Religions in Firefly

POSTED BY: Astragynia
UPDATED: Friday, April 15, 2005 13:18
VIEWED: 13679
PAGE 1 of 1

ASTRAGYNIA

Sunday, April 10, 2005 3:40 AM

One of the things I like best about Firefly is that the future universe is multicultural - but what do y'all think about religion in the 'verse?

There's a woman in a burka on the train - does that mean Islam is still around? Or is it just a cultural holdover of some kind?

And of course, there's Shepherd Book, and the Bible is mentioned (shown?) but not much is said about his theology (other than, uh, pacifism via "kneecaps") - is he a Christian, or is it some type of composite religion (like in "Dune")?

So, how does religion change/stay the same in the Firefly future?

Any thoughts?

NEEDLESEYE

Sunday, April 10, 2005 5:30 AM

Well there's also the "Whoa, good Bible" conversation between Mal and Saffron.

Keeper of Jayne's goggles. 8)
I caved.~ http://needleseyeland.blogspot.com/

PURPLEBELLY

Sunday, April 10, 2005 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Astragynia:
And of course, there's Shepherd Book ...

In a deleted scene in Inara's shuttle, reshot for broadcast, Book refers to himself as a Christian. But, of course, That ain't a Shepherd

Reynolds was wearing a crucifix in Serenity Valley.

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:24 AM

And Nandi's comment in Heart of Gold about Inara being on track to become House Priestess.

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers

FALLENANGEL

Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:26 AM

I wonder about that too, but I just firgured of it mostly Christians around. I wonder if Catholism is still around or that falls under the category of Christianity?

"A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step."- Lao Tzo

SIMONWHO

Sunday, April 10, 2005 3:33 PM

I must admit I was a bit disappointed that they still have recognisable religions in Firefly. It's like the Vikings writing a series set in our present day and having people going around praising Thor.

It's not that I think in the future we won't have religion, just that today's religions will have been washed away, just as the gods of previous empires have. Zeus faded from view, Odin is a distant memory. One day, Jesus will be a bit character in the the future's equivalent of Douglas Adams's latest novel.

I don't mean to offend but if you look at history here's the pattern: empire rises, brings new Gods with it. Empire rules, Gods are revered by all. Empire falls, gods go into decline. Time passes, gods become punchine. It has happened again and again and again. Each time they believed their gods were eternal and their empire would last and of course the previous set of widely accepted gods had to fall because they were false gods and the current gods were the real gods.

When empires fall, faith turns to dust. Just look at Mal.

PURPLEBELLY

Sunday, April 10, 2005 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
It's like the Vikings writing a series set in our present day and having people going around praising Thor.

Five hundred years ago, I think the inhabitants of Scandinavia would have recognised the religions of the Book - would have been fighting wars over them, indeed

EDIT: It's been suggested to me that the People of the Book won't be readily identified by fireflyfans. I think we're sufficiently erudite, but just in case here y'go http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/faithpeople.html

EMBERS

Sunday, April 10, 2005 4:39 PM

in five hundred years we would expect some shifts
and some different sects
but I would think that Christianity and the Bible would still be around

of course there would be more and more translations
and alterations
and interpretations....
things I doubt very much that Joss wants to put in the forefront of his story.

SIMONWHO

Sunday, April 10, 2005 4:51 PM

Actually Sweden (and most of Scandinavia) switched around about the 12th century:

http://faculty.washington.edu/leiren/vikings2.html

(Caution: this is based on 10 minutes Googling, I do not have a degree in History)

Religions can disappear like that. Sometimes it comes from nowhere. Think about Judaism. 4,000 years of spreading to every corner of the globe and then in supposedly civilised times, they suffer an attempt at mass extinction, one that had the circumstances been slightly different, would have effectively succeeded. Horrifying to think about it in an age of reason but there you go.

PURPLEBELLY

Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Actually Sweden (and most of Scandinavia) switched around about the 12th century ...

Sadly, conversion to Christianity didn't stop Wars of Religion (sic), just altered the (pre)Texts

SIMONWHO

Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:44 PM

Yeah, I agree that religion is often used as a "we, not-we" divider. It's particularly galling as most religions have peace at the core of their philosophy and zealots (who should by definition stick the most closely to the texts) are the ones who most easily shrug it off, q.v. Osama insisting that there are no civilians to justify his attacks when the Koran very clearly and explicitly forbids attacking them.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
When empires fall, faith turns to dust. Just look at Mal.

Really? Yet somehow the Roman State religion as established by Constantine in the 4th century not only persisted and continued to spread for 1500 years following the fall of the Roman Empire but remained the major religion of an entire culture right to this day.

Religions don’t necassarily disappear with the Empires that foster them. They change with shifting cultures and new ideas, but religions are not tied to the existence of the state. They exist independent of it. I would also think that if a religion can last for 2000 years, then there is little in my mind that makes believe it couldn’t last for 2500 years.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 10, 2005 8:16 PM

It's an old story, religion get co-opted and used to justify and compel actions of the ruling class, look at right to life and family values and all the little jingoistic nonsense of the current clowns in office(they're all clowns, some have better rubber noses...).

I think including the cross in the first ep was wise, gets you into the feel of the situation immediatly without having to explain a whole new religious archetecture.

And anyone who includes even the implication that violence can be done in the service of religion should be killed.

The tyrannical Chrisisall

SIMONWHO

Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Religions don’t necassarily disappear with the Empires that foster them. They change with shifting cultures and new ideas, but religions are not tied to the existence of the state. They exist independent of it. I would also think that if a religion can last for 2000 years, then there is little in my mind that makes believe it couldn’t last for 2500 years.

And if it can last 2500 years then it can last 3000, etc, etc. And yet religions keep on dying. My point wasn't so much that the fall of an empire always leads to the fall of its religion. But very often the fates are tied together. The Roman Empire collapsed, it wasn't properly conquered as such, therefore it didn't have its religion replaced.

To get back on topic, we know Earth has fallen. Surely the enforced abandonment of our entire planet would make people question their beliefs, their value systems, letting soccer moms drive gas guzzling SUVs at $3 a gallon? Everyone would leave Jerusalem, Mecca, Mount Sinai, every single religious location behind. Vast passage of every religious text would become inapplicable (how would Muslims face Mecca for example?) Isn't it reasonable to assume that once again humanity would change its mind over religion once more?

I'm not saying there would be no faith, I'm just saying it wouldn't be the ones around at the moment. Christianity in the UK, where I am, has plummeted in recent years. Most people in this country still call themselves 'Christian' yet attend very few services (Christmas and Easter normally). This would have been unthinkable 50 years ago and yet here we are.

Also, according to the Firefly timeline, the two remaining superpowers are the United States and China (let's ignore the fact that the EU has a bigger GDP than both of them). If there really was a Chinese/American merger (which the flag implies) then wouldn't there be more Buddhism/Taoism cultures prevalent (particularly as there are already 4 times as many Chinese as Americans in the world)?

But of course, Firefly was a TV show aimed at being broadcast in America. I suspect if the show had stated explicitly that Christianity had died out a few centuries ago, it wouldn't even have lasted as long as it did. I just think that all religions have a lifespan and such a universal shift as the entire abandonment of Earth would cause an equal shift in beliefs.

ASTRAGYNIA

Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

But of course, Firefly was a TV show aimed at being broadcast in America. I suspect if the show had stated explicitly that Christianity had died out a few centuries ago, it wouldn't even have lasted as long as it did.

On the contrary, the Star Trek franchise has made it quite clear that in its universe all Earth religions have died out entirely (except Native-American spirituality) - and we all know how long ST has been going. Though to be fair, I guess it did originate in the 60s Modernism period when religion was seen as a dying thing of the past.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
And if it can last 2500 years then it can last 3000, etc, etc. And yet religions keep on dying.

Clearly not all of them. Judaism is even older then Christianity; in fact it’s older then 3000 years. And Judea fell even longer back then the Roman Empire.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
To get back on topic, we know Earth has fallen. Surely the enforced abandonment of our entire planet would make people question their beliefs, their value systems, letting soccer moms drive gas guzzling SUVs at $3 a gallon? Everyone would leave Jerusalem, Mecca, Mount Sinai, every single religious location behind. Vast passage of every religious text would become inapplicable (how would Muslims face Mecca for example?) Isn't it reasonable to assume that once again humanity would change its mind over religion once more?

Given that scenario, maybe, maybe not. I don’t know that it was ever pointed out why earth was abandoned, if it actually was. But why would you think that hardships would make a people abandoned religion? Secularism is a philosophy that is historically associated with developed and established cultures with enough stability to pursue academic philosophies. Historically, I would think cultures in upheaval tend to shift towards the more religious, not less.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I'm not saying there would be no faith, I'm just saying it wouldn't be the ones around at the moment. Christianity in the UK, where I am, has plummeted in recent years. Most people in this country still call themselves 'Christian' yet attend very few services (Christmas and Easter normally). This would have been unthinkable 50 years ago and yet here we are.

That’s true of a lot of Europe, but it’s not necessarily true of the US or China.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Also, according to the Firefly timeline, the two remaining superpowers are the United States and China (let's ignore the fact that the EU has a bigger GDP than both of them). If there really was a Chinese/American merger (which the flag implies) then wouldn't there be more Buddhism/Taoism cultures prevalent (particularly as there are already 4 times as many Chinese as Americans in the world)?

That’s ignoring the rapid success of Christianity in China, or what trends may occur in the future.. Currently it’s difficult to say what trends in religion exist in China, but it is very likely that Buddhism/Toaism are actually declining and being replaced by Christianity. Christianity is one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing religion in the world. One can’t simply assume that Christianity will vanish because it is declining in the UK.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
But of course, Firefly was a TV show aimed at being broadcast in America. I suspect if the show had stated explicitly that Christianity had died out a few centuries ago, it wouldn't even have lasted as long as it did. I just think that all religions have a lifespan and such a universal shift as the entire abandonment of Earth would cause an equal shift in beliefs.

I doubt Christianity was inserted in Firefly to appease Americans. Americans watch many shows that have nothing to do with Christianity. I think it probably had more to do with keeping with the Reconstruction Era theme, then anything else.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

ASTRAGYNIA

Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's an old story, religion get co-opted and used to justify and compel actions of the ruling class...

While I entirely agree that this happens and continues to happen today, do you think this is what's happening in FF? For some reason I thought of the Alliance as being secular and religion being mostly on the Rim (the witch-hunt being one extremist example) - but then as soupcatcher pointed out:

Quote:
Originally posted by soupcatcher:
And Nandi's comment in Heart of Gold about Inara being on track to become House Priestess.

so that means there must be some kind of religion in the Alliance worlds (though of course it could just be that the Companions' Guild honour their own goddess(es)/god(s), which would be very similar to how many guilds in the Roman Empire worked).

Simon and River are of course the major examples we have of the "ruling classes" - I don't remember either character mentioning or implying a religion, though I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

(Edit) - Oops, now I know what I'm forgetting - Book's mysterious connections to the Alliance.

SIMONWHO

Sunday, April 10, 2005 10:30 PM

This would be the Star Trek that had Kirk exclaiming in the episode 'Bread and Circuses' that the Planet 892-IV, had both Caesar and 'the Son of God'? I can't remember any episode specifically declaring that religion was dead.

Christianity is growing in China but apparently only by as much as the population is growing. Plus of course the government periodically cracks down on it. America is of course a predominantly Christian country but that's rather the point. The only way to go is down.

Why do I think people will dramatically change their attitudes after the Earth is abandoned? Think about the changes after 9/11. Suddenly people reassessed who they were. It was like a global phenomenon. The number of articles that have started "Ever since 9/11...". Just today Britney Spears's husband said how he decided to have children after it, the attacks making him think about what's really important.

That's what happened when two buildings got knocked down and a few thousand people died. Now imagine that every building on the face of the entire Earth is coming down. You're being crowded onto packed shuttles to an unknown destination. You're chances of survival are slim. It's your Christian nation that has used up the world's resources. Are you telling me that people aren't going to question what they've been told? What about the new generations that never even saw Earth? Won't they see religions as backward tales from a cursed planet? I just don't see preachers turning up on Sunday for work as normal coming to anything.

As for the long term future of Christianity in the real world, I don't think there's much point looking at yearly trends. Centuries is the way to go and centuries predict that religions come and go or evolve (Judaism into Christianity). Plus nowadays we have a widespread number of people who make up their own religions, frequently claiming to take bits from each religion they know of. My favourite is David Beckham who said about his son "He's going to be baptised but we haven't decided into what religion yet."

He makes more in a week than we will in any year of our lives. Makes you think, doesn't it?

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 10, 2005 10:45 PM

Quote:

so that means there must be some kind of religion in the Alliance worlds (though of course it could just be that the Companions' Guild honour their own goddess(es)/god(s), which would be very similar to how many guilds in the Roman Empire worked).

Exactly. Just look at Inara whenever she mentions Guild Law, it's like saying ' yeah, I have to get my shots', she says it with a chuckle sometimes, but she isn't comfortable with being controlled to that degree. Which she likes(loves) Mal, he's free! And whatever gods or godesses there are are probably there to say 'Guild is good, Guild is law...blagh blagh".

And Book is preacher turned pawn of the Alliance, another example of government controlling God and his mouthpieces.

To Simonwho, really insightful stuff. I'm as surprised to see brilliantly clear thought here as I am to see Herbert-like thinking on the real world events threads, lol.

The religiously cynical Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, April 11, 2005 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
This would be the Star Trek that had Kirk exclaiming in the episode 'Bread and Circuses' that the Planet 892-IV, had both Caesar and 'the Son of God'? I can't remember any episode specifically declaring that religion was dead.

Christianity is growing in China but apparently only by as much as the population is growing. Plus of course the government periodically cracks down on it. America is of course a predominantly Christian country but that's rather the point. The only way to go is down.

Why do I think people will dramatically change their attitudes after the Earth is abandoned? Think about the changes after 9/11. Suddenly people reassessed who they were. It was like a global phenomenon. The number of articles that have started "Ever since 9/11...". Just today Britney Spears's husband said how he decided to have children after it, the attacks making him think about what's really important.

That's what happened when two buildings got knocked down and a few thousand people died. Now imagine that every building on the face of the entire Earth is coming down. You're being crowded onto packed shuttles to an unknown destination. You're chances of survival are slim. It's your Christian nation that has used up the world's resources. Are you telling me that people aren't going to question what they've been told? What about the new generations that never even saw Earth? Won't they see religions as backward tales from a cursed planet? I just don't see preachers turning up on Sunday for work as normal coming to anything.

Rather convoluted. Have you thought about this?

What changes that occurred after 9/ll have led you to believe that Christianity will disappear? How is Britney Spear’s husband opting to have children evidence that Christianity will disappear in the future? The US definitely uses its share of resources; some might argue more then its share, but no where near all the worlds’ resources. Why would they necessarily see religions as backward?

Christianity has associated with it a doomsday belief, so why wouldn’t they see the end of the world as prophesized by God? Why wouldn’t they believe that John’s prophecy had come to pass? Why wouldn’t such a scenario serve to strengthen belief in Christianity?

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
As for the long term future of Christianity in the real world, I don't think there's much point looking at yearly trends. Centuries is the way to go and centuries predict that religions come and go or evolve (Judaism into Christianity). Plus nowadays we have a widespread number of people who make up their own religions, frequently claiming to take bits from each religion they know of. My favourite is David Beckham who said about his son "He's going to be baptised but we haven't decided into what religion yet."

Yes, centuries. Today the fastest growing religion is also 20 centuries old.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

SHINYSEVEN

Monday, April 11, 2005 12:47 AM

Well, we know that Mal wore a cross at the battle of Serenity Valley; that everybody on the ship knows what a "Shepherd" is and that they have a distinctive costume; that Shepherds live together in Abbeys and practice meditation there; that the practice of saying grace before meals may be contentious but doesn't need to be explained; and that some Shepherds choose celibacy and others are allowed to marry.

IIRC the commentary to "The Message" says that Inara is a Buddhist.

YT

Monday, April 11, 2005 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by shinyseven:
IIRC the commentary to "The Message" says that Inara is a Buddhist.

Ron Glass, the actor who plays Book, is a Buddhist. The rest of your post is well & succinctly put.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Paul Simon, "You Can Call Me Al", from "the Collection"

YT

Monday, April 11, 2005 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Today the fastest growing religion is also 20 centuries old.

15 centuries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Historical_origin_of_Islam

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Robert Plant, "29 Palms", from "Sixty-six to Timbuktu"

REGINAROADIE

Monday, April 11, 2005 4:11 AM

Actually, the whole issue about religion and spirituality in not only FIREFLY but all of Joss Whedon's work I find a very interesting contradiction.

If ever I were to meet Joss Whedon, my first question towards him would be "You lost your faith in God because of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND?" In the "Objects in Space" commentary, he talks about how he saw the flick and because of it he lost his faith in God and Xtianity. Which to me is the most bizarre thing anyone can say because whenever I see the flick, I feel more spiritually alive. The whole movie is a sci-fi version of the story of St. Peter and is about faith and how believing in something bigger than yourself can help you in the long run both as individuals and as a society. And for me to hear Joss say that it made him lose faith is bordering on blasphemy. Sci-fi has always served as a great way of commenting on faith, spirituality and religion. DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, CE3K, 2001 and CONTACT are films that can serve as parallel religious epics.

And so despite Joss being an atheist, it's interesting that one of his characters in FIREFLY is a man of God, and BUFFY and ANGEL are about demons and angels and an acknowledgement of Satan and Hell. And those two can't exist without God and Heaven, right?

As for religions in FIREFLY, I think that they may call it a different thing, but the fundamental characteristics are the same. The way I see it, even though there are dozens of different religions out there, were all praying for the same thing. Understanding of who we are and the world we live in, protection of those we love, the ability to be better than what we are right now, all basic spiritual and human needs. It's just that some people pray to God, some to Allah, some to Buddha, some to whoever.

So whether or not it's Jesus or Buddha or the Dali Lama that's going to come and save us for our sins, it's still the same dude. So it doesn't matter if it's still Xtianity that's the dominant religion in the verse or if it's some new fandangled thing. It's still a belief system that has both advantages and disadvantages.

"NO HAI ES BANDAI. THERE IS....NO.....BAND. AND YET....WE HEAR A BAND."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, April 11, 2005 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by YT:
15 centuries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Historical_origin_of_Islam

It's debatable as to which one is the fastest growing, but certainly one of them is and they are both many centuries old.

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
And so despite Joss being an atheist, it's interesting that one of his characters in FIREFLY is a man of God, and BUFFY and ANGEL are about demons and angels and an acknowledgement of Satan and Hell. And those two can't exist without God and Heaven, right?

Interesting that a professed atheist finds so much in religion that interests him. I remember be criticized for setting a bad example for the children at my church because I watched Buffy. Buffy had a strong enough religious overtone to it that this person felt threatened by it.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

THEGREYJEDI

Monday, April 11, 2005 4:37 AM

I would like to point out that the Hebrew God is the same God as Christianity. Judeaism has been around since, oh, say, the beginning of recorded history. Which is some 7,000 years ago. And we're talking about 500 years. Not 5000 years. The Greeks worshipped Zeus, etc for a few thousand years, then the Romans assimilated them. Then Constantine converted Rome. If God can make it through the past 7,000 years of recorded history, I think God, and his Son, Jesus can make it another 500. I'm not saying Christianity won't grow or change (a la Orange Catholic of Dune fame), but that it will continue. It's not the biggest religion on this earth for nothing.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE.
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05

YT

Monday, April 11, 2005 5:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It's debatable as to which one is the fastest growing,

Perhaps, but I have no intention of joining such a debate in this thread, or for that matter in this forum.

Christianity is the most efficient shorthand for most of Firefly's anticipated audience. Think about it. It wasn't important to Joss that Mal be Christian, or Book. What was important is that that Mal was a man of strong faith, who lost it. Joss takes about 4 seconds to show Mal is a man of strong faith (kissing a cross & tucking it back against his skin). Later in the ep we see that he has lost that faith (6 second Q&A from Book to Mal, who won't have grace spoken @his table). In ten seconds, Joss has what he wants. OK, maybe the "why" took another ten seconds, but that had nothing to do with Christianity. In the same ep, Joss introduces nine recurring characters, three villains & their associated jeopardies, gives us three climaxes, and a come-along ending. Does anyone seriously think he could have fit in the invention of a new religion, too?

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Allman Bro's, "Revival", from "Dreams"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, April 11, 2005 11:27 AM

You’re missing the point, YT. No one is asking you for an opinion on comparative religion or social demographics. The question is whether or not it is plausible for Joss to have used Christian symbolism or whether it is plausible to assume that Christianity, or some derivative of, is the religion practiced (at some point) by Mal and Shepard (and perhaps others) in Firefly.

SimonWho’s opinion seems to be that it is not plausible because (for reasons I’ve not ascertained) he or she believes that Christianity (and perhaps religion in general) will not survive into the future given Firefly’s premise.

I, on the hand, believe that it is plausible that Christianity will survive 500 years into future, because it clearly has survived many such 500 periods. Nor do I think that religion, in general, will vanish.

Your opinion seems to be that it is not relevant what religion is used; only the establishing of the character is important, and that the use of Christian symbolism is purely pragmatic. I agree that the more important thing is the establishment of character: Mal as a man who has lost his faith, Shepard as a religious man, etc. But I also think that the use of Christian symbolism was intentional. Christian symbolism is used to establish continuity between this world and Joss’ futuristic one. Indeed his whole theme seems to be a futuristic re-enactment of Reconstruction Era America.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

EMMA

Monday, April 11, 2005 12:28 PM

I am finding this debate fantastically invigorating!

I am writing a lecture on the Bible in Whedonverse at the moment and was wondering whether you would mind me quoting some of your comments?

A couple of quick thoughts before I go:

I think some people would take issue with the idea that Christianity 'evolved' out of Judaism. evolution is a loaded phrase usually implying 'better'. Also, on this basis Islam 'evolved' from Christianity and Judaism.

Scholarly debate usually accepts that the world's largest religion is Christianity but the fastest growing religion is Islam. Although as you have all proven there are dozens, of acknowledged variants of each. This also depends on a very 'typical' definition of religion which excludes football, capitalism and so on.

I really should get me a signature

SIMONWHO

Monday, April 11, 2005 2:12 PM

My reason for believing that Christianity and probably all current religions would die out is quite simple: everyone will have experienced the end of the world. I think people would start from scratch, in culture, philosophy and religion. There's no big trick to it, no scientific study. Just a belief that if the entire Earth is laid to waste, religion would fall too. You might think that people would run to religion instead. I disagree but there we are.

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 11, 2005 3:33 PM

As much as I hate to say it, religion(s) will survive as it suits the people who run this world. If necessary to control the masses with the belief that heaven will save them after a short and brutal life on Earth, then it will go on. If unnecessary due to economic conditions or severe climate changes (trying to keep from freezing or drowning or dying of thirst) then it will die away.
Religion is mostly a tool to be used and manipulated to pacify the sheep into not hittin' the fence too hard or too often.
True religion begins and ends within one's self and needs no justification from churches, governments or even friends.

How about this, if each one of the people who visited the Vatican recently gave the $50 or so they spent in travel to needy families, how much less hunger would there be in the area?

The incendiary Chrisisall

PURPLEBELLY

Monday, April 11, 2005 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
... Religion is mostly a tool to be used and manipulated to ...

... act as a cover for non-Religious activities?

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 11, 2005 4:00 PM

That as well.

Just remember, I'm only commentin' on the downside of religion, as I see it. Just 'cause I ain't goin' on about an upside, well that don't mean there ain't none.

The objectivly subjective Chrisisall

DIETCOKE

Monday, April 11, 2005 4:24 PM

I think Christianity is still around because it's only 500 years in the future. How long has Christianity been around? 2000 years? How long has the Jewish faith existed?

GRRARRG

Monday, April 11, 2005 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
America is of course a predominantly Christian country but that's rather the point. The only way to go is down.

nobody's contesting the possibility that Christians could be a very small minority

Quote:

Why do I think people will dramatically change their attitudes after the Earth is abandoned? Think about the changes after 9/11. Suddenly people reassessed who they were. It was like a global phenomenon. The number of articles that have started "Ever since 9/11...".

As I recall, most churches reported unusually high attendance the next sunday. Other religions probably did to. I also recall seeing politicians gathered together in from of the Capital, praying on TV. As you said, people reassessed who they were, as well as what was important to them. When someone is searching for meaning and value in a life that suddenly seems pointless, they often turn to religion, as very clearly evidenced by 9/11. Of course, many people would say that the flock to the churches was short-lived, but as you said,

Quote:

That's what happened when two buildings got knocked down and a few thousand people died. Now imagine that every building on the face of the entire Earth is coming down. You're being crowded onto packed shuttles to an unknown destination. You're chances of survival are slim.

I imagine people would be taking it even more seriously, and newfound religion would be more deep-rooted.

Quote:

It's your Christian nation that has used up the world's resources. Are you telling me that people aren't going to question what they've been told?

People have a funny way of using current situations to reinforce what they want to believe. Strong Christians would see it as part of the prophesy of Revelations, or as God providing us with safe passage from a place that we made hazardous (could apply to a person of any religion). It would strengthen their faith. Others might see it as a cleansing act similar to the Flood (although God told Noah that that wouldn't happen again). Atheists might see it as supporting evidence that there is no god, because a god wouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen. People of weak faith (of any religion) would either see it as a wake-up call (like many did with 9/11) or as a slap in the face, that they were barking up the wrong tree. Those people might lose their religion, whatever it was.

Christianity survived through a time when it's followers were hunted down, arrested, killed, or fed to the lions. Judaism survived through enslavement, centuries of persecution, and the holocaust (just to name a few). I'm quite certain that both of them, as well as many others, would be able to survive the exodus from Earth. Again, they might very well be reduced to very small minorities, but they'd still be around.

Quote:

What about the new generations that never even saw Earth? Won't they see religions as backward tales from a cursed planet?

There are new generations of Jews who haven't seen Israel, and Christians who never saw Jesus. I know that that factor gets multiplied many times over when those generations aren't even on the same planet, but it's not about the location - as long as there are people who still believe it and live it, it will survive.

Quote:
My favourite is David Beckham who said about his son "He's going to be baptised but we haven't decided into what religion yet."

He makes more in a week than we will in any year of our lives. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Yeah, there are lost of people like that, and there will continue to be. I'm missing your point about what Beckham's salary has to do with it. Surely you're not implying that that gives him more credibility?

[edit: I meant "there are lots of people like that." Typo, or Freudian slip?

also, other than their being no Mecca for Muslims to pray toward or travel to, what (in any religion) would no longer be possible if Earth was destroyed? (which, of course, didn't necessarily happen in the Firefly 'v

FOURSKYS

Monday, April 11, 2005 7:08 PM

Quote:
As much as I hate to say it, religion(s) will survive as it suits the people who run this world. If necessary to control the masses with the belief that heaven will save them after a short and brutal life on Earth, then it will go on. If unnecessary due to economic conditions or severe climate changes (trying to keep from freezing or drowning or dying of thirst) then it will die away.
Religion is mostly a tool to be used and manipulated to pacify the sheep into not hittin' the fence too hard or too often.

You're saying that organized religion only serves as an instrument weilded by governments to manipulate its populace? I'm sorry, but I find this quite outlandish. There are, no doubt, cases in which you are correct, that I can't deny, but to genarlize it to all organized religions and belief systems is a bit much, don't you think?

First, in your defense:
Catholocism in the middle ages. Certainly a tool weilded by those in power and those who wanted power in order to maintain some semblance of peace through fear of condemnation.
Cults often wield religious authority to motivate masses into personal or political ends.

But I would argue that this is, at least to a significant extent, not how the majority of the world's religions function. That's not to say that, in the future, a reprisal of Dark Ages and Medeival opperession can't reoccur, but there's nothing saying it has to either.

To support my argument:
Communist Russia. Russian Orthodoxy survived decades of very severe opression, where non-atheist tendencies were a death warrent. Congregations would convene in basements, in secret, and pray quietly so they wouldn't be overheard. Enthusiastic government opression did nothing to styme the beliefs of the people there, and, further, likely strengthened their beliefs.
The early Christian Church. In it's most vunerable and formative years, the Roman Empire, as was stated briefly in previous posts, actively persectued Christians, feeding them to lions and the like. If a religion that young, and that formative, could survive the harsh persecution of Nero, what makes you think that an organization, with members numbering in the billions, would fold easily? Sure, some would loose faith, but all billion of them?

And lastly, religions are often, whether for good or bad, based around some form of governmental rebellion. Jesus spoke out against heresies of the Roman and Jewish political leaders of the day, Martin Luthor spoke out against Heresies committed by the Catholic Church of the time.

Religions don't pacify the "sheep"-like populace. All too often, religion infalmes them, and often the government takes the brunt of that passion.

Again, my point is not to make generalities, but to point out that there are many possible alternatives, and, likely, in 500 years all of them will show up in some form or another. And if there is at least one small conclave of Christians who still hold to the purity of their religion, uncorrupted by greed, power, and/or politics, it is likely to survive in some form. With over a billion alive today, I propose that it is not only likely, but almost a given that Christianity, in some form, will have survived, regardless of opression, abuse, misuse, failings, misjudgements, persecutions, holocausts, hatred, war, or even peace.

Beliefs are something that live inside someone, not tied to an individual place. Destory the earth, but as long as people live on, relgions will continue. Organized religions can be a lot less concerned with materials and places than some people might think.

----------------------------------------------
People who claim to know nothing and people who claim to know everything have at least one thing in common: both are either fools or liars.

T

Monday, April 11, 2005 7:32 PM

Religion won't die. People have been beheaded, crucified, boiled in pots, staked, fed to wild animals and still are being persecuted in different forms around the world.

Anytime people go back to a grassroots approach (i.e Firefly), they take up a religion. Will it be Christianity or Islam or Taoism or anything else, that's not known, but it's unlikely that some form of these religions won't still exist.

I was talking to someone very familiar with the Catholic faith and they told me that this generation of Catholics are becoming more fundamental than their parents' generation. People will experiment, but religions are here to stay.

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 11, 2005 7:51 PM

FourSkys, your reply was thoughtful and detailed. I didn't mean to say that was all religion was used for was questionable or evil, I just meant to say that the main use the ruling class has for religion is questionable or evil.
Like I posted right after, I didn't say religion didn't have an upside.

I sometimes have a way of makin' my statements sound a mite broadern' I maybe mean 'em...

It's just when you organize something, that something is more vulnerable to abuse and corruption.

Bruce is my Buddah Chrisisall

FOURSKYS

Monday, April 11, 2005 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I didn't mean to say that was all religion was used for was questionable or evil, I just meant to say that the main use the ruling class has for religion is questionable or evil.
Like I posted right after, I didn't say religion didn't have an upside.

I did happen to miss that second post of yours, thanks for pointing that out. And I'd agree with your last post that the main use of religion for the ruling class is generally, at best, questionable. An "opiate for the masses" in, probably, it's most mild case. But that doesn't mean that this is the only use for religion (not that that's what you were saying, Chrisisall, I just want to clarify a point). People who belive in something are always ripe for manipulation. When someone is willing to go to lengths for anything, there are always people willing to exploit that agenda for their own purposes. It's human nature (and the reason Socialize fails, but that's a whole 'nother story, all together).

But manipulation of that religion, its use, would, by definition, fortify it, and strengthen it. Even still, though, religion doesn't fade when "unnecessary". People who believe in something, in their own faith, stand to gain something from it. They find their own upside, and their own reasons.

I was thinking that I'd like to try to give some good examples of an upside simply to have both sides clear on the table, but then I realized how hard of a task that is. Religion is so much a personal thing, even to those of us in the organized sects. It can be generalized to peace and community, and altogether good feelings (at least most of the time), but it's very difficult to put a finger on the "upsides". Everyone gets something different out of it, and often times I feel (this is not directed at anyone in particular, please don't take offense by it) that most people simply consider practicing Christian sheep, following along with what everyone else is doing. While I'm sure some are, there is definitely a significant majority who feel real truth in what they believe, who are doing what they are doing because they feel it is right, not because it's expected of them. Anyway, this is getting significantly off track, but, if there is a true core of faith in a number of individuals in the FireFly 'verse, then there's no reason religion will die...

----------------------------------------------
People who claim to know nothing and people who claim to know everything have at least one thing in common: both are either fools or liars.

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 11, 2005 8:51 PM

I think we're both of a mind in this area, albiet your words are a mite more eloquent than mine.

And, of course you're right, religion of some kind or other will never completly die out, and hard times seem to make 'em stronger(on a person to person level, I mean).

The glib, yet nonetheless spiritual Chrisisall

SIMONWHO

Monday, April 11, 2005 10:37 PM

Indeed, I agree. As long as people ask "Why am I here?" there will always be people who can give them an answer, largely involving a tenth of their earnings, everlasting damnation/eternal rewards and/or sexual favours. I don't think that part of humanity is going away any time soon.

FOURSKYS

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Indeed, I agree. As long as people ask "Why am I here?" there will always be people who can give them an answer, largely involving a tenth of their earnings, everlasting damnation/eternal rewards and/or sexual favours. I don't think that part of humanity is going away any time soon.

It sounds to me like you have an irrational dislike for all thing spiritual/philosophical. What issue do you take with asking a broader question which might not have an immediate answer?

----------------------------------------------
People who claim to know nothing and people who claim to know everything have at least one thing in common: both are either fools or liars.

YT

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re missing the point, YT. No one is asking you for an opinion on comparative religion or social demographics.

That partly explains why I haven't offered one. It also seems rather far afield from "General Discussions About Firefly".

Quote:
Your opinion seems to be ...snip... that the use of Christian symbolism is purely pragmatic.

I wouldn't say "purely", but that's reasonably accurate.

Quote:
But I also think that the use of Christian symbolism was intentional.

Since it seems I was not clear in my earlier post, I think Joss's use of Christian symbolism was not only intentional, it was brilliant.

Quote:
Christian symbolism is used to establish continuity between this world and Joss’ futuristic one.

I think Joss said something like: take the old west & the future, combine them and make them seem like now. I'd say "support" rather than "establish", but if this seems to you different from what I posted, all I can say is they sound similar to me.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Stones, "Almost Here Your Sign", from "Steel Wheels"

ASTRAGYNIA

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:40 AM

Emma wrote:

Quote:
I am writing a lecture on the Bible in Whedonverse at the moment and was wondering whether you would mind me quoting some of your comments?

Certainly, you have my permission if what I've written interests you - and will you be posting this written lecture somewhere? I'd be interested in reading it.

The conversation seems to be at something of a standstill, though - ShinySeven put everything so well, s/he pretty much answered the original questions!

I notice nobody's said much about the burka, though - it seems a bit strange to me that it's the only reference to Islamic cultures that we've seen - and with all these desert landscapes, you might expect to see more of the long, loose clothing traditional in the Middle East and North Africa. I would say that it's because it wouldn't fit into the whole Wild West theme - but if that's the reason, then why the isolated burka?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by YT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re missing the point, YT. No one is asking you for an opinion on comparative religion or social demographics.

That partly explains why I haven't offered one. It also seems rather far afield from "General Discussions About Firefly".

Indeed. Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted your post. There seems to be some anti-religious underlying tones to some of the posts that are hard for me to construe, and that may have lead me to draw an inappropriate assumption on what you were trying to say. But it does seem like we are of similar minds on this.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

EMMA

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:38 AM

Quote:
will you be posting this written lecture somewhere? I'd be interested in reading it.

I can do if people would like although it may not be so exciting as I am comparing televisual depictions of martyrdom (and possibly redemption) with movie depictions: the Whedonverse & Babylon 5, with The Passion of the Christ and Dogville.

I am also applying to write a PhD on how science-fiction/fantasy depicts the Bible and how fans understand the Bible through science-fiction. I figure that way I can combine my hobby with my work, pretty lucky if it comes off!

This really is a great discussion, us Browncoats are so friendly; normally religion sparks nasty arguments but everyone here is shiny - hoorah!

I really should get me a signature

YT

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Astragynia:
- and with all these desert landscapes, you might expect to see more of the long, loose clothing traditional in the Middle East and North Africa.

Might that not have reminded SciFi fans of Dune? I have no idea whether such garb even occured to Joss but, he was trying to tell a story as unusual today as Dune, in its time; he may have prefered to avoid a reference to a SciFi classic.

Quote:
I would say that it's because it wouldn't fit into the whole Wild West theme - but if that's the reason, then why the isolated burka?

My guess is it was Shawna Trpcic's idea, with no input from Joss.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Jazz Is Dead, "Eyes of the World & Two Sisters", from "Further Most"

YT

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted your post.

No big. I think I know where you were going with your previous post, but if I posted my reaction to what I thought you meant, but did not say, we could wind up so far afield we might not get back in time for the BDM.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Stones, "Far Away Eyes", from "Some Girls"

SIMONWHO

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FourSkys:
It sounds to me like you have an irrational dislike for all thing spiritual/philosophical. What issue do you take with asking a broader question which might not have an immediate answer?

I have no dislike for the spiritual nor the philosophical, nor those who ask broad questions. I do have extreme scepticism for those who say that have the answer, particularly as the powerful they are, the more odious they become. This isn't irrational. This is what happens when you've read too many accounts of priests abusing boys, women being pushed back into burning buildings for being improperly dressed, warriors being told to fight in the name of God and above all else, the leaders of those institutions defending the abusers, attacking the victims, defending their institution rather than doing the right thing.

Perhaps if we stopped those who say that there's a great life ahead of us in the next world, maybe we'd try to do better in this one. Because if Firefly demonstrates anything, even if there's a new world for us, it'd still be full of the same old people - thieves, killers and whores.

>> People who claim to know nothing and people who claim to know everything have at least one thing in common: both are either fools or liars.

That nicely sums up my attitude to religious leaders too.

SCOTTISHBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:02 AM

If there is one faith that I would think could stand the destruction of Earth, Hinduism is the one that stands out in my mind.

Yes there is the Ganges river that would be lost, however, Hinduism is a versatile and lasting religion.

Even in Dune, Frank Herbert recognizes that this would be one of the few religions unchanged(at least in name), this is probably due to it's fluid nature.

I heard at one time that there was a mention of Catholics in the Pilot for Firefly, it is before Book sees Kaylee, he goes to one ship where the owner says "No Asians or Catholics" and then book turns and heads toward what we find is Serenity, I heard the scene was cut because they didn't want to catholicize Book. But he does seem very "High Church" to me, maybe the Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans Mixed it up?

It would make sense that various groups would eventually merge together, especially if they are fleeing a destroyed earth, with that kind of horrific event, I am sure matters of theological difference become null and void.

GRRARRG

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

I have no dislike for the spiritual nor the philosophical, nor those who ask broad questions. I do have extreme scepticism for those who say that have the answer, particularly as the powerful they are, the more odious they become.

So do you think an answer exists? You're okay with people searching for it, but you don't want them to find it? I know that's probably not what you consciously want, but be reasonable. If people are going to ask the question, then they should be permitted to come to some satisfactory conclusion if they find one.

Quote:
This isn't irrational. This is what happens when you've read too many accounts of priests abusing boys, women being pushed back into burning buildings for being improperly dressed, warriors being told to fight in the name of God and above all else, the leaders of those institutions defending the abusers, attacking the victims, defending their institution rather than doing the right thing.

None of those things are happening in my church (to my knowledge). If they were, I would certainly do something to stop them, and go to a different church if they continued, because I realize that those things have nothing to do with my faith - if they occured in my church, it would be because of human flaws, not flaws in the religion itself. I agree that those are bad things.

Quote:

Perhaps if we stopped those who say that there's a great life ahead of us in the next world, maybe we'd try to do better in this one.

Every church I've ever been to has had a mission of making this world a better place, because we believe that that's a main part of why we are here - to spread goodness and love. Non-Christians often misinterpret our actions, and admittedly there are some Christians who go about this in the wrong way and with the wrong attitude. But again, that is due to human flaws.

Quote:
Because if Firefly demonstrates anything, even if there's a new world for us, it'd still be full of the same old people - thieves, killers and whores.

Yes, if the new world is still consisting of and governed by humans, no matter what religious stance the people or the government take, those people will be there. But the "new world" that Christians believe in won't be governed by an American-Chinese super-union, so the analogy hardly applies

Quote:

>> People who claim to know nothing and people who claim to know everything have at least one thing in common: both are either fools or liars.

That nicely sums up my attitude to religious leaders too.

No Christian that I know claims to know everything. They claim to know something, and some people who do not know that something feel uncomfortable around them, and attribute their discomfort to a high and mighty stance that, in my experience, is usually not actually there. I can often undersand why a non-Christian might interpret it that way, but that doesn't mean it's the case. Sometimes it is; again: human flaws, not flaws in the religion or the faith.

I mock you with my monkey pants

FOURSKYS

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:49 PM

In addition to what GRRARRG, which I pretty much agree with for the most part, I'll just add the following response...

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I do have extreme scepticism for those who say that have the answer, particularly as the powerful they are, the more odious they become. This isn't irrational. This is what happens when you've read too many accounts of priests abusing boys, women being pushed back into burning buildings for being improperly dressed, warriors being told to fight in the name of God and above all else, the leaders of those institutions defending the abusers, attacking the victims, defending their institution rather than doing the right thing.

Now, I'll admit that much of this does and has occured, but that's no reason to judge the entire faith community on the actions of a small number of individuals. Those individuals are condemned even by their own communities, it's not something that's been condoned. Sure, there are extreemists, and there are hippocrits, but these exist in all parts of life. You can't call the entire human race trecherous, vile muderers, just because there are a few who commit these kinds of heinous acts, can you? There's a big difference between individuals and communities.

Quote:

Perhaps if we stopped those who say that there's a great life ahead of us in the next world, maybe we'd try to do better in this one. Because if Firefly demonstrates anything, even if there's a new world for us, it'd still be full of the same old people - thieves, killers and whores.

One of the great things about having the idea of a great life ahead of us, is that it encourages us to to better in this one. I don't understand your point about that making things worse. Most religions preach an afterlife which is weighted proportionatly to the quality with which you live your current one. Christianity, Hinduism, etc., they all make you next life better if this one is more perfect. New worlds may still be full of the same thieves, killers, and whores as the current one is, but we can hope that they're different, that they'll change. There's a certian optomism and perfection applied to the religious afterlife, something that can't be said about simply a "new world".

----------------------------------------------------
People who claim to know nothing and people who claim to know everything have at least one thing in common: both are either fools or liars.

SIMONWHO

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:40 PM

I'd like to think that abuses are recognised, brought to light and changes made to ensure that they never happen again. But that's not what happens.

For example, the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Saudi Arabia's religious police were the ones who locked the improperly dressed girls in their burning school, what has been done about them? Nothing. They still go around, doing their 'God sent' duty, maiming and killing as they wish.

Cardinal Bernard Law, the archbishop of Boston who admitted he allowed confessed paedophiles to transfer freely into new parishes? He got promoted to Rome (he even got to do the Mass in one of the Vatican's four basillicas for the Pope's funeral).

Every institution protects itself. Governments try and cover up their secrets, businesses try to bury their mistakes, the Army fudges over abuses. However religions are different. They are supposed to be based on a fundamental belief in right and wrong. And instead, there they are, protecting the guilty because they are high ranking officials whereas the victims are just ordinary people.

I don't expect that there be no abuses. Just that the powers that be deal with them, not sweep them under the rug. The Catholic Church absolutely fumed against 'The Magdalene Sisters', a film about the institutional abuse of women in a Catholic run asylum. L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's paper, called it "angry and rancorous provocation", Vatican Radio called it "clearly false."

Except of course it wasn't. The director himself admitted that he'd had to not use some of the more horrific abuses for fear of upsetting the audience too much. The Church was apparently so embarassed by the counter-backlash, fuelled by survivors who came out with stories that "made our film look like a holiday camp", that the order of Nuns who ran the real life institutions issued an apology (vague, impersonal, an "it's all in the past" that neither placates nor carries sincerity).

Again, as you say, we mustn't judge a community by a few individuals. But isn't it fair to judge an institution by its leaders and their actions? If leaders condone abuse, by direct or knowing inaction, where else should the blame lie?

And, to get back to the point (at long last, I hear you say), because of this corruption and because we live in an age where every dirty secret is starting to come out, I think the basic building stones of core faiths are being undermind. In particular, I have high hopes that with the spread of democracy to the Middle East, suddenly women will ask themselves "Why must I be considered worth less than a man? Why should I let the religious authorities push me around?"

But as I said, that's just the way I see the future. Joss, despite our matching religious cynicism, obviously has a different vision and his vision has a catchy theme tune plus a big movie coming out.

ASTRAGYNIA

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

Again, as you say, we mustn't judge a community by a few individuals. But isn't it fair to judge an institution by its leaders and their actions? If leaders condone abuse, by direct or knowing inaction, where else should the blame lie?

The blame lies squarely on those individuals who committed and condoned the abuse.

I might agree that it's fair to judge an institution by its leaders (though even that is debatable - would you judge the institution of democracy by, say, Saddam Hussein? Just because he said it was democracy doesn't make it what true democracy should be, just as the Saudi religious police saying burning girls is God's will doesn't make it what religion should be), but the result of any such judgement is usually going to be "it needs to change," not necessarily "it needs to go."

Besides, the high-ups in the Roman Catholic Church are not the "leaders" of Christianity. First of all, there are millions of Christians who aren't Roman Catholics. And more importantly, they are only humans - from a believer's perspective, the true "leader" is Christ/God. Obviously, not everybody will agree with the "the Church is transcendent, not an earthly, human institution" argument - however, that is how most believers see it and will continue to see it in the future. And that applies to most religions, I think, not just Christianity.

Oh, and one more thing - I'm not sure if you meant the comment about women and the spread of democracy in the Middle East to mean that you think Islam will go into decline just because women might have the same rights as Western women, but if that IS what you meant, then let me point out that Islam is still going strong among many immigrants in the West who do have such rights.

(Sorry, I seem to be getting a bit off-topic in a thread I myself started... how ironic. Oh well).

NITEFALLS

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:37 AM

QUOTE]Really? Yet somehow the Roman State religion as established by Constantine in the 4th century not only persisted and continued to spread for 1500 years following the fall of the Roman Empire but remained the major religion of an entire culture right to this day.

(I'm new, please forgive strangeness)

Actually, Constantine didn't make
Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He converted, but it was one of his decendants that made it the official religion. And, I'm sure that the religions of the gods were still flurishing even then; at least for a little while.

In 500 years or so, I would hope that more religions are amalgoms of eachother. Buddhist thought intermingled with some Islamic philosophy, with a dash of the old pagan respect for women and female power in general. After all, Book even goes to one of the abbies to meditate...maybe that's a little bit if Buddhist influence right there.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nitefalls:
(I'm new, please forgive strangeness)
Actually, Constantine didn't make
Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He converted, but it was one of his decendants that made it the official religion. And, I'm sure that the religions of the gods were still flurishing even then; at least for a little while.

Well, Yes and no.

Yes, the Capitoline religion remained after Christianity became State sanctioned Roman religion, particularly among the patricians and the Senate, which were more conservative. In less populated parts of the Empire, various pagan religions persisted for many centuries after Constantine. So also did other Roman religions such as Sol Invictus. And other popular, though unsanctioned religions, such as the Cult of Isis.

And No, it was Constantine who made Christianity the religion of Rome when he signed the Edict of Milan in 324 AD, among other actions which helped to bring Christianity to dominance within the Roman Empire.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

EMMA

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:34 AM

Quote:
it was Constantine who made Christianity the religion of Rome when he signed the Edict of Milan in 324 AD, among other actions which helped to bring Christianity to dominance within the Roman Empire.

If anyone is interested it was (probably) an entirely political move. The Roman Empire was falling and he needed something to unite people, he didn't convert until he was dying.

I really should get me a signature

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:38 PM

It certainly was a political move. He was a Roman Emperor, everything that he did as an Emperor was political. I’m not sure that the Roman Empire was necessarily falling in 324 though. If I had to identify a date when the Roman Empire began to decline I would say that it wouldn’t be until 330 AD, when Constantine moved the Capital of Rome. Constantine is a complicated person. It may never be known, why he did the things he did, but of all the Roman Emperors, Constantine is one of a very few who seems to have genuinely desired peace, and he is the first to have encouraged Christianity.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

EMMA

Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:58 AM

Quote:
If I had to identify a date when the Roman Empire began to decline I would say that it wouldn’t be until 330 AD,

I am not sure I agree with you is all. It is possible to argue many dates for the decline of the Empire, technically it could even be argued that it never declined merely transformed and became the Holy Roman Empire. I think the decline was well under way before Constantine even took (quite literally) office. As you say the move to Byzantium was the nail in the proverbial coffin.

This would be a fun debate, I suspect everyone else would be bored rigid though so I return to my observation outpost!

I really should get me a signature

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:45 PM

True. The date at which the Empire began to decline or even finally did decline has been a point of contention since the Fall of the Roman Empire, assuming it fell. But I think you’re right that this discussion is well outside the scope of this thread. I don’t know if one could justify such a hijack.

I’m actually interested in opinions on the religions of Firefly, which I find equally interesting, and hope some more discussion on that immerges.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

BARNEYT

Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:03 PM

I'm not qualified or knowledgeable enough to get into a discussion on the likelihood of whether or what sort of religion would exist 500 years from now.

My personal opinion is that the massive upheaval would lead some people back to the traditional forms of religion because they offer a structure for society that is clearly defined, and this is what a lot of people would need if there's been a mass exodus from Earth.

I did want to point out, though, that in Heart of Gold, Book is clearly shown to be a Christian of some variety because he makes the joke about being able to build the barricades because he's spent his life following the teachings of the son of a carpenter.

(a joke I found very funny which is why I remember it! )

EDIT: I've obviously spent too much time reading the grammar threads, I completely missed out punctuation in that last paragraph
---
"I think the right place to start is to say, fair is fair. This is who we are. These are our numbers." Mr Willis of Ohio - The West Wing

PURPLEBELLY

Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarneyT:
... that in Heart of Gold, Book is clearly shown to be a Christian of some variety ...

OTOH: Book's tardiness in engaging with sex-workers in that episode is so unlike any Minister of Religion within our comprehension, that it may make us wonder ...

CHANNAIN

Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:51 PM

Quote:
ScottishBrowncoat said
I heard at one time that there was a mention of Catholics in the Pilot for Firefly, it is before Book sees Kaylee, he goes to one ship where the owner says "No Asians or Catholics" and then book turns and heads toward what we find is Serenity, I heard the scene was cut because they didn't want to catholicize Book. But he does seem very "High Church" to me, maybe the Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans Mixed it up?

Lutherans are practically Catholics as it is these days - I should know, being a church-going Lutheran my own self. Our litergy has been taken from the Catholics and used during services for the past 25 years or so. So on the one hand, it wouldn't surprise me that the Catholic and Protestant religions may have mixed it up.

The pastor at my church looks at it as a sibling rivalry - Martin Luther picked a fight with "big brother," a fight ensued and the two sides of the Christian religion stopped speaking to each other. So on the other hand, I don't see the Catholics and Protestants getting together anytime soon. That fight only got started in 1517, so the wounds are still too fresh.

That, by the way, is 488 years and the Protestants are still here. In fact a few other demoninations have sprung up since then. Covenant, Evangelical Free... if there's a different way to understand Christianity, we're still doing it over here!

It hasn't been proven that Book is preacher turned pawn, as Chrisisall mentioned way up at the tippy top of this really interesting thread. Neither has it been proven that he's former Alliance turned preacher, which is where my head is at right now. Someone just suggested to me recently that Book was former Alliance Black Ops. Having survived long enough to have gray hair, he was given the opportunity to retire, and they way that is done is to close him up in a monastery for a few years.

I'd go into the question of Book's chosen path of religiosity and whether the Shepherds are a Christian sect or not, take another look at "Heart of Gold" but that's just been covered. It's easy to forget that Jesus had a secular profession before the three years he spent walking the walk.

Speaking as someone who lost faith and found it again, I would agree that Mal was a man of faith, yes. However, had he been a man of STRONG faith, he wouldn't have lost it, no matter what happened to him. He would have seen everything that befell the Valley and the Independents as part of God's plan, no matter how awful it became.

Mal kissing the cross strikes me more as the same sort of good luck charm as putting a dab of spit on the end of a bat before getting up to the plate.

Fans come and fans go...but zealots are with you until the bitter black end.
I draw...therefore I am. http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922
Minnesota Meetup - join us! http://firefly.meetup.com/45/

ASTRAGYNIA

Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:46 PM

Quote:

Speaking as someone who lost faith and found it again, I would agree that Mal was a man of faith, yes. However, had he been a man of STRONG faith, he wouldn't have lost it, no matter what happened to him. He would have seen everything that befell the Valley and the Independents as part of God's plan, no matter how awful it became.

Mal kissing the cross strikes me more as the same sort of good luck charm as putting a dab of spit on the end of a bat before getting up to the plate.

Certainly, I agree; that sort of thing seems much more superstitious than spiritual, to me. However, different branches of Christianity approve/disapprove of such things differently; the Roman Catholic Church, for example, is much more into the kissing-things-as-part-of-normal-ritual than most Protestant churches.

CHANNAIN

Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:26 PM

Quote:
Astragynia said
Certainly, I agree; that sort of thing seems much more superstitious than spiritual, to me. However, different branches of Christianity approve/disapprove of such things differently; the Roman Catholic Church, for example, is much more into the kissing-things-as-part-of-normal-ritual than most Protestant churches.

This is true. We don't have prayer beads, we don't generally cross ourselves, or genuflect, or even kneel during services either. That pastor I mentioned, though, he encourages former Catholics to continue crossing themselves as they are accustomed to. He doesn't believe in compromising all traditions in favor of one belief system or the other.

This is the same guy who wears a Native American medicine wheel in lieu of a cross, along with an arrowhead pendant made out of a green stone that I think is either aventurine or jade. Interesting things for a Lutheran pastor to wear, since we're often deemed too traditional for such things. He's taken part in annual sweat lodge ceremonies too, which is VERY Native American.

Fans come and fans go...but zealots are with you until the bitter black end.
I draw...therefore I am. http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922
Minnesota Meetup - join us! http://firefly.meetup.com/45/

YT

Friday, April 15, 2005 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
OTOH: Book's tardiness in engaging with sex-workers in that episode is so unlike any Minister of Religion within our comprehension, that it may make us wonder ...

OtGH, Book later (in HoG) says something very like, "Been following in the footsteps of a carpenter for awhile, now". Clearly a reference to the Naz. Also clearly vague as to how long.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) ZZ Top, "Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers", from "Tres Hombres"

GETUPKID

Friday, April 15, 2005 3:11 AM

In one of the essays in "Finding Serenity: Anti-heroes, Lost Shepherds, and Space Hookers in Joss Whedon's Firefly." Leigh Adams Wright talks about a scene that was cut in the episode Serenity when Book was looking for a ship. The scene that was cut described there to be a "fancy dressed" person in front of a high class ship, and that person in front of the ship was either a crewman or the captain, and he said "No Asians or Catholics aboard." This must mean that Catholicism is either close to abolished or just rare to find in the ‘verse. This just plays into the mass diversity that Firefly has, and one of the aspects that makes it one of the best series to ever be shown.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, April 15, 2005 3:58 AM

Actually all it means is that that person doesn't want Asians or Catholics on his ship.

But really, there has been a rivalry between Protestants and Catholics going back to the Reformation. This rivalry was particularly strong among certain groups of Protestants, Anabaptists and Calvinists for instance. Some of these groups (or groups like them) often had considerable disdain for Catholics. My point is that Catholics need not be rare or even a minority for some people to dislike them.

I personally think it is a little unrealistic to expect that that particular animosity would last into the 25-26 century. So much of the politics that originally fostered the bitterness between Catholics and Protestants has already dissipated. Even here in the South where Anabaptist Christian culture (or descendents of) is common, much of the dislike of Catholics seems to have settled.

Even in Northern Ireland the political turmoil seems to be winding down. However, one should still be cautious when declaring oneself a Catholic or Protestant in certain parts of N. Ireland. But the animosity in Northern Ireland is a completely different sociopolitical beast from the Anabaptist thing, which I think is probably closer to what Joss was driving at.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

PURPLEBELLY

Friday, April 15, 2005 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by YT:
... Book later (in HoG) says something very like, "Been following in the footsteps of a carpenter for awhile, now" ...

But, By their fruits shall you know them. Accepting someone's statements on the basis of their choice of clothing is rarely to be recommended.

FREDIKAYLLOW

Friday, April 15, 2005 12:37 PM

Quote:
If ever I were to meet Joss Whedon, my first question towards him would be "You lost your faith in God because of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND?" In the "Objects in Space" commentary, he talks about how he saw the flick and because of it he lost his faith in God and Xtianity.

If you listen again, Joss actually says that at the age of 16 he realised that he had no faith. He then saw the movie and had an 'existential epiphany'. It wasn't the actual movie that made him lose faith

***********************************
No Power In The 'Verse Can Stop Me
XOXOX-FREDIKAYLLOW-XOXOX

GETUPKID

Friday, April 15, 2005 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
My point is that Catholics need not be rare or even a minority for some people to dislike them.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

Yeah that was my point to.