December 2001 posts
Question about Willow, Glory and
magically tapping out -- Calluna, 22:35:28 12/02/01 Sun
I kind of asked this before, but I think it got lost down in the bottom postings.
Why did one night of magical high jinxs sap Willow's power, while brain-sucking a Hell Goddess
didn't? One would think that taking Tara's mind back from Glory would have taken A LOT of power,
yet Willow was communicating telepathically with Spike and knocking over Glory's human minions
like so many bowling pins right after the brain suck.But after one magic bender with Amy, she
couldn't even close the drapes? Doesn't quite make sense to me. Suggestions anyone?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about Willow, Glory and magically tapping out -- SKPE, 06:20:52 12/03/01
Mon
When she took on Glorys hobbits she was holding Tara hand. In 'hush' they demonstrated that the
two together were more Powerful than ether alone by tossing the coke machine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe quality of the spell is just as important as the quantity of spells cast? -- Earl Allison,
09:24:55 12/03/01 Mon
Good point, but one that might have several potential answers.
Willow's spell against Glory was a one-shot, an instant spell that, after being cast, required no
maintenance or follow-up. She stabbed into Glory's mind and restored Tara -- even if she wasn't
siphoning magic from Tara to assist.
Willow's magical bender in "Wrecked" seemed to consist of multiple spells, as opposed to
just one. Also, the case can be made that she had to maintain those enchantments (although one
could just as easily say she didn't ...). We only saw a small portion of what she and Amy did, it was
strongly implied that the two left the Bronze and went somewhere else, since Willow wasn't as wiped
at the end of the Bronze scene as she was when she came home.
It might also be sheer number of spells, even if they didn't require any maintenance or
concentration. I can't recall ever seeing Willow cast more than a handful of spells in a single episode,
even during "Bargaining." Multiple spells might be as bad as, or worse than, a single
"high-level" spell. A caster might have a given level of reserve power, and once those
spell "points" are gone, whether used in a few big spells, or scads of little ones, the caster
cannot use magic until rested.
Just a few ideas.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about Willow, Glory and magically tapping out -- maddog, 15:29:27 12/03/01
Mon
Maybe it's not an all at once thing. With Glory it was one big brain sucking thing...with Amy it was
all night long.
OT - 3rd Poem for Christmas -- Brian, 04:40:03 12/03/01 Mon
It wasn’t until after this poem was published that I realized how salacious the title could be
construed. But that was not my intent. This poem is a homage to the 40’s when the backdoor of your
home was the entrance for most of the world. The front door was reserved for strangers and formal
company. But the back door opened to friends, family, neighborhood kids, and all those men who
supported the running of a middle class family.
BACK DOOR MEN
In the morning
My mother would unbolt the back door,
Letting the dog out to bark at the morning dew.
Then, after coffee, ham and eggs, my dad would leave, hat and briefcase in
hand,
Off by train to the city for work.
Then, after my mother put on another pot of coffee,
They would come, one by one.
First, the milkman, with his ready, clean, white smile, bottles in hand,
Cream on the top
Too rushed to talk, no coffee today.
Second, the bread man, with his quiet, serious face,
Carrying still fragrant buns and loaves of bread,
Talking politics, sipping coffee.
Third, the iceman, with cold, clear eyes,
Reflecting the huge blocks of ice, caught in sharp, steel-dark tongs,
One coffee to go.
Fourth, the insurance man, with coat and tie, and correct, soft voice,
His heavy face, lined with secret sorrows,
His coffee, black,
A pariah of unacceptable fates.
Fifth, the mailman, with his quick, nimble fingers, walk, and wit,
Always time for coffee and conversation.
Sixth, the ragman, with dirty, broken teeth and broken talk,
Who always received a sandwich, coffee,
And something to shove in his dark, oil cloth bag.
Seventh, the scissors man, with his foreign accent and ways,
Polite, quick, efficient,
Gossiping over coffee and buns.
Finally, the ice cream man, with his white truck and suit,
Cool in the hot sunlight,
His product, cool and white, covered with dew,
Iced coffee today, with sugar.
All of them made their rounds by noon, and no one ever
Realized how wonderful those moments were,
Or how soon they were to end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oh, Brian that was wonderful! -- Wisewoman, 08:57:49 12/03/01 Mon
Took my right back to my own childhood. Who knew there wouldn't be milkmen and breadmen
anymore? The knife-grinder (scissors-sharpener) used to walk along our block ringing a big brass
handbell, and dragging his peddle-operated grinding wheel behind him.
Your poems are truly a Christmas treat. Thank you so much!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks, WW, I had forgotten about the cart -- Brian, 10:02:12 12/03/01 Mon
Tara and Amy -- mmm, 07:25:23 12/03/01 Mon
Ok, not sure if this has been discussed before, but my husband had an interesting idea which I
thought I would share.
It seems as if Joss is really trying to set up Tara and Amy as diametric opposites on the
Willow/magic/addiction continuum. Is it just coincidence that Tara spelled backwards is A rat?
Mayhap we are just reading WAY too much into this, but I thought it was an intriguing
observation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tara and Oz (was Tara and Amy) -- sanjerine, 08:58:39 12/03/01 Mon
There might be something in that, mmm, but one thing I have always noticed is the names of the
people Willow's dated: Tara and Oz. Both are fictional, and magical, place-names. (Tara in
"Gone With the Wind" is named for the historical and mythological home of the kings of
Ireland. Oz I assume you know about .)
Certainly Willow started out her relationship with Tara as it being a kind of escapism away from the
work of the Scoobs ("something that's just mine.") I also think Oz represented an
escapism away from complete nerd-dom ("Hello? Dating a guitarist? Or, I was...")
Just a thought. Willow's been trying to get out for years, and she doesn't even *know* she was trying
to get out. ("This world's no fun." "So you noticed that, too.")
I agree with WiseWoman and other's who have said it -- Willow's got PTSD. She's been on the front
lines for too long. Part of her has always known that, and has been trying to get away.
--sanjerine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Quick question--What's PTSD? -- Rob, 09:05:00 12/03/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Quick question--What's PTSD? -- Earl Allison, 09:09:00 12/03/01 Mon
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Hope this helps!
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Quick question--What's PTSD? -- Rob, 10:32:52 12/03/01 Mon
Of course! Stupid me! I'm so bad at figuring out what letters stand for (which is why I rarely type out
an episode's entire name instead of its initials!)!
Thanks! :)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick question--What's PTSD? -- DEN, 12:56:55 12/03/01 Mon
And it isn't even POST traumatic! Willow is still on the line! I've repeatedly said she's like someone
who's flown too many missions or made too many patrols, and keeps going even though she's making
more and more serious mistakes. If she were a fighter pilot she'd be drinking too much and drinking
alone when she's on the ground, taking crazy risks in the air, and refusing to listen to anyone
because she's still getting her kills--until she gets "Wrecked."
The issue of "stress" wasn't central to the series until S5. Till then, for the sake of the
story, we could assume everyone copes more or less OK. But if Buffy is given a year-long story arc
based on her "slayer burnout," it's not possible--or fair to the characters-- to ignore the
effect of the same situation on the other Scoobies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> PTSD, and Veterans of the Psychic Wars -- Fred, the obvious
pseudonym, 16:37:18 12/04/01 Tue
All too true. All the Scoobie Gangers should have parts coming off around the edges.
US Army calculated that after a year in combat the average person would be effectively burned out
to the point where their effectiveness is minimal and they're more a threat to themselves and their
comrades then their enemies.
The Gangers have been at this for five years. Shell shock, anyone?
Listen to the old Blue Oyster Cult "Veteran of the Psychic Wars" (c. 1981-2) and think of
Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Scoobies made of sterner stuff -- Cleanthes, 10:47:32 12/06/01
Thu
US Army calculated that after a year in combat the average person would be effectively burned out
to the point where their effectiveness is minimal and they're more a threat to themselves and their
comrades then their enemies.
Hans-Ulrich Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions in World War II; he was shot down 32 times during
his six years of service. For four of the six years, he saw almost continuous combat. He lost a leg
toward the end, but continued flying. After the war, he went to Argentina and became chief of their
air force. His leadership there left the Argentine air force as their best organized and professional
service which was demonstrated in the 1982 Falkland's War where the Argentine army and navy
achieved no military successes, but the air force almost won the war.
Okay, he's the outstanding exception to the "burn-out" rule. Still, I like to think of the
Scoobies as made of the same fibre as the truly remarkable real life people of history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: names -- t-rex, 17:28:59 12/03/01 Mon
>There might be something in that, mmm, but one thing I have always noticed is the names of
the people Willow's dated: Tara and Oz. Both are fictional, and magical, place-names. (Tara in
"Gone With the Wind" is named for the historical and mythological home of the kings of
Ireland. Oz I assume you know about .)
Interesting points. I always thought of "Tara" as earth, a grounding element for Willow.
And, of course, "Will" has a strong "will". And Buffy maintains a
"buffer zone" between our plane and whatever lies on the other side of the
hellmouth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The Harp That Once Through Tara's Halls -- Cleanthes, 11:11:47 12/06/01
Thu
The famous poem by Moore about Tara refers to a harp made of willow wood.
http://www.standingstones.com/wireharp.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Harp That Once Through Tara's Halls -- Shaglio, 11:29:38 12/06/01
Thu
"The famous poem by Moore about Tara refers to a harp made of willow wood."
And Tara started harping on Willow about her extensive use of magic! Sorry, I just couldn't
resist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Harp That Once Through Tara's Halls -- Kimberly, 12:08:41
12/06/01 Thu
Thirty lashes with a wet noodle for you. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Harp That Once Through Tara's Halls -- DEN, 14:43:26
12/07/01 Fri
Willow harp and Tara fingers--I'm getting some strange visuals here!
Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- The Last Jack, 08:46:07 12/03/01
Mon
Taken from Scifi.com:
Sixty Australian Seventh-Day Adventist schools have banned Harry Potter books for fear they could
encourage children to delve into the occult, the Reuters news service reported.
*Sorry to put this on the Buffy board, but since we have nothing to do till January, figured it was as
good as anything to talk about*
I am seriously beginning to wonder if becoming a parent, teacher, or religious leader does something
to your brain that makes you think that A) Magic shown on tv and in books is real, and B) Kids are
stupid. I mean seriously, even if kids becomes interested in the occult because of Harry Potter, they
are going to lose interest in it once they figure out that they won't be able to turn people in toads or
fly around on broomsticks. I mean kids are fickle; if something isn't working out the way they
thought it would, they are going to drop it and move on to something else.
And another thing, kids today aren't stupid. They are more informed and more cynical then their
parents and grandparents were at their age. Hell, my 11 year old brother knows more about
computers and the family vcr than my mom does. I think they have a better grasp of what is real and
what is fantasy than adults give them credit for.
In conclusion, if the magic in the world of Buffy and Harry Potter were real, then I could understand
the hysteria. But its not, so get a grip already! Thank you ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- Kimberly, 08:49:20 12/03/01 Mon
I agree that the banning of Harry Potter (and those of similar ilk) is about as absurd as it gets. It
isn't parenthood that does it; I've been one now for over six years, and I'm even more likely to fight
the idiots than I was before I became one. I blame people so determined to get into heaven that they
turn their brains off. (I also think they turn off their morality, their ethics, their common sense, etc,
but that may just be me.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- Rob, 09:03:41 12/03/01 Mon
Oh, I know what you mean! One of my best friends's sister (who was born Jewish) recently married a
Southern Baptist and converted. Now, she won't let her children (who, until last year, were Jewish!)
read "Harry Potter" because she's afraid the devil will steal them! Last year, when they
were Jewish, they were allowed to read it. Now, without even delving into the horrible psychological
effects you can have on your children by changing their religion to that of your new spouse, nothing
makes me madder than the mentality behind banning books...or censoring any form of art.
As you have already said, Harry Potter is fantasy! It is not the real occult, and further, is not about
the Dark Arts. The Dark Arts are shown to be forces not to mess with. In fact, Hogwarts has a
Defense Against the Dark Arts class...a very important one, at that! Harry Potter does not encourage
children to do the occult...It encourages them to have imaginations!
What I find most funny about the banning of "Harry Potter" is that the parents and
adults who are doing it are behaving exactly like the Muggles of J.K. Rowling's books! Muggles are
"non-magical people" most of whom are shown to be small-minded and dull...they have
no imagination and fear anything that may challenge their way of thinking. Rowling's description of
the Muggles in her books could be applied to the very people trying to ban her books, which
is...incredible! The main purpose of her books are to inspire young children to cultivate their minds
and implement their brains to inspire flights of fancy and adventure...and their parents, the people
who are supposed to be aiding in this endeavour...are blocking it from every happening!
I agree with you: I think the major problem is that many parents do not realize how smart their
children are. Most children, by the time they are old enough to read "Harry Potter" are
not so literal-minded anymore. Children, from a very young age, play "pretend." They
know that magic is not real...and that is where the excitement of the game comes in.
Fantasy books have been banned throughout history. Other books and stories that received similar
treatment at times were ALL of Roald Dahl's books!...Snow White!...The Chronicles of Narnia!...and
on...and on. It just goes to show that as each generation grows to adulthood, many of them become
small-minded. They forget the joys of childhood...and the knowledge that one can never have too
much imagination.
Rob
P.S. My overuse of the ellipses was an intentional homage to J.K. Rowling. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- Neaux, 09:42:09 12/03/01
Mon
I wonder if talking puppets (aka Sesame Street) is part of the occult :P
seriously.. a child's active imagination has limitless possibilities.. I'd hate to see it ruined.
Banning books and toys makes me sad.
In my day it was banning my little pony and He-man.
what are kids left to play with? Sticks and rocks?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- maddog, 14:37:32 12/03/01
Mon
No wait, sticks could be used as wands...you'd better ban those too. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- tornado, 10:44:53 12/03/01
Mon
My wife and I are parents and Southern Baptists, and she's a teacher. That should qualify me to post
in this thread. :)
We've read the HP books and saw the movie. When our now 19-month-old son is old enough to read,
he'll be allowed to read HP or whatever the current craze is.
When someone (at church or anywhere) brings up HP, I ask if they watch soap operas. Lying,
cheating, stealing, etc. Sheesh. That's the REAL downfall of society. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation)Spoilers for H Potter Buffy -- Age,
10:49:49 12/03/01 Mon
The irony of banning a book about magic is that the people who are doing it are relying on a magical
means of dealing with their fears of mortality and their need to feel that their lives have a meaning
external to what they make of it.
The desire to ban the book, given their belief system, is understandable: the use of magic, the
reliance on something other than the power of God is a step backwards from the transcendent unity
of the God figure to the old ways which divided up the world into many deities. While Christianity,
in my opinion, has devolved into a means for many of getting themselves into heaven, to be looked
after like little children, the movement of the religion itself has been from attachment to the form of
things in idolatry to the vision of oneness through the idea of the One God. This is why selflessness is
valued as good: it is a representation of the formless form, our being one with each other.
The root belief of many religions is the same; it's just that the unity, the wholeness of these religions
has been destroyed by the need to feel saved in the sense of life after death. God is both the punisher
and the redeemer; he is the one who set everything in motion. But, the richness of the myth has been
destroyed by the literalness of the interpretation. This IS exactly what Rowling is getting at by using
the world of magic as a means of delving beyond the surface, of not just using this imagery in a
literal way. In this way, Rowling's books are very much like Whedon's creations. (There's also the
sense of being called on to be the slayer in Harry; the theme of the outsider; and the idea that if you
ignore the problem, Voldemort, it will just grow in power until it comes out with a life of its own like
the supernatural metaphor in 'Buffy.') The dark aspect of life still exists. It is part of us or it would
never exist in the first place. We can't just ignore it, place it in an externalized myth called the devil
and be afraid all our lives in case we give into it and not get into heaven. I'm being cynical here. The
desire to get into heaven is only one consideration; there is the genuine desire to bring light, life,
truth, love and happiness to people through the spread of religious dogma. But, all too often by
ignoring, not dealing with what has been labelled the negative emotions, we get taken over by them,
living out life that is dead, as Buffy is now, frozen by fear, or dead to compassion and understanding
as righteous indignation shuts the person off.
Rather than religion then being life affirming in its acceptance of our mutual struggle with life, it is
used as a remedy for the ills of life, and is thus a form of death wish, a wish for the world to be made
right by a second coming or an apocalypse. It is a desire to return to the Eden state of innocence, to
remain on the surface and destroy the richness of spirit that comes with the wholeness of our
nature.
I have read with much pleasure and enthusiasm all four Harry Potter books. I'm not an avid reader
as the lack of quotations in my postings tends to show, but the Potter books seemed to resonate with
me in the same way that 'Buffy' does. I couldn't put them down. If you stay on the surface, turning a
blind eye to part of human nature, you will end up acting out that aspect of the nature.
Personally I'm not a Christian. The nearest thing to any religion that I might consider is buddhism
because it completely deconstructs the human projection of the God based religions, uncovering from
the myth, the basic ideas that are at the heart of all of them: unity, compassion, selflessness,
wholeness, endless change as life itself, understanding; and this may be one reason why the central
icon in the Magic Box is a buddha figure as a symbol for these ideas. And, why Buffy wears a cross
around her neck: to symbolize wholeness and understanding that life includes not only the joy, the
happiness of Christmas morning with lots of presents, but suffering also through the allusion to the
suffering of Christ on the cross.
As for banning Potter books, sure why not. Then we'll ban the people who read them, or who've
heard of them and then take out the author, and we'll get into the witch hunt situation of
'Gingerbread' with a nice mass burning. Hang on...then we'd have to take out those who did the
burning because they would have broken a commandment, and so on until we'd finally have, as
Mulder in the 'X-Files' found out through his wish, peace on earth because there'd be no one
left...except the animals, so we'd have to nuke them before we did ourselves in. What the heck, why
don't we just blow the earth to little pieces and then all that would be left is fairy dust in the
heavens. All due to fear.
But, it's not a good idea because I want to go see the Harry Potter film; I want to read the next book,
and I want to see at least how this season of 'Buffy' and 'Angel' turn out. It's not very selfless of me,
but there you go.
Sorry, the tone of this posting has become facetious. I didn't intend it to be so. For many people
religion plays a vital and life affirming role in their lives, and I want to make it perfectly clear that I
am not criticizing this at all. We all find our own way, according to who we are; and, who am I to put
people down for this? It would be like banning books.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation)Spoilers for H Potter Buffy --
Kimberly, 11:12:16 12/03/01 Mon
And I find it fascinating/appalling that in both cases, what is being censored/forbidden teaches the
same type of lessons that the censors supposedly feel are appropriate values. My family (me, my
husband, my six-year-old son) have read the first Harry Potter novel and saw the movie the first
weekend it was out. Yes, there was magic but that wasn't what the movie was about. The end was
very much a hymn to the power and virtue of loyalty, friendship and love. And, yet, these delightful
books are being held up as "evil"? I suspect that few of those on the warpath have
actually read the books.
(BTW, we've only read the first book because, for a six-year-old, trying to read all four of those books
together is a bit much. So we've thrown in Hardy Boys, The Lord of the Rings, and assorted
"beginning-reader" books into the mix. But we've started the second and intend to read
all four eventually. Enjoyable for the kid and for us, and that's not so easy to do.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Question for Kimberly and other parents of youngsters -- pagangodess,
17:33:36 12/03/01 Mon
Hello again,
You mentioned that you took your 6-year-old to see the Harry Potter movie. I would like to know if
he enjoyed it and what his thoughts on it were. I would like to take my own 6-year-old, as much for
my own interest as his. I have not read any of the books (triple shame on me!) and the boy is not
exactly "mom, mom, can we go see this movie, pleeeaaase!".
Just wanted to get your take on this, from one mom to another.
pagan
P.S. I don't think I will let my son watch the reruns this summer (at least not all of them). While
"Smashed" was inapproriate, "Wrecked" left ME totally disturbed. When he's
older...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Harry Potter Mini-Review -- Kimberly, 17:47:42 12/03/01 Mon
I highly recommend this movie, but I will warn you that it is LONG: it runs close to three hours.
That said, my son was entranced and enjoyed every minute of it. He cheered for the Griffindors
during the Quidditch game (I had to tell him that putting his arms in the air was not appropriate in
a movie theater :-)). There are some scary parts; he would pull my arm around him for security
during those, but he didn't seem so frightened that he didn't enjoy it. Then again, he knew how the
story would turn out; we had read the book to him.
I give the movie 5 stars; my husband was disappointed in the special effects, but no one we know
who has seen it agrees with him, so I think it's a case of too-high expectations. As long as your son
isn't easily terrified (or is at least easily comforted), I think you should take him. My son loved it and
was excited a week later when his Granny gave him a Harry Potter sleeping bag and pajamas when
we slept over at her house.
I agree about little ones watching Smashed and Wrecked: VERY adult themes that will go over their
heads and disturb them simultaneously. But we have friends that let their seven-year-old daughter
watch it; then again, she's probably a little more mature than the average seven-year-old.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Harry Potter Mini-Review -- pagangodess, 18:27:41 12/03/01
Mon
Thanks, for the review, Kimberly. My son is not easily scared (demon's and monsters on 'Buffy' don't
faze him), so I think I will go ahead and take him to see it. (We'll leave the 4-year-old at home (no,
not alone)...attention span, still an issue). At least I'll get to see the movie, even though I haven't
read the books.
So, does this mean that he will be asking for the Harry Potter Lego set(s), after the show? He's really
big into Lego.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Harry Potter Mini-Review -- Kimberly, 06:05:40 12/04/01
Tue
My guess: Yes. (Then he can act out all of the scenes and create new ones. Love them Legos. :-))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation)Spoilers for H Potter Buffy --
boy_mercury, 09:29:45 12/04/01 Tue
Excellent points!! I printed out your message to read to others who would benefit from hearing this
side of the argument! Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Nice rant. I know where you are coming from and feel pretty much the same. --
Ryuei, 11:11:20 12/04/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Belief in evil... -- CaptainPugwash, 09:39:33 12/03/01 Mon
I had a very interesting 'conversation' with my mother about Harry Porter (she's a Christian,
whereas I am not [used to be]).
Apparently, the ministers of her Church were handing out leaflets warning people about the danger
of magic and Harry Potter and stuff, and generally getting savaged for it.
I tried explaining to her that trying to get people to believe in the Devil was just as hopeless as
trying to get them believe in God, and that the notion of Christians warning non-Christians to be
wary of something that only Christians believed in was faintly ridiculous.
Of course the occult can be dangerous, but only because very few people are 100%
rational/materialistic and are therefore prone to the deep fears/anxieties that the occult feeds on.
This is what happens in the Blair Witch Project. The actual reality/non-reality of magic is irrelevant;
it is belief in the stuff which may be dangerous. I doubt that many of the people going to see Harry
Potter think it is real, therefore its harmless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oh, for the love of God (time to clarify) -- Rendyl, 09:43:08 12/03/01 Mon
Maybe they already have a firm grip. Just because you, I, and others are boggling that the Harry
Potter books could be considered "dangerous' or 'demonic' it does not mean we have the right to
trample over someone elses religious beliefs. If they choose keep those materials out of their houses
and away from their kids it is sad, but it is their right.
Anyway, the meandering point of all this was just because you (or I, etc) think something is pointless
or stupid it does not make us right. It just means we have an opinion.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (time to clarify) -- maddog, 14:50:22 12/03/01 Mon
Yeah, but you're missing the point at the beginning of the thread...the book was banned...which in
essence means they took the decision out of these people's hands...their rights were violated. As for
their religious beliefs, if they weren't taking the book so literally there wouldn't be a problem with
religion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (time to clarify) -- Edward, 18:04:57 12/03/01 Mon
I have to point out that the book was banned at a 7th day Adventist school in Australia not a Public
School in the US. Private parochial schools do operate under a different set of priorities then a
publicly funded school.
As an American, (I don't know the laws in Australia) I am a firm believer in the Separation Clause,
but that does mean that a private parochial school has the right (even if I think it is silly) to do what
it feels is necessary for its religion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> respect for others' opinions should have a limit -- res, 23:16:56 12/03/01 Mon
Now I'm obviously not trying to preach intolerance, but I think it's pointless and boring and
sometimese detrimental to always avoid criticism or judgment of other people's opinions and beliefs.
Strict political correctness and passive acceptance isn't always more positive than um, being
judgmental, and imposing your beliefs on others. I mean, I guess after skipping some twists and
turns of this argument for myself it just comes down to who is gonna be right and who is gonna be
wrong and who has the right to say they're right and I'm too tired.
Damn can of worms won't let me sleep.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: respect for others' opinions should have a limit -- Rendyl, 07:39:02 12/04/01
Tue
I agree. But whether you interpret my refusal to jump on the 'Bash the Christians' bandwagon as
tolerance or as being passive it will not change the fact that on this board they are targeted and
reviled while other religions and philosophies are not. On any other board that would be status quo
and I would not even feel the need to point it out. On this board most of the posters -pride-
themselves on being intelligent and open-minded to ideas. To insult and single Christianity out
makes the posters as narrow-minded as the people they are posting about.
We do not have to agree with them, that was not my point. My point was (and still is) that for a
board where tolerance and open exchange of ideas are promoted and encouraged, the ideas of some
very small groups of Christians should at least be given the same amount of civility as all the
others.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> okay, but... -- res, 19:22:43 12/04/01 Tue
where are you drawing the line between bashing Christians and stating an opinion?
It seems that all people are doing in the HP discussion is voicing their opinion, that they find it silly
and maybe even harmful to kids to censor them in this way. Are people not being polite enough? I
didn't feel they were trying to force their opinion upon others, more like they felt they were speaking
to a like-minded audience, but even if they were, isn't that what you do when you think something is
unjust? Why should opinions of any kind - from Christians or anyone - be treated with respect and
civility if we don't find the opinion civil or "right?"
ps. I agree the Bash the Christians Bandwagon is all too appealing, and I really don't think it should
be, but there is, in fact, a reason for it's popularity, and you can't disregard that and act like they're
Quakers or something. (Don't actually know much about Quakers, just trying to support my
point.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- mir, 09:47:01 12/03/01 Mon
ok, but do you all have to live with a person who believes that? my six-year old nephew recently
informed me that the harry potter movie was about "satan". when i asked him who'd told
him that, he said, "grandma". kill me now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- Clarity, 09:48:46 12/03/01 Mon
Just a thought in response to your thoughts...No, becoming a parent does not make you a complete
moron. Nor does it invite the Twin Hounds of Idiocy and Ignorance to take up residence in your
mind. As a parent, I am responsible to provide for the physical and emotional care and upbringing of
a sentient person. Each of us, both parent and child, enters into this relationship as an individual
person with an individual psyche. I can guide, love, nurture and protect...but I cannot force or coerce
this person to believe what I believe or follow in my footsteps. (Have you ever tried to move a piece of
string by pushing one end? Same thing) I can only provide various opportunities and stimuli for the
little ones' growth and maturation, utilizing positive (and negative) encouragement. Fear and
intimidation do not work well. Instead of a healthy relationship that sustains the both of you
throughout your lives, you can end up with a person who is incomplete in themselves and seeks
validation from others.
You cannot live in fear, and you cannot parent in fear. I desire for my children to be curious, to ask
the "why", to want to know, and to reason. I want them to be able to know that there is
absolutely NOTHING that can't be put on the table, explored, questioned, and poked at with pointy
sticks. They need to be exposed to music, literature, ideas, even beliefs other that which they (or I)
am comfortable with. The key is to know, for each individual child, what is appropriate WHEN. My
heart breaks for folks who hide behind the Twin Hounds because they are afraid. (Of the evil in
themselves, of the baser nature of man, of the devil, of the occult, of the boogeyman...who
knows)
I am a Mom. (Surprise, like you hadn't figured that out by now) I have three Children, ages 22, 17
and 11. I also have a three year old Grandchild. I have certainly not done everything
"right" and have definitely made my share of stupid mistakes. But my children know
that I love them. They know that I would never keep back a good thing from them without a damn
good reason, and they TRUST me to be the Mom and do what I reason is best. They don't always like
it, but that is an entirely diferent rant. My children also know that I Trust Them to make their own
decisions and choices, and to be responsible for same. If the teenage daughter makes a bad
school/personal life decision (study? or party? hmmm...)she has to deal with the resultant grades and
scholarship revocation. If the 6th grade son doesn't pay attention to the details as he washes his
clothes, he gets pink underwear...or, if he decides not to bother with his laundry at all, he gets to
wear stinky clothes to school.
Please don't lump all us procreators together as buggared, prejudiced and fearful imbeciles. Some of
us actually enjoy it when the people who live with us have the ability to be able to carry on a
intelligent conversation (or spirited debate, or passionate rant). Sometimes (oh, happy day!) the kids
can actually help me see the errors of my thought processes as well.
(Karen clears her throat, thanks her audience, and topples from her soap box)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- mir, 09:58:53 12/03/01 Mon
karen, i wish you were my mom. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- Clarity, 10:50:12 12/03/01
Mon
mir, honey, be content. I'm poor, I abscond with my kids' CD's, and am VERY grumpy before my
morning coffee. And I bet your Mom loves ya more than you know. Give her a call...you might be
surprised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- polyhymnia, 16:58:26 12/04/01
Tue
and from clarity's daughter...
(also semi-addicted to buffy, but i can quit any time i want to)
my mom is not perfect, but who is? she's a little odd, compared to the moms of some of my friends
(who else's mom has started singing "time warp" while making dinner and talk?), but
she's my mom and i wouldn't trade her in for anything, even a shiny blue corvette...or that one guy
that i can't manage to get off of my mind.
my mom has never played the "i don't want you to do this but i'm not going to tell you
why" game. she hasn't told me that i have to do one thing or another with my life. she lets me
make my own choices, whether they're good or bad choices, and i don't think has once said "i
told you so" if i messed up. (even though the "study or party" issue isn't really that
common...it's more "study or read a stephen lawhead book".)
i like the debates, rantings, and conversations. it's more interesting to debate/rant than it is to have
three thousand rules. more fun too.
jabber, jabber, jabber...polyhymnia's done now...and she'll even stop with the typing in the third
person.
God bless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Most assuredly for the love of God... -- RH, 11:38:54 12/03/01 Mon
Believe it or not, we live in a world where human beings are born instinctively knowing that there is
good and evil, and what the differences between both are. For the most part, doing good makes us
(and others) feel peaceful, happy and euphoric - these are positive emotions = healthy. Doing evil,
however, often causes guilt, pain and anger - negative emotions = unhealthy.
Let's say, for the sake of argument - that the forces of good and evil do exist as living entities, and
that their purpose is to gain as many human souls/recruits as possible. What for? Well, if we take the
Biblical principles of creation - the world started out as a perfect place (perfect=good). Any change
from the "perfect" world = evil. For our purposes, Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden
fruit and were given the knowledge of "good and evil" - before this, the world was perfect
- now another "option" - an opposing one, has been introduced. Adam and Eve now know
that there is something other than perfection. How did they find out? By eating the fruit. Why did
they eat the fruit? Because they were challenged by the "snake" to do so, (snake=Lucifer
- the fallen angel who opposed God; God=perfection). Now the world has conflict - there is God's
creation (angels, the perfect world, etc.) who are trying to promote the ideal perfection, while the
snake/Lucifer and those who fell with him (1/3 of the angels), are trying to muck it up. Why? So that
they can prove to themselves (and God) that they have some sort of "control" over His
creation. If we consider that WE are His creation - do we want to be so manipulated and controlled?
Will we side with entropy and chaos or perfection and peace?
If you were given the chance to eat the forbidden fruit, knowing what the consequences were, and
knowing what happened to Adam and Eve, would you do it? (To avoid the pains of childbirth alone I
would avoid it like the PLAGUE!!!) Would you not want to protect yourself and your family from any
contact with it?
If every foray into evil/darkness, no matter how careless or innocent or minimal led to a tainting of
your personality, and allowed any sort of control of a negative entity over your life, wouldn't you
want to protect yourself and your loved ones from doing it?
If every user died the first time they used drugs, would you recommend that people try it just for
"fun"?
If every unprotected sex relationship led to AIDS and death, would you condone unprotected sex -
even just the "in-the-heat-of-the-moment" kind?
In the Buffyverse, think of this in terms of Willow and Rack - if you knew that any contact
whatsoever with Rack would open a gateway for Evil/Hell to have even the minutest control in your
life, and that this would unleash an evil that could hurt the ones you love, would you ever visit him?
Even just to "try" a magical high?
I would hope not.
I cannot speak for all religions, but as a Christian, the spiritual forces of good and evil are very real;
the reality of heaven and hell are undisputed; and the existence of angels and demons is fact. If evil
advertised itself as "bad for you" would anyone succumb? Probably not - that is why it
uses glamour and deceit to make itself appear to be what it is not. Smoking causes cancer and can
kill you, but for years advertisers played up the social acceptance and "coolness" of it -
many perished, some did not. Some people's bodies were strong enough to resist disease, but many
were not. The same is true for dark "arts" - some may be lured by it and never show
adverse effects; others may dabble once and have a lifetime of regret.
Let's say a 9 year old uses a Ouija board for a lark at a birthday party. What if, innocently and
inadvertently, the board were used correctly and an evil spirit were contacted that would haunt the
user subconsciously, (or physically) for the rest of their lives? What if this evil entity were able to
gain bits of control over it's human host and slowly, over a lifetime, corrupt them and encourage
random, and heinous acts of evil? What if this evil entity caused emotional distress, self doubt,
constant nightmares, inexplicable physical illness, mental torment, fits of rage, low self-esteem, etc.?
(They say that our mental and spiritual states reflect our physical well-being and vice versa. Do WE
control our mental states? Or are we impressed by outside sources?)
Whose mind would be easier to corrupt/impress - that of a child, or that of an adult?
Obviously, the less experienced, naive child is more at risk.
Children have more impressionable and vivid imaginations and a less logic, (for the most part), than
adults. Children look up to adults to be their moral compass and provide a safe and secure
environment for them to grow up in. If a parent, either through their own experiences, or based on
the experiences of others, deems that the certain practices leave their children open to negative
influences, they are obligated to, and should have the undisputed right to prevent their children
from exposure to such influences. That is there prerogative, and their duty.
Similarly, if the church, 7-day Adventists, the pope, etc. were to embrace activities involving the
occult, (which are forbidden by their religions), would this not make them hypocrites (more so, some
might claim)? Their religious beliefs are clearly defined by these white and black boundaries of good
and evil, otherwise we would all be practicing one world religion.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinion is right - (to them at least). Whose
opinion is ACTUALLY right? Perhaps one day we'll find out, but as human beings who define
ourselves by our beliefs, morals, and values, each of us is obligated to be true to ourselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Huh? -- Wisewoman, 11:52:28 12/03/01 Mon
Let's say a 9 year old uses a Ouija board for a lark at a birthday party. What if, innocently and
inadvertently, the board were used correctly and an evil spirit were contacted that would haunt the
user subconsciously, (or physically) for the rest of their lives?
Where did you get the idea that the "correct" use of a Ouija board is to contact evil
spirits?
And even if it were, couldn't an innocent 9 year old expect some sort of protection from the forces of
good in your scenario? Do you believe that the struggle between "good" and
"evil" is so unequal that evil will always win by default?
If every foray into evil/darkness, no matter how careless or innocent or minimal led to a tainting of
your personality, and allowed any sort of control of a negative entity over your life, wouldn't you
want to protect yourself and your loved ones from doing it?
Do you seriously consider Harry Potter to be a foray into evil/darkness? And, if so, how can you bear
to watch Buffy? It ventures into much darker material than Harry does.
Just curious... ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Huh? -- Rob, 12:28:31 12/03/01 Mon
"Do you seriously consider Harry Potter to be a foray into evil/darkness? And, if so, how can
you bear to watch Buffy? It ventures into much darker material than Harry does."
I'm curious about this too, RH! Most of the magic on Harry Potter has to do with Bertie Bott's All-
Flavor Jelly Beans, levitation spells, mirrors that show you your heart's desire...that sort of thing. Do
you see a child reading about a magical sport called Quidditch and a teacher who can turn into a cat
as experimenting with the dark side? As I said before, I see it as a child exploring and expanding his
or her imagination, and brain cells. And, as WW wrote, how do you see "Harry Potter" as
being possibly too dark, but Buffy not?
Sorry if it sounds like I'm drilling ya here...I'm just curious. :)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Clarification... -- RH, 13:23:31 12/03/01 Mon
"Where did you get the idea that the "correct" use of a Ouija board is to contact evil
spirits?"
I may have mis-worded there - sorry! Ouija boards are used to contact the dead, (if you believe the
dead can actually be contacted), otherwise, I would qualify that the "number you dial"
isn't always going to be the number you get - ie. how do you know what you've "called" is
the right person, or the right spirit? That's what I meant by that statement - I shouldn't have used
the word "correct".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And even if it were, couldn't an innocent 9 year old expect some sort of protection from the
forces of good in your scenario? Do you believe that the struggle between "good" and
"evil" is so unequal that evil will always win by default?"
Certainly I believe in protection from the forces of good - (good ROCKS! It has already won!), but
there is a difference between accident and will - if a person is going to willingly put themselves in a
situation where they are intentionally invoking supernatural forces, they are going to be have to deal
with whatever they contact - good or evil. (I was using this as a "what if" scenario.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do you seriously consider Harry Potter to be a foray into evil/darkness? And, if so, how can
you bear to watch Buffy? It ventures into much darker material than Harry does."
Actually, I know little about Harry Potter, as I haven't read any of the books - that's why I left him
out of my post entirely - I am not siding for or against, and will make up my own mind once I do the
research. I was addressing a parent's responsibility to their children in general, and trying to clarify
a few things from a possible "religious" point of view.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And, as WW wrote, how do you see "Harry Potter" as being possibly too dark, but
Buffy not?"
Don't know Harry - got nothin' against Harry.
Buffy, for the most part, is not being marketed to grade-schoolers - I think Buffy might be too dark
for most of them.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification... -- Kimberly, 13:35:54 12/03/01 Mon
Don't know what age kids you have, or if you have them at all, but the gradeschoolers I know do
enjoy Buffy and "get" it. They understand the whole "good fighting evil" thing
and, at least the ones I know, identify with the "good guys". (I didn't say they get the
subtleties; gradeschoolers want things black and white, gray makes them irritable.)
At the same time, some of the scenes on the show are too intense. That, however, is an individual
thing, dependent on kid and parents. For instance, we didn't let our son watch Smashed because
we'd heard that there was some intense sexual content. Friends of ours, whose daughter is a year
older, 7 to his 6, discussed it and let her watch it so they could discuss it with her. Another instance:
if we see skeletons, the kid goes. Immediately. He's terrified of "bones".) Parents' choice,
right and responsibility.
I don't object to a parent refusing to allow their child to read or watch something because it is
against their religion. My problem is when they try to forbid MY child from reading or watching
something because it is against THEIR religion. It's my job to teach my kid ethics and morals, not
the idiot Fundie down the street. It's also my job to prevent my child from becoming involved with
negative influences, like the Boy Scouts. (Most parents may think I'm silly, but I find their
philosophy horribly dangerous.)
Finally, it makes me crazy when someone censors/tries to forbid something without having read or
watched it.
BTW, I'm not accusing you of any of these things; I'm just trying to make my own thoughts/beliefs
clear. I'm not one to talk to about the Christian philosophy; although I was raised in it, I'm not one
now and I'm not raising my son that way. But I do agree that Christians have the right to raise their
children that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification... -- RH, 06:27:05 12/04/01 Tue
"It's my job to teach my kid ethics and morals, not the idiot Fundie down the
street."
WOW! That's rather harsh! I'm guessing that you're referring to "Fundamentalists" - and
obviously you don't like them, but I don't think there was any call to label them as
"idiots". They have a differing opionion from yours but their opinions are still valid, (if
not to you, then certainly to them).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification... -- Kimberly, 06:41:36 12/04/01 Tue
Actually, I wasn't labelling all Fundamentalists idiots. The problem is that there appears to be an
inverse correlation between brain and mouth; the dumber they are, the more likely they are to tell
me how to live.
BTW, if it helps, I didn't have you in the "idiot" category. Your post was intelligent and
well thought out. We may disagree (I suspect we do), but we can have an intelligent conversation
and, I hope, in the end, agree to disagree. (The fact that you don't condemn Harry Potter since you
haven't read any of the books gives you major points in my book; many of these people condemn
books, movies, etc., without ever having read them.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification... -- maddog, 15:21:33 12/03/01 Mon
I think the comment on the Ouija board was meant more as a question of whether they actually
work. Don't you think that by 9, if you already taught them the difference between good and evil(and
the way you talk I'd think you would have), that if they still choose to play with something like a
Ouija board the maybe they need to learn a lesson or two on their own...I know that's incredibly hard
for parents to do(as mine have told me time and time again), but some lessons just need to be
learned that way.
You really should read the books...just like much of fantasy and sci fi, when it's stripped down to
bare bones it's got basically good people doing their best to do good in the face of evil. I think you'd be
pleasantly surprised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Clarification... -- RH, 06:33:52 12/04/01 Tue
"...if they still choose to play with something like a Ouija board the maybe they need to learn a
lesson or two on their own..."
If the "lesson", (as in my examples), were life-threatening, would you be so willing to let
them pursue it? Even if it might be the only way for them to learn? Easier said than done... that's my
point.
"You really should read the books...just like much of fantasy and sci fi, when it's stripped down
to bare bones it's got basically good people doing their best to do good in the face of evil. I think you'd
be pleasantly surprised."
I'm not opposed to reading the books at all, or giving Harry Potter a "try". I have NO
preconceived biases regarding the books and am in no way trying to defend opinions against them -
really! I was trying to give a general opinion on why parents and religious affiliates may be justified,
(in their belief), in censoring things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Most assuredly for the love of God... -- JM, 14:47:30 12/03/01 Mon
Personally, I think this is an important perspective. I think that part of critical, tolerant thinking is
to acknowledge that many people with whom we may disagree with violently are motivated largely
by genuine concern that stems from a very different world view. A visceral reaction condemning
their perceived narrowness limits our ability to fully understand the world and those with whom we
share it.
Respecting another's right to hold a different view does not necessarily require respecting the view.
It is just another reason to be greatful that many of us live in societies that respect an adult's right
to discover and decide these matters individually. It would be wonderful to live in a world where
every child is brought up in the best, most openminded environment. It would also be utopia. I think
that society has arrived at the most mature compromise available. Hopefully the future will only
improve from here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thank you. -- RH, 06:37:58 12/04/01 Tue
Your thoughtful and tolerant post was appreciated.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Most assuredly for the love of God... -- maddog, 15:08:06 12/03/01 Mon
Blow things out of proportion much?
As someone who grew up in a religious home and with parents who were extremely strict from day 1
I can say that I know what it's like to be in that situation...HOWEVER, one thing they were
confident in is that they taught me the difference between reality and fantasy...this from people who
dragged my ass out of bed every Sunday morning whether I wanted to get up or not. Yet they still
had enough confidence to let me handle things like reading(I would read a bunch of those Choose
Your Own Adventure books from the mid to late 80's) knowing that I knew it was all fake. They
knew that religion doesn't have to curb imagination. If you're shielding your kids from something
like Harry Potter, to me that seems like you have ZERO confidence in what you've taught
them....and to that end, maybe you're not doing it right. :(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The problem is that Evil is empowered by persecution -- Charles Phipps, 16:45:48
12/03/01 Mon
[Oujeii boards]
The problem with this idea is that contacting the dead rests entirely on the idea that one can
actually contact it. This is not a new idea because Jesus spoke with Moses and Elijah, Saul was
condemned by the Spirit of Samuel, and of course Jesus as God returnedfrom the dead to speak with
his followers.
The problem I see with the "war" on the occult as a Christain minister is that the Devil
profits far more from it than anyone else. Witches are not beings that have actual powers (before I'm
burned at the stake by every Wiccan here I refer to 'worshipers of the Devil' in the medieval sense
and fortune tellers for profit) but truly pathetic individuals who play on people's desire to see
something amazing in order to gain power for it.
My closest friend and mentor Father Nau once attended an excorcism and I believe in Demons and
Devils and a Host of other beings but I also recognize they like the Damned are an inherently
powerless group of people whose soul ability is to influence and tempt. "Magic" if you'll
forgive my condemnation is a simple use of superstitious nonsense, science as it stands now, and
miracle.
I play OLD SCHOOL Dungeons and Dragons and I'll be up front in saying that the majority of the
beings present in D&D's "Hellarchy" are actually from Medieval alchemical
texts/superstitions and the Gawds for the most part are actually mythological figures....with no sign
save the off hand reference to God in the majority of them. This does not represent an attempt to put
untold dangerous knowledge in the hands of the untested so the Devil will make Gary Gygax rich
and famous in a weird faustian bargain...
This is to create a enjoyable game where lots of people kill each other, examine moral issues after the
EXP and gold, and don't have to deal with too much self examination in a world already taxing to the
spirit.
Why I say evil is empowered is because unfortunately you cannot hide information and by doing so
you will destroy yourself and make the information more tempting. To quote Socrates the Gods gave
us intellect so why should we not use it? If I had my way I'd make demonology and the philosophies
of such readily available down at the local library.
Not because I want people channeling Yog-Sorothy but because I recognize that it's the only way to
portray them as ridiculous and insipid as they are. The works are lies and only by learning that can
we move on.
Because Christians of a let's call it "supertious" streak unfortunately we have had Witch
Hunts of a literal nature and more unpleasant end we have a culture where WE can't portray God in
any reasonable fashion because everyone's skins are tender from lashing out at every occult
reference.
The irony of this I'm sure makes the actual Devil quite happy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Please re-read my post... -- RH, 06:48:50 12/04/01 Tue
"Blow things out of proportion much?"
Um, no actually - I'm not supporting either side, I'm just trying to help people see the other side of
the argument. It's easy to sit back and condemn people for their point-of-view, it's smarter to try and
figure out WHY they've formed their opinions so that you can understand them better. We can all sit
back and yell that religious groups are "crazy fanatics" - they can just as easily sit back
and yell that we're "disgusting heathens" - what does that accomplish other than to
promote discord? I'd rather try to look at things from both sides, acknowledge the validity of both
opinions, and formulate my own educated opinion without trying to force it on others.
"...religion doesn't have to curb imagination. If you're shielding your kids from something like
Harry Potter, to me that seems like you have ZERO confidence in what you've taught them....and to
that end, maybe you're not doing it right."
WHOA! I NEVER said I had kids - I don't. I also never said ANYTHING about Harry Potter and yet
everyone's jumping on my alleged "opinion" of the books. I HAVEN'T READ THEM AND
AM NOT AGAINST READING THEM! Sheesh! Please feel free to re-read my post...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Please re-read my post... -- Ryuei, 10:42:59 12/04/01 Tue
RH,
I sympathize. I think you did a good job in your posts of not condemning anyone or anything out of
hand, but rather acting as an advocate for those whose views many of us find difficult to
comprehend. I have found myself in flame wars many times not because of what I said, but because
of what others thought I said (in between the lines I guess) and I am sure I have done that to others
over issues where a raw nerve of my own was struck.
It is a real challenge to discuss differing values and the different worldviews that generate those
values without feeling that one's own position is being put down. This is especially true when one
has faced the tactlessness and hidden fears/anxiety/fury of those who hold triumphalist views and
strict us vs. them dichotomies. I personally get very aggravated with those who hold what I consider
supertitious beliefs and ideas - though I have to admit in cooler moments that some of my own
beliefs/assumptions/values would strike many as peculiar.
I think this a board, however, that is full of very intelligent and mature people. So I think in the end,
we will all benefit and grow from the discussion and exchange of views.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thank you, Ryuei! -- RH, 13:11:04 12/05/01 Wed
By the way, what language is "Namu Myoho Renge Kyo", and what does it mean?
Curious...
Arigatou!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> What Namu Myoho Renge Kyo means (OT) -- Ryuei, 14:02:00
12/05/01 Wed
It means "Devotion to the Wonderful Dharma of the Lotus Flower Sutra."
It is an expression of faith/rejoicing in the Lotus Sutra which is a Mahayana Buddhist sutra
(scripture) that purports to be the highest teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha. The original Sanskrit
name for the Sutra is Saddharma Pundarika Sutra. In China this was translated as Miao Fa Lien
Hua Ching. The Japanese pronounce the Chinese characters as Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo. Namu comes
from the Sanskrit "Namas" and has many connotations including "praise" or
"devotion." The Chinese characters used to transliterate this word is pronounced Namu
in Japan. Put it all together and you get Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.
In Buddhism, it is customary to join hands together (as if you were praying) and to bow deeply in
greeting or when saying goodbye. This is an expression of respect for the Buddhanature in all people.
This gesture is called "gassho" in Japan. Many Buddhists will sign off with
"gassho" and then their name. It is like saying "regards" or
"sincerely." However, Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is an expression which also refers to the
deep respect we should have for all beings as potential buddhas (ie they all have buddhanature), so
as a priest in the Nichiren School I often use it to sign off on my posts. I usually don't do it here, but
this thread just put me in a more religious state of mind. I hope no one minds. :)
The name "Ryuei" by the way is the Dharma name given to me by my sensei the Ven.
Ryusho Matsuda. It means "Dragon-English." He gave me that name because it shares
one character with his name, which is customary between a Buddhist teacher and his disciple in
Japan, and also because he wants me to express the Dharma to the English speaking world. I do not,
however, use this name in regular life. I generally use it as a pen name on the internet and for
official temple business.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Enlightening! -- RH, 06:17:07 12/06/01 Thu
Thank you for explaining! I am always fascinated by other languages and cultures! I once had a
missionary teach me a Psalm in Japanese, (I still remember most of it!), but other than that, the only
Japanese I've learned was from my Goju Ryu Karate classes, (obi, tesho, sanchin, kyi, ichi, ni, san,
chi..., etc.) As far as I know, our Sensei does not have a Japanese pseudonym that I have ever
heard...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- maddog, 14:31:39 12/03/01 Mon
I completely agree...this is sad. What I think the adults are doing is getting so caught up in what
may be good or bad for their kids that they've forgotten the most important thing...that if they teach
their kids what's real and what isn't then there's absolutely NOTHING to worry about. I wanna yell
at these parents and religious nuts that can't handle a kids movie...it's just pathetic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation)HP and religion -- Calluna, 17:17:31
12/03/01 Mon
Oddly enough, I think that what REALLY annoys the religious right about Harry Potter (but they
don't seem to see it) is the complete LACK OF RELIGION in the books. Religion doesn't seem to
exist in Harry's world. Some have said that this isn't quite true, for example they celebrate
christmas, but the christmases spent at Hogwarts have more incommon with mall christmas. No
religion. No nativity. Just trees, feasting and presents. The world of Harry Potter seems to be
secular. Free will is more important than any religious morality. Harry is good because he chooses to
be good (ex. he's told by the sorting hat that if he went into Slytherin, he'd be very powerful, but he
chooses not to). Voldemort is evil because he chooses to be evil. I may be wrong, but it sounds like
Rowling has created a world of secular humanists,not satan worshipers.
In regards to the magic in Harry's world, it has much more in common with medieval and
reniassance scholarship than with Wicca and Paganism. The philosopher's stone, transfiguration,
transmutation, lots of latin based spells. Sounds reniassance to me. Maybe with a little of Giles
thrown in. I work in a public library, so any censorship bugs me. You can tell your kid what he/she
can't read, but don't you dare tell someone elses kid what they can or can't read.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Secular Humanism -- Ryuei, 10:49:13 12/04/01 Tue
Good point Calluna. It seems that the secularist bent (which is the real threat to Christian
hegemony) has completely gone unnoticed because of the paranoia over the occult elements. In fact, I
have often thought that if conservative Christians were really paying attention to the real threats
against their worldview they should have been going after Star Trek. Star Trek, beneath all the tech
and bumpy head makeup, is a showcase for the secular and rationalist values and worldview of the
European Enlightenment (though I will admit they are also a bit post-modern in that the total
rationalists like Spock and Data are subject to a critique as to whether that is really desireable after
all).
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- pagangodess, 18:20:00 12/03/01
Mon
I see this issue has had a huge following. Just reading this got my husband and I into a huge debate
about wheather or not religion belongs in schools, should there even be schools for separate religions,
and eventually the question why do we (him and I, specifically) celebrate Christmas. See what you
started, Last Jack. :)
Here I must quote Buffy: "Note to self - religion freaky". While we are not a religious
family, we do respect other people's beliefs and, even more so, their right to have those beliefs. We
have many close friends who are Catholic and they go to church every Sunday and send their kids to
Catholic schools. However, this difference had not in any way hindered our friendships, we do not
preach our views and beliefs to each other. That's why I'll second some previous posts that you can
tell your own children what to do, but do not tell MY children what to do.
However, I'm getting away from another point I wanted to make. Hear this, my thirty-something
friend, a mother of two girls (3 and 7), a recently converted to Catholicism teacher at a local Catholic
school, reads Harry Potter to her third grade class as part of their reading program! Although, I'm
sure it helps that she is an huge fan of these novels and fantasy novels in general.
I have not read any of the books (shame, shame, shame on me), but my rant was not about what's in
the book, it's about responsible parenting and readers' rights.
Just scattered thoughts
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oh, for the love of God (mini-rant/exasperation) -- Edward, 18:31:09 12/03/01 Mon
I mentioned this in a response above but it might get lost because it's pretty deep, so I want to put it
here again, Hope you will all forgive me.
The school in question was supposedly a 7th day Adventist school which is different from a public
school, receiving public funds.
I agree with everyone that HP is not dangerous and is not really about the occult, but a private
parochial school is not subject to the Separation Clause here in the states. I don't know the laws in
Australia where this supposedly occurred.
Having said that I know that it is also happening in the US in Public schools, and that I would fight
to the end. If you don't want your kid to read it fine, the school should let them out of it, but to try
and prevent my kid, that is unacceptable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I, for one, am glad -- vampire hunter D, 04:12:10 12/04/01 Tue
Stuff like this only shows children hoe stupid and irrational religeon really is. They will grow up
knowing that religeon makes no sense. They will teach this very important lesson to the next
generation. And as the message spreads, religeon will find itself with less and less support. This will
lead to the downfall of religeon. ANd herald in a new era. A Golden Age of Atheistic
Enlightenment.
And yes, I am being serious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Harry Potter is kewl!!! -- Dedalus, 08:17:00 12/04/01 Tue
I wrote a twelve page response here, but it wouldn't post. Sigh. It was so witty and insightful. Now
it's gone.
Basically, dhV may have a point. Fundies have been consistently proven wrong about everything. So
it will be with HP. And in this post-Septemebr 11th world, the attempts to ban their beloved little
HP books will not leave a good taste in the mouths of the up and coming generation. If
fundamentalism is the only choice against atheism, I too will sadly be forced to choose atheism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Question -- Slayrunt, 21:42:54 12/04/01 Tue
Fundies have been consistently proven wrong about everything.
Please expand on that. What everything are they consistently wrong?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Constantine or Mao Tse Tung! What a choice! -- Ryuei, 11:05:39 12/04/01 Tue
How are you defining "religion"?
I think that two of the finest minds of the 20th century were deeply committed Jesuits: Fr. Bernard
Lonergan, who wrote a book called Insight which is all about how we know what we know and how
we discover what makes sense and what it means for something to make sense, was one. The other
was Karl Ranher who was the main inspiration for Vatican II which brought the Catholic Church
into the modern world and showed that Catholicism does not have to be unreasonable. In fact,
Ranher is considered a "Transcendental Thomist" who took the best of neo-scholastic
reasoning and a more transcendental/existential critique of mere reasoning.
So I think it is not very just to condemn all religion (whatever is meant by that term) as
unreasonable.
Also there have certainly been and still are extremely unreasonable secular or even anti-religious
worldviews. The Communists in Russia are commonly referred to by Orthodox Christians as the
"militant atheists." The Nazis were certainly not a religious movement (though perhaps
an occult one) and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were aggressively anti-religious. You may herald a
Golden Age of atheism, but as for myself - between Osama bin Laden and Pol Pot, or Torquemada
and Stalin, I don't think there is much to choose from. Actually, I'd prefer a benign ruler like King
Ashoka who respected all religions (Dharmas) but did not impose or oppose any of them.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Constantine or Mao Tse Tung! What a choice! -- Rufus, 14:51:08 12/04/01
Tue
It's not religion but how individuals interpert and act out their beliefs. To me religion be it Christian,
Buddhist, Islam..ect....should encourage love and peace. It should not make those that believe
fearful. People have different beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they aren't saying the same thing in
different ways.
A childs book can't make someone evil, it can't tempt a child to become a disiple of
"satan". I've read Harry Potter and intend on seeing the movie. The people who banned
the books feel that they are acting in the best interests of their children. I have to respect their
wishes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Agreed. Though I still feel bad for the kids who aren't allowed to see it. --
Ryuei, 15:48:30 12/04/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Constantine or Mao Tse Tung! What a choice! -- Kimberly, 06:43:46
12/05/01 Wed
I agree that it has to be the parents' decision. I just wish they were making a better one; the movie
can actually be used to draw good lessons, even Christian ones.
One of my biggest rants is the complete lack of intelligent religious discussion in popular culture.
The only TV show I can ever remember seeing that discussed it in an even half-way intelligent way
was Alien Nation. And that's just because they could have the aliens with the alternative religions.
And it didn't last.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I loved Alien Nation! -- Isabel, 20:12:35 12/05/01 Wed
It was so much more than a cop show. It had a strong nuclear family, interspecies/interratial
relations and definite questions about authority vs independence and tolerance and fanaticism.
Sigh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I loved Alien Nation! -- Kimberly, 06:58:34 12/06/01 Thu
I figured the demise of Alien Nation pointed to the end of hope for intelligent TV. Then along comes
WB and BtVS. Maybe it was just ahead of its time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> As a frequent DS9 booster on this board, I would add... -- A8, 17:26:04
12/06/01 Thu
...that that show did (and does in reruns to this day) deal intelligently with religious issues covering
almost every aspect of belief from fundamentalism to atheism. The main message was that tolerance
from all sides is the only way to peaceful coexistence and that there is always room for calm and
respectful dialogue.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are some extreme belief systems, the most infamous presently
being that of the Taliban, in which tolerance is anathema. In that case, anything that is not deemed
a part of a particular belief system is considered a threat that must be eradicated. From that point
on it is a slippery slope that inevitably leads to grief, pain and needless suffering. If people want to
deprive themselves of the myriad wonderous things the universe has to offer, good or bad, it is their
right. When they choose to extend that deprivation to those who do not share their beliefs, they
should expect negative consequences (whether it be scorn and derision or something worse).
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: One thing for sure -- bible belt, 19:03:47 12/04/01 Tue
This discussion proves how important it was to get religion out of government, and keep it out. We
prove that time and time again every time there is a book banning. I don't know what that says
about religion.
The latest on Julie Benz -- The Last Jack, 09:10:06 12/03/01 Mon
PRODUCTION TO BEGIN IN SEPTEMBER ON TAKEN, 20-HOUR MINISERIES EVENT FROM
SCI FI CHANNEL, STEVEN SPIELBERG AND DREAMWORKS TELEVISION
**************
EPIC PROJECT WRITTEN BY LESLIE BOHEM IS ONE OF THE MOST AMBITIOUS
MINISERIES IN TELEVISION HISTORY
**************
Steve Burton, Julie Benz and Joel Gretsch Join Cast
July 10, 2001, Pasadena, CA -- Production is set to begin in September in Vancouver on one of the
most monumental miniseries events in television history: Taken, an epic, 20-hour, 10-part saga from
the SCI FI Channel, Steven Spielberg and DreamWorks Television, and written and executive
produced by Leslie Bohem (Dante's Peak). Steve Burton (upcoming motion picture The Last Castle,
General Hospital), Julie Benz (Angel") and Joel Gretsch (The Legend of Bagger Vance) have
been cast, with additional cast members to be announced soon. Steve Beers also serves as executive
producer.
Taken is a sweeping science-fiction adventure that weaves together over 50 years of alien abductions
into the compelling story of three families' experiences. Currently in active pre-production, the
miniseries is scheduled to air during fourth quarter 2002 as an original event exclusively on SCI
FI.
Steve Burton stars in Taken as Randall Keys, a World War II fighter pilot who learns that the
strange lights he saw in the night sky while on a mission over Germany weren't simply "marsh
gas" from swamps. Best known for his work as Jason Morgan on General Hospital, Burton will
be seen this fall in the feature film The Last Castle, opposite Robert Redford, James Gandolfini and
Mark Ruffalo. Julie Benz -- who captivated television audiences this past year with her portrayal of
the tragic vampire-turned-human Darla on The WB series Angel -- stars as Kate Keys, Randall's
wife, who is forced to raise their son alone as Randall's struggle to cope with his abduction
experience drives him further and further away from his family. Joel Gretsch, who most recently
played legendary golfer Bobby Jones opposite Will Smith and Matt Damon in Robert Redford's The
Legend of Bagger Vance, will star as Owen Jones, a ruthless, unscrupulous young Army officer who
sees the Roswell crash as an opportunity to jump-start his career.
Already the largest provider of original primetime scripted series on cable -- basic or premium -- SCI
FI has recently broadened its scope to include a brand-new slate of original movie and miniseries
projects. Recently announced deals include Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, A Tale of Two Cities,
Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers; Clive Barker's Saint Sinner, and the four-hour miniseries
Firestarter: Rekindled, which just wrapped production. Most recently, the Channel announced two
deals to adapt the works of Ursula Le Guin -- The Left Hand of Darkness and her Earthsea Trilogy
of books as well as the Ray Bradbury scripted Illustrated Man as a new feature-length film.
DreamWorks SKG was formed in October 1994 by its three principal partners--Steven Spielberg,
Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen--as a single company to produce live-action motion pictures;
animated feature films and television programs; network, syndicated and cable television
programming; records; books; toys; and consumer products. DreamWorks Television is the network
television production arm of DreamWorks SKG. In addition to Taken, current DreamWorks
Television projects include Spin City (ABC), The Job (ABC), Undeclared (FOX), Off Centre (The WB)
and Band of Brothers (HBO).
SCI FI Channel, owned and operated by USA Cable, a division of USA Networks, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:
USAI) Entertainment unit, transmits fantastic images to over 71 million human homes. Launched in
1992, SCI FI features a continuous stream of cinematic hits, new and original series, and special
events, as well as classic sci-fi, fantasy, and horror programming. Check out SCIFI.COM®, the SCI
FI Channel's award-winning Web site, at www.scifi.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks, Jack -- Slayrunt, 14:26:03 12/03/01 Mon
More Vampire Related Movie questions -- Neaux,
11:41:10 12/03/01 Mon
Well although Buffy is now in repeat mode,
I have a chance to see Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust in the theater this week!! Its playing at the local
arthouse..
so has anyone else seen it to tell me if its better than the original? (I'm seeing the movie regardless,
but I would like to hear some positive reviews)
question for Ryuei (OT) -- purplegrrl, 14:57:41 12/03/01 Mon
Ryuei, I had a question about Buddhism.
My understanding of Buddhism is that Buddha is a teacher and example that his followers strive for.
But that he is not necessarily considered a god.
A friend of mine (of Chinese heritage) converted to Christianity after being raised Buddhist (or at
least with leanings in that direction). One of the reasons she gave for converting was that she didn't
want to live her life like her grandmother did -- always afraid of doing something that would offend
one of the gods. I didn't question her about it at the time, but I didn't think Buddhism had gods. (Or
perhaps this is my understanding of the version of Buddhism that is available to the general public
in the U.S.) I'm guessing that these gods (household gods, etc.) are part of an older belief system that
was incorporated into the grandmother's Buddhist beliefs.
My question is: Does Buddhism have a pantheon of gods? And if it does, why are they not mentioned
when Buddhism is discussed in this country? Is the form of Buddhism practiced here fundamentally
different from that practiced in other parts of the world?
Thanks for your assistance.
purplegrrl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just an observation, not the answer (O/T) -- Wisewoman, 08:37:29 12/04/01 Tue
I had a Chinese friend in one of my seminars on wisdom, and her take on it was that Chinese today
actually have three systems that govern their lives: Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Each
system dictates behaviour in a different aspect of life, and they all co-exist. I'm not sure which of
them has the household gods, or if indeed that is from yet another system. I'm looking forward to
Ryuei's answer as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: question for Ryuei (OT) -- Ryuei, 10:27:31 12/04/01 Tue
My wife is from Japan, and she frequently watches tapes of Japanese t.v. shows which all too often
trot out Buddhist priests to perform excorcisms and all other manner of superstitious con games. The
state of Buddhism in Asia is absolutely appalling. For the most part it is a funeral scam, a congame
at worst and all too often nothing more than a collection of folk myths and superstitions with a
Buddhist gloss. It is truly shameful. And no one is more upset about it than the few sincere Buddhist
monks, nuns, and ministers (in Japan they are not really monastics) themselves. This is one reason
why many of the ones who want to teach real Buddhism (as opposed to folk religion or shamanism
with a Buddhist gloss) come over here to start from scratch with a fresh unspoiled audience as it
were. And of course those people in Asia who are really seeking deeper spiritual answers know better
than to bother with the old fashioned dogmas and mainstream pap of the older generation (namely
Buddhism) and instead seek some exotic foreign religion like Christianity. Strangely enough, when I
was staying in Tokyo at Joenji Temple in Shinjuku, there was a park right behind the temple and a
group of Japanese singing Christian hymns (in English) there. I later ran into an American girl who
was curious about Buddhism and had even visited some famous temples, but could find no one in
Japan who understood what any of it meant beyond burning incense and paying off the priests to do
prayers for your ancestors. She told me that she had been teaching English in Kobe and that those
few Japanese young people who were concerned about life's meaning (as opposed to collecting
designer clothing) would seek out Christianity rather than Buddhism. So your friends experience is
not all that strange unfortunately, because for historical reasons Buddhism in Asia (esp. East Asia)
has been reduced to nothing more than a folk religion at best, and a funeral or exorcism scam at
worst. The majority of priests or monks seem to be complacent at best and thoroughly corrupt at
worst. This is a common complaint (going back centuries) of even those Buddhist clergy who are
sincere and dedicated to the Dharma.
As for the gods. The Buddha accepted the geography and demographics of the Vedic cosmology he
grew up in and used it to illustrate the workings of rebirth and the law of cause and effect. In very
general terms, there are six worlds or realms of rebirth - the hell realms, hungry ghosts, animals,
fighting demons, humans, and heavenly realms. The Vedic deities like Brahma, Indra, and others
are all a part of this. But they too are caught up in the cycle and incapable of saving even themselves
from suffering let alone others. It is the Buddha Dharma (meaning the Four Noble Truths and the
Eightfold Path) which leads to liberation - not favor from the gods. In fact, the gods do not even
control anyone's fate. Only the law of cause and effect determines what will happen to us and in
what circumstances we will be reborn - and the law of cause and effect is driven by our own actions.
So according to Buddhism - we create our own destiny. It is often said: "If you want to know
what you did in the past, look at what is happening to you now; and if you want to know what will
happen to you in the future, look at what you are doing now." So it is our own actions of body,
thought, and mind and even more importantly the intention behind them which plants the seeds
which will come to fruition as our future body, mind, and environment. Everyone, from the hell-
dwellers to the gods is caught up in this process. Only the Buddhas, Arhats, and to a certain extent
the bodhisattvas are free of the compulsive and vicious circle of selfish craving, misguided activity,
and suffering in the various worlds of becoming.
So the Vedic gods like Brahma and Indra, are considered to be fellow sentient beings in need of the
teaching. They can also be considered protectors of the Dharma. In another sense, they might be
seen as bodhisattvas in disguise, who use their power to compassionately assist other sentient
beings. These Vedic deities were taken along with the rest of the Buddha Dharma as it spread
outside of Asia. So on a Nichiren calligraphic mandala you will find the names of the Vedic deities
there to represent the gods who are our fellow travellers on the Wheel of Becoming and fellow
recipients of the Wonderful Dharma. In addition, in whatever land Buddhism spread into, the local
deities were also co-opted into this system. So in China, the celestial beauracracy was Buddhicized.
In Japan, the Shinto deities were looked upon as the manifestations of the bodhisattvas (and on the
Nichiren mandala the names of Amaterasu and Hachiman also appear). For a literary look at how
this all worked out on the level of folk belief and imagination read the story of Monkey (a good
abridgement of this very long tale was translated by Arthur Waley). The story of Monkey, in fact,
should be of great interest to Buffy fans in that I get the sense that the world Monkey inhabits is a
lot like the Jossverse presented in Buffy and Angel. There are gods, demons, magical displays,
numerous other realms, and a certain amount of ambiguity about good and evil and even the demons
come off as very civil and urbane at times when they are not kidnapping travellers for ransom or
eating them.
In any case, authentic Buddhism (the Buddhism of the sutras and commentaries and authentic
teachers) definately puts the gods in a secondary (or even tertiary) position. They have no power to
save or damn us. They can be appealed to for assistance, but that is looked upon as time and energy
wasted that could be spent actually learning and practing the Dharma which transcends such
things. So the gods are just part of the cosmological backdrop, distractions at worst, and spiritual
assistants and protectors (like Catholic saints or angels) at best.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Buddhism as a funeral scam -- vampire hunter D, 12:03:14 12/04/01 Tue
Well, isn't that true of all religeons. "Do what we say, pay us to perform this rite, and you will
get a big reward after you die." That statement sums up every religeon. So when are people
going to wake up and realize this?
btw, why would the Japanese understand Buddhism? I thought most of them were Shintoists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buddhism as a funeral scam -- Ryuei, 15:46:06 12/04/01 Tue
Only Western religions are so exlusive. In Asia different religions not only co-exist but one can be a
member of more than one. In addition, there is a kind of division of labor. Different
"religions" respond to different needs. So in China, the same person might follow a
Confucian ethic, chant the name of Amitabha Buddha, and also make offerings at a Taoist shrine. In
Japan, people regularly go to Shinto Shrines for New Years and other celebration and go to Buddhist
temples for memorial services. The same house might even have a Shinto kamidana (shrine) and a
butsudan (Buddhist altar). There is no real inconsistency in this, because Shinto deals with this life
and nature and the gods of Japan, whereas Buddhism take a more "big picture"
view.
In China, there is a saying: "Those in power are Confucianists, those out of power are Taoists,
and those about to die are Buddhists." The idea is that Confucianism deals with
administration and social mores. Taoism is for those who have dropped out of society or who are
retired. And Buddhism is for those facing the existential questions of the meaning of life, the great
question of birth and death.
As for religions being a funeral scam, I agree that for most people religion is nothing more than a
way of enforcing morality, social bonding, and after-life insurance. However, if you look at the core
teachings and the true intent of the founders - they were expressing a much deeper experience and
responding the real issues of life and death and meaning. It is sad that the true intent of the
Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad and others has been obscured by what amounts to nothing more than
folk beliefs and that their teachings have been hijacked by all manner of powermongers, confidence
men, and obscurantists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ruyei, have you read... -- Humanitas, 13:11:31 12/06/01 Thu
..."Snow Crash," by Neal Stephenson? Your comment on great teachings being hijacked
reminded me of some of the ideas expressed in this book. It is at the same time one of the most
philosophical and one of the funniest Science-fiction books I've ever had the pleasure of
reading.
While I'm posting, I want to thank you for your thoughts on religion of all sorts. It's an issue that has
become more interesting to me in recent years, as I begin to see more clearly the distinction between
'faith' and 'religion,' and also how similar a lot of the root teachings of the major religions are. I have
very little in the way of a religious background, and it's nice to see that there are religious persons
who have come to similar conclusions. Makes me less inclined to think that I'm way out in left
field.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks, Ryeui -- much food for thought -- purplegrrl, 12:09:21 12/05/01 Wed
good/bad guys in europe -- sl, 15:00:49 12/03/01
Mon
Ok, i'm mostely a lurker. i've neen lurking for a while now. I've posted under spike lover, but
someone took my name!!
anyways,
Why are all the warriors for good in the United States. I'm sure there is a lot of demon activity in
Europe or do the council keep everything under controll in the European front. ANd If everyone
knows about slayers, then why would demons come to Sunnydale, you would think would want to be
someplace safe and far away from the slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: good/bad guys in europe -- RH, 08:56:43 12/04/01 Tue
I've always wondered that too - it seems to me that although Sunnydale - being a
"hellmouth" and all - seems to have a higher concentration of demons, they've got to be
all over the country. It would seem smarter to have multiple Slayers covering specific geographical
territories world wide.
Speaking of which - I seem to recall Kendra having a distinct accent (Jamaican?) - she doesn't seem
to have been born in California, and yet she was sent there rather than staying to fight in her
hometown.
Another thing - if a new Slayer is called after the old one dies, how come Kendra had so much prior
training before she came to Sunnydale, and how come she didn't bring her own Watcher with
her?
Hmmm...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: good/bad guys in europe -- Ryuei, 11:25:54 12/04/01 Tue
I don't think it was ever stated where Kendar was from exactly, though I believe it was from outside
the US. And of course there was the Chinese slayer during the Boxer Rebellion (she didn't go to
Sunnydale). So according to the mythology of the show there have been slayers all over the world
and it is a big plot hole as to why Buffy needs to be at that particular hell mouth.
As for Buffy's training, it is part of the backstory covered in the comic book (and inadequately in the
movie) that Buffy was discovered late by her first watcher Merrick.
I think the problem here is that the plot hole of Buffy being inadequately trained and having to be
located at the Hell Mouth wasn't quite so gaping in the first season, but now that things have
developed above and beyond Sunnydale (esp. in Angel) it stretches credibility more and more.
Buffy & Socrates...Help! -- Adam, 15:41:33 12/03/01 Mon
First of all, let me say that I have been lurking here for about six months, and it is so interesting to
see all of the different viewpoints about everything in Buffyverse. And this board, perhaps, is part of
the reason I have this dilemma! (I still love it though!)
Although I have frequently referenced Buffy and/or Angel in my classes before, this year I was
assigned certain dialogues of Socrates (Plato) and I noticed some parallels to Buffy. So when it came
time for me to submit a paper proposal, I said I would talk about how Socrates applies to Buffyverse.
Although I have some ideas, I have a tiny problem in that my professor has never seen Buffy and he
doesn't want the focus of the paper to be too much explaining. So...I have to try to find examples of
Socrates in Buffy that don't require too much explanation. So, I respectfully and humbly offer a
request for help from you posters who are very knowledgeable about both philosophy and
Buffy.
The section I was assigned are: The Republic, The Apology, The Crito, and The Phaedo.
So far, I was thinking about including:
* the use of the Cave metaphor in Buffy in that the crazies (a.k.a. those who have seen the light) are
able to see things as they are, unlike us (i.e., Dawn)
* Socrates' acceptance of death, and relating it to Buffy's swan dive
* Socrates' statement that why do we assume that death leads to hell, and applying it to Willow's
justification of the Osiris invocation
* also, there was a statement about losing a soul and how it leads to general nastiness, which could
be related to Angel but that requires an awful lot of explaining.
I would greatly appreciate any insight anybody could give me. (Also, I am sorry if this posts twice,
I'm a little trigger-happy with that enter key.)
Adam
(P.S. Love the AtPoBtVS site, too. That's how I found this board to begin with!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy & Socrates...Help! -- Yellowork, 15:54:42 12/03/01 Mon
Hi there! I once did a course on the historical evidence for Socrates — it was a Classics thing rather
than a philosophy thing so bear with me. The dialogue that we examined in detail in (eek!) Greek
was the Ion, which is worth a look, as it uses an interesting metaphor for divine inspiration which
seems to have a certain bearing on Buffy as it goes. Soccer sees the Muse who is the source of
creativity as the original magnet. She 'magnetizes' a mortal who on the one hand is attracted to her
and on the other hand becomes a magnet himself. The cycle then begins again, with the mortal
attracting other mortals through 'magnetism', and they in turn gaining the power of attraction and
therefore picking up their own followers. We might think about this idea when dealing with the oral /
traditional / folk / natural aspect of witchcraft in the buffyverse and at the same time when thinking
about the origins of vampires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks...sounds more like vamps to me. (NT) -- Adam, 16:15:50 12/03/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well obviously you need to get your professor watching Buffy! ;) -- vandalia, 21:14:29 12/03/01
Mon
Just think of the extra credit loaning your old season 1 tapes will bring!
The Soul, the Hell, her Life and his Slayer (spoilers) -- Yellowork, 16:03:36 12/03/01
Mon
In 'Amends' the whole question of why Angel returned in 'Faith Hope and Trick' is dealt with at
length; why then assume the only reason why Buffy turned up 'alive' in Season Six is as a result of
Willow's magic? In other words, why assume that Buffy was drawn back to this world essentially at
the behest of a young yet talented witch?
Whether Buffy's spirit was in Heaven, in Hell, in Limbo, in Purgatory or simply at Rest, the
Buffyverse is full of creatures which deal in and dwell in these places, and it seems fairly plausible
that she was sent or expelled by some force on that side, one which had some purpose in the world,
and, perhaps, has an influence or 'patronage' of Willow?
"I fell out of favour with heaven somewhere
And I'm here for the hell of it now"
(Kirsty MacColl)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Because it lessons the gravity of Willow's crime -- Charlemagne20, 16:29:11 12/03/01 Mon
I disagree.
In Angel we didn't know how Angel came back just that he did. However Osiris's intervention aside
WILLOW did the spell, WILLOW worked the magic, and WILLOW bears cullability for messing
buffy over.
Saying "God kicked me out because I played rough with the baby jesus"
is rather insulting both religiously that Buffy has earned her rest and to her plight being trapped on
Earth while getting Willow off the hook.
It's a pretty big plotpoint.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Because it lessons the gravity of Willow's crime -- Rufus, 17:04:52 12/03/01 Mon
Crime.........I don't quite see Willows actions as a crime and that is because of her intent. Willow
didn't bring Buffy back out of malice, she brought her back because she loved her friend. She also
made the assumption that because Buffy jumped into a portal that she could only have ended up in a
hell dimension. The only problem now is that Buffy see's the world as a big ol lemon....instead of just
being repulsed and depressed about her situation, Buffy ought to start making some
lemonade...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I agree with Charlie... -- CaptainPugwash, 04:38:12 12/04/01 Tue
But Buffy didn't jump into anything - as far I know, Angel disappeared completely (body'n'all) when
he was sent to hell... (I may be wrong)
Buffy FELL THROUGH a portal, was killed, and her dead body was buried like anyone else. There
were no grounds for just assuming that she was in hell.
Like everyone else who believes Buffy's resurrection was a crime(a theft and a betrayal, I've had to
accept the new reality (as Buffy is doing) and 'move on'. I'm not angry with Willow any more, but I
still believe what she did was selfish and wrong.
The ONLY excuse for Willow's actions is that Buffy was not meant to die in the first place, but that
raises all sorts of issues (TPTB etc, and Buffy's own judgement). Willow becomes a Judas/Satan
figure who commits an evil act (betrayal for Judas/rebellion & vengeance for Satan) in order for
the unknown 'Big Plan' to unfold. In retrospect the actions of all three are necessary, but they are
still wrong within the context of the present. Resolve the paradox yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I agree with Charlie... -- Rufus, 08:37:14 12/04/01 Tue
Willow may have made a mistake in thinking based upon fear but I don't see her bringing Buffy back
as a betrayal. If Willow betrays Buffy it will have to be a result of something she does in the here
and now. If Buffy wasn't meant to be dead then unintentionally Willow did the right thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I agree with Charlie... -- skeve, 11:09:15 12/06/01 Thu
CaptainPugwash wrote:
Buffy FELL THROUGH a portal, was killed, and her dead body was buried like anyone else. There
were no grounds for just assuming that she was in hell.
There was at least one. The Scoobies had fairly direct knowledge that there were hell dimensions,
but until Buffy came back, they had no such knowledge regarding any heaven dimension, much less
a zillion.
An interesting question is whether Willow's spell would have worked if Buffy had been in a hell
dimension.
A nastier possibility was that Buffy might have been blocking the portal and raising her might have
opened it again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Well Willow is Jewish....that implies knowledge of Heaven --
Charlemagne20, 12:47:46 12/07/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well Willow is Jewish... -- Maxwell, 17:30:30 12/08/01
Sat
I'm sorry but Willow is not really Jewish. She comes from a Jewish family and had a Jewish
upbringing, but Willow is a Wicca. Not that the two are necessary mutually exclusive, but I don’t
remember Willow ever mentioning her Jewish beliefs.
This brings up an interesting point. Willows problem with magic may be routed in a lack of
spirituality (Wiccan, Jewish or otherwise). Just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In "Listening to Fear" Willow refers to herself as
Jewish -- Isabel, 17:54:08 12/08/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Calling oneself 'Jewish' can be as much a cultural
identification as a religious one. -- A8, 17:15:22 12/10/01 Mon
In Willow's case, she has used her 'Jewish' identification to distinguish herself from Christians on a
few occasions. Two that come to mind:
In 'Passion,' she notes that she doesn't think Ira Rosenberg would be too thrilled knowing his first
born has affixed a cross to her room.
In 'Amends,' she takes offense to the SG's reference to the winter break as "Christmas
Vacation" and encourages them to get into the Chanukkah spirit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Soul, the Hell, her Life and his Slayer (spoilers) -- Rufus, 17:14:11 12/03/01 Mon
In Restless, Buffy was told that she didn't know what she would become....
TARA VOICEOVER: You think you know ... what's to come ... what you are. You haven't even
begun.
I do think what happened with Buffy coming back was something she had already been told in
Restless. When Buffy sacrificed herself I knew that even though she died she still had not
begun...death was only a step in the direction. Buffy risked the pain and died to save her sister. I see
her confusion and despair temporary until she finally gets why she is back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Soul, the Hell, her Life and his Slayer (spoilers) -- DEN, 18:33:30 12/03/01
Mon
maybe this has been discussed earlier, but if so I can't find the threads. I'm asking for input from the
board's heav y hitters on this: Buffy is the only character I'm aware of in Western popular culture--
TV, movies, fiction, fantasy-- who has been overtly unhappy with being brought back from the dead.
Everybody else in that situation has been grateful, though for a variety of reasons. In other words
life has been affirmed as preferable to death, no matter the nature of the afterlife. Now if I'm right
about Buffy's uniqueness (or near uniqueness):
1. Joss has once again done something stupefyingly original, whose cultural ramifications are just
beginning to be understood
2. The Scoobies had a good excuse for assuming that WHATEVER happened to Buffy, WHEREVER
she might be, and though she might condemn the method used, she would be glad to have her life
restored.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm not one of the heavy hitters, but... -- Cactus Watcher, 07:53:52 12/04/01
Tue
I certainly remember an earlier character who was brought back from the dead and was thoroughly
unhappy with it... Darla! Was it David Greenwalt's idea or Joss' idea? Who knows?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm not one of the heavy hitters, but... -- Rufus, 08:39:20 12/04/01
Tue
Darla wasn't upset about being back as much as she was pissed at the form she was brought back in.
To be back as a human with all the weaknesses(that's all Darla saw human emotions ect
as)infuriated her. She was again powerless, stuck getting by on her sexuality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not one of the heavy hitters, but... -- DEN, 09:53:33 12/04/01
Tue
You and Cactus Watcher are exactly what I mean when I think of "heavy hitters:" the
kind of posters who regularly leave their readers in states ranging from impressed up to dazzled--
and I appreciate the time taken to address this rather limited point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> It's *not* a 'limited point', DEN, I think it's extremely important to
the entire current season. -- OnM, 08:31:42 12/05/01 Wed
The idea of a character who has been brought back from the dead and isn't happy about it isn't new,
I recall reading an SF story way back in the 60's that dealt with just this issue.
You are quite correct, however, that it is a very rare topic in modern Western culture, where life (at
any cost) is automatically assumed to be good, and death represents the ultimate 'failure'.
To my way of thinking, this is a warped and childish perspective, and it's one of the reasons that I
think that 'what is wrong with Buffy' is that she is now immortal, and that this occurrance does
more than make her 'more like Spike', it calls into question the whole subject as to whether living
forever is a desirable goal in the first place.
Joss often utilizes Western religious themes and symbolism, only to tweak them and present the
paradoxes they often entail.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly where the rest of the season will go, and that the 'big bad' of S6 is not a
being or creature so much as how we (and society) deal with death. Last season's later events weren't
really about that subject in it's entirely, it was just the opening chords of the particular song.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Immortality and Fear -- Humanitas, 13:32:46 12/06/01
Thu
That brings to mind Adam's commentary on vampires, from "The 'I' in Team." He called
vampires a paradox, in that "[They] fear death. Being immortal, [they] fear it more than those
to whom it comes naturally." Now, a vampire is a rather different beast (so to speak) than an
Immortal Buffy. For one thing, even though vampires are dead, they have never known what is on
the other side of death. At least, we've never heard one speak of what it was like between the death
of their mortal body and "waking up" as a vampire. In fact, that very phrase seems to
indicate that they don't remember being dead any more than most people remeber being asleep.
Even Darla doesn't (sorry - didn't) seem to have any memories of the span of years between her
staking and being boxed up.
Buffy, on the other hand, remembers very vividly - that's the problem, in fact. Vampires fear death
for the same reason that mortals do: it is the Great Unknown. The Slayer Reborn should have no
fear of death, because it is no longer unknown.
Of course, this suggests the possibility that Buffy's Heaven was nothing more than a sort of lucid
dream. We've been over this, but let me just say that whether it was 'real' or 'a dream' ultimately
doesn't matter; what matters is that Buffy believes that it was real. As long as she believes that to be
true, whether it is or not, she will behave as though it was. She will be both sad and (hopefully)
fearless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Immortality and Fear -- Rufus, 23:19:26 12/06/01
Thu
Could it be that Buffy was meant to remember where she had been? The unfortunate part being the
spell to return her was incomplete, leaving a Buffy that is in constant conflict about her place here. I
think that somehow that Buffy will be in for a revelation of her own when her damaged self begins to
heal and regain that clarity from the platform in The Gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not one of the heavy hitters, but... -- CW, 11:20:20 12/04/01
Tue
You're right, of course, Rufus. I'm satisfied with her as an example, though, on a technicality. She
wanted to be a vampire again, in other words dead. ;o)
Random observations from Wrecked (spoilers, obviously) -- Juliette, 16:11:16 12/03/01
Mon
I just saw Wrecked (it finally finished downloading!) these have probably been posted already but I
just thought I'd share...
Random observation #1: Buffy's words to Spike ("What did you expect? That we'd read the
newspaper and play footsie under the table?") reminded me of Angelus' comments to Buffy in
'Innocence' ("What did you expect? Choirs, birds singing?" OK, I can't remember exactly,
it was something like that.)
Random observation #2: Dawn said Buffy goes straight to the fridge after patrolling and pigs out. In
'Faith Hope and Trick' Faith claimed tha slaying made her "hungry and horny" and
Buffy agreed with hunry and refused to be drawn on horny.......
Signifcant? Or jut a sign that I watch far too much Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I noticed both those things too!!!! :) -- MayaPapaya9, 16:40:53 12/03/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I had the same thoughts on #2 -- vampire hunter D, 11:52:01 12/04/01 Tue
And looking back, it looks like Faith was right. All 4 times she's gotten it on with a new guy, it was
preceded by a major fight. So, I guess slaying does make her horny, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Random observations from Wrecked (spoilers, obviously) -- blackbeauty, 17:43:05 12/04/01
Tue
ok, just out of curiosity, you said you'd downloaded "wreaked". would someone mind
telling me where cause i can't get to a tv and it's killing me
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> downloadable episodes -- pagangodess, 06:26:01 12/05/01 Wed
You can download eps from a few different places. I get mine from kazaa.com, works like Napster.
You can also try winmx.com. Someone mentioned morpeus as well, I think it was grifter.
Hope this helps. Although if you only have dial-up, you are in for a lond wait.
pagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: downloadable episodes -- Juliette, 08:46:42 12/06/01 Thu
I got mine from kazaa. Morpheus is the same thing. It takes days, at least a week per ep, as I only
have 56k modem. If you're paying for the phone bill while online (in the UK)don't even think about
trying!
Theory on Spike's chip and Buffy (spoilers for Smashed) -- T-rex, 17:12:35 12/03/01
Mon
Someone on this board suggested that Spike's chip works by gathering and processing minute
sensory details that the conscious mind would probably miss, thus sorting creatures into
classications of human or demon.
So, my theory is that one of the things this chip thingie picks up on is fear. Vampire gets bumpy,
human feels a little terror, or at least aprehension, and the pheromone mix changes enough to tell
the chip that this creature is human.
So what if Buffy doesn't set off the chip because she is no longer afraid of anything? Not that she was
scared of Spike, necessarily, but maybe pre-death Buffy still had enough of a trace of apprehension to
tell the chip she was human. Now that she has been brought back from Heaven unwillingly, she
really couldn't care less if she died again.
So, she is still human. But she is missing something that practically every other human on the
planet still has...Fear of death.
Now, I realize that when Spike popped Tara, and later Xander, the popees in question weren't
expecting it and therefore weren't afraid before. But maybe the fear occurs in that split second
during and after the blow. Then the migraine for poor Spike.
So let me know if you like this idea. Or not. Apologies if someone else has already suggested this. I
*try* to read every thread!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theory on Spike's chip and Buffy (spoilers for Smashed) -- sl, 18:15:57 12/03/01 Mon
very interesting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Seems to make sense to me -- pagangodess, 18:34:39 12/03/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theory on Spike's chip and Buffy (spoilers for Smashed) -- change, 03:35:28 12/04/01
Tue
What about all those vampires and demons Spike kills? Wouldn't they be afraid of him? According to
Adam in WAY, vampires have a very strong fear of death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theory on Spike's chip and Buffy (spoilers for Smashed) -- Rufus, 08:31:24 12/04/01
Tue
Yes, the vampire as a paradox, they are immortal but fear death more than mortals do. They seem to
fear the finality of death more than humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theory on Spike's chip and Buffy (spoilers for Smashed) -- Rob, 09:21:35
12/04/01 Tue
"Yes, the vampire as a paradox, they are immortal but fear death more than mortals do. They
seem to fear the finality of death more than humans."
Yes! I believe that is because they have already "died" once, and have had a second
chance. If they were dusted, however, that would be it. The End. After already believing they have
conquered death by becoming vampires, the worst thing for them would to have that be taken away
from them.
About the theory at the start of this thread, I think it is an interesting one, but I do not believe that
that is what really happened with the chip. My first reason is that I am not so sure demons and
vampires don't feel fear. In fact, I think they do. Secondly, I think it would be too easy if Buffy had
come back with nothing wrong with her. She was brought back from the dead. We were told by Spike
that magic always has consequences. And what's more, Willow's spell was not completed before the
urn was broken. I think that is part of the reason for Buffy coming back less human than before. I
think it is far more fascinating to find out that Buffy is no longer fully human than merely a lack of
fear. Also, I think the chip, being as technologically advanced as it is, would pick up on more than
merely fear. I think it does some sort of scan of the creature's physiology, to determine whether it be
human or demon. But, as I said before, I do think it's a nice theory. I just don't agree with it.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> LOL...sure we aren't related????:):):) -- Rufus, 14:52:05 12/05/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ok, so what about me? -- vampire hunter D, 11:48:51 12/04/01 Tue
I don't fear death. Actually, I'm kinda looking forward to it. So, if your hypothosis proved correct,
would Spike's chip go off when he hit me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Problem with this theory... -- Moose, 13:54:42 12/04/01 Tue
The chip has always been seen as preventing Spike from phyically harming humans. To make it
dependant on the person being attacked to "trigger" the chip won't fly.
What you are suggesting would allow Spike to attack people that are asleep, unconscious, drugged
etc., who don't respond because they are unaware.
It's Spike's awareness that seems to matter. His intent, not the victims reality. Example: Spike's
attempt to club Xander over the head with a wrench when he wasn't looking sets off the chip (forgot
the name of the ep--the one where Spike tries to stake himself.)
What I find interesting is the chip going off when Spike aims a gun at Xander. It is unclear whether
he even intended harm (which was unlikely) but the chip didn't like it. Could be that even
carelessness on the part of Spike that could harm a human will trigger the chip. At least if Spike is
aware he is being careless and harm could come from it.
What would be interesting is to know whether the chip would activate if Spike unknowingly put
someone in danger, like handing them a poisoned cup of wine. It could be that the chip would
activate the moment Spike realized that he had harmed someone, no matter how inadvertently. Or
maybe not. Who knows? I doubt the writers would explore it much since it would reveal the
weaknesses of the plot device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: How do you feel? -- bible belt, 16:49:08 12/04/01 Tue
I think the chip picks up on the fact that Buffy can't feel any more, rather than, she doesn't care if
she dies. With demons and the human condition, the demons, being alienated, don't feel the way
humans feel, and Buffy doesn't feel human anymore. Has Spike been shown to draw down on any
benevolent type demons since he was chipped? Apparently he doesn't have a problem with puppies or
kittens but then again. That's probably pretty lame but my two cents anyway.
Happy Holidays (this was just emailed to me) -- pagangodess, 21:09:32 12/03/01 Mon
I know you will want to get a jump on the holiday season, so here is a new recipe for you to try.
I've never cared much for fruitcake, but I may try this one.
1 cup water
1 cup butter
1 cup sugar
4 large eggs
2 cups dried fruit
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup brown sugar
2 cups of flour
1 tablespoon lemon juice
1 cup chopped nuts
1 gallon wine