Posted by Still Chasing Amy at thrasymachus.sjca.edu on November 18, 1999 at 10:54:05:
In reply to a post by Blackadder:
: I think that we'd have to assume that they are held to the same tenets
: as humans if they are not acting with divine authority. The argument
: against this could be that since. Loki is the angel of wrath. It is,
: therefore, in his nature, to act wrathful. If you can't fault a shark
: for doind what it does best, then you can't fault an angel. The
: difference is in the free-will. humans have the option of commiting an
: act of violence necessary or not. The angel would be more like an animal
: in that it can only act to its nature.
But Loki and Bartleby are angels who commit actions against the direct commandment of God (leaving Wisconsin, for one) which indicates that they *do* have free will, or are you saying that following the decrees of God is *not* the nature of angels? In which case, Bartleby's assertion that they were made to serve is incorrect. It seems to me that this talk of angels not having free will (by Bartleby) is just sour grapes over how his situation has played out. Oh, btw: regarding why L&B didn't leave WI earlier, this dialogue appears in an earlier version of the script but never made the movie (its from the scene on the bus):
LOKI
Movies are bullshit. And don't start with me, airight. The last time you bugged me about my job, you got us sentenced to life in Wisconsin
(looks out window) All this time we've been down here, why didn't we ever leave the Cheese?
BARTLEBY
He said to stay where he put us. We feared worse punishment if we disobeyed Him again.
LOKI
Where were we afraid He'd send us?
BARTLEBY
New Jersey.
LOKI
Now that, my friend. is irony.
: Probably, the rule is something like, since angels can think
: rationally, that when they are not called to divine service, that they
: have the ability to know right from wrong and may decide to commit a
: sin. They have a predisposition to their nature. ie Bartleby watches
: people because he is a watcher, he is predisposed toward that, he
: chooses to butt heads with god's laws because he wants to, not because
: he is predisposed towards this.
I'm not sure I'd even go with *any* predisposition argument. Loki seems more the trained killer than the natural born one. He was good at his job, sure, and with his rather simple take on the way the universe functions he figures he can get back into his old job with a little warm-up practice first. Bartleby really *has* lost his faith, not in the existence of God, but in the fact that God loves him. His punishment, by any but God's own laws *was* unjust (one gets the idea that he might have been sent down with Loki so as to keep him in check, but that's not terribly fair to Bartleby). I'm not sure I'd call Bartleby a watcher by nature, either. Certainly when he decides to become part of the action he discovers he's not only good at it, but he has a genuine taste for it that surpasses even Loki. Loki enjoyed enforcing the vengeance of God, Bartleby just enjoys the killing for its own sake, which would make him dispositionally a *terrible* watcher, if disposition had anything to do with role.
: : LOKI:
: : Loki has killed at least 7 people based on his own interpretation of
: : God's desires and *without* divine mandate to do so.
: however, all of those he killed were guilty of mortal sins. And, he
: felt he was rightous in killing them
He *felt* he was justified, but this doesn't make it so. Even Bartleby points out that there is no Angel of Death anymore... and Metatron refers to the time when God was wrathful and hot tempered as 'the old days'. Now God is 'funny' and enjoys Skee-Ball... a definite mellowing that seems incompatible with righteous slaughter.
: which brings up a wider question, hypothetically, we have a guy, Alfred,
: who is a soldier. Place him in any conflict in any time frame on just
: about any side. If he believes that those he kills are the enemy, intent
: on harming others, is he acting against god's will murdering (breaking
: the fifth commandment)
That really all depends on whether the sin is in the action (as many protestant churches would stress) or the intent (as the Catholic church believes). Loki is not a 'free agent' in this respect, however. Mankind has no direct communication to God and therefore is left to figure these things out for itself. Angels, however, simply receive their orders. Loki is never mentioned as having the authority to slaughter without command, even he himself admits that he will need forgiveness for the killings. And as regards the sin of leading the nun from her faith, in an earlier script he confesses that she will only lapse briefly and then tearfully confess and return to the clergy. Not that this makes it a *whole* lot better, but Loki seems to feel that the net result of his action is thereby zero. Loki being a simple creature unsuited to metaphysics. ;)
: Granted this raises many sticky issues... i'm just raising the point. If
: acting without divine authority is a ticket to hell, then any, say WWII
: (it's trendy, so sue me) veteren who killed a german and was himself
: killed w/o benefit of remorse or confession, is in hell.
I would argue that they stand a much higher risk of perdition than non-combatants, yes. One really has no way of knowing which people the Almighty is willing to grant one free leave to slaughter (if any). The only safe route is to kill no-one.
: : IF angels are covered by their own special code then Loki must be
: : punished under angelic law for his killing spree, but in his
: : (admittedly brief) mortal life appears mostly blameless.
: I can only think that he might be guilty of a sin of omission in not
: trying to stop bartleby, but getting drunk on the sidelines instead.
Possibly, though he would be one mortal vs. Bartleby in angelic form, and he states that Bartleby has been snatching people off the sidewalk and dropping them for a while now, something Loki would be pretty powerless to stop. Its unclear what he might have done about the situation, but you're right that he doesn't seem to have tried.
: : BARTLEBY:
: : He has slain numerous individuals without much of *ANY* justification,
: : directly contradicted the Will of God, and attempted to willfully
: : negate all of existence.
: Bartleby definatly seems *more* guilty than Loki... more so because he
: was prideful, where loki was not.
I don't know about that. Loki seems mighty full of himself. He definitely is assuming that he has carte blanche to choose his own targets, which one might well call 'prideful'.
: Loki acted according to what he was, the angel of wrath.
What he *had been*. Loki knows enough to understand he is no longer the Angel of Death.
: Bartleby acted according to what he wanted to be, acknowledged as the
: human's superior.
Agreed.
: : The Morningstar (by comparison) wasn't as fractious by half.
: Well, he did try to say he was better than god (damned pride)... and
: there was that whole war on heaven thing. I think Lucifer might have
: done a bit worse than Bartleby.
Well, that was an off-the-cuff comment, but one must wonder about the comparative evils of challenging God's authority vs. trying to unmake His creation.
: : I think Purgatory might be the best place for both of them.
All things being equal, I'd agree. Neither seems to be *evil* at heart, just incredibly short-sighted and selfish. Bartleby revolts against God because of perceived rejection by Her. Loki, just because he hasn't got the brains God gave a weasel.
: : Yes, God *could* forgive them both and let them into Heaven as angels,
: : but that pretty much removes the point of *having* a law.
: No i would think in either the heaven or hell case, they would go as
: mortals.
I agree, but one of the earlier respondents was positing they would be
restored as angels if God was being 'fair' (by their definition, of course).
: Even if they were judged and sent according to their sins to heaven or
: hell, what about their bodies? They only time god took anybody body and
: soul is Mary, and they only time s/he's gonna do it again is during the
: Rapture, and that is used a precursor to Judgment Day. D'oh.
Interestingly enough, an earlier script has no 'clean-up' scene. God leaves the slaughter where it is. However, even in the final shooting script, the parishoners are already dead and therefore unqualified for bodily assumption into heaven. Also, technically speaking, the only bodily assumption in the Bible is the Prophet Elijah (and Jesus, if you count the resurrected flesh as qualifying for assumption). Mary's assumption is an article of faith based on the tradition of the church, but not the text.
: : Persoanlly, I think God merely tidied up the area to suit Her
: : personal aesthetic sensibilities
: From what i've seen i don't think that god would be that, well,
: superficial, i'd like to know that *something* happened to the corpses,
: but just being spirited away bothers me.
This is a God that enjoys playing Skee-Ball and doing hand-stands (poorly).
One could just chalk it up as another miracle for humanity to wonder over.
: : (doing cartwheels among the corpses is an activity more up Krishna's
: : alley than Yahweh's.)
: but aren't they one the same?
Christianity's Yahweh and the Krishna Consciousness's Krishna, perhaps, but the actual Hindu Krishna is a bit too randomly violent in my book to qualify as being a beneficial deity.
: : I'd bet that Azrael is neither in Hell nor in Heaven, but that he
: : simply *isn't*.
: Azreal is the bad guy of the movie. Oblivion would be to good for him.
: I'm not sure, but i think if a demon's material form is destroyed they
: go back to kind of reform. If they were killed in hell, it would be a
: different story... then again, these are AD&D rules i'm remembering
: so... take that with a grain of salt.
Heh... I was just thinking that there was more E. Gary Gygax in that theological point than there was the Bible. ;)
: : I've never bought the 'proof denies Free Will' argument
: I just think it lends an undue wight to the dogma of the catholic
: church. That the free will being taken away is the freedom to choose a
: form of religion.
One still has the free will to do so, though one may be less likely to. Humans have an endless capacity to rationalize from insufficient (or even contrary) evidence.
: : Now you can argue that that isn't much of a choice when one considers
: : the eternal pleasure/punishment carrot-and-stick afterlife, but though
: : belief in that system can affect one's behaviour it by no means
: : negates one's Free Will. The Almighty can stroll down the Avenue of
: : the Americas tossing thunderbolts and hurling invectives in Hebrew at
: : passersby without negating the Free Will of anyone at all.
: But can the Almighty stand infront of a Mosque doing the same thing
: without adding this undue weight of proof that says, "this is the chosen
: religion, I am in this church because this is where i belong." That
: takes away from every other religion and may not take away free will
: altogether, but would seriously damage it.
The sight of the Almighty hanging about in mosques might well cause a crisis of faith for many, but the interpretations of *why* She was doing so would be quite varied. Does She mean we are to embrace the muslims as co-religionists? Are we to abandon other religions and convert? Or is that simply Satan on that minarette *pretending* to be God? Besides, there's really nothing to argue that God believes it an OK thing to be a member of other religions besides the *one true church* (whichever 'one true church' that might be.)
: : : Could God have decided that angels are not just banned from imbibing,
: : : but physically unable to imbibe (like, a gag reflex) hence Metaron's
: : : spitting
: : I assume that this *IS* the case, as otherwise there is little to no
: : reason for Bartleby and Loki not to be drinking 24/7. They're already
: : banished to Earth for all time. What is the Almighty going to do, send
: : them to Hell for *drinking*? If they *can't* swallow alcohol it would
: : explain why neither of them *do* drink (though the scene with Bartleby
: : and Bethany on the train is a tad vague, I assume that cut footage
: : shows Bartleby faking drinking just as Loki fakes toking on the joint
: : Jay passes him.)
: : : When Bartleby and Loki become human, by losing their wings, and
: : : gaining a concience... do the unsexed angels...ah... well... grow a
: : : pair?
: : One would assume they would have to, since there must be a
: : transformation to provide them with at least an alimentary system.
: : Mortal Loki would have had to pee eventually. I'm surprised with all
: : the dick jokes that they never covered that. ;)
: maybe they did and it was cut.
An earlier script has Bartleby and Loki spitting out the chewed popcorn into napkins, indicating that angels can neither eat nor drink *anything* as a result of Loki's drunk escapades.
: : I wonder about Bartleby's 'conscience' comment though, since Metatron
: : certainly seems to have one, seeing as he felt terrible about having
: : to tell 12-year old Jesus about his true nature.
: Maybe Metatron being the seraph that he is has a concience that Bartleby
: and Loki, being lower angels do not.
Well, Bartleby seems to *believe* they have no free will or conscience, but this strikes me as rationalizing on his part. Bartleby had a conscience at Sodom and Gomorrah... hell, that's what caused the whole problem in the first place.
: btw: maybe i've just watched cartoons too much growing up, but whenever
: i see Metatron i alway initially read it as Megatron, and that makes me
: think of Transformers....which of course has it's own christ mythos.
Heh. I never watched Transformers (I was a few years too old for that),
but I've always been a fan of Metatron, since he shows up fairly late in religious thought and is the only major angel with a Greek name.
: : I wouldn't really take anything Bartleby or Loki say as 'gospel truth'
: : (pardon the pun) as far as the movie goes.
: They don't seem to be wrong about too much though.
??? Seems to me they really don't have much of a clue at all. Oh they're right on particulars, but they have no sense of the big picture (due perhaps to their separation from God.)
Heh. How much of a kick must Kevin be getting out of having started theological debates on the nature of free will? :)
- Still Chasing Amy
c-gillen@sjca.edu