Talk: Christianity

Should this article exist?[]

Does this ("Islam" as well) really have any place here? Neither are referenced in any episode/movie, AFAIK. These pages are more of a Wikipedia article than a Memory Alpha article. -- DarkHorizon 16:58, 5 Jan 2004 (PST)

I agree. Wikipedia has extensive articles about all major religions. I suggest to create a page Earth religions with links to articles on Wikipedia and protect that page. All non-fictional religions from Religion should then link to that page. -- Cid Highwind 00:56, 6 Jan 2004 (PST)

I agree as well. It deserves an article because Christianity is mentioned several times in trek, but this article is overkill. I've shortened the article to a brief synopsis with the trek references taking presidence. --64.175.151.34 06:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrectly formatted, it should be written in a Trek universe p.o.v., and therefore shouldn't have the episode included straight up in the sentence, but rather as a reference at the end of it - just look at any of our thousands of other articles for how to correctly format. --Gvsualan 14:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. There are plenty of references to Klingon and Bajoran religions, why not a bit on Christianity (after all, the religion of the native Americans was dealt with in an episode, and there have been plenty of allusions to Christianity it Trek)?

First off, inclusion of other religions is not justification for an article on this one. If it cannot stand on its own merits, it goes. Second off, you just replied to a three year old discussion, obviously the article is being kept. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be reworked to sound more agnostic, it currently comes across as an atheistic birds eye view which I feel is a little presumtious for us meer mortals. I also feel it should be reduced to information derived from star trek. Jaf 15:44, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

I took care of it. Ok for everybody? Jaf 15:55, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

I think the info about current reckoning of centuries being based on the period around Jesus's birth is relevant. The rest I think can be left out.Logan 5 19:16, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be superseded by stardates? Jaf 19:25, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

It might be if we didn't often hear characters refer to it as the 24th century for the present or 21st century for the past. I think it's relevant to explain that usage by humans, especially as an explanation of that usage which conflicts with the broader use of stardates.Logan 5 21:16, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lets wait and see if we have a clear enough reference to Jesus to make a page, if so we can add it there. Jaf 14:30, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Ah, I saw it uploaded, and hoped it'd appear on "religion", hoping it wouldn't pop up here. The image of the cross is a stretch, particularly because it's not a cross. Looks more like a Suurok-class starship seen from above, and I think naming it a christian cross is speculation. - AJHalliwell 22:33, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

from Vfd[]

Roman Catholic Church[]

Let me state first that this article has been previously deleted (see: 2005 deletion archive), and I am posting this only simply to comply with our policies. Normally the resurrection of a previously deleted article qualifies for immediate deletion because of stipulation #6: "Reposted content that was deleted according to this deletion policy." However, because this is a somewhat more competent attempt to resurrect this article, and as much as I do not want to have Judaism debate all over again, I have posted it here instead. I might, however, suggest that this be merged with Christianity, as last I checked the RCC was a part of that faith, and many of the aspects written in the RCC article apply to Christianity as well. --Alan del Beccio 00:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I vote to keep the article as it provides background necessary to understand the Spanish Inquisition, the inquisition of Galileo, and the mass witnessed by Phlox - each performed by the Roman Catholic Church - not Christianity in general. Each of these events were specifically mentioned in Trek, and it seems incomplete not to describe - in very general terms - the church as an organization. It would be like saying the United States sent Capt. Christopher to intercept the Enterprise, without describing what the United States is at a high level. Using these examples we don't need to describe the various branches of government, the functions of Cardinals, or go into other details not necessary to provide context. If the unstated objection is that widely known organizations should not be described in here, that's okay, but we will also need to remove United States of America, Russia, Moscow, and many other similar entries that are mentioned in Trek but are widely known of outside it. Aholland 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

But having said the above, if policy is to forever forbid a topic if it was ever once voted down, then I will graciously accept the enforcement of the policy. (I like this place and enjoy working in it!) Aholland 00:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an Undeletion page if need be. I'd say if the term "Roman Catholic Church" (or even "Catholic") was mentioned, then Keep, if, however, it was not mentioned then delete (I don't think it was mentioned but I could be wrong).--Tim Thomason 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep' The information is accurate, and interesting, if not of earth shattering importance. We shouldn't let outside issues interfere with documenting facts. Capt. Christopher Donovan 10:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the term "Roman Catholic Church" was never directly referenced and therefore, an article for it does not belong here. However, rather than simply delete this, I support to have it merged with Christianity. --From Andoria with Love 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to vote, the only seemingly valid part of the article is Phlox, even the term Mass should be a valid article, but the article does need major editing. The only Valid thing might be the Enterprise ref, although I wouldn't know, as I have not seen that episode. We only add real world facts when it augments the article, like calling someone president when they were never called that, but we don't make up whole sentences that are not even based off of what we hear in trek. The Bread and Circuses ref might be valid, but only if it was shorter. --TOSrules 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems a leap of logic to assume that a Mass, a traditional Catholic genuflection, etc would automatically be the province of the Roman Catholic Church. How do we know it hasn't been renamed the Reptilian Catholic Church? -- I think that Christianity should have Catholic, etc., subsections decribing these valid Catholic points, but there's no real good way of saying that this surely indicates a future version of the same organization -- if Catholicism has gone through any changes whatsoever by the 22nd and 23rd centuries, then we would be basing this article on incorrect, 21st century info on Roman Catholicism. Merge with Christianity, or move to "Mass" or another term describing the event itself Phlox attended rather than assuming we need an article to illustrate an organization responsible for the event. -- Captain M.K. Bartel^talk 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. We had this debate last year and concluded it should be deleted. If someone wants to argue otherwise, make your case at pages for undeletion. Jaz ^{talk | novels} 03:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. As Capt. Christopher Donovan mentions above, the information is accurate and interesting. -- Krevaner 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, by my count we have three deletes (Alan, Tim <as the term was never referenced>, and Jaz), three keeps (Aholland, Captain Donovan, and Krevaner) and two merge/move (Captanmike and myself). Obviously, the article can't stay the way it is, but it also can't simply be deleted. So what do we do? --From Andoria with Love 11:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I know this probably won't help the "decide what to do" debate, but I think that this should be merged into Christianity, as the term "Roman catholic Church" was (to my knowledge) never directly referenced, but I agree with Krevaner that the information is vary interesting and should not be deleted, but just moved to a more appropriate place. So now it's three to three to three :)~Starchild ^|<Talk> 00:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be immidiate deletions becuase we have had this debate before. Jaz ^{talk | novels} 01:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me, after reviewing the archive of the prior article, that the current article is more specific, and contains more relevant matierial in an "in universe" context. The information is accurate where directly cited, and I don't see any extraordinary leaps of logic. I would say that the establishement of a Mass being observed (primarily a Catholic function) would establish the existence of the Catholic Church at that time as assuredly as the establishment of a bar/bat-mitzvah being observed would establish the existance of Judaism at that time.

In short, if it's accurate, substantial and interesting, then why NOT keep it?Capt. Christopher Donovan 11:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't make articles about anything else that's not directly related to trek. If you want interesting non-trek info go to wikipedia. I'm tossing my delete vote in the hat on this one. Jaf 13:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Jaf

- Only problem with that is that it IS directly related to Trek, or more specifically, the continued existence of said religion in the time of Trek, as evidenced by the deptiction/mention of it's practices.Capt. Christopher Donovan 11:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The church itself has never been referenced, and therefore the article cannot remain. That much is obvious. The practice, however (i.e. the mass) have been referenced, therefore, the best course of action would be to merge this to Christianity. We're not going to change our policies just to accomodate this page. --From Andoria with Love 11:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The closest the church comes to be referenced in the sources cited is ENT: "Cold Front", in which Phlox says he "attended mass at Saint Peter's Square." The most this qualifies for is a brief explanation what a "mass" is and that Phlox attended one. --From Andoria with Love 11:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge - Exceptions cannot be made to the rule. This page WAS deleted and we can't question our own regulations. Merge with Christianity but make a topic in Mass. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussions Later On...[]

Is this discussion on removing the article based on the fact that what is being discussed is the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"? Would the same discussion be mentioned if Phlox specifically stated that he went to a synagogue, mosque, Reformation or Post Reformational denomination or non denominational group? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.66.

Did he say either anything about a synagogue, mosque, Reformation or Post Reformational denomination or non denominational group? It sounds to me like you may be trying to make this into a case of discrimination on our part, and I don't see any reason to do that, certainly not based on mere speculation of what we would have done if the character had said something about another religion. --00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blessing Ceremony[]

An anonymous user has added: "In a latter episode she also tells Benjamin Sisko that she will not participate in a Bajoran blessing ceremony because she did not convert when she married him." What is the citation for "the latter episode" as I can't find it. It should be removed if it cannot be cited. Aholland 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The episode the user was referring to is "Strange Bedfellows", and the reference has been reformatted with a citation. --From Andoria with Love 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the lead. So here's the dialogue:

SISKO: Welcome to the club. Which reminds me... every spring, the Emissary holds a little ceremony to bless the women on the station who want to become mothers someday...

KASIDY: (suspicious) What does that have to do with me?

SISKO: There's been a request made -- several, in fact -- that the Emissary's new wife perform the ceremony this year. This week, actually...

KASIDY: No.

SISKO: Kas...

KASIDY: No. I've got to draw the line somewhere. I married you -- I didn't convert. And I'm not going to start acting like I suddenly believe in the Prophets.

This exchange supports that Kasidy did not choose to follow the Bajoran religion and did not covert from whatever she believes. But unless I've missed something somewhere, there is nothing to show that she is Christian. She could be Muslim, Jewish, atheist - anything at all. So why is this used in a Christianity article? If the answer is because her mother liked ministers, I think that is far too much speculation as to Kasidy's feelings, beliefs, and religious association. I submit it should be deleted if there is nothing canon to show that she would be converting from Christianity. Aholland 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest writing to the actress and ask her feelings on the matter. --205.188.117.66 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What difference would that make? The actress is not the character. -- Sulfur 23:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Title of Jesus[]

I have edited out the comment that Jesus Christ was "Yeshua of Nazareth". It is quite incorrect. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, and his name spoken in that tongue would sound more like "Eesa". Likewise "Nazareth" would have sounded more like "Nazrit". "Yeshua" and variations are attempts to render the name into Hebrew. In fact "Jesus" might well represent an attempt to render the name into Latin.

The custom of naming a man by his town of origin is more Roman than Jewish. Jesus' father Joseph did not introduce himself "Joseph of Bethlehem", but instead "Joseph, of the house of David". (Compare the introductions of the main characters in front of T'Pau in TOS:"Amok Time", any time Worf introduces himself to the Klingon High Council, as well as The Lord of the Rings).

The cognomen "Christ" is Greek, and means "the anointed one". It is not in itself a name, but a description. Both the names "Jesus of Nazareth" (the Romans) and "Jesus Christ" (his followers) were how others referred to Jesus. In Jesus' lifetime, it is not clear how he referred to himself by name (although he used titulars such as "Son of Man").

By convention, we have come to refer to this man as Jesus; sometimes Jesus Christ, and sometimes Jesus of Nazareth. There is no need to pretend to translate his name as if this adds something. Vivienne marcus 13:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Reference in Chain of Command II[]

Looking over the script found at ST Minutiae, I can't find any mention of Christmas or Christ.

"Silent Prayer"[]

The addition of the line that a "silent prayer" was made at the altar in "Balance of Terror" has been removed twice as POV. I feel there is no evidence of this in the episode as the character who is stated to be "praying" simply kneeled with her eyes closed before the altar. She ,ight well have been praying but this is never stated in the episode and as such it should not be stated in this article. -FleetCaptain 15:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason that it is stated as a prayer is that she stayed genuflecting for longer than is usual to simply genuflect and Captain Kirk and her husband to be visibly waited for her to finish. This is a Catholic tradition where a person genuflects but does not rise immediately because they are praying. -- Preator 09:00, January 3, 2008

For it to be considered canon, it must be mentioned or stated in the episode. An assumption about her behavior based on a personal observation cannot be included per content and resource policies. -FleetCaptain 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A background note might be in order at "Balance of Terror" stating that this is probabaly what she was doing and giving the reason why. I wouldnt have a problem with that. I just can't see a way we can add something like that to the main religion article and state for sure that she was praying. What do people think of the suggestion of a background note on the episode page? -FleetCaptain 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected[]

Protected due to repeated addition and removal of a minor POV detail. Protection set to be lifted in three days. Talk it out here until then. Have fun! --From Andoria with Love 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, User:Preator doesn't seem to be interested in talking. The user has left two messages on my talk page that I am "harrassing him" [1] [2]. Maybe things will cool down in a day or two, but in any event there is no way we can say that the character in Balance of Terror was praying at the altar unless its spoken of in the dialouge or mentioned in the script. -FleetCaptain 15:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am tired of being harased. As for not talking, I was out of town for two days because I actually have a life. As for harrassing me, yes, the user has. The previous week I made several edits and for each one, it was either removed or changed by fleetcaptain. I think he needs to find better things to do than follow one user around and change the edits he may make. -Preator 12:53 January 3, 2008 (CST)

For the record, the only edits I removed of Preator's were the disputed evolution comments from Earth and the POV entry about praying from this article. It is simply...well... a lie that I have removed every edit Preator has made. We also see another thinly disguised personal attack as I am assuming he/she is saying I don't have a life (this user also previously stated that I was "against Christianity".) I have added a compromise for this article, in that we work in the praying thing to a background note. Preator is helping noone, least of all the user him/herself by stating things that aren't true and claiming that harrassement has occurred. I suggest we move on with this and stop throwing these accusations around. If Preator is serious, make a formal complaint to an administrators to have me blocked or banned from this site for harrassing another user. I think everyone here knows what kind of response that will bring, which is why Preator hasnt done it yet. -FleetCaptain 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: COME ON! Earth was just protected because of this, nobody have learned anything, we have just moved the war. -- Rom Ulan 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Now for my real message: I have read FleetCaptain's talkpage, and Preator's talkpage. From my POV, there has not been any harassments, just two users with different opinion. But there has been a sort of edit-war with edits and reverts, and edits and reverts again, extremely close to each other.-- Rom Ulan 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The main issue on Earth was inserting a statement about evolution being a myth which a lot of people had a problem with. That issue was settled. As for over here, I think adding in the background note with the info about praying would be a good solution. I was also interested to learn today AT CHURCH (how's that for being "against Christianity"? :-)) that the story of the "Pearl of Great Price" as told in "The Empath" is from the Gospel. Perhaps another background note about that would be in order as well. -FleetCaptain 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I have not filed a formal complaint against you is that I don't like to do that to others. I believe that it would be childish to involve an administrator in something like this. The only reason I eventually talked to an administrator about it was simply in responce to you talking to them. I simply ask that you leave me alone. As Rom Ulan stated there were dozens of edits close to each other on different articles. Many were I edit and you changed or deleted it immediately. To me that sounds like following me, and as I termed it, harrassing. As for my help or non-help, I did compromise on the Earth article, if you would read the discussion page I made a note of my agreement. I will leave the praying note out since you threw a fit about it. But please stop following me around the site and can we please stop this pointless argueing. -Preator 13:49 January 6, 2008 (CST)

I think everyone can figure out for themselves what really went on here. Discussion closed. -FleetCaptain 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Me being an admin and without taking sides, I say "Discussion closed" as well. --Jörg 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Julius Caesar[]

I've removed the following from the article:

William Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar "...and Caesar's ghost, roaming about in search of revenge, with hate at his side still hot from hell, will in these boundaries with a ruler's voice cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, so that this terrible action will smell above the earth, with rotting corpses, begging to be buried." (DS9: "The Dogs of War")

Despite the passing reference to hell, this isn't really a Christian reference. First of all, the speaker (Marc Antony) isn't a Christian; second, the notion of an angry spirit having an effect in the physical world, though widespread in popular belief, isn't generally supported by most Christian theologies. Finally, the line here recorded as "with hate at his side" is given in other texts as "with Ate by his side", referring to the Greek goddess personifying ruin and folly. It might be appropriate to include this quotation in the article on Hell, but it doesn't really have much to do with Christianity. —Josiah Rowe 17:58, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

You may need to forgive Formatting. My Computer is acting up. However, Shakespeare was not always Historically Accurate, and often included Anachronisms. In Julius Caesar itself, for example, We have a Clock Tolling the Hour, when such Clocks did not exist. Shakespeare Himself was undoubtedly Christian and often quoted The Bible in His Plays.

I also question the Evil Spirits not being part of Christian Theology claim. Especially if We re discussing Shakespeare. Even if not supported by Formal Theology, Shakespeare was a Playwright, and not a Theologian, and we have ample Evidence that Christians of the Period did believe in Evil Spirits acting on the World. I'd also note some Christian Theologians said this was quote possible as well. Especially given Demons are Spirits.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm

Demons are Spirits, and are Evil, and do Act on the World according to Catholic Thought. Anglican Thought i not much different in this regard. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKWills (talk • contribs).

Fair enough, but not really relevant to the question at hand, which is whether the Shakespeare quotation should be included in an article about mentions of Christianity in Star Trek. Yes, Shakespeare was a Christian and wrote for a Christian audience, but he was certainly also aware of the beliefs of pagans. I don't see how a passing mention of a vengeful ghost by a pagan character in a play set before the birth of Jesus is relevant here, any more than, say, Jacob Marley would be. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Was or is?[]

Why is the article referring Christianity as a religion that "was" or "were" a religion etc. It is clearly seen in episodes and films that it still exist so why not remove the "was"es and "were"es to "is"es since its still practised. --MPC 21.26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Memory Alpha style uses an omniscient, past-tense POV. If you check other articles, you'll see that most everything is referred to in the past tense. -Angry Future Romulan 19:34, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

The policy on this is here. It does make an exception for "'eternal' concepts, such as ideas". However, most editors here don't feel that subjects like religions or poems fall into this category. (I actually think that they should — see discussion here — but it seems my arguments were unpersuasive.) —Josiah Rowe 20:16, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Christianity in the 24th Century[]

Removing the following Section:

There were still Christians in the 24th century; Kasidy Yates mentioned to Benjamin Sisko that her mother would prefer her to be married by a minister (a traditional title for a Christian cleric). (DS9: "Penumbra") Kasidy Yates also was asked by her new husband, Benjamin Sisko, to help with a Bajoran blessing ceremony and she refused, saying that she married him, but didn't convert. (DS9: "Strange Bedfellows")

This would appear to contradict Gene Roddenberry's belief that Earth religions would be completely extinct by the time of Star Trek (reported by Ronald D. Moore, (AOL chat, 1997)).

As was pointed out in 2006 by User:Aholland the reference in Deep Space Nine does not point to Kasidy being Christian. The reference to being married by a minister does not imply Christianity. "Minister" is not an exclusively Christian term. The origin of the word means "minor servant". I am a Minister ordained by the Universal Life Church who will ordain anyone and is not limited to Christians (or even theists) but only have to subscribe to "Do only that which is right" (leaving the definition of "right" up to the individual). To say Kasidy's lines refer to Christianity is pure speculation. --ZenMondo 13:40, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Gene Roddenberry did not have full control over Star Trek, and thus, I would not adhere to what He said unless it was made Cannon by explicit reference. I Realise this is 11 Years Old, but I do Think it is important to note that plenty of Things Roddenberry said about STar Trek were contradicted in Later series, such as the Militarism of Star Trek. Roddenberry also claimed Interpersonal Conflict did not exist in THe Future, which proves disasterous for the Storytelling aspect and was reversed in Season 3 of The Next Generation. Roddenberry also Hated thw Militarism of The Films after THe Motion Picture. that does not make them no longer extant. SKWills (talk)

Questions re inclusion/exclusion[]

I have several questions about things included in and excluded from this article. Please excuse my verbosity!

The intro contains this phrase:

...and Saint Paul and many saints like Saint Andrew , Saint Émilion, and Saint Moritz also inspired the teaching of the Christian religion.

But:

There are no sources connecting these people to Christianity.
The links to those pages are about cities and contain no mention of their respective eponyms (ie, that they were named for Christian Saints).

Obviously we know, eg, Saint Paul was an influential figure in Christianity. But the aforementioned concerns make me wonder why these Saints are listed. Shouldn't we either put a bg explanatory note or at least put bg notes in the linked articles (ie, regarding their name origins)? Otherwise, I don't see any canon reason for listing these people. (Especially the last two, who are pretty obscure.)

If we're going to list Saints based on city names, why no mention of the USS São Paulo? (I know it means the already-mentioned "Saint Paul". Still...) There's also no mention of San Francisco – a city mentioned far more often than St. Émilion or St. Moritz. (Though I'm unsure any of the Saint-cities belong.)

One more: an unmentioned but clear reference to Christianity is VOY: "Good Shepherd". Janeway even mentions the parable, though not the source. I hesitate to add or change anything given the history of contentiousness in editing the article. I'm not clear enough on when we must have explicit canon (or production/bg) sources vs applying MA: Common Sense.

Sorry for the length of this post. (It was hard to be clear and concise!)

— Cepstrum ^(talk) 13:35, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

If the suggestion is that those links should be removed, then I agree. Not only because of their dubious "canonicity" but, more immediately, because they are completely misleading in their current context. If the phrase is "the prophet Saint Paul", then I expect the link target to be an article about a person, not about a city. In combination with the aforementioned "canonicity", it doesn't seem to be too sensible to just unlink the sentence - it should be removed completely. An option might be to put the fact that cities with names based on this religion have appeared in Star Trek in the background section. -- Cid Highwind 14:56, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cid. I agree: it surprised me to click on those Saints only to see, eg, an article about St. Andrews Golf Course. – ?! – I haven't time to do a proper update myself right now, but if no one has done so when I am available, I'll make some changes based on your advice.

And do you think including the "Good Shepherd" reference is a good idea?

— Cepstrum ^(talk) 15:43, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Removed[]

The picture to the right:

SS Botany Bay-library — Books aboard the SS *Botany Bay* included Christian works such as the **Holy Bible** (second from the right), *Paradise Lost* and *Paradise Regained* by Milton and *Inferno* by Dante

Given that a sizable number of much more relevant images are already in the article, a picture of a bunch of books some of which are tangibly relevant just doesn't seem to be all that much of a useful addition. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:42, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Jesus's Substitutionary Atonement And Other Odds And Ends[]

I Removed the comment on Jesus's Substitutionary Atonement, and simply made it Jesus's Atonement. I also changed Hell from Undeworld to Rlm. If I Recall, I SHall make other Amendments.

I did so because the terms were not accurate. For example, Hell, while often depicted as Underground in Popular Media, was never thought of as an Underworld.

That, however, is Minor, considering some may see The Underworld more generally. I do not however Understand why we need to say Jesus's Sacrifice was a Substitutionary Sacrifice, given this view did not exist until the 16th Century, and is not Universally Held by All Christians.

It is, of course, Understandable why people may describe Christian views that way. This is a Star TRek Wiki, not a General Wikipedia Pae. Those who Wrote this may not be aware of actual Christian Theological Concepts, and is simply repeating things hat are, again, Popular. Evangelical Christianity tends to be the Face of Christianity for many today, especially in America, and Evangelicals do by and large accept the Substitutionary Atonement Model.

However, The Catholic CHurch does not. Nor do most Traditional Churches, that hold to the General Catholic Theological, and in most cases Eccleseastical model. Such as The Orthodox, or Thw Anglicans.

Most Protestants also do not Hold this View.

There are in fact several Concepts of Thw Atonement, such as Ransom, or Moral Example, or Governmental.

it is not enerally beleived in Christianity that Jesus died as a Substitute, who took the Punishment for Our Sins in Our Place, at least not in the sense meant by Substitutionary Atonement.

It is Wrong to define Substitutionary Atonement as a Christian Concept,then, if the intent is tobe general enough as to explain Christianity as a common Consensus. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKWills (talk • contribs).

Altered Sisko Never Heard His Father Bible[]

Sisko did not say He had Never Heard his Father quote The Bible. He said He did not Know Him to. This usually means it is unusual or out of Character, but not something that literally never happened. In theory His Father may have been Heard Quoting the Bible in the Past under specific conditions, such as if in Theory He took Sisko to Church, and it was par of the Service, but seldom recite it at Home. I chose that example to show a Point that not even regular Church Goers always quote The Bible in daily Life. His Father may have quoted The Bible is reading it to His Son, even if just to help Him Learn History and Culture. He could have Read it in Literary or Philosophical Contexts. But not as commentary of current events. Like saying " I have never Known you to quote Shakespeare" does not mean One has never Read Shakespear or it was unknown to them. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKWills (talk • contribs).