A Christians perspective
POSTED BY: MalforPresident
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 23:49
VIEWED: 45327
PAGE 3 of 14
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME