198 replies to this topic

[Gummug]

Rlyeh, on 24 January 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

The question wasn't about Jesus, work it out.

The question was "are angels real?". According to Jesus, they are, is what I'm saying, capish?

[Kludge808]

Etu Malku, on 22 January 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

Throughout my studies on trance and music I've come to understand possession as a cultural phenomenon. That one desires this possession to take place and that the entities involved are a part of the person's spiritual background and makeup.

Interesting take on the phenomenon.  I don't believe it explains the entirety of possession but I do see the connection in this context.

Quote

You don't find people living in Vatican City being possessed by Lwa of the Vodoun pantheon,

Of late, I'm not so certain of that anymore.

Quote

And you usually never find atheists being possessed by anything.

Except maybe their love for Nogod.

[Mr Walker]

Etu Malku, on 23 January 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

I would call this your Dæmon / Higher Self / Holy Guardian Angel . . . etc.

It is all of those but also more.

My consciousness and my body interconnect with another "higher" consciousness and "being"

This connection and its effects, enhances, empowers and adds outside knowledge to my inner self. But as it aids and strengthens and teaches my inner self, that becomes more robust, powerful knowledgeable, capable and empowered; and then can accept more of the outside help.

It is a physical and intellectual/spiritual symbiotic relationship.

[Frank Merton]

Jor-el, on 24 January 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

We can never become them or they become us. The Mormon view fails in this respect, they confuse the boundries with no clear biblical reason for doing so.

I'm not a Mormon so I can't say what the Bible says about this.  Still, I suspect they could find passages to support them.  This has always been my experience with different Christian views.

In the meantime I see no particular logical reason for there having to be a boundary.  God should be able to achieve whatever He wants.

Edited by Frank Merton, 25 January 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Helen of Annoy]

Kludge808, on 24 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Of late, I'm not so certain of that anymore.

One of the reasons why I can't be religious is the behaviour of religious leaders, starting with Vatican.
(Starting with them because I should be Catholic, but if the Church tolerates priests who refuse to bury people until family pays for the service, they are bunch of atheists or worse in my opinion.)

Frank Merton, on 25 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

I'm not a Mormon so I can't say what the Bible says about this.  Still, I suspect they could find passages to support them.  This has always been my experience with different Christian views.

In the meantime I see no particular logical reason for there having to be a boundary.  God should be able to achieve whatever He wants.

I completely agree. If there's God, they can't possibly be limited with expectations of men.





Too many people in too many areas in too long time span have been seeing and even interacting with angel-like beings.
If someone’s theory can’t explain them, then the theory is wrong, not the reality.

Edited by Helen of Annoy, 25 January 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[Jor-el]

Frank Merton, on 25 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

I'm not a Mormon so I can't say what the Bible says about this.  Still, I suspect they could find passages to support them.  This has always been my experience with different Christian views.

In the meantime I see no particular logical reason for there having to be a boundary.  God should be able to achieve whatever He wants.

He does, achieve whatever he wants, it is our understanding that lags.

[Jor-el]

Helen of Annoy, on 25 January 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Too many people in too many areas in too long time span have been seeing and even interacting with angel-like beings.
If someone’s theory can’t explain them, then the theory is wrong, not the reality.

So what theory does not explain them?

[Helen of Annoy]

Jor-el, on 25 January 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

So what theory does not explain them?

Pick one, from variety of choices.
In my opinion, not one theory explains them, or doesn’t do that convincingly, leaving no room for doubt.
Faith can explain them, but faith is – again in my opinion – above reasoning. Because of that it’s not acceptable argument for those who don’t share the same faith.

[Etu Malku]

Kludge808, on 24 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Interesting take on the phenomenon.  I don't believe it explains the entirety of possession but I do see the connection in this context.

Of late, I'm not so certain of that anymore.

Except maybe their love for Nogod.

Cute rebuttals! Without definition and closing, but cute.
I don't see any of this as 'phenomenom'
I think it does explain the whole of 'phenomenom'  along with it's use

[Kludge808]

Etu Malku, on 25 January 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

Cute rebuttals! Without definition and closing, but cute.
I don't see any of this as 'phenomenom'
I think it does explain the whole of 'phenomenom'  along with it's use

Sorry ... I've been fighting a massive headache and a couple cracked ribs for the past week or so.  Thinking is not a high priority at the moment.

[Etu Malku]

Kludge808, on 25 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

Sorry ... I've been fighting a massive headache and a couple cracked ribs for the past week or so.  Thinking is not a high priority at the moment.

If that's YOU "fighting a massive headache and a couple cracked ribs" . . .then I want to see you 100%!!!!!!!

[Kludge808]

Etu Malku, on 25 January 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

If that's YOU "fighting a massive headache and a couple cracked ribs" . . .then I want to see you 100%!!!!!!!

I'm sorry but when did I become subject to your edicts?  That's a memo I never received.

[StarMountainKid]

I voted no because I'm not a believer in religion.  As an aside, it's interesting that in Buddhism, Buddhas are considered to be superior to angels and even superior to gods.

[Jor-el]

Helen of Annoy, on 25 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Pick one, from variety of choices.
In my opinion, not one theory explains them, or doesn’t do that convincingly, leaving no room for doubt.
Faith can explain them, but faith is – again in my opinion – above reasoning. Because of that it’s not acceptable argument for those who don’t share the same faith.

The criteria is self evident when discussing angels, there is experiential evidence, and then there is written evidence, that can be classified as historical evidence. Naturally both types of evidence have detractors for the most varied reasons, the weakness in both arguments is that you cannot call on an angel to appear at your whim, and you cannot travel in time to experience the veracity of the written accounts.

Taking for granted that most people will not lie about an account of this nature if it happens to them, then there is more than sufficient evidence to back the possibility of their existence. These accounts invariably change lives radically, sometimes for the better other times for the worse.

Since I have never knowingly met an angel, I can only rely on the written evidence itself and in this regard, I consider the source before I commit to a position.

I take the biblical accounts of angels as testimony of actual occurences, many times they are actually determinant in the development of the Theological thoughts of later generations.

As such we have quite alot of information about angels, the factions they belong to and what their purposes are.

[Gummug]

Helen of Annoy, on 22 January 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

By the way, that was one amateur Satanist. Real ones are usually the role models on the outside and rotten piles of greed and destruction on the inside. And that was off topic, damn it, but I had to say it.
So I owe you one off topic.  

Whoa, that's a bit terrifying to me. It could explain the likes of people like Ted Bundy, whom everyone seemed to have a high opinion of, until his true nature was revealed...sorry for getting a bit off topic.