Owls

[ethsnafu]

Owls and Roosters is one of my favourites though I tend to agree with Moriaty with regards to his identification of it's weaker points but I have read the comments (above somewhere) regarding Peter and the year 2000 confusion and I feel that the point is being somewhat missed. 'Owls and Roosters' did not categorically state that the world would end in 2000 what it did do was depict the group as sharing one unswerving conviction that at some point the world indeed end and that within this umbrella were various factions, separatists who held distinct ideas with regards to the 'hows' and 'whens' of doomsday. It is noted "...I agree, if a theological Event does not occur in 672 days, then the Owls belief in a secular Millennium decades from now is correct..." it is clear that the group has NO consensus as to when eschaton will occur much less it ever being asserted that 2000 was a definite date for the end of all things and when it does discuss the predicted event of 2000 it does not state that this is the end of the world - what the Roosters predict is the return of Christ in the year 2000 and according to their theology the second coming would usher in the end times not immediately bring about the cataclysmic destruction of the universe - the theological war of Armageddon could have waged for many decades after the year 2000 (some say 40 years is the figure given in the bible.) It is important to distinguish the concept of the end of the world (Doomsday) with the theological Armageddon discussed in the Bible as they are two very distinct terms used to indicate two very different escatological theories it is, therefore, quite right for Peter to discuss doomsday as a certainty (the world WILL end) and Armageddon as less so (no one is sure if it will be as a result of a war between Jesus and Satan or something more organic) he commits no transgression by separating scientific and theological beliefs according to their certainty.

It is also wrong to say that Peter gives lessons of any kind to either Lara or Frank in Monster an episode in which he has such a blink and you will miss it part anyway: he asks them to find the evil - nothing more nothing less - it is Frank and Lara themselves who speculate that they are being sent there as a test, it isn't until Goodnight Charlie, in the twilight of the Season, that Lara begins to speak of their cases of lessons and this is expressed as her opinion only.

I hope I will be forgiven for being picky but I do love Owls and Roosters very much and wouldn't like them to be damned for something we think they say rather than what they do,

eth

[vain68]

Good to see you back mayne.

[Guest Paul White]

For us the Argentines, the name has a meaning ODESSA terrible,because in the Peron government support the flight of many ofgenocide to Argentina.

In the south of the country there are many stories of the Nazis whocame.

The holy grail as the cross of Christ are very valuable objects andinfinite power.

[IHaveGoodInstincts]

For us the Argentines, the name has a meaning ODESSA terrible,because in the Peron government support the flight of many ofgenocide to Argentina.

In the south of the country there are many stories of the Nazis whocame.

The holy grail as the cross of Christ are very valuable objects andinfinite power.

Using elements of historical situations adds to the realness of the show. It sometimes adds a kind of personal factor to the show. It gives more for the viewer to identify with. They did that with the X Files and Harsh Realm too. There are a few times where this direction fell a little flat, but some of the writers really dig into the details to create great episodes.