This is topic I need story ideas, and opinions on one I already have in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/854.html

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Thanks, Sol, for letting me reopen this.

Some background. I participate in a church youth program called Lads to Leaders. It's quite a large operation. We have conventions in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida, with a total participation of about 12,000 people. Generally, it's a competition. There are any number of categories, ranging from memorizing scripture, to public speaking, to song leading, to various art contests. However, the one I'm usually most interested in is the puppet contest. You put on a puppet show at the convention, and get rated in various categories. Trust me, it's more fun than it may sound. We actually won our division last year. Never happened before.

Anyway, the puppet show, along with most of the rest of the competitions, has to be in accord with the theme for the year. My problem is this: the theme this year is "God and Country." What in the name of Dominar Rygel the Sixteenth of Hyneria am I supposed to do with THAT?! I mean, last year it was "Family". We just did a nice little modern prodigal son skit, with CD-burned sound effects (by yours truely), and it worked out great. But... GOD AND COUNTRY!? I've been trying to come up with something to use for that for the last four or five months, off and on, and I still have no clue whatsoever. What story could we possibly tell that would be related to that? I know, religion isn't the field of more than two of you, but a number of you write. Surely you can help me out for an idea.

I'd like it to be something that you can relate to. I don't want to use God as a character, or Satan, or an angel, or anything like that. Just humans. Something I could use as an ep of some TV sitcom/drama. How can the concept of God and Country interact with modern, everyday life?

One idea that's occured to me is to do a Twilight Zone parody. Get a puppet that looks like Rod Serling, and set the thing in some alternate universe where the government doesn't allow free practice of religion. Thing is, I can't come up with an acceptable resolution to that. I'd really like something that is related to reality somehow.

I do have one idea, but I'm open to others. I'd like some feedback on this one, too. It is as follows.

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

A young man is in prison, there to await arraignment. He tells his parents that he has no idea why he's there, that he didn't do it, and that he plans to plead "not guilty". He insists to his fellow prisoner the same things. His GF visits him. We discover that she was apparently involved in the same crime that he was, when he promises not to rat on her. So he does know what he's done, but we still don't. They get into an argument over whether he should plead "not guilty", because, she says, if he knows he commited a crime, he should tell the truth. He questions what good it could possibly do for him to go to prison. She leaves, though not angrily. The boy thinks. About what she's said.

Eventually, the time comes for his arraignment. As he's leaving the cell, he finally tells his friend what he is in prison for: he's a Christian. He says that he has to tell the truth, because it's the right thing to do. He goes before the judge, and pleads guilty, to everyone's (or no one's) surprise. When he's taken back to his cell, the prisoner asks him what happened that he's back so soon. Our boy tells the prisoner what happened, and why he did what he did, even though he doesn't understand why he's in prison. The prisoner asks the boy to teach him about "this Christ guy". Boy complies. Fade to exit.

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

Now, there is no comedy in this plot AT ALL, which is a first for our group. Straight-out drama. Even though our group's comedy usually comes in the mannerisms and dress of the puppets themselves, I think that humor of any kind might be out of place in a script like this. Keep in mind, of course, that this is a bare-bones outline. I have some detail in mind. For one, you never see the other prisoner. He's on the other side of the cell wall. I thought it'd be an interesting effect to make one character a disembodied voice. The plot lends itself to simplicity: no scenery changes in mid-skit, no complex sound effects, nothing. Personally, I like it.

Any thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

NO RELIGION FLAMES! There will be NO religion flames in this thread, people, or I will personally call down heavenly fire upon you, and have God smite you with hemmhoroids and all manner of affliction. So don't do it.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]


 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
I didn't mean to go the religious flames route. There are questions I'd like answered, tho.

Is the guy in jail because he's a Christian, or is he a guy in jail who committed a crime and happens to be Christian?

I mentioned the religious persecution because I think it's a valid point Omega might want to consider.

quote:
I will personally call down heavenly fire upon you, and have God smite you with hemmhoroids and all manner of affliction.

Well ... this would finally get me to admit that a God exists. So do it.
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
he finally tells his friend what he is in prison for: he's a Christian.

He's there because he's a Christian. What, they don't teach colons any more in school? ;-)

[Side note: Either Tim or Liam is going to come in here and make some sort of joke about the assholes they knew in highschool. Be prepared.]

It's a Twilight Zone kinda thing. For over two thirds of the skit, the judges will have no idea how this fits into the theme. The guards treat him horribly, and his parents react as if his crime is something they'd disown him over. Then the twist: he's not there because he's a murderer or a rapist; he's a Christian. Remember what I once told you, Jeff? I'm looking for emotional reaction when I'm telling my story. Impact is everything.
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Well, in regards to what you told me, and paraphrasing Hemingway very badly, "if the author knows something about the story or the characters, that's the only important thing: he doesn't need to tell the audience, they'll read it in what is not said."

Or something along those lines.

I do think you should consider the storyline in light of the reprisals against Muslims and those who people think are Muslims. I don't think you mean to slight or ignore that, but I think when something happens in someone's own town (which these are) they tend to hit harder then tales of repression overseas.

Now, going completely against Mr. Hemmingway, here are some questions:

Is any religion a criminal offense, or just this one particular religion?

Where'd he learn about Christianity?

If he a specific faith (Lutheran, Catholic, etc.) or is there a "new wave" of Christianity in light of repression which is much more broad-based and general?
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Now, going completely against Mr. Hemmingway, here are some questions:

Sorry, but I don't have the answers for you. There is no backstory. I didn't create an entire universe behind this. It's a self-contained story. Details like that don't matter. You simply watch the story unfold.

Well, in regards to what you told me, and paraphrasing Hemingway very badly, "if the author knows something about the story or the characters, that's the only important thing: he doesn't need to tell the audience, they'll read it in what is not said."

That's about characterization. I was telling you about basic storytelling. The two are totally different concepts.

I do think you should consider the storyline in light of the reprisals against Muslims and those who people think are Muslims.

At that rate, I can't do a story about ANYTHING, because someone just might be offended. Further, exactly what's your problem with this in relation to recent Muslim persecution? I don't say or imply that it's a good thing, by any stretch of a rational imagination. And remember (or not), this won't be performed for another eight months. Under any circumstances, I can pretty well guarentee you that no Muslim will ever see it.

What's your problem with this, anyway? You've keep bringing up this Muslim stuff that's got so many holes in it that it's practically non-existant. Please, useful comments.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]


 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
That's about characterization. I was telling you about basic storytelling. The two are totally different concepts.

Go read "White Elephants", I think is the name of the story. He doesn't even tell you what the two are talking about, but you'd have him put in unneccesary flashbacks.

quote:
Sorry, but I don't have the answers for you. There is no backstory. I didn't create an entire universe behind this. It's a self-contained story. Details like that don't matter. You simply watch the story unfold.

Well, if you don't know, you don't know. How do you imagine it, though? Does it take place in the US? Is there a backlash against religions? Is he in the East somewhere?
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Darn, you posted while I was editing...

ANYWAY...

How do you imagine it, though? Does it take place in the US? Is there a backlash against religions? Is he in the East somewhere?

It.

Does.

Not.

Matter.

The story is what it is. Much like you describe "White Elephants". I don't NEED a backstory, if it has the effect I want.

you'd have him put in unneccesary flashbacks

Where do you get that? It follows from absolutely nothing I've said. If something in a story is unnecessary for it to have the effect you want, then don't include it. That's exactly what I told you after I read YOUR story.
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Omega,

I'm just pointing out the Muslim thing as something you might want to consider. This conversation, however, should go in the F.B. version of this thread as its what got the first version of this thread placed in the F.B. in the first place.

Of course, maybe this makes even more reason for the play theme. The evils of repression of religion, culture, etcetra.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]


 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
I am far too tired to read most of that above, but two things:

"I participate in a church youth program called Lads to Leaders. (Or, more politically correct, Leaders/Leaderettes.)"

I'll let someone else make the original joke, but I will point out that since "leader" isn't a male-form of the word, it's not political correct, it's just wrong, just as much as saying that Jubes was a "memberette" of Flare.

"What, they don't teach colons any more in school? ;-)

[Side note: Either Tim or Liam is going to come in here and make some sort of joke about the assholes they knew in highschool. Be prepared.]"

Now, I don't know what sort of reputation British schools had for being tough, but generally I found that lack of colon-knowledge did not automatically mean taht some was a bastard. Or maybe that was just my school.
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
I'd be more worried about 'Lads to Leaders/Leaderettes' because apprently, they all start out as Lads, but through the process some end up as Leaderettes!
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Why, what ever are you two on about?

*whistles*

but generally I found that lack of colon-knowledge did not automatically mean taht some was a bastard

To say nothing of anatomical knowledge...

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]


 
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
You mean "Whistles/whistlettes", don't you?
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
I as understand this, it is illegal in the Twilight Zone country to be a Chritian.

And I assume that with his denials of his beliefs to 1) his parents, 2) his fellow prisoner, 3) his GF that you are trying to do something Peter's 3 denials?

I wonder about the following then.


 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I as understand this, it is illegal in the Twilight Zone country to be a Chritian.

Aye.

And I assume that with his denials of his beliefs to 1) his parents, 2) his fellow prisoner, 3) his GF that you are trying to do something Peter's 3 denials?

Ooh. Never occured to me at all. I like it. I don't see how I can do much with it, unfortunately. Drawing that paralell in a non-forced way would be a pain. Maybe I could have a sound effect of a rooster crowing, shortly before he's taken off to the judge?

Why is it illegal to be a Christian in this Twilighty Zone country?

Is there ever a decent "why" for a group being persecuted?

What is the punishment?

Indefinite time in prison, with reviews every couple years to see if the guilty party has... repented, for lack of a better word.

And if that's the sentence, another possible angle occurs to me. What if he's been in jail for a while now, and he's going before the review board for the third or fourth time? He's survived it before, but now he's just about broken, and he's going to deny his faith so he can leave prison. But somehow, talking to someone else convinces him otherwise... a daughter, perhaps? Doing a skit about a grown man would be a first, as well.

That angle would need a little more work. I'll think about it.

How exactly does the theme "God and Country" fit into this?
It's kinda forced, but the general idea was that even though he's justified in breaking one law, the law against Christianity, he can't break a law against perjury. Of course, that destroys the whole "deny your faith" angle, which I like. So scratch that.

I was thinking about the concept, and unless I wanted to deal with God and country as totally seperate concepts in the skit, which would be a plot-wise pain, I have to intimately relate them somehow. Historically, that's lead to one of two things: the religion taking over the country, ala the Taliban; or the country repressing the religion, ala... the Taliban.

Are you trying to do an allegory based on Rome's offical attempts to stamp out Christians?

Never occured to me. I was just going for impact. But there was a story in the NT (Acts, IIRC), where two people were in prison. (Paul and someone else, most likely; there are a lot of pairings in the later NT, and I can never remember them all.) They were there for being Christians, and there was an earthquake that opened all the cell doors. They stayed, because the law said that's where they should be. Kept the guard from killing himself, incidently. Anyway, the story is about state persecution in general. Where doesn't matter.

If so, you might want to add an offical from the state and not just prison guards.

That I like. A public defender, perhaps?

Thanks for the input, Jay. Quite insightful.
 


Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
Is there ever a decent "why" for a group being persecuted?

Not decent, but there's usually a reason.
 


Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Scratch that. No drama. We need a comedy.

Ideas, people? I'm tapped.
 


Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
 
Jane Fonda & Pope John Paul II Workout Video? Those supple thighs, working in unison...
Hmm, it's hot in here.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Two men vie for the worship of a young lady in Roman times. They use comical methods to gain her eye, and the sly dialogue and crazy plots make the audience laugh. At the end, when the girl and guy fall in love and are given a Christian marriage, then sacrificed to lions, the audience can rejoice in knowing they live together in heaven.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
In the event that anyone cares...

http://home.earthlink.net/~dawico/L2L.htm

Still a bit unfinished, but I figured, what the hey?

The first person who finds a pattern to the character names gets a free library card! But only if they live in Davidson county. Otherwise it's $20 a year.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Jim. Bob. Jim-Bob. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
nearest psych ward, regardless of whether their physically sick or not.
Yes, because psych wards treat people who aren't physically sick. Yes, really they do. They're not known for their surgical rooms, y'know. [Smile]

**

You spelled 'hear' wrong at the top of Scene 3.

**

quote:
I… remember one of my Elementary school teachers teaching us about it for a week or two
They're paid to teach. Not preach.

**

quote:
loose
If you meant to type 'lose', you need to loose (I mean, lose) an 'o' ...

**

quote:
Kate and I read the Bible together for hours. Richard did talk to the woman in 515 later that morning, and he learned the same things that we did.
So, if the old lady had handed them novelizations of the 'Star Wars' trilogy instead ...
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Darn. You know, I made quite a few changes to this script earlier today, but they apparently didn't save. Double-darn.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Fixed and updated. NOW find the pattern in names. [Smile]

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Omega ]
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Even though no-one named "Somewhere" has ever been canonized, how could a place that locks up all Judeo-Christians have a hospital named after a saint?
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
It was named before the facists gained power.

That, or you could say that it was named after a famous historical person, and that their religious persuasion was irrelevant.

But those are just rationalizations for my use of a joke. Anyone get it?
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
It was named before the facists gained power.
Wouldn't they change it after they gained power? To, like, Ashcroft Memorial Hospital or something?
 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Weak, Jeff. Weak.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
[Razz]
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Given that the theme and purpose of Omega's play is, as it were, written in stone, if you've got a problem with that aspect of it keep it to yourself.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Thank you, Sol. [Smile]
 
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
Just one point in an earlier post you said you wanted a comedy, guess you dropped that idea.
To bad you already wrote it, a story about that walker guy might have worked. He chose god over his country and it lead to his downfall.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Yeah, we figured that there wasn't much way to do a comedy, so...
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
But, if it had been named before the anti-religion regime took over, and these leaders wanted to eradicate all semblance of Christianity, wouldn't they rename anything w/ "saint" in it? Wouldn't they be afraid of something like this?:

child: "Why is the hospital named 'Saint Somewhere'? What does that mean?"
adult: "It's named after a person."
child: "Who was Saint Somewhere?"
adult: "A very bad person who devoted his life to evil beliefs."
child: "Then why did they name a hospital after him?"
adult: "Er... Um... Shut up, kid! *thwap!*"
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Maybe the person's last name was "St. Somewhere". Not everyone with St. in their name actually was canonized. [Smile]

Of course, I might add a bit of symmetry to the line...

"Welcome to the psychiatric ward of St. Somewhere. Of course, when I worked here, it was called [insert amusing secular name]. And, in a few days, it'll be known as a pile of rubble."

I think I like that...

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Omega ]
 
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
Is there anyway you could at least TRY to present two sides of an argument? At all??

And there's really no conflict to it. Drama is conflict. Without conflict, you don't have a play. It's all too easy.

$$$$ Omega's play spoilers $$$$

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Lady checks in, lady gives them book, they read, they conquer the planet. The end. Someting needs to oppose them to make a good conflict. Maybe they resist, but the patients revolt against it. Maybe the grandfather was a patient who was part of the rebellion. Or if you want to be more traditional, maybe one of the other attendees resisted and held firm to the secular philosophy, and threatened to turn them in to Big Brother.

Also, the dialogue could use a little tightening. Try to listen to the way people talk in real life, today, around you and imitate that style.

Oh, and watch "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" for an awesome psych ward movie.

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: OnToMars ]
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Is there anyway you could at least TRY to present two sides of an argument? At all??

The other side of the argument being that facism is a good thing? That the invariably resulting horrors are not quite so horrible, and not a thing to be avoided?

I find it difficult to present, as a rational argument, that which is not one.

And there's really no conflict to it. Drama is conflict. Without conflict, you don't have a play.

We didn't have such a conflict last year and we won. [Smile]

Remember, we've got, like, ten minutes to do this. This isn't "Lord of the Rings". It's just a short morality play.

Also, the dialogue could use a little tightening. Try to listen to the way people talk in real life, today, around you and imitate that style.

I did that. I specifically avoided using my own speech patterns. [Smile]

Any specific area you think needs work with that?
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
He can't present the other side of the arguement, because that would defeat the purpose of his play entirely. It's not drama. It only exists to say "Look! Yahweh == good! Anyone who tells you otherwise == bad! Convert them before they convert you!".

"It's just a short morality play."

Or, as the the rest of the world calls it, "propaganda". :-)
 
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
Bearing in mind this is going against my better judgement and my policy of encouraging the oppression of rationality. I do however support the propogation of art as an examination of humanity. Even if the examination is flawed.

quote:
The other side of the argument being that facism is a good thing? That the invariably resulting horrors are not quite so horrible, and not a thing to be avoided?
The other side that secular government might not be such a horrible thing.

quote:
I find it difficult to present, as a rational argument, that which is not one.

I won't say it...I won't say it...I won't say it...

quote:
We didn't have such a conflict last year and we won.
Well, I doubt it's the Pulitzer committee you're trying to win over. [Smile]

quote:
Well, why were they in here, then?
Well or then. One or the other.

quote:
But� but� how�
But...how? Stuttering usually doesn't work out.

Generally, tightening dialogue is really just getting rid of unneccessary so's, well's, then's, etc.

Anyway, you got five scenes, which is a pretty substantial one act play. It's tough to pull off, but good stuff can be written in one act. Nobody's expecting you to be Samuel Beckett, but hey, there's always room for improvement.

*patiently awaiting the Quantum Leap joke*
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
The other side that secular government might not be such a horrible thing.

Considering that it invariably has been so, from Julius Caesar to Jaing Zamin, I'd say there's very little chance of that. Once a government decides that it's all-powerful, and answers to no higher morality, you're screwed. Which is, coincidencly, the entire point of the skit. Look at Nuremburg. The entire premise of that trial was that all people everywhere are answerable to a higher authority than their government.

How do you think the Roman empire deteriorated so far that the barbarians could take it out? Because it became an empire! Under the Republic, back when it had a healthy respect for morality, is where it gained its power, but once the government stopped being answerable to a higher morality, they also stopped being answerable to the people. Then everything started disintegrating, starting with the inflation of the money supply and working down from there all the way to people watching murder for sport.

Well or then. One or the other

Yes, that might be good grammer, but people in my part of the country use such terminology as I wrote frequently.

Generally, tightening dialogue is really just getting rid of unneccessary so's, well's, then's, etc.

Yeah, but people USE those unneccessary so's and well's. It doesn't quite sound real otherwise.

It only exists to say "Look! Yahweh == good! Anyone who tells you otherwise == bad! Convert them before they convert you!".

Actually, I have the purpose of the play writtein on the cover sheet for the copy of the script that we hand the judges:

"To illustrate the necessity of God in the moral functioning of a country; to illustrate that any country anywhere is susceptible to the false premise that true law and morality flows from government mandate, instead of from God, a premise which has caused untold destruction throughout history"

Recommended reading:

"Ancient Rome: How It Affects You Today" by Richard Maybury
"What Ever Happened To Justice?" by Richard Maybury

Very good books. Read. You may learn a thing or six about facism, and how, regardless of how many different countries try it, it's still a bad idea.
 
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
quote:
"To illustrate the necessity of God in the moral functioning of a country; to illustrate that any country anywhere is susceptible to the false premise that true law and morality flows from government mandate, instead of from God, a premise which has caused untold destruction throughout history."
And of course, there couldn't possibly be a moral standard - or form of justice - without christianity.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Cartman ]
 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
I STILL want to know what facism is.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
It seems to have lost whatever its original definition was, much like "conservative" and "liberal" in the US. The current definition, as I use it here, is that facism is a system under which there is no guiding philosophy. The government has no limits, and no rules. It does whatever is deemed "necessary", and since the government determines what's "necessary", they have all power. Most governments today follow this form.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
We've certainly seen lots of it in the practices of the John Ashcroft Department of Justice since 9/11.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
You keep claiming that, and you keep neglecting to say exactly what the frell you're talking about.

But that's for the flameboard. Let's drop it.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
And of course, there couldn't possibly be a moral standard - or form of justice - without christianity.

Christianity? Did I mention Christianity in my script? Must have missed that... [Wink]
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Actually, Omega, both Jay and I have discussed it in detail, in the flameboard. You really should pay more attention to threads you participate in.

Here for example.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
quote:
Most governments today follow this form.
Omega, don't go outside today. The sky might crush you.
 
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
And of course, there couldn't possibly be a moral standard - or form of justice - without christianity.

Christianity? Did I mention Christianity in my script? Must have missed that... [Wink]

Slippery, but not slippery enough.

Here's that quote again:

quote:
"To illustrate the necessity of God in the moral functioning of a country; to illustrate that any country anywhere is susceptible to the false premise that true law and morality flows from government mandate, instead of from God, a premise which has caused untold destruction throughout history."
Now, allow me to rephrase:

quote:
"To illustrate the unnecessity of God in the moral functioning of a country; to illustrate that any country anywhere is susceptible to the false premise that true law and morality flows from God, instead of from government mandate, a premise which has caused untold destruction throughout history."
And whaddaya know, this fits too!

Typical example of religious indoctrination: telling only one side of the story and presenting it as the whole truth. Your "play" only serves to illustrate this further.
 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Show me one example where someone actually following Christianity (or, for that matter, Islam) has lead to anywhere near the destruction fascist regimes like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Zamin, Mussolini, and practically every other dictator in history have caused.
 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Would now be a bad time to mention that Clinton is a Christian?
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Not to mention that commie bastard FDR, and Truman. And Kennedy. Oh, yeah, and Ashcroft, too.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Forget it. Omega never admits that the Christians who do evil are 'real' Christians. They're all PseudoChristians, like from the Mirror Universe or something.

Of course, the Christians who fail to fight the evil Pseudochristians are almost as bad. If someone's doing vile evil, and loudly proclaiming it to be done in the name of your God, you should be mad enough to go out and stop them. For good.

Apparently, 'real' Christians spontaneously sprang into being some 20 years or so ago, because before then, there was no organized resistance to people doing evil in God's name. (There still isn't much of one, or there would be a LOT fewer televangelists.) Just holding hands in a circle isn't enough.

Oh, and one more thing. 'true law and morality' flow NEITHER from a government mandate NOR from a 'big brother'esque Sky God. They flow from internal agreements made between the individual and society, for the individual's and society's mutual self-interest.

In other words, humans cannot form communities without order and accepted norms of social behavior. Groups of humans wishing to form a community meet and agree on what will be accepted social norms. This becomes 'morality.' When the norms are written down, they become 'laws.' Different groups will, depending upon any number of factors, have different social norms, which is why some societies practice such things as cannibalism, multiple marriage, matriarchy, etc, and see nothing 'odd' about it.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
 
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
Omega, I neglected to say in my post about the other side of writing dialogue. While you have to imitate real speech, you also have to streamline it. Dialogue is not real speech, it is edited speech. Disguised as real speech you could say. In any kind of dramatic writing, every action, every word, and indeed every pause needs to move the story forward. Because, no matter how long you have, it's not enough to capture everything as if it were real life, be it ten minutes or ten movies. That is of course, open to argument, but I'm only making a point. But everything you put to paper should move the story forward. Simple story, direct dialogue, powerful message, you could do something quite effective in ten minutes.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Argh!

Omega: "I have written an intensely polemical play about the benefits of Right Christian Thinking. What do you think about it as a play?"

Everyone: "This play is intensely polemical!"

Omega: "Uh, yes, that's what I said."

Everyone: "This play only talks about the benefits of Right Christian Thinking!"

Omega: "That was kind of my point..."

Everyone: "Well, how dare you write an intensely polemical play about Right Christian Thinking!"

This is like complaining that things fall down instead of up. What do you think a play written by Omega and intended for people who think just like him is going to be? Corpus Christi? There are enough chips on shoulders in this thread to shut down Frito Lay's factories for a month.

We have a division of roles here at Flare. Sets of more or less self contained discussions, divided into rough categories. For some of us, perhaps most of us, these categories don't mean a great deal. We can look at Flare holistically. But there are lots of people who don't.

In other words, to the Flameboard you go.
 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Simon has just significantly raised the bar for "this is why I'm going to lock/move/mutilate this thread" posts.
 


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3