Free will of angels and/or the free will of humans?

I honestly do not understand this question.

I saw a really good discussion of a similar point somewhere, but I didn’t save the link. The main point was that heaven is generally assumed to be a perfect place. Well if heaven is perfect, that implies that everyone in heaven behaves perfectly, which implies that when we go to heaven we lose free will, if free will is the reason that people are free to do bad things on earth. Similarly, if everyone in heaven behaves perfectly, how could Satan be a fallen angel? If he lived in heaven, where all is perfect, then how could he have behaved imperfectly? It seems to me that your question raises a contradiction that cannot be answered. So basically, you’re going to have to make something up.

@Snarp: I originally thought that I would simply not mention the fallen angels or else claiming that a number of angels only pretended to disobey for propaganda purposes.

since people reading the book might want to know how the fallen angels fit into the cosmology of the story, I thought I would look for other answers.

(granted, I deliberately add and change elements of the Biblical story to make it as awesome [in the literal sense of the world] as the original audience would have found it. to give a trivial example, my angels can go down to the quantum level, not that that really affects the plot in any way. to modern day readers that conveys the same idea

(modern humans can do many of the things angels could in the Bible and medieval lore. we can talk to people on the other side of the world. we can go to the Moon and all sorts of things. so I want to make the angels [and other critters] truly strange and superhuman.)

“how, then, could angels have rebelled?”

Because their creator was flawed. Making a bad decision.

@ChazMaz: thanks. I may actually go with that. probably not, though, because if I make “God” objectively flawed, then that would remove moral ambiguity from the larger story, which I haven’t explained here. still, I will consider it.

a basic assumption of the story says that “God” has arguably, in human terms, acted cruelty towards his/her creations, though, again, only in human terms and only arguably. (to say more would give away the whole story.)

or to put it another way, I cannot, objectively find fault in what “God” has done here. however, if placed in that situation, I would feel pretty mistreated.

unlike with real life theology, I do provide a definitive answer for the problem of evil in the book. it outlines a rational justification for why we suffer. to say more would spoil the book.

“that would remove moral ambiguity from the larger story,”
Not if the “moral ambiguity” came from the unification of the population. Then one supernatural absolute.

You know, “Power to the people.” Sort of the answer was right in front of them all the time.

Our faults lie not in the stars but within ourselves.

@Ria777 Are you Philip Pullman?

@Snarp: nope, but I had noticed the parallels and have set out to write a different kind of book. I haven’t set out to re-write His Dark Materials. hence the moral ambiguity in my book. in His Dark Materials, you have a clearcut good versus evil struggle. many other things differ, too. for another thing I have set out to write a book for adults, though I guess kids could get something from it, too.

@ChazMaz: apologies, but I couldn’t understand your response.

You said, “if I make “God” objectively flawed, then that would remove moral ambiguity from the larger story,.”

Moral Ambiguity, the lack of clarity in ethical decision-making

Basically I said that God and what god has control over would be an assumption. Only to eventually understand that God had nothing to do with it.

Sort of like the Wizard of Oz.
The wizard having all the answers when actually Dorothy had the answer all along.
The wizard knowing nothing.

okay. in this book, “God” did create the universe and does have more power than anybody, as in the Bible, though, according to the book, that did not tell the full story. so not the scenario you described.

Oh, you noticed a paradox in religious text.

If you assume the Scripture is entirely true, there are paradoxes.
Which is why it is idiocy to assume that it is entirely true.

There is no meaningful answer, because the entire question is set in a world, which is based upon a contradictory set of axioms.

That world is not real or even useful.

well, yeah. like I said upthread, I actually believe in this stuff.

No disrespect to this blog but no one really knows the entire truth but one day hopefully all our questions can be answered.

I said I don’t believe in this stuff. (yes, I omitted a “not” in the previous post.) by “this stuff” I mean your superstitions.