Religions in Firefly
POSTED BY: Astragynia
UPDATED: Friday, April 15, 2005 13:18
VIEWED: 13636
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I have no dislike for the spiritual nor the philosophical, nor those who ask broad questions. I do have extreme scepticism for those who say that have the answer, particularly as the powerful they are, the more odious they become.
So do you think an answer exists? You're okay with people searching for it, but you don't want them to find it? I know that's probably not what you consciously want, but be reasonable. If people are going to ask the question, then they should be permitted to come to some satisfactory conclusion if they find one.
Quote:
This isn't irrational. This is what happens when you've read too many accounts of priests abusing boys, women being pushed back into burning buildings for being improperly dressed, warriors being told to fight in the name of God and above all else, the leaders of those institutions defending the abusers, attacking the victims, defending their institution rather than doing the right thing.
None of those things are happening in my church (to my knowledge). If they were, I would certainly do something to stop them, and go to a different church if they continued, because I realize that those things have nothing to do with my faith - if they occured in my church, it would be because of human flaws, not flaws in the religion itself. I agree that those are bad things.
Quote:Every church I've ever been to has had a mission of making this world a better place, because we believe that that's a main part of why we are here - to spread goodness and love. Non-Christians often misinterpret our actions, and admittedly there are some Christians who go about this in the wrong way and with the wrong attitude. But again, that is due to human flaws.
Perhaps if we stopped those who say that there's a great life ahead of us in the next world, maybe we'd try to do better in this one.
Quote:Yes, if the new world is still consisting of and governed by humans, no matter what religious stance the people or the government take, those people will be there. But the "new world" that Christians believe in won't be governed by an American-Chinese super-union, so the analogy hardly applies
Because if Firefly demonstrates anything, even if there's a new world for us, it'd still be full of the same old people - thieves, killers and whores.
Quote:No Christian that I know claims to know everything. They claim to know something, and some people who do not know that something feel uncomfortable around them, and attribute their discomfort to a high and mighty stance that, in my experience, is usually not actually there. I can often undersand why a non-Christian might interpret it that way, but that doesn't mean it's the case. Sometimes it is; again: human flaws, not flaws in the religion or the faith.
>> People who claim to know nothing and people who claim to know everything have at least one thing in common: both are either fools or liars.
That nicely sums up my attitude to religious leaders too.
I mock you with my monkey pants
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In addition to what GRRARRG, which I pretty much agree with for the most part, I'll just add the following response...
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I do have extreme scepticism for those who say that have the answer, particularly as the powerful they are, the more odious they become. This isn't irrational. This is what happens when you've read too many accounts of priests abusing boys, women being pushed back into burning buildings for being improperly dressed, warriors being told to fight in the name of God and above all else, the leaders of those institutions defending the abusers, attacking the victims, defending their institution rather than doing the right thing.
Now, I'll admit that much of this does and has occured, but that's no reason to judge the entire faith community on the actions of a small number of individuals. Those individuals are condemned even by their own communities, it's not something that's been condoned. Sure, there are extreemists, and there are hippocrits, but these exist in all parts of life. You can't call the entire human race trecherous, vile muderers, just because there are a few who commit these kinds of heinous acts, can you? There's a big difference between individuals and communities.
Quote:
Perhaps if we stopped those who say that there's a great life ahead of us in the next world, maybe we'd try to do better in this one. Because if Firefly demonstrates anything, even if there's a new world for us, it'd still be full of the same old people - thieves, killers and whores.
One of the great things about having the idea of a great life ahead of us, is that it encourages us to to better in this one. I don't understand your point about that making things worse. Most religions preach an afterlife which is weighted proportionatly to the quality with which you live your current one. Christianity, Hinduism, etc., they all make you next life better if this one is more perfect. New worlds may still be full of the same thieves, killers, and whores as the current one is, but we can hope that they're different, that they'll change. There's a certian optomism and perfection applied to the religious afterlife, something that can't be said about simply a "new world".
----------------------------------------------------
People who claim to know nothing and people who claim to know everything have at least one thing in common: both are either fools or liars.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like to think that abuses are recognised, brought to light and changes made to ensure that they never happen again. But that's not what happens.
For example, the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Saudi Arabia's religious police were the ones who locked the improperly dressed girls in their burning school, what has been done about them? Nothing. They still go around, doing their 'God sent' duty, maiming and killing as they wish.
Cardinal Bernard Law, the archbishop of Boston who admitted he allowed confessed paedophiles to transfer freely into new parishes? He got promoted to Rome (he even got to do the Mass in one of the Vatican's four basillicas for the Pope's funeral).
Every institution protects itself. Governments try and cover up their secrets, businesses try to bury their mistakes, the Army fudges over abuses. However religions are different. They are supposed to be based on a fundamental belief in right and wrong. And instead, there they are, protecting the guilty because they are high ranking officials whereas the victims are just ordinary people.
I don't expect that there be no abuses. Just that the powers that be deal with them, not sweep them under the rug. The Catholic Church absolutely fumed against 'The Magdalene Sisters', a film about the institutional abuse of women in a Catholic run asylum. L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's paper, called it "angry and rancorous provocation", Vatican Radio called it "clearly false."
Except of course it wasn't. The director himself admitted that he'd had to not use some of the more horrific abuses for fear of upsetting the audience too much. The Church was apparently so embarassed by the counter-backlash, fuelled by survivors who came out with stories that "made our film look like a holiday camp", that the order of Nuns who ran the real life institutions issued an apology (vague, impersonal, an "it's all in the past" that neither placates nor carries sincerity).
Again, as you say, we mustn't judge a community by a few individuals. But isn't it fair to judge an institution by its leaders and their actions? If leaders condone abuse, by direct or knowing inaction, where else should the blame lie?
And, to get back to the point (at long last, I hear you say), because of this corruption and because we live in an age where every dirty secret is starting to come out, I think the basic building stones of core faiths are being undermind. In particular, I have high hopes that with the spread of democracy to the Middle East, suddenly women will ask themselves "Why must I be considered worth less than a man? Why should I let the religious authorities push me around?"
But as I said, that's just the way I see the future. Joss, despite our matching religious cynicism, obviously has a different vision and his vision has a catchy theme tune plus a big movie coming out.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Again, as you say, we mustn't judge a community by a few individuals. But isn't it fair to judge an institution by its leaders and their actions? If leaders condone abuse, by direct or knowing inaction, where else should the blame lie?
The blame lies squarely on those individuals who committed and condoned the abuse.
I might agree that it's fair to judge an institution by its leaders (though even that is debatable - would you judge the institution of democracy by, say, Saddam Hussein? Just because he said it was democracy doesn't make it what true democracy should be, just as the Saudi religious police saying burning girls is God's will doesn't make it what religion should be), but the result of any such judgement is usually going to be "it needs to change," not necessarily "it needs to go."
Besides, the high-ups in the Roman Catholic Church are not the "leaders" of Christianity. First of all, there are millions of Christians who aren't Roman Catholics. And more importantly, they are only humans - from a believer's perspective, the true "leader" is Christ/God. Obviously, not everybody will agree with the "the Church is transcendent, not an earthly, human institution" argument - however, that is how most believers see it and will continue to see it in the future. And that applies to most religions, I think, not just Christianity.
Oh, and one more thing - I'm not sure if you meant the comment about women and the spread of democracy in the Middle East to mean that you think Islam will go into decline just because women might have the same rights as Western women, but if that IS what you meant, then let me point out that Islam is still going strong among many immigrants in the West who do have such rights.
(Sorry, I seem to be getting a bit off-topic in a thread I myself started... how ironic. Oh well).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
QUOTE]Really? Yet somehow the Roman State religion as established by Constantine in the 4th century not only persisted and continued to spread for 1500 years following the fall of the Roman Empire but remained the major religion of an entire culture right to this day.
(I'm new, please forgive strangeness)
Actually, Constantine didn't make
Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He converted, but it was one of his decendants that made it the official religion. And, I'm sure that the religions of the gods were still flurishing even then; at least for a little while.
In 500 years or so, I would hope that more religions are amalgoms of eachother. Buddhist thought intermingled with some Islamic philosophy, with a dash of the old pagan respect for women and female power in general. After all, Book even goes to one of the abbies to meditate...maybe that's a little bit if Buddhist influence right there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, Yes and no.
Originally posted by nitefalls:
(I'm new, please forgive strangeness)
Actually, Constantine didn't make
Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He converted, but it was one of his decendants that made it the official religion. And, I'm sure that the religions of the gods were still flurishing even then; at least for a little while.
Yes, the Capitoline religion remained after Christianity became State sanctioned Roman religion, particularly among the patricians and the Senate, which were more conservative. In less populated parts of the Empire, various pagan religions persisted for many centuries after Constantine. So also did other Roman religions such as Sol Invictus. And other popular, though unsanctioned religions, such as the Cult of Isis.
And No, it was Constantine who made Christianity the religion of Rome when he signed the Edict of Milan in 324 AD, among other actions which helped to bring Christianity to dominance within the Roman Empire.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
it was Constantine who made Christianity the religion of Rome when he signed the Edict of Milan in 324 AD, among other actions which helped to bring Christianity to dominance within the Roman Empire.
If anyone is interested it was (probably) an entirely political move. The Roman Empire was falling and he needed something to unite people, he didn't convert until he was dying.
I really should get me a signature
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It certainly was a political move. He was a Roman Emperor, everything that he did as an Emperor was political. I’m not sure that the Roman Empire was necessarily falling in 324 though. If I had to identify a date when the Roman Empire began to decline I would say that it wouldn’t be until 330 AD, when Constantine moved the Capital of Rome. Constantine is a complicated person. It may never be known, why he did the things he did, but of all the Roman Emperors, Constantine is one of a very few who seems to have genuinely desired peace, and he is the first to have encouraged Christianity.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If I had to identify a date when the Roman Empire began to decline I would say that it wouldn’t be until 330 AD,
I am not sure I agree with you is all. It is possible to argue many dates for the decline of the Empire, technically it could even be argued that it never declined merely transformed and became the Holy Roman Empire. I think the decline was well under way before Constantine even took (quite literally) office. As you say the move to Byzantium was the nail in the proverbial coffin.
This would be a fun debate, I suspect everyone else would be bored rigid though so I return to my observation outpost!
I really should get me a signature
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
True. The date at which the Empire began to decline or even finally did decline has been a point of contention since the Fall of the Roman Empire, assuming it fell. But I think you’re right that this discussion is well outside the scope of this thread. I don’t know if one could justify such a hijack.
I’m actually interested in opinions on the religions of Firefly, which I find equally interesting, and hope some more discussion on that immerges.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME