Dark, Fallen and Holy

[Bonnie]

The only reason anyone has for saying Lucifer fell for disagreeing with God, is the Bible, as far as I know, perhaps other religous texts, but the Bible is the one I am familiar with. So depending on how much of of the Bible you believe to be the truth... It could be correct ot incorrect either way. If the Bible is correct... I must say I find it rather wrong on God's side, to punish Lucifer for teaching humanity things such as fire-making and medicinal arts... Even if it did go whatever he said, and I would think that it would have had to be something bigger that that for God to rid himself of Lucifer. All of that leads me more to think that Lucifer may have left on his own.

As to whether a Dark Angel is Fallen or not, I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. Personally I feel that Dark Angels such as myself never Fell. They never had a connection to God or any other Deity, and therefore could not have Fallen, although their views may be the same as the Fallen, which is why I use the term Dark Angel...not Fallen. Its also my feeling that Dark Angels are very close to Elemental and Animal Courts... I personally find myself having an extremely close connection to both, and I think all other Dark Angels I have talked to also feel such a connection.

Perhaps Dark Angel is the wrong term, but certainly we have no allegiance to any particular Deity...we seem to follow our own hearts and will, not the bidding of others, and react terribly to others trying to "rule" us. It just gets more and more complicated as I look into it, even harder to explain.

[Samielleus Prince]

Maybe "Free" angel would be better? I'm personally not a fan of labels myself. I don't even think of myself as angelkin so much as just an angel (becuase by the definition of kin, as I know it, well it just doesn't fit.) But "Dark" your right, based on what you said I don't think it fits. Sure you may be "in the dark" as far as connecting with God but you're not dark in the sense of "evil" to put it crudely. At least that's my interpretation of the post.

[terro]

I've had this debate before. I find that Holy Angel is a mis-term. "Angel" bears the connotation of being a divine being in the service of God (I hold that less to be the Judeo-Christian "God" and more as the "Creator" entity of all that is, the primary mover and initial consciousness). Similar beings that do not follow that being or any divine being are Celestials, beings of the stars/heavens.

I do not believe that being Fallen has anything to do with not loving the Creator or not being loved by the Creator. I believe that Morning Star still loves the Creator more than anything. I still hold that he disagreed, disobeyed and Fell, not because he was asked to, but because he disagreed and chose to disobey. I believe it was part of his purpose, but if that were so, for him to do that insincerely, for him to stage it, it would not accomplish the purpose of the act.

Someone had to use their ability to choose, in order to choose something different. Who could bear that weight but the greatest of all Angels?

On the note of titles. Angelkin rubs me the wrong way 9 ways from Sunday. I term it as Incarnate Angel. I am an Angel who is incarnated in a Human body. There are two types of Angels, Angels and Fallen Angels. Those that have become Demons are no longer Angels. Those who were never attributed to the Creator in any way are, in my opinion, not Angels. "Free Angel" sounds fluffy and implies that others are not.

[non-sequitur aeon]

As milton would suggest, the difference is one of quality (type) than of quantity (rank)...I don't believe there to be a set higher or lower....and certainly no such thing as being closer to something that is omnipresent/omnipotent....without going into too much detail, the 'fall' allowed for the creation of humanity (which was expected)...I can't argue what the 'fall' is and what it denotes but it did allow for the delusion that one can think and exist outside of god's direct influence (humans)...though the wonderful paradigm is the emphasis i placed on delusion.

In my findings then holy angels are those that fulfill universal necessity through benevolent works that seek to guide and enlighten. Fallen angels are those that fulfill universal necessity through seemingly 'self-oriented' (as opposed to universal/greater good works...which aren't always rainbows and unicorns) works that ultimately guide and enlighten. Dark angels seem to be a rather new term, so at this time I would like to suspend opinion until I 'meet' one.

The theology/theosophy of this topic is sketchy so I'm intentionally omitting it lol...besides i'm sure every self-respecting angelkin is familiar with historical/contemporary views so there's no point in harping (no pun intended) on them.

[Samielleus Prince]

terro said:

"Free Angel" sounds fluffy and implies that others are not.

Yeah I was sort of at a loss on that one. All the words that kept coming to mind sounding really lame, but that was the least of the lames. To be honest though we're all angels, so the dark light and whatever is less to do with "race" but more to do with sensibilities, in my opinion.

Meh with the Lucy thing, as I said, the only ones who know are him and God. I don't ask, he doesn't tell.

[terro]

I wouldn't assume Morning Star truly knows why, to understand God would be to be God.

While I don't say that Humans needed the Fall to occur to have free will. I believe that everyone, all Angels, all beings, everywhere, needed the Fall to happen. They needed to see that there are other options. Loyalty should be a choice, not the only thing you know.

I site an example of not being conscious of something and therefore not being able to conceive it in the "Allegory of the Den."

[non-sequitur aeon]

That philosphical statement that humans cannot conceive something beyond their conscious experience was popular to prove the existance of a god, i believe terro....i'll read up on the "allegory of the den" to see if i'm thinking of the same thing.....i agree, loyalty through ignorance is not loyalty at all....i blame public schooling :-P......

[Samielleus Prince]

I'm not suggesting that Lucy had full knowlege of what he was doing, just that he may have been asked to do it, rather than him simply rebelling. Sort of like how God tolf Jesus he was to die. Jesus wasn't happy about it, but he did it becuase God asked him to.

[Kaoine]

As a Fallen, I can say that it would take a hell of a lot (no pun intended) for me to get to go back home. I've been told it's possible for me, but understanding what I would have to give up - essentially turning my back on the reasons I Fell to begin with - I wouldn't particularly want to.

I've never heard much about Dark Angels before. If they are beings like the Nephelim, I would say that I'd like to think that they have as much chance as any human, given that they were born outside of both Heaven and Hell. They might be more predisposed towards Darkness, but then, lots of humans are, too.

[isiriel]

If we think the politics on Earth are complex, consider that they are made in the image of Heaven. There are many of us willing to speak the truth that it may not have been God that Lucifer disagreed with.
The notion of Angels being slavish servants of God is a human one. The relationship is far more complex. That God allowed him to fall is certain, that God willed it is not. Being separated from one of our kind is nearly as much a punishment to the Angelic Host as it is to the Angel himself.

[Shade]

Isiriel, I like you. I completely agree with everything you said.

[luinbariel]

I personally think that terms such as "dark" or "fallen" are nothing more than words.

I don't really go in for the whole order of angels or the religious side of it, so I tend to see things a little bit differently, I suppose. But of the few "dark" or "fallen" that I've met, they really don't seem all that different from anyone else.

Aside from that, however; if you don't believe in the seperations of this type of angel and that type, then in some cases there may not even be a difference other than the word used to describe them. In my own case, people have called me a number of things, including the words used here; however I don't let it bother me too much. They are words, and if they contradict what you KNOW inside, then I think you've got your answer. NO ONE is a better authority on your situation than yourself.

My two cents.

[Samielleus Prince]

Hmm Hey Lu,

I've been reading on your posts and here's a thought. Do you think you could possibly a Nephilim? (child of angel and human?) I know you don't like labels and that's cool with me. It just seems like your outlook might co-inscide with that particular state (an angel but not really so close to God, just kinda going with the universe's flow sorta thing) That is if I'm interperating your posts correctly xD.

[luinbariel]

Well, it could be possible, I won't deny that, but somehow I don't think so. It still doesn't feel right to me, on the inside. (That sounded lame. What am I, a twinkie?)

It could be because I simply don't believe in that sort of order of things; but I don't know for sure, of course. Still, I think that there are angels who can go without the interpretation or belief in God and do their own thing without necessarily being nephilim.

I think you're more or less reading my posts right, where I seem to be just going with the flow, but I don't think that means that one has to be something other than angelic. I'm not taking it as an insult or anything, lol, just that I think it's entirely possible to still be the "same sort" of angelic as everyone else may or may not be, and yet to be without the influence of god/a god.

It's what I feel the most inside, and is probably one of the main reasons I still talk about it. Otherwise by now, I would probably have just given up on my idea and kept it to myself; there aren't a lot of fans in this club. But somehow I know inside that, at least for me, this is correct.

Of course I could be wrong and maybe I'm just making it all up. I'm open to the idea of Nephilim as well, in the event that I'm full of shite.

[terro]

That is the important thing, that we all remember that it is entirely possible that we're all nuts.

I would agree with a lot of what you said except this, while yes it is true that when it comes down to it, you are the best source for exactly what you believe about yourself, it is also true that sometimes you can be dead wrong. For a good long while I believed myself a Seraphim, that was up until I had another round of memories and such awaken in my mind, and the Seraphim thing became a weak self-interpretation based on not enough information.

I would say you don't sound like anything in the religious paradigm, rather a celestial, unless there was some order you belonged to specifically, it seems that you register yourself as a loner and apart from any service to a deity. In this case, I see Angel as a misdefinition, afterall, Angel is a word, and if you do not fit the definition of the word, then are you an Angel?

If it has fur, paws, a long snout and it barks, it's a dog.