Quote:

---

Originally posted by Omelet:
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Omelet:
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.

---

So also, this is a really terrible argument. The Old Testament makes a strong effort to always explain miracles in terms of natural phenomena; these are all things that could have happened on their own but are very, very unlikely and thereby miraculous. Why would G-d have made the laws of physics only to break them? Wouldn't he have just made them differently? It seems like he would operate within them whenever possible.

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Windwalker:
Another observation in the same vein.
What episode did Mal kick the bad guy into an engine intake to his death?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Windwalker:
Jesus is Lord...by the way

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Omelet:

God does things in a grandiose fashion to show that He is the supreme ruler and creator of this Earth and universe. He is showing his power so there is no doubt that he is Lord.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Windwalker:
I should have just put...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
The curse words I agree with you. (snip)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
However, I can only think of one person I know who never swears. And I know a lot of people. So, to me, a story full of a bunch of people who never ever swear would be a bit unrealistic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
As a side note - do you just count taking the Lord's name in vain as a curse word? Or do you include man-made swears in that too? Just curious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Now, as for the immorality thing, I agree with you that it shouldn't be glorified.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
However,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
I don't think Inara's immorality really is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
That's my opinion anyway. But you're entitled to yours. I swear I won't kill you with my brain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by misbehavin:

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. ...also, any thoughts on the theological implications of firefly...

---

I'm a born-again Christian. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that God created everything as described in Genesis. Unlike River, I don't see Noah's Ark as a problem, but I wouldn't burn her for disagreeing with me on that point! While I love the entire Firefly 'verse, I don't really look for any theological implications in it, just as I don't look to Hollywood to confirm my faith. Joss is a creative genius and I marvel at his talent, and feel that in his vision for Firefly he's probably correct that we are the only sentient beings here. 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!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Well, I was gonna post a bunch more stuff arguing with you, Cartoon, but since you want out of this thread, I'll be merciful and leave you alone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
By the way, I agree with people very rarely. So you should feel really special about that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
And also, you have dial-up?? I feel terribly sorry for you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by infamousX:
No offense, but did the fact that Mal constantly calls Inara a whore, and condemns her work, escape your attention? Maybe Joss and/or certain characters condone the activity, maybe not, but it ain't like the views of the other side are silent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nandifan:
...I know plenty of Christians who spend a lot of time trying to change my moral stance, and maybe non-Christians just automatically get their defenses up because people are always trying to convert them to religion....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nandifan:
...I know plenty of Christians who spend a lot of time trying to change my moral stance, and maybe non-Christians just automatically get their defenses up because people are always trying to convert them to religion....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by misbehavin:
I've noticed that the tactics, language, and enthusiasm that Browncoats use to convert others to this 'verse are the same ones that Christians may use to point others toward faith in Jesus. But the similarity ends there. (snip) Browncoats try to evangelize everyone because they feel that what they've found is truly better, and they want to share the good news.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnScott:
Faith in ones beliefs and faith in ones self. Shepard Book 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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jhance11:
My faith is unshaken by the accuracy or lack of it in the bible. My personel belief is the people and events in the scriptures have A basis of thruth that has been embelished upon by preists and storytellers down through the years and have found evidence to support this theory.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jhance11:
Try for A moment to understand why so many good, wise and Godfearing people would be condemed simply because their belief system.( probably taught to them as A child) Was not accuate or missed A few things.......Not to much sense there to me. thank you for your response

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jhance11:
If you'll remeber in the New testimate, Jesus was asked what must A man do to find Heaven.His response mirrored A few points of the Old Testimate but very few.(give A look) Thank for responding

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by misbehavin:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nandifan:
...I know plenty of Christians who spend a lot of time trying to change my moral stance, and maybe non-Christians just automatically get their defenses up because people are always trying to convert them to religion....

---

I've noticed that the tactics, language, and enthusiasm that Browncoats use to convert others to this 'verse are the same ones that Christians may use to point others toward faith in Jesus. But the similarity ends there. In our society it seems that Christians are supposed to just sit quietly and restrain themselves from any attempt to impose their beliefs. Yet Browncoats probably don't spend too much time worrying about whether others really want to be saved from the darkness of reality TV and the hopeless despair of endless "CSI" and "Law & Order" spinoffs. Browncoats try to evangelize everyone because they feel that what they've found is truly better, and they want to share the good news.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnScott:

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.

---

Quote:

---

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



Me, too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Righteous9:
I might be a little late throwing in here on literature and morality, but I'll give my two cents anyway.

Somebody said, and I think it was Chekov, something to the effect that good literature doesn't answer questions, it asks them.

Because this verse has prostitutes, or because this world has swearing, it doesn't mean that there's a glorification of either. All Joss Whedon has done is created a realisitic caste system in which prostitution is looked at a certain way in his verse, and then he's had all of his characters react to it differently. I don't think that anything in the show weighs in one way or another, and I think as a viewer you can make up your own mind, on the moral issues.

I too, have to disagree with the standard question of whether or not something was really neccesary? A writer's job, if he's doing a good one, is not to write propaganda, or create an alternate universe where people don't swear or don't have sex out of wedlock. An author's intention should always be to get at a higher truth. Art explores humanity, the good and the bad of it. If a writer thinks a character would swear at a certain moment, then he is doing injustice to that higher truth if he compromises his vision for a 'greater' audience.

Once you go down the road of Leave it to Beaver, you're no longer writing art, you're writing utopian propaganda. You've decided that exploration into people is unneccesary and that you know everything you're ever going to need to about life.

Please keep exploring, and not shying away from subject matters that make you uncomfortable. If they do nothing else, they will let you appreciate your own lifestyle even more, and they will allow you to understand your choices in a greater context. How can that be a bad thing?

Wonderfully said! This show is supposed to be about realistic human behavior in a world we can only imagine, and you boiled it down into its essence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:


A perfectly legitimate question. Yes, certain characters condemn the behavior/profession, but the verse accepts and glorifies it. Verse trumps individuals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cartoon:

As the Old Testament in use today is virtually identical to the Old Testament in Jesus's day, and the Lord accepted the Scriptures of that day as the true and inspired word of God, I have to ask myself -- "Do I believe that Jesus was the holy, perfect, inerrant Son of God?" If I answer "yes" (and I do), then I have to consider that Jesus accepted those scriptures as the inerrant Word of God. If Jesus was God (as I believe He is), then certainly He would know.

Jesus criticized the religious leaders of His day where their "traditions of men" had added to or taken away from God's word, but He never criticized the Hebrew canon of Scripture -- which, contrarily, He endorsed as the perfect word of God.

Just some food for thought.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by infamousX:
My problem with that logic is that Jesus didn't write the new testament, and none of the books contained therein were written during his lifetime. The canon of accepted books was then chosen hundreds of years later by the papacy, and considering the numerous offenses of corruption which have occured in the past, I'm not one to believe those men are infallible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by infamousX:
the Gospel of Q. "Q" stands for the German word "Quelle" which means "source."

---