Why Were the Angels So Angry?

[AllAboutLove]

I have a question for the group.

During the War in Heaven, 1/3 of all the Angels rebelled against God (And were thus damned to Hell). BUT: If 1/3 of all the Angels were so mad that they actually took the "action step" of taking up arms & waging war against God.... then surely, there were other Angels that were upset (or sympathetic) as well, but for whatever reason, weren't willing to take up arms.

No matter how you slice it, that's a LOT of upset Angels! If Heaven was a Democracy, whatever was going on, God would've been out-voted by a landslide.

So WHAT was going on, and WHY were so many of the Angels so mad, they'd actually take up arms against God? It had to be something that they perceived as exceptionally egregious.... because remember, they didn't just get upset, they got so upset that they were willing to risk damnation by FIGHTING against an all-powerful God.....???

I'm reading a new book that discusses this, and it really made me think..... would appreciate hearing your thoughts. Thanx!

[Divine Insight]

Actually, the point you keep harping on is fairness, not morality.

I disagree. What I speak of is indeed my personal sense of morality.

Morality pertains to ultimate right & wrong, as appraised by an Absolute Power.

But this is precisely the Zeus-like fallacy that I has just addressed.

You can't tell me that some God of "Absolute Power" decides what's moral whilst my own personal opinions of morality don't count for diddly squat.

In fact, IMHO, that very claim is basically what I would consider to be an unethical scam to support an immoral religion. Not meant to accuse you personally of this as I realize that you are just repeating the status quo. You have simply bought into this, where I haven't.

In short, it is absolutely meaningless to tell me that a God is "Moral", and then proceed to argue that this God behaves in ways that are not in line with what I believe to be"moral".

After all, if this God does not behave in ways that I consider to be "moral" than for me, the God is indeed an immoral God. It's that simple.

Fairness refers to what we perceive as reasonable. Your primary objection, over & over again, is one of fairness: It wouldn't be FAIR for God to do this..... or treat His creations this way..... or ask of this..... or make punishments this way.... it's not FAIR!

I totally reject your claim. I am speaking in terms of morality as I understand it.

To claim that some God can just do whatever he wants and call that "Moral" is absurd. This amounts to nothing more than an extremely lame excuse for an ancient religious superstition that is indeed immoral yet people try to defend it by proclaiming that anything this God does is "moral" because it is the God who decides what is moral and not us.

That does not hold water.

A God that is immoral by my understanding and meaning of the concept, is then necessarily an immoral God from my point of view.

In short, you could claim that it's ok for this God to torture me. And if I complain that this would be "immoral", you just dismiss my claim and say that I might not think it's fair but if God is doing it, it must be moral.

That's ridiculous. You could justify anything that way.

At this point we aren't even making excuses for a God. Instead we are just making up total baloney in an attempt to support immoral superstitious fantasies.

Whatever happened to the idea of a "trustworthy" God.

You're suggesting that I can't trust this God because he can do anything he wants whether I think it's right or not.

Where is there any reason why I should "trust" a God who I can't even trust to behave morally by my own understanding of what is moral.

I couldn't trust the God that you describe at all. He would be as untrustworthy and as dangerous as the Biblical Satan to me.

How can I trust a God who would treat me "unfairly". In fact, I would even say that to treat someone unfairly is indeed immoral. Doing something nasty to someone who doesn't deserve it is both unfair and immoral.

Ironically in order for you to "save" the morality of this God you have no choice but to simply define "morality" as anything he chooses to do.

But now you have reduced him to the level of Zeus.

[ttruscott]

...

This argument doesn't work because a mere moral human cannot possibly have a mutual relationship with a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent creator.

...

I'm not sure but this bald statement of fact begs to be supported by a logical explanation of the reasons the relationship, cannot happen, that is, how is this true beyond your inability to accept it as true?

...especially when the relationship stays GOD and human: Exodus 6:7 I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God.

Leviticus 26:12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.

peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

...

This argument doesn't work because a mere moral human cannot possibly have a mutual relationship with a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent creator.

...

I'm not sure but this bald statement of fact begs to be supported by a logical explanation of the reasons the relationship, cannot happen, that is, how is this true beyond your inability to accept it as true?

...especially when the relationship stays GOD and human: Exodus 6:7 I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God.

Leviticus 26:12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.

peace, Ted

But you just picked out a couple of select versus that appear to support your point.

How can you do that and ignore the larger picture of the Bible?

The Bible overall is a book where this God makes many commandments and demands, not the least of which "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me".

He doesn't even give you a choice he's making demands already.

Besides, in this thread we were talking about why the angels were so angry with God. And the idea put forth was that God was demanding that the angels take a back seat to mankind and serve mankind. That is hardly having a mutual relationship with the angels.

Also, if this God makes all the rules how could any relationship he has with any mortal human be said to be a mutual relationship.

That would be like me saying to you that I'm willing to have a mutual relationship with you as long as you always do as I say, and I'm not really interested in hearing what you would rather do. In fact, I even threaten to cast you into a state of damnation if you even suggest that you would rather do things other than what I suggest.

How is that to be considered a "mutual" relationship? I ask you?

Many atheists have described the Bible as a God who is simply interested in creating human pets to boss around. Where is there any evidence in the Bible to the contrary?

Even the verses you have posted above suggest that this God wants to be the God and the people are going to be "his" people. So that doesn't sound like a mutual relationship to me. Sounds more like a God owning an ant farm.

Especially if he's the one who is going to be demanding how everyone must behave and obey his every command, which is quite often the Biblical thesis.

[ttruscott]

...

I thought we are supposed to TRUST God.

How can we trust a God who refuses to even allow us to express our honest and sincere feelings and concerns without threatening to cast us into eternal damnation for it?

Christianity does not support your premise. It is a misrepresentation of doctrine and misses the mark. It is being a sinner that brings you to judgment, not expressing "our honest and sincere feelings and concerns..." AND there are two groups of sinners on earth; those sinners who can be taught to trust GOD (and be saved) and those sinners who cannot be taught to trust GOD.

This is all spelled out in the parable of the good but sinful seed Matt 13 (in two parts) which I will go over and interpret line by line and word by word if anyone wants...

The placement of a person in one group or the other and thus their placement in the group able to be saved or not able to be saved was made by themselves by their free will decision to accept or reject the triune YHWH as their GOD by faith without proof.

[Divine Insight]

Christianity does not support your premise. It is a misrepresentation of doctrine and misses the mark. It is being a sinner that brings you to judgment, not expressing "our honest and sincere feelings and concerns..." AND there are two groups of sinners on earth; those sinners who can be taught to trust GOD (and be saved) and those sinners who cannot be taught to trust GOD.

And this is precisely why I see this whole religion as nothing more than a man-made scam. And it's not just Christianity. Islam uses this same unethical approach.

This whole brainwashing scheme (and that's seriously all I know to call it) is based on the idea that anyone who "can't be taught" to believe in these Gods are then simply dismissed as sinners who "can't be taught".

The idea that anyone could "Honestly and Sincerely" not believe in these absurd religions is dismissed entirely and such people are claimed to be "sinful atheists".

IMHO, that can only be a devious scheme made up by men who are trying to control people via religious-based politics.

This is all spelled out in the parable of the good but sinful seed Matt 13 (in two parts) which I will go over and interpret line by line and word by word if anyone wants...

The fact that such a parable exists within these religious doctrines does not suppose me in the least. There is still the open question of why I should believe those parables are anything more than an effort to employ the man-made scam I had just described above. Why should I believe that this parable came from any God?

Especially in light of the fact, that I honestly and sincerely have huge problems with the whole collection of fables from the very first book of Genesis onward.

You have just claimed above that "honesty and sincerity" counts for something and is OK with God. Well, let's try to honor that claim then.

But the following seems to totally refuse to honor honesty and sincerity:

The placement of a person in one group or the other and thus their placement in the group able to be saved or not able to be saved was made by themselves by their free will decision to accept or reject the triune YHWH as their GOD by faith without proof.

Now you are demanding that people either believe in these utterly absurd and highly contradictory dogmas or you will label them as being "unable to be saved".


What happened to the "Honesty and Sincerity" all of a sudden? That seems to have been tossed right out the window.

You are demanding that I believe absolutely absurd, and highly contradictory fables without prove on PURE FAITH, lest you'll label me as being "unable to be saved".

And you apparently totally reject the idea that my inability to accept these absurdities is indeed quite "Honest and Sincere".

In short, you are prepared to condone having this God supposedly cast me in to the pits of eternal damnation simply because I refuse to abandon "Honesty and Sincerity" and go along with the claim of this unwarranted and unsubstantiated cult myth as a matter of PURE FAITH.

In all honesty and sincerity Ted, I can't believe that you would even suggest such a thing on a debate forum. I could see this kind rhetoric bring preached by an evangelist to try to pressure gullible people into joining and supporting the cult. But as an argument on a debate forum for why people should consider this God, it fails miserly, IMHO.

And don't forget, Christianity and Islam both use this same basic tactic.

They both claim that if you are unwilling to believe in their version of the religion their God will damn you and it will be all YOUR FAULT for refusing to believe.

This is a total non-argument Ted.

On the contrary, it's just an example of how totally unsupportable these religions are. They are basically demanding that people join these cults and support their God otherwise their God's will damn them for refusing to "believe".

IMHO, that's absurd. In fact, these very tactics of these religious cults are IMHO, unethical tactics.

It's just serves as an excuse for the member of these cults to proclaim that anyone who hasn't joined and supported the cult is clearly a "sinner" deserving to be damned.

There is no room for "Honesty or Sincerity" in either of these religious cults.

Either believe or be damned, we don't want to hear any excuses that you can't honestly and sincerely believe in these absurd rumors!

[ttruscott]

...

Why should angels be made to serve mankind?

I wouldn't blame them at all for rebelling against that. They would be in the right IMHO, and it would be the God who is immoral.


...

This misses the mark of representing Christian thought. If it was as your describe then you are right in your conclusions but the conclusions are wrong because the premise is wrong.

To best fit Christian parameters, the Satanic fall was before the fall of mankind - referring to those who would become mankind because it happened before the creation of the physical universe. Therefore the angels had nothing about man to rebel about.

Better is the idea that after the separation of the spirits made in HIS image separated into the elect and the reprobate by their free will, some of the elect rebelled against the plan to judge the reprobate and so self created themselves as sinners just as evil as the reprobate. Then all sinners were sent to earth, the good but sinful elect to live with the eternally evil tares.

So, why were the angels chosen to serve mankind?

Angel means messenger or servant of GOD. The work of GOD with the sinful elect humans on earth is to redeem them and to sanctify them, that is, to break their stubbornly held addiction to sin until they are perfectly holy. Only then will they be free of the effects of the call to judgment against all sinners.

Once all the sinful elect are holy and their election promise fulfilled in them, then the tares will be judged, euphemistically gathered and burnt. Satan knows this postponement of the judgment is only as long as the last most stubborn elect refuses to accept his evil and refuses to repent and be holy. So his job and the job of the tares is to keep the sinful elect, sinful sons of GOD, that is, the sinful church in their addiction to evil and away from the grace of GOD.

The angels, those who chose to never sin, also know these things and so work hard in man's service to ameliorate the work of the reprobate and help along the changes of character necessitated by the sanctification of the sinful elect because

the more they can serve this cause and help mankind repent, the quicker the judgment will come and all of created reality will be cleansed from all evil.

No one had to be forced to do this work. It was a work of great honour to be chosen to it.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

We can't use the excuse of Zeus and just claim that God can do anything he so desires.

...

Whatever happened to the rejection of Christian's claim that GOD is unable to do some things because HE could not go against HIMself nor against HIS own morality? Isn't it usually said as "an omnipotent GOD CAN do anything?" and have you not espoused that argument yourself in the past?

If it was not you, then I am sorry for my mistake and I am glad for your support in the argument that omnipotence has nothing to do with being bound by morality and nature.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

This argument doesn't work because a mere moral human cannot possibly have a mutual relationship with a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent creator.

...

I'm not sure but this bald statement of fact begs to be supported by a logical explanation of the reasons the relationship, cannot happen, that is, how is this true beyond your inability to accept it as true?

...especially when the relationship stays GOD and human: Exodus 6:7 I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God.

Leviticus 26:12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.

peace, Ted

But you just picked out a couple of select versus that appear to support your point.

How can you do that and ignore the larger picture of the Bible?

...

I do that because I can usually see how the 'cherry picked' verses fit with the rest of scripture, and can explain it without needing to accept any contradictions. I've also had enough experience with seeming contradictions being answered I can now trust the answer will be provided in good time so I don't fret.

All of Scripture is to me a single unit of thought and these verses fit the thought of what our relationship with GOD has been revealed, perfectly.

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 26 by ttruscott]

Ted, I'm aware of your version of Christianity. I'm not sure which denomination or sect this is affiliated with, but I've heard this version of Christianity many times.

IMHO, there are several problems with this view. To begin with it requires that all living humans necessarily had already existed in a prior life in order to become sinners in the first place. But the problem with this is that then all humans should have appeared on Earth simultaneously instead of new babies being born all the time.

The vast majority of Christendom believes that a brand new soul is created by God with the birth of each baby. I will grant you that your version of Christianity is indeed quite different from the more popular versions. But even so I feel that it still has extreme problems.

For example, why would God be giving everyone a "second chance" anyway if they had already rejected him. According to the Bible the wages of sin is death. It's not to be given a second chance.

So I feel that the version of Christianity that you represent has its own problems.

Moreover, you had just posted that we are to believe all of this as a matter of PURE FAITH without proof.

Why should I wish to have FAITH in the idea that I had already rejected God and sided with evil, and now I'm being given a second chance to change my mind?

That simply doesn't sound like something I would care to believe in as a matter of PURE FAITH.

Also, how would the crucifixion of Jesus come into play in all of this? If we are sinners who had already rejected God in a previous life before we were born and we are being given a second chance to change our minds what's up with the need for Jesus?

Shouldn't we be judged purely on whether or not we change our minds?

I personally think the more popular versions of Christianity actually fair better than your version. But even with those versions have extreme problems.

And neither of these versions are appealing as a matter of PURE FAITH.

If I were going to place my faith in something, one of the Eastern Mystical religions would be far more attractive.

If I'm going to put faith in something without proof, why not place my faith in something positive? All of these versions of Christianity are basically asking me to place my faith in something quite negative.

You are asking me to place my faith in the idea that I had already rejected God in a previous life and I'm being given a second chance.

The more orthodox versions of Christianity are asking me to believe that I'm so unworthy of my creator that he had to have his own corrupt priests crucify his only begotten son to pay for my unworthiness.

Neither of these are positive ideologies. On the contrary they are both quite negative and undesirable in terms of any incentive to believe in them as a matter of PURE FAITH.

I would much rather believe as a matter of PURE FAITH that all of the Abrahamic religions are totally false and unreal.

[ttruscott]

...

You have just claimed above that "honesty and sincerity" counts for something and is OK with God. Well, let's try to honor that claim then.

...

...

I made no such claim, you misrepresent me. I claimed "It is being a sinner that brings you to judgment, not expressing "our honest and sincere feelings and concerns..."

Man's so called honesty and sincerity is evil to the core and as used rags in HIS sight. But that is not the reason for their judgment...being a sinner is the reason for their judgment.

Being sinful infiltrates every feeling and every speculation and every emotion...this is what depravity means in Christian language and honest sincerity only means that you honestly feel that being sinful and making sinful decisions is righteous and proper...when (in Christianity) it isn't...sincerity is not the proof of righteousness.

Peace, Ted