FLM films - My Webpage

2002-12-19 22:18:00-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Joe Curwen <jcurwen@freeonline.com>)


In article <20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > >Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of >evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. >Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > >Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser >animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good >nor evil. They just exist. > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. What would god's attitude towards "graven images" (a la the first commandment) be? Aren't they evil in themselves, and shouldn't the righteous destroy them? I'm not sure that evil has to have free will to be evil within Christianity. Joe

2002-12-19 22:18:00-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Joe Curwen <jcurwen@freeonline.com>)


In article <20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > >Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of >evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. >Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > >Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser >animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good >nor evil. They just exist. > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. What would god's attitude towards "graven images" (a la the first commandment) be? Aren't they evil in themselves, and shouldn't the righteous destroy them? I'm not sure that evil has to have free will to be evil within Christianity. Joe

2002-12-20 00:14:45-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Jonathan)


"ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > All the more reason to kill them. I always wondered why people were so forgiving of Spike and Angel... While I like the characters (Spike more than Angel... funny gets you further with me), I would probably kill both of them if I were a Scooby... I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do not care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid and Spike just needs to pry that thing out of his head and it is killing spree central in Sunnydale (or LA)... I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their lives. Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened physical bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... Jonathan > Kate

2002-12-20 00:14:45-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Jonathan)


"ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > All the more reason to kill them. I always wondered why people were so forgiving of Spike and Angel... While I like the characters (Spike more than Angel... funny gets you further with me), I would probably kill both of them if I were a Scooby... I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do not care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid and Spike just needs to pry that thing out of his head and it is killing spree central in Sunnydale (or LA)... I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their lives. Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened physical bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... Jonathan > Kate

2002-12-20 01:25:46-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


I think he needs to spend a LOT of time reading up on this, and a good starting point is @ http://www.vampirefiles.com/myth.htm. BTW, regarding the Christian theology, IMHO humans are basically no better (or worse) than animals because we ARE animals. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > > Kate

2002-12-20 01:25:46-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


I think he needs to spend a LOT of time reading up on this, and a good starting point is @ http://www.vampirefiles.com/myth.htm. BTW, regarding the Christian theology, IMHO humans are basically no better (or worse) than animals because we ARE animals. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > > Kate

2002-12-20 02:04:00-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


> Bah. I reject this thesis. I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing as a person's spiritual essence. "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly believed that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3e02ae7f.613939@news.telusplanet.net... > On 20 Dec 2002 05:13:26 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) > wrote: > > > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > Bah. I reject this thesis. It seems to me that in Buffy in > particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have > no choice about it. You are just so constructed as to > delight in the pain and suffering of others. I don't care whether > you had a choice about delighting in the pain and suffering of > others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no > alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems > to me that the unredeemably evil are if anything more evil > than those who do evil but might be turned away from it. >

2002-12-20 02:04:00-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


> Bah. I reject this thesis. I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing as a person's spiritual essence. "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly believed that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3e02ae7f.613939@news.telusplanet.net... > On 20 Dec 2002 05:13:26 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) > wrote: > > > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > Bah. I reject this thesis. It seems to me that in Buffy in > particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have > no choice about it. You are just so constructed as to > delight in the pain and suffering of others. I don't care whether > you had a choice about delighting in the pain and suffering of > others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no > alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems > to me that the unredeemably evil are if anything more evil > than those who do evil but might be turned away from it. >

2002-12-20 05:13:26+00:00 - Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good nor evil. They just exist. Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving strictly in their own interest. For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before eating it. Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. Kate

2002-12-20 05:13:26+00:00 - Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good nor evil. They just exist. Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving strictly in their own interest. For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before eating it. Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. Kate

2002-12-20 05:17:55-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


David Johnston wrote: > > > - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the > >creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience > > Since when? The _exceptional_ vampire might have a conscience, > but the average one does not. Same thing could be said about humans, only the proportion with is probably a little higher.

2002-12-20 05:17:55-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


David Johnston wrote: > > > - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the > >creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience > > Since when? The _exceptional_ vampire might have a conscience, > but the average one does not. Same thing could be said about humans, only the proportion with is probably a little higher.

2002-12-20 05:19:26-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


ColdhrtedWench wrote: > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > > Kate I actually floated pretty much the same theory last month in "What is a Demon? Date: 2002-11-10 06:50:00 PST. It'll be interesting to see if you get the same responses.

2002-12-20 05:19:26-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


ColdhrtedWench wrote: > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > > Kate I actually floated pretty much the same theory last month in "What is a Demon? Date: 2002-11-10 06:50:00 PST. It'll be interesting to see if you get the same responses.

2002-12-20 07:43:02+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On 20 Dec 2002 05:13:26 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) wrote: >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Bah. I reject this thesis. It seems to me that in Buffy in particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have no choice about it. You are just so constructed as to delight in the pain and suffering of others. I don't care whether you had a choice about delighting in the pain and suffering of others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems to me that the unredeemably evil are if anything more evil than those who do evil but might be turned away from it.

2002-12-20 07:43:02+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On 20 Dec 2002 05:13:26 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) wrote: >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Bah. I reject this thesis. It seems to me that in Buffy in particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have no choice about it. You are just so constructed as to delight in the pain and suffering of others. I don't care whether you had a choice about delighting in the pain and suffering of others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems to me that the unredeemably evil are if anything more evil than those who do evil but might be turned away from it.

2002-12-20 10:06:47+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:04:00 -0600, "John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote: >> Bah. I reject this thesis. >"Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN >The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically >demonstrated Actually the presence or absence of a soul can actually be sensed in Buffy. - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the >creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience Since when? The _exceptional_ vampire might have a conscience, but the average one does not.

2002-12-20 10:06:47+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:04:00 -0600, "John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote: >> Bah. I reject this thesis. >"Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN >The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically >demonstrated Actually the presence or absence of a soul can actually be sensed in Buffy. - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the >creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience Since when? The _exceptional_ vampire might have a conscience, but the average one does not.

2002-12-20 11:06:38+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Mikeith <on@berr.net>)


"John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message news:x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01... > > Bah. I reject this thesis. > > I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing > as a person's spiritual essence. > > "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the > creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to > indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly believed > that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > The Buffyverse vampire has no soul unless it was acquired by magical means. This is unarguable and an important part of Buffy lore (after all, there would be no difference between Angel and Angelus).

2002-12-20 11:06:38+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Mikeith <on@berr.net>)


"John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message news:x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01... > > Bah. I reject this thesis. > > I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing > as a person's spiritual essence. > > "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the > creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to > indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly believed > that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > The Buffyverse vampire has no soul unless it was acquired by magical means. This is unarguable and an important part of Buffy lore (after all, there would be no difference between Angel and Angelus).

2002-12-20 11:41:04-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


Look dude, this wasn't my statement. Check it out @ http://www.vampirefiles.com/myth.htm. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3e02d129.9489151@news.telusplanet.net... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:04:00 -0600, "John R. Sellers" > <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote: > > >> Bah. I reject this thesis. > > >"Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > >The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > >demonstrated > > Actually the presence or absence of a soul can actually be sensed > in Buffy. > > - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the > >creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience > > Since when? The _exceptional_ vampire might have a conscience, > but the average one does not.

2002-12-20 11:41:04-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


Look dude, this wasn't my statement. Check it out @ http://www.vampirefiles.com/myth.htm. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3e02d129.9489151@news.telusplanet.net... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:04:00 -0600, "John R. Sellers" > <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote: > > >> Bah. I reject this thesis. > > >"Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > >The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > >demonstrated > > Actually the presence or absence of a soul can actually be sensed > in Buffy. > > - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the > >creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience > > Since when? The _exceptional_ vampire might have a conscience, > but the average one does not.

2002-12-20 11:48:10-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


People, stop looking only @ the Buffy vamps, and consider vampires in general. See http://www.vampirefiles.com/myth.htm and http://www.vampirefiles.com/links.htm for reference. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6qu50vk3127m7c0p43l51bv03beign6v29@4ax.com... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:06:38 GMT, "Mikeith" <on@berr.net> wrote: > > > > >"John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message > >news:x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01... > >> > Bah. I reject this thesis. > >> > >> I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing > >> as a person's spiritual essence. > >> > >> "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > >> The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > >> demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of > >the > >> creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > >> Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to > >> indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly > >believed > >> that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > >> > > > >The Buffyverse vampire has no soul unless it was acquired by magical means. > > Actually thats not entirely true. The Master, as well as other > vampires have indicated that they do themselves have souls. > > It's more correct to say that only 'human souls' have a conscience and > that vampires have 'demon souls' which do not have a conscience. > > Angel then, has a 'demon soul' and is cursed with a 'human soul'. > > st > > ------------------------------ > The Unlisted One > Associate Member > alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer > Evil Underground

2002-12-20 11:48:10-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


People, stop looking only @ the Buffy vamps, and consider vampires in general. See http://www.vampirefiles.com/myth.htm and http://www.vampirefiles.com/links.htm for reference. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6qu50vk3127m7c0p43l51bv03beign6v29@4ax.com... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:06:38 GMT, "Mikeith" <on@berr.net> wrote: > > > > >"John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message > >news:x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01... > >> > Bah. I reject this thesis. > >> > >> I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing > >> as a person's spiritual essence. > >> > >> "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > >> The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > >> demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of > >the > >> creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > >> Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to > >> indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly > >believed > >> that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > >> > > > >The Buffyverse vampire has no soul unless it was acquired by magical means. > > Actually thats not entirely true. The Master, as well as other > vampires have indicated that they do themselves have souls. > > It's more correct to say that only 'human souls' have a conscience and > that vampires have 'demon souls' which do not have a conscience. > > Angel then, has a 'demon soul' and is cursed with a 'human soul'. > > st > > ------------------------------ > The Unlisted One > Associate Member > alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer > Evil Underground

2002-12-20 11:52:03-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


Ok, for the last time, see http://www.vampirefiles.com/myths.htm. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "WtchyWmyn" <wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon> wrote in message news:20021220083253.10433.00000474@mb-ba.aol.com... > It's not just that a vampire lacks a soul, it's that the body is > inhabited/animated by a demon. > >

2002-12-20 11:52:03-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - ("John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net>)


Ok, for the last time, see http://www.vampirefiles.com/myths.htm. -- --- Check out today's quotes at http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. "WtchyWmyn" <wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon> wrote in message news:20021220083253.10433.00000474@mb-ba.aol.com... > It's not just that a vampire lacks a soul, it's that the body is > inhabited/animated by a demon. > >

2002-12-20 12:49:35-05:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > I suppose that depends on your definition of being good and evil. If being good means doing what you have been taught is right, and evil is intentionally doing something you know is wrong, then I have to say that animals absolutely are good and evil. I frequently refer to my sneaky, food stealing, retriever as being evil. Not evil in the sense of being demonically evil, or humanically (new word) evil, or world ending evil, but evil in the sense of bad dog evil. As for the soul debate, I agree that Christian theology teaches that only humans have souls, which, is one of the primary reasons I am not a Christian. It's a fruitless game that humans play, constantly attempting to assert their superiority over the rest of the planet. Mother nature always wins out. > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. That is the generally subscribed to theory, yes. I, however, have another theory that is widely ridiculed on this ng, but because I am extremely thick skinned I'll share it with you anyway. I believe that vampires in the Buffyverse have *two* souls. One is the demonic soul they accept when they become a vampire and the other is their human soul which is eternally trapped inside the vampires body and dominated by the demon soul. Certain spells, rituals, what have you, will suppress the demonic soul long enough for the human soul to reassert itself in the vampires body. This explains how Angel, even with a dominant human soul, has to struggle constantly with his baser vampire demon. And how Spike is completely polarized by his two souls, demonic and human. It also explains why the souls of Liam and William feel guilty about the things their vampiric shell has been doing in their supposed absence. If their souls were present and actually complicit in the vampire demons actions the guilt makes sense. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires do have a choice. Vampires know they are evil and they like it. Spike, for example, knows the difference between right and wrong. And he intentionally chooses, or did, to do wrong. And then he bragged about it. If the soul contains the knowledge for good and evil then every child would, at birth, know what is right and what is wrong. Clearly, that is not the case. Individuals are taught to follow the rules of the society they live in. In some cases those rules are similar, but in most cases they are not. Society judges what is good and evil, and by society's standards vampires are evil. As far as the religious aspect goes, Christianity does not judge vampires, only human souls, and if those human's souls have been judged and are in heaven or hell than Christianity has no more to say on the subject. So, I suppose you are correct in saying that vampires are not evil by Christian standards. By Christian standards they are nothing. Which begs the question of why William's soul seeks forgiveness from a Christian God? Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > Essentially, vampires are existing and behaving in their own interests. But not all animals are. Certain species, dogs for example, are only happy when they are helping humans. Leader dogs, police dogs, rescue dogs, all come to mind. These animals are trained to ignore their instincts and do what humans expect of them instead. > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > Yes, but a cat doesn't know that tormenting the mouse is wrong. If it would be possible to teach the cat that tormenting the mouse was wrong and the cat did it anyway, it would be evil. > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > It is interesting and one of the aspects of BtVS that make it so fascinating. For what it's worth I subscribe to the theory, and I believe ME does as well, that being good is a matter of free will. It may be, probably is, much more difficult for a vampire to exercise that free will, but no more difficult than it is for a Wiccan, or a Vengeance demon. -- Shannon Please vote for Firefly at Savemyshow.com, so that I can stay in the Captain's bunk.

2002-12-20 12:49:35-05:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > I suppose that depends on your definition of being good and evil. If being good means doing what you have been taught is right, and evil is intentionally doing something you know is wrong, then I have to say that animals absolutely are good and evil. I frequently refer to my sneaky, food stealing, retriever as being evil. Not evil in the sense of being demonically evil, or humanically (new word) evil, or world ending evil, but evil in the sense of bad dog evil. As for the soul debate, I agree that Christian theology teaches that only humans have souls, which, is one of the primary reasons I am not a Christian. It's a fruitless game that humans play, constantly attempting to assert their superiority over the rest of the planet. Mother nature always wins out. > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. That is the generally subscribed to theory, yes. I, however, have another theory that is widely ridiculed on this ng, but because I am extremely thick skinned I'll share it with you anyway. I believe that vampires in the Buffyverse have *two* souls. One is the demonic soul they accept when they become a vampire and the other is their human soul which is eternally trapped inside the vampires body and dominated by the demon soul. Certain spells, rituals, what have you, will suppress the demonic soul long enough for the human soul to reassert itself in the vampires body. This explains how Angel, even with a dominant human soul, has to struggle constantly with his baser vampire demon. And how Spike is completely polarized by his two souls, demonic and human. It also explains why the souls of Liam and William feel guilty about the things their vampiric shell has been doing in their supposed absence. If their souls were present and actually complicit in the vampire demons actions the guilt makes sense. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires do have a choice. Vampires know they are evil and they like it. Spike, for example, knows the difference between right and wrong. And he intentionally chooses, or did, to do wrong. And then he bragged about it. If the soul contains the knowledge for good and evil then every child would, at birth, know what is right and what is wrong. Clearly, that is not the case. Individuals are taught to follow the rules of the society they live in. In some cases those rules are similar, but in most cases they are not. Society judges what is good and evil, and by society's standards vampires are evil. As far as the religious aspect goes, Christianity does not judge vampires, only human souls, and if those human's souls have been judged and are in heaven or hell than Christianity has no more to say on the subject. So, I suppose you are correct in saying that vampires are not evil by Christian standards. By Christian standards they are nothing. Which begs the question of why William's soul seeks forgiveness from a Christian God? Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > Essentially, vampires are existing and behaving in their own interests. But not all animals are. Certain species, dogs for example, are only happy when they are helping humans. Leader dogs, police dogs, rescue dogs, all come to mind. These animals are trained to ignore their instincts and do what humans expect of them instead. > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > Yes, but a cat doesn't know that tormenting the mouse is wrong. If it would be possible to teach the cat that tormenting the mouse was wrong and the cat did it anyway, it would be evil. > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > It is interesting and one of the aspects of BtVS that make it so fascinating. For what it's worth I subscribe to the theory, and I believe ME does as well, that being good is a matter of free will. It may be, probably is, much more difficult for a vampire to exercise that free will, but no more difficult than it is for a Wiccan, or a Vengeance demon. -- Shannon Please vote for Firefly at Savemyshow.com, so that I can stay in the Captain's bunk.

2002-12-20 13:14:59-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


"John R. Sellers" wrote: > > People, stop looking only @ the Buffy vamps, and consider vampires in > general. > The discussion here is about the unique form of vampire found only in the Buffyverse.

2002-12-20 13:14:59-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


"John R. Sellers" wrote: > > People, stop looking only @ the Buffy vamps, and consider vampires in > general. > The discussion here is about the unique form of vampire found only in the Buffyverse.

2002-12-20 13:32:53+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon)


It's not just that a vampire lacks a soul, it's that the body is inhabited/animated by a demon.

2002-12-20 13:32:53+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon)


It's not just that a vampire lacks a soul, it's that the body is inhabited/animated by a demon.

2002-12-20 15:23:44-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


DarkMagic wrote: > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. > > That is the generally subscribed to theory, yes. I, however, have another > theory that is widely ridiculed on this ng, but because I am extremely thick > skinned I'll share it with you anyway. I believe that vampires in the > Buffyverse have *two* souls. One is the demonic soul they accept when they > become a vampire and the other is their human soul which is eternally > trapped inside the vampires body and dominated by the demon soul. Certain > spells, rituals, what have you, will suppress the demonic soul long enough > for the human soul to reassert itself in the vampires body. There's really nothing that I know of in Buffyverse mythology that negates your theory. It's such a muddled mythology that several theories could be equally plausible, and the real answer will never appear on screen. The one thing your theory does is explain what happens to the human soul after the demon takes over. The idea that Angel or Spike can get back their personal soul after it has left for wherever has always seemed a little strange. I've always gone with the Souls-R-Us theory myself.

2002-12-20 15:23:44-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


DarkMagic wrote: > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. > > That is the generally subscribed to theory, yes. I, however, have another > theory that is widely ridiculed on this ng, but because I am extremely thick > skinned I'll share it with you anyway. I believe that vampires in the > Buffyverse have *two* souls. One is the demonic soul they accept when they > become a vampire and the other is their human soul which is eternally > trapped inside the vampires body and dominated by the demon soul. Certain > spells, rituals, what have you, will suppress the demonic soul long enough > for the human soul to reassert itself in the vampires body. There's really nothing that I know of in Buffyverse mythology that negates your theory. It's such a muddled mythology that several theories could be equally plausible, and the real answer will never appear on screen. The one thing your theory does is explain what happens to the human soul after the demon takes over. The idea that Angel or Spike can get back their personal soul after it has left for wherever has always seemed a little strange. I've always gone with the Souls-R-Us theory myself.

2002-12-20 17:02:59-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


Mikeith wrote: > > > > Prove it, give me one line that the Master used which indicated he had any > soul at all. You will be looking awhile. He did do a great James Brown imitation.

2002-12-20 17:02:59-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


Mikeith wrote: > > > > Prove it, give me one line that the Master used which indicated he had any > soul at all. You will be looking awhile. He did do a great James Brown imitation.

2002-12-20 18:19:53+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:48:10 -0600, "John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote: >People, stop looking only @ the Buffy vamps, and consider vampires in >general. What newsgroup did you just post to?

2002-12-20 18:19:53+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:48:10 -0600, "John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote: >People, stop looking only @ the Buffy vamps, and consider vampires in >general. What newsgroup did you just post to?

2002-12-20 18:20:08+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:52:03 -0600, "John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote: >Ok, for the last time, see http://www.vampirefiles.com/myths.htm. > No.

2002-12-20 18:20:08+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:52:03 -0600, "John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote: >Ok, for the last time, see http://www.vampirefiles.com/myths.htm. > No.

2002-12-20 20:42:46+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>What would god's attitude towards "graven images" (a la the first commandment) be? Aren't they evil in themselves, and shouldn't the righteous destroy them? I'm not sure that evil has to have free will to be evil within Christianity.<< The image itself is not evil. It's worshipping it that's evil. Kate

2002-12-20 20:42:46+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>What would god's attitude towards "graven images" (a la the first commandment) be? Aren't they evil in themselves, and shouldn't the righteous destroy them? I'm not sure that evil has to have free will to be evil within Christianity.<< The image itself is not evil. It's worshipping it that's evil. Kate

2002-12-20 20:45:07+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>Bah. I reject this thesis.<< Well, I would think so. It wasn't intended to be serious. >>It seems to me that in Buffy in particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have no choice about it. You are just so constructed as to delight in the pain and suffering of others. I don't care whether you had a choice about delighting in the pain and suffering of others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems to me that the unredeemably evil are if anything more evil than those who do evil but might be turned away from it.<< So you consider cats to be evil, because they enjoy tormenting the mice they catch before eating them? Kate

2002-12-20 20:45:07+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>Bah. I reject this thesis.<< Well, I would think so. It wasn't intended to be serious. >>It seems to me that in Buffy in particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have no choice about it. You are just so constructed as to delight in the pain and suffering of others. I don't care whether you had a choice about delighting in the pain and suffering of others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems to me that the unredeemably evil are if anything more evil than those who do evil but might be turned away from it.<< So you consider cats to be evil, because they enjoy tormenting the mice they catch before eating them? Kate

2002-12-20 20:46:43+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>I actually floated pretty much the same theory last month in "What is a Demon? Date: 2002-11-10 06:50:00 PST. It'll be interesting to see if you get the same responses.<< I'm just enjoying watching everyone froth at the mouth here. ;) Kate

2002-12-20 20:46:43+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>I actually floated pretty much the same theory last month in "What is a Demon? Date: 2002-11-10 06:50:00 PST. It'll be interesting to see if you get the same responses.<< I'm just enjoying watching everyone froth at the mouth here. ;) Kate

2002-12-20 21:24:24+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Mikeith <on@berr.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6qu50vk3127m7c0p43l51bv03beign6v29@4ax.com... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:06:38 GMT, "Mikeith" <on@berr.net> wrote: > > > > >"John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message > >news:x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01... > >> > Bah. I reject this thesis. > >> > >> I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing > >> as a person's spiritual essence. > >> > >> "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > >> The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > >> demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of > >the > >> creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > >> Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to > >> indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly > >believed > >> that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > >> > > > >The Buffyverse vampire has no soul unless it was acquired by magical means. > > Actually thats not entirely true. The Master, as well as other > vampires have indicated that they do themselves have souls. > Prove it, give me one line that the Master used which indicated he had any soul at all. You will be looking awhile.

2002-12-20 21:24:24+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Mikeith <on@berr.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6qu50vk3127m7c0p43l51bv03beign6v29@4ax.com... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:06:38 GMT, "Mikeith" <on@berr.net> wrote: > > > > >"John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message > >news:x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01... > >> > Bah. I reject this thesis. > >> > >> I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing > >> as a person's spiritual essence. > >> > >> "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > >> The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > >> demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of > >the > >> creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > >> Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to > >> indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly > >believed > >> that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > >> > > > >The Buffyverse vampire has no soul unless it was acquired by magical means. > > Actually thats not entirely true. The Master, as well as other > vampires have indicated that they do themselves have souls. > Prove it, give me one line that the Master used which indicated he had any soul at all. You will be looking awhile.

2002-12-20 21:30:27+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (brian smith <brs483@worldnet.att.net>)


WARNING: the following is longish, and hardly at all related to Buffy, so you'd do best to skip it altogether! > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, especially higher order mammals, have intelligence, conscienceousness, and language. They share a very high percent of DNA with humans, and (in my experience) know when they are being naughty or nice (at least my dog did!). > Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good nor evil. They just exist. Actions and I suppose feelings, thoughts, etc. can be labeled good or evil. What is accomplished by labeling any person/animal/living thing as evil? > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. All creatures advanced enough to "make choices" chose what is in their best interest, i.e. what they estimate will make them the happiest. This choice might be to not steal the piece of candy in front of them, because that does harm to others and thus indirectly to themselves. Or they may choose to follow a code of morality that says not to steal to avoid going to Hell, which would make them quite unhappy in the end. Or they may figure, I like candy, so steal it and enjoy the taste. In the later case, the action is a bad choice, and is an "evil" action. The person is not truly acting in their own (or anyone's) best interest. Their is a disconnect or delusion that leads them to act badly, i.e. going down a path that leads them away from their true goal. > Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. In the Buffyverse, almost all vampires habitually do evil actions, by choice. A completely insane person who murders someone performs an evil action. The justice system would treat them differently than a legally sane murderer. But they both did evil. > They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. As do humans. But there is nothing 'simple' about it, for people or other animals. Even when a human willingingly sacrifices their own life, e.g. to protect their child, they are acting in their own best interest. > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. Maybe next time you will find the fortitute to state what you really do subscribe to. I would guess that would be more interesting then what you did state. :) > He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > > Kate

2002-12-20 21:30:27+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (brian smith <brs483@worldnet.att.net>)


WARNING: the following is longish, and hardly at all related to Buffy, so you'd do best to skip it altogether! > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, especially higher order mammals, have intelligence, conscienceousness, and language. They share a very high percent of DNA with humans, and (in my experience) know when they are being naughty or nice (at least my dog did!). > Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good nor evil. They just exist. Actions and I suppose feelings, thoughts, etc. can be labeled good or evil. What is accomplished by labeling any person/animal/living thing as evil? > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. All creatures advanced enough to "make choices" chose what is in their best interest, i.e. what they estimate will make them the happiest. This choice might be to not steal the piece of candy in front of them, because that does harm to others and thus indirectly to themselves. Or they may choose to follow a code of morality that says not to steal to avoid going to Hell, which would make them quite unhappy in the end. Or they may figure, I like candy, so steal it and enjoy the taste. In the later case, the action is a bad choice, and is an "evil" action. The person is not truly acting in their own (or anyone's) best interest. Their is a disconnect or delusion that leads them to act badly, i.e. going down a path that leads them away from their true goal. > Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. In the Buffyverse, almost all vampires habitually do evil actions, by choice. A completely insane person who murders someone performs an evil action. The justice system would treat them differently than a legally sane murderer. But they both did evil. > They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. As do humans. But there is nothing 'simple' about it, for people or other animals. Even when a human willingingly sacrifices their own life, e.g. to protect their child, they are acting in their own best interest. > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. Maybe next time you will find the fortitute to state what you really do subscribe to. I would guess that would be more interesting then what you did state. :) > He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > > Kate

2002-12-20 21:49:51+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com>, ColdhrtedWench <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote: > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. > He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. The thing is, the creators of the show don't hold the same views as you or your husband. And what they say goes. Vampires are evil. There's really no discussion to be had. -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2002-12-20 21:49:51+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Rob Myers <robm@robmyers.removethisspamblocker.net>)


In article <20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com>, ColdhrtedWench <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote: > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. > He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. The thing is, the creators of the show don't hold the same views as you or your husband. And what they say goes. Vampires are evil. There's really no discussion to be had. -- rob m at rob myers dot net

2002-12-20 22:19:11-05:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Arnold Kim <kim5@erols.com>)


"ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220215346.14082.00000436@mb-cg.aol.com... > >>Cats can't even comprehend that the mice are suffering, let alone do things > to the mice specifically for the purpose of causing suffering.<< > > How do you know what cats do and don't comprehend? And they pretty obviously Because that level of comprehension is actually relatively complex. I don't think even human infants are able to process something like that. > enjoy the mice freaking out and running around. Cats never play with anything > that just lies there. Maybe they enjoy the movement. Arnold Kim

2002-12-20 22:19:11-05:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Arnold Kim <kim5@erols.com>)


"ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220215346.14082.00000436@mb-cg.aol.com... > >>Cats can't even comprehend that the mice are suffering, let alone do things > to the mice specifically for the purpose of causing suffering.<< > > How do you know what cats do and don't comprehend? And they pretty obviously Because that level of comprehension is actually relatively complex. I don't think even human infants are able to process something like that. > enjoy the mice freaking out and running around. Cats never play with anything > that just lies there. Maybe they enjoy the movement. Arnold Kim

2002-12-20 23:24:05+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On 20 Dec 2002 20:45:07 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) wrote: >>>Bah. I reject this thesis.<< > >Well, I would think so. It wasn't intended to be serious. > >>>It seems to me that in Buffy in >particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have no choice about >it. You are just so constructed as to delight in the pain and suffering of >others. I don't care whether you had a choice about delighting in the pain and >suffering of others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no >alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems to me that the >unredeemably evil are if anything more evil >than those who do evil but might be turned away from it.<< > >So you consider cats to be evil, because they enjoy tormenting the mice they >catch before eating them? Cats don't enjoy the pain. They aren't really smart enough to figure out that the mice feel pain, much less care. They react the exact same way to anything that moves like a mouse.

2002-12-20 23:24:05+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On 20 Dec 2002 20:45:07 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) wrote: >>>Bah. I reject this thesis.<< > >Well, I would think so. It wasn't intended to be serious. > >>>It seems to me that in Buffy in >particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have no choice about >it. You are just so constructed as to delight in the pain and suffering of >others. I don't care whether you had a choice about delighting in the pain and >suffering of others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no >alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems to me that the >unredeemably evil are if anything more evil >than those who do evil but might be turned away from it.<< > >So you consider cats to be evil, because they enjoy tormenting the mice they >catch before eating them? Cats don't enjoy the pain. They aren't really smart enough to figure out that the mice feel pain, much less care. They react the exact same way to anything that moves like a mouse.

2002-12-21 00:53:29+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (paulfxfoley@aol.com)


ColdhrtedWench wrote: >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since >they >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the >basic >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Agreed. In fact, I always assumed this was a premise of the show. Vamps are like lions or sharks. A lion may kill men, but it is not evil; that's just what lions do. It's okay for the Slayer to kill vampires because they are dangerous. Angel and Spike complicate the picture. Actually there are moral complications in the lion analogy too: is it really okay to kill lions? Note that what Buffy (and all previous slayers) does is not hunt vampires to extinction, but rather keep a lid on the problem. Personally, I think there's a problem with the very concept of good and evil. It is an absolutist, dualistic conception of the world that is very dangerous. Particularly when it is given the "moral" force of religion. "They" are evil, "we" are good-- to the barricades! --Paul ------------------------------------- On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and Infidels adore. --Alexander Pope

2002-12-21 00:53:29+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (paulfxfoley@aol.com)


ColdhrtedWench wrote: >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since >they >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the >basic >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Agreed. In fact, I always assumed this was a premise of the show. Vamps are like lions or sharks. A lion may kill men, but it is not evil; that's just what lions do. It's okay for the Slayer to kill vampires because they are dangerous. Angel and Spike complicate the picture. Actually there are moral complications in the lion analogy too: is it really okay to kill lions? Note that what Buffy (and all previous slayers) does is not hunt vampires to extinction, but rather keep a lid on the problem. Personally, I think there's a problem with the very concept of good and evil. It is an absolutist, dualistic conception of the world that is very dangerous. Particularly when it is given the "moral" force of religion. "They" are evil, "we" are good-- to the barricades! --Paul ------------------------------------- On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and Infidels adore. --Alexander Pope

2002-12-21 01:56:06+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On 21 Dec 2002 00:53:29 GMT, paulfxfoley@aol.com (Paulfxfoley) wrote: >Personally, I think there's a problem with the very concept of good and evil. >It is an absolutist, dualistic conception of the world that is very dangerous. >Particularly when it is given the "moral" force of religion. "They" are evil, >"we" are good-- to the barricades! > Nah to hell with that. No matter how many people someone tortures to death for fun, they can never be evil, right?

2002-12-21 01:56:06+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On 21 Dec 2002 00:53:29 GMT, paulfxfoley@aol.com (Paulfxfoley) wrote: >Personally, I think there's a problem with the very concept of good and evil. >It is an absolutist, dualistic conception of the world that is very dangerous. >Particularly when it is given the "moral" force of religion. "They" are evil, >"we" are good-- to the barricades! > Nah to hell with that. No matter how many people someone tortures to death for fun, they can never be evil, right?

2002-12-21 02:53:46+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>Cats can't even comprehend that the mice are suffering, let alone do things to the mice specifically for the purpose of causing suffering.<< How do you know what cats do and don't comprehend? And they pretty obviously enjoy the mice freaking out and running around. Cats never play with anything that just lies there. Kate

2002-12-21 02:53:46+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>Cats can't even comprehend that the mice are suffering, let alone do things to the mice specifically for the purpose of causing suffering.<< How do you know what cats do and don't comprehend? And they pretty obviously enjoy the mice freaking out and running around. Cats never play with anything that just lies there. Kate

2002-12-21 02:55:43+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>Cats don't enjoy the pain. They aren't really smart enough to figure out that the mice feel pain, much less care. They react the exact same way to anything that moves like a mouse. << I have no idea what cats enjoy about it. They can't talk, so they can't tell me. But I know they enjoy the reaction they get from the mouse. Kate

2002-12-21 02:55:43+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>Cats don't enjoy the pain. They aren't really smart enough to figure out that the mice feel pain, much less care. They react the exact same way to anything that moves like a mouse. << I have no idea what cats enjoy about it. They can't talk, so they can't tell me. But I know they enjoy the reaction they get from the mouse. Kate

2002-12-21 03:05:12+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>> Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, especially higher order mammals, have intelligence, conscienceousness, and language. They share a very high percent of DNA with humans, and (in my experience) know when they are being naughty or nice (at least my dog did!).<< I have no idea what most of this has to do with the discussion, but it does bring up an interesting point. I doubt my dog has much moral judgement as to her actions, but she certainly knows when it's something I won't like, and reacts to my displeasure with something similar in appearance to guilt. Now, some people have said that Spike only does good things because he knows they will please Buffy, not because of any moral judgement on his part. So . . . yet another parallel between vampires and animals, and another reason to think that vampires aren't really evil. ;) >>Actions and I suppose feelings, thoughts, etc. can be labeled good or evil. What is accomplished by labeling any person/animal/living thing as evil?<< You mean, aside from the fact that good/evil creatures are part of Buffy canon? >>All creatures advanced enough to "make choices" chose what is in their best interest, i.e. what they estimate will make them the happiest. This choice might be to not steal the piece of candy in front of them, because that does harm to others and thus indirectly to themselves. Or they may choose to follow a code of morality that says not to steal to avoid going to Hell, which would make them quite unhappy in the end. Or they may figure, I like candy, so steal it and enjoy the taste. In the later case, the action is a bad choice, and is an "evil" action. The person is not truly acting in their own (or anyone's) best interest. Their is a disconnect or delusion that leads them to act badly, i.e. going down a path that leads them away from their true goal.<< You were right. This really didn't have much of anything to do with the topic. >>In the Buffyverse, almost all vampires habitually do evil actions, by choice. A completely insane person who murders someone performs an evil action. The justice system would treat them differently than a legally sane murderer. But they both did evil.<< Well, by the same token, a bear which mauls a child has done evil. But does that make the bear evil, or just a bear? >>As do humans. But there is nothing 'simple' about it, for people or other animals. Even when a human willingingly sacrifices their own life, e.g. to protect their child, they are acting in their own best interest.<< Huh? >>Maybe next time you will find the fortitute to state what you really do subscribe to. I would guess that would be more interesting then what you did state. :)<< Maybe next time I'll find the "fortitute" to not answer rude jerks like you. This was just a cute little idea my husband mentioned that I thought everyone would enjoy hearing. If you didn't like it, do me a favor and don't respond. Believe me, that would be more interesting than when you do. Kate

2002-12-21 03:05:12+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>> Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, especially higher order mammals, have intelligence, conscienceousness, and language. They share a very high percent of DNA with humans, and (in my experience) know when they are being naughty or nice (at least my dog did!).<< I have no idea what most of this has to do with the discussion, but it does bring up an interesting point. I doubt my dog has much moral judgement as to her actions, but she certainly knows when it's something I won't like, and reacts to my displeasure with something similar in appearance to guilt. Now, some people have said that Spike only does good things because he knows they will please Buffy, not because of any moral judgement on his part. So . . . yet another parallel between vampires and animals, and another reason to think that vampires aren't really evil. ;) >>Actions and I suppose feelings, thoughts, etc. can be labeled good or evil. What is accomplished by labeling any person/animal/living thing as evil?<< You mean, aside from the fact that good/evil creatures are part of Buffy canon? >>All creatures advanced enough to "make choices" chose what is in their best interest, i.e. what they estimate will make them the happiest. This choice might be to not steal the piece of candy in front of them, because that does harm to others and thus indirectly to themselves. Or they may choose to follow a code of morality that says not to steal to avoid going to Hell, which would make them quite unhappy in the end. Or they may figure, I like candy, so steal it and enjoy the taste. In the later case, the action is a bad choice, and is an "evil" action. The person is not truly acting in their own (or anyone's) best interest. Their is a disconnect or delusion that leads them to act badly, i.e. going down a path that leads them away from their true goal.<< You were right. This really didn't have much of anything to do with the topic. >>In the Buffyverse, almost all vampires habitually do evil actions, by choice. A completely insane person who murders someone performs an evil action. The justice system would treat them differently than a legally sane murderer. But they both did evil.<< Well, by the same token, a bear which mauls a child has done evil. But does that make the bear evil, or just a bear? >>As do humans. But there is nothing 'simple' about it, for people or other animals. Even when a human willingingly sacrifices their own life, e.g. to protect their child, they are acting in their own best interest.<< Huh? >>Maybe next time you will find the fortitute to state what you really do subscribe to. I would guess that would be more interesting then what you did state. :)<< Maybe next time I'll find the "fortitute" to not answer rude jerks like you. This was just a cute little idea my husband mentioned that I thought everyone would enjoy hearing. If you didn't like it, do me a favor and don't respond. Believe me, that would be more interesting than when you do. Kate

2002-12-21 07:32:12+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (brian smith <brs483@worldnet.att.net>)


"ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220220512.14082.00000440@mb-cg.aol.com... > Maybe next time I'll find the "fortitute" to not answer rude jerks like you. Is being called a 'rude jerk' by someone that calls themself a Cold-hearted Wench a form of flirtation? Sorry, I'm already taken. :) > This was just a cute little idea my husband mentioned that I thought everyone > would enjoy hearing. If you didn't like it, do me a favor and don't respond. Again, as tempting as doing favors for you may be, I'm already taken. :) > Believe me, that would be more interesting than when you do. My entire cute little response was just a theory that I do not at all subscribe to, and that was entirely the idea of someone else, anyway. I never intended for anyone to take it seriously--I just enjoy stirring things up. :) :) :) Brian (whose recently deceased dog was, indeed, good)

2002-12-21 07:32:12+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (brian smith <brs483@worldnet.att.net>)


"ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021220220512.14082.00000440@mb-cg.aol.com... > Maybe next time I'll find the "fortitute" to not answer rude jerks like you. Is being called a 'rude jerk' by someone that calls themself a Cold-hearted Wench a form of flirtation? Sorry, I'm already taken. :) > This was just a cute little idea my husband mentioned that I thought everyone > would enjoy hearing. If you didn't like it, do me a favor and don't respond. Again, as tempting as doing favors for you may be, I'm already taken. :) > Believe me, that would be more interesting than when you do. My entire cute little response was just a theory that I do not at all subscribe to, and that was entirely the idea of someone else, anyway. I never intended for anyone to take it seriously--I just enjoy stirring things up. :) :) :) Brian (whose recently deceased dog was, indeed, good)

2002-12-21 10:23:47+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Mikeith <on@berr.net>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E03BDC3.FF552476@rcn.com... > Mikeith wrote: > > > > > > > > Prove it, give me one line that the Master used which indicated he had any > > soul at all. You will be looking awhile. > > He did do a great James Brown imitation. LIIIVVIINNNN IN SUNNNYDALLLEEEE>>>>>>>I FEEL GOOD!

2002-12-21 10:23:47+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Mikeith <on@berr.net>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E03BDC3.FF552476@rcn.com... > Mikeith wrote: > > > > > > > > Prove it, give me one line that the Master used which indicated he had any > > soul at all. You will be looking awhile. > > He did do a great James Brown imitation. LIIIVVIINNNN IN SUNNNYDALLLEEEE>>>>>>>I FEEL GOOD!

2002-12-21 20:21:33+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>Is being called a 'rude jerk' by someone that calls themself a Cold-hearted Wench a form of flirtation? Sorry, I'm already taken. :) Again, as tempting as doing favors for you may be, I'm already taken. :)<< My condolences to her. That "plonk" you hear is yourself, disappearing into troll oblivion. Kate

2002-12-21 20:21:33+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>Is being called a 'rude jerk' by someone that calls themself a Cold-hearted Wench a form of flirtation? Sorry, I'm already taken. :) Again, as tempting as doing favors for you may be, I'm already taken. :)<< My condolences to her. That "plonk" you hear is yourself, disappearing into troll oblivion. Kate

2002-12-22 00:28:31+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2002-12-22 00:28:31+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2002-12-22 17:55:30-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Doomed_forthesakeofmomentum@hotmail.com)


coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) wrote in message news:<20021220215346.14082.00000436@mb-cg.aol.com>... > >>Cats can't even comprehend that the mice are suffering, let alone do things > to the mice specifically for the purpose of causing suffering.<< > > How do you know what cats do and don't comprehend? And they pretty obviously > enjoy the mice freaking out and running around. Cats never play with anything > that just lies there. > > Kate You call it "freaking out and running around." I call it movement. Maybe that's how cats see it. They act the same way with nonorganic objects that move around, too. It doesn't prove they understand the concept of their prey's suffering. Doesn't disprove it either, though it may "indicate" that the prey's suffering could be irrelevant. Either way you can conclude nothing, so cats and vampires are clearly a useless comparison. Any judgement we make about a cat is based on limited observation while judgements about vampires are based on canon from fictional universes where absolute truth exists and is often spelled out on screen by the characters.

2002-12-22 17:55:30-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Doomed_forthesakeofmomentum@hotmail.com)


coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) wrote in message news:<20021220215346.14082.00000436@mb-cg.aol.com>... > >>Cats can't even comprehend that the mice are suffering, let alone do things > to the mice specifically for the purpose of causing suffering.<< > > How do you know what cats do and don't comprehend? And they pretty obviously > enjoy the mice freaking out and running around. Cats never play with anything > that just lies there. > > Kate You call it "freaking out and running around." I call it movement. Maybe that's how cats see it. They act the same way with nonorganic objects that move around, too. It doesn't prove they understand the concept of their prey's suffering. Doesn't disprove it either, though it may "indicate" that the prey's suffering could be irrelevant. Either way you can conclude nothing, so cats and vampires are clearly a useless comparison. Any judgement we make about a cat is based on limited observation while judgements about vampires are based on canon from fictional universes where absolute truth exists and is often spelled out on screen by the characters.

2002-12-22 21:57:29+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (James Craine <JamesCraine@Hotmail.com>)


ColdhrtedWench wrote: > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be so.

2002-12-22 21:57:29+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (James Craine <JamesCraine@Hotmail.com>)


ColdhrtedWench wrote: > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be so.

2002-12-22 23:54:47-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil -- but are they responsible? - (Jonathan)


"Hunter" <buffhunter@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:MPG.18701d55a3fd7968989ae6@news.earthlink.net... > In article <atucgq01d14@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Jonathan" > <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> says... > > > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the > > nature of > > > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning > > souls. > > > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > > Lesser > > > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither > > good > > > nor evil. They just exist. > > > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > > they > > > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > > basic > > > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > > moral > > > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do > > not > > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are > > no > > > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and > > behaving > > > strictly in their own interest. > > > > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting > > and > > > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > > before > > > eating it. > > > > > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > > theory. He > > > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > > interesting. > > > > > > > All the more reason to kill them. > > > > I always wondered why people were so forgiving of Spike and Angel... > --- > In William and Angel's cases they have souls now making them human in the > greater sense of the word > > In the case of Angel it is non-permanent. In the case of Spike, I do not think that soul is preventing him from doing anything... of course, it looks like they are about to kill him off... > > While I like the characters (Spike more than Angel... funny gets you further > > with me), I would probably kill both of them if I were a Scooby... > > > > I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do not > > care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and > > transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid > --- > Not true. He has to find true happiness, not merely get laid. And they > are not responsible for past acts. > > I have had long chats with my wife about this... you see, we are both Stargate SG-1 fans... and when a G'ouald is discovered it is generally killed immediately... However, when a host is found, with a dead G'ouald then it is permitted to live... because the host was not the evil... the snake-thing in its head was... This was also discussed on Deep Space 9, was a trill responsible for the acts of its prior hosts? The answer was no, because the combination of symbiote and host make up the person... remove one from the equation, and it is a different being... So, back to vampires... What are they? We have seen that Angel and Angelus are completely different... but what about Spike? He seems to be insane with a soul... not a threat per se, but definitely different.... This is of paramount importance to me... Would Spike with a soul legally be liable for the acts of Spike-sans-soul? > > and Spike just needs to pry > > that thing out of his head and it is killing spree central in Sunnydale (or > > LA)... > --- > Well, he has a soul now and therefore because he was not a killer before > he died he is not one know and in anycase there is a chance that the chip > is not there anymore which I believe is the case. > > I think it still is... We shall see.. > > I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was > > always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their > > lives. > --- > If they have no souls I agree. > > > > Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether > > they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened physical > > bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > ---\ > In that case I agree. :-) > > Don't mess with Willow... she will destroy your world... and mine too, so be careful. Jonathan "No power in the 'verse can stop me..." > > > Kate > > > > > > > > -- > ----->Hunter > > "No man in the wrong can stand up against > a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." > > -----William J. McDonald > Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-22 23:54:47-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil -- but are they responsible? - (Jonathan)


"Hunter" <buffhunter@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:MPG.18701d55a3fd7968989ae6@news.earthlink.net... > In article <atucgq01d14@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Jonathan" > <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> says... > > > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the > > nature of > > > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning > > souls. > > > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > > Lesser > > > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither > > good > > > nor evil. They just exist. > > > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > > they > > > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > > basic > > > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > > moral > > > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do > > not > > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are > > no > > > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and > > behaving > > > strictly in their own interest. > > > > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting > > and > > > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > > before > > > eating it. > > > > > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > > theory. He > > > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > > interesting. > > > > > > > All the more reason to kill them. > > > > I always wondered why people were so forgiving of Spike and Angel... > --- > In William and Angel's cases they have souls now making them human in the > greater sense of the word > > In the case of Angel it is non-permanent. In the case of Spike, I do not think that soul is preventing him from doing anything... of course, it looks like they are about to kill him off... > > While I like the characters (Spike more than Angel... funny gets you further > > with me), I would probably kill both of them if I were a Scooby... > > > > I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do not > > care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and > > transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid > --- > Not true. He has to find true happiness, not merely get laid. And they > are not responsible for past acts. > > I have had long chats with my wife about this... you see, we are both Stargate SG-1 fans... and when a G'ouald is discovered it is generally killed immediately... However, when a host is found, with a dead G'ouald then it is permitted to live... because the host was not the evil... the snake-thing in its head was... This was also discussed on Deep Space 9, was a trill responsible for the acts of its prior hosts? The answer was no, because the combination of symbiote and host make up the person... remove one from the equation, and it is a different being... So, back to vampires... What are they? We have seen that Angel and Angelus are completely different... but what about Spike? He seems to be insane with a soul... not a threat per se, but definitely different.... This is of paramount importance to me... Would Spike with a soul legally be liable for the acts of Spike-sans-soul? > > and Spike just needs to pry > > that thing out of his head and it is killing spree central in Sunnydale (or > > LA)... > --- > Well, he has a soul now and therefore because he was not a killer before > he died he is not one know and in anycase there is a chance that the chip > is not there anymore which I believe is the case. > > I think it still is... We shall see.. > > I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was > > always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their > > lives. > --- > If they have no souls I agree. > > > > Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether > > they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened physical > > bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > ---\ > In that case I agree. :-) > > Don't mess with Willow... she will destroy your world... and mine too, so be careful. Jonathan "No power in the 'verse can stop me..." > > > Kate > > > > > > > > -- > ----->Hunter > > "No man in the wrong can stand up against > a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." > > -----William J. McDonald > Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-22 23:56:15+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > > Kate > --- Holden Webster said he physically felt connected to a greater all encompassing evil. He was describing a literal connection, not a feeling of brotherhood amongst his kind. Anyway it is achedemic. Any creature who takes specific delight in the misery of mankind should be snuffed out- unless they obtain souls of course. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-22 23:56:15+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > nor evil. They just exist. > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > strictly in their own interest. > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting and > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse before > eating it. > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this theory. He > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it interesting. > > Kate > --- Holden Webster said he physically felt connected to a greater all encompassing evil. He was describing a literal connection, not a feeling of brotherhood amongst his kind. Anyway it is achedemic. Any creature who takes specific delight in the misery of mankind should be snuffed out- unless they obtain souls of course. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:05:13+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <atucgq01d14@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> says... > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the > nature of > > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning > souls. > > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > Lesser > > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither > good > > nor evil. They just exist. > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > they > > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > basic > > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > moral > > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do > not > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are > no > > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and > behaving > > strictly in their own interest. > > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting > and > > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > before > > eating it. > > > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > theory. He > > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > interesting. > > > > All the more reason to kill them. > > I always wondered why people were so forgiving of Spike and Angel... --- In William and Angel's cases they have souls now making them human in the greater sense of the word > > While I like the characters (Spike more than Angel... funny gets you further > with me), I would probably kill both of them if I were a Scooby... > > I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do not > care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and > transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid --- Not true. He has to find true happiness, not merely get laid. And they are not responsible for past acts. > > and Spike just needs to pry > that thing out of his head and it is killing spree central in Sunnydale (or > LA)... --- Well, he has a soul now and therefore because he was not a killer before he died he is not one know and in anycase there is a chance that the chip is not there anymore which I believe is the case. > > I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was > always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their > lives. --- If they have no souls I agree. > > Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether > they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened physical > bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... > > > > > Jonathan ---\ In that case I agree. :-) > > > Kate > > > -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:05:13+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <atucgq01d14@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> says... > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the > nature of > > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning > souls. > > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > Lesser > > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither > good > > nor evil. They just exist. > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > they > > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > basic > > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > moral > > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do > not > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are > no > > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and > behaving > > strictly in their own interest. > > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting > and > > frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > before > > eating it. > > > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > theory. He > > just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > interesting. > > > > All the more reason to kill them. > > I always wondered why people were so forgiving of Spike and Angel... --- In William and Angel's cases they have souls now making them human in the greater sense of the word > > While I like the characters (Spike more than Angel... funny gets you further > with me), I would probably kill both of them if I were a Scooby... > > I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do not > care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and > transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid --- Not true. He has to find true happiness, not merely get laid. And they are not responsible for past acts. > > and Spike just needs to pry > that thing out of his head and it is killing spree central in Sunnydale (or > LA)... --- Well, he has a soul now and therefore because he was not a killer before he died he is not one know and in anycase there is a chance that the chip is not there anymore which I believe is the case. > > I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was > always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their > lives. --- If they have no souls I agree. > > Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether > they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened physical > bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... > > > > > Jonathan ---\ In that case I agree. :-) > > > Kate > > > -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:07:30+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <atucmo021a6@drn.newsguy.com>, jcurwen@freeonline.com says... > In article <20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com > says... > > > >Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > >evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > >Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > >Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > >animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > >nor evil. They just exist. > > > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > > What would god's attitude towards "graven images" (a la the first commandment) > be? Aren't they evil in themselves, and shouldn't the righteous destroy them? > I'm not sure that evil has to have free will to be evil within Christianity. > > Joe > > --- Vampires are not a god image (all though they believe they should rule over us like we rule over cattle) and we don't worship them so it is a moot point. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:07:30+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <atucmo021a6@drn.newsguy.com>, jcurwen@freeonline.com says... > In article <20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com > says... > > > >Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > >evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > >Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > >Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > >animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > >nor evil. They just exist. > > > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > > What would god's attitude towards "graven images" (a la the first commandment) > be? Aren't they evil in themselves, and shouldn't the righteous destroy them? > I'm not sure that evil has to have free will to be evil within Christianity. > > Joe > > --- Vampires are not a god image (all though they believe they should rule over us like we rule over cattle) and we don't worship them so it is a moot point. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:12:48+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01>, johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net says... > > Bah. I reject this thesis. > > > "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message > news:3e02ae7f.613939@news.telusplanet.net... > > On 20 Dec 2002 05:13:26 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) > > wrote: > > > > > > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > they > > >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > basic > > >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > moral > > >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > > > Bah. I reject this thesis. It seems to me that in Buffy in > > particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have > > no choice about it. You are just so constructed as to > > delight in the pain and suffering of others. I don't care whether > > you had a choice about delighting in the pain and suffering of > > others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no > > alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems > > to me that the unredeemably evil are if anything more evil > > than those who do evil but might be turned away from it. > > > > > I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing > as a person's spiritual essence. > > "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the > creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to > indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly believed > that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > > > > -- > --- > Check out today's quotes at > http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. > --- You are mixing reality and the Buffyverse in an invalid way. On BtVS souls exist along with magic a vampires and zombies and witches and insanity producing hellgods. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:12:48+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01>, johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net says... > > Bah. I reject this thesis. > > > "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message > news:3e02ae7f.613939@news.telusplanet.net... > > On 20 Dec 2002 05:13:26 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) > > wrote: > > > > > > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > they > > >are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > basic > > >theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > moral > > >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > > > Bah. I reject this thesis. It seems to me that in Buffy in > > particular, it is possible to be innately evil so that you have > > no choice about it. You are just so constructed as to > > delight in the pain and suffering of others. I don't care whether > > you had a choice about delighting in the pain and suffering of > > others. If you do, then you are evil. And if you have no > > alternative, then you are _unredeemably_ evil. And it seems > > to me that the unredeemably evil are if anything more evil > > than those who do evil but might be turned away from it. > > > > > I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be describing > as a person's spiritual essence. > > "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior of the > creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend to > indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly believed > that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > > > > -- > --- > Check out today's quotes at > http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. > --- You are mixing reality and the Buffyverse in an invalid way. On BtVS souls exist along with magic a vampires and zombies and witches and insanity producing hellgods. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:17:57+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <9CIM9.23546$K5.6309@fe01>, johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net says... > People, stop looking only @ the Buffy vamps, and consider vampires in > general. > > See http://www.vampirefiles.com/myth.htm and > http://www.vampirefiles.com/links.htm for reference. > > -- > --- > Check out today's quotes at > http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. > > > "st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:6qu50vk3127m7c0p43l51bv03beign6v29@4ax.com... > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:06:38 GMT, "Mikeith" <on@berr.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >"John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message > > >news:x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01... > > >> > Bah. I reject this thesis. > > >> > > >> I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be > describing > > >> as a person's spiritual essence. > > >> > > >> "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > > >> The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > > >> demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior > of > > >the > > >> creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > > >> Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend > to > > >> indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly > > >believed > > >> that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > > >> > > > > > >The Buffyverse vampire has no soul unless it was acquired by magical > means. > > > > Actually thats not entirely true. The Master, as well as other > > vampires have indicated that they do themselves have souls. > > > > It's more correct to say that only 'human souls' have a conscience and > > that vampires have 'demon souls' which do not have a conscience. > > > > Angel then, has a 'demon soul' and is cursed with a 'human soul'. > > > > st > > > > ------------------------------ > > The Unlisted One > > Associate Member > > alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer > > Evil Underground > > > > --- Invalid. This is a Buffy group. There is no profit in exploring vampire lore in general if you are going to argue that Buffyverse vampires are morally abiguous. I mean I compare "Forever Knight" vampires with Buffyverse vamps all the time but I do not mix the two. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:17:57+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <9CIM9.23546$K5.6309@fe01>, johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net says... > People, stop looking only @ the Buffy vamps, and consider vampires in > general. > > See http://www.vampirefiles.com/myth.htm and > http://www.vampirefiles.com/links.htm for reference. > > -- > --- > Check out today's quotes at > http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. > > > "st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:6qu50vk3127m7c0p43l51bv03beign6v29@4ax.com... > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:06:38 GMT, "Mikeith" <on@berr.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >"John R. Sellers" <johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message > > >news:x2AM9.23005$K5.7182@fe01... > > >> > Bah. I reject this thesis. > > >> > > >> I agree. Physically speaking, no one has a soul. A soul can be > describing > > >> as a person's spiritual essence. > > >> > > >> "Vampires have no souls" - UNKNOWN > > >> The existence of a soul is not something that can be empirically > > >> demonstrated - rather, its existence is implied based on the behavior > of > > >the > > >> creature in question. The average Vampire has a conscience, and many > > >> Vampires have addressed the existence of their souls. This would tend > to > > >> indicate that Vampires do, indeed, posses souls, as it is commonly > > >believed > > >> that only a creature with a soul would care if it had one. > > >> > > > > > >The Buffyverse vampire has no soul unless it was acquired by magical > means. > > > > Actually thats not entirely true. The Master, as well as other > > vampires have indicated that they do themselves have souls. > > > > It's more correct to say that only 'human souls' have a conscience and > > that vampires have 'demon souls' which do not have a conscience. > > > > Angel then, has a 'demon soul' and is cursed with a 'human soul'. > > > > st > > > > ------------------------------ > > The Unlisted One > > Associate Member > > alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer > > Evil Underground > > > > --- Invalid. This is a Buffy group. There is no profit in exploring vampire lore in general if you are going to argue that Buffyverse vampires are morally abiguous. I mean I compare "Forever Knight" vampires with Buffyverse vamps all the time but I do not mix the two. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:27:05+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220215346.14082.00000436@mb-cg.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > >>Cats can't even comprehend that the mice are suffering, let alone do things > to the mice specifically for the purpose of causing suffering.<< > > How do you know what cats do and don't comprehend? And they pretty obviously > enjoy the mice freaking out and running around. Cats never play with anything > that just lies there. > > Kate > --- They are stimulated by the movement but they run on instinct and have no comprehension of right and wrong or act with malice aforethought. They do not understand suffering. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:27:05+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220215346.14082.00000436@mb-cg.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > >>Cats can't even comprehend that the mice are suffering, let alone do things > to the mice specifically for the purpose of causing suffering.<< > > How do you know what cats do and don't comprehend? And they pretty obviously > enjoy the mice freaking out and running around. Cats never play with anything > that just lies there. > > Kate > --- They are stimulated by the movement but they run on instinct and have no comprehension of right and wrong or act with malice aforethought. They do not understand suffering. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:33:16+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220215543.14082.00000437@mb-cg.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > >>Cats don't enjoy the pain. They aren't really smart enough to figure out > that the mice feel pain, much less care. They react the exact same way to > anything that moves like a mouse. << > > I have no idea what cats enjoy about it. They can't talk, so they can't tell > me. But I know they enjoy the reaction they get from the mouse. > > Kate > --- They enjoy the reaction they get from the mouse but it does not comprehend that the mouse is in misery. Understanding pain in other require abstract thought. Cats when they see themselves in mirrors don't comprehend that it is themselves they are seeing (the higher apes like chimpanzees understand it is themselves in the mirror). They think it is another cat. A vampire will drive a knife into your eye, know you are suffering by your screams and will sit back and actively enjoy every second of your pain. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:33:16+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220215543.14082.00000437@mb-cg.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > >>Cats don't enjoy the pain. They aren't really smart enough to figure out > that the mice feel pain, much less care. They react the exact same way to > anything that moves like a mouse. << > > I have no idea what cats enjoy about it. They can't talk, so they can't tell > me. But I know they enjoy the reaction they get from the mouse. > > Kate > --- They enjoy the reaction they get from the mouse but it does not comprehend that the mouse is in misery. Understanding pain in other require abstract thought. Cats when they see themselves in mirrors don't comprehend that it is themselves they are seeing (the higher apes like chimpanzees understand it is themselves in the mirror). They think it is another cat. A vampire will drive a knife into your eye, know you are suffering by your screams and will sit back and actively enjoy every second of your pain. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:36:25+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <NFIM9.23549$K5.13026@fe01>, johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net says... > Ok, for the last time, see http://www.vampirefiles.com/myths.htm. > > -- > --- > Check out today's quotes at > http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. > > > "WtchyWmyn" <wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon> wrote in message > news:20021220083253.10433.00000474@mb-ba.aol.com... > > It's not just that a vampire lacks a soul, it's that the body is > > inhabited/animated by a demon. > > > > > > > > --- Fore the last time this is a Buffy group so your URL is a non-sequitur. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 00:36:25+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <NFIM9.23549$K5.13026@fe01>, johnrsellers@sysmatrix.net says... > Ok, for the last time, see http://www.vampirefiles.com/myths.htm. > > -- > --- > Check out today's quotes at > http://www.sysmatrix.net/~johnrsellers/qotd.html. > > > "WtchyWmyn" <wtchywmyn@aol.comSpamBGon> wrote in message > news:20021220083253.10433.00000474@mb-ba.aol.com... > > It's not just that a vampire lacks a soul, it's that the body is > > inhabited/animated by a demon. > > > > > > > > --- Fore the last time this is a Buffy group so your URL is a non-sequitur. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 01:08:10+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <ovKdnbQAvoH_xZ6jXTWcpA@comcast.com>, slnospambilan@comcast.net says... > > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the > nature of > > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning > souls. > > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > Lesser > > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither > good > > nor evil. They just exist. > > > I suppose that depends on your definition of being good and evil. If being > good means doing what you have been taught is right, and evil is > intentionally doing something you know is wrong, then I have to say that > animals absolutely are good and evil. ---- No they are not. They have no concept of good and evil. They are trained. They do not make moral choices. If they did then let us put the next pit bull on trial for murder when it mauls a four year old child. Due process don't you know. > I frequently refer to my sneaky, food > stealing, retriever as being evil. Not evil in the sense of being > demonically evil, or humanically (new word) evil, or world ending evil, but > evil in the sense of bad dog evil. --- Nope. It is following instinct of getting food when it can be cause it dosen't have a concept of past and future and putting off self satisfaction. > > As for the soul debate, I agree that Christian theology teaches that only > humans have souls, which, is one of the primary reasons I am not a > Christian. It's a fruitless game that humans play, constantly attempting to > assert their superiority over the rest of the planet. Mother nature always > wins out. --- We are superiour. > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. > > That is the generally subscribed to theory, yes. I, however, have another > theory that is widely ridiculed on this ng, but because I am extremely thick > skinned I'll share it with you anyway. I believe that vampires in the > Buffyverse have *two* souls. One is the demonic soul they accept when they > become a vampire and the other is their human soul which is eternally > trapped inside the vampires body and dominated by the demon soul. ---- You just described a "Forever Knight" vampire, not a Buffyverse vamp. > > Certain spells, rituals, what have you, will suppress the demonic soul long enough > for the human soul to reassert itself in the vampires body. --- Nope. It has been stated and/or implied in the Buffyverse that a soul is physically removed or returned to the body. In fact in an up coming episode of "Angel" if the spoilers are right Angel's soul will be put in a bottle. > > This explains how Angel, even with a dominant human soul, has to struggle constantly with > his baser vampire demon. --- That is because his soul was returned to his body with out the demon being removed. > > And how Spike is completely polarized by his two souls, demonic and human. --- Nope; he also had The First banging around his head with the destinct possiblity of God also knocking around in there. > > It also explains why the souls of Liam and > William feel guilty about the things their vampiric shell has been doing in > their supposed absence. If their souls were present and actually complicit > in the vampire demons actions the guilt makes sense. ---- Ever heard of survivor's guilt? Also they have first hand memory of what "they" did before their souls are returned. It is only natural they feel guilt. It is not logical, but emotions are not logical. > > They are more problematic, since they > > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > basic > > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > moral > > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > Vampires do have a choice. Vampires know they are evil and they like it. > Spike, for example, knows the difference between right and wrong. And he > intentionally chooses, or did, to do wrong. And then he bragged about it. ---- They don't choose evil they are evil. Just like The First is evil. A vampire's demon is a derivative of The First, not a seperate entity. A soul gives you the power to choose between right and wrong. > > If the soul contains the knowledge for good and evil then every child would, > at birth, know what is right and what is wrong. --- It is not about knowledge it is about the capability of choice. > > Clearly, that is not the case. Individuals are taught to follow the rules > of the society they live in. In some cases those rules are similar, but in > most cases they are not. Society judges what is good and evil, and by society's > standards vampires are evil. --- I think a person or unsouled vampire who delights in the tearing apart of a baby is by any standard evil. The difference is that a vampire by its essence is evil. > > As far as the religious aspect goes, Christianity does not judge vampires, > only human souls, and if those human's souls have been judged and are in > heaven or hell than Christianity has no more to say on the subject. So, I > suppose you are correct in saying that vampires are not evil by Christian > standards. By Christian standards they are nothing. Which begs the question > of why William's soul seeks forgiveness from a Christian God? --- Because he is suffering from a form of survivor's guilt and the memory of all of the crimes done by Spike is weighing on him. > > > Vampires, in this theory, do not > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are > > no more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and > > behaving strictly in their own interest. > > > Essentially, vampires are existing and behaving in their own interests. But > not all animals are. Certain species, dogs for example, are only happy when > they are helping humans. Leader dogs, police dogs, rescue dogs, all come to > mind. These animals are trained to ignore their instincts and do what > humans expect of them instead. --- That is correct, they are trained not tought. The difference that a Bomb sniffing dog did not volunteer for the bomb squed while his human handler/trainer did. The human made a choice. The dog didn't. > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting > > and frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > > before eating it. > > > Yes, but a cat doesn't know that tormenting the mouse is wrong. If it would > be possible to teach the cat that tormenting the mouse was wrong and the cat > did it anyway, it would be evil. --- Correct. > > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > > theory. He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > > interesting. > > > It is interesting and one of the aspects of BtVS that make it so > fascinating. For what it's worth I subscribe to the theory, and I believe > ME does as well, that being good is a matter of free will. It may be, > probably is, much more difficult for a vampire to exercise that free will, > but no more difficult than it is for a Wiccan, or a Vengeance demon. --- I think JW is banging all of us over the head with the idea that an unsouled vampire CANNOT be good. That was the reason for the attempted rape scene, Spike confessing to Buffy what he did to girls. His saying to her last year "You know what I am". He banged us over the head with it again at least three times when we were at the raising of three new vampires that tried to kill Buffy. The stuck in the grave vampire, the old woman vampire in the funeral parlor and Holden Webster talk with Buffy. I am sorry JW clearly wants us to think of vampires without souls as irredemably evil.I say name one good unsouled vampire that has desided not to kill for moralities sake. As to vengence demons, Anya twice made the moral judgement not to kill and indeed was ready to sacrifice herself to undue the killing she was responsible for in the fraternity. Do you think for one instant that pre soul Spike or Angelus or Drusilla or even Harmony would sacrifice themselves if they could restore some of the dead they killed to their former selves? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. > -- > Shannon > Please vote for Firefly at Savemyshow.com, so that I can stay in the > Captain's bunk. - ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 01:08:10+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <ovKdnbQAvoH_xZ6jXTWcpA@comcast.com>, slnospambilan@comcast.net says... > > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the > nature of > > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning > souls. > > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > Lesser > > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither > good > > nor evil. They just exist. > > > I suppose that depends on your definition of being good and evil. If being > good means doing what you have been taught is right, and evil is > intentionally doing something you know is wrong, then I have to say that > animals absolutely are good and evil. ---- No they are not. They have no concept of good and evil. They are trained. They do not make moral choices. If they did then let us put the next pit bull on trial for murder when it mauls a four year old child. Due process don't you know. > I frequently refer to my sneaky, food > stealing, retriever as being evil. Not evil in the sense of being > demonically evil, or humanically (new word) evil, or world ending evil, but > evil in the sense of bad dog evil. --- Nope. It is following instinct of getting food when it can be cause it dosen't have a concept of past and future and putting off self satisfaction. > > As for the soul debate, I agree that Christian theology teaches that only > humans have souls, which, is one of the primary reasons I am not a > Christian. It's a fruitless game that humans play, constantly attempting to > assert their superiority over the rest of the planet. Mother nature always > wins out. --- We are superiour. > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. > > That is the generally subscribed to theory, yes. I, however, have another > theory that is widely ridiculed on this ng, but because I am extremely thick > skinned I'll share it with you anyway. I believe that vampires in the > Buffyverse have *two* souls. One is the demonic soul they accept when they > become a vampire and the other is their human soul which is eternally > trapped inside the vampires body and dominated by the demon soul. ---- You just described a "Forever Knight" vampire, not a Buffyverse vamp. > > Certain spells, rituals, what have you, will suppress the demonic soul long enough > for the human soul to reassert itself in the vampires body. --- Nope. It has been stated and/or implied in the Buffyverse that a soul is physically removed or returned to the body. In fact in an up coming episode of "Angel" if the spoilers are right Angel's soul will be put in a bottle. > > This explains how Angel, even with a dominant human soul, has to struggle constantly with > his baser vampire demon. --- That is because his soul was returned to his body with out the demon being removed. > > And how Spike is completely polarized by his two souls, demonic and human. --- Nope; he also had The First banging around his head with the destinct possiblity of God also knocking around in there. > > It also explains why the souls of Liam and > William feel guilty about the things their vampiric shell has been doing in > their supposed absence. If their souls were present and actually complicit > in the vampire demons actions the guilt makes sense. ---- Ever heard of survivor's guilt? Also they have first hand memory of what "they" did before their souls are returned. It is only natural they feel guilt. It is not logical, but emotions are not logical. > > They are more problematic, since they > > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > basic > > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > moral > > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > Vampires do have a choice. Vampires know they are evil and they like it. > Spike, for example, knows the difference between right and wrong. And he > intentionally chooses, or did, to do wrong. And then he bragged about it. ---- They don't choose evil they are evil. Just like The First is evil. A vampire's demon is a derivative of The First, not a seperate entity. A soul gives you the power to choose between right and wrong. > > If the soul contains the knowledge for good and evil then every child would, > at birth, know what is right and what is wrong. --- It is not about knowledge it is about the capability of choice. > > Clearly, that is not the case. Individuals are taught to follow the rules > of the society they live in. In some cases those rules are similar, but in > most cases they are not. Society judges what is good and evil, and by society's > standards vampires are evil. --- I think a person or unsouled vampire who delights in the tearing apart of a baby is by any standard evil. The difference is that a vampire by its essence is evil. > > As far as the religious aspect goes, Christianity does not judge vampires, > only human souls, and if those human's souls have been judged and are in > heaven or hell than Christianity has no more to say on the subject. So, I > suppose you are correct in saying that vampires are not evil by Christian > standards. By Christian standards they are nothing. Which begs the question > of why William's soul seeks forgiveness from a Christian God? --- Because he is suffering from a form of survivor's guilt and the memory of all of the crimes done by Spike is weighing on him. > > > Vampires, in this theory, do not > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are > > no more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and > > behaving strictly in their own interest. > > > Essentially, vampires are existing and behaving in their own interests. But > not all animals are. Certain species, dogs for example, are only happy when > they are helping humans. Leader dogs, police dogs, rescue dogs, all come to > mind. These animals are trained to ignore their instincts and do what > humans expect of them instead. --- That is correct, they are trained not tought. The difference that a Bomb sniffing dog did not volunteer for the bomb squed while his human handler/trainer did. The human made a choice. The dog didn't. > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting > > and frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > > before eating it. > > > Yes, but a cat doesn't know that tormenting the mouse is wrong. If it would > be possible to teach the cat that tormenting the mouse was wrong and the cat > did it anyway, it would be evil. --- Correct. > > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > > theory. He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > > interesting. > > > It is interesting and one of the aspects of BtVS that make it so > fascinating. For what it's worth I subscribe to the theory, and I believe > ME does as well, that being good is a matter of free will. It may be, > probably is, much more difficult for a vampire to exercise that free will, > but no more difficult than it is for a Wiccan, or a Vengeance demon. --- I think JW is banging all of us over the head with the idea that an unsouled vampire CANNOT be good. That was the reason for the attempted rape scene, Spike confessing to Buffy what he did to girls. His saying to her last year "You know what I am". He banged us over the head with it again at least three times when we were at the raising of three new vampires that tried to kill Buffy. The stuck in the grave vampire, the old woman vampire in the funeral parlor and Holden Webster talk with Buffy. I am sorry JW clearly wants us to think of vampires without souls as irredemably evil.I say name one good unsouled vampire that has desided not to kill for moralities sake. As to vengence demons, Anya twice made the moral judgement not to kill and indeed was ready to sacrifice herself to undue the killing she was responsible for in the fraternity. Do you think for one instant that pre soul Spike or Angelus or Drusilla or even Harmony would sacrifice themselves if they could restore some of the dead they killed to their former selves? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. > -- > Shannon > Please vote for Firefly at Savemyshow.com, so that I can stay in the > Captain's bunk. - ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 01:10:14+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <3E03A680.AFF4BED1@rcn.com>, Carmikl@rcn.com says... > DarkMagic wrote: > > > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. > > > > That is the generally subscribed to theory, yes. I, however, have another > > theory that is widely ridiculed on this ng, but because I am extremely thick > > skinned I'll share it with you anyway. I believe that vampires in the > > Buffyverse have *two* souls. One is the demonic soul they accept when they > > become a vampire and the other is their human soul which is eternally > > trapped inside the vampires body and dominated by the demon soul. Certain > > spells, rituals, what have you, will suppress the demonic soul long enough > > for the human soul to reassert itself in the vampires body. > > There's really nothing that I know of in Buffyverse mythology that > negates your theory. It's such a muddled mythology that several theories > could be equally plausible, and the real answer will never appear on > screen. The one thing your theory does is explain what happens to the > human soul after the demon takes over. The idea that Angel or Spike can > get back their personal soul after it has left for wherever has always > seemed a little strange. I've always gone with the Souls-R-Us theory > myself. > --- If there is one area in which JW has been totally unambiguous is the area of vampires. Vampire without souls are evil, vampires with souls are good but have to struggle with the memories and against the demon still in them. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 01:10:14+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <3E03A680.AFF4BED1@rcn.com>, Carmikl@rcn.com says... > DarkMagic wrote: > > > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. > > > > That is the generally subscribed to theory, yes. I, however, have another > > theory that is widely ridiculed on this ng, but because I am extremely thick > > skinned I'll share it with you anyway. I believe that vampires in the > > Buffyverse have *two* souls. One is the demonic soul they accept when they > > become a vampire and the other is their human soul which is eternally > > trapped inside the vampires body and dominated by the demon soul. Certain > > spells, rituals, what have you, will suppress the demonic soul long enough > > for the human soul to reassert itself in the vampires body. > > There's really nothing that I know of in Buffyverse mythology that > negates your theory. It's such a muddled mythology that several theories > could be equally plausible, and the real answer will never appear on > screen. The one thing your theory does is explain what happens to the > human soul after the demon takes over. The idea that Angel or Spike can > get back their personal soul after it has left for wherever has always > seemed a little strange. I've always gone with the Souls-R-Us theory > myself. > --- If there is one area in which JW has been totally unambiguous is the area of vampires. Vampire without souls are evil, vampires with souls are good but have to struggle with the memories and against the demon still in them. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 01:21:12+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <TZLM9.71691$hK4.5881079@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, brs483@worldnet.att.net says... > WARNING: the following is longish, and hardly at all > related to Buffy, so you'd do best to skip it altogether! > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. > Animals, especially higher order mammals, have intelligence, > conscienceousness, and language. They share a very high percent of DNA > with humans, and (in my experience) know when they > are being naughty or nice (at least my dog did!). --- But most of them (the higher apes excepting) have no capability of abstract or moral thought or choice. > > > Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good nor evil. They just > > exist. Actions and I suppose feelings, thoughts, etc. can be labeled good or evil. > > What is accomplished by labeling any person/animal/living thing as evil? > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > > they are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > > basic theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > > moral and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > All creatures advanced enough > to "make choices" chose what is in their best interest, i.e. what they > estimate will make them the happiest. This choice might be to > not steal the piece of candy in front of them, because that > does harm to others and thus indirectly to themselves. --- But you see only humans and perhap Benobo chimpanzees are capable of that, no other. > > Or they may choose to follow a code of morality that says not to steal to avoid > going to Hell, which would make them quite unhappy in the end. > Or they may figure, I like candy, so steal it and enjoy the taste. > In the later case, the action is a bad choice, and is an "evil" action. > The person is not truly acting in their own (or anyone's) best interest. > Their is a disconnect or delusion that leads them to act badly, > i.e. going down a path that leads them away from their true goal. --- All you said are the domain of humans. > > > Vampires, in this theory, do not > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are > > no more evil than a dog would be. > > In the Buffyverse, almost all vampires habitually do evil actions, > by choice. A completely insane person who murders someone > performs an evil action. The justice system would treat them > differently than a legally sane murderer. But they both did evil. --- Ah,but unless that vampire has a soul there is no cure for the vampire. I > > > They are simply animals, existing and behaving > > strictly in their own interest. > > As do humans. But there is nothing 'simple' about it, for people or other > animals. > Even when a human willingingly sacrifices their own life, e.g. to protect > their child, they are acting in their own best interest. --- Ah, but they also sacrifice themselves for complete strangers. > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting > > and frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > > before eating it. Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > > theory. > > Maybe next time you will find the fortitute to state what you really do subscribe to. > I would guess that would be more interesting then what you did state. :) > > > He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > interesting. > > > > Kate > -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 01:21:12+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <TZLM9.71691$hK4.5881079@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, brs483@worldnet.att.net says... > WARNING: the following is longish, and hardly at all > related to Buffy, so you'd do best to skip it altogether! > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. > Animals, especially higher order mammals, have intelligence, > conscienceousness, and language. They share a very high percent of DNA > with humans, and (in my experience) know when they > are being naughty or nice (at least my dog did!). --- But most of them (the higher apes excepting) have no capability of abstract or moral thought or choice. > > > Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good nor evil. They just > > exist. Actions and I suppose feelings, thoughts, etc. can be labeled good or evil. > > What is accomplished by labeling any person/animal/living thing as evil? > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > > they are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > > basic theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between > > moral and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > All creatures advanced enough > to "make choices" chose what is in their best interest, i.e. what they > estimate will make them the happiest. This choice might be to > not steal the piece of candy in front of them, because that > does harm to others and thus indirectly to themselves. --- But you see only humans and perhap Benobo chimpanzees are capable of that, no other. > > Or they may choose to follow a code of morality that says not to steal to avoid > going to Hell, which would make them quite unhappy in the end. > Or they may figure, I like candy, so steal it and enjoy the taste. > In the later case, the action is a bad choice, and is an "evil" action. > The person is not truly acting in their own (or anyone's) best interest. > Their is a disconnect or delusion that leads them to act badly, > i.e. going down a path that leads them away from their true goal. --- All you said are the domain of humans. > > > Vampires, in this theory, do not > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are > > no more evil than a dog would be. > > In the Buffyverse, almost all vampires habitually do evil actions, > by choice. A completely insane person who murders someone > performs an evil action. The justice system would treat them > differently than a legally sane murderer. But they both did evil. --- Ah,but unless that vampire has a soul there is no cure for the vampire. I > > > They are simply animals, existing and behaving > > strictly in their own interest. > > As do humans. But there is nothing 'simple' about it, for people or other > animals. > Even when a human willingingly sacrifices their own life, e.g. to protect > their child, they are acting in their own best interest. --- Ah, but they also sacrifice themselves for complete strangers. > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in tormenting > > and frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > > before eating it. Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > > theory. > > Maybe next time you will find the fortitute to state what you really do subscribe to. > I would guess that would be more interesting then what you did state. :) > > > He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > interesting. > > > > Kate > -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 02:32:41+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220220512.14082.00000440@mb-cg.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > >>> Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. > Animals, especially higher order mammals, have intelligence, > conscienceousness, and language. They share a very high percent of DNA with > humans, and (in my experience) know when they are being naughty or nice (at > least my dog did!).<< > > I have no idea what most of this has to do with the discussion, but it does > bring up an interesting point. I doubt my dog has much moral judgement as to > her actions, but she certainly knows when it's something I won't like, and > reacts to my displeasure with something similar in appearance to guilt. Now, > some people have said that Spike only does good things because he knows they > will please Buffy, not because of any moral judgement on his part. So . . . > yet another parallel between vampires and animals, and another reason to think > that vampires aren't really evil. ;) --- The difference is that a dog doesn't understand why a certain action like pissing in the living room would desplease you, only that it does and will take it out side to avoid negative stimuli. A vampire would piss in your living room and laugh in your face. He understands full well that you don't like it and why. > > >>Actions and I suppose feelings, thoughts, etc. can be labeled good or evil. > What is accomplished by labeling any person/animal/living thing as evil?<< > > You mean, aside from the fact that good/evil creatures are part of Buffy canon? > > >>All creatures advanced enough to "make choices" chose what is in their best > interest, i.e. what they estimate will make them the happiest. This choice > might be to not steal the piece of candy in front of them, because that does > harm to others and thus indirectly to themselves. Or they may choose to follow > a code of morality that says not to steal to avoid going to Hell, which would > make them quite unhappy in the end. Or they may figure, I like candy, so steal > it and enjoy the taste. > In the later case, the action is a bad choice, and is an "evil" action. The > person is not truly acting in their own (or anyone's) best interest. Their is a > disconnect or delusion that leads them to act badly, > i.e. going down a path that leads them away from their true goal.<< > > You were right. This really didn't have much of anything to do with the topic. > > >>In the Buffyverse, almost all vampires habitually do evil actions, by choice. > A completely insane person who murders someone performs an evil action. The > justice system would treat them > differently than a legally sane murderer. But they both did evil.<< > > Well, by the same token, a bear which mauls a child has done evil. But does > that make the bear evil, or just a bear? --- Just a bear. To the bear that poor child is just a small animal. To a vampire it is a baby back rib. Ask Darla. > > >>As do humans. But there is nothing 'simple' about it, for people or other > animals. Even when a human willingingly sacrifices their own life, e.g. to > protect their child, they are acting in their own best interest.<< > > Huh? --- On a primitive level, ensuring his/her genes are past on to the next generation. > > >>Maybe next time you will find the fortitute to state what you really do > subscribe to. I would guess that would be more interesting then what you did > state. :)<< > > Maybe next time I'll find the "fortitute" to not answer rude jerks like you. > This was just a cute little idea my husband mentioned that I thought everyone > would enjoy hearing. If you didn't like it, do me a favor and don't respond. > Believe me, that would be more interesting than when you do. > > Kate > -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 02:32:41+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220220512.14082.00000440@mb-cg.aol.com>, coldhrtedwench@aol.com says... > >>> Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. > Animals, especially higher order mammals, have intelligence, > conscienceousness, and language. They share a very high percent of DNA with > humans, and (in my experience) know when they are being naughty or nice (at > least my dog did!).<< > > I have no idea what most of this has to do with the discussion, but it does > bring up an interesting point. I doubt my dog has much moral judgement as to > her actions, but she certainly knows when it's something I won't like, and > reacts to my displeasure with something similar in appearance to guilt. Now, > some people have said that Spike only does good things because he knows they > will please Buffy, not because of any moral judgement on his part. So . . . > yet another parallel between vampires and animals, and another reason to think > that vampires aren't really evil. ;) --- The difference is that a dog doesn't understand why a certain action like pissing in the living room would desplease you, only that it does and will take it out side to avoid negative stimuli. A vampire would piss in your living room and laugh in your face. He understands full well that you don't like it and why. > > >>Actions and I suppose feelings, thoughts, etc. can be labeled good or evil. > What is accomplished by labeling any person/animal/living thing as evil?<< > > You mean, aside from the fact that good/evil creatures are part of Buffy canon? > > >>All creatures advanced enough to "make choices" chose what is in their best > interest, i.e. what they estimate will make them the happiest. This choice > might be to not steal the piece of candy in front of them, because that does > harm to others and thus indirectly to themselves. Or they may choose to follow > a code of morality that says not to steal to avoid going to Hell, which would > make them quite unhappy in the end. Or they may figure, I like candy, so steal > it and enjoy the taste. > In the later case, the action is a bad choice, and is an "evil" action. The > person is not truly acting in their own (or anyone's) best interest. Their is a > disconnect or delusion that leads them to act badly, > i.e. going down a path that leads them away from their true goal.<< > > You were right. This really didn't have much of anything to do with the topic. > > >>In the Buffyverse, almost all vampires habitually do evil actions, by choice. > A completely insane person who murders someone performs an evil action. The > justice system would treat them > differently than a legally sane murderer. But they both did evil.<< > > Well, by the same token, a bear which mauls a child has done evil. But does > that make the bear evil, or just a bear? --- Just a bear. To the bear that poor child is just a small animal. To a vampire it is a baby back rib. Ask Darla. > > >>As do humans. But there is nothing 'simple' about it, for people or other > animals. Even when a human willingingly sacrifices their own life, e.g. to > protect their child, they are acting in their own best interest.<< > > Huh? --- On a primitive level, ensuring his/her genes are past on to the next generation. > > >>Maybe next time you will find the fortitute to state what you really do > subscribe to. I would guess that would be more interesting then what you did > state. :)<< > > Maybe next time I'll find the "fortitute" to not answer rude jerks like you. > This was just a cute little idea my husband mentioned that I thought everyone > would enjoy hearing. If you didn't like it, do me a favor and don't respond. > Believe me, that would be more interesting than when you do. > > Kate > -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 02:44:00+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220195329.06707.00000159@mb-cj.aol.com>, paulfxfoley@aol.com says... > ColdhrtedWench wrote: > > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > >theyare intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > >basic theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > Agreed. In fact, I always assumed this was a premise of the show. > > Vamps are like lions or sharks. A lion may kill men, but it is not evil; > that's just what lions do. It's okay for the Slayer to kill vampires because > they are dangerous. --- Lions and sharks are working off instinct. They do not take pleasure in what they do. They have no concept of the life they are taking. They have no desire to subdue humanity. > > Angel and Spike complicate the picture. Actually there are moral complications > in the lion analogy too: is it really okay to kill lions? Note that what Buffy > (and all previous slayers) does is not hunt vampires to extinction, but rather > keep a lid on the problem. ---- They would if they could. Indeed, there are vigilante gangs dedicated to the extinction of vampires. As to your question is it really okay to kill lions? Not wontonly. Only if they pose a danger to human life, otherwise they are part of nature and are following nature's rules without sentient knowledge of what those rules are. > > Personally, I think there's a problem with the very concept of good and evil. > It is an absolutist, dualistic conception of the world that is very dangerous. > Particularly when it is given the "moral" force of religion. "They" are evil, > "we" are good-- to the barricades! > > > --Paul > ------------------------------------- > On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and > Infidels adore. > --Alexander Pope > --- When someone/thing kills someone you love knowing that it is wrong and takes aforethought pleasure in it that's evil. Clearly -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 02:44:00+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <20021220195329.06707.00000159@mb-cj.aol.com>, paulfxfoley@aol.com says... > ColdhrtedWench wrote: > > >Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since > >theyare intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the > >basic theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > >and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. > > Agreed. In fact, I always assumed this was a premise of the show. > > Vamps are like lions or sharks. A lion may kill men, but it is not evil; > that's just what lions do. It's okay for the Slayer to kill vampires because > they are dangerous. --- Lions and sharks are working off instinct. They do not take pleasure in what they do. They have no concept of the life they are taking. They have no desire to subdue humanity. > > Angel and Spike complicate the picture. Actually there are moral complications > in the lion analogy too: is it really okay to kill lions? Note that what Buffy > (and all previous slayers) does is not hunt vampires to extinction, but rather > keep a lid on the problem. ---- They would if they could. Indeed, there are vigilante gangs dedicated to the extinction of vampires. As to your question is it really okay to kill lions? Not wontonly. Only if they pose a danger to human life, otherwise they are part of nature and are following nature's rules without sentient knowledge of what those rules are. > > Personally, I think there's a problem with the very concept of good and evil. > It is an absolutist, dualistic conception of the world that is very dangerous. > Particularly when it is given the "moral" force of religion. "They" are evil, > "we" are good-- to the barricades! > > > --Paul > ------------------------------------- > On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and > Infidels adore. > --Alexander Pope > --- When someone/thing kills someone you love knowing that it is wrong and takes aforethought pleasure in it that's evil. Clearly -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 02:52:54+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <3E056839.5EC79B78@Hotmail.com>, JamesCraine@Hotmail.com says... > > > ColdhrtedWench wrote: > > > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > > nor evil. They just exist. > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > > strictly in their own interest. > > I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks > and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume > that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) > and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would > always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be > so. > > ---- Vampires don't choose to be evil. You have to have a soul for that. What they are as you state above. They were created by an evil force, therefore are evil. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 02:52:54+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <3E056839.5EC79B78@Hotmail.com>, JamesCraine@Hotmail.com says... > > > ColdhrtedWench wrote: > > > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the nature of > > evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning souls. > > Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. Lesser > > animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are neither good > > nor evil. They just exist. > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, since they > > are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But the basic > > theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice between moral > > and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this theory, do not > > have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and the > > conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires are no > > more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and behaving > > strictly in their own interest. > > I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks > and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume > that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) > and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would > always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be > so. > > ---- Vampires don't choose to be evil. You have to have a soul for that. What they are as you state above. They were created by an evil force, therefore are evil. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 02:59:54+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <a6lc0vs2iht0uqd4tm9isava8cmi4feml4@4ax.com>, striketoo@hotmail.com says... > On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:56:15 GMT, buffhunter@my-deja.com (Hunter) > wrote: > > >Holden Webster said he physically felt connected to a greater all > >encompassing evil. He was describing a literal connection, not a feeling > >of brotherhood amongst his kind. Anyway it is achedemic. Any creature who > >takes specific delight in the misery of mankind should be snuffed out- > >unless they obtain souls of course. > > And if, with a soul, he still chooses to kill? > > st > > ------------------------------ > The Unlisted One > Associate Member > alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer > Evil Underground > --- Then he is evil and deserving of death, just not the instant immediate death like he would have gotten without a soul. With a soul a vampire maybe evil, without one it is not a question, he is. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 02:59:54+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <a6lc0vs2iht0uqd4tm9isava8cmi4feml4@4ax.com>, striketoo@hotmail.com says... > On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:56:15 GMT, buffhunter@my-deja.com (Hunter) > wrote: > > >Holden Webster said he physically felt connected to a greater all > >encompassing evil. He was describing a literal connection, not a feeling > >of brotherhood amongst his kind. Anyway it is achedemic. Any creature who > >takes specific delight in the misery of mankind should be snuffed out- > >unless they obtain souls of course. > > And if, with a soul, he still chooses to kill? > > st > > ------------------------------ > The Unlisted One > Associate Member > alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer > Evil Underground > --- Then he is evil and deserving of death, just not the instant immediate death like he would have gotten without a soul. With a soul a vampire maybe evil, without one it is not a question, he is. -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 07:55:23+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil -- but are they responsible? - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <au68f6017al@enews2.newsguy.com>, "Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> says... > > "Hunter" <buffhunter@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.18701d55a3fd7968989ae6@news.earthlink.net... > > In article <atucgq01d14@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Jonathan" > > <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> says... > > > > > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > > > news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > > > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the > > > > nature of evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning > > > > souls. Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > > > > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are > > > > neither good nor evil. They just exist. > > > > > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, > > > > since they are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But > > > > the basic theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice > > > > between moral and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this > > > > theory, do not have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and > > > > the conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires > > > > are no more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and > > > > behaving strictly in their own interest. > > > > > > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in > > > > tormenting and frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > > > > before eating it. > > > > > > > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > > > > theory. He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > > > > interesting. > > > > > > > > > > All the more reason to kill them. > > > > > > I always wondered why people were so forgiving of Spike and Angel... > > --- > > In William and Angel's cases they have souls now making them human in the > > greater sense of the word > > > > > In the case of Angel it is non-permanent. > > In the case of Spike, I do not think that soul is preventing him from doing > anything... of course, it looks like they are about to kill him off... > ---- Didn't you see the pain in his face since the season began, not to mention his voice breaking everytime he remembers what he did before the soul? The most recent was when he was heroicly trying to goad Buffy into steaking him he intimated about the awful things he did to girls Dawn's age in the past. It failed because he had to stifle a sob. He also has said several times, he hates himself. Vampires are perhaps the most vain creatures created. Just look at Holden Webster. > > > > While I like the characters (Spike more than Angel... funny gets you > > > further with me), I would probably kill both of them if I were a Scooby... > > > > > > I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do > > > not care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and > > > transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid > > --- > > Not true. He has to find true happiness, not merely get laid. And they > > are not responsible for past acts. > > > > > I have had long chats with my wife about this... you see, we are both > Stargate SG-1 fans... and when a G'ouald is discovered it is generally > killed immediately... > > However, when a host is found, with a dead G'ouald then it is permitted to > live... because the host was not the evil... the snake-thing in its head > was... > > This was also discussed on Deep Space 9, was a trill responsible for the > acts of its prior hosts? The answer was no, because the combination of > symbiote and host make up the person... remove one from the equation, and it > is a different being... > > So, back to vampires... > > What are they? > > We have seen that Angel and Angelus are completely different... but what > about Spike? ----- He too is complete different. In fact, I believe you are seeing some of what Angel went through 100 years ago when he got his soul. The insanity (and we only saw about a month and a half of William's insane period. He must had been a basketcase over the summer) The crushing guilt, the vagrancy, the rat blood drinking. Of course, Spike has had the added burden of The First rattling around inside his head. > > He seems to be insane with a soul... not a threat per se, but definitely > different.... ---- As I noted above, it is the guilt he feels. He remembers every killing he has done. So much fond memories before the soul, so much pain and burden with the soul. > > This is of paramount importance to me... > Would Spike with a soul legally be liable for the acts of Spike-sans-soul? ---- No. It is like someone with severe mental illness in real life. Liablity implies responsiblity. You cannot be responsible for actions when you are without a soul. Responsiblity is about moral choice. You cannot make moral choices without a soul. > > > > and Spike just needs to pry that thing out of his head and it is killing > > > spree central in Sunnydale (or LA)... > > --- > > Well, he has a soul now and therefore because he was not a killer before > > he died he is not one know and in anycase there is a chance that the chip > > is not there anymore which I believe is the case. > > > > > I think it still is... We shall see.. ---- I still state for the record and as I have been saying since last May that during the trial of the beetles one of them deliberately ran up the left nostril of Spike's nose and physically disconnected if not completely removed the chip from Spike's head. He as since and recent events have proved that he has been running on condition response driven by guilt: Hit a mortal receive pain. > > > > I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was > > > always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their > > > lives. > > --- > > If they have no souls I agree. > > > > > > Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether > > > they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened > > > physical bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... > > > > > > Jonathan > > ---\ > > In that case I agree. :-) > > Don't mess with Willow... she will destroy your world... and mine too, so be > careful. > > Jonathan > "No power in the 'verse can stop me..." > > > > > Kate -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-23 07:55:23+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil -- but are they responsible? - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


In article <au68f6017al@enews2.newsguy.com>, "Jonathan" <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> says... > > "Hunter" <buffhunter@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.18701d55a3fd7968989ae6@news.earthlink.net... > > In article <atucgq01d14@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Jonathan" > > <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> says... > > > > > > "ColdhrtedWench" <coldhrtedwench@aol.com> wrote in message > > > news:20021220001326.22393.00000218@mb-md.aol.com... > > > > Okay, here's my husband's troublemaking theory as to vampires and the > > > > nature of evil. It is based on standard Christian theological belief concerning > > > > souls. Please excuse me, but we are both prisoners of our upbringing. > > > > > > > > Anyway, standard Christian theology says that only humans have souls. > > > > Lesser animals, such as dogs, do not. Animals, I think we can agree, are > > > > neither good nor evil. They just exist. > > > > > > > > Vampires, of course, do not have souls. They are more problematic, > > > > since they are intelligent, sentient creatures and came from human origins. But > > > > the basic theory is that truly being evil requires that you have a choice > > > > between moral and immoral actions, and choose the immoral. Vampires, in this > > > > theory, do not have that choice available, because it is conveyed by the soul, and > > > > the conscience and moral compass attendant upon it. Therefore, vampires > > > > are no more evil than a dog would be. They are simply animals, existing and > > > > behaving strictly in their own interest. > > > > > > > > For those who would point out that vampires take pleasure in > > > > tormenting and frightening their prey, let me point you to a cat playing with a mouse > > > > before eating it. > > > > > > > > Let me just state again that neither of us really subscribe to this > > > > theory. He just likes stirring things up, and I thought you all might find it > > > > interesting. > > > > > > > > > > All the more reason to kill them. > > > > > > I always wondered why people were so forgiving of Spike and Angel... > > --- > > In William and Angel's cases they have souls now making them human in the > > greater sense of the word > > > > > In the case of Angel it is non-permanent. > > In the case of Spike, I do not think that soul is preventing him from doing > anything... of course, it looks like they are about to kill him off... > ---- Didn't you see the pain in his face since the season began, not to mention his voice breaking everytime he remembers what he did before the soul? The most recent was when he was heroicly trying to goad Buffy into steaking him he intimated about the awful things he did to girls Dawn's age in the past. It failed because he had to stifle a sob. He also has said several times, he hates himself. Vampires are perhaps the most vain creatures created. Just look at Holden Webster. > > > > While I like the characters (Spike more than Angel... funny gets you > > > further with me), I would probably kill both of them if I were a Scooby... > > > > > > I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do > > > not care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and > > > transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid > > --- > > Not true. He has to find true happiness, not merely get laid. And they > > are not responsible for past acts. > > > > > I have had long chats with my wife about this... you see, we are both > Stargate SG-1 fans... and when a G'ouald is discovered it is generally > killed immediately... > > However, when a host is found, with a dead G'ouald then it is permitted to > live... because the host was not the evil... the snake-thing in its head > was... > > This was also discussed on Deep Space 9, was a trill responsible for the > acts of its prior hosts? The answer was no, because the combination of > symbiote and host make up the person... remove one from the equation, and it > is a different being... > > So, back to vampires... > > What are they? > > We have seen that Angel and Angelus are completely different... but what > about Spike? ----- He too is complete different. In fact, I believe you are seeing some of what Angel went through 100 years ago when he got his soul. The insanity (and we only saw about a month and a half of William's insane period. He must had been a basketcase over the summer) The crushing guilt, the vagrancy, the rat blood drinking. Of course, Spike has had the added burden of The First rattling around inside his head. > > He seems to be insane with a soul... not a threat per se, but definitely > different.... ---- As I noted above, it is the guilt he feels. He remembers every killing he has done. So much fond memories before the soul, so much pain and burden with the soul. > > This is of paramount importance to me... > Would Spike with a soul legally be liable for the acts of Spike-sans-soul? ---- No. It is like someone with severe mental illness in real life. Liablity implies responsiblity. You cannot be responsible for actions when you are without a soul. Responsiblity is about moral choice. You cannot make moral choices without a soul. > > > > and Spike just needs to pry that thing out of his head and it is killing > > > spree central in Sunnydale (or LA)... > > --- > > Well, he has a soul now and therefore because he was not a killer before > > he died he is not one know and in anycase there is a chance that the chip > > is not there anymore which I believe is the case. > > > > > I think it still is... We shall see.. ---- I still state for the record and as I have been saying since last May that during the trial of the beetles one of them deliberately ran up the left nostril of Spike's nose and physically disconnected if not completely removed the chip from Spike's head. He as since and recent events have proved that he has been running on condition response driven by guilt: Hit a mortal receive pain. > > > > I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was > > > always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their > > > lives. > > --- > > If they have no souls I agree. > > > > > > Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether > > > they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened > > > physical bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... > > > > > > Jonathan > > ---\ > > In that case I agree. :-) > > Don't mess with Willow... she will destroy your world... and mine too, so be > careful. > > Jonathan > "No power in the 'verse can stop me..." > > > > > Kate -- ----->Hunter "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'." -----William J. McDonald Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

2002-12-24 05:55:07+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be so.<< Yes, but if they ALWAYS do evil, can they actually be said to be choosing it? I mean, do they actually have the option of doing good? Kate

2002-12-24 05:55:07+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (coldhrtedwench@aol.com)


>>I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be so.<< Yes, but if they ALWAYS do evil, can they actually be said to be choosing it? I mean, do they actually have the option of doing good? Kate

2002-12-24 06:54:25+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On 24 Dec 2002 05:55:07 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) wrote: >>>I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks >and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume >that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) >and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would >always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be >so.<< > >Yes, but if they ALWAYS do evil, can they actually be said to be choosing it? Does it matter? >I mean, do they actually have the option of doing good? Spike proves that they do have that option. It's just that they lack the normally requisite motivation. Un-souled Spike was incapable of feeling remorse for anything he did and got a great deal of pleasure from it. So it was all positive reinforcement for him until he both got chipped and fell in love with Buffy. That gave him both negative reinforcement (punishment for being bad) and positive reinforcement (getting Buffy to associate with him). So most of the time, he did good. Yes, vampires have the option of doing good. But they can't figure out why they should, most of the time. Basicly, they're psychopaths.

2002-12-24 06:54:25+00:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On 24 Dec 2002 05:55:07 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) wrote: >>>I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks >and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume >that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) >and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would >always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be >so.<< > >Yes, but if they ALWAYS do evil, can they actually be said to be choosing it? Does it matter? >I mean, do they actually have the option of doing good? Spike proves that they do have that option. It's just that they lack the normally requisite motivation. Un-souled Spike was incapable of feeling remorse for anything he did and got a great deal of pleasure from it. So it was all positive reinforcement for him until he both got chipped and fell in love with Buffy. That gave him both negative reinforcement (punishment for being bad) and positive reinforcement (getting Buffy to associate with him). So most of the time, he did good. Yes, vampires have the option of doing good. But they can't figure out why they should, most of the time. Basicly, they're psychopaths.

2002-12-24 10:20:30-05:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (W Gemini <wgeminiNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


David Johnston wrote: > On 24 Dec 2002 05:55:07 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) > wrote: > > >>>>I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks >>> >>and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume >>that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) >>and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would >>always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be >>so.<< >> >>Yes, but if they ALWAYS do evil, can they actually be said to be choosing it? > > > Does it matter? > > >>I mean, do they actually have the option of doing good? > > > Spike proves that they do have that option. It's just that they lack > the normally requisite motivation. Un-souled Spike was incapable > of feeling remorse for anything he did and got a great deal of > pleasure from it. So it was all positive reinforcement for him until > he both got chipped and fell in love with Buffy. That gave him > both negative reinforcement (punishment for being bad) and positive > reinforcement (getting Buffy to associate with him). > So most of the time, he did good. Yes, vampires have the option > of doing good. But they can't figure out why they should, most of > the time. Basicly, they're psychopaths. Sounds not that different from human. If you reward any human who kills with a million dollars instead of the gas chamber, New York's streets would be painted with blood. The problem is human never gave them any reason to do good in the first place. Buffy is going to kill them one way or the other (vampires freshly out of the tomb never did any harm, she still kill them in cold blood), unless they sleep with her. The society does not provide with them any protection, why would they following the society's rules? It's the society who must decide whether they want peace or an all out war. It's not a moral decision, but a practical one.

2002-12-24 10:20:30-05:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (W Gemini <wgeminiNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


David Johnston wrote: > On 24 Dec 2002 05:55:07 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) > wrote: > > >>>>I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks >>> >>and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume >>that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) >>and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would >>always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be >>so.<< >> >>Yes, but if they ALWAYS do evil, can they actually be said to be choosing it? > > > Does it matter? > > >>I mean, do they actually have the option of doing good? > > > Spike proves that they do have that option. It's just that they lack > the normally requisite motivation. Un-souled Spike was incapable > of feeling remorse for anything he did and got a great deal of > pleasure from it. So it was all positive reinforcement for him until > he both got chipped and fell in love with Buffy. That gave him > both negative reinforcement (punishment for being bad) and positive > reinforcement (getting Buffy to associate with him). > So most of the time, he did good. Yes, vampires have the option > of doing good. But they can't figure out why they should, most of > the time. Basicly, they're psychopaths. Sounds not that different from human. If you reward any human who kills with a million dollars instead of the gas chamber, New York's streets would be painted with blood. The problem is human never gave them any reason to do good in the first place. Buffy is going to kill them one way or the other (vampires freshly out of the tomb never did any harm, she still kill them in cold blood), unless they sleep with her. The society does not provide with them any protection, why would they following the society's rules? It's the society who must decide whether they want peace or an all out war. It's not a moral decision, but a practical one.

2002-12-25 17:59:35-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message news:<3e096af4.17072498@news.telusplanet.net>... > On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 09:22:56 GMT, buffhunter@my-deja.com (Hunter) > wrote: > > >In article <3e07e871.31087973@news.telusplanet.net>, > >rgorman@telusplanet.net says... > >> On 24 Dec 2002 05:55:07 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) > >> wrote: > >> > >> >>>I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks > >> >and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume > >> >that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) > >> >and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would > >> >always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be > >> >so.<< > >> > > >> >Yes, but if they ALWAYS do evil, can they actually be said to be choosing it? > >> > >> Does it matter? > >--- > >Yes. If you have choice you have free will, without free will, there is > >no responsibility. > > Does it matter whether or not vampires have any responsibility? > Wouldn't we (and by "we" I mean Buffy and co) have to deal > with them the same way either way? ----- If they had responsibility then it could be argued that they are entiteled to due process and if found guilty suffer the punishment of death. If they are not responsible and are following their nature then they are not entitled to due process and death is a matter of extermination and not punishment, because when you punishment you are both extracting a payment from the offender for his misdeeds and simultaneously warning others away from that activity. Vampires fail on both points unless the consequences are quite immediate and in their face and even then they will go back to their ways the moment that threat has passed. Severe mental illness, which I have often compared to be the closes real life situation to soullessness is a sickness to be treated and if possible, cured and not an evil to be destroyed. Even then, if they understand the difference between right and wrong they are still responsible for their actions and could be put to death. The premise is if they know that the voices in their head that is telling them to kill is false but they follow it anyway, then they are libel. Vampires both understand the differnce between right and wrong but take pleasure in doing wrong and just can't help themselves, period. It cannot be treated muchless cured. It is their natural state. So immediate distruction is the only way to deal with them. ---->Hunter

2002-12-25 17:59:35-08:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (buffhunter@my-deja.com)


rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message news:<3e096af4.17072498@news.telusplanet.net>... > On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 09:22:56 GMT, buffhunter@my-deja.com (Hunter) > wrote: > > >In article <3e07e871.31087973@news.telusplanet.net>, > >rgorman@telusplanet.net says... > >> On 24 Dec 2002 05:55:07 GMT, coldhrtedwench@aol.com (ColdhrtedWench) > >> wrote: > >> > >> >>>I agree about the animals, I have even said the same thing about sharks > >> >and pathogens, but I see the vamps. as a little different. I presume > >> >that the vamps. were created by some sentient being (maybe.... SATAN!!!) > >> >and created evil in the process. They were created so that they would > >> >always choose evil. Therefore they are evil because they choose to be > >> >so.<< > >> > > >> >Yes, but if they ALWAYS do evil, can they actually be said to be choosing it? > >> > >> Does it matter? > >--- > >Yes. If you have choice you have free will, without free will, there is > >no responsibility. > > Does it matter whether or not vampires have any responsibility? > Wouldn't we (and by "we" I mean Buffy and co) have to deal > with them the same way either way? ----- If they had responsibility then it could be argued that they are entiteled to due process and if found guilty suffer the punishment of death. If they are not responsible and are following their nature then they are not entitled to due process and death is a matter of extermination and not punishment, because when you punishment you are both extracting a payment from the offender for his misdeeds and simultaneously warning others away from that activity. Vampires fail on both points unless the consequences are quite immediate and in their face and even then they will go back to their ways the moment that threat has passed. Severe mental illness, which I have often compared to be the closes real life situation to soullessness is a sickness to be treated and if possible, cured and not an evil to be destroyed. Even then, if they understand the difference between right and wrong they are still responsible for their actions and could be put to death. The premise is if they know that the voices in their head that is telling them to kill is false but they follow it anyway, then they are libel. Vampires both understand the differnce between right and wrong but take pleasure in doing wrong and just can't help themselves, period. It cannot be treated muchless cured. It is their natural state. So immediate distruction is the only way to deal with them. ---->Hunter

2002-12-29 12:03:48-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Jonathan)


"Sam James" <samjames1NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3e0d45ba.23788015@news.fu-berlin.de... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:14:45 -0600, "Jonathan" > <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do not > >care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and > >transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid and Spike just needs to pry > >that thing out of his head and it is killing spree central in Sunnydale (or > >LA)... > > > >I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was > >always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their > >lives. > > > >Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether > >they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened physical > >bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... > > Ah, but couldn't we say the same about Willow. She might lose another > girlfriend and go off and try to destroy the world again. Would we > be right to kill her to keep us safe? > No. > And Buffy. She could easily go rogue like Faith. Should she be > killed too? > No... For the very simple reason that their past actions have not killed large numbers of people... Warren deserved to die (probably slower and more brutally than he actually did) and Buffy has never killed anyone. I am not talking prior-restraint here, Spike and Angel have killed hundreds, if not thousands of people. Jonathan >

2002-12-29 12:03:48-06:00 - Re: Vampires are not evil - (Jonathan)


"Sam James" <samjames1NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3e0d45ba.23788015@news.fu-berlin.de... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:14:45 -0600, "Jonathan" > <jrcdehc@nospam.nospam.\hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >I do believe that both deserve to die for their past acts, I really do not > >care how nice they are now, that is a precarious nice, unstable and > >transient... all Angel needs to do is get laid and Spike just needs to pry > >that thing out of his head and it is killing spree central in Sunnydale (or > >LA)... > > > >I remember a popular mantra from early in the show's life... that it was > >always wrong to kill humans.. It is, and the vamps should pay with their > >lives. > > > >Evil, Schmeavil... I don't care whether they have a soul or not, whether > >they are nice now or not... Angel and Spike have both threatened physical > >bodily harm to Willow and should pay with their lives... > > Ah, but couldn't we say the same about Willow. She might lose another > girlfriend and go off and try to destroy the world again. Would we > be right to kill her to keep us safe? > No. > And Buffy. She could easily go rogue like Faith. Should she be > killed too? > No... For the very simple reason that their past actions have not killed large numbers of people... Warren deserved to die (probably slower and more brutally than he actually did) and Buffy has never killed anyone. I am not talking prior-restraint here, Spike and Angel have killed hundreds, if not thousands of people. Jonathan >