Very true. In fact, if Navaros wants to insist on a false god in B5, why not pick Lorien instead?
Jan
How come SciFi always recycles the 'false gods' premise?
- Thread starter Navaros
- Start date
- Status
Jan
Well, it's been said that the Shadows didn't pose as false Gods, and that's true. But even if it was only a minor plot points, the Vorlons did pose as false Gods.
Lorien was just presented as a really, really ancient alien (the oldest in fact). He was never shown to be posing as a God (although he may have been interpreted as one, given the ranger/priest's book in Deconstruction of Falling Stars).
Lorien was just presented as a really, really ancient alien (the oldest in fact). He was never shown to be posing as a God (although he may have been interpreted as one, given the ranger/priest's book in Deconstruction of Falling Stars).
I don't know how much this can be considered "sci-fi" (although the Sci-Fi channel has recently re-aired this) but Joan of Arcadia was a TV show that featured God (the Christian god) as a main character. And just as the show was getting good before it was canceled the Devil showed up too.
So, God has indeed been on prime-time TV in a prominent role as an actual character who didn't just "swoop in and save the day" or "swoop in and destroy the day." Also while I'm sure it was controversial, it did manage to last for two seasons before it was pulled.
So, God has indeed been on prime-time TV in a prominent role as an actual character who didn't just "swoop in and save the day" or "swoop in and destroy the day." Also while I'm sure it was controversial, it did manage to last for two seasons before it was pulled.
Interesting that you bring this up. When the show was on the air, TrekBBS threads devoted to Joan of Arcadia were banned from SFF and moved to General Media and TV, because a moderator decided that it was neither science fiction nor fantasy.
Only the first couple of episodes. After that, there was a compelling argument made to classify the show as "SFF", so the show was perfectly fine to be posted here. In fact, if anybody is interested in discussing the series in this or a new thread, have at it! 
I don't know if I agree that the Vorlons posed as Gods...they DID resemble Angels to our eyes...which isn't the same thing as a God...but a servant of God.
Though...one could make a case they WERE Gods to primitive man...their technology being ununderstandable and thus magic...it's only thousands of years later that we understand so they no longer seem like Gods.
Not a false God, per se, merely a change of perspective for the worshipper.
But again...posing and being...I think is a Point of View. Lorien, for many, could be a God. Ancient. Wise. Powerful. That's a God.
I think it's tough...because for the Greeks Zeus and Company WERE Gods, and then the Christians have a God...so does that mean Zeus and Company were "posing."
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Like I already said, the Vorlons presented themselves as gods, and were seen as gods. It's only much later when we invent the concept of the super god, that the lesser gods are relegated to be no more than angels/servents/messengers of the super god. Go look up the names of Angels, you'll find virtually all them - especially the older ones - are all names of gods of older religions.
Not according to Navaros' definition of a god. According to him a real god is omniscient (and Q is not), who rewards his followers/believers, and punishes, hurts, murders, tortures possibly, all those who do not follow/believe in him.
Since Q has no interest in followers, nor does he punish anyone who does not consider him one, he's not a real god.
Really? That surprises me. The original decision caused quite a flap in MA, and last I saw, the moderator in question was digging in his heels and absolutely refusing to change his mind. This compelling argument you mention must have been road-to-Damascus type stuff.
Oh: somebody mentioned God's appearance in Dogma. It just occurred to me that God not only makes an appearance in Terry Gilliam's 1981 film Time Bandits, but plays an important role in the plot.
It's been awhile, so my memory could be fuzzy. As I'm sure you recall, I believe I was that moderator.
I think what reconciled the matter were some thoughtful, well-written exchanges in PM. Discussing the nature of the show, expressing concerns over its aims, reassurances that neither side was being unfairly labeled or would be, etc.
BTW ... is the series out on DVD yet?
What about the New Gods in the DCU....they're Gods.
It's been awhile, so my memory could be fuzzy. As I'm sure you recall, I believe I was that moderator.
Just obeying the Third TrekBBS Commandment: "thou shalt not take thy Mod's name in vain."
Yes, it is--both seasons.
Last edited:
That had to be one of the strangest concepts for a comic ever. Only in the early 70s, man.
Has anybody else read Terry Pratchett's Small Gods? On Discworld, the size and power of any god is directly proportional to the level of belief in each god by its adherents. As a consequence, the formerly-great god Om has been reduced to the form of a turtle. Good book--very funny.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Not according Navaros' definition. Not omniscient, no followers/believers, not punishing those who do not follow or believe.
It's been awhile, so my memory could be fuzzy. As I'm sure you recall, I believe I was that moderator.
I think what reconciled the matter were some thoughtful, well-written exchanges in PM. Discussing the nature of the show, expressing concerns over its aims, reassurances that neither side was being unfairly labeled or would be, etc.
BTW ... is the series out on DVD yet?
Yep both seasons in fact are out on DVD now.
Well, there's the problem. There's never been a single universal definition of what a god is. Which has led to many cultural misunderstandings over the centuries as people assume that other peoples' definitions of "god" are equivalent to their own.
You have the beginnings of wisdom, my son.
Since the subject seems to focus a fair amount upon the Vorlons and Shadows, my impression is not that they involved any themes of "false gods". Perhaps the Drakh and other servant races came to view the Shadows that way; they at least called the Shadows Masters". The Vorlons presented themselves as angelic in nature, in essence messengers of "God" per se and as such closer to Him than anyone else. I'd have to say they didn't do much to discourage any misperceptions.
However, B5's overall themes didn't seem to me to cover some iconoclastic approach to gods or even god like beings. Not when I see episodes such as "Passing Through Gethsemane" or "Voices in the Dark", not with characters such as Rabbi Koslov, Rev. Dexter, Br. Theo and others, who though not presenting themselves as gods were definitely shown to be close servants or adherents.
To my admittedly colored perspective, the story surrounding the Vorlons and Shadows - even Lorien and the rest - was one of growing up. Of a natural rebellion most children go through. They say "we want to do this on our own, now. We NEED to do this on our own." The Vorlons slavishly followed order, while the Shadows were devoted to chaos. But each still expected the younger races to "do as you are told".
False Gods-Hmm, I believe R.A.H. said that all religion exists for , by, and of the priests-with an emphasis on for. Real Gods in SF-on one level the argument can be made that no one can portray a "real" god-because as mere mortals we cannnot wrap our minds around true godhood well enough to portray it. On another level-screw faith-show me proof positive that there is or ever has been a Divine Being(I'll go along with the idea that there can be only one-if you are that mighty there isn't any room or need for competition)-but show me proof, not "faith" dictated by some twisted old priest or pastor who would like me to believe what he says without evidence. Barring that-
I bow to no one or nothing. And there is the sentiment behind the re-hashing of "false gods" -we as strong individuals will not be led astray by those who revel in the domination of others.
I bow to no one or nothing. And there is the sentiment behind the re-hashing of "false gods" -we as strong individuals will not be led astray by those who revel in the domination of others.
That's what Navaros is discussing, but my point is that he's defining his terms too narrowly and thus misunderstanding what's really out there in the genre.
- Status
Similar threads
