|
|
Post by shadowphoenix on Feb 8, 2008 2:15:09 GMT -5
I encountered an Darkangel once, pretty agrresive person but fun to fight nevertheless for a very briefe moment before I had to move on.
People confuse pro-cosmos/anti-cosmos, order/chaos, light/dark, and good/evil too easily these days. Well at least the way I tend to see it, going to sound know-it-allish
Pro-cosmos/anti-cosmos is someone seeks to destroy the overal universal order is tried to preserve or destroyed and for the universal order there needs to be a balance of the elemts order and chaos. Cosmos affords creation and destruction, live and death and so on. And in my opinion instead of the saying of some Pleidans (or so) linearity of time and space.
Order/Chaos are base elements coming from two primordal planes the all static and all changing known in the nordic pantheon with nifelheim and muspelheim those once crashed into each other in a way.
Light/Dark were interspersed with chaos order on a far later date of creation. Light is making something obvious or seeks to reveal, Dark is making something obscure or seeks to hide. Yep Dark Angels can be quite overprotective.
In a way I think, or from Gnostic things I read, that there is another Universe/Plane of Light and Darkness (Plemora) that got mixed into this and of which at least I feel some beings that were nearest to the event and the first time saw darkness this was percieved as something consuming for the beings of darkness it was like being squashed. In a way I believe this might have sparked this Light versus Darkness war that appears in so many modern fantasy tales.
Good/Evil are very personal categories in a way very easy way to paint reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by non-sequitur aeon on Feb 8, 2008 23:38:35 GMT -5
I encountered an Darkangel once, pretty agrresive person but fun to fight nevertheless for a very briefe moment before I had to move on. People confuse pro-cosmos/anti-cosmos, order/chaos, light/dark, and good/evil too easily these days. Well at least the way I tend to see it, going to sound know-it-allish Pro-cosmos/ anti-cosmos is someone seeks to destroy the overal universal order is tried to preserve or destroyed and for the universal order there needs to be a balance of the elemts order and chaos. Cosmos affords creation and destruction, live and death and so on. And in my opinion instead of the saying of some Pleidans (or so) linearity of time and space. Order/ Chaos are base elements coming from two primordal planes the all static and all changing known in the nordic pantheon with nifelheim and muspelheim those once crashed into each other in a way. Light/ Dark were interspersed with chaos order on a far later date of creation. Light is making something obvious or seeks to reveal, Dark is making something obscure or seeks to hide. Yep Dark Angels can be quite overprotective. In a way I think, or from Gnostic things I read, that there is another Universe/Plane of Light and Darkness (Plemora) that got mixed into this and of which at least I feel some beings that were nearest to the event and the first time saw darkness this was percieved as something consuming for the beings of darkness it was like being squashed. In a way I believe this might have sparked this Light versus Darkness war that appears in so many modern fantasy tales. Good/ Evil are very personal categories in a way very easy way to paint reality. lot of words in there that i've never heard  -goes off to translate- |
|
freelanceangel
New Member
I was made for chasing dreams. ~Staind
Posts: 42
|
Post by freelanceangel on Jul 21, 2008 20:31:15 GMT -5
I have a question I'd like to ask, if I may. Is being an angelkin restricted to the Judeo-Christian tradition of angels? Angel comes from the Greek angelos which means 'messenger,' and it is as messengers that angels can be found in absolutely every mythology on Earth. Does anyone here relate to a different angelic tradition, or is it only the Judeo-Christian?
|
|
|
|
Post by kareshi on Jul 22, 2008 22:42:25 GMT -5
Angels predate every religion in known Human history and are beyond religion.
I do believe that Angels all serve the same entity, I refer to this entity as the Creator as it mirrors many of the all-creator deities in many religions (I actually find the descriptions of Brahman to be most fitting), however most Angels seem to fit into the descriptions and choirs laid down in Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions and writings.
I am of the mindset that Angels are a specific Phylum of Celestials, a Phylum that all serve the same being... that which does not serve the Creator is either Fallen or never was an Angel.
|
|
freelanceangel
New Member
I was made for chasing dreams. ~Staind
Posts: 42
|
Post by freelanceangel on Jul 23, 2008 12:41:16 GMT -5
I certainly have to agree with you on most of that post, kareshi. The only thing I would disagree on is that angels themselves don't adhere to the Judeo-Christian/Islamic tradition. Angelkin seem to adhere to that, and it's probably because that is what we're most familiar with in this day and age. I wonder if there are any angelkin whose form is more in keeping with other angelic traditions?
|
|
|
|
Post by non-sequitur aeon on Aug 8, 2008 11:37:11 GMT -5
i'm supposing that kareshi is speaking mostly of the writings of scholars such as aquinas (and perhaps even dante/milton). the tricky aspect of the topic is that most all celestials are quite adept at changing their appearance to best relay their message or complete their task. their 'image' is one of symbolism, as not all humans relate well to their particular form of communication (i'm using a disassociating term 'their' as i'm physical at this time). so much of what is 'said' is done so through symbolism which is transcribed by the subconscious. the current popular 'archetype' is the christian angel. i can infer 2 statements here relating to angelkin.
1. 'angel' is merely the best association (ie label) they've found for themselves...as christianity has influenced the english language....there's really not alternate words for alternate types of celestials.
(in this circumstance they are what they are. they just seek a good word to put on it)
2. angelkin adopt the concept of angels from this culture...it is an innate attribute that celestials have. finding what they're most similar to...and aligning to the archetype to best communicate themselves and their task to others.
(here, they adhere to what's common...because that's what works best in the psyche of those around them....these are both similar with a slight twist)
the term angel does in fact denote those of a judeo-christian construct. there's many other facets within which celestials have shown themselves to humanity (especially if you consider the choir of principalities). i agree that angels aren't themselves christians...they're just the christian take on themselves....an extrapolation if you will.
|
|
freelanceangel
New Member
I was made for chasing dreams. ~Staind
Posts: 42
|
Post by freelanceangel on Aug 8, 2008 20:26:15 GMT -5
Interesting that you should mention principalities, non-sequitur. ^_^ That was the angelic classification that was chosen for me. I agree that angels aren't Christian- the word itself simply has a lot of Judeo-Christian implications- but they are universal messengers from the divine- take your pick WHICH divinity- to humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by non-sequitur aeon on Aug 8, 2008 23:39:24 GMT -5
-nod- many angelkin seem to use 'angel' as a term to identify with at least a quasi-judeo-christian outlook. otherwise, it seems the popular term is 'celestial'.......perhaps closer to an order than a phylum but i understand what kareshi is saying :-). such all is semantics, which i suppose are important only in the sense that we all know what the other is talking about...
|
|
-goes off to translate-
