I believe I read about it in Time magazine several years ago. But I'm sorry, I should not have used information I could not properly cite. You may be right.
"Fine, you can believe that God does not recognize the marriage of a homosexual couple. But why does that mean that our courts shouldn't?"
I'm not saying they shouldn't. They could. They probably will. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily right (according to my beliefs) or that I should be happy about it or that God is happy about it.
"Actually, not many men would truly want to have multiple wives."
Wow... you must know some pretty morally upright men. I know a lot of guys who would absolutely love polygamy.
"Such relationships would not work today because women are respected as men's equals."
Equality can be maintained in polygamy. Women can also have multiple husbands, and each of those husbands would probably have multiple wives. The women could also have multiple wives and the men could have multiple husbands. That seems fairly equal. Another way it could work is that a group of fifteen people (8 men, 7 women) all get married in a large group. You join fifteen people at a single ceremony rather than just two. There may be no studies to support it, but I doubt that it's too good for a kid to have 8 dads and 7 moms living under the same roof. Though it is possible that just the biological parents would be considered mom and dad (or dad and dad or mom and mom in the case of adoption by homosexual/bisexual parents). Of course, this is a worst case scenario. But it's where I believe society's headed.
"God did end up punishing David for commiting adultery. But he did not punish him for having 8 wives or numerous concubines. He was punished for sleeping with another man's wife. That makes it very clear that God has no problems with polygamous relationships, only with the act of sleeping with a married man's wife (i.e. property)."
See my other post (which it appears you've already replied to) where it talks about God and polygamy.
"I believe that you are mostly trying to rationalize your own beliefs, and are clinging to anything that makes those beliefs more plausible, but that is only my opinion."
Hahaha- No, that's not my motivation at all. But I was thinking the same thing about you and atheism...
"Marriage has always been a matter of the states up until a few hundred years ago."
Yes, but up until a few hundred years ago the states were almost all run by various religions (with Christianity being a major one).
"Was it okay for the Romans to persecute early Christians because they had a world view that was deemed dangerous to the social order? (just as you view homosexual marraige as dangerous)"
No, it wasn't ok for the Romans to do that. However, there is little basis for an argument that true Christianity is in any way detrimental to society. But there are legitimate arguments for how homosexual marriage is detrimental to society in the long run. And by the way: I hope you don't think that my attitude towards homosexuals is hateful. It's not. I believe that homosexuals should be loved and treated as ordinary people (just as I would treat an atheist like a normal person and you would (I assume) treat a Christian like a normal person). I just fear for the future of this country if gay marriage is legalized, because that's the future that my children and my children's children will be living in. I hope my offspring will accept Christianity as their religion, but positive attitudes about homosexuality are just one more thing that they can get sidetracked on in their walk with Christ. But I don't hate homosexuals. I love them just like I love everyone else.
"The Bible is not a very good text to use when deciding how to define marriage anyway."
All of your examples came from the Old Testament. The New Testament supersedes the Old, and teaches that the things you mentioned are wrong.
"Tolerance of other people is abundant in the New Testament. Mark 9:38-40, Luke 9:52-56, John 4:7-27 all show Jesus giving respect and tolerence to non-believers and other types of "Christianity". Romans 2:14-16 actually states that even non-believers can be admitted into heaven based on their actions in life."
Yes, Jesus tolerated other people's beliefs, but this does not mean that he supported them. He had to be able to tolerate them so that he could witness to them. But he would also quickly leave places where people were who would not accept his message. Romans 2:14-16 applies only to those unbelievers who have never heard the message. For "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law." Rom 2:12 This means that everyone who dies without hearing the message/law will be judged by their actions, but everyone who dies having heard but not accepted the message/law will be judged as those under the law (and all those who are judged under the law who have not accepted Christ are subject to eternal damnation). This is why Romans 2:14-16 has the little part about, "...Gentiles, who do not have the law..." You see, no one can "be admitted to heaven" based on their actions in life. Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast."
""Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mahatma Gandi"
That's very true. Many (one might even go so far as to say most) who claim to be Christians are indeed unlike Christ. They may attend church regularly, go through the motions, pray the prayers, sing the songs, etc., but they are not true Christians. One could say that they, "Talk the talk but don't walk the walk." Please don't make judgments about Christianity by the claims of those who don't truly "walk the walk" but by the lives of those who truly do. If you're not sure how to tell the difference: You'll know who's a true Christians by their love.
"To keep homosexuals from obtaining any rights given to others (i.e. marriage) would be just as bad as keeping african americans from obtaining the same rights."
Granting African Americans their rights was extremely beneficial to society as a whole. However, I believe that allowing homo-sexuals to marry each other would be a major detriment to society. I'll explain why in my next point...
"How will homosexuality or polygamy destroy the family structure? There are many cultures today and throughout history that have heterosexual, homosexual, monogamous, and polygamous relationships."
While I feel that gay and polygamous marriages are bad enough on their own, it would be even worse to have polygamous marriages between homosexuals. Example: A household of seven individuals. Some of them are male, some are female. Every single one of the seven is "married" to the other six. So you have males with multiple wives and multiple husbands, and females with multiple husbands and multiple wives. In short, they're all bisexuals and they're all married to each other. You can argue against it all you want, but the fact is that this is a horrible environment in which to raise children. Research has shown that the healthiest environment for a child to be raised in is a family with one father and one mother. Children raised in "families" where their "parents" are homosexuals (and homosexual polygamists would probably be even worse) usually end up developing all sorts of social, behavioral, and learning disorders. That is why gay marriage and polygamy is such a threat to society. It can't possibly be beneficial for us or our children in the long run. It can only be detrimental.
"But if homosexuals were allowed to get married (along with polygamists), would you still have married your wife? If so, then apparently homosexual marriages would not have destroyed your family."
I'm wasn't implying that homosexual marriages/polygamy would ruin family/marriage structure in families where the parents are heterosexual. I was saying that it would be destroyed in "families" with homosexual/polygamist "parents." (BTW I'm not married).
"What defines a "real marriage"? You? Your religion?"
Yes, my religion. I have faith that Christianity is true, and Christ teaches me that "real marriage" is between a man and a woman. This is also the natural order of things: correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't normally find homosexual animals, no do you? This of course is relative to my religion. You seem to believe that the definition of marriage is relative to the beliefs of the society in which it is instituted.
"The Bible has many cases of polygamy being condoned by God. Solomon and David both had many wives and concubines."
I don't know why this is. My theological knowledge is weak is in this area. However, the New Testament talks about how the Law can not save you. In fact, in a sense it can weaken you, since it "awakens all kinds of evil desires." Only faith can save. So it is logical to assume (at least it seems this way to me) that one reason for God's allowance of polygamy (and other marriage-related acts such as marrying female prisoners of war) was to not put such a large burden on the consciences of the Jews. I mean, how many guys do you know of who wish that they could have more than just one woman?;-)
"I understand that, my posts were not meant to change your mind but instead to answer your original question: "So where does morality come from if not from God?" I was giving an alternative to God, thats all."
Yes, I know you weren't trying to change my mind. I was simply stating my final position on the matter. Similarly, my posts are not meant to change your mind (though I have been praying that they would change your mind or make you reconsider your beliefs; and if not yours, hopefully anyone who might have been following our debate who is not a Christian).
"While it is a very slight difference, it would be better to say "That's what I believe to be true"."
No, it wouldn't be better. What I know to be true doesn't change, regardless of what you or others like you believe. Of course, one could argue that many atheists know there is no god. Both groups can't be right. So I say knowledge is relative to the experiences of the individuals involved. I suppose then that you are right in saying that I believe rather than know, but by the same token I am also right in saying that I know rather than believe. But it's sort of a moot point...
"Even if you have had a personal revelation, you could never really know if it was simply a case of Schizophrenia... I wonder how many people have actually seen God or heard his voice? I doubt more than 3 million in America today."
You make a good point. But it's unwise to make assumptions about statistics (I'm referring to when you said, "I doubt more than 3 million [christians] in America today [have seen God or heard his voice]."). Also, you seem to be assuming that encounters with God can only be experienced visually and verbally and spiritually. What about the other senses? In fact, who ever said that you need to somehow physically/emotionally/spiritually sense God to know he's there? Sometimes you can just somehow know something (though I bet that won't carry much weight with you since that involves the opinion of a believer rather than hard fact). Also, many "God experiences" are encountered by groups of people; this could be a hallucination except that mass hallucinations aren't very common. But you do make a valid point with that bit about Schizophrenia. I'm inlined to disagree, but you make a good point...
"Great acts of charity are done in the name of religion. But horrific and immoral acts and ideas are fostered by religion as well (RE: anti-homosexuality)."
Oy! You're opening that whole morality can of worms again.;-) So you think anti-homsexuality is horrific and immoral, eh? Well, I'm STRONGLY anti-homosexuality but I'm not an immoral person, though apparently by your standard I must be. Anyway, please allow me a second to let loose some thoughts of mine about homo-sexuality: Where does it end? Tolerance of homo-sexual activities (which many people are calling for) reaches its ultimate goal when gay marriage is legalized. I am appalled at the prospect of gay marriage. I feel that it cheapens real marriage (marriage between a man and a woman). But after gay unions are legalized (and I believe that, unfortunately, it's only a matter of time before they are), polygamists will also be demanding equal rights. Give it another twenty years (give or take) and polygamy is legalized. It's just the natural progression of things. Then after a while you end up with whole households of polygamist bisexuals who are all "married" to each other. Plus, with divorce rates on the rise, none of these relationships will last very long. All of a sudden marriages will mean absolutely nothing. And people will realize this and just stop getting married. They'll just live with whoever (and however many people) they want, however they want all the time. The family structure will have been completely eliminated. Famil
"Again, I am not saying that I know I am right. I am just saying that to be truly honest with yourself, you need to open up to the possibility that there is no such thing as a universal moral compass."
Yes, I see your point. However, I still believe that there is a universal moral compass which comes from God. I am a Christian and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God which lays out His plan of salvation for the human race. And in the Bible it tells me "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" Romans 2:14-15 I interpret this as meaning that: 1. The Law mentioned in the verse is, in effect, morality. 2. The Gentiles, who do not have the law become a law for themselves (a law that matches up with the Law mentioned in #1). To me this means that since the law is written on our hearts (whether we confirm its existence or not), God's elect (those he predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son; I believe this to be everyone who accepts God's purpose for their life and conforms themselves to his will accordingly) must have the "universal moral compass" we've been talking about. That's what I know to be true, anyway.
"Relating back to the original topic of the Slashdot article we're discussing, one could say that humans are "hardwired" to believe in the Golden Rule.:-)"
Yes, it seems likely that the Golden Rule is "hardwired" into us since all of the regions where a version of it has been found were separated geographically for most of human history and very little human traffic (if any) passed between them. However, I did find it interesting that the earliest listing of something similar to the Golden Rule (on that Wikipedia article) is from the book of Leviticus (which is in both the Torah and the Bible). Leviticus was written sometime between 1400 BCE and 587 BCE.
"I understand your analogy, but I don't think it answers the question at hand: if God created the universe and deliberately chose to leave "absence of God" in parts of it, then how can followers of God say that this intentional "absence of God" is sin, an offense against God that must be corrected?"
When I was browsing the web today I happened across a very interesting article which talks about this, as well as free will and universal determinism (both of which you talked about in your last post), as well as other closely related subjects. You can find the link to the article below. The article's a little long, but I hope you'll read anyway (even though I didn't write it, consider it my rebuttal to your last argument). I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the article.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/socratic/files/predesti nation_and_free_will_edited_.doc
"How can it be that people have begun to accept homosexuality? It is because people can and do create their own moral compass. It is generally designed by the society that they live in."
Exactly! People create their own moral compass! But this creation takes time. They aren't born with it. What they are born with is the built in, universal definition of morality. What they choose to accept later in life has nothing to do with it. But despite accepting new ideas of right and wrong later in life, everyone (if they're completely honest with themselves) still has this blueprint of morality imprinted on their hearts. That's one reason why true Christianity resonates so well with so many people. It matches up with this in-born sense of right and wrong. It feels right . I hope I'm making sense here. But search your soul: you know you've got this universal sense of morality, whether you care to admit it or not.
"Our ancestors were not evil, just ignorant."
Yes, they were ignorant. They didn't know what was right and what was wrong. But the fact that we consider what they did wrong today doesn't mean morality has changed. It just means we know more than they did. "Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief." 1 Timothy 1:13
"It is my view that religion itself is OK, but religious groups have a tendency to try to force their beliefs on others, and that is not OK."
I'd tend to agree with you there. Even the Christian church has done this many times throughout history. But this does not mean by any means that it's true of everyone. The Bible even condemns this sort of oppressive behavior and tells Christians to not force religion on others:
"Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy." (Revelation 22:11) You should also bear in mind that religious groups have also been oppressed by non-religious groups to an equal extent, so it goes both ways.
"How can the aforementioned traits be considered flaws if a flawless God knowingly and deliberately created them?"
Well, let me ask you this: Does cold (temperature) exist? I'm not talking about the feeling of being cold, but whether cold itself exists. Is cold real? No. You cannot measure cold by itself. You can measure heat , but you cannot measure cold. It does not exist. It is merely the absence of heat. Similarly, does darkness exist? I don't mean metaphorical darkness, but darkness darkness (like when it's night). Is darkness real? No. Darkness is merely the absence of light. Darkness does not exist. Finally, does evil/sin/flaws (whatever you want to call it) exist? No. Evil is merely the absence of God in the world/someone's life. God did not create evil as you suggest. He created good. He is good. Evil/sin/flaws are nothing but the opposite of God. But He lets evil/sin/flaws exist so that free will can also exist.
"I don't know where you live, but I'm in the US, where our history books tell of a group of pilgrims who traveled to the "New World" on a ship called the Mayflower, seeking freedom from the state-imposed religion in England at the time, and the persecution of those with different beliefs. (This was under King James, btw, after which the King James Bible is named.)"
I'm also from the United States and, yes, I knew that the creation of the King James Bible was ordered by King James. But I hope that you're not implying that the Bible's original message was somehow corrupted by the religious oppression that King James imposed on his subjects. The King James bible was merely another translation of the Bible, and it in no way contributed to the religious oppression experienced by the pilgrims who came to the new world.
"I can tell right from wrong without need for Commandments or tales of eternal punishment, because I learned the Golden Rule from my parents at a young age and that suffices quite well."
I find it interesting that you use the Golden Rule in your argument for atheism. I'm not sure if you know this or not, but the Golden Rule originated in the bible (Jesus Christ said it): "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you , for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
I'm not trying to directly attack your atheism with this post, ranton (I've been accused of that quite a bit recently). But I noticed that you have an interesting signature at the bottom of your posts: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" --Edumund Burke. That raised a question in my mind: where does good (morality) come from if not from a supernatural deity? Morality can't be whatever is socially acceptable because that changes from generation to generation. It can't be the result of an in-born evolutionary adaptation because it is generally the less-than-morally-upright "takers" who pass on their genes more. But despite these two facts, there seems to be a universally recognized definition of what is right and what is wrong, and there has been around throughout written history (regardless of whether the people of that time/place followed this moral code or not). Oh, and I suppose that based on that parenthetical note there: The definition of morality can't have been passed down from generation to generation by parent-to-child interactions since so many generations haven't paid much heed to what is good; good would have died out ages ago. So where does morality come from if not from God?
Hey, calm down. Don't get all bent out of shape. I was just wondering what evidence led you to your conclusion. That's all. I'm not trying to attack your position (at least not directly).;-)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean for my last post to come across sounding so angry. And I'm not claiming that "people should not be free to choose whether to serve a higher being or not." I didn't mean for my point to come across like that. What I'm saying is that everyone, if they're completely honest with themselves, has many parts of themselves which they know to be character flaws. And I don't mean trivial character flaws. I mean some pretty bad stuff like ___________ (fill in the blank; whatever deep down you know is completely wrong with you and that you struggle with on a regular basis). These are the parts of ourselves that we're slaves to and need to be freed from (and boy are they numerous; they're called sin). And I believe that the only way to be freed is to have faith in someone infinitely greater than yourself who has no weakness, but is able to sympathize with your weaknesses because he has experienced temptation in the past (in my case I believe in Jesus Christ). But this is not to say that you never again will fall to your weaknesses. No, this will happen many times. But by sharing in the strength of one greater than yourself, you can be picked back up each time you fall. To answer your question: Despite God's wishes of how we should live, we have been given free will. Otherwise we would have no freedom; we would have been drones. But in his infinite wisdom and love, God gave us the choice of whether to be slaves to ourselves and others, or whether to be slaves to his will (thereby freeing us from all of that and putting us in the position of a servant on a path which leads to freedom and eternal life). It's all about being freed from sin. To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, I highly recommend you read the book of Romans (in the Bible; you might not want to use the King James version, unless thou doest hungerist for old english-ist), chapters 6 through 8. It'll discuss again what I've been talking about in relation to freedom, and will hopefully be clearer about it than I could ever be. And if you want to really get a good understanding of my point (and also what chapters 6, 7, and 8 are talking about), just read all of Romans starting with the beginning.
"You can't prove the existence or non-existence of a supernatural deity, but you can have a very good idea of His probability. As an atheist, I have examined the effects contributing to that number, and found it to be about 99% against existence."
And what "effects" are these that you have examined so very carefully? And can you honestly say to yourself that you examined this evidence from a completely objective point of view? I think not...
"I wonder if believing in those crucial years leaves a need for something religious-like."
And yet I know/know of a lot of people who were never exposed to religion as children, yet became devoted Christians at a later time in their life (ranging from early teens to people on their death-beds). Plus, their situations in life ranged from awful (i.e. their whole life is falling apart) to great (i.e. everything is going great, yet something deep down is still missing). So it's not about believing in those "crucial years," but about whether this Christianity stuff really works. Yeah, it does...
"I believe they're hard-wired to adopt a cause that makes believers feel ashamed for existing and requires them to force others into sacrificing their freedoms to live the way the believers want them to."
Sacrificing their freedoms? What freedoms are those? The freedom to serve yourself with selfish ambition? To promote yourself above others? Freedom isn't the ability to serve yourself because that's slavery to yourself. Slavery to having to worry about your 'rights' and your 'future' and your so-called 'life.' Slavery to avoiding 'pain' and 'inconvenience' so that you can revel in your own 'pleasures.' Slavery to what you think is 'freedom.' Your freedom isn't free. So let me say what freedom means to me: freedom is responsibility to something - to someone - greater than yourself. To someone able to rescue you from your own will and your own inadequacies. To someone who can save you from yourself and free you to live for something so much bigger than anything you can imagine. And it's not about being ashamed for existing. It's about accepting that you were meant to exist, but have become lost and need a savior to help you live how you were meant to live. We were meant to live for so much more, but we've lost ourselves.
I don't know about that. A lot of people like seeing the future from a human perspective. That's partially what sci-fi is all about. And making any movies/series in the past is a mistake because you'll inevitably screw up something in the trek time line. Star Trek just needs to rest for maybe 5 to 10 years and then come back with a new, fresh series. One that takes place in, say, the 25th century. I think it's about time that we give the 23rd and 24th centuries a break. Then neat stuff could be done like making transwarp standard issue on all Federation starships, effectively enabling pan-galactic travel.
My favorites, from best to worst, are as follows: TNG, VOY, TOS, DS9, ENT. Enterprise was absolutely AWFUL. I think the only good things it did were to establish that, yes, Andorians can in fact wiggle their antenae. It was also nice to finally learn exactly why it is that TOS Klingons have no cranial ridges (other than the budget).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know you weren't trying to change my mind. I was simply stating my final position on the matter. Similarly, my posts are not meant to change your mind (though I have been praying that they would change your mind or make you reconsider your beliefs; and if not yours, hopefully anyone who might have been following our debate who is not a Christian).
No, it wouldn't be better. What I know to be true doesn't change, regardless of what you or others like you believe. Of course, one could argue that many atheists know there is no god. Both groups can't be right. So I say knowledge is relative to the experiences of the individuals involved. I suppose then that you are right in saying that I believe rather than know, but by the same token I am also right in saying that I know rather than believe. But it's sort of a moot point...
You make a good point. But it's unwise to make assumptions about statistics (I'm referring to when you said, "I doubt more than 3 million [christians] in America today [have seen God or heard his voice]."). Also, you seem to be assuming that encounters with God can only be experienced visually and verbally and spiritually. What about the other senses? In fact, who ever said that you need to somehow physically/emotionally/spiritually sense God to know he's there? Sometimes you can just somehow know something (though I bet that won't carry much weight with you since that involves the opinion of a believer rather than hard fact). Also, many "God experiences" are encountered by groups of people; this could be a hallucination except that mass hallucinations aren't very common. But you do make a valid point with that bit about Schizophrenia. I'm inlined to disagree, but you make a good point...
Oy! You're opening that whole morality can of worms again. ;-) So you think anti-homsexuality is horrific and immoral, eh? Well, I'm STRONGLY anti-homosexuality but I'm not an immoral person, though apparently by your standard I must be. Anyway, please allow me a second to let loose some thoughts of mine about homo-sexuality: Where does it end? Tolerance of homo-sexual activities (which many people are calling for) reaches its ultimate goal when gay marriage is legalized. I am appalled at the prospect of gay marriage. I feel that it cheapens real marriage (marriage between a man and a woman). But after gay unions are legalized (and I believe that, unfortunately, it's only a matter of time before they are), polygamists will also be demanding equal rights. Give it another twenty years (give or take) and polygamy is legalized. It's just the natural progression of things. Then after a while you end up with whole households of polygamist bisexuals who are all "married" to each other. Plus, with divorce rates on the rise, none of these relationships will last very long. All of a sudden marriages will mean absolutely nothing. And people will realize this and just stop getting married. They'll just live with whoever (and however many people) they want, however they want all the time. The family structure will have been completely eliminated. Famil
Nope! Take heart, you're not the only non-atheist left here! :-)
I'm not trying to directly attack your atheism with this post, ranton (I've been accused of that quite a bit recently). But I noticed that you have an interesting signature at the bottom of your posts: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" --Edumund Burke. That raised a question in my mind: where does good (morality) come from if not from a supernatural deity? Morality can't be whatever is socially acceptable because that changes from generation to generation. It can't be the result of an in-born evolutionary adaptation because it is generally the less-than-morally-upright "takers" who pass on their genes more. But despite these two facts, there seems to be a universally recognized definition of what is right and what is wrong, and there has been around throughout written history (regardless of whether the people of that time/place followed this moral code or not). Oh, and I suppose that based on that parenthetical note there: The definition of morality can't have been passed down from generation to generation by parent-to-child interactions since so many generations haven't paid much heed to what is good; good would have died out ages ago. So where does morality come from if not from God?
Hey, calm down. Don't get all bent out of shape. I was just wondering what evidence led you to your conclusion. That's all. I'm not trying to attack your position (at least not directly). ;-)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean for my last post to come across sounding so angry. And I'm not claiming that "people should not be free to choose whether to serve a higher being or not." I didn't mean for my point to come across like that. What I'm saying is that everyone, if they're completely honest with themselves, has many parts of themselves which they know to be character flaws. And I don't mean trivial character flaws. I mean some pretty bad stuff like ___________ (fill in the blank; whatever deep down you know is completely wrong with you and that you struggle with on a regular basis). These are the parts of ourselves that we're slaves to and need to be freed from (and boy are they numerous; they're called sin). And I believe that the only way to be freed is to have faith in someone infinitely greater than yourself who has no weakness, but is able to sympathize with your weaknesses because he has experienced temptation in the past (in my case I believe in Jesus Christ). But this is not to say that you never again will fall to your weaknesses. No, this will happen many times. But by sharing in the strength of one greater than yourself, you can be picked back up each time you fall. To answer your question: Despite God's wishes of how we should live, we have been given free will. Otherwise we would have no freedom; we would have been drones. But in his infinite wisdom and love, God gave us the choice of whether to be slaves to ourselves and others, or whether to be slaves to his will (thereby freeing us from all of that and putting us in the position of a servant on a path which leads to freedom and eternal life). It's all about being freed from sin. To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, I highly recommend you read the book of Romans (in the Bible; you might not want to use the King James version, unless thou doest hungerist for old english-ist), chapters 6 through 8. It'll discuss again what I've been talking about in relation to freedom, and will hopefully be clearer about it than I could ever be. And if you want to really get a good understanding of my point (and also what chapters 6, 7, and 8 are talking about), just read all of Romans starting with the beginning.
I don't know about that. A lot of people like seeing the future from a human perspective. That's partially what sci-fi is all about. And making any movies/series in the past is a mistake because you'll inevitably screw up something in the trek time line. Star Trek just needs to rest for maybe 5 to 10 years and then come back with a new, fresh series. One that takes place in, say, the 25th century. I think it's about time that we give the 23rd and 24th centuries a break. Then neat stuff could be done like making transwarp standard issue on all Federation starships, effectively enabling pan-galactic travel.
My favorites, from best to worst, are as follows: TNG, VOY, TOS, DS9, ENT. Enterprise was absolutely AWFUL. I think the only good things it did were to establish that, yes, Andorians can in fact wiggle their antenae. It was also nice to finally learn exactly why it is that TOS Klingons have no cranial ridges (other than the budget).