ATT: JMS -- WAS JMS on Cmpsrv: Oct 7, NOW Sinclair's faith?

[B5JMS Poster]

Subject: ATT: JMS -- WAS JMS on Cmpsrv: Oct 7, NOW Sinclair's faith?
+  1: Oct  8, 1995: jegolf at MCS.COM (J.M.Egolf)
   2: Oct  8, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at sidhen.demon.co.uk>
   3: Oct  8, 1995: jegolf at xnet.com (J.M.Egolf)
   4: Oct  8, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at sidhen.demon.co.uk>
   5: Oct 10, 1995: kennedy@   (John W Kennedy)
+  6: Oct 10, 1995: romana at copland.udel.edu (Laura Jane Swanson)
*  7: Oct 11, 1995: straczynski at genie.geis.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: jegolf at MCS.COM (J.M.Egolf)
Lines: 28

In article <45667v$qgb at tde2.tde.com>,
The Green Meddler  <kilgalen at tde.com> quoted JMS as writing:

>Subj:  B5 Aliens			Section: Babylon 5
>  To:  Chad Underkoffler, 102512,1310	Friday, October 06, 1995 2:12:08 PM
>From:  J. Michael Straczynski, 71016,1644#358911
>
>     Just to clarify...Sinclair was a Catholic, taught by Jesuits; Garibaldi
>is basically an atheist.
>
>                                                                       jms

Yes, but if Sinclair "was" a Catholic, what is he now? How much of the 
"Minbari souls" stuff is he buying?

And what's the difference between "having a Minbari soul" and "having 
been a Minbari in a previous life"?

Inquiring minds want to know. (Seriously -- there's a handful of us on a 
distribution list discussing just this kind of stuff.)

-- 

********************					***************
J.M. ("Jamie") Egolf					jegolf at mcs.com

		<*> "We find meaning where we can." <*>


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: romana at copland.udel.edu (Laura Jane Swanson)
Lines: 53

In article <1995Oct10.165143.8687 at hcc.com>,
John W Kennedy <kennedy1 at bwmail1.hcc.com> wrote:
>In <458c9j$cvv at flood.xnet.com>, jegolf at xnet.com (J.M.Egolf) writes:
>>Most of people I know who were raised RC now consider themselves
>>"recovering Catholics" just as JMS does (although, to be accurate, I don't
>>think I've ever heard him use that term). Me -- I haven't given up on Holy
>>Mother Church completely yet, although Holy Father Rome gets my goat on a
>>regular basis ... :-)
>
>Speaking as someone raised an atheist, and turned Anglican as an adult, I find
>myself somewhat puzzled on this subject.  All the ex-RC's I know don't seem to
>have the slightest knowledge of what RC doctrine _is_.  To hear them talk, one
>would think that the RCC teaches that there are two sins, and one of them is
>doing anything that is in any way remotely connected with sex, and the other
>one is being a Protestant.  Is it (as I have heard) purely the result of the
>Church here in the US being dominated by Irish Jansenists who would really
>rather be Calvinists, but can't, because that would be betrayin' the auld sod?
>Is it (as I would very much prefer not to believe) that the hierarchy just
>can't be bothered about what the laity actually think, as long as they stay in
>line?
>

	Actually, (speaking as someone who was baptized U.C.C., and who
wasn't much taken to church as a child, and who is Quaker by belief, and
who goes to a Methodist church now - and whose mother is studying to
become a minister in the E.L.C.A. - and no, I'm not the least bit 
confused, thanks, really - and everyone asks me if I am!) I'malways
surprized by the number of people who really have no idea what their
church's official doctrine is!  It's not just Catholics!  I know a fair
amount about Lutheran, Methodist, and Quaker, as well as U.C.C. and a few
others, and I'm not officially any one of them!  The thing is, people
seem to accept whatever their particular minister tells them as the 
official church position, and never bother to look at the church's 
statements.  (Which are usually available without _too_ much trouble - 
I've read the Methodist Book of Discipline and a fair number of the Quaker
statements, and some of the Lutheran equivalent.)  Like my grandparents, 
who would never be U.C.C. if they knew what U.C.C.'s official position
really is on a lot of things!  

	To put it more the way you asked it, in most denominations, it
seems like the laity can't be bothered to vote in church matters, and
certainly can't be bothered to read the official positions, so the 
doctrine reflects what the few who actually care think, rather than the
many who are "members" of the denomination.

	Of course, this is just what I've seen - I can't speak for 
everyone out there.  (But in all my supposedly confusing religious 
experience, I've seen a few denominations, and a lot of people, so I do
have something to go on!)

	Laura Jane
	romana at copland.udel.edu


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: straczynski at genie.geis.com
Lines: 15

     "What's the difference between 'having a Minbari soul' and 'having
been a Minbari in a previous life'?"
 
     The difference, Jamie, is *huge*.  And extremely significant.
 
     Here, I'll give you a freebie...there's something massively,
mind-bendingly significant in a throwaway line in one of the first three
episodes of year three that seems to have little bearing on this, but in
fact is hugely involved in this *exact* issue.
 
     You'll know what it was much later in the season.  But this heads-up
might point you in the right direction.  Suffice to say there's a very
definite reason I phrased that as I did.
 
                                                                      jms