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]

You win again, there's no arguing with you, at least not in finding common ground.

"Common Ground" is an interesting concept. I feel like I am willing to find "common ground" in terms of life in general. When we consider all possible philosophies with no limitations.

For example, contrary to what many people may think I actually personally believe that it is highly plausible that there is indeed a spiritual or mystical natural to reality. Therefore it's even difficult for me to find "Common Ground" with say, an atheist who radically demands that any concept of spirituality or mysticism is just plain stupid. They aren't going to find "common ground" with me because they aren't willing to allow that a spiritual or mystical philosophy is intelligent.

Of course that's not true of all atheists to be sure. But some are like that, and when they are no "common ground" can be found.

I think the same thing goes with religious people who are demanding a "sensible" picture of the Abrahamic doctrines. Once again, they are demanding that we somehow justify via rational excuses or apologies the Abrahamic picture at all cost.

In a sense that's a "box" that I am not willing to entertain. So once again we enter an area where I could never find "common ground".

But yes, if you want to allow for a larger scope, I'm willing to consider "common ground" that isn't pinned down by any specific dogma, or by rigid demands that any spiritual ideas are stupid in general.

So in a sense I feel that I'm actually living in the area of "Common Ground". Somewhere between Atheistic and Abrahamic extremism.

But neither Atheist extremists nor Abrahamic extremists are willing to go there.

But no, I see no point in trying to find "common ground" on the topic of excusing the Biblical God from being immoral.

There are just far too many immoral behaviors attributed to him to justify excusing him. So that's why I won't contribute to that, even in the name of trying to find "Common Ground".

The best I can do for a Christian in terms of finding "Common Ground" is to say that they are free to believe whatever they want. But that sentiment doesn't seem to be useful in a "Debate Forum" where the idea is to debate these topics.

Unless of course, we want to just use this as a social forum under the pretense that it's a debate forum. Then I supposed it would be sensible to just say whatever works to make everyone happy. We could just sit around agreeing with each other all day just to be polite and friendly.

[edform]

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!

Jesus was challenged by the Sadducees to deal with a theoretical example they had constructed to contradict the orthodox belief that there will be a resurrection of the dead - they taught that this human life is all there is and there is no resurrection.

Luke 20:27-33
Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any mans brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

The Lord dealt with their example by showing that they had misunderstood the teachings of Scripture.

Verses 34-35
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.

Then he added a general statement regarding the nature of resurrected people.

Verse 36
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

The Greek in this verse is very clear and uncontroversial, so we can rely on the translation and, consequently, the ideas Jesus taught are unmistakable.

1. Those who are resurrected and accepted as the children of God will share the nature of angels.

2. Those who are resurrected and accepted as the children of God are incapable of dying.

3. The reason the children of God are no longer capable of dying is " for they are equal to the angels.

4. It follows therefore, that angels are incapable of dying.

This throws a spanner in the works of the stuff you read in the book. If angels are incapable of dying, then they are incapable of sin because " the wages of sin is death.

Angels are Gods obedient servants. There never was a rebellion in heaven, its a fiction. Much of the current version of this ludicrous idea originated with the conmen who composed the Book of Enoch, a book that Peter, in his second letter, and Jude, tore to pieces. The keynote passages that deluded people use to support this God-insulting idea -

Revelation 12:7 - And there was war in heaven:
Revelation 12:4 - And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:

Both occur in a book that says it was made available -

to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass... [Revelation 1:1]

So, even if the passages describe real events, they are events following the time at which Revelation was written down by John. Yet the date of the fictional devils fall to earth is believed to be back in the very beginning of Old Testament times when the sons of God saw the daughters of men.

Why do people promulgate this tripe?

Ed Form

[Divine Insight]

Angels are Gods obedient servants. There never was a rebellion in heaven, its a fiction.

What then is your explanation for Satan?

Just curious.

[edform]

Angels are Gods obedient servants. There never was a rebellion in heaven, its a fiction.

What then is your explanation for Satan?

Just curious.

That there is no such being. The Bible doesn't teach that there is - on the contrary, Isaiah 45 makes the existence of such a being impossible.

Ed Form

[Divine Insight]

Angels are Gods obedient servants. There never was a rebellion in heaven, its a fiction.

What then is your explanation for Satan?

Just curious.

That there is no such being. The Bible doesn't teach that there is - on the contrary, Isaiah 45 makes the existence of such a being impossible.

Ed Form

In that case who was Jesus tempted by?

And who was Jesus speaking to when he said, "Get behind me Satan".

Also who was the serpent in the Garden of Eden? The same Serpent that is also referenced in Revelations at the end of the Bible.

Rev.12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

It names him directly as "Satan" and speaks of him as the original one "That Old serpent who deceiveth the whole world".

In short, it doesn't appear that all of the authors of these tales are in agreement with your conclusion that Satan doesn't exist.

~~~~~

Just for the record I agree that Isaiah has God himself confessing to be the creator of evil.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This is actually an extremely controversial verse in many debates. It basically has the biblical God confessing that he is the one who creates evil. And therefore it makes no sense to pin the problem of evil on humans.

This also brings into question the entire book of Job. If there is no Satan then it must have been God himself who was playing both the roll of a benevolent God and an evil demon in that story.

So attempting to take Satan out of the Bible entirely is not without problems.

~~~~~

There is also the problem of why Jesus wasn't the only demigod myth of this kind. Most theologians and clergy readily acknowledge that there were indeed older myths of very similar demigod tales. Their apologetic excuse is that this "Satan" fellow knew that Jesus was coming and created these false myths to confuse and trick men into thinking that Jesus wasn't the only true demigod myth.

Without a Satan to support those arguments we have no other conclusion to come to other than Jesus was just one of many similar man-made myths.

So attempts to remove Satan from the Biblical mythology are not without huge problems.

[edform]

Angels are Gods obedient servants. There never was a rebellion in heaven, its a fiction.

What then is your explanation for Satan?

Just curious.

That there is no such being. The Bible doesn't teach that there is - on the contrary, Isaiah 45 makes the existence of such a being impossible.

Ed Form

In that case who was Jesus tempted by?

By his own mind.

And who was Jesus speaking to when he said, "Get behind me Satan".

Peter.

Also who was the serpent in the Garden of Eden? The same Serpent that is also referenced in Revelations at the end of the Bible.

Rev.12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

It names him directly as "Satan" and speaks of him as the original one "That Old serpent who deceiveth the whole world".

In short, it doesn't appear that all of the authors of these tales are in agreement with your conclusion that Satan doesn't exist.

The serpent in the garden was exactly what Scripture says - a creature that no longer exists because God changed it's physiology as part of it's sentence. From that point on the amoral thinking of the serpent became embedded in human nature and Scripture uses serpents as a symbol of human natures natural oppostion to God's ways. In Revelation the destruction of the serpent is a symbolic prophecy of the removal of human nature and it's replacement by the angelic nature of resurrected children of God.

Just for the record I agree that Isaiah has God himself confessing to be the creator of evil.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This is actually an extremely controversial verse in many debates. It basically has the biblical God confessing that he is the one who creates evil. And therefore it makes no sense to pin the problem of evil on humans.

This also brings into question the entire book of Job. If there is no Satan then it must have been God himself who was playing both the roll of a benevolent God and an evil demon in that story.

You misread Isaiah 45. God says he is responsible for good and for ill, not for good behaviour and evil deeds. When the weather is convenient and crops are good so that people prosper, God brings it about. When the weather is appalling and crops fail, God is responsible for that also. He does not claim to be responsible for the evil that men dream up and carry out.

The thing that Isaiah 45 teaches is that no supernatural power exists that is not derived from and controlled by God.

There is also the problem of why Jesus wasn't the only demigod myth of this kind. Most theologians and clergy readily acknowledge that there were indeed older myths of very similar demigod tales. Their apologetic excuse is that this "Satan" fellow knew that Jesus was coming and created these false myths to confuse and trick men into thinking that Jesus wasn't the only true demigod myth.

Without a Satan to support those arguments we have no other conclusion to come to other than Jesus was just one of many similar man-made myths.

So attempts to remove Satan from the Biblical mythology are not without huge problems.

Jesus is not a demi-god and the Bible does not say that he is.

He came into existence when he was born, having had no prior life, and was a human being. After carrying out a detailed commission from God in which he showed us what we could be if we had God's character, the beauty of his example, which drew men and women to him, caused the rulers of his day to see him as a threat. So they conspired together to murder him and to turn the populace against him, playing on their disappointment that he had not used his miraculous, God-given powers to free them from the Roman yoke and set them on easy street. The manner of Jesus' life and the fact that he did nothing wrong was our example; the manner of his death was the depravity of our nature illustrated; the aim of God's commission was to allow us to see the difference and to long for the former, and his promise is that he will give a Christ-like character and everlasting life to all who seek in honesty, and in belief that he will keep his promise. The assurance that he can and will keep the promise is that he raised Jesus from the dead.

A demi-god has no value as the central character of such a scheme of salvation. His sinless life and complete beauty of character is native to a divine creature, consubstantial with God, his death and resurrection could only ever be a pantomime, a pretence. The hope that we can ever be as beautiful of character as him is without a valid basis because we have never seen God guiding an actual human being through a blameless life.

The false idea that there is a supernatural evil presence behind the scenes in all human wrongdoing hides the simplicity of God's way of saving us from ourselves.

Ed Form

[Divine Insight]

In that case who was Jesus tempted by?

By his own mind.

So Jesus being God was tempted by his own mind?

Actually there are a myriad of problems with this approach to apologetic. But I'll just cover the main problem here as this should be efficient to cover it.

If Jesus was God and knew that he was God, then he shouldn't have been tempted to do things that he himself supposedly hates. After all, this God is supposed to hate sin. And therefore it makes no sense that he would be tempted by sin himself.

Now, if you are going to claim that Jesus wasn't God, then you have multiple problems. Not the least of which is that Jesus could not possibly have been privy to all the information he claimed to know. This is actually an insurmountable problem which I'll address again below.

Some people claim that Jesus was 50% God and 50% man, which is kind of silly IMHO. But even a greater number of people demand that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man, which is even sillier yet. (if its even possible to get any sillier than claiming that he was 50/50).

A mortal man does not know that everlasting life actually exists. He must believe in this entirely based upon totally unprovable faith with no evidence. But that could not possibly have been the case for Jesus since Jesus himself claimed to know precisely what happens to everyone after death.

So there is no way that Jesus could even be said to be a mortal man and simultaneously possess the kind of knowledge he would have necessarily had to possess based upon what he claimed to know.

So I don't buy into the idea that it makes any sense that Jesus would have been tempted by his own mind. It doesn't fit into the Biblical stories IMHO.

And who was Jesus speaking to when he said, "Get behind me Satan".

Peter.

So then Peter must be Satan.

Also who was the serpent in the Garden of Eden? The same Serpent that is also referenced in Revelations at the end of the Bible.

Rev.12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

It names him directly as "Satan" and speaks of him as the original one "That Old serpent who deceiveth the whole world".

In short, it doesn't appear that all of the authors of these tales are in agreement with your conclusion that Satan doesn't exist.

The serpent in the garden was exactly what Scripture says - a creature that no longer exists because God changed it's physiology as part of it's sentence. From that point on the amoral thinking of the serpent became embedded in human nature and Scripture uses serpents as a symbol of human natures natural oppostion to God's ways. In Revelation the destruction of the serpent is a symbolic prophecy of the removal of human nature and it's replacement by the angelic nature of resurrected children of God.

So evidently you are a symbolist. That is convenient. The only problem is that once you start down the road of symbolism the ultimate conclusion is that the tales of Jesus himself were nothing but symbolic fables.

Just for the record I agree that Isaiah has God himself confessing to be the creator of evil.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This is actually an extremely controversial verse in many debates. It basically has the biblical God confessing that he is the one who creates evil. And therefore it makes no sense to pin the problem of evil on humans.

This also brings into question the entire book of Job. If there is no Satan then it must have been God himself who was playing both the roll of a benevolent God and an evil demon in that story.

You misread Isaiah 45. God says he is responsible for good and for ill, not for good behaviour and evil deeds. When the weather is convenient and crops are good so that people prosper, God brings it about. When the weather is appalling and crops fail, God is responsible for that also. He does not claim to be responsible for the evil that men dream up and carry out.

The thing that Isaiah 45 teaches is that no supernatural power exists that is not derived from and controlled by God.

I simply don't buy into your symbolic apologetic style. The verse clearly states that God "Creates Evil". And storms are not seen to be "Evil". And even if they were, then you would be suggesting that God is indeed the one who commits very much evil. Every natural disaster and disease, etc, would be "Evil" and God would be the perpetrator of that "Evil".

So you apologetic methods don't help. They end up demanding that the God of the Bible is indeed very evil and responsible for the murder and suffering of many innocence people via his "Evil" natural disasters and diseases.

Have you given much thought to your style of apologetics? You end up in deeper trouble with every apology you give.

There is also the problem of why Jesus wasn't the only demigod myth of this kind. Most theologians and clergy readily acknowledge that there were indeed older myths of very similar demigod tales. Their apologetic excuse is that this "Satan" fellow knew that Jesus was coming and created these false myths to confuse and trick men into thinking that Jesus wasn't the only true demigod myth.

Without a Satan to support those arguments we have no other conclusion to come to other than Jesus was just one of many similar man-made myths.

So attempts to remove Satan from the Biblical mythology are not without huge problems.

Jesus is not a demi-god and the Bible does not say that he is.

Sure it does. It claims that Jesus was born of a virgin who was magically impregnated by God. That is the very definition of a demigod. The fact that the biblical authors didn't you that term doesn't change the definition.

These demigod myths were very common in the Mediterranean region.

He came into existence when he was born, having had no prior life, and was a human being.

Many Christian theologians and clergy will argue with you on that claim quite passionately. Jesus was quoted in the New Testament as having said, "Before Abraham was, I am". And many theologians take this to mean that Jesus was around since the dawn of time. They claim that he did not come into being when he was born on earth.

But you can take that up with them. He also could not have been a normal human being if he had all the knowledge of Heaven and God that he claimed to have.

After carrying out a detailed commission from God in which he showed us what we could be if we had God's character, the beauty of his example,

I don't see where Jesus set any good examples that mortal men could follow. He never married. He never became a father or raised children. He said around publicly accusing the Jewish High Priests of being hypocrites. Is that a good example?

The things that he supposed did that were any good was to supposedly magically heal the sick, turn wine into water, walk on water, and supposedly raise a few dead people. But mortal men can't do any of those things. So that's not much of an example for mortal men.

which drew men and women to him, caused the rulers of his day to see him as a threat. So they conspired together to murder him and to turn the populace against him, playing on their disappointment that he had not used his miraculous, God-given powers to free them from the Roman yoke and set them on easy street. The manner of Jesus' life and the fact that he did nothing wrong was our example; the manner of his death was the depravity of our nature illustrated; the aim of God's commission was to allow us to see the difference and to long for the former, and his promise is that he will give a Christ-like character and everlasting life to all who seek in honesty, and in belief that he will keep his promise. The assurance that he can and will keep the promise is that he raised Jesus from the dead.

But we know that even according to these rumors the quotes they attribute to Jesus are indeed false. They are basically lies. Whether Jesus actually told lies, or whether he was just quoted as telling lies is up for debate. In fact, whether any guy named Jesus ever existed at all is up for debate.

But Jesus taught that God feeds the birds. We know that this is false. Birds have to go out and find their own food at great risk and peril to themselves and they are often eaten by other predators in the process. It's simply not true that God feeds the birds. So if Jesus actually taught this he was mistaken. We also know that birds do indeed sometimes die from starvation even.

Also Jesus promised that anything we ask in his name he will do it to glorify the Father. Again this has been clearly shown to be totally false and empty promise. Just look at Mother Teresa for a prime example.

A demi-god has no value as the central character of such a scheme of salvation. His sinless life and complete beauty of character is native to a divine creature, consubstantial with God, his death and resurrection could only ever be a pantomime, a pretence. The hope that we can ever be as beautiful of character as him is without a valid basis because we have never seen God guiding an actual human being through a blameless life.

I personally don't think it would be hard to be like Jesus was at all. On the contrary other than having the ability to magically cure diseases and turn water into wine, etc, I really don't see where Jesus was all that different from me. Of course I don't go around preaching to people stories about everlasting life or what might happen to them after they die either, but then again I would need to lie to people to tell them those things because I don't know that they are true.

In fact, it's pretty much impossible for me to be like Jesus beyond normal morality. And on that count I have no problem comparing myself with Jesus. If I were to be crucified by angry priests it would be just as much of an atrocity. In fact, I don't even go around calling priest hypocrites in the first place, so it would be even more undeserving if they crucified me.

The false idea that there is a supernatural evil presence behind the scenes in all human wrongdoing hides the simplicity of God's way of saving us from ourselves.

Ed Form

The idea that we need to be saved from ourselves is absolutely absurd.

How anyone can believe in such a fable is beyond me.

Do you really believe that you need to be saved from yourself?

I'm sorry but I can't even begin to identify with that mindset.

I'm not ashamed of who I am.

[ttruscott]

...

I simply don't buy into your symbolic apologetic style. The verse clearly states that God "Creates Evil". And storms are not seen to be "Evil". And even if they were, then you would be suggesting that God is indeed the one who commits very much evil. Every natural disaster and disease, etc, would be "Evil" and God would be the perpetrator of that "Evil".

...

EVIL: Strong's H7451 - ra
bad, evil
bad, disagreeable, malignant
bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
evil, displeasing
bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
bad (of value)
worse than, worst (comparison)
sad, unhappy
evil (hurtful)
bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
bad, evil, wicked (ethically) in general, of persons, of thoughts deeds, actions

So I choose my interpretation from this list that supports the rest of Scriptures as GOD's self revelation of HIS nature as holy and loving and without sin and

you chose that interpretation which supports your anti-Christian stance without caring that it contradicts the rest of the Bible.

Basic tenet of Biblical interpretation accepted by the Churches - two or more verse are necessary to create a doctrine of import, especially if the one verse chosen contradicts others....

Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

you chose that interpretation which supports your anti-Christian stance without caring that it contradicts the rest of the Bible.

Peace, Ted

But it's not in contradiction with the rest of the Bible. On the contrary, my interpretation is in complete harmony with the rest of the Bible.

In Genesis this God cursed a serpent to crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of its days. That's clearly and evil curse.

In the same story this God curses Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in conception and childbirth. Again another evil curse using the very act of procreation itself as a hideous weapon.

I won't even bring up the book Job, or how this God mistreated the Canaanites, etc.

So for you to claim that I am ignoring the rest of the Bible is simple a false and empty claim on your behalf.

[Divine Insight]

By the way Ted, I feel that it's underhanded of you to label me as being "Anti-Christianity".

The truth is that at one point in my life I was a very devout Christian. I simply realized that I had been duped by a very unethical and immoral dogma.

What I am doing now is exposing this false immoral dogma to others who may have also been duped into believing it.

That's my position, and I feel that this is an important and moral thing for me to do.

Having been burned by this dogma myself I feel justified in warning others about it.