Shitzu -- I'm glad you read the article and trust me, I'm not offended at all by your opinion. You stated your disagreement well and cordially I think. I don't think Christians demand you bow before our God as much as we believe you will have to one day. God is Love (1 John 4:8) but because He is love, He cannot tolerate injustice infinitely. Otherwise, he'd be unjust, right? And you say "respect your parents" but then say "obey" later. I don't think they're the same thing. I can respect someone and not obey them. Like my brother. I respect him greatly but I may not always take his advice, you know? Or a friend. Or a financial advisor. But I should not be rude or disrespectful. Christianity calls all believers to treat others the way they would want to be treated. I don't think the response you've hitherto received here has done that for you and for that I apologize. And I think God's not exactly a moody tyrant; he has rules and promises and obeys and keeps them. He's rather predictable when it comes to those things. The way he does things is sometimes unexpected, though, because (I think) we have limited originality at times. I hope you'll post here again in the future. You're always welcome.
Pearl -- Wow, mighty explosive comments. Explosive isn't always bad. Let me take a look at your response to my article from the outside first and then from the inside, okay? First, I notice you don't bring up any qualms or disagreements with the premise of my article: That God is King and not partner. Instead, you've chosen a much smaller point within it, namely that I theorize our society prefers a tame god and I think this explains why our society is so fascinated with angels. Then I notice that you take not only my argument but me too and make an amalgamated straw-man (or -person if you prefer) with which to argue. The straw-man looks like this: "I think Angels are fluffy and cute and I'm ignorant and prideful." Now that's a rather easy straw-man to attack! You successfully attack this straw-man by bringing up Ezekiel, giving him a hick accent -- traditionally associated with ignorance -- to illustrate the sarcasm you're trying to use to bolster your point. I'm not sure why you bring up Angels lusting after women -- I'd have to see a scriptural reference for that (Satan fell because of pride long before the Earth was created). You also contend that angels have hatred for mankind, envy even. I need scripture for that too, because other than fallen angels, I don't think that can be said of angels in general.
To look at that comment from the inside: If you'll re-read my statement, you'll clearly see my point is thus: SOCIETY looks for a tame god in angels. I'm not suggesting angels are in any way tame. I'm saying society tries to reduce them to such. Biblical cherubs are not fat babies; they have many eyes, many wings, four faces, burning coals, and wheels for flying... what I was saying is that society makes angels "fluffy" and "cute" so that they can have a tame god preferable to a God that will judge them. Think of the fad and it will all make sense. If you snuck up on a victorian angel, you'd startle her -- never mind the only three angels named in the Bible all have male names. Society thinks angels are only there to guard and protect -- but the very word angel means "messenger" and they more often than not brought devestation and death. I think one angel killed some 187,000 wasn't it? Anyway, my point still stands that society makes tame gods. Sorry if you misread it and wasted your time.
Also, as for making me a part of your straw-man argument, I'm not the ignorant thing you'd like to believe. I'll be the first to admit my pride is atrocious quite often and I can be down-right ashamed of it. That's why I go to great pains in my articles to not offend anyone -- but never by watering down the truth. I just don't take joy in offending people and try to treat others the way I want to be treated. However I do notice something about your replies: You take great pride in what you believe you know and almost seem to think well of yourself for what you know. You seemed to take great joy in "teaching a thing or two" to Shitzu and me. I'm sure you were very angry at the pride you detected in my article and in his comment. I've noticed those with the most pride tolerate it least in others and notice it least in themselves. And it was this that caused Satan to fall; not lust for women. Pride is the center of all sin and the only one that is directly competitive. If you don't believe me, look at your final line to me: "Do not, in the folly of human pride, give utterance to those thoughts which may cause those who are far older, far wiser and infinitely more powerful than you, to take notice of you where before they had passed over your ignorance in silence." You're telling me to keep my mouth shut because I'm prideful and people who are older, wiser, and more powerful are going to notice and do things to me whereas before they might not have. I assume you're talking about yourself -- though you'll probably deny this now. What I am pointing to is the "older, wiser, more powerful" part. Pride is not concerned with age, wisdom, power, money, generosity, or anything in and of itself. It's only concerned with having MORE than what others have. Seemed like your primary concern; that's all.
I'm not sure if the feather comment was supposed to be offensive but you don't seem to care much about offending others so I'll take it as such. I'm sorry about that.
It's been an interesting conversation, Pearl. Also, how is saying "Him" putting God in a Box when Jesus Christ Himself called Him "Father?"
