Does Star Trek teach unchristian principles?

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
166,654
56,276
Woods
✟4,677,288.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am strictly talking about the Christians forcefully putting an end to human suffering. I am not talking about the political aspects. Anyway, I really don’t understand why people get so upset about Europeans conquering the Americas or Asia, or wherever. That’s the way the world worked back then. The various cultures that were colonized were usually conquering each other. Furthermore, the various European cultures had always been, in essence, colonizing each other. The media always referred the Northern Ireland conflict as Protestants and Catholics refusing to not get along with each other. The reality is the conflict had nothing to do with religion. The problem all stemmed from the fact that Ireland had been conquered by England. The Catholics were the true Irish people, just as the Native Americans are the true Original Americans. Those Protestants that the Catholics were fighting against actually descendants of people from England and Scotland sent by England to control the Irish. Those Catholics just never got over the fact they were conquered.

My great grandfather was from Galicia, a province in Spain. Well, Galicia was its own Kingdom until they were conquered by the kingdom of Asturias, which was later conquered by Castile who ended up conquering all of the various Iberian kingdoms and eventually Spain was formed. To me it’s simply absurd to look back and complain about being conquered long long ago. That’s simply the way the entire world worked, and it’s unfair that society is now making it seem as if only the Europeans were guilty of conquering other cultures, when in fact all of the European cultures themselves have been conquered by other European cultures, as well as non-European cultures.
It’s called Presentism.

Bill Maher did a humorous talk on it.

pres·ent·ism
/ˈprezenˌtizəm/

noun
  1. uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Christians have done their share of oppressing innocent victims.

And silence on evil is the same as complicity with evil.



There was also some slaughter of other Christians done during the Crusades, not to mention other atrocities of war by Christians upon Christians noted by Roger Williams even in the 1600s.



To follow your logic, it's immoral not to wait for God to end abortion. "So what if babies have to continue to endure the abuse of abortion?"

So, how committed are you to the logic of your argument?
After everything thing I have written on this thread, do you really believe I think it’s acceptable to be silent about any evil.

BTW, some of the victims of Christian on Christian violence during the Crusades were not exactly innocent in the reason they were victims. The most famous case of this kind I can think of is known as the sacking of Constantinople. The reason the western European Christians violently attacked the Christians in Constantinople was due to being betrayed by them. The two had planned to stack the Muslims at a specific location, and when the Western European arrived to do battle against the Muslims, the Christians of Constantinople didn’t show up and left the western Christians to fight the Muslims all by themselves. Naturally, the western Christians were angry at the betrayal, especially since the whole point of the Crusades was to defend the eastern Christians in the first place. Imagine someone asking you to join them in fighting their oppressors and then you show up to fught to defend them and they don't show up. Well, it's horrible that this happened to Constantinople because of their betrayal. But look at them now. Now Constantinople is called Istanbul and the city belongs to Muslims. Not only that, the Patriarch of Constantinople (top bishop of Eastern Orthodox Church) is now subordinate to Turkey's president, a Muslim. So, I'd say that consequences of their betrayal was far worse than just being attacked by the western Christians.

I certainly don’t condone attacking your fellow Christian, but on the other hand, I admit I would have been angry about the betrayal also.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
It’s called Presentism.

Bill Maher did a humorous talk on it.

pres·ent·ism
/ˈprezenˌtizəm/

noun
  1. uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
Yes, I saw that bit.

I always tell people, "We have all ancestors who were conquered, and we all have ancestors who did some conquering."
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
166,654
56,276
Woods
✟4,677,288.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Did you see where Don Lemon was schooled by that British woman concerning slavery?

ETA: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/don-lemon-squeezed-into-lemonade-by-british-woman/
Thanks for the post, I am old enough to remember when that book was released.

The video got me thinking. If people looking to the past, trying to figure out who's past actions we can blame for today's misery, somebody is going to make an accusation like Adam did in the Garden of Eden. I often hear people saying how what a jerk Adam was for blaming Eve as being the one who made him eat the forbidden fruit. It certainly is true that, when confronted by God about his sin, he did give Eve some of the blame for making him eat the fruit. But what I find more shocking about Adam's defense was that he claimed it was actually God's fault, "It was you that gave me the woman!" It's only a matter of time before people start saying, "It's God fault for creating the world!"
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Site Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,989
12,083
East Coast
✟840,980.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am strictly talking about the Christians forcefully putting an end to human suffering. I am not talking about the political aspects. Anyway, I really don’t understand why people get so upset about Europeans conquering the Americas or Asia, or wherever. That’s the way the world worked back then. The various cultures that were colonized were usually conquering each other. Furthermore, the various European cultures had always been, in essence, colonizing each other. The media always referred the Northern Ireland conflict as Protestants and Catholics refusing to not get along with each other. The reality is the conflict had nothing to do with religion. The problem all stemmed from the fact that Ireland had been conquered by England. The Catholics were the true Irish people, just as the Native Americans are the true Original Americans. Those Protestants that the Catholics were fighting against actually descendants of people from England and Scotland sent by England to control the Irish. Those Catholics just never got over the fact they were conquered.

My great grandfather was from Galicia, a province in Spain. Well, Galicia was its own Kingdom until they were conquered by the kingdom of Asturias, which was later conquered by Castile who ended up conquering all of the various Iberian kingdoms and eventually Spain was formed. To me it’s simply absurd to look back and complain about being conquered long long ago. That’s simply the way the entire world worked, and it’s unfair that society is now making it seem as if only the Europeans were guilty of conquering other cultures, when in fact all of the European cultures themselves have been conquered by other European cultures, as well as non-European cultures.

For some reason, you avoided the question you asked. Should Christianity be enforced? I gave you my answer. You can't avoid the politics of the question you asked. Force is a function of government. Is force a function of the proclamation, too?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
For some reason, you avoided the question you asked. Should Christianity be enforced? I gave you my answer. You can't avoid the politics of the question you asked. Force is a function of government. Is force a function of the proclamation, too?
Actually, I did specifically say that no one should be forced to convert, I jst want to force Christian morality. And as far as I know there is no Christian Church that permits forced conversions. Unless you are referring to situations like England where in many areas, they forced Catholics to convert to the Anglican church. But I don't know of any Christian Church that endorses forced conversions, I know the Catholic Church disapproves of such behavior because a forced conversion would not be a conversion at all.

For example, even after the Spanish Conquistadors destroyed the Aztecs, the indigenous people were not forced to convert. The only reason so many Mexicans of indigenous ancestry became Catholics is because there was an indigenous Mexican who claimed the Virgin Mary had appeared before him and following his vision an enormous amount of indigenous people converted to the Catholic Church. The vision of the Virgin Mary is called Our Lady of Guadalupe. Although the Catholic Church has approved this apparition, it is considered private revelation and any Catholic is free to believe it was a true vision or not believe it was true.

To lighten things up, I'll tell you a legend about an indigenous Cuban by the name of Hatuey. BTW, my parents were from Cuba, and this a very famous story in the Cuban culture. Anyway, Hatuey did not like that fact that his island had been conquered by the Spanish, and he fought hard to prevent their success. Eventually, the Spanish decided to execute him. Just before he was executed, a priest asked him if we wanted to accept Jeus and become a Christian so he can go to Heaven. His response was priceless. Hatuey said to the priest, "If there are Spanish people in Heaven, then no, I definitely do want to go to Heaven." And I don't blame him for his response because unlike the Aztec situation in Mexico, there was nothing noble about what the Spanish did in Cuba.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you really believe the Christians were wrong for launching the Crusades to defend their fellow Christians, and fight to stop the immorality of Islam?

here's an excerpt from Volf, Miroslav. Allah: A Christian Response
"A Crusader shouts Christus dominus (“Christ is the Lord”) while cleaving the head of an infidel. A terrorist shouts Allahu Akhbar (“God is the greatest”) as he pulls the fuse of the bomb strapped around his waist. They are naming God very differently, and yet they are, alas, worshipping the same god—a bloodthirsty god of power, not the God of justice and mercy of the normative Christian and Muslim religious traditions."

I think we should be noticeably different.

I personally am not able to stand by and do nothing to help someone who is being victimized by an evil person.

don't confuse my meaning with apathy. you seem to be approaching the need to rescue the oppressed and marginalize head-on with force. So long as were talking about people here, I approach both the oppressor and the oppressed as our mission. Although Christ came first to the Jew, his ministry overflowed to others as well where we actually see Romans positively impacted by Christ and even seeking out Christ.

Christianity did not conquer the Roman empire, there was no Christian military to overthrow the government. It instead impacted the guys at the top to such a degree that the entire empire was transformed. We should not interpret that as a hostile takeover. I can assure you the way to impact the dark places of the earth where the gospel has not penetrated is not through force. I'm pretty sure that has already been tried, over and over and over again. All change is through the heart and no amount of force can force the heart.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,607
3,096
✟216,988.00
Faith
Non-Denom
In one episode, at one point an alien mentioned the concept of multiple gods and Kirk quickly quipped, "No, thanks, the one is sufficient."

And TOS "Balance of Terror" showed the Enterprise as having a chapel. I can only speculate what kind of tug-of-war writers may have had over those issues with Roddenberry.

Frequently, though, the plot of episodes was to skewer the concept of any kind of supernatural entity that commanded the obedience of human societies.
Keep in mind too the Star Trek of the 60's gave some reference to God yes as being credible at least on the "No thanks the one is sufficient" but would the Star Trek today do that. Don't think so.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,607
3,096
✟216,988.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I'm just very surprised Star Trek has endured. From a time in the 60s it existed then never heard of it again until the Star Wars things started up. They said Hey we can bring Star Trek back again. It was fun seeing the whole crew back together if nothing else but for a reunion. Truly think it got overplayed though now. It's really a soap opera of the future. With all the difference series of ST so many of them. I lament that science fiction could have had inroads with new concepts something original as a science fiction series should have come forth or to boldly go where no Hollywood director and actors have gone before! No matter what happens on Star Trek we've been there before, over and over and over again! Maybe Star Trek to television networks is like Linus's blanket. You're comfortable with it and afraid to try something different.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sparow

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,554
428
85
✟489,764.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I have been watching Star Trek since I was a kid. I have always admired the Prime Directive that the characters of the show strictly follow under the belief that it is a noble rule. The Primary Directive is a rule that prohibits Starfleet personnel and spacecraft from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that any Starfleet vessel or crew member is expendable to prevent violation of this rule.

I always thought the Prime Directive was such a good and moral rule. However, I have read about some events in history, where one could rightfully say that Christians had been guilty of violating the Prime Directive. The thing is, I believe those Christians were heroes for choosing to interfere with the normal development of the societies they had colonized.

I would like to get other Christians' opinions about the Prime Directive. Additionally, below you can read about two historical examples of Christians violating the Prime Directive below. I would also like to get your opinions as to whether you think it was good that Christian morality was imposed on the cultures mentioned in the examples below. This should be interesting considering the fact that lately, it seems we are constantly be told the European colonizers were evil.

The first example involves Anglicans, and the second involves Catholics.

Let’s start with the Anglican example. Shortly after arriving in India the British encountered the ancient Hindu custom called Sati. This is an obsolete Hindu practice where widows burn themselves alive, willing or unwilling, on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

Of course, there was moral outrage on the part of the British, they were Christians after all. In fact, the then Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India, Sir Charles James Napier placed a prohibition on the practice of the horrifying Hindu custom. As a result, a Hindu priest expressed his objection to the prohibition because it violated the Hindu right to practice their custom.

The very wise General Napier decided that he agreed with the Hindu priest and said, “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

Now for the Catholic example. When people in the United States learn about the Spanish Conquistadors conquering the Aztecs, they are always told that the Spanish were evil. Americans are never told the truth about the Aztecs, and they are never told how such a small number of men were able to conquer the Aztecs.

So what’s the truth about the Aztecs? Well, they were very cruel to the smaller weaker surrounding indigenous tribes. For starters, the Aztecs enslaved many members of those smaller indigenous tribes. While in my opinion, that is bad enough to justify conquering the Aztecs, their other activities were far more horrifying. You see, these Aztecs practiced a kind of Paganism, that was far worse than any Paganism that existed in the Roman Empire.

The Aztecs liked to sacrifice human beings to their pagan gods. Of course, they didn’t sacrifice their fellow Aztecs. They would kidnap members of the smaller indigenous tribes and sacrifice them. The victims varied in age, and they included babies. Sometimes, prior to being thrown into the sacrificial pit, the Aztecs would remove the victim’s heart while he or she was still alive. And what did they do with the bodies of their dead victims? Why they would use them as decorations.

Being Christians, the Spanish Conquistadors were absolutely horrified. They made the moral decision that the Aztecs must be stopped, but there were so few Conquistadors compared to the number of Aztecs. What could they do? They did the only thing they could They suggested to the other Indian tribes that were being victimized by the Aztecs, that there could be victory against the Aztecs if all the smaller tribes joined forces with the Spanish Conquistadors. All the tribes, except for one, immediately agreed to join forces with the Spanish to fight the Aztecs. The problem with the one remaining tribe was that they didn’t like the Spanish either. However, it didn’t take long for that tribe to admit to themselves that the Aztec were truly evil, and their dislike of the Spanish didn’t come close to how they felt about the Aztecs. Well, as I am sure you, those unified forces successfully destroyed the Aztecs, and the abuses came to an end forever.


I expect Star Track is based in part on Judaism and Biblical principles.
 
Upvote 0