First Contact - Prime Directive?
July 18, 2015 at 7:14 am
(This post was last modified: July 18, 2015 at 8:30 am by ignoramus.)
Guys, been thinking about this.
We've all watched ST at some stage.
(First Contact is considered OK if the civilisation has reached a point of technical maturity (ie: warp drive signature))
(Basically to be offered membership into the Federation Alliance, A political alliance to strengthen stability in the area)
We would imagine that our common sense, decency and morals would tell us that (in the future) if we ever come across a planet with intelligent life, that we should not interfere with their natural development. (I assume because we wouldn't want that to happen to us?) Anyway, it sounds like a fair and reasonable approach.
This is the Prime Directive.
Also to tie in with these 2 concepts, I mentioned that our (Australia's) indigenous people have been native to Australia for about 50,000 years without being touched by "God". They have no sacred texts. It was mentioned that maybe they weren't literate or evolved "yet". Fair enough!
My question is twofold.
If God did in fact come to earth through Jesus, why make first contact at exactly that time? Was civilisation on the verge of extinction through wars, barbarism, disease, etc
And not at an earlier or a later date? (Many great and powerful civilisations had already passed?)
As Far as the prime directive is concerned, was he not compelled (by his standards of morality and decency which he instilled in us) to leave us alone and let us work it out ourselves?
Did he "need" to come down to save us by sending everyone born in sin to hell anyway. He could have done that anyway without getting involved?! Same result? Why bother?
So basically, in a nutshell, He came down, he introduced himself through Jesus, changed the course of human history, stagnated our scientific development for centuries, caused incalculable suffering and death, etc, and then gracefully sends us to hell anyway. Why?
The only console I have is that his ultimate "net sum" effect will be a positive "in the end".
Ammendment#1
Jesus' followers did the same. They took it upon themselves to spread the word to the rest of the world.
Does this mean these actions are moral and we can do the same in future with any new worlds we discover .
(EG: introduce God to them and change the course of their natural development?)
It must be because they also must be creations of the same omnipotent God.
If they aren't, and evolved independently, then God didn't create all life in the universe. IE: not omnipotent.
This to me is a "kobayashi maru". Another geeky ST expression to mean a "no win situation" for God believers.
Ammendment#2
Spreading the "word" around the world sounds awfully like the "BORG" race endeavouring to assimilate anything and everything that they come across.
Why is the BORG considered by our current moral standards as evil?
This cannot be metaphoricised ...This is exactly what Christianity has done/is doing.
We've all watched ST at some stage.
(First Contact is considered OK if the civilisation has reached a point of technical maturity (ie: warp drive signature))
(Basically to be offered membership into the Federation Alliance, A political alliance to strengthen stability in the area)
We would imagine that our common sense, decency and morals would tell us that (in the future) if we ever come across a planet with intelligent life, that we should not interfere with their natural development. (I assume because we wouldn't want that to happen to us?) Anyway, it sounds like a fair and reasonable approach.
This is the Prime Directive.
Also to tie in with these 2 concepts, I mentioned that our (Australia's) indigenous people have been native to Australia for about 50,000 years without being touched by "God". They have no sacred texts. It was mentioned that maybe they weren't literate or evolved "yet". Fair enough!
My question is twofold.
If God did in fact come to earth through Jesus, why make first contact at exactly that time? Was civilisation on the verge of extinction through wars, barbarism, disease, etc
And not at an earlier or a later date? (Many great and powerful civilisations had already passed?)
As Far as the prime directive is concerned, was he not compelled (by his standards of morality and decency which he instilled in us) to leave us alone and let us work it out ourselves?
Did he "need" to come down to save us by sending everyone born in sin to hell anyway. He could have done that anyway without getting involved?! Same result? Why bother?
So basically, in a nutshell, He came down, he introduced himself through Jesus, changed the course of human history, stagnated our scientific development for centuries, caused incalculable suffering and death, etc, and then gracefully sends us to hell anyway. Why?
The only console I have is that his ultimate "net sum" effect will be a positive "in the end".
Ammendment#1
Jesus' followers did the same. They took it upon themselves to spread the word to the rest of the world.
Does this mean these actions are moral and we can do the same in future with any new worlds we discover .
(EG: introduce God to them and change the course of their natural development?)
It must be because they also must be creations of the same omnipotent God.
If they aren't, and evolved independently, then God didn't create all life in the universe. IE: not omnipotent.
This to me is a "kobayashi maru". Another geeky ST expression to mean a "no win situation" for God believers.
Ammendment#2
Spreading the "word" around the world sounds awfully like the "BORG" race endeavouring to assimilate anything and everything that they come across.
Why is the BORG considered by our current moral standards as evil?
This cannot be metaphoricised ...This is exactly what Christianity has done/is doing.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Know God, Know fear.
