Sunday, January 30, 2011

Angels in the Outfield

Whenever I spend time pondering an issue, I try to consider possible objections to my formulations. By doing this, I often catch illogical conclusions that I have previously reached. Utilizing the theme of my last few posts on the concept of Satan, we could say I play a bit of "devil's advocate."

I realized that, in my previous post, The Devil Himself, I made the following supposition:
Angels are not humans and thus wouldn't be subject to human foibles.
This statement is based on information provided in the biblical account. We are told that angels fly and/or appear/disappear at will (no human I know of can do that) and that they can do things like move gigantic boulders that no one human could hope to budge an inch. They also relay messages from God to people.

However, I suppose one could argue that angels merely are people with extra attributes. In other words, angels possess the essential mental or psychological aspects of the human race PLUS they've been endowed with skills and abilities that we humans do not possess. While this argument could thus be made, it opens an even larger can of worms.

If angels are mentally/spiritually just like people, then why did ONLY one angel -- Satan -- fall? If all humans are sinners and the argument is put forth that angels spiritually are the same as humans, then it would follow that most of or all of the angels would have followed Satan's tack and, instead of having to deal with one devil, humankind would be plagued with legions of them.

There is another consideration too. If angels and humans are synonymous (with the sole exception of a physical body), then each angel has a concept of self. The self is what makes each of us unique and it provides the narrow lens by which we view everything else.

So, if each angel possesses a self and utilizes this self to filter all things, then how could anyone be certain that messages from God delivered by angels were accurate? The angel's self might decide to amplify a point that God did not amplify or omit something that the angel's self felt was trivial or unneeded. The angel's self might also be preoccupied with other thoughts and simply garble the message that was given.

4 comments:

  1. But sir, fully a third of Heaven's angels sided with Lucifer! We are plagued with legions of demons. (or so the christians say).

    What never made sense to me is how beings like angels, in close proximity to God Himself, talking to him, doing his work from direct commands... how did these beings rebel against Him? I mean, they can freaking SEE this omnipotent being, they know he's there, know his strength, etc. We humans at least have sensory and experiential ignorance. The angels? No excuses. Nor any motive, either. They were already in Heaven!

    Though sometimes one gets to thinking that Lucifer is to be respected. Any freedom fighter battling a losing war against a tyrant has some honor and glory, no?

    ReplyDelete
  2. One-third? I've never heard that. All I hear Christians talk about is the one dude, Satan.

    As to your other points, I agree. In fact, I plan to pen a separate post on what a "fallen angel" would seek to accomplish.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just how big is the head of a pin?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ive been doing research if angels have free will. Judaism and Islam said angels have no free will. Only Christians do. Even gnostic christians i dont think believe in fallen angels or Satan. Ive read that Lucifer is the angel who guides the dark entities to guide them and bring them light so he still is an angel. Then ive read that satan is the angel who tests people, to pass it so they can grow spiritually. Why does it make sense for an angel to make a mistake? when they are created for the sole purpose of obeying the ever loving God? Christians especially Catholics are all about power so they changed the bible w/e. Do your own research. But i dont believe in Demons or fallen angels.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want. We may respond...or we may not. It depends on the mood and preferences of the specific author of the post. Ta-Wan generally responds in a timely manner. Trey responds some of the time and Scott rarely replies (due to limited internet access). You can be assured that all comments are read by this blog's two administrators: Ta-Wan & Trey.