Not in character??? K'immie q
Leikin Sky
while now, and wondered if any kind soul here has a good answer:
If K'immies are so evil, what's to prevent them from fighting on Holy Ground?
*Why* should they even bother adhering to this code? They're evil! They
shouldn't care about respecting any rules, codes, laws! Anyone have any
theories on why they obey the "no fighting on Holy Ground" code?
Leikin Sky
Jerri LaPoint
Evil does not mean stupid. From a strictly practical point of view, if evil
Immortals force other Immortals to fight on holy ground, then they give up
the sanctuary that holy ground affords all Immortals. There would be no
place for retreat, no place for negotiations and threats ... just an entire
earthly battlefield with no respite for good or for the wicked, for their
friends and family.
From a mystical point of view, they don't actually know what would happen
if they fought on holy ground. Maybe they'd get whacked by TPTB ...
disqualified from The Game because they didn't follow the One Rule that
they all obey. Apparently, they can break other rules with impunity ... but
this one is different. Scary.
Jerri
Nutmeg
<199807111728...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>I've had a question about a certain aspect of K'immies (evil
immortals) for a
>while now, and wondered if any kind soul here has a good answer:
>
>If K'immies are so evil, what's to prevent them from fighting on Holy
Ground?
>*Why* should they even bother adhering to this code? They're evil!
They
>shouldn't care about respecting any rules, codes, laws! Anyone have
any
>theories on why they obey the "no fighting on Holy Ground" code?
>Leikin Sky
I have a theory about this that I've mentioned before. I don't mind
repeating it if no-one else minds seeing it again.
I read a lot of fantasy novels. In them, elves, faeries and other
such magical creatures cannot lie. No matter how much they want to
deceive the person they are speaking to, no matter how evil they are,
they simply cannot lie.
I think it's the same thing with the immortals. Just like they have a
special power that allows them to *feel* the presence of other
immortals, they also have something inside that makes it physically
impossible for them to fight on holy ground.
Now granted, this is just a theory. I don't believe TPTB ever
actually explained it to us. And, since I still haven't seen every
episode I'm not sure if anything has ever happened that would disprove
my theory.
How about it? Can someone who has seen every episode tell me if I'm
wrong about this? Has anything ever happened to shoot holes in my
theory?
Nutmeg <immortality -- it's a kind of magic><g>
nutmeg[at]openix[dot]com
**********************************************************************
"Perhaps my existence is pointless in any grand scheme of
things . . . but it keeps me entertained."
Steven Brust, "Phoenix"
**********************************************************************
Judith Cornish
>I think it's the same thing with the
> immortals. Just like they have a special
> power that allows them to *feel* the
> presence of other immortals, they also
> have something inside that makes it
> physically impossible for them to fight on
> holy ground.
Another example of evidence against this was in Little Tin God, two of
Larca's newbie immortals were going to attack Duncan on holy ground
before Derek and Larca stopped them.
PEACE
Judy
Nutmeg
>Nutmeg <nutmeg[at]openix[dot]com> wrote
>a bit o' snippage here and there...
>> I think it's the same thing with the immortals. Just like they
have a
>> special power that allows them to *feel* the presence of other
>> immortals, they also have something inside that makes it physically
>> impossible for them to fight on holy ground.
>
>Nope. At one point, Duncan was going to go after Horton ... until
Horton
>reminded him that they were on holy ground. Duncan looked quite
willing
><and> able to kill Horton at that point. In fact, Immortals are
always
>warning each other about that. "We're on holy ground, MacLeod". If
they
>were incapable of fighting on holy ground, that warning would be
>unnecessary.
>Jerri
This doesn't *exactly* contradict my theory. Going back to my
original analogy to faeries and other magical creatures, they can
*want* to tell a lie, they can even *try* to tell a lie, but when they
actually make the attempt, it just doesn't happen. It *can't* happen.
Well, I think the same might be true of immortals and killing on holy
ground. They can *want* to do it, they can *try* to do it, but, in
the end, it just doesn't happen.
And, as for the warnings that "we're on holy ground", I always saw
this as a reminder that, even if they tried to kill someone on holy
ground, the attempt would not be successful.
Does this make more sense? Or am I still wrong? (As I said, I haven't
seen every episode)
Nutmeg <just trying to make sense of it all>
Jerri LaPoint
a bit o' snippage here and there...
> I think it's the same thing with the immortals. Just like they have a
> special power that allows them to *feel* the presence of other
> immortals, they also have something inside that makes it physically
> impossible for them to fight on holy ground.
Nope. At one point, Duncan was going to go after Horton ... until Horton
Claire Maier
: Nutmeg wrote:
: >I think it's the same thing with the
: > immortals. Just like they have a special
: > power that allows them to *feel* the
: > presence of other immortals, they also
: > have something inside that makes it
: > physically impossible for them to fight on
: > holy ground.
: Another example of evidence against this was in Little Tin God, two of
: Larca's newbie immortals were going to attack Duncan on holy ground
: before Derek and Larca stopped them.
I don't think of that (or the example of Duncan raising the sledgehammer
to Horton in the crypt, or Evil Duncan's attempt to kill Methos in the
church) as contradicting this theory.
My theory is more that there's something about holy ground rather than
something about the immortals, but it amounts to the same sort of thing.
Whatever magic there is makes sure that an immortal doesn't kill on holy
ground. That "making sure" may come in the form of a reminder-- but the
killing on holy ground doesn't take place.
--
Claire Maier bioa...@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
To be different is not necessarily to be ugly;
to have a different idea is not necessarily to be wrong.
The worst possible thing is for all of us to begin
to look and act and think alike.
-- Gene Roddenberry
Claire Maier
: I've had a question about a certain aspect of K'immies (evil immortals) for a
: while now, and wondered if any kind soul here has a good answer:
:
: If K'immies are so evil, what's to prevent them from fighting on Holy Ground?
: *Why* should they even bother adhering to this code? They're evil! They
: shouldn't care about respecting any rules, codes, laws! Anyone have any
: theories on why they obey the "no fighting on Holy Ground" code?
Well, *I* think that it's because they have no choice. There is some sort
of magic in the Highlander universe that prevents an immortal from
striking a killing blow on holy ground. They may *want* to.
Occasionally, they might even *try* to. But for one reason or another, it
never happens. (And I think that the legend about Pompei being the result
of immies fighting on holy ground is just that-- a legend.)
Christopher Lopes
is only one recorded instance of immortals fighting on Holy Ground.
Happened in a place called Pompeii. The gist of it is, a quickeing on Holy
Ground is a VERY bad idea :-)
a
>while now, and wondered if any kind soul here has a good answer:
>
>If K'immies are so evil, what's to prevent them from fighting on Holy
Ground?
>*Why* should they even bother adhering to this code? They're evil! They
>shouldn't care about respecting any rules, codes, laws! Anyone have any
>theories on why they obey the "no fighting on Holy Ground" code?
Naomi A. Rose
"Jerri LaPoint" <jlap...@kissthesky.net> wrote:
>Nutmeg <nutmeg[at]openix[dot]com> wrote
>a bit o' snippage here and there...
>> I think it's the same thing with the immortals. Just like they have a
>> special power that allows them to *feel* the presence of other
>> immortals, they also have something inside that makes it physically
>> impossible for them to fight on holy ground.
>
>Nope. At one point, Duncan was going to go after Horton ... until Horton
>reminded him that they were on holy ground. Duncan looked quite willing
><and> able to kill Horton at that point. In fact, Immortals are always
>warning each other about that. "We're on holy ground, MacLeod". If they
>were incapable of fighting on holy ground, that warning would be
>unnecessary.
>Jerri
And EDM almost killed Methos on holy ground. And the new immies in
LTG almost killed DM on holy ground (in the cemetery).
Clearly there is nothing physically impossible about killing on holy
ground (the legend Joe tells in LTG also implies that it is *possible*,
just highly improbable). But also clearly, given that k'immies, even
the most evil of them, obey this Rule, there is something fairly
substantial behind the Rule. I agree with Jerri that the practical
issue is if k'immies break this Rule, it means all bets are off for
them too. But I still think there's something more than this --
something on the magical side. Because the look in EDM's eyes when he
almost kills Methos in the church looks pretty wild -- something major
was holding him back, not just a concern that if he broke this Rule
he wouldn't himself have access to any sanctuary. It was basically a
look of fear (although maybe it was just a flash of DM, feeling
appalled that he almost broke the holy ground Rule).
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
bioa...@paladin.cc.emory.edu (Claire Maier) wrote:
>Leikin Sky (leik...@aol.com) wrote:
>: I've had a question about a certain aspect of K'immies (evil immortals) for a
>: while now, and wondered if any kind soul here has a good answer:
>:
>: If K'immies are so evil, what's to prevent them from fighting on Holy Ground?
>: *Why* should they even bother adhering to this code? They're evil! They
>: shouldn't care about respecting any rules, codes, laws! Anyone have any
>: theories on why they obey the "no fighting on Holy Ground" code?
>
>Well, *I* think that it's because they have no choice. There is some sort
>of magic in the Highlander universe that prevents an immortal from
>striking a killing blow on holy ground. They may *want* to.
>Occasionally, they might even *try* to. But for one reason or another, it
>never happens. (And I think that the legend about Pompei being the result
>of immies fighting on holy ground is just that-- a legend.)
>
>--
>Claire Maier bioa...@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
Nutmeg just said the same thing, and I disagree with this for only one
reason. Every time it hasn't happened, even though it almost happened,
something *external* stopped it -- Horton telling DM "We're on holy
ground, MacLeod!", Methos shouting at EDM "We're on holy ground!!", and
Derek and Larca telling the two new immies that even Satan is safe on
holy ground. They didn't try to strike a killing blow and then just
didn't or couldn't. They were externally reminded that they must not.
Until I see a scene where an immie (for whatever reason, including that
he/she is just plain evil or insane) wants and tries to strike a killing
blow on holy ground and just stops -- not because the other immie or the
mortal reminds him/her of where they are, but just *because* -- I will
continue to believe that while there is *something* that has been
impressed upon all immies that makes them obey this Rule, it is not
because they *can't* -- physically can't -- kill on holy ground.
All the same, the magical prevention theory works too, because there's
nothing really contradicting it either. And in its favor, it would
sure explain why the truly evil and/or insane never break this Rule.
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
"Christopher Lopes" <bigu...@meganet.net> wrote:
>I forget which show it was (some fan huh?), but Dawson mentions that there
>is only one recorded instance of immortals fighting on Holy Ground.
>Happened in a place called Pompeii. The gist of it is, a quickeing on Holy
>Ground is a VERY bad idea :-)
>Leikin Sky wrote in message
*snip*
Hello Christopher.
That ep was "Little Tin God" and Joe mentions a *legend* that two immies
fought on holy ground in Pompeii. It was not recorded (as in, by Watchers).
In other words, it is still the case that nobody knows what happens when
two immies fight on holy ground.
Naomi
Cindi Casby
I agree. The same could be said for Jim Coltec when DM took him to
holy ground to try to save him. It must have been something pretty
powerful to get through to his damaged mind that kept him from trying
to kill DM then and there.
Cindi <thinks the real answer is the writers need a sanctuary for immies
for plot reasons - which is ok with me as long as they are consistent.>
Kathy Morey
I think even more telling is the absolute incredulity he had when telling Joe
about the attack of Larca's neophytes in the cemetary. He was in a state of
shock to realize that they would actually have tried to kill him on holy
ground. It seemed obvious to me that he expected such an attack to have
immense consequences, even though he had no idea what form those consequences
would have taken.
And Larca must have agreed, because he told his minions that "even the devil
can claim sanctuary here".
Kathy
Annikin888
and part/all of yours will seep into the ground, be lost forever, or otherwise
not available to the victor...
-Annikin
ACzubek
<snip>
>That ep was "Little Tin God" and Joe mentions a *legend* that two immies
>fought on holy ground in Pompeii. It was not recorded (as in, by Watchers).
>In other words, it is still the case that nobody knows what happens when
>two immies fight on holy ground.
Legends usually have there basis in something that did happen.
DM, when 1st told of Methos, said Methos was a legend (& we all know THAT isn't
true).
And when they were first talking about a Dark Quickening, I got the impression
that it was almost considered a legend because it happened so very rarely.
My theory of Pompeii:
A Watcher saw 2 Immies fighting on Holy Ground. He never saw the end of the
fight & then had to flee when the volcano erupted, & somehow got safely away..
Ergo, it might have happened.
Anne-Marie
ReGenesis0
What exactly is known about the quickening energy? Is the reward of the game
just the agregate of all energy or what? (I know Conner's answer, but the
movies are so far out of line with the series that I choose to ignore it)
What about quickening energy 'lost' when an immortal is killed by a mortal?
Some of the odder quickenings (little tin God and the dark quickening come to
mind) seem to indicate that the quickening passes something nebulous to the
victor, but exactly what is the debate...
Could it simply be said that, if an immortal kills another on Holy ground, a
quickening might take place- without the victor being the target? i.e., the
energy is released, but it's not absorbed and channeled? (the mental image
coming to mind here is somethign akin to a controled nuclear reaction vs. a
tactical nuke)
Which bring to mind the obvious question, since Immortals don't seem to feel
any kind of mental 'itch' reminding them that they're on holy ground... what
about Holy ground that's unmarked? A burial plot, or a meditative garden?
What happens if an immortal kills without knowing it's on holy ground? (I tend
to think that this is the best argument on record for 'magical inhibitor' vs.
'conditioned response', otherwise accidents should happen more often over
thousands of years...)
-Derik
**Duncan carries Joe out of the churcyard, leaving the dueling immortals behind
him. Suddenly everythign falls silent.
Duncan: Where did they go?
**A white light fills the air, there is a dull roar, and the churchyard
explodes behind them.
Joe: every which way.
Jerri LaPoint
> There is a theory that when you behead an Immie on holy ground, his
Quickening
> and part/all of yours will seep into the ground, be lost forever, or
otherwise
> not available to the victor...
Everyone's got to have a theory. This is the Quickening Ground Seepage
Theory.
Jerri <everything's got to have a name>
Lkeeper
>ground, and all that happened to him was he got banished from the
>Church/whatever they were in.
>I've got a feeling that the holy ground thing is a rule that an Immortal made
>up himself in order for all immortals to have some sort of refuge, there ARE
>no
>consequences...
>...But what do i know?
>
>Bernie
><Hey, i'm a Teenager...I come up with theories all tha time!>
></PRE></HTML>
I'm not 100% sure about this, but wasn't Kalas and the unfortunate beheadee,
fighting in the woods near the Holy Ground? They weren't exactly on Holy
Ground. Sometimes Duncan also fought very close to Holy Ground, but sometimes
just a few feet is all it takes to make land not sanctioned. JMO.
Debbie (Lkeeper)
Bobrien5
steven morosi
off holy ground and to be careful
Lkeeper wrote:
Naomi A. Rose
regen...@aol.com (ReGenesis0) wrote:
*snip*
> What exactly is known about the quickening energy? Is the reward of the game
>just the agregate of all energy or what? (I know Conner's answer, but the
>movies are so far out of line with the series that I choose to ignore it)
*snip*
Since Connor gave his answer in the series, ignoring what he said because "the
movies are so far out of line with the series" doesn't make a lot of sense.
Out of line with the movies or not, what is said in the series is series canon.
You can't just ignore what Connor said, at least not for the reason you give.
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
acz...@aol.com (ACzubek) wrote:
>>From: Naomi A. Rose <nar...@ix.netcom.com>
>
><snip>
>>That ep was "Little Tin God" and Joe mentions a *legend* that two immies
>>fought on holy ground in Pompeii. It was not recorded (as in, by Watchers).
>>In other words, it is still the case that nobody knows what happens when
>>two immies fight on holy ground.
>
>Legends usually have there basis in something that did happen.
Something did happen. A volcano erupted.
Unicorns were based on rhinoceroses and narwhals. They were based on
things that were real but except for superficial physical resemblances
had absolutely nothing to do with reality. Legends do not necessarily
resemble the real thing they are based upon. Vesuvius did erupt. There
may have even been an immie battle somewhere in Pompeii just before the
eruption (or at least on the same day). Was it on holy ground? *That*
may be the part that has nothing to do with reality. Or there may have
been no battle at all.
>DM, when 1st told of Methos, said Methos was a legend (& we all know THAT isn't
>true).
But the Watchers didn't think Methos was a legend. They knew he was real.
DM didn't even know about the Pompeii legend, but the Watchers did. All
I'm saying is if the Watchers know something as a legend, it is probably a
lot farther from the truth than "Methos, the world's oldest man" was.
IMHO.
>And when they were first talking about a Dark Quickening, I got the impression
>that it was almost considered a legend because it happened so very rarely.
For all we know, Coltec (and then DM) were the only ones who ever
experienced a DQ, because Coltec was hayoka. If not for that special
circumstance, DQs might still be no more than legend.
>My theory of Pompeii:
>A Watcher saw 2 Immies fighting on Holy Ground. He never saw the end of the
>fight & then had to flee when the volcano erupted, & somehow got safely away..
>
>Ergo, it might have happened.
Sure, it might have. All I said was it is still the case that nobody knows
(for certain) what happens when two immies fight on holy ground.
I think if a Watcher saw two immies fighting in Pompeii anywhere *near* a
temple and never saw the end of the fight (and then the volcano erupted), he
might have wondered in his Chronicle (if he survived...) if their fight
strayed onto holy ground. And this story, especially if the original
Chronicle was lost, but was mentioned in other Chronicles, might have become
legend among the Watchers.
But really -- all it would have taken was one drunk Watcher who survived the
horror of Pompeii telling a great "fish story" one night in a tavern (that
had absolutely nothing to do with reality) to get such a legend growing...
>Anne-Marie
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
bobr...@aol.com (Bobrien5) wrote:
>If you'll all Recall the FINALE' series, Kalas beheaded an Immie on Holy
>ground, and all that happened to him was he got banished from the
>Church/whatever they were in.
>I've got a feeling that the holy ground thing is a rule that an Immortal made
>up himself in order for all immortals to have some sort of refuge, there ARE no
>consequences...
>....But what do i know?
*snip*
Well, if you think Kalas beheaded an immie on holy ground, not much :-).
Kalas waited for the immies departing the monastery just outside the
monastery walls (*off* holy ground). He ambushed them as soon as they
left sanctuary. He never beheaded anybody on holy ground (aside from
the possible cosmic consequences, if he had, Paul would have caught him
a long time before DM did).
If it's just a rule some immie made up and there are no consequences, I
find it hard to imagine that some of the evil SOBs we've seen would have
obeyed it.
Naomi
Bobrien5
"you USED Holy ground to kill one of your own".
I still have yet to see FINALE' pt. 1, so i was going on blind fate.
Hikerbj
realized he was on holy ground. Nothing happened externally to stop him, it
was as though he sensed something holding him back, then he looked around and
saw the ancient markings.
Claire's right, not fighting on holy ground is instinctual.
Joyce
Naomi A. Rose
hik...@aol.com (Hikerbj) wrote:
I would have to go watch that scene again. I think he saw the markings
(actually, I think DM told him they were on holy ground while Coltec was
still restrained) and then didn't kill him. I don't think he felt something
holding him back and *then* noticed they were on holy ground. It's a
chicken and egg kinda thing. But if Coltec knew they were on holy ground
first and then held back (even if no one reminded him), all that means is
he remembered where he was, DQ or no DQ, and didn't strike because he knew
it was against the Rules.
There simply isn't enough evidence one way or the other to say anything
with certainty.
Naomi
Hikerbj
on USA--did Duncan tell him? I do remember Coltec moving to attack Duncan but
stopping and his expression changed.
We've just got to watch it again.
Thanks for the excuse to borrow my friend's tapes!! I owe you one.
Joyce
Claire Maier
: In article <199807141016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
: hik...@aol.com (Hikerbj) wrote:
:
: >What about Coltec? He had the chance to kill Duncan but stopped when he
: >realized he was on holy ground. Nothing happened externally to stop him, it
: >was as though he sensed something holding him back, then he looked around and
: >saw the ancient markings.
: >Claire's right, not fighting on holy ground is instinctual.
I didn't say it was instinctual. I said that there was a magic in the
Highlander universe that prevents immortals from killing on holy ground.
Even if it's just timely reminder, there's always *something* that
prevents the deed from being done.
: I would have to go watch that scene again. I think he saw the markings
: (actually, I think DM told him they were on holy ground while Coltec was
: still restrained) and then didn't kill him. I don't think he felt something
: holding him back and *then* noticed they were on holy ground. It's a
: chicken and egg kinda thing. But if Coltec knew they were on holy ground
: first and then held back (even if no one reminded him), all that means is
: he remembered where he was, DQ or no DQ, and didn't strike because he knew
: it was against the Rules.
I'm not sure about this, but I *think* that the place Duncan took Coltec
after the DQ was the same place that Duncan saw in the vision they shared
while in jail in 1872. And while it didn't make the final cut, in the
script Coltec tells Duncan to go to the land they saw in the vision, or
words to that effect. I think that place was Duncan's holy ground island.
So Coltec would have recognized the place, in any case.
--
Claire Maier bioa...@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
To be different is not necessarily to be ugly;
Carmen Williams
>
> I didn't say it was instinctual. I said that there was a magic in the
> Highlander universe that prevents immortals from killing on holy ground.
> Even if it's just timely reminder, there's always *something* that
> prevents the deed from being done.
>
Mmm. Do the Immortals know this? 'Cause in that scene from
"Deliverance," where EDM is about to kill Methos on holy ground, Methos
looks genuinely terrified. He doesn't act like he knows something's
gonna stop Duncan, but like Duncan really *could* take his head. (And
like something really bad will happen if he does, but that's just MHO.)
Carmen W.
Hikerbj
instinctual seemed along the same lines.
Joyce
Jarielle
<ari...@erols.com> wrote:
*snip*
>
>Mmm. Do the Immortals know this? 'Cause in that scene from
>"Deliverance," where EDM is about to kill Methos on holy ground, Methos
>looks genuinely terrified. He doesn't act like he knows something's
>gonna stop Duncan, but like Duncan really *could* take his head. (And
>like something really bad will happen if he does, but that's just MHO.)
>
Maybe someone already said this, but I remember hearing Methos say
that even in Duncan (in the state he was in) wouldn't be perverted
enough to kill on holy ground. (or maybe I'm delusional, very
possible). It seems that it is more of a code that they learn and
follow, all of them, rather than an impossibility or a magical thing
(plus fear of the unknown, in case something *could* happen).
Jarie
Carol M. Davis
Along this same line--when Methos has EDM at the church in France--he
reminds him that he's on holy ground-they were in a church on the
cliff. It looked like EDM was going to do the nasty on him as he had
drawn his sword but after Methos reminded him, he stopped.
Carol
--
MBB Search and Rescue....you never know when Methos will fall into his
beer!
PWFC, PEACE-APFC, Highlander Clan
Judith Cornish
>I didn't say it was instinctual. I said that
> there was a magic in the Highlander
> universe that prevents immortals from
> killing on holy ground. Even if it's just
> timely reminder, there's always
> *something* that prevents the deed from
> being done.
Carmen wrote:
>Mmm. Do the Immortals know this?
> 'Cause in that scene from "Deliverance,"
> where EDM is about to kill Methos on
> holy ground, Methos looks genuinely
> terrified. He doesn't act like he knows
> something's gonna stop Duncan, but like
> Duncan really *could* take his head.
> (And like something really bad will
> happen if he does, but that's just MHO.)
I don't know if immortals would have thought about it very much if they
had accepted that no killing on holy Ground is an unbreakable rule.
Claire's explaination makes sense. There have been a number of examples
of immortals fighting on HG, even almost killing, but a reminder is all
it takes to make tham stop. Maybe thay do think something terrible would
happen if a immortal killed on HG and so they never do it and so they
never find out that it's impossible. Thus, the belief that to kill on HG
will cause a disaster would become a self perpetuating myth. Joe's story
about Vesuvius may have been only a legend. He said the watcher in 79AD
"saw two immortals going at it in a temple in Italy". He never said the
watch saw one of them kill the other. If immortals are convinced that
an immortal killing on HG will cause a disaster then the watchers would
be convinced as well because immortals are where the get their
information.
PEACE
Judy
Helga Abendroth
But still, at the scene at the cemetary, he was in real fear that they
*might* do it. And the student's *were* about to attack DM, what they
couldn't have done if something would have held them back "magically".
And in the Flasback Larca *was* about to kill him on that altar stone
(as I discussed on another thread - holy ground enigma - the mere fact
of the sacrifice rock to be used in rituals the Moche considered holy
made it holy ground). And Methos entered the cave with the holy well
with DM's Katana behind his back in case evill DM would have won and
he would have to use it (and if only to defend himself).
So I still think that Immortals in fact *can* kill on holy ground but
won't do it if any reason is left to them, at least not take another
Immortals head, because it is an deeply ingrained Taboo (like, say.,
kannibalism or something) and they just feel that there might be
*dreadful* consequences. Another example: DM was quite ready to
believe that Pompeian legend. So he felt it indeed to be possible:
both the part that two Immortals *could* have fighted on holy ground
and one taken the others head, *and* the part that it would have had
horrifying consequences.
I think they *can* break the rule, but even the most evil ones fear
the possible consequences so much that they simply *wont*, and that
the Canon on this should be read not that they *can't* kill on holy
ground, but that they *must not*.
Helga
Claire Maier
: And in the Flasback Larca *was* about to kill him on that altar stone
: (as I discussed on another thread - holy ground enigma - the mere fact
: of the sacrifice rock to be used in rituals the Moche considered holy
: made it holy ground).
I've been going around and around with someone on this on HIGHLA-L, so I
might as well do it here.
There is no evidence that the Moche considered that rock to be holy
ground. It's just viewer supposition. TPTB intended that it *not* be
holy ground-- that's why the rock is *outside* the temple.
*Performing a rite does not automatically sanctify the ground.*
For example, in The Cross of St. Antoine, the priest is performing
baptisms at the river. The baptisms are a very important, significant
sacrament-- one that defines who is a member of the religion-- but the
river is not holy ground. Durgan kills the priest there, in fact. But we
didn't have the holy ground controversy over Durgan, because it was a
familiar religion and it was understood that the river was not holy
ground. But let an unfamiliar religion use a rock for a rite, and all of
a sudden viewers are claiming that it's an altar, and TPTB "forgot" about
the holy ground rule, or gave Moche HG some sort of different status than
that of other peoples (as the person on HIGHLA-L is claiming), or other
such stuff.
Canon is: Larca did not kill, or even attempt to kill, on holy ground.
Immortals cannot kill on holy ground. Sometimes a rock is just a rock.
: So I still think that Immortals in fact *can* kill on holy ground but
: won't do it if any reason is left to them, at least not take another
: Immortals head, because it is an deeply ingrained Taboo (like, say.,
: kannibalism or something) and they just feel that there might be
: *dreadful* consequences. Another example: DM was quite ready to
: believe that Pompeian legend. So he felt it indeed to be possible:
: both the part that two Immortals *could* have fighted on holy ground
: and one taken the others head, *and* the part that it would have had
: horrifying consequences.
I disagree. They cannot kill on holy ground. They never have, not in 119
episodes (viewer misunderstandings to the contrary notwithstanding). And
as the writers have said at conventions, if, for some reason, an immie
*were* to kill on holy ground, we wouldn't have to guess or suppose. It
would be a major plot point, as unmistakeable as the dark quickening was.
: I think they *can* break the rule, but even the most evil ones fear
: the possible consequences so much that they simply *wont*, and that
: the Canon on this should be read not that they *can't* kill on holy
: ground, but that they *must not*.
Well, I disagree with this too. Canon is that they don't kill on holy
ground. Ever. Even the Vesuvius thing is only a legend. As far as the
Watchers know for sure, no immortal has *ever* killed on holy ground.
Helga Abendroth
Maier) wrote:
Well, I discussed that the long and wide with Maggie on the "holy
ground enigma" thread, so I just want to add this: while I agree that
the argument about a rite not necessarily sanctifying a place is a
good poit, in this case it was a human sacrifice offered to the Moches
god, and, as laure has pointed out on another thread, that sacrifice
rock happened to be just outside the temples sanctuary *right before*
the entrance and within the boundaries of the temple (given by the
stone platform the stairs were leading to) - like the altar stones on
the top of the temple pyramides the Aztecs and Maya (and Inca?) used
were located. These were used for human sacrifice, too (and were
holy). That parallel clearly was intended.
If it was intended that the sacrifice stone was *not* an altar and
*not* holy, I think it should and *would* have been mentioned in the
episode. But instead Larca mentioned in reply to DM that the mortal
scout he killled on that rock had *not* been murdered but *sacrificed*
in a holy ceremony to give the Moche strength, like they have done for
thousands of years. So, IMHO, the rock was *not* just a rock, but an
altar stone.
As for the writers and what they did say on that convention: sorry,
but since I don't have the chance to go to conventions in the states I
have to build my opinion by what I'm seeing on the tv screen, like
most other HL-fans. And laure has pointed out - to wich I agree - that
the problem of holy ground and breaking or not breaking that rule
*was* the major plot of that episode. So I maintain my view:
They *can* but *won't*.
Helga
Velia Tanner and Friends
>As for the writers and what they did say on that convention: sorry,
>but since I don't have the chance to go to conventions in the states I
>have to build my opinion by what I'm seeing on the tv screen, like
>most other HL-fans.
No, you don't. You've found this newsgroup, and now you have access to
clarifying information. Which you can choose to ignore if you like.
The altar outside the Moche temple was not meant by the makers of the show
to be considered Holy Ground. Therefore using it's apparent holiness *to
you* as any kind of "evidence" of how the Holy Ground rule works in the HL
universe doesn't make sense.
DM didn't refuse the Quickening in "The Fighter," either, BTW.
V.
--
=========================================================================
Betcha on land, they understand; bet they don't reprimand their daughters
Bright young women, sick of swimmin', ready to stand...
-- The Little Mermaid ||ve...@netcom.com||
==========================================================================
Jette Goldie
had the following bright ideas:
>As for the writers and what they did say on that convention: sorry,
>but since I don't have the chance to go to conventions in the states I
>have to build my opinion by what I'm seeing on the tv screen, like
>most other HL-fans.
No, but you do have the chance to go to conventions in Europe and
Donna and Gillian were at Chronicles and are scheduled for Homeland in
September. And you have access here - so the tv is NOT the only place
to build your opinions.
Personally when it is stated again and again that Immortals CANNOT and
DO NOT kill on Holy Ground (in the show) then I assume if any killing
takes place, then the place was NOT Holy Ground. (or MacLeod would be
shown having a hairy fit and Joe would be yelling "stop the presses"
to Watcher HQ)
Jette - Joe's my jo!
******************
HOMELAND '98 (25th - 28th September 1998)
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/index-2.html
Scotland's First Highlander Convention
boss...@scotlandmail.com
Naomi A. Rose
gre...@vossnet.de (Helga Abendroth) wrote:
*snip*
>If it was intended that the sacrifice stone was *not* an altar and
>*not* holy, I think it should and *would* have been mentioned in the
>episode.
I disagree. I think the exact opposite, in fact. Given that 1) Larca
was an Immortal and the Rule is immies cannot kill on holy ground and 2)
that Larca clearly killed somebody on that rock, ipso facto if that
rock *was* supposed to be holy ground, *that* would most certainly
have been mentioned in the ep! It would have been a major event that
the writers would have been shouting from the rooftops in the dialog
and action. But they didn't. They blipped right over it. Ipso facto,
that rock was not supposed to be considered holy ground by the Moche.
>But instead Larca mentioned in reply to DM that the mortal
>scout he killled on that rock had *not* been murdered but *sacrificed*
>in a holy ceremony to give the Moche strength, like they have done for
>thousands of years. So, IMHO, the rock was *not* just a rock, but an
>altar stone.
But this misses Claire's earlier point. She pointed out that sacraments
can be performed on unconsecrated ground, like baptisms in rivers. Thus
the Moche could perform sacrifices on objects (like that rock) that they
did not consider holy. Maybe they also butchered their livestock or
their game on that rock. The *rite* was holy -- the object on which the
rite took place was *not*. Just as baptism is holy, but the river in
which it is performed is not. Holy ground to the Moche was the temple
and the rock was outside the temple.
*snip*
Naomi
Helga Abendroth
Friends) wrote:
>DM didn't refuse the Quickening in "The Fighter," either, BTW.
Huh? Lost me there! When have I ever said DM refused a Quickening? I
don't even think an Immortal can *do* that. I think I missed that
discussion; what was it all about and when did it come up?
Helga <???>
Helga Abendroth
wrote in reply to Helga:
*snip*
>>But instead Larca mentioned in reply to DM that the mortal
>>scout he killled on that rock had *not* been murdered but *sacrificed*
>>in a holy ceremony to give the Moche strength, like they have done for
>>thousands of years. So, IMHO, the rock was *not* just a rock, but an
>>altar stone.
>
>But this misses Claire's earlier point. She pointed out that sacraments
>can be performed on unconsecrated ground, like baptisms in rivers. Thus
>the Moche could perform sacrifices on objects (like that rock) that they
>did not consider holy. Maybe they also butchered their livestock or
>their game on that rock. The *rite* was holy -- the object on which the
>rite took place was *not*. Just as baptism is holy, but the river in
>which it is performed is not. Holy ground to the Moche was the temple
>and the rock was outside the temple.
>
>*snip*
>
>Naomi
Might be. I said earlier (in reply to Maggie, and to Claire too, I
think) that I think this is a good point and might be a working
possibility. It is an elegant solution, too. I'm just not convinced
completely it was the case, but I agree it's possible.
However I hesitate deeply to agree to the argument that "*because*
Immortals can't kill on holy ground the rock *can't* be holy".
We are discussing here for weeks now (and I unsderstand it has been
discussed long time before) *if* Immortals ideed *can't* kill on holy
ground, hindered by some magic or some part of their nature or
something, or if they in fact *could* but abhorr it that much that
normally even the most evil ones simply *won't*. And I have seen a lot
very convincing arguments for the second possibility so far. So the
argument "they can't, therefore the rock can't have been holy" sounds
to me like "it can't be because it musn't", what is a well known
saying in Germany, but that does not makes it true.
So perhaps you and Claire are right and the rock was not holy; I tend
to believe the other way, but it's possible. But that does *not*
prove that Immies *can't* kill on holy ground under whatever
circumstances; nor works the turned-round argument (they can't, so it
wasn't holy) for me. I think the argument with that bad nazi dude who
waited for Bernard Dalou to go out of the church before killing him
works a lot better in that regard than the simple statement "they
can't, and that is that. Period." Still, there are those examples that
we all have mentioned and discussed above were Immies very nearly
broke that rule and were hindered not by some inner force but by the
reminder of the rule. In the movie (I know, another universe) Ramirez
even *says* to Connor that he will be safe on holy ground because it
is tradition.
And in the show we *haven't seen* yet a clear provement of either it
is tradition or a natural inner force. So I will go on discussing
until I *see* a clear prove for one of these two possibilities. And
until then I tend to believe the "tradition"-solution has more points
speaking for it so far.
Helga
Velia Tanner and Friends
It's one of those long-standing confusions that people turned to fellow fans
and TPTB about.
To some viewers, the Quickening in the Fighter looked like DM was refusing
to accept it. This happened to a number of people independently, so there
was something in the way it was filmed or edited that made it look that way
to some (not all) people.
But TPTB were asked, and it was confirmed that no, DM didn't refuse the
Quickening, and it was never intended to look like he did.
So, that scene in the Fighter can't be used as evidence that Quickenings can
be refused in the HL Universe, even if it looked to someone like it was a
refused Quickening. It wasn't.
Someone who's not on-line might not know about this, and might still think
that Quickening was refused, but they would be -- how shall I say this? --
wrong.
V.
"I lied, Silas!"
Velia Tanner and Friends
>On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:39:55 GMT, gre...@vossnet.de (Helga Abendroth)
>had the following bright ideas:
>
>>Friends) wrote:
>>
>>>DM didn't refuse the Quickening in "The Fighter," either, BTW.
>>
>>Huh? Lost me there! When have I ever said DM refused a Quickening? I
>>don't even think an Immortal can *do* that. I think I missed that
>>discussion; what was it all about and when did it come up?
>>
>
>valid than *what was meant by the writers*.
>
>(and Methos didn't say "I lied Silas" either <g>)
LOL!
It came up recently on another board that the sometimes the writers, actors,
directors, editors, etc. saw a story differently from one another, and
therefore there may be conflicting nuances on screen. I believe this is a
valid point -- although it is generally the writers who get to decide how
things will be followed up on, so their interpretation is *usually* the one
that will be borne out by later episodes.
But when everyone behind the scenes saw a scene the same way, even if it
looked another way to some or all viewers, it's a fair bet that future
episodes and the "rules" the show follows will be based on what the
filmmakers meant the scene to be, even if it didn't come across how they
intended.
V.
Helga Abendroth
Friends) wrote:
>In article <35b061b2...@news.vossnet.de> gre...@vossnet.de (Helga Abendroth) writes:
>>On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 23:00:17 GMT, ve...@netcom.com (Velia Tanner and
>>Friends) wrote:
>>
>>>DM didn't refuse the Quickening in "The Fighter," either, BTW.
>>
>>Huh? Lost me there! When have I ever said DM refused a Quickening? I
>>don't even think an Immortal can *do* that. I think I missed that
>>discussion; what was it all about and when did it come up?
>
>It's one of those long-standing confusions that people turned to fellow fans
>and TPTB about.
>
>To some viewers, the Quickening in the Fighter looked like DM was refusing
>to accept it. This happened to a number of people independently, so there
>was something in the way it was filmed or edited that made it look that way
>to some (not all) people.
>
>But TPTB were asked, and it was confirmed that no, DM didn't refuse the
>Quickening, and it was never intended to look like he did.
>
>So, that scene in the Fighter can't be used as evidence that Quickenings can
>be refused in the HL Universe, even if it looked to someone like it was a
>refused Quickening. It wasn't.
>
>Someone who's not on-line might not know about this, and might still think
>that Quickening was refused, but they would be -- how shall I say this? --
>wrong.
>
>V.
>"I lied, Silas!"
Well, okay, but my point is that there is much evidence in the other
episodes of the show that it is *impossible* for an Immortal to refuse
a Qickening. So even if I (or whoever) would think that there was this
episode where it just *looked* like DM did it you could still - and
with every right - say that there were some more other episodes where
DM or another Immortal might have had every reason to refuse a
Quickening if he only could but didn't. So whatever TPTB would declare
on this or not, the outstanding evidence would show that it would
*not* be possible. With Larcas rock, as I said to Naomi, Claire and
Maggie above and below, it could just *be* that it was not meant to
be holy and was not consecrated by the sacrifices (like they argued),
and I can accept that possibility even *without* any statement of TPTB
on this. But on the other hand you haven't that overwhelming clear
evidence in all the episodes for the nature of the holy ground rule,
as you have in that "Quickening-refusal" case. So I think if TPTB
wpould like to set a clear andunmistakenably standard here, it would
have to be in the show, not in a statement on a con. Unmistakenably
like some Immortal stopping his killing blow on holy ground without
any outside intervention: for the possibility that the just *can't*
kill there. *Or* like an Immortal killing on holy ground as evidence
that they *can*. Obviously most people think that Larca can't be used
as evidence for the latter because DM otherwise would have protested
or be outraged and horrified at the mere possibility of Larca killing
him on holy ground. I have to admit that is a very strong argument and
to me, it is *much* more convincing than the argument "but TPTB/ the
authors said on the con...". Perhaps that *is* ignorance. Okay; I can
live with that; if there is a whole Clan Denial denying the death of
Richie in AA (what I do not) I can ignore TPTB making statements too.
But I still think a show should speak for it's own and a story should
not need to be interpretated by the storyteller.
The wonderful thing about Highlnder is that it *does* speak for itself
and that the few things opn for discussion make not only imagination
work, but intellect as well - and it works. This is no universe so
inconsistent that thinking about it would just make it evaporate.
So I enjoy to think about it - and I think, if TPTB wants to make sure
anything shown on the show can sensibly interpretated only in one way,
they 'll just have to make sure to show it in a way it turns out
clearly. And in Little Tin God they didn't. IMHO.
Helga <stubborn>
Shomeret
here. When I was attending a writer's workshop lo these many years ago, there
were people defending their manuscripts on the grounds of what they had
intended. The instructor pointed out that if they didn't communicate their
intention in the work, then they had failed. If this applies to would be
writers, then why wouldn't it apply to professional television writers? If so
many fans got some other message than what the writers intended, then it seems
to me that there has been a failure to communicate..
Shomeret
Naomi A. Rose
But how many fans saw "it" (whatever it happens to be) that way? Maybe
it's just the talkative ones -- and not *all* of the talkative ones.
For instance, just to pick an example, I never saw the Q in "The
Fighter" as DM trying to refuse it. I certainly didn't see it as DM
*succeeding* in refusing it. I bet a lot of people saw it the way I
saw it -- the way the writers apparently meant it to be seen.
I agree that if a *majority* of viewers see something that the writers
didn't intend (or just can't figure out what the writers intended),
then the writers more or less failed to communicate. But if less than
half of the viewers saw something the writers didn't intend, even if
they saw the same unintentional something, while more than half saw it
the way the writers did intend, then the writers communicated
successfully. IMHO.
And besides, in television (or film) it's not just the writers who are
implicated in poor communication. The director, the actors, the
special effects guys, the editors -- they may all contribute to
obfuscating what is quite clear on the page (as well as to translating
with brilliant clarity what is clear on the page).
Naomi
Velia Tanner and Friends
> With Larcas rock, as I said to Naomi, Claire and
>Maggie above and below, it could just *be* that it was not meant to
>be holy and was not consecrated by the sacrifices (like they argued),
>and I can accept that possibility even *without* any statement of TPTB
>on this. But on the other hand you haven't that overwhelming clear
>evidence in all the episodes for the nature of the holy ground rule,
>as you have in that "Quickening-refusal" case. So I think if TPTB
>wpould like to set a clear andunmistakenably standard here, it would
>have to be in the show, not in a statement on a con. Unmistakenably
>like some Immortal stopping his killing blow on holy ground without
>any outside intervention: for the possibility that the just *can't*
>kill there. *Or* like an Immortal killing on holy ground as evidence
>that they *can*.
TPTB *don't* want to be unmistakably clear on the Holy Ground issue. It is
one of the things they have left open to intepretation *on purpose.* There's
lots of evidence in lots of episodes to argue and interpret, but no
definitive answer. If they wanted to give a definitive answer, there would
have been a scene like the one you describe, and there would be nothing
to discuss.
My point, and I think Claire's point as well, is that "the rock in Little
Tin God looked like Holy Ground to me" is not useful evidence in the debate
of the nature of Holy Ground in the HL Universe, because *that's not what
happened in that scene.* The statement of the writers that Claire quoted was
not a matter of them "making a ruling," it was a matter of *them* pointing
out that, *by the onscreen evidence,* it can't have been Holy Ground,
because if there were ever to be a scene in the show where an Immortal
killed on Holy Ground, the characters would notice and say so, you wouldn't
have to guess and wonder.
The analogy at the time had to do with the Dark Quickening. People had
heard that Duncan would "go evil" during season 4. In the first 10
episodes, every time he sneered or coughed or looked tired, viewers would
wonder, "Was that it? Is he going evil?" Donna and Gillian kept telling
people, "When he turns evil, *you'll know.*" If an Immortal kills on Holy
Ground in the show or movies, *you'll know.* It won't be subtle.
> Okay; I can
>live with that; if there is a whole Clan Denial denying the death of
>Richie in AA (what I do not) I can ignore TPTB making statements too.
I guess I don't actually think everything is a matter of opinion. Richie
*is* dead, and Methos *did* say "I liked Silas!" and people saying "I don't
think that happened" are not just interpreting something differently --
they're actually mistaken.
YMMV.
Velia Tanner and Friends
>Re what the writers intended--I am going to be the devil's (Ahriman's?)advocate
>here. When I was attending a writer's workshop lo these many years ago, there
>were people defending their manuscripts on the grounds of what they had
>intended. The instructor pointed out that if they didn't communicate their
>intention in the work, then they had failed. If this applies to would be
>writers, then why wouldn't it apply to professional television writers? If so
>many fans got some other message than what the writers intended, then it seems
>to me that there has been a failure to communicate..
Yep, and they have cheerfully owned up to the fact that the confusing scene
in Avenging Angel (the original "wasn't that Holy Ground?" debate) and the
one in the Fighter could have/should have been written and/or filmed
differently.
But "that scene was badly filmed and confused people, it's a bad scene,"
does not logically lead, imho, to "so the rules of the show in the future
have to conform to what some people thought they saw." The rules continue
to conform to what the filmmakers *intended* to show.
There has yet to be a case where the *entire* audience misinterpreted a
scene, BTW. There are always some people who understood it the way it was
intended, some who understood it a different way. The statements of the
fillmakers can't go back and change the scene that was aired, but knowing
what they meant to do can clarify how to interpret the scene in terms of
what it predicts or proves about how the HL world works.
The fact that the scene in the Fighter showed bouncing lightening that made
some people think DM was refusing the Quickennig just proves that the
lightening guy should be more careful, imho -- not that refusing a
Quickening is possible.
HolliT64
>(Ahriman's?)advocate
>here. When I was attending a writer's workshop lo these many years ago, there
>were people defending their manuscripts on the grounds of what they had
>intended. The instructor pointed out that if they didn't communicate their
>intention in the work, then they had failed. If this applies to would be
>writers, then why wouldn't it apply to professional television writers? If
>so
>many fans got some other message than what the writers intended, then it
>seems
>to me that there has been a failure to communicate..
>
The only problem with that argument is that when someone reads a story they put
their interpretation on exactly what the writer wrote. In television or movies
for that matter, the writer writes the story, the director interprets and then
the editor edits...Then the viewer sees it and interprets what they see. I
know that is very simplified, but that is JMHO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Holli T
Member PEACE-APFC, PWFC
Highlander Clan
"Obsessed? I am not obsessed. Now give me the damn remote before someone
loses his head."
Jette Goldie
had the following bright ideas:
>On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 23:00:17 GMT, ve...@netcom.com (Velia Tanner and
>Friends) wrote:
>
>>DM didn't refuse the Quickening in "The Fighter," either, BTW.
>
>Huh? Lost me there! When have I ever said DM refused a Quickening? I
>don't even think an Immortal can *do* that. I think I missed that
>discussion; what was it all about and when did it come up?
>
It comes up regularly because fans insist that *what they saw* is more
valid than *what was meant by the writers*.
(and Methos didn't say "I lied Silas" either <g>)
Jette - Joe's my jo!
Naomi A. Rose
gre...@vossnet.de (Helga Abendroth) wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:15:14 GMT, Naomi A. Rose <nar...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote in reply to Helga:
*snip*
>>But this misses Claire's earlier point. She pointed out that sacraments
But you're missing another point here :-). I totally agree that saying
"Immies can't kill on holy ground, therefore the rock wasn't holy ground"
is a circular argument (the same thing as your German saying, I think
:-P).
What *I've* been saying and I think Claire was saying is that *since*
immies can't kill on holy ground (so the immies say), *if* that rock
*was* holy ground, DM would have been making a big stink about it -- it
would have been remarked upon in the ep somehow -- it would have had
lots of fingers pointing and rockets' red glare and jumping up and down
to emphasize it. It wouldn't have gone by with nary a whimper.
That's all we've been saying. I actually agree with your theory that
immies *can* kill (as in physically are capable of killing) on holy
ground. I don't think some magical force would keep their arm from
swinging. In this, I disagree with Claire. But I totally agree with
Claire that the Moche rock wasn't holy ground, because if it had been,
Larca killing there wouldn't have happened so casually in the ep.
*snip*
>And in the show we *haven't seen* yet a clear provement of either it
>is tradition or a natural inner force. So I will go on discussing
>until I *see* a clear prove for one of these two possibilities. And
>until then I tend to believe the "tradition"-solution has more points
>speaking for it so far.
>
>Helga
Again, Helga, I think you have missed the point of this discussion. We
are not saying we all can't discuss what the holy ground Rule is all
about. What we are saying, as a *fact*, is that the rock in LTG was
*not* holy ground. Because if it was, *you'd know it*.
Naomi
Naomi A. Rose
gre...@vossnet.de (Helga Abendroth) wrote:
*snipping a lot*
>So I enjoy to think about it - and I think, if TPTB wants to make sure
>anything shown on the show can sensibly interpretated only in one way,
>they 'll just have to make sure to show it in a way it turns out
>clearly. And in Little Tin God they didn't. IMHO.
>
>Helga <stubborn>
Yes, you are :-). Your comments in the part I snipped are perfectly valid
and I agree with them for the most part. But then you get to this last
part and apparently don't see that this fits in perfectly with your own
argument. In "Little Tin God," TPTB very clearly showed that the Moche
rock where Larca sacrificed that guy was *not* to be considered holy
ground, because DM, who consistently completely freaks out (and freaked out
mightily in this very ep in other scenes) when an immie almost kills on
holy ground, did *not* freak when Larca killed DM's guide on that rock. So
the rock was *clearly* not holy ground. It was just a rock outside the
temple where a holy rite was practiced.
And I'm now bowing out of this discussion because it's getting repetitious
:-).
Naomi
lrgf
BTW, I am having major server problems and I am missing (and probably
important) parts of this thread and others which have discussed similar
issues. So with that in mind I will proceed adding my 2 cents.
First, I wish to state my views so that they are hopefully clear before I
discuss the views of others.
I. I do not think that Larca killed on Holy ground (in the HL universe). (I
explained this on another thread answering a post of Claire's. The header was
'holy' to whom....)
II. the stone (large rock) on the temple platform (foundation for temple used
in many pre-Columbian cultures) in "Little Tin God" was an altar (raised
platform for offering sacrifices)
my reasoning is as follows:
an altar# is a stone (or other substance used to create a raised platform)
used in making sacrifices##
a sacrifice was made on the stone in "Little Tin God"
conclusion: the stone in "Little Tin God" is an altar
# Definitions of the word altar:
A) An altar is a table or elevated platform intended for the offering of a
religious sacrifice. In the religions of ancient times, altars sometimes were
composed of the ashes of previous offerings compacted by time. - Groliers
Multimedia Encyclopedia '97
B) A mount; a table or elevated place, on which sacrifices where anciently
offered to some deity. Altars were originally made of turf,
afterwards of stone, wood or horn; some were round, others square, others
triangular.- Websters Online Dictionary
C) . An elevated place or structure before which religious ceremonies may be
enacted or upon which sacrifices may be offered. --American Heritage Dic.
## Definitions of word sacrifice:
A) Sacrifice is a ritual act in which an offering is made to the object of
worship or religious veneration. The offering may be in plant, animal, or even
human form. Found in the religions of many cultures, past and present,
sacrifice is a practice intended to honor or appease a deity and to make holy
the offering. -- Groliers Multimedia Encyclopedia
B) Sacrifice is a ritual act in which an offering is made to the object of
worship or religious veneration. The offering may be in plant, animal, or even
human form. Found in the religions of many cultures, past and present,
sacrifice is a practice intended to honor or appease a deity and to make holy
the offering.
III. that altars are most likely considered sacred (holy) by those offered
sacrifices on them (in this case the HL Moche but I am basically taking in
general not specific terms)
my reasoning stems is from the following:
The word sacrifice comes from the Latin word sacrificium meaning "something
made holy". Sacrifice current definition is "..a ritual act in which a
consecrated offering is made to a god or other spiritual being in order to
establish, perpetuate or restore a sacred bond between humanity and the
divine"- Encarta '95 (Microsoft)
also:
The concept of "the altar has been ascribed deep religious and symbolic
significance . It has been considered a holy and revered object, a place
hallowed by the divine presence where contact and communication with deities
and other spirits could be achieved . So sacred was its power, often
protected by taboos that it serve at times , as an asylum for those seeking
refuge." - Encarta '95
IV. The above being said I think there is evidence within the ep of other
reasons why the POV of the Moche was not sufficient to qualify the altar as
Holy ground in the HL universe.
A) The Moche were offering the sacrifice to Larca (who in the HL universe is
not a god) (Though I hold that HL Moche believed he was.)
B) not all holy or sacred objects , grounds, or even temples have associated
with them the (Real world) concept of 'sanctuary' ( asylum) which, imo, is the
basis for the Highlander world's concept of Holy Ground.
V. I accept that HL world and Real world are separate and that what is true in
one is not necessarily true in the other.
VI. With point IV. in mind, HL world is made up of more than world. I think
discussions from the POV of the 'internal' world * of Highlander are dealing
with issues separate from those which deal with the 'external ' world view of Highlander**
Both, in my view, are equally valid.
* The world in which DM, Methos, Larca, Amanda, The Watchers etc. exist and
there is no Highlander TV Series. (There are no scripts, no TPTB <writers,
directors, etc.>,no canon and no viewers in this world.)
** The world in which Highlander is TV series, Movie, a spin -off, a series
of books. (There are scripts, TPTB, an audience and writers and script writing
guidelines in this world.)
VII. This discussion has people mixing the two above two worlds and it has
lead to some rather twisted arguments (imo) where the twain are never going to
meet because their arguments are using different worlds as points of
references. I think perhaps it would be useful to take a step back decide what
world is being discussed and by whom. (this is, of course, only a suggestion)
VIII. This post is already far to long and I will reply to various individual
posts separately.
-laure (btw, posts have been arriving 6hrs to days late on my server-- with
that in mind if you want me to see your posts earlier, please email them to me.)
Helga Abendroth
wrote:
Mee too. But I said already that I accept that last argument (that DM
did not freak out when he should have, if the rock was holy) and think
of it to be very valid, indeed. :-)
Helga
lrgf
Claire Maier wrote:
>
> Helga Abendroth (gre...@vossnet.de) wrote:
>
> : And in the Flasback Larca *was* about to kill him on that altar stone
> : (as I discussed on another thread - holy ground enigma - the mere fact
> : of the sacrifice rock to be used in rituals the Moche considered holy
> : made it holy ground).
I disagree with this I think it merely made it holy to Moche not that it made
it holy ground in the Highlander universe.
>
> I've been going around and around with someone on this on HIGHLA-L, so I
> might as well do it here.
>
> There is no evidence that the Moche considered that rock to be holy
> ground. It's just viewer supposition.
I disagree with this. The conversation between Larca and DM clearly suggests
that the Moche believe that ritual sacrifice is not murder but a sacred act.
It may be a supposition but I don't think it is an unreasonable one to make.
TPTB intended that it *not* be
> holy ground-- that's why the rock is *outside* the temple.
I accept that the sacrifice was not made on Holy Ground (HL version of it). I
accept that TPTB did not intend it to be considered holy ground by DM or by
the viewers. I do not think that TPTB made a mistake.
What I question is that TPTB placed the 'rock' upon which a human sacrifice
was made in the ep outside because they wanted it to be considered off of holy
ground. It appears to me that a more reasonable assumption would be that they
placed the 'rock' in question in the open air because placing it such would be
more consistent with pre-Columbian temple architecture.
>
> *Performing a rite does not automatically sanctify the ground.*
I accept this as true, not all rites are rites of sanctification.
>
> For example, in The Cross of St. Antoine, the priest is performing
> baptisms at the river. The baptisms are a very important, significant
> sacrament-- one that defines who is a member of the religion-- but the
> river is not holy ground. Durgan kills the priest there, in fact. But we
> didn't have the holy ground controversy over Durgan, because it was a
> familiar religion and it was understood that the river was not holy
> ground.
Baptism and human sacrifice are not equivalent rites. And I don't see how the
above instance has any bearing on the topic at hand. (It may have but I don't
see the connection. Please explain.)
> But let an unfamiliar religion use a rock for a rite, and all of
> a sudden viewers are claiming that it's an altar,
Larca did not perform a baptism he made a human sacrifice. The definition
(look it up in any dictionary) of an altar is structure/ platform upon which
sacrifices are made. Ipso facto, (as Naomi has become fond of saying) the
'rock' is an altar. At least in the Real world it would be considered such and
I find no evidence that the HL world necessarily views it differently.
and TPTB "forgot" about
> the holy ground rule,
I haven't argued such and I haven't seen anyone else make that assertion.
(though I am missing a lot posts, so I may be wrong on this point.)
<snip>
>
> Canon is: Larca did not kill, or even attempt to kill, on holy ground.
> Immortals cannot kill on holy ground. Sometimes a rock is just a rock.
whose canon? your canon? the writers' canon? the TPTB's canon? (I don't mean
to be rude or doubt your word but it isn't clear to me what you are talking
about when you use the word canon.)
Again, I accept that Larca did not kill on holy ground. I accept that there
is a rule that states that immortals cannot kill on holy ground. And yes
sometimes a rock is just a rock. But if you use it to make a sacrifice to a
deity it is an altar as well.
> : So I still think that Immortals in fact *can* kill on holy ground but
> : won't do it if any reason is left to them, at least not take another
> : Immortals head, because it is an deeply ingrained Taboo (like, say.,
> : kannibalism or something) and they just feel that there might be
> : *dreadful* consequences. Another example: DM was quite ready to
> : believe that Pompeian legend. So he felt it indeed to be possible:
> : both the part that two Immortals *could* have fighted on holy ground
> : and one taken the others head, *and* the part that it would have had
> : horrifying consequences.
>
> I disagree. They cannot kill on holy ground. They never have, not in 119
> episodes (viewer misunderstandings to the contrary notwithstanding).
The fact they haven't not done so doesn't *prove* they cannot. It just means
they haven't.
<snip>
> : I think they *can* break the rule, but even the most evil ones fear
> : the possible consequences so much that they simply *wont*, and that
> : the Canon on this should be read not that they *can't* kill on holy
> : ground, but that they *must not*.
>
> Well, I disagree with this too. Canon is that they don't kill on holy
> ground. Ever. Even the Vesuvius thing is only a legend. As far as the
> Watchers know for sure, no immortal has *ever* killed on holy ground.
hmmm, I'm a little confused here. Is canon that they are *cannot* to kill on
holy ground or is it they *don't* kill on holy ground? Those statements seem
very different to me. The first means that for some reason immortals are not
able to kill on holy ground. The second means what it says. They don't kill on
holy ground but doesn't give a reason and it doesn't preclude the possibility
that they are able to but choose not to.
-laure <who hasn't ground out of the 'why' stage and doesn't plan to. :-) >
lrgf
Just asking for some clarifying info. :-)
Velia Tanner and Friends wrote:
>
> In article <35b24be7...@news.vossnet.de> gre...@vossnet.de (Helga Abendroth) writes:
> >As for the writers and what they did say on that convention: sorry,
> >but since I don't have the chance to go to conventions in the states I
> >have to build my opinion by what I'm seeing on the tv screen, like
> >most other HL-fans.
>
> No, you don't. You've found this newsgroup, and now you have access to
> clarifying information. Which you can choose to ignore if you like.
>
> The altar outside the Moche temple was not meant by the makers of the show
> to be considered Holy Ground.
Why wasn't the altar meant to be considered Holy ground? Pointedly, was it
because of its placement outside i.e. do the makers consider all open air
altars not holy ground? or was it because they did not consider the Moche
worship of Larca a valid religion and therefore its 'holy' ground was not HL
Holy ground (from the stand point of how the characters behaved)? or was it
because not all real world holy ground has the concept of asylum as
associated with it? or was some other reason?
Therefore using it's apparent holiness *to
> you* as any kind of "evidence" of how the Holy Ground rule works in the HL
> universe doesn't make sense.
Actually, to me, it does make sense because if holy ground is different HL
universe than the real world. Figuring out what the differences are one way
of figuring out how the Holy Ground rule works in HL universe.
<snip>
-laure <who hasn't grown out the why stage and doesn't plan to..>
Claire Maier
Organization: Emory University
Distribution:
lrgf (lr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: > : And in the Flasback Larca *was* about to kill him on that altar stone
: > : (as I discussed on another thread - holy ground enigma - the mere fact
: > : of the sacrifice rock to be used in rituals the Moche considered holy
: > : made it holy ground).
:
: I disagree with this I think it merely made it holy to Moche not that it made
: it holy ground in the Highlander universe.
I don't think it even made it holy to the Moche. Sacred rites do not
automatically hallow the site where they are performed. (And I would
daresay there are some religions that only have holy rites, not holy
sites.) Just like the baptisms in the river did not hallow the river to
Christians, there is no a priori reason to assume that the rock was sacred
to the Moche.
From what we've seen on Highlander, *every* religion's holy ground is
respected. Why would the Moche be an exception? I say they aren't. To
discount Moche holy ground would go counter to HL's philosophy of trying
to respect all religions.
(This is the big argument I've had with someone on HIGHLA-L; that person
claims that LTG shows that TPTB consider Moche holy ground to be different
from "regular" holy ground. I've been arguing very strenuously against
that.)
: > There is no evidence that the Moche considered that rock to be holy
: > ground. It's just viewer supposition.
:
: I disagree with this. The conversation between Larca and DM clearly suggests
: that the Moche believe that ritual sacrifice is not murder but a sacred act.
: It may be a supposition but I don't think it is an unreasonable one to make.
I don't disagree that it was a sacred act. I'm saying that there's no
evidence the rock was holy ground. Just like the baptisms in the river--
the baptisms are a sacred act, but the place is not holy ground.
NOT ALL SACRED RITES ARE PERFORMED ON HOLY GROUND. Just because someone
is doing a sacred rite says nothing about the ground that it's being
performed on.
: TPTB intended that it *not* be
: > holy ground-- that's why the rock is *outside* the temple.
:
: I accept that the sacrifice was not made on Holy Ground (HL version of it). I
: accept that TPTB did not intend it to be considered holy ground by DM or by
: the viewers. I do not think that TPTB made a mistake.
:
: What I question is that TPTB placed the 'rock' upon which a human sacrifice
: was made in the ep outside because they wanted it to be considered off of holy
: ground. It appears to me that a more reasonable assumption would be that they
: placed the 'rock' in question in the open air because placing it such would be
: more consistent with pre-Columbian temple architecture.
I don't think so. Not when half the episode was spent talking about how
immortals don't kill on holy ground. And the writers themselves have said
the reason the sacrifices took place outside the temple was to show they
were off holy ground. I think that's a much more important meaning, in
the Highlander universe, than pre-Columbian architecture.
: > *Performing a rite does not automatically sanctify the ground.*
:
: I accept this as true, not all rites are rites of sanctification.
It's more basic than that. There are many rites that are performed off
holy ground routinely. I think it's a mistake to assume that any rite is
*required* to be performed on holy ground unless the religion specifically
specifies that it has to be. Just because someone performs sacred rites
in a certain place does not necessarily mean that there's holy ground
under there. Sacred rites can be performed in ordinary places.
: > For example, in The Cross of St. Antoine, the priest is performing
: > baptisms at the river. The baptisms are a very important, significant
: > sacrament-- one that defines who is a member of the religion-- but the
: > river is not holy ground. Durgan kills the priest there, in fact. But we
: > didn't have the holy ground controversy over Durgan, because it was a
: > familiar religion and it was understood that the river was not holy
: > ground.
:
: Baptism and human sacrifice are not equivalent rites. And I don't see how the
: above instance has any bearing on the topic at hand. (It may have but I don't
: see the connection. Please explain.)
It has a bearing because it is an example of a holy rite being performed
in a non-holy place. Just like the Moche performed a holy sacrifice on
an ordinary, non-holy rock, the priest was performing holy baptisms in an
ordinary, non-holy river.
: > But let an unfamiliar religion use a rock for a rite, and all of
: > a sudden viewers are claiming that it's an altar,
:
: Larca did not perform a baptism he made a human sacrifice. The definition
: (look it up in any dictionary) of an altar is structure/ platform upon which
: sacrifices are made. Ipso facto, (as Naomi has become fond of saying) the
: 'rock' is an altar. At least in the Real world it would be considered such and
: I find no evidence that the HL world necessarily views it differently.
But people have been saying that the rock was holy ground. It isn't. An
"altar" also has the secondary meaning of a holy place. People have been
saying that sacrifices prove it's holy somehow. It doesn't. Nobody ever
said the Moche had to do their sacrifices on holy ground.
> Canon is: Larca did not kill, or even attempt to kill, on holy ground.
: > Immortals cannot kill on holy ground. Sometimes a rock is just a
rock. :
: whose canon? your canon? the writers' canon? the TPTB's canon?
The writers, and the other PTB.
: sometimes a rock is just a rock. But if you use it to make a sacrifice
: to a deity it is an altar as well.
You are making an assumption that sacrifice hallows the ground. It
doesn't necessarily do so. Just because "altar" has a double meaning of
sacrifice/holy ground in English does not mean that the two concepts are
inseparable. Performing a sacrifice and hallowing the ground are two
different rites and may be totally separate.
little confused here. Is canon that they are *cannot* to kill on : holy
ground or is it they *don't* kill on holy ground? Those statements seem :
Canon is that they don't. Exactly why, we don't know.
But it is also canon that no immortal has killed on holy ground in the
series, Larca included. (There is that unproven legend about Pompei,
though.)
Claire Maier
<6om4po$b...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <35B0D81B...@sprintmail.com>:
Organization: Emory University
Distribution:
lrgf (lr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
:
: III. that altars are most likely considered sacred (holy) by those offered
: sacrifices on them (in this case the HL Moche but I am basically taking in
: general not specific terms)
:
: my reasoning stems is from the following:
:
: The word sacrifice comes from the Latin word sacrificium meaning "something
: made holy". Sacrifice current definition is "..a ritual act in which a
: consecrated offering is made to a god or other spiritual being in order to
: establish, perpetuate or restore a sacred bond between humanity and the
: divine"- Encarta '95 (Microsoft)
You can't use English definitions (or Latin ones) as an argument here.
Just because English (from the Latin) uses the same root for an offering
made to a diety and something made holy, it doesn't mean that the Moche
do. They might separate the two concepts (making something holy vs.
performing a sacrifice) and use two totally different words for them.
: The concept of "the altar has been ascribed deep religious and symbolic
: significance . It has been considered a holy and revered object, a place
: hallowed by the divine presence where contact and communication with deities
: and other spirits could be achieved . So sacred was its power, often
: protected by taboos that it serve at times , as an asylum for those seeking
: refuge." - Encarta '95
Again, you are taking a very limited meaning of "altar" (a place where
sacrifices to a diety occur) and trying argue that just because the rock
could be considered an altar in that limited sense, that it is considered
an altar in all senses of the English word (and in all the ways it is
conceived of in Judeo-Christian religions). This is a fallacy.
The place where sacrifices occur and a place that is holy ground are not
automatically one and the same, even though there are Latin and English
words that mean both. There is no evidence that the Moche have paired
these two concepts the way Judeo-Christian cultures have.
: IV. The above being said I think there is evidence within the ep of other
: reasons why the POV of the Moche was not sufficient to qualify the altar as
: Holy ground in the HL universe.
But Highlander has never done this. *All* religions shown have had their
holy ground fully respected. This interpretation really gets my goat,
because it implies a lack of respect for the Moche's holy ground that is
not reflective of the way HL treats religion.
: A) The Moche were offering the sacrifice to Larca (who in the HL universe is
: not a god) (Though I hold that HL Moche believed he was.)
But the episode makes the point that Larca may not have been the only
immortal worshipped as a god. The original decapitator god the Moche
worshipped may have been another immortal, as Larca astutely points out.
And then there are Reverend Bell's comments at the end of the episode.
Also, do any of us really know, for sure, if our Gods are real? As Duncan
pointed out, it all comes down to faith.
Having Larca be an invalid god for the Moche, to the point of changing
the sacredness (or lack thereof) of the place for their rites, would
invalidate the point that Duncan is making.
: B) not all holy or sacred objects , grounds, or even temples have associated
: with them the (Real world) concept of 'sanctuary' ( asylum) which, imo, is the
: basis for the Highlander world's concept of Holy Ground.
It is probably the basis for their concept of holy ground, but in the
Highlander universe, all holy ground has the asylum factor (ie., no
immortals will kill there), whether or not it would be considered asylum
in the real world.
lrgf
Claire Maier wrote:
>
>
> lrgf (lr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
> :
> : III. that altars are most likely considered sacred (holy) by those offered
> : sacrifices on them (in this case the HL Moche but I am basically taking in
> : general not specific terms)
I should have stated *many times* instead of *most likely*
> :
> : my reasoning stems is from the following:
> :
> : The word sacrifice comes from the Latin word sacrificium meaning "something
> : made holy". Sacrifice current definition is "..a ritual act in which a
> : consecrated offering is made to a god or other spiritual being in order to
> : establish, perpetuate or restore a sacred bond between humanity and the
> : divine"- Encarta '95 (Microsoft)
>
> You can't use English definitions (or Latin ones) as an argument here.
I think I can. Not because they are proof of how the Moche considered their
altar, but english is the language that the ep was written and the language
many viewed it in. It pertains to the question of how viewers are likely to
perceive what they hear and see. Not to the question of whether the Moche
viewed altar as holy ground.
> Just because English (from the Latin) uses the same root for an offering
> made to a diety and something made holy, it doesn't mean that the Moche
> do.
Quite true, I don't believe one can logically determine how the Moche viewed
their altar. The HL Moche don't exist outside this ep. I don't claim to know
for certain how the HL Moche (or the historical Moche either) viewed their
altars. I am using my knowledge of how other cultures view their altars--- it
is the only way I have to judge what I am seeing. All I am saying is that I
don't find unreasonable to think that the Moche *could* have viewed their
altar as being on sacred ground and I don't see in 'internal'(within what we
are shown in ep) that proves that they did not beyond a reasonable doubt (of
course that is a subjective view.)
They might separate the two concepts (making something holy vs.
> performing a sacrifice) and use two totally different words for them.
Of course, they might but we are not shown this. The word english word
sacrifice was used not a Moche word defined as meaning killing somebody on a
rock to please a god.
>
> : The concept of "the altar has been ascribed deep religious and symbolic
> : significance . It has been considered a holy and revered object, a place
> : hallowed by the divine presence where contact and communication with deities
> : and other spirits could be achieved . So sacred was its power, often
> : protected by taboos that it serve at times , as an asylum for those seeking
> : refuge." - Encarta '95
>
> Again, you are taking a very limited meaning of "altar" (a place where
> sacrifices to a diety occur) and trying argue that just because the rock
> could be considered an altar in that limited sense, that it is considered
> an altar in all senses of the English word (and in all the ways it is
> conceived of in Judeo-Christian religions). This is a fallacy.
Yes, it would be a fallacy if that was what I was trying to prove. I am only
trying to suggest the associations that the words altar and sacrifice invokes
in viewers' minds... not that all altars are viewed in all religions the same
way. BTW, I was not suggesting that the Moche altar be viewed in light of
Judeo-Christian symbolism but in more general terms of known world religions
some of which have stronger ties to the idea of altar being the most holy of
places.
>
> The place where sacrifices occur and a place that is holy ground are not
> automatically one and the same, even though there are Latin and English
> words that mean both. There is no evidence that the Moche have paired
> these two concepts the way Judeo-Christian cultures have.
True, but there is no evidence that they did not.
>
> : IV. The above being said I think there is evidence within the ep of other
> : reasons why the POV of the Moche was not sufficient to qualify the altar as
> : Holy ground in the HL universe.
>
> But Highlander has never done this. *All* religions shown have had their
> holy ground fully respected. This interpretation really gets my goat,
> because it implies a lack of respect for the Moche's holy ground that is
> not reflective of the way HL treats religion.
Gee, because Highlander does not respect my view of what holy ground is, I
tend to look with a rather jaundice eye on the above assertion. Of course,
you could argue that my religion or others that view the entire Earth sacred
ground don't exist in the HL universe but I would find that assertion as
offensive as the one that you make above.
>
> : A) The Moche were offering the sacrifice to Larca (who in the HL universe is
> : not a god) (Though I hold that HL Moche believed he was.)
>
> But the episode makes the point that Larca may not have been the only
> immortal worshipped as a god.
yes, that is part of the point I am making
The original decapitator god the Moche
> worshipped may have been another immortal, as Larca astutely points out.
> And then there are Reverend Bell's comments at the end of the episode.
> Also, do any of us really know, for sure, if our Gods are real? As Duncan
> pointed out, it all comes down to faith.
but faith in what?
>
> Having Larca be an invalid god for the Moche, to the point of changing
> the sacredness (or lack thereof) of the place for their rites, would
> invalidate the point that Duncan is making.
But DM does dispute Larca's claim that he is a god. He clearly does not
believe that Larca is the true god of Moche people. Either Larca is god or not
--- I don't see how it could be viewed as something that has degrees of
godliness.
I think that it makes DM's statement all the more poignant. He knows that
there are false religions and false gods (like Larca) but he has faith that
not all religions and gods are fake.
>
> : B) not all holy or sacred objects , grounds, or even temples have associated
> : with them the (Real world) concept of 'sanctuary' ( asylum) which, imo, is the
> : basis for the Highlander world's concept of Holy Ground.
>
> It is probably the basis for their concept of holy ground, but in the
> Highlander universe, all holy ground has the asylum factor (ie., no
> immortals will kill there), whether or not it would be considered asylum
> in the real world.
But what is holy ground in the HL universe? The term as used Highlander
seems at first to be concrete but in actuality it is very vague to the point
that it is practically without meaning (imho, as is everything else I have
stated in the above)
-laure
lrgf
Claire Maier wrote:
>
> lrgf (lr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
Helga, I believe wrote this not I.
> : > : And in the Flasback Larca *was* about to kill him on that altar stone
> : > : (as I discussed on another thread - holy ground enigma - the mere fact
> : > : of the sacrifice rock to be used in rituals the Moche considered holy
> : > : made it holy ground).
I wrote this:
> : I disagree with this I think it merely made it holy to Moche not that it made
> : it holy ground in the Highlander universe.
>
> I don't think it even made it holy to the Moche.
fair enough...
Sacred rites do not
> automatically hallow the site where they are performed. (And I would
> daresay there are some religions that only have holy rites, not holy
> sites.)
I am not arguing that they *all* necessarily do. And yes, not all religions
have holy sites (at least not permanent ones)
Just like the baptisms in the river did not hallow the river to
> Christians, there is no a priori reason to assume that the rock was sacred
> to the Moche.
The difference I see between baptism and a sacrifice is that the latter has a
times the idea of sanctification associated with it. The Eucharist is an
Christian sacrament that according to the beliefs of some Christian sects has
an element of sacrifice associated with it. In those sects which view it as a
sacrifice it is performed using an altar.
> From what we've seen on Highlander, *every* religion's holy ground is
> respected.
Well, according to my religious beliefs all ground is Holy Ground----so they
haven't respected mine. (and I don't really expect them to)
Why would the Moche be an exception?
Because of whom they were worshiping. If Larca had posed as another Moche god
it would have been another matter or if the temple was dedicated to an actual
historical Moche god. They were clearly sacrificing in honor of Larca as the
decapitator and it was made clear in the episode that the prior decapitator(S)
were not god(s) but immortal(s) posing as god(s). At least that seemed (imo)
to be the position DM took.
I say they aren't. To
> discount Moche holy ground would go counter to HL's philosophy of trying
> to respect all religions.
As I stated above they don't respect mine.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> NOT ALL SACRED RITES ARE PERFORMED ON HOLY GROUND.
NO NEED TO SHOUT. I get your point. My point is that not all sacred rites are
equivalent in their meaning and that rites of sacrifice are often if not
always a rite of sanctification.
Just because someone
> is doing a sacred rite says nothing about the ground that it's being
> performed on.
I think that is dependent on the rite being performed.
>
> : TPTB intended that it *not* be
> : > holy ground-- that's why the rock is *outside* the temple.
> :
> : I accept that the sacrifice was not made on Holy Ground (HL version of it). I
> : accept that TPTB did not intend it to be considered holy ground by DM or by
> : the viewers. I do not think that TPTB made a mistake.
> :
> : What I question is that TPTB placed the 'rock' upon which a human sacrifice
> : was made in the ep outside because they wanted it to be considered off of holy
> : ground. It appears to me that a more reasonable assumption would be that they
> : placed the 'rock' in question in the open air because placing it such would be
> : more consistent with pre-Columbian temple architecture.
>
> I don't think so. Not when half the episode was spent talking about how
> immortals don't kill on holy ground.
But the in the dialogue and action immediately prior to the sacrifice dealt
with the idea of what makes a god a god. Larca asserted that the faith of his
followers made him a god and DM disputed it. It was also brought up that the
idol inside the sanctuary was a depiction of an immortal not of a god.
And the writers themselves have said
> the reason the sacrifices took place outside the temple was to show they
> were off holy ground.
If this is an accurate statement I now think the writers did make a gaffe.
Because simply placing the altar outside doesn't make it necessarily appear
off holy ground (at least not without further 'internal' explanation <within
the ep>).
Well, Claire, you have succeeding in persuading me that it is quite possible
that the writers made a gaffe. And that the episode was not the thoughtful
treatment of issues of divinity and holiness that I thought it was. (a couple
of more weeks of reading this ng and I will be able to tape over my Highlander
tapes )
<snip>
> : > For example, in The Cross of St. Antoine, the priest is performing
> : > baptisms at the river. The baptisms are a very important, significant
> : > sacrament-- one that defines who is a member of the religion-- but the
> : > river is not holy ground. Durgan kills the priest there, in fact. But we
> : > didn't have the holy ground controversy over Durgan, because it was a
> : > familiar religion and it was understood that the river was not holy
> : > ground.
> :
> : Baptism and human sacrifice are not equivalent rites. And I don't see how the
> : above instance has any bearing on the topic at hand. (It may have but I don't
> : see the connection. Please explain.)
>
> It has a bearing because it is an example of a holy rite being performed
> in a non-holy place. Just like the Moche performed a holy sacrifice on
> an ordinary, non-holy rock, the priest was performing holy baptisms in an
> ordinary, non-holy river.
But baptism is not the same as sacrifice. (I know I am repeating myself but
you are repeating yourself as well.) They are both sacred rites, but they
are very different in nature. I would find it more compelling if the
comparison was between the sacrament of the Eucharist (as performed by a
catholic priest) and the sacrifice made in LTG. But, no one has lost there
head on an open air altar after a priest performed the rite of the Eucharist
on it so, I don't think reference to a Christian sacramental rite really says
anything about the whether or not all places of sacrifice are necessarily
holy ground.
>
> : > But let an unfamiliar religion use a rock for a rite, and all of
> : > a sudden viewers are claiming that it's an altar,
> :
> : Larca did not perform a baptism he made a human sacrifice. The definition
> : (look it up in any dictionary) of an altar is structure/ platform upon which
> : sacrifices are made. Ipso facto, (as Naomi has become fond of saying) the
> : 'rock' is an altar. At least in the Real world it would be considered such and
> : I find no evidence that the HL world necessarily views it differently.
>
> But people have been saying that the rock was holy ground. It isn't. An
> "altar" also has the secondary meaning of a holy place. People have been
> saying that sacrifices prove it's holy somehow. It doesn't. Nobody ever
> said the Moche had to do their sacrifices on holy ground.
But, many cultures do view their altars as being on sacred ground.
> <snip>
>
> : sometimes a rock is just a rock. But if you use it to make a sacrifice
> : to a deity it is an altar as well.
>
> You are making an assumption that sacrifice hallows the ground.
Actually, I am simply stating the definition of an altar in the above. (I may
have made the assumption else where but I am not here.)
It
> doesn't necessarily do so.
perhaps not...do you know of a instance where altars are not considered to be
on hallowed ground?
'cause I spent the past week looking for a religion that doesn't consider it
to be so and I have yet to find one where the altar was considered separate
from the sacred precinct (holy ground). Though not all would have considered
the area near the altar an 'asylum' or sanctuary which is the basis for HL
Holy Ground, is it not?
Just because "altar" has a double meaning of
> sacrifice/holy ground in English does not mean that the two concepts are
> inseparable.
perhaps....but can you name a instance where the two are separate? If btw, you
are using the term holy ground to mean a place where the right of sanctuary
(asylum) is respected --- I would agree with you but, I think, that is another issue.
Performing a sacrifice and hallowing the ground are two
> different rites and may be totally separate.
But, In in some religions a rite of sacrifice is how ground is made holy. So,
I think that TPTB are in a gray area that is very much open to different interpretations.
All that we *know* of the HL Moche religious beliefs are that Larca said that
they believed that he was a god and that he believed that what makes a god is
the faith of his followers. We know that they practiced ritual human blood
sacrifice. I can't think of anything else that we can state as facts as to how
the HL Moche viewed their religion.
-laure
Claire Maier
: > The altar outside the Moche temple was not meant by the makers of the show
: > to be considered Holy Ground.
:
: Why wasn't the altar meant to be considered Holy ground? Pointedly, was it
: because of its placement outside i.e. do the makers consider all open air
: altars not holy ground? or was it because they did not consider the Moche
: worship of Larca a valid religion and therefore its 'holy' ground was not HL
: Holy ground (from the stand point of how the characters behaved)? or was it
: because not all real world holy ground has the concept of asylum as
: associated with it? or was some other reason?
None of the above.
It wasn't holy ground because they needed to have a place where an
immortal could kill without breaking any rules.
Think about it. Even if the Moche had previously done sacrifices on holy
ground, when Larca took over, he would have moved the sacrifices off holy
ground, in order not to kill on holy ground. Larca knows and respects the
holy ground rule, as we see in the present. (And if the previous
decapitator gods were also immortals, the sacrifices would have never been
allowed on holy ground to begin with.)
: Therefore using it's apparent holiness *to
: > you* as any kind of "evidence" of how the Holy Ground rule works in the HL
: > universe doesn't make sense.
:
: Actually, to me, it does make sense because if holy ground is different HL
: universe than the real world. Figuring out what the differences are one way
: of figuring out how the Holy Ground rule works in HL universe.
Rule in the Highlander universe: If it's holy ground, they will say so.
They always mention holy ground when someone might want to fight or
kill there. And certainly, if someone was to break the rule, they would
talk about it. And especially in Little Tin God! They talked about holy
ground bunches, and didn't ever mention Larca killing there. Therefore,
he didn't.
But all holy ground is equal and all holy ground is sanctuary in the
Highlander universe. But not everything that looks like holy ground to
some viewers is holy ground.
Immortals can and do kill in museums about holy orders (that aren't on
consecrated ground themselves), in parks next to churches, just outside of
graveyards, in rivers used for baptisms, and on sacrificial rocks that are
not sanctified in the way a Judeo-Christian altar would be.
Claire Maier
: The difference I see between baptism and a sacrifice is that the latter has a
: times the idea of sanctification associated with it. The Eucharist is an
: Christian sacrament that according to the beliefs of some Christian sects has
: an element of sacrifice associated with it. In those sects which view it as a
: sacrifice it is performed using an altar.
But this is a Christian (or Judeo-Christian) idea. The two concepts are
actually separate things. One is the performance of a sacrifice. The
other concept is making a *place* sacred. In our Judeo-Christian culture,
the concepts are grouped together-- even the word "sacrifice" comes from
the Latin "to make sacred."
But this is not necessarily so for other religions and cultures. It is
certainly possible to have the concepts of "sacrifice" and
"sanctification" be totally separate things.
: Why would the Moche be an exception?
:
: Because of whom they were worshiping. If Larca had posed as another Moche god
: it would have been another matter or if the temple was dedicated to an actual
: historical Moche god. They were clearly sacrificing in honor of Larca as the
: decapitator and it was made clear in the episode that the prior decapitator(S)
: were not god(s) but immortal(s) posing as god(s). At least that seemed (imo)
: to be the position DM took.
But he did, and it was.
The Moche worshipped a decapitator god before Larca got there. (Now, as
Larca points out to MacLeod, the original decapitator god may have been an
immortal, but Larca wasn't the first.)
And it was not made clear that the previous Moche gods were immortal. It
was introduced as a *possibility.* After all, the real world Moche
worshipped a decapitator god, and it almost certainly wasn't based on
Highlander-style immortality!
And the episode goes even farther than this. Rev. Bell and Joe bring up
the point that the Moche aren't the only religion where an immortal could
have posed as and been worshipped as a god. Duncan doesn't buy this, and
gives his reason as "faith." But I think the possibility has him
alarmed-- what if *his* faith is based on, not the divine, but the
machinations of another immortal? (A lot of gods rise from the dead,
after all.)
But this possibility doesn't unsanctify the holy sites of the world. And
just because Larca is an immortal, that doesn't unsanctify Moche holy
sites either. But Larca (or an immortal predescessor) would still have to
choose unconsecrated ground to perform the sacrifices on.
: I think that is dependent on the rite being performed.
Actually, it is not. It is dependent on the religion and how they view
the concept of holy places. A given religion might say Rite A sanctifies
the ground. Another religion might say, no, Rite A actually desecrates
the ground, but Rite B will sanctify it. And so on.
: > I don't think so. Not when half the episode was spent talking about how
: > immortals don't kill on holy ground.
:
: But the in the dialogue and action immediately prior to the sacrifice dealt
: with the idea of what makes a god a god. Larca asserted that the faith of his
: followers made him a god and DM disputed it. It was also brought up that the
: idol inside the sanctuary was a depiction of an immortal not of a god.
No, it was brought up that it *could* or *might* be an immortal. In
reality, it was not. That was a reproduction of an actual Moche artifact.
But whether or not Larca was a god, he was an immortal, and immortals
don't kill on holy ground. So he had to kill on non-consecrated ground.
: And the writers themselves have said
: > the reason the sacrifices took place outside the temple was to show they
: > were off holy ground.
:
: If this is an accurate statement I now think the writers did make a gaffe.
: Because simply placing the altar outside doesn't make it necessarily appear
: off holy ground (at least not without further 'internal' explanation <within
: the ep>).
But the same could be said for any other sacrificial place. As I've said
before, I think that even had Larca beheaded the sacrifices next to the
latrine trenches, there would still be people saying that it was holy
ground-- why? Because sacrifices occured there. That's basically your
"altar" argument in a nutshell. Sacrifice = altar = holy ground. If the
Moche had only been playing checkers on that very same rock, no one would
be insisting that it had to be holy ground. It would "look" like a table
then, not an altar. That visual image does not automatically equal an
altar (or a table), but it does equal a rock. "Altar" is an
interpretation some fans have put on it.
Also, you have to consider the set design and set-up needed. Ever try to
build a Peruvian jungle temple in Vancouver? You can't be spreading
things out all over the place. You'd use up the episode's entire budget
just on the greenery.
And the writers do not determine locations, or what they look like. That
is for the locations people, the producer, the director, the set designers
and set dressers, and so on. All the writers would say would be something
like, "Larca kills the guide outside the temple." (And the general
location would read as something like, "Exterior day, Peruvian temple."
And the story department might send pictures of the Moche artifacts to
Vancouver, but that would be about the extent of their input.)
: Well, Claire, you have succeeding in persuading me that it is quite possible
: that the writers made a gaffe. And that the episode was not the thoughtful
: treatment of issues of divinity and holiness that I thought it was. (a couple
: of more weeks of reading this ng and I will be able to tape over my Highlander
: tapes )
The writers didn't make a gaffe. They wrote that Larca killed the guide
off of holy ground. Which Larca would have to do anyway, in order not to
break the rule. Seems perfectly sensible to me, without going into a lot
of convoluted theories.
: But baptism is not the same as sacrifice. (I know I am repeating myself but
: you are repeating yourself as well.) They are both sacred rites, but they
: are very different in nature. I would find it more compelling if the
: comparison was between the sacrament of the Eucharist (as performed by a
: catholic priest) and the sacrifice made in LTG. But, no one has lost there
: head on an open air altar after a priest performed the rite of the Eucharist
: on it so, I don't think reference to a Christian sacramental rite really says
: anything about the whether or not all places of sacrifice are necessarily
: holy ground.
What it says is that the concept of performing a sacred rite, and having
the place it's performed on be hallowed, are two separate things. Baptism
is just an example of that.
And I think your emphasis on the rite determining holy ground, rather than
the role of that rite in a specific religion, is misguided. A sacrifice
does not automatically mean certain things about holy ground to every
religion. One religion might say sacrifice hallows the ground. A second
religion may have a totally different way of hallowing the ground and
maintain that sacrifice has nothing to do with it.
: > But people have been saying that the rock was holy ground. It isn't. An
: > "altar" also has the secondary meaning of a holy place. People have been
: > saying that sacrifices prove it's holy somehow. It doesn't. Nobody ever
: > said the Moche had to do their sacrifices on holy ground.
:
: But, many cultures do view their altars as being on sacred ground.
: > <snip>
It doesn't matter how many do. The point is, they don't all have to.
Sanctification of the sacrificial place is not an automatic requirement.
: > : sometimes a rock is just a rock. But if you use it to make a sacrifice
: > : to a deity it is an altar as well.
: >
: > You are making an assumption that sacrifice hallows the ground.
:
: Actually, I am simply stating the definition of an altar in the above. (I may
: have made the assumption else where but I am not here.)
"Altar" is an English word based on Judeo-Christian concepts. You can't
apply it the same way to non-Judeo-Christian beliefs.
: perhaps not...do you know of a instance where altars are not considered to be
: on hallowed ground?
: 'cause I spent the past week looking for a religion that doesn't consider it
: to be so and I have yet to find one where the altar was considered separate
: from the sacred precinct (holy ground). Though not all would have considered
: the area near the altar an 'asylum' or sanctuary which is the basis for HL
: Holy Ground, is it not?
I am not an expert on comparative religions. But even if the sacrifices
were previously on holy ground, Larca would have had to move them to
another location, because otherwise he wouldn't be able to perform his job
as the decapitator god.
Besides, the religions you are likely to find such information on are
religions that have or had many practitioners, and in most cases, are
still being practiced today (or else have had written documentation about
them). You can't get this information on religions practiced by small
groups of people with no surviving members or written records of their
rites. Everything ends up being supposed on the basis of archeological
artifacts.
: But, In in some religions a rite of sacrifice is how ground is made holy. So,
: I think that TPTB are in a gray area that is very much open to different interpretations.
But Larca would not have functioned as the decapitator god in a religion
like that.
: All that we *know* of the HL Moche religious beliefs are that Larca said that
: they believed that he was a god and that he believed that what makes a god is
: the faith of his followers. We know that they practiced ritual human blood
: sacrifice. I can't think of anything else that we can state as facts as to how
: the HL Moche viewed their religion.
I think that Larca was there performing sacrifices with no one batting an
eyebrow about holy ground makes it pretty clear that the sacrifice site
was not holy ground.
Claire Maier
: > You can't use English definitions (or Latin ones) as an argument here.
:
: I think I can. Not because they are proof of how the Moche considered their
: altar, but english is the language that the ep was written and the language
: many viewed it in. It pertains to the question of how viewers are likely to
: perceive what they hear and see. Not to the question of whether the Moche
: viewed altar as holy ground.
But *you* are using the word "altar." TPTB never did. And there are
plenty of viewers who came to the conclusion that the rock was simply a
convenient spot for Larca to do his decapitations. You are putting
Judeo-Christian mores on some other religion.
: > Just because English (from the Latin) uses the same root for an offering
: > made to a diety and something made holy, it doesn't mean that the Moche
: > do.
:
: Quite true, I don't believe one can logically determine how the Moche viewed
: their altar. The HL Moche don't exist outside this ep. I don't claim to know
: for certain how the HL Moche (or the historical Moche either) viewed their
: altars. I am using my knowledge of how other cultures view their altars--- it
: is the only way I have to judge what I am seeing. All I am saying is that I
: don't find unreasonable to think that the Moche *could* have viewed their
: altar as being on sacred ground and I don't see in 'internal'(within what we
: are shown in ep) that proves that they did not beyond a reasonable doubt (of
: course that is a subjective view.)
But if the Moche did view that rock as holy ground, Larca wouldn't have
killed there with no consequences or it not being remarked upon by a
witness (ie., Duncan). These things show us that that rock was not holy
ground, regardless of what they did on it. Larca has presumably been
sacrificing strangers/enemies on that rock for quite some time, with no
consequences-- even though, in the same episode, Duncan and Joe discuss
the possible horrible consequences of breaking the holy ground rule. The
internal logic of the episode, as well as the concepts of the Highlander
universe, make it clear that wherever Larca was killing, it wasn't holy
ground.
: Yes, it would be a fallacy if that was what I was trying to prove. I am only
: trying to suggest the associations that the words altar and sacrifice invokes
: in viewers' minds... not that all altars are viewed in all religions the same
: way. BTW, I was not suggesting that the Moche altar be viewed in light of
: Judeo-Christian symbolism but in more general terms of known world religions
: some of which have stronger ties to the idea of altar being the most holy of
: places.
But the Highlander universe doesn't have immortals killing on holy ground.
That is much more pertinent than any ideas about an altar (and again, TPTB
*never* called it an altar). I find it absolutely incredible that regular
viewers would believe that Duncan would see an immortal killing on holy
ground and not say boo about it. He was upset with Larca because his
friend was killed, but holy ground, if violated, would be a much larger
issue, and he never mentioned anything about that in reference to the
guide's death.
: > The place where sacrifices occur and a place that is holy ground are not
: > automatically one and the same, even though there are Latin and English
: > words that mean both. There is no evidence that the Moche have paired
: > these two concepts the way Judeo-Christian cultures have.
:
: True, but there is no evidence that they did not.
Actually, there is evidence that they did not (with the HL universe
Moche). An immortal is performing rites that include killing, without the
sanctity of the place of the rites being so much as mentioned by Our Hero.
If there was something remarkable about where he was killing (like it
being on holy ground), it would have been remarked upon.
: The original decapitator god the Moche
: > worshipped may have been another immortal, as Larca astutely points out.
: > And then there are Reverend Bell's comments at the end of the episode.
: > Also, do any of us really know, for sure, if our Gods are real? As Duncan
: > pointed out, it all comes down to faith.
:
: but faith in what?
Faith in one's god.
: > Having Larca be an invalid god for the Moche, to the point of changing
: > the sacredness (or lack thereof) of the place for their rites, would
: > invalidate the point that Duncan is making.
:
: But DM does dispute Larca's claim that he is a god. He clearly does not
: believe that Larca is the true god of Moche people. Either Larca is god or not
: --- I don't see how it could be viewed as something that has degrees of
: godliness.
I don't think Larca has degrees of godliness, and Duncan obviously does
not want to think about immortals being gods. But there is nothing in
Highlander canon that says they *can't* be. The episode does not actually
answer the question of whether Larca was a "real" god or not.
: I think that it makes DM's statement all the more poignant. He knows that
: there are false religions and false gods (like Larca) but he has faith that
: not all religions and gods are fake.
I saw it differently. It seemed to me that Duncan was very uncomfortable
with the whole possibility of immortals passing themselves off as gods in
many different religions, including major ones. And I think it may have
been personal. Duncan may have his doubts, but he is and was Catholic.
And at some point in his life, he truly believed that Jesus was the Son of
God (and may still perhaps). But what Rev. Bell is saying is basically
admitting the possibility that Jesus might have been immortal, rather than
divine. Duncan rejects this, giving his reason as "faith." He wants to
believe that Larca and the Moche was an isolated incident, and that major
religions were not unduly influenced by the immortals.
: But what is holy ground in the HL universe? The term as used Highlander
: seems at first to be concrete but in actuality it is very vague to the point
: that it is practically without meaning (imho, as is everything else I have
: stated in the above)
There is no definition, per se. There are just examples, which include:
churches, temples, places marked as holy by American Indian carvings,
chapels, cemetaries, Japanese ancestral shrines.
However, the viewer is not left to guess about what is holy ground and
what isn't. If there is any sort of possibility that there might be
an immortal killing on holy ground, the dialog talks about it being holy
ground. The frequent "reminders" that we see, ie., "You can't kill here;
this is holy ground!" are really for the audience's benefit.
Again, if Larca was killing on holy ground, it wouldn't be ambiguous. It
would be a major plot point.
Helga Abendroth
Maier) wrote in response to laure:
*snip*
>But if the Moche did view that rock as holy ground, Larca wouldn't have
>killed there with no consequences or it not being remarked upon by a
>witness (ie., Duncan). These things show us that that rock was not holy
>ground, regardless of what they did on it. Larca has presumably been
>sacrificing strangers/enemies on that rock for quite some time, with no
>consequences-- even though, in the same episode, Duncan and Joe discuss
>the possible horrible consequences of breaking the holy ground rule. The
>internal logic of the episode, as well as the concepts of the Highlander
>universe, make it clear that wherever Larca was killing, it wasn't holy
>ground.
*snip*
Uh-Oh, Claire, there is this argument again. Though I've sworn to
myself before I would bow out of this discussion now because it became
repetating itself for me: The argument you are using to prove that
"the rock is just a rock" is a circular one. You say "it can't be holy
because Larca killed there and Imortals don't kill on holy ground" and
then, "because Immortals don't kill on holy ground, the rock wasn't
holy, therefore Larca could kill there", using the first argument for
the second, then the second for the first. That is just circular,
tautologic, and therefore proves nothing.
The one valid argument I've seen in this whole discussion against this
rock being holy was the one that DM would have been horrified and
would have protested loudly when taken to the rock to be killed there
by Larca, if the rock would have been holy ground. I can accept
*that*, even if the german dubbed version I've seen is not that clear
to that point, at least with the later discussion at Joes bar, where
it is not quite clear if DM's horrified statement that Larca indeed
would have been ready to fight him on holy ground refers to the attack
of his students in the present or to the Flashback. Therefore I've
asked before if someone could be so nice and quote that lines in the
original version (preferably with euros) here, to see if maybe the
translation just got things wrong.
I can even accept that the rock/altar would not necessarily be holy to
the Moche, even when their sacrifices were holy to them. For me, rised
in christian-jewish culture (though not religion) that distinction is
quite alien to me, as it would be for most viewers, but it *is*
possible. So maybe the rock *wasn't* holy ground. Still I wonder why
DM would have known this - at least he was risen in christian culture,
too, and for him a rock where somebody made holy sacrifices would
appear naturally as an altar, meaning a holy place.
But okay - maybe that is just the same riddle as the one why Amanda
did not just tell DM and the others of the whereabouts of Kalas
hideout after her escape from it in Finale II :-).
But *please* cease to use circular arguments to try to convince us
that, and why, the rock was not holy. They are just not reasonable and
quite frustrating. As is the argument "because the witers have said
so". If only for that, we could just quit discussing everything
interesting and go ask the writers, then stand silent in enlighted
awe. And since I'm not very good at that, this argument just makes me
angry. Stories should speak for themself. Little Tin God spoke for
itself in many ways, but in this one way it was unclear and left that
question open. So we may discuss it. So, one last time: tell me *why*
that rock was just a rock and no altar, or if it was an altar why it
was not holy, *besides* the fact that Larca did kill on it?
Helga <frustrated of that discussion by now>
lrgf
Claire Maier wrote:
>
> lrgf (lr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
> : > You can't use English definitions (or Latin ones) as an argument here.
> :
> : I think I can. Not because they are proof of how the Moche considered their
> : altar, but english is the language that the ep was written and the language
> : many viewed it in. It pertains to the question of how viewers are likely to
> : perceive what they hear and see. Not to the question of whether the Moche
> : viewed altar as holy ground.
>
> But *you* are using the word "altar." TPTB never did.
They showed used as such. Even if you replace the word altar with sacrificial
rock or rock on which sacrifices are made ....it still has the religious
associations.
And there are
> plenty of viewers who came to the conclusion that the rock was simply a
> convenient spot for Larca to do his decapitations. You are putting
> Judeo-Christian mores on some other religion.
It was not referred to as a decapitation it was referred to as a sacrifice.
....and as for 'plenty of viewers' can you document that? I know plenty of
people that came to the same conclusion I did. But I don't think that is
meaningful way of discussing this. The validity of an interpretation decided
by a show of hands? That is meaningless. (imo)
You are making an unfounded assumption that I have Judeo-Christian mores....
western mores maybe.
>
> :,<snip>
> :
> But if the Moche did view that rock as holy ground, Larca wouldn't have
> killed there with no consequences or it not being remarked upon by a
> witness (ie., Duncan). These things show us that that rock was not holy
> ground, regardless of what they did on it. Larca has presumably been
> sacrificing strangers/enemies on that rock for quite some time, with no
> consequences-- even though, in the same episode, Duncan and Joe discuss
> the possible horrible consequences of breaking the holy ground rule. The
> internal logic of the episode, as well as the concepts of the Highlander
> universe, make it clear that wherever Larca was killing, it wasn't holy
> ground.
I don't think you have proven what the Moche thought or didn't think ...your
example bears on what Larca, DM and Joe thought not what the Moche thought.
As I have stated before *I never thought* it was Holy Ground (HL version).
>
><snip>
> But the Highlander universe doesn't have immortals killing on holy ground.
> That is much more pertinent than any ideas about an altar (and again, TPTB
> *never* called it an altar). I find it absolutely incredible that regular
> viewers would believe that Duncan would see an immortal killing on holy
> ground and not say boo about it. He was upset with Larca because his
> friend was killed, but holy ground, if violated, would be a much larger
> issue, and he never mentioned anything about that in reference to the
> guide's death.
Well, I am not taking the stance of a regular viewer, necessarily, and again
this only deals with whether or not it was holy ground not whether or not the
Moche considered that it was holy ground.
>
> ,<snip>
> Actually, there is evidence that they did not (with the HL universe
> Moche). An immortal is performing rites that include killing, without the
> sanctity of the place of the rites being so much as mentioned by Our Hero.
> If there was something remarkable about where he was killing (like it
> being on holy ground), it would have been remarked upon.
again this speaks to the issue of whether the ground is holy not why it is or
is not holy or to whom
>
> : The original decapitator god the Moche
> : > worshipped may have been another immortal, as Larca astutely points out.
> : > And then there are Reverend Bell's comments at the end of the episode.
> : > Also, do any of us really know, for sure, if our Gods are real? As Duncan
> : > pointed out, it all comes down to faith.
> :
> : but faith in what?
>
> Faith in one's god.
god, not goddess? not deity? not spirit? isn't that a rather limited view.? I
thought DM was more opened minded than that...
>
> : > Having Larca be an invalid god for the Moche, to the point of changing
> : > the sacredness (or lack thereof) of the place for their rites, would
> : > invalidate the point that Duncan is making.
> :
> : But DM does dispute Larca's claim that he is a god. He clearly does not
> : believe that Larca is the true god of Moche people. Either Larca is god or not
> : --- I don't see how it could be viewed as something that has degrees of
> : godliness.
>
> I don't think Larca has degrees of godliness, and Duncan obviously does
> not want to think about immortals being gods. But there is nothing in
> Highlander canon that says they *can't* be. The episode does not actually
> answer the question of whether Larca was a "real" god or not.
OK, that is true....DM's calling him a fake was just his opinion ....but again
canon is external to any given episode
>
> : I think that it makes DM's statement all the more poignant. He knows that
> : there are false religions and false gods (like Larca) but he has faith that
> : not all religions and gods are fake.
>
> I saw it differently. It seemed to me that Duncan was very uncomfortable
> with the whole possibility of immortals passing themselves off as gods in
> many different religions, including major ones. And I think it may have
> been personal. Duncan may have his doubts, but he is and was Catholic.
I thought Scotland was protestant by the time of his birth? Of course, there
were, I suppose hold outs.
> And at some point in his life, he truly believed that Jesus was the Son of
> God (and may still perhaps). But what Rev. Bell is saying is basically
> admitting the possibility that Jesus might have been immortal, rather than
> divine. Duncan rejects this, giving his reason as "faith." He wants to
> believe that Larca and the Moche was an isolated incident, and that major
> religions were not unduly influenced by the immortals.
yes, I got that too.
>
> : But what is holy ground in the HL universe? The term as used Highlander
> : seems at first to be concrete but in actuality it is very vague to the point
> : that it is practically without meaning (imho, as is everything else I have
> : stated in the above)
>
> There is no definition, per se. There are just examples, which include:
> churches, temples, places marked as holy by American Indian carvings,
> chapels, cemetaries, Japanese ancestral shrines.
like I said the term as used in HL is vague to the point of being without meaning.....
>
> However, the viewer is not left to guess about what is holy ground and
> what isn't. If there is any sort of possibility that there might be
> an immortal killing on holy ground, the dialog talks about it being holy
> ground. The frequent "reminders" that we see, ie., "You can't kill here;
> this is holy ground!" are really for the audience's benefit.
That still doesn't answer the question of holy to whom. Nor does it explain
what holy ground is.
>
> Again, if Larca was killing on holy ground, it wouldn't be ambiguous. It
> would be a major plot point.
Well, I did not think he did.... until you convinced me I should think otherwise.
Take joy in what you have accomplished Claire.
-laure
lrgf
Claire Maier wrote:
>
> lrgf (lr...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
>
> : The difference I see between baptism and a sacrifice is that the latter has a
> : times the idea of sanctification associated with it. The Eucharist is an
> : Christian sacrament that according to the beliefs of some Christian sects has
> : an element of sacrifice associated with it. In those sects which view it as a
> : sacrifice it is performed using an altar.
>
> But this is a Christian (or Judeo-Christian) idea. The two concepts are
> actually separate things. One is the performance of a sacrifice. The
> other concept is making a *place* sacred. In our Judeo-Christian culture,
> the concepts are grouped together-- even the word "sacrifice" comes from
> the Latin "to make sacred."
NO, THESE ARE NOT SOLELY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CONCEPTS. Forgive me for shouting
but your insistence that the relationship between altars and sacrifice is only
found in Judeo-Christian culture or that my use of the words are using
definitions *only* applicable in Judeo-Christian culture is false. In fact,
Christian use an altar for Eucharist not because they came up with the concept
of altars and sacrifices going together but because they were drawing on older
cultures. (Yes, Judaism but Pagan cultures too. The use of the altar in the
celebration of the Eucharist began in Rome and some of it trapping grew out of
pre christian pratices.) Present day Judaism and Christianity make very
limited use of altar symbolism. I gave the connection of altar and sacrifice
in the sacrament of the Eucharist because of your insistence that baptism and
human sacrifice are equivalent acts and I was pointing that of the Christian
sacraments the Eucharist comes the closest to the Pre- Christian (pagan)
definition of a sacrifice. The language of Latin pre-dates Christianity and
the word sacrificium was used in pre- christian era to describe offerings.
From the definitions of altar that I gave in a earlier post (the sources were
chosen in part because I was able to paste from them into the post and that I
thought they easily accessed by most people on the ng) it is clear that the
*concept* of an altar has been used by many cultures as a place of
communication with deities and spirits. Did all these cultures use the word
altar? Of course not. The concept is named differing in different languages
but the concept is similar enough to allow translation. Altars are defined by
their function. In Christian sects were the Eucharist is not considered a
sacrifice they make use of table which is no longer termed an altar. So, if
two protestant sects share same church. One which views the Eucharist as a
sacrifice and one which does not. It is possible that the same table like
platform could be viewed as an altar and as a communion table depending on
which sect was performing the rite. The deciding factor in what it is named is
based on whether or not it is used as a platform for a sacrifice. Does that
mean this example mean that it is only true in christianity? No. The Ottoman
Empire used the Parthenon as storage building for weapons. Did it cease to be
a temple from the view point of others? No, it was a temple to some and a
weapons garrison to others. Was holy ground to anyone at that point in time?
I don't know.
But, assuming you are right for a moment and the words as I define them
earlier only have those meanings in the Judeo-Christian world.
In LTG the word murder was used first by DM and he was corrected by Larca who
used the word sacrifice. I am making the assumption that word was chosen
because it fit the act being performed. That is, that the writers were using
that word to describe the action and did so with the knowledge of how the word
would be interpreted by the viewers. Considering that this show is made for
an audience made up largely of people whom even if their religion is not based
on the Judeo-Christian culture they are surrounded by that culture and are
somewhat familiar with the terms used I think it is likely that they would
view that the word sacrifice separates the act from the act of murder because
of its religious overtones. And they *could quite reasonably assume* that the
act would take place on holy ground. If they did not mean it to be considered
a sacrifice and have all that is commonly associated with the concept of
sacrifice in western civilization they should have used a different term to
describe the action of Larca.
However, the fact is that many culture have associated altar with sacrifice
not just the Judeo-Christian culture. Did some of these use different words
to describe them--- yes. But if their concepts are translated into the word
'altar' and 'sacrifice' they must be at least similar or they have been
misused.
This I found under the heading Temple (building) --not under church or
synagogue -- in Encarta '95--- It is a generalized description of temples
making limited generalized comparisons. "Another common feature is an altar, a
block of stone or table like feature where offerings to the divinity are
placed and upon which the ceremony of worship focused. The altars of the
classical temples of Greece and Rome were outside and in front of the temple
proper, the internal sanctuary (cella) was not normally entered by the laity.
Temples usually are set within a precinct (also sacred) an enclosure extending
well beyond the temple proper."
also a little more from the same source on the concept of the 'Altar'(non- Judeo-Christian)
"Greeks regarded it as the navel of the earth, out of which all life emerged.
Particularly in India, the cosmic significance of the altar was fully explored."
>
> But this is not necessarily so for other religions and cultures. It is
> certainly possible to have the concepts of "sacrifice" and
> "sanctification" be totally separate things.
Agreed it is not 'necessarily' so. I am not trying to prove that it is. I have
stated this several times. I am dealing with the issue of what can be said to
be reasonably assumed* not what can be *logically proven.*
>
> : Why would the Moche be an exception?
> :
> : Because of whom they were worshiping. If Larca had posed as another Moche god
> : it would have been another matter or if the temple was dedicated to an actual
> : historical Moche god. They were clearly sacrificing in honor of Larca as the
> : decapitator and it was made clear in the episode that the prior decapitator(S)
> : were not god(s) but immortal(s) posing as god(s). At least that seemed (imo)
> : to be the position DM took.
>
> But he did, and it was.
He introduced himself to DM as Gabriel Larca, God of the Moche people (or
something similar, my point is he used his own name)
>
> The Moche worshipped a decapitator god before Larca got there. (Now, as
> Larca points out to MacLeod, the original decapitator god may have been an
> immortal, but Larca wasn't the first.)
>
> And it was not made clear that the previous Moche gods were immortal. It
> was introduced as a *possibility.* After all, the real world Moche
> worshipped a decapitator god, and it almost certainly wasn't based on
> Highlander-style immortality!
Really, I did not find a real world Moche God named as such or whose name is
translated as such. It is even argued that the Moche did not have gods in the
western sense of the word god ( <? not sure of title or first name >Bastien
and Michael Czwarno were quoted as sources for this idea) and of course the
historical Moche culture is not known to have existed (as a separate distinct
culture) after approxiately the 8th c. AD. The closest I could find was the
warrior priest figure, who some speculate was regarded as a 'god-king' similar
to the ancient egyptian view of their Pharaohs but not necessarily viewed in
the same way as a 'god'. Of course, 'god' is an english word maybe the Moche
just thought of Larca as a guy in funny hat and 'temple' is another english
word and maybe what I thought was a temple was just the house of the guy with
the funny hat. Hence, they did not consider either as holy.
>
> And the episode goes even farther than this. Rev. Bell and Joe bring up
> the point that the Moche aren't the only religion where an immortal could
> have posed as and been worshipped as a god. Duncan doesn't buy this, and
> gives his reason as "faith." But I think the possibility has him
> alarmed-- what if *his* faith is based on, not the divine, but the
> machinations of another immortal? (A lot of gods rise from the dead,
> after all.)
hmmm, I think that the above supports my view point as well, perhaps DM is
also alarmed at the possibility that there is no such thing as holy ground? If
all gods are false then there is no holy ground.
>
> But this possibility doesn't unsanctify the holy sites of the world. And
> just because Larca is an immortal, that doesn't unsanctify Moche holy
> sites either. But Larca (or an immortal predescessor) would still have to
> choose unconsecrated ground to perform the sacrifices on.
hmmm, I think your the one using Judeo-Christian concepts here to assume that
ground is consecrated and unconsecrated ....some religions view certain sites
as holy with out any mortal rites making them so. (i.e. the Mississippi, Nile,
Ganges rivers are held to be sacred as are the Mountains, Olympus and
Everest.) According to my religious beliefs the entire Earth is sacred and
that can not be changed by humans they may perform acts of desecration but
they can't change the inherent sacredness of the Earth. Which bring to holy
kingdoms, cities, quarters etc. How holy does the ground have to be. Did
Methos hang out in Tibet because it considered holy ground to certain sects of
Budism? and hence he was safe from attack?
> : I think that is dependent on the rite being performed.
perhaps I should have said what the rite is expected to accomplish
>
> Actually, it is not. It is dependent on the religion and how they view
> the concept of holy places. A given religion might say Rite A sanctifies
> the ground. Another religion might say, no, Rite A actually desecrates
> the ground, but Rite B will sanctify it. And so on.
no, I don't think so... they have differing ways of performing rites in terms
of actions taken but of not of effects. They may have different ways of
sanctification, but they still consider it sanctification.
> : > I don't think so. Not when half the episode was spent talking about how
> : > immortals don't kill on holy ground.
> :
> : But the in the dialogue and action immediately prior to the sacrifice dealt
> : with the idea of what makes a god a god. Larca asserted that the faith of his
> : followers made him a god and DM disputed it. It was also brought up that the
> : idol inside the sanctuary was a depiction of an immortal not of a god.
>
> No, it was brought up that it *could* or *might* be an immortal. In
> reality, it was not. That was a reproduction of an actual Moche artifact.
that is your interpretation (which is fine) it is not the only one that can be
made
DM states directly "you are not the only immortal they have worshipped as a
god. That doesn't make it right." and at one point Larca looks at his pendant
and says this one is 14 hundred years old
>
> But whether or not Larca was a god, he was an immortal, and immortals
> don't kill on holy ground. So he had to kill on non-consecrated ground.
yeah, but that takes us back to the question of why? and again consecration
by mortals is not necessary in all religions to make ground holy...unless you
are arguing that HL Holy ground is only ground consecrated by a religious
rite
>
> : And the writers themselves have said
> : > the reason the sacrifices took place outside the temple was to show they
> : > were off holy ground.
> :
> : If this is an accurate statement I now think the writers did make a gaffe.
> : Because simply placing the altar outside doesn't make it necessarily appear
> : off holy ground (at least not without further 'internal' explanation <within
> : the ep>).
>
> But the same could be said for any other sacrificial place. As I've said
> before, I think that even had Larca beheaded the sacrifices next to the
> latrine trenches, there would still be people saying that it was holy
> ground-- why? Because sacrifices occured there. That's basically your
> "altar" argument in a nutshell. Sacrifice = altar = holy ground.
Exactly, yes and I don't think it is a unreasonable interpretation.
If the
> Moche had only been playing checkers on that very same rock, no one would
> be insisting that it had to be holy ground.
no, I would have thought they were playing checkers on an altar (assuming this
was after it had been used in a sacrifice)....I seen people do it in churches
and I don't think it made the table used as an altar before and after less of
an altar or less sacred
It would "look" like a table
> then, not an altar. That visual image does not automatically equal an
> altar (or a table), but it does equal a rock. "Altar" is an
> interpretation some fans have put on it.
Well, I can speak for all who have made that interpretation but I can see the
point. They see it as such because it seems to be used as such and nothing
internal to the story discounts that view definitively. The are elements that
suggest that it was not holy ground, but nothing internal that explains why it
was not holy ground.
Ok, let me try it this way.... what makes a temple a temple ...the building or
the way the building is used? Are the storefront Mosques in my neighborhood
not holy ground because they have been used as a retail liquor outlet at one
time? If they are holy now is the space always holy or if the next tenant
uses for an livery service does it become non holy? If a church rents out
space for non religious activities does that mean during those hours that
space ceased to be holy ground?
an altar may be a rock and still be an altar etc.
>
> Also, you have to consider the set design and set-up needed. Ever try to
> build a Peruvian jungle temple in Vancouver? You can't be spreading
> things out all over the place. You'd use up the episode's entire budget
> just on the greenery.
I consider this an outside factor and as such not relevant...I'm using the
stand point of a viewer and one that has never heard of TPTB and has no idea
where the series is filmed
>
> And the writers do not determine locations, or what they look like. That
> is for the locations people, the producer, the director, the set designers
> and set dressers, and so on. All the writers would say would be something
> like, "Larca kills the guide outside the temple." (And the general
> location would read as something like, "Exterior day, Peruvian temple."
> And the story department might send pictures of the Moche artifacts to
> Vancouver, but that would be about the extent of their input.)
Fine, I am aware that TV series are collaborative efforts and I am judging as
such ....I don't have the option of reading the scripts and If I did I would
consider them as a belonging to a separate art form from the tv series.
Screen plays and TV shows are not the same. I screen play can be well written
and it can be turned into a less than well done movie or episode of a TV
series (I am making a generalization talking about highlander specifically) or
vise versa.
>
> : Well, Claire, you have succeeding in persuading me that it is quite possible
> : that the writers made a gaffe. And that the episode was not the thoughtful
> : treatment of issues of divinity and holiness that I thought it was. (a couple
> : of more weeks of reading this ng and I will be able to tape over my Highlander
> : tapes )
>
> The writers didn't make a gaffe. They wrote that Larca killed the guide
> off of holy ground. Which Larca would have to do anyway, in order not to
> break the rule. Seems perfectly sensible to me, without going into a lot
> of convoluted theories.
The gaffe which you have convinced me that they made is .... from my point of
view.... is that they used the term sacrifice (if they wished that word to be
used in away other than its common definition then they should have made it
clear) to describe the killing. Placement of the rock is irrelevant. (imo, as
is above except for what is quoted)
-laure
Claire Maier
: Uh-Oh, Claire, there is this argument again. Though I've sworn to
: myself before I would bow out of this discussion now because it became
: repetating itself for me: The argument you are using to prove that
: "the rock is just a rock" is a circular one. You say "it can't be holy
: then, "because Immortals don't kill on holy ground, the rock wasn't
: holy, therefore Larca could kill there", using the first argument for
: the second, then the second for the first. That is just circular,
: tautologic, and therefore proves nothing.
Make them one argument, then. The rule of the Highlander universe is:
Immies don't kill on holy ground. They make a huge point of that, right
in the very episode. Since immies not killing on holy ground is a fact in
that universe, and was a major point of that very episode, why anyone
seems to think that Larca was killing on holy ground escapes me.
Arguing that Larca killed on holy ground is a little like arguing that
some immortal died permanently with his head still attached. Sorry. The
Highlander universe just doesn't work that way.
: The one valid argument I've seen in this whole discussion against this
: rock being holy was the one that DM would have been horrified and
: would have protested loudly when taken to the rock to be killed there
: by Larca, if the rock would have been holy ground. I can accept
: *that*, even if the german dubbed version I've seen is not that clear
: to that point, at least with the later discussion at Joes bar, where
: it is not quite clear if DM's horrified statement that Larca indeed
: would have been ready to fight him on holy ground refers to the attack
: of his students in the present or to the Flashback. Therefore I've
: asked before if someone could be so nice and quote that lines in the
: original version (preferably with euros) here, to see if maybe the
: translation just got things wrong.
Duncan complained about the death of his friend, but made no comment
whatsoever about the place that Larca killed him.
: I can even accept that the rock/altar would not necessarily be holy to
: the Moche, even when their sacrifices were holy to them. For me, rised
: in christian-jewish culture (though not religion) that distinction is
: quite alien to me, as it would be for most viewers, but it *is*
: possible. So maybe the rock *wasn't* holy ground. Still I wonder why
: DM would have known this - at least he was risen in christian culture,
: too, and for him a rock where somebody made holy sacrifices would
: appear naturally as an altar, meaning a holy place.
How does any immortal know where holy ground is? That's never dealt with.
But any place that is HL-universe holy ground is off limits for immies
killing. The series is very specific about that.
: But okay - maybe that is just the same riddle as the one why Amanda
: did not just tell DM and the others of the whereabouts of Kalas
: hideout after her escape from it in Finale II :-).
No-- that was a miscommunication error between the story department in Los
Angeles and the French set designers in Paris. Kalas was supposed to
switch hideouts after Amanda escaped.
How or why or what about holy ground identifies it to immortals and makes
them not violate it (voluntarily or involuntarily) is something that has
been deliberately left ambiguous-- just as the exact origin of immortals
has.
: But *please* cease to use circular arguments to try to convince us
: that, and why, the rock was not holy. They are just not reasonable and
: quite frustrating. As is the argument "because the witers have said
: so". If only for that, we could just quit discussing everything
: interesting and go ask the writers, then stand silent in enlighted
: awe. And since I'm not very good at that, this argument just makes me
: angry. Stories should speak for themself. Little Tin God spoke for
: itself in many ways, but in this one way it was unclear and left that
: question open. So we may discuss it. So, one last time: tell me *why*
: that rock was just a rock and no altar, or if it was an altar why it
: was not holy, *besides* the fact that Larca did kill on it?
I am getting tired, too, of people refusing to accept a basic premise of
the Highlander universe. Immortals don't kill on holy ground. It's the
one rule that none of them has ever broken. The episode makes a huge
point of that.
I think that Larca's killing on that rock is sufficient to prove that it
is not holy ground.
If in the HL universe, person A stabbed person B through the heart, and
person B died permanently, we would say that proves person B is not
immortal. Why? Because immortals can only be killed permanently by
beheading. Why? Because that's how the Highlander universe works.
It's the same thing with Larca. He's an immortal, therefore he doesn't
kill on holy ground. Because that's how the Highlander universe works.
And I don't buy that people are talking about writers' gaffes and lack of
respect for the Moche because some people want to think that a HL-style
immortal would kill on holy ground, despite all the dialog and examples
that the series has given to the contrary.
(And yes, the Moche have an actual decapitator god. That's why they were
used in the episode in the first place!)