@ErikNelson When I refer to angels, I am not talking about influences at all. I mean angels as referenced in the Bible. As I look at those passages, I come away with an impression of powerful, intelligent, communicating beings (that can sing!) that were created by God to do his service and carry his message.
2 Likes
I donât think you resolve them at all.
I agree with @Gerald_Britton and the objection that if God really could do that with the angels then we might as well agree with the creationists theologically because all of evolution is not only stupid waste of time but pointless cruelty and the creator becomes the Demiurge of the Gnostics. This was my challenge in seeking to find some value in the Bible and Christianity, where I had to reject so many other theologies which have God acting like a mafia boss with an extortion racket and doing whatever evil he pleases, and I would have no choice but to join the atheists in complete condemnation of such Xtianity as indistinguishable from devil worship.
And I say that AIâs can also seem like an intelligible beings. The point as I said before is that the created spirits and products of design can never be or do anything more than what they were made to be and do. This is why the Bible says they are servants while we who are created so much less than they (starting from a single cell) can be adopted as children of God. It is also why God created the physical universe and living organisms through billions of years of the death and suffering required by evolution.
Doesnât work for me in the slightest. Bringing children into a world inhabited by evil makes the problem of evil unsolved and again we are left with a God who is malign, irresponsible or ineffectual. And I am back with the atheists again condemning such Xtianity as a devil worship.
So the story in Genesis 2-3 is the story of how evil began and I reject the pseudepigrapha of Enoch and the idea of a war in heaven before this as anything I could ever believe in.
Godâs Angel / Messenger is His remote tele-presence upon this planet (if you would)
Are you saying that angels are the sheer presence of God on Earth and not distinct beings? If so, that is not correct, as angels certainly are distinct beings. Mark 13:32. The angel of YHWH is sometimes conflated with YHWH Himself, I might add.
1 Like
To be honest, I have little clue how much of what you said follows from what I wrote.
I agree with @Gerald_Britton and the objection that if God really could do that with the angels then we might as well agree with the creationists theologically because all of evolution is not only stupid waste of time but pointless cruelty and the creator becomes the Demiurge of the Gnostics.
God giving angels the option to be good or evil has nothing to do with evolution. This is a red herring.
And I say that AIâs can also seem like an intelligible beings.
Do you think Satan had the free will to create those fallen angels?
Doesnât work for me in the slightest. Bringing children into a world inhabited by evil makes the problem of evil unsolved and again we are left with a God who is malign, irresponsible or ineffectual.
This, again, has nothing to do with any of my points. Just like with humans, angels were given the option of doing good or evil.
You also ignored my argument as to the flaw in how you get to the position of angels being able to create other angels. The function of angels is not simply âroutine tasksâ - their function is magnifying Godâs glory and serving Godâs relationship with humans. This is not the same as playing a role in the formation of the natural world.
3 Likes
As I explained already, it has everything to do with this and the only way I can see any value in the Bible and Christianity. Obviously you are willing to believe in things which I am not.
Do toasters have free will to make toast? LOL In both cases, toaster and Lucifer, they were created by design and can never be or do anything other than what they were made to be and do.
That is only possible with a god which I cannot believe in â will not believe in. I prefer condemnation from such an evil being â for I will never be a craven worm serving a monster.
But I do not believe in a magical free will that is simply added to things like a drop of paint from a paintbrush. Instead I believe that free will is only possible because of the laws of nature which govern the physical universe and self-organizing processes which arise from them. I utterly deny this idea that God can do anything by whatever means He chooses. That is not omnipotence but the unreality of irrational dreams. And I deny that results are independent of the means and this is why God had to create life and man through billions of years of death and suffering as required by evolution. There was simply no other way to create life and free will.
And a god creating things to magnify his glory is another god which I cannot believe in.
This might be a good place to post all the sorts of Xtian gods which I do not believe inâŚ
I am Christian but I do not believe in the megalomaniac god that would create human being for the purpose to worship him, and this is only one of the peculiar Xtian ideas of God that I do not believe in. I call this one the jealous god obsessed with His right to our worship, who created all the heavens and everything on earth in order to glorify Himself. Apparently our purpose is to make Him look good and so not only is worshiping other things is a big no no, but we are really supposed to love and think of Him first and before anything else, all day long everyday.
But I also donât believe in the purist god who cannot associate with evil of any kind and to him human beings are so completely corrupt that everything we do is evil and worthless in His eyes, and thus every thing that seems beautiful, joyful, or creative to us is completely sinful and prideful, and so in order to be acceptable to God we must crush every thought, laugh, or smile of our own so that we will be humble before the Lord.
I repudiate the hard hearted god who finds it very difficult to forgive us because any offense against Him, even the smallest bad thought, is an infinite crime deserving eternal torment in a place like our worst nightmares called hell, and so we can only be forgiven if a perfect and divine being lays down his life in a blood sacrifice for our sake.
I despise the controlling god who demands our obedience to every idiotic law that He cares to make and who condemned the first human ancestors for daring to seek the knowledge required to distinguish right from wrong. This must be why the God in the Old Testament commanded people to commit genocide or to sacrifice the one child that they loved because He didnât think we ought to think for ourselves about what is right and wrong.
I denounce the wrathful god to whom we are nothing but clay pots to do with as he pleases, according to which it is not for us to complain if He takes His anger out on us and sends us to Hell. Apparently we deserve whatever we get and so I guess it is His right to destroy and torment whomever He chooses. Perhaps this is to make the rest of us that much more grateful that it wasnât us.
I donât accept the manipulative god who sets before you this âchoiceâ: 1) to believe what the Christians tell you to believe and do what the Christians tell you to do so that you will be resurrected to live in eternal happiness, OR 2) to be tortured with unimaginable pain for an eternity. Apparently for those who believe in this god, a cowardly fear of him is the same as righteousness.
I will give no obedience to the sadistic god that will resurrect the suicide from the dead and to add insult to injury will proceed to torture this poor person for an eternity on top of that. He will do the same to anyone with a bad thought but somehow what he does to the suicide seems particularly cruel and unnecessary to me. Why canât He just leave them alone?
So since I do not believe in any of these common Christian ideas of God, then why is it that I call myself Christian? It is because the God I do believe is a very very uniquely Christian idea of God too. This is the humble God, who is gentle and lowly in heart, who not caring anything about being God, set aside all His power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant, and after growing up perfectly blameless to show how we should live, He was mocked and whipped before being executed on a cross. This He did this in order for us to get past all the lies and misunderstandings, to show how much He loves us and thus to heal our relationship with the infinite God in whom we can find eternal life.
I cannot find this explanation in your comments.
Do toasters have free will to make toast? LOL In both cases, toaster and Lucifer, they were created by design and can never be or do anything other than what they were made to be and do.
So God designed Satan to be evil and rebel? And Godâs going to throw Satan into hell for the way God made him?
I utterly deny this idea that God can do anything by whatever means He chooses.
God can do anything so long as it doesnât violate any logical laws.
And a god creating things to magnify his glory is another god which I cannot believe in.
Psalm 19:1: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Thereâs nothing wrong with God making clear His greatness. It is a greatness Iâll hopefully be able to worship for all time. In any case, the Bible is pretty clear that the function of angels has nothing to do with the formation of the natural world or these routine tasks you speak of. You seem to be inventing theologies to resolve theological problems (fallen angels) that arenât problems at all (man can do good or evil, angels can do good or evil).
Nope. He created the angels to do the tasks which He gave them, and this included challenging living organisms so that they would learn new things. When A&E chose to blame Lucifer for their mistake, God assigned Lucifer the new task of being their adversary. We had to learn that power and responsibility go hand in hand. You cannot pass the responsibility on to others without giving them power over you. And better that they should have this adversary to blame than to falsely blame God, who is their only hope.
When you no longer need to make toast then you might as well dispose of the toaster. Satan was made into the personification of evil for the purpose of our redemption. His destruction will be the end of evil. It is a purpose well served. And he is after all just a toaster.
And I doubt your understanding of all the logical laws which constrain what God can do.
Those who are truly great do not need to toot their own horn. All of creation will do it for them, not because they were made to do so because they simply cannot help themselves to do otherwise.
Creating things to magnify their own glory is the kind of deception that the evil employs. They have no greatness of their own so they have to create an illusion of this. It is called propaganda.
Like I said⌠joining the atheists in condemnation of devil worship whatever else it may choose to call itself is the only other option.
Ah, so God is going to design a being without free will, make it do a bunch of bad things, and then punish that being for eternity for something it had no control over. Because thatâs justice.
And I doubt your understanding of all the logical laws which constrain what God can do.
Brilliant stuff.
Those who are truly great do not need to toot their own horn. All of creation will do it for them, not because they were made to do so because they simply cannot help themselves to do otherwise.
Stars arenât alive, they canât physically praise God. The obvious point of the verse is what when we look at Godâs creation, weâll realize how great He is. It exists for that very purpose. The passage literally says âthe heavens declare the glory of Godâ. And thatâs in Godâs word. So God is telling us through the Bible that the heavens show how glorious He is.
Creating things to magnify their own glory is the kind of deception that the evil employs.
What if itâs not a deception but just a fact that God is that glorious and can do such things?
Like I said⌠joining the atheists in condemnation of devil worship whatever else it may choose to call itself is the only other option.
Devil worship? Oh please.
God will make and use whatever tools are necessary to redeem his children. Others will simply employ propaganda in order to make themselves look good. Religions are on the top of that list.
You are right. It is a metaphor like so MANY things in the Bible.
Then you donât have to make anything sing praises. You only need that when it is propaganda and a lie.
If it talks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck then it is a duck. If it acts the same as any criminal with a gun demanding obedience because of mere threats then I see no difference from the devil. If it does evil acting like a mafia boss with a protection racket, and then if you worship it, this is devil worship no matter what you call it.
Protection racket: this is when you require people to pay for protection from yourself.
What I always have understood:
- Lucifer rebelled against God, the first sin, and became the devil, fall one.
- God created humans, these were tempted by the devil, fall two.
Two falls, isnât that odd?
2 Likes
Thatâs the most evil thing Iâve ever read. âTo do what He must, God will eternally torture innocent beings.â
You are right. It is a metaphor like so MANY things in the Bible.
Thereâs no metaphor. God, through His Word, is telling us the heavens declare His glory. Thereâs no room for disagreement. Thatâs not up for debate.
Then you donât have to make anything sing praises. You only need that when it is propaganda and a lie.
God tells us to sing Him praises in order to make us better.
If it acts the same as any criminal with a gun demanding obedience because of mere threats
This makes no sense and clearly has no relevance to anything we speak of. I think youâre far too invested in your own ideas. What youâve done is invent a theological problem by ignoring the obvious correction (that angels can choose to be good or evil as well, which is also why God can therefore send the evil ones to hell) and then, in order to solve your fabricated theological problem, have created a whole extension of angelological beliefs to the simple biblical doctrine.
God flooded the world and killed all living things upon it for the sake of man. He wasnât sure if it was worth it and said He would never do such a thing for our sake again. Compared to that⌠tossing a few toasters into the furnace doesnât seem like anything significant to me.
I certainly believe the devil is the ultimate scapegoat. It is why he is so often portrayed as having goat-like features. But the fact that God (and A&E) gave him that role doesnât change the fact that he is the personification of evil. But you go ahead and give him your sympathy if you like. You seem to have liking for devils. But from me, no devil, toaster, or personification of evil will never have the slightest bit sympathy no matter how they happened to become what they are.
YES! YES! YES! YES!
You got that right!
On the contrary, this is one of the ways so called Xtians portray the god they worship. Thus they think something as twisted as Pascalâs wager is actually valid. Their god is the big bad who will destroy anyone who dares to disagree with their bizarre hateful theology. It is EXACTLY like the guy who goes into a bank with a gun and who not only expects everyone to do what he says but blames those he shoots for making him shoot them. It is disgusting enough without seeing people worship a god made in the image of such criminals.
I was not raised Christian and have always been a scientist, but I have found value in Christianity and the Bible. It wasnât easy though. Many think that evolution makes belief in Christianity difficult. But I couldnât believe in Christianity without evolution. I really could not. The problem of evil is a fatal flaw except under narrow conditions. So there really is a very fine thread I can follow to see how Christianity could be true. I simply cannot believe what most of them seem to believe. But you keep trying, perhaps you can find a flaw in that thread and convince me that Christianity is nothing but garbage after all⌠because your justifications donât do a thing for me.
Yeah⌠and I explained why I cannot believe in such a thing.
A responsible parent does not bring children into a world with evil beings. This is the old problem of evil without the solution of free will. It leaves you with a god which is immoral or ineffective against evil, and certainly a very poor parent.
Lucifer is assigned the role of Satan (adversary) in Genesis 3. THAT is beginning of the devil in the Biblical canon.
God can take and give life as He pleases. God could end all life right now and it would be no issue. But what youâre suggesting is far worse: eternal torment for doing nothing wrong. If God eternally punished all the animals supposedly killed during the flood, that would be horrid.
But you keep trying, perhaps you can find a flaw in that thread and convince me that Christianity is nothing but garbage after allâŚ
Nope. âAngels can choose between good and evilâ doesnât lead to that at all. And if youâre having so much issue with the problem of evil, try this video by William Lane Craigâs organization.
You are obviously the one who believes in that. Not me, since I never have nor ever would say any such thing.
Punishment is for behavior modification so âeternal punishmentâ is a complete failure by definition.
And no⌠I am not a universalist.
Doesnât do anything for me. Atheism makes more sense than that junk.
Nothing is easier than to shoot down arguments which you have presented yourself. Because of this some of it actually sounds good and there are many things said which I couldnât agree with more. But it doesnât really address all the issues of the problem of evil. For example, free will is only relevant when we are talking about conditions which human beings are responsible for. And the big picture argument has limited applicability which just isnât plausible for all the cases of suffering and evil in the world.
Of course, I do think there are solutions to all issues of the problem of evil. This video just doesnât cover them all. And I have never had a very high opinion of William Lane Craig. In most of his debates with atheists, I tend to take the side of the atheist.
Yes, all true, and those communications were received (experienced) on earth
But (i understand) they originated in heaven
We could distinguish between the communications as received (experienced) on earth from the heavenly power âtransmittingâ those communications
The âangelic messengerâ is what we experience on earth, revealing the presence of a remote heavenly power who sent us the message
When you take a call, the voice you experience on your device is distinct from the actual calling party on the other end of the line â but your experience of communication reveals to you the presence of the remote other party
There is a difference between âangelsâ as they really are in heaven, and the angelic communications they cause us to experience on earth
Saint Augustine interpreted the division of light from dark in Genesis 1:4 as an allusion to the fall of the dark angels
also insightful
And also, the âtwoâ are related, yes?
The Adversary fell first, in heaven⌠and then ârecruitedâ Eve on earth as his âon world agentâ to bring earth onto his side in his rebellion against YHWH
Not two independent events, but one (recruitment of Eve on earth) caused by the other (rebellion of the Adversary in heaven)
You can distinguish between:
- The sender of the Message in heaven
- the Message (and Messenger) they send to earth
The sender remains remote, far off, in heaven. Only their message (and messenger) reaches earth. No human has ever seen YHWH God the Father in heaven. But humans have received (experienced) His messages (and messengers) on earth.
But what we receive (experience) on earth is distinct from what we never observe in heaven, even though the former reveals the latter.
What about Origen? He went one step further than related and said there was only one fall, the one in heaven (or Paradise, or Eden) as described in Gen-3.
1 Like
So you donât have children?