Christians as Star Trek Fans

Christians as Star Trek FansChristians are modern people, about as intelligent as any other group, and yet they jump into a world of ancient mythology and act like it’s real. They’re like trekkers who dress up as Vulcans or Klingons at a Star Trek convention. Or as Imperial Storm Troopers or Wolverine at Comicon or Dragon*con.

The difference, of course, is that faux Vulcans or Klingons know that it’s just for fun. They might spend lots of time and money on their costumes. They might learn to speak Vulcan or Klingon. But at the end of the conference, they put conventional clothes back on and reenter conventional society. They realize it’s pretend.

In a similar way, Christians leave church and reenter conventional society. Some know (or suspect) that the mythology isn’t real, like a trekker who’s in it for the pageantry and camaraderie, but many Christians do live the mythology.

Wisdom from M*A*S*H

This reminds me of the M*A*S*H television episode where Radar O’Reilly tells Sidney the psychiatrist that he has a teddy bear and wonders if he’s crazy.

“Me and my teddy bear are very close,” Radar said. “I mean … sometimes I talk to it.”

“Does it ever talk back?” Sidney asked.

“No!”

“You know how many people write letters to Romeo and Juliet and think that ‘I Love Lucy’ is real?” Sidney said. “Those people are living nice, safe lives, with towels and sheets. They’re not up to their ankles in mud, blood, and death the way you are.”

Sidney predicts that Radar probably won’t need the teddy bear once he leaves Korea. In Radar’s last episode, this prophecy is fulfilled.

You can get through life thinking that “I Love Lucy” or some other TV sitcom is real, or that food is produced at the grocery store, or that electricity is made somewhere on the other side of the electric plug but with no idea of how. You can imagine that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, that homeopathy works, or that we live in the end times.

Or that God exists.

Society’s increasing complexity insulates us from unpleasant reality

During medieval times and before, people did know where food came from (and horseshoes and wagons and cathedrals and any other element of their lives) because if they didn’t participate in that industry personally, they’d at least have seen how it was done.

Though they had a thorough grasp of the simple technology of their world, they also believed lots of nutty stuff, religion included. But, of course, they didn’t have an alternative. They didn’t have modern science to explain away the superstition and poorly evidenced explanations.

Medieval society was harsh and unforgiving, but modern life coddles people. It’s society with air bags and training wheels. Though they have little excuse, people can hold their unsupportable beliefs with little penalty. You want to imagine that that illness can be cured with prayer? Go for it—society will be here to catch you if you fall.

They can see science and technology deliver nine times but still doubt it the tenth time, and they can see religion fail nine times but still expect it to succeed the tenth time.

Society insulates Christians from reality as if they were Klingons at a convention. I just wish that, like the Klingons, they realized that it’s all just pretend.

God is really just the manager of a call center
with shitty customer service.
— hector jones, commenter

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/29/12.)

Photo credit: Wikimedia

William Lane Craig Misrepresents Christianity and Insults Islam
Christian Apologists Find No Meaning in Life
Guest Post: Still Waiting for Jesus
Christians: Can ANYTHING Change Your Mind?
About Bob Seidensticker
  • RichardSRussell

    I am myself a life-long science-fiction fan and, in my experience, most of us have become pretty adept at telling the “science” part from the “fiction” part. Perhaps it’s because prolonged exposure to concepts like 12-tentacled telepathic orange methane-breathers from Titan makes us much more accepting of the trivial differences between mere humans that loom so large in religious circles.

    • smrnda

      One thing from science fiction – it’s kind of tough to come up with sentient beings who are truly *alien* much of the time. If you take Star Trek, the Vulcans, Klingons – you could imagine them as humans with just a different culture than the homo sapiens on the show. I think it’s a struggle to figure out a truly inhuman intelligence, and even more, how to get it to *interact* with people.

      • RichardSRussell

        This is much more true of TV and movies — where they need actors to portray the aliens — than it is in written SF, where the only limit is the reader’s imagination. The reference standard is probably Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris, where humanity tries to interact with a planet-sized sentient being, only to discover that there are zero common reference points.

        • smrnda

          I loved Solaris, but I with it had been translated by Michael Kandel (he did The Cyberiad and Mortal Engines, and his translations from the original Polish are amazing) rather than from Polish to German to French to English.

          I’m an AI researchers and programmer, so I think a lot about the notion that non-human intelligence may be or will be so different from human intelligence that we wouldn’t even be able to recognize the intelligent, sentient non-human entity. Sometimes I speculate that it’s because our intelligence is tied in with our biological form – a completely different sort of organism would have a totally different intelligence.

        • RichardSRussell

          Hell, we can’t even understand dolphins, and we both evolved on the same planet!

        • smrnda

          I have met a few animal cognition researchers – it’s incredibly difficult to answer the question of ‘how intelligent is this animal?’

        • Greg G.

          Many are smart enough to train humans to feed them.

        • wtfwjtd

          Dogs have owners, cats have staff.

        • Greg G.
  • Greg G.

    So, you’re saying my life-long pursuit of perfecting the Vulcan Mind Meld has been futile? Just for that, I’m going to pinch your shoulder.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Don’t be ridiculous. That neck pinch thing doesn’t …

    • wtfwjtd

      Seen on Big Bang–
      Amy:”Are you suggesting we live our lives guided by the philosophies found in cheap science fiction?”
      Sheldon: (closes eyes, looks angry and thoughtful)
      Amy:”What are you doing?”
      Sheldon: “Using the Vulcan discipline of Kolinahr… to suppress my anger at your last remark…”

  • GubbaBumpkin

    And then there’s the division into incompatible sects, like the real Trekkies vs. the New Generation heretics. (As if baldness were a hair style.) I won’t even mention DS9. I hear that Battlestar Galactica has some Mormon undertones.

    • GubbaBumpkin

      And don’t even get me started on Star Wars.

      • Greg G.

        The Force is with you.

        • Cafeeine

          Always.

    • ohnugget001

      Ronald D. Moore is Mormon. BSG was more polytheist vs monotheist, human and Cylon respectively. Adama was the secular father figure who dealt in reality.

    • katiehippie

      Quick, someone generate a meme of Captain Picard that says “yes, baldness is a hairstyle” ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha

      • smrnda

        Given that some people with full heads of hair shave their heads, baldness can be a hairstyle in my opinion – it’s an actual style choice.

        • wtfwjtd

          For some of us, unfortunately, it’s the *only* hairstyle “choice”.

        • AdamK

          If I’m not mistaken, the original metaphor is that atheism is a religion like bald is a hair COLOR. Changing it to style ruins the metaphor, precisely because bald can be a hair style in fact.

    • JohnH2

      If by Mormon undertones you mean blatantly ripping theology, cultural swearing (frak did not start with Battlestar Galactica but with Mormons *not* swearing by substituting other things) , and theorizing over what some scripture means that is held by some Mormons, then yes, undertones. I would more consider it hitting one over the head, but I am Mormon so am aware of what they are doing.

      • GubbaBumpkin

        What I mean is that I never personally watched that series, but read in an Internet forum that it has Mormon themes. So I am perfectly willing to bow to someone else’s greater familiarity both with BSG and with Mormonism.

      • smrnda

        Just wondering, is the show written by Mormons or at least ex-Mormons, or others who are just using Mormon ideas the way someone might use Greek or Norse mythology in a sci fi series? I have never seen the show, so I was just wondering if you knew.

        • JohnH2

          So the original series of Battlestar was created by Glen Larson, a Mormon, and the remake had contributions by Ronald Moore, also a Mormon.

          I would bet that Glen Larson was quite active as the entire premise is based on a speculative understanding of such verses of scripture as Deuteronomy 30:4, from within Mormonism and the context of Mormonism. The original very much deals with issues of Mormon theology as well.

          The remake doesn’t deal with the same issues, and the issues that it deals with that the original doesn’t do exist in Mormon theology but are not unique to it. I think it more is using the ideas from the prior show and not drawing further from Mormon theology itself; I could be wrong on that though.

        • smrnda

          Thanks. I am not familiar with television.

          Given that it was written by Mormons, does the original series have a Mormon following at all?

        • JohnH2

          Given that the series is SF/F then it has a Mormon following.

        • InDogITrust

          Do you mean that Mormons are big fans of SF/F? I did not know that. Any hypotheses why?

    • SirThinkALot

      Hey dont be mocking DS9, at least it was consistently good, and didnt take 3 seasons to get there….

  • Ilan

    It seems more Trek-like to suppose that we have come to exist just like that. Or perhaps it is even pettier – willful ignorance.

    • RichardSRussell

      The only people who say that we came to exist “just like that” are Christians, who think that God created Adam out of mud in just a single day. Atheists tend to follow science, which has discovered that it took nearly 14 billion years (hardly “just like that”) to come up with human beings.

  • avalon

    “I just wish that, like the Klingons, they realized that it’s all just pretend.”

    Then you misunderstand what’s really going on. William James said, “…there is a certain class of truths of whose reality belief is a factor…The truths cannot become true till our faith has made them so. ”
    This isn’t just dressing up for fun. What James describes here (a truth made true by faith) is more like the placebo effect; where a patient experiences relief based on their faith that they took a strong, effective drug. We can say the sugar pill gave the patient relief and comfort, and in that regard it was effective. But it was effective because of a successful deception. Likewise with religious belief; realizing it isn’t true destroys it’s effectiveness and the ‘patient’ no longer experiences relief and comfort.

    Religious belief is placebo belief. You say it’s just a sugar pill and the believer says they experienced it’s effects. Both statements are true.

    • 90Lew90

      Yes, both statements are true, but James was referring to the truth of faith, not the truth of the object of faith. The religious believer doesn’t say, “I’ve experienced the effects of my faith,” he says, “What I have faith in is true.” Or, “That’s not a placebo, that’s the real drug.” James was pointing out the benefit of such faith to the believer. That lots of people take and benefit from placebos has no deleterious effect on humanity. The same can not be said about religious belief.

    • MNb

      This is essentially Bertrand Russell’s answer in his History of Western Philosophy. Apparently it pissed WJ off so much that their friendship got seriously strained.

  • RandomFunction2

    To Bob the broken, yet somehow fabulous atheist,
    I would agree that the anthropomorphic god of religions who works miracles, communicates with prophets telepathically and works miracles doesn’t make much sense. The modern worldview, with science and skepticism, has dealt it a Deadly blow, though not all believers have realized it up to now.
    However, it’s still an open question whether the ultimate origin of things is dead matter or an intelligent Creator. And it’s still an open question whether you can explain the ground of morality apart from a transcendent source. The debate is going on. In other words, though I don’t think much of abrahamic religions, some kind of philosophical religion is still an alternative to Naturalism.
    That’s why your comparison with Star Trek is beside the point. The God of philosophy is not like some character of folk tales. Even before Christianity took over, ancient philosophers had started to think philosophically about God.

    • MNb

      “The debate is going on.”
      So what? The debate on the question whether the Earth is spherical or flat is going on as well. The Flat Earth Society has 6 000 members.

      “ancient philosophers had started to think philosophically about God”
      So what? They started to think philosophically about the place of the Earth in the Universe as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean their answers are relevant for us today.

      • RandomFunction2

        I meant to say that the debate is going on among philosophers and scientists, not among some deluded lunatics (the Flat Earth Society or creationists).
        And my point about ancient philosophers was that the God question is not exclusively a legacy of Christianity (even the problem of evil was dealt with outside of Christianity by Plato, Plotinus and the stoics).

        • hector_jones

          Nonsense. There is no debate going on among scientists about whether morality requires a transcendent source.

          Among philosophers, only theistic philosophers maintain that a transcendent source is necessary. The rest of philosophy has moved on.

        • RandomFunction2

          Then what do you make of someone like Frans de Waal who has written extensively about the natural origins of morality? If he bothers to tackle the question, it must mean it is Worth investigating… Evolutionary psychologists are also interested in the problem.

        • hector_jones

          “worth investigating” isn’t the same thing as a debate over whether there is a ‘transcendent source’ for morality. You’ve just moved the goal posts.

        • MNb

          Where exactly does Frans de Waal assume a transcendental source? Where does he wonder “whether the ultimate origin of things is dead matter or an intelligent Creator.”?
          Mind you, Frans de Waal is not antireligious at all. He is not interested in the question if science “refutes” religion (whatever that means). His research is thoroughly methodologically materialistic though – assuming that the ultimate origin of things is dead matter, in your words. Because that’s the core of the scientific method.
          You’re getting incoherent and quicker than quite a few other apologists.

        • RandomFunction2

          I didn’t say that Frans de Waal assumes a transcendent source. I did say that he found the question of the origin of morality interesting and he interacts with believers in his writings.

        • Greg G.

          Frans de Waal is investigating non-transcendant sources of morality. He shows how it is developed in primates.

        • MNb

          “I didn’t say that Frans de Waal assumes a transcendent source.”
          Then your question “what do you make of ” is irrelevant for your remark “it’s still an open question” indeed.

          “I did say that he found the question of the origin of morality interesting and he interacts with believers in his writings.”
          So what? I happen to discuss all kinds of physics (I teach the subject) with believers.

        • 90Lew90

          I can’t for the life of me figure out what made you bring up Frans de Waal at all.

        • CayuseWarrior

          More like memorized Dawkins theories. Kind of like a Survey course in philosophy. The point was Christ taught behavior no worship. If you got that wrong. What did you get right?

        • 90Lew90

          We had been talking (for some reason unbeknownst to me) about Frans de Waal and the origins of morality. Not Dawkins. Not Jesus. Another point nicely missed there, big lad.

        • MNb

          Oh? Philosophers and scientists can’t be deluded? If you like I can present you a nice list of sh*t they have said.
          My point is merely that the fact that some people debate some issue says exactly nothing about its relevance.

          “And my point about ancient philosophers …..”
          And the point of my answer was that this in no way shows any relevance for us today.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Flat Earthers are deluded but Christians aren’t simply because of numbers? I’m not sure that follows.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Physical material matter v. Immaterial energy and light of Spirit

          Too hard to grasp for you. OK believe in NAME: Science, Brain Function

        • 90Lew90

          What. The hell. Are. You. Talking about. Willis.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, too hard to grasp. Or something.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Was my hypothesis and the whole gang jumped on my reaction to you unprovoked attacks.

          “The DARK SIDE v. the JETI or the LIGHT of the WORD came directly from the teaching of Christ

          Matthew 6: (KJV)

          21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

          22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

          23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

          24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

          25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

          26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Doesn’t sound like the Force in Star Wars to me.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Good (effect others positively) and Evil (effective other negatively), Light and Dark, Spirit and Mammon. You missed 3 out of 3. eh?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wow–I totally did. “Anything that has good and evil is based on Star Wars.”

          OK–got it. That should be an easy rule to remember. Thanks.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Ever try Logic and Reason to go along with your believing in NAME only be it faith of GOD Being or faith of Big Bang Theory. Would be hear for you to Believe in Spirit it has no body, sex, or has sex, age, creed, cast.

      • CayuseWarrior

        You bet you guys thing so much better than Einstein, Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. Of course you have More Brain Function.

        In your own mind. Call it Evolution. You waste has gotten much sweeter. In you own mind. Hey that is transcending the physical material world. You have come full circle to the Spiritual World.

        But nothing has changes. Mathematics has always been supernatural. I cannot see Algebra in Nature. Cost me years of knowing Math. Finally I could read and read “A Close System – Created by man”

        Finally got A’s in Bonehead Algebra, Trig, Geometry and Calculus. Gee this science creates great tools. Too bad it is void of philosophy. Just probability. So would say gambling

        • 90Lew90

          In honour of Rick Mayall: Shat ap you cant.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Discuss or stay away. Not a judgement board or my opinion smells better than yours

        • 90Lew90

          OK then. Shakespeare? Tssk.

        • MNb

          Well, then you should stay away, because you hardly discuss anything, DishonestWarrior.

        • 90Lew90

          He’s fun isn’t he. Don’t judge, he says. Then he says “You are are real nasty moth rfcr. I see you for what you are. [...] Judge the tree by the fruit it bears.” Nutter.

        • MNb

          Actually I pity him. Things within his (her?) head seem much more messed up than on average.

        • 90Lew90

          That’s an impressive beard if he is a she.

        • CayuseWarrior

          You crap smells just like everyone else’s. Delusional? Question is why do you go around smelling such trash

        • CayuseWarrior

          Know Thyself and thou cants lie to any man. Sounds like a lot of work. Your fruit is rotten on the vine

        • CayuseWarrior

          So you both share the Curve of the Bell Shape Curve. “C” students or mediocre loves company

        • 90Lew90

          Chuckle.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Oh I share. What are you sharing. Opinion? “Where’s the BEEF (facts)”. Why do so many have no idea of the difference of opinion and truth are? TV Media is a commercialized Vending Machine of trading your own mind for some Trinket you purchase after watching TV.

          Air Head? What does that mean to you? Kind of like hearing it on TV (from an Air Head) and thinking you know something at all, let alone more than others who hear the same thing.

          Learned is just memorizing the latest facts. It is making the knowledge your own and apply that knowledge in critical thinking

        • 90Lew90

          I’d love to see one scrap of evidence of your learning, knowledge or critical faculties. And I have to say, your taking pot-shots at someone for having difficulty with sentence structure is pretty hilarious.

        • CayuseWarrior

          So you ignore my hypothesis and attack me. You are some piece of work.

          Believe it or not. it is not my reaction to your unprovoked attacks but my discussion you do not address which is the subject of this blog. Are you dense?

          Star Wars came directly out of the teaching of Christ…. The topic of this blog…. And the Source of Star Wars

          Matthew 6: (KJV)

          19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

          20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven (not a physical place), where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

          21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

          22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

          23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

          24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

        • CayuseWarrior

          I am simply reacting to these unprovoked attacks of you groupies.

          I said star Wars, Star Trek came from the Teachings of Christ. Sermon on the Mount.

          Not one of you Yahoos ever spoke the my Hypothesis. You too rapped in yourselves and each other.

          A real Circle Jerk. You should put that in the about instead of some sophisticated comment of intelligence.

        • Lacey

          What exactly does Star Trek have to do with Sermon on the Mount? You say this, but I remember a show, created by a self-professed atheist, that started out barely acknowledging theism and moved on to outright rejection of it. Even TOS characters, when faced with gods or godlike beings, were skeptical more often than not. The few nods to the God of Christianity were quick, vague, and likely there to placate a society who was already rather edgy about the controversial, humanistic ideas presented in the show. By the time we made it to Picard, we see him actually ANGRY at the idea that he might have led a young society down the path of theism.

          What prompts you to think otherwise?

          Star Wars on the other hand, is a typical hero’s journey, that could easily be compared to myth after myth, Christian, pagan, or otherwise. I’m not surprised that you see similarities to Jesus in a typical hero’s journey as Jesus’ story was also a typical hero’s journey.

        • MNb

          Woah, this guy with his mouth full of honesty didn’t take long to become dishonest:

          “You bet you guys thing so much better than ….”
          Keep on betting.

        • CayuseWarrior

          A true believer in what you see, but cannot see the truth. Google fool several Einstein Quotes about the same comment. Some are nasty people trying to say Einstein evolved. You bet. Like his theory of relativity. Relative to not believing the truth… eh!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You bet you guys thing so much better than Einstein, Plato, Socrates and Aristotle.

          Are you saying that these 4 had it all figured out? I guess they were Christians then?

        • CayuseWarrior

          Well the first were before Christ, but that does not mean they did not believe in GOD the did

          Same with Einstein. he believed mankind is now reaching and which the great spirits (he names Democritus, St. Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza) had already attained – namely, the “cosmic religious feeling” that sheds all anthropomorphic elements. In describing the driving motivation toward that final, highest stage, Einstein uses the same ideas, even some of the same phrases, with which he had celebrated first his religious and then his scientific paradise: “The individual feels the futility of human desires, and aims at the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought.” “Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison, and he wants to experience the universe as a single, significant whole.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ah, I finally understand you clearly. Your four examples are all not Christians. Therefore, who needs Christianity?

          You speak wise words, Warrior.

        • CayuseWarrior

          As long as you know the difference between

          Christianity and Churchianity.

          One was taught 2000 years ago by a man born of Flesh. Teaching Spirit and Transcendentalism

          The other was a Churches that do not alway if ever teach you to be Christian. Just put you money in the Bucket and Live in Hypocrisy. Like Modern America Today without Sunday School

        • 90Lew90

          “The other was a Churches [sic] that do not always [sic] if ever teach you to be Christian. Just put you [sic] money in the Bucket [sic] and Live [sic] in Hypocrisy [sic]. Like Modern [sic] America Today [sic] without Sunday School [sic]”

          Phew! That’s impressive.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      it’s still an open question whether the ultimate origin of things is dead matter or an intelligent Creator.

      There’s zero evidence pointing to an intelligent Creator, which is why we don’t imagine one.

      And it’s still an open question whether you can explain the ground of morality apart from a transcendent source.

      Why? Is there evidence for transcendent/objective morality? I’ve not seen a single scrap.

      The debate is going on.

      People believe in astrology. Must we say that “the debate is going on” here, too?

      The God of philosophy is not like some character of folk tales.

      We could quibble about legend vs. myth vs. folk tales vs. history and about which parts of the Bible fit into which bin. I don’t see how that makes the Christian god any more plausible.

      • CayuseWarrior

        Oops you seem to just fall sort of matter you mention, but forget energy that cannot be created or destroyed. Like Super Nova’s or Black Wholes. So a Big Bang creation could not create a world without changing energy. It already existed for eternity.

        So you deny JOHN 1:

        John 1

        King James Version (KJV)

        1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

        2 The same was in the beginning with God.

        3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

        4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

        5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

        And think the GOD of Christ was a BEING with a BODY. See only Atheist believe that. Christ accept Brain Function, but never said GOD was Brain Function he is what you can do with Brain Function. Transcend your consciousness from the physical ego self to the Spiritual none body of Consciousness.

        That is the WORD of GOD, that IS GOD

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Oddly, you seem to imagine that the gospel of John carries any weight with me. It doesn’t.

          As for elementary philosophy as in your first paragraph, I have my way with it here. (Spoiler: it ain’t pretty.)

        • CayuseWarrior

          Oh, you make you self too important.

          I use Christ no different than I would Einstein. There words mean more than me cloning their words. Does not change my use of Christ for those who have mistaken or have lack of knowledge of Christ word or THE WORD of GOD.

          I am not interested in you INTERESTED attitude and being. Why stop by if you just goine to puke youself on others. In other words you are simply saying you waiste smells better than others. LOL You cannot smell the fruit of you won tree?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Stop by”? I live here, and you’re here at my pleasure.

        • CayuseWarrior

          You are all so funny. My point was the Dark Side and the Jeti (the light) of Star Trek were taken directly from the Teaching of Christ.

          Not one of you got THAT. Or addressed that. And entire conversation when into MY DOG IS BETTER THAN YOU DOG.

          You have come a long way baby. I am not impressed

        • 90Lew90

          GUFFAW!!! Priceless.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Now that you mention it, Jediism as shown on Star Wars is pretty much identical to Christianity. Good catch.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Thanks. My simple point

        • 90Lew90

          My dog *IS* better than you dog. Tssk. Sorry, I’m beginning to feel like a bit of a bully responding to you.

        • MNb

          “So a Big Bang creation could not create a world without changing energy.”
          Wrong – as long as the sum remains zero the Big Bang totally can. Guess what? It looks like the sum of all energy in the Universe is zero indeed. All the galaxies moving away from each other, opposite to gravity, do a lot of negative work.

        • CayuseWarrior

          I thought I said that. At least Big Bank did not create the Universe it already existed for eternity?

          “It already existed for eternity.”

          There are some new facts about big bang and aging being discussed that could change science as many worship today.

          Me I live in the Spirtual World and see through the 3rd (spiritual) eye, not just the naked eye or dreams

        • MNb

          Our Universe (according to Modern Physics there might be many) began to exist with the Big Bang.

          “It already existed before eternity” is as silly as south of the South Pole.

          “some new facts”
          Feel free to present them. Then we finally have something to discuss.

          “Me I live in the Spirtual World”
          How do you know?

          “see through the 3rd (spiritual) eye”
          Where in your body can we find that 3rd eye?

        • CayuseWarrior

          You are hilarious. Many Universes. No, many solar systems in a dimes view of the ski and 1 Universe. No big bang proved to be FACT YET. Facing real challenges as we speak. A billion year is THAT MUCH?

          “Me I live in the Spirtual World” ‘How do you know?’ Same as Krishna and Pantanjali’s 8 steps of Yoga and Buddha’s 4 Noble Truths and Jesus Christs 3 steps to being Christian

          1) Deny yourself -of the physical material world consciousness of Wants/Desires, emotions, and reaction to sense pleasures

          2) Pick up your Cross Daily -of you spiritual, not physical vocation

          3) Follow Me -To become the Son of GOD (Christ Consciousness) with a body and Resurrect, Samadhi, Nirvana to GOD Consciousness without a body.

          “”see through the 3rd (spiritual) eye”Where in your body can we find that 3rd eye?”

          It is an imaginary point between the eye brows related to the 7 Chakra’s or 7 Candle Sticks of the life current within a physical body.

          Chakras are energy points or knots in the subtle body. They are located at the physical counterparts of the major plexuses of arteries, veins and nerves. Chakras are part of the subtle body, not the physical body, and as such are the meeting points of the subtle (non-physical) energy channels, called nadiis. Nadiis are channels in the subtle body through which the life force (prana), or vital energy moves.

          The Vajrayana system states that the central channel (avadhūtī) begins at the point of the third eye like of lord Shiva, curves up to the crown of the head, and then goes straight down to the lower body. There are two side channels, the rasanā and lalanā, which start at their respective nostrils and then travel down to the lower body.

          Kundalini is described within Eastern religious, or spiritual, tradition as an indwelling spiritual energy that can be awakened in order to purify the subtle system and ultimately to bestow the state of Yoga, or Divine Union, upon the ‘seeker’ of truth “

        • 90Lew90

          Your third eye is located just behind your scrotum.

        • CayuseWarrior

          You don’t have a chance in hell looking into my eyes.

          But I see you

        • 90Lew90

          I don’t want to look at your third eye. Not even a little bit.

        • MNb

          So you’re antiscientific. Good to know. Thanks for not presenting your new facts regarding the Big Bang, DishonestWarrior.

          “Same as …”
          Argument from authority. How did they know? How do you know they are right?

        • CayuseWarrior

          Anti-Science? What logic or reason are you using for that?

          Practice, Practice, Practice is not believing thee is or is not

        • hector_jones

          What logic or reason are you using?

        • CayuseWarrior

          There is no science that support you Faith Believe in such things. Are you not scientific?

        • MNb

          So asks the WordShifting DishonestWarrior. You are the one who rejects science. See above.

        • CayuseWarrior

          You take some while theory based on probability or some far off objective observation possibility and call it fact.

          No wait till it is proven that what already existed for eternity already existed in reality and eternity for ever before man discovered it did.

          What is the worship or gamble of the truth before you know it to be true. A GOD action or just speculation? It is not science to me until you understand that which existed in eternity and now you know it for fact. Science is objective observation of nature. Not some probability, possibility or lab rat study that prove not the fact.

        • MNb

          Liar. I never called the Multiverse a fact. I wrote

          “Modern Physics says it might be possible.”
          You’re an ugly liar.

        • CayuseWarrior

          You are a faith believer imagining you waist smells better.

          That is an Oxymoron and simply not true.

        • 90Lew90

          I think you mean “waste”. I don’t see any oxymoron here either.

        • CayuseWarrior

          An atheist faith believer is a Oxymoron.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          My waist smells fine, but thanks for checking.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Oh, just something my father would say after pausing in answer to my question. They are no different than anyone else….pause….Except they think their crap does not stink

        • MNb

          Perhaps. Perhaps not.
          But you’re an ugly liar for sure.

        • CayuseWarrior

          KNOW THYSELF and thou canst lie to any man.

        • MNb

          A good advise you totally fail to apply to yourself.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Show me science (fact). Anyone can have blind faith. Let’s say there is no proof. What proof do you have?

        • 90Lew90

          So you’re a religious dilettante, and you’re accusing everyone else who hasn’t traced your map to whatever barmy state you’ve manoeuvred yourself into of blind faith?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Proof of what? Of no god? What proof do you have of no unicorns?

          What’s that? You say that you don’t need to provide proof and that the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim?

          Ah … OK. I think you may have a point there.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Until science can prove there are Little Green men. Man does not know life can exist outside of earth, at all.

          That is a fact.

          And all the blind faith and worship that there is little green men. Is what? False, foolishness? Even though there are billions of examples there is not.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, belief in little green men without evidence would indeed be foolishness. Same for belief in the supernatural.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Yes. But you are not speaking of Super Consciousness that is accomplish by Objective Observation of the Astral Star or a state beyond body and mind.

          No if you mean walking on water. Without being able to change the molecular structure of the atoms in the water or feet. Yes, we can call the supernatural foolishness

        • JohnH2

          If as some claim the universe is infinite in extent and given abiogenesis being possible then it is certain that there are little green men, and without some proof that it is impossible then it is also virtually certain that there men that are little and green. Also that there are creatures that look like horses and which have a single horn. They may be far enough away that even if we could perfectly detect every instance of life that is visible to us we may never see another instance of life at all, but given an assumption of a infinite universe they are pretty much guaranteed to exist.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nicely stated. Perhaps I should have said “blind faith and worship” like CW said.

        • MNb

          Your own words show that you’re antiscientific. You wrote:

          “You are hilarious. Many Universes. No”
          because this is very much one of the hypotheses of Modern Physics. If you actually googled “multiverse” you might learn something.

        • CayuseWarrior

          There is no multiple universe or little green men. Enough of your probability. You should be more concerned about the survival of man on earth.

          And I pray man never get off earth to contaminate the Universe.

          Now if you want to rename the whole and use many universes. What a bunch Word Shifting and no Value at all

        • MNb

          “There is no multiple universe”
          See? Modern Physics says it might be possible. Hence you’re anti-science. And as the Word Shifting Dishonest Warrior you are you won’t admit it.

          Here another example of your Dishonest Word Shifting:

          “Enough of your probability.”
          It’s not my probability. It’s what Modern Physics says is possible. Because of hard scientific facts.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Not at all science thinks there are little green men for the same reason. But until they know MAN cannot live beyond the earth. That is the fact and the science.

          Scientist use theory but theory is not science until is is objectively observable fact.

          Specualtion, probablility and possibility is blind faith and worship until it is fact and not conjecture or speculation.

          Like me I quit gambling after taking math probability. Even though one might beat the odds, just not every time or over time

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So you don’t know what a scientific theory is either? I guess that’s to be expected.

        • CayuseWarrior

          What the hell do you think you are doing. I have a daddy and mommy and granduated in economics with a 4.00 with a minor in accounting an math through calculus all with 4.00

          And you sit there and try to tell me probability, possibility and maybe are true if you make a hypothesis and wait for 10,000 year to be proven

          I don’t care how many time you screw a sheep. You cannot make it pregnant. Same of your hand or same sex

          But go ahead and call it Same as Sex just ignore the biology because you say so. This time.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ah, the Blizzard of Blather defense! Well played, sir!

          Now, back to the topic: your prior comment showed that you don’t know what a scientific theory is. You disagree? Then explain it to us.

        • CayuseWarrior

          Anti-Science. I would beleive in little green men. If I were anti-science. I do not. Until there is proof

          I feel the same way about Big Bank. What do I care if there was a big bank. I doubt if life first started in Africa since I do not believe the world is flat. How could Africa be any different than any other piece of the earth at the same Latitude

        • 90Lew90

          Because it had a big bank?

        • CayuseWarrior

          Why 1 big bank. I thought energy could not be created or destroyed even in Nuclear Reaction (thank GOD), black holes and Super Nova’s

          But what does it do to the price of TEA to BELIEVE and have FAITH in the BIG BANG. Me, I can wait another 1000 billion years till we know or we see species making other species

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I can’t imagine that you’re actually asking for evidence of speciation, but for those interested, http://www.talkorigins.org/ discusses this. I get into it here.

        • CayuseWarrior

          No because there is only 1 beg bank. The only thing in nature that could not be repeated. Faith Belief only

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah–how could Africa be any different?

          Wow. Someone should collect all these gems. This is comedy gold!

        • 90Lew90

          This stuff is even better than Fundies Say the Darndest Things. Funny old world. I started being nice to him and he went away…

    • CayuseWarrior

      Almost sounds like the Second Coming of Christ where Parmahansa Yoganada defines the second coming of Christ from within when the EGO SELF become the Spirit of the Universe.

      “I am the bubble, make me the sea”

      Except he taught that as a behavior of methods to change you consciousness, not worship or sit on you laurels until a physical Christ came across in his golden Chariot. The sparks and light were the cosmic sound of OM and Vibratory sound of nature itself

      • InDogITrust

        I knew it! I knew SRF was in there somewhere!

        • CayuseWarrior

          I am 50 years Raja Yogi of Parmahansa Yogananda. I obtained the the Astal Star with less than 3 months 50 years ago. Never too Kriya Yoga. I did not need it.

          OM, SAT, TAT or as Christ would say: Father, Son, Holy Ghost

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why hang out here and argue Christianity if you’re not Christian? Or is this some sort of pan-religion thing?

        • CayuseWarrior

          There is no difference between Christ, Buddha or Krishna. Different practice leading to the same result. Resurrection, Samadhi or Nirvana.

          Atheist need to know the sourch of the Anti-Christ

        • 90Lew90

          “There is no difference between Christ, Buddha or Krishna.”
          Hhhhh-oh yes there is. Yes, there very is.

        • InDogITrust

          The Lake Shrine garden is one of my favorite places.

  • smrnda

    Maybe this is kind of analogous to the self-conscious usage of the FSM or even many Satanists. Knowing it’s fake enables one to make a point.

  • Kristian Cormack

    When your a child it is comforting to believe in an omnipotent omni-benevolent god, but to quote St. Paul, When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

    • CayuseWarrior

      So when you child comes to you a 6 years old or 30 years old and says:

      Daddy, since the universe is older than man and everything man Objectively Observe already existed in nature for eternity; does that mean man is no more important that all existence it self. I mean the omnipotence, omni-science, omni-prevelent nature that existed before man, now and long after man had destroyed the earth.

      So daddy why don’t we call the Cosmic Consciousness of harmony and perfection of nature, miracle of life and the light of every atom….GOD

      • MNb

        Call it god if you like – you are the Word Shifter.

        • CayuseWarrior

          GOD the father, the son and the Holy Ghost. Is not shifting the being of a GOD Being. Like Om, Sat, Tat 4000 years ago it means 1 spirit.

          And if Jesus taught you to be Christ or son of GOD (symbolially) 1) Deny yourself, 2) Pick up your cross and 3) follow me. Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23

          What has changed?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Verily I say unto you, Doctor Bronner hath returned.

      • aar9n

        If my 6 year old said that to me we would have a very serious discussion about not eating shrooms.

      • Kristian Cormack

        hahaha ! you are free to call whatever you like god, i simply refute the existence of a personal interventionist god !

  • CayuseWarrior

    Only problem with Atheist they do not study the source of their discussion to carryon an intelligent discussion. They attack real Christians believed in a GOD BEING. and a Physical Heave, they do not. So in the delusion of the lack of knowledge of the New Testament and the denial of the Laws of Moses (why Christ was physically hung on a cross) they miss the whole point. That is Genesis and the Old Testament was attacked by Christ. He challenged the current USA Foreign Policy of an Eye for an Eye with, LOVE YOU ENEMIES, etc.

    A good case in point. Is Starwars was created directly out of the New Testament bible itself. Not the old testament of course. It would not be Christian

    The DARK SIDE v. the JETI or the LIGHT of the WORD

    Matthew 6: (KJV)

    21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

    22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

    23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

    24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

    26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

    • 90Lew90

      Tell me. What’s your position on homosexuality, given that you’re all about carrying your cross and being yourself, you big enlightened so-and-so. And what about that Shakespeare?

    • 90Lew90

      You say: “Only problem with Atheist they do not study the source of their discussion to carryon an intelligent discussion.”

      And yet, you suggest we (or at least I) may have a problem understanding Shakespeare. I’ve asked you a number of times now to name your favourite Shakespeare work and why you like it, and you seem to be running. Yes, running, not “carryon an intelligent discussion” [sic]. Elsewhere, I’ve seen you spouting off some homophobia.

      Anyway, my favourite Shakespeare play is King Lear. Ask me why and I’ll tell you.

      But perhaps my most favourite Shakespeare work is from his Sonnets, which were dedicated to a young man. Did you know that? As a homosexual myself, it moves me deeply, particularly Sonnet 18, which as I read it, brings a tear to my eye, as it never fails to do.

      Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
      Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
      Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
      And summer’s lease hath all too short a date.
      Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
      And often is his gold complexion dimmed;
      And every fair from fair sometime declines,
      By chance, or nature’s changing course, untrimmed;
      But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
      Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st,
      Nor shall death brag thou wand’rest in his shade,
      When in eternal lines to Time thou grow’st.
      So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
      So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

      • MNb

        My favourite one is this Sonnet:

        My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;
        Coral is far more red than her lips’ red:
        If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
        If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
        I have seen roses damask’d, red and white,
        But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
        And in some perfumes is there more delight
        Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
        I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
        That music hath a far more pleasing sound.
        I grant I never saw a goddess go:
        My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
        And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
        As any she belied with false compare.

        It’s amusing, remarkable, moving, I can’t find the right word, to put them side by side.

      • InDogITrust

        Fav play is Much Ado.

        But favorite couplet is from Sonnet 87:

        Thus have I had thee, as a dream doth flatter,
        In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.

    • Sue Blue

      Wait…what? WTF did I just read? Are you off your meds? I just ask because that post was a completely incoherent, misspelled, poorly-punctuated word salad. You can’t get your point across if you can’t form sentences, using something at least resembling syntax and grammar, and string them together in paragraphs with a discernible theme.

  • SirThinkALot

    Incidentally, the two biggest ‘trekkies’ I knew were also extreme right-hardcore Christians.

    I always found that rather ironic considering that Gene Roddenberry was an atheist who deliberately portrayed the future of Star Trek as one where humans no longer held spiritual beliefs.

  • http://thephyseter.wordpress.com The_Physeter

    I think this is why some Christian leaders have expressed surprise at the kill-the-gays laws passing in Africa, even though those same Christian leaders encouraged those laws in the first place. They know here in America our culture has come to a place where they can claim gays are all monsters, child molesters, bringing down evil upon our heads–and not expect widespread massacres. Apparently, over in Africa, when people believe something, they really act on it.

  • http://www.paganleft.wordpress.com Mariah Sheehy

    I think you missed an opportunity with this post. But it seems you aren’t writing from the perspective of a fan, just an atheist who wants to ridicule religion. You won’t win people over that way. Atheism/Scientific worldview is pretty much the dominant ideology among science fiction fandom anyway, I think it highly unnecessary to further dis Christianity in fandom, as it’s already a frequent punching bag.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Thanks for the input. Is this already-plowed ground? The parallels didn’t seem all obvious to me, which is why I thought it would be interesting for a post.

      • gradus

        Mostly, it’s an offense to Sci-Fi Fans. =)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Such offense was unintentional. I’m only hoping to provoke Christians.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X