Are angels natural or supernatural?

[Ophiolite]

I don't understand the point of your question.

jan.

This was in response to my statement: "I have grown accustomed to your difficulty in seeing the obvious."

1. This has the grammatical structure of a statement, not a question.
2. No question mark is appended to the sentence, but a full stop is used, confirming the grammatical indication that it is a statement.
3. No sensible reading of the statement could lead one to believe it is a question.

This Jan, typifies your posts and gives us insight in to your thought processes. You are oblivious to reality. You do not listen to what people say, or attend to what they write. You are delusional, lacking in critical thinking skills and devoid of logic. Sadly, these are your strong points. From there it is all downhill.

If passive-aggressive behaviour was an Olympic sport you would be gold medalist in successive Olympiads.

 

[sculptor]

Circa 3 decades ago, I decided to sculpt an angel. I wanted to do a tough guy who could destroy a city with ease. Fortunately, one of the local catholic churches was under repair and surrounded by bridge scaffolding. so I climbed up and onto the roof to check out the dozen or so angels who were mounted on the parapets. All of them were in calm and relaxed poses.
I do not know who the sculptor(s?) was (were), but every angel had really long toes( for perching on branches?). After consideration, and contemplation, I found a wrestler to pose for the angel. I wanted him rising up in the moment before taking flight.

A local park acquired him, but people complained about his balls. After consulting with the alderman: They gave him back and I refunded some of their money(after overhead expenses).
Then, I mounted him on a 20 ft pole.
Then, a small tornado flew him for several yards and broke a wing, his arm and foot when he landed. The arm was buried in the ground up to the elbow.
Such is the tale of "Homo sapiens angelicus".
......................
How much of a wingspan would be appropriate for a 2 meter tall angel?

 

[kx000]

Supreme nature, and nature are one in the same.

 

[billvon]

Neither do jellyfish or butterflies, but their non human bodies conform to nature.

Correct. And if the Bible depicted angels that looked like jellyfish, you might have a point. It does not. In fact, the Bible quite clearly states that they often look so very human that you might mistake them for ordinary people if you weren't careful: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Hebrews 13:2) Of course, sometimes they glow and their faces turn into lighting, and their bodies turn to polished brass - but apparently that's rare as it was only mentioned a few times.

But this is somewhat beside the point. You have admitted that they are “ministering spirits” and do not have "flesh and bones" - they are supernatural, in other words, even though they look just like men.

 

[James R]

Actually I asked why they wouldn't be subjected to natural law.

Do you know any creatures that use 'magic' to fly?

No. I don't know any creatures that use magic full stop.

I've already pointed out to you that angels, in the form that they look like human beings (which is how they are typically represented), could not fly, wings or no wings. The physics doesn't work.

So, how about you tell me how they could fly by natural means?

If you can't get past existence, then say so, so we don't waste each others time.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You claim that angels can fly using natural means. You need to explain how they can do that.

So if angels do exist, they can't have physical bodies?

You're the expert on angels, aren't you Jan?

Why don't you tell us whether they have physical bodies?

But if they don't, then that would make them not subject to natural laws, would it not?

Or maybe they can make their physical bodies disappear at will. Which also is not something that is possible according to natural laws.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Let's face it we will not get very far with mere speculation upon what are clearly mythical beings.

It is up to those who claim angels are real, either natural or supernatural, to offer proof or reasonable evidence.
If there is no evidence the lie should be stopped.
How cruel to teach children these lies... It is terrible.

Is it unreasonable to expect that those persons who claim that angels exist do provide some sort of reasonable evidence.

I am speculating here but I expect that if I said that aliens were visiting Earth in intra galactic space ships I would be called upon to provide some sort of evidence or in its absence to stop lieing and making up nonsence.
Most reasonable folk would interpret such claims as an indicator of insanity.


Is it reasonable to let the lies continue by claiming it is part of my religious beliefs that these mythical aliens visit in space ships...all the while in the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever.
No of course it is not acceptable and yet when it comes to religion lies are not lies but mere interpretations of the bible.

I think it is entirely unacceptable to present a story and claim it is true without any proof or evidence, and to counter when challenged, about the credibility of that story, for the chalenger to then be told, by the story teller, that these stories (in point the stories of angels) comes from writings over two thousand years old and not to provide clear evidence as to whom were the authors of these tales, leaving any reasonable person to not conclude anything about their credibility of a positive nature leaving one to suspect that they were clearly superstitious people who tended to explain everything of mystery to them as occurrence due to some supernatural happening.

The lie however remains.

It is unacceptable that these lies are allowed to continue and causes one to ask should religious freedom be extended to make the telling of lies acceptable and tolerated without complaint.

Alex

 

[geordief]

The Catholic religion used to teach that everyone had a guardian angel.As a child I believed this and even left space in my bed for it.

It was clearly a propaganda tool (special effects dept), as well as a way of "fleshing out" the inconsistencies of the overall teaching.

Artists working for (or loyal to) the church obviously had to represent all this in a visual form and did their best.

"Artistic license" comes to mind, as does "suspended disbelief"

There is of course a lot more to it...

 

[luis131]

Of course angels are supernatural. They are basically the products of human imagination. Fantasy. And in a fantasy world, almost everything is supernatural.

 

[spidergoat]

How much of a wingspan would be appropriate for a 2 meter tall angel?

Depends which kind of angel, African or European?

 

[exchemist]

The Catholic religion used to teach that everyone had a guardian angel.As a child I believed this and even left space in my bed for it.

It was clearly a propaganda tool (special effects dept), as well as a way of "fleshing out" the inconsistencies of the overall teaching.

Artists working for (or loyal to) the church obviously had to represent all this in a visual form and did their best.

"Artistic license" comes to mind, as does "suspended disbelief"

There is of course a lot more to it...

And now of course, in your neck of the woods, you have the Gateshead Flasher : https://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_brace/1473826676/?ytcheck=1

 

[Write4U]

IMO, angels and demons are the left-overs from poly-theistic religions. After it was decided there was only one god, all the other gods which by all accounts also had godlike powers, were demoted to mere spiritual beings, not actual gods. I find all that very confusing.

 

[Write4U]

Circa 3 decades ago, I decided to sculpt an angel. I wanted to do a tough guy who could destroy a city with ease. Fortunately, one of the local catholic churches was under repair and surrounded by bridge scaffolding. so I climbed up and onto the roof to check out the dozen or so angels who were mounted on the parapets. All of them were in calm and relaxed poses.
I do not know who the sculptor(s?) was (were), but every angel had really long toes( for perching on branches?). After consideration, and contemplation, I found a wrestler to pose for the angel. I wanted him rising up in the moment before taking flight.

A local park acquired him, but people complained about his balls. After consulting with the alderman: They gave him back and I refunded some of their money(after overhead expenses).
Then, I mounted him on a 20 ft pole.
Then, a small tornado flew him for several yards and broke a wing, his arm and foot when he landed. The arm was buried in the ground up to the elbow.
Such is the tale of "Homo sapiens angelicus".
......................
How much of a wingspan would be appropriate for a 2 meter tall angel?

In one of the *Underworld* movirs, a vampire appears to use a considerable wingspan.

What confuses me is why a *spiritual* being would require wings at all?

 

[Ophiolite]

What confuses me is why a *spiritual* being would require wings at all?

Indeed. Frankly, I don't understand all this flap about wings. Are certain members trying to feather their own emotional nests? Are we being subject to fly-by posting? (Will juvenile humour really take off?)

 

[Jan Ardena]

This was in response to my statement: "I have grown accustomed to your difficulty in seeing the obvious."

That quote was a response to this...

''Edit: But perhaps you don't believe that God can perform supernatural acts or create supernatural entities. That would be an interesting turn.''

I had no idea as to why you would tell this to me, so I turned it into a question...

''Do you believe that God can perform supernatural acts or create supernatural entities?''

And I still don't get it.

What do you mean by 'supernatural in this context?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Indeed. Frankly, I don't understand all this flap about wings. Are certain members trying to feather their own emotional nests? Are we being subject to fly-by posting? (Will juvenile humour really take off?)

We're all essentially ''spiritual beings'', and some of us fly, and some don't.
Because they are ''ministering spirits'', doesn't mean they don't have bodily form which is conducive to their particular angelic roles.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, give an example of something that you do consider to be supernatural. Or is no concept supernatural in your view?

Angels are supernatural because there is no evidence for them, they aren't tangible, no one has seen them, there is no indirect evidence for them, they are not of this world, etc.

I comprehend what you mean by supernatural, and I agree as per the definition, that angels fall into the supernatural category.

Would you consider the type of aliens known as ''Greys'', supernatural entities...



...or just aliens.

PS. Let's not get bogged down in the issue of existence.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

How much of a wingspan would be appropriate for a 2 meter tall angel?

Something on the order of 12 meters, if he's going to be built like a wrestler and actually fly.

If they have suitable modifications - such as thin and hollow bones - one could get by with less.

Are leprechauns supernatural?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I've already pointed out to you that angels, in the form that they look like human beings (which is how they are typically represented), could not fly, wings or no wings. The physics doesn't work.

Who says they can or do fly?
Maybe some of their species can , and some can't.
I'm saying that flying is not contrary to the laws of nature.

You claim that angels can fly using natural means. You need to explain how they can do that.

I was never claiming that angels weren't supernatural creatures from our everyday perspective, only that they don't do supernatural things. Not according to what I've read.
As for how they do it (if they do it), I don't know.

You're the expert on angels, aren't you Jan?

Had to start didn't you?
No I'm not an expert on angels James.

Why don't you tell us whether they have physical bodies?

If they exist as created beings, then they must have physical bodies.

Or maybe they can make their physical bodies disappear at will. Which also is not something that is possible according to natural laws.

They can make their bodies disappear from our vision, at will. Not disappear completely. If they could do that they would cease to exist.
I've already given a couple of ideas how they could possibly do that, and you rejected them.

jan.

 

[sculptor]

Are leprechauns supernatural?

second cousins to the firbolg and shee?

 

[Baldeee]

Who says they can or do fly?
Maybe some of their species can , and some can't.
I'm saying that flying is not contrary to the laws of nature.

Flying isn't necessarily contrary to the laws of nature, but since "flying" is the result, the important thing would be the mechanism, how it is achieved.
Since the laws of nature do seem to preclude certain mechanisms, I would suggest avoiding equivocation of "flying" as covering all mechanisms.