posted
This is why I'm a nihilist. We always are proven right....in the end.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
quote:Is this belief that homosexuality is bad a personal belief, or did you acquire it from your clergy?
Church of Christ denomination (much as we might like to deny that we're a denomination) has no clergy.
That doesn't answer the question, though.
Is your belief based on your own personal feelings, on the teachings of your church, other teachings (i.e. parents), or something else?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why "unlikely" carbon reactions? When biophysicists can put hydrocarbons and water in a pressure vessel, hit it with ultraviolet light, bombard it with electricity, and within a week get primitive amino acids that can make crude copies of themselves, I'd call that pretty "likely".
There are people who point to us and the Earth as proof of the obviousness of a creator, as our planet is just the right distance from its star for these "unlikely" carbon reactions to occur. I think that reasoning is exactly 180� off. I think that the vagaries of planetary accretion resulted in the star Sol having one (and almost three) planets within its habitable zone, as determined by its radiation output -- the habitable zone being the range where these carbon reactions have enough respite from the cosmic dark to happen, but not so much that they get fried.
There are clouds of these carbon compounds hanging out there in space in the dark between stars. They are easily made -- the ash of previous generations of stars. Water -- at least in solid form -- is about as abundant. I'd say those two classes of molecule are right up there in abundancy below Hydrogen and Helium in a typical galaxy with a few stellar generations under its belt.
As for the unliklihood of evolution some argue, I just feel sorry for them that they can't wrap their heads around the timescales involved -- and not know they can't wrap their heads around the timescales involved. If the precursors to life form as easily on a planet like this one as laboratory experiments suggest, then what we would call "life" (primitive DNA) probably arose shortly after the Earth stopped getting pummelled by planetisimals and its crust could cool. But for another billion years or so, that life progressed no further than blue-green algae.
I've always loved the "cosmic calendar" model, as it puts everything in modern cosmology into perspective. With the Big Bang (or whatever) occurring in the first second of January 1st, the Milky Way didn't develop until about May. Our sun and its planets didn't coalesce until mid-September. The first humans appeared around 10:30pm on December 31st. The domestication of plants and animals happened around 11:59:20pm. All of recorded human history occupies only the last ten seconds of the last minute of the last day. Kind of humbling...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
While all of this is really interesting as a discussion about if such Earthly faiths actually condemn homosexuality, and while I'm tempted to put on my biblical scholar's cap and discuss law vs. Grace and whether or not Old Testament teaching has any revelance to New Covenent followers, I'm not going to, because it's all rather moot to Star Trek.
What individual Flare members think of the subject of homosexuality, or what this or that religion does or doesn't say about it, or whether or not said religions are used to forgive or condemn it seem like a subjects outside of the topic.
To sort of summarize the early parts of this post, the lack of it's portrayal on Star Trek probably has everything to do with the worldview of the production staff and/or their desire to please (or pander to) their audience, and nothing to do with what they think would actually be going on in their fictional world. After all, in this fictional universe that tolerates Kirk porking every alien babe in gogo boots Klingons breeding with humans, Trills carrying slugs around inside them, mind melds, and consensual "possessions" (Return to Tomorrow, TOS) it's difficult imagining homosexuality even getting a blink.
Just my two credits.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Thanks, Neutron. I'd been aware we were straying from the topic, but I love following conversational threads wherever they lead, so... *shrug*
The few times it's come up in the past, it's been handled clumsily and often titillatingly. I find that annoying. There should be as little hubbub in Trek over a homosexual character as a heterosexual character. The way David George handled it in the recent "Serpents Among the Ruins" book was spot-on in my estimation.
This matter, like time travel, is one I'd rather the writers leave alone until they and their writing ability matures to the point they can avoid such amateurish blunders. And lest anyone think I'm tooting my own horn here, I'm not -- I recognize my limitations as a writer and am working on developing my ability. I just wish they'd show similar self-knowledge and honesty. But then, honesty isn't a trait much admired in the big studio structure...
Viacom needs to divest itself of Trek so the property can go to being an independent production. I'm not saying going indy guarantees quality and success, but it definitely would free the Trek universe from the mentality responsible for the formulaic twaddle that the Machine has been churning out year after year. They don't respect Trek as anything other than a popular moneymaker and it shows.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Is your belief based on your own personal feelings, on the teachings of your church, other teachings (i.e. parents), or something else?
Found it in a book somewhere.
Why "unlikely" carbon reactions? When biophysicists can put hydrocarbons and water in a pressure vessel, hit it with ultraviolet light, bombard it with electricity, and within a week get primitive amino acids that can make crude copies of themselves, I'd call that pretty "likely".
Ah, so if you take certain chemicals and place them in circumstances that MIGHT have existed at one point, you get something that resembles life slightly more than a crystal does. I know I'm impressed.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"Is your belief based on your own personal feelings, on the teachings of your church, other teachings (i.e. parents), or something else?
Found it in a book somewhere."
Touche. PS: I do not agree with any of your beliefs - but I do admire the strength of your convictions. I wish I still had them. I was raised Mennonite in a small town. I still would be if I hadn't come across that damn Heinlein novel. It forced me to examine each and every one of my beliefs under the microscope of scientific objectivity - and not too many of them survived.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
A conviction that you've arrived at yourself is worth more than one you've been spoonfed to hold.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Indeed. A wise man (Ted Sturgeon - guest writer for TOS btw) once came up with the only reasonable definition of religion vs. cult.
To paraphrase; a religion is a belief structure which you are exposed from birth - before you have a chance to form logical thought processes of your own. A cult is a belief structure which you are stupid enought to embrace while presumably a thinking, intelligent, functional adult.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Thus explaining the resemblance in fanaticism between a born-again Christian and your average Rajneesh.
-------------------- "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It?s us. Only us." Rorschach
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
or the steadfast convictions and stance of those that lost their belief....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic