A Chritianized Buffy
POSTED BY: Zicsoft
UPDATED: Friday, August 22, 2003 16:41
VIEWED: 10431
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:That used to bother me. But then I thought about exactly what "wicca" and "witch" means.
(Joss, whom I love and adore, is not exempt from this scorn. I am greatly displeased by the way he and his marketing crew use "wiccan" as if it were exactly the same as "witch")
As I understand it, wiccans claim to be carrying on a spiritual tradition that dates back many centuries before Europe was Christianized. In this tradition, early Wicca was a simple religion whose female leaders studied natural forces and practiced healing arts. There was no magic, no broomsticks, no curses or conjuring of dark forces. These are stories invented by the male-dominated Church, which was driven to suppress Wicca not just as a competing religion, but by a desire to reduce women to a subordinate role. In short "witches" are a Christian-invented myth.
Now, there are problems with this version of history. But that's true for the early history of all religions, and doesn't invalidate Wicca as a faith or a way of life.
Except that in the Buffyverse, witches are real. They can do all the strange things the Church said they could do, and more. Which doesn't leave a lot of room for women who embrace Wicca but reject the idea of magic. They're not true Wiccans -- they're Wannablessedbes who imitate an ancient tradition without understanding its magical origins.
Does this make Joss Whedon anti-Wicca? Well, maybe he's making fun of it, a little. But remember, he doesn't actually believe in magic -- he just likes to tell stories about it.
JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hear, hear, Zicsoft.
________________
"You still don't get it. It's not about right, not about wrong... It's about Power." —Morph-O-Monster, "Lessons"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalimac:
Or Atheism! (Perhaps a more dangerous religion, in the long run, anyway.)
I don't know why I'm doing this... but here goes...
I am confused on several aspects of this comment...
A) Why do you consider atheism a religion? Atheism, by definition, is the belief that there is no god. Atheism cannot be a religion, though it can be used to describe certain religions. (ex: Zen Buddhism is an atheist religion. They, for the most part, do not belive in a god (though, Buddhism can be practiced along with any other religion... so this example may only apply to exclusive Zen Buddhists).)
B) Do you believe that atheism leads to general anti-morality? I stand as firm proof to the contrary. Human morality has existed for thousands, nay, millions, of years longer than religion. In fact, religion (epecially monotheistic religions) has been the basis of some of the world's most hideous acts of immorality (ie, The Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the Islamic jihadd, the Holocaust (yes, Hitler's views were religion based), the racial lynchings in the south, etc, etc, ect... I could go on). Religion seems to be the justification for many to do immoral acts ("Oh, I killed this homosexual because the bible says homosexuality is sinful," or "I blew up two of the world's tallest buildings for the sake of the advancement of my religion"). In the long run, religion has actually been a front for (I won't say caused because it is obviously some humans' natures that causes these acts of violence, and religion is simply the guise they hide behind) the most immoral acts in the world's history. I challenge you to find one attrocity, on the scale of these religious ones, committed by a group of atheists. It's my belief that religion is more destructive in the long run than atheism. Though, obviously it is not yours.
This isn't to say that I believe religion is bad. In fact, I believe that religion is avery valuable part of human culture, and is the right of every person to practice, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. What I am saying is that atheism is no more dangerous than any other religion.
Please explain why you thing atheism is dangerous. I am very interested (seriously, I am
).--Dylan Palmer, Pretentious Bastard at Large--
"Oh my god, I'm a hack!" - Joss Whedon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanna say, Novagrass, you have just earned about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 brownie points with me. 
________________
"You still don't get it. It's not about right, not about wrong... It's about Power." —Morph-O-Monster, "Lessons"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obviously when I say atheism is "dangerous" I mean only to a person's soul.
Try to understand my viewpoint. I will express my beliefs only as that (though I would rather put them forth as Truth, the perceived lack of perspective that would portray would probably invalidate my arguments).
As a Christian I believe the most important thing is keeping your soul safe. That is, getting right with God, cause otherwise you're gonna be stuck without him for a very, very long time.
Okay, given my perspective, Atheism is the most dangerous viewpoint of all because one has already ruled out the possibility of the existence of God. At least someone who is already willing to believe in God has a chance at seeing (I was going to say "the Truth", but instead let us say:) the way Christians do.
And I refer to Atheism as a religion only to simplify my sentence. I mean it only in the sense that it is (really) a belief system. I agree that "religion" is quite a devastating thing at times. Christianity isn't (or shouldn't be) a "religion". It's about a relationship with your Creator, not a set of arbitrary rules.
Anyway, hope that clears up (slightly) what I was trying to say. (And again, I'm not trying to argue for Christianity here. Just explain where we are, or should be, coming from.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is atheism the same as being non-religious?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is partly due to the incoherent nature of neo-pagan religions. The lack of organization works to smudge boundaries between the different forms, and it is often very difficult for someone not associated with these reilgions to tell them a part.
Originally posted by bobknaptor:
I think my biggest complaint about the majority's views on Witchcraft, Wiccan beliefs, Pagan beilefs and Satanic beliefs is that they all the same. (Joss, whom I love and adore, is not exempt from this scorn. I am greatly displeased by the way he and his marketing crew use "wiccan" as if it were exactly the same as "witch")
Quote:Actually this is probably a very poor historical description.
Originally posted by bobknaptor:
Country-dweller. The reason for this is that the city dwellers, who were detached from the earth and the growth of crops were easier to convert to Christianity, because it is more of a "god will provide" religion, and has nothing to do with actually growing crops. But the "country-dwellers", the ones who had spent generations praying to the god of rain and the goddess of the harvest and the god of the sun, etc., etc., etc... feared that giving up their gods would risk their crops. Therefore, they were much more difficult to convert. Pagans.
The facts seem to suggest that the city-dwellers were also very religious people. They prayed and worshiped to these same gods, and their lives were just as dependent on the harvest as people in the country-side. The reason that Christianity took hold so quickly in the city was because the people in the city were the one's most heavily persecuted by the state mandated religion. They were the ones who had to build several huge stone temples. Stone temples weren't built in the country-side. They were the ones who had to big into their pockets to pay for the lavish lifestyle of preists at each of these temples, the offering to all the different gods, the upkeep on all these temples, the payment to temple guards, etc, etc. People in the country-side weren't oppressed like that, because of the diminished reach of state power away from the cities. So it's no wonder that when the state came around and said from now on we will worship only one god and not 4 or 5, build only one temple, pay for only one religious bureaucracy, the people in the cities must have been elated. It must have been a weight off their shoulders for many of them, and that's one of the principle reasons Christianity spread so vigoriously.-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
it's funny how this guy complains about god being nowhere in buffy right before spike comes back and keeps talking about the christian god. that scene where he's burning on the cross: omigod, i died!
i am someone who is absolutely fascinated by Faith and the love in it and the power of it. i'm completely spellbound by mysticism and mystical poetry.
so i'm very exited about this, if they do it right that is. you can celebrate religion without proseletyzing it.
as long as spike is loving god in a st. john of the cross, st. francis of assisi way and not a sit in the pews sing a hymn way, then it could really work wonders for the character and the show.
but anyway, i have not read through everybody's posts, cause there's a lot. but...
atheism is not a lack of religion. There's a whole unlistable spectrum of spiritual beliefs, activities, etc. that an atheist person can participate in. like i don't believe in a judeo-chistian god but i am a spiritual person. i guess i'd call myself monistic which is like there's this one unifying force that is everything and nothing. think emmersonian oversoul, which was influenced by the eastern religions, like hinduism. personally, i'd say that monism is at the root of every religion.
i don't think anyone writing buffy would say that what they show as witchcraft and "wicca" in any way resembles the real thing. they totally make that s,h,i,t up. in marti noxon's commentary on the dvd she says how she started out looking things up and now just makes it all up.
sometimes when they use existing gods like osiris, it's more like it's reminiscent of the real thing. if we head into firefly the names probably mean nothing. unless with "persephone" joss wants to start out with a suggestion of a chthonic journey, but i'm not leaning towards it. i'll have to watch more. other times, they just use the name. like in first season of buffy they use, "Moloch the corrupter" um, not quite. moloch was a really evil guy, but he was seen as a manipulating and false god. he's all about the human sacrifice. they would ritually feed children to his statue and burn them in a way that it was like he was eating and digesting them. so cool!
"i have my own fun"
anyhooz, i just jumped at the chance to be able to post on something i spend a lot of time on.
later
- emily
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think atheism implies a little more then just being non-religious. I'm of the mind to believe that atheism is a religion which believes in no god or perhaps the anti-religion, but I really can't see it as being just non-religious. There are too many atheists who hold to their beliefs far too zealously for me to think that their beliefs constitute nothing more then just a lack of religious belief.
Originally posted by darkangelslayer:
Is atheism the same as being non-religious?
-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:Quote:I think atheism implies a little more then just being non-religious. I'm of the mind to believe that atheism is a religion which believes in no god or perhaps the anti-religion, but I really can't see it as being just non-religious. There are too many atheists who hold to their beliefs far too zealously for me to think that their beliefs constitute nothing more then just a lack of religious belief.
Originally posted by darkangelslayer:
Is atheism the same as being non-religious?
Atheism is not a religion any more than theism is. Theism is simply the belief in God, and atheism is not believing in God. Thousands of Buddhist monks are atheists, and to claim that these are anti-religious monks is just silly.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME