How and why do angels fight?
- Thread starter tashja
- Start date
Correct.
They were given free will, for this "experiment". As it states.
It states specifically, "sent to the earth possessing sensuality and the other attributes of man". Now, if free will is an attribute of man then these angels were given it. It's included in the words "other attributes".
Nor have I claimed it is.
tashja
Registered Senior Member
''And I looked and turned to another part of the earth, and saw there a deep valley with burning fire. And they brought the kings and the mighty, and began to cast them into this deep valley. And there mine eyes saw how they made their instruments, iron chains of immeasurable weight. And I asked the angel of peace who went with me, saying:'for whom are these chains being prepared?''
Is that fromthe book of Enoch?. Lot's of that book is not true.
peace.
peace.
tashja
Registered Senior Member
''And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. And I saw something horrible: I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible. And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? These are the number of the stars of heaven which transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years...''
Good point, MW. Are these angels, or literal stars?
tashja
Registered Senior Member
Yes.
I know, but it is really interesting.
Yeah I have read all 3 of them many times, it makes a good story but yeah it isnt true. Although it does have alot of truth in it as a whole lot's of it remains a lie. but still a must read.
Peace.
*************
M*W: That's what I meant. I was just going from memory, and... well let's face it... I've burned out a few brain cells in my day.
*************''And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. And I saw something horrible: I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible. And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? These are the number of the stars of heaven which transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years...''
Good point, MW. Are these angels, or literal stars?
M*W: I'm thinking literal stars, that is, how much of the bible is actually literal? I think they're metaphorical. The bible calls them angels, but if we put "star" everywhere there is a reference to "angel," I think we could better understand the bible.
In biblical times there were astrologers... let me back track and say since the beginning of time... people were interested in stargazing. They predicted events on earth from the movements of the stars, even though it was really the earth that was moving. They could see with their bare eyes, or with crude telescopes, the planets up through Jupiter, at least, maybe Saturn. I believe that Peter the Jew was a metaphor for the planet Jupiter. The three wise men could be the three bright stars in Orion's Belt, etc. Lucifer has been associated with the planet Venus which was the Morningstar (light bringer), etc. I love to read the astrological metaphors into the bible. That's how it makes sense to me. The OT has so many astrological metaphors, but the NT is rife with metaphors of an astrological calendar. However, I'm not a believer in the bible nor in astrology.
They possessed "sensuality", the ability to feel pleasure, pain, guilt, remorse, love, hate, and so on. With that comes choice, of wanting to experience something because it gives pleasure. Or disliking something because it is painfull. This indicates that prior their decent onto the earth, their angelic bodies were immuned to these sensations.
People whose lives are based purely based on gratification of the senses, and can afford to, tend to have more choices in life than people whose lives are more industrious. Now if you take such a person, one whose life is, in a sense, completely occupied with duty, and put them in a situation where they have the means to gratify their senses however they choose. The chances are there will be a period of time, in their life, when they will go a little nuts.
jan.
Really?
You think that sensuality (or emotions) = free will?
Please explain.
The rest of this is inane irrelevant waffle.
Dywyddyr,
You think that's what I said?
Please explain.
Why?
jan.
You think that's what I said?
Please explain.
Why?
jan.
what drives us?
what is it that determines what choices we make?
how does desire influence our choices?
would we have less or no choices without desire?
without emotions would we be more docile?
would we be a slave to logic?
it is generally(not a rule) agree'd that emotions tend to muddle up our choices,
how do we choose without emotions?
It's quite simple Jan. You wrote:
which is a claim that that ability engenders free will. If that's NOT what you meant the please rewrite it to make your meaning clear.
I'll break it down:
Are there such people?
Firstly you'd have to show that there ARE such people, and then you'd have to show that your claim actually is the case.
It's also possible that if there are such people then their choices are also limited (but in a different way) since they, as you claimed, are interested only in gratification of the senses. Ergo, no choice about education or anything else that doesn't gratify their senses.
This is syntactically meaningless.
And this is based on... what, exactly? A wild guess?
US?
I think you'll find that drivers may be generalised, but each individual has differing drivers from any other.
Opportunity, circumstances, education, luck, etc etc. As well as biology.
In what way? Desire influences our choice, but, in adults at least, one can claim with some expectation of being correct that desire is not the sole influence. It depends on circumstance, possible outcome etc etc.
Would we? The choice may be there whether we have desire or not.
For example even if one is a non-reader the choice of books exists regardless.
Ha! Or everyone would be dead, perhaps. A lack of emotion would also be a lack of empathy, therefore potential threats (foreign countries for example) would be eliminated completely. And they'd try doing the same to us. Oops, where'd all the people go?
Slave?
Muddle? Influence certainly. But again, it depends on what the choice being made is.
I've found this works in some circumstances.
There's no such thing as Luck.
Is this a fact (i.e. can you prove [or even demonstrate] it)?
Or is this another of your "it's true because I said so" comments?
think about it dyw..
this speaks to personal effort to make something happen,i have heard several ppl cite that luck is an excuse to not take responsibility for their actions, whether good or bad..
case in point..that book posits (from what i get from the title) that the choices we make are based on analyzing all possible options, this negates any luck..
this is basically the same argument atheist use when they ask 'why do we need god?' (why do we need luck?)
also it has been my understanding that the root word for luck is based on lucifers blessing.(cant find where i have heard this)
but luck as per wiki.
and interesting comment in it..
There's a difference between not using luck as an excuse and declaring flatly that "There's no such thing as Luck".
That book promotes the analysis. The example they use throughout (from memory, it's a while since I read my copy) is purchasing car. Which model do you go for... Great. And having made your choice (rationally and analytically) you get to the showroom and find they've stopped manufacturing your choice.
You can't analyse all possible factors, the book only shows to work on the ones that can be factored in (and one of those happens to be "personal preference").
Ooh, god != luck. Luck is the "bugger factor", e.g. "just bad luck that the washing machine blew a fuse, which made me late getting the laundry done, which made late for party and somebody else got off with the girl I was planning to ask out".
Nope:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=luck
It's true fact, everything is the result of cause and effect, we could talk quantum random-ness but then we would have to abandon the lawsofphysics and it could get messy and go off topic.
Luck is superstition... I wouldn't think you believe in such a thing, you don't believe in God but you believe in superstitious things like luck and karma and things like this?. If cause and effect are in play how is anything "luck"
peace.