A Christians perspective by MalforPresident

Well it depends on who you're talking about. There are two places where Mal shoots seemingly unarmed people. At their bank heist, Mal shoots one of the guards at the bank when he's grabbed by the reavers. This of course, as Mal would say, is an act of mercy. Whether or not pushing him off the mule was a sin or not, we'll that's a different matter entirely. Jesus makes a very clear statement that murder is wrong. However, in that same message, he states that hate in one's heart is the same as murder. So I guess were all guilty of that one, aren't we. I know that there's a neighbor of mine that I'm not too fond of right now. However, in terms of war (which would apply to the shooting of the soldier climbing out of his busted up ship) Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes there's a time for everything, even war. All in all, a lot of Mal's actions are based on protection (or in other words though Mal would never say it love) for his crew. Jesus makes a clear definition that self-sacrifice, love, is the greatest act of righteousness that a man could ever make.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:46 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by MalforPresident:
I'm a huge firefly fan, that also happens to be a Christian. Now, just to clarify, I am not a "Simon and River burning" Christian. Just someone like the Shepherd, "spreading the light to whoever needs it". I wonder if there's any more out there like me? And also, any thoughts on the theological implications of firefly. Sorry if I'm getting too deep.

Never too deep. How about starting with your thoughts? Just a few to get the ball rolling.
Here's one: Do you think Mal could ever get his faith back after the Valley of Serenity? What would it take?
Me personally, I don't think he could, not something you could ever forget. He might become trusting again but "faith?" Naw.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.net

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:08 AM

I disagree with you MRBEN. There are many references to faith, if not Christianity in the firefly 'verse. All the way from Mal kissing his cross for good luck in the first episode (and his subsequent dialog about God's salvation of the beautiful), to Rivers' inquiries about the Bible, and then to Shepherds dying response to the necessary acts of war. Morality, ethics, and the definition of what "sin" really is (i.e. the alliance's ultimate sin) is very important to the firefly 'verse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:25 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by MalforPresident:
All in all, a lot of Mal's actions are based on protection (or in other words though Mal would never say it love) for his crew. Jesus makes a clear definition that self-sacrifice, love, is the greatest act of righteousness that a man could ever make.

Well put; thank you.
And very interesting thread, btw.

The Buddha-like Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:44 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Quote:
Originally posted by est120:

Steering clear of the religious aspect, I did not think the guy was surrendering. He just seemed to be climbing out of the crashed ship. As Alliance, he is a threat to the crew, so Mal shot him. Just my opinion.

I disagree.

Mal shot the Alliance pilot out of revenge. The pilot straffed a harmless village full of refugees and children. He killed Book & the friends the crew had made on Haven. The guy was wounded & not a real threat, so I think him being considered a threat to the crew is not really on Mal's mind.

Had I been in Mal's place I would have killed him too.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:55 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by est120:
I did not think the guy was surrendering. He just seemed to be climbing out of the crashed ship. As Alliance, he is a threat to the crew, so Mal shot him.

The guy's hands being up didn't give you a clear indication that he was surrendering? And how is a pilot of a crashed ship a threat? Don't know about the Alliance, but in the U.S. military, pilots aren't cross trained as infantry. Nope, Mal was taking revenge for Book and Haven, and Joss was saying, "Look, everyone! Mal's really, really angry."

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:56 AM

WINDWALKER

Someone described war in these few words
"War is hell"
In the field there is no room for compromise and all who are involved may be following orders or not. We all have our own consciences to deal with.
We have freedom of choice but we must suffer the consequences for our own actions.
I think Mal felt he had no time to deal with the Alliance scum who exterminated his friend Book and the innocent children. So his answer was simple and quick.
"Let God sort it out"
The surrendering soldier he shot had the choice of NOT killing the innocent children on Haven but his choice was made.
In other words
"He who lives by the sword...dies by the sword" ...Jesus in the Garden to Peter

The same goes for Mal...

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:56 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehavin:
He's commented that the idea behind Serenity was that there is no clear good and evil and that the idea of sin is outmoded. On that I must disagree, but I still love Firefly!

I definitely agree with you here.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:56 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by MalforPresident:
I'm a huge firefly fan, that also happens to be a Christian.

Me, too.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:07 AM

MISBEHAVEN

When someone places both hands in the air it is generally considered to be a sign of surrender, yet Mal shot him. Not that I care, because the Alliance pilot just massacred all of Mal's friends.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:07 AM

I too am a believer in the Lord, and I thoroughly enjoy this show, but have my reservations about it, as well.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, I heard about this show before it ever aired, and when I heard about the Companion character, I wasn't interested in watching it (and never did during its initial run).

I discovered the show via the trailer for the film (which I saw on the first day), and then began watching the re-runs on Sci-Fi. I've been an officially-addicted Browncoat ever since.

While I'm certainly not overlooking (or condoning) the pre-marital/extra-marital sex (and references) (which is sadly found in nearly every bit of contemporary entertainment), I find myself thoroughly enthralled by this show/movie.

While I did purchase the "Serenity" DVD (on the second day after it came out), because the Companion/sexual stuff is more prevalent in the show than it is in the movie, I could not bring myself to purchase the "Firefly" DVD.

And as a brief matter of explanation, it's not that the Companion is simply there (a part of the show) that bothers me -- but that the whole show seems to be condoning (even glorifying) a behavior which I firmly believe to be wrong. I know such thinking likely seems prudish in this age (that sex is meant to be shared exclusively between two people who are married to each other), but I've seen firsthand the damage sex outside of marriage eventually brings. It certainly isn't a victimless crime.

The sad thing is, I don't think the inclusion of that conduct makes the show any more artistically gratifying. So why do writers feel compelled to throw it into their works? I have to confess that I'm quite clueless, and wish I knew the answer.

"Looked bigger when I couldn't see him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:38 AM

PADAN

I am an Evangelical pastor and have enjoyed Firefly / Serenity immensely. Here's a review that I wrote about the series last November, which was posted on this forum at that time by one of my congregation members (which is how I found out about this group):

Author H.L. Mencken once said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” Of course, the converse of that maxim is that many, many people have gone broke due to overestimating the intelligence of the American people. Lately, most of them have been in the television and movie industries. It is a sad truth that directors and producers who want to create artistic programs and movies with emotional and intellectual depth can’t usually get enough of a response from the viewing public to cover their expenses, let alone make a profit. We want to blame Hollywood for the mindless garbage that it produces, but they’re only selling what we’re buying.

The most recent example of this kind of artistic injustice is the movie “Serenity”. Never heard of it? I’m not surprised. Would it help if I told you that it was based on a recent television series called “Firefly”? Never heard of that either? I rest my case. In my opinion, this was one of the best series on television in the past few years, but it was cancelled a couple of years ago, after one season, because no one was watching. That includes me; I only heard about the show a few months ago. After hearing numerous recommendations, I purchased the DVD set for the series and loved it. It’s now one of my favorite programs; too bad it’s dead!

Joss Whedon, the producer of the series, believed so much in the quality of his story that, against all odds, he took it to the big screen. The movie, “Serenity”, came out a couple of months ago, but it quickly tanked at the box office and is now probably out of all the theaters. So why am I reviewing and recommending it to you now? Because the movie will come out on DVD in a few months, and it looks like that will be your last chance to enjoy this unique and well-done story.

I should start by saying that this is a science fiction movie, but before half of you stop reading, let me make it clear that the futuristic elements of the story are truly secondary - part of the scenery, not a major player. As a matter of fact, Whedon purposely places events on other worlds that look like the old West, complete with horses, saloons, and tumbleweeds. The idea is that in the next 500 years the human race expands into the galaxy from planet earth, and the farther from earth you go the less technological and the more frontier-like (and barbaric) civilization becomes. It is on this “outer rim” of civilization that most of the action occurs. And all of the characters in the series and movie are human; there’s not a single alien.

The central character is Malcolm Reynolds, a tough former soldier of rebel armies who lost a devastating war against the all-powerful Alliance. He escapes with only his trusted lieutenant and eventually acquires a “firefly-class” cargo space ship so that he can make a living transporting stolen goods. To supplement his ill-gotten income he takes on a motley group of passengers, each with their own complicated pasts, and together they form an odd family. Along with the crew there is a mercenary, a doctor, a “shepherd” (minister), a “companion” (geisha), and the doctor’s sister, who was rescued from some kind of diabolical experimentation at the hands of the Alliance.

The strength of the series and movie is the depth of the characters. By the time I had watched the first couple of shows I felt like I knew and cared about the captain and his crew. The dialogue is well-written, with a good mixture of crisp, laugh-out-loud humor and heart-felt drama. I have to warn you that there is some violence and sexual content that make portions of the movie and a few of the shows inappropriate viewing for younger and undiscerning viewers (one show in particular that is inappropriate for any of us).

My overall impression of the series and movie is that Joss Whedon, the producer, takes a respectful, positive approach to vaguely Christian beliefs in the series. The Shepherd character is a clergyman who takes on the role of being the conscience for the crew. He is specifically identified with the Bible and Christianity during the show, and is presented in a consistently positive light - strong and principled. As I watched the individual shows I kept waiting a dark side of him to be revealed, in true Hollywood fashion, but it didn’t happen. A dark past is hinted at, but it is one from which he appears to have repented.

The captain, Mal Reynolds, is a fascinating character. At one point, in a flashback scene during the war with the Alliance, as he leads his troops into battle, he kisses a cross around his neck and says a prayer. But in the present, he is shown to be a bitter atheist who doesn't want to hear about faith, obviously a result of the trauma he experienced in the war. But there are a few moments during the show where you can see that he's wrestling with his unbelief, struggling to deny his former faith in the same way that he denies his affections for Inara, the geisha. He tries to come across as an amoral thief who is willing to do anything to survive, but an underlying sense of morality continually drives him to do the right thing, resulting in him becoming a Robin Hood-type character.

There is an anti-authoritarian bent to the series and the movie that is directed at the state, not so much at the church. I found the whole story to be kind of an "anti-Star Trek", in kind of a post-modern sort of way, showing that scientific progress and human government cannot usher in any kind of utopia. I think that was Whedon's point in making the series a combination of old Western and science fiction - man's nature doesn't change just because technology changes. The same kind of villains, the same kind of dilemmas, the same hope for heroes.

“Serenity” and “Firefly” embody a rare combination for the science fiction genre – great story-telling and in-depth characters that are worth knowing. Too bad so few people have even heard of them.

--------------------------------------------------
"The worth and excellency of a soul is to be measured by the object of its love."
Henry Scougal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
While I'm certainly not overlooking (or condoning) the pre-marital/extra-marital sex (and references) (which is sadly found in nearly every bit of contemporary entertainment), I find myself thoroughly enthralled by this show/movie.

I do agree that the mention of sex was very prevalent throughout the firefly series, and I do suppose that I've become desensitized to that kind of material. Before I get started on this next rant, let me just state that I was a virgin until marriage, and will encourage my children to make wise decisions in this vein. However, in terms of what a companion "is", I find it very interesting that history has come full circle in the firefly universe. If you read the Old Testament, especially the book of Esther, you will find the reference of an entity (primarily women) known as concubines. Concubines were from a verying social status and were often groomed and raised for the approval of a King, so that the King might pick her as a queen. Being a concubine was an exalted position in a world where sexual prowess was considered a positive. That being said, Jesus clearly states that we are to have one wife, and Paul tells us to not even have a hint of sexual immorality among us (that is- for those who are followers of Christ). I can see how this matter would deter some people from watching firefly, but I find even more important lessons found in Inaras tales (i.e. that it is impossible to have a sexualy intimate life without becoming emotionaly attached. Even after years of training)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:42 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:49 AM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

You have a right to your beliefs in your personal life, Cartoon, and I would not try to change those even though I do not agree with them. However, I would like to point out that Firefly doesn't necessarily glorify the Companion lifestyle. It is clearly shown to be a source of great tension in the relationship between Mal and Inara.

Also, as someone who fancies himself a writer, I don't like when people ask, "Why did they have to put that in the story?" or "Why didn't they do it this way?" or "Was that really necessary?" For one thing, you could say these things about any element in a story, and if you took away everything someone questioned you would have nothing left. For another thing, the answer is that it's what the writer wanted to write about. If a storyteller is telling a story that's not to your liking, then you can find another storyteller that suits your fancy better. However, if the storyteller's story is compelling enough to you, then I would suggest you just grin and bear it.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:53 AM

BOWIE

I think that Firefly and Serenity are smack dab full of realness, and so theres religous stuff, but its not in the main ground. Unless your like the Sheperd you don't think about God all the time, you think about work and life. Thats why folk need sheperds, because we need someone who can think on it when we can't. In that, the Sheperd may have told Mal not to kill the guy, if the guy hadn't killed Sheperd first. If you stab yourself in the stomach, you can hardly complain when you bleed.

I find Firefly and Serenity very religous, but subltly, not in your face, heres another Gou shi, lame, hallow pointed religous film. There are some religous films I like, Almost an Angel is one, but most are just too preachy. The kind'd turn away anyone who didn't believe, and bore them that do.

In other words, I LOVE FIREFLY!

Serenity Forever.

If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:58 AM

BOWIE

sorry, read the post above the one I just made.

I think that Anara's job is seen as bad by Mal, and I think that she has, in the show, been made to make a choice. Anyone who doesn't watch because she's a companion doesn't get Firefly. Mal won't take Anara as a companion, and Anara can't take a husband and still be a companion. She has to make the desision, does she love Mal enouph to drop her job, the one thing she has been raised to do from the time she was twelve, or is she too afraid of trying something new, to scared to let go. Its a big thing for her, her job defines her, makes her able to have presige and honor, can she give that up?

Thats the point of the end scene with Anara, its not just will she stay on the ship, but will she stop being a companion. her reply,

"I'm not sure."

If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:06 AM

VISKY

In the episode where river 'fixes' the sheperds bible I personally really like what they did there. She clearly has a problem with the illogical parts of the bible so she feels the need make the bible make sense to her. I love how they point out the parallels in the creation of the universe but eventually, river realizes what the bible really is to the shepard. It is not an informational book of straight facts as she is used to but it is a symbol that represents what the shepard stands for. As she says when she brings the pages of the bible back to the shepard "I ripped these out of your symbol and they became paper, so I want to put them back." I enjoy the respect she has for the shepard and what he beleives in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalforPresident:
Just someone like the Shepherd, "spreading the light to whoever needs it".

Shepard Book was never really evangelical or to say "spreading the light to whoever needs it", his goal always seemed to be for the crew to have faith. A non-denominational, non-religious faith. Faith in ones beliefs and faith in ones self. He at somepoint makes the statement to Mal: "I don't care what you believe, just believe in something" or something along those lines.
In the Infamous "Bible is broken" discussion Book says "It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about 'faith'.You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you."

My point being, Books Faith in the Bible (christianity) saved him from his demons. He seemed to spend time trying to save Mal from his, but never once was it directed towards any particular faith.

Only the half mad are wholly alive!
E.A.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:22 AM

DIETCOKE

I try to follow the teachings of Christ. I really like the way Book was betrayed.

NY/NJ/CT Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
For another thing, the answer is that it's what the writer wanted to write about.

Granted.

But, I wonder "why". I've written, too (among other things, I had a comic strip on the internet which I updated daily for over 5 years, which maintained a decent-sized, loyal readership), and I've never found glorifying immorality necessary to make a story better.

A writer sometimes has to portray immorality, but glorifying immorality is something else, and (in my opinion) detracts, not helps the story.

(EDIT: Oh, I forgot in my initial response. I do believe that "Firefly" does glorify the companion's immorality. Inara is easily considered the most respected person on Serenity because of what she does -- which is having sex with people to whom she's not married.)

For instance, I enjoyed "King Kong". It won't go on my all-time 100 list, but it was easily worth the price of admission in my opinion. Nonetheless, I had to cringe at the three or four occasions where the writer felt it necessary to use the Lord's name inappropriately. Those uses (in my opinion) did nothing to further the story, only ailenate people (like myself) who don't like seeing their Savior's name used in a profane matter.

Do writers WANT to offend Christians? I certainly don't believe that non-believers feel better because of a profane use of the Lord's name, but I know that many believers do feel worse (are offended) because of it. So, if it doesn't improve the story or attract your target audience, but does offend another segment of the potential audience, why include it?

Maybe I'm just naive, but it makes no sense to me.

Anyhow, I appreciate your views, and am glad for this thread, which makes an interesting read and avenue for discussion.

"You don't pay me to talk pretty."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:46 AM

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Do writers WANT to offend Christians? I certainly don't believe that non-believers feel better because of a profane use of the Lord's name, but I know that many believers do feel worse (are offended) because of it. So, if it doesn't improve the story or attract your target audience, but does offend another segment of the potential audience, why include it?

I think the answer to that one is simple: because it's realistic. That's the way a lot of people really are. They take the Lord's name in vain, have extra-marital sex, what have you. If people were to write a bunch of stories where none of the characters swore, never had sex with people they weren't married to, or didn't lie, cheat and steal, people wouldn't believe them. They would go, "this isn't the way people really are, this writer has no understanding of real life" and the stories would quickly be dismissed. I understand that you want everyone to be sin-free and saint-like, and so do I, but the simple fact of the matter is, that's never gonna happen. And nobody would buy into stories like that, either. The first rule of fiction is to make it realistic and believable.

"I'm having one of those things - a headache with pictures."

"Of course I'm right. And if I'm not, may we all be horribly crushed from above somehow."

Like books? Go to this thread: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=14862
to find out how to buy mine!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
I think the answer to that one is simple: because it's realistic. That's the way a lot of people really are. They take the Lord's name in vain, have extra-marital sex, what have you. (snip)

I've heard that reasoning before, Queen, and as much I enjoy pretending your posts are invisible

, it doesn't wash (no Serenity pilot's name pun intended).

You don't have to include curse words to show realism. I'm sorry. I know I've seen (and read) very gritty, true-to-life stories where they weren't used and (in my opinion) nothing suffered as a result. A good example I can give you were Frank Miller's "Daredevil" comics in the 1970's. No curse words. Very realistic portrayal. They aren't necessary. You won't convince me otherwise.

Regarding portraying immorality and such, I'm not arguing with that. Sometimes it needs to be portrayed (albeit, not graphically, in my opinion). I'm not arguing against its portrayal, just its glorification.

Now, please tell me that you're not going to kill me with your brain (your signature quote still frightens me)...

"The girl's a problem."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:25 AM

CAPTAINCDC

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
For another thing, the answer is that it's what the writer wanted to write about.

Granted. But, I wonder "why". I've written, too (among other things, I had a comic strip on the internet which I updated daily for over 5 years, which maintained a decent-sized, loyal readership), and I've never found glorifying immorality necessary to make a story better.

A writer sometimes has to portray immorality, but glorifying immorality is something else, and (in my opinion) detracts, not helps the story.

(EDIT: Oh, I forgot in my initial response. I do believe that "Firefly" does glorify the companion's immorality. Inara is easily considered the most respected person on Serenity because of what she does -- which is having sex with people to whom she's not married.)

For instance, I enjoyed "King Kong". It won't go on my all-time 100 list, but it was easily worth the price of admission in my opinion. Nonetheless, I had to cringe at the three or four occasions where the writer felt it necessary to use the Lord's name inappropriately. Those uses (in my opinion) did nothing to further the story, only ailenate people (like myself) who don't like seeing their Savior's name used in a profane matter.

Do writers WANT to offend Christians? I certainly don't believe that non-believers feel better because of a profane use of the Lord's name, but I know that many believers do feel worse (are offended) because of it. So, if it doesn't improve the story or attract your target audience, but does offend another segment of the potential audience, why include it?

Maybe I'm just naive, but it makes no sense to me.

Anyhow, I appreciate your views, and am glad for this thread, which makes an interesting read and avenue for discussion.

"You don't pay me to talk pretty."

One thing that you need to realize is that "immorality" is subjective. What is immoral to you is not immoral to me or to many, many others that do not share your belief in your religion. It sounds like you might be in favor of censorship to shield you and others of your ilk from "sin" or "temptation". Joss is an atheist (myself, I'm an agnostic). So why should he alter his artistic vision simply because a few christians are uncomfortable with human sexuality or using YOUR "lord's" name in vain. It's his vision. Who are you to question his artistic vision simply because you are uptight about sex or language. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

---------------------------------------

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincdc:
Who are you to question his artistic vision simply because you are uptight about sex or language. If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Well, this thread wanted a Christian's perspective. I gave one. My perspective includes a frustration with why people do this. For me to omit this frustration would not be a true perspective from this Christian.

As much as I enjoy "Firefly" and "Serenity", stuff like this tarnishes it for me (and I'm sure others, as well). Who knows how many people like myself initially ignored this series (as I did) because of the Companion character, but who (unlike myself) never came back?

Obviously, there's nothing on earth anyone can write which won't offend someone, somewhere. And I agree that a writer shouldn't cater their material to anyone but themselves. I say that both as someone who's written as well as someone who enjoys reading/viewing the works of others. That being said, you'd think that a writer would want the widest range of audience possible -- which they're chancing to lose when they include things which they know will essentially close out a certain demographic from their potential audience.

"Time for some thrillin' heroics."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:01 AM

I started this thread with the hopes of peace, however that seems to be slipping away every minute. Lol. I've heard some very interesting arguments for and against alot of litterature, even that of the classics (Poe, Dante, etc...), and have come to one conclusion; Authors are going to state what they feel. This is what is subjective. Untill this thread I had not known that Joss was an atheist. That does not detter me from his writting one bit. Writting is about relaying a point. Joss has many points in his shows that are well thought out reflections of life, and for that I am appreciative. It is easier to learn something through a story when the writer doesn't ladden the story with personal convictions but lets the characters be true to thier parts. This is why I say bravo to Whedon in his introduction of Book into his story. As a guiding mentor in my life used to say "When you read a book son, Eat the meat and spit out the bones."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:02 AM

Quote:

(EDIT: Oh, I forgot in my initial response. I do believe that "Firefly" does glorify the companion's immorality. Inara is easily considered the most respected person on Serenity because of what she does -- which is having sex with people to whom she's not married.)

She Is respected becuase she is the only one with a formal education, and is part of a High Society. Kaylee Looks up to her as a big sister. On the other hand, Mal HATES what she does and belittles her for it.

Edit:
Inarra is also:
Highly inteligent
Very Compasionate
Level headed
Excellent listener
Commuicates well

She was trained to be these things, she was trained to be a "person" that everyone likes and respects.
Only the half mad are wholly alive!
E.A.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:13 AM

HAPPYBRAIN

You're assuming that everyone's idea of morality and indecency is the same, Cartoon. If that were true there would be nothing to discuss on this, or any, website. Society as we know would not exist without debate. We would all just lay down.
People curse in real life. People kill in real life. People have exta-marital and pre-marital sex in real life. Therefore it would be unrealistic not to include these things if it were Joss's goal to portay realism on Firefly.
I think one of the reasons this show has the fan base it does is because of the moral conflicts between the characters. Who wants to watch a show about a ship full of shiny happy people?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:16 AM

FREERADICAL42

Quote:
I try to follow the teachings of Christ. I really like the way Book was betrayed.

NY/NJ/CT Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc

I think you mean "portrayed" :) Either that or you picked on something I never noticed?

As for belief as a browncoat, I think that it's good that all kinds of people can like this show and find something from it. Whether the characters are immoral or not isn't at debate, really; it's what the take-home message is, and that's that people at the end of their luck, running and desperate, can still find a way to happiness and family. And even if there's a space-hooker, that's a good message.

I'm a believing person, and so Book's character really connected with me. I'm not a Christian, so I liked that he was more of a generalized religious figure rather than a specific guy. It would have turned me off to hear preaching about a specific religion; I get enough of that from "friends" who are convinced that Heaven is mercilessly open only to those who accept their way of thinking (and no, I'm not just talking about Christians...all sorts of people can be closed-minded). I don't understand why some people believe that their religion's flame must burn so brightly that it extinguishes the flame of other moral religions.

The thing that I liked especially about Firefly is that it made clear, through the 'it fixes you' bits and other things that faith does not answer the 'how' but rather the 'why.' This is an important distinction that is lost between scientists and theologians, who both seem to think that their discipline answers everything. Science tells you what's under the sun (nothing new, I've heard), and faith tells you what's above it. I liked that Firefly hinted that the two don't have to be at odds, since this is how I feel, being a scientist and a religious person.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MtnScott:
Edit:
Inarra is also:
Highly inteligent
Very Compasionate
Level headed
Excellent listener
Commuicates well

E.A.

I agree whole heartedly. Inara was a very real character. It was her reactions to her own life that kind of got to me. Did anyone else feel like she felt trapped in the "Companion" lifestyle? Was this because of her feelings for Mal, or just a general discontent?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HappyBrain:
Who wants to watch a show about a ship full of shiny happy people?

It's called "The Love Boat" Happy. And only a few of them were shiny...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:23 AM

I Think Inarra was happy with her profession and life. Her heart wants to be with MAl. This is the same conflict many of us go through. We Are very happy with our professional life, but we begin to resent it because it removes us from the things we love.

Only the half mad are wholly alive!
E.A.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:29 AM

JHANCE11

obviously Mal is not A "bad" man, he is A ex-sargent in the military. If you'll remember his remark in the movie "if I go to war you'll know it" also he was getting ready for what appeared at the time A suicide mission past the Reavers to Miranda. If your going to tell your crew you'll "shoot anyone who gets in my way" it has to be believealble. No what he did was'nt mean just nessissary.

jhance11

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:46 AM

JHANCE11

Like yourself I also believe in God. unlike you however I do not believe the bible is the word of God. Since yo brought up noah,here's some science to chew on. If the ark had been built to the specs laid out in the bible it would have been 4 footballs fields long. Now not withstanding that Noah had only his family and maybe A few friends to build this.We know for A fact steel was not available or even known yet in this period. It is fact A wooden ark of that size would have sunk like A stone due to the weight and stress. It would have sprung hundreds of leaks( check with the boys at Cal-tech. Also with the time period they were given to bring in every animal on the planet to the ark, they would have had to load 5 animals every second non stop. no rest no breaks no day off. Just the simple mathmatics. Also under hurricane 5 conditions it could rain 40 days and 40nights and stillnever come close to engulfing the world in water. Do I take the Bible litterally. No.
Do it think it has many wisdoms and much to teach the world absolutely. Many religions throughout history have had to make adjustments to reality. Just my perspective

jhance11

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:52 AM

Yeah, I know...that ark thing seems impossible, doesn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:55 AM

HAPPYBRAIN

TOUCHE!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:13 AM

OMELET

Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
Like yourself I also believe in God. unlike you however I do not believe the bible is the word of God. Since yo brought up noah,here's some science to chew on. If the ark had been built to the specs laid out in the bible it would have been 4 footballs fields long. Now not withstanding that Noah had only his family and maybe A few friends to build this.We know for A fact steel was not available or even known yet in this period. It is fact A wooden ark of that size would have sunk like A stone due to the weight and stress. It would have sprung hundreds of leaks( check with the boys at Cal-tech. Also with the time period they were given to bring in every animal on the planet to the ark, they would have had to load 5 animals every second non stop. no rest no breaks no day off. Just the simple mathmatics. Also under hurricane 5 conditions it could rain 40 days and 40nights and stillnever come close to engulfing the world in water. Do I take the Bible litterally. No.
Do it think it has many wisdoms and much to teach the world absolutely. Many religions throughout history have had to make adjustments to reality. Just my perspective

jhance11

Hey ya'll. Thought I'd join this too. I'm an Evangelical Christian as well and thought it'd be good to come and speak my mind.

With reagards to your comments saying that the boat would have sunk and that the world would have not been covered in water after 40 days and nights,I disagree. This is God we're talking about. God can do anything. God is the supreme ruler and father. He can cause anything to happen. God protected Noah's ark so that he wouldn't sink and drown with the rest of the Earth while it rained for 40 nights and days. For all we know, the conditions could have been more than category 5 conditions because, remember, it's God. Today, hurricanes are caused by natural forces found on Earth. This storm was caused by God and he could have made it as strong as he wanted, even strong enough to wipe out the Earth in 40 days.

On your second point, I totally agree that many religions and philosophies had to change to conform to societies. Take Buddhism as an example. Later, the idea that all are equal was changed to fit the male dominant society so now the women are below the men and must remain that way. Buddha originally wanted it to be an equal relationship and was one of the few men who saw that equality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jayne: Are you saying River's a witch?
Wash: Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the Beast.
Jayne: She's in Congress?
Wash: How did your brain even learn human speech? I'm just so curious!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:15 AM

OMELET

Quote:
Originally posted by MalforPresident:
Yeah, I know...that ark thing seems impossible, doesn't it?

I believe nothing is impossible as long as you have faith in God. To some people, it's impossible to have something like that happen or to believe that people rise from the dead, ie: Lazerus, but for me, it's as natural as breathing.
You just have to believe and have faith.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jayne: Are you saying River's a witch?
Wash: Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the Beast.
Jayne: She's in Congress?
Wash: How did your brain even learn human speech? I'm just so curious!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:19 AM

PRINCESSROHANNEN

I wonder why it is that so many people automatically start to get defensive and antagonistic the moment a word like "morality" is thrown into a conversation?

And why are there so many here on this board trying to force a relativistic view of morality on those of us who happen to believe that right and wrong are absolute?

Some of us believe that right and wrong change relative to one's experience and situation. ("To understand all is to forgive all," as someone once said.) Others among us believe that right is right and wrong is wrong no matter what.

I happen to fall into the second camp, but I'd like to clarify: In no way am I implying that anyone is a "bad person." From my perspective, we all do things that are "wrong". I am not here to pass judgement. In fact, I believe that condemning another person for his or her shortcomings is "wrong".

What blows my mind is that there are so many people on this board who think that they're actually going to be able to convince someone to drop his or her stance on morality.

There is no empirical evidence that can prove that morality is absolute. There is also no empirical evidence that can prove that morality is relative.

Accusing someone of being narrow-minded or naive isn't going to do anything except raise emotional levels and drown out open discussion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:25 AM