A Christians perspective by MalforPresident

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

A Christians perspective

POSTED BY: MALFORPRESIDENT
UPDATED: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 29756
PAGE 3 of 3

Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Quote:
Originally posted by infamousX:
the Gospel of Q. "Q" stands for the German word "Quelle" which means "source."
I don't care what it stands for, we need another term. "Gospel of Q" is conjuring up weird (though not entirely unpleasant) mental images.

Actually, I've heard it referred to as the "Q document", and I imagine they derived that title as there is no proof it ever actually existed (it is surmised that it was a common source material, but at this point, it's just a plausible hypothesis) -- and as such, we'd have no idea who authored it (if it exists) -- and thus, can't give it a proper name (like the "Gospel of Smith" -- or whatever).

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:16 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

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. 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.

It's about the culture. It is a reminder of how different things are, even though people's problems (food, shelter, freedom) remain the same. Americans, like myself, are obscene to immense degrees to many people. I mean my god we show elbows, shoulders, knees, and more. You have no idea how wrong that is to so many people. If you showed that in some countries people would have the same reaction as you do (I am NOT saying it is the same thing), since we are desensitized it needs to be more extreme to give the culture shock, also it makes perfect logical sense.

In a world where prostitution is legal you'll have rich people paying them, knowing them, coming back for repeat business, and not needing to hide it.

There's a lot of money right there, a lot of prestige too. But then think about it.

That means that, if you have a guild, you've got an apolitical group connected to both monetary and political power. The potential is unlimited.

Just lean on a "friend" then another, and another. With contacts in ranging from high up to very high up they've got a lot of pull just based on clients that like them. Add to that the fact that the alternative to giving a small favor is a black mark so any of the sex the person is used to paying for has to come from an illegal source, why would they not be powerful?

Also companions are not just prostitutes, they are geisha with sex, years of training before sex is even mentioned.

Besides, Jesus stuck around the unrepentant prostitutes too. Hardly seems right to ignore something's positive value based on sin, unless you're without it who are you to judge? (I'm not being sarcastic.)

A world without sin (where the people are not dead) is one for religious fiction, not science fiction. If there was nothing that you found objectionable to an extreme degree it wouldn't be real. If you didn't see something that made you say, "I shouldn't be watching this," you're watching something without value.

It is not just that way in contemporary life either. Read the bible and there will things that disturb you and that is as it should be. In the bible no one wants to read two daughters get their father drunk so they can have sex with him, but those are the ancestors of Jesus.

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:26 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Yes, certain characters condemn the behavior/profession, but the verse accepts and glorifies it. Verse trumps individuals.

The whole point of the show is that individuals are the important ones. If the verse trumped individuals then we would be rooting for the Alliance and cheering whenever a crew member was killed.

We would be pissed off when the poor people got the medicine that the hospital didn't need, we'd want River back in that place, and we'd want Mal to use the sword fight. These are the things that the verse dictates we should believe in.

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:30 PM

MISBEHAVIN

Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
... Now not withstanding that Noah had only his family and maybe A few friends to build this...

No friends; only Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives. Everyone else probably laughed at him up to the time the rain started and God shut the door. Noah did however have enough time for the project. Although the text doesn't state the amount of time allotted for construction, it does allow us to conclude that it may have taken as much as 100 years.

Quote:
...We know for A fact steel was not available or even known yet in this period...

Shipbuilders managed very well without steel for thousands of years. Wooden ships crossed the ocean and returned safely.

Quote:
... Also with the time period they were given to bring in every animal on the planet to the ark...

God apparently summoned the animals to the Ark: "...and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark.."

Quote:
...Also under hurricane 5 conditions it could rain 40 days and 40nights and stillnever come close to engulfing the world in water...

This was much more than rain: "...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened..." And later in the story it says: "...Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed..."

While this story is amazing, I do believe the entire event happened literally as described in the Bible. The ark itself fascinates me: Depending upong the exact measure of a cubit it was about 450' long x 75' wide x 45' high. These are roughly the proportions of a cruise ship, except that Noah's ark was flatter and would have been more stable. It had 3 decks, all covered, and was large enough for the small band of travelers, the animals, and all the food they needed for the one year they were on board. For more, see http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html
http://www.theoutlaws.com/unexplained10.htm

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:30 PM

MISBEHAVIN

Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
... Now not withstanding that Noah had only his family and maybe A few friends to build this...

Quote:
...We know for A fact steel was not available or even known yet in this period...

Shipbuilders managed very well without steel for thousands of years. Wooden ships crossed the ocean and returned safely.

Quote:
... Also with the time period they were given to bring in every animal on the planet to the ark...

God apparently summoned the animals to the Ark: "...and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark.."

Quote:
...Also under hurricane 5 conditions it could rain 40 days and 40nights and stillnever come close to engulfing the world in water...

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:09 PM

GELASSENHEIT

Too bad there is no Muslim aspects in Firefly, otherwise I coulda talked about the Muslim perspective.

Gelassenheit means Serenity

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:09 PM

GELASSENHEIT

Too bad there is no Muslim aspects in Firefly, otherwise I coulda talked about the Muslim perspective.

Gelassenheit means Serenity

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:15 PM

MICHAELANGELO

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.

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.

Writers write that way because that's how people talk. It's real. If the main villan yelled "Cheese & crackers!" when Mr. Goodguy foiled his master plan, 99% of the people out there would be like, "WTF was that?" And then the movie automatically moves into the "campy" category.

~
You can't take the sky from me

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:19 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
In the bible no one wants to read two daughters get their father drunk so they can have sex with him, but those are the ancestors of Jesus.

Actually, Jesus was not descended from Lot and his daughters -- the Edomites were. I get your point, though.

But, sin (and sinners) in the Bible are not glorified. That's the difference. Also, I would never equate God's word with anything man writes, so the comparison really doesn't hold.

I did clearly draw a distinction between the betrayal of sin and the glorification of it. No portrayal of real life anywhere (even in a Bugs Bunny cartoon) would be accurate without a portrayal of sinful behavior -- particularly as we all sin. However, I will never believe it is right to glorify and applaud that behavior.

In my opinion, the "Firefly" verse as glorifying Inara's profession. Apparently, I'm in the minority in that belief.

I'm a browncoat and major fan of the show and film -- but sadly, it has certainly detracted from my enjoyment of them.

This has certainly been an interesting thread -- but it's getting outrageously long again for the likes of me (with dial-up). (hint, hint, hint)

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

Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:15 PM

MICHAELANGELO

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
When Inara finds that Mal's been with her friend, she seems hurt or betrayed. Yet, she seems to have no problem being with multiple people on a regular basis, herself, and doesn't in any way see that as a betrayal to him (who she obviously seems to have feelings for). (I hesitate to say she "loves" him, because if she did, she certainly wouldn't continue to be with other guys, job or not.)

And, while I'm certainly not excusing Mal's actions by any means, am I the only one who sees a smack of hypocrisy in this?

Firstly, sex, love & attraction are all separate entities. They certainly do overlap, but they are or can be exclusive. You can have sex with someone you don’t love or are not attracted to. You can love someone you don’t want to have sex with & are not attracted to. And you can be attracted to someone you don’t love & may not want to have sex with. Obviously any 2 of these can be combined (and usually are) or all 3. I have no delusions about the separateness of these.

I think Mal became attracted to Mandi, which lead to sex. Did he love her? I doubt it. She was certainly physically attractive. But more than that, he was attracted to her will & determination, her sense of duty to her girls & her business, her matter-of-factness, her gun collection (translate to common interests, etc). He was attracted to the woman, not just what was between her legs. He let himself be seduced by a professional.

Inara has a lot of those same qualities. Mal grew to love her. She is a beautiful person, inside & out; giving, caring, nurturing, etc. Firefly never really went in to how Mal grew to love Inara, so we are left to speculate. What we *did* see was how Mal could have fallen for a whore/companion which was Mandi.

Let me state that i think Mal is above whoring. However he had no problems with having sex with Mandi, because there was an attraction there. Sex can mean nothing or it can mean everything. It’s irrelevant. For Jayne, it was the need to unload; a physical need. For Mal, it was an extension of his attraction for Mandi. *This* I believe is what hurt Inara. She knows he’s above whoring (again, in my belief). If Mal had gotten a “freebie” in a broom closet from one of the girls, i’d wager she wouldn’t have been hurt. But that’s not what happened. Mal found comfort in the arms of another woman. He shared himself with her & opened himself to her above & beyond the physical act of sex. That’s what hurt her.

This is the same with Inara & her clients. There is no love there, no real attraction. It’s just sex, nothing more. She most certainly does love Mal (i can’t see how you can think she doesn’t), but she is not committed to him, thus there is no conflict. Inara knows the difference between sex & love. I think you are confusing the 3 entities of love, sex & attraction. They are not the same thing.

PS: sorry for that whole mess above above. I did some editing that dropped the flow & congruentness of that post right out of the sky…

~
You can't take the sky from me

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

Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:52 PM

FREERADICAL42

Amazing how someone can get an "uncanny" correlation by making things up. I refer to the "feasts" post, which is based on the standard Christian ignorance of the first half of the Bible.

There is no feast of "unleavened bread" or of "first fruits"; these are both parts of passover. The story goes that Jesus died and came back around Passover, with further events around the Feast of Weeks.

This leaves: The Feast of the Tabernacle and the Feast of the New Year (which is not, as you said, the feast of trumpets). That's two out of four, both of which occur in the spring, and even so, the evidence is that the memorialization of these events was correlated with those feasts and has no basis in when they actually occurred. So it's a nice thought, but sorry, no.

I prefer the view that was pushed by the Church during Pope John Paul II's time on earth. This suggested that Christianity was a "fulfillment" of the prophecy that Abraham would become the father (spiritually) of the world, and the entire world would be brought to monotheism. It did not replace, but rather augmented, the previous communications from G-d, allowing them to be seen and heard by a much larger group than had heard them in the first place. As such, the covenant between G-d and Israel was maintained, and a new way for the rest of the world to connect to G-d was forged through the New Testament. As such, both Christians and Jews await the coming of a Messiah; for Christians, it will be the second, and for Jews, the first. The most important part about this view is that it makes it clear that Christians should not ignore the beginning to the Bible. There are some very important things in there, and too many skip them over and do not bother to learn them, evidenced by the ignorance of the number of feasts given to Israel.

If G-d is truly infinite, he would not have communicated books to us in order that they might be ignored. If you want some Bible, you have to take it all.

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

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

Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:11 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
This leaves: The Feast of the Tabernacle and the Feast of the New Year (which is not, as you said, the feast of trumpets). That's two out of four, both of which occur in the spring, and even so, the evidence is that the memorialization of these events was correlated with those feasts and has no basis in when they actually occurred. So it's a nice thought, but sorry, no.

All seven of these feasts are named in the Old Testament, as well as the exact dates on the Jewish Calendar on which they were to be held.

Passover (14th day of the month of Abib)(which falls in March or April of our calendar)
ref - Ex. 12:1-14; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:1-14; 28:16; Deut. 16:1-7.

*Unleavened Bread (15th through 21st days of the month of Abib)(which falls in March or April or our calendar)
ref - Ex. 12:15-20; 13:3-10; Lev. 23:6-8; Num. 28:17-25; Deut. 16:3,4,8.

Firstfruits (16th day of the month of Abib)(which falls in March or April of our calendar)
ref - Lev. 23:9-14; Num. 28:26.

*Weeks (Harvest or Penecost) (6th day of the month of Sivan)(which falls in May or June of our calendar)
ref - Ex. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:15-21; Num. 28:26-31; Deut. 16:9-12.

Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) (1st day of Tishri)(which falls in Sept. or Oct. of our calendar)
ref - Lev. 23;23-25; Num. 29:1-6.

Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)(10th day of Tishri)(which falls in Sept. or Oct. of our calendar)
ref - Lev. 16; 23:26-32; Num. 29:7-11

*Tabernacles (Booths or Ingathering)(15th through 22nd days of the month of Tishri)(which falls in Sept. or Oct. of our calendar)
ref - Ex. 23:16; 34:12; Lev. 23:33-36, 39-43; Num. 29:12-38; Deut. 16:13-15.

* These are the 3 times a year which all male Jews were required to travel to the temple in Jerusalem (Ex. 23:14-19).

Yes, "Firstfruits" and "Unleavened Bread" are part of passover, but they're considered feasts of the Passover. I can refer you to several Jewish sites which will confirm this, not limited to, but including Zola Levitt's webpage (the same Zola Levitt-- who is Jewish -- and who saw the correlation between the feasts and the prophetic events which they typified from which I was referring above.)

Regarding Rosh Hashana not being the feast of trumpets -- Lev. 23:23-24: "Then the LORD spoke to Moses saying, 'Speak to the children of Israel, saying, "In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath, a memorial of trumpets, a holy convocation."'"

Also, Numbers 29:1: "And in the seventh month, on the first of the month, you shall have a holy convocation. You shall do no customary work. For you it is a day of blowing the trumpets."

Don't quite know where you got your information from, but I got mine from the Bible.

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

Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:07 PM

FREERADICAL42

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
This leaves: The Feast of the Tabernacle and the Feast of the New Year (which is not, as you said, the feast of trumpets). That's two out of four, both of which occur in the spring, and even so, the evidence is that the memorialization of these events was correlated with those feasts and has no basis in when they actually occurred. So it's a nice thought, but sorry, no.

All seven of these feasts are named in the Old Testament, as well as the exact dates on the Jewish Calendar on which they were to be held.

Passover (14th day of the month of Abib)(which falls in March or April of our calendar)
ref - Ex. 12:1-14; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:1-14; 28:16; Deut. 16:1-7.

*Unleavened Bread (15th through 21st days of the month of Abib)(which falls in March or April or our calendar)
ref - Ex. 12:15-20; 13:3-10; Lev. 23:6-8; Num. 28:17-25; Deut. 16:3,4,8.

Firstfruits (16th day of the month of Abib)(which falls in March or April of our calendar)
ref - Lev. 23:9-14; Num. 28:26.

*Weeks (Harvest or Penecost) (6th day of the month of Sivan)(which falls in May or June of our calendar)
ref - Ex. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:15-21; Num. 28:26-31; Deut. 16:9-12.

Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) (1st day of Tishri)(which falls in Sept. or Oct. of our calendar)
ref - Lev. 23;23-25; Num. 29:1-6.

Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)(10th day of Tishri)(which falls in Sept. or Oct. of our calendar)
ref - Lev. 16; 23:26-32; Num. 29:7-11

*Tabernacles (Booths or Ingathering)(15th through 22nd days of the month of Tishri)(which falls in Sept. or Oct. of our calendar)
ref - Ex. 23:16; 34:12; Lev. 23:33-36, 39-43; Num. 29:12-38; Deut. 16:13-15.

* These are the 3 times a year which all male Jews were required to travel to the temple in Jerusalem (Ex. 23:14-19).

Yes, "Firstfruits" and "Unleavened Bread" are part of passover, but they're considered feasts of the Passover. I can refer you to several Jewish sites which will confirm this, not limited to, but including Zola Levitt's webpage (the same Zola Levitt-- who is Jewish -- and who saw the correlation between the feasts and the prophetic events which they typified from which I was referring above.)

Regarding Rosh Hashana not being the feast of trumpets -- Lev. 23:23-24: "Then the LORD spoke to Moses saying, 'Speak to the children of Israel, saying, "In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath, a memorial of trumpets, a holy convocation."'"

Also, Numbers 29:1: "And in the seventh month, on the first of the month, you shall have a holy convocation. You shall do no customary work. For you it is a day of blowing the trumpets."

Don't quite know where you got your information from, but I got mine from the Bible.

As far as I can tell, you are translating "offering" to "feast," which is incorrect. The language there refers to separate sacrifices which are all parts of the Passover holiday religious practice. It is surprising that you were able to recognise that "Trumpets" and the New Year are one and the same, but cannot do this with Passover despite the obvious date overlap.

This is also the case with "trumpets"; these aren't musical trumpets, but rather ram's *horns* to be used in battle (for the best example, see Ewoks in Star Wars). I'm not sure if these are the same trumpets that you want to be associating with; I don't have original greek texts for the gospels around.

But I think most of what you're looking at stems from us reading different translations of the same document. I think you might actually be making an even more uncanny parallel if you were to outwardly refer to individual sacrifices, but then you'd have to find parallels with all of the other offerings that occurred, including the daily offering, the holiday offering, etc, etc, etc. I believe that you are seeing this mistranslation because you listed the Day of Atonement (correlating with Moses returning after atoning for all of Israel) as a feast, when it is well known that not eating is one of the afflictions kept for that day. Sacrifice != feast.

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

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

Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:16 PM

PRINCESSROHANNEN

To: Gelassinheit
Re: The Muslim perspective

Why not bring in the perspective anyway?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to hear as many viewpoints as possible. Any text, including Firefly, can be interpreted from any perspective you like.

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 4:05 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
But I think most of what you're looking at stems from us reading different translations of the same document. I think you might actually be making an even more uncanny parallel if you were to outwardly refer to individual sacrifices, but then you'd have to find parallels with all of the other offerings that occurred, including the daily offering, the holiday offering, etc, etc, etc. I believe that you are seeing this mistranslation because you listed the Day of Atonement (correlating with Moses returning after atoning for all of Israel) as a feast, when it is well known that not eating is one of the afflictions kept for that day. Sacrifice != feast.

Hi. Firstly, while I do believe the correlation between the feasts and prophesies, sadly I am not the author of said theory (I confess I'm not smart enough to have discerned such a correlation). It's now widely known, but I first heard it mentioned by Zola Levitt. The best I could find online at his site to which I can refer you is:
http://store.levitt.com/cgi-bin/perlshop.cgi?ACTION=enter&thispage=det
-seven_feasts.html&ORDER_ID=!ORDERID!

Regarding calling them "feasts" -- the Jewish High Holy Days are often refered to as "feasts" or "festivals".

I've also searched "Chosen People Ministries", but unfortunately, could not find a direct link where they mention the "seven" feasts or High Holy Days of Israel. However, they frequently discuss the subject, and I'm sure it can be found through a more detailed search of their webpage somewhere (Sadly, I have dial-up, and it would take me decades to peruse their entire website.)

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 7:41 AM

JHANCE11

As I said earlier, The Ark would have been the as long as 4 football field and 3 stories high.Using wood only would not have worked due to the size and stress. It would have sprung hundreds of leaks. This is fact not fiction. The only answer if such A boat had been built would be God's hand in it to keep it afloat. Also I'd be very interested in knowing where you came up with the 100 years for the completion of the boat.

jhance11

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 7:48 AM

JHANCE11

I could not agree more, The airwaves are full of writers who do it for A larger audience or just for the money (take A look at Tom Clancy's work)In this time of Civil liberties under assault from the right and reality show's dominating the screens of america, one can only hope we come to our senses soon Thank you for responding.

jhance11

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 9:11 AM

FREERADICAL42

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
But I think most of what you're looking at stems from us reading different translations of the same document. I think you might actually be making an even more uncanny parallel if you were to outwardly refer to individual sacrifices, but then you'd have to find parallels with all of the other offerings that occurred, including the daily offering, the holiday offering, etc, etc, etc. I believe that you are seeing this mistranslation because you listed the Day of Atonement (correlating with Moses returning after atoning for all of Israel) as a feast, when it is well known that not eating is one of the afflictions kept for that day. Sacrifice != feast.

Hi. Firstly, while I do believe the correlation between the feasts and prophesies, sadly I am not the author of said theory (I confess I'm not smart enough to have discerned such a correlation). It's now widely known, but I first heard it mentioned by Zola Levitt. The best I could find online at his site to which I can refer you is:
http://store.levitt.com/cgi-bin/perlshop.cgi?ACTION=enter&thispage=det
-seven_feasts.html&ORDER_ID=!ORDERID!

Regarding calling them "feasts" -- the Jewish High Holy Days are often refered to as "feasts" or "festivals".

I've also searched "Chosen People Ministries", but unfortunately, could not find a direct link where they mention the "seven" feasts or High Holy Days of Israel. However, they frequently discuss the subject, and I'm sure it can be found through a more detailed search of their webpage somewhere (Sadly, I have dial-up, and it would take me decades to peruse their entire website.)

If you're saying that feast = holiday, then Passover is the Feast of First Fruits, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the Passover Feast. The verses you cited are referring not to individual holidays, but individual religious components of the same holiday.

The connection here seems rather tenuous and constructed to me, still.

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

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

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:54 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
As I said earlier, The Ark would have been the as long as 4 football field and 3 stories high.Using wood only would not have worked due to the size and stress. It would have sprung hundreds of leaks.

Actually that isn't true, the wood not being sufficient bit I mean. Someone once said it and the idea took off, sort of like the myth that the great wall of China was visible from space.

Wood would have been able to do it, on the other hand the question of getting that much wood and assembling it without screwing it up is something else entirely.

There is also a question of whether or not the technology required to make the wood do the job really existed, carpentry has improved over the years after all and just because something could be done with the tools of the day doesn't mean it could be done with the knowledge and understanding of the day.

-

The real question isn't the building material, wood would work, it is the building itself. How do you make a boat that big?

Then there is the animals bit, even if you use the less cited account, meaning you don't need to cram in two of every single animal, how do the animals not on the ark survive?

Some would say it's a question of biblical mathematics
(Once upon a time there were two people, and they had two sons, one of the sons killed the other son so there were only three people in existence. The surviving son went to the village next door.)
And as the Old Testament is an account of the Jews the other animals were on the other arks built by other people in other parts of the world.

The people who would say this maintain that god is nondenominational and thus multiple religions are right, they believe that until it gets to the New Testament (and some say even then) the bible is an account only of the Jews and thus there were other "Edens" (other creations of other races) other arks (the other flood stories) and other such things.

These people are not well liked.

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

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:30 PM

KIZYR

Quote:
Originally posted by Gelassenheit:
Too bad there is no Muslim aspects in Firefly, otherwise I coulda talked about the Muslim perspective.

Ok, this is my signal to chime in {^^}.

This thread's way too long for me to read it all, so I'm gonna get back to some of the original intentions of it...

I find the religious representation in the Firefly 'verse to be nearly accurate. I say nearly only because of what I see as Whedon's natural limitations regarding what he can show--he can't show the entire 'verse, just what it is from his characters' perspective.

That being said, I figure the main religious trends in the Firefly 'verse are going to be Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism--Buddhism mainly because of Sihnon's current influence. Atheism / Agnosticism would likewise be very common, particularly considering how many Europeans now consider themselves one or the other. Other religions--Judaism, Hinduism, and Sikhism, e.g.--I'd see as being present, but in large numbers only in certain geographical (cosmographical?) areas. There were small references you could catch--the woman in a burqa riding the train, the Moroccan guy who was in the bank in the movie, the Jewish operator of the Allied Postal Service branch, etc. Leads me to think that other religious aspects weren't ignored, so much as being impossible to really cover in great detail.

Anywho, being Muslim myself, I still really identify with Shepherd Book. The religious difference is minor; I just sympathized with his trying to reconcile his faith with what appears to be both right and wrong at the same time. He was a lot more realistic as an 'active' religious figure, not just some guy sitting behind a pulpit. Oh, yeah, and I loved the Haven prayer so much from the movie that I had to keep it as a signature {^^}.

Strangely enough, he reminds me quite a bit of the Muslim character from Pitch Black (imam Al-Walid, played by Keith David). The movie was ok, but the character there was incredible--to date, it's the only real accurate and positive depiction of a Muslim character on the big screen.

I'm actually working out religious contingents and religious geography a little bit with creating the setting for a Serenity RPG. So I've thought on this a lot lately. KF

~KF

"Lord, I'm walking your way. Let me in, for my feet are sore, my clothes are ragged. Look in my eyes, Lord, and my sins will play out on them as on a screen. Read them all. Forgive what you can and send me on my path. I will walk on until you bid me rest." ~Haven Prayer

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

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:18 AM

JHANCE11

As I said earlier Wood is fine for building almost any ship until you get to A certain size and weight itls not that it would not float but the internal stress would make leaks springup all around the ship This was found to be true using computer aided design at Cal-tech
There are other elements of your comments that make sense and I find my self in agreement with

jhance11

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

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:57 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
As I said earlier Wood is fine for building almost any ship until you get to A certain size and weight itls not that it would not float but the internal stress would make leaks springup all around the ship This was found to be true using computer aided design at Cal-tech

This is why I need to keep track of my sources. Someone came across a bracing structure for wood that would compensate for the incredible stress as determined by computer aided design at ____. I didn't keep track of the source so I can not fill in the blank.

Since you remember your source I encourge everyone to listen to you. (Everyone, I encourage you to listen to jhance11.)

Still if you think you can trust me and my memory you'll have to accept that computers said it both ways. Even if you don't the only way to be sure would be to build every possible variant of a boat that size out of wood and see if any didn't leak. I doubt anyone would try that. (I hope no one does.)

Regardless, if all computers everywhere agreed that it could be done I personally wouldn't want to trust my life to such a boat. Not without god's help at any rate.

Quote:
There are other elements of your comments that make sense and I find my self in agreement with

Always nice to know.

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

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:58 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Kizyr:
Strangely enough, he reminds me quite a bit of the Muslim character from Pitch Black (imam Al-Walid, played by Keith David). The movie was ok, but the character there was incredible--to date, it's the only real accurate and positive depiction of a Muslim character on the big screen.

Never would have thought of Book as being like him, but now that you say it they are alike.

-

What made Pitch Black good, and what was lacking in the sequel, was the interplay of the characters. One thing that comes to mind was thread on God, summarized badly here:

Imam: Because you do not believe in God does not mean God does not believe in - .
Riddick: Think someone could spend half their life in a slam with a horse bit in their mouth and not believe? Think he could start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and not believe? Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God... And I absolutely hate the fucker.

Riddick: [Imam has just lost everyone he cared about.] Where the hell's your God now?

Imam: [Riddick, murderer and God hater, comes back to save the day] *There* is my God, Mr. Riddick!

The all-is-as-God-wills-it feel of the events was fairly powerful considering the movie it was in. The idea that God's will was done by a murderer who was active against God is a strong thing to put forward. Riddick wasn't merely an atheist, he was someone who rejected God because he believed.

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

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:01 PM

KIZYR

Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
As I said earlier Wood is fine for building almost any ship until you get to A certain size and weight itls not that it would not float but the internal stress would make leaks springup all around the ship This was found to be true using computer aided design at Cal-tech

Noah's Ark is a problem. We'll have to call it 'early quantum state phenomenon'. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The all-is-as-God-wills-it feel of the events was fairly powerful considering the movie it was in. The idea that God's will was done by a murderer who was active against God is a strong thing to put forward. Riddick wasn't merely an atheist, he was someone who rejected God because he believed.

Oh yeah... I mean, my personal beliefs on the universe are slightly different, but nonetheless I really did like that aspect of the movie.

I never saw the other (2?) Chronicles of Riddick. So they're no good, you say? KF

~KF

Lord, I'm walking your way. Let me in, for my feet are sore, my clothes are ragged.
Look in my eyes, Lord, and my sins will play out on them as on a screen. Read them all.
Forgive what you can and send me on my path. I will walk on until you bid me rest.
~Haven Prayer

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

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:25 AM

JHANCE11

Lets assume for A moment the boat itself is possible. Loading 5 amimals per second,365 days out of the year without A break, Having know record of this event found in the layers of the earth and the fact that all the rain in the clouds falling all at once could not cover all the landmasses(could not even come close) makes this story very implossable. Even if the story is an exageraion, does that envalidate God. Of coarse not. Gods wonder and complexity I believe will amaze us all. I think It will suprise those among us most, who claim to know him best

jhance11

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

Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:14 AM

CAPTKAR

If God can create the "Heavens and the Earth" in 7 days. Imbue a man with the power to part a river. Have the VIRGIN Mary give birth to his son who could; turn water into wine, cure any ailment even death itself, and be crucified found dead and resurect. Why could God not cover teh entire Earth with water? Is it that hard to have faith in this miracle, along with Noahs Ark?

You believe that Jesus is the Son Of God born of a virgin mother, walked the earth feeding five thousand people with scraps; causing a paralized man to walk, causing a blind man to see, and causing a dead man to rise, but you can't believe that the earth was miraculously covered in water?

I have no wish to pick a fight, and by no means do i have the intention of insulting you, please understand this. I just wish to hear your thoughts.

-When you can't run you crawl, and when you can't crawl you find someone to carry you-

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

Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:44 AM

ZOID

Hi, all!

I am a Christian.

I've been reading this thread for a while, and have been tempted to add my dos centavos, but have resisted the temptation pretty successfully 'til now. And I'm still not gonna hop on the soapbox here, because I believe loving the Lord and listening to His voice is the important thing, not the details. So, I'll neither tear down nor build up here.

christhecycnic wrote:

Quote:
...The people who would say this maintain that god is nondenominational and thus multiple religions are right, they believe that until it gets to the New Testament (and some say even then) the bible is an account only of the Jews and thus there were other "Edens" (other creations of other races) other arks (the other flood stories) and other such things.

These people are not well liked.

So, I take it you are one of these 'not liked' people?

I, myself, once got in a whole peck of trouble in Sunday School when confronted with the notion that no one could get to Heaven without visitation from the Holy Spirit and accepting the Lord as their personal savior. I asked, "So that means that all the Hawaiians who lived between Christ's death and Captain Cook's 'discovery' of the islands all went to Hell? I can't believe that. I can't believe God's love doesn't extend to everyone, even those who use a different name for Him than we do, and that they would all be doomed to eternal damnation regardless the character of their souls."

Well, I was only 14 or 15 at the time and this was a Southern Baptist church in the early 70's, so... Suffice to say, I had some 'splainin' to do [/ricky ricardo voice]. Ultimately -- to their credit -- I was taken to talk to the pastor, who was a great minister that I still think kindly of today. His explanation left a little to be desired, though. The capsulized version: Hawaiians and other geographically dispersed souls (i.e., Amerinds, Chinese, Eskimos, etc.) would either: a.) Somehow get the Spirit (and the Name, one presumes) on their own before their deaths; b.) Be seen as children and therefore exempt from judgement (meaning that after Cook brought them the Word, they began being accountable, so they needed to chuck their entire culture. Kind of a rough deal for the Hawaiians, being eternally assured of Heaven, right up until Cook damned them by bringing them the Word).

He didn't really seem that sure of his answer, which I figured was a good thing. Equivocation is good on the part of Christians, when it comes to judging the status of other peoples' souls. Some are too quick to damn others, in my personal experience. Me? I just love others as I do myself (better than, actually) and pray they find the Lord's hand in the darkness we all stagger through...

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
It may show a complete lack of originality, but I still use that question on occasion whenever somebody gets on a real tear for their belief in Jesus, throwing around condemnation of those who believe anything different than those specific things that they do, even other Christians. You never saw the wheels come flying off so fast in your whole life. Most folk will stop to think about it, and stopping to reflect is a good thing. But if they're so hellbent on just believing without even questioning what they've been taught by men, they'll try to answer it from their particular dogma's script. And that's just really good for a laugh, especially when they start getting mad. Because you just know you can't get mad in the Lord; if you're mad, it ain't from Him.
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

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

Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:37 AM

JHANCE11

I believe in God and I believe there was A man named Jesus. A very wise,good and compasionate man.As for his divinity, I do'nt know. There are so many other people of differant religons,good and decent people whose faith does'nt have Jesus in it.and since the believers of Jesus's devinity will tell you the only was to heaven is through Jesus. That seems wrong and not the kind of compassion I would expect from the God I know. I may be wrong, but if I am I do;nt think I should be condemend for it.

jhance11

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

Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:47 AM

JHANCE11

Bravo and well and well said. The undertones of the statement "these people are not well liked" pretty much tell you where this is going. Common sense and logic is something rarely considered if it conflics with theology. Would A father punish A child who loved obeyed and respected him simply because he got A few directions wrong on the way to his house, I think not

jhance

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

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:47 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

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.

No, you're not getting too deep. In fact, I'm glad FIREFLY/SERENITY has such a broad based appeal. As per religion, I'm more like Mal in my views.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

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

Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:39 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by CaptKar:
Have the VIRGIN Mary give birth to his son...

You really shouldn't put that under miracles.

Though once thought impossible warm blooded vertebrates can give birth without being impregnated, women can have Y chromosomes, and women with Y chromosomes can have functional wombs. From there it is a small step to put it all together and say that a woman with a Y chromosome having a functional womb randomly had a child without being impregnated, that child was a clone less one X chromosome (thus making an XXY female into an XY male), and all of it happened in the place prophesied.

Totally possible, just very unlikely in all possible ways. Very indicative of divine intervention but not exactly on the same level as changing water to wine.

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

Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:01 AM

JOHNBOYTOO

Wow....
what a great thread....
and maybe indicative of why we all love Firefly...

NOT that I think all Hollywood goes into deep thought over serious ideas, MOST just want to make what SELLS !!!

NOR that I can ever surmise what the author thoughts were in his writing....

but IMHO :)

Firefly and Serenity,
as well as my understanding of religion
(small r as in Man's attempt to reach God),
are attempts to give us good cheer !
some call it happiness
some would even go so far as to call it Hope !

The impetus of my daily life is to survive and provide for those that I love - my family first,
my friends next, etc... etc..

In some parts of the world they can only focus on the first part - survival - we are the fortunate few that can take the time to "THINK" about things - once our basic needs are met - we can shift our gaze toward other things...

Religion and politics are the most explosive of subjects !

and right now in the middle east those two are about to explode into what I think is Armaggedon...

so yes, I believe - actually - let me restate that - there are only a few things "I KNOW" and this is one of them - there is a God and he wants nothing but the best for us, but he gives EACH of us the power to chose....

I am far from a religious zealot, but yet I know (and am old enough to have seen) the consequences of incorrect choices....

believe it or not, I think EVERY choice - even the smallest - are crucial to your future :)

so finding this thread on a web site about a dvd and tv show is refreshing :)

(especially since the header on this thread has a quote for Mal saying "He lost more than the war. He lost a sense of compassion and forgiveness. He lost his faith in God." )

Meaning he had it, and like me, a traumatic event beyond the scope of your most far reaching thoughts, jolted you away from what you know is right !

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE