A Christians perspective
POSTED BY: MalforPresident
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 23:49
VIEWED: 45327
PAGE 10 of 14
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?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think that's exactly right. Shepherd Book spread the light (of Faith) to those who needed it.
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.
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by infamousX:
the Gospel of Q. "Q" stands for the German word "Quelle" which means "source."
"In the beginning, there was me. . ."
-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME