Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
Quote:
Posted by
DeDukshyn
Quote:
Posted by
petra
What an interesting topic!
From what I have heard, Angels don't have any free will... Except Lucifer.
I think Lucifer is misunderstood, and could definitely be one of the "good guys".
That being said, I definitely think energy is being sapped out of me! I'm okay with that, as long as the energy is being used for a NICE purpose. I do NOT want to be used as a weapon.
The way I understand it, that without Lucifer and His "being cast from heaven" (part of the 'outbreath'), there would be no physical universe. It was the process of him "moving out of heaven" that created space, and it is the duration of his leave that creates time. A bit of a metaphor that attempts to describe creation, but I think has been hijacked by religion to mean something else entirely.
I've never heard this before, sure makes Lucifer sound important!
I say "him" too, but I suppose technically, Lucifer is an "It" (sexless being)
The "Big Bang" had to be triggered by something... I think this is as good a theory as any. Certainly would explain why so many think Lucifer is the Devil.
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
The word angel derives from the Greek angelos, meaning "messenger."
Angels carry out the duties of god and there behaviour will be accordingly they can be good, bad and if need be they can get very ugly depending on the mission!
The concept that many have about angels has nothing to do with biblical texts or direct experiences.
I find it very interesting the shamanic like animist descriptions of angels contained with the bible, the seraphim being 'fiery serpents' and the cherubin are not chubby little babies with wings but anthropomorphic shapeshifting beings.
This is an excellent short video on cherubin and if you really want to understand angels is a much watch.
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
https://lunesoleil23.files.wordpress...gels.png?w=540
Quote:
Posted by
Dorjezigzag
The word angel derives from the Greek angelos, meaning "messenger."
Angels carry out the duties of god and there behaviour will be accordingly they can be good, bad and if need be they can get very ugly depending on the mission!
Mercury (Hermes) is also considered the messenger of the gods, it is also associated with Castor and Pollus are, in Greek mythology, the twin sons of Zeus and Leda. They are called the Dioscuri which means the “sons of Zeus” in Greek.
For those who have an interest in angels and there are many of them. Just do a search on google, the result is phenomenal.
I have created a discussion in my group in case you want to find out otherwise the position of the asteroid Angel at the time of your birth.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/grou...612&do=discuss
In the past, I have never had an attraction for someone angel, but since the discovery of the asteroid angel (11911), I have developed a whole new perspective by studying more precisely the retro phases of the asteroid
http://translate.google.com/translat...e%2F&sandbox=1
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
Quote:
Mercury (Hermes) is also considered the messenger of the gods
Yes I discussed that connection over 7 years ago in this video. There are many interesting symbolic connections within the worlds spiritual traditions and religions as their roots are all the same.
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
They are "beautiful or ugly elements" of proximity.
In the program of each person, at a given moment, is the theme of the optic landmark almost accessible in spiritual assembly that could intervenes.
Everything seems to be organized around a supreme goal, around a distance, from which the current, palpable realities appear diminished.
It's a kind of diversion from the concept of "far" that causes us to look in line with the starry horizon, but somehow close to us.
The world of aspirations, ideals, goals, seems to be always drawn "there" on the horizon, our hopes seem to always go in that direction where our spiritual demands seem to catch a kind of body in a transformation transcript.
This can also be pure phantasmagorical philosophy in a fairly philosophical real world.
Concepts always urge us to create a kind of privileged space of the absolute, "that space" as a landmark located at the last limit of the count, without which, the real can sometimes lose its meaning and apparently our existential effort that also loses limits in any sense, can invoke any concept.
The register of human values should be represented here, not in the sphere of a boreal proximity, because the "fallen" man will inevitably experience his fall as if in an irrevocable distance.
Many times, also as an approach to the "angel" idiom, the fallen man somehow feels catapulted to the antipodes of his desires and thus lives his will voluntarily through a kind of creative zeal of constant recovery.
Every kind of being, dreams of a kind of project and has actions in the development of the notion of mission as it fits in the horizon of fulfilling that "there".
For some, "there" may mean a permanent search siege it doesn't matter good or bad.
That "there" can be a universe of faith, one of knowing the absolute truth or one of living daily happiness, all these are vanishing points of the enlivening of the realm of appearance.
The distance "where the angels are" is a kind of raw material of all concepts that call forms of utopias, but it is simultaneously the intuition of transcendence and change from "there" to "beyond", so we can not deny the beneficial role and stimulating purpose to believe whatever might be at hand.
If we want we can be protected by the contemplation of a seemingly distant circumstance valuing its morals, but we must also be able to adapt to an autonomous circumstance given here.
It seems almost impossible to have an opinion about something impalpable, but, avoiding emotional reasons, we move in the sky of the abstract and lose the substance of the real, we can cultivate the sublime or the abyss in creation and we can miss the meeting with "immediately", we begin to produce metaphors and fail to issue simple statements, in other words, we have the possibility to adopt the trajectory of a jump even "without wings" but we can lose the essence of the trajectory of the "natural step"
The interval between "them" and "us" is challenging, and whoever does not walk from close to close can produce an individual standard of dichotomy in which the spirit somehow remains stuck in the forefront of the search, somehow, it should remain very "awake" over the echo of many existences, the concepts remaining only easy forms of guidance.
It is very important not to determine or avoid the polarities between the intermediate spaces (in the absence of other terms), they will break up the transit field we need.
We know very well how we get when "ethics" gets stuck between good and evil, "faith" gets stuck in sinners and Gods, "logic" gets stuck between true and false, this can lead to a risky monotony of deadly genre: object-subject, or matter-spirit, immanent-transcendent, real-unreal, a kind of cadence of all levelers from which we must soon emerge.
In terms of angels, I could say that proximity is precisely the conversion of that vacuum into something dynamic such as the journey into an experience, perhaps the absolute ceases to be Utopian if we turn distance into a chain of nearness spaces , so what is close to us, is closer to the absolute, than we are.
In any density, our proximity could mean our enlarged self, with or without wings, however as a rather conceptual spectrum of choice, the expansion of the self overflowing into an existence seems to be the closest absolute ratification in the most uplifting neighborhood of the spiritual development of man.
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
I suppose they come in many shapes and sizes.
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
I don't believe in angels but I believe in our energy can be angelic ou more close to the source. I have made this music video to help people feel this kind of energy I hope u guys like and feel it. Namaste!!!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2V7kOqxLOyE
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
Quote:
Posted by
Sarah-Jane Quick
Archangels = Bad, keep an eye on you, suck your energy dry, ain't no such thing as a free rescue
"Arch" angels are bad (according to the Gnostics), as are Guardian Angels doled out to you at birth cos they're watching us and reporting back to those badass Archons,
"The prefix ‘arch’ means ruling or chief in Greek." ... https://www.beliefnet.com/inspiratio...-meanings.aspx
So Archangels are just Angels of a higher order ....
Angels were created as non physical beings who's role was to transmit encouragement to physical life forms , and be their unseen helpers ....
In this free will experiment we are living some of the Angels took a wrong path , went spiraling down into depravity delighting in seeing others suffer . These are the Fallen Angels ... they psychically influenced the physical life forms in this Galaxy ( this was billions of years ago ) and corrupted them .. The Annunaki were one of these corrupted races , and the first to get advanced tech which allowed them to dominate the whole Galaxy ... They control many planets (Earth being one ) and it is their enjoyment to torment us and make as much trouble as they can ...
47 questions on Angels answered here ... https://www.getwisdom.com/dwqa-quest...tegory/angels/
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
Quote:
Posted by
oz93666
I knew before I even read your post that this was coming on this thread. :)
You're too predictable! And it really does seem that you accept and routinely believe answers from someone you regard as a higher authority, and don't actually think all that much for yourself.
:focus:
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
Quote:
Posted by
DeDukshyn
Quote:
Posted by
petra
What an interesting topic!
From what I have heard, Angels don't have any free will... Except Lucifer.
I think Lucifer is misunderstood, and could definitely be one of the "good guys".
That being said, I definitely think energy is being sapped out of me! I'm okay with that, as long as the energy is being used for a NICE purpose. I do NOT want to be used as a weapon.
The way I understand it, that without Lucifer and His "being cast from heaven" (part of the 'outbreath'), there would be no physical universe. It was the process of him "moving out of heaven" that created space, and it is the duration of his leave that creates time. A bit of a metaphor that attempts to describe creation, but I think has been hijacked by religion to mean something else entirely.
That reminded me of a passage in William Pieter Blatty's novel 'Legion'. I read it many years ago, but it stuck with me for some reason. Kinderman, the protagonist, is a detective trying to solve a series of murders. He spends much of the novel engaged in philosophical exchanges with a priest friend, the link to the original 'The Exorcist' novel. It's a good book and there was an underrated movie version made with George C Scott. That of course had to skip the philosophy sadly and this passage which I think is a very interesting take on the problem of evil and the identity of Lucifer:
Quote:
Instantaneously, Kinderman was back in the audience and he knew that he was dreaming. The screen had grown larger, filling his vision, and in place of Casablanca he saw two lights against a pale green wash of endless void. The light at the left was large and coruscating, flashing with a bluish radiance. Far to its right was a small white sphere that glowed with the brilliance and power of suns, yet did not blind or flare; it was serene. Kinderman experienced a sense of transcendence. In his mind he heard the light on the left begin to speak. “I cannot help loving you,” it said. The other light made no answer. There was a pause. “That is what I am,” the first light continued; “pure love. I want to give my love freely,” it said. Again there was no answer from the brilliant sphere. Then at last the first light spoke again. “I want to create myself,” it said.
The sphere then spoke. “There will be pain,” it said.
“I know.”
“You do not understand what it is.”
“I choose it,” said the bluish light. Then it waited, quietly flickering.
Many more moments passed before the white light spoke again. “I will send Someone to you,” it said.
“No, you mustn’t. You must not interfere.”
“He will be a part of you,” said the sphere.
The bluish light drew inward upon itself. Its flarings were muted and minute. Then at last it expanded again. “So be it.”
Now the silence was longer, much stiller than before. There was a heaviness about it.
At last the white light spoke quietly. “Let time begin,” it said.
The bluish light flared up and danced in colors, and then slowly it steadied to its former state. For a time there was silence. Then the bluish light spoke softly and sadly. “Goodbye. I will return to you.”
“Hasten the day.”
The bluish light began to coruscate wildly now. It grew larger and more radiant and beautiful than ever. Then it slowly compacted, until it was almost the size of the sphere. There it seemed to linger for a moment. “I love you,” it said. The next instant it exploded into far-flinging brilliance, hurtling outward from itself with unthinkable force in a trillion shards of staggering energies of light and shattering sound.
Kinderman bolted awake. He sat upright in bed and felt at his forehead. It was bathed in perspiration. He could still feel the light of the explosion on his retinas. He sat there and thought for a while. Was it real? The dream had seemed so. Not even the dream about Max had had this texture. He didn’t think about the portion of the dream in the cinema. The other segment had blotted it out.
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
Quote:
Posted by
Wind
I suppose they come in many shapes and sizes.
I will bet some people MIGHT think this is a photo of an angel? Is that actually KLAUS SCHWAB?
https://media.patriots.win/post/iDgTJ5bU.png
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
It may depend on your perspective.
In the Book of Revelations, John describes avenging angels which punish and slay people who destroy the Earth and commit other crimes against Nature.
Consequently, we may gather that angels may not necessarily be founts of Unconditional Love and forgiveness.
Re: Angels: Good, Bad or Ugly?
Quote:
Posted by
Bill Ryan
Quote:
Posted by
oz93666
I knew before I even read your post that this was coming on this thread. :)
You're too predictable! And it really does seem that you accept and routinely believe answers from someone you regard as a higher authority, and don't actually think all that much for yourself.
I think I should respond to that on another thread ... "The continuing search for the truth" , I've yet to post on that thread yet ... Just how do we know what the truth is?? See you all there ....
