^You misunderstood me, my point was not that the women were just evil characters. In the four episodes I previously mentioned, the aliens choose to take the form of women and attack men. It is then the role of the men to stop them. Why do these evil aliens take the form of women so many times compared to men? And why is it the men who are the heroes who must defeat these aliens in disguise as women and not human women? My point about nudity wasn't its existence, but the amount of it compared to male nudity. The nudity in those episodes has nothing to do with the "sexual revolution" and I think it would cause feminists to point out the double standard.
Besides The Choice (which to be fair I haven't seen in awhile) what episodes are you talking about? There was Lithia about the future society of only women, but the message (at least the message I got) was that the women who ran the society became just as domineering, controlling, and violent than the men they had replaced and felt they were better than. I just think you are reading way too much into an anthology series written by many different writers with many different ideas. Most of the writers on the show were men and I doubt that they consciously intended portray men as inherently inferior. It's kinda funny, one complaint about the original Twilight Zone was that it has weak female characters.

There is a difference between making a statement of moral superiority of one sex over the other and merely casting a man or a woman in an evil role, where gender is merely incidental. They are just evil characters. In many of the episodes of this show, it is often that good men are portrayed as being morally deficient for no other reason that they are men. As for the nudity, as much as feminists like to complain about the exploitation of the female body, it was they who started the sexual revolution. Society wasn't quite as pornographic when men were in "charge", so to speak.

^What about episodes such as Quality of Mercy, Caught in the Act, First Anniversary, and Flower Child which all feature the women as not just the villains, but as evil aliens who attack men and must be stopped by men? These episodes also keep up the women as temptresses/seductresses stereotype that I do not think feminists would like. And don't forget the female nudity on the show.

The only real political bias i found on the show is the ever present anti-male screed. In every single episode its always the male who has some form of moral flaw or another, while the wife is always perfect and without faults. In The Choice, the one episode about females with super powers being chased by government agents they make it even look like there's a war going on against women and men. I've come to accept feminist propaganda in modern films but this series takes the cake.

From what I have seen, the messages that Hollywood has to those of the Christian faith are based on their own misconceptions of what Christianity is in the first place. The only people who will buy into such messages are those who have never really understood what Christianity is. And sadly, most people don't. But that is partly because of the many misrepresentations of Christianity in our day by many who claim to be Christians.
Visit my website at
http://members.tripod.com/jdlarsenmn/index.html

Son, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you're completely full of ****.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it.

zeta1983-1 -
This post is bunk, base don a poor understandign of the topic. Mainly it relies on arguments famous Atheists ;ike Richard Dawkisn made, rather than on objective analyisis.
In my experience most Science Fiction writers are not friendly to religion and vice versa.
In y expeirnce, most peopel who are Hostiel to Relgiion, and see themselves as not Religious, are fooling themselves. They hve their own form fo Religion, they just don't cal it that.
I'd also like to pointout two things. Sience Fiction Writers aren't always Scientists, or even usually so, and the fact that most Sci Fi Writers aren't actually hostile to "Relgiion". Soem are, or were, but not all or most. Many "Religious people" also enjoy Sci Fi.
Science is based on questioning and investigation, religion on believing without evidence.
No, Religion is not based on beleif without evidence. If you think you can prove it is by sayign Relgiion is "based on Faith", and then define Faith as beleif withut evidnece, you prove my earlier point. Faith isn't beleif without vidence, its simply another word for Trust. Religion is not base don anything. Religion is a blanket term used to descibe ones beleifs about he nature and meangn fo our exitence, and doens't delve into how one arrives at said beleifs. One can eaisly base ones Religion on Sicntific INvwstigation.
Science & religion aren't always incompatible but in most cases are not good bedfellows.
his is sheer nonsense. The idea that Sicence and Relgiion have any problems at al only goes bakc to the 19th Cntiry, and has been debuned since he 1950's.

Read more science fiction. Or study more religion. There are many religious scientists and I've seen science fiction which includes religion positively (Orson Scott Card, Firefly). But most science fiction just doesn't dwell on religion one way or the other unless its required for the story.

In my experience most Science Fiction writers are not friendly to religion and vice versa. Science is based on questioning and investigation, religion on believing without evidence. Science & religion aren't always incompatible but in most cases are not good bedfellows.

This message has been deleted.

Family Values (with Tom Arnold) was another episode. I think it was a twist on the I,Robot episode as well.

This message has been deleted.

Doesnt' your question assume that beigb a Christain requies
blind
Devotion? That's ot really True.

…and you can also put the blind followers of obama in there buddha. im sure you just forgot.
<sigh> Give a right-winger the slightest chance to show the world how ****ing stupid he is and he'll take it. Every single time.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it.

He couldn't buy a point if he won the lottery.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it.

DrSamba -
and you can also put the blind followers of obama in there buddha. im sure you just forgot.
That's just stupid.
Why? He has a valid pointt. But I think you just want to bash Relgiion and use this as soem fault nly Relgiion has, when in Reality its a fault we ee in other areas.

Oh really you must be calling yourself stupid as well Too bad most of you won't ever get it, until its too late

and you can also put the blind followers of obama in there buddha. im sure you just forgot.
That's just stupid.

There is no difference between Religion and Politics. Both are ways to create groupings of people and influence followers to gain material benefit for top layer.

That is, at best, a gross over simplification and, at worst, yet another shining example of the inadequacies of the public education system and the mass non-education/indoctrination it commits. The First Amendment was written to prevent a FEDERALLY Sponsored Church, not to completely separate politics and religion. In fact, many US states had state religions or required their citizens to be a member of a church. This ended around 1833 when Taxachussetts shut down their established church. The "wall of separation" was an invention pulled out of the butt of the lunatic Earl Warren; his penumbra of pabulum. But, pretending for a moment that anything he said made sense and jelled with a sane person's logic, there is no prohibition what so ever against a person mixing religion and politics. Members of the Church of Hypocritical Left Wing Frakking Nut Cases do it every time they vote.
House and Gibbs are my role models!!!

Idiot.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it.

jbaker1-2 -
Hardly surprising. Conservatives tend to go through life in a permanent state of confusion.
It's sayign things liek this that reinforces the Reality that peopel tend to be tribalist, nd tend to see peopel of ricval Tribes not as simply diffeent, but somehwo inferior or Evil.
Conservatives, of coruse, arent really going through Life perpetually confused, you just rpefer this caricature as it invalidates them as people.

Hardly surprising. Conservatives tend to go through life in a permanent state of confusion.

russedav -
Only to those who don't know what the Constitution actually says.
Oh, I know what it saysand about the men who wrote it.
Only ignorant bigots fail to know America was founded as a Christian nation
Well, the Constitution is nt what America was fouded on, It wasn;'t even the original Document America was governed under.
Its taken on that sort of central role, but its not the original foundation.
And the original Foundation of Americ was open rebellion againt a Christian Government and Christian King.
Which violates Romans 13, by the way.
And do you know much aout King George as a man? He wasn't the Tyrant he was depicted as by Americas less than Honest Foudners.
"endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." Anyone who denies this (e.g. 0bamamaniacs enslaved to our first atheist Muslim white house occupant, not legally elected president)
Obama does not deny this. Nor is he an Atheist, and certiahly not an Atheist Muslim.
In Reality he is a Christian.
Also, he was legally elected.
is himself enslaved and only points one ignorant finger at Christians to have three pointing back at himself,
Obama doe snot condemn Christians in general, so your entire point is invalid.
3x guiltier, proving by his accusations that he knows nothing whatsoever about the faith he attacks, like anything about the Bible he mindlessly attacks, enslaved to the antiscience trash of bogus plagiarist misotheist clergyman Darwin contrary to the true science of greats like creationists Galileo, Pasteur & Von Braun and countless others.
Galileo wa born before Darwin, and may not have been a Creationist. Pasteur was also arond before Darwin but did live in his lifetime, but guess what? He accepted Evolution. So did Von Braun. He was a Lutheran, and tyically Lutherans are not Creatioists.
True science, like America, was founded by creationist Christians;
Actually the idea of gradual Creation and more allegorical readings of Scripture were common int he Middle Ages and even in the Early Modern Period, even amongst Protestants.
Creatioism is a fairly new innovation.
the little we have today is being destroyed by evolutionists devoted to shredding what little's left of that Christian foundation as civilization crumbles around us in the mad rush of 0bamanation and others to return to the evil, vile barbarism whence the true Christian faith (vs bogus caricatures) rescued us.
You do know that many Christias accept Evolutin, Right? And beleiving in volution doesnt mean oen is an Atheist? Or immoral?
See creation.com for the few who can handle the truth that evolution is garbage by useful idiots for useful idiots, something I researched independently for myself in 1975 in college unlike today where the gullible think what they're told to think.
Then present a Reasoned arguent, nt just cheap insult.
The internet has been the glorious death knell for evolution now that its priests and media no longer control the microphone to keep creationists from speaking as they once did as deluded falsely-so-called "liberal" fascists like the evolutionists that opposed creationist Galileo, trying to prevent his geokinetic truth from hindering their geocentric system. If evolutionists had controlled science from then until now we'd still be told to believe the sun revolved around the earth thanks to their "consensus" "science" like today's "anthropocentric global warming" fraud exposed by publicizing the lies of the East Anglia crowd that "cooked the books" to make $ off gullible tree huggers vainlly pretending to know anything about science or reality or the Christian faith, but whose true knowledge about any of it is zero, zero, and zero, only what they're told to think, like on "Outer Limits" where the show itself tells us that everything we see and hear is CONTROLLED by the Controller.
OK, Heliocentrism is not related to Evolution so there's no Reaos tot hink Evolutionists woudl still have us ebelifve it. This is liek when Atheits argue the Bible is a Flat Earht book, tis stupidity.
And many Christians accept Global Warming, which is not a Theological topic at all.
And plenty of peopel disagree wiht you and still hink for themselves.
Outer Limits watchers who attack the Christian faith are blind hypocrites utterly blind to what they're attacking. In addition to www.creation.com, see www.desiringGod.org and www.hopeinGod.org if you dare try to handle the truth that will set you free.
You gave them no Reason to, as you basically insulted them, which makes them defensive.