Against the Jews

[gurneyhalleck1]

I completely understand, Rus. Star Trek got a little bigger than Gene Roddenberry at times. And sometimes when it did, it WAS better! Nicholas Meyer, who directed both Wrath of Kahn and Undiscovered Country, locked horns with Roddenberry A LOT over vision. Meyer wanted a Star Trek with flawed people, a sinful and flawed universe, and a Starfleet with corruption and intrigue just like, well---REAL LIFE! Roddenberry persisted in this notion that humanity will "evolve" out of selfishness and violence and power-grabbing and avarice. He always, as a humanist, thought humanity had this tremendous evolutionary potential to become the inspiration of the galaxy. It's worth noting that you see all the flaws, sins, errors, passions, and tensions of humanity in Meyer's films. Perhaps that's why I enjoy them so much.

For me, there is too much that I absolutely love in Star Trek to jettison it. Yes, I concur with you about humanism and the grandeur of man garbage and the cynicism about religion and the "rationalism" Trek pumps out. No disagreement there, Rus. But I enjoy the Spock story a lot from his learning to embrace his humanity to falling into "kolinar" and relapsing into logic-only, and then coming back to realizing his potential. I love the friendship between the "big three" on the series. I enjoy the GOOD stories looking at human interference in other planets. It is usually an allegory to American intervention in foreign countries. I like the racism themes on "Let this be your last Battlefield" and "Cloud Minders." I thought the flirtation with utopias and its futility in episodes like "Return of the Archons" and "This Side of Paradise" were interesting. "Specter of the Gun" always was riveting to me the idea of a paranoid culture using people's own thoughts to be their undoing and Spock helping the boys to lose their faith in emotion temporarily to survive. Interesting notion. "The Empath" was an episode I adored in that it was super conceptual. I liked how you have two aliens who've lost their ability to feel and offer sympathy or real love in the midst of a quest to save an entire planet. Science has hardened and ruined them, both aliens. I loved that episode. "Omega Glory" shows a captain who was once great get caught up in a quest for youth and to keep what he has at the expense of his integrity. "Tholian Web" explores the ideas of leadership, who we trust, and why. "Obsession" has Moby Dick themes. "Wolf in the Fold" is a good old-fashioned mystery and ghoulish thriller. "By Any Other Name" looks at soldiers as links on a chain with a duty that forces them to sacrifice their own happiness and chance at exploration of life just to fullfill a duty. "City on the Edge of Forever" gets us to look at how pacifism can actually create tyranny if done at the wrong place and the wrong time with the wrong mindset. And it shows how sacrifice of love for the good of others is a sad necessity at time. The big picture..."Space Seed" shows the absurdity and real endgame of eugenics. "A Taste of Armageddon" lays out for the viewer how absurd domestic and foreign policy can get when we lose sight of how to deal with our neighbors. When we create what seem like "logical" and "clean" solutions to problems, they really balloon into stupidity. The episode makes one think of euthanasia and legalized drugs and other social "fixes" that make sense on paper but lack morality and common sense. "Gamesters of Triskelion" makes me think of human trafficking today and its implications. "Ultimate Computer" engages the viewer to consider how machinery and technology should NEVER take away the human factor and rob of us of our humanity in the process. "Savage Curtain" forces us to confront the reality that sometimes the means of victory for good and evil aren't all that different!!!!

Then there are the "playful" episodes of Trek that have no real impact on me but are just fun and entertaining. Episodes like:

"Wink of an Eye"
"Day of the Dove"
"Whom Gods Destroy"
"The Enterprise Incident"
"I, Mudd"
"Trouble with Tribbles"
"Squire of Gothos"
"Arena"

and a ton of other episodes.

So my point is, you see humanism and atheism at every turn. I see it here and there in sprinkles, and even then when I see it, it doesn't necessarily impact my faith. Episodes like "The Apple," "For the World is Hollow...", "Return of the Archons," "Who Mourns for Adonais?" and a few others throw out a cynicism about religion. Religion is presented as contrived, a means of control, and rational thinking is wholly absent. Episodes like that can be taken as hostile to religion, no doubt. In many ways they are. But in "Return of the Archons" I see a religion with a founder (Landru) that has steadily LOST ITS SOUL! The religion has become a cult, which Landru never intended. Things were said in his name that weren't legit, and the culture fell into a dark type of simpleton society. I think that CAN happen! Look at Mormonism and other bizarre religions that have perverted Christ's teachings and the early Fathers! Protestantism is rife with poor interpretation and re-invention.

Take "Who Mourns for Adonais?" The message---man no longer has need of gods. But notice Kirk says, "we find the ONE quite adequate." So there is an acknowledgement of monotheism at least. I know you'll probably say Roddenberry threw that in due to the times he lived in. Possibly so.

"The Apple" is another of those "religious" episodes. Again, I think it explores man falling from grace. The Fall HAS TO happen due to history and the inevitability of man having to scratch out a living Cain style...And the context again is that Vaal, the "computer god" is unnatural for these people to worship. We can't make Vaal akin to our God of Israel.

When you get to Next Generation you DEFINITELY see a full-on atheist message with "Who Watches the Watchers?" That episode still gives me GREAT PAUSE and is the biggest chink in the armor of Trek and my respect for the franchise. I loathe that episode. I hear a lot of people of faith arguing that the episode is not about atheism, but rather embracing a religion that is violent or the fact that their race eventually is supposed to become Vulcan, so rationalism is paramount. Others say it's not about atheism but rather the prime directive and why it's important. I don't buy any of those arguments. Fact is, the episode is atheist as heck. Picard talks like he's the president of the Atheists of Starfleet Association. It's over the top to be sure. And it's blatant.

So, I do agree that Trek has gobs of humanism at its core that rear their ugly heads at times, but I don't agree with you that it's as constant as to turn me away. I can plug my ears to the silly humanist nonsense because I'm mature enough to do so and have the ability to glean the good while jettisoning the refuse. There is much good in Star Trek, but also humanism. I still stick with it for the good.

There has to come a point where we don't completely turn into the unibomber living in a shack. I don't want to be that kind of Orthodox Christian. If there is anything un-Orthodox or un-Christian, I can't like it? I can't pull for the San Francisco Giants or watch major league baseball anymore because they have LGBT night at the stadium once a year or shop at Target because they celebrated "gay marriage" as a big victory? I can't watch Lord of the Rings because Ian McKellan is gay in real life and is a loud atheist? I can't buy an iphone because it was made with sweat shop labor. I can't watch X-Men because it has some subtle LGBT themes. I can't watch Iron Man because Tony Stark is a bit of a player with girls. I can't watch any shows or films with espionage because 9 times out of 10 there are people jumping in the sack together. It's part of the spy game. So that's out. I can't watch Walking Dead because it has zombies and that's off limits. It just goes on and on and on. Some kind of sin touches all entertainment, all products, all everything these days. I refuse to live in a cave. I just try to muddle along and find the Orthodox in what I watch or read or listen to. I'm good at drowning out the negative. My godfather got in my face about my children going to a Lutheran school and how somehow my poor kids are going to hear about Luther and the 95 Theses and oh dang they'll become little Protestant rebels. He had a limited vision. He couldn't see that good parents can explain the imperfections and amplify the great and good and beneficial. That's what my wife and I do. It's no accident that my kids are the best-behaved children at our Orthodox parish, the ones who listen and learn the most from Sunday school, help around the house without hesitation, have never EVER talked back to me in their lives or argued with me, treat people with intense love, are prayerful, and know a ton about their faith. Yet the same godfather deacon who preached this to me has a dysfunctional bunch of kids. Go figure....

My way has been working for me, so as the redneck maxim goes "if it ain't broke..."

But like I said, I respect your angle 100% and get it.

The enormous difference between Gene Roddenberry and GK Chesterton was that Chesterton is almost completely right about most things, just as the Catholic Church is MUCH closer to the truth than secular humanism.

For me, Gurney, it comes down to being hit regularly with central ideas that I know are false. It kills the enjoyment, the willing suspension of disbelief in fantastic elements. With Chesterton, this is almost never true. Although Chesterton defends the Catholic Church,.

 

[jckstraw72]

haha, i aim to please

 

[topcare]

I completely understand, Rus. Star Trek got a little bigger than Gene Roddenberry at times. And sometimes when it did, it WAS better! Nicholas Meyer, who directed both Wrath of Kahn and Undiscovered Country, locked horns with Roddenberry A LOT over vision. Meyer wanted a Star Trek with flawed people, a sinful and flawed universe, and a Starfleet with corruption and intrigue just like, well---REAL LIFE! Roddenberry persisted in this notion that humanity will "evolve" out of selfishness and violence and power-grabbing and avarice. He always, as a humanist, thought humanity had this tremendous evolutionary potential to become the inspiration of the galaxy. It's worth noting that you see all the flaws, sins, errors, passions, and tensions of humanity in Meyer's films. Perhaps that's why I enjoy them so much.

Some Star Trek Fan Audio, Series, and Films are like the bold portion above and as I think about some of the books are too.

 

[St Herman's Ghost]

What is the Orthodox position on St John Chrysostom's homilies against the Jews? A lot of Christians disavow them as anti-semetic.

I think it's a matter of historical context. I mean he is from a time when being a Christian was a fairly fatal thing. Surely people probably exploited the structural anti-Christian prejudices of Roman society; could it seem reasonable that maybe that bled into that?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I think it's a matter of historical context. I mean he is from a time when being a Christian was a fairly fatal thing. Surely people probably exploited the structural anti-Christian prejudices of Roman society; could it seem reasonable that maybe that bled into that?

Neither John nor the church was being persecuted at that time as far as I know. He used the rhetorical form known as the "psogos", whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner.

 

[St Herman's Ghost]

Neither John nor the church was being persecuted at that time as far as I know. He used the rhetorical form known as the "psogos", whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner.

He lived in the 4th century? I mean, can't it even be established that he was talking about Jews specifically as a race and not Jews as a spiritual group, often the enemy of Christians and representative of the corruption and sin Jesus protested against during his holy life? I have found this article as well

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/antisemitism.aspx

 

[jckstraw72]

i thought he was talking about Judaizers

 

[St Herman's Ghost]

i thought he was talking about Judaizers

Exactly, the targets of Kata Ioudaiōn, as I recall were all members of his own parish that, as pastor and spiritual Father, he was trying to correct them.

 

[fat wee robin]

This Hebrew/Aramaic vs. Greek diversion is just bizarre. I'm the only person in this thread so far who is actually in communion with an Aramaic-speaking (well, Neo-Aramaic) church, yet I've never met an actual Syriac person who pulls the kind of nonsense Yeshua HaLarpkh is pulling here. It's only the modern-day Judaizers who do this, and most of them thankfully stick to Protestantism (which is where their actual roots lie), not Eastern Orthodoxy. I almost feel bad for you guys that you have one among your ranks here, until I remember that he's probably the only one who any of you have ever interacted with either, since the vast majority of actual Orthodox Christians -- like actual Jews -- apparently have better things to do.

Anyway, back to the original topic. Tallguy88, I would say that St. John Chrysostom's writings in this area are considered controversial primarily due to later, more modern events and attitudes for which the saint himself cannot be blamed. One could make an analogy here to various early saints' writings on Islam which, to the modern Western person, would probably read as though littered with "Islamophobia", but in reality are rooted in the quite sensible Christian rejection of what amounts to another gospel and a false religion built around it. Judaism is likewise a false religion, and we, like St. John Chrysostom, do well to remember that and not soft-peddle it out of fear of seeming "anti-Semitic" -- a concept which would have had absolutely no currency before the modern era (the term "Semitic" to refer to peoples does not predate the 19th century, and is intimately tied to thankfully discredited European pseudoscientific theories on race; it always kind of shocks me that even Jews and non-Jews of today find it completely acceptable to use...never waste perfectly good political capital, I guess).

I'm going to start speaking Romulan in here out of nowhere.

We. Don't. Speak. Hebrew.
You are speaking what you like, without consideration for us.

If I speak what I like, I could say that твое неуважение к носителям английского языка отвергает всех нас от чего либо, что Вы бы хотели предлагать. Вы, может быть, сможете это читать и понимать. Но всё равно, грубо так себя вести. Speak English, please!!

I'm following the thread with great interest ,but coming from a tradition which had to speak English at the point of death,and finding English speakers inclined to profond arrogance and ignorance of other peoples cultures and languages to the point of not even learning the most basic polite expressions, I am very deeply disturbed by your
unwillingness to allow even for the original version of biblical names .
Anyway ,what is English but a hybrid of early Briton ? ,Latin ,French ,Anglo Saxon , Viking ,Gaelic ,American, (not English to us over here )?

 

[His Disciple]

This is one of the most irritating trends. Next thing there'll be someone here typing G_d instead of God, cos, y'know...YHWH clearly hates vowels.

That irritating trend is led by people who want to pay homage to the Synagogue of Satan. The early church fathers and the NT writers always used vowels when referring to God. Biblical Hebrew didn't have vowels at all, in any word.

There's something seriously wrong when anyone's theology leads them to think they know better the writers of the NT.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That irritating trend is led by people who want to pay homage to the Synagogue of Satan. The early church fathers and the NT writers always used vowels when referring to God. Biblical Hebrew didn't have vowels at all, in any word.

There's something seriously wrong when anyone's theology leads them to think they know better the writers of the NT.

LOL, again, ignorance. G_D is not used by Rabbinic Jews because of vowels or no vowels, it is about respect. BTW early Church writers wrote in Greek. The OT was written originally in Hebrew with some parts in Aramaic. Do you consider anything written in Aramaic and/or Hebrew invalid because there are no vowels as you say?

 

[dzheremi]

Does nobody here recognize a joke? Have I been Poe'd?

 

[His Disciple]

G_D is not used by Rabbinic Jews because of vowels or no vowels, it is about respect.

I wasn't speaking of rabbinc Jews. I was speaking of people who call themselves Christians, but follow the rabbinical practice. Those people aren't doing it out of respect for God, but as I said, they do it as homage to the Synagogue of Satan -- because it the practice of those who call themselves Jews, but deny Jesus is the Christ. Ditto for the practice of judaizing Jesus name.

As for me, I'll follow the example of the writers of the Bible in what I call God. I'll follow the Apostle Paul's lead, Paul a Hebrew of Hebrews.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Those people aren't doing it out of respect for God, but as I said, they do it as homage to the Synagogue of Satan

and you know this....how exactly? I personally find it annoying when Christians do it, but since I can't read their hearts, I have no idea as to the why.

 

[His Disciple]

and you know this....how exactly? I personally find it annoying when Christians do it, but since I can't read their hearts, I have no idea as to the why.

I'm not reading their hearts, I'm just looking the fetish many of them display for all things rabbinical.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not reading their hearts, I'm just looking the fetish many of them display for all things rabbinical.

so then you don't know that they are or are not doing it as a homage to God or Satan, which also means you don't know if it's a fetish or not.

so your point is.....?

 

[His Disciple]

so then you don't know that they are or are not doing it as a homage to God or Satan, which also means you don't know if it's a fetish or not.

I know when you emulate a false religion, you're not doing it as homage to God.

 

[rusmeister]

I'm following the thread with great interest ,but coming from a tradition which had to speak English at the point of death,and finding English speakers inclined to profond arrogance and ignorance of other peoples cultures and languages to the point of not even learning the most basic polite expressions, I am very deeply disturbed by your
unwillingness to allow even for the original version of biblical names .
Anyway ,what is English but a hybrid of early Briton ? ,Latin ,French ,Anglo Saxon , Viking ,Gaelic ,American, (not English to us over here )?

Hi, Robin,
I am pretty much the essence of the boy who grew up in monolingual WASP culture who really became no-kidding multicultural as an adult.
It's not that we don't want to learn Biblical names, it's not arrogance or willful ignorance. It's about a piece of folk wisdom older than you or me: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Do not go into other cultures imposing your own, or even the one you like best. Language exists for the primary purpose of communicating to others, and not merely so that we can talk to ourselves. When you enter a culture you should accept the conventions of that culture and not impose your own unless invited to. The arrogance is on the part of the American who goes to Russia, or France, or whatever, and insists that everybody speak English. I live in Russia, but I'm not Russian. I get to speak my language a lot,because a lot of people want to learn it. But not everybody does, and when I am among adults and not teaching a lesson I speak the lingua franca, Russian, and don't pepper my speech with English words. In church I don't say "Jesus Christ" or even "Yeshua", but "Иисус Христос". I remember where I am and who I am speaking to. I respect my audience by speaking THEIR language, not mine. This ought to be common sense, but obviously, it is not.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Ditto for the practice of judaizing Jesus name.
As for me, I'll follow the example of the writers of the Bible in what I call God. I'll follow the Apostle Paul's lead, Paul a Hebrew of Hebrews.

Um, Jesus was a JEW and His Name was Yeshua. Using "Jesus" would be Anglicizing His Name from the Greek "Iesous". Uh, Paul wrote in Greek so he wouldn't have written "God" in English. So, if you want to follow Paul's lead, you should use Greek...

 

[fat wee robin]

Hi, Robin,
I am pretty much the essence of the boy who grew up in monolingual WASP culture who really became no-kidding multicultural as an adult.
It's not that we don't want to learn Biblical names, it's not arrogance or willful ignorance. It's about a piece of folk wisdom older than you or me: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Do not go into other cultures imposing your own, or even the one you like best. Language exists for the primary purpose of communicating to others, and not merely so that we can talk to ourselves. When you enter a culture you should accept the conventions of that culture and not impose your own unless invited to. The arrogance is on the part of the American who goes to Russia, or France, or whatever, and insists that everybody speak English. I live in Russia, but I'm not Russian. I get to speak my language a lot,because a lot of people want to learn it. But not everybody does, and when I am among adults and not teaching a lesson I speak the lingua franca, Russian, and don't pepper my speech with English words. In church I don't say "Jesus Christ" or even "Yeshua", but "Иисус Христос". I remember where I am and who I am speaking to. I respect my audience by speaking THEIR language, not mine. This ought to be common sense, but obviously, it is not.

Well, of all the languages and cultures ,Rusmeister , of those who need to learn that lesson most, it is the English, who have impose their lack of respect for other cultures everywhere they go .And the irony is, that you do not see that it is not a 'sacred language' ,but a mongrel one ,that is always adding to, and so cannot be harmed by adding yet another word from another culture .No one is asking us to speak another language , just teaching us something, which expands our vocabulary .
The reason English is dominant, apart from imperialist colonialism ,and trade, is that it 'grows' and adapts and changes , so what you are doing is against the pattern . It is not Native to the US it was imported by extreme violence .

Anyway I was interested in the thread about Jews and Saint John Crystosom(?) until we got diverted .
Saint John Crysostom . Must for respect of him and his family, write it correctly .