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!

[ttruscott]

[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.

Yes, we have talked this over quite a few times...

Should? I see no necessity that would force a 'should' upon this happening...in fact the only reason I can see it being important is that it goes against my stance. Should I ask, 'why should' or 'please prove should'?

It may be that the whole number of sinful elect that are born as men would vastly outnumber the non-elect reprobate born as men so as to overwhelm them and thus the sinful elect would learn nothing from living with them.

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.

The vote about our creation was taken by the Church in reference to the Father of modern Doctrine, Origen. His belief in our pre-existence was rejected because his Christology was just plain awful and he castrated himself. I contend they are wrong and must lean into blasphemy to make their interpretations work.

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.

There is nothing in PCEC about anyone getting a second chance - that is the heretical reincarnation in Christianity position.

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.

Hebrews 10:38 And, "But my righteous one will live by faith. And I take no pleasure in the one who shrinks back." along with Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance in what we hope for and conviction about what we do not see, that is, what we cannot prove.

Thus I feel secure in my contentions that all of this is 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.

You shouldn't since it is based on the wrong thinking that earth is a second chance some take advantage of. The salvation of some is not because they choose to "do" GOD now but is the fulfillment of HIS promise to save them given to them when they accepted HIM as their GOD in sheol...HE just brings them back to their prior free will position.

I personally think the more popular versions of Christianity actually fair better than your version.

Most people do. The rest of you speculations based on the original false premise of a second chance are by-passed as answered...

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

...

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 honesty 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

It seems to me that this fails on all counts.

As a "debate argument" it fails miserably because all you are arguing here is that I have no ability to even assess what might be moral. And I would reject that notion in a heartbeat in terms of debate.

The only thing left would be an attempt on your part to try to "evangelize" your religious beliefs by trying to convince me that what we have said above is supposed to be meaningful and taken seriously. But I don't see it as being worthy of either.

I would also argue on your claim that sincerity is not proof of "righteousness".

I have no need to "prove" my righteousness to anyone. I know that I have never done anything in this life to deserve any harsh judgements by any Gods.

Yet, the religious paradigm that you appear to be painting demands that I'm a "sinner" merely because I don't believe in the religious fables that you apparently believe in.

Can you answer me why you choose to believe that you are such a terrible sinner on such PURE FAITH.

It seems to me that anyone who actually believes in the religion as you describe it must necessarily have a pretty low opinion of themselves. After all, how can you be so prepared to believe in a religion that claims that you are an unworthy sinner unless you are prepared to buy into that premise in the first place?

I see absolutely no reason to believe that I am inherently evil in any way. Yet I would need to buy into that line of thinking wholeheartedly before I could even consider believing in the religion as you describe it.

You also require that everyone on earth was a sinner in a previous life before being born on planet Earth. I see absolutely no reason to believe this. There are simply too many people who are nice from birth. My very own mother was one of them. My mother was unbelievably nice. And I'm not just saying this because she was my mother. Even my uncles (she had 9 brothers) all report that my mother was the most innocent and sweetest girl they ever knew from early childhood on. She never took up any bad habits like smoking or drinking. She never even used cuss words. She would hold her mouth as if she had said something terribly wrong if she merely said "Or darn" in a moment of frustration.

And you expect me to believe that she was a sinner who blatantly rejected God before being sent to Earth to be given a second chance?

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Apparently she would have changed her mind dramatically on the very day she was born. She was totally all for everything righteous and good, there wasn't an evil bone in her body as they say.

Your religious paradigm simply makes no sense.

And you need to go through all of this to excuse ancient fables about a God who's angels supposedly became angry with him.

Sounds to me more like extreme desperation to keep alive a superstition that has absolutely no merit at all.

[Divine Insight]

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.

Hebrews 10:38 And, "But my righteous one will live by faith. And I take no pleasure in the one who shrinks back." along with Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance in what we hope for and conviction about what we do not see, that is, what we cannot prove.

Thus I feel secure in my contentions that all of this is a matter of PURE FAITH without proof.

Peace, Ted

But all you keep doing is posting quotes from this religious dogma.

I don't doubts for a moment that the dogma demands that you believe in it as a matter of pure faith. As I had stated early that's a part of the brainwashing scam.

Of course they want you to believe in it on pure faith without proof. This is precisely because the men who wrote this stuff knew full well that if you question it and demand proof you will quickly realize that it's nothing but a totally empty scam.

The very idea that some unseen God demands that we believe he exists and that the Bible is his word without proof, is IMHO, absolute proof positive that the bible is not the word of any God, but instead it's clearly the work of devious men who were using religious superstitions to scare the masses into joining their cult over the cults of their neighboring cultures.

Ironically the very reasons you give to believe in this religion (as a matter of pure faith without proof) are among some of the strongest reasons why I flat out reject it as being nothing more than the underhanded work of men.

And how did we get here again?

Because we can't justify a decent moral God treating his angels so badly that they become upset with him.

Where do we end up? We end up with you saying, "You just have to believe in this religion on pure faith without proof. And if you refuse to do that God is justified in damning you."

In other words, we have no explanation for why a moral God would have so many angels upset with him and we are being told to just shut up and believe, or be damned.

That is precisely the mentality these religions work under Ted.

And this is precisely how we can know that they are nothing more than the devious and underhanded work of men, and they never came from any all-righteous God.

[greentwiga]

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.

Hebrews 10:38 And, "But my righteous one will live by faith. And I take no pleasure in the one who shrinks back." along with Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance in what we hope for and conviction about what we do not see, that is, what we cannot prove.

Thus I feel secure in my contentions that all of this is a matter of PURE FAITH without proof.

Peace, Ted

But all you keep doing is posting quotes from this religious dogma.

I don't doubts for a moment that the dogma demands that you believe in it as a matter of pure faith. As I had stated early that's a part of the brainwashing scam.

Of course they want you to believe in it on pure faith without proof. This is precisely because the men who wrote this stuff knew full well that if you question it and demand proof you will quickly realize that it's nothing but a totally empty scam.

The very idea that some unseen God demands that we believe he exists and that the Bible is his word without proof, is IMHO, absolute proof positive that the bible is not the word of any God, but instead it's clearly the work of devious men who were using religious superstitions to scare the masses into joining their cult over the cults of their neighboring cultures.

Ironically the very reasons you give to believe in this religion (as a matter of pure faith without proof) are among some of the strongest reasons why I flat out reject it as being nothing more than the underhanded work of men.

And how did we get here again?

Because we can't justify a decent moral God treating his angels so badly that they become upset with him.

Where do we end up? We end up with you saying, "You just have to believe in this religion on pure faith without proof. And if you refuse to do that God is justified in damning you."

In other words, we have no explanation for why a moral God would have so many angels upset with him and we are being told to just shut up and believe, or be damned.

That is precisely the mentality these religions work under Ted.

And this is precisely how we can know that they are nothing more than the devious and underhanded work of men, and they never came from any all-righteous God.

Never having spent a significant amount of time in Heaven, I can't address your statement about angels. I just have an observation, God has lost a far higher percent of Humans than 33%. Therefore, He was much more successful with the angels.

More important is faith. I'll tell you the story of how my faith came about. I was in a city known for the lack of Christianity. I met a "cult" group and talked with them for a few days. Their statement that one could not question their doctrine was a major turn off. Never-the-less, what they said got me to pick up a simple Bible and read it one night. (The Bible had been given to me by a girlfriend who had been in a different cult.) After reading, I stated, I'll try this for a year. I started traveling, and noticing changes in me. After days of watching changes, I met some real Christians (I find real Christians in many denominations) Months later, I read the book of first John, and my jaw dropped. All the things that happened to me before I met any Christians were stated in I John. I continue to see God giving me power. I haven't had an easy life, but I have seen God's power at work. The power is not for me, but to love others no matter what is happening to me. This is a good part of what My faith is based on. I don't like blind faith.

[Korah]

I agree completely. Why would a full third of God's angels be upset with God and supposedly side with Satan? Also if two-thirds of God's angels had sided with Satan does that mean that Satan would have won his war against God?
....
The second thing that comes out of this is the very idea that this angel named Satan and all these other angels could actually believe that they could win a war against a magical God who supposedly created them in the first place.
I have always pointed out that these fables are really based entirely upon the ideals of earthy Kings and Kingdoms. And earthly King does indeed obtain his power by the number of devout followers he has and the size of his army. A man who has no followers and no army wouldn't be much of a king.
....
If God was the magical entity that created all that exists, including Satan and other fallen angels, then how could those angels ever believe that they could overthrow this magical God? That's ridiculous.
So IMHO, the whole mythology is based on absolute ignorance and stupidity.
It's a silly story from the get go. The very idea of a creator God having problems with a mere fallen angel is silly.
And like you point out, tossing in the idea that a full third of God's angels were upset with God and wanted to overthrow him is just sillier yet.

Hey, D. I.,
Your interchange with TTruscott has gone down in mutual flames, yet it's stlll hard to go back before that either. The OP brought up some new book that's just some very old-fashioned Miltonian "Satanism" that's also as well jettisoned, as neither AAL nor Bede nor Greentwiga could rise above it.

But you from the start worked with the one-third-rebellion, as you should in this sub-forum where the Bible is allowed full sway. But very fundamentally you shoot yourself in the foot with ravings about how the rebellious one-third could not possibly have revolted because it would have been suicidal. Yet you turn around and imply you yourself would have revolted on principle against such a jealous God that would not tolerate any dissent.

Come on now, your very own high-horse moral argument is that God to be God must be too good (made in your image, to be sure) to be so authoritarian. Wait a minute, you're saying God can't be bad, but now you switch to God can't be GOOD, either? By your own proclaimed better-than-God goodness, you would be amenable to your creatures' wants and needs, but the God you don't believe in, CAN'T?

Repeating myself to be clear: YOU insist God to be God MUST BE good, but the Satan-rebellion thingee makes Him not good because He punishes the rebels by casting them down from Heaven. But even though you yourself can imagine that the rebellious angels might want to gain something by rejecting Yahweh, you can't imagine there might after all be the GOOD GOD YOU INSIST THERE MUST BE IF THERE IS A GOD AT ALL?

EDITED TO ADD ((and subtract a sentence above to keep the Mods off me):
Well, I think I still failed to be clear. Not that's it's my own view particularly. (I'm more a pre-existence guy like Ted.) Back to the 1/3 of angels who rebelled against God--such an adventure would not necessarily have been suicidal (or worse as orthodoxy portrays, condemned to eternal suffering in Hell). Assume some liberal intellectual man had created God in his own image, and this paragon nevertheless had 33% of his creations rise up against him as too dictatorial. So naturally our liberal demigod acceded to their pleas and set up Heaven democratically. OK with you, D. I.?

More to my liking, the discussion here got around at one point to supposing Yahweh was one of a great number of gods, but there came a time He wanted to declare Himself THE God. A number of His former "equals" complained and refused to bow down to the usurper. It got violent and a war in Heaven erupted. Yahweh won, but did not just destroy or torture his opponents. He sent us to Earth, Mars, Sirius, wherever.

[Divine Insight]

Hey, D. I.,

But you from the start worked with the one-third-rebellion, as you should in this sub-forum where the Bible is allowed full sway. But very fundamentally you shoot yourself in the foot with ravings about how the rebellious one-third could not possibly have revolted because it would have been suicidal. Yet you turn around and imply you yourself would have revolted on principle against such a jealous God that would not tolerate any dissent.

I didn't shoot myself in the foot. You just weren't paying attention.

My original claim that it is impossible to "overthrow" a magical God was addressing the idea of Satan wanting to overthrow God and take over God's role as the ultimate ruler of the universe.

In fact, I went into great detail on that issue about how these myths are treating God's power as if it could be overthrown like an earthy King. And I even explained how earthy Kings require armies and loyal followers to even have any power at all. But a magical God doesn't get its power from armies. Supposedly it gets its power from magic.

If a magical entity created you, do you think you could "overthrow it" and take over it's role? How would you expect to become a magical being yourself?

I was simply pointing out the absolute absurdity of the very idea that some fallen angel could attempt to "overthrow" God.

And that observation still holds.

~~~~

You then jump to a totally different aspect of the conversation where I suggest that I would indeed side with the angels in terms of "merely disagreeing" with God.

Even a mortal man can disagree with God. It doesn't require that you "overthrow" God and become a magical entity to simply disagree with God.

So, no. There is no inconsistencies in what I was saying. You are just putting apples and oranges together from different aspects of the topic without paying attention to the details.

You need to read more carefully before you start accusing someone of shooting themselves in the foot.

[Korah]

!![Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]
O. K., then,
You win again, there's no arguing with you, at least not in finding common ground.
Good luck, then, adios.
This is a P. M. right, we're just downing some beers together, right?
Make that two coffee's, as if Dianaiad is there listening.
Oh, this isn't a P. M.? I'm so embarrassed!

[AllAboutLove]

!![Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]
O. K., then,
You win again, there's no arguing with you, at least not in finding common ground.
Good luck, then, adios.
This is a P. M. right, we're just downing some beers together, right?
Make that two coffee's, as if Dianaiad is there listening.
Oh, this isn't a P. M.? I'm so embarrassed!

Hi Korah,

I was wondering, why did you select that name? (Of course, I'm curious if it's related to the Old Testament story of Korah & Dathan challenging Moses, and being swallowed up by the earth?)

Peace my friend!

[Korah]

[Replying to post 38 by AllAboutLove]
I go by 'Adam" on other discussion boards where that name is not already taken (as my name is Dale Adams), but I admit I'm enough of a rebel that "Korah" fits me as a worse-yet sinner than just "Adam". Philosophically, "let us decide for ourselves, not you Moses!"

[AllAboutLove]

[Replying to post 38 by AllAboutLove]
I go by 'Adam" on other discussion boards where that name is not already taken (as my name is Dale Adams), but I admit I'm enough of a rebel that "Korah" fits me as a worse-yet sinner than just "Adam". Philosophically, "let us decide for ourselves, not you Moses!"

Ha ha! Of course, Adam had moments of being a rebel, too!

Thanks to C.C. DeMille, it's impossible to think about that without hearing the nasal voice of Edward G. Robinson......!!