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!

[Bede]

[Replying to post 1 by AllAboutLove]

One explanation I have read is that, just as God gave mankind a test (see Genesis 3) which man failed, so he gave an angels a test, which 1/3 failed.

That test was to reveal to them his plans for mankind who would one day be placed higher than them in heaven.

We are to share in Gods divine nature (2Pet 1:4)

They were to serve mankind
Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (Heb 1:14)

For God commands the angels to guard you in all your ways. (Ps 91:11)

And, if that wasnt bad enough for such powerful spirits, God himself would take flesh and suffer for mankind.

Those that rebelled just could not accept this.

[AllAboutLove]

[Replying to post 1 by AllAboutLove]

One explanation I have read is that, just as God gave mankind a test (see Genesis 3) which man failed, so he gave an angels a test, which 1/3 failed.

That test was to reveal to them his plans for mankind who would one day be placed higher than them in heaven.

We are to share in Gods divine nature (2Pet 1:4)

They were to serve mankind
Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (Heb 1:14)

For God commands the angels to guard you in all your ways. (Ps 91:11)

And, if that wasnt bad enough for such powerful spirits, God himself would take flesh and suffer for mankind.

Those that rebelled just could not accept this.

Thanks for your feedback, friend. What you just described is very close to the scenario in the book I've been talking about (It's called The Second Coming: A Love Story, if anyone is interested. www.secondcomingishere.com and http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Coming ... B00KT6B3G0).
It imagines that the Angels "sinned" by loving Lucifer more than God. Lucifer is so beloved by the other Angels that he begins to literally glow (like a morning star), second to God in brilliance in the sky. God tries to humble Lucifer by sentencing him to live among the mud & stink, but Lucifer refuses to submit. God then creates the earth, as much as for man as for his Angels (it seems), but then lifts man out of the same mud that was once Lucifer's prison, which offends Lucifer. When God additionally orders the Angels to bow and serve man, Lucifer (and 1/3 of the Angels) are embarrassed and outraged.

Pride preceded the Fall, not a calculated plan to actually overthrow God.

(There's a haunting scene where Lucifer vows to "bake our Father's mud into bricks & build Him something useful!")

It's a VERY, VERY strange retelling of the story. (Real good book though.) So much of it seems to be directly based on Scripture, but I was unsure about this part. Would greatly welcome feedback, as I would LOVE to learn more about this.... doesn't seem like there's a lot of "official" commentary about the War in Heaven.

[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?

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....

The Egyptians were aware of the changing North Pole. They calculate the path of the circle and noted the center of the circle. They called it the eye of Ra. I think they calculated that it would take 26,000 years to complete the circle.

[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....

The Egyptians were aware of the changing North Pole. They calculate the path of the circle and noted the center of the circle. They called it the eye of Ra. I think they calculated that it would take 26,000 years to complete the circle.

Wow, I didn't know that. I know it's off topic, but I wonder how they figured that out, that star location changes over 1,000s of years??? That's not something you'd notice within three or four generations, even!

Maybe by the location of stars in the sky, in relation to their pyramids & obliques? (Just guessing?)

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by AllAboutLove]

One explanation I have read is that, just as God gave mankind a test (see Genesis 3) which man failed, so he gave an angels a test, which 1/3 failed.

That test was to reveal to them his plans for mankind who would one day be placed higher than them in heaven.

We are to share in Gods divine nature (2Pet 1:4)

They were to serve mankind
Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (Heb 1:14)

For God commands the angels to guard you in all your ways. (Ps 91:11)

And, if that wasnt bad enough for such powerful spirits, God himself would take flesh and suffer for mankind.

Those that rebelled just could not accept this.

In this apology you are basically having God tell his angles that they will become slaves (servants) to mankind and that mankind will be considered to be higher or better than the angels.

By today's human morality in most civilized countries slavery is considered immoral.

Therefore you are basically suggesting that our creator is immoral since he basically condones slavery, or at the very least a separation of classes where one class is considered lower and is required to serve the other class.

Whoever made up this scenario was probably cool with slavery.

How can anyone believe that such an explanation could apply to an all-righteous God. These stories were clearly written by men who came up with their own immoral ideas.

And I hold the same moral superiority to this God in this scenario too. I do not condone building a race of slave androids. Non-sentient robots maybe, but if I knew they were sentient, or even thought they might be I would never demand that they be slaves.

And it seems to me that if you have an andriod (or an angel or human) who is complaining about being made into a slave then that's a very good sign that they are indeed sentient.

These "excuses" for this religion are never impressive because they never represent morality or what anyone should expect from a truly righteous God.

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.

I mean, I realize that I no longer believe in Christianity and people can claim that I'm just a naysayer trying to "put down" the religion at every chance I get. But the real truth is that these are my honest and sincere objections.

These are the reasons that I no longer believe in these stories. They never make any moral sense. Every apology ends up demanding that God is immoral in some way. As a Christian I objected to these kinds of explanations. And this is why I am no longer a Christian.

If these stories can't be made to make sense without demanding that God is immoral, then what's the point in continually making up apologies for them?

We'd have to come up with better explanations that make more sense. And IMHO, no one has ever been able to do that.

[greentwiga]

[Replying to post 1 by AllAboutLove]

One explanation I have read is that, just as God gave mankind a test (see Genesis 3) which man failed, so he gave an angels a test, which 1/3 failed.

That test was to reveal to them his plans for mankind who would one day be placed higher than them in heaven.

We are to share in Gods divine nature (2Pet 1:4)

They were to serve mankind
Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (Heb 1:14)

For God commands the angels to guard you in all your ways. (Ps 91:11)

And, if that wasnt bad enough for such powerful spirits, God himself would take flesh and suffer for mankind.

Those that rebelled just could not accept this.

In this apology you are basically having God tell his angles that they will become slaves (servants) to mankind and that mankind will be considered to be higher or better than the angels.

By today's human morality in most civilized countries slavery is considered immoral.

Therefore you are basically suggesting that our creator is immoral since he basically condones slavery, or at the very least a separation of classes where one class is considered lower and is required to serve the other class.

Whoever made up this scenario was probably cool with slavery.

How can anyone believe that such an explanation could apply to an all-righteous God. These stories were clearly written by men who came up with their own immoral ideas.

And I hold the same moral superiority to this God in this scenario too. I do not condone building a race of slave androids. Non-sentient robots maybe, but if I knew they were sentient, or even thought they might be I would never demand that they be slaves.

And it seems to me that if you have an andriod (or an angel or human) who is complaining about being made into a slave then that's a very good sign that they are indeed sentient.

These "excuses" for this religion are never impressive because they never represent morality or what anyone should expect from a truly righteous God.

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.

I mean, I realize that I no longer believe in Christianity and people can claim that I'm just a naysayer trying to "put down" the religion at every chance I get. But the real truth is that these are my honest and sincere objections.

These are the reasons that I no longer believe in these stories. They never make any moral sense. Every apology ends up demanding that God is immoral in some way. As a Christian I objected to these kinds of explanations. And this is why I am no longer a Christian.

If these stories can't be made to make sense without demanding that God is immoral, then what's the point in continually making up apologies for them?

We'd have to come up with better explanations that make more sense. And IMHO, no one has ever been able to do that.

Every one of these stories is put in the context of the local culture. I can imagine that in 500 years, people will look back at the USA and talk about how immoral it was to let <1% of the people control >99% of the wealth. Rightly does God say that If he were to judge us for every way we act immoral, he would destroy us. Instead, He says that he works with us, guiding us into holiness. He allows some behavior as He guides. Remember as you look back at those ancient cultures and judge them that people in the future will look back and judge you just as harshly. As for God, you are judging him for His toleration.

[Divine Insight]

Every one of these stories is put in the context of the local culture. I can imagine that in 500 years, people will look back at the USA and talk about how immoral it was to let <1% of the people control >99% of the wealth. Rightly does God say that If he were to judge us for every way we act immoral, he would destroy us. Instead, He says that he works with us, guiding us into holiness. He allows some behavior as He guides. Remember as you look back at those ancient cultures and judge them that people in the future will look back and judge you just as harshly. As for God, you are judging him for His toleration.

But this isn't supposed to be about ancient cultures. This is supposed to be about God himself.

In other words, did God really do these things? Or all all of these stories just ancient myths made up by ancient cultures.

If the former is true, then you post here makes no sense because God would be the one who is doing all of this.

If the latter is true, then these myths aren't even about the actions of any actual God at all. Instead they are just the superstitions of ancient cultures.

I do not argue with you at all, that many of the things that cultures do today will be looked back on by future cultures as being immoral. In fact, you don't even need to go that far. There are actually quite a few people alive right now who believe that the behavior of many governments, cultures and groups is immoral.

So you don't even need to look to the future.

But I don't see where your comments make any sense. If God really did tell the angels that they were going to be subservient and second-class to mankind, then it would be the God who is immoral. Not some ancient culture.

[AllAboutLove]

Every one of these stories is put in the context of the local culture. I can imagine that in 500 years, people will look back at the USA and talk about how immoral it was to let <1% of the people control >99% of the wealth. Rightly does God say that If he were to judge us for every way we act immoral, he would destroy us. Instead, He says that he works with us, guiding us into holiness. He allows some behavior as He guides. Remember as you look back at those ancient cultures and judge them that people in the future will look back and judge you just as harshly. As for God, you are judging him for His toleration.

But this isn't supposed to be about ancient cultures. This is supposed to be about God himself.

In other words, did God really do these things? Or all all of these stories just ancient myths made up by ancient cultures.

If the former is true, then you post here makes no sense because God would be the one who is doing all of this.

If the latter is true, then these myths aren't even about the actions of any actual God at all. Instead they are just the superstitions of ancient cultures.

I do not argue with you at all, that many of the things that cultures do today will be looked back on by future cultures as being immoral. In fact, you don't even need to go that far. There are actually quite a few people alive right now who believe that the behavior of many governments, cultures and groups is immoral.

So you don't even need to look to the future.

But I don't see where your comments make any sense. If God really did tell the angels that they were going to be subservient and second-class to mankind, then it would be the God who is immoral. Not some ancient culture.

Maybe it was their place to be subservient. Maybe Angels and Man are different & serve different purposes before the Almighty.

Either way, you are absolutely right about one this: Obedience carries a price. And if you think the price is too high, well, good news! You have Free Will.

But as with everything, actions also have consequences.

[Divine Insight]

Maybe it was their place to be subservient. Maybe Angels and Man are different & serve different purposes before the Almighty.

Either way, you are absolutely right about one this: Obedience carries a price. And if you think the price is too high, well, good news! You have Free Will.

But as with everything, actions also have consequences.

But this doesn't this skip over the issue of morality?

You say that maybe the angels were created to be subservient. But would that be moral of a creator to do that? That is my concern.

Maybe people, when attempting to defend Christianity, make the grave mistake of treating the Christian God like Zeus. In other words they feel that the Biblical God should be able to do anything he wants. But that's not so. That would indeed be true of Zeus. Zeus could do anything he wants precisely because in Greek mythology no one ever claimed that Zeus was necessarily righteous or stood for the epitome of morality.

However, this is not the case with the Biblical God. We can't just excuse immoral behavior by saying that God can do anything he wants. To create sentient angels for the purpose of being subservient to yet another race of creation is immoral by today's human standards. That would be no different from creating a race of slaves.

So we can't excuse this immorality by simply claiming that it might be "God's Plan". If the God of the Bible is to be held up as being the epitome of morality and flawlessly righteous, then this is what he needs to be consistently. We can't use the excuse of Zeus and just claim that God can do anything he so desires.

So this is why I reject this excuse.

If we are going to claim to have an all-righteous and perfectly moral God, then by golly, that's what he better be. Otherwise he's reduced to being no better than Zeus.

In fact, this is a very large part of what caused me to question the Bible in the first place. What is a supposedly infinitely wise and all-righteous God cursing a demon to crawl on its belly and eat dirt for? This of course occurs in the Bible with the story of the garden of Eden.

I also have extremely problems with the "morality" of a creator who would actually use procreation as a weapon to curse Eve with pain and sorrow in conception and childbirth.

Who's idea is it that we should procreate in the first place? And what kind of morality can we assign to a creator who uses the very act of creating new human life as a weapon of punishment?

I don't know about you, but for me this is a show stopper right there.

A creator that uses procreation as a weapon? And it's even his idea to create more humans?

That doesn't fly as being very moral to me.

If I was Eve I would have told him, "Fine, I won't have anymore kids then. You'll have to create them from dust if you want more humans to boss around."

I mean seriously, do people even take any time to question these stories at all?

[AllAboutLove]

Maybe it was their place to be subservient. Maybe Angels and Man are different & serve different purposes before the Almighty.

Either way, you are absolutely right about one this: Obedience carries a price. And if you think the price is too high, well, good news! You have Free Will.

But as with everything, actions also have consequences.

But this doesn't this skip over the issue of morality?

Actually, the point you keep harping on is fairness, not morality. Morality pertains to ultimate right & wrong, as appraised by an Absolute Power. 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!

From the book The Second Coming: A Love Story

As Joe spoke, an unusual accent seeped noticeably through his speech: The Lord created this world. The Lord created you. The Lord reveals Himself repeatedly, in miracles, signs and love. The Lord twice delivered His only son to this land"as well as His prophets and books of Scriptures. Joe paused and ruefully asked: What more is it you ask of God? That all of humanity find seat in the afterlife, nestling by the breast of the Almighty, including those who slay His son, reject His Bible and abhor His morality? No. No! No matter how many times you beg"no. Heaven is not your birthright. Understand that God establishes the laws of Heaven"not mankind. And understand how insignificant your burden truly is. Joe stopped speaking and glowered; his power might be limitless but his patience was not. The audience observed his nonverbal language and felt discomfort.

Credit: http://secondcomingishere.com/who-goes-to-heaven/