The Rebellious Angels

[Stravinsk]

To most of Christiandom, original sin is a condition one has no fault in, but rather, it is the fault of a choice made by the first woman and man.

By this sin, we supposedly inherit "sinful bodies", predisposed to sin, as part of some "fallen nature".

Further, in Pauline Christian theology, this inherited condition is actually God's Will, part of the larger plan of Salvation.

I personally do not believe this theology, because I cannot believe in a Holy and Righteous God who would create any kind of predisposition to sin. For there is no such thing as a truly free will that exists alongside this kind of innate predisposition.

The vast majority of Christian people's may get down on their knees and beg forgiveness for whatever sins they have committed, but in the end they can't feel all that guilty, since in the end their theology places the origin or condition of sin squarely at the feet of God, through "His Plan".



But not so the angels. There is no Adam or Eve to blame. No forbidden fruit of their ancestors to point to. Angels do not procreate. They are the original "sons of God", and the only procreation that is ever said of them (if the stories are believed) is with humans, long ago, to give birth to the giants, or nephilim.

So I was thinking tonight, why would an Angel rebel? What could possibly be gained? What could give birth to such a dissatisfaction? To rebel? Surely, they must not be perfect - able to be deceived, to be tempted to pride - and yet, unlike the Christian believer, cannot ultimately lay the blame on anyone but themselves.

 

[Lees]

To most of Christiandom, original sin is a condition one has no fault in, but rather, it is the fault of a choice made by the first woman and man.

By this sin, we supposedly inherit "sinful bodies", predisposed to sin, as part of some "fallen nature".

Further, in Pauline Christian theology, this inherited condition is actually God's Will, part of the larger plan of Salvation.

I personally do not believe this theology, because I cannot believe in a Holy and Righteous God who would create any kind of predisposition to sin. For there is no such thing as a truly free will that exists alongside this kind of innate predisposition.

The vast majority of Christian people's may get down on their knees and beg forgiveness for whatever sins they have committed, but in the end they can't feel all that guilty, since in the end their theology places the origin or condition of sin squarely at the feet of God, through "His Plan".



But not so the angels. There is no Adam or Eve to blame. No forbidden fruit of their ancestors to point to. Angels do not procreate. They are the original "sons of God", and the only procreation that is ever said of them (if the stories are believed) is with humans, long ago, to give birth to the giants, or nephilim.

So I was thinking tonight, why would an Angel rebel? What could possibly be gained? What could give birth to such a dissatisfaction? To rebel? Surely, they must not be perfect - able to be deceived, to be tempted to pride - and yet, unlike the Christian believer, cannot ultimately lay the blame on anyone but themselves.

You're a Deist, why should you believe this theology? Yet you said to me you believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why should you, a Desist, belive that? Post #(124) in the thread (Common Figure Of Speech).

Scripture is clear why the Angels rebelled. It is found first in the heart of lucifer or satan, the highest angel. (Is. 14:12-17) Pride. The desire to be as God.

The Christians sins are no different then any other's sins...except that they are forgiven. The Christian can and does feel guilt about his sins. God's plan does not remove man's responsibility. Doesn't remove the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer in convicting of sins.

Lees


Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

You're a Deist, why should you believe this theology? Yet you said to me you believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why should you, a Desist, belive that? Post #(124) in the thread (Common Figure Of Speech).

Scripture is clear why the Angels rebelled. It is found first in the heart of lucifer or satan, the highest angel. (Is. 14:12-17) Pride. The desire to be as God.

The Christians sins are no different then any other's sins...except that they are forgiven. The Christian can and does feel guilt about his sins. God's plan does not remove man's responsibility. Doesn't remove the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer in convicting of sins.

Lees


Lees

Which theology? Deist is my base belief. I have always been one. Deists are free to hold religious beliefs, in case you didn't know, as Thomas Jefferson did. We are also free to disregard religious beliefs for rational reasons. Our minds are free to come to conclusions, be they of a religious or revealed nature or not, based on reason.

Christians, on the other hand, usually hold strong dogmatic beliefs then face difficulty reconciling opposing or contradictory passages in their revealed religion. What this amounts to is usually lip service to some passages as "Scripture", but a disbelief in them in favor of other passages that they like more.

So to the topic. Why would an angel be dissatisfied with it's status? Pride, you say. But angels are not supposed to have any kind of sin-nature as humans are supposed to with original sin.

 

[Lees]

Which theology? Deist is my base belief. I have always been one. Deists are free to hold religious beliefs, in case you didn't know, as Thomas Jefferson did. We are also free to disregard religious beliefs for rational reasons. Our minds are free to come to conclusions, be they of a religious or revealed nature or not, based on reason.

Christians, on the other hand, usually hold strong dogmatic beliefs then face difficulty reconciling opposing or contradictory passages in their revealed religion. What this amounts to is usually lip service to some passages as "Scripture", but a disbelief in them in favor of other passages that they like more.

So to the topic. Why would an angel be dissatisfied with it's status? Pride, you say. But angels are not supposed to have any kind of sin-nature as humans are supposed to with original sin.

The theology you described in the first 3 lines of your opening post, and then said, "I personally do not believe this theology".

Yet you fail to explaine how you a Deist believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole purpose of that Resurrection is deeply tied to the 'theology' that you do not believe. Where is your rational and reason there? How did Jesus rise from the dead? How is God not involved?

We don't face any difficulty reconciling your supposed contradictions. We may not have an answer, but then we are still learning the Bible. Though we can't answer every supposed contradiction, it doesn't affect our faith. Just like, because a contradiction is answered to you, you don't become a believer. You just look for another contradiction.

Angels were created perfect, just like Adam and Eve were. Adam and Eve didn't have a sin nature either, yet. But they certainly had the ability to disobey or obey once a law was given.

Lucifer was the highest angel of which there is an heirarchy. Because he was the highest, pride filled his heart to want to be as God. And because he was the highest other angels followed him in his rebellion. That is the beginning of sin in the universe.

Angels, just as Adam and Eve, can sin. God creating both, gave them personality and will. And both creatures that God created perfect, angels and man, moved away from God.

So, where did pride come from? From being the creature, and not being God. Only God is God. Though He created angels, and Adam and Eve perfect, they were not God. They were still less than God, and will always be less than God. Thus the possibility of sin became present when the creatures, both angels and man, were created.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

The theology you described in the first 3 lines of your opening post, and then said, "I personally do not believe this theology".

Yet you fail to explaine how you a Deist believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole purpose of that Resurrection is deeply tied to the 'theology' that you do not believe. Where is your rational and reason there? How did Jesus rise from the dead? How is God not involved?

The original sin theology is "deeply tied to it" in your opinion. Mostly Christians get this from the writings of Paul/Saul of Tarsus as there is scant evidence elsewhere. Was Noah a righteous man, for instance? Paul says no ("no one is righteous") but Genesis 7:1 says he was. In fact there are plenty of folk considered righteous in the old testament, but they all are unrighteous according to Paul, all having the seed of original sin needing to be justified by faith.

I already explained how Deists can believe a religious assertion. I do not need to call myself "Christian" to admire the Words of Yeshua, nor believe He rose from the dead. In fact it's a title I don't take because there is plenty of things Christians take on faith that I don't. You are determined to put people under labels, as if this was so easy with a religion split into a plethora of denominations.

Deist best explains my base belief. The fact that I also hold to some Christian belief (such as the resurrection, amongst others) but reject certain things/authors presents a difficulty to you why?

We don't face any difficulty reconciling your supposed contradictions. We may not have an answer, but then we are still learning the Bible. Though we can't answer every supposed contradiction, it doesn't affect our faith. Just like, because a contradiction is answered to you, you don't become a believer. You just look for another contradiction.

"We"? Who is "we"? You are new to this message board, and although I've been here a few years, Lamb knows me from CF, and in fact I've been chatting in religious forums (Christian mostly) since the 90's. I know very very well that Christian theology faces many difficulties, as evidenced from the countless disagreements and arguments I have witnessed between those who identify as Christian over theology.

Angels were created perfect, just like Adam and Eve were. Adam and Eve didn't have a sin nature either, yet. But they certainly had the ability to disobey or obey once a law was given.

Let me get this straight. Both Adam and Eve (before disobeying) and the Angels do not have a sin nature, but freewill to choose.

Until the "fall". Now do humans still have the freedom to choose? I'm going to assume you will says yes, and if that's the case, I'll ask where this original sin idea plays into it. Because if it's inherited, then no man or woman has complete freewill - it's marred by some predisposition called "original sin".

Is the "original sin" what Christ came to redeem? If so, then Christians should be unique in that they don't have original sin anymore. But Pauline theology still argues that the body is a "slave to sin".

In any case, the angels are not involved in the "original sin" idea. They have freedom to choose, and my basic question in the OP, is why would they possibly choose rebellion? If they were perfect, how could they conceive that they would somehow overthrow God? For a perfect creature of God would never entertain such an idea.

Lucifer was the highest angel of which there is an heirarchy. Because he was the highest, pride filled his heart to want to be as God. And because he was the highest other angels followed him in his rebellion. That is the beginning of sin in the universe.

Angels, just as Adam and Eve, can sin. God creating both, gave them personality and will. And both creatures that God created perfect, angels and man, moved away from God.

So, where did pride come from? From being the creature, and not being God. Only God is God. Though He created angels, and Adam and Eve perfect, they were not God. They were still less than God, and will always be less than God. Thus the possibility of sin became present when the creatures, both angels and man, were created.

Lees

 

[Lees]

The original sin theology is "deeply tied to it" in your opinion. Mostly Christians get this from the writings of Paul/Saul of Tarsus as there is scant evidence elsewhere. Was Noah a righteous man, for instance? Paul says no ("no one is righteous") but Genesis 7:1 says he was. In fact there are plenty of folk considered righteous in the old testament, but they all are unrighteous according to Paul, all having the seed of original sin needing to be justified by faith.

I already explained how Deists can believe a religious assertion. I do not need to call myself "Christian" to admire the Words of Yeshua, nor believe He rose from the dead. In fact it's a title I don't take because there is plenty of things Christians take on faith that I don't. You are determined to put people under labels, as if this was so easy with a religion split into a plethora of denominations.

Deist best explains my base belief. The fact that I also hold to some Christian belief (such as the resurrection, amongst others) but reject certain things/authors presents a difficulty to you why?


"We"? Who is "we"? You are new to this message board, and although I've been here a few years, Lamb knows me from CF, and in fact I've been chatting in religious forums (Christian mostly) since the 90's. I know very very well that Christian theology faces many difficulties, as evidenced from the countless disagreements and arguments I have witnessed between those who identify as Christian over theology.


Let me get this straight. Both Adam and Eve (before disobeying) and the Angels do not have a sin nature, but freewill to choose.

Until the "fall". Now do humans still have the freedom to choose? I'm going to assume you will says yes, and if that's the case, I'll ask where this original sin idea plays into it. Because if it's inherited, then no man or woman has complete freewill - it's marred by some predisposition called "original sin".

Is the "original sin" what Christ came to redeem? If so, then Christians should be unique in that they don't have original sin anymore. But Pauline theology still argues that the body is a "slave to sin".

In any case, the angels are not involved in the "original sin" idea. They have freedom to choose, and my basic question in the OP, is why would they possibly choose rebellion? If they were perfect, how could they conceive that they would somehow overthrow God? For a perfect creature of God would never entertain such an idea.

No, in the testimony of the Bible original sin is tied to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And Pauls letters are part of that Bible. And there is plenty of evidence througout the Bible.

No contradiction between Paul and (Gen. 7:1). Noah was 'seen' righteous. That means God saw him through His righteousness. Not through Noah's righteousness. That's why it says in (Gen. 6:8) that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD". Noah found grace because he needed grace.

The Christians arguments in our theology come from our faith and belief. Not our unbelief like you display.

Yet in post #(124) in the thread (Common Figure of Speech) you said you believed Jesus rose from the dead. Not the assertion. Now you say you just believe in the 'assertion'. Deist's don't believe in the resurrection of Christ. Again, how can they. How did Christ rise from the dead? You accuse Christians of having different labels, yet here you are claiming to believe in the Resurrection of Christ and yet still be a Deist. What is the label for that called? Hint....oxymoron.

Who is 'we' you ask? Christians. I am Christian, thus I say 'we'. I may be new to this forum but I am not a new Christian. And I don't really care who you know or how long you have known them. It doesn't change your status as a non-believer.

Yes, until the fall Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature. After the fall, Adam and Eve had a sin nature and it is passed on down to all born of them. The angels had no sin nature also till the fall of satan and his angels who followed him. The angels who did not follow satan, still do not have a sin nature.

Yes, both angels and man were created with personality and a will. I do not say 'free will' as only God has 'free will'.

Man is marred by orignal sin without a doubt. It doesn't mean he no longer has a will. He does. Does sin affect his will? Of course.

Christ came to redeem the lost. The person. Christians are unique in that they are redeemed. If you're going to quote something from Paul give the chapter and verse.

Well, that is exactly what Scripture is saying. A perfect creature of God did entertain such a thought. Though I don't think the thought was to overthrow God. It was to be 'like' God. (Is. 14:14)

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

Just a little off topic, "Lees" - from the time of your signing up here you have spent a great deal of wordage addressing me and my posts. You use "we" as if you are some sort of leader here. You make great boasts about how much of a believer you are, in the Scriptures in general, even ones you seem to have never read. Now in this last post you are getting somewhat personal.

I wonder why. If you are who I think you may be, tread carefully son. I've kept all the documentation from the other site. Keep it on topic.

 

[Josiah]

To most of Christiandom, original sin is a condition one has no fault in, but rather, it is the fault of a choice made by the first woman and man.

No.

Original sin is simply a reality. It is a bit like a spiritual disease we simply have.

Further, in Pauline Christian theology, this inherited condition is actually God's Will

Nope. It's the antithesis of God's will.

The vast majority of Christian people's may get down on their knees and beg forgiveness for whatever sins they have committed, but in the end they can't feel all that guilty, since in the end their theology places the origin or condition of sin squarely at the feet of God, through "His Plan".

Nope. Nowhere it is said or believed that sin is "His plan"

There's a concept vague, remotely related to your idea in Mormonism but not in historic, orthodox Christianity.

So I was thinking tonight, why would an Angel rebel?

I suggest you ask a demon. They would be the only ones who know.




.

 

[Stravinsk]

Nope. It's the antithesis of God's will.

Topic: Original sin as part of God's plan per Pauline theology.

Speaking of Jews and Gentiles (that's all of us, as every non-Jew is considered a Gentile) Romans 11:32 states:

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

That certainly sounds like a master plan involving "making people sin" (ie: hardening their hearts as per the example in Romans 11) to achieve "having mercy on them all". But, if that's not enough, there's this:

Romans 9:6-29 which describes the idea of making people disobedient for higher purposes (again Pharoah is referenced).

Saul/Paul's theology does not include an (earthly) salvation from sin, as he says:

Romans 7:22 - 25
For in my inner being I delight in God’s law;

but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.


Clearly, "original sin" is, in Paul's theology, not wiped away by belief or baptism. Therefore Jesus's salvation (He will save them from their sins) comes only after death. I clearly remember Jesus saying salvation had come to a certain man's house "that day" Luke 19:9

Nope. Nowhere it is said or believed that sin is "His plan"

There's a concept vague, remotely related to your idea in Mormonism but not in historic, orthodox Christianity.

Read above.

I suggest you ask a demon. They would be the only ones who know.




.

Yes, obviously, but I don't, nor wish to, talk to demons. That's why I posted it here, for humans to answer.

 

[Lees]

Just a little off topic, "Lees" - from the time of your signing up here you have spent a great deal of wordage addressing me and my posts. You use "we" as if you are some sort of leader here. You make great boasts about how much of a believer you are, in the Scriptures in general, even ones you seem to have never read. Now in this last post you are getting somewhat personal.

I wonder why. If you are who I think you may be, tread carefully son. I've kept all the documentation from the other site. Keep it on topic.

I use 'we' to identify me as Christian because you used the term 'Christians'. It is Christianity and Christians you attempt to mock in your opening post. You said:

Post #(1)---"To most of Christendom" "The vast majority of Christians"

Post #(3)---"Christians on the other hand"

Thus I said:

Post #(4)---"We don't face any difficulty"

You mean because I say I am Christian you perceive that as a great boast? You perceive that as personal?

There are no Scriptures I have never read.

I have addressed your statements. I have addressed the inconsistancy of your claim as Deist yet believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. You don't mind trying to undermine or demean the Christians faith. But when yours is called into question,...it is personal.

And, I'm not your son and don't know what you're talking about. I have been on topic.

If you don't want to address what I say, I am sure they have an ignore feature on this forum.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

I use 'we' to identify me as Christian because you used the term 'Christians'. It is Christianity and Christians you attempt to mock in your opening post. You said:

Post #(1)---"To most of Christendom" "The vast majority of Christians"

Post #(3)---"Christians on the other hand"

Thus I said:

Post #(4)---"We don't face any difficulty"

Oh, I'm sure you can't speak for Christians, only you. That being said, people who use "we" like you have are assuming the role of spokesman or leader. Just speak for yourself. I'm fair certain few reading this have granted you the right to speak for them.

You mean because I say I am Christian you perceive that as a great boast? You perceive that as personal?

There are no Scriptures I have never read.

Actually, the way you have handled yourself thus far. Nearly everyone here claims the title of Christian, and I've not yet called anyone boastful because of it. What an imagination you have. You do remind of someone.

As for Scriptures you haven't read, you proved in another thread you hadn't read Numbers chapter 11, by making a claim it was about unclean meats. Yet, you claimed to have read it "too many times to count". lol. Painful, man. Painful.

I have addressed your statements. I have addressed the inconsistancy of your claim as Deist yet believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. You don't mind trying to undermine or demean the Christians faith. But when yours is called into question,...it is personal.

Where it becomes personal is where you attack me for my beliefs. Apparently, in your world it's not possible to believe in the Resurrection of Christ and be a Deist. It's also false to say I am purposely undermining or mocking the Christian faith. I am simply expressing my thoughts, conclusion and even doubts about parts of it. If you were so strong in the faith this wouldn't bother you. But it does. What does that say about you?

And, I'm not your son and don't know what you're talking about. I have been on topic.

If you don't want to address what I say, I am sure they have an ignore feature on this forum.

Lees

Oh my bad. That dirty little smelly whore I had sex with didn't bare me a son. Or maybe she did, and it's just not you. lol

 

[Lees]

Oh, I'm sure you can't speak for Christians, only you. That being said, people who use "we" like you have are assuming the role of spokesman or leader. Just speak for yourself. I'm fair certain few reading this have granted you the right to speak for them.


Actually, the way you have handled yourself thus far. Nearly everyone here claims the title of Christian, and I've not yet called anyone boastful because of it. What an imagination you have. You do remind of someone.

As for Scriptures you haven't read, you proved in another thread you hadn't read Numbers chapter 11, by making a claim it was about unclean meats. Yet, you claimed to have read it "too many times to count". lol. Painful, man. Painful.


Where it becomes personal is where you attack me for my beliefs. Apparently, in your world it's not possible to believe in the Resurrection of Christ and be a Deist. It's also false to say I am purposely undermining or mocking the Christian faith. I am simply expressing my thoughts, conclusion and even doubts about parts of it. If you were so strong in the faith this wouldn't bother you. But it does. What does that say about you?


Oh my bad. That dirty little smelly whore I had sex with didn't bare me a son. Or maybe she did, and it's just not you. lol

I use the term 'we', as I showed, to identify with those Christians you addressed in the opening post. If it bothers you that bad, I have no problem saying 'I as a Christian' instead.

You're the one claiming I boasted. I don't recall ever boasting. Perhaps you can show me.

The other thread you are speaking of, "Fish Caught In An Evil Net", I just now replied to. My alerts don't always work so I was late in my reply. Perhaps if you read it, some of the pain will go away. But, then again, it may get worse.

I see. When you mock the Christian faith, it is just you expressing your thoughts. But when I address your beliefs, it becomes personal. Your undermining, and mocking the Christian faith doesn't bother me. I simply am addressing it. For some reason that seems to bother you.

As to Deism and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the two are opposed beliefs.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

I use the term 'we', as I showed, to identify with those Christians you addressed in the opening post. If it bothers you that bad, I have no problem saying 'I as a Christian' instead.

Oh it doesn't bother me, I just see it as a manipulative tactic for message board bullies.

You're the one claiming I boasted. I don't recall ever boasting. Perhaps you can show me.

Well you can start with your claim that you read Numbers 11 "too many times to count", like anyone was supposed to be impressed with that. Now you've gone back and actually read it and "explained yourself", lol. It's obvious from your original comment on "unclean meats" that you are not likely to have read it at all at that point in the conversation.

The other thread you are speaking of, "Fish Caught In An Evil Net", I just now replied to. My alerts don't always work so I was late in my reply. Perhaps if you read it, some of the pain will go away. But, then again, it may get worse.

No, I just laughed.

I see. When you mock the Christian faith, it is just you expressing your thoughts. But when I address your beliefs, it becomes personal. Your undermining, and mocking the Christian faith doesn't bother me. I simply am addressing it. For some reason that seems to bother you.

Of course it bothers you that I am asking honest questions that may be uncomfortable. You call this "mocking" and "undermining" as if I had some grand plan to overthrow what-you-understand-as "Christianity", which I find very amusing. Had I the power...oh, lol.

As to Deism and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the two are opposed beliefs.

Lees

Because you've looked into Deism in depth in your Christian walk and know this, or just because you like to be contentious? Deists come in all flavors. At the core we acknowledge one Creator, as evidenced by the Creation. Some hold religious beliefs beyond this and this is not at all at odds with Deism. You're an American, so you should be familiar with Thomas Jefferson. He was a Deist. He admired Christ. He didn't believe in miracles, however, and I have no idea whether he believed in the Resurrection. But he did admire the teachings of Christ. That's one Deist. Another Deist may not believe in Christ at all. Another Deist may believe more than Jefferson. Another Deist may have leanings in another direction. We are free to use our minds to explore, agree with, reject or claim to not know about any particular subject, religious or not.

But none of this is what you want to hear. You simply don't like this freedom we have. As a Christian, you should rejoice that I believe in a resurrected Christ...but you don't, and that's not strange to me, because I don't perceive you as a graceful servant, patient and tolerant of views not your own. You are something else. Something more ugly.

 

[Lees]

Oh it doesn't bother me, I just see it as a manipulative tactic for message board bullies.


Well you can start with your claim that you read Numbers 11 "too many times to count", like anyone was supposed to be impressed with that. Now you've gone back and actually read it and "explained yourself", lol. It's obvious from your original comment on "unclean meats" that you are not likely to have read it at all at that point in the conversation.

No, I just laughed.


Of course it bothers you that I am asking honest questions that may be uncomfortable. You call this "mocking" and "undermining" as if I had some grand plan to overthrow what-you-understand-as "Christianity", which I find very amusing. Had I the power...oh, lol.


Because you've looked into Deism in depth in your Christian walk and know this, or just because you like to be contentious? Deists come in all flavors. At the core we acknowledge one Creator, as evidenced by the Creation. Some hold religious beliefs beyond this and this is not at all at odds with Deism. You're an American, so you should be familiar with Thomas Jefferson. He was a Deist. He admired Christ. He didn't believe in miracles, however, and I have no idea whether he believed in the Resurrection. But he did admire the teachings of Christ. That's one Deist. Another Deist may not believe in Christ at all. Another Deist may believe more than Jefferson. Another Deist may have leanings in another direction. We are free to use our minds to explore, agree with, reject or claim to not know about any particular subject, religious or not.

But none of this is what you want to hear. You simply don't like this freedom we have. As a Christian, you should rejoice that I believe in a resurrected Christ...but you don't, and that's not strange to me, because I don't perceive you as a graceful servant, patient and tolerant of views not your own. You are something else. Something more ugly.

So you are feeling a little 'bullied'?

Well, you aksed if I ever read (Num. 11). I gave you an honest answer. Whether you were impressed or not is immaterial to me. If you don't want to know, don't ask. There was no boasting. I have read the Bible too many times to count.

No, I explained my use of 'unclean meats' in the latest post to that subject. I was hoping that if you would go and read the whole chapter that you would understand what I was saying and I wouldn't have to go through the lengthy explanation. But, alas, such was not the case.

You can be amused all you like. Yes, I do call it mocking and undermining. You're correct though. You're 'honest questions' have no power to overthrow a believers faith.

Admiring Christ or his teachings can be acceptable to many faiths. Deist's don't believe God involves Himself miraculously in the affairs of man. They certainly don't believe that Christ rose from the dead which can only be attributed to God and His involvement with man. Thus, as I said, to believe in Desim and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an oxymoron.

If you believed Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then you would believe God intervenes in the affairs of man. Making you not a Deist. You can't have it both ways. I know you want to, but you can't.

There is only one way you can believe both. Listen closely. You may well believe that the Bible is from God. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour and rose from the dead. But you reject Him, God and all. You don't want Him. You don't deny it. But you don't want it or Him. Your Deism is nothing but your rejection of Jesus Christ. You know that it is true but knowing it is true doesn't save.

Lees

 

[XRose]

But not so the angels. There is no Adam or Eve to blame. No forbidden fruit of their ancestors to point to. Angels do not procreate. They are the original "sons of God", and the only procreation that is ever said of them (if the stories are believed) is with humans, long ago, to give birth to the giants, or nephilim.

So I was thinking tonight, why would an Angel rebel? What could possibly be gained? What could give birth to such a dissatisfaction? To rebel? Surely, they must not be perfect - able to be deceived, to be tempted to pride - and yet, unlike the Christian believer, cannot ultimately lay the blame on anyone but themselves.

Like we humans the angels have free will and some thought it would be wonderful to come to Earth and materialise bodies with which to enjoy the sex that we humans find so pleasurable.
I'm glad to see you agree their sinning caused the Nephilim giants.

 

[Joshua1Eight]

I don’t know why an angel would rebel. Never thought about it before.

 

[Nazareth]

You're a Deist, why should you believe this theology? Yet you said to me you believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why should you, a Desist, belive that? Post #(124) in the thread (Common Figure Of Speech).

Scripture is clear why the Angels rebelled. It is found first in the heart of lucifer or satan, the highest angel. (Is. 14:12-17) Pride. The desire to be as God.

The Christians sins are no different then any other's sins...except that they are forgiven. The Christian can and does feel guilt about his sins. God's plan does not remove man's responsibility. Doesn't remove the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer in convicting of sins.

Lees


Lees

Ever wonder how angels could sin in that realm where forgiven sinners will reside after this life?

 

[Lees]

Ever wonder how angels could sin in that realm where forgiven sinners will reside after this life?

Yes, I have considered it...but from a different angle.

My question has been....since angels sinned in that realm, and perfect man, Adam and Eve, sinned, what guarantee is there that it won't happen again?

My answer to your question is...the creature is always less than the Creator. No matter how perfect God makes them, they are not God. Angels or men. And only God's creation of elect and non-elect angels keeps the elect angels from sinning. (1 Tim. 5:21)

My answer to my question for man is...the imputed Righteousness of Jesus Christ to man.

It raises more questions of course. What is your understanding of it?

Lees

 

[Jason76]

I suppose they would rebel for the same reasons humans would. Well, it does say the fallen ones wanted sex with daughters of men. Maybe there was some frustration with God's way doing things.