Re: "It's Superstitious"

by Kerrick Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:02 pm

Ok... please play nice everyone...

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:50 pm

Mortal wrote:
Demons and fallen angels are two different beings.

If you have some scripture that might attempt to flesh this idea out...feel free to post them and I will look at them.

My first thoughts are this....are these demons " evil " and were they once obedient creatures of God ? And if so, what were their creative purpose in the will of God ? And if they were created with a " evil " nature, would that have serious ramifications on the nature of God ?

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:55 pm

Now, some my cry foul that I am bringing up scriptural support, but I think that is moot since this conversation is being allowed in the first place. I just think its rather ridiculous to talk about biblical subjects without actually talking about what the bible says on the subject.

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:34 pm

sentient 6 wrote:
Mortal wrote:
Demons and fallen angels are two different beings.

If you have some scripture that might attempt to flesh this idea out...feel free to post them and I will look at them.

In my understanding, demons are evil spirits....not fallen angels.

Angels (whether fallen or not) are spirit beings.

I think there is a big difference between a spirit and a spirit being.

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:55 pm

Mortal wrote:
In my understanding, demons are evil spirits....not fallen angels.

Angels (whether fallen or not) are spirit beings.

I think there is a big difference between a spirit and a spirit being.

Ok, so in your understanding, whats the difference ? And real quickly, what are a few scriptural supports that you feel point to that ?

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:57 pm

Mortal wrote:
In my understanding, demons are evil spirits....not fallen angels.

Angels (whether fallen or not) are spirit beings.

I think there is a big difference between a spirit and a spirit being.

Off the top of my head, is the premise that demons are the spirits of dead " evil " humans ?

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:21 pm

sentient 6 wrote:
Mortal wrote:
In my understanding, demons are evil spirits....not fallen angels.

Angels (whether fallen or not) are spirit beings.

I think there is a big difference between a spirit and a spirit being.

Ok, so in your understanding, whats the difference ? And real quickly, what are a few scriptural supports that you feel point to that ?

First, real quickly, let's define "spirit" so we will know what we are talking about in that regard.

Here are a few definitions that I feel define "spirit" pretty accurately.

1) the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character.

2) those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period.

Both of these definitions describe what a spirit is.

Neither one of them describe what an angel is.

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:23 pm

sentient 6 wrote:
Mortal wrote:
In my understanding, demons are evil spirits....not fallen angels.

Angels (whether fallen or not) are spirit beings.

I think there is a big difference between a spirit and a spirit being.

Off the top of my head, is the premise that demons are the spirits of dead " evil " humans ?

I can't speak for all people...

But in my understanding...

No.

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:32 pm

Mortal wrote:
First, real quickly, let's define "spirit" so we will know what we are talking about in that regard.

Here are a few definitions that I feel define "spirit" pretty accurately.

1) the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character.

2) those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period.

Both of these definitions describe what a spirit is.

Neither one of them describe what an angel is.

God is spirit correct ? And angels are non physical beings that are restricted by space and time. so I don't know why an angel could not be considered a " spiritual " creature.

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:34 pm

Mortal wrote:
I can't speak for all people...

But in my understanding...

No.

So then, what are demons and what was Gods specfic intent in their creation ? And, were they created with a " evil " nature ?

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:57 pm

Mortal wrote:
I don't think the idea of the fallen angels having sexual relations with the daughters of Adam is lunacy.

Genesis 6:4 states "...the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them..."

I also don't think that it is lunacy to believe that the "sons of God" were the fallen angels.

So...You think it's "lunacy"?

What makes it "lunacy"?

" When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,"

This is the context of 6:4 right ? How does this affect the context when the author just referenced man being the agents of procreation of the human race ?

Also, do you believe " these were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown " describe the nephilim or the " sons of God " ?

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:59 pm

sentient 6 wrote:God is spirit correct ? And angels are non physical beings that are restricted by space and time. so I don't know why an angel could not be considered a " spiritual " creature.

Yes...God is spirit.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that angels are non physical beings that are restricted by space and time.

Also...I never said that angels weren't "spiritual" creatures".

sentient 6 wrote:So then, what are demons and what was Gods specfic intent in their creation? And, were they created with a " evil " nature ?

Those questions assume that evil spirits are created by God.

I don't think that they were, so I can't really answer your questions specificly.

But I will offer some food for thought...

Was satan created with an "evil" nature?

In my understanding, no he was not.

He became that way when iniquity was found in him.

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:17 pm

Also, does " sons of God " always need to refer to angels ? Yes, in Job and psalms it does, but in Matt 5:9, Romans 8:14, and Gal 3:26 it can refer to those who live in obedience to God. This would fit also with Adam in one of the genelogies being refered to as " the son of God. " And of course, Jesus Christ is the " Son of God " but is not an angel.

One really good possibility ( exegetically ) is that Gen 6 is referring to the point in history when Godly obedient men disobeyed and joined with pagan ungodly women. And really, the rest of the context seems to give a better support of that as well in my humble opinion.

by DarkFireDragoon Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:21 pm

Candlemass wrote:Why do you play the fool so often?

...

...I-...

...I don't know think he plays the fool...

...You see....

...

...He...

...*clears throat*...

...Pities them.

... Neutral

...

...

... Neutral

...

...

...I should go.

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:23 pm

Mortal wrote:
Those questions assume that evil spirits are created by God.

I don't think that they were, so I can't really answer your questions specificly.

But I will offer some food for thought...

Was satan created with an "evil" nature?

In my understanding, no he was not.

He became that way when iniquity was found in him.

Doesn't God alone hold the power of creation ? Isn't that one of the attributes that makes God..God ? If you don't believe that, then your only choices are that demons are eternal like God, or that a creature can have the power of creation.

No, I certainly do not believe that any creature is created as evil. But that is why I am asking you about the nature of demons in your view.

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:23 pm

sentient 6 wrote:" When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,"

This is the context of 6:4 right ?

That would be the context of Genesis 6:1.

sentient 6 wrote:How does this affect the context when the author just referenced man being the agents of procreation of the human race ?

I don't think the purpose of that verse (verse 1) is to say that man is the agents of procreation of the human race.

I think the purpose is to tell what was happening at that particular time.

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:25 pm

DarkFireDragoon wrote:
Candlemass wrote:Why do you play the fool so often?

...

...I-...

...I don't know think he plays the fool...

...You see....

...

...He...

...*clears throat*...

...Pities them.

......

...

... ...

...

...I should go.

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:32 pm

Mortal wrote:
sentient 6 wrote:" When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,"

This is the context of 6:4 right ?

That would be the context of Genesis 6:1.

sentient 6 wrote:How does this affect the context when the author just referenced man being the agents of procreation of the human race ?

I don't think the purpose of that verse is to say that man is the agents of procreation of the human race.

I think the purpose is to tell what was happening at that particular time.

Sorry, I didn't mean 6:4 but 6:2.

There really isn't any dispute on that. Verse 1 simply tells that men were procreating. Verse 2 gives some more information that leads to what causes God to decide to wipe out humanity except for Noahs line. If we can come to a sensible idea as to who are the " sons of God ", then following the context and the whole decision for Gods flood becomes much more clear.

The other thing is, the whole context is dealing with man and sinful man. The whole context is talking about men and their affect on the world and not some human/angel half breed.

by Candlemass Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:42 pm

I've never heard that there was a difference between demons and fallen angels, a rather novel idea I suppose, when/where/whom did it originate?

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:18 pm

sentient 6 wrote:There really isn't any dispute on that. Verse 1 simply tells that men were procreating.

I'm not disputing that men were procreating at that particular time, but I don't think that's really the point of verse 1.

I think the point of verse 1 is to say that something significant "came to pass" at that particular time those events were taking place.

sentient 6 wrote:Verse 2 gives some more information that leads to what causes God to decide to wipe out humanity except for Noahs line.

I'm not disputing that either.

sentient 6 wrote:If we can come to a sensible idea as to who are the " sons of God ", then following the context and the whole decision for Gods flood becomes much more clear.

I'll agree with that.

sentient 6 wrote:The other thing is, the whole context is dealing with man and sinful man.

The whole context?

I don't understand how sinful man would be called "sons of God".

EDIT: Are you saying "man" and then putting emphasis that "man" was sinful?

Or are you saying two different groups of people (sinful man and not sinful man)?

sentient 6 wrote:The whole context is talking about men and their affect on the world and not some human/angel half breed.

Like you just said a few quotes above, a proper understanding of who exactly the "sons of God" are will put the context in it's proper perspective.

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:23 pm

Mortal wrote:
The whole context?

I don't understand how sinful man would be called "sons of God".

EDIT: Are you saying "man" and then putting emphasis that "man" was sinful?

Or are you saying two different groups of people (sinful man and not sinful man)?

Well, all humanity has fallen into sin, but the way I am leaning on this is that God is dealing with the corruption of the obedient line of seth as well as the line of cain. I am going with the general scriptural principle of that if you walk in the ways of God, then you are " son of God. These " sons of God " were being judge in the same way as the others because of how they compromised when they married " hot Cool

" pagan women instead of Godly women. This can also be seen as the foundation of the Israelites being commanded not to inter-marry with women from other tribes.

by sentient 6 Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:37 pm

Mortal wrote:
I'm not disputing that men were procreating at that particular time, but I don't think that's really the point of verse 1.

I think the point of verse 1 is to say that something significant "came to pass" at that particular time those events were taking place.

Well, the foundation is that men and woman were marrying and having children. Then I think verse 2 deals with the principle of what happens when Godly people join with ungodly people for superficial reasons.

I totally understand that the idea of angels mating with humans is a rather popular notion these days, and " sons of God " being angels is one possible interpretation. But I don't thinks the best one given the context and the implications if it were true. Questions like, what are angel/human half breeds responsiblity in salvation ? Do angels have gentials, sperm and the ability to procreate by nature ? And since we are asking those questions, why not ask, do angels eat food and have bowel movements as well as sex ?

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:27 pm

sentient 6 wrote:Well, all humanity has fallen into sin, but the way I am leaning on this is that God is dealing with the corruption of the obedient line of seth as well as the line of cain.

To say that the sons of God were the sons of Seth...and that the daughters of man were the sinful line of Cain doesn't seem right to me.

In my understanding, the daughters of man are the descendants of the specific man Adam....Not the sinful line of Cain.

The way I see it, the daughters of Adam are the closest ones to the "descendants of Seth" here.

But they are not called the "daughters of Seth" because they ultimately come from Adam (man).

They all came from one common earthly father which was Adam. That is why they are called the "daughters of man".

sentient 6 wrote:I am going with the general scriptural principle of that if you walk in the ways of God, then you are " son of God.

And I'm going with the general scriptural principle that if one does not have an earthly father (created by God), that they are "sons of God". This applies to spiritual beings as well as Adam. But Adam's/Seth's descendants certainly would not be called "sons of God" because they have earthly fathers.

I am also going with the scriptural principle that if one does have an earthly father (born of flesh) they are a "son of man"....or "daughters of man" as in these verses.

sentient 6 wrote:These " sons of God " were being judge in the same way as the others because of how they compromised when they married " hot " pagan women instead of Godly women.

I'm not so sure about that.

by alldatndensum Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:32 pm

I thought we shut the theology room down?

*ducks behind a table to avoid getting hit by flaming darts*

by Guest Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:42 pm

sentient 6 wrote:what are angel/human half breeds responsiblity in salvation ?

Absolutely nothing. That is why God destroyed them.

sentient 6 wrote:Do angels...............procreate by nature ?

By nature? I certainly don't believe so.

The sons of God committed an unnatural act with the daughters of Adam and that's why they were destroyed along with their offspring.

sentient 6 wrote:do angels eat food.............?

There is manna...angel's food....which man did eat to sustain their flesh bodies.

Angels also did eat man's food when they came to visit Lot (Genesis 19:3).

Back to the manna...
This manna...angel's food...is a literal, physical food. It would have to be in order for man to be able to handle it and eat it.

If angels were not physical beings, how could they eat physical food?

by Sponsored content