A Christians perspective
POSTED BY: MalforPresident
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 23:49
VIEWED: 45327
PAGE 11 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark: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."
Actually, I've heard it referred to as the "Q document", and I imagine they derived that title as there is no proof it ever actually existed (it is surmised that it was a common source material, but at this point, it's just a plausible hypothesis) -- and as such, we'd have no idea who authored it (if it exists) -- and thus, can't give it a proper name (like the "Gospel of Smith" -- or whatever).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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. 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.
It's about the culture. It is a reminder of how different things are, even though people's problems (food, shelter, freedom) remain the same. Americans, like myself, are obscene to immense degrees to many people. I mean my god we show elbows, shoulders, knees, and more. You have no idea how wrong that is to so many people. If you showed that in some countries people would have the same reaction as you do (I am NOT saying it is the same thing), since we are desensitized it needs to be more extreme to give the culture shock, also it makes perfect logical sense.
In a world where prostitution is legal you'll have rich people paying them, knowing them, coming back for repeat business, and not needing to hide it.
There's a lot of money right there, a lot of prestige too. But then think about it.
That means that, if you have a guild, you've got an apolitical group connected to both monetary and political power. The potential is unlimited.
Just lean on a "friend" then another, and another. With contacts in ranging from high up to very high up they've got a lot of pull just based on clients that like them. Add to that the fact that the alternative to giving a small favor is a black mark so any of the sex the person is used to paying for has to come from an illegal source, why would they not be powerful?
Also companions are not just prostitutes, they are geisha with sex, years of training before sex is even mentioned.
Besides, Jesus stuck around the unrepentant prostitutes too. Hardly seems right to ignore something's positive value based on sin, unless you're without it who are you to judge? (I'm not being sarcastic.)
A world without sin (where the people are not dead) is one for religious fiction, not science fiction. If there was nothing that you found objectionable to an extreme degree it wouldn't be real. If you didn't see something that made you say, "I shouldn't be watching this," you're watching something without value.
It is not just that way in contemporary life either. Read the bible and there will things that disturb you and that is as it should be. In the bible no one wants to read two daughters get their father drunk so they can have sex with him, but those are the ancestors of Jesus.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Yes, certain characters condemn the behavior/profession, but the verse accepts and glorifies it. Verse trumps individuals.
The whole point of the show is that individuals are the important ones. If the verse trumped individuals then we would be rooting for the Alliance and cheering whenever a crew member was killed.
We would be pissed off when the poor people got the medicine that the hospital didn't need, we'd want River back in that place, and we'd want Mal to use the sword fight. These are the things that the verse dictates we should believe in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jhance11:
... Now not withstanding that Noah had only his family and maybe A few friends to build this...
No friends; only Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives. Everyone else probably laughed at him up to the time the rain started and God shut the door. Noah did however have enough time for the project. Although the text doesn't state the amount of time allotted for construction, it does allow us to conclude that it may have taken as much as 100 years.
Quote:
...We know for A fact steel was not available or even known yet in this period...
Shipbuilders managed very well without steel for thousands of years. Wooden ships crossed the ocean and returned safely.
Quote:
... Also with the time period they were given to bring in every animal on the planet to the ark...
God apparently summoned the animals to the Ark: "...and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark.."
Quote:
...Also under hurricane 5 conditions it could rain 40 days and 40nights and stillnever come close to engulfing the world in water...
This was much more than rain: "...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened..." And later in the story it says: "...Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed..."
While this story is amazing, I do believe the entire event happened literally as described in the Bible. The ark itself fascinates me: Depending upong the exact measure of a cubit it was about 450' long x 75' wide x 45' high. These are roughly the proportions of a cruise ship, except that Noah's ark was flatter and would have been more stable. It had 3 decks, all covered, and was large enough for the small band of travelers, the animals, and all the food they needed for the one year they were on board. For more, see http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html
http://www.theoutlaws.com/unexplained10.htm
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Too bad there is no Muslim aspects in Firefly, otherwise I coulda talked about the Muslim perspective.
Gelassenheit means Serenity
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Too bad there is no Muslim aspects in Firefly, otherwise I coulda talked about the Muslim perspective.
Gelassenheit means Serenity
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.
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.
Writers write that way because that's how people talk. It's real. If the main villan yelled "Cheese & crackers!" when Mr. Goodguy foiled his master plan, 99% of the people out there would be like,
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
In the bible no one wants to read two daughters get their father drunk so they can have sex with him, but those are the ancestors of Jesus.
Actually, Jesus was not descended from Lot and his daughters -- the Edomites were. I get your point, though.
But, sin (and sinners) in the Bible are not glorified. That's the difference. Also, I would never equate God's word with anything man writes, so the comparison really doesn't hold.
I did clearly draw a distinction between the betrayal of sin and the glorification of it. No portrayal of real life anywhere (even in a Bugs Bunny cartoon) would be accurate without a portrayal of sinful behavior -- particularly as we all sin. However, I will never believe it is right to glorify and applaud that behavior.
In my opinion, the "Firefly" verse as glorifying Inara's profession. Apparently, I'm in the minority in that belief.
I'm a browncoat and major fan of the show and film -- but sadly, it has certainly detracted from my enjoyment of them.
This has certainly been an interesting thread -- but it's getting outrageously long again for the likes of me (with dial-up). (hint, hint, hint)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
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?
Firstly, sex, love & attraction are all separate entities. They certainly do overlap, but they are or can be exclusive. You can have sex with someone you don’t love or are not attracted to. You can love someone you don’t want to have sex with & are not attracted to. And you can be attracted to someone you don’t love & may not want to have sex with. Obviously any 2 of these can be combined (and usually are) or all 3. I have no delusions about the separateness of these.
I think Mal became attracted to Mandi, which lead to sex. Did he love her? I doubt it. She was certainly physically attractive. But more than that, he was attracted to her will & determination, her sense of duty to her girls & her business, her matter-of-factness, her gun collection (translate to common interests, etc). He was attracted to the woman, not just what was between her legs. He let himself be seduced by a professional.
Inara has a lot of those same qualities. Mal grew to love her. She is a beautiful person, inside & out; giving, caring, nurturing, etc. Firefly never really went in to how Mal grew to love Inara, so we are left to speculate. What we *did* see was how Mal could have fallen for a whore/companion which was Mandi.
Let me state that i think Mal is above whoring. However he had no problems with having sex with Mandi, because there was an attraction there. Sex can mean nothing or it can mean everything. It’s irrelevant. For Jayne, it was the need to unload; a physical need. For Mal, it was an extension of his attraction for Mandi. *This* I believe is what hurt Inara. She knows he’s above whoring (again, in my belief). If Mal had gotten a “freebie” in a broom closet from one of the girls, i’d wager she wouldn’t have been hurt. But that’s not what happened. Mal found comfort in the arms of another woman. He shared himself with her & opened himself to her above & beyond the physical act of sex. That’s what hurt her.
This is the same with Inara & her clients. There is no love there, no real attraction. It’s just sex, nothing more. She most certainly does love Mal (i can’t see how you can think she doesn’t), but she is not committed to him, thus there is no conflict. Inara knows the difference between sex & love. I think you are confusing the 3 entities of love, sex & attraction. They are not the same thing.
PS: sorry for that whole mess above above. I did some editing that dropped the flow & congruentness of that post right out of the sky…
~
You can't take the sky from me
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Amazing how someone can get an "uncanny" correlation by making things up. I refer to the "feasts" post, which is based on the standard Christian ignorance of the first half of the Bible.
There is no feast of "unleavened bread" or of "first fruits"; these are both parts of passover. The story goes that Jesus died and came back around Passover, with further events around the Feast of Weeks.
This leaves: The Feast of the Tabernacle and the Feast of the New Year (which is not, as you said, the feast of trumpets). That's two out of four, both of which occur in the spring, and even so, the evidence is that the memorialization of these events was correlated with those feasts and has no basis in when they actually occurred. So it's a nice thought, but sorry, no.
I prefer the view that was pushed by the Church during Pope John Paul II's time on earth. This suggested that Christianity was a "fulfillment" of the prophecy that Abraham would become the father (spiritually) of the world, and the entire world would be brought to monotheism. It did not replace, but rather augmented, the previous communications from G-d, allowing them to be seen and heard by a much larger group than had heard them in the first place. As such, the covenant between G-d and Israel was maintained, and a new way for the rest of the world to connect to G-d was forged through the New Testament. As such, both Christians and Jews await the coming of a Messiah; for Christians, it will be the second, and for Jews, the first. The most important part about this view is that it makes it clear that Christians should not ignore the beginning to the Bible. There are some very important things in there, and too many skip them over and do not bother to learn them, evidenced by the ignorance of the number of feasts given to Israel.
If G-d is truly infinite, he would not have communicated books to us in order that they might be ignored. If you want some Bible, you have to take it all.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME