Prince wrote:"2. A goodie two-shoed, sinning group of cloud-humping-hippie choir boys who wear dresses and play harps."
I'm having a whole mess of issues with this. I'm sure its a joke and that's cool but it shouldn't be in the "articles" section for serious viewing if that's the case. Maybe a better definition would be:
2. A being that is positive energy based and serves many facits of the greater benevolent good.
That way its vague enough to fit a varying view of angels.
"I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood."
Terro wrote:can't say that I can agree with that, with the exception of you, most people that deviate greatly from the mythology end up somewhere along the lines of being billion year old "Blood Dragons" or super-powered video game heroes.
Then again, I don't frequent many dragon specific boards, Chai would have to comment more on the matter.
Archer wrote:Prince wrote:"2. A goodie two-shoed, sinning group of cloud-humping-hippie choir boys who wear dresses and play harps."
I'm having a whole mess of issues with this. I'm sure its a joke and that's cool but it shouldn't be in the "articles" section for serious viewing if that's the case. Maybe a better definition would be:
2. A being that is positive energy based and serves many facits of the greater benevolent good.
That way its vague enough to fit a varying view of angels.
Only if your "varying view of angels" is limited to, you know, people that agree with them.
Why the need to assign value judgments to a definition of a race?
star wrote:I was gonna point this out, too, thanks Archer! I mean whether angels work for "the greater benevolent good" is debatable.
Maybe a better definition would envolve how they tend to be beings of order (although I'm not 110% on that one, I don't read a lot into angelics because it's... confusing, honestly, it's beyond me how you guys can get all the choir and types and roles things).
"I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood."
Archer wrote:star wrote:I was gonna point this out, too, thanks Archer! I mean whether angels work for "the greater benevolent good" is debatable.
Maybe a better definition would envolve how they tend to be beings of order (although I'm not 110% on that one, I don't read a lot into angelics because it's... confusing, honestly, it's beyond me how you guys can get all the choir and types and roles things).
Beings of order? Says who? Chaos gods not allowed messengers now, huh?
Strikes me as the only sensible definitions of "angel" are either the very narrow Judeo-Christian sense of "groups of beings created by JHWH before humans who perform certain roles in His service", or the very wide "entity created by some form of higher being or divine power to carry out some form of service on its behalf."
star wrote:But wouldn't a Chaos god reject any sort of hierarchy or organization?
"I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood."
Archer wrote:star wrote:But wouldn't a Chaos god reject any sort of hierarchy or organization?
Possibly - but why does that mean no angels (as in beings created to carry out its will)? It might well be more likely that chaos angels of a chaos god wouldn't all look alike and have strict choirs, ranks, etc. But that is just one specific view of what it is to be an angel anyway.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest