Thor's Day

There is a crack, a crack in everything ...

It's Thor's Day, when we traditionally honor the storm god here by unleashing the lightning of a robust, but hopefully civil, flamewar.

One of the first questions when approaching the subject of human nature tends to be are we essentially good or essentially rotten? The Christian answer -- "Yes!" -- can seem like a cop-out, or a contradiction, or a paradox (the euphemism theologian's use for those contradictions we like). The idea is that every human is of inestimable worth, bearing the very image of God through and through. Yet every human is also fallen, broken, corrupt, through and through.* And the matter of virtue and wickedness is only part of the equation anyway -- we're not just fallen, but also finite, fallible and fragile.**

Just in case Augustinian anthropology isn't inflammatory enough for a Thursday, let's add politics. This Christian understanding of human nature is particularly compatible with Madisonian democracy. The people all, equally, deserve and intrinsically possess inviolable rights because every person is of inestimable worth. Yet no person is virtuous enough to be trusted with unchecked power. We cannot trust in the benevolence of a philosopher king, so our leaders -- not rulers, but leaders -- must be subject to checks and balances and to the will of the sovereign people. Yet even the sovereignty of the people must be checked and balanced by those aforementioned rights so that the majority does not begin to tyrannize the minority/ies.

(This view of human nature also suggests the wisdom of an economic framework that avoids either the potential tyranny of a centrally planned economy or the potential tyranny of unregulated -- and therefore not perpetually free -- free markets.)

What I've never understood about Neocon foreign policy is why these people think the Madisonian system of checks and balances is necessary domestically, but not internationally. Their argument is basically that America is a benevolent country and therefore ought to be the unrivaled, unchecked superpower/philosopher king of the world. No, thank you. No kings, domestic or international.

(Let's see, theology, politics, economics, foreign policy -- not bad for a Thursday. I should probably have included something about sex, gender, Ron Paul and Cloverfield, too, but this should at least get the fireworks started ...)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* The "total" in Calvin's term "total depravity" means something more like "pervasive." He was countering the idea that our fallenness was located in one particular aspect or another of ourselves, such as the idea that it is our physical bodies that are wicked, or our "will" (whatever that is), or our genitals, or whatever. Every aspect of every person, in total, is both inherently good and fallen, both in need of redemption and worthy of it.

** "It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people." -- Good Omens. It might displease Messrs. Gaiman and Pratchett to hear me say so, but there's some fine theology in that book.

Comments

[Bugmaster]

It might displease Messrs. Gaiman and Pratchett to hear me say so, but there's some fine theology in that book.

I don't know, somehow I think that this would please them very much indeed.

[Froborr]

Bugmaster beat me to first post by saying EXACTLY what I was going to say, word for word.

As for Madisonian democracy and Christian anthropology... well, if you're going to not trust anybody with unchecked power, why do you permit this God person to have single-handed rulership of the universe? Sure, he supposedly doesn't have human flaws, but all you have is his word on the subject. You wouldn't believe it when Bush says "Trust me, I'm the President." Why do you believe it when God says, "Hey, losers, because I'm such a nice guy I've decided to run your universe for you, and to prove how much I love you I'm willing to overlook how big a loser you are and how much you smell and give you a pretty nifty gig. Only, uh, you can't redeem the offer until after you die, and you can't ever see anybody who's died and gotten the Heaven pass. Wow, you really stink, especially compared to how awesome I am. Anyway, you should trust me, because I'm perfect. Losers."

God's universe is an intrinsically authoritarian government. The principles of Madisonian democracy say that we must overthrow any dictatorship we find ourselves under, no matter how benign. If God exists, we have a responsibility to rebel, no matter how futile it may be.

[MikeJ]

It's my understanding that in Cloverfield, a giant lizard bites the head off the statue of liberty in order to return the US to the gold standard.

GOOGLE GIANT LIZARD! EDUCATE YOURSELF! OXNARD!

[Victoria]

speaking of unexpected sources of theology, Leonard Cohen's got some pretty insightful things to say as well...

[Bugmaster]

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

I wouldn't call that Cloverfield thing a lizard. If it looks like anything, it looks like Sin from FFX. Hence the moral of our story: don't engage Sin until you at least have Ultima. Your girlfriend can wait.

[Toby]

Froborr: Why do you believe it when God says, "Hey, losers, because I'm such a nice guy I've decided to run your universe for you, and to prove how much I love you I'm willing to overlook how big a loser you are and how much you smell and give you a pretty nifty gig. Only, uh, you can't redeem the offer until after you die, and you can't ever see anybody who's died and gotten the Heaven pass. Wow, you really stink, especially compared to how awesome I am. Anyway, you should trust me, because I'm perfect. Losers."

First of all, God has never called me a loser. Has he called you one? If so, congratulations! He probably meant you're getting into heaven.

Setting that aside, if God is not perfect, and if God is not worthy of our trust, then God just plain isn't. Or so it seems to me. Either the person I'm talking to (not just right now, but off and on) is perfect and trustworthy, or I'm talking to myself. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which of those is true.

***

Victoria: speaking of unexpected sources of theology, Leonard Cohen's got some pretty insightful things to say as well...

"They are leaning out for love, they will lean that way forever" is a fine theological statement of the human condition. And I think If It Be Your Will would make for a bad-ass church song. The image of this world as hell is a bit problematic, but I think I'd rather have that than Jesus-is-my-boyfriend imagery. "From this broken hill, all your praises they shall ring, if it be your will".

[Majromax]

The principles of Madisonian democracy say that we must overthrow any dictatorship we find ourselves under, no matter how benign. If God exists, we have a responsibility to rebel, no matter how futile it may be.

That's just it. I cannot abide a theology that treats Humanity as a childhood that should never be outgrown.

"Don't worry, Mommy and Daddy know what's best" might be true, but it's also limiting. A child who never disobeys, who never makes mistakes, who always does what s/he is told will never grow up. S/he will be stunted and incomplete. S/he will never understand why.

Why should it be different with us? Why should I just be okay with everything, Trust in Dog, etc? I may still be a child compared with the Almighty of your choosing, but let me make mistakes and damnit confront me as an equal.

It might be big, it might be scary, and it might penalize my SAN stat horribly, but I don't want to be a baby forever.

[Jesurgislac]

Toby: The image of this world as hell is a bit problematic, but I think I'd rather have that than Jesus-is-my-boyfriend imagery.

I dunno, I kind of like the imagery of Jesus as every man's boyfriend.

[Froborr]

It might be big, it might be scary, and it might penalize my SAN stat horribly

See, I could believe a deity like Azathoth might exist, but who would ever want to?

[Toby]

A child who never disobeys, who never makes mistakes

...doesn't need parents. And perhaps this hypothetical person would never need Christ, who after all sometimes describes salvation in terms of a divine chase after the lost.

but let me make mistakes and damnit confront me as an equal.

Do you feel you've been prevented from making mistakes?

And what if, rather than confront you as an equal, he confronts you as a servant? Well, it is hard to look him in the eye when he's down in the dirt washing your feet -- first you'd have to stoop down to his level, if you can.

***

Jesurgislac: I dunno, I kind of like the imagery of Jesus as every man's boyfriend.

Have you heard the songs?

[Froborr]

And what if, rather than confront you as an equal, he confronts you as a servant?

I'd find it just as repulsive as him treating me like a wayward child or lost sheep, actually. I see no point to any kind of authoritarian relationship, regardless of which end of it I'm on.

[Lurker]

Froborr,

In fact, Eastern Christianity considers in its tradition that it is possible for a person to be righteous by rebelling against God. After all, if you rebel against God's infinite authority, you at the same time acknowledge it. For example the fools for Christ typically perform acts that are counted as sins. I'm not sure which of the holy fools of Orthodox Christianity declared that if God is going to condemn sinners, he wants to be among them. Usually, however, the sins committed by holy fools are of such nature that they question some aspect of society, thus making a point.

So, Froborr, if you want to make a Promethean quest against God, it is possible (I'd say likely) that in the end, He will encounter you not with vengeance but with kindness. Our God is not Zeus.

[Jesurgislac]

Toby: Have you heard the songs?

Have you read the poems?

[M Groesbeck]

Since the Leonard Cohen lyrics have been quoted, should we consider the theology behind at least the song in question? Especially looking at this non-Christian theology in terms of Christianity (which the post does; it can be rather distressing how often people say "theology" when they mean "Christian doctrines").

There is a crack, a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in.

This is a reversal of most of Christianity, isn't it? For most Christians, sin, brought into being by humans and free will, is the "flaw" in the universe. Christian eschatology is mostly concerned with "fixing" this flaw and restoring the universe to its original/intended state. In "Anthem," though, it's the irregularity or "crackedness" of the universe that allows for transcendence in the first place.

I can't run no more with that lawless crowd while the killers in high places say their prayers out loud...

Not anti-Christian (or incompatible with the progressive fringes of Christianity), but notable as the song's only mention of prayer...(except maybe the "ask[ing] for signs")

Every heart to love will come, but like a refugee.

This is a significant difference with every branch of Christianity since universalism was booted from the fold as heresy, especially given Cohen's frequent use of "love" and "G-d" interchangeably (and that's "love" in a human sense, not the creepy, Orwellian mainstream Christian version).

I think I prefer this song's theology, really.

[Jos]

I can't say for sure about Gaiman, but considering Pratchett also wrote Small Gods I'm pretty sure he'd like people telling him that he wrote some fine theology.

[Francis]

Toby:
Setting that aside, if God is not perfect, and if God is not worthy of our trust, then God just plain isn't.

If God is perfect then his creation is exactly as he intended it - or the perfect creator would have created imperfectly. If this is a perfect world, then God is either very warped in his views as to perfection or wants us to grow up to learn to improve the place.

If this world is imperfect (as is implied by the Fall), then either God is not perfect or God is not worthy of our trust as he has deliberately done a very shoddy job for us. And if he has told us he is perfect this demonstrates that he is not worthy of our trust as he has deliberately done an imperfect job when creating us.

Or so it seems to me.

Why? I trust my parents and I trust my girlfriend. I know they are all imperfect but I still find them to be worthy of my trust.

Either the person I'm talking to (not just right now, but off and on) is perfect and trustworthy, or I'm talking to myself.

Um. False dichotomy? (Frex if you were talking to Satan, (s)he wouldn't be trustworthy, but you wouldn't be talking to yourself. If you were talking to an imperfect creator, likewise).

Froborr:
See, I could believe a deity like Azathoth might exist, but who would ever want to?

If I had proof he did, me. I'd rather believe it existed than deny the world and the evidence of my eyes and reason. (Fortunately I do not see any good evidence that Azathoth exists).

[ajay]

There is a crack, a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in.

That sounds like Spike Milligan:

the stars are holes in the sky
where the rain gets in
but they're ever so small
which is why rain is thin

[Praline]

Are people fundamentally good or bad? I don't know. It seems like kind of a silly question to me. I don't think we can get a clear view of human nature any more than we can see our own eyeballs. What I do think is that there's enough evidence either way that you can more or less pick a side, and it feels spiritually healthier to be well-disposed towards your fellow human beings.

Can't remember the source, but who else knows the old story about a philosopher sitting at the door of a city? A man goes in, saying, 'What are the people like here?' 'Well,' says the philosopher, 'they're a pack of cheating, scummy bastards.' 'You'll find it's the same here,' says the philosopher. Another man approaches, and asks what the people are like in the city. 'What are they like where you come from?' says the philosopher. 'Honest, kind and upright,' says the second man. 'You'll find it's the same here,' says the philosopher.

Anyway, I prefer to think well of my fellow people, and it doesn't seem to have done me any irreparable damage yet. So I'm not flaming anyone. Have a nice day, you lovely people. :-)

[julia]

Not just Small Gods, Feet of Clay

[Froborr]

Francis: I'd rather believe it existed than deny the world and the evidence of my eyes and reason. (Fortunately I do not see any good evidence that Azathoth exists).

Well, yes, but I'm assuming here that there is insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion, and one's belief is therefore a matter of personal choice. Unlike, say, belief in a benign omnipotent omniscient deity, which is obviously contradicted by known empirical facts.

[libraripagan]

If God exists, we have a responsibility to rebel, no matter how futile it may be.

One could argue that is why we were given free will in the first place -- so we COULD rebel and learn.

[Toby]

Froborr: I'd find it just as repulsive as him treating me like a wayward child or lost sheep, actually. I see no point to any kind of authoritarian relationship, regardless of which end of it I'm on.

It's not like you asked him to wash your feet. You probably didn't even know your feet were dirty.

As far as authoritarian relationships go, do let yourself tell your self what to do?

[Armando]

"Setting that aside, if God is not perfect, and if God is not worthy of our trust, then God just plain isn't. Or so it seems to me. Either the person I'm talking to (not just right now, but off and on) is perfect and trustworthy, or I'm talking to myself. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which of those is true."

That's assuming, of course, that the Western view of God as a personal god is the correct one.

[Keith]

God's universe is an intrinsically authoritarian government. The principles of Madisonian democracy say that we must overthrow any dictatorship we find ourselves under, no matter how benign. If God exists, we have a responsibility to rebel, no matter how futile it may be.

Posted by: Froborr

This right here is precisely why I became an Atheist. It's also why I get the screaming fits whenever I hear the Huckabees of the world say they want the US, or any other country, to be a Christian Nation. What they're really saying is, they don't like all this democracy stuff and would rather live in a religious Monarchy.

Religions, specifically the Abrahamic Big 3, are fundamentally undemocratic, founded as they were during the Sun King era of human history and built to reinforce the Monarchical hierarchy. Therefore, God* needs to adapt to Democracy, or suffer the fate of all tyrants. In other words, he should act more like the Queen Mother or suffer the fate of Louis XVI.

_________
*And by God, I mean people's conception of spiritual authority. It should be pluralistic, progressive and based on a shared social contract of civilized obligations, not based on submission/domination fetishes.

[Geds]

Froborr: Why do you believe it when God says, "Hey, losers, because I'm such a nice guy I've decided to run your universe for you

I salute you, sir. Ne'er before have I seen more perfectly placed flame bait. 'Tis a wonder indeed.

Fred: This Christian understanding of human nature is particularly compatible with Madisonian democracy. The people all, equally, deserve and intrinsically possess inviolable rights because every person is of inestimable worth. Yet no person is virtuous enough to be trusted with unchecked power.

On one of the last weeks before I left the fundie church of my youth the associate pastor of the supposedly progressive post-modern Emergent Church style group did an entire message on this subject. However, the message was basically, "Wouldn't monarchy led by god be so much better than anything else?" Because, as we all know, the all-powerful philosopher king is the greatest ruler of all and everything will be perfect.

When he started in to his pro-monarchy thing my immediate thought was, "No! That's bad!" then I realized, "Oh, he's talking about the Kingdom of Heaven as a monarchy." My very next thought was something to the effect of, "That's still bad." I don't think that was anywhere close to the old straw that broke the camel's back, but it certainly reduced the number of days I could stand to still be there.

It's weird, too. I think I might have finally come back around to a place in which I can accept the idea at the core of the Christian message about the fallenness and the need for redemption and can even understand the idea of needing to jump through hoops to get it. In the intervening time, however, I've rejected the premise on which that world is built. It's an odd and slightly frightening place to be since I'm still psychologically vulnerable to all of those messages even if I know exactly what they are saying and that I've already rejected them. Still, the siren's call of the fire and brimstone evangelist is hard to resist because I've been so programmed to believe that I'm naught but a sinner in the hands of an arbitrary god.

[Armando]

"And what if, rather than confront you as an equal, he confronts you as a servant? Well, it is hard to look him in the eye when he's down in the dirt washing your feet -- first you'd have to stoop down to his level, if you can."

Has Jesus confronted you as a servant, Toby? If so, congratulations! The more I look the more he confronts me as an amalgam of various religious and military leaders from the mid-first century of the common era.

(Two posts in a row! Not bad for a serial lurker who's intimidated by the commenter community around here. Or maybe it's presumptuous. Please don't hate me.) :-)

[twig]

I really want this Cloverfield review of yours, Fred.

[Amy]

Majromax: When was the last time you brought a universe into existence? If God exists, then you are most certainly not his equal and thus do not deserve to be treated as such.

Also, we all do disobey, just like kids do as they grow up. But parents discipline kids with the hope that when they are fully grown they will mature and behave, not from fear of punishment, but out of understanding of what is good and true. This is precisely the model of the Christian life. If you continue to be good only out of fear of punishment, then you have never matured in your faith.

[Geds]

Two posts in a row! Not bad for a serial lurker who's intimidated by the commenter community around here. Or maybe it's presumptuous. Please don't hate me.

Intimidated? By l'il ol' us? Oh forevermore.

Fear not. Just keep the snark coming and try to figure out how to grow a flame-retardant epidermal layer and you'll be fine. Oh, and try not to piss Jesu off until you're at least a level 15. I'm sure everyone here will agree that helps.

[Cowboy Diva]

Jesu, thank you for the poem. I think.

[Geds]

Jesu, thank you for the poem. I think.

Funny, I was just thinking the opposite...

[Geds]

But parents discipline kids with the hope that when they are fully grown they will mature and behave, not from fear of punishment, but out of understanding of what is good and true.

Yes, but parents also raise children with the hope that they'll grow the hell up and move out on their own. God as parent contradicts this model, as the children are encouraged to spend all of eternity living in their parent's house.

It is, perhaps, a model that makes sense in a society wherein generations all live together and keep the same house on the same plot of land for centuries, but even in that situation it's a known fact that the old generation will die off and be replaced by a new one. The static Christian world works in direct contradiction to the dynamic world of the human experience. Which is why we're having problems.

Especially since we don't actually need god to tell us what is good and bad for us in the experiential model. For instance, two weeks ago I got completely and totally stupid drunk. It wasn't my intention, I hadn't done that before and I didn't really want to do it again (I don't drink heavily very often and my goal is "pleasantly buzzed," not "wasted" when I do). So I asked myself why that had happened and quickly realized that when I've been drinking in the past it tends to be beer. That particular time was a combination of gin and bourbon. I drank the bourbon about as fast, if not faster than, beer. This is incredibly, massively stupid and my body reacted by thinking it was being poisoned and responded accordingly. Drinking that much bourbon that quickly is bad for me and I've learned that next time it happens I have to remember to respect the hard stuff and drink it more slowly. And at no point did I need to ask any sort of deity to intervene on my behalf to teach me that lesson.

[SKapusniak]

This Christian stuff is all very well, but what I was hoping for from this thread was to find out the God *Thor's* position on the issue of total depravity, and/or differences in drinking speed required between Beer, Gin and Bourbon. :)

[Geds]

*Thor's* position on the issue of total depravity, and/or differences in drinking speed required between Beer, Gin and Bourbon. :)

Well, in one of the legends Thor drank a significant enough drought from the sea that surrounded Midgard to noticeably lower its level while thinking it was mead, so I'd say that Thor can pretty much drink anything he wants as fast as he wants.

[hapax]

Jesu, thanks for the poem. That was the funniest thing I've read all week.

[John]

There is a crack, a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in.

This is a reversal of most of Christianity, isn't it?

I'm not so sure about that, but I understand it is a Kabbalistic view. The universe shattered because nothing is able to contain the unity of G-d. Each time we think we understand reality, well, the cracks are the places which show us the (brighter) light outside our understanding. A clay pot that is impure can only be made pure by breaking it and then putting it back together. And if the pot again becomes impure, well, lather, rinse, repeat. The cracks that let the light in remind us that recognizing our brokenness can lead to a deeper wholeness.

Forgive my clumsy explanation.

[Mark]

I still can't believe they decided that Ultimate Thor would still be a Norse God.

[Lauren]

...wants us to grow up to learn to improve the place.
Something wrong with that idea?

[Stephen Frug]

What I've never understood about Neocon foreign policy is why these people think the Madisonian system of checks and balances is necessary domestically, but not internationally. Their argument is basically that America is a benevolent country and therefore ought to be the unrivaled, unchecked superpower/philosopher king of the world.

Actually, give them credit for consistency: they don't think that checks and balances are necessary domestically either. Hence their extension of the unchecked executive power of Bush, in signing statements, in blatantly ignoring Congressional laws, of blowing off what feeble attempts at Congressional oversight there have been, etc. Cheney's been as strong for domestic unchecked power as he has for foreign.

Their foreign policy is "America is a benevolent country and therefore ought to be the unrivaled, unchecked superpower/philosopher king of the world"; their domestic policy is "Bush is a benevolent person and therefore ought to be the unrivaled, unchecked commander-in-chief/philosopher king of the country".

We'll see what they say if a Democrat wins, of course. But they're 100% into unrivaled, unchecked power under Bush.

SF

[hapax]

I have to say, I'm greatly amused by the insistence that we have to rebel against God to be treated as grown-ups, or because of the moral obligation to resist tyranny, etc.

It sounds to me like nothing so much as the oh-so-passionate adolescent railing against "authority", the need for "individuation" and "autonomy" to be "authentic"(that is, when it doesn't sound like a three-year-old stamping his foot, shouting "You're not the boss of me.")

Go ahead and declare God a Tyrant. Proclaim yourself the sole independent captain of your own fate, the monarch of your soul. Sign up with Lord Asriel to found the Republic of Heaven. Knock yourself out.

This whole obsession with "who's in charge?", "who gets to give the orders?", and "who gets the credit and who gets the blame?" is EXACTLY the problem that Christianity -- or at least Jesus, which isn't the same thing, alas -- aims to solve.

Once humanity stops being such a teenager and we all get over ourselves, maybe at that point we can address the general imperative to be excellent to each other.

[Vermic]

ajay: That sounds like Spike Milligan:

the stars are holes in the sky
where the rain gets in
but they're ever so small
which is why rain is thin

Coincidentally, the Cohen quote reminded me of words from a different Spike:

"There's a hole in the world. Feels like we ought to have known."

[hapax]

The cracks that let the light in remind us that recognizing our brokenness can lead to a deeper wholeness.

O beata culpa, quae talem meruisti redemptorem!

[Froborr]

When was the last time you brought a universe into existence? If God exists, then you are most certainly not his equal and thus do not deserve to be treated as such.

Power does not demonstrate superiority in any respect other than power. Just because Bob can paint and Sue can't doesn't mean Bob is superior to Sue.

I salute you, sir. Ne'er before have I seen more perfectly placed flame bait. 'Tis a wonder indeed.

Thank you. *bows* I figure, if you're going to have a flame war thread, best to start it with a bang.

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: This whole obsession with "who's in charge?", "who gets to give the orders?", and "who gets the credit and who gets the blame?" is EXACTLY the problem that Christianity -- or at least Jesus, which isn't the same thing, alas -- aims to solve.

Jesus of the gospels, like many another inspired person, did indeed try to resolve the problem of the human impulse towards hierarchy. Unfortunately, such human beings are rare: most of us actually seem to prefer hierarchy and squabbling about it. The notion that people will "just get over it" by pointing at Jesus - still less claiming that Jesus is typical of Christianity as an organised religion - is unfortunately an exemplar of that kind of problem: set up a hierarchy and declare that your hierarchy is the right answer.

[Froborr]

I'm agreeing with Jesu? Freaky.

Anyway, an addition to her point: The adolescent rebellion against authority is, in fact, a necessary stage in becoming independent. Children require authority; adults do not. In fact, any authority over adults is intrinsically evil.

Note that I distinguish between authority, which compels obedience from inferiors, and expertise, which requests cooperation from equals. All theistic religions I've encountered place their deities (and most place their clergy) as authorities.

[hapax]

The notion that people will "just get over it" by pointing at Jesus - still less claiming that Jesus is typical of Christianity as an organised religion - is unfortunately an exemplar of that kind of problem: set up a hierarchy and declare that your hierarchy is the right answer.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Which is why it makes me very sad that so many Christians seem to think the answer to human broken-ness is to get people to sign the Christian membership card. Instead of, you know, trying to mend the broken bits.

I think Fred is spot-on when he talks about more "real Christianity" going on in the church basements than in the sanctuaries.

[Jesurgislac]

Geds: Well, in one of the legends Thor drank a significant enough drought from the sea that surrounded Midgard to noticeably lower its level while thinking it was mead, so I'd say that Thor can pretty much drink anything he wants as fast as he wants.

...but has no sense of taste.

Regardless of what Augstinianism and Calvinism claim, humans are either fundamentally good, fundamentally rotten, or fundamentally people, but not all three at the same time.

That's because fundamentally good would mean that humans always do good things with with good intentions. Fundamentally rotten would mean that humans always do evil things with evil intentions. The accurate description, fundamentally people, means that intentions and outcomes vary. Sometimes the intentions are good, sometimes the intentions are evil, and sometimes the intentions are "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Similarly, humans can be either "fallen, broken, corrupt, through and through" or "finite, fallible and fragile," but not both. The first concept leaves no room for humans having any good intentions - it very strongly implies that humans always act with the intention to cause suffering to others. Fallible allows room for both good and bad intentions, while corrupt and fallen do not. Intentions are the key to the whole thing.

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: I couldn't agree with you more.

Hooray! I converted Hapax from her attitude at 10:59 to agreeing with me at 11:14!

Is this a record?

[Tonio]

That was me at 11:14 a.m.