Musings on Battlestar Galactica and God

One of the things that most inspired me about the original Battlestar Galactica was that it portrayed a society that was openly and unashamedly religious. Well before 1978, mainline science fiction had pretty much accepted the notion that religion was only for the gullible and the stupid. Suddenly, BSG introduced the notion that an entire advanced society could live according to a guiding Faith. I thought it was wonderful, because I had come to realize that there is no necessary conflict between faith and technology, and it was good to see a work of science fiction that accepted this notion.

Oh, I know. . .people of faith are often obnoxious. But that’s a problem with people, not with faith itself. Major faiths tend to reflect the values of the people, rather than the people accepting the values of the faith. I find that unfortunate, but I accept it as true. What’s worse, I often find that I myself am not the best representative of my own Christian faith, which makes me really reluctant to grab anybody else by the throat and say, “You must become more like me!” God forbid! If the whole world were filled with people like me, I fear that mankind would become extinct within a generation! As one philosopher once said, “If only you knew me better, you would realize that I am even worse than you think I am.” Yet for all that, I believe that I would be even worse (hard as that is to believe!) if it weren’t for the faith that I have.

Too often, people of faith are denied permission to speak of their faith merely because some adherents cannot do so in a civil manner. Hence the unwritten rule of politeness that decent people do not speak of religion or politics in friendly social gatherings, a rule that I am hereby breaking in the quixotic belief that faith can be talked about in a civil manner if the rules of civility are followed. I believe that it is possible to be a member of one political party without hating those in the other. I believe it is possible to be a vegetarian without hating those who eat meat. I believe it is possible to believe in God without hating those who do not, or who believe in a different version. And vice versa. I also believe that it is permissible to give reasons why one believes the way one does, so long as one does not try to forcibly require others to go along, but rather remain content to let others agree or disagree as they see fit.

In other words, I am free to state why I thought it was so great that TOS incorporated God into the very fabric of the story, and so unfortunate that God has been removed from the new one (or at least relegated to Cylon territory, stimulating speculation either that the Cylons may really be better than the Colonials, or else that faith is something that only bad people adhere to. But let’s not digress in that direction just now.)

Anybody else up for a good theological discussion? Agreement, disagreement, strenuous argument, and skeptical questions are all welcome. . .

[Micheleh]

Ok, for the sake of discussion, I'll bite.

This reminds me of a line from an SF/F novel I've read (I can't recall the title just now) wherein the deity says "I can only appear to you in forms that you understand, or at least partly understand".

Re-read what you've just written with the assumption that where you refer to God, you read it as having the added definition of 'God, as defined by the method and means of worhip whose practices, forms and symobism I recognise to be acceptable as legitimate and true' and see how differently it reads.

The form you understand...

Originally Posted by Micheleh

Ok, for the sake of discussion, I'll bite.

This reminds me of a line from an SF/F novel I've read (I can't recall the title just now) wherein the deity says "I can only appear to you in forms that you understand, or at least partly understand".

Re-read what you've just written with the assumption that where you refer to God, you read it as having the added definition of 'God, as defined by the method and means of worhip whose practices, forms and symobism I recognise to be acceptable as legitimate and true' and see how differently it reads.

The form you understand...

Not differently at all. In fact, I would agree with you that it’s self-evident. If God is infinite, He is beyond our ability to fully comprehend, so I have no choice but to use anthropomorphisms, allegories, metaphors, and other such crutches. It’s either that, or proclaim that there is no God at all, which is definitely a non sequitur. One which I committed myself once.

When I was in the sixth grade I did some serious ruminating about religion, and came to the conclusion that the Christian faith was exactly as true as ancient Greek mythology. That is, not true at all. I maintained that belief until I was a year out of high school.

In hindsight, I can see that what I was rejecting was not actually God, but my conception of God as I understood Him at that time. I now believe that the issue is not whether He exists (the evidence in favor of intelligent design of the universe simply doesn’t allow for Random Chance to be the architect, IMO) but what our/my conception of Him is. I even recognize that my continued use of the masculine pronoun implies a conception that others may strongly disagree with. But that detail is not central to the question of whether a generally faith-based society, as portrayed in TOS, is or might be a good thing.

Having said that, I will take slight issue with just one part of your response: “God, as defined by the method and means of worhip whose practices, forms and symobism I recognise to be acceptable. . .” Strictly speaking, you are absolutely correct. However, your statement might be understood to mean that I merely accept blindly the definition of the establishment (whatever that is). If, however, you mean it to signify “God, as my limited and fallible self understands Him. . .” then I will not disagree with you. There is a God, but describing Him in a manner that is agreeable to everybody is not an easy task.

[PlaidSquadron]

Originally Posted by Bombadil

[color=#000000][color=cyan][size=2] Oh, I know. . .people of faith are often obnoxious. But that’s a problem with people, not with faith itself.

You are right on there. People with faith can come across as obnoxious. Just as people without faith can.

Faith and technology are not independent. Both can be misused, causing serious damage. Having one does not decree you can't have the other. Beliveing in God does not necessarily mandate a disbelief in science, and vice versa.

I am the best Christian I can be, which at times is not all that good. I also try to think logically about the world I live in. But things like evolution don't prove or disprove anything However, there are those (in both camps) that say "If you don't think like me, you are wrong." I find that the obnoxious part

[julix]

Very interesting thing to think about...and I had never put together the faith in TOS as being "new" because I grew up with faith and family which was just like BSG but you are right it was a new concept for TV scifi. Also Star Wars has "the force" and if you know about Episode One there were religious comparisons made there. The mini is not only lacking a faith aspect but many things as well..............but that is another thread.

Originally posted by PlaidSquadron

Believing in God does not necessarily mandate a disbelief in science, and vice versa.
Extremely critical point. It must always be remembered that science gives us factual knowledge about our universe, but it does not supply values. As it is sometimes put, “Science can tell us how to build an atomic bomb, but it cannot tell us whether we ought to.”

I am the best Christian I can be, which at times is not all that good.
Join the club. God’s forgiveness is not meant to be an excuse to behave badly, but since even the greatest saints could (and often did) say exactly what you are saying, we must always remember that Christianity is about forgiveness, not about the triumph of the best/strongest.

I also try to think logically about the world I live in.
Here again we must remember that logic always starts with a given which cannot be proved but is accepted by faith. An intelligent Christian ought to be very logical, while at the same time realizing that the starting point is God’s absolute truth, not human opinion. Without that absolute truth, nobody has any basis for saying that something is good. Or bad. The Galactica TOS universe postulated that there was an absolute good and bad. I like that better than the BSG2003 universe.

Star Wars did have "the force" but it was controlled by people. The Christian faith (that I believe) says that God controls all things.
"The force" was created by all living things where as the Christian faith says that God is the creator of all living things.

[unowhoandwhy]

Originally Posted by julix

The mini is not only lacking a faith aspect but many things as well..............but that is another thread.

The mini actually had quite a few references to their faith and, like religion, no two people saw the same thing in the mini and opinions on it vary widely. But, you are right, that is a discussion for another thread.

[julix]

Laura and uno...........you are both right...I was making observations not facts.

Originally Posted by julix

Laura and uno...........you are both right...I was making observations not facts.

That's exactly what I was hoping you would do. This is an open discussion thread, and I hope that others will chime in with their opinions, too.

[julix]

Good thanks Bomb!

[Senmut]

Originally Posted by Laura

Star Wars did have "the force" but it was controlled by people. The Christian faith (that I believe) says that God controls all things.
"The force" was created by all living things where as the Christian faith says that God is the creator of all living things.

Yea, Laura!

[Muffit]

Wow, almost missed this one. I think it's a terrific subject and very brave of you Bombadil. When we leave ourselves open to possible criticism, we rise beyond the fundamental flaw in mankind's 'greatest' asset - thought - for in truth we do not do battle by words or by swords against foes of different skin colors or differently shaped eyes, for the ostensible goal of gaining land or resources; in short, we deem our own thoughts correct and thereby expect all others to agree with us, else risk accepting our own thoughts are not in fact correct. All of mankind's wars and all of mankind's errors can be traced to a root cause, the desire to subjugate others to our thoughts. Tribute by acquiescence.

Fact is not Truth. Fact is merely information the majority happen to accept as truth, and often changes as we change within. Truth has nothing to do with the hoarding of information and exploitation of dignity of any life form we deem less "human". You cannot touch Truth. You cannot see it. You cannot point to it and say, "See? I told you so." We believe in Truth without empirical evidence. That belief is called, Faith. But Faith does not proselytize for gain, as we often misuse it. Like Truth, we simply hold it out, like a gesture; if it is taken, we should feel no false pride or reward.

BSG tried to reintroduce the world to what Aristotle began burying ages ago. What good is knowledge for knowledge' sake? What good is it to know how the heart works, if in finding out you abdicate from ever using it? Or worse, ignore it and purposely hurt other hearts in that quest!

Mankind will never be free until we look at others with our heart and not our "intelligence". Till we submit to another's right to harbor alien thoughts, and with that submission, allow them to live by them. Whether we label those thoughts Faith or Science, patriotism or camaraderie: we must not label them in error. Thoughts are the Art of the mind. The one thing we can create and revel in, be we crippled or whole, rich or poor, humble or great.

Philosophy meant the Love of Knowledge, not the emotionless amassing of it. BSG gave us, for one shining moment, a brief taste of that; faith for the sake of Faith, love for the sake of Love, hope for the sake of realizing the previous two.

Affectionately to all,
Muffit

Well said Muffit.

Originally posted by Muffit

Wow, almost missed this one. I think it's a terrific subject and very brave of you Bombadil.
That's a pity. I don't feel brave, but I do know that talking about faith can get people angry. To some extent the fault lies with uncivil people of faith, who provoke a negative reaction. But the flip side of that is people who, having been offended by somebody of faith, subsequently attack anybody else who admits having faith. That is not really any different than if I had once been offended by a person who was black/white/male/female/foreign/old/young/whatever, and thereafter pre-emptively attacked anybody who was a member of the offending group. It just isn't civil. So maybe I am being a bit of an idealist for believing that conversation about faith can be civil. I don't mind being accused of idealism. Or even convicted of it.

Faith does not proselytize for gain, as we often misuse it. Like Truth, we simply hold it out, like a gesture; if it is taken, we should feel no false pride or reward.
Beautifully said. I have always considered this one of the strongest arguments for the objective truth of Christianity. No, really. Bear with me here. We all are familiar with the figure of the charismatic but dishonest religious leader or founder who advances his cause in order to become rich, influential, popular, or whatever. But the early leaders of the Christian movement gained no such reward for their efforts. In fact, they often died. If they had been guilty of stealing Jesus' body in order to fake a "resurrection" (as is often charged), it is not plausible that they would have knowingly continued the deception after experiencing the negative results they endured. Their tenacity in the face of fierce opposition persuades me that they were convinced of the factuality of what they proclaimed. And the sheer number of "insiders" argues against insanity or other irrationality; one or two or three crazy leaders could perhaps hold together a conspiracy, but hundreds of people is too many for conspiracy to be a plausible explanation. They proclaimed, not for gain, but because they were convinced that the things that Jesus taught were actually true, and that he had actually risen from the dead.


BSG tried to reintroduce the world to what Aristotle began burying ages ago. What good is knowledge for knowledge' sake? What good is it to know how the heart works, if in finding out you abdicate from ever using it? Or worse, ignore it and purposely hurt other hearts in that quest!
Excellent point. Sometimes people (even Christians!) fight merely to uphold their personal interpretation of what "knowledge" is actually "true", and not because that knowledge has any practical benefit for others. But Jesus came to bring a knowledge that heals the broken and lifts all people up, not just a privileged few.

Mankind will never be free until we look at others with our heart and not our "intelligence". . .
Beautiful poetry, Muffit. Not "myth", but poetry. Truth.

Philosophy meant the Love of Knowledge, not the emotionless amassing of it. BSG gave us, for one shining moment, a brief taste of that; faith for the sake of Faith, love for the sake of Love, hope for the sake of realizing the previous two. Well, yes, but also, so as not to accidentally contradict your previous thought, all of these for the sake of lifting up actual people in the real world. BSG may be a work of fiction, but it mirrors real ideas that have consequences in the real world. Faith, hope, and love are real qualities that connect us to a real God and that really connect us to each other.


Affectionately to all,
Muffit

First class, Muffit! First class!

[Muffit]

Hi Bombadil! And thanks! I apologize if I went off on a rant - your words were so eloquent I guess I got carried away :shy:

You are so very right - we ought not to be ashamed if we believe in God in the present day, anymore than we should feel shame at showing affection (tactfully! ) in public.

What you said mirrors what my older brother tried to tell me when I was young; respect for another's faith, no matter how different it might be from my own. I did not understand back then because I was young and let people whose influence I admired cause me to feel that exclusivity was the nature of Faith. Many years and many hundreds of conversations later, I finally see what he saw.

If I have a right to my beliefs, and we all are entitled to the same equality, so too contrary beliefs have every bit as much right to be held. It's a big world, and our hearts can be even bigger, if we would only look outward whenever we look inward...

Affectionately,
Muffit

[Rowan]

LOL! I don't know if I can handle both of you waxing eloquently on the same thread! it's more than my little heart and mind can bear!

Originally posted by Muffit
Hi Bombadil! And thanks! I apologize if I went off on a rant - your words were so eloquent I guess I got carried away :shy:

Aww
Anyway, I don't think you were ranting. Just sharing what you were thinking.

You are so very right - we ought not to be ashamed if we believe in God in the present day, anymore than we should feel shame at showing affection (tactfully! ) in public.
Right. It’s maintaining the distinction between being not being ashamed (or afraid) to mention God, and being too eager to stir things up by ramming one’s opinions down other people’s throats. Isn’t it funny how even BSG fans can perform that particular trick? It isn’t the specific faith or opinion that is the cause of the problem, it is the character of the person sharing his/her opinion.

What you said mirrors what my older brother tried to tell me when I was young; respect for another's faith, no matter how different it might be from my own. I did not understand back then because I was young and let people whose influence I admired cause me to feel that exclusivity was the nature of Faith. Many years and many hundreds of conversations later, I finally see what he saw.

If I have a right to my beliefs, and we all are entitled to the same equality, so too contrary beliefs have every bit as much right to be held. It's a big world, and our hearts can be even bigger, if we would only look outward whenever we look inward...

Affectionately,
Muffit

One thing I would add to that: with the kind of faith portrayed in BSG TOS (which had many parallels with Mormonism and with generic Christianity) the faith was a positive source of good for society. That which benefits individual people, one at a time, inevitably benefits society as a whole. Just as one example: in our real world, Christians have often been founders of hospitals. Christians care about healing, the spending of effort to rescue the weak and the incapacitated. That’s quite a bit different from a Darwinian world where the strong survive and the weak provide food for the strong, and the universe itself does not care who wins and who dies because impersonal matter cannot care about anything. Believing in a personal God who actually cares about me yields results drastically different from believing in an impersonal universe which does not care whether I am good or evil, strong or weak, dead or alive.
Am I “proselytizing” for my faith? Naw, I don’t think so. Just talking about what I care about. Plus I like the often-used description that a Christian is like a beggar who has found bread, and is eager to let other people know where it can be found. Anybody who’s not hungry doesn’t have to come, but there are lots of spiritually hungry people in the world. . .

[Rowan]

Ok somebody is getting their wish I have been sucked in...

One thing I would add to that: with the kind of faith portrayed in BSG TOS (which had many parallels with Mormonism and with generic Christianity) the faith was a positive source of good for society. That which benefits individual people, one at a time, inevitably benefits society as a whole. Just as one example: in our real world, Christians have often been founders of hospitals. Christians care about healing, the spending of effort to rescue the weak and the incapacitated.

Christians have also been responsible for the destruction of entire belief systems and the destruction of entire peoples. When I look at how we treated the native peoples of various countries including my own. Before “Christians” arrived here in BC and “civilized” them, the native peoples had a culture rich in spiritual practices. We told them that their beliefs were wrong. Yet they had a strong spiritual connection to the land that involved seeing all forms of life as being precious and worthy of respect and acknowledged the gift of life surrendered so that they could eat by offering a ceremony of thanks to the life (be it tree or animal).

Today in our Christianity we have almost destroyed out natural resources her in BC the trees the fish and it’s never enough we still want more.

Native peoples did not have need of jails or external policing system they policed themselves. Do we?

Leaders accumulated possessions for the sole purpose of redistribution among other members of their extended family the more you gave away the more you gained in status. We outlawed this behaviour made it illegal a criminal offence for them to have potlatches we confiscated their amassed wealth and sold to museums.

We took their children from them by force at a very young age put them in residential schools made it compulsory and forbade them to speak their native language. They were also forbidden to have any contact with family members including those at the schools. They were forbidden to practice their own spiritual beliefs at the school and forced to adopt the Christian faith. Many of the residential school teachers that taught at these schools were rejected from teaching in the public school system (for the non natives) for various reasons, like physical abuse. Children grew up in these institutions most often not seeing their families again until they graduated. At which time unable to speak the language of their parents and elders or follow traditional teachings, denied the contact of a loving and warm family experience, raised by strangers who did not parent but simply enforced rules unable to parent themselves having never experienced it nor seen it, unable to get jobs off the reserves and none to be found on the reserves, these children of the Residential school system were lost facing a legacy of poverty, suicide and alcoholism and went on to beget the next lost generation. And it you think this was a long time ago well this happened in my parents time and they are still alive. As late as 1951 which I believe was just a couple years before some of you were born native peoples of Canada were forbidden to have legal representation. And as late as 1960 which is just 4 years before I was born they were not allowed to vote.





There is a Christian church here in Vancouver that will feed those stranded on the street who are hungry and homeless the only catch is that if they want to eat and sleep in a warm place they have to listen to a sermon. That sounds a lot like blackmail to me! Why not spread the word so to speak by modeling not blackmail.



That’s quite a bit different from a Darwinian world where the strong survive and the weak provide food for the strong,

Darwin’s belief of “survival of the fittest” went through many revisions over the years and publications of his theory yet for some reason we only ever seem to quote the original version and not the amended versions. With that original statement the idea was simply a possible explanation for why certain characteristics are more prominent in a species and therefore why certain individuals of a species are more successful in their survival than others. Success, fitness, strength had nothing to do with anything other than the ability of the present generation to live long enough to procreate the next generation. Somehow over the years people have put their own spin on it probably due to Hollywood’s interpretation.





and the universe itself does not care who wins and who dies because impersonal matter cannot care about anything.



I’m not sure why you feel they are mutually exclusive or why living beings don’t care about anything in this version of the world.



Believing in a personal God who actually cares about me yields results drastically different from believing in an impersonal universe which does not care whether I am good or evil, strong or weak, dead or alive.

Why would Darwin’s theory make you think that it is just an explanation for why we certain members of a species do better than others and why we have the particular characteristics we do, it doesn’t negate the existence of a God. God could very well have given each species a myriad of adaptable options that through the selection process appear or disappear depending on the need.


Am I “proselytizing” for my faith? Naw, I don’t think so. Just talking about what I care about. Plus I like the often-used description that a Christian is like a beggar who has found bread, and is eager to let other people know where it can be found. Anybody who’s not hungry doesn’t have to come, but there are lots of spiritually hungry people in the world. . .

And for those of us who are not spiritually hungry and know where the “food” is if we ever get hungry why the need to constantly tell us? Why knock on my door every Sunday or stand at the sky train entrance with magazines that spell out the immanent end to mans immortal soul if we don’t change our wicked ways?

yes I know this had nothing to do with BSG but I have to go now it's fathers day...Happy Fathers Day!

Originally posted by Bombadil
Anybody else up for a good theological discussion? Agreement, disagreement, strenuous argument, and skeptical questions are all welcome. . .

Originally posted by Rowan
Ok somebody is getting their wish I have been sucked in... Aww, participation is strictly voluntary, but thanks for weighing in

Christians have also been responsible for the destruction of entire belief systems and the destruction of entire peoples.
Quite true. But that is true of many other groups. As I indicated earlier, faiths oftern take on the character of the people who hold them, rather than the other way around. Just because a certain person or group calls itself Christian doesn’t make it so. The Ku Klux Klan comes quickly to mind. . .

Today in our Christianity we have almost destroyed our natural resources
An important point, one that I feel pretty strongly about. If we take the Bible seriously, man is required to be a wise steward of God’s creation, not a despoiler of it. Once again, people put their stamp upon the faith, rather than the other way around. Or, as Mark Twain (a frequent critic of Christianity) once remarked, “God created man in His own image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment.” The thing to remember is that the evil actions of some non-genuine “Christians” is no reason to condemn the genuine article. Your extended discussion of the treatment of the indigenous American people comes under that heading. A whole lot of injustice was done. But if you read your history carefully, you will see that some of the people protesting the loudest against such injustice were Christians who took their faith seriously, as opposed to those who just assume that because they were born in America, or Canada, that they were automatically Christian.

There is a Christian church here in Vancouver that will feed those stranded on the street who are hungry and homeless the only catch is that if they want to eat and sleep in a warm place they have to listen to a sermon. That sounds a lot like blackmail to me! Why not spread the word so to speak by modeling not blackmail.

This is a very frequent complaint against the “gospel mission” model, and I happen to think it has some validity.

Darwin’s belief of “survival of the fittest” went through many revisions over the years and publications of his theory yet for some reason we only ever seem to quote the original version and not the amended versions.

Well, you are quite right about my statement being a simplification. I do know a bit more about Darwinism than that, and I assume most of our readers do, too, even if the general population is less clear on the concept. But I think you might agree that the catch phrase “survival of the fittest” is widely accepted (though not universally, of course). There was even a time when the phrase “Social Darwinism” was accepted as a good thing (we have progressed beyond that, thankfully.) So I was commenting on that particular idea.

and the universe itself does not care who wins and who dies because impersonal matter cannot care about anything.
I’m not sure why you feel they are mutually exclusive or why living beings don’t care about anything in this version of the world.

Oh, I’m just commenting on the logical consequence of a popular idea. Some people, especially some of higher intelligence and with a greater awareness of scientific knowledge, say they believe that the universe is ultimately nothing but the interaction of matter, energy, time, and chance. Yet they don’t actually live as though they believed that. They live as though the universe actually does have meaning, even though they say it doesn’t (or they say that meaning is only a creation of the conscious observer, not inherent in the universe itself). Christianity postulates that there is a Creator and that the universe therefore does have actual meaning, not just imaginary meaning. I believe that just because I say that the universe has meaning doesn’t make it so, but if there is an actual Creator, then the universe does have meaning whether I personally believe it or not. I guess that is just a long-winded way of saying that I believe in objective truth, not merely subjective truth.

Am I “proselytizing” for my faith? Naw, I don’t think so. Just talking about what I care about. Plus I like the often-used description that a Christian is like a beggar who has found bread, and is eager to let other people know where it can be found. Anybody who’s not hungry doesn’t have to come, but there are lots of spiritually hungry people in the world. . .
And for those of us who are not spiritually hungry and know where the “food” is if we ever get hungry why the need to constantly tell us? Why knock on my door every Sunday or stand at the sky train entrance with magazines that spell out the immanent end to mans immortal soul if we don’t change our wicked ways?

I guess for the same reason that some people can always be counted on to tell you that you aren’t eating healthy food, or that you should quit smoking, or that you should exercise more. Or that you are a cretin if you think that BSG2003 was good/wasn’t good. Some people just can’t stand knowing that there are other people in the world who don’t agree with them. Some of those people are Christians, most are not. Me? I prefer to talk about the positives, make the best case for my faith that I can, and always pursue an honest exchange of ideas while respecting the other person’s right to disagree with me.

yes I know this had nothing to do with BSG
Oh, sure it did! That’s why I started this thread! And a café is a place to sit and chat about all kinds of things. When I was in college, some of my favorite times were spent arguing with classmates about theological issues. Sometimes I would change my mind because of new evidence, sometimes I would persuade the other guy, and sometimes nothing would change, but the discussions were always stimulating and useful. Thank you for challenging me. Obviously we have only just begun to scratch the surface here, and we can either go deeper, or let it drop. But I’m game to continue if Rowan or anybody else wants to continue.

[Rowan]

All righty then...I just finished watching war of the gods there was an interesting conversation between Adama and Count Iblis

Adama "Then why do you fear them?"
CI "I fear no man, no creature"
Adama "Not even God?"
CI "What do you primitive children know of what you call God?"
Adama "Only that we have been given laws which cannot be broken by any man or creature"
CI "Those laws do not apply to me"
Adama "I wonder"

Ok I have never understood why we are supposed to fear God, it (I use it because I don't think of God in terms of gender) is supposed to be loving so what is there to fear. If it is supposed to be guiding me towards spiritual enlightenment then why fear this? I don't believe punishment is an enlightened way to educate or to help enlighten so why would a being who is supposedly more enlightened than I practice such archaic behavior? why shame or emotionally destroy those you love? How can I respect, admire or love something I fear?

Excellent question that deserves a good answer. Don't have time to write it right now, so I'm just reserving this spot in the thread.
More later. . .

Originally Posted by Rowan

Ok I have never understood why we are supposed to fear God, it is supposed to be loving so what is there to fear? If it is supposed to be guiding me towards spiritual enlightenment then why fear this? I don't believe punishment is an enlightened way to educate or to help enlighten so why would a being who is supposedly more enlightened than I practice such archaic behavior? Why shame or emotionally destroy those you love? How can I respect, admire or love something I fear?

This could be a very long answer, but let's go with the short one: you are jumping to a false conclusion about the nature of "fear".
Oh, fear is fear, OK. But fearing God does not have to imply that God is Darth Vader (or the Emperor, who is not as forgiving LOL!)
Do you fear the police? No? Why not? Oh, because you haven't done anything wrong? If you saw an expensive necklace lying unguarded on a jewelry store counter, why wouldn't you take it? Is it because you fear the consequences? Sure you do! Even if you are not considering the legal consequences, you certainly fear the censure of your friends who believe you to be honest. At a minimum, you fear the bad feeling you would get from violating your own conscience. Good people can sleep with a clear conscience because they fear the consequences of truly bad actions, and so they don't do those bad things. (Usually!).

Also, real, genuine fear is the strongest motivator there is to do anything. I don't say that is always a GOOD thing, just that it is a fact.
Consider: Al tells Bob to do something that Al thinks is reasonable. Bob does not want to do it. Al believes it is absolutely vital that it get done. How does Al motivate Bob to do it? He can:
a) appeal to gratitude. "Bob, after all the things I have done for you, won't you do this one thing for me?" This may work, but it probably will not. Bob will just get annoyed at Al for being presumptuous.
b) offer a reward. "Bob, I will give you a hundred dollars if you do this for me." Ah, now you're talking serious motivation to most people, especially if Al can afford to up the reward to a thousand dollars, or a million. Who could resist that? Ah, but there might be some requests so difficult or unpleasant that even the offer of a million dollars would not be enough. In that case, Al can
c) appeal to fear. "Bob, if you don't do it right now, I am going to shoot and kill you." This is virtually guaranteed to bring results. It is the strongest motivator there is. Oh, in the long run it may not be efficient, because people living in constant, unrelieved dread have a tendency to rebel, whether they be students of a cruel teacher, or subject of a cruel dictator. Nonetheless, the appeal to fear is the fastest way to get quick results.

What does this have to do with God? Sometimes God threatens discipline just as a parent would. Children (including God's children) are not always reasonable, and a careful explanation of why they should not play in the street just might not work. So a parent will sometimes appeal to fear: "If I ever see you playing in the street again, I will. . ." (insert appropriate object of fear here). Is this cruel? I don't think so. The consequences of careless playing in the street are so hideous that a parent who uses appropriate fear to keep the child playing in the yard is being merciful, not cruel. (Even a careful explanation of the consequences is an appeal to fear!)

There, that was the short answer. Aren't you glad I didn't go for the long one?

[Senmut]

Originally Posted by Bombadil

I even recognize that my continued use of the masculine pronoun implies a conception that others may strongly disagree with. But that detail is not central to the question of whether a generally faith-based society, as portrayed in TOS, is or might be a good thing.

Calling God "He" is of course a anthropomorphism. If we speak of God as in the Judeo/Xtian sense, God is Self-revealed, and whatever we know about Him comes from Him. In terms of our Human frame of reference, there are really only two ways we can conceptualize God, in terms of gender. Obviously, there was a 50/50 chance it might have gone the other way, in which case centuries of bitching would have reflected that reality. Why God has chosen (if you accept the J/C world view, of course) to be known as "Him" and not "Her" is something we are not told. Perhaps it is something our limited minds cannot fully grasp?

Originally Posted by Bombadil

Having said that, I will take slight issue with just one part of your response: “God, as defined by the method and means of worhip whose practices, forms and symobism I recognise to be acceptable. . .” Strictly speaking, you are absolutely correct. However, your statement might be understood to mean that I merely accept blindly the definition of the establishment (whatever that is). If, however, you mean it to signify “God, as my limited and fallible self understands Him. . .” then I will not disagree with you. There is a God, but describing Him in a manner that is agreeable to everybody is not an easy task.

We must ask ourselves, acceptable where, and by whom? After all, some religions conceive of God as a bloodthirsty warrior who slaughters for the sheer joy of it. Others as a hungry, angry diety, who demands Human flesh to eat. Still others as some nameless, faceless natural force. Obviously, they can't all be right, and when we use the word "acceptable", we need to qualify what we mean thereby.

Originally posted by Senmut

Calling God "He" is of course a anthropomorphism. If we speak of God as in the Judeo/Xtian sense, God is Self-revealed, and whatever we know about Him comes from Him. In terms of our Human frame of reference, there are really only two ways we can conceptualize God, in terms of gender. Obviously, there was a 50/50 chance it might have gone the other way, in which case centuries of bitching would have reflected that reality. Why God has chosen (if you accept the J/C world view, of course) to be known as "Him" and not "Her" is something we are not told. Perhaps it is something our limited minds cannot fully grasp?

Obviously true. Let's face it, some of those who defend the use of "He" most strenuously base their action entirely on the "we've always believed it that way" argument. Giving a rational defense (other than the obvious "It is the language that Scripture uses") is something else entirely. Permit me this observation, though. This is not a defense, just additional information.

God the Father--the first person of the Christian Trinity--is portrayed symbolically as the Lord/Leader of the household. The Son is Jesus Christ. In some places in the Old Testament the people of God are portrayed as the wife of Jehovah. In the New Testament God’s people are portrayed as the Bride of Christ. Historical church tradition speaks often of “Holy Mother Church”. And, of course, the place of Mary as the mother of Christ makes the role of the woman highly prominent in the church. I guess all I am saying in these few words is that the matter of masculine and feminine pronouns is not unimportant, and changing God arbitrarily to She or It has a whole slew of unintended side effects on a lot of important Christian metaphors and allegories. The God of the Christian Bible is not portrayed as an isolated, aloof singularity, but as the focus of a host of relationships. FWIW.



We must ask ourselves, acceptable where, and by whom? After all, some religions conceive of God as a bloodthirsty warrior who slaughters for the sheer joy of it. Others as a hungry, angry deity, who demands Human flesh to eat. Still others as some nameless, faceless natural force. Obviously, they can't all be right, and when we use the word "acceptable", we need to qualify what we mean thereby.


Inevitably we must face the fact that faith has an impact on actions. As Americans (other nationalities bear with me here) we try our best to be tolerant and accepting of all faiths, but if a faith different from ours requires an action that we consider unacceptable, then we either become intolerant of that faith, or we Americanize it and eliminate the unacceptable parts. As for the angry deity of the Old Testament,, a lot of people have a lot of trouble with Him. . .but a lot of people don’t. Why they don’t is the stuff of a really interesting dorm debate, but it’s a little steep for this thread. At this time, anyway. One important fact, though, is that in America there is no one single definition of what constitutes the True Faith. As some rather intolerant wags have put it, “In America every individual has the right to go to hell in a way of his own choosing.” Seriously, though, freedom is the rule. That means that I am free to reject all faith if I think that is the right path; it means I can join a specific denomination and vigorously believe and defend every detail of what that church teaches, or it can mean that I can join a particular church (in my case, Presbyterian) and accept its teachings in a general way while focusing mostly on those basic, foundational teachings that are common to all branches of the Christian church. In any case, I as an individual am responsible to make the choice that is right for me, and to accept the consequences if I make what turns out to be a wrong choice. (Yes, objective truth is alive and well, and it is possible to make one’s own choice about faith and still be wrong! But let that go for another post.)

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Micheleh

Ok, for the sake of discussion, I'll bite.

This reminds me of a line from an SF/F novel I've read (I can't recall the title just now) wherein the deity says "I can only appear to you in forms that you understand, or at least partly understand".

Re-read what you've just written with the assumption that where you refer to God, you read it as having the added definition of 'God, as defined by the method and means of worhip whose practices, forms and symobism I recognise to be acceptable as legitimate and true' and see how differently it reads.

The form you understand...

I remember that line .............I think it comes from 'First Contact' with
Jodie Foster. I'm not sure though.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Laura

Star Wars did have "the force" but it was controlled by people. The Christian faith (that I believe) says that God controls all things.
"The force" was created by all living things where as the Christian faith says that God is the creator of all living things.

Good point Laura

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Muffit

Wow, almost missed this one. I think it's a terrific subject and very brave of you Bombadil. When we leave ourselves open to possible criticism, we rise beyond the fundamental flaw in mankind's 'greatest' asset - thought - for in truth we do not do battle by words or by swords against foes of different skin colors or differently shaped eyes, for the ostensible goal of gaining land or resources; in short, we deem our own thoughts correct and thereby expect all others to agree with us, else risk accepting our own thoughts are not in fact correct. All of mankind's wars and all of mankind's errors can be traced to a root cause, the desire to subjugate others to our thoughts. Tribute by acquiescence.

Fact is not Truth. Fact is merely information the majority happen to accept as truth, and often changes as we change within. Truth has nothing to do with the hoarding of information and exploitation of dignity of any life form we deem less "human". You cannot touch Truth. You cannot see it. You cannot point to it and say, "See? I told you so." We believe in Truth without empirical evidence. That belief is called, Faith. But Faith does not proselytize for gain, as we often misuse it. Like Truth, we simply hold it out, like a gesture; if it is taken, we should feel no false pride or reward.

BSG tried to reintroduce the world to what Aristotle began burying ages ago. What good is knowledge for knowledge' sake? What good is it to know how the heart works, if in finding out you abdicate from ever using it? Or worse, ignore it and purposely hurt other hearts in that quest!

Mankind will never be free until we look at others with our heart and not our "intelligence". Till we submit to another's right to harbor alien thoughts, and with that submission, allow them to live by them. Whether we label those thoughts Faith or Science, patriotism or camaraderie: we must not label them in error. Thoughts are the Art of the mind. The one thing we can create and revel in, be we crippled or whole, rich or poor, humble or great.

Philosophy meant the Love of Knowledge, not the emotionless amassing of it. BSG gave us, for one shining moment, a brief taste of that; faith for the sake of Faith, love for the sake of Love, hope for the sake of realizing the previous two.

Affectionately to all,
Muffit

As always Muffit your posts are insightful and thought provoking

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Rowan

LOL! I don't know if I can handle both of you waxing eloquently on the same thread! it's more than my little heart and mind can bear!

I don't mind .............Keep WAXING! I like it

Wax on, wax off?

[No, I didn't say that. Strike that from the record. The jury will please disregard that statement. . .]

Thank you, Shiningstar (and welcome back!)
This kind of brings me back to my original reason for starting this thread. In the original Battlestar Galactica, faith was portrayed as an accepted component of everyday life. It wasn't a central plot point for any of the episodes until the Ship of Lights and Count Iblis showed up, but the idea of faith continually ran through the background. People referred to God unselfconsciously. I don't recall any specific instances of individual prayer, but it wouldn't feel out of character for Adama to pray, any more than it was out of character for George Washington to pray.
Today, people who pray are often considered a little bit weird, and faith is routinely attacked as being the exclusive domain of fools or hypocrites. Therefore people of faith are often afraid to say anything about their faith, for fear of being thought either foolish or rude. But it doesn't have to be that way, as this thread is demonstrating. The discussion has been civil (spirited at times, but entirely civil so far), and the comments have been positive. I hope this will continue. I enjoy discussion and (civil) debate, but I am also enjoying reading comments by people who aren't afraid to speak positively of their own faith.