Angels?

[Altherion]

But since there is no way I can continue without going against what TP has stated I will simply bow out of this thread.

Per TP's suggestion, I've started a new thread here in case people want to talk about it.

[rocksniffer]

well if she talks to angels...they must be real....just pull those shades down tight....

[Starkess]

I do not, no, and I always found them to be one of the creepier aspects of Christian mythology.

[Jo498]

The angels witnessed by humans in the biblical stories usually look like humans, in fact they are often taken for ordinary humans until they reveal themselves somehow.

The only winged angels are described in some prophetic visions (of which angels with 8 wings and many eyes are among the less disturbing appearances...)

In the Xmas story there is no mention of wings either although the angels are apparently obviously superhuman appearances and their disappearance could be interpreted that they "fly away".

So the winged angels of art and folklore really are a bit of judeochristian mythology. Neither scripture nor the apostolic or nicene creeds (where angels are not mentioned at all) require Xtians to believe in that kind of angels.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Would you give the same benefit of the doubt to someone who believed Cyclops are real? What about Valkyrie? I mean you very well might, but I find people give far more credence to the crazy bullshit of Christianity then they do to the crazy bullshit of other religions.

What benefit of the doubt are you talking about? People who put other people down for things they believe are tools. You can strongly assert your position on a subject regarding beliefs without insulting people. So if your asking if I would call you a fool for believing in Cyclops no I wouldn't. But I would say that I am personally certain that Cyclops, of the Greek mythological variety don't and never existed. See, no need to actually insult and still clearly assert your views.

So I'm a tool for pointing out that believing in magic is asinine? I'll wear that badge with pride.

Also, indulging people's delusions legitimizes their beliefs, which isn't healthy or wise.

If you want to wear a badge for insulting people without actually putting forward meaningful arguments, I guess you're welcome to it. You only needed to say you don't believe, you can say it with all the firmness of the conviction of your absolute certainty, there's no need to belittle people while you're doing it. It is possible to not indulge people in what you think is a fantasy and also not be insulting to them. Indeed you are more likely to be successful in moving people from a position you disagree with if you are not insulting. By insulting people you tend to simply entrench people in their positions rather than invite exploration of the truth. Why do people think they need to be insulting when they advance a contrary position on a subject?

But hey, wear that badge with pride.

[Crazydog7]

Wow.  You guys skipped the kiss kiss and got to the arguing pretty damn fast

[ChillyPolly]

I believe in winged non-human beings with superior intelligence, since I am one.

But it would be vain to imagine that the eclectus parrot is the smartest being in the universe, so yeah, there are probably angels too.  I have no opinion on whether they resemble the fellow in the painting,.

[Castel]

No. And I don't like them. I think TV has biased me against them tbh, Supernatural especially.

[polishgenius]

Wow.  You guys skipped the kiss kiss and got to the arguing pretty damn fast

I feel that love is dead.

[Kelli Fury]

If there are Angels on Earth, I think Tom Waits is one of them. You know... the kind of ones that come down and smite people's asses. 

 

I saw wristcutters and the imaginarium of dr Parnassus and I think those confirm it. Whatever he is, Tom Waits is a being higher than the rest of us.

[AndrewJ]

[mod hat]

Let's not turn this into another thread on validity of religion/Christianity. If you want that, go start a new thread.

[/mod hat]

Far be it from to disagree with a mod... but how does one discuss whether or not angels exist without touching on the validity of Christianity/religion? 

(I don't really have any wish to get involved in any such debate. But it just struck me as... problematic)

 

[ChillyPolly]

No. And I don't like them. I think TV has biased me against them tbh, Supernatural especially.

Never saw Supernatural.  But demonizing anything traditionally associated with goodness is pretty standard in mainstream culture nowadays.  Doesn't Doctor Who also feature evil angels?  Not that I have anything against the idea of an "evil angel".  The traditional word for it is "demon".

But there is nothing about the idea of "angels" that requires that they be recognizable as such.  In Tolkien's legendarium, the 5 Wizards, Sauron, Melian, the Balrogs, the Valar and Morgoth and perhaps others (Giants? Thorondor? Ungoliant? Goldberry's Mom?), are all (in theological terms) angels or fallen angels.  

[ChillyPolly]

Far be it from to disagree with a mod... but how does one discuss whether or not angels exist without touching on the validity of Christianity/religion? 

(I don't really have any wish to get involved in any such debate. But it just struck me as... problematic) 

I guess it depends on how you define "angel".  The word is derived from Greek "messenger" and referred to beings who were "messenger of God" in translations of biblical passages.  Hence it is primarily associated with Abrahamic religions:  Judaism, Islam and Christianity.  It has also been associated (without much stretching) with similar beings found in Zoroastrianism, but one can regard Zoroastrianism (without much stretching) as closely analogous to monotheism.

Using the word outside a monotheistic context is a recipe for confusion, IMHO.  Eros (Cupid), Nike (Victoria) and Isis (among others) are supernatural entities typically portrayed in art as winged humans, but one does not usually call them "angels".