…and this is a 
The gullibility of the religious is amazing…but they always seem to be rewarded with the fawning affirmations of other believers, and more publishing opportunities. Yet again, the Huffington Post flaunts its absurdl woo side with a piece of tripe from Therese Borchard claiming that angels exist.
As you sit there reading this--whether you believe it or not--there is an angel by your side: it is your guardian angel, and it never leaves you. Each one of us have been given a gift, a shield made from the energy of light. It is a part of the guardian angel's task to put this shield around us.
To God and the angels we are all equal; we all deserve to be protected, to be cared for, and to be loved, regardless of what others might think of us--good or bad. When I look at someone I can physically see this shield around them; it's as if it's alive.
Your guardian angel is the gatekeeper of your body and your soul. He was assigned to you before you were even conceived; as you grew in your mother's womb he was there with you at every moment, protecting you. Once you were born and as you grow up your guardian angel never leaves your side for an instant; he is with you when you sleep, when you are in the bathroom, all the time--you are never alone. Then, when you die, your guardian angel is there beside you, helping you to pass over.
No, there is no angel next to me. There is no tangible, visible, magical agent here in the same room; I can't smell it, hear it, feel it, see it, and if I stub my toe there will be no winged seraph to kiss it and make it all better. We could scan this room with all kinds of scientific instruments that can look at wavelengths well outside the limitations of our eyes, and there would be nothing there — I'd be surrounded by a corona of infrared radiation, but in the rest of the room, nothing but a layer of bacteria and nematodes, a cloud of dust mites, and perhaps the occasional housefly.
Yes, I know, if I confronted a fan of belief in angels, they'd tell me my material scientific tools can't see something spiritual, but then I'd have to point out that their eyes are also merely material tools, and she has claimed to be able to see the 'shield' of angels. Is she lying? If we had two angelists viewing this room at the same time, but unable to communicate with each other, they'd give two different accounts of what is going on. They are making it all up.
This whole elaborate mythology of guardian spirits floating about in your vicinity is a lie, and these frauds who claim knowledge of their existence are faking it every step of the way.
But all they have to do is say it confidently, and make sure it's a pleasing myth, and fools will eat it up.
Comments
Posted by: wazza | May 27, 2009 8:06 AM
What I wonder is why the angel is a "he"...
Posted by: telamonides | May 27, 2009 8:07 AM
Can I get an AMEN!!!!??
Posted by: mikecbraun | May 27, 2009 8:09 AM
Yeah, but what I want to know is if angels really don't have any junk, like in "Dogma." Help me, Huffington Post.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 27, 2009 8:10 AM
Swine flu????
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | May 27, 2009 8:12 AM
Rorschach:
You know, you'd think that *you* of all people could recognize Dr. Manhattan...
Posted by: AlgaeGirl
|
May 27, 2009 8:14 AM
So what about the guardian angels of the babies who were deformed in the womb or died because of SIDS? Or the people who die from a long and painful disease, or get any disease at all? Shouldn't our angels be protecting us from that? Or is it all a part of god's mysterious plan for us that some of us are born deformed or get sick? If these angels were really doing their job all the time, none of that would happen. Unless god stuck his big bullying hand out there and stopped the angel from doing their job. Do the angels get to use the Nuremberg defense?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 27, 2009 8:17 AM
So, ummm... when an infant is killed by a reckless drunk driver, is his / her angel asleep? Or just incompetent?
I would think that if I had a 'guardian angel', that's exactly the moment I'd assume I'd get his help. Ya know... when I actually really need it. If such a powerful and omnipresent being exists to protect me, but can't when it matters most, then you can keep him. He's fairly useless, thanks. I'll take care of myself and likely do a much better job of it if I'm not waiting for my 'guardian angel' to do shit for me.
Posted by: NYCMike | May 27, 2009 8:17 AM
Guardian Angel is watching you masturbate.
Posted by: claw | May 27, 2009 8:18 AM
Sigh, my mother and her sisters subscribe to this tripe at times. They were raised roman catholic so they're pre-programmed for it. When they start going on about it I always ask the difficult questions they don't like such as "was so-and-so's angel on coffee break when (bad event) happened to (insert white, blond, privilidged girl name)?"
Then there's all that crap about praying to the saints to get things done.
"oh i lost something so i prayed to st. anthony and then i found it, he helped me!" or other anecdote, so i ask them if St anthony would be a dear and take time from fetching their gew-gaws in order to find the starving orphans in africa some food.
that usually shuts them up.
it's sad because deep down, they know what they're saying and doing is silly, but they desperately want something to comfort them.
i try to explain to them that given the number of places in a house you can lose something is finite and it's inevitable that you can find something you lost, but no. I tell them that people often lose items because they're not paying attention to what they're doing with them, and that later they pass right over it because they may not be looking for it at the time, but no.
Angels, definitely angels. Or house elves. Or bogarts (not Humphrey)
Posted by: BigBob | May 27, 2009 8:18 AM
> a shield made from the energy of light
So why can't I see it?
Posted by: Newfie | May 27, 2009 8:19 AM
I have a Dodger next to me.
Posted by: ElitistB
|
May 27, 2009 8:20 AM
I don't even care about the simple truth that angels don't exist for this article.
What I care about is the total misnaming of her "guardian angels". The angels are always there, watching you. From when you are born until when you die. Oh, except they never GUARD you from anything. "He is protecting you." Well beyond the idiocy of assigning a sex to an angel (which has no DNA), she never states that these angels actually guard. Instead they seem to be cosmic voyeurs.
She talks about a shield that they put around you. Maybe it is this shield that guards you? But a shield against what? It doesn't protect against bullets, against radiation, against evil intent or even against bad luck. It isn't a shield because it doesn't SHIELD.
At best they "help you cross over", though this isn't guarding, it isn't shielding. Evidently humans couldn't do this on their own? If we were created in God's image, then God's got some serious self concept issues she needs to work out.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 27, 2009 8:21 AM
Well, that shows just how much you know, guardian angels obviously exist: Out of 1,600 Christians surveyed, 84% believed that they had a guardian angel. Unimpeachable source.
You should also take the opportunity to find out if you're hip enough to know the exact hue and cut of the Emperor's new clothes.
Posted by: Colin J | May 27, 2009 8:22 AM
Make no mistake, angels exist. Oh, not the kind talked about in this article, but the living, breathing, human kind of angel. I've met them, talked to them. They are the women and men of our species that work everyday to save lives, and make THIS WORLD a better place. They saved my daughters life when she was born at 27 weeks gestation. I felt and saw no ethereal presence, just the skill and determination of a dedicated, scientifically trained team.
If you want to see angels, look around you or in the mirror. That's where you'll find them.
Posted by: Lord Tristan | May 27, 2009 8:22 AM
Oh man! Now that I know that everyone is being constantly protected by an intangible shield made of pure energy, I'm going to have to test this theory...
with SCIENCE!
I'll set myself (Atheist) as the control group, and have several people of different faiths and intensities of belief as the test subjects. Then, an impartial third party will shoot arrows at each person, and see who is the least damaged.
SCIENCE.
Posted by: Thriftybat | May 27, 2009 8:23 AM
Well, that shows just how much you know, guardian angels obviously exist: Out of 1,600 Christians surveyed, 84% believed that they had a guardian angel. Unimpeachable source.
You should also take the opportunity to find out if you're hip enough to know the exact hue and cut of the Emperor's new clothes.
Posted by: Chris
|
May 27, 2009 8:25 AM
They are making it all up.
I beg to differ.
It all depends on the amount of dope you smoke, or in case your Catholic, how much time you waste sitting around in churches inhaling incense...
Posted by: Jen | May 27, 2009 8:25 AM
Wow. Creepy.
Not to mention that the angels seem to be (like other spiritual protective forces), somewhat lax in their duties. Said author should read the report at http://www.childabusecommission.ie/ from beginning to end and then see if they can continue spouting this tripe with a clear conscience.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 27, 2009 8:29 AM
If she sees angels and such and she is NOT lying, she better go see a professional of the physical world.
Are guardian angels even in the damn bible to begin with?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 8:29 AM
Did you try to detect her by measuring gravitation ? Torsion ballance should be sensitive enough if guardian angels have roughly human size and density.
Posted by: Bob O'H | May 27, 2009 8:31 AM
I do hope none of your family were with you when you typed that...Posted by: Josh
|
May 27, 2009 8:32 AM
These angels are rather impotent, aren't they? Either that or they take one hell of a lot of coffee breaks?
Posted by: Moggie
|
May 27, 2009 8:32 AM
And yet, when an atheist writes critically about religious belief, we're always told that we're attacking a straw man, that real religious people are far more sophisticated in their beliefs than we portray them to be, that it's not about sky fairies and guys with wings but much more ineffable and hand-wavy than that.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 8:32 AM
Even if this spiritual shield did exist, It doesn't seem like it does anyone much good. If I run out in front of a speeding bus I'll be heavily injured, if not dead. So what exactly is it supposed to protect against? The only things that can really affect us in life manifest themselves physically, so a spiritual shield is about as much use as a bulletproof vest made of tissue paper.
Does anyone know if this "Angels In My Hair" book actually ever explains what the shields do? Or does it simply state that they exist, and that therefore we're all better off?
(My first Pharyngula comment although I've been reading for a while! (It'll be a while before I can spell the name without having to look at the title of the tab))
Posted by: Tim Danaher | May 27, 2009 8:33 AM
I have nothing to add, except:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Et6m7taEY
ANGEL FEATHERS!!!
"there's all different colours and shapes and sizes..."
Yes, there's a reason for that, you know...
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
May 27, 2009 8:33 AM
Colin J. says: "Make no mistake, angels exist. Oh, not the kind talked about in this article, but the living, breathing, human kind of angel."
Colin, I understand your motivation in posting this, but I think you do a disservice to real, flesh-and-blood humans who do good in the world by equating them with the supernatural. Humans have a choice in whether they make the world better or worse. They have a choice to be selfish or selfless. This makes the accomplishment of humans who consistently choose to do good all the more remarkable. By concentrating on the supernatural, the purveyors of woo ignore the true miracles that are around them every day.
Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | May 27, 2009 8:35 AM
Is it weird that I'm turned on by an angle is watching me in the bathroom.
Probably not.
Posted by: reikirebel | May 27, 2009 8:36 AM
Well the high and mighty with all the answers must live here, narrowmindedness is a dis-ease of the mind and is part to blame for all the wars, illness and greed in this world ... so belief is bad, non belief seems just as bad ... I'll stay in the middle, openminded and compassionate :-)
RR
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 27, 2009 8:37 AM
It all depends on the amount of dope you smoke, or in case your Catholic, how much time you waste sitting around in churches inhaling incense...
Oh, Hell No!
I can (did) write (but not edit or proof) a dissertation and/or article nicely while smoking up...no amount of weed has ever brought about thoughts of angels or any such nonsense.
Incense I cannot speak about.
Posted by: llewelly | May 27, 2009 8:37 AM
Does this mean people who think they're having private twosomes are in fact engaging in four-way orgies?Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
May 27, 2009 8:38 AM
People have a desperate need to believe somebody is driving the bus--ignoring the fact that the bus has just run over 20 pedestrians and a chihuahua. Every time I see a bumpersticker that says something like "God is my Co-pilot," I want to say, "Your co-pilot is tired, honey. You drive for awhile."
Posted by: Seamyst | May 27, 2009 8:38 AM
He was assigned to you before you were even conceived
Oh, so now people are people before conception? Their souls just sort of bounce around in the "mothers'" wombs until conception occurs, I suppose.
This is getting more and more ridiculous.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | May 27, 2009 8:39 AM
Were none of these guardian angels able to get visas to Ireland? Or were they all on strike?
Posted by: Dick Alstein | May 27, 2009 8:40 AM
"Then, when you die, your guardian angel is there beside you, helping you to pass over."
.. and when you arrive in the afterlife you can curse him to hell for failing to prolong your earthly existence some more.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 27, 2009 8:41 AM
And ignorant... don't forget ignorant.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 27, 2009 8:41 AM
he is with you when you sleep, when you are in the bathroom, all the time
Kind of like the fellas at the frickin' FCC?
Posted by: Jaf | May 27, 2009 8:43 AM
"Say it confidently, and make sure it's a
pleasing myth, and fools will eat it up."
I've nicked that for my Usenet and email sig. Hope you don't mind. . .
Posted by: Alan | May 27, 2009 8:43 AM
I only believe in 3 of the 9 orders of angels; Thrones Powers, and Principalities.
All the others are patently absurd, so on a statistical basis; no I don't believe.
Posted by: Stacy
|
May 27, 2009 8:45 AM
Who is Therese Borchard ?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 27, 2009 8:45 AM
@wazza: it's "he" by virtue of the tradition started by some long dead weirdo who claimed to be celibate. If you find that objectionable, just imagine they're French - then it all sounds the same: Gabriel/Gabrielle, Michel/Michelle ... mmmm ... that's much sexier ... I mean better.
@Michelle: I can't recall ever reading about guardian angels in the bible, but they were certainly a popular bedtime story in catholic families. Many cultures have "guardian spirits"; in ancient Rome it was the "lares" which are most similar to the "imp" in English lore (which was likely influenced by the Romans anyway) but also bears some resemblance to the "fairy" and the "elf". Perhaps the guardian angel story is yet another example of pagan mythology appropriated by the church for its own nefarious purposes.
Posted by: RichardW | May 27, 2009 8:46 AM
Anyone else been watching the latest season of "Supernatural", with its "Angels of the Lord" story arc? Now those are angels I can believe in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WDGOcmayVg
Posted by: catta
|
May 27, 2009 8:47 AM
In addition to the superstitious woo, there's another thing about this crap that always gets on my nerves: this is such a thoroughly Victorian concept of angels. Angels are described as incredibly terrifying beings in just about every Abrahamic religion. If the kind of being that was probably meant with "angel" stood behind the author, she'd wet herself. There's a reason that in the bible the first words spoken by an Angel in Bethlehem are "don't be afraid", before it can even try to announce anything. It has to make sure the shepherds aren't running away screaming first.
I really wish these people would at least pay attention to their own literature. They're not meant to feel blissfully shielded by fuzzy-wuzzy protectors, they should be scared stiff.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 27, 2009 8:47 AM
Perhaps we're misunderstanding. Perhaps angels aren't supposed to protect us from physical harm, but from things like demonic possession. If so, they're doing a great job! I haven't been possessed by a demon since I was a teenager.
Posted by: pete | May 27, 2009 8:48 AM
Incompetant twats, these angels
Posted by: llewelly | May 27, 2009 8:48 AM
Lord Tristan | May 27, 2009 8:22 AM:
Arrows? That's not science!! You need to use something cool, like a laser cannon, a particle beam, or at the very least a super-electro-magnetic rail gun.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
May 27, 2009 8:51 AM
I think that probably one of the STOOPIDEst bumper stickers I have ever seen is "Never Drive Faster Than Your Angel Can Fly." WTF? How slow are these retarded angels, anyway? And why wouldn't they just sit on the roof of the car and enjoy the view?
Posted by: Sleeper | May 27, 2009 8:53 AM
Only Charlie's. Ummm ... Jaclyn Smith.
Posted by: Richard Smith | May 27, 2009 8:55 AM
@Tim Danaher (#25)
I guess my own guardian angel must be allergic to foam and other synthetic stuffing materials, as he stays far away from me and never drops any feathers, at least at home.
Sadness.
Posted by: Dahan | May 27, 2009 8:58 AM
I have a cat who's dozing while resting against my leg right now, but his name isn't Angel, it's Tycho. Also he's not a very good guardian against anything except mice, flies, and other small critters.
Posted by: Rick T | May 27, 2009 9:02 AM
Maybe they are crossing guard angels, not guardian angels.
They have little vests and flags made of energy of light that glow in the the spirit realm.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | May 27, 2009 9:03 AM
Reason for some of the prophets?
Posted by: Sir Craig | May 27, 2009 9:06 AM
When Arianna was shlepping around as a Republican in California, she provided much amusement with her tales of woo regarding her good friend and spiritual advisor John-Roger.
I nearly celebrated when she dropped the GOP in favor of the Democrats, until I realized she brought John-Roger with her. It became quite clear that even liberals weren't immune to spiritual idiocy.
Now she has a blog which combines the logic and reasoning of the progressive movement with the inanity of woo. Why the clearer heads that contribute to that site don't run screaming every time an article by Deepak Chopra or this current twit shows up will remain a mystery to me, but at least it's one mystery that isn't supernatural in origin.
By the way, do suicide bombers have guardian angels? Just curious...
Posted by: Joven | May 27, 2009 9:08 AM
So she has synesthesia and sees peoples body funk, combine with a low IQ and it becomes an angelic shield of light. (a shield that cant even protect against sunburn, but then again, it is the greater light.)
Or shes just lying, but that cant be, shes a christian....
Posted by: seventhrib | May 27, 2009 9:08 AM
They're with us before we're even conceived? What they hell are they doing till then? Practising?
Posted by: Alex | May 27, 2009 9:10 AM
Angels=metaphysical stalkers.
Posted by: Black Jack Shellac | May 27, 2009 9:12 AM
It's really pretty tragic that people with schizophrenia are not getting the treatment that they need.
Posted by: Moggie
|
May 27, 2009 9:13 AM
#54:
Isn't it obvious? Angels = sperm.
Posted by: BAllanJ | May 27, 2009 9:18 AM
There was a theory that gained some traction back in the 70s that human psychology underwent a big change 4000 yrs ago. The theory was that before that, people's conscious mind didn't plan, have a sense of time, etc. Those functions were done by the brain, of course, but on a more subconscious/ instinctual level, and was referred to as a sort of personal god.
I'm wondering if folks with an angel are psychological throwbacks. Interesting, too, that most of the religions of the world seem to have begun or changed around this time.
I know I should run off and hunt up a reference, but somebody here probably knows the theory and has a ref closer to hand than I do.
Posted by: James F | May 27, 2009 9:20 AM
ABBA weighed in on the subject some time ago:
I have a dream, a song to sing
To help me cope with anything
If you see the wonder of a fairy tale
You can take the future even if you fail
I believe in angels
Something good in everything I see
I believe in angels
When I know the time is right for me
I'll cross the stream - I have a dream
I have a dream, a fantasy
To help me through reality
And my destination makes it worth the while
Pushing through the darkness still another mile
I believe in angels
Something good in everything I see
I believe in angels
When I know the time is right for me
I'll cross the stream - I have a dream
Posted by: lurker_above | May 27, 2009 9:20 AM
Once you were born and as you grow up your guardian angel never leaves your side for an instant.
What pathetic nonsense. If I'm going to have a protector, I want it to be a robot that transforms into a car. At least I'd know that was designed.
Posted by: Carlie | May 27, 2009 9:21 AM
I guess it wouldn't have as much social traction if they were called "creepy stalker ghosts". Marketing is everything.
Posted by: auraboy | May 27, 2009 9:26 AM
I quite like the misspellings granting us 'Guardian Angles'
I like to imagine there is 45 degrees out there for everyone...
Posted by: genesgalore | May 27, 2009 9:27 AM
wtf you talikng abbout willis! of course angels exist. just ask Beelzebub what a hard time he has had since the almighty kicked him out of the archangel corps....that anthropomorhizing of energy, does weird things to weird people.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | May 27, 2009 9:27 AM
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/09/angels-and-evidence.html
[skeptical part snipped]
Of course there are Angels, all over the place;
There's nothing that’s plainer than this:
Every time you feel raindrops go splash on your face,
Some Angel is taking a piss.
Say what? It’s not Angels, but clouds in the sky?
That’s nonsense, as any can tell!
I tell you it’s Angels that piss from on high—
You cynics can all go to Hell.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
May 27, 2009 9:28 AM
These angel fans should really consider growing up a tad...
Bad enough they have a malevolent git for a make believe god...now they want angels and probably uncle tom cobbly and all to be a dancing on the head of a very subjective pin.
They cannot make their minds up can they?
Is it one god or three gods...is a saint a god?...if not why pray to them?...is an angel a god?...why do they have to be on your shoulder?...
'Don't stand
Don't stand to
Don't stand to close to me!'...weirdo!
Badly damaged mental goods methinks!
Posted by: raven | May 27, 2009 9:31 AM
This is silly. A guardian angel who is invisible and does nothing detectable.
What is the difference between the undetectable and nonexistent now?
However, my invisible friend, the 6 foot tall rabbit is real.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
May 27, 2009 9:31 AM
So many questions...so little interest... ;-)
Posted by: Epinephrine | May 27, 2009 9:33 AM
I have to admit that while reading the article, all I could picture was a site filled with photos of tragic accidents with the words "Angel FAIL" photoshopped onto each one.
Posted by: razzmataz | May 27, 2009 9:37 AM
Is there actually anything in the bible that says there's an angel assigned to us before we're born? Where does this stuff come from? (seriously!)
Posted by: Merkin Muffley
|
May 27, 2009 9:37 AM
Other than the occasional walk into the land of woo, you have to admit that the HuffPost is valuable . Think back to the dark days before it existed, how much harder it was to find out what your favorite celebrity thought about the burning issues of the day. Celebrities are just so much more insightful than the rest of us, probably because someone pays them a lot of money.
Posted by: Moggie
|
May 27, 2009 9:38 AM
#58:
Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
Posted by: amstrad | May 27, 2009 9:38 AM
"What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"
Carl Sagan's "The Dragon In My Garage":
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Posted by: Lee Harrison | May 27, 2009 9:39 AM
So when a woman is considering an abortion does her guardian angel and 'the baby's' guardian angel duke it out, two falls, no submission?
Did aborted foetuses have wimpy guardian angels? Enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: RamblinDude | May 27, 2009 9:41 AM
catta,
I know Christopher Walken would make me piss myself.
Posted by: raven | May 27, 2009 9:42 AM
It is a common belief that we are surrounded by hordes of angels and also hordes of demons from hell. Especially among the fundies.
So where is our free will? Where is individual responsibility?
This is the supernatural battleground model of human existence. We are simply real estate to be fought over by the Manichean forces of good and evil. All the good in our life is due to guardian angels and all the bad is due to demons from hell. This is bad doctrine or dogma that trivializes our existence and lives.
It practice, anyone sane just assumes the spirits don't exist, gets up in the morning, and goes to work while stopping at red lights and watching out for demon possessed cars and drivers.
Posted by: Zeno | May 27, 2009 9:42 AM
My grandmother used to have a print on her wall depicting a guardian angel watching over a pair of waifs on a rickety bridge.
[Link]
I looked at it and realized that I believed ... in kitsch.
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 9:44 AM
So, PZ, you claim to be saner than Socrates, who had a personal "genius" that gave him his ideas? The guardian angels (and genies of Islam) are the direct cultural descendants of the greek concept of the personal genius -- a greater spiritual self, of which the body is solely an avatar. I believe Socrates saw his as a little ball of fire (much like I Am of the Mosaic tradition).
If so, I'd agree. You're still nuts, but your much less nutty than the Socratic tradition. I'm sure Aristophanes would agree with me.
Posted by: MartyM | May 27, 2009 9:46 AM
This is the biggest problem I have with Xianity. I have yet to find any reasonable answer. (yes I know... none exist... reasonable answers that is.).
1 what are angels?
. are they supernatural? Yes, then are they gods in of themselves?
. no, then they are powerless invisible nothings.
2 did God create them?
. yes then he created something fallible. The whole idea of hell rests on angels and their fallibility. Did he create them before or after the rest of the universe?
. no, then they are gods unto themselves or another god created them.
I've asked several Christians and have yet to hear a common coherent answer to these questions. This lays the foundation for all of creationism and none of those folks can answer this or have even tried. I never hear any creation "scientist" even discuss angels or their origin.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 27, 2009 9:47 AM
Actually, I understand that even the harder-headed type of philosopher thinks there is a difference nowadays. But I think that involves a lot of logic-chopping about what the meaning of "is" is. I'm pretty sure whatever difference between the undetectable and nonexistent exists, crazy shit like angels will fall firmly in the intersection of the two.Posted by: Hoonser | May 27, 2009 9:47 AM
Another classic misinterpretation of the bible.
Angels are supposed to be gods messengers. The word 'angel' comes from the Greek 'angelos' which literally means messenger. That's why all the accounts of angels in the bible is them delivering some message to somebody. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp (same with love thy neighbor, but people have trouble with that one too...). I sometimes find it more annoying when people interpret the bible to mean this fuzzy wuzzy crap.
You also have to consider if you really want a messenger to be a guardian to begin with. Postal Workers for example don't have the best track record of being guardians.
The mail, it never stops... I can't imagine what sort of insanity it would spawn on the cosmic level.
Posted by: Hoonser | May 27, 2009 9:49 AM
Another classic misinterpretation of the bible.
Angels are supposed to be gods messengers. The word 'angel' comes from the Greek 'angelos' which literally means messenger. That's why all the accounts of angels in the bible is them delivering some message to somebody. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp (same with love thy neighbor, but people have trouble with that one too...). I sometimes find it more annoying when people interpret the bible to mean this fuzzy wuzzy crap.
You also have to consider if you really want a messenger to be a guardian to begin with. Postal Workers for example don't have the best track record of being guardians.
The mail, it never stops... I can't imagine what sort of insanity it would spawn on the cosmic level.
Posted by: Alex | May 27, 2009 9:49 AM
The tiny room I rent is only big enough for me and Mr. Kitty, and guardian angels better get the fuck out, because there's not enough room, the world is already overpopulated as it is!
Posted by: Clemens | May 27, 2009 9:51 AM
Even as a child, when I still used to believe in god, the notion of a guardian angle seemed absurd to me. When someone told of them, I immediately thought of all the persons I knew which experienced something tragic. But that was, of course, all part of god's plan.
Nowadays it makes me outright angry. It startles me how people can both so egocentric, arrogant and ignorant as to believ some god or angle cares for their trivial issues when at this very time people all over the world get tortured, raped and killed. And yes, even Christians.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | May 27, 2009 9:52 AM
That's total nonsense. Guardian angels (the real ones, I mean) are actually ghostly, winged, flying cats that flitter around us all the time. They were sent by our good Mommy-Cat Bastet to protect us against the demons, who are little ghostly mice always trying to nibble at our soul. When you take a nap in the afternoon, your guardian angel sleeps with you. When you eat some yummy fish, he gets some invisible bits. When you throw a little tinsel ball, he runs after it and has great fun.
Now, I prefer this version. It's much, much nicer, and just as likely.
Posted by: raven | May 27, 2009 9:54 AM
These angels must be sentient, self aware individuals to do their job. The modern world is complicated and threats include computer viruses, pathogenic microbes, and all sorts of technological malfunctions.
They must also be bored to death most of the time.
They must also be slaves or otherwise they would just wander off and go live their own immaterial lives.
Are there any organizations existing that defend the rights of angels to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is god a fascist slave master?
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 9:55 AM
BAllen: There was a theory that gained some traction back in the 70s that human psychology underwent a big change 4000 yrs ago.
It was also the gimmick of "Snow Crash" by Stephenson -- one of the better sci-fi of the last 20 years.
I think that actually most folks are quite un-introspective, which is basically the idea. They move along, reacting to symbols and ideas while only consciously deciding inside of a few domains of expertise.
Just ask an American whether America is the greatest nation on earth (just try to start a critical analysis of constitutional development with 95% of Americans), or make scary devil faces at a Christian (just try to say "Satan is Lord", or start singing "Yahweh bites my genitals" to an orthodox Jew, even when you've made it obvious you're just yanking their chain). 90% of the time, you're not going to get a thought out rational response, but a knee-jerk subconscious response to the flagging of a symbol.
In other words, we work on cheap heuristics most of the time; it makes sense, usually, because even if it has lower accuracy than a fully analytical response, it's incredibly cheaper. A cheap, fairly accurate approximation a high percentage of the time is much better than a perfect answer that is overly expensive; by the time you figure out the proper response to keep the local tribesfolk from sacrificing you to their gods, they've already eaten you --- it's a lot better to have an automatic, fast response.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | May 27, 2009 9:58 AM
@ Thriftybat 13
Better make that 100%. The ones who said "no" an not True Christians...[/irony]
Posted by: Astrodan
|
May 27, 2009 10:02 AM
BAllenJ @ #58:
I think you are referring to Julian Jaynes book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind."
Here is the wiki article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
Posted by: Bucky | May 27, 2009 10:04 AM
@47. I'm a Kate Jackson man myself.
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 10:07 AM
raven:
Isn't it the concept of the difference between angels and humans among most monotheists that the angels have little or no free-will? That that's why humans are directly in The Big Guys image and superior to the angels?
They're supposed to be slaves. The Great Dictator created a race of perfect slaves, then the race of imperfect slaves since the previous class where no fun -- he couldn't torture them like he could torture the inherently disobedient slaves. Sadism is no fun if the victim keeps on asking for it.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 27, 2009 10:11 AM
Monkey Deathcar @27: "Is it weird that I'm turned on by an angle is watching me in the bathroom."
No, not at all. Some angles are very acute.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 27, 2009 10:11 AM
I don't really remember anymore. *sighs* I don't see how that jibes with the whole "Satan and his rebellious fellow angels" idea, though. That may be a naive understanding on my part.
Posted by: Aaron | May 27, 2009 10:12 AM
One thing I've always wondered about: Let's hypothetically say there *IS* an angel by my side. Does s/he protect my corporeal body or only my alleged "soul"? If s/he DOES protect my corporeal body, then how does s/he interact with the physical realm?
Any interactions with the physical world should be measurable.
Furthermore, and this is really more of a philosophical issue: Why the clandestine operation? If the angel is indeed there, why be invisible instead of being manifest? What advantage is there to having an invisible magical being?
The IPU test applies to this garbage just like anything else.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 27, 2009 10:12 AM
UGH! I had to have a proper look around HuffPo; that's always a mistake. It's just bad! It's like the freakish love child of Vanity Fair and a Telegraph readers idea of what the Guardian is like.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 27, 2009 10:15 AM
@MadScientist: Right. I figured.
One thing I don't understand is... why would we have angels at all? Can't God just do his herding himself? He's GOD for christ's (haha) sake!
It's such a nonsensical fairytale. But you know what? It doesn't bug me much. This story about guardian angels... It makes just as much sense as the rest.
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 27, 2009 10:16 AM
I had that on my wall as a child also. I think nearly every Catholic child in the world had that print on their wall.
Posted by: fftysmthg | May 27, 2009 10:18 AM
Much like a siren's song, calling me into a fairy tale world of make believe.
Posted by: Larry | May 27, 2009 10:20 AM
So all the cartoons that show a little devil with a pitchfork whispering into one ear of a character who is facing a moral dilemma while a angel with a halo whispers into the other are true?
Posted by: Cowcakes | May 27, 2009 10:22 AM
I don't have an Angel I have a dæmon in the form of a Thylacine. Her name is Lyra. ;-)
Posted by: JesterDel | May 27, 2009 10:23 AM
"What about Goblins, huh? Doesn't anybody believe in Goblins? You never hear about this. Except on Halloween and then it's all negative shit. And what about Zombies? You never hear from Zombies! That's the trouble with Zombies, they're unreliable! I say if you're going to go for the Angel bullshit you might as well go for the Zombie package as well."
You're missed, George.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 27, 2009 10:23 AM
Yeah, but if believers were in the habit of asking questions of the form "Why would God need X?", they'd probably more concerned with the complete collapse of any kind of theism worth caring about to worry about angels. Any god worthy of the name wouldn't need anything from us.Posted by: raven | May 27, 2009 10:29 AM
Gee, got me. I'll ask my invisible guardian angel and get back to you. LOL
This guardian angel meme isn't very xian. Angels in the bible are rare and are always delivering messages, not autonomous actors doing stuff on their own.
As another poster pointed out, there was a rebellion among dissident angels in heaven which is why we have a fallen angel, satan, running a place called hell. Who knows, right now the Angel Liberation Front could be campaigning for freedom, equality, and an 8 hour work day with free coffee breaks.
Posted by: inajeep
|
May 27, 2009 10:29 AM
I know believing in fairy tales is harmless for kids but as people grow up to hang on those beliefs that become their foundation of thought is dangerous. I just read one comment at the HuffPo on someone who knew guardian angels were real because apparently she can assign them at will to travel over great distances and protect her son in Iraq. Now trying to explain to her that she is misinformed would be like kicking her sand castle, dog and peeing in her corn flakes all at the same time. It's harmless ignorance in a bottle. The problem is when they try to dump in all over everyone else.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 27, 2009 10:30 AM
This modern concept of angels is suspiciously like a toddler's concept of the idealized Mommy -- always there, always caring, always watching, always competent, always ready with a hug, smile, or kiss. I've noticed that, in groups of women at least, any skepticism expressed against guardian angels seems to merit the same sort of discouragement and condemnation you'd expect to get from being skeptical about 'mother love,' or the adorableness of small children.
My guess is that belief in guardian angels involves playing at being a small child again with the sort of parent you would have wanted, and, at the same time, inventing the sort of parent you would want to be, to others. Believers are sincere, but it's a paper-deep sincerity which can't handle any critique, analysis, or (oh my dear) criticism.
Believing in angels is supposed to make you just as nice as the angels themselves. And shows it off.
Posted by: SteveM
|
May 27, 2009 10:30 AM
I think this is an overly broad interpretation of "free will" (or lack thereof). Angels know God directly, therefore they have no choice whether to "believe in" Him or not. So in a sense they have no free will about whether to believe in God. Man however has no way to know God other than by freely choosing to believe in Him through faith. I think the gripe ol' Nick had with God was that because Man loved God without proof, He loved them more than the Angels who no choice but to love God. So the angels' "lack of free will" is only in whether to believe in God or not, but the still have freedom of "action" (so to speak). Like you have no choice whether to believe your boss exists or not, but you do have free will to obey him or not (and accept the consequences).
But all that is just the interpretation I've developed as I was being raised Catholic. It is all clearly nonsense anyway, but like any fictional world, it is fun to try to work out the details of how it might function.
Posted by: Escuerd | May 27, 2009 10:32 AM
Zeno @ 76, SteveM @ 96:
Hahaha, my grandmother had an identical print, and this is always exactly the image I think of whenever I encounter the term "guardian angel".
Here's to Hispanic/Lusitanic grandmothers and their memorable Catholic kitsch.
Posted by: Sleeper | May 27, 2009 10:33 AM
@Bucky (#89) - Blasphemer! Unbeliever!
Still Brother, it could be worse you could be a Tanya Roberts or Shelly Hack man.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 10:37 AM
Here's a scientific method for meeting and talking to your Holy Guardian Angel.
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/liber800a.pdf
Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2009 10:38 AM
Heh, heh. "Angelists..." Too funny. How about, "angelijits?"
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 27, 2009 10:38 AM
Sure, I've seen that, many times.Now that I think about it, it was almost always at a Dead show...
oh. never mind.
Posted by: Ritchie Annand | May 27, 2009 10:39 AM
I am utterly shocked by such a fundamental omission. I demand that you acknowledge the fungi in your room.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 27, 2009 10:40 AM
I remember a Muslim girl when I was an undergrad telling me that the the angels have no free will, but Muslims also believe that Satan is ultimately under God's control; basically he's a prank-monkey. I never could make sense of the Christian version.Posted by: Ed White | May 27, 2009 10:42 AM
I am currently reading Carl Sagan's classic "The Demon Haunted World," and the angels post you linked to reminds me of his chapter entitled "The Dragon in my Garage." If I claim to have an invisible dragon in my garage, how are you going to disprove it? If you point out that there is no heat, I claim that the dragon breathes cold fire. If you point out that my garage is too full of junk to hold a dragon, I state that it is a small dragon. Etc., etc.
Posted by: pdferguson | May 27, 2009 10:47 AM
As is often the case, George Carlin said it best. His take on angels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPPesVeTE1o
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 27, 2009 10:51 AM
Sastra @#104
Oh, you are most certainly correct about the psychology behind belief in angels.
Most of my older relatives who believe in angels also believe that those angels are lost loved ones, and more often than not, loved ones who acted in some care-giving role in the believer's life.
Posted by: Multicellular | May 27, 2009 10:55 AM
Your guardian angel is the gatekeeper of your body and your soul.
So, when a woman is being raped is the guardian angel the one who hands the rapist the key? Maybe "he" just likes to watch. The stupid, it burns.
Posted by: Jeff | May 27, 2009 10:57 AM
Years ago I met Linus Pauling at Stanford. In his lab he had a horseshoe on the wall, which rather surprised me.
"You don't believe that putting that horseshoe there will somehow bring you good luck, do you?"
Pauling scoffed and chuckled: "Of course I don't believe that..."
But then he sort of got serious: "But I've read," he continued, "that it works even if you don't believe in it."
Posted by: XD | May 27, 2009 11:04 AM
Guardian angels? It's true, they exist!
Just the other day, I was having a wank, and my wrist got cramp, just at the point at which I was about to blow my load. I had to stop, of course, but to my surprise, I felt the firm grip of my angel continue where I had left off. It wasn't long before I had an earth-shaking orgasm, while vocally acknowledging the thoughtfulness of the angel's creator. As I looked down, I noticed that I had inadvertently bukkaked my helper. It had webbed hands, gill-slits on its neck, and the face.... oh god, the face... it bore the unmistakable likeness of Ted Haggard!
The creature extended a long, forked tongue, and in one movement, licked the baby batter from its ghastly visage. In an instant, it was gone. It was at that point that I went insane.
Posted by: Badger3k | May 27, 2009 11:04 AM
I don't know about an angel - he's okay, until he decides to chew on the blankets or try to dig under the fence, or attack my hand trying to get me to play with him. What? My dog doesn't count?
Posted by: Lee Picton | May 27, 2009 11:05 AM
Our guardian angels have sure been on one hell of a long lunch break.
Posted by: dustbubble | May 27, 2009 11:05 AM
Naah mate, I'd rather have Guardian Saxons. They got real sharp knives, and they is well 'ard, innit.Posted by: Sabrina | May 27, 2009 11:10 AM
It watches me in the bathroom? Sounds more like a creepy stalker than a guardian angel...
Posted by: Prof. Henry Armitage
|
May 27, 2009 11:12 AM
I wonder if our resident Catholic believes in guardian angels?
:/
Posted by: OrbitalMike
|
May 27, 2009 11:15 AM
I only believe in angles
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/05/18/i-believe-in-angles/
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 11:18 AM
raven: This guardian angel meme isn't very xian. Angels in the bible are rare and are always delivering messages, not autonomous actors doing stuff on their own.
It's not very Jewish -- but is very Xtian. In the mainstream Jewish tradition, the angels are "aspects" of God -- his voice, his scythe-wielding death force, ... They are the "emanations" of God through the pleroma, since mainstream Judaism is a combo of neo-platonism and primitive Babylonian exile Judaism.
But Christian went much further with the combination. There's a series of Biblical-style books (Enoch, etc), where the angels are major players. Christianity came much closer to just simply giving up monotheism -- papering over all the difference between the popular neo-platonism of the Roman Empire period and Judaism. In essence, Christianity is Hellenic Judaism, which means that it's filled with essences, demigods, planes and mystical beings. Just check out Revelation for officially sanctioned mystical bullshit -- they weren't being "symbolic"!
It's just not very post-reformation, where Christianity started to go down the Muslim root of simplifying neo-Platonism to better fit with Judaism.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 27, 2009 11:21 AM
Wow! That's great news! I've always been upset by suffering and death, and it's great to know that they don't happen!
Thanks God!
Posted by: xebecs | May 27, 2009 11:27 AM
Of course there are angels!
Linguini: Angel of Exotic Foreign People
Prosciutto: Angel of Positive Thinking
Carbonara: Angel of Carbon Sequestration
All praise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for creating these angels to protect us in our time of hunger!
Posted by: SaraJ
|
May 27, 2009 11:34 AM
I'm a HUGE Angels fan. I mean, I grew up watching them, lived right down the street from Angel's Stadium. That was back when they were the California Angels, not the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (gah, I love Arte Moreno, but I don't know if I can forgive him for that. Anywho, I have to say the one of the happiest days of my life was when they won the World Series, and... wait... what? We aren't talking about baseball???
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 11:37 AM
MattHeath: Muslims also believe that Satan is ultimately under God's control; basically he's a prank-monkey. I never could make sense of the Christian version.
It has to be the same -- it's the only way to reconcile monotheism with the polytheism of angels. Either they are "aspects" of god, like Satan in Job, or they are just either kinds of beings that require "salvation" like humans do. Since the Christians don't go around baptizing angels or preaching to angels, it's gotta be the former.
I think for the Muslims, though, they've got 2 types of angels -- the 'genies' which are a combo of the greek genius with old-school animist spirits who are "savable" like humans, and the heavenly angels who are just different aspects of God hizzelf.
You gotta really get into the crazy for it to make sense, but it does have an internal logic.
Otherwise, you would have a duotheism like some Zoroastrians, which is a big no-no in most Christianities.
Posted by: monkeyman8 | May 27, 2009 11:46 AM
if the angel's with you always and you're having sex wouldn't that make the angel voyeuristic?
Posted by: JHS
|
May 27, 2009 11:47 AM
I'm definitely sensing a pile of metaphysical bullshit in my vicinity, having read that article.
Guardian angel, no so much...
Posted by: eyelessgame | May 27, 2009 11:56 AM
Matt Heath @#79:
And I don't understand at all when they try to explain this to me. They always sound like they have some special "metadetection" they think they can use, but it always seems to degenerate into imagination when they try to explain it to me. But perhaps I'm just dumb.
Posted by: pgarayt | May 27, 2009 11:58 AM
It certainly begs the question,
Why so many of these 'Guardians'
are so bad at their jobs?
peterg
Posted by: monkeyman8 | May 27, 2009 12:00 PM
if the angel's with you always and you're having sex wouldn't that make the angel voyeuristic?
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 27, 2009 12:04 PM
Logically, yeah, but it doesn't seem to be true (at least for many sects). The conventional Christian view of Satan seems to be, more or less, as Milton described: he (idenitfied with Lucifer) and cohort where angels who rebelled against God. God has them kind of contained but not fully under control. Remeber at least some Christians say that satan is the abswer to problem of evil (which an aspect of God can't be)Posted by: David | May 27, 2009 12:07 PM
My 6yo daughter is afraid to go into any room in our house (including her bedroom) without an adult present. I have to go into her room at night with her in order for her to pick out some pajamas.
My wife is convinced that this is because my mother told my daughter that a guardian angel is always with her, and she's therefore afraid to be alone with such a frightening creature.
I think she's just exhibiting normal insecurities, but who can tell?
It is an amusing anecdote to relate to people who are certain that telling children about invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful beings is somehow comforting.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 27, 2009 12:12 PM
eyelessgame@3132: I can't ever get my head around it either, but then I guess that's what they did all those years of philosophy for. I'm kind of prepared to believe that the strict logical-positive defintion of existence falls apart if you pick at it in the right place though. I'm pretty sure (most of them) only say it's slightly wrong, anyway.
Posted by: ABradford | May 27, 2009 12:13 PM
I happen to know that at the moment I am surrounded by Angles. I know this because I am in my cubicle, and they are All Right.
Posted by: ??? | May 27, 2009 12:19 PM
I met an angel once. Looked a lot like Michael Landon, strangely enough.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | May 27, 2009 12:20 PM
I know for a fact that I have a shield around me made from the energy of light. I have a special calculator (and a very old digital watch) that operate off that energy, via a little black rectangle.
Posted by: littlejohn | May 27, 2009 12:22 PM
Do all critters have guardian angels, or just humans? If it's only humans, at what point in our evolution did we acquire angels? I sometimes pose the same question apropos souls. Liberal xians who believe in evolution are easily stumped by that one.
Posted by: Monado | May 27, 2009 12:22 PM
Oh, right. And your ancestors back to the year dot are all watching you with approval or disapproval, so you'd better behave yourself!
Posted by: AmyD
|
May 27, 2009 12:27 PM
Did anyone else reach your hand up with the back of your hand at your shoulder and then rapidly push in the outward direction?
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | May 27, 2009 12:31 PM
Of course if you believe in angels then believing in demons is not a great stretch. But I guess they cancel each other out, the shield of light balanced by the attractor of darkness(TM).
Perhaps a bad angel made me do it and flew away...
Posted by: Sonic Screwdriver
|
May 27, 2009 12:35 PM
My guardian angel touched me in the shower this morning.
Posted by: uncle frogy | May 27, 2009 12:43 PM
of course angles exist they are "spiritual beings" and like all spiritual beings they exist in the spiritual realm. So where is this spiritual realm or what is this spiritual realm? They exist in the same place that Ahab and his White Whale exist in the only none physical place we know of the mind and thoughts of man. All shaped and controlled by our human lives, memories, emotions and dreams. I find it sad that some people find that the only real reality is inside the mind in thought only.
As poetic metaphor and emotional expression this kind of thinking has something to say but as "fact" is useless at best.
To live ones life so disconnected with oneself is such a waste.
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | May 27, 2009 12:43 PM
In the popular images I saw as a child, angels always looked female - the idea of male angels shocked me. At a much later date I was shocked to learn that some people literally believed in guardian angels. I had thought that they were just a figure of speech.
Guardian angels don't seem to be very efficient, do they? I had to wonder about the TV show, Coned by an angel, or Touched by Little Joe, or whatever. You have hoards of people suffering and dying here and there and a angel concerned with the love life of a waitress, or the like.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 27, 2009 1:00 PM
Take your meds, clean your crack-pipe, and see an optometrist.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | May 27, 2009 1:08 PM
What I'd really like is an Undercover Angel cuz I never had a dream before that made love to me.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 27, 2009 1:09 PM
A friend of mine is convinced that there are angels because a kind stranger once gave her directions when she was lost - in New York City! (And no, this entity did not in any way resemble the GrrlScientist.)
I tried to explain to her that this was evidence only of a miracle, but somehow the nuances were lost in discussion.
Posted by: dd | May 27, 2009 1:13 PM
Please help me!
I woke up this morning and there were feathers all over the house. I think my cat ate my angel while I was asleep. How do I get another one?
Posted by: lurker_above | May 27, 2009 1:33 PM
Matt Heath @ #101
You know, a famous captain once asked, "What does God need with a Starship?"
The question still stands.
Posted by: natural cynic | May 27, 2009 1:33 PM
Some guardian angels just seem to do a better job. Jules' angel does the divine intervention thing here. Too bad Marvin's angel just wasn't up to the job. And later, Vincent's angel must have been taking a crap while Vincent was doing the same thing.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 27, 2009 1:35 PM
Give credit where due: the HuffPo has delivered one or two tidbits that embarrassed minor powers-what-be.
Posted by: Niko | May 27, 2009 1:36 PM
First off, angels have the worst job ever created. They have to be around during those wonderful times where I am defecating (for protection against harmful hot or sharp turds) and when I'm masturbating (for protection against over-sheet-staining or poorly-constructed fantasies).
Second, if we take this as a given, angels are also really terrible at their jobs, due to all the unnatural death and horrible suffering. I'm guessing that since there are so many humans, they really need to bust the angels out fast, without an adequate training program.
Niko
http://kingofdeprecation.blogspot.com
Posted by: Niko | May 27, 2009 1:38 PM
First off, angels have the worst job ever created. They have to be around during those wonderful times where I am defecating (for protection against harmful hot or sharp turds) and when I'm masturbating (for protection against over-sheet-staining or poorly-constructed fantasies).
Second, if we take this as a given, angels are also really terrible at their jobs, due to all the unnatural death and horrible suffering. I'm guessing that since there are so many humans, they really need to bust the angels out fast, without an adequate training program.
Niko
http://kingofdeprecation.blogspot.com
Posted by: xebecs | May 27, 2009 1:38 PM
Right. And next you are going to tell us that you know for a fact that you would soon die if this "shield" were to disappear.
Lighten up, will you?
These claims all turn to smoke in the light of day. You need to get out into the fresh air, get some sun.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | May 27, 2009 1:42 PM
There are many angles around me. Even acute one. I never argue with them because they're often right, although sometimes they can be quite obtuse.
Posted by: Niko | May 27, 2009 1:44 PM
First off, angels have the worst job ever created. They have to be around during those wonderful times where I am defecating (for protection against harmful hot or sharp turds) and when I'm masturbating (for protection against over-sheet-staining or poorly-constructed fantasies).
Second, if we take this as a given, angels are also really terrible at their jobs, due to all the unnatural death and horrible suffering. I'm guessing that since there are so many humans, they really need to bust the angels out fast, without an adequate training program.
Niko
http://kingofdeprecation.blogspot.com
Posted by: Evolving Squid | May 27, 2009 1:47 PM
You know... if there are these uber guardian angels around, why aren't they at least as powerful as some asshole in a back alley with a dirty coathanger? How could abortions even work?
It would seem to me that a belief in guardian angels necessitates a belief that God must want everyone to suffer and die horribly (including babies and even fetuses)... because if that were not so, then the guardian angels would save everyone.
Posted by: ForgotToTakeMyPills | May 27, 2009 1:49 PM
"I know for a fact that I have a shield around me made from the energy of light. I have a special calculator (and a very old digital watch) that operate off that energy, via a little black rectangle."
The Shield also operates the little transmitter embedded in your wisdom tooth, which broadcasts straight into your brain the message that there is a Shield all around you, wherever you go.
Posted by: ForgotToTakeMyPills | May 27, 2009 1:51 PM
"I know for a fact that I have a shield around me made from the energy of light. I have a special calculator (and a very old digital watch) that operate off that energy, via a little black rectangle."
The Shield also operates the little transmitter embedded in your wisdom tooth, which broadcasts straight into your brain the message that there is a Shield all around you, wherever you go.
Posted by: bastion of sass | May 27, 2009 1:57 PM
Aaron @#93:
Among other benefits to his* being invisible: You don't have to pay for him when you eat at the Golden Corral.
*It's clear from the bible that either all angels are male, or that only the males have jobs outside
the homeheaven, 'cause they all have male names. There were no unisex names back in biblical days.Posted by: Phledge | May 27, 2009 2:00 PM
Oo, I wouldn't mind having Angel with me all the time, in bed, in the shower...mmmmROWR.
/Buffylust
Posted by: I like Biology | May 27, 2009 2:01 PM
When asked "Do you believe in angels", 30% of Americans bust out with Abba's "I have a dream", giving a false positive result.
Posted by: Don | May 27, 2009 2:03 PM
I want a guardian angel, and I want her to have major martial arts/small arms skills and a cool chauffeur's uniform.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
May 27, 2009 2:06 PM
I think you went off on a tangent there.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
May 27, 2009 2:15 PM
What? No angels named Pat, Chris, Lesly, ...or Alex?
Posted by: JohnO | May 27, 2009 2:21 PM
I want whatever she's on!!
Posted by: Kingasaurus | May 27, 2009 2:23 PM
What was Ted Bundy's guardian angel doing while he was strangling those women? Twiddling its thumbs or helping him to escape the cops?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 27, 2009 2:28 PM
Nope. Not even close.
What I just said. I have no idea where the idea comes from, but it must be very recent. Like… 19th century or something.
Male messenger, BTW.
Oh for crying out loud, no! I didn't, and I've never even seen the print before.
Not even this is in the Bible. (Though it's in closely associated legends.)
If you ask her and claim that it's Catholic doctrine, she'll say "sure, whatever". If, instead, you ask her and claim the opposite is Catholic doctrine, she'll say "naaah".
At least that's the impression I got last time I visited the blog with all the psychedelic, anatomically impossible shoes. Been a while.
The (First) Book of (H)enoch is cited as Scripture a few times in the New Testament. Basically, it was only thrown out of the Bible when its detailed description of the Flat-Earth cosmos became too embarrassing, and that was centuries later.
That book reads a lot more polytheistic to me, with Satan being one of the sons of the gods.
Not all that many of them, if they're honest.
Posted by: jamie hale | May 27, 2009 2:32 PM
I think some people who claim to believe in angels may really hold this belief while others simply think they are obligated to say they believe. I live in the Bible Belt in Central Ky and their are many who speak about angels and discuss them openly like it is not even questionable. They have been told this their entire life and have never even considered it's simply not true. Or at least that is what they claim.
I think that most who claim to believe in angels really don't but it is easier to conform than create conflict.
thanks
Jamie Hale
Posted by: Dancaban | May 27, 2009 2:41 PM
Mine fouled up this morning, got caught surfing here at work!
Posted by: Christopher | May 27, 2009 2:42 PM
Sometimes I can see auras around people when my glasses get smudgy. Does that count?
Posted by: CJO | May 27, 2009 2:50 PM
The only passage I know of that's cited in support of the idea is Matthew 18:10-11 (Jesus speaking of being like children):
Yeah. It's a stretch.
Enoch isn't Christian, it's late 2nd Temple eschatology, which is the matrix from which Christian eschatology emerged. As David said, Enoch was considered Scripture by many groups in the late 2nd temple period, before there was such a thing as "The Bible." Daniel made the cut, and angels are just as significant in that book. The line between "Apocrypha" (or so-called inter-testemental literature) and "Biblical" writings per se is pretty fine, and it was being drawn and re-drawn, among both Jews and Christians, for centuries after Enoch was written.
Posted by: GaryB | May 27, 2009 2:53 PM
Angels are nothing but a brain dance.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | May 27, 2009 3:05 PM
Christmas themed shaggy dog story with angel in the cast follows:
Santa Claus was having a very bad day. Mrs Claus was away caring for her sister's baby twins. The elves were on strike because they wanted more cookies. The reindeer all had coughs and sniffles. Santa Claus' knee was sore and he had to use a cane.
Well, there was knock at the door; when Santa opened the door, there was a tall, strong angel holding a big pine tree on his shoulder.
He asked Santa Claus, "where should I put this tree?"
And thus became the custom of putting an angel at the top of the tree.
Posted by: Rob Jase | May 27, 2009 3:11 PM
Ramblin Dude #74
Walken was the first one I thought of too.
But Tilda Swinton (Constantine) ain't too far behind.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | May 27, 2009 3:11 PM
As best as I can determine, the iconography of the "guardian angel" appeared in Ravenna in the palantine church of Theodric, Sant' Apollinare. In that famous mosaic the angels are no longer divine messengers, but are portrayed as palace guards. Which begs the question, if you're god, from whom do you need protection?
Posted by: Leon | May 27, 2009 3:20 PM
If she can physically see this shield around other people, there's something wrong with her eyes. If she can "sense" them somehow and just said "physically see" because it sounded better, there's something wrong with her mind. Of course we all know what that something wrong is: lack of critical thinking.
Speaking of lack of critical thinking, if the white shield of this guardian angel is so powerful, why do we still have to fear muggings? Why do so many thousands still die in auto accidents each year? Why are coffins still coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Posted by: Grendels Dad
|
May 27, 2009 3:20 PM
While I am having sex does my guardian angel get busy with my partners angel?
Maybe they both just watch?
Maybe hover above us, back to back, watching out for dangerous interruptions?
Between the two of them you would think they could at least get condom effectiveness above 97%.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 27, 2009 3:31 PM
Jamie Hail #172 wrote:
There's probably a gray area where one can convince oneself that one kinda, sorta believes -- because after all, with God, anything is possible, so who knows? They'll "play it safe" and play along with belief, perhaps catching some of it for themselves.
But I agree. In some areas (and perhaps particularly among women), there seems to be a bizarre peer-pressure at work here, in that believing in angels is often equated with being filled with a child-like and praiseworthy faith, love, and sensitivity (ditto for groups which believe in fairies -- and yes, I speak from experience on this one.)
It's a status symbol. The popular view that "having faith" in the unseen and untestable takes character, discipline, humility, and heart is able to warp itself just as easily into angel-and-fairy belief, as the Nicene Creed. There are just no clear lines between 'ridiculous' and 'reasonable' faith.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 27, 2009 3:32 PM
CJO @ 175:
From the wiki:
Jacob Wrestling with the Angel is a biblical story commonly depicted in art. The story appears in chapter 32 of Genesis and chapter 12 of the Book of Hosea.
Posted by: CJO | May 27, 2009 3:36 PM
Specifically, the idea that every individual has their own guardian angel, not the idea that angels exist as the heavenly host, or god's messengers or what have you.
Posted by: GMacs | May 27, 2009 3:36 PM
Guardian Angel is watching you masturbate.
Then each 13-year-old's guardian angel should be keeping watch to make sure a parent doesn't walk into his/her room.
Hey, if they can't protect people from serious harm when it counts, they should at least be able to protect against awkward moments.
Posted by: varlo | May 27, 2009 3:38 PM
I am really not getting along well with my angel. Is anyone interested in a trade? I will throw in a second-round draft choice and a left-handed third baseman.
Posted by: Kate | May 27, 2009 3:50 PM
You know, I haven't got laid in a while. Where's my guardian angel sitting, and does he have a tube of lube and a box of condoms?
Posted by: Zar | May 27, 2009 3:58 PM
Anybody else read "A Wind in the Door"? There's a character in it whose a cherubim (or maybe a seraphim), and he actually looks like the biblical description of an angel. Which means that he is horrifying, a mess of eyes and wings that are all on fire. I liked that detail.
The concept of personal supernatural guardians is nothing new. Lots of cultures had something similar. The Greeks had a daemon and household gods. Even way back in ancient Sumer people believed they had personal guardian gods, and that some of these gods really sucked at their job. (Seriously! They were very cynical.)
Posted by: Evolving Squid | May 27, 2009 4:57 PM
It's a sine of the apocalypse.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | May 27, 2009 5:03 PM
Atheists, liberals, men with foreskins, Dungeons and Dragons players, Friedrich Nietzsche, swine and shellfish, all sorts of stuff.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2009 5:03 PM
It's a minor point, but to be fair, Borchard is reporting on the books themselves.
She's not the one positing angels, they are.
says she:
Borchard just hopes these authors are right.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 5:19 PM
"You know, I haven't got laid in a while. Where's my guardian angel sitting, and does he have a tube of lube and a box of condoms?"
That begs the question as to whether or not guardian angels should be considered "wingmen"
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 5:41 PM
CJD: Enoch isn't Christian, it's late 2nd Temple eschatology, which is the matrix from which Christian eschatology emerged. As David said, Enoch was considered Scripture by many groups in the late 2nd temple period, before there was such a thing as "The Bible." Daniel made the cut, and angels are just as significant in that book. The line between "Apocrypha" (or so-called inter-testemental literature) and "Biblical" writings per se is pretty fine, and it was being drawn and re-drawn, among both Jews and Christians, for centuries after Enoch was written.
Well, there's the official story and there's the truth. It's clear that material that is "canonical", such as Revelation, was heavily influenced by the late apocalyptic literature. If you were to do a critical analysis, you would have to cite Enoch and other material of the period.
Then, the Ethiopic church does consider Enoch canonical. So it wasn't something that was just excluded -- it must have been very important to the early Christians for some churches to have kept it.
Plus you have it in the Dead Sea Scrolls collection, and that material is either closely allied to Christian materials, or is the Ur-Christian material that Christians just can't accept.
Now, the theologians of most of the major churches dropped it centuries later, precisely because they had reversed the church positions from the primitive positions. But that doesn't mean that by that point, it hadn't become deeply embedded in the oral traditions of Christianity, that it hadn't formed the Christian cultural tradition to such a point that really it's almost irrelevant to cite it -- like trying to define "is" or "has" in a language, since everything depends on that.
The derived traditions are either the same as, or a direct reaction to, the primitive traditions. It's the missing hole which can be assumed in the structure, the scaffolding that has been removed, the hated parent which you suppress.
In the same way, Salafi Islam tries to erase the millenium of Islamic mystical traditions to produce a new-old tradition; but you can't understand the former without knowing that it is supressing the latter, particularly in the active practice of the tradition by the mass of believers. You can't take the theologians word for it; they're inveterate liars.
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 5:58 PM
And anyway, it's one of the sources of the "rebellion of the angels" which forms the basis of angelic mythology.
Posted by: CJO | May 27, 2009 5:59 PM
frog,
I'm not saying that Enoch and other eschatological literature from the period weren't hugely important in the development of Christianity, quite the contrary. I guess I'm just saying that some of that literature is actually in the Bible, like Daniel, and that there was no way for Jews, say, of the 1st c. BCE to tell the difference.
The Dead Sea Scrolls material should be understood much more broadly than it is. The completely untenable "Qumran sectarian community" theory continues to hold sway long after its sell-by date. The content of the scrolls can be understood as an accidental collection (in the sense of what got hidden in what cave when), doubtless from numerous libraries, attesting to a wide diversity of belief in the late 2nd temple period. Attempts to impose some kind of doctrinal unity on the non-Biblical texts among the scrolls are absurd. Many communities and belief systems contributed to those writings, possibly including groups of "ur-Christians" as you said.
Posted by: adobedragon | May 27, 2009 6:02 PM
You know, as a rule, seeing stuff that isn't there is a bad thing, indicative of a serious medical problem, like a brain tumor. She aughta pay her doctor a visit. Otherwise her slacker guardian angel might finally have something to do. Namely, helping her "pass over."
Posted by: grizzly | May 27, 2009 6:14 PM
If there is a shield around her, she wont mind if we fire off a couple rounds from a glock at her. Oh, its not bullet proof? Hmm, how about if we spray a solution with the ebola virus in it at her? No, doesnt protect against biological weapons? Mustard Gas? Charges from wild boar? Nothing? So it appears the only thing this shield stops is brain activity.
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 6:33 PM
CJO: The completely untenable "Qumran sectarian community" theory continues to hold sway long after its sell-by date.
There's good political reasons for that -- which is why Biblical studies is such a scam. If we were to interpret widely what was going on, if we were to actually see the rise of Judaism and Christianity in it's proper hellenistic context, both philosophically and in terms of a widespread Jewish rebellion against Roman rule, we'd have to interpret Christianity completely differently.
We'd have to see what is obvious: that Christianity arose from a broad movement across the Roman Empire of rebellion among Jewish and semi-Jewish people who had deeply absorbed hellenism but had kept their nationalism. Then primitive Christianity is largely in direct opposition to the state-sponsored orthodox Christianity that we know and love today. That "Pauline" Christianity was the successful heresy, and not at all Christian.
And even that isn't going far enough, since then we'd have to reinterpret primitive Paul as being quite distinct from the later syncretism that become Peter&Paul Christianity.
Which means all the Christians today believe late, made-up shit that would be considered the worst of heresies by the Judeo-Christians who had made the early shit up.
Posted by: Richard Simons | May 27, 2009 6:49 PM
The idea of a guardian angel sitting on your shoulder reminds me of a story told by a friend. A new Anglican priest came, from England, to her community in Kwazulu-Natal where he looked after the English-speaking church. He learned to speak !Xhosa, no easy task for an adult (the !X is a click), and one day suggested to his colleague that he could participate in the !Xhosa church. His colleague was delighted and suggested he gave a sermon.
The day came, and he started to give a sermon about the Holy Spirit. The first time he mentioned 'Holy Spirit' there was a quickly suppressed snort from a member of the congregation. The next time, there were a few snickers. From then on it got worse; every time he referred to the Holy Spirit moving amongst the congregation or sitting on people's shoulders whispering in their ear people found it more entertaining. He had no idea what the problem was but all he could do was plough on. By the end of his sermon there were people literally rolling in the aisle clutching themselves and gasping for breath in hysterical laughter.
At the end of his sermon he asked his colleague what the problem had been. It was several minutes before the !Xhosa minister could collect enough breath, but he finally said, 'It was all fine, except when you thought you were saying Holy Spirit you were actually saying bird shit.'
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 27, 2009 6:58 PM
Of COURSE Angels exist. Duh. You can see them here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7kYVjL2lps (Don't forget the "No way, get fucked, fuck off" chant at the appropriate moment.)
They don't watch me pee, though. I initially thought that maybe my cat might be my angel, but he definitely can't fly, no matter what he thinks. That's why he's named Plummet.
Posted by: CJO | May 27, 2009 7:00 PM
frog,
I totally agree.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 27, 2009 7:37 PM
There's a reason they call it...ANGEL DUST.
Posted by: Carlie | May 27, 2009 7:42 PM
It's a sine of the apocalypse.
Now you're really engaging in hyperbola.
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 8:24 PM
CJO: I totally agree.
I'll be darned. With my history on these threads, I think I can safely take this as evidence of the existence of angels.
Now if there were a church that would give me a terminal...
Posted by: AlisonRobin | May 27, 2009 8:25 PM
I'll be my own guardian angel, than you very much. I'd also be happy to be the guardian angel of my friends. I'm more angelic than a pocket of air, and I could do more to help someone who needed me.
Posted by: wrpd | May 27, 2009 8:50 PM
My sixth grade catechism had a picture of the Archangel Michael on the cover. He looked like Herculese. He was holding a sword and was wearing sort of scanty, sexy armor. His shoulders, arms, legs and abs were not covered. I always got a little stiffie when it was time for catechism lesson.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 27, 2009 8:57 PM
ThirtyFiveUp #177
An old joke but a goodie.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 27, 2009 9:01 PM
I'd rather have a sword of fire than a shield of light. Or at least a +1 mace.
Posted by: bgbaysjr | May 27, 2009 9:03 PM
The fluffy blond curls irritate me. The Biblical messengers were certainly generally either frightening, or not recognized as anything other than young men.
From Rilke: Who, if I cried out, would hear me among the angelic orders? And even if one of them pressed me suddenly to his heart: I'd be consumed in his stronger existence. For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we can just barely endure, and we stand in awe of it as it coolly disdains to destroy us. Every angel is terrifying. (Sorry if I missed that someone else had already mentioned this.)
I love stories about angels, and think it is important to get them "right." But then, I love stories about vampires, the Vanir, and Vulcans, and am a stickler for "facts" about *them* in precisely the same way, knowing they have precisely the same level of external reality...
Posted by: SC, OM | May 27, 2009 9:15 PM
*sob*
I love you guys!
*sob*
Posted by: John Morales | May 27, 2009 9:33 PM
These are borrowed concepts, aren't they?
Fravashi and psychopomps.
Posted by: JustinC | May 27, 2009 9:51 PM
This is far more attention than common guardian-variety angels deserve!
Posted by: astrounit | May 27, 2009 10:29 PM
"As you sit there reading this--whether you believe it or not--there is an angel by your side..."
Believe it or not?
REALLY?
It's SO just because an imbecile of the first order "believes it"?
It remains so even when a person of rational bent who decides to disbelieve it when the evidence is devastatingly non-existent?
This is what comes of Deepak Chopra and the kind of "critical thinking" he and his ilk "inspires" with 99% charismatic con-artistry, 1% perspiration, and ZERO allegiance to the actual evidence from the natural physical world - a merry band of ever more easily deluded followers, who can - I absolutely guarantee - more easily be cajoled into believing that if they ate a DOG TURD, they could tap themselves into the SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE (and as a by-product, immortality)...because, as anyone might have noticed, it MUST be "significant" that "doG" spelled BACKWARDS must MEAN SOMETHING.
And, it "REALLY WORKS" because it comes from the backward end of the dog!
There MUST be something to it. It makes a kind of "sense". (For anyone accustomed to finding significant correlation between any two things as long as someoone comes along and merely says so..."believe it or not").
Anyone wonder anymore why California - the single wealthiest state in the WORLD - is so fucked up with its finances?
Why they think over there that referenda voting is a BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT and more EFFECTIVE "DIRECT DEMOCRACY" than voting for a knowledgeable EXPERT to represent their interests who KNOWS the technical intricacies of the law and law-making???
BEWARE: California is NUMERO UNO when it comes to spreading ways of thinking and behavior via those arch and most effective communication (propaganda) devices known as "television programing" and "movies".
Within just barely three generations, they have elected no less than TWO movie actors - both exceedingly DULL actors at that - to LEAD their state as Governor.
The state of California also has the highest per capita proportion of lawyers AND those associated with the "psychiatric profession" (not to mention "alternative therapists" in the world: small wonder they're basically stark, staring bananas.
Nothing like the "casting couch" to bleed one's heart out to some schmuck who pretends to protect your interests...in so many ways...
SOOO many ways....
Yep, California has certainly earned the distinction of being Number One. In something.
Huntington Post? I wouldn't use it if it was printed on toilet paper and there WASN'T any other toilet paper available. Modesty prevents me from mentioning what I would consider, by far, more hygenic. Tried and true too. It's worked fine for over a million years...
Posted by: John Morales | May 27, 2009 11:00 PM
astrounit @213, Huntington Post?
No, Huffington Post :)
Good comment, though.
Posted by: Silver Fox | May 27, 2009 11:36 PM
"Much ado about nothing"
Over 200 posts.
Therese cannot prove with certainty that there is an angel next to her; likewise, PZ cannot prove with certainty that there isn't one. Let Therese believe whatever she's comfortable with and let PZ do the same.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2009 11:46 PM
Therese cannot prove with certainty that there is an angel next to her;
she isn't even trying to, if you actually read the article.
likewise, PZ
just like with all imaginary constructs, there is little point to trying to "disprove" them.
If we give angels the same level of credence as four leaf clovers and horseshoes, then that might be more appropriate.
However, somehow, they get special dispensation from being standard imaginary objects because of their association with the mythos of a specific church.
again, the onus is on those who think imaginary constructs really are in some way "guarding" anything to prove so.
burden shifting has always been your game, SF, and it's gotten so tiresome I can't figure out why you even bother yourself any more.
Posted by: Rev bigdumbchimp | May 27, 2009 11:49 PM
Gee SF that's deep.
And by deep I mean up to your usual standards of boring simpleton yammering.
Posted by: John Morales | May 27, 2009 11:53 PM
SF:
Ah, gotta love epistemic absolutism as an excuse.Properly phrased, that would read: "Therese cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is an angel next to her; however, PZ could prove beyond reasonable doubt that there isn't one."
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2009 11:54 PM
astrounit @213, Huntington Post?
No, Huffington Post :)
I can imagine the mixup if he actually lives in So Cal, though.
I remember surfing Huntington when I was a lad.
*sigh*
It's all condos now.
Posted by: Silver Fox | May 28, 2009 12:20 AM
Ich:
"she isn't even trying to, if you actually read the article."
The article tells me that Therese sees no need, and has no intention, to try and prove something that she "believes".
She is making an assertion of belief, not issuing a scientific proclamation. That should not open her to ridicule. She's not a "fraud" in asserting her belief; from all indications, she genuinely believes what she says. If PZ needs scientific proofs, he needs to go to his lab, do an experiment and get some. I'm reasonable sure that Therese would no more be interested in what he came up with than he is in what she believes.
Posted by: John Morales | May 28, 2009 12:30 AM
SF:
Did you read the linked article? Either you have not, or you're outright lying.
She writes:
"I confess that I am still a tad skeptical. My theological training has me questioning some of Byrne's simplicity. However, "Angels In My Hair" certainly proved to be an engrossing tale that managed to intrigue and inspire even this cynic.
I hope Lorna is right about an angel sitting with me as I write this. I could the company and protection."
(My bold)
Posted by: rev. bigdumbchimp | May 28, 2009 12:39 AM
John,
As you know SF has a long history of both lying and failing to understand even the simplest of concepts presented here. This is no different.
Posted by: John Morales | May 28, 2009 12:59 AM
Rev. BDC, indeed.
What gets me is the functional stupidity* demonstrated by such transparent mendacity.
Put my addendum to Ichthyic's #216 down as a symptom of my SIWOTI... in the Pharynguloid tradition.
--
* cf. Forrest Gump - "Stupid is as stupid does".
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 28, 2009 1:05 AM
Because he's got nothing else - no evidence and no valid argument to support why he believes what he believes. But he, as all Christians should be, is embarrassed by that so he feels he has to try an alleviate the negative impact of that by pretending otherwise.
Sadly - for him - he's not very good at it.
Posted by: Malcolm
|
May 28, 2009 1:18 AM
The Moronic Fox @220 babbled,
on the contrary, spouting ridiculous beliefs should open anyone to ridicule.
Posted by: raven | May 28, 2009 1:20 AM
Why should I believe in something that is
undetectable and also doesn't do anything?
As more than one poster stated, these guardian angels don't seem to be very good at guarding people. We all just flounder our way through life without an instruction manual and many sink without a trace one way or another.
To put it another way, like Dawkins. The world seems perfectly set up as if guardian angels don't exist.
And as many posters stated, guardian angels and hordes of demons surrouding us have very little if any biblical justification. They seem as much popular superstition and nonxian as leprechuans, black cats, and fairies.
Posted by: Silver Fox | May 28, 2009 1:25 AM
"Because he's got nothing else - no evidence and no valid argument to support why he believes what he believes"
How sad it must be to live in a world where all one has is scientific evidence and empirical data.
No, Virginia there is no Santa Claus.
Posted by: DLC | May 28, 2009 1:29 AM
Ceiling Cat pwns Angelz.
Why do you people Hate Angels so Much!
You'll all burn in hell!
I'll pray for you!!11`
Kind Regards.
- Poe.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 1:54 AM
No, Virginia there is no Santa Claus.
did you know that frosted Lucky Charms are magically delicious, SF?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 28, 2009 2:21 AM
Foxy Fox on the Run, as clueless as ever, wrote:
Nope, not sad at all. That I know that everything I think and feel results from (to put it simply) electro-chemical communication in my brain doesn't diminish the enjoyment of living my life one iota. I can look at a sunset or watch a bird in flight and get as much (if not more) pleasure out of it without having to lie to myself about them having been created by an invisible magic man in the sky.
Sad would be if I were, in the 21st century, trying to live my life in an attempt to adhere to the nonsensical belief system concocted by ignorant bronze-age goat-herders and modified by the manipulative in order to retain power over the weak and credulous.
Even more sad would be if I had to grasp at pathetic, pseudo-intellectual straws and write easily mocked and even more easily refuted posts on blogs of my betters in order to try and alleviate the cognitive dissonance and ameliorate the shame of believing in a fairy-tale that can be seen-through by a perceptive five-year-old.
Posted by: Kagato
|
May 28, 2009 2:26 AM
How much happier one can be when their life is enriched with pretty lies.
Posted by: Rick R | May 28, 2009 3:02 AM
"How sad it must be to live in a world where all one has is scientific evidence and empirical data."
Oh yeah. Very sad.
Five years ago, I wound up in the hospital with an enormous (and dangerous) blood clot in my leg.
Did the doctors pray over me, or tell me pretty stories about guardian angels? Did they just make up a treatment for me by pulling some nonsense out of their ass??
Fuck NO. They admitted me, got me immobilized, and started pumping me full of blood thinners to soften the clot so a piece of it wouldn't break off and kill me with a pulmonary embolism.
In short, they got right down to the business of saving my life.
My successful treatment was the result of scientific drug trials and the gathering of empirical data.
SF, you're a fucking loon.
Posted by: IsaacJ | May 28, 2009 5:58 AM
Your guardian angel is like a supernatural condom; it is the gatekeeper of your body and your soul. He was there when you were being conceived, cheering your parents on. He was there as you grew in your mother's womb in case you ... like ... drowned or something. He was there with you at every moment, even that time you cheated on your college entrance exams. He was hating you and cursing his job all the while. Once you were born and as you grow up your guardian angel never leaves your side for an instant; he is with you when you sleep, when you are in the bathroom, even while you are showering--all the time--you are never alone. Then, when you die, your guardian angel is there beside you like a tiny condor, waiting anxiously for you to do. And when St. Peter passes judgment on you at those pearly gates, your guardian angel will be there, leading the prosecution against you and showing the many hundreds of hours you spent masturbating or having impure dreams. Because you suck, and no one knows it better than your guardian angel. Maybe science will find a way to get rid of your guardian angel some day. Until then, we can only dare to hope. In the meantime, find something else to do with your idle hands. He has a video camera, ya know.
Posted by: IsaacJ | May 28, 2009 6:05 AM
Then, when you die, your guardian angel is there beside you like a tiny condor, waiting anxiously for you to die.
Oops. Sorry.
IsaacJ
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 28, 2009 7:57 AM
Angel? I always thought it was the tooth fairy that was guarding me, and when not at my side then was momentarily away collecting teeth and leaving crackers.
The angel thing also applies to soldiers in Irag and Afghanistan? So when a soldier is killed by an intelligently designed bullet, obviously with his preordained name on it, this means that the bullet went through the angel and killed him instantly before the angel could stop it? Was the angel also killed? Where is the ethereal body? Good grief, what insane bullshit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 28, 2009 8:20 AM
Ahhh, I missed Stupid Fux stopping by to promote woo woo woo. SF, you will never understand the comfort in knowing that you can show evidence for all that you belief in. It appears you see evidence, particularly physical evidence, as a weakness. The weakness is only in your impotent mind.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | May 28, 2009 8:56 AM
It would appear that Guardian Angels have been seen, and even interviewed in Springfield.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | May 28, 2009 11:43 AM
I'm definitely exhibiting asymptotes of something...
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
May 28, 2009 12:24 PM
"I'm definitely exhibiting asymptotes of something..."
Geo/Trig humor. Priceless.
Posted by: DMcComb | May 28, 2009 2:24 PM
"When I look at someone I can physically see this shield around them; it's as if it's alive."
This tells me that Ms. Borchard probably suffers from migraines, or at least has something in the migraine spectrum affecting her sensory perceptions. I have migraines, and when I've got one coming on, I can see something around living objects too - it's a rainbow-like "aura". I don't know what it is, exactly, but it never happens around rocks or automobiles. Since one of my migraine symptoms is hypersensitivity to light, it may just be that I'm seeing the heat difference between a living body and the surrounding air. I've met others who see that "aura" all the time, and are also subject to migraines. I've never met anyone who could see it who did not have migraines. My guess is that Ms. Borchard may be seeing this rainbow shimmer around people and interpreting it as a "shield" for lack of any other way to understand it. She might benefit from a course of treatment for migraines.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2009 2:34 PM
How sad it must be to live in a world where all one has is scientific evidence and empirical data.
Of course it's not. There's bacon. And sushi. And beer. And Mahler. And ABBA.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 28, 2009 6:05 PM
Abba playing Mahler would be almost as good as bacon sushi marinated in Budweiser.
Posted by: whatever | July 6, 2009 11:58 PM
none of you are actually looking towards the evidence for angels, are you?It may sound like a fairytale to some of you, but that doesn't mean it's completely BS. Calling us looney won't ever change our minds.I BELIEVE IN ANGELS.most of you sound like nuts yourselves.If you happen to come upon some real evidence for atheism, please contact me.