While the Bible does not teach it explicitly it is implied by never providing an example where angels loved. Only God and humans can love.
It is also never taught explicitly or implied that Jesus ever once went to the bathroom... but we can safely infer (or at least sincerely hope for his own sake) that he did so at least once in his earthly lifetime.
An argument from silence is not a good argument.
Yes, angels primary duties are to bring messages and engage in spiritual warfare. No need for love.
Wow, just... wow. Where to begin...
First of all, "No need for love" is nothing less than the mantra of a sociopath. Anything denied love will live (assuming it lives at all) as a monster.
Raise a dog without love and you get a beast whose only place is fighting in the pits...
...and needs to be put down lest it get loose and chew off some toddler's face... or your own.
Raise a
human as such and you're guaranteed to breed a serial killer.
Second, "bring messages" to whom? angels were created before humans, and indeed everything else, so it's not like God's phone was ringing off the hook.
Similarly, "spiritual warfare" against whom? Obviously they were created before there was any hint of rebellion -- indeed, before they were created, there was nobody to rebel -- so who were they created to go to war against... the Klingons?
Well we dont know exactly what happened but it appears one named Lucifer wanted omnipotent power like God so God threw him out along with some minions of his.
Christian tradition claims that Lucifer suffered from pride -- which torpedoes your entire argument as pride is a misuse of love -- excessive love for self, to be more precise.
No, God allowed Satan in to test us spiritually because the stronger we are spiritually the better we can defeat evil but we failed.
There's a lot of failure to go around -- after all, evil was created in God's very presence by His very creation... If we were created to be better than the angels, God dropped the ball... again.
Yes, but He has given us Christ and His spirit to help us under the new covenant.
Because the
old covenant was a bust.
Another failure?
Because if we dont, we are helping the evil one.
Funny -- they way you tell the story, "the evil one" is the only one who's actually succeeded at anything he set out to do.
Not for His pleasure but to destroy evil forever. Apparently this is the only way it can be done.
"Apparently"? You're going to have to do
a lot better than that.
Just like God cannot go against logic, there are other rules of reality He cannot go against.
God gets weaker and weaker... painting himself into a corner.
Now, I bring this up because it shows an important point -- the more we literalize these stories, the deeper down the rabbit hole we go in vain attempts to explain/justify the literalism, until we're stuck in near total incoherence.
(literalism, btw, is another one of those reasons I'm not, and most likely won't ever be, a Christian)