12 Important Things to Know About Angels
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I’m starting a message series on Revelation, and there are a few angel references in there. And for many folks, it's easy to pass over the angels. We read like this, "blah blah blah blah angel blah blah blah."
But if we were living what we were reading, like Daniel being visited by Gabriel in Daniel 8, we might react this way, "OH MY GOODNESS!!! IT'S AN ANGEL! I THINK HE MAY CRUSH ME WITH HIS STARE! HE'S FANTASTICALLY INCREDIBLY MASSIVELY POWERFUL AND AMAZING!!!!" Then we might faint.
David, come on. Really? Are you kidding? Angels are NOT that big a deal. I googled the word "angel" and here's what I now know:
A 19th century hand-carved wooden angel is on display on the altar of Holy Family Catholic Church Saturday, Dec. 23, 2006 in Chicago after two years of restoration and gilding with 23-carat gold leaf. | (Photo: AP / M. Spencer Green) 1. Angels are always women or squishy chubby babies.
2. Angels are people who died (Clarence from It's A Wonderful Life).
3. You can attract angels with "angel treats" like candles and fragrances.
4. With the right internet guru, you can get "messages from your personal angel." And if that doesn't work for you the same website will help you with past life regressions, numerology and tin foil hats.
5. Angels always wear long robes and look like they're ready for the spa.
6. You can put a pin shaped like an angel on your lapel, and it will magically be your guardian angel.
7. You should pray to your angel. His name will be revealed through hypnosis or LSD or the purchase of a sea monkey farm.
8. Your dog has a personal angel unless of course he IS an angel.
9. If you dream you are falling and hit bottom, you actually die in real life.
10. JOKING! I made that last one up — just like some yahoo made up the other eight! Crazy stuff.
Angels are awe-inspiring and astounding, and if you ever saw one in its natural form, you'd probably fall to the ground in shock.
So that you don't go around spreading crazy angel myths, here are some things you have to know about angels:
1. Only three angels are named in the Bible — two are Gabriel and Michael. Both are excellent and uber impressive (not car ride Uber, excellent uber). The third is Lucifer — and he's also impressive but for all the wrong reasons. Satan was an angel before he rebelled against God.
2. Angels are never presented in the Bible as squishy infants or women , but always tough men or warriors. Like "bad-to-the-bone" warriors. More on this when we get to number five below.
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. People are created by God and if in Christ will live with God forever as … people. With glorified bodies that don't have any defects and never get hurt or get tired. But still people. Even those who reject Jesus will live forever in hell as … people.
4. You can't attract angels with fragrances or scented candles (but don't let that deter you from using deodorant "fragrances"). You can't attract angels with anything! They do what God tells them to do.
5. Angels don't show up dressed for the spa. In fact, when Elisha prays that his servant can see the army of angels in 2 Kings, the Scripture says it's an "army of angels." Not a "coffee klatch" of angels, or a, "gaggle of angels," "flock of angels," or a "sorority of angels."
God says "army." MAJOR point to remember for reading the Bible: God is never at a loss for words or tongue-tied or uses the wrong words. So when He says an "army of angels," He says that knowing that you and I will picture a group of burly warriors ready to rain down fire and destruction on the enemy's forces.
6. You should never pray to angels. Prayer is an act of worship and we only worship God. Also, Jesus was very clear about how to pray. He said to pray like this, "Our Father…." Anakin Skywalker may be Luke's father, but no angel will ever be your father. Pray to your Father. Pray like Jesus.
7. The Bible doesn't say your dog can't be an angel. I suppose an angel can show up in whatever form God wants it to. But if that's the case, it's not your dog. It's God's angel. And no … your dog does NOT have a personal angel.
8. Angels can appear as people. This happens with Abraham in Genesis 8:2.
9. Angels can bring death, but only when sent by the Lord. There is no specific "angel of death" mentioned in the Bible. In 2 Kings 19 an "Angel of the Lord" brings about death.
10. Just because something is beautiful doesn't mean it's of God. Satan, that former angel of the Lord, can masquerade as an "angel of light." Sometimes kittens are cute. But they still grow up to be cats.
Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. Or kitty. | (Photo: Dave Ruzicka) 11. You may have been around angels in your life and didn't even realize it.
Hebrews 13:2 says "Don't forget to show hospitality to strangers, for some who have done this have entertained angels without realizing it!"
Abraham didn't recognize when angels came to see him. Jacob sure didn't (although he didn't show hospitality — he wrestled with the angel all night!).
So there you go — 11 great things to know about angels.
SO WHAT IS THE "SO WHAT?" David?
Here's the "so what," and it does boggle the mind a bit:
God, the Creator and Master of all that exists, has armies of angels loaded for bear.
And what does He do with them? Our loving and compassionate and ridiculously wonderful God "will command His angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways." Psalm 91:11.
Concerning me? Who am I? I'm a nothing! I'm a nobody! I'm one of seven billion on the planet.
And yet time and again in Scripture, He commands His armies to watch over His people , protect His people , and even serve His people . For those in Christ, God is always and in every way taking care of business and employing His massive resources, which includes armies of angels that may be around you right now, and He does it to "guard you in all your ways."
So take heart. God is good. And He's commanding His angels … concerning you.
Amen.
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
“Angels are awe-inspiring and astounding, and if you ever saw one in its natural form, you'd probably fall to the ground in shock.
So that you don't go around spreading crazy angel myths, here are some things you have to know about angels:
1. Only three angels are named in the Bible — two are Gabriel and Michael. Both are excellent and uber impressive (not car ride Uber, excellent uber). The third is Lucifer — and he's also impressive but for all the wrong reasons. Satan was an angel before he rebelled against God.”
1.) Angels are entirely fictional.
The other 11 points aren't needed.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I disagree and accept the literal wording of the Old and New Testament regarding them. All three Abrahamic religions believe that they are real.
The operative term is believe. A belief is an unsupported opinion that is the opposite of objective fact.
The Bible or any other of those other books is not the word of your god because it didn't fall from the sky. Those books are the word of man who lacked the ability to understand the world around them so they created fictional characters to explain what they did not understand. They also believed in sea monsters, unicorns, and dragons.
Belief does not equal fact. Many religions believe different things. That doesn't automatically mean the object of those beliefs are real or rue.
That sounded more factual than opinion.
That is your prerogative. But unless you can actually prove angels exist, then it's your own belief, and nothing more.
Angels themselves are crazy myths!
THAT'S an opinion.
All of which was written by humans, not god.
The Bible was written by men with direct inspiration from God. It is His love letter to us that contains the way to eternal life within it if followed.
so it wasn't written by your God and you have no direct proof it was even "dictated" to these men by your God - yet you still believe your indoctrination of it ? oddly, i'm sure you'd demand some kind of proof of Trump committing crimes or climate change being real or a number of other things... right ?
It is and it’s one based on literal reading of the Torah, The Holy Bible, or the Koran. Every observant Jew, Christian, and Muslim knows that Angels are just as real as God Himself is.
They only think or believe god and angels are real. Children think Santa and the Easter Bunny are real too. But no one can or ever has proven either. And mere belief does not equal fact !
That comment goes both ways you know. Your belief in something or your belief in it nonexistence does not equal fact either.
Quite correct. Evidence is what matters. People can believe anything.
But I do not see Gordy stating angels cannot possibly exist. He instead spoke of the fact that belief in angels lacks corroborating evidence - that the existence of angels is not an established fact.
Ask Gordy if it is possible that angels exist.
BELIEVES, not KNOWS. BIG difference.
Without proof, is a belief. KNOWS is based on factual evidence, which is not applicable in this case since there is NO PROOF.
And one can even note there is no evidence. Not even having evidence is quite a far cry from proof.
The fact is that there will never be the hard proof the deniers seek. The Bible is clear and was when Jesus was on trial that those who refuse to consider belief and demanded signs and wonders or a miracle that they might believe were answered with silence. Blessed are those whom not seeing, believe is what he said. All of humanity that ever lived since Jesus returned to Heaven are going to live and die without ever seeing the signs and wonders they seek and end up in heaven or hell based only on living by faith according to the best light they have been shown in their lifetime regardless. Those who were never exposed to Christianity in that time or to the example that was Israel from Abraham to the beginning of the New Testament will be in heaven if they lived by faith according to the best light they were shown in their lifetime.
You cannot use the bible to prove the existence of god since it was written by HUMANS that were biased in the EXTREME 400 years after Christ died.
This is an example of circular thinking and religious apologetics. The Bible isn't true because you believe that it is true.
Such a lovely fear-mongering thought.
Believe in my God or suffer eternal damnation!!
The grandest possible entity - the perfect arbiter of objective morality - is going to torture His creatures for all eternity if during a relatively brief life they were never convinced He exists. Yet He offers no evidence of His existence - a grand game of hide and go seek. The worst fate imaginable all because some people do not blindly accept as truth what other human beings merely tell them.
Ah, but there's also this, from MBFC's #5.1.8:
All who live their lives by faith according to the best light they have been shown in their lives are assured of eternal life in Gods presence and a limitless universe to explore. It doesn’t get more simple than that. No one who wants to be saved and spend the ceaseless ages of all eternity with God will be turned away.
Amazing how some claim to know the mind of the grandest possible entity.
And amusing that either God or their ideas about his motivations are so very contradictory.
Okay. Well when I see God and He asks me if I want to go to Hell to be tortured for all of eternity I will tell him that I do not choose that option.
It is not false because you say it is.
A logical fallacy: the burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim. By your *ahem* logic, unless you can prove fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes do not exist, then it's your belief they do not. And I made no mention of my beliefs.
It's not true because you think/believe it is either. But the bible does not provide any empirical evidence, especially not for its more grandiose claims, like god, Satan, angels, or the like.
My "beliefs" is irrelevant. It's all about the evidence. There is no objective, empirical evidence to support any claim that angels exist. Therefore, there is no logical reason to believe or assume they do.
"Inspired" do not equate to actual or validity. Many authors are "inspired" to write a story. That doesn't mean their stories are not works of fiction.
That's just a belief.
That's because there is no such proof, or even evidence. Any "denial" is based on that lack of evidence or proof. Why would anyone accept something as fact or true when there is no proof/evidence?
Accepting something as true or fact without evidence is a sign of gullibility at best.
Or delusional.
Still just proselytizing nonsense, and nothing more than mere belief.
Still just a declaration, not evidence.
Which proves absolutely nothing.
To one with faith, no alternative (or rational) explanation is accepted. But thanks for showing those with faith seem to settle for very little.
Try a logical and reasoned explanation then. Bonus points for the inclusion of objective, empirical evidence.
That isn't how logic works. Jefferson and others are making a positive claim that angels do in fact exist so the burden of proof is on them to empirically prove that their claim to be true. In the absence of the supporting facts to prove their claim to be true, we automatically revert to the idea that angels do not exist. We have an idea of unicorns, sea monsters and other creatures existing but the fact that we have an idea of them doesn't mean that they actually exist. The fact that I cannot prove a negative is apparently not understood by you.
Please acquaint yourself with Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy for further understanding of logical arguments.
Faith and belief are the absence of empirical fact. Logically you are sticking your head in the sand and choosing to ignore all evidence to the contrary because you agree with something that you cannot prove.
I'll see your teleological argument and raise you one Bertrand Russell.
Still true none the less.
Channeling Gordy:
"That's nice. Prove it!"
Can you prove Santa Clause doesn't exist?
The man Santa was modeled after lived and died many centuries ago.
How can he be dead when he's still delivering gifts to children every year?
Maybe he's just hard to find, you know, living at the North Pole and all.
You erroneously presume too much.
I think he’s right on.
You're free to be wrong too then.
The bottom line.
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.
Well said. What you suggest would actually be logical.
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.
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.
GMTA.
Nonsense to you is not to me and vice versa.
Did you say that in response to every religion article seeded here to the religion section?
[deleted]
In my opinion, you're off-topic and just trolling the people who are actually interested in the topic.
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.
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.
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.
So very well and correctly said. Great post.
True. The article was limited to the discussion of Angels.
Scrutinizing and/or refuting outrageous claims like angels existing is not attacking religion or anyone.
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. I am questioning and always will your attempt to limit whether I could have seeded this article here or not.
[Deleted] Thank you.
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.
That has been the question here since day one.
And the counter-question - why don't you seed this articles to a private group? If you want an echo chamber, you have one.
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.
Not at all.
Then their reactions would not be so defensive or argumentative.
If that's what you think, then flag any such comments and let the mods decide.
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.
Great points made. Well done!
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?
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.
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?
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.
Satan was created so "god" didn't have to take the blame for anything bad that happened.
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. 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. 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. 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. God is giving Satan a time to play out his rebellion and let the universe witness that He is just. They all saw what Satan did to Jesus after he lived a human life as Adam’s substitute sinless proving His law just and one that could be followed by all His creation. His death redeemed the entire human race from sin and its effects, permanent death and separation from God. 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.
Simply direct answering several comments opposed to my view or questioning it with my own opinion in opposition to that viewpoint with my view point is not proselytizing. I’m simply defending what I believe from points made on the other side.
Your first part is an explanation. That is OK. But then you get to this:
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.
Thank you.
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.
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 ?
it seems that many of the religious are just that
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.
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.
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.
Isn't that what god wanted from the beginning: people to believe and worship him?
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.
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."
The typical theistic get out of hell free card.
In other words, one can be the biggest dirtbag around. But as long as they believe in Jesus, then they're ok.
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!
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.
No.
Then some responses dispute that "presentation."
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.
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.
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.
Except one cannot prove the non-existence of something.
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.
There is no empirical evidence to support those accounts either. See first statement.
Which means absolutely nothing if it's not backed by evidence.
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.
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.
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.
I've made no mention of my beliefs and a lack of belief is not a belief in itself. it's simply being unconvinced.
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.
Glad we agree on that. Fortunately, that is not something I do.
Bravo! Well said yet again. The proselytizing for atheism is getting carried away on the seed.
Sounds like an oxymoron.
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).
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.
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.
Actually, you have. See below.
There is a lot of evidence. It's just not the kind of thing you can recreate in a lab.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
Really? how many here alone have claimed their god is real, as matter of fact? I can name a few.
Scrutinizing or challenging religion, especially its claims, is not attacking, no matter how much you think otherwise!
Such as?
It's called logical analysis. Religious belief and some of its claims is obviously quite illogical.
Nope! I prefer empirical evidence for any claim, religious or otherwise. So stop play the victim here!
Are believers open minded enough to acknowledge that their beliefs might be wrong?
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 is why I reject certain religious claims, especially the more extraordinary ones. Why should they be accepted at face value?
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.
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).
Really? There's lots of evidence for angels? Could you name some?
So you're saying that the only reason we have free will is thanks to Satan? Okay, thank you Satan.
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.
Sorry, but everything you have said shows that Satan is the just one and God is the evil slave creator.
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.
We also have knowledge too, thanks to Satan. Thank you indeed.
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.
Don't forget, god didn't even prohibit slavery nor include it in one of the Commandments. Evil slave creator to be sure.
I hear Hell also has some great parties (South Park reference).
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.
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.
God never seemed too careful about who got caught in his retributive blast radius. It's just collateral damage.
Yeah, because a replacement kid totally makes up for the loss of a previous one, right? >sarc<
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.
Those who followed Jesus and began spreading the Christian Church around the world were almost all willing to die for our beliefs rather than renounce them and live free.
People do indeed die for their beliefs; that does not make the belief true. One of countless examples: the 9-11 gang who bombed the Twin Towers with jets clearly believed they were doing the work of Allah.
Were their beliefs correct MBFC? Did Allah really want them to kill thousands of innocent people?
That is their choice, no matter how absurd it may be. But dying for one's beliefs is not really necessary or an issue here.
No. God never asked his followers to kill thousands as they killed themselves. The apostles of Jesus and other martyrs for the faith were killed for their faith and many proselytized as they were dying.
Haven't read the Old Testament, have you?
Lol, the god of the Bible is the most bloodthirsty savage this world has ever seen. He makes Hitler look like a pussycat. Do you actually READ the bible?
The book of Deuteronomy, 6-13 commands that unbelievers are killed if they refuse to convert.
I have. The people in that area had exhausted their probation and were exceedingly wicked. The creation of the nation of Israel was to be an example to the rest of the world as to what Gods chosen people should live like. Today the Christian Church is supposed to do that. As we are all sinners seeking healing then and now, there were and are those in both that were not true believers. God was just with the evil kingdoms in Canaan back then when He established Israel as His people then.
So, you're admitting that he asked his followers to kill thousands, yes?
The seed subject was/is about Angels. It’s interesting to see where and how far the conversation has gone from that to use it to attack all belief in the deity that created the Angels.
Renounce them and live free? Did you mean that the way it sounds, which is that your beliefs make you unfree?
Also, that response didn't have anything to do with my post. You didn't answer a single question.
I believe he meant that early Christians were being persecuted for their beliefs. Many chose to NOT renounce their faith and were killed. Had they renounced their faith, they might have been allowed to live freely by whatever govt. they were living under at the time.
Hmm. OK. Thanks.
Thanks for making my point again for me. I appreciate it.
In the Old Testament covenant he clearly and rightly/justly did so. The people living where Israel was ultimately formed had 500 years from the time Jacob went to Egypt to be with Joseph until Caleb and Joshua led Israel back after 40 years in the wilderness. Those living then were as evil or worse than their ancestors were when Jacob renamed Israel went to Egypt. This belief is shared by both Jews and Christians.
But these men died based on their beliefs. By your logic, that means their beliefs were true.
So Allah is God and Allah (per their beliefs) wanted these men to kill thousands of innocent people.
Your logic.
So if someone is willing to die for their beliefs does that mean the belief is true or not? Make up your mind.
So, the loving god who wanted everyone to worship him out of love, not fear, demanded that those who didn't worship him must die.
Ok.
Mythological creatures.
Just a cover story used by a nasty old, incestuous pedophile, when he wanted to justify raping his two preteen(?) daughters, (virgins in a time when women were married off as children).
They sound like despicable, clueless creatures, glad they're not real.
God Rescues Lot
Unfortunately, the persecution of early Christians in the Roman world has nothing to do with the post you were responding to.
Care to make any points about the non-logic of the Satan fable? Or why an omnipotent being would ever need servants to do stuff for him? Or why this same, supposedly loving god would punish a person for all of eternity simply because they couldn't make themselves believe in fantastical stories (told by other people, mind you) about things that can never be verified objectively, even to a small degree?
Many of the groups God had exterminated worshipped Moloch and their perverted beliefs involved the burning live of child sacrifices. That was a major abomination to God.
Abraham believed he was supposed to kill Isaac. I wonder where God thought he got that idea from?
Your god sounds like a petty tyrant who cannot tolerate people who won't polish his ego 24/7/∞. Psychologists term those people narcissists. Your god also commits genocide at the drop of a hat so if he was an American he would be doing life without the possibility of parole. You might disagree but he is not the kind of person I would choose to worship unless you also worshipped Charles Manson.
I totally agree, burning someone alive is cruel and unnecessary. Let's see What the Bible says about Burning People to Death :
“ Some crimes are so heinous that the guilty must be burned to death. (Like when a man has sex with his wife and mother-in-law, the daughter of a priest behaves like a whore, or someone touches the accursed thing.)
Sometimes God burns people to death. (Like when they complain too much, burn incense without a license, dabble in astrology, or make God angry or jealous or something. And sometimes God burns people to identify a prophet or to identify himself, and sometimes for no reason at all.)
”
But god loves us and wants us to be happy.................
...Unless we don't think He exists, in which case He then tortures us for eternity.
There is no torture for eternity. The lost in Hell are consumed to ashes forever dead and separated forever from God. There is no eternal life being eternally burned and tortured for the sins of a life time.
Given MBFC... stated: "their perverted beliefs involved the burning live of child sacrifices" I wonder what he is thinking now? That these passages are not actually in the Bible? That all of them are just 'reading out of context'?
It would be helpful if people would actually study the Bible - not cherry-pick, but objectively read the words of these ancient men. By MBFC...'s definition of perverted, the Bible offers some very perverted stuff.
Why did your god create an imperfect product and then blame or punish the product for being imperfect? We have consumer protection laws in the US to prohibit corporations from doing that.
How do you know this?
From your own seed:
Funny thing about religion, everyone gets to make up their own version of it and proclaim it as truth. That's what happens when something lacks objective evidence. If something is imaginary and exists only in people's heads, then you can end up with almost as many versions of it as there are heads. That's about as far from truth as you can get.
God asked Abraham to be willing to do with Isaac as God Himself did do when Jesus, His only son.
I disagree with that interpretation of the verses about Hell. Hell happens after the judgement of the wicked here on earth and when concluded, the earth according to Revelation will be recreated new as it was in the beginning upon the ashes left behind on the surface of the earth.
There seems to be a double standard regarding the atrocities required by your god versus the atrocities required by other gods.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on which one of the 30,000 Christian sects has the one and only, truer than true interpretation of scripture that has been pieced together through numerous translations, reviews, and revisions.
Some Christian sects even seem to believe in some kind of purgatory that may be permanent or semi-permanent residence for unredeemed souls.
I thought the Bible was the word of God? Wouldn't God have known how to write the book so it couldn't be misinterpreted? Not much of a God if he cannot even communicate clearly with his own followers.
i've brought that point up before but no one responded - seems odd doesn't it ? i'm also told that the bible is a "love letter from God" which is filled with rules for slavery, filled with death, murder and ways that God will condemn for all time for sinning when he created you to sin to begin with - so you'll be condemned for the way you were originally created and God knew it the entire time. Yet many on here profess their love for this God and wholeheartedly support this unproven mystical entity.
There are several killer points like this that cause silence (or vague babbling responses). If someone cannot answer the question is there no time taken to reflect on: 'why am I unable to answer that question?'.
Another killer question: How can an omniscient God be surprised / disappointed by His creations?
Just because God knows all doesn’t mean He won’t be disappointed by the choices we freely make when we willfully and deliberately make the choice to hate Him or deny He exists or to choose differently than His will for our lives.
Satan has created many deceptions and diversions to turn people down other paths than what His letter suggests. In the first covenant He created false religions and fake Gods to divert us away and after persecution for the first three centuries of Christianity he created a false division within that lasted until the reformation. Now we have the evil one using the occult and evolution/ atheism to deceive humanity with.
Why? He had no reason to get his hopes up, right?
I do not think you understand the significance of omniscience.
If God knows all (i.e. is omniscient) then God knew that Adam and Eve would disobey. Thus he cannot be disappointed - he knew what they were going to do. If not, He is not omniscient.
A God cannot be both omniscient and not omniscient. It is one of many logical contradictions in the definition of the biblical God.
This is what gets me about Yahweh and, the belief in him, if he knows all why would he let Satan get a foothold on man? Especially, if he knew that Lucifer would turn on him in the garden, I mean if Yahweh knows all, when he was making Lucifer he should have known that Lucifer would betray him and, become Satan, why didn't he just stop making him at that point and, throw him in the trash?
LOL, I find this funny. Keep trying, you might get it someday.
If god already knows the choices we'll make, even before we're born, then there's no reason for him to be disappointed or surprised. If god already knows what choices we'll make in advance, then there is no way to make a different choice from the expected one. Therefore, our choices and the results of those choices is established and set in advance. So there really is no such thing as "choice" or free will since it's already predetermined. The idea we have a choice or free will is just an illusion. The only way we can really have a choice/free will is if god is not omniscient.
Such as?
Who says they're fake? What makes your god/religion true? It's quite arrogant to think your religion or god is the correct one and all others are false!
You seem to confuse religion with science. But it's very telling when one views science as "evil." religion does tend to be hostile towards science.
The obvious contradiction was stated but it did not register. I suspect that such contradictions are summarily dismissed and never considered. It is as if they do not exist. I do not view this as an individual practice, but rather a general practice by those who successfully hold onto certain beliefs by faith alone. Those who do objectively consider such contradictions quite likely have a designated label: 'agnostic atheists'.
In short, if the ostensibly divine Bible is clearly not divine (by virtue of logical contradictions ... and many other errant factors) then those who realize this recognize that the Bible is merely the product of ancient men and thus the God they describe is most likely the product of their naive imaginations. If the Bible is not divine, the house of cards of most religions cannot stand.
And I doubt it ever will. You might as well be speaking Klingon.
I suspect you are correct (as usual). Some people cling tenaciously to their beliefs and ignore anything that contradicts or challenges them.
I think it's both. Either way, it's intellectually dishonest and/or lazy.
please explain since i'm told only God is the creator - now you are stating that God AND Satan are both the creators ? Are there any other Angels that have created other creatures and such ?
So you are saying that God is still trying to turn us back to his unquestioning automatons and only Satan is stopping him by giving us choices?
Are you sure you know who you are arguing for? In all your arguments, Satan comes out as the good guy supporting humanity.
Betcha MBFC... holds that Satan is the one who created the false science of evolution.
Poisoning the minds of the vast super-majority of scientists on the planet. Also, he planted all sorts of evidence to totally mislead everyone. An awesome amount, actually, even evidence within DNA. Satan is one clever demon.
Of course.
He waited until the next day to bury the fake dino bones.
When did the Church Lady go from a comedy skit to a role model?
This is funny, of course, because there are indeed people who think like the Church Lady character.
This seed is a CoC violation : Members are not allowed to proselytize on the site.
An article in the religion section regarding the existence of angels is not proselytizing. No one is being asked to join anything.
Maybe you should report it and let the powers that be make that decision?
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.
You are welcome. It is a rather unexplored aspect of several religions out there.
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 )
Well played TiG... LOL
He knew the #metoo movement would catch up to him someday if he did...
The one thing we know about angels: Squat.
Those of us who are believers know quite a bit more than squat about them.
Those of you who are believers, believe. "Believe" isn't the same as "know".
Such arrogance! You only believe in angels. That is not the same as actually knowing about them. One does not need to be a believer to "know" about something. And you only "know" based on what a book tells you about them.
that's incorrect. you just have a belief - not actual knowledge that is verified - only a belief. Your belief does not equate to fact, especially since your belief and another person's religious belief can be completely different while still believing in the same God and same religion - facts don't work that way, only belief does, facts stand independent of your belief since they are based upon actual verified knowledge (evidence, data, logic, proof etc)
....“So there you go — 11 great things to know about angels.
SO WHAT IS THE "SO WHAT?" David?
Here's the "so what," and it does boggle the mind a bit:
God, the Creator and Master of all that exists, has armies of angels loaded for bear.
And what does He do with them? Our loving and compassionate and ridiculously wonderful God "will command His angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways." Psalm 91:11.
Concerning me? Who am I? I'm a nothing! I'm a nobody! I'm one of seven billion on the planet.
And yet time and again in Scripture, He commands His armies to watch over His people, protect His people, and even serve His people.......”
Considering how people suffer and die in the world through various means, These so-called angels really such at their job.
Not according to the bible he's not.