Voyager S9, ep 22. The Doctor creates a holodec family that is “perfect” until B’lana adds some random disruptions.
Real Life
Perhaps those who think that God should have made life perfect (Without evil, or death) should watch it.
God did not make a mistake in allowing sin and death in His creation. It was always going to be there and this “fantasy” shows why.
Richard
What does Star Trek Beyond have to do with Star Trek Voyager?
And what does the religion of an Artist have to do with any theological comparisons?
As far as i know JD Payne has no connection with the episode I am referring to.
And I am not convinced that it would matter if he did.
Richard
The Doctor is not an omnipotent and omniscient creator, so it is no wonder his creation is flawed.
If the creator is omniscient and omnipotent, why couldn’t the creation be perfect?
Is Heaven perfect, or will there be evil and death in heaven?
You are clearly not getting it. Perhaps you do not know the episode. His vision would match your idea of perfection, but it lacked interest and stimulation.
Depends on your definition of perfect. I think it is as good as is possible.
As the dynamics of heaven are no available to me, I cannot say., but death is ireelevant if you are eternal. As for evil…
I guess not, but even that is subject to definition.
Richard
Why couldn’t an omnipotent and omniscient creator create a perfect world that didn’t lack interest and stimulation?
If by “it” you mean the current world, I would disagree. Why do hundreds of thousands of children need to die of malaria? Just look at how much progress we have made with modern medicine over the last 100 years, or just the last 30 years. There is still room to improve.
This is the contradictory dynamic that I often see in these conversations. We are told how boring this world would be without pain, suffering, and evil. However, Christians are all striving to go to a place that lacks all of these things. That seems contradictory to me.
If Heaven exists then I would be with God. There would be nothing else to want or need.
You are just not understandinng the dynamics of this world and superimposing an ideal that does not work. Death and suffering?
You risk it every time you wake up and it is not always caused by evil. It is about charachter building, and life skills as much as suffering or death.
If you cannot be hurt there is no need to give or recieve help. You do not have to consider anyone else because what ever you do they would be alright. You can concentrate on yourself in the full knowledge that nohing and no one else matters.
If you haven’t seen the epsisode I suggest you do. It should be more obvious what I am driving at.
Richard
[From ChatGPT|:
Star Trek Beyond (2016) and Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001) are part of the broader Star Trek franchise, but they are separate stories with different characters and settings. However, there are a few connections between them:
While Star Trek Beyond and Star Trek: Voyager are not directly connected in terms of plot or characters, they both contribute to the rich tapestry of the Star Trek universe, sharing themes, technology, and occasional crossover elements.
[From ChatGPT]:
The religion of an artist can play a significant role in how their work is interpreted and understood, especially when making theological comparisons. Here’s how the religion of an artist can influence their work and how it relates to theological themes:
An artist’s religious beliefs often influence the themes they explore in their work. For instance, an artist with a Christian background may be drawn to biblical stories, symbols, and themes such as redemption, suffering, or the divine. Similarly, an artist from a Buddhist or Hindu background might incorporate motifs of enlightenment, reincarnation, or the nature of existence. These themes can invite theological comparisons because they address core questions about human life, the divine, morality, and the afterlife. The artist’s personal religion may guide their exploration of these themes, making their work a reflection or commentary on their faith.
Example: Religious artists like Michelangelo, who was deeply influenced by Christianity, often explored theological concepts such as creation, divine intervention, and human sin. His frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, particularly “The Creation of Adam,” can be interpreted as theological commentary on the relationship between humanity and God.
Art often serves as a medium through which the artist communicates their personal beliefs about life, God, and existence. When comparing the religion of the artist to the theological themes in their work, viewers may interpret the artwork through a theological lens that aligns with or contrasts the artist’s beliefs.
Example: The works of artists like Salvador Dalí, who had a complex relationship with Catholicism, include both religious iconography and surreal depictions of divine and spiritual themes. His “The Sacrament of the Last Supper” uses Christian symbolism, but it can also be interpreted as a meditation on the mysteries of faith and reality, sparking theological discussions on the nature of belief and the divine.
Many artists use religious symbols to convey deep theological messages. Even if an artist’s personal religion differs from the iconography they use, the symbols themselves can be used to engage with broader theological concepts. For instance, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist symbols might be employed to evoke certain theological ideas, such as sacrifice, enlightenment, or divine presence.
Example: The use of the cross in Western art, or the lotus flower in Eastern traditions, carries rich theological implications that go beyond the artist’s personal faith. The iconography invites viewers to consider deeper questions about suffering, salvation, or spiritual awakening.
In some cases, an artist’s work may reflect a challenge or critique of the religious norms or beliefs they were raised with. For example, artists who experience spiritual doubt or crises of faith may create works that explore themes of religious conflict, agnosticism, or the search for meaning. This opens a space for theological comparisons, as their art may challenge established doctrines or express a different spiritual worldview.
Example: Artists like Mark Rothko or Francis Bacon, who were often concerned with existential questions and the human condition, might express a sense of spiritual longing or anguish, sparking theological discussions on the nature of God, suffering, and the absence of meaning in life.
For many artists, their work is an expression of their spirituality or a way to explore their connection to the divine. This can lead to artwork that acts as a form of religious devotion or contemplation. In these cases, the art itself may serve as a theological expression, creating a direct link between the artist’s religion and the theological themes they are exploring.
Example: The works of religious mystics such as Hildegard of Bingen, who was a nun, composer, and visionary, are filled with mystical and theological imagery. Her art and music reflect her deep spirituality and can be seen as theological expressions in their own right, inviting contemplation on the divine.
The religion of an artist often has a direct influence on their work, as it shapes the themes they explore, the symbols they use, and the messages they convey. When considering theological comparisons, it’s essential to understand how the artist’s faith, or spiritual questioning, is reflected in their art. The artist’s religious perspective can provide unique insights into theological concepts such as the nature of the divine, salvation, human suffering, and the quest for meaning, all of which are central to many religious traditions.
In this episode, the Doctor decides to explore what it means to have a family by creating a holographic simulation of a domestic life. His holographic family initially represents an idyllic and overly perfect vision of domestic bliss, with an adoring wife and idealized children. However, after some prodding from B’Elanna Torres, he adjusts the parameters of the simulation to make the experience more realistic.
The result is a far more challenging environment: his teenage son becomes rebellious, his daughter is accident-prone, and his wife is less understanding. Tragedy strikes when his daughter, Belle, suffers a fatal injury during a hoverball game. The Doctor struggles with the emotional pain, but the experience teaches him profound lessons about the complexities of life and the human condition.
Meanwhile, the Voyager crew is dealing with a spatial anomaly involving chaotic space, and Tom Paris, as part of a shuttle mission, must help guide the ship through the phenomenon.
“Real Life” is an emotionally resonant episode that explores themes of family, loss, and the human experience, offering a deeper insight into the Doctor’s evolving character and his pursuit of humanity.
You said:
Describe Star Trek Voyager Season 3, Episode 22.
ChatGPT said:
Season 3, Episode 22 of Star Trek: Voyager is titled “Real Life.” Here’s a detailed description of the episode:
Main Plot: The Doctor’s Holographic Family
The Doctor creates a holographic family program in an effort to better understand human relationships and emotions. Initially, his family is unrealistically perfect: his wife Charlene is doting, his son Jeffrey is a model student, and his daughter Belle is cheerful and obedient. When B’Elanna Torres critiques the unrealistic nature of the program, the Doctor allows her to adjust the parameters to make the simulation more “authentic.”
After the changes, the Doctor’s family becomes far more complex. Jeffrey is now a rebellious teenager with a dangerous interest in Klingon culture, while Charlene is stressed and less accommodating. Belle remains sweet but becomes accident-prone. The simulation takes a tragic turn when Belle suffers a fatal injury during a hoverball game. Her death forces the Doctor to confront profound grief, a deeply human emotion he has never experienced. He initially considers shutting down the program but ultimately decides to continue the simulation, learning to face the pain as part of his development.
Subplot: Navigating Chaotic Space
In a secondary plotline, Voyager encounters a region of “chaotic space,” an unstable area of space-time that disrupts normal navigational systems. Tom Paris leads an away mission to analyze the phenomenon, working with the crew to ensure Voyager’s safe passage through the anomaly. This subplot provides a balance of tension and action to complement the emotional depth of the main story.
Themes and Impact
The episode explores themes of family, love, loss, and the pursuit of humanity. It highlights the Doctor’s ongoing journey toward understanding the human condition and showcases Robert Picardo’s nuanced performance as the Doctor.
“Real Life” is considered one of the more poignant and emotionally charged episodes of Voyager, resonating with viewers for its portrayal of realistic family dynamics and the exploration of grief.
Death was always part of God’s creation. Everything we see in the Bible and in the universe proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is a biological fact of all of living things. All of which have a “design” which revolves around death. The vision of a world without death is pure fantasy more so than any fantasy book or film ever made – completely divorced from reality.
As for the self destructive habits of sin that is a perversity in the abuse of power acting against life itself. And yes it was a part of the world for a long time even before Adam and Eve. But no I do not believe it was inevitable – I refute that sort of primitive fatalism which is not consistent with the Bible. Just because there were self destructive behaviors in the world before Adam and Eve doesn’t mean that they had to abuse the powers God gave them in the self-destructive way that they did. Following God’s advice is always possible and I reject your perverse notion of a God who plans for his children to destroy themselves contrary to His instructions.
I have seen this episode and it shows no such thing as you claim except in the most naive way with a confused understanding of sin and perfection. All it really shows is why God chose love and freedom over power and control because the “perfect family” where he is in control is no family at all much like the “family” God had with the angels. Real love and relationship requires the complete freedom of an independent existence where children live their own life and make their own choices – not only of what they do but also of what they become by their own growth and learning.
if you are going to make theological statements, then please reference the biblical passages you are claiming support your view here. Otherwise you are simply making $#%^ up.
Whilst you contemplate that thought…
Romans 5: 12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
I think part of the problem here is that you conflate the death a creature who can sin experiences as a result of transgressing Gods eternal law, with the biocycle and things that cannot sin. Humans sin…plants dont sin!
Now the biblical statement about the consequences of sin is that because humans have the capacity to do the right thing, when they do not, the bad choices we make also cause harm to creation (ie the environment, animal kingdom…everything)…whether directly, or indirectly because we have allowed satan into this world, because it was only after Eve ate the fruit that the door opened for him, and he is intent on destroying it and us.
Another movie series made by the Mormons is Battlestar Galactica. That series respresents their entire religious walk unto deity. Despite my dissagreement with its religious accuracy, im a real fan of that series…ive watched both the original and the latest one. I also am a star trekker…love science fiction.
Well - I for one can appreciate your question and the challenge it raises. And I know I would have watched that episode as a Trekkie who’s watched through all of the Voyager episodes at least once. I’m having trouble remembering it at the moment, but can imagine something of what you describe enough to appreciate the challenge.
Speaking of which…
And that is probably as good a representation of the “standard challenge” for ‘heaven’ as what is usually voiced.
Can someone get tastes of perfection in the midst of messy and even horrible (death-ridden) life? There is an existing principle we call “shalom” which (off the top of my head) means something like a ‘wholeness’, a ‘rightness’ of being both individually and in the context of a wider community. And it doesn’t insist on the elimination of all wickedness / suffering / death everywhere as a precondition for its own existence. Even in the midst of a life of suffering, a person in the most egregious circumstances can experience shalom in relationships. Maybe it’s a bit like how sugar (just the right amount of it) could make a dish really delicious. So a child might conclude that if a little sugar was a great thing, then … 100% sugar must be heaven itself, right? And yet, we know such a thing would be anything but tasty. It just wouldn’t work. Of course that still doesn’t answer T’s challenge that surely a better world for so many ought to exist. Surely it isn’t “asking for pure sugar” to think that, at minimum, life shouldn’t be so full of misery and premature death as it is for so many? It’s the persistent, age-old challenge of theodicy that won’t yield to any simple answers except in the imaginations of some who themselves are not in the grip of any such suffering - or … who are and therefore imagine that if only this bit of suffering could be lifted from them, they would permanently have bliss itself!
I like the way one author put it - something like this - Those who have died to their own ego and have entered with awakened awareness into a community and world beyond their own small selves have begun living in heaven here already. Those still trapped inside, totally tyrranized by their own ego, are tasting hell here already. In other words, “perfection” (or all of the failures of such a state, whatever those may be) are all existent here already, and they aren’t about places we may be zipped off to. Instead they’re about who you’re with - what company you keep. To be where Christ is, is already heaven even if you’re dying on a cross. To have turned your back on Christ, even if you’re at the top of your own game of power, wealth, health, pleasure, whatever … is to be in hell already. Most of us who live to adulthood have spent at least some time in both places already. To break free of the latter state has to involve rescue from outside ourselves, since nobody ever willingly gives those things up on their own.
Regardless of what I do or do not know about Mormons, what I am hearing is prejudice against a person for their religion. As I understand it that contradicts the USA constitution.
Now if it was the writer, or director I might have some sympathy to your claims, but you are talking about an obscure member of a very large group who could not possibly have the influence you claim.
Richard
If life after our resurrection would be like the current life, I would not like to experience it. What we experience now is bound by the burden of being a mortal human, with all the chemical influences (hormones and imbalances) in our brains, suffering and death. After resurrection, we get a body that does not suffer from the burdens of our current body. In addition, being in the presence of God is much more than everyday life. Believers may taste a little of it in this life but the fulness of it waits until the life after death.
In this sense, I do not believe we can experience ‘perfect’ life, or ‘heaven’, as long as we live in our current body. We may taste something of the Kingdom of God and the presence of God in this life and my experience is that it is more than anything else - during those rare moments, everything else, even suffering, pales in comparison to the presence of God. I wait for the day when I hopefully can live it.
It may be that the (current) life and creation is the best possible but I would not say that it is ‘perfect’.
There is nothing about sin. The Op is only indirectly about sin inasmuch as some people claim that it has ruined God’ creation. It hasn’t.(IMHO) God is not that naive.
The point is about the presence of dissent and / or death in our lives. There is a fantasy that there could be a life on earth without death and suffering. it is a fantasy because without pain some things would go unchecked and be more destructive. Healin involves pain and suffering so that we treat the wounded more carefully and do not increase the damage. We can hurt ourselves as easily as others can hurt us. A world wothout such capacity would not only be sterile, it would be mindless. The Doctor’s family sanfg to his tune without thought or charachter. That is not the sort of family God wants. He could havve made it so, but like the Doctor’s family it would be empty and meaningless.
I think you are stretching things to consider the last battlestar to equate to the 144 of scripture. I too loved thae first series and did not feel it was “preaching” to me in any sort of religious sense.
And this is where I am objecting tothins whole diversion into Momons. Yes many series, especially Sci-Fi have religious and ethical stories but, in genreal they show the fallacies rather than promote them. TNG was much more ToE minded than religious with an episods on Devolution. Voyager had a really clever take on religious dogma with the ship of advanced dinosaurs. And, of course there is Q the race that would be God(s).
The point here is to discuss things that come up outside the church circle and see how we can use them to our own advantage. As a proponant of allegory Tv & film provides a wealth of material.
Richard
Yes! Dissent is much better word than sin. I completely disagree with the identification of sin with disobedience. Disobedience/dissent comes as naturally to children as breathing. That is the difference between children and servants/robots. Children are made to try things things out and learn for themselves – even dangerous things. Unfortunately that can lead to falling off a cliff (whether physically or spiritually). There are consequences and and we must learn from them if we can. Sin and the self-destructive aspect comes into it when we refuse to learn – this is the perverse choice opposed to life itself. If after their disobedience Adam and Eve simply told God what they had done and asked how they could make things better then that would have been a very different outcome. Instead they chose a refusal to learn by blaming everyone and everything but themselves and that was the spiritual cliff they went over to the spiritual destruction of us all (and thus a need for redemption).
As for physical death, it only becomes something bad with a separation from God. Otherwise it is just a second birth – leaving one small and limited world to find a much greater world in which your parent(s) reside(s).
I am sorry but your theology here is flawed. For a start the Garden was never real, and you should knw that. And anything related to that narative cannot be passed on to anyone let alone all of humanity.
I don’t get you. One mite you are denouncing Christianity for being domineering and maipulative and the next you are claiming all need redemption. Why?. God has forgiven our sins! There is no further need.
You have decifded you want a relationship with God. Well and good, but no one has the right to impose that as a requirement, especially when God would seem to think otherwise. If God was insistant that all should worship Him then it would have been ingrained and impossible to refuse. He did not. He gave us a choice. Kindly let others make their choice.
Richard
You think the problem is the need for God to forgive us? I do not. I think that is ridiculous. God doesn’t need some kind of magic spell of ritual sacrifice in order to forgive people. That is just absurd! Anybody can forgive and it costs nothing. That thinking is all based on this terrible idea that God is the big bad threatening us all. But forgiveness really changes nothing because the real problem remains. God is not the problem! We are!!!
The problem is these self destructive habits we have. And the real threat is ourselves. We are our own worst enemy. The need is to change from our self-destructive behavior to the life affirming behavior and building ourselves up. Yes forgiveness helps us to do that, but it is only the first step. That is the redemption we require – changing to become those people who have the law of God in our hearts instead of this self-destructiveness which avoids and works against all the things that make for life. We need the habit of learning from our mistakes and growing in character to become better people remaking ourselves in the image of Christ. To become one who makes life better for everyone instead of tearing everyone around us down and making them miserable.
How like a criminal and degenerate to think the problem is just the punishment. Good people don’t think that way. They know that the problem is the horrible things they have done. We only hope that punishment has a chance of changing us/them. But to think all is great if you can just get the judge to forgive us so our actions have no consequences – that is as wrong as you can get.
Indeed! Not even God can impose this – and He does not. The problem is that God has everything that makes an eternal existence worthwhile. So while we can choose otherwise. It is not a good choice. Thus it is really two problems rather than just one – both what we need to get rid of and what we need to gain. For eternal life we need to get rid of things inside us which are opposed to life and we also need to connect with the source of new life.
Don’t get me wrong. It is not about religion and saying the word “God” as many times as you can everyday, or any of the other things of religion. I am certainly not suggesting that religion and praising God are the only things worth doing. But after a million years of the same old same old doing the same things over and over again getting sick and tired of it all, what are to going to do? Where do you go for something completely new? There is one who has it all. There is someone who is infinite in being. There is someone who has no end to what he can give. There is someone who can always make everything new.
That is not what I said, so no.
The problem is that we think God needs to forgive us. The standards are always set by hunans since time imamorial. God is not the Ogre or prefectionsit that many think He must be. That is the whole point. God forgives because perfection is not His goal.
You, like everyone else seem fixated on eternity. It is not about eternity.
God created this universe, this world, this existence. ANything after is just dressing or pandering to the human need to live for ever. I think Queen got it right “Who wants to live forever?” If it is anything like this, I certainly do not. But tht is not the point. The point is this life. Forgiveness is for this life. It impinges on our mental well being for this life. It contradicts the Universal view of God need ing perfection in this life.
This life is what we are given. it is not a right of passage or a goodness test. it is not a prequel to a greater life. it is the life we have. Many people squander it trying to please or live up to an expectation that God has not laid out. They suffer, and self sacrifice for what? Not this life! Religion is not about the here after. It is not an attempt to be holy or perfect. It is the reationship with God that you have identified. Why make it anything more?
Richartd
No it most definitely is not!!!
We think God needs to forgive us because we know we have done something wrong.
The two are inextricably connected.
We HAVE done something wrong.
Therefore, we do need forgiveness.
The REAL problem is thinking that forgiveness is ALL we need.
You remind me of these religions which deny the existence of evil – pretending it is all an illusion and we just need to turn a blind eye to it all. This is VERY VERY wrong – even creepy. There is evil in the world because people do things which are wrong. Therefore they most definitely need forgiveness. But they ALSO and more importantly need to change.
Oh, yes it is. Otherwise religion is a waste of time. And our time is much better spent with the science of psychology instead. Been there. Done that. THAT is how I was raised! That is the foundation of all of my thinking. I ONLY looked at Christianity to see if there was anything more.
Do I need to believe in eternity? No I do not. The atheist notion of nonexistence sounds great to me – fantastic. Just a little too good to be true, I think. But without it (eternity), Christianity is a waste of time. Not only that… but it has so MANY problems, it would be very much better forgotten completely.
But if we are eternal beings and face the possibility of eternal existence then that is another matter. …and then… and only then… does Christianity start to make sense.
And you claim that God will not accept us that way! wrong. God has forgiven us. That is the proof of the matter.
Codswallop. of course evil exists,
It is your claim that God cares about it that is in question.
God knows we are not perfect, or obedient or even sinless, because that is how He made us.
Religion is about actions on this earth, not bribary for the next one.
Christianity is primarily a way of life. This life not the next. We behave in a manner that reflects the Love of God. That is what being a Christian is. it is not building a stairway to Heaven (With or without God’s help)
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
