Posted on 02/10/2025 12:37:10 PM PST by CharlesOConnell
Star Trek, The Next Generation featured a recurring guest character, "Q", an incorporeal, vastly superior, malevolent intellect who harassed and dogged the "Enterprise" crew through various episodes of calculated perversity, limited only by the constraints of other, more emotionally mature members of his species. ("Q" seems to be a character extension of the original Star Trek character of "Trevelyan" in the episode "The Squire of Gothos", who is revealed at the end of his tyranical torments of the Enterprise crew to be a mere infant member of his vastly superior, incorporeal species.)
I criticize the idea of the "mischievous sprite", possibly an outgrowth of Keltic fairy stories, as not fully malevolent--Angels of Jewish and Christian tradition were thought of by Pseudo-Dionysius and Aquinas as fully intentional and incapable of changing their minds, so that when Satan declared "I shall not serve", he couldn't go back on it, and so, is implacably malevolent, seeking the destruction, physical and corporeal, of the human race. Human beings have less fully responsible powers and are allowed more chances to repent, but angels instantaneously and irrevocably effect highly intellectualized action within their capabilities, after instantaneously and completely foreseeing all the implications of what they decide.
Since Star Trek made the idea of the demonic, worthy of consideration to millions of fans, we could go back further in the legacy of "Q" to the adult science-fiction trilogy of C.S. Lewis (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength), to explore the idea: Is there anything about angels' and demons' "Spirituality" that precludes them from the exercise of science? Or, to put it another way, can lying wonders and lights in the sky be the result of activities of vastly superior "persons" as conceived of in the Western tradition, who are not "aliens" but have always existed and influenced human history?
(My wife was carrying laundry on a two-flight stairway with a flimsy rail; she lost her balance and began to fall backwards, potentially to grievous injury or death; be she was saved by being pushed from behind; but when she looked back, nothing could be seen. "As I was walking on the stairs, I met a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, so glad he didn't stay away.")
When Tucker Carlson was embarrassingly bamboozled on camera by Luis Elizondo, the alleged former director of "the Pentagon’s UFO program", I thought this topic was an issue of negligible importance. But then harkening back to the idea of the archangelic characters ("Eldila") in C.S. Lewis's "Adult Science Fiction/Space Trilogy" from the late 1940s, it occurred to me that increasing incidents in the current dissolution of science, towards magick, might be involved in higher (or lower) powers' much more acutely intelligent use of principles of natural science.
(The fallen angel who is "the Prince of This World" apparently conceives of us as microbes, so that he was described by C.S. Lewis at the opposite end of the scale, as a "Macrobe".)
I just ran into an explanation of these issues from an 1899 book, Spirago, Francis; Clarke, Richard F. The Catechism Explained, An Exhaustive Explanation of the Christian Religion: Cross-linked to the Bible.
Jesus said "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10: 37-38) A very good explanation of the idea of the lying miracles of demons--for our purposes, capable of influencing science from nuclear bombs to biological warfare--is from a section on Faith, and the witness of miracles, both true and false.
"The Motives of Faith. Miracles are such extraordinary works as cannot be performed by the mere powers of nature, but are brought about by the intervention of a higher power."
An extraordinary work is one that fills us with astonishment, because we have never seen or heard of anything like it and are unable to find any natural explanation of it: e.g. , the telegraph and the phonograph were extraordinary wonders at the time of their first invention. But their unwonted character is not sufficient to constitute these things as miracles; a miracle must also surpass all the forces of nature. Thus the raising of the dead to life is not only an extraordinary fact, but it is one that no amount of skill or knowledge will enable a man to perform. Miracles are thus exceptions to the ordinary course of nature; they appear to transgress the laws of nature, but they do not really do so. The laws of nature still hold good, but they are suspended in their action by an intervening power.
There are true and false miracles.
The former (the true miracles) are worked by the power of almighty God, the latter (the lying wonders) appear to surpass the powers of nature, but are really the effect of the employment of the powers of nature by evil spirits, who by reason of their greater knowledge and power are able to produce results that deceive and mislead us. Miracles are divided into miracles of the first class and miracles of the second class. The former are those which altogether surpass all the powers of nature, as the raising of the dead to life. Miracles of the second class are extraordinary actions which might have been performed by the powers of nature, but not in the same way or in the same space of time, as the healing of a sick man by a word, or the sudden acquisition of the knowledge of a foreign language.
Miracles are wrought by almighty God only for His own glory, and especially for the confirmation of true doctrine.
Sometimes it is to show that a man is a true messenger sent by God; sometimes to bear witness to the holiness of one who is dead, or to his virtue or justice. God never works a miracle in confirmation of false doctrine.
All important documents must bear the stamp or signature of the person sending them out, as a mark of their being genuine. God also has His stamp, by which He certifies that some doctrine is from Him, or that some messenger is sent by Him. This stamp consists in miracles. It is one that cannot be counterfeited. Our Lord Himself appeals to His miracles as a proof of His divine mission ( Matt . xi. 4, 5; John x. 37 ). Elias did the same ( 3 Kings xviii. ). Miracles still continue to be worked in the Catholic Church in proof of the truth of her teaching. God also works miracles in proof of the holiness of the dead, often at their graves, as at that of Eliseus ( 4 Kings xiii. 21 ), or for those who invoke them. Two miracles must be attested as having been worked by the intercession of a servant of God, before he is beatified, and others before he is canonized. Under the Jewish covenant the saints worked miracles chiefly during their life; under the Christian covenant they work the greater number after their death. God also works miracles to manifest His goodness and His justice, as when the water flowed in the desert to supply the thirsting Israelites, and when Ananias and Saphira were struck dead. God never works miracles in proof of false doctrine, though He sometimes permits wicked men to be deceived by the false miracles worked by the devil. Thus the devil sometimes heals the sick rapidly or suddenly through his superior knowledge of the powers of nature.
In working miracles God usually makes use of the intervention of man, sometimes even of wicked men.
Those whom God has created can only work miracles when God gives them the power. The saints always worked miracles in the name of God, or of Our Lord. Our Lord alone could work miracles in His own name. Bad men are sometimes employed by God as the instruments of the miracles by which He establishes the truth ( Matt . vii. 22, 23 ). We must not be too ready to have recourse to the hypothesis of a miracle, if the fact supposed to be miraculous can be accounted for in any other way.
Prophesies are clear and definite predictions of future events that can be known to God alone.
Prophecy also includes a prediction of future events, which de pend on the free will of man, for such events can only be foreseen by God Himself. The most thorough knowledge of material causes avails nothing. They are often just the opposite of what our previous knowledge would have led us to expect, e.g. , the denial of Our Lord by St. Peter ( Cf . Mark xiv. 31 ), which Our Lord predicted. Prophecies may be called miracles of the omniscience of God, as distinguished from the miracles of His omnipotence, for prophecy requires an acquaintance with the heart of man such as God alone possesses ( Is . xli. 23 ). The oracles of the heathen correspond to the false miracles of which we have already spoken. They were mostly obscure and sometimes ambiguous, as when the oracle at Delphi told Crossus that if he crossed the river Halys with his army he would destroy a mighty kingdom, but did not say whether that kingdom was to be his own or that of his enemies. Many predictions were given by the oracles and the heathen soothsayers which were not true prophecies, but were guesses made from a knowledge of the laws of nature and from the laws that regulate the general course of human development. The evil spirits, through their superior knowledge, were often able to foretell events that men could not foresee, such as the approach of a storm or pestilence, or the death of some individual.
God for the most part entrusts the prophesying of future events to His messengers, for the confirmation of the true faith or for the benefit of men.
Thus God entrusted the prophets of the Jewish covenant with the prophecy of a Redeemer to come, in order to confirm the belief in Him, to convince those to whom He came that He was the true Messias and those who have lived since His coming of the truth of the Christian religion. He sent Noe to prophesy the Flood, in order to lead men to do penance. Sometimes He revealed the future to wicked men, as when to Baltassar He foretold his coming destruction by the handwriting on the wall. Sometimes He employed wicked men as the instruments through which He foretold the future, as e.g., Balaam ( Numb . xxiv. 1 seq. ), and Caiphas, as being the high priest of the year ( John xi. 49 ). But in general He only employed as instruments of prophecy His own faithful servants, revealing the future event either through a vision, or by an angel, or through some interior illumination. Thus the archangel Gabriel was sent to instruct Daniel during the Babylonian captivity respecting the time of the coming of the Messias. The prophecies of the Apocalypse were mostly put before St. John in the form of a vision. Such communications were given to the prophets only from time to time. None of them had a permanent knowledge of future events. Thus Samuel did not know who was to be the future king of Israel till David was actually presented to him ( 1 Kings xvi. 6-12 ).
The gift of prophecy is therefore, generally speaking, a proof that he who possesses it is a messenger from God.
The fulfillment of the prophecy is, of course, necessary before we recognize it as a proof that he who utters it is a messenger from God. It must not contradict any revealed doctrine, or be inconsistent with the holiness of God. It must be edifying and profitable to men ( 1 Cor . xiv. 3 ). It must be uttered with prudence and calmness, for it is a mark of false prophets to show no control of self.
A current diabolic delusion which controls very many people is the false healing "technique" Reiki in which demons use their superior knowledge to induce illnesses upon those over whom they have achieved at least temporary control, then "heal" the diseases they themselves have caused. (Reiki is an outgrowth of Tantric yoga, in which carnal relations, consumption of pork and alcohol are performed in graveyards, serious blasphemy against eastern religious traditions; Tantra is itself an outgrowth of Kundalini yoga, which underlies all yoga, "serpent power ascending from the base of the spine". Yoga practice here and abroad is frequently characterized by sexual abuse of female initiates by male "yogis", widely reported in the news.)
Using the now conventional regime-change strategy of the “rent-a-riot”, “Stormin’ Norman” Schwartzkopf Jr.’s daddy, Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. (1895-1958) led the overthrow of the duly elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh on the pretext that that government was too cozy with the Soviets, this despite the fact that the Soviets had seized the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, a constituent of which, Azerbaijan, had historically been a part of Iran. So, rather than honestly threatening to go with Stalin, the Iranians must have been guilty of playing off various foreign factions against one another, at worst.
The reality underlying much of Israel’s hostility to Iran, was that Royal Dutch Shell/BP, a Red Shield possession, suffered nationalization on May 1, 1951 of its Iranian petroleum interests under Mossadegh; though some accommodation has recently been arranged, this history apparently precluded the type of arrangement that birthed the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO) with Saudi Arabia.
(Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal held forth on the Saudis’ undying emnity toward Iran in his recent interview by Tucker Carlson.)
The Israelis can’t claim the historical fiction that Iran is part of Amalek. The Old Testament prophet Isaiah predicted the rise of Persian King Cyrus the Great 100-200 years before his birth, in Isaiah 44:23-45:8, as “God’s Anointed Shepherd”. This was apparently instrumental in Cyrus liberating the Jews from their Babylonian Captivity, after he had conquered Babylon and allowed them to return to Judah, ending the exile in 538 BC; this is described in the Bible as the “Edict of Cyrus” where he permitted the Jews to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.
Thus the unreasoning hatred of Iran by the Zionist entity has no conceivable rationalization, as do the ancestral Zionist hatreds of Russia and Germany.
It’s too bad if you are so un-used to the heavy lifting of doing your own thinking that you get easily snow-blinded by well-thought-out arguments. Go back to sucking on beers & drooling in front of the t.v.
Not to quibble, but the character’s name in TOS episode was Trelane.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
a confabulation of spurious utterances.
“what the f*** did I just read?”
You didn’t “read” “f***”, it’s just rattling around in your head.
Go get some drug recovery therapy.
I’m all for free speech- but that is pretty jumbled. Maybe the original poster mixed up 4 or 5 separate threads. I browsed over something about Star Trek, and then here come the Jews? Wth
“then here come the Jews?”
Uh, oh, there goes any possibility of serious, intelligent discussion.
Q had an IQ of 2005, according to Q. This wouldn’t make him omniscient, but it would put him in a league above Einstein or Hawking.
The Jews will do that
either way, I’m sure we were in no danger of a serious discussion breaking out.
“Uh, oh, there goes any possibility of serious, intelligent discussion.”
—————————
There is no possibility of a serious, intelligent discussion if you can’t stick to one topic at a time. First, you’re talking about a rather minor character in the Star Trek universe. Then you start discussing angels and demons, without relating it in any way back to the original topic, this minor character “Q“ in Star Trek. Then you go off in a comment about Israel’s emnity toward Iran. None of these topics have the slightest thing to do with each other, at least not based upon anything that you have said here on this thread.
Oh, by the way, perhaps Q is simply just a character intended for some drama and some comic relief. He doesn’t have to be related to angels and Demons, not even as a metaphor. Sometimes a character is just a character. You sound like some of my old literature professors, who wanted to put all kinds of meaning into books and characters that the author likely never even thought about. This is what’s known as creating a mountain out of a molehill.
With regard to Israel and Iran, Israel doesn’t have hostility toward Iran, it has hostility toward the regime of the Ayatollas, and that is because that regime has made it one of its missions to utterly wipe Israel off of the map, and has consistently acted consistent with that declared goal. I don’t know about you, but I would not really be very kindly disposed toward anybody who wanted me wiped out. Prior to the Ayatollahs, Israel got along well with Iran. Iran never went to war against Israel in modern history; quite to the contrary, during the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the Shah of Iran made sure that there were oil shipments to Israel. Why would they be hostile to Iran? No, they are hostile to a regime that has declared its undying enmity for the very existence of Israel.
Until and unless you are able to not only stick to one topic, but to make logical and coherent arguments related thereto, there can’t be any serious and intelligent discussions.
bro. You are high.
“…consistently acted consistent….”
————
Please disregard the first word.
Geez, and here I thought that you might appreciate me taking what appeared to be your side.
Oh, well, I’m done with this thread. It’s bad enough to have one illogical nut job to deal with, two is just a bit too much for me. I’m not going to waste my time anymore with either of you two idiots.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?
I hated Q, he was a real jerk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.