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]

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

Well, to begin with it's been my understanding that this whole story is not necessarily considered to be "biblical". Although I was told this as well when I was a Christian.

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?

Two things come out of this. The first being that if there were any truth to these fables that would only mean that there is a 33% chance that even if a person actually gets to heaven then will discover that they don't actually care for this God at all or agree with him.

This would certainly be true for me if this God is like he is portrayed to be in the Bible. The biblical God character is not someone I would agree with. I don't agree with the way he dealt with Adam and Eve, or the Canaanites, and I certainly don't agree with the whole crucifixion thing with Jesus.

So this is a God that I would not likely care to live with.

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.

This implies that God's "Power" is not innate to his being, but rather he only holds power because he has the greater army of angels (i.e. supposedly two thirds of the angels sided with God).

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.

In fact, much of Christianity seems to be based on that ideal. That Jesus needs for people to be loyal to him and do as he say with great devotion. Just like an earthly King his power would depend upon this devotion and support.

But would that scenario truly apply to a magical God?

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.

[ttruscott]

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.

...

1.
The dragon's tail swept 1/3 of the stars to the earth...Revelation 12:4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. It is an interpretation that this refers to 1/3 of all angels. The fact that these stars are swept and thrown to earth suggests enmity with the devil which fits very well with the PCEC assertion that idolatry of some of the evil angels (tares) caused some of the elect (good seed) to rebel against their damnation and become sinners themselves, the enmity kept alive by the promise of their eventual salvation and the curse of damnation still being upon the devil.

Thus the number of reprobate may not be indicated and need not be very much at all, and the number of sinful elect who foolishly sided with them was maybe greater.

2.
The fact that the reprobate rejected YHWH's claim to divinity does not indicate there was any dissatisfaction within their society at all. The call for all to accept YWHW as their GOD was a new thing, not part of their social consciousness at all, until THEIR claim to divinity was made.

To feel unrest and dissatisfaction with GOD's reality is to be already fallen so everything had to be perfect before Satan chose to reject GOD and HIS plan proving it was new thing to be considered and to be decided upon. Their dissatisfaction therefore was with HIS claims to divinity, and nothing else.

Peace, Ted

[AllAboutLove]

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

Well, to begin with it's been my understanding that this whole story is not necessarily considered to be "biblical". Although I was told this as well when I was a Christian.

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?

Two things come out of this. The first being that if there were any truth to these fables that would only mean that there is a 33% chance that even if a person actually gets to heaven then will discover that they don't actually care for this God at all or agree with him.

This would certainly be true for me if this God is like he is portrayed to be in the Bible. The biblical God character is not someone I would agree with. I don't agree with the way he dealt with Adam and Eve, or the Canaanites, and I certainly don't agree with the whole crucifixion thing with Jesus.

So this is a God that I would not likely care to live with.

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.

This implies that God's "Power" is not innate to his being, but rather he only holds power because he has the greater army of angels (i.e. supposedly two thirds of the angels sided with God).

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.

In fact, much of Christianity seems to be based on that ideal. That Jesus needs for people to be loyal to him and do as he say with great devotion. Just like an earthly King his power would depend upon this devotion and support.

But would that scenario truly apply to a magical God?

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.

I respect your point of view, but have a different conclusion because I disagree with your premise: Rebellion against God in Heaven makes no sense to YOU because YOU are looking at it as a suicide mission at best. And you're right, you WOULD NOT rebel against God as a tactical way to defeat Him; you cannot defeat an Infinite God!

But you assume that's what the Angels' motives were. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it was a question of honor.

Or personal pride.

Just because you can't win a war, it doesn't always mean you shouldn't fight. Just ask Lucifer.

[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.

...

1.
The dragon's tail swept 1/3 of the stars to the earth...Revelation 12:4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. It is an interpretation that this refers to 1/3 of all angels. The fact that these stars are swept and thrown to earth suggests enmity with the devil which fits very well with the PCEC assertion that idolatry of some of the evil angels (tares) caused some of the elect (good seed) to rebel against their damnation and become sinners themselves, the enmity kept alive by the promise of their eventual salvation and the curse of damnation still being upon the devil.

Thus the number of reprobate may not be indicated and need not be very much at all, and the number of sinful elect who foolishly sided with them was maybe greater.

2.
The fact that the reprobate rejected YHWH's claim to divinity does not indicate there was any dissatisfaction within their society at all. The call for all to accept YWHW as their GOD was a new thing, not part of their social consciousness at all, until THEIR claim to divinity was made.

To feel unrest and dissatisfaction with GOD's reality is to be already fallen so everything had to be perfect before Satan chose to reject GOD and HIS plan proving it was new thing to be considered and to be decided upon. Their dissatisfaction therefore was with HIS claims to divinity, and nothing else.

Peace, Ted

Peace to you, Ted. Thank you very much for taking the time to write such a thoughtful reply. I do appreciate it.

I'm reading this new book, and it's really challenged my understanding of the Bible. It gets in real deep with the theology and twists everything around.... One of the things it asks is, if Satan & 1/3 of the Angels rebelled against God in Heaven where things are (at worst) heavenly, then why don't these Demons rebel against Satan in Hell where things are, at best, absolutely hellish? (A silly point, but it made me smile!)

[greentwiga]

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!

I am not sure it is relevant, but I once did the world's most useless Bible study. I looked at how the North Star changed over time. During the time of Christ, there was no North Pole Star. About 3,000 BC, the Pole Star was in the constellation, Draco, the dragon. I think it was in the tail. I then calculated the stars that would have never have set, as visible from Jerusalem. Then, as the Earth precesses, and the position of the pole changes (over a 26,000 year circle) some of the permanent stars begin to set or fall to earth. I calculated that around 100 AD, 1/3 of the permanent, non-setting stars of 3,000 BC now fell to earth. Is there some correlation between that and John writing Rev close to 100 AD? Even 50 years off would still be so close to 1/3 as makes no difference. Was John using this physical change as an illustration of the Spiritual truth?

[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!

I am not sure it is relevant, but I once did the world's most useless Bible study. I looked at how the North Star changed over time. During the time of Christ, there was no North Pole Star. About 3,000 BC, the Pole Star was in the constellation, Draco, the dragon. I think it was in the tail. I then calculated the stars that would have never have set, as visible from Jerusalem. Then, as the Earth precesses, and the position of the pole changes (over a 26,000 year circle) some of the permanent stars begin to set or fall to earth. I calculated that around 100 AD, 1/3 of the permanent, non-setting stars of 3,000 BC now fell to earth. Is there some correlation between that and John writing Rev close to 100 AD? Even 50 years off would still be so close to 1/3 as makes no difference. Was John using this physical change as an illustration of the Spiritual truth?

That is a REALLY cool observation. Thanks for sharing! And you are right, stars were used as a way to navigate.... imagine if they were also used as a way to calculate time....

[Divine Insight]

I respect your point of view, but have a different conclusion because I disagree with your premise: Rebellion against God in Heaven makes no sense to YOU because YOU are looking at it as a suicide mission at best. And you're right, you WOULD NOT rebel against God as a tactical way to defeat Him; you cannot defeat an Infinite God!

But you assume that's what the Angels' motives were. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it was a question of honor.

Or personal pride.

Just because you can't win a war, it doesn't always mean you shouldn't fight. Just ask Lucifer.

I understand what you are suggesting here, but I personally feel that your proposal doesn't help matters much.

To begin with if the angels were truly unhappy shouldn't they let God know?

Surely they shouldn't just continue living under the pretense that they are happy when in truth they are not. That would be to live a lie. Surely God would not want his angels to live out a lie and just pretend that they are happy when they aren't.

For me the idea of a "Father God" who can't deal with truth or unhappy angels is a sign of an inept creator to begin with.

If I had created life, say a sentient android, I would be concerned about it's welfare and happiness. If my android were unhappy I would want to know. And instead of kicking it out into a state of damnation I would do my very best to try to address the issues that is causing the android to be unhappy. Moreover, being the creator of the android I would take personal responsibility for it's situation. Perhaps the reason my android is unhappy is because I, as its creator, have failed in some way. To just blindly blame the android for everything seems unreasonable to me.

So in this sense I would not be expecting anything more from this supposedly all-powerful God than I would be willing to offer to my own creations.

If I am unhappy I would expect God to be concerned about that and try to deal with in it a positive and constructive manner instead of just casting me into a state of damnation blaming it all on me.

Shouldn't a creator take some responsibility for that which he creates?

Also, doesn't this story imply that this God is extremely limited. I mean, it's either live in heaven under God's rules, and bear it whether you like it or not. Or the alternative is to be damned.

Why such a simplistic situation? Shouldn't an omnipotent God be able to provide to his objects of creation with a place where they can be happy? After all it is claimed that with this God all things are possible.

Just look at the physical universe that we can see before us. It's vast beyond human comprehension. And that's just the part we can see. For all we know the universe is infinite. God can't find a place where his angels can be happy where they won't bother him?

This whole idea that we either need to be happy living with God and following all his rules lest he'll damn us to a place of eternal suffering and torture just doesn't make any sense at all. It also brings into question this Gods capabilities.

Apparently he can't even deal with upset angels in a positive and intelligent way.

Angles that he himself created!

How do you justify that in this theology?

If I had created an android that I couldn't not please or make happy (or CURE), I would never dream of condemning it to eternal damnation. At the very worst I would simply disassemble it (i.e. un-create it). And I wouldn't even blame the android. I would accept that this was entirely my own fault as the creator.

This would be a limitation on my part. I would need to bring into question my own abilities as a creator. And should I continue to create more androids if that's the best I could do?

There are so many problems with this biblical doctrine, that even if I wanted to believe in this God it would be exceedingly difficult because he appears to be truly inept in so many areas.

And I'm not expecting any higher moral values from this God than I already personally have as a mortal man.

And omnipotent God who can do anything should be able to cure his own creations if they are unhappy. He shouldn't have to condemn them to damnation. That only suggests that he's totally helpless and incapable of curing them. Why should they be defective in the first place?

If I created an android I wouldn't be surprised if it was defective since I am not perfect myself.

But a prefect creator has no excuse for creating garbage and then condemning it as if the garbage had a choice in the matter.

Why should any angel that God created be unhappy with God?

[AllAboutLove]

I respect your point of view, but have a different conclusion because I disagree with your premise: Rebellion against God in Heaven makes no sense to YOU because YOU are looking at it as a suicide mission at best. And you're right, you WOULD NOT rebel against God as a tactical way to defeat Him; you cannot defeat an Infinite God!

But you assume that's what the Angels' motives were. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it was a question of honor.

Or personal pride.

Just because you can't win a war, it doesn't always mean you shouldn't fight. Just ask Lucifer.

I understand what you are suggesting here, but I personally feel that your proposal doesn't help matters much.

To begin with if the angels were truly unhappy shouldn't they let God know?

Surely they shouldn't just continue living under the pretense that they are happy when in truth they are not. That would be to live a lie. Surely God would not want his angels to live out a lie and just pretend that they are happy when they aren't.

For me the idea of a "Father God" who can't deal with truth or unhappy angels is a sign of an inept creator to begin with.

If I had created life, say a sentient android, I would be concerned about it's welfare and happiness. If my android were unhappy I would want to know. And instead of kicking it out into a state of damnation I would do my very best to try to address the issues that is causing the android to be unhappy. Moreover, being the creator of the android I would take personal responsibility for it's situation. Perhaps the reason my android is unhappy is because I, as its creator, have failed in some way. To just blindly blame the android for everything seems unreasonable to me.

So in this sense I would not be expecting anything more from this supposedly all-powerful God than I would be willing to offer to my own creations.

If I am unhappy I would expect God to be concerned about that and try to deal with in it a positive and constructive manner instead of just casting me into a state of damnation blaming it all on me.

Shouldn't a creator take some responsibility for that which he creates?

Also, doesn't this story imply that this God is extremely limited. I mean, it's either live in heaven under God's rules, and bear it whether you like it or not. Or the alternative is to be damned.

Why such a simplistic situation? Shouldn't an omnipotent God be able to provide to his objects of creation with a place where they can be happy? After all it is claimed that with this God all things are possible.

Just look at the physical universe that we can see before us. It's vast beyond human comprehension. And that's just the part we can see. For all we know the universe is infinite. God can't find a place where his angels can be happy where they won't bother him?

This whole idea that we either need to be happy living with God and following all his rules lest he'll damn us to a place of eternal suffering and torture just doesn't make any sense at all. It also brings into question this Gods capabilities.

Apparently he can't even deal with upset angels in a positive and intelligent way.

Angles that he himself created!

How do you justify that in this theology?

If I had created an android that I couldn't not please or make happy (or CURE), I would never dream of condemning it to eternal damnation. At the very worst I would simply disassemble it (i.e. un-create it). And I wouldn't even blame the android. I would accept that this was entirely my own fault as the creator.

This would be a limitation on my part. I would need to bring into question my own abilities as a creator. And should I continue to create more androids if that's the best I could do?

There are so many problems with this biblical doctrine, that even if I wanted to believe in this God it would be exceedingly difficult because he appears to be truly inept in so many areas.

And I'm not expecting any higher moral values from this God than I already personally have as a mortal man.

And omnipotent God who can do anything should be able to cure his own creations if they are unhappy. He shouldn't have to condemn them to damnation. That only suggests that he's totally helpless and incapable of curing them. Why should they be defective in the first place?

If I created an android I wouldn't be surprised if it was defective since I am not perfect myself.

But a prefect creator has no excuse for creating garbage and then condemning it as if the garbage had a choice in the matter.

Why should any angel that God created be unhappy with God?

Hi my friend,

You know what is interesting? All your points have the same theme: Why would a Creator have this kind of relationship with that which He creates?

Because if it were up to you, you would do it differently.

Maybe it's because a relationship is something shared. Just one side cannot have a relationship; it must be mutual -- under mutual terms. Anything less will collapse. God cannot have a relationship with you without your consent. And I assume the same applies to Angels.

[Divine Insight]

Hi my friend,

You know what is interesting? All your points have the same theme: Why would a Creator have this kind of relationship with that which He creates?

Because if it were up to you, you would do it differently.

Maybe it's because a relationship is something shared. Just one side cannot have a relationship; it must be mutual -- under mutual terms. Anything less will collapse. God cannot have a relationship with you without your consent. And I assume the same applies to Angels.

And I've heard this apologetic argument a thousand times over as well.

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

In fact, the relationship I had described between myself an android that I had created would be far more along the lines of being mutual since I, as the creator, would at least be accepting my share of the responsibility for having created the android.

The biblical picture of a God who demands absolute obedience to his will and commandments can hardly be a God who is interested in having a mutual relationship with anyone.

Besides you seem to have missed the point I made about the angels needing to be honest with this God about their unhappiness.

It would appear to me that the angels are the ones who were trying to work out a mutual relationship whilst this God is depicted as being an absolute selfish dictator who couldn't care less what the angels think or feel.

How is that supposed to be a mutual relationship?

The very fact that the angels have a problem and God isn't interested in dealing with it seems to show quite vividly that this God has absolutely no interest in having a mutual relationship with anyone.

The situation at hand appears to be just the opposite of what you are suggesting it should be.

All I'm suggesting is that I should be able to express my honest and sincere feelings to this God without him getting all huffy about it and threatening to cast me into a state of eternal damnation.

What's wrong with that?

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?