EpDis: Passing Through Gethsemane

[hypatia]

Ah, thanks Jan. So yea, that does make it pretty clear it is a device, not a telpath, doing the actual death of personality.

And I certainly can see a person like brother Edward fearing he might turn back into the person he was before, once his old memories began to return.

I know this is a love-or-hate episode. And it certainly raises some interesting questions for those who believe in spiritual salvation of the Christian kind:

How do you repent for crimes you don't even remember? I thought that comprehending what was wrong in what you did was a necessary step towards true absolution, but I might be mistaken in that.

If you do "kill" one personality, and "create" another, where does the soul fit in all of this? Does the soul die when the personailty does? Is a new one created?

And again, that ending that I love so much: as much as we admire forgiveness, when it gets personal, can we find it within ourselves to be forgiving?

 

[Jacqui]

Thanks, Jan. I couldn't remember how it was done, but the idea of it being an entirely Psi Corps thing was entirely too disturbing.

Jacqui

 

[Jan]

Happy to help, Hypatia and Jacqui. I think were it got confusing was because the Centauri telepath was able to break the wipe and restimulate the old memories. Plus, we know that the Minbari telepaths can meddle with memories, as we saw happen to Sinclair. A complete mindwipe, though, I think would be way beyond the capabilities of a 'regular' telepath like Talia.

Jan

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

If you do "kill" one personality, and "create" another, where does the soul fit in all of this? Does the soul die when the personailty does? Is a new one created?

Which is, of course, Brother Edward's question. His answer is that the soul remains the same - it must if it is possible, under any circumstances, for the original memories to return.

As for Brother Edward's "suicide" - I don't think that's what happened here, anymore that Christ "committed suicide". Either would have accepted it if their killers had changed their minds, if what they understood as God's plan could have been accomplished in some other way. (Jesus explicitly asks God to spare him the ordeal if that is possible. I rather doubt that Brother Edward would have cried, "No, you have to kill me!" if the mob had suddenly seen the light and decided against murdering him.)

Nor is it necessarily (or even probably) the case that Brother Edward considered what he did in his prior life to be "unforgiveable" in the theological sense. God's forgiveness requires only a real acceptance of responsibilty for sin and a genuinely contrite heart. The Black Rose Killer, had he simply been executed, would never have been able to provide either. Because he has been reborn as Brother Edward, he has that chance to save his immortal soul. I think Brother Edward saw his non-resistance to the mob, his leaving himself open to whatever that confontation might bring, leaving that in the hands of God, as a necessary act of atonement and apology - a perfect act of contrition as it were. But he didn't know for sure what would happen when they found him. He had to leave open the possiblity of a change of heart open for them, too. I think th whole event is far more nuanced than some people give it credit for. (Just as "Believers" has more colors than those whose own beliefs tell them the parents are simply wrong allow for.) But in the end it comes down to a commonplace that all professing Christians say almost every day, many of them without reflecting on the words, "Thy will be done."

Regards,

Joe

 

[Jade Jaguar]

I called his death an effective suicide, because I do note that it isn't excactly what we call suicide. But, I don't doubt for a minute that Brother Edwards expected to be killed, if he stayed, and didn't seek protection. He probably did hope it wouldn't happen, and did see facing death this way as an act of contrition. But still, he chose to remain in a situation he believed was near-certain death, when he could have most likely avoided it, and lived. So, I still think there is an element of suicide about it, but as I pointed out in my first post, I think there is a strong element of self sacrifice, to prevent himself from possibly harming others in the future. It IS a very nuanced, complex and subtle situation. A fine ep, which raises many questions!

Addendum: I find some, very slight, resembelance of this situation to what is called "suicide by cop," only in the sense that both share knowingly acting in a way that will bring about one's death at the hands of others. But, some "sbc" people may also feel they need to sacrifice themselves for others... Of course, we know something of Brother Edwards character, and motives, but nothing certain in the "sbc" cases we see in the media.

 

[Elipsis]

As someone not very big on forgiveness, I just didn't get into this one.

The best part was Theo lecturing Sheridan about forgiveness at the end... but it's hard for me to get emotionally involved with a character that has just been introduced this very episode.

 

[Galahad]

I don't agree with the argument that his former personality was coming back, just because his memories had returned.

Edward's killers wanted him to remember so he would know why they were killing him... in many ways that made it easier for them to do the job with what they would falsely call "a clean conscience".

I like to think that Edward was holding out against his former personality.

Aside from my thoughts, why would the killers risk reintegrating Edwards former personality - a psychotic killer? It would potentially make the desired outcome harder to achieve... possibly even backfire... resluting in harm coming to themselves.

The question is not just a matter of spirituality. It carries legal ramifications as well.

Do we consider the punishment or rehabilitation of criminals as paramount. If we say the latter, than can we truly say a person has been rehabilitated if they remain unaware of their actions.

If the problem that led to the criminal behaviour is a deeply psychologiucal one... surely it is better to repair the psychological flaws... without damaging the memory. Of course this then raises a harsh question for the criminal post treatment... how do you live with what you have done, once you are able to rationalise how terrible it truly was?

Again as Edward said.... how can there be forgiveness if there is no repentance?

 

[RW7427]

I like to think that Edward was holding out against his former personality.

I do too. He seemed appalled about what his former personality had done, like it was abhorrant (don't know if I spelled that word right ) and like he couldn't believe or accept that he had done it.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

Pretty late to the discussion but this is one of my favorite episodes as well. Everything said above about the nature of repentance and forgiveness, as well as Dourif's performance, reflects my love for the episode. The story itself was one of JMS' best and everyone involved seemed to raise their own personal bar a notch. I'll have to watch it again tonight.

 

[maneth]

I don't buy the whole Christian dogma bit at all, so the episode was, to me, rather pointless. I consider any suffering out of religious conviction to be well-deserved and completely self-inflicted, unless it's a case of brainwashed kids who haven't been exposed to the world and its variety early enough.

All that said, however, I thought Dourif's performance was utterly brilliant and the subtleties of the story some of the most wonderful writing in all of B5.

 

[hypatia]

I don't buy the whole Christian dogma bit at all, so the episode was, to me, rather pointless. I consider any suffering out of religious conviction to be well-deserved and completely self-inflicted, unless it's a case of brainwashed kids who haven't been exposed to the world and its variety early enough.

You'd prefer a character who "suffers out of political conviction" then? Is that mental pain more noble to you?

A large part of brother Edwards panic was just dealing with the fact that he was a sick, cold-blooded killer. It wouldn't take religious conviction to at least partially unhinge anyone's mind. But Edwards? Edwards mind had been specifically wiped and replaced with a personality that was "programmed" to do good and help people. Your programming would virtually guarantee you'd have a very bad reaction to any revelation of your true past.

If he hadn't stumbled upon a monestary early after his wipe, he might have had no particular religious convictions at all. But he'd still be basically a "nice guy" who has suddenly realized that he was, truly, a monster before. And just what happened to "him"? How much of "him" is really still "you"?

But your comment wil make old Mighty happy. He's always getting on my case for blaming religion for everything.

 

[Galahad]

I don't buy the whole Christian dogma bit at all, so the episode was, to me, rather pointless. I consider any suffering out of religious conviction to be well-deserved and completely self-inflicted, unless it's a case of brainwashed kids who haven't been exposed to the world and its variety early enough.

Naturally I'm biased against that viewpoint... but I don't think the statement justifiably makes sense.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Martin Luther King
Gandhi
Maximillian Kolbe

All these people suffered fates that were as a direct result of their religious conviction being a force for good.

Similarly I don't believe atheists deserved to be flagellated or beaten to a bloody pulp or killed on the basis of their lack of belief.

Conviction is not the problem - intolerance and aggressive over-assertion of a viewpoint are... and that's true whatever the religion or even non-religion.

 

[KoshFan]

And we, Galahad, insist on keeping the bath water around long after it's cold and dirty for fear of throwing out the baby.

 

[Galahad]

And we, Galahad, insist on keeping the bath water around long after it's cold and dirty for fear of throwing out the baby.

Hmmm... yeah but I'd probably argue the situation in the UK is different to the US.

For one thing the main problem with churches over here is weak inneffectual leadership... not aggressive posturing on the secular stage.

I don't deny it's catching on... but that's more to do with a lot of right wing christians jumping on the bandwagon of other religions activism.

 

[hypatia]

For one thing the main problem with churches over here is weak inneffectual leadership... not aggressive posturing on the secular stage.

What kind of leadership do you mean? Leading people in their faith, or in how they vote?

I know many religious folk out there do honestly think secularists are "out to get them". And undoubtedly there are some individuals who are. But most of the time secularism is fighting the abuses of the religious majority (or whomever considers themselves the religious majority). So we have laws about losing your tax-free status as a church if you are using it to influence voters, for example. You could still do it, and still be a church, you just won't have that nice tax-free status anymore. So the choice is a fair one, I think.

 

[Galahad]

What kind of leadership do you mean? Leading people in their faith, or in how they vote?

I know many religious folk out there do honestly think secularists are "out to get them". And undoubtedly there are some individuals who are. But most of the time secularism is fighting the abuses of the religious majority (or whomever considers themselves the religious majority). So we have laws about losing your tax-free status as a church if you are using it to influence voters, for example. You could still do it, and still be a church, you just won't have that nice tax-free status anymore. So the choice is a fair one, I think.

Well I was moving on because I didn't feel KF's continuation of my expression - though relevant, was applicable in the same way in Britain. As far as I know, we don't have substantial political endorsement by the church of any kind. Yes we have leaders that need throwing out... but not for the same reasons.

I've never known a church in the UK... not in my XP anyway, that advocates voting for any party. You might get a leader who talks about certain issues, but I've never heard of politicians or parties getting a seal of approval or endorsement. The most outspoken the CofE has got in terms of national politics (aside from Make Poverty History) is when it joined in a multifaith statement denouncing the handling of the Iraq conflict.

I genuinely think the relationship between our political and religious affairs is not as heavily intertwined as in America

I'd like to know if any other Brits feel my understanding of the facts is not accurate... and if they could cite examples that would be helpful.

 

[KoshFan]

Eh, we all have personal bathwater sitting around stagnating, Galahad. Personally I've got at least a dozen tub's worth. I wasn't speaking of nations, I was speaking of Christians in general.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Christians = stagnant bathwater! That's pretty good... I'll have to remember that one!

 

[Galahad]

Eh, we all have personal bathwater sitting around stagnating, Galahad. Personally I've got at least a dozen tub's worth. I wasn't speaking of nations, I was speaking of Christians in general.

Eh?

No I got that vibe... I just thought that that you were alluding equally to maneth's statement as much as to mine and suggesting that the grotty bathwater was equivalent to dodgy preachers who abuse their position... but it seems you have as much problems with a sit around and do nothing church as I do.

As it happens I had a bathwater callout from the almighty myself last weekend. Nothing to do with anything a preacher said. I was just simply made aware of it in a very direct fashion. I blogged about it and compared the situation to a scene from Lord of the Rings. If you want to know a little mkore, PM me or something.. I won't go into too much detail... but I also don't wish to smother people with it here.

Right back to the episode itself.

I remember when it was first broadcast in the UK, one of the reviewers was critical of the ending. They weren't happy that it was the ringleader of Edward's killers who was taken in by the monks. They felt it was an unrealistic timescale and instead suggested that it should have been the mad bomber from Convictions.

I couldn't disagree more.

The reviewer seemed to think that the moral question about taking in a character who bears the face of your friends killer, was being posed to Sheridan alone... but it's not and that is the whole point. It is Theo and the monks who are equally challenged, in fact more so because they have lost a beloved colleague who they have known a lot longer than Sheridan had.

Part of me wonders if Theo actually had on some level recognised who Edward really was... and was keeping very coy about it.

At the end of this episode, Theo demonstrates that he has a wonderful capacity for agape love not just philos for his friends and order.

 

[hypatia]

Part of me wonders if Theo actually had on some level recognised who Edward really was... and was keeping very coy about it.

That's certainly a possibility. I tend to take him at his own word, though, as he has no reason to lie. He tells Sheridan that they "try not to ask too many questions".

So I got the impression that he was very worried about Brother Edwards past, and something in it "catching up with him" now. Perhaps he'd left some kind of abusive situation, or was somehow a reformed criminal. Perhaps he was running away from something.

I'd say he definitely knew something was wrong, but he didn't feel it would be right to pursue what it was. He saw part of his job as reforming and forgiving, and teaching people a "better way". All he ever questioned was Edward's convictions about religion and the idea of helping mankind.

Perhaps that's really why I like this episode so much. On top of the interesting moral dilemma it leaves you to ponder, perhaps I just like seeing a dedicated, sincerely faithful group of monks who NEVER felt a need to push their religion on anyone. But they did feel a need to help people when they good.

If that's what is meant by "church leadership" then I'm all for it. If "church leadership" really means "influencing law" then that's when you'll find the secularists quite logically object. The USA was founded to a great extent by people who were fleeing either devastation in the homeland, or religious persecution.

I have no doubt the role of religion in England may be seen very differently than it is in the USA, since the USA was specifically guarding against any kind of use of a "state-endorsed religion", while at least previously in history the U.K. specificially had quite a colorful history trying to force people to believe in a religion that a King invented to break the political hold of the Vatican on his ruling of his empire.

But I won't even get started on popes, here.

But I certainly can see how religon is viewed differently by different people from different cultures. And I would tend to say that religious groups tend to be rather a lot of trouble when they get so highly organized and powerful that they are able to dictate to the leaders of countries what policies will and won't be allowed.

All I'll say about the American Catholics I know (who were not raised by "old-style catholic parents from Mexico) is that they never really overthrew the pope, as England did. Nah, they just ignore everything that he says.

A rule in my religion against birth control? Yea, I know that's technically true.... I just happen to ignore that rule because it's unrealistic.

I even recall the pope (former one, I believe) telling American Catholics that they must begin adhering to the doctrine of the church, or they should formally separate themselves into a new religion.

All I could think at the time was "you know, it's just so much easier to ignore you".

And, quite frankly, I'm sure the Vatican likes the monies donated to them by American Catholics. So he didn't push that point at all; as I recall, he said so only once, on one tour of the world.