atheists. They believe in an afterlife. They have a heaven and hell. They believe that gods existed but think their ancestors killed them. An atheist would not believe that god or gods ever existed.
The POSITIVE Energy of Humans is sweeping the Globe - I'm optimistic that the Future we are creating will be one of Love Peace & Harmony Within ALL - the Dark is being OVERWHELMED with LIGHT
Minus the genocidal wars and nationalism, right?
@jrc99us NuTrek is not bigoted at all. If you've reached that conclusion, you haven't been paying attention. The shows repeatedly have shown that acceptance & tolerance of people's differences is a hallmark of progress. The first episodes show that Vulcan logic extremist tried to murder Michael, a 12 year old child, because she was human. To save Michael, her adoptive father Sarek literally had to give a piece of his soul to Michael to revive her.
One more time: Star Trek: Discovery literally validated the existence of SOULS! It showed how a parent's love for his child extends beyond himself supernaturally! Sarek and Michael forevermore share that spiritual connection.
How exactly is that anti-religious? NuTrek is definitely Star Trek. It follows Gene Roddenberry's progressive vision of humanity outgrowing its prejudices, embracing each other, and shedding materialism for a higher purpose.
Also, in season 5 of Discovery, the crew visits a planet and Michael explains that just because technology provides a habitable environment and that doesn't mean that the gods of the planet's people worship don't exist.
Moreover, from a Christian standpoint, Discovery showed over the course of three seasons how someone who had committed great evil, the Emperor Georgiou, could learn from her past sins, grow, and transform largely because of the forgiveness and love shown to her by her community.
Seriously, in the second season of Discovery, Captain Pike flashes forward into his future self to see and experience how he is horrifically maimed and left a quadriplegic. When he returns to his present, he makes the decision that he must sacrifice himself to save others because as a Starfleet officer love is essential to his credo.
In season 3 of Discovery, Admiral Vance tells a despot that the people of the Federation would rather eat apples replicated from poop than eat apples that came from the exploitation and suffering of others.
It's weird to give any credence to randos on the internet who claim to speak for the producers of NuTrek especially when all one has to do is watch NuTrek to see how it actually operates.
Trek is for everyone except racists, misogynists, homophobes, and other hateful people.
Thank you for confirming that NuTrek is bigotry. ✝️🖖
No, it’s not.
It's not "atheist" so much as it is clearly respectful of all beliefs. TOS clearly had more Christian influences and imagery in it than newer Trek, even now-old Trek staples like TNG and DS9. Religion isn't necessarily condemned outright, but it's pretty clearly evident that it doesn't play favorites, and that religion takes a pretty significant backseat to the role of science and technology in the future Star Trek imagines.
Broadly speaking, Star Trek has always shown pretty clear contempt for nationalist and theocratic fervor. The last chapel we see in Star Trek... is the one in TOS, and apart from pretty explicitly non-Christian Bajoran religious clergy, religious leadership is pretty absent from the show ESPECIALLY in the context of the Federation.
Again, I wouldn't go so fast as to call it anti-Christian or even even necessarily anti-religious, but it's pretty clearly pushing (correctly, in my view) a secular, multicultural, multireligious democratic and socialist society.
Definitely future goals! The Federation would be a great place to live if it weren't for all those wars.
On behalf of all Christian Trekkers everywhere, we thank you for doing this fine work! ❤✝
I am a Christian who is a Trekkie, but I have issues with identifying as a Christian Trekkie. Trek just happens to be a show I can both enjoy and watch with a clear conscience. The difference being that Christ defines who I am, Trek is something I like while on earth.
You're very welcome! My original project was going to be "What Made Star Trek Great?" But while I was working out watching TOS, when Mr. Cogley's speech came on I nearly fell off the elliptical! 😂
@@mudvalve Breathe
@@jrc99us When the Holy Spirit hits you.. it HITS you! hehe
@@daedalos5132 I understand! 😀
The real shame is there aren't more religious references (not just Christian myth).
Similarly, that Atheists and Christians have such a battle with each other. So many Atheists seem more to be just anti-Christian - but the simple idea that the Christians' god isn't "real" shouldn't negate anyone else, logically.
I imagine a staunch Christian would suggest that the reason their religion gets mentioned as often as it does in this future is that they really had somehow proven themselves over the others.
But what's also true is that many of us who aren't Christians have been raised so immersed in it, that there are numerous set phrases of expression that don't actually indicate the speakers' beliefs.
It's a bit like shoving "under God" (because they capitalize it) into the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance in the mid 20th century. The country kept trying to prove itself to be a peaceful collection of everyone co-existing, but then a Christian influence basically said "no, no, only us".
Of course, it's also annoying to listen to someone gloat, whether or not those involved agree who was right - but both of those are human emotions that we all get to deal with 💙
you are kind of correct. I hope you find your salvation. It sounds like you have a good heart.
@@mrstanskaggs1 I would love for you to elaborate. I’m here to engage discussion; not spout rhetoric.
I do have a problem forming questions, but questions often get viewed as sarcastic as opposed to genuine.
I appreciate the compliment. I’ve watched so many people hate each other for the wrong reasons. They believed they were protecting themselves from evil, but I could hear (from outside, it’s easier) that they agreed with the problem, but were actually hating each other’s solution to it, because the respective solutions address slightly different aspects. In these type of arguments/misunderstandings, people seem to believe they’re seeing eye to eye in the first place, as if their foundations were identical but failing to recognize one’s bedrock was two feet lower in elevation and they were entirely focused on the height of the walls and the gaslighting over identical roof height.
What parts of my remarks do you find only “kind of” correct? What parts of those points are you disagreeing with? 💙
It really is all in the details 💙💙
@@InimicalWit It would seem you are referring to the darker aspects of Christianity, in times past when one's life could indeed be threatened. If you look around, that hasn't been the case in a while. I don't mean this to sound as sarcastic as it no doubt does. But a real, thought-out argument on your own beliefs would be much more valuable for everyone, I think.
@@starmnsixty1209 Appreciated. However, these *are* my beliefs. And the ideas of threat that were more widespread in humanity’s past are significantly diminished, but not gone. A pastor out of Texas - in the summer of 2022 (year of their/your Lord, for emphasis on how recent it was) spoke publicly about his view to have all LGBT (content warning for the proceeding quotation) “shot in the back of the head”.
Now, my point here is not that this makes Christianity “the bad guy”. My point, here, is that this is a problem of humanity. We must recognize that this is a problem of human thought, not any religion or lack thereof. Many, many religions teach beautifully sound morals that all agree with one another in the general ways that so many peoples should be able to coexist - indeed, the very point of the United States; and after a fashion, the European Union. The problem creeps in where, just as similarly, many of these religions teach that the others are the enemy, in some form.
I can only speak so “knowingly” or “harshly” of Christianity, because (as I suggested previously) I was raised in it. Unfortunately, I was also one of the people that its members reinforced to their children were evil and deserved negative treatment, the LGBT. This gave me a prejudice that I must always check, and has darkened my view of people - and even of a friend, when they were Saved. It is an echo of hate that exists with parts of the LGBT, because they/we were raised in Christian communities who made it clear the LGBT were not desired. This is not all, however. It’s important to be explicit, there are Christian LGBT. Christian LGBT. Humans.
When Kirk said “Everybody’s human” (and Spock took insult lol), Kirk meant - I believe - that all people were capable of flaw, but I take it further. All creatures. All creatures that have emotion and make connections in their mind will act based on those connections, those emotions, and they will (de facto) believe a thing that may not be true and act on their beliefs to the best of their ability and integrity. They may later learn the missing piece of information and have the ability to put the whole picture together and they may not. From the beginning: they deserve respect. Those mistakes they make… they’re human.
Star Trek is absolutely for Christians, but it is also for everyone else. Any rumor that people on the project were Atheists or tried to remove religion only suggests to me that various people did try to keep this debate out of the show. However any number of those people were *probably* Christian. And if they wouldn’t consider themselves “Christian”, they were raised in a community that used Christian terms and presented a world where thinking of the “god” that created them wasn’t necessarily God, Himself.
But again, if you are a self aware Christian, then you would believe even that influence to be: God. Himself.
I believe it’s just life. And as humanity, over these decades, has improved itself, I would like Star Trek to have improved, as well; but instead of including other religion in its episodes, it has removed it. Stopping the fight over the toy by destroying it, so no one has anything to fight over.
I hope I’m making sense. Either way, take care and thanks for reading 💙💙
Well, you can certainly write. I still think you're missing the point, though. Every religious or non religious philosophical system has its share of haters against whoever . I hope you are not trying not to mark everyone with the same brush size of the actions of a few.
I think the greater question er dll should ask is would it make any sense for the Federation ( or ourselves) to live without belief in any God at all.
After all, I've yet to hear anyone suggest how the universe began in a big bag, or whatever "just because."
I'm hardly any kind of Bible thinking fanstoc by any means, but I do believe without done kiral absolutes, we are doomed regardless of how many positive views of a future Trek or whatever other vision of the future, tries to offer.
I try to live accordingly ng to the New Testament myself, though I haven't darkened the door of a place of worship in years. And no, I can't say why do many evil exists on vicious governments, serial killers, or what have you. It simply makes much more sense to me that Christ represents ultimate good than to choose to disbelieve in Him.
You sound like a decent sort, and I hope you agree that I do as well.
0:15 You know, I have found that you can tell what a person *REALLY* believes by how they behave. Do they act as if they believe they will one day be judged on their actions? Are they honest and fair in their dealings with others. Or do they cheat and lie and behave in a selfish manner?
I mean such people as the latter surely don't believe that. Otherwise, they would know that they would one day face justice.
But does it always mean the person believes they will be judged if they are honest and they make every effort to be fair, even if they have the advantage?
What would you say of an atheist who, seeing that the cashier has given him back too much change brings this to the cashier's attention, returning that money they should not have been given.
The atheist doesn't believe he will be judged so why should they give the money back?
If you ask such a question, if the only thing that keeps you within the bounds of "good behavior" is the fear of punishment if you get caught, are you really a good person?
I have heard many people say, "I'm a Christian." but I have always believed that a true Christian will have no need to tell you. "I'm a Christian" is just another way you can say "You can trust me." The liar will say "You can trust me." or "I'm a Christian" because they are lying. An honest person doesn't need to say either of these things. If they are honest they will behave honestly.
This may not tell you they are a Christian, but so long as they are honest, does it matter?
By telling us the Gene Rodenberry is an Atheist, are you not saying what is basely the opposite of "I'm a Christian?" Are you trying to tell us that Gene Rosenbury should not be trusted? If Rosenbury should not be trusted would it not be better to point out his untrustworthy acts? I mean, at one point he was dating two women at the same time. Both of them were even on Star Trek, though the one he chose to marry had a smaller role.
As an atheist myself, your pointing out that Gene was Atheist tells me I should be careful about trusting YOU.
But as I'm also honest, and I believe in being fair, I will watch more than just 15 seconds of this video.
8:00 Gene did not write every episode of Star Trek, and he did not have final approval over the show's content. As to the multiple Biblical references, the Bible contains a great deal of wisdom. It can contain a great deal of wisdom because wisdom is timeless. And wise men have existed in all times.
If the Bible contained nothing of value it would have been discarded 2000 years ago. The unwise thing to do with the Bible is to say that it is the inerrant Word of God and everything within it's pages must be followed.
8:00 Even Christians don't believe this. They just pretend the parts they don't like don't exist, even though they are their for anyone with the ability to read can see.
If an atheist points them out, they attack the atheist, not the atheists message, which is "This is what *YOUR* books says, these are not my words.
th-cam.com/video/SChZsI2RG80/w-d-xo.html
If any part of the Bible is not the word of God, then none of it is. If the Bible is not the Word of God, what does that mean for Christianity?
Waaaggh waaagghh waaaghh.
Christianity is a minority on Earth today and in the Galaxy in the future it would be negligible.
There are 2.4 billion Christians in the world.. Almost a third. Hardly a minority.
This is a classic example of religious arrogance. You look at the entirety of the Star Trek franchise and only manage to weasel out the few instances in which Abrahamics were mentioned in passing. Yes of course Abrahamics is a part of history in the future, but that doesn't mean the entirety of Star Trek is founded upon religious tenets or even spiritual ignorance.
Fascinating! That wasn't my point.
its the future,,, religion shouldnt be in it
God in in One's Heart - Not in a cloud
Satan is in One's Mind that is not ruled by One's Heart
Gene Roddenberry was a secular humanist, but there are definitely elements of spirituality in TOS. I think it's universal principle that stories that acknowledge God and spirituality tend to be stronger and more compelling.
In book of Esther, God is not even mentioned directly though his presence is shown throughout the story.
You did a great job of finding irrefutable references to things Christian.
While your argument is a good one, the one big counterargument that I can think of is that recognizing, acknowledging, referencing, even respecting some components of a belief system is not necessarily respecting or accepting the fundamental dogma of that belief system.
I don't think even the most hardened atheist would deny that there is great beauty and wisdom in the Bible. But that doesn't mean the foundational dogma of the Bible is true.
Still, your thesis is that Star Trek is for Christians too. And I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. It's for anyone, subscribing to any belief system--whether that belief system is referenced in Star Trek or not.
Athiest, here. I wasn't even aware that Roddenberry was an Athiest. Remember that to come off as anti-Christian in the 1960's would have meant instant death for the series. Roddenberry was aware of that, I'm sure. He was, I'm also sure, not in agreement with much of that script writing but realized he'd just better allow that. The very concept of worlds all over the universe with non human beings seems to go against the very concept of Christianity which says that God created man in his own image. That life was created here on Earth and that we are all descendents of Adam and Eve. How do aliens fit into that picture for a Theist?
The overall point is that Star Trek is not indifferent to Christianity, not that the crew of the Enterprise were all Christians but rather that they recognized that Christianity was a fundamental philosophy that also led to the foundation of the Federation.
@@PoochAndBoo Like I said Star Trek is not indifferent to Christianity unlike what modern NuTrekkers claim. But this is what made Star Trek appealing to Christians like myself and my late Evangelist father who used to gather us as a family every Wednesday night to watch new episodes of TNG and Voyager.
The point was to show that Star Trek does not exclude Christianity and why Star Trek also drew in Christians.
@@jrc99us I would argue that "Christianity was a fundamental philosophy that also led to the foundation of the Federation" is rather presumptuous. The elements of Christianity that were embraced by the Federation are found in many philosophies--religious and sectarian.
So it would be more accurate--and more honest--to say that the Federation was founded on philosophies held by many systems of thought. Christianity happened to be one.
It's not a fundamental difference in our opinions, but more one of emphasis.
@@PoochAndBoo To say Roddenberry was "not in agreement with much of that script writing but realized he'd just better allow that" shows an absolute lack of awareness of Roddenberry and his character. Roddenberry often infuriated people in his rewriting of scripts and of his absolute insistence that Star Trek be depicted his way. Roddenberry moved more toward atheism later in life, and he was certainly no proponent of over-bearing religion including Christianity, but he liked to talk about God and ponder who and what He was even if he didn't adhere to a particular belief.
Does the Christian bible speak of rights? Rights of the accused, rights to a trial by their peers, rights to representation by console, rights of cross examination, right to be confronted by the witness against him?
The Law of Moses makes clear that no one can be convicted of a crime on the word of one person. The testimony of multiple witnesses is required. Anonymous accusations are also rejected.
God or you say Great Jehovah or Yaweh or IAM That IAM or EL Shaddai or The Supreme Being. Rather you believe or not ? You will stand before Him. A person can convince themselves that He doesn't exist. It will not help you. Because even God said those who say there is no God He calls them a Fool !
@@gregorydotson6776 You didn't answer my question.
@@patcoston but @Sennmut did.. address it.
@@patcostonActually you are wrong. I think it's the answer you don't like.
Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett were married in a Buddhist Ceremony. I don't why anyone thought Gene Roddenberry was an atheist.
The best representation of "God" in SF is on the British 1979 series "Quatermass", in which "God" is an invisible incorporeal energy based life form that visits earth every 3000 years and EATS millions if young people, until Prof Quatermass baits a trap with an atomic bomb. Which stings "him" enough to persuade "him" to leave humanity alone. At least for the next 3000 years.....
Quatermass is kind of baloney.. it does not represent God at all in reality terms... Eats millions of young people? Serious?
Why should it be? Get lost with YOUR hidden agendas.
🥱
This is the MOST stupid title EVER !
These people who're telling you that you can't like Star Trek because you're a Christian sound like gatekeepers.
Which is ironic, since the same kind of people would be the first to complain about "gatekeeping".
There's also the concept of the "toxic fan". It seems they're being toxic by trying to keep you out of the fandom because of your beliefs.
The original series was Christian oriented. The later series spin-offs often had unChristian talking points thrown in such as the next generation for example. Very sad that the Star Trek series took this path after the original series.
Star Trek forced women into submissiveness. That sounds _exactly_ like evangelical Christianity.
It's only a tv and movie program give it rest
Total BS, why do people find it necessary to question Roddenberry's religious views within the confines of TOS? The show is science fiction, with frankly a lot of science thrown in and a smattering of religion here and there over its duration. This type of content which implies an exclusion for Christians is totally unwarranted for discussion. It only serves as a detractor from the value of TOS and Roddenberry's dream for a better future for humanity. Either watch these old shows or don't. There's no need to drag any of it threw mud which IMHO only illuminates your character or perhaps the lack thereof. And frankly smacks of an agenda.
nonsense. humanity cannot progress without God and his direction. This is evident in the history of mankind.
@@mrstanskaggs1- Truly that 'is' nonsense. Historically, everyone has not been religious or of the same religion. Why even the word 'god' is subjective these days with the revelation of the truth unveiled from thousands of clay tablets recovered from ancient Nineveh, the capital of Assyria in northern Mesopotamia, and from the site of Uruk, in southern Mesopotamia. We've since learned that the Bible is a collection of plagiarisms from earlier texts thousands of years older than even the Masoretic Text. These clay tablets have illuminated that Yahweh is the combination of the two Sumerian gods Enlil and Enki which is why the Bible uses the word Elohim; which is plural meaning gods. For far over two millennia, translators have twisted the narrative to filter out polytheism in favor of their monotheistic agenda to arrive at what you call a Bible today, which is sadly a gross misrepresentation of the original texts.
@@mrstanskaggs1 - Truly that 'is' nonsense. Historically, everyone has not been religious or of the same religion. Why even the word 'god' is subjective these days with the revelation of the truth unveiled from thousands of clay tablets recovered from ancient Nineveh, the capital of Assyria in northern Mesopotamia, and from the site of Uruk, in southern Mesopotamia. We've since learned that the Bible is a collection of plagiarisms from earlier texts thousands of years older than even the Masoretic Text. These clay tablets have illuminated that Yahweh is the combination of the two Sumerian gods Enlil and Enki which is why the Bible uses the word Elohim; which is plural meaning gods. For far over two millennia, translators have twisted the narrative to filter out polytheism in favor of their monotheistic agenda to arrive at what you call a Bible today, which is sadly a gross misrepresentation of the original texts.
@@mrstanskaggs1- Truly that 'is' nonsense. Historically, everyone has not been religious or of the same religion. Why even the word god is subjective these days with the revelation of the truth unveiled from thousands of clay tablets recovered from ancient Nineveh, the capital of Assyria in northern Mesopotamia, and from the site of Uruk, in southern Mesopotamia. We've since learned that the Bible is a collection of plagiarisms from earlier texts thousands of years older than even the Masoretic Text. These clay tablets have illuminated that Yahweh is the combination of the two Sumerian gods Enlil and Enki which is why the Bible uses the word Elohim; which is plural meaning gods. For far over two millennia, translators have twisted the narrative to filter out polytheism in favor of their monotheistic agenda to arrive at what you call a Bible today, which is sadly a gross misrepresentation of the original texts.
@@mrstanskaggs1 - Truly that 'is' nonsense. Historically, everyone has not been religious or of the same religion. Why even the word 'god' is subjective these days with the revelation of the truth unveiled from thousands of clay tablets recovered from ancient Nineveh, the capital of Assyria in northern Mesopotamia, and from the site of Uruk, in southern Mesopotamia. We've since learned that the Bible is a collection of plagiarisms from earlier texts thousands of years older than even the Masoretic Text. These clay tablets have illuminated that Yahweh is the combination of the two Sumerian gods Enlil and Enki which is why the Bible uses the word Elohim; which is plural meaning gods. For far over two millennia, translators have twisted the narrative to filter out polytheism in favor of their monotheistic agenda to arrive at what you call a Bible today, which is sadly a gross misrepresentation of the original texts.
God? No science fiction and the authors of it do not follow your religion. Why must they?
Christianity can not withstand close examination without recognizing its inherent flaws. The religion is totalitarian in its structure, as most mainstream religions are and therefore is usually in opposition to ideals of freedom, liberty and progress. Religions eschew the scientific process or any questioning of established dogma. Such a belief system would be wholly incompatible with being an officer in Starfleet.
The problem is not the professed tenets of Christianity but rather the dogmatic structure of the priestly caste that seeks to subjugate the masses through a system of supernatural punishment and reward, using guilt and shame.
That's a completely understandable perspective. What I find interesting is that science has so effectively taken the place of dogmatic religion. It often shames and excommunicates those who won't completely fall in line with its stated dogma, with those who explore forbidden perspectives. The problem with both religious and scientific communities trying to control people is that that action violates their designs and therefore undermines their purposes and their credibility. Trek is ultimately about overcoming prejudices and allowing discovery. But it seems that people cling to structures, whether they are called religion or they are called science, and get pretty dogmatic either way.
You use a rather big brush. Priests are only in certain Christian religions. Also, in the past, religion and scientists went hand in hand. The greatest universities were established by believers. I recommend you do a little more research.
@@jamesphilip6737 Indeed. From Grosseteste to Newton to Farraday. Were these folks "anti-science"? Even Oppenheimer, in a 1962 article in Encounter magazine, stated that it was the Christian world view that gave birth to the scientific revolution. I suspect the man knew what he was talking about.
you understand that Christianity from Jesus was simply "treat others like yourself", right? That the dictatorial and dogmatic aspects came about after Emperor Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Even so, how is Christianity totalitarian in it's structure? You also understand that in no variant is there a clause where one must be put to death if they leave the faith.. you know, like islam? Also, you can only feel guilt or shame if you actually do something bad. No one can make you feel guilty for something you didn't do (like slavery in America, which ended in 1862, or warring with the Native American Indians).
@@MrKennymartYou have sat up SCIENCE as your new God even if you do not quite realize it. Many, many today also have. Perhaps that's one reason why our society is as decadent and depraved as it now is...
th-cam.com/video/3FXS70mLhME/w-d-xo.htmlsi=yGAMMjJSBKKdV2HH
I think the contents of the episode these two are watching (linked) are very important to your video, *jrc99us*.
They speak very loosely of religion during portions of this episode; and I would enjoy hearing the perspective of others, here, on the effect of the notions within on notions of Christianity and other religions that also surely still exist in Earth's future.
While the characters in this episode seem to indicate everyone was convinced that religion is less civilized, many have suggested (as "Is Star Trek Not For Christians" indicates) Christianity, as *the* religion that has survived, has convinced everyone that anything non-Christian is less civilized - and I personally disagree with both assessments.
I believe many religions would continue to exist by this time in our future 💙💙
Sorry there are some dense sentences, above. It was either that or a lot more words. 💙💙💙