I thought the Earth was flat. Heaven above, hell below.
So… If angels are just puppets of God, then God made them fall…
Almost like some believe that Judas was doomed from the get go.
This is very interesting and I have not thought about it that way before. I think I am going to have to buy a 12 pack and get my buddies together for a discussion on this one.
Hmmmmm
Better make that a 30 pack.
Cunctator, I thought that the point of purgatory was that it could allow sinners to repent of their sins after death, and possibly make it to Heaven?
Like I said, Angels don’t fall, the idea of the fall is predicated on a primitive understanding of physics. If the Angels are in a position that would lead you astray in relation to your physical position, then they are fallen angels.
Think intelligence without will. The human free will is a decision of which of the myriad angels to choose from. Saying one angel is fallen and another is not is a political trick of humans trying to say that their way is the absolute true and right way. 
Erek
Maybe God sent some of them to be “bad” so he looks “good.” :dubious:
Nope. Depending on one’s viewpoint, it’s either to work off the metaphysical effects of sins already forgiven, or to satisfy the temporal guilt incurred by those sins. In other words, the sins have been forgiven, but one still has to deal with the consequences of those sins.
That’s the delusion of opposition. God has no opposite. They are simply manifestations of infinity, myriad and infinite choices. They can be good and evil in comparison to you, not in comparison to God. According to the Sefer Yetzirah good and evil are directions, like forward and backward in time, or left and right, east west etc… and that what is good for one is evil for another etc…
Erek
No, that’s not correct. The Church’s teaching is that at death each of us faces a “particular judgement”:
- those who die in a state of grace and are perfectly purified of their self-love and the effects of their sins will go to heaven;
- those who die in a state of grace, and have fully repented of their sins, but not fully expiated them, will go to purgatory to be “purified” so that any remaining love of self is transformed into love of God;
- those who do not die in a state of grace will go to hell.
Note that this clearly means that souls in purgatory will eventually reach heaven, after an unspecified period of purification. The souls in purgatory do not need to repent. They have already died in God’s love. They’re just not “perfect” enough for heaven yet. There’s a good quote that summarises it. I can’t remember who said it (Sir Arnold Lunn?) but it was along the lines that “the Catholic Church’s role is to get as many souls as possible into purgatory”. Heaven would be better still, of course, but purgatory is far more realistic and still ensures the soul’s eternal salvation.
The Catechism explains it all quite well:
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church
My point isn’t that angels are subject to Original Sin, but merely that you can sin without choosing to sin – obviously you can, because every human ostensibly does so. But so the fact that angels don’t have choice isn’t an impediment to their sin, because choice is not necessary for sin.
–Cliffy
I think I’ll need your definition of “sin” before I can respond to this. I would define it as something like “opposition of the sinner’s will to that of God” - every sin is, by my definition, a choice, if not necessarily a conscious choice. Obviously you don’t agree. 
I don’t quite agree. I understand your point, but none-the-less, Adam and Eve needed free-will in order to commit the Original Sin. Without that they could not have eaten from the tree of knowledge and their children could not be subject to Original Sin.
Theres a verse which says By faith you are saved. So I take it to mean the angels couldn’t accept Jesus by faith, since they saw Him with their own eyes and KNEW.
It’s not my definition.
I don’t believe this is consonant with traditional Christian mythology, which holds that you cannot not sin, no matter how much you want not to – like Jimmy Carter, at the very least you’re going to lust in your heart. So I’d say that anyone who accepts the Christian god has to conceive of sin as opposition of the sinner’s actions to those demanded by god. No one doesn’t sin.
I don’t, sure, but because I think the whole thing is bollocks.
Adam and Eve, sure. They weren’t born with Original Sin (they weren’t born at all). But you and me ostensibly were – we were sinners at the moment of conception. What good our will then? And yet, sin we did.
–Cliffy
But that is the point, we inherited original sin from their free will - their choice. Angels do not have that precedent.
My actions or condition being determined by somebody else’s choice is an exercise of my free will. So I don’t see why your objection is relevant.
–Cliffy
That’s as may be, I still need to know what it is to argue against it.
Yes, this is the doctrine of Original Sin, which exclusively applies to Adam’s descendents, not the angels. I would also make a distinction between “being sinful” (which the doctrine says we all are), and “committing sins”, which requires a definite exercise of our free will.
“The whole thing” being? Sin? Christianity?
This is the point. Adam (and the fallen angels) weren’t subject to Original sin, but they still had free will, which meant that they could sin. From what you’ve said earlier, am I right in thinking that a creature who (a) wasn’t subject to Original Sin or some other externally-imposed curse from God, and (b) didn’t have free will, could still be sinful? If so, how?
Incidentally, I’m not completely sure about this precise point of the doctrine, but I think that Original Sin only applies from birth, not conception. Can one of our experts in Roman Catholicism clarify this point?
What sort of a god would punish people who’ve already learned their lesson?
Even worse, what sort of god would create people who are fated to be in a position where they will never ever learn their lesson? If being in Hell only makes you sin further and sin offends God then what’s the point of being there? If Hell doesn’t make one sin further then why send people there? If for some reason people could repent in Hell, why design human beings such that they would have to undergo such intense suffering before they advance an inch towards God’s grace?
I believe in maltheism so there isn’t any contradiction for me here, but I’m wondering how the eutheists justify this.
To clarify – I don’t say angels have Original Sin. I say that the existence of Original Sin in Christian doctrine is conclusive evidence that a being can sin (i.e., be outside the state of Grace) without choosing to do so. Ergo, the fact that angels have Fallen is not evidence that they have free will. It is a point of doctrine as I understand it that angels do not have free will. However, redemption through Christ must be chosen. That’s why fallen angels can’t repent or be forgiven. They do not have the power to choose.
–Cliffy
P.S.
Yes and yes.
Well, if we concede the point that they don’t have free will - then *somebody *must have executed free will on their behalf to make them fallen. Who? God? If so, doesn’t that sorta make him, well, crazy?
I read once that when Pope John XXIII invited Protestant observers to the Second Vatican Council, a conservative cardinal objected.
CARDINAL: Holy Father, they are heretics!
POPE: Do not say “heretics,” my son. Say “separated brethren.”
CARDINAL: They are league with the Devil!
POPE: Do not say “devil,” my son. Say “separated angel.”