I Am Confused Over Some Episodes

[nothing i do is magic]

... that happens a lot in human interaction. especially on religion...

however, getting back to the show, i kind of always thought lucy, pepper, the demon in frank's house, etc, were one form of demon; they were 'legion', people who had become infested by a higher power. it was mentioned in pptd that pepper had been clinically dead a month before, and if lucy butler/annie martin (or whatever her other name was) has been alive since 1911, i want a bottle of her face product and name of her plastic surgeon.

in my mythology of the show, legion can inhabit many people at once. i grouped danielle barbakow (sp?) in this group too, not entirely on her actions, while they were heinous, but also becasue of frank's (and lara's, to a lesser extent) reaction to her.

frank has felt evil. evil seeks him out as well, mainly in the form of lucy. and, in my mind, it does so for the same reason dean winters' character (sorry, awful with names -guy with cigarette, killed himself, scared the sh*t outta five year old frank on halloween) gave to frank in his attic. it took me a long time thinking and processing the show (and i must admit, being 1700 miles from my tapes does not help) to believe that evil isn't that concerned with the addition of frank to its side; it's the subtraction from the opposing side that evil wishes to obtain. (and i hesitate to say 'good'; i kind of think of it more as the default or status quo. that it's not always such a battle between the two, but a slight deviation from one can have major consequences.) frank doesn't have to join legion to hinder the group's and his own process, he just has to "sit back and do nothing." and given what legion knows about frank, the second option is much more a possability than the first.

here i've used evil as a being, in opposition to the skow (serial killers of the week). yes, i think the polaroid stalker is evil (as an adjective). the frenchman and the judge and ed cuffle and anyone who takes a life for any reason other than extreme self protection, in my impression of the show, is 'evil' (adjective). they are not, however, driven to these crimes by an outside force. whatever the reasons are: past abuse, mental problems, and a whole host of others and divisions of others and subgroups of these, they commit the crimes for themselves. or, possibly, for a partner, but the motives are present and more or less apparent. (yes, i realize i'm horribly generalizing about sks and the like. but on the whole they're the second category.) legion's actions are orchistrated, and don't just involve murder. pepper makes intimate contact with frank's family and repeatedly offers him a job.

(funny thing, siren allows him a glimpse of life without the MG - i'm not all that sure what she is/was, but given the state of the demon in the MGless world [ie, present], i lean vaguely to the slightly-helpful-but-mostly-not-destructive force side, like samiel (sam-iel/-ael, or something) from pptd. love his lines about being pained to be 'here' and how pepper's death didn't help/solve much of anything.)

if you've made it this far, i admire your persistance. now comes the time that i explain that i seem to approach mm like a schitzophrenic (and not just in my obsession). millennium is by far my favorite show ever. i am amazed by the ability of all those who worked on it to produce something so rich. i see in mm good and evil, and i approach the show with these ideas because they are what i have taken from the show to be reality. (sounds circular, but i don't think it is.) it is how the universe exists for frank and everyone else there, and so my personal ideas have to be checked at the door in order to understand what the patterns and influences on the characters are. i want to stress that it is not a universe based on frank's beliefs, however, for that would be some power of projection. it is the universe he inhabits, one with powers, one which he is able to see more clearly than many others. but i don't believe he has it all figured out.

good, evil, angels, demons, god, devil, heaven, hell, torment, punishment, reward - these are themes that resonate in many (but not all) spiritual systems. so while the show is based on christian belief and myth (and certian denominations, etc, at that), i personally believe it is useless to debate the traits of angels on a text by text basis. religion is a creation of man kind. i don't know what the impulse was, if, like in the recent time article, we have a 'drive' and/or a something in our brain that wants us to be spiritual, to seek God or god or a higher power or harmony with others or preservation of the earth, or whatever. NO ONE DOES. it's one of the mysteries of human evolution. i can speculate till i'm blue in the face. scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, linguists, archaeologists, astronomers, astrologers, religious researchers (you can't say historians, becuase religion predates written records) can perform million and millions of tests and studies, and write millions of papers, hold millions of confrences, and we most likely still won't know.

not only that, i personally don't believe in any of it. i'm an athiest, and don't mind saying so. a lot of people think it's odd that i like mm b/c i'm an athiest, and a lot of people think it's odd i'm an athiest b/c i like mm. but that's the way it works. i still haven't gotten the whole spirituality thing worked out yet. i believe people can act with goodly intentions towards one another, or they can act with evil intensions. many factors influence this. we alone among animals have the power of reason, it makes us "almost wholly without instinct" (from a book i just read - pm me for details). this is not to say our actions towards one another are based completely on reason, but it plays a large factor.

i believe mm is and can be a wonderful conduit for sparking religious discussion. i don't really see much point in religious 'debates', because that's basically what the crusades were, with spears. sorry, not to be crass, but anyone who is the first to stand up in support of a religion is probably not going to be the easiest for the other side to win over, which, it seems to me, is a main point of a debate. religions are like children - we created them and each person believes his to be best. (wow, i'm pithy at 2:15 am.) i'd even venture to say that part of mm's intent was to *be* a stimulant for religious discussion. i find a lot of things wrong with particular religions, and with religion as a whole. none of that, however, matters here. becaues what i find worse is religious ignorance and intolerance. shouting matches about whose god is bettter, people dying and killing themselves for religious beliefs, defacings of religious places and imagery, hate crimes and discrimination against those who appear or are obviously a follower of a certain religion - none of this makes the least bit of sense to me. if religion's purpose is to help man - help him understand, to grow, to face the world, to accept its cycles, to help him form a path of 'right action' or 'morals' or 'acceptable behavors, none of this advances the point. it doesn't help the participants to discover the similarities of their beliefs, or marvel in the differences that the human mind is able to conceive and hold at the same time. and probably don't help the soul either.

i don't want to sound as though i'm lecturing anyone. i'd hate that, actually. but why fight over the properties of an angel; if one appeared to mary, or mohammed, don't you think the experience would be more than mere words could capture? add in the many subsequent revisions and translations through which the Bible, in this case, has gone, and one come up with a text that has about as much history about it as in it. the people who made millennium had an idea of what they wanted mm to say, and how they were going to say it. this was refined over the years. every viewer comes to the show with his preconceived notions, his ideas of what is rational, what is right, the nature of evil. when wound together and discusses with others, fans and nonfans alike, my approach to, understanding of, and appreciation for our wonderful show has grown immensely. because i know no fans in real life, (and can no longer subject my best friend - separate states- and family - freaks them out - to mm eps), this message board is pretty much my last respite. i agree this is not necessarily the place for out of context religious debate or even discussion, but such places are hard to come by. but i, for one, wouldn't mind hearing others' views on religion in MillenniuM. because of my personal approach, i know my mm approach lacks something. so if i've stepped out of bounds, tell me; if i've bored you to tears, i apologize; if you'd like to comment, discuss, argue, point out an error, please do here or pm; if you've made it this far i'm really impressed; and if you're like me - in the US, might you join me in some eager anticipation of season 2?

nothing i do is magic

p.s. i'm totally blanking on frank's religious denomination, if one was given. i know catherine and jordan were catholic. and i wonder, did frank keep his parents' out of habit?

who is still working on the 'afterlife', especially in context to the demons in curse;

and who just wrote a short story that, after typing all this out, i've come to realize puts the MG in the role of evil via its creation of lucas barr. which adds to it nicely.

[Guest Seraphim]

I am tired, so this will be short. A "debate" on religion has it's reasoning. Belief is as "real" to an individual as anything else. Personally, I view a good chunk of science to be a religion considering how many "theories" are beligerently labeled and defended as truth. Scientist argue about such theories all the time. Religion has it's dark side, but doesn't everything in this world? I do think it is presumptuous to say that for a fact man created religion. We were not there when the events in various religions events are said to have occured. Ultimately, it goes to a philosophical question. Can anyone say what is real for anyone besides themselves? To go further, can you say what is real to yourself? Maybe one's own "reality" is ultimately what is real. I myself find both extremely organized religions and total atheism to be strange concepts. Perhaps the only truth is personal truth. Shows like MillenniuM probably exist to make one question these various topics. It is perhaps my favorite aspect of the show.

[nothing i do is magic]

Scientist argue about such theories all the time.

i think this is a bit of a misunderstanding. theories aren't batted about labs across the world as if they were pingpong balls. a conclusion becomes theory after many, many tests or observations, by many, many individuals. that's one tenant of an experiment; it must be repeatable. each time, the conclusion was found to work, or else the hypothesis was revisited and the conclusion reworked.

cell theory and the theory of evoultion, i have been taught and told countless times, are misnomers. they have reached and tested so many times they should be called principles (one step up the level of knowledge, under law. gravity is a law, Fg = (Gm1+m2)/r^2.)

Personally, I view a good chunk of science to be a religion considering how many "theories" are beligerently labeled and defended as truth.

here you've peaked my curiosity. do you have any examples?

I do think it is presumptuous to say that for a fact man created religion. We were not there when the events in various religions events are said to have occured.

... i am not sure what theories have to do with religion. the religions that have come down to us today are undenyably and inextricably tied to beliefs that began thousands of years before man created writing systems. sure, many of these 'events' as you say are passed down to us orally and/or were later written down, but all these too must be seen through the veil of history ("written records"). the amount of time man as a species has been able to write is miniscule compared to the amount of time man has had a fully modern brain, capable of conceiving of such things as religion and reason.

i did not say man created god. or the gods. or spirits. or the devil. or angels. or the masters in the universe, despite my believing so. almost everyone i knows believes thusly, and it is not my place to attack them. i said man created religion, the systems and methods and beliefs about how to interact with his god/s: whether to fear them; how to pay reverence to them; how similar or different the gods were to man himself; how the gods affected man's environment; what the gods thought that man should be doing and how he should be treating others. and most importantly, how attentive and caring was a god; how powerful. what happened after a man died?

again, i personally believe we created all of religion, but understand many don't. in that case,

if [an angel] appeared to mary, or mohammed, don't you think the experience would be more than mere words could capture?

in any case, the search for the origins of religion is a psuedoscience at best:

i don't know what the impulse was, if, like in the recent time [magazine] article, we have a 'drive' and/or a something in our brain that wants us to be spiritual, to seek God or god or a higher power or harmony with others or preservation of the earth, or whatever. NO ONE DOES. it's one of the mysteries of human evolution. i can speculate till i'm blue in the face. scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, linguists, archaeologists, astronomers, astrologers, religious researchers (you can't say historians, becuase religion predates written records) can perform million and millions of tests and studies, and write millions of papers, hold millions of confrences, and we most likely still won't know.

we can come up with ideas and general time spans of when the human brain became capible of producing and understanding religious thought. but just because it's there doesn't mean we used it for thousands of years. indications point to between 70 and 35 thousand years ago. this is very, very, very late in our evolution. some people have to believe spirituality devoped much earlier.

but until we invent a time machine, a device for detecting 'spiritual thought', and some way to perform the tests without planting religious ideas (and scaring the hell out of our australopithicene, H. habalis, H. erectus, and H. sapien subjects), the beginnings of religion and spirituality, it's all a psuedoscience. it's untestable.

Can anyone say what is real for anyone besides themselves? To go further, can you say what is real to yourself? Maybe one's own "reality" is ultimately what is real.

now this is tricky. i never understood descartes' "how do i know this reality is real, thus an evil demon is tricking me" which restulted in "i question (the part most people leave out) therefore i think therefore i am." uh, rene, you just presupposed your own existence to be doing the questioning in the first place. this is just one example. i am not well-versed in philosophy, nor do i think we learn as much from debating third parties' views on religion, reality, etc as we do from debating/discussion our own. i happen to think this is real - to me. the world i observe, the information i take in and process, the people i meet, the stars a hundred thousand light years away. science, mostly, which restults in an ever changing reality, at which point emotion is introduced.

I myself find both extremely organized religions and total atheism to be strange concepts. Perhaps the only truth is personal truth.

i agree with the second point. if i were to walk up to someone and say, "you can quit spending so much time and energy trying to understand you reality; you're actually living in my reality, and here's what you need to know:..." they'd probably just walk away. reality is bound with personal experience. no one's ever had the exact same exeperience as any other person on the planet. could you at least accept that someone's reality is "total athiesm", however, even if it is a strange concept? (not sure mine is, but for the sake of discussion...)

and, in conclusion, it's my turn to say:

i think its funny how this thread deviated from my original post

;

views on religion in MillenniuM

-nothing i do is magic

Edited November 6, 2004 by nothing i do is magic

[nothing i do is magic]

and then there is the "philosopher's" view to whom a debate is "a means to an end" ... right and wrong do not play a role, but rather the process and the fact that it has a direction.

i’m sorry. you are absolutely correct. (hmm, about that philo class i took...) it is just my observation that debates about religion, which are often touchy subjects in their own rights, often turn into debates between religions. debate to me implys arguments over discussion, though i may be completely in the wrong. the results are often a quick summary, a 'my daddy can beat up your daddy' type of judgment of a religion rather than knowledge about it, resulting from dialogues and careful study. i think single-source beliefs on a religion are incomplete; what my Islamic roommate from last year believes is not the exact same thing as what my Islamic Arabic teacher believes; my friend’s Buddhist beliefs are different from many others because he was brought up and still is a Christian; my own beliefs and questions are not those of my friends and acquaintances who are atheist/agnostic. i personally enjoy learning about other religions and discussing them, though that sounds a little more goal-oriented than what i have in mind. i do think discussions can help illuminate those many factors many religions share, and can be really enlightning and enjoyable. debates about whose religion is better; more applicable, fair, or just; and especially more correct, i think have little purpose.

- nothing i do is magic

who needs to get ready for dinner.

[Guest se7en]

.....this has turned quite fascinating, i must say. But this is the kind of thing, because of the nature of the show, that will keep popping up in these forums again and again without the appropriate O.T. sections; i think that's pretty much a given for obvious reasons.

...but great points all of you. I'm a very spiritual person but am wholly against organized religion in it's concept and it's current execution(s).

Take Care All,

se7en

[Guest Seraphim]

We'll probably get modded if we keep this topic going, alas. I lean to spirituality and philosophy more than to science. The field of science I view as having become religion partially or completely is Physics. Historians and Anthropologists can be quite dogmatic as well. Science, in my opinion, has lost it's way. Many times Science has denied an explanantion ofr one event, by offering a more far out explanantion. There are many facts that could re-write human history, but most Anthropologists dismiss them without even looking at the evidence and do everything they can dismiss these facts. To me science should be about discovery and should constantly be revising itself. Sometimes it does. But for so many it is a religion and thus challenge to canon" is rejected. Ultimately, I view that much of science proves there is some higher power, force, or consciouness. Cells, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, galaxies, evolution, etc.. It all works so well. The universe is not so much like a big jumbled accident, as much as like a painted canvas. I am a spiritualist and due to my varied beliefs and interprutations, don't truly fit with any organized religion. You are correct that people do argue over religion for stupid reason and in dumb ways. I view debate should not be a "My God Can Kick Your God's A**" discussion. But an exchange of different ideas. To speak of one's belief and differences in belief. Not to force belief on another. I see what you mean with man created religion, I agree with that. We cannot prove or disprove the reality of any "divine beings", but the dogmatic systems, rituals, etc.. were indeed made by humans. ::yawns:: It's a shame that soon we won't be able to talk about stuff like thiss here. -_-

[Guest se7en]

..wow, that's pretty wild. this is the first time, real life or otherwise-(i think)- that someone's approach to thier own spirituality, if not neccesarily our beleifs, is virtually identical, right down to your views of science being beautifully compatible, and enhancing such viewpoints or beliefs.

That's all i'll say on this. Just wanted to let you know how surprised i was. I mean i know we're not the only ones with this approach but this is my first time coming across someone whose approach is so similar and vice versa.

~se7en

[Guest Seraphim]

Oh really? Similar to mine? By "us" do you me yourself and &one? If you like I could go a bit heavier into this somewhere else? Raven and myself have had some interesting convos on spirituality. ::huge yawn:: I need to stop loitering on-line and go to bed now ::Picks up his flaming sowrd. Then flaps his six wings and floats away::