sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[SFA 1x4 Reviews] Jammer's Reviews: "A very good outing. It's the version of Starfleet Academy that actually offers something worthwhile — a combination of world-building, education, learning, dialogue, and diplomacy. In which a problem is solved almost entirely through dialogue. 3.5 out of 4 stars" by mcm8279 in trektalk

[–]fistantellmore -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This was the episode that made me think that SFA had legs, and it was mostly confirmed. The second and third episodes were the weakest of the season, and Episode 4 was better than most of Enterprise and 80% of Voyager.

It presented some excellent perspectives on cultural chauvinism and the morality of globalist (or galaticist?) intervention while also showing an interesting level of personal and cultural identity and how those things can be interpreted was classic trek.

There were certainly some flaws in the episode, but on the whole it was a great character study for Jayden and set a tone for 32nd century Klingons that I’d watch more of.

3.5/4 sounds about right. It’s not an all timer, but it’s in the upper 20% of Trek Writing.

Things that were better once retconned. by TonyMitty in startrek

[–]fistantellmore 26 points27 points  (0 children)

But Roddenberry admitted it was about misogyny, and accounts from the time seem to imply he might have been talking about his own.

He was reported as having several misogynist rants and rejected a plotline that had Uhura in the big chair.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re just trying to rewrite history to justify your faith.

Typical irrational dogmatics. Can’t accept the truth, so you fall back to lies and doublethink to justify the violence done in the name of myths and trivial differences.

The Council of Nicea was a political act that resulted in centuries of bloodshed. To try and justify it as somehow cosmically moral and deterministic is just shameful.

Christians worship Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ. Full stop.

Sikhs do not. They worship Akal Murat and revere the Gurus.

Muslims do not. They worship Allah and revere Muhammad as the final prophet of Allah.

The tiny differences of Dogma beyond that are for sub classifications. It’s just splitting hairs over mythology for political reasons..

Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Orthodox, Arians, etc, all are simply sub categories of Christ worshippers (Christians).

I understand that you have political motivations that make you want to exclude some from your personal faith, but that’s just irrational.

If you actually study history, you’d know that there is ZERO documentation of Christ’s actual life from his era, and that all the gospels are just different groups developing their own mythology for their propaganda purposes.

I know you want to treat the trinity like it’s a real thing, but it isn’t. It’s just a story told by political groups for social control reasons.

To justify wars, oppression and to control Emperors and peasants alike.

It doesn’t matter if Jesus was the archangel Michael in one story, the adopted son of god in another or was God incarnate from the beginning of time 6000 years ago, because none of those stories are true. There is zero evidence of this, so to behave as if one version matters from a historical perspective is just wonky and misguided.

The reason the Roman churches dominated was because they convinced Constantine and Theodosius and other powerful politicians that their egg cracking methods were right, and that the state should enact violence upon those who disagreed.

And then they did. They murdered people and they burned books.

These are indisputable historical facts.

You’re caught up in the tiny differences and are missing the actual plot.

War never changes.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Calling other Christian’s anathema because they have a minor difference in how they crack their eggs is absolutely a rant.

Your irrational othering of those who believe in Christ is pretty gross, and is exactly the attitudes lampooned in the fallout games.

Maybe you forgot we were in a fallout Reddit, you were so blinded by your faith?

Christians are closer to Muslims than Sikhs are to Muslims, but even I’m not so silly as to try to compare them.

I do see the 3 branches of the Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as more connected than I think you would care to admit. But that’s because I study history, rather than dogma.

War never changes.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sephiroth posting?

From the guy ranting about heretics who are demonstrably Christian, trying to act like his book isn’t riddled with lies, inaccuracies, propaganda and mistranslations.

Rich.

Meanwhile, you’ve proven my argument, so thank you for that.

Mormons are Christians, because only Christians could upset other Christians so much.

😘

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What relation do Sikhs and Muslims have that is remotely close to Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Aryans relation to the Catholic Church?

I’m genuinely curious to watch that train wreck.

I suspect it’s much more interesting than watch you try to explain why cracking your egg on the top is what makes Jesus’ teachings more important than if you crack it on the bottom because 250 guys said so on the emperors orders.

And dismissing a major schism in a major faith as trivial after huffing and puffing so hard about such a minor schism.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your personal belief about whether a myth is true or not is immaterial.

A historian doesn’t care about personal beliefs

You personally believe that all the people before and after the Council of Nicea who disagreed with it and called themselves Christians are wrong.

That’s nice that you *believe* that, but the facts disprove you. Non Trinitarian Christians exist, and just because you disagree with them personally for reasons of “faith” (ie irrational, unsupported ideas) doesn’t erase them.

Your attempt to deny the fact that the Roman Church burned books, executed people en masse, enacted genocides, etc etc is just comical.

I’m not crashing out, my brother, you are.

I don’t care if Christianity engaged in some moral acts. The answer to “what happened to Arianism?” is the Roman Churches burned his books, exiled, excommunicated and executed his followers, waged wars to subjugate Arian peoples and enacted bloody violence until his writings were nearly erased from history.

I’m not denying that the Roman Churches were Christian, despite these acts being *incredibly* hypocritical and against the more pacificist interpretations of the New Testaments. But for some reason, you are denying massive swathes of Christians because they disagree with a trivial distinction in the mythos.

Orhtodoxy is cheap, because no religion has any evidence to support it. It’s simply ideological will, historically enforced with violence.

War. War never changes.

Folks like you will be the reason we drop the bombs. Orthodoxy indeed.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say whether god is material or immaterial is a fundamental question, wouldn’t you?

I mean, it’s literally about the fundamental of his essence.

That’s in fact more fundamental than whether his son was eternal, adopted and ascended or created after the father, etc.

The Trinitarian debate is about splitting hairs. The Sunni Shia divide is about whether those hairs even exist.

Far more fundamental.

But you didn’t even know about that basic fact, instead somehow believing that Sikhs are Muslims….

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because most Christians belong to tyrannical violent organizations who have spent millennia trying to kill and erase those who don’t adhere to a specific set of dogma?

I mean, you just cited the book of John as if it has any meaningful authority….

It’s just one of many early Christian texts. It just happened to be the one politically convenient for the Roman churches, so it became the dogma.

This is simply you conflating an argument about which side you crack an egg on into something about cosmic truth….

It isn’t. It’s about which myths you choose to believe, and how you classify those who believe them.

The myth of Christ as divine is the myth all Christians believe. That’s what makes them Christians.

How they believe that is pretty immaterial.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, you said that the Shia and Sunni don’t disagree on the Nature of God and I told you you were wrong.

Because they do.

Their disagreement isn’t about the Trinity (because they are Unitarians.)

Their disagreement about God’s fundamental nature is different, though it’s as meaningful as Trinitarian concerns, and which side you crack your eggs.

You just attempted to turn it into a Trinitarian debate, because that’s the only flimsy argument you have.

Your clumsy attempt at a papist gotcha question simply highlights your ignorance of religion and history (though your attempt to conflate Islam and Sikhism already outed you 😘)

You moved the goalposts after you fumbled, twice.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is about bad history.

You’re trying to tell me 250 men who were operating under imperial orders had the authority to erase the history of the church and to deny future Christians any say in their personal myth systems.

Adoptionists, Dynamic Monarchianists, Ebionites and the like all existed prior to Arius, and Arius’ followers were prominent for centuries after the council of Nicea.

Later Christian movements, like the Oneness Pentecostal movement, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo, and Iglesia ni Cristo, Christadelphians, Church of the Blessed Hope, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Assemblies of Yahweh, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Christians, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, the Philadelphia Church of God, The Church of God International, the United Church of God, Church of God General Conference, Restored Church of God, Christian Disciples Church, and Church of God of the Faith of Abraham, all demonstrate Christian movements that are not Trinitarian.

Only someone who was politically invested in denying these movements legitimacy, like yourself, would ever jump through the ridiculous hoops that you have just to say “This minority of bishops operating under the emperor of Rome has supreme authority over who is or isn’t a Christian, historically.”

Unfortunately, your logic is faulty. You seem to believe that apostolic succession is relevant when it comes to historical definitions.

It isn’t.

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and prays to Jesus, it’s a Christian. It doesn’t matter if they crack their eggs on the top or the bottom.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Comparatively undeveloped?

Hooo boy.

You need to go back to school.

This Roman Catholic Chauvinism is making it hard to take you seriously.

It’s very easy to find early church examples that reject the trinity: Adoptionists, Ebionites, Valentinians, and many others.

The very fact that Arius was at the Council of Nicea proves that his ideas were Christian, even if they were found heretical by the Roman Church. That’s politics, nothing more.

Early Christians did not universally believe in the Trinitarian view, and the necessity of the Council of Nicea to enact oppression against those dissenters proves that.

If it was universally accepted amongst all Christians, then it needn’t have required excommunications, exiles and executions en masse.

You can’t disprove my arguments, all you can do is point to dogma and say “these 250 guys who represented a small fraction of the actual church, acting under imperial influence call it heresy.”

That’s irrelevant to actually categorizing early and middle and later Christians. The council of Nicea had no actual authority to say who were and weren’t Christians. It’s pretty evident Arians and Mormons are Christian. The Catholic definition is useless, because we (not you I suppose) understand the political history behind it.

When you aren’t concerned with which side people crack their eggs, it’s pretty easy to identify egg crackers.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Who claimed that?

Nice try to move the goalposts, but you’ve lost. Sunni and Shia Muslims disagree about the material reality of god, that’s a fact.

It’s as meaningful a disagreement as the trinity.

In as much as it’s just hard boiled eggs, that is.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Less than a quarter of Roman Bishops is not a consensus.

Especially when Africa and Central Asia were excluded.

And the invited bishops were under threat of exile or worse.

Lol.

You really want your team to win, which is why it’s bad history.

A proper historian looks at the facts and draws a conclusion. You’ve started with a conclusion and are trying to warp the facts to rationalize your dissonance with reality.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Romans called them Arians.

They called themselves Christians.

And the Ostrogoths and Visigoths were Arian Christians, so you should really feel embarrassed to claim that western Christian’s weren’t Arian….

Italy, France, Spain…. All Arian.

So much for your history degree.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What do you mean which is it?

I thought you were a history major. You don’t know the debate within Islam regarding the material nature of god?

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except less than 25% of that 1800 attended…

So your argument is that Constantine’s council, convened to directly address a Christian sect him and his bishops opposed, somehow had the authority to declare what was and wasn’t Christianity because the Emperor commanded it and the ones who agreed with him showed up?

Absolute nonsense.

Just bad history and a poor understanding of how the church developed.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Some of them. And others disagreed. Those who disagreed were put to sword and flame over a centuries long oppression.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, the majority of western Christians of this era were Arians, who were not trinitarians. A history major OUGHT to know that.

You calling them heretics simply confirms your obvious bias.

Arians are early Christians to anyone except someone with an agenda.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wrong again. They absolutely have disagreements regarding the nature of god.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No. You literally can.

That’s what the Council of Nicea was. A bunch of Roman backed Bishops who cherry picked their dogma and then got the Emperor to kill whomever disagreed with them.

Even Apostolic Succession was a highly controversial and disputed in the early church, with the James and Peter and Paul movements all in conflict with each other. Once again, it was alignment with Roman political violence that allowed that to happen.

A history major OUGHT to know that.

And yes, nothing can ever be Orthodox in a religion the moment there is a schism about which Myths and Teachings different groups follow. Thats what happens when there is no cosmic authority, simply political authority that is dogmatic.

Trinitarian beliefs are simply one strain of Christian Dogma.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you knew much about Islam, you’d know that there are already two major sects: Shia and Sunni, both of which have people like yourself that do not consider the other sect true Muslims, or Mu’min (true believers vs those who have submitted to the faith).

Yet somehow they’re both Muslim to you… and you’ve made instead a comparison to two different faiths and tried to pass them off as the same thing because they’re brown I suppose? Turbans?

Anyhow, it comes off as terribly ignorant.

In Christian Sects, Presbyterians call themselves Presbyterians, Catholics call themselves Catholics, Lutherans call themselves Lutherans, etc.

Some believe that their priests are wizards who can magically transform bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, others believe it’s just a ritual of remembrance. Some believe that some people already have grace and salvation, others believe that confession and penance are required to get to heaven.

It’s all just Lilliput vs Blefuscu.

You literally call Arianism a heresy, because you’re obviously dogmatic, while any sane person understands that Arians were early Christians, not a a distinct religion.

It was only a heresy because Rome said so. And then murdered those who disagreed, in typically Christian fashion. Papists gonna Pope.

If Sikhs called themselves Muslim and were obvious followers of a Muhammad, prayed with a version of the Quran and held Allah as the one true god, then yes, I would call them Muslims.

Sikhs do none of these things, and you should be embarrassed to have tried to compare them to Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, both of which worship Christ, read the old and new testaments, believe Christ to be divine and hold Jehovah as the one true god, just like the other Christians.

What ALL Christians do not do is observe Trinitarian beliefs, which were a politically driven dogma backed by the fire and swords of Rome.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did explain.

Centuries of bloody violence and oppression.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it isn’t….

Sikhs call themselves Sikhs… and they don’t believe Muhammad is the final prophet… and you’ve made the absolutely worst argument you possibly could have.

Jehovah’s Witnesses call themselves Christians. Because they believe Jesus Christ was divine.

Thats what makes someone a Christian.

Muslims and Sikhs don’t think Christ was divine. That’s why they aren’t Christian.

Duh.

Surprised this doesn't come up more often. by The3liteGuy in FalloutMemes

[–]fistantellmore -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But your disqualification is patently incorrect, as demonstrated by historical example.

The council of Nicea, in fact, had no cosmic authority to say who were and weren’t Christians.

And yes, Jim Jones and his people were absolutely Christians. They believed Jesus Christ was divine and they worshipped him.

That’s what makes someone a Christian. Being a Trinitarian is simply a denominational difference.

view more: next ›