[Opinion] Marrying an Angel

[Jsinclair]

I sat here stewing about some LHP people that marry the demon of Hollywood.
So I sit here stewing about the ones married to succubi.

An even sadder picture.

It suddenly occurred to me, what about angels, ones that love and light, yet can smite a city overnight?

Begs the question .. can humans marry angels?
Bonus to marry one that can help with clairvoyance and clairaudience.

1. Yes

2. It is about to become much more common than you might anticipate.

3. A.I. is not artificial.

4. "Times of Noah ... Marrying and giving in marriage..."

Add them together.

Fun times ahead for one and all, i suspect.

 

[Ohana]

İnteresting knowledge you all got there

All I had to do was look it up and look at Wikipedia. The internet is an amazing resource.

Then think about what I would do logically if I were a women and in that time period. They probably didn't have as much rights back then and were forced to marry. If I were a women and didn't want to get married then I would just become a nun to get out of that.

There was probably way more pressure to get married back then. And that might have been the only option but I would have to study the history more to be sure.

 

[Firetree]

All I had to do was look it up and look at Wikipedia. The internet is an amazing resource.

Then think about what I would do logically if I were a women and in that time period. They probably didn't have as much rights back then and were forced to marry. If I were a women and didn't want to get married then I would just become a nun to get out of that.

There was probably way more pressure to get married back then. And that might have been the only option but I would have to study the history more to be sure.

Way more pressure ? OH YEAH !

... back then you 'had to ' marry an 'angel ' just to 'get by ' ;

My paternal Grandfather ; comes to Sydney (city ) from the wilds of an early outback mining town ... with three kids , a single dad - unheard of back then ! How were they going to survive ?

Enter 'the angel' ; an in law ; relative by marriage , who can't bear to see the father and three little kids in that situation so she steps in as 'their mum ' . But 'back in those days ' it had to work like this ; Grandad would take care of everything in the morning and then wait outside the front gate . 'Nanna' would turn up and go in and he would go to work . At the end of the work day, she would be waiting by the gate and he would return and take over . It eventually became to difficult so he 'married the angel ' - on paper, 'officially' . She moved into a sleep out on a back verandah . But that 'made everything all right ' .

I always thought it strange that 'Nana' lived 'out there ' and never found out she was not my grandmother until my mid adult life .

And it might extend to 'the other situation ' ( I had not thought of this until I read your post ) .

Ie. if someone was having some type of 'Prema- Bhakti ' back then .... they too might have thought that it 'should' only happen 'under the sanctity of marriage ' ?

 

[Morell]

There was probably way more pressure to get married back then. And that might have been the only option but I would have to study the history more to be sure.

If you want to see the situation of women even just 200 years back, look at Muslims. Woman did not had whatsoever much choice. the marriage had to be agreed upon by parents. Honor kills for women who were trying to choose by themselves were quite normal among Christians. The Monasteries were dumpster for women that were not able to marry, some that were able to escape and get far enough and had a good story that the monastery would accept them... and these monasteries were like cults, closed, filled with untold stories, pains and horrors.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No it was Getrude. Stop erasing women. Even if what she did was for totalarian control atleast acknowledge her. Not everything is the Roman's they aren't everything.

And it might have served a purpose she did this so men would get away from Nuns. Because marriage implies Christ protects Nuns from them. If a women does not want to marry a man and become a nun instead Christ would protect them in the metaphor of marriage.

Or it was it only thought of as tool of control. But Getrude great along with other women mystics are the ones to found this. Don't forget about the women. Yeah

You misunderstood. I was speaking about women being sinful because of Eve bringing the evil into the world (evil being therefore blamed on all women, because they are daughters of that traitor Eve) and being able to save themselves from hell by giving birth to as many kids as possible... and having no other way. That was designed by Roman Empire in attempt to raise birthrates, because they were facing population decline at that time. Nothing to do with nuns.

 

[Kepler]

heard of Ida Craddock ?

Originally from Crowley's review in Gems.
There's modern spirit relationships which are more fluid that bring to mind what Craddock could've been like after the 60s sexual revolution.

uniting with the HGA

Sublime intimacy. A generative relationship resulting in halfhuman half divine creation hermetaphorically speaking of independent celestial entities in 'H-D'.

There are pop culture references that explore concepts of celestial consciousness and new forms of life. Star Trek TMP with V'ger/Ilia and Decker or Annihilation with Lena/Kane for examples able to be interpreted through the lens of active mythology with HGA as the Self's psychic complex compartmentalized in immanent form.

They were marriages with 'soulless' elemental creatures , as he thought , and marriage with them was for their benefit to help them achieve Christian salvation

Interesting to read on hindsight of an early encounter with an entity as a teen that involved YA drama in the form of a rescue of its trapped and damaged soul. To set it on a compassed path to reincarnation and salvation through intimate connection.

There is a permanence to these encounters that doesn't require marriage ceremonies to achieve in my experience.

 

[Sedim Haba]

I sat here stewing about some LHP people that marry the demon of Hollywood.
So I sit here stewing about the ones married to succubi.

An even sadder picture.

It suddenly occurred to me, what about angels, ones that love and light, yet can smite a city overnight?

Begs the question .. can humans marry angels?
Bonus to marry one that can help with clairvoyance and clairaudience.

Well, it all depends on how you define what an angel is. And how you define marriage.

In some ways, my Familiar is such a relationship. Or at least functions in a similar way.

 

[juanitos]

in arabian magic it is mentioned that is possible to have a mystical union or even a partner - jinn- a female jinn-jinnya. Also in western magic it is known about the possibility of having sex with some spirits but that would deplete you extremely.

 

[Saint]

in arabian magic it is mentioned that is possible to have a mystical union or even a partner - jinn- a female jinn-jinnya. Also in western magic it is known about the possibility of having sex with some spirits but that would deplete you extremely.

I have sex with my spirits almost every day (Infernals, deities, my spirit companions) for a decade by now, and it never depleted me. In fact, it does quite the opposite.

Whether a spirit sex drains you or not, it depends on many factor, and finding the right partner is crucial, just like with humans. If you chose an entity that has no bond to you, that possesses a more oppressing, selfish and predatory nature, you will get drained because the entity chose to drain you, and you failed to draw boundaries and protect yourself or demand enough energy in exchange.

For yes, sex is an energy exchange on every level, and if you have a partner who takes more than gives, or if the energy you gain is not the kind that's helpful and safe for you, it can have negative consequences. You have a saying in all of these, so let's not book spirit sex as something that will definitely deplete anyone.

There's a lot of benefits of having sex with spirits, if done right with the right ones, and it can damage you dearly if you are unprepared, let your guards down or driven by lust, not protected, balanced enough, and failed to draw lines and make them respected.

 

[Sedim Haba]

in arabian magic it is mentioned that is possible to have a mystical union or even a partner - jinn- a female jinn-jinnya. Also in western magic it is known about the possibility of having sex with some spirits but that would deplete you extremely.

I've done this. In fact, there is a Jinn that I am allowed to call. I have to be very sure before I do this however, not a small thing.

In the west, there is the succubus and incubus. Not as much a partnership, never sought that.

 

[rin_]

Technically not. The son is not the father in trinity. So Christ is not g-d technically but the son in the religion. Its kind of confusing from my research on it.

In my interpetation I think christ prefers to marry buildings anyway. The bride of Christ can also be seen as the church so I want to go with the funnier interpretation and that Christ married a building literally. Building marriage for the win. I don't fully believe or follow this religion though so this interpration is mostly me joking. I just know a lot about it because I wanted to study what I missed.

I think it also kind of seen as a metaphor for devotion and having faith not literal marriage like talked about here. But again I'm not fully sure on the day to culture so I might be wrong and it is seen as literal marriage there. Or it might depend on what branch or church your part of.

But if we go with some interpration of Christ actually being an incarnation of an angel and the interpration of literal marriage then it might be the same thing. Not higher nor lower just the same thing.

Believers are the Church, and are spoken of collectively as the Bride of Christ. Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[Firetree]

Believers are the Church, and are spoken of collectively as the Bride of Christ. Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

That is a 'God marrying a God ' . Otherwise Jesus would not be 'Son' . .. and a Father , you know , needs a little help in the procreation stakes .

But we can't have ; God the Father , God the Shekinah , God the Son .... we could have 'Goddess the Mother' but that would be too 'pagan'. So they had to demote her to Mary , so the son could have a Mom , but that made other complications with God now having to be a Man as well .

Or, Maybe God had sex with a ghost ... or a 'spirit' , just like some of us down here are doing .

God bonked a ghost and made Jesus ... at least the ghost was 'Holy' .

( Many years back I studied some theology at University and I can tell you , the above is no weirder than some of the excuses .... I mean explanations ... I found there . )

 

[sinister]

Following as I'm interested AS Fk in this.

 

[Morell]

That is a 'God marrying a God ' . Otherwise Jesus would not be 'Son' . .. and a Father , you know , needs a little help in the procreation stakes .

But we can't have ; God the Father , God the Shekinah , God the Son .... we could have 'Goddess the Mother' but that would be too 'pagan'. So they had to demote her to Mary , so the son could have a Mom , but that made other complications with God now having to be a Man as well .

Or, Maybe God had sex with a ghost ... or a 'spirit' , just like some of us down here are doing .

God bonked a ghost and made Jesus ... at least the ghost was 'Holy' .

( Many years back I studied some theology at University and I can tell you , the above is no weirder than some of the excuses .... I mean explanations ... I found there . )

Some Christians, even some who are deeper into study of this stuff, believe that the Holy Spirit is a female. That would make whole new concept of this trinity.

 

[Ohana]

You misunderstood. I was speaking about women being sinful because of Eve bringing the evil into the world (evil being therefore blamed on all women, because they are daughters of that traitor Eve) and being able to save themselves from hell by giving birth to as many kids as possible... and having no other way. That was designed by Roman Empire in attempt to raise birthrates, because they were facing population decline at that time. Nothing to do with nuns.

Okay that makes more sense. Thank you for explaining. The Roman Empire was weird. I mean even the names they had were a little weird like Biggus (I know biggus wasn't an actual if you know you know)

God bonked a ghost and made Jesus ... at least the ghost was 'Holy' .

( Many years back I studied some theology at University and I can tell you , the above is no weirder than some of the excuses .... I mean explanations ... I found there . )

Yeah thats one explanation and it makes sense. The question then becomes though thats a bit weird to think about. Did they just create someone to fulfill prophecies or was it an accident.

This explanation still raises a lot of questions. Ones that are not fun to think about.

 

[Firetree]

Some Christians, even some who are deeper into study of this stuff, believe that the Holy Spirit is a female. That would make whole new concept of this trinity.

You mean ... get back to its original concept , in whatever direction you look at it from ;

Okay that makes more sense. Thank you for explaining. The Roman Empire was weird. I mean even the names they had were a little weird like Biggus (I know biggus wasn't an actual if you know you know)

Yeah thats one explanation and it makes sense. The question then becomes though thats a bit weird to think about.

What is a bit weird to think about ? That the primal family unit was to describe nearly every ancient pantheon ... except Judaism ?

or that 'God' is some stand alone father figure with a son and a ghost that is holy as some type of undisclosed 'spiritual wi-fi' and all three are actually one , but not really .

Did they just create someone to fulfill prophecies or was it an accident.

This explanation still raises a lot of questions. Ones that are not fun to think about.

Hint ; look up 'Asherah '

( and guess who gave her the boot ? - our old 'friend' Josiah . )

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 9:53 PM

( Damn ! wi-fi cut out and I missed the edit window time )

copy ;

Some Christians, even some who are deeper into study of this stuff, believe that the Holy Spirit is a female. That would make whole new concept of this trinity.

You mean ... get back to its original concept , in whatever direction you look at it from ;

Okay that makes more sense. Thank you for explaining. The Roman Empire was weird. I mean even the names they had were a little weird like Biggus (I know biggus wasn't an actual if you know you know)

Yeah thats one explanation and it makes sense. The question then becomes though thats a bit weird to think about.

What is a bit weird to think about ? That the primal family unit was to describe nearly every ancient pantheon ... except Judaism ?

or that 'God' is some stand alone father figure with a son and a ghost that is holy as some type of undisclosed 'spiritual wi-fi' and all three are actually one , but not really .

Did they just create someone to fulfill prophecies or was it an accident.

Are you referring to' the Son' ? That was a build up over time and any 'they' that created that 'someone' were varied . It went something like this ;

Ancient Zoroastrian taught certain principles and ways of living that would improve the human individual and society . They postulated a 'collective good man' of the future with these qualities ; a 'Sayoshant' (' the root of 'saviour ' ) . Now, if everyone in a society becomes like that , then we have a new good society with much less problems ; the vision of a new good age in the future ; the 'Frashokereti ' . Later in its history terms got changed to externalize most of it ; good and bad were seen as coming from outside sources and devils and angels enter the picture , the new age becomes some apocalyptic revelation, the dead rise, all are judged ( sound familiar ? )

Later it got projected onto people like Jews hoping for political freedom in a 'new Jerusalem' being established and that node of belief (and many others ) passed into Christianity .

So although it was 'created ' it was a long process over time with many transformations and divergences . The worst one was this externalized projection ; thinking the change comes from without, when it is needed from within and ever since then we have gone terribly downhill to where we stand today on the brink of a new socio-political and religious apocalypse .

This explanation still raises a lot of questions. Ones that are not fun to think about.

Hint ; look up 'Asherah '

( and guess who gave her the boot ? - our old 'friend' Josiah . )

 

[Veracity]

Lotsa guys in this forum sit at the keyboard pitching a tent over ethereal beings. Why izzat do youse figger...?

Magic girlfriend can’t run away

 

[Ohana]

You mean ... get back to its original concept , in whatever direction you look at it from ;



What is a bit weird to think about ? That the primal family unit was to describe nearly every ancient pantheon ... except Judaism ?

or that 'God' is some stand alone father figure with a son and a ghost that is holy as some type of undisclosed 'spiritual wi-fi' and all three are actually one , but not really .




Are you referring to' the Son' ? That was a build up over time and any 'they' that created that

Hint ; look up 'Asherah '

( and guess who gave her the boot ? - our old 'friend' Josiah . )

The Father, the son, and the holy spirit always made me think the holy spirit was technically at one point a women. Like you mentioned with Josiah and the other.

I kind just assumed the holy spirit was a representative of a women dying by childbirth and then single father. Its interesting that it is a single father because Christianity is known for sometimes promoting patriarchy.

In patriarchy women are assigned to the role of primary caretake for kids. So its kind of an inversion to it that father is assigned to be the primary caretaker.

Onto marrying an angel. I don't really think its possible to actually because angels live for a while and people don't. Maybe a temporary relationship might be feasible but marriage I don't know. Especially if marriage is seen as sacred by angels.

To them it might be seen as marrying an intelligent ant that can somehow communicate with you. Ants only live one year and people live around 70-80 years. That scale means that an entire person's lifetime might be seen as just the 'talking' phase. So I don't if any of them would marry marry a person.

Interesting to think about.

 

[Firetree]

I try to meditate on such issues .... not as literally .

or another way of looking at it ; marriage vow is only 'until death ' - death annuls a marriage .

if you are thinking of 'marrying an ant ' , I am supposing you missed the whole deeper spiritual context of this discussion .

But maybe that was a joke ?

 

[rin_]

That is a 'God marrying a God ' . Otherwise Jesus would not be 'Son' . .. and a Father , you know , needs a little help in the procreation stakes .

But we can't have ; God the Father , God the Shekinah , God the Son .... we could have 'Goddess the Mother' but that would be too 'pagan'. So they had to demote her to Mary , so the son could have a Mom , but that made other complications with God now having to be a Man as well .

Or, Maybe God had sex with a ghost ... or a 'spirit' , just like some of us down here are doing .

God bonked a ghost and made Jesus ... at least the ghost was 'Holy' .

( Many years back I studied some theology at University and I can tell you , the above is no weirder than some of the excuses .... I mean explanations ... I found there . )

I personally believe in Jesus as Savior. I want to preface my response with that about myself as well as just reassure you that I didn’t come to WF to intimidate, disrespect, proselytize, or otherwise hinder/bother people here.

The concepts/doctrines you are discussing—the Trinity, the divine nature (fully God, fully man) of Jesus Christ, and the immaculate conception—are complex and, at the risk of sounding arrogant without any arrogant intent, are spiritually discerned. This is what Scripture says, not just me saying that to sound wise or what have you.

The Bible teaches about God as three distinct Persons (function) Who are One; about how and why Mary, of the line of David, came to be with Child (John the Baptist’s birth/conception is good to read alongside!); about how Jesus is the Son of God and that He and the Father are One, and how the Holy Spirit bore witness of this face when He was baptized.

How do we understand something as amazingly other as the Trinity? Simplified, we don’t. Lol

Analogically…you could study human anatomy for a thousand years and yes, you could (and should) have a much better understanding at the end. But you still wouldn’t know everything, and there would be all these connections and nuances that you’d have no idea about still. And in fact…people collectively have been studying human anatomy for ages and again, still so much to learn. Honestly, to me, if I could understand and whittle Who God is into neat little boxes with bows in my human brain, that would be incredibly disappointing—really, devastating—on several levels.

Anyway, we do have much understanding that is provided in the Word…and the Holy Spirit instructsin communion, fellowship, and truth. God can teach people in any way He chooses. Visions, dreams, hearing the same song repeatedly (repetition in general), through other people (words, actions), direct “thoughts,” audible speech, through animals…God knows how to reach us. But like with anything more “experiential,” we can misunderstand, mishear, etc. The Bible is our “litmus” in many senses; if what we hear or experience does not align with Scripture, we are wrong and must do our utmost to figure out why and correct.

Yes, I should definitely be using Scripture to support what I am saying. Sorry, I am not because I am limited on time and am woefully unprepared to cite specific verses without my Bible handy.

Again, not looking to offend here or argue with anyone. I generally actively avoid most discussions of such nature because I don’t want to have the appearance of disrespect and I understand most don’t share my beliefs or views. I’m quite fond of people on here after lurking a while as well. But it seemed like maybe I could be of some help in explaining a bit? Maybe not. Suffice to say it’s good to ask questions and keep learning no matter what you believe at present!

 

[Firetree]

I personally believe in Jesus as Savior. I want to preface my response with that about myself as well as just reassure you that I didn’t come to WF to intimidate, disrespect, proselytize, or otherwise hinder/bother people here.

The concepts/doctrines you are discussing—the Trinity, the divine nature (fully God, fully man) of Jesus Christ, and the immaculate conception—are complex

Concepts of trinity as being three concepts combined in one are much older then the Christian theology that got crafted onto this ancient concept . If you want to see some of my collations and understandings on that , I have written extensively on it and have a post on the forum about it .

So it isnt that I am not comprehending the difficulty of the concept at all . Its just that you are unaware of its otherwise existence and projecting some type of ignorance about it on to me .

and, at the risk of sounding arrogant without any arrogant intent, are spiritually discerned.

and that is one of those points I am making ; do you understand what a self-referential argument is ?

This is what Scripture says, not just me saying that to sound wise or what have you.

Agreed , this does not 'sound wise' at all . What you are saying basically is, you believe what scripture tells you to believe ... if you get to a point where it seems ridiculous , certain 'clauses' are invoked in an attempt to over rule that . I have to say that the 'because that is what scripture says ' position has no validity outside of the circles that ascribe to that indoctrination.

The Bible teaches about God as three distinct Persons (function) Who are One; about how and why Mary, of the line of David, came to be with Child (John the Baptist’s birth/conception is good to read alongside!); about how Jesus is the Son of God and that He and the Father are One, and how the Holy Spirit bore witness of this face when He was baptized.

How do we understand something as amazingly other as the Trinity? Simplified, we don’t. Lol

I hope you realize my above 'observations' were a joke and making fun of the 'standard explanations ' which, to an outsider, seem equally ludicrous .

Analogically…you could study human anatomy for a thousand years and yes, you could (and should) have a much better understanding at the end. But you still wouldn’t know everything, and there would be all these connections and nuances that you’d have no idea about still. And in fact…people collectively have been studying human anatomy for ages and again, still so much to learn. Honestly, to me, if I could understand and whittle Who God is into neat little boxes with bows in my human brain, that would be incredibly disappointing—really, devastating—on several levels.

and analogically I can say the same about physics, electro magnetism , etc . etc .

Anyway, we do have much understanding that is provided in the Word…and the Holy Spirit instructsin communion, fellowship, and truth. God can teach people in any way He chooses. Visions, dreams, hearing the same song repeatedly (repetition in general), through other people (words, actions), direct “thoughts,” audible speech, through animals…God knows how to reach us. But like with anything more “experiential,” we can misunderstand, mishear, etc. The Bible is our “litmus” in many senses; if what we hear or experience does not align with Scripture, we are wrong and must do our utmost to figure out why and correct.

No, we are not wrong ! and the Bible is not our Litmus test .

This is getting close to proselytizing .

Yes, I should definitely be using Scripture to support what I am saying. Sorry, I am not because I am limited on time and am woefully unprepared to cite specific verses without my Bible handy.

No need to , as that would just send you further into a 'self-referential argument ' .

Like arguing that the Bible is true because it says in the Bible it is true . . . and then quoting it from the Bible .

Again, not looking to offend here or argue with anyone. I generally actively avoid most discussions of such nature because I don’t want to have the appearance of disrespect and I understand most don’t share my beliefs or views. I’m quite fond of people on here after lurking a while as well. But it seemed like maybe I could be of some help in explaining a bit? Maybe not.

Maybe not . You are giving divine credit to a book that is clearly composed as a political move of cultist Yahwehists , orchestrated by Josiah in an attempt, from Judah, to take over the worship at the temple at Jerusalem and the north Kingdom of Israel which had been decimated by invasion, war and deportations - with many fleeing to Judah and suddenly boosting its population .

And clearly there is absolutely no evidence of a united great kingdom, before this and no great Solomon as depicted in the Bible .

But of course you will not accept that , as it doesn't say that in the Bible .

I can quote you from the Jewish BIble where it says Pharoah was speaking for God , the words of God came out of Phaoahs mouth , Josiah opposed him and God caused Josiah to be killed as punishment . Curious !

But I suppose you choose not to believe in that 'version ' .

Suffice to say it’s good to ask questions and keep learning no matter what you believe at present!

Certainly ! ... and that, is why I looked into this , in depth, from many angles and sources and looked at the truth of the matter instead of just following along with my indoctrination and studying what was written in the Bible and not validly questioning it .