You Angels are unfathomable to this world.

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Though not all angels will be able to explain this phenomena from a Tibetan Buddhist perspective. (Traditional Buddhism too perhaps).

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

I thought this whole thread was filled with platitudes. I mean talking about illusion is the biggest cliché in that regard.

I don't seek enlightenment, that is boring. I wasn't caught here before, I needn't be here and wouldn't be if this timeline wasn't filled with maximum chaos.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I thought this whole thread was filled with platitudes. I mean talking about illusion is the biggest cliché in that regard. 

*golf claps*

Your point is?

originally posted by: Trachel
pretty much I just teach my friend meditation techniques and let him know the moral course of action in situations where his ethics are still skewed.

So you are playing hippie.

On topic: The poem, meh.

a reply to: daskakik

Your reply = meh... Golf claps...

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

You golf claps are unfathomable to this world.

You cast out all shadows...

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Sorry but I'm gonna be that guy, why is this in philosophy and not short stories or religion?
Where is the critical thinking?
Is the premise that angels exist?

...very different to philosophical discussion that I am used to, just posting a poem, really?
I'll leave y'all to it if this is what ATS deems philosophy to be these days lol.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: nonjudgementalist

You golf claps are unfathomable to this world.

You cast out all shadows...

Hahaha

a reply to: grainofsand

why is this in philosophy and not short stories or religion? 
Where is the critical thinking? 
Is the premise that angels exist? 

It's a poetic introduction to a conversation about the nature of angels, so yes it belongs in the philosophy and metaphysics forum.

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: grainofsand

why is this in philosophy and not short stories or religion? 
Where is the critical thinking? 
Is the premise that angels exist? 

It's a poetic introduction to a conversation about the nature of angels, so yes it belongs in the philosophy and metaphysics forum.

So is the premise of discussion that angels exist then?
There is of course no evidence to support such a claim but if that is the premise of discussion then the first most obvious philosophical question is why do we see no clear evidenced work directly attributed to angels outside of unverifiable texts?

*Edit*
...and if my question annoys you then perhaps you or the mods should move this thread to the religion forum and I will ignore it.
Philosophy is not woo woo land, I assume you learned that at school?
Heck my lad understood that when he was aged 12 in Philosophy and applied ethics lessons.
Presenting faith as fact is lame at best. Take it to religion or short stories I say.

a reply to: grainofsand
No this is not the religion faith and theology or conspiracies in religion forum.
This is the philosophy and metaphysics forum.
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether we can prove the existence of angels. Nor has it anything to do with religious dogma, or theological interpretations about the existence of angels, even though there will be some agreement inevitably between what my interpretation of what an angel is and what theological interpretations is.

This is the philosophy and metaphysics forum, so the premise that angels are unfathomable to this world (meaning the predominantly materialistic HUMAN society), should be seen as a metaphysical premise that contrasts a spiritually ignorant human dimension of unrefined barbaric existence with a spiritually enlightened angelic dimension of refined heavenly existence, both occupying the same physical world.

Questions remain open about what the nature of angels truly are, and what the nature of the duality between spiritually ignorant humans and spiritually enlightened beings or "angels" is. Is it black and white or isth ere a lot of grey in-between? That's what this conversation is about. It's not about whether beings with wings that look like humans exist... The word angel in the way I have used it means simply a spiritually enlightened being. Others have a different interpretation, that is fine, but before you start arguing against the existence of angels, at least be clear on what your definition of angels is first. I intentionally left that open when I started the thread to see what kinds of responses I would get, and to encourage philosophical discussion.

.

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: grainofsand

No this is not the crytozoology, origins and creationism, religion faith and theology, conspiracies in religion, grey area, general chit chat, UFOs, secret societies or general consoiracies forum.
This is the philosophy and metaphysics forum.
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether we can prove the existence of angels. Nor has it anything to do with religious dogma, or theological interpretations about the existence of angels, even though there will be some agreement inevitably between what my interpretation of what an angel is and what theological interpretations is.

This is the philosophy and metaphysics forum, so the premise that angels are unfathomable to this world (meaning the predominantly materialistic HUMAN society), should be seen as a metaphysical premise that contrasts a spiritually ignorant dimension of carnal desires, and a spiritually enlightened dimension of a refined heavenly existence both occupying e same physical space, but diametrically opposed spiritually, ignorant of each other, but one perhaps less ignorant than the other.

So just more imagined spiritual stuff dressed up as philosophy then? I thought so, you have nothing.
Are you claiming angels exist then?
If so, and that is the premise of discussion why do these alleged angels seem to mostly refrain from miracles and mystic magic these days?
I call BS and just more discussion which is more suited in Theology/Religion/Short stories...just not philosophy.

What exactly is your philosophical argument for discussion?

Angels. Aahh.. yes. So, the Seraphim.. what is the nature of the Seraphim then Nonjudgmentalist?

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: grainofsand

No this is not the crytozoology, origins and creationism, religion faith and theology, conspiracies in religion, grey area, general chit chat, UFOs, secret societies or general consoiracies forum.
This is the philosophy and metaphysics forum.
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether we can prove the existence of angels. Nor has it anything to do with religious dogma, or theological interpretations about the existence of angels, even though there will be some agreement inevitably between what my interpretation of what an angel is and what theological interpretations is.

This is the philosophy and metaphysics forum, so the premise that angels are unfathomable to this world (meaning the predominantly materialistic HUMAN society), should be seen as a metaphysical premise that contrasts a spiritually ignorant dimension of carnal desires, and a spiritually enlightened dimension of a refined heavenly existence both occupying e same physical space, but diametrically opposed spiritually, ignorant of each other, but one perhaps less ignorant than the other.

So just more imagined spiritual stuff dressed up as philosophy then? I thought so, you have nothing.
Are you claiming angels exist then?
If so, and that is the premise of discussion why do these alleged angels seem to mostly refrain from miracles and mystic magic these days?
I call BS and just more discussion which is more suited in Theology/Religion/Short stories...just not philosophy.

What exactly is your philosophical argument for discussion?

This was edited In to my previous post, but it serves well as a reply to this post too.

Questions remain open about what the nature of angels truly are, and what the nature of the duality between spiritually ignorant humans and spiritually enlightened beings or "angels" is. Is it black and white or isth ere a lot of grey in-between? That's what this conversation is about. It's not about whether beings with wings that look like humans exist... The word angel in the way I have used it means simply a spiritually enlightened being. Others have a different interpretation, that is fine, but before you start arguing against the existence of angels, at least be clear on what your definition of angels is first. I intentionally left that open when I started the thread to see what kinds of responses I would get, and to encourage philosophical discussion. 

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
Angels. Aahh.. yes. So, the Seraphim.. what is the nature of the Seraphim then Nonjudgmentalist?

Definite Seraphim for me please. Define Angel too while you're at it. I'll give you mine: Angel = spiritually enlightened being. It could be a human, it could be an elephant, a horse, a dragonfly, you name it, if its spiritually enlightened, I call it an angel.