Does Star Trek teach unchristian principles?

Daniel Peres

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2022
586
150
57
Miami
✟26,872.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
I think it's pertinent to ask the question, What sort of representation of Christianity did we give to these "pre-warp" civilisations?

Christianity didn't take hold in India despite the missionary work of the British Empire. The reason it didn't can only be seen through the eyes of the typical Indian. They were being taught about Jesus the servant God but by very wealthy missionaries who had Indian servants to attend to them. They couldn't get their heads around the contradiction and so threw the baby out with the bathwater. It was also very much Gandhi's experience of Christians when he was studying in England and started going to church in, I think, Plymouth, and which led to his famous statement
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I'm only saying this because your question about whether it's right to spread Christianity to other cultures depends in part on whether Christianity is being properly represented or not.
First, in case you don't know, Christianity arrived in India long before the English missionaries arrived in India. It began the Apostle Thomas creating his part of the church there in the first century. I actually met a Catholic priest from India who was a descendant of the church which still exists today.

Second, I heard the Gandhi quote many years ago, and I admit I was impressed. However, after learning more about Gandhi, I came to question the value of this comment. He was correct to accuse the Christians of engaging in unchristian behavior, but the failure to avoid such behavior doesn't affect what true Christian morality is. Moreover, despite the fact that some, not all, of the behavior of the English was unchristian, as Christians, the English still had a duty to not engage in unchristian behavior.

Gandhi, on the other hand, also engaged in behavior that repugnant to authentic Christian morality. However, the difference between Gandhi and the English is that Gandhi's repugnant behavior was supported by the morality of his authentic Hinduism. I don't know if you are familiar with the Dalits of India. You might know them as the Untouchables. They are a group of people in India that Hinduism teaches are part of the lowest status of society, and this is because Hinduism teaches that their present incarnation is a punishment by God for sins in a previous life. As a result of this Hindu teaching, they are victims of severe and unjust discrimination. For example, they must limit themselves to the worst jobs.

As Dalit activist, Annihilate Caste, once explained, "If you are an untouchable, say, forced to clean the public toilets, you are breaking “Gods Will” if you rebel against this status, something that will be enforced on your children after you and their children after them. Accept your varna, be a good servant to the high castes and you will be reborn someday as one of them, or so goes Hinduism. The Dalits have a strong hate for Gandhi because when he was leader, he defended this Hindu teaching that brought so much suffering to the Dalits. Although Gandhi famously fought for the rights of the Hindus, he was directly responsible for ensuring that this horrible Caste system continued to be practiced. So, while the part of Gandhi's statement that criticized the English for being "so unlike Christ," can be justified by the facts, I don't believe first part of Gandhi's statement. Although he claimed to like Christ, his behavior was contrary to authentic Christian morality. The fact is that Hinduism kept him from behaving like Christ.

Sadly, there are other repugnant beliefs that Gandhi held. I am not going to list them here, but I will say that if you are interested the information isn't too hard to find.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
. However, the difference between Gandhi and the English is that Gandhi's repugnant behavior was supported by the morality of his authentic Hinduism. I don't know if you are familiar with the Dalits of India. You might know them as the Untouchables.

I'm not a Gandhi apologist but if you are going to lecture someone, it's best to make sure that your facts are right. Gandhi did not support the caste system. He said this 1915 "If it were proved to me that [untouchability] is an essential part of Hinduism, I for one would declare myself an open rebel against Hinduism itself."

You may counter this by saying he did not criticise the caste system directly and you're right, he didn't. He focussed on the untouchability question but this was because he thought that it was the cornerstone of the whole caste system. "If untouchability goes, the caste system goes. So, I am concentrating on it." is a direct quote from Gandhi.

But thanks for the "lecture".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
the prime directive intentionally contrasts colonialism. Historically Christians have "spread" the gospel through colonialism. In 1 Cor 9 Paul presents a missional heuristic that is more about reaching people on their turf, rather than through annexation. Paul tells us (v23) "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." Paul's ambition is that of the gospel not that of increasing lands, resources or physical kingdoms. With colonialism they may have flown a banner of the church but in truth had other ambitions that took the focus. In a gospel mindset, people are not our enemies that need to be conquered or overthrown, people are our mission. It is not our job to overthrow lands so that we may fix them. Our job is not to fix people, that's God's job, our job is to show them Christ. In a context like the Aztecs or unreached people groups, if our goal was the gospel a gentler approach would have probably been better. Because of their hostility the messengers would have been better through a more lateral people group/culture to their own. If the Conquistadors wanted to protect the slave tribes that is not what happened in the end and most perished through sickness, the survivors today are mainly of mixed blood. I'm not defending the acts of the Aztecs but I do defend the gospel and colonialism IMO is too much of a conflicting message to mix with the gospel and we shouldn't be applauding it. There are still unreached people groups in the world who are hostile to the gospel, but I don't see anyone who has improved upon Paul's approach to reaching others.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,838
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I vaguely remember an episode of the original series in which one of the Greek gods ( Apollo?) captured the Enterprise. He wanted them to worship him but they found a way to foil him but it was their resistance that grieved him more that weakened his resolve. I believe Kirk said that mortals were satisfied with one “God” so it the original show varied I believe.


Someone above mentioned the Balance of Terror episode which is a classic as is also Mirror Mirror. I never saw much of the spin-offs although I liked the movie: First Contact from the next generation (TNG).They tried a second movie from the TNG but it was lame.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I must admit I don’t know anything about the religious beliefs of the other Indian tribes. However, if what you’re saying is true, then why did those Indian tribes accept the assistance of the Spanish Conquistadors to stop the sacrifices? In other words, if they believed it was an honor to be offered as sacrifices by the Aztecs, then why did they fight along side the Spanish to stop the sacrifices?
It's important to remember that their philosophy of war was similar to that of the Aztecs - the point is to bring home the vanquished to be sacrificed, so you disable the legs when fighting. They were totally unprepared for the Spanish, who went right for the kill on the battlefield, and had steel armor that shattered obsidian weapons, and horses, and cannons. There was a skirmish between one of the tribes and the Spanish when they first landed, and after taking a few hundred casualties, they knew they were beaten.

As to why they joined the Spanish if being a sacrifice was an honor, there's more to it - obviously, you wanted to be the tribe that came out on top and did the sacrificing.

Also, I would appreciate your opinion as to whether the Christian interference in the evil Aztec and Hindu practices was good or evil? The purpose of my post was not to impose my opinions on other Christians on this forum. I am just curious to know what the opinions do my fellow Christians have on the matter, especially in today’s climate where the mainstream opinion is that everything the European colonizers did was evil.
I think it was good. People focus on the evil that was done by the colonizers, and there was evil. But there was also good, and you cited two examples of that.
 
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
I'm not a Gandhi apologist but if you are going to lecture someone, it's best to make sure that your facts are right. Gandhi did not support the caste system. He said this 1915 "If it were proved to me that [untouchability] is an essential part of Hinduism, I for one would declare myself an open rebel against Hinduism itself."

You may counter this by saying he did not criticise the caste system directly and you're right, he didn't. He focussed on the untouchability question but this was because he thought that it was the cornerstone of the whole caste system. "If untouchability goes, the caste system goes. So, I am concentrating on it." is a direct quote from Gandhi.

But thanks for the "lecture".
Unlike you, I am not going to dispute the facts you provided. I am very well aware of the pretty words that Gandhi said about the untouchables. However, the truth is that he was very much like the white progressives in the United States, who convinced black Americans to abandon the party that had brought an end to slavery with a bunch of false promises. They said a lot of pretty words to tickle their ears, as they still do today, but the white progressives never had the desire to help American Blacks gain any political power for themselves, they just wanted their votes.

As I said above, I don't dispute your facts, but let me give you some of the facts you are missing which I believe are crucial in formulating a well-formed opinion on this issue. Let me give you some facts that show that, not only is Gandhi directly responsible for the fact that in post-British India, the Untouchables have no political power, but that this lack of political power is the reason the Untouchables are still suffering today. Not only is he responsible for the Untouchables' current unjust situation, but he put himself at risk of dying for this cause to keep the Untouchables from having any political power.

The relevant events take place just before India finally became independent. The was an Indian political leader by the name of Dr. B. R. Ambedakar, who himself was from an Untouchable family. Dr. Ambedakar was the head of the committee drafting the Constitution of India. During his efforts to draft the Indian Constitution, he was able to successfully argue to the British government that the new Indian Constitution should separate India’s electoral system by caste. This would mean that the Untouchables would have full control over their representation in the new government under the new Indian Constitution.

Although it's true that Gandhi advocated for the emancipation of the untouchables, he publicly opposed the idea including any provision in the new Indian constitution that what give them any political power in Indian society. He wrote that separate electorates for the untouchables would "vivisect and disrupt" Hinduism. Interestingly, he didn’t object to similar provisions for Muslims or Sikhs.

He was so committed to preventing the Untouchables from gaining any political power that he was willing to risk death. So, on September 16, 1932, while imprisoned in Poona, Gandhi began a hunger strike in protest of the British government’s decision to separate India’s electoral system by caste. Eventually Gandhi was able to convince Dr. Ambedakar, himself from an untouchable family, to not give political power to the untouchables, and as a result the two men came to an agreement known as the Poona Pact.

As a result of the Poona Act, the Indian constitution did not give the untouchables their own separate electorate, which meant that the untouchables would never be able to have control over their representation in the Indian government. To this very day, untouchables are always represented by higher caste Hindus who do not have their best interest at heart. It was, as a matter of fact, it was Gandhi's efforts that caused the Indian constitution to be written without the provision that would've given the untouchables political power. Therefore, Gandhi is directly responsible for keeping the caste system alive.

Go ahead and confirm all of the facts I have presented here. I would hope that after confirming these facts you would agree that Gandhi wasn't the angel that people claim he was. However, I am not claiming that he did do great things either. I don't subscribe to the current mentality in our society that insists on canceling any historical figure who did some bad things. In regard to the of whether we should consider a historical figure evil just because he did some bad things, despite the fact that he also did many good things, I follow a guiding principle that, believe it or not, I learned from a very liberal political science professor I had back in the early 1990's. He said to the class that we should be shocked when we learn an unpleasant truth about a historical figure, He said we should always remember this truth, "There is no such thing as a great man, but sometimes a man does a great thing."

BTW, although the facts I presented above are true, Gandhi was an angel compared to his cousin Indira Gandhi. If you really want to be disgusted, do some research on what is known as the "Indian Problem." Briefly, the Indian population problem is related to the belief in the 1970's that the Indian population had grown too large and must be controlled. The wonderful Indira Gandhi's solution to this supposed problem was to institute a policy where the poor people of India would not be given any food unless they consented to be medically sterilized. Now, although that's bad enough to make one feel disgusted with her, the situation got even worse. Her son then led a campaign where they would force poor people into prison camps, and then forcefully having a medical doctor sterilize them.

He was
that

British government’s decision to separate India’s electoral system by caste.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,400
786
Midwest
✟157,615.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Christianity didn't take hold in India despite the missionary work of the British Empire. The reason it didn't can only be seen through the eyes of the typical Indian. They were being taught about Jesus the servant God but by very wealthy missionaries who had Indian servants to attend to them. They couldn't get their heads around the contradiction and so threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I am not so sure this would be the explanation. Would this not also apply to Africa, where Christianity took hold quite strongly? (well, middle and southern Africa at least, Islam still dominates in northern Africa)

It was also very much Gandhi's experience of Christians when he was studying in England and started going to church in, I think, Plymouth, and which led to his famous statement
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Despite being widely stated, I am dubious about this quote being true, as I have never seen anyone provide a source. I'm always cautious about quotes attributed to people without a citation, but I read a post a while ago by someone who looked into it and I believe they noted how they were unable to find any actual primary source for the quote (ironically, I am unable to find that blog post now), so I'm especially skeptical about it.
 
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
the prime directive intentionally contrasts colonialism. Historically Christians have "spread" the gospel through colonialism. In 1 Cor 9 Paul presents a missional heuristic that is more about reaching people on their turf, rather than through annexation. Paul tells us (v23) "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." Paul's ambition is that of the gospel not that of increasing lands, resources or physical kingdoms. With colonialism they may have flown a banner of the church but in truth had other ambitions that took the focus. In a gospel mindset, people are not our enemies that need to be conquered or overthrown, people are our mission. It is not our job to overthrow lands so that we may fix them. Our job is not to fix people, that's God's job, our job is to show them Christ. In a context like the Aztecs or unreached people groups, if our goal was the gospel a gentler approach would have probably been better. Because of their hostility the messengers would have been better through a more lateral people group/culture to their own. If the Conquistadors wanted to protect the slave tribes that is not what happened in the end and most perished through sickness, the survivors today are mainly of mixed blood. I'm not defending the acts of the Aztecs but I do defend the gospel and colonialism IMO is too much of a conflicting message to mix with the gospel and we shouldn't be applauding it. There are still unreached people groups in the world who are hostile to the gospel, but I don't see anyone who has improved upon Paul's approach to reaching others.

There have always been, and always be Christians in this world that use Christianity to enrich themselves. I wish it weren't true, but it is. However, although it's true that the governments and business leaders of the countries that led the colonizing efforts had less than honorable indentions, I don't think that was true for the Christian missionaries, those people were true believers with honorable intentions.

Also, I have to strongly disagree with your statement, "Your job is not to fix people, that's God's job, our job is to show them Christ." That's exactly the attitude of some pro-abortion choice Christians who will tell you, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I'm not going to impose my morality on others." They sincerely believe that it is more noble to avoid enforcing your Christian morality on another person that it is to save the life of unborn babies. Fortunately, I have something I always tell them that makes them rethink their position. I tell them about Robert E. Lee, the top general of the Confederate Army for the southern states during the American Civil War.

A little-known fact about Robert E. Lee (and you can easily confirm this on your own) is that he was actually personally opposed to slavery. Now, I am not saying he wasn't a racist because he definitely was. But he felt the enslavement of black people was evil and express this belief in a letter he wrote to his wife. But similarly, to the belief you expressed in the statement I quoted above, Robert E, Lee told his sister that it was up to God to bring an end to the suffering of the blacks. So, I always ask those Christians who say they are "personally opposed" to abortion but will do nothing to end it, "Whay do you think about Robert E. Lee's position on slavery" "Was he a good person because he refused to impose his anti-slavery Christian morals on his fellow southerners who insisted that blacks should not have freedom?" To this day I have never met anybody that was able to offer any response. They always just put a concerned expression on their face and remain silent. So, I disagree with your statement, because if you use the logic of your statement, then Robert E. Lee's decision to not interfere with slavery was a good decision.
 
Upvote 0

LightLoveHope

Jesus leads us to life
Oct 6, 2018
1,473
458
London
✟79,581.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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.
The prime directive is unchristian. The gospel is real hope for mankind in reconciling sin and hurt with love and forgiveness. There is no other way of obtaining this and life in the real sense begins after we pass through this experience.

The idea that cultural expression has to become western expression is the mistake, but often the cultural logic of traditions are very convoluted and some are literally evil and wrong. After people come to Christ they can more easily filter that which is helpful and that which is not from the inside view rather than western view.

If you look round the world today, democracy, consumerism, respect for life and roles of people is part of successful societies. This is not forced on communities, they are freely choosing it, because it works with its checks and balances.

I my youth I watched a film call Peace Child, which was a story about cannibals and them using a youngest son of the chief given to another tribe as a token of peace between the two groups. Their highest morality was betrayal of an enemy. So many have argued about preserving local customs without seeing the complexity of social and survival issues interwoven which do not translate. Racism is a serious issue, where it did not matter how another group thought or behaved they were always inferior which is not love and respect or empathy but domination in the name of religion.

Unfortunately this has been widespread, and is the real evil that has gone on, but is not actually part of the gospel rather its enemy.

God bless you
 
Upvote 0

Sophrosyne

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16
Jun 21, 2007
163,213
64,206
In God's Amazing Grace
✟895,522.00
Faith
Christian
First, in case you don't know, Christianity arrived in India long before the English missionaries arrived in India. It began the Apostle Thomas creating his part of the church there in the first century. I actually met a Catholic priest from India who was a descendant of the church which still exists today.

Second, I heard the Gandhi quote many years ago, and I admit I was impressed. However, after learning more about Gandhi, I came to question the value of this comment. He was correct to accuse the Christians of engaging in unchristian behavior, but the failure to avoid such behavior doesn't affect what true Christian morality is. Moreover, despite the fact that some, not all, of the behavior of the English was unchristian, as Christians, the English still had a duty to not engage in unchristian behavior.

Gandhi, on the other hand, also engaged in behavior that repugnant to authentic Christian morality. However, the difference between Gandhi and the English is that Gandhi's repugnant behavior was supported by the morality of his authentic Hinduism. I don't know if you are familiar with the Dalits of India. You might know them as the Untouchables. They are a group of people in India that Hinduism teaches are part of the lowest status of society, and this is because Hinduism teaches that their present incarnation is a punishment by God for sins in a previous life. As a result of this Hindu teaching, they are victims of severe and unjust discrimination. For example, they must limit themselves to the worst jobs.

As Dalit activist, Annihilate Caste, once explained, "If you are an untouchable, say, forced to clean the public toilets, you are breaking “Gods Will” if you rebel against this status, something that will be enforced on your children after you and their children after them. Accept your varna, be a good servant to the high castes and you will be reborn someday as one of them, or so goes Hinduism. The Dalits have a strong hate for Gandhi because when he was leader, he defended this Hindu teaching that brought so much suffering to the Dalits. Although Gandhi famously fought for the rights of the Hindus, he was directly responsible for ensuring that this horrible Caste system continued to be practiced. So, while the part of Gandhi's statement that criticized the English for being "so unlike Christ," can be justified by the facts, I don't believe first part of Gandhi's statement. Although he claimed to like Christ, his behavior was contrary to authentic Christian morality. The fact is that Hinduism kept him from behaving like Christ.

Sadly, there are other repugnant beliefs that Gandhi held. I am not going to list them here, but I will say that if you are interested the information isn't too hard to find.
I'm not a fan of Ghandi, especially for him rejecting Jesus and making it seem like he is blaming it on Christians and he is considered a "great man". A great man would have accepted Jesus and set a better example at being a "Christian" I would think.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
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

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Star Trek is all over the road on this stuff. Going back to the original series there were some episodes that deliberately seemed to depict that any kind of religious belief was a primitive superstition that we would eventually evolve out of (the Vol episode where a serpentine headed cave structure houses a super computer that ran the lives of people in a Garden of Eden like planet), while at least one I can think of was written to directly pander to Christians (episode where they found a Rome type civilization that made it into the modern world).
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Star Trek is all over the road on this stuff. Going back to the original series there were some episodes that deliberately seemed to depict that any kind of religious belief was a primitive superstition that we would eventually evolve out of (the Vol episode where a serpentine headed cave structure houses a super computer that ran the lives of people in a Garden of Eden like planet), while at least one I can think of was written to directly pander to Christians (episode where they found a Rome type civilization that made it into the modern world).

The Next Generation was more persistently anti-religion of all sorts. The concept of Q, for instance, was actually an anti-God concept (which was featured in several TOS episodes as well).

As I mentioned, there was one TNG episode that was so directly anti-religion (Picard was beside himself in his personal effort to divest a local population from their deity) that even pagans were offended. I was somewhat bemused, as we discussed it in a Roundtable on the old GEnie service in the late 80s, to find myself on the same side of the debate as avowed pagans.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There have always been, and always be Christians in this world that use Christianity to enrich themselves. I wish it weren't true, but it is. However, although it's true that the governments and business leaders of the countries that led the colonizing efforts had less than honorable indentions, I don't think that was true for the Christian missionaries, those people were true believers with honorable intentions.

Also, I have to strongly disagree with your statement, "Your job is not to fix people, that's God's job, our job is to show them Christ." That's exactly the attitude of some pro-abortion choice Christians who will tell you, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I'm not going to impose my morality on others." They sincerely believe that it is more noble to avoid enforcing your Christian morality on another person that it is to save the life of unborn babies. Fortunately, I have something I always tell them that makes them rethink their position. I tell them about Robert E. Lee, the top general of the Confederate Army for the southern states during the American Civil War.

A little-known fact about Robert E. Lee (and you can easily confirm this on your own) is that he was actually personally opposed to slavery. Now, I am not saying he wasn't a racist because he definitely was. But he felt the enslavement of black people was evil and express this belief in a letter he wrote to his wife. But similarly, to the belief you expressed in the statement I quoted above, Robert E, Lee told his sister that it was up to God to bring an end to the suffering of the blacks. So, I always ask those Christians who say they are "personally opposed" to abortion but will do nothing to end it, "Whay do you think about Robert E. Lee's position on slavery" "Was he a good person because he refused to impose his anti-slavery Christian morals on his fellow southerners who insisted that blacks should not have freedom?" To this day I have never met anybody that was able to offer any response. They always just put a concerned expression on their face and remain silent. So, I disagree with your statement, because if you use the logic of your statement, then Robert E. Lee's decision to not interfere with slavery was a good decision.
We tend to mess up when we try and fix people. Jesus did not come to overthrow the romans as was expected of him, rather he came in the midst of Roman occupation and oppression and became the marginalised and oppressed. This is how an all powerful God who could will anything into order chooses as his all-in missional strategy.

A pair of Moravian missionaries in the 18th century were so dedicated to reach the lost among African slaves that they we're willing to sell themselves into slavery. When we overpower people through might we turn into the oppressors by positioning ourselves as more important which is a colonial mindset. Paul's mindset in 1 Cor 9 is about entering into the culture and become as the people are rather than overpowering the culture or people, and this is the same method that we see through the incarnation. Jesus became one of us, to minister to us, he did not come with force but he did come with authority and power. It is better to reach the inside and have the inside be transformed through insider movements than it is through force. The disciples are insiders (based on their context) Christ came and reached a group of people, then he left.

When we enter an unreached land we should do the same. Reach a few, and then let those people be guided by the Holy Spirit to reach more while using the bible as their source material. If each new believer reaches 5 people, and those 5 people reached 5 people, etc... there would be an explosion of the gospel that would be unstoppable (such as what we read about in Acts). We can step away after the movement becomes sustainable because they don't actually need us. By design, our methods should not be dependent upon our presence. God is big enough to figure out the problems so we don't need to micromanage the movements. We can work through those movements to help in aid, but with as little foreign presence on the ground as possible. This is closer to a biblical prime directive when it comes to a missional strategy. We can influence but we should never overtake or seek control.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The concept of Q, for instance, was actually an anti-God concept (which was featured in several TOS episodes as well).

You may be onto something here. The Q documents:

"The Q source (also called Q document(s), Q Gospel, or Q from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια : logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions.[1][2][3]"

- Wikipedia

I jest of course. Somehow I always feel I have to explain that here on CF so as not to be taken literally lol.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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 think your initial question should be considered before consideration of your examples. Should the gospel be proclaimed by force/should it be enforced? Both of your examples are within contexts of conquering and colonization. The fact that the conquerors were Christian doesn’t obviously justify the act of enforcing Christian faith.

Besides that, any number of pagan civilizations, e.g. Roman, might have stopped the Aztec practice had they conqured them, but it wouldn't have somehow made them Christian. That is another good reason to consider the initial question. Should Christian faith be enforced? Is "Christian" morality somehow separable from Christian faith?

I tend think the answer to both is No. So, whatever ends up being enforced is not Christian, even if it's good. Christians do not have a monopoly on either goodness or good ideas.
 
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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

You've given us some interesting things to think about, but I think the only thing in this topic of any major moral significance is whether or not weapons and verbal abuse were involved in the "interference."

If all it takes to transgress against Roddenberry's "Prime Directive" is to show up and open one's mouth in another community, people group or nation, then ...... heck, Paul the Apostle was one of the first and most impious of transgressors among Christians and should be roundly villified.

Somehow, though, to see Paul as having been morally impious stretches the boundaries of good analytic sense.
 
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
When we overpower people through might we turn into the oppressors by positioning ourselves as more important which is a colonial mindset.
Yes, we also become oppressors. However, there are two big differences. The original oppressors were opressing innocent victims. In my examples, the Christians became Oppressors of oppressors, and defenders of innocent victims.

How far are you willing to take your logic? When the Christians got to a position of power, they forced their Chritian morality on the pagans and brought an end to the killing on Roman society.

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?

Confederate General Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to black slavery because he knew it was evil, didn’t want to force his views on his fellow southerners. He prefered to wait for God to bring an end to slavery. According to your logic, Robert E. Lee’s beliefs were normal. So what if African Americans had to continue to endure the abuses of slavery. It’s better that we wait for God to end the plight of the African Americans. On the other hand, those Christians in the north were so immoral for forcing true Christian morality on the Southrrn states.

So, how committed are you to the logic of your arguement?

Jesus became one of us, to minister to us, he did not come with force but he did come with authority and power.
True. However, when he gave the Apostles his new commandment, he said, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Well if you know even a liitle about what soldiers who fight evil are actually doing when they engage in fighting, then you surely know they are laying down their lives in order to protect victims of oppression. Does that really sound unChristian to you?

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

BTW, while I do believe in forcing Christian morals on oppressors, I am certainly opposed to forcing conversion to Christ on anybody. In the two examples I gave. the Christians just stopped the abusive immoral behavior they didn’t have to convert. Those Hindus in India were permitted to continue with their Hinduism, but Christians were not going to permit them to burn widows any longer. I really don’t understand how you believe that it would have been better if the Hindus had continued to burn widows. The fact is that if it wasn’t for the “evil” Christians, the Hindus, who are still the dominant culture in India today, eould still be burning widows to this very day. Do you r
realize how many woman were spared from suffering a horrible death, all because of Christian interference?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,119
20,158
US
✟1,440,434.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, we also become oppressors. However, there are two big differences. The original oppressors were opressing innocent victims. In my examples, the Christians became Oppressors of oppressors, and defenders of innocent victims.

Christians have done their share of oppressing innocent victims.

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

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?

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.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to black slavery because he knew it was evil, didn’t want to force his views on his fellow southerners. He prefered to wait for God to bring an end to slavery. According to your logic, Robert E. Lee’s beliefs were normal. So what if African Americans had to continue to endure the abuses of slavery. It’s better that we wait for God to end the plight of the African Americans. On the other hand, those Christians in the north were so immoral for forcing true Christian morality on the Southrrn states.

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?
 
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
I think your initial question should be considered before consideration of your examples. Should the gospel be proclaimed by force/should it be enforced? Both of your examples are within contexts of conquering and colonization. The fact that the conquerors were Christian doesn’t obviously justify the act of enforcing Christian faith.

Besides that, any number of pagan civilizations, e.g. Roman, might have stopped the Aztec practice had they conqured them, but it wouldn't have somehow made them Christian. That is another good reason to consider the initial question. Should Christian faith be enforced? Is "Christian" morality somehow separable from Christian faith?

I tend think the answer to both is No. So, whatever ends up being enforced is not Christian, even if it's good. Christians do not have a monopoly on either goodness or good ideas.
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.
 
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

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?

I never said Christians had never committed atrocities. Sometimes people get overzealous when trying to fight evil, and I certainly don’t approve of that.

As for your comment about abortion. Of course I am willing to force my Christian morals which oppose abortion. In fact, I use Robert E. Lee when confronting one of those people who say, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t feel I have the right to force my beliefs on others.” I tell, “Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery, but didn’t feel he had a right to force his belief on others.” They usually admit that Robert E. Lee’s position was immoral, and they admit they now question their own position on abortion.
 
Upvote 0