Angels look like girls? replied by LdsGal202 @ Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:54:25 -0000

LdsGal202 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:54:25 -0000

Arandur what you said is exactly the point I’m trying to make.

And judgment hasn’t happened yet, so any heavenly messengers that have come to this earth haven’t necissarily not made it to the celestial kingdom, they are in a state of paradise awaiting judgment. After that everyone will be sorted out to their respective kingdom.

But back to the angels thing, I just think it’s funny how angel decorations and pictures portray them as women when, in fact, only men can be angels. That is just another thing that supports my theory. They may look like their normal selves, but with more feminine qualities since they are in a heavenly state. Kinda like how a man looks more manly with a beard, shave it off, and they have more of a baby face, something similar to that.

Angels look like girls? replied by Arandur @ Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:51:56 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:51:56 -0000

Wait, so Moroni and other humans-turned-angel didn’t make it to the Celestial Kingdom?

What story specifically? Sodom and Gomorrah? I don’t think the City’s fate was due to them going after angels, whether the angels looked pretty or not. They were messengers to Lot, and the scenario was indicative of the immorality of the city, both sexually and its violation of hospitality/foreigners.

Angels look like girls? replied by LdsGal202 @ Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:34:14 -0000

LdsGal202 — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:34:14 -0000

If you google the subject angels have feminine features, a lot of stuff comes up. But yes I do believe angels are males and they don’t need to have sex. This is a mormon beliefe that those who do not reach the Celestial Kingdom and become angels will have no genital body parts, because there will be no need for them. Anyways, what do you think about that story specifically?

glad I could bring everyone back together! :D

Angels look like girls? replied by Arandur @ Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:09:19 -0000

Arandur — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:09:19 -0000

Koo! :)

Angels look like girls? replied by kookookachoo @ Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:07:41 -0000

kookookachoo — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:07:41 -0000

Interesting. I’m playing with my webphone to see if I can post from it. I’ll comment further later. Love, Ken

Angels look like girls? replied by Arandur @ Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:35:44 -0000

Arandur — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:35:44 -0000

That’s the first I’ve heard of the “angels have feminine features” thing. Angels are another order of being, spiritual intelligences, that may manifest themselves in a human form if it serves their mission. While I believe that angels may well have gender (C.S. Lewis explores this topic), they need not have sex (sexual features by which to reproduce physically). In Jewish tradition, most if not all angels were thought of as distinctly male. What would imply that they have “feminine features?”

With homosexuality and other sexual sin being a major factor for the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah, I don’t where one would see an implication about the angels’ appearance.

Angels look like girls? replied by LdsGal202 @ Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:08:57 -0000

LdsGal202 — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:08:57 -0000

So it’s rumored that Angels have feminine features to them as portrayed in that sweet Keanu Reeves movie Constantine and the angel Gabriel (which is Adam fyi). I was reading Genesis 19 when Lot was in Sodom and Gomorah and visited by 2 angels who had come to warn him that the city was to be destroyed and that he and his family should flee. A mob appeared at his house wanting to “know” these men. Know referring to carnal knowledge. That’s when Lot offered his 2 virgin daughters instead in order to protect these servants from God. My mother was saying that the reason the mob attacked Lot and his house was because angels have feminine feautures and so the mob though they were women. But when I googled about this people were saying that homosexual was prominent in the city and that’s what caused their immorality. Although homosexuality and fornication was the reason the city was destroyed, do you think it really had anything to do with them seeking out these angels they thought were men? Or do you really think angels have feminine features to them, thus, confusing the mob into thinking they were women? The mob did however reject his virgin daughters…Another thing to think about…

Tick Tock replied by kookookachoo @ Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:21:04 -0000

kookookachoo — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:21:04 -0000

My goodness AL, I completely missed your November appearance!

Tick Tock replied by LdsGal202 @ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:41:23 -0000

LdsGal202 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:41:23 -0000

And quickly, too!

Tao Te Ching replied by LdsGal202 @ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:40:25 -0000

LdsGal202 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:40:25 -0000

Hey everyone! I’m still here! It’s nice to hear from everyone again! School’s got me SO BUSY! Senior year :D Then I’m headed to Mormon Mecca (as I like to call it) in June! Hopefully BYU will have me :) How is everyone?!

Tick Tock replied by absoluteliquid @ Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:17:48 -0000

absoluteliquid — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:17:48 -0000

I believe time is slipping by…...

Tao Te Ching replied by Satolkin @ Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:10:27 -0000

Satolkin — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:10:27 -0000

Sounds interesting as hell, Aran, and he should be able to find legit connections. It’s been awhile since I studied the TTC, but lemme know what you’ve got. Oriental and Occidental esoteric traditions have some parallel thought. email addy is dmavity(at)comcast(dot)net.

Tao Te Ching replied by kookookachoo @ Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:46:23 -0000

kookookachoo — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:46:23 -0000

Hi Aran!
I’ve been offline for a month as I had to move, plus my computer took a dump on me as well. I am using my office PC at this time as have hooked that up. I’m still waiting for the repairs on my own computer (and the bill! lol.)
My email is krshortunifab(at)yahoo(dot)com. Substitute the usual symbols for the spelled out items.
I think you are right, perhaps Satol will be the most help here. I do have Gal’s email and one for Satol as well, plus AL’s. I will contact them and tell them you are asking for the addresses. Speaking of email, I do not have yours, either.
Nice to see you again!
Ken

Tao Te Ching replied by Arandur @ Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:52:11 -0000

Arandur — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:52:11 -0000

Anyone still around?

May I call upon you again, my gnostic friend, Satolkin?

My brother has begun drafting a book comparing the Tao Te Ching and parallel verses and concepts in the Bible. He’d like my critique and input. I’d like to extend that to you and see your perspective and familiarity (if any) with it. I figured you would be among the most likely of my friends to be familiar with the Tao Te Ching.

I’ve only just begun an introductory examination of it, so I can’t say much yet.

LDSGal, Koo, anyone else still around? As I’m sure you know, this site is pretty dead. I need some email addy’s!

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by LdsGal202 @ Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:55:16 -0000

LdsGal202 — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:55:16 -0000

can you explain again? I think I forgot that convo…

Predestination and Preordination. replied by kookookachoo @ Sun, 10 May 2009 08:11:58 -0000

kookookachoo — Sun, 10 May 2009 08:11:58 -0000

Boy, what an easy topic. I agree with all of you! lol

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Sun, 10 May 2009 04:54:04 -0000

Satolkin — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:54:04 -0000

LdsGal202 wrote:>very interesting religion… :)))

Which? Remember what I said about Bro. Joe- he was keyed into this stuff.

Predestination and Preordination. replied by Arandur @ Sun, 10 May 2009 02:18:07 -0000

Arandur — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:18:07 -0000

I was expanding your definition of predestination, Gal, because I felt what you were using was too narrow. Your definition fits with a narrow Calvinist interpretation, but not a wider Scriptural one. For if Predestination meant (Scripturally) what you say it means, it could not be used in Scripture because such a limited definition is false. And yet, Scripture does use the term, much more frequently than “preordination,” IIRC. So either your definition must accommodate Scripture, you must call its Scriptural use false, or your definition is not correct.

At this point its semantics, because I think we agree on is the same thing. You just want to call it strictly “preordination” and entirely exclude “predestination,” and I call the two much more closely related.

This is probably much more in depth than what you’re interested in reading, but I’ll provide it anyway: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Predestination and Preordination. replied by Satolkin @ Sat, 09 May 2009 05:45:26 -0000

Satolkin — Sat, 09 May 2009 05:45:26 -0000

More of a preordination type, though not exactly.

Work with me here.

G-d has a plan, and no matter what we do individually, “His Will be done.” This does not preclude freewill, we are free to do what we want. However, if what we want and what He wants don’t mesh, a slight adjustment is required in the means to accomplish the overall Plan, and should our will not mesh with His Will, we pay a price, although His will remains intact, and we were still free to do whatever we want.

Fuck up, pay the price, but The Plan remains unchanged.

Predestination and Preordination. replied by LdsGal202 @ Fri, 08 May 2009 21:16:45 -0000

LdsGal202 — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:16:45 -0000

What I mean that you have all wrong is that you said yourself :

“Predestination has very little to do with a person, but almost everything to do with God and His perspective. Predestination is primarily an acknowledgment of God’s prescience and His will. On the one hand, He has a plan and will see that plan achieved, but on the other He works with and respects our free will, meaning that He does not force us to participate in His plan.”

Predestination in no way involves God, its the belief that you think you will fulfill whatever your meant to fulfill no matter what you do in life. The point I’m really trying to get at is to see where everyone falls in the crack and that basically predestination is not true :)))

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by LdsGal202 @ Fri, 08 May 2009 21:13:39 -0000

LdsGal202 — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:13:39 -0000

very interesting religion… :)))

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Fri, 08 May 2009 06:34:17 -0000

Satolkin — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:34:17 -0000

Arandur wrote:>You’re using a looser definition of Dualism than the traditional Catholic definition :).

I’d be interested in hearing the definition- seriously. Dualism/ duality carries a fairly specific meaning, from a classical/ esoteric viewpoint.

Probably to the former, almost certainly to the latter.

Which makes sense both from a religion-as-man-made-philosophy approach as well as a religion-as-man-trying-to-understand-real-divine-beings-and-dimensions approach. Very clumsy, I know, sorry. Tired. I make the distinction because sometimes its hard for me to understand where you’re coming from, Satolkin. Sometimes you seem to lean pretty heavily towards the former approach; I lean heavily towards the latter.

No need to apologize; I know what you mean. I don’t see a problem with either as reasons for the development of religion. No reason it can’t be both.
Sorry for being confusing, I just take an occultist’s/ esoteric’s view of things. I hold my opinions pretty lightly, and if I see or experience something that I consider legit, I make a shift. Plus, under the boatload of religious dogma we all encounter, I figure there’s some unity hiding underneath it all.

In other words, I believe many of the various “gods” worshipped by many cultures through history could well be real spiritual beings, just not ones worthy of worship in the same way that the One True God is.

I’m perfectly OK with that. In fact, I’d take it a step further and say that those real spiritual beings are just relatively lesser manifestations/ emanations of the One True G-d. You and me included.

understanding at the time of aspects of the One True God, sort of like native American Great Spirit worship

Good analogy, and I’m not sure I’d consider it “muddled.” The Hindu Brahmic belief is similar. Calling G-d by different names doesn’t make Him different gods, it just means different cultures view Him somewhat differently.

One the Zoroastrians-as-spiritual-ancestors and brothers thing, I also find it pretty interesting that the some among Islam consider them “People of the Book,” as well, even though the spread of Islam culturally destroyed Zoroastrianism.

Interesting. I didn’t know that.

As to the concept of the Demiurge:
Where this really started gaining popularity was among Manichean Gnostics. The essential idea is that since the created world is imperfect, the Creator must also be imperfect, so there must be a True G-d that is above the Creator god.
As metaphor for a gradual “solidifying” of Spirit into imperfect matter, and man’s interpretaion of G-d as necessarily imperfect, it’s OK. Taking it literally is as flawed as taking a literal view of Genesis, IMO. Gnostics, BTW, are all over the place on their beliefs, particularly on this issue. Neo- gnosticism, and some semi- associated religious Orders place more emphasis on the need for personally obtained knowledge of G-d than the whole demiurge story.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Arandur @ Fri, 08 May 2009 04:58:12 -0000

Arandur — Fri, 08 May 2009 04:58:12 -0000

By the way, where does the concept of “demiurges” come in? I had thought it was Zoroastrian in origin when our old Marcionite friend Swiss Celt was talking about them.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Arandur @ Fri, 08 May 2009 04:55:23 -0000

Arandur — Fri, 08 May 2009 04:55:23 -0000

You’re using a looser definition of Dualism than the traditional Catholic definition :).

From what I understand, Zarathushtra initiated a rather abrupt change to previous Aryan cultural nature spirit/deity worship. In fact, there is apparently a place among the various heavenly beings for those Aryan spirits. Which makes sense both from a religion-as-man-made-philosophy approach as well as a religion-as-man-trying-to-understand-real-divine-beings-and-dimensions approach. Very clumsy, I know, sorry. Tired. I make the distinction because sometimes its hard for me to understand where you’re coming from, Satolkin. Sometimes you seem to lean pretty heavily towards the former approach; I lean heavily towards the latter. In other words, I believe many of the various “gods” worshipped by many cultures through history could well be real spiritual beings, just not ones worthy of worship in the same way that the One True God is. Zarathushtra’s Ahura Mazda (with His three aspects and six Spentas), as distinct from other angelic and daevic beings, makes a lot of sense to me. What his Aryan ancestors previously worshipped were either angelic beings, daevas, or man-made idols. Or it was their best, muddled understanding at the time of aspects of the One True God, sort of like native American Great Spirit worship.

Zarathrustra and the Avestan scriptures replied by Satolkin @ Thu, 07 May 2009 17:24:17 -0000

Satolkin — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:24:17 -0000

Arandur wrote:>I’ve seen some discussions of Zoroastrianism identifying it originally as a true monotheistic faith originally, then being adopted in various cultures as a dualistic tradition, then back in same ways. Are you in the Dualist crowd, Satolkin, and why?

Complicated question. The easy answer is “no,” I’m a trinitarian, but deeper, I’m a unitarian who understands unity through It’s trinitarian expression. To get there, though, you have to be in (at least for awhile) or at least understand, the Dualist crowd, and the greater philosophical idea of “opposites.”

As to ancient montheistic religion (and Zoroastrianism is a great example; glad you started the thread) the Mono vs. Dual argument is much like the chicken and egg question. We like to think that there was a “pure” monotheist religion that degenerated into dualism, or even polytheism, but I suspect it’s the other way around. Dualism is a very natural way to look at the universe, and it takes refining of that idea to get to monotheism. Zoroastrianism, proper, may have been a monotheistic response to something more dualistic that came before.

Having said that, though, it’s important to really understand Dualism. Technically, mainstream Christianity, despite the Holy Trinity, is dualistic in it’s G-d vs. Satan approach. We could also say that any tradition expressing a G-d/ G-dess belief is also dualistic, except most of the neo- pagan movements that do so actually see a trinity of sorts in that arrangement.

One of the reasons that I think Zoroastrianism was the mainline religion of the one true God before Abraham is that the Bible seems to acknowledge it as such through Cyrus the Great (along with many other Persian emperors, avowed Mazda worshippers), Melchizedek, and the Magi that journeyed to pay Jesus homage (almost certainly Zoroastrian priests).

Largely agree, and I believe Melchizedek to be a conceptual expression of the religion of the One True G-d being communicated to (the idea of) Abraham, from a non- semite source. Cyrus is definitely a specific reference to Zoroastrianism as being one such source. IMO. The Zoroastrian priests (priest- scientists, really, primarily astronomers/astrologers) as the legendary “Magi,” most certainly.

Recent Posts in Personal Beliefs/theories | GOD STILL LOVES US