Posted by (Patrick) at dover1-08.sl.cybercomm.net on November 06, 2000 at 15:58:00:
In Reply to: ...answer... posted by thebiggerboat on November 06, 2000 at 08:43:50:
: The answer is this...Azrael was cast from heaven and became a demon and, as was said in the movie, demons can't trans-subtantiate (spelling??) into human form. This bit is essential as you needed to be human to die and thus go to heaven and prove god fallible. Bartleby and Loki weren't made demons and as angels (still) they could trans to human form, get they're sins negated thru the doorway, die (not commiting suicide though), go to heaven and prove god fallible and undo existance....Azrael couldn't do it 'cause he couldn't trans' to human form.
I guess that's consistent with the "rules" set down in the movie....I suppose I just don't like them. I don't see the difference at all between being a fallen angel and being a demon, one condition to me implies the other. Cast Down is Cast Down, regardless of where you land, be it Hell or Wisconsin. I'm assuming that Mr. Smith created this necessary distinction in order to propel the plot? (I suppose I could write to the Vatican to get a ruling on this but I'm guessing that they would take their time getting back to me on the subject.) As far as angels becoming human, well, that never made sense to me. Wasn't that the whole reason for Lucifer's rebellion in the first place, the fact that angels _couldn't_ become human and that God loved humanity better (or at least Lucifer believed that)? And if it _is_ possible, wouldn't it necessitate some sort of moral, personal choice to become human, rather than just having your wings shot off? Not that it's a good movie or anything, but CITY OF ANGELS handles this much better, with Nicolas Cage's character choosing to "fall" and become mortal as opposed to, say, getting his wings smashed off his back by a passing truck or something. I would hope that the condition of humanity isn't something that an angel could step into accidentally.
This is probably a waste of time since everyone here seems to be a rabid Kevin Smith fan, but there's a lot of things about DOGMA I didn't really like. The plenary indulgence plot device also galls me as being particularly unlikely in this day and age, as the selling of indulgences to anyone and everyone with money for them was a particularly odious and reviled practice that the Church stopped doing a long time ago. The Bishop (or was he a Cardinal? I'm afraid I can't recall) might as well have followed it up by excommunicating the mayor of Red Bank and then trying to round up the local Jewish community for the Inquisition. I had a hard time accepting that part of the movie right away. I guess maybe it was supposed to be done for satirical purposes, but it didn't really work for me.
I'm probably going to get slammed by everyone on this board for saying these things, so I guess I'll shut up now. Thanks to everyone who took the time to clarify my original point for me.