The results of a search that I did at TVGrid.com: A little spoiler space(hopefully it shows up this time, if not, go no further if you don't want to know)
June 28, 2000 #408- "Psycho Therapy" The Morgendorffers go to a spa for some spiritual cleansing.
July 5, 2000 #409- "Mart of Darkness" Daria's adventures in a warehouse store while looking for new boot laces.
July 12, 2000 #410- "Legends of the Mall" Lawndale's innocence may just be a facade for that of a greater evil.
July 19, 2000 #411- "Groped by an Angel" Quinn expresses her newfound spirituality, much to the chagrin of those around her.
I'm guessing these are the ep. numbers by the order they're being aired. No info there as of yet about #'s 412 and 413. To see for yourself, do a search at: TVGrid.com
Ugh! *I'm* pissed. This episode could be great if it's handled wisely by the writers, but unfortunately I'll be in Germany the week that it aires.
Well, well, well. The age old Daria vs. Religion debate might be settled. I just hope it doesn't turn out that Daria worships the devil or anything. That would be worse than no beliefs at all, IMO. This ep could be the last one I watch, if it bothers me in any way. Hey, I *like* my religion. I just hope "Daria" is tasteful enough not to be offensive.
Whats there to like. The christians worship some guy who supposedly came back from the dead. Get real. I've read the bible, and I think its sick. Violence, sodomy, war, human sacrifice, the list goes on and on. There are Buffy episodes more sane than this religion business.
If you can't come to terms with the fact that our existence is a coincidence and that when we die we die, thats your problem. But throwing yourself into the arms of organized isanity isn't the answer to anything.
I myself take it for granted that Daria is an ateist. She seems like a sane teenager.
<HHGTG> Some 2000 years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how good it would be to be nice to people for a change...... </HHGTG>
<Beavis> Hey butthead this book's pretty cool, there's this naked dude, and he puts a leaf over his shclong, and there's this snake and stuff and a bush that catches fire ! yeah pretty cool. </Beavis>
What you also have to realise abouth the Bible as well as being a religous book it is also in part a history of the Jewish nation, which yes suffered war etc, just like pretty much any other in the history of the world. And if the events happened then they should be recorded, or are you one oth these "lets edit history, to make it more palitable" if you are you are a very dangerous person, because lying about the past only allows us to make the same mistakes again.
Errr ok, not haveing seen more than a couple of Buffy episodes I couldn't really comment.
And you can of course prove this ? great, you just made yourself a place in history, prepare to be lynched by the "respectable" scientists, who can't stand a smart-ass.
And of course this applies to all religeions ? yes ? humm all I can say is that you probably don't know enough to know what you are talking about.
An ateist hey, that must be one of those new age religeions yes, must get it from her parents, oh you mean an *ATHIEST* So in your opinion Athiest=sane, anything else=insane humm I see quite a few people disagreeing with this.
For the record I am not a Christian, but I believe they have just as much right to believe what they want to without being persecuted for it, and BTW I'm not an athiest either and considder myself resonable sane :)
without wanting to put words into thomas' mouth, he's probably reffering to the bits about such things as teenage virgins being given over to a gang of men to be gang-raped, etc, which aren't really history.
respectable scientists who have *what* proof to the contrary?
he's allowed to express his opinion if he wants, isn't he?
I suppose not, I'm not a Bible scholar so I would not know :) Than again where you there at the time, to say what was/was not happening :) (yeah ok, I realise how history is written, it's what most people agree probably happened).
That wasn't my point. My point was that he was representing his opinion as a fact which most cirtainly has not been proven either way.
I never said he was not if you go back and read what I said. To re- itterate, all I said was that a lot of people would disagree with him, which again they are just as entitled to do as he is.
So if I say to you that evrything that you believe in is complete bollocks, ant that you must be very stupid for believing in it, but did it in an offensive way (as I think this guy did IMHO), then I'm not persecuting you in some way ??? You may not see it that way, howver some might.
i doubt that very much of the bible ever happened. admittedly i've never read the thing but i get the impression much of it is intended as metaphorical.
it's hardly surprising that it hasn't been proven, given that proof of what happens after death is a logical impossibility.
yes, but people's disagreement doesn't make him wrong.
i wouldn't consider it persecution, just trolling. if you followed me around shouting "you are an idiot" then i might call it persecution. i think one would be a bit over-sensitive to consider someone being rude "persecution".
People have a right tgo believe in whatever they want, and it is defintely not your position to tell them they can't, or even worse, tell them that what they believe in isn't real! Who cares if you don't believe it? Obviously not krimen! S/he can like her reliogion because she chooses to, and I'm sure s/he's got plenty of reasons to! Why don't you back yourself up and stop trying to say that what you think is right and deal with the fact that people are allowed to believe whatever the hell they want to, even if it's not in syncronization with your beliefs! This is the single-most ofensive post that's I've ever read on this newsgroup since it started. You have the right to your own opinion... and so do other people!
'free speech' means nothing to you, does it? why *shouldn't* he tell krimen that god doesn't exist? so long as he's not *preventing* him/her from believing it, what is he doing wrong?
in which case, does it matter if he tells him/her it's bullshit?
which might be.....? really, i'm serious. what reasons *are* there for believing in god?
so what are *you* doing telling him not to do stuff?
why don't you leave for a moderated group? that way, people have to only support your beliefs.
yes.... was he taking away krimen's opinion some how? are people somehow allowed to be illogical because you say it's a matter of opinion? in what way is the existence of a god in any way a matter of opinion? god's existence is completely independent of what people believe about it.
But as we've said before there isn't a place on this earth where you have complete free speech, and there probably never will be. Also most advocates of 'free speech' realy mean 'you can have free speech, providing I don't find it objectionable'. Not having a go at you Alli, just trying to put that whole line of argument into perspective, and for the record, I mostly agree with what you said above. However the tone of the original post that you are following up seemed to indicate that he did want to stop him believing in God.
Well let's put it like this how do you feel when someone tells you that one of your deeply held beliefs is bullshit (I'm not just talking religeion here folks), you get offended right ?
Which might be completely personal and hard to explain in a public forum, and besides, why should he have to justify his beliefs in the first place, it doesn't make them any less valid, to him at least.
Indeed.
Humm I did find the post mildly offensive, not to me but to krimen.
To illustrate :-
<HHGTH>
God: I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denys faith[1] and without
faith, I am nothing.
Man: But the babel-fish is such a wonderous creature that it could not have
evolved by chance, and therefore proves your existance, and therefore
you dont.[2]
God: Oh dear I hadn't thought of this and promptly disapears in a puff of
logic.
</HHGTG>
[1] Proof doesn't actually deny faith, I have absolute faith that if I open
the window and jump, I will fall, and it will hurt, that fact that it
has been prooved is irellevent.
[2] Yes this is a paradox, if the bable prooves god's non existance, then, it too can't exist and therefore god can, and therefore it can etc etc.
Actually I have a theory about the post that Alli answered, and the one before it, that they where posted by the same person trying to seed the group for a flame war.
Now where is Father Martin**, this thread could possibly do with his input (unless he's deliberatly staying out of it :) ). ** It is Father Martin in the Catholic church isn't it ?
which is exactly the attitude the guy who replied to thomas' post exibited.
doesn't mean he can, does it?
only if i'm wrong in believing it. if i'm right, i tell them why it ISN'T bullshit, and laugh at them.
they may be invalid reasons. eg "the bible says god exists" is not a valid reason to believe in god. similarly, "my mother died and i hope she's gone to a better place" is also not a valid reason, although it is more understandable.
yes, but this IS a public forum. i expect to be insulted by other people occasionally, when i voice my opinion in a public place. i expect also the right to insult others. :p
i'm not sure what your point is here... if you had absolute faith that you could jump out of the window without falling, if you jumped out of the window you would still fall.
huh? :)
probably. but i LIKE flame wars, damnit.
i think he should join in and hold up the pro-christian side of the argument. ;)
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:34:15 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:
Depending on how he goes about it, being a dickhead.
Perfectly legal under the context of 'free speech,' but then - so is my right (or krimen, or wdhthachamakislit) to call him such.
Same reasons there are for disbelieving. (I do draw a distinctiong between 'not believing' and 'disbelieving,' though; I'll wait to see if you can find that line yourself though.)
My reason is simple; when I talk to him, he 'answers.' Well, usually; he tends to not answer if I'm just babbling at him.
The same thing you're defending: expressing an opinion. In matching tones, by my judgement.
Less opportunity to express outrage. Venting is good :)
Well, he was technically calling all believers insane.
I know the old adage about sticks and stones, but it's mindless tripe used by the weak of character to defend themselves from insult; or to justify tossing it carelessly.
Are they not allowed because of your opinion?
You haven't heard my random blitherings on the nature of divinity, have you?
One hypothesis I've toyed with, is that god is pure spirit; and as such, *relies* on faith to maintain his existence. It's pure heresy that would get me stoned or burnt in the dark ages, but once you set aside(1) the supposed rationalism that disbelieves everything not of the material world it makes some sense.
Yeah, but there *is* this really funny part where Noah gets drunk and dances around naked. (Genesis 9:20-29, I believe.) Whoa. I'm an athiest, and I just pointed out a verse. Freaky.
Yes, it is. Leave them alone about it.
to
You're not getting any converts here. And quite frankly, I don't care what anyone's religion is. Just as long as they don't annoy me with their Gods, or Goddesses, or Devils, or Spirits, I'm just fine.
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:58:05 GMT, Boyfriend of Hikaru wrote:
If we're thinking about the same one, he gets drunk and one of the sons wants to sleep with him, but the eldest stops him. Later, I believe 2 of his daughters got him drunk for the purposes of impregnation.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
Hey at least you get to see the other eps of the second half on time, since the demise of "Depths of Shallowness" I guess I won't :( still yeah I suppose unfortunate for you all the same :)
Ah, I dunno, over on alt.music.rush, the Rush vs religion debate has been raging for *YEARS* and will still be here in years....so I guess that might be the case here :)
And why not the devil is as valid to worship as any other "supernateral being" :) of course worship of the devil first requires you to belive in one, which really doesn't seem like Daria to me :) I'm willing to be proved wrong tho.
So you'd stop watching an entire series of lets see 4x13 + TV Film + at least another 13 eps in season 5, because of one that you found offensive ? hey why not stick with the others and just ignore this one, as most of the rest of the group here seem to with "Depth Takes A Holiday" :)
She may point out how illogical it all is, but in the end accept that it is part of the human condition, and that as long as it does not adversly affect her, she can live with it :)
Phill....hopefully you'll find none of this offensive it's not meant to be :)
On 18 Jun 2000 17:16:27 GMT, [email] (krimren) wrote:
She doesn't, but she might joke about it.
Which I think is how the religion aspect will be dealt with, if it does play into here: Daria deftly evading the questions, and leaving everyone with their own idiotic conclusions.
I doubt that Quinn's becoming *religious* will be what will offend Daria. I think it will be the likely motivation and expression of these religious beliefs that will offend Daria.
Consider how fanatical Quinn is about *fashion* ...
I think the success of this episode will depend on how they choose to set it up. I personally wouldn't mind some humor in the mixture as long as there was some seriousness as well. Could this be the incident that pushes Quinn towards growing up?
On another note, has anyone guessed what the plots will be for eps. 412-413? I'm betting one will focus on Daria/Trent (of course). I'd like the other to be about Jane/Tom and their relationship(this one might be iffy, tho- they could just as easily deal with it as a storyline in other episodes).
I sure the only thing Daria will find offensive about religion would be the hypocrisy exhibited by many of its patrons. And Quinn might have a catharsis, only to blow it off by episodes end, and once again, be Quinn.
I'm betting 413 will be an "last day of school" episode, that will dub-tail into the movie in the fall. And I am sure the Jane/Tom/Daria plot seeds sown in ILAP will blossom in 412.
Still, it'd be cool if some traces of it stayed with her. Quinn being Quinn is one of the mainstays of the series, but we've seen in a couple episodes that she's not 100% happy with who she is (Monster, Too Cute).
I still think Trent will play a part in one of these episodes even if it's not a major one. Quite simply he's had nothing to do thus far fourth season. As for the Jane/Tom/Daria situation you're probably right about that. Although how this will resolve itself is anyone's guess.
This one could be a major step in Quinn's development, very interesting. Also this one has the potential to be a "classic" ep if it's done right.
I agree with all above, except I somehow believe it will all take place in #413. You'll see the last day of school thing, the Jane/Tom/Daria thing, and Trent will be factored into this with a significant if not long appearence in that ep. With the movie, they have the ability to get many things done in #413, and what/if they leave hanging at the end of #413, they will address in the movie. And yes how the triangle above will be resolved if at all will be anyone's guess, but whatever happens, someone will get hurt.
I don't know about that. They've yet to do an episode where a conflict between Daria and Jane wasn't resolved at episode's end. Which has always kind of bothered me in a way; I'd like to see a situation where there was a true rift between the two. How would Daria handle it? How would Jane? Now we did get some hint of tension in ILAP- in Tom's relationship with Jane and Daria. But what they plan to do with this is uncertain until we see the new eps.- for all we know it might make Tom and Jane's relationship stronger while being the stimulus that finally brings Daria and Trent together. Or causes her to embark on a relationship with someone else. Until next week..... Speaking of the movie does anyone have any theories how that will turn out?
On 20 Jun 2000 23:57:58 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Of course, this is gonna annoy the heck out of me. The WWDD crowds are gonna descend on the place if Daria ever espouses and actual beliefs. I can't stand those people.
Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
You know, at first when you were telling me about that, I didn't know why exactly the WWDD camp annoyed you so much, but after a short while I've come to realize what exactly you meant by that and why you're so annoyed by it. I too am now deeply annoyed with such people, people who would dare to follow the exact verbiage of a bloody *cartoon* character, as if she was some grand messiah-like character whose message is of a higher authority. She's just a cartoon character in a cartoon show, and even though we might all see ourselves in her, she is not supposed to be the ruler of you. YOU are supposed to be the ruler of you. Thank you for sparking my development as a fan, Kyle.
LI (who desperately wants Father Martin to respond to some of the posts on this thread)
p.s.: I'm thinking about doing something because of this need for it...heh heh heh...stick around for further details...