tbaangel-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: Re: eps I want to see... Re: Format of Digest #18 Andrew Re: eps I want to see... Re: eps I want to see... Re: Into the Light Death stuff Re: eps I want to see... things we would like to see Re: quo vadis catherine? Re: eps I want to see... LISTNANNY: Re: Format of Digest #18 Just joining in. . . Re: quo vadis catherine? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:21:13 -0600 (CST) From: Di Sudduth To: AMarsh8597 @ . .addy.com Cc: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: eps I want to see... >Do I have any volunteers in writing a script of such a topic of an atheists >who still doesn't believe after seeing the evidence? I'd like to nominate one name of a *great* writer who would do a lovely job with the script. His name is J. Michael Straczynski and he is currently the sole writer, executive producer, and all-around man-in-charge-of-everything on the series Babylon 5. He has a most impressing writing resume in Hollywood, having written for many other shows including Murder She Wrote for several seasons. He is also a very well educated athiest. I've seen many of his posts on the CompuServe boards. He is the one person I'm absolutely sure could do the subject of athiests on TBAA *well*. Very well. Unfortunately he has *no* time until the Babylon 5 run completes. If TBAA lasts another season or 2 I hope they give him a shot at an episode. He has an incredible knowledge about religion and treats is very respectfully in his writing, so I know he'd be "true" to our angels and their beliefs. He's posted letters to the effect that when he's writing it matters not what *he* believes, he has to write what the *character* believes. >I have had it explained to me once that an atheist must have an incredible >amount of faith to say that they don't believe. There are so many things >that are unknown and that boggles human's penile minds that they spend their >whole life tryingto figure it out. I'm afraid that we're getting off-topic here, but this is intended to be discussion about a "wished-for" tbaa episode. Jennie, I know you won't hesitate to step in if you don't agree! :-) >From what I understand, and what I hope would be explained in the episode, should we ever get it, an athiest simply denies the existance of a "higher being directing our lives." You also ask where a "well-educated athiest gets their degree?" Often from the same place that a well-educated religious person gets theirs. The difference is that an athiest has read the bible, several other holy books, discussed religion and God at length with ministers/priests/rabbis/etc, and *still* thinks that it's all pleasant fiction. A good story, but with no possibility of being true. One life, occasionally filled with wild circumstances, no possibility of a heaven or future life. Dead is dead. Dead is over. One trip, no everlasting hosannahs. Pragmatic. Not that they don't appreciate life, they do, specially since they do not believe in "life everlasting" or whatever. Mysteries exist, and sometimes very strange things happen, but they chalk them up to serendipity or coincidence rather than divine intervention. With that background, and from the premise as stated on TBAA that God *does* exist and is presumably sad that there are people who still don't believe, I think it would be neat if He sent the angels to an athiest similar to the description above at a crisis point in their lives. To reveal Himself to them in the hopes that they would accept him into their hearts. And I can imagine the heartach Monica would feel at the final rejection and her refusal to believe the person. I can see Tess giving a very sad Free Will speech. And I would hope that it wouldn't add "sadly." That somehow it would end on a "God loves you anyway, and will accept you into heaven whatever you believe." a sort of "We'll prove it to you later" kind of thing. I've been trying to imagine Andrew's reaction to this scenario and I confess that I can't quite put my finger on it. Probably because he's had so much less screen time than Monica and Tess. I've been trying to extrapolate his reactions from "The Journalist" and the recent baby-on-plane episode but feel I don't have enough data to go on. The athiest-person I describe above isn't having a "death-related crisis." I know there are tbaa folk out there, AiA members and such :-), who have probably watched Andrew more closely. How do *you* think he'd react? >"I've met people before who didn't believe in angels, but I've never before >met one that didn't want to." That would never happen. Because it is >difficult to put trust and belief and faith in something that is unseen, I'll >admit to that. But to still say that you don't believe even after you have >seen concrete evidence is highly unlikely. Even "highly unlikely" gives room for folks who still won't believe. And the "evidence" you site in a TBAA episode is often an angel giving the 'I am an angel' speech while glowing with celestial light. Search-and-rescue situations aside, I can think of very few cases where an angel used his/her divine powers to perform a miracle. The healing of Pete's infected feet in "There But For The Grace Of God" is really the only direct "miracle" I can remember (I freely confess that I'm probably forgetting a couple of "big" somethings, though!) Sure, Monica painted a few apartments and cleaned the apartment in "Jacob's Ladder", but those seem fairly minor. And I just can't see God sanctioning an angelic dog-and-pony-show of miracles to prove His existence. Respect for Free Will, imho, does not mean getting out the brickbats to prove someone is wrong. Anyway, sorry this got so long. I'd find it highly unlikely if TBAA ever attempted a story like this, but the concept does intrigue me. What other stories would people like to see? Oh, Susan, you probably shouldn't forward this thread on to John while the show is in active production. If, by some weird chance, the producers have similar story ideas and both they and the folks on this forum hit on the same idea it could be a *major* copywrite incident. It sounds a little farfetched sometimes, but it did happen a couple of years ago in the Babylon 5 forums. Someone posted a detailed "what if" which pretty much matched a script that had already been written. It was a legal nightmare to resolve. Di <*> sudduthdj @ . .addy.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:29:19 -0500 (EST) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: Format of Digest #18 In a message dated 97-03-27 10:51:05 EST, Shari wrote: >How do other people feel about the current format? Am I the only one having >trouble with it? If so, maybe I should sign up for the individual posts >instead. I have to say that I totally agree. The style of quoting I've used here (which Shari modelled in her post) is the one I've become most accustomed to. It seems to be something of the norm on the 'net, I've found. I have seen several methods, but have found this one to be the most readily readable and easy to follow. I've been having trouble reading some of the posts where the quoted stuff and comments run together even in the non-digest format. I think that a number of people are using "AOL-style quoting", which can be changed in preferences if those people want it changed (one can also copy the text and simply set it up in a different style). [To change the AOL-quoting on a PC AOL program, one goes to the Members menu, to Set Preferences in that menu, to the Mail button, then clicks on the box by "Use AOL-Style Quoting" at the bottom of the box so that there is no "X" in the box.] ObTBAA: We havent' gotten our TV Guide yet and I am eagerly awaiting the chance to read another article. It's really amazing how the show has gone from basically no media coverage to being The Thing in the media (ET, Oprah, the women's magazines, TV Guide, etc...). I've also caught the credits of a couple of CBS shows where they're adverting the show--Dr. Quinn, Early Edition, and I think something else. They're choosing wisely, imo, the shows they're figuring will give them a large crossover audience. Amilyn *** --- I could confuse them to death; you know I could do that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:01:39 -0600 (CST) From: Darla Bradley To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Andrew Yes, Andrew IS Adorable! How do I join AiA? Andrew would be adorable even if John was not so strikingly handsome. Sensitivity and a compassionate heart can make ANY man extremely appealing. . .of course, John's good looks are just icing on the cake! Works for me. Darla Bradley Du Quoin, IL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:14:14 -0500 (EST) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: eps I want to see... Ooops...hit send too soon. Forgot to sign my name. Wanted to mention that I found someone who had Kate's Murphy Brown on tape. *Happy* me. Now I just need to convince her that it's easier to either trade tapes or for me to just send her *money* rather than tapes and an envelope and return postage. *Not* the tidiest way to handle this. Amy -- I could confuse them to death; you know I could do that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:15:30 -0500 (EST) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: eps I want to see... Mea culpa, mea culpa. I meant to send the note about tapes and Kate (Mulgrew, for the curious) to Di S. specifically, but I forgot to change the To line. Apologies to all. Amilyn ---- I could confuse them to death; you know I could do that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:27:35 -0500 (EST) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: Into the Light Death stuff In a message dated 97-03-27 00:15:44 EST, Diana wrote: >Those scenes where the guy looked into the light and then saw the >darkness kind of gets to me. I especially liked this aspect of this episode. I thought it was an interesting way to deal with the idea that, in the TBAA view of things--in their "universe" as it were, each person's reaction to Andrew, and, by association, Death, is colored by their expectations and beliefs. I think it is implied in this ep that in the TBAA universe, those people who see the light and have the desire to go toward it are the ones who already believe the light is there and that they have an invitation to go there. I got the impression that David Marciano's character saw the darkness--and saw it as threatening to him--because he believed that he was already damned and irredeemable. It was fascinating to watch how each character assumed that they could extrapolate from their experiences and how they believed that their experience would be universal, until they heard otherwise. David's character assumed that there simply *was* nothing until he talked to the dying lady on the floor. Then he assumed that, in spite of what she believe she had seen, that his experience was extrapolatable to Kirsten Dunst's character (I'm so sorry that I don't remember these characters' names anymore!) until he was, um...*convinced* otherwise by the angels. I was very impressed by the performance of the lady playing David's character's girlfriend/wife. I thought she was a well-written character, and the way the actress played the scene where she was watching David's character in the chapel was delicately played. Nicely done, imo. Bright blessings, Amilyn --- May the spirits stand between you and harm in all the empty places where you walk. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:14:11 -0500 (EST) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: eps I want to see... Di wrote (all quotes from Di's note): >Good premise. I'd even like them to *not* show the "preliminary" >angel-work in the episode. Maybe a flashback. I would like to see this happen more often. Often the eps of shows that I am most impressed with are the ones that *do* start in the middle of the action (in medias res, right? ....I'm actually forgetting my terminology, eep!). I think they're often the better eps because since we don't spend Act One setting things up, there are fifteen extra minutes to actually develop the plot and characters and spend more time with them. (This is, imo, why Babylon 5 so often seems to accomplish more than is possible in an hour of TV; they spend the first *season* setting up, and now no longer have to spend all of Act One setting up, so there are *four* acts instead of three to develop what's happening.) Some of the TBAA eps that have, imo, been the most excellent bits of television and storytelling have been in eps where they have not followed the typical structure. "Unidentified Female" was not told in sequence and was one of the most stunning pieces of writing I've seen them do. It also started in the middle of things, allowing more time to *show* the story instead of doing preliminary set up of stuff we'll see and understand as we go anyway. >I think Monica, with her gift of "truth", would >have a particularly hard time dealing with it. I totally agree that Monica would be terribly upset--almost devastated--by someone refusing to accept her message. She believes so firmly in the truth--and in the idea that she knows what the truth is. Several times they have dealt with the idea that what Monica thinks is the truth is not always actually the truth ("Groundrush" bein one example), and she is always bothered by that as well. It would be nice to see her bothered by the fact that someone didn't get to have the lovely things she wanted to offer. >"I've met people before who didn't believe in angels, but I've never before >met one that didn't want to." Might have been in Jacob's Ladder, but I'm >not sure. You're right about the ep. :-) >Saw the revelations, thanked >the angels for the help, but still rejected the "from God" message. It would be interesting to see an ep, like you said, where the person still didn't believe in God/Angels, but did accept the help Monica and Friends (gee, that sounded *totally* like a children's show title) offered. I think it would also make a really interesting subplot for the show to have someone *not* accept their help so that, for them, things do *not* seem to be working out. I don't think they could really do a whole ep where the main person being dealt with ultimately rejected them; it would run too counter to the show's premise and structure. However, they *could* have a dual plot system where the main storyline (with more far-reaching implications) actually was solved adequately, while the secondary plot ended in "failure" for Monica and Co. (This would also set them up for a sequel ep.) I know that this is a fantasy, and in a fantasy we have the option of everything working out, but realistically, that doesn't always happen. Believe me, I am among the first to argue that I deal with real life on a daily basis and I don't need my fantasy to reflect the occasional desolateness of life, but I think show would have even more impact if they *occasionally* reflected reality so that not everything worked out all neat and tidy. They have, to an extent, done this in ways. For example, I think that "Sins of the Father" was an *excellent* ep, and I think it did several of the things we're discussing here. The father had not believed in or listened to Tess years ago, nor had he even responded to Andrew's existence/presence. At the end of the ep, not everything is "fixed"; Luther is still on death row, the kid and mom are still faced with a gang and crime-ridden community where they must struggle against impressive odds to even survive--especially spiritually and emotionally. Now, I wouldn't want every ep to end this way, but I do think the occasional ep with things not all tidy make us think and are very high calibre. I also think that the occasional "reality" ep more closely ties the show to "our" reality. I like it when the shows I watch very closely mimic reality (at least at times), because it tends to, imo, give it more impact when we have to separate out the fact and fiction and *think* about what pieces are "real" in our reality and which pieces are only real in the show's reality. Another ep where they dealt with things not having all been fine was "Out of the Darkness" which had Monica do something she wasn't supposed to (pick up someone's keys) several (five?) years ago, and then the actual ep dealt with them responding to the situation that arose from Monica's action. Also, they had Randy Travis' character in "Fear Not" still not believe even after Monica's transformation so that it took the events of "The Feather" to convince him. (Of course, at the end of "Fear Not", the audience was allowed to believe that he had been convinced as the ep faded out.) >TBAA has walked some fine lines before and >I'd like to see them give it a go. I continue to be impressed with how well they handle fine lines they walk. It doesn't always work out, but often, when they're treading a delicate balance, they do so well. My thirty-seven cents or so. Next? Bright blessings, Amilyn *** --- Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:56:11 -0500 From: Jack Koke To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: things we would like to see While talking to one of my friends here on campus this morning, I was talking about some of the things that have been being discussed. One of those things being episodes that we would like to see. Well my friend brought up an interesting topic for a good show. That topic being-What is going to happen to Catherine now. Sorry but I don't remember episode names, but in the show where Monica was suspose to appear before the review board Catherines assignment was to keep Monica from getting there. Well she sort of suceeded. That was until Monica prayed for her. Anyway the point I am getting at is, at the end of the show, we find out that Catherine has now been kicked out of Hell. And she asks Monica where is there for her to go now. I think it would be a good episode for them to deal with this issue. What would happen to a fallen angel who now has no place? Does she turn back to the Lord or what? Any thoughts on this matter? IN CHRIST NAME AND LOVE FOREVER Jackson jaa mata ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:48:54 -0800 (PST) From: oafgirl/thornbird To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: quo vadis catherine? On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Jack Koke wrote: > That topic being-What is going to happen to Catherine now...? What would happen to a fallen angel who now has no place? Does she turn back to the Lord or what? > It seemed to me that catherine did turn back; when she spoke with monica at the end, it looked as though monica directed her around the corner to the "heavenly hearing office." may have been my perception. I happen to believe that the Lord can *and will* forgive anyone anything, as long as they truly repent and ask to be forgiven. even judas, had he not killed himself, could have joined Jesus in heaven, but he took matters into his own hands (the basic sin of all of us, I think) and lost the opportunity. to be perfectly honest, judas was necessary to complete God's plan (how else to get Jesus crucified?). (for more thoughts on this, and about true friendships that survive challenges, there is a chapter in t.d. jakes' book "naked and not ashamed.") that being said -- and wholeheartedly believed, as I sometimes wonder why God would even associate with me, if it weren't for His amazing love -- back to regularly scheduled programming.... in Him, Who loves to surprise us with wonderful things, sheryl adsit sadsit @ . addy.edu (here in sunny malibu) TFTD: it is not impossibilities which fill us with the deepest despair, but possibilities which we have failed to realize. -- robert mallet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:49:23 -0600 (CST) From: Di Sudduth To: AmilynH @ . .addy.com Cc: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: eps I want to see... Amilyn wrote: (and someone else join in!!) >I think it would also make a really interesting subplot for the show to have >someone *not* accept their help so that, for them, things do *not* seem to be >working out. They frequently do a varient on this. Pete in Jacob's ladder rejected Monica for a long time. People reject the angels when they are in the depths of despair about their situation. How about a pragmatist who knows that bad things are happening but has resolved not to let it get him/her "down"? I'm specifically thinking of a mathematical type of person who subscribes to Chaos Theory of the universe (did anyone read the book Jurassic Park and remember the vignettes on chaos theory? They didn't come across nearly as well in the movie) Someone like that, with a very scientific/mathematical mind would make a very good character in this scenario. >(This would also set them up for a sequel ep.) I can't even conceive of this storyline without a sequel. There will be too many open issues. > I like it when the shows I watch very closely mimic reality (at least at >times), because it tends to, imo, give it more impact when we have to >separate out the fact and fiction and *think* about what pieces are "real" in >our reality and which pieces are only real in the show's reality. Did I ever tell you that I love the way your sentences get all convoluted but the meaning remains perfectly clear? Or maybe it's just that my brain is similarly scrambled. :-) >Another ep where they dealt with things not having all been fine was "Out of >the Darkness" which had Monica do something she wasn't supposed to (pick up >someone's keys) several (five?) years ago, and then the actual ep dealt with >them responding to the situation that arose from Monica's action. Not to change the subject, but this reminds me of something I was planning to write to the list about. When Monica picked up the keys it was because she was sticking around to see how everything worked out when she caught the kid who fell off the roof. And we know that there is a whole angelic division to do the "divine intervention" stuff. My question is, (and we *really* aren't going to be able to answer this, but I'd like to see some discussion) why do the angels catch some folks and not others? Like, why did Monica catch the boy falling from the roof but not help the person hit by "The Driver?" Why let Shawn & his Dad get into a *fatal* accident in the youth center episode (do we know a title for this yet?) why not just a nasty accident? Why save a train (as Monica said she did in "Interview") but let the hysteria happen in "The Sky is Falling"? I know that the answer probably is something like "The writer's aren't consistent," or "God's plan isn't something that we can understand," but can we talk about it? What do the rest of you think? And from Amilyn's sig: >Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. >Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. >Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game. I *like* it! Yours, or quoted from somewhere? Whichever, is *very* cool! Oh, and rather than send another post, someone else said that they'd like to see another episode about Kathleen. I wholeheartedly agree. I couldn't help but wonder at the lines, "I'll even be the angel who scrapes gum off theatre seats." "That job is already filled." If it was going to be given to Kathleen, and what her reaction would be if it was! :-) Hoppy Easter, everyone! I'm offline till Monday... Di <*> sudduthdj @ . .addy.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 17:32:08 -0600 (CST) From: gryphon @ . addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: LISTNANNY: Re: Format of Digest #18 >I found this latest digest very hard to read. I know these mailing >lists can get complicated at times (I'm on several, which is why I try >to receive them as digests), but on this list it's very difficult to >know who each post is from, and sometimes where one ends and another >begins. Before discussion goes any farther, I'm going to respond to this: The digest format is set by the software. It can't be changed. You were getting those "lines" between digest on the *old* list (this is a new, totally separate list) because Angel, bless her heart, was *hand-collating* each digest before shipping it out. So debating the merits of this format or that format won't make any difference. I'm sorry you find it hard to read, but we have absolutely *no* control over it. It's that format or none at all, so long as we're on this listserv. Diane E # "Nothing that is made by God is queer." Monica, TBAA # # D Echelbarger gryphon @ . addy.com # # WWW HomePage: . # # Join the new Touched By An Angel mailing list! # # .tbaangel.html # ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 17:49:04 -0600 (CST) From: Darla Bradley To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Just joining in. . . I hope I'm doing this right. . .I'm new to this list stuff! Di Sudduth wrote on 3/27/97 4:49 p.m. (Re: eps I want to see) "My question is, (and we *really* aren't going to be able to answer this, but I'd like to see some discussion) why do the angels catch some folks and not others? Like, why did Monica catch the boy falling from the roof but not help the person hit by "The Driver?" Why let Shawn & his Dad get into a *fatal* accident in the youth center episode (do we know a title for this yet?) why not just a nasty accident? Why save a train (as Monica said she did in "Interview") but let the hysteria happen in "The Sky is Falling"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We, as mortals, cannot know God's ultimate plan for our lives. We just have to trust and believe in Him, and be assured that everything will evolve according to His plan for us. Maybe angels intervene and save some people from harm (and not others) because there is still unfinished work on earth for them to do. Just my thoughts. . .I'll be interested to see other posts. I think this discussion group (list) is the greatest! It's really got me doing some soul-searching of my own. I'm getting almost as much out of this as I get from attending church. The other list members pose such intriguing questions and give such insightful opinions. You are all such caring, wonderful people! John Dye was right in his final comment about TBAA in the TV Guide article. He said basically that if those connected with the show weren't being respectful in their interpretation of God's message for man, then God would not allow the show to prosper. This list is just another example of how God touches our lives. He brought us all together, didn't He? If a prime-time TV show can generate this much thought/reflection/interest in God, then He must have bestowed His blessings on it, on all those connected with it, and on its viewers. Love to you all, Darla Bradley Du Quoin, IL dbradley @ . .lib.addy.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 19:05:21 -0500 (EST) From: Finabair @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .execpc.com Subject: Re: quo vadis catherine? In a message dated 03/27/97 5:03:03 PM, you wrote: >It seemed to me that catherine did turn back; when she spoke with monica >at the end, it looked as though monica directed her around the corner to >the "heavenly hearing office." may have been my perception. I happen to That is the impression I got as well...although I think the angel's name is Kathleen. (I'm having flashbacks to Beauty and the Beast, here...took me awhile to figure out who 'Catherine' was.) Perhaps Kathleen is now cleaning chewing gum off theatre seats. ;-) I must say, that one falls under my list of 'eps I would like to see'. I would love to see what became of Kathleen after that. She is an excellent character, IMHO. Take care, Jennie finabair @ . .addy.com -------------------------------- End of tbaangel-d Digest V97 Issue #20 **************************************