I think the point of Job is that even good people, exemplary people, can experience tragedy. It does seem God is saying "Tough Sh*t." It runs counter to the Joel Osteen message of victorious living. That individuals who exercise true faith in Christ will surely attain physical, material, and financial prosperity in this life.
I think the point of Job is that even good people, exemplary people, can experience tragedy. It does seem God is saying "Tough Sh*t." It runs counter to the Joel Osteen message of victorious living.
Sh*t happens. Live with it.
Yes, that as well.
Pre-Biblical religions are a fascinating study, and often explore the ways in which people live with shit.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
Or angels aren't dead people.
But that objection can easily be overcome by saying "God wanted a new soul in Heaven." Maybe throw in "such a wonderful new soul" if you want to capture the same spirit of emotional comfort conveyed by "angels".
FWIW, I believe that somewhere in scripture it says that the saved souls will sit in judgement of Angel's? IOW, we're above them, so calling a deceased person in Heaven an angel is actually a downgrade.
I have no idea why my spell-check has been doing this every time I try to write "angels". Diabolical.
And for anyone interested, the movie Rabbit Hole, about bereaved parents, has a darkly comic scene riffing on the cliche under discussion. (I honestly can't remember anything else about the film, but have the vague recollection it was good.)
1 Corinthians 6:3--
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
Interesting.
If you didn't know the context, that almost sounds like the sort of thing that conservative Christians like to associate with arrogant, hubristic humanism. Except, of course, we don't get to sit in judgement of God.
(And just thinking about it now, I wonder how JWs square that line with their doctrine about Jesus being Michael the Archangel. Maybe archangels are above everyone?)
1 Corinthians 6:3--
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
Interesting.
If you didn't know the context, that almost sounds like the sort of thing that conservative Christians like to associate with arrogant, hubristic humanism. Except, of course, we don't get to sit in judgement of God.
(And just thinking about it now, I wonder how JWs square that line with their doctrine about Jesus being Michael the Archangel. Maybe archangels are above everyone?)
I haven't the slightest clue about the JWs, but I suspect the angels under judgement here are the fallen ones. I don't think the normal ones would need it, would they?
Though I can't see why we'd be involved in the other judgement, either--unless it's poetic justice, and God thinks the victims ought to get a say in what happens to their oppressors. Because biblically, the fallen angels are the ones who've been involved with our own fall, and ongoing distress and temptation.
I could kind of see that as a possibility. Though really, I'd prefer to be let off judging anybody at all.
1 Corinthians 6:3--
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
Interesting.
If you didn't know the context, that almost sounds like the sort of thing that conservative Christians like to associate with arrogant, hubristic humanism. Except, of course, we don't get to sit in judgement of God.
(And just thinking about it now, I wonder how JWs square that line with their doctrine about Jesus being Michael the Archangel. Maybe archangels are above everyone?)
I haven't the slightest clue about the JWs, but I suspect the angels under judgement here are the fallen ones. I don't think the normal ones would need it, would they?
Though I can't see why we'd be involved in the other judgement, either--unless it's poetic justice, and God thinks the victims ought to get a say in what happens to their oppressors. Because biblically, the fallen angels are the ones who've been involved with our own fall, and ongoing distress and temptation.
I could kind of see that as a possibility. Though really, I'd prefer to be let off judging anybody at all.
A dear friend of mine lost a younger brother at an early age. The "god needed an angel" cold comfort comments turned him into an angry anti-theist until many years later he had a dramatic conversion experience. I suspect that partly because of this pendulum swing away from a "god is a bastard" theology he became rather susceptible to a "god is a sugar daddy" prosperity theology.
Personally the sense that God is in the suffering with us (supremely identifying with us on the cursed tree) and the fact that we do have a great high priest bearing us and our burdens is true comfort ymmv.
That and people who know how to actually listen...
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
Thanks.
And, you're right, people don't become angels. But the charge of unreality applies to any comprehensible statement you can make about the afterlife, since the afterlife is outside space and time, but we say things like "He's now with the Lord", which implies a relationship with God that's bound by space and time.
And yet in some way we are told “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
Reading through this reminds me of the story of Job. Remember he lost his whole family too. Job went into a real funk. He got to the point he wanted to put G-d on trial. For him, he concluded if G-d is good, he is not G-d. If G-d is G-d, he is not good.
Job is a miserable example, IMO, because God is a supreme asshole. He lets Job go through holy hell just to win a bet with Satan. That's fucked up. And then he justifies himself to Job with chest-thumping, "I'm big God man, you puny human person, you shut up." If I believed in God, I would say that this story was written by an enemy of God to make him look bad. Because he looks really really bad.
It's a story FFS and probably one of the earliest in the Bible. I don't get from it what you do. It's wonderful poetry and not to be taken as theology. But it is a warning not to be a 'Job Comforter' and offer glib explanation for the world's horrors.
Yes, I think you're right - it's NOT orthodox theology...although quite which god/God it's supposed to picture is pleasingly ambiguous.
As poetry, and as a warning not to be glib, it's spot on.
I don’t think it’s meant to be some pagan god. I do think it’s meant to be poetry/story rather than actual theology as far as God and testing and so on, illustrating not being like Job’s “comforters.”
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
Yes. It's VERY widespread in popular culture. I could probably think of about two dozen examples off the top of my head, but for now...
A PBS fundraising ad from the late 1970s, in which St. Peter(Will Lee, Mr. Hooper from Sesame Street) tells an applicant at the Pearly Gates that he won't be getting in because he watched PBS shows but never donated. I guess the recently deceased wouldn't have been in wings and a halo, but I'm pretty sure Peter was.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I'd be interested to hear a cross-pond comparison on this. I mostly associate the dead-as-angels with American pop culture(APC), but I wonder if that's just because I'm more exposed to APC.
OTOH, no examples from British comedy are really coming to mind. YouTube-searches on "Two Ronnies Pearly Gate" and "Benny Hill Pearly Gate" turn up nothing.
Plus...
Harold Bloom American Religion Worship Of Self We're All Gods Mormons Get Their Own Planet Jesus Is Michael and bunch of other stuff that would sound pretentious and derivative if put into complete sentences.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I'd be interested to hear a cross-pond comparison on this. I mostly associate the dead-as-angels with American pop culture(APC), but I wonder if that's just because I'm more exposed to APC.
OTOH, no examples from British comedy are really coming to mind. YouTube-searches on "Two Ronnies Pearly Gate" and "Benny Hill Pearly Gate" turn up nothing.
Plus...
Harold Bloom American Religion Worship Of Self We're All Gods Mormons Get Their Own Planet Jesus Is Michael and bunch of other stuff that would sound pretentious and derivative if put into complete sentences.
Yes, I’m not including doctrines of churches like Mormonism in this when referring to this. It does make me wonder if that’s where people got the idea…
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
Well, there might be a fine line between "Believing that the dead become angels" and "Often having angels come to mind when imagining how dead people look and act in Heaven."
And you hint at an interesting debate about the difference between "folk Christianity" and "pop-cultural portrayal of Christian concepts".
How would the anthropologist from Mars categorize the innumerable representation of angelicized dead people in cartoons, comedy skits, life-after-death movies etc?
(And it occured to me that you rarely see the deceased inhabiting Hell made to look like demons. I guess that would be giving them too much power and prestige?)
Oh, and thanks for confirming that IAWL portrays the angels as dead people. I was actually trying to remember that myself, but couldn't be bothered to look up the relevant clips.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I'd be interested to hear a cross-pond comparison on this. I mostly associate the dead-as-angels with American pop culture(APC), but I wonder if that's just because I'm more exposed to APC.
OTOH, no examples from British comedy are really coming to mind. YouTube-searches on "Two Ronnies Pearly Gate" and "Benny Hill Pearly Gate" turn up nothing.
Plus...
Harold Bloom American Religion Worship Of Self We're All Gods Mormons Get Their Own Planet Jesus Is Michael and bunch of other stuff that would sound pretentious and derivative if put into complete sentences.
Yes, I’m not including doctrines of churches like Mormonism in this when referring to this. It does make me wonder if that’s where people got the idea…
If there's anything to my psychedelic appropriation of Bloom, I think Mormon angelicization of humans and pop-culture angelicization of humans would have a common root, rather than be the cause of one another either way.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
I have. I have tended to encounter it mostly among those whose faith is, I assume, genuine, but is shaped as much by popular conceptions as by any scriptural or theological education.
And having said that, my experience would suggest it’s more likely to be found among people in Christian traditions other than the traditions you or I or most other shipmates belong to.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
I have. I have tended to encounter it mostly among those whose faith is, I assume, genuine, but is shaped as much by popular conceptions as by any scriptural or theological education.
And having said that, my experience would suggest it’s more likely to be found among people in Christian traditions other than the traditions you or I or most other shipmates belong to.
Do these people you're thinking of actually express it as a believed doctrine(eg. teach their kids that people become angels in Heaven), or more just that they seem to casually accept the idea when presented via media, maybe use phrases(like the one that started this thread) that imply it etc?
And I'd be interested in knowing which denominations you see it represented in, since you indicated that it's not often the types seen among Shipmates.
Personally, I'd think it's less a question of denominations, and more a question of theological training and sophistication, eg. a Catholic and a Presbyterian amateur will both be more likely to believe in the dead-as-angels than an average Shipmate of either tendency would.
(And just so I don't come off as a total snob, I'm not sure if the theological wrongness of the idea is something I had ever seriously thought about until today. Maybe in passing, but I can't exactly recall.)
I'm not sure when religious artists started portraying saints as having halos, relative to when they started portraying angels as having halos, but I wonder if a conflation of the two could also have impacted popular conceptions.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
I have. I have tended to encounter it mostly among those whose faith is, I assume, genuine, but is shaped as much by popular conceptions as by any scriptural or theological education.
And having said that, my experience would suggest it’s more likely to be found among people in Christian traditions other than the traditions you or I or most other shipmates belong to.
Do these people you're thinking of actually express it as a believed doctrine(eg. teach their kids that people become angels in Heaven), or more just that they seem to casually accept the idea when presented via media, maybe use phrases(like the one that started this thread) that imply it etc?
And I'd be interested in knowing which denominations you see it represented in, since you indicated that it's not often the types seen among Shipmates.
Personally, I'd think it's less a question of denominations, and more a question of theological training and sophistication, eg. a Catholic and a Presbyterian amateur will both be more likely to believe in the dead-as-angels than an average Shipmate of either tendency would.
(And just so I don't come off as a total snob, I'm not sure if the theological wrongness of the idea is something I had ever seriously thought about until today. Maybe in passing, but I can't exactly recall.)
I’m inclined to think that in the Roman Catholic Church, what with catechism classes and such, plus the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, even an amateur would be unlikely to believe that. (I know little of Presbyterianism and how people who join are trained.)
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
I have. I have tended to encounter it mostly among those whose faith is, I assume, genuine, but is shaped as much by popular conceptions as by any scriptural or theological education.
And having said that, my experience would suggest it’s more likely to be found among people in Christian traditions other than the traditions you or I or most other shipmates belong to.
Do these people you're thinking of actually express it as a believed doctrine(eg. teach their kids that people become angels in Heaven), or more just that they seem to casually accept the idea when presented via media, maybe use phrases(like the one that started this thread) that imply it etc?
And I'd be interested in knowing which denominations you see it represented in, since you indicated that it's not often the types seen among Shipmates.
Personally, I'd think it's less a question of denominations, and more a question of theological training and sophistication, eg. a Catholic and a Presbyterian amateur will both be more likely to believe in the dead-as-angels than an average Shipmate of either tendency would.
(And just so I don't come off as a total snob, I'm not sure if the theological wrongness of the idea is something I had ever seriously thought about until today. Maybe in passing, but I can't exactly recall.)
I’m inclined to think that in the Roman Catholic Church, what with catechism classes and such, plus the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, even an amateur would be unlikely to believe that. (I know little of Presbyterianism and how people who join are trained.)
Eh, you might be overestimating the rigours of RC education these days. Granted, my experience is growing up in a rather protestantized suburban Catholic church, and attending fairly laidback, state-run Catholic schools, but the nitty-gritty of feast days wasn't discussed much, and I don't recall many lectures that would have served as an absolute deterrent to accepting popular distortions of the afterlife, if someone were otherwise inclined to believe them.
The experience in the USA, where I believe Catholic schools are parish run and probably get into deeper detail about church teaching on arcane subjects, might be somewhat different.
@stetson, when I encounter it, it generally seems to be casual acceptance of what’s been heard.
As for denominations, I’ve mainly encountered it among, say, Pentecostal Holiness or independent church types. Maybe an occasional Southern Baptist. To be clear, I’m not suggesting any churches teach it, but rather that some people in the pews sometimes get as much information about Christian beliefs and form their own beliefs from popular culture and from a sort of osmosis as they do from any formal instruction.
@ChastMastr, I think you’d find that the demographics and level of theological grounding of a typical Presbyterian congregation are very similar to those of a typical Episcopal congregation. Presbyterians tend to place a great deal of importance on education.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting any churches teach it, but rather that some people in the pews sometimes get as much information about Christian beliefs and form their own beliefs from popular culture and from a sort of osmosis as they do from any formal instruction.
Sorry for the double post, but I don’t think I said this particular well. What I meant was the some people’s beliefs are formed as much by what they hear and take in outside church as by what they hear and take in inside church.
Actually, @Nick Tamen, you were perfectly clear and coherent the first time. Not that I didn't appreciate the second version.
And I especially liked your use of "osmosis" to describe a particular style of information intake. For decades now, I've been describing my own style of learning as "osmotic", and I've wondered if that's an analogy I picked up somewhere(*), or if I made it up myself from one of the few terms I recall from junior-high science.
I do not believe that God can adjust the reality he has created to eable people to escaoe the consequences of their actions, however unintentional. I have said on more than one occasion when conducting a funeral, that for reasons of his own, God has set us in a worlg where bad things can and do happen, sometimes horribly, and we can only assume that compassion and empathy are quailities he values, since we have so many opportunitirs to exercise them. Telling people God deliberately took their child from them 'to be an angel is ridiculous.
On angels in general, depictions of them with haloes, wings white robes and harps are of course purely symbolic. Haloes denote holiness, the wings power and speed. The robes, sinlessness (and they enable artists to avoid depicting angels' bodies. If angels exist and are corporeal, I doubt if they have need of clothing,) The harps have crept in from pictures of the heavenly choir - we have a fine heavenly orchestra by Burne-Jones and Morris in our East Window. However, most angels, I think, have other duties. An eternity of psalm-singing is not everyone's idea of heaven. But the pictures are, for most folk, what is meant by 'angel, I'm getting a bit far from the point though.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
I have. I have tended to encounter it mostly among those whose faith is, I assume, genuine, but is shaped as much by popular conceptions as by any scriptural or theological education.
And having said that, my experience would suggest it’s more likely to be found among people in Christian traditions other than the traditions you or I or most other shipmates belong to.
Do these people you're thinking of actually express it as a believed doctrine(eg. teach their kids that people become angels in Heaven), or more just that they seem to casually accept the idea when presented via media, maybe use phrases(like the one that started this thread) that imply it etc?
And I'd be interested in knowing which denominations you see it represented in, since you indicated that it's not often the types seen among Shipmates.
Personally, I'd think it's less a question of denominations, and more a question of theological training and sophistication, eg. a Catholic and a Presbyterian amateur will both be more likely to believe in the dead-as-angels than an average Shipmate of either tendency would.
(And just so I don't come off as a total snob, I'm not sure if the theological wrongness of the idea is something I had ever seriously thought about until today. Maybe in passing, but I can't exactly recall.)
I’m inclined to think that in the Roman Catholic Church, what with catechism classes and such, plus the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, even an amateur would be unlikely to believe that. (I know little of Presbyterianism and how people who join are trained.)
Eh, you might be overestimating the rigours of RC education these days. Granted, my experience is growing up in a rather protestantized suburban Catholic church, and attending fairly laidback, state-run Catholic schools, but the nitty-gritty of feast days wasn't discussed much, and I don't recall many lectures that would have served as an absolute deterrent to accepting popular distortions of the afterlife, if someone were otherwise inclined to believe them.
The experience in the USA, where I believe Catholic schools are parish run and probably get into deeper detail about church teaching on arcane subjects, might be somewhat different.
I’m inclined to think that these sorts of matters aren’t particularly arcane, just basic metaphysics about humans versus angels. And my own experience with catechism was anomalous when I became a Christian, and that was literally 40 years ago…
Maybe the memes about “Biblically accurate angels” could do some good as far as pointing out their not being human, especially if people are absorbing this via osmosis…
I’m inclined to think that these sorts of matters aren’t particularly arcane, just basic metaphysics about humans versus angels. And my own experience with catechism was anomalous when I became a Christian, and that was literally 40 years ago…
Well, some might rhetorically ask: "If the metaphysics of angels isn't an arcane topic, what is?"
Mileages vary, of course. And to be sure, in my boyhood Catholic education, angels would always be portrayed as a separate class from humans. But there likely wasn't anything taught to actively counter the idea that the dead become angels in Heaven, thus leaving the students open to casually accepting the pop-culture view as theologically accurate.
As a comparison, when we were taught about Eden and the Fall, the forbidden food was described as "a fruit", without anyone explicitly telling us "Notice it doesn't say an apple." I'm sure that a lot of the students who went through those lessons came to believe soon thereafter that Adam and Eve, either as real people or mythological characters, were brought down by an apple.
(I was in Grade 5 or 6 when I learned from a Readers Digest book of fun facts that Genesis never says it was an apple that got eaten. I do wonder how long I would have continued under that illusion without that book. A few years back, I saw the forbidden fruit casually described as an apple in AN ARTICLE ABOUT EVE in a very major literary journal.)
I’m inclined to think that these sorts of matters aren’t particularly arcane, just basic metaphysics about humans versus angels. And my own experience with catechism was anomalous when I became a Christian, and that was literally 40 years ago…
Well, some might rhetorically ask: "If the metaphysics of angels isn't an arcane topic, what is?"
Mileages vary, of course. And to be sure, in my boyhood Catholic education, angels would always be portrayed as a separate class from humans. But there likely wasn't anything taught to actively counter the idea that the dead become angels in Heaven, thus leaving the students open to casually accepting the pop-culture view as theologically accurate.
As a comparison, when we were taught about Eden and the Fall, the forbidden food was described as "a fruit", without anyone explicitly telling us "Notice it doesn't say an apple." I'm sure that a lot of the students who went through those lessons came to believe soon thereafter that Adam and Eve, either as real people or mythological characters, were brought down by an apple.
(I was in Grade 5 or 6 when I learned from a Readers Digest book of fun facts that Genesis never says it was an apple that got eaten. I do wonder how long I would have continued under that illusion without that book. A few years back, I saw the forbidden fruit casually described as an apple in AN ARTICLE ABOUT EVE in a very major literary journal.)
My apologies—I should have said this:
I’m inclined to think that these sorts of matters aren’t particularly arcane, just basic metaphysics about humans versus angels. BUT my own experience with catechism was anomalous when I became a Christian, and that was literally 40 years ago…
BUT, not AND. I.e., my approach to this stuff might be the anomaly, at least in our society, back then, and maybe even more so now. When I became a Christian (circa age 15-16) I decided to pick the Roman Catholic Church on the grounds that it must be the original, because everyone else broke away from it (I didn’t know about eastern orthodoxy, nor about the claims of Anglicanism to have apostolic succession), and I asked so many questions that the lay person teaching catechism (called “CCD” back then) couldn’t answer, like where the cavemen went when they died (which seemed to me of rather vital importance, just in principle—applying really to everyone who wouldn’t know about Jesus, at very least), that the church set me up with a very nice nun as a kind of tutor (RIP, Sister Constance) who mainly helped me find the C.S. Lewis books I was seeking and couldn’t find in our rather rural, bookstore-poor area.
(I was astonished that the lay person teaching catechism had never thought about where the cavemen went when they died. I kind of still am, honestly…)
For me, as a convert to Christianity in the first place, not raised in it nor any religion (Jewish by blood but not raised in that either), perhaps since all of the info was a new thing to me, learned basically as an adult (again, 15-16), no Sunday School or the like, the nature of angels and such seems more like one of the standard things one should learn as part of it all? Whereas if I’d just absorbed it without thinking about all the details, I might have glossed over that?
Or maybe I’m just weird. I know I’m rather odd in general…
Chastmastr, it sounds sensible to me. But I think a lot depends on whether you have the sort of mind that is chiefly concerned with yourself and what pertains to you, or whether you routinely ruminate about cavemen and angels (as I would).
Do angels even look human? Almost every time they appear to people in the bible the first thing they say is "do not fear".
That may be due to their aura of holiness, or perhaps difference, IYSWIM, rather than having a fearsome appearance. They sometimes seem to be depicted as androgynous, although the Bible uses the male pronouns.
From the brief hints we get in the Bible, angels appear to come in various, um, species. There’s a six winged variety, a four faced kind (with wheels!), and some who seem indistinguishable visibly from human beings… until they get going on their message.
As far as humans judging angels goes, Hebrews 2 says we're made lower than they (angels). Maybe it's a last shall be first kind of thing, or a putting the lowest at the head of the table kind of thing. I leave it to those for whom angels actually exist and are important. The Book is less clear than it could be, though.
All very interesting, but perhaps @The_Riv is able to tell us how the local community is now dealing with this tragedy? Only if you feel up to it @The_Riv...it's early days yet...
Thanks, @Bishops Finger -- there hasn't been much news since the girl was identified a couple of days ago. Nothing about funeral arrangements. No further statements from the family or police. It's just senseless and sad. Again, I'm not connected to this family in any way.
The discussion around folk traditions and angels made me think of the beginning of "Its A Wonderful Life" where angels are depicted as celestial bodies that light-up when they're speaking. Poor Clarence, a human-turned-angel, is represented by a single star. A follow-up made-for-tv movie, "Clarence" in 1990 portrays the title character on a similar mission accompanied by another angel who used to be a human (the deceased husband of the other main character). Angels represented as stars, though, is something even Jesus talks about.
FWIW, this Pew Research Center survey from 2021 found that 43% of adult Americans believe that the dead “definitely/probably” “can become angels.” (See p. 31) There isn’t a breakdown of that number by religious identification (Catholic, Protestant, etc.), but they note that the question that included this particular belief was only posed to those respondents who said they believe in heaven (for which no definition was given), which was 73% of American adults. (See p. 11)
If I am reading the report correctly, two-thirds of those who responded to the survey identified as Christian. (See p. 26) Regardless, I think this survey suggests that the idea that the dead “definitely/probably” “can become angels” is more common, both in the culture at large and among Christians, than we might think.
FWIW, this Pew Research Center survey from 2021 found that 43% of adult Americans believe that the dead “definitely/probably” “can become angels.” (See p. 31) There isn’t a breakdown of that number by religious identification (Catholic, Protestant, etc.), but they note that the question that included this particular belief was only posed to those respondents who said they believe in heaven (for which no definition was given), which was 73% of American adults. (See p. 11)
If I am reading the report correctly, two-thirds of those who responded to the survey identified as Christian. (See p. 26) Regardless, I think this survey suggests that the idea that the dead “definitely/probably” “can become angels” is more common, both in the culture at large and among Christians, than we might think.
Yikes. 😮
As far as angels’ appearances go, that may be just how they appear to humans at different times, in different contexts, or it may denote different species, as @Lamb Chopped said. Or some of each! Traditionally (in Christian belief, once there was a clear conclusion on this) they’re pure spirit, not made of matter at all.
Of course the Greek word from which "angel" is derived simply means "messenger" - there's no need for them to have haloes, wings or white robes. So Mary may simply have been taken aback by the sudden appearance of a total stranger, seemingly from nowhere.
The cherubim and seraphim described elsewhere are, I suggest, different.
Angelos does appear to have been one of the (many) epithets associated with Hermes.
Well, thank you. Never knew that.
I was wondering if there might be a connection between the wings of Hermes/Mercury and the wings of Christian angels, though going by the internet, Hermes wings are almost always portrayed as small ones on his headwear.
Speed and flight? It seems kind of intuitively symbolic for me. Of course angels are often messengers, and Hermes is considered a messenger, and in both cases, they’re going between the heavens and the earth, so picturing them with wings (including on Hermes’ sandals) just seems symbolically appropriate to me.
C.S. Lewis said, in his Introduction to the Screwtape Letters,
It should be (but it is not) unnecessary to add that a belief in angels, whether good or evil, does not mean a belief in either as they are represented in art and literature. Devils are depicted with bats’ wings and good angels with birds’ wings, not because anyone holds that moral deterioration would be likely to turn feathers into membrane, but because most men like birds better than bats. They are given wings at all in order to suggest the swiftness of unimpeded intellectual energy. They are given human form because man is the only rational creature we know. Creatures higher in the natural order than ourselves, either incorporeal or animating bodies of a sort we cannot experience, must be represented symbolically if they are to be represented at all.
These forms are not only symbolical but were always known to be symbolical by reflective people. The Greeks did not believe that the gods were really like the beautiful human shapes their sculptors gave them. In their poetry a god who wishes to “appear” to a mortal temporarily assumes the likeness of a man. Christian theology has nearly always explained the “appearance” of an angel in the same way. It is only the ignorant, said Dionysius in the fifth century, who dream that spirits are really winged men.
He says elsewhere that the trouble with Milton's angels in Paradise Lost is that they are too corporeal and too much encumbered with armour.
It occurs to me that thethe reason the angel told Mary not to be alarmed miight have been because it manifested to her in human form, without the encumbrance of clothing.
While I'm here, I may as well mention that all the angels' names we know end in -el because they are emanations of Gog ('El'). That is what an angel is.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
People do not become angels.
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Indeed. The idea of those who die becoming angels may not be orthodox Christianity, but it’s definitely found in folk Christianity and popular culture.
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
No, but as noted, it can definitely be found in folk Christianity.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
I have. I have tended to encounter it mostly among those whose faith is, I assume, genuine, but is shaped as much by popular conceptions as by any scriptural or theological education.
And having said that, my experience would suggest it’s more likely to be found among people in Christian traditions other than the traditions you or I or most other shipmates belong to.
Do these people you're thinking of actually express it as a believed doctrine(eg. teach their kids that people become angels in Heaven), or more just that they seem to casually accept the idea when presented via media, maybe use phrases(like the one that started this thread) that imply it etc?
And I'd be interested in knowing which denominations you see it represented in, since you indicated that it's not often the types seen among Shipmates.
Personally, I'd think it's less a question of denominations, and more a question of theological training and sophistication, eg. a Catholic and a Presbyterian amateur will both be more likely to believe in the dead-as-angels than an average Shipmate of either tendency would.
(And just so I don't come off as a total snob, I'm not sure if the theological wrongness of the idea is something I had ever seriously thought about until today. Maybe in passing, but I can't exactly recall.)
I’m inclined to think that in the Roman Catholic Church, what with catechism classes and such, plus the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, even an amateur would be unlikely to believe that. (I know little of Presbyterianism and how people who join are trained.)
RCs are well used to visual depictions of Saints with halos and angels with wings and are unlikely to confuse the two.
When did angels become soft and cuddly? In the OT they are bloody terrifying.
Comments
Sh*t happens. Live with it.
Yes, that as well.
Pre-Biblical religions are a fascinating study, and often explore the ways in which people live with shit.
But that objection can easily be overcome by saying "God wanted a new soul in Heaven." Maybe throw in "such a wonderful new soul" if you want to capture the same spirit of emotional comfort conveyed by "angels".
FWIW, I believe that somewhere in scripture it says that the saved souls will sit in judgement of Angel's? IOW, we're above them, so calling a deceased person in Heaven an angel is actually a downgrade.
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
Interesting.
I have no idea why my spell-check has been doing this every time I try to write "angels". Diabolical.
And for anyone interested, the movie Rabbit Hole, about bereaved parents, has a darkly comic scene riffing on the cliche under discussion. (I honestly can't remember anything else about the film, but have the vague recollection it was good.)
If you didn't know the context, that almost sounds like the sort of thing that conservative Christians like to associate with arrogant, hubristic humanism. Except, of course, we don't get to sit in judgement of God.
(And just thinking about it now, I wonder how JWs square that line with their doctrine about Jesus being Michael the Archangel. Maybe archangels are above everyone?)
Only if you feel up to it @The_Riv...it's early days yet...
I haven't the slightest clue about the JWs, but I suspect the angels under judgement here are the fallen ones. I don't think the normal ones would need it, would they?
Though I can't see why we'd be involved in the other judgement, either--unless it's poetic justice, and God thinks the victims ought to get a say in what happens to their oppressors. Because biblically, the fallen angels are the ones who've been involved with our own fall, and ongoing distress and temptation.
I could kind of see that as a possibility. Though really, I'd prefer to be let off judging anybody at all.
Interesting thoughts @Lamb Chopped
Personally the sense that God is in the suffering with us (supremely identifying with us on the cursed tree) and the fact that we do have a great high priest bearing us and our burdens is true comfort ymmv.
That and people who know how to actually listen...
And yet in some way we are told “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2 Corinthians 5:8
I’ve found it in pop culture (Laverne and Shirley, for example). It’s still not orthodox Christian theology, of course.
I don’t think it’s meant to be some pagan god. I do think it’s meant to be poetry/story rather than actual theology as far as God and testing and so on, illustrating not being like Job’s “comforters.”
Yes. It's VERY widespread in popular culture. I could probably think of about two dozen examples off the top of my head, but for now...
A PBS fundraising ad from the late 1970s, in which St. Peter(Will Lee, Mr. Hooper from Sesame Street) tells an applicant at the Pearly Gates that he won't be getting in because he watched PBS shows but never donated. I guess the recently deceased wouldn't have been in wings and a halo, but I'm pretty sure Peter was.
I'd be interested to hear a cross-pond comparison on this. I mostly associate the dead-as-angels with American pop culture(APC), but I wonder if that's just because I'm more exposed to APC.
OTOH, no examples from British comedy are really coming to mind. YouTube-searches on "Two Ronnies Pearly Gate" and "Benny Hill Pearly Gate" turn up nothing.
Plus...
Harold Bloom American Religion Worship Of Self We're All Gods Mormons Get Their Own Planet Jesus Is Michael and bunch of other stuff that would sound pretentious and derivative if put into complete sentences.
I’m genuinely wondering like where this is part of folk Christianity here in the United States? I mean I trust that this is true but I’ve never encountered it myself. It is pervasive in things like television and movies and things like that (Clarence from it’s a wonderful life, etc.). But I’ve never encountered it as something that people who actually have some kind of real religious faith in these matters believe.
Yes, I’m not including doctrines of churches like Mormonism in this when referring to this. It does make me wonder if that’s where people got the idea…
Well, there might be a fine line between "Believing that the dead become angels" and "Often having angels come to mind when imagining how dead people look and act in Heaven."
And you hint at an interesting debate about the difference between "folk Christianity" and "pop-cultural portrayal of Christian concepts".
How would the anthropologist from Mars categorize the innumerable representation of angelicized dead people in cartoons, comedy skits, life-after-death movies etc?
(And it occured to me that you rarely see the deceased inhabiting Hell made to look like demons. I guess that would be giving them too much power and prestige?)
Oh, and thanks for confirming that IAWL portrays the angels as dead people. I was actually trying to remember that myself, but couldn't be bothered to look up the relevant clips.
If there's anything to my psychedelic appropriation of Bloom, I think Mormon angelicization of humans and pop-culture angelicization of humans would have a common root, rather than be the cause of one another either way.
And having said that, my experience would suggest it’s more likely to be found among people in Christian traditions other than the traditions you or I or most other shipmates belong to.
And I'd be interested in knowing which denominations you see it represented in, since you indicated that it's not often the types seen among Shipmates.
Personally, I'd think it's less a question of denominations, and more a question of theological training and sophistication, eg. a Catholic and a Presbyterian amateur will both be more likely to believe in the dead-as-angels than an average Shipmate of either tendency would.
(And just so I don't come off as a total snob, I'm not sure if the theological wrongness of the idea is something I had ever seriously thought about until today. Maybe in passing, but I can't exactly recall.)
I'm not sure when religious artists started portraying saints as having halos, relative to when they started portraying angels as having halos, but I wonder if a conflation of the two could also have impacted popular conceptions.
I’m inclined to think that in the Roman Catholic Church, what with catechism classes and such, plus the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, even an amateur would be unlikely to believe that. (I know little of Presbyterianism and how people who join are trained.)
Eh, you might be overestimating the rigours of RC education these days. Granted, my experience is growing up in a rather protestantized suburban Catholic church, and attending fairly laidback, state-run Catholic schools, but the nitty-gritty of feast days wasn't discussed much, and I don't recall many lectures that would have served as an absolute deterrent to accepting popular distortions of the afterlife, if someone were otherwise inclined to believe them.
The experience in the USA, where I believe Catholic schools are parish run and probably get into deeper detail about church teaching on arcane subjects, might be somewhat different.
As for denominations, I’ve mainly encountered it among, say, Pentecostal Holiness or independent church types. Maybe an occasional Southern Baptist. To be clear, I’m not suggesting any churches teach it, but rather that some people in the pews sometimes get as much information about Christian beliefs and form their own beliefs from popular culture and from a sort of osmosis as they do from any formal instruction.
@ChastMastr, I think you’d find that the demographics and level of theological grounding of a typical Presbyterian congregation are very similar to those of a typical Episcopal congregation. Presbyterians tend to place a great deal of importance on education.
And I especially liked your use of "osmosis" to describe a particular style of information intake. For decades now, I've been describing my own style of learning as "osmotic", and I've wondered if that's an analogy I picked up somewhere(*), or if I made it up myself from one of the few terms I recall from junior-high science.
(*) By, err...osmosis?
On angels in general, depictions of them with haloes, wings white robes and harps are of course purely symbolic. Haloes denote holiness, the wings power and speed. The robes, sinlessness (and they enable artists to avoid depicting angels' bodies. If angels exist and are corporeal, I doubt if they have need of clothing,) The harps have crept in from pictures of the heavenly choir - we have a fine heavenly orchestra by Burne-Jones and Morris in our East Window. However, most angels, I think, have other duties. An eternity of psalm-singing is not everyone's idea of heaven. But the pictures are, for most folk, what is meant by 'angel, I'm getting a bit far from the point though.
I’m inclined to think that these sorts of matters aren’t particularly arcane, just basic metaphysics about humans versus angels. And my own experience with catechism was anomalous when I became a Christian, and that was literally 40 years ago…
Well, some might rhetorically ask: "If the metaphysics of angels isn't an arcane topic, what is?"
Mileages vary, of course. And to be sure, in my boyhood Catholic education, angels would always be portrayed as a separate class from humans. But there likely wasn't anything taught to actively counter the idea that the dead become angels in Heaven, thus leaving the students open to casually accepting the pop-culture view as theologically accurate.
As a comparison, when we were taught about Eden and the Fall, the forbidden food was described as "a fruit", without anyone explicitly telling us "Notice it doesn't say an apple." I'm sure that a lot of the students who went through those lessons came to believe soon thereafter that Adam and Eve, either as real people or mythological characters, were brought down by an apple.
(I was in Grade 5 or 6 when I learned from a Readers Digest book of fun facts that Genesis never says it was an apple that got eaten. I do wonder how long I would have continued under that illusion without that book. A few years back, I saw the forbidden fruit casually described as an apple in AN ARTICLE ABOUT EVE in a very major literary journal.)
My apologies—I should have said this:
I’m inclined to think that these sorts of matters aren’t particularly arcane, just basic metaphysics about humans versus angels. BUT my own experience with catechism was anomalous when I became a Christian, and that was literally 40 years ago…
BUT, not AND. I.e., my approach to this stuff might be the anomaly, at least in our society, back then, and maybe even more so now. When I became a Christian (circa age 15-16) I decided to pick the Roman Catholic Church on the grounds that it must be the original, because everyone else broke away from it (I didn’t know about eastern orthodoxy, nor about the claims of Anglicanism to have apostolic succession), and I asked so many questions that the lay person teaching catechism (called “CCD” back then) couldn’t answer, like where the cavemen went when they died (which seemed to me of rather vital importance, just in principle—applying really to everyone who wouldn’t know about Jesus, at very least), that the church set me up with a very nice nun as a kind of tutor (RIP, Sister Constance) who mainly helped me find the C.S. Lewis books I was seeking and couldn’t find in our rather rural, bookstore-poor area.
(I was astonished that the lay person teaching catechism had never thought about where the cavemen went when they died. I kind of still am, honestly…)
For me, as a convert to Christianity in the first place, not raised in it nor any religion (Jewish by blood but not raised in that either), perhaps since all of the info was a new thing to me, learned basically as an adult (again, 15-16), no Sunday School or the like, the nature of angels and such seems more like one of the standard things one should learn as part of it all? Whereas if I’d just absorbed it without thinking about all the details, I might have glossed over that?
Or maybe I’m just weird. I know I’m rather odd in general…
That may be due to their aura of holiness, or perhaps difference, IYSWIM, rather than having a fearsome appearance. They sometimes seem to be depicted as androgynous, although the Bible uses the male pronouns.
Thanks, @Bishops Finger -- there hasn't been much news since the girl was identified a couple of days ago. Nothing about funeral arrangements. No further statements from the family or police. It's just senseless and sad. Again, I'm not connected to this family in any way.
The discussion around folk traditions and angels made me think of the beginning of "Its A Wonderful Life" where angels are depicted as celestial bodies that light-up when they're speaking. Poor Clarence, a human-turned-angel, is represented by a single star. A follow-up made-for-tv movie, "Clarence" in 1990 portrays the title character on a similar mission accompanied by another angel who used to be a human (the deceased husband of the other main character). Angels represented as stars, though, is something even Jesus talks about.
If I am reading the report correctly, two-thirds of those who responded to the survey identified as Christian. (See p. 26) Regardless, I think this survey suggests that the idea that the dead “definitely/probably” “can become angels” is more common, both in the culture at large and among Christians, than we might think.
Yikes. 😮
As far as angels’ appearances go, that may be just how they appear to humans at different times, in different contexts, or it may denote different species, as @Lamb Chopped said. Or some of each! Traditionally (in Christian belief, once there was a clear conclusion on this) they’re pure spirit, not made of matter at all.
The cherubim and seraphim described elsewhere are, I suggest, different.
So would that word have been the title associated with Hermes back in the days when he was a popular object of worship?
Well, thank you. Never knew that.
I was wondering if there might be a connection between the wings of Hermes/Mercury and the wings of Christian angels, though going by the internet, Hermes wings are almost always portrayed as small ones on his headwear.
It occurs to me that thethe reason the angel told Mary not to be alarmed miight have been because it manifested to her in human form, without the encumbrance of clothing.
While I'm here, I may as well mention that all the angels' names we know end in -el because they are emanations of Gog ('El'). That is what an angel is.
RCs are well used to visual depictions of Saints with halos and angels with wings and are unlikely to confuse the two.
When did angels become soft and cuddly? In the OT they are bloody terrifying.