Deep Space 9 Superior

[Weyoun]

Roddenberry was also a historian that loved everything about early aviation. He regulary studied and read about the adventures of the Wright Brothers. Apparently one of the early prototypes to the Kittyhawk was an airplane called the The Bird of Prey. So Roddenberry wanted to honor the Wright Brothers in some way, so he named the Klingons famous warship The Bird of Prey.

How cool is that!. I really admire Roddenberry, sure I might not have agreed with the way he was running the franchise prior to his death, but that guy was a true American hero with a great sense of adventure and a pretty good writer as well.

As far as him naming the iconic Klingon Warship The Bird of Prey, how appropriate is that, after-all he couldn't very well name the one of the baddest and meanest warships in Star Trek lore The Kitty Hawk. That just doesn't quite cut it does it.

[nx01a]

Now, if the Klingons had a Hawk class of ships... Or a maybe a

Spoiler:

bird + cat =

Griffin class.

Nope, Monday yet, Pitry.

[nx01a]

It would have been great: Captain Riker and Shelby his first officer. she would have been jerking his chain a bit! Picard wasn't an "action hero" capatain, so there was NOTHING for him to do... Riker would have been an improvement.

The relationship between the hothead Riker and the almost Vulcan Picard worked well for me. Riker was tempered by Picard [and the plot] in those first 3 years into the first human to pull off reverse assimilating a Borg, long before it became fashionable or easy on VOY.
With him as a brilliant captain in his own right, a young man in command of the Federation flagship, what exactly would Shelby do? Exactly what Riker did his first 3 years: ferment, like fine wine. Or vinegar. Or yeast. Whatever. It would be the same thing over again: sobered and respected captain teaches upstart #1 to suppress emotion. The running joke would probably be Riker desperately trying to go on away missions.

[Rac80]

While rioting is always wrong, I think there's something here you're missing.
Take "gay" and change it to "black/ hispanic/ Jewish/ Muslim/ US minority group of your liking". No one would have stood for it then - basically, a majority group voting against giving equal rights to a minority group.
As for "civil partnership" - I admit, I don't know how it works. I'm just saying, the "seperate but equal" strategy was tried in the US in the past. The result was the human rights movement. For damn good reason.

As for the churches, well - yes. Do you have any idea what sort of pressure religious homosexuals have to deal with? Both people who come from a religious background and people who do believe in God and are beign told again and again they're filthy and wrong and sinners for who they are And that's before the hate crimes. I'm not saying churches advocate hate crimes - but there are always the mad few who get encouraged by the views of the church that being gay is wrong and a sin and demand people to deny who they are. So yes, I'm not saying get married in a church, but have the churches stop speaking against homosexuality would be a wonderful step forward.

...whot? It's Sunday!

Sorry there, but my beleifs are MY beliefs and will NOT be dictated to by a group or the state. I believe homosexuality is wrong, just like I believe murder (and yes, I consider abortion murder) is wrong. That is what my faith in God teaches ME. I am not asking anyone else to believe as i do. So you advocate preventing people from beleiving what they choose????? sorry that is a bit too much for me! keep the gov. out of my belief system. That is why there is a first amendment in the USA. (and the second amendment protects the first!) That is a serious problem with the gay/lesbian movement for me... they want to criminalize my belief system.
A note on leberals--- ever notice when conservatives lose an election we simply move on? when libs do they riot, go to court, and try to FORCE everyone to change their minds. Talk about intolerant. and forcing churches to stop teaching morality is definitely intolerant!!!!!

[Rac80]

The relationship between the hothead Riker and the almost Vulcan Picard worked well for me. Riker was tempered by Picard [and the plot] in those first 3 years into the first human to pull off reverse assimilating a Borg, long before it became fashionable or easy on VOY.
With him as a brilliant captain in his own right, a young man in command of the Federation flagship, what exactly would Shelby do? Exactly what Riker did his first 3 years: ferment, like fine wine. Or vinegar. Or yeast. Whatever. It would be the same thing over again: sobered and respected captain teaches upstart #1 to suppress emotion. The running joke would probably be Riker desperately trying to go on away missions.

but...but Riker would have looked soooooooooo much better doing it than picard ever did!

[Jumper_One]

but...but Riker would have looked soooooooooo much better doing it than picard ever did!

Riker's awesome

[Rac80]

Riker's awesome

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/e...kergbvnfhk.jpg

*thunk!* thanks for posting that pic! he was soooo awesome!

[Pitry]

Sorry there, but my beleifs are MY beliefs and will NOT be dictated to by a group or the state. I believe homosexuality is wrong, just like I believe murder (and yes, I consider abortion murder) is wrong. That is what my faith in God teaches ME. I am not asking anyone else to believe as i do. So you advocate preventing people from beleiving what they choose????? sorry that is a bit too much for me! keep the gov. out of my belief system. That is why there is a first amendment in the USA. (and the second amendment protects the first!) That is a serious problem with the gay/lesbian movement for me... they want to criminalize my belief system.
A note on leberals--- ever notice when conservatives lose an election we simply move on? when libs do they riot, go to court, and try to FORCE everyone to change their minds. Talk about intolerant. and forcing churches to stop teaching morality is definitely intolerant!!!!!

No. I'm not telling you what to believe in. I am asking you to take a leaf out of your own holy scriptures. Matthew 7:1, in fact.
See, the church's choice isn't dichotomous. It's not either condemning homosexuality completely or endorsing it completely. They can choose to keep their mouths shut on the matter. Much like Obama did in the last election, in fact.

Truth is, you believe it cos the church insists it's a sin. If the church refused to take a stand on the matter and left it for your own judgment, your opinion might have been different. And even bigger truth is, religions change. You see, that very same place in the bible saying homosexuality is a sin also says eating shellfish is a sin. Last I checked, Christians around the world had no problem whatsoever eating shellfish. The church used to believe Jews are guilty for the murder of Christ, didn't they? Last I checked no one's claiming that anymore.
Or take Islam or example. You go on about how people are telling you what to believe in. Well guess what. When muslim imams are talking in mosques about jihad against the "non believers", they are arrested, charged, etc. But that's their religion, no? No. Cos also in the Quran there's a verse where the prophet Muhammad talks to those same non believers and tells them - in a rather long and monotonous chapter, BTW - I have my faith, you have yours. I have my God, you have yours. Doesn't mean we can't co-exist. Whether the imams in the mosques choose to emphasis this chapter or the ones about jihad? that's their choice. Of what to take from their religion. So yes, I don't see any religious opression in asking the churches to stop inciting hatred and homophobia.

Again, Rac, you might be the nicest person on this planet, you believe homosexuality is wrong but would never discriminate against gay people (I hope so) or try to hurt them. But enough people would take this belief of theirs one step further and would. And this has got to stop. And a great step forward would be for the churches to choose to talk in the cermons about other issues and just not mention homosexuality at all. As I said, I'm not saying endore homosexuality, I'm not saying encourage people to explore their sexuality - although that might not be such a bad idea TBH... - I'm just saying, stop spreading the hatred.

As for people rioting. here's another thought. Next time, if you're the tolerant one and "those liberals" are the intolerant one, try to stop lumping people into groups and treat them as individuals based on their own actions rather than whatever group you decide to throw them into. the human rights movement was a damn important one even if the Black Panthers went over the edge with violence. The Palestinians deserve independence even if terrorist groups are killing innocent people in Israel. You have every right to your opinion even if people who share your political side of the map burn crosses, beat people up, murder people, or protest at funerals of gay people gloating and wearing signs saying they're burning in hell. Just like I post here in the most patient and polite way possible and with as much respect as I can muster, even if some people who share my beliefs riot. It's a bit tasteless to throw rioting liberals a second time at me, especially as I've already written in my earlier post that I think it's wrong.

And it's 23:55, which means my part of this discussion is over. 5 minutes to Monday

[./freelancer]

No. I'm not telling you what to believe in. I am asking you to take a leaf out of your own holy scriptures. Matthew 7:1, in fact.
See, the church's choice isn't dichotomous. It's not either condemning homosexuality completely or endorsing it completely. They can choose to keep their mouths shut on the matter. Much like Obama did in the last election, in fact.

Truth is, you believe it cos the church insists it's a sin. If the church refused to take a stand on the matter and left it for your own judgment, your opinion might have been different. And even bigger truth is, religions change. You see, that very same place in the bible saying homosexuality is a sin also says eating shellfish is a sin. Last I checked, Christians around the world had no problem whatsoever eating shellfish. The church used to believe Jews are guilty for the murder of Christ, didn't they? Last I checked no one's claiming that anymore.
Or take Islam or example. You go on about how people are telling you what to believe in. Well guess what. When muslim imams are talking in mosques about jihad against the "non believers", they are arrested, charged, etc. But that's their religion, no? No. Cos also in the Quran there's a verse where the prophet Muhammad talks to those same non believers and tells them - in a rather long and monotonous chapter, BTW - I have my faith, you have yours. I have my God, you have yours. Doesn't mean we can't co-exist. Whether the imams in the mosques choose to emphasis this chapter or the ones about jihad? that's their choice. Of what to take from their religion. So yes, I don't see any religious opression in asking the churches to stop inciting hatred and homophobia.

Again, Rac, you might be the nicest person on this planet, you believe homosexuality is wrong but would never discriminate against gay people (I hope so) or try to hurt them. But enough people would take this belief of theirs one step further and would. And this has got to stop. And a great step forward would be for the churches to choose to talk in the cermons about other issues and just not mention homosexuality at all. As I said, I'm not saying endore homosexuality, I'm not saying encourage people to explore their sexuality - although that might not be such a bad idea TBH... - I'm just saying, stop spreading the hatred.

As for people rioting. here's another thought. Next time, if you're the tolerant one and "those liberals" are the intolerant one, try to stop lumping people into groups and treat them as individuals based on their own actions rather than whatever group you decide to throw them into. the human rights movement was a damn important one even if the Black Panthers went over the edge with violence. The Palestinians deserve independence even if terrorist groups are killing innocent people in Israel. You have every right to your opinion even if people who share your political side of the map burn crosses, beat people up, murder people, or protest at funerals of gay people gloating and wearing signs saying they're burning in hell. Just like I post here in the most patient and polite way possible and with as much respect as I can muster, even if some people who share my beliefs riot. It's a bit tasteless to throw rioting liberals a second time at me, especially as I've already written in my earlier post that I think it's wrong.

And it's 23:55, which means my part of this discussion is over. 5 minutes to Monday

I would green you for that, but GW wouldn't let me. Great post anyway

(and it's 15 minutes left until Monday here, so this will be my only post about religion/politics this time around )

[jelgate]

The only religion I'll talk about is why the Pah'Wraiths are superior to the Prophets

[Rac80]

No. I'm not telling you what to believe in. I am asking you to take a leaf out of your own holy scriptures. Matthew 7:1, in fact.
See, the church's choice isn't dichotomous. It's not either condemning homosexuality completely or endorsing it completely. They can choose to keep their mouths shut on the matter. Much like Obama did in the last election, in fact.

Truth is, you believe it cos the church insists it's a sin. If the church refused to take a stand on the matter and left it for your own judgment, your opinion might have been different. And even bigger truth is, religions change. You see, that very same place in the bible saying homosexuality is a sin also says eating shellfish is a sin. Last I checked, Christians around the world had no problem whatsoever eating shellfish. The church used to believe Jews are guilty for the murder of Christ, didn't they? Last I checked no one's claiming that anymore.
{snipped for space}

And it's 23:55, which means my part of this discussion is over. 5 minutes to Monday

Firstly do not attempt to assume what I do or don't believe. And give me some credit for being able to interpret scripture. (i could ask which version of matthew did you use? King James, Schofield, New English? it does make a difference) You have never sat in my congregation so you have no idea what I hear from the pulpit. My church teaches that immorality is a sin, and yep, homosexuality is considered immorality by me (I won't speak for all of my faith). My church has never taught that you can't eat shellfish or that all jews were guilty of killing Christ. From your tone, I assume you dislike christians (why do you lump all christian churches together as "the church"???). that is your choice --as long as you are not beheading, burning, or putting graffitti all over a church --who really cares what you beleive? I don't. I just get sick of being told that I am the intolerant one based on my personal beliefs. It is obvious to me that you are intolerant of opinions that differ from yours. Try practicing some tolerance why don't you?
Ok that's it for me tonight.

[nx01a]

The only religion I'll talk about is why the Pah'Wraiths are superior to the Prophets

Of course they're better. They're the Ori of Trek, what with the fire and all. Of course, if they had their own wormhole, they'd pwn.

@ Rac...
Christianity is the most fractured faith on the planet. Dozens, if not hundreds, of variants each interpreting the Bible in their own way, if not starting their own sect/cult entirely. Of course, all of humanity and our thousands of religions can easily be seen as a larger version of that disunity. Your comment on which version of the Bible Pitry was using was quite apt, as well as mentioning 'your' church. To be honest, you could worship a lettuce named Ralph [who can get that reference?] for all I care, as long as your beliefs don't lead you to condemn other people who don't follow it. And Heavens forbid your religion actually tells you to discriminate against/damn/hurt someone for anything other than their discriminating against/damning/hurting others. I've always maintained that the core of all religions is to realize the smallness of man and his need for something greater than himself, whether that be a community of man [love thy neighbour] or a higher power [no other God but me]. Infinite diversity in infinite combination. Religion is fine and a model of how we should live with those who share our beliefs and those who don't, it's humans who screw it up by being... human.

It's 11.19 here, so I've still got time.

[Pitry]

The only religion I'll talk about is why the Pah'Wraiths are superior to the Prophets

Cos they make people's eye go all creepy!
No, hold on, the Prophets also did that when they possessed people...
Oh I know! I know! They chose Dukat and Winn! That's what they're superior!

(for the record, abnd what I was trying to say in my last paragraph, I don't ever dislike individuals until they give me a reason to. Those individuals include Christians. )

[the Fifth Race]

I see the conversation has gone from politics to religion, how argumentatively predictable.

I wanted to ask Fifth Race, how is your back these days?

A few set backs here and there, but over-all it is doing much better Kris, and thanx for asking.

Of course they're better. They're the Ori of Trek, what with the fire and all.

That would make the Ori the Pai Wraiths of Stargate.

The only religion I'll talk about is why the Pah'Wraiths are superior to the Prophets

LOL, amen brother jelgate.

[nx01a]

Let me be the first to rave about SGA's 'The Prodigal'!

Spoiler:

RAVE!

I loved it. I want Teyla to be my mommy.