12 Important Things to Know About Angels

1.) Angels are entirely fictional.

The other 11 points aren't needed.

"Angels are entirely fictional."

Nonsense, you are living proof that angels exist! 

Nonsense, you are living proof that angels exist!

You have a very twisted sense of reality if I am an angel. I like that in a person. 

What is the point? If you think it's dumb, why do you even enter the discussion? What is it with this obsession to attack someone else's beliefs? If you don't like it, don't read it.

What is the point? If you think it's dumb, why do you even enter the discussion? What is it with this obsession to attack someone else's beliefs? If you don't like it, don't read it.

now this comment is humorous ! attacking and criticizing someone for expressing their opinion ... on an opinion website ...   

People seed articles to be read and discussed. Readers find the article ludicrous and say so, that's not an attack. If the seeder feels "attacked" then they shouldn't seed nonsense. 

Or seed it in a private group.

What is the point? If you think it's dumb, why do you even enter the discussion? What is it with this obsession to attack someone else's beliefs? If you don't like it, don't read it.

Palin-does-Jefferson brought it up and I am permitted to inject reality and sarcasm into his thread unless Perrie informs me otherwise. Make these threads a private discussion and I'll stay out of them. 

Or seed it in a private group.

GMTA.

[deleted]

I am permitted to inject reality and sarcasm into his thread

In my opinion, you're off-topic and just trolling the people who are actually interested in the topic.

Make these threads a private discussion and I'll stay out of them. 

Why should that be necessary? Do you go into a photography seed and insist that photography is stupid? Do you go into a sports seed and insist that sports is for fools? Do you go into a science fiction seed and insist that people should only read non-fiction? No. If you don't like those subjects, you just avoid the seed. Instead, in a religious seed, you go out of your way to attack anyone who might be interested in the topic.

People seed articles to be read and discussed.

Attacking religion generally or even the Bible is non-responsive to the seed. It's off-topic in my opinion and serves no purpose except to antagonize believers. 

Did you say that in response to every religion article seeded here to the religion section?  

You are only of the very few on Newstalkers who seems to have a problem with my replies in their threads. Seed them in a private group where you can determine who is admitted if you don't want critical replies in your threads. 

Who's attacking ? I see a lot of comments that disagree with the basic premise of the article: That angels are real.

Attacking religion generally or even the Bible is non-responsive to the seed.

Scrutinizing and/or refuting outrageous claims like angels existing is not attacking religion or anyone. 

It's off-topic in my opinion and serves no purpose except to antagonize believers. 

It's your choice to perceive it as such. Odd how some believers feel threatened when their beliefs and/or religious based claims are challenged.

I wasn’t questioning your right to post on my seeds.

[Deleted] Thank you.

 I am questioning and always will your attempt to limit whether I could have seeded this article here or not.

Nobody is suggesting that you should not have seeded this article. That is not something for me to say, so I would not consider it. I am merely saying that your premise is not logically supported. 

And the counter-question - why don't you seed this articles to a private group?  If you want an echo chamber, you have  one.

Odd how some believers feel threatened when their beliefs and/or religious based claims are challenged.

You take yourself too seriously. No one is threatened by the likes of you. All I am doing is pointing out that your comments are off-topic and posted with what appears to be a clear attempt to derail the topic, which is how the Bible treats angels, not whether or not Gordy or any other atheist believes in them or should.

You take yourself too seriously.

Not at all.

No one is threatened by the likes of you.

Then their reactions would not be so defensive or argumentative.

All I am doing is pointing out that your comments are off-topic and posted with what appears to be a clear attempt to derail the topic,

If that's what you think, then flag any such comments and let the mods decide.

which is how the Bible treats angels, not whether or not Gordy or any other atheist believes in them or should.

How the bible views angels is largely immaterial and otherwise self serving. It doesn't support any claims to the effect of angels being real. So don't be surprised when the bible gets called out and/or scrutinized  for it. 

There is only one important thing to know about angels.  It’s the same single important thing to know about God.  Many people still haven’t figured it out yet though.

You mean that whole superstition and mythology made up by some ancient dude thingy?

Satan was an angel before he rebelled against God.

How exactly does one rebel against an omnipotent and omniscient being? It's impossible.

Even if we ignore that problem, why was 'angel Satan' able to rebel in the first place? Why didn't God just open up a can of whoop ass on him? Is Satan equal in power to God or something? Is he stronger? Must be if God can't stop him from crapping all over his glorious creation, or from leading his beloved children astray.

3. Angels are created beings. Angels were never people. People will never be angels. Angels are God's servants and only carry out His will.

Why would an omnipotent being need slaves, um, I mean servants to do its bidding, let alone an army of them to "rain down fire and destruction on the enemy's forces"? Who's supposed to have made the bad guys, anyway?

those who reject Jesus will live forever in hell

Uh huh. Because God, being omnipotent and omniscient, made people specifically for that purpose? See how evil that makes God sound?

Perhaps there weren't many critical thinkers in the ancient Middle East when this poorly concocted fiction first started making the rounds, but how does this shit still make sense to so many people today?

The other problem with the Satan nonsense is, rather than destroy Satan outright for rebelling, God decided to banish him to Earth where he can run around freely and screw with people. Yet god then blames us when we mess up and sends us to hell while Satan continues to run loose. God doesn't do anything to deal with Satan and takes no responsibility for his own acrions. God just passes the blame. It's like some cosmic joke or game. Theists can't even say what Satan has done that is so bad, especially compared to the atrocities god has done. 

"We must question the storied logic of having an all knowing god who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ---Gene Roddenberry.  

That's philosophical rhetoric. If god is good or perfect, then he could not have created or allowed evil to exist. If god did create or allow evil, then that makes god malevolent, which means god cannot be perfect or all good. If god did want humans to experience evil, then god should not blame or punish humans when they engage in evil.

It sounds like you are saying that God and Satan are essentially the same entity.  That makes infinitely more sense than them being two different entities, but I’m still not buying either scenario.

God seems to have a Jekyll and Hyde complex going on.

Many theists seem to believe god is good, or otherwise try to rationalize the evil acts god committed. Many also claim or act as if they know the purposes of the grandest entity possible. But human religions, while cultural, are also expressions of myths and superstitions. But religion and theists like to believe or claim there is s god even though there is no evidence of one. So there's no reason to assume or believe there is one, outside of cultural influence or emotional need.

The concept of Satan is tied into the eternal question of "why does God allow evil?"

Satan was created so "god" didn't have to take the blame for anything bad that happened. 

Your first part is an explanation. That is OK. But then you get to this:

 Those who accept this by faith will be in heaven with eternal life as Adam and Eve will be restored to while those who refuse will simply die forever for their own sins and be eternally separated from God.  God is Just and not to blame for Satans rebellion or any of its effects.  

That is past the part of explanation and into a sales pitch and that is the meaning of proselytizing. The only reason I let it stand is for you to understand the difference and to respect the sites rules. 

I agree with what you say there except I do not see belief is a choice. If I said I choose to believe it doesn’t change the fact that I really don’t. I would be lying to myself.  

Without "evil" , we could not experience good. If God set up a referential framework for human beings concerning their experience of existence, He had to include experiences that contradict one another, or else everything would be the same.

I can experience and appreciate gravity while never experiencing the opposite. Gravity just is, from the human experience, anyway. If a person believes God made gravity along with everything else, and permeated the entire universe with it, then it's a perfect example of a one-sided thing existing everywhere while lacking a contradictory opposite for contrast. 

If God truly abhors evil, pain and suffering and wanted a creation that was 'good', so to speak, then he really could have just made it that way.

Either he's not all-powerful and all-knowing, or he isn't actually all that 'good'. Which is it?

This expounds the virtue of a specific faith, and that is not allowed. I wonder how forgiving if this was some other faith?

Discussion of religion here is not to push any particular faith, but rather to discuss and debate on a philosophical level. 

So for one last time: proselytizing is not nor was it ever allowed on this site. That is part of our CoC. 

His statement of belief ended when he brought up what would bring salvation. If he wants to do that, there are plenty of other sites that want that, but the last time I checked we were called the NewsTalkers. 

If God had simply wiped the thought of rebellion from Lucifer’s mind He would have taken away our free will and our right to choose whether to accept him or not.

please explain how God wiping thoughts from an angel's mind would affect your free will since you would never have known it happened because the event (Satan rebelling) wouldn't have existed. It makes no sense. If God would have wiped the thoughts of rebelling from Satan's mind then Satan would not have rebelled and you would never know the difference so it doesn't affect your freewill whatsoever.

Also, please explain: Angels are sole obedient servants of God and have no free will (that was only given to Humans and not angels) so how can an Angel have thoughts of rebelling and act upon it without free will ?

We would have then become unquestioning obedient automatons.

it seems that many of the religious are just that

God would not have let the universe and all His creation see the real effects of Satans rebellion or be able to judge for themselves whether God or Satan was right or if God was just if He simply destroyed Satan and his following angels on the spot.

That's an unnecessary step, and one which caused people great pain or suffering throughout history (if you believe biblical nonsense). If Satan was immediately destroyed, then there would be no problems at all. In other words, a paradise. The effects of rebellion would be immaterial. Man did not "rebel" until Satan encouraged him to do so. 

There would always have been doubt and all would have then worshipped God out of fear what He might do to them rather than out of love.

You base that assumption upon what exactly? If man knew god existed and made life perfect, then why would man have to doubt anything? There would be no fear.

If God had simply wiped the thought of rebellion from Lucifer’s mind He would have taken away our free will and our right to choose whether to accept him or not.

Then god cannot get upset if anyone doubts him or refuses to worship him. Also, the concept of an all knowing, all powerful god negates the idea of free will.

We would have then become unquestioning obedient automatons.

Isn't that what god wanted from the beginning: people to believe and worship him?

When Satan was expelled from heaven he tempted all of God’s created beings across the universe and our world was the only one that fell for it.

If Satan was banished to Earth because of rebellion, then how did he travel the universe? That seems like poor planning on god's part.

God is giving Satan a time to play out his rebellion and let the universe witness that He is just.

While we mere mortals get caught in the middle and have to suffer for god's ineptitude and indifference. A god who allows such things to happen can hardly be considered "just."

His death redeemed the entire human race from sin and its effects, permanent death and separation from God.

The typical theistic get out of hell free card.

Those who accept this by faith will be in heaven with eternal life as Adam and Eve will be restored to while those who refuse will simply die forever for their own sins and be eternally separated from God.

In other words, one can be the biggest dirtbag around. But as long as they believe in Jesus, then they're ok.

God is Just and not to blame for Satans rebellion or any of its effects.

Sure he is! God is the one who banished Satan from Earth. he's the one who allows Satan to run round doing whatever, while god sits back and watches. If people saw what Satan did to Jesus and what Jesus was like, then there was no reason for god to let Satan run loose any longer. God most certainly shares responsibility and part of the blame for Satan's actions. Although, I  have yet to hear anyone explain what Satan has done that is so bad, especially comparted to what god has done, according to the bible. God created his Frankenstein monster, presumably knowing in advance what would happen. So god should own it!

proselytizing is not nor was it ever allowed on this site

Excuse me for butting in. This prompted a question in me. Isn't coming into a seed like this and insisting that angels don't exist or that people who believe in them are deluded fools (or similar language) also a form of proselytizing?

To me, the seed was simply a presentation of how angels are portrayed in the Bible. If insisting that they are real is against the rules, surely insisting they are not real must also be against the rules.

Isn't coming into a seed like this and insisting that angels don't exist or that people who believe in them are deluded fools (or similar language) also a form of proselytizing?

No.

To me, the seed was simply a presentation of how angels are portrayed in the Bible.

Then some responses dispute that "presentation."

If insisting that they are real is against the rules, surely insisting they are not real must also be against the rules.

Not at all. Angels are a religious concept, and one without any supporting empirical evidence. So insisting angels are real is essentially promoting a religious concept, which can be viewed as proselytizing. Stating they are not real is simply a logical conclusion based on the lack of supporting empirical evidence.

Stating they are not real is simply a logical conclusion based on the lack of supporting empirical evidence.

No, it's not. Lack of supporting empirical data does not support the assertion that angels don't exist. If you had empirical evidence demonstrating they don't exist, then your conclusion would follow logically.

The fact is there is an oral historical tradition passed down over many generations and finally written down indicating that several someones may have had experiences with angels. No empirical evidence exists to directly contradict those accounts. There are also other accounts that don't appear in the Bible.

A lack of empirical evidence for these events does not prove that they didn't happen. To be logical and fair, you should be saying that angels might or might not exist, but you do not have grounds for saying they don't exist as a certainty. The only honest position you can hold on angels is that you don't know if they exist. You are free to believe they don't exist, but you don't know. Insisting on sharing your belief is proselytizing.

Lack of supporting empirical data does not support the assertion that angels don't exist.

Of course not. But the lack of evidence does not support any claims for angels existing. Therefore, there is no logical reason to assume angels exist, and any such claims of their existence is both without merit, unjustified, and unconvincing.

If you had empirical evidence demonstrating they don't exist, then your conclusion would follow logically.

Except one cannot prove the non-existence of something. 

The fact is there is an oral historical tradition passed down over many generations and finally written down indicating that several someones may have had experiences with angels.

No, that just means people told stories and perhaps tried to pass it down as fact. Not to mention storytelling is anecdotal at best and not valid empirical evidence. For all you know, any such stories may have been or meant as fiction. Not to mention how stories can change over time with each telling, like a game of telephone.

No empirical evidence exists to directly contradict those accounts.

There is no empirical evidence to support those accounts either. See first statement.

There are also other accounts that don't appear in the Bible.

Which means absolutely nothing if it's not backed by evidence.

A lack of empirical evidence for these events does not prove that they didn't happen.

Again, no one is saying that it didn't, at least not with absolute certainty. But the lack of evidence doesn't support such events occurring either. But any such occurrence is probably highly unlikely, given the lack of evidence. Believing that such events occurred without evidence is little more than wishful thinking.

To be logical and fair, you should be saying that angels might or might not exist, but you do not have grounds for saying they don't exist as a certainty.

I didn't say they don't exist with absolute certainty. But one should not make a claim of certainty they exist either without evidence to back it up. To do so is intellectually dishonest and irrational.

The only honest position you can hold on angels is that you don't know if they exist.

No, the honest position is that there is no evidence for the existence of angels so any affirmative claims to that effect is unconvincing and unjustified. One cannot honestly say with absolute certainty that angels do or do not exist. but the lack of evidence does not support the existence of angels and there is no logical reason to believe or accept claims that they do.

You are free to believe they don't exist,

I've made no mention of my beliefs and a lack of belief is not a belief in itself. it's simply being unconvinced.

but you don't know.

Neither do theists. yet they seem to claim with certainty (or a large degree of certainty) that angels (or other supernatural phenomenon) exist. They only think or believe they "know." But they always fail to produce the evidence to back said beliefs up.

Insisting on sharing your belief is proselytizing.

Glad we agree on that. Fortunately, that is not something I do.

The proselytizing for atheism

Sounds like an oxymoron.

A lack of empirical evidence for these events does not prove that they didn't happen.

True.   Lack of evidence is never proof that something does not exist.   For example, we have zero evidence that exolife exists.   But clearly NASA, et. al. are actively researching the cosmos gathering information in search of same.   Right now we have access to such a minuscule portion of the cosmos and have searched for such a short time that the lack of evidence is quite reasonable.   We have barely scratched the surface.

However, in the distant future, if we have searched the vast majority of the known universe (advanced technology) and found no signs of exolife, we will likely have a very different position.   Instead of a wide frontier where anything can happen we will have been there and done that with the same results.    The repeated consistent failure to find exolife coupled with running out of places to look will naturally lead to the notion that exolife likely does not exist.    The lack of evidence is -at that point- supporting the notion that exolife does not exist.

Moving now to angels, we have books claiming contacts with angels.   We have the concept of angels passed down through the generations in various forms.   Yet in all of recorded history we have zero evidence of angels.   Thousands of years with no evidence - only mere claims in books and oral tradition (both unreliable and errant).

Angels might exist, but we have as much evidence of angels as we have of the Greek and Roman gods (who might indeed exist as well).   On the flip side, billions of people over recorded history have been highly motivated to deliver evidence of angels.    Yet they have all failed to make the evidence available for objective scrutiny.    The lack of evidence coupled with the number of motivated searchers over thousands of years (or even hundreds of years for that matter) argues against the notion that angels exist (but does not prove it).

proselytizing for atheism

There is no empirical evidence to support those accounts either.

Not everyone relies solely on empiricism for knowledge. No one here has ever claimed that their religious beliefs were based on that. There are other paths to knowledge and you use them freely except when you are trying to attack religion. We could be discussing almost anything else and you would freely accept circumstantial evidence or the word of people you trust. You would exercise powers of deductive or inductive reasoning as you found it appropriate.

But when it comes to religion, only empiricism will do. You are aware that others who believe approach it with a more open mind, but for whatever reason, you want to reject it and the surest way to confirm your bias is by insisting on empiricism, which you know very well is never going to be suited to the task.

storytelling is anecdotal at best and not valid empirical evidence

I never claimed storytelling was empirical. You are the one who insists on empiricism, not me. Therefore, it is valid to attack your arguments from an empirical perspective, but not mine.

I didn't say they don't exist with absolute certainty.

Actually, you have. See below.

the honest position is that there is no evidence for the existence of angels

There is a lot of evidence. It's just not the kind of thing you can recreate in a lab.

I've made no mention of my beliefs

Yes, you actually have. You have said over and over that angels are not real and they do not exist. Repeatedly. Saying you don't believe (which you do sometimes - especially when you're being called out on it) is subtly, but critically different from what you also say, which is that angels don't exist. I'll quote you:

Me: The topic of the seed is not "do angels exist?" or "can the Bible be believed?"

You: The answer to both questions is a likely no!

You have no empirical evidence that proves a likelihood of angels existing one way or the other. Yet you insist that it's "likely" they don't exist. You can't prove it empirically, so by your own standard, you are expressing a belief, and doing it with certainty. I will quote you further on this point:

Stating they are not real is simply a logical conclusion

Angels themselves are crazy myths!

It's simple fact that such a fallacy is not credible.

outrageous claims like angels existing

the Satan nonsense

human religions, while cultural, are also expressions of myths and superstitions

I'm sure there are plenty of religious sites where you can post religious or proselytizing nonsense

You seem pretty sure. Pretty certain. None of those statements are saying to me that you are a person with an open mind waiting for more information before reaching a conclusion. 

Not everyone relies solely on empiricism for knowledge.   No one here has ever claimed that their religious beliefs were based on that. 

I think you are correct.

What other form of knowledge then are religious beliefs based on other than accepting on faith what some other human being has claimed is true?

From what I have observed, religious beliefs are almost always founded on ancient books.   If the books are found to be mere words of ancient men with imagination and agenda the substance of the belief would be gone.

Now, is that correct?   Is there a foundation for most religious beliefs (or a specific one such as Christianity) that does not depend upon the divinity of ancient books?   If so, this could be an interesting discussion.

Not everyone relies solely on empiricism for knowledge.

It's not just about the knowledge. it's about the veracity of that knowledge. One can be knowledgeable in religion, but that doesn't make religious claims (such as god) factual or true.

No one here has ever claimed that their religious beliefs were based on that.

Really? how many here alone have claimed their god is real, as matter of fact? I can name a few.

There are other paths to knowledge and you use them freely except when you are trying to attack religion.

Scrutinizing or challenging religion, especially its claims, is not attacking, no matter how much you think otherwise!

We could be discussing almost anything else and you would freely accept circumstantial evidence or the word of people you trust.

Such as?

You would exercise powers of deductive or inductive reasoning as you found it appropriate.

It's called logical analysis. Religious belief and some of its claims is obviously quite illogical.

But when it comes to religion, only empiricism will do.

Nope! I prefer empirical evidence for any claim, religious or otherwise. So stop play the victim here!

You are aware that others who believe approach it with a more open mind,

Are believers open minded enough to acknowledge that their beliefs might be wrong?

but for whatever reason, you want to reject it and the surest way to confirm your bias is by insisting on empiricism,

How else would you confirm or support something? Wishful thinking? Or do you simply accept anything anyone tells you, no questions asked or challenge given?

which you know very well is never going to be suited to the task.

Which is why I reject certain religious claims, especially the more extraordinary ones. Why should they be accepted at face value?

Not everyone relies solely on empiricism for knowledge.

Knowledge? I have knowledge of things like the Star Trek universe, the Harry Potter universe, Tolkien's Middle Earth, etc., but that doesn't make them real.

There are other paths to knowledge and you use them freely except when you are trying to attack religion. We could be discussing almost anything else and you would freely accept circumstantial evidence or the word of people you trust.

I know this was meant for Gordy, and I'm not trying to speak for him, but when it comes to claims about the history of the universe or the nature of reality itself, there is no path to knowledge other than epiricism. You can make direct observations of actually-existing evidence, and you can make deductions that have been logically inferred from actually-existing evidence, but you can't make claims that reject or contradict actually-existing evidence (like the claim that all humans descend from 2 original people, Adam and Eve, because we have actually-existing biological and genetic evidence showing not only that it isn't true, but that it's impossible).

There is a lot of evidence. It's just not the kind of thing you can recreate in a lab.

Really? There's lots of evidence for angels? Could you name some?

If God had simply wiped the thought of rebellion from Lucifer’s mind He would have taken away our free will and our right to choose whether to accept him or not.

So you're saying that the only reason we have free will is thanks to Satan?  Okay, thank you Satan.

If God had simply wiped the thought of rebellion from Lucifer’s mind He would have taken away our free will and our right to choose whether to accept him or not.  We would have then become unquestioning obedient automatons.

So God tried to create automatons, but thanks to Satan we have become human beings with free will?  Well you are definitely convincing me that God is evil and Satan is the good guy in all of this.

God is giving Satan a time to play out his rebellion and let the universe witness that He is just. 

Sorry, but everything you have said shows that Satan is the just one and God is the evil slave creator.

God is Just and not to blame for Satans rebellion or any of its effects.

In your own words, God created slaves (automatons) and only Satan was able to free the slaves.  Perhaps Heaven is just a return to the original (automatons), whereas Hell is actually the only place after death that you still have free will.

So you're saying that the only reason we have free will is thanks to Satan? Okay, thank you Satan.

We also have knowledge too, thanks to Satan. Thank you indeed.

Well you are definitely convincing me that God is evil and Satan is the good guy in all of this.

I have often asked, what has Satan done that is so bad, especially compared to what god has done? Funny how theists never seem to have an answer.

but everything you have said shows that Satan is the just one and God is the evil slave creator.

Don't forget, god didn't even prohibit slavery nor include it in one of the Commandments. Evil slave creator to be sure.

God created slaves (automatons) and only Satan was able to free the slaves. Perhaps Heaven is just a return to the original (automatons), whereas Hell is actually the only place after death that you still have free will.

I hear Hell also has some great parties (South Park reference).

what has Satan done that is so bad

He was kinda shitty to Job and his kids.  With God's permission and encouragement, though.

He was kinda shitty to Job and his kids.  With God's permission and encouragement, though.

Yeah, god deserves more of the blame on that one. He was an accomplice and instigator who threw Job under the proverbial bus. Or would it be chariot? 

And Job's innocent kids.  At least Job lived.  The first bunch of kids died.  But God gave him more, and one kid is just like any other kid, I guess.

what has Satan done that is so bad,

As near as I can tell he committed the terrible and heinous act of disagreeing with his loving and forgiving creator (who knowingly created him to do just what he did). 

As near as I can tell he committed the terrible and heinous act of disagreeing with his loving and forgiving creator (who knowingly created him to do just what he did). 

God seems to blame everyone but himself for his mistakes. I guess that's a perk of being a god.

And Job's innocent kids.  At least Job lived.  The first bunch of kids died. 

God never seemed too careful about who got caught in his retributive blast radius. It's just collateral damage.

But God gave him more, and one kid is just like any other kid, I guess.

Yeah, because a replacement kid totally makes up for the loss of a previous one, right? >sarc<

but how does this shit still make sense to so many people today?

Weak minded folks need to believe in a god in order to give their lives meaning, since they are incapable of giving their own lives meaning. I do not mean that as an insult. 

This seed is a CoC violation : Members are not allowed to proselytize on the site.

I remember meeting an Angel at a peeler bar I used to bounce at when I was younger

I, for one, will thank you for the seed. It's an aspect of God that I think we don't think about a lot.

Of the many things in the bible, I find Angels to be an interesting topic

Charlie never showed himself to his Angels.

( It was a G rated show )

( It was a G rated show )

Well played TiG... LOL

Charlie never showed himself to his Angels

He knew the #metoo movement would catch up to him someday if he did...

The one thing we know about angels: Squat.