The Modern Angel Hoax

Originally Posted by Dragonfly1

Well....what makes you think that the Bible or any other 'holy' book, is the truth?.......men wrote it.....how did they know?....many people have had actual experiences in their own lives that gives them proof of evidence of female Angelic beings...how can you dispute that? you can't......reading some book then telling everyone that their beliefs are wrong, is naive...... what makes you think women are 'less' in the eyes of the Divine? some words written by ancient men?
I don't think so....I will trust experience over the words of some human men, written millenia ago....every time.....HOW would you know the things that many people see and experience aren't female Angels, in their experience? Do you have actual proof that 'we' are all wrong?........
In my own experiences Angels come in both male and female persona....for some people the exact Angels can be a totally different sexual orientation to what i experience them as.....Angels come in a form that is comfortable for those they are coming to....whether male or female......Angels are actually beings of light.....they appear in human form for our convenience not theirs, how do I know this........they have come to me, aided me in their pure form..... They don't have actual sexual orientation.....

I am a Divine energy in a human form, and to me Angels are of the Divine, so how does that make me 'above' them? we are equal all in the eyes of the Source....even the disbelievers......everyone.....Your condescending tone in your words does nothing to get your point across.....and I see that you are a woman, stranger still....Do you think you are 'less' because you are a woman?....I certainly don't....
Its 2012..we're not in ancient times now, those books were written thousands of years ago for those times, we have progressed and become truly aware. God has given us the insight to see the Divine how it really is.....you can believe as you wish, (that does not necessarily make it right)...but please don't preach and imply that everyone is insane because they have experienced obviously something that you haven't yet.......

Yeah I used to be angry like you so see the sacred texts applied so. But, too many people today see it exactly as the men wrote it.

Aside from harpies and the concept of female angels in the monotheistic sense, there were later interpretations of the Erinyes, appearing as beautiful but vengeful and deadly winged female warriors or huntresses often depicted wielding whips, various bladed weapons and torches.

Harpies, although winged and appearing as human-avian hybrids, are usually depicted as being repulsively ugly and described as being rather rapacious, sometimes preying upon humans.

As far as the depiction of flying humans or human like beings go, the wings we often see in various forms of art symbolizes the ability to fly. One doesn’t necessarily need wings to leave the ground.

first of all, i agree with OP, but if anyone want to believe there are female angels out there, i wont say *no* to that. i kinda remember there was a single female angel mentioned in the bible, but im not sure and not by name.

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

lol angels are only male? what would be the point of male angels without female angels? if there's one gender there's going to be the complimentary gender. even celestial genitalia needs purpose.

right, cause the bible totally says the angels can have sex

@Dragonfly1
First of all the bible is a book which recounts history, but at the same time it also contains some interesting stories to make people reading it learn and understand some stuff...good or bad, and to become better people.
second of all, the bible is a collection of history books which have been selected and put together to make this religious book..but what criteria have been used, im not quite sure
3rd point: women aren't less than men, and i dont think OP was trying to imply this.
4th ... humans have free will, angels dont. that is why lucifer rebelled. HE was the one to think that humans were more than angels because of the free will, which can be true. but angels are also sons of God, while humans are supposed to look like God, because they are created.
5th... angels are refered to as being male in many languages i believe. the bible says that *a man appearted before mary and told her stuff* well, if it was a man it means it was a male, otherwise the book would have said a woman, correct? thats why we today say the angels are males, even if nobody looked under their robes

Greetings Kitty of Prosperous Business! If you ever see it again, let us know which book, chapter and verse. It makes sense why the angels were makin'time with the daughters of men. No female angels! Sorry 'bout dat, but facts is facts and we all know the bible is more than just a collection of stories put together by some guys at a council meeting they had. Perhaps the feminine angels were in some of the books they left out? Now that would be enlightening. Why would they do this?

[Internal Queries]

right, cause the bible totally says the angels can have sex

actually the Bible does say that angels can have sex. they found the women of earth fair and propagated "giants" and "men of renown".

methinx the gender of one's angel concept has more to do with individual psychological need than the actuality of angelic sexuality.

Originally Posted by Wisa'ka

Aside from harpies and the concept of female angels in the monotheistic sense, there were later interpretations of the Erinyes, appearing as beautiful but vengeful and deadly winged female warriors or huntresses often depicted wielding whips, various bladed weapons and torches.

Harpies, although winged and appearing as human-avian hybrids, are usually depicted as being repulsively ugly and described as being rather rapacious, sometimes preying upon humans.

As far as the depiction of flying humans or human like beings go, the wings we often see in various forms of art symbolizes the ability to fly. One doesn’t necessarily need wings to leave the ground.

I see your research includes a lovely gnomish red fungus with white spots.

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

actually the Bible does say that angels can have sex. they found the women of earth fair and propagated "giants" and "men of renown".

methinx the gender of one's angel concept has more to do with individual psychological need than the actuality of angelic sexuality.

angels dont need to have sex,
yea, they bore children with the female humans, because they were *hot babes* but i think they used their angelic powers rather than you know what
after all, this is how it happened to Mary...

but i agree with the 2nd part of your post

Originally Posted by RiversLady

I see your research includes a lovely gnomish red fungus with white spots.

Ahhh, but I always hold on to at least a single blade of grass as not to completely separate myself from the good old terra firma of this world.

[Internal Queries]

Originally Posted by RiversLady

I see your research includes a lovely gnomish red fungus with white spots.

the Hebrew high priests who were allowed near the Ark of the Covenant smeared their bodies with calamus... a hallucinogen.

exodus 30:22-25

Originally Posted by RiversLady

Perhaps the feminine angels were in some of the books they left out? Now that would be enlightening. Why would they do this?

My guess would be because it was a patriarchal society that treated all women like property and having no rights at all. So the more accurate question would be, why would they NOT leave out any mention of feminine Angels. Wouldn't that mean there was a chance, that if God made feminine Angels, then there could be a chance that women of that time would latch on to the concept that being female was not really a bad thing, and possibly even starting up a woman's rights movement way back then? Why was it that all the books which mentioned any different type of relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, were not included in the Bible?

There's an interesting little skirmish written about in the Gospel of Thomas, which surprise surprise, did not make it into the Bible. Simon Peter is arguing that Mary Magdalene has no place being amongst them and should therefor be sent away. Simply because she is a women, and all women are of the Earth, whereas men are of the sky (Heaven), and it's just not right to have her amongst so many men who were is such high standing with God, that all of their place in Heaven was most definitely assured. The consensus of the time, was that only men were allowed to enter into Heaven, kind of like Heaven was some kind of prestigious "men's club" Which could be another explanation as to why none of the men who wrote the books of the Bible had never mentioned any existence of female Angels But anyway, Jesus goes on to tell Simon Peter, "Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males."

I hate to say this, but back in Biblical times, there was a whole lot of sexist beliefs going on way back then So again, the more accurate question would be: Why would the men who actually wrote the Books of the Bible, or the men who got to decided just which Gospels would be allowed in the Bible to standardize the entire things, why would they NOT exclude any mention of a female Angel, when they were a strictly patriarchal society?

Now, I'm not saying this to serve as absolute proof that there were indeed female Angels. But I am saying, that if there really were, this would be at least one reason why they would not want to mention it. Half of writing history is being able to cover up the things which you don't want other people to know.