A Christians perspective

POSTED BY: MalforPresident
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 23:49
VIEWED: 45445
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 3:04 PM

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.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 20, 2006 3:14 PM

Shepherd, is Mal a bad man?
I started a thread askin' that question, but really want to hear from someone like yourself, one who would invite God into your home.
When Mal shoots the surrendering soldier in Serenity, was he doing the Lord's work, or the devil's?
Can it be seen as simply as that?
We haven't really gotten the religious perspective on that one...

Heathen Chrisisall

MRBEN

Friday, January 20, 2006 3:15 PM

/me waves

I found Firefly surprisingly lacking in theological/religious comment in many ways. Our only point of reference in the series is Book, although in the film (IIRC) we some more Buddhist imagery with Inara, but it's mostly just imagery without comment.

mrben

"Carpe Aptenodytes"
http://www.jedimoose.org

EST120

Friday, January 20, 2006 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Shepherd, is Mal a bad man?
I started a thread askin' that question, but really want to hear from someone like yourself, one who would invite God into your home.
When Mal shoots the surrendering soldier in Serenity, was he doing the Lord's work, or the devil's?
Can it be seen as simply as that?
We haven't really gotten the religous perspective on that one...

Heathen Chrisisall

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

MISBEHAVIN

Friday, January 20, 2006 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalforPresident:
I'm a huge firefly fan, that also happens to be a Christian. Now, just to clarify, I am not a "Simon and River burning" Christian. ...also, any thoughts on the theological implications of firefly...

I'm a born-again Christian. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that God created everything as described in Genesis. Unlike River, I don't see Noah's Ark as a problem, but I wouldn't burn her for disagreeing with me on that point! While I love the entire Firefly 'verse, I don't really look for any theological implications in it, just as I don't look to Hollywood to confirm my faith. Joss is a creative genius and I marvel at his talent, and feel that in his vision for Firefly he's probably correct that we are the only sentient beings here. He's commented that the idea behind Serenity was that there is no clear good and evil and that the idea of sin is outmoded. On that I must disagree, but I still love Firefly!

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 3:45 PM

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

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, January 20, 2006 3:46 PM

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

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

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

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:08 PM

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

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:25 PM

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

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

The Buddha-like Chrisisall

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by est120:

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

I disagree.

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

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

__________________________________________

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

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

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

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

CAUSAL

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:55 PM

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

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

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

WINDWALKER

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:56 PM

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

The same goes for Mal...

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

CAUSAL

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:56 PM

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

I definitely agree with you here.

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

CAUSAL

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:56 PM

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

Me, too.

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

MISBEHAVEN

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:07 PM

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

CARTOON

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:07 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PADAN

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:38 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My overall impression of the series and movi

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:42 PM

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

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

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:42 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:49 PM

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

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

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

BOWIE

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:53 PM

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

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

In other words, I LOVE FIREFLY!

Serenity Forever.

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

BOWIE

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:58 PM

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

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

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

"I'm not sure."

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

VISKY

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:06 PM

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

MTNSCOTT

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:19 PM

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

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

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

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

DIETCOKE

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:22 PM

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

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

CARTOON

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:29 PM

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

Granted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

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

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

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

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

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

CARTOON

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:00 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The girl's a problem."

CAPTAINCDC

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:25 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CARTOON

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:33 PM

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

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

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

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

"Time for some thrillin' heroics."

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:01 PM

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

MTNSCOTT

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:02 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

HAPPYBRAIN

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:13 PM

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

FREERADICAL42

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:16 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:17 PM

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

E.A.

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

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:22 PM

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

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

MTNSCOTT

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:23 PM

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

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

JHANCE11

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:29 PM

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

jhance11

JHANCE11

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:46 PM

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

jhance11

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:52 PM

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

HAPPYBRAIN

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:55 PM

TOUCHE!

OMELET

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:13 PM

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

jhance11

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

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

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

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

OMELET

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:15 PM

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

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

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

PRINCESSROHANNEN

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:19 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTNSCOTT

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:
I wonder why it is that so many people automatically start to get defensive and antagonistic the moment a word like "morality" is thrown into a conversation?
And why are there so many here on this board trying to force a relativistic view of morality on those of us who happen to believe that right and wrong are absolute?

I Have a one word answer: Righteousness

I have always felt that this should be a deadly sin as well, it certainly seems to be the Cause of all wars.

(Edit: The Definition of Righteousness that i am using: In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment. Virtue and Morality are cultural destictions.)

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

WINDWALKER

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:32 PM

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

Jesus is Lord...by the way

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

OMELET

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:39 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. I don't think people are and should be condemned to be bad. According to Christianity, you should love your enemy more than your friends or family, that's why I don't hate people. I just can't. I don't hold grudges or want revenge on anyone. It's not in my nature.

The second point of yours I agree with as well. Everyone is entitled to their own belief on morality and religion and so on. Everyone is free to speak their minds and shouldn't be attacked, but everyone should politely argue their points and show their points of views on subjects.

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

FREERADICAL42

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
It is fact A wooden ark of that size would have sunk like A stone due to the weight and stress. It would have sprung hundreds of leaks( check with the boys at Cal-tech.

So, I *AM* one of the 'boys at Caltech' and also a rather experienced sailor, and the fact is, the Ark, if sealed using materials available at the time, would have floated just fine. Today's ships are made from materials much, much heavier than wood and they do not "sink like a stone." Weight is irrelevant in buoyancy; volume is important, and the ark had enough volume that it was able to support its own weight. You don't need to be at Caltech to know that.

Either way, your point is clear and I think, correct. The Bible does not need, and shouldn't, be taken completely literally. It is said that it was written in "the language of every man"- i.e., so that every man could understand it. Since humanity has existed for a long time, this means that it had to be written in a way such that tribesmen AND sci-tech people would be able to understand it. So to the people of the past, the ark held all the animals of the world. Today, we know it held all of the animals of *Noah's* world, which was a bit smaller than the entire globe. It's all written for understanding, not necessarily literal accuracy.

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

PRINCESSROHANNEN

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:44 PM

Ya know, I was thinking about that moment in the movie that we've all been harping on about for the last few days (the shooting of that soldier).

I've been mulling it over, and wondering what it was exactly that Whedon was trying to accomplish with that scene. It may very well be that he was attempting to start up exactly the sort of debate that we've all been engaged in; not necessarily on a message board, but in each of our heads.

I haven't run across one post yet in which someone has declared, "I hate Mal for that! He's an evil man!" (No, seriously, no one has said anything even remotely like that.) But several of us do seem to be a little uncomfortable with the way he was behaving in that scene, even if we support his actions fully.

So, there's Whedon. Sitting in a room somewhere writing the story for the BDM. He thinks to himself, "How can I make the audience fear for Mal's mental stablity without turning them against him?"

Could it be that he meant for us all to feel a little conflicted about that moment? Maybe he intended for us to cheer Mal on and recoil in horror all at the same time.

This infamous moment reminds me of several moments in "Saving Private Ryan" (coincidentally another movie with Nathan Fillion). Anyone remember when they forced that guy to dig his own grave? Remember at the beginning when those two Allied soldiers shot the two Germans with their hands up, only to discover that they hadn't in fact been surrendering?

I love that Whedon isn't afraid to tackle the more serious issues in life while taking us on his wild space ride.

PADAN

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
Like yourself I also believe in God. unlike you however I do not believe the bible is the word of God. Since yo brought up noah,here's some science to chew on...
jhance11

jhance11 - It sounds like you've only been listening to one side of the scientific arguments about Noah's ark and the flood. There is substantial evidence and many plausible scientific explanations that support the Biblical accounts of a world-wide flood and the nature of Noah's ark. Here's just one example of an article:

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

And here's a website with more information, if you'd like to look into it further:

www.answersingenesis.org

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

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

MTNSCOTT

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:54 PM

2 words on Noah's ark and I am leaving work and bowing out of this Conversation: Genetic Bottleneck.

Religious debates are always fun.

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

FREERADICAL42

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Omelet:
With reagards to your comments saying that the boat would have sunk and that the world would have not been covered in water after 40 days and nights,I disagree. This is God we're talking about. God can do anything. God is the supreme ruler and father. He can cause anything to happen.

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

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

STORYMARK

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:59 PM

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

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

And where exactly did someone try to force you to change your view? After just readng the entire thread, all I see is some people offering a different opinion of morality, or simply pointing out the fact that not everyone shares the same view.

This is a thread asking for different perspectives from Christians, and in case you didn't know, that still covers a large spectrum of interpretation and beleif.

Unless what you really want is for those who hold different opinions of morality to keep those opinions to themselves, in which case I would ask who is really trying to force their views on another?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

OMELET

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
Quote:
Originally posted by Omelet:
With reagards to your comments saying that the boat would have sunk and that the world would have not been covered in water after 40 days and nights,I disagree. This is God we're talking about. God can do anything. God is the supreme ruler and father. He can cause anything to happen.

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

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

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

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

CARTOON

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:00 PM

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

I believe that was the episode where they crossed Niska -- "The Train Job". The next guy changed his mind pretty quickly after that demonstration, huh?

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

I should've been so subtle. (Note for future reference: Add a "by the way" at the end of the thing.)

In response to the people who've criticized my criticism...

It seems kind of strange that in a thread called "A Christian's Perspective", that a Christian giving their Christian perspective should be criticized for feeling that way by people who are (by their own admission) NOT Christians. What's the title of the thread? Oopps...by the way.

I happen to agree with everything Princessrohan has said -- uh, by the way. At least, in this thread. I'm not vouching for posts made elsewhere.

This show certainly draws a diverse range of Browncoats.

"I can't!! Too much hair!"

MALFORPRESIDENT

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:01 PM

Well, I guess the hope for civilized conversation is no more. Pushing all of this aside. I AM GLAD THAT WE ALL CAN BELIEVE IN FIREFLY! Don't start a Holy War in this thread please. I knew this might have been a bad idea. Too many tensions. God Bless you all.

WINDWALKER

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:04 PM

I should have just put...

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

FREERADICAL42

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Omelet:

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

How right you are; and even more sublime and great is G-d for doing it in such a way that he did not violate the laws of his own creation! The greatest are both powerful and subtle, and G-d does both wonderfully. Instead of just commanding all men but Noah to die, he floods the world with water. He does not exercise the full extent of his power, rather choosing to stay within the laws of physics. To me, this makes G-d all the more powerful.

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

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

I've heard that reasoning before, Queen, and as much I enjoy pretending your posts are invisible , it doesn't wash (no Serenity pilot's name pun intended).

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

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

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

"The girl's a problem."

The curse words I agree with you. They aren't strictly necessary in order to portray realism. Though every little detail helps. However, I can only think of one person I know who never swears. And I know a lot of people. So, to me, a story full of a bunch of people who never ever swear would be a bit unrealistic.

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

Now, as for the immorality thing, I agree with you that it shouldn't be glorified. However, I don't think Inara's immorality really is. She is repeatedly called a whore throughout the series, even by a man who's in love with her. Book confesses early on that the subject makes him uncomfortable. And I'm fairly certain one of the main reasons why Mal hasn't admitted his feelings for her is because of what she does. The only reasons why Inara are respected, I feel, is because of who she is (an intelligent, generally good woman) and not for what she does. That's my opinion anyway. But you're entitled to yours. I swear I won't kill you with my brain.

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

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

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

CARTOON

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:28 PM

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

If I didn't know better, I'd think Wind was referrin' ta' ME...

By the way... I'm still laughing at that pic you posted yesterday of L&H. What a hoot. Am wondering if my Dad ever saw that. He would've had a fit (the good kind).

Uh, Mal, I don't think anyone's been calllin' anyone names... Uh, except for Wind just sayin' I'm stupid.

Just some polite, point to point disagreement. You didn't think we'd all see eye to eye, didja?

By the way... haven't seen any invisible posts, lately. Where you gone to, Queen?

"I'm no good with words. Don't use em' much, myself."

WINDWALKER

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:31 PM

Nope. I mean no harm to any of my browncoat brethren
I'm just spontaneous
I post things just for laughs

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

CARTOON

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:52 PM

You know, if I was smart (no wise-cracks, please), I'd have gone in and edited out the last line of my previous post -- 'cause, wouldn't you know it, the minute after I hit "post my response" and the page finally loads (takes about 3 days with dial-up), I see Queen has returned with another of her infamously-invisible posts.

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

Oh dear. The sky's falling! Queen and I have agreed!! Better run for the shelters, folks.

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

Oh, that's too bad. It's just the opposite with me. Although, I've seen it (and been around it) both ways, but to say that not using them is unrealistic, well, that depends who you're hanging around with.

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

Good question. I don't like any curse words, but general curses won't generally (in and of themselves) keep me from going to see a film I otherwise want to see (see the "Hollywood sucks" thread for more details about the lengthy process I go through in order to determine which films to see and which film to ignore if you're particularly curious. If not, just ignore this whole paragraph.). However, I find blasphemy and profanity far more egregious, and that alone will keep me from going to see a film I otherwise would've gone to see.

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

Oh dear. This won't do at all. Agreeing with me twice in one thread. Surely, the law's of nature prohibit this. Someone please look it up and let me know.

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
However,

I just knew there had to be a "however" in there somewhere...

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

Well, we have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless, of course, you'd prefer to disagree about agreeing. There's no way I can honestly look at someone (anyone, male or female) who has physical relations with someone other than their spouse as "moral". Am I saying that I'm pefect? Heck, no. I've expressed many of my billions of faults throughout these forums for anyone who wishes to dig up any dirt on me. But, falling into sin on occasion (or with great frequency, as in my case) and repenting of it, isn't the same as someone who choses it as a lifestyle.

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

Oh.

I was actually looking forward to that. Oh well. Guess I'll have to find another way out of this thread.

(Was tempted to use "The girl's a problem" line I sometimes close with, but thought that Queen may think I was referring to her.)

"You think we should be usin' my fame to hoodwink folks?"

(There, that's much better.)

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:04 PM

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

By the way, I agree with people very rarely. So you should feel really special about that.

And also, you have dial-up?? I feel terribly sorry for you.

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

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

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

GIZMO

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehavin:
Quote:
Originally posted by MalforPresident:
I'm a huge firefly fan, that also happens to be a Christian. Now, just to clarify, I am not a "Simon and River burning" Christian. ...also, any thoughts on the theological implications of firefly...

I'm a born-again Christian. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that God created everything as described in Genesis. Unlike River, I don't see Noah's Ark as a problem, but I wouldn't burn her for disagreeing with me on that point! While I love the entire Firefly 'verse, I don't really look for any theological implications in it, just as I don't look to Hollywood to confirm my faith. Joss is a creative genius and I marvel at his talent, and feel that in his vision for Firefly he's probably correct that we are the only sentient beings here. He's commented that the idea behind Serenity was that there is no clear good and evil and that the idea of sin is outmoded. On that I must disagree, but I still love Firefly!

I'm Catholic, and everything up there fits my views. I'm a total Browncoat, too. I don't think people like Jayne stand as examples of how to live, but I love the characters. Of course, I also like seeing moments where characters do stick to morals, such as Wash when Saffron starts coming on to him in "Our Mrs. Reynolds." He starts talking about how much he loves Zoe, forcing Saffron to try something else. Hilarious, painful, but hey, it's part of what I love about Wash.

History abhors a paradox.
-Kain

CARTOON

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:14 PM

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

You can argue with me privately if it suits your fancy. Just don't wanna' bore the folks or make this thread a 3,000-poster.

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

Uh, "special"?!?!? In a good way, or a bad way?

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

Probably the reason why my notions seem so antiquated, Queen. By the time I post them, years and years have gone by.

"Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing."

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:29 PM

Special in a good way, natch. I don't agree with unintelligent people, even if they happen to be right.

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

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

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

NANDIFAN

Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:07 AM

I don't think Inara cared for the attitudes of the leaders of the Companion Guild. When Nandi in "Hearts of Gold" points out that the guild told the other companions to not speak to her, Inara basically said they could kiss her butt! I think Inara really just has a lot of love to give, and doesn't like being told who to love. On a personal note, if I knew more Christians like you, MalforPresident, I would have more faith in the religion. I hope that doesn't offend you, but the only Christians I have known spit on me (literally) because I was born of out wedlock. You seem like a really great person!

NANDIFAN

Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:12 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not to start an argument, because I don't want to, but your question here can go both ways. I know plenty of Christians who spend a lot of time trying to change my moral stance, and maybe non-Christians just automatically get their defenses up because people are always trying to convert them to religion.

USMC

Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:41 AM

Wow! I remember when this thread started, i was hoping it would die, but it not, lol. Some of you people scare the crap out of me with all this religious stuff. I do not believe in a higher power, could care less if others do or not, but some of you folks with your strong opinions remind me of those religious freaks who tried to burn River at the stake in the episode 'Safe. Have your beliefs and opinions, but do not argue with those who do not believe the same as you. Mal shot that bastard on the crashed ship cuz that is the way it was written. There is no conspiracy to upset all the passive and religious fans. I love you guys and girls : )

INFAMOUSX

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:01 AM

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.

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

On a completely different subject mentioned above, I too have problems with Noah and his Ark, like River. I do believe Jesus was the son of God, one way or another, but I also believe Mohammed was his prophet. You could say I'm a follower of historical religiosity; the books were written by fallable men long after the events they describe, and should be understood as such, but that don't mean they don't hold valuable truths and history.

Ain't sayin' I'm right though, even though I know I am.

I wish I could write well enough to write about aircraft.
-Ernest Hemingway

CARTOON

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:26 AM

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

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

Along these lines, I'd like to point out something from "Heart of Gold" (the one episode I dislike), which has stuck out to me, and I haven't heard anyone else mention it (not that I read every post in every thread -- certainly not with dial-up).

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?

"Okay, when did this become not funny?"

MISBEHAVIN

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:09 AM

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

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

CARTOON

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:13 AM

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

Glad someone else said it instead of me.

Couldn't have said it better, myself. Thank you for sparin' me the words.

"I'm gonna stay here, where it's safe and quiet, and I'm gonna play with some of these dials and stuff. I might, you know, steer."

RCAT

Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:49 AM

Just wanted to say thank you Browncoats. Recently I've beginning to wonder about my obsessiveness w/ the series/BDM but seeing all the posts in this thread has refreshed me a bit.

As an agnostic, I've had many religeous discussions, and whenever a large group w/ varied views (some extreme, some not so much) like this one gets on the subject, things always seem to get somewhat ugly. This has been a really thoughtful and intelligent thread, thanks again.

Personally I like the religeous elements and counter-positions of the verse; moral right, wrong and ambiguity. The ocassional righteous hooker and evil lawman makes one think a bit (hence the appeal). Varied social, moral and religeous views are realistic, as this thread shows.

Some people juggle geese.
-Wash

KIBBSTER

Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:26 AM

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

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

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

I agree, it was Joss's way of showing that something in Mal had snapped, he was very angry.
Thats why he shot a possibly injured soldier that was no threat to them in cold blood.

He changed towards his crew as well at that moment, he became quite a dark person.

HUMBUG

Saturday, January 21, 2006 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MtnScott:
Faith in ones beliefs and faith in ones self. Shepard Book at somepoint makes the statement to Mal: "I don't care what you believe, just believe in something" or something along those lines.
In the Infamous "Bible is broken" discussion Book says "It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about 'faith'.You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you."

My point being, Books Faith in the Bible (christianity) saved him from his demons.

Talking about Faith..........

I find it very interesting that Jayne's favourite gun is called Vera, which means faith or truth in Russian......

So Jayne fights with faith and truth!!!! The bible calls itself the sword of the spirit........ And that we are fighting a spiritual battle or war....

Faith is a bit of a theme in Joss Whedon's work.
Do you remember the other slayer called Faith in Buffy? And the actor playing Mal palyed a real hell fire and brimstone preacher called Caleb (who was fighting on the side of eil against Buffy).

There might not be a gospel according to Joss, or a gospel according to firefly, but there are certainly spiritual themes, and we can all learn from the idea of gathering family around ourselves for mutual love and support, and that love is what keeps us all flying!!

I personally love that line at the end of the original pilot, the feature lengthed one, where Mal says, "We're still flying... It's enough." It seems to me to be an attitude amongst people who have a lot less material wealth than we do in the West now... Like the pioneers into the West in the USA from the 1830's onwards....

When I was in Malawi, I asked people how their day was. They said good. I was constantly surprised because they has so little and were so poor. Often only having one meal a day, and drinking tea to fill them up for the rest..... But when I asked a friend, he said a good day was when you got to the end of the day with the same as what you started the day with. A bad day was when you ended the day with less than what you started with. With AIDS rife there, and so many other dieases prevalent, and with petty jealousies and witchcraft stopping people improving thier lives, I can understand that. But it seems a foreign attitude to us in this day and age. A good day is when we have MORE at the end of the day. It's not so good if we only have the same... We always want more!!!

Humbug

"You know what the first rule of flying is?... Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home." Mal, BDM

BROWNCOAT90

Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:36 PM

well it's good we're all having this little chat. as for killing the alliance soldier, i do belive he was surrendering but he would have been a danger to the crew.
As for what you are saying, i believe the verse you are reffering to is John 15:13. "Greater love hath no man than this, that he would lay down his life for a friend.

GOD bless.

"You can't run, you walk, you can't walk you crawl, you can't crawl... well you know the rest."

BROWNCOAT90

Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:55 PM

That's messed up, it's not your fault you were born out of wedlock.
Another thing that's messed up is that those who spitt on you and such, should be looking out for you. My belief is that all christians should look out for eachother spiritualy as well as physicaly. There are several places in the bible where it clearly speaks about not letting quarrels arise.
well it's at least good i found some other christians on here.

"You can't run, you walk, you can't walk you crawl, you can't crawl... well you know the rest."

JHANCE11

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:03 PM

I am reseaching some of the links you provided. Upon first look, A few points of interest come out but it appearsmuch of the article is trying to pass off facts where there are none proven. He tries to pass himself off As an expert boat designer. This is the largest error I see. I have researched online the opions of builders fromthe Department of the navy to provate designers in Europe on this subject. these are men who have made ship building there lifes work and all come tosimilar conclutions that the stress from the weight would make the boat unseaworthy without reinforcement. Secondly I find it unplasible so make differant species could have been developed in just 4500 years, I am however holding off judgement on that until I can research it more. But to make my point again my belief in God is A very strong part of my life, I pray often and set aside times just to have A simple conversation with God, I talk he responds in differant ways. My faith is unshaken by the accuracy or lack of it in the bible. My personel belief is the people and events in the scriptures have A basis of thruth that has been embelished upon by preists and storytellers down through the years and have found evidence to support this theory. Regardless, is A man or woman keeps faith with God is good to his fellow man admits his or her sins and tries to make the world A better place before they leave it. They should have no problems finding their final rest Thank you for responding.

jhance11

JHANCE11

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:13 PM

todays ships are made of material much heavier then wood but all ships of certain sizes are steel reinforced. I will try and find the links I have gone over on the matter and send them to you. But regardless we both agree the bible was not meant to be taken literaly, it simply contained to the best wisdom of it's day. Otherwise we would still need to put every adulterer to death as well as all who work on the sabbath, Stone those who plant the wrong crops inline with mine or wear the wrong cloth. And before you say the old testimate is no longer in effect, remeber Jesus's words " I come not to change to law but to forfill it" Thank you for your response

jhance11

JHANCE11

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:27 PM

You brng us to point in discusions like these that is the main reason they end in stalmate. I find it much to easy when A problem presents itself to say " well God can do anything and that's why I'm right" Granted I also fall on the side of God's omnipitance, however god's created the law's of physic's and we and perhaps even he ca'nt completely ignore them. Case in point A world wide flood of the magnitued would have left A record in the grould itself in the layers upon layer of dirt and sediment men have looked for ages(Believers and non-believers alike) and still not found any such evidence.
Regardless, I assume since you identified yourself as an evangelical Christian.YOur belief is none may find Heaven except through Jesus and the bible is to be taken literally. If those statements are true, Try for A moment to understand why so many good, wise and Godfearing people would be condemed simply because their belief system.( probably taught to them as A child) Was not accuate or missed A few things.......Not to much sense there to me. thank you for your response

jhance11

CARTOON

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:28 PM

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

Hi. Liked your post and found it very interesting.

If I may, I'd just like to point something out about the verity of the events as portrayed in scripture, without going into a lengthy discourse on the Biblical manuscripts.

Underscoring the authenticity of the Old Testament as the true and inspired word of God, all but only a handful of the books of the Old Testament are quoted directly in the New Testament. Only seven books of the Hebrew Old Testament are not quoted or referred to in the New Testament. Eleven are quoted by Christ, Himself.

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

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

Just some food for thought.

JHANCE11

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:33 PM

The scope seems impossible, but to say the story has no basis, would be presumtive. there is A very old story in ancient Mesapotamia which Identifies with the story of noah of A much smaller boat built for trade and was swept of during an incredible storm, it was swept all the way sown the Jordan river and out to sea. landing finally on A completely differant continant. As I say it is my belief the story in the Bible are based on truth they have simply been embelished upon and stretch far beyond the original version. thank you for responding

jhance11

JHANCE11

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:39 PM

An excellant point and well made.Here's A little curnal to chew on as well. If you'll remeber in the New testimate, Jesus was asked what must A man do to find Heaven.His response mirrored A few points of the Old Testimate but very few.(give A look) Thank for responding

jhance11

CARTOON

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:41 PM

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

Hi, again.

From man's point of view, your assessment (above) makes total sense. However, from God's point of view (as related in the Bible), there's a fatal flaw. In God's point of view, none of us are good. We all need the free gift of salvation, which cannot be attained by works of "good deeds".

God can't be brown-nosed by our attempts at "good" behavior. In His eyes, one sin makes us as guilty as fifty billion sins. According to His word, all need the free gift of salvation -- whether they're the nicest person you've ever met or the most depraved serial killer.

And this makes sense (at least to me). For if salvation could be earned, why did the Lord require the sacrifice of His Son in our place, if we could save ourselves? Would seem like a terrible waste of His time (and blood) to me.

Enjoy your posts.

CARTOON

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:48 PM

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

Of course.

Makes perfect sense.

By His own admission, Jesus had not come to change the law (OT), but fulfill it.

Christianity doesn't displace Judiasm, it IS Judiasm fulfilled. Abraham told Isaac that God, Himself, would provide a lamb for the sacrifice -- which He did (not just at Mt. Moriah with an actual lamb at that moment in history), but with the Lamb of God on the cross, about 2,000 years later.

As the NT points out, the Law of the OT was never meant as a means to salvation, but to show us how impossible it was for us to please God in our own efforts -- which pointed to the gift of grace which would wipe away the stain of sin for those who received it.

J. Vernon McGee once had a good analogy. He said that when you look in a mirror and see that your face is dirty, what do you do? Do you rub your face against the mirror to clean it? No. You wash it with water and soap. God's law is the mirror to show us we're dirty, but it can't clean us. For that, we need water -- which God provided through the blood of His Son.

Again, I like your posts. Very refreshing discussion.

JHANCE11

Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:57 PM

Well Said and well done.

jhance11

CARTOON

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:19 PM

I'm sorry. After I posted, I thought of one more thing which I find incredible, regarding Christianity being a fulfillment of Judiasm.

Zola Levitt pointed this out, and (in my opinion), it's uncanny.

The Lord gave Moses a command that Israel was to observe seven feast days. Each of those 7 feast days point to something which would later be fulfilled in the redemption of mankind. The thing I find amazing (which Zola Levitt has pointed out), is that of the 7 feast days, 4 of them have already been fulfilled (with 3 remaining to be fulfilled). Of the 4 which have been fulfilled, the event which fulfilled the intended meaning of the feast, was actually fulfilled on the EXACT DAY of the actual feast (as prescribed by the Lord to Moses).

Feast #1: Passover. Jesus was crucified on the feast of Passover -- as the true passover Lamb. Those Israelites who had the blood of the lamb sprinkled on their doorposts, were passed over by the Angel of Death. Likewise, Jesus's blood sprinkled onto the hearts of those who receive His free gift, are passed over from God's judgment.

Feast #2: Unleavened Bread. Jesus was buried on the feast of Unleavened Bread. Leaven represents "sin" in the Bible. Jesus was the "unleavened" (without sin) sacrifice who paid the penalty for those who would receive Him (He was buried, after dying -- paying the penalty we deserved).

Feast #3: Firstfruits. Jesus rose from the dead on the feast of First Fruits. Jesus was the "first fruits" of redemption -- the first to be raised with an incorruptible body which would never again die.

Feast #4: Weeks (also called Harvest or Pentecost). Jesus ascended into heaven on the feast of Weeks (which is exactly 50 days after the feast of First Fruits). Harvest represents the harvest or ingathering, on which Jesus was gathered back up to heaven.

Feasts #5 through #7 haven't yet been fulfilled, but it's curious as to what they represent, and what hasn't yet happened (but is prophesized to happen in the NT).

Feast #5: Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah). Can you think of any (as of yet) unfulfilled prophesy which involves the blowing of trumpets?

Feast #6: Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). Final atonement -- judgment?

Feast #7: Tabernacles (also called "Booths" or "Ingathering"). The revealing of the new heaven and the new earth?

Makes a lot of sense to me.

PRINCESSROHANNEN

Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:25 PM

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

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

An excellent point.

JHANCE11

Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:38 PM

Some does some does not. but then again, there is much that probably is not supposed to make sense.At least not right now. Watched an interesting program on the discovery channel last night. 7 differant archiologist and scientist believe they have found the first born son of Ramsies, Of course you know that name. The son of coarse being the one killed by the angel of death sent by God, the final of the great plagues. The evidence is not all in yet but A large hole was discovered in the back of his skull. too large and to deep to have been A small accident. It was determend the trauma happed before the time death not after. This brings about the possibility the son was killed by murder of A much more mundane method. Notice I said the possibility, there is much more to learn. If it is true however the ramifications could be profound. Thanks again

jhance11

RIGHTEOUS9

Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:16 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

CYBERSNARK

Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:23 PM

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

Shepard Book was never really evangelical or to say "spreading the light to whoever needs it", his goal always seemed to be for the crew to have faith.

I think that's exactly right. Shepherd Book spread the light (of Faith) to those who needed it.

He just understood that not everybody needed it (some were doing just fine on their own --like Inara), and that the best way to spread the light was by example.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

VIOLETRIX

Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:24 PM

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

Me, too.

me too.
my brain, however, has taken a vacation and i have nothing interesting to add to this very interesting conversation.
good thread!

it's good to see others out there.

http://violetrix.blogspot.com
come a time there'll be no room for naughty men like us to slip about at all

NANDIFAN

Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:29 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"If they've got guns or brains at all."
"They've got guns."

INFAMOUSX

Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

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

Who made that rule?

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

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

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

Just some food for thought.

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

I wish I could write well enough to write about aircraft.
-Ernest Hemingway

CARTOON

Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:29 AM

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

The canon was agreed upon centuries later, but it was written within the lifetimes of the eyewitesses who wrote it. Most conservative accounts have all of the NT penned between 40 and 95AD. Matthew & John were written by actual eyewitnesses to the events they portrayed. Mark was written by Mark, as told by Peter. Luke's was written by Luke, as told by Paul.

Thanks.

INFAMOUSX

Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:39 AM

I must disagree. About 50 gospels were written in the first and second century CE; each was believed to be accurate by various groups within the early Christian movement. Four of them (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) were accepted by the early Christian movement as inspired by God. They were approved for inclusion in the official canon during the 4th century CE, and are found today in every Bible. Why were there only four? St. Irenaeus explained: "There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."

All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE. It consists of a few passages from an unknown gospel. Another ancient manuscript, a portion of the Gospel of John, is also dated to about 125 CE. Remaining gospel manuscripts date to the third century CE or later.

Many nearly identical passages are found in Matthew and Luke, but are absent from Mark. These total over 200 verses. Many Bible scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were unaware of each other's writing. Thus, they conclude that both based part of their gospel on another document, usually called the Gospel of Q. "Q" stands for the German word "Quelle" which means "source." An example is Matthew 10:26-33 and Luke 12:2-9. Matthew and Luke also contain unique material not present in the other gospel. This apparently came from two different traditions, of which each author had access to only one. Analysis of passages that are similar but not identical is called "redaction criticism." It can give insight into the order in which the Gospels were probably written, their date of composition, and the development of theological beliefs in the early Christian movements. Since the books themselves are undated, the order in which they were written is not absolutely clear. John McVay lists some theories: 1

Oral Theory: The three gospels were written independently and all based on "structured and durable oral traditions"

Augustinian Theory: The three gospels were written in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; each author had access to the earlier gospels

Two Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q.

Four Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q. In addition, Matthew includes some material from a third source, often called "M". Luke similarly includes passages from another source, often called "L". Both L and M were probably oral traditions.

Two Gospel theory: Matthew was written first. Luke was written later and based on Matthew. Mark was written last, and based on Luke and Matthew.

Theory of Markan Priority without Q: Mark was written first. Matthew was written later and based on Mark. Luke was written last, and based on Mark and Matthew.

The Augustinian Theory was accepted by the Christian church for most of its history. The Four Source Theory is supported by most mainline and liberal theologians today. One source estimates that over 90% of contemporary Gospel scholars accept this theory and the existence of the Gospel of Q.

All of this has nothing to do with Firefly, however, so I'm going to have to stop. Thank you for your thought provoking replies, though. I'm sure you'll have something very interesting to say about what I have written.

I wish I could write well enough to write about aircraft.
-Ernest Hemingway

ILLEGALARGENTINE

Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:20 AM

Who the hell cares what Christians think...I was raised one untill they annoyed me athiest.

Mal is as noble as a smuggler can get. After the war, that was the only way he could survive. He only kills when he has to...unlike Jayne.

CARTOON

Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:25 AM

Every book of the New Testament (those included in the canon, as accepted in the 3rd century) were written before 95AD.

Yes, I'm entirely familiar with the different source materials you referenced -- as well as the fact that none of the original autographs exist -- and your dating of earliest known copies also seems to jive with everything I've studied on the subject.

As such, I have no quarrel with anything you've written, except the notion that you seem to imply that the original writings were written after the 1st century. Am I misunderstanding you? If so, I apologize.

The point I was making, was that the gospels (the 4 accepted as inerrant) were indeed written by eyewitnesses.

When the early church was deciding which books to include in the NT canon, the requisite was that the books had to be written by someone who personally knew the Lord while He was on earth -- with the exception of Paul (who admittedly never knew the Lord while He was on earth, but to whom the Lord had personally appeared on more than occasion).

Paul's letters were obviously all well-known throughout the churches, as they were circuit letters (passed from church to church), so no one could throw in a letter a century after his death and say, "This was Paul's", as everyone was already familiar with his epistles. (It's estimated that both Paul & Peter were executed in the mid-60's, near the end of Nero's reign. From what I've read, John was nearly also executed at that time, but miraculously escaped and lived to be close to 100 years old.)

Likewise, James & Jude (both brothers of the Lord) obviously knew Jesus. (James was murdered in Jerusalem in the early 60's, before the Temple was destroyed. I don't know when Jude died.)

(And I believe that James & Jude are the 2 books that were most nearly NOT included in the canon -- and the only ones to which there had been initial dispute.)

Both Peter's & John's epistles were written by the apostles whose names they bear.

That leaves only the four gospels (whose authorship I mentioned in my previous post), "Acts" (which was written by Luke, and is essentially "Luke, the Sequel") and "Revelation" (which was penned by John at the close of the first century). (I'm not aware of any reliable info regarding when Luke died.)

Also, the synoptic gospels all speak about Herod's Temple in the present tense, so it would seem to be the case that the Temple was still present in Jerusalem when they were written. As we know, the temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Most scholars believe that the only reason that the gospel of John covers such different material than the three synoptic gospels is that it was written by John decades after the original gospels where already in circulation and well-known. He thus had no reason to rehash material which was already familiar to most believers, and as such, got into a more detailed analysis of the means of salvation and more specific teachings of the Lord which had not been covered previously.

Overall, I don't see anything we've posted to contradict each other.

CYBERSNARK

Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:27 AM

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.

"In the beginning, there was me. . ."

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE