[Glorantha]Re: Gloranthan 'angels'

From: Andrew Solovay <asolovay_at_rubberducky.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:31:50 -0800


Andrew Barton <AndrewBarton_at_compuserve.com>:
>
> Andrew Solovay:
>
>

>>So the question is, do they use a term which could reasonably be 
>>*translated* "angel". And to answer that, we have to ask, once again, 
>>"How are you defining 'angel'?"

>
>
>>A Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) scholar would define "angel" as 
>>meaning "bodiless, non-human spirit which serves God". 

>
>
> The contemporary Christians I've heard preach on the subject mostly define
> an angel as 'a messenger of God' and usually make the point that this can
> be an ordinary person as well as a spirit.

A reasonable gloss, though I don't think anyone uses the term "angel" in that sense *without qualifying or explaining their usage*.

But I think it goes to make my larger point--that the term "angel", as used in English, has a wide range of meanings. And unlike English words like "troll" and "demon", "angel" does not already have a well-established Gloranthan meaning. So if someone asks "What are Gloranthan angels", the only reasonable response is to ask, "Just what do you mean by 'angel'?"

> Also, at least some mainstream
> Christians would say that fallen angels (and other kinds of demons if there
> are such) are all created by God, because Hell cannot make anything new.
> For one take on this see the 'Screwtape Letters' by CS Lewis.

Yup--it's very well-established Christian doctrine that the devil "doesn't make, he only mocks", as Frodo put it. But again, if someone uses the term "angel" without qualification, he is almost never referring to the *fallen* angels, which are invariably thus or similarly (e.g. as "rebel angels") or just called 'demons' or 'devils'.

--__--__-- Received on Mon 13 Dec 2004 - 06:57:43 EET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun 04 Feb 2007 - 19:58:03 EET