All posts by Billwinz
They say they're a Messianic Jew. Meaning they believe in Jesus as Messiah and thus should believe His words.
@DougMag as long as we're quoting, here's one for you: Matthew 7:1-2: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
meaning, if you're dare judge people based on the Levitical Law, You will be judged by that same law. Have you ever lusted? Ever coveted? I can tell by your comments here that you have hated, which according to Jesus himself is equal to murdering a person. Therefore you are as equally guilty. Christians are not here to judge or spread hate. It might seem like it because of "Christians" like you. But we are told to love. We can disagree with people's free will choice to ignore God's law for whatever reason they have. But we are never told to hate that person. We are to a light and source of hope for those people in the hope that they would eventually see the Truth in God's Word. But by saying the things you are saying, it only pushes them farther away. You are not doing God's Work by hating, only helping Lucifer/Satan himself. Think about that. It's all I'll say on the matter, because this really is not the place for this discussion.
The poll policy is Fandom-wide. Not just Star Trek/MA. The 6 is plenty.
As far as the sun goes, and other astrological bodies, we have telescopes and satellites that are capable of proving such things.
But evolution hasn't presented a single link between humans and a pre-human creature. DNA shows some similarities, but similarities are not proof. Some butters and plastics are only molecules apart. Does that prove we get butter from plastic? Or vice versa? I do grant that i'm not super knowledgeable on the details of evolution. But as I also stated in earlier comments, it doesn't really come up in my day-to-day life. Nor would discovering that I'm wrong change anything. I only brought it up because the OP seems to be a devout Jew, which is their right. And if they have an issue with the exclusion of Jews in Trek, I thought evolution would be a good example of how not everything in a future-based show has to be taken seriously, nor should it change how we enjoy it. If I had known this would be the response, I might've gone without mentioning it at all.
I know my analogy of the suit isn't quite right. Same as my "clump of dirt" isn't quite right about creation. I was just boiling a long debate to it's simplest terms. I wasn't trying to turn this into a debate. I clearly stated i had no hostility towards those who disagree, but the response i got seemed hostile. Maybe i misinterpreted, and if so, i apologize. But being compared to a "flat-earther" and called "anti-science" felt like an attack. Especially when i went out of my way to clarify that i wasn't trying to attack anyone.
@Fandyllic yikes?
And for the record, i am not anti-science. I believe science when it presents cold, hard facts. Evolution has never been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's just a convenient explanation that's not tied to any single religion and therefore more palatable for the masses. And that's fine.
The difference being, we can plainly see the Earth is not flat. I have yet to see a monkey stand up, put on a suit, and go to work. But by the same token, i haven't seen a clump of dirt rise up and do the same. There is no science in evolution. In fact, whenever a "missing link" is "discovered," it's quickly debunked as being fake.
As I said, there's no irrefutable evidence for either theory. Nor does either one being true have a practical affect on the vast majority of the population. If believing we come from monkeys give you peace, by all means, believe it. I believe in a higher being having a hand in our creation, and that gives me peace. Agree to disagree, no hate either way.
Or how about when someone is shown "speaking English" (presumably through the UT) and they slip in a Klingon or Bajoran word? Why doesn't the UT translate that word?
And then we have instances where someone like Sisko or Picard will start speaking Klingon to emphasize a point or show strength. Do the hearers know that what they're hearing isn't a translation?
As others have said, the more you look into it, the more the concept falls apart. Best to just ignore the details and accept it as part of the show.
@Icecreamdif not to turn this into any sort of debate, but no, i don't. But i also don't hold any spite for those that do. We're all free to believe whatever. And, at the end of the day, the origin is less important than where we're going as a society. Maybe i'm unique, but how humanity came into existence (dust or monkeys) doesn't have any affect on my day-to-day life.
I'd be willing to concede the anti-religion point. All 20th/21st Century religions are described in the past tense in the show. With the exception of Chakotay, I don't recall any human displaying any sort of religious preference. And even Chakotay could be viewed as more cultural than religious.
As for your antisemitic statement, i disagree. If it were only Jews that were eliminated, than you'd have a point. But, by your own admission, Star Trek treats all religions equally in the 23rd-24th Century, in that they're all extinct.
That being said, the show is fiction. One could easily claim that Trek's 23rd century is an alternate reality to our future 23rd century. Trek also claimed evolution as fact rather than theory. As a Christian, I disagree. And I would assume that as a Jew, you would also believe in the Creation described in the Torah. Does this bother you as much? Franchise-wide, evolution is discussed way more than the religions of the past. So I feel like that is a bigger issue than what religions exist. But again, it's a show. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be entertaining. If it bothers you so much, don't watch the show, or at least not those episodes. It's a simple solution.
@Fandyllic totally agree about the uneditable polls. Nightmares for moderators!
But as I stated above, the option issue is simply solved by not including pictures. I know it adds flair and looks good. But, like this poll for example, the pictures really don't add much. We all know what Lower Decks, Prodigy, & TAS are. Having the logos versus plain text isn't going to sway anyone's opinion. So it could've been a simple, plain text, 3 option poll. Which is entirely within Fandom's programming design to currently do.
Lower Decks, no contest.
Side note: Fandom does allow 3 option polls. The 4th option is required when you choose to include pictures. With a 3 picture option, the layout would look weird.
But as of this comment, i"m proud of our users. No one chose the 4th option. In other Fandoms that include a "trash" option like this, that non-option usually wins out because of childish users being "funny."
I would say no. For the same reason that the Dominion or Xindi aren't overused in DS9 & ENT. Only exception is in this case, it's a species that's been around for over 50 years that we still know so little about. So being able to develop them as a thriving society after 200+ years of Trek history. In TOS, we don't get much beyond slave women. I think it wasn't until DS9 that the pirate aspect really came out but that only in a couple episodes. ENT developed the slave women a bit more. But over all, before LD, they were only in less than a dozen out of the roughly 500 episodes that preceded LD. Plus, they have been set up the series villian. TOS had Klingons/Romulans, TNG had the Borg, DS9 had Dominion, VOY had a vast myriad, but considering that they were traveling away from their starting point, it made sense. So I think the amount of Orions in LD is just fine.
I'm not sure a full live-action LD series could be the same as the animated. More LA crossovers, definitely! But i think i'd prefer the series itself to remain animated. If it were to continue that is. So sad it's ending.
The only one with its own chant
Have not watched it. Not going to. It's a movie I plan on seeing anyway and trailers have a very bad habit of showing too much and spoiling moments that should be bigger reveals than they end up being, like a certain moment at the end of the new Captain America trailer. I'd rather go in knowing nothing and being surprised by what the filmmakers want to surprise me with instead of studio execs ruining it in a trailer.
I apologize for misinterpreting your statement. But I still stand in the side of no announcement would've been better than a premature season 2 renewal. I truly hope I'm wrong, but based on the very limited information available, my expectations are very low. Which, yes, could have colored my reading of your conment into a more negative light.
To me, it sounded like you were implying the thought pattern of "we got nothing else planned, so let's just slap a season 2 onto a show that hasn't proved itself yet."
Compare that to just not making any sort of announcement until fans have a chance to react to a final product. Maybe it's just me, but I don't need a new show/season/movie announced every other week for me to stay interested in the franchise.